Micro-Macro Evolution: Same Process, Diff Scale

neal · 05-07-09 8:51 am

In response to Tancredo's bit on Chris Matthews yesterday (?) PZ has written a response. Bob, he answers some of your repetitive false assertions. I realize the response is detailed (lengthy) but please read and respond. <blockquote>The Matthews/Tancredo mutual ignorance session Category: Creationism Posted on: May 7, 2009 7:44 AM, by PZ Myers Chris Matthews, who has lately been hammering the Republicans for their problem with science in general and evolution in particular, had a guest on to 'debate' the issue: Tom Tancredo, the ignorant Republican congressman who ran for president in the last election, and was one of the candidates who proudly announced that he did not believe in evolution. It was awful. Two people who know nothing about the science babbling at each other. While Matthews' heart might have been in the right place, he was more interested in stammering out apologies for believing a god might have guided evolution, and sat their stunned and incomprehending as Tancredo blithered out falsehood after falsehood. Tancredo was simply inane. What an appalling waste of time. At one point, the two were proudly comparing their backgrounds in science — they both went to Catholic schools as kids. In other words, all the knowledge they have is based on the brief high school level exposure to evolution they might have gotten 30 or 40 years ago, and both have gone on in careers where they've never had to think about science again. Why are they debating evolution with one another, and why does MSNBC think this tripe is worth airing to a national audience? Both were out of their depth. Matthews should have brought on someone qualified to address the topic. We have a host of smart scientists who seem to be fairly comfortable standing before a lay audience and explaining the basics of evolution: bring in Eugenie Scott, Neil Shubin, Jerry Coyne, Kevin Padian, or even Ken Miller (especially if you want to go over and over that nonsensical line that god did it via evolution): any one of them would have destroyed Tancredo. Or even me: I don't have the prestige of any of those luminaries, but even a guy from a small liberal arts college can demolish Tancredo's awful arguments. So what did Tancredo claim? "There's Darwinian evolution, and there's Intelligent Design…the one is equal to the other in terms of the number of people who support it in terms…especially of their backgrounds and the research out there." Absolutely false. If you go to any biologist, there is maybe a one in a thousand chance you'll find that he or she gives even a moment's consideration to intelligent design. ID is a fringe theory held by a tiny minority of scientists. The number of IDists in biology is probably about equal to the number of kooks who have made it through graduate school. To claim parity is simply a damnable lie. "Crossing a species there is no evidence of that you have to make an assumption. I'm just saying that assuming that is just as tough as assuming that there is intelligent design." No. We do of course have direct evidence of interspecies hybrids, if that's what he's talking about; we also have evidence of species evolving into new species, if that's what he's trying to say. His conclusion is sloppy thinking: it is easier to assume natural processes occurred than to postulate magic events without evidence. At least for a scientist, that is — deranged right wing politicians may differ. "In intelligent design, there is no argument about whether the world was made 8 thousand or 8 billion years ago." This is a symptom of a problem, not a virtue. The evidence is overwhelming that the earth is approximately 4.5 billion years old. Any so-called scientific discipline that believes there is ambiguity and that 8 thousand years is just as good a guess as 8 billion is bankrupt. "You can see on the micro level we see evolution but we cannot make the assumption on it about the macro level cause there's nothing there to look at, we have no scientific data." I have a special level of contempt for people who make this bogus macro/micro level argument — they always get it backwards. Macro evolution is on rock solid ground, and has been for 150 years. Darwin's work was largely on a macroevolutionary level: the evidence from paleontology, biogeography, systematics, comparative anatomy and physiology, and embryology, all disciplines that Darwin drew upon, describes the big picture of life's history, and shows common descent. In recent years, molecular biology has provided an even greater body of evidence; where Darwin had to speculate that maybe there were multiple origins for the different kingdoms of life, we now know that they can all be traced back to one common root. When a developmental biologist compares the molecules behind the evolution of eyes in a sea anemone and a cow, he is describing macroevolution. We have scientific data out the wazoo on this one. In Darwin's day, micro evolution was the wobbly leg of the structure of evolutionary theory. He didn't have an explanation for heredity. That has also changed, of course: we now have a robust understanding of genetics, and especially of population genetics. Speciation is complex and there are all kinds of details that we don't fully understand, but it also is not doubted by scientists. "Here's a group of people highly educated, well rounded, and well respected in their field who believe in evolution, Darwinian evolution. Here's a group of people, highly respected, who believe in intelligent design. These are two theories." The people who believe in intelligent design do not have any kind of parity with the proponents of evolution. Few IDists have any training in the relevant biology; most are philosophers, theologians, lawyers, engineers, and dentists, among other fields. The few who do have legitimate qualifications in any kind of biological sub-discipline, like Michael Behe, are either pariahs in their own departments or have to seek shelter under the umbrella of conservative think tanks, like the Discovery Institute. And no, they are not two theories. Evolution is a legitimate theory in the scientific sense: it is well supported by the evidence, and provides a productive, integrated, explanatory framework that guides ongoing research and ties together a large body of data. Intelligent Design creationism does not qualify as a scientific theory at all. At best, it is a highly speculative hypothesis, one assembled without any reasonable evidence, and so far it has been a spectacular failure at provoking any useful research. Tom Tancredo is an ignorant old fool who knows nothing and simply puked up creationist talking points. Chris Matthews also knows nothing and was a lousy representative for the scientific view. The whole show was pointless, except as an aid to creationists who want to sow doubt and confusion.</blockquote> <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/05/the_matthewstancredo_mutual_ig.php" target=_top>http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/05/the_mat thewstancredo_mutual_ig.php</a>

