Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Albion · 08-29-2002, 07:49 PM

Well, when they're dealing with science, they don't have a lot of choice about plagiarising stuff because they don't know it themselves and they don't have enough respect for science to bother to find out. Much easier to go and copy wholesale. but then if they admit that's what they've done, it makes them look as if they don't know what they're talking about.

Baloo · 09-05-2002, 07:04 AM

*bump*

Doubting Didymus · 09-05-2002, 06:38 PM

As vanderzygen does not appreciate being 'derailed' in the thread where he made the original quotes, and is still using them to dispute phylogeny, I am bumping this thread one more time.

wade-w · 09-05-2002, 08:22 PM

Five will get you ten he never answers.

Doubting Didymus · 09-05-2002, 08:45 PM

I will repost my original here, as vandezygen does not want to discuss the quotes in the thread he quoted them in.

My post, from the 'Answer to the chromosome challenge' thread:

Quote:

Vanderzygen. I respectfully request that you answer the serious allegations levelled against you about libelous misquoting and intellectual theft. I will admit right now the possibility that we are wrong about these allegations, but I want to see this issue resolved.
First, do you understand that the context of the quotes is incorrect? You used the quotes to suggest unreliability in phylogenetic trees in modern animals, when the true context of the quote was about prokaryotes, which are known to have unreliable trees because prokaryote individuals exchange genetic material.

You have applied these quotes inappropriately even after it was pointed out to you that the context was wrong. Is this just because you do not understand the context, or are you deliberately dishonest. (Or, option three, are you actually claiming that prokaryote phylogenies have a bearing on modern animals?)

Before this debate continues, I would dearly like to see this issue resolved. You have four options.

1) If you attained the quotes yourself, admit that you did not understand the context.

2)If you attained the quotes yourself, and you understood their context, admit that you used them in a libelous manner.

3)If you attained the quotes yourself, and you understood their context, explain why the known problems with prokaryotic phylogeny has any bearing on phylogenies of organisms which do not exchange genetics.

4) If you attained the quotes indirectly from another authors work, reference that work.

I would like to believe that you are not a deliberately dihonest person, that you are not a liar, and you are not a theif. And I don't believe that you are, I believe that this is a misunderstanding, which is why I am giving you this opportunity to clear your name, so that we might continue to discuss other matters without suspicion.

Vander replied:

Quote:

That will be for another time and another thread.

The time is now. The thread is here.

Baloo · 09-06-2002, 04:31 AM

(Editted to add: Kevin Dorner, in the next post, renders most of this message null and void... )

Actually, I've recently come to think that Vanderzyden has an ignore list populated with people who see through and point out his lies with as much or less respect than I have (seems he has a convenient system whereby he responds to respectful accusations by good-naturedly ignoring the posts and less-than-respectful accusations by ignoring the posters altogether). As such, he may not even see this thread, much less your request that he respond in it. I'd recommend opening a new thread. Also, lest you wind up ignored as well, I recommend reminding him what a great guy you think he is, every other sentence or so.

Moderators, out of curiosity, if Vanderzyden has me on his ignore list, would he see threads started by me (or any posts within said threads)?

[ September 06, 2002: Message edited by: Baloo ]

Kevin Dorner · 09-06-2002, 04:50 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Baloo:
Moderators, out of curiosity, if Vanderzyden has me on his ignore list, would he see threads started by me (or any posts within said threads)?

AFAIK the ignore function only prevents someone from sending you private messages (accessible in the "my profile" link.)

pangloss · 09-06-2002, 08:55 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Automaton:
Doubting: Most of his material (including out-of-context quotes) seems to be lifted directly from Wells.

Indeed. Wells, despite his 'credentials', seems ot have to resort to the bassest of creationism's underhanded tactics.

Observe, from an email correspondance I am having with a Wells supporter:

Quote:

"But the expectation that more data would help matters "began to crumble a decade ago," wrote University of California molecular biologists James Lake, Ravi Jain, and Maria Rivera in 1999, "when scientists started analyzing a variety of genes from different organisms and found that their relationship to each other contradicted the evolutionary tree of life derived from rRNA analysis alone." p.49

The original source is as follows:

"The clonal theory began to crumble a decade ago when scientists started analyzing a variety of genes from different organisms and found that their relationship to each other contradicted the evolutionary tree of life derived from rRNA analysis alone."

emphasis mine.

Wells' wrote the above in a section titled "The growing problem in molecular phylogeny." Ignoring for now Wells' claim that everything about a phylogenetic tree is "hypothetical" except for the "tips of the branches", prior to the above quote Wells writes that

"... there has been a general expectation among evolutionary biologists that the more molecules they include in a phylogenetic analysis, the more reliable their results are likely to be."

Then comes the above quote specifically regarding the clonal theory, in which Wells omits the phrase "clonal theory" from his quote of Lake, Jain, and Rivera. He quotes more, all referring specifically to the clonal theory and/or the 'root' of the tree of life. However, that entire section is implicitly aimed at the use of molecular phylogenetics in general as testing/supporting evolutionary hypotheses.

From where I sit, that is a text book example of out of context quoting, not to mention that the implication is simply false.

You can give Elvis 10 million bucks and he will still eat peanut butter and banana sandwiches. You can give a creationist a doctorate and he will still be a creationist.

09-06-2002, 04:31 AM	#16
Baloo Regular Member Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: St. Louis, MO Posts: 417	(Editted to add: Kevin Dorner, in the next post, renders most of this message null and void... ) Actually, I've recently come to think that Vanderzyden has an ignore list populated with people who see through and point out his lies with as much or less respect than I have (seems he has a convenient system whereby he responds to respectful accusations by good-naturedly ignoring the posts and less-than-respectful accusations by ignoring the posters altogether). As such, he may not even see this thread, much less your request that he respond in it. I'd recommend opening a new thread. Also, lest you wind up ignored as well, I recommend reminding him what a great guy you think he is, every other sentence or so. Moderators, out of curiosity, if Vanderzyden has me on his ignore list, would he see threads started by me (or any posts within said threads)? [ September 06, 2002: Message edited by: Baloo ]</p>

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

08-29-2002, 07:49 PM	#11
Albion Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: US east coast. And www.theroyalforums.com Posts: 2,829	Well, when they're dealing with science, they don't have a lot of choice about plagiarising stuff because they don't know it themselves and they don't have enough respect for science to bother to find out. Much easier to go and copy wholesale. but then if they admit that's what they've done, it makes them look as if they don't know what they're talking about.

09-05-2002, 07:04 AM	#12
Baloo Regular Member Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: St. Louis, MO Posts: 417	bump

09-05-2002, 06:38 PM	#13
Doubting Didymus Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: East Coast. Australia. Posts: 5,455	As vanderzygen does not appreciate being 'derailed' in the thread where he made the original quotes, and is still using them to dispute phylogeny, I am bumping this thread one more time.

09-05-2002, 08:22 PM	#14
wade-w Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Silver City, New Mexico Posts: 1,872	Five will get you ten he never answers.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.