Is evolution a fraud?

[Zzyzx]

.
A new member mentions having evidence that evolution contains fraud and that "science" has rejected the evidence (or sources). Perhaps it escapes notice that the topic has been debated here many times, but for new people (and "old" as well) let's have at it again.

Perhaps a discussion / debate should begin with a definition of evolution according to geneticists (people who actually study that field) not by people outside the field.

Evolution is defined as: genetic change through generations. Or more completely -- "The change in genetic composition of a population over successive generations, which may be caused by natural selection, inbreeding, hybridization, or mutation." http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Evolution

No straw-man definitions allowed. Evolution is NOT "how life began" or "worm morphing into man" as misconstrued by the uninformed. Those who wish to discuss the origin of life (or of the universe) are invited to open appropriate threads and avoid hijacking this one.

Questions for debate:

1) Is it fraudulent to state that evolution (genetic change through generations) occurs?

2) If so, what individuals commit the fraud (not "they say" or "science says")? Identify the false claims by specific people with quotations and citations.

3) Is evolution limited to small changes?

4) If so, what exactly is the mechanism that prevents a series of small changes from totaling a large change? Identify what limits the amount of change possible and describe how it works.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 139:

...
no one has explained why teachers specifically educated in biology are reluctant to teach evolution.
...

Here in the Bible Belt, the teaching of evolution is as controversial as whether The Hulk actually beat Andre The Giant, 'cause it is, he's Andre The Giant.

In order to keep a job, folks ought'n ever do 'em that which'll keep 'em from a-keepin' it.

[whatsit]

From Post 139:

...
no one has explained why teachers specifically educated in biology are reluctant to teach evolution.
...

Here in the Bible Belt, the teaching of evolution is as controversial as whether The Hulk actually beat Andre The Giant, 'cause it is, he's Andre The Giant.

In order to keep a job, folks ought'n ever do 'em that which'll keep 'em from a-keepin' it.

doesn't apply.
this was a REPRESENTATIVE sampling.
this means it was fair and impartial
analysis:
the question remains unanswered.

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 142 by whatsit]

Let's for the sake of argument say the sources you have provided were 100% accurate to the Opinion of Ayala on evolution.

How does the Opinion of 1 person or 3 persons discredit evolution as a fraud?

In law, fraud is deliberate deception to secure unfair or unlawful gain.

Who is using deception to secure an unfair or unlawful gain here?

Is Ayala getting an unfair or unlawful gain by using deception?

Is the scientific community?

Should I contend that 99% of all religious leaders are committing fraud because other religious leaders don't agree with them?

[Danmark]

unbelievable.

Moderator Warning

One-Liner. See rule 9. "No unconstructive one-liners posts are allowed in debates (Do not simply say "Ditto" or "I disagree" in a post. Such posts add little value to debates)."

Please review our Rules.

______________

Moderator warnings count as a strike against users. Additional violations in the future may warrant a final warning. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[whatsit]

Let's for the sake of argument say the sources you have provided were 100% accurate to the Opinion of Ayala on evolution.

How does the Opinion of 1 person or 3 persons discredit evolution as a fraud?

ayala was referring to the fossil record.
his remark was a DIRECT response to the lack of transitional forms.

In law, fraud is deliberate deception to secure unfair or unlawful gain.

Who is using deception to secure an unfair or unlawful gain here?

the fraud claim comes into play about his alledged retraction.
this "retraction" is sourced from NAIG and NOWHERE ELSE.
it DOES NOT appear in the issue on the servers at jstor.
"science" is responsible for the quote, not NAIG.
"science" is the source that must print the retraction, not NAIG.
look on the web for the article.
you will find this "retraction" inserted.
it DOES NOT appear on the servers at jstor.
this can mean only one thing, "science" is standing behind this article as fact.
you cannot possibly say NAIG didn't inform "science" when they informed everyone else under the sun.
what valid explanation do you have for this?

why is this such a big deal?
because it completely blows out of the water ANY claim that we have all these wonderful transitional fossils that "explains" evolution.
NAIG is at the very heart of ALL of this.
its authors have been very busy, haven't they?
apparently too busy even to let "science" know about any of this.

the ayala quote has been verified by sepkoski by including it in his paper.
when i asked him why he would include this quote when he KNEW it was false, he left the discussion.
yes, he posted after i asked the question, but he never answered it.
i also asked him about the "nature" cite i posted.
he refused to answer that question too.

i realize that this is difficult stuff to hear, but it's the facts.

