In generally small tweaks: Mostly to the history of evolution on earth.
Would a dispute about how a plane crashed constitute questioning the theory of flight?
Failed predictions such as...? Tweaks such as...?
It's call refinement, and it has been done in the appropriate direction, i.e. the theory has been refined to fit the data (in contrast to ID, where the data are massaged and misrepresented to fit the hypothesis).
Indeed. You only get to choose one, hammegk. Which will it be?They've only heard his side of the story. In particular, they only seem to have his views on what does and does not go in academia. He claims that he's been singled out. Reading the evidence, however, it seems that he has in fact made himself singular.
Is this the “scientific community” trying to “ruin his career”? No. They’re trying to save it so that he cannot represent himself as a martyr --- as he is now doing.
That is, it’s the typical ID rubbish. “I can’t explain this, nopt, mind you, that I've tried. Therefore it has no explanation. Therefore it has an explanation, namely, goddidit”. This is not science.
Is that plain enough? This concern would be especially well-motivated if, as is claimed:
If he has caused this embarrassment to the museum by failing to do his job properly, then resignation would seem in order, would it not?
Apparently Sternberg’s career is not the only one to suffer, nor indeed the first.
Remember that this is scientists talking amongst themselves, as they think in private, rather than something written for public consumption.
I should expect that others in his position weren’t asked this question! They think he’s been singled out? It is singular indeed for a research assistant to have to be asked what work he’s doing for the money he’s paid! It would be singular for any employee of any institution. Again:
Now since we know from the emails that no-one knows what he was working on, or had any evidence that he was working at all (“comes to work "after hours only" but nobody knows when”), this matter would seem to call for some investigation.
I've never been able to figure out whether you're a liar, a lunatic, or mentally retarded. Either way, you're wrong. The theory of evolution has not been modified countless times. This is why you're completely unable to support your insane assertion that it has been.
The theory has only been made more specific: from "inheritance with variation and natural selection" to "the laws of genetics and natural selection". This is why Steve Jones could modernise Darwin using the same chapter headings and summaries as were used in The Origin of Species. On the other hand evolutionary biologists then need to understand what the laws of genetics are, and what the consequences of the theory are, and in these areas our understanding has indeed improved and is still improving.
But, as I pointed out, they seem to have no idea of what should or shouldn't go on in academia.
They are protecting themselves from the fallout of his actions by protecting his career. Yes, the offer "I'll sponsor him myself" was politically motivated --- it would not have been made if only the quality of his work was at stake. Here we have a sinister conspiracy to protect a man's career. And why? Because he helped publish ID drivel.
As I have pointed out, he was singled out because there is something very singular about an RA who draws his salary without anyone knowing what he's working on, or when he's working on it, or if he's working on it. Of course similar enquiries were not made about other Research Assistants. This it is profoundly abnormal to have to enquire what an employee is doing for his pay.
Certainly if I, or anyone else remotly competent, had been involved in this supposed "peer review", that is exactly what I'd have said. Do you have any grounds for disagreeing?
No-one? Who has silenced Behe or Demski or Wickramsinge?
True. Despite the fact that any other RA behaving the same way at any other museum would, in their words, be "run out of town", they have to be specially careful of him because of the ID thing. He's lazy, he's incompetent, he breaks museum regulations, he's an embarrassment... but to avoid making a martyr of him "I'll sponsor him myself". He did indeed get special treatment because of his link with this article: and it was favorable.
That's weird. Let me say it again: it is normal for people who hire research assistants to know what they're doing for the money. I've been a research assistant myself. You don't get hired to do no-one-knows-what. But in Steinberg's case, as the emails show, it was in fact impossible to find out from him or anyone else what his studies were, what stage they were at, or whether he was pursuing them at all. Other RA's were not asked these questions because their supervisors already knew the answers. OK?
Evidence? For example, Piltdown man.
So your answer to speciation is what, exactly?Evidence? For example, Piltdown man.
More recently, much to-ing & fro-ing on Lucy, out-of-africa, eve, etc.
And two kinds of actual evidence exist. The fossil record is notorious for the continuing failure to provide any incontrovertible "missing link", or even to demonstrate that "speciation occurs over long periods", with critters appearing and dying out in instantaneous geologic time.
The other evidence is at the biochem and life level. All evidence to date demonstrates mutation and change within species and never a speciation event, unless defined to be one after-the-fact.
Evolution, "The Origin of the Species", remains a just-so-story ready for the next (meaningless) revision.
You are repeating a halfwitted fundie lie. Intermediate forms are abundant in the fossil record (Gould) and fine grained evolution can be seen in many lineages, as has been explained to you countless times.
You are repeating a halfwitted fundie lie. Speciation has been observed no matter how you and other refugees from reality try to shift the goalposts for the definition of "species", as has been explained to you countless times.
You are repeating a halfwitted fundie lie. The Origin has been confirmed empirically by biogeography, morphology, genetics, and the fossil record, as has been explained to you countless times.
You are repeating a halfwitted fundie lie (see, for example, my mention of Steve Jones above) as has been explained to you countless time.
And as we both know, Intermediate forms are in the eye of the beholder, and all the fine-grained ev is obviously micro-ev proving nothing.
You are repeating a fullwitted materialist lie.
The Origin remains a narrative account of wishful thinking with all actual evidence pointing in the wrong directions.
Great response at your usual level -- sound and fury signifying nothing.
I've thought each of these things about hammy at various times, but I have to keep modifying my theory with the evolution of his silliness.
This is a halfwitted lie. As I and all scientists know, they are in the fossil record.
Another halfwitted lie. The evolutionary changes which can be tracked are massive. Who the heck do you think you're going to fool by spewing out this nonsense?
Another halfwitted lie, contradicted by all the evidence. Every last little bit of it.
I take it back. You don't have the brains of a parrot.
I take it that's why you made a feeble attempt to imitate it. Am I meant to be flattered?
... apart from those... pesky facts.