Genetic Changes In Mice 'Question Evolution Speed'

Ananova ^ | 5-21-2003

[js1138]

Is this your source?

[Dataman]

No, but it looks interesting. I'll have to check it out.

[Stultis]

My point was only that reality cannot be brought into existence simply by playing with definitions.

But we (evolutionists) don't play with definitions here. Macroevolution is evolution above the species level. Since the species is an objective taxon, this definition of macroevolution is comparatively objective. It is even operationally defined. If there's a new species involved, then it's macroevolution, if not then its microevolution.

[Dimensio]

Ah, baloney. You seem to be bitter because I wouldn't do your homework for you.

You provided three quotes from websites, but you didn't bother to reference the websites. One of them turned out to be a self-described Pagan Creation Myth.

I provided the quotes you requested, not one, but four.

I requested a stating of the theory of evolution that addressed life origins. I was rather specific in my wording in the two times that I made the request. Not a single one of your quotes claimed to be a stating of the theory of evolution. Your lying about it does not change this fact.

You found feeble excuses to reject all of them like it somehow proved that the origin of life has nothing to do with evolution.

Feeble excuses like "the quotes don't state at all what I requested". I asked for a stating of the theory of evolution. None of the quotes that you presented were a stating of the theory of evolution. None of the quotes that you provided even presented themselves as a stating of the theory of evolution. One of the websites didn't even mention the word "evolution". You are a liar to claim that you addressed my request.

I asked for a stating of the theory of evolution where life origins were addressed. Nothing that you presented was a stating of the theory of evolution. This isn't weaseling, this isn't a feeble excuse. This is a fact.

[Dataman]

But we (evolutionists) don't play with definitions here. Macroevolution is evolution above the species level. Since the species is an objective taxon, this definition of macroevolution is comparatively objective. It is even operationally defined. If there's a new species involved, then it's macroevolution, if not then its microevolution.

What is the difference between an evolutionist saying that a new species of mosquito proves man came from a single-celled animal (in deference to you I didn't say "rock") and "evolution is change"? That is, what is the difference between these two syllogisms:

A new species would prove macroevolution happens.
We have discovered a new species of mosquito.
Therefore macroevolution happens.

     AND

Evolution is change.
Things change.
Therefore evolution happens.

Both syllogisms employ the fallacy of equivocation. Both have brought evolution into existence by fiat. Both are invalid.

[js1138]

This lack has been taken advantage of classically by the opponents of organic evolution as a major defect of the theory. In other words, the inability of the fossil record to produce the "missing links" has been taken as solid evidence for disbelieving the theory.

I was, once upon a time, an English major (never tell it from my typing) and I can absolutely tell from the sentence construction of this quote that it is leading up to a "But..." that refutes the assertion just made. In other words, your sources are lying by falsely arguing from quotes out of context. If you are a person of faith, you know that lying from your heart is just as much a sin as lying directly with false words. I hope, for your sake, that you will consider this.

If I am wrong about this, and you can provide context to prove that your quote supports an anti-evolutionary position, or a position that denies the existence of transitional species, then I will most humbly apologise.

The reason I am so certain that this quote is falsely presented out of context is that I have searched through numerous references to the book, read other quotations from the book, and found absolutely nothing that would support a reading that the author doubts any part of evolution or doubts the existence of transitional species.

[Junior]

Proof positive that 30 seconds on Google will save you hours of humiliation.

[Dimensio]

I'm not a professional, but even I can see that the last sentence is an obvious set-up for a counter. Unfortunately, plugging the quote into a search engine doesn't get anything beyond that, so I cannot examine the full context. I suspect, however, that Dataman also has no access to the full context, and that he is just quote-mining without even considering that his sources may be pulling their information hopelessly out of context.

[js1138]

Actually someone else has done tha quote mining for him, which relieves him of any guilt for lying. However, god sees his heart, and he has now been fully informed that his quotes don't support his position, so any further defense of them will see him frying in hell.

Or perhaps he will go to the original sources, provide enough context to validate his position -- in which case I will crawl over (figurative) broken glass to apologise.

I am quite aware that the charge of lying is serious, and if these authors really reject evolution or reject the existence of intermediate forms, then I will spend the rest of my freeping days apologising.

[Stultis]

But he did distort, and continues to.

