Evolution is a hoax

[Radrook]

Split from: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=139365

Evolutionists are very sensitive whenever anyone misrepresents their pet idea.

[six7s]

Evolutionists are very sensitive whenever anyone misrepresents their pet idea.As long as their delusions remain rock-steady, IDiots don't care what lies are spun

[Radrook]

As long as their delusions remain rock-steady, IDiots don't care what lies are spun

I don't see evolutionists evading delusions. I see them falling right in with whatever they are told only to later find out they were being duped. The three examples below represent only a small fraction of the scatterbrained ideas which have been blindly accepted. So are they idiots too?

Haekel's Embryos
Nebraska Man
Peppered Moth

[paximperium]

Evolutionists are very sensitive whenever anyone misrepresents their pet idea.
Biologists are very sensitive whenever ignorant ID-iots and Creationists who don't understand anything about evolution lie and misrepresent a scientific theory based on religious dogma.

[paximperium]

I don't see evolutionists evading delusions. I see them falling right in with whatever they are told only to later find out they were being duped. The three examples below represent only a small fraction of the scatterbrained ideas which have been blindly accepted. So are they idiots too? Hey the same old Creationist garbage trotted since the beginning of time.

Haekel's Embryos A well known fraud based on bad science. It has been corrected and no longer accepted. Your statement is falsified.
Nebraska Man A well known misrepresentation of a single tooth that was never accepted by science. Your statement if falsified.
Peppered Moth Which continues to be a well known study that supports natural selection despite some of its flaws.

Your entire claim is falsified as it usually is.

[Hokulele]

Haekel's Embryos


Haeckel's embryo drawings are a perfect example of how a theory such as evolution is scientifically sound, whereas a religiously inspired monstrosity such as intelligent design is not. These were disproven and discarded decades ago, not a single educated person considers these as being true, much less supporting evolution. The scientific method works because it is willing to discard frauds and falsehoods, regardless of how much they would have supported a pet theory. In addition, science is subject to disproof and falsification, something intelligent design will never aspire towards.

[six7s]

I don't see evolutionists evading delusions. I see them falling right in with whatever they are told only to later find out they were being duped. The three examples below represent only a small fraction of the scatterbrained ideas which have been blindly accepted. So are they idiots too?

Haekel's Embryos
Nebraska Man
Peppered MothUntil now, I'd never heard of Haeckel's Embryos

Thank you for prompting me to read even more damning evidence in the case against woo

PZ Myers (aka Pharyngula) Wells and Haeckel's Embryos (http://pharyngula.org/index/weblog/comments/wells_and_haeckels_embryos/)
(This is a rather long response to a chapter in Jonathan Wells' dreadful and most unscholarly book, Icons of Evolution)

The story of Haeckel's embryos is different in an important way from that of the other chapters in Jonathan Wells' book. As the other authors show, Wells has distorted ideas that are fundamentally true in order to make his point: all his rhetoric to the contrary, Archaeopteryx is a transitional fossil, peppered moths and Darwin's finches do tell us significant things about evolution, four-winged flies do tell us significant things about developmental pathways, and so forth. In those parts of the book, Wells has to try and cover up a truth by misconstruing and misrepresenting it.

In the case of Haeckel, though, I have to begin by admitting that Wells has got the core of the story right. Haeckel was wrong. His theory was invalid, some of his drawings were faked, and he willfully over-interpreted the data to prop up a false thesis. Furthermore, he was influential, both in the sciences and the popular press; his theory still gets echoed in the latter today. Wells is also correct in criticizing textbook authors for perpetuating Haeckel's infamous diagram without commenting on its inaccuracies or the way it was misused to support a falsified theory.Science in action :)

ETA

"Wells has to try and cover up a truth by misconstruing and misrepresenting it"... Sounds familiar, huh?

[paximperium]

Until now, I'd never heard of Haeckel's Embryos
Most people haven't because it is rarely ever relevant to modern biology. It is often trotted out by Creationist as some "proof" that evolution is fraudulent DESPITE the fact that biologist themselves falsified the drawings decades ago and have left it behind and actually have nice shiny new science that these parrots are not familiar with.

Creationists have no new arguments. They keep using the same arguments repeatedly no matter how often it is falsified just like the use the same nonsense from their Bible.

He will probably trot out Piltdown Man next.

[Radrook]

Until now, I'd never heard of Haeckel's Embryos

Thank you for prompting me to read even more damning evidence in the case against woo

PZ Myers (aka Pharyngula) Wells and Haeckel's Embryos (http://pharyngula.org/index/weblog/comments/wells_and_haeckels_embryos/)
Science in action :)

ETA

"Wells has to try and cover up a truth by misconstruing and misrepresenting it"... Sounds familiar, huh?

Well, the slits weren't gills, the tail wasn't a tail, and the whole premise was false. He even lied about who drew the diagrams in order to evade responsibility.



