Darwin debunked in Scientific American!

Creationism, Intelligent Design, and Evolution.
User avatar
Abdul Alhazred
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3007
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 9:08 pm
Custom Title: Yes that one.
Location: Chicago

Darwin debunked in Scientific American!

Post by Abdul Alhazred » Thu Dec 21, 2017 4:02 pm

Darwin Was Sexist, and So Are Many Modern Scientists
Scientific American

Analysis: First they came for Art, but I said nothing because I was not an artist, etc.
Aldous Huxley wrote:A government with a comprehensive plan for the betterment of society is a government that uses torture.

User avatar
Monster
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5399
Joined: Sun Jun 15, 2008 7:57 pm
Location: Tarrytown, NY, USA

Re: Darwin debunked in Scientific American!

Post by Monster » Thu Dec 21, 2017 5:20 pm

Darwin, HP Lovecraft, and Gandhi were all racists. Some people are seriously mistaken in certain aspects of their lives, but fortunately, can still provide something of value to humanity.
Listening twice as much as you speak is a sign of wisdom.

User avatar
ElectricMonk
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4386
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: The Baby-eating Bishop

Re: Darwin debunked in Scientific American!

Post by ElectricMonk » Thu Dec 21, 2017 7:34 pm

This, of course, invalidates all their work.
Isaac Newton had some very dated views about women, so anyone using Newtonian mechanics is a sexist pig.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10827
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm

Re: Darwin debunked in Scientific American!

Post by xouper » Thu Dec 21, 2017 11:15 pm

The following is quoted to be used in the future when you take the opposite position with respect to people you don't like. ;)
Monster wrote:Darwin, HP Lovecraft, and Gandhi were all racists. Some people are seriously mistaken in certain spects of their lives, but fortunately, can still provide something of value to humanity.
ElectricMonk wrote:This, of course, invalidates all their work. Isaac Newton had some very dated views about women, so anyone using Newtonian mechanics is a sexist pig.
I assume Monk's remarks are meant as sarcasm and that he actually believes the opposite of what he says.

User avatar
Gord
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 32208
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: Silent Ork
Location: Transcona

Re: Darwin debunked in Scientific American!

Post by Gord » Fri Dec 22, 2017 12:22 pm

Back in those days, everyone was sexist and racist. And I'm talking about the 1970s.
"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"Imagine an ennobling of what could be" -- the New Age BS Generator site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
"Nullius in verba" -- The Royal Society ["take nobody's word for it"]
#ANDAMOVIE
Is Trump in jail yet?

User avatar
ElectricMonk
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4386
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: The Baby-eating Bishop

Re: Darwin debunked in Scientific American!

Post by ElectricMonk » Fri Dec 22, 2017 1:13 pm

xouper wrote:
ElectricMonk wrote:This, of course, invalidates all their work. Isaac Newton had some very dated views about women, so anyone using Newtonian mechanics is a sexist pig.
I assume Monk's remarks are meant as sarcasm and that he actually believes the opposite of what he says.

Is that what you think?

Wouldn't you agree that Rocket Science, a technology that quintessentially depends of Newtonian physics, primarily produces giant phallic objects, the purpose of which is to rape targets on Mother Earth or her Sister Moon?

Just building my credentials here for the inevitable takeover of the Feminista Police State

User avatar
JO 753
Has No Life
Posts: 13231
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 3:21 pm
Custom Title: rezident owtsidr
Location: BLaNDLaND

Re: Darwin debunked in Scientific American!

Post by JO 753 » Fri Dec 22, 2017 2:28 pm

ElectricMonk wrote:This, of course, invalidates all their work.
Isaac Newton had some very dated views about women, so anyone using Newtonian mechanics is a sexist pig.
The second I realized you were rite, I floated out uv this chair! :shock:

Fortunately I had sum bunjy cordz in the attic, so wuz able to attach sum barbell wates to the sidez uv my hed and anklz.
Gubmint for us
http://www.7532020.com
not the rich.

User avatar
TJrandom
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9849
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2014 10:55 am
Location: Pacific coast outside of Tokyo bay.

Re: Darwin debunked in Scientific American!

Post by TJrandom » Fri Dec 22, 2017 6:52 pm

I`m fairly sure that most people are sexist even now. The difference being whether or not they express it, or keep it hidden deep inside along with their other dark secrets.

