proof evolutionists are propogandizers

[seebs]

This happens with a lot of science... but in the end, years later, you have a pretty good body of evidence that *has* passed peer review, and that still makes it pretty hard to coherently reject evolution as the primary method by which new life forms come to be.

 

[Morat]

I'd imagine that the problem is the media thinks science is done in National Geographic and Discover and press conferences.

 

[ardipithecus]

Originally posted by randman
Well, as a side note Rufus, Coyne writes:

"Many species appear virtually unchanged in the fossil record for millions of years and then, relatively abruptly, are replaced by new species. Since the 1970s, a few scientists have advanced a theory called punctuated equilibrium to explain this pattern."

Was it you, or someone else, who stated PE wasn't there to explain "this pattern."

LOL. Basically, all you guys do is spin if you ask me. I am not saying you don't have any evidence. I am saying you use propoganda techniques to silence the opposition, an that alone makes me suspicious of all that evolutionists are saying.

PE is about the fossil record. But PE was derived from an application of Ernst Mayr's ideas which were based on observations of living populations of birds and strongly grounded in the facts of basic genetics and the expectations of the Modern Synthesis. Gould and Eldredge were among the first fossil guys to notice what naturalists and geneticists were saying had an obvious application to the fossil record and that it explained a great deal of what the fossil people were seeing. (It is probably not a coincidence that Gould TAed for Mayr.)

Why is this so hard for you to understand?

 

[ardipithecus]

Originally posted by Morat
I'd imagine that the problem is the media thinks science is done in National Geographic and Discover and press conferences.

And press releases written by PR people who don't understand the issues but like to hype things.

Example:

Carl Woese believes that after the first population of cells appeared that they diverged into three different groups that then underwent further evolution and became
the three domains of life observed today. He further thinks that along the way that these three groups exchanged genetic material: something that is, of course, observed to be happening today. This is fairly mainstream stuff.

This is what the PR guy wrote:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/06/020618072709.htm

There is no resemblance between the guy's actual views and what the PR guy wrote. An example of Woese's writings on the subject can be found at:

http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/95/12/6854

There is nothing in what the guy stands for that is even remotely anti-Darwinian unless one defines Darwinism in a narrow and cardboard fashion.