Denial of Evolution V

[leopold]

Any further instances of him relying on this mischaracterisation of Ayala's views may result in a ban from sciforums.

yes james, squash the truth.
goose stepper.

i demand you prove i lied by posting the issue where it admits to misrepresenting ayala.

 

[leopold]

How do you think we came to be?

good question.

How do you think human beings and all animals, insects, plants, etc, came to be on this planet?

i don't know, but i have been informed by PM there is a growing body of scientists that do not buy into darwinism.

it's nice to know that i am not on the wrong track here.
it also points out very nicely how the moderators here are squashing the truth in this matter.

 

[leopold]

So "Science" published a flawed study, which would make the magazine itself untrustworthy, would it not?

i have no idea what "science" said about this matter because i did not read what "science" had to say.

It astounds me that because you disagree with the result of that study, that you automatically state the survey must be flawed, because the result goes against what you believe.

i fail to believe a person can be shown facts, teachers in this instance, and then refuse to teach those facts because of religious reasons.
YOU might believe such a thing but I don't.

Prove that the survey was flawed.

You have the raw data available to you. Prove it.

i can't prove it.
i stated how i honestly felt about it.
that's what you mods want isn't it? truth and honesty?
well that's what i am doing and i'm being practically gang raped for it.

You do not believe in evolution, . . .

and i'm not the only one.
like i mentioned in the post above, there is a growing body of scientists that don't buy it either.
they apparently see what happens to people like me and are afraid to come forward.
yes, there is indeed a war on science being waged and it isn't the creationists that are waging it.
damn, it's comforting to know i will someday be vindicated.
i often wondered if i could indeed be wrong about all of this but i am more convinced now than ever that i am dead on target.

 

[leopold]

one other thing.
hercules has access to the issue in question james does not.
hercules would know for a fact if i misrepresented, misquoted, or took out of context, ayala.

i commend you hercules for having integrity in this matter.

 

[Trippy]

citation? what citation?

Yes.

That would be the point.

 

[Trippy]

So "Science" published a flawed study, which would make the magazine itself untrustworthy, would it not?

I don't think it's the survey that's flawed, but Leopolds representation of the results.

 

[James R]

Moderator note: leopold has been banned from sciforums for 1 month.

---
I have decided to "squash the truth" and ban leopold for 1 month for continuing to knowingly tell lies after repeated warnings not to do so.

Knowingly posting falsehoods is against the site rules of sciforums.

To be specific: leopold keeps insisting that Ayala's view is that small evolutionary changes "do not accumulate". In post #151 of this thread, and in one or more earlier threads, leopold was specifically directed to a statement by Ayala himself which emphatically repudiates this view.

In the face of a flat denial by the man himself, leopold's insistence that he holds the opposite view to the one he has expressed amounts to a flat-out lie, and one that leopold has now repeated many times on this forum.

The length of this ban is in line with leopold's accumulated active infraction points. Barring expiry of infraction points, any future ban will be permanent.

----

yes james, squash the truth.
goose stepper.

Implying that I am sympathetic to the Nazis is another breach of the site rules. Just so you know.

As to the Truth, that was given to you on this matter months ago, and again in this thread.

i demand you prove i lied by posting the issue where it admits to misrepresenting ayala.

You continue to lie by ignoring the information in post #151 of this thread.

This will stop, one way or the other.

 

[Buckaroo Banzai]

i pointed out that gould mentioned punctuated equilibrium for the gaps, the almost complete absence of transitional fossils, in the fossil record.
i've been given infractions for pointing out that gould said the record is poor in this respect.

Punctuated equilibrium's "gaps" are between species, that is, groups that are already quite similar and sometimes even with overlapping morphological variation and/or larger variation within-species than between species (more commonly on species where there is strong sexual dimorphism or many adaptive "morphs"). The distance between species is usually so small that even most creationists don't deny speciation altogether (even though they will often deny when arguing against evolution, but accept it when trying to explain the Noah's ark episode, apparently without noting their contradiction).

