Denial of Evolution VI.

[iceaura]

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

Thirty years ago the editors of Science published some interesting stuff that was controversial then and has since been discredited or modified to agree with subsequent research and argument.

Even then they did not use your notion of "gaps", their notion of "macroevolution" is useless to you, and nothing in their article contradicts my posting here. The past and current editors of Science have been publishing all the corrections and arguments since then, of course, and so they can be counted on to have followed the progress of the field.

And my assertion is that you - you yourself, right now - cannot define macroevolution in any way that both aligns with physical reality and supports your objections to evolutionary theory.

Why doesn't medicine use evolution as the basis for treatment

They do, especially in the use of antibiotics and the like - the development of serious and effective protocols for slowing or preventing the evolution of antibiotic resistance or hospital environment adaptation, for example, has been a major effort and basis of treatment regimes for a generation now. There is also the widespread use of epidemiological theory and modeling to guide responses to outbreaks of communicable diseases, that kind of thing, all based on Darwinian theory.

The research into the genetic basis of disease vulnerability is of course all based on evolutionary theory in some respects at least, and the treatments likewise.

I suppose medicine could adopt some likely or considered evolutionary responses itself, and find the best ways to kill off the diseased or misfortunate or genetically suboptimal or maybe those who can't pay their bills, but I don't see how that would make medicine more scientific.

 

[billvon]

What is interesting is medicine does the opposite of evolution.

In a narrow sense, yes, it does, by reducing the power that natural selection has over the gene pool. (Of course, so does compassion, clothing, alcohol, soap, exercise, housing, cars, electricity, friendship, charities, the Peace Corps, agriculture etc etc.)

We are not concerned with evolving humans like defined by evolution. When things evolve, such as bacteria and cancer, this is the opposite of what they hope for. Why doesn't medicine use evolution as the basis for treatment instead of doing the opposite?

By sterilizing people with low IQ's or diabetes? Or people who are at risk for breast cancer? Or people who are religious? Such approaches, known as "eugenics," are generally not very popular with mankind.

Do they know something they are not telling us in terms of the theory?

Who is "they?" Doctors? No, they'll tell you what they know; just ask them.

 

[wellwisher]

Look at it this way, say we applied evolution to medicine. In the short term you would have to deal with all the unnatural situations that medicine has perpetuated, which continue to grow, by going in the wrong direction. But once its get over the hump, natural humans would have very little need for medicine beyond emergency room trauma care, since what is left would be naturally selected.

Business does better by selecting that which will need constant care and which will continue to breed constant care. This is why medicine is supposedly the best of all time, yet more people need it and due to supply and demand the cost are at an all time high. It is not designed with efficiency.

This would be like manufacturing cars and then putting all your resources into the models with the most problems, and very little into the models with the most efficient technology. After a while the system gets mechanically dumbed down until all are junks. If I was in the auto repair business this would be a good business model since it assures more and more trips to the garage.

By sterilizing people with low IQ's or diabetes? Or people who are at risk for breast cancer? Or people who are religious? Such approaches, known as "eugenics," are generally not very popular with mankind.

I said nothing of hurting people only that like nature resources would go to study the healthy, if the goal is health. If the goal is sickness we spend it all on the sick so we can make each generation sicker. Eventually this will require more resources than we have, until nature will need to correct.

How come evolution does not sound good for humans. Are we different and when did we start feeling different enough to depart from evolution for various reasons?

 

[spidergoat]

Look at it this way, say we applied evolution to medicine.

Non-human animals are subject to natural selection without interference and they still get diseases. Furthermore, some things that we consider diseases, evolved to combat other diseases. The same genes that lead to sickle cell anemia also protect from Malaria.

 

[Grumpy]

leopold

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.

I don't care what they concluded back then, if it was based on inadequate and erroneous information, it was wrong. That's the point. Science often corrects erroneous conclusions from the past. The question is not "Did they think that back then?", it is "Is it still correct given all the NEW INFORMATION developed in the last thirty years?" We now know that what they thought 30 years ago turns out to be wrong, we will no longer use their erroneous conclusions, we have better ones today, based on better evidence that was unavailable back then. There is no dogma in science, the 1983 paper was wrong and has been discarded except in the interest of the history of failed scientific hypotheses. Any argument based on the conclusions of a paper that has been shown to be false is also false. End of story.

