gungasnake wrote:http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0503/p01s04-legn.html
Quote:
A job that gets harder The path has been a rougher one for John Wachholz, a biology teacher at Salina (Kansas) High School Central. When evolution comes up, students tune out: "They'll put their heads on their desks and pretend they don't hear a word you say."
To show he's not an enemy of faith, he sometimes tells them he's a choir member and the son of a Lutheran pastor. But resistance is nevertheless getting stronger as he prepares to retire this spring.
"I see the same thing I saw five years ago, except now students think they're informed without having ever really read anything" on evolution or intelligent design, Mr. Wachholz says. "Because it's been discussed in the home and other places, they think they know, [and] they're more outspoken.... They'll say, 'I don't believe a word you're saying.' "
As pathetic as these localized challenges to evolution are, it's nice to realize that evolution in particular, and science in general, get stronger the more you question them. So ultimately evolution and science will be even more firmly grounded than they are today, and more people will recognize the creationist "wool" which is being pulled over their eyes.
These poor kids in Kansas and other little pockets of ignorance will eventually have to answer the challenge of why they don't even understand the theories they so brazenly challenge. Right now they seem to think that science class is about getting them to agree with something, when in fact, it's simply about teaching them something.
Those of us who hire people and pay them for their skills, are less than impressed with potential employees who reject ideas without demonstrating an understanding for them. Most colleges will feel the same way.
In the list of challenges to evolution provided by the creationists in the article, it was interesting to note that most of the challenges were against the textbooks; "why does the textbook say..." etc. And this is one area where there can be a lot of improvement. School textbooks are constantly under fire from politicalally motivated organizations which fun their production. They are watered down and dumbed down so much that the information they convey is not helpful when challenged in detail. It's interesting to note that it's the creationists who are to blame for the dumbing down of test books, and it's they who turn around and challenge the content later on. Quite a convoluted scam.
gungasnake wrote:
rosborne979 wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:Evolution consists 99% of the simple and obviously true ideas that:
1. Genes which confer a survival advantage come to dominate the gene pool over long periods of time. Genes which confer a disadvantage tend to die out.
2. New traits are introduced from time to time by the mechanism of mutation.
That's it, folks. Not very sinister. Someone tell me how that is not true. You can see it right in your face with any creature that has very short generations, e.g. bacterial adaptation to medicines.
You'll get no argument from me on those points Brandon....
That's sad. It means neither one of you knows anything about biology or evolutionism.
Well, it certainly means that I know something about "evolutionism," since it is a correct statement of the basic principles of the theory of evolution.
gungasnake wrote:Number one, natural selection (item 1 in the little two-point demonstration of ignorance above)...
Ignorance of what, exactly? It was an accurate statement of the basic principles of evolution.
gungasnake wrote:...is a destructive process and not a constructive one. It is an agency of stasis and not change. You could no more create a new kind of animal with natural selection than you could create a building with a wrecking ball.
Correct. To create a new creature you need both natural selection AND mutation. New creatures are just arbitrary dividing lines or milestones in the long, slow accumulation of minor improvements.
gungasnake wrote:Two, in the real world, the normal term for mutation is "birth defect"...
Actually, that turns out not to be the case. In large populations over long periods of time, you occasionally get improvements from mutation. If this were not the case, bacteria would not develop immunity to medicines. If you disagree, then give me your theory of how that happans.
Brandon9000 wrote:
gungasnake wrote:...is a destructive process and not a constructive one. It is an agency of stasis and not change. You could no more create a new kind of animal with natural selection than you could create a building with a wrecking ball.
Correct. To create a new creature you need both natural selection AND mutation.
Only one little problem: The experts all say it can't happen. Consider again:
Quote:
Mutations
"A mutation doesn't produce major new raw (DNA) material. You don't make a
new species by mutating the species."
Stephen Jay Gould, Prof of Geology and
Paleontology, Harvard University
"Is a New and General Theory of Evol. Emerging?
