Denial of Evolution VI.

[leopold]

leopold




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

an internet unknown versus a respected source . . . doesn't take much on my part which to choose.
like i said, the article has been posted.

 

[leopold]

Quote the sentence where it does or admit your mendacity.

The cen- tral question of the Chicago conference was whether the mechanisms underlying microevolution can be extrapolated to explain the phenomena of macroevolu- tion. At the risk of doing violence to the positions of some of the people at the meeting, the answer can be given as a clear, No. What is not so clear, however, is whether microevolution is totally de- coupled from macroevolution: the two can more probably be seen as a contin- uum with a notable overlap.[/QUOTE]
it states a clear no.
that's what i get.
i assume they reached that conclusion because of the gaps in the fossil record which the piece specifically addresses.
as for the other stuff, goulds spandrels and PE will probably explain most of it.

 

[Grumpy]

leopold

The cen- tral question of the Chicago conference was whether the mechanisms underlying microevolution can be extrapolated to explain the phenomena of macroevolu- tion. At the risk of doing violence to the positions of some of the people at the meeting, the answer can be given as a clear, No. What is not so clear, however, is whether microevolution is totally de- coupled from macroevolution: the two can more probably be seen as a contin- uum with a notable overlap

We now know there is no micro or macro evolution, genetics tell us that is an artificial distinction without a difference. Small changes in DNA can cause large changes in morphology(appearance) and changes on the molecular level that cannot even be seen can require many changes in the DNA. The first appears to be "macroevolution" but is actually a very small change(and thus "microevolution"), the second appears to be "microevolution" but is a great change(thus "macroevolution"), the words(and concepts)have become meaningless. There is simply evolution, and changes large and small, fast or slow and everything in between are included. Whoever wrote the above sentence was no scientist(probably a science reporter).

the two can more probably be seen as a contin- uum(IE of one piece)with a notable overlap

Yep, just as we are trying to get you to understand. BOTH ARE OPERATIVE IN EVOLUTION. Neither shows the other to be wrong or false, so your conclusion about the meaning of the sentence is wrong.

an internet unknown versus a respected source

A know nothing dweeb's false interpretation of the meaning of the sentence vs. a retired(after over 30 years)HS Physics, Chemistry and Biology teacher's understanding of the science. It isn't even a contest.

Grumpy

 

[leopold]

leopold
Yep, just as we are trying to get you to understand. BOTH ARE OPERATIVE IN EVOLUTION. Neither shows the other to be wrong or false, so your conclusion about the meaning of the sentence is wrong.

so, a clear no actually means a yes?
regardless of what you say, the piece specifically addresses this area no less than 3 times and each case the answer is NO!
the fossil record, which the piece also addresses, does not support "small accumulating changes".
it's all right there in the article grumpy.

 

[leopold]

okay, in my opinion:
stasis, the current reality of a certain species that will undergo various modifications.
the "punctuated" part, a period of rapid change, maybe over the course of 2 or 3 generations.

maybe these events aren't random, maybe they are cyclic, taking some advantage of base pair positions and dna structure.

 

[Grumpy]

leopold

so, a clear no actually means a yes?

If it is an OPINION that has been shown not to be true in the ensuing 30+ years? Yes, a clear no turns out to be a clear yes, scientists are often shown to be wrong over time, the strength of science(as opposed to belief)is that it tends to correct itself over time, something religions is very bad at.

regardless of what you say, the piece specifically addresses this area no less than 3 times and each case the answer is NO!

So? Three times they expressed an opinion we now KNOW to be wrong. A scientific OPINION from 30 years ago IS NOT DOGMA(as in religion).

You obviously did not read my last post so I'll repeat the relevant answer...

"We now know there is no micro or macro evolution, genetics tell us that is an artificial distinction without a difference. Small changes in DNA can cause large changes in morphology(appearance) and changes on the molecular level that cannot even be seen can require many changes in the DNA. The first appears to be "macroevolution" but is actually a very small change(and thus "microevolution"), the second appears to be "microevolution" but is a great change(thus "macroevolution"), the words(and concepts)have become meaningless. There is simply evolution, and changes large and small, fast or slow and everything in between are included. Whoever wrote the above sentence was no scientist(probably a science reporter).

...and remind you that scientific OPINIONS are subject to change, many from 30 years ago were simply wrong, this is one of those.

the fossil record, which the piece also addresses, does not support "small accumulating changes".
it's all right there in the article grumpy.

I've got a couple of minutes to spare, tell us all you think you know about the fossil record. Small accumulating change over time IS Evolution, Evolution is a fact, the conclusion of article's author was simply wrong. The fossil record does support small changes accumulating over time, we now know(because of our increased knowledge of DNA)that the only difference between PE and Gradualism is how much time we are talking about, they are just different speeds of the same process. Your 30 year old article has been superseded by new information and shown to be wrong, period. And even Gould did not agree with the spin you are trying to sell.

Grumpy

 

[billvon]

okay, in my opinion:
stasis, the current reality of a certain species that will undergo various modifications.
the "punctuated" part, a period of rapid change, maybe over the course of 2 or 3 generations.

