Hoaxes

lasthero · Sep 2, 2015

whois said:
that's the 64 dollar question isn't it.
not only who, but how, this could have happened.
this doesn't bode well for "a self correcting" mechanism.

Except it did correct. Maybe not as fast you would like, but it did.

Also, you're making it sound like she was totally ostracized from the scientific community. She still recieved funding for her work from the National Academy of Science, which is an odd thing for the 'establishment' to do if she's such a threat to them. When she retired in 1967, she did so with high honors.

most likely because so must data had become available they couldn't effectively squash it all.

Evidence? Who is 'they'?

eventually, as in 40 to 50 years later.

It was about twenty. In that time, she recieved numerous awards and accolades. She's hardly the oppressed paraiah, you're making her out to be.

the fact still remains though, why would barbara be ridiculed like this,

Ridicule like what?

bhsmte · Sep 2, 2015

lasthero said:
Except it did correct. Maybe not as fast you would like, but it did.

Also, you're making it sound like she was totally ostracized from the scientific community. She still recieved funding for her work from the National Academy of Science, which is an odd thing for the 'establishment' to do if she's such a threat to them. When she retired in 1967, she did so with high honors.

Evidence? Who is 'they'?

It was about twenty. In that time, she recieved numerous awards and accolades. She's hardly the oppressed paraiah, you're making her out to be.

Ridicule like what?

Some don't like to let the facts get in the way of a good conspiracy.

Willtor · Sep 2, 2015

whois said:
that's the 64 dollar question isn't it.
not only who, but how, this could have happened.
this doesn't bode well for "a self correcting" mechanism.

most likely because so must data had become available they couldn't effectively squash it all.
eventually, as in 40 to 50 years later.

the fact still remains though, why would barbara be ridiculed like this, even to the point to where she quit publishing?

No, it was because they reproduced her results. No mechanism existed that could keep them from reaching the same conclusions. This is an important feature of a healthy science: Even if your idea is unpopular, if the data drives a researcher to it, it can't remain obscure or unpopular. This is evidence of the inability of a conspiracy to form!

whois · Sep 2, 2015

lasthero said:
It was about twenty.

question, do you always say things when you don't know what you are talking about?
barbara recieved her nobel in 1983, over 40 years after she made her discovery.
the reactions of the establishment were so sceptical that she quit publishing her research in 1953.

whois · Sep 2, 2015

Willtor said:
No, it was because they reproduced her results. No mechanism existed that could keep them from reaching the same conclusions. This is an important feature of a healthy science: Even if your idea is unpopular, if the data drives a researcher to it, it can't remain obscure or unpopular. This is evidence of the inability of a conspiracy to form!

what gets published, and what doesn't, isn't as open minded as you may think.

lasthero · Sep 2, 2015

whois said:
question, do you always say things when you don't know what you are talking about?
barbara recieved her nobel in 1983, over 40 years after she made her discovery.

Her research was accepted long before that.

From the Wiki:

The importance of McClintock's contributions was revealed in the 1960s, when the work of French geneticists Francois Jacob and Jacques Monod described the genetic regulation of the lac operon, a concept she had demonstrated with Ac/Ds in 1951. Following Jacob and Monod's 1961 Journal of Molecular Biology paper "Genetic regulatory mechanisms in the synthesis of proteins", McClintock wrote an article for American Naturalist comparing the lac operon and her work on controlling elements in maize.[55][50] McClintock's contribution to biology is still not widely acknowledged as amounting to the discovery of genetic regulation.[41]

McClintock was widely credited for discovering transposition after other researchers finally discovered the process in bacteria, yeast, andbacteriophages in the late 1960s and early 1970s.[56] During this period, molecular biology had developed significant new technology, and scientists were able to show the molecular basis for transposition

It's not like they recognized her work and IMMEDIATELY gave her a Nobel Prize.

the reactions of the establishment were so sceptical that she quit publishing her research in 1953.

She quite publishing work on that particular subject. She still did plenty of other things, and the establishment saw her as such a threat that they kept on funding her. Do you even know why they were sceptical? Do you even care?

bhsmte · Sep 2, 2015

lasthero said:
Her research was accepted long before that.

From the Wiki:

Do you even know why they were sceptical? Do you even care?

I suspect he doesn't care, as one needs to maintain the narrative.

Also, not unusual for Nobel prizes to be awarded, decades after the discovery.

Willtor · Sep 2, 2015

whois said:
what gets published, and what doesn't, isn't as open minded as you may think.

Publishing is fraught with problems. That doesn't impact what I said.

whois · Sep 2, 2015

lasthero said:
Do you even know why they were sceptical?

yes.
it was thought that this process didn't happen in animals.

