Denial of Evolution VI.
- Thread starter garbonzo
- Start date
- Status
I've "seeked" a few facts in my day.
That's great. Now what do YOU think the article says?
Then post it. Post what YOU think about evolution. Can you do that?
leopold
And it's conclusions are 30 years out of date and wrong. If you wanted an honest discussion you would move on to something from the last decade, at least. But you can't find a peer reviewed paper from the last decade that comes to the same conclusion(scientists have moved on to better conclusions that conform to the discoveries of the intervening years), and that is why you dishonestly push old, outdated opinions and ignore anyone who points out your errors.
We can verify that someone made the claim, but the claim has been shown to be false and wrong in the last thirty years. What part of that don't you understand?
You are making Creationist arguments, using Creationist tactics and show no ability to learn a damn thing, just like a Creationist. So you are going to be treated as a Creationist until you stop doing that. A thirty year old paper is not the last word on the subject, science doesn't have any dogma, we discard old ideas when they are shown to be wrong(and keep those, like Relativity, that continue to pass every test).
Grumpy
And it's conclusions are 30 years out of date and wrong. If you wanted an honest discussion you would move on to something from the last decade, at least. But you can't find a peer reviewed paper from the last decade that comes to the same conclusion(scientists have moved on to better conclusions that conform to the discoveries of the intervening years), and that is why you dishonestly push old, outdated opinions and ignore anyone who points out your errors.
We can verify that someone made the claim, but the claim has been shown to be false and wrong in the last thirty years. What part of that don't you understand?
You are making Creationist arguments, using Creationist tactics and show no ability to learn a damn thing, just like a Creationist. So you are going to be treated as a Creationist until you stop doing that. A thirty year old paper is not the last word on the subject, science doesn't have any dogma, we discard old ideas when they are shown to be wrong(and keep those, like Relativity, that continue to pass every test).
Grumpy
you know full well that age has nothing to do with some conclusions.
people concluded a very long time ago that water is wet.
the gaps exist, they are real.
so real in fact that the conclusion was the process of adaptation, microevolution, accumulating small changes, or whatever else you call it, cannot be applied to macroevolution.
molecular evolution seems to explain why the gaps exist but it does nothing to account for the missing fossils.
to imply that the fossil record shows a smooth gradual change IS FALSE.
gould mentioned it as "jerkiness".
he mentions the same thing in his paper on spandrels.
my honest opinion?
our students are being lied to when such things are said to be true.
another thing is all this "creationist" crap can effectively "short circuit" the normal peer review process.
as soon as anomalous evidence is found it's labeled as creationist and shit canned.
yes, we DEFINITELY need truth and honesty without all the associated hubris.
there is very little doubt that some form of evolution has happened, the progressing complexity of the record proves it.
there are certain anomalies though that are head scratchers, the cambrian explosion for one where lifeforms suddenly appear without any ancestors.
no, the scientists were right in their conclusions, there are gaps in the record (possibly explained), and the process of microevolution cannot be extrapolated to macroevolution.
that's what i wanted but apparently the thread was intended to be something else.
possibly because of what i mentioned above.
i have a pdf of a dig that uncovered evidence that the timeline of humans in north america is not correct.
the scientists that presented this evidence was ridiculed right out of the profession.
there are certain other things too that reek really bad.
like i said, the gaps are real, the scientists conclusions were correct.
my arguments are based on, and confirmed by, a respected peer reviewed source and i have posted the issue and volume number.You are making Creationist arguments, using Creationist tactics and show no ability to learn a damn thing, just like a Creationist. So you are going to be treated as a Creationist until you stop doing that. A thirty year old paper is not the last word on the subject, science doesn't have any dogma, we discard old ideas when they are shown to be wrong(and keep those, like Relativity, that continue to pass every test).
Grumpy
i hardly call that creationist.
being christian and believing in evolution, well that's just irony and i dont even know why or how people believe in evolution. darwin himself even said that the origin of speices was nothing more than mere pass of thought that he himself thought was completely stupid and idiotic
So you agree that it is impossible to know whether Christianity is right vs. Evolution, correct?
