Joined: Nov. 2010
|Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 05 2010,07:11)|
|Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Nov. 05 2010,03:45)|
|Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 04 2010,20:21)|
|IBIG, please tell me you can't be this dense.|
The discovery article says (quoting Elizabeth Pennisi)
|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:
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.
Here is the problem with you claim, first if it were true that Elizabeth Pennisi were quote-mined, she could have spoken out and stated the she was quoted inappropriately, which to my knowledge hasn't happened, correct me if I'm wrong. Second, the quote was not used out of context, Discovery is arguing against the grand claims of evo-devo, read the article again, they clearly stated that there were successes, but you seem to be implying that evo-devo has somehow proven evolution from common descent, and Discovery is purposefully quote-mining E. Pennisi to argue that it couldn't happen.
The quote was not to disprove that evo-devo doesn't have answers to changes that are observed, it was used to show the absurdity of the grander claims of evo-devo in regards to evolution by common descent. You are mixing the grander claims of evo-devo, with the actual small successes, i.e. spots on butterfly wings, legs in place of antennae, etc... Nothing new with evolutionists I might add, just par for the course. You are so blind that you couldn't see the truth, if it hit you in the face with a sledgehammer.
Again it is clear that Discovery is not guilty of quote-mining, and again you are arguing an absolute, which doesn't make any sense considering you don't even believe in absolutes!
Sorry dude, they are taking the claim out of context and using it to argue a point that is not made by the original article = quote-mine.
Let me ask you this: What part of "The correctness or uncorrectness of EITHER article's conclusion" don't you get"?
You STILL haven't answer the only question that matters about this point.
Why is my quote-mine of the Bible wrong and discovery's quote-mine of Science OK?
The absolutes argument is just a Red Herring and has nothing to do with you supporting the lies of the discovery institute.
Why is it OK for them to quote-mine and it's not OK for me to say, "The Bible says "There is no God" Psalms 14:1?
If you say one is OK and one is not, then you don't believe in absolutes either. If both are OK or both not OK, then you are supporting something that is lying.
Which is it IBIG? I was really hoping you would answer questions. I guess that's too much to ask of a Christian.
Yes or No IBIG, Is my quote from the Bible OK?
Yes or No IBIG, Is my quote from the Bible structurally the same as the quote from discovery?
Yes or No IBIG, then explain why...
Here is the difference:
You quoted part of Psalm 14:1 "there is no God", from the scripture that states:
Psalm 14:1 (New International Version)
1 The fool says in his heart,
“There is no God.”
They are corrupt, their deeds are vile;
there is no one who does good.
Clearly the intent of the scripture is the opposite of what you quoted, now to the difference.
Discovery quoted Elizabeth Pennisi in the context of the universality of the conserved genes, which is correct because that was the entire point of their argument against the grander claims of evo-devo. They did give evo-devo credit for some successes, but there argument wasn't that there were no successes at all, but that the very universality of the conserved genes couldn't have resulted in all of the diversity of life, aka evolution from common descent. So, you are wrong, if they quoted Elizabeth Pennisi, and then used it to state that there were no successes, and that there would be no successes, then it would have been a quote-mine, but that is not what they did, and that is where you are wrong. If Elizabeth Pennisi was quoted out of context then why hasn't she spoke out?