"The ID folks have been whipped, there are no ID people anywhere near science. We've totally obliterated them and they're committing sucide outside the gates.. Creationism is on the run.." LOL - thanks for the laugh.
Posted on 02/26/2006 9:12:24 PM PST by ibme
"Your argument leaves out one important fact in the discussion about evolution that is separate from the mathematical probabilities but equally as relevant.
I'm glad you are removing the discussion from those horribly mutated and grotesque probability calculations. They truly are meaningless.
"1) The moth that you describe is still a moth after it mutated.
As it should. Given the length of time (short, short, short) we have been observing moths it would surprise me if we witnessed a subgroup become something other than moths.
"2)The Canine that you described is still a Canine.
Again, this is not unexpected.
"I contend that Micro evolution is clearly a fact and no scientist has ever and will never prove Macro Evolution, (A dog becoming a Lion) has ever occurred.
That is very good (that a dog has not become a Lion that is).
Part of the problem is in your understanding of what constitutes a species. You seem to believe that speciation requires large 'macro' morphological change. This isn't true. Speciation simply requires a full or partial (but mostly full) cessation of gene flow between two groups, as in sympatric speciation where two groups share a geographical locale but do not exchange genes or allopatric speciation where a species is divided into smaller groups that are separated geographically. As long as the two groups, the parent and daughter, are restricted in intergroup gene flow, any difference in selection type and degree, or drift, will inevitably result in morphological differences. Accumulated small differences do result in large differences.
To see this in action, look up 'ring species' such as the Asian Greenish Warbler (Phylloscopus trochiloides), where two subspecies (Phylloscopus trochiloides viridanus and Phylloscopus trochiloides plumbeitarsus), although they share a geographic range do not interbreed. They are still (arguably) considered the same species (albiet different subspecies) because there exists a potential gene flow through the other three geographically connected subspecies. Remove that potential gene flow and they become different species.
Note: The definition of species is fluid not because taxonomists can't make up their mind (which is sometimes the case) but because in many cases the differences between real live animals are difficult to categorize (think platypus)
The dog population (Canis lupus familiaris) will not become a new species by jumping (a saltation event) to a totally new morphology such as a Lion's (Panthera leo); it (the population) will become a slightly different dog which in turn will become a slightly different dog than its predecessor which in turn will increasingly differentiate from there through a number of generations. Eventually the morphological differences between the original Canis lupus familiaris and the new Canis lupus ?????? will be enough to be recognizably different animals, as different as a dog is to a lion.
What is interesting is the incredible variation between the extremes in extant dogs. If we hadn't witnessed their development and facilitate their interbreeding, they would probably be classified as a number of different species rather than as a number of different subspecies.
These minor changes, which are easily observed, will inevitably result in fairly large morphological differences, enough for even an anti-evolutionist to admit as different 'kinds' (putatively a higher taxon than species). This 'additive or cumulative change' is ubiquitous in things we observe and/or create.
Ex: If we take a white pigment and add just a little green pigment we end up with a pigment that is white with a tinge of green. As we add more and more green pigment eventually what was white will be considered green (maybe with a tinge of white). This is cumulative change. In evolution this would be an accumulation of 'micro' evolutionary changes that amount to a 'macro' evolutionary change.
OK, I can hear it now, the normal anti-evolutionist outcry when confronted with gradual incremental change - 'But it's still a pigment'. Although this analogy (a pigment/dog is still a pigment/dog) is enticing in its conclusion, it really is a false analogy. Consider that a wolf and a lion are still Carnivora, a wolf and a whale are still Mammalia, a wolf and an Angel fish are still Animalia, and a wolf and a maple tree are still Eukaryota.
Which of these is the best analog to the pigments of the above example? If your first impulse is to restrict pigments to species, perhaps the electromagnetic spectrum is a better analog for the higher taxa.
In any case, small additive changes will accumulate into larger differences unless there is a mechanism that bounds the changes. In the case of the electromagnetic spectrum (light) colours are bounded (restricted) by our ability to 'see' them. We can not see all frequencies of light so colours can be said to have an upper and a lower bound, no increase in frequency will result in a different colour beyond our upper limit of vision (~780 nm). Strictly speaking the light simply becomes invisible but it still makes my point - incremental change will accumulate unless some mechanism presents a barrier to that accumulation.
Why should evolutionary change be any different? Because we have not been observing and recording the changes in species long enough to 'see' macro changes? No, the simple observation, or more precisely, the lack of observation is not enough to conclude it will not happen. For us to conclude that accumulation is restricted we need to hypothesize and test for a bounding mechanism. Without that mechanism, we logically have to conclude that accumulated changes will build up to large changes.
"I challenge you to recite one instance where it can be proven scientifically, (Observed) that any species has ever become another species trough evolution.
I challenge you to prove it could not and has not happened.
It is up to you to provide the mechanism that prevents accumulated 'micro' changes from becoming large 'macro' changes. The transitional sequences in the fossil record spanning the large jumps in time we are too transitory to witness, tell us that the small changes we see in extant species (and we do have examples of new species) do indeed accumulate and result in huge change. What we find in DNA verifies this accumulation of change and the relationship of apparently morphologically disparate extant species. (eg. artiodactyls and cetaceans).
"I won't hold my breath!
Good, you'll need to breathe to find that mechanism.
On the contrary, it's a critical component of the driving force behind evolution, to wit, to try to explain the universe absent a Primary Mover.
The other comment wasn't intended as an ad hominem, though I can see how it could be interpreted as such. It was merely an observation.
Nothing I am writing is out of malice. Consider the following: you're in your doctor's office recieving the results of a test against a large hilar mass in your left lung. As a smoker for 40 years, you fear the worst.
