Kansas School Board Redefines Stupidity

real life wrote:

Ticomaya wrote:
Corn? I suppose we've got some corn, but we've got a heck of a lot of wheat. And not that many tumbleweeds.

Tico,

Are you in KS? What part?

Wichita.

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

real life wrote:
Ticomaya wrote:
Corn? I suppose we've got some corn, but we've got a heck of a lot of wheat. And not that many tumbleweeds.

Tico,

Are you in KS? What part?

Wichita.

Great area. I have both friends and family nearby.

No wonder you're so sensible and straightforward. I shoulda guessed long ago.

0 Replies

Thank you for the compliment.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

JStark,

Would you agree that evolution deals largely with evidence that is circumstantial in nature, since no creature has ever been directly observed to evolve into another creature?

How exactly would you expect to witness such an event? Please explain what you mean. What exactly would we be witnessing?

We do have fossil records that show evolution has been at work. We can witness it's effects through time that way.

Evolution is not anymore circumstantial than quantum mechanics.

-J

0 Replies

parados wrote:

real life wrote:
parados wrote:

There is nothing wrong with well thought out questions.

ID isn't well thought out. It makes a claim that evolution can't be real because it doesn't answer every qeustion. Then ID proposes an answer that doesn't answer any questions. Id violates the very rules it used to slap down evolution. Complete confusion and lack of logic.

This is not, I think, an accurate representation of the position most IDers take.

Neither evolution nor ID have much in the way of direct evidence to work with since neither has ever been directly observed.

The evidence that is available to evolutionists and IDers alike is largely circumstantial in nature. As such it is open to a variety of interpretations.

Most evolutionists hate to admit that this is so, but until they can show direct observation of evolution, this is where we are.

For evolutionists to present inference and circumstantial evidence as conclusive is, I think, a bit too optimistic on their part.

That is very silly reasoning. We have never seen a mountain created by 2 tectonic plates crashing together but it is well established based on other evidence that it has occurred. We didn't see the Grand Canyon created by erosion but the science supports that it was created that way. We haven't seen the polar ice caps or glaciers created but it is well known that they are caused by precipitation. We didn't see the sedimentation that created sandstone but that doen't mean we don't have a clue how the rocks were formed. We didn't see the formation of oil and coal but we have a good idea how that happened.

Every branch of science often takes small observed changes and extrapolates over long time periods. We have seen DNA change. We have seen species become unable to have offspring with other descendents from a common ancestor. We have seen NOTHING observable that relates to an intelligent design. There is quite a difference in the science behind ID and evolution. They are in no way comparable unless you ignore the standards of science completely.

We have direct observable evidence of erosion making canyons.

We have direct observable evidence of continents moving.

We have direct observable evidence of large amounts of precipitation in the polar regions.

However, we have NO direct observable evidence of one creature becoming another, nor anything even close. Not even close to close.

The changes we do observe in creatures by way of mutation are almost always harmful, not beneficial. So most of the direct observation that should take us in the direction of evolution (according to the theory) instead takes us in the other direction.

Evolution is only a certainty if you ignore the standards of science completely.

0 Replies

jstark wrote:

real life wrote:

JStark,

Would you agree that evolution deals largely with evidence that is circumstantial in nature, since no creature has ever been directly observed to evolve into another creature?

How exactly would you expect to witness such an event? Please explain what you mean. What exactly would we be witnessing?

We do have fossil records that show evolution has been at work. We can witness it's effects through time that way.

Evolution is not anymore circumstantial than quantum mechanics.

-J

If you do not have direct, observable evidence then what you have is circumstantial, although you may not like to admit it.

What we have is fossils that show that animals which were alive are now dead.

Most of what follows is inference, not observation of evolution. True, evolution is one POSSIBLE interpretation of these fossils. There are other POSSIBLE interpretations of them as well.

Finding fossils of two creatures who share many characteristics and diverge on a few others is NOT proof that one evolved from the other or that they come from a common ancestor. That is an inference only.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

However, we have NO direct observable evidence of one creature becoming another, nor anything even close. Not even close to close.

