Do you retract your accusation that the moderators have deleted or edited your posts?have you been drinking with bells again?
talk about something coming out of left field.
i thought we left this about 4 or 5 pages ago.
Do you retract your accusation that the moderators have deleted or edited your posts?have you been drinking with bells again?
talk about something coming out of left field.
i thought we left this about 4 or 5 pages ago.
no.Do you retract your accusation that the moderators have deleted or edited your posts?
why then did he contact NAIG?.Ayala obviously didn't think it was a big enough issue to bother contacting Science about.
It's you making the accusations. Therefore, it is up to you to point us towards where and when your posts were edited or deleted.no.
but . . . to save the mod team the time wasting effort to confirm my answer i will retract.
I have no idea what you're on about. Again, it's up to you to support your allegations. It's not for the moderators to go digging around trying to work out what you might be rambling on about.OTOH, i AM concerned about one of my posts about this subject.
don't ask, you and i already had a dialog about it.
Oh. So you are now suddenly satisfied with my summary of the "conclusion", are you? Great.thanks for posting the conclusion of the conference.
It's not important. Evolution doesn't stand or fall on what Lewin wrote 30 years ago.BTW, lewin wasn't just a journalist, he was an editor for science.
in my opinion a prestigious position.
he didn't get there by shits and giggles.
He probably knew the guy who wrote up the web page on NAIG. Or he happened to read the page and decided to respond. Or whatever. What's important, for your purposes, is that his comments on the Lewin article misquote are clearly on the record.why then did [Ayala] contact NAIG?
It didn't. That's just one page among thousands on NAIG that debunks creationist lies.why does NAIG make such a "big deal" out of it when its not a big deal?
NAIG's fight is against the creationists, not against Science.why didn't NAIG contact science to clue them in on how ayala was allegedly being "misquoted" . . .by one of the editors of science?
The man himself says he didn't.he said those words james, and said them in reference to the gaps in the record.
Everybody agrees that there are "gaps" in the fossil record. Fossilisation is an extremely rare occurrence, so we expect gaps. The conference was arguing about why there were fewer "transitional" fossils that we might expect. The proposed answer was punctuated equilibrium, which, by the way, is an evolutionary theory. PE doesn't deny evolution. It doesn't say "small changes do not accumulate".these gaps are real, they are not genetic because you can't get DNA samples from fossils.
so, ayala was essentially confirming that no transitional fossils exist for those gaps.
No. A retraction is where you say something, like "The moderators are unfairly editing my posts", and then you say "No, I was wrong about that. I take it back. They really aren't editing my posts."ayala didn't retract anything??
are you serious?
"i don't know how lewin got that quote but i didn't say it" (paraphrased)
you don't call that a retraction?
You deny evolution. Therefore, it seems to me you must be a creationist. If not that, then what? You tell me.you keep referring to me as a creationist.
you know i don't like it.
You deny evolution. Therefore, it seems to me you must be a creationist. If not that, then what? You tell me.
Creationism is usually understood as the contention that all current species were created in a single act of creation by God, in roughly their current form.Creationism, to me, is about the rise our modern human consciousness, which allowed the formation of civilization.
That liquid water is fundamental to biological processes on Earth is well understood.In terms of evolution, the current theory does not include an analysis of the impact of water in proportion to its contribution to life.
It is taken as given that cells and DNA operate in an aqueous environment.Evolution, as is, leaves out the important water variable, so it can't be right, by default. It gives water lip service but does not even teach that the DNA has a double helix of water needed for its functionality.
Nonsense. There's no government shoving evolution down your throat.The result is this current version of evolution can't stand on its own without a government shake down.
well then, why didn't "the man himself" contact science a and tell them "you either correct this situation or i'm going to sue your balls off"?The man himself says he didn't.
science said he said it, the man himself said he didn't.You can't quote him as an authority for the proposition that "small changes don't accumulate" and in the next breath say that he is a liar when he tells you that wasn't what he said. Either you believe the man or you don't.
these gaps are TYPICAL of the record, they aren't a "here and there" occurrence.Everybody agrees that there are "gaps" in the fossil record. Fossilisation is an extremely rare occurrence, so we expect gaps. The conference was arguing about why there were fewer "transitional" fossils that we might expect.
so, when "the man himself" said "i didn't say that" when science says he did, that isn't a retraction?No. A retraction is where you say something, like "The moderators are unfairly editing my posts", and then you say "No, I was wrong about that. I take it back. They really aren't editing my posts."
uh, that "somebody else" just happened to be one of the most respected names in science.What Ayala did was to correct an error made by somebody else.
but wait, didn't you say that ayaals didn't say those words, didn't NAIG print ayala didn't say those words?That's like where you say "Small changes don't accumulate", and then I say "You're mistaken. They do accumulate." Did you retract your statement? No, you didn't. It was simply corrected.
no, but it definitely warrants an explanation from science that they got it wrong.More accurately, the situation was like this: I write "In a surprising concession, leopold said in the Denial of Evolution thread that small changes accumulate, thus supporting the reality of evolution." And then you write "No! I would never have said such a thing. I'm a raving creationist, and all my writings support the fact that I would never support evolution. Obviously, James misquoted me."
