Let me repeat my response:

You rarely see any other field being discussed in the same way as evolutionary theory because no other theory is attacked by so many people. The key word here being "discussed". What a few people say on an internet discussion forum doesn't represent the inner workings of the field.

You claim that scientific studies are being pulled off track by creationists, where's the evidence?

In the OP it appears that you're trying to make out like there's a huge problem because, god forbid, a scientist used the word "proof" where she shouldn't have. Yes, she did use the word without warrant, but where is the problem? The fact remains that the finding is not considered concrete and it can still be proven wrong if new evidence arises.

Let me repeat the question I asked before, which you did not answer:

If you think that science is somehow off track because of creationist attention, can you illustrate this?




And we can reasonably assume that THIS neanderthal is representative of the species, given the odds of finding a fossil from an anomoly vs. the probability of finding one from the norm.

Plus, let's examine the statement:



They didn't say ALL neanderthals moved. They said that "neanderthals" which means at least two. If you are going to play semantics, then you have to be thorough. The article does not say that it means all or even most moved around. It just says "neanderthals" which means more than one, and it is overwhelmingly likely that if one moved, than in the entire history of the species, at least one more moved as well.

I can play with semantics too.






But the quotes you pulled are NOT from a peer reveiw journal. If they were, the scientists would not be so careless with their wording.




But it surely does not word the same in the published journal, which is scoured by scientists for validity and accuracy.

That's the only relevant thing in your statement. Basically you are saying "SO WHAT BIG DEAL a Scientist said they proved something when they didnt't, they put in the papers and distributed it to the public AFTER it had been peer reviewed.

Big whuppy deal.


Well then you have a very lazy attitude towards science.

I'll tell you what the big deal is. This isn't the first time that something like this has come to my attention and I'm not a scientist. I know a lot of people who were blindsided as I was to find out that the supposed "perfect system of peer review" has a lot of holes in it.

I'm not going to drag up all the articles to prove my point about how Science in the field of evolution is reluctant to admit when it makes a mistake because this is often siezed upon by the Creationists as PROOF that the entire theory is wrong. Which is a bunch of baloney.

You've all mentioned the badgering by the Creationists and my aswer to that is SO WHAT? Why are Scientists trying to win in the court of public appeal if its just science? Who cares if more people believe the Creationists, if the scientists stay true to the science then this should be of no concern to them whatsoever.

But what we see instead is what has happened in this thread, excuses made, religion attack and avoid, dodge, excuse, antagonize, divert etc instead of simply "No she shouldn't have used that word, her findings don't prove that"

But No. Instead we get all this ranting and arguing.

The reason this bothers me is that I'm not a scientists and I would like to be able to trust that a scientist is going to hold THIS field to the same level of scrutiny and integrity it does any other.

Just scroll back through your comments and you'll see the kind of commentary that comes up "even among scientists" when one dares to question something pretty obvious.

They are making false statements about what the tooth actually proves. This is a fact. And I don't have to be a scientist to say that.

I'm sorry, Truethat, but the scientist didn't write the article. A reporter did. If you can show me the scientist saying the same thing in the peer reviewed journal article, then you would have the beginnings of a good point.



But you are making a false claim. Your own OP proves this assertion wrong. What this scientist discovered is contrary to the current theory about neanderthal. So if science is "reluctant to admit when it makes a mistake" why are they so excited about this? Why aren't they covering it up or making things up to explain it away? Instead, they are talking to reporters. How do you explain that?




Becasue a misinformed and poorly educated populace is a very, very, very bad thing, for science, for the government, for the society as a whole. Educated people know this, and scientists are educated. A lot of very bad things happen when people believe crazy things with no scientific basis. And a country that does not listen to it's scientists, and who instead listen to their preachers, soon finds itself devoid of scientists, and that would be very, very bad for us.



Actually, I'm pretty sure that the three of your main opponants in this debate have all said she mispoke. We don't debate that. What we contest is the idea that her bad choice of word is indicative of some larger problem with science in general.





