You basically called me stupid.
For the alternative theorists:
- Thread starter paddoboy
- Start date
You basically called me stupid.
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
There are some examples of dead-end evolution. The Silvery Salamander species consists exclusively of females and "clones" of the mother.
The female only goes through the ritual of mating with a variety of other male salamanders, but rejects all their sperm. Apparently the act of copulation triggers cell division, possibly due to the fact the mother already has a full compliment of DNA strands and rejects foreign DNA.
As a consequence all the newborns are clones of the mother. Due to their genetic vulnerability they are a protected species in two states
wiki,
A real life example of "natural selection"
The female only goes through the ritual of mating with a variety of other male salamanders, but rejects all their sperm. Apparently the act of copulation triggers cell division, possibly due to the fact the mother already has a full compliment of DNA strands and rejects foreign DNA.
As a consequence all the newborns are clones of the mother. Due to their genetic vulnerability they are a protected species in two states
wiki,
A real life example of "natural selection"
Because as I have stated or implied, more than once, my reading on this matter, and in relation to this particular conference extends beyond Lewins reporting.
I purchased the article - I just told you I purchased it, however, I'm fairly sure that posting it here would be a violation of JSTOR terms and services.
The issue was: Paleobiology, Vol. 6, No. 4 (Autumn, 1980), pp. 380-382
And still the only person expecting this is you. You have yet to explain why you expect that they should have. What's it going to say "We apologize in hinsight for all the ruckus caused by creationists taking Roger Lewin's overly entheusiastic reporting out of control. He's a very naughty boy and it won't happen again"?
So tell me something.
The article I am reading was written by the late Thomas J M Schopf. It was published in the journal Paleobiology by the Paleontological Society. Paleobiology was first published in 1975, and the Paleonotological Society was established in 1908. So pedigree isn't an issue.
Two reports on the same conference. One written by a paleotologist, the other written by a news reporter. Which do you think should be given more weight?
i did?
at this point, the only thing i would believe is an audio recording of the conference itself.
i just reread your post, and no, you didn't say you purchased the referenced article from jstor.
referenced article in this case is the one containing the infamous, uh, quote.
posting the issue might be, but the article can be posted for academic purposes.
of course this sounds nothing like "science"
because its a respected source.
respect is earned trippy.
i would believe the most respected source.
but then again . . . over analysis sucks.
Does that mean your willing to drop your assertions in relation to Ayala and Lewin's work? After all, if you're going to use the lack of an audio recording as an excuse to dismiss the words of a qualified paleontologist - even where the words of the paleonotlogist are supported by others (Ayala's rebuttal, which you also dismiss).
So when I said:
You thought I meant what, precisely?
It's an attribution, not a quote. Do you understand the difference? Lewin attributes the comment to Ayala, who denies ever having made it.
This isn't an academic website.
I don't recall ever having said that it was science.
That published a news article, an editorial piece, on a conference that one of their editors visited and wrote an opinion piece on. The publish errata and retractions when peer reviewed articles are wrong, not when news editorials and letters to the editor are. Soemthing I'm quite sure I have explained to you a number of times now.
And yet you still cling to the words of the reporter over the words of the scientist...
It's almost like you're disregarding evidence to preserve a belief.
no.
why should i?
arrowsmith allegedly "found" this snafu.
he writes to ayala and not to science?
ayala would have been furious over this trippy.
so you are basically calling lewin a liar.
it isn't?
i have always considered it to be a "learning" type of site.
i will bet a million to one that someone has a transcript of this conference.
the problem would be determining its validity.
didn't you just say lewin was an editor for "science"?
i believe what was published in "science".
i don't believe lewin misrepresented anything about the conference, keeping in mind he had to leave a lot of stuff out.
Well, that's your opinion anyway.
So, you'll ignore a paleontologist who contradicts your beliefs in favour of a science news reporter who you think reinforces them (even though he actually doesn't) because there's no audio recording. Got it. Lovely fair and balanced approach to the evidence you have there.
No, if I'm calling anyone a liar, it's you. I'm merely sugegsting the Lewin may have been over enthusiastic in his reporting. That's a long way short of calling him a liar.
I'm reasonably confident that posting it here would violate the T&C. Stop being such a cheap-skate.
