Denial of Evolution VI.

[Grumpy]

Walter L. Wagner

Actually, we knew that (mitochondrial inheritance via the female only) in 1970 and earlier

Yes, we knew that MDNA was inherited only from the mother in 1970, but it was only in the late 90s that it was shown that every human being was descended from a small group(MAYBE even just one woman)200,000 years ago. It is one thing to know genes create traits, a whole 'nother thing to trace it back so precisely with so much confidence. It's like leopold's cited paper, in 1983 we had a vague sense of molecular evolution while today we can say quite a bit about it with excellent confidence. Today you will hear little of the strident argument like Gould and Lewin put forward for PE, we know that PE is just another rate of evolutionary change and that Gould and Lewin overshot the mark in their claims and arguments. Changes over a few thousand generations means there will be few fossils showing that progress, we see the beginning and the end points, but few in the middle, there simply wasn't time to generate sufficient numbers of fossils, if any at all.

Grumpy

 

[billvon]

well actually it does.

No, it doesn't. You can post "I'm right! I'm right! I'm right! I'm right! I'm right! I'm right! I'm right! I'm right! I'm right! I'm right!" for weeks - won't change the facts. Nor will it convince anyone except yourself.

If you want to convince others, here's how you do it:

1) Post a concise summary of what you believe. (This means a summary of what YOU believe - not a link to what someone else believes with a statement along the lines of "see? see?")
2) Back it up with facts from peer-reviewed articles.
3) Answer criticisms of your beliefs via logically thought out rebuttals.

the counter argument of grumpy is NOT sourced.

Source: Stephen Gould. If you don't know who that is - read the paper you yourself posted.

 

[leopold]

http://biomed.brown.edu/Courses/BIO48/12.Molecular.Evolution.HTML

this is essentially what i was referring to in post 265.
it in no way overturns the committees findings.

 

[leopold]

No, it doesn't. You can post "I'm right! I'm right! I'm right! I'm right! I'm right! I'm right! I'm right! I'm right! I'm right! I'm right!" for weeks - won't change the facts. Nor will it convince anyone except yourself.

If you want to convince others, here's how you do it:

1) Post a concise summary of what you believe. (This means a summary of what YOU believe - not a link to what someone else believes with a statement along the lines of "see? see?")
2) Back it up with facts from peer-reviewed articles.
3) Answer criticisms of your beliefs via logically thought out rebuttals.



Source: Stephen Gould. If you don't know who that is - read the paper you yourself posted.

well then, how about answering the questions i asked of you in #295?

 

[Trippy]

experiments on fruitflies has not shown mutations being the cause of diversity.

Yes they have. As did Darwins Finches on the Galapagos Islands, Methicillin resistant staphylococcus aureus, and rounb-up resistant weeds.

 

[billvon]

well then, how about answering the questions i asked of you in #295?

No, I'm not playing the "are you saying that I said that the scientists said that evolution said that . . . ." game.

State what YOU believe and we will discuss that.

 

[Trippy]

I cited the three cases I gave you links to because they once were lost but now are found.

And we're finding new ones all the time. I seem to recall the recent discovery of yet another transitional fossil in the line Dinosaur -> Bird was discovered in China recently.

 

[Trippy]

Moderator Note:

I have been convinced by a fellow moderator not to simply close this thread, send it to the cesspool, and ban Leopold for scientific trolling. I have instead renamed the thread "Denial of Evolution VI." and moved it to Biology and Genetics.

 

[Walter L. Wagner]

Yes, we knew that MDNA was inherited only from the mother in 1970, but it was only in the late 90s that it was shown that every human being was descended from a small group(MAYBE even just one woman)200,000 years ago.

Knowing that mDNA is inherited solely through the maternal line automatically equates to an mEve (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve), which was also known back then (or, at least, I knew of it, and so did my university associates). What we didn't know was the dating of when she lived, which we have only as a very rough estimate.

 

[Aqueous Id]

And we don't know that our ancestors were black.

In this sentence "we" would refer to those of us who carry the Neanderthal base pairs, right? The rest of world's population are either black Africans, or blacks descended from them but living elsewhere who carry no admixture. This leads to distinguishing pure H. sapiens as black, wouldn't you say?