Lecture at Hobart&Wm Smith College,Feb4,1980
"With ... the inability of mutations of any type to produce new genetic
information, the maintenance of the basic plan is to be expected." (p.168)
"There are limits to biological change and ... these limits are set by the
structure and function of the genetic machinery." (p. 153)
Ph.D. L.P.Lester & R.G. Bohlin (Creationists)
The Natural Limits of Biological Change
Zondervan/Probe, 1984
"No matter how numerous they may be, mutations do not produce any kind of
(E)volution."
Pierre-Paul Grosse
past-President, French Acadamie des Science
Evolution of Living Organisms
Academic Press, New York, 1977, p 88
"A random change in the highly integrated system of chemical processes
which constitute life is certain to impair - just as a random interchange
of connections in a television set is not likely to improve the picture."
James F. Crow
Radiation & mutation specialist
"Genetic Effects of Radiation"
Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, Vol. 14, pp 19-20
In essence Ganja is right--the normal condition for a gene mutation is a birth defect.
Most genetic mutations are not beneficial to survival. As a result of the lack of benefit, natural selection winnows out these detrimental mutations quickly.
However, species evolution occurs only requires a rare mutation that benefits niche survival.
Rap
raprap wrote:In essence Ganja is right--the normal condition for a gene mutation is a birth defect.
Most genetic mutations are not beneficial to survival. As a result of the lack of benefit, natural selection winnows out these detrimental mutations quickly.
However, species evolution occurs only requires a rare mutation that benefits niche survival.
Rap
Read the item above. "Species evolution" is microevolution, which nobody disputes. No combination of mutations and selection can produce a new KIND of animal.
The only problem with this retort is that microevolution is another invention of ID.
Rap
Correction microevolution is a term invention of ID to explain evolutions short term observations. Evolutionary theory needs no such distinction, there is just evolution.
This required distinction by ID seems to violate Occam's Razor, making ID not only unsupported but much more messy and complicated than Evolutionary theory.
Which can bring me back to theology and evolution. I find it hard to believe that the Big Kahuna is messy and complicated and that a truly sophisticated deity would conform to what mathematicians call elegance. ID isn't elegant, it requires that a deity be constantly fiddling with it's creation. Evolution, regardless what your theology, is elegant--it requires no intervention for correction, and in my theology only a sophisticated deity to set such elegance in motion.
Rap
Use of the term 'microevolution' long predates ID.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microevolution
Quote:
Microevolution is the occurrence of small-scale changes in gene frequencies in a population over a few generations, also known as change at or below the species level. These changes may be due to several processes: mutation, gene flow, genetic drift, as well as natural selection. Population genetics is the branch of biology that provides the mathematical structure for the study of the process of microevolution. Biologists distinguish between microevolution and macroevolution, which is the occurrence of large-scale changes in gene frequencies in a population over a long period of time (and may culminate in the evolution of new species).
Typically, observable instances of evolution are examples of microevolution; for example, bacterial strains that have become resistant to antibiotics. Because microevolution can be observed directly, both pro-evolution and some anti-evolution groups agree that it is a fact of life.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/macroevolution.html
Quote:
The term has been revived by a number of authors such as Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge, the authors of punctuated equilibrium theory (see Eldredge's 1992 Macroevolutionary Dynamics ), but there is a tendency in these authors to revert to the orthogenetic view that something other than within-species processes are causing macroevolution, although they disavow the orthogenetic view that evolution is progressing anywhere.
You dont only need mutation for evolution. Mutation is
just one of a few accountable mechanisms that add variability to the genic complement.
Gunga, you are so full of **** that you dont even know what to support
Your comment that Evolution is inconsistent withChristianity and the Bible--is itself inconsistent with the tenets of Intelligent Design (which you, in a moment of lucidity, claimed to be a few months ago). My advice is that you better sit down with your own rule book because you are as confused and incorrect as your half assembled quotes from some of those above scientists.
