Denial of Evolution VII (2015)

Discussion in 'Biology & Genetics' started by davewhite04, Jan 5, 2015.

  1. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    you people want to prove evolution?
    have at it:
    myxo.css.msu.edu/ecoli/

    the research data gained from this site will lay to rest any doubts.
    it's quite possible this generation will not see the fruits of their labors though.
    if you are an investor, then please support the above site, especially in the area of transparency.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Enmos Staff Member

    Messages:
    43,184
    Excuse me? Aren't you the one that claims that it's false?
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    22,053
    You have not read a single thing I have said in response to your statements that you evolved from your parents, etc, have you?
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. davewhite04 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,079
    I had to read every word unfortunately....
     
  8. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    where am i saying it's false?
    don't forget, james hasn't answered the question as to the conclusion of the conference.
    according to this article, i was lied to when i was taught evolution.
    all the alleged transitional fossils we had didn't exist.
    all of this was published in science and science has not retracted ANY of it.

    so, what's the story here enmos?

    you are correct though, i don't believe in evolution.
    the concepts involved are as ludicrous as some kind of "god".
    i honestly feel, and i've said this before, there must be a third option.
     
  9. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    30,353
    leopold,

    Then you should have been taught better. But the fact that you were lied (if you were) doesn't mean that evolution is false.

    Yes, because you have in the past spammed various other threads with the same rubbish. None of your posts have been deleted, though, as far as I am aware. And none have been moved recently.

    Which one? Post the link and I'll check the logs. All edits are logged by the system.

    I don't see why any moderator would want to edit your posts, leopold. They speak for themselves. You do a remarkable job of digging your own holes. You don't need our help to do that.

    What do you think the "conclusion of the conference was"? Do you have a quote from somewhere saying "The conclusion of the conference was x, y an z?" If so, post it.

    I imagine that this conference concluded in the same way that many scientific conferences conclude. The participants go away with some new things to think about and to debate. And they continue to work away at what they do. 30 years has now passed since this conference. Only you have sat on your hands for 30 years when it comes to evolutionary biology.

    What retraction?

    No. The guy who wrote the article - Roger Lewin - is responsible for the misquote of Ayala. But it was a fairly unimportant slip. If it hadn't been jumped on by creationists like yourself, nobody would care about it. And besides, nothing about the theory of evolution depends on whether Ayala was quoted correctly or wrongly anyway. Evolution does not fall even if Ayala was quoted correctly. Even if by some bizarre twist it turned out that Ayala - an evolutionary biology - stopped believing that "small changes accumulate" and turned into a religious nut like you, leopold, that would only be one guy's opinion, and he'd be wrong about it. Because the fact is that the evidence that "small (genetic)changes accumulate" is overwhelming.

    Who cares?

    I know you will. You've already admitted that your mind is closed and you're never going to change it. If Science did ever publish a correction - and it won't because this is a completely unimportant triviality - that wouldn't change your mind about evolution, and you know it. You'd just go on making the same ignorant claims you have been making for years.

    Sounds like you're getting a bit hot under the collar there, leopold. Calm down.

    It's mostly due to you bringing up the same material time and again in different threads.

    Which ones? Links please.

    Your sources? You wouldn't even have read the article you so rely on if somebody here hadn't pointed you to it.

    Your favorite article does not say "transitional fossils don't exist".

    I know you don't understand the article, but you can't just go making up lies about it.
     
  10. cluelusshusbund + Public Dilemma + Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,606
    Whoa... is this guy lyin about a email he says he got from Ayala.???

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

    "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."
     
