Posted on 05/26/2012 9:47:00 PM PDT by eekitsagreek
Richard Leakey predicts skepticism over evolution will soon be history.
Not that the avowed atheist has any doubts himself.
Sometime in the next 15 to 30 years, the Kenyan-born paleoanthropologist expects scientific discoveries will have accelerated to the point that "even the skeptics can accept it."
"If you get to the stage where you can persuade people on the evidence, that it's solid, that we are all African, that color is superficial, that stages of development of culture are all interactive," Leakey says, "then I think we have a chance of a world that will respond better to global challenges."
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
Have you thought of posting your response at S.F. Gates website?
If you don't believe in evolution, a posted, rational, argument against that nonsense, might help out a person who may be sitting on the fence.
Or you may at least have others read it at SF Gate that are willing to consider a different world view.
In any case thanks for taking the time to post this response to that foolishness.
Seriously? You obviously don't know much about microbiology, either. One of the biggest public health concerns we face is the fact that microorganisms evolve so quickly that we can never be sure that a new species won't pop up tomorrow and cause widespread disease and death. Have you heard of the Schmallenberg Virus? Brand new species, just evolved (from existing species, of course), and has been causing a lot of fetal and newborn livestock deaths since last summer. It hasn't jumped to humans, and we certainly hope it doesn't.
FYI, there has been enough DNA change in the last 100,000 generations--about 2,000,000 years--for Homo habilis to morph into H. erectus, then into H. heidelbergensis, then into archaic H. sapiens, then into modern H. sapiens (about 200,000 years ago). A few other human species evolved, also, but we're the only one left. Furthermore, H. sapiens has not remained stagnant; we are not the same as our ancestors of 10,000 years ago, and morphological change has been documented among Americans even in the past hundred years or so (hint: morphological change is highly suggestive of genetic change).
Pointing to two different fossils and claiming evolution is not proving it.
Loudly insisting that evolution doesn't occur, or calling it by different words like "microevolution" or "adaptation" doesn't make evolution--or the mountains of evidence showing it--go away.
You have the same access to Google that I have.
I'm not going to explain again how the concept of "transition" fossils is a red herring--because the only way to have every transitional form is to have an example of every generation. It's not my problem if you look at a fossil lineage--one that has been nicely set out for you in order, with explanations--and still are unable to see the evolutionary relationships.
Science isn't based on opinion. It's based on rigorous experimentation and painstaking analysis of the data. There's nothing to agree or disagree about here--either you know and understand the science, or you don't.
Every time you post a link and I explain what I get from it you accuse me of pretending to be more educated than I am.
Every time I have posted a link, you've bent over backwards to try to interpret it as something other than what it is. And you have tried to claim that you know about science, even while making some remarkably, astoundingly unscientific statements.
Who's promising miracles? You keep claiming that evolution is the key to all our understanding.
Oh, this one is easy. Just Google "creationist websites", and the first few hits are those that are promising miracles. Oh, yes, if you'll just donate some money to them or buy their anti-science books, they promise to take away all your doubts about your faith and give you a ticket to heaven. Of course, the reality is that the more they claim that, somehow, proving evolution is equivalent to proving that God does not exist, or that Jesus did not die on the cross for us, the more they make you doubt your faith, for the simple reason that evidence of evolution is ubiquitous and just won't go away. I read about a man who completely rejected Christianity and became an atheist because his creationist parents taught him that evidence of evolution is proof that God doesn't exist. He's probably just one of many like that.
And while those creationist charlatans are offering you heaven (in exchange for your money), all *I* can offer is a better understanding of biology (because evolution *is* the key to understanding biology). And *maybe* that better understanding of biology will help to cure people of disease... well, some diseases aren't curable, but maybe we can help you live with them... well, we can't always do that, either... but at least, we can make people more comfortable so they don't die in pain.
