-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
-
CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
Blackjack and Design
- Thread starter crjmurray
- Start date
From Ayala himself:
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
Posted by Richard Arrowsmith on July 26
[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
Posted by Richard Arrowsmith on July 26
Upvote
0
and?
so?
this never appears in science.
NAIG is not responsible for this, science is.
you going to have to explain why ayala writes to NAIG, an anti religious agenda site, instead of contacting science directly.
you must also explain why no one else writes to science concerning ayala.
Upvote
0
Why does it have to appear in Science? It's Ayala's own words saying that he was misquoted. Why isn't that good enough?
You are going to have to explain why you take hearsay over direct testimony.
Upvote
0
why should i accept the word of an anti religious agenda site over that of a respected science source?
science is responsible, not NAIG.
listen, i've already explained this.
so, until you can produce some letters science received, or the amended article from science then i'm done with this
Upvote
0
They are Ayala's own words. He even cites his own papers where he describes the accumulation of mutations.
Upvote
0
too bad he didn't send them to science with his complaint, but yet sends them to NAIG.
that's almost laughable.
Upvote
0
what evidence?
science received exactly zero letters saying the ayala quote is invalid.
so, not only didn't ayala write to science, neither did NAIG, nor any of the other 50 or so people that were there.
why do you suppose that is?
any reasonable explanation at all?
Upvote
0