Change that to "2 or 3 thousand generations" and you're getting close. Saying an organism changed rapidly doesn't mean years; it means centuries or millenia.

As a modern example, a single species of cichlid (a fish) evolved very rapidly into 300 separate species in Lake Victoria, and has been very widely studies as an example of adaptive radiation. (Of course "very rapid" is 15,000 years and about as many generations.)

 

[leopold]

leopold

If it is an OPINION that has been shown not to be true in the ensuing 30+ years? Yes, a clear no turns out to be a clear yes, scientists are often shown to be wrong over time, the strength of science(as opposed to belief)is that it tends to correct itself over time, something religions is very bad at.

AFAIK the clear no was not shown to be false.

So? Three times they expressed an opinion we now KNOW to be wrong. A scientific OPINION from 30 years ago IS NOT DOGMA(as in religion).

PE has not been proven, AFAIK there are no data points to support it unless you count goulds one inferential point.

You obviously did not read my last post so I'll repeat the relevant answer...

"We now know there is no micro or macro evolution, genetics tell us that is an artificial distinction without a difference. Small changes in DNA can cause large changes in morphology(appearance) and changes on the molecular level that cannot even be seen can require many changes in the DNA. The first appears to be "macroevolution" but is actually a very small change(and thus "microevolution"), the second appears to be "microevolution" but is a great change(thus "macroevolution"), the words(and concepts)have become meaningless. There is simply evolution, and changes large and small, fast or slow and everything in between are included. Whoever wrote the above sentence was no scientist(probably a science reporter).

yes i did, this is the concept of goulds spandrels and PE, both of which are still hypothesis.

...and remind you that scientific OPINIONS are subject to change, many from 30 years ago were simply wrong, this is one of those.

the fossil record is wrong?

I've got a couple of minutes to spare, tell us all you think you know about the fossil record.

that it supposedly exists.

 

[Grumpy]

leopold

AFAIK the clear no was not shown to be false.

IT WAS THE OPINION OF SOME SCIENTISTS AT THE CONFERENCE, they have since been shown to have been wrong in that opinion. And you know nothing about what scientists have found out in the 3 decades since the conference. Genetic studies show that small accumulated changes certainly can explain the diversity we see.

PE has not been proven, AFAIK there are no data points to support it unless you count goulds one inferential point.

Gould has been dead for over 20 years, there are many other scientists who have spent their whole careers developing knowledge in this field, and you are completely ignorant of what they have found. The paper you cling to is OBSOLETE, the OPINIONS expressed by SOME of the scientists at that conference are now known to have been false, especially about "macroevolution" and microevolution, they are EXACTLY the same process just at different scales. That paper just does not reflect the three decades of advancement in knowledge since then. You are trying to run a desktop computer with a shoebox full of punch cards, that's how far out of date that paper is, and it's conclusions are out of date as well.

yes i did, this is the concept of goulds spandrels and PE, both of which are still hypothesis.

Explain what "spandrel" means to you. Gould was a great biologist, but his enthusiasm for PE as an alternative to gradualism was wrong, as DNA evidence shows. Even the punctuation turned out to be just regular, old gradualism under high selective pressure, while the equilibrium was just plain old gradualism under little selective pressure.

the fossil record is wrong?

The fossil record is data, the theories explain the data. The fossil record is what it is, Gould's theory and the rabid proponents of PE at the time GOT IT WRONG, as DNA evidence showed. The accumulation of small changes really can explain the diversity of life and PE is not a separate or superior theory, it's the same process at different rates.

I've got a couple of minutes to spare, tell us all you think you know about the fossil record.

that it supposedly exists.

All you know is that it supposedly exists? Yet you want to tell people who have studied it what's in it and what it shows? There ought to be a word for that level of DOH, Homer. Nuclear power supposedly exists, but are you competent to tell people who operate a nuke plant about it? Then why do you think you're competent to speak about fossils? Ignorance is bliss, they say. You must be the happiest man on Earth.

Grumpy

 

[garbonzo]

garbonzo



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.

Grumpy

The probability of Christianity being true is logically the same as the probability of Evolutionism being true. Pobability = number of favourable outcomes/all possible outomes = Christianity/Christianity & Evolution = 1/2 = 5-%.

 

[leopold]

Yet you want to tell people who have studied it what's in it and what it shows?

the 50 scientists at the conference wants to tell you what it shows, not me.
they came to the conclusion that IT DOES NOT SHOW "small accumulating changes".
these are people that were specifically educated in this stuff.
all you have shown that counters that is a bunch of words.

Nuclear power supposedly exists, but are you competent to tell people who operate a nuke plant about it?

no, but 50 people each with 12 to 16 years of post high school education in nuclear power can.

 

[AlexG]

leopold will keep relying on his misstatements of a 30 year old paper to support his position. He has nothing else,

 

[Rav]

In terms of our service to the casual reader who doesn't participate but may be influenced by what he/she reads in threads like this, I'd say we've met our obligations. In fact a lot of the work gets done for us

 

[leopold]

In terms of our service to the casual reader who doesn't participate but may be influenced by what he/she reads in threads like this, I'd say we've met our obligations. In fact a lot of the work gets done for us

the only thing of relevance in this thread is the source posted in post 41.