neal · 05-11-09 11:56 am

Bob on a different thread:<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!>quote:Another point Don, Neal has stated that my acceptance of microevolution, demonstrates that I have accepted macroevolution, and in fact the whole ball of wax, he feels is an either or situation. As a Biology Major, Chem Minor in my Undergrad, I differ with that position, because, if one studies Mendel's Accountant, Evolution is based on mutations, which weakens the genes, not strengthens them, in fact they become less fit, so they cannot produce MacroEvolution as Neal suggests. He has not given one example of MacroEvolution. Species within a family can be produced but two dogs will never produce a cat, two chimps will never produce a man, even though the high similarity of DNA, in the 90% + range, yet no explanation for his hairy body, inability to speak or to perform other human tasks. Evolution is based on extrapolation, and Darwin set the stage and Scientists have run headlong into the, "it looks similar therefore they must be from the same ancestor." Looks can be deceiving. Can not two things have been created by God, with a mystery of why they can be so similar but so different. I think God may have set that similarity there to perplex the scientists who wish to extrapolate their way to naturalist conclusions.<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote> <a href="http://www.atomorrow.net/cgi-bin/discus/show.cgi?tpc=120&post=4878#POST4878" target=_top>http://www.atomorrow.net/cgi-bin/discus/show.cgi?t pc=120&post=4878#POST4878</a> <blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!>quote:David Perlman celebrates Darwin's birth year with a short list of evolutionary transitions. It's a strange thing; these kinds of examples are thick on the ground everywhere, published in the scientific literature every week, and somehow, the creationists never seem to be able to find them.<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote> <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/05/finding_examples_of_evolutiona.php" target=_top>http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/05/finding _examples_of_evolutiona.php</a> <blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!>quote:Finding examples of evolutionary transitions David Perlman, Chronicle Science Editor Monday, May 11, 2009 The public birthday bashes and learned lectures are pretty much over, but 2009 remains the 200th anniversary of Charles Darwin's birth and the 150th anniversary of the publication of his iconic magnum opus. "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life," known more simply as "Origin of Species," was Darwin's masterwork, and in it he describes in extraordinary detail how species of plants and animals descend from earlier species by adapting to the pressures that changing environments impose on them. Species unable to adapt die off while new forms carry on the races. "Origin's" first edition of 1,200 copies was an instant sellout and provoked historic debates between science and religion. It still does today, although Darwinian evolution has been confirmed by science repeatedly. Skeptics protest that, in tracing life's evolutionary past, few if any examples exist of "transitional forms" of fossils - that is, fossils showing a wing as one step toward becoming an arm in the far distant future, or a fin on the way to becoming a leg. In fact, transitional forms have been found again and again in millions of years of the fossil record. The British scientific journal Nature recently published a list of what it called "evolutionary gems" - recent discoveries that have demonstrated classic examples of transitions from one ancestral form to entirely different ones that evolved much, much later. Some fossil examples are obscure and barely visible, but many are clear both to researchers and lay enthusiasts. The journal's editors listed the fossils of a land-living, hippo-like creature, for example, that evolved into to the primitive version of a whale. And a primitive fossil fish showed clear transitional forms of what would much, much later become legs for walking on land. Apart from the Nature list, other recent cases of evolutionary transitions have been widely reported. Here are some of them: Ardipithecus to Homo sapiens Tim D. White, a UC Berkeley paleontologist, sees evidence of evolution in the Ethiopian hominid fossils that preceded our own humankind by millions of years. He has dug up the bones of Australopithecus and Ardipithecus hominids - varied species that walked the Earth 1 million to 6 million years ago. Evidence shows that Australopithecus - among them the famed Lucy - was a dead-end tribe, but Ardipithecus clearly gave rise to the "Homo" lineage that ran in transitions from Homo habilis to Homo erectus and finally, White says, to Homo sapiens - us. Dinosaurs to modern birds A story of evolution with more ancient roots links the dinosaurs of old to today's birds. It started with the iconic winged dinosaur, called Archaeopteryx, of 150 million years ago, evolving as the world's first-known flying proto-bird. "Birds, including Archaeopteryx, are classified as feathered dinosaurs," says Kevin Padian, a UC Berkeley paleontologist who specializes in their evolution. "We definitely have seen a progression of evolution in the feather types of these dinosaurs, beginning with simple hairlike structures, to branched and downy forms and then to feathers with vanes, barbs and a central stalk." Tale of the warblers Then there's the curious story of the Himalayan warblers. Eight years ago, a Chronicle story told of three California scientists, led by Darren Irwin of UC San Diego, who had tracked a species of birds called "greenish warblers" around the vast Himalayan plateau from the area where the species originated some 10,000 years ago. The scientists discovered that members of that species had, at some point, split off and migrated northward into new habitats of the plateau. Much later, descendants of the two groups met again north of the Himalaya in Siberia, where they live now. It was there that Irwin discovered that the eastern and western warbler tribes now differed subtly in the colors of their plumage and sharply in their songs. And they do not interbreed - a sure sign that the original warbler species had evolved into separate and distinct species, Irwin concluded. He was right. When Irwin and his colleagues studied warblers around the Himalayan plateau, they found in almost every case that the birds had altered gradually in color and song in each separate new habitat. They differed subtly, but were not yet distinct species. Later, in the lab, Irwin and his team found that the genes of those birds had undergone small but distinct molecular changes along their divergent habitat paths - and that the DNA differences were greatest between the eastern Siberian warblers and the western ones. This was confirming evidence of evolution at the genetic as well as the physical level, and Irwin and his colleagues have published several reports on their research in Nature and many other journals. E-mail David Perlman at <a href="mailto:dperlman@sfchronicle.com">dperlman@sfchronicle.com</a>. This article appeared on page A - 12 of the San Francisco Chronicle<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote> <a href="http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/05/11/MNCN16PJI0.DTL&type=science" target=_top>http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2 009/05/11/MNCN16PJI0.DTL&type=science</a> Bob, your argument is tired, false, and ignorant. The guy puts his email in the last article. Write him and see if he responds. Repeatedly denying evidence for a fact does not magically make the fact disappear. It only makes people want to start comparing you to an ostrich with its head in the sand. I have put up lists of transitions before yet you false state that I have not. Stop the lies. Your false requirement that two orangutans mate and create a human offspring is like saying that you should be able to take a human egg and human sperm, combine them, and instantly have a full grown human. Doesn't work that way. Time. Its a 4 letter word you should keep in mind. (Message edited by neal on May 11, 2009)