There are several instances of direct observable evidence of evolution. The fish to amphibian transition is very well documented. Humanity itself is well documented. Surely "not even close to close" is just hyperbole. But then that is the foundation of the ID argument.

real life wrote:

What we have is fossils that show that animals which were alive are now dead.

If you think that is all we can learn from a fossil, no wounder you don't believe in evolution.

real life wrote:

Finding fossils of two creatures who share many characteristics and diverge on a few others is NOT proof that one evolved from the other or that they come from a common ancestor. That is an inference only.

Right, but finding hundreds of such fossils starts to point to certain conclusions. Also note that evolutionary theory is not based solely on the fossil record. The fossil record is one piece to the puzzle. It just so happens it fits nicely.

The fossil record does not fit so nicely with ID theory however.

real life wrote:

There are other POSSIBLE interpretations of them as well.

What would those be?

-J

0 Replies

real life wrote:

parados wrote:
real life wrote:
parados wrote:

There is nothing wrong with well thought out questions.

ID isn't well thought out. It makes a claim that evolution can't be real because it doesn't answer every qeustion. Then ID proposes an answer that doesn't answer any questions. Id violates the very rules it used to slap down evolution. Complete confusion and lack of logic.

This is not, I think, an accurate representation of the position most IDers take.

Neither evolution nor ID have much in the way of direct evidence to work with since neither has ever been directly observed.

The evidence that is available to evolutionists and IDers alike is largely circumstantial in nature. As such it is open to a variety of interpretations.

Most evolutionists hate to admit that this is so, but until they can show direct observation of evolution, this is where we are.

For evolutionists to present inference and circumstantial evidence as conclusive is, I think, a bit too optimistic on their part.

That is very silly reasoning. We have never seen a mountain created by 2 tectonic plates crashing together but it is well established based on other evidence that it has occurred. We didn't see the Grand Canyon created by erosion but the science supports that it was created that way. We haven't seen the polar ice caps or glaciers created but it is well known that they are caused by precipitation. We didn't see the sedimentation that created sandstone but that doen't mean we don't have a clue how the rocks were formed. We didn't see the formation of oil and coal but we have a good idea how that happened.

Every branch of science often takes small observed changes and extrapolates over long time periods. We have seen DNA change. We have seen species become unable to have offspring with other descendents from a common ancestor. We have seen NOTHING observable that relates to an intelligent design. There is quite a difference in the science behind ID and evolution. They are in no way comparable unless you ignore the standards of science completely.

We have direct observable evidence of erosion making canyons.

We have direct observable evidence of continents moving.

We have direct observable evidence of large amounts of precipitation in the polar regions.

However, we have NO direct observable evidence of one creature becoming another, nor anything even close. Not even close to close.

The changes we do observe in creatures by way of mutation are almost always harmful, not beneficial. So most of the direct observation that should take us in the direction of evolution (according to the theory) instead takes us in the other direction.

Evolution is only a certainty if you ignore the standards of science completely.

We can observe genetic mutations, and we can observe heritability. That is evolution. Genes determine a creature's physical characteristics, and genes are passed on from parent to offspring. Genetic mutations occur, creating new physical characteristics - if one of these characteristics is beneficial, the animal is more likely to survive and reproduce, so the gene is more likely to survive. As this occurs over many many years, species gradually change, and adapt to their environment. Evolution.

If we can observe genes, genetic mutation, and survival of the fittest, we can observe evolution.

0 Replies

agrote wrote:

real life wrote:
parados wrote:
real life wrote:
parados wrote:

There is nothing wrong with well thought out questions.

ID isn't well thought out. It makes a claim that evolution can't be real because it doesn't answer every qeustion. Then ID proposes an answer that doesn't answer any questions. Id violates the very rules it used to slap down evolution. Complete confusion and lack of logic.

This is not, I think, an accurate representation of the position most IDers take.

Neither evolution nor ID have much in the way of direct evidence to work with since neither has ever been directly observed.

The evidence that is available to evolutionists and IDers alike is largely circumstantial in nature. As such it is open to a variety of interpretations.