Um... evolution proceeds through the accumulation of DNA changes, aka mutation. You simply cannot talk about mutation and pretend it has nothing to do with evolution, any more than you can talk about architecture and pretend it has nothing to do with building construction. And there are plenty of scientists who *do* wonder what will happen to a population if they put selective pressure on it. Oh, yeah--since literal creationists place so much emphasis on the word "species", I'll just point out that it *is* pretty much a human concept, and one that is not easy to define in a scientific manner. If the offspring of A+B is fertile, and the offspring of B+C is fertile, but the offspring of A+C is sterile, then where do you draw the species line? It gets even trickier with bacteria--they give DNA to each other whether they belong to the same (human defined) species or not.
Trait selection works on already-present genes. No matter how many dogs I cross I am never going to get something that is not a dog.
Sure. And every one of these dog breeds looks exactly like the original wild dogs < /sarcasm >. Dog breeds look so different from each other because they have genes that never existed in wild dogs, because their genes mutated and humans made sure they survived. From a scientific point of view, I would call teacup poodles and great danes different species--they certainly can't breed together, so they fit the definition.
You know corn, that yummy yellow grain that we use for so many things? The corn species does not exist in the wild. It exists because humans 10,000 or so years ago started selectively breeding a kind of wild grass, and they ended up with a whole new species, corn.
It is a mutation or variation of an existing strain. Slapping a label on a run of the mill change does not make the case for large scale changes needed to develop a new cellular system or change from one species to a new one.
FYI, there has been enough DNA change in the last 100,000 generations--about 2,000,000 years--for Homo habilis to morph into H. erectus, then into H. heidelbergensis, then into archaic H. sapiens, then into modern H. sapiens (about 200,000 years ago).
Funny how the only thing you can quantify are speculative looks into the past. I am talking about actually seeing the same scale of changes that you speculate in man over the last 100,000 generations take place in bacteria over 20 years (100,000 generations). I only know about variations within a species that are probably just selection of genes already present by the use of antibiotics.
Examine anything besides evolution and this is what you find. Evolution is hampered because anyone who poses a difficult question (like Behe) gets labeled a charlatan and is ignored.
Every time I have posted a link, you've bent over backwards to try to interpret it as something other than what it is. And you have tried to claim that you know about science, even while making some remarkably, astoundingly unscientific statements.
I merely pointed out that the link you posted contained the same information from the link I posted. My link stressed the problems with RNA self-replication, your link merely mentioned them. I have to explain complicated engineering issues to people with management and business backgrounds all the time. Their lack of technical expertise doesn't render them stupid. They can't do my job, but trying to mislead or talk down to them is extremely career limiting.
You are basically frustrated that I am not intimidated by your "science medicine man" act. I spent roughly ten years working with and for scientists. Nothing sets off people's BS alert faster than when you pull that act.
all *I* can offer is a better understanding of biology (because evolution *is* the key to understanding biology).
Saying it doesn't make it so. Since evolution is operating at the DNA level and you have vanishingly little of it for older organisms, I really don't see how you can say that. Of course in your eyes doubting you makes me stupid, unscientific, and dishonest.
Your theology is even worse than your evolution arguments.
Mutation does not prove evolution. I can witness a child playing with legos, but that doesn't mean he is building a skyscraper.
Dog breeds look so different from each other because they have genes that never existed in wild dogs, because their genes mutated and humans made sure they survived.
Are you sure about that? How do you know selective breeding is not just expressing different genes? You know the function of what, two percent of the genetic code? You really can't rule out much with that little knowledge, yet you are making grand leaps of faith and putting on ever bigger hats to frighten the natives.
It exists because humans 10,000 or so years ago started selectively breeding a kind of wild grass, and they ended up with a whole new species, corn.
That is hardly an example of random mutation and natural selection. That is an example of crossing two plants with desirable qualities to increase that trait. The genes already exist, they just aren't expressed. The random crossing in nature is preserving lots of genetic information, but not strongly expressing much of it.
A mutation is, by definition, a change in DNA. DNA change is inevitable and continuous.
Evolution occurs through the process of accumulations of changes in DNA. Evolution is, therefore, inevitable and continuous.