[rookiebatman]

this can mean only one thing, "science" is standing behind this article as fact.

Or, maybe they just don't think about it at all, since it was printed thirty-five years ago.

you cannot possibly say NAIG didn't inform "science" when they informed everyone else under the sun.

Who did they inform? It's not like they stuffed fliers in mailboxes, they just posted it on their website for people to find themselves. "You cannot possibly say NAIG didn't inform Science" is just another unsupported assumption.

why is this such a big deal?
because it completely blows out of the water ANY claim that we have all these wonderful transitional fossils that "explains" evolution.

So, one person making a claim (which they later denied making) blows out of the water ANY other claim to the contrary, even if there's evidence to support those claims? That's not how science works.

the ayala quote has been verified by sepkoski by including it in his paper.

For the sixth time, Sepkoski did not verify the quote, he simply parroted the quote from the Lewin article, before a later interview with Ayala in which Ayala denied ever saying it.

when i asked him why he would include this quote when he KNEW it was false, he left the discussion.

He left the discussion over a Moderator Comment which was made before you asked the question. He never refused to answer anything.

i realize that this is difficult stuff to hear, but it's the facts.

No, it's the unsupported claims of a weak position.

[FarWanderer]

look on the web for the article.
you will find this "retraction" inserted.
it DOES NOT appear on the servers at jstor.
this can mean only one thing, "science" is standing behind this article as fact.
you cannot possibly say NAIG didn't inform "science" when they informed everyone else under the sun.
what valid explanation do you have for this?

Have you asked "science" if they are standing behind it?

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 145 by whatsit]

His scientific contention is that the fossil record supports punctuated equilibrium and not gradualism. That is why it is likely a misquote as taken out of context it can be easily misconstrued. Again look at all of Ayala's work instead of one bad quote.

Your fraud claim is against NAIG not evolution.

How is NAIG unlawfully gaining by posting a deception?

Remember you have to establish what gain they are receiving for it to be fraud.

Jstor might not have the updated article.

[whatsit]

look on the web for the article.
you will find this "retraction" inserted.
it DOES NOT appear on the servers at jstor.
this can mean only one thing, "science" is standing behind this article as fact.
you cannot possibly say NAIG didn't inform "science" when they informed everyone else under the sun.
what valid explanation do you have for this?

Have you asked "science" if they are standing behind it?

they haven't issued any errata concerning the article that i'm aware of.
this implies they are standing behind it.
if you can provide an issue of "science" that says otherwise . . .

[whatsit]

His scientific contention is that the fossil record supports punctuated equilibrium and not gradualism. That is why it is likely a misquote as taken out of context it can be easily misconstrued. Again look at all of Ayala's work instead of one bad quote.

i have entered into the record numerous other pieces of evidence as to why ayala would say such a thing.
it isn't "just one bad quote".

Your fraud claim is against NAIG not evolution.

actually it is.
whether you want to acknowledge it or not, the primate transitional fossils DO NOT EXIST.

How is NAIG unlawfully gaining by posting a deception?

Remember you have to establish what gain they are receiving for it to be fraud.

i have no idea what, if anything, this has to do with the facts i've posted.

Jstor might not have the updated article.

but everybody else does????
uh huh, right.

remember, sepkoski printed ayalas quote VERBATUM, AFTER it was allegedly "retracted".
when i questioned sepkoski about that, he did not answer the question.
he also did not answer the question i put to him about the "nature" cite i posted.

it's my opinion that the reason this disturbs people so much is the the fact it throws into dispute every alleged retraction ever made on this subject.

also, no one has explained why college educated teachers are unwilling to teach evolution.
you can't use "they aren't educated in the field".
you can't use "the survey was biased".

one other thing, this isn't an either/or situation.
if evolution is false does not mean creationism is true.
to assume such a thing is a fallacy.