The Cadet · Sep 2, 2015

Not_By_Chance said:
But by doing it that way, only scientists get to debate the issues,

Yeah. It turns out, when talking about complex scientific issues, the best thing to do for general education is to let the experts who know what they're talking about and who are capable of advanced study figure out the right answers, then let them teach it to people. What possibly positive contribution do you think someone who doesn't even know the very basics has to offer? Well, here, let me give you a hint. In this spoiler, you will find the complete, collected contribution of the entirety of Young Earth Creationism to modern science.

You may have noticed that that spoiler was empty. That's because young earth creationism has contributed exactly nothing to modern science.

Not_By_Chance said:
So why have they issued a challenge to debate with them and why do evolutionists keep turning them down? It appears to me that they are running scared.

We've been over this. Multiple times. In multiple threads. Televised, formal debates are not a good format for learning the truth or evaluating claims. They are a great format for demagoguery, for being able to make false claims without them being checked, and for preaching. But the truth? No, I'm sorry, written debate in this medium is a better way to do it, because when I say "We've debunked these points already", you don't have to take my word for it, you can go back through the record and see exactly where each point you made was proven wrong. Please stop making this argument. It is completely wrong.

whois · Sep 2, 2015

Willtor said:
Publishing is fraught with problems.

why should it be fraught with problems?
honest research, such as barbaras should NEVER be ostracized like it was.

lasthero · Sep 2, 2015

whois said:
yes.
it was thought that this process didn't happen in animals.

And as soon as technology progressed to the point where it was clear that it did, people accepted her work. During that time, she still recieved funding from 'the establishment', she still published, she still got praise and was recognized for her work. You're making it sound like she's a victim of some shadowy conspiracy, but that's not the case.

lasthero · Sep 2, 2015

whois said:
why should it be fraught with problems?

Because people aren't perfect, and anything we do has problems. Sorry.

VirOptimus · Sep 2, 2015

Not_By_Chance said:
Funny - creation scientists say more or less the same about evolution - it's [evolution] a belief system masquerading as science and leads to bad theology/atheism.

If they do then they are indeed very bad theologicans and also very bad scientists. Its not like the definitions and the scientific method are secrets. Educate yourself and it will be plain.

Loudmouth · Sep 2, 2015

whois said:
do you think that there are some things that are beyond reason?

Perhaps there is, but evolution isn't one of them. The age of the Earth, age of the universe, and the geologic history of the Earth are also within the reasoning power of humans.

contrary to what you might believe, the riddle of life has not been solved.

That's why scientists are doing research on the topic.

yes, it's reasonable to assume a natural origin, but there isn't any evidence of it.

We have not found a supernatural cause for anything.

We have found billions of natural causes for things we see in nature.

I would say that trying to find a natural origin is the best bet.

Loudmouth · Sep 2, 2015

Not_By_Chance said:
But by doing it that way, only scientists get to debate the issues, with all the allegations of corruption/bias/selectivity of experimental data, etc, so in the end, no-one outside the relevant academic circles knows who is closer to the truth.

Those are empty allegations. Sorry, but you don't get to accuse hundreds of thousands of scientists with wrongdoing without a shred of evidence to back it.

This is the problem. Creationists don't want to debate the facts. Rather, they want to invent fantasies about fake data.

Also, I'm pretty sure that if it weren't for the blanket coverage of evolution in the popular media, creation science would be even more popular than it currently is (amongst non-scientists).

It isn't a popularity contest. The problem is that there is no creation science. No scientist is using creationism to do original research. No scientist is submitting grants for any such research. No scientist is publishing research that is based on creationism. There is nothing else to cover in biology other than evolution.

Loudmouth · Sep 2, 2015

whois said:
this didn't happen in the case of barbara mcclintok.
her research was ridiculed by the establishment itself.
why?
because it went against the darwinist paradigm that existed at the time.

And yet it was still accepted over time due to the weight of evidence.

barbara and her research was ridiculed so badly that she quit publishing her research.
yes, let's talk about bias, corruption, and selectivity of experimental data.

She published that research. We have been over this already.

Loudmouth · Sep 2, 2015

whois said:
question, do you always say things when you don't know what you are talking about?
barbara recieved her nobel in 1983, over 40 years after she made her discovery.
the reactions of the establishment were so sceptical that she quit publishing her research in 1953.

Here is her CV:
http://profiles.nlm.nih.gov/ps/access/LLBBGZ.pdf

It shows multiple published papers after 1953. Perhaps you should get the facts.

Loudmouth · Sep 2, 2015

whois said:
why should it be fraught with problems?
honest research, such as barbaras should NEVER be ostracized like it was.

And once again we are pulled away from the topic by fake stories of persecution.

bhsmte · Sep 2, 2015

Loudmouth said:
And once again we are pulled away from the topic by fake stories of persecution.

What a shock!

Hoaxes

Newbie

Newbie

Not just any Willtor... The Mighty Willtor

rational

rational

Newbie

Newbie

Not just any Willtor... The Mighty Willtor

rational

SO COOL

rational

Newbie

Newbie

A nihilist who cares.

Contributor

Contributor

Contributor

Contributor

Contributor

Newbie

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency