And a quick mention of the inherent unsuitability of women for "manly" work.
Denial of Evolution VII (2015)
- Thread starter davewhite04
- Start date
The letters can be found in: Science, New Series, Vol. 211, No. 4484, Feb. 20, 1981
Here is a PDF containing them all that I downloaded while your source was still online
A rare "living fossil" shark caught in Australia. It has 300-teeth and frilled gills, not side slits like the modern sharks do. I think they are fully "flared out" in 2nd photo. It is one of the most primitive sharks on Earth, dating back 80 million years. It swllows whole what ever it grasps and has expanding or flexible jaws.
Not quite as astounding as the coelacanth (image below), that was supposed to be extinct for 65 million years, and known only by the fossil records. It head-lined into human consciousness with its discovery alive in 1938. Nicknamed "Old Four Legs" and the "Living Fossil," Laitmeria chalumnae- the Coelacanth- quickly became the continuing obsessive focus of journalists, crypto biologists, scientists, eccentric explorers, aquariums, divers, film makers and billionaires. First was caught in the Indian ocean, but now a closely releated primitive fish (same species?) has been found deep in most of the world's warm, deep oceans waters.
Note all the ancient fish seem to have fat tails.
One of these quasi-legged fish who waddled back to the ocean when trapped in a shallow pool by the receding tides (much greater back then when moon was closer to earth) may be your great, great ... great grand father. A fat strong tail, probably helped that a lot. I don't know, but guess that at least half your DNA is identical with his.
By edit: No my guess was wrong. The coelacanth branched off many braches earlier from man's evolutionary line, However does still share some very conserved, non-coding HOX groups of DNA with man.:
Amazing how well this "evolution tree" was known from comparative structural biology well before it was slightly changed by comparative DNA analysis.
Also note why the mouse is such a good model for testing new drugs - Mouse and humans only recently split, but of course other primates are best, but expensive, and now can't be exported from Indian et.al. for that purpose. I think there is (30 years ago there was) a breading colony of Rhesus monkeys in Florida.
I believe that the shark that was recently caught branched from the other sharks much further back than 80 mya. It appears that it is more like 250 mya, based on the following:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elasmobranchii#mediaviewer/File:Evolution_of_cartilaginous_fishes.png
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frilled_shark
though I am not a shark expert, and I'd welcome further input.
It coooould in some instances, yes. Some Daphnia species produce pronounced -spines in the presence of predators, which I think is a response to the detection of predatory freshwater fish or invertebrates. That could be called a kind of spandrel, perhaps, if it had been developed in concert with some other changes. But as a general explanation, I would say no: more complex life-forms (i.e. mammals) generally do not produce what might be called monstrous in view of their conspecifics. I'm not adverse to saltation, even along the axis of spandrels, in evolution but I don't think it could be the predominant mechanism. It depends on the kind of physiological lability we're talking about here: it occurs, but probably at low frequency. Then again, woudl you call rapid radiative speciation saltation? It might certainly look so, in the rear-view mirror. If a single species invades a new niche and wildly radiates, if it's fast enough (say, ten generations), would you call that saltation or very rapid neoDarwinianism?
Well, maybe. I think he has a decent grasp on an idea. I just think that he feels it fills in the gaps of the saltational process he's promoting - but promotion itself not the proper scientific perspective. There really doesn't seem to be any way in which saltation could explain the chains of biodiversity in, say, tetrapods - but let's say the window of alteration gets expanded from the rigid definition of single-generational revamping and the inevitable comparisons to the "Hopeful Monster". What if rapid evolution like the kind seen in Italian lizards, some snails and salmon occurs - ten generations or your original ecological niche back. How could we perceive such a rapid change in the fossil record? We wouldn't. We don't have such a fine evolutionary window as to be able to pick it out.
