AND YOU CAN'T MAKE ME SEE ANY ANY OF IT!
Posted on 10/07/2006 9:08:18 AM PDT by PatrickHenry
Evidence for punctuated equilibrium lies in the genetic sequences of many organisms, according to a study in this week's Science. Researchers report that about a third of reconstructed phylogenetic trees of animals, plants, and fungi reveal periods of rapid molecular evolution.
"We've never really known to what extent punctuated equilibrium is a general phenomenon in speciation," said Douglas Erwin of the National Museum of Natural History in Washington, D.C., who was not involved in the study. Since its introduction by Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge in the 1970s, the theory of punctuated equilibrium -- that evolution usually proceeds slowly but is punctuated by short bursts of rapid evolution associated with speciation -- has been extremely contentious among paleontologists and evolutionary biologists.
While most studies of punctuated equilibrium have come from analyses of the fossil record, Mark Pagel and his colleagues at the University of Reading, UK, instead examined phylogenetic trees generated from genetic sequences of closely related organisms.
Based on the number of speciation events and the nucleotide differences between species in each tree, the researchers used a statistical test to measure the amount of nucleotide divergence likely due to gradual evolution and the amount likely due to rapid changes around the time of speciation.
They found statistically significant evidence of punctuated evolution in 30% to 35% of the phylogenetic trees they examined. The remaining trees showed only evidence of gradual evolution.
Among the trees showing some evidence of punctuated equilibrium, the authors performed further tests to determine the size of the effect. They found that punctuated evolution could account for about 22% of nucleotide changes in the trees, leaving gradual evolution responsible for the other 78% of divergence between species.
Pagel and his colleagues were surprised that rapid evolution appears to contribute so much in some lineages, he said. "I would have maybe expected it to be half that much," he told The Scientist.
The researchers also found that rapid bursts of evolution appear to have occurred in many more plants and fungi than animals. Genetic alterations such as hybridization or changes in ploidy could allow rapid speciation, Pagel said, and these mechanisms are much more common in plants and fungi than in animals.
"Their result is pretty interesting, particularly the fact that they got so much more from plants and fungi than they did from animals, which I don't think most people would expect," Erwin told The Scientist.
However, it's possible that the analysis could be flawed, because the authors didn't take into account extinction rates in different phylogenetic trees when they determined the total number of speciation events, according to Douglas Futuyma of the State University of New York at Stony Brook, who was not involved in the study. But "they've got a very interesting case," he added. "I certainly think that this warrants more attention."
According to Pagel, the results suggest that other studies may have misdated some evolutionary events. Dates derived from molecular clocks assumed to have a slow, even tempo will place species divergences too far in the past, he said, since genetic change assumed to take place gradually may have happened very quickly.
"These kinds of events could really undo any notion of a molecular clock -- or at least one would have to be very careful about it," Futuyma told The Scientist.
Well known evolutionary mechanisms could account for rapid genetic change at speciation, Pagel said. Speciation often takes place when a population of organisms is isolated, which means that genetic drift in a small population or fast adaptation to a new niche could induce rapid evolutionary change.
=======
[Lots of links are in the original article, but not reproduced above.]
Is evolution real?
That was not a claim. It was an example of how the math works. I thought it would be obvious.
Good luck. I abandoned the thread when it got stupid.
LOLL!
Hey, Patrick, may I use the troll thing below? I'm gonna use it on Usenet to look important, you know, as if it came from my feeble mind. It is well written.
Thank you very much.
If you prefer I will give credit to the author, that is, you, PatrickHenry.
I can't stop laughing about it becuase is so true of trolls and very fitting. I know. I can attest to it.
"Are you inadequate online? Are you feeling inferior because you have no education? Are you so stupid that no one will respond to you? When they do respond, is it only point out your errors in spelling, grammar and logic? Would you like to become the life of the thread? Then be a troll! Yes, now you too can be a real internet troll!
