Discussion in 'Biology & Genetics' started by davewhite04, Jan 5, 2015.
Take your illogical zss somewhere else.
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
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.
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.
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.
Hay leopold... show one of those posts that was edited.!!!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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:
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
If you ask leopold how he believes speciation occurs, he won't say. He wiggles:
Eventually, he's banned:
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.
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
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:
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.
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:
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...
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.
i wonder what james has to say about that.
it WAS published in science
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???
they had to pull me out of a tree last night cause i was howling at the moon.
The retraction leopold. The retraction / clarification was not published in Science. Remember?
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.
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.
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?
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.
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?
If you are banned again about this, it is because you are acting like a dolt.
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.
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.
not according to the conclusion of the conference.
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.
actually i believe it will be for presenting stuff that you have no answer for.
What do you mean by acting like a "retard" and a "commie"?
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.
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.
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.
Separate names with a comma.