Now, all that being said, we know from simple classical artificial selection that we can reliably alter various phenotypes in the classical neoDarwinian/Fisherian way. Minor and major loci exist. The apparatus is clear. Not so for saltational gains, or at least not in vertebrates. Moreover, the existence of staged forms with predictable, linear alterations over the aeons suggests that same cumulative process of micro-evolution written macro. And I think Hinduist philosophical literalism - which I believe leopold was alluding to earlier - is as about on the money as Christian literalism on this issue, which is to say not at all. Hope he's not permabanned tho?
I don't think he's promoting a saltational process. When pressed, he says he has no idea how to explain the diversity of life.
Of course.
But I think leopold is more of a "God created all the animals in 1 day of Creation" kind of guy.
He is only banned for 3 days. He'll be able to return tomorrow.
He's more of an evolution denier. His characteristic style of posting is not to propose alternatives, just to deny evolution based on a pretext. "In this issue of Science, evolution is spelled 'evoluton!' And they never corrected it! Clearly even Science cannot say what evolution is."
The letters can be found in: Science, New Series, Vol. 211, No. 4484, Feb. 20, 1981
Here is a PDF containing them all that I downloaded while your source was still online
That didn't last long. In case it's still needed, try this instead: http://ge.tt/9Rfab692/v/0
Otherwise just PM me. I'll be happy to send it to anyone who would like a copy.
EDIT: It's now been uploaded directly to sciforums. I forgot you could do that, heh.
Fossils are not the basis of evolution, they sure as hell support it though. Solid state fossils??
Holy crap are you a hoot. You think evolution is a theory of the change of inanimate things. Did you have a few glasses of bourbon for breakfast???
Maybe you should change your name to Bobby Boucher.
Fossils are not alive. They are primarily solid state traces of some of the materials that were part of something once alive. Alive needs water and the liquid state. I have already shown if we leave out the water it is not alive. Fossils only contain materials, which by themselves, are not alive. I understand fossils is what we got to work with, but does anyone see the irony of using dead to define changes in life? Dead has it own evolutionary changes called decay.
The biology of evolution is more about cataloging conventions, which are subjective. For example, say we wanted to catalog humans by behavior, such as natural ability (sports, writing, sales, etc.) and/or by skin, hair or eye color and call that evolutionary change. This is not much different from a bird changing coloration or a member of a species learning a new behavior that starts a trend. One should be able to find at least trace DNA differences, that is consistent with a DNA method. These humans selections are scattered all over the country; all races and all colors and all types of innate talents can be found everywhere. We won't include this as evolution since this based on real time alive stuff, and not just traces of solid state inanimate stuff. The human example shows selection far more diversified.
Theoretical Design 2:
To make the impact of water more understandable, I need to develop some chemistry background. The first installment gave some basic properties of water in terms of the hydrogen bonding within water. Water can form four hydrogen bonds, allowing water to emulate carbon at a secondary and tertiary level. The hydrogen bonding in water is a binary type of bond that can switch between two distinct but close states; polar and covalent. This switching causes changes in local nano-scale volume, pressure, enthalpy and entropy, useful to life. If we can create consistency in local volume, pressure, enthalpy and entropy, with the organics, this allows liquid memory. This liquid memory contains a punch; pressure, enthalpy, entropy. Life needs this extra to be alive.
The next thing I would like to do is compare water H2O, to ammonia NH3 and methane CH4. Below is a chart of electronegativity. Electronegativity is a measure of the relative strength by which atoms hold onto electrons. In terms of the atoms that forms these three compounds, O=3.5 H=2.1 N=3.0 C=2.5. The biggest difference occurs within in water with the difference between O and H being 1.4. This difference tells us how polar water is. The difference for ammonia (N-H) is 0.9. Ammonia bonds are still polar but not as much as water ,since nitrogen is less electronegative than oxygen. Ammonia can also form hydrogen bonds, but does so with a lower N-H bond polarity. Methane has a C-H difference of 0.4 and is considered non polar. The carbon and hydrogen both want the electrons almost as much, with carbon slightly stronger. A polarity is there in each C-H bond, but small.
