Thanks for the offer!! Hahaha… Okay, full disclosure… I had a PM conversation with @DaleCutler, and I accidentally replied to the wrong thread. I didn’t realize until many hours later that I had done so, and then it was too late and my comment was not only buried, it was replied to… So, there you have it! 
1 Like
I love it when that happens 
1 Like
Hahaha, but not to yourself, right??
Glad you asked to clarify.
No irony, it was a way to say “ok, I see your point” but now I realize that I did not say it clearly. I respect their opinions and beliefs.
As I’ve said before, I’m not a fan of engaging in this kind of discussions about things that have a substantial speculative component. But I thought that perhaps I could learn a thing or two from this exchange of ideas. Maybe I’m learning a few things that confirm what I knew already. Specially in the area of human communication, which is bizarre sometimes.
I’m fascinated by what biology research is reporting. I assume some of the participants in this forum like it too.
This is a point of real common ground. One way to participate is post articles you hear about for discussion and deeper explanation. It need not be about origins.
2 Likes
How can you judge evolutionary biology to have a “substantial speculative component” when you’ve never read or studied anything on the subject and have demonstrated zero knowledge or understanding of the science involved?
That’s not my personal opinion. As you well stated, my lack of knowledge disqualifies me from judging anything in this field. However, I see it in some papers I read. For example, see the last paragraph quoted in the second post here.
1 Like
It was your stated personal opinion yesterday
What made you change your opinion in less than 24 hrs?
Agree. Your forum seems to allow and encourage that kind kind of serious participation.
1 Like
The opinion I expressed is based on what is written in papers I have read, like the one posted here.
However, the phrase “It’s a waste. Very unscientific.” is my personal opinion, which hasn’t changed. It’s a matter of personal taste. It could be wrong, though. Let’s wait and see.
It had your name on it.
Did someone hijack your account and post it without your knowledge?
OK, you have persuaded me to correct my text. Perhaps the words I used were not appropriate. Thanks.
I should have said that “according to what is written in many research papers, speculation in this area is quite abundant, and I have a personal preference for disliking that.”
Do you understand it now?
I adjusted the text in that post:
“According to what is written in many research papers, speculation in this area is quite abundant, and I have a personal preference for disliking that.
The coherent and comprehensive explanation of the appearance of Eukaryota must be so solidly founded that it should be available in textbooks and video courses. For example, MIT offers many free online courses, like the developmental biology online course by Professor Hazel Sive. Developmental Biology is fully WYSIWYG stuff. Very little speculation, if any at all. Evolutionary biology does contain a substantial speculative component, specially in the macro-evolution area. The evo-devo area has much more devo than evo.”
Is it more understandable now?
Note that another controversy provoked by the original post was related to a misunderstanding of the reference to an MIT online course. Does that get clarified with this rewritten text?
2 Likes
Read posts #165 & #167 for clarification.
No because your claim yesterday was a blanket attack on all evolutionary science, not a single paper on the evolution of eukaryotes. That’s why Dr. Swamidass pointed out there are tens of thousands of papers on the subject which you claimed were ALL a waste and unscientific , your words.
I find your bait-and-switch now to be quite disingenuous. Did you intend to be deceptive that way?
Leave him alone @Timothy_Horton. This was a veery conciliatory note:
Take the win and move one.
2 Likes
Actually it was a lame attempt at distraction and which had nothing to do with his claim yesterday I was referring to. But if you’re happy allowing such subterfuge, so be it.
Did the Amoeba proteus have mitochondria before it injested the bacteria?
This is factually incorrect and is an argument apparently made from rather severe ignorance of actual evolutionary biology.
1 Like
But have you cited any research papers yet, pawas? Do you realize that there are very different types of papers?
I don’t see the point of citing only two papers that don’t contain any new research, then complaining that they are too speculative. You’re also going in the pseudoscientific direction of concentrating on rhetoric and ignoring the data.
1 Like