Denial of Evolution VI.

[Fraggle Rocker]

Most Christians are not Fundamentalists, so they do not find the conflict you are referring to.

The Pope and the leaders of most major sects of Christianity (as well as Islam, Judaism and other Abrahamic and non-Abrahamic religions) have made peace with the reality that most of the ancient stories in their holy books are metaphors. Jesuit (Catholic) universities have been teaching evolution for at least two generations, and have been teaching plate tectonics since it was discovered. They still believe in God, but the whole point of religion is that it is an irrational faith based on trust in an invisible God rather than on evidence.

 

[Grumpy]

leopold

it's been said that creationists quote gould a lot.
why would they do that?

Because Gould was known to say controversial things that, if taken out of context, could be twisted into something Creationists could use(as you are doing), he would not agree with your arguments in this thread. Gould had an overblown opinion about the importance of PE over gradualism, he fell into the same trap Lewin did on the other side of the debate, overstating his cause, going beyond what the evidence supported and misinterpreting the cause of the gaps. We now know that there is no difference other than rate of change, they are the same process. Both sides of the argument about process went too far and the conclusions they reached were shown to be in error in the thirty plus years since then.

his paper on spandrels for example was the harbinger of molecular evolution, it's the same basic concept but on a molecular level.

We've always known that all evolution is molecular since the discovery of DNA. Spandrels are just detail, not basic(or even true). They sort of petered out without comment, such was the respect accorded Gould that no one thought it important enough to poke at his famous overreaction and aggressiveness in argumentation.

possibly because gould wasn't afraid to speak his mind in regards to evolution, pointing out the discrepancies he found.

Gould spit out many ideas, a good number of which turned out to be wrong or overstated, as he himself would admit. It's in the nature of teaching at the post grad level to push the envelope, making his lectures fertile ground for quote mining to mislead.

the only thing i can tell you is to take it up with the editors of science.

The editors of thirty years ago are quite probably dead. The current editors would know that the paper was wrong in it's conclusions and likely would not print it today. You don't see any papers supporting Newton over Einstein today, either, and for the exact same reason, that position is also obsolete and wrong. So no, the editors do not support your arguments so we expect you to support your own case, which you have failed miserably to do.

garbonzo

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

A Creationist lie, he said no such thing or even close.

So you agree that it is impossible to know whether Christianity is right vs. Evolution, correct?

Evolution is fact. Whether Christianity is correct is a different, entirely unrelated question. To my knowledge Jesus said nothing about the subject.

Grumpy

 

[origin]

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.

I too would like to see that! I have always been interested in the archeology of the 'new world'.

 

[Fraggle Rocker]

Evolution is fact. Whether Christianity is correct is a different, entirely unrelated question. To my knowledge Jesus said nothing about the subject.

Although the idea that one kind of animal could turn into another goes back to the ancient Greeks, the concept of evolution that in any way resembles the modern scientific model didn't arise until the 1700s.

So there's no way Jesus could have discussed the concept. It didn't exist yet.

 

[garbonzo]

I too would like to see that! I have always been interested in the archeology of the 'new world'.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=koYWznEIV50

 

[Grumpy]

Fraggle Rocker

So there's no way Jesus could have discussed the concept. It didn't exist yet.

Would that be a hindrance to a god?(that is what Christians say he is)

Grumpy

 

[Aqueous Id]

that might be another problem with this mess.
science does not follow ANY traditions when it comes to evidence, it follows its own nose.

Any fair treatment of what theoretical and research sciences are involved in requires elaboration on the depth of detail of studies, to exceedingly narrow topics of specialization, with interconnected legs to, say, 100 studies or more per project. It's a stunning feat of collective human achievement by any measure.

to follow a tradition implies some sort of bias.

Bias in research can't survive. Most studies are buried in levels of detail for which no bias of this kind has any relevance.

from what i've read about gould and judging by some of his papers he was an intelligent man capable of making the complex simple. his paper on spandrels for example was the harbinger of molecular evolution,

I'm not sure why you make that connection. Keep in mind that natural selection can not be overturned. It's a permanent fixture in nature.

it's the same basic concept but on a molecular level.

Yes, genes are molecules, and they evolve under pressure of natural selection. And what's being selected are the random mutations which either code for survival or they don't. Survival is the central point of all of this which is getting lost in the din.

no, gould was capable, very capable, maybe even too capable.

Gould is one of the prominent authorities, but we have to be careful not to misinterpret the totality of what he said. He is not overturning natural selection, he does not deny the presence of transitional fossils (e.g. across genera), nor does he say molecular evolution displaces the more common ideas about mutation and genetic drift.

it's been said that creationists quote gould a lot. why would they do that?

Apparently they are dumb enough to think he's on their side. I any case, he writes in a popular vernacular so it simpllifies their task of quote-mining from him.

possibly because gould wasn't afraid to speak his mind in regards to evolution,

Gould was a prolific writer, not to be silenced, so no element of fear would come to bear. That is, however, part of the creationist agenda - to divert focus from the actual science by manufactured controversy.

pointing out the discrepancies he found.

