|
Author
|
Topic: The role of chance in biological evolution
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 30. May 2006 18:23
The role of chance in a long past phylogeny was exactly of the same dimension as its role in present ontogeny - absolutely zero. To blindly insist otherwise is pure Darwinian, atheist inspired mysticism.
.
"Neither in the one nor in the other is there room for chance."
Leo Berg, Nomogenesis, page 134
IP: Logged
|
|
Bruce Fast
Member
Member # 924
|
posted 30. May 2006 18:29
I repeat,
Zachriel, is it your view that crop-circles are more than just "pranks"? As one who holds so clear a "party line" position re: NDE, I find such a view to be unexpected. What/who do you conjecture causes crop-circles. Do you have any reason to believe that crop-circles are not intellegently designed?
IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Zachriel
Member
Member # 1793
|
posted 30. May 2006 20:07
Bruce Fast: "Zachriel, is it your view that crop-circles are more than just 'pranks'?"
Perhaps my point was unclear. Peer-review means more than pats on the back by fellow crackpots. As the so-called scientific papers include aspects of chemistry and electromagetic phenomena, it would be appropriate to submit them to review by those disciplines. They would be the appropriate peers to convince of the validity of the claims.
IP: Logged
|
|
Sandor Szabados
Member
Member # 1969
|
posted 30. May 2006 21:38
Zachriel,
quote:
Peer-review means more than pats on the back by fellow crackpots.
What academic qualifications do you have to call Ph.Ds "crackpots" and 'pats on the back' the publication of a scientific article in a highly reputable journal?
It's an old trick: to make ad hominem statements attacking the messangers because one doesn't like the truth.
Stick to the facts, Zachariel, just the facts, and explain them within NDE.
Sandor
IP: Logged
|
|
Zachriel
Member
Member # 1793
|
posted 30. May 2006 22:57
Sandor 606: "It's an old trick: to make ad hominem statements attacking the messangers because one doesn't like the truth."
I was asked twice to respond. You posted that they had published their findings in peer-reviewed journals. I took note of the article with some interest, then discovered that they were not recognized peer journals, even though they purported to include information that have large established peer communities; chemistry, physics, electromagnetic phenomena. They were essentially self-published, the antithesis of peer-review which is to convince your scientific peers. They have no intention of trying to falsify their 'hypotheses'.
That makes them appear to be eccentrics and given to lunatic ideas.
Sandor 606: "Concerning crop circles, the information speaks for itself. Click on the links and you will see that the evidence for what is claimed is rock solid."
I'll wait for the promised peer review.
IP: Logged
|
|
Bruce Fast
Member
Member # 924
|
posted 30. May 2006 23:28
Zachriel: "I'll wait for the promised peer review."
Zachriel, I am confused. I recognize that the BLT Research Team is not a peer reviewed journal, but Sandor 606's link points to a biased publication, but his link:
www.bltresearch.com/anatomical.html points to a publication sited as follows:
quote:
PHYSIOLOGIA PLANTARIUM 92: 356-363.1994
(c) Physiologia Plantarum 1994
Printed in Denmark - all rights reserved
ISSN 0031-9317
Anatomical anomalies in crop formation plants
W. C. Levengood
I did a little snooping into PHYSIOLOGIA PLANTARIUM. It seems like a serious, peer reviewd, journal to me.
IP: Logged
|
|
Bruce Fast
Member
Member # 924
|
posted 30. May 2006 23:43
on BLTResearch.com, I found a couple more references to peer reviewed publications:
Levengood, W.C. & Burke, John A. (1995)
Semi-Molten Meteoric Iron Associated with a Crop Formation
Journal of Scientific Exploration 9:2, 191-199
Levengood, W.C. & Talbott, Nancy P. (1999)
Dispersion of energies in worldwide crop formations
Physiologia Plantarum 105:615-624
IP: Logged
|
|
Zachriel
Member
Member # 1793
|
posted 31. May 2006 08:21
Bruce Fast: "Zachriel, I am confused."
Thanks. I do not have a copy of PHYSIOLOGIA PLANTARIUM 1994, so I cannot verify the claim or determine if there were articles to provide countervailing arguments.
I withdraw the comment.
IP: Logged
|
|
Bruce Fast
Member
Member # 924
|
posted 31. May 2006 11:34
Zachriel, welcome to the world of the outsiders. I often feel handicapped by not having access to the journals. Some are getting better, selling individual articles over the net.
However, I noticed that Levengood has published twice in PHYSIOLOGIA PLANTARIUM. As an outsider, I count this as an indication that the journal is pleased to continue publishing his work.
How much influence does Levingood's publication have on your opinion of the validity of crop circles?
IP: Logged
|
|
Bruce Fast
Member
Member # 924
|
posted 31. May 2006 11:52
Peculiar. I think that Jehu's post, and one of mine got zapped by the moderator.
Moderator, though Jehu was speaking in hyperbole, he was making a very relative point, a point that is very relative to this forum.
Crop circles may all be hoaxes, if so there are some darn good hoaxters out there and/or people writing about them are darn good hoaxters. Or crop circles may have an external, intelligent, cause (aliens?) However, crop circles are unquestionably intelligently designed.
As the source of the intelligence is not clear, but the fact of intelligence is clear, crop circles demonstrate that the work of intelligence can be identified even if the nature of the intelligent agent is not. This is a strong case for the general validity of the intelligent design case.
This is an elaboration on what Jehu said.
IP: Logged
|
|
Zachriel
Member
Member # 1793
|
posted 31. May 2006 12:06
Bruce Fast: "I often feel handicapped by not having access to the journals."
Most good university libraries provide access to most of the major scientiic journals, though perhaps not to every issue of every Danish journal.
Bruce Fast: "How much influence does Levingood's publication have on your opinion of the validity of crop circles?"
Peer review is only the start of the process. It provides an opportunity for peers to read, understand, verify, extend or possibly refute the findings.
IP: Logged
|
|
Bruce Fast
Member
Member # 924
|
posted 31. May 2006 14:08
Zachriel: "Most good university libraries provide access to most of the major scientiic journals, though perhaps not to every issue of every Danish journal."
Alas, the nearest significant university is at least 1000 miles from me. I don't expect much in the line of journals at my local community college.
quote:
Peer review is only the start of the process. It provides an opportunity for peers to read, understand, verify, extend or possibly refute the findings.
Ie, you will not be an early believer in non-human-created crop circles. I respect a little skepticism, albiet the discovery of non-human-created crop circles would mangle your view of the way things are, wouldn't it?
IP: Logged
|
|
Jehu
Member
Member # 1981
|
posted 31. May 2006 16:42
Bruce,
My post concerning crop circles is still up, just on another thread. It is on the "Prof. Davison's Challenge to NDE" thread.
IP: Logged
|
|
Bruce Fast
Member
Member # 924
|
posted 01. June 2006 00:50
Ah Jehu, that's where your wit is hiding. We don't need two threads on crop circles. I agree with Dr. Davison, that the other thread is "his thread". Let's try to keep the crop circle chatter to this thread, or move it to its own thread.
IP: Logged
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic