Oh look, more "science" falls by the wayside..unethical study

[westwall]

Westwall and Drock continue to insist that what they KNOW is irrefutable, DESPITE the lack of evidence.

Wrong. We KNOW very little (comparatively), that's why we are allways looking. I have just shown you how every year we are presented with new facts that challenge the paradigm. Why do you insist on ignoring what I post? I have also posted evidence as has Loki that refutes your contention and you CHOOSE to ignore it. I am not responsible for your close mindedness. That's all on you.

What's truly sad is we are both creationists. I just understand that nature takes a lot longer to work her magic. You "believe" that God did everything in a few days, I "believe" that it took a hell of a lot longer. You remind me of the Albigensians who were hunted down and killed by the Spanish Inquisition because they argued about how many Angels could dance on the head of a pin. Imagine that. Entire regions of southern France were exterminated over that pithy a reason. That is the type of closed mindedness you are exibiting now.

There are several things I appreciate in your post, and agree with, but in the context of this thread, let me comment on the persecution of those one does not agree with.

That is exactly the case in the fields of science that deal with evolution. And, to some degree you can see it in this thread...present company excepted.

This scientist was subjected to, in Justice Thomas' words, a modern high-tech lynching.

Long, but worth reading:
I'll bold some parts in case you don't have the time.

a. “ Richard Sternberg, a research associate at the Smithsonian's National Museum of Natural History in Washington. The holder of two Ph.D.s in biology, Mr. Sternberg was until recently the managing editor of a nominally independent journal published at the museum, Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, where he exercised final editorial authority. The August issue …included an atypical article, "The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories." Here was trouble.

b. …the first peer-reviewed article to appear in a technical biology journal laying out the evidential case for Intelligent Design. According to ID theory, certain features of living organisms …are better explained by an unspecified designing intelligence than by an undirected natural process like random mutation and natural selection.

c. Mr. Sternberg's … future as a researcher is in jeopardy …He has been penalized by the museum's Department of Zoology, his religious and political beliefs questioned…. "I'm spending my time trying to figure out how to salvage a scientific career."

d. Stephen Meyer, who holds a Cambridge University doctorate in the philosophy of biology. In the article, he cites biologists and paleontologists critical of certain aspects of Darwinism -- mainstream scientists at places like the University of Chicago, Yale, Cambridge and Oxford.

e. He points, for example, to the Cambrian explosion 530 million years ago, when between 19 and 34 animal phyla (body plans) sprang into existence. He argues that, relying on only the Darwinian mechanism, there was not enough time for the necessary genetic "information" to be generated. ID, he believes, offers a better explanation.

f. …it was indeed subject to peer review, the gold standard of academic science. Not that such review saved Mr. Sternberg from infamy. Soon after the article appeared, Hans Sues -- the museum's No. 2 senior scientist -- denounced it to colleagues and then sent a widely forwarded e-mail calling it "unscientific garbage." the chairman of the Zoology Department, Jonathan Coddington, called Mr. Sternberg's supervisor. According to Mr. Sternberg's OSC complaint: "First, he asked whether Sternberg was a religious fundamentalist. She told him no. Coddington then asked if Sternberg was affiliated with or belonged to any religious organization....He then asked where Sternberg stood politically; ...he asked, 'Is he a right-winger? What is his political affiliation?'" The supervisor (who did not return my phone messages) recounted the conversation to Mr. Sternberg, who also quotes her observing: "There are Christians here, but they keep their heads down."

g. Worries about being perceived as "religious" spread at the museum. One curator, who generally confirmed the conversation when I spoke to him, told Mr. Sternberg about a gathering where he offered a Jewish prayer for a colleague about to retire. The curator fretted: "So now they're going to think that I'm a religious person, and that's not a good thing at the museum."

h. The Biological Society of Washington released a vaguely ecclesiastical statement regretting its association with the article. It did not address its arguments but denied its orthodoxy, citing a resolution of the American Association for the Advancement of Science that defined ID as, by its very nature, unscientific.

i. Critics of ID have long argued that the theory was unscientific because it had not been put forward in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. Now that it has, they argue that it shouldn't have been because it's unscientific. They banish certain ideas from certain venues as if by holy writ, and brand heretics too. In any case, the heretic here is Mr. Meyer, a fellow at Seattle's Discovery Institute, not Mr. Sternberg, who isn't himself an advocate of Intelligent Design.

j. Darwinism, by contrast, is an essential ingredient in secularism, that aggressive, quasi-religious faith without a deity. The Sternberg case seems, in many ways, an instance of one religion persecuting a rival, demanding loyalty from anyone who enters one of its churches -- like the National Museum of Natural History.” The Branding of a Heretic - WSJ.com

His example is exactly what I am speaking of and abhor. Any time a scientist is persecuted or attacked for a unwillingness to toe the party line it is wrong... from whichever side of the aisle you're on. Witness the persecution of meteorologists and climatologists who don't agree with AGW.

That's why extreme views on either side are in my opinion wrong. God, were He to exist would not be an extremist. God would be a builder (He did after all supposedly create the universe) he would appreciate the builders of this world. He would revile the destroyers.

 

[westwall]

Ahem.

From the "fucking paper":

"I propose that most or all major evolutionary transitions that show the "explosive" pattern of emergence of new types of biological entities correspond to a boundary between two qualitatively distinct evolutionary phases. The first, inflationary phase is characterized by extremely rapid evolution driven by various processes of genetic information exchange . . . In the second phase, evolution dramatically slows down, the respective process of genetic information exchange tapers off, and multiple lineages of the new type of entities emerge, each of them evolving in a tree-like fashion from that point on."

(Emphasis added.) Loki is clearly right here. The paper DOES NOT argue against gradual evolution happening. What it does do, is posit that more rapid periods of evolution ALSO happen, and offers an explanation as to why.

"Punctuated Equilibrium" I think it is called.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Ahem.

From the "fucking paper":

"I propose that most or all major evolutionary transitions that show the "explosive" pattern of emergence of new types of biological entities correspond to a boundary between two qualitatively distinct evolutionary phases. The first, inflationary phase is characterized by extremely rapid evolution driven by various processes of genetic information exchange . . . In the second phase, evolution dramatically slows down, the respective process of genetic information exchange tapers off, and multiple lineages of the new type of entities emerge, each of them evolving in a tree-like fashion from that point on."