The fossil record is indeed lacking in intermediates between say, duck species or even between ducks and gooses, but it nevertheless helps filling in the distance between larger groups, such as between amphibians and reptiles, between reptiles and mammals, between reptiles and birds, or even between whales and terrestrial mammals without resorting to reasonable hypotheticals such as "some kind of otter-like mammal evolved into some kind of seal-like mammal which then got bigger and bigger". And even between some species, more notably between humans and chimpanzees, where somewhat ironically the fossil record is more incomplete in the chimp side, not ours.

 

[Buckaroo Banzai]

leopold:

Has it occurred to you that all those known fossil hoaxes failed? Why? Because they were uncovered as hoaxes - usually by scientific experts.

But you're throwing the baby out with the bath water, anyway. To dismiss the whole of evolutionary theory because there have been a few hoaxers is like dismissing the existence of Elvis because there are a lot of Elvis impersonators. Don't mistake hoaxers for the real deal.

It seems that the common creationist is led to think that such hoaxes were made in a conspiracy to desperately support the theory of evolution, and left with the impression that they were eventually exposed by brave creationists.

In a way the creationist argument on "fossil hoaxes" is another hoax in itself.

 

[river-wind]

Wow, just...wow.

Leopold, if you choose to return later; know that it is not your points which resulted in the ban, but your chosen method of discussion. No truth is being suppressed, and you are not a target or victim - you were, as you have stated yourself, stating your opinion.

The problem is that when your opinion was shown to be wrong, you refused to recognize it or learn. In this last instance, resorting to arguing minor details of the semantics at play rather than admitting that your main point was lost.

There are points to be made; the ones you have been discussing are lost causes. Move on, and find better sources - then read and cite them! Currently your methodology for sourcing your information would not pass muster in a primary school. Form better, cohesive and convincing arguments - if your points fail to make an impression, it is not the audience's fault for failing to grasp your genius. You are responsible for making your points understandable and effective and able to withstand counter arguments.

Your lack of candor on what you would put forth as an alternative to evolution by natural selection also makes your points less convincing. If not evolution, then what? Your complete avoidance of the topic makes your entire presence here one of negation. Add something positive by providing your own hypothesis, with verifiable evidence to back it up. If, as you state, you don't think life can come from non-life, then both creation and natural abiogenesis would be out - presumably the only premise which would be left is that life always has existed in it's current form, with no origination. It simply always was as it is now; infinite. Is that your stance? If not, please enlighten us.

Lastly, in English, you do not denote the name of a business, place, person, or publication by putting it in quotes. The journal in question is not "science"; it is Science. It is a proper noun, and is capitalized to show that fact. It also, due to being a peer reviewed journal, rarely ever prints retractions (I can think of only one case). That's not how peer review works, and the editors of Science are not in the position to retract anything other than proven examples of fraudulent evidence.

 

[RichW9090]

Science has, I think, printed a couple of retractions in recent years, where a rersearcher's data was shown to be falsified.

However, Science does often publish corrections, in the form of follow-up articles which point out weaknessess or other problems in a previous publication. The classic example, for the purpose of this Forum, would be the correction published in 1927 by Gregory concerning Osborn's earlier (1922) publication of a supposed anthropoid ape from the Miocene of Nebraska which he had called Hesperopithecus haroldcooki.

Osborn, Henry F., 1922, Hesperopithecus, the first Anthropoid Primate found in America, American Museum Novitates, No. 37:1-5.

Gregory, William K., 1927, Hesperopithecus Apparently Not An Ape Nor a Man, Science, Volume 66, No, 1720:579-581.

 

[DaveC426913]

publication of a supposed anthropoid ape from the Miocene of Nebraska which he had called Hesperopithecus haroldcooki.