 

[Trippy]

In this sentence "we" would refer to those of us who carry the Neanderthal base pairs, right? The rest of world's population are either black Africans, or blacks descended from them but living elsewhere who carry no admixture. This leads to distinguishing pure H. sapiens as black, wouldn't you say?

The oldest african populations are black.
Chimps are black.
So it seems likely that our common ancestor was black.
White skin is a mutation (one of the reasons once offered for racial supremacy of whites).

 

[arauca]

The oldest african populations are black.
Chimps are black.
So it seems likely that our common ancestor was black.
White skin is a mutation (one of the reasons once offered for racial supremacy of whites).

That is your opinion . before our ancestor , our ancestor had his own ancestor and monkey and many other animals the skin is pink not black. the hair might be black bur not the skin . my dog have a pink skin so do pigs ( the closes to human for organ transplant ) Therefore black skin is a mutation from pink or white .

 

[EinsteinHimself]

Interestingly enough all babies are born with blue eyes which eventually gain their pigment. With the exception of black babies who are born with pigment.

 

[leopold]

Moderator Note:

I have been convinced by a fellow moderator not to . . . ban Leopold for scientific trolling.

jesus christ trippy.
what's next?
philosophical meanderings?

 

[leopold]

Yes they have. As did Darwins Finches on the Galapagos Islands, Methicillin resistant staphylococcus aureus, and rounb-up resistant weeds.

diversity, as in something other than a fruit fly.
i am not aware of ANY experiments along this line with a positive outcome.
if you know of any please post them.

 

[Rav]

edit:
this, ahem, "confession" can only be found on personal websites.
it DOES NOT appear in any issue of science that i am aware of.
makes sense.
dr. ayala moans and groans to authors of personal websites but not to science.

So, it seems your idiocy is not going to end.

Here's your position in a nutshell:

You'll appeal to the authority of Francisco Ayala on occasions where he states he has been misquoted, but you'll reject him as an authority when he's detailing his actual position.

This is spectacularly absurd logic.

Moderator Note:

I have been convinced by a fellow moderator not to simply close this thread, send it to the cesspool, and ban Leopold for scientific trolling. I have instead renamed the thread "Denial of Evolution VI." and moved it to Biology and Genetics.

I wonder how much of leopold's bullshit this moderator has seen. I honestly can't believe he is tolerated here, on a site that should be upholding the virtues of honest and reasonable scientific discourse. To moderate this idiot is not to unfairly silence a legitimate voice of dissent, it is to remove a barrier to meaningful discussion. He is literally like a child with his fingers in his ears.

 

[garbonzo]

You are implying that Christianity is synonymous with creationism whcih is not true, there are many christians that believe in evlolution. Actually the official stance of the largest christian denomination is that evolution is true.

As far as the equation, Evidence of Creatonism/Evidence of Creationism & Evidence of Evolution, this is indeed impossible to calculate.

Exactly; it is impossible. Also, I meant Christianity.

While there is plenty of evidence of evolution, there is no evidence of creationism so the equation has a zero in the numerator and is therefore undefined.

you mean denominator

 

[Trippy]

diversity, as in something other than a fruit fly.
i am not aware of ANY experiments along this line with a positive outcome.
if you know of any please post them.

This statement is moronic. Evolution doesn't work like that. The only people that expect evolution to work like that are creationists.

Show me where anyone other than creationist trolls expect to tweak a few genes and turn a fruit fly into a dog?

You might as well argue that the absence of Hippocrocopus's in the fossil record disproves evolution.

 

[Trippy]

I wonder how much of leopold's bullshit this moderator has seen. I honestly can't believe he is tolerated here, on a site that should be upholding the virtues of honest and reasonable scientific discourse. To moderate this idiot is not to unfairly silence a legitimate voice of dissent, it is to remove a barrier to meaningful discussion. He is literally like a child with his fingers in his ears.

To some extent I think the intent is to treat it as a learning/teaching exercise. The hope being that other posters with the same questions but more reasonable minds might realize through perusing threads such as this that the position is absurd.

 

[Aqueous Id]

diversity, as in something other than a fruit fly.

We were referring to speciation, the subject of evolution. Something other than a fruit fly would not fit that description. What did you have in mind?

i am not aware of ANY experiments along this line with a positive outcome.
if you know of any please post them.

What sort of experiment did you have in mind?