For the alternative theorists:

[leopold]

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.

well, let's just say i have lost faith in what i thought i knew.

Your refusal to learn about evolution or to look at more recent material shows that you don't really want to learn.

learn what?
how evolution happens?
nobody knows.
next.

You've already made up your mind.

uhhhhhhh . . . maybe.
i find it ludicrous to state "things become alive".

And, of course, you won't tell us your real reasons for that, which I think are religious.

oh my, james.

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.

so this somehow corrects the fossil record?

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.

i'm sure biology HAS progressed, see above.

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.

"science" would have corrected itself.
see my response to trippy concerning this.

That is the smoking gun that killed evolution, is it?

/ takes a deep breath.

Really, leopold, . . .

yes?

you need to get some perspective, look beyond your religion and start learning about the world.

shut up dweeb.

Read widely, not narrowly.

i try to.

Don't just read your bible and your creationist websites.

what is it with you james?
do you have a boner for religion or something?

Talk to some scientists, not just to your pastor.

must have.

This is your own theory, is it?

i don't know, it's the first time i've heard of it.

How much formal training have you had in biology, leopold?

none.
none in chemistry either, not even high school.
eat that.

What particular type of catalytic reaction are you contemplating here?

i don't know.

How does the diversity of life follow from the division limitations you allude to, exactly?

i don't know

And by "not enviroment based", are you denying natural selection?

if the proposed mechanism is true, then yes.

Have you ever read anything else published in Science about evolution, or just that one article?

just this one.

Scientific conclusions are based on the accumulation of evidence. And that points in only one direction when it comes to the evolution/creation "debate".

unfortunately the facts aren't cooperating.

 

[Motor Daddy]

well, let's just say i have lost faith in what i thought i knew.

God?

 

[Grumpy]

leopold

How much formal training have you had in biology, leopold?

none.
none in chemistry either, not even high school.
eat that.

Then how can you claim to know any of it is in error, when you obviously know nothing about it? I wouldn't suggest taking the same stance on any brain surgery you need to have.

Only the foolish are certain, the wise are full of doubt.

Or, to put it another way...

It is wiser to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt.

Grumpy

 

[Fraggle Rocker]

well, let's just say i have lost faith in what i thought i knew.

God?

No. I assume he's referring to what he had learned about evolution earlier in his life.

The problem I have with the Abrahamic creation myth as an alternative to abiogenesis is that it has even more weaknesses. The whole point of coming up with an alternative to a well-respected hypothesis is that the alternative fills in some of the gaps and gives answers to some of the unanswered questions.

The creation myth doesn't do that. All the Abrahamists can tell us is that "God did it." He created the firmament. He created the earth. He created all the plants and animals--and presumably the other four kinds of living things too: fungi, algae, bacteria and archaea; even though they're not mentioned in the Bible. He created man and then woman.

Well shit, that really answers all of our questions, doesn't it.

I just can't understand how people can be so content with their ignorance that they find an explanation like that to be satisfactory.

Religion is based on ignorance, and it perpetuates ignorance.

There are so many new ideas whittling away at the mysteries of abiogenesis that it's not hard to be patient and have reasonable hope that somebody will finally figure it out 30-40 years from now. I'll be dead, but many of you younger people will still be alive to peer-review it.

But for the "God" hypothesis, there have been no new discoveries to strengthen it since it was first elaborated in the Bronze Age!

Is is really okay for people to settle for superstitions from an era when it was assumed that the sun revolved around the earth and nobody knew bacteria existed, in an age when we're launching spacecraft out of our own solar system and antibiotic-resistant bacteria kill 30,000 Americans every year?

The basic flaw in the God hypothesis is the fallacy of recursion.

• God created the universe.
• The universe is: everything that exists.
• God obviously exists, if he has actually performed all the feats credited to him.
• Therefore God is part of the universe.
• Therefore God created himself.
• *BEEP* *FALLACY WARNING* *BEEP*

 

[paddoboy]

".yroeht cifitneics ot sdrager htiw foorp %001 on si erehT"

Of course, it does..

Wow!!
He's off at it again.

It's obvious your loose knowledge of the English language, and what you have said, supports my position.
But then knowing you, I know that is rather peculiar and rare.

Let's just say once again, right up front, [which it appears you are unable to be] that Evolution is a near fact, and Abiogenesis, or life from non life is the only logical scientific explanation.
Forgetting the non scientific myth of a deity and creationism.

