Posted on 06/03/2013 8:59:40 AM PDT by kimtom
Edited on 06/03/2013 9:01:04 AM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
In the hearts of evolutionary biologists, mountains occupy a special place. It
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
The NY Times says that Evolution is politically correct (except for that bit about inferior races), and they’re sticking to it.
And the interpretations, obviously, are based on assumptions -
was the information necessary for this adaptation to altitude already present in the genetics of humans,
or did, somehow, some random damage to their genetic structure result in usable information that allowed them to adapt to their environment?
“..for this adaptation to altitude already present ..”
Actually it is , in species variations, and adaptation.
Good point
Please describe the difference.
I left MY assumptions out of it.
I just wanted to point out that any interpretation
requires AN assumption.
Too often, the “other side” is blind to the fact that they make assumptions.
The fact that animals can adapt and change to a certain degree is quite different from the idea that all life arose from a single molecule.
Were we to stop where the evidence stops, he would be forced to say that small changes—about which both creationists and evolutionists agree—have not been shown to render “big transformations”
The phenomenon of bacterial drug resistance;
“..regardless of how bacteria acquired their antibiotic resistance (i.e., by mutation, conjugation, or by transposition), they are still exactly the same bacteria after receiving that trait as they were before receiving it. The “evolution” is not vertical macroevolution but horizontal microevolution (i.e., adaptation). In other words, these bacteria “...are still the same bacteria and of the same type, being only a variety that differs from the normal in its resistance to the antibiotic. No new ‘species’ have been produced” (Bowden, 1991, p. 56). In commenting on the changing, or sharing, of genetic material, ReMine has suggested: “It has not allowed bacteria to arbitrarily swap major innovations such as the use of chlorophyll or flagella. The major features of microorganisms fall into well-defined groups that seem to have a nested pattern like the rest of life” (1993, p. 404).
Bowden, M. (1991), Science vs. Evolution (Bromley, Kent, England: Sovereign Publications).
ReMine, Walter J. (1993), The Biotic Message (St. Paul, MN: St. Paul Science).
Seems like a reasonable approach.
The article (unless I missed it) does not address the question of whether newborn babies come into the world already possessing the high-altitude adaptations held by their mothers and fathers.
Or lack thereof.
That distinction is in reality not so simple. Some plants for example are considered separate species but only because the time in which they breed makes them incapable of hybridization. Yet move those two cohorts elsewhere where the weather is different, and they can. Other "species" can produce viable hybrids at the intersection of their respective ranges, but cannot if the genes are pulled from farther apart. The system is far more plastic than has been acknowledged by taxonomy.
Plus, sometimes whether they are considered different species or not depends upon who discovered them. Some scientists are real quick to present a discovery as a separate species despite that fact that it’s almost identical to a previously known species. And then (suprise, suprise) the “discoverer” has the “species” named after him.
Taxonomy is a mess, and now that the geneticists have got hold of it, things are going to get worse. Distinctions useful for management purposes have gone out the window. Nobody will understand what is going on but for the anointed few. Yet there is little doubt that these “scientists” have any idea what the genetic differences discovered actually portend in the field.
So you’re saying that it’s only “evolution” if there is specieization?
If the enemy defines a word then they can lay a trap.
However, if Mr. Guterl had checked his own publication’s archives before he printed his misleading article, he would have discovered that in the November 3, 1980 issue of Newsweek, Jerry Adler went on record as stating: “Evidence from fossils now points overwhelmingly away from the classical Darwinism which most Americans learned in high school: that new species evolve out of existing ones by the gradual accumulation of small changes, each of which helps the organism survive and compete in the environment” (96[18]:95). Nothing in that regard has changed in the more than two decades since Mr. Adler made that statement.
Mr. Guterl made two common mistakes in his article. First, he attributed evidence to Darwin’s theory that it does not (and never will) have. Second, he discussed thirty years of experience by two intelligent scientists who documented minor changes among the various beak sizes and body weights of finches. He then used those minor changes to imply general (amoeba-to-man) evolution, but failed to recognize the fact that those minor changes have built-in limits. The finches never changed into anything other than finches.
Guterl, Fred (2002), “Evolution: Birds Do It,” Newsweek, 139[18]:11, May 6.
Adler, Jerry (1980), “Is Man a Subtle Accident?,” Newsweek, 96[18]:95, November 3.
2002 Apologetics Press, Inc.
I’m not sure I understand. Words mean specific things; do you believe change without specieization does not represent evolution? And how do you define “adaptation”? Are those minor changes that only reflect changes in the environment that an organism lives it?
It’s interesting that you’ve referenced the Adler article. The quote you’ve found so damning is one that is actually used as an example of the type of quote mining done by dishonest apologists as they attempt to refute evolutionary theory. Anyway, I’m a scientist - I don’t get my information from Newsweek.
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.