probably because the mods don't know where to put it.
there is a problem here cris, and they know it.
Denial of Evolution VII (2015)
- Thread starter davewhite04
- Start date
there is a problem here cris, and they know it.
no, i remember the conversation.
why do you ask?
Of course not. That would be very inconvenient to your position, now wouldn't? Why don't you just pony up and buy the damned article leopold?
Actually, the article "came from" Science Magazine. jstor merely archived and reposted it. By the way, you can also still buy it from jstor. Why don't you do that? Since you question whether the versions would be identical or not...
Yeah. Let me know how that works out for you...
I have. Probably twenty times over the years, by now. I see nothing earth shattering in it. I see no "conclusion" made by the conference - no such thing exists. I see nothing radical about the article. I do see how creationist morons could twist five words out of context to support a theist position - very much like you seem to be doing.
That's a lie. You won't even "repeat" whatever part you think is so relevant. You just keep saying "Read the article. Read the article. Read the article"
That statement is simply another bald faced lie. You know very well why. It's been explained hundreds of times. A six year old moron would be able to comprehend why.
Keep telling yourself that. Hasn't happened yet. Maybe in thirty more years?
You're just an intellectually dishonest troll consumed with cognitive dissonance.
one or the other is true:
you didn't read the article
or
the article you read didn't come from jstor
simple as that.
Seattle
Valued Senior Member
Leopold, if you read the original article and found something about it troubling (rather than someone else reading it and telling you to get excited about it) then why can't you just read this copy? I'm sure you will find the same troubling passages if you were able to do so with the original article.
they now have computers that design computers.
in effect they can now replicate.
i gaurentee that in a billion years from now, without intelligent intervention, that's all they will be doing.
a computer can do exactly NOTHING without a program, a program written by an intelligence.
can the above be applied to life?
in effect they can now replicate.
i gaurentee that in a billion years from now, without intelligent intervention, that's all they will be doing.
a computer can do exactly NOTHING without a program, a program written by an intelligence.
can the above be applied to life?
if it's not from jstor i'm not interested in it.
randwolf posted that the article is available from jstor if you want to buy it.
be advised that some of the article is contested.
the ayala quote for example, and what was meant by "gaps in the record".
hand waving in my opinion.
Heres my take on it:::
Years ago... James R an you read somethin at "jstor" which suports you'r clame about Ayala... but sinse the article is no longer available to you... you just want James R to confirm that you are right about what Ayala said... ie... then you will be able to serve crow to "whomever" here at Sciforums.!!!
we might be dealing with something (life) that consists of multiple parts.
virii life isn't the same as plant life.
plant life isn't the same as human life.
they share the laws of heredity but that's about it.
in my opinion, the definition of life will not consist of a single entity.
the question of god . . .there simply can't be.
i fail to believe that an all knowing, all powerful, loving, "entity" would subject his creations to a popularity contest.
believe in me or BURN IN HELL !!!!
uh, right.
virii life isn't the same as plant life.
plant life isn't the same as human life.
they share the laws of heredity but that's about it.
in my opinion, the definition of life will not consist of a single entity.
the question of god . . .there simply can't be.
i fail to believe that an all knowing, all powerful, loving, "entity" would subject his creations to a popularity contest.
believe in me or BURN IN HELL !!!!
uh, right.
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
Because, you evasive little twat, YOU suggested I had not understood the issue. I had, as I said, read the thread (and I have now re-read it, just to make sure), but I did you the basic courtesy of inviting you to point out how I might have misread it. But I read it aright the first time, evidently.
I see your technique now. You don't want to confirm what it is about: you want instead to throw out the vague suggestion that I am not up to speed with the thread, to avoid having to deal with my challenge to you. Just as you avoid specifying what you insinuate is being concealed by the science community over Ayala's alleged remarks, back in 1983.
I repeat that this is a cowardly and contemptible way of avoiding a discussion.
davewhite04
Valued Senior Member
I agree, though I would of read the thread the once!
hey, my twat ain't little.
you can park 3 semis side by side in it.
and?
what challange might that be?
i've verbosely expressed how i feel about the article.
what do you want from me exchemist?
about ayala?
it's been suggested that one of the editors (lewin) misquoted ayala.
this makes science liable, not lewin.
science is responsible for what it prints.
science never "corrected" the quote.
also, i haven't seen anything that says ayala ever contacted science about this.
on top of that, why didn't the author of no answers in genesis contact science, seeing as he had the correspondence with ayala?
what else do you want?
leopold,
Take a look through a microscope at a plant cell dividing. Do the same thing with a human cell. You will have difficulty seeing any difference. Take a look at the shape of a frog in the first few days of formation and that of a human - they are in almost every respect identical.