Now, if that happened, would you say you retracted your statement in support of evolution?
you would be hard pressed to find a single quote of mine that says "god did it"You deny evolution. Therefore, it seems to me you must be a creationist. If not that, then what? You tell me.
you know, i don't see the word "unfairly" anywhere in your quote.Do you retract your accusation that the moderators have deleted or edited your posts?
Completely untrue. That's like saying "science has no frikken clue as to how a car works" because there are fluid dynamics within the cylinder during combustion that are hard to model.when it comes right down to it, science has no frikken clue as to how we got here.
Science has made matter "become alive" (or at least become a growing, reproducing assembly of molecules) so they have quite good evidence.science has ZERO evidence that matter "becomes alive".
Science has observed these species morph into other species:science has ZERO evidence on how long a species takes to "morph" into something else.
We have quite strong evidence that all the steps necessary to do that are both possible and likely. (However, no one is claiming that a MODERN plant is going to turn into a man.)science has ZERO evidence that a plant can ever turn into a man.
We have quite strong evidence that small changes, over time, lead to large changes. Ever been to the Grand Canyon? Seen a Chihuahua or a Great Dane? Seen a whale?science has next to no evidence that "small changes accumulate".
of course, we have life walking out of test tubes all the time.Completely untrue.
same animal, more fur.Science has observed these species morph into other species:
Evening Primrose (Oenothera gigas)
Kew Primrose (Primula kewensis)
Raphanobrassica
Hemp Nettle (Galeopsis tetrahit)
Madia citrigracilis
Brassica
Maidenhair Fern (Adiantum pedatum)
Woodsia Fern (Woodsia abbeae)
Stephanomeira malheurensis
Yellow Monkey Flower (Mimulus guttatus)
Fruit fly (Drosophila paulistorum)
we have no evidence at all that a plant can "morph" into a man.We have quite strong evidence that all the steps necessary to do that are both possible and likely. (However, no one is claiming that a MODERN plant is going to turn into a man.)
well, the article i posted says the opposite.We have quite strong evidence that small changes, over time, lead to large changes. Ever been to the Grand Canyon? Seen a Chihuahua or a Great Dane? Seen a whale?
of course, we have life walking out of test tubes all the time.
i'm sure you can direct me to a legit link that demonstrates this.
same animal, more fur.
you know, like heredity related?
we have no evidence at all that a plant can "morph" into a man.
again, i'm sure you can direct me to a legit link that demonstrates your position.
well, the article i posted says the opposite.
one of the leading proponents of evolution has said it.
we are in the science section billvon.
Sure, here are a few:of course, we have life walking out of test tubes all the time.
i'm sure you can direct me to a legit link that demonstrates this.
The same way a whale is the same animal as a mouse, just less fur.same animal, more fur.
Here's the link to a book that does just that:we have no evidence at all that a plant can "morph" into a man.
again, i'm sure you can direct me to a legit link that demonstrates your position.
We are indeed. And evolution is one of the scientific discoveries that now has an incredible amount of support from several, widely disparate fields.we are in the science section billvon.
of course, we have life walking out of test tubes all the time.
i'm sure you can direct me to a legit link that demonstrates this.
All creatures are the "same animal, more fur". That's the whole point, leopold.same animal, more fur.
Very good - you're beginning to grasp that heredity and evolution are intertwined.you know, like heredity related?
i've been given plenty of examples of adaptation.Leopold, you have been given a host of examples of evolution.
no.You propose ludicrous counter-examples: a man evolving from a plant. Is your purpose to troll?
i would like to, but unfortunately this ayala quote must be resolved first.This is indeed the science section. Time to end the farce.
how does pointing out the fact conflate to "creationist"?Yes we're in the science section, Leopold.
I see you are making the usual conflation of abiogenesis with evolution that creationists like to make in order to discredit evolution. They point to the fact that we do not yet have a proper theory of abiogenesis and then pretend this means evolution somehow falls down as a result.
i didn't say heredity and evolution is intertwined.All creatures are the "same animal, more fur". That's the whole point, leopold.
Very good - you're beginning to grasp that heredity and evolution are intertwined.
So you believe bacteria are not alive? How about algae? Amoebas? Mold? Moss? Grass?biologically speaking, none of your samples can be considered life.
They are not equal. Heredity is part of evolution. There are three ingredients that give you evolution:i didn't say heredity and evolution is intertwined.
and neither did science. it seems logical to equate the two, but there is no evidence they are.
yes, just like i consider dolly the sheep alive, and for the same reason.So you believe bacteria are not alive? How about algae? Amoebas? Mold? Moss? Grass?
Wait a minute. You said none of the samples could be considered life. One of them was bacteria. Now you are saying bacteria ARE alive?yes, just like i consider dolly the sheep alive, and for the same reason.
And what about creating self-sustaining, evolving, eating, reproducing complex molecules from chemicals? You still don't consider that life? What's the functional difference between that and a bacterium?copy/pasting genes, then inserting that into a cell is not "creating life in a test tube".