Punctuated stratification isn't inconsistent with even the hobby scientists' understanding that uniformitaranism was seriously flawed. But all of the tenets of the basic theory are still intact. And he didn't find it, it's been under discussion since the early days of geology.

Remember: evolution by natural selection can be induced in a Petri dish. It's a rule beyond compare in all of science for its intrinsic truth - that individuals must reproduce, or their genes die with them. There is nothing controversial about this, and any claim against it is made impossible by the principles and logic that control the truth over the most basic of propositions.

 

[Trippy]

I too would like to see that! I have always been interested in the archeology of the 'new world'.

I'll third that statement.

 

[Robittybob1]

"new world"

The New World is one of the names used for the Western Hemisphere, specifically the Americas, certain Atlantic and Pacific oceanic islands to which the closest continental shelf is that of the Americas (such as Bermuda), and sometimes Oceania (Australasia). The term originated in the early 16th century, shortly after America was discovered by Europeans in the age of discovery, expanding the geographical horizon of the people of the Middle Ages, who had thought of the world as consisting of Africa, Asia, and Europe only: collectively now referred to as the Old World. The term was first coined by Florentine explorer Amerigo Vespucci. The Americas were also referred to as the "fourth part of the world".[1]

 

[Trippy]

the gaps exist, they are real.

Some reasons why gaps appear in the fossil record:

This one is especially important. I'm not sure what the time frame of the hiatus here is, but they can be billions of years in length. There's a good example in Missouri, near the Taum Sauk power plant where you have a 500Ma dolomite resting directly on top of a 1.5Ga Rhyolite.

 

[origin]

Watch an 1 1/2 hour youtude on forbidden archeology? I don't think so - the pdf file will be just fine thank you!

 

[Fraggle Rocker]

I have always been interested in the archeology of the 'new world'.

"New World" is the name given to the lands discovered by the Europeans starting at the end of the 15th century. It includes the continents of North and South America and the nearby islands such as those in the Caribbean. It's not a scientific name so it's not precisely defined, but it's reasonable to equate it to the Western Hemisphere, in which case it would also include many of the more distant Pacific Islands. In some contexts it also includes Australia, New Zealand and Oceania, which were discovered during the same "Age of Discovery," although they are in the Eastern Hemisphere.

The name is widely used in the USA and Canada, is familiar in the UK and other anglophone countries, and in translation in the European countries who participated in the Age of Discovery (the Netherlands, Spain, Portugal, France, etc.). It is recognized in many other languages, although not commonly used.

Since two Bronze Age civilizations were thriving in the New World (the Inca and the Olmec-->Maya-->Aztec), there was quite a lot of archeology to be performed. North of the Rio Grande the Native Americans had not discovered metallurgy; many of them were still in the Paleolithic Era, but quite a few in the eastern regions had developed agriculture, and there were even a number who had taken the first steps toward civilization, with villages large enough to be called cities and residents who did not all know each other, trading networks, and complex governments which, in some cases, conferred full rights on women. Archeology in this part of North America has not been dull. In fact evidence of a copper mine on an island in Lake Michigan suggests that at least one tribe had discovered the technology of metallurgy before the Olmecs. Unfortunately their nascent civilization did not survive and the Bronze Age was never initiated in what is now the USA and Canada.

 

[Trippy]

Perhaps a more poignant example of one of the reasons why the fossil record appears incomplete: The stratigraphy of the Grand Canyon.

Note the gaps in time between successive layers.

Note The Great Uncomformity. A gap in the sedimentary record of over 1billion years.

Time for a serious question Leopold. Do you accept subduction? Or do you think the Earth is expanding? Because I can give you another example of why the fossil record appears incomplete, depending on your answer.

 

[iceaura]

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.

You can't define "macroevolution" anyway.

the only thing i can tell you is to take it up with the editors of science.

The current editors of "Science" all agree with me about your conclusions there. Meanwhile, you can't use their definition of "macroevolution" - it won't help you. And you have no definition of your own.

Sponges are multicellular, but every cell is identical. Same for slime mold or BG algae.

Uh, no, overreach - I know personally that the algae and the molds both frequently feature cells differentiated by structure and function in the multicellular structures they form, and I would be surprised if the sponges did not.

Jellyfish make another example of a conglomeration of otherwise independent cells cooperating and differentiating to form a coherent and functioning body or organism of some kind. One can make a case for termite and ant colonies, also - a little different approach.

Spandrels are just detail, not basic(or even true). They sort of petered out without comment, such was the respect accorded Gould that no one thought it important enough to poke at his famous overreaction and aggressiveness in argumentation.

The spandrel essay was handled (and spandrels essentially rejected as anything other than an occasional curious side effect) as it should have been, by the intellectual community involved - Daniel Dennett devotes a chapter or more to the matter in "Darwin's Dangerous Idea", for example.

Dennett also notes (with what reads between the lines as amusement) Gould's frustration with the Creationist's willful mistaking and public misrepresentation of his argument - noting that the public communication amplifiers Gould had taken for granted when making his arguments were in the hands of others, and could be (as in this matter) simply switched off.

 

[origin]

"New World" is the name given to the lands discovered by the Europeans starting at the end of the 15th century. It includes the continents of North and South America and the nearby islands such as those in the Caribbean. It's not a scientific name so it's not precisely defined, but it's reasonable to equate it to the Western Hemisphere, in which case it would also include many of the more distant Pacific Islands. In some contexts it also includes Australia, New Zealand and Oceania, which were discovered during the same "Age of Discovery," although they are in the Eastern Hemisphere.

The name is widely used in the USA and Canada, is familiar in the UK and other anglophone countries, and in translation in the European countries who participated in the Age of Discovery (the Netherlands, Spain, Portugal, France, etc.). It is recognized in many other languages, although not commonly used.

Since two Bronze Age civilizations were thriving in the New World (the Inca and the Olmec-->Maya-->Aztec), there was quite a lot of archeology to be performed. North of the Rio Grande the Native Americans had not discovered metallurgy; many of them were still in the Paleolithic Era, but quite a few in the eastern regions had developed agriculture, and there were even a number who had taken the first steps toward civilization, with villages large enough to be called cities and residents who did not all know each other, trading networks, and complex governments which, in some cases, conferred full rights on women. Archeology in this part of North America has not been dull. In fact evidence of a copper mine on an island in Lake Michigan suggests that at least one tribe had discovered the technology of metallurgy before the Olmecs. Unfortunately their nascent civilization did not survive and the Bronze Age was never initiated in what is now the USA and Canada.

In my neck of the woods there were several civilizations (adena, hopewell and fort ancient) that had silver and copper jewlery. Of course there was some incredible metal work done with gold in Central and South America - but I have never heard that bronze was manufactured in the precolombian Americas.

 

[leopold]

Time for a serious question Leopold. Do you accept subduction?

subduction, as in plate tetonics type of subduction?
yes.

Or do you think the Earth is expanding?

getting bigger?
why and how would it get bigger?

 

[leopold]

The current editors of "Science" all agree with me about your conclusions there. Meanwhile, you can't use their definition of "macroevolution" - it won't help you. And you have no definition of your own.

it's there in the article THEY published.
macrevolution, microevolution, the gaps, it's all right there in the article THEY published.
read it before responding.

 

[leopold]

leopold
Gould had an overblown opinion about the importance of PE over gradualism, he fell into the same trap Lewin did on the other side of the debate, overstating his cause, going beyond what the evidence supported and misinterpreting the cause of the gaps.

it wasn't just lewin and gould.
the article said "at the risk to some", "some" as in less than a majority and there were 50 there.
if it was more than a majority then there could have been no clear no.

We now know that there is no difference other than rate of change, they are the same process.

okay, granted.
almost sounds cancerous.
instead of cells it's atoms and valance bonds.
the only real thing left now is how this process makes different genomes.

Spandrels are just detail, not basic(or even true).

gould mentioned in his paper he could find no direct evidence for it and only one inferential example.

Gould spit out many ideas, a good number of which turned out to be wrong or overstated, as he himself would admit. It's in the nature of teaching at the post grad level to push the envelope, making his lectures fertile ground for quote mining to mislead.

but why gould?
i'm sure there were plenty other evolutionary flamethrowers these people could pick on.

The editors of thirty years ago are quite probably dead. The current editors would know that the paper was wrong in it's conclusions and likely would not print it today. You don't see any papers supporting Newton over Einstein today, either, and for the exact same reason, that position is also obsolete and wrong. So no, the editors do not support your arguments so we expect you to support your own case, which you have failed miserably to do.

science is the newsletter of some scientific organization(NAS i believe).
i guess NAS would be ultimately responsible for what's printed.
i feel that NAS would indeed back the article.
remember, you can't take what you know now and apply it to back then, they did not have todays info.
so yes, NAS would agree with the conclusions and the reasons for that conclusion based on the evidence they had.

 

[AlexG]

remember, you can't take what you know now and apply it to back then, they did not have todays info

Then why are you using back then to support your (terribly muddled) position today?

 

[wellwisher]

What is interesting is medicine does the opposite of evolution. Evolution is based on natural selection, yet there is hardly anything in medicine that is natural but rather based on artificial selection. Medicine is not concerned with evolving humans as defined by evolution but does so more as defined by old religious ethics. When some things do things evolve, such as bacteria and cancer, this is the opposite of what medicine wants to happen. They would prefer these not evolve so it is easier to deal with. Why doesn't medicine use evolution as the basis for treatment Do they know something they are not telling us; history not applied science.