Denial of Evolution VII (2015)

[Seattle]

You don't like it so you respond with "retard" and "commie" ?

You do realize that "retard" is offensive to anyone who has mental retardation issues as well as to their family and friends?

Communism like-wise is simply a (not very effective) philosophy or form of organization and not something to be made into a pejorative term.

 

[Bells]

i SAID, listen carefully bells, i wanted to punch 'im in the face for acting like a retard.
being stupid is one thing, acting like it is totally different.

My apologies.

Do you often want to punch people?

i've asked him twice to post what the conclusion of the conference was, and he refuses.
then tells me not to tell lies and implies i will probably be banned.
you see bells, i've read the article, i KNOW what the conclusion was, and so does james.

Leo, we have been going over this for years. We all know the article.

And our response to you is still the same.

not according to the conclusion of the conference.

And yet, they have published other pieces which clearly disagrees..

excuses for what?
this DOES NOT resolve this little situation surrounding this BOGUS retraction of ayalas.

What bogus retraction? Ayala himself explained it and corrected it. Why do you refuse to believe the man himself, yet you choose to believe a quote attributed to him?

science is DIRECTLY responsible for the quote and ayala would have them by the balls legally if they didn't rectify the situation.

Why bother when he can correct it himself and he did.

now, present the issue where it recanted in regards to ayala.

Stop clinging to Ayala. Science Magazine have published hundreds of articles and studies which support evolution. Why don't you believe those?

See, the problem when theists such as yourself quote mine is that they are often left, stuck in this kind of situation where you refuse to acknowledge the people you are quoting because you quote mined something else, which was completely taken out of context. This often happens with quote mining.

You keep declaring how Science Magazine this and that, but you refuse to acknowledge the many studies and articles they have published which clearly show you are wrong. Why is that?

see above.

More excuses.

actually i believe it will be for presenting stuff that you have no answer for.

Yes Leo. We orchestrated it all. With Science Magazine over 30 years ago, just so that we could ban you from this site now. We even have a flow chart in the backroom, detailing your creationist argument and how it matches up against the scientific method:

Never has a flowchart matched you so perfectly.

 

[leopold]

You don't like it so you respond with "retard" and "commie" ?

You do realize that "retard" is offensive to anyone who has mental retardation issues as well as to their family and friends?

mia culpa my friends.
he usually gets called a cunt or hitler, i figured a change of pace was in order.
i think a better phrase would be frankenstein in a weenie outfit.

Communism like-wise is simply a (not very effective) philosophy or form of organization and not something to be made into a pejorative term.

fuck russia AND her shitload of military commies.

 

[leopold]

My apologies.

Do you often want to punch people?

no.
i usually run from room to room shooting them in the face.*

Leo, we have been going over this for years. We all know the article.
And our response to you is still the same.

i no longer have the article, so i can't post it for all to see.
our?
i didn't ask "our", i asked james.

And yet, they have published other pieces which clearly disagrees..

a nice little dilemma, wouldn't you say?

What bogus retraction? Ayala himself explained it and corrected it. Why do you refuse to believe the man himself, yet you choose to believe a quote attributed to him?

for the same reason i wouldn't believe an ax murder when he says "i didn't do it"

Why bother when he can correct it himself and he did.

see above.

Stop clinging to Ayala. Science Magazine have published hundreds of articles and studies which support evolution. Why don't you believe those?

because i'm not talking about "those", i'm talking about ayala.

See, the problem when theists such as yourself . . .

you smell like james, er, the frankenstein in a weenie suit.

* a tribute to spurious

 

[spidergoat]

http://www.noanswersingenesis.org.au/another_creationist_out_of_context_quote.htm


...So I e-mailed Dr Ayala asking for his reaction, and his reply (received on 26 July 2001) was as follows:

Dear Dr. Arrowsmith:
[please note that the "Dr" is Dr Ayala's error/assumption and I did not misrepresent my credentials!]

I don't know how Roger Lewin could have gotten in his notes the quotation he attributes to me. I presented a paper/lecture and spoke at various times from the floor, but I could not possibly have said (at least as a complete sentence) what Lewin attributes to me. In fact, I don't know what it means. How could small changes NOT accumulate! In any case, virtually all my evolutionary research papers evidence that small (genetic) changes do accumulate.

