Result of the ELITEST journal: From micro does not come the macro.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
20-12-2016, 09:32 AM
Tongue Result of the ELITEST journal: From micro does not come the macro.
Quote:A wide spectrum of researchers - ranging from
geologists and paleontologists, through ecologists and
population geneticists, to embryologists and molecular
biologists -
gathered at Chicago's Field Museum of Natural
History under the simple conference title: Macroevolution.
Their task was to consider the mechanisms that underlie
the origin of species and the evolutionary relationship
between species. ... The central question
of the Chicago conference was
whether the mechanisms underlying
microevolution can be extrapolated
to explain the
phenomena of macroevolution. At the risk of doing
violence to the positions of some of the people at the
meeting, the answer can be given as a
clear, No.

Roger Lewin, "Evolutionary Theory under Fire",
Science, 1980, 210:883.

Laugh out load
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-12-2016, 09:49 AM
RE: Result of the ELITEST journal: From micro does not come the macro.
At work.

Drinking Beverage

So... please explain why somthing that happened over thirty years ago did NOT have the theory shattering results one might expect?

Looks like the theory of evolution is still going on strong Master Borg. Consider
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Peebothuhul's post
20-12-2016, 10:06 AM
RE: Result of the ELITEST journal: From micro does not come the macro.
Is it already time for the Liars for Jesus™ Club to meet?

Please, Mr. Borgo, tell me why you were willing to quote-mine and LIE about what the article says?

A guy on Yahoo already answered it as well as or better than I can, so I'll just quote him.

Secretsauce wrote:

When you do a search and find the text in context, you can see that this sentence is a small part of a larger description of the concept of *apparent stasis* within the fossil record. Namely, that a species may *APPEAR* to be static for long periods of time, and then in an "instant" appear to speciate. But here "instant" is relative to GEOLOGICAL time ... i.e. an "instant" may mean within the course of a "mere" 50,000 years, which is an *instant* in geological time.

So part of describing this process is explaining why species *appear* to be "static" in the first place. And that is where this sentence appears (at the end of this paragraph):

"So how can paleontologists suggest that species remain the same through most of their existence? And who in their right mind would contemplate speciation occurring in an instant? The resolution of this apparent conflict is this. Species do indeed have a capacity to undergo minor modifications in their physical and other characteristics, but this is limited and with a longer perspective it is reflected in an oscillation about a mean: to a paleontologist looking at the fossil record, this shows up as stasis."

It is in this context, that it sets up the very next paragraph:

"The troubling specter of "instant" speciation is again a product of misunderstandings over scale. What is an instant to a paleontologist is an unimaginable tract of time to either an ecologist or a population geneticist. "I'd be happy to see speciation taking place over, say, 50,000 years,' said Gould, 'but that is an instant compared with the 5 or 10 million years that most species exist.'

"However, even the most ardent punctuationists do not dismiss gradual change as a force in evolution."

So there you have it.

Within the context of that discussion about apparent "stasis" (as a contrast to relatively "sudden" speciation), THAT is what is meant by saying that the capacity for minor modifications is "limited" and often oscillates around a mean, ... it is this oscillation that would give the *appearance* of stasis in a fossil record that stretches over millions of years.

Only the most dishonest of misrepresentations would take this out of context and say that die-hard evolution supporters (both micro and macro) like Lewin, or Gould, or Eldredge are somehow "admitting" some fundamental "limitation" of macroevolution such that it *does not occur at all*!!! Even the most cursory reading of this article describing the debate, would recognize that these guys are arguing over the PACE of macroevolutionary change, and what it would *APPEAR* like in a fossil record ... they are NOT arguing over whether macroevolution occurs AT ALL!

Ah, but dishonest misrepresentations are the bread-and-butter of Creationism!

I urge anybody who has even an ounce of intellectual integrity, to read this article and decide for yourself if there is ANY justification for taking Lewin's words as some sort of "admission" of fundamental limitations of macroevolution that is causing Lewin, or Gould, or Eldredge or ANYBODY at the Chicago conference to doubt whether macroevolution can occur as a result of the accumulation of microevolution.

It is one thing to disagree with these 'evolutionists' and to insist yourself that macroevolution does not occur.

But when Creationists have to LIE about what their opponents say, and to put false words in their mouths in order to gain some credibility ... then that says far more about the honesty of Creationism, than it does about science.

Incidentally, I should point out that the Lewin article was written in November, 1980 about a conference that occurred in Chicago in 1980.

That was 30 years ago!

So if there was some sort of wholesale collapse of "Darwinism" or a revolutionary admission of defeat of macroevolution, then do you think we would have heard something by now?

