CTD, I see you are at it again.
CTD in message #256008
It's encouraging to think I may be doing something worthwhile & not just vainly pursuing an obsession to attack every lie I encounter.
But has no qualms at all about posting falsehood after falsehood. Before you know what is a lie you need to know what is the truth. Engaging in personal fantasy about what you have done again?
I directly engaged the slanderous statement & all subsequent attempts to alter it or otherwise obfuscate the issues. Rather than being man enough to retract the lie, RAZD has chosen to mount an incompetent campaign of disinformation.
You completely avoided the issue and the evidence that shows that Harum Yahya did in fact misrepresent PE. Of course the actual words of Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge that actually show that they
did not say PE was NOT due to evolution, that they
did not say that PE was due to sudden large changes, both items claimed in the quote text from Harun Yahya, somehow seems to be missed in all your "direct engagement" on this matter.
And you can NOT equivocate their other articles, some of which are
speculative (the gill arch becoming a jaw bone due to epigenetic effects), as it is clear that Harun Yahya was talking about PE and PE alone. Let me provide you with a fuller quote from the misinformation posted on Harun Yahya's website:
http://www.harunyahya.com/refuted7.php[color:"brown"]The Invalidity of Punctuated Equilibrium[/color]
That's the title, so we are talking about PE, and not evolution in general.
This model began to be vigorously promoted at the start of the 1970s by the paleontologists Stephen Jay Gould of Harvard University and Niles Eldredge of the American Museum of Natural History. They summarized the evidence presented by the fossil record as revealing two basic characteristics:
[color:"white"].[/color]
1. Stasis
[color:"white"].[/color]
2. Sudden appearance 172
[color:"white"].[/color]
In order to explain these two facts within the theory of evolution, Gould and Eldredge proposed that living species came about not through a series of small changes, as Darwin had maintained, but by sudden, large ones.
[color:"white"].[/color]
This theory was actually a modified form of the "Hopeful Monster" theory put forward by the German paleontologist Otto Schindewolf in the 1930s.
The reference in the quote is :172 Stephen Jay Gould, "
Evolution's Erratic Pace," Natural History, vol. 86, May 1977, p. 14 (you may want to go to the original source and check it and the context ...).
So we are definitely talking about PE and Harun Yahya is definitely saying that PE involves sudden large changes of a "hopeful monster" kind -- much larger than the color of caterpillars or the size of bacteria -- the
exact kind of misrepresentation that both Gould and Edridge are ON RECORD as saying is a false representation. That they have said so vigorously and continually is a matter of record, that they did so over 20 years ago means that to claim otherwise today is either to knowingly claim a falsehood, or to display a total lack of desire to find the truth, neither of which are characteristics one would look for from a source when looking for the truth, but the characteristics that are typical of sites that are untrustworthy and questionable ...
at best.
And just for the record, what is the "slanderous statement?" From message #255793:
This is a falsehood. Neither Gould nor Eldredge said any such thing. The main criticism that Dawkin's has of "punkeek" is that it happens so slowely and so gradually in the "punk" sections that it is not really significantly different from the "stasis" sections.
This is exactly the kind of thing that makes sites like this questionable -- or should I be less polite and say full of gross errors and misrepresentations? Certainly it is easy to ascertain the truth of his claim by actually reading Gould and Eldredge, and seeing that they say no such thing. It is fairly easy to find information on what they actually proposed. I have so tested it and found him wanting.
Curiously CTD has not in any way demonstrated that this is a slanderous statement -- it is in fact full of gross error and mistrepresentation, it is in fact a falsehood to claim that this is what Gould and Eldredge claimed -- and saying what is TRUE is not, by definition,
slanderous.
On the other hand CTD's constant misrepresentation of my posts as deceptive, dishonest, disinformation, and slanderous
is ... but it amuses me that the only way he can argue against the facts is to attack the messenger. It also amuses me when a person's most telling argument is conveyed by the use of "smileys" (I don't use cartoon's to argue my case).
Even if it were true, (best case for you two) that HY wouldn't call a macromutation a macromutation, RAZD's actual accusation would still be false! You'd like folks to forget that, but I'd like for both of you to demonstrate just how arrogant you really are. To that end, I have so far continued to post.
