Customer Discussions > Science forum

Why are people here so scientifically illiterate

This discussion has reached the maximum length permitted, and cannot accept new replies. Start a new discussion


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 76-100 of 1000 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on Oct 16, 2009 8:53:41 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Oct 16, 2009 8:55:54 AM PDT
Gary S. Hurd says:
Michael Altarriba requested Windchy for information. Bold, trusting, but Not a good idea.

The Science article Windchy cites as his refutation of "macro evolution" opens as follows, "Overheard at breakfast on the final day of a recent scientific meeting: "Do you believe in macroevolution?" Came the reply: "Well, it depends how you define it."

And how to define "it" is the whole game Windchy and other creationists play. The conference at the Natural History Museum in Chicago was where Steve Gould and Neils Eldredge carried the day by convincing population geneticists that punctuated stasis was valid from a paleontological perspective. For the geneticists, this led to the realization that in natural communities selection could just as easily restrict variation as it could encourage it. The "Nature" in natural selection got much bigger.

The pace of evolutionary change was also reconsidered such that new species didn't require millions and millions of years to emerge, but to quote Gould from the meeting, "I'd be happy to see speciation taking place over, say, 50,000 years," said Gould, "but that is an instant compared with the 5 or 10 million years that most species exist." He followed up by mentioning "The point is one of the relative frequency of one process as against the other."

Creationists have, as always, lied about what "micro" and "macro" evolutionary changes are. In their usage, a microevolutionary change is any biological fact they cannot deny. They then insist that "macroevolution" is horses that fly, or vorpal clawed saber-toothed bunnies.

PS: Everyone with an internet connection has "Science" magazine on their desk. A free registration, and you can access all but the current calender year. That is every issue since 1880.

http://www.sciencemag.org

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 16, 2009 9:05:00 AM PDT
Mr. Bair,

Whether he realizes it or not, Mr. Windchy is part of the DI strategy. His book is one more piece of ballast out there to obscure, confuse, and resist evolutionary theory specifically and science generally. All so that the population at large stay ignorant of science and accepting of general supernaturalism along with dominionist xian dogma.

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 16, 2009 10:01:00 AM PDT
"Everyone with an internet connection has "Science" magazine on their desk. A free registration, and you can access all but the current calender year. That is every issue since 1880."

Sweet!!! I had no idea they offered free access.

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 16, 2009 11:38:44 AM PDT
Elliott--I think both Europe and America are pretty much in the same boat, though you seem to have less religious baggage. Technology, which has essentially defined our economies for almost 200 years, is becoming worldwide and growing economies that were formerly backward. Ideally, this will raise living standards worldwide, but we must beware that it does not cause ours to spiral downward.

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 16, 2009 11:51:09 AM PDT
RR--I don't disagree and I hope you are right. I probably overstated the case. If the worldwide standard of living can be brought up to Western standards, I have no problem with that. Unfortunately, one of the driving factors in the developing world is cheap labor, including scientific and engineering labor, which suggests that we may be going in the opposite direction.

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 16, 2009 11:58:25 AM PDT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 16, 2009 12:45:01 PM PDT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 16, 2009 12:56:29 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Oct 16, 2009 12:57:30 PM PDT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 16, 2009 1:00:12 PM PDT
"You Darwinists are very quick to call somebody a liar."

You seem eager to portray the modern evolutionary synthesis as if it were a religious movement or ideology, instead of what it is: one of the best-supported scientific theories we have.

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 16, 2009 1:02:16 PM PDT
Gary S. Hurd has already (and ably, as always) responded to your claim. I have nothing I wish to add.

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 16, 2009 1:03:57 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Oct 16, 2009 1:04:53 PM PDT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 16, 2009 1:05:52 PM PDT
So, is it your assertion that "Lynn Margulis called neo-Darwinism a religion" means that "Darwinism" (whatever it is you personally mean by that word) must therefore be a religion?

I see no merit to this assertion.

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 16, 2009 1:36:01 PM PDT
[Deleted by Amazon on Jan 19, 2010 11:58:24 AM PST]

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 16, 2009 1:41:45 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Oct 16, 2009 1:42:40 PM PDT
Gary S. Hurd says:
Lynn Margulis is single handedly responsible for changing the publication policy of the National Academy of Science Proceedings. Formerly, academy members could basically have anything they wanted published. Margulis shepherded in a truly lunatic paper.

There are many scientists (like other professions) who enjoy making outrageous statements to the media. Personally, I think they crave attention, and don't really take the public all that seriously. I have been given the justification that "It is a way to get people to think." I think is is a way some people avoid being responsible- they can say something stupid and claim they were "just kidding" or "just starting a discussion."

Creationist nitwits like Windchy take these remarks as golden (if he can twit them to his purpose), and he then ignores all other contrary remarks- even from the same people he cites.

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 16, 2009 1:46:54 PM PDT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 16, 2009 2:01:22 PM PDT
Mr. Windchy--Although your post has been sufficiently debunked by others, I feel I must comment since your post was addressed to me. You have conflated a bunch of theories, hypotheses, and guesses about evolution and about the origin of life on earth, without any consideration of the evidence for and against each (why did you omit Lysenkoism?). I can't believe you could research and write an entire book about this and make such a naive blunder. The essence of the theory of evolution is variation and natural selection.

Virtually all scientists do not consider intelligent design to be even a hypothesis, since it is essentially untestable.

I have no idea what "textbook Darwinism" is. Scientists do not use the term "Darwinism" very much. I think the scientists in these discussions more or less tolerate the term to distinguish evolution from creationism.

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 16, 2009 2:11:46 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Oct 16, 2009 2:13:08 PM PDT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

Posted on Oct 16, 2009 2:12:33 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Oct 16, 2009 2:32:53 PM PDT
Gary S. Hurd says:
On the first page of the prologue from Windchy's waste of trees, he writes that Darwin was "an intensely ambitious scientist who advanced his career by means of deception and intrigue." That is Bat guano.

Darwin's career was staying at home, unless going to some health spa. His income was not as a scientist, although his books starting with the "Voyage of the Beagle" were quite good in sales. He and his wife Emma had quite good incomes from inheritances. None the less, Darwin was rather cheap.

On the second page of Windchy's waste paper he refers to Ernst Haeckel as personal friend of Darwin's, which is untrue. (Darwin wrote in his journal that Haeckel came once to visit at Down, but that it was hard to understand anything Haeckel said due to his thick accent.) One personal visit in a lifetime is no personal friendship. On the same page, and on to the third, Windchy repeated the lie that Haeckel was "convicted of fraud by a faculty court at the University of Jena..." This never happened.

Nor, as Windchy falsely claims on the second lie of just the third page, that Haeckel was "... a major source of Nazi philosophy." In fact, the Nazis banned Haeckel's books and had them burned. Along with Darwin's I might add.

Guidelines from Die Bücherei 2:6 (1935), p. 279
Die Bucherei, the official Nazi journal for lending libraries, published these collection evaluation "guidelines" during the second round of "purifications" (saüberung).
6. Schriften weltanschaulichen und lebenskundlichen Charakters, deren Inhalt die falsche naturwissenschaftliche Aufklärung eines primitiven Darwinismus und Monismus ist (Häckel).

6. Writings of a philosophical and social nature whose content deals with the false scientific enlightenment of primitive Darwinism and Monism (Häckel)

So many lies in so few pages. And Windchy goes on and on and on with little at all worth reading. Certainly nothing that one could trust.

There is an excellent biography of Haeckel recently published,
Richards, Robert J.
2008 "The Tragic Sense of Life: Ernst Haeckel and the Struggle over Evolutionary Thought" University Of Chicago Press

and I also recommend, Adrian Desmond, and James Moore, "Darwin's Sacred Cause: How a Hatred of Slavery Shaped Darwin's Views on Human Evolution" Houghton Mifflin Harcourt (January 28, 2009).

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 16, 2009 2:23:43 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Oct 16, 2009 2:28:33 PM PDT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 16, 2009 2:38:20 PM PDT
[Deleted by Amazon on Jan 19, 2010 2:10:50 PM PST]

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 16, 2009 2:43:13 PM PDT
"In the Melanian races, on the other hand, the
wisdom-teeth are usually furnished with three separate fangs, and
are generally sound; they also differ from the other molars in size,
less than in the Caucasian races.*(2) Prof. Schaaffhausen accounts for
this difference between the races by "the posterior dental portion
of the jaw being always shortened" in those that are civilised,*(3)
and this shortening may, I presume, be attributed to civilised men
habitually feeding on soft, cooked food, and thus using their jaws
less. I am informed by Mr. Brace that it is becoming quite a common
practice in the United States to remove some of the molar teeth of
children, as the jaw does not grow large enough for the perfect
development of the normal number.*(4)
http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/charles_darwin/descent_of_man/chapter_01.html

Darwin's ideas = bat guano "

Kerney, I hate to break this to you, but the rest of us have known all along that Darwin's ideas are outdated. He lived 150 years ago. Get with the program. Science has advanced, evolutionary theory has been pruned and altered to account for the constant advance of technology and the evidence that we then obtain.

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 16, 2009 2:45:00 PM PDT
[Deleted by Amazon on Jan 19, 2010 2:23:59 PM PST]

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 16, 2009 2:47:29 PM PDT
Gary S. Hurd says:
Eugene G. Windchy babbles on and on. All of Darwin's letters are on-line. All of Darwin's books are online. Anyone willing to take the time can expose Windchys dishonesty for free.

Darwin wrote about more than three prior authors on evolution. He acknowledged them in his Origin of Species. Windchy can only find 3? Well, maybe he should read Darwin. Darwin mentioned Buffon, Lamarck, Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire, W. C. Wells, Rev. W. Herbert, Professor Grant (Edinburgh), Patric Matthew, Von Buch, and so on... He then gives particular attention to "Vestigies of Creation" published in 1844, and republished in a new edition in 1853. As to Wallace, Darwin heaps praise on him through out.

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 16, 2009 2:49:36 PM PDT
[Deleted by Amazon on Jan 19, 2010 2:10:50 PM PST]

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 16, 2009 2:52:36 PM PDT
[Deleted by Amazon on Jan 19, 2010 2:10:50 PM PST]
Discussion locked

 

This discussion

Discussion in:  Science forum
Participants:  463
Total posts:  10000
Initial post:  Oct 13, 2009
Latest post:  May 19, 2012

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 19 customers

Search Customer Discussions