bob_2 · 05-11-09 7:33 pm

What's this I hear about a Cambrian Explosion of instant complexity in the fossil record , no transition, no build up. <a href="http://www.mhrc.net/cambrian.htm" target=_top>http://www.mhrc.net/cambrian.htm</a>

neal · 05-12-09 9:00 am

What's this I hear about a Cambrian Explosion of instant complexity in the fossil record , no transition, no build up. Changing the subject does not change the fact of your lying 4 Jesus concerning my multiple posts about transitional fossils. Your statement that "He has not given one example of MacroEvolution is false." Bearing false witness is referenced in your holy book as an abomination to your god many more times than being gay. As much as you bear false witness you would be better off as a truthful homo than a lying hetero. And, BTW, maybe you could explain to me how anything that happened 500,000,000 years ago is evidence for your deity that was falsely asserted in your sacred book to have created everything ~6,000 years ago? The genocidal maniacs missed 5 zeroes somewhere. Maybe they didn't have enough fingers and toes to count back that far for their genealogy? Oh, and another BTW. Maybe get a current scientist who is a current authority on the current evidence from the Cambrian if you want a reference. Digging up an also-ran, non-expert, LLU PhD in cell structures who thinks he can fit the evolution of a female's DNA into 6000 years is a fallacious Appeal to Authority. (Message edited by neal on May 12, 2009)

john8verse32 · 05-12-09 10:28 am

before we dis..miss MikeBrown completely, remember, his chart about how we cannot trust the dating of the bible? due to the various versions disagreeing... <a href="http://www.creation-science-prophecy.com/manuscript.htm" target=_top>http://www.creation-science-prophecy.com/manuscrip t.htm</a> in addition, he's a pilot...from Loma Linda which was personally selected as the best center for a clean air sanitorium by the Profitesse herself, and if you can't trust your pilot and your profitesse, whom can you trust? the SMOG air resources board? http://www.creation-science-prophecy.com/infinity.htm (Message edited by john8verse32 on May 12, 2009)

bob_2 · 05-13-09 1:04 am

Well, Neal, again, you want us to believe that the dating mechanisms have no flaws, which is based on assumption of no catastrophes or on uniform existence. I think I've stated my position and there are plenty of hoaxes and dating mistakes that we don't need to go there, but I know you will.

bob_2 · 05-13-09 1:06 am

Maybe we should match the goatherder against your slime pond tenders and see who has the correct version, eh?? I think we have record of the goatherders, but....

neal · 05-13-09 10:09 am

Neal, again, you want us to believe that the dating mechanisms have no flaws.... That is false. I have never said they are perfect. Radar guns are not perfect either. Trying to stick to the Biblical ages is like doing 160 in a Porsche and going into court claiming you were only going 2 miles an hour BECAUSE RADAR GUNS ARE NOT PERFECT! OK, so maybe you were really only going 159 mph or maybe it was 162 mph. No matter what small variance there was from your actual speed it does not make your story correct that you were only going 2 mph.

john8verse32 · 05-13-09 10:35 am

lets match the goatherder against your slime pond tenders and see who has the correct version, ok... goatherders: claim the earth is only 6000 yrs old, based on versions of the OT which cannot even agree between the versions!!!! <a href="http://www.creation-science-prophecy.com/manuscript.htm" target="_blank">...as shown here...</a> slime pond scientists: Niagara Falls has eroded its way up river at a measured rate (of between 1-3 ft per year) for a known distance, (about 7 miles)giving us an age of Niagara Falls of between 10 and 15,000 yrs.... just for the falls!!!! not counting the alternating layers of limestone and mudstone-turned shale thru which the falls must have cut the canyon..... and these layers are measured in the hundreds of millions of years by multiple methods!!! and the LIMESTONE is the remnants of gigabeyons and beyons of tiny marine animals who lived, loved, reproduced, and built calcareous shells in a shallow sea, then died a long time ago.... killed off by God or mother nature just to make rock, under a shallow sea, millions of yrs ago!!! next comparison: goatherders claim the earth was created 6000 yrs ago, and it was finished, in just 144 hrs, and it was good. slime pond scientists have visited the Hawaiian Islands, measured the rate of drift NW over the hot spot which is creating the islands, and the time-distance computation agrees with the radioactive decay dating of the rocks that the islands ages run into the millions of years....the farther out the chain you go....the older the islands, and the softer, more weathered is the rock....while the Big Island is still being "created"!!! and its rock is young and too hard to break with a ball peen hammer, tho Kauai, about 5 myo, has soft rock that even plant roots can break up, so it's called the Garden Isle. Kiluea is making new land right over the hotspot. as we write this!!! so, Creation is an ongoing process, it was not completed in 144 hrs, merely 6kya, as claimed by the goat herders. But if your home was burned down by hot magma in the Kalapana District of the Big Island, then you don't understand how this ongoing creation is "good". And if Yellowstone, which constitutes an even bigger and far more dangerous 'hotspot" were to erupt, millions might be killed!!! and since it seems that the cycle of eruption is about 600,000 yrs, and since the last eruption WAS about 640,000 yrs ago, it might be time for people to consider moving out of Wyoming!!! so ongoing "creation" is not always good!!! next: goatherders claim that Jesus was taken to a mountain so high that He and the devil could see all the kingdoms of the (apparently flat) earth. slime pond scientists: just blasted off thru the non existant dome to restore the eyesight of the HST...which mission again and again requires computations based on a round earth, and will end up providing a clearer view into the universe's distant past as far away/back as 12+ B with a Bee Billion years..... goatherders: to get rid of mold or leprosy, first find the right bird, wring its neck... take the blood....hire a witch doctor to do some incantations... etc. slime pond scientists: currently rushing to manufacture vaccines against virii which the goatherders never even knew about. next: goatherders: used wooden stylus to press pictorial characers into mud tablets to write down stories they had told and retold around the campfire prior to learning to read andwrite while captive in Babylon.... the stories changing and growing every time!!! written just like it is alleged that God Himself did for the 10C's...a slow, antiquated process designed to reach a very few people. slimepond scientists: use modern English on the internet to compare notes at the speed of light around the world, to check up on each others experiments and progress, and spread the word to the masses..... question: why doesn't God come back now, on the internet, or even on Oprah or Larry King, and set things straight if he really wants people to understand? He allegedly wrestled with jacob, walked with Enoch, talked face to face with Moses....why is he hiding from us? like the Rock Opera Superstar asks, why did Jesus come in 4 BC to a hole in the wall country and make friends with a genocidal tribe of goat herders and ask them, and only them, to spread His message of love at the point of a sword, when they had no mass communication? Just think of how fast He could spread the good word today if he came back today..... "good evening...this is Walter Chronkite...bringing you todays news. and sitting here with me in the CBS newsroom in New York is JC Himself.... and after this message, He is going to set the record straight. But first, do you suffer from neuritis? neuralgia? ED? then llsten carefully to the following mess....." QED (Message edited by john8verse32 on May 13, 2009)

neal · 05-19-09 10:28 am

<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!>quote:... The whole creationist version of the micro/macro evolution distinction is complete nonsense. Scientists do make the distinction, usually reserving macroevolution for the larger scale accumulation of change over time that produces new species or lineages, but they don't argue that one is unsupported speculation. What you have to understand is that the concept of macroevolution came first, although it wasn't called that; it was just called evolution or transformation theory, among other things ("evolution" was a term that actually became popular relatively late). Darwin himself examined biology largely on a grand scale, looking at biogeography and populations and fossils, and making an argument on the basis of what we would now call macroevolutionary phenomena for changes in form of species over geological time. He wasn't alone, either; many other authors preceded him in seeing that the evidence supported a history of evolutionary change. What made Darwin particularly persuasive, though, is that he coupled the evidence of changing species to a hypothetical mechanism, natural selection. He didn't have the tools or the details to work out how heritable change was accomplished, however; that took the discovery of genetics and molecular biology to allow us to see how this 'microevolution' actually worked. When creationists argue that they believe in microevolution, but that macroevolution is dubious, they've got it backwards. Large scale historical change was confirmed and thoroughly documented in the 19th century! Darwin was a bridge, who explained how small scale, natural processes could produce the known variation between species, and the triumph of 20th century biology was to confirm and expand upon our understanding of how those changes occurred. Neither macro nor micro evolution are speculative. Neither one is lacking in evidence. .... ... [N]ever, ever trust anyone who claims to be a creationist — it's a synonym for lying, stupid fraud.<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote> <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/05/i_get_email_from_peter_heck.php" target=_top>http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/05/i_get_e mail_from_peter_heck.php</a>

john8verse32 · 05-19-09 2:43 pm

is the concept of a "missing link" proof of Macro? or Micro evolution???? <a href="http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/World-News/Missing-Link-Scientists-In-New-York-Unveil-Fossil-Of-Lemur-Monkey-Hailed-As-Mans-Earliest-Ancestor/Article/200905315284582?lpos=World_News_Carousel_Region_0&lid=ARTICLE_15284582_Missing_Link%3A_Scientists_In_New_York_Unveil_Fossil_Of_Lemur_Monkey_Hailed_As_Mans_Earliest_Ancestor" target=_top>http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/World-News/Missin g-Link-Scientists-In-New-York-Unveil-Fossil-Of-Lem ur-Monkey-Hailed-As-Mans-Earliest-Ancestor/Article /200905315284582?lpos=World_News_Carousel_Region_0 &lid=ARTICLE_15284582_Missing_Link%3A_Scientists_I n_New_York_Unveil_Fossil_Of_Lemur_Monkey_Hailed_As _Mans_Earliest_Ancestor</a>

john8verse32 · 05-19-09 9:25 pm

The discovery of the 95%-complete 'lemur monkey' - dubbed Ida - is described by experts as the "eighth wonder of the world". They say its impact on the world of palaeontology will be "somewhat like an asteroid falling down to Earth". Researchers say proof of this transitional species finally confirms Charles Darwin's theory of evolution, and the then radical, outlandish ideas he came up with during his time aboard the Beagle. Sir David Attenborough said Darwin "would have been thrilled" to have seen the fossil - and says it tells us who we are and where we came from. "This little creature is going to show us our connection with the rest of the mammals," he said. "This is the one that connects us directly with them. "Now people can say 'okay we are primates, show us the link'. "The link they would have said up to now is missing - well it's no longer missing." so now slime pond scientists have their missing link... where is the creationists "dome"? and why after all these years there's no ark? and why do even Israeli archeologists tell us the whole story is based on goat herder legends and myths and there's no archeological evidence for most of it?