  11. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    oh, i would if i could find it.
    aqueous responded to the edited post, and i can't find THAT one either.
    i'm asking YOU what the conclusion was.
    you have the issue.
    what's up?
    is it killing you?
    the one ayala sent to no answers in genesis, but couldn't quite get himself to send to science, THAT retraction.
    actually the PUBLISHER is responsible for it james.
    of course it is.
    one of the leading proponents of evolution denying accumulating small changes is unimportant.
    if you read the article, you will find that ayala based his comment on what paleontologists presented to him.
    my "claims" come from a respected source james
    i am the one that posted the issue from jstor on the board james.
    a link that no longer works i might add
    ayalas quote and the discussion about gaps in the record.
    it amazes me how stupid you can play sometimes
    what was the conclusion james.
    post it now you coward.
     
  12. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    i would give ANYTHING if i could PM you a buttplug with the word religion stamped on it.
    you commie.
     
  13. davewhite04 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,079
    Gotta love your tenacity Leopold

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  14. davewhite04 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,079
    This post almost slipped through the net...
    Prove it.
    So you don't believe in evolution either?
     
  15. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    22,053
    It was a misrepresentation, which he clearly noted and presented a correction.

    Again, it was a misrepresentation.

    And yet, when you were presented with Ayala's own words on the matter, you ignored it. What matters most to you, the author, or the title of the magazine?

    This is where you come off sounding like a theist who quote mines. Even when you are presented with evidence, when the words of the author are shown to you, you refuse to accept it. What about all the other articles on Science, which clearly support evolution? Oh wait, you are going to ignore that because of one misrepresented sentence from the 80's.

    You have been banging on about this one quote for years, you have refused to acknowledge the author's own words, and you have refused to acknowledge all evidence that has been presented to you over the years.
     
  16. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    30,353
    leopold,

    In other words, you're accusing moderators of tampering with your posts, without any evidence of such tampering. Next you'll be saying that somebody deleted the edited posts and that's why you can't find them.

    Get this, leopold: you're not being suppressed. Indeed, the current thread is entirely dedicated to you and your boring, repetitive, unimportant claims.

    If you think your posts are being deleted, then keep copies of them so you can re-post them.

    Did he agree with you, so that he had to be censored, too? Did the Great Scientific Conspiracy Men in Black get to him, too?

    I told you in my previous post.

    Look, I don't see why I should do your homework for you. If you think the conclusion is important, go and find it for yourself. I probably still have a copy of the article on my hard drive somewhere.

    However, I did in the past post some relevant extracts from the paper in another thread - one of the ones linked in the list of threads I posted to the current thread earlier.

    I have no issue. How about we agree to drop the subject and never mention it again? Seeing as you have no issues and all.

    Ayala didn't retract anything. He said that he thought he was misquoted in the article by Roger Lewin, and he posted a clarification of what his opinions actually are. I quoted it in full in the current thread.

    There's no wiggle room here. Ayala is on record as saying that of course small genetic changes accumulate over time. "How could they not?", he asks.

    No. Publishers of scientific papers and review articles in science journals aren't fact checkers.

    When will you realise that Ayala is just one guy? Look out at the big wide world of evolutionary biologists - or even just at the "leading proponents" if you want. What do they say? I mean, let's ignore the fact that Ayala is on the record as supporting evolution before, during and after the conference in 1980. Suppose that Ayala had a bout of sudden madness and actually did stand up at the conference to exclaim "It's all wrong! Evolution doesn't happen! God created man in 7 days. Halleluyah!" Would that prove that the theory of evolution is bunk, then? Of course not.

    You've been told over and over, leopold, that nothing in science rests on one item of data, or on the word of one person. Science is all about reproduceability, repetition, regularity. The acceptance of evolution among the many thousands (tens of thousands?) of working biologists is almost universal.

    Let's say that, as in case of climate change, 97% of biologists believe evolution happens, and 3% believe in the leopold theory of "I don't know how life developed on Earth. Maybe it was something to do with aliens!" or whatever. What would that suggest to you? Sure, its possible that the wealth of data from disparate areas of study that points to the reality of evolutionary theory is all bunk, but given the sheer volume of it and the multiple lines of evidence available the chance of that is vanishingly small. So vanishingly small, in fact, that anybody who disbelieves evolution is either ignorant like yourself, or else in denial for one reason or another. Hence our multiple threads on sciforums titled "evolution denial". Evolution denial and climate change denial are similar, only the evidence for evolution is far stronger than for climate change.

