leopold:
In response to your latest posts above:
this isn't so much about ayalas views as it is about the "retraction"
That is disingenuous and you know it.
You have been claiming for 3 years that Ayala's views are that evolution does not occur, based on Lewin's quote of Ayala in the
Science article, where Ayala is quoted as saying "small changes do not accumulate". Your claim is that because Ayala is a leading "evolutionist", this is a big deal because it seems that Ayala disputed evolution in the quote. A leading evolutionist who admits that evolution doesn't occur after all. What a coup for Creationists! You found this quote on a creationist website and you jumped on it as "proof" that scientific support for evolution is some kind of conspiracy among scientists, but that Ayala had let the truth slip (or something like that).
After it was pointed out to you that Ayala himself has disowned the quote attributed to him, you went on to claim that you wouldn't accept the word of the man himself about his own opinions, but only a formal "retraction" by the journal
Science. In the process, you have consistently said that you refuse to accept anything other than such a formal "retraction" by
Science as evidence that Ayala supports evolution after all.
You are well aware that Ayala is indeed an "evolutionist", since you have been clearly informed of that and given multiple sources that attest to its veracity. Your pig-headed refusal to read anything else about evolution other than this one article from
Science back in 1980 shows that you believe you have "caught out" the evolutionist conspiracy in a cover-up, or something like that, and that you don't need to know anything else about science to regard evolution as dead and buried. For example:
this isn't so much about ayala, but as this charade surrounding his quote.
Your use of the word "charade" here is telling. There is no charade. There are no smoke and mirrors here. This matter was clearly laid out for you three years ago (for the first time). Ayala was misquoted by Lewin. Ayala said he was misquoted. End of story. There's no cover-up. Both the original misquote and the subsequent correspondence are on the public record. Nobody has deleted or edited anything in order to perpetrate a "charade".
It is possible that you are a paranoid conspiracy nut, but more likely that you simply come with an agenda: to spread the word that evolution is wrong, even though you know nothing about it.
I even gave you a blow-by-blow breakdown of Lewin's article to help you understand its contents. You ignored that completely, because the entire content of the article doesn't suit your ideological position on evolution, apart from the misquote of Ayala. In other words, you dishonestly ignore all of the article but that one sentence.
You are an insult to honest enquiry, leopold. If you think your crusade here is helping to paint a noble picture of creationists in general, or of people who think aliens made life, or of whoever you think you represent, you couldn't be more wrong. You're not making a stand for what is right. You're sticking your head in the sand and telling lies in order to prop up your unsustainable position. That is contemptible. You ought to be ashamed of yourself.
I imagine that this is probably not how you conduct yourself in your life in general. Chances are that you have some personal integrity in other areas of your life. Doesn't it then make you ashamed that you throw all that away when you discuss this one topic?
BTW, i personally do not consider a source that can be edited by anyone at anytime a historical source.
Edits of wikipedia are all recorded and the history can be viewed. Thus, the history of individual wikipedia pages can be tracked. You can even view the page as it was at the date of any given edit.
i am not concerned with what ayala believes.
my concern is why science refuses to correct said article.
Nobody has asked
Science to correct the article, as far as I am aware. What makes you say they have "refused" to do so?
i will IGNORE everything not related to the issue i raised above.
No you won't. You will no longer avoid responding to points that are inconvenient for your crusade.
strawman.
i admit that lewin was called a liar for posting such quote.
Who called Lewin a liar? Please provide appropriate references.
i admit science received letters blasting the crap out of lewin and the article.
I've read about 5 or 6 letters responding to the article. They are mostly critical of the article, but restrained, as is typical in scientific journals.
You, on the other hand, admit that you didn't read the letters because you were "looking for one from Ayala". So you can't know whether they "blasted the crap out of Lewin" or not.
are you going to ban me for what science publishes?
No. I'm going to ban you when you knowingly tell lies.
i don't think PE has been confirmed
Punctuated equilibrium is an idea that is entrenched in the literature now. 35 years has passed since your 1980 conference.
because my posts in this thread is not a denial of evolution, but an inquiry into the BS surrounding the ayala quote.
Your aim all along has been to deny evolution, using the misquote of Ayala as your only evidence that evolution doesn't occur. You haven't done any inquiring into the quote off your own bat. On the contrary, all the inquiring has been done by members of sciforums (myself included) who have rebutted your claims comprehensively. The results of those inquiries have been presented to you on a silver platter. Your response has been to ignore them or to lie about them.
the bottom line is simply this:
science is responsible for what its editors prints.
science has NOT corrected the article in question.
for pointing out the above i'm labeled as dishonest by an administrator of a science site.
if this is truly how you feel james, then you have no integrity.
The bottom line is that the misquote of Ayala has been publically corrected by Ayala himself and it doesn't matter whether
Science has published a correction or not because the truth or falsity of the quote does not hang on whether
Science publishes a correction. Moreover, the truth or falsity of evolution doesn't hang on one quote in 1980 by Ayala, even if we were to accept it at face value as published in
Science (uncorrected).
That's the true bottom line.
Your dishonesty is exemplified by your refusal to concede these fundamental points, or even to address them.
And now you have the gall to accuse
me of lacking integrity. Frankly, you're starting to make me angry, leopold.
there is a reason science refuses to correct this james, and i want to know what that reason is.
This has been explained to you many times over the course of the past 3 years, including in this thread. I did it myself (in this very thread, and probably elsewhere), and others have also done it too.
But here's an idea: why don't you write to the editors of
Science and ask them? If this matter is of such great concern to you, why have you not done that at some time in past 3 years?
and i look forward to the issue of science where science states "we got it wrong" in regards to ayala.
Why aren't you writing letters to lobby them for such an outcome, then?