You are correct. What she should have said, and probably DOES say in the paper she submitted, is that the tooth proves that at least one neanderthall travelled widely, and most likely their culture did so as well.

You don't see other areas of science attacked in this way because other areas of science aren't abused by people trying to prop up their world view with them. The thing is, and I can only speak for myself here, I am not against evolutionary theory itself, it's a theory, being studied by educated people who want to see what they can learn or infer about the unobserved past by using the theory, I DO have a problem with people who purport to use this theory to prop up their idea that we have proven there is no God or that every life form we see around us came to be without the need of a Creator because that is no longer science, it is religion mascarading as science, and like Neo states in the next quote I have, an uneducated public may be (he says "is", which I am about to challenge) dangerous, so we should all be vigilant towards any idea which tries to misguide the public, be it spiritually religious or scientifically religious.

Please cite your source for this assertion. I would be willing to agree that an uneducated public may pose a danger to a government, especially a democratic/representative government, where the people wield ultimate power through their vote, but I would balk at asserting that this IS so.

Additionally, just in the spirit of veracity, unless you can again provide a citation, or even better a bibliography, in support of the bolded statement, shouldn't that whole statement be preceded or proceeded by "In my opinion?"


And I can already hear the cries of "Creationist!" "Anti-science!" "Science-basher"

Looks like the Daily Mail quoted direct from the Abstract from the Journal.

Thank you, then my point stands correct.


Neo you are being hypocritical by suggesting that an uninformed public is a threat but only when its guided by religious leaders.

In my opinion its wrong of science to deliberately mislead the public which I feel it does through these kinds of articles. Edited to ad, before you yell that Science didn't write the article, the scientist, speaking to the press stated this.

If a Creationist or an IDer were to make an opposite type of assertion that in any way bolstered the Creationist or ID opinion the scientists would be and ARE all over it stating as you have that its not right to mislead the public.

But when science misleads the public its OK then right?

I just can't understand why you all can't see the hypocrisy in your statements


If anyone has the entire report I'd love to see it. But regardless of what's in the abstract which typically would not be read by the general public, the Scientist stated that this proved that Neanderthals roamed which is not a true statement.

Sorry I didn't read the preceding pages that closely but just thought I would add

Archaeology often straddles a difficult position between a science and an art. What you really get with a lot of the material is an "inference to the best explanation" scenario.

Just like the police will come into a room after a crime scene, look at what it left behind and try to work out what happened.

The teeth analysis is quite a useful tool as it is one of the things that can be tested on modern day populations. We can see where someone has lived and plot the course through their teeth.

I agree the extrapolation from tiny fragments should not go too far - but usually they are quite conservative and there is a lot of background information and previous studies that they are building on.

I personally am reassured when scientists revise what they have previously stated as when more information comes to hand they are willing to change what they have inferred.

Considering that archeology does sit in such a precarious position, shouldn't the scientists working in that field be that much more careful about how they state things, and shouldn't someone in the scientific community be working to insure the public is not accidentally misguided by some misstatement or misquote?

truethat! That's what I've never understood. To me the integrity of the field should value more than getting a sound bite in a newspaper.

Yes.

I think True is correct in saying that the extrapolation from a tooth being found to ascertaining proof in regards to settlement/dispersal patterns is quite silly. I agree that proof was a bad word to use.

That type of mileage to move during a lifetime (regardless of whether it is a renegade Neanderthal) for hunter-gathers is not far.

I don't think qualifying statements would often get past the editors. Short, snappy, pithy comments seem to hold and grab people’s attention. A positive assertion/claim will get the headline. It is like a lot of new medical treatments - if you look a little bit closer they may only have a slight statistical advantage in terms of life expectancy - although it may only mean in a rat! Science journalism is always dumbed down - people are assumed as not being able to understand the nuances.

Can you imagine if the finance pages were dumbed down like that! Outrage!!!

Science journalism in general is not fantastic - but I agree this particular lady - if taken purely at face value - seems to be making a large leap.

In defense of the scientists (and indeed any scientist interviewed for a news story):

Yes, when being interviewed they said something that they TECHNICALLY couldn't conclude with certainty from the available evidence (the "proved" line). No, they almost certainly did not make the claim of certainty in their actual scientific literature and almost certainly didn't intend to make themselves sound so certain in the first place. (They COULD say it suggested that they were more mobile and call for more research to confirm this)

When being interviewed about 95% of what you say goes out the window. I know. I was been filmed multiple times my senior year for a documentary about highschoolers involved in scientific research. They are prone to ask probing questions multiple times, changing the wording until you say something they like. The people are nice, its just their training. They want quick clips and can steer the conversation with their role as questioner. I haven't seen the editing yet... but they have hours of film of me, plus there are 4 or 5 other people going into a documentary that cant be more than an hour or two long. I suspect there will be a bit of interesting editing of some things I said, although I tried to avoid overemphasizing anything or being sensationalistic and the intent of these people was not to sensationalize what I was doing, just show highschoolers doing research.

I suspect it is VERY easy to make "sound" bytes when it comes to print - you can take a quote ENTIRELY out of context.

I have little respect for the mass news media when it comes to reporting on science. Documentaries are better... but there are always problems.

[PS: And Tom, on the off chance you ever read this, I'm not knocking on you or the team! Just the media in general. You guys are nice but the media can have problems.]

Belgis,

I completely agree with your post and the post above mine. I think there should be outrage when something is passed off as science when its just enthusiasm or basically encouraging evidence.

To me it doesn't make or break me if the Neanderthal roamed but I think Iams is correct in pointing out that there should be a very careful watch on what is said.

The only thing for me, is as have noted in numerous threads in the past, that Science seems to turn a blind eye to these kind of mistakes when science people do them but they jump in full frenzy on it when a religious person makes the same mistake.


I have to thank Raptor for making me think why this bothers me so much. I've said in the past because it makes me feel as though there is a bias in the field.


But in really thinking about it I think its becuase it makes me mad that I am not a scientist at all and these supposed pillars of science get away with this. I would like to be able to TRUST science and in this regard when it comes to Evolution or fields surrounding that the fact that Science is hesitant to criticize itself when it makes a mistake bothers me.


People often suggest that I have gotten upset that the soft tissue found in the T rex bone, meant the bone wasn't as old as it was or some other thing. But that's not really the issue. The issue was that they didn't support the scientific research in breaking open T rex bones they already had to see if there was soft tissue in other bones. The Scientist asked them to and they refused so she had to go out and dig up more bones to see if there was soft tissue in those bones etc etc etc.

I firmly believe that the reason they wouldn't cooperate with the study is because they feared it would be siezed upon by creationists as evidence that Evolutionists had made another mistake.


Anyway thanks for the reasonable input from the last two posters. Its refreshing to see.

Firstly, read their paper and draw your conclusions form that. An informal article is not a scientific publication. The whole "prove" statement is quite sound as they have for many years found evidence of neanderthal tools that far south. It does mention this in the article too, briefly. You have the tools, you now have a specimen and have the evidence that that specimen also grew up in that area so it wasn't a wanderer. That is more than sufficient to prove that there was a surviving population there. This whole thread is making a big deal out of nothing.

Yes, and please also forgive the nice people from Westboro Baptist Church who are only attempting to exercise their free speech rights, but who have really only been sensationalized by the media... yeah, RIGHT




So, using a process which when used correctly cannot be used to prove anything, these scientists have proven this?

SOURCE

Just in case you don't have time to follow the link to the source: The partial list presented above is taken from a university's (no, not a religious university) curriculum. It is intended to insure the students learn what science is by pointing out what science is not.

In case you missed it Capeo this isn't about the scientific paper. As is noted the general public is not going to go off reading scientific journals. This is about the newspaper article that quoted a scientist stating "THIS PROVES" and also in the abstract it says "Therefor we can say" which both are erroneous statements.