    Yes. I've walked you through what the discussion was about previously. I read the article, remember?

    The debate was over gradualism vs punctuated equilibrium. Gradualism says that genomes evolve at a more-or-less constant rate. Punctuated equilibrium says that genomes can be relatively stable over long periods of time, then undergo rapid evolution in a short space of time.

    Part of the discussion at the conference was about which theory (gradualism or PE) was better supported by the fossil record. It seems that perhaps Ayala was willing to concede that there was some good evidence for PE (which was the renegade theory at the time).

    Note well: both gradualism and PE are evolutionary theories. There was no debate about whether evolution happens or not. Everybody at the conference agreed that evolution happens as advertised. There were no Creationists at the conference arguing that God or aliens did it.

    Your "claim" quotes Ayala as the source. Ayala himself has refuted your claim. That is, the same source that you say supports your claim that "small changes do not accumulate" has explicitly stated the opposite.

    Where does that leave you? It leaves you shaking your fists impotently as you hide your head in the sand and pretend it never happened.

    Do you claim that a broken link on the internet means that there's a Grand Scientific Conspiracy to suppress the MOST IMPORTANT STATEMENT IN BIOLOGICAL HISTORY - that "small changes do not accumulate" after all?

    You can buy the article from Science if you want. It's online. I found it somewhere else for free, IIRC, but I can't remember where. This was years ago, during one of the first few times you brought up this silly non-issue.

    Your favorite article does not say "transitional fossils don't exist".

    Examples of so-called transitional fossils actually were quite rare back in 1980. But a LOT has changed since then. In the past 30 years since that conference, many impressive series of transitional fossils have been discovered for all kinds of diverse groups of animals. We have them for horses, for whales, even for human beings.

    Whenever I tell you that your favorite article doesn't say what you think it says, you claim I'm playing stupid. The real problem is that you don't understand the article you rely on. Given that you've had years to get to grips with it, what does that say about you?

    Oh look. I found the article on my hard drive (eventually).

    Here's a reasonable short summary of the conclusion. This is a direct extract from the article (page 886):
    Here's the conclusion (p.884) from one of the punctuated equilibrium guys:
    Don't get confused over the appearance of the word "monotheism" in this quote, by the way. This isn't a reference to religion or God. Creationism wasn't discussed at the conference. What is being said here is that "punctuationists" do not believe that evolution only happens by punctuated equilibrium.

    Now, post what you think the conclusion is, leopold, you coward.

    Are you reduced to calling me names because I keep showing up how stupid your reliance on this one paper is as a buttress for your creationism? Is that the best you can do, leopold?
     
  17. davewhite04 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,079
    This is not correct James, there has been a lot of information shared by other members, not just yourself and Leopold.
     
  18. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    we will edit it.
    if we can't edit it, we'll move it.
    if we can't move it, we will bury it.
    if we can't do any of the above we'll send up a smoke screen until we figure something out.

    sound familiar?

    somebody get james to the hospital, he's choking to death.
     
  19. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    i have been.
    and i will continue to do so
     
  20. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    are you crazy?
    i wanna punch 'im in the face for acting so retarded.
     
  21. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    30,353
    Sorry davewhite04. I thought I'd already split out leopold's issue from the survey thread. Looks like I haven't done that yet, but I'll get to it. All this stuff is off-topic for the current thread.
     
  22. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    30,353
    Typical. I post a lengthy rebuttal of your nonsense and I get a 3 word response from you.

    This will end how it always ends - with you either slinking off to hide for a while until the heat's off again, or else with you banned for continuing to tell lies in the face of patient and careful correction.
     
  23. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,511
    My bad.
    Sorry, I'd assumed I was dealing with someone rational and with a basic level of understanding.
    I was obviously wrong so I'll leave you to it for the moment.
     

Share This Page