tell me, how do i KNOW that you made this sarcastically?
it's happened before, hasn't it.
let's giove a rest shall we?
i'm getting sauced on shots of calverts
Denial of Evolution VII (2015)
- Thread starter davewhite04
- Start date
let's giove a rest shall we?
i'm getting sauced on shots of calverts
Bells
Staff member
And you once again show the dangers of quote mining on theist sites to find a comment from a scientist that might just match your personal beliefs.
When confronted with Science Magazine publishing studies and articles disproving your personal beliefs, you refuse to acknowledge it, probably calling it some sort of conspiracy theory, because that is what theists like yourself do, and instead you still focus on that one quote that you clearly quote mined. You refuse to acknowledge the words and works of Ayala which clearly show that the one sentence quoted in Science Magazine was misrepresented. You can try and argue that you are not a theist, Leo, but your argument is very much a theist argument.
So of course you won't talk about "those" articles on Science Magazine. Because you have dug yourself in such a deep hole about how much you value Science Magazine, how it is such a reputable source, blah blah blah, that when you are confronted with articles published there which completely blows your beliefs out of the water, you are not going to talk about "those".
Can I ask, do you believe in the big bang?
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
Bells I must say I'm not sure what you are trying to establish with a question like this.
Is "believing in" things a scientific attitude? I certainly do not think I could give a one word answer. I'd have to say something like "From what I read, it seems the Big Bang model of cosmology is the most successful one we have" , or something like that.
In the same vein:-
Question: Do you believe in Newton's Law of Gravitation?
Answer: Yes, er, I mean no, er, hang on, that is, it all depends what sort of phenomenon you are trying to account for…...
this tactic will not work bells.
i posted the link to the article, which no longer works.
an article direct from jstor.
so, shut the fuck up.
i'm sick of your "quote mining theist" shit.
Yazata
Valued Senior Member
What "fraud" do you think has occurred in science?
Precisely what do you believe is 'nonsense'? Biological evolution? Biological evolution by natural selection?
yazata said:
leopold said:
About what?? What are you trying to accomplish, Leopold? What point are you trying to make?
Are you arguing that the editors of Science magazine believe that biological evolution is a "fraud"? If they thought that, why haven't they ever come out and actually said it? Why do they continue to publish so many papers on the subject of evolutionary biology?
Are you arguing that Francisco Ayala believes that biological evolution is a "fraud"? If he thought that, it would be counter to his entire life's work, including hundreds of papers and several books on the subject.
http://www.faculty.uci.edu/profile.cfm?faculty_id=2134
If anyone wants to know what Dr. Ayala really thinks about evolution and its relation to religion, they might want to start by reading his short little layman's-level book:
https://jhupbooks.press.jhu.edu/content/am-i-monkey
Or his more advanced treatment of the same subject, Darwin's Gift to Science and Religion:
http://www.nap.edu/catalog/11732/darwins-gift-to-science-and-religion
Last edited:
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
No it isn't. And if Yazata has not "kept up" I shall be most surprised. Normally he is a model of thoughtful diligence and I see nothing in this thread to the contrary.
You seem to be obsessed with a report of a single event at some conference long ago. You insinuate there is some sort of cover up, conspiracy or fraud, but you do not say explicitly what you think this might be. I think this is cowardice on your part. If you would make an accusation, people could address it. But you prefer not to, because an unnamed insinuation is impossible to nail and keeping this unnamed insinuation alive is, for some reason, very important to you personally.
exchemist,
if you don't know what this is about, then either stay out of it or read the thread.
this little dilemma throws into dispute almost every non confirmed "retraction" ever made on this subject.
i'm also sure that science is aware of that fact.
therefor science would indeed post a "retraction", IF they received one.
if you don't know what this is about, then either stay out of it or read the thread.
this little dilemma throws into dispute almost every non confirmed "retraction" ever made on this subject.
i'm also sure that science is aware of that fact.
therefor science would indeed post a "retraction", IF they received one.
Seattle
Valued Senior Member
If they printed a "retraction" would that change your mind on this subject in any way?
Hey leopold, you are correct of course, the jstor link is no longer active.
Here are a few alternatives:
Be content with only reading the first page extract of the article
Buy the original article straight from Science Magazine for $20
Use a cached version from Wayback
- leopold, note that this version is complete with the illustration and page numbers that you alleged were "edited out" by JamesR in one of the previous threads
So, unless you try to assert that the Wayback version is somehow altered from the original (or maybe it just doesn't count at all because it's not from jstor?) you now have the full text of your precious article.
Pray tell, what exactly is it that is so very, very special about this article? What are you saying was "concluded"? Please do tell...
As an aside, while searching for an available free online version of the Lewin article I stumbled across this (on Yahoo! answers of all places):
secretsauce answered 5 years ago
I found it:
Here is a google-cached copy of the entire text:
http://74.125.155.132/search?q=cache:K4m...
