0
   

Evolution Is Impossible Dot Com

 
 
yitwail
 
  1  
Reply Sat 12 Nov, 2005 07:16 pm
gungasnake wrote:
In other words, the general rule and tendency has to be that the first time any animal species gets its numbers below a certain point, you can kiss it goodbye.

I don't see how that isn't fatal to Gould's "punctuated equilibria" idea.


could be; just depends on what that minimal number is, and how it varies by species. but if that's fatal to Gould's PE, then it's even more fatal for the Genesis flood story, according to which virtually every species that now exists is descended from one male-female pair. (i say virtually, because there were either 7 or 14 of each "clean" animal on the ark.)

while a2k was in maintenance, i had the chance to scribble a lot of this stuff in my blog. so for anyone who might have read this observation there, i apolgize for being redundant.
0 Replies
 
stuh505
 
  1  
Reply Sat 12 Nov, 2005 09:18 pm
Quote:
The halo effect. Just because a person is qualified in one area mean she/she is equally qualifed in other areas.


No, Gunga wasn't trying to say that he was qualified, he was merely answering my question about his education level. No need to banter him on this.

Quote:
There appear to be cases of creatures designed for specific purposes.

Take the Austrrlian funnelweb spider for instance. Totally lethal to humans and monkeys if I've read it properly and yet a dog or cat could get bitten with little effect. As if the thing were designed to keep primates out of some specific area...

Tick birds seem designed to protect large animals from parasites. Butterflies and flowers appears to be designed as artwork of sorts.


Both of your examples are based on heavy ABDUCTIVE reasoning, which means that it is not evidence at all. Science uses only deductive and inductive reasoning as evidence.

For example, there are many other possible explanations for why these situations exist.

In a system bound by evolution, it is impossible for species like the funnelweb NOT to exist!! IF you understand principles of evolution, this is obvious. Thus, your example cannot be used to argue against evolution.

Secondly, once again the beautiful patterns on the butterfly have definite explanations through evolution. Haven't you ever heard of the moth that evolved from white to black due to the coal factories? This is pretty much real proof of evolution.
0 Replies
 
talk72000
 
  1  
Reply Sat 12 Nov, 2005 11:16 pm
Yit,

Thx for the shocking Shockley.

Gunga Jumna,

What is viewed as junk DNA could very well be switched off links in a long chain of switches. DNA is just a code and just because it is switched off doesn't mean it is junk as we don't know enough about it. We have both male and female sex organs coded in our genes. It just happens that the majority of us have either the male or female sex switched on or off as the case maybe. But there are hermaphrodites who have both sex organs among us as evidenced in some magazines.
0 Replies
 
yitwail
 
  1  
Reply Sun 13 Nov, 2005 03:03 am
gunga, Alu is present in all primates, so if it indicates humans are GMO, then all primates are GMO as well.

here's a quote from a paper, which i freely admit is mostly gibberish to me, since i'm not a molecular geneticist:

Quote:
The ubiquitous presence of Alu sequences within primate genomes has been the cumulative result of a "copy and paste" mechanism, in which an RNA polymerase III-generated transcript is reverse-transcribed and integrated into the genome (Burke et al. 1999).


on the other hand, humans have about 1.7x more Alu than chimps apparently, so it could be argued that humans are more engineered. on the other hand, humans and baboons genomes contain the same amount, apparently (caveat again about my lack of expertise).

Quote:
However, initial examination of 10.6 Mb of sequence from multiple primate genomes by Liu et al. (2003) revealed a significant deficit in chimpanzee Alu insertions compared with humans and baboons.


source:
http://www.genome.org/cgi/content/full/14/6/1068
0 Replies
 
stuh505
 
  1  
Reply Sun 13 Nov, 2005 11:41 am
Quote:
Natural selection is a destructive process and not a creative one. Claiming our present biosphere was built with natural selection is like claiming New York City was built with a wrecking ball.


GREAT! I guess we don't have to worry about the eventuality of bird flu evolving to affect humans. PHEW.
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Sun 13 Nov, 2005 02:20 pm
stuh505 wrote:
Quote:
Natural selection is a destructive process and not a creative one. Claiming our present biosphere was built with natural selection is like claiming New York City was built with a wrecking ball.


GREAT! I guess we don't have to worry about the eventuality of bird flu evolving to affect humans. PHEW.


It'll still be a flu virus if it does.

100% Of the debate involving evolution is about MACROevolution. Microevolution is a fact of life which nobody disputes.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Sun 13 Nov, 2005 04:46 pm
I just found this thread and the supposedly definitive argument and evidence against evolution. Its not even the latest stuff. 2nd LAw of Thermodynamics, jeeesus, even Duane Gish gave up on that.

