Online reading group and book discussion forum
  HOME ENTER FORUMS OUR BOOKS LINKS DONATE ADVERTISE CONTACT  
View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently Mon Jul 06, 2020 4:46 am





Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 72 posts ] • Topic evaluate: Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Useful scientific resources to silence fools 
Author Message
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
pets endangered by possible book avalanche

BookTalk.org Moderator
Platinum Contributor

Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 4530
Location: NC
Thanks: 1982
Thanked: 2040 times in 1526 posts
Gender: Male

Post Re: Useful scientific resources to silence fools
Flann 5 wrote:
Show me where biologists have described this [whale] evolution biochemically. They line up dubious and even discredited fossils as if these were proof of whale evolution..


Smithsonian wrote:
For more than a century, our knowledge of the whale fossil record was so sparse that no one could be certain what the ancestors of whales looked like. Now the tide has turned. In the space of just three decades, a flood of new fossils has filled in the gaps in our knowledge to turn the origin of whales into one of the best-documented examples of large-scale evolutionary change in the fossil record.


http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-n ... -73276956/

What's striking here is the sheer will to find problems in evolution where actual scientists find none. Flann, I would say you are an expert at coming up with ID propaganda that purports to find gaps in our knowledge and insinuate problems with evolutionary theory. Someone who is similarly motivated could find "problems" in just about any scientific field. Evolution is the target here for obvious reasons.

This information taken from Smithsonian's web site is just a a summary of our current understanding of whale evolution, but it offers a strikingly different take than whatever this is that Flann dredged up somewhere. Which source do you think is more trustworthy or credible? Flann, what is the reason why you disregard mainstream science sources such as National Geographic, Smithsonian, Berkeley University, or any other university or high school science text book (or encyclopedia)? To answer this question you will have to resort to conspiracy-thinking and assertions of mass delusion, borrowing the tactics used by Holocaust deniers and other conspiracy theorists. You are missing the big picture on purpose, forever focusing on miniscule problems. Your personal "skepticism" of evolution, like Ant's "skepticism" of gravitational waves, speaks only to your own personal motivations, not for the actual state of the science which can be learned in numerous well written science books and by mainstream and credible science organizations. The fact that you continue to seek scientific answers in Creationist literature shows a remarkably stubborn and disingenuous approach. But in the end you're only fooling yourself.

http://carlzimmer.com/books/evolution-m ... xcerpt.pdf

http://www.ucpress.edu/book.php?isbn=9780520277069


_________________
-Geo
Question everything


Sun Jun 05, 2016 6:04 pm
Profile
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

BookTalk.org Moderator
Gold Contributor

Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 7116
Location: Da U.P.
Thanks: 1096
Thanked: 2115 times in 1690 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: Useful scientific resources to silence fools
Flann wrote:
This is simply not true Interbane. You refuse to recognize that decades long experiments with plants and crops throws up the law of recurring variation. The same mutations keep recurring.

As Jones points out in his talk in relation to the Cichlid fish family,what is observed are variations of recurring patterns based on permutations of a small number of primary characters. The same is true of teeth and even their different behaviours.


I acknowledge that you've linked to studies where the environment wasn't altered. For an organism optimally suited to it's environment, variation is a detriment. When that environment changes, variation has the opportunity to become an improvement.

Can you link to the study you're referencing? It's documented that mutations are not perfectly random. If they were perfectly random, the majority would lead to a stillborn organism. Not to say that such deadly mutations don't happen. They do, all the time. The plethora of fatal or disabling diseases a human newborn can have testify to this. But the majority happen where the phenotype can shift and the organism will still be viable.

http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles. ... y-random-/

Quote:
You now postulate acquired characteristics. Fair enough but even these are not fundamental changes to the essential nature of the animal.


So now you admit to speciation, but you no longer believe that constitutes a major change. How much change do you expect to occur to organisms that are suited to their environment? Read up on punctuated equilibrium, and how an altered environment is what fosters speciation. A fruit fly will not ever change into a dragon. That is not what evolution postulates. A fruit fly will also never change into a hummingbird. Evolution doesn't postulate that either.

On the other hand, maybe I'm wrong. It might happen with the perfect catastrophic changes in environment and a hundred thousand years(change into a hummingbird, not a dragon). But that timeline doesn't make sense to a person who believes the Earth is young. If major changes can't happen in a century, then you don't believe it. Right?

