That's really too bad, if true. As a conservative, it upsets me when conservatives adopt an anti-intellectual stance. Most biologists are apolitical, and the general acceptance of evolution is as logical as the accpetance of general relativity in the physics community.
As for your "curiosity" about my intellectual wherewithal, it simply irritates. My words speak for themselves. Conversely, you want us to essentially take your word for it and, again, that won't fly here.
You think we should take the opinion of a person with no documented knowledge or experience in the field with the same seriousness as one who's spent a lifetime studying it? Do you use that logic when choosing a plumber?
There are some 300,000 identified species with new species being found daily, yet there are at best a handful of transitional forms, all controversial. Where are the myriad missing transitional forms?
If we took all of the birds in the US, for example, and did a census on numbers, we'd find huge numbers of house sparrows and dickcissels and starlings and house finches, and almost no loons, for example. There are about 1000 birds on the US list. In a sample of a thousand birds drawn randomly for the US population of all birds, it is likely that 99.9% of those species would be absent. So a loon, which seems to have some primitive characteristics in common with avian ancestors, would go undetected; while climax species like house-sparrows would be highly represented.
I'm glad you didn't tell me there are no transitional forms in the fossil record, BTW. Creationists often say this, and it's nuts.
2. Why do species sometimes exhibit great stability over millions of years, not change?
Hang on, later on you say mutations are always deleterious. If mutations are always deleterious, then of course natural selection will cause species stabilty. You can't have it both ways.
If a species is well adapted to a comparatively stable envronment, why would it evolve quickly? It will undergo genetic drift, and that's documented.
Explain the Cambrian Explosion. (If you come back with Punk Eek, I will say you and Gould are speculating.)
You'll have to tell me what you want explained.
What is the mechanism driving evolution? Just for the record, mutation is destructive and has never been shown to create new species.
Since you claim to be well-informed on this issue, I have to tell you you just told a lie. There are thousands of demonstrable favorable mutations; bacterial antibiotic resistance is an example of same, as is the development of the human immune response. The fact you yourself can develop immunity to new diseases is because of massive mutagenesis in your immune cell line during your early development. That's demonstrated beyond a doubt; go pick up any modern immunology text. If those mutations hadn't occurred, you'd be bubble boy.
Never, anywhere, anytime. Chance is a wholly unscientific, ludicrous, anti-scientific argument.
Literally millions of scientists disagree. Who gets to decide what's scientific? Thoise who do it, or kibitzers with more attitude than knowledge?
I doubt you're upset. And the point was that your argument was almost wholly reliant upon authority, your authority. Here, your authority is comprised of the facts and argument you can marshall and present. And for the record, I am pro-intellectual but anti-hubris.
Most biologists are apolitical...
Not when it comes to Evolution, which is driven by materialism and atheism -- it is dogma, not science.
...the general acceptance of evolution is as logical as the accpetance of general relativity in the physics community.
Baloney. Show me the Evolutionary equivalent of E=mc2. Evolution is a failed hypothesis, it is not even a credible theory.
You think we should take the opinion of a person with no documented knowledge or experience in the field with the same seriousness as one who's spent a lifetime studying it?
No, I don't, under normal circumstances. The Evolutionists, however, have been shown to be lying to the public, to be committing fraud upon the public, for many decades, and Atheist Dawkins and now deceased Sophist Gould are/were the premier spokesmen for this so-called science. Their atheism and sophistry, unfortunately, come first. Under these circumstances, my response or reaction to someone claiming expertise in Evolution is similar to my reaction to a government agent who comes to my door telling me he is here to help. Evolutionists are not disinterested scientists -- they have an agenda. They view themselves as the vanguard of a Brave New World in which Evolution will supplant Christianity in the name of Science in our lives and culture. Problem is, they "ain't got the goods".
Phaedrus: There are some 300,000 identified species with new species being found daily, yet there are at best a handful of transitional forms, all controversial. Where are the myriad missing transitional forms?
RWProf: If we took all of the birds in the US, for example, and did a census on numbers, we'd find huge numbers of house sparrows and dickcissels and starlings and house finches, and almost no loons, for example. There are about 1000 birds on the US list. In a sample of a thousand birds drawn randomly for the US population of all birds, it is likely that 99.9% of those species would be absent. So a loon, which seems to have some primitive characteristics in common with avian ancestors, would go undetected; while climax species like house-sparrows would be highly represented.
This is pure sophistry. I warned you that I would call you on this sort of thing. Care to try again?
Phaedrus: Why do species sometimes exhibit great stability over millions of years, not change?
RWProf: Hang on, later on you say mutations are always deleterious. If mutations are always deleterious, then of course natural selection will cause species stabilty. You can't have it both ways. ... If a species is well adapted to a comparatively stable envronment, why would it evolve quickly? It will undergo genetic drift, and that's documented.
Then you agree with me that species exhibit great stability over very long periods of time, not change. Has it ever been shown that "genetic drift" has ever resulted in a new species? Please note once again that speculation doesn't count.
Phaedrus: Explain the Cambrian Explosion.
RWProf: You'll have to tell me what you want explained.
This is hilarious, RWP! If you don't know, with all your vast knowledge and expertise, then who could? Maybe the Cambrian Explosion just never happened. It certainly has not been adequately explained.
Phaedrus: What is the mechanism driving evolution? Just for the record, mutation is destructive and has never been shown to create new species.
RWProf: Since you claim to be well-informed on this issue, I have to tell you you just told a lie. There are thousands of demonstrable favorable mutations; bacterial antibiotic resistance is an example of same, as is the development of the human immune response. The fact you yourself can develop immunity to new diseases is because of massive mutagenesis in your immune cell line during your early development. That's demonstrated beyond a doubt; go pick up any modern immunology text. If those mutations hadn't occurred, you'd be bubble boy.
Now, RWProf, bacterial resistance to antibiotics results from degradation of the information content of the bacteria's DNA, which is not a favorable change. My reference here, since you will want to check it, is Dr. Lee Spetner's Not By Chance. As to the "development" of immunity, it seems to me that that capacity is already built into our genetic structure; i.e. it doesn't "evolve". Are we playing word games with "massive mutagenesis in your immune cell line"? What you're describing is development that was pre-programmed. Nonetheless, this bubble boy is waiting with baited breath to hear all about how the wonders of evolution are being laid before our very eyes every time a healthy new baby is born.
Last but not least, dear Professor, I do not lie.
Phaedrus: Chance is a wholly unscientific, ludicrous, anti-scientific argument.
RWProf: Literally millions of scientists disagree.
Then they are all fools. Einstein did not say "E=Chance". Chance means "random", dear Professor.
Who gets to decide what's scientific? Those who do it, or kibitzers with more attitude than knowledge?
The nice thing about science is that it is verifiable in the real world. Evolution fails this test, whatever the position of millions of self-congratulatory evolutionary biologists.
Your move, Professor.
Sincerely,
Bubble Boy With Attitude