Notices
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 101 to 189 of 189

Thread: Why would evolution stop?

  1. #101  
    ***** Participant Write4U's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,242
    This may be helpful,
    His age has been estimated from 7 years six months to as old as 15 years. The most recent scientific review suggests 8 years of age.[2] It was initially suggested that he would have grown into a 1.85 m tall adult but the most recent analysis argues for the much shorter stature of 1.63 m. The reason for this shift has been research showing that his growth maturation differed from that of modern humans in that he would have had a shorter and smaller adolescent growth spurt.[2]
    and
    The specimen comprises 108 bones, making it the most complete early human skeleton discovered. The skeleton is about 1.60 m (5 ft 3 in) tall. In adulthood, Turkana Boy might have reached 1.85 m (6 ft 1 in) tall and massed 68 kg (150 lb). The pelvis is narrower than in Homo sapiens, which is most likely for more efficient upright walking. This further indicates a fully terrestrial bipedalism, which is unlike older hominid species that show a combined feature of bipedalism and tree climbing.[9] The Boy was relatively tall, which increased his body surface area that would enhance heat dissipation and prevented him from overheating under the hot sun.[4][10] Turkana Boy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    p.s. for some reason the Watusi tribe came to mind,
    The characteristices of the watusi tribe is the men are very tall they are 7ft tall. The Watusi and the Tutsi tribe are in the some tribe. http://culturesofafrica.pbworks.com/...1118699/Watusi
    How is it possible that these people are so much taller than we are?
    Last edited by Write4U; August 23rd, 2014 at 04:37 AM.
    "Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind" (W4U)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #102  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by Write4U View Post
    This may be helpful,
    His age has been estimated from 7 years six months to as old as 15 years. The most recent scientific review suggests 8 years of age.[2] It was initially suggested that he would have grown into a 1.85 m tall adult but the most recent analysis argues for the much shorter stature of 1.63 m. The reason for this shift has been research showing that his growth maturation differed from that of modern humans in that he would have had a shorter and smaller adolescent growth spurt.[2]
    and
    The specimen comprises 108 bones, making it the most complete early human skeleton discovered. The skeleton is about 1.60 m (5 ft 3 in) tall. In adulthood, Turkana Boy might have reached 1.85 m (6 ft 1 in) tall and massed 68 kg (150 lb). The pelvis is narrower than in Homo sapiens, which is most likely for more efficient upright walking. This further indicates a fully terrestrial bipedalism, which is unlike older hominid species that show a combined feature of bipedalism and tree climbing.[9] The Boy was relatively tall, which increased his body surface area that would enhance heat dissipation and prevented him from overheating under the hot sun.[4][10] Turkana Boy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    p.s. for some reason the Watusi tribe came to mind,
    The characteristices of the watusi tribe is the men are very tall they are 7ft tall. The Watusi and the Tutsi tribe are in the some tribe. Cultures of Africa [licensed for non-commercial use only] / Watusi
    How is it possible that these people are so much taller than we are?
    Local selection for tallness???
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #103  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    2,408
    Quote Originally Posted by GTCethos View Post
    IMO, you should have let it slide. The link only confirms what Dan was saying.



    Modern humans are hominids, Turkana boy is a hominid. Dan should have said Turkana boy is not a modern human. Is descriptive speech that difficult?
    Read what I said again.
    Or is basic english too hard to understand for you?
    Originally Posted by GTCethos
    By the way Dan I was going to let this slide…

    Turkana boy was a hominid, not a modern human.







    Last edited by dan hunter; August 23rd, 2014 at 05:43 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #104  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    2,408
    As for comments that primitive ancestors would have passed unnoticed in a crowd, that only tells you how astoundingly easy it is to pass unnoticed in a crowd.
    I think a two headed woman would pass unnoticed in a crowd too, although a four breasted one likely would not.

    Either way, since there are no living Homo ergaster to look for, it is a bit difficult to really say how unnoticable one of them would be in a crowd.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #105  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    4,565
    Quote Originally Posted by GTCethos View Post
    By the way Dan I was going to let this slide…
    Turkana boy was a hominid, not a modern human.
    What part of that are you clowns unable to understand?

    “Humans are hominids, members of the taxonomic family termed Hominidae that includes all of our extinct human-like relatives.” http://www.utexas.edu/courses/denbow/labs/hominid.htm

    Apparently I know a lot more than you… You really need to read more… please
    Clearly you feel you are making an important point that counted what Dan said. However you have only confirmed what he said, and made it more clear that you do not understand taxonomy.
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #106  
    ***** Participant Write4U's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,242
    Robittybob1,
    Local selection for tallness???
    Thats my guess. As explained in the article, tall, lean people do better in a desert environment.
    "Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind" (W4U)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #107  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    316
    As an aside, even if the boy was large for that time, today we can find 8' tall individuals. Does that prove we are all 8' tall?The fact is….



    Your post is non sequitur. “the argument is fallacious because there is a disconnection between the premise and the conclusion” any good definition.


    “The Turkana Boy fossil skeleton is virtually complete, with only the hands, feet, and a single humerus missing. It measures about 160 cm (about 5¼ ft) and was that of a 9-12 year-old boy. Many scientists surmise that Turkana Boy may have reached over 1.8 m (6 ft) in height in adulthood.”


    Fits right in with modern humans…

    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #108  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by GTCethos View Post
    By the way Dan I was going to let this slide…
    Turkana boy was a hominid, not a modern human.
    What part of that are you clowns unable to understand?

    “Humans are hominids, members of the taxonomic family termed Hominidae that includes all of our extinct human-like relatives.” http://www.utexas.edu/courses/denbow/labs/hominid.htm

    Apparently I know a lot more than you… You really need to read more… please
    Clearly you feel you are making an important point that counted what Dan said. However you have only confirmed what he said, and made it more clear that you do not understand taxonomy.
    How about helping out instead of being such a toffee nosed prick? Your criticisms cut to the bone but do you ever sew things back together surgeon?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #109  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    4,565
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by GTCethos View Post
    By the way Dan I was going to let this slide…
    Turkana boy was a hominid, not a modern human.
    What part of that are you clowns unable to understand?

    “Humans are hominids, members of the taxonomic family termed Hominidae that includes all of our extinct human-like relatives.” http://www.utexas.edu/courses/denbow/labs/hominid.htm

    Apparently I know a lot more than you… You really need to read more… please
    Clearly you feel you are making an important point that counted what Dan said. However you have only confirmed what he said, and made it more clear that you do not understand taxonomy.
    How about helping out instead of being such a toffee nosed prick? Your criticisms cut to the bone but do you ever sew things back together surgeon?
    Insulting is helpful how? I was noting that GTC does not understand the taxonomic terminology and thus was not making the point he/she thought they were.
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #110  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    How about helping out instead of being such a toffee nosed prick? Your criticisms cut to the bone but do you ever sew things back together surgeon?
    Insulting is helpful how? I was noting that GTC does not understand the taxonomic terminology and thus was not making the point he/she thought they were.
    I understand you are a very knowledgeable person but you spend more time criticising rather than sharing information.
    We have enough people here like AlexG and Demon who just criticise but where are the teachers of science?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #111  
    ***** Participant Write4U's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,242
    Quote Originally Posted by GTCethos View Post
    As an aside, even if the boy was large for that time, today we can find 8' tall individuals. Does that prove we are all 8' tall?The fact is….



    Your post is non sequitur. “the argument is fallacious because there is a disconnection between the premise and the conclusion” any good definition.
    “The Turkana Boy fossil skeleton is virtually complete, with only the hands, feet, and a single humerus missing. It measures about 160 cm (about 5¼ ft) and was that of a 9-12 year-old boy. Many scientists surmise that Turkana Boy may have reached over 1.8 m (6 ft) in height in adulthood.”
    Fits right in with modern humans…
    Oh, and the 8'6" living man is incomplete? Tell me where my analogy fails. If 20,000 years from now this 8'6" skeleton was recovered should we conclude that humans are shrinking?
    "Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind" (W4U)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #112  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    2,408
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    How about helping out instead of being such a toffee nosed prick? Your criticisms cut to the bone but do you ever sew things back together surgeon?
    Calm down Robbity. What Paleo said was fine in this case.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #113  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    2,408
    Quote Originally Posted by GTCethos View Post
    As an aside, even if the boy was large for that time, today we can find 8' tall individuals. Does that prove we are all 8' tall?The fact is….



    Your post is non sequitur. “the argument is fallacious because there is a disconnection between the premise and the conclusion” any good definition.


    “The Turkana Boy fossil skeleton is virtually complete, with only the hands, feet, and a single humerus missing. It measures about 160 cm (about 5¼ ft) and was that of a 9-12 year-old boy. Many scientists surmise that Turkana Boy may have reached over 1.8 m (6 ft) in height in adulthood.”


    Fits right in with modern humans…

    You really don't get it.
    Turkana boy does not fit in with modern humans, and if you actually read what paleontologists said about his size most of them estimate his final height to be quite a bit shorter than 6 feet.
    The mid-adolescent growth spurt in H. ergastor was much shorter than it is in modern humans.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #114  
    Bullshit Intolerant PhDemon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK
    Posts
    4,436
    @Robbitybob, I only try to teach those able to learn, you (and many others here) don't meet this requirement...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #115  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,689
    Quote Originally Posted by PhDemon View Post
    @Robbitybob, I only try to teach those able to learn, you (and many others here) don't meet this requirement...
    Quoted for veracity.
    When will the Like button get fixed?
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #116  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    5
    This thread caught my eye. Why did evolution stop? Where did you read that there was a consensus on this? I agree with Dwyddr that natural selection in Darwinian terms plays a factor, but there are also random mutations unexplained by selection. In both cases, however, I believe the "motor" of evolution as Dwyddr sees it, may slow down because of the lack of pressure on species to change (example the possum and cockroach) and that the survival of the fittest has, in fact, played a part in the best and strongest species to survive, but in all cases, including mankind, evolution is a constant. It is so very slow that we could as humans be changed even now in stages so slow even science would find it hard to measure. The division of races, a term that often divides us, came not because of the survival of the fittest, but by adaptation to environment (cold, warm, etc) Within each racial group, perhaps natural selection is at play even now. How can we measure this over such a vast expanse of time? It's like watching a tree grow. Its growth is so slow, one may doubt it is reallly getting larger, and yet the process continues, imperceptably. No, evolution didn't stop...Perhaps it just slowed down for us.