Most evolutionists hate to admit that this is so, but until they can show direct observation of evolution, this is where we are.

For evolutionists to present inference and circumstantial evidence as conclusive is, I think, a bit too optimistic on their part.

That is very silly reasoning. We have never seen a mountain created by 2 tectonic plates crashing together but it is well established based on other evidence that it has occurred. We didn't see the Grand Canyon created by erosion but the science supports that it was created that way. We haven't seen the polar ice caps or glaciers created but it is well known that they are caused by precipitation. We didn't see the sedimentation that created sandstone but that doen't mean we don't have a clue how the rocks were formed. We didn't see the formation of oil and coal but we have a good idea how that happened.

Every branch of science often takes small observed changes and extrapolates over long time periods. We have seen DNA change. We have seen species become unable to have offspring with other descendents from a common ancestor. We have seen NOTHING observable that relates to an intelligent design. There is quite a difference in the science behind ID and evolution. They are in no way comparable unless you ignore the standards of science completely.

We have direct observable evidence of erosion making canyons.

We have direct observable evidence of continents moving.

We have direct observable evidence of large amounts of precipitation in the polar regions.

However, we have NO direct observable evidence of one creature becoming another, nor anything even close. Not even close to close.

The changes we do observe in creatures by way of mutation are almost always harmful, not beneficial. So most of the direct observation that should take us in the direction of evolution (according to the theory) instead takes us in the other direction.

Evolution is only a certainty if you ignore the standards of science completely.

We can observe genetic mutations, and we can observe heritability. That is evolution. Genes determine a creature's physical characteristics, and genes are passed on from parent to offspring. Genetic mutations occur, creating new physical characteristics - if one of these characteristics is beneficial, the animal is more likely to survive and reproduce, so the gene is more likely to survive. As this occurs over many many years, species gradually change, and adapt to their environment. Evolution.

If we can observe genes, genetic mutation, and survival of the fittest, we can observe evolution.

Hi Agrote,

The great majority of mutations are not beneficial. They are harmful or neutral, advancing the species not a bit.

Even the ones that can be said to be beneficial (how many mutations would it take to generate an eye where none existed?) often have no benefit until and unless many other mutations (the other necessary components of the structure, it's processes, it's maintenance and defense) are existing as well.

Also, slight advantages may (or may not) tend to help survivability but in no way insure it. The fittest do not ALWAYS survive and thrive. If a beneficial characteristic is lost due to the death of the member that carried it , then you must suppose that the same beneficial characteristic showed up by blind chance AGAIN in the same species.

Since populations of species , especially of the higher animals, tend to be much smaller numbers than , say insects or bacteria, the likelihood of this characteristic reappearing is greatly hampered. And it is in those same higher animals that evolution requires huge changes in body style, function, etc to develop the huge variety represented by such diverse groups.

Also as these creatures supposedly diverged from one another, the failure to interbreed with old stock would, each step along the way, repeatedly by definition reduce the population of each 'new species' to a very low level, increasing the risk of losing new characteristics if one or a few members of the newly diverged species perished.

These repeated instances of small populations are a huge problem for evolution which NEEDS very large populations to make a go of it.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

The great majority of mutations are not beneficial. They are harmful or neutral, advancing the species not a bit.

This is something that evolution itself states and accounts for. So it is in support of evolutionary theory.

real life wrote:

Even the ones that can be said to be beneficial (how many mutations would it take to generate an eye where none existed?) often have no benefit until and unless many other mutations (the other necessary components of the structure, it's processes, it's maintenance and defense) are existing as well.

The problem with the evolution of the eye was both posed and explained by Darwin himself. Evolutionary science has explained this ID mantra quite thoroughly:

Darwins explanation of the eye & further modern reading

real life wrote:

Also, slight advantages may (or may not) tend to help survivability but in no way insure it. The fittest do not ALWAYS survive and thrive. If a beneficial characteristic is lost due to the death of the member that carried it , then you must suppose that the same beneficial characteristic showed up by blind chance AGAIN in the same species.