User avatar
OlegTheBatty
Has No Life
Posts: 11300
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 2:35 pm
Custom Title: Uppity Atheist

Re: Darwin debunked in Scientific American!

Post by OlegTheBatty » Fri Dec 22, 2017 7:04 pm

ElectricMonk wrote:
xouper wrote:
ElectricMonk wrote:This, of course, invalidates all their work. Isaac Newton had some very dated views about women, so anyone using Newtonian mechanics is a sexist pig.
I assume Monk's remarks are meant as sarcasm and that he actually believes the opposite of what he says.

Is that what you think?

Wouldn't you agree that Rocket Science, a technology that quintessentially depends of Newtonian physics, primarily produces giant phallic objects, the purpose of which is to rape targets on Mother Earth or her Sister Moon?
Cassini spent years taking clandestine pictures of Saturn and her moons without once asking Saturn for permission. Classic voyeur behaviour.
. . . with the satisfied air of a man who thinks he has an idea of his own because he has commented on the idea of another . . . - Alexandre Dumas 'The Count of Monte Cristo"

There is no statement so absurd that it has not been uttered by some philosopher. - Cicero

User avatar
Abdul Alhazred
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3007
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 9:08 pm
Custom Title: Yes that one.
Location: Chicago

Re: Darwin debunked in Scientific American!

Post by Abdul Alhazred » Fri Dec 22, 2017 9:39 pm

Gord wrote:Back in those days, everyone was sexist and racist. And I'm talking about the 1970s.
You mean back when Scientific American was still both Scientific and American? ;)
Aldous Huxley wrote:A government with a comprehensive plan for the betterment of society is a government that uses torture.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 11703
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Darwin debunked in Scientific American!

Post by Lance Kennedy » Sat Dec 23, 2017 9:57 pm

Is something sexist if it is scientifically accurate?

When you compare intelligence between male and female, you can see that the normal distribution curve for males is somewhat flatter by comparison, though the average and the mode are in exactly the same place for both genders. One consequence is that there are more male morons than female morons.

I seem to recall, there is another consequence as well......

User avatar
TJrandom
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9849
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2014 10:55 am
Location: Pacific coast outside of Tokyo bay.

Re: Darwin debunked in Scientific American!

Post by TJrandom » Sat Dec 23, 2017 11:16 pm

There being more males than females at birth, there would be more morons... ;)

User avatar
OlegTheBatty
Has No Life
Posts: 11300
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 2:35 pm
Custom Title: Uppity Atheist

Re: Darwin debunked in Scientific American!

Post by OlegTheBatty » Sat Dec 23, 2017 11:33 pm

Does gorgeous get counted for both curves?
. . . with the satisfied air of a man who thinks he has an idea of his own because he has commented on the idea of another . . . - Alexandre Dumas 'The Count of Monte Cristo"

There is no statement so absurd that it has not been uttered by some philosopher. - Cicero

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 11703
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Darwin debunked in Scientific American!

Post by Lance Kennedy » Sat Dec 23, 2017 11:42 pm

Not the right hand end of the curve.

User avatar
OlegTheBatty
Has No Life
Posts: 11300
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 2:35 pm
Custom Title: Uppity Atheist

Re: Darwin debunked in Scientific American!

Post by OlegTheBatty » Sat Dec 23, 2017 11:52 pm

Two lefts don't make a right.
. . . with the satisfied air of a man who thinks he has an idea of his own because he has commented on the idea of another . . . - Alexandre Dumas 'The Count of Monte Cristo"

There is no statement so absurd that it has not been uttered by some philosopher. - Cicero

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10827
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm

Re: Darwin debunked in Scientific American!

Post by xouper » Sun Dec 24, 2017 12:53 am

OlegTheBatty wrote:Two lefts don't make a right.
And two rights don't make a wrong:

Image

But two lefts and a right make a left: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michigan_left

User avatar
Nikki Nyx
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3159
Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2017 12:40 am
Custom Title: cognitively consonant
Location: playing croquet in Wonderland

Re: Darwin debunked in Scientific American!

Post by Nikki Nyx » Wed Jan 03, 2018 9:03 pm

OlegTheBatty wrote:Cassini spent years taking clandestine pictures of Saturn and her moons without once asking Saturn for permission. Classic voyeur behaviour.
Probably told everyone he put a ring on it.
"An extraordinary claim requires extraordinary proof."—Marcello Truzzi

"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."—Christopher Hitchens

User avatar
Nikki Nyx
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3159
Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2017 12:40 am
Custom Title: cognitively consonant
Location: playing croquet in Wonderland

Re: Darwin debunked in Scientific American!

Post by Nikki Nyx » Wed Jan 03, 2018 9:10 pm

Lance Kennedy wrote:Is something sexist if it is scientifically accurate?

When you compare intelligence between male and female, you can see that the normal distribution curve for males is somewhat flatter by comparison, though the average and the mode are in exactly the same place for both genders. One consequence is that there are more male morons than female morons.

I seem to recall, there is another consequence as well......
I have read that the neural interconnections appear different between men's and women's brains, that women have more interconnections between the two hemispheres, while men have more within each hemisphere. I assume there's an evolutionary reason for this. Child-bearing versus not? Hunter versus gatherer? More testosterone versus more estrogen? All of the above?

I've also read that psychiatric illnesses tend to occur differently, that women suffer from mood disorders more frequently, while men suffer from personality disorders more frequently.

I'm sure we could go on all day about differences between men and women, but the point here, IMO, is to avoid the genetic fallacy. Someone can be skilled in their particular field, yet an idiot about other things. #BenCarson
"An extraordinary claim requires extraordinary proof."—Marcello Truzzi

"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."—Christopher Hitchens

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 14865
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: bobbo da existential pragmatist

Re: Darwin debunked in Scientific American!

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Wed Jan 03, 2018 9:37 pm

thats not what the genetic fallacy is.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Nikki Nyx
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3159
Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2017 12:40 am
Custom Title: cognitively consonant
Location: playing croquet in Wonderland

Re: Darwin debunked in Scientific American!

Post by Nikki Nyx » Thu Jan 04, 2018 5:15 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:thats not what the genetic fallacy is.
Yes, it is.
The genetic fallacy is committed when an idea is either accepted or rejected because of its source, rather than its merit.

Even from bad things, good may come; we therefore ought not to reject an idea just because of where it comes from, as ad hominem arguments do.

Equally, even good sources may sometimes produce bad results; accepting an idea because of the goodness of its source, as in appeals to authority, is therefore no better than rejecting an idea because of the badness of its source. Both types of argument are fallacious.
"An extraordinary claim requires extraordinary proof."—Marcello Truzzi

"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."—Christopher Hitchens

User avatar
Poodle
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9773
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2011 9:12 pm
Custom Title: Regular sleeper
Location: NE corner of my living room

Re: Darwin debunked in Scientific American!

Post by Poodle » Thu Jan 04, 2018 7:24 am

Ah - I thought it was a malfunction of the fallacian tubes.

User avatar
Gawdzilla Sama
Real Skeptic
Posts: 22161
Joined: Sun Jun 01, 2008 2:11 am
Custom Title: Deadly but evil.

Re: Darwin debunked in Scientific American!

Post by Gawdzilla Sama » Thu Jan 04, 2018 11:39 am

Poodle wrote:Ah - I thought it was a malfunction of the fallacian tubes.
They come pre-failed in the US.
Chachacha wrote:"Oh, thweet mythtery of wife, at waft I've found you!"
WWII Resources. Primary sources.
The Myths of Pearl Harbor. Demythologizing the attack.
Hyperwar. Hypertext history of the Second World War.
The greatest place to work in the entire United States.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 14865
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: bobbo da existential pragmatist

Re: Darwin debunked in Scientific American!

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Thu Jan 04, 2018 7:21 pm

genetic fallacy: The genetic fallacy (also known as the fallacy of origins or fallacy of virtue) is a fallacy of irrelevance involving a conclusion that is based solely on someone's or something's history, origin, or source rather than its current meaning or context.

Now Nikki: did you look the word up? Really?!?!?!?!? When the issue is the definition of a word and you are specifically challenged?..............I'll put it down to migraines.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
OlegTheBatty
Has No Life
Posts: 11300
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 2:35 pm
Custom Title: Uppity Atheist

Re: Darwin debunked in Scientific American!