bob_2 · 05-19-09 10:51 pm

Neal, any other sources beside this repeat one, you have used before: Pharyngula. How about this: <blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!>quote:Has Evolution Been Evolving? Written by: Joshua Joscelyn, and Eric Hovind Has evolution been evolving? Modern science says "YES!" Since the birth of evolution theory in the 1800s, evolutionists have been struggling to find a mechanism that can actually cause evolution. Where has this journey taken them? Take a look for yourself and you will see that from the beginning, evolution has been evolving, and it has still not improved. This episode of "Creation in Common Sense" will look at five major theories that have been popularized under the label of "evolution" but which simply can't stand the scrutiny of common sense. Five major theories have been proposed as the mechanism for evolution; however, they do not stand up to the scrutiny of common sense! Take a minute to examine these for yourself. Lamarckism - Lamarckism is the once widely accepted idea that an organism can pass on characteristics that it acquired during its lifetime to its offspring (also known as heritability of acquired characteristics or "soft inheritance"). It is named for the French biologist Jean-Baptiste Lamarck, who incorporated the action of soft inheritance into his evolutionary theories. Lamarckism proposed that the effect of individual efforts during the lifetime of the organisms was the main mechanism driving species to adaptation. As a species would acquire adaptive changes, they would pass them on to offspring causing evolution. Today's understanding of science has left Lamarckism without a leg to stand on. Classical Darwinism (Natural Selection) - The term Darwinism (in the classical sense) refers to the concept that natural selection is the sole mechanism of evolution, in contrast to Lamarckism. This theory was popularized by the publication of The Origin of Species, by Charles Darwin in the mid-nineteenth century. Darwin had proposed that species evolved by merely being the fittest-and thus his "survival of the fittest" axiom. Those species most fit for their environment would survive longer and pass along their genes through reproduction. However, in the mid-twentieth century, scientists realized that natural selection alone could not cause evolution. More radical changes needed to be made, and on a much faster timescale. Neo-Darwinism (Natural Selection + Mutations) - In modern times, the term neo-Darwinism refers to the addition of mutation to the theory of classical Darwinism (natural selection). Following the development in the 1940s of the modern evolutionary synthesis, the term neo-Darwinian has been used by some to refer to the modern evolutionary theory that mutations are the driving force of evolution. This idea comes to a halt when science demonstrates that mutations are not frequent or beneficial. That is to say when mutations do happen, they do not produce something new-they just scramble existing information. Hopeful Monster - This term is used in evolutionary biology to describe evolution as taking place in a single bound. It says that maybe one day a reptile laid an egg, and a bird hatched out. The problem now is: who would the new bird mate with? This kind of event would surely be rare, and the chances of that happening twice, at the same time, in the same place, with animals that are the same species, that are of the opposite sex, that are able to reproduce, are .... Well, let's just say, "It ain't happening!" The phrase was coined by the German-born geneticist, Richard Goldschmidt, who believed that small gradual changes could not bridge the gap between microevolution and macroevolution, and that rapid evolution events were necessary to explain the lack of transitional fossils. This argument is an attempt to explain away the lack of transitional fossils in the fossil record. Punctuated Equilibrium - In 1972 paleontologists Niles Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould developed this idea in a paper that built upon Ernst Mayr's theory of geographic speciation. Eldredge and Gould noticed that evidence of slow gradual changes by means of natural selection championed by Charles Darwin was virtually nonexistent in the fossil record, and that, rather than gradual evolution through minor changes, punctuated equilibrium better explained the fossil record. Punctuated equilibrium stated that major changes did take place, but over relatively short periods of geologic time (10 to 20 thousand years as opposed to millions). This theory is just as ridiculous as the others, as it attempts to argue from the lack of evidence. "Since we don't have the evidence in the fossil record, this proves evolution happened quickly." Scientific evidence has far surpassed the theories of those who believe evolution has taken place and has instead reinforced what the Bible tells us in Genesis 1:25: the animals bring forth after their kind! No, "macro" evolution is not happening, but the religious theory of evolution continues to evolve! What will they come up with next? <!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote> <a href="http://www.drdino.com/read-article.php?id=133" target=_top>http://www.drdino.com/read-article.php?id=133</a>

bob_2 · 05-19-09 11:03 pm

Here's an interesting concept to show the possibility of a flood, in the Biblical time frame: <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X16SE-N-8ys" target=_top>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X16SE-N-8ys</a>

john8verse32 · 05-20-09 12:37 am

absolutely ridiculous!!!! subterranean water by the giga gallons!!! since rock is so much heaverthan water, it would displace all that water upwards to the surface, making oceans.....long before there could have been a quick flood. and after the non existant flood? where did the allegorical water go? back underground? no, because it is still lighter than rock. up in the air? no, because the pressure of all that water overhead even as vapor, could have caused life on earth to develop under pressure of all that water overhead...and it would have crushed us!!! Walter Brown is a nut case... trying anything to prove a recent creation.....by contorting the evidenc e and making up impossible conclusions. on that same vid page is a link to another vid which debunks Brown. just like any real scientist would. even a rational non-scientist but historian would debunk Browns thesis for a recent flood, as it never affected civilizations in documented history in Egypt...

neal · 05-20-09 9:15 am

Neal, any other sources beside this repeat one, you have used before: Pharyngula. How about this: <blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!>quote:Scientific evidence has far surpassed the theories of those who believe evolution has taken place and has instead reinforced what the Bible tells us in Genesis 1:25: the animals bring forth after their kind! No, "macro" evolution is not happening, but the religious theory of evolution continues to evolve! What will they come up with next? <!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote> If you know nothing about evolution its easy to read some drivel and think it makes a point confirming your a priori belief. The last class of Process that they refer to is the radical (according to Gould's good friend Dawkins, among others) theory of Punctuated Equilibrium. Gould wouldn't even debate creationists because they are lying, misquoting, unethical parasites. The quoted authors silly argument that, because there has been multiple theories about the PROCESS of evolution, evolution did not occur. Then they go further and use fallacious logic to claim that since evolution didn't happen, it HAD to be their theory about GOD that caused life (the Argument from Ignorance). That's like showing up at your church sweating. People theorize that you walked, ran, jogged, rode a bike, or that you drove but your air-conditioning was broken. Since there are multiple theories about the process used to get to church they then claim that you never made the trip but just magically appeared before them. Next time find something debunking the FACT of evolution that is free from fallacies and false assumptions.

