Denial of Evolution VII (2015)

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

  1. Buckaroo Banzai Mentat Registered Senior Member

    If they really never did (did anyone really search all the following numbers to check if there was something?), the reason why ranges from just other priorities, not seeing that as a big deal (it's not unlikely that they'd have a larger record of uncorrected mistakes in many areas of science, specially out of actual scientific articles), and also possibly perhaps to avoid public embarrassment. Pride, difficult in saying, "sorry folks, I didn't quite get what he said at the conference, or I didn't express it clearly enough, he really didn't really mean that small changes don't accumulate at all, like it could be understood from what I wrote, but rather that they don't accumulate at an even rate through evolutionary course of a lineage, there being periods where small modifications accumulate comparatively much more rapidly. My bad." This retracting could also illustrate the "no big deal" alternative, anyway.

    Perhaps to avoid creationist pseudo-polemic. "Editor of prestigious SCIENCE magazine CONFESSES he has a poor grasp of the fundamentals of evolution, making a total mess of what so-called scientists really say. Can we really take Ā«scientificĀ» publications with the same certainty as the words of God? Are these men really infallible, like Jesus?"

    He couldn't imagine that now, 30 years later, the "debate" around this "issue" would be barely different.
    Last edited: Jan 27, 2015
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. Bells Staff Member

    He clearly explained how and why he did it. Leo clearly did not see the point he was making.

    And Billvon has apologised for it because it is clear Leo did not understand it. So no ban should be necessary.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. leopold Valued Senior Member

    this isn't so much about ayalas views as it is about the "retraction"
    i have no doubt in my mind that lewin reported on the conference fairly and accurately, but that isn't really the issue.
    this isn't so much about ayala, but as this charade surrounding his quote.
    BTW, i personally do not consider a source that can be edited by anyone at anytime a historical source.
    it really doesn't matter if he lived in an institution and played tiddly winks all his life.
    i am not concerned with what ayala believes.
    my concern is why science refuses to correct said article.
    the letters and the source from trippy proves that this was no "minor and obscure" affair.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. leopold Valued Senior Member

    lewin becomes a science editor of one of the most respected names on the planet, and he doesn't know what he's talking about.
    uh huh.
    reporting is not a retraction RAV.
    The fact is that any reasonable person would allow themselves to arrive at reasonable conclusions based upon new information. You don't. You take the path of most resistance at every turn. This makes it perfectly obvious to everyone that you have some sort of agenda.[/QUOTE]
    what kind of agenda do you suppose i have RAV?
    i've stated the facts of the matter.
    i've seen nothing in the way of any kind of retraction or errata from science on this matter.
  8. leopold Valued Senior Member

    yes, i ignore all irrelevant "evidence".
    sue me.
    correct, which makes the publisher responsible, not NAIG.
    the letters to science and the source provided by trippy proves there was many people this was important to.
    the letters themselves stated how important this conference was.
    so, for you to say "this was unimportant" is what bells?
    a strawman?
    it doesn't jive with what i was taught bells.
    like i said, this is more about ayala, his quote, and the missing retraction in science.
    there is a reason for that bells.
    can you explain why science steadfastly refuses to post such a thing, even in the face of the source from trippy and the letters they received?
    the honorable thing for science to do is "man up" and admit their mistake.
    printing letters IS NOT any kind of retraction or correction.
    not even NAIG wrote to science.
    why do you suppose that is bells?
    "no one cares" or "it was a minor affair" are strawmen bells, the letters prove it.
    another strawman.
    it was an editorial writen by the science editor of one of the most respected sources on the planet.
    the source provided by trippy proves otherwise.
    a flat out lie.
    the letters and trippys source says your boots have anchors attached to them.
    actually the article was a major deal bells, it solicited a flood of letters and the source trippy provided.
    you know, it's hard to believe you are a moderator, seriously.
    well maybe someone can fly in here with an explanation from science on this matter.
    so far i have seen none.
  9. leopold Valued Senior Member

