Denial of Evolution VI.

[Aqueous Id]

maybe creationists aren't the idiots you think they are.
just sayin'.

How so? Because someone among them caught wind of a debate about gradualism?

i did indeed get the link from a creationist site.

I think if we analyzed the content of the site we would probably find plenty of evidence of absurd and dishonest arguments against science.

I still haven't understood how the 1980 debate, or neo-Darwinism in general, alters the fact that evolution happens. And that's all that matters to creationists. They want it not to be true and will resort to lies and attacks on science to try to unring the bell.

our current understanding is wrong. period.
current in this context is what is being taught to our students.

You haven't said what is wrong with what is being taught to our students:

• 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.

Which of the above needs to be removed from the curriculum?

 

[billvon]

maybe creationists aren't the idiots you think they are.

Most rely on ignorance to maintain their beliefs.

i did indeed get the link from a creationist site.

I thought so.

 

[leopold]

OK. In your opinion, is Intelligent Design creationism, or science?

don't ask me stupid questions like this, go patronize some other dumbass.

 

[leopold]

I thought so.

while you are thinking, think about this:
why has NAS decided to make this particular issue unavailable even though the issue resides on their server?

 

[AlexG]

why has NAS decided to make this particular issue unavailable even though the issue resides on their server?

Probably because it wasn't an NAS document, it was an AAAS document, stored on Jstor. But if you want a copy of it, you can get it here http://www.keepandshare.com/doc/1747213/2-3-science-evolutionary-theory-under-fire-pdf?da=y&dnad=y

 

[spidergoat]

maybe creationists aren't the idiots you think they are.

Maybe I'm going to wake up tomorrow and my driveway will be made of rubies.

 

[billvon]

while you are thinking, think about this:
why has NAS decided to make this particular issue unavailable even though the issue resides on their server?

Because it's a 33 year old article, and sensible websites will concentrate on maintaining more recent research.

 

[leopold]

Because it's a 33 year old article, and sensible websites will concentrate on maintaining more recent research.

doesn't fly, older issues are still available.

 

[leopold]

oops, double post.

 

[leopold]

Maybe I'm going to wake up tomorrow and my driveway will be made of rubies.

i wouldn't hold my breath if i were you.

 

[billvon]

i wouldn't hold my breath if i were you.

On which one? Hoping that creationists aren't idiots, or finding ruby driveways?

Probably the same likelihood of both, come to think of it . . . .

 

[iceaura]

doesn't fly, older issues are still available.

There are older articles that have not been superseded by more recent ones, and that are not duplicates from other sites. So?

Although I can see a political motive available as well: reputation is a serious matter, and the NAS may wish to disassociate itself from the kind of public reference and argument visible on this thread. If that article has become famous for its use as seen here, they might want to shift the taint to its original publishers.

 

[leopold]

How so? Because someone among them caught wind of a debate about gradualism?


I think if we analyzed the content of the site we would probably find plenty of evidence of absurd and dishonest arguments against science.

I still haven't understood how the 1980 debate, or neo-Darwinism in general, alters the fact that evolution happens. And that's all that matters to creationists. They want it not to be true and will resort to lies and attacks on science to try to unring the bell.


You haven't said what is wrong with what is being taught to our students:

• 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.

Which of the above needs to be removed from the curriculum?

i can no longer defend my position because i do not have the original text.
i DO know what i read.

 

[Aqueous Id]

while you are thinking, think about this:
why has NAS decided to make this particular issue unavailable even though the issue resides on their server?

What do you mean, that they posted all the issues for 1980 except this one?

I am still having trouble understanding what it is you are proposing. On the one hand you want to focus on Gould's 1980 remarks, because, as I understand you here and in earlier threads, publication of this controversy in Science elevates Gould to a position of authority.

But now you also want to say that NAS (or perhaps you meant AAAS) is censoring Gould?

What exactly are you getting at? Are you trying to say, yes, there is a split among experts over Gould's punctuated equilibrium, or that most of them simply discount it? Or that something is rotten in the state of science? All of the above?

All of this is very confusing since you have still not said why it matters as to the question of whether Darwinism, neo-Darwinism and/or Modern Synthesis are subject to the remarks by Gould, since whether any of them are or are not, we are still talking about the fact that species evolved, creationism is a hoax, and the creationists' catastrophic version of origins is utterly absurd. Feel free to correct me if I'm not representing your position correctly.

