|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Miocene humans | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22394 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
Just some additional information for Randman...
Unless I'm thinking of the wrong magazine, New Scientist is only a weekly popular science magazine summarizing recent scientific findings or discoveries. It's merely filling a reporting role. There's only editors and reporters, not peer review. If New Scientist makes a mistake in its reporting it only reflects on them, not on the scientific field they misreported. That being said, I find it a pretty good magazine, very informative. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CK Member (Idle past 4128 days) Posts: 3221 Joined: |
sometimes, other times they go out and investigate claims or at least they did when I had to tell them "bacon foil" was not much use in science neither was a Farral cage.
ABE: yes but as you say it's mainly reporting. This message has been edited by Charles Knight, 08-Aug-2005 04:44 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
I already explained that what I meant was the data was fraudulent in the sense of it being wrong. I cannot judge the motives of evolutionists so I have no way to tell if they somehow knew the data did not show webbed feet or not, and things like that.
In fact, I don't think evolutionists are necessarily aware that they rely on gross overstatements, but maybe that's another thread. As far as papers, most of the public does not read academic journals. Evolutionists tend to present their findings to the public via popular magazines such as National Geographic which did present the webbed feet, as I have shown already several times but you ignore, TV shows such as PBS specials, textbooks, articles, etc,... So, imo, these are the areas of primary concern since these are the areas evos use to argue their case to the public, and where such gross overstatements, by evolutionists mind you, take place. The simple fact is these media and educational sources are created by evolutionists, and they are the principal means to showing to the public and student that evolutionist findings are correct. Imo, presenting Pakicetus as a whale is passing off an absurd claim. If evos want to say it is precursor to the whale, fine, but they tend to overstate their case continually, and so insist on classifying the rat-like creature as a whale. Considering the manner in which evos have operated, claiming human gill slits for example, I consider their dismissal, of any claims of Miocene human artifacts and remains, as suspect and unreliable. On the other hand, there needs to be some work into some of these areas such as in Guadelope to determine if more human remains are there, and if they were buried or not.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Yaro Member (Idle past 6496 days) Posts: 1797 Joined: |
I already explained that what I meant was the data was fraudulent in the sense of it being wrong. I cannot judge the motives of evolutionists so I have no way to tell if they somehow knew the data did not show webbed feet or not, and things like that. fraud Pronunciation Key (frd)
n. 1. A deception deliberately practiced in order to secure unfair or unlawful gain.2. A piece of trickery; a trick. 3. 1. One that defrauds; a cheat. 2. One who assumes a false pose; an impostor.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Yaro Member (Idle past 6496 days) Posts: 1797 Joined: |
In fact, I don't think evolutionists are necessarily aware that they rely on gross overstatements, but maybe that's another thread. Yes that's right. All modern scientists are just fools and you are one of the lucky enlightend few.
As far as papers, most of the public does not read academic journals. Evolutionists tend to present their findings to the public via popular magazines such as National Geographic which did present the webbed feet, as I have shown already several times but you ignore, TV shows such as PBS specials, textbooks, articles, etc,... That's called making a prediction from the evidence. At the time, it was the BEST GUESS of what the creature would look like. In this case it was slightly in error, it's not like they suddenly found out the creature was a turtle for goodness sakes.
Imo, presenting Pakicetus as a whale is passing off an absurd claim. If evos want to say it is precursor to the whale, fine, but they tend to overstate their case continually, and so insist on classifying the rat-like creature as a whale. Im sorry you don't like the fact that Pakicetus is put in the Order Cetacea. Just like dogs are in the same order as seals. Sorry that Paki dosn't look like what you think a whale ancestor should look like.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
He doesn't look like and is not a whale.
The fact evos claim he is a whale is somewhat farcical, and imo, shows a level of desperation to cling to just about potential evidence for transitionals and herald it as truth, and one reason is the absence of the predicted fossilized transitionals.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Yaro Member (Idle past 6496 days) Posts: 1797 Joined: |
Can you give me any scientific reason he isn't a whale?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Yaro Member (Idle past 6496 days) Posts: 1797 Joined: |
Randman, disregard my last post. Please adress the other points in this thread. Pakicetus belongs in the other thread on whale evolution.
Sorry for the OT tack. But we really must get some more sources other than the discredited Cremo. This message has been edited by Yaro, 08-08-2005 07:00 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2170 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: But being an intentional deception is a very different thing from being wrong. Let's say I am mugged and I go to look at mug shots at the police station. a) I see a picture of an ex-boyfriend who owes me a bunch of money and who used to treat me really badly, and I identify him as the guy who robbed me, even though I know full well that he didn't do it. That is fraud. b) I see a picture of someone who I am positive is the person who mugged me and I pick him out. It turns out that this guy was actually in jail at the time of the mugging, so my positive identification was mistaken. That is being wrong. The first is intentional deceit, the second is an honest mistake. Do you honestly expect me to believe that these two situations are identical? Either back up your claim that scientists are engaging in intentional deception or retract the claim and stop making the claim in the future unless you have specific evidence of widespread lying.
quote: Then you don't know if they were lying or not, so you cannot claim to know that they are perpetrating fraud, or intentionally lying.
quote: Well, you are making very serious accusations about the integrity and trustworthiness of an entire body of evidence of a particular branch of Biology, much of which has grave and far-reaching implications upon the foundations of several other fields of scientific research, are you not? Surely it is quite reasonable to expect you to show us some specific examples of this fraud and/or incompetence from the professional literature, since it is the findings themselves you are calling into question, isn't it? If it is quite widespread, as you say, it shouldn't be difficult for you, correct?
quote: No, actually Biologists tend NOT to produce television shows or write popular magazine articles. Scientists, as opposed to TV producers and journalists, tend to present their findings to other scientists at scientific conferences, or submit their work to professional peer-reviewed scientific journals. But aren't you calling into question the validity of the scientific findings themselves anyway? This would require a review of the primary literature to determine the accuracy of the methodology and of the conclusions, wouldn't it? Here, I'll get you started. Please explain how the following peer-reviewed research paper from the Journal of Evolutionary Biology is fraudulent (meaning, the scientists are knowingly maintaining falsehoods in order to deceive everyone) or invalid due to the incompetency of the scientists in it's analysis, methodology, or conclusions:
The evolution of phenotypic plasticity in spatially structured environments: implications of intraspecific competition, plasticity costs and environmental characteristics, B. Ernande* & U. Dieckmann This message has been edited by schrafinator, 08-08-2005 11:50 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
wj Inactive Member |
Schraf, this appears to be a separate discussion which is long overdue and would justify a thread on its own. randman continually casts aspersions on the competence, credibility, credulity and honesty of scientists in general, "evolutionary" scientists in paricular. Further discussion in this thread would divert attention from the current process of pinning down randman's evidence for "Miocene humans" and examining his own credibility and gullibility.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2170 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
I agree, and as soon as the Moderators promote my PNT,
I'll take it over there. Hopefully, randman will follow. Sorry about the OT posts.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 12998 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
Thank you to everyone for your efforts at keeping this thread on topic.
The last on topic posts appear on the previous page of this thread if anyone would like to continue the discussion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Yaro Member (Idle past 6496 days) Posts: 1797 Joined: |
Are we done with this thread?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Yaro Member (Idle past 6496 days) Posts: 1797 Joined: |
Since we brought this up recently, I just figured I'd bump it up. Anyone out there wanna take a shot?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024