(Emphasis added.) Loki is clearly right here. The paper DOES NOT argue against gradual evolution happening. What it does do, is posit that more rapid periods of evolution ALSO happen, and offers an explanation as to why.

So.....you boyz are admitting that Koonin noted sudden appearance of new species?

Yes?

Dog bones all around!

Now, let's see the damage that you've done:

There are long eras in which nothing happens: no indicia of ‘evolution.’ Then, suddenly…observable changes! Now get this: a detailed and continuous record of transition between species is missing. Those neat sedimentary layers never revealing precisely the phenomena that Darwin proposed to explain.

a. David B. Kitts, evolutionist and paleontologist,: "Despite the bright promise that paleontology provides a means of 'seeing' evolution, it has presented some nasty difficulties for evolutionists the most notorious of which is the presence of 'gaps' in the fossil record. Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them." (“Evolution, 28:467)

Now that you have admitted exactly what I said Koonin testified to, whether or not there are "multiple lineages of the new type of entities emerge, each of them evolving in a tree-like fashion from that point on,"...

...then Darwin's theory is disproved...

...and the appearance of new species, in 'a tree-like fashion' or any other pattern is just as much proof of ID as your view of evolution.


2. Robert L. Carroll, vertebrate paleontologist who specialises in Paleozoic and Mesozoicamphibians and reptiles, in “Vertebrate Paleontology and Evolution,” states that “most of the fossil record does not support a strictly gradualistic account” of evolution. Hmmm….doesn’t seem to help Darwin’s theory, eh?

a. Although Darwin depicted natural selection as a force “daily and hourly scrutinizing” the biological world, doesn’t it seem that that description would equally designate the activities of the Holy Spirit?

b. Steven J. Gould said: "In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and fully formed." (Natural History, 86:12-16) Now, whose theory would his support, Darwinists, or creationists?

3. . More?
“Paleontologists have paid an enormous price for Darwin’s argument. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life’s history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we almost never see the very process we profess to study. …The history of most fossil species includes two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism: 1. Stasis. Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and directionless. 2. Sudden appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and ‘fully formed.’” (Gould, Stephen J. The Panda’s Thumb, 1980, p. 181-182.).'" (Gould, Stephen J. The Panda's Thumb, 1980, p. 181-182)


So, let's review. The view of Koonin, in the posted quote, and the others, above, find that species, for the most part, appear at once and fully formed.
This is contrary to Darwin's gradual and continuous evolution theory.
Again....species do not evolve, they appear.

This is most significant when one considers the constellation of abilities of human being.

Now....how to explain that?
I can help.

 

[koshergrl]

And just an aside with regard to the timeline of such things....the appearance of "mitochondrial eve" threw a HUGE wrench in the works when it came to dating mankind. If we can't accurately determine the age of MAN, I'd say those who hoot at people for doubting the age determinations promoted by assorted "scholars" for various and assorted things are on very thin ice...

 

[PoliticalChic]

Wrong. We KNOW very little (comparatively), that's why we are allways looking. I have just shown you how every year we are presented with new facts that challenge the paradigm. Why do you insist on ignoring what I post? I have also posted evidence as has Loki that refutes your contention and you CHOOSE to ignore it. I am not responsible for your close mindedness. That's all on you.

What's truly sad is we are both creationists. I just understand that nature takes a lot longer to work her magic. You "believe" that God did everything in a few days, I "believe" that it took a hell of a lot longer. You remind me of the Albigensians who were hunted down and killed by the Spanish Inquisition because they argued about how many Angels could dance on the head of a pin. Imagine that. Entire regions of southern France were exterminated over that pithy a reason. That is the type of closed mindedness you are exibiting now.

There are several things I appreciate in your post, and agree with, but in the context of this thread, let me comment on the persecution of those one does not agree with.

That is exactly the case in the fields of science that deal with evolution. And, to some degree you can see it in this thread...present company excepted.

This scientist was subjected to, in Justice Thomas' words, a modern high-tech lynching.

Long, but worth reading:
I'll bold some parts in case you don't have the time.

a. “ Richard Sternberg, a research associate at the Smithsonian's National Museum of Natural History in Washington. The holder of two Ph.D.s in biology, Mr. Sternberg was until recently the managing editor of a nominally independent journal published at the museum, Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, where he exercised final editorial authority. The August issue …included an atypical article, "The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories." Here was trouble.

b. …the first peer-reviewed article to appear in a technical biology journal laying out the evidential case for Intelligent Design. According to ID theory, certain features of living organisms …are better explained by an unspecified designing intelligence than by an undirected natural process like random mutation and natural selection.

c. Mr. Sternberg's … future as a researcher is in jeopardy …He has been penalized by the museum's Department of Zoology, his religious and political beliefs questioned…. "I'm spending my time trying to figure out how to salvage a scientific career."

d. Stephen Meyer, who holds a Cambridge University doctorate in the philosophy of biology. In the article, he cites biologists and paleontologists critical of certain aspects of Darwinism -- mainstream scientists at places like the University of Chicago, Yale, Cambridge and Oxford.

e. He points, for example, to the Cambrian explosion 530 million years ago, when between 19 and 34 animal phyla (body plans) sprang into existence. He argues that, relying on only the Darwinian mechanism, there was not enough time for the necessary genetic "information" to be generated. ID, he believes, offers a better explanation.

f. …it was indeed subject to peer review, the gold standard of academic science. Not that such review saved Mr. Sternberg from infamy. Soon after the article appeared, Hans Sues -- the museum's No. 2 senior scientist -- denounced it to colleagues and then sent a widely forwarded e-mail calling it "unscientific garbage." the chairman of the Zoology Department, Jonathan Coddington, called Mr. Sternberg's supervisor. According to Mr. Sternberg's OSC complaint: "First, he asked whether Sternberg was a religious fundamentalist. She told him no. Coddington then asked if Sternberg was affiliated with or belonged to any religious organization....He then asked where Sternberg stood politically; ...he asked, 'Is he a right-winger? What is his political affiliation?'" The supervisor (who did not return my phone messages) recounted the conversation to Mr. Sternberg, who also quotes her observing: "There are Christians here, but they keep their heads down."

g. Worries about being perceived as "religious" spread at the museum. One curator, who generally confirmed the conversation when I spoke to him, told Mr. Sternberg about a gathering where he offered a Jewish prayer for a colleague about to retire. The curator fretted: "So now they're going to think that I'm a religious person, and that's not a good thing at the museum."

h. The Biological Society of Washington released a vaguely ecclesiastical statement regretting its association with the article. It did not address its arguments but denied its orthodoxy, citing a resolution of the American Association for the Advancement of Science that defined ID as, by its very nature, unscientific.

i. Critics of ID have long argued that the theory was unscientific because it had not been put forward in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. Now that it has, they argue that it shouldn't have been because it's unscientific. They banish certain ideas from certain venues as if by holy writ, and brand heretics too. In any case, the heretic here is Mr. Meyer, a fellow at Seattle's Discovery Institute, not Mr. Sternberg, who isn't himself an advocate of Intelligent Design.

j. Darwinism, by contrast, is an essential ingredient in secularism, that aggressive, quasi-religious faith without a deity. The Sternberg case seems, in many ways, an instance of one religion persecuting a rival, demanding loyalty from anyone who enters one of its churches -- like the National Museum of Natural History.” The Branding of a Heretic - WSJ.com

His example is exactly what I am speaking of and abhor. Any time a scientist is persecuted or attacked for a unwillingness to toe the party line it is wrong... from whichever side of the aisle you're on. Witness the persecution of meteorologists and climatologists who don't agree with AGW.

That's why extreme views on either side are in my opinion wrong. God, were He to exist would not be an extremist. God would be a builder (He did after all supposedly create the universe) he would appreciate the builders of this world. He would revile the destroyers.

Did you make note of item "j." which illuminates the far larger picture?

 

[Gadawg73]

Ahem.

From the "fucking paper":

"I propose that most or all major evolutionary transitions that show the "explosive" pattern of emergence of new types of biological entities correspond to a boundary between two qualitatively distinct evolutionary phases. The first, inflationary phase is characterized by extremely rapid evolution driven by various processes of genetic information exchange . . . In the second phase, evolution dramatically slows down, the respective process of genetic information exchange tapers off, and multiple lineages of the new type of entities emerge, each of them evolving in a tree-like fashion from that point on."

(Emphasis added.) Loki is clearly right here. The paper DOES NOT argue against gradual evolution happening. What it does do, is posit that more rapid periods of evolution ALSO happen, and offers an explanation as to why.

No, they are called a "dullard".

 

[westwall]

There are several things I appreciate in your post, and agree with, but in the context of this thread, let me comment on the persecution of those one does not agree with.

That is exactly the case in the fields of science that deal with evolution. And, to some degree you can see it in this thread...present company excepted.

This scientist was subjected to, in Justice Thomas' words, a modern high-tech lynching.

Long, but worth reading:
I'll bold some parts in case you don't have the time.

a. “ Richard Sternberg, a research associate at the Smithsonian's National Museum of Natural History in Washington. The holder of two Ph.D.s in biology, Mr. Sternberg was until recently the managing editor of a nominally independent journal published at the museum, Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, where he exercised final editorial authority. The August issue …included an atypical article, "The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories." Here was trouble.

b. …the first peer-reviewed article to appear in a technical biology journal laying out the evidential case for Intelligent Design. According to ID theory, certain features of living organisms …are better explained by an unspecified designing intelligence than by an undirected natural process like random mutation and natural selection.

c. Mr. Sternberg's … future as a researcher is in jeopardy …He has been penalized by the museum's Department of Zoology, his religious and political beliefs questioned…. "I'm spending my time trying to figure out how to salvage a scientific career."

d. Stephen Meyer, who holds a Cambridge University doctorate in the philosophy of biology. In the article, he cites biologists and paleontologists critical of certain aspects of Darwinism -- mainstream scientists at places like the University of Chicago, Yale, Cambridge and Oxford.

e. He points, for example, to the Cambrian explosion 530 million years ago, when between 19 and 34 animal phyla (body plans) sprang into existence. He argues that, relying on only the Darwinian mechanism, there was not enough time for the necessary genetic "information" to be generated. ID, he believes, offers a better explanation.

f. …it was indeed subject to peer review, the gold standard of academic science. Not that such review saved Mr. Sternberg from infamy. Soon after the article appeared, Hans Sues -- the museum's No. 2 senior scientist -- denounced it to colleagues and then sent a widely forwarded e-mail calling it "unscientific garbage." the chairman of the Zoology Department, Jonathan Coddington, called Mr. Sternberg's supervisor. According to Mr. Sternberg's OSC complaint: "First, he asked whether Sternberg was a religious fundamentalist. She told him no. Coddington then asked if Sternberg was affiliated with or belonged to any religious organization....He then asked where Sternberg stood politically; ...he asked, 'Is he a right-winger? What is his political affiliation?'" The supervisor (who did not return my phone messages) recounted the conversation to Mr. Sternberg, who also quotes her observing: "There are Christians here, but they keep their heads down."

g. Worries about being perceived as "religious" spread at the museum. One curator, who generally confirmed the conversation when I spoke to him, told Mr. Sternberg about a gathering where he offered a Jewish prayer for a colleague about to retire. The curator fretted: "So now they're going to think that I'm a religious person, and that's not a good thing at the museum."

h. The Biological Society of Washington released a vaguely ecclesiastical statement regretting its association with the article. It did not address its arguments but denied its orthodoxy, citing a resolution of the American Association for the Advancement of Science that defined ID as, by its very nature, unscientific.

i. Critics of ID have long argued that the theory was unscientific because it had not been put forward in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. Now that it has, they argue that it shouldn't have been because it's unscientific. They banish certain ideas from certain venues as if by holy writ, and brand heretics too. In any case, the heretic here is Mr. Meyer, a fellow at Seattle's Discovery Institute, not Mr. Sternberg, who isn't himself an advocate of Intelligent Design.

j. Darwinism, by contrast, is an essential ingredient in secularism, that aggressive, quasi-religious faith without a deity. The Sternberg case seems, in many ways, an instance of one religion persecuting a rival, demanding loyalty from anyone who enters one of its churches -- like the National Museum of Natural History.” The Branding of a Heretic - WSJ.com

His example is exactly what I am speaking of and abhor. Any time a scientist is persecuted or attacked for a unwillingness to toe the party line it is wrong... from whichever side of the aisle you're on. Witness the persecution of meteorologists and climatologists who don't agree with AGW.

