BREAKTHROUGH OF THE YEAR: Evolution in Action

Science ^ | December 2005 | Elizabeth Culotta and Elizabeth Pennisi

[CarolinaGuitarman]

" Proof of that?"

http://sacoast.uwc.ac.za/education/resources/fishyfacts/coelacanth.htm

"No one would argue, however, that a European who gets sleeping sickness is not the same species as an African who doesn't. Alright, perhaps a late-19th century social-Darwinist might."

Not Darwin. He thought that all people were the same species.

[caffe]

You are the ignorant one

[darbymcgill]

Actually, the folks studying species extinction say that about 8 pairs are required for any species to survive.

That pretty much kills the common ancestor theory doesn't it?

[Dimensio]

Yawn. You dogmatic Darwinians are a tiresome lot.

Nice cop-out.

I believe that the ToE is a compelling explanation of the development of life.

Indeed it is. It's one of the most comprehensive and well-supported scientific explanations out there.

However, I don't believe it can be elevated to the status of scientific law

That's because theories never become laws. Laws are a completely different kind of statement in science. Theories do not get "elevated" to laws, laws are simply generalizations regarding regularly occuring observations. Laws can be very wrong; Newton's "universal" law of gravitation is wrong. Laws generalize events that occur; theories attempt to explain why those events occur. Claiming that evolution is weak because it is not a law only demonstrates your lack of understanding of scientific terminology.

nor have its adherents answered many of the tough questions that have been proposed of late.

Such as why a string of random characters typed on a screen once is not in any way analagous to an existing population of imperfectly replicating organisms? Or did you have some real questioss in mind?

When you have to depend on men in robes to enforce your scientific orthodoxy, something is deeply wrong.

We're not the ones trying to dishonestly shove a non-scientific piece of conjecture into public school science classrooms despite a total lack of any peer reviewed research on the subject.

[Right Wing Professor]

Actually, the folks studying species extinction say that about 8 pairs are required for any species to survive.

That pretty much kills the common ancestor theory doesn't it?

Nope.

[Dimensio]

I have yet to hear anyone come up with a truly convincing theory as to why it didn't.

It did. It's not the same species anymore. They're not even in the same family. Moreover, if environmental pressures do not change significantly enough to pressure an existing species to adapt to new conditions, there's no reason why that species can't go on existing for a very long time. That didn't happen with the Coelacanth, but nothing in evolution precludes such an event from occuring.

[Dimensio]

By appearance alone, one is forced to conclude that the species has remained practically identical to its fossilized progenitors.

If by "practically identical" you mean "smaller and with internal structures not found in its ancestors" then sure.

[Antoninus]

We're not the ones trying to dishonestly shove a non-scientific piece of conjecture into public school science classrooms despite a total lack of any peer reviewed research on the subject.

No, you're the ones trying to prevent ANY questioning of the ToE from going on without a storm of personal attacks and immediate insinuations that the individual doing the questioning is a "creationist."

A true scientist welcomes challenges to their pet theories--indeed, they should be challenging those theories themselves, rather than attacking those who do. That's how scientific knowledge moves forward.

[Dimensio]

No, you're the ones trying to prevent ANY questioning of the ToE from going on without a storm of personal attacks and immediate insinuations that the individual doing the questioning is a "creationist."

No one is doing this. The major objections are to trying to shove non-scientific pap into public schools as being on-par with well-established scientific theories. If you want to question evolution then do so, but don't be surprised if we get irritated when you bring up the same debunked claim that we've heard twenty times before.

[Senator Bedfellow]

Larger. Modern coelacanth is much larger than its ancient relatives. </nitpick>

[Dimensio]

Doh. I got muddled. I was first talking about the ancient ones, then switched to the contemporary ones.

[darbymcgill]

Actually, the folks studying species extinction say that about 8 pairs are required for any species to survive.

That pretty much kills the common ancestor theory doesn't it?

Nope.

Well ok then....

The pretty much kills the "8 pairs are required for any species to survive" theory doesn't it?

[darbymcgill]

oops... The = That

[PatrickHenry]

Why are there still monkeys coelacanths?

[Right Wing Professor]

Well ok then.... The pretty much kills the "8 pairs are required for any species to survive" theory doesn't it?

Nope.

The mitochondria of every human alive today derive from a single woman who lived approximately 100,000 years ago. She wasn't the only human alive at the time.

[Senator Bedfellow]

Seems fishy, doesn't it?

[darbymcgill]

The mitochondria of every human alive today derive from a single woman who lived approximately 100,000 years ago.

Ok, thanks... I'll try to be more precise this time...

Actually, the folks studying species extinction say that about 8 pairs are required for any species to survive.

Emphasis added by me...

That pretty much kills the "all living things come from a single common ancestor" theory doesn't it?

[narby]

I have yet to hear anyone come up with a truly convincing theory as to why it didn't.

It's already been explained to you. Just because you refuse to be convinced doesn't make the explanation false.

[narby]

Ah, guilt by association, eh? By merely entertaining questions on the ToE, I am "on the side of proven liars."

Your original post was complaining about attacks on IDers. I note that you didn't try to justify the lies of the ID crowd, but merely point the finger of McCarthyist "guilt by association" at me. I would remind you that for the most part, McCarthy was correct in his accusations.

[narby]

That pretty much kills the common ancestor theory doesn't it?

No.