Posted on 09/15/2006 3:39:45 PM PDT by ofwaihhbtn
You are much too much kneejerk and emotional on the issue.
The link I cited in post #32 applies to this article as well.
It will undoubtedly happen within a decade.
After reading through the reactionless drive described in the September issue of "New Scientist", it's possible we'll get some even stranger stuff to "test" and the list of things not subject to "test" will decrease.
The placemarker helps me keep track of threads. That way I can track them from my ping list and see when there are additional posts.
You're definitely free to think whatever you like, but you'll excuse me if I don't value your uneducated opinion very highly.
You most certainly are welcome to believe whatever you want. But may I ask what SUBSTANTIATED claims there are for your own beliefs that make them so superior to mine?
Works for me. My "uneducated" opinion must be really lame in light of your enlightened superior knowledge.
Examples: I write as neither a creationist nor a Darwinist, but as one who knows what is probably the most disreputable scientific secret of the past century: There is no plausible scientific theory of the origin of species! --- He writes as neither informed by the thought process nor as one with any scientific knowledge whatsoever.
Darwin himself was not sure he had produced one, and for many decades every competent evolutionary biologist has known that he did not. Although the experts have kept quiet when true believers have sworn in court and before legislative bodies that Darwin's theory is proven beyond any possible doubt, that's not what reputable biologists, including committed Darwinians, have been saying to one another. --- Again, totally misleading since evolutionary biology has indeed learned a lot since Darwin's day. The author totally, and deliberately, mixes up what Darwin suggested in 1859 and what is known today 146 years later after the discovery of thousands of fossils, the discovery of genetics, the discover of atoms, the understanding of quantum theory, the discovery of DNA, etc.
Without question, Charles Darwin would be among the most prominent biologists in history even if he hadn't written The Origin of Species in 1859. But he would not have been deified in the campaign to "enlighten" humanity. --- Total nonsense again. If the author can't get simple facts straight, why should anyone believe the rest? Darwin was little known in biological circles before he published his researches from the Voyage of the Beagle and Origin of Species and Descent of Man.
So many words, so much ignorance.
Of course you can believe what you want.
The problem comes when people try to tell scientists, who have spent decades studying a subject, that they are all wrong.
I see this fairly often with radiocarbon dating. People whose only exposure to the subject is going to creationist websites, where they become instant experts. They then proceed to tell my that my decades of study are all for naught, and that the method is useless.
If it bothers you some intensive self-directed reading regarding biology and genetics could help address this.
Religion tells why.
Religion tells why.
I like that idea. I like it very much.
The author of this piece did not spell Szathmary's name right, nor did he provide a reference to the Nature article, other than the year.
The article he refers to is below.
Nature 399, 745 (24 June 1999); doi:10.1038/21569
When the means do not justify the end
EÖRS SZATHMÁRY
Eörs Szathmáry is at the Collegium Budapest, Szentháromság u2, H-1014 Budapest, Hungary
Sudden Origins: Fossils, Genes, and the Emergence of Species
by Jeffrey H. Schwartz
Wiley: 1999. 408pp
£19.99, $27.95)
SAATCHI GALLERY, LONDON
Evolution by radical mutation: "Tragic anatomies" by Jake and Dinos Chapman.
The origin of species has long fascinated biologists. Although Darwin's major work bears it as a title, it does not provide a solution to the problem. Does Jeffrey Schwartz give one? I am afraid that, in general, he does not, but the book is still interesting.
Schwartz presents a detailed and informative historical account of evolutionary biology. In fact, the book could be read as a history of evolution, and will probably occupy such a niche. Schwartz is much more ambitious than this, however: he wants to convince the reader that his "new evolution" is the Holy Grail of the field.