Trolls always have a good time, and their posts get lots of responses. As a troll, you're sure to be the center of attention. Other trolls will praise your posts. Never again will your comments be ignored, merely because you don't know what you're talking about. And as a troll, you'll enjoy the power you have to ruin any thread just by showing up and trolling. Oh, the fun!
"Trolling is easy. It's simple. And the beauty of it is ... you don't have to know anything! Here's a complete catalog of an evolution troll's intellectual inventory. Just print out this toolkit, and use one or two items at random every time you post. Don't worry if someone refutes you. Just repeat your earlier post. Then keep on trolling! They'll go crazy! Guaranteed!
He's a good writer too.
Must have a college education. I never went to college :).
Ah, a backhanded slap at my "ignorance". So, someone uses a "mathematical model" to claim that 1/1000 elephants are fossilized (although no evidence for this claim has been found), and it is accepted as truth because some mathematician did "the math". Ain't science wonderful.
Been there; done that.
I shall follow your wise lead. It's a nice day out and there are none so blind as those who will not see.
If you are unwilling to substantiate your assertions, then there is no further cause for discussion.
Substantiation of assertions can only be made by evos on this thread. Noone else has anything to add to the discussion as per evos position. This was made clear to me on earlier threads. Thus, you are correct; no further discussion can be had.
"Are you inadequate online? Are you feeling inferior because you have no education? Are you so stupid that no one will respond to you? When they do respond, is it only point out your errors in spelling, grammar and logic? Would you like to become the life of the thread? Then be a troll! Yes, now you too can be a real internet troll! Trolls always have a good time, and their posts get lots of responses. As a troll, you're sure to be the center of attention. Other trolls will praise your posts. Never again will your comments be ignored, merely because you don't know what you're talking about. And as a troll, you'll enjoy the power you have to ruin any thread just by showing up and trolling. Oh, the fun!"Trolling is easy. It's simple. And the beauty of it is ... you don't have to know anything! Here's a complete catalog of an evolution troll's intellectual inventory. Just print out this toolkit, and use one or two items at random every time you post. Don't worry if someone refutes you. Just repeat your earlier post. Then keep on trolling! They'll go crazy! Guaranteed!"
"Order your Unknowledge Troll Kit today; and we'll throw in a companion manual "Anti-Science for Luddites" as a free bonus. And remember, no edjucashun or intellectual ability is required to be an "Unknowledge Troll -- an obnoxious sense of entitlement to disrupt discussions of people far smarter and better edjukated that you are is all you need! ORDER TODAY, AND BE ALL YOU CAN BE!"
I think that these threads are good and promote healthy discourse.
Certainly Gould was an apologist for the Theory of Evolution. Nevertheless, right or wrong, the man was brilliant.
By the way, as far as I know FR is a secular site, not a religious one.
This was my final post. Eight more votes came in later, but I don't think they would change anything:
The vote total is 5,441. The important votes are from those who have expressed an opinion on the poll question, so I'm ignoring all votes for "undecided" or "pass." Those with an opinion have voted as follows:
Yes (put creationism in science class) 3,063 votesPercentage voting "No" is 38.7%
No (keep creationism out of science class) 1,935 votes
Total votes (excluding "undecided" or "pass") 4,998
Among freepers alone, that figure is 35.9%
Among lurkers alone, that figure is 41.2%
[Gen 2:7] And the LORD God formed man [of] the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.Nope. I think he read it right.[Gen 2:21-22] And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.
Yes. There is a large amount of proof for both Micro and Macro evolution. Do you want a link, want me to cite evidence, or would I just be wasting my time because you won't believe it regardless?
That's the proper thing to do.
[I haven't been following Santorum closely; these remarks are for any candidate who thinks non-science belongs in science class]
Either he believes the DI crap, and is not only scientifically uneducated, but thinks his whims trump actual science, or he knows better and is pandering. In neither case is such a person fit for office.
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.