views on evolution

[rpenner]

Everyone should read the prayer, and let the sentiments sink in.

The sentiment seems to be that the addressed individual will at some point actually do something.

I find reading it does something to me. It puts my mind in a state of readiness for the task at hand. It clears out negativity and gives hope for a better future.

moi?
if so then what exactly am i supposed to do?

It's not addressed to you unless you are the Sovereign Lord.

From this and the last few pages, I conclude that leopold lacks the reading comprehension to infer what Dr. Ayala believes about evolution from a news report on a debate of gradualism versus punctuated equilibrium, let alone adaquately summarize the scientific arguments and evidence. We are left with a mediocre argument from the "authority" of a specious quote only found on creationist dishonest quote mines and sites responding to their dishonesty.

 

[Robittybob1]

From this and the last few pages, I conclude that leopold lacks the reading comprehension to infer what Dr. Ayala believes about evolution from a news report on a debate of gradualism versus punctuated equilibrium, let alone adaquately summarize the scientific arguments and evidence. We are left with a mediocre argument from the "authority" of a specious quote only found on creationist dishonest quote mines and sites responding to their dishonesty.

I had not been following Leopold's arguments closely, have you?

 

[leopold]

From this and the last few pages, I conclude that leopold lacks the reading comprehension to infer what Dr. Ayala believes about evolution from a news report on a debate of gradualism versus punctuated equilibrium, let alone adaquately summarize the scientific arguments and evidence. We are left with a mediocre argument from the "authority" of a specious quote only found on creationist dishonest quote mines and sites responding to their dishonesty.

and what does ayala believe?
i offered what he said, i offered other stuff too.
i believe i have adequately supported my side.
as far as "enumerating" my evidence, what the hell does that mean?
the quote comes from "science" not from some "creationist dishonest quote mines".

 

[rpenner]

the quote comes from "science" not from some "creationist dishonest quote mines".

Then what was the paragraph that came before the purported Ayala quote?

 

[leopold]

Then what was the paragraph that came before the purported Ayala quote?

"Certainly the record is poor," admitted Gould, "but the jerkiness you see is not the result of gaps, it is the consequence of the jerky mode of evolutionary change." To the evident frustration of many people at the meeting, a large proportion of the contributions were characterized more by description and assertion than by the presentation of data. ".

edit:
the record gould refers to is the fossil record.
page 884 has a graph that ayala based his quote on.

 

[James R]

leopold:

listen james, i don't give a rats ass about your god or your theory, okay?

It's not my god. It's yours who has the problem with evolution, apparently.

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'll call a spade a spade. You're a creationist. You believe that the world was created by your god and you're a science denier who is willing to lie and dissemble to avoid having to confront uncomfortable facts.

You won't even own up to your faith. Is that what your church tells you to do - to hide your faith from the world and to be ashamed of it?

i don't remember ever seeing where "science" said it misquoted ayala.

Do you remember where Ayala wrote it?

It's been pointed out to you many times now. What's wrong with you?

i guess the best proof would be the lack of lab results.

Well, you're out of luck there, because there is a plethora of lab results that support evolution.

but let's not let evidence get in our way.

You ought to make this your signature or user title.

In particular, how do you respond to his writings as quoted by rpenner above?

with the same enthusiasm as i would anything that barely interested me.

In other words, you either didn't bother to read it, or you skimmed it and discovered that it didn't support your creationist prejudices. Moreover, you were incapable of forming a reasoned response to it.

I get it.

it's no secret that dissenting evolutionary evidence is buried, swept under the rug.

Nonsense. Do a web search for "evolution is false". Your church will probably pop up among the millions of results.

label them as loonies now.

Creationists are either ignorant, loony or liar, or sometimes a combination of two or more of those.

if the misquoted author requested it then most probably yes.

Maybe Ayala didn't request it.

Why does a retraction by the man himself need peer review?

i never said it did.

So, what's your problem then?

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?

there was never a retraction made by "science" so i have no idea what you are talking about.

No? Really, leopold, your lies make you look really bad.

How many times do you have to have the link and the text of Ayala's repudiation of your quote shoved at you? How long will you continue to lie and pretend you haven't seen it?

 

[Aqueous Id]

i never mentioned "a conspiracy".
i posted what i found.
let history speak for itself.

You said he was forced to print a retraction. That would be a conspiracy (multiple actors in a fraud).

I was merely driving to the truth of the matter. Is it true?

History speaks for itself. I was asking if you speak for history.