I doubt a transcript was recorded, however, as I hope is now abundantly clear to you, Lewin isn't the only source of information on this conference - which you would know had you done even a modicum of research on the matter.
Don't try and be smart, or cute.
The question is, why don't you believe what was published in Paleobiology - an article written by a specialist and published in a specialist journal?
I mean, you're effectively asserting that a GP knows more about brain surgery than a brain surgeon.
Exactly. Meaning of course, exactly the point that Evolution and Abiogenesis is not invalidated. Just to clear your meaning up dmoe. No one argues about some uncertainties in details and fine tuning...Some more fine tuning may even be required for the BB.
But these details creationists clutch for dear life, are scraping the bottom of the barrel in their continuing incessant efforts to invalidate Evolution or Abiogenesis, which they do not come close in doing.
One Swallow does not a Summer make.
You are continually focusing on one supposed, probably misinterpreted negative. If it at all exists, while ignoring the Mnt Everest of supporting data for the same thing.
And you still deny having an agenda?
".yroeht cifitneics ot sdrager htiw foorp %001 on si erehT"
Of course, it does..
I think this represents leopold's entire methodology: find one source that looks at least vaguely like it supports his position, then refuse to looks at anything else that might explain that source better or make it clearer.
So...PhysBang. you "think this represents leopol's entire methodology"...
Is that a "Subjective Observation", PhysBang, or an "Objective Observation"?
Personally, I cannot presume, nor assume to comprehend and understand leopold's "entire methodology", simply because I have not observed his "entire methodology".
From what I have observed of leopold's Posts on this Forum, his apparent methodology does not seem to include "presenting Scientific Theories as Fact", nor does he seem to "rely on Subjective Observations".
If those two items are a true indication of leopold's "entire methodology"...I cannot state.
However, it does appear to be a different "methodology" than is utilized by quite a number of Posters on this Forum...that I can state.
yes, it's my opinion that ayala would have DEFINITELY contacted "science".
it's also my opinion "science" would have corrected the matter.
if not ayala, then arrowsmith certainly would have, seeing as he (arrowsmith) contacted all these other websites.
yes, i believe what was printed in a well respected science source.
lewin was a science writer, he wrote science types of books.
"science" would never employ the man if he was prone to "dumb shit"
welp, one thing for sure, "science" hasn't corrected the article.
why wouldn't a respected source refuse to correct such a monumental blunder?
there is only one reason why it wouldn't.
yes, an audio recording will remove ALL DOUBT about the matter.
my reasoning regarding this matter is sound.
what have i lied about trippy?
so, you're not sure either way.
well, why didn't rav get in trouble for posting the alleged article?
ah, probably because it wasn't sourced from jstor and therefor of questionable origins.
i don't doubt it, i will almost bet on it.
sure i know there were other scientists at that conference, and probably a gaggle of spectators and other people.
i'm not.
reread your post trippy.
because paleobiology wasn't responsible for the alleged foulup.
no, i'm asserting "science" would have IMMEDIATELY corrected such an alleged mistake, especially one of this magnitude.
leopold:
Tell me, leopold: when, exactly, in a cell's construction from its raw materials, does it "come alive"? What is the step that makes it come alive?
Right. There's no evidence that a supernatural cause is necessary for life.
That's a long article. Can you please post the particular part that addresses your claim about mutations not surviving past the 2nd generation?
James R said:
Tell me, leopold: when, exactly, in a cell's construction from its raw materials, does it "come alive"? What is the step that makes it come alive?
Right. There's no evidence that a supernatural cause is necessary for life.
That's a long article. Can you please post the particular part that addresses your claim about mutations not surviving past the 2nd generation?
if you can't read what i post then stop quoting me.
edit:
here is a search result for the phrase "self correction of DNA"
https://www.google.com/search?num=1...18.0....0...1c.1.46.hp..0.22.2529.IIL5cXO7J8k
here is the search result for "DNA self correction mechanism"
https://www.google.com/search?num=1....4.0....0...1c.1.46.serp..1.3.466.bTFs7rN1hKI
I downloaded Fundamentals of Physics 9th Edition and saw that it didn't differ on cosmology from the 8th edition.