In terms of conventions, materials are called hydrophilic and hydrophobic based on whether that like water or try to avoid interaction with water. This is somewhat of a misnomer in that non polar organic compounds, although called hydrophobic, are really not afraid of water. Water has move than enough electron density in its dipole to satisfy the needs of the slight polarity of any organic compound. The phobia is really connected to the water, since organic bonding leaves a much high net potential. To minimize potential water needs to bind with water, even though it can form hydrogen bonds with organic compounds.
An analogy for water hydrogen bonding to carbon compounds is like eating puffed rice cakes. This is food one may eat if one is dieting, but if chocolate cake (water) was an option, the rice cake will be left in the cupboard. Water is often trapped within the organic interiors of enzymes where it can still eat rice cakes. Water can pass through pure carbon nano-tubes due to rice cakes still being food. But since water is still hungry due this diet, water will pass quickly to get to the good stuff.
In nano-tubes the water starts and stops like moving traffic between stop lights. The water stops to hook up (eat) and lower potential, but all it find is rice cakes. It moves on, to the next food stop. This is important in terms of water passing through membranes, even though water and oil do not normally mix. Rice cakes can still be a good diet for water under certain conditions.
Organic compounds, like protein, will blend oxygen and nitrogen with carbon and hydrogen. Since nitrogen and oxygen both have higher electronegativity, this will impact the reduced hydrogen that is connected to the carbon, making them slightly more polar. This is like rice cakes with a flavor sprinkle.
.
Thanks for clearing that up.
There is usually no remains at all, most fossils are simply the impressions of the animal and all the orgainic material is gone and replaced by inorganic materials.
Thanks for clearning that up.
Thanks for clearing that up.
Thanks for clearing that up.
There is absolutely no irony at all. And of course fossils are not 'all we have to work with', that is a silly strawman.
Decay is not evolutionary. Is that the issue, you do not even know what evolution is? The bacteria and microbes that cause decay did however evolve.
I do not think after that opening paragraph that there is any reason to waste reading the rest of this...
It is some what egotistical to require that the "lab" be man-made, when nature has run more experiments and tests than man has. Nature's lab demonstrating "macro evolution" normally runs the tests/ experiments so slowing that man can not be sure when they started or stopped, but here is one exception, showing: Yes that formula held true with the "time" only 8000 years required to make a new species of mammal:
A version of this post has appeared in the prior editions of this "Denial of Evolution" thread, as it does here - In refutation of a claim. There are also prior posts describing a multi-year experiment by series of Brazilian graduate students on tiny fish that laid a few eggs before they were eaten by larger fish they shared a pool with below a water fall. In less than a decade after transport of a few dozen to the stream above the water fall, they became much larger, and delayed sexual maturity by more than a year so they could lay many dozens of eggs. Those doing that out competed those with genes for: "lay a few eggs at three months of age" as the food supply of the stream limited the total pollution (another water fall not far from the first.) By the end of the decade, none of the tiny "sexually mature fast and lay a few eggs" fish still existed above the main water fall. See: http://www.sciforums.com/threads/denial-of-evolution-ii.91631/page-15#post-2213993Thus, your statements is false.
