It's apparent that unless there's something published in the same magazine, Science, directly retracting the Lewin article, leopold will continue to deny the validity of anything anyone posts.
658 posts saying basically the same things, and no end in sight.
That anyone could see the photos of relatively new and shiny metal wheels and not be skeptical astonishes me. That anyone could simply take the word of a sensationalist news source that these objects are solid gold (and hence not covered by coral) and that no one has found and removed them suggests that some people have yet to learn the difference between faith and gullibility.
One looks like it might be a ferry steering wheel, which makes me think this has less to say about the historical accuracy of the Exodus account, and more to say about whether it is a good idea to take a ferry trip on the Red Sea.
That others have come along to try to profit from similar claims is unsurprising. That frauds can be exposed and have no effect on people’s willingness to believe is, however, disturbing.
The opinion piece that you're so find of citing claims that this group of 50 scientists came to the conclusion that punctuated equilibrium was more likely than gradualism.
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.
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.
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.
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.
To be fair. You're (at least) the second person to mention Darwins finches. I've also mentioned the evolution of pencillin resistant bacteria - which is perhaps a better example of microevolution as they're strains rather than species.
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).
All of this has been done, or attempted before in at least two other threads with leopold, but he always comes back to Lewins news editorial.
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.)
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."
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.
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:
Posted by leopold #25
whether that adaption process can be applied to lifes diversity has not been proven.
Posted by leopold #210
i'm not the one that goes around saying the cause of evolution is/was accumulating small changes.
this fact is mentioned no less than 3 times in the article.
the evidence for PE fairs no better, gould could only come up with one example and that one was inferential.
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!
Posted by leopold #41
Science, vol. 210 no. 4472 pp: 883-887
it seems YOU are the one ignorant of the facts.
Posted by leopold #120
TOE says "XYZ happens", the conference concluded, based on the available evidence which for the most part was lacking, that XYZ doesn't happen.
Posted by leopold #222
it states a clear no.
that's what i get.
i assume they reached that conclusion because of the gaps in the fossil record which the piece specifically addresses.
Posted by leopold #277
these scientists, among them paleontologists, archaeologists, molecular biologists, and "evolutionists" came to the conclusion of a clear no.
Posted by leopold #335
no, what's ironic is even when it comes from a peer reviewed source it's still no, no, no, no, no.
i fail to understand why you, and others, keep saying these scientists did not say what they did or mean what they said.
the ONLY counter argument offered is molecular evolution, but we are still faced with the gaps in the record.
as for the accumulated small changes these scientists said no.
oops, they used the word microevolution, which is small changes.
they concluded that this process cannot be extrapolated to macroevolution.
Posted by leopold #360
the "magazine" happens to be a well respected peer reviewed journal.
the "claim" can be verified if you would take the time to check it out.
Posted by leopold #397
it's there in the article THEY published.
macrevolution, microevolution, the gaps, it's all right there in the article THEY published.
Posted by leopold #398
the article said "at the risk to some", "some" as in less than a majority and there were 50 there.
if it was more than a majority then there could have been no clear no.
Posted by leopold #407
according to the article they concludsed that small . . . the process of microevolution cannot be extrpolated to macroevolution.
now, the only way they could have concluded that is by the fossil record.
since it was a "clear no" these gaps could not have been sporadic nor occur in only one or two branches.
Posted by leopold #452
grumpy keeps saying "THEY were WRONG' and points out that scientists have been wrong before.
he is correct, scientists have indeed been wrong.
but 50 of them? ALL of them experts at this stuff.
Posted by leopold #464
50 people says "hey there are gaps in the record".
"there are so many in fact that our conclusion is NO, the process of speciation cannot be applied to macroevolution"
Posted by leopold #523
there were 50 there, not just 3 or 4 or 10.
don't you understand?
these scientists FOUND NO EVIDENCE for accumulating changes that lead to macro evolution.
Posted by leopold #551
these scientists concluded that the process of microevolution can't be extrapolated to macroevolution.
how did they conclude that?
Posted by leopold #565
i should have stated what was written, at the risk to some a clear, no as to the question (and the central theme of the meeting) of whether the process of microevolution can be applied to macro evolution.
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:
Posted by leopold #491
edit
i never mentioned ANYTHING about a conspiracy.
it's telling it appears that way to you.
Posted by leopold #145
the only original part i have are the quotes i copy/pasted and they do not match the the same quotes in manuscript rav provided.
Posted by leopold #164
while you are thinking, think about this:
why has NAS decided to make this particular issue unavailable even though the issue resides on their server?
