Bells:
I absolutely believe you. I firmly believe that evolution as you were taught it is wrong.
Because no one could have been taught evolution and thought that a
rat could turn into a rabbit or could have even come up with such an argument.
So it is more than obvious that you were never really taught evolution. Well, not real scientific evolution.
Probably leopold went to a school where some kind of creationist parody of evolution was taught, if it was taught at all. I must say that I personally can't remember being taught
anything about evolution at school. I don't think I really knew anything much about it until I read
The Selfish Gene as a teenager (and I'm very happy to have a copy of that book sitting on my shelf that Richard Dawkins was kind enough to autograph for me.)
leopold:
where oh where did science publish ANY errata concerning this article?
errata, such as misquotes etc.
quite a few people wrote to science concerning this article, i've seen NONE from ayala.
I read the article. If I remember correctly, I don't think that it misquoted Ayala, so why would he complain about that to Science (or anybody else)?
The complaint that Ayala had, later, was that some creationist types had misinterpreted what he said and, as creationists so often do, took it out of context and used it to try to debunk evolution. Ayala himself is an "evolutionist", so why would he try to discredit the theory that he believes is true? Think about it. It doesn't make sense.
Moreover, as you are well aware, Ayala himself has publically commented on the false creationist "controversy" around the quote that you believe is so crucial to whether evolutionary theory stands or falls. And guess what? He unequivocally repudiated the creationist reading of it and supported the theory of evolution.
But again we have the leopold double-standard. On the one hand, leopold accepts without question the authority of Ayala's original quote, which leopold believes disproves evolution (even though it does no such thing, even on a misreading). And on the other hand, leopold absolutely refuses to accept Ayala's clarification about what he meant and how the creationists misinterpreted him.
Does your intellectual dishonesty ever give you a niggling sense of guilt, leopold? Or does your religion more than compensate for your dishonesty?
I've walked you through this previously. I took the time to read the article. I and others pointed you towards Ayala's comments on the article you think is so important. And yet, here you are,
years later, still relying on the same bullshit you relied on at the start. What does that say about you?
Apparently, only a printed retraction by the editors of the journal
Science would make you change his mind. Or so you say. However, science and
Science have both moved on in the past 30 years. The article goes unmentioned today not because of the Great Scientific Conspiracy, but because the truth of evolution does not hinge on a minor report written about a conference that took place back in 1985.
Every issue of
Science that is published contains more evidence for the theory of evolution. But you won't even look at any of that, will you leopold? You're not interested. Your mind is closed. If you took a poll of the editors of
Science as to whether they believe in evolution, what do you think they'd say, seeing as you trust them so much as authorities and all?
Your 1985 article is important only to you, leopold. And it's only important to you because you're desperate to cling to a misinterpretation of something a biologist said 30 years ago. Why? Because you're desperate for there to be
some kind of scientific backing for your disbelief in evolution. I think you actually have some respect for science, but you have this internal conflict because everything in this particular area of science so clearly goes against what you believe as a result of your religion. So you desperately grasp at a straw that you think can save you from drowning in the sea of scientific data that contradicts your creationist beliefs. And you deny the obvious point that you don't even understand what the article you so rely on was about.
well, when i'm told that diversity is the result of small accumulating changes (with "proof" i might add) and then i find out that is not the case, i consider that a lie bells.
How else would diversity come about?
You constantly dodge this question. Don't think I didn't notice that you avoided all the questions I asked you in my previous post. That's typical dishonest behaviour from you, leopold.
And you'll ignore this one, too, won't you? Or give your weak "I don't know" response.
the little charade surrounding this situation is even worse.
BTW, this has nothing to do with religion, so stop trying to make it such.
You know it has everything to do with your religion. Only a religious zealot could be so wilfully blind when presented with facts like these.
my honest opinion?
the concept of "things becoming alive" is the most ridiculous i've ever heard.
human intelligence bootstrapping itself from a "pond of goo" is ludicrous.
Who cares what you think, leopold? You're ignorant and you don't even want to learn. You've as good as admitted it in this thread. Your opinion on evolution is about as valuable as the opinion of a goat herder on quantum cryptography. (My apologies to any physicists who herd goats in their spare time.)
i honestly don't know what to think [about a scientific conspiracy].
i sometimes think i might be missing something, but i don't think so.
You see the end of twig. You don't realise that there's not only a branch, not only tree, but a whole forest out there, if you'd only bother to look at it.