Ontogeny Recapitulates Phylogeny?
Haekel’s faked embryonic drawings

The theory of embryonic recapitulation asserts that the human fetus goes through various stages of its evolutionary history as it develops. Ernst Haeckel proposed this theory in the late 1860’s, promoting Darwin’s theory of evolution in Germany. He made detailed drawings of the embryonic development of eight different embryos in three stages of development, to bolster his claim. His work was hailed as a great development in the understanding of human evolution. A few years later his drawings were shown to have been fabricated, and the data manufactured. He blamed the artist for the discrepancies, without admitting that he was the artist. (source: Russell Grigg, "Fraud Rediscovered", Creation, Vol. 20, No. 2, pp.49-51)http://www.nwcreation.net/evolutionfraud.html

The point is, however, that most run of the mill evolutionists are just as prone to accept delusional ideas as religionists as evidenced by their predisposition to accept things at face value just because a prominent evolutionist says so. It that weren't so, then they would not have been duped for so long by so many and so often.


BTW
I never denied that scientific community tries to ferret out quackery of the Haeckal type. Negligence in ferreting out false ideas is not the point of my commentary. The point is the evolutionists predisposition to believe these ideas simply because they have a patina of scientific jargon cunningly attached to them.

Neither was I espousing the author's whole book or his approach to other points in that book. I was merely referring to the Haeckal episode. If the author did indeed make the mistakes he is accused of making in his evaluation in reference to these other subjects, then the criticism is deserved. But on that point I can't say since I would need to read his book to find out whether the accusations hold any water.

[Hokulele]

The point is, hopwever, that mosdt run of the mill evolutionists are just as prone to accept delusional ideas as religionists as evidenced by their predisposition to accept things at face value juysrt because a prominant evolutionist says so. It that weren't so, then they would not have been duped for so long by so many and so often.


But unlike the religionists, they are willing to discard falsehoods. More importantly, there is strong incentive to locate and unmask such falsehoods. Any scientist who could disprove evolutionary theory as a whole would be far more famous than Darwin.

[Elizabeth I]

Well, the slits weren't gills, the tail wasn't a tail, and the whole premise was false. He even lied about who drew the diagrams in order to evade responsibility.



The point is, however, that most run of the mill evolutionists are just as prone to accept delusional ideas as religionists as evidenced by their predisposition to accept things at face value just because a prominent evolutionist says so. It that weren't so, then they would not have been duped for so long by so many and so often.


BTW
I never denied that scientific community tries to ferret out quackery of the Haeckal type. Negligence in ferreting out false ideas is not the point of my commentary. The point is the evolutionists predisposition to believe these ideas simply because they have a patina of scientific jargon cunningly attached to them.

Neither was I espousing the author's whole book or his approach to other points in that book. I was merely referring to the Haeckal episode. If the author did indeed make the mistakes he is accused of making in his evaluation in reference to these other subjects, then the criticism is deserved. But on that point I can't say since I would need to read his book to find out whether the accusations hold any water.

Whereas IDers who will accept any :rule10 that even vaguely supports their IDiot beliefs and cling to them through fire, flood and multiple disproofs.

[Radrook]

But unlike the religionists, they are willing to discard falsehoods.

I'm not sure that the predisposition to discard falsehoods differentiates the two groups. If the religious leadership tells the flock that previous teachings were false the flock will readily discard those teachings based on the authority claimed by the leadership just as evolutionists tend to do. I'm sure you are familiar with many examples so there is no need for me to point them out.


More importantly, there is strong incentive to locate and unmask such falsehoods. Any scientist who could disprove evolutionary theory as a whole would be far more famous than Darwin.

I never denied that there is a strong incentive to ferret out falsehood. But as I previously stated, it's the tendency of the run-of-the-mill garden-type-variety of evolutionist I am talking about and not those at the upper echelons. These can be compared to the blind flocks of religionists you mention who tend to receive the pronouncements, accept them at face value and blindly believe and defend these things as indisputable fact until they are pronounced as drivel.

[Hokulele]

I'm not sure that the predisposition to discard falsehoods differentiates the two groups. If the religious leadership tells the flock that previous teachings were false the flock will readily discard those teachings based on the authority claimed by the leadership just as evolutionists tend to do. I'm sure you are familiar with many examples so there is no need for me to point them out.


The main problem is that most, if not all, of those examples simply results in a schism, rather than in a group re-evaluation.

Yes, and I never denied that there is a strong incentive to ferret out falsehood. But as I previously stated, it's the tendency of the run-of-the-mill garden-type-variety of evolutionist I am talking about and not those at the upper echelons. These can be compared to the blind flocks of religionists you mention who tend to receive the pronouncements, accept them at face value and blindly believe and defend these things as indisputable fact until they are pronounced as drivel.


