View Full Version : Don't Believe In Evolution? Read This.
SpamSandwich
12-12-2006, 12:45 PM
New York Times article (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/10/science/10cnd-evolve.html?ei=5090&en=6576a01a1bb4ce31&ex=1323406800&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&pagewanted=print):
December 10, 2006
Study Detects Recent Instance of Human Evolution
By NICHOLAS WADE
A surprisingly recent instance of human evolution has been detected among the peoples of East Africa. It is the ability to digest milk in adulthood, conferred by genetic changes that occurred as recently as 3,000 years ago, a team of geneticists has found.
The finding is a striking example of a cultural practice — the raising of dairy cattle — feeding back into the human genome. It also seems to be one of the first instances of convergent human evolution to be documented at the genetic level. Convergent evolution refers to two or more populations acquiring the same trait independently.
Throughout most of human history, the ability to digest lactose, the principal sugar of milk, has been switched off after weaning because there is no further need for the lactase enzyme that breaks the sugar apart. But when cattle were first domesticated 9,000 years ago and people later started to consume their milk as well as their meat, natural selection would have favored anyone with a mutation that kept the lactase gene switched on.
Such a mutation is known to have arisen among an early cattle-raising people, the Funnel Beaker culture, which flourished some 5,000 to 6,000 years ago in north-central Europe. People with a persistently active lactase gene have no problem digesting milk and are said to be lactose tolerant.
Almost all Dutch people and 99 percent of Swedes are lactose-tolerant, but the mutation becomes progressively less common in Europeans who live at increasing distance from the ancient Funnel Beaker region.
Geneticists wondered if the lactose tolerance mutation in Europeans, first identified in 2002, had arisen among pastoral peoples elsewhere. But it seemed to be largely absent from Africa, even though pastoral peoples there generally have some degree of tolerance.
A research team led by Sarah Tishkoff of the University of Maryland has now resolved much of the puzzle. After testing for lactose tolerance and genetic makeup among 43 ethnic groups of East Africa, she and her colleagues have found three new mutations, all independent of each other and of the European mutation, which keep the lactase gene permanently switched on.
The principal mutation, found among Nilo-Saharan-speaking ethnic groups of Kenya and Tanzania, arose 2,700 to 6,800 years ago, according to genetic estimates, Dr. Tishkoff’s group is to report in the journal Nature Genetics on Monday. This fits well with archaeological evidence suggesting that pastoral peoples from the north reached northern Kenya about 4,500 years ago and southern Kenya and Tanzania 3,300 years ago.
Two other mutations were found, among the Beja people of northeastern Sudan and tribes of the same language family, Afro-Asiatic, in northern Kenya.
Genetic evidence shows that the mutations conferred an enormous selective advantage on their owners, enabling them to leave almost 10 times as many descendants as people without them. The mutations have created “one of the strongest genetic signatures of natural selection yet reported in humans,” the researchers write.
The survival advantage was so powerful perhaps because those with the mutations not only gained extra energy from lactose but also, in drought conditions, would have benefited from the water in milk. People who were lactose-intolerant could have risked losing water from diarrhea, Dr. Tishkoff said.
Diane Gifford-Gonzalez, an archaeologist at the University of California, Santa Cruz, said the new findings were “very exciting” because they “showed the speed with which a genetic mutation can be favored under conditions of strong natural selection, demonstrating the possible rate of evolutionary change in humans.”
The genetic data fitted in well, she said, with archaeological and linguistic evidence about the spread of pastoralism in Africa. The first clear evidence of cattle in Africa is from a site 8,000 years old in northwestern Sudan. Cattle there were domesticated independently from two other domestications, in the Near East and the Indus valley of India.
Both Nilo-Saharan speakers in Sudan and their Cushitic-speaking neighbors in the Red Sea hills probably domesticated cattle at the same time, since each has an independent vocabulary for cattle items, said Dr. Christopher Ehret, an expert on African languages and history at the University of California, Los Angeles. Descendants of each group moved southward and would have met again in Kenya, Dr. Ehret said.
Dr. Tishkoff detected lactose tolerance among both Cushitic speakers and Nilo-Saharan groups in Kenya. Cushitic is a branch of Afro-Asiatic, the language family that includes Arabic, Hebrew and ancient Egyptian.
Dr. Jonathan Pritchard, a statistical geneticist at the University of Chicago and the co-author of the new article, said that there were many signals of natural selection in the human genome, but that it was usually hard to know what was being selected for. In this case Dr. Tishkoff had clearly defined the driving force, he said.
The mutations Dr. Tishkoff detected are not in the lactase gene itself but a nearby region of the DNA that controls the activation of the gene. The finding that different ethnic groups in East Africa have different mutations is one instance of their varied evolutionary history and their exposure to many different selective pressures, Dr. Tishkoff said.
“There is a lot of genetic variation between groups in Africa, reflecting the different environments in which they live, from deserts to tropics, and their exposure to very different selective forces,” she said.
People in different regions of the world have evolved independently since dispersing from the ancestral human population in northeast Africa 50,000 years ago, a process that has led to the emergence of different races. But much of this differentiation at the level of DNA may have led to the same physical result.
As Dr. Tishkoff has found in the case of lactose tolerance, evolution may use the different mutations available to it in each population to reach the same goal when each is subjected to the same selective pressure. “I think it’s reasonable to assume this will be a more general paradigm,” Dr. Pritchard said.
Copyright 2006 The New York Times Company
Splinemodel
12-12-2006, 12:57 PM
I don't think there are any folks at AI who don't believe in evolution.
With that said, I appear to be a freak: a lactose intolerant continental european.
SpamSandwich
12-12-2006, 01:12 PM
Feel free to re-post on some Intelligent Design boards. :D
shetline
12-12-2006, 01:37 PM
Allow me to provide the standard anti-evolutionist response: Oh, that's just microevolution, not macroevolution. You haven't proven anything about one species turning into another species, especially turning into humans. Show me a lab experiment where an amoeba turns into Ronald Reagan, or you've got NOTHING!
SpamSandwich
12-12-2006, 01:47 PM
:lol: That's good!
BRussell
12-12-2006, 02:02 PM
I don't think there are any folks at AI who don't believe in evolution. Except virtually all of the religious conservatives.
Marvin
12-12-2006, 02:53 PM
Except virtually all of the religious conservatives.
and all the neutral people like me. I have reservations about both evolution and religious beliefs. Both seem plausible and I haven't heard any convincing evidence to fully support either.
One reason why I could believe evolution is when you see human beings developing from cells. This kind of goes against the whole Adam and Eve appeared scenario. Family Guy have a great clip about that:
http://religiousfreaks.com/UserFiles/Media/family.guy.creationism.wmv
I also like to believe that the universe has some sort of purpose though and spontaneous evolution doesn't satisfy that. Religious theories, however inadequate, still maintain that premise.
Also evolution says that some species developed into a variety of species. Who's to say that each species didn't develop from individual sets of primitive cells? The fact is that scientists talk about these 'facts' as if they are undeniable and they are talking about timeframes of thousands to billions of years ago. If they can't disprove what Jesus did or didn't do a couple of thousand years ago then how can we trust them on much greater timeframes?
SpamSandwich
12-12-2006, 03:03 PM
and all the neutral people like me. I have reservations about both evolution and religious beliefs. Both seem plausible and I haven't heard any convincing evidence to fully support either.
One reason why I could believe evolution is when you see human beings developing from cells. This kind of goes against the whole Adam and Eve appeared scenario. Family Guy have a great clip about that:
http://religiousfreaks.com/UserFiles/Media/family.guy.creationism.wmv
I also like to believe that the universe has some sort of purpose though and spontaneous evolution doesn't satisfy that. Religious theories, however inadequate, still maintain that premise.
Also evolution says that some species developed into a variety of species. Who's to say that each species didn't develop from individual sets of primitive cells? The fact is that scientists talk about these 'facts' as if they are undeniable and they are talking about timeframes of thousands to billions of years ago. If they can't disprove what Jesus did or didn't do a couple of thousand years ago then how can we trust them on much greater timeframes?
Where to begin?...
I haven't heard any convincing evidence to fully support either.
Did you pay attention in Biology class? On the macro level the evidence is all around us, clearly in the form of all of the wonderful shapes, sizes and colors of humanity, and the animal species of the Earth. How could anyone dispute that? On the micro level, you have viruses that mutate and evolve all the time.
I also like to believe that the universe has some sort of purpose though and spontaneous evolution doesn't satisfy that. Religious theories, however inadequate, still maintain that premise.
Whatever keeps you from sliding off the deep end and shooting up a McDonald's is fine with me. I'm willing to sacrifice a little scientific evidence in favor of societal mental stability.
If they can't disprove what Jesus did or didn't do a couple of thousand years ago then how can we trust them on much greater timeframes?
I didn't realize it was ever proven. Religious scholars are much less forgiving of wild popular notions of what really happened and what was actually said and done during Jesus' time. America has a very odd view of Jesus, to say the least... and I'm an American!
BRussell
12-12-2006, 03:18 PM
and all the neutral people like me. You're definitely not alone. The majority of Americans think as you do, or go even further and simply reject biological evolution.
Both seem plausible and I haven't heard any convincing evidence to fully support either. Then you have some work to do, because the people who actually have done the work in biological, geological, botanical, etc. etc. sciences sure seem to believe there's plenty of evidence. Why do you, Marvin on the internet, have such a different view?
SpamSandwich
12-12-2006, 03:21 PM
You can take a horse to water, but you can't make him drink... but if you take a drink, you might end up watering a horse. :D
Flounder
12-12-2006, 03:26 PM
and all the neutral people like me. I have reservations about both evolution and religious beliefs. Both seem plausible and I haven't heard any convincing evidence to fully support either.
One reason why I could believe evolution is when you see human beings developing from cells. This kind of goes against the whole Adam and Eve appeared scenario. Family Guy have a great clip about that:
http://religiousfreaks.com/UserFiles/Media/family.guy.creationism.wmv
I also like to believe that the universe has some sort of purpose though and spontaneous evolution doesn't satisfy that. Religious theories, however inadequate, still maintain that premise.
Also evolution says that some species developed into a variety of species. Who's to say that each species didn't develop from individual sets of primitive cells? The fact is that scientists talk about these 'facts' as if they are undeniable and they are talking about timeframes of thousands to billions of years ago. If they can't disprove what Jesus did or didn't do a couple of thousand years ago then how can we trust them on much greater timeframes?
1. Evolution is the central theme binds all of biology, and without it you've got squat.
2. Evolution (unless your ignorant or brainwashed) does not in any way preclude one from participating or believing in the christian religion. They are IN NO WAY mutually exclusive, and I can't tell you how sick I am of people on both sides of the issue portraying it that way.
SpamSandwich
12-12-2006, 03:30 PM
You could, theoretically believe that God caused a nutrient-rich comet to slam into the Earth during it's formative period, thus causing humanlings to evolve from "mud" over a period of millions of years! It works!
1. Evolution is the central theme binds all of biology, and without it you've got squat.
2. Evolution (unless your ignorant or brainwashed) does not in any way preclude one from participating or believing in the christian religion. They are IN NO WAY mutually exclusive, and I can't tell you how sick I am of people on both sides of the issue portraying it that way.
Those are two profoundly ignorant, bigoted, statements.
Evolution is of no working use to science, it's just another ideological position. And yes, several billion 'brainwashed' people of many faiths would disagree with your assertion of being able, in good conscience, to cotton on to evolution.
It would be better if you only posted on subjects that you grasp.
Heh. Likewise.
And that goes for you, too, sweetcheeks. :p
Splinemodel
12-12-2006, 03:55 PM
Except virtually all of the religious conservatives.
I'm religious, and in some ways conservative, and I would even consider myself to be an evolutionist. I think the only religious "conservatives" who don't believe that genetic evolution exists are fundies, who are very loud, but ultimately aren't as many in number as they'd like you to believe.
shetline
12-12-2006, 04:40 PM
:lol: That's good!
That's the way the creationist/ID game is played. Accept only the barest minimum about that which can be stuck directly under your nose in the here-and-now, treat that as a special, limited case (so-called microevolution), then pretend that by adamantly setting a totally unrealistic bar for evidence be met to "prove" evolution (a bar which will be raised if there's any sign you might actually reach the first bar) that you're the one being oh-so-scientific, unlike those evolutionist guys who haven't "proven" anything yet.
There is, of course, plenty of evidence in favor of evolution. It's easy enough to hand-wave all of that away, however, in the same manner that a person who refuses to believe that George Washington was the first American President might easily dismiss all historical documentation to the contrary as either part of a conspiracy, or the re-telling of bad history by innocent dupes of that conspiracy.
What you do is insist someone show you evolution happened and happens. And no, showing that bacteria can quickly evolve a new resistance to an antibiotics, or this evidence about the development of lactose tolerance, isn't good enough. No, you must insist on seeing one species branch off into another species right before your very eyes, being able to monitor the process from beginning to end. And no, showing you fossils doesn't count. You're too scientific to buy into that. People were once fooled by Piltdown man, and someone once carbon dated a hamburger to be two million years old, so all fossil evidence is worthless, you see.
That could take thousands of years, tens of thousands even? Oh, well. Tell 'em to get back to you when they're done, and in the mean time, you're right and they're wrong.
If someone does manage to show you a species turn into another species, you can still then insist that this isn't proof that evolution has happened before now to any other species. Insist that the only thing the example proves is the example itself, and that reading any greater implications from the good example is just wishful thinking and wild guesswork.
By these same "scientific" standards you could never use standard forensic evidence in a court room. The only way (by this conveniently ridiculous take on the scientific method) to scientifically prove Alice killed Bob is to somehow make Alice kill Bob again. Otherwise you're just blowing smoke because your results aren't "reproducible".
Only events we witness in the here and now are subject to scientific scrutiny. Anything in the past, be it human historical events, human prehistory, planetary geology, cosmological history -- those are all "obviously" the purview of faith and faith alone, because unless you can make those things happen all over again and again in a controlled and repeatable experiments, exactly as you say they were supposed to have happened before, you don't have any "science" at all.
BRussell
12-12-2006, 05:06 PM
Those are two profoundly ignorant, bigoted, statements.
Evolution is of no working use to science, it's just another ideological position. And yes, several billion 'brainwashed' people of many faiths would disagree with your assertion of being able, in good conscience, to cotton on to evolution. That's absolutely false, and I'll give you a personal example: My brother-in-law is a botanist specializing in classification. He does genetic testing of plants to evaluate and revise the standard plant classifications. Well, absolutely everything he does is based on the principles of evolution. Everything is based on which ones are earlier and later versions, when they separated, the environment in which they arose, etc. Everything fits together and makes sense with evolution, and nothing would make sense without it. The only possible alternative explanation is that an evil intelligent genius designer created the world to look exactly like evolution had occurred, and is up there laughing his ass off.
And this will really get the religious right up in arms: There are even bisexual plants! They're probably just experimenting though.
Frank777
12-12-2006, 05:08 PM
I don't believe in evolution. Or dairy.
That's absolutely false, and I'll give you a personal example: My brother-in-law is a botanist specializing in classification. He does genetic testing of plants to evaluate and revise the standard plant classifications. Well, absolutely everything he does is based on the principles of evolution. Everything is based on which ones are earlier and later versions, when they separated, the environment in which they arose, etc. Everything fits together and makes sense with evolution, and nothing would make sense without it. The only possible alternative explanation is that an evil intelligent genius designer created the world to look exactly like evolution had occurred, and is up there laughing his ass off.
And this will really get the religious right up in arms: There are even bisexual plants! They're probably just experimenting though.
That's not evolution, Brussel, that's using what's there already. That article at the top is just more of this sort of thing (other than more science by press release). I can guarantee you that your brother-in-law doesn't come into the office everyday and wait around for more information to show up -- out of the blue [goo?] -- in his plants.
Just the opposite: he's intelligently designing them.
SpamSandwich
12-12-2006, 05:25 PM
I just knew this article would be inflammatory enough to goad both sides into a verbal ground war... bwahahahaha! :p
groverat
12-12-2006, 05:33 PM
For those who are at all curious about what evolution is and how it works, I recommend the Evolution 101 podcast (http://phobos.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewPodcast?id=121787620). Very informative, very easy to understand, and very free.
dmz:
Evolution is of no working use to science
Epidemiologists would be interested to know what exactly you mean by that.
That's not evolution, Brussel, that's using what's there already.
Again, what are these statements supposed to mean? Are you attempting some kind of information theory or entropy argument?
Never forget: We’ve got a big ‘ole sun constantly giving us a ton of energy.
Outsider
12-12-2006, 05:38 PM
and we all knew, even at age 8 that E=mc^2
Flounder
12-12-2006, 05:55 PM
Those are two profoundly ignorant, bigoted, statements.
Evolution is of no working use to science, it's just another ideological position. And yes, several billion 'brainwashed' people of many faiths would disagree with your assertion of being able, in good conscience, to cotton on to evolution.
It would be better if you only posted on subjects that you grasp.
I stand by my statements.
Arguments pitting evolution against religion are essentially arguments about nothing. They're really awfully unrelated topics.
Flounder
12-12-2006, 05:56 PM
That's not evolution, Brussel, that's using what's there already. That article at the top is just more of this sort of thing (other than more science by press release). I can guarantee you that your brother-in-law doesn't come into the office everyday and wait around for more information to show up -- out of the blue [goo?] -- in his plants.
Just the opposite: he's intelligently designing them.
And that post demonstrates you're utter lack of a grasp on evolution.
I stand by my statements.
Arguments pitting evolution against religion are essentially arguments about nothing. They're really awfully unrelated topics.
Then, unfortunately, you're a bigot. Adjectives like 'brainwashed' have no place in this dicussion.
BRussell
12-12-2006, 06:22 PM
That's not evolution, Brussel, that's using what's there already. What? You said evolution is of no working use to scientists, it's just an ideology with no function. That couldn't be further from the truth, and I gave you an example of how it's of "working use."
What? You said evolution is of no working use to scientists, it's just an ideology with no function. That couldn't be further from the truth, and I gave you an example of how it's of "working use."
nooooooooo, you showed me an example of someone manipulating the known features of plants; not someone waiting for 'random' events to to add information to the plants' genomes.
gregmightdothat
12-12-2006, 07:15 PM
DMZ: Have you heard of dinosaurs?
What about viruses, which are continually evolving? Or bacteria, that have evolved to become resistant to antibiotics? Or the hundreds of observed instances of speciation, the evolution one one species into another?
Splinemodel
12-12-2006, 07:34 PM
nooooooooo, you showed me an example of someone manipulating the known features of plants; not someone waiting for 'random' events to to add information to the plants' genomes.
dmz: you show me an example of God.
DMZ: Have you heard of dinosaurs?
What about viruses, which are continually evolving? Or bacteria, that have evolved to become resistant to antibiotics? Or the hundreds of observed instances of speciation, the evolution one one species into another?
You need to be more specific in your terms. Information passed around in viruses, or bacteria that is reusing genetic information -- or simply killing off all the bacteria that don't have antibiotic resistance, is not evolution. That is only the natural variation that will happen in any event. The DNA had to be loaded with that information in order for that same information to get loose into the population.
In the end, you end up copping to the belief that chaos corresponds to high degrees of complexity, that chaos is the mother of all of us. (Not an original philosophy, in any case.)
dmz: you show me an example of God.
well, I'll ask, but.......
gregmightdothat
12-12-2006, 07:51 PM
You need to be more specific in your terms. Information passed around in viruses, or bacteria that is reusing genetic information -- or simply killing off all the bacteria that don't have antibiotic resistance, is not evolution. That is only the natural variation that will happen in any event. The DNA had to be loaded with that information in order for that same information to get loose into the population.
In the end, you end up copping to the belief that chaos corresponds to high degrees of complexity, that chaos is the mother of all of us. (Not an original philosophy, in any case.)
Oh, ok. So you're just a little confused about what evolution is.
But you are denying genetic mutations...
Oh, ok. So you're just a little confused about what evolution is.
But you are denying genetic mutations...
I think it helps if you actually read the posts.
And if you have read the post, and believe that anyone, anywhere, has seen information increase from purely random mutations, then you're misinformed. (You can trade information, tear up what's there, etc.)
kdraper
12-12-2006, 07:55 PM
dmz: Are you advocating intelligent design, or only refuting evolution?
dmz: Are you advocating intelligent design, or only refuting evolution?
I'd be happy if people simply knew what evolution was and what it wasn't.
Statements like "viruses are evolving all the time" isn't accurate at all and it reflects how evolution is taught not as science but as a roughly outlined belief system. There is a lot of confusion as to what is simply adaptation within a species and what is descent from a common ancestor caused from start to finish by nothing more than random mutations.
That's a huge difference. (although we may need to subsitute 'evolution' with Darwinism, here)
kdraper
12-12-2006, 08:36 PM
Statements like "viruses are evolving all the time" isn't accurate at all and it reflects how evolution is taught not as science but as a roughly outlined belief system.
Are you suggesting that viruses do not mutate? Viruses create many more genetic variants when they reproduce than human genes. They change quite a lot. If one of those variants has a useful mutation (say, communicability with humans) it will spread. It's not precisely the same as human reproduction since viruses don't reproduce of their own accord, but the selective behavior is similar.
There is a lot of confusion as to what is simply adaptation within a species and what is descent from a common ancestor caused from start to finish by nothing more than random mutations.
There's a lot of confusion about evolution in general, mainly because people pick sides and argue without knowing what evolution is and is not.
BRussell
12-12-2006, 08:37 PM
nooooooooo, you showed me an example of someone manipulating the known features of plants; not someone waiting for 'random' events to to add information to the plants' genomes. What are you talking about? Let's track here. You made a very specific allegation: "Evolution is of no working use to science, it's just another ideological position." I provided one minor example that your statement is false: People doing actual work in science make working use of evolution every day. It's not just some abstract idea that communist monkey-loving atheists in their white lab coats talk about to piss off the pleebs.
For you it's just an abstract concept. Not for people working in any field of the earth or life sciences. How that morphed into demonstrating evolution in a test tube, I don't know. Well actually I do know: You made an absurd claim and so then tried to change the subject.
gregmightdothat
12-12-2006, 08:46 PM
I'd be happy if people simply knew what evolution was and what it wasn't.
Statements like "viruses are evolving all the time" isn't accurate at all and it reflects how evolution is taught not as science but as a roughly outlined belief system. There is a lot of confusion as to what is simply adaptation within a species and what is descent from a common ancestor caused from start to finish by nothing more than random mutations.
That's a huge difference. (although we may need to subsitute 'evolution' with Darwinism, here)
Interestingly, common descent, what you're describing as "evolution", while proposed by Darwin, is a separate concept from evolution, although they share common ideas.
Outsider
12-12-2006, 08:54 PM
The more you use italicized words in your post, the more right you are. That's a fact.
dmz-- how many times do we have to go through this with you? in each evolution thread, you say the same exact things and after getting thoroughly discredited you simply bide your time for the next thread. my personal favorite is your "analysis" (http://forums.appleinsider.com/archive/index.php/t-67887.html) of the judge jones decision on intelligent design.
I'm glad you brought up Judge Jones. It appears he took about 90% of his anaylsis on whether ID was religion from documents submitted by ACLU attorneys. (http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/6420AP_PA_Evolution_Debate.html) Not illegal, no, but at least we know now exactly where he was coming from in his argument.
Interestingly, common descent, what you're describing as "evolution", while proposed by Darwin, is a separate concept from evolution, although they share common ideas.
Then you'll need to distiguish between macroevolution and microevolution.
What are you talking about? Let's track here. You made a very specific allegation: "Evolution is of no working use to science, it's just another ideological position." I provided one minor example that your statement is false: People doing actual work in science make working use of evolution every day. It's not just some abstract idea that communist monkey-loving atheists in their white lab coats talk about to piss off the pleebs.
For you it's just an abstract concept. Not for people working in any field of the earth or life sciences. How that morphed into demonstrating evolution in a test tube, I don't know. Well actually I do know: You made an absurd claim and so then tried to change the subject.
Yes, of course. Let's clear the semantic/connotative air then: macroevolution is of no use to science, and is only an ideological position.
Marvin
12-12-2006, 09:21 PM
Did you pay attention in Biology class? On the macro level the evidence is all around us, clearly in the form of all of the wonderful shapes, sizes and colors of humanity, and the animal species of the Earth. How could anyone dispute that? On the micro level, you have viruses that mutate and evolve all the time.
:lol: I love that. I was raised by strict Christians and they say the exact same thing in a different context about how God exists because of all the wonderful things around us e.g how could such an amazing design have happened by accident?
I agree evolution occurs due to environmental changes etc but you can hardly extrapolate that to proof that new species can develop.
I didn't realize it was ever proven. Religious scholars are much less forgiving of wild popular notions of what really happened and what was actually said and done during Jesus' time. America has a very odd view of Jesus, to say the least... and I'm an American!
I was saying that it's incredibly difficult to gather information about our world as much as 2000 or so years ago so to collect data over a couple of decades or centuries and develop theories that are then applied to timeframes of billions of years seems a bit strange, though I know fossils help somewhat.
But yeah, some people's views on Jesus are just way out. I've seen it up close over decades of my life and it's very disheartening.
Then you have some work to do, because the people who actually have done the work in biological, geological, botanical, etc. etc. sciences sure seem to believe there's plenty of evidence. Why do you, Marvin on the internet, have such a different view?
I never believe anything I can't convince myself of. I learned that lesson early in life after having Christianity drilled into me 24/7. I was being coerced into spreading christianity and professing to a faith that I didn't have. When I turned away from it, I became a firm sceptic in most things and irrespective of whether or not I believe someone to be more intelligent than me, they are bound by the same constraints I am. The best I can do is to accept that people have proven the theories to themselves and I respect their right to hold those views.
Evolution is the central theme binds all of biology, and without it you've got squat.
It comes down to definitions though. There are parts of the theory of evolution that are flakey just as with any science. I studied Quantum Mechanics and you should hear some of the stuff they come up with. 11 parallel universes, time travel, everything is made out of strings.
The problem with science (and similarly religion) is it applies the techniques we have managed to develop by overcoming our human limitations to the universe in which we are confined. Religion especially has this problem because you have to ask whether God created us in his image or we created him in ours.
Evolution (unless your ignorant or brainwashed) does not in any way preclude one from participating or believing in the christian religion. They are IN NO WAY mutually exclusive, and I can't tell you how sick I am of people on both sides of the issue portraying it that way.
I agree that all forms of both views are not mutually exclusive but I reckon that some forms are.
That's the way the creationist/ID game is played. Accept only the barest minimum about that which can be stuck directly under your nose in the here-and-now, treat that as a special, limited case (so-called microevolution), then pretend that by adamantly setting a totally unrealistic bar for evidence be met to "prove" evolution (a bar which will be raised if there's any sign you might actually reach the first bar) that you're the one being oh-so-scientific, unlike those evolutionist guys who haven't "proven" anything yet.
There is, of course, plenty of evidence in favor of evolution.
If someone does manage to show you a species turn into another species, you can still then insist that this isn't proof that evolution has happened before now to any other species.
Evolutionists haven't proven that one species can change into another. I read there were recently some tests done that came close but they weren't conclusive. There are some hard sceptics in the religious field but just like the deal with the Earth being round, if enough evidence is presented, people will change.
The assumption you seem to make is that religious people are all just a bunch of uneducated people. There are creationists who know the ins and outs of biology and are still not convinced by the theories.
There are even bisexual plants! They're probably just experimenting though.
Someone was obviously watching porn near them and they have just adapted to their surroundings. I'm curious about what evolutionists think about homosexuality. I would have thought it would seem just as bad because why would people or animals insist on acting in a way that doesn't ensure survival of the species?
No, dmz. I don't know what that means.
Care to bring it to light for those of us who don't speak "nudge-nudge-wink-wink?"
Well, when you're copying and pasting someone else's argument.....
Kickaha
12-12-2006, 09:31 PM
:lol: I love that. I was raised by strict Christians and they say the exact same thing in a different context about how God exists because of all the wonderful things around us e.g how could such an amazing design have happened by accident?
Oooooh, were you a JW too? Man, they can screw you up.
I never believe anything I can't convince myself of. I learned that lesson early in life after having Christianity drilled into me 24/7. I was being coerced into spreading christianity and professing to a faith that I didn't have. When I turned away from it, I became a firm sceptic in most things and irrespective of whether or not I believe someone to be more intelligent than me, they are bound by the same constraints I am. The best I can do is to accept that people have proven the theories to themselves and I respect their right to hold those views.
I did the same, but then finally hit a happy point: I will never know enough about all the specialist fields in science to be able to prove every point myself. I also won't have enough *time*... so somewhere along the line I accepted that I can reproduce the experiments where I can, and I can extrapolate, and I can check methodologies and logical arguments. At some point though, you have to establish whether or not you believe (ick) that the scientific process works, in general. Always be skeptical, but trust that others are skeptical too, and are watching your back. Don't believe everything, take everything with a small grain of salt, and always be looking for the flaws and thinking 'what if...'... but don't discount everything you can't individually recreate.
It comes down to definitions though. There are parts of the theory of evolution that are flakey just as with any science. I studied Quantum Mechanics and you should hear some of the stuff they come up with. 11 parallel universes, time travel, everything is made out of strings.
Yup. And yet it predicts the actual results nicely. That's all that matters. (Nit: QM != string theory. The former is a well-studied theory with predictions that can be tested and reproduced in the lab. The latter is, well, not. I dislike string theory quite a bit.) The thing you have to remember in modeling, well, anything, is that the models are artificial ways of trying to analyze and predict behaviors observed in nature. This goes doubly so for mathematical models. However... if the predictions concur with observations, we believe that the model fits... not that the model is *actually* what's going on (that's a serious bonus, and the goal, of course, but in the realms of QM and such, we're still just modeling), but that it allows us to predict what will happen given a set of inputs.
Someone was obviously watching porn near them and they have just adapted to their surroundings. I'm curious about what evolutionists think about homosexuality. I would have thought it would seem just as bad because why would people or animals insist on acting in a way that doesn't ensure survival of the species?
Recent work in Italy found a common link not in homosexual men, but in their mothers. Apparently mothers who are 'ultrafertile' start having male children with a MUCH higher rate of homosexuality after a few kids. It's built-in population control... something that is quite important in *species* survival, if not individual. Nice piece of work.
MacRR
12-12-2006, 09:46 PM
Well, since this thread is getting so serious- I am going to kick it up a notch.
Isn't the connection of people who believe in ID/Creationism and their political leanings sort of hilarious and sort of a travesty at the same time?
I mean- in a way Bush and Co were genius in abusing these poor people's beliefs and preying on them for votes. Ripe for the pickins....
gregmightdothat
12-12-2006, 09:56 PM
Then you'll need to distiguish between macroevolution and microevolution.
I'm assuming you accept microevolution (which you previously claimed wasn't evolution) but not macroevolution?
I'm having a hard time following you: are you trying to be obtuse?
...judges aren't supposed to adopt winning arguments?
(And I doubt he "copied and pasted" as you're dubiously asserting)
90.9% of that section is nearly verbatim.
I'm assuming you accept microevolution (which you previously claimed wasn't evolution) but not macroevolution?
Yes, people knew about microevolution long before Darwin.
Did you refer to some section before?
Regardless, the only relevant legal issue is whether Judge Jones correctly applied precedent-- and no one ever heard a peep out of you on that.
Too true -- with the copying and pasting of the ACLU's position -- it was a snap.
(so much for that iambic pentameter)
groverat
12-12-2006, 11:02 PM
dmz:
You need to be more specific in your terms. Information passed around in viruses, or bacteria that is reusing genetic information -- or simply killing off all the bacteria that don't have antibiotic resistance, is not evolution.
How would bacteria "reuse" genetic information? Can you explain how reproductive adaptation via natural selection is not evolution?
And if you have read the post, and believe that anyone, anywhere, has seen information increase from purely random mutations, then you're misinformed. (You can trade information, tear up what's there, etc.)
Ah yes, I can see why you are ignoring me. You are attempting the entropy/information theory gambit, which is complete nonsense, because both of those postulates require a closed system, which the earth is certainly not.
The podcast I mentioned earlier dedicates an excellent episode on information theory (http://phobos.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewPodcast?id=121787620&s=143441&i=9338512) arguments against evolutionary theory. (~12:00 minutes in)
I'll give you a hint:
http://img155.imageshack.us/img155/8150/sunxk3.jpg
The sun gives the earth an absolute shitload of energy all the time, constantly feeding all of the organic systems on the earth. The earth is not a closed system, therefore thermodynamic entropy and the burgeoning information theory gel nicely with biological evolution, because there is a constant and abundant supply of energy to feed from.
There is a lot of confusion as to what is simply adaptation within a species and what is descent from a common ancestor caused from start to finish by nothing more than random mutations.
The actual working of evolution is natural selection and the mutations are only a part of it (a small part, at that, because a mutation is only considered deleterious or beneficial in context of natural selection). Natural selection is decidedly not random in any way at all.
Yes, people knew about microevolution long before Darwin.
What real-world gap is there between microevolution and macroevolution, in your view, that makes microevolution possible, but macroevolution impossible?
dmz:
How would bacteria "reuse" genetic information? Can you explain how reproductive adaptation via natural selection is not evolution?......
What real-world gap is there between microevolution and macroevolution, in your view, that makes microevolution possible, but macroevolution impossible?
Well, for one, no one has documented a case of new species, or organs through Darwinian processes, and not for a lack of trying -- as Richard Feynman said "If it disagrees with experiment it is wrong."
And entropy, shemtropy, I can't get around Michael Polanyi's very astute observation, that you end up having to endorse the idea that chaos == complexity. I just can't go there.
MarcUK
12-12-2006, 11:30 PM
I get up at 4 in the morning and find this.......:no: :lol:
I get up at 4 in the morning and find this.......:no: :lol:
Off to your morning vespers and flagellation!!
shetline
12-12-2006, 11:58 PM
How would bacteria "reuse" genetic information?
You have to be careful with that word "information".
When ID-ers specious arguments abusing the Second Law of Thermodynamics fell apart (not that these specious arguments still don't get plenty of air play, as if they'd never been shot down before), and claims like "you can't get order from disorder" couldn't stand any longer as "proof" that evolution is impossible (at least with any audience that understands the significance of the fact that the Earth isn't a thermodynamically closed system), a new tactic was needed. That tactic was to treat "information" as a special thing, separate and distinct from the mere "order" of thermodynamics. Information is the new thing that you can't get out of nowhere -- um, well, you can't get it out of nowhere unless you're God.
What ID-ers do is define "information" in such a way that it essentially has to be the product of an intelligence, hoping you won't catch on when anthropocentric concepts like "purpose" are thrown into the mix when they build up to their special meaning for the word. That done, all the ID-ers then have to do is say that DNA contains information, you know, that stuff that just can't come out of nowhere, can't be created (um, except by God), et voilà, obviously some Intelligence, an intelligence which had to exist before man existed (cue Heavenly Choir music) must be responsible for the Miracle of Life (segue from Choir music into grand, triumphal trumpet theme, run majestic nature photography, pictures of new born babies, etc.).
Of course, dmz won't come out and admit any of this from the start. He'll pretend that his special meaning of the word "information" is the only game in town, and act (in his typical slippery, coy and round-about way) like you're being such an incredible dullard for not seeing the "obvious" implications of the "information content" of DNA, proteins, etc.
MarcUK
12-13-2006, 12:03 AM
Off to your morning vespers and flagellation!!
ive already masturbated thanks!
It's evolutionary processes-- evolutionary biology isn't limited to what Darwin said.
And speciation *has* been observed in both the laboratory and nature.
Observed instances of speciation (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html) Some more speciation events. (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html)
speciation is fine, it's not controversial at all -- but a new species through the macroevolutionary/Darwinian process has never been observed.
ive already masturbated thanks!
that must have hurt!
MarcUK
12-13-2006, 12:09 AM
speciation is fine, it's not controversial at....but a new species through the macroevolutionary/Darwinian process has never been observed.
is this stand up?
SpamSandwich
12-13-2006, 12:13 AM
I don't believe in evolution. Or dairy.
You sir, are lactose intolerant!!!
is this stand up?
that depends on what the definition of is is.
snoopy
12-13-2006, 12:35 AM
Study Detects Recent Instance of Human Evolution . . .
I wish you hadn't started this thread; it's too hard to resist adding my 2 cents. :(
Evolution is an observed phenomena, describing how living organisms change, especially in response to environmental stress. That's how I see it. Not much to argue about. 'Micro and Macro' appear to be made up terms that only add to confusion, IMHO, So what's the beef? I believe the real issue is what evolution can accomplish, and what it can't.
Level 1.
It's obvious that organisms adapt to their environment, and the article just gives more examples of the kinds of things we know take place. Not much to argue about.
Level 2.
Can evolution explain formation of the various species of life? Now we have a more controversial topic. Most biologist say yes, it is a proven fact, but many mathematicians strongly disagree. It gets very complicated and this is one place where information theory comes up I believe.
Level 3.
Can evolution explain the origin of life itself? Okay, here is where we have the greatest dissension in the ranks of scientists. Many are now saying things like: life came from outer space, a theory called panspermia. The difficulties of explaining how life spontaneously evolved on earth has gotten so difficult that many scientists are forced to look for alternatives.
Anyway, that is how I divide up the pie.
:)
AsLan^
12-13-2006, 01:10 AM
speciation is fine, it's not controversial at all -- but a new species through the macroevolutionary/Darwinian process has never been observed.
Excuse me, are you denying the existence of the fossil record?
Or... are you saying that because no scientist was there to witness a new species being developed with their own eyes that observation has not taken place.
I invite you to do some research into whales.
midwinter
12-13-2006, 01:24 AM
Yes, people knew about microevolution long before Darwin.
Actually, I think that people knew that if they mated the dumbest black dog they could find with its dumbest white sister they'd get a dalmation.
MarcUK
12-13-2006, 01:26 AM
Actually, I think that people knew that if they mated the dumbest black dog they could find with its dumbest white sister they'd get a dalmation.
is that like p diddy and britney?
shetline
12-13-2006, 01:41 AM
Can evolution explain formation of the various species of life? Now we have a more controversial topic. Most biologist say yes, it is a proven fact, but many mathematicians strongly disagree.
Many mathematicians? Such as who? What percentage of the mathematical community are we talking about here? Do these supposed mathematicians know very much about the biology to which they are applying their numeric calculations? Note: An ID-er who naively looks at a strand of DNA or protein in isolation, treats the problem of creating this molecule as if evolution means you get one single out-of-the-blue shot at coming with that specific molecular sequence, dismissing all iterative and self-organizing processes from his calculations, neglecting the issue of there being multiple final molecules which could serve identical purposes, and then declares odds like 10^500 for evolution creating this molecule "by chance"... does not a mathematician make.
It gets very complicated and this is one place where information theory comes up I believe.
No, it just gets very obfuscated where the ID brand of information theory, which has it's own "special" set of rules, gets trotted out.
Can evolution explain the origin of life itself? Okay, here is where we have the greatest dissension in the ranks of scientists. Many are now saying things like: life came from outer space, a theory called panspermia.
There's that "many" again. :rolleyes:
First of all, evolution of species can and does stand as a separate issue from the origin of life itself, and can function as a completely valid theory by taking the existence of life of some sort as a given initial condition. Similar thinking can be applied to the development of life itself in a pre-biotic world, but science there is definitely more speculative. But, unlike the creationist/ID approach to such thing, not havng a complete answer to everything doesn't suddenly mean that "God did it!" is the best answer. It simply means that "I don't know" is the best answer.
As for panspermia, it's a very interesting idea, but I don't think many biologists consider the idea anything more than interesting speculation, one which obviously doesn't solve any ultimate puzzle -- where the first life came from --the concept simply broadens the playing field for opportunities for life to arise.
snoopy
12-13-2006, 01:46 AM
Excuse me, are you denying the existence of the fossil record?
Just an observation. The fossil record shows what species formed and about when it happened. It tells us nothing of the process that gave us the new species. The evidence is said to be consistent with species evolving, but this is not the only possible explanation of the evidence.