The newspaper article is the issue, not the scientific study. As has been noted by Neogenesis, when the public is mislead either intentionally or otherwise by leaders in a field, be it science or religion, it is DANGEROUS and needs to be corrected.

Yet as I have noted for months, when a scientist makes a mistake like this the science community tends to look the other way but if a Creationist or someone from the discover instittute were to make a similar mistake they'd be outraged and screaming in the press.

Perhaps you'd like to explain why anyone on this thread is saying anything other than "She should not have used that word because it conveys the wrong idea?"


Perhaps one of you would like to explain why you are defending this mistake instead of agreeing to the FACT that it was the wrong choice of words?


I'd like to add that the only ones who are making a big deal of nothing are the people who are getting annoyed with me for pointing out a mistake.

Here's a great link written by the science folks explaining law, theory and proof. I thought this part was relevant.



http://www.carlton.srsd119.ca/chemical/Proof/default.htm

I didn't say "ONLY" when guided by religious leaders.



Because your reaction is highly overstated, and we are approaching from a more rational standpoint.


as a former photojournalist, I can conform that this is true. I used to do it myself in certain circumstances.





But I'm afraid that most people who are into science realize this was just a poor word choice and what appears in a newspaper or whatever article isn't going to have any effect on the science. That's why we aren't really upset by the poor choice of word. You seem to think it's some type of representation of the real scientific process or something, I'm not entirely sure.




"Get away with this?" Get away with what? With making a poor choice of word in a non-scientific article, probably prompted by a reporter for an exaggerated statement? This is where I think you are overreacting and tilting at windmills.



The general public also doesn't change or form an opinion on something like the migration patterns of Neanderthals based on a newspaper article. Most people that bothered to read it probably don't remember it today.



what would you like them to do? Demand the the newspaper prints a correction and put out a press release saying that the word "proof" was overzealous regarding a subject the public generally has no interest in either way? Come on....that's a little silly, don't you think?

We keep saying, but you keep conveinently dismissing, that if she said that in a publication that matters to the scientific community, like a peer reviewed archeology journal, she would most certainly be taken to task. Nobody but you thinks that a poor choice of one word in a NEWSPAPER is of any significance.



But you didn't just point out a mistake. If that's all you did, there would be no issue. Instead, what you did, is try to tie a poor choice of word into some larger conspiracy to mislead the public, and then used that notion to imply that scientists try to supress evidence if it doesn't fit their current theories. then you tried to parlay this into some support for not accepting the theory of Evolution.
And this is where you lost us.

My point is not the mistake. IF the woman made a mistake and someone addressed it then it wouldn't matter to me at all. As I've said for months I've noticed that these kinds of mistakes are rarely corrected in the media by Scientists. But if a religious person makes a similar mistake the integrity of science is some how at risk. The Science community goes out of its way to correct errors made by Creationists and IDers with a zealous attitude that they are misleading the public.

But when one of their own do it, its not a big deal.

Hi Neo. Good to see you have some time on your hands right now... would you please provide the citations I requested yesterday. I just went back and noticed you have not added any kind of phrasing or commentary explaining that you are expressing your opinion, so I am assuming (yes, I know assuming is a bad thing, but) that this means you do have some sort of citation for a study that supports your statement.

How would you like someone to adress it? What would you like to see happen? I can guarentee you, that if her peers read that newspaper article, they probably raised an eyebrow and said "actually, it doens't prove that at all, but it does support the idea" and moved past it, because nobody remembers what they read about something they aren't interested in anyway from day to day.

A religious person CAN'T make a similar mistake, as they are not making any type of statement based on evidence at all, now are they? A religious group trying to promote creationism is pretty much making stuff up or basing it on a book that is, in all likelyhood, made up too. So they don't have or need any proof at all, do they?

And you just brought up religion in your last post. Yet you got all defensive when someone else alluded to religion on the first page. But YOU keep bringing it up. So there WAS an agenda to get religion in this by you after all, eh?



