He's made that pretty clear.
Denial of Evolution VI.
- Thread starter garbonzo
- Start date
- Status
He's made that pretty clear.
Why would atheist archaeologists make fake evidence of the Bible? Also, yeah, I know Ron Wyatt is a phony.
the conclusion was no to the question of whether the process of microevolution can be applied to macroevolution.
not only was it a no but a CLEAR no.
this implies either:
1. there are NO transitional forms.
or
2. there are so few that it warranted the conclusion.
this brings up the question of just how few and that would depend on the fossil data base.
First up, the above is (or was) in Lewins opinion. Lewins opinion piece, his news editorial, is the only piece of evidence that you have presented to demonstrate this. The first point has been proven false. It's been proven false both by Goulds comments and the many examples of transitional fossils that have been presented to you in this thread.
The second point is a matter of opinion, but go back and re-read the quote in its entirety "Preserved transitions are not commom - AND SHOULD NOT BE, ACCORDING TO OUR UNDERSTANDING OF EVOLUTION."
Evolution, regardless of the mechanism (punctuated or gradual), predicts that preserved transitions are rare.
No, it implies that the dynamics of larger scale evolution may include somewhat different elements from what drives evolution at a smaller level. Not that there is some barrier that prevents transitional forms from occurring.
And in recent years we encountered MRSA which is at the end of the spectrum for all the antimicrobial resistance that has had such dire public health consequences since antibiotics became widely used. My preference for citing Darwin's finches - aside from the way they symbolize Darwin's remarkable life - is that they were "created" on islands that are so young in geologic time - which hits the creationist with a double whammy: either God "allowed" them to evolve (evolution is true) or else God did not create the creatures all at once (catastrophism is false).
I followed a few of the prior threads. My own take on his persistence with this is that, apart from not fully understanding what the op ed implies as far as evolutionary biology is concerned, leo is not responsive to posts concerning either the biology or the earth science. He is expressing belief that all of this science hinges on the fossil record, which is another reason for mentioning the living specimens such as Darwin's finches or the drug-resistant microbes, or any of the countless examples we could list until the cows come home. (And I would note they come home because of artificial selection
, Darwin's main premise for natural selection; but that fact has gotten lost here as well.)in parenthesis it says see below, can you include that?
GEOLOGY speaks for the fossils, IT determines how fossils are formed, not evolution.
oh, i see, the punctuated part, the fast changes.
but that implies that not only are there few but very few transitional fossils.
remember, few is in relation to the size of the data base.
It never ends...
I don't believe anyone disputes that Lewin did in fact write "At the risk of doing violence to the positions of some of the people at the meeting, the answer can be given as a clear, No." in Science, New Series, Vol. 210, No. 4472, Nov. 21, 1980 "Evolutionary Theory under Fire", pp. 883-887 These twenty six words are like a mantra to leopold and he keeps chanting them over and over, as if doing so will somehow convince everyone that he is, indeed, right.
But right about what? That Lewin wrote that article? Conceded. That the roles of micro/macro evolution and gradualism/PE were discussed at the conference? Conceded. That those twenty six words have been raised again and again by opponents of evolution, especially creationist groups? Absolutely.
What's else does leopold contend? Here are a few snippets:
I'm not sure I really have a problem with these statements either. What I have a problem with is Leopold's belief that the fifty odd scientists in attendance at a conference in Chicago reached some sort of consensus on microeveolution, macroevolution, gradualism, punctuated equilibrium, speciation and creation of new genera, families, etc. Further, his idea that these scientists appointed one Roger Lewin, a reporter for Science magazine to "arbitrate" and then bring this "conclusion" to the world is just plain wrong. Then, to add insult to injury, he tries to extrapolate from this "conclusion" to decide that Evolution Theory as it is currently taught is incomplete, invalid or a deliberate lie being fostered on our children and the public at large. He has no evidence to support this contention other than this one article penned over thirty years ago. Instead of logical argument or additional references he relies on repetition to prove his point, ad nauseum. Let me illustrate what I mean by ad nauseum - he refers to that now infamous article no less than fifty times in this thread alone!
Really leopold? We get it - Lewin said "NO!". Enough already! We know he said "NO!". We just don't believe that represents a unanimous nor majority opinion of the delegates at that conference. I'm not sure it even represents the opinion of a single scientist in attendence, at least the way you interpret it. Even if that "NO!" did represent some sort of substantive postion of the time, we don't care! It was thirty years ago - things change...
Oh, and let's not forget, if things get a little tough for leopold he falls back on the conspiracy bugaboo, although he specifically denies doing so.
Denial:
Affirmative evidence:
Quite the conspiracy there, ranging from "hacked" links, missing content and altered quotes right through allegations about the Mods. Even are parents are conspiring to keep this quiet. Wow leopold.
So what does leopold offer as an alternative? Some vague hand waving about DNA programming, protein folding malfunctions, reciprocal DNA patterns, base pair positions and cyclic events. in short, he says, and I quote "a molecular structure driven evolution model will explain ALL of evolutions anomalies". OK, great. But what the hell does that stuff mean, really? I say nothing, nothing at all. Leopold uses his "theories" as a convenient dustbin, sweeping any questions about his apparent anti-evolution stance summarily away
I say it's a lost cause.