    of mine?
    what about all these other posters in this thread posting garbage james?
    are you going to take an equally hard nosed approach toward them?
    i have been doing that to the best of my ability james.
    the issue i have is with ayala, his quote, and the missing retraction in science.
    i will IGNORE everything not related to the issue i raised above.
    NAIG for one, the letters and the source provided by trippy for 2 more.
    hercules rockefeller
    i admit that lewin was called a liar for posting such quote.
    i admit science never corrected such quote.
    i admit science received letters blasting the crap out of lewin and the article.
    i admit that the source provided by trippy is proof that this was no "small time deal"
    i admit that science is directly responsible for the quote and HAS NOT corrected it, even in the face of these blistering letters.
    read the article for yourself then if you don't want to hear it from me.
    are you going to ban me for what science publishes?
    the quote is in the referenced article james, i'm sorry if you don't like it.
    i don't think PE has been confirmed
    what does this have to do with the article in question?
    are you exchemist?
    if you do not know by now what my beef is then you definitely have some kind of comprehension dysfunction.
    completely irrelevant to the issue at hand.
    because my posts in this thread is not a denial of evolution, but an inquiry into the BS surrounding the ayala quote.
    a lie.
    there has been no issue of science presented where science says "we got it wrong" in regards to the ayala quote.
    if it's irrelevant to the issue i raised i will.
    yes, of course.
    and i have been james, these are legitimate questions i've raised.

    the bottom line is simply this:
    science is responsible for what its editors prints.
    science has NOT corrected the article in question.
    for pointing out the above i'm labeled as dishonest by an administrator of a science site.
    if this is truly how you feel james, then you have no integrity.

    all i want to know is, what is the story with this quote.
    there is a reason science refuses to correct this james, and i want to know what that reason is.
    you can't say "it was a minor deal" because the letters and the source provided by trippy shows it raised a shitstorm.
    well, gee james, i've said it over, and over, and over.
    i have seen ZERO letters requesting a retraction from science.
    IOW, no one, not even ayala or NAIG made any such request.
    and i look forward to the issue of science where science states "we got it wrong" in regards to ayala.
    Last edited: Jan 27, 2015
  10. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Moderator note: leopold has been banned from sciforums for 1 week for knowingly telling lies.


    James R:
    Ayala thinks evolution occurs by natural selection, just as Darwin said. Ayala is not a Creationist.
    he sure didn't feel that way at the conference.
    James R:
    This is false and you know it. Telling deliberate lies is a breach of sciforums site rules - something that can get you banned from the forum. You will therefore apologise to everybody here for attempting once again to lie about this matter.​
    read the article for yourself then if you don't want to hear it from me. .... the quote is in the referenced article james, i'm sorry if you don't like it.
    Ayala gave a talk at the conference that accepted evolution. There is no quote in leopold's article, or anywhere else, from Ayala saying that he thinks that evolution by natural selection is false, or that he has Creationist views.

    leopold will apologise for this lie upon his return to sciforums.
    Last edited: Jan 27, 2015
  11. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    leopold will address the following matters upon his return or be banned again. These are matters that he either ignored in his last post, despite clear instructions to address them, or lied about, or failed to provide appropriate supporting evidence as requested.

