Denial of Evolution VII (2015)

Discussion in 'Biology & Genetics' started by davewhite04, Jan 5, 2015.

  1. Rav Valued Senior Member

    You are intellectually dishonest. Quite spectacularly so. It's a matter of record. A record which spans many years. A record which anyone can peruse for themselves. Not that reading years of posts is necessary; this thread alone will suffice.

    Of course you seem blind to it yourself so denial is natural, and expected.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. leopold Valued Senior Member

    prove this or retract it or your post will be reported.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. leopold Valued Senior Member

    i'm intellectually dishonest because . . . you said so?
    i didn't know you were a comedian.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. billvon Valued Senior Member

    And yet we have demonstrated that we can create the basics of life (consumption, reproduction, mutation) in a lab.
    No, you have a problem with Science. Ayala stated quite clearly that he was misquoted.
  8. Rav Valued Senior Member

    It's not necessary as we've heard from countless attendees all of whom were far more qualified than Lewin. In fact the biggest problem you have is explaining why Ayala would actually say something that was in opposition to the paper he was presenting from at the time (Ayala, F.J. 1983. Microevolution and macroevolution. In: D.S. Bendall, ed., Evolution from Molecules to Men (Cambridge University Press), pp. 387-402.) as well as other collaborative efforts he was engaged in, such as: (1981)

    Here's the abstract: "The current (synthetic) theory of evolution has been criticized on the grounds that it implies that macroevolutionary processes (speciation and morphological diversification) are gradual. The extent to which macroevolution is gradual or punctuational remains to be ascertained. Macroevolutionary processes are underlain by microevolutionary phenomena and are compatible with the synthetic theory of evolution. But microevolutionary principles are compatible with both gradualism and punctualism; therefore, logically they entail neither. Thus, macroevolution and microevolution are decoupled in the important sense that macroevolutionary patterns cannot be deduced from microevolutionary principles."

    So, we have an evolutionary biologist whose current (at the time) and previous work involved [among other things] nutting out the microevolutionary changes that underpin macroevolution. Yet apparently he proclaims at some conference, around about the same time, that "small changes do not accumulate"? That makes no sense whatsoever. And when quizzed about it later, he states: "I don't know how Roger Lewin could have gotten in his notes the quotation he attributes to me. I presented a paper/lecture and spoke at various times from the floor, but I could not possibly have said (at least as a complete sentence) what Lewin attributes to me. In fact, I don't know what it means. How could small changes NOT accumulate! In any case, virtually all my evolutionary research papers evidence that small (genetic) changes do accumulate." Which, once again, is perfectly consistent with the research he was engaged in, and publishing, at the time. Further, we have numerous other highly qualified attendees taking Lewin to task for his shoddy reporting. Yet instead of conceding that Lewin made a mistake, you want people to believe that Ayala is a liar? Or is it that he's schizophrenic?

    Please. You can delude yourself all you like, but it will continue to be clear to everyone else that you're just manifesting the persona of a complete nutcase.

    Note: every single thing I have said in this post has been explained to you on at least one previous occasion.
    exchemist likes this.
  9. leopold Valued Senior Member

    there is something i've noticed with your posts.
    almost all, as in >95%, of your references are sourced from here (sciforums)
    the only outside source i can find for your above post is this:
    the above gives no time span for "metamorphosis".
  10. leopold Valued Senior Member

    you might want to peruse the site feedback forum.
  11. Rav Valued Senior Member

    Did you post your response in there?
  12. leopold Valued Senior Member

    yes, fire is alive bill.
    you might want to join RAV.
    the only people this doesn't bother are the ones that don't give a shit.

    seriously bill?
    you don't wonder why science hasn't correct its mistake?
    especially with something of this magnitude?
    this is a respected source here bill, not some sci-fi rag.
    this was an important conference, not your weekend frat party.
    you cannot possibly believe all of that.

    the bottom line is, lewin reported on the conference fairly and accurately.
  13. Rav Valued Senior Member

    We're not talking about a scientific paper here. We're talking about an article written about what happened at a conference. A rowdy conference by all accounts with much "verbal jostling" as Lewin himself put it. Just as opinions were being expressed left, right and center at the conference itself, the article written about it was an opinion piece. And in keeping with that principle, Science additionally chose to publish several letters written by attendees who took no small issue with Lewin's editorializing.

    Such was the context. You don't issue retractions when you publish opinions. If there's disagreement what you do instead is print some responses. And that's exactly what Science did. Then the readership can make up their own minds.

    And in this case all those responses were from people who were far more qualified than Lewin.

    Errr, what? Read the letters:

    And also, explain how it makes sense for Ayala to have stated something that was so spectacularly in opposition to the paper he was presenting from, and the research he was engaged in, at the time (as detailed earlier).

    Go on. Explain it.
    Last edited: Jan 26, 2015
    Bells likes this.
  14. Bells Staff Member

  15. leopold Valued Senior Member

    can't ask for better.
    my denial?
    i agree that i find the concept absurd.
    OTOH, i find the concept of god equally absurd.
    so, where does that leave people like me james?
    do you honestly believe my "dispute" is imaginary?
    i consider this "dispute" of mine unresolved.
    it isn't an unreasonable position, given the circumstances.
  16. leopold Valued Senior Member

    yes, i found the link on a creationist site, i assume it was anyway.
    the article itself was sourced from jstor.

    where am i trying to prove genesis?
    this has fuck all to do with god or religion bells.
    NOTHING ! ! ! ! ! ! !
    maybe this is the exact kind of BS science is tired of.

    stop with the god, genesis, bible, jesus, holy, trinity, religion crap.
  17. krash661 [MK6] transitioning scifi to reality Valued Senior Member

    are you trying to use this topic to argue ?
  18. Rav Valued Senior Member

    She can't. Why not? Because if you deny gradualism then you deny evolution. And if you deny evolution all you have to explain life on earth is some form of creationism.

    If you're a creationist, that's fine. You have a right to believe whatever you want to believe. But pretending not to be is pretty lame I think.
  19. Billy T Use Sugar Cane Alcohol car Fuel Valued Senior Member

    leopold You claim evolution is false and that you are not dishonestly / secretly trying to support the "god made all life forms" as they are (or were for those now extinct) as they did not diverge / diversify as evolution states; So how do you explain the obvious fact that there are at least million different life forms now?

    Only other theory I can think of, is aliens brought them to Earth, in a "Noah's Ark" space ship. Is that what you think is true, if not, how did it happen Earth has so many life forms?

    If you are just a "Secret Creationist" come out of the closet. - Surely you are not ashamed of your belief are you?
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 26, 2015
  20. leopold Valued Senior Member

    it was written by one of the editors of science.
    it was a factual account of the conference.
    yes, some even called him an outright liar.
    you will note that science never apologizes for this.
    in order for you to use "opinion" you will need to prove lewin didn't take notes.
    like i said, it was a factual account of the conference.
    as a matter of fact, i believe it would be a safe bet that science has the entire transcript.
    no, what you do is apologize profusely and hope people like ayala don't sue your balls off.
    are you serious???
    hey look guys, are we lying or what.
    what a riot RAV.
    see above.
    i would LOVE to have an explanation to all of this RAV.
  21. Bells Staff Member

    Let me see if I have this correctly..

    You originally sourced the quote and the link on a creationist site and then went to JSTOR, which clearly showed it had appeared in Science Magazine.

    You then used that one quote from that article, that was clearly a misrepresentation and which is always used by creationist sites through quote mining to try to deny evolution which is where you initially found it.

    You spend years denying evolution and use that particular quote as your reference and evidence, and you deliberately ignore and misrepresent all evidence to that clearly shows you are absolutely wrong.

    And you are going to say that your argument has nothing to do with god or creationism?

    If you do not want to be treated like a creationist denying evolution, perhaps you should stop denying evolution and using the same tactics and quotes employed by creationists when they try to deny evolution.
  22. leopold Valued Senior Member

    i'm not claiming evolution is false.
    what does this have to do with the topic bill?
    the issue here is ayala, the magizine science, lewin, the letters.
  23. Bells Staff Member

    The letters just complained about he was reporting on the conference. They did not demand or ask for a retraction. They did not need to. They corrected his mistakes and Science published them all..

    And stop with the conspiracy theories.

    Also, you don't even know all that Lewin said, because if you did, then you would know that at no time did Lewin deny evolution. Far from it.

Share This Page