You mean denominator, right?
Please answer each 3 of these just to be sure. =)
This where your wagon starts to come off its rails. We have no way. I repeat NO WAY of identifying which gaps are real and which gaps are apparent. But make no mistake about it, one of the reasons Gould has had to change his arguments over time - because things that were gaps thirty years ago have since been filled.
This is fallicous logic based on your denial of real examples of transitional species.
It doesn't need to. Fossils are rare. Fossilization requires specific circumstances and is far from being ubiquitous.
Yes, there has been a robust debate between the ideas of punctuated equilibrium and gradualism.
Speaking of hubris...
Have you ever done any of your own research into the cambrian explosion and the Burgess Shales? Do you have even a modicum of comprehension of the difficulties of inferring anything about the Cambrian and the Ediacarian, let alone anything earlier?
Because that's the direction you dragged it.
It happens sometimes.
First of all, the Cambrian explosion didn't exactly happen overnight, it took many many millions of years. And the key factor in understanding the reason for the explosion of diversity is simple: an already quite diverse collection of aquatic lifeforms slowly evolved to start filling a dizzying array of land-based ecological niches that they had obviously never encountered before. These unprecedented selective pressures became greater still as highly complex and interactive ecologies began to develop.
To the person who understands the basic driving forces behind the evolution of species, you just can't have life coming out of the ocean without something like a Cambrian explosion (not on a planet like ours, anyway). It's an inevitability.
As for transitional fossils from the period, here is just one of many resources that explores the topic: http://biologos.org/blog/the-cambrian-explosion-transitional-forms-and-the-tree-of-life (Yes, this is a Christian source. Not an accident)
They're only real for a while. They change all the time. They keep getting filled or otherwise destroyed, and new ones have to be established.leopold said:
That's an error. The evidence does not support any such conclusion. The evidence indicates that small genetic changes can accumulate indefinitely, just as one would predict from analysis of the mechanisms involved.leopold said:
You can't define "macroevolution" anyway.
Much better! To address your points:
Definitely. Any record has gaps.
?? That doesn't follow. Microerosion causes macroerosion, even though it sometimes goes very slowly (as in weathering of desert peaks) and sometimes goes very quickly (as happens during floods.) Erosion "gradualists" who point out how slowly wind wears down sandstone do not contradict erosion "punctuated equilibrium" advocates who discuss cataclysmic events like Hurricane Sandy.
Right. What accounts for missing fossils is that fossils are hard to find.
It is a fair bet, for example, that you could not produce the bones of your father, grandfather, great-grandfather etc going back 20 generations. But it's also nearly certain that they existed. It would surely be silly to argue that your family did not go back 20 generations because of the "missing links" in your family history, and thus something other than sexual reproduction was needed to explain your existence.
Agreed. Sometimes you see slow gradual changes taking place over millions of years. Sometimes you see more rapid changes taking place over a few tens of thousands of years.
I have never heard a biology teacher say that evolution consists solely of smooth, gradual changes. If they are saying that - shame on them.
Definitely.
That's the one statement that, IMO, is unsupportable. Saying "we can't find all the fossils" does not mean that microevolution fails to explain macroevolution - it means we can't find all the fossils. Saying there are gaps does not mean that microevolution fails to explain macroevolution - it means that there are gaps in the fossil record. Saying "sometimes evolution proceeds slowly and sometimes it proceeds quickly" does not mean that microevolution fails to explain macroevolution - it means that evolution proceeds at different speeds depending on the organism and the environment it is in.
Definitely. Any record has gaps.
?? That doesn't follow. Microerosion causes macroerosion, even though it sometimes goes very slowly (as in weathering of desert peaks) and sometimes goes very quickly (as happens during floods.) Erosion "gradualists" who point out how slowly wind wears down sandstone do not contradict erosion "punctuated equilibrium" advocates who discuss cataclysmic events like Hurricane Sandy.