    ----Wordsmith
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #117  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    1,040
    Quote Originally Posted by PhDemon View Post
    @Robbitybob, I only try to teach those able to learn, you (and many others here) don't meet this requirement...

    It is probably that your posts and attitudes do not encourage anyone to want to learn from you.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #118  
    Bullshit Intolerant PhDemon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK
    Posts
    4,436
    :shrug: my students in real life seem to do OK, but then they're brighter than you and Bob (and the other loons) and don't make stuff up rather than study...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #119  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    1,040
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    How about helping out instead of being such a toffee nosed prick? Your criticisms cut to the bone but do you ever sew things back together surgeon?
    Insulting is helpful how? I was noting that GTC does not understand the taxonomic terminology and thus was not making the point he/she thought they were.
    I understand you are a very knowledgeable person but you spend more time criticising rather than sharing information.
    We have enough people here like AlexG and Demon who just criticise but where are the teachers of science?
    My favorite person here to get new ideas about science has pretty much always has been Markus. I don't have the math background he has, but he seems to be pretty knowledgable and not too ascerbic and haughty. In fact, just lately he has shown some rather neat to me signs of humility. I also really dig that he translates chinese transcendental poetry as a sideline.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #120  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    1,040
    Quote Originally Posted by PhDemon View Post
    :shrug: my students in real life seem to do OK, but then they're brighter than you and Bob (and the other loons) and don't make stuff up rather than study...
    Well I do have to admit you are better at proving my point than I am.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #121  
    Bullshit Intolerant PhDemon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK
    Posts
    4,436
    A shame you can't admit you are clueless and uneducatable which is my point... Now I'm not going to participate any further, I responded to a direct criticism from Bob, but I should have just ignored you as this is just yet another attempt by you to turn a thread into a train wreck.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #122  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    2,408
    Quote Originally Posted by Wordsmith View Post
    This thread caught my eye. Why did evolution stop? Where did you read that there was a consensus on this? I agree with Dwyddr that natural selection in Darwinian terms plays a factor, but there are also random mutations unexplained by selection. In both cases, however, I believe the "motor" of evolution as Dwyddr sees it, may slow down because of the lack of pressure on species to change (example the possum and cockroach) and that the survival of the fittest has, in fact, played a part in the best and strongest species to survive, but in all cases, including mankind, evolution is a constant. It is so very slow that we could as humans be changed even now in stages so slow even science would find it hard to measure. The division of races, a term that often divides us, came not because of the survival of the fittest, but by adaptation to environment (cold, warm, etc) Within each racial group, perhaps natural selection is at play even now. How can we measure this over such a vast expanse of time? It's like watching a tree grow. Its growth is so slow, one may doubt it is reallly getting larger, and yet the process continues, imperceptably. No, evolution didn't stop...Perhaps it just slowed down for us.

    ----Wordsmith
    When the environment changes the selection pressures come back in full force.
    When times are good more of the mutants can survive and reproduce. When the die-offs happen it becomes a game of chance for which mutations survive.

    And we have been changing over time as a species. Even in our recent history our jaws are smaller, we are taller, the type of muscle we have is different, and our brains have shrunk since the stoneage, even though we are still Homo sapiens, modern humans.
    This does not even begin to consider changes in our immune systems or changes in our brain organization.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #123  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    316
    This thread caught my eye. Why did evolution stop? Where did you read that there was a consensus on this? I agree with Dwyddr that natural selection in Darwinian terms plays a factor, but there are also random mutations unexplained by selection. In both cases, however, I believe the "motor" of evolution as Dwyddr sees it, may slow down because of the lack of pressure on species to change (example the possum and cockroach) and that the survival of the fittest has, in fact, played a part in the best and strongest species to survive, but in all cases, including mankind, evolution is a constant. It is so very slow that we could as humans be changed even now in stages so slow even science would find it hard to measure. The division of races, a term that often divides us, came not because of the survival of the fittest, but by adaptation to environment (cold, warm, etc) Within each racial group, perhaps natural selection is at play even now. How can we measure this over such a vast expanse of time? It's like watching a tree grow. Its growth is so slow, one may doubt it is reallly getting larger, and yet the process continues, imperceptably. No, evolution didn't stop...Perhaps it just slowed down for us.



    My position (as stated earlier) is that observable evidence does not produce a macro speciation event. There is no evidence in experiments such as ecoli or fruit flies where tremendous selective pressure will produce another organism (morphologically different and viable). . In fact even in retroviruses, were evolution is said to proceed a million times faster than in sexual reproducing species, there is no macro change (they are always identifiable in there genome and not morphologically different).


    Even the fossil record does not suggest common decent between species…


    “Contrary to what most scientists write, the fossil record does not support the Darwinian theory of evolution because it is this theory (there are several) which we use to interpret the fossil record. By doing so we are guilty of circular reasoning if we then say the fossil record supports this theory.”
    Ronald R. West, Ph.D. Paleoecology and Geology (Assistant Professor of Paleobiology at Kansas State University), Paleoecology and uniformitarianism, Compass, vol. 45, May 1968, p. 216.
    “Gradualism is a concept I believe in, not just because of Darwin’s authority, but because my understanding of genetics seems to demand it. Yet Gould and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils … I will lay it on the line — there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument.”
    Sunderland, L., Darwin’s Enigma, Arkansas: Master Books, 1998, pp. 101–102 (quoting Patterson’s 1979 letter).
    I literally could produce a dozen more quotes “off the cuff”… This last one from Leakey himself.

    However, in a PBS documentary in 1990 he [Leakey] stated, "If pressed
    about man's ancestry, I would have to unequivocally say that all we
    have is a huge question mark. To date, there has been nothing found to
    truthfully purport as a transitional specie to man, including Lucy,
    since 1470 was as old and probably older. If further pressed, I would
    have to state that there is more evidence to suggest an abrupt arrival
    of man rather than a gradual process of evolving.


    Let others here take up their arguments with the facts

    No... the straw man here is that evolution started in the first place.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #124  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    316
    You really don't get it.
    Turkana boy does not fit in with modern humans, and if you actually read what paleontologists said about his size most of them estimate his final height to be quite a bit shorter than 6 feet.

    You do not understand that “The boy -- about 5 feet 3 inches tall when he died” Do you get that? He was not found to be over 6 feet. That is just a wild guess by evolutionists... he may have in fact been older and not going to grow much taller.



    Read the evidence

    Environment is also a factor in total height.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #125  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    5
    Mayflower

    I noticed you remark, "It is probably that your posts and attitudes do not encourage anyone to want to learn from you," followed my post on the issue of whether evolution has stopped. Where you replying to the post before me. If it applies to me, it doesn't make sense. If this was directed toward me, someone who is brand new in your forum, your remark was very rude. Please clarify! ---- Wordsmith
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #126  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by Wordsmith View Post
    Mayflower

    I noticed you remark, "It is probably that your posts and attitudes do not encourage anyone to want to learn from you," followed my post on the issue of whether evolution has stopped. Where you replying to the post before me. If it applies to me, it doesn't make sense. If this was directed toward me, someone who is brand new in your forum, your remark was very rude. Please clarify! ---- Wordsmith
    Mayflower generally is very conciliatory so I think you could be assured she wasn't being rude to you.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #127  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    1,040
    Quote Originally Posted by Wordsmith View Post
    Mayflower

    I noticed you remark, "It is probably that your posts and attitudes do not encourage anyone to want to learn from you," followed my post on the issue of whether evolution has stopped. Where you replying to the post before me. If it applies to me, it doesn't make sense. If this was directed toward me, someone who is brand new in your forum, your remark was very rude. Please clarify! ---- Wordsmith
    It did not apply to you. I quoted the post I was replying to. It was a post by Demon trying to demean myself and Rob and some others that I was replying to.

    I realize it can get confusing on a forum as to who was replying to who, so I am more and more trying to quote the post I am mostly replying to, if it is mostly one post I am replying to.
    Last edited by Mayflow; August 24th, 2014 at 03:34 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #128  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    2,408
    Quote Originally Posted by GTCethos View Post
    You really don't get it.
    Turkana boy does not fit in with modern humans, and if you actually read what paleontologists said about his size most of them estimate his final height to be quite a bit shorter than 6 feet.

    You do not understand that “The boy -- about 5 feet 3 inches tall when he died” Do you get that? He was not found to be over 6 feet. That is just a wild guess by evolutionists... he may have in fact been older and not going to grow much taller.



    Read the evidence

    Environment is also a factor in total height.
    Thank you for the extra quote mining.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #129  
    ***** Participant Write4U's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,242
    GTC,
    Even the fossil record does not suggest common decent between species
    Except of course the DNA shared by all organisms, since the very beginning. It is only the instructions contained in DNA which ceates the diversity we see, but we all have the same stuff in common, just expressed in different ways. There is the connection, because there are no exceptions. No DNA based species has different building blocks, just different blueprints. Fundamentally a stone hut is no different than a stone castle.
    DNA - Wikipedia,
    Deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) is a molecule that encodes the genetic instructions used in the development and functioning of all known living organisms and many viruses. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dna
    Deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) is a molecule that encodes the genetic instructions used in the development and functioning of all known living organisms and many viruses. DNA is a nucleic acid; alongside proteins and carbohydrates, nucleic acids compose the three major macromolecules essential for all known forms of life.
    IMO, this provides proof, that all living things are related from the very beginning and all the variety we see is a result of combining the fundamental building blocks in different ways through mutation and natural selection.
    "Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind" (W4U)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #130  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    316
    Thank you for the extra quote mining.



    You are welcome…


    If you think quote mining is illegitimate you will have to convince all academia.


    “If you use an author's specific word or words, you must place those words within quotation marks and you must credit the source.”
    http://writing.wisc.edu/Handbook/Ack...ng_Sources.pdf


    It is only illegitimate if not done properly.

    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #131  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    316
    Except of course the DNA shared by all organisms, since the very beginning. It is only the instructions contained in DNA which ceates the diversity we see, but we all have the same stuff in common, just expressed in different ways. There is the connection, because there are no exceptions. No DNA based species has different building blocks, just different blueprints. Fundamentally a stone hut is no different than a stone castle.



    Try to Consider the shared aspect of DNA as a special case of the Null Hypothesis. The Null hypothesis not of a common origin but of a design. Can you disprove the null hypothisis? If not then Common decent is open to scientific discussion. That is it in a nutshell…
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #132  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    2,408
    Quote Originally Posted by GTCethos View Post
    Thank you for the extra quote mining.