The idea that evolution can only happen if a whole new biological system appears fully formed and functional is a literal creationist straw man. That particular straw man does, however, sound suspiciously like that Genesis story--you know, the one where, suddenly and simultaneously, every single plant and animal species sprang out of the mud, fully formed and functional.
I find it ironic that literal creationists try to discredit evolution by saying it acts just like creation (which pretty much convinces me that they don't literally believe the creation story, either).
Funny how the only thing you can quantify are speculative looks into the past. I am talking about actually seeing the same scale of changes that you speculate in man over the last 100,000 generations take place in bacteria over 20 years (100,000 generations). I only know about variations within a species that are probably just selection of genes already present by the use of antibiotics.
So fossils are imaginary? You feel that all science is just a matter of belief--that the radioisotope dating methods are just peculiar religious rituals, akin to saying the Lord's Prayer in church? I guess, in your mind, physics, geology, astronomy, and chemistry are *all* just alternate religions. Those are *all* components of the evolutionary process...
I see that your math skills are as strong as your science skills--100,000 bacterial generations takes:
> 100,000 generations x 20 minutes/generation = 2,000,000 minutes
> (2,000,000 minutes) / (60 minutes/hour) = 33,333.33 hours
> (33,333.33 hours) / (24 hours/day) = 1,389 days
> (1,389 days) / (365 days/year) = 3.8 years
Considering the lengths I go to to avoid the effects of evolution in my bacterial experiments--I try to do the whole experiment within about 60 generations, or about 18 hours--and even within that time, I can see enough mutation (aka evolution) to adversely effect my experiments--I would say that if I were to keep a bacterial culture growing for nearly 4 years, the bacteria at the end would be enough different that they could be considered a different species.
BTW, using antibiotics to select bacteria allows bacteria with certain mutations to survive, while killing off the unmutated bacteria. By definition, the bacteria remaining after the selection have evolved. In a relatively short time, by applying selective pressures, I can end up with bacteria that, by any *scientific* criteria, are not the same species as the starting bacteria.
Evolution occurs through the process of accumulations of changes in DNA. Evolution is, therefore, inevitable and continuous.
I could say the same thing about my checking account, but I am unlikely to ever find a million dollars in it. No one has ever demonstrated that those mutations are going anywhere. You are extrapolating and assuming the observations you see today explain the observations you cook out of the fossil record. But you haven't shown that to be the case.
The idea that evolution can only happen if a whole new biological system appears fully formed and functional is a literal creationist straw man.
That "straw man" only exists because you are assuming something happened that you can only explain in principle, not in detail. We are all fully aware that these things have to evolve one tiny step at a time, but since you are incapable of detailing those steps even in hypothesis, I lack the faith you have.
So fossils are imaginary? You feel that all science is just a matter of belief--that the radioisotope dating methods are just peculiar religious rituals, akin to saying the Lord's Prayer in church?
My kids enjoy visiting fossil exhibits very much. Among evolutionists, that is probably an accurate portrayal.
I see that your math skills are as strong as your science skills--100,000 bacterial generations takes:
Lenski has been studying E. coli for 20 years and supposedly has taken them through 50,000 generations. Lenski Long Term E. coli experiment.
Here is the point: From homo habilis to homo sapiens required massive changes in human DNA you can't even quantify (such as tripling brain volume). In a similar number of generations, Lenski has only estimated 10-20 beneficial mutations. And much of those "mutations" are specialized adaptation to the experimental environment that ultimately would prove harmful if the bacteria were re-introduced to a more natural environment. It is very likely his strains would die back and what would be left would not be remarkably different than "wild" strains.
Evolosers (as I refer to them) view the scarcity of competing theories as evidence for their own cause ("What are you gonna REPLACE it (evolution/evoloserism) with)??
My own response is, just about anything, since you could hardly do worse than a brain-dead ideological docrine requiring a trans-finite series of probabilistic miracles and which demands that you view your neighbor as a meat-byproduct of random/stochastic processes.
