Posted on 06/24/2005 4:07:28 AM PDT by PatrickHenry
USFQ (Universidad San Francisco de Quito) hosted the World Summit on Evolution from June 9-12 at the island of San Cristóbal in the Galapagos Archipelago. This one-of-a-kind conference brought together the world’s most prominent biologists to discuss and debate what is evolution, the different fields of study, and what are the future horizons for evolution biology. This conference was unique because it compromised all subfields of evolution from microbes to humans, plus participants came from all around the world (more than 20 countries represented).
The format was also special because it consisted of a presentation given by a speaker followed by a talk given by a commentator in the same field. Once all speakers and commentators presented their work a discussion was opened to the public. This procedure created a unique mechanism of feedback and interaction among all participants.
During the various sessions speakers, commentators and session chairs debated old and new ideas. In some cases participants called for a radical reorganization of approaches to their subfield, i.e., sexual selection (Roughgarden) and genetic drift (Provine). Others such as developmental biologists (Wagner) talked about how they are able to answer centuries-old questions of morphological evolution using genetic techniques. Other ideas debated were: early evolution (Lazcano, Mexico), lateral gene transfer in microbes, selection in natural populations (Peter and Rosemary Grant, USA), selection at multiple levels (Avilés, Ecuador), and symbiogenesis (Margulis, USA).
Graduate students were also an integral part of the conference. Students from outside Ecuador were chosen from lists submitted by the speakers, among them six Ecuadorean students were included. Funding provided by the National Science Foundation (NSF) made it possible for more than two dozen students attend the conference and present their recent research in a poster session.
The success of this conference lies in the broad impacts it will offer the world regarding evolution theory, research and its diffusion. All speakers and commentators agreed the need for a dissemination of all the ideas and research presented at the event. Carlos Montúfar (USFQ) and Antonio Lazcano are leading the group that will edit a volume containing the proceedings of this meeting. As a corollary, many scientists including the NSF made a call for more diffusion of evolution theory in US schools to combat the rise of Intelligent Design Theory. As Michael Shermer, who gave a vivid and controversial talk on the rhetoric that this movement employs, put it, “IDT [Intelligent Design Theory] is nothing more than creationism under the guise of pseudo-science.”
As a summary of the impacts of this conference it is clear the need for future conferences on evolution that will address specific problems in evolution biology, as well as developing strategies to deal with creationism and Intelligent Design Theory in schools and at a public level. Furthermore, several academic institutions, among them the University of Illinois, sealed cooperation agreements with USFQ (GAIAS) to do research in the islands.
A video documentary of this conference is being produced by John Feldman and Hummingbird Films with cooperation of the College of Communication and Contemporary Arts of USFQ. This documentary to be released in the US by the end of this year gathers interviews with scientists such as Will Provine, Richard Michod, Frank Sulloway, Antonio Lazcano, Peter and Rosemary Grant, Geoff McFadden, Joan Roughgarden, Daniel Dennett, and Laura Katz who discuss the major questions of evolution from their subfields.
Rarely have so many experts been gathered to discuss their views and projections within an area of study. It is expected that this documentary will become a long lasting document of the state of evolution at the beginning of the 21st century.
The World Evolution Summit 2005 is a project of Universidad San Francisco de Quito (USFQ) and its Galapagos Academic Institute for the Arts and Sciences (GAIAS), established in 2002. This meeting was made possible thanks to the collaboration of private businesses such as OCP Ecuador S. A., Hilton Hotels, Metropolitan Touring, Time Warner Cable, Skeptic Magazine, and public and cultural institutions such as the National Science Foundation (NSF), UNESCO, WQLN, NPR, Ecuadorian Government, Ecuadorean Ministry of Tourism, and the Consul of Ecuador in Turkey.
It's gold leaf, you Philistine!
Not historical in the sense of occurring in the past 5000 years. The natural record is kind of thin, which would be expected in the nature of living organisms to devour everything devourable.
Actually, I don't believe anything you put forth was a theory per the Scientific Method and as you were unable to refute what I posted, I find it interesting that you make this claim. However, I am more than willing to examine this "theory of evolution"; just post it here. I am just a humble sort and know you will afford me this courtesy.
but you then came up with some artificially contrived version of what a theory has to look like.
Once again false, I don't do artificial contrivance. I simply and straightforwardly applied the Scientific Method; so unless you consider the Scientific Method "artificially contrived" you statement is vacuous. I don't interpret it, just apply it.
I determined from your response that you would be unable to accept anything I could present as a scientific theory.
Once again, I believe I was very honest in my willingness to examine any theory you might propose (still haven't seen a theory), and expose it to the rigors of the Scientific Method. Your interpretation of my response was also in error; if you are able to present a valid "theory of evolution" that passes the rigors of the Scientific Method; I will be more than willing to accept it (as I previously stated). In any case, I am more than willing to entertain whatever "theory of evolution" you wish to put forth at this time.
WhiteKnight
Its knot the the misteak.
Later, after we get that big NIH grant, we can replace the silver with gold; gold doesn't tarnish.
Singing, "Hey, Ho! Buckets of Gold.
"Here's to the Science to which we're devoted."
Singing, "Hey, Ho! Buckets of Gold.
"Heres to the Public which keep us Banknoted."
Only blind faith is without doubt.
Thank you for that opening. It was actually looking at the evidence that forced me to discontinue believing in evolution. And that is exactly what evolution is: a belief system.
Reading poofs will do that to ya.
As this is a different subject, I have decided to tackle it separately. The "criteria" you speak of is not mine, but is verbatim from the Scientific Method; therefore you are incorrect on the very basics of your statement. If this is untrue, I await your proof of your statement. In other words, your claiming something to be true without a reasonable argument, example or proof, is specious. As you did not offer the aforementioned proof, I can only assume you were incapable and therefore your post is once again, vacuous.