Normally it takes more than 100,000 years for a large creature like a mammal to evolve into a new species, (i.e. cannot mate with fertile offspring with any closely related specie) but extreme selection pressure lasting 8000 years has done it once, at least. Following from my post in an earlier version (III) of this thread:
The Santa Catarina's Guinea Pig, Cavia intermedia, also known as the Moleques do Sul Guinea Pig is a guinea pig species from South America. It is found in Brazil on only the small island of Moleques do Sul in the state of Santa Catarina. The island has a surface area of only 10.5 ha, the Guinea Pig's geographical distribution of only 4 ha is one of the world's smallest for a mammal. From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Catarina's_Guinea_Pig
{Note the tiny island is about 90% bare rocks – very little food –extreme environment pressure for 8000 years.}
“… We can know with certainity that the evolution of a new species of mammals (called preá) in only 8000 years has occurred at least once. …
For it to happen the gene pool was very tiny (not more than 40 animals); there were no predators who might eat the better adapted animal before it could reproduce; the entire population was under great stress for all of the 8000 years, literally on the edge of extinction, so any slight advantage was very significant aid to not being among those that starved to death. Obviously scientists were not observing 8000 years ago, but we are certain the sea level was lower then and that the tiny island these mammals live on now was part of a much larger island back then. Thus, back then they were an interbreeding part of a large population, which still exist, with little survival stress. Thus, when the sea level rose, we know they were isolated - an essential requirement for evolutionary divergence to produce a new species. …” Above from: http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2208297&postcount=172
--------------
Below from: http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2205207&postcount=83
“…There are approximately 40 little animals, called Preá in Portuguese, living on tiny island called Moleques do Sul, which is about 8 km separated for a much larger Island called Florianopolis that have been studied by Pontifica Universidade Católic under leadership of Sandro Bonatto.
About 8000 years ago, these two islands were one as the sea level was much lower. The tiny island is about the size of a football field and mainly rocks. But has some grass on ~10% of it.
These Preá are so inbreed that DNA tests (type used in Brazil to determine disputed paternity, at least) cannot determine any differences. They are about half the size of the main island animals they evolved from during 8000 years of separation. Smaller size was favored by selection because of the very limited food supply. They are the only mammals on the tiny island and have no predators. - I.e. population is limited only by the lack of food for more than 40 but probably has been slightly increasing as they evolved to be ever smaller each 1000 years. (Probably no more than 20 of them lived after the connection to the main island was cut off 8000 years ago by the melting ice.)
They are now a new species (Cavia Intermedia) but closely related to Cavia Magna of the main island. They are about the size and shape of a small rat, but with a face that looks much like a monkey, or even human, and fur covered (except the feet) with no tail. Head and back fur is brown and belly fur is whitish grey.
Until they were discovered it was not thought by experts that a population of only 40 animals max could survive for thousands of years. They have, no doubt, lived all that time on the edge of extinction and practiced incestual mating with no ill effects, at least for the last 6000 or 7000 years. They are all now genetic identical. The ill effected off springs of inbreeding were selected out long ago as all live hungry on the edge of extinction at least in the mild winters. (Perhaps, like bears, they store fat during the summers - just my guess, not mentioned in the paper.)
Their tiny island is part of a state park, now with special protection - only qualified researchers can legally visit, but some fishing boats do at times. The great fear is that one will leave a cat on the island. - Then this recently evolved new species will go extinct.
Here is a photo of one being held, belly up, easily in the palm of a hand. {Original from page A14 of the Folio de Paulo of 18 March 2009.} ... These preá are sooo cute, with their little quasi-human quasi-monkey faces* peering out from great spread of surrounding facial hair. I bet they would make great pets. For protection of the species I hope some of the researchers think so also and steal a few for breading on the mainland and eventual sale as pets, before some fisherman's cat eats them all in less than a month.
note what appears to be depressions on each side of the head about where a guinea pig’s eyes would be. Could it be possible that this is some vestal trace, at least in fur growth patterns, of where their eyes once were? If the preá have four eyes, surely that would have been mentioned in the newspaper article. Eyes do migrate with ease even in an individual in some cases. The flounder, when young has an eye on each side of head that migrates so both are on the same side. Also the number of eyes is not always two in humans. - One Chinese war lord had three, all functional.
I also note that forward looking eyes the preá have, instead of the side looking eyes of a guinea pig are very much to be expected in this evolution as they facilitate depth perception and with no predators to eat them, there is no advantage to side mounted eyes as most prey animals have - only the "cost" of poor depth perception so side mounted eyes were selected against during the 8000 years. The preá surely scampered between rocks and jumped* over some too trying to find a blade of grass to eat before another preá did. - Good depth perception would be strongly selected for.
* Note also their hind legs have evolved to be good for jumping, like a rabbit, and very different from those of the main land guinea pigs they evolved from in only 8000 years.
