Yeah, but religion is the only reason to think evolution isn't true.
views on evolution
- Thread starter Hercules Rockefeller
- Start date
- Status
Doctor Ayala wrote, while explaining what punctuated equilibrium is and not as a description of his personal beliefs:
From page 101 of http://www.stephenjaygould.org/reviews/ayala_structure.pdf
If you want to know what Ayala thought in 1982, you should read what he wrote in 1982. If you want to know what Ayala thought in 2001, you should read what he wrote in 2001. If you want to know what is being taught in school today, you should cite specific textbooks.
What do you mean by "transitional fossils" -- we have a lot of them as the term is generally meant.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html
I think what needs to be fought against is anti-science predicated on prior assumptions and shoddy scholarship. For this reason I have contested what you wrote.
Otherwise you don't have any position -- just sterile and naked denialism.
Ayala said:
From page 101 of http://www.stephenjaygould.org/reviews/ayala_structure.pdf
No -- it was written in a review of Gould's book to summarize Gould's area of study.
If you want to know what Ayala thought in 1982, you should read what he wrote in 1982. If you want to know what Ayala thought in 2001, you should read what he wrote in 2001. If you want to know what is being taught in school today, you should cite specific textbooks.
What do you mean by "transitional fossils" -- we have a lot of them as the term is generally meant.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossilsWikipedia said:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part1a.html#predKathleen Hunt said:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part2c.html#concKathleen Hunt said:
Could you explain what you mean by "THIS" ?
I think what needs to be fought against is anti-science predicated on prior assumptions and shoddy scholarship. For this reason I have contested what you wrote.
You need to explain why, in the words of Kathleen Hunt, you "are unwilling to believe it for some reason."
Otherwise you don't have any position -- just sterile and naked denialism.
correct.
i am not pro or con either side.
apparently we don't.
it's the reason the theory was revised, remember?
yes, but i feel it unnecessary to do so.
is that bad?
unwilling to believe what?
evolution?
are you serious?
there is no reason for me to believe "things become alive"
Evolution isn't "things become alive" -- it's "the average phenotype of populations of imperfectly replicating living things changes over time because differentials in phenotype among individuals leads to expectation of differential reproductive success."
And common descent is "any two living Earthly individuals share a common ancestral population."
And common descent is "any two living Earthly individuals share a common ancestral population."
Bells
Staff member
And you have proof of this?
What does evolution have to do with Abiogenesis, precisely?
I'm sure it is related as the replicating molecules prior to cellular life had to evolve in complexity and functioanlity as well.
All this mechanism was being backed up by a DNA chain which carried the code for the ribosomes and enzymes require for non living replication.
When might this be called living depends on the definition.
leopold:
I see that your amazing "evidence" that you were not allowed to post consists entirely of the same refuted claim your brought up last time we discussed this issue.
You rely on a particular misquote of Francisco Ayala, which the man himself refuted in his own writings.
If this your best argument against evolution?
Do you wish to rely on Ayala from now on as your personal authority on all things to do with evolution? In particular, how do you respond to his writings as quoted by rpenner above?
And why do you accept the misquote but do not accept Ayala's own explanation and repudiation of that?
Do you not regard yourself as an intellectually dishonest quote miner? If not, why not? To all appearances, that is what you are.
But let us entertain your silly notion for a moment. Let us ignore, like you, Ayala's own repudiation of the error you rely on. What does that leave us with? One guy writing one sentence in Science that may or may not, according to interpretation, say something against the theory of evolution. Where does that leave evolution? Is evolution sunk forever? Hardly. Even looking at only the writings of Ayala himself, there are far more words in favour of evolution in the journal Science than have ever been published against it there.
Is it? Was a vote taken among those present? Please link me to where the results were published.
Note: even if all 50 scientists at that conference in some fit of communal madness, said that evolution is crap, the theory of evolution would remain largely unaffected as millions of other scientists regard it as established fact.
What about where he repudiated the statement? Was that not just his opinion, too? Why don't you accept that?