I see what you are getting at, and on a basic level you have a point. But where the disconnect with reality comes is that this is a NEWSPAPER article. She is not trying to get science text books reworded to say "proof." She is not trying to get her theory promoted in science class without any evidence. She merely misspoke in a newspaper article.

It is NOT analagous to the folks actively trying to tear down evolutionary theory with pseudo science and false statements, and then trying to get their idea promoted as somehow being on equal scientific footing as evolutionary theory. There's quite a difference, and your making a mountain out of a molehill.

I'm not going to bother with a citation that shows that when people favor superstition over science, bad things happen. Any citation would merely be the opinion of someone else. Do you really need a citation from someone else to accept that when a society accepts misinformation and ignores it's scientists, it is generally very bad? Do you really require a citation to accept that ignorance is a bad thing for a society?

Ok so as I have pointed out for months when a Science person does it its OK and not that big of a deal but when a religious person does it, it draws massive amounts of attention.


I don't even know why you are arguing with me Neo when every single thing you post supports my argument more and more and more chuckles.

Who's the "scientific community"? Us? Members of a public discussion forum?



We've already said that Panagopoulou didn't use the word "proves" appropriately, thankfully she didn't use it in the actual scientific paper.

Since when do you see members of said "scientific community" buzzing around creationists because of a small error (yes, small) like mistakenly using the words "proves that..." in place of "indicates with a high level of probability that..."? In the event that that did happen, were the creationists ever harrassed for this mistake? Or were they simply corrected, similarly to how people here have already corrected the words used by Panagopoulou?

Try to understand:

The science person misspoke one word to a non-scientific journal.

The religious folks deliberatly publish massive ammounts of false or misinterpreted data in an attempt to get their idea into high school science classes. They have an active agenda to discredit evolutionary theory.

Truethat, CAN you see the difference?



Exactly. Plus, with the ammount of pseudo and false science creationsist put out, correcting a single missword would be like putting a bandaid on a plague victim. I WISH that creationists were so accurate that we could nitpick their semantics....


Our problem isn't that you pointed out that she misspoke, it's that you are using that as a basis to call into question all the science that concludes in the theory of evolution.

When a society favors superstition over science, "bad things" do indeed happen. See this thread for an example of one such "bad thing".

Ignorance really isn't bliss.

No I can't see the difference. See you operate from the premise that there is no bias or agenda in science. That's not been my experience.

My experience is that science is pushed on the general public in a way regarding Evolutionary science, that is not done with the other sciences.

YOu don't see Physicists freaking out if their studies are not understood by the general public for example.

Obviously this comes as a result of the push of Creationists and IDers trying to pass themselves off as scienctists. HOWEVER in my opinion sciences that deal with evolution should be held to at least the same level of integrity as any other science, especially because of the controversy.

You constantly suggest that these Scientists are somehow better standard than regular people and would never ever misrepresent the facts.

That hasn't been my experience. Anyway I made my point. Anyone who says that she was right to use the word proves is wrong.

So there's no real point in debating here with people who have blind faith in scientists and think they are beyond reproach.

YAWN

Continue your ranting. I'm out.

This thread isn't about religion or superstition Lilly, so your point is COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT. The thread is about a scientists misrepresenting the facts but par for the course "LETS TALK ABOUT BAD RELIGION INSTEAD!"

Now here's what I see.

Actually never mind, I see when you can't "Win" its back to baiting and bashing religion two things that feel more comfortable than admitting that Science made a mistake.

So enjoy yourselves.

How is evolution pushed on the general public? Because it's taught in schools? Because scientists are forced to defend it in the face of creationists?




Physics is not under attack by a religious group. There are not schools required to put a sticker on their physics books citing the bible as another explanation for physics.




FINALLY.



They absolutely are. Your disconnnect with reality here is that you are taking the poor choice of word in a NEWSPAPER article and using it to support the fallacious argument that scientists let their own get away with bad science. This simply is not true. Her statement would have NEVER stood if printed in a peer science journal. Scientists generally are not goign to get upset about ONE word that appears in a NEWSPAPER article that really doesn't change anything. Her published paper would NEVER say "prove," because she would not be allowed to get away with that in a peer reveiwed publication.