All life has identical building blocks - humans are not exceptional in any respect. Just like LEGO bricks - life can be very simple or complex, but all life is related.
Take a look through a microscope at a plant cell dividing. Do the same thing with a human cell. You will have difficulty seeing any difference. Take a look at the shape of a frog in the first few days of formation and that of a human - they are in almost every respect identical.
All life has identical building blocks - humans are not exceptional in any respect. Just like LEGO bricks - life can be very simple or complex, but all life is related.
i understand that.
OTOH you must admit virii aren't even close to being a plant.
define "life".
the only definition i can think of is "the living cell".
does that define a plant? a human?
does intelligence enter into the equation?
Sure we could define biological life as based on a cell. Since we have no known self-aware machines yet, I would still claim them as living, and hence we will likely have to redefine "life" at some point to include such machines. But living things are more than just cells since cells require support systems to exist - methods to absorb nutrients and excrete waste, at a minimum. More advanced structures need more complex subsystems to survive, hormones, lipids, etc.
As for viruses - they are an excellent example of one of the transitional states between life and non-life. Harmful to living cells, yet not in themselves cellular. But there are many molecules that are needed by living cells yet are also harmful. Glucose for example is needed for most living cells, but the molecule also causes glycation - damages proteins, and too much can be deadly.
Most living things also rarely exist on their own but as synergistic organisms. Humans for example have some 37 trillion cells, but we are also inhabited by some 10 times that number of bacteria, that are mostly essential for our survival, especially in the gut. In terms of numbers we are more bacteria than anything else.
Intelligence is simply a degree of non-autonomy that can range from the simple perceptions in plants through all the various insects, fish, and animals, and to us. It is essentially an ability to react to external stimuli and make choices. Many machines fit very well into that category already, they only differ to us and animals by matters of degree.
What is perhaps more significant than intelligence is the issue of self-awareness. In humans this kicks in at around age 2 and develops. In dolphins and some primates, there is a lesser degree than humans. Elephants seems to have some as well. The degree of self-awareness appears to correlate directly with brain complexity, not necessarily brain size.
The only critical way we differ from other lifeforms is in our degree of self-awareness. Otherwise all life is on a gradient and we are at one end. We are otherwise not special.
Bells
Staff member
And?
Theist sites always provide the source. Hence why it is a quote mining site. For example, the exact quote you keep relying on can be found at Creation Research:
‘The paleontologists have convinced me small changes do not accumulate.’
Comment by Francisco Ayala, Ph.D. (Genetics) (Associate Professor of Genetics, University of California) on Darwinian (gradual) evolution. As reported by Roger Lewin, ‘Evolutionary Theory under Fire’, Science, vol.210 (4472), November 21, 1980, pp.883-887.
Comment by Francisco Ayala, Ph.D. (Genetics) (Associate Professor of Genetics, University of California) on Darwinian (gradual) evolution. As reported by Roger Lewin, ‘Evolutionary Theory under Fire’, Science, vol.210 (4472), November 21, 1980, pp.883-887.
Center for Scientific Creation:
In 1980, the “Macroevolution Conference” was held in Chicago. Roger Lewin, writing for Science, described it as a “turning point in the history of evolutionary theory.” Summarizing a range of opinions, he said:
The central question of the Chicago conference was whether the mechanisms underlying microevolution can be extrapolated to explain the phenomena of macroevolution. 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. Roger Lewin, “Evolution Theory under Fire,” Science, Vol. 210, 21 November 1980, p. 883.
“In a generous admission Francisco Ayala, a major figure in propounding the Modern Synthesis [neo-Darwinism] in the United States, said ‘We would not have predicted stasis [the stability of species over time] from population genetics, but I am now convinced from what the paleontologists say that small changes do not accumulate.’ ” Ibid., p. 884.
The central question of the Chicago conference was whether the mechanisms underlying microevolution can be extrapolated to explain the phenomena of macroevolution. 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. Roger Lewin, “Evolution Theory under Fire,” Science, Vol. 210, 21 November 1980, p. 883.
“In a generous admission Francisco Ayala, a major figure in propounding the Modern Synthesis [neo-Darwinism] in the United States, said ‘We would not have predicted stasis [the stability of species over time] from population genetics, but I am now convinced from what the paleontologists say that small changes do not accumulate.’ ” Ibid., p. 884.
