Validity of Micro/macro-evolution idea

Discussion in 'Biology & Genetics' started by RoyLennigan, Apr 6, 2007.

  1. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    30,644
    GeoffP was right the first time. All credible biologists are Darwinists (or, more accurately, neo-Darwinists who support the modern synthesis).
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,087
    Whoa whoa whoa, wait a second. When did I say that? Let's have someone find that bit, all right?
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    30,644
    Actually, I don't care if you said it or not. It's true.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,087
    First off, let's not assign things to me I didn't say. I appreciate you're possibly pissed at IAC - and, to be honest, he's a troll.

    Second: I don't discredit Michael Behe's abilities as a biologist on grounds that he's into ID. ID is a crock so far as I can tell (and even if there were actual deviance from incremental neutralist or selectionist trajectories, it wouldn't mean that any god was involved) but I don't say he's not a credible biologist because he's a proponent thereof. I feel he's being ridiculous by working this dead end theory, but I know a number of other biologists who are also fairly ridiculous and/or timewasters with respect to the specialization they've chosen (naturalistic heterozygosity-fitness correlation springs to mind; also the presentation of base phenotypic plasticity as GxE; also that asseating prof who stole one of my ideas and presented it as his own, the balding prick). I respect Behe for his mathematical interests; I merely disagree with his opinions. He merely happens, to my mind, to be wrong.
     
  8. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    24,472
    He's not a biologist. He's some kind of biochemist. And he has no actual mathematical interests AFAIK - his irreducible complexity is a crock, and not that complex an error.

    It's hard to credit him. He has been shown several times what's wrong with his argument, and it's a fundamental flaw, yet he persists in spreading it.
     
  9. GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,087
    I thought he had some numbers slap-down. I'm familiar with some of the counter-arguments to his version of ID though: modularity being a major one and one I agree with. Has he cited anything counter to that? I want to give him fair due, but I guess if he's doing IAC shtick then I'd be a lot less sympathetic to his thesis.
     
  10. GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,087
    Well, I do apologize, but could you lay out a summary of the contradictions from this thread again? Perhaps you could just paste the ones you're referring to? I'm not sure and I'm too tired to hunt the points. The last I recall was illustrating how rapid evolution (dare I say: saltation?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    ) was possible in the event of genotype-by-environment interaction, and not "unnatural", requiring no special or deific explanation.


    ...eh?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  11. Ophiolite Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,232
    IAC - Macro and micro evolution are most decidedly not Intelligent Design terms, thought they have been usurped by them. While there is debate as to the value of these concepts they arose from firmly within the Darwinist school of thought. I should not be too surprised that you wer ignorant of this fact, as you appear to be ignorant of most matters pertaining to evolution.
    [Do you sleep well at night? Do small doubts assail you? Do evolving tetrapods stalk you in your dreams?]
     
  12. Ophiolite Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,232
    Now try addressing this point from GeoffP: "Well, I do apologize, but could you lay out a summary of the contradictions from this thread again?"

    Perhaps true, however, an individual with a scientific education trained to understand the significance of objective observations and to appreciate the logical inferences made from such observations would not gather what they will. They would arrive at comparable conclusions. The information is there for you to study. We cannot do your thinking for you. You need to look at the material yourself, not ask to be spoon fed.
     
  13. GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,087
    Well, the point was to get people to look them up. Essentially what you have is morphologically similar taxa that are undergoing division in contemporary time. That is: speciation right before our disbelieving, plank-filled eyes. I think that essentially validates the Biological Species Concept ("if'n folks cain't breed, they's different seed, mmmm-hmmm") and turfs the literalist special creation model. God is supposed to have made all this stuff and then took a rest. Is He still creating? Believe that if you want, but it's clear the literalist dogma doesn't work.

    Now if you're trying to cast aspersions on evolution with the whole "Noah's syngameons-YEC" process, then you're being silly, because the fossil record far, far, far predates the existence of Noah by 500 million years. So: literalism is nonsense.
     

Share This Page