neal · 05-20-09 9:24 am

From your quoted piece: <blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!>quote:Five major theories have been proposed as the mechanism for evolution; however, they do not stand up to the scrutiny of common sense!<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote> Common sense? Why would a creationist argue from the point of common sense? Its not common sense to think a guy can walk on water, come back from the dead, speak matter into existence, stop the sun & moon dead in their little tracks. If we were using common sense we would still believe the earth was flat and unmovable like the goat herders. Its the ability to overcome common sense in order to accept facts such as: The fact that we are on an object that is spinning at almost 1,000 MPH. Common sense tells you that a an object which weighs almost a million pounds cannot fly through the air like a 747 can. Common sense tells us that ....

bob_2 · 05-20-09 11:21 pm

Drivel, stupid and absolutely ridiculous, are terms that John and Neal mock with yet we are to believe in millions, and billions of years caused us to evolve from a slime pit, by chance hit by lightening. Common sense, huh. Yeah right.

bob_2 · 05-20-09 11:33 pm

Neal you would have us believe the dating mechanisms only have small flaws: <blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!>quote:Carbon dating accuracy: what are the flaws of carbon dating? The theory of carbon dating is interesting, but there are inherent problems with the presumptions upon which it is based. Used to estimate the age of ancient artifacts and human and animal remains, radiocarbon dating is regarded by many as one of the miracles of modern science. Some, however, have serious doubts about the credibility of this technique. Radiocarbon dating works by comparing the amount of normal carbon that is found in a sample with the amount of radioactive carbon. Both carbon and radioactive carbon are found in every living organism. While carbon is quite prevalent in these organisms, radioactive carbon is present only in tiny amounts. Some contend that the relative ratios of carbon and radioactive carbon that are found on the earth have remained constant over time and that, using known rates of decay; we can estimate age on the basis of changes in this ratio in a particular artifact or remains. Radioactive carbon is absorbed by living organisms throughout their entire life. When the organism dies that absorption stops and the radioactive carbon begins to break down. Because this break down occurs at a known rate it is theoretically possible to compare the amount of regular carbon and the amount of radioactive carbon and estimate just how long an organism has been dead. Although the theory of radiocarbon dating is interesting, there are several inherent problems with the process. The first of these problems is the fact that the original ratio of carbon and radioactive carbon is unknown. The second problem is that the possibility of contamination of the sample over time is quite high. The older the sample the higher the probability of contamination, in fact! What this means is that using carbon dating to date very old samples is really quite impractical given our current level of knowledge and technological capabilities. While carbon dating continues to be considered by many as a viable way of obtaining authoritative dates for a wide range of artifacts and remains, there is much room for error in the process. Even the use of accelerator mass spectrometry to analyze the relative levels of carbon and radioactive carbon has resulted in flawed determinations. It is not uncommon for different laboratories to determine quite different ages for the same artifact! While some of this deviation could possibly be explained by contamination or erred methodology in the labs themselves, it is apparent that the problems with carbon dating are much more complex than that. Very simply put, too many things are unknown to allow the carbon dating process to be as accurate as many proclaim it to be. Factors as diverse as changes in the earth’s magnetic field and changes in the amount of carbon available to organisms in times past could translate into perceivable differences in the carbon ratios in artifacts and remains from ancient times. Even changes in the atmosphere itself could impact this carbon ratio. We know that changes such as these have occurred over time. They are still occurring today in fact. The fact that carbon and radioactive carbon are independently formed means that their ratios to one another could have changed substantially from ancient times to today. To base our knowledge on the age of the earth and its various constituents on information gleaned from a technique that depends on carbon and radioactive carbon ratios is very simply unrealistic. <!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote> <a href="http://www.essortment.com/hobbies/carbondatingac_szhq.htm" target=_top>http://www.essortment.com/hobbies/carbondatingac_s zhq.htm</a>

