really?I have. It ain't that.
you don't consider this "retraction" nonsense fraudulent?
why not?
really?I have. It ain't that.
So you can't state your position. Once you can, by all means, give it a try.All this jibber jabber bores me I will return once something being said can properly stimulate my cerebral cortex.
really?
you don't consider this "retraction" nonsense fraudulent?
why not?
You're assuming that leopold understands Gould's argument about "spandrels". I see no evidence of that, based on anything that leopold has written. And I'm fairly confident that leopold knows next to nothing about "biomolecular" processes.Actually, that part wasn't. I believe he meant it as a distinction from the clearly morphological: and this would be a relevant point.
unbelievable.Why should I?
he's probably assuming i'm not an idiot.You're assuming that leopold understands Gould's argument about "spandrels".
thanks james, i consider you well versed too.I see no evidence of that, based on anything that leopold has written.
i might know more about it than you are assuming.And I'm fairly confident that leopold knows next to nothing about "biomolecular" processes.
really?
you don't consider this "retraction" nonsense fraudulent?
why not?
Good point! It is always risky to make assumptions...he's probably assuming i'm not an idiot.
Science didn't "make any ol' statement". They published an article written by someone who misquoted one sentence from Ayala.unbelievable.
so, science gets to make any ol' statement about anyone without any repercussions.
And yet, when you are provided with numerous other articles, studies and journals from this "respected source" you refuse to acknowledge it and instead focus on this one misquote from one article from years ago.this might work for a science fiction or playboy rag, but we are talking about a respected source here geoff.
One sentence, which was taken out of context and quoted by another person.. How's that bottom of the barrel you're scraping there?the scientific community didn't just pile on this respect for shits and giggles you know.
While the individual in question is not one I ever really agree with, he is not incorrect about this subject. Have you noticed you are the only person claiming there is a fraud while being incapable of showing or proving said fraud?no geoff, you are wrong buddy.
Yes Leo. It's all a conspiracy and everyone was in on it from years ago, because we wanted to set you up on this site.i have to ask, are you associated with NAIG by any chance?
wrong.Science didn't "make any ol' statement". They published an article written by someone who misquoted one sentence from Ayala.
where do you come up with this stuff bells.And that is because you have gotten the article from a creationist site and they are declaring that that one sentence by one scientist which was misquoted says that evolution is false.
if you don't have honest questions about this, then you are no lawyer.And yet, when you are provided with numerous other articles, studies and journals from this "respected source" you refuse to acknowledge it and instead focus on this one misquote from one article from years ago.
this will NEVER happen.Considering how long you have been returning to this topic, the huge number of posts dedicated to it, over many threads, over many years, it really deserves to be kept in its own thread. That way the other threads on evolution can continue discussing evolution while your thread continues to remain restricted to the points that you are arguing.
And?wrong.
science published an article written by one of their editors.
Because there is no way you read any science journal. The reason I say this is because if you did, then at no time could you conceivably have complained that evolution cannot be real because there is no evidence that a plant morphed into a human being. You have exceptionally poor understanding of the very basics of evolution.where do you come up with this stuff bells.
Why should I have any questions about it? The person who was misquoted offered an explanation. What more would I want?if you don't have honest questions about this, then you are no lawyer.
If you must know the truth, it does not bother me because:if you are indeed a lawyer, then i want to know why this doesn't bother you.
i hate to break it to you, but i did exactly that bellsBecause there is no way you read any science journal.
yes, i found the jstor link on a creationist (i assume) site.Then of course comes the fact that you admitted you sourced the quote and the article it came from from a creationist site.
didn't you know?Not to mention that your argument style, the very wording you use is often what is used on creationist sites.
i don't think an australian lawyer would have ANY problems with this charade.Why should I have any questions about it? The person who was misquoted offered an explanation. What more would I want?
you are either:You have yet to provide any proof of your claims, you have yet to substantiate that a fraud occurred or what the fraud was about or for.
yes, i would like to know the truth, but i doubt very much if it will come from your lips.If you must know the truth, . . .
i don't need any "alternatives" to point out the facts.Leopold what is your scientific alternative to evolution? What testable predictions has your alternative made? What scientific data do you have? Please summarize in 600 words or less.
No, but you do need facts (and a reasonable summary indicating you understand them) to point out facts. Pointing out errors that other people have made isn't all that useful, since a lot of people make errors. (The fact that someone once made an error designing parts of a 787, for example, does not mean that it's impossible for a 787 to fly.)i don't need any "alternatives" to point out the facts.
You found a link on a creationist site that took you to it. I find it astounding that you read it since you are now incapable of accessing it.i hate to break it to you, but i did exactly that bells
And here is where your dishonest creeps in. It's like when you tried to claim that there were many letters received by Science to correct it and you cannot even provide a source for such a claim.. Refer to above for creationist tactics when it comes to science.yes, i found the jstor link on a creationist (i assume) site.
i don't know if it was a creationist site because i didn't hang around that long.
But you don't question evolution.didn't you know?
anyone that questions evolution is a creationist.
Creationists deny evolution. Like you have been doing on this site for years. You do understand that this thread is about evolution denial, yes?besides that, what does "creationist" have to do with this discussion?
Aww, what's the matter? Don't like to have your dishonesty challenged?just more bullshit, from a bullshitter.
There is no charade Leopold. You are the only person arguing against evolution in this thread. You are the only person who sourced their argument from a creationist site and claims to have read "science" when you clearly have not and you still cannot furnish quotes from the article except for that one quote that is so often quote mined by creationist sites that it's not even funny anymore. Why should I have problems with a misquote that was corrected by Ayala himself?i don't think an australian lawyer would have ANY problems with this charade.
how's that?
Shouldn't be hard for you to furnish proof for your claims. Go on, show them. Provide proof of the fraud, conspiracy and that Ayala was not misquoted and that he actually believes what you keep attributing to him. He has written quite prolifically on the subject of evolution, so I'd like you to provide proof that he does not believe in evolution as you keep demanding he does not by that quote. Better yet, provide proof of your claims that there is fraud involved with Science Magazine and the author and Ayala..you are either:
1. acting stupid.
2. blind
3. or can't read.
After years of your dishonesty on this subject, I doubt you even know the meaning of the word "truth".yes, i would like to know the truth, but i doubt very much if it will come from your lips.
PM me the name your law firm, so i can avoid it at all costs.
are you exchemist?No, but you do need facts (and a reasonable summary indicating you understand them) to point out facts.
yes, they make errors.Pointing out errors that other people have made isn't all that useful, since a lot of people make errors. (The fact that someone once made an error designing parts of a 787, for example, does not mean that it's impossible for a 787 to fly.)
don't speak to me about truth bells, you witch"truth".