Are you sure you aren't referring to the famous Australopithecus spiff-arino?

http://www.concordnorth.ca/NewFiles/Other_Articles/oa_smletter.html

 

[Bells]

Scary survey results:

Forty-six percent of Americans believe in the creationist view that God created humans in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years. The prevalence of this creationist view of the origin of humans is essentially unchanged from 30 years ago, when Gallup first asked the question. About a third of Americans believe that humans evolved, but with God's guidance; 15% say humans evolved, but that God had no part in the process.

​

 

[Neverfly]

Well, there's a steady rise in the poll on No God Involved. From 9 in '82 to 15 (16 year before) in 2012.
Meanwhile, those that believe evolution was the process, even if guided by a God has stayed about the same, with a slight dip recently.
Creationist views have stayed about the same. Slight variation.

The only one that shows a trend is the "no God" option. It's steadily rising.

 

[Bells]

Arguing with stupid..

Some students at private schools in Louisiana are being taught that Scotland's fabled Loch Ness monster is real, a claim that is then held as evidence disproving Charles Darwin's theory of evolution, the Scotsman reports.

Thousands of students across the state are eligible to receive publicly funded vouchers to allow them to attend private Christian schools where textbooks published by Accelerated Christian Education (ACE) claim the monster was actually a dinosaur that existed at the same time as man, an assertion which conflicts with the theory of evolution.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/25/louisiana-students-loch-ness-monster-disprove-evolution_n_1624643.html

Why?

How?

How are these kids going to survive in the real world?

And it gets worse...

And Bruce Wilson, a researcher specializing in the American political religious right, told the Scotsman that one of the texts also claims "dinosaurs were fire-breathing dragons."

Yes, it does get worse still..

According to Scotland's the Herald, one of the textbooks also provides a somewhat controversial look at the Ku Klux Klan.

"The [Ku Klux] Klan in some areas of the country tried to be a means of reform, fighting the decline in morality and using the symbol of the cross ... In some communities it achieved a certain respectability as it worked with politicians," the textbook reads, according to the Herald.

:bawl:

Herald Scotland goes into a bit more detail:

Thousands of children in the southern state will receive publicly-funded vouchers for the next school year to attend private schools where Scotland's most famous mythological beast will be taught as a real living creature.

These private schools follow a fundamentalist curriculum including the Accelerated Christian Education (ACE) programme to teach controversial religious beliefs aimed at disproving evolution and proving creationism.

One tenet has it that if it can be proved that dinosaurs walked the earth at the same time as man then Darwinism is fatally flawed.

Critics have damned the content of the course books, calling them "bizarre" and accusing them of promoting radical religious and political ideologies.

The textbooks in the series are alleged to teach young earth creationism; are hostile towards other religions and other sectors of Christianity, including Roman Catholicism; and present a biased version of history that is often factually incorrect.

One ACE textbook – Biology 1099, Accelerated Christian Education Inc – reads: "Are dinosaurs alive today? Scientists are becoming more convinced of their existence. Have you heard of the 'Loch Ness Monster' in Scotland? 'Nessie' for short has been recorded on sonar from a small submarine, described by eyewitnesses, and photographed by others. Nessie appears to be a plesiosaur."

Another claim taught is that a Japanese whaling boat once caught a dinosaur. It's unclear if the movie Godzilla was the inspiration for this lesson.

____________________________________________

Private religious schools, including the Eternity Christian Academy in Westlake, Louisiana, which follows the ACE curriculum, have already been cleared to receive the state voucher money transferred from public school funding, thanks to a bill pushed through by state Governor Bobby Jindal.

I think people should rise up and demand their tax dollars not be spent teaching stupid!

 

[leopold]

Wow, just...wow.

yeah, that's what i said too.

No truth is being suppressed, and you are not a target or victim - you were, as you have stated yourself, stating your opinion.

i was stating my opinion about the "science daily" piece.

The problem is that when your opinion was shown to be wrong, you refused to recognize it or learn.

my opinion wasn't shown to be wrong.