*Leopold, if I misrepresented your position here, please let me know. This is honestly what I make of your postings in this thread.
*Edit to add "spoiler" tags to enhance readability
**Edit to correct source article citation. Thanks goes out to leopold for pointing out the bad copy/paste.
On that note, let's recap.
I don't believe anyone disputes that Lewin did in fact write "At the risk of doing violence to the positions of some of the people at the meeting, the answer can be given as a clear, No." in Science, New Series, Vol. 210, No. 4472, Nov. 21, 1980 "Evolutionary Theory under Fire", pp. 883-887 These twenty six words are like a mantra to leopold and he keeps chanting them over and over, as if doing so will somehow convince everyone that he is, indeed, right.
But right about what? That Lewin wrote that article? Conceded. That the roles of micro/macro evolution and gradualism/PE were discussed at the conference? Conceded. That those twenty six words have been raised again and again by opponents of evolution, especially creationist groups? Absolutely.
What's else does leopold contend? Here are a few snippets:
Oh, and let's not forget, if things get a little tough for leopold he falls back on the conspiracy bugaboo, although he specifically denies doing so.
Denial:
Affirmative evidence:
So what does leopold offer as an alternative? Some vague hand waving about DNA programming, protein folding malfunctions, reciprocal DNA patterns, base pair positions and cyclic events. in short, he says, and I quote "a molecular structure driven evolution model will explain ALL of evolutions anomalies". OK, great. But what the hell does that stuff mean, really? I say nothing, nothing at all. Leopold uses his "theories" as a convenient dustbin, sweeping any questions about his apparent anti-evolution stance summarily away
I say it's a lost cause.
*Leopold, if I misrepresented your position here, please let me know. This is honestly what I make of your postings in this thread.
*Edit to add "spoiler" tags to enhance readability
**Edit to correct source article citation. Thanks goes out to leopold for pointing out the bad copy/paste.
Last edited:
Here you seem to be attempting to derail the discussion by implying selective quoting on my part, which is rich coming from you.
Geology doesn't speak for the fossils alone. Paelontology studies the fossils, Geology explains why fossils in general are rare. Evolution predicts why transitional fossils should be expected to be rare fossils.
All olf this is your opinion only. You, the one who can't accept that science can change in thirty years and insists that if scientists have changedx their minds it's because they were bullied into it.
An interesting point: in my curiosity I've been doing some research. In that research I have come across an interesting book which discusses this confeference, among other things. One of the things it mentions is that not everyone who was invited attended, and some of those refusals were scathing of the way the conference had been attended and who had been invited because of the biases in what had been proposed.
Same source suggests that Lewin wasn't the only reporter there and different reporters gave different accounts.
Evolutionist demonstrate a pure lack of common sense,by not looking at the history time line clearly defined by creation. What invention in human evolution occurred 6000 or so years ago? The main thing in that time frame is writing. In the beginning was word, and word was God. The word God was written and written language appears. If you ever invented anything it often starts simple and you build from there.
Writing is when humans started to quickly lose natural instinct and began to depart from natural selection. Civilizations are not natural environments so natural selection no longer applied. In modern times, who would support social Darwinism? The answer is almost nobody because it does not apply to the modern human like it does to apes.
Evolution may apply at the cellular level of humans, such as the immune system, but the brain via consciousness has departed from the natural brain firmware such that natural selection at the level of human behavior does not apply. This is only the beginning of the story. This creates push, from the brain, down to the cellular level.
For example, fear of God, which could be perpetual, could keep the adrenaline flowing way longer than natural. This adds stress to the entire body, which has been shown to have an impact on health; body has to evolve to an unnatural internal stress, that is out of synch with natural rhythms.
Ironically, religion tries to keep things closer to natural than does science. A simple litmus test, to support this statement, is if a human behavior needs support resources, not found in nature, it can't be natural since nature dose not require this. Abortion could not occur at the levels being practiced without science. Do apes abort left and right, since we evolved from apes? The only point I am making is Creation is symbolic of when humans depart away from natural selection. The story of creation is the story of self discovery for the new human.
The human race is not immune from natural selection. 6,000 years ago there were many new inventions, like agriculture, the plow, metal tools, etc... Also, before abortion, there was infanticide. Lion males, for instance, kill all the cubs born from another male. The rest is your usual incoherent babbling.
So God makes us sick?
Yes. Mice, horses and baboons will all abort in the wild. Female mice, for example. will abort their fetuses if a new male shows up. Same with geladas (a type of baboon.) As soon as a new male shows up, boom! the current fetus is aborted.
In the beginning was Sumerian, and the word was lots of idols.