From version II of this thread, here is more on them: http://www.sciforums.com/threads/denial-of-evolution-ii.91631/page-9#post-2208297 As ignorant new posters keep appearing, I'll probably need to dig up these post again for version V of this thread when it is created.
where the many accelerating factors that made possible a new species in only 8000 years are discussed too.
Last edited by a moderator:
One of the letters, ironically, predicts Leopold to a tee:
"The choice of title, while obviously designed to draw attention to the proceedings of an important symposium, is unfortunate because it suggests that evolution is being challenged instead of pointing to the reevaluation of the mechanisms by which organic evolution proceeds. As a result, this article is undoubtedly destined to enter the out-of-context arsenal that has become a mainstay of recent creationist literature. We are sure the creationists will be delighted to have an opportunity to cite Science in apparent support of their cause."
"The choice of title, while obviously designed to draw attention to the proceedings of an important symposium, is unfortunate because it suggests that evolution is being challenged instead of pointing to the reevaluation of the mechanisms by which organic evolution proceeds. As a result, this article is undoubtedly destined to enter the out-of-context arsenal that has become a mainstay of recent creationist literature. We are sure the creationists will be delighted to have an opportunity to cite Science in apparent support of their cause."
Fraggle Rocker
Staff member
Indeed. We also have DNA. Evidence for evolution has been discovered by research in two different sciences which are not closely related: paleontology and genetics. This makes evolution one of the most solid, uncontrovertible theories in the entire canon of science!
Any university, which produces a significant number of graduates who believe that evolution can be plausibly denied, should have its rating lowered.
Most people who argue that evolution has not been proven, or that significant evidence against its veracity has been discovered, have little or no scientific education. Considering that evolution is a rather complex process, it's reasonable to say that such people actually don't know what it really is.
It's important to identify these anti-scientists and let them know just how stupid and ignorant they really are.
Obviously it would be preferable to send them all back to the Bronze Age, when their ignorant view of the universe was developed. But that is currently impossible.
Well he's pushing spandrels, so I figured saltation, but it could be that he has God behind that screen. He disavowed that earlier though (page4). Or else questioned it and left it open, but I'm too busy/lazy to check it. But while he can't explain the diversity of life, he was harping on the distinction between the accumulation of small changes on page 14 using that Ayala misquote. So my impression, based on what I remember about his disavowal of creationism (page 4), the lateral denunciation of neoDarwinianism (which I think he's done several times), and the invoking of spandrels, is that he's running with saltation. He's big about there not being series of stages universally.
Or, possibly, alien intervention. Also page 3, I think.
He cited a Hindustic theological item earlier, I forget where, but then refuted my accusation of theism on his part... page 4 I think.
Ah good. leopold's persistent but not so terrible, all things considered. I thank you.
davewhite04
Valued Senior Member
It is the science model, to repeat a theory more than once in the lab, egotistical has nothing to do with it.
So a new species can be created in 8000 years... is that what you're saying(looks pretty obvious but just checking)?
Nope.
Only those things/ tests that may be practicably performed in a lab.
There is no requirement for a lab as such.
davewhite04
Valued Senior Member
Have you got a valid source for what you believe? Here is a good article:
http://www.livescience.com/21491-what-is-a-scientific-theory-definition-of-theory.html
I don't need one.
YOU are the one that claimed a lab is required.
PS it's not a "belief" on my part, it's practical experience.
Yeah, can you quote the part that specifies a lab is necessary or even required?
All it says is "repeated testing".
Given the correct equipment you can do that wherever you like. (Much as Billy T pointed out).
davewhite04
Valued Senior Member
Because it is required. Name one scientific theory that cannot be proved in the lab...
Just for your information, I think macro evolution is true, but I think it can happen alot quicker then science says, which is why I asked Billy about his thoughts.
By whom?
Can you provide ANY source for this claim?
How about much of cosmology?
How about much of anthropology?
Geology?
...
PS: one more time - scientific theories do NOT get proved AT ALL, let "in the lab".