Discussion in 'Biology & Genetics' started by garbonzo, Jun 4, 2013.
Science, vol. 210 no. 4472 pp: 883-887
it seems YOU are the one ignorant of the facts.
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
A 33 year old report on a conference?
Zedonk (very cute)Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image![/URL]
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
First it should be noted that evolution does not include any explanation for Abiogenesis. Evolution relates to what happened afterwards.
Those who deny the theory of evolution cannot deny the facts of evolution. If they want to argue against it, they must provide an alternative explanation of the facts.
The fossil record & DNA analysis clearly show a progression of similar species: Eohippus to horse is a clear example. Primate evolution is another good example. Those who believe in a diety must give up creation mythology in favor of some form of diety directed evolution.
Another diety based explanation is the concept of the creation of a mature universe. For example, consider cutting down in tree in the Garden of Eden & polishing the stump. If the tree appeared to be 100 years old, it would have 100 growth rings even if a diety created it the day before it was cut down. The astronomical evidence for a 13-14 year old universe could be dismissed by claiming that the diety recently created the distant stars as well as light appearing to have traveled for billions of years. This explanation suggests that this diety is a practical joker: He/she/it & the angels are chuckling at the scientists who have been fooled by planted evidence.
Similarly, there are the facts supporting the notion of an expanding universe. Extrapolating backwards to a singularity & inflation might not be valid, but the basic concept is based on the facts of expansion.
Various diety based explanations can be entertained, but they do not seem at all convincing.
Being an atheist, I have no problems accepting evolution & the concept of an expanding universe. Those with other points of view must provide an explanation for the facts or accept a view similar to the following.
My POV is based on faith, which is belief that is able to ignore or deny any facts suggesting an alternative POV.
An argument about details of current theories(IE the Modern Synthesis)does not change the fact that evolution occurred, they just indicate a healthy skepticism about our understanding of the causes for the fact of evolution. This thirty year old paper has largely been reflected in later papers, Punctuated Equilibrium is accepted as a possible mechanism in evolution, as is gradual change, gene swapping, etc. The point is both sides of the argument you referenced accept evolution as fact, so I question your understanding of your own cite. What do you think it shows? Certainly not that what I said was false.
GrumpyPlease Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
by your quote above it's clear you did not read the article.
what was the consensus of these 50 scientists with phds and years of schooling?
that is the observable universe, hubble volume. this is embedded in a larger, possibly infinite, universe.
That rather than a smooth, steady evolution, there were abrupt jumps in development.
What do you think it says?
you didn't read it either.
go away noob.
What other than evolution accounts for life's diversity?
Sure it has:
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
i don't know.
has the thought ever occur to you that it is programmed* into DNA?
after a certain number of replications the phenotype changes?
the above analysis fits the data.
* programmed might not be the best word to use.
I'll admit to only reading the first page, (I'm not buying the article) where it clearly states that no one was questioning the fossil record and "The issues with which participants wrestled fell into three major areas: the tempo of evolution, the mode of evolutionary change and the constraints on the physical form of the new organisms."
Now the title is "Evolutionary theory under fire", and I suspect that's all you've read.
So what do you think it says?
Google Idiurus macrotis. It's a flying squirrel (flying rodent actually) that has a new "wing bone." It lets it glide a little further.
"But wait!" you say. "That's just an adaptation! It just grew another foreleg bone." That's right - and that's what evolution is. Adaptation.
A whale's spout? That was a nose - it adapted.
A bat's wing? That was an arm. It adapted.
Our arms? They used to be forelegs. We adapted.
The enzymes that clot our blood? They used to be digestive enzymes. They adapted.
Our four chambered hearts? They used to be two chambered, and one chambered before that. They adapted.
If you still don't understand how adaptation can produce dramatic changes, go to the Grand Canyon - and see if you can stretch your mind and understand how "microerosion" created that.
Through very slow steps. The closest species to us show remarkably similar patterns of behavior. Almost all the characteristics we associate with humanity have analogs in the animal world - the use of tools, compassion, language, altruism, jealousy etc. We are just a little farther along in the evolution of our mental capabilities.
Devolution and evolution are the same thing. Anything that adapts you better to your environment and helps you reproduce more. You may think that a woman with an IQ of 80 who has 13 kids from 10 different fathers is "devolving" - but if those children survive, she is more advanced than you are from a strictly evolutionary standpoint.
the source i posted says you are wrong.
if you read the article you would know that.
That's right. It said it happened in sudden spurts.
But nothing in the article tried to deny that it did happen.
Uh, no. From the article:
"What is not so clear, however, is whether microevolution is totally decoupled from macroevolution; the two can more probably be seen as two ends of a continuum with a notable overlap."
In other words, when that evolution happens quickly it's called "macroevolution" - when exactly the same thing happens slowly it's called "microevolution" "adaptation" or (when the change is unnoticeable) "stasis." All the same basic process. Just as macroerosion is the same as microerosion, but happening over different times - and at different rates.
The name of the discussion in the article is now "punctuated equilibrium" which refers to long periods of slow evolution interspersed with short periods of rapid evolution. These "punctures" occur when a new ecological niche opens up and a species evolves rapidly to occupy it. This is in opposition to gradualism, the theory that evolution occurs slowly and steadily. Stephen Gould was one of the most famous proponents of punctuated equilibrium.
However if you think that the punctuated equilibrium theory brings into question the basics of evolution you could not be more wrong. Here is what the strongest proponent for punctuated equilibrium said about the matter:
Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists—whether through design or stupidity, I do not know—as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups. Yet a pamphlet entitled "Harvard Scientists Agree Evolution Is a Hoax" states: "The facts of punctuated equilibrium which Gould and Eldredge…are forcing Darwinists to swallow fit the picture that Bryan insisted on, and which God has revealed to us in the Bible."
Continuing the distortion, several creationists have equated the theory of punctuated equilibrium with a caricature of the beliefs of Richard Goldschmidt, a great early geneticist. Goldschmidt argued, in a famous book published in 1940, that new groups can arise all at once through major mutations. He referred to these suddenly transformed creatures as "hopeful monsters." (I am attracted to some aspects of the non-caricatured version, but Goldschmidt's theory still has nothing to do with punctuated equilibrium—see essays in section 3 and my explicit essay on Goldschmidt in The Pandas Thumb.) Creationist Luther Sunderland talks of the "punctuated equilibrium hopeful monster theory" and tells his hopeful readers that "it amounts to tacit admission that anti-evolutionists are correct in asserting there is no fossil evidence supporting the theory that all life is connected to a common ancestor." Duane Gish writes, "According to Goldschmidt, and now apparently according to Gould, a reptile laid an egg from which the first bird, feathers and all, was produced." Any evolutionists who believed such nonsense would rightly be laughed off the intellectual stage; yet the only theory that could ever envision such a scenario for the origin of birds is creationism—with God acting in the egg.
I am both angry at and amused by the creationists; but mostly I am deeply sad.
Leopold is pulling the same bullshit here that he's been pulling for years. Despite it being explained to him several times, he still pretends not to understand that the punctuated equilibrium hypothesis still features microevolution and speciation.
Punctuated equilibrium is often portrayed to oppose the concept of gradualism, when it is actually a form of gradualism. This is because even though evolutionary change appears instantaneous between geological sediments, change is still occurring incrementally, with no great change from one generation to the next. To this end, Gould later commented that "Most of our paleontological colleagues missed this insight because they had not studied evolutionary theory and either did not know about allopatric speciation or had not considered its translation to geological time. Our evolutionary colleagues also failed to grasp the implication(s), primarily because they did not think at geological scales" - Punctuated equilibrium
The following article does a good job of explaining why people ignore the facts or distort them to their point of view.
Hell, he fails to acknowledge what the paper he cited himself says.
Separate names with a comma.