I guess this is the current state of creationism

[Profound Realization]

Ah no. You should have clicked on some of the links and looked at the evidence and explanations.


I'm fine with saying "I don't know" when we don't know. In this case, the evidence is clear. Evolution is reality. Macroevolution and microevolution involve the same processes, with the only difference between them being time.

I've already dissected the links, shown errors in members misconstruing so much regarding them into meaning or stating something they are not even close to stating. It's so easy for the human mind to twist just 2-3 words a link isn't even saying and trying to make a case for something.
In response, heckle heckle heckle. Too predictable.

Evolution is real, spoken well. I'm fine with you filling in alleged billions of years of time with _________________. Whatever your heart desires in the blanks because the processes are assumed the same when they are not. There is so much going against the mindless natural selection that you have no idea exists or would ever admit exists. It's honestly sad the lack of any intelligence/memory/decision making/cognitive function/abilities given to all of the species. There are so many currently unknown processes that you have no idea even exist. Processes that defy those elementary processes that you state, giving evidence in itself that they exist. Someone honest would have no issue admitting to these. Great "scientists" acknowledge this. I am good being patient, not filling in gaps, and stating to not know. I'm glad that you already know them all and have filled in all the gaps of time because "with time anything is possible" correct?

 

[SkepticThinker]

I've alreIt's ady dissected the links, shown errors in members misconstruing so much regarding them into meaning or stating something they are not even close to stating. It's so easy for the human mind to twist just 2-3 words a link isn't even saying and trying to make a case for something.
In response, heckle heckle heckle. Too predictable.

Yes, I saw how you quote mined from the linked articles. That is not an honest method of debate/discussion.

Evolution is real, spoken well. I'm fine with you filling in alleged billions of years of time with _________________. Whatever your heart desires in the blanks because the processes are assumed the same when they are not. There is so much going against the mindless natural selection that you have no idea exists or would ever admit exists. It's honestly sad the lack of any intelligence/memory/decision making/cognitive function/abilities given to all of the species. There are so many currently unknown processes that you have no idea even exist. Processes that defy those elementary processes that you state, giving evidence in itself that they exist. Someone honest would have no issue admitting to these. Great "scientists" acknowledge this. I am good being patient, not filling in gaps, and stating to not know. I'm glad that you already know them all and have filled in all the gaps of time because "with time anything is possible" correct?

I'm sorry to tell you, but the empirical evidence in regards to microevolution and macroevolution doesn't bear out your opinion.

 

[shunyadragon]

I'm 50 years old, which means I've seen how creationism has evolved (HAH) over the last several decades. I can remember elementary school in the 1970's where teaching Christianity and the Bible in a public school was just assumed and there was little if any controversy. I remember in 4th grade us doing a skit about a newspaper reporter doing interviews right before Noah's flood. I remember in middle school and high school us not covering evolution in science classes because (according to the teachers) it was "too controversial" and some of them specifically saying that since it contradicted the Bible, it was necessarily wrong. I even remember in high school a couple of mandatory assemblies where "scientific creationists" would give presentations on young-earth creationism and how "true science" supported it.

Curious, how old are you and where did you go to school?

As I was finishing up college the ID creationism movement was just beginning and by the time I started working it was getting a fair bit of interest from the media. Of course ID creationism died a quick death in the Dover, PA trial in 2005.

ID still struggles today on life support, blue smoke and mirrors, and unquestioned faith.

So over my lifetime, I've seen creationism go from overtly teaching "this is what the Bible says so it's true", to "the accounts in the Bible are scientifically supported", to "teach the controversy", to "complexity = a designer", to it's current state.

And what is its current state? Judging by the consistent theme I see from creationists in this and other forums, it seems to have been reduced to the rather simplistic argument of "challenge evolutionists to prove their claims to a 100% degree of certainty, and when they don't do that declare it to be a faith, no different than any other belief system".

That appears to be it. I've honestly not seen much of anything else from creationists in quite a while. I think we science advocates should take this as a positive development. This really is all they have left, which means the current declining trend is very likely to continue.

