Help with a letter.

OTH I commend you for going beyond the standard knee jerk response, and investing at least some effort in personally investigating my quotes. I think this is the second time this month[/size] someone gave my quotes some thought. [/font]

Does this have any implications for observations of 'micro evolution' as evidence for historic evolution? Please explain.

It is a fair point that a man should be allowed authoritative recollection and interpretation of his own words. However, Roger Lewin wrote the article directly after the conference. Ayala's response comes twenty years later (and he himself suggests that his memory of specific conversations at the time is not clear). The quote has been in print for almost twenty-four years and neither the writer nor the magazine has offered a retraction.

As for Lewin's trustworthiness, there is no indication of partisanship -- he is an evolutionist. You seem to suggest that he has been sloppy. This could be, however he earned a PhD in Biochemistry and he was News Editor of Science Magazine for several years. Should we dismiss everything we read in Science Magazine? or by Roger Lewin?

The quote is brief. I suspect Ayala may have been acknowledging the lack of evidence for gradualism in the fossil record.

The original quote I used was a general assessment of the conference. If you can cite someone who disputes the accuracy of this assessment, now would be a good time to mention it.

Thanks. One more question. What would you say is the best way to put this?

'his apparent lack of understanding of scientific fact, theory and, hypothesis.'

Yesh, I'm gettign you guys to write my letter for me!

Ryal Kane

Bevets, why don't you stop the quote mining for once? You can say things in your own words without needing those. Most of the time your quotes are out of context or irrelevant to the topic at hand. If you would take some time to actually read the quote mined sentences, you'd see that.

No offense Tomk80 but bevets made good points. He used quotes from other people to support his position. If you can prove they were out of context then fine, but otherwise stop being contradictory...your post adds no value to this thread...his does. Since I am replying to you about your post not adding any value, now by inclusion, my post adds no value...


Wait..

Evolution sucks! Everyone know's it's wrong...

Okay...value added.

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. What is not so clear, however, is whether microevolution is totally decoupled from macroevolution. The two can more probably be seen as a continuum with a notable overlap.

No Nyjbarnes, that is the problem. If you see Bevets' first post, he just throws a lot of quotes in, without explaining what they should mean or what they really say. I have found were his second quote comes from, and it is indeed pulled out of context (adding the sentence directly after the last sentence he quotes drastically changes the meaning of the quote). His first quote had no relevance either. He does not make points, he only quotes.

Furthermore, his quote in the post your commenting on did not have much relevance either. If it is indeed his observation on this forum that 'darwinists' (in stead of evolutionists) just close their eyes to contradictory evidence, he should have pointed out those instances on this forum. I have indeed seen people here ignore posts of others, but this often is because of the poster's behaviour, or because they feel the post is not worth a reply. Creationists are just as guilty on this behaviour (IMHO even more so) then evolutionists.

I am hoping to get him to see this, and actually partake in a discussion (whether it is this or another one). The reason why I am trying this, is because the way he is going at it is counterproductive. The thing I was trying to do in my last post is getting him to see this, getting him to understand that he is ridiculed because of the way he posts.

I know that this is getting of topic. My apologies to Ryal Kane for this. If he wants me to, I will start a new topic on this. Bevets can decide whether it is to be on this forum or in the formal discussion area.

I'll admit Bevet's posts are generally fairly long. I know what he is trying to do though and I think it's admirable. Not to mention time consuming.

Let me say this. Bevet's make your own arguments, then support them with quotes and links. I'll be your number one supporter if you do.

I'll admit Bevet's posts are generally fairly long. I know what he is trying to do though and I think it's admirable. Not to mention time consuming.

I think you misread. The point is not that his posts are fairly long, I don't have any problem with that. The point is that he quotes out of context, and that by doing this he undermines his own credibility.

Bait n Switch.

The opposite truth has been affirmed by innumerable cases of measurable evolution at this minimal scale-but, to be visible at all over so short a span, evolution must be far too rapid (and transient) to serve as the basis for major transformations in geological time. Hence, the “paradox of the visibly irrelevant”-or, if you can see it at all, it’s too fast to matter in the long run. ~ Stephen Jay Gould

The only thing Gould says here is that large transitions as seen in the fossil record will take longer than can be directly observed there. No worries for us, we know that already.

Does this have any implications for observations of 'micro evolution' as evidence for historic evolution? Please explain.

No. Not at all, because 'micro evolution' is no evidence of historic evolution.