The paper that I presented at the conference reported by Lewin is virtually the same that I presented in 1982 in Cambridge, at a conference commemorating the 200 [sic] anniversary of Darwin's death. It deals with the claims of "punctuated equilibrium" and how microevolutionary change relates to macroevolution. (I provide experimental results showing how one can obtain in the laboratory, as a result of the accumulation of small genetic changes, morphological changes of the magnitude observed by paleontologists and presented as evidence of punctuated equilibrium.) The paper was published as part of the conference proceedings:

Ayala, F.J. 1983. Microevolution and macroevolution. In: D.S. Bendall, ed., Evolution from Molecules to Men (Cambridge University Press), pp. 387-402.

More accessible are two papers dealing with the same topic, written with my colleague G.L. Stebbins: Stebbins, G.L. and F.J. Ayala. 1981. Is a new evolutionary synthesis necessary? Science 213:967-971. (I quote from the abstract of the paper:

"Macroevolutionary processes are underlain by microevolutionary phenomena and are compatible with the synthetic theory of evolution." But, please, read the whole paper to get the wealth of results and ideas that we are discussing; and read also the following paper:

"Stebbins, G.L. and F.J. Ayala. 1985. The Evolution of Darwinism. Sci. American 253:72-82."

You may quote from this letter so long as you don't quote out of context or incomplete sentences.

Sincerely yours,
Francisco J. Ayala

For more information on Dr Ayala and his work, see his personal web site.

So, in summary -

1. Dr Ayala did not say the words attributed to him by Lewin;

2. Dr Ayala does not agree with the words attributed to him by Lewin; in fact his views on the subject are diametrically opposed.
​

 

[Yazata]

james has the article right in front of his face.

You keep bringing up "the article" in thread after thread. Why do you do that? Can you make a post explaining what the significance of this article is in your mind? Why do you think that it's so important? What do you want the rest of us to conclude about evolution based on it?

(You might want to wait until tomorrow to do it. Try to calm down first.)

the conclusion of this conference was stated on the very first page.

In my experience, conferences don't typically result in formal conclusions. Most conferences are just a group of academics who sign up to deliver papers and take questions. Certainly a journalist in attendance might write about things that were said that the journalist found newsworthy. That seems to be what happened here.

i've asked james twice already to post what it was, and he hasn't.

Why not post it yourself? And please provide a link to the entire text, so that anyone interested can see the original context of the remarks you quote.

then the . . . has the gall to threaten me with a ban.

play the retard james.

As I wrote earlier, if you are basing your whole attack against biological evolution (or whatever it is that you're doing, it isn't clear) on one seeming mis-quote of a scientist by a science journalist decades ago, that's pretty weak.

I'm still curious about what your own conclusion is, about what point you hope to use "the article" to make here on Sciforums. If we agree that phenotypic change doesn't seem to occur at a single steady rate across all lines of evolutionary descent throughout the entire history of life, what conclusion do you think we should draw from that?

 

[spidergoat]

Bottom line, don't ever make a typo that seems to support creationism, the dishonest creationists clearly have no shame or honor.

 

[youreyes]

fuck russia AND her shitload of military commies.

Noted.

 

[leopold]

http://www.noanswersingenesis.org.au/another_creationist_out_of_context_quote.htm


...So I e-mailed Dr Ayala asking for his reaction, and his reply (received on 26 July 2001) was as follows:

Dear Dr. Arrowsmith:
[please note that the "Dr" is Dr Ayala's error/assumption and I did not misrepresent my credentials!]

I don't know how Roger Lewin could have gotten in his notes the quotation he attributes to me. I presented a paper/lecture and spoke at various times from the floor, but I could not possibly have said (at least as a complete sentence) what Lewin attributes to me. In fact, I don't know what it means. How could small changes NOT accumulate! In any case, virtually all my evolutionary research papers evidence that small (genetic) changes do accumulate.