Also, it has been pointed out often that there are gaps in the fossil record, and it's been assumed that these would be found. With no luck in finding them, a few biologists came up with a theory called punctuated equilibrium, saying it happened in big jumps, not baby steps. As a result, gaps are now expected in the fossil record. The problem is that punctuated equilibrium is mathematically less probable than Darwin's original proposal.
:)
addabox
12-13-2006, 01:47 AM
God I'm glad Shetline posts in these threads.
snoopy
12-13-2006, 02:07 AM
First of all, evolution of species can and does stand as a separate issue from the origin of life itself, and can function as a completely valid theory by taking the existence of life of some sort as a given initial condition.
No argument from me. I put it as another level because that is how I see origin of life treated, as an extension of evolution.
. . . the creationist/ID approach to such thing, not havng a complete answer to everything doesn't suddenly mean that "God did it!" is the best answer.
That is not how I see their approach. Someone like Behe simply says that evolution of a cell cannot be explained by chance, but looks more like design.
As for panspermia, it's a very interesting idea, but I don't think many biologists consider the idea anything more than interesting speculation, one which obviously doesn't solve any ultimate puzzle -- where the first life came from --the concept simply broadens the playing field for opportunities for life to arise.
It's my impression that the idea arose because they were running out of ideas. There was little or no progress being made regarding origin of life.
Frank777
12-13-2006, 02:15 AM
I just knew this article would be inflammatory enough to goad both sides into a verbal ground war... bwahahahaha! :p
Do you really view this as an accomplishment?
This is AI. Almost every fifth thread ends up discussing abortion, gay rights or evolution.
MarcUK
12-13-2006, 05:17 AM
Do you really view this as an accomplishment?
This is AI. Almost every fifth thread ends up discussing abortion, gay rights or evolution.
or clinton
groverat
12-13-2006, 08:04 AM
dmz:
Well, for one, no one has documented a case of new species, or organs through Darwinian processes, and not for a lack of trying -- as Richard Feynman said "If it disagrees with experiment it is wrong."
What evolutionary model predicts that we would see speciation in complex organisms in such a short period of time (roughly 150 years since Darwin published)? Evolutionary biology describes the speciation of complex organisms as taking tens of thousands of years at a minimum. It is illogical and dishonest to portray 150 years as a time in which speciation of complex organisms should have occurred if evolutionary theory holds.
And as far as not witnessing the evolutionary process acted out on an organ, you are carrying vestiges of a different past in your body right now. Tell me, dmz, what is your appendix doing right now?
And entropy, shemtropy, I can't get around Michael Polanyi's very astute observation, that you end up having to endorse the idea that chaos == complexity. I just can't go there.
Of course you cannot go there, because you have no ground to stand on. If you went there you would end up in a freefall.
Natural selection takes care of the organization. If it works it lives and if it doesn’t work it dies. It is that simple. Deleterious mutations will not be selected for and beneficial mutations will be selected for.
As ever with you, being pithy is a mask for not having an argument.
AsLan^
12-13-2006, 08:13 AM
Just an observation. The fossil record shows what species formed and about when it happened. It tells us nothing of the process that gave us the new species. The evidence is said to be consistent with species evolving, but this is not the only possible explanation of the evidence.
Also, it has been pointed out often that there are gaps in the fossil record, and it's been assumed that these would be found. With no luck in finding them, a few biologists came up with a theory called punctuated equilibrium, saying it happened in big jumps, not baby steps. As a result, gaps are now expected in the fossil record. The problem is that punctuated equilibrium is mathematically less probable than Darwin's original proposal.
:)
Alright, I've just read up on punctuated equilibrium and I'm not sure why someone would see it as mathematically improbable.
It makes good sense to me... in an ideal environment with little selective pressure at play, organisms tend to stay the same.
In more extreme circumstances, it's sink or swim and only those equipped to survive do.
Why is this improbable?
gregmightdothat
12-13-2006, 08:25 AM
or clinton
No, they usually start with Clinton.
gregmightdothat
12-13-2006, 08:32 AM
Well, for one, no one has documented a case of new species, or organs through Darwinian processes, and not for a lack of trying -- as Richard Feynman said "If it disagrees with experiment it is wrong."
And entropy, shemtropy, I can't get around Michael Polanyi's very astute observation, that you end up having to endorse the idea that chaos == complexity. I just can't go there.
Oh, ok, so evolution and Darwinian processes still hold true, but random, made-up DMZ strawman evolution continues to be an utter falsehood of a blundering mind.
I don't get the distinction you're attempting to draw.
--Speciation is the formation of a new and distinct species.
check this out, it is about the microevolution of viruses....
http://www.hhmi.org/biointeractive/animations/subunit/sub_middle_frames.htm
...so yes, this sort of thing is 'happening all the time', but we're still only playing with a fixed amount of information. And even then, this mutation/reassortment has it's limits; after a certain amount of time, the errors introduced cause fatal errors.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Error_catastrophe
And most important, and not for lack of experimentation, in the end, they're still just viruses.
Also, from the unabridged MW, [part of] a definition for "species":
...agrees grammatically with the genus name : a group of intimately related and physically similar organisms that actually or potentially interbreed and are less commonly capable of fertile interbreeding with members of other groups, that ordinarily comprise differentiated populations....
...and a little cutting and pasting of my own:
David L. Stern, "Perspective: Evolutionary Developmental Biology and the Problem of Variation," Evolution 54 (2000): 1079-1091.
One of the oldest problems in evolutionary biology remains largely unsolved...
Historically, the neo-Darwinian synthesizers stressed the predominance of
micromutations in evolution, whereas others noted the similarities between some
dramatic mutations and evolutionary transitions to argue for macromutationism.
Robert L. Carroll, "Towards a new evolutionary synthesis," Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 15 (January, 2000): 27.
Large-scale evolutionary phenomena cannot be understood solely on the basis of
extrapolation from processes observed at the level of modern populations and
species.
Andrew M. Simons, "The continuity of microevolution and macroevolution," Journal of Evolutionary Biology 15 (2002): 688-701.
A persistent debate in evolutionary biology is one over the continuity of
microevolution and macroevolution -- whether macroevolutionary trends are
governed by the principles of microevolution.
gregmightdothat
12-13-2006, 09:59 AM
check this out, it is about the microevolution of viruses....
http://www.hhmi.org/biointeractive/animations/subunit/sub_middle_frames.htm
...so yes, this sort of thing is 'happening all the time', but we're still only playing with a fixed amount of information. And even then, this mutation/reassortment has it's limits; after a certain amount of time, the errors introduced cause fatal errors.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Error_catastrophe
And most important, and not for lack of experimentation, in the end, they're still just viruses.
Also, from the unabridged MW, [part of] a definition for "species":
...and little cutting and pasting of my own:
• David L. Stern, "Perspective: Evolutionary Developmental Biology and the Problem of Variation," Evolution 54 (2000): 1079-1091.
• Robert L. Carroll, "Towards a new evolutionary synthesis," Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 15 (January, 2000): 27.
• Andrew M. Simons, "The continuity of microevolution and macroevolution," Journal of Evolutionary Biology 15 (2002): 688-701.
That MW part pretty much dispels your whole point with regards to this macro/micro: the fact that we have hundreds of well documented cases of speciation, which as you underlined, means that these new species are genetically incompatible with the species they came from, pretty much cements the case for evolution, both macro and micro.
Hassan i Sabbah
12-13-2006, 10:11 AM
That MW part pretty much dispels your whole point with regards to this macro/micro: the fact that we have hundreds of well documented cases of speciation, which as you underlined, means that these new species are genetically incompatible with the species they came from, pretty much cements the case for evolution, both macro and micro.
Facts. Pah.
I feel sorry for poor God.
He's made all this fantastically beautiful stuff of mindblowing age, so amazingly turned that the simple is incredibly complex and the incredibly complex so, so simple; and He hasn't been shy about clues—the evidence is everywhere.
And yet the people who claim they're most into Him and His works are like 'Not now, God, I've got my nose in this great Book.'
'But... but... I made all this fantastic stuff for you!'
'I told you, God. I'm reading.'
That MW part pretty much dispels your whole point with regards to this macro/micro: the fact that we have hundreds of well documented cases of speciation, which as you underlined, means that these new species are genetically incompatible with the species they came from, pretty much cements the case for evolution, both macro and micro.
I think you're confusing 'subspecies', with 'species'. (the Ernst Mayr definition is the one cited in the MW reference.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species
MacRR
12-13-2006, 10:24 AM
I see these debates rage all over the internet. Why bother trying to convince DMZ? You aren't going to be able to convince an adult who so adamantly sticks by fairy tales to understand the world around them. An adult that will twist all reason based on really what amounts to a bed time story blown out of proportion. I have never seen a person on DMZs side of the debate finally realize that their belief system is made up by man and discounts the entire universe to focus on earth and it's ecosystem. Talk about micro..... It really shows religion to be the crutch that it is.
To me this whole debate on evolution is so small scale and worthless. You have people out there willing to believe in some "god" who plopped man down on a little planet because there's no way man came out of an accident. Yea- no way we aren't so important that a supreme being had to produce us, when in fact they ignore the beauty of this infinite universe and all of it's mysteries that DID produce us could be god. Hell, the universe may as well be god. It certainly fits the description. All knowing, all seeing, infinite....... blah blah. And who would us- the universe's creations- be to question it's methodologies?
...means that these new species are genetically incompatible with the species they came from...
One more thing: I need some examples of that happening, I don't think you understand the difference between what happens in animal husbandry and one species turning into another.
gregmightdothat
12-13-2006, 10:57 AM
One more thing: I need some examples of that happening, I don't think you understand the difference between what happens in animal husbandry and one species turing into another.
Here you go, your own link right back at ya: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciation
gregmightdothat
12-13-2006, 10:58 AM
I think you're confusing 'subspecies', with 'species'. (the Ernst Mayr definition is the one cited in the MW reference.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species
I think your confusing the term "speciation" with the term "subspeciation." (Hint: the latter one doesn't exist.)
You can't just keep on making up shit and changing around definitions to try and pretend you're right; it's pretty clear you have next to no idea what you're talking about.
I think your confusing the term "speciation" with the term "subspeciation." (Hint: the latter one doesn't exist.)