These are the elements of his proposal. First, forces of speciation are largely independent of selection within the species. Second, speciation is typically triggered by a mutation in a homeobox gene. Third, such a mutation is likely to become fixed in population isolates. Fourth, the mutation remains unnoticed for a long time because of its recessive nature. Fifth, when it reaches homozygosity in the small isolate, it will appear in several individuals simultaneously. Sixth, the mutation, since it affects development, is likely to affect mate choice as well; hence, mutant homozygotes are likely to mate among themselves.
Although Schwartz has in one sense resurrected Richard Goldschmidt's "hopeful monsters" (organisms with radically altered characteristics, produced in single large steps), he thinks that he has managed to avoid the associated pitfalls. The homeobox mutations would be macromutations in their effects, but from the genetic point of view they would qualify as micromutations, since no large genomic rearrangements are implied. The problems of finding a mate also seem to be solved by the dynamics of recessives (mutant homozygotes are thought to appear simultaneously, following a lag phase of heterozygosity). And, since homozygosity and preferential mating (pre-zygotic isolation) go hand in hand, there would be no transitional forms.
A drawback of this scenario is the absence of a population-genetic treatment. One is therefore left uncertain about the effects of population size, fixation time, and so on. It is not even certain whether Schwartz thinks that the mutant homozygotes have a selective advantage or are effectively neutral for the individual. In the latter case, the logic of the scenario still suggests that they would influence the dynamics of sexual selection, an interesting possibility. There is nothing wrong with dreaming up a verbal evolutionary scenario, but these days this surely cannot be the last word.
Another shortcoming of the book is the lack of at least one documented case of speciation that may have happened following Schwartz's scenario. Examples that could be taken as evidence for the component processes are discussed in some detail, but this does not rule out the possibility that one case that fits the complete scenario would never be found.
Schwartz shares a distrust of selection with some contemporary biologists. This is, I think, why he chose to ignore, for example, Peter Sheldon's work on the gradualism apparent in the evolution of the pygidial ribs of trilobites. When he discusses the celebrated computer study by Dan Nilsson and Susanne Pelger on the evolution of the optical structure of a fish eye, he mistakenly suggests that the intermediates are not selective improvements on the previous forms. It is revealing that he dismisses this scenario by saying : "Do we actually need to invoke such an elaborate thought experiment in order to understand the origin of the vertebrate eye, or any eye, for that matter? I think not. And the reasons lie in knowing that there are homeobox genes for eye formation and that when one of them, the Rx gene in particular, is activated in the right place and at the right time, an individual has an eye."
This is utterly misleading. Schwartz ignores the fact that homeobox genes are selector genes. They can do nothing if the genes regulated by them are not there. It is these genes that specify in detail the adaptive structure of the organs. To be sure, turning on a homeobox gene at the wrong place can result in the appearance of an ectopic organ, but only if the genes for that organ are present in the same individual. It is totally wrong to imply that an eye could be produced by a macromutation when no eye was ever present in the lineage before. Homeotic mutations that reshuffle parts do happen, and sometimes they may have led to fixation of real evolutionary novelties, but this does not mean that such changes are implied in the majority of speciations. In fact, macromutations of this sort are probably frequently maladaptive, in contrast to the vast number of past and present species — not to mention the fact that morphological differences between related species can be minute.
The history given in the book is fascinating, and some of the suggestions merit further work, but the reader is likely to be deeply disappointed more than once before the end.
A professor of social sciences, co-director of the Baylor University Institutite for Studies of Religion and founding editor of the Interdisciplinary Journal of Research on Religion, is neither a creationist nor a "darwinist" but knows evolutionary theory is bunk?
It is my layman's opinion Dr. Stark should stick to sociology.
I am agreement with you, that Muir_Redwoods presents a fine idea...
I am afraid I don't understand your post, Can you repeat it?
There are a lot of creationists who aren't creationists! *whap!*
On the other hand, most of the folks put forth as reliable witnesses for the ID/creationist side are clearly political hacks. They are suitable targets for derision and ridicule.
On this, I agree.
And the evos can't blame this on a religious nutball.
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.