Why is that so hard for you to accept?




It has CLEARLY come to incorporate a religious angle, as you yourself keep saying that when a religious person makes misstatement, they are called to task. (this is NOT true anyway. They aren't called on semantics. They are called out based on a concerted and organized effort to spread disinformation)

Lilly had every right, and was relevant, to point out why scientists don't let disinformation go unchecked. So stop being a bully and throwing a fit every time the discussin evolves away from you.




I never said that, and neither did anyone else.

But what we did say, was that they are unable to misrepersent facts in their peer reviewed journals. And those are the publishings that matter, as those are the papers other scientists read and test and build off of. We don't really care that one word was misspoken in a newspaper article. It's unfortunate, but it's not really that significant given that in the peer journals, that won't happen.

By the way, do you know what "rant" means?

Take a look at your own posts, complete with sarcasm, "yawn"s, maniacal laughter, name calling, general childish behavior, overstating the opposition, logical fallacies, and a general inability to admit error, etc. and then try to determine which one of us is ranting.


Your point might get understood a little faster if you were not using these tactics and remained calm and rational.

What do you mean finally? I've said that from the get go, give me a freaking BREAK.

You have no objectivity on this issue whatsoever so its pointless.

You say it doesn't matter. Ok so how many times doesn't it matter? How many times is it ok to do this? Several months ago I pointed out that a program on television did the same thing.

All of you did the same thing that you did in this thread.

Answer this quesiton. Why are you so compelled to defend something that is a blatant error without pausing to investigate the issue?

You did the same thing, so did Raptor, Lilly, Capeo, Shaftsbury and Tiggs regarding a science show that talked about the surface of the planet billions of years ago. Back then you said it wasn't science supported, (it was) that the people commenting were not "real scientists" (not only were they real they were among the most notable in their field) that it wasn't aimed at the public (it was) that it was religions fault (its not) and finally when you couldn't argue that any more the fails safe, ITS NOT THAT BIG OF A DEAL!

So all I see on this forum is when a scientist makes a mistake you are first inclined to downplay it rather than admit that its a mistake.

You do this every single time I've pointed this out. And in most cases with no actually research on this topic.

For examply you at first stated that ONCE it was published and peer reviewed, which it already HAD BEEN, but you didn't know that because you didn't even pause to read the article, you just went straight to excusing the mistake.

Several other people in this thread have noted that she shouldn't have used the word. All of you have ignored those comments and acted like I'm somehow wrong to bring this up.

We've had several diversionary religion bashing statements one of which done by a moderator.

So I'm sorry if I don't see you as objective or rational when it comes to discussing mistakes in science.

You are free to continue deciding what IS or IS NOT important if that makes you feel better. To me you prove my point the more you go on. So please.............continue.

Nobody is bashing religion. Try to see the words people write, and not the just the preconceived ideas you have of what you think they will write. Also, one scientist, in a NEWSPAPER article, misspoke one word. That is unfortunate, but is hardly "science made a mistake." As point out over and over, she'll be held to higher standards in the peer journals she must publish in.

I don't expect you to admit that you've blown this out of proportion, as I've yet to see you concede a single point in any post, in any topic, but at least try to understand why everyone thinks you are blowing this out of porportion. And it's not "winning" or "losing" a debate, it's trying to get multiple viewpoints to help form a better opinion, and parsing others and yourself for accuracy. It's not a contest, truethat, it's a discussion. Maybe that's why you are always so aggressive and defensive and unpleasant to share forum space with.

So instead of actually addressing our arguments, you just call us biased and run. That's fantastic.

They why do you keep wondering why evolutionary biologists are forced to adress the public more than physicists or bottanists, etc?



Just because we don't agree with you and point out several things you've said that are not accurate or that are blown out of porportion doesn't mean we're not objective, truethat.

