Denial of Evolution VII (2015)

[davewhite04]

My bad.
Sorry, I'd assumed I was dealing with someone rational and with a basic level of understanding.
I was obviously wrong so I'll leave you to it for the moment.

Riigghthht

Take your illogical zss somewhere else.

 

[GeoffP]

LEOPOLD:

No one is hiding from punctuated equilibrium.

 

[Yazata]

No one is hiding from punctuated equilibrium.

Evolutionary developmental biology (Evo-Devo) as well.

When people like Leopold get going about small changes not accumulating, are they talking about phenotypic changes or genotypic changes? A tiny molecular change in a single gene can sometimes have sudden and dramatic phenotypic effects, if the gene is involved with fetal development or something.

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/evodevo_04

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/evodevo_05

 

[leopold]

Sorry davewhite04. I thought I'd already split out leopold's issue from the survey thread. Looks like I haven't done that yet, but I'll get to it. All this stuff is off-topic for the current thread.

go ahead, wield that ban hammer.
COMPLY OR DIE ! ! !
i was right, you ARE a commie.

what's up james, does it hang in your craw that small changes do not accumulate?

small changes do not accumulate james.
science (the responsible party) posted no retractions about the ayala quote.

 

[iceaura]

. if my brain isn't a product of my parents, which is different to both of them, what do you call the process that changed my brain? or arm? or leg?

Several processes would have that capability: mutation in relevant genetic code, epigenetic influences on code transcription, sexual recombination , phenotypic plasticity (including injury, maternal nutrition, sensory and related experience, etc) during embryogenesis and development, higher level environmental influences (including education and training) as a child and adult, and so forth.

None of these will necessarily even survive you, let alone spread through differential reproduction, so none of them are as yet examples of evolutionary change in your species.

None of the ones there that could, potentially, spread via differential reproduction, are likely to be known to you. For example: your brain is at least as likely to be less well adapted to technology than either of the brains of your parents, from an evolutionary point of view. It's selection, not variation, that provides direction to evolutionary change.

 

[davewhite04]

Several processes would have that capability: mutation in relevant genetic code, epigenetic influences on code transcription, sexual recombination , phenotypic plasticity (including injury, maternal nutrition, sensory and related experience, etc) during embryogenesis and development, higher level environmental influences (including education and training) as a child and adult, and so forth.

None of these will necessarily even survive you, let alone spread through differential reproduction, so none of them are as yet examples of evolutionary change in your species.

None of the ones there that could, potentially, spread via differential reproduction, are likely to be known to you. For example: your brain is at least as likely to be less well adapted to technology than either of the brains of your parents, from an evolutionary point of view. It's selection, not variation, that provides direction to evolutionary change.

Evolution is a slow process, but it is a constant in the development of every specie. We are no different, so no matter where your getting you information from, it's wrong. No matter how insignificant, your brain is part of the evolution process. If you reject this notion then you reject evolution.

 

[cluelusshusbund]

we will edit it.

Hay leopold... show one of those posts that was edited.!!!

 

[Yazata]

go ahead, wield that ban hammer.
COMPLY OR DIE ! ! !
i was right, you ARE a commie.

I'm a fascist (ask Bells) and certainly don't like commies, but I think that you're overreacting. James just said that he's going to separate the evolution-stuff from his original poll about religious attitudes of Sciforums participants. I approve and think that it's a good idea, since these are very different subjects that deserve separate threads.

what's up james, does it hang in your craw that small changes do not accumulate?

I'm not James, but I do think that small genotypic changes do tend to accumulate, although the rate of accumulation can vary quite a bit. Organisms that are already well adapted to their environments will likely have slower rates than organisms that are facing new selective pressures while adapting to new ecological niches. That's one of the reasons for punctuated equilibria.

Phenotypic change associated with biological evolution may be sudden or gradual, depending in part on what the genes involved in the underlying genotypic change are doing.

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/genovspheno_01

small changes do not accumulate james.
science (the responsible party) posted no retractions about the ayala quote.