Posted by leopold #178
maybe.
the crazy thing is i can understand why there would be.
if you think about it, our mod team is a bunch of conspirators.
your parents are conspirators.
Posted by leopold #195
then how do you explain the fact that at least one of the quotes that i copy/ pasted from the original text at jstor does not match the one posted by rav?
Posted by leopold #212
i posted the quotes.
it's probably no big deal but the manuscripts ARE different.
edit:
specifically it was the ayala quote.
in my version he makes reference to 884.
on page 884 is a graphic that he probably based is quote on.
your version does not make the 884 reference.
Posted by leopold #347
apparently evolution can't stand the light of open and honest inquiry.
it's the only reason i can see why the thread title was changed.
Posted by leopold #367
our students are being lied to when such things are said to be true.
another thing is all this "creationist" crap can effectively "short circuit" the normal peer review process.
as soon as anomalous evidence is found it's labeled as creationist and shit canned.
possibly because of what i mentioned above.
i have a pdf of a dig that uncovered evidence that the timeline of humans in north america is not correct.
the scientists that presented this evidence was ridiculed right out of the profession.
there are certain other things too that reek really bad.
Posted by leopold #432
there is a reason it's stored at jstor but jstor decided to make it unavailable.
...
i didn't say it couldn't be found at jstor.
i said jstor has made the issue unavailable even though it is stored there.
that is what the jstor site said when i visited it about a week ago.
Posted by leopold #514
yes, i claimed that the article RAV posted was edited. on page 8 post 141.
the issue was raised a few times after that until page 11 post 205 where i mentioned it might not mean a lot.
if it was a copy/paste error then the page number would have been before or after the quote, not in the middle.
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
Posted by leopold #51
has the thought ever occur to you that it is programmed* into DNA?
after a certain number of replications the phenotype changes?
Posted by leopold #265
the rapid change is probably the same process but amplified by some weird protein configuration or base pair positions.
in my opinion evolution could be driven by molecular structure, not the environment.
Posted by leopold #278
the species deviates around the "norm" until a certan molecular strucure is reached.
when this happens a "domino" effect takes places that transforms the species into something else.
a molecular structure driven evolution model will explain ALL of evolutions anomalies, in my opinion.
Posted by leopold #614
ive said it before, could it be that quantum physics plays a role in this somehow, or maybe the grand unification theory should include the life sciences?
*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.
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.
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.
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.
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 23 April 1982: Vol. 216 no. 4544 pp. 380-387 "Darwinism and the expansion of evolutionary theory" 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.
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.
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!
. In other words, I think it's perfectly possible to demolish typical creationist bullshit using only 1980's knowledge. In fact as Aqueous Id has been pointing out, you can do it with pure 1850's Darwin.
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.
Evolution may apply at the cellular level of humans, such as the immune system, but the brain via consciousness has departed the natural brain firmware such that natural selection at the level of human behavior does not apply. There is a push from the brain down to the cellular level. For example, fear of God could keep the adrenaline flowing way longer than natural. This adds stress which has been shown to have an impact on health; body has to evolve to an 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 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, since we evolved from apes?
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.
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 23 April 1982: Vol. 216 no. 4544 pp. 380-387 "Darwinism and the expansion of evolutionary theory"
wrong title of the piece and incorrect page numbers.
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.
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
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.
and you are doing the very same thing.
the discussion is about the conclusion reached by the conference (update your counter randwolf).
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.
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.
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...
conspiracy is yours and trippys word not mine.
by "hacked" i mean hacked from the jstor site, gotten illegally.
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.
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.
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?
at least i can think outside the box to try to come up with alternatives.
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
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.
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...
*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.
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.
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?
Posted by leopold #178
maybe.
the crazy thing is i can understand why there would be.
if you think about it, our mod team is a bunch of conspirators.
your parents are conspirators.
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.
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.
That anyone could see the photos of relatively new and shiny metal wheels and not be skeptical astonishes me. That anyone could simply take the word of a sensationalist news source that these objects are solid gold (and hence not covered by coral) and that no one has found and removed them suggests that some people have yet to learn the difference between faith and gullibility.
One looks like it might be a ferry steering wheel, which makes me think this has less to say about the historical accuracy of the Exodus account, and more to say about whether it is a good idea to take a ferry trip on the Red Sea.
That others have come along to try to profit from similar claims is unsurprising. That frauds can be exposed and have no effect on people’s willingness to believe is, however, disturbing.
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).
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.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.