OgreMkV
Posts: 3668
Joined: Oct. 2009
|
IBIG, please tell me you can't be this dense.
The discovery article says (quoting Elizabeth Pennisi)
| Quote | | But that raises a fundamental problem. Elizabeth Pennisi, in a report about evo devo for the journal Science, dated Nov. 1, 2002, stated the problem this way: "The lists [of conserved genes give] no insight into how, in the end, organisms with the same genes came to be so different." |
Now, when any sane person reads this, they are led to the conclusion that there is a fundamental problem with evo-devo.
However, the Pennisi article continues with:
| Quote |
The lists gave no insight into how, in the end, organisms with the same genes came to be so different. And given the evolutionary distance between, say, a fruit fly and a shark, "there isn't really an experimental manipulation to let you get at what the genes are actually doing," says Rudolf Raff, an evolutionary developmental biologist at Indiana University, Bloomington (IUB).
The solution, say Jeffery and others, is to focus on genetically based developmental differences between closely related species, or even among individuals of the same species. This is the stuff of microevolutionists, who care most about how individuals vary naturally within a population and how environmental forces affect this variation.
|
It then goes on to list three examples where the solution has been applied and shown to work.
Therefore, the discovery article is wrong.
Since, they the statement that leads to the correct conclusion of the article is the one immediately following the statement quoted, then they knowingly left out part of the quote.
That is lying by omission, aka a quote-mine.
NOTE: The fact that it is a quote-mine has NOTHING to do with the correctness or incorrectness of EITHER article.
Let me give an example:
If a Daily Telegraph article says, "Doctor cures three-headed baby. 'It's a dangerous operation,' said one doctor, 'I only give if it a 5% chance of working.' However, the operation went without a hitch and the baby is doing well."
Now, if I quote that article like this, "'It's a dangerous operation,' said one doctor, 'I only give if it a 5% chance of working.'"
I made a quote-mine. I'm leaving off the part where the operation actually worked.
Is this example a quote-mine (yes or no)?
If yes, then why isn't the discovery article?
If no, then you are supporting lying.
Enough with the philosophical BS. Just answer the question yes or no.
You know you can't, that's why you won't give us a straight answer.
--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.
http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat
|