You can't just keep on making up shit and changing around definitions to try and pretend you're right; it's pretty clear you have next to no idea what you're talking about.
I think it's pretty clear you don't have any examples to offer.
snoopy
12-13-2006, 11:48 AM
I feel sorry for poor God. . .
If you are even 10 percent serious about what you posted back there, you may be interested in Fazale Rana's book, Origins of Life. I'd recommend it to anyone who thinks those who believe in God are brain dead.
:)
MacRR
12-13-2006, 12:29 PM
Why the recommendation?
groverat
12-13-2006, 12:32 PM
dmz:
Do you not realize that you are parsing quotes, playing semantics, and picking nits? The intellectual retreat is so evident I am amazed that you do not see it.
Also, can you cite any evolutionary model that would call for speciation in large, complex organisms in such a limited time scale?
Do you have any response to my argument that the constant, steady, abundant supply of energy that the sun gives allows evolution and entropy/information theory to mesh perfectly?
MacRR:
The effort is not to convince dmz, but the audience. In a presidential debate, Bush is not trying to convince Kerry, he is trying to convince (or at least educate or influence) the people watching. A key part of this is to get dmz (and other creationists) to trot out the most common arguments so that I (and others) have an opportunity to utterly destroy those arguments.
You will notice that I ask dmz straight-forward questions and they are ignored. This is yet another tactic on both our parts.
It is my hope that a thorough, rational explanation of biological evolution will educate interested, non-participating parties about the subject and answer questions they may have had going in.
snoopy:
God is fine, so long as he stays away from science. :)
snoopy
12-13-2006, 12:47 PM
Alright, I've just read up on punctuated equilibrium and I'm not sure why someone would see it as mathematically improbable.
It makes good sense to me... in an ideal environment with little selective pressure at play, organisms tend to stay the same.
Okay, I've read up a bit myself and see two issues. One is that species do change rather quickly under environmental stress. For example, skin color takes only 10,000 years or so. This is an adaptive process for the population that is under stress.
However, a change from one species to another is several orders of magnitude more complex than an adaptive response. I'm not a biologist, so I don't know how many characteristics are different, from one species to the next. It is a bunch. To match the fossil record, all of these characteristics must have changed during the same very short time period in producing the new species. If they were strung out in a series, we would have the same problem with the evidence in the fossil record: links missing for a long geological time span.
So, in effect, punctuated equilibrium may makes it more difficult to support evolution. We are asked to believe that all the necessary changes, going from one species to another, occurred in a short time like 50,000 years or so. It's a matter of probability. What punctuated equilibrium suggests to me is evolution guided by intelligence, not chance.
So, whether you string them out or make all changes in parallel, you have an issue of probability. Doing them all at once is more difficult to support, if we speak of random change.
:)
groverat
12-13-2006, 12:53 PM
What punctuated equilibrium suggests to me is evolution guided by intelligence, not chance.
No evolutionary biologist would ever say that evolution is "guided by chance". As I have already said, the actual process of evolution is natural selection, which is non-random.
MarcUK
12-13-2006, 01:01 PM
dmz, i got up at 4am, you were here, i went to work, got back at 6pm and you're still here. Have you done anything today?
snoopy
12-13-2006, 01:03 PM
Why the recommendation?
I didn't make it clear. I think it's an interesting book for anyone interested in the issues of evolution and creation. Beyond that, the book shows origins of life to be more complex and harder to explain that most people realize, and that belief in a creator is not as far fetched as many would have us believe.
:)
dmz, i got up at 4am, you were here, i went to work, got back at 6pm and you're still here. Have you done anything today?
Slept, OCRed and then proofed an American history reader, and then waited for examples of macroevolution.....
...and I'm stilllll waiting!
MarcUK
12-13-2006, 01:07 PM
Slept, OCRed and then proofed an American history reader, and then waited for examples of macroevolution.....
...and I'm stilllll waiting!
i'd like to help, but i really cant contribute anything more than feeling a sense of taking the piss smugness at everyone who'se been here a hundred times before, and still not learned that its all pointless, why do you guys bother?
MacRR
12-13-2006, 01:09 PM
Um- I thought there was the bible for that....
:)
I didn't make it clear. I think it's an interesting book for anyone interested in the issues of evolution and creation. Beyond that, the book shows origins of life to be more complex and harder to explain that most people realize, and that belief in a creator is not as far fetched as many would have us believe.
:)
groverat
12-13-2006, 01:20 PM
snoopy:
I didn't make it clear. I think it's an interesting book for anyone interested in the issues of evolution and creation. Beyond that, the book shows origins of life to be more complex and harder to explain that most people realize, and that belief in a creator is not as far fetched as many would have us believe.
The improbability of the origin of life does not, in any way, increase the probability of a supernatural explanation. The supernatural explanation has its own set of problems that is not answered by expounding upon the improbability of the origin of life.
As far as the “as many would have us believe” part, who are you talking about and what arguments are they making?
The probability of the origin of life is extremely low if you narrow your scope to the earth itself, but we live in an entire universe. The origin of life is allowed to be extremely improbable, because it only needs to have happened once to explain our existence.
ShawnJ:
Perhaps we have seen verifiable speciation in complex organisms. My point is not that it is impossible to see it (because obviously it happens), but that even if we do not see it then it is not disproven.
MarcUK
12-13-2006, 01:21 PM
im sure this thread is missing some extra large text and photo's of clint.
gregmightdothat
12-13-2006, 01:21 PM
I think it's pretty clear you don't have any examples to offer.
There's loads of examples in that excellent speciation (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciation) Wikipedia article I just pointed out. You know, the one that YOU just cited?
I mean, I could cut and paste the entire article if you wanted, since it's pretty much just a giant list of examples, but I think you can manage to read some links, especially since you linked there first.
shetline
12-13-2006, 01:23 PM
If you are even 10 percent serious about what you posted back there, you may be interested in Fazale Rana's book, Origins of Life. I'd recommend it to anyone who thinks those who believe in God are brain dead.
The very phrasing of this "challenge" of yours shows that your thinking about these issues is all mixed up. There are plenty of people who believe in both God and evolution, yet you say this as if the two ideas are mutually exclusive.
I personally think that God is a powerful, but imaginary, idea, and not a very useful scientific idea. Saying "God did it!", while obviously having a lot of emotional appeal for many people, has no logical or otherwise useful explanatory power. Assigning responsibility to God for the performance of all things in the universe one currently can't otherwise explain is nothing more than a ridiculously dressed-up way of saying "I don't know" without admitting that you don't know.
Trot out all of the problems you think exist with evolution and the most you possibly accomplish is discrediting evolution and putting yourself back to square one, "I don't know how the variety of species we see happened." None of this moves you a single step further towards proving there's some All Powerful Being out there that must be the only other possible explanation.
If you object to the notion that all of the wonder and majesty of life is just too, too complicated to happen "by chance" (and it's a complete misunderstanding of evolution to think evolution means "by chance"), how on earth are you getting closer to a better explanation by proposing that there's some Intelligence out there which either "always" existed or which sprang out of nothingness, with nothing else to create It and all of Its complexity?
It's sort of like telling a kid who asks where babies come from that a stork brings them. This might briefly satisfy the mind of a very young child who's been carefully kept away from cable TV, but what have you really explained? Isn't the next logical question, "Where does the stork get the babies from?"
God is just like the stork. Where does all of this complexity of life we can't explain come from? "Well, my son, God brings it!"
MacRR
12-13-2006, 01:24 PM
I realize the semantics of debate- but I am saying both sides have their heels dug in. I find it hard to believe that people are actually on the fence- that some people consider "the jury to be out" as it were. Either you buy BS by the batshitload or you don't.
DMZ never addresses anything I say :). Either he ignored me, or he's not going to play with me.
Oh well, tis a compliment.
MacRR:
The effort is not to convince dmz, but the audience. In a presidential debate, Bush is not trying to convince Kerry, he is trying to convince (or at least educate or influence) the people watching. A key part of this is to get dmz (and other creationists) to trot out the most common arguments so that I (and others) have an opportunity to utterly destroy those arguments.
You will notice that I ask dmz straight-forward questions and they are ignored. This is yet another tactic on both our parts.
It is my hope that a thorough, rational explanation of biological evolution will educate interested, non-participating parties about the subject and answer questions they may have had going in.
snoopy
12-13-2006, 01:28 PM
No evolutionary biologist would ever say that evolution is "guided by chance". As I have already said, the actual process of evolution is natural selection, which is non-random.
Evolution has two parts, no? First a random, chance change occurs. Then a selection process occurs, which is non-random as you say. If a change is bad, the creature does not propagate. If good, it survives to propagate.
Because there are so many possible change that could take place, way more than a billion, it would take a long time to get to one that can not only survive but produce a beneficial change. Now, on top of that, punctuated equilibrium expects us to believe that the hundreds of thousand of changes necessary to go from one species to another all occurred at once. So we have billions times hundreds of thousand, divided by a few thousand in the population.
If we had to wait for the chance appearance of such a creature the population would be long gone before it came along. Actually, we must wait for two such creatures to come along, making it even more difficult. So, was it chance? Maybe if there was but a single case of evolution you might argue yes. But we are also supposed to believe that this is the norm for production of all the new species of life.
To me it looks more like changes were guided by either intelligence or some yet undiscovered natural law.
:)
Kickaha
12-13-2006, 01:46 PM
'Way more than a billion'...
Er, no?
The number of changes that are possible in DNA are actually quite small - we're constantly discovering ways in which DNA has backup mechanisms, redundant information, and just plain amazing resiliency. Why? Because it works, that's why.
I'm actually just starting to get into the midst of this with the semantic analysis of 'non-coding' DNA with a researcher in Australia. Turns out my software analysis techniques may have some applicability... My suspicion is that you're dead right about us not understanding the mechanism yet. I'd certainly believe that, before ascribing it to ID or any other invisible, omnipotent, unprovable sky being.
Two points:
1. Speciation is macroevolution.
2. Scientists don't get their definition of species from Websters, dear.
Why would you-- given the readily available scientific definitions in the links I posted?
We've seen (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB910.html) speciation in fish, plants, and insects.
We're not just talking about a virus here.
