Denial of Evolution VI.

[leopold]

post 432:
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?106025-does-evolution-exsist/page22

i copy/ pasted the above quotes myself from the issue at jstor.

edit:
grumpy,
try to remember we are dealing with a respected source.
they aren't going to "cloud the issue" or "tell lies".
the people taking part in the discussions are intelligent and most are very well educated.

 

[AlexG]

and the rebuttal to that quote, by it's source:

I don't know how Roger Lewin could have gotten in his notes the quotation he attributes to me. I presented a paper/lecture and spoke at various times from the floor, but I could not possibly have said (at least as a complete sentence) what Lewin attributes to me. In fact, I don't know what it means. How could small changes NOT accumulate! In any case, virtually all my evolutionary research papers evidence that small (genetic) changes do accumulate.

The paper that I presented at the conference reported by Lewin is virtually the same that I presented in 1982 in Cambridge, at a conference commemorating the 200th anniversary of Darwin's death. It deals with the claims of "punctuated equilibrium" and how microevolutionary change relates to macroevolution. (I provide experimental results showing how one can obtain in the laboratory, as a result of the accumulation of small genetic changes, morphological changes of the magnitude observed by paleontologists and presented as evidence of punctuated equilibrium.) The paper was published as part of the conference proceedings:
Ayala, F.J. 1983. Microevolution and macroevolution. In: D.S. Bendall, ed., Evolution from Molecules to Men (Cambridge University Press), pp. 387-402.

 

[Rav]

post 432:
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?106025-does-evolution-exsist/page22

i copy/ pasted the above quotes myself from the issue at jstor.

Every quote you provided is in the article I linked to in this thread. If you had bothered to read it again, you would know this. You probably just tried searching for phrases, but fucked it up somehow.

 

[Grumpy]

leopold

grumpy,
try to remember we are dealing with a respected source.
they aren't going to "cloud the issue" or "tell lies".
the people taking part in the discussions are intelligent and most are very well educated.

Yes, the scientists attending are respected, well educated individuals sincerely looking for additional knowledge. But those who lie, misquote and fabricate quotes that the scientist in question says he did not say, or try to misinterpret andmisrepresent what they said in order to promote a viewpoint diametrically opposed to that held by these scientists(as you have done)are not. Those pricks are pond scum, barely evolved and simple lifeforms with no brains and a terrible odor.

Grumpy

 

[leopold]

Every quote you provided is in the article I linked to in this thread.

i didn't say they weren't in there.
i said at least one of them aren't the same.

i must also say that one data point might not mean a lot.

 

[leopold]

leopold
what they said in order to promote a viewpoint diametrically opposed to that held by these scientists(as you have done)are not. Those pricks are pond scum, barely evolved and simple lifeforms with no brains and a terrible odor.

Grumpy

where oh where have i said a scientist said something he didn't?
you need more rest grumpy.
scratch that ass, give a good yawn, and clock out for the next 8 hours.

 

[garbonzo]

garbonzo



The only proofs are in math and rhetoric and only reach certainty because they are not about the real world, but are artificially constrained by rules. When someone says "proof" it's a pretty good indication they know little about real science.
Grumpy

Exactly. There is, and never will be proof.

 

[Rav]

i didn't say they weren't in there.
i said at least one of them aren't the same.

Which one? Seriously, stop buggering around and be specific.

 

[Grumpy]

garbonzo

Exactly. There is, and never will be proof.

That is true of EVERYTHING, proof does not exist, only probability. But things do have varying levels of confidence, and Evolution ranks right up there with the sun appearing in the East tomorrow.

leopold

you need more rest grumpy.
scratch that ass, give a good yawn, and clock out for the next 8 hours.

Float over to the other side of the pond, tha' funk is getting thick. We've had enough of your stupidity for one day.

Grumpy

 

[leopold]

leopold
Float over to the other side of the pond, tha' funk is getting thick. We've had enough of your stupidity for one day.
Grumpy

my stupidity?
i'm not the one that goes around saying the cause of evolution is/was accumulating small changes.
this fact is mentioned no less than 3 times in the article.
the evidence for PE fairs no better, gould could only come up with one example and that one was inferential.
the article specifically states there was little data presented, most was "word salad".

my stupidity indeed.