That's why extreme views on either side are in my opinion wrong. God, were He to exist would not be an extremist. God would be a builder (He did after all supposedly create the universe) he would appreciate the builders of this world. He would revile the destroyers.

Did you make note of item "j." which illuminates the far larger picture?

It happens in all sciences. In my field if you are not a devout follower of Alvarez's asteroid impact you are looked at as if you might be a bank robber. In paleontology it's the same, in archeology, the same. It is a sad fact that a small group of politically motivated scientists (who also happen to be quite bad at their jobs) have managed to infiltrate the upper levels of the scientific world and only now are my colleagues begining to fight back.

However, it goes both ways. Just like I am open minded to carry on a discussion with folks who's views of the creation of the planet and universe are diametrically opposed from my own, so must you.

And without rancor.

 

[Dr Grump]

Ohhh,,,,you poor, sad, fool.

I can tell from the language that you know that you have lost the argument.

Tsk, tsk, tsk.


I hate to rub it in (actually, I don't):

“Major transitions in biological evolution show the same pattern of sudden emergence of diverse forms at a new level of complexity. The relationships between major groups within an emergent new class of biological entities are hard to decipher and do not seem to fit the tree pattern that, following Darwin’s original proposal, remains the dominant description of biological evolution.” (Koonin, Eugene, “The Biological Big Bang model for the major transitions in evolution,” Biology Direct, 2007, 2:21.)

(Emphasis, and giggle, mine)

Now, write soon, Lowest.
There's a dog biscuit in it for ya'!

So, you didn't read the paper did you?

Seriously, you incredible dipshit, READ THE FUCKING PAPER.

Ooooo.....

Doggie frustrated???

I note you didn't deny the validity of the quote....why is that?

More? OK....sit up:

“Each species of mammal-like reptile that has been found appears suddenly in the fossil record and is not preceded by the species that is directly ancestral to it. It disappears some time later, equally abruptly, without leaving a directly descended species although we usually find that it has been replaced by some new, related species.” (Kemp, Tom, “The Reptiles that Became Mammals,” New Scientist, Vol. 92, 1982, p.583.)


Another dog biscuit?

Good boy!

Seriously...quit while you're ahead on this one. You're looking silly...

 

[koshergrl]

Compared to who? LOKI???? Are you serious?

Lol..another clueless fascist jumps on the dogpile...before realizing the intended victim isn't there at all, lol..

 

[PoliticalChic]

So, you didn't read the paper did you?

Seriously, you incredible dipshit, READ THE FUCKING PAPER.

Ooooo.....

Doggie frustrated???

I note you didn't deny the validity of the quote....why is that?

More? OK....sit up:

“Each species of mammal-like reptile that has been found appears suddenly in the fossil record and is not preceded by the species that is directly ancestral to it. It disappears some time later, equally abruptly, without leaving a directly descended species although we usually find that it has been replaced by some new, related species.” (Kemp, Tom, “The Reptiles that Became Mammals,” New Scientist, Vol. 92, 1982, p.583.)


Another dog biscuit?

Good boy!

Seriously...quit while you're ahead on this one. You're looking silly...

I'm going to give your suggestion all of the serious consideration it deserves.....

 

[PoliticalChic]

His example is exactly what I am speaking of and abhor. Any time a scientist is persecuted or attacked for a unwillingness to toe the party line it is wrong... from whichever side of the aisle you're on. Witness the persecution of meteorologists and climatologists who don't agree with AGW.

That's why extreme views on either side are in my opinion wrong. God, were He to exist would not be an extremist. God would be a builder (He did after all supposedly create the universe) he would appreciate the builders of this world. He would revile the destroyers.

Did you make note of item "j." which illuminates the far larger picture?

It happens in all sciences. In my field if you are not a devout follower of Alvarez's asteroid impact you are looked at as if you might be a bank robber. In paleontology it's the same, in archeology, the same. It is a sad fact that a small group of politically motivated scientists (who also happen to be quite bad at their jobs) have managed to infiltrate the upper levels of the scientific world and only now are my colleagues begining to fight back.

However, it goes both ways. Just like I am open minded to carry on a discussion with folks who's views of the creation of the planet and universe are diametrically opposed from my own, so must you.

And without rancor.

"It happens in all sciences....a small group of politically motivated scientists (who also happen to be quite bad at their jobs) have managed to infiltrate the upper levels of the scientific world...However, it goes both ways."


I'm going to dispute that, Westy.

"However, it goes both ways."

I haven't seen this from the Right, only from the Left. But if you have evidence on that score I'd like to see it.

The following, in addition to the article I posted previously:

1. It seems that some paleontologists doubted the “widely publicized scientific theories of recent years holds that the dinosaurs were wiped out 65 million years ago by the impact of a large meteorite.”

“[At] the annual meeting of the Society of Vertebrate Paleontologists this month in Rapid City, S.D., asserted in interviews, moreover, that the impact theory has had pernicious effects on science and scientists. They charged that controversy over the impact theory has so polarized scientific thought that publication of research reports has sometimes been blocked by personal bias.”

Any of this begin to sound familiar?
“According to a few paleontologists, dissenters from the meteorite theory have faced obstacles in their careers and are sometimes even privately branded as militarists, on the supposed ground that anyone who questions the catastrophic theory of dinosaur extinction also questions the theory that a lethal ''nuclear winter'' similar to the climatic effect of a meteorite impact would follow a nuclear war. The nuclear winter prediction is a major talking point of the movement for nuclear disarmament, and debate over the accuracy of the prediction has become political as well as scientific.”
Does ‘dissenters’ sound a bit like ‘deniers’?

Could it be, a liberal political perspective influencing the imposition of a theory?
So, if one doesn’t toe the party line, their careers are in jeopardy?
Sort of like not getting grants?
And they are called names? Like ‘militarists’? Militarists?
Read the article @ http://http://www.nytimes.com/1985/...t-meteor-extinction-idea.html?&pagewanted=all

2. If you are going to contend that the same is true on the Right, remember the political makeup of academia.

3. This is why "j" - the secular basis of the theory of evolution points right back into this framework.
The same for 'global warming'...it's political not scientific.