Your earlier comment that Gould sort of "gave in " to the evolutionist cronies, makes it sound like they had him tied up and were forcing him to drink poison unless he confessed. Gould was a persistent gentleman. he never backed down from any position. He lived with Punctuated Equilibrium till he died. Others began to present evidence that, from Goulds own fossil beds, they could see that intermediate forms of fossils could be seen and not the long periods of stasis that PE predicted. He was guilty of sampling error and yet he still argued his points in his "The Structure of Evolutionary Theory". So,as usual, you know NOTHING of what you speak. Your posts are mostly truth and fact-free.
So, Im gonna keep remindingyou that, in science, the worst thing isnt to be wrong, its to discover that youve been a big liar. You should go back to your original sources in AIG and start QAing them because, if you believe that crap your not only guilty of gross ignorance, Ill have to add criminal ignorance to the list.
About a year before his death, Gould was asked if he was still busy fighting creationists. He replied, "No, it's a waste of time."
Microevolution is merely the changes that occur at a less than species level. Macroevolution are changes that occur at above a species level. Nothing major here. The Creationists and IDers have glommed on it to try to "have it both ways" without appearing to be the truth benders that they are
Buss(1998) stated that "The major features of evolution were shaped DURING periods of transition BETWEEN units of selection. Gould (2002) reaffirms this as defining the limitations of speciation in a purely Darwinian way. Punctuated Equilibrium is still on the table as a discussion hypothesis. Its a saltation mechanism that is only visible in a fossil record. Its not a preoblem when genetics are incorporated because , as patiodog mentioned about the Nile and Victorian Cichlid fish, these are multi genuses and one two supegenuses that appeared in under 50000 years. Genetic data is irrefutable (unless gunga wants to deny genetics also).
"
Keep the mechanisms separate people. Id like to have us all reason tgether , or we start falling into the gunga trap that says'IF Gould said this, then he must be against that". Not true.
Anyway, this is about ID and whAT GUNGA IS DOING IS DRAGGING CLASSICAL CREATIONISM INTO HIS "ARGUMENTS". I WANNA MAKE SURE THAT HE UNDESRTANDS THAT HAVING IT BOTH WAYS IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL AS SEEN BY THE US SUPREME COURT IN EDWARDS V AGUILLARD.
From the conclusions of your second reference
Talking origins
Quote:Conclusion
There is no difference between micro- and macroevolution except that genes between species usually diverge, while genes within species usually combine. The same processes that cause within-species evolution are responsible for above-species evolution, except that the processes that cause speciation include things that cannot happen to lesser groups, such as the evolution of different sexual apparatus (because, by definition, once organisms cannot interbreed, they are different species).
Rap
raprap wrote:From the conclusions of your second reference
Talking origins
Quote:Conclusion
There is no difference between micro- and macroevolution except that genes between species usually diverge, while genes within species usually combine. The same processes that cause within-species evolution are responsible for above-species evolution...
Rap
The people in charge of that talk.origins web sites are committed ideologues. I quoted their historical statement about Gould since all that involves is timelines and historical fact. I know better than to quote their ideology; shame you don't...
gungasnake wrote:raprap wrote:In essence Ganja is right--the normal condition for a gene mutation is a birth defect.
Most genetic mutations are not beneficial to survival. As a result of the lack of benefit, natural selection winnows out these detrimental mutations quickly.
However, species evolution occurs only requires a rare mutation that benefits niche survival.
Rap
Read the item above. "Species evolution" is microevolution, which nobody disputes. No combination of mutations and selection can produce a new KIND of animal.
Why do you think that over hundreds of millions of years, and in huge populations, these acumulated changes cannot eventually produce a sufficiently changed animal that one would decide to call if a new species? What is your basis for placing this limit on the process?
wandeljw wrote:About a year before his death, Gould was asked if he was still busy fighting creationists. He replied, "No, it's a waste of time."