No actually I edited that. You are not objective. You tend to defend first ask questions later and throw diversionary religion bombs.


Anyway the reason I am out is that people are telling me not to bother. Science people. That you don't represent the reality and that its obvious you are just arguing with me for personal reasons.

So on that note. I'm bowing out.

One of them just sent me this and asked me to post it.
http://defendscience.org/ds_commentary3.html

I don't think any of us have done that. I don't think anyone else thinks we've done that either. I think most of it is in your imagination.




I'm certainly not. I still am waiting for you to explain your underlying assertion that all evolutionary science is unreliable and conspiratorial based on the one word poorly spoken in a newspaper article by an excited discoverer.


If this is true, why don't they get away with this in peer reviewed journals?

Why does science revise it's theories based on new evidence if they are unwilling to consider new evidence?

Why does science constantly check and balance itself?

Why does science have journals that are peer reveiwed, where the findings must be verified and are picked apart by other scientists to verify their validity?

Why do the same journals also then publish papers with other possible explanations or conclusions from those very findings?

We've all conceded that she should have been more careful in her wording, and that human beings, even scientists, are human and therefore have bias.

But your assertion seems to go beyond that, and implies that the whole scientific community operates under some personal bias and wither misinterprets or maybe fakes evidence to keep their theories alive? If that's true, how do you answer the above questions?




Here, this is from your own cite:




They are trying to perserve the scientific method and process in the face of religion and superstition that is starting to seep into the science class and undermine the foudnations of science. What is wrong with that? Ignorant and superstitious people are not good for democracy or for a society in general. They are trying to safeguard the very scientific method from bias by a political agenda so that we can produce educated people who understand science and can make good decisions in the future.

Again, this is ridiculous. Science can "prove" things. The tooth proves a neanderthal died in the area. Tools and trade items prove neanderthals lived in the area. Isotopes proved the neanderthal in question lived with 12.5 miles of the site for the better part of it's life. I don't even understand why this is being harped on. Also note: "Our findings prove that ... their settlement networks were broader and more organized than we believed." See the ellipses? This quote has been edited. It would actually pay to find the real quote if folks are going to continue to make a big deal out of nothing.

Here comes the brigade. You all attack me do you notice that rather than addressing the OP. Its what you do in every thread like this. As I stated, the scientist made an error in using the word and it hasn't been corrected by other scientists.

The only reason a big deal is being made is you all need to defend at all costs and bring in the warheads when it comes down to it.


As I stated, continue, you are just proving my point.


Thank you Capeo for proving my point again. That you didn't bother to investigate it before you defended it.

Here is the fill missing from the ellispses

"Our findings prove that their mobility was significant and that their settlement networks were broader and more organized than we believed," she said.

I won't waste my time typing out a full new response, it wouldn't be much use after you've already displayed your unwillingness to acknowledge what I've written. Instead I'll just repost my last relevant post and ask that you point out the errors, which should be easy for you to do because us "science people" aren't accepting the reality of the situation.







Was that a diversionary comment? You mentioned Creationists and I responded accordingly.

Here you go:

"Our findings prove that their mobility was significant and that their settlement networks were broader and more organized than we believed," that's her full quote.

Now what was proved? Only that the above was more than we PREVIOUSLY thought. Read the sentence in proper light of grammar and you'll find she's simply saying that it proves neanderthal populations were more mobile than previously thought and that they used this mobility more than we thought they did. And it does do so. So what's the issue?

ARe you saying that your ONLY issue is with the poor choice of words in an EDITED qoute? (thanks Capeo..I didn't even notice that!) and that you DON'T see this as some supporting evidence to doubt the entire evolutionary theory?



Then why is your thread title:

And people wonder why I am a skeptic, When it comes to Evolutionary Science?

You are a skeptic about evolutionary science why?

You keep saying it's because you think there's some conspiratorial bias that is not parsed out by the peer review process, and this just isn't true.


