Denial of Evolution VI.

[James Hogan]

this isn't "all of evolution" is it?
there are certain other things that need to be said too aren't there?
the reason i say that is why does gould offer "alternate" hypothesis, and why isn't darwins finches mentioned for samples?

The reason so many creationists exist in America is because of the Bible, if the Bible had not been written they would accept evolution. Having said that, I believe the neo-Darwinists have set up a major straw-man of evolution which has actually opened evolutionary biology in some areas to attacks by creationists.

The neo-Darwinian modern synthesis school of population genetics in the 1940s and 50s attempted to explain the whole of evolution by natural selection and mutation and little else, it was a very restricted view of evolution. This has set up a straw man view of evolution especially to the public. If you visit any creationist website all the creationists do is attack natural selection and mutation, they seem to be unaware about all of the other evolutionary mechanisms and processes. When do you see a creationist discussing symbiogenesis? Horizontal gene transfer (HGT)? Or Genome doubling (polyploidy)? Rarely if ever. Do creationists even know what evolutionary developmental biology is?

There are hundreds if not thousands of internet forum posts everyday where creationists are arguing with people over evolution. But in most of these arguments all it ever is, is discussions about mutation or natural selection. This has been going on for many years. Never any mentions of any of the other evolutionary processes.

If we search this very forum for posts on symbiogenesis or HGT how many posts will there be? Not many. Then compare that to all the threads on mutation or natural selection.

Eugene Koonin in his book The Logic of Chance: The Nature and Origin of Biological Evolution (2011) wrote:

The exclusive focus of Modern Synthesis on natural selection acting on random genetic variation has been replaced with a plurality of complementary, fundamental evolutionary processes and patterns. In the new evolutionary biology, natural selection is but one of the processes that shape evolving genomes—and, apparently, not the quantitatively dominant one. To a large extent, neutral processes such as genetic drift and draft define evolution.

Evolutionary developmental biology was originally ignored by neo-Darwinism. According to evo-devo scientists by leaving developmental biology out of the neo-Darwinian synthesis has left evolutionary biology open to attacks by creationists.

Here is evo-devo scientist Scott F. Gilbert in his book Developmental Biology (2000):

Embryology was left out of the Modern Synthesis, as most evolutionary biologists and geneticists felt it had nothing to contribute. However, we know now that it does. The developmental genetics approach to evolution concerns more the arrival of the fittest than the survival of the fittest... Developmental biology brings to evolutionary biology, first, a new understanding about the relationships between genotypes and phenotypes, and second, a new understanding about the close genetic relationships between organisms as diverse as flies and frogs. In doing so, developmental biology complements the population genetics approach to evolutionary biology.

We should try and teach all of the evidence for evolution and not be restrictive to just a handful of mechanisms.

 

[Aqueous Id]

the presentation was part of a presentation as to ''why evolution is true'', not ''an introduction to evolution''. I saw no reason to accept that evolution is true, other than to believe his claim

Like anything else held to be true, evolution remains true since no person has shown any of its stated principles to be false. You need only say True or False to them individually to arrive at your own position:


• A species is a population of organisms that interbreeds and has fertile offspring.
• Living organisms have descended with modifications from species that lived before them
• Natural selection explains how this evolution has happened:
—More organisms are produced than can survive because of limited resources.
—Organisms struggle for the necessities of life; there is competition for resources.
—Individuals within a population vary in their traits; some of these traits are heritable -- passed on to offspring.
—Some variants are better adapted to survive and reproduce under local conditions than others.
—Better-adapted individuals (the "fit enough") are more likely to survive and reproduce, thereby passing on copies of their genes to the next generation.
—Species whose individuals are best adapted survive; others become extinct

yes, there is some good information in this thread, the majority has been provided by you, rpenner and grumpy. the rest of us just kept poking at you to get them.

And let's not forget AlexG, billvon, dinosaur, exchemist, Fraggle Rocker, gmilam, iceaura, James Hogan, KilljoyKlown, origin, randwolf, rav, spidergoat, James R, PhysBang , Trippy, verhaege, Walter L. Wagner and Write4U, many of whom gave excellent cites and resources in biology, geology, paleontology as well as pearls of wisdom we've come to love and respect in the hallowed halls of SciForums

is asking questions about something you do not understand denial?

I think the mark of denialism is more overt than that. Obviously a single question could go one way of the other. I could ask "Where is there one iota of proof that humans came from apes?" vs "What are the criteria for grouping humans with apes?" the first is actual denial of a fact coded as a question, and the second inquires into the supporting facts without making a denial of the better known fact.

I DID NOT understand how evolution could proceed fast or slow . . . until grumpy mentioned molecular evolution.
then it just fell together.

Good. Maybe that will make Grump’s day.

in my opinion proteins, enzymes, and catalysts are going to explain this.

A good place to start in understanding the relationship between evolution and proteins is protein synthesis

this isn't "all of evolution" is it?

What I posted is the summary of the theory reduced to 9 statements

there are certain other things that need to be said too aren't there?

That's the complete and concise theory of evolution. There are endless details that attach, some which have been given by the contributors here, but they mainly serve to expand and illustrate these essential 9 principles.

the reason I say that is why does gould offer "alternate" hypothesis

If you notice the summary I gave says nothing about rates. Darwin's use of "gradual and accumulated change" is all Gould set out to amend, taking from the variation in rates that--by his reading* of the fossil record-- need to be used to update Darwin's use of the term "gradual change". That's why I keep saying that Gould is not disputing the theory. He's just updating what Darwin said, with information Darwin either did not have or else did not reconcile as well as Gould appears to have done*.