The paper that I presented at the conference reported by Lewin is virtually the same that I presented in 1982 in Cambridge, at a conference commemorating the 200 [sic] anniversary of Darwin's death. It deals with the claims of "punctuated equilibrium" and how microevolutionary change relates to macroevolution. (I provide experimental results showing how one can obtain in the laboratory, as a result of the accumulation of small genetic changes, morphological changes of the magnitude observed by paleontologists and presented as evidence of punctuated equilibrium.) The paper was published as part of the conference proceedings:

Ayala, F.J. 1983. Microevolution and macroevolution. In: D.S. Bendall, ed., Evolution from Molecules to Men (Cambridge University Press), pp. 387-402.

More accessible are two papers dealing with the same topic, written with my colleague G.L. Stebbins: Stebbins, G.L. and F.J. Ayala. 1981. Is a new evolutionary synthesis necessary? Science 213:967-971. (I quote from the abstract of the paper:

"Macroevolutionary processes are underlain by microevolutionary phenomena and are compatible with the synthetic theory of evolution." But, please, read the whole paper to get the wealth of results and ideas that we are discussing; and read also the following paper:

"Stebbins, G.L. and F.J. Ayala. 1985. The Evolution of Darwinism. Sci. American 253:72-82."

You may quote from this letter so long as you don't quote out of context or incomplete sentences.

Sincerely yours,
Francisco J. Ayala

For more information on Dr Ayala and his work, see his personal web site.

So, in summary -

1. Dr Ayala did not say the words attributed to him by Lewin;

2. Dr Ayala does not agree with the words attributed to him by Lewin; in fact his views on the subject are diametrically opposed.
​

this "retraction" is sourced from a personal website, not science.
all i'm asking is to see, in the pages of science, the retraction from science, where it corrected its mistake.
yes, science is DIRECTLY responsible for it.
lewin was a science editor which places culpability DIRECTLY on the shoulders of science.
there has to be a reason for this spidergoat.
ayala didn't write to them?
then why did he write to no answers in genesis?
it doesn't wash, spidergoat.
even after a number of people wrote to science and complained about said article, there STILL hasn't been anything in the pages of science about this.
oh sure, science wrote a piece saying such and such, but no "retraction" about ayala.

what about all of that spidergoat?

 

[davewhite04]

this "retraction" is sourced from a personal website, not science.
all i'm asking is to see, in the pages of science, the retraction from science, where it corrected its mistake.
yes, science is DIRECTLY responsible for it.
lewin was a science editor which places culpability DIRECTLY on the shoulders of science.
there has to be a reason for this spidergoat.
ayala didn't write to them?
then why did he write to no answers in genesis?
it doesn't wash, spidergoat.
even after a number of people wrote to science and complained about said article, there STILL hasn't been anything in the pages of science about this.
oh sure, science wrote a piece saying such and such, but no "retraction" about ayala.

what about all of that spidergoat?

You sound like Batman The Caped Crusader...(The 60s version)...

 

[leopold]

You keep bringing up "the article" in thread after thread. Why do you do that? Can you make a post explaining what the significance of this article is in your mind?

because it bugs the crap out of me.

Why do you think that it's so important?

exposing fraud in science isn't important?
how do you feel about science yazata?
science could, and should, be the last word about ANYTHING.
you aren't going to achieve that with nonesense.

What do you want the rest of us to conclude about evolution based on it?

you have to come to your own conclusions.

(You might want to wait until tomorrow to do it. Try to calm down first.)

huh?
this little dialog betwixt me and james is just a thing.
i hate his guts, but i love 'im to death.

In my experience, conferences don't typically result in formal conclusions. Most conferences are just a group of academics who sign up to deliver papers and take questions. Certainly a journalist in attendance might write about things that were said that the journalist found newsworthy. That seems to be what happened here.

correct.
this was an editorial published in science.
it WAS NOT a peer reviewed paper.
the above makes science DIRECTLY responsible for the editorial.

Why not post it yourself? And please provide a link to the entire text, so that anyone interested can see the original context of the remarks you quote.

the link i had no longer works, or i would.
direct from jstor servers.
like a dumbass, i didn't download the issue.
hey, ask james, i hear he has a copy.
it's probably not sourced from jstor though.