john8verse32 · 05-20-09 11:43 pm

Bob...you apparently use google to check for articles which disagree with science.... do you ever find articles which prove the accuracy of science? if yougoogle... radio carbon dating accuracy... thefirst web site you might come across is this scientific explanation, which counters the above one you posted. <a href="http://home.tiac.net/~cri/1999/c14hist.html" target=_top>http://home.tiac.net/~cri/1999/c14hist.html</a> Accuracy of Radiocarbon Dating By John Stockwell Regarding the often misquoted and maligned (by creationists) 14C dating method, here is a partial chronology of the development of the calibration of 14C, which includes consideration of sources of fluctuations in the background level of 14C. Much of creationist commentary on the possible errors in 14C is intended to portray the scientific community as being either incompetent or dishonest regarding such issues as the consideration of potential errors in radiometric dating methods. Creationists never discuss the fact that given these analyses, scientists have found ways of identifying and mitigating the effects of these sources of error. What follows is a summary from chapter 14.1.3, p.364-366 of Dickin [1995]: 1941: Thellier proposed that Earth's magnetic field experiences secular variations. 1949: Arnold and Libby publish radiocarbon dates of items of known age. 1952: Libby publishes first book on radiocarbon dating. 1954: Forbush observed that the 11-year cycle of sunspot activity was inversely correlated with cosmic-ray intensity. 1955: Suess proposed dilution due to the burning of fossil fuels for the 2% depletion of 14C activity seen in 20th century wood compared to 19th century wood. 1956: Elasser, et al. predicted variations in the cosmic ray flux due to secular variations in Earth's magnetic field. 1958: de Vries found that 17-th century wood had a 2% higher activity than 19th century wood. 1961: Stuiver used historical records of sunspot activity to calculate cosmic ray intensity, and hence 14C production for the past 1500 years, and suggesting that the observations of de Vries, correlated with a sunspot minimum. 1965: Stuiver used more detailed records to confirm the correlation of a sunspot minimum with de Vries observations. 1967: Bucha and Neustupny provided paleomagnetic intensity measurments that supported the existence of secular variations in the Earth's magnetic field first proposed by Thellier. They were able to model the variations of 14C production, and almost exactly match the deviations between the tree-ring and radiocarbon time scales. By 1969, enough radiocarbon dates of objects of known age, it became apparent that calibration of the 14C dating method was both possible, and required, to make radiocarbon dates useful for the determination of calendar dates. Indeed, it is often material from prior to 1969 that creationists use as ammunition against the 14C dating method. One useful method of calibrating 14C is dendrochronology, or age dating by counting tree rings. The basic idea of calibration is simple. Plot the true date determined from counting tree rings versus the radiocarbon date. The result is a plot that can be used to both determine the actual original 14C/12C ratios and can be used to convert radiocarbon dates of other samples into calendar dates. The calibration curve also allows the original 14C/12C ratios to be determined. The first use of dendrochronlogy to calibrate 14C over a long period of time was made by Furgeson in 1970. 1970: Furgeson used dendrochronology of bristlcode pines to calibrate radiocarbon dating back to 7484- years b.p. (before the present). Through comparison with tree ring dates, the 14C method has been calibrated back to more than 13,000 years before the present, 1991: Becker, et al publish a stable dendrochronological calibration of 14C back to 13,000 years before the present. In addition, 14C dating has also been calibrated back to more than 30,000 years before the present using uranium-thorium (isochron) dating of corals [Bard, et al, 1990] and [Edwards, et al, 1993]. While it is unlikely that 14C will be useful for objects older than 50,000 years, owing to the problems of background contamination [Dickin, 1995] and [Lowe, 1991], there is a recent paper by [Kitagawa, H., and van der Plicht, J., 1998] discusses calibration of 14C dating back to 45,000 b.p. using U-Th dates of glacial lake varve sediments (periodic sedimentary layers). The bottom line is that 14C dating is quite a bit more advanced than creationist sources give it credit for being.

neal · 05-21-09 9:04 am

Drivel, stupid and absolutely ridiculous, are terms that John and Neal mock with yet we are to believe in millions, and billions of years caused us to evolve from a slime pit, by chance hit by lightening. Uh, Bob, read this.<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!>quote:Life’s First Spark Re-Created in the Laboratory * By Brandon Keim Email Author * May 13, 2009 | * 1:40 pm | * Categories: Miscellaneous A fundamental but elusive step in the early evolution of life on Earth has been replicated in a laboratory. Researchers synthesized the basic ingredients of RNA, a molecule from which the simplest self-replicating structures are made. Until now, they couldn’t explain how these ingredients might have formed. “It’s like molecular choreography, where the molecules choreograph their own behavior,” said organic chemist John Sutherland of the University of Manchester, co-author of a study in Nature Wednesday. RNA is now found in living cells, where it carries information between genes and protein-manufacturing cellular components. Scientists think RNA existed early in Earth’s history, providing a necessary intermediate platform between pre-biotic chemicals and DNA, its double-stranded, more-stable descendant. However, though researchers have been able to show how RNA’s component molecules, called ribonucleotides, could assemble into RNA, their many attempts to synthesize these ribonucleotides have failed. No matter how they combined the ingredients — a sugar, a phosphate, and one of four different nitrogenous molecules, or nucleobases — ribonucleotides just wouldn’t form. Sutherland’s team took a different approach in what Harvard molecular biologist Jack Szostak called a “synthetic tour de force” in an accompanying commentary in Nature. “By changing the way we mix the ingredients together, we managed to make ribonucleotides,” said Sutherland. “The chemistry works very effectively from simple precursors, and the conditions required are not distinct from what one might imagine took place on the early Earth.” snip<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote> <blockquote><a href="http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/05/ribonucleotides/" target=_top>http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/05/ribonucl eotides/</a></blockquote> Bob, you need a new theory. The goatherder theory is becoming more absurd by the day. John, my apologies for reposting if you have posted something on this new scientific achievement while I was away. I haven't had time to go back and read all posts from periods when I have been away.

neal · 05-21-09 9:09 am

The piece on Carbon Dating Accuracy Bob cut & pasted above was written by the same person that wrote this fine piece! <blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!>quote:Tips for leaving a job: how to have a new career in 3 months<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote> <a href="http://www.essortment.com/career/jobcareeroccup_saaq.htm" target=_top>http://www.essortment.com/career/jobcareeroccup_sa aq.htm</a> Bob, you deserve more derision and condescension than I actually give. Its pathetic for you to pull out the 'martyr' defense like you do. Appeals to Sympathy don't work on me.

