Denial of Evolution VII (2015)

[Rav]

the fact of the matter is, lewin didn't just sit there listening.
he took notes, and quite likely was versed in stenography.
he did not fish all of this "out of his head".

It doesn't matter if he wrote 6 novels and 2 short stories while he was there. If you want to understand the state of evolutionary theory at the time, you listen to what the evolutionary biologists (and other professionals) were saying at the time. You listen to their opinions and you peruse their research. They are the experts, not Lewin. It's that simple.

a nice little dilemma wouldn't you say?

There's no dilemma. Again, there are those who are properly qualified, and those who aren't. Lewin wasn't.

really?
magazines don't get sued for slander?

When a magazine publishes an article about a contentious issue, and fleshes out the coverage by subsequently publishing letters from leading experts that offer a different perspective, that's called balanced reporting.

Only in your dramatic imagination would people consider legal proceedings in a scenario like that.

i see, and your basis for this statement is what?

You are a living, breathing basis for my statement.

The fact is that any reasonable person would allow themselves to arrive at reasonable conclusions based upon new information. You don't. You take the path of most resistance at every turn. This makes it perfectly obvious to everyone that you have some sort of agenda.

 

[Billy T]

... This makes it perfectly obvious to everyone that you have some sort of agenda.

Yes, but he will not tell it even when asked. He prefers wasting time beating a dead horse.

I tried to get him to tell how he thought the vast number of species came to be here: http://www.sciforums.com/threads/denial-of-evolution-vii-2015.144083/page-27#post-3268593
But close as he came was to say he did not think evolution was false.
So I specifically asked if he thought it was the best explanation as to why so many different life forms exist- no answer.

 

[paddoboy]

The fact is that any reasonable person would allow themselves to arrive at reasonable conclusions based upon new information. You don't. You take the path of most resistance at every turn. This makes it perfectly obvious to everyone that you have some sort of agenda.

Well said.

 

[krash661]

wow. it figures. the focused arguers have to bring their shenanigans on this topic also.

 

[billvon]

Yes, but he will not tell it even when asked. He prefers wasting time beating a dead horse.

Unfortunately this is a common method of argument amongst deniers of all sorts. (Evolution deniers, climate change deniers, tobacco risk deniers.) Many of them start out saying things like "the climate hasn't warmed!" or "if we evolved from apes why are there still apes?" or "can you PROVE that smoking causes lung cancer?" - and then get beaten down pretty thoroughly by people with access to the facts.

So often they change tactics. Rather than face the issue head-on they start trying to sow fear, uncertainty and doubt. These are all far easier to generate than support for some woo theory. Some examples:

Fear: "we might be exposing [a conspiracy] right here and now bells. Has that thought ever crossed your mind? or do you actually believe "it can't happen here"? "
Uncertainty: "i was taught in school it was by a slow gradual process. this article says that isn't the case. if the scientists don't know . . . ."
Doubt: "yes, people says [evolution] "takes millions of years", but it's nothing but hot air RAV."

Enough of that and they don't have to propose any woo; they just keep spinning.

 

[leopold]

I've been considering this whole line for a little while and have come to a kind of conclusion:

Leopold, present your alternate explanation for the facts of the fossil record, DNA relationships among extant (and even extinct) flora and fauna (with higher relationships being observed among the presumably phenotypically more closely related) and the overwhelming preponderance of genes and gene systems that produce moderate changes in phenotype.

i do not need to post an alternative to anything.
james screwed up when he decided to put my argument here.

If you have a better synthesis - and not a misquote of Ayala - produce it. Otherwise, I have to side with those complaining about the near-constant harping on that one minor point, many of whom would prefer more bannings. I do not wish this, but the incessant referral to that unimportant comment is pointless.

why should i be banned for pointing this stuff out?
science refuses to correct said article for a reason geoff.
printing letters from readers IS NOT any type of "correction".
the source trippy mentioned, even in the face of THAT, science refuses to correct said article.
you cannot rely on the "it was a minor affair" bit, the letters themselves state how important this conference was.
these are all facts of the matter geoff, and for me to get banned for posting THE TRUTH ?

 

[leopold]

The dispute is unreasonable . . .

it is?
it's unreasonable for me to expect a respected source to retract an untrue statement?
the circumstances surrounding this ARE relevant geoff.
ayala writes to NAIG but not to science?
on top of that, why didn't NAIG write to science?
lewin was a good science journalist, until he wrote this particular piece.
all of a sudden he lies like a rug.
yes geoff, the circumstances are very relevant.

