 | | The Fake Fossil (Was: Problems with Darwin's theory) —Jeremy H. Sproat
|
| | | (...) Sorry -- I wasn't aiming that one at anyone specifically -- just hoping for some colattoral damage. An old nasty habit. :-, (...) Wow, chilly. Touche. OK, I thought that since you were familiar with the first Geographic article ("Feathered (...) (23 years ago, 2-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: The Fake Fossil (Was: Problems with Darwin's theory) —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | (...) Fakes happen. Defaking stuff is fun, as Bruce alludes to. Investigating why people do fakes is interesting. But the question is not whether a particular observation is faked. The question, rather, is whether there the preponderance of evidence (...) (23 years ago, 2-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: The Fake Fossil (Was: Problems with Darwin's theory) —Bruce Schlickbernd
|
| | | | | | | (...) Kinda throws things into confusion, but it also reminds everyone to be wary. (...) Pretty much. If they want to seize on the small number of fakes, they'll have to answer to the large number of fake faith healers as a disproof of God. I don't (...) (23 years ago, 2-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: The Fake Fossil (Was: Problems with Darwin's theory) —Lindsay Frederick Braun
|
| | | | | | | | (...) How is Larry's viewpoint necessarily Libertarian? Libertarians can espouse good science, but espousing good science (and freedom) is not necessarily Libertarian (though it can't hurt). :) best LFB (23 years ago, 2-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: The Fake Fossil (Was: Problems with Darwin's theory) —Bruce Schlickbernd
|
| | | | | | | | (...) I'm making the jump that this would not be an issue under Libertarian non-government schools. We'd have a bunch of scientific morons in the Creationist schools, which is why I say on the theoritical level. You are correct in my estimation that (...) (23 years ago, 2-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: The Fake Fossil (Was: Problems with Darwin's theory) —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | | | Bruce and Lindsay are both right. (...) Agreed. Although I would argue that it's more likely in some systems than others... (c.f. the wacky trait inheritance theories popular in the SovUnion under Stalin which were there to please him, supposedly) (...) (23 years ago, 2-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: The Fake Fossil (Was: Problems with Darwin's theory) —Lindsay Frederick Braun
|
| | | | | | | (...) It tells one a lot about the scientific profession--and academia in general--when things like that happen. Thanks to Jeremy for providing the cites; I read both the "original" and the followup in National Geographic. As in religion, vanity can (...) (23 years ago, 2-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: The Fake Fossil (Was: Problems with Darwin's theory) —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | | | (...) Dave! (23 years ago, 2-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: The Fake Fossil (Was: Problems with Darwin's theory) —Lindsay Frederick Braun
|
| | | | | | (...) When chicken fingers are outlawed, only outlaws will have chicken fingers. "Have you registered that chicken finger?" And, possibly, chickens--but only after a backwards evolutionary step (possibly forwards in their case, considering how well (...) (23 years ago, 6-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | Re: The Fake Fossil (Was: Problems with Darwin's theory) —Bruce Schlickbernd
|
| | | | | My God! Someone actually noted a source! Miracles do happen! :-) My wife has been on a anti-packrat campaign of late (me) and has been tossing my National Geographics when the new one comes in, whether I've read it or not. I'll have to go back and (...) (23 years ago, 2-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Re: The Fake Fossil (Was: Problems with Darwin's theory) —Jeremy H. Sproat
|
| | | | (...) Actually, yep. I should've listened to my insticts more. After corresponding with Bruce, it's now clear that the article he was referring to was in the July 1998 National Geographic, pp. 74-99. A great article, lots of great side articles, it (...) (23 years ago, 2-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
