Skip to comments.
Genetic evidence for punctuated equilibrium
The Scientist ^
| 06 October 2006
| Melissa Lee Phillips
Posted on 10/07/2006 9:08:18 AM PDT by PatrickHenry
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140, 141-160, 161-180 ... 461-471 next last
To: EternalVigilance
The only reason you even need the wildly outlandish "Punctuated Equilibrium" myth in the first place is because of the striking absence of evidence in the fossil record for a slow progression of evolution over millions of years. You clearly misunderstand punctuated equilibrium. It isn't about evolution above the species level at all. That is it's not concerned with evolutionary trends in genera, families, orders and so on that occur "over millions of years".
It's a theory about speciation, and therefore only concerns closely related organisms. Note that the current study analyzed the genomes of closely related species for evidence of punc eq.
141
posted on
10/07/2006 4:01:32 PM PDT
by
Stultis
To: trashcanbred
I cannot fully support a party that wishes to put ID into schools and I am wondering how do others out there deal with this dilemma. (Sorry if this has been asked before). Excellent post.
To: ml1954
143
posted on
10/07/2006 4:16:52 PM PDT
by
Radix
(Due to time constraints, I can for the time being not review my pings.)
To: trashcanbred
I cannot fully support a party that wishes to put ID into schools and I am wondering how do others out there deal with this dilemma. (Sorry if this has been asked before).
I don't fully support it either for the same reason. My support is conditional. I'll never vote DIM, but I might not vote at all, or vote third party.
144
posted on
10/07/2006 4:21:28 PM PDT
by
ml1954
(ID = Case closed....no further inquiry allowed...now move along.)
To: SoldierDad
You actually work in the public school system?
Hopefully you're a janitor and not a teacher.
The example he has given was just that, an off the head example that would hopefully make it easier for you to understand.
You have failed to understand in any way, and have gone off on a tangent about something else entirely, that had nothing to do with what he was trying to show.
To: trashcanbred
No, actually I was not calling you ignorant at all and I am not sure where that came from. It came from all of the ganging up on I received on another thread from several evos who kept calling me ignorant because I didn't accept the TOE in it's entirety. I've had TOE explained in a number of college courses, so I'm not a "stranger" to the theory. I just don't accept the position that different species of animals "evolved" into some other species of animal. There is no evidence anywhere which supports this claim. That Evolution of animals takes place I can accept, although on that Micro-level you alluded to.
146
posted on
10/07/2006 5:24:17 PM PDT
by
SoldierDad
(Proud Father of an American Soldier fighting in the WOT)
To: grey_whiskers
The same way that the children of Sam Walton are all billionaires despite the meager profit margin at Wal-Mart. Certainly an interesting, but unuseful, analogy. However, I've yet to find anyone who can tell me where are those fossil remains which conclusively demonstrat the micro-changes which would support the contention that one species of animal "evolved" into another completely different species.
147
posted on
10/07/2006 5:27:16 PM PDT
by
SoldierDad
(Proud Father of an American Soldier fighting in the WOT)
To: Jaguarbhzrd
Your comment is very demeaning to janitors who work damned hard to help support those of us who work directly with students. The rest of you comment is simply cryptic and not understandable at all. Kinda like evos contentions that a species of animal "evolved" into a completely different species of animal.
148
posted on
10/07/2006 5:29:59 PM PDT
by
SoldierDad
(Proud Father of an American Soldier fighting in the WOT)
To: SoldierDad
I just don't accept the position that different species of animals "evolved" into some other species of animal. There is no evidence anywhere which supports this claim. I can't believe that you continue to claim that there is not evidence to support it.
We have fossils from so many different species that is is insane, and as we go lower in a geological strata, the fossils are older as well.
It is pretty simple to take those fossils, put them in proper order timiewise, then look at them physiologically, and figure out where they fit.
Then when you have separated, via line and time, it becomes pretty obvious what changes have occurred, and yes, they have become completely different species.
We have plenty of lines that show just that, the horse is well established, as well as the whale, among others, lots of others.