 

[Aqueous Id]

while you are thinking, think about this:
why has NAS decided to make this particular issue unavailable even though the issue resides on their server?

I am still having trouble understanding what it is you are proposing. On the one hand you want to focus on Gould's 1980 remarks, because, as I understand you here and in earlier threads, publication of this controversy in Science elevates Gould to a position of authority.

But now you also want to say that NAS (or perhaps you meant AAAS) is censoring Gould?

What exactly are you getting at?

Edit:

i can no longer defend my position because i do not have the original text.
i DO know what i read.

So in other words you believe the archived article at JSTOR is a counterfeit version? So something is rotten somewhere, perhaps a conspiracy or something similar. To do what, undermine Gould? We have other ways of looking at that position than relying on the theory that the JSTOR copy is a fraud. We can simply go to some of the more recent debate on this subject. There are several camps, I can think of three: Gould, Ayala and Dawkins. That covers an awful lot of evolutionary biology, and none of them denies that species evolved from ancestral forms. That's why your remarks are so confusing to me. I don't get the point of all of this.

 

[cosmictotem]

Please see the images below.

View attachment 6313

View attachment 6314

Full thread here: http://www.sciforums.com/showthread...erse-does-not-need-to-be-solved-(image-heavy)

 

[leopold]

What do you mean, that they posted all the issues for 1980 except this one?

you obviously misread the post. (#164)

I am still having trouble understanding what it is you are proposing.

see post 173

On the one hand you want to focus on Gould's 1980 remarks, because, as I understand you here and in earlier threads, publication of this controversy in Science elevates Gould to a position of authority.

i cite gould because he's a paleontologist, biologist and a darwinist.
he has the expertise to make the judgments i use, not because of his "position".
in my opinion his hypothesis of punctuated equilibria (with modifications) will explain the current state of evolution.

But now you also want to say that NAS (or perhaps you meant AAAS) is censoring Gould?

are you feeling okay?
it was a simple question, with an apparent not so simple answer.

What exactly are you getting at?

reread post 173.

Feel free to correct me if I'm not representing your position correctly.

yes, you are by about 100%.
for one thing, you should never refer to evolution as a fact.
the best you can possibly do is say as far as science has been able to determine evolution is a fact.
another danger is correlating a third variable with 2 others without cause.
i believe this is what happened.
it made sense, and everyone agreed it made sense, and that's the way it happened.
there is one other scenario:
i'll send a PM on this.

 

[leopold]

Edit:

So in other words you believe the archived article at JSTOR is a counterfeit version?

no, that is not what i believe.

So something is rotten somewhere, perhaps a conspiracy or something similar.

maybe.
the crazy thing is i can understand why there would be.
if you think about it, our mod team is a bunch of conspirators.
your parents are conspirators.

I don't get the point of all of this.

you are terribly confused
find the issue, read it.
it's been hacked before, someone has probably got it somewhere.

 

[Rav]

i cite gould because he's a paleontologist, biologist and a darwinist.
he has the expertise to make the judgments i use, not because of his "position".
in my opinion his hypothesis of punctuated equilibria (with modifications) will explain the current state of evolution.

Then we would expect you to agree with him when, in the context of discussing his hypothesis, he says things like this:

"For a variety of reasons, small isolated populations have unusual potential for effective change: for example, favorable genes can quickly spread throughout the population, while the interaction of random change (rarely important in large populations) with natural selection provides another effective pathway for substantial evolution. Even with these possibilities for accelerated change, the formation of a new species from a peripherally isolated population would be glacially slow by the usual standard of our lifetimes. Suppose the process took five to ten thousand years. We might stand in the midst of this peripheral isolate for all our earthly days and see nothing in the way of major change."

Do you see now how his hypothesis, although opposed to conventional conceptualizations of gradualism, is actually a form of it? As such, far from it being a radical overhaul of evolutionary theory, it simply promotes a particular variable speed model.

 

[Grumpy]

Rav

Punctuated equilibrium and gradual change are basically the same process, but during times of great stress(evolutionary pressure)when ecosystems are changing rapidly, the outliers that are damped down in less stressful times are suddenly offered a chance, mainly because the status quo becomes unsustainable. There are likely to be traits among those outliers that increase suitability in the new conditions and those will survive where other traits die out. Thus evolutionary change becomes relatively rapid. The Cambrian explosion was one such period where the new forms seemed to appear instantly in the fossil record, though it actually took several million years. That instance was caused by the innovation of differentiated multicellular life.

Grumpy