 

[westwall]

Did you make note of item "j." which illuminates the far larger picture?

It happens in all sciences. In my field if you are not a devout follower of Alvarez's asteroid impact you are looked at as if you might be a bank robber. In paleontology it's the same, in archeology, the same. It is a sad fact that a small group of politically motivated scientists (who also happen to be quite bad at their jobs) have managed to infiltrate the upper levels of the scientific world and only now are my colleagues begining to fight back.

However, it goes both ways. Just like I am open minded to carry on a discussion with folks who's views of the creation of the planet and universe are diametrically opposed from my own, so must you.

And without rancor.

"It happens in all sciences....a small group of politically motivated scientists (who also happen to be quite bad at their jobs) have managed to infiltrate the upper levels of the scientific world...However, it goes both ways."


I'm going to dispute that, Westy.

"However, it goes both ways."

I haven't seen this from the Right, only from the Left. But if you have evidence on that score I'd like to see it.

The following, in addition to the article I posted previously:

1. It seems that some paleontologists doubted the “widely publicized scientific theories of recent years holds that the dinosaurs were wiped out 65 million years ago by the impact of a large meteorite.”

“[At] the annual meeting of the Society of Vertebrate Paleontologists this month in Rapid City, S.D., asserted in interviews, moreover, that the impact theory has had pernicious effects on science and scientists. They charged that controversy over the impact theory has so polarized scientific thought that publication of research reports has sometimes been blocked by personal bias.”

Any of this begin to sound familiar?
“According to a few paleontologists, dissenters from the meteorite theory have faced obstacles in their careers and are sometimes even privately branded as militarists, on the supposed ground that anyone who questions the catastrophic theory of dinosaur extinction also questions the theory that a lethal ''nuclear winter'' similar to the climatic effect of a meteorite impact would follow a nuclear war. The nuclear winter prediction is a major talking point of the movement for nuclear disarmament, and debate over the accuracy of the prediction has become political as well as scientific.”
Does ‘dissenters’ sound a bit like ‘deniers’?

Could it be, a liberal political perspective influencing the imposition of a theory?
So, if one doesn’t toe the party line, their careers are in jeopardy?
Sort of like not getting grants?
And they are called names? Like ‘militarists’? Militarists?
Read the article @ http://http://www.nytimes.com/1985/...t-meteor-extinction-idea.html?&pagewanted=all

2. If you are going to contend that the same is true on the Right, remember the political makeup of academia.

3. This is why "j" - the secular basis of the theory of evolution points right back into this framework.
The same for 'global warming'...it's political not scientific.

Yes that is the issue I was speaking of. I can point to many times in my academic career where scientists on the right have been just as obnoxious as those on the left. It is the nature of man. Politics and science don't mix either. But once again that is the nature of man.

Throughout history there are people who will loot, kill and lie to get ahead. Back in the old days they were the robber barons or highwaymen of yore, today they are the unethical businessmen, scientists, lawyers and politicians who are quite happy to screw anybody they need to to get ahead.

 

[Gadawg73]

It happens in all sciences. In my field if you are not a devout follower of Alvarez's asteroid impact you are looked at as if you might be a bank robber. In paleontology it's the same, in archeology, the same. It is a sad fact that a small group of politically motivated scientists (who also happen to be quite bad at their jobs) have managed to infiltrate the upper levels of the scientific world and only now are my colleagues begining to fight back.

However, it goes both ways. Just like I am open minded to carry on a discussion with folks who's views of the creation of the planet and universe are diametrically opposed from my own, so must you.

And without rancor.

"It happens in all sciences....a small group of politically motivated scientists (who also happen to be quite bad at their jobs) have managed to infiltrate the upper levels of the scientific world...However, it goes both ways."


I'm going to dispute that, Westy.

"However, it goes both ways."

I haven't seen this from the Right, only from the Left. But if you have evidence on that score I'd like to see it.

The following, in addition to the article I posted previously:

1. It seems that some paleontologists doubted the “widely publicized scientific theories of recent years holds that the dinosaurs were wiped out 65 million years ago by the impact of a large meteorite.”

“[At] the annual meeting of the Society of Vertebrate Paleontologists this month in Rapid City, S.D., asserted in interviews, moreover, that the impact theory has had pernicious effects on science and scientists. They charged that controversy over the impact theory has so polarized scientific thought that publication of research reports has sometimes been blocked by personal bias.”

Any of this begin to sound familiar?
“According to a few paleontologists, dissenters from the meteorite theory have faced obstacles in their careers and are sometimes even privately branded as militarists, on the supposed ground that anyone who questions the catastrophic theory of dinosaur extinction also questions the theory that a lethal ''nuclear winter'' similar to the climatic effect of a meteorite impact would follow a nuclear war. The nuclear winter prediction is a major talking point of the movement for nuclear disarmament, and debate over the accuracy of the prediction has become political as well as scientific.”
Does ‘dissenters’ sound a bit like ‘deniers’?

Could it be, a liberal political perspective influencing the imposition of a theory?
So, if one doesn’t toe the party line, their careers are in jeopardy?
Sort of like not getting grants?
And they are called names? Like ‘militarists’? Militarists?
Read the article @ http://http://www.nytimes.com/1985/...t-meteor-extinction-idea.html?&pagewanted=all

2. If you are going to contend that the same is true on the Right, remember the political makeup of academia.

3. This is why "j" - the secular basis of the theory of evolution points right back into this framework.
The same for 'global warming'...it's political not scientific.

Yes that is the issue I was speaking of. I can point to many times in my academic career where scientists on the right have been just as obnoxious as those on the left. It is the nature of man. Politics and science don't mix either. But once again that is the nature of man.

Throughout history there are people who will loot, kill and lie to get ahead. Back in the old days they were the robber barons or highwaymen of yore, today they are the unethical businessmen, scientists, lawyers and politicians who are quite happy to screw anybody they need to to get ahead.

And who says crime doesn't pay?
Man's fraud and bad behavior of all forms has kept my agency going very well for 33 years.

 

[PoliticalChic]

It happens in all sciences. In my field if you are not a devout follower of Alvarez's asteroid impact you are looked at as if you might be a bank robber. In paleontology it's the same, in archeology, the same. It is a sad fact that a small group of politically motivated scientists (who also happen to be quite bad at their jobs) have managed to infiltrate the upper levels of the scientific world and only now are my colleagues begining to fight back.