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

As for Lewin's trustworthiness, there is no indication of partisanship -- he is an evolutionist. You seem to suggest that he has been sloppy. This could be, however he earned a PhD in Biochemistry and he was News Editor of Science Magazine for several years. Should we dismiss everything we read in Science Magazine? or by Roger Lewin?

The original quote I used was a general assessment of the conference. If you can cite someone who disputes the accuracy of this assessment, now would be a good time to mention it.

For completeness of my previous post. This is the full quote of Roger Lewin.

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. What is not so clear, however, is whether microevolution is totally decoupled from macroevolution. The two can more probably be seen as a continuum with a notable overlap.

According to the Chicago conference, micro evolution alone might not be complete in its description. However, it is probably still important. What also is omitted is the description of micro evolution and macro evolution in the proceedings (which is important in understanding the quote). That punctuated equilibrium is discussed as a possible answer in the rest of the text should be no surprise.

A Parable:
Suppose a man walks up to you and says "I'm a billionaire."
You say "Prove it."
He says "ok", and he points across the street at a bank. "My money is in that bank there." (The bank is closed.)
You say "What does that prove?"
He says "Everyone knows banks have money in them"
You say "I know there is money in the bank, but why should I believe that it's YOUR money?"
"Because it's GREEN" he says.
"What else can you show me?"
He reaches in his pocket and pulls out a penny. "See -- I'm a billionaire."
You're still skeptical. 'What does that prove?', you ask.
"I'M A BILLIONAIRE" he states loudly (obviously annoyed that you would question him). He reaches in another pocket and pulls out another penny, "Do you believe me now?"

This 'parable' has been refuted on this forum more than once and is more consistent with creationism.

I'll get back on this later.

Score so far. 1 misquote, 1 irrelevant quote from an inaccurate quoter and a parable refuted a thousand times.

When a valid criticism of Darwinism is first proposed, it is dismissed without an adequate response, either on some technicality or with some irrelevancy or by simply being ignored. As time passes, people forget that Darwinists never adequately met the criticism. But Darwinism is still ruling the roost. Since the criticism failed to dislodge Darwinism, the criticism itself must have been discredited or refuted somewhere. Thereafter the criticism becomes known as "that discredited criticism that was refuted a long time ago." And, after that, even to raise the criticism betrays an outdated conception of evolutionary theory. In this way, the criticism, though entirely valid, simply vanishes into oblivion. ~ William Dembski

And there you go again. The real problem here Bevets, is your constant quoting. Because you are never writing in your own words, but always in the words of others...The quote above wasn't necessary. You could have said that darwinists always easily rebut without really arguing, and left it at that. That it is a quote by William Dembski really doesn't add anything to the argument, especially for me, since I never remember names (not here and not in real life).

One tactic evolutionists NEVER get tired of is the suggestion that if an evolutionist has addressed a topic -- that topic is off limits for eternity. Disputation is not refutation. (Notice that this is a one way street -- When is the last time someone said 'Creationists have already refuted that point'?)

If I recall correctly, you wrote down the parable earlier and it was completely rebutted. However, you now use the parable the exact same way.

So, here is my first deal with you. I'll dig out the thread in which the parable was listed. We will debate the parable again, but if I raise an argument, I want a point by point rebuttal or I want you to concede to the argument. If I ask a question, I expect a full answer. Only if you agree to this, I will continue.

OTH I commend you for going beyond the standard knee jerk response, and investing at least some effort in personally investigating my quotes.I think this is the second time this month someone gave my quotes some thought. I am truly grateful for your substantive criticism.

As explained above, this is because of the way you are going at it. So I'll make you a second deal. I'll look at the quotes you provided earlier in depth, if you start writing your own lines and stop quoting. If not, I'll just scan over them and write funny one-liners. Deal?

So, to recap (and add a little to) the two deals.
I will first debate the quotes with you and try to point out whether or not they are relevant or (probably) out of context.
I will then debate the parable with you.

However, I only do this on the following conditions:
First, I expect a point by point rebuttal of my arguments and I expect you to concede if you can't give one.
Second, if I have any questions I expect a full answer.
Third, no quotes of others unless they are absolutely relevant to the argument at hand. I expect you can write in your own words. This will indicate to me whether you are really thinking on what you are saying.
Fourth, if I see no indication of you thinking, I will end the debate immediately. I will be putting time in this, time I can use more efficient. So I want to be sure I'm not wasting it.