The thing I normally tell those fools to replace the doctrine with is any sort of an old Coasters album from around 1959 or thereabouts with a cut of "Run, Red, Run" on it. Run, Red Run amounts to a process of transforming a monkey into a man which involves nothing more than a simple process of education and assimilation, and Occam's principle demands that it be favored over evolution:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RdVMQbZwP-0
Etc., etc., etc. It is obvious that you do not want to acknowledge that the efforts of thousands of scientists over hundreds of years actually led to a fairly sophisticated understanding of the forces that shape the biological world. I know that no matter how many facts or how much evidence is presented, you will refuse to understand them. Your objections are emotion-based, and are neither factual nor logical.
That "straw man" only exists because you are assuming something happened that you can only explain in principle, not in detail. We are all fully aware that these things have to evolve one tiny step at a time, but since you are incapable of detailing those steps even in hypothesis, I lack the faith you have.
You are still asking for several volumes of details to be condensed into a couple of sentences, which I cannot do. If you want the details on the evolution of a specific trait or system, I suggest you do your own homework. Or go and get a PhD by researching the evolution of a specific trait--I even already gave you a workable research plan. I describe the general principles because *those* can be condensed down to a few sentences; the fact that I don't attempt to condense the specifics of thousands of articles into a few sentences does not mean I do not know what I am talking about (as you suggest), or that I have some kind of "faith" in some imaginary religion of "evolutionism."
Lenski has been studying E. coli for 20 years and supposedly has taken them through 50,000 generations. Lenski Long Term E. coli experiment.
Your link was bad (but I got to the site anyway). Lenski grows his bacteria in selective media, which explains the slow generation time. E. coli, when provided with all of their growth needs, divide once every twenty minutes. While you try to discount the evolutionary forces working on those bacteria as merely being "specialized adaptation", his experiment demonstrates quite a few things about evolutionary processes.
Point one: "adaptation" is really a misleading word. If mechanisms for adaptation are already encoded into the DNA, then adaptation will occur--for instance, when people gain weight, they adapt by growing more skin. The bacteria mutated; those with mutations conferring a survival advantage in the selective environment survived.
Point two: the charlatans who make money by selling people on "creation science" use the word "adaptation" instead of evolution to convey the impression that they're being completely biblical *and* scientific. "Adaptation" is not in the Bible, nor is it scientific the way they use the word.
Point three: most DNA mutations are invisible without molecular analysis (i.e. sequencing). The Lenski study, as described in the Wikipedia article, mostly described phenotypic changes. Under the experimental conditions, those phenotypic changes are uniquely due to DNA mutations.
Here is the point: From homo habilis to homo sapiens required massive changes in human DNA you can't even quantify (such as tripling brain volume). In a similar number of generations, Lenski has only estimated 10-20 beneficial mutations. And much of those "mutations" are specialized adaptation to the experimental environment that ultimately would prove harmful if the bacteria were re-introduced to a more natural environment. It is very likely his strains would die back and what would be left would not be remarkably different than "wild" strains.
We can quantify the changes between humans, and our closest living relative, the chimpanzees. Our DNA is ~96% similar; there are an estimated 40 million differences between the genomes. Many of those differences take the form of gene duplications; the number of actual base changes accounts for only ~1.2% of the genome. This is not an astronomical number, especially when considering chimps and humans diverged from a common ancestor around 5 or 6 million years ago. It certainly did not, as you put it, require "massive changes in human DNA you can't even quantify."
Whether or not those bacteria would survive if introduced back into the environment where E. coli are normally found, the gut, is irrelevant. The Wiki article pointed out that during the course of the experiment, probably every single point mutation that can occur has occurred (meaning they don't have any of the original genome left). In other words, the bacteria evolved (which happens spontaneously), and the selective media were used to show the effects of evolution. It's highly improbable that any ancestral-type bacteria would survive.
As for the estimate that only 10-20 mutations were beneficial, that scales up to nearly 700 beneficial mutations for humans in the same number of generations (or roughly one million years). And that doesn't count the larger number of neutral mutations, or the small number of harmful mutations which, for various reasons, are not always eliminated from the population.
...
