leopold,
oh, i would if i could find it.
In other words, you're accusing moderators of tampering with your posts, without any evidence of such tampering. Next you'll be saying that somebody deleted the edited posts and that's why you can't find them.
Get this, leopold: you're not being suppressed. Indeed, the current thread is entirely dedicated to you and your boring, repetitive, unimportant claims.
If you think your posts are being deleted, then keep copies of them so you can re-post them.
aqueous responded to the edited post, and i can't find THAT one either.
Did he agree with you, so that he had to be censored, too? Did the Great Scientific Conspiracy Men in Black get to him, too?
i'm asking YOU what the conclusion was.
I told you in my previous post.
Look, I don't see why I should do your homework for you. If you think the conclusion is important, go and find it for yourself. I probably still have a copy of the article on my hard drive somewhere.
However, I
did in the past post some relevant extracts from the paper in another thread - one of the ones linked in the list of threads I posted to the current thread earlier.
you have the issue.
what's up?
is it killing you?
I have no issue. How about we agree to drop the subject and never mention it again? Seeing as you have no issues and all.
the one ayala sent to no answers in genesis, but couldn't quite get himself to send to science, THAT retraction.
Ayala didn't retract anything. He said that he thought he was misquoted in the article by Roger Lewin, and he posted a clarification of what his opinions actually are. I quoted it in full in the current thread.
There's no wiggle room here. Ayala is on record as saying that of course small genetic changes accumulate over time. "How could they not?", he asks.
actually the PUBLISHER is responsible for it james.
No. Publishers of scientific papers and review articles in science journals aren't fact checkers.
of course it is.
one of the leading proponents of evolution denying accumulating small changes is unimportant.
When will you realise that Ayala is just one guy? Look out at the big wide world of evolutionary biologists - or even just at the "leading proponents" if you want. What do they say? I mean, let's ignore the fact that Ayala is on the record as supporting evolution before, during and after the conference in 1980. Suppose that Ayala had a bout of sudden madness and actually did stand up at the conference to exclaim "It's all wrong! Evolution doesn't happen! God created man in 7 days. Halleluyah!" Would that prove that the theory of evolution is bunk, then? Of course not.
You've been told over and over, leopold, that nothing in science rests on one item of data, or on the word of one person. Science is all about reproduceability, repetition, regularity. The acceptance of evolution among the many thousands (tens of thousands?) of working biologists is almost universal.
Let's say that, as in case of climate change, 97% of biologists believe evolution happens, and 3% believe in the leopold theory of "I don't know how life developed on Earth. Maybe it was something to do with aliens!" or whatever. What would that suggest to you? Sure, its
possible that the wealth of data from disparate areas of study that points to the reality of evolutionary theory is all bunk, but given the sheer volume of it and the multiple lines of evidence available the chance of that is vanishingly small. So vanishingly small, in fact, that anybody who disbelieves evolution is either ignorant like yourself, or else in denial for one reason or another. Hence our multiple threads on sciforums titled "evolution denial". Evolution denial and climate change denial are similar, only the evidence for evolution is far stronger than for climate change.
if you read the article, you will find that ayala based his comment on what paleontologists presented to him.
Yes. I've walked you through what the discussion was about previously. I read the article, remember?
The debate was over gradualism vs punctuated equilibrium. Gradualism says that genomes evolve at a more-or-less constant rate. Punctuated equilibrium says that genomes can be relatively stable over long periods of time, then undergo rapid evolution in a short space of time.
Part of the discussion at the conference was about which theory (gradualism or PE) was better supported by the fossil record. It seems that perhaps Ayala was willing to concede that there was some good evidence for PE (which was the renegade theory at the time).
Note well:
both gradualism and PE are
evolutionary theories. There was no debate about whether evolution happens or not. Everybody at the conference agreed that evolution happens as advertised. There were no Creationists at the conference arguing that God or aliens did it.
my "claims" come from a respected source james
Your "claim" quotes Ayala as the source. Ayala himself has refuted your claim. That is, the same source that you say supports your claim that "small changes do not accumulate" has explicitly stated the opposite.
Where does that leave you? It leaves you shaking your fists impotently as you hide your head in the sand and pretend it never happened.
i am the one that posted the issue from jstor on the board james.
a link that no longer works i might add
Do you claim that a broken link on the internet means that there's a Grand Scientific Conspiracy to suppress the MOST IMPORTANT STATEMENT IN BIOLOGICAL HISTORY - that "small changes do not accumulate" after all?
You can buy the article from
Science if you want. It's online. I found it somewhere else for free, IIRC, but I can't remember where. This was
years ago, during one of the first few times you brought up this silly non-issue.
ayalas quote and the discussion about gaps in the record.
Your favorite article does not say "transitional fossils don't exist".
Examples of so-called transitional fossils actually were quite rare back in 1980. But a LOT has changed since then. In the past 30 years since that conference, many impressive series of transitional fossils have been discovered for all kinds of diverse groups of animals. We have them for horses, for whales, even for human beings.
it amazes me how stupid you can play sometimes
Whenever I tell you that your favorite article doesn't say what you think it says, you claim I'm playing stupid. The real problem is that you don't understand the article you rely on. Given that you've had
years to get to grips with it, what does that say about you?
what was the conclusion james.
post it now you coward.
Oh look. I found the article on my hard drive (eventually).
Here's a reasonable short summary of the conclusion. This is a direct extract from the article (page 886):
David Raup, of the Field Museum, described the meeting aptly when he said that it had been "easier to identify the issues than to draw conclusions". The atmosphere of questioning, probing, and seeking common ground was perceived by all present.
Here's the conclusion (p.884) from one of the punctuated equilibrium guys:
However, even the most ardent punctuationists do not dismiss gradual change as a force in evolution. "We are not saying that population genetics is irrelevant," said Eldredge, counter accusations of monotheism; "The question is over what process is most important in bringing about the major changes we see in evolution. And the answer is punctuated equilibrium."
Don't get confused over the appearance of the word "monotheism" in this quote, by the way. This isn't a reference to religion or God. Creationism wasn't discussed at the conference. What is being said here is that "punctuationists" do not believe that evolution
only happens by punctuated equilibrium.
Now, post what you think the conclusion is, leopold, you coward.
i would give ANYTHING if i could PM you a buttplug with the word religion stamped on it.
you commie.
Are you reduced to calling me names because I keep showing up how stupid your reliance on this one paper is as a buttress for your creationism? Is that the best you can do, leopold?