Oh stop it -- the MW definition was the Ernst Mayr definition.
...and speciation is not macorevolution -- the jump from micro- to macro- has yet to occur (which was the point of posting those periodical citations.)
The whole topic of that jump is controversial within the godless, pagan, nonreligious, unreligious, indevout, undevout, ungodly, unholy, unsanctimonious, blasphemous, impious, profane, and sacrilegious evolution crowd. :p
groverat
12-13-2006, 02:49 PM
MacRR:
I realize the semantics of debate- but I am saying both sides have their heels dug in. I find it hard to believe that people are actually on the fence- that some people consider "the jury to be out" as it were. Either you buy BS by the batshitload or you don't.
You would be surprised by how many people genuinely know nothing about evolutionary theory. It is not taught adequately in public schools and when it is addressed, it is in such an environment of bitterness and controversy that it is distrusted.
snoopy:
Evolution has two parts, no? First a random, chance change occurs. Then a selection process occurs, which is non-random as you say. If a change is bad, the creature does not propagate. If good, it survives to propagate.
“Bad” and “good” are value judgments, and evolution makes no such value judgments. The changes can be logically categorized three ways: (1) such that they do not impact reproductive success, (2) increase reproductive success, or (3) decrease reproductive success. No values, no morals, just reproduction.
Because there are so many possible change that could take place, way more than a billion, it would take a long time to get to one that can not only survive but produce a beneficial change.
Mutations can exist in perfect harmony with the rest of the “normal” genetic code. Most people, when considering evolutionary theory, forget the idea of a reproduction-neutral mutation/change.
I really do not know where you get “way more than a billion” from, however.
Now, on top of that, punctuated equilibrium expects us to believe that the hundreds of thousand of changes necessary to go from one species to another all occurred at once. So we have billions times hundreds of thousand, divided by a few thousand in the population.
Do you know how DNA transcription works? There are a finite number of chemical compounds involved in DNA. I am very very confused by these seemingly-arbitrary numbers you are throwing around.
What are these “hundreds of thousands” of changes that are needed?
And why would we need two spontaneously produced creatures of a new species? You are making it seem as if a chimp gave birth to a human one day; the human tried having sex with a chimp cousin and it didn’t work. That is not how natural selection works. The vast majority of all speciation results not from dramatic mutation, but from population dispersal (which is relative based on the mobility of the given species - 10 feet might as well be 1000 light years to most primitive life forms).
Let’s walk slowly through an example:
Take a population of an animal, let’s call it AnimalX. This population of AnimalXs are separated by the umpteen different factors that separate populations (natural land formations, hunting patterns, social politics, etc…) and they live separately and do not interbreed although they are still physically capable of doing so. You end up with two groups from the same population that live separately and do not interbreed.
Let us also suppose that the environments of the two groups are slightly different. The original population lives in an arid region and the splinter group migrated to a more deciduous area.
After thousands of years, each group has adapted to its area and this happens via genetic mutation.
Now, you accept that these adaptations are possible, but you postulate that any change involving the physical capability to reproduce is not possible?
shetline
12-13-2006, 03:09 PM
Evolution has two parts, no? First a random, chance change occurs. Then a selection process occurs, which is non-random as you say. If a change is bad, the creature does not propagate. If good, it survives to propagate.
Because there are so many possible change that could take place, way more than a billion, it would take a long time to get to one that can not only survive but produce a beneficial change.
Evolution is best described as a "bounded stochastic process." There's a element of chance in providing the raw material of variation, but the selective pressures of environmental stress are the most important factor.
It's important to realize that the most crucial developments in evolution have had nothing to do with human beings. The most amazing stuff had already happened well before we came on the scene, in single-celled evolution and in the evolution of the early precursors of modern plants and animal.
For single-celled life forms, especially things like bacteria, a "generation" can pass in less than ten minutes. Start with one bacterium, ten minutes later you can have two, another ten minutes 4, then 8, then 16, etc. If this process could continue for a full day (and it can't -- resources and space run out too quickly), in 24 hours you'd have 2^144, or about 2x10^43, bacteria -- which is way more than the 10^30 bacteria estimated to exist on this entire planet. Suffice to say that bacteria and many other single-celled life forms breed so fast and so plentifully that they provide an enormous supply of possibly beneficial variation, and they can die by the trillions, quadrillions, quintillions, and still bounce back very quickly.
No so-called higher-order life form comes close to the reproductive rates and resiliency of single-celled organisms, but the basics body plans for things like insects and vertebrates almost certainly developed among precursor species which bred at least as fast as organisms like roaches and rats.
You're completely wrong about a beneficial mutation having to occur in two of a species for it to be of use. As long as the new trait is carried by a dominant gene, half of that creature's direct offspring will have the trait even when breeding with a parter which has no copy of the gene. If this new trait is important enough, selective pressure will tend to favor the survival of descendants with two copies of the beneficial gene, leading to a species offshoot where the new beneficial trait breeds true for all, or nearly all, members.
I think you're suffering from a simple inability to appreciate that vastness of time, space, and population in which the developments of evolution can be played out, as well as a cramped view of the way genetic variations can arise and play out in a gene pool.
MacRR
12-13-2006, 03:24 PM
Groverat-
point taken. Reading DMZ (hopeless) and then snoopy- snoopy proves me wrong. He's willing to debate and learn and evaluate your info (it would seem). It appears he's learning a lot :).
I have just seen many many DMZs out there.
I'd say I am just as bad- in digging my heels in and all, but I am not into being afraid of some grey bearded man watching my every move with the intention of sending me to hell! I am more into the real world (universe) and not some ancient person's fantasy land trumped up to provide personal power through fear.
I agree, no way should religion be taught in public schools. If some parents want to meddle with their child's view on life, they can pay to do it- private schools love the money.
groverat
12-13-2006, 03:51 PM
I am certainly open to theological arguments. Logic being the key factor.
I am in the middle of a podcast reading from Aquinas's proofs of the existence of god. It is obvious nonsense now, but given the scientific knowledge of his day, it is quite compelling.
midwinter
12-13-2006, 04:11 PM
David L. Stern, "Perspective: Evolutionary Developmental Biology and the Problem of Variation," Evolution 54 (2000): 1079-1091.
Just for grins, I looked up this article. Here's the full abstract.
http://bucket.littlemeanfish.com/abstract.png
And a bit of the first paragraph:
"This macroevolutionary data has indicated, in broad strokes, that developmental systems have evolved largely by alterations in the regulation of a surprisingly conserved set of patterning genes. . . . However, the process underlying these patterns change and the identity of the individual mutations contributing to rearrangements in development remain largely unexplored. In contrast, an explosion of studies over the past several decades has illuminated patterns and processes of molecular evolution at the microevolutionary level. Little of this effort, however, has focused on the phenotypic consequences of molecular variation. This is likely due to a lack of interest, but primarily due to the difficulty, or at least the perceived difficulty, of the problem. I do not claim that this problem is easy to solve, but I will argue that a new perspective and a new set of tools, both borrowed from molecular developmental genetics will ease the task" (1079)
IT'S A NERD FIGHT! NERD FIGHT!
You think the Discovery Institute actually read the essay, or did they just do a keyword search for "evolution controversy" in the major journals, excerpt some of the abstract if they can, and then pray that no one will actually read the essay?
snoopy
12-13-2006, 04:42 PM
For single-celled life forms, especially things like bacteria, a "generation" can pass in less than ten minutes.
Yeah, I knew it was fast but, didn't have the facts on it. That's why infectious bacteria are developing strains that are immune to antibiotics as we speak. Forget antibiotics. Build your immune system and keep it strong.
You're completely wrong about a beneficial mutation having to occur in two of a species for it to be of use. As long as the new trait is carried by a dominant gene, half of that creature's direct offspring will have the trait even when breeding with a parter which has no copy of the gene.
I've wondered about that. I've never paid much attention in the one biology class I had to take. Mathematics and physics is what I was interested in.
I think you're suffering from a simple inability to appreciate that vastness of time, space, and population . . .
You could have stopped with time and space, and then you would have been wrong.
:lol:
You think the Discovery Institute actually read the essay, or did they just do a keyword search for "evolution controversy" in the major journals, excerpt some of the abstract if they can, and then pray that no one will actually read the essay?
Um, midwinter, that was a quote from an article in Evolution -- the -- International Journal of Organic Evolution put out -- by -- The Society for the Study of Evolution.
In other news of the completely unexpected, I stepped on the brakes of my car today -- and it slowed down.
Who could have known?
midwinter
12-13-2006, 08:21 PM
Um, midwinter, that was a quote from an article in Evolution -- the -- International Journal of Organic Evolution put out -- by -- The Society for the Study of Evolution.
In other news of the completely unexpected, I stepped on the brakes of my car today -- and it slowed down.
Who could have known?
dmz: you're being snotty again.
My point is that that the citation and bit from the abstract you provided (which appears on the Discovery Institute's talking points where you seem to have gotten your list of cites) as examples of "the controversy" within the peer-reviewed literature of the scientific community don't actually work. When you look at the actual article, the quote on DI's site is by no stretch of the imagination representative of what the article is actually about, which is proposing a new way to attempt to understand evolutionary processes.
(Edited several times to try to make this statement English)
dmz: you're being snotty again.
My point is that that the citation and bit from the abstract you provided (which appears on the Discovery Institute's talking points where you seem to have gotten your list of cites) as examples of "the controversy" within the peer-reviewed literature of the scientific community don't actually work. When you look at the actual article, the quote on DI's site is by no stretch of the imagination representative of what the article is actually about, which is proposing a new way to attempt to understand evolutionary processes.
(Edited several times to try to make this statement English)
Who said it was more -- or less -- than what it said? Ah yes, you did.
The citation 'is what it is.'
midwinter
12-13-2006, 09:31 PM
Who said it was more -- or less -- than what it said? Ah yes, you did.
The citation 'is what it is.'
Indeed, it is. But it is not evidence of a "controversy," as DI claims.
Indeed, it is. But it is not evidence of a "controversy," as DI claims.
DI posted on this thread? -- I must have missed that.
SpamSandwich
12-13-2006, 10:18 PM
...or Urine Therapy. Ecccch!
groverat
12-13-2006, 10:19 PM
DI posted on this thread? -- I must have missed that.