    You are welcome…


    If you think quote mining is illegitimate you will have to convince all academia.


    “If you use an author's specific word or words, you must place those words within quotation marks and you must credit the source.”
    http://writing.wisc.edu/Handbook/Ack...ng_Sources.pdf


    It is only illegitimate if not done properly.

    You are obviously not doing it properly.
    Fallacy of quoting out of context - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


    The practice of quoting out of context, sometimes referred to as "contextomy", is a logical fallacy and a type of false attribution in which a passage is removed from its surrounding matter in such a way as to distort its intended meaning.[1] Contextomies are stereotypically intentional, but may also occur accidentally if someone misinterprets the meaning and omits something essential to clarifying it, thinking it non-essential.
    In your case I am assuming it is "stereotypically intentional" (see above) and is just another fine example of you Creationists believing it is OK to ignore your own God's commandments against bearing false witness.
    Do you not realize you could burn in Hell forever for that?
    Last edited by dan hunter; August 24th, 2014 at 08:25 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #133  
    ***** Participant Write4U's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,242
    Quote Originally Posted by GTCethos View Post
    W4U,
    Except of course the DNA shared by all organisms, since the very beginning. It is only the instructions contained in DNA which ceates the diversity we see, but we all have the same stuff in common, just expressed in different ways. There is the connection, because there are no exceptions. No DNA based species has different building blocks, just different blueprints. Fundamentally a stone hut is no different than a stone castle.



    Try to Consider the shared aspect of DNA as a special case of the Null Hypothesis. The Null hypothesis not of a common origin but of a design. Can you disprove the null hypothisis? If not then Common decent is open to scientific discussion. That is it in a nutshell…
    Please note that the Nul hypothesis is an HYPOTHESIS, not an concensus theory and there is much debate as to its merits. I don't believe you can introduce that as proof of anything.
    wiki,
    Statistical significance plays a pivotal role in statistical hypothesis testing where it is used to determine if a null hypothesis can be rejected or retained.
    Being a statistical fact that all living things share the same building blocks, the Null Hypothesis is disproved and the case for Evolution (in different directions) appears to hold true.
    "Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind" (W4U)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #134  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    4,565
    Quote Originally Posted by GTCethos View Post
    This thread caught my eye. Why did evolution stop? Where did you read that there was a consensus on this? I agree with Dwyddr that natural selection in Darwinian terms plays a factor, but there are also random mutations unexplained by selection. In both cases, however, I believe the "motor" of evolution as Dwyddr sees it, may slow down because of the lack of pressure on species to change (example the possum and cockroach) and that the survival of the fittest has, in fact, played a part in the best and strongest species to survive, but in all cases, including mankind, evolution is a constant. It is so very slow that we could as humans be changed even now in stages so slow even science would find it hard to measure. The division of races, a term that often divides us, came not because of the survival of the fittest, but by adaptation to environment (cold, warm, etc) Within each racial group, perhaps natural selection is at play even now. How can we measure this over such a vast expanse of time? It's like watching a tree grow. Its growth is so slow, one may doubt it is reallly getting larger, and yet the process continues, imperceptably. No, evolution didn't stop...Perhaps it just slowed down for us.



    My position (as stated earlier) is that observable evidence does not produce a macro speciation event. There is no evidence in experiments such as ecoli or fruit flies where tremendous selective pressure will produce another organism (morphologically different and viable). . In fact even in retroviruses, were evolution is said to proceed a million times faster than in sexual reproducing species, there is no macro change (they are always identifiable in there genome and not morphologically different).


    Even the fossil record does not suggest common decent between species…


    “Contrary to what most scientists write, the fossil record does not support the Darwinian theory of evolution because it is this theory (there are several) which we use to interpret the fossil record. By doing so we are guilty of circular reasoning if we then say the fossil record supports this theory.”
    Ronald R. West, Ph.D. Paleoecology and Geology (Assistant Professor of Paleobiology at Kansas State University), Paleoecology and uniformitarianism, Compass, vol. 45, May 1968, p. 216.
    “Gradualism is a concept I believe in, not just because of Darwin’s authority, but because my understanding of genetics seems to demand it. Yet Gould and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils … I will lay it on the line — there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument.”
    Sunderland, L., Darwin’s Enigma, Arkansas: Master Books, 1998, pp. 101–102 (quoting Patterson’s 1979 letter).
    I literally could produce a dozen more quotes “off the cuff”… This last one from Leakey himself.

    However, in a PBS documentary in 1990 he [Leakey] stated, "If pressed
    about man's ancestry, I would have to unequivocally say that all we
    have is a huge question mark. To date, there has been nothing found to
    truthfully purport as a transitional specie to man, including Lucy,
    since 1470 was as old and probably older. If further pressed, I would
    have to state that there is more evidence to suggest an abrupt arrival
    of man rather than a gradual process of evolving.


    Let others here take up their arguments with the facts

    No... the straw man here is that evolution started in the first place.


    Wow, what a good example of quote mining plus taking statements that are decades out of date and trying to present them as valid.

    Why is Sunderland relevant?

    Leakys statement is 20+ years and hundreds of fossils out of date, and from a media presentation, NOT a scientific source. Its also fairly evident that it could easily mean punctuated evolution rather then gradual evolution (both trends in evolution)

    You claim no macro evolution, yet we have described examples of it, such as nylon eating bacteria.
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #135  
    ***** Participant Write4U's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,242
    However, in a PBS documentary in 1990 he [Leakey] stated, "If pressed about man's ancestry, I would have to unequivocally say that all we
    have is a huge question mark. To date, there has been nothing found to truthfully purport as a transitional specie to man, including Lucy,
    since 1470 was as old and probably older. If further pressed, I would have to state that there is more evidence to suggest an abrupt arrival of man rather than a gradual process of evolving.
    And from where would man have "arrived"? Three possibiities,
    a) panspermia, I doubt that an entire human would arrive through panspermia.
    b) mutation, the fusion of 2 hominid chromosomes into a single (more sophisticated) "human"chromosome.
    c) motivated creation by a supernatural entity.

    I'll take b) over all other possibilities.
    "Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind" (W4U)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #136  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    2,408
    Quote Originally Posted by GTCethos View Post
    ....
    I literally could produce a dozen more quotes “off the cuff”… This last one from Leakey himself.

    However, in a PBS documentary in 1990 he [Leakey] stated, "If pressed
    about man's ancestry, I would have to unequivocally say that all we
    have is a huge question mark. To date, there has been nothing found to
    truthfully purport as a transitional specie to man, including Lucy,
    since 1470 was as old and probably older. If further pressed, I would
    have to state that there is more evidence to suggest an abrupt arrival
    of man rather than a gradual process of evolving.


    And that quote from Dr. Leaky is completely unatributed to any source and has been disavowed by Dr. Leaky himself.

    Dr;. Leakey was misquoted by dishonest creationists
    Dear Mr. Nelson

    I have your letter and the best thing I can do is refer you to my published works, both scientific and popular. The Creationist movement is lead by a dishonest bunch of operators and misquotation is the hall mark of their work. Responding to them is time wasting and a letter would not be adequate to put your questions to rest. There are some things best ignored and the stupidity of these so called religious fanatics continues to astonish me. My list of publications is attached.

    Yours sincerely

    Richard Leakey
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #137  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    316
    Dear Mr. Nelson


    I have your letter and the best thing I can do is refer you to my published works, both scientific and popular. The Creationist movement is lead by a dishonest bunch of operators and misquotation is the hall mark of their work. Responding to them is time wasting and a letter would not be adequate to put your questions to rest. There are some things best ignored and the stupidity of these so called religious fanatics continues to astonish me. My list of publications is attached.


    Yours sincerely


    Richard Leakey


    Thanks for the reference my compliments to you (sincerely)… I see your reference is a Christian website… http://dogmaticagnostic.homestead.com/Darwinwasright10.html


    Dr. Leakey never makes any reference about PBS in his supposed letter to Mr. Nelson. Are we to infer Dr. Leakey rather not discuss the PBS interview? The astounding thing is Leakey never denies the statement. If I did not say those comments, my denial would be the first line. Also I can find no reference to Mr. Nelson.




    Also there is no documentation in the Research Publications referring to PBS at all.


    Anyway you are right the quotation is not strong enough to be used.. I retract it.


    Here is another to mull over (also by Richard)…


    RUINED FAMILY TREE, "Either we toss out this skull [1470] or we toss out our theories of early man," asserts anthropologist Richard Leakey of this 2.8 million year old fossil, witch he has tentatively identified as belonging to our own genus. "It simply fits no previous models of human beginnings." The author, son of famed anthropologist Louis S. B. Leakey, believes that the skull's surprisingly large braincase "
    leaves in ruins the notion that all early fossils can be arranged in an orderly sequence of evolutionary change.", National Geographic, June 1973, p.819
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #138  
    ***** Participant Write4U's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,242
    Quote Originally Posted by GTCethos View Post
    Dear Mr. Nelson


    I have your letter and the best thing I can do is refer you to my published works, both scientific and popular. The Creationist movement is lead by a dishonest bunch of operators and misquotation is the hall mark of their work. Responding to them is time wasting and a letter would not be adequate to put your questions to rest. There are some things best ignored and the stupidity of these so called religious fanatics continues to astonish me. My list of publications is attached.



    Yours sincerely


    Richard Leakey


    Thanks for the reference my compliments to you (sincerely)… I see your reference is a Christian website… http://dogmaticagnostic.homestead.com/Darwinwasright10.html


    Dr. Leakey never makes any reference about PBS in his supposed letter to Mr. Nelson. Are we to infer Dr. Leakey rather not discuss the PBS interview? The astounding thing is Leakey never denies the statement. If I did not say those comments, my denial would be the first line. Also I can find no reference to Mr. Nelson.




    Also there is no documentation in the Research Publications referring to PBS at all.


    Anyway you are right the quotation is not strong enough to be used.. I retract it.


    Here is another to mull over (also by Richard)…


    RUINED FAMILY TREE, "Either we toss out this skull [1470] or we toss out our theories of early man," asserts anthropologist Richard Leakey of this 2.8 million year old fossil, witch he has tentatively identified as belonging to our own genus. "It simply fits no previous models of human beginnings." The author, son of famed anthropologist Louis S. B. Leakey, believes that the skull's surprisingly large braincase "
    leaves in ruins the notion that all early fossils can be arranged in an orderly sequence of evolutionary change.", National Geographic, June 1973, p.819
    So maybe they cannot be arranged in an orderly sequence. Are all communities arranged in orderly physical properties?