Where did I call anyone a "blind flock of religionists"? I was differentiating between people who promote the theory of evolution (i.e. your "upper echelons") and those who promote unsupported twaddle (i.e. "upper echelons" of religious leadership).

If you are simply making the point that most people don't bother to think about anything too deeply, regardless of which view is under discussion, I don't think you will find much disagreement here.

[tsig]

I'm not sure that the predisposition to discard falsehoods differentiates the two groups. If the religious leadership tells the flock that previous teachings were false the flock will readily discard those teachings based on the authority claimed by the leadership just as evolutionists tend to do. I'm sure you are familiar with many examples so there is no need for me to point them out.



I never denied that there is a strong incentive to ferret out falsehood. But as I previously stated, it's the tendency of the run-of-the-mill garden-type-variety of evolutionist I am talking about and not those at the upper echelons. These can be compared to the blind flocks of religionists you mention who tend to receive the pronouncements, accept them at face value and blindly believe and defend these things as indisputable fact until they are pronounced as drivel.

Where do you find these run-of-the-mill garden-type-variety of evolutionist who take pronouncements at face value and blindly believe?

[Radrook]

The main problem is that most, if not all, of those examples simply results in a schism, rather than in a group re-evaluation.

Well, the final result might be a diversification of viewpoints causing fragementation. But that seems to support the idea that they are less disposed to accept things at face- value so they disagree while evolutionists unquestioningly take the hook line and sinker.

Where did I call anyone a "blind flock of religionists"?

I got the impression that idea is a given on this forum. My mistake I guess.

I was differentiating between people who promote the theory of evolution (i.e. your "upper echelons") and those who promote unsupported twaddle (i.e. "upper echelons" of religious leadership).

I don't see how one twaddle is superior to the other twaddle. Care to explain?

If you are simply making the point that most people don't bother to think about anything too deeply, regardless of which view is under discussion, I don't think you will find much disagreement here.

No. I am making a comparison between one group that prides itself on being the epitome of skepticism and another group that is said to be the complete opposite.

[Radrook]

Where do you find these run-of-the-mill garden-type-variety of evolutionist who take pronouncements at face value and blindly believe?

The people who fell for all the hoaxes, and falsifications taught for decades as fact. What do you consider them to be? Surely not the elite-right?

[I Ratant]

The people who fell for all the hoaxes, and falsifications taught for decades as fact. What do you consider them to be? Surely not the elite-right?
.
Which hoaxes would "all the hoaxes" encompass?
Radiometric dating?
Descent thru modification?
Stratification indicating enormous time passing?
The few true hoaxes such as Piltdown have been exposed, what are "all" of them?

[Hokulele]

I don't see how one twaddle is superior to the other twaddle. Care to explain?


One is supported by evidence, the other by wishful thinking.

[politas]

Well, the slits weren't gills,No, they were, and still are, simply features that becomegills in fish, at a later point in their embryological development. A piece of evidence which supports common descent, though it does not support Haeckel's flawed "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny".

the tail wasn't a tailThen what do you call an extension of the spinal cord past the pelvis, if not a tail? The fact is that similarities between embryos of different species are stronger during earlier parts of their development. There is no reason for this to be so, especially in regards to features which develop and then disappear, except common descent.

, and the whole premise was false.Actually, the "whole" premise was not false. There is a fundamental truth behind Haeckel's mistake, and he is guilty of exaggeration, not of complete invention. Embryos do not resemble the adult forms of ancestral species, but they do resemble the embryological forms of ancestral species, increasingly so as you wind the developmental clock back to a blastocyte.

He even lied about who drew the diagrams in order to evade responsibility.

Ontogeny Recapitulates Phylogeny?
Haekel’s faked embryonic drawings

The theory of embryonic recapitulation asserts that the human fetus goes through various stages of its evolutionary history as it develops. Ernst Haeckel proposed this theory in the late 1860’s, promoting Darwin’s theory of evolution in Germany. He made detailed drawings of the embryonic development of eight different embryos in three stages of development, to bolster his claim. His work was hailed as a great development in the understanding of human evolution. A few years later his drawings were shown to have been fabricated, and the data manufactured. He blamed the artist for the discrepancies, without admitting that he was the artist. (source: Russell Grigg, "Fraud Rediscovered", Creation, Vol. 20, No. 2, pp.49-51)http://www.nwcreation.net/evolutionfraud.htmlYour own source doesn't support that last statement. "Not admitting he was the artist" is not "lying about who drew the diagrams".

The point is, however, that most run of the mill evolutionists are just as prone to accept delusional ideas as religionists as evidenced by their predisposition to accept things at face value just because a prominent evolutionist says so. It that weren't so, then they would not have been duped for so long by so many and so often.Work done in the late 1860s was debunked within a few years, and you are calling that evidence of people's predisposition to accept things at face value? There wasn't a globally-connected print media back then, you know. Just how fast do you think Haeckel's claims were distributed? Also, you do realise that in order to debunk such claims, people would have actually needed to do a fair amount of work? They couldn't just look things up on the Internet, you know.