As for the estimate that only 10-20 mutations were beneficial, that scales up to nearly 700 beneficial mutations for humans in the same number of generations (or roughly one million years).
...
As for the estimate that only 10-20 mutations were beneficial, that scales up to nearly 700 beneficial mutations for humans in the same number of generations (or roughly one million years).
Let me guess... you think you found a contradiction?
The mechanism of evolution is change in DNA. That's all. The changes don't have to be beneficial, and most of them aren't.
You have not done that, not even once. You guys are trying to treat science like history, for one thing. It doesn't work that way. Until you can demonstrate it and reproduce it, you haven't really gone beyond speculation. Historians know what happened and speculate about why. You are still at the point of speculating what happened.
If you could spend five minutes without scrawling "then a miracle happens" across the middle of your page evolution would be scientific. You can't do that.
Even in the work I had to dig up, the researcher is postulating a mechanism of mutation rather than selection and expression.
What is really laughable is your assertion that different breeds of dogs represent evolution. This is something man did simply by selecting traits and recombining them to strengthen gene expression.
Do you even realize how ridiculous the argument is that the extensively documented and investigated process of evolution happens so slowly that eternity isn't long enough to see it happen, while simultaneously claiming that the unscientific *and* unbiblical process of "adaptation" happens several orders of magnitude faster than evolution? DNA mutation--the driving force of evolution--happens in every cell in your body, countless times every day, all by itself.
You have not done that, not even once. You guys are trying to treat science like history, for one thing. It doesn't work that way. Until you can demonstrate it and reproduce it, you haven't really gone beyond speculation. Historians know what happened and speculate about why. You are still at the point of speculating what happened.
Do not assume that because you don't know the extensive and painstaking work it took to establish every single fact I have presented here, that we scientists are just making stuff up out of the blue. Treating science like history--what a bunch of claptrap. You can't just pick up a book and find all the answers; in science, you have to actually make hypotheses and test them. Yes, there is still a lot we don't know--but that does not mean we are still "speculating" about what happened with all those fossils. We know what happened; we're just filling in the details.
If you could spend five minutes without scrawling "then a miracle happens" across the middle of your page evolution would be scientific. You can't do that.
I have not claimed "then a miracle happens", ever. Those supposed "miracles" are, in fact, gaps in your knowledge. Once you figure out what is in those gaps, those "miracles" will disappear.
Even in the work I had to dig up, the researcher is postulating a mechanism of mutation rather than selection and expression.
Do you mean, in that Wikipedia article about that long-running bacterial growth experiment? He actually didn't "postulate" a "mechanism of mutation rather than selection and expression." What he did was hypothesize the kinds of mutations that led to the phenotypes he saw--hypotheses which are easily testable, through sequencing the bacterial genomes.
Try to understand, this is all basic molecular biology: mutation happens constantly, and spontaneously. Most of the time, mutations are repaired correctly; sometimes, they are not. Most DNA mutations are completely invisible, because most DNA is junk. But DNA also contains genes. Genes contain the coding for proteins. A mutation in a gene, therefore, causes a change in a protein. A change in a protein causes a change in phenotype--the appearance of the organism. When we talk about evolution, we talk about the change in phenotype, which we can see--but it *always* results from a change in the DNA. And the DNA *always* evolves faster than the phenotype, because so much of the DNA is junk.
Evolution *always* occurs. Selective pressures *always* exist, whether they pressure a population into maintaining equilibrium, or they push a population towards establishing a new equilibrium suitable for the new environment.
What is really laughable is your assertion that different breeds of dogs represent evolution. This is something man did simply by selecting traits and recombining them to strengthen gene expression.
No, what is laughable is your attempt at trying to avoid believing that thousands of highly skilled scientists could actually be correct in their observations. I'm sorry, but no matter how much you try, you cannot argue the scientific description of the world out of existence, or argue the physical world into being something else.
