views on evolution

Discussion in 'Biology & Genetics' started by Hercules Rockefeller, Apr 21, 2011.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    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.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. origin Trump is the best argument against a democracy. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,009
    I disagree with the opinion of Dr. Ayalan, as do the overwhelming majority of Biologists.

    Why in the world would Science issue a retraction for an opinion put forth by Dr. Ayalan?:shrug:

    Do you have any evidence against evolution?
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    other than a leading evolutionist denying one of evolutions basic tenets?

    the above quote was made at a conference of no less than 50 scientists.
    the consensus is clear.

    edit:
    i seriously doubt that you have the credentials to ascertain the opinion of ayala or "science".
    furthermore ayala made his statement after reviewing the data/ evidence offered by paleontologists.
    so, it just isn't ayalas opinion.
     
    Last edited: Jan 3, 2012
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. spidergoat Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    51,949
    But Dr. Ayala himself did:

    ...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
     
  8. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    most probably under peer pressure or fear of losing his career.

    "science" is standing behind what it printed, in other words ayala made the statement spidergoat.
     
  9. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    i was hoping for someone like spidergoat to chime in here.

    "science" would issue a retraction IF ayala was misrepresented.

    yes, "science" does indeed retract when it is in error.

    you will also note that the source of spidergoats claim is a personal website, hardly something i would call a "peer reveiwed souirce"
     
  10. Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    Messages:
    10,890
    So, according to you, for 32 years (Lewin's quote of Ayala comes to us from 1980) Ayala has continued advocating a view he doesn't believe in, including in a book he published in 2010 titled "I am a Monkey".

    What makes it even funnier, is that if you do even a modicum of research, you can come across this:

    Punctuated Equiilibria on Wiki

    This is important to understand - what evolutionary biologists mean when they talk about stasis - it's not a period of no change.

    Now, consider the fuller context of what Lewin said about the conference, which provides context for Ayala's statement:
    In otherwords, the most that can be taken from what Ayala said is that he now favours punctuated equilibria over gradualism, although a more reasonable interpretation would be the acceptance of the reality of periods of stasis. It says NOTHING about the abandonment of evolution, it is simply a quibble over the precise mechanism by which it occurs.
     
    Last edited: Jan 3, 2012
  11. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    actually you can take his words as "small changes do not accumulate".
    in other words "accumulating small changes" is not the "driving force" behind evolution.

    this implies that the driving force could be mutation driven except that all mutation type lab results i've seen has failed.

    there are other alternatives too, some not so pleasent.
     
  12. spidergoat Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    51,949
    Whatever, you know you are wrong. Even a science magazine can get a quote or transcription wrong. Be honest with yourself and the forum.
     
  13. rpenner Fully Wired Staff Member

    Messages:
    4,833
    No "retraction" was necessary because if you have the article before you and understand the jargon, you would understand that Dr. Ayala was talking not about the death of evolution but rather about punctuated equilibrium. Roger Lewin nowhere in the article implies that evolution lacks scientific support. But "gradualism" which was strongly favored from at least 1942 to 1972 was being replaced with Gould's 1972 description of punctuated equilibrium where large changes in phenotype appear mixed with long stretches of lesser changes in phenotype, "stasis." The naive view of gradualism which is based on a simple model of gene expression and naive model of genomic change is replaced 1972-1982 with the fact-based view of complex expression and population dynamics favoring slow and fast periods of phenotype change. And phenotype, not genotype, is what the fossil record manages to incompletely document.


    Your entire argument is a house of cards built on one improperly sourced quote.
    Roger Lewin, “Evolution Theory under Fire,” Science, Vol. 210 no. 4472, (21 November 1980), pp. 883-887
    http://www.sciencemag.org/content/210/4472/883.extract

    But is the view held by the author that in no cases that small changes accumulate? No. In 2001, Dr. Ayala wrote in response:
    http://www.noanswersingenesis.org.au/another_creationist_out_of_context_quote.htm
     
    Last edited: Jan 3, 2012
  14. spidergoat Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    51,949
    The source on the quote is the scientist who allegedly said it. It does not require peer review.
     
  15. Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    Messages:
    10,890
    Wrong. The only thing you've proven is that you don't understand the Jargon. I even spoonfed you the definitions, and what Stasis means in terms of punctuated equilbirium, and evolutionary biology, and still you're persisting on this dishonest tack?
     
  16. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    what dishonest tack?
    i merely pointed out what was said and what can be implied from it.
    make of it as you will.

    rpenner,
    you are in error.
    the qoute WAS sourced correctly disregarding any typos in the issue.
     
  17. Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    Messages:
    10,890
    Your interpretation of it is a dishonest one, for the reasons I have previously outlined, and which you have failed to address.

    The quote is on a technical issue, therefore the only correct interpretation can be in the context of the field within which the quote was made.

    The interpretation within the context of the field within which the quote was made (evolutionary biology), and also within the context provided when one examines the full text from which the quote has been cherry picked is clear.

    The concession that Ayala is making (assuming the quote is correct in the first place) is that the theory of punctuated equilibria might actually have a leg to stand on, not that evolution does not occur.
     
  18. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    how is it dishonest for me to take ayalas words at face value?
    and . .
    what have i not addressed?
     
  19. rpenner Fully Wired Staff Member

    Messages:
    4,833
    ID is a sterile philosophy, and makes adherents stupid and unproductive and bad Christians
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-wallace/intelligent-design-is-dea_b_1175049.html

    Thus ID is not science -- it's just giving up.

    But in the 20 years since ID appeared, it has hammered in the point that it is not an answer to any question. ID makes people stupider.

    These are people who operate on the thinnest glosses of science and when reality or scientific models don't operate as they assume they do, they feel free to make up stories without checking them. Thus 20 years later, some are still claiming evolution (or life) is contradicted by thermodynamics.

    http://scienceblogs.com/evolutionblog/2011/11/twenty_years_after_darwin_on_t.php
     
  20. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    please, not the ID/creationist bit.

    although its a possibility, i'm getting to where i wanna puke every time i hear the phrase.
     
  21. Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    Messages:
    10,890
    For the reasons I have already explained.
     
  22. rpenner Fully Wired Staff Member

    Messages:
    4,833
    2005, Dr. Ayala explains punctuated equilibrium in reviewing Gould's book which quotes Dr. Ayala from 1982.
    http://www.stephenjaygould.org/reviews/ayala_structure.pdf
    Page 101.
    pp 103-104
    "[T]ruly monumental misunderstanding" explains much about the way creationists argue about science.

    I don't think that Dr. Ayala has a gun held to his head to make him write such things.
     
    Last edited: Jan 3, 2012
  23. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    rpenner,
    this was said in regards to the almost complete lack of transitional fossils.
    check your history dude.
    see what has been said, with "proof" i might add.
    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.

    edit:
    BTW, i've been meaning to say this for the last couple of posts.
    to me it's a given but some people might need to hear it.
    EVEN IF evolution is disproved it DOES NOT mean there is a "god" or "supernatural" or "ID".
    why this continually crops up is anyones guess.
    this is by no means an either/or situation.
    it simply means we do not have all the answers.
     
    Last edited: Jan 3, 2012
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page