[Radrook]

One is supported by evidence, the other by wishful thinking.

That seems tantamount to an oxymoron. Hoaxes supported by evidence? Aren't you propoposing a paradox here?

[six7s]

If the religious leadership tells the flock that previous teachings were false the flock will readily discard those teachings based on the authority claimed by the leadership just as evolutionists tend to do. I'm sure you are familiar with many examples so there is no need for me to point them out.There is no need (or is there?) to omit the salient point: evolutionist = realist (or, at least, aspiring realist)
theist = fantasist (or, at best, unquestioning whack-job)

Pope Paul VI was famous for demystifying what was, is and forever will be nonsense... and the faithful still - obviously - accept it without questioning the fundamentals...

Peter = Rock Sand

[Hokulele]

That seems tantamount to an oxymoron. Hoaxes supported by evidence? Aren't you propoposing a paradox here?


No, I am stating that the theory of evolution is supported by evidence.

[Radrook]

.
Which hoaxes would "all the hoaxes" encompass?
Radiometric dating?
Descent thru modification?
Stratification indicating enormous time passing?
The few true hoaxes such as Piltdown have been exposed, what are "all" of them?

Well, perhaps misinformation, innacuracies, deciets, conclusions reached based on scanty evidence, as well as hoaxes should have been mentioned within the parameters of things readily initially accepted as indisputable facts and later exposed. Of course I never argued that they weren't exposed. Obviously if they hadn't been then we would not now knoiw that thgey were hoaxes or otherwise innacutrate would we? Maybe we are arguing poasrt each other here since you seem to think I am trying to prove one thing while I am talking about another.

[joobz]

No, I am stating that the theory of evolution is supported by evidence.
Oh excellent!
Radrook has successfully derailed a thread highlighting the bizarre statements that can be found in the bible with a discussion on evolution.

Good Job, Radrook. You have successfully avoided the need to explain why this holy text contains stories depecting the deprave actions of god.

[I Ratant]

Oh excellent!
Radrook has successfully derailed a thread highlighting the bizarre statements that can be found in the bible with a discussion on evolution.

Good Job, Radrook. You have successfully avoided the need to explain why this holy text contains stories depecting the deprave actions of god.
.
And, in keeping with the RR theme, none of these stories can be supported by hard evidence.
Which means they're hoaxes also, if the line of "reasoning" can be fit into explaining why fantasies are real, but real data isn't.
That all of the legends can be falsified by application of the same reasoning process used to confirm evolutionary data, which any scientist would do, because he would be aware that there's any number of other scientists picking through all claims about evolution, and it's way too easy to poke holes/fun at all the claims of all religions, what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
Put up (hard evidence for any of the claims of religions) or shut up... and learn something about reason and logic and rational trains of thought.

[Radrook]

No, I am stating that the theory of evolution is supported by evidence.

And I am stating that there isn't much difference between the disposition to believe merely because someone says so and most evolutionists who are consistently duped and reduyped into supposedly indispuytable beliefs that later turn out to be nothing but conjecture with a patina of science to pass it off. Actually, the mentality isn't that different since those who believe in an ID see evidence all about them that proves to them that an ID exists. So the lack of evidence mentality is from your perspective of how they reason not theirs.

[Radrook]

BTW

The accusations of my supposed attempt to derail is bogus. I make a statement, people here raise all kinds of issues around it, deviating it into the religious sphere, I respond and I'm the derailer? I gain NOTHING from derailing threads. But if I am questioned I will respond. No questions, no derailment. Also, I don't partticularly like being spoken about in the third person. It's rude. Those having that nasty habit will eventually be placed on my ignore list. OIr better yet, if you people feel I'm a derailer place me on your ignore list instead of pouting about it. How's that? We both come out winning.

[Radrook]

.
And, in keeping with the RR theme, none of these stories can be supported by hard evidence.
Which means they're hoaxes also, if the line of "reasoning" can be fit into explaining why fantasies are real, but real data isn't.
That all of the legends can be falsified by application of the same reasoning process used to confirm evolutionary data, which any scientist would do, because he would be aware that there's any number of other scientists picking through all claims about evolution, and it's way too easy to poke holes/fun at all the claims of all religions, what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
Put up (hard evidence for any of the claims of religions) or shut up... and learn something about reason and logic and rational trains of thought.

To me your vehement denials of proven attempts at falsification are just further proof that evolutionists can be and in fact are just as unreasonable and fanatical as certain religionists. Furthermore your incapacity or inability to discuss a matter calmly without creating strawmen at every opportunity further proves just how irrational evolutionists can be. So you do your cause a disservice with your attitude.

