Denial of Evolution VI.

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

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

    Messages:
    21,184
    Wrong. You are making some incorrect assumptions on what XYZ is.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



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

    Messages:
    1,876
    leopold

    And not one of them said that evolution was false, as you seem so intent on insinuating. The argument was about Gradualism versus Punctuated Equilibrium as to which was more responsible for the fossil record

    No, their consensus was that what we now call Punctuated Equilibrium is a valid concept in evolutionary theory, but it is not the only one and that there was not enough evidence to say either was more important at that time. They in no way reached any consensus that a Creationist would accept as true, nor was the consensus that evolutionary theory was false. The evidence supporting evolution is overwhelming, but the details are not all nailed down. This conference was an attempt to move our understanding forward. BUT EVERY SCIENTIST AT THAT CONFERENCE WOULD SUPPORT THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION AS BEING THE ONLY VALID EXPLANATION FOR LIFE"S DIVERSITY even as they argue about the details.

    Here's what Steven Gould said about the controversy at the time when Creationists tried to make the same insinuation as you are trying. Remember Gould was the chief proponent of Punctuated Equilibrium

    Grumpy

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Aqueous Id flat Earth skeptic Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,152
    My point is that XYZ is not a component of the central thesis of TOE I posted above, so how does any controversy over XYZ undermine the theory?
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,837
    Ah, you mean phenomena such the acquisition of drug resistance in bacteria and tumours, and so on? Yes, I see what you mean, I had indeed misunderstood. Apologies for the undeserved diatribe: after numerous irritating encounters with the creationist fraternity I get a bit twitchy on the subject.
     
  8. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    i guess you people will have to read the article for yourselves because it's readily apparent you aren't going to believe me.
     
  9. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,837
    But Leopold, why on Earth would any of us want to spend money to read a science article from 1980, 30 years ago? Is this a field where nothing has moved on in 30 years? Seems unlikely.

    Or are you referring to something more recent, that I must have missed in this long correspondence?
     
  10. Rav Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,422
  11. Stanley Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    195
    Supposedly there were...

    I hit the post button too soon. Too many buttons for my antiquated brain.

    One should NOT mangle the word "fact". It was the only thing keeping us honest. You throw that away and all that will remain is a shell of your former self.

    I ask the members - What do you guys think about extinction level events - Did they happen?
     
  12. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,837
    Leopold, thanks to Rav I've now read it too. And all it seems to be is a lively meeting discussing the merits of gradualism versus punctuated equilibrium FROM 30 YEARS AGO.

    Since then, even a layman like me is aware that there has been a huge amount of work on the various mechanisms by which genetic change occurs, which makes sense of all this. For instance I gather there is even evidence of a mechanism that accelerates the frequency of mutation in parts of the genome, in response to environmental stresses. Extraordinary stuff. So the mechanisms of evolution are clearly a very lively area of research and as a result our understanding has come on considerably.

    But, in view of all these exciting discoveries that have gone on since 1980, what exactly is your point in directing us to this piece of late c.20th history?
     
  13. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,837
  14. AlexG Like nailing Jello to a tree Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,304
    The reason no one believes you is because the article does not state what you say it states.
     
  15. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,837
    I would say there is a lot of evidence for a number of extinction events, notably the Great Dying at the end of the Permian and the K/T event. The end of the Ediacaran may be another but evidence from so early, especially when there seem to have been only soft-bodied creatures, is hard to come by. But why do you ask?

    P.S. I would not class these flatly as "facts", though by now they are more than hypotheses: "probable facts" feels about right. But I admit it's not my own field of expertise.
     
  16. Stanley Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    195
    exchemist,

    If there were extinction level events then how did the animals come back?
     
  17. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,837
    Leopold, now that Rav has kindly sourced the article anew for us all, perhaps YOU you would be good enough to re-read it yourself and tell US what consensus, if any, you think it reached, rather than demanding, as you have done several times in this thread, that we tell you.

    And when you have done that, we can all consider (a) whether we agree with your analysis and (b) what continued relevance it has today, after another 30 years of research.
     
  18. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,837
    Because an "extinction event" does not mean ALL life was extinguished. Read this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permian–Triassic_extinction_event

    Notice that for this, which is the most extreme extinction event known or suspected to date, estimates have been made of the proportion of both marine and terrestrial lifeforms that were extinguished. Neither however is 100%.

    Stanley, I don't want to seem rude, but I think maybe you might do a little reading for yourself on the web about such things before asking us. It's not hard to find the answer to questions as basic as this. It would save us all some time and we could move on to the more interesting aspects.
     
  19. Grumpy Curmudgeon of Lucidity Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,876
    Rav

    Thanks for the cite, I remember the conference from 1980(I was a teacher of Physics and Chemistry at the time), that's why I posted Gould's quote about the misuse people like leopold were attempting to make of it. When I said "And not one of them said that evolution was false, as you seem so intent on insinuating. The argument was about Gradualism versus Punctuated Equilibrium as to which was more responsible for the fossil record." I was absolutely correct and he was absolutely wrong, dishonestly so. Trollishly wrong, one might say.

    leopold

    We have now established beyond any reasonable doubt that...

    ...from post 62 was absolutely correct(despite your tantrums)and that...

    ...from the same post was really, really good advice in your case.

    Grumpy

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  20. Stanley Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    195
    Of course I am aware of at least what a Wikipedia page would state. I am not 100% certain that extinction events have occurred.

    If they did occur then how many times did evolution occur given that in all these instances life was by and large unable to survive on Earth.
     
  21. spidergoat pubic diorama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    54,027
    Evolution is occurring all the time. Anyway, even if the entire surface of the planet is sterilized, there is bacteria far under the surface in cracks in bedrock.
     
  22. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,184
    I did. And again, your assumption of what it says is incorrect.
     
  23. gmilam Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,414
    I know some dinosaurs who would disagree with you on this point.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page