Right. What accounts for missing fossils is that fossils are hard to find.
It is a fair bet, for example, that you could not produce the bones of your father, grandfather, great-grandfather etc going back 20 generations. But it's also nearly certain that they existed. It would surely be silly to argue that your family did not go back 20 generations because of the "missing links" in your family history, and thus something other than sexual reproduction was needed to explain your existence.
Agreed. Sometimes you see slow gradual changes taking place over millions of years. Sometimes you see more rapid changes taking place over a few tens of thousands of years.
I have never heard a biology teacher say that evolution consists solely of smooth, gradual changes. If they are saying that - shame on them.
Definitely.
That's the one statement that, IMO, is unsupportable. Saying "we can't find all the fossils" does not mean that microevolution fails to explain macroevolution - it means we can't find all the fossils. Saying there are gaps does not mean that microevolution fails to explain macroevolution - it means that there are gaps in the fossil record. Saying "sometimes evolution proceeds slowly and sometimes it proceeds quickly" does not mean that microevolution fails to explain macroevolution - it means that evolution proceeds at different speeds depending on the organism and the environment it is in.
As posted by me previously.
Darwin & others provided an explanation for those facts: The theory of evolution.
Do any posters deny the facts of evolution? If so, they have faith based beliefs which ignore or deny any facts supporting opposing beliefs.
A poster who accepts the facts of evolution & denies the theory must come up with an alternative theory to explain the facts.
Do any evolution deniers have an alternative explanation of the facts of evolution?
The fossil record provides the facts of evolution.
Eophippus to modern horse & early primates to Homo Sapiens are clear examples.
Eophippus to modern horse & early primates to Homo Sapiens are clear examples.
Darwin & others provided an explanation for those facts: The theory of evolution.
Do any posters deny the facts of evolution? If so, they have faith based beliefs which ignore or deny any facts supporting opposing beliefs.
A poster who accepts the facts of evolution & denies the theory must come up with an alternative theory to explain the facts.
Do any evolution deniers have an alternative explanation of the facts of evolution?
That is swell that you believe that, I guess.:shrug: However, it is still true that the largest christian denomination in the world has the offical stance that there is no conflict between christainity and evolution. That is simply a fact - sorry if this causes you some problem.
I would be interested to see your evidence of this. I find it ironic that he spent years writing the origin of the species when it was a "stupid and idiotic, passing thought"!
Of course not! You pointed out my silly arithmetic error and now I can say based on your equation (even thought it is completely bogus) the chance that christianity (by which you actually mean creationism) is correct is zero, zilch, nada.
No, I meant numerator - so again, the answer to your equation on the chances of creationism being true is zero, not undefined as I incorrectly said earlier.
Happy now?
Most Christians are not Fundamentalists, so they do not find the conflict you are referring to.
It's not a belief. It's a branch of modern science, based on all of the evidence of nature.
His book, Origin of Species, says exactly the opposite of what you believe he said. Here is the opening paragraph:
WHEN on board H.M.S. 'Beagle,' as naturalist, I was much struck with certain facts in the distribution of the inhabitants of South America, and in the geological relations of the present to the past inhabitants of that continent. These facts seemed to me to throw some light on the origin of species—that mystery of mysteries, as it has been called by one of our greatest philosophers. On my return home, it occurred to me, in 1837, that something might perhaps be made out on this question by patiently accumulating and reflecting on all sorts of facts which could possibly have any bearing on it. After five years' work I allowed myself to speculate on the subject, and drew up some short notes; these I enlarged in 1844 into a sketch of the conclusions, which then seemed to me probable: from that period to the present day I have steadily pursued the same object. I hope that I may be excused for entering on these personal details, as I give them to show that I have not been hasty in coming to a decision.
I have heard countless remarks by creationists who paraphrase Darwin, but never one who actually quoted him. Hence the huge misunderstandings in their camp.
