It does if that statement submits that it expresses the opinions of others. You can't claim to know what other's opinions are, and then claim their opinions have no bearing on the accuracy of the statement.
Were that true, then we would not see science presenting "the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories". Since we do see those things, the argument is not based on an appeal to authority but an examination of the evidence.
Your quote is an appeal to the authority of the author.
Again, appealing to the 'beliefs of all scientists' is the fallacy of appeal to popularity and is still irrelevant.
And again, I'm not the one appealing to the "beliefs of all scientists". You are doing that by submitting that the "we" in Lewinton's comments is all scientists and implicitly asserting he is qualified to speak for them by basing your claims on his statements.
Looking at the evidence of the theories of science shows that the statement is correct. Trying to find exceptions and then claim that the general statement is invalid is the converse fallacy of accident.
"Your quote is an appeal to the authority of the author."
It's not my quote, it's Lewontin's quote. One must only look at the evidence to see the validity of the quote.
"And again, I'm not the one appealing to the "beliefs of all scientists". You are doing that by submitting that the "we" in Lewinton's comments is all scientists and implicitly asserting he is qualified to speak for them by basing your claims on his statements."
Nope, I can look at Lewontin's quote and compare what he said to what I see in the 'theories' of science. When I do that I see philosophically-naturalistic theories without exception. This tells me that Lewontin's quote is accurate, not that Lewontin said it.