You realize you're now at the point where the "major" changes you require to satisfy you are not able to occur in the time available. Evolution doesn't work that fast. Perhaps in exceedingly rare instances where all the conditions are perfect. But good luck with that in any species being documented, let alone in a lab.

What do you think the limitation is that would prevent a fruit fly from going through another speciation event? An event that takes it even further from the fruit fly we knew a century ago? And when that happens, what would the limitation be to prevent it from going even further? And on and on ad infinitum. Because the mountain of evidence supports that as the process that has lead to the diversity of life we see all around us. What arbitrary limit do you think there is that would prevent that? It has to be a powerful and well understood limiting mechanism, because it has a tremendous amount of contrary evidence to overcome.

Quote:
Phylogony? Morphologically based genealogical trees vary significantly from genome based ones. What molecular evidence?
Historical vestiges? Evolutionist myth of non functional vestigial organs and rapidly diminishing "junk Dna".
A failed prediction of the theory.


I'd love to see your source material for these ridiculous claims. But please, no videos. I don't have the time or patience. If someone's talking about it, then you can be sure it's written down somewhere.
Quote:
Are you suggesting entire biological systems changes can be accomplished instantly by a single mutation or a series of mutations? Back to the early developmental problem again.


Entire biological systems? Instantly? Please link to your source for this garbage.

Quote:
If you really want to investigate the very real problems with the whole macro story, Michael Denton's recent book "Evolution still a theory in Crisis" does a far better and more detailed job on this than I can.


Flann, I've passed the point where I'll entertain that sort of thing. You are wrong. I'll do my diligence on a public forum, but the case truly is closed. There isn't a debate here. The diversity of life all around us is a result of evolution. Either that, or whatever god exists is intentionally deceiving us into discovering that truth.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/denton.html


_________________
In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move.” - Douglas Adams


Sun Jun 05, 2016 7:56 pm
Profile
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

Gold Contributor

Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 5775
Thanks: 1355
Thanked: 951 times in 817 posts
Gender: None specified
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: Useful scientific resources to silence fools
I like tbe interchanges here mostly between Interbane and Flann. I admit that i have never really dug that deep on the issue. Perhaps mainly because i see no conflict between the possibility of an omnipotent Being and evolved life in all its remarkable and wonderful forms.

Kudos to the two of you.



The following user would like to thank ant for this post:
Flann 5, Interbane
Sun Jun 05, 2016 9:24 pm
Profile Email
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
Nutty for Books


Joined: Jul 2013
Posts: 1581
Location: Dublin
Thanks: 832
Thanked: 705 times in 605 posts
Gender: Male
Country: Ireland (ie)

Post Re: Useful scientific resources to silence fools
Interbane wrote:
I acknowledge that you've linked to studies where the environment wasn't altered. For an organism optimally suited to it's environment, variation is a detriment. When that environment changes, variation has the opportunity to become an improvement.


Interbane wrote:
So now you admit to speciation, but you no longer believe that constitutes a major change. How much change do you expect to occur to organisms that are suited to their environment? Read up on punctuated equilibrium, and how an altered environment is what fosters speciation. A fruit fly will not ever change into a dragon. That is not what evolution postulates. A fruit fly will also never change into a hummingbird. Evolution doesn't postulate that either.

On the other hand, maybe I'm wrong. It might happen with the perfect catastrophic changes in environment and a hundred thousand years(change into a hummingbird, not a dragon). But that timeline doesn't make sense to a person who believes the Earth is young. If major changes can't happen in a century, then you don't believe it. Right?


Hi Interbane. More homework for you! It's never been the position of creationists or any theist skeptics of evolution that speciation cannot occur. That's a common misconception of the position.

The most pervasive aspect of the fossil record is stasis with sudden appearances of new complex life forms. We are told that the beak variations of the Galapagos finches are adaptive. The inference being that given enough time such modifications can over time result in major changes from one type of animal to another.
They adapt to food types available or those who can not are naturally selected out of the population.

I'm saying that studies and experiments show limits to variation and evolution. Loennig's thoroughly referenced article on the law of recurrent variation being one.
Your response seems to be that o.k if they are optimally adapted to their environment they wont change but if the environment changes drastically this law of recurrent variation will be breached.

And yet evolutionary paleontologist Donald Prothero admits his perplexity on this very point. He says; "In four of the biggest climactic vegetational events of the last 50 million years,the mammals and birds show no noticeable changes in response to changing climates." Stasis despite four major climactic events.

Lest I be accused of quote mining,here's the article from the horse's mouth.
http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/12-02-15/#feature
Interbane wrote:
Quote:
Phylogony? Morphologically based genealogical trees vary significantly from genome based ones. What molecular evidence?
Historical vestiges? Evolutionist myth of non functional vestigial organs and rapidly diminishing "junk Dna".
A failed prediction of the theory.




I'd love to see your source material for these ridiculous claims. But please, no videos. I don't have the time or patience. If someone's talking about it, then you can be sure it's written down somewhere.


www.evolutionnews.org/2015/02/problem_1 ... 91191.html

http://www.detectingdesign.com/geneticphylogeny.html

geo wrote:
This information taken from Smithsonian's web site is just a a summary of our current understanding of whale evolution, but it offers a strikingly different take than whatever this is that Flann dredged up somewhere. Which source do you think is more trustworthy or credible? Flann, what is the reason why you disregard mainstream science sources such as National Geographic, Smithsonian, Berkeley University, or any other university or high school science text book (or encyclopedia)?


Actually in the Smithsonian article Geo linked, the whale 'ancestor' went from a mesonychid to an even-toed ungulate on just such a conflict of results on bones versus genes.

http://www.thegrandexperiment.com/whale-evolution.html

www.evolutionnews.org/2011/10/discovery ... 52021.html



The following user would like to thank Flann 5 for this post:
ant
Mon Jun 06, 2016 8:13 pm
Profile Email
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
Getting Comfortable


Joined: Jun 2016
Posts: 9
Thanks: 0
Thanked: 2 times in 2 posts
Gender: None specified

Post Re: Useful scientific resources to silence fools
I don't find fault with people of ancient times who constructed a religion to fit the facts they had at hand. In a way, they were using a scientific method. They took their observations of the world and worked backwards to what seemed the most likely explanation for their existence and the universe as they observed it. The earth was flat. The earth was the center of the universe. Death was a threatening thing. No one wanted to believe that their loved ones and they themselves would simply stop existing. They didn't want to believe that death and catastrophe were random events.



The following user would like to thank senorcorredor for this post:
geo
Mon Jun 06, 2016 10:49 pm
Profile Email
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
Nutty for Books


Joined: Jul 2013
Posts: 1581
Location: Dublin
Thanks: 832
Thanked: 705 times in 605 posts
Gender: Male
Country: Ireland (ie)

Post Re: Useful scientific resources to silence fools
senorcorredor wrote:
I don't find fault with people of ancient times who constructed a religion to fit the facts they had at hand. In a way, they were using a scientific method. They took their observations of the world and worked backwards to what seemed the most likely explanation for their existence and the universe as they observed it. The earth was flat. The earth was the center of the universe. Death was a threatening thing. No one wanted to believe that their loved ones and they themselves would simply stop existing. They didn't want to believe that death and catastrophe were random events.


Hi senorcorredor. Thanks for your ideas on this.There are lots of seemingly plausible explanations that various people proffer to answer the question of why The Flintstones "got religion."

The subject needs far better research than is usually afforded to it by these theorists. The presupposition seems to be that it can't be because there actually is any God.

Daniel Dennet's "Breaking the Spell," a tour de force of "just so" story telling served up as 'scientifically' based theory is a good example of this.

For anyone who want's to have a look at Loennig's extensive article on the law of recurrent variation,so you know what I'm referring to,here's the link.

http://www.weloennig.de/Loennig-Long-Ve ... iation.pdf

In a couple of the links in my previous post Richard Sternberg was referenced. Sternberg actually believes in evolution but thinks the neo-Darwinian mechanisms woefully inadequate to the task. He also accepts the fossils hypothesized,though I don't.

Geo seems to just discredit the arguments based on source. But that's really not good enough. If they are bad arguments what's bad about them? If the Smithsonan interpretation is correct on whale evolution it should be able to withstand scrutiny. Are they aware of the problems with Gingerich and Thewissen's fossils,which are the basis for the supposed 'transitionals'?

There are creationists,theistic intelligent design advocates, and even agnostics who are skeptical of the neo-Darwinian paradigm.

Sternberg debated Donald Prothero on origins and mechanisms for evolution. My personal leaning is towards direct creation,while recognizing design at the same time, but there are other views among theists and Christians.

So again,it can be debated and judged on the scientific arguments whether good or bad.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lzwHqqMMSaU



Last edited by Flann 5 on Tue Jun 07, 2