There are three directions Creationism is taking: (1) Old Earth Creationism is becoming more popular, because of the overwhelming evidence for an old earth and universe billions of years old. Fudging the Bible and science hedging on the lack of evidence for a Biblical flood remains a problem, (2) A fideist approach dodging all science and alternative explanations often believing that our physical existence and all the evidence was created as is like the Bible describes. With this are those that simply ignore the argument and believe. (3) The Intelligent Design movement, which continues to believe that scientific evidence for Biblical Creation is still possible.

Pretty much all the above believe that the Bible trumps scientific evidence.

 

[Jose Fly]

Very predictable your response... allege someone is a creationist when they're not. Whatever that means to you, I assume the taking of Genesis literally or something along those lines.

Yes, it shows evolutionary change ... changes occur within the same species...and any species...what is your point? I love evolution.

Actually, you didn't read your own links so don't call yourself stupid or dishonest.. I know you're not stupid. You seem to twist words around from a link and then tell someone else they're dishonest, doesn't mean you're stupid.

You said later in the link he states they have hundreds of complete transitions from one species to another. When in actuality he states they have dozens of complete histories for dozens of species. I think you severely mixed the 2 up and all that talk in your response for nothing.

Well this is rather awkward. On one hand we have you claiming that the article I posted only says they have fossils showing evidence of evolution within various species, but no evidence of the evolution of new species. But on the other hand, we have the actual article that includes this, ""The forams may not be representative of all organisms but, at least in this group, we can actually see how evolution happened," says Parker. "We can see transitions from one species to another. And that's a very rare observation."" And this, "What Arnold and Parker found is almost a textbook example of gradualism at work. We've literally seen hundreds of speciation events," syas Arnold. " And this, "The record reveals a robust, highly branched evolutionary tree, complete with Darwin's predicted "dead ends"--varieties that lead nowhere--and a profusion of variability in sizes and body shapes. Transitional forms between species are readily apparent, making it relatively easy to track ancestor species to their descendents. In short, the finding upholds Darwin's lifelong conviction that "nature does not proceed in leaps," but rather is a system prepetually unfolding in extreme slow motion.""

This presents me with a dilemma. Now what do I do? Do I give you the benefit of the doubt and figure that maybe you have a genuine reading comprehension problem? Or perhaps you're really only a 10 year old kid who's just trolling? Or maybe you're just the latest member of a long line of fundamentally dishonest internet creationists?

Whatever the situation, the end result is the same. Your claim about a lack of evidence for macroevolution is demonstrably false.

 

[Jose Fly]

Elaborate what is dishonest in quoting from a link FOR A RESPONSE to it, or what is dishonest in stating accurately what someone themselves said FOR A RESPONSE to it?

You tried to pull out a single quote from the foraminifera article to make it seem as if the data only showed evolution within species, when the article clearly stated the data shows the complete evolutionary history of an entire class/order of organisms including hundreds of speciation events, complete with ancestor-descendant relationships.

You tried to pull a single quote from the Theobald paper to make it seem as if the author was admitting that no one had formally tested universal common ancestry, when immediately after the author said that's what he was doing.

That's textbook quote mining. But it's not so much that you quote mined that gets me.....I've seen creationists do it countless times; it's that you tried to do it with my own sources. That requires a level of arrogance and lack of shame that's hard to describe. Or, I guess it could simply be that you are so ignorant in this subject matter that you had no idea what you were doing.

 

[Jose Fly]

@Profound Realization Congratulation! You have become the newest one for the choir to gang up on....

Your reasonable approach is lost on them.....they see nothing beyond their own pet theory.....which isn't a theory at all if you listen to them. I wonder why they bother to call anything a theory anymore? All the other theories have actual proof, so they can't really be classified as theories anymore, but by calling these proven things "theories" they hope you won't notice that the only one they can't prove is still there pretending to be a fact. It's a house of cards......built on matchsticks. The collapse is inevitable I believe......but you will never convince them until it happens.