. . . and imaginary given the circumstances

what am i imagining geoff?
everything i've said about this article is FACTUAL.

. . . but it is your right to argue it so long as there is some kind of new information to be had.

yes, preferably the issue of science where it states "lewin misquoted ayala".

But the Ayala quote was solved long, long ago - before the forum, even.

the source of the alleged misquote is science, science posted no retraction geoff

It is a bone with no meat. In that context, it does sound like trolling to me.

so, everyone gets to wave this "retraction" that is sourced from personal website and parade it around like it's official? ? ?

If there were some mystery about it, sure. But there isn't.

there is no mystery why science hasn't said a word about the ayala quote?
even in the face of those red hot letters, and the source of trippys?

i will come right out and say it, the "retraction" sourced from NAIG is not an official document.

 

[James R]

On Francisco Ayala's views:

See the wikipedia page about him. Here it is:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francisco_J._Ayala

This should have been the first place that leopold looked if he honestly wanted to know what Ayala thinks about evolution.

Here's a quote from the page:

He is also a critic of creationism and intelligent design theories, claiming that they are not only pseudoscience, but also misunderstood from a theological point of view. He suggests that the theory of evolution resolves the problem of evil, thus being a kind of theodicy. Although Ayala generally does not discuss his religious views, he has stated that "science is compatible with religious faith in a personal, omnipotent and benevolent God." He also briefly served, in 1960, as a Dominican priest. He also identifies as a Christian.
​

So, there you have it. Ayala is an evolutionary biologist who thinks creationism is rubbish. He has dedicated his career to studying evolution. He's also a Christian, as it happens, which should tell the Creationists that at least one evolutionary biologist doesn't see evolution as being incompatible with Christianity.

 

[Bells]

i do not need to post an alternative to anything.
james screwed up when he decided to put my argument here.

Beg yours?

How exactly did he screw up? He moved your evolution denial posts and the many many responses from all of us into this latest incarnation of evolution denial thread, because you have been going on about that one sentence for years and really, it's best to confine the woo to one place.

And you need to support your argument.

why should i be banned for pointing this stuff out?

You aren't pointing anything out.

What you are doing is deliberately ignoring all evidence and repeating the same thing over and over again. For years.

science refuses to correct said article for a reason geoff.

OH MY GOD!!

How many times does this need to be repeated to you? It was a news piece about a conference. No one bloody cares about it except you and the creationist sites you frequent to find such "quotes".

The article itself does not deny evolution. It supports it. I notice you refuse and you are incapable of acknowledging that, repeatedly.

printing letters from readers IS NOT any type of "correction".

Because no correction was needed. The readers weren't asking for a correction. They were correcting Lewin.

the source trippy mentioned, even in the face of THAT, science refuses to correct said article.

Once again, it's a news report. The only person who cares about it being corrected is you. Have you ever tried to figure out why it's not everyone else, but possibly you who is in the wrong here?

you cannot rely on the "it was a minor affair" bit, the letters themselves state how important this conference was.

The article was a minor affair. Not the conference. You do get that, right?

these are all facts of the matter geoff, and for me to get banned for posting THE TRUTH ?

If you were posting the truth or reality, you might have a point. But you have been pulling this stunt for years on this site. You have refused to substantiate your claim, demanded others provide evidence while you provide none, you have deliberately and repeatedly misrepresented the article and Ayala for years.

And people are fed up that you are still doing it.

 

[Trippy]

all of a sudden he's the biggest liar since Pinocchio.

You're still the only person claiming this.

 

[billvon]

the source trippy mentioned, even in the face of THAT, science refuses to correct said article.
you cannot rely on the "it was a minor affair" bit, the letters themselves state how important this conference was.
these are all facts of the matter geoff, and for me to get banned for posting THE TRUTH ?

(cue the violins)

 

[James R]

leopold:

This dishonesty of yours will stop, one way or another. From now on, you will answer questions put to you about views you express. Moreover, you will no longer ignore evidence presented to you that is incompatible with your views on evolution. You will address such evidence.

also, no one EVER presented ANY kind of documentation on how long a species takes to "turn into" a completely different genome.

Define what you mean by "completely different genome". Note: this is a question that you will answer.

yes, people says it "takes millions of years", but it's nothing but hot air RAV.
we have nothing to go by, not even the record itself.

Who are the "people" that say this? And what is it that they say "takes millions of years", exactly?

What evidence have you got that proves this is "nothing but hot air"? Please present at least two facts that support your position.