If you can invalidate any of that, be my guest...up front.

 

[paddoboy]

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.

Exactly. I alluded to that in a previous post.
But that's what we have come to expect from our God botherer friends and their supporters.

 

[paddoboy]

how evolution happens?
nobody knows.

How? I'm not sure, but it happened, and continues to happen.

i find it ludicrous to state "things become alive".
.

Again, just plain old chemical reactions.
We are all star stuff.

 

[paddoboy]

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.

He also completley ignores the scientific methodology and peer review process.
Worth noting also that your very obviously biased opinion, has lead you to ignore the fact that we do have scientific theories, that have stood the test of time, so to speak, and are really as close to fact as one would wish.
Let me show you.
What will happen if you jump up in the air? [hint Newton's gravity]
Do you at all doubt what will happen?
The same holds true that the BB being overwhelmingly supported, and if accepted, [as most accept it] then one cannot get away from the fact that Abiogenesis and evolution must then be accepted as factual.
Of course dmoe, the details are another thing.

 

[paddoboy]

There are so many new ideas whittling away at the mysteries of abiogenesis that it's not hard to be patient and have reasonable hope that somebody will finally figure it out 30-40 years from now. I'll be dead, but many of you younger people will still be alive to peer-review it.

But for the "God" hypothesis, there have been no new discoveries to strengthen it since it was first elaborated in the Bronze Age!

Is is really okay for people to settle for superstitions from an era when it was assumed that the sun revolved around the earth and nobody knew bacteria existed, in an age when we're launching spacecraft out of our own solar system and antibiotic-resistant bacteria kill 30,000 Americans every year?

Nicely done.
I would though suggest that the myth goes way back before the bronze age. Maybe the day after we climbed down out of the trees!
Again, well said.

 

[Motor Daddy]

...

 

[Trippy]

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.

You're wasting my time. Tell me, what standard of proof do you think a journal has to have before it will publish errata or a retraction?

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"

Appeal to authority, it was written by someone acting as a journalist writing a news article. I've presented you with the evidence of a specialist from a specialist magazine, and still you persist with this.

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.

Yeah - they haven't been asked to.

yes, an audio recording will remove ALL DOUBT about the matter.

And a less sensational report of the same event wouldn't?

my reasoning regarding this matter is sound.

No it isn't, it's based on a logical fallacy and it's fundamentally flawed. At this moment, the only thing you have left is "Why didn't this well respected journal publish a retraction or errata for this article others are claiming is inaccurate?"

what have i lied about trippy?

Where do I start?

so, you're not sure either way.

No, that's not what I said either.

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.

And here we go with the conspiracy theories again.

i don't doubt it, i will almost bet on it.

I've atteneded these kinds of conferences, have you?

sure i know there were other scientists at that conference, and probably a gaggle of spectators and other people.

Right, and I provided you with extracts from a paper that appears to contradict your assertions, written by a scientist that attended the conference, who specializes in paleontology and evolution, who had it published in another respectable journal.

i'm not.
reread your post trippy.

You were.

because paleobiology wasn't responsible for the alleged foulup.

That makes no sense what so ever as a response to what I said.

no, i'm asserting "science" would have IMMEDIATELY corrected such an alleged mistake, especially one of this magnitude.

What magnitude? The worst that has happened is that one of their news editors misattributed a quote. On the scale of things that can go wrong for a magazine of any kind, that's fairly minor, and the only reason it's an issue in the first place is because of creationists presenting it out of context.

 

[dumbest man on earth]

".yroeht cifitneics ot sdrager htiw foorp %001 on si erehT"

Of course, it does..

Wow!!
He's off at it again.

It's obvious your loose knowledge of the English language, and what you have said, supports my position.
But then knowing you, I know that is rather peculiar and rare.

Let's just say once again, right up front, [which it appears you are unable to be] that Evolution is a near fact, and Abiogenesis, or life from non life is the only logical scientific explanation.
Forgetting the non scientific myth of a deity and creationism.