All they have left is insults. Sad isn't it?

Creationists......they engage in ridiculously dishonest tactics and then cry like whipped pups when anyone calls them dishonest.

So transparent..........

 

[Jose Fly]

Dude, he quote-mined my own post and then tried to say that I was being misleading.

It's hard to believe until you see it for yourself, isn't it?

 

[Jose Fly]

Have you read the article?

Of course he hasn't......and he never will either.

 

[Jose Fly]

Curious, how old are you and where did you go to school?

I'm 50 and I grew up in west-central Ohio.

ID still struggles today on life support, blue smoke and mirrors, and unquestioned faith.

Oh it's dead....has been for quite some time.

There are three directions Creationism is taking: (1) Old Earth Creationism is becoming more popular, because of the overwhelming evidence for an old earth and universe billions of years old. Fudging the Bible and science hedging on the lack of evidence for a Biblical flood remains a problem, (2) A fideist approach dodging all science and alternative explanations often believing that our physical existence and all the evidence was created as is like the Bible describes. With this are those that simply ignore the argument and believe. (3) The Intelligent Design movement, which continues to believe that scientific evidence for Biblical Creation is still possible.

Pretty much all the above believe that the Bible trumps scientific evidence.

If you read through the article in THIS THREAD I started a while ago, the data seems to indicate that the biggest shift is religious folks moving to theistic evolution. Not a bad thing IMO.

 

[shunyadragon]

I'm 50 and I grew up in west-central Ohio.

Unfortunately it must have been a rural environment. I hope things have changed in West-Central Ohio. I am 71, and grew up in Maryland and Costa Rica, and my education was more enlightened as far as science goes.

Oh it's dead....has been for quite some time.

I never considered it a living belief, but it is a long contorted painful death.

If you read through the article in THIS THREAD I started a while ago, the data seems to indicate that the biggest shift is religious folks moving to theistic evolution. Not a bad thing IMO.

Not a bad thing. I hope the trend continues. Your still dealing with churches that are stanchly literal Creationists like the Jehovah Witnesses.

 

[SkepticThinker]

So you guys keep saying.....but we have no proof for that assertion from any scientist. Therefore it is an assumption, not a fact.

So lets see what you've got....?

You have been provided with a ton of EVIDENCE.

Scientific Brainwashing 101.

If you think open inquiry, data collection, testing, publishing, challenging and criticizing, the sharing of information, etc. equates to brainwashing, then I have to tell you that you don’t know what brainwashing is.

Here is a quote in conclusion of some nifty explanation about why science can't be entirely accurate.....

"It is extremely important to understand that despite the inherent tentativeness or uncertainty of scientific explanations (and perhaps to a lesser extent, descriptive "facts") SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE IS THE MOST RELIABLE KNOWLEDGE we can have about the NATURAL world and how it works. This is because scientists have developed a methodology for learning based on principles of CRITICAL THINKING that can enhance or increase greatly the reliability of scientific knowledge."


ENSI/SENSI Papers & Articles: Nature of Modern Science (M.Nickels)

So, what’s your problem with this statement?

Had you continued reading down the page, you’d have seen this:

“III. THE REAL "SCIENTIFIC METHOD": CRITICAL THINKING

A. Assumptions and current knowledge (even "facts") are subject to regular
REVIEW and RE-ASSESSMENT--especially in light of new evidence.

B. Ideally, scientific observations and/or experimental results require
INDEPENDENT DUPLICATION and confirmation by others in order to
gain credibility and acceptance.

C. Whenever possible, additional, INDEPENDENT DATA SETS are sought as
supportive or corroborative evidence for an explanation. (Such evidence
is termed CONCORDANT evidence.)

D. Scientific knowledge is PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE in that it is available for
scrutiny and study by anybody who cares to do so.

E. EXPERTISE in knowledge is highly regarded, but there is no reliance on,
or recourse to, any absolute authority to determine "the truth."