Grumpy

 

[billvon]

But once its get over the hump, natural humans would have very little need for medicine beyond emergency room trauma care, since what is left would be naturally selected.

Yes. That is eugenics. Encourage the "politically healthy" to procreate, discourage the rest. In many countries they used to sterilize people with mental illnesses, for example.

This would be like manufacturing cars and then putting all your resources into the models with the most problems

Cars are not people. You might decide to trash your current car and go with a more reliable version, if your current car was giving you trouble. You likely wouldn't do that to your daughter.

I said nothing of hurting people . . . .

Then you don't understand the issue here. Evolution works by killing the less fit (specifically before they reach reproductive age.) Compared to that, mandatory sterilization is a lot nicer.

only that like nature resources would go to study the healthy, if the goal is health.

Much of medical research DOES go to study the healthy. That's why we know how diabetes works, for example - we studied how insulin is produced in healthy people.

If the goal is sickness we spend it all on the sick so we can make each generation sicker. Eventually this will require more resources than we have, until nature will need to correct.

So you would advocate that fire fighters only go to places where there are no fires, so they don't "spend it all on fire?"

How come evolution does not sound good for humans.

Because if your daughter is sickly it works by killing your daughter. Most people prefer to save their daughters.

Are we different

Yes. We are still evolving - but we are no longer being killed by the same things as we were ten million years ago, so evolution is proceeding in a different direction.

and when did we start feeling different enough to depart from evolution for various reasons?

When we became advanced enough to decide that we didn't want to die for trivial reasons.

 

[leopold]

leopold



I don't care what they concluded back then, if it was based on inadequate and erroneous information, it was wrong. That's the point.

practically everything we know is based on inadequate info.
anyway . . .
according to the article they concludsed that small . . . the process of microevolution cannot be extrpolated to macroevolution.
now, the only way they could have concluded that is by the fossil record.
since it was a "clear no" these gaps could not have been sporadic nor occur in only one or two branches.
these gaps MUST have occurred throughout the record and in sufficient quantity to warrant the conclusion.
molecular evolution DOES NOT fill these gaps, it explains them.
these gaps are where the transitional fossils are supposed to be.
so, what this boils down to is that most of the transitional fossils do not exist.(up until 1983 of course)

The question is not "Did they think that back then?", it is "Is it still correct given all the NEW INFORMATION developed in the last thirty years?" We now know that what they thought 30 years ago turns out to be wrong, we will no longer use their erroneous conclusions, we have better ones today, based on better evidence that was unavailable back then.

yes, molecular evolution.
it explains them but they are still there, which implies the transitional fossils aren't.

 

[billvon]

according to the article they concludsed that small . . . the process of microevolution cannot be extrpolated to macroevolution.
. . .yes, molecular evolution.

What do you think "molecular evolution" means?

 

[Grumpy]

leopold

according to the article they concludsed that small . . . the process of microevolution cannot be extrpolated to macroevolution.

THEY WERE WRONG. What part of that simple, three word, declarative sentence are you having problems understanding? There is no micro or macro evolution, all evolution happens in the genes of the organism, the effects can be noticeably different or undetectable, both are evolution.

now, the only way they could have concluded that is by the fossil record.

Which is much more complete today, as well as other new information developed in the last 30 years that show their conclusion was wrong.

since it was a "clear no" these gaps could not have been sporadic nor occur in only one or two branches.

They were wrong. The paper has been falsified and discarded because of new information. It doesn't matter what they concluded then, THEY WERE WRONG.

these gaps MUST have occurred throughout the record and in sufficient quantity to warrant the conclusion.

It might have warranted the conclusion then, it no longer does. THEY WERE WRONG.

molecular evolution DOES NOT fill these gaps, it explains them.

Molecular evolution IS THE ONLY KIND THERE IS, OR THAT HAS EVER BEEN CONSIDERED. DNA is a molecule, change in that molecule tested by survival of the creature it belongs to is what evolution is all about.

these gaps are where the transitional fossils are supposed to be.

Fossils that have been found, creating twice as many but smaller gaps.

so, what this boils down to is that most of the transitional fossils do not exist.(up until 1983 of course)

Hello, it's 2013, 30 years later. Many of those fossils have been found, and genetic studies blew PE out of the water, making it clear it is only gradual change at a faster rate.

yes, molecular evolution.
it explains them but they are still there, which implies the transitional fossils aren't.

Do you even realize just how stupid you are making yourself look? ALL fossils are transitional, they are all between one form and another. Every fossil found turns one larger gap into two smaller gaps. And there is no other kind of evolution, it's all in the DNA molecule.

You are a Creationist Troll who cannot learn anything newer than 1983, evidently.

Grumpy:bugeye:

 

[gmilam]

yes, molecular evolution.

Yes, it's all molecular. The molecule is called DNA.

it explains them

As does the fact that fossilization is a relatively rare occurrence.

but they are still there, which implies the transitional fossils aren't.

Not necessarily. It could also imply that we just haven't found them.

 

[leopold]

leopold



THEY WERE WRONG. What part of that simple, three word, declarative sentence are you having problems understanding?

i understand it perfectly.
could you tell us how these scientists that specialized in this stuff got it wrong?
how did they arrive at the clear no?
let's not hear how lewin cooked up stuff, for that you will need some kind of errata published in the pages of science.

 

[AlexG]

It doesn't matter what is said or shown, leopold will not accept anything which contradicts his position.

 

[Rav]

This all started because leopold mistakenly thought that Gould was a proponent of Richard Goldschmidt's "hopeful monsters" hypothesis. That's how he was originally pushing the article presently under discussion. Of course once he finally came to understand the reality of what Gould was actually saying, he dropped that particular effort. But he didn't drop Goldschmidt's idea. In fact he's still trying to contextualize everything with respect to it. This is because he's had it with him since before this ongoing saga began 2+ years ago.

 

[Grumpy]

leopold

i understand it perfectly.
could you tell us how these scientists that specialized in this stuff got it wrong?
how did they arrive at the clear no?

Insufficient information and overblown egos(especially in Gould's case). Ignorance and assholes(just like every other human endeavor).

The human genome project just recently(well, as compared to three decades ago)sequenced our DNA, a huge accomplishment that changed many things in biology, genetics and evolutionary understanding. When, subsequently, the genomes of apes was also sequenced, the comparison told us much about the history and timing of the evolution of our species. As more and more genomes were sequenced the comparisons between them highlighted the kinship among all animals, we share significant portions of our DNA with rabbits, chickens, fish and reptiles. In fact, all animals have much of their DNA in common. But it goes even further, we share about 30-40% with a tomato(or any other plant). Now, instead of vague ideas about the commonality of all life, we can specify that commonality with some precision. It also cleared up the argument that was the topic of the 1983 paper. All evolution is caused by descent with modification, followed by testing by survival. The rates can be high(if the environment is changing rapidly)or low(if the environment is stable). PE and gradualism are the same thing. If the rate is high there will be fewer intervening fossils, thus the APPEARANCE of sudden changes. It is ONLY an appearance, mostly due to the rarity of fossilization. Rates of fossilization do not increase when the rate of evolution increases, leading to the appearance of jerkiness, it is an illusion. Gould did not know that, he died before the Human Genome Project even began.

Are we now done with this idiocy? Are you ready to move into the 21st Century? Got anything newer than 3 decades ago?

Grumpy

 

[James R]

leopold:

You cite a 30 year old article that you don't understand and think that this proves that evolution at the species level doesn't happen?

Your main problem, it seems, is that you're looking for that one "smoking gun". You don't want to go to all the trouble of educating yourself about the theory you're trying to debunk. That would be far too much work and far too much reading. So, what to do, what to do?

Wait! I know. You decide in advance what you'd like the answer to be. Then you look around and find other people who think similarly enough to the way you do - never mind if their opinions are not quite the same as yours. In your case, this has led you to certain well-known creationist web sites.

So, you search your Creationist site, and you pick out one or two references to actual scientific articles. Choose ones that have accompanying articles or critiques written by the Creationists you agree with, because that way you don't have to come up with your own arguments or do your own thinking. You can just recycle theirs.

Whittle down your scientific papers and quote-mine some damning-sounding quotes that make it sound like they support your views. Then, you're all set to have it out with the idiots on sciforums. You've found your smoking gun - the ONE article that kills that hateful Theory of Evolution. And even better - it's written by scientists!

Of course, there are a few problems. Those scientists who you're quoting all say they support the theory of evolution. They say that evolution is a fact. They all say that your Creationist friends are nuts. But never mind that. Because if a scientist such as Stephen Gould writes 30 full-length pro-evolution books and has one or two quotes that make it sound like he is disputing evolution, then you can just use those anti-evolution quotes and forget the rest. Right?

After all, with one smoking gun, the entire theory of evolution falls. It's a tower made of air. Pull one brick from the wall and the whole edifice will collapse. That's what you think, isn't it? It couldn't possibly be the case that evolution rests on more than the opinions of 50 scientists who attended a conference 30 years ago - even if they all inexplicitly decided to come out against evolution (which, as a matter of fact, they didn't). After all, evolution is "just a theory". That's just like an opinion or a hunch or a guess, isn't it? Like the theory of gravity or electromagnetism.

And you don't really need to understand what that paper in Science was about or what all those biologists were really debating, do you? It's enough if they appeared to cast doubt on some previously-accepted part of evolutionary theory, because that would imply that nothing in the theory can be trusted. Just like when Einstein said Newton was wrong after close to 4 centuries of unswerving acceptance of this theories of motion. Obviously, Newton was completely wrong about everything to do with motion. He didn't have the basics right. And Einstein's introduction of doubt probably means that Einstein, as another of those evil "physicist" scientists, was just as wrong. Far better to toss out this whole "theory of motion" and start again from scratch with a theory of motion that says "God causes stuff to move around".

And the beauty of all this is that the theory of motion was demolished by somebody on the inside of the scientific establishment. So, the demolition is legitimised according to those egotistal scientists' own standards of proof. Followers of the "God did it" theory of motion couldn't have asked for a better smoking gun.

What you desperately need to do, leopold, so as not to make a constant fool of yourself, is to read far more widely. And you need to tackle the subject honestly. That means starting with an open mind, not one that is already made up by your religious beliefs, which should really have no influence over scientific matters.

I suggest that you might like to read some more of Gould's writing - some of his books. You could start with "Wonderful Life", for example, which looks at the Cambrian explosion. Or just about anything else he wrote. He was always - even back in 1983 - a believer and staunch defender of the theory of evolution - right up to the moment of his death. He didn't bring evolution to its knees back in the 80s. He didn't set out to do that and it never happened. If you'd read and understood any of his work, you'd know just how ludicrous it is that you're claiming that he is the smoking gun that brings down the theory of evolution.

 

[Fraggle Rocker]

It doesn't matter what is said or shown, leopold will not accept anything which contradicts his position.

In other words, Leopold is a troll, not a scientist.

Scientists always allow for the possibility that they're wrong. However, they require evidence of the same quality as the evidence from which their original work was derived.
[/B]

 

[leopold]

yes, of course, let's just sweep this one under the rug.

 

[leopold]

leopold:

You cite a 30 year old article that you don't understand and think that this proves that evolution at the species level doesn't happen?

that is what the article implies, yes.
it specifically states it is a clear no that the process of microevolution cannot be applied to macroevolution.

Your main problem, it seems, is that you're looking for that one "smoking gun".

actually i would like an explanation.
why do these scientists imply that so few transitional fossils exist that their conclusion must be NO but yet we are led to believe we have scads of them?
answer?
clever.
EVERY fossil is a transitional fossil.
can you see through that smog james?

You don't want to go to all the trouble of educating yourself about the theory you're trying to debunk.

i'm not trying to "debunk" anything.

Then you look around and find other people who think similarly enough to the way you do

i honestly feel that this is the reason the thread was renamed.
you, or somebody, was afraid it would attract "like minded people" that had something to say, and it was just starting to do that.

In your case, this has led you to certain well-known creationist web sites.

you are right and wrong.
i did indeed find this issue on a creationist site but was far from well known.
i used 2 different search engines and tried at least 50 different phrases before i found it.
the issue itself was apparently hacked because jstor says the issue is UNAVAILABLE.
can you see through that smog james?

Choose ones that have accompanying articles or critiques written by the Creationists you agree with, because that way you don't have to come up with your own arguments or do your own thinking. You can just recycle theirs.

this alone says you never read the thread nor the issue i posted.
RAV posted a link to an altered version.
with that in mind the rest of your post probably has nothing to do with the discussion.
troll much?

 

[AlexG]

In other words, Leopold is a troll, not a scientist.

Was it ever a question?

 

[EinsteinHimself]

Molecular evolution IS THE ONLY KIND THERE IS, OR THAT HAS EVER BEEN CONSIDERED. DNA is a molecule, change in that molecule tested by survival of the creature it belongs to is what evolution is all about.

What exactly is the genetic benefit of a single pore near my nipple having two hairs? and why isn't there one on the other side?