 

[garbonzo]

garbonzo




That is true of EVERYTHING, proof does not exist, only probability. But things do have varying levels of confidence, and Evolution ranks right up there with the sun appearing in the East tomorrow.

Grumpy

The sun won't appear if one of many things happen.

 

[leopold]

Which one? Seriously, stop buggering around and be specific.

i posted the quotes.
it's probably no big deal but the manuscripts ARE different.

edit:
specifically it was the ayala quote.
in my version he makes reference to 884.
on page 884 is a graphic that he probably based is quote on.
your version does not make the 884 reference.

 

[wellwisher]

The main problem with the modern theory of evolution, is it is based on biology that leaves out the impact of water; organics in a vacuum theory. This is why it appears magically random. There are ten times as many waters molecules in the cell compared to all the organic molecules combined. The water strongly hydrogen bonds with itself, and creates an environment for the organics, which requires that nothing can happen unless water is displaced, which takes more energy than supplied by ATP. One molecule of ATP has the energy of one strong hydrogen bond, yet when applied 100 or more molecules of water need to break hydrogen bonds during displacement. The energy balance does not add up even for transcription on the DNA since moving the water takes more energy than available.

One impact of water is that all proteins fold into unique folds instead of statistically average folds. This should raise a red flag with respect to statistical assumptions, since statistics does not apply at the structural level. The water bonds with itself and with the proteins and uses energy and force to crowd the proteins into a unique shape; eliminates randomness.

The approach I take with respect to evolution is to follow the water since the continuous phase will set the background potentials which set limits on everything.

The most important thing water brings to the table is the entropic force, or a force connected to entropy. Life uses the fifth force of nature, provided by water. This fifth force can be demonstrated with osmosis, where the diffusion of water to increase entropy; in the direction of a higher solute concentration, will generate an osmotic pressure. This pressure is the entropic force divided by the area. If we reverse the direction of this force, using counter-pressure, transmitted via the water, we can cause entropy to lower elsewhere; push proteins into exact folds. The nuclear membrane helps to transmit the entropy force \between the cytoplasm and the nucleus.

Although we know much about the DNA in terms of individual genes, there appears to be limited understand of DNA as a single molecular configuration that exist in 3-D space; configurational potential. The DNA of the neurons has the same genes as kidney cells, but each has a specific 3-D configurational potential based on entropic force.

The simplest way to explain how is by comparing packed DNA to unpacked DNA. Packed DNA has lower entropy, with the highest levels of packing implicit of the lowest DNA entropy. As chromosomes unpack, from full packing, the entropy of the entire 3-D configuration increases. If we average the entropy of the DNA this defines its configurational potential.

The centromere zone of the DNA remains packed. This is the configurational anchor, like a block of ice existing at low configurational potential resisting and counteracting the forward pull of entropy. The active genes exist at highest entropy since the DNA double helix separates. The cell can dial a specific 3-D configurational potential with the junk DNA distributed to make that dial-in accurate.

The direction of evolution is connected to water. Random is more of a good working first approximation because the water is not easy to investigate in situ. Once technology catches up life will become logical.

 

[Grumpy]

garbonzo

The sun won't appear if one of many things happen.

It's done it for 4.7 billion years now, it is possible tomorrow will be different(thus no "proof")but the probability that it won't appear in the East is exceedingly small.

leopold

my stupidity?
i'm not the one that goes around saying the cause of evolution is/was accumulating small changes

Evolution IS an accumulation of small changes leading to big differences in the genome(a fact, for ALL the different genomes on Earth). So yeah, your stupidity.

this fact is mentioned no less than 3 times in the article.

The article was about the relative responsibility of slow accumulation of small changes over time(gradualism), versus quick(in geological time)accumulation of small changes(called saltations)over time, a process called Punctuated Equilibrium. Punctuated Equilibrium is still accumulation of small changes over time, the time is just relatively less. Both are pure Evolution.

the evidence for PE fairs no better, gould could only come up with one example and that one was inferential.

Gould was a great scientist and he would not agree with anything you have said in this thread. Let's let him speak for himself without the distortions your ignorance and garbled understanding injects...