However, it goes both ways. Just like I am open minded to carry on a discussion with folks who's views of the creation of the planet and universe are diametrically opposed from my own, so must you.

And without rancor.

"It happens in all sciences....a small group of politically motivated scientists (who also happen to be quite bad at their jobs) have managed to infiltrate the upper levels of the scientific world...However, it goes both ways."


I'm going to dispute that, Westy.

"However, it goes both ways."

I haven't seen this from the Right, only from the Left. But if you have evidence on that score I'd like to see it.

The following, in addition to the article I posted previously:

1. It seems that some paleontologists doubted the “widely publicized scientific theories of recent years holds that the dinosaurs were wiped out 65 million years ago by the impact of a large meteorite.”

“[At] the annual meeting of the Society of Vertebrate Paleontologists this month in Rapid City, S.D., asserted in interviews, moreover, that the impact theory has had pernicious effects on science and scientists. They charged that controversy over the impact theory has so polarized scientific thought that publication of research reports has sometimes been blocked by personal bias.”

Any of this begin to sound familiar?
“According to a few paleontologists, dissenters from the meteorite theory have faced obstacles in their careers and are sometimes even privately branded as militarists, on the supposed ground that anyone who questions the catastrophic theory of dinosaur extinction also questions the theory that a lethal ''nuclear winter'' similar to the climatic effect of a meteorite impact would follow a nuclear war. The nuclear winter prediction is a major talking point of the movement for nuclear disarmament, and debate over the accuracy of the prediction has become political as well as scientific.”
Does ‘dissenters’ sound a bit like ‘deniers’?

Could it be, a liberal political perspective influencing the imposition of a theory?
So, if one doesn’t toe the party line, their careers are in jeopardy?
Sort of like not getting grants?
And they are called names? Like ‘militarists’? Militarists?
Read the article @ http://http://www.nytimes.com/1985/...t-meteor-extinction-idea.html?&pagewanted=all

2. If you are going to contend that the same is true on the Right, remember the political makeup of academia.

3. This is why "j" - the secular basis of the theory of evolution points right back into this framework.
The same for 'global warming'...it's political not scientific.

Yes that is the issue I was speaking of. I can point to many times in my academic career where scientists on the right have been just as obnoxious as those on the left. It is the nature of man. Politics and science don't mix either. But once again that is the nature of man.

Throughout history there are people who will loot, kill and lie to get ahead. Back in the old days they were the robber barons or highwaymen of yore, today they are the unethical businessmen, scientists, lawyers and politicians who are quite happy to screw anybody they need to to get ahead.

"I can point to many times in my academic career where scientists on the right have been just as obnoxious as those on the left."
I have no problem with obnoxious...that is a very different scenario....
...this discussion is far more focused:

In a way to remove one's ability to make a living.

I can point to many times....I don't think you can.

Certainly not in as systemic fashion as my posts have evidenced.


But...have a go.

 

[westwall]

"It happens in all sciences....a small group of politically motivated scientists (who also happen to be quite bad at their jobs) have managed to infiltrate the upper levels of the scientific world...However, it goes both ways."


I'm going to dispute that, Westy.

"However, it goes both ways."

I haven't seen this from the Right, only from the Left. But if you have evidence on that score I'd like to see it.

The following, in addition to the article I posted previously:

1. It seems that some paleontologists doubted the “widely publicized scientific theories of recent years holds that the dinosaurs were wiped out 65 million years ago by the impact of a large meteorite.”

“[At] the annual meeting of the Society of Vertebrate Paleontologists this month in Rapid City, S.D., asserted in interviews, moreover, that the impact theory has had pernicious effects on science and scientists. They charged that controversy over the impact theory has so polarized scientific thought that publication of research reports has sometimes been blocked by personal bias.”

Any of this begin to sound familiar?
“According to a few paleontologists, dissenters from the meteorite theory have faced obstacles in their careers and are sometimes even privately branded as militarists, on the supposed ground that anyone who questions the catastrophic theory of dinosaur extinction also questions the theory that a lethal ''nuclear winter'' similar to the climatic effect of a meteorite impact would follow a nuclear war. The nuclear winter prediction is a major talking point of the movement for nuclear disarmament, and debate over the accuracy of the prediction has become political as well as scientific.”
Does ‘dissenters’ sound a bit like ‘deniers’?

Could it be, a liberal political perspective influencing the imposition of a theory?
So, if one doesn’t toe the party line, their careers are in jeopardy?
Sort of like not getting grants?
And they are called names? Like ‘militarists’? Militarists?
Read the article @ http://http://www.nytimes.com/1985/...t-meteor-extinction-idea.html?&pagewanted=all

2. If you are going to contend that the same is true on the Right, remember the political makeup of academia.

3. This is why "j" - the secular basis of the theory of evolution points right back into this framework.
The same for 'global warming'...it's political not scientific.

Yes that is the issue I was speaking of. I can point to many times in my academic career where scientists on the right have been just as obnoxious as those on the left. It is the nature of man. Politics and science don't mix either. But once again that is the nature of man.

Throughout history there are people who will loot, kill and lie to get ahead. Back in the old days they were the robber barons or highwaymen of yore, today they are the unethical businessmen, scientists, lawyers and politicians who are quite happy to screw anybody they need to to get ahead.

"I can point to many times in my academic career where scientists on the right have been just as obnoxious as those on the left."
I have no problem with obnoxious...that is a very different scenario....
...this discussion is far more focused:

In a way to remove one's ability to make a living.

I can point to many times....I don't think you can.

Certainly not in as systemic fashion as my posts have evidenced.


But...have a go.

At this time the lefties have a definite edge in control thus are the bad actors. Back when I was getting started it was the other way around. All things go in cycles, even this sort of crapola.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Yes that is the issue I was speaking of. I can point to many times in my academic career where scientists on the right have been just as obnoxious as those on the left. It is the nature of man. Politics and science don't mix either. But once again that is the nature of man.

Throughout history there are people who will loot, kill and lie to get ahead. Back in the old days they were the robber barons or highwaymen of yore, today they are the unethical businessmen, scientists, lawyers and politicians who are quite happy to screw anybody they need to to get ahead.

