Genetic evidence for punctuated equilibrium

The Scientist ^ | 06 October 2006 | Melissa Lee Phillips

[stultorum]

"So, I'm ignorant - you win.

No, they don't win, and you're NOT ignorant.

You've made some excellent, well-reasoned points.

You, as an American citizen, have a right to your opinions and ideas. You have a right to hear and to be heard!

[stultorum]

"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."

"Too funny, reminds me of those monkeys on a typewriter experiment. Evolutionary "scientists" are regressing!"

LOL!

It reminds of children to whom you give them new words and they think they have new facts.

[PatrickHenry]

Commies were very happy to adopt Darwin as it's lead scientist because God was left out.

Stalin outlawed Darwin's teachings. This was Stalin's biologist: Trofim Lysenko.

[balrog666]

So, I'm ignorant - you win.

No, you're ignorant, so you lose. Not exactly the same thing, especially when your ignorance is self imposed.

[SoldierDad]

And I'm suppose to care about insults from you? No power what-so-ever.

[spinestein]

[You, as an American citizen, have a right to your opinions and ideas. You have a right to hear and to be heard!]




Sure, everyone has the right to embarrass themselves by speaking really loudly about things they know nothing about.

It's too bad that EVERY scientific article like this posted for the purposes of discussion among evolutionary theorists ALWAYS gets overrun with ignorant statements about the supposed complete failure of evolutionary theory made by people who consistently demonstrate their total ignorance of how it works.

And nobody has the right to be heard.

[Dimensio]

Yes, honestly. I mean, them apes are still around when they shouldn't be.

What has lead you to believe that they should not exist today?

So, how come they're still with us, given that humans' brain is more developed than apes'?

"Developed" is a misleading term, as it implies a process of "development". Human brains are capable of more complex thought than those of other ape species, but "developed" is not an applicable term. Moreover, human brain capacity as compared to that of other ape species does not imply that other ape species should not exist.

Shouldn't them apes have disappeared millions of years ago?

No.

[dread78645]

Ignorance on parade placemark

[stultorum]

"It's too bad that EVERY scientific article like this posted for the purposes of discussion among evolutionary theorists..."

I thought evolutionists welcomed an audience to convert to their camp. Which is it? Do they want to discuss among themselves, or do they welcome different opinions?

[stultorum]

"What has lead you to believe that they should not exist today?

Evolutionary theory.

[trashcanbred]

We'll if you have a problem presenting kids with competing theories, then i'd say your not a free speech kinda guy and only wish to indoctrinate kids with a bunch of junk science that has never proven anything!

Am I? So let me ask you this question, are you familiar with what the Church of Scientology teaches? Are you familiar with the "far out" belief they have that our bodies are infested with the souls of extraterrestrials that have been banned to live on Earth? As goofy as it sounds that is what they believe.

Now tell me Caffe, do you want that taught in public school as an equal and competing scientific theory? If not, then I guess "your not a free speech kinda guy" either.

Let me ask you a question, where is the scientific proof that ID and/or Creationism happened? There isn't any at all is there.

Now you want competing theories taught in public school. What is the life cycle of a scientific theory Caffe? Do people pull an idea out their arse and say "Hey... this sounds good let's teach it in school". No... normally scientific theories have to go through a pretty large ordeal to be eventually adopted by the scientific community, right? Normally once a theory has been adopted, it them becomes part of what is taught in science class. Plate Tectonics is a classic example of this. When it was first presented there were many skeptics. Eventually though the amount of evidence to support it became pretty hard to debate against it.

But that isn't the "life cycle" of ID/Creationism is it? Since neither one can stand up to ANY scientific scrutiny, your kind has decided to go ahead and push it into the public school system anyway completely subverting the standard process.

And that my friend is why I find what you are attempting to do very offensive. It has nothing to do with stopping "free speech". But you just can't teach something as science when it isn't. Do you now understand?

Hey if someone comes up with a better theory than Evolution to describe what we see in nature and in the fossil record then "Great". Go for the gold... put it through scientific scrutiny and if it passes the mustard then by all means, teach it as an equal or better theory than Evolution.

The problem is ID and Creationism just don't cut it as being scientific.

[Dimensio]

Evolutionary theory.

Then you apparently do not understand the theory. Please explain why you believe the theory predicts that no non-human ape species should exist today?

[stultorum]

I didn't say non-humans should not exist today. I was questioning why apes (only apes) are still with us if apes evolved into humans.

[Dimensio]

I was questioning why apes (only apes) are still with us if apes evolved into humans.

Other ape species exist today because their genetic makeup is sufficiently able to maintain sufficient reproduction rates for their populations within their respective environments

[stultorum]

"Then you apparently do not understand the theory."

Oops! Forgot to respond to this chunk.

I do not understand it the way others do. I believe that's what you mean, ie, that my understanding of evo is different than others' understanding.

Furthermore, I do understand WHY evolutionists understand the ToE differently than I understand it. Ie, they are dedicated to their agenda and, like all fanatics, redouble their efforts each time they lose their directions.

[stultorum]

I was questioning why apes (only apes) are still with us if apes evolved into humans.

"Other ape species exist today because their genetic makeup is sufficiently able to maintain sufficient reproduction rates for their populations within their respective environments"

But since they evolved into humans, according to the ToE, they should not be here continuing reproducing. Therefore, since they're still reproducing they did not evolve into humans.

[Dimensio]

I do not understand it the way others do. I believe that's what you mean, ie, that my understanding of evo is different than others' understanding.

If your understanding of the theory of evolution is not on par with the actual theory of evolution, then you do not understand the theroy. You cannot falsify the theory by redefining it and then finding an observation that contradicts the theory as you have redefined it.

Furthermore, I do understand WHY evolutionists understand the ToE differently than I understand it. Ie, they are dedicated to their agenda and, like all fanatics, redouble their efforts each time they lose their directions.

You have yet to demonstrate any loss of direction.

[stultorum]

"You have yet to demonstrate any loss of direction.

You mean my direction?

[Dimensio]

. Therefore, since they're still reproducing they did not evolve into humans.

No one claims that humans are descended from any species of ape existing today. Rather, humans and other existing ape species emerged from a common ancestral ape species whose descendants branched into different environments and, consequently, became different species over time. Moreover, the theory of evolution does not mandate the cessation of the existence of a parent species after a subpopulation of that species evolves into a different species.

[Dimensio]

You mean my direction?

I am referring to the direction of those who accept the theory of evolution.