Well evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them(Here he was talking about people like you not understanding the significance of the paper G). Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered(and here he is pointing out that evolution is a fact WHATEVER our explanations say, or how much we know about the causes G).
Moreover, "fact" doesn't mean "absolute certainty"; there ain't no such animal in an exciting and complex world. The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world(here he is making exactly the point I made to garbonzo G). Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us falsely for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.
Evolutionists have been very clear about this distinction of fact and theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred. Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and proposing a theory--natural selection--to explain the mechanism of evolution(both gradualism and PE are theories, Evolution itself is a fact no matter which theory is correct(they probably both are, PE is gradualism under extreme pressure. Walking a mile and riding a bike for a mile are two forms of travelling a mile, one is faster than the other) G).
Stephen J. Gould, " Evolution as Fact and Theory"; Discover, May 1981

This quote was in response to the Creationists of the early 80s doing precisely what you are doing now, lying about and distorting the meaning of the conference in a futile attempt to hide the idiocy of creationism behind the skirts of real science.

We've got MASSIVE evidence that evolution occurred. It is as certain as anything in the real world can be. We do not, however, have massive evidence about which theory explains evolution best(it's mostly a problem of lacking a fine resolution in time or a complete record)and arguments between scientists about the details of those mechanisms are not in any way to be interpreted as falsifying the fact of evolution. It does not. And thirty years ago we did not have desk top computers or an internet. We had no clue about Dark Matter or Dark Energy then either. Our cars ran only because of a poorly controlled fuel leak on top of the manifold(a carburetor)and 20 mpg was considered good mileage for a small car. Advances in Evolutionary science and understanding have been similar since 1980(especially in genetics), your arguments are way out of date and bogus at anytime. I think it is telling that Creationists must search for and distort old papers for even a hint of evidence against evolution, yet they STILL fail, miserably.

Grumpy

 

[billvon]

my stupidity?
i'm not the one that goes around saying the cause of evolution is/was accumulating small changes.
this fact is mentioned no less than 3 times in the article.
the evidence for PE fairs no better, gould could only come up with one example and that one was inferential.
the article specifically states there was little data presented, most was "word salad".

The fact that you do not understand it does not diminish its validity. This is the classic "argument from incredulity" which essentially translates "I don't understand it so it can't be valid" (or in your case "I don't understand the difference between PE and gradualism, therefore no one does, therefore evolution is unproven.")

 

[leopold]

leopold

Evolution IS an accumulation of small changes leading to big differences in the genome(a fact, for ALL the different genomes on Earth). So yeah, your stupidity.

then why does the article specifically state that it's a clear no?

The article was about the relative responsibility of slow accumulation of small changes over time(gradualism), versus quick(in geological time)accumulation of small changes(called saltations)over time, a process called called Punctuated Equilibrium. Punctuated Equilibrium is still accumulation of small changes over time, the time is just relatively less. Both are pure Evolution.

in the paper gould presented for this he could only come up with one inferential point, this is hardly "proof".
the real question is, why does this "improvement" need to be made?
and the answer is in the article, the gaps, lack of transitional fossils.

Gould was a great scientist and he would not agree with anything you have said in this thread.

really?

This quote was in response to the Creationists of the early 80s doing precisely what you are doing now, lying about and distorting the meaning of the conference in a futile attempt to hide the idiocy of creationism behind the skirts of real science.

how am i lying?
the article is there for ALL to see.

We've got MASSIVE evidence that evolution occurred. It is as certain as anything in the real world can be.

maybe, but there are other alternatives other than environmentally caused.

We do not, however, have massive evidence about which theory explains evolution best(it's mostly a problem of lacking a fine resolution in time or a complete record)and arguments between scientists about the details of those mechanisms are not in any way to be interpreted as falsifying the fact of evolution. It does not.

i think everyone assumes the same thing.
besides, science has done well for us so far.
don't forget, those beasties you can't rule out have a habit of biting you on the butt.

And thirty years ago we did not have desk top computers or an internet.

academia did.

I think it is telling that Creationists must search for and distort old papers for even a hint of evidence against evolution, yet they STILL fail, miserably.

Grumpy

this is where your argument fails you, you argue from the standpoint i'm a creationist . . . and i'm not.

 

[AlexG]

how am i lying?
the article is there for ALL to see.

And everyone here who's read it disagrees with what you claim it says. Your only response to that is 'it's been hacked'.

