Genetic evidence for punctuated equilibrium

The Scientist ^ | 06 October 2006 | Melissa Lee Phillips

[SoldierDad]

Excellent post. I applaud you for your pithy comments.

[null and void]

Pithy??? Moi???

Thanks for the update on your son. With any luck, the coup going on in Iran will come to fruition and Iran's weapons supply and insurrection support to Iraq will dry up.

In the meanwhile I'll keep him in my thoughts

[SoldierDad]

With any luck, the coup going on in Iran will come to fruition and Iran's weapons supply and insurrection support to Iraq will dry up.

I will pray that Iran's current coup attempt bears fruit so that our troops will no longer have to worry about that front. Thanks for your thoughts for my son. Prayers up for the 10th Mountain.

[trashcanbred]

I really don't know why I keep getting accused of "dismissing" the work of all these scientists when I'm just asking questions (and not getting any answers).

I did answer it. I asked why does the fossil record show a lack of modern species the farther back you go yet show numerous other species that do not exist today. Macro Evolution explains it very well, Creationism and ID doesn't.

But you know what SoldierDad, I really do give up this argument. I concede. You win. Sure... Creationism... who needs proof. Teach the controversy... Let's teach Noah's flood made the Grand Canyon. Can I prove it didn't? No... so go ahead... teach what you want.

It's midnight here and I am unusually tired, good night.

[Jorge]

Everybody be nice.

You post these controversial articles that YOU KNOW will get Freepers at each other's throats...and then you cutely say "Everybody be nice".

What a trouble maker!

[Coyoteman]

You post these controversial articles that YOU KNOW will get Freepers at each other's throats...and then you cutely say "Everybody be nice".

What a trouble maker!

The title of the article was Genetic evidence for punctuated equilibrium.

It is an article about science, and some recent discoveries.

Are you suggesting that this is not an appropriate topic for an FR post?

Where is the controversy? Is there some scientific argument against this article?

Or, are you suggesting that this article may be opposed by a few religious fundamentalists, and therefore is not appropriate for FR?

Could you please clarify your opposition to this, and other scientific articles?

[SoldierDad]

I hope you rest well. I know you believe you are giving the answer I'm looking for, and I appreciate what you've provided. I must admit that of all those who have made posts to me, you are the only one who has provided a complete explanation that makes sense.

I do not accept "creationism" as expressed by some. I think there could be an alternate explanation for why the fossil record shows a lack of modern species the farther back that record goes, but there can be no proof for that explanation. And, this isn't about me. I neither can win or lose, which is true for all others as well. Just asking questions - looking for explanatations which make sense. Thanks for your well thought out posts. Gives much food for thought.

[Jorge]

Could you please clarify your opposition to this, and other scientific articles?

You see what I mean?

I didn't offer A SINGLE opinion on the article and ALREADY I got poster challenging me on WHY I OPPOSE it. LOL!

[Dimensio]

I didn't offer A SINGLE opinion on the article and ALREADY I got poster challenging me on WHY I OPPOSE it. LOL!

You stated unambiguous opposition to the posting of the article, regardless of your opinion of the subject. Coyoteman's question was specifically addressing your opposition to the posting of articles like this, an opposition that you have already made clear.

[stands2reason]

No, it wasn't. It was a load of ignorant crap.

[stands2reason]

Obviously you're an antievolutionist, but I still don't understand why you react to strongly to this specific research. Note the the analysis was only done on "closely related species," doubtless in nearly all cases those that even the strictest creationists consider members of the same "created kinds." IOW creatures that even creationists think are related by normal biological reproduction, i.e. evolutio

Don't hold your breath waiting for an answer.

[stands2reason]

It was scientific skepticism that lead me to the right.

[stands2reason]

Anyway, my objection to evolution's claims is that it is not a precise science, far from it. Also -- and this is the primary reason why I must presently discard it -- it goes against a God or a creator, or the mystery of life, if you will.

No, it doesn't.

[stands2reason]

I think "punctuated equilibrium" sounds as silly as the idea that the Earth's ecosphere is periods of stability followed by periods of great upheaval.

That is, not very silly and very likely. Or do you believe that the Earth changed at the same speed throughout it's existence?

[jennyp]

placemarker

[Virginia-American]

If you have time, please see the article on the "Santorum Amendment" to the No Child Left Behind act.

Thanks. Such a display of egotism is really disgusting!

[EternalVigilance]

The prophet Isaiah:

Woe to those who go down to Egypt for help,
who rely on horses,
who trust in the multitude of their chariots
and in the great strength of their horsemen,
but do not look to the Holy One of Israel,
or seek help from the LORD.

Yet he too is wise and can bring disaster;
he does not take back his words.
He will rise up against the house of the wicked,
against those who help evildoers.

But the Egyptians are men and not God;
their horses are flesh and not spirit.
When the LORD stretches out his hand,
he who helps will stumble,
he who is helped will fall;
both will perish together.

Isaiah 31:1-3

[bobdsmith]

I already did. The substance of this article, if it was placed on a scale...

If I cared to do so...

I guess you failed to read my opening comment:

I disprove your points by bolding your words

[Doctor Stochastic]

You alone are responsible for the content and tone of your posts.

[PatrickHenry]

100