If 'The Origin of Species' is correct then why?

Chalky

@TheMarlin - if you didn't know, @fretmeister is a High Priest of Science, and an eminent scientist in his day job. When He speaks, thou shalt listen! 

fretmeister

Chalky said:

@TheMarlin - if you didn't know, @fretmeister is a High Priest of Science, and an eminent scientist in his day job. When He speaks, thou shalt listen! 

And @Chalky is a very lovely person who I would gladly invite to dinner.

(You started the lies, I just thought I'd keep going with them)

Chalky

fretmeister said:

Chalky said:

@TheMarlin - if you didn't know, @fretmeister is a High Priest of Science, and an eminent scientist in his day job. When He speaks, thou shalt listen! 

And @Chalky is a very lovely person who I would gladly invite to dinner.

(You started the lies, I just thought I'd keep going with them)

In all truth, I'm sure that I would actually find it very interesting to listen to you and learn something of how you view the world.

fretmeister

In my job I have to view the world in the way my clients want me to

I then have my own views of my clients. 

ToneControl

fretmeister said:

TheMarlin said:

fretmeister said:

TheMarlin said:

There has been a lot of dubious behaviour in the fossil hunting world. The late Victorian period was awash with bizarre shenanigans. There was a great deal of fakery during “The Great Dinosaur Rush” or “Bone Wars,”
Edward Drinker Cope of the  Academy of Natural Sciences and Othniel Marsh of the Peabody Museum of Natural History, began a life-long rivalry in the field of “dinosaur hunting.”  They started out as friends but quickly became bitter enemies. Marsh is said to have discovered over 500 different ancient species including 80 dinosaurs, while Cope discovered 56.  Out of the 136 dinosaur species supposedly discovered by the two men, only 32 are presently considered valid; the rest have all proven to be falsifications and fabrications! 
Unfortunately, a lot of their work is still used to prop up Darwins theory.  The same can be said for much of the human fossil record. Piltdown Man, Peking Man, Calaveras Skull, Cardiff Giant, Johann Beringer Vs Professor Roderick, Nebraska Man, Java Man, Orce Nan etc etc all proven fakes, but many are still referred to when propping up this theory.  Many of these fossils are still on display today as genuine fossils. 

I'm no creationist, I'm not religious.  I'm not offering any alternative theory, I'm just a chap with a curious mind, and a nose for bullshit. 

Its a theory, and that's all it is. Fact, it is not. 

Are you going to ignore the explanations of the different definitions of "theory" every time?

It's getting a bit pathetic. 

Theory of Gravity
Germ Theory of Disease.

Both facts and both theories.

All I did was present some evidence. What's so pathetic about that?

Debunk away!

1: you didn't present anything.
2: You haven't answered my point about you refusing to accept that Theory doesn't mean what you claim it means.

Keep moving those goalposts though.

the  attack on natural selection here is typical of the  results of the problem described in the book "bad science":

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bad_Science_(book)#Chapter_11:_How_the_Media_Promote_the_Public_Misunderstanding_of_Science

"The misrepresentation of science and scientists in the media is attributed to the preponderance of humanities graduates in journalism. The dumbing-down of science to produce easily assimilated wacky, breakthrough or scare stories is criticised. Wacky "formula stories" like those for "the perfect boiled egg" or "most depressing day of the year" are revealed to be the product of PR companies using biddable academics to add weight to their marketing campaigns. Among other examples, the speculation by Dr. Oliver Curry(a political theorist at the LSE) that the human race will evolve into two separate races, presented as a science story across the British media, is exposed as a PR stunt for a men's TV channel. The relative scarcity of sensational medical breakthroughs since a golden age of discovery between 1935 and 1975, is seen as motivating the production of dumbed-down stories which trumpet unpublished research and ill-founded speculation. An inability to evaluate the soundness of scientific evidence is seen to give undeserved prominence to marginal figures with fringe views."

put bluntly, many people, especially those with no scientific training,  think that scientific theories are "a matter of opinion", and that an opposing view is valid, they are not used to a situation in which everyone agrees on the subject in question. Therefore, finding some fabricated evidence that was allegedly used to  support Darwinism 100+ years ago is somehow seen to undermine Darwin's theories.  This would be like having a court case with 10000 witnesses,  all saying the same thing. It is discovered that 10 of them were not actually there at the time,  therefore  Marlin thinks that somehow "undermines" the evidence of the honest 9990

TheMarlin

I'm only giving my opinion, which is that natural selection has some serious plot holes, and much of it is built upon shady discoveries, long dismissed by peers of the people who 'discovered/faked' them. 

I've given a few examples, check them out for yourself. 

fretmeister

TheMarlin said:

I'm only giving my opinion, which is that natural selection has some serious plot holes, and much of it is built upon shady discoveries, long dismissed by peers of the people who 'discovered/faked' them. 

I've given a few examples, check them out for yourself. 

Already did when they were relevant and not superseded. 

The "shady" discoveries have been removed from the working knowledge and the conclusions have not suffered.


If any person actually discovers ANYTHING that negates Natural Selection they are going to win the Nobel Prize, because it will be a discovery as big as finding out the Sun is made from discarded plectrums.

Or are you going to claim what we know about the Sun is "only" a theory as well because we haven't landed on it?

fretmeister

And here is a suggestion for a well written book, written well after the "shady" discoveries were removed.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Evolution-True-Oxford-Landmark-Science/dp/0199230854

Look how cheap it is to deal with the gaps in your knowledge. Only someone who wants to preserve their demonstrably incorrect world view would refuse such an invitation.

£4.36 if you buy a used copy!

stickyfiddle

@themarlin In all seriousness I would be very interested to see what holes you perceive there to be in the theory of natural selection. 

I highly recommend the New York Natural History Museum to anyone interested in evolution. They have a fantastic exhibit of fossils and bones that goes through early mammals showing how each type is thought to have evolved into more recognisable stuff we see today.

This point is often ignored or simply not known by those who don't agree with evolution - we didn't evolve from chimps or monkeys or gorillas, so there is no "missing link" between us and them. All of us evolved from a common ancestor - and significant evidence of these ancestors HAS been found.

Likewise most four-legged mammals (horses and cows and dogs etc) likely all came from a common ancestor if you go back far enough. See also modern birds & lizards with dinosaurs. 

http://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/permanent-exhibitions/fossil-halls/hall-of-primitive-mammals

octatonic

TheMarlin said:

I'm only giving my opinion, which is that natural selection has some serious plot holes, and much of it is built upon shady discoveries, long dismissed by peers of the people who 'discovered/faked' them. 

I've given a few examples, check them out for yourself. 

You can dispute it all you want but it is science and it is fact.
We have overwhelming evidence to support natural selection and no valid alternate explanation.
('God did it' is not remotely good enough as an alternate explanation.)

Your stunning ignorance about the subject is verging on hilarious.

Danny1969

The theory of evolution is a work in progress. That's not to say it isn't true, it is,  but more to say there are still many things we can't explain at this time. That's not surprising when you consider we didn't even understand DNA until the fifties. It's a complex incredibly slow process in principle and then you have the finer points disagreements today in science, with things like Niche construction. 

Shame people get so nasty on here about it though, science it's self accepts evolution is a work in progress and will be until they understand how life started from inert chemicals, which it must have done at some point. In the future we might be able to recreate that but we can't at the moment. Probably won't be in our lifetime but maybe in another few hundred years

Myranda

Danny1969 said:

... will be until they understand how life started from inert chemicals, which it must have done at some point. In the future we might be able to recreate that ...

Didn't Hungrymark or a scientist he worked with do exactly that?

Chalky

Ah @fretmeister. Contemptuous of your clients and condescending to those whom you decide have 'gaps' in their knowledge. You must be a lawyer, and surely the archetype for all those lawyer jokes.

fretmeister

Danny1969 said:

The theory of evolution is a work in progress. That's not to say it isn't true, it is,  but more to say there are still many things we can't explain at this time. That's not surprising when you consider we didn't even understand DNA until the fifties. It's a complex incredibly slow process in principle and then you have the finer points disagreements today in science, with things like Niche construction. 

Shame people get so nasty on here about it though, science it's self accepts evolution is a work in progress and will be until they understand how life started from inert chemicals, which it must have done at some point. In the future we might be able to recreate that but we can't at the moment. Probably won't be in our lifetime but maybe in another few hundred years

That's abiogenesis not evolution.

fretmeister

Chalky said:

Ah @fretmeister. Contemptuous of your clients and condescending to those whom you decide have 'gaps' in their knowledge. You must be a lawyer, and surely the archetype for all those lawyer jokes.

Well I was making a joke.

i don't have to like my clients and they don't pick me because they like me. And it is their choice. I don't do legal aid so I'm not forced on anyone.

As with all humans I like some of them and don't like others. I'm sure they feel the same of me.

I am only contemptuous of those who have gaps in their knowledge and then wilfully refuse to try to learn more.

Chalky

fretmeister said:

Chalky said:

Ah @fretmeister. Contemptuous of your clients and condescending to those whom you decide have 'gaps' in their knowledge. You must be a lawyer, and surely the archetype for all those lawyer jokes.

Well I was making a joke.

i don't have to like my clients and they don't pick me because they like me. And it is their choice. I don't do legal aid so I'm not forced on anyone.

As with all humans I like some of them and don't like others. I'm sure they feel the same of me.

I am only contemptuous of those who have gaps in their knowledge and then wilfully refuse to try to learn more.

And what gaps in your knowledge do you have?

Danny1969

Myranda said:

Danny1969 said:

... will be until they understand how life started from inert chemicals, which it must have done at some point. In the future we might be able to recreate that ...

Didn't Hungrymark or a scientist he worked with do exactly that?

Doubt it, NASA hasn't figured that out yet

fretmeister

Chalky said:

fretmeister said:

Chalky said:

Ah @fretmeister. Contemptuous of your clients and condescending to those whom you decide have 'gaps' in their knowledge. You must be a lawyer, and surely the archetype for all those lawyer jokes.

Well I was making a joke.

i don't have to like my clients and they don't pick me because they like me. And it is their choice. I don't do legal aid so I'm not forced on anyone.

As with all humans I like some of them and don't like others. I'm sure they feel the same of me.

I am only contemptuous of those who have gaps in their knowledge and then wilfully refuse to try to learn more.

And what gaps in your knowledge do you have?

Loads. Never claimed otherwise.

And I try to fix that.

Danny1969

fretmeister said:

Danny1969 said:

The theory of evolution is a work in progress. That's not to say it isn't true, it is,  but more to say there are still many things we can't explain at this time. That's not surprising when you consider we didn't even understand DNA until the fifties. It's a complex incredibly slow process in principle and then you have the finer points disagreements today in science, with things like Niche construction. 

Shame people get so nasty on here about it though, science it's self accepts evolution is a work in progress and will be until they understand how life started from inert chemicals, which it must have done at some point. In the future we might be able to recreate that but we can't at the moment. Probably won't be in our lifetime but maybe in another few hundred years

That's abiogenesis not evolution.

Yes but it's kinda like coming up with Ohms law without understanding why current flows to begin with. 

Chalky

fretmeister said:

Chalky said:

fretmeister said:

Chalky said:

Ah @fretmeister. Contemptuous of your clients and condescending to those whom you decide have 'gaps' in their knowledge. You must be a lawyer, and surely the archetype for all those lawyer jokes.

Well I was making a joke.

i don't have to like my clients and they don't pick me because they like me. And it is their choice. I don't do legal aid so I'm not forced on anyone.

As with all humans I like some of them and don't like others. I'm sure they feel the same of me.

I am only contemptuous of those who have gaps in their knowledge and then wilfully refuse to try to learn more.

And what gaps in your knowledge do you have?

Loads. Never claimed otherwise.

And I try to fix that.

So do others. I ordered that book you recommended.