Every time you come up with another objection to the scientific facts, you only succeed in convincing me that your science education is severely lacking. You will never convince me that the science is wrong--something about spending years studying and doing research in pursuit of my PhD gave me a lot of confidence in just how correct the science is. I also suspect that your strong objection to science is not because of the science at all--you object because young earth creationist charlatans (who want your money) convinced you that science and religion are mutually exclusive. They aren't. They are different, and have different purposes--but no one has to make a choice between them.
Funny. Real funny. If your cells were changing that fast it would kill you in short order. Chaos does not beget order. Adaptation is real. Traits exist in populations. Place pressure on a population that favors a trait and it will become more prevalent in the population. It is really just another way of saying "natural selection" but because I am not in your club and don't wear a funny hat, you don't recognize it.
We know what happened; we're just filling in the details.
Really? You have traced the actual incremental changes from one species to another at the genetic level? You have identified all the transitional forms between two species? You have worked out the evolutionary path for biochemical processes in the cell and repeated them?
Once you figure out what is in those gaps, those "miracles" will disappear.
You can't fill in the gaps. You haven't argued with Behe, you just voted him off your island. Every time you post something and I point out a problem with it, the issue is not the flaw in the example, but I am just not smart enough to get it. At least with my faith I don't have to leap across gaping logic chasms that you evolutionists need to cross.
Most DNA mutations are completely invisible, because most DNA is junk.
It takes a special kind of arrogance to dismiss anything beyond your understanding as trash. It is the mistake you "priesthood" scientists make again and again because your "science" is not true science, it is religion. How many times has "science" dismissed what it doesn't understand only to discover the truth later? As real science unravels more and more, we find that the things we sought to ignore were the richest ground of all for discovery.
Inquisitiveness drives science. A real scientist does not disregard what he doesn't understand, he studies it. Evolutionist throw away what they don't understand because it threatens their faith.
I also suspect that your strong objection to science is not because of the science at all--you object because young earth creationist charlatans (who want your money) convinced you that science and religion are mutually exclusive.
That is your straw man, not mine. I dislike religious belief wrapped in scientific trappings, which is one of the reasons I have no tolerance for evolution.
"Adaptation" is a young-earth creationist invention, which resembles evolution just enough so that they can fool their target audience into thinking that whatever they hear about evolution can be explained away as "adaptation". The charlatans know perfectly well that their target audience does not have the scientific training to be able to evaluate anything they say.
The reason you survive despite the countless mutations that constantly happen in every one of your cells, is that you have extensive and redundant DNA repair mechanisms. Those mechanisms are not 100% accurate, however, which is why people tend to get diseases like cancer as they get older and more mutations accumulate.
When you go out in the sunlight, UV rays cause a very specific kind of DNA damage called "pyrimidine-pyrimidine dimers." You have an enzyme that exists for no other purpose than to fix that kind of damage. Sometimes, when that enzyme removes the damaged DNA, the wrong nucleotides are put into the gap, changing the DNA sequence at that position. That's a mutation, and it can lead to cancer. That's why experts recommend against allowing yourself to get sunburned (more damage = more chances to mess up the repair and introduce mutations).
There are children who have mutations in the gene that encodes that repair enzyme. When they are exposed to sunlight, their cells cannot repair the DNA damage, and they develop lesions wherever the sunlight touched them. They must spend their lives in artificial light, and can never go outside during the day. This disease is called xeroderma pigmentosum. Most of these children do not live to adulthood.
Populations only gain and lose traits because of DNA mutations. Genetic drift--the major component of evolution--happens because of the cumulative effect of gain and loss of traits over time.
Really? You have traced the actual incremental changes from one species to another at the genetic level? You have identified all the transitional forms between two species? You have worked out the evolutionary path for biochemical processes in the cell and repeated them?
The whole problem with "transitional forms" is that, short of tracing a family tree all the way back to the first common ancestor of all life, it is impossible to identify every transitional form. Any time a transition between A and B is found, then there must be a transition between A and A.5, and another between A.5 and B. So that's a young-earth creationist red herring, devised for the purpose of convincing scientifically naive people that there's a huge flaw in evolutionary theory, because there are always more transitional forms to be found.
Much of what we know about science is arrived at through indirect means. That's true of any science, not just biology. One of the most powerful tools we have for working out evolutionary paths is through phylogenetic analysis. Take the taxonomic tree of any particular group of organisms you want, preferably one where all of the members of the group have been extensively researched. Look at the fossil record to see the evolutionary relationships between the members of that group. Now, choose a couple of genes, any two that you want. I wouldn't choose more than that, because this kind of analysis is very time consuming. Download the DNA sequence for each of those genes from every species in your selected group from Genbank. Format those sequences in a text file, and upload them into ClustalW (just Google "ClustalW" for the program; it's on a mainframe server and does not install on your computer). Tell it to make phylogenetic trees from the sequences. Compare those trees and the taxonomic trees; you will see that they are nearly identical. This result only happens because of the way evolution works--if mutation A occurred in population 1, but not 2, then only descendents of population 1 will have that mutation. If population 1 splits into 1.1 and 1.2, and 1.1 develops mutation B, then only populations descended from 1.1 will have both mutations A and B; populations from 1.2 will only have A, and populations from 2 will have neither. And so on. And yes, to answer your question, I have done several of these analyses. I've given you enough information to do that kind of analysis yourself.
You can't fill in the gaps. You haven't argued with Behe, you just voted him off your island. Every time you post something and I point out a problem with it, the issue is not the flaw in the example, but I am just not smart enough to get it. At least with my faith I don't have to leap across gaping logic chasms that you evolutionists need to cross.
As I've already pointed out, Behe's history speaks for itself. His PubMed record is clear--not much research, certainly nothing that would prove evolution does not happen--and a pretty undistinguished career as a professor. Your defense of him seems emotion-based; it certainly isn't based on his C.V.
The reason that I have rejected your explanation of every single "problem" you have "pointed out" is that the very way you "point out" such "flaws" makes it clear that you do not have any formal scientific training. DNA mutation, for instance, is such a basic and common process that it's discussed even in introductory biology classes; when you to try to deny that DNA mutation even happens, I am as dumbfounded as if you were seriously trying to deny that the square root of 16 is 4.
It takes a special kind of arrogance to dismiss anything beyond your understanding as trash. It is the mistake you "priesthood" scientists make again and again because your "science" is not true science, it is religion. How many times has "science" dismissed what it doesn't understand only to discover the truth later? As real science unravels more and more, we find that the things we sought to ignore were the richest ground of all for discovery.
Beyond my understanding? Are you referring to my calling most DNA "junk"? Well--considering that most DNA exists to fill space, and that the sequence of space-filling DNA is pretty much irrelevant--the scientific term "junk DNA" is apt, and I see no reason to avoid its use.
I do not, as you assert, claim to be part of a "priesthood"--no scientist does. If we were so jealous of our knowledge, no scientist would bother taking the time to try to educate people and get them interested in science, and we wouldn't make such an effort to publish our findings so that they are accessible to everyone. If you perceive that we are somehow hiding knowledge, it isn't because we haven't made it available. It's because you refuse to believe any fact that contradicts your belief that life, the universe, and everything were created out of nothing ~6,000 years ago.
I will be honest: I think it is horrible that some people are so emotionally attached to the belief that either Genesis is literal, or God does not exist. There is no reason to believe that religion and science are mutually exclusive--even the Pope says they aren't. Most religious people accept the scientific idea that the earth is spherical and revolves around the sun; most religious people accept the scientific theory that many diseases are caused by germs and are not the will of God. If you can accept those unbiblical views, then why not accept the scientific view of evolution?
BTW, if scientists like me--who spend years studying chemistry, physics, mathematics, and biology, and doing hundreds of experiments while earning our PhDs--don't do "real science", then who does?
Yes, but in that case the mutation goes nowhere and does nothing. Pointing it out isn't making a point. Everyone knows DNA can be damaged and repaired, and the repair job is not always perfect. You really should stop assuming people are stupid or ignorant because they disagree with you.
Populations only gain and lose traits because of DNA mutations. Genetic drift--the major component of evolution--happens because of the cumulative effect of gain and loss of traits over time.
Traits can be lost or suppressed if the population faces a pressure that deselects it. It isn't a mutation that makes it go away, it is the environment.
Similarly, a trait that is suppressed in the general population can become dominant if a portion of the population is cutoff and the pressure against a trait is removed. There is no need to even cite mutations unless they are positively identified by showing the trait did not exist in the population previously.
The whole problem with "transitional forms" is that, short of tracing a family tree all the way back to the first common ancestor of all life, it is impossible to identify every transitional form.
So you are in effect asking us to ignore your lack of evidence. Not that this is the only piece of evidence you are lacking. The truth of the matter is that everything you label "transitional" is just another species that resembles two other species.
One of the most powerful tools we have for working out evolutionary paths is through phylogenetic analysis.
That doesn't tell you that one species evolved from another. That they are morphologically and genetically similar does not mean one evolved from or to another. If you have ever watched an engineer work you will see them reuse solutions over and over again. You could line their work up and claim it auto-evolved with the same kinds of evidence.
Your defense of him seems emotion-based; it certainly isn't based on his C.V.
You might as well tell me that his feather crest is the wrong hue. Irelevent. The most ignorant, toothless, backwoods hick could point out that we don't understand the mechanism of gravity and he would be right. We understand a tremendous amount about how it is manifested, and we have many was for describing how it affects the universe, but on a fundamental level we don't understand it.
...when you to try to deny that DNA mutation even happens...
False. You really can't resist assuming I am a drooling idiot, can you?
Beyond my understanding? Are you referring to my calling most DNA "junk"? Well--considering that most DNA exists to fill space, and that the sequence of space-filling DNA is pretty much irrelevant--the scientific term "junk DNA" is apt, and I see no reason to avoid its use.
In one hundred years, biologists will snort in derision at this comment. Many are already starting to realize that this is an assumption made in ignorance.
I do not, as you assert, claim to be part of a "priesthood"--no scientist does.
You would never claim it, but you certainly act it. When you dismiss questions, such as Behe's without addressing it because you do not recognize that he has the standing to ask it, you are acting like a tribal shaman. I really don't care if Behe is a biologist or a sheep herder. You do. I care about the question. You don't.
There is no reason to believe that religion and science are mutually exclusive
I never said that. I said that your theory is bad science (in fact, it resembles a religion). Why do you keep trying to turn this into a Judeo-Christian religious discussion?
BTW, if scientists like me--who spend years studying chemistry, physics, mathematics, and biology, and doing hundreds of experiments while earning our PhDs--don't do "real science", then who does?
Two words: Global Warming. Entire industries based on a "scientific" proposition that is laughable on its face.
The problem is not that you're "disagreeing" with me. The problem is that you're loudly denying the nature of reality. I have not expressed a single debatable opinion about the nature of DNA, how it works, how evolution proceeds, etc. Everything I have said is based on solid evidence painstakingly assembled by thousands of scientists for well over 100 years.
Populations only gain and lose traits because of DNA mutations. Genetic drift--the major component of evolution--happens because of the cumulative effect of gain and loss of traits over time.
Traits can be lost or suppressed if the population faces a pressure that deselects it. It isn't a mutation that makes it go away, it is the environment.
Similarly, a trait that is suppressed in the general population can become dominant if a portion of the population is cutoff and the pressure against a trait is removed. There is no need to even cite mutations unless they are positively identified by showing the trait did not exist in the population previously.
I repeated the statement about mutations, because it is an important point that you still don't seem to grasp.
Let's go to very basic Introductory Genetics.
Traits are encoded in genes in the DNA.
I have not expressed a single opinion here. Everything I have said is supported by mountains of evidence, painstakingly gathered and documented for well over 100 years. One cannot "agree" or "disagree"; the only possibility here is to accept or reject the evidence. Rejecting it, of course, does not make it disappear.
Anyway, I can't specifically address the rest of your post, I have to go to work. Where, no doubt, I'll be reading about the challenges presented by the ongoing evolution of pathogenic microbes.
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.