DANGER: BEWARE OF RELATIVISM!!

In the absence of certainty regarding the absolute truth of scientific explanations, scientists use COMPARATIVE CRITICAL THINKING to determine which explanation is MORE LIKELY TO BE CORRECT WHEN COMPARED TO THE ALTERNATIVES.

Such a comparative approach to evaluating knowledge enables one to avoid the pitfalls of "relativism" which is the view that any and all explanations are equally valid or worthy and that truth is merely a matter of opinion with there being no way for one to determine which opinion or explanation is more accurate, more likely to be correct, better supported and reasoned.

COMPARATIVE CRITICAL THINKING uses explicit CRITERIA (termed "epistemic" criteria) to evaluate the merits of one explanation compared to another. As already noted, ANY scientific explanation MUST deal only with empirical (natural) data but scientists consider one explanation BETTER than another the more it...

A. is consistent with known natural processes;
B. accounts for more data (especially separate, independent data sets);
C. has more reliable or greater predictive power;
D. accounts for previously unexplained or puzzling phenomena;
E. has fewer anomalies or exceptions left unexplained;
F. is simpler and less complicated (Occam's Razor); and
G. provides a fertile field for further research.

Since we can only compare the explanations (theories) we know about (or have thought of!) at a given point in time, we can never safely conclude that we have determined the one absolutely "best" or "true" explanation because we can never be certain that someone in the future won't develop a completely new theory that is even better than our "best" efforts today.

But by engaging in the comparative evaluation and assessment of alternative available explanations, modern science has developed a powerful and effective method for dealing with the uncertainty inherent in our scientific knowledge.

In at least one sense, the history of science is a record of our scientific efforts to REDUCE THE DEGREE OF UNCERTAINTY associated with our knowledge and understanding of how the natural world works and how it got to be the way that it is. In this sense then, by eliminating faulty or incorrect explanations, science can be said to "progress" and our confidence in some specific scientific knowledge indeed, in the entire scientific process--can increase.”


Notice that this isn’t about opinions, rather it’s about data and evidence collected from multiple sources, multiple fields of science, and multiple groups of independent researchers across the globe over a long period of time. All of this data converges on the same conclusion – that evolution is a reality. The evidence for the theory of evolution is just about as robust as it gets.

I don't think anyone can argue that science can explain a lot of things about how systems operate in nature....what they cannot do with any accuracy is tell us how life began and how we come to have all the species that share our planet today......all they can do with that is guess. The "evidence" conveniently fits their theory only because of the way they interpret it. The "methodology" developed by scientists is designed to lead the gullible down a very convoluted path IMO.

We’re not talking about abiogenesis right now. We’re talking about evolution.

If you read what I posted above, you would see that the scientific method was designed to remove as much bias as possible and to be self-correcting and open to any new evidence that comes along. It’s about data, not personal opinions and beliefs. Can you say the same for your religious beliefs? It is the scientific method that has given us all knowledge that we currently possess about the universe we live in. If you know a better way, please state it already.

So this is how dinosaurs evolved......based on what? A nice diagram substituting for real evidence?

No, that’s a simplified diagram for easy understanding. Scientists don’t just post pictures of ducks and make superficial assessments based on how pretty they think they are. That’s your department. Scientific research goes much deeper than that.


Birds: The Late Evolution of Dinosaurs
Herbivorous ecomorphology and specialization patterns in theropod dinosaur evolution
| Biology Letters
Morphological changes in pedal phalanges through ornithopod dinosaur evolution: A biomechanical approach

Did the beetle evolve from any of those dinosaurs, or is that reserved for chickens?

What?

According to one source.....

"Based on fossil evidence from Europe and Central Asia, the evolutionary lineages of all of the modern Coleoptera were established by the Jurassic (210–145 million years ago).


Amber secreted by conifers during the Jurassic suggests that these ancient trees were already under attack by wood-boring insects similar to modern bark beetles (Curculionidae). At least 60 beetle families have been found preserved in amber, most of which are attributable to tribes and genera that still occur to this day. Amber deposits with fossil intrusions formed in tropical forests and other ancient habitats are poorly represented in the fossil record."