When you do a search and find the text in context, you can see that this sentence is a small part of a larger description of the concept of *apparent stasis* within the fossil record. Namely, that a species may *APPEAR* to be static for long periods of time, and then in an "instant" appear to speciate. But here "instant" is relative to GEOLOGICAL time ... i.e. an "instant" may mean within the course of a "mere" 50,000 years, which is an *instant* in geological time.
So part of describing this process is explaining why species *appear* to be "static" in the first place. And that is where this sentence appears (at the end of this paragraph):
"So how can paleontologists suggest that species remain the same through most of their existence? And who in their right mind would contemplate speciation occurring in an instant? The resolution of this apparent conflict is this. Species do indeed have a capacity to undergo minor modifications in their physical and other characteristics, but this is limited and with a longer perspective it is reflected in an oscillation about a mean: to a paleontologist looking at the fossil record, this shows up as stasis."
It is in this context, that it sets up the very next paragraph:
"The troubling specter of "instant" speciation is again a product of misunderstandings over scale. What is an instant to a paleontologist is an unimaginable tract of time to either an ecologist or a population geneticist. "I'd be happy to see speciation taking place over, say, 50,000 years,' said Gould, 'but that is an instant compared with the 5 or 10 million years that most species exist.'
"However, even the most ardent punctuationists do not dismiss gradual change as a force in evolution."
So there you have it.
Within the context of that discussion about apparent "stasis" (as a contrast to relatively "sudden" speciation), THAT is what is meant by saying that the capacity for minor modifications is "limited" and often oscillates around a mean, ... it is this oscillation that would give the *appearance* of stasis in a fossil record that stretches over millions of years.
Only the most dishonest of misrepresentations would take this out of context and say that die-hard evolution supporters (both micro and macro) like Lewin, or Gould, or Eldredge are somehow "admitting" some fundamental "limitation" of macroevolution such that it *does not occur at all*!!! Even the most cursory reading of this article describing the debate, would recognize that these guys are arguing over the PACE of macroevolutionary change, and what it would *APPEAR* like in a fossil record ... they are NOT arguing over whether macroevolution occurs AT ALL!
Ah, but dishonest misrepresentations are the bread-and-butter of Creationism!
I urge anybody who has even an ounce of intellectual integrity, to read this article and decide for yourself if there is ANY justification for taking Lewin's words as some sort of "admission" of fundamental limitations of macroevolution that is causing Lewin, or Gould, or Eldredge or ANYBODY at the Chicago conference to doubt whether macroevolution can occur as a result of the accumulation of microevolution.
It is one thing to disagree with these 'evolutionists' and to insist yourself that macroevolution does not occur.
But when Creationists have to LIE about what their opponents say, and to put false words in their mouths in order to gain some credibility ... then that says far more about the honesty of Creationism, than it does about science.
Incidentally, I should point out that the Lewin article was written in November, 1980 about a conference that occurred in Chicago in 1980.
That was 30 years ago!
So if there was some sort of wholesale collapse of "Darwinism" or a revolutionary admission of defeat of macroevolution, then do you think we would have heard something by now?
Why are Creationists STILL quoting this article 30 years later as if it was some sort of foundation-shattering exposé?
Answer:
(A) because intellectual integrity is a foreign concept;
(B) because they can't find an actual Creationist with enough credibility to be worth quoting; and
(C) Because they have NOTHING else.
Source:
Here are two Creationist sites that take this quote out-of-its-context:
http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/sci-ev/sci_vs_ev_9b.htm
http://www.in6days.ie/AncientMan.htm
Notice how both of them omit not only the rest of Lewin's paragraph ... but even cut him off in mid-sentence! Omitting the very important qualifier: "...oscillation about a mean: to a paleontologist looking at the fossil record, this shows up as stasis."
That this is explaining the *appearance of stasis*, but the Creationists re-interpret this to conclude that macroevolution is impossible because evolution itself can only oscillate about a mean *EVER* ... is the kind of baldfaced LIE that anybody with any shred of integrity would be ashamed of.
I found it:
Here is a google-cached copy of the entire text:
http://74.125.155.132/search?q=cache:K4m...
When you do a search and find the text in context, you can see that this sentence is a small part of a larger description of the concept of *apparent stasis* within the fossil record. Namely, that a species may *APPEAR* to be static for long periods of time, and then in an "instant" appear to speciate. But here "instant" is relative to GEOLOGICAL time ... i.e. an "instant" may mean within the course of a "mere" 50,000 years, which is an *instant* in geological time.
So part of describing this process is explaining why species *appear* to be "static" in the first place. And that is where this sentence appears (at the end of this paragraph):
"So how can paleontologists suggest that species remain the same through most of their existence? And who in their right mind would contemplate speciation occurring in an instant? The resolution of this apparent conflict is this. Species do indeed have a capacity to undergo minor modifications in their physical and other characteristics, but this is limited and with a longer perspective it is reflected in an oscillation about a mean: to a paleontologist looking at the fossil record, this shows up as stasis."