That is your counter-argument? Why do you even bother posting?
One more thing -- just in case "DI" posts again when I'm not looking.
...here is what ShawnJ posted:
Two points:
1. Speciation is macroevolution.
...
...and here is what dmz posted:
...and speciation is not macorevolution -- the jump from micro- to macro- has yet to occur (which was the point of posting those periodical citations.)
The whole topic of that jump is controversial within the ...
...now, as to what is a "controversy" I'll leave for others -- perhaps this "DI" poster can fill you in. Nevertheless, to say that "micro- is macro-" is just not accurate, and to insinuate that the matter of how to jump micro- to macro- is in any way settled is misinformed.
(and maybe even snotty)
edit:
just saw your post, groverat -- hmm... I can say that one of the reasons I post isn't for heaving tired, content-deprived, attempts to get a rise out of people. (unless it's laughter)
groverat
12-13-2006, 10:26 PM
Do you actually have any kind of argument or insight to offer in this discussion?
midwinter
12-13-2006, 11:06 PM
...and a little cutting and pasting of my own:
And here's your source—from the Discovery Institute: "The Scientific Controversy Over Whether Microevolution Can Account for Macroevolution." (PDF (http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?id=118))
Again, as I have pointed out, this PDF grossly misrepresents the subject of the very first article on the list.
And here's your source—from the Discovery Institute: "The Scientific Controversy Over Whether Microevolution Can Account for Macroevolution." (PDF (http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?id=118))
Again, as I have pointed out, this PDF grossly misrepresents the subject of the very first article on the list.
When you want to be a big boy, and acknowledge the point that ShawnJ and I were talking about, let me know, and we can carry this further.
midwinter
12-13-2006, 11:18 PM
When you want to be a big boy, and admit the point that ShawnJ and I were talking about, let me know, and we can carry this further.
Jeez you get cranky when it's late. And no, thank you, I'm wholly uninterested in engaging in a discussion about micro vs macro-evolution with a bunch of people who use the Merriam-Webster dictionary to define their terms and who, so far as I can tell, are neither biologists nor experts in evolutionary theory. There is no point, really, once you admit that no one engaged in the discussion actually knows anything about what they're talking.
I'd be surprised, actually, if anyone other than me here has read On the Origin of Species cover to cover.
My point is simply that you tossed off a bunch of citations that looked all impressive and seemed to imply controversy, and then, when I Google your source and then check the actual articles, they grossly misrepresent the sources.
...of people who use the Merriam-Webster dictionary to define their terms...
I'd be surprised, actually, if anyone other than me here has read On the Origin of Species cover to cover.
My point is simply that you tossed off a bunch of citations that looked all impressive and seemed to imply controversy, and then, when I Google your source and then check the actual articles, they grossly misrepresent the sources.
The definition in the MW dictionary is Ernst Mayr's (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernst_Mayr)
...ready any time you are.
midwinter
12-13-2006, 11:28 PM
...ready any time you are.
For what? More cutting and pasting from websites that misrepresent the contents of articles? More squabbling over definitions? No thanks.
I had one point. I made it . . . although I'm curious to hear how you respond to it.
groverat
12-13-2006, 11:28 PM
Using Merriam-Webster as a definition source for scientific terminology with actual scientific sources are available is fairly amusing, it is an overt effort to keep the discussion at a very low intellectual level.
I've read On the Origin of Species.
I've also read: Darwin's Black Box by Michael Behe, What Evolution Is by Ernst Mayr, The Blind Watchmaker & The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins. I've listened to lectures on biological evolution produced by The Teaching Company (recorded lectures from universities). I've also read many other science books that deal, in part, with evolution.
I am no master, but neither am I a complete fool or ignorant of the basic principles. It is insulting to the intelligence of those involved to assume that no one has any idea what they are talking about.
I would actually love some discussion of content and merit. However, dmz pulls quotes out of context and makes half-assed assertions with absolutely no backup or logic, and when his logic is challenged he ignores the meat and focuses on semantic gripes and side issues.
midwinter
12-13-2006, 11:35 PM
Using Merriam-Webster as a definition source for scientific terminology with actual scientific sources are available is fairly amusing, it is an overt effort to keep the discussion at a very low intellectual level.
Which is a problem when you are dealing with a complex subject.
I've read On the Origin of Species.
I've also read: Darwin's Black Box by Michael Behe, What Evolution Is by Ernst Mayr, The Blind Watchmaker & The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins. I've listened to lectures on biological evolution produced by The Teaching Company (recorded lectures from universities). I've also read many other science books that deal, in part, with evolution.
Great! Ain't Darwin's Origin utterly weird?! Every time I read it, I can't help but peg him as a stepping stone between English Romantics communing with God through nature and the Victorians who desired progress as any costs.
I am no master, but neither am I a complete fool or ignorant of the basic principles. It is insulting to the intelligence of those involved to assume that no one has any idea what they are talking about.
Then my sincere apologies if I have offended. But I wonder whether you are the exception, and not the rule with regard to my point.
I would actually love some discussion of content and merit. However, dmz pulls quotes out of context and makes half-assed assertions with absolutely no backup or logic, and when his logic is challenged he ignores the meat and focuses on semantic gripes and side issues.
Indeed, I'd like to hear dmz's response to my question above.
For what? More cutting and pasting from websites that misrepresent the contents of articles? More squabbling over definitions? No thanks.
I had one point. I made it . . . although I'm curious to hear how you respond to it.
No you didn't, you are, one more time, simply ignoring what you don't want in the discussion. I posted above, in my own words, what the reasons were for posting those quotes. The citations clearly show the differences when micro and macro evolution are discussed. Clearly.
You ignored the post and harped about DI 'grossly misrepresenting'. A criticism that is as irrelevant as it is false.
groverat
12-13-2006, 11:39 PM
Do you have any kind of argument that stems from this semantic quibble, dmz, or are you merely throwing up more chaff as the air-to-air missiles continue to chase you?
midwinter:
Darwin's writings are actually amazing in their intuitiveness given the circumstances he found himself in. Very very weird, though, yes.
midwinter
12-13-2006, 11:42 PM
No you didn't, you are, one more time, simply ignoring what you don't want in the discussion. I posted above, in my own words, what the reasons were for posting those quotes. The citations clearly show the differences when micro and macro evolution are discussed. Clearly.
You ignored the post and harped about DI 'grossly misrepresenting'. A criticism that is as irrelevant as it is false.
Why are my claims about DI's characterization (and by extension, yours) of Stern's argument "false"?
midwinter
12-13-2006, 11:49 PM
midwinter:
Darwin's writings are actually amazing in their intuitiveness given the circumstances he found himself in. Very very weird, though, yes.
Well, I keep thinking that that intuitiveness is in many ways a by-product of his moment in history. What gets me when I read him is that Romantic notion of Nature as a kind of caretaker. Sure, he admits that Nature will sometimes kill individuals off, but it always has the best interests on the species at heart. Nature, for him, is this active participant, a kind of nanny looking over her charges and not some passive observer like the Deists had imagined God to be.
Why are my claims about DI's characterization (and by extension, yours) of Stern's argument "false"?
Like I said, when you're ready to acknowledge why I posted the citations, we can carry this forward.
midwinter
12-14-2006, 12:02 AM
Like I said, when you're ready to acknowledge why I posted the citations, we can carry this forward.
That's a good question, dmz. Why did you post those citations? All you said was "a little cutting and pasting of my own."
Not much to go on there. I mean, look. You're perfectly free to get upset with me for not being able to read your mind and all, but you might consider that, when you consistently find yourself getting mad at me for not being able to somehow intuit what your point is when you don't or simply won't articulate it, maybe the fault isn't mine.
So why did you post those citations? And how do you respond to my charge that, when you read the first article they list, the DI misrepresents the point of the article?
Chucker
12-14-2006, 12:06 AM
Then, unfortunately, you're a bigot.
Fortunately, no he isn't.
That's a good question, dmz. Why did you post those citations? All you said was "a little cutting and pasting of my own."
Not much to go on there. I mean, look. You're perfectly free to get upset with me for not being able to read your mind and all, but you might consider that, when you consistently find yourself getting mad at me for not being able to somehow intuit what your point is when you don't or simply won't articulate it, maybe the fault isn't mine.
So why did you post those citations? And how do you respond to my charge that, when you read the first article they list, the DI misrepresents the point of the article?
I already told you why in posts #126 & #135.
....any time you're ready.
hardeeharhar
12-14-2006, 12:14 AM
This is ultimately the dumbest conversation one can have on any message board.
NO ONE is going to change their minds reading arguments on this or any other fora. Why? Because to change their minds some need god to tell them evolution explains speciation and the others need god to tell them that evolution doesn't happen. god ain't talkin' so give up.
midwinter
12-14-2006, 12:15 AM
The citations clearly show the differences when micro and macro evolution are discussed. Clearly.
=dmz]Nevertheless, to say that "micro- is macro-" is just not accurate, and to insinuate that the matter of how to jump micro- to macro- is in any way settled is misinformed.
These two? OK. It seems to be a debate between a few camps of scientists about what mechanisms are responsible for it, not whether it happens or not.
hardeeharhar
12-14-2006, 12:20 AM
one point that is possibly lost on dmz...
macro and microevolution depend on the definition of species as the crux of their separation. as species is a human made designation (and one derived solely from phenomenological, as opposed to biological, descriptors), the difference between the two is irrelevant...
These two? OK. It seems to be a debate between a few camps of scientists about what mechanisms are responsible for it, not whether it happens or not.
Thank you.
**tilts head sideways**
Now was that so hard?! :err:
From the frelling paper/article/whatever -- the paragraph following the citations...
It should be noted that all of the scientists quoted above are believers in
Darwinian evolution, and that all of them think the controversy will eventually
be resolved within the framework of that theory. Stern, for example, believes
that new developmental studies of gene function will provide "the current
missing link." (p. 1079) The important point here is that the controversy has not
yet been resolved, precisely because the evidence needed to resolve it is still
lacking. It is important for students to know what the evidence does or does not
show -- not just what some scientists hope the evidence will eventually show.
Only then can students be expected to "analyze, review, and critique scientific
e