Post by OlegTheBatty » Thu Jan 04, 2018 8:53 pm

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:genetic fallacy: The genetic fallacy (also known as the fallacy of origins or fallacy of virtue) is a fallacy of irrelevance involving a conclusion that is based solely on someone's or something's history, origin, or source rather than its current meaning or context.
That's what SHE said. :mrgreen:
. . . with the satisfied air of a man who thinks he has an idea of his own because he has commented on the idea of another . . . - Alexandre Dumas 'The Count of Monte Cristo"

There is no statement so absurd that it has not been uttered by some philosopher. - Cicero

User avatar
Nikki Nyx
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3159
Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2017 12:40 am
Custom Title: cognitively consonant
Location: playing croquet in Wonderland

Re: Darwin debunked in Scientific American!

Post by Nikki Nyx » Fri Jan 05, 2018 6:49 pm

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:genetic fallacy: The genetic fallacy (also known as the fallacy of origins or fallacy of virtue) is a fallacy of irrelevance involving a conclusion that is based solely on someone's or something's history, origin, or source rather than its current meaning or context.

Now Nikki: did you look the word up? Really?!?!?!?!? When the issue is the definition of a word and you are specifically challenged?..............I'll put it down to migraines.
WTF are you talking about? I provided the link for YOU, not for myself. Here's another one. A genetic fallacy is a concluding that data is either valid or invalid based on a judgment of the source, rather than an analysis of the information itself.

When you reject data based solely on a negative judgment of the source, it's an ad hominem.
• "Ben Carson said the pyramids were used to store grain. What an idiot. He must be a lousy neurosurgeon. I'll just completely ignore his surgical record."

When you accept data based solely on a positive judgment of the source, it's an appeal to authority.
• "I have friends that are CEOs of huge corporations, and they're really nice people. Therefore, trickle down economics works."

Both of these are genetic fallacies because they presume the data inherits the perceived qualities (good or bad) of the source. Both are also fallacies of relevance because they consider irrelevant variables to be relevant to the conclusion.
"An extraordinary claim requires extraordinary proof."—Marcello Truzzi

"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."—Christopher Hitchens

User avatar
Gawdzilla Sama
Real Skeptic
Posts: 22161
Joined: Sun Jun 01, 2008 2:11 am
Custom Title: Deadly but evil.

Re: Darwin debunked in Scientific American!

Post by Gawdzilla Sama » Fri Jan 05, 2018 7:47 pm

Booboo keeps his logic in a Klein bottle.
Chachacha wrote:"Oh, thweet mythtery of wife, at waft I've found you!"
WWII Resources. Primary sources.
The Myths of Pearl Harbor. Demythologizing the attack.
Hyperwar. Hypertext history of the Second World War.
The greatest place to work in the entire United States.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 11703
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Darwin debunked in Scientific American!

Post by Lance Kennedy » Fri Jan 05, 2018 8:46 pm

Of course, appeal to authority is not always a fallacy. It just depends on which authority you appeal to. For example, if I am arguing with a global climate change denier, I can point out that 97% of climate scientists agree on anthropogenic global warming. That is a valid argument, because the authority involved is credible.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 14865
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: bobbo da existential pragmatist

Re: Darwin debunked in Scientific American!

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Fri Jan 05, 2018 11:38 pm

Nikki: you did provide the link.........sorry I missed that. I was going on my memory and the very first source I use for definitions because it is available via hot keys, agreed with what I remembered so I posted it "as obvious." Just as obvious....there is more than one definition or "schools of thought". Making the genetic fallacy a summation of three other fallacies is rather deficient in my book.......so I do prefer the definition I posted as it is a different kind of fallacy altogether.

THE POINT: about defining one's terms is not to argue after the definitions are given. Its just words, and one definition is as good as another. Rather, one simply agrees as to what definition is being used, and go from there.

I was going to make another quibble on the Appeal to Authority, but find that there are two different definitions there too. Seems the standards are not hard labeled when it comes to fallacies. Hah, hah.......I recall just using the Fallacy of Being Lazy......but forget where and on what.

I apologize for using only my memory and one source before saying you were wrong............and thank you for your instruction in return. Just what this forum is all about. Had I noticed your link.....I would have done better.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Nikki Nyx
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3159
Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2017 12:40 am
Custom Title: cognitively consonant
Location: playing croquet in Wonderland

Re: Darwin debunked in Scientific American!