 

[wellwisher]

If you look at Yellowstone National Park, they had a huge forest fire a few years ago, which totally altered the park. In a very short time, the park has regrown and new eco-systems have appeared. If we did not know of the fire, we would assume the slow process of evolution and not a extremely fast path of migration, where critters pick the new environment. They did not have to evolve in place by natural selection but rather they selected the environment.

Darwin based his observation of a closed environment. Had Darwin witnessed the rapid change of Yellowstone instead of the slow million year change of Galapagos, his theory would be more open to other possibilities.

Another observation about Yellowstone are that integrated eco-systems formed quickly. This is a system induced into order and is not led by randomness and the god of chaos, since an integrated system cannot form by throwing dice. There is an ordering principle that occurs over and over, which works faster than DNA; entropic force of water.

 

[exchemist]

If you look at Yellowstone National Park, they had a huge forest fire a few years ago, which totally altered the park. In a very short time, the park has regrown and new eco-systems have appeared. If we did not know of the fire, we would assume the slow process of evolution and not a extremely fast path of migration, where critters pick the new environment. They did not have to evolve in place by natural selection but rather they selected the environment.

Darwin based his observation of a closed environment. Had Darwin witnessed the rapid change of Yellowstone instead of the slow million year change of Galapagos, his theory would be more open to other possibilities.

Another observation about Yellowstone are that integrated eco-systems formed quickly. This is a system induced into order and is not led by randomness and the god of chaos, since an integrated system cannot form by throwing dice. There is an ordering principle that occurs over and over, which works faster than DNA; entropic force of water.

Wellwisher, what is the relevance of a recolonisation after a fire to a development of new species? I don't see the link.

And can you expand on what you mean by "entropic force" of water?

 

[Grumpy]

exchemist

Don't think you will get coherent answers from wellwisher, it has never happened yet. I suppose it could, but I'm not holding my breath.

garbonzo

The probability of Christianity being true is logically the same as the probability of Evolutionism being true. Pobability = number of favourable outcomes/all possible outomes = Christianity/Christianity & Evolution = 1/2 = 5-%.

Evolution is a fact, Christianity is a superstition. They are in no way equivalent, logically.

Rav

In terms of our service to the casual reader who doesn't participate but may be influenced by what he/she reads in threads like this, I'd say we've met our obligations. In fact a lot of the work gets done for us

True, but it's so much fun to poke the ignorant Trolls through the bars of their self built cages.

leopold

the only thing of relevance in this thread is the source posted in post 41.

The distortion of an obsolete, 30 years out of date paper about an argument between Gradualists and PE proponents about which paradigm was more responsible for diversity that is now settled science IS NOT RELEVANT to anything except to illustrate the desperate lengths Creationists will go to discredit science. If you want to criticize today's science you must use what today's science says. We do not defend Flat Earthers even though many ancient scientists thought it was flat, likewise we do not defend evolutionary scientists for the ideas they had about evolution over 30 years ago that DNA studies done since then show to be wrong. You see, unlike religion science has no Dogma, we are not constrained to pay any attention to what scientists thought 30 years ago if, in the intervening time, those thoughts are shown to be in error. Too bad religions are stuck with the erroneous ideas of ancient, scientifically illiterate, intolerant, homophobic, misogynist, racist and violent sheep herders that makes them irrelevant to today's world.

Grumpy

 

[PhysBang]

If you look at Yellowstone National Park, they had a huge forest fire a few years ago, which totally altered the park. In a very short time, the park has regrown and new eco-systems have appeared. If we did not know of the fire, we would assume the slow process of evolution and not a extremely fast path of migration, where critters pick the new environment. They did not have to evolve in place by natural selection but rather they selected the environment.

Just because you would make such bone-head mistakes in reasoning does not mean that biologists in general do about their field of study.

I suggest you take the time to learn biology.

 

[origin]

The probability of Christianity being true is logically the same as the probability of Evolutionism being true. Pobability = number of favourable outcomes/all possible outomes = Christianity/Christianity & Evolution = 1/2 = 5-%.

You apparently are as knowledgable about statistics as you are about evolution. I also like that 1/2 = 5% or 5-% whatever that is.

Using your 'statistics', we can say that there is a 50/50 chance God is actually a Nine Banded Armadillo:

Nine Banded Armadillo/Nine Banded Armadillo & omnipotent creator of the universe = 1/2 or 50% chance God is a Nine Banded Armadillo.

 

[leopold]

leopold

The distortion of an obsolete, 30 years out of date paper about an argument between Gradualists and PE proponents about which paradigm was more responsible for diversity that is now settled science IS NOT RELEVANT to anything except to illustrate the desperate lengths Creationists will go to discredit science.

like i said, the source is posted for anyone to read.
it is not a creationist publication, it's a well respected science source.
it isn't my fault it tightens your pants.