The Evolution and Diversity of Beetles - Nature and Environment - MOTHER EARTH NEWS

And … ?

 

[Jose Fly]

Unfortunately it must have been a rural environment.

Yup....out in the cornfields.

I hope things have changed in West-Central Ohio. I am 71, and grew up in Maryland and Costa Rica, and my education was more enlightened as far as science goes.

It's hard for me to say, since I haven't been back there (other than short visits) since the mid 1990's.

I never considered it a living belief, but it is a long contorted painful death.

Well, it's entire purpose was to serve as a means to get creationist talking points into public schools, and once the Dover, PA verdict put an end to that, that was the death knell for ID creationism.

Not a bad thing. I hope the trend continues. Your still dealing with churches that are stanchly literal Creationists like the Jehovah Witnesses.

I agree. I think we'll always have certain religions that refuse to budge on this issue, but as time moves on their membership will continue to shrink.

 

[Profound Realization]

Well this is rather awkward. On one hand we have you claiming that the article I posted only says they have fossils showing evidence of evolution within various species, but no evidence of the evolution of new species. But on the other hand, we have the actual article that includes this, ""The forams may not be representative of all organisms but, at least in this group, we can actually see how evolution happened," says Parker. "We can see transitions from one species to another. And that's a very rare observation."" And this, "What Arnold and Parker found is almost a textbook example of gradualism at work. We've literally seen hundreds of speciation events," syas Arnold. " And this, "The record reveals a robust, highly branched evolutionary tree, complete with Darwin's predicted "dead ends"--varieties that lead nowhere--and a profusion of variability in sizes and body shapes. Transitional forms between species are readily apparent, making it relatively easy to track ancestor species to their descendents. In short, the finding upholds Darwin's lifelong conviction that "nature does not proceed in leaps," but rather is a system prepetually unfolding in extreme slow motion.""

This presents me with a dilemma. Now what do I do? Do I give you the benefit of the doubt and figure that maybe you have a genuine reading comprehension problem? Or perhaps you're really only a 10 year old kid who's just trolling? Or maybe you're just the latest member of a long line of fundamentally dishonest internet creationists?

Whatever the situation, the end result is the same. Your claim about a lack of evidence for macroevolution is demonstrably false.

Congratulations, all you've done is show ANAGENESIS, yet under the guise that you think that you are showing something much more than what it actually is.

Conversation over with the arrogant. Do nothing.

 

[Profound Realization]

You tried to pull out a single quote from the foraminifera article to make it seem as if the data only showed evolution within species, when the article clearly stated the data shows the complete evolutionary history of an entire class/order of organisms including hundreds of speciation events, complete with ancestor-descendant relationships.

You tried to pull a single quote from the Theobald paper to make it seem as if the author was admitting that no one had formally tested universal common ancestry, when immediately after the author said that's what he was doing.

That's textbook quote mining. But it's not so much that you quote mined that gets me.....I've seen creationists do it countless times; it's that you tried to do it with my own sources. That requires a level of arrogance and lack of shame that's hard to describe. Or, I guess it could simply be that you are so ignorant in this subject matter that you had no idea what you were doing.

Wrong... the entire link on the Foram has to do with Anagenesis. I'm sorry that you see catch words such as "speciation" and "transitional fossils" later in the link and think they mean something the article never even said. Maybe you could try to learn your own sources and learn what they mean rather than spin them off into something they're not down the road in the future short lived conversations of arrogance you will have with others. From the quote I pulled... it summed up the entire link. No need to go any further.

Wrong again... stated it give an example of what I perceived as an honest scientist... where this stuff arises in your imagination that I was intentionally making it seem otherwise I'm not sure.

Quite funny....everything you're trying to claim to me.... is essentially what you're the only one doing. Only you've added a high level of arrogance to your postings.