Again I can see I was justified in having you on my ignore list since there is NOTHING you can add to a discussion without turning it into ******

[Starthinker]

So, if you took all the people who, for instance, loves Corvairs, and one of them said Corvairs run on water, you would use that as proof that all Corvair lovers think their cars run on water? Furthermore, if a Corvair lover said "no, we don't believe Corvairs run on water" you still say "Then you are a liar because one of you said so." You keep pointing to the one person who got it wrong.

You take one or two people who got things wrong and are applying it to the whole. Then you refuse to see the whole.

It really is pointless to argue with someone who favors beliefs over knowledge.

[sphenisc]

Biologists are very sensitive whenever ignorant ID-iots and Creationists who don't understand anything about evolution lie and misrepresent a scientific theory based on religious dogma.

Which scientific theory based on religious dogma would that be? :)

[Wildy]

BTW
I never denied that scientific community tries to ferret out quackery of the Haeckal type. Negligence in ferreting out false ideas is not the point of my commentary. The point is the evolutionists predisposition to believe these ideas simply because they have a patina of scientific jargon cunningly attached to them.

Using that logic then we should be living in the age of Intelligent Design right? It has jargon that sounds scientific (irreducible complexity anyone?) but we don't see a mass exodus of scientists from evolution to ID.

Oh and in pre-emption of a list, just remember Project Steve (http://ncseweb.org/taking-action/project-steve).

Actually, the mentality isn't that different since those who believe in an ID see evidence all about them that proves to them that an ID exists. So the lack of evidence mentality is from your perspective of how they reason not theirs.

From what I've seen the mentality of the ID supporter is similar to a creationist. It's usually "I don't have a clue as to what caused it, so it must have been a designer". Is that really the same evidence that people who support evolution use?

[Cainkane1]

BTW

The accusations of my supposed attempt to derail is bogus. I make a statement, people here raise all kinds of issues around it, deviating it into the religious sphere, I respond and I'm the derailer? I gain NOTHING from derailing threads. But if I am questioned I will respond. No questions, no derailment. Also, I don't partticularly like being spoken about in the third person. It's rude. Those having that nasty habit will eventually be placed on my ignore list. OIr better yet, if you people feel I'm a derailer place me on your ignore list instead of pouting about it. How's that? We both come out winning.
You're a derailer wannabe perhaps. You haven't derailed anything. No IDer derails anything except their own credibility.

[NobbyNobbs]

Evolutionists are very sensitive whenever anyone misrepresents their pet idea.

And so are creationists. What's your point?

I'm not so sure the thread title is consistent with the OP. I agree with the OP. I disagree with the title.

Radrook, do you consider heliocentric theory to be a hoax too? If not, why not?

[godless dave]

Radrook, you know there were no falsehoods involved in the peppered moth studies, right?

[Correa Neto]

Biblical fundamentalism is a hoax and a hipocrisy.

One piece of evidence:
It postulates all mankind descend from Adam and Eve. Despite of this, incest is not allowed.

Want some more?

[Tubbythin]

I suppose MRSA is just a hoax too?

[Tubbythin]

And I am stating that there isn't much difference between the disposition to believe merely because someone says so and most evolutionists who are consistently duped and reduyped into supposedly indispuytable beliefs that later turn out to be nothing but conjecture with a patina of science to pass it off. Actually, the mentality isn't that different since those who believe in an ID see evidence all about them that proves to them that an ID exists. So the lack of evidence mentality is from your perspective of how they reason not theirs.

So consistently duped that, to make your point, you had to resort to a hoax from the 1860's. Oh dear.

[Foster Zygote]

There was no falsehood in the Nebraska Man incident either, not on the part of scientists anyway. Here's something I posted last month in another thread regarding Nebraska Man:

Henry Osborn thought that he'd found a fossil primate molar. Upon careful laboratory examination he found that it was, in fact, a fossil pig molar. Even in good condition, ape and pig molars are very similar. In very worn condition they are even harder to tell apart. Osborn's error is not, as is often suggested by creationists, a sign of incompetence. And what they regularly fail to mention is that it was Osborn himself who found and corrected his error. The "reconstruction" was an illustration made by an artist for a London newspaper. Osborn called the illustration "a figment of the imagination of no scientific value, and undoubtedly inaccurate".

So Osborn findes some fossils and says "I think these might be from an unknown species of primate. I'll take them back to the lab and have a better look at them". Then a newspaper makes up an illustration that Osborn derides as unjustified and useless speculation. Then Osborn says "On closer examination I've found that these are not ape fossils".

Where is the deception?

The irony of this new Radrook thread is that he himself was caught in a bald faced lie in an attempt to defend the notion that evolution by natural selection is highly controversial within the scientific community.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=101253

[Twiler]

What has this thread got to do with the thread title?