john8verse32 · 05-26-09 1:28 pm

Student Wins Suit After Teacher Says Creationism is 'Superstitious Nonsense' Monday, May 04, 2009 quote: SANTA ANA, Calif. — A federal judge ruled that a public high school history teacher violated the First Amendment when he called creationism "superstitious nonsense" during a classroom lecture. U.S. District Judge James Selna issued the ruling Friday after a 16-month legal battle between student Chad Farnan and his former teacher, James Corbett. Farnan sued in U.S. District Court in 2007, alleging that Corbett violated the establishment clause of the First Amendment by making repeated comments in class that were hostile to Christian beliefs. The lawsuit cited more than 20 statements made by Corbett during one day of class, all of which were recorded by Farnan, to support allegations of a broader teaching method that "favors irreligion over religion" and made Christian students feel uncomfortable. During the course of the litigation, the judge found that most of the statements cited in the court papers did not violate the First Amendment because they did not refer directly to religion or were appropriate in the context of the classroom lecture. But Selna ruled Friday that one comment, where Corbett referred to creationism as "religious, superstitious nonsense," did violate Farnan's constitutional rights. Farnan is not interested in monetary damages, said his attorney, Jennifer Monk of the Murrieta-based Christian legal group Advocates for Faith & Freedom. Instead, he plans to ask the court to prohibit Corbett from making similar comments in the future. Farnan's family would also like to see the school district offer teacher training and monitor Corbett's classroom for future violations, Monk said. There are no plans to appeal the judge's rulings on the other statements listed in the litigation, she said. "They lost, he violated the establishment clause," she told The Associated Press in a phone interview. "From our perspective, whether he violated it with one statement or with 19 statements is irrelevant." In making his decision, Selna wrote that he tried to balance Farnan's and Corbett's rights. "The court's ruling today reflects the constitutionally permissible need for expansive discussion even if a given topic may be offensive to a particular religion," the judge wrote. "The decision also reflects that there are boundaries. ... The ruling today protects Farnan, but also protects teachers like Corbett in carrying out their teaching duties." Corbett, a 20-year teaching veteran, remains at Capistrano Valley High School. Farnan is now a junior at the school, but quit Corbett's Advanced Placement European history class after his teacher made the comments. The establishment clause of the First Amendment prohibits the government from making any law establishing religion. The clause has been interpreted by U.S. courts to also prohibit government employees from displaying religious hostility. Selna said that although Corbett was only found to have violated the establishment clause in a single instance, he could not excuse or overlook the behavior. In a ruling last month, the judge dismissed all but two of the statements Farnan complained about, including Corbett's comment that "when you put on your Jesus glasses, you can't see the truth." Also dismissed in April were comments such as, "Conservatives don't want women to avoid pregnancies — that's interfering with God's work" and "When you pray for divine intervention, you're hoping that the spaghetti monster will help you get what you want." On Friday, Selna also dismissed one of the two remaining statements, saying that Corbett may have been attempting to quote Mark Twain when he said religion was "invented when the first con man met the first fool." Corbett has declined to comment throughout the litigation. His attorney, Dan Spradlin, did not immediately return a message left Monday by The Associated Press. Spradlin has said, however, that Corbett made the remark about creationism during a classroom discussion about a 1993 case in which a former Capistrano Valley High science teacher sued the school district because it required instruction in evolution. Spradlin has said Corbett was simply expressing his own opinion that the former teacher shouldn't have presented his religious views to students. Farnan's family released a statement Friday calling the judge's ruling a vindication of the teen's constitutional rights. The Capistrano Unified School District, which paid for Corbett's attorney, was found not liable for Corbett's classroom conduct. end quote so, like in Iran, the right rigid religulous do not want their cherished beliefs to be made fun of. I wonder if one can actually get away with using more generous terms, such as Drivel, stupid and absolutely ridiculous??? without beind hauled into religious court?

Adventists for Tomorrow

Announcement

#26 05-07-09 8:51 am

Re: Micro-Macro Evolution: Same Process, Diff Scale

#27 05-11-09 11:56 am

Re: Micro-Macro Evolution: Same Process, Diff Scale

#28 05-11-09 7:33 pm

Re: Micro-Macro Evolution: Same Process, Diff Scale

#29 05-12-09 9:00 am

Re: Micro-Macro Evolution: Same Process, Diff Scale

#30 05-12-09 10:28 am

Re: Micro-Macro Evolution: Same Process, Diff Scale

#31 05-13-09 1:04 am

Re: Micro-Macro Evolution: Same Process, Diff Scale

#32 05-13-09 1:06 am

Re: Micro-Macro Evolution: Same Process, Diff Scale

#33 05-13-09 10:09 am

Re: Micro-Macro Evolution: Same Process, Diff Scale

#34 05-13-09 10:35 am

Re: Micro-Macro Evolution: Same Process, Diff Scale

#35 05-19-09 10:28 am

Re: Micro-Macro Evolution: Same Process, Diff Scale

#36 05-19-09 2:43 pm

Re: Micro-Macro Evolution: Same Process, Diff Scale

#37 05-19-09 9:25 pm

Re: Micro-Macro Evolution: Same Process, Diff Scale

#38 05-19-09 10:51 pm

Re: Micro-Macro Evolution: Same Process, Diff Scale

#39 05-19-09 11:03 pm

Re: Micro-Macro Evolution: Same Process, Diff Scale

#40 05-20-09 12:37 am

Re: Micro-Macro Evolution: Same Process, Diff Scale

#41 05-20-09 9:15 am

Re: Micro-Macro Evolution: Same Process, Diff Scale

#42 05-20-09 9:24 am

Re: Micro-Macro Evolution: Same Process, Diff Scale

#43 05-20-09 11:21 pm

Re: Micro-Macro Evolution: Same Process, Diff Scale

#44 05-20-09 11:33 pm

Re: Micro-Macro Evolution: Same Process, Diff Scale

#45 05-20-09 11:43 pm

Re: Micro-Macro Evolution: Same Process, Diff Scale

#46 05-21-09 9:04 am

Re: Micro-Macro Evolution: Same Process, Diff Scale

#47 05-21-09 9:09 am

Re: Micro-Macro Evolution: Same Process, Diff Scale

#48 05-26-09 1:28 pm

Re: Micro-Macro Evolution: Same Process, Diff Scale

Board footer