What's wrong with evolution?

Originally posted by KellyJay
Yep, as everyone does.
Kelly

No, some of us don't.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
No, some of us don't.

Really, you don't look for things that back up what you believe is true?
You are above that?
Kelly

Originally posted by scottishinnz
...if only you could remember it.

Are you getting alzheimers perhaps?

Taking up ole howardgee methods of debate I see, you are
evolving into something new every day, how sad you choose
that path.
Kelly

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
It's mostly the contention of allowing natural selection to stand on its own. Those who claim that NS is what brought us to this point are stymied in providing what brought NS to this point. NS dangles in mid-air, a process that acts as a force, but yet is not a force. A force can be described in formulaic terms; a process is not thusly constrained, ope ...[text shortened]... nipulations by whomever for whatever purpose. It is the scientific equivalent to "Godunnit."

Read about the Hardy-Weinberg equation.
http://home.comcast.net/~john.kimball1/BiologyPages/H/Hardy_Weinberg.html

Originally posted by KellyJay
Really, you don't look for things that back up what you believe is true?
You are above that?
Kelly

Looking for evidence that supports a hypothesis and ignoring evidence that contradicts it is utterly in opposition to the Scientific Method. Doing so invalidates any conclusions you reach and anyone in the pursuit of truth (rather than the pursuit of the "right" answer) would be doing themselves and others a disservice.

Now I haven't seen any of Scott's research but I'm willing to bet he follows the Scientific Method which means he doesn't look for only the evidence that backs his hypothesis.

Originally posted by KellyJay
Really, you don't look for things that back up what you believe is true?
You are above that?
Kelly

When it comes to science, I take the evidence as it is. I do not ignore relevent evidence, (as theists must do to make their worldview make sense) because the peer review process would, rightly, shoot me down on it.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
It's mostly the contention of allowing natural selection to stand on its own. Those who claim that NS is what brought us to this point are stymied in providing what brought NS to this point. NS dangles in mid-air, a process that acts as a force, but yet is not a force. A force can be described in formulaic terms; a process is not thusly constrained, ope ...[text shortened]... nipulations by whomever for whatever purpose. It is the scientific equivalent to "Godunnit."

NATURAL SELECTION IS MERELY DIFFERENTIAL BIRTH, REPRODUCTION AND DEATH. This alters the frequency of genes within the population. If a mutant gene comes into the population that is "better" than the prevalent gene, then the mutant gene will come to replace the original gene.

What don't you understand about this?

Originally posted by scottishinnz
I do not ignore relevent evidence, (as theists must do to make their worldview make sense) because the peer review process would, rightly, shoot me down on it.

Surely that's not the reason you refrain from ignoring evidence. (God and Jesus help us if it is!)

Your fear of peer review is misplaced. You would do better to worry about being rejected for use of imprecise language, such as misusing the conjunction 'because'.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
Surely that's not the reason you refrain from ignoring evidence. (God and Jesus help us if it is!)

Your fear of peer review is misplaced. You would do better to worry about being rejected for use of imprecise language, such as misusing the conjunction 'because'.

You've obviously never published a scientific paper.


[edit; there is, of course, also the point that I WANT to get the right answer. It would be wrong of me to try and falsify my data collection - although it does happen in science occassionally. These tend to be big scandals.]

Originally posted by scottishinnz
You've obviously never published a scientific paper.

I've published plenty, and they were all written in a manner that precisely expressed what I intended. As a matter of fact, I've never had a paper rejected in the peer review process, no doubt owing at least to some degree to the fact that I don't just use the first conjunction that comes to mind when I have two related ideas at hand.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
...I've never had a paper rejected in the peer review process....

Yeah, right. Then you've never published in a decent journal.

Originally posted by mrstabby
Read about the Hardy-Weinberg equation.
http://home.comcast.net/~john.kimball1/BiologyPages/H/Hardy_Weinberg.html

An interesting link that highlights statistics, not a formula which describes NS. By the way, it is not an equation. The Hardy-Weinberg Equilibrim is considered a "law." I place the quotations around the word, as it is a law which "may fail to apply" in five certain circumstances:
* mutation
* gene flow
* genetic drift
* nonrandom mating
* natural selection

Not so ironclad, it appears. Especially where one may need it the most for the argument to be satisfactory.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
An interesting link that highlights statistics, not a formula which describes NS. By the way, it is not an equation. The Hardy-Weinberg Equilibrim is considered a "law." I place the quotations around the word, as it is a law which "may fail to apply" in five certain circumstances:
* mutation
* gene flow
* genetic drift
* nonrandom ma ...[text shortened]... it appears. Especially where one may need it the most for the argument to be satisfactory.

Newton's Laws of Motion fail to apply:

* At very high speeds
* Under extreme gravitational fields
* With extremely small masses
* With extremely large masses

And yet they are still laws.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Yeah, right. Then you've never published in a decent journal.

Then you must not hold IEEE, "the world's leading professional association for the advancement of technology," in very high esteem. My work has been published in several of their journals. I have also served as a referee for said journals, keeping out authors who don't know how to use elementary terms such as 'because' in a manner consistent with convention.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
Then you must not hold IEEE, "the world's leading professional association for the advancement of technology," in very high esteem. My work has been published in several of their journals. I have also served as a referee for said journals, keeping out authors who don't know how to use elementary terms such as 'because' in a manner consistent with convention.

And you reckon you've never had an article rejected?

For comparison, New Phytologist (plant science research journal) rejects around 90% of papers outright, before they get to the review stage. Annals of Botany rejects 75% outright.

Many good papers get rejected for no other reason than the journals I noted are massively oversubscribed. I have NEVER met a scientist that would make the claim that you have.

Oh, and I do tend to use better grammer when I am sober, than when I am drunk.