The doctor comes in with a grave countenance. "It's a small-cell neuroendocrine carcinoma. These tumors are non- resectable. Here are your options."
"What's the prognosis?" "Without treatment, four months, tops." This is a very serious moment in your life; the doctor does not divulge that this particular cancer has one of the shortest and most aggressive clinical course of all cancers.
Evolution is an aggresive carcinoma that will claim the souls of any who apply it consistently. Smugly confident in their "evidence" (again, interpreted in such a way as to support the a prioiri theory), they choose a lie over the truth in the Word of God.
You will say to me, "Evolution says nothing about God." There are those who try to combine the two, it is true. But in its purest form, evolution is the foundation of atheism, and the latter will consume your soul.
Good luck, I hope you find it.
I believe in logic and the scientific method. Darwinists? OK. What word do you prefer?
The faith I refer to is a faith in "naturalism". Whose adherents believe there is no explanation of the origins of life outside the naturalistic.
If you know of one I am all ears.
You got them strange things down there too? Darn!
Humor me and lay it out. Pretend I'm stupid.
Well said:)
For 75 minutes, the professor mesmerized a standing room only audience as he laid out the remarkably stunning evidence that backs up the scientific understanding of the nature of the universe, and its theoretical underpinnings. Among many other slides he showed, he included the predicted vs. actual measured elemental abundances, the Planck Black Body curve of the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR), on which the actual measured values lie so close to the predicted curve that it is necessary to magnify the error bars on the measured data by a factor of 400 in order to even see them, and the Angular Power Spectrum of the Anisotropies of the CMBR as predicted by the Inflationary variant of the Big Bang cosmology, vs. the actual measured data, which fits the prediction to an extraordinary degree.
After the lecture, I personally thanked the professor for his generosity on driving an hour and a half each way to give the lecture, from which he derived no benefit by giving, and which he had no obligation to give in the first place, all without charging a red cent to do so. And then I came home and saw this thread.
The vast intellectual gulf that exists between what I saw and heard tonight, and what I read in the post that heads up this thread is so vast that words cannot begin to describe it. It is the gulf that lies athwart the divide between reason-based reality and fantasy.
Tonight, I saw the the starkly beautiful and majestic Universe that has been fathomed by scientists who have forced it to reluctantly yielded up its secrets. And then I saw this article that started this thread.
I am stunned beyond words. What utter tripe this is. The contrast is stunning.
See, unless you can recreate the Andromeda galaxy, the Greek army that laid siege to Troy, or Queen Victoria in the lab, you really have no business stating as a fact that those things exist or existed. It's really just reflective of your presuppositions that you insist that their existence is a matter of fact.
The faith I refer to is a faith in "naturalism". Whose adherents believe there is no explanation of the origins of life outside the naturalistic.
I prefer physical anthropologists, geneticists, evolutionary biologists, paleontologists, and a wide variety of other such terms--because those are the folks who are studying and advancing the theory of evolution.
Many believe that the world works according to natural laws, while still believing in a Deity. Catholics, for example, accept the findings of science without seeing a challenge to their faith.
This is why I called you on the term "Darwinist." It is only used by folks coming from a particular belief system, and it is used as a term of derision. (Where have you seen the term "Einsteinist" or "Newtonist" used?)
If you have a specific problem with the theory of evolution, lets talk about it. But lets avoid blanket condemnations--they usually are not very accurate and just serve to fan the flames.
The Hebrew word used means what it means. Because you can stretch it to mean something nonsensical doesn't make it so.
As for the people of New Orleans, no, they didn't need saving in that sense. The world was not coming to an end. Had they been warned, and my understanding is that they were, they could have moved themselves. Many elected not to.
Again, if the world wasn't ending, what was Noah being saved from when he could have just walked elsewhere in plenty of time to get away. The story is, afterall, dealing with the fact that Noah elected to believe God. God didn't need to swindle Noah, lie to him or decieve him into thinking the world was ending. He said plainly he was going to destroy it. Not a region; but, the whole world because it was filled with wickedness. Noah and everyone else had a choice to make right up till the door closed. After that, decisions were final all around.. just like at death. Once that door closes, the decision has been made and you're stuck with it. That's the refreshing thing about God. He says what he means and means what he says. His rule is true, his measure forthright, and his justice complete. Mercy is the offer to allow entry. Justice is not re-opening the door. The scripture is clear. It seems to serve you to muddy it.
" The reality of evolutionary biology .."
No such thing. Biology doesn't rest upon evolution, nor does it rely upon it. It deals with variation - micro, not macro.
And Micro is not unique to evolution. Nice decietful attempt, but no cigar.
Evolution shows common descent -> man is an ape -> man is not a special creation -> the Bible is in error - the Bible is not the word of God.
Geology shows great age in the Earth -> Bible dates are incorrect -> the Bible is in error -> the Bible is not inerrant -> the Bible is not the word of God.
Astronomy shows great age to the universe (great distance + light speed = age) -> see Geology
Cosmology shows the universe to be self created (in a sense) -> God did not create the universe -> there is no need of God -> there is no God.
Seems like Cosmology potentially does more to create non-believers in God. Evolution potentially creates non-believers in the Bible. Now the question is - is the Bible necessary for the belief in God?
Nice spine, girl ;)
See 263.
I'm out for the evening, got some non-CREVO-related research to do. Have a great weekend!
Truly amazing. Nice to have such a match between theory and empirical measurement. Must have been extremely satisfying to the theorists.
But what does this have to do with the topic of the thread?
"The ID folks have been whipped, there are no ID people anywhere near science. We've totally obliterated them and they're committing sucide outside the gates.. Creationism is on the run.." LOL - thanks for the laugh.
Guess that's you're business.. We allies with Patton are headed in after the paper hanger.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.