A little studying on your part would fill in the ignorance of evolution that you show on these threads.
The evidence is there, you just have to be willing to look at it in an objective manner.
To: SoldierDad
I just don't accept the position that different species of animals "evolved" into some other species of animal. There is no evidence anywhere which supports this claim. That Evolution of animals takes place I can accept, although on that Micro-level you alluded to.I'm wondering if you ever looked at this, which explains the concept:
Evolution in Five Easy Steps.
When you've got the concept in mind, you might then visit some of these links:
TONS OF EVIDENCE OF EVOLUTION.
150
posted on
10/07/2006 5:38:18 PM PDT
by
PatrickHenry
(Unresponsive to trolls, lunatics, fanatics, retards, scolds, & incurable ignoramuses.)
To: PatrickHenry
Fom a source other than that eeeeevil Science, and also from a totally different approach that studying the fossils you dispute.
Same conclusion, though...
151
posted on
10/07/2006 5:43:30 PM PDT
by
null and void
("It is better to look ahead and prepare than to look back and regret."--Jackie Joyner-Kersee)
To: stultorum
I have posted it in the past. And numerous other people have posted it over and over again as well. I gave him a link to look at.
152
posted on
10/07/2006 6:06:17 PM PDT
by
trashcanbred
(Anti-social and anti-socialist)
To: stultorum
Your response only confirms what I posted in #135, above. You reject the theory of evolution because it goes against your religious belief, not because of any merit or lack or merit of the theory itself.
Well, a believer is someone who already believes, or has faith, in evolution. The non-belivers are the ones who need to be converted to evolution.
One particular point on your comment here; scientists do not "believe" in their theories, but rather accept those theories as long as the evidence supports them. If evidence is found to contradict a theory, it is either discarded or modified to fit both the new evidence and the old.
This definition of "theory" from my list of definitions may help you understand this point (from a google search, with additions from this thread):
Theory: a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; "theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses." Addendum: "Theories do not grow up to be laws. Theories explain laws." (Courtesy of VadeRetro.)
Theory: A scientifically testable general principle or body of principles offered to explain observed phenomena. In scientific usage, a theory is distinct from a hypothesis (or conjecture) that is proposed to explain previously observed phenomena. For a hypothesis to rise to the level of theory, it must predict the existence of new phenomena that are subsequently observed. A theory can be overturned if new phenomena are observed that directly contradict the theory. [Source]
When a scientific theory has a long history of being supported by verifiable evidence, it is appropriate to speak about "acceptance" of (not "belief" in) the theory; or we can say that we have "confidence" (not "faith") in the theory. It is the dependence on verifiable data and the capability of testing that distinguish scientific theories from matters of faith.
153
posted on
10/07/2006 6:31:20 PM PDT
by
Coyoteman
(I love the sound of beta decay in the morning!)
To: SoldierDad
It came from all of the ganging up on I received on another thread from several evos who kept calling me ignorant because I didn't accept the TOE in it's entirety. Put some ice on it.
154
posted on
10/07/2006 6:54:25 PM PDT
by
balrog666
(Ignorance is never better than knowledge. - Enrico Fermi)
To: SoldierDad
The amount earned per item ~ the chance any one animal's remains will be fossilized.
Multiply that factor by the total number of items sold, on the one hand, or total number of animals, on the one hand, and you get a number which is non-trivial.
However, I've yet to find anyone who can tell me where are those fossil remains which conclusively demonstrat the micro-changes which would support the contention that one species of animal "evolved" into another completely different species.
Let's start before that, OK? First we agree on a definition of species, and at least try to come up with something a practicing biologist would agree on. (Not to put one's thumbs on the scale by doing so, but scientists typically have very specific definitions in mind when using a word, which can differ considerably from that of the layman. See for example the word "force" or "potential" from either physics or engineering.)
Then decide if we can see changes of that kind across generations of living animals...
Then decide what would constitute good evidence for similar changes when seen in fossils...
Then see if there are fossils that fit the bill...
Cheers!
