The Scientific Method & Macroevolution?

[crjmurray]

Yes, school boards don't make laws, as whois has claim regarding laws being in place to force the teaching of evolution.

Just giving her the benefit of the doubt.

 

[Loudmouth]

yes i have.

Where did you look?

where oh where did i make such a post?

In every post where you claim that mutations can not happen in HOX genes.

from the link:
When you are at the Museum, check out the artwork on display by former NESCent artist-in-residence, Lynn Fellman. At the conference, look out for the NESCent/HHMI Evolution Film Festival on Saturday night — all of these mixers and receptions are included with registration.

i was talking about a serious, invite only, conference, not a "social" gathering.

So am I.

"This meeting is the premier annual opportunity for sharing scientific research related to evolution. This year, we have close to 2000 attendees from 38 countries, almost 1200 talks, and 450 posters."--Evolution 2014

Those are 1650 scientific presentations.

correct.
i do not use google.

Afraid of what you will find?

i have been, maybe you missed it.

Then why do you continue with the quote mines?

 

[whois]

You will get your answer, when I get mine, in regards to whois' claim that there are laws that force the teaching of evolution.

why do you keep bringing this up when i have clarified it twice already?

 

[sfs]

"letters to the editor" have no weight in regards to any kind of conclusion.

When the issue is the views of certain scientists, letters to the editor from those scientists about those views sure as heck do have weight -- a lot more weight than a reporter's recollection of a meeting.

also notice the semantics here.
i'm using conclusion, the word used in the article.
you keep using consensus.
you are correct, there was no consensus, but the conclusion was the process of microevolution cannot be applied to macroevolution.

How can a meeting reach a conclusion if many of the participants disagree vehemently? For that matter, scientific meetings don't generally conclusions -- how does a scientific meeting reach a conclusion?

i presented you with evidence in regards to "your experiment", evidence you have yet to answer.

I didn't do an experiment; I performed an analysis and wrote some words. Could you at least tell me what thread your evidence is in? I hope you don't mean your link to "Fitness Is Strongly Influenced by Rare Mutations of Large Effect in a Microbial Mutation Accumulation Experiment", since that has nothing to do with the evidence I presented, nor does it present any kind of argument against common descent.

 

[bhsmte]

why do you keep bringing this up when i have clarified it twice already?

You have clarified nothing.

You claim there were laws in existence forcing the teaching of evolution and never produced these laws, to support your claim. You even denied making this claim and then I showed you the post in which you did and then you back peddled again and never produced the laws.

Still waiting for you to support your claim, by producing the law(s).

Either produce the law, or retract your claim, it is simple.

 

[whois]

Then for my sake tell me where your evidence is, because I must have missed it (preferably without accusing me of lying again).

http://www.christianforums.com/t7867573-37/#post67263381

 

[whois]

The guy who supposedly said it, says he didn't say it. Gould doesn't get to decide what other people say. What's the title of the paper?

gould was at the conference and he would know whether ayala said what he said.
gould co authored the paper in question along with sepkoski.

i personally asked sepkoski why he would include the quote when he knew it was supposedly false and he refused to answer the question.
i also asked sepkoski to comment on my nature source and the primate fossil tree and he refused to answer that question as well.

so, believe what you will.

 

[whois]

In every post where you claim that mutations can not happen in HOX genes.

i never once said mutations can't happen in HOX genes.

 

[bhsmte]

so, believe what you will.

Going out on a limb here.

I am quite certain, many who have read your posts, have plenty to go on, to form their own personal perceptions.

 

[crjmurray]

gould was at the conference and he would know whether ayala said what he said.
gould co authored the paper in question along with sepkoski.

i personally asked sepkoski why he would include the quote when he knew it was supposedly false and he refused to answer the question.
i also asked sepkoski to comment on my nature source and the primate fossil tree and he refused to answer that question as well.

so, believe what you will.

Dr Ayala would know what he said. On one hand, I've got the guy who the quote is attributed to. He says he didn't say it. On the other hand, you have a second hand source quoting him. Do you think those are equal?

Also, don't forget to address the question of fraud concerning horse evolution. You haven't answered that.

 

[whois]

You have clarified nothing.

anyone that searches my posts will see that i have.
accuse me again of not clarifying this situation and i will report you.

 

[whois]

Dr Ayala would know what he said. On one hand, I've got the guy who the quote is attributed to. He says he didn't say it. On the other hand, you have a second hand source quoting him. Do you think those are equal?

Also, don't forget to address the question of fraud concerning horse evolution. You haven't answered that.

and i've got the guy that was there at the conference.

read my post about the horses, k?

 

[crjmurray]

and i've got the guy that was there at the conference.

read my post about the horses, k?

I have. Rensberger never claims fraud.

 

[bhsmte]

and i've got the guy that was there at the conference.

Since when is a secondary source, better than the primary source, the quote is attributed to, when it comes to clarification?

read my post about the horses, k?

We did, you claimed "fraud". Could you point out where your source claimed "fraud"?

 

[Mr Strawberry]

anyone that searches my posts will see that i have.
accuse me again of not clarifying this situation and i will report you.

You know, if you report people for getting frustrated with your tactics as often as you claim then the moderators will start thinking the problem might be you and not the people you report.

 

[crjmurray]

and i've got the guy that was there at the conference.

read my post about the horses, k?

......and I have the guy that supposedly said it. How is this not getting through? I'm not referencing some third party that wasn't there. I'm referencing the guy the fake quote comes from.

 

[bhsmte]

You know, if you report people for getting frustrated with your tactics as often as you claim then the moderators will start thinking the problem might be you and not the people you report.

Agree.

And, I thought it was against forum rules, to threaten to report someone.

 

[whois]

You know, if you report people for getting frustrated with your tactics as often as you claim then the moderators will start wondering if the problem is you and not the people you report.

i cannot help if these people refuse to read my posts.
but for them to refuse to read them and continually insist i haven't posted this or that is called what exactly?
they can search my posts as well as i can.

 

[sfs]

http://www.christianforums.com/t7867573-37/#post67263381

Sorry, that link doesn't work for me. Was it the mutation accumulation you cited?

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

http://www.christianforums.com/t7867573-37/#post67263381

Awhile back I saw that too, and a few second ago this:

.... has nothing to do with the evidence I presented, nor does it present any kind of argument against common descent.