And they saw the Word, and said 'this doesn't belong in this thread'.
yes, let's
wrong title of the piece and incorrect page numbers.
i HAD to keep mentioning it because the posters kept wanting to drag this in about 50 different directions.
one poster even tried to engage me in a discussion that has gotten me banned in the past.
that is why i mentioned it so often
and you are doing the very same thing.
the discussion is about the conclusion reached by the conference (update your counter randwolf).
yes, correct.
a misread on my part.
what do you call it when you are led to believe we have scads of transitional fossils when the real truth is we have few, maybe very few?
it's a misrepresentation at the very least.
such is the nature of science.
conspiracy is yours and trippys word not mine.
by "hacked" i mean hacked from the jstor site, gotten illegally.
the link provided by rpenner was indeed missing pages, didn't you read it?
the allegation about the mod, well the only thing i can say is i can't prove it . . . yet.
at least i can think outside the box to try to come up with alternatives.
i was throwing out suggestions that might explain the conclusion randwolf.
how you get "anti evolution" is a mystery.
i'm sorry you feel that way but i've tried to keep this thread on target.
kinda hard to do with all the buzzing going on.
which makes it really hard to respond to your post properly
We have thousands.
Thanks. I appreciate the proofing leopold. My bad - that's what happens when you have fourteen tabs open on your browser trying to find additional works to cite. That particular article was written by Gould and is kind of interesting in its own right. Have you read it? Here's the link: http://worldtracker.org/wrapper?url..._1981-1982/pdf/1982_v216_n4544/p4544_0380.pdf Let me know what you think...
No, you didn't. Most members would have gotten the point after twenty or so mentions.
Can't blame you for avoiding that one.
No, you mentioned it so often because that's all you got.
How so?
*patiently* There is no conclusion reached by the conference as such. Lewin was wrong leopold. Sorry. There is only Lewin's twenty six words contained in an article he wrote about his interpretation of the proceedings at the conference. For the fifty second time.
Yes. Progress. A misread and a gross misinterpretation. Lewin was wrong leopold.
A misunderstanding on your part? :shrug:
I have no way of responding beyond that until you define "scads" and "few". Could you quantify for me? BTW:Lewin was wrong leopold.
Maybe so. I apologize for whomever allegedly misrepresented these facts to you, it has obviously scarred you for life. However, that has no bearing on the truth value of the Theory of Evolution. BTW:Lewin was wrong leopold.
Very true. Can you also change with the times or are you stuck in stasis back in 1980? BTW:Lewin was wrong leopold.
Really? In spite of the affirmative evidence presented in my last post? Let me direct your attention, once again, to... Ohhh, I don't know, how about post 178?
Are you insinuating that someone edited this post of yours and put the word "conspirator" in your err... mouth? BTW:Lewin was wrong leopold.
OK. Well, that clears that up. BTW:Lewin was wrong leopold.
Maybe, but consider how vindicated you will feel when you can. Oh, the elation... BTW:Lewin was wrong leopold.
That's an extremely laudable trait leopold. Put that aptitude to work and see if you can come up with an alternative to that "clear NO" you seem to be so fond of. Perhaps Lewin is guilty of overzealous reporting? Would that really shake your worldview so terribly if it were true? Come on leopold, you can do it - bridge the gap, come into the sunshine. It's got to be very lonely down there. BTW:Lewin was wrong leopold.
Here's one for you: Lewin was wrong. Go ahead, say it out loud three times - it won't hurt, I promise. BTW:Lewin was wrong leopold.
Only to you. On the other hand, perversely, I actually believe you. I kind of gained perspective while reviewing all of your posts on the matter, I truly believe you don't understand why everyone keeps accusing you of denying evolutionary theory. Just step back and look at the big picture though. Do you not have any inkling of why people might get that impression? Really? Come on leo, you can do it. BTW:Lewin was wrong leopold.
Your target has been hit - fifty one times. The bullseye is completely blown away. Now get over it. Lewin was wrong.
I can sympathize with you there - too much truth flying all willy-nilly about. BTW:Lewin was wrong leopold.
Why would atheist archaeologists make fake evidence of the Bible? Also, yeah, I know Ron Wyatt is a phony.
I have no idea what leopold is talking about to be honest. The exchange he is referring to occurred hot on the heels of his dismissal of Francis Ayala's statements about being misquoted by Lewin. So I simply asked him if he thought Ayala was actually an authority or not.
The problem it posed for him was obvious: admitting Ayala as an authority would force him to concede that Lewin did indeed misquote him, but rejecting him as an authority would mean that he'd have to stop relying on one of his quotes to make his argument.
leopold obviously chose not answer, put me on ignore when I continued to press him, and then accused me of trying to get him banned.
The exercise was ultimately a success because he copped out in front of everyone, but I wasn't actually trying to get him banned (although I still don't think he should be getting away with the sort of complete and utter nonsense he has been pulling in this thread).
Last edited:
randwolf.
in order for you to say lewin was wrong you will need something from the editorial staff at science that says he was.
in my opinion he should have been fired for such a thing, don't you agree?
the reason this has been going on for so long is the first 2 times i brought this up i was banned for it.
i can only imagine the number of reports the mods got for this thread.
in order for you to say lewin was wrong you will need something from the editorial staff at science that says he was.
in my opinion he should have been fired for such a thing, don't you agree?
the reason this has been going on for so long is the first 2 times i brought this up i was banned for it.
i can only imagine the number of reports the mods got for this thread.
- Status