As I wrote earlier, if you are basing your whole attack against biological evolution (or whatever it is that you're doing, it isn't clear) on one seeming mis-quote of a scientist by a science journalist decades ago, that's pretty weak.

just like the link i posted, some things have a habit of disappearing.

I'm still curious about what your own conclusion is, about what point you hope to use "the article" to make here on Sciforums. If we agree that phenotypic change doesn't seem to occur at a single steady rate across all lines of evolutionary descent throughout the entire history of life, what conclusion do you think we should draw from that?

i don't understand the question.

 

[spidergoat]

this "retraction" is sourced from a personal website, not science.
all i'm asking is to see, in the pages of science, the retraction from science, where it corrected its mistake.
yes, science is DIRECTLY responsible for it.
lewin was a science editor which places culpability DIRECTLY on the shoulders of science.
there has to be a reason for this spidergoat.
ayala didn't write to them?
then why did he write to no answers in genesis?
it doesn't wash, spidergoat.
even after a number of people wrote to science and complained about said article, there STILL hasn't been anything in the pages of science about this.
oh sure, science wrote a piece saying such and such, but no "retraction" about ayala.

what about all of that spidergoat?

That's a problem between you and Science magazine. But your house of cards fell as soon as the guy explained it was a misquote.

 

[leopold]

Noted.

also note where i say i'm from in my profile.
all that matters is our peoples get along with one another, and screw the military.

oops, now i'll have to finagle my way around the military.

political correctness is a coward.
COWER YOU FOOLS ! !

 

[leopold]

That's a problem between you and Science magazine. But your house of cards fell as soon as the guy explained it was a misquote.

if that's the case, then i will have to take the word of science over some personal website.
sorry.
it's not unreasonable to do so.

 

[Seattle]

Leopold, don't worry about Science magazine. You, as a creationist, know that God did it so why worry about evolution at all?

 

[spidergoat]

if that's the case, then i will have to take the word of science over some personal website.
sorry.
it's not unreasonable to do so.

It's precisely the definition of unreasonable when the misquote contradicts everything the scientist has said and the prevailing science.

 

[leopold]

Leopold, don't worry about Science magazine.

you would like for that to happen.
sweep it under the rug, we'll just forget the whole thing.
and a person or institution that stands to lose a shitload of money would do exactly that.

You, as a creationist, know that God did it so why worry about evolution at all?

yes, turn this into some kind of religious argument.
deflect much?

 

[Seattle]

you would like for that to happen.
sweep it under the rug, we'll just forget the whole thing.
and a person or institution that stands to lose a shitload of money would do exactly that.

yes, turn this into some kind of religious argument.
deflect much?

If God didn't do it and you don't believe in evolution...what are your thoughts on this subject?

 

[leopold]

If God didn't do it and you don't believe in evolution...what are your thoughts on this subject?

who cares?
i'm not talking about a god or a religion.
I WANT TO KNOW THE STORY ABOUT THIS QUOTE ! ! ! ! ! !

frauds have surfaced before, and we all know it.

some thoughts have been running over and over in my mind.
the ultimate question is one of origins, and to those ends we have next to nothing.

i don't know HOW we got here and neither does science,
a natural process does indeed sound plausible, even an almost certainty.

instead of the "us vs. them" maybe we should try a different tack.
think for a moment, what if we did indeed down a UFO?
the shit can get very deep.

 

[Seattle]

who cares?
i'm not talking about a god or a religion.
I WANT TO KNOW THE STORY ABOUT THIS QUOTE ! ! ! ! ! !

frauds have surfaced before, and we all know it.

some thoughts have been running over and over in my mind.
the ultimate question is one of origins, and to those ends we have next to nothing.

i don't know HOW we got here and neither does science,
a natural process does indeed sound plausible, even an almost certainty.

instead of the "us vs. them" maybe we should try a different tack.
think for a moment, what if we did indeed down a UFO?
the shit can get very deep.

I'll bet that's what happened. It's as likely as anything else.

Regarding Science magazine, I'm guessing there is a conspiracy involved. What else would explain this? Stay on this story and never let it go regardless of what others say. Maybe there will be an investigative reward for one one day.