"I can point to many times in my academic career where scientists on the right have been just as obnoxious as those on the left."
I have no problem with obnoxious...that is a very different scenario....
...this discussion is far more focused:

In a way to remove one's ability to make a living.

I can point to many times....I don't think you can.

Certainly not in as systemic fashion as my posts have evidenced.


But...have a go.

At this time the lefties have a definite edge in control thus are the bad actors. Back when I was getting started it was the other way around. All things go in cycles, even this sort of crapola.

Destroying careers?
Doesn't seem like you can put your finger on such evidence.

 

[Woyzeck]

You miss his point.There are no laboratory demonstrations of speciation, millions of fruit flies coming and going while never once suggesting that they were destined to appear as anything other than fruit flies.

More than six thousand years of breeding and artificial selection, barnyard and backyard, have never induced a chicken to lay a square egg or persuade a pig to develop wheels on ball bearing.

In a research survey published in 2001, the evolutionary biologist Joel Kingsolver reported that in sample sizes of more than one thousand individuals, there was virtually no correlation between specific biological traits and either reproductive success or survival. “Important issues about selection,” he remarked with some understatement, “remain unresolved.” selection exists at all. Computer simulations of Darwinian evolution fail when they are honest and succeed only when they are not. Thomas Ray has for years been conducting computer experiments in an artificial environment that he has designated Tierra. . . . Sandra Blakeslee, writing for the New York Times, reported the results under the headline “Computer ‘Life Form’ Mutates in an Evolution Experiment: Natural Selection Is Found at Work in a Digital World.”

The above from Berlinski's "Devil's Delusion," p. 189-190

So, do you ever use your own words, or do you just rely on other people to argue for you? Let's begin.



Funny, there actually has been lots of laboratory evidence of speciation and evidence of speciation out in the wild. Google 'Richard Lenski.' He's been doing an experiment with e. coli bacteria for the past two decades. It's still ongoing, and he's had some utterly fascinating discoveries. Some of the non-harmful (to humans) e. coli colonies acquired the ability to process citrate, something with demarcates them from the harmful e. coli.

And oh, the fruit fly thing again, hm? Cute. The experiment was over... 600 generations I believe? Lenski's experiment it took 30,000 generations to produce the trait I spoke of above. Evolution takes time.



I don't think you have enough knowledge of biology to know how funny this is. Seriously. Go try looking at pictures of what domesticated animals and plants looked like before humans started controlling their breeding and suiting it to own purposes. They don't look like what they do now, so his assertion that there hasn't been evolution is just silly.

Also, his examples of what evolution should have happened? Now he's just being retarded.



Ah, the old creationist tactic of quoting from biologists themselves, and trying to appeal to their authority. Someone's new at this game.

They've clipped his quotes right up. We don't know what the survey was about, how it was conducted, or even what the result was. To begin with, all we can get from this paragraph is that specific traits by themselves don't increase or decrease chances of reproduction or survival. But the author of the paragraph tries to make it mean natural selection is false. Which doesn't work when we don't what Kingsolver was even testing for. It's also interesting to note that he probably tested humans (i.e., individuals), and if he did, than the point is moot. Civilization tends to have a negating effect on natural selection.

So, anyone got a link to the research survey? Citation pleeeeease?

Computer simulations of Darwinian evolution fail when they are honest and succeed only when they are not. Thomas Ray has for years been conducting computer experiments in an artificial environment that he has designated Tierra. . . . Sandra Blakeslee, writing for the New York Times, reported the results under the headline “Computer ‘Life Form’ Mutates in an Evolution Experiment: Natural Selection Is Found at Work in a Digital World.”

So how is Thomas Ray not honest? How do they fall apart if they are honest? What constitutes an honest computer simulation? This excerpt you've quoted makes a lot of unbacked and uncited statements.

1. "So, do you ever use your own words, or do you just rely on other people to argue for you?"

It's my argument, but Berlinski does such a nice job of tying you in knots, I think I'll keep using his words.

Lolololol yeah okay buddy, we all know you're a human cut, copy and paste machine.

2. "the old creationist tactic of quoting from biologists themselves,..."
Pretty smart, huh?
Who better?

Thanks for proving my point entirely. Clipping quotes and then never using them properly. I did have more to say, but you don't like debating. You like preaching.

3. Now, as I end my refrain, thrust home (btw, that one from Edmond Rostand) :
May you walk behind the elephant in the procession of life!

So are you going to actually respond to any of my points? Or are you going to be a coward?

Debate me.

 

[Woyzeck]

He hasn't made a secret of it for years, really. The God Delusion was just the big blockbuster book that made headlines. Given the vocal minority of retards that he has to deal with as an evolutionary biologist, you can't blame him.

A grand unifying theory has been the holy grail of physics for years now, for all physicists, not just the alleged atheist ones who are trying to lock out deities. I'm sure you could find a physicist hoping to find the physical theory to prove god.



Good for them?



Math has always been a powerful tool for human kind. This is nothing new. Other than that, see above. Good for those guys you listed above. If they find some mathematical proof, they're gonna need empirical observations and evidence to back it up. If they can do it, more power to them.



Can you test for God? Nope. Where's it written in the cosmos that he exists? In a series of poorly written texts written by people who didn't have the breadth of knowledge of the universe that we do now.

That's why people like Dawkins, and Sagan, and Tyson, and Hitchens are around. That's why they take beef with the issue of a deity. There is no empirical evidence to suggest it.



Oh see, this is where you totally miss the point. Science and scientists? Fuck, anyone with two brain cells knows the entire point of science is fallibility. Which rose in response to the claimed infallibility of... anyone? Churches and religious organizations. Who claimed to know how shit worked. And then everyone else found out that they were wrong.

Science has to be fallible. It has been for centuries. You can see in any history class when you learn about the scientific revolution. Look how many previous theories there were that were overturned. Science is built on these failures, because you can always learn from failure. Theories generally only make sense of current and existing evidence. If enough evidence comes up to prove the theory wrong, that theory goes right out the window.

Scientists can be fallible and shitty too. Andrew Wakefield anyone? What about the Bone War of the late 1800s? It's why this thread is silly. Science knows it's infallible, and no one is surprised by bad scientists.

1. I knew you'd be back, because is galls you how deftly Berlinski proves that science uses belief and faith just as theologians do.