Unfortunately, fighting creationists is a necessary evil. We can see from the article that Gunga posted, as well as the activities in Dover PA, that religious dogma and superstition are agressive, and will creep in wherever and whenever educated people don't stand their ground.
Intellectual integrity and scientific achievement are worth defending. Both have been far more rewarding to humanity and to civilization than have religious dogma and witchcraft.
gungasnake wrote:raprap wrote:From the conclusions of your second reference
Talking origins
Quote:Conclusion
There is no difference between micro- and macroevolution except that genes between species usually diverge, while genes within species usually combine. The same processes that cause within-species evolution are responsible for above-species evolution...
Rap
The people in charge of that talk.origins web sites are committed ideologues. I quoted their historical statement about Gould since all that involves is timelines and historical fact. I know better than to quote their ideology; shame you don't...
Only someone afraid to defend his viewpoint concentrates on a particular argument's origins instead of on what is being said.
Then you are apparently arguing both side of the same point at your convenience.
From what I read in the conclusions of talkingorigions there there is effectively no distinction between micro- and macroevolution, there is only evolution. Get it straight. Is there or is there not there microevolution, or is microevolution just another ID strawman?
Rap
Quote: The people in charge of that talk.origins web sites are committed ideologues. I quoted their historical statement about Gould since all that involves is timelines and historical fact. I know better than to quote their ideology; shame you don't...
The people on talk origins are mostly grad students . They ar n the sciences, unlike your AIG, which is run by the Cornesrtone project and takes money from old ladies who wish to buy themselves into "heaven".
You quote NOTHING from Gould that is truth> Goud was well known for his convoluted sentence structures and complex ideas, and, of course, he knew what he was talking about , unlike our dear gunga.
Just rambling here, on the "can't create a new animal" train...
Differential growth as the engine of morphological diversity
All you've got to do is look at the startling lack of diversity of body plans among vertebrates to realize that this is almost true. Since vertebrates came on the scene -- and, in many respects, since mobile, bilaterally symmetrical, cephalized larvae of sessile mature forms came on the scene -- the body plan has been spectacularly limited. Two forelimbs (except where lost), two hindlimbs (except where lost), variable numbers of digits (never greater than five, and the order in which digits are reduced in species is very regular -- thumb goes first, then pinky, then index, then ring...), and so on and so forth. It's very telling that there are not a single vertebrate out there with more than six limbs.
Since vertebrate developmental timelines can be tweaked considerably -- and even, in some instances, like the axolotl and possibly humans, arrested -- without mortality, developmental changes are fundamental to population diversity and so to evolution (which biol profs have always defined for me simply as "changes of distribution of alleles in a gene pool"). Differential growth, probabilistic interactions between cells expressing different proteomes -- these drive development, and these may not even be driven by changes in what we typically think of as "genes." Mutate a cis-acting response element for expression of the cells in a limb bud whose "internal clocks" regulate the length of the limb (and, to a degree, the development of structures in the limb), and you can have a remarkably different individual.
Gene families
I've seen several mentions here of "new" genetic material. It doesn't take much reading in the field of, say, pharmacology to realize that there are a lot fewer families of genes than there are genes themselves. All over the genome, ancestral genes have been duplicated and translocated, and undergo a sort of intragenomic genetic drift, one copy accumulating mutations that change the gene product's behavior significantly while the other continues to perform the ancestral function. "New" genes have parents, too.
Reproductive iosolation as an engine of diversification
It's not necessary for a subpopulation to drift slowly away from the larger population. This can happen quite suddenly. Humans, for instance, sport a chromosome that is really a fusion of what are two chromosomes in the rest of primates. Such a mutation immediately isolates an individual from the rest of the population. It would take a long time for this to occur in a scenario where it might be passed on, but such a scenario is easy to create. (It would require quite a bit of incest, but so does Genesis, if taken literally.) Once populations are in isolation, genetic drift alone is capable of splitting them into separate species.
It's a shame, really, that the creationist and/or ID folks ignore botany, because many of the examples they seek are readily available there...