To: SoldierDad; Jaguarbhzrd
"Your comment is very demeaning to janitors who work damned hard to help support those of us who work directly with students."
I have to agree with SoldierDad on this point, any comparison with him is very demeaning to janitors.
156
posted on
10/07/2006 7:01:54 PM PDT
by
ndt
To: ndt
Lay off SoldierDad. It's no big deal if he doesn't understand evolution. A lot of people don't, and he doesn't behave like some of them do around here. Besides, he's got a son in Iraq, and that counts for a lot.
157
posted on
10/07/2006 7:08:19 PM PDT
by
PatrickHenry
(Unresponsive to trolls, lunatics, fanatics, retards, scolds, & incurable ignoramuses.)
To: SoldierDad
Well to my knowledge I did not participate in the "ganging up" on you.
You say Macro Evolution has no proof. I say Creationism has "negative proof". Why you may ask?
Let me ask a question. Why is it that the farther back in the fossil record you go, the less likely you will see any modern species? And not just for the Animal kingdom but for the Plant kingdom as well? Why?
If Creationism was true, we would have to believe that modern humans walked with Dinosaurs and swam with the Trilobites, right? I would have to believe that all the animal species that exist today, existed at the creation of the Earth, right?
But... that isn't what the fossil record shows is it? If anything, it shows that humans were not even close to being around during the time of the Dinosaurs, right? It also shows that conifers did not exists before the Carboniferous period. It shows an exceptionally large number of animals that walked/swam/grew on this Earth a very very long time before humans (or any primates) appeared on the scene.
So why is it that we have a fossil record full of animals that no longer exist yet, we have a large number of modern day animals that only go back "so far" in the fossil record?
When one looks at it Creationism falls apart from a scientific standpoint. There just isn't any evidence that all species were created at once, or even within a hundred million years of each other. Quite the contrary, the evidence shows that over an exceptionally long period of time, different species of life came and went. And that my friend, is perhaps the best "lay man's" proof that Macro Evolution is true. It EXPLAINS what we see in the fossil record and it also makes a heck of a lot of sense as well. If you agree Micro Evolution exists in the short term, it is by no means a stretch of the imagination that Macro Evolution exists over a much longer period of time.
So if anything, there is NO proof that Creationism happened. Everyone knows this, this is why people tried to repackage it as "Intelligent Design". ID says that an "unknown" creator created us (it doesn't and will not say God did). Well that makes no sense does it? What scientific proof is there that there is an "unknown creator" that did all of this?
This is why I am most exceptionally against teaching Intelligent Design as science. Because not only is there no proof to back its claim, ALL the evidence points to the contrary.
158
posted on
10/07/2006 7:09:25 PM PDT
by
trashcanbred
(Anti-social and anti-socialist)
To: PatrickHenry
Oh... I did not know. Well... I tried to be as respectful as I could with my posts to him regardless.
159
posted on
10/07/2006 7:12:59 PM PDT
by
trashcanbred
(Anti-social and anti-socialist)
To: stultorum
Moreover I believe that supporters and believers in evolution are very zealous about it, which tells me that they must have an agenda. I reason that this agenda is one that goes against the survival of Western Culture and Christianity. Were they not so zealous and anti-Christians, I may allow allow myself to be coaxed into their camp and "see the light." Until then, any theory that attempts to destroy my culture and people, I will fight them, even if there is solidity to it and not mere wind. Supporters of ID are very zealous about their beliefs. Do they have an agenda? You reason incorrectly about creationists having the goal of destroying your religion or your culture. You can be a Christian and believe in evolution. It does not have to shake your faith in God. I have been on many digs and come across fossils. The stuff is real. I have dealt with evos who believe in God and those who spit on him. I have also run across Christians who were saintly and those who will one day burn in hell no matter what they say. People who call themselves Christians and exploit those who believe them. Don't lump evos into a category of demons or Christ bashers. A lot of them are just like you.
160
posted on
10/07/2006 7:14:52 PM PDT
by
satchmodog9
(Most people stand on the tracks and never even hear the train coming)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140, 141-160, 161-180 ... 461-471 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson