You have cited a magazine article that does not seem to exist. I reject non- evidence, including made-up articles. If it exists, I challenge you to produce it. No one will care if it has a different title or date, but it must bear some resemblance to what you originally said.
It apparently exists but sentences were deleted so that it would support an agenda. See my post above yours.

The more one delves into scientific explanations into natural phenomena, the more I become convinced of a divine creator. Eminent scientists (and aethiests) such as Richard Dawkins and Stephen Hawkings produce magnificent insights into how the structure of the universe and life is designed but as more is discovered so much more is revealed as currently inexplicable. Interesting, the two concepts are irrevocably symbiotic.

Thanks, Wondergirl.

There is nothing to suggest that Kemp doubts that evolution occurs. Instead, he is looking for a more sophisticated way of understanding how it occurs.

I found this more recent article of Kemp's especially interesting.
Endothermy is what we often called being "warm-blooded."
http://users.ox.ac.uk/~tskemp/pdfs/zjls2006.pdf


The origin of mammalian endothermy: a paradigm for the
evolution of complex biological structure
T. S. KEMP*
Oxford University Museum of Natural History and St John's College, Oxford OX1 3JP, UK
Received April 2005; accepted for publication October 2005

Several mutually incompatible theories exist about how and why endothermy evolved in mammals and birds. Some take the primary function to have been thermoregulation, selected for one adaptive purpose or another. Others take
The high aerobic metabolic rate to have been primary. None of these theories is incontrovertibly supported by evidence, either from the fossil record of the synapsid amniotes or from observations and experiments on modern organisms.

Furthermore, all are underpinned by the tacit assumption that endothermy must have evolved in a stepwise pattern, with an initial adaptive function followed only later by the addition of further functions. It is argued that this assumption is unrealistic and that the evolution of endothermy can be explained by the correlated progression model. Each structure and function associated with endothermy evolved a small increment at a time, in loose linkage with all the others evolving similarly. The result is that the sequence of organisms maintained functional integration throughout, and no one of the functions of endothermy was ever paramount over the others.

The correlated progression model is tested by the nature of the integration between the parts as seen in living mammals, by computer simulations of the evolution of complex, multifunctional, multifactorial biological systems, and by reference to the synapsid fossil record, which is fully compatible with the model. There are several potentially important implications to be drawn from this example concerning the study of the evolution of complex structure and the new higher
Taxa that manifest it.

© 2006 The Linnean Society of London,
Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society, 2006, 147, 473–488.

It did not.

Source?


I doubt those are assumptions. Do you have any evidence to suggest that MIT contaminated their samples or that if they did it would make a difference?

The assumptions are true. And, no, I did not suggest that MIT contaminated the samples - where the heck did that come from?? Do you honestly believe that a sample of anything left out in nature exposed to the elements can be assumed to be in a clean room environment? If that assumption is not made, then I would question the integrity of the research. A good scientist would always have to make assumptions and then acknowledge or justify them. This is always necessary because when we are dealing with issues such as this, the reality is that rarely, if ever, do you have all the facts necessary to come to a conclusion, so assumptions are thrown in to try to guess where the evidence may lead.

Any scientist whi claims assumptions have not been made with respect to conclusion made in such circumstances is either not being honest or or is doing sloppy work. It does not mean that using assumptions is wrong - it is doen all the time, but a good scientist will always acknowledge his assumptions and will explaining why he believes such assumptions are justified.



Do you have any evidence that laws of physics change over time and the half life of isotopes was different half a billion years ago from what it is now?

Please stop putting words in my mouth - that is twice just this one post. Where did I say such a thing? I was not even thinking it. But apparently you were.


Are you one of those people who says that the speed of light changes over time as well? Do you have any evidence for that?

Are you one of those people who post innuendo about others on internet when a good rebuttal fails you?



Tom, you claimed that," The Biblical explanation fits the facts better."

Tell us how the Biblical explanation fits the fact of fossil embryos that are half a billion years old.

Show me the proof of the age.



Tell us how the Biblical explanation fits the fact of the existence of egg-laying mammals.

What issue do you see? I don't see a problem.


Tell us how the Biblical explanation fits the fact of extinct dinosaurs that lived 80 million years ago.

Show me proof of the age.


Tom, you stated, "Rejecting anything which disagrees with what you want to believe is a religion . . ."

Do you really believe that?

Yes, and you have turned what you believe science is into a religion. So far every single scientists mentioned, you have said is a bad scientist if they disagree with you.