Evolution is not about the survival of the fittest per say. It's mostly focused on the survival of the fit. There need not be only one, hence variation. I don't understand what you mean by the rest of the paragraph. Could you explain why a trait that is lost do to death must reappear? The reality of extinction seems to be against this.

real life wrote:

Since populations of species , especially of the higher animals, tend to be much smaller numbers than , say insects or bacteria, the likelihood of this characteristic reappearing is greatly hampered. And it is in those same higher animals that evolution requires huge changes in body style, function, etc to develop the huge variety represented by such diverse groups.

Again, I am not understanding what you are saying regarding the reappearance of characteristics. Why must they reapper? As for requiring huge changes in body style, it has been shown that even a fraction of a percent of advantage is significant in evolutionary adaptation. So the changes can be minute.

real life wrote:

Also as these creatures supposedly diverged from one another, the failure to interbreed with old stock would, each step along the way, repeatedly by definition reduce the population of each 'new species' to a very low level, increasing the risk of losing new characteristics if one or a few members of the newly diverged species perished.

This is absolutely backwards. A new species that is better adapted to it's environment than the "old stock" would thrive. The old stock would dwindle as it is not as "fit". Thats the point.

real life wrote:

These repeated instances of small populations are a huge problem for evolution which NEEDS very large populations to make a go of it.

I don't see the problem at all because evolution does not make the claims you are attributing to it. Evolution is about adaptation to environment so that a species can thrive, not stay small and dwindle.

Kind Regards

0 Replies

jstark wrote:

real life wrote:

Also, slight advantages may (or may not) tend to help survivability but in no way insure it. The fittest do not ALWAYS survive and thrive. If a beneficial characteristic is lost due to the death of the member that carried it , then you must suppose that the same beneficial characteristic showed up by blind chance AGAIN in the same species.

Evolution is not about the survival of the fittest per say. It's mostly focused on the survival of the fit. There need not be only one, hence variation. I don't understand what you mean by the rest of the paragraph. Could you explain why a trait that is lost do to death must reappear? The reality of extinction seems to be against this.

Simply that. Just because a creature carries a mutation that could prove beneficial IF the creature survives and multiplies, this is no guarantee that he WILL survive and multiply. Evolution postulates that many of the changes are very slight in and of themselves and therefore only carry a slight benefit.

A slight advantage in being able to hunt food, for instance, is no guarantee that the creature will be able to avoid being hunted and eaten for lunch. The reverse is true also. A creature may be advantaged in camoflauge and hence avoid death by predators, only to starve for lack of food.

If the creature with the beneficial mutation does not, in reality, benefit enough to insure survival, then the mutation must reappear some other time in another member of the same species. This member must derive enough benefit to survive, or.......it's Groundhog Day. Get it?

jstark wrote:

real life wrote:

Since populations of species , especially of the higher animals, tend to be much smaller numbers than , say insects or bacteria, the likelihood of this characteristic reappearing is greatly hampered. And it is in those same higher animals that evolution requires huge changes in body style, function, etc to develop the huge variety represented by such diverse groups.

Again, I am not understanding what you are saying regarding the reappearance of characteristics. Why must they reapper? As for requiring huge changes in body style, it has been shown that even a fraction of a percent of advantage is significant in evolutionary adaptation. So the changes can be minute.

Evolution requires large populations of creatures for the long odds to even begin to look as if they may be overcome and the species move forward. Higher animals do not have the large population numbers of smaller species of life, such as bacteria or insects.

jstark wrote:

real life wrote:

Also as these creatures supposedly diverged from one another, the failure to interbreed with old stock would, each step along the way, repeatedly by definition reduce the population of each 'new species' to a very low level, increasing the risk of losing new characteristics if one or a few members of the newly diverged species perished.

This is absolutely backwards. A new species that is better adapted to it's environment than the "old stock" would thrive. The old stock would dwindle as it is not as "fit". Thats the point.

At some point , the new creature supposedly has evolved differently enough so that it can no longer interbreed with the original stock. The first few new creatures to reach this point in the transitional phase between any two creatures are at a distinct disadvantage.