I haven't seen any attempt to prove that the theory of evolution is a hoax.

[uruk]

Evolutionists are very sensitive whenever anyone misrepresents their pet idea.

I think anybody would be sensitive when others misrepresents thier pet idea.

Wouldn't you be concerned if you said something and someone missunderstood it and attributed a false or mistaken idea or statement to you?

And depending on who it was that made the misrepresentation, wouldn't you be suspect of them? Was it mistaken? Was it intentional?

Either way, wouldn't you want to correct it?

[uruk]

I don't see evolutionists evading delusions. I see them falling right in with whatever they are told only to later find out they were being duped. The three examples below represent only a small fraction of the scatterbrained ideas which have been blindly accepted. So are they idiots too?

Haekel's Embryos
Nebraska Man
Peppered Moth

And the difference between a scientist and an ideologue is that a scientist will change his
line of thinking accordingly when he has discovered that he has been duped.

An ideologue will jump through rediculously convoluted hoops to cling to an idea that has been conclusively proven wrong.

[Safe-Keeper]

If the Piltdown Man disproves the Theory of Evolution, then I assume the Shroud of Turin proves God doesn't exist... no:confused:?

I think it is very striking how Radrook, accusing "evolutionists" of being closed-minded... has half the forum on ignore.

[Belz...]

Evolution is a hoax

Actually, since you can see it happening every day, that is a lie.

[sanguine]

I find the term "evolutionist" so weird. I'm a biologist. If i studied evolutionary biology, I'd be an evolutionary biologist. "Evolutionist" feels like some weird construction designed to make a subdiscipline of a legitimate science sound like an ideology.

Although I was planning on chiming in with some jokey response about how all of us are in on the hoax, I was struck by the "evolutionist" thing first. Now I'm imagining using that construction on other fields.

"You chemistryists don't like it when your beliefs in Le Chatlier's principle are challenged!"

Etc, etc. Maybe I should start a vein of creationism that argues that mass action is a lie.

[GeeMack]

Evolution is a hoax

Actually, since you can see it happening every day, that is a lie.


Perhaps Radrook can't/won't see it. You can't rule out wilful ignorance, cognitive dissonance, raw stupidity, and a handful of other possibilities.

[Mark A. Siefert]

Well, well, look who crawled out from under his rock.

[Wowbagger]

If Evolution is all a hoax, then how come the scientists actively using it to make important discoveries in fields such as medical science, wild life conservation, agriculture, oil drilling, and bio-engineering don't think so?

[six7s]

If Evolution is all a hoax, then how come the scientists actively using it to make important discoveries in fields such as medical science, wild life conservation, agriculture, oil drilling, and bio-engineering don't think so?
ELEVENTY FLICK !!!

DoN'T yOU KNOW NOTH!NG?

COS THeY'rE ALL SHiLLs !!!

[Dr Adequate]

Perhaps Radrook can't/won't see it. You can't rule out wilful ignorance, cognitive dissonance, raw stupidity, and a handful of other possibilities. I think he has reality on ignore too.

[kerikiwi]

If Evolution is all a hoax, then how come the scientists actively using it to make important discoveries in fields such as... oil drilling...don't think so?

How has evolution been used to make discoveries in oil drilling?

[plumjam]

How has evolution been used to make discoveries in oil drilling?
That's an easy one to answer. Without evolution no oil workers would have evolved into oil workers.

[six7s]

I think he has reality on ignore too.

Nommed (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4625435#post4625435) :)

[Safe-Keeper]

We love you, plumjam:D.

[joobz]

this thread was started as a split based upon radrook's post in another thread titled, "But the Bible doesn't really say that".

Radrook will not visit this thread.

[kerikiwi]

Radrook will not visit this thread.

Perhaps someone could extend an invitation

[plumjam]

We love you, plumjam:D.

Thanks :p
The difference is that I was intelligently designed to be what I am, whereas you rabble merely evolved to love me ;)

[six7s]

Radrook will not visit this thread.Perhaps someone could extend an invitation

He's had one, already

Posts discussing evolution split to here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=4617197). Please keep this thread on topic. Also, in the future do not further derail threads by discussing how they've been derailed.Thanks!

[six7s]

Thanks :p
The difference is that I was intelligently designed to be what I am, whereas you rabble merely evolved to love me ;)You do occupy a truly unique niche, pj

;)

[Dr Adequate]

How has evolution been used to make discoveries in oil drilling? Geology and evolution are inextricably entwined. How would you look for oil without reference to geology? How would you do geology without reference to facts about evolution, i.e. fossil succession and the use of index fossils for relative dating, which creationists deny 'til they start to foam at the mouth?

[plumjam]

You do occupy a truly unique niche, pj

;)
Three times a week, twice on my birthday.

[TheDaver]

Evolutionists are very sensitive whenever anyone misrepresents their pet idea.
Creationists show no remorse whenever they get caught lying.