Its good that some people of sense and the ability to analyze have taken up the discussion with "The snake". Weve gone over this with him about sebendy leben times and he still keeps repeating the same crap.

Snakes understanding about "micro/v macroevolution " is wholly spun by the AIG boys, especially Safarti who has, in the face of reasonable science, tried to foist a definition of the terms by improper use and silly inference. Micro evolution is merely the evolution that occurs below a species level and is more the expression of a Darwinian mechanism, whereas Macro evolution is anything above the species level (like genus and up).
Mayr made his career defining the mechanisms of overlapping "ring" species from the Argentine Gulls which form a continuous group of gulls having overlaps of "ring groups" and a little salamander called Ensatina. To see the mechanisms at work and seeing that macroevolution has occured in these new species (and genuses) that have speciated under allopatry.
The important related question to evolutionary sciences nowadays (hint;-it aint having anything to do with Creationism), Its how is genetic isolation acquired in sympatry and allopatry ? and what defines the rates of speciation?
The best example of initial insight of the rates has been a controlled study of 2 groups of Galapogos finches, where 2 scientists from Princeton have been going down and doing the scutwork statistical and morphological measurements for over 35 years. Insects and fish have been studied but critical sized populations need to be determined first
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Sun 13 Nov, 2005 05:28 pm
And he talks about me being pissed.
0 Replies
 
yitwail
 
  1  
Reply Sun 13 Nov, 2005 06:26 pm
famerman, i'm a newcomer at this, but the discussion has benefited me to the extent that i'm now convinced the Genesis flood account, and consequently the Bible as a whole, is not historically accurate, and as an agnostic, i will sleep easier at night in a manner of speaking. in case anyone cares, i'm not claiming that the Bible is untrue, only that parts of it are, as interpreted by young earth creationists. now i live in California, so earthquakes are a danger, but i personally know a Californian who believes the Bible is literally true, so i hope no would-be Pat Robertson's will be invoking the wrath of God on California because of my unbelief. if that's not enough, the Insitute of Creation Research, which i once visited, is within driving distance.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Sun 13 Nov, 2005 06:35 pm
fm wrote-

Quote:
The best example of initial insight of the rates has been a controlled study of 2 groups of Galapogos finches, where 2 scientists from Princeton have been going down and doing the scutwork statistical and morphological measurements for over 35 years.


How do you translate that into food and drink and having enough left to pull a bird or two for 35 years.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Nov, 2005 06:44 am
Spendius posted that drivvle yesterday at about the time he had his first Whatney's. After the 8th pint, he suddenly gets an urge to "communicate" on the web.

Yitwail, Im glad youve joined in, Ive read your posts and find them informed and objective .As youve realized b now, There is a small but vocal group of "mixed belief Creationists" herein. The thing I find most humorous is that , instead of succeeding in throwing mud at Evolutionary mechanisms and evidence, their posts are actually affirming since there hasnt been anything new in the "quote mining "business. All we get is old wine in new websites (To modify a Huxley term).

The ICR, a few years ago, on basic cable, had funded a TV mission called the "Cornerstone Project" In these shows, they had already introduced the cast of the future ID Wars. This lasted about 2 years about the time that the funding for the Discovery Institute became really significant and the ICR and Discovery had a major schism.
This entire movement has been well tracked and, as , was said about Watergate. "following the money" has always worked.

Id been involved in the hearings to the PA Dept of Education in 1999 and 2000 where "Intelligent Design" was defeated at the State level. At those hearings we came up against the extereme funding level that the entire movement has. Now, with the explosion of these content free web sites, and the establishment of "beacheads " in Creation friendly environments, I feel that this "debate' will continue for many years.

In the words of Milliken who, quoted out of context , supposedly said "We cannot prove evolution"

MAyr , in an article said "Maybe we cannot prove evolution, but we CAN provide compelling forensic evidence" Thats all that science is really capable of doing
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Nov, 2005 07:16 am
m wrote-

Quote:
Spendius posted that drivvle yesterday at about the time he had his first Whatney's. After the 8th pint, he suddenly gets an urge to "communicate" on the web.


First off I can't drink 8 pints.I have low alcohol toleration levels.

Second-The correct spelling of the brand mentioned is Watney's.

Third-I have never seen it sold or advertised for years.

Fourth-My post wasn't drivel(sic).It merely tried to point out,the subtlety being shorthand, that two scientists studying something pointless for 35 years means nothing outside of the government grants they have managed to successfully arrange for themselves probably through family connections or by knowing something steamy about the official who organises waste of taxpayers money.Were we to be in a position to watch these two sunbathers 24/7 I rather fear that the "project" would take up little more than a risible amount of their time and that the scientific mumbo-jumbo in their eventual report would be polished up accordingly.
One presumes they are interested in somethings more fascinating than bloody finches and that they act accordingly.Are they accompanied by nubile research assistants?