Evolution has advanced them over a cliff , so to speak , because they are considerably fewer potential partners with which to successfully mate. The population of the newly evolved species is very small at this point. Now if a new characteristic emerges , it's a lot more difficult to pass it on.

Indeed, at a juncture such as this, it's a lot more difficult to postulate a new characteristic appearing at all in a population of 2 than it is in a population of 100,000. It may be many generations of the new species before any new characteristics appear, owing to the smaller initial numbers of potential carriers.

This happens at EVERY transitional phase between creatures that cannot interbreed. So it has literally had to happen thousands of times, if evolution is to be taken seriously.

jstark wrote:

real life wrote:

These repeated instances of small populations are a huge problem for evolution which NEEDS very large populations to make a go of it.

I don't see the problem at all because evolution does not make the claims you are attributing to it. Evolution is about adaptation to environment so that a species can thrive, not stay small and dwindle.

Kind Regards

Actually evolution does require large populations to "work" and evolutionists will generally admit that much.

0 Replies

real life

Quote:

If the creature with the beneficial mutation does not, in reality, benefit enough to insure survival, then the mutation must reappear some other time in another member of the same species. This member must derive enough benefit to survive, or.......it's Groundhog Day. Get it?

Is this "the world according to real life"? Since a large part of phenotypic bauplans are adaptive, they dont need to "reappear" . However, certain features like "Sabretoothness, or eyes" have reappeared in different genii at entirely different times . We had sabretooth marsupials and multituberculates, besides sabre tooth cats. And , 10K years after SMilodon, we are seeing the reemergence of Sabretoothness inside sveveral populations of snow leopards.

Quote:

Actually evolution does require large populations to "work" and evolutionists will generally admit that much.

This is hogwash. SInce evolution is(IMHO, most often adaptive, a very tiny population can evolve into specific taxa with specific traits. You dont believe that there was a "separate and ongoing creation" do you? Small populations on islands have been the stock of entire Orders and higher taxa.

We have very good fossil records from Australia and limited root taxa from surrounding islands in the Sundas. We can see how some early marsupials and monotremes and multituburculates either swam or rafted to Australia or else they were Created there. This occured at a time much later than the split off of Australia from Pangea. (remember , Im merely using this as evidence because youve elsewehere already stipulated that continental drift was observable)

Once Australia was nearer the Asiatic and antarctic terraines these early Asiatic mammals "came ashore" and Exploded into many different forms typical and unique to Austarlia , including many families of marsupials and 3 monotremes. We seem to have "lost" any evidence for early (post Eocene) marsupials on the Asiatic mainland so , unless they ALL swam to Australia, they developed there from the rootstock for which we have fossils Of course they all could have been "specially created" , but you really have to know how silly that sounds, because you have entire chains of islands with totally unique species and higher taxa found nowhere else in the world.

Islands are an example of small populations adapting to that island , as long as the island doesnt go through a severe edaphic change,(Sorta like Antarctica). DAvid Quammens book on Island Evolution is a popular text and quite good at presenting the evidence of the hundreds of thousands of uniwque species that happen to be traversing to ends of island arcs and evolving as they went.

Your "opinions" are kind of worthless cause they fly in the face of real evidence, even circumstantial evidence(as you are fond of repeating)

0 Replies

farmerman,
I am interested in hearing your thoughts on the revisions made by Kansas in the teaching of evolution at the high school level. The Kansas education board added standards that call for students to be made aware of the following criticisms concerning evolutionary theory:

Quote:

a. The theory "postulates an unguided natural process that has no discernable direction or goal."
b. "The view that living things in all the major kingdoms are modified descendants of a common ancestor (described in the pattern of a branching tree) has been challenged in recent years by (i) discrepancies in the molecular evidence, (ii) a fossil record that is not consistent with gradual increases in complexity, and (iii) studies that show that animals follow different rather than identical early stages of embryological development.
c. "New heritable traits may result from new combinations of genes and from random mutations or changes in the reproductive cells. Except in very rare cases, mutations that may be inherited are neutral, deleterious or fatal."
d. "Whether microevolution (change within a species) can be extrapolated to explain macroevolutionary changes (such as new complex organs or body plans and new biochemical systems which appear irreducibly complex) is controversial."