Well, yeah, Dataman did distort in the sense that he pretended Patterson was an example of a "professional evolutionist" who admits that "there exists ... no transitional forms". Patterson says that transitional forms cannot be identified (in what he would apparently consider a sufficiently rigorous or acceptable manner) which is not the same as claiming that they don't exist. (Dataman's claim was silly and hyperbolic from the start. Obviously an evolutionist must assert the existence of transitionals.)

But I still do not think that the quote seriously misrepresents Patterson, the exculpatory context provided on the Talk.Origins page not withstanding.

Dataman, you may consider me more fair, but I should say that I don't see that I disagree in substance with your other critics, or with the Talk.Origins page. It's not so much that I'm being easy on you, as I am being a bit harder on Patterson!

[Junior]

However, god sees his heart, and he has now been fully informed that his quotes don't support his position, so any further defense of them will see him frying in hell.

That hasn't stopped G3K and his amazing technicolor dream font (I love that tag line). When one is a Holy Warrior one can get away with things for which lesser mortals would be condemned.

[ALS]

In that case, just imagine them as making you look really really smart.

[AndrewC]

There are plenty of differences around the eye (as I noted) and in the rostrum, the lower jaw, etc. And there is the difference in size, and in habitat (all fossil coelacanths are shallow water species, and many are fresh water; the living genus is a deep ocean species) and adaption thereto.

I would suspect there are more differences between these two animals.

And there is further information on the living coelacanth. Do you have a link describing the differences you described?

In October, 1999, a paper appeared in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences reporting more detailed molecular and morphological analyses of the Sulawesi coelacanth (Holder, M.T., M.V. Erdmann, T.P. Wilcox, R.L. Caldwell and D.M. Hillis. 1999. Two Living Species of Coelacanths? Proc. Nat. Acad. Science 96:12616-12620). Conducted by scientists from the University of Texas, Austin and the University of California at Berkeley, Holder et al. concluded that the Comoran and Sulawesi populations most likely diverged 5.5 million years ago and perhaps as long as 16 million years ago. This is significantly earlier than the 1.2 to 1.4 million years ago suggested by Pouyand et al. The differences are due to sequencing errors made by Pouyand et al. as well as in the way that they calculated the age of divergence. The Texas and Berkeley teams conclude that the molecular evidence suggests that the two populations probably do represent different species. However, when Holder et al. looked at morphological traits reported by Pouyand et al. to differ between the Sulawesi fish and the Comoran population, they did not find them. This is due to the fact that Holder et al. used a larger sample size of Comoran fish which provided a better estimate of the amount of variation that occurs. The definitive answer regarding the relationship of these two populations of Latimeria probably won't be determined until additional Indonesian fish are captured and a more detailed morphological study is completed.

[carenot]

Mice breed like rabbits, so to speak...

Uh, no.
Mice have babies every three weeks.

[Dataman]

I can absolutely tell from the sentence construction of this quote that it is leading up to a "But..."

A transitional form?

Stultis says Obviously an evolutionist must assert the existence of transitionals.

So what is the point?

If evolutionists must assert the existence of transitionals
And the quotes are from evolutionists
Then obviously your evolutionist wasn't really lamenting the lack of transitionals.

IOW, there's no point in pursuing context because an evolutionist must assert the existence of transitionals.

[Dataman]

Logic tells us that it is impossible for life to create itself.

Logic tells us no such thing.

Self-creation is a logical impossibility since the something that was created would have to preexist its own creation in order to create itself. It is therefore a logical impossibility.

Feel free to show us how anything could create itself.

[Lurking Libertarian]

No, the point is that each of the evolutionists you quoted did assert the existence of transitionals, but merely said that transitionals were not found in certain parts of the fossil record. You claimed that they said there were (your words) "no transitionals." So you were wrong.

[Lurking Libertarian]

I would suspect there are more differences between these two animals.

Both of those are the same species. Prehistoric and modern coelacanths are not even in the same genus, much less species.

[Dataman]

referenced

reference

[Stultis]

Do you have a link describing the differences you described?

Nope, just the pictures.

BTW, it's kind of strange, and maybe it's just me, but I don't think I've ever read a message of yours where I had a clear idea of what you were arguing or contending. This one is no exception.

You may have jumped into the thread to late to realize, but the original argument, to which the case of the coelacanth was deemed relevant, was whether there were species that had survived unchanged for hundreds of millions of years. Are you contending that the modern coelacanth should be classified as the same species as one of the fossil forms?