If you're basing your whole attack on evolutionary biology on one decades old misquote of a scientist by a science writer, that's pretty weak in my opinion.

 

[leopold]

I'm a fascist (ask Bells) and certainly don't like commies, but I think that you're overreacting.

huh?
james has the article right in front of his face.
the conclusion of this conference was stated on the very first page.
i've asked james twice already to post what it was, and he hasn't.
then the . . . has the gall to threaten me with a ban.

play the retard james.

 

[Randwolf]

I'm a fascist (ask Bells) and certainly don't like commies, but I think that you're overreacting.

huh?
james has the article right in front of his face.
the conclusion of this conference was stated on the very first page.

It occurs to me that some of the current readers may not be familiar with the game leopold plays every few years.

The Reader's Digest version...

From EVOLUTIONARY THEORY UNDER FIRE Science 21 November 1980: Vol. 210 no. 4472 pp. 883-887

well here it is:
"In a generous admission Francisco Ayala, a major figure in propounding the Modern Synthesis in the United States, said: "We would not have predicted stasis from population genetics, but I am now convinced from 884 what the paleontologists say that small changes do not accumulate."
-dr. ayala in Science, vol. 210 no. 4472 pp: 883-887

it should be pointed out that "science" never issued a retraction in this matter.

http://www.sciforums.com/threads/views-on-evolution.112963/page-9#post-2884316

leopold takes these five words "small changes do not accumulate" and attempts to extrapolate that this is "the consensus reached by the conference" (leopold's words in 2013)

Disregarding the fact that Ayala later has this to say:

I don't know how Roger Lewin could have gotten in his notes the quotation he attributes to me. I presented a paper/lecture and spoke at various times from the floor, but I could not possibly have said (at least as a complete sentence) what Lewin attributes to me. In fact, I don't know what it means. How could small changes NOT accumulate! In any case, virtually all my evolutionary research papers evidence that small (genetic) changes do accumulate.

The paper that I presented at the conference reported by Lewin is virtually the same that I presented in 1982 in Cambridge, at a conference commemorating the 200 [sic] anniversary of Darwin's death. It deals with the claims of "punctuated equilibrium" and how microevolutionary change relates to macroevolution. (I provide experimental results showing how one can obtain in the laboratory, as a result of the accumulation of small genetic changes, morphological changes of the magnitude observed by paleontologists and presented as evidence of punctuated equilibrium.) The paper was published as part of the conference proceedings:

Ayala, F.J. 1983. Microevolution and macroevolution. In: D.S. Bendall, ed., Evolution from Molecules to Men (Cambridge University Press), pp. 387-402.
​

Ayala didn't really dispute Lewin's interpretation see, because, see, that comment was not published in Science Magazine - so it's just not true, by gosh. And even if it is true, it's not relevant. Or something...

He repeats his mantra over and over as if that will somehow make it all true, ignoring any counterpoint or explanation, no matter how presented. There have been literally thousands of posts on this issue over the years.

As James said, eventually he retreats to this position:

If you ask leopold how he believes speciation occurs, he won't say. He wiggles:

i implied no such thing.
i never said "evolution is false".
i said "evolution as you know it is false".

He squirms:

it isn't my fault you either refuse or unable to acknowledge what was printed in it.
the quotes you referenced above came directly from the issue, i know because i copy/ pasted them from the issue myself.

Eventually, he's banned:

He's been banned a total of six times, twice by myself and four times by Hercules Rockefellar, mostly for Trolling/Meaningless Post Content. He was last banned in March 2012. I know he occasionally gets bitchy because, for example, James R warned him that if he continued misrepresenting a particular document he would face another ban. I also know that he would rather believe that Ayala (for example) was pressured into writing his criticism of Lewins news editorial to save his career than he would believe that maybe Lewins reporting was somewhat over zealous.

I guess it's time for round eight (or whatever we're up to) - I think it's tied to sunspot activity or something, leopold just goes over the edge every now and then.

 

[Randwolf]

As to punctuated equilibrium, the actual subject of the controversy at that 1980 conference - well this is now firmly integrated in evolutionary theory. At the time it was still somewhat revolutionary and competing with gradualism. Here is a short primer:

punctuated equilibrium
(pŭngk'ch -ā'tĭd)
The theory that new species evolve suddenly over relatively short periods of time (a few hundred to a thousand years), followed by longer periods in which little genetic change occurs. Punctuated equilibrium is a revision of Darwin's theory that evolution takes place at a slow, constant rate over millions of years.
​

More on Punctuated Equilibrium
Punctuated equilibrium is an important but often-misinterpreted model of how evolutionary change happens. Punctuated equilibrium does not:

Suggest that Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection is wrong.

Mean that the central conclusion of evolutionary theory, that life is old and organisms share a common ancestor, no longer holds.

Negate previous work on how evolution by natural selection works.

Imply that evolution only happens in rapid bursts.

Punctuated equilibrium predicts that a lot of evolutionary change takes place in short periods of time tied to speciation events. Here's an example of how the model works:

1. 
   
   • Stasis: A population of mollusks is experiencing stasis, living, dying, and getting fossilized every few hundred thousand years. Little observable evolution seems to be occurring judging from these fossils.
     
     
   • Isolation: A drop in sea level forms a lake and isolates a small number of mollusks from the rest of the population.
     
     
   • Strong selection and rapid change: The small, isolated population experiences strong selection and rapid change because of the novel environment and small population size: The environment in the newly formed lake exerts new selection pressures on the isolated mollusks. Also, their small population size means that genetic drift influences their evolution. The isolated population undergoes rapid evolutionary change. This is based on the model of peripatric speciation.
     
     
   • No preservation: No fossils representing transitional forms are preserved because of their relatively small population size, the rapid pace of change, and their isolated location.
     
     
   • Reintroduction: Sea levels rise, reuniting the isolated mollusks with their sister lineage.
     
     
   • Expansion and stasis: The isolated population expands into its past range. Larger population size and a stable environment make evolutionary change less likely. The formerly isolated branch of the mollusk lineage may out-compete their ancestral population, causing it to go extinct.
     
     
   • Preservation: Larger population size and a larger range move us back to step 1: stasis with occasional fossil preservation.
     
     

This process would produce the following pattern in the fossil record:

Evolution appears to happen in sharp jumps associated with speciation events.

We observe similar patterns in the fossil records of many organisms. For example, the fossil records of certain foraminiferans (single-celled protists with shells) are consistent with a punctuated pattern.

Scanning electron micrograph of a foraminiferan

However, it is also important to note that we observe examples of gradual, non-punctuated, evolution in the fossil record too. The question that needs answering is: what are the relative frequencies of punctuated and gradual change?

The causation is usually attributed to extremely favorable mutation or environmental change resulting in isolation of a relatively small group of organisms. The two are not mutually exclusive however:

This explanation talks about punctuated equilibrium as the result of one or a few mutations that cause large change. However, punctuated equilibrium is any sudden, rapid change in a species and can also be the result of other causes, such as huge and sudden changes in the environment that result in more rapid changes in the organisms through harsher selection.

How did the tiger get its stripes: gradualism or punctuated equilibrium? We don't know whether the tiger got its stripes through gradualism or punctuated equilibrium, but in order to explain both concepts, here is how it could have happened through each. Let's assume that stripes are helpful because they help the tiger to camouflage, blend in with the tall grasses where it lives, so that it can sneak up on its prey (what it eats) and not be noticed.

Gradualism: A long time ago, there were a lot of tiger-like animals, but without stripes. Most of them were unmarked, but a few had light markings and color variation in their fur. These few blended in with the tall grasses a little bit better, so they were generally able to catch more food, and fewer of the marked than unmarked ones died of hunger, so more of them were able to reproduce. In the next generation, more animals were marked than in the previous generation. Of those that were marked, some had more, some less, and some the same amount of marks than in the previous generation. Also, the marks were more, less, or the same amount clearly defined. Again, the ones with marks did better than the ones without, and the ones with more, clearly defined marks did better than the ones with fewer or fainter marks. Very gradually, over many, many generations, stripes over the tigers' whole bodies formed and appeared in the whole population, because the tigers that survived in each generation were those whose marks were most clear and contrasted most with the rest of the fur, and those that covered the most area on the bodies of the tigers.

Punctuated equilibrium: A long time ago, there were a lot of tiger-like animals, but without stripes. One time, a mutation occurred in a few of the animals, causing a huge change: they were born with stripes! This was so helpful to survival that out of the whole population, none or almost none of those with stripes died of hunger. They lived to reproduce, and their striped offspring also did very well. Over only a few generations, the whole population was born striped.

A combination: Here is one idea of how tigers could have gotten their stripes by both gradualism and punctuated equilibrium: A mutation had a huge affect, causing distinct, stripe-like markings. These were then gradually "polished up" into stripes.

The idea of punctuated equilibrium originated long after the idea of gradualism. Darwin saw evolution as being "steady, slow, and continuous". Later, scientists were studying fossils and they found that some species have their evolution almost "mapped out" in fossils. For others they found a few, very different species along the evolutionary course, but very few or no fossils of "in between" organisms. Also, when dating the fossils, scientists saw that in some species change was very slow, but in others, it must have occurred rapidly to be able to produce such change over such a short amount of time. The scientists reasoned that there had to be another way that evolution could have happened that was quicker and had fewer intermediate species, so the idea of punctuated equilibrium was formed.

So, that's it folks. Those five words: "small changes do not accumulate". Five words attributed to Ayala by Lewin. Thirty five years ago. Five words that Ayala may or may not have uttered. Words that he said were misinterpreted - thirty two years ago.

Nothing will move leopold from his position. Nothing you can say will deter him. He's right. The rest of the world is wrong. And there is a conspiracy. A conspiracy that involves all the mods here at sci. And you too, dear neighbor. Mind control or something.

For those new to this tragic waste of a mind - be vewy, vewy quiet and watch leopold hunt wabbits...

 

[leopold]

nicely done randwolf.

a scientist would have to be a fool indeed to present evidence against evolution . . . wouldn't they.

teach them well my friend . . . ban my ass.

 

[leopold]

Ayala didn't really dispute Lewin's interpretation see, because, see, that comment was not published in Science Magazine - so it's just not true, by gosh.

i wonder what james has to say about that.
it WAS published in science

He repeats his mantra over and over as if that will somehow make it all true, ignoring any counterpoint or explanation, no matter how presented.

you can present it on a silver platter with gold utensils.
the ONLY thing that matters is what science has to say about the article in the way of errata.
so far i have seen NONE from the pages of science.
you can turn it upside down if you want, it won't make water flow uphill.

man, how are you guys getting my pictures???

I think it's tied to sunspot activity or something, leopold just goes over the edge every now and then.

they had to pull me out of a tree last night cause i was howling at the moon.

 

[Randwolf]

i wonder what james has to say about that.
it WAS published in science

The retraction leopold. The retraction / clarification was not published in Science. Remember?

 

[leopold]

leopold takes these five words "small changes do not accumulate" and attempts to extrapolate that this is "the consensus reached by the conference" (leopold's words in 2013)

the word used in the article was "conclusion".
it isn't an extrapolation either.
the conclusion is stated clearly along with ayalas quote.
they are 2 distinct things and both are presented in the article.

BTW, thanks for the link, it gives me a chance to prove i haven't been "pulling this for years"
most certainly not since 2007 like james said.
post 66 of your reference states such.

 

[leopold]

The retraction leopold. The retraction / clarification was not published in Science. Remember?

correct.
i wonder why ayala never sent one to science?
yes sir, ayala bitches and moans to everyone else EXCEPT to the party that published the "offending" quote.

there can be only one reason why science never "corrected" the ayala quote, deal with it.

 

[Bells]

go ahead, wield that ban hammer.
COMPLY OR DIE ! ! !
i was right, you ARE a commie.

what's up james, does it hang in your craw that small changes do not accumulate?

Really?

First you say you want to punch us in the face and now you are calling him a commie?

Don't you think you are going a bit too far?

small changes do not accumulate james.

Actually, yes they do.

Science Magazine, the one you keep relying on and that you believe is the be all and end all, even published a study about it. For example, one study in 1996, "Punctuated Evolution Caused by Selection of Rare Beneficial Mutations":

For more than two decades there has been intense debate over the hypothesis that most morphological evolution occurs during relatively brief episodes of rapid change that punctuate much longer periods of stasis. A clear and unambiguous case of punctuated evolution is presented for cell size in a population of Escherichia coli evolving for 3000 generations in a constant environment. The punctuation is caused by natural selection as rare, beneficial mutations sweep successively through the population. This experiment shows that the most elementary processes in population genetics can give rise to punctuated evolutionary dynamics.​

You can read the full version (if you do not have a subscription with Science Magazine) which is made available here: http://lenski.mmg.msu.edu/lenski/pdf/1996, Science, Elena et al.pdf

Oh look, more proof of evolution from, yes, Science Magazine..

What excuses are you going to come up with now? Your beloved "Science" Magazine have published hundreds, if not more, of studies and articles on the realities of evolution. You have no more excuses.

science (the responsible party) posted no retractions about the ayala quote.

Ayala himself wrote a retraction about a comment that was attributed to him. Why do you not believe Ayala's retraction, but you believe a quote attributed to him?

huh?
james has the article right in front of his face.
the conclusion of this conference was stated on the very first page.
i've asked james twice already to post what it was, and he hasn't.
then the . . . has the gall to threaten me with a ban.

play the retard james.

If you are banned again about this, it is because you are acting like a dolt.

 

[leopold]

Really?

yes, really.

First you say you want to punch us in the face . . .

i SAID, listen carefully bells, i wanted to punch 'im in the face for acting like a retard.
being stupid is one thing, acting like it is totally different.

and now you are calling him a commie?

i've asked him twice to post what the conclusion of the conference was, and he refuses.
then tells me not to tell lies and implies i will probably be banned.
you see bells, i've read the article, i KNOW what the conclusion was, and so does james.

Actually, yes they do.

not according to the conclusion of the conference.

What excuses are you going to come up with now? Your beloved "Science" Magazine have published hundreds, if not more, of studies and articles on the realities of evolution. You have no more excuses.

excuses for what?
this DOES NOT resolve this little situation surrounding this BOGUS retraction of ayalas.
science is DIRECTLY responsible for the quote and ayala would have them by the balls legally if they didn't rectify the situation.
now, present the issue where it recanted in regards to ayala.

Ayala himself wrote a retraction about a comment that was attributed to him. Why do you not believe Ayala's retraction, but you believe a quote attributed to him?

see above.

If you are banned again about this, it is because you are acting like a dolt.

actually i believe it will be for presenting stuff that you have no answer for.

 

[Seattle]

What do you mean by acting like a "retard" and a "commie"?

 

[leopold]

What do you mean by acting like a "retard" . . .

example:
you give someone a piece of paper that says "one plus one equals two".
you ask that person "what does that say?"
the "retard" replies with something other than what you asked for.

james isn't stupid, he's acting like a retard.

. . . and a "commie"?

he tells me not to tell lies about the article and implies i might get banned for doing so.
when asked what the conclusion of the conference was, he plays the retard while threatening to ban me.

james isn't a retard, and it pisses me off when he acts like one.
as far as actually being a commie, i wouldn't know.
i believe he would make a good retarded commie though.

edit:
you know, i have repeatedly asked james not to refer to me as a creationist
he does so with almost every post he makes to me.
he knows i don't like it but continues to do so.
to get under my skin, to get me to respond.
i'm on to you james.