 

[jonathan180iq]

Assessing the role of cladogenesis in macroevolution by integrating fossil and molecular evidence

"Here we quantify the relative frequencies of cladogenesis and anagenesis for macroperforate planktic Foraminifera, which arguably have the most complete fossil record currently available, to address this question. Analyzing this record in light of molecular evidence, while taking into account the precision of fossil dating techniques, we estimate that the fraction of speciation events attributable to anagenesis is <19% during the Cenozoic era (last 65 Myr) and <10% during the Neogene period (last 23 Myr). Our central conclusion—that cladogenesis is the predominant mode by which new planktic Foraminifera taxa become established at macroevolutionary time scales—differs markedly from the conclusion reached in a recent study based solely on fossil data. These disparate findings demonstrate that interpretations of macroevolutionary dynamics in the fossil record can be fundamentally altered in light of genetic evidence."

 

[Jose Fly]

Congratulations, all you've done is show ANAGENESIS, yet under the guise that you think that you are showing something much more than what it actually is.

the entire link on the Foram has to do with Anagenesis. I'm sorry that you see catch words such as "speciation" and "transitional fossils" later in the link and think they mean something the article never even said.

Er.....um.......are you not aware that anagenesis is a mode of speciation? Basically, you're saying evidence of one type of speciation (anagenesis) is only evidence of evolution within a species. Not only that, but I provided direct statements from the researchers where they unequivocally stated that they had documented hundreds of examples of the evolution of new species. Were you hoping everyone would ignore or forget that?

So again, what am I to do here? Should I conclude that your ignorance of this subject is so deep that you simply have no idea how ridiculous the above is? Or should I conclude that you're desperately trying to save face from your previous dishonesty by doubling down and engaging in more dishonesty?

Wrong again... stated it give an example of what I perceived as an honest scientist.

Let's review. In response to your claim that macroevolution is a faith-based belief with no evidence, I cited Douglas Theobald's paper, A Formal Test of the Theory of Universal Common Ancestry.

You quoted the following from the abstract: "The classic evidence for UCA, although massive, is largely restricted to ‘local’ common ancestry—for example, of specific phyla rather than the entirety of life—and has yet to fully integrate the recent advances from modern phylogenetics and probability theory." Then you attempted to characterize that as Theobald honestly admitting that there was no "sound evidence" for UCA.

@sayak83 immediately spotted your dishonest selective quoting and pointed out how Theobald went on to explain how he had formally and statistically tested UCA and was presenting the results in the paper. I followed up by pointing out the same thing.

Now again, what are we to conclude here? Did you simply make an honest mistake and didn't understand what the paper was about and therefore had no idea what you had done? Or were you being deliberately dishonest?

So in both cases so far, we are left with a choice......is "Profound Realization" so ignorant of basic biology that he frequently makes fundamental errors but because of his ignorance doesn't realize it? Or is he just plain dishonest?

Quite funny....everything you're trying to claim to me.... is essentially what you're the only one doing.

Really? Where? Be specific. Show the post(s) in which I've either been dishonest or exhibited ignorance of basic biology.

 

[Profound Realization]

Assessing the role of cladogenesis in macroevolution by integrating fossil and molecular evidence

"Here we quantify the relative frequencies of cladogenesis and anagenesis for macroperforate planktic Foraminifera, which arguably have the most complete fossil record currently available, to address this question. Analyzing this record in light of molecular evidence, while taking into account the precision of fossil dating techniques, we estimate that the fraction of speciation events attributable to anagenesis is <19% during the Cenozoic era (last 65 Myr) and <10% during the Neogene period (last 23 Myr). Our central conclusion—that cladogenesis is the predominant mode by which new planktic Foraminifera taxa become established at macroevolutionary time scales—differs markedly from the conclusion reached in a recent study based solely on fossil data. These disparate findings demonstrate that interpretations of macroevolutionary dynamics in the fossil record can be fundamentally altered in light of genetic evidence."

Thank you Jonathon for simply posting something without the unnecessary arrogance.

