Denial of Evolution VII (2015)

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

  1. Rav Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,422
    It was a single perspective that contrasted with the perspectives of several more qualified attendees. That is a matter of record.

    LOL. So if I write down some notes about something that happened, everything I say about what happened is suddenly elevated to the status of objective fact? Interesting.

    It was a single perspective that contrasted with the perspectives of several more qualified attendees. That is a matter of record.

    That's simply not how reporting on contentious issues that are largely a matter of opinion is handled.

    Science published 5 letters written by highly qualified individuals that made Lewin look like a bit of a doofus. Science did that. To one of their own staff.

    Punishment enough for Lewin I think.

    Goes with the territory though, so I bet he just sucked it up and got on with his job.

    Nonsense. You're merely pretending to be a truth seeker to make your denialism seem more reasonable.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    you haven't gotten anything right yet.
    let's see how this goes.
    YES !
    no.
    the quotes i posted from the article CAME from the article.
    questioning its concepts, yes.
    i never knew the quote existed until i read it on jstor.
    all this retraction stuff surfaced after i posted the quotes.
    wrong about what bells?
    i have been factual in this thread and i HAVEN'T been trying to twist things like you are.
    yep, that's exactly what i'm a sayin'
    are you ok?
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Billy T Use Sugar Cane Alcohol car Fuel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,198
    So you think, as almost all educated people do, that evolution is the best explanation of the great diversity of life?
    For you that seems to be the case but read the thread's title.
    Few, perhaps only you, think it worth even a minute of discussion what was said during heated discussion at a conference that was not in support of evolution and may have been reported and retracted by Science. I have zero interest in that so if by osmosis I don't have the facts correct - don't bother to correct me.

    I understand why many deny evolution based on their "god the creator" faith, but you are a strange case - won't tell why you are obsessed by something which has been retracted and was not even worth discussing in the first place.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Randwolf Ignorance killed the cat Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,182
    Yes, he'll use ANY topic in his desperate quest to enshrine that 35 year old remark as Gospel.
     
  8. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    the fact of the matter is, lewin didn't just sit there listening.
    he took notes, and quite likely was versed in stenography.
    he did not fish all of this "out of his head".
    a nice little dilemma wouldn't you say?
    really?
    magazines don't get sued for slander?
    i see, and your basis for this statement is what?
     
  9. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    it's the most reasonable.
    you need to ask the administration why they named it "denial of evolution".
    my aim in this thread is clear.
    it hasn't been "retracted" bill.
    science is responsible for the alleged misquote, they retracted nothing.
     
  10. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    correct.
    you will note that NONE came from ayala.
    you know, the guy that allegedly wrote to NAIG??
    now tell me bells, why would ayala bitch to NAIG and not to the responsible party?
    we might be exposing one right here and now bells.
    has that thought ever crossed your mind?
    or do you actually believe "it can't happen here"?
    correct, which makes the article even more of a mystery doesn't it.
     
  11. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,460
    No, it's not. Fire does not inherit characteristics from earlier versions of fire. It does not mutate and retain those mutations.
    Nope. I bet if you go back to 1980 you could find a lot of mistakes it hasn't corrected.
    You have admitted that that is false.
     
  12. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,460
    You once said "the story of Genesis is the only comprehensive explanation of how life came to be. Evolution can't explain that."
     
  13. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    source?
     
  14. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    likewise, source?
     
  15. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,460
    The post above - I reproduced your quote.
     
  16. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    james brought it up, and i assume it was because he wanted some dialog on it.
    i gave him some.

    if we are going to implement this, then we need to give james the help he needs.
    understand?
     
  17. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    23,278
    Nah.

    He was using your woo as an example of the type woo that classifies as pseudoscience.
     
  18. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    the post itself bill.
     
  19. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    forget it bill, i've already reported the post.
     
  20. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,460
    Why? It's just a claim I made. It is as accurate as Lewin's claim. Why would you have a problem with one but not the other?
     
  21. Billy T Use Sugar Cane Alcohol car Fuel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,198
    That is because I'm lazy (just repackaged old posts) and initially my (and the world's source) was a newspaper article in Portuguese. All the intitial papers came from the same Brazilian reaserch group (based at a Catholic university - the Pope accepts evolution as fact) more than a decade ago; however, now there are papers in English. The first I found was by Brazilian Carlos H. Salvador of Laboratory of Ecology and Conservation of Populations, Department of Ecology, Federal University of Rio de Janeiro, Box 68020, Rio de Janeiro, 21941-590, Brazil:
    If willing to sign up (free) you can read the entire paper. It probably is his Ph.D. study. It may be that you must be Brazilian to visit the tiny island for research. I bet by now these prea have made at least one Ph.D. for each of the original 40 population.

    His comments on the small (1 or 2) litter size and delayed sexual maturity made me now realize other things* the struggle not to starve (food supply limited population to ~ 40 animals) selected for. I. e. rather than have 6 or so in the litter; A liter with only slightly more than 1 in the litter on average bigger (19% of their mother's mass!) and stronger at birth gives your genes had a better change of passing into the next generation. I.e. the population size was static for at least 7000 years. In this case it is best to "put all your eggs in one basket" or more accurately "have one or two bigger, stronger, off-springs than 6 who will all starve."

    * I had already noted, that the prea's foreward looking eyes (for better depth perception) was a "free" advantage compared to side looking eyes their ancestors had as unlike them, the prea lived where there were no other animals, like a fox, eating them they needed to kept looking out for in ~360 degree range.

    I had noted too that the development of much larger, stronger, rabbit-like hind legs was to be expected as they needed to jump over rocks to find blade of grass to eat, etc. (only a bout 10% of their tiny island has any grass and even it is mainly rocks.

    I had also noted that being the smallest (the runt of the litter, if it was more than one, as I was assuming) was an advantage as you could survive with less food

    And a few other things that were selected for I had discussed, but I did not know these "delayed sexual maturity and small liters" facts, until reading this article, but in hindsight, they obviously increase the chance your genes will live to reproduce / survive the desperate competition for blades of grass with 5 or 6 smaller, equally young, members of your generation..
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 26, 2015
  22. GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,087
    The dispute is unreasonable and imaginary given the circumstances, but it is your right to argue it so long as there is some kind of new information to be had. But the Ayala quote was solved long, long ago - before the forum, even. It is a bone with no meat. In that context, it does sound like trolling to me. If there were some mystery about it, sure. But there isn't.
     
  23. GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,087
    I've been considering this whole line for a little while and have come to a kind of conclusion:

    Leopold, present your alternate explanation for the facts of the fossil record, DNA relationships among extant (and even extinct) flora and fauna (with higher relationships being observed among the presumably phenotypically more closely related) and the overwhelming preponderance of genes and gene systems that produce moderate changes in phenotype.

    If you have a better synthesis - and not a misquote of Ayala - produce it. Otherwise, I have to side with those complaining about the near-constant harping on that one minor point, many of whom would prefer more bannings. I do not wish this, but the incessant referral to that unimportant comment is pointless.
     

Share This Page