    1. leopold will tell us what he means by "completely different genome". This needs to be defined precisely, because leopold claims that evolution cannot produce a "completely different genome".
    2. leopold will respond to the following (ignored previously): Who are the "people" that say that evolution takes "millions of years"? And what is it that they say "takes millions of years", exactly? What evidence have you got that proves this is "nothing but hot air"? Please present at least two facts that support your position.
    3. leopold claims that "NAIG for one, the letters and the source provided by trippy for 2 more" provide evidence that Lewin was called "the biggest liar since Pinocchio". leopold will either cite the appropriate references to establish this claim, with links if appropriate, or else retract it and apologise for his lie.
    4. leopold will respond to the following: Do you accept that Ayala is an "evolutionist" who believes that evolution is true? If not, please give detailed reasons. Do not cite the Science article (which is in dispute), but provide independent evidence (with links if appropriate). Such evidence has been provided to you by myself and others. Now it is your turn. Either admit that Ayala supports evolution or provide evidence that he does not.
    5. "The quote of Ayala in Lewin's article is of no consequence to the truth or otherwise of evolution." leopold will state his agreement with this statement, for the record, or else explain why Lewin's quote of Ayala in the 1980 Science article is crucial (or at least significant or important) in establishing the truth or falsity of evolution.
    6. leopold will clarify what he means by "major change in genomes" that do not amount to speciation. Refer to question 1, above. leopold claims that evolution cannot produce "major changes in genomes".
    7. leopold will state whether he believes that microevolution occurs.
    8. leopold will explain why he thinks the question of abiogenesis has bearing on the truth or falsity of the theory of evolution, or else he will admit that it has no relevance.
    9. leopold claims "i'm saying we have a problem with ayala." I asked "What is the problem with Ayala? Be specific. What is there doubt about regarding Ayala?" leopold will answer this question, in light of answers to the questions above.
    10. Ayala wrote "Macroevolutionary processes are underlain by microevolutionary phenomena and are compatible with the synthetic theory of evolution." leopold will either admit that this is Ayala supporting the theory of evolution, or else leopold will explain why this quote does not count as evidence that Ayala supports evolution.
    11. leopold will either explain why he believes that the truth or falsity of the theory of evolution hinges on this single article from Science back in 1980, or else leopold will admit that the article does not determine the truth or falsity of the theory of evolution.

    leopold's lies and evasions will stop one way or another, as I posted previously. He will either vanish from sciforums, or respond to the above matters. An honest man would give honest responses and would not evade direct questions for 3 years in order to repeatedly make claims that have already been extensively addressed by respondents. We will see whether leopold is an honest man or not. If not, I don't expect we'll hear from him here again.
  12. wellwisher Banned Banned

    A good model for evolution should be able to begin evolution with the most basic chemicals. This humble beginning is how science has extrapolated life backwards. According to science, life does not just magically appear, one day, as a cell or as a replicator. The use of the replicator as the starting point of contemporary evolution makes the replicator the Adam and Eve of evolution. Before their Adam, that is called abiogenesis, as though calling it something different, means before their Adam does not have to be addressed in their model.

    The reason you can't start at replicators and expect to have a real model for evolution, is because what led to the replicators had its own set of potentials. These potentials don't go dormant at the Adam of replicators, just to make it easier for the religion of evolution to make their Adam starting point. Any rational person, would expect the same potentials that led to the Adam of evolution, would remain in effect, acting as a parallel layer of potential. This parallel layer is connected to the impact of water.

    In the beginning was water; Water is the alpha and the omega still impacting evolution through a variety of potentials. The Miller experiment, used to create animo and other precursors, simulated lightning storms which are a result of water and weather. These reactions occurred within in water. This is the origin. Water is still the one chemical that can cause all things to start or stop and can't be replaced or nothing works.

    Creationism starts life with the human Adam who is formed on the second day. Evolution starts with replicator Adam. But the science of evolution really begins with water and simple gases. This topic is really about two religions competing, with only one objective enough to call itself a religion. I offer a third POV connected science with a logical Adam; water.

    I need to build background to show some of the potentials within water since those who are knowledgeable of evolution do not seem to have any rational judgement apart from their dogma of replicator Adam and statistical oracles.
    Last edited: Jan 27, 2015
  13. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member


    In response to your latest posts above:

    That is disingenuous and you know it.

    You have been claiming for 3 years that Ayala's views are that evolution does not occur, based on Lewin's quote of Ayala in the Science article, where Ayala is quoted as saying "small changes do not accumulate". Your claim is that because Ayala is a leading "evolutionist", this is a big deal because it seems that Ayala disputed evolution in the quote. A leading evolutionist who admits that evolution doesn't occur after all. What a coup for Creationists! You found this quote on a creationist website and you jumped on it as "proof" that scientific support for evolution is some kind of conspiracy among scientists, but that Ayala had let the truth slip (or something like that).