You and I perceive things a bit different. It is arguable that there is little distinction between cladogenesis and anagenesis, and what exactly is "macro-evolution." This is the point of boundary where we are at. This is also the conclusion that the article makes. I can play your side and agree that in the context you're using of macro-evolution, that it does indeed appy to the peculiar Foram. It has an abundance of evolutionary changes and distinctions "over a decent period of time." To me, this is insufficient in how I perceive it, because at the end of the day from initial Foram to the very last Foram.... they are still all simply Forams. The article agrees with me when it says, "interpretations of macroevolutionary dynamics in the fossil record can be fundamentally altered in light of genetic evidence." The interpretations of "macro-evolution." We both interpret the dynamics differently. Being honest, depending on how we interpret the dynamics... we are both accurate in what we state. This is no different amongst honest scientists, they interpret things differently and are both accurate.

 

[Profound Realization]

Er.....um.......are you not aware that anagenesis is a mode of speciation? Basically, you're saying evidence of one type of speciation (anagenesis) is only evidence of evolution within a species.

So again, what am I to do here? Should I conclude that your ignorance of this subject is so deep that you simply have no idea how ridiculous the above is? Or should I conclude that you're desperately trying to save face from your previous dishonesty by doubling down and engaging in more dishonesty?


Let's review. In response to your claim that macroevolution is a faith-based belief with no evidence, I cited Douglas Theobald's paper, A Formal Test of the Theory of Universal Common Ancestry.

You quoted the following from the abstract: "The classic evidence for UCA, although massive, is largely restricted to ‘local’ common ancestry—for example, of specific phyla rather than the entirety of life—and has yet to fully integrate the recent advances from modern phylogenetics and probability theory." Then you attempted to characterize that as Theobald honestly admitting that there was no "sound evidence" for UCA.

@sayak83 immediately spotted your dishonest selective quoting and pointed out how Theobald went on to explain how he had formally and statistically tested UCA and was presenting the results in the paper. I followed up by pointing out the same thing.

Now again, what are we to conclude here? Did you simply make an honest mistake and didn't understand what the paper was about and therefore had no idea what you had done? Or were you being deliberately dishonest?

So in both cases so far, we are left with a choice......is "Profound Realization" so ignorant of basic biology that he frequently makes fundamental errors but because of his ignorance doesn't realize it? Or is he just plain dishonest?


Really? Where? Be specific. Show the post(s) in which I've either been dishonest or exhibited ignorance of basic biology.

Conclude what you will. Interpret things as you will. Twist and construe as you will. Use poor character and arrogance as you will. Behind all of those unreasonable tools you use that do nothing but cloud your own awareness, sound awareness would become seen. I can't do this for you, and I wish to no longer engage in this conversation. Take care, friend.

 

[Jose Fly]

Conclude what you will. Interpret things as you will. Twist and construe as you will. Use poor character and arrogance as you will. Behind all of those unreasonable tools you use that do nothing but cloud your own awareness, sound awareness would become seen. I can't do this for you, and I wish to no longer engage in this conversation. Take care, friend.

From this response I must conclude that: 1) You have no explanation for your documented quote mining, 2) you have no substantive response to the data in the papers you've been provided, and 3) you cannot back up your accusation against me.

FYI, people who level accusations against me and then when asked to back them up, run away.......they are not my friends.

 

[Profound Realization]

From this response I must conclude that: 1) You have no explanation for your documented quote mining, 2) you have no substantive response to the data in the papers you've been provided, and 3) you cannot back up your accusation against me.

FYI, people who level accusations against me and then when asked to back them up, run away.......they are not my friends.

Or just 1) I only wish to engage in conversations if they are with people of decent character, who simply reason about pure science and not reason using the redundant character attacks. Your conclusion is based on highly flawed principles. Sit upon your throne of pride.

You are a friend to me, regardless if I am not a friend to you. Everything was already explained, you were too busy reacting rather than reading carefully and responding to see.