[UnrepentantSinner]

Which scientific theory based on religious dogma would that be? :)

Young Earth Creationism... unfortunately that scientific theory was investigated and falsified about 200 years ago. The Creationists tend to overlook that inconvenient fact.

I find the term "evolutionist" so weird. I'm a biologist. If i studied evolutionary biology, I'd be an evolutionary biologist. "Evolutionist" feels like some weird construction designed to make a subdiscipline of a legitimate science sound like an ideology.

I can't stand it either. If it means I have to type a bit more and say "advocates for evolution" or "science supporters" or whatever, I will. But I refuse to you the term except to note how much I don't like it.

[six7s]

I like the term 'realist', which (due to context, etc) can often be used as an unambiguous and valid alternative :)

[DC]

:hb:
Did Creationists ever bring up any scientific evidence?

[six7s]

Did Creationists ever bring up any scientific evidence?Well... the heavens are big... and up.......

[DC]

when looking at humans history one must wonder why they called it Intelligent design. :boggled:

[six7s]

when looking at humans history one must wonder why they called it Intelligent design. :boggled:Cos even the Dover School Board would have spotted cCrap Design Proponentsists (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vSaINzdgBLA)

vSaINzdgBLA

[Mr Clingford]

Shouldn't this thread be left to die (or evolve) in the Conspiracy Theories forum?

[Wowbagger]

How has evolution been used to make discoveries in oil drilling?Dr. Adequate summed it up relatively well.

They don't call oil a "fossil fuel" for nothing!

We can also predict the nature of oil we would likely find, in different spots, by studying what the life forms were like, and how they... ahem... changed over time... in different deposits.

Evolution is not the only tool they use, of course. But it is cheap and relatively easy one to pull out, when it is needed. For example: Once a few samples have been radio-dated, Evolution helps us estimate the age and nature of the rest of the oil in an area very effectively, and for much less cost, than painstakingly radio-dating each and every single sample.

(The above probably oversimplfied the matter, but I hope I got the basic point across well enough.)

It is certainly much more useful to the oil industry than.... for example, Intelligent Design. How can I.D. improve our understanding of oil deposits? Especially for those expecting to gain a competetive edge out of new knowledge?!

[UnrepentantSinner]

Creationists show no remorse whenever they get caught lying.

Sooooo many examples, so little time...

On Christian forums there's two infamous Creationists who have had their "point" shown to be refuted so many times it can only be called lying. One has some perverse take on scriptural infallibility (yes, it's been pointed out again and again how the KJV only version has.. well, we all know) and has been harping ad nauseum, despite repeated correction, that astronomers didn't blow up Pluto when they changed it's status as a planet and how the discovery of newer bodies in the solar system required the redefinition.

And yet he keeps bringing it up again and again. Whether he's a bordering on Poe troll or not doesn't matter. Either he's lying about not accepting the factual corrections about Pluto or he's keeping up his schtick to be a troll and is de facto lying when he posts it.

The other is such an arrogant prick he actually has tried to tell one of the scientists who worked on the Chimpanzee genome project that the latter knows less about genetics than the former does. Despite the fact that it's been shown to him dozens if not hundreds of times that the various differences in disparate genetic studies have shown that humans are - when it comes to the important parts of genetic phylogeny - related by about 2% to Chimpanzees, he insists the indel numbers and others trump actual genetic homology.

We've been pointing that out to him - including Dr. Shaffner from the Chimp genome project - for 4 years now, but just the other day he started another thread trying to make a mountain out of what, for Creationists, isn't just a mole hill, but a valley.

And then there's the crap Radrook contributed to the start of this split thread. Jonathan Wells' Icons of Evolution is inadvertantly a book full of evidences for evolution since he's such a brainwashed dumbass he couldn't understand why everything he cited is important. The Peppered moths are great examples of natural selection and while Haeckel fudged the drawings on his embryos, we have more current information on embryology that validates his basic premise even if his conclusion was incorrect.

And don't get me started on the hoax B.S. that Creationists have been polluting our collective conciousness and the Web with for decades now. Nebraska man has already been eviscerated and I am going to do a thread on why Creationists shouldn't cite Piltdown (drawn from a debate on CF) when I am inclined. Don't forget other lies like Hovind's claim of single mammoth finds being dated to different ages (lie), Neanderthals being normal humans with rickets (lie), and the disposition of the bones of the Lucy discovery, especially the knee joint (lie).

I hate to give AiG and a few other Creationist groups for offering their "Creationist Arguments that shouldn't be used" list any credit but they deserve some. Unfortunately it's a woefully insufficient list and apparently not taken as a word of knowledge by enough Creationists.

[Mark A. Siefert]

We love you, plumjam:D.

I think your spellchecker is buggy. The proper spelling you're looking for is L-O-A-T-H-E.