Typical CTD red herring argument. Harun Yahya's claim was that the Gould and Eldredge PE theory "proposed that living species came about not through a series of small changes, as Darwin had maintained, but by sudden, large ones," and the question remains whether Harun Yahya would call the change in color of a caterpillar or the size of a bacterium "sudden, large" changes (as Gould did in two references provided). Personally I doubt it, as I don't think he would argue that these cannot happen, while he does argue that:
... For instance, according to this theory, a species of reptile survives for millions of years, undergoing no changes. But one small group of reptiles somehow leaves this species and undergoes a series of major mutations, the reason for which is not made clear. Those mutations which are advantageous quickly take root in this restricted group. The group evolves rapidly, and in a short time turns into another species of reptile, or even a mammal. ...
[color:"white"].[/color]
However, both of these hypotheses are clearly at odds with scientific knowledge.
[color:"white"].[/color]
The Misconception About Macromutations
[color:"white"].[/color]
The first hypothesis-that macromutations occur in large numbers, making the emergence of new species possible-conflicts with known facts of genetics.
Personally I don't think he would argue that macromutations cannot occur if he thought the changes noted by Gould as "sudden, large" changes were of that level. Of course I don't put words in other people's mouths like CTD often does (Darwin?), and what I said was:
RAZD, message #255823:
Somehow I don't think size differences in Escherichia coli (a common intestinal bacterium) are what Harum Yahya is talking about, or what you think of as "large" or "rapid" macroevolution. In addition, from your link of Gould on Goldschmidt:
[color:"white"].[/color]
{quote re caterpillar color change}
[color:"white"].[/color]
Somehow I don't think that qualifies as what you or Harun Yahya were thinking either.
Now it is
remotely possible that Harun Yahya meant that "large, sudden" change includes the size change in
Escherichia coli and the color change in
Lymantria dispar caterpillars, and that this would be enough to change a reptile into "another species of reptile, or even a mammal" ... I just doubt that this is the case. You like to use bold to emphasis points you think your opposition is ignoring:
The fact remains, the statement quoted from Harun Yahya's website about PE has been demonstrated to be false and it has been shown to be misleading, it displays the kind of gross errors that are easily checked against the original resources, and it is the kind of misinformation that makes the site untrustworthy and questionable as a source of truth, especially when it has been shown to be false for over 20 years.The only way such dusty old falsehoods can be posted, is for the people posting them to use questionable sources themselves and to
fail to check the validity of the claims before including them, or for the poster to intentionally repeat them to deceive the gullible willing believers that don't check their sources (I'll leave out the possible stupidity and ignorance) ... or they are deluded into thinking it is the truth, and that they don't need to check the validity of the statements.
Dawkins:
Ignorance Is No Crime"It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that)." I first wrote that in a book review in the New York Times in 1989, and it has been much quoted against me ever since, as evidence of my arrogance and intolerance. Of course it sounds arrogant, but undisguised clarity is easily mistaken for arrogance. Examine the statement carefully and it turns out to be moderate, almost self-evidently true.
[color:"white"].[/color]
...
[color:"white"].[/color]
I don't withdraw a word of my initial statement. But I do now think it may have been incomplete. There is perhaps a fifth category, which may belong under "insane" but which can be more sympathetically characterized by a word like tormented, bullied, or brainwashed. Sincere people who are not ignorant, not stupid, and not wicked can be cruelly torn, almost in two, between the massive evidence of science on the one hand, and their understanding of what their holy book tells them on the other.
Interesting reading. Couple it with what we know about cognitive dissonance and delusion (false belief strongly held in spite of invalidating evidence, especially as a symptom of mental illness) we can see where this fifth category falls. Believing something to be true does not make it so. Posting what you
believe to be true is not sufficient grounds to claim it is true.
Can anyone think of another reason to post 20+ year old falsehoods?
Can anyone think of a reason why a website that does so can be trusted?
Enjoy.
[color:"green"]
Note: my time is limited, so I only choose threads of particular interest to me and I cannot guarantee a reply to all responses (particularly if they do not discuss the issue/s),
and I expect other people to do the same. Thank you for your consideration.[/color]
Circle-of-Life Forums - Welcome
