Denial of Evolution VI.

Status
Not open for further replies.
As an alternative you could just give us the name of the article and its author(s) so we can look it up for ourselves (kinda the whole point of citations in the first place)...
well i found the archived PDF.

title: anatomy of an anomaly

authors: mark owen webb and suzanne clark

it's a 16 page PDF.

geez, i never thought i saved so much, uh, trivia.
anyway, i got the file.

edit
is there any way i can upload it to sciforums?
 
Last edited:
Here is a good example of how ineffective the existing theory of evolution is for predicting the future.
if evolution is environment based then it's IMPOSSIBLE to predict the outcome.
if it's solely molecular based with no influence from the environment then it could possibly be predicted.
Based on extrapolation of the theory, from the observation of apes and the continuity with humans, the theory predicts that natural human behavior involves promiscuity.
you are forgetting the rules of chemistry.
atoms just don't slop together any ol' way.
they must be joined in specific quantities and form specific patterns.
a misfolded protein could result in death or disease or might not be noticeable.
the environment might not even be a factor in evolution, it only appears to be.
aqueous mentioned chameleons in this regard.
but what if molecular evolution just happened to produce such an organism?
you know, the entire theory could be wrong, not in the sense of unnatural but more along the lines of chemical limits.
 
leopold

grumpy keeps saying "THEY were WRONG' and points out that scientists have been wrong before.
he is correct, scientists have indeed been wrong.
but 50 of them? ALL of them experts at this stuff.
i challenge grumpy to provide any such scenario.

Yes, the conclusions reached in 1983 are now known to be wrong. Things like the news below tell us why.

The humble horse has provided the oldest full genome sequence of any species — from a specimen more than half a million years old, found frozen in the permafrost of the Canadian Arctic. The finding, published in Nature today, pushes back the known origins of the equine lineage by about 2 million years, and yields a variety of evolutionary insights.

The sequence was extracted from a foot bone of a horse that lived between 780,000 and 560,000 years ago. By sequencing the animal's genome, along with those of a 43,000-year-old horse, five modern domestic horse breeds, a wild Przewalski’s horse and a donkey, researchers were able to trace the evolutionary history of the horse family in unprecedented detail. They estimate that the ancient ancestor of the modern Equus genus, which includes horses, donkeys and zebras, branched off from other animal lineages about 4 million years ago — twice as long ago as scientists had previously thought.

“We have beaten the time barrier,” says evolutionary biologist Ludovic Orlando of the University of Copenhagen, who led the work with colleague Eske Willerslev. Noting that the oldest DNA sequenced before this came from a polar bear between 110,000 and 130,000 years old2, Orlando says: “All of a sudden, you have access to many more extinct species than you could have ever dreamed of sequencing before.”

"Orlando and Willerslev's paper hints at the other types of discovery that these technologies can enable. Their team, for instance, was able to support the contention that the Przewalski’s horse (Equus ferus przewalskii), which was brought back from near-extinction in Mongolia by captive-breeding programmes, is truly the last remaining wild horse when compared genetically with domesticated horses.

The researchers were also able to trace the size of the horse population over time by looking for genomic signatures of population size, and were thus able to show that populations grew in periods of abundant grassland, in between times of extreme cold.(ahem, PE)

But that is not surprising. Other researchers say that it is a proof of principle for how similar studies can be used to explore the factors that have driven evolution and speciation. “This kind of study is giving us novel views that show us the nuts and bolts of how evolution is working,” says Alan Cooper, director of the University of Adelaide's Australian Center for Ancient DNA."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/...ine-lineage_n_3506123.html?utm_hp_ref=science

This is the sort of thing that we have found after 1983 that make the conclusions scientists came to then obsolete, good scientists, insufficient data, new discoveries since then. We now understand evolution in much greater detail due to what sequencing of DNA has taught us. Welcome to the 21st Century.

Grumpy:cool:
 
let me get this straight.
50 people says "hey there are gaps in the record".
"there are so many in fact that our conclusion is NO, the process of speciation cannot be applied to macroevolution"

and you are saying they were mistaken???
are you serious?
1 or 2 or maybe 5 might be wrong but 50 of them, each one with at least 8 years of post high school education specializing in what they were looking at?

come on grumpy, even you don't buy that line.
i can honestly understand why this is being resisted so much.
but hey, which is more important, somebodys bruised ego, or the sanctity of the scientific profession.
science should be the last word on the facts, period.
 
a misfolded protein could result in death or disease or might not be noticeable.
the environment might not even be a factor in evolution, it only appears to be.
Oh baloney.

The evolution of penicillin resistant bacteria directly contradicts this.

Penicillin works by acting on an enzyme involved in the repair of cell walls in (some) bacteria. The ordinary mechanism is that the enzyme (DD-Transpeptiase) finds a specific sequence, then catalyzes cross linkages between cell walls (IIRC the process involves hydrolysis). Penicillin works by getting into the enzymes active site and binding with it (as per normal). The difference is that the penicillin essentially clogs up the site peventing the subsequent hydrolysis step and rendering the enzyme inert.

Penicillin resistance evolved from what amounts to a misfolding. The misfolding essentially leaves the active site in a more open configuration. This means that when penicilin binds with the active site hydrolysis of the penicilin fragments can occur, and they are removed from the active site. The mutation that causes the misfold is otherwise benign. It confers no advantage or disadvantage in the absence of penicillin. It's no more or less effective at forming the petidoglycan cross linkages than the 'normal' folding.

Penicillin, however, provides an environmental pressure that strongly favours the open folding over the closer folding, consequently, evolution occurs and we find ourselves with penicillin resistant bacteria.
 
let me get this straight.
50 people says "hey there are gaps in the record".
"there are so many in fact that our conclusion is NO, the process of speciation cannot be applied to macroevolution"

and you are saying they were mistaken???
are you serious?
1 or 2 or maybe 5 might be wrong but 50 of them, each one with at least 8 years of post high school education specializing in what they were looking at?

come on grumpy, even you don't buy that line.
i can honestly understand why this is being resisted so much.
but hey, which is more important, somebodys bruised ego, or the sanctity of the scientific profession.
science should be the last word on the facts, period.

Let me get this straight.
You can't accept that thirty years is enough time to gather enough evidence to change the minds of a group of scientists?

Perhaps you should do some more research on pre-clovis colinization of the Americas...
 
How has he gone 15,000+ posts without being banned for intellectual dishonesty?
He has been, on four seperate occasions, and has been warned on at least as many occasions. His last ban was over a year ago, however.
 
Wouldn't humans have evolved even slightly over the past couple thousand years?
What makes you think they haven't? When I see the highly sophisticated women in the TV programs I can't see how they would have survived thousands of years ago.
There definitely has been a change but is it survival of the fittest or survival of the best. I have seen these sort of evolutionary changes in bird species where the selection process favours an unusual feature, that might have no real survival value but certainly increases the chances of a successful mating.

This could all spell ultimate doom for these species in a longer term.
Life started as single cells and progressed to multi celled organisms.
We are a multicelled species, but even more than that we have become dependent on other species as well. So is there a word for a multi-organism life form.
Check a few pages on Google for "multi-organism" most entries seemed to relate a misspelling of "multicellular organism", but one site suggested a coral reef was a "multi-organism" organism. That was the sort of meaning I was after, something that expresses the interdependence of a group of species.
 
Let me get this straight.
You can't accept that thirty years is enough time to gather enough evidence to change the minds of a group of scientists?
how does changing ones mind change what is essentially etched in stone?
i understand that they have been explained, but that does NOTHING to fill them.
i can't believe you would even post this.
Perhaps you should do some more research on pre-clovis colinization of the Americas...
this is in regards to?
 
well i found the archived PDF.

title: anatomy of an anomaly

authors: mark owen webb and suzanne clark

it's a 16 page PDF.

geez, i never thought i saved so much, uh, trivia.
anyway, i got the file.

edit
is there any way i can upload it to sciforums?
Beautiful. Did you read it? They aren't attempting to validate or invalidate any particular hypothesis regarding human origins but rather examining the reception of anomalous data that contradicts accepted theory. Sort of a sociological analysis. They leave the anthropology to experts...

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...nOBr08_G623sXSwJfJaBaVQ&bvm=bv.48572450,d.eWU

In this study, we examine in detail a particular case of anomalous evidence meeting received view. In this case, the received view is a theory about human origins in the Americas, and the anomaly is a site in Mexico, the age of which is apparently in conflict with that received theory. Without trying to decide whether the received view is correct, or whether the anomalous evidence is worth considering (which is, after all, a job for specialists), we will follow the story of what happened to the scientists involved, and draw conclusions about what can and cannot be expected from science as a real human institution. in particular, we will argue that, in periods of instability in science ("revolution", if you like), it is in the very nature of science to treat anomalous evidence with hostility and suspicion, even when there is little evidential reason to suspect it. (Emphasis mine)

Maybe I missed it, but what's your point here?

Do you intend to refute evolutionary theory based on the writings of a specialist in Epistemology and Philosophy of Religion? Seriously? Or maybe it's the competency in Asian Philosophy, Buddhism and Feminism?

http://www.webpages.ttu.edu/mawebb/rvitae.pdf

MARK OWEN WEBB
Department of Philosophy 3701 40th St
Texas Tech University Lubbock, TX 79416
Lubbock, TX 79409-3092 (806) 791-4873
(806) 742-0730 ext 339
e-mail: Mark.Webb@ttu.edu
AREAS OF SPECIALIZATION:
Epistemology, Philosophy of Religion
AREAS OF COMPETENCE:
Asian Philosophy, Buddhism, Feminism​
 
Beautiful. Did you read it? They aren't attempting to validate or invalidate any particular hypothesis regarding human origins but rather examining the reception of anomalous data that contradicts accepted theory. Sort of a sociological analysis. They leave the anthropology to experts...
Quite. It's a philosophical analysis. Nothing more.
 
He has been, on four seperate occasions, and has been warned on at least as many occasions. His last ban was over a year ago, however.
i have NEVER been banned for intellectual dishonesty trippy.
you need to retract that buddy.
 
how does changing ones mind change what is essentially etched in stone?
Because what they changed their minds on was not etched in stone.

i understand that they have been explained, but that does NOTHING to fill them.
That's the point you keep missing. I want to get a chisel and carve it into your forehead.

Incomplete sedimentary record is an explanation for the apparent gaps in the fossil record.
Special conditions required for (rare) fossilization is an explanation for apparent gaps in the fossil record.

This was known thirty years ago and NOT what I was referring to.

What I was referring to was that in the thirty years that have elapsed since that paper was written WE HAVE DISCOVERED NEW SPECIES some of which have FILLED the gaps that were there thirty years ago!

Is English your first language? Do I need to translate it into your native tongue? How can I be any clearer?

Some gaps that existed THIRTY YEARS AGO because they have been FILLED with the discovery of NEW SPECIES which have all the PREDICTED TRAITS of the missing transitional fossils.

In some cases, the gaps may never be filled because the transitional forms were geographically isolated, endemic to a specific region, or the evolution simply happened rapidly enough that the fossils are exceedingly rare or non existant.

i can't believe you would even post this.
I can't believe you would post any of this.

this is in regards to?
Take a moment to think it through.
 
Beautiful. Did you read it? They aren't attempting to validate or invalidate any particular hypothesis regarding human origins but rather examining the reception of anomalous data that contradicts accepted theory. Sort of a sociological analysis. They leave the anthropology to experts...
the piece wasn't so much about the evidence but what happened to the scientists that presented it.
 
i have NEVER been banned for intellectual dishonesty trippy.
you need to retract that buddy.

Intellectual dishonesty has other names, for example, pseudoscientific trolling and Trolling/Meaningless Post Content.

I don't have to retract anything, I'm not your buddy, and I don't appreciate your 'tone'.
 
the piece wasn't so much about the evidence but what happened to the scientists that presented it.
And? Are you saying this article accounts for the response here to your assertions? Again, what's your point?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top