[Beerina]

How has evolution been used to make discoveries in oil drilling?

Is it directly used? Or does this just refer to tangential issues that Creationists also attack, like geology, age of the Earth and universe, and so on?

[sphenisc]

... - when it comes to the important parts of genetic phylogeny - related by about 2% to Chimpanzees....

I think it's closer to 95%... or maybe that's just an evilutionist lie? :)

[sanguine]

I think it's closer to 95%... or maybe that's just an evilutionist lie? :)

He was citing the differentness, actually, in a somewhat oddly phrased manner. We are about 98% similar to Chimps, thus making us about 2% different (or 2% divergent), which is what he was attempting to say.

[sphenisc]

He was citing the differentness, actually, in a somewhat oddly phrased manner. We are about 98% similar to Chimps, thus making us about 2% different (or 2% divergent), which is what he was attempting to say.

I should have used a bigger smiley. :wackywink:

[Locutus]

Evolution's a hoax!? :jaw-dropp :eye-poppi Damnit, you guys really got me! All that evidence, it was so convincing. I'll get ya back next April Fool's, don't you worry. ;) I particularly like how you travelled back in time, planted fossils that you aged yourselves, and came up with that whole "taxonomy" thing. Priceless.

[sanguine]

I should have used a bigger smiley. :wackywink:

Well, I actually thought the original post was oddly phrased, so it was worth clarifying regardless. :)

[Rocko]

I'm not sure that the predisposition to discard falsehoods differentiates the two groups. If the religious leadership tells the flock that previous teachings were false the flock will readily discard those teachings based on the authority claimed by the leadership just as evolutionists tend to do.

That'll explain the total lack of uproar when the CofE decided that actually, female priests were ok?

[six7s]

We love you, plumjam:D.I think your spellchecker is buggy. The proper spelling you're looking for is L-O-A-T-H-E.

Fixed that for you, Mark

:)

[Elizabeth I]

Well... the heavens are big... and up.......

Yeah, but they're down, too...

[UnrepentantSinner]

I think it's closer to 95%... or maybe that's just an evilutionist lie? :)
He was citing the differentness, actually, in a somewhat oddly phrased manner. We are about 98% similar to Chimps, thus making us about 2% different (or 2% divergent), which is what he was attempting to say.
I should have used a bigger smiley. :wackywink:
Well, I actually thought the original post was oddly phrased, so it was worth clarifying regardless. :)

It was, and in my defense I was pretty bombed when I wrote all that. What I was getting at was that DNA and the genes which are most important for determining relatedness shows about a 2% difference.

Sorry for the PWI. :D

[skeptigirl]

And the difference between a scientist and an ideologue is that a scientist will change his line of thinking accordingly when he has discovered that he has been duped.

An ideologue will jump through rediculously convoluted hoops to cling to an idea that has been conclusively proven wrong.
I found this interesting link in a reply in a blog by Orac of Respectful Insolence.

Unskilled and Unaware of It: How Difficulties in Recognizing One's Own Incompetence Lead to Inflated Self-Assessments (http://www.apa.org/journals/features/psp7761121.pdf)

While the original blog post was about antivaxxers, it applies to the Creationists and lots of other woo believers we deal with here.

The mindset of an antivaccinationist revealed, courtesy of Jake Crosby of The Age of Autism blog (http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2009/04/the_mindset_of_an_antivaccinationist_rev.php?utm_s ource=ScienceBlogs+Weekly+Recap&utm_campaign=cdc7bbca86-Recap_4_07_to_4_14__2009&utm_medium=email)In response to my comment that "no amount of science...will ever convince them that vaccines don't cause autism," what to my wondering eyes should appear but Jake Crosby showing up in the comments to confirm that I am absolutely right about this:

"Amount" doesn't matter. A million "studies" claiming the Earth were flat wouldn't make it true. Likewise, pseudostudies claiming no association to autism consistent with overwhelming evidence of a CDC-cover up will only further convince me that vaccines cause autism.

This is the mindset we're dealing with in Jenny McCarthy, Jim Carrey, J.B. Handley, Barbara Loe Fisher, and the rest of the antivaccine movement. They all know that vaccines cause autism and are uninterested in anything that might challenge that belief. Science doesn't matter. Evidence doesn't matter. Epidemiology doesn't matter. Reason itself doesn't matter.(emphasis mine)

[schlitt]

The most incredible hoax ever orchestrated.

Thousands of people for one hundred and fifty years studying (to mention a few fields):

Paleontology
Paleobiogeography
Fossil Chronology
Geology
Geochemistry
Embryology
Molecular biology
Cellular biology
Morphology
Homologies
comparative anatomy
Developmental biology
Ecology

Somehow, each only producing findings which are consistent with the theory of evolution.

It would be more of a miracle than a virgin birth if evolution were a hoax.