*Gould may be subject to updates from geologists and fellow paleontologists concerning variations in thickness of strata and their associated timelines.

and why isn't darwins finches mentioned for samples?

In the typical textbook that contains this summary you will usually see the layout of the 14 Darwin's finches with a discussion. They are considered direct evidence of evolution in action, and are thought to have been pivotal in Darwin's arrival at his theory, in addition with the Galapagos turtles and plants, and a lengthy study he did on pigeons. Since the 9 principles listed summarize Origin of Species, it makes little mention of the Darwin's finches, whereas Darwin provides some details of their traits and habitats, and his inkling that they descended from the South American genera, in The Voyage of the Beagle. Of course the theory is general for all organisms.

 

[James Hogan]

• A species is a population of organisms that interbreeds and has fertile offspring.
• Living organisms have descended with modifications from species that lived before them
• Natural selection explains how this evolution has happened:
—More organisms are produced than can survive because of limited resources.
—Organisms struggle for the necessities of life; there is competition for resources.
—Individuals within a population vary in their traits; some of these traits are heritable -- passed on to offspring.
—Some variants are better adapted to survive and reproduce under local conditions than others.
—Better-adapted individuals (the "fit enough") are more likely to survive and reproduce, thereby passing on copies of their genes to the next generation.
—Species whose individuals are best adapted survive; others become extinct

You have confused the fact of evolution with a theory of evolution (natural selection). You are confusing both things together and then claiming they are one. Whilst most scientists accept the fact of evolution, not all accept the theory of natural selection. There is still a big dispute in science over what natural selection can and can't do.

In a review of James Shapiro's book on evolution. Evolutionary biologist Adam Wilkins admitted:

My impression is that evolutionary biology is increasingly separating into two camps, divided over just this question. On the one hand are the population geneticists and evolutionary biologists who continue to believe that selection has a “creative” and crucial role in evolution, and on the other, there is a growing body of scientists (largely those who have come into evolution from molecular biology, developmental biology or developmental genetics, and microbiology) who reject it. In contrast to Victorian scientists who regarded Darwinian natural selection as “incapable” of creating high degrees of biological complexity, the modern sceptics tend to regard it as of “trivial” importance: the “right” variant for the right place and time arises and, presto, the population changes! The two contemporary groups, divided over this point, are not so much talking past each another as ignoring one another.

Type in on Google "Does Natural Selection Really Explain What Makes Evolution Succeed?" as Dr. James Shapiro explains in his post selection only modifies existing characters it is not creative. It is not the main mechanism of evolution. Your claim "Natural selection explains how this evolution has happened" is nonsensical, you seem to be claiming it is the only mechanism involved in evolution.

Eugene Koonin (as already mentioned):

Natural selection is but one of the processes that shape evolving genomes—and, apparently, not the quantitatively dominant one. To a large extent, neutral processes such as genetic drift and draft define evolution.

Lynn Margulis:

This is the issue I have with neo-Darwinists: They teach that what is generating novetly is the accumulation of random mutations in DNA, in a direct set by natural selection. If you want bigger eggs, you keep selecting the gens that are laying the biggest eggs, and you get bigger and bigger eggs. But you also get hens with defective feathers and wobbly legs. Natural selection eliminates and maybe maintains, but it doesn't create.

Brian Goodwin in his book How The Leopard Changed Its Spots: The Evolution of Complexity:

Clearly something is missing from biology. It appears that Darwin's theory works for the small-scale aspects of evolution: it can explain the variations and the adaptations within species that produce fine-tuning of varieties to different habitats. The large-scale differences of form between types of organism that are the foundation of biological classification systems seem to require a principle other than natural selection operating on small variations, some process that gives rise to distinctly different forms of organism. This is the problem of emergent order in evolution, the origins of novel structures in organisms that has always been a primary interest in biology.

Your comment

Organisms struggle for the necessities of life; there is competition for resources.

You never mention cooperation in evolution you paint a false view of evolution by only mentioning competition.

 

[rpenner]

I believe the neo-Darwinists have set up a major straw-man of evolution which has actually opened evolutionary biology in some areas to attacks by creationists.

Incorrect. The big factual picture in evolution is "Common Descent with Modification" with the main evidence for that is the unity of phylogenetic trees from both comparative morphology (including the fossils and work by paleontologists) and comparative genomics. Creationists dispute this fact and often the big factual picture of cosmology, astronomy, geology, archeology, thermodynamics and quantum physics -- that the Earth and universe and even human art are older than Usher chronology allows and there is no way the Genesis flood story of a 370-day world-wide flood actually happened.

Darwinian theory about heritable variation and competition to reproduce (natural selection) leading to adaptive change in the population was an important first step.

But science doesn't stop at "good enough." Nor does it discard "good enough" until it has "demonstrably better" and often the "better" turns out to merely refine the "good".

Mendelian genetics (no blending, complex expression patterns) led directly to numerical relations between the measure of benefit of a trait and the likelihood chance would allow it to be fixed in the population. Modern genetics strongly explains the continuing origin of variation explaining genetic drift and gives us tools that work even on viruses.