0 Replies

real life wrote:

We have direct observable evidence of erosion making canyons.

We have direct observable evidence of continents moving.

We have direct observable evidence of large amounts of precipitation in the polar regions.

However, we have NO direct observable evidence of one creature becoming another, nor anything even close. Not even close to close.

The changes we do observe in creatures by way of mutation are almost always harmful, not beneficial. So most of the direct observation that should take us in the direction of evolution (according to the theory) instead takes us in the other direction.

Evolution is only a certainty if you ignore the standards of science completely.

The point you FORGET is we have direct observable evidence of a species evolving to where it can't breed with other descendents of a common ancestor.

We have NEVER seen a canyon of the size of the Grand Canyone made with erosion. We have extrapolated from evidence of small erosions that the BIG erosion occurred.

We have NEVER seen a continent move the distance required to make the Himilayas. We have NEVER seen a mountain of 5000 feet high made from the small movement we have observed. We extrapolate from the SMALL changes.

We have NEVER seen a 100' thick glacier created from precipitation. We have EXTRAPOLATED from the few inches we have seen created on top of existing glaciers.

No evidence of a creature becoming another creature? BS.. we have LOTS of evidence of it. Just because you refuse to believe in the evidence doesn't make the evidence go away. We have observed in the laboratory new species come about. Because the species looks similar to the previous in no way prevents the species from continuing to grow apart over billions of years. We have a ton of fossil evidence showing an increase and change in complexity of life over time. Those two facts alone point to the conclusion that over a very long time in billions of billions of billioins of lifeforms the math shows changes could occur.

Changes are often detrimental. Your argument is again silly. It would be like arguing that mountains can not be created by movement of tectonic plates because when the plates move apart it creates valleys. Detrimental changes do NOT rule out non detrimental changes any more than a crevase created by movement of tectonic plates rules out mountains.

0 Replies

I'm not farmerman, but never mind...

a. What large-scale natural processes are there that do have a discernable direction or goal?!
b. I'm not sure about all of these criticisms, but the criticism about the fossil record is ussually that it is incomplete - so what? Digging up fossils is hard work, so the fossil record isn't complete. What a shock.
c. It doesn't matter if most mutations are fatal... the animals that die off are going to be the ones with genes that are less suited to their environment, and the ones that survive will be the ones better suited to their environment. Maybe this would mean that only a very small fractuion of the population would survive, because beneficial mutations are uncommon. So what? Evolution is as simple as having a neck long enough to reach to chew the leaves off trees. Giraffes with short necks couldn't eat, so died. giraffes with long necks survive today.
d. How is it contraversial?

0 Replies

wandels quote

Quote:

(i) discrepancies in the molecular evidence, (ii) a fossil record that is not consistent with gradual increases in complexity, and (iii) studies that show that animals follow different rather than identical early stages of embryological development.

Im not aware of any "molecular evidence" that is not "prespun". The evidence they talk about can be seen to be quite clean in the coding regions of the genome. Evidences of actual repeted sections, and fused sections of chromosomes are available for inspection by anybody whos interested. The fact that we have variably 2 to 3% of all our genes focusing on a small specific number of focused functions is well understood, and our complement of genes ("were like a vast desert of junk dystrophin surrouning oasis of coding genes" (Watson) This enables us to study multifunctions in genes and compare the similitude in structure among the members of the animal kingdom. Only evolution can accomplish that, or else the ID guy is a terrible short order cook

2Fossil Evidence isnt even a debate. Its a bunch of ignorant yahoos, telling other ignorant yahoos that there is no continuity i the fossil record. I cant do anything about that, Im always amazed at how here in A2K that some people, seemingly quite intelligent, will dance and scream that there is no connectivity in the fossil record. Just aint so.
3Embryological errors from Haeckels drawings have been ouyted for 75 yearsThe similarity in embryology is rather profound where "gil arches' can be seen in stage I of most all vertebrates (this only demonstrates that a common path of development is followed, and not in Haeckels way) Strickleberger did a graphic in 1990 that showed the similarities in structure at early embryo levels (tails, pronephros, median lines, gil arches) all these structures were , depending upon the species and its internal genetic machinery undergoing a "programed death" (we call apoptosis) so a specialized structure unique to a particular group of animals begins to bud.