It is in this context, that it sets up the very next paragraph:
"The troubling specter of "instant" speciation is again a product of misunderstandings over scale. What is an instant to a paleontologist is an unimaginable tract of time to either an ecologist or a population geneticist. "I'd be happy to see speciation taking place over, say, 50,000 years,' said Gould, 'but that is an instant compared with the 5 or 10 million years that most species exist.'
"However, even the most ardent punctuationists do not dismiss gradual change as a force in evolution."
So there you have it.
Within the context of that discussion about apparent "stasis" (as a contrast to relatively "sudden" speciation), THAT is what is meant by saying that the capacity for minor modifications is "limited" and often oscillates around a mean, ... it is this oscillation that would give the *appearance* of stasis in a fossil record that stretches over millions of years.
Only the most dishonest of misrepresentations would take this out of context and say that die-hard evolution supporters (both micro and macro) like Lewin, or Gould, or Eldredge are somehow "admitting" some fundamental "limitation" of macroevolution such that it *does not occur at all*!!! Even the most cursory reading of this article describing the debate, would recognize that these guys are arguing over the PACE of macroevolutionary change, and what it would *APPEAR* like in a fossil record ... they are NOT arguing over whether macroevolution occurs AT ALL!
Ah, but dishonest misrepresentations are the bread-and-butter of Creationism!
I urge anybody who has even an ounce of intellectual integrity, to read this article and decide for yourself if there is ANY justification for taking Lewin's words as some sort of "admission" of fundamental limitations of macroevolution that is causing Lewin, or Gould, or Eldredge or ANYBODY at the Chicago conference to doubt whether macroevolution can occur as a result of the accumulation of microevolution.
It is one thing to disagree with these 'evolutionists' and to insist yourself that macroevolution does not occur.
But when Creationists have to LIE about what their opponents say, and to put false words in their mouths in order to gain some credibility ... then that says far more about the honesty of Creationism, than it does about science.
Incidentally, I should point out that the Lewin article was written in November, 1980 about a conference that occurred in Chicago in 1980.
That was 30 years ago!
So if there was some sort of wholesale collapse of "Darwinism" or a revolutionary admission of defeat of macroevolution, then do you think we would have heard something by now?
Why are Creationists STILL quoting this article 30 years later as if it was some sort of foundation-shattering exposé?
Answer:
(A) because intellectual integrity is a foreign concept;
(B) because they can't find an actual Creationist with enough credibility to be worth quoting; and
(C) Because they have NOTHING else.
Source:
Here are two Creationist sites that take this quote out-of-its-context:
http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/sci-ev/sci_vs_ev_9b.htm
http://www.in6days.ie/AncientMan.htm
Notice how both of them omit not only the rest of Lewin's paragraph ... but even cut him off in mid-sentence! Omitting the very important qualifier: "...oscillation about a mean: to a paleontologist looking at the fossil record, this shows up as stasis."
That this is explaining the *appearance of stasis*, but the Creationists re-interpret this to conclude that macroevolution is impossible because evolution itself can only oscillate about a mean *EVER* ... is the kind of baldfaced LIE that anybody with any shred of integrity would be ashamed of.
Well done - saves me the trouble of writing yet another reply to your foolishness, leopold. Have a read, and remember:
"That this [your much vaunted article] is explaining the *appearance of stasis*, but the Creationists re-interpret this to conclude that macroevolution is impossible because evolution itself can only oscillate about a mean *EVER* ... is the kind of baldfaced LIE that anybody with any shred of integrity would be ashamed of."
Have a nice day...
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
I've read the thread alright. Are you telling me this is NOT about what Ayala said or did not say at that conference long ago and all the resulting hooha you have generated on that topic, while ignoring his clarification?
If not, then then kindly tell me - in a couple of lines - what it IS about, because that seems to be what everyone else thinks it is about too.
thanks for confirming my statement that i posted the link to the article.
so bells, stick it where the sun doesn't shine, k?
my honest opinion?
i wouldn't trust anything that didn't come directly from jstor servers.
huh?
i never accused james of editing my posts.
i've never accused ANYONE about editing out any page numbers.
um, my "precious" article came from jstor.
not from a personal site or from wayback or anywhere else.
i will leave that to james.
i want to watch him vomit.
read the article randwolf.
i'm only repeating what was in it.
i have no idea why i'm accused of being a creationist for doing so.
maybe it's because someones "retraction house of cards" is about to collapse.
yes.
a retraction would make the entire article dubious.
in fact, a retraction would, in my mind, make the article worthless.
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
Right, so it IS about what I (and Yazata) thought it was about. AGAIN.
What is your accusation against the scientific establishment? What exactly do you think they are hiding?
Or are you determined to leave that all shadowy and conveniently vague?
because i don't have a photographic memory.
i'm not interested in anything that doesn't come straight from science or jstor concerning this matter.
it's not unreasonable to feel that way.
if you know what this is about, then why are you asking ME what it's about?
you are going to have to read the thread exchemist.
you can start at page 10
Do you deny that this thread is accurate?