The more one delves into scientific explanations into natural phenomena, the more I become convinced of a divine creator. Eminent scientists (and aethiests) such as Richard Dawkins and Stephen Hawkings produce magnificent insights into how the structure of the universe and life is designed but as more is discovered so much more is revealed as currently inexplicable. Interesting, the two concepts are irrevocably symbiotic.

Well, I don't agree with the idea that religion and science are symbiotic, let alone irrevocably so, but welcome to Ask Me Help Desk.
Cheers,

Thanks, Wondergirl.

There is nothing to suggest that Kemp doubts that evolution occurs. Instead, he is looking for a more sophisticated way of understanding how it occurs.

Unlike you, I do not call someone a bad scientist because of what they believe. It is whether they are open to the truth and to looking at evidence that matters.

Well, I don't agree with the idea that religion and science are symbiotic, let alone irrevocably so, but welcome to Ask Me Help Desk.
Cheers,

That is because you claim anyone is a bad scientist if they disagree withw aht you claim to be right.

looking at evidence that matters.

We are still awaiting your evidence.

We are still awaiting your evidence.

Of?

Are you one of those people who post innuendo about others on internet when a good rebuttal fails you?

I'd like to see your answer to the same question.


So far every single scientists mentioned, you have said is a bad scientist if they disagree with you.

You have already stated that you believe Kemp to be a good scientist, and he agrees with asking that there is compelling evidence for macroevolution. And, as Wondergirl has been kind enough to demonstrate, you doctored your quote from his article in order to misrepresent his view. That certainly undermines your ability to chastise anyone in the name of scientific principles of integrity and fair-play.

Unlike you, I do not call someone a bad scientist because of what they believe. It is whether they are open to the truth and to looking at evidence that matters.
Truth? The New Scientist article had been edited (sentences removed) to fit what someone wanted it to say, to have a scientist (falsely) say something about evolution.

I'd like to see your answer to the same question.

No.


You have already stated that you believe Kemp to be a good scientist, and he agrees with asking that there is compelling evidence for macroevolution. And, as Wondergirl has been kind enough to demonstrate, you doctored your quote from his article in order to misrepresent his view. That certainly undermines your ability to chastise anyone in the name of scientific principles of integrity and fair-play.

Ho hum. I doctored nothing. False accusations will get you nowhere.

If you are going to start down that line again, I am sure that this thread will face the fate of every other thread where you start making false accusations and other abusive comments.

EDIT: I note now that even Wondergirl has conceded that the quote was NOT doctored. Are you a man of integrity? Will an apology therefore be forthcoming?

Truth? The New Scientist article had been edited (sentences removed) to fit what someone wanted it to say, to have a scientist (falsely) say something about evolution.

You apparently missed the whole point of the quote. It was not so much about evolution, but about methodology.

You apparently missed the whole point of the quote. It was not so much about evolution, but about methodology.
No, you didn't doctor it, but that was your proof article regarding macroevolution.

No, you didn't doctor it, but that was your proof article regarding macroevolution.

No, it was a quote regarding methodology. I have much better information against macro-evolution.

But I glad to see that you admit that it was not doctored. I note that you earlier accused me of doctoring it - will you demonstrate your personal integrity and apologize for your false accusation?

Just so you cannot deny it, it is in post 261 and treads:



Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3 View Post
Unlike you, I do not call someone a bad scientist because of what they believe. It is whether they are open to the truth and to looking at evidence that matters.
Truth? The New Scientist article had been edited (sentences removed) to fit what someone wanted it to say, to have a scientist (falsely) say something about evolution.

I also wonder if Akoue now with show us if he has the integrity to apologize.

Tj:
The Biblical explanation fits the facts better.

[[Meaning: The Biblical explanation fits the facts of general biology better than the standard scientific explanation does.]]

Asking:
I'd like to see you defend this assertion.

Asking:

Tell us how the Biblical explanation fits the fact of hundreds of fossil embryos.
Tell us how the Biblical explanation fits the fact of the existence of egg-laying mammals.
Tell us how the Biblical explanation fits the fact of extinct dinosaurs that lived 80 million years ago.

[[No Reply from Tj except to reject that the fossil embryos are half a billion years old. A digression to explore a quote from a paper supposedly debunking the fossil record, but which paper turns out not to. The actual paper does not reveal itself in any case.]]

Tj:
It is whether they are open to the truth and to looking at evidence that matters.

Asking:
We are still awaiting your evidence.

Tj:
Of?

Asking:
Tell us how the Biblical explanation fits the fact of half-a-billion-year-old fossil embryos.

Ad infinitum.

No, it was a quote regarding methodology. I have much better information against macro-evolution.
Please refer back to your posts #241 and earlier.

But I glad to see that you admit that it was not doctored.
Slippery little rascal, aren't you! I said it had not been doctored BY YOU. You did use a doctored quote as your proof, and don't forget to look back at those older posts of yours.

I wonder if Akoue now with show us if he has the integrity to apologize.
The last thing he needs to do is apologize.

Tj:
[[Meaning: The Biblical explanation fits the facts of general biology better than the standard scientific explanation does.]]

The explanation put forward by you is what you mean.


[[No Reply from Tj except to reject that the fossil embryos are half a billion years old. A digression to explore a quote from a paper supposedly debunking the fossil record, but which paper turns out not to. The actual paper does not reveal itself in any case.]]

Asking, must you lie to defend your position? My response was to ask you to show the evidence of the age. I said nothing either way about the age pending your proof.



Asking:
Tell us how the Biblical explanation fits the fact of half-a-billion-year-old fossil embryos.

Show us the proof of the age.

No.

So it was not you who wrote post #228?


Ho hum. I doctored nothing. False accusations will get you nowhere.

If you are going to start down that line again, I am sure that this thread will face the fate of every other thread where you start making false accusations and other abusive comments.

EDIT: I note now that even Wondergirl has conceded that the quote was NOT doctored. Are you a man of integrity? Will an apology therefore be forthcoming?

I think Wondergirl is being far too charitable to you. I stand by her earlier claim that sentences were deleted in order to support an agenda. It was deceptive of you to insert the ellipsis where you did, and even more to cut the quote short before it got to this:


Irrespective of one's view of the biological causes of such a pattern (and there continues to be much debate about this), it leads in practice to description of long-term evolution, or macroevolution, in terms of the differential survival, extinction and proliferation of species. The species is the unit of evolution.

You purposefully deleted sentences that did not support your view. That is deceptive.

EDIT: I note now that even Wondergirl has conceded that the quote was NOT doctored. Are you a man of integrity? Will an apology therefore be forthcoming?
That is an out-and-out LIE, Tom. I said, "No, you didn't doctor it, but that was your proof article regarding macroevolution."

There is no doubt it has been doctored. Someone beat you to it.

***ADDED -- If you were the one who doctored it, may God have mercy on your soul!

Please refer back to your posts #241 and earlier.

That was back BEFORE I posted that quote, so comments that I made prior to that quote were not claiming that quiote was about evolution. I posted the quote separately for a reason.


Slippery little rascal, aren't you! I said it had not been doctored BY YOU. You did use a doctored quote as your proof, and don't forget to look back at those older posts of yours.

Now we degrade into name-calling. You did claim use of doctored posts, leaving the assumption that I had done so. But I guess that I have my answer as to whether you will apologize for your false accusation. The posts were neither doctored by me, nor anyone else, nor I might add were they edited. You simply think that more of the quote should have been added.

My, the nasty responses one gets when one hit on a sacred cow!


The last thing he needs to do is apologize.

I guess that I was brought up in a different era, one where integrity was important.

That is an out-and-out LIE, Tom. I said, "No, you didn't doctor it, but that was your proof article regarding macroevolution."

There is no doubt it has been doctored. Some beat you to it.

Two lies in one posts - wow!

First, I did not use it as a proof againts macro-evolution. You have already had that clatrified, and yet you keep keep repeating it, so it is no longer just an error but a deliberate mis-representation.

Second, the quote was NOT doctored by myself or anyone else.

I hope that when false accusations were made, personal integrity would compel one to apologies, but if not, then let's just move on.

That was back BEFORE I posted that quote, so comments that I made prior to that quote were not claiming that quiote was about evolution. I posted the quote separately for a reason.
#241 IS the doctored quote. "...for a reason"?? What, pray tell? This thread is about evolution.

Now we degrade into name-calling.
What? Liar Liar, pants on fire? That name-calling? You owe us an apology.

So it was not you who wrote post #228?

The quote under discussion was well after that so whatever 228 is has nothing to do with this.


I think Wondergirl is being far too charitable to you. I stand by her earlier claim that sentences were deleted in order to support an agenda. It was deceptive of you to insert the ellipsis where you did, and even more to cut the quote short before it got to this:

So I am left to assume that you refuse to acknowledge your error or apologize for your mis-representation.

That says a great deal.


You purposefully deleted sentences that did not support your view. That is deceptive.

And your comment above is an outright lie.

Second, the quote was NOT doctored by myself or anyone else.
You're blind too??

>Thread Closed<
As it has more than run it's course!!