Quote:

?New heritable traits may result from new combinations of genes and from random mutations or changes in the reproductive cells.

Most often the genetic expression FOLLOWS the initial morphological change. As Gould said , genes are just the bookkeeping of evolution, not necessarily the cause. Most evolutionary expression begins within existing diversity, because since most evolution is adaptive, the survivability expresses itself feom the existing species

Quote:

d. ?Whether microevolution (change within a species) can be extrapolated to explain macroevolutionary changes (such as new complex organs or body plans and new biochemical systems which appear irreducibly complex) is controversial.?

This one I find really funny. It basically says that "we have doubts about the spectrum of micro to macroevolution" So heres a story that we are pushing about how some SPACE ALIEN or GOD , or INVOLVED INTELLIGENCE did it all and failed to leave any evidence at all.

Yeh thats science all right, maybe for the ARt Bell show it works.

0 Replies

Another way to address real life's objections about small populations dimishing the chances for speciation is the phenomenon of ring species. a notable example is the greenish warbler of central Asia.

here's a scholarly account of it:

http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/irwin.html

and for balance, here's an intelligent design forum, where ID advocates mainly resort to sarcasm rather than honestly attempt to refute apparent evidence of evolution (allopatric) speciation.

http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3a68abe52d91.htm

FYI, a ring species is a chain of subspecies, say A-B-C-D-E, where A interbreeds with B, B with C, and so on, but A and E do not interbreed, and allopatric speciation is the formation of new species by geographic isolation.

0 Replies

Real Life,

Just a couple points to address the points you seem to be repeating:

1. Evolution does not require all beneficial changes to survive. It's a statistical game of odds and it can be played down to sub percentile margins. Evolution is the house in this case and the house always wins in the end.

2. Regarding populations please note that when the European settlers discovered the new world they brought with them very small populations of animals that have since become common. This is not all due to husbandry either, some were wild stowaways or escaped captivity. So a small population of can produce a large population in short order.

3. Regarding the fossil record. First, there is evidence of transition between forms. You just have to look at the evidence we have. However, modern evolution does not require slow gradual transitions. The event of speciation can be relatively quick leading to a long period of stability until outside forces or random mutation force or cause another speciation event.

Wikipedia article on Speciation

I bring all this up RL because it is important to understand that science is not static and dogmatic. Our ideas of evolution are not the same as they were in Darwin's time. But science does not start with a conclusion and then try to fit the evidence to it. Also note that the majority of scientific research is more of an effort to prove that something is not false, rather than prove that it is true. Only after many such independently verified experiments does something start to be considered true. This is where evolution is at now.

Finally, I have been looking into ID and from what I can see their "research" seems to be focused on pointing out alleged weaknesses in the theory of evolution. It would be nice to see some actual original research that promotes an alternat theory that makes predictions and helps us understand the world we can clearly see. Failing that, ID is what it appears to be, a politically motivated and dishonest attempt at putting religion in the science room.

Kind Regards

0 Replies

farmerman, i think another example of strong circumstancial evidence for evolution by geographic isolation is the total absence of prehensile tails in Old World monkeys contrasted to the prevalence of prehensile tails in New World monkeys. if prehensile tails didn't evolve in the Americas, one of several unlikely scenarios must have occured: either all the monkeys with prehensile tails became extinct in the Old World, or all the monkeys with prehensile tails migrated to the New World, or all the monkeys without prehensile tails migrated to the Old World, or a combination of the three.

0 Replies

The Kansas Board of Education has ten members. Six conservative members voted for the controversial change in science standards. Four of those six conservative members are up for re-election next year. If Kansas voters replace these four conservatives with moderates, the newly configured board could possibly repeal the new standards before they go into effect.

0 Replies

Kansas School Board Redefines Stupidity

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know