This is what you said to me earlier, implying that I'm naive.
In short, you look like you are biased.
leopold:
Your problem is that you read ONE article about evolution written back in 1980, then you apparently stopped and never read anything again about evolution.
Your refusal to learn about evolution or to look at more recent material shows that you don't really want to learn. You've already made up your mind. And, of course, you won't tell us your real reasons for that, which I think are religious.
I walked you through that article a while ago, and here you are, months or years later, arguing the same thing over again. Did you start up again because you thought I'd gone away, or forgotten about our previous conversation? Do you remember how I downloaded the article and corrected your erroneous perceptions of it?
Do you remember your silly insistence that the article had been edited to change its meaning, when in fact it turned out that you had mistaken a page number that you had inadvertently included in a cut-and-paste from the article for an important piece of the text?
The conference, thirty-four years ago, was grappling with the new idea of punctuated equilibrium. That issue has been sorted out by biologists in the last 30 years.
Face it. Biology has moved on in the last 30 years. Science will never revisit this minor article that you think is the be-all and end-all.
And Ayala didn't "retract" anything, as I understand it. Rather, he corrected a misquote or misunderstanding about something he said. And it matters not one bit that he didn't publish it in Science.
That is the smoking gun that killed evolution, is it?
Really, leopold, you need to get some perspective, look beyond your religion and start learning about the world. Read widely, not narrowly. Don't just read your bible and your creationist websites. Talk to some scientists, not just to your pastor. And listen to what they tell you.
This is your own theory, is it? How much formal training have you had in biology, leopold? What particular type of catalytic reaction are you contemplating here? How does the diversity of life follow from the division limitations you allude to, exactly? And by "not enviroment based", are you denying natural selection?
But only in that one article from 1980.
Have you ever read anything else published in Science about evolution, or just that one article?
Scientific conclusions are based on the accumulation of evidence. And that points in only one direction when it comes to the evolution/creation "debate".
Your problem is that you read ONE article about evolution written back in 1980, then you apparently stopped and never read anything again about evolution.
Your refusal to learn about evolution or to look at more recent material shows that you don't really want to learn. You've already made up your mind. And, of course, you won't tell us your real reasons for that, which I think are religious.
I walked you through that article a while ago, and here you are, months or years later, arguing the same thing over again. Did you start up again because you thought I'd gone away, or forgotten about our previous conversation? Do you remember how I downloaded the article and corrected your erroneous perceptions of it?
Do you remember your silly insistence that the article had been edited to change its meaning, when in fact it turned out that you had mistaken a page number that you had inadvertently included in a cut-and-paste from the article for an important piece of the text?
The conference, thirty-four years ago, was grappling with the new idea of punctuated equilibrium. That issue has been sorted out by biologists in the last 30 years.
Face it. Biology has moved on in the last 30 years. Science will never revisit this minor article that you think is the be-all and end-all.
And Ayala didn't "retract" anything, as I understand it. Rather, he corrected a misquote or misunderstanding about something he said. And it matters not one bit that he didn't publish it in Science.
That is the smoking gun that killed evolution, is it?
Really, leopold, you need to get some perspective, look beyond your religion and start learning about the world. Read widely, not narrowly. Don't just read your bible and your creationist websites. Talk to some scientists, not just to your pastor. And listen to what they tell you.
This is your own theory, is it? How much formal training have you had in biology, leopold? What particular type of catalytic reaction are you contemplating here? How does the diversity of life follow from the division limitations you allude to, exactly? And by "not enviroment based", are you denying natural selection?
But only in that one article from 1980.
Have you ever read anything else published in Science about evolution, or just that one article?
Scientific conclusions are based on the accumulation of evidence. And that points in only one direction when it comes to the evolution/creation "debate".
I refer you to the Encylopaedia Britannica for my response. If you haven't read it, don't bother replying!
your logic escapes me.
it wasn't my intent for you to mistake my post like this.
I believe James R pretty much reinforced what I said.
Implying that I am illogical is also another way of calling me stupid.
I don't know if you had an ulterior motive for your words though.
Implying that I am illogical is also another way of calling me stupid.
I don't know if you had an ulterior motive for your words though.
actually it was one of my posts that was edited, by persons unknown, and i state that as a fact james.