As do you.

Irrelevant to the discussion.

2. "That's why they take beef with the issue of a deity. There is no empirical evidence to suggest it."

And the empirical evidence for a 'multiverse'?

Get the point?

None. No evidence. There's really no reason to take Dawkins seriously on that subject, that's his own speculating opinion. He's not a physicist by trade, he's a biologist. Plus, you even quoted him as saying it's a hypothesis.

Get it through your head, scientists are not fucking religious prophets, any freethinking fan of science will not take everything they say as set in stone.

3. I notice that your language has declined, as it does when one is losing the argument. Your post is more smoke and mirrors than a fire in a brothel…

Stop making these retarded excuses and debate me. If I'm so wrong, come along and tell me why. It shouldn't be too difficult for you, unless you ironically lack faith in your own premise.

Gee, looks like PC is a coward who won't debate me. What a surprise, she doesn't know what she's talking about. But she'll sure demand you take her ignorant opinions seriously.

Typical.

 

[westwall]

"I can point to many times in my academic career where scientists on the right have been just as obnoxious as those on the left."
I have no problem with obnoxious...that is a very different scenario....
...this discussion is far more focused:

In a way to remove one's ability to make a living.

I can point to many times....I don't think you can.

Certainly not in as systemic fashion as my posts have evidenced.


But...have a go.

At this time the lefties have a definite edge in control thus are the bad actors. Back when I was getting started it was the other way around. All things go in cycles, even this sort of crapola.

Destroying careers?
Doesn't seem like you can put your finger on such evidence.

Darlin (and I'm not trying to be flippant) I am old, I have forgotten or wiped my mind clean of all the BS that went on back then. I can go way back to Alfred Wegeners day and he was reviled and driven out of the field of geology for one and the other scientists of the time tried to ruin him. They were very conservative, but fortunately he was the great polymath of the era so was able to weather the storm but his career was affected.

Suffice to say that in this day and time the leftists are ruling the roost and there is a major fight going on within the scientific community to wrest control away from them. So far we are making some good progress but the majority of us who are waging the battle are old and decrepit!

 

[LOki]

Ahem.

From the "fucking paper":

"I propose that most or all major evolutionary transitions that show the "explosive" pattern of emergence of new types of biological entities correspond to a boundary between two qualitatively distinct evolutionary phases. The first, inflationary phase is characterized by extremely rapid evolution driven by various processes of genetic information exchange . . . In the second phase, evolution dramatically slows down, the respective process of genetic information exchange tapers off, and multiple lineages of the new type of entities emerge, each of them evolving in a tree-like fashion from that point on."

(Emphasis added.) Loki is clearly right here. The paper DOES NOT argue against gradual evolution happening. What it does do, is posit that more rapid periods of evolution ALSO happen, and offers an explanation as to why.

So.....you boyz are admitting that Koonin noted sudden appearance of new species?

Yes?

Dog bones all around!

Now, let's see the damage that you've done:

There are long eras in which nothing happens: no indicia of ‘evolution.’ Then, suddenly…observable changes! Now get this: a detailed and continuous record of transition between species is missing. Those neat sedimentary layers never revealing precisely the phenomena that Darwin proposed to explain.

a. David B. Kitts, evolutionist and paleontologist,: "Despite the bright promise that paleontology provides a means of 'seeing' evolution, it has presented some nasty difficulties for evolutionists the most notorious of which is the presence of 'gaps' in the fossil record. Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them." (“Evolution, 28:467)

Now that you have admitted exactly what I said Koonin testified to, whether or not there are "multiple lineages of the new type of entities emerge, each of them evolving in a tree-like fashion from that point on,"...

...then Darwin's theory is disproved...

...and the appearance of new species, in 'a tree-like fashion' or any other pattern is just as much proof of ID as your view of evolution.


2. Robert L. Carroll, vertebrate paleontologist who specialises in Paleozoic and Mesozoicamphibians and reptiles, in “Vertebrate Paleontology and Evolution,” states that “most of the fossil record does not support a strictly gradualistic account” of evolution. Hmmm….doesn’t seem to help Darwin’s theory, eh?

a. Although Darwin depicted natural selection as a force “daily and hourly scrutinizing” the biological world, doesn’t it seem that that description would equally designate the activities of the Holy Spirit?

b. Steven J. Gould said: "In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and fully formed." (Natural History, 86:12-16) Now, whose theory would his support, Darwinists, or creationists?

3. . More?
“Paleontologists have paid an enormous price for Darwin’s argument. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life’s history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we almost never see the very process we profess to study. …The history of most fossil species includes two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism: 1. Stasis. Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and directionless. 2. Sudden appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and ‘fully formed.’” (Gould, Stephen J. The Panda’s Thumb, 1980, p. 181-182.).'" (Gould, Stephen J. The Panda's Thumb, 1980, p. 181-182)


So, let's review. The view of Koonin, in the posted quote, and the others, above, find that species, for the most part, appear at once and fully formed.
This is contrary to Darwin's gradual and continuous evolution theory.
Again....species do not evolve, they appear.

This is most significant when one considers the constellation of abilities of human being.

Now....how to explain that?
I can help.

"The claim has been repeatedly made that the fossil record provides a basis for the falsification of synthetic theory [Neo-Darwinism] and Simpson has demonstrated that this is not the case." (Kitts, David B., "Paleontology and Evolutionary Theory," Evolution, vol. 28, 1974, p. 468)

"But all theories of discontinuous change are not anti-Darwinian, as Huxley pointed out nearly 120 years ago. Suppose that a discontinuous change in adult form arises from a small genetic alteration. Problems of discordance with other members of the species do not arise, and the large, favorable variant can spread through a population in Darwinian fashion. Suppose also that this large change does not produce a perfected form all at once, but rather serves as a "key" adaptation to shift its possessor toward a new mode of life. Continued success in this new mode may require a large set of collateral alterations, morphological and behavioral; these may arise by a more traditional, gradual route once the key adaptation forces a profound shift in selective pressures." (Gould, Stephen J. The Panda's Thumb, 1980, p. 189)​

And in the actual paper that Koonin wrote, he asserted that after inflationary periods of differentiation, evolution proceeds in the manner currently understood.

You are just another intellectually dishonest quote-mining retard.