The neo-Darwinian modern synthesis school of population genetics in the 1940s and 50s attempted to explain the whole of evolution by natural selection and mutation and little else, it was a very restricted view of evolution.

It was not a "very restricted view" of anything -- it was the best humanity could do at the time. Today, you give no evidence in how it is a "very restricted view" of evolution in that you don't describe one creationist who is hung up on the mechanism of a particular speciation that is not explained by "natural selection and mutation" (and genetic drift and recombination, etc). Human chromosome 2 is homologous to two ape chromosomes jammed together at the ends! Mechanism and fact. Case closed. Except for the know-nothing-now, know-nothing-ever school of denialists that are incapable to advance to the facts and scientific progress of 1850, let alone 1950.

If you visit any creationist website all the creationists do is attack natural selection and mutation,

Specifically they attack random mutation -- yet the evidence says mutation is random and appearances to the contrary are due to selection.

they seem to be unaware about all of the other evolutionary mechanisms and processes. When do you see a creationist discussing symbiogenesis?

Does this count as "creationist discuss[ion]" ? http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2010/11/how-eukaryote-got-its-mitochondria.html

Horizontal gene transfer (HGT)?

http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/myht_of_homology_05.html (H/T: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB822.html )

Or Genome doubling (polyploidy)? Rarely if ever. Do creationists even know what evolutionary developmental biology is?

Why would it matter what biological mechanisms creationists know if they have no interest in the fact of common descent with modification and their goals are for authoritarian control and not intellectually honest pursuit of truth?

There are hundreds if not thousands of internet forum posts everyday where creationists are arguing with people over evolution. But in most of these arguments all it ever is, is discussions about mutation or natural selection. This has been going on for many years. Never any mentions of any of the other evolutionary processes.

Because 99% of the time the discussion is around the big picture, not the brush strokes or expertise at even the baccalaureate level. These creationists embrace any fringe "expert" as proof that evolution is a theory on the verge of collapse, with a completely skewed understanding of the actual biological debate.

We should try and teach all of the evidence for evolution and not be restrictive to just a handful of mechanisms.

Some mechanisms will be more important than others and your use of "handful" misleadingly conveys that all ideas are equal in explanatory power and is the antithesis of science. I think those that need remedial instruction in biology, the fact of evolution and the dominant mechanism of evolution are receiving what remedial instruction is appropriate and if they wish to pursue biology in an intellectually honest manner then it is appropriate to discuss how understanding the mechanisms of development in multi-celluar organisms and discuss how this enhances the strength of small mutations in affecting phenotype. It might be useful to discuss research on the origins of endosymbiosis and the rarity of horizontal gene transfer in multi-cellular life. But a creationist who is unswayed by the pattern of life today, genomics, the fossil record, and human chromosome 2 is a creationist who is not going to benefit from recent research.

I think you have a straw man of what a creationist is.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Rav,

You're still expecting this to be easy, and in the sense you want it to be (which entails you doing an absolute minimum of work), it's really not.

I don't expect it to be easy. I expect to understand it as a truth because it is presented as a truth, just like those who accept his presentation also without access to the real evidence. I want to know what makes them accept it.

The truth is that there a lot of people who accept evolution without understanding very much about it at all, simply because they consider naturalistic mechanisms more likely than supernatural ones. And that's a perfectly tenable position all by itself since it makes the fewest assumptions.

The amount of steps required in the evolution of the whale kind of blows that idea out of the water.

For the person who needs to overcome a significant bias instilled by creationist literature/propaganda, or who has trouble reconciling a preexisting world-view with evolutionary theory, or who simply wants to have an informed opinion rather than a default one, a lot more effort is required.

I dare say there are people who are biased toward creationist literature/propaganda, but there are people who are biased toward evolutionisnt literature/propoganda, so we needn't go there.
I myself do not need any kind of propoganda to be skeptical of evolutionist claims, I just don't see anything that qualify it as the truth.
If I were the only one, that could be classed as strange, but there are professional scientists who have problems with the idea, especially in light of new evidence. These scientists are also being ridiculed and mocked despite having the same skills, and access.
There is something wrong with that, and it creates suspicion on the part the evolutionist camp.

So what? He was speaking at an atheist conference and as such was under no obligation to be diplomatic. And he wasn't actually ridiculing belief in God in general anyway, just creationism. And creationism deserves ridicule, it's that fucking ridiculous. And it's not only atheists who ridicule it, it's other theists too!

Why bother to ridicule something seen as ''fucking ridiculous'' at a presentation, at an atheist conference, entitled the ''why evolution is true''?

So what I'm really getting at here is that accepting evolution does not necessarily hinge on whether or not you believe in god. It hinges on whether or not you are a biblical fundamentalist, or something similar.

If something is true, you will accept it. You would be mad not to (one can deny it). The thing is, darwinian evolution (as in the story of whale evolution) cannot be shown to be true without accepting it as a truth. The thing about truth is, you don't have to accept it, it is truth whether you want it to be or not, which is why I ask, at what point (in your experience, or through the information, or the actual science) do you accept that the whale dids evolve? Or why is it true?

I'm sorry, but no-one is under any obligation to pretend that the key figures behind the ID movement aren't creationists. Creationism is the child of religious fundamentalism. Religious fundamentalism entails, by definition (and by action, too) the a priori rejection of anything that is in conflict with it. Evolution is. Case closed.