Note: these are questions that you will answer.

amazing isn't it?
lewin was treated the same way.
a prolific science writer that became an editor for one the most respected names in science.
then he pens this piece on a conference.
all of a sudden he's the biggest liar since Pinocchio.

Who called Lewin "the biggest liar since Pinocchio"? In fact, who said Lewin lied about anything?

Please cite your sources for this claim.

Note: this is a question that you will answer.

[I didn't read] all of [the letters published in Science].
i was more interested in finding one from ayala.

Why are you not interested in learning anything about evolution?
Why do you refuse to look at any evidence in favour of evolution?

what HR did?

Who or what is HR?

okay, now what?

This is you accepting that Ayala is an "evolutionist", is it?

Please make this explicit so that we have it on record.

you will [tell me what Ayala thinks]?
james, this is a very unscientific approach you are taking here.
the best you can hope to do is post some of his select writings on the topic

Look them up yourself if you place so much stock in what he has to say.

You didn't even do the bare minimum research about Ayala and look up his wikipedia page. Why is that, leopold?

i am placing zero value on ayalas authority or i would accept the NAIG reference.

Then you will admit that the quote of Ayala in Lewin's article is of no consequence to the truth or otherwise of evolution.

Please state your agreement with the above statement, for the record.

Note: This is something you will address and you will not ignore this.

Ayala thinks evolution occurs by natural selection, just as Darwin said. Ayala is not a Creationist.

he sure didn't feel that way at the conference.

This is false and you know it. Telling deliberate lies is a breach of sciforums site rules - something that can get you banned from the forum.

You will therefore apologise to everybody here for attempting once again to lie about this matter.

This is something you will do in your reply to this post.

i am not claiming science retracted anything.
i am claiming science never corrected its alleged mistake.
the letters themselves point out how important this conference was, so you can't use "it was a minor event" or some such.

There were a few letters in response to Lewin's article. No big deal, even though many were critical of the article.

This article is only the be all and end all as far as you, leopold, are concerned. Nothing about evolution hangs on it.

we aren't talking about speciation.
these gaps represent major changes in genomes, and not at the species level.

What is a "major change in genomes" that does not amount to speciation? Please be specific about what you are referring to.

I thought you were of the opinion that macroevolution does not occur as advertised by evolution. Now it seems you are talking about microevolution.

Are you of the opinion that microevolution does not occur? If so, please post some evidence for your claims.

the ideas presented at the conference hasn't been confirmed.
i would call that "not knowing".

Which ideas at the conference do you claim haven't been confirmed. Be specific.

i honestly don't know [who the Creator is] james.
the idea of abiogenesis is as absurd as some kind of god in my opinion.
the concept of life may well be out of our league.

What does abiogenesis have to do with evolution?

Note: this is a question you will address.

i am not saying it's false, i'm saying we have a problem with ayala.

What is the problem with Ayala? Be specific. What is there doubt about regarding Ayala?

Note: this is a question you will address.

none that i know of, unless you want to get into quantum physics.

Please post about what you think the quantum physics alternative to the theory of evolution. Be specific.

the grand unification theory must include life somehow, it seems so anyway.

What do you base that opinion on?
----

Rav posted some of Ayala's views above. You ignored that post. You will no longer ignore it.

http://www.sciforums.com/threads/denial-of-evolution-vii-2015.144083/page-27#post-3268564

"Macroevolutionary processes are underlain by microevolutionary phenomena and are compatible with the synthetic theory of evolution."

How do you respond to this statement from Ayala?

Note: this is a question that you will address.

i do not need to post an alternative to anything.
james screwed up when he decided to put my argument here.

Please explain where and how I "screwed up". Be specific.

Note: this is a question you will address.

why should i be banned for pointing this stuff out?

You've been "pointing out" the same thing for 3 years now, and it was sorted the first time.

You will no longer ignore information that is given to you. You will acknowledge and respond to it. You will show some honesty from now on, or you will leave.

science refuses to correct said article for a reason geoff.

Please post any evidence that you have that supports the idea that Science has been asked to and has refused to "correct" the article.

Note: this is a matter you will address.

printing letters from readers IS NOT any type of "correction".

Yes.

I look forward to your detailed and honest responses from now on.

 

[Trippy]

http://www.sciforums.com/threads/denial-of-evolution-vi.134919/page-35#post-3083382
well then, break that circular reasoning RAV and post the issue where it apologizes to all those people lewin misrepresented.
apologizes for those LIES lewin told.

There is no such article because Lewin posted no such lies. He was acting in his role as a news reporter not an authority on the subject matter.

 

[Trippy]

Rav posted some of Ayala's views above. You ignored that post. You will no longer ignore it.