Post by Nikki Nyx » Sat Jan 06, 2018 3:41 pm

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:Nikki: you did provide the link.........sorry I missed that. I was going on my memory and the very first source I use for definitions because it is available via hot keys, agreed with what I remembered so I posted it "as obvious." Just as obvious....there is more than one definition or "schools of thought". Making the genetic fallacy a summation of three other fallacies is rather deficient in my book.......so I do prefer the definition I posted as it is a different kind of fallacy altogether.
I took the time to check out several different websites, and there is more than one definition of 'genetic fallacy.' Several websites agree with the definition I learned, while others make it a more specific fallacy, that of a conclusion based on bigotry toward or stereotyping of the source of the data. As in...
"That beer must be excellent, because it's German."
...or...
"Any information from [source with opposing ideology] is fake news." :mrgreen:
The only issue I see with this definition is that it's either an appeal to authority (if the user trusts the source based on irrelevancies, like Germany and beer) or an ad hominem (if the user mistrusts the source based on irrelevancies, like automatically doubting data from a source with an opposing ideology).
bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:THE POINT: about defining one's terms is not to argue after the definitions are given. Its just words, and one definition is as good as another. Rather, one simply agrees as to what definition is being used, and go from there.
That last part is generally the difficult part, and it's the most important. Most people would define wicked as evil. New Englanders, though, would define it as good. "Wicked chowdah, dude."
bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:I apologize for using only my memory and one source before saying you were wrong............and thank you for your instruction in return. Just what this forum is all about. Had I noticed your link.....I would have done better.
No worries, bobbo! And I agree with you, as I've learned quite a lot in my short time here. If I fail or refuse to learn, I might as well lie down, because I'm already dead. ;)
"An extraordinary claim requires extraordinary proof."—Marcello Truzzi

"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."—Christopher Hitchens

User avatar
OlegTheBatty
Has No Life
Posts: 11300
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 2:35 pm
Custom Title: Uppity Atheist

Re: Darwin debunked in Scientific American!

Post by OlegTheBatty » Sat Jan 06, 2018 7:58 pm

Nikki Nyx wrote: If I fail or refuse to learn, I might as well lie down, because I'm already dead. ;)
Spread conspiracy theories, quote Seth, claim you have out of body experiences, UFO's are aliens, . . .

There are many options, Nikki.
. . . with the satisfied air of a man who thinks he has an idea of his own because he has commented on the idea of another . . . - Alexandre Dumas 'The Count of Monte Cristo"

There is no statement so absurd that it has not been uttered by some philosopher. - Cicero

User avatar
Nikki Nyx
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3159
Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2017 12:40 am
Custom Title: cognitively consonant
Location: playing croquet in Wonderland

Re: Darwin debunked in Scientific American!

Post by Nikki Nyx » Sun Jan 07, 2018 4:05 pm

OlegTheBatty wrote:
Nikki Nyx wrote: If I fail or refuse to learn, I might as well lie down, because I'm already dead. ;)
Spread conspiracy theories, quote Seth, claim you have out of body experiences, UFO's are aliens, . . .

There are many options, Nikki.
I hope, in my dotage, that my delusions will be more imaginative than those. ;)
"An extraordinary claim requires extraordinary proof."—Marcello Truzzi

"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."—Christopher Hitchens

User avatar
Gawdzilla Sama
Real Skeptic
Posts: 22161
Joined: Sun Jun 01, 2008 2:11 am
Custom Title: Deadly but evil.

Re: Darwin debunked in Scientific American!

Post by Gawdzilla Sama » Sun Jan 07, 2018 4:18 pm

Nikki Nyx wrote:
OlegTheBatty wrote:
Nikki Nyx wrote: If I fail or refuse to learn, I might as well lie down, because I'm already dead. ;)
Spread conspiracy theories, quote Seth, claim you have out of body experiences, UFO's are aliens, . . .

There are many options, Nikki.
I hope, in my dotage, that my delusions will be more imaginative than those. ;)
gorgeous has ... limitations ... that he has to work with. Don't ask him to play patty-cake unless his life coach is there.
Chachacha wrote:"Oh, thweet mythtery of wife, at waft I've found you!"
WWII Resources. Primary sources.
The Myths of Pearl Harbor. Demythologizing the attack.
Hyperwar. Hypertext history of the Second World War.
The greatest place to work in the entire United States.