WhiteKnight
Okay, you when, were's the A-1?
From The Woodstock of Evolution
Natural selection does not shape an adaptation or cause a gene to spread over a population or really do anything at all. It is instead the result of specific causes: hereditary changes, developmental causes, ecological causes, and demography. Natural Selection is the result of these causes, not a cause that is by itself. It is not a mechanism.
Provine’s White Whale is the theory of random genetic drift, and it tasks him. It is not random, he said.
The random assortment of chromosomes at meiosis is deterministic. What is the deterministic random number generator that produces random genetic drift? Random binomial sampling. Substitute inbreeding for random drift and then everything makes sense. Frequency of alleles at an individual locus drift, that is, they change in frequencies randomly. Linkage and recombination are ignored. Random drift is independent at each locus. When population size is small, the random drift is greater. Inbreeding and random drift are measured by the same variable, the inbreeding coefficient, F. Inbreeding increases frequency changes.
After providing numerous examples, Provine then concluded:
Random sampling from the allele pool doesn’t exist. The ‘gene pool’ is a bad term. There is no such thing as a gene pool for a population or species. Sewall Wright’s model requires each chromosome be cleaved at each locus each generation. This is a hopeless requirement. Random drift must be distinguished from inbreeding. Inbreeding effects stem from pairing chromosomes together with themselves, thus rendering them homozygous. Recessive traits are often revealed. Random drift must also be distinguished from founder effects. Founder effects lead to inbreeding effects, but not random drift because the new population is so small.
Since this is all beyond my pay scale, and since no one challenged him or even had a question in the discussion session, I privately canvassed the evolutionary theorists present for their opinion. With the exception of Lynn Margulis — who said she thinks that Provine is basically right even if he doesn’t communicate it clearly — no one else present thought that there was any merit to Provine’s challenges to modern evolutionary theory.
Well, at least 2 out of a sample of 210 evolutionary biologists have a problem.
I sense a Broadway Musical in the works..... If "Spamalot" can be a hit, why not?
Your original post left the impression that you thought a handful of publications had been written on evolution subjects. That's not the case. We're talking thousands of publications, mostly in scientific journals. It would not surprise me in the least that 10,000 articles and books have been written on the subject during the last 150 years.
Also, many professors and scientists don't believe in evolution www.designinference.com
Your link doesn't directly go to the famous list of "scientists" who have signed a "push poll" style petition against evolution (it was worded in such a way to discuise it's intent, and many signatories have since rejected it). I believe there were several hundred signers.
In response, the National Center for Science Education has begun "Project Steve". This is a list of signatories of PHd's that support evolution. The catch is that they must have the name "Steve". About 1% of the population is so named. According to the Steve-o-meter 573 Steves have signed so far, which infers that 57,300 PHd's support evolution.
If we were voting PHd's for and against evolution 57k is a bit more than a few hundred. You lose.
I didn't make my mind up in advance and although I believe in God, I am not a church-goer and am not affiliated with any religion.
Let us return to Post #7 where you said As someone who is open-minded on the subject, can you tell me one aspect of the Theory of Evolution which has been scientifically verified, and can be be stated to be true beyond a shadow of a doubt.
That was at 5:09AM. At 11:59AM in post #63 you wrote My problem is that it has never been verified that [evolution] actually happens, i.e., the laboratory evidence and fossil record are not convincing (at least not to me). That is my position.
The snake oil you're trying to sell is that in about 7 hours you went from open minded to having a firm position on a very complicated subject. Yeah Right.
Your original post #7 was pretty obvious bait where you intended on getting PatrickHenry involved in a discussion that you intended to win via your links to designinference.com and whatever else you had up your sleeve.
I don't know, maybe you really are an honest guy that just wanted to talk about the subject. Maybe I'm cynical, but I've seen way too many Discovery Institute disciples on these threads masquerading as joe-on-the-street and that's what you appear to be to me. You haven't convinced me otherwise.
>>"I don't know. I'm a Feces myself."
>Born late in the year were you?
Probably when the moon was in the outhouse of Jupiter.
This is one of the usual themes of IDers that really drives me nuts.
Species exist. They came from somewhere. The best explanation that explains their existence, and the evidence found geology, paleontology, DNA studies, etc. etc. ALL point to evolution being the cause of the various species.
In order to reject evolution, a SUPERIOR explanation for all that evidence MUST be given. Otherwise evolution wins by default, since it is the only explanation that does indeed explain all the evidence.
It is not sufficient to "poke holes" in evolution. People have "poked holes" in the theory that 19 Islamists took down the Twin Towers and have sold millions of books on the subject (in France). But it's still complete BS like the "science" of ID.
Evolution must be completely replaced with a superior theory. Otherwise it stands.
That's a heck of a conspiracy theory. Your conspiracy is 150+ years old involving perhaps a hundred thousand or more co-conspirators, none of whom dropped a dime on the evil plot.
Wow.
I think for many people the so-called "tree of life" diagrams have serious apparent limitations.
One reason is the ususal failure to show the species (ususally fossil) that demonstrate the transitions. I've seen it recently in trying to show the development of seed plants for my grandkids, and in designing a popular exhibit on reptiles and amphibians. You just don't see Lumpophyus earlius or Squiffodontus confusus on these "trees."
Another is the problem of showing chronospecies (the dinosaurs "turned into" birds deal).
And another is the difficulty in doing the 3-D visualizing needed for both cladograms and "trees."
Of course this presupposes honest searchers as opposed to argumentative, uneducated twits.
:-)
See what happens when you mistake a "g" for a "u"? LOL
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.