If you can invalidate any of that, be my guest...up front.

paddoboy...apply a little Objective Observation just one time...please?

paddoboy, you have firmly established that anything that I Post on this Forum you will :
1.) - ignore...
2.) - reject by claiming it to be part of some "Fantasy Agenda" of your creation...
3.) - reject by claiming it to be "Pedant" or "Pedantic"...
4.) - reject by claiming it to be "Alternative" or "Supporting Alternative"...
5.) - reject by claiming it to be "Theist"...
6.) - reject by claiming it to be "Sourced from someone or somewhere that you deem unacceptable"...
7.) - reject by claiming it to be the result of "Tall Poppy Syndrome" or "Delusions of Grandeur"...
8.) - reject by "Assuming" or "Presuming" or "Inferring" or "Mis-Characterizing" or...
etc., etc., etc...
I could go on and on with the...whatever it is that you obviously find somehow...satisfying...or...enjoyable...or...???!!!
At any rate - anything I say - you basically turn "backwards"!

So...I thought just maybe you could achieve better comprehension and better understanding if...

".yroeht cifitneics ot sdrager htiw foorp %001 on si erehT"

 

[paddoboy]

paddoboy...apply a little Objective Observation just one time...please?

paddoboy, you have firmly established that anything that I Post on this Forum you will :
1.) - ignore...
2.) - reject by claiming it to be part of some "Fantasy Agenda" of your creation...
3.) - reject by claiming it to be "Pedant" or "Pedantic"...
4.) - reject by claiming it to be "Alternative" or "Supporting Alternative"...
5.) - reject by claiming it to be "Theist"...
6.) - reject by claiming it to be "Sourced from someone or somewhere that you deem unacceptable"...
7.) - reject by claiming it to be the result of "Tall Poppy Syndrome" or "Delusions of Grandeur"...
8.) - reject by "Assuming" or "Presuming" or "Inferring" or "Mis-Characterizing" or...
etc., etc., etc...

The point is that I'm not the only one that has made those claims.

With regards to your comment, again perhaps if you were upfront, told people what you really meant, not ignore pertinent facts, that as scientific theories mature in the test of time, they become more and more certain.
Again, what happens when you jump up in the air [hint Newtonian gravity]

But we are getting off topic in this excellent thread dmoe, and it shouldn't degenerate into a "you and me"contest.

 

[paddoboy]

Summing up some undeniable facts as I see it.
[1] It is a fact that there once was no life on earth or in the Universe, and that now there is.

[2] Abiogenesis is the only scientific explanation that can support fact [1]

[3] Evolution [change over time] is observationally supported to near 100% certainty, the facts coming from 100 and more years of observational evidence.
The factual, undeniable data supporting evolution confirm its validity to such an extent, it would be a travesty of the Intellect to not give it the certainty it warrants.

[4] That certainty aligns with the scientific methodology and the fact that theories get more positive, more set in concrete, the more they are validated over time.
That so far applies to disciplines such as The BB, SR/GR and Evolution and Abiogenesis.

I should obviously have added to that with the fact, that God or the divine creator myth, is not a scientific deduction and so can never really be any logical alternative..

 

[leopold]

leopold



Then how can you claim to know any of it is in error, when you obviously know nothing about it?

where oh where did i say i didn't know anything about chemistry?

Only the foolish are certain, the wise are full of doubt.

exactly.

Or, to put it another way...

It is wiser to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt.

yeah, i think i heard that before.

 

[Grumpy]

leopold

yeah, i think i heard that before.

Often, no doubt.

Grumpy

 

[Write4U]

Nicely done.
I would though suggest that the myth goes way back before the bronze age. Maybe the day after we climbed down out of the trees!
Again, well said.

Actually we have footage of an Alpha chimp aggressively protecting his troup from that unseen enemy (a monsoon storm) in the sky who makes loud noises and bright lights and throws water at him, all of which makes him very scared (and angry).

 

[leopold]

I downloaded Fundamentals of Physics 9th Edition and saw that it didn't differ on cosmology from the 8th edition.

i fail to see the conection

This is what you said to me earlier, implying that I'm naive.

what i stated was a fact.
i can't help what you took it to mean.

In short, you look like you are biased.

explain to me how i appear biased.

 

[Fraggle Rocker]

NOTE FROM A MODERATOR

LEOPOLD & GRUMPY:

Please discuss the TOPIC OF THIS THREAD, not your PERSONALITIES.

You may find this hard to believe, but NOBODY cares what you think of each other.

 

[Beer w/Straw]

what i stated was a fact.
i can't help what you took it to mean.

I guess I am stupid then.