    Gene mixing is the most effective way to create variety. The function of variety is to allow as many organisms as possible to survive and procreate.

    If we want to look back into history, just look at other hominids. Do their families show a range of physical differences? If they do today in chimps, they did then for humans. There is no "unexplainable" problem here. Variety is all around us, in all organisms.

    Imagine a tree with all the species, subspecies, and cross-species, that ever lived on earth. Then consider the cataclysmic events the earth endured during the evolution and diversification of life. Do you believe the family tree would be an orderly tree, other than being fractal?
    "Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind" (W4U)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #139  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    2,408
    Quote Originally Posted by GTCethos View Post
    Here is another to mull over (also by Richard)…


    RUINED FAMILY TREE, "Either we toss out this skull [1470] or we toss out our theories of early man," asserts anthropologist Richard Leakey of this 2.8 million year old fossil, witch he has tentatively identified as belonging to our own genus. "It simply fits no previous models of human beginnings." The author, son of famed anthropologist Louis S. B. Leakey, believes that the skull's surprisingly large braincase "
    leaves in ruins the notion that all early fossils can be arranged in an orderly sequence of evolutionary change.", National Geographic, June 1973, p.819
    Once again, provide a source so the quote can be verified in context.
    Since googling this only shows it on creationist websites I have very serious doubts about the authenticity of it.
    Creationists are passionately determined in their attempts to lie for Jesus sake.

    Don't they realize that lying for Jesus just makes poor innocent little baby Jesus cry?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #140  
    Forum Professor Zwirko's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    55° N, 3° W
    Posts
    1,082
    The full quote in a "flyout" sort of paragraph at the bottom of page 819 Nat Geo June 1973:

    ""Either we toss out this skull or we toss out our theories of early man", asserts anthropologist Richard Leakey of this 2.8 million-year-old fossil, which he has tentatively identified as belonging to our own group. "It simply fits no previous models of human beginnings". The author, son of famed anthropologist Louis S. B. Leakey, believes that the skull's surprisingly large braincase "leaves in ruins the notion that all early fossils can be arranged in an orderly sequence of evolutionary change. It appears that there were several different kinds of early man, some of which developed larger brains earlier than than had been supposed"."


    So, we have an early opinion on a newly found skull that was incorrectly dated and seems to have had its braincase size mismeasured. Wiki article on the skull and the species it is currently assigned to: Homo rudolfensis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #141  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    316
    You claim no macro evolution, yet we have described examples of it, such as nylon eating bacteria.



    In the case of “nylon eating bacteria” you could only claim a adaptation and not evolution. The enzyme involved probably came about by a gene duplication of an existing gene. In other words the gene already existed and simply sustained an alteration.This produced an enzyme ( 6-aminohexanoic acid hydrolase) capable of metabolizing nylon.


    This type of adaptation by gene duplication (and inversion) is also seen in ecoli adapting to metabolize citrate in a non aerobic environment.


    An evolution event would be earmarked by the appearance of new genetic material not “relocation or mutation of existing material).
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #142  
    Forum Professor Zwirko's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    55° N, 3° W
    Posts
    1,082
    Quote Originally Posted by GTCethos View Post


    An evolution event would be earmarked by the appearance of new genetic material not “relocation or mutation of existing material).
    100% false. Creationists have a definition of evolution that is different to that used by evolutionary biologists.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #143  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    316
    Just so we know what I am implying.

    You buy a new truck and have it raised. But when driving the truck into a parking garage you take off part of the roof. Well you can say the destruction of the roof benefited the truck by allowing it to drive into parking garages. Did you get a new truck out of the deal?

    No you got a modification that allows new functionality.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #144  
    Forum Professor Zwirko's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    55° N, 3° W
    Posts
    1,082
    Quote Originally Posted by GTCethos
    My position (as stated earlier) is that observable evidence does not produce a macro speciation event. There is no evidence in experiments such as ecoli or fruit flies where tremendous selective pressure will produce another organism (morphologically different and viable). . In fact even in retroviruses, were evolution is said to proceed a million times faster than in sexual reproducing species, there is no macro change (they are always identifiable in there genome and not morphologically different).
    You also appear to be using a creationist definition of macroevolution. Again, no paleontologists or evolutionary biologist use the term this way. Macroevolution isn't about "macro speciation event[s]".
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #145  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    316
    100% false. Creationists have a definition of evolution that is different to that used by evolutionary biologists.



    What definition are we talking about… An evolution conforming to neo-darwinism or Gould. Evolution is ad-hoc science… please clarify what you are talking about.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #146  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    4,565
    Quote Originally Posted by GTCethos View Post
    You claim no macro evolution, yet we have described examples of it, such as nylon eating bacteria.



    In the case of “nylon eating bacteria” you could only claim a adaptation and not evolution. The enzyme involved probably came about by a gene duplication of an existing gene. In other words the gene already existed and simply sustained an alteration.This produced an enzyme ( 6-aminohexanoic acid hydrolase) capable of metabolizing nylon.


    This type of adaptation by gene duplication (and inversion) is also seen in ecoli adapting to metabolize citrate in a non aerobic environment.


    An evolution event would be earmarked by the appearance of new genetic material not “relocation or mutation of existing material).
    Utter clap trap. What peer-reviewed biology texts or papers use that definition. It is not the one that is taught in either highschool or college level course work. And not the one used by biologists I know.
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #147  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    4,565
    Quote Originally Posted by GTCethos View Post
    100% false. Creationists have a definition of evolution that is different to that used by evolutionary biologists.



    What definition are we talking about… An evolution conforming to neo-darwinism or Gould. Evolution is ad-hoc science… please clarify what you are talking about.
    Evolution as defined by the modern-synthesis, not as defined by the creationist strawmen you have just listed.
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #148  
    Forum Professor Zwirko's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    55° N, 3° W
    Posts
    1,082
    Quote Originally Posted by GTCethos View Post
    Just so we know what I am implying.

    You buy a new truck and have it raised. But when driving the truck into a parking garage you take off part of the roof. Well you can say the destruction of the roof benefited the truck by allowing it to drive into parking garages. Did you get a new truck out of the deal?

    No you got a modification that allows new functionality.
    Many genes form families and super-families that are thought to have evolved by gene duplication and subsequent neofunctionalization. Such processes are one of the main mechanisms by which new genes arise. You say it doesn't count as evolution. Such opinions can only be found outside biology, I'm afraid.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #149  
    Forum Professor Zwirko's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    55° N, 3° W
    Posts
    1,082
    Quote Originally Posted by GTCethos View Post
    100% false. Creationists have a definition of evolution that is different to that used by evolutionary biologists.



    What definition are we talking about… An evolution conforming to neo-darwinism or Gould. Evolution is ad-hoc science… please clarify what you are talking about.
    Do you understand that the extinction of the dinosaurs is an example of macroevolution? That the Cambrian Explosion is one of the most celebrated areas of macroevolutionary study? That the study of whale evolution and diversification is macroevolution?

    Observing one species undergo some major morphological jump (as you described it) is not what macroevolution is about. Macroevolution studies evolution above the species level (that doesn't mean species turning into species of other families or classes btw) over geological time scales. I've no idea what your "macro speciation event" is supposed to be.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #150  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    316
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by GTCethos View Post
    You claim no macro evolution, yet we have described examples of it, such as nylon eating bacteria.



    In the case of “nylon eating bacteria” you could only claim a adaptation and not evolution. The enzyme involved probably came about by a gene duplication of an existing gene. In other words the gene already existed and simply sustained an alteration.This produced an enzyme ( 6-aminohexanoic acid hydrolase) capable of metabolizing nylon.


    This type of adaptation by gene duplication (and inversion) is also seen in ecoli adapting to metabolize citrate in a non aerobic environment.


    An evolution event would be earmarked by the appearance of new genetic material not “relocation or mutation of existing material).
    Utter clap trap. What peer-reviewed biology texts or papers use that definition. It is not the one that is taught in either highschool or college level course work. And not the one used by biologists I know.
    Utter clap trap. What peer-reviewed biology texts or papers use that definition. It is not the one that is taught in either highschool or college level course work. And not the one used by biologists I know.



    What texts and papers are we talking about? There is a lot of bad stuff out there. You can say anything you like but the proof is in the details.


    Remember what Yoda taught you… You must unlearn what you have learned.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #151  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    1,970
    Quote Originally Posted by GTCethos View Post
    This type of adaptation by gene duplication (and inversion) is also seen in ecoli adapting to metabolize citrate in a non aerobic environment.
    An evolution event would be earmarked by the appearance of new genetic material not “relocation or mutation of existing material).
    Adaptation DOES result in new genetic material, even if it is as simple as a duplication. In the short term this causes minor changes in phenotype. In the long term this causes major changes in phenotype.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #152  
    ***** Participant Write4U's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,242
    Quote Originally Posted by Zwirko View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by GTCethos View Post


    An evolution event would be earmarked by the appearance of new genetic material not “relocation or mutation of existing material).
    100% false. Creationists have a definition of evolution that is different to that used by evolutionary biologists.
    And therein lies the rub.
    "Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind" (W4U)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  53. #153  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    4,565
    Quote Originally Posted by GTCethos View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by GTCethos View Post
    You claim no macro evolution, yet we have described examples of it, such as nylon eating bacteria.



    In the case of “nylon eating bacteria” you could only claim a adaptation and not evolution. The enzyme involved probably came about by a gene duplication of an existing gene. In other words the gene already existed and simply sustained an alteration.This produced an enzyme ( 6-aminohexanoic acid hydrolase) capable of metabolizing nylon.


    This type of adaptation by gene duplication (and inversion) is also seen in ecoli adapting to metabolize citrate in a non aerobic environment.


    An evolution event would be earmarked by the appearance of new genetic material not “relocation or mutation of existing material).
    Utter clap trap. What peer-reviewed biology texts or papers use that definition. It is not the one that is taught in either highschool or college level course work. And not the one used by biologists I know.
    Utter clap trap. What peer-reviewed biology texts or papers use that definition. It is not the one that is taught in either highschool or college level course work. And not the one used by biologists I know.



    What texts and papers are we talking about? There is a lot of bad stuff out there. You can say anything you like but the proof is in the details.


    Remember what Yoda taught you… You must unlearn what you have learned.
    Cite your source....
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  54. #154  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    316
    Many genes form families and super-families that are thought to have evolved by gene duplication and subsequent neofunctionalization. Such processes are one of the main mechanisms by which new genes arise. You say it doesn't count as evolution. Such opinions can only be found outside biology, I'm afraid.



    Speculation… New genes have never arose in any observation. Such opinions can only exist outside reality (my quote). Just old genes with new functionality. ADAPTATION


    Do you understand that the extinction of the dinosaurs is an example of macroevolution? That the Cambrian Explosion is one of the most celebrated areas of macroevolutionary study? That the study of whale evolution and diversification is macroevolution?



    I thought the extinction of dinosaurs was a failure to evolve. The Cambrian explosion is one of the biggest failure of evolution to explain new species showing up out of nowhere. The Whale thing was a complete misinterpretation of a supposed hip structure which actually is a needed structure to give birth.


    Observing one species undergo some major morphological jump (as you described it) is not what macroevolution is about. Macroevolution studies evolution above the species level (that doesn't mean species turning into species of other families or classes btw) over geological time scales. I've no idea what your "macro speciation event" is supposed to be.



    Then you subscribe to Gould.


    Macroevolution is pure speculation not observable in experiment or the fossil record.

    Reply With Quote  
     

  55. #155  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    316
    Cite your source...."
    Remember what Yoda taught you… You must unlearn what you have learned".


    Star Wars....
    Reply With Quote  
     

  56. #156  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    1,970
    Quote Originally Posted by GTCethos View Post
    Macroevolution is pure speculation not observable in experiment or the fossil record.
    Agreed. There is only evolution. Macro and microevolution are simply modifiers; macroevolution is microevolution over long time spans.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  57. #157  
    Forum Professor Zwirko's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    55° N, 3° W
    Posts
    1,082
    Quote Originally Posted by GTCethos


    Speculation… New genes have never arose in any observation. Such opinions can only exist outside reality (my quote). Just old genes with new functionality. ADAPTATION
    Are you just trollin'?

    In one short sentence you say something is impossible then claim that it happens.


    Quote Originally Posted by GTCethos


    I thought the extinction of dinosaurs was a failure to evolve. The Cambrian explosion is one of the biggest failure of evolution to explain new species showing up out of nowhere. The Whale thing was a complete misinterpretation of a supposed hip structure which actually is a needed structure to give birth.

    You've totally failed to grasp what macroevolution means. The appearance, radiation and disappearance of supraspecific taxa is macroevolution. Dinsosaur extinction IS macroevoltion. The evolution of whales is well-documented. Whether you agree with the evidence for that or not has no bearing on whether the study of those fossils comes under the domain of marcoevolution or not.


    Quote Originally Posted by GTCethos


    Macroevolution is pure speculation not observable in experiment or the fossil record.


    Not observable by experiment because we have no time machine. Clearly it is observable in the fossil record - I refer you to dinosaur extinction.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  58. #158  
    Forum Professor Zwirko's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    55° N, 3° W
    Posts
    1,082
    ps

    You might make some progress on the macroevolution issue if you viewed macroevolution (for now) as a field of study rather than as a mechanism, process or event. By doing so you might begin to realise that claiming that a scientific discipline doesn't exist makes little sense.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  59. #159  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    4,565
    Quote Originally Posted by GTCethos View Post
    Cite your source...."
    Remember what Yoda taught you… You must unlearn what you have learned".


    Star Wars....
    you know very well that is NOT the information that you were asked to Cite your source on....

    Try again, cite your source
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  60. #160  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    4,565
    Quote Originally Posted by GTCethos View Post
    Many genes form families and super-families that are thought to have evolved by gene duplication and subsequent neofunctionalization. Such processes are one of the main mechanisms by which new genes arise. You say it doesn't count as evolution. Such opinions can only be found outside biology, I'm afraid.

    Speculation… New genes have never arose in any observation. Such opinions can only exist outside reality (my quote). Just old genes with new functionality. ADAPTATION
    Cite your source that this has not happened.

    Quote Originally Posted by GTCethos View Post
    I thought the extinction of dinosaurs was a failure to evolve.
    The extinction of the Cretaceous megafloras and megafaunas lead the the evolutionary radiations that happened in the Paleocene and Eocene, thus a fine example of evolution.

    Quote Originally Posted by GTCethos View Post
    The Cambrian explosion is one of the biggest failure of evolution to explain new species showing up out of nowhere.

    What failure is there in the understanding of the Cambrian radiation event is there? "New species showing up out nowhere" is a bs creationist line that draws on media headlines from a century ago and portrays them as the current opinion of paleontologists. Its NOT.

    Quote Originally Posted by GTCethos View Post
    The Whale thing was a complete misinterpretation of a supposed hip structure which actually is a needed structure to give birth.

    Ahhh, yes, because the ONLY difference between Achicetus and Pakicetus, Basilisaursaurus, and modern mysticetes is a slight change in the hip structure. Suuuuuureeeeeee.


    Quote Originally Posted by GTCethos View Post
    Observing one species undergo some major morphological jump (as you described it) is not what macroevolution is about. Macroevolution studies evolution above the species level (that doesn't mean species turning into species of other families or classes btw) over geological time scales. I've no idea what your "macro speciation event" is supposed to be.

    Then you subscribe to Gould.

    What specifically do you see as the difference between the modern synthesis and that evil Gould man?


    Quote Originally Posted by GTCethos View Post
    Macroevolution is pure speculation not observable in experiment or the fossil record.

    As already demonstrated, your assertion is hinging on crationist bull and lack of actually looking beyond the creationist sources. None of the examples you have tried to give are based on ACTUAL scientific sources or data.


    OH, and we are still waiting for you to supply the sources requested here:
    What peer-reviewed biology texts or papers use that definition. (post 146)
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  61. #161  
    ***** Participant Write4U's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,242
    @GTC,

    Short term genetic "adaption" is an evolutionary process through "natural selection'. Those best adapted have the greatest chance for survival and procreation. This is also called micro-evolution.

    Long term genetic adaption is an evolutionary process through "natural selection", leading eventually to macro-evolution, whereby the organism has undergone so many adaptions that the organism is no longer recognizable as the original organism.

    The "cuttlefish is one such example. It used to be a slug, evolving into a mollusk, evolving into a sophisticated cephalopod which is an example of macro evolution over 500 million years.
    Cuttlefish, along with octopuses and squid, are cephalopods—animals from an ancient branch of the tree of life that have been trolling the oceans for more than 500 million years. Cuttlefish were around long before the first shark or fish ever evolved. Their cephalopod ancestors were encased in a shell that acted as protection from predators, but the modern cuttlefish has developed an even better defense: camouflage.
    and today,
    A cuttlefish’s skin contains over twenty million chromatophores, cells of pigment attached to miniscule muscles. By gently flexing these muscles, the cuttlefish releases pigment into the outer layer of its skin, allowing it to control its coloration and body pattern to emulate virtually any surroundings and thereby hide in plain sight. The cuttlefish’s highly specialized skin also helps it hunt, communicate, and mate. Animal Guide: Cuttlefish | Nature | PBS
    and
    MARK NORMAN (Museum Victoria): They've developed this skin that can do the amazing changes in color and changes in shape. And you couldn't get a weirder looking animal.

    ROGER HANLON (Marine Biological Laboratory): Every place they go, they are morphing into something that looks a lot like that environment.

    NARRATOR: How does an animal that's related to a slug manage such clever tricks? NOVA | Kings of Camouflage
    Would you recognize a cuttlefish as a slug? Of course not, it is an entirely different animal, but still has remnants of the slug DNA.
    Last edited by Write4U; August 25th, 2014 at 08:00 PM.
    "Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind" (W4U)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  62. #162  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    1,970
    Quote Originally Posted by GTCethos View Post
    I thought the extinction of dinosaurs was a failure to evolve.
    So you believe birds don't exist?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  63. #163  
    ***** Participant Write4U's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,242
    Quote Originally Posted by billvon View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by GTCethos View Post
    I thought the extinction of dinosaurs was a failure to evolve.
    So you believe birds don't exist?
    The origin of birds refers to the initial stages in the evolution of birds. The scientific consensus is that birds are a group of theropod dinosaurs that evolved during the Mesozoic Era. Origin of birds - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Another example of micro-evolution becoming macro-evolution over long periods of "adaption or "neoteny". Can you see the dinosaur in a swan?

    p.s. later studies discarded the label theropod, a specific kind of dinosaur. But birds are the macro evolved species from a dinosaur.

    And let'st not forget mutations which may cause a macro evolution of a species in a relatively short period of time.
    Last edited by Write4U; August 25th, 2014 at 08:02 PM.
    "Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind" (W4U)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  64. #164  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    316
    Another example of micro-evolution becoming macro-evolution over long periods of "adaption or "neoteny". Can you see the dinosaur in a swan?


    p.s. later studies discarded the label theropod, a specific kind of dinosaur. But birds are the macro evolved species from dinosaurs.


    And let'st not forget mutations which may cause a macro evolution of a species in a relatively short period of time.


    Looks like, smells like, tastes like… all anecdotal. Here is one paleontologist that believes in a biblical creation.

    Robert Thomas Bakker

    An Ecumenical Christian minister, Bakker has said there is no real conflict between religion and science. He has advised non-believers and creationists to read the views put forward by Saint Augustine, who argued against a literal understanding of the Book of Genesis.[8]
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_T._Bakker#Bibliography


    About the evolution is relatively small time frames, those cases are adaptation or pure speculation.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  65. #165  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    316
    So you believe birds don't exist?



    NO but they did not evolve from dino’s…
    Last edited by GTCethos; August 25th, 2014 at 08:47 PM. Reason: mistake
    Reply With Quote  
     

  66. #166  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by GTCethos View Post
    So you believe birds don't exist?



    NO but they did not evolve from dino’s…
    Where did they come from then?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  67. #167  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    4,565
    Quote Originally Posted by GTCethos View Post
    Another example of micro-evolution becoming macro-evolution over long periods of "adaption or "neoteny". Can you see the dinosaur in a swan?


    p.s. later studies discarded the label theropod, a specific kind of dinosaur. But birds are the macro evolved species from dinosaurs.


    And let'st not forget mutations which may cause a macro evolution of a species in a relatively short period of time.


    Looks like, smells like, tastes like… all anecdotal. Here is one paleontologist that believes in a biblical creation.

    Robert Thomas Bakker

    An Ecumenical Christian minister, Bakker has said there is no real conflict between religion and science. He has advised non-believers and creationists to read the views put forward by Saint Augustine, who argued against a literal understanding of the Book of Genesis.[8]
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_T._Bakker#Bibliography


    About the evolution is relatively small time frames, those cases are adaptation or pure speculation.
    Do you even understand what is being stated there?