If I'm wrong about what I think you are saying, can you sum up your point for us in a few sentences? Maybe we're all confused by your hystrionics and not getting your point.

Attack you? I didn't even address my post to you so you can come down off the cross, True. I addressed what the article says and how I don't see any fault in the logic of the woman's quote.

EDIT: you'll note I already posted the full quote. Again, I see no problem with it. She's addressing physical evidence and stating how it's changing previous views on neanderthal migrations.

You defended it before you bothered to even read it and now you are splitting hairs. Continue please. Its quite interesting.

Thanks Capeo. I am , frankly, embarassed that I didn't dig that up myself and allowed myself to be baited by truethat.




You attacked it before you bothered to find out the whole quote in context.

You are wrong about what I am saying but I'm not about to explain it to for the millionth time. As noted in your own words "You didn't even notice...."

In other words yet another admits that they defended the quote without taking the time to even read it well let alonefind the entire quote.

Continue, as I said you are just proving my point.

By the way Neo several people HAVE gotten my point, you consistantly have told me what I am saying when I have not said anything other than

I've noticed that in fields surrounding evolutionary science, when a scientist makes an error its usually excused by tte supporters of science as no big deal. But if a IDer or a Creationist made the same type of mistake people would be all over it.

I've noticed as a result that especially in the field of evolutionary science that people are reluctant to criticize becaue they fear any criticism will be picked up by the religious as evidence that the entire theory is wrong.

I've noticed a reactionary stance in the field against this that I believe corrupts the integrity of the field. This quote is just a small example.

No I didn't. Why would you say that? See you just want to win the argument. I did check it out before I posted it, in addition Tiggs posted it on the first page, but you've been so busy ranting you've not been objective enough to see anything.


Notices that NEo has nothing to say, not only did he miss the elipses but he missed the fact that Tiggs posted it on page one. So now I await his twisted debate answer because he flat out is busted for defending something to the HILT and with extremes that only on the last page he's actually taken the time to read.

Was this directed at me?

So you say that the scientific community attacks creationists on account of every error they ever make make, while allowing everything written by other scientists go unchallenged. In response I point out that creationists are rarely, if ever at all, attacked for such minor errors and that the scientist was in fact corrected for her error here, instead of actually conceding (or even acknowledging) that, all you say is that I'm splitting hairs?

Insane. Could you at least explain your reasoning?

No it was directed at Capeo.


No I didn't say that the scientific community attacks creationists on account of every error they ever make make,

while allowing everything written by other scientists go unchallenged. In response I point out that creationists are rarely, if ever at all, attacked for such minor errors and that the scientist was in fact corrected for her error here, instead of actually conceding (or even acknowledging) that, all you say is that I'm splitting hairs?


I never said that at all. Again you are trying to WIN the argument so you are twisting my words.


I love how you've all ignored all the comments about Science from science sites etc.


Continue

So now you've had to exaggerate what I said and make it extreme because otherwise you wouldn't have a leg to stand on

Continue

Anyone else want to prove more of my points for me

This quote is no example of what you say as it doesn't deal with evolution in any way, shape or form. As for IDers or creationists, everything they posit is a mistake, has no evidence and hence isn't even subject to self or peer correction. The comparison isn't valid. They are not on the same playing field. Scientists actually have to back up their theories with evidence. Some evidence undeniably proves things. The evidence this woman is citing is a good example of that. Also, note, science doesn't even address or attempt to disprove creationism as a form of research. It's just the results of many years of research in many fields that allows those scientists that publically address it (the vast majority don't) to be easily dismissive of it.

Again, this quote, when read grammatically correct, really is no issue. It's much ado about nothing.

I also love how you seem to think you anything about what goes on in the field of evolutionary biology or it's correlaries. What journals do you read? If you read any, you'd know that huge amounts of revision, change and new evidence is the rule, not the exception. About 1% of it, if that, reaches the public forum. Then a quote taken out of context makes you think you know whats going on in a huge discipline that encompasses many fields of science? Is that not a bit presumptuous?