    After it was pointed out to you that Ayala himself has disowned the quote attributed to him, you went on to claim that you wouldn't accept the word of the man himself about his own opinions, but only a formal "retraction" by the journal Science. In the process, you have consistently said that you refuse to accept anything other than such a formal "retraction" by Science as evidence that Ayala supports evolution after all.

    You are well aware that Ayala is indeed an "evolutionist", since you have been clearly informed of that and given multiple sources that attest to its veracity. Your pig-headed refusal to read anything else about evolution other than this one article from Science back in 1980 shows that you believe you have "caught out" the evolutionist conspiracy in a cover-up, or something like that, and that you don't need to know anything else about science to regard evolution as dead and buried. For example:

    Your use of the word "charade" here is telling. There is no charade. There are no smoke and mirrors here. This matter was clearly laid out for you three years ago (for the first time). Ayala was misquoted by Lewin. Ayala said he was misquoted. End of story. There's no cover-up. Both the original misquote and the subsequent correspondence are on the public record. Nobody has deleted or edited anything in order to perpetrate a "charade".

    It is possible that you are a paranoid conspiracy nut, but more likely that you simply come with an agenda: to spread the word that evolution is wrong, even though you know nothing about it.

    I even gave you a blow-by-blow breakdown of Lewin's article to help you understand its contents. You ignored that completely, because the entire content of the article doesn't suit your ideological position on evolution, apart from the misquote of Ayala. In other words, you dishonestly ignore all of the article but that one sentence.

    You are an insult to honest enquiry, leopold. If you think your crusade here is helping to paint a noble picture of creationists in general, or of people who think aliens made life, or of whoever you think you represent, you couldn't be more wrong. You're not making a stand for what is right. You're sticking your head in the sand and telling lies in order to prop up your unsustainable position. That is contemptible. You ought to be ashamed of yourself.

    I imagine that this is probably not how you conduct yourself in your life in general. Chances are that you have some personal integrity in other areas of your life. Doesn't it then make you ashamed that you throw all that away when you discuss this one topic?

    Edits of wikipedia are all recorded and the history can be viewed. Thus, the history of individual wikipedia pages can be tracked. You can even view the page as it was at the date of any given edit.

    Nobody has asked Science to correct the article, as far as I am aware. What makes you say they have "refused" to do so?

    No you won't. You will no longer avoid responding to points that are inconvenient for your crusade.

    Who called Lewin a liar? Please provide appropriate references.

    I've read about 5 or 6 letters responding to the article. They are mostly critical of the article, but restrained, as is typical in scientific journals.

    You, on the other hand, admit that you didn't read the letters because you were "looking for one from Ayala". So you can't know whether they "blasted the crap out of Lewin" or not.

    No. I'm going to ban you when you knowingly tell lies.

    Punctuated equilibrium is an idea that is entrenched in the literature now. 35 years has passed since your 1980 conference.

    Your aim all along has been to deny evolution, using the misquote of Ayala as your only evidence that evolution doesn't occur. You haven't done any inquiring into the quote off your own bat. On the contrary, all the inquiring has been done by members of sciforums (myself included) who have rebutted your claims comprehensively. The results of those inquiries have been presented to you on a silver platter. Your response has been to ignore them or to lie about them.

    The bottom line is that the misquote of Ayala has been publically corrected by Ayala himself and it doesn't matter whether Science has published a correction or not because the truth or falsity of the quote does not hang on whether Science publishes a correction. Moreover, the truth or falsity of evolution doesn't hang on one quote in 1980 by Ayala, even if we were to accept it at face value as published in Science (uncorrected).

    That's the true bottom line.

    Your dishonesty is exemplified by your refusal to concede these fundamental points, or even to address them.

    And now you have the gall to accuse me of lacking integrity. Frankly, you're starting to make me angry, leopold.

    This has been explained to you many times over the course of the past 3 years, including in this thread. I did it myself (in this very thread, and probably elsewhere), and others have also done it too.

    But here's an idea: why don't you write to the editors of Science and ask them? If this matter is of such great concern to you, why have you not done that at some time in past 3 years?

    Why aren't you writing letters to lobby them for such an outcome, then?
  14. GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

    Correct. But is it a different kind of virus? With sufficient such changes, it will be.

    Let's reverse the usual question here: with enough macro-evolutionary changes, why would I think that an organism should remain the same? What possible mechanism would preserve such an organism at the level, value or type at which I find it?
    Last edited: Jan 27, 2015
  15. GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

    No. And that statement has been retracted.

    We often write to a variety of journals. Publication is a very finicky thing.

    You have no evidence of any lying. This is nonsense.

    Yup. Welcome to the modern publishing era. You'll note that Ayala's succeeding work has been based on established evolutionary theory.

    Not really, no. Creationists quote-mine all the time. We're well used to it. There's no reason to accord it any more credibility than all the other ones. Moreover, there's no reason to accord this obvious error any weight in the discussion: the evidence of organic evolution is simply overwhelming. Period.

    Fine: but it is a proper correction, and all Ayala's work indicates that his retraction is official. It's a non-issue.

    I ask you: post your counter-hypothesis, then.
  16. GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member


    The location of the argument is irrelevant: you clearly have some other mechanism in mind, so go ahead and propose it. I think it should be clear that I, among any member of SF, am probably about the most likely to deal with such a proposal fairly and on basis of the evidence. Where it's believable or supportable, I will say so. Where refutable, I will refute it. Where gray areas of interpretation exist, that also. I have done so previously. I will continue to do so. I am not one, as you will appreciate, to shy away from the difficult or controversial. I only care about evidence.

    I don't want you to be banned. I do understand the frustration that some members of SF have in discussing this issue with you. The issue is hugely irrelevant. There are nearly millions of articles on organic evolution at every level conceivable.

    What I recommend is that the thread simply be closed or locked down... again. Or, more fairly, that you refrain from making such sweeping comments, which appear to be groundless. The misquote is a complete non-issue: and let's say for a second that it weren't. And? Even if a single evolutionary biologist felt that micro-evolution was not well supported, so what? The evidence is evidence enough. It is hardly reasonable to pin the rationality of neoDarwinianism on a single dissenting opinion, which is not even a dissenting opinion in point of fact. There are several schools of evolutionary thought, and they do not agree with each other either. Are they, then, with far more 'supporters' than even a misquote of Ayala might suggest, wrong? Unlikely.

    The answer is that it is simply another quote-mine. They happen. They are ignored, and so they ought to be.
  17. Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    Here's a link to a reproduction of Lewin's article. It's from a polish anti-evolution website, but to the best of my knowledge it's an accurate reproduction:

    Here's the NOAIG piece:

    Here's the article in science:

    And here's a piece written by Ayala in 1981 on the subject matter which, in my opinion, the abstract alone goes a long way to clearing the confusion and even points to the misunderstanding that may have occured on Lewin's part. Of course according to Leopold (at least at one time anyway) he was bullied, pressured, ridiculed, or otherwise coerced into making publications such as this.
  18. Rayner Registered Member

    Incorrect. Not all evolutionary change is gradual, and some who accept evolution oppose gradualism.

    Symbiogenesis, gene duplication and lateral gene transfer can bring about saltational or 'rapid' evolutionary changes in a short period of time. Up until the 1930s the main evolutionary school was 'saltational' i.e. mutationist in opposition to natural selection and it denied gradual change. As I understand it now the current main consensus is that most evolution is gradual but there are cases of saltational evolution that defy or violate gradual change.