 

[Grumpy]

leopold

then why does the article specifically state that it's a clear no?

It doesn't say that. That is YOUR distortion of what it said, it said that PE fits the evidence better than Gradualism(in the opinion of some at the conference), though the evidence is not really that clear yet. Evolution IS an accumulation of small changes leading to big differences in the genome(a fact, for ALL the different genomes on Earth), whether that accumulation was slow or rapid.

in the paper gould presented for this he could only come up with one inferential point, this is hardly "proof".

Proof is a concept with no meaning in science. Gould had his view that PE explained the evidence better, today we think evolution has MANY, DIFFERENT mechanisms including gradual and punctuated changes, depending on the circumstances.

the real question is, why does this "improvement" need to be made?

Environments change, so must organisms in that environment in order to survive. Those that can not or do not change, die. Those that have traits that better fit the environment tend to survive better. The biggest change we know of in Earths environment was the change from an anaerobic environment(no free oxygen)to one with significant free atmospheric oxygen. Oxygen was a poison to early lifeforms, all those died when BG algae remodeled Earth's atmosphere but the change was slow enough that pthers evolved to deal with the highly reactive element.

and the answer is in the article, the gaps, lack of transitional fossils.

There you go again, lying through either ignorance or malice, you have no clue what the article said, as you have adequately demonstrated. ALL organisms are transitional, they all are between what their genome was and whatever it will become, there is no lack of transitional fossils. The gaps are largely because of the specialized conditions required for fossilization to occur, it is an exceedingly rare event(one in a million or more).

Gould was a great scientist and he would not agree with anything you have said in this thread.
really?

Really. You don't understand anything about the subject, as your posts show, he knew quite a bit. The difference is stark and obvious.

how am i lying?
the article is there for ALL to see.

As are your posts, want to have a quick poll? Creationism is a lie, creationists are liars, you are a Creationist.

but there are other alternatives other than environmentally caused.

Yes, as I have said. How does the many different proposed mechanisms in evolutionary theory change the fact that evolution has occurred?

And thirty years ago we did not have desk top computers or an internet.
academia did.

In 1980 a low powered(compared to a desk top)computer filled a room, the Osborne was the first commercially successful desktop computer, it was released in 1981, a Commodore 64 was several times as powerful. The Ethernet was a DARPA project at that time. IBM computers took up a whole room and used punch cards. I learned COBOL, Basic and FORTRAN in a room full of IBM Selectric typewriters. Hardly a desktop or widely available.

this is where your argument fails you, you argue from the standpoint i'm a creationist . . . and i'm not.

I don't blame you for not wanting to cop to it, but if it argues like a duck, lies like a duck, posts crap for evidence like a duck, by golly, it's a duck. You're not fooling anyone.

wellwisher

The main problem with the modern theory of evolution, is it is based on biology that leaves out the impact of water

Wow, that was totally meaningless and ignorant. The rest of your post got no better, it's non-sense.

Grumpy

 

[leopold]

grumpy,
the article is there, i haven't lied about anything in it.
a clear no means just that, NO!
we did not get here by accumulating small changes.
why do you keep insisting it doesn't say that?

 

[Grumpy]

leopold

grumpy,
the article is there, i haven't lied about anything in it.
a clear no means just that, NO!
we did not get here by accumulating small changes.
why do you keep insisting it doesn't say that?

Because you are evidently too trollish and stubborn to admit you are wrong(or at least stop repeating lies), even when everyone sees it BUT you(OK, I'll give you garbonzo and wellwisher, but they don't enhance your credibility at all). Because it does not say we did not get here by the accumulation of small changes. Quote the sentence where it does or admit your mendacity. Some at the conference said that gradual accumulation of small changes over long periods of timedid not explain the fossil record, but the accumulation of small changes over a relatively short period of time followed by periods of little change did, but that is opinion, as even Gould admitted the evidence was not dispositive. It is not that evolution is not small changes in the genome, it is an argument about the RATE of those small changes and the relative stasis between major evolutionary periods and which view better explains the fossil record. An animal(or plant) that fits well in it's environment has little pressure to change, when that environment changes so must the organism if it is to survive. If the environment changes rapidly only those organisms that evolve rapidly will survive, all others die. It is all evolution.

Grumpy