Some of us are aware of the "behind the scenes" activities in such unsupervised and exotic locations.

The reports written generally adopt the tone specified in the origins of the project which,as any decent scientist will tell you,can be anything you wish sir.If they start off as monkeys they may as well behave according to respectable monkey mores.
0 Replies
 
stuh505
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Nov, 2005 11:01 am
spendius, I mistook your comment as a jest. You really ought to do your research before making a fool of yourself like this.

Quote:

Peter and Rosemary Grant win Balzan Prize
by Ruth Stevens ยท Posted September 8, 2005; 10:42 p.m.
Peter and Rosemary Grant of Princeton's Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology have been selected to receive the Balzan Prize for their work in population biology.

The International Balzan Foundation annually awards four prizes for scientific and academic excellence. Each prize is valued at 1 million Swiss francs (about $800,000), and winners are expected to earmark half of the money for future projects to be carried out by young researchers. The award ceremony will take place on Friday, Nov. 11, in the Swiss Houses of Parliament in Bern.

The Grants were selected for "their remarkable long-term studies demonstrating evolution in action in Galapagos finches," according to the foundation. "The work of the Grants has had a seminal influence in the fields of population biology, evolution and ecology. It is generally regarded as the most significant study of evolutionary change in the field that has been carried out in the last 30 years."

Peter Grant is the Class of 1877 Professor of Zoology and Rosemary Grant is a senior research biologist at Princeton. For three decades, the married couple have traveled to the Galapagos Islands off the coast of South America to study the various species of finch that influenced Charles Darwin when formulating his theory of evolution. The Grants conduct research on how the finches have changed as a result of dramatic climatic differences.

Both are interested in the interplay of genetics, ecology and behavior, and especially in the question of why and when one species separates into two. In 1991, their joint publication, "Evolutionary Dynamics of a Natural Population: The Large Cactus Finch of the Galapagos," earned the Wildlife Publication Award of the Wildlife Society. They also received the E.O. Wilson Prize of the American Society of Naturalists in 1998, the Darwin Medal of the Royal Society of London in 2002 and the Grinnell Award of the University of California-Berkeley in 2003.

The Grants are members of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences and the General Assembly of the Charles Darwin Foundation.

Since 1961, 106 scientists, scholars, artists and institutions have been honored with the Balzan Prize, including Mother Teresa, the Nobel Foundation and Paul Hindemith. Previous Princeton winners include Charles Gillispie, the Dayton Stockton Professor of History Emeritus, and Anthony Grafton, the Henry Putnam University Professor of History.

0 Replies
 
yitwail
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Nov, 2005 11:51 am
fm, thanks for the compliment. i'm not planning on becoming a regular in the evolution threads, but if the mood should strike, i hope my posts will be nearly as informative as yours.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Nov, 2005 12:34 pm
yitwail wrote:
fm, thanks for the compliment. i'm not planning on becoming a regular in the evolution threads, but if the mood should strike, i hope my posts will be nearly as informative as yours.
Stuh, good post on the Grants. spendi tries to pretend that hes an accomplished stand-up comedian and a brutal (but fair) critic of most scholrly endeavors (save hizzown). He has a minee streak of S&M about him, so Im forever glad Ive never met him. Im afraid wed find Jeffrey Daumer with a PhD.

Ive known of the Grants work for years and they are the most selfless pair whose students are hard working and thorough. As far as the conditions , spendius would never last a day on the island hangout that the Grants have shared as lab space with their finches. They were interested in demonstrated peripatric speciation controlled by the distance between the islands , as well as the climatologic barriers. They were also interested in adaptive mechanisms that were climate controlled. They have had founder species almost get wiped out by the increased desertification of their islands, only to emerge with different adaptive features (sort of like virus adaptation). Theyve not cracked the nut on supra species evolution but have observed the rise of at least 2 new species .

The funny thing about the Grants and their following the footspes of Darwin. Darwin didnt even know that the birds he was baggin up were finches. He thought, because of their varying morphologies, he had all sorts of new genuses. he didnt find out until after the Beagle landed nearly 3 years later.

yitwail, I too never planned to have a place in the evolution threads , Its just that, being a teacher at a U , I dont want to leave anyone with the false impression that there was this "big controversy" surrounding evolution and that science was guiltyof "cooking data". As it turned out, this little task has turned into a part time job. It becomes a "mission" It also helps me come up with ideas for next semester's student inquiries in "Methods..."
0 Replies
 
yitwail
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Nov, 2005 12:47 pm
fm, i like to think of my participation as an excercise in critical thinking, which is something everyone can benefit from, i think, regardless of one's tenets. so if i ever employ fallacious reasoning, i hope it will be pointed out so that it can be rectified. and surely ID proponents ought not be averse to critical thinking, since they profess to advocate critical thinking about Darwinian evolution.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Nov, 2005 01:55 pm
stuh-

It was only a metaphor really.I wasn't trying to be taken literally.It was a compliment actually.The two intrepid researchers almost became human again under my twinkling fingertips.I would guess they would have at least smiled had they seen it.