I don't get what you're trying to say here.
Are you saying they aren't scientists, or they aren't doing science because they believe that the Intelligent Designer is God?

Or do you need me to cut and paste the quotes that demonstrate this, from the pdf I linked to as well as other numerous sources, because you're too lazy to click a link and/or spend a few minutes with google?

I'm not interested in their private life.


[quute]Since creationists have a history of presenting examples of this, only to see them summarily refuted as such, it's a rather impotent endeavour.[/QUOTE]

So it's not theistic in anyway. That's what I wanted to know.

jan.

 

[billvon]

The amount of steps required in the evolution of the whale kind of blows that idea out of the water.

The MAGNITUDE of each step actually proves that pretty cleanly.

Each step in the evolution of the whale was very small - a slightly longer tail, nostril in a slightly different place, slightly shorter legs. Each step was easy and straightforward to implement with simple mutations. The reason that the change from land animal from whale was not due to any one big change. It was due to small changes over a very long time (50 million years.)

If I were the only one, that could be classed as strange, but there are professional scientists who have problems with the idea, especially in light of new evidence.

The only one I am aware of is Michael Behe, and he's been repudiated by his employer (a university) the scientific community at large and even the US court system.

Behe is an interesting example. He started out rejecting much of evolution, including the ability to create large changes by accumulating small ones. Since then he has evolved on the issue and now accepts all parts of evolution except the mechanism of mutation. Give him time; he's a smart guy and will come around.

If something is true, you will accept it. You would be mad not to. The thing is, darwinian evolution (as in the story of whale evolution) cannot be shown to be true without accepting it as a truth.

But it can't be untrue without accepting it as untrue!

The thing about truth is, you have to accept it whether you want to or not, which is why I ask, at what point (in your experience, or through the information, or the actual science) do you accept that the whale did evolve.

Once you see the theory and the evidence (whale genome, fossil lineage, chemical analyses of fossils.)

 

[Rav]

I don't expect it to be easy. I expect to understand it as a truth because it is presented as a truth, just like those who accept his presentation also without access to the real evidence. I want to know what makes them accept it.

Your focus on this single presentation is essentially just another example of your efforts to frame the issue of acceptance or denial in terms of a minimal amount of effort.

I haven't suggested that Jerry's talk is adequate by itself. In fact I've said the opposite. His book is a hell of a lot more comprehensive, and even that would only be a start.

The amount of steps required in the evolution of the whale kind of blows that idea out of the water.

Oh goodie. We might actually have something interesting to discuss here. Start by explaining exactly what you mean, and we'll go from there.

I myself do not need any kind of propoganda to be skeptical of evolutionist claims, I just don't see anything that qualify it as the truth.

That might mean something if you'd actually put any real effort into looking, but it's clear that you haven't, so it doesn't.

:yawn:

If I were the only one, that could be classed as strange, but there are professional scientists who have problems with the idea, especially in light of new evidence. These scientists are also being ridiculed and mocked despite having the same skills, and access.
There is something wrong with that, and it creates suspicion on the part the evolutionist camp.

Examples please. Really. I'm not denying that this sort of thing can happen, but I think it might be useful to properly examine a particular instance so we can try to be clear about 1) what really happened and 2) whether or not any actual damage was done to the veracity of evolutionary science.

Why bother to ridicule something seen as ''fucking ridiculous'' at a presentation, at an atheist conference, entitled the ''why evolution is true''?

It has comical value, and it's even occasionally somewhat therapeutic. Everyone does it sometimes, especially when contentious issues are in the air.

Let's see how long you are going to harp on about this ultimately irrelevant observation.

The thing is, darwinian evolution (as in the story of whale evolution) cannot be shown to be true without accepting it as a truth.

This is not the correct way to approach the topic. Try something like this instead: The Origin of Whales and the Power of Independent Evidence

If there's one thing you should take away from reading this short article, it is what the title touches on: the power of independent evidence. This is a great example of what I was talking about earlier. When so many different disciplines are painting the same picture, it starts to become intellectually perverse to remain in denial. And this is true of evolution in general. It really is.

I don't get what you're trying to say here.
Are you saying they aren't scientists, or they aren't doing science because they believe that the Intelligent Designer is God?

Errr, I was being pretty damned clear Jan. I am saying that religious fundamentalism entails the a priori rejection of anything that is in opposition to it. And for crying out loud, this is yet another thing I have explained to you before, and another instance of you pretending that I haven't. But for the benefit of our readers, we can evidence it thusly:

"Some issues such as creation, a global flood, and a young age for the earth are determined by Scripture, so they are not theories. My understanding from Scripture is that the universe is in the order of 6,000 years old. Once that has been determined by Scripture, it is a starting point that we build theories upon. It is within those boundaries that we can construct new theories."

and:

"As I shared with my professors years ago when I was in college, if all the evidence in the universe turns against creationism, I would be the first to admit it, but I would still be a creationist because that is what the Word of God seems to indicate. Here I must stand."

- Kurt Wise, geologist, young earth creationist, and Director of the Creation Research Center at Truett-McConnell College

Here Kurt echoes the sentiments of all the key figures behind the ID movement, and his comments and theirs are all a matter of record. They are all religious fundamentalists who are compelled by that fundamentalism to frame everything within the boundaries of what scripture teaches. In other words, they simply can not even approach the topic of evolution without a degree of bias that every other scientist would find shocking.