Good luck with that - tried that approach last year - pointed out that the presentation Ayala himself gave at the conference pretty much contradicted the view attributed to him, among other things.

 

[Trippy]

printing letters from readers IS NOT any type of "correction".

No correction was ever required, it was a news editorial - one man writing about his opinion of a conference, not a peer reviewed piece - posting the letters in opposition to Lewin's sensationalism is the most they're required to do.

the source trippy mentioned, even in the face of THAT, science refuses to correct said article.

Which source?

you cannot rely on the "it was a minor affair" bit, the letters themselves state how important this conference was.

The conference being important doesn't change the status of Lewins piece as an op-ed article.

And yeah, the conference was immensely important - I've even posted sources in previous discussions explaining why it was so dam important. It was the Solvay conference of its time. Why? Because up until that point Paleontologists had been at the 'Kiddies table' when it came to discussions on evolution and evolutionary biology. For Paleontologists it was a watershed moment, it was the point in time when they moved from the Kiddies table to the Bridal Party table bringing with them a depth, breadth, and continuity of knowledge that Biologists A) hadn't realized existed and B) could not match and could only stare at in starry eyed wonder. In return, Biologists helped Paleontologists fill in some of the blanks that they had - the soft squishy wet bits that were seldom, if ever, preserved.

these are all facts of the matter geoff, and for me to get banned for posting THE TRUTH ?

It is the twisting of facts combined with the temper-tantrums that get you banned. Not the facts.

 

[James R]

billvon:

Earlier, you posted this:

[leopold] once said "the story of Genesis is the only comprehensive explanation of how life came to be. Evolution can't explain that."

leopold claims that this is an invented quote.

Please post a link to this quote from leopold, or apologise. Failing this, you will be banned from sciforums.

 

[Bells]

billvon:

Earlier, you posted this:



leopold claims that this is an invented quote.

Please post a link to this quote from leopold, or apologise. Failing this, you will be banned from sciforums.

Billvon explained his reasoning for having made the comment. He was trying to make a point to explain the hypocrisy and insanity of Leo's position, to Leo. He explains it here:

Why? It's just a claim I made. It is as accurate as Lewin's claim. Why would you have a problem with one but not the other?

 

[James R]

Are you saying that billvon just made up a false quote from leopold, Bells?

If that is true, it is unacceptable behaviour - whether or not it was done to make a point.

A full and frank apology will be sufficient to deal with this matter, though.

 

[Buckaroo Banzai]

There are still many things that the theory of evolution, and modern biological science in general, cannot explain.

Some of those things are:

1. Why some people (like me for example) experience severe burning pain at even a small burn or a knife cut while most normal people are (almost) completely immune to pain sensations.

2. Why some people (like me for example) have nausea and vomiting while most normal people almost never feel nausea and never vomit.

3. Evolution cannot explain consciousness. Evolution can't tell us what consciousness really is and why we even have it.

I hope that in the future evolution will be replaced by a better and more complete scientific theory, a theory which much more completely describes humans, life, the experience of pain and the nature of consciousness.

It's rare to see such weird statements being made so naturally as matter-of-fact. I was expecting something like " 4. Why some people have a blood flow, while most people have no blood circulation at all".

The connection with evolution would nevertheless be something along the lines that we are not all clones/identical twins, and even identical twins can develop significant physiological (including neurophysiological) differences along different life courses.

Some explanations will also be interdisciplinary. "Evolution", as "descent with modification" won't quite explain alone what vision is without optics/physics. It's similar with consciousness, even though it's not completely understood even at a interdisciplinary level. At the evolutionary level, though, it's a complex adaptation (or set of many adaptations) to respond immediately to an ever-changing environment. The remainder of the explanation is far less clear, but isn't so much a matter of "evolution" anymore, somewhat like how many aspects of metabolisms are "questions" for evolution, but ultimately it's physics, metabolism is the maintenance of thermodynamic disequilibrium, and "evolution" has no role in explaining why things tend to equilibrium and whatnot.

 

[billvon]

leopold claims that this is an invented quote.
Please post a link to this quote from leopold, or apologise. Failing this, you will be banned from sciforums.

Yes, it was an invented post; one I made up.
Leopold is clearly taking a misquote from Lewin over a statement from the supposed original author, which is odd. To illustrate that, I posted a misquote from Leopold, hoping to demonstrate how such an approach is flawed. I hoped he would see that if the original author claims that he did not say something, that takes precedence over a misquote.

Since that clearly failed, I'll apologize for posting a seeming misquote from Leopold.