The Scientific Method & Macroevolution?

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

It would not

 

[Loudmouth]

gould was at the conference and he would know whether ayala said what he said.
gould co authored the paper in question along with sepkoski.

i personally asked sepkoski why he would include the quote when he knew it was supposedly false and he refused to answer the question.
i also asked sepkoski to comment on my nature source and the primate fossil tree and he refused to answer that question as well.

so, believe what you will.

Again, you are so much more focused on what someone possibly said than what the evidence actually says.

 

[bhsmte]

Again, you are so much more focused on what someone possibly said than what the evidence actually says.

The agenda, must be adhered to, at all costs.

 

[crjmurray]

What paper did Gould and sepkoski quote Ayala in?

 

[Loudmouth]

i never once said mutations can't happen in HOX genes.

"there are a number of reasons.
first is HOX genes.
any mutation of these genes quickly lead to a non viable organism."--whois, post #829, http://www.christianforums.com/t7867573/

"also, it would imply some kind of intelligence at work because some genes are never mutated, hox genes i believe."--whois, post #400, same thread as above

"hox genes might be that plan. these genes have never been mutated."--whois, post #46, http://www.christianforums.com/t7871331

"this implies that each organism has a unique HOX pattern that cannot be breached. "--whois, post #179, this very thread

 

[crjmurray]

I found it in Sepkoskis book but he addresses the fact that it is a misquote. Freakin hilarious.

 

[Loudmouth]

actually boyce is saying the following link has long been known to be not true:
Horse Evolution Over 55 Million Years

All you are doing is conflating the terms "ancestral" and "transitional". They are not the same thing. A fossil can be transitional and not be the direct ancestor of any living species.

 

[whois]

I found it in Sepkoskis book but he addresses the fact that it is a misquote. Freakin hilarious.
​

the following was published 2005 in sepkoskis paper that was co authored by gould:

Maynard Smith was not alone among the
geneticists in welcoming the work of paleontologists such as Gould: in
reference to Gould’s macroevolutionary analysis of the fossil record,
Francisco Ayala remarked ‘‘we could not have predicted stasis from
population genetics, but I am now convinced from what the paleontologists
say that small changes do not accumulate.’’
​

remember, gould was at the conference and he also co authored the above paper with sepkoski.
gould would never have allowed this quote if it was not factual.

ayala never contacts "science" about this quote but yet he contacts NAIG.
NAIG never contacts science either but instead goes on a letter writing campaign to creationist sites.
"science" never amends this article, nor does it publish any errata concerning it.
of all the letters received by "science" concerning this article, not a single one of them mentions this snafu concerning ayala. __________________
support net neutrality.
write your congressperson and tell them to keep the net neutral.
the battle isn't over, the recent FCC rulings are being challenged by big business.

 

[crjmurray]

I found it in Sepkoskis book but he addresses the fact that it is a misquote. Freakin hilarious.
​

the following was published 2005 in sepkoskis paper that was co authored by gould:

Maynard Smith was not alone among the
geneticists in welcoming the work of paleontologists such as Gould: in
reference to Gould’s macroevolutionary analysis of the fossil record,
Francisco Ayala remarked ‘‘we could not have predicted stasis from
population genetics, but I am now convinced from what the paleontologists
say that small changes do not accumulate.’’
​

remember, gould was at the conference and he also co authored the above paper with sepkoski.
gould would never have allowed this quote if it was not factual.

ayala never contacts "science" about this quote but yet he contacts NAIG.
NAIG never contacts science either but instead goes on a letter writing campaign to creationist sites.
"science" never amends this article, nor does it publish any errata concerning it.
of all the letters received by "science" concerning this article, not a single one of them mentions this snafu concerning ayala. __________________
support net neutrality.
write your congressperson and tell them to keep the net neutral.
the battle isn't over, the recent FCC rulings are being challenged by big business.

What is the name of the paper?

 

[crjmurray]

I found it in Sepkoskis book but he addresses the fact that it is a misquote. Freakin hilarious.
​

the following was published 2005 in sepkoskis paper that was co authored by gould:

Maynard Smith was not alone among the
geneticists in welcoming the work of paleontologists such as Gould: in
reference to Gould’s macroevolutionary analysis of the fossil record,
Francisco Ayala remarked ‘‘we could not have predicted stasis from
population genetics, but I am now convinced from what the paleontologists
say that small changes do not accumulate.’’
​

remember, gould was at the conference and he also co authored the above paper with sepkoski.
gould would never have allowed this quote if it was not factual.

ayala never contacts "science" about this quote but yet he contacts NAIG.
NAIG never contacts science either but instead goes on a letter writing campaign to creationist sites.
"science" never amends this article, nor does it publish any errata concerning it.
of all the letters received by "science" concerning this article, not a single one of them mentions this snafu concerning ayala. __________________
support net neutrality.
write your congressperson and tell them to keep the net neutral.
the battle isn't over, the recent FCC rulings are being challenged by big business.

Also, why do you focus on Gould vs the guy who supposedly said this?

 

[crjmurray]

Nevermind, I found the paper. It does not matter. Ayala has said that he did not make that remark. Gould and Sepkoski have misquoted him.

 

[bhsmte]

Nevermind, I found the paper. It does not matter. Ayala has said that he did not make that remark. Gould and Sepkoski have misquoted him.

What a surprise!

 

[justlookinla]

Nevermind, I found the paper. It does not matter. Ayala has said that he did not make that remark. Gould and Sepkoski have misquoted him.

Now you can't trust anything Gould says. Who knows if he's 'misquoting' or not?

 

[Loudmouth]

Now you can't trust anything Gould says. Who knows if he's 'misquoting' or not?

Why don't you focus on the evidence instead of quotes?

 

[justlookinla]

Why don't you focus on the evidence instead of quotes?

Those who promoted the errors of science had evidence, didn't they? Seems that most of the evidence is actually guesses and suppositions with no underlying scientific method.

 

[Loudmouth]

I found it in Sepkoskis book but he addresses the fact that it is a misquote. Freakin hilarious.
​

the following was published 2005 in sepkoskis paper that was co authored by gould:

Ayala says that he said no such thing, and that he accepts the accumulation of mutations.

Your point?

 

[Loudmouth]

Those who promoted the errors of science had evidence, didn't they? Seems that most of the evidence is actually guesses and suppositions with no underlying scientific method.

Examples?

 

[Loudmouth]

I found it in Sepkoskis book but he addresses the fact that it is a misquote. Freakin hilarious.

It seems that the original misquote goes back to Lewin.

Science Magazine: Sign In

 

[justlookinla]

Examples?

Any time a scientific 'truth' is changed is an example.

 

[Loudmouth]

Any time a scientific 'truth' is changed is an example.

"Seems that most of the evidence is actually guesses and suppositions with no underlying scientific method."--justlookinla

Give us examples of scientific evidence that is actually guesses and suppositions.