    Guenter Theissen has written a paper on this.
    As he argues in the paper:
    "Complete dismissal of saltational evolution is a major historical error of evolutionary biology tracing back to Darwin that needs to be rectified."
    Ophiolite likes this.
  19. Walter L. Wagner Cosmic Truth Seeker Valued Senior Member

    Welcome to Sciforums. Nice post.

    My vote for the most significant type of saltational event is chromosome fusion, such as in humans, as here:

    We've had other posts along those lines in other threads. Other ones of significance include insertion of viral DNA into the human genome, with the DNA becoming present in all members (i.e. a useful/necessary inclusion).
  20. GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

    But which don't cause major morphological change, which is the only thing we can even distally see in the fossil record.
  21. Bells Staff Member

    Well you have just been banned for a week for deliberately misrepresenting fact and for ignoring all evidence which directly shows how and where you are wrong.

    Responsible for what?

    You once again directly point to the inherent traps and dangers of quote mining.

    No actually. They do not.

    They were scientists expressing their opinion about a news article that was published about the conference. They were not demanding retractions or corrections. It was not necessary to. The article itself was of little significance in any scheme of things.

    When one considers that you tried to use the argument that evolution does not exist because a plant has not yet morphed into a man, I doubt you were taught anything at all in science class.

    Once again, for the thousand or so time this is pointed out to you, Ayala is a firm believer and supporter of evolution and has written countless of books, articles and studies about evolution. Ayala also posted a correction about what someone else attributed to him.

    So no, this is not about Ayala and that quote. This is about you acting like a dishonest hack who quote mined from creationist sites and you are sticking to this because this is all you have left.

    Post one article where Science Magazine have stated that they refuse to "post such a thing", in regards to the correction you believe they need to post. Just one link will suffice.

    To save you time, such a link does not exist because no one actually really cares. Everyone knows what Ayala actually said, what he believes and everyone knows he corrected Lewin himself. In short, the source, Ayala, is to be believed.

    The letters they received were scoffs at how Lewin went about writing the piece.

    And once again, you refuse to acknowledge that at no time does Lewin claim evolution is not real.

    Find me one link where NAIG was demanding Science post a retraction.

    No, the letters do not prove what you are claiming. In fact, I would suggest you stop misrepresenting those letters and relying on that misrepresentation as evidence.

    Ummm no. It was an op-ed news piece, written about a conference. The piece itself does not say evolution is false. Far form it. The disagreement does not even say that evolution is wrong or false. Far from it. So your continued misrepresentation of that has to stop. It is exceptionally dishonest. The only people who claim that the article or even Ayala's quote disproves evolution are creationists - hence why your quote mining ventures sees you here, once again, arguing the exact same thing after years and years of you arguing it.

    Sorry, but no, it does not.

    I have read the letters. They are not what you claim.

    No, the article is only a major deal on creationist sites, where you clearly quote mined it from. I even provided you links to creationist sites where it was posted in full and others where the Ayala comments in the article are quoted..

    You keep relying on Trippy's sources and words and he also agrees that the conference was a major big deal but the article was not. So please stop misrepresenting Trippy as well as Ayala, Lewin and Science Magazine.

    Of course it is hard for you to imagine I am a moderator.

    I don't buy into quackery.

    We have provided you with detailed explanations, links, studies and everything but the kitchen sink.

    You are the only issue who has a problem with Science Magazine and you are the only one here who has spent years misrepresenting Ayala, Lewin and Science Magazine. No one is going to fly in here with any more explanations for you. You have been given the explanations.

    The reason you have been banned is because despite the years and years of all of us providing you with explanations, taking time to try to educate you, explain to you, provide you with a veritable mountain of evidence, you continue to misrepresent and lie about it.

    So no, no one is going to fly in here with any explanation because we have all been doing it for years and you refuse to acknowledge it.

    I would suggest you take this week to sort your crap out because this cannot continue.
  22. Ophiolite Valued Senior Member

    I am confident that Leopold was taught a great many things in science class; he just didn't learn any of them.
  23. Bells Staff Member

    Very true Ophiolite.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


Share This Page