 

[leopold]

The reason so many creationists exist in America is because of the Bible, if the Bible had not been written they would accept evolution. Having said that, I believe the neo-Darwinists have set up a major straw-man of evolution which has actually opened evolutionary biology in some areas to attacks by creationists.

let's also not forget the peer review process.
attacks by creationists and by peer review can be seen as one and the same.
this can pose a very serious problem.

When do you see a creationist discussing symbiogenesis?

i have made inquiries about this (symbiosis) before, nobody addressed it.

Horizontal gene transfer (HGT)? Or Genome doubling (polyploidy)?

somebody needs to explain these processes.

Never any mentions of any of the other evolutionary processes.

maybe now we can get this stuff on the table so we all can take a look at it.

Evolutionary developmental biology was originally ignored by neo-Darwinism. According to evo-devo scientists by leaving developmental biology out of the neo-Darwinian synthesis has left evolutionary biology open to attacks by creationists.

don't forget that some of those "attacks" are part of the legitimate peer review process.
this is the MAJOR reason i object when someone yells CREATIONIST when questioning evo.

We should try and teach all of the evidence for evolution and not be restrictive to just a handful of mechanisms.

yes, but we need to do it in such a way that it doesn't confuse instead.

 

[Aqueous Id]

You have confused the fact of evolution with a theory of evolution

No, I simply posted the 9 planks of Darwin's theory and asked a creationist to admit or deny that they are correct.

a theory of evolution (natural selection).

It's actually called On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life, but I won't quibble over that.

You are confusing both things together and then claiming they are one.

No, I am posting a summary of Origin of Species, and asking for an up/down vote on the 9 principles listed.

Whilst most scientists accept the fact of evolution, not all accept the theory of natural selection.

The Darwin's finches are the classic example of evolution by natural selection. Antimicrobial resistance is one you can test at home. The English peppered moth is another. And so on. I have no way to respond to "not all" scientists. My intent is to re-focus the discussion onto the actual tenets of the theory and, hopefully, to leads us closer to a discussion on actual evidence, and to reduce the hearsay.

There is still a big dispute in science over what natural selection can and can't do.

Find one source that says that pesticides, herbicides and antimicrobials don't select out, and I'll take my fingers out of my ears.

In a review of James Shapiro's book on evolution. Evolutionary biologist Adam Wilkins admitted:
My impression is that evolutionary biology is increasingly separating into two camps, divided over just this question. On the one hand are the population geneticists and evolutionary biologists who continue to believe that selection has a “creative” and crucial role in evolution, and they are right and on the other, there is a growing body of scientists (largely those who have come into evolution from molecular biology, developmental biology or developmental genetics, and microbiology) who reject it.

Quote mining creationist sites? Wilkins is not going to help you. From the same review:

My final disagreement with Jim's [James Shapiro's] general argument concerns a truly fundamental point, however: the dismissal of natural selection as a shaping force in evolution. . . I cannot imagine many evolutionary biologists subscribing to that position. . . The arguments from paleontological evidence for the importance of natural selection largely concern the observed long-term trends of morphological change, which are visible in many lineages. It is hard to imagine what else but natural selection could be responsible for such trends, unless one invokes supernatural or mystical forces such as the long popular but ultimately discredited force of “orthogenesis.” . . . The evolution of such capabilities, favoring the process of evolvability (the capacity to give rise to new properties), is a fascinating subject, though mentioned explicitly only once in the book, and deserves more attention than it has traditionally received. Again, the only alternative for the origination of these capabilities, if one discards natural selection as the generative agent, is some supranatural force . . .​

In contrast to Victorian scientists who regarded Darwinian natural selection as “incapable” of creating high degrees of biological complexity, the modern sceptics tend to regard it as of “trivial” importance: the “right” variant for the right place and time arises and, presto, the population changes!

Now review that remark in light of herbicides, pesticides and antimicrobials.

Dr. James Shapiro explains in his post selection only modifies existing characters it is not creative. It is not the main mechanism of evolution.

Not according to Wilkins.

Your claim "Natural selection explains how this evolution has happened" is nonsensical, you seem to be claiming it is the only mechanism involved in evolution.

Uhhh. . . this is not my claim. It's Darwin’s, originating in, and vindicated by, evidence.

Eugene Koonin (as already mentioned):

Natural selection is but one of the processes that shape evolving genomes—and, apparently, not the quantitatively dominant one. To a large extent, neutral processes such as genetic drift and draft define evolution.

Darwin never said anything about the relative importance of one form of genetic modification over another. For purposes of the discussion with the previous IDer, it's not relevant, although she may appreciate your remarks.

Lynn Margulis:

This is the issue I have with neo-Darwinists: They teach that what is generating novetly is the accumulation of random mutations in DNA, in a direct set by natural selection. If you want bigger eggs, you keep selecting the gens that are laying the biggest eggs, and you get bigger and bigger eggs. But you also get hens with defective feathers and wobbly legs. Natural selection eliminates and maybe maintains, but it doesn't create.

How is that an argument against Species whose individuals are best adapted survive; others become extinct?

Brian Goodwin in his book How The Leopard Changed Its Spots: The Evolution of Complexity:

Clearly something is missing from biology. It appears that Darwin's theory works for the small-scale aspects of evolution: it can explain the variations and the adaptations within species that produce fine-tuning of varieties to different habitats. The large-scale differences of form between types of organism that are the foundation of biological classification systems seem to require a principle other than natural selection operating on small variations, some process that gives rise to distinctly different forms of organism. This is the problem of emergent order in evolution, the origins of novel structures in organisms that has always been a primary interest in biology.

It appears that Darwin's theory works for the small-scale aspects of evolution is an admission that the Darwin's finches are explained by these 9 planks of his theory, which corroborates my prior post. However, as an opponent of reductionism, I suspect Goodwin is rolling in his grave after being subjected to quote-mining. By the way, this is a good talking point for creationists, since they are primarily stressing over the 2nd plank of Darwin's theory: Living organisms have descended with modifications from species that lived before them. That's what grates against their fundamentalist literal interpretation of the Genesis versions of the Creation Myth.

Your comment

Organisms struggle for the necessities of life; there is competition for resources.
You never mention cooperation in evolution you paint a false view of evolution by only mentioning competition.

My view cannot possibly be false since what I posted is a true and correct summary of Darwin's theory. However, you can take it up with him, and I'll try my best to advocate his position since he's not here to defend himself. You might begin by explaining how co-evolution does not fit into this or any of the other 8 principles of his theory.

 

[gmilam]

In a review of James Shapiro's book on evolution. Evolutionary biologist Adam Wilkins admitted:

On the one hand are the population geneticists and evolutionary biologists who continue to believe that selection has a "creative” and crucial role in evolution, and on the other, there is a growing body of scientists (largely those who have come into evolution from molecular biology, developmental biology or developmental genetics, and microbiology) who reject it.

Never heard anyone claim that natural selection is "creative". Natural selection is simply a pass/fail. Either you live or you don't.

 

[Grumpy]

Jan Ardena

The thing is, darwinian evolution (as in the story of whale evolution) cannot be shown to be true without accepting it as a truth.

Evolution is fact, things change over even relatively short periods of time. For instance, there were no Devon cattle when Jesus walked the Earth just 2000 years ago, the cattle they did have(the Aurochs)died out in the 17th century. The Devon is documented by man to have descended(with modifications)directly from the Auroch, the only difference being that man chose those variations that lived to reproduce(artificial selection)instead of nature testing the variations(Natural Selection), either way it's a fact that evolution occurred.

A Taurus bull, the result of a 90 year effort to breed back to the aurochs using modern cattle. It shares most traits of the Aurochs

This is an Devon bull, other than four legs, it's external traits are not very auroch-like.

The very same thing could be said of humans and chimps. Yes, the Devon is just a modified aurochs, in the exact same way that humans are modified apes. Both humans and cattle are modified forms of some frog like amphibian from long ago(we still have the same bones), we all are modified forms of bacteria(we have the same cell chemistry, structure and function). Every living thing on Earth is a modified form of the first successful self-replicating molecule to emerge out of the soup of the early ocean(we all have the same DNA, our cells all contain what is basically ocean water). Even that first successful self-replicating molecule was the result of millions, if not billions of years of chemistry, in stars, in space, on the surface of Earth and in the depths of the ocean. It didn't have to happen that way, but it did(lucky for us).

Grumpy

 

[Aqueous Id]

The description of the dog like creature, evolving into a whale for example, while it looks great in picture, and the narration that describes the picture, is not in my opinion sufficient to accept as true.

Then you're stuck explaining where they all came from.

Obviously I could be wrong, but I just don't think the morphological changes that would be necessary for such an overhaul, is convincingly, or adequately explained.

The problem with science is that you have to make do with the best evidence available. Given the facts presented so far, what other possible explanation do you have?

Maiacetus had big teeth for catching fish, sturdy legs to support it on land and, most revealing of all, delivered babies head-first just like a land mammal. (Modern whales deliver tail first).

Rodhocetus had a pelvic bone and four legs, articulated for perambulating (possibly a crawling walk) over short distances.

 

[James Hogan]

No, I simply posted the 9 planks of Darwin's theory and asked a creationist to admit or deny that they are correct.

What is your source that those are the "9 planks" of Darwin's theory?

Living organisms have descended with modifications from species that lived before them

This is not Darwin's theory. Common descent was proposed by many scientists before Darwin. You may be interested in the book by Henry Fairfield Osborn. (1894). From the Greeks to Darwin: An outline of the development of the evolution idea which traces evolutionary thought and common descent back 1000s of years.

Jean-Baptiste Lamarck, Étienne Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire, Erasmus Darwin, Robert Chambers, William Charles Wells and Patrick Matthew and many other scientists all advocated common descent before Charles Darwin. Common Descent is not Darwin's theory.

I would be interested in where you took these "9 planks" from. In the later years of his life, Charles Darwin advocated inheritance of acquired characteristics (Lamarckism) and gave much power to this mechanism, he even invented his own hypothesis of heredity known as pangenesis which was technically Lamarckian. Surely this should be one of Darwin's planks? But you only mention natural selection?

No, I am posting a summary of Origin of Species, and asking for an up/down vote on the 9 principles listed.

I am interested in knowing where you got these 9 principles from.

Uhhh. . . this is not my claim. It's Darwin�s, originating in, and vindicated by, evidence.

But it is not Darwin's only claim.

In the early edition of The Origin of Species Darwin wrote:

I am convinced that natural selection has been the most important but not the only means of modification.

But he later had doubts and ended up invoking Lamarckian evolution.

Here is Charles Darwin in his book The Descent of Man 1871:

I probably attributed too much to natural selection or the survival of the fittest. I have altered the fifth edition of the Origin so as to confine my remarks to adaptive changes of structure. I had formerly not sufficiently considered the existence of many structures which appear to be, as far, as we can judge, neither beneficial nor injurious; and this I believe to be one of the greatest oversights as yet detected in my work.

In his book Darwin and the Emergence of Evolutionary Theories of Mind and Behavior Robert J. Richards wrote:

Though Darwin gave natural selection and sexual selection the principal shares in his casual account of human evolution, he also recognized other factors. The direct effects of the environment and inherited habit, he believed, not only provided variations for selection to operate on but themselves functioned as transforming forces.

As you can see Darwin advocated three mechanisms of evolution:

*Natural selection
*Sexual selection
*Inheritance of acquired characteristics (Lamarckism)

Darwin believed in inheritance of acquired characteristics. He published his hypothesis of pangenesis as the last chaper of Variation in Plants and Animals in 1868. According to pangenesis, the basis of hereditary characters resides within tiny cellular particles called 'gemmules'. Gemmules then migrate from somatic to germ cells, where they collect to pass inherited characters to the next generation. Since gemmules become modified in somatic cells by conditions of life and the actions of organisms, acquired characters can be inherited. Darwin was a Lamarckian.

I don't know where you have taken your 9 principles from. But when you write "natural selection explains how this evolution has happened" this is not the full story, because Darwin did not only invoke one mechanism (natural selection) to explain evolution.

 

[ElectricFetus]

Why do whales breath air? why do they have hip bones? Why do they morphologically, physocloigically and genetically map as mammals? Did God just make them that way to confuse us, make them with appear to have evolved from mammals so that he could banish a fair precentage of humanity to hell for the lulz? Why does God use the same genomic signatures from one animal to another, often even leaving "ancestral" genes and genetic patterns that suggest common decent and evolution? Why did god design us so badly, why don't we have bidirectional lungs that breath more efficently, why don't we have internal testicles, why don't we have hemothyrin base blood that is resistant to CO and SH2 posioning, why the Recurrent laryngeal nerve, etc, etc, etc? Why is our body filled with poor design features as if we were designed by an inconscious forces or worse a dunken, sadistic deity? Sure evolution could be wrong because God (or the devil by god allowing it) has made it appear that way in order to increase the number of unbeleivers that he can gleefully banish to hell, but then that says something about God doesn't it: He is an asshole!

 

[leopold]

I have no way to respond to "not all" scientists.

i believe that you have SOME idea about this.
the piece from science is one such source.
in his paper on spandrels gould mentions the functionality disparity in the record, this implies that the theory and the record are not jiving with one another.
i fail to believe that many scientists wouldn't see that.

Find one source that says that pesticides, herbicides and antimicrobials don't select out, and I'll take my fingers out of my ears.

is that how you really want to be seen as, a scientist with his fingers in his ears?

 

[Aqueous Id]

Never heard anyone claim that natural selection is "creative". Natural selection is simply a pass/fail. Either you live or you don't.

Maybe it would help if we made it clearer to him that natural selection accounts for extinctions. It's just that every extinction eradicates a genotype. When done in small increments, there will still be room for interbreeding, and the "gradual accumulated change" mode can stay engaged. At some point it may happen that the amount and/or location of base pairs undergoing changes may become far enough deviated to preclude the possibility of fertile hybrids. At this point the game is over, speciation can be declared. Once that happens, it no longer matters whether or not the ancestral genotype goes extinct (from the perspective of the new gene pool [since they wouldn't interbreed anyway]) but it sure would make an impact as far as competition for resources within the niche. At that point, the extinction of the ancestor frees the resources for the newbie, which presumably means it will flourish. So in this way selection might be called a "creative force", just that it's not working any longer as an evolutionary force. It's indirectly done -- the elimination of something (competition) that increases the odds (resources) of success for the new species, promoting its place in the niche -- almost like putting fertilizer on a spring lawn. That being said, I can't see why it matters -- I mean it matters in terms of the fate of a species, I just don't see why it matters to the folks wishing to minimize the role of natural selection. Like you say, it's a pass/fail condition. Natural selection trumps everything, so where's the beef? I don't get their line of reasoning. It seems invested more in branding novelty than anything. Plus, on top of that, it's really small change. I mean, who cares? It seems to be nothing more than a pissing contest.

 

[leopold]

When done in small increments, there will still be room for interbreeding, and the "gradual accumulated change" mode can stay engaged.

gould proposed spandrels because he found fossil evidence that discounts it, he called it the pandas thumb.
he theorized that this did not happen in small steps but had to have been made all at once, this is what is meant by "functional disparity" in the record and much of the record is this way.
so, what's the story with that?

about fossils in general:
it's my understanding that genetic info can't be recovered from fossils,
fossils, those things you dig out of the ground, not found "preserved" in amber or some such.
how does a person come up with a mitochondrial eve?

 

[Aqueous Id]

i believe that you have SOME idea about this.
the piece from science is one such source.
in his paper on spandrels gould mentions the functionality disparity in the record, this implies that the theory and the record are not jiving with one another.

This is why I keep posting the actual planks of Darwin's theory. There is no conflict between them and the fossil record. As to Gould's spandrels, I think the whole issue is frivolous since it matters not one whit to the theory that time may become nonlinear in the record, whether fossils were actually laid down that way, or whether it's due to Gould not processing geology (thickness of strata) and biology (animals migrate esp in re to evolution; sudden geographical shifts are a fact of nature) as he probably ought to.

i fail to believe that many scientists wouldn't see that.

I think it's universally understood that the fossil record needs a Rosetta stone, it's coarse and spotty, but also it never was assumed or claimed to be linear over time (not since uniformitarianism became a fossil). So I can't find any actual issue there. There sure isn't any conflict with the theory, as I explained above, so there's no actual controversy, other than the kind that arises from two people talking about two different things, believing they are on the same page.

is that how you really want to be seen as, a scientist with his fingers in his ears?

When it comes to flatly denouncing natural selection? It's denial. I sure wouldn't want to get that jacket put on me.

 

[Write4U]

"Some issues such as creation, a global flood, and a young age for the earth are determined by Scripture, so they are not theories. My understanding from Scripture is that the universe is in the order of 6,000 years old. Once that has been determined by Scripture, it is a starting point that we build theories upon. It is within those boundaries that we can construct new theories."

This is one of the fundamental misunderstandings in the thinking of ID proponents. This assumption prevents any discussion of evolution over long periods of time.

The universe is approximately 14 billion years old, Earth is approximately 4.6 billion years old. First life appeared about 3.6 billion years ago.
So it took 1 billion years for the first organic life to appear. 1 billion years of forming complex molecules which were able to self duplication. This process itself falls under the term evolution toward the beginning of biochemical life forms.

Basic timeline[edit]

The basic timeline of a 4.6 billion year old Earth, with approximate dates:
3.6 billion years of simple cells (prokaryotes),
3.4 billion years of cyanobacteria performing photosynthesis,
2 billion years of complex cells (eukaryotes),
1 billion years of multicellular life,
600 million years of simple animals,
555 million years of arthropods (ancestors of insects, arachnids and crustaceans),
550 million years of complex animals,
500 million years of fish and proto-amphibians,
475 million years of land plants,
400 million years of insects and seeds,
360 million years of amphibians,
300 million years of reptiles,
200 million years of mammals,
150 million years of birds,
130 million years of flowers,
66 million years since the dinosaurs died out,
20 million years since the appearance of the family Hominidae (great apes)
2.5 million years since the appearance of the genus Homo (human predecessors)
200,000 years since the appearance of anatomically modern humans,
25,000 years since the disappearance of Neanderthal traits from the fossil record.
13,000 years since the disappearance of Homo floresiensis from the fossil record.[/quote]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_evolution

I believe the acceptance of these scientific findings is the key to understanding the enormous times involved for even small changes to be able to emerge by trial and error in the earth's natural laboratory.

The word "emergence of complexity" is very important when considering the evolutionary function. Once you can accept the timelines involved, evolution becomes clear and easier to accept.
The claim that the earth is 6000 year old earth is FALSE, which even the Church has now acknowledged.

So let's start 3.6 billion ago, when the first organisms first appeared on earth, not 6000 years, because that would not allow for long term evolutionary processes.

Then the great objection to evolution is "irreducible complexity".

How is it possible for some organisms have motor (flagella), we all know that if you take a part of the motor it is no longer functional as a motor, no? How could it become a motor without having the parts to make a motor?

This was a famous case in court re ID, known as The Kitzmiller-Dover Trial. Below I have linked to a presentation by Kenneth Miller in which he describes the arguments made during that trial.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oQvmqRv_jN4

and this may be of assistance as well,
http://www.evolution.mbdojo.com/evolution-for-beginners.html

 

[billvon]

gould proposed spandrels because he found fossil evidence that discounts it, he called it the pandas thumb.

Spandrels are characteristics that are not directly evolved but are the result of evolution. You did not get red blood because evolution demanded red blood; you got red blood because you needed blood that could transport oxygen and hemoglobin is a good way to do it. And it happens to be red. Thus red blood is a spandrel.

The panda's thumb is a good example of the "accidental" path of evolution. The panda did not evolve a new phalange; he just adapted an existing sesamoid bone to serve a new purpose.

he theorized that this did not happen in small steps but had to have been made all at once

No actually Gould argued AGAINST that. He agreed with Darwin, who said "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. But I can find out no such case."

it's my understanding that genetic info can't be recovered from fossils,
fossils, those things you dig out of the ground, not found "preserved" in amber or some such.

==========
Despite the problems associated with 'antediluvian' DNA, a wide and ever-increasing range of aDNA sequences have now been published from a range of animal and plant taxa. Tissues examined include artificially or naturally mummified animal remains,[3][17] bone (c.f. Hagelberg et al. 1989; Cooper et al. 1992; Hagelberg et al. 1994),[18] paleofaeces,[19][20] alcohol preserved specimens (Junqueira et al. 2002), rodent middens,[21] dried plant remains (Goloubinoff et al. 1993; Dumolin-Lapegue et al. 1999) and recently, extractions of animal and plant DNA directly from soil samples.[22] In June 2013, a group of researchers announced that they had sequenced the DNA of a 560–780 thousand year old horse, using material extracted from a leg bone found buried in permafrost in Canada's Yukon territory.[23]
==========

how does a person come up with a mitochondrial eve?

By analyzing extant populations for their most recent common ancestor. Molecular clocks tell us how long ago we shared a common female ancestor.