I think you have demonstrated the huge difference between science and Fundamentalism.
the only thing i can tell you is to take it up with the editors of science.
The edits are all part of the puzzle. Ayala on Gould:
Stephen Jay Gould’s monumental The Structure of Evolutionary Theory ‘‘attempts to expand and alter the premises of Darwinism, in order to build an enlarged and distinctive evolutionary theory . . . while remaining within the tradition, and under the logic, of Darwinian argument.’’ The three branches or ‘‘fundamental principles of Darwinian logic’’ are, according to Gould: agency (natural selection acting on individual organisms), efficacy (producing new species adapted to their environments), and scope (accumulation of changes that through geological time yield the living world’s panoply of diversity and morphological complexity). Gould’s efforts to contribute something important to each of these three fundamental components of Darwinian Theory are far from successful.
leopold
True, Evolution has stood the test for 150 years, Relativity for 100. But some don't make it to next week.
So?
There are many more, smaller and smaller gaps today as compared to three decades ago(every discovery creates two, smaller gaps). And we've given you the explanations of why gaps exist(the same arguments presented in the very paper you're stuck on).
A Creationist argument, not a scientific one.. Scientists don't talk about micro and macro evolution anymore, there's just evolution. And this statement is simply wrong. Accumulation of genetic changes is evolution, whatever those changes are.
There is no other kind of evolution, all Evolution happens in the DNA molecule.
Missing fossils are the result of...
A. the rarity of fossilization, many animals will probably never be known except for single fossils. Many more will simply never be known.
B. Natural processes destroy fossils over time or bury them deeply.
C. we aren't looking in the right places. This is one area where new tools(ground piercing radar in particular along with satellite imagery)have made significant progress in just the last thirty years.
D. we don't recognize the fossils for what they are. Many a so-called missing fossil has been found in drawers in museum archives, having been collected decades or even centuries before but the scientists of the time had no clue.
E. the organism changes so rapidly(several thousand years)that the intervening organisms leave no fossils at all.
There are other reasons, these are just the basic ones.
We haven't thought that since the dawn of the 20th century. If the environment is stable there is no evolutionary pressure to change, so you get things like genetic drift and minor changes. If the environment is changing slowly you get gradual change in morphology. If the environment is changing rapidly most organisms die, those that have traits that allow them to survive become the new norm. If the environment changes overnight you get extinction events where almost everything dies.
The fossil record is jerky just like old films are jerky. Each fossil is one frame. But we can still see the film, even with many frames missing, and we have far fewer missing frames today than we had in 1983. Gould would not agree with any of the arguments you and other Creationists are using. Gould also said...
" ...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. 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.
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."
Or as R. C. Lewontin put it...
"It is time for students of the evolutionary process, especially those who have been misquoted and used by the creationists(as you are doing), to state clearly that evolution is a fact, not theory, and that what is at issue within biology are questions of details of the process and the relative importance of different mechanisms of evolution. It is a fact that the earth with liquid water, is more than 3.6 billion years old. It is a fact that cellular life has been around for at least half of that period and that organized multicellular life is at least 800 million years old. It is a fact that major life forms now on earth were not at all represented in the past. There were no birds or mammals 250 million years ago. It is a fact that major life forms of the past are no longer living. There used to be dinosaurs and Pithecanthropus, and there are none now. It is a fact that all living forms come from previous living forms. Therefore, all present forms of life arose from ancestral forms that were different. Birds arose from nonbirds and humans from nonhumans. No person who pretends to any understanding of the natural world can deny these facts any more than she or he can deny that the earth is round, rotates on its axis, and revolves around the sun.
- "Evolution/Creation Debate: A Time for Truth" Bioscience 31, 559 (1981)
An argument about the relative importance of various mechanisms(PE vs Gradualism, for example)does not in any way upset or falsify our confidence in the fact of Evolution.
If one can call an event that spanned several million years an explosion.
There are several factors that give the illusion of sudden appearance without predecessors...
A. All the creatures prior to that point had no solid body parts to fossilize. Jellyfish leave no fossils(they can leave casts, but they are extremely rare, even for fossils)and jellyfish, corals and sponges were the most sophisticated lifeforms of the early Cambrian. Almost all lifeforms of the time were single celled
B. The Cambrian marks the beginning of multicellular life with cell differentiation. Sponges are multicellular, but every cell is identical. Same for slime mold or BG algae. Differentiation gives a great advantage to an organism and the Cambrian explosion was the result of the competition.
C. Hard body parts developed which could form fossils, thus their sudden appearance in the fossil record.
D. the appearance of sexual reproduction greatly accelerated the pace of evolutionary change leading to a "sudden" appearance of different lifeforms. If a few million years can be called sudden.
There is no such thing as micro or macro evolution, they are just evolution on different scales. Only Creationists argue this way. Scientists know better. All evolution occurs within the genome of the cell(microscopic)no matter what changes in the organism.
That is a bold face lie. You are trying to insist that a thirty year old document that reaches conclusions that we now know to be false is still the last word on the subject. A common Creationist tactic.
Then by all means, post it. I would be very interested and not at all dismayed or discomforted if it was true. But if the scientist was ridiculed right out of the profession it was probably for fraud and manufacturing evidence. A scientist who does such things SHOULD be ejected forcefully from the profession. Reputation for honesty is the most important thing scientists must have, without it you are not a scientist, but a hack. Creationist "scientists" belong to the latter designation.
Creation "science" is a cesspool, how can you smell anyone else when your stench is so potent?
You've made it obvious you have no clue about the subject and cannot learn anything about it. Faith based reasoning at it's finest. The scientist's conclusions were simply wrong, as the last 30 years have shown. MOVE ON TO THIS CENTURY.
Your arguments are based on conclusions that are wrong. The tactic is one Creationists try(hopelessly)to use, finding one sentence that if taken out of context and squinted at severely says something that can be distorted into supporting the pure idiocy that is Creationism. You keep protesting that you are not a Creationist, but you continue to use Creationist non-sense arguments. You are fooling only yourself, we know better.
Grumpy
True, Evolution has stood the test for 150 years, Relativity for 100. But some don't make it to next week.
So?
There are many more, smaller and smaller gaps today as compared to three decades ago(every discovery creates two, smaller gaps). And we've given you the explanations of why gaps exist(the same arguments presented in the very paper you're stuck on).
A Creationist argument, not a scientific one.. Scientists don't talk about micro and macro evolution anymore, there's just evolution. And this statement is simply wrong. Accumulation of genetic changes is evolution, whatever those changes are.
There is no other kind of evolution, all Evolution happens in the DNA molecule.
Missing fossils are the result of...
A. the rarity of fossilization, many animals will probably never be known except for single fossils. Many more will simply never be known.
B. Natural processes destroy fossils over time or bury them deeply.
C. we aren't looking in the right places. This is one area where new tools(ground piercing radar in particular along with satellite imagery)have made significant progress in just the last thirty years.
D. we don't recognize the fossils for what they are. Many a so-called missing fossil has been found in drawers in museum archives, having been collected decades or even centuries before but the scientists of the time had no clue.
E. the organism changes so rapidly(several thousand years)that the intervening organisms leave no fossils at all.
There are other reasons, these are just the basic ones.
We haven't thought that since the dawn of the 20th century. If the environment is stable there is no evolutionary pressure to change, so you get things like genetic drift and minor changes. If the environment is changing slowly you get gradual change in morphology. If the environment is changing rapidly most organisms die, those that have traits that allow them to survive become the new norm. If the environment changes overnight you get extinction events where almost everything dies.
The fossil record is jerky just like old films are jerky. Each fossil is one frame. But we can still see the film, even with many frames missing, and we have far fewer missing frames today than we had in 1983. Gould would not agree with any of the arguments you and other Creationists are using. Gould also said...
" ...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. 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.
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."
Or as R. C. Lewontin put it...
"It is time for students of the evolutionary process, especially those who have been misquoted and used by the creationists(as you are doing), to state clearly that evolution is a fact, not theory, and that what is at issue within biology are questions of details of the process and the relative importance of different mechanisms of evolution. It is a fact that the earth with liquid water, is more than 3.6 billion years old. It is a fact that cellular life has been around for at least half of that period and that organized multicellular life is at least 800 million years old. It is a fact that major life forms now on earth were not at all represented in the past. There were no birds or mammals 250 million years ago. It is a fact that major life forms of the past are no longer living. There used to be dinosaurs and Pithecanthropus, and there are none now. It is a fact that all living forms come from previous living forms. Therefore, all present forms of life arose from ancestral forms that were different. Birds arose from nonbirds and humans from nonhumans. No person who pretends to any understanding of the natural world can deny these facts any more than she or he can deny that the earth is round, rotates on its axis, and revolves around the sun.
- "Evolution/Creation Debate: A Time for Truth" Bioscience 31, 559 (1981)
An argument about the relative importance of various mechanisms(PE vs Gradualism, for example)does not in any way upset or falsify our confidence in the fact of Evolution.
If one can call an event that spanned several million years an explosion.
There are several factors that give the illusion of sudden appearance without predecessors...
A. All the creatures prior to that point had no solid body parts to fossilize. Jellyfish leave no fossils(they can leave casts, but they are extremely rare, even for fossils)and jellyfish, corals and sponges were the most sophisticated lifeforms of the early Cambrian. Almost all lifeforms of the time were single celled
B. The Cambrian marks the beginning of multicellular life with cell differentiation. Sponges are multicellular, but every cell is identical. Same for slime mold or BG algae. Differentiation gives a great advantage to an organism and the Cambrian explosion was the result of the competition.
C. Hard body parts developed which could form fossils, thus their sudden appearance in the fossil record.
D. the appearance of sexual reproduction greatly accelerated the pace of evolutionary change leading to a "sudden" appearance of different lifeforms. If a few million years can be called sudden.
There is no such thing as micro or macro evolution, they are just evolution on different scales. Only Creationists argue this way. Scientists know better. All evolution occurs within the genome of the cell(microscopic)no matter what changes in the organism.
That is a bold face lie. You are trying to insist that a thirty year old document that reaches conclusions that we now know to be false is still the last word on the subject. A common Creationist tactic.
Then by all means, post it. I would be very interested and not at all dismayed or discomforted if it was true. But if the scientist was ridiculed right out of the profession it was probably for fraud and manufacturing evidence. A scientist who does such things SHOULD be ejected forcefully from the profession. Reputation for honesty is the most important thing scientists must have, without it you are not a scientist, but a hack. Creationist "scientists" belong to the latter designation.
Creation "science" is a cesspool, how can you smell anyone else when your stench is so potent?
You've made it obvious you have no clue about the subject and cannot learn anything about it. Faith based reasoning at it's finest. The scientist's conclusions were simply wrong, as the last 30 years have shown. MOVE ON TO THIS CENTURY.
Your arguments are based on conclusions that are wrong. The tactic is one Creationists try(hopelessly)to use, finding one sentence that if taken out of context and squinted at severely says something that can be distorted into supporting the pure idiocy that is Creationism. You keep protesting that you are not a Creationist, but you continue to use Creationist non-sense arguments. You are fooling only yourself, we know better.
Grumpy
that might be another problem with this mess.
science does not follow ANY traditions when it comes to evidence, it follows its own nose.
to follow a tradition implies some sort of bias.
his paper on spandrels for example was the harbinger of molecular evolution, it's the same basic concept but on a molecular level.
no, gould was capable, very capable, maybe even too capable.
it's been said that creationists quote gould a lot.
why would they do that?
possibly because gould wasn't afraid to speak his mind in regards to evolution, pointing out the discrepancies he found.
- Status