In this last instance, resorting to arguing minor details of the semantics at play rather than admitting that your main point was lost.

i wasn't arguing anything about semantics.

There are points to be made; the ones you have been discussing are lost causes. Move on, and find better sources - then read and cite them!

i have no idea what better source i can find other than a respected peer reveiwed one, do you?

Currently your methodology for sourcing your information would not pass muster in a primary school.

how else do i source it other than by a link to the actual piece or by issue, volume, and page numbers?

Your lack of candor on what you would put forth as an alternative to evolution by natural selection also makes your points less convincing.

peer review does not require an alternative theory of any kind.

presumably the only premise which would be left is that life always has existed in it's current form, with no origination. It simply always was as it is now; infinite. Is that your stance?

i believe i have stated something similar somewhere else.

It also, due to being a peer reviewed journal, rarely ever prints retractions (I can think of only one case). That's not how peer review works, and the editors of Science are not in the position to retract anything other than proven examples of fraudulent evidence.

actually "science" does indeed print corrections.
since an alleged retraction was presented there can only be one reason "science" never printed a correction in this matter.

 

[leopold]

goose stepper.

Implying that I am sympathetic to the Nazis is another breach of the site rules. Just so you know.

actually it was a metaphor for mindless automaton.

You continue to lie by ignoring the information in post #151 of this thread.

yes, because it comes from someones personal website.
when a peer reviewed source states something that has never been corrected, amended, or retracted in over 20 years i will not accepted someones personal word to the contrary. sorry.

BTW, i found out roger lewin, the person that wrote the piece, is an evolutionist.

 

[leopold]

leopold:
Are you claiming that Gould rejected the fundamental mechanism of evolution? If so, provide your evidence.

Gould argued that evolution proceeds quite rapidly at crucial points, with speciation occurring almost instantaneously. This could be due to quite sudden genetic mutations--his favorite example was the panda's "thumb," a modification of the wrist bone allowing the panda to strip leaves from bamboo shoots. Such a transformation must have occurred all at once, he reasoned, or it would not have been preserved by natural selection, having no useful function in a rudimentary stage. This process would account for the lack of transitional forms throughout the fossil record, a problem Darwin lamented but expected to be resolved by future paleontologists.
http://www.bookrags.com/biography/stephen-jay-gould/

the piece goes on to say:
In addition to his work as a serious professional paleontologist, Gould spent much time trying to make science accessible to lay readers as well as scholars. As a popular writer and amateur historian of science, Gould concentrated upon the cultural "embeddedness" of science, seeing it as a creative human endeavor neither abstracted from society nor objectively pursuing un-interpreted data.

which brings up an intriguing question:
if gould was indeed a popular science writer then why isn't the apparent lack of transitional fossils more readily known?

 

[James R]

leopold:

Gould argued that evolution proceeds quite rapidly at crucial points, with speciation occurring almost instantaneously.

What does "almost instantaneously" mean? I assume that in the context of geological time it might mean a few million years. Would that be correct? The same goes for "quite rapidly".

This could be due to quite sudden genetic mutations--his favorite example was the panda's "thumb," a modification of the wrist bone allowing the panda to strip leaves from bamboo shoots. Such a transformation must have occurred all at once, he reasoned, or it would not have been preserved by natural selection, having no useful function in a rudimentary stage.

How did he know it would have no useful function is a rudimentary stage? Please quote the entire relevant passage from Gould.

[quoteThis process would account for the lack of transitional forms throughout the fossil record...

if gould was indeed a popular science writer then why isn't the apparent lack of transitional fossils more readily known?[/QUOTE]

Every fossil is a transitional fossil.

 

[leopold]

leopold:

What does "almost instantaneously" mean? . . . The same goes for "quite rapidly".

the use of the word "mutation" would imply face value meaning.

How did he know it would have no useful function is a rudimentary stage?

since gould was a paleontologist i would assume he knows what he is talking about.

Please quote the entire relevant passage from Gould.

i gave the link in the post where the passage was taken from.