And on and on it goes. They always provide such quotes, taken out of context 3/4 of the time, and provide the source, just so theists can try and make their answer sound somewhat scientific.
You can even read Lewin's whole article on creation sites. For example:
http://creationism.org.pl/groups/ptkrmember/spor/folder.2005-11-15.0080748368/Lewin
Lewin's article is a great favourite on creation sites. If it isn't quoted, it is linked to.
So which one did you get it from?
Yazata's comments were on point. Why are you dodging his questions and his comments?
Hmmm? Pretty sure I have never said you never posted it, since you most of us who were here back when you initially tried to pass that quote off as your argument against evolution remember that quote being posted repeatedly and linked to, like it was your little bible.
So why do you refuse to believe or trust their articles that prove evolutionary theory?
For example: http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/256669?sid=21105630863663&uid=3737536&uid=2&uid=4
And yet you have consistently ignored all their other articles that prove you are wrong about evolution.
Why?
Well people tend to find those who try to hide their creationism and deny it, even though it is so obvious, to be nauseating.
You are seen as a creationist because your argument is a creationist argument.
Yes Leo. There is this massive conspiracy against you. From Ayala down to the poor moderators of Sciforums.
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
For you to come clean about what you think is the significance of this 1983 conference. (This is exactly what Yazata asked you, which you evaded the same way as you evaded me, by an accusation that the questioner was not up to speed with the discussion.)
You obviously consider that whatever you think was said or not said at that conference thirty years ago is of fundamental significance for the theory of evolution. You insinuate that something is being covered up, censored or lied about. You even mention scientific fraud. Yet you do not come out and say what is being hidden, or by whom, or for what motive, or what you think the significance of it is.
You see, the rest of us normal people do not expect uniformity of opinion, or error-free pronouncements, all the time, about the theories of science. Progress is made by new data and by dialogue and argument about what the new data signifies. So to us, harping on and on about one reported version, of what may have been said, at one conference, thirty years ago, is very odd behaviour; especially so when one considers what a dynamic field this is and how much has gone on since. Unless of course, there was some point of massive significance about it that we have not grasped.
So. What is it, then?
amazing, stupifyingly so.
the source was included in the dead link.
the article was sourced from jstor bells.
a dyed in the wool creationist site.
but, you are correct, i found the link on a creationist (i assume) site, along with a quote from karl popper.
this quote from popper was also allegedly "retracted".
after this little snafu with ayala i seriously doubt if that is the case.
is your brain asleep?
have they altered your medication lately?
haven't you read the thread?
what, exactly, is up with you?
uh, well bells, when you call me a quote mining theist, that kind of implies that what i posted were little snippets without posting the article.
you . . . are . . . WRONG.
you have to ask science these questions bells.
i have no idea why it publishes what it does okay?
i can't help it if you don't like what science says about the matter.
tell me bells, what if i WAS a creationist,
i go to church 25 times a day.
both of my eyes are gouged out because i looked at naked women.
what, pray tell, does that have to do with said article?
Hmmmmmmmm?
oh, i get it, since i'm a "creationist", it somehow makes the article invalid.
you not only smell like frankenstein, you are starting to LOOK like him.
BTW, my twat is bigger than yours.
you sure are weird at times.
exchemist,
i've noticed you also posted.
i will reply to it if it isn't about "what's your point" or some such.
edit:
exchemist,
if you don't know what this about by now, then stay out of the discussion.
Last edited:
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
I take this to be yet another tactic to try to evade answering the question Yazata and I have asked you, because you know perfectly well (having no doubt read my post, even while pretending not to have) that the questions are indeed about what your point is.
Readers of this thread will rightly take further failure to address this as yet more evasive cowardice on your part.
Edit: Accusing me of not knowing what this is about when it is plain that I do, and not answering my questions, is just another cowardly evasion.
Last edited:
see?
that's my point cris.
a lack of an adequate definition of life.
a single cell is indeed life, but, it isn't the same as "organized" life.
i guess the same could be said of the elements too.
an atom is an element, and these can combine to make compounds very different than the individual atoms that make it up.
machines were created by an intelligence.
the programs that run these machines, likewise.
programs cannot learn unless they are programmed to, and then it will only learn what its program tells it to learn, AND NOTHING ELSE.
i can't think of any way a program can "evolve".
even the machine that played jeopardy will not "learn" anything new.
the chess program that beat the grand master, will never be anything else.