Got a shred of evidence for that silly notion? No, of course you do not.
Have you checked to see if a correction was published? No, you haven't. Why not?
Why? Does Science always issue retractions in such cases? Please give a few other examples of where this kind of thing has happened. As an avid reader of Science, I'm sure it won't take you long to find a few examples.
Why does a retraction by the man himself need peer review?
Do you think the retraction was a lie? Do you think the guy himself didn't write it? Do you think it's a fraud by other evil evolutionists?
If so, what of Ayala's other published writings supporting evolution? Do you think they were all ghost written to give the impression that Ayala wasn't actually a raving creationist like you are?
What do mutations do, if not make small changes to the genome?
Please explain.
Like what? A Grand Scientific Conspiracy trying to hide the Truth of the Bible from the world?
There are plenty of transitional fossils. More are being found all the time.
No, but you hope it does. What does your church hope?
I see that your amazing "evidence" that you were not allowed to post consists entirely of the same refuted claim your brought up last time we discussed this issue.
You rely on a particular misquote of Francisco Ayala, which the man himself refuted in his own writings.
If this your best argument against evolution?
Do you wish to rely on Ayala from now on as your personal authority on all things to do with evolution? In particular, how do you respond to his writings as quoted by rpenner above?
And why do you accept the misquote but do not accept Ayala's own explanation and repudiation of that?
Do you not regard yourself as an intellectually dishonest quote miner? If not, why not? To all appearances, that is what you are.
But let us entertain your silly notion for a moment. Let us ignore, like you, Ayala's own repudiation of the error you rely on. What does that leave us with? One guy writing one sentence in Science that may or may not, according to interpretation, say something against the theory of evolution. Where does that leave evolution? Is evolution sunk forever? Hardly. Even looking at only the writings of Ayala himself, there are far more words in favour of evolution in the journal Science than have ever been published against it there.
Is it? Was a vote taken among those present? Please link me to where the results were published.
Note: even if all 50 scientists at that conference in some fit of communal madness, said that evolution is crap, the theory of evolution would remain largely unaffected as millions of other scientists regard it as established fact.
What about where he repudiated the statement? Was that not just his opinion, too? Why don't you accept that?
Got a shred of evidence for that silly notion? No, of course you do not.
Have you checked to see if a correction was published? No, you haven't. Why not?
Why? Does Science always issue retractions in such cases? Please give a few other examples of where this kind of thing has happened. As an avid reader of Science, I'm sure it won't take you long to find a few examples.
Why does a retraction by the man himself need peer review?
Do you think the retraction was a lie? Do you think the guy himself didn't write it? Do you think it's a fraud by other evil evolutionists?
If so, what of Ayala's other published writings supporting evolution? Do you think they were all ghost written to give the impression that Ayala wasn't actually a raving creationist like you are?
What do mutations do, if not make small changes to the genome?
Please explain.
Like what? A Grand Scientific Conspiracy trying to hide the Truth of the Bible from the world?
There are plenty of transitional fossils. More are being found all the time.
No, but you hope it does. What does your church hope?
no.
i have however made a number of posts that shows how some scientists have been ridiculed almost to oblivion for presenting dissenting evolutionary evidence.
As a previous post explained, we do now. As a very simple example here is a partial list of transitional fossils for whales:
Pakicetus
Ambulocetus
Kutchicetus
Artiocetus
Dorudon
Aetiocetus
Basilosaurus
Eurhinodelphis
Mammalodon
OK. And that has nothing to do with evolution.
Bells
Staff member
Then you should have no issues finding articles, papers or studies where Ayala has been ridiculed by his colleagues for what was posted in Science Magazine.
@leopold
Ardipithecus has transitional features.
Also, why do you assume, if your source is contradicted, that a conspiracy is at play?
But evey field of science has scientists being ridiculed for something or another. What is special about your examples that makes them more compelling than any typical winnowing process?
Ardipithecus has transitional features.
Also, why do you assume, if your source is contradicted, that a conspiracy is at play?
.
But evey field of science has scientists being ridiculed for something or another. What is special about your examples that makes them more compelling than any typical winnowing process?
Last edited:
leopold:
Thankyou so much for your report of my offensive post (#791).
In your report you called me a cocksucker because I dared to peg you as a creationist.
I'm going (not very far) out on a limb here to claim that your motivations in disputing evolution are entirely religious. I think you're most likely a church-going Believer of some kind who has probably been told repeatedly that evolution is anti-Jesus or something.
If you're not a fundamentalist Christian (and let's face it, the vast majority of creationists are), then please explain you motivations in disputing evolution.
You seem to get VERY upset when somebody calls you a creationist. I think it's because you're afraid to own up to your background and beliefs. Because if you let on that you're religious, you're worried that any shred of scientific credibility that you have left here will vanish in the eyes of most of our members.
If, on the other hand, you claim to be solely motivated by a quest for Truth in Science, then please explain why you so often go out of your way to mine quotes from disreputable sites like answersingenesis to suppport your arguments, and why you're so unwilling to learn anything about the theory you're trying to criticise.
Thankyou so much for your report of my offensive post (#791).
In your report you called me a cocksucker because I dared to peg you as a creationist.
I'm going (not very far) out on a limb here to claim that your motivations in disputing evolution are entirely religious. I think you're most likely a church-going Believer of some kind who has probably been told repeatedly that evolution is anti-Jesus or something.
If you're not a fundamentalist Christian (and let's face it, the vast majority of creationists are), then please explain you motivations in disputing evolution.
You seem to get VERY upset when somebody calls you a creationist. I think it's because you're afraid to own up to your background and beliefs. Because if you let on that you're religious, you're worried that any shred of scientific credibility that you have left here will vanish in the eyes of most of our members.
If, on the other hand, you claim to be solely motivated by a quest for Truth in Science, then please explain why you so often go out of your way to mine quotes from disreputable sites like answersingenesis to suppport your arguments, and why you're so unwilling to learn anything about the theory you're trying to criticise.
If I were a fundamentalist Christian AND a scientist, I would seek to explain how the Lord blessed folks like Charles Darwin - and his mentors - with so much divine inspiration, relating this to my readings: Seek and ye shall find, for example.
When blessing and breaking bread at the table, I would ask the Lord to preserve the faithful who have been inspired by Divine Providence, that they may apply their Heavenly Wisdom to the application of every urgent problem facing the sick, the dying, the starving, from every remedy and solution Science may be guided by the Lord to discover.
And by formulating a reverence for all noble human pursuits, whether in science or otherwise, I would perhaps even dedicate myself, like a servant of the Lord, to the increase of my own wisdom, so that, before my time is up, I might have a chance to do the Lord's work, by paying forward some small contribution to society.
The paradox of reverence for the nobler ideals of faith, mixed with cynicism toward the best human efforts to live inspired lives, is a strange brew that amounts to poison.
listen james, i don't give a rats ass about your god or your theory, okay?
i have repeatedly asked you not to refer to me as a creationist, i'm sure you still have the PM where i requested the same.
i never mentioned "a conspiracy".
i posted what i found.
let history speak for itself.
moi?
if so then what exactly am i supposed to do?
i don't remember ever seeing where "science" said it misquoted ayala.
no.
i guess the best proof would be the lack of lab results.
but let's not let evidence get in our way.
with the same enthusiasm as i would anything that barely interested me.
no.
i'm sure there are.
it's no secret that dissenting evolutionary evidence is buried, swept under the rug.
take the piece from "science daily" i posted for example.
label them as loonies now.
yes.
i've posted it in a different thread some time ago.
yes i have.
"science" has retracted a number of times afer this study was published.
none pertain to the issue at hand.
i don't know.
if the misquoted author requested it then most probably yes.
i never said it did.
there was never a retraction made by "science" so i have no idea what you are talking about.
It's not addressed to you unless you are the Sovereign Lord.
- Status