One does have to risk looking foolish from time to time you know.Let such things bother you and all originality is lost.Not that I'm claiming originality for that tame bit of fun mind you.It is standard practice in English satire.It was only designed to make you think which is what the propaganda screed you quoted is designed to inhibit.In house self congratulation designed to render the children stupified with admiration is what that was all about.
Foucault had a phrase for it but I can't remember it.
"Power language" or something.Used to cement the authority of "experts".Those awards you highlight are excuses for presentation ceremonies which are themselves excuses for a piss-up and other goodies which you ought to thank me for not mentioning.Have you never been to one.That's why they have a lot.And finches on remote islands are perfect for the job as nobody else is interested in them so anything goes more or less.And specially prepared handouts are prepared for the press so that the embedded journa-oops-sorry-copy typists can join in the fun and buy drinks all round.

Fm-how can I be "fair" and have a streak of S&M.
The very essence of S&M is unfairness.
And I'm not even slightly brutal by my lights.I am very sweet and have been told so many times.And I am fully in favour of scholarly endevours.

If evolution is accepted as the true explanation why is money still being spent on finches that could be spent of reinforcing humdees or providing vaccines for African children.Are they trying to prove it's more true.

You sound more like a best man at a wedding than anything else.You seem to me to have suspended judgement in your wide-eyed wonder.

But I understand old boy-you're an expert yourself aren't you and it is quite normal for experts to stick together.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Nov, 2005 02:12 pm
fm wrote-

Quote:
. As it turned out, this little task has turned into a part time job. It becomes a "mission" It also helps me come up with ideas for next semester's student inquiries in "Methods..."


I would familiarise them with grant application techniques and methods of snowing dispensers of such delightful items.

Also-
Quote:
and that science was guiltyof "cooking data".


Science can't cook data because then it isn't science.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Nov, 2005 02:16 pm
spendius said
Quote:
If evolution is accepted as the true explanation why is money still being spent on finches that could be spent of reinforcing humdees or providing vaccines for African children.Are they trying to prove it's more true.

You sound more like a best man at a wedding than anything else.You seem to me to have suspended judgement in your wide-eyed wonder.

Spendi, we do alot of things to pull back the foreskin of science. Once we deciphered the largest part of the human genome on one chromosome, dont you think we oughto look at the rest? Howabout when we decode genomes of other species? Izzat ok with you?
We do research AND we armre humVees and also develop vaccines? You sound like my grandmother who thought going to the moon was money that would have been spent better .

Im always a a cheerleader for applied research. If you can come up with some other alternative to discover evolution in action,the world will beat a path, except, of course , the Creationists who will try to discount everything as either
1 Its only microevolution (which I find terribly funny how they keep moving their "line in the sand" glacially trowards what science has been saying all along)
to
2Its ALL consistent with Genesis


Thanks for the correct spelling of Watneys Red Barrel. I only know of it from Monty Pythons "Travel Agency Sketch" an office discussion between Eric Idle and John Cleese
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Nov, 2005 02:35 pm
Quote:
Spendi, we do alot of things to pull back the foreskin of science.


Yes I know.It is how Red Dwarf discovered the planet Smegma.

Quote:
Izzat ok with you?


For sure.I'm pretty easy going.I know genome stuff worries some people but I'm not one of them.

I thought the moon job was a top notch show.I stayed up all night everytime.

As you know I've read Origin and I've read the biogs of the putative country parson who only made the trip because Fitzroy's mate dropped out at the last minute.There are some tasty jokes in it you know.And scientific infighting has a role to play.

Do you think basic woman has evolved?

Watney's was sold using a little slobs chant-What we want is Watney's.They call that sort of low life "chavs" now.It had a reputation for causing severe migraines.

I think the Python team would be on my side in the discussion of experts-don't you?
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Evolution 101 - Discussion by gungasnake
Typing Equations on a PC - Discussion by Brandon9000
The Future of Artificial Intelligence - Discussion by Brandon9000
The well known Mind vs Brain. - Discussion by crayon851
Scientists Offer Proof of 'Dark Matter' - Discussion by oralloy
Blue Saturn - Discussion by oralloy
Bald Eagle-DDT Myth Still Flying High - Discussion by gungasnake
DDT: A Weapon of Mass Survival - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 05/13/2021 at 08:25:13