    AND we are still waiting for you to answer the points raised earlier.
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  68. #168  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    316
    Where did they come from then?

    Personal beliefs or the science?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  69. #169  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    316
    Do you even understand what is being stated there?

    In particular... What are you talking about?

    AND we are still waiting for you to answer the points raised earlier.
    Points raised earlier... Which ones?

    I would love to respond but in the interest of saving space, let us cut to the chase.

    Reply With Quote  
     

  70. #170  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    4,565
    Stop acting clueless, it doesnt work, and is pretty insulting.

    Now answer the points that were raised. (this is the third time youve been asked)
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  71. #171  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    2,408
    Quote Originally Posted by GTCethos View Post
    ....


    Looks like, smells like, tastes like… all anecdotal. Here is one paleontologist that believes in a biblical creation.

    Robert Thomas Bakker

    An Ecumenical Christian minister, Bakker has said there is no real conflict between religion and science. He has advised non-believers and creationists to read the views put forward by Saint Augustine, who argued against a literal understanding of the Book of Genesis.[8]
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_T._Bakker#Bibliography
    .....
    Why do you continue to lie?
    Bakker states that you should not believe in a biblical creation in that WP article. You even included in your quote of it.

    So exactly what are you, a troll, delusionally insane, or just not very smart?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  72. #172  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    2,408
    From Creation and Genesis | Catholic Answers
    Augustine"It not infrequently happens that something about the earth, about the sky, about other elements of this world, about the motion and rotation or even the magnitude and distances of the stars, about definite eclipses of the sun and moon, about the passage of years and seasons, about the nature of animals, of fruits, of stones, and of other such things, may be known with the greatest certainty by reasoning or by experience, even by one who is not a Christian. It is too disgraceful and ruinous, though, and greatly to be avoided, that he [the non-Christian] should hear a Christian speaking so idiotically on these matters, and as if in accord with Christian writings, that he might say that he could scarcely keep from laughing when he saw how totally in error they are. In view of this and in keeping it in mind constantly while dealing with the book of Genesis, I have, insofar as I was able, explained in detail and set forth for consideration the meanings of obscure passages, taking care not to affirm rashly some one meaning to the prejudice of another and perhaps better explanation" (The Literal Interpretation of Genesis 1:19–20 [A.D. 408]).
    "With the scriptures it is a matter of treating about the faith. For that reason, as I have noted repeatedly, if anyone, not understanding the mode of divine eloquence, should find something about these matters [about the physical universe] in our books, or hear of the same from those books, of such a kind that it seems to be at variance with the perceptions of his own rational faculties, let him believe that these other things are in no way necessary to the admonitions or accounts or predictions of the scriptures. In short, it must be said that our authors knew the truth about the nature of the skies, but it was not the intention of the Spirit of God, who spoke through them, to teach men anything that would not be of use to them for their salvation" (ibid., 2:9).
    "Seven days by our reckoning, after the model of the days of creation, make up a week. By the passage of such weeks time rolls on, and in these weeks one day is constituted by the course of the sun from its rising to its setting; but we must bear in mind that these days indeed recall the days of creation, but without in any way being really similar to them" (ibid., 4:27).
    "[A]t least we know that it [the Genesis creation day] is different from the ordinary day with which we are familiar" (ibid., 5:2).
    "For in these days [of creation] the morning and evening are counted until, on the sixth day, all things which God then made were finished, and on the seventh the rest of God was mysteriously and sublimely signalized. What kind of days these were is extremely difficult or perhaps impossible for us to conceive, and how much more to say!" (The City of God 11:6 [A.D. 419]).
    "We see that our ordinary days have no evening but by the setting [of the sun] and no morning but by the rising of the sun, but the first three days of all were passed without sun, since it is reported to have been made on the fourth day. And first of all, indeed, light was made by the word of God, and God, we read, separated it from the darkness and called the light ‘day’ and the darkness ‘night’; but what kind of light that was, and by what periodic movement it made evening and morning, is beyond the reach of our senses; neither can we understand how it was and yet must unhesitatingly believe it" (ibid., 11:7).
    "They [pagans] are deceived, too, by those highly mendacious documents which profess to give the history of [man as] many thousands of years, though reckoning by the sacred writings we find that not 6,000 years have yet passed" (ibid., 12:10).
    NIHIL OBSTAT: I have concluded that the materials
    presented in this work are free of doctrinal or moral errors.
    Bernadeane Carr, STL, Censor Librorum, August 10, 2004
    IMPRIMATUR: In accord with 1983 CIC 827
    permission to publish this work is hereby granted.

    +Robert H. Brom, Bishop of San Diego, August 10, 2004
    Reply With Quote  
     

  73. #173  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by dan hunter View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by GTCethos View Post
    ....


    Looks like, smells like, tastes like… all anecdotal. Here is one paleontologist that believes in a biblical creation.

    Robert Thomas Bakker

    An Ecumenical Christian minister, Bakker has said there is no real conflict between religion and science. He has advised non-believers and creationists to read the views put forward by Saint Augustine, who argued against a literal understanding of the Book of Genesis.[8]
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_T._Bakker#Bibliography
    .....
    Why do you continue to lie?
    Bakker states that you should not believe in a biblical creation in that WP article. You even included in your quote of it.

    So exactly what are you, a troll, delusionally insane, or just not very smart?
    Is there such a thing as a "non-literal" "Biblical creation" concept?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  74. #174  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    2,408
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    Is there such a thing as a "non-literal" "Biblical creation" concept?
    Yes there are a few. Creation and Genesis | Catholic Answers
    Reply With Quote  
     

  75. #175  
    ***** Participant Write4U's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,242
    Excerpt,
    ]"Seven days by our reckoning, after the model of the days of creation, make up a week. By the passage of such weeks time rolls on, and in these weeks one day is constituted by the course of the sun from its rising to its setting; but we must bear in mind that these days indeed recall the days of creation, but without in any way being really similar to them" (ibid., 4:27).
    At last an admission of error. The sun and earth did not even exist yet, so how could we arrive at a 24 hr day, except from ignorance?
    "
    At least we know that it [the Genesis creation day] is different from the ordinary day with which we are familiar" (ibid., 5:2).
    Notice that (by some convoluted logic) the duration of god's day is now not necessary anymore (as it would not benefit man to know the Truth), thereby admitting that the 6 day creation is of the universe is of "unknown" duration, yet the insistence that the creation of man was less than 6000 years?

    Of course, science knows that Creation (Inflation) happened in a time much "shorter" than a day. Inflation (creation) happened in
    The inflationary epoch lasted from 10−36 seconds after the Big Bang to sometime between 10−33 and 10−32 seconds. Following the inflationary period, the universe continues to expand (evolve), but at a less accelerated rate. Inflation (cosmology) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    IOW, Universal Evolution.

    And from the fossil records we now "know" that modern man appeared some 15 million years ago by process of Evolution, not 6000 human years.
    Thus we now have the knowledge to say unequivocably that the bible is wrong in regard to the 6 (24 hr) day creation of the universe and the appearance of humans.

    I am sorry GTC, but you are not even in agreement with "learned" fellow Theists. Please give up this line of reasoning. You are a smart man and must see the fallacy in clinging to the literal interpretation of the OT. It is not a book of "revealed truth", but a first clumsy attempt to explain what must have seemed a magical world in those days.

    Why do creationist insist on dabbling in sciences of which they know very little, instead of holding the bible up as an allegorical document which deals with the philosophy of Morality? But then we know that since the "invention" of scripture religion does not seem to have made any difference in our moral behaviors. One needs to look only at the current situation in the middle east to see that so very clearly.

    The Bible is NOT a book of Science. It is the "religious scientists" themselves who have come to this conclusion in the face of overwhelming real scientific evidence.
    "Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind" (W4U)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  76. #176  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    316
    Since I am departing this thread I have decided to show how bad the divergence problem is between man and his supposed closest relative the chimp.


    I call this the divergence dilemma…


    The following numbers are verifiable from various web sites. The only thing I have contributed here is the fact I have inserted the empirical value for mutation rate and turned the formula around to solve for divergence time instead of mutation rate (known now).


    t= number of generations since divergence (Generation =20 years)
    k= percentage of sequence divergence Estimated at 4%
    Ne= effective size of population ~10^3
    (u)=mutation rate 6.8*10^-9 (60 mutation per generation)


    t= .5(k/u-4Ne) from Estimate of the Mutation Rate per Nucleotide in Humans


    This gives a t (generations from divergence)= 2.9 million generations
    2.9 million generations x 20 years per generation= 58 million years


    I tested the validity of the calculation by plugging in the scientists numbers and verified that I obtained their result.


    Since 58 million years is much larger than the approximate 6 million years the scientists assumed I concluded that the empirical evidence shows the evolution paradigm to be false. Look around at the evidence, evolution fails to meet all it’s predictions.


    I could also show that there is also a U-Paradox (deleterious mutation problem)


    I know most of you will just ignore what I have posted but if it was me I would tear into the cited paper and do the calculations myself. I will be around so if you have any problems following the scientific paper just send a note to me.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  77. #177  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    985
    Not every evolutionary change results in different morphology. Humanity is even now in the middle of evolutionary change. We are changing into a species that is resistent to the effects of HIV. In 200 years there will be few humans alive who are susepible to it.


    On the use of the word "adaptation": an adaptation is some thing an individual does to adjust to a novel situation. When the change involves the bulk of a population being born with a different characteristic, that is evolution.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  78. #178  
    ***** Participant Write4U's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,242
    Excerpt;
    The high deleterious mutation rate in humans presents a paradox. If mutations interact multiplicatively, the genetic load associated with such a high U would be intolerable in species with a low rate of reproduction
    True, unless you develop medicines to counteract the genetic deleterious mutations, which we have. Steven Hawking would not be alive today if it were not for medical intervention.

    Regardless, the record show that evolution is not a precise or predictable function. What was the mutation rate of dinosaurs? Would it have mattered if we knew?