Why are Creationists STILL quoting this article 30 years later as if it was some sort of foundation-shattering exposé?

Answer:
( A ) because intellectual integrity is a foreign concept;
( B ) because they can't find an actual Creationist with enough credibility to be worth quoting; and
( C ) Because they have NOTHING else.



YOU ARE A LIAR, BORG. YOU LIED. LYING FOR JESUS IS STILL LYING.

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 12 users Like RocketSurgeon76's post
20-12-2016, 10:14 AM
RE: Result of the ELITEST journal: From micro does not come the macro.
Dude, you must be three people - 'cause no single person could be that stupid. Laugh out load

living word
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 9 users Like houseofcantor's post
20-12-2016, 10:20 AM
RE: Result of the ELITEST journal: From micro does not come the macro.
(20-12-2016 10:14 AM)houseofcantor Wrote:  Dude, you must be three people - 'cause no single person could be that stupid. Laugh out load

The part that blows me away isn't the stupidity. It's how impervious they are to self-correction.

If I posted a summary of an article and it was pointed out to me that the article says the EXACT OPPOSITE of what I claimed it said, then I would be humiliated and would not do it again.

But you can bet your last dollar that Borgo will be back here again, before long, posting yet another quote-mined lie from the Creationists, never having absorbed the fact that he is taking his information from a group that has been PROVED TO FUCKING LIE.

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like RocketSurgeon76's post
20-12-2016, 10:24 AM
RE: Result of the ELITEST journal: From micro does not come the macro.
(20-12-2016 10:20 AM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  
(20-12-2016 10:14 AM)houseofcantor Wrote:  Dude, you must be three people - 'cause no single person could be that stupid. Laugh out load

The part that blows me away isn't the stupidity. It's how impervious they are to self-correction.

If I posted a summary of an article and it was pointed out to me that the article says the EXACT OPPOSITE of what I claimed it said, then I would be humiliated and would not do it again.

But you can bet your last dollar that Borgo will be back here again, before long, posting yet another quote-mined lie from the Creationists, never having absorbed the fact that he is taking his information from a group that has been PROVED TO FUCKING LIE.

It's "big numbers" brother Rocket. A lot of people just don't get the numbers.

...and yeah, there's been plenty of times ol' Johnny got caught with his foot in his mouth, but Johnny learn. Wink

And about the lying thing - I'd lie for my Gwynnies - but surprisingly, I never had to. Cognitive dissonance however I gleefully admit to. Laugh out load

living word
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-12-2016, 10:32 AM
RE: Result of the ELITEST journal: From micro does not come the macro.
You post a 36 year old reference from a dude who isn't even a scientist? Really? Dude, we were still playing pong in 1980.

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like GirlyMan's post
20-12-2016, 10:33 AM
RE: Result of the ELITEST journal: From micro does not come the macro.
(20-12-2016 10:06 AM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  Is it already time for the Liars for Jesus™ Club to meet?

Please, Mr. Borgo, tell me why you were willing to quote-mine and LIE about what the article says?

A guy on Yahoo already answered it as well as or better than I can, so I'll just quote him.

Secretsauce wrote:
.............
YOU ARE A LIAR, BORG. YOU LIED. LYING FOR JESUS IS STILL LYING.

And you are damn sure, what the Secretsauce has paid 40 dollars to read the original paper?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-12-2016, 10:39 AM
RE: Result of the ELITEST journal: From micro does not come the macro.
(20-12-2016 10:33 AM)theBorg Wrote:  And you are damn sure, what the Secretsauce has paid 40 dollars to read the original paper?

It's free dear friend. A lot of different Apologetics sites have it.

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like GirlyMan's post
20-12-2016, 10:42 AM
RE: Result of the ELITEST journal: From micro does not come the macro.
(20-12-2016 10:33 AM)theBorg Wrote:  And you are damn sure, what the Secretsauce has paid 40 dollars to read the original paper?

Quote:So I e-mailed Dr Ayala asking for his reaction, and his reply (received on 26 July 2001) was as follows:

Dear Dr. Arrowsmith:
[please note that the "Dr" is Dr Ayala's error/assumption and I did not misrepresent my credentials!]

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

For more information on Dr Ayala and his work, see his personal web site.

So, in summary -

1. Dr Ayala did not say the words attributed to him by Lewin;

2. Dr Ayala does not agree with the words attributed to him by Lewin; in fact his views on the subject are diametrically opposed.


Dude, it's 36 years old and debunked to dust... which everybody knows but you, it seems. Dodgy

living word
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like houseofcantor's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: