Denial of Evolution VI.

Discussion in 'Biology & Genetics' started by garbonzo, Jun 4, 2013.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    you left out the consensus reached by the conference billvon, what was it?

    you need to separate what was printed in the article from your opinion and third sources instead of lumping them all together like in your last post.
     
    Last edited: Jun 8, 2013
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Grumpy Curmudgeon of Lucidity Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,876
    leopold

    The consensis was that gradualism was not the only mechanism that evolution has, that rapid changes in genomes were possible followed by long periods of stasis. They did not say that evolution did not occur, as you seem to be implying. If your ignorance of evolution leads you so far astray that you can't even comprehend that this cite DOES NOT SUPPORT YOUR POSITION, IT SUPPORTS EVOLUTION, your ignorance is probably terminal. You are the one who evidently didn't bother to read the whole paper, trying to data mine it in a vain attempt to support your position. If you know so little about the subject, why make yourself look like a fool again, avoid that subject. "It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt."

    Grumpy

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,723
    "Even the most ardent punctuationists do not dismiss gradual change as a force in evolution." Read that a few times before replying.

    And you need to read AND UNDERSTAND that article if you are going to understand this. Perhaps even read a few more sources. Gould and Dawkins are good starting points.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    that WAS NOT the consensus.
    furthermore i never posted ANYTHING from said article in this thread so how in the hell can i be "quote mining" anything?

    and neither was this.
     
  8. AlexG Like nailing Jello to a tree Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,304
    And never acknowledge what the article actually said.

    It's pretty clear you look at the title, interpret it the way you like, and don't bother with what's actually written.
     
  9. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    i came across the article only within the last year or so.
    i have no idea how i could have been "Pulling this" for years.
     
  10. Grumpy Curmudgeon of Lucidity Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,876
    leopold

    That was PRECISELY the consensus. Your ignorance and lack of reading comprehension(not to mention basic understanding of the science)is astounding. And all the drumming your heels on the floor or holding your breath won't change the fact you simply don't know a thing about evolution and are incompetent to comment on any aspect of it, especially if such comments are as dishonest as your posts here.

    Grumpy

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  11. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    i read the article grumpy and i know for a fact this was not the consensus of this meeting.
    unfortunately i do not have access to the issue anymore.
     
  12. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    i implied no such thing.
    i never said "evolution is false".
    i said "evolution as you know it is false".
    there are a number of reasons why certain people do not like the sound of that.
    prestige, ego, loss of power, etc.

    edit
    i think the biggest fear is that theists are going to be all too willing to jump all over something like this.
    it's a shame too.
    there are a number of alternate possibilities.
    protiene folding malfunctions, dna structural defects, the list goes on.
     
    Last edited: Jun 9, 2013
  13. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    hmmm . . .
    you seem to be speaking as if you read the article.
    tell me, what do you think of the ayala quote?
    do you think he was speaking from analyzing the data or was he commenting on the consensus reached?
     
  14. garbonzo Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    790
    Well, if you want to get technical, they are both. Based on the definition of belief (The psychological state in which an individual holds a proposition or premise to be true), and the definition of theory (A contemplative and rational type of abstract or generalizing thinking, or the results of such thinking), you can deduce that, for example, the Theory of Evolution is a belief and a theory, because it can be believed in, and it is a type of generalizing thinking.
     
  15. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    it's a rational belief, the real question is one of mechanism.
    i fail to believe the gun slinger from alpha somewhere story.
     
  16. AlexG Like nailing Jello to a tree Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,304
    Beans obviously has no idea what a theory is in science. No surprise there.
     
  17. Rav Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,422
    Wrong. Here's a post of yours from March 2011 that references the same article. That's over two years ago. I remember it because I remember correcting your misconceptions about punctuated equilibrium back then as well.

    Honestly, you should have been permabanned from this place for your dishonest bullshit long before now.
     
  18. Aqueous Id flat Earth skeptic Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,152
    You can test that statement by asking yourself: which of the following statements, which constitute the Theory of Evolution, is a belief?

    • 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.
     
  19. Aqueous Id flat Earth skeptic Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,152
    Replication better refers to asexual reproduction in monocytes, in which some sequences may be more sensitive to mutation than others, so "programming" comes to mind. It's also a huge step in evolution that monocytes "got wired" to do chemical signalling, which was the innovation that led to sexual reproductin, through a phase in which the organisms were capable of both the old and new way of repoducing. In sexual reproduction the grandparents' DNA is randomly mixed during meiosis, to assure that no two fertilized eggs will be alike (called crossover). Without a doubt all sexually reproducing species are wired to increase the rate of variation within a gene pool, and undoubtedly crossover has been a vital ingredient to the rate of speciation and progress of evolution among the higher classes of organisms.

    The phrase "after a certain number of replications" brings to mind the question of frequency and stability of speciation. The environment plays a big role in this. For example, primitive organisms encysted their spores to preserve them during seasonal changes in temperature, drought, etc. The ability to exchange DNA by broadcasting encysted spores happens to closely follow the ability to encyst spores that ancestral asexual organisms used. Thus the egg resembles an encysted monocyte, and the sperm resembles the hatched monocyte that might merge with the spore and "break its casing" - by chemical signalling (the hallmark of the primitive monocytes, and the means by which they specialized to form metazoans - and the means by which they differentiated into male and female versions of their immature form). We could conclude that sexual reproduction was "wired" into the DNA of earlier asexual monocytes, but the stimulating circumstances that led to this new feature - encystment and broadcasting - were selected in by the unrelated fact of weather. And then we note that seasons are merely a consequence of the 23° tilt of the Earth on its axis. So it seems to me that cause and effect can be traced to quite an elaborate chain of unrelated events.
     
  20. garbonzo Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    790
    So, you're dictating notes for me to take in science class, it sounds like. I took those notes in 6th grade.
     
  21. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    like i said, within the last year or so.
    go play in the traffic with your buddy.

    edit
    for you to post that i am being dishonest about what was printed in said issue is a lie.
    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.
    at that time the link to the issue was active.
     
    Last edited: Jun 9, 2013
  22. Grumpy Curmudgeon of Lucidity Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,876
    leopold

    Both statements are lies, out of ignorance or malice aforethought makes no difference. It doesn't help that I know a great deal about evolution and you have a bias that limits your ability to understand or accept facts.

    Grumpy

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  23. AlexG Like nailing Jello to a tree Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,304
    That must have been the last science class you took.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page