    That article was impressive as a science paper, but it made no predictions or conclusions. You are.
    "Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind" (W4U)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  79. #179  
    ***** Participant Write4U's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,242
    I don't know if there is still interest in the subject but I ran across this and hoped it would add another dimension to DNA testing and comparing.
    Abstract
    Motivation: Methylation of CpG dinucleotides is a prevalent epigenetic modification that is required for proper development in vertebrates. Genome-wide DNA methylation assays have become increasingly common, and this has enabled characterization of DNA methylation in distinct stages across differentiating cellular lineages. Changes in CpG methylation are essential to cellular differentiation; however, current methods for modeling methylation dynamics do not account for the dependency structure between precursor and dependent cell types..
    Modeling DNA methylation dynamics with approaches from phylogenetics
    "Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind" (W4U)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  80. #180  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by dan hunter View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    Is there such a thing as a "non-literal" "Biblical creation" concept?
    Yes there are a few. Creation and Genesis | Catholic Answers
    "non-literal" "Biblical creation" equals evolution in today's view.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  81. #181  
    ***** Participant Write4U's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,242
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by dan hunter View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    Is there such a thing as a "non-literal" "Biblical creation" concept?
    Yes there are a few. Creation and Genesis | Catholic Answers
    "non-literal" "Biblical creation" equals evolution in today's view.
    Also confirmed by the Pontifical Academy of Science of the Vatican (Holy See) and declared to be true by Pope John Paul II.
    Pope John Paul II, on the 23rd of October, 1996, while speaking to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences plenary session at the Vatican, declared the evolutionary theories of Charles Darwin to be fact, tacitly acknowledging that man evolved from the apes, and reducing the biblical account of Genesis to that of mere fable! Pope John Paul II Declares Evolution to be Fact!
    "Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind" (W4U)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  82. #182  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by Write4U View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by dan hunter View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    Is there such a thing as a "non-literal" "Biblical creation" concept?
    Yes there are a few. Creation and Genesis | Catholic Answers
    "non-literal" "Biblical creation" equals evolution in today's view.
    Also confirmed by the Pontifical Academy of Science of the Vatican (Holy See) and declared to be true by Pope John Paul II.
    Pope John Paul II, on the 23rd of October, 1996, while speaking to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences plenary session at the Vatican, declared the evolutionary theories of Charles Darwin to be fact, tacitly acknowledging that man evolved from the apes, and reducing the biblical account of Genesis to that of mere fable! Pope John Paul II Declares Evolution to be Fact!
    I don't think of Genesis as fable but rather a prediction of the future.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  83. #183  
    ***** Participant Write4U's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,242
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Write4U View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by dan hunter View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    Is there such a thing as a "non-literal" "Biblical creation" concept?
    Yes there are a few. Creation and Genesis | Catholic Answers
    "non-literal" "Biblical creation" equals evolution in today's view.
    Also confirmed by the Pontifical Academy of Science of the Vatican (Holy See) and declared to be true by Pope John Paul II.
    Pope John Paul II, on the 23rd of October, 1996, while speaking to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences plenary session at the Vatican, declared the evolutionary theories of Charles Darwin to be fact, tacitly acknowledging that man evolved from the apes, and reducing the biblical account of Genesis to that of mere fable! Pope John Paul II Declares Evolution to be Fact!
    I don't think of Genesis as fable but rather a prediction of the future.
    yes, if you ignore the scientific inaccuracies, the bible does contain profound messages and moral allegories. It is the literal interpretation that is causing the "confounding of languages" among theists, even those religions which are based on scripture in the OT .

    If I were asked, I would recommend a thorough edit of the bible to bring it up to date with current scientific knowledge and concentrate on the moral message of "living a good and productive life without causing harm to others.", which of course is actually a secular moral message.

    Unfortunately a lot of good stuff gets obscured by allegorical fables, such as eating the fruit from the tree of knowledge of good and evil, at urging of the devil disguised as a snake (sometimes also associated with Lilith)
    "and they knew shame"
    Why would Adam and Eve "know" shame ? Who was there to observe their nakedness or behavior, other animals? If they were ashamed of each other when becoming intelligent, that would make a poor start to mankind, IMO.
    Last edited by Write4U; August 27th, 2014 at 12:05 AM.
    "Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind" (W4U)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  84. #184  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    WA
    Posts
    287
    This is proof of natural selection in humans today haha

    http://youtu.be/VGDUqBLtyNM
    Newbie to Science, trying to educate myself on this forum and further my scientific knowledge.

    I like to ask a ton of questions so please be understanding!

    I like to think of new stuff and in new ways.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  85. #185  
    exchemist
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    London
    Posts
    2,539
    Quote Originally Posted by Write4U View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Write4U View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by dan hunter View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    Is there such a thing as a "non-literal" "Biblical creation" concept?
    Yes there are a few. Creation and Genesis | Catholic Answers
    "non-literal" "Biblical creation" equals evolution in today's view.
    Also confirmed by the Pontifical Academy of Science of the Vatican (Holy See) and declared to be true by Pope John Paul II.
    Pope John Paul II, on the 23rd of October, 1996, while speaking to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences plenary session at the Vatican, declared the evolutionary theories of Charles Darwin to be fact, tacitly acknowledging that man evolved from the apes, and reducing the biblical account of Genesis to that of mere fable! Pope John Paul II Declares Evolution to be Fact!
    I don't think of Genesis as fable but rather a prediction of the future.
    yes, if you ignore the scientific inaccuracies, the bible does contain profound messages and moral allegories. It is the literal interpretation that is causing the "confounding of languages" among theists, even those religions which are based on scripture in the OT .

    If I were asked, I would recommend a thorough edit of the bible to bring it up to date with current scientific knowledge and concentrate on the moral message of "living a good and productive life without causing harm to others.", which of course is actually a secular moral message.

    Unfortunately a lot of good stuff gets obscured by allegorical fables, such as eating the fruit from the tree of knowledge of good and evil, at urging of the devil disguised as a snake (sometimes also associated with Lilith)
    "and they knew shame"
    Why would Adam and Eve "know" shame ? Who was there to observe their nakedness or behavior, other animals? If they were ashamed of each other when becoming intelligent, that would make a poor start to mankind, IMO.
    Hmm, this is off-topic, but I disagree. I think if you read Genesis as an allegorical work of literature, the idea of eating from the tree of knowledge of good and evil is a very profound and poetic image.

    It represents the dawn of Man's sense of morality, that is, of awareness of the difference between right and wrong, and the new cares and responsibilities that then follow, of choosing right rather than wrong - and of Man's propensity for choosing wrong nonetheless. Furthermore, it involves a loss of innocence, as the business about Adam and Eve realising they were naked makes clear. This too is an idea we all acknowledge. We often hanker after the innocence and simplicity of childhood, and we treat animals as blameless in their behaviour. Both are innocent, because they have no sense of right and wrong. So this knowledge is both a blessing and a curse for Mankind.

    This, it seems to me, is what the Genesis story - and the doctrines of Fall and Original Sin that flow from it - are all about. It is an allegory to show Man's place in the world, his duties and his frailties. In other words it is about how to live your life, not about how the physical world was really made.

    So I would not change this for a second, any more than I would "update" Shakespeare into c.21st English.

    It is only a few fools in the US Bible Belt who take the Old Testament all literally, in any case.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  86. #186  
    ***** Participant Write4U's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,242
    @ exchemist,

    I believe I pointed out the allegorical nature of the bible and how it "confounds the language".

    But what happened to "Revealed Truth"? The 6 day creation of the universe and all that is contained within 6000 years ago? If i recall 60% of the people in the US take that literally. There is even a Creationist museum.

    To me, your post sounded like a "justification" and an "apologetic" at the same time. No offense intended.

    To bring this back to the OP. According to the bible, evolution has not stopped, it never existed!
    Last edited by Write4U; August 31st, 2014 at 05:35 PM.
    "Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind" (W4U)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  87. #187  
    exchemist
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    London
    Posts
    2,539
    Quote Originally Posted by Write4U View Post
    @ exchemist,

    I believe I pointed out the allegorical nature of the bible and how it "confounds the language".

    But what happened to "Revealed Truth"? The 6 day creation of the universe and all that is contained within 6000 years ago? If i recall 60% of the people in the US take that literally. There is even a Creationist museum.

    To me, your post sounded like a "justification" and an "apologetic" at the same time. No offense intended.

    To bring this back to the OP. According to the bible, evolution has not stopped, it never existed!
    I don't know about "Revealed Truth". I do recall, from my Catholic and Anglican - influenced upbringing, something about a number of specific "revealed truths" [plural, lower case], for example about the Trinity. But literal 6 day creation and all that balls was never part of it and has no place in the theology of the major Christian denominations. It is worth keeping in mind that there have been theology departments in the ancient European universities for more centuries than science departments. Hundreds of thousands of scholars have made it their life's work to interpret the bible and add to the ideas of their predecessors. These people have now lived and worked alongside scientists for about 300 years, so obviously their ideas of theology have adapted in the light of the ever-improving models of the physical world developed by science. Furthermore, many c.18th and c.19th scientists were also priests or ministers of religion.

    For some reason biblical literalism seems to have taken hold in the US Bible Belt, most likely as a result of activism originated by the 7th Day Adventists. To my knowledge there are no universities that are any good where the theology department takes a literalist view of the bible, though I am aware there a number of lousy ones - in the US Bible Belt.

    But of course we in Europe have had a habit of making life uncomfortable for non-conformist religious believers for centuries, so there is a long heritage of the wackiest taking ship to the USA……...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  88. #188  
    ***** Participant Write4U's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,242
    I'll start this with
    In religion and theology, revelation is the revealing or disclosing of some form of truth or knowledge through communication with a deity or other supernatural entity or entities.
    Revealed truth - encyclopedia article about Revealed truth.
    Write4U@ exchemist,

    I believe I pointed out the allegorical nature of the bible and how it "confounds the language".

    But what happened to "Revealed Truth"? The 6 day creation of the universe and all that is contained within 6000 years ago? If i recall 60% of the people in the US take that literally. There is even a Creationist museum.

    To me, your post sounded like a "justification" and an "apologetic" at the same time. No offense intended.