 

[leopold]

You said he was forced to print a retraction. That would be a conspiracy (multiple actors in a fraud).

not quite.

most probably under peer pressure or fear of losing his career.

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2884389&postcount=766

 

[leopold]

leopold:
You're a creationist.

whatever james.

You won't even own up to your faith. Is that what your church tells you to do - to hide your faith from the world and to be ashamed of it?

no.

Do you remember where Ayala wrote it?

no.

What's wrong with you?

no.

So, what's your problem then?

no.

How many times do you have to have the link and the text of Ayala's repudiation of your quote shoved at you?

no.

How long will you continue to lie and pretend you haven't seen it?

no.

 

[Aqueous Id]

not quite.


http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2884389&postcount=766

Peer pressure to print a retraction for fear of losing one's job is what I meant by conspiracy. Under the Whistleblower Act, he could buy a Mediterranean island on their nickel for retaliating against him.

Why do you assume that such pressure is bearing down on this trifling aspect of science when there are so many bigger fish to fry?

That is what I was driving at. Do you feel there is a conspiratorial atmosphere surrounding the debate over creationism vs evolution?

 

[Aqueous Id]

leopold,

I just don't get the peer pressure angle:

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​

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

you mean he retracted decades of his work in Science, then, under peer pressure, went back and reversed himself, reinstating his lifelong position?

It just doesn't fly.

Also: when you said:

rpenner,

now, what was it you were taught in school?
THIS is what blows my fuse.
THIS is what must be fought against in regards to science.

This is like the voice of activism, a good thing sometimes.

What exactly is your complaint?

What are you saying needs to change?

 

[Aqueous Id]

well here it is:
"In a generous admission Francisco Ayala, a major figure in propounding the Modern Synthesis in the United States, said: "We would not have predicted stasis from population genetics, but I am now convinced from 884 what the paleontologists say that small changes do not accumulate."
-dr. ayala in Science, vol. 210 no. 4472 pp: 883-887

it should be pointed out that "science" never issued a retraction in this matter.

did you do a stinky, or is something else going on:

“In a generous admission Francisco Ayala, a major figure in propounding the Modern Synthesis [neo-Darwinism] in the United States, said ‘We would not have predicted stasis [the stability of species over time] from population genetics, but I am now convinced from what the paleontologists say that small changes do not accumulate.’” Roger Lewin, “Evolution Theory under Fire,” Science, Vol. 210, 21 November 1980, p. 884.

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

which finds the quote, disclaimed by Dr. Ayala, at creationscience.com, where they are selling a book that rewrites natural history.

What the heck is going on here?

 

[Aqueous Id]

page 884 has a graph that ayala based his quote on.

or Roger Lewin based his quote on?

 

[leopold]

you can bat that ball all you want.
this is why i want to see a retraction from "science".

"science" never retracted ANYTHING regarding the piece in discussion.

i'm quite positive it wasn't because ayala was unaware of the error.

 

[Aqueous Id]

you can bat that ball all you want.
this is why i want to see a retraction from "science".

"science" never retracted ANYTHING regarding the piece in discussion.

i'm quite positive it wasn't because ayala was unaware of the error.

It was 30 years ago
who would own up to it?

 

[spidergoat]

you can bat that ball all you want.
this is why i want to see a retraction from "science".

"science" never retracted ANYTHING regarding the piece in discussion.

i'm quite positive it wasn't because ayala was unaware of the error.

There was a retraction from the source, which is the only thing that matters. Doesn't it matter to you that you base your criticism of evolution on a misquote?

 

[origin]

There was a retraction from the source, which is the only thing that matters. Doesn't it matter to you that you base your criticism of evolution on a misquote?

Of course not! He doesn't want evolution to be true (for whatever reason) so he has to grasp at something, regardless if it is false or not. He thinks facts, data and observations are simply annoying details that get in the way of what he wants to believe.

 

[leopold]

There was a retraction from the source, which is the only thing that matters.

this is a flat out lie.
"science" was the source, "science" never issued a retraction in regards to this issue.

 

[origin]

Originally Posted by spidergoat
There was a retraction from the source, which is the only thing that matters.

this is a flat out lie.
"science" was the source, "science" never issued a retraction in regards to this issue.

Geeze leopold, your arguments are getting even more transparent than usual and becoming rather pathetic.

 

[spidergoat]

this is a flat out lie.
"science" was the source, "science" never issued a retraction in regards to this issue.

But if we know they are wrong, that's the important thing, isn't it? Do you think you will win the debate on a technicality?