leopold:
In response to your reply to me:
leopold said:
origin of new species.
it's basically variations of the same theme.
I don't know what you mean by that.
Do you think human beings are "variations on the same theme" as chimpanzees, for example? We share 99% of our genes, after all. Is this species difference just a "variation on the same theme"?
personally i would call this microevolution.
Speciation is now microevolution?
Ok, then what is macroevolution?
macroevolution is the accumulations of of these changes to create a different genome.
this is what the scientists said does not happen. *
Again, I'm not sure what you mean by "a different genome".
You have a different genome to your mother or father, for example. Does that mean you've undergone "macroevolution"?
Does the 1% difference between chimpanzee and human DNA make human DNA a "different genome" from chimp DNA? Is that 1% change a "macro" change or a "micro" change, then?
You share 99% of your DNA with a chimp. You share more than 50% of your DNA with a mouse. These are facts.
What would a "different genome" look like?
i understand what they were unsure about but can't put it in words.
they were unsure about how much of one (microevolution) can be applied to the other (macroevolution).
The debate between gradualism and punctuated equilibrium is just an argument about the time scale over which speciation takes place, on average. That debate is largely dead among biologists now, with the punctuated equilibrium proposal having been essentially absorbed into standard evolutionary theory.
actually the important thing is their conclusion and why they concluded it.
why did they conclude it was a clear no?
The debate concerned whether the
same mechanisms that drive adaptation within a species can be used to explain speciation. The answer to that was "a clear No". As can be seen in the quotes I posted in a previous post (above), they agreed that speciation requires genetic isolation of some kind, which is the opposite of "business as usual" in a group of organisms that are interbreeding.
But the conference also concluded that macro- and micro-evolution can "probably been seen as a continuum with a notable overlap". That's on the first page of the article.
the people that specialize in this stuff has known for a long time the transitional fossils was not being found but kept mum about it, and for a good reason.
they, like darwin, expected them to be found but knew the difficulties in finding them.
Nobody "kept mum" about the so-called "gaps" in the fossil record. Why do you think they held this meeting in the first place? It's no secret that the fossil record is patchy and incomplete. It's also well understood why that is the case.
they have apparently waited long enough to state the fossils do not exist, they will not be found.
But transitional fossils
have been found. There are many very famous examples. Consider, for example, sequences of fossils showing the evolution of horses, or whales, or even human beings.
It's perverse to claim that there are no transitional fossils. A 2 minute search on google will find hundreds of examples.
this is another problem with this discussion.
you, and others, just can not accept the facts.
nothing will be solved this way.
What facts am I not acceptiing?
You're the one who seems to be in denial about a whole bunch of things. The existence of transitional fossils is the tip of the iceberg.
i think you, and others, are afraid of the implications of this or afraid that creationists will jump all over it and say SEE! SEE!
Modern Creationists are unscientific believers in religious fables. They have never had any impact at all on the progress of science. Why would anybody of a scientific mind be remotely worried about anything a Creationist has to say about evolution? Certainly not for any possible impact on science. They only concern lies in their ability to mislead the general public. Look what it's done to you.
But you're right. In a very real sense, every fossil is a transitional fossil. If you die and happen to be fossilised, then you're an obvious transitional fossil between your parents and your children, for example. The same can be said of any fossil.
don't cloud the issue like this james.
you know full well what these scientists regard as a transitional fossil, vis aqueous and his definitions.
I'm not clouding the issue. You're avoiding it.
You accept that you're different from your parents, and that your children are/will be different from you. So how are you not "transitional"?
Do you think there's a conspiracy by the evolutionary "establishment" to hide this smoking gun of an article, leopold?
there is a reason it's stored at jstor but jstor decided to make it unavailable.
It is not unavailable. I downloaded it from jstor just yesterday, and could easily do so today too.
Don't tell lies, leopold. They make you look silly.
Do you think this is the article the evolutionists don't want us to see?
yes, some of them.
you know the kind, it's my way or the highway.
You really think there are people who believe evolution is true who would be worried about a 30 year old debate
among evolutionists to hash out some then-current issues in evolutionary theory?
Why?
Nothing in that article refutes evolution. Nothing begins to question it.
I know you have claimed that the "quotes don't match", but you haven't actually documented that claim with examples anywhere, as far as I can see.
actually i have, in this very thread.
I know you'll do the honorable thing now and retract this claim of yours. Won't you?
i didn't say it couldn't be found at jstor.
i said jstor has made the issue unavailable even though it is stored there.
that is what the jstor site said when i visited it about a week ago.
I had no trouble downloading it. The problem must be at your end. Either that, or it's a temporary glitch that's now resolved.