    To bring this back to the OP. According to the bible, evolution has not stopped, it never existed!
    exchemist,
    I don't know about "Revealed Truth". I do recall, from my Catholic and Anglican - influenced upbringing, something about a number of specific "revealed truths" [plural, lower case], for example about the Trinity. But literal 6 day creation and all that balls was never part of it and has no place in the theology of the major Christian denominations.
    Thank you for acknowledging that. I am glad to hear you say there are inaccuracies in the bible. Good for you. You just confirmed everything I have said. Perhaps you need to reread my posts more carefully. The Bible is based on Revealed Truth or Revelation, not on Science and certainly not in the area of Evolution.

    wiki, Revelation (or Revealed Truth) with Capital letters.
    In religion and theology, revelation is the revealing or disclosing of some form of truth or knowledge through communication with a deity or other supernatural entity or entities. Revelation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    exchemist,
    It is worth keeping in mind that there have been theology departments in the ancient European universities for more centuries than science departments. Hundreds of thousands of scholars have made it their life's work to interpret the bible and add to the ideas of their predecessors.
    Thus the bible was written for scholars, not for the average Joe or as you call them "the wacky ones", which I consider to be an expression of "exclusivity, which of course has been the source and reason for committing unspeakable crimes in the name of god.
    exchemist,
    These people have now lived and worked alongside scientists for about 300 years, so obviously their ideas of theology have adapted in the light of the ever-improving models of the physical world developed by science. Furthermore, many c.18th and c.19th scientists were also priests or ministers of religion. [/COLOR]
    Are you saying that the bible has been edited before? Why not now, another 300 years of Scientific knowledge of the Universe and the way things work?

    Here is a link to the study of the Bible by objective bible scholars
    Bad Books of the Bible,
    You'd think that "The Good Book" wouldn't have much bad stuff in it. But nearly half (27/66) of the Bible's books have nothing good in them, at least as far as I can see. From Genesis to Revelation, the Bible includes some of the worst stuff in all literature, with 27 books that have not a single piece of useful moral (or any other kind of) advice. Dwindling In Unbelief: Bad Books of the Bible
    exchemist,
    For some reason biblical literalism seems to have taken hold in the US Bible Belt, most likely as a result of activism originated by the 7th Day Adventists. To my knowledge there are no universities that are any good where the theology department takes a literalist view of the bible, though I am aware there a number of lousy ones - in the US Bible Belt.

    But of course we in Europe have had a habit of making life uncomfortable for non-conformist religious believers for centuries, so there is a long heritage of the wackiest taking ship to the USA
    Yes, anyone who thought different from Scripture were the wacky ones, who were usually executed and "escaped" to the US.

    Ask Galileo Galilei, what the church thought of his ideas.
    Born on February 15, 1564, in Pisa, Italy, Galileo Galilei was a mathematics professor who made pioneering observations of nature with long-lasting implications for the study of physics. He also constructed a telescope and supported the Copernican theory, which supports a sun-centered solar system. Galileo was accused twice of heresy by the church for his beliefs, and wrote books on his ideas. He died in Arcetri, Italy, on January 8, 1642.
    and
    Finally, his discoveries with the telescope revolutionized astronomy and paved the way for the acceptance of the Copernican heliocentric system, but his advocacy of that system eventually resulted in an Inquisition process against him. Galileo (Italian philosopher, astronomer and mathematician) -- Encyclopedia Britannica
    and
    Galileo has been called the "father of modern observational astronomy",[4] the "father of modern physics",[5][6] the "father of science",[6][7] and "the Father of Modern Science".[8]
    He was tried by the Holy Office, then found "vehemently suspect of heresy", was forced to recant, and spent the rest of his life under house arrest.[11][12] It was while Galileo was under house arrest that he wrote one of his finest works, Two New Sciences, in which he summarised the work he had done some forty years earlier, on the two sciences now called kinematics and strength of materials.[13][14].Galileo Galilei - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    And ask Hypatia (the first woman astronmer and mathematician) what the church thought of her. She was literally "torn to bits".
    Regarded as the first woman astronomer, Hypatia was also an accomplished mathematician, an inventor, and a philosopher of Plato and Aristotle, She lived during the late 4th, early 5th centuries--a time of great change. Hypatia
    So much for religious respect for Scrience. As revealed God himself said (i'm not sure of the language he used)[/quote] "I shall confound their language." and it has been ever thus. Not very effective for teaching a consistent and clear message.

    No wonder religion has been at war for 3000 years.

    You may want to read the "annotated bible". Skeptic's Annotated Bible / Quran / Book of Mormon

    Before I get chided for going off topic, I'll leave it at that. If you want to discuss the accuracy of the bible we can go to another thread.

    In any case the bible does not speak of Evolution of any kind and is therefore useles in a discussion about evolution.
    "Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind" (W4U)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  89. #189  
    exchemist
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    London
    Posts
    2,539
    Quote Originally Posted by Write4U View Post
    I'll start this with
    In religion and theology, revelation is the revealing or disclosing of some form of truth or knowledge through communication with a deity or other supernatural entity or entities.
    Revealed truth - encyclopedia article about Revealed truth.
    Write4U@ exchemist,

    I believe I pointed out the allegorical nature of the bible and how it "confounds the language".

    But what happened to "Revealed Truth"? The 6 day creation of the universe and all that is contained within 6000 years ago? If i recall 60% of the people in the US take that literally. There is even a Creationist museum.

    To me, your post sounded like a "justification" and an "apologetic" at the same time. No offense intended.

    To bring this back to the OP. According to the bible, evolution has not stopped, it never existed!
    exchemist,
    I don't know about "Revealed Truth". I do recall, from my Catholic and Anglican - influenced upbringing, something about a number of specific "revealed truths" [plural, lower case], for example about the Trinity. But literal 6 day creation and all that balls was never part of it and has no place in the theology of the major Christian denominations.
    Thank you for acknowledging that. I am glad to hear you say there are inaccuracies in the bible. Good for you. You just confirmed everything I have said. Perhaps you need to reread my posts more carefully. The Bible is based on Revealed Truth or Revelation, not on Science and certainly not in the area of Evolution.

    wiki, Revelation (or Revealed Truth) with Capital letters.
    In religion and theology, revelation is the revealing or disclosing of some form of truth or knowledge through communication with a deity or other supernatural entity or entities. Revelation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    exchemist,
    It is worth keeping in mind that there have been theology departments in the ancient European universities for more centuries than science departments. Hundreds of thousands of scholars have made it their life's work to interpret the bible and add to the ideas of their predecessors.
    Thus the bible was written for scholars, not for the average Joe or as you call them "the wacky ones", which I consider to be an expression of "exclusivity, which of course has been the source and reason for committing unspeakable crimes in the name of god.
    exchemist,
    These people have now lived and worked alongside scientists for about 300 years, so obviously their ideas of theology have adapted in the light of the ever-improving models of the physical world developed by science. Furthermore, many c.18th and c.19th scientists were also priests or ministers of religion. [/COLOR]
    Are you saying that the bible has been edited before? Why not now, another 300 years of Scientific knowledge of the Universe and the way things work?

    Here is a link to the study of the Bible by objective bible scholars
    Bad Books of the Bible,
    You'd think that "The Good Book" wouldn't have much bad stuff in it. But nearly half (27/66) of the Bible's books have nothing good in them, at least as far as I can see. From Genesis to Revelation, the Bible includes some of the worst stuff in all literature, with 27 books that have not a single piece of useful moral (or any other kind of) advice. Dwindling In Unbelief: Bad Books of the Bible
    exchemist,
    For some reason biblical literalism seems to have taken hold in the US Bible Belt, most likely as a result of activism originated by the 7th Day Adventists. To my knowledge there are no universities that are any good where the theology department takes a literalist view of the bible, though I am aware there a number of lousy ones - in the US Bible Belt.

    But of course we in Europe have had a habit of making life uncomfortable for non-conformist religious believers for centuries, so there is a long heritage of the wackiest taking ship to the USA
    Yes, anyone who thought different from Scripture were the wacky ones, who were usually executed and "escaped" to the US.

    Ask Galileo Galilei, what the church thought of his ideas.
    Born on February 15, 1564, in Pisa, Italy, Galileo Galilei was a mathematics professor who made pioneering observations of nature with long-lasting implications for the study of physics. He also constructed a telescope and supported the Copernican theory, which supports a sun-centered solar system. Galileo was accused twice of heresy by the church for his beliefs, and wrote books on his ideas. He died in Arcetri, Italy, on January 8, 1642.
    and
    Finally, his discoveries with the telescope revolutionized astronomy and paved the way for the acceptance of the Copernican heliocentric system, but his advocacy of that system eventually resulted in an Inquisition process against him. Galileo (Italian philosopher, astronomer and mathematician) -- Encyclopedia Britannica
    and
    Galileo has been called the "father of modern observational astronomy",[4] the "father of modern physics",[5][6] the "father of science",[6][7] and "the Father of Modern Science".[8]
    He was tried by the Holy Office, then found "vehemently suspect of heresy", was forced to recant, and spent the rest of his life under house arrest.[11][12] It was while Galileo was under house arrest that he wrote one of his finest works, Two New Sciences, in which he summarised the work he had done some forty years earlier, on the two sciences now called kinematics and strength of materials.[13][14].Galileo Galilei - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    And ask Hypatia (the first woman astronmer and mathematician) what the church thought of her. She was literally "torn to bits".
    Regarded as the first woman astronomer, Hypatia was also an accomplished mathematician, an inventor, and a philosopher of Plato and Aristotle, She lived during the late 4th, early 5th centuries--a time of great change. Hypatia
    So much for religious respect for Scrience. As revealed God himself said (i'm not sure of the language he used)
    "I shall confound their language." and it has been ever thus. Not very effective for teaching a consistent and clear message.

    No wonder religion has been at war for 3000 years.

    You may want to read the "annotated bible". Skeptic's Annotated Bible / Quran / Book of Mormon

    Before I get chided for going off topic, I'll leave it at that. If you want to discuss the accuracy of the bible we can go to another thread.

    In any case the bible does not speak of Evolution of any kind and is therefore useles in a discussion about evolution.[/QUOTE]

    I must say I think you are going completely off the deep end, over the very mild (and uncontroversial) remarks I have made about this. I do not understand what is upsetting you so much. But enough: it is, as you say, off-topic, so let's leave it there. Other readers - if there are any - can form their own opinion of the views expressed by us both.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Similar Threads

  1. How to stop plug in
    By steelcat in forum Computer Science
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: February 10th, 2014, 03:19 AM
  2. Non-stop engine
    By thinh123 in forum Pseudoscience
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: January 12th, 2013, 08:13 PM
  3. STOP ARGUING!!
    By coberst in forum Philosophy
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: March 24th, 2010, 10:14 AM
  4. Where does the orbiting stop?
    By Joe L. Ogan in forum Astronomy & Cosmology
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: November 29th, 2009, 03:40 PM
  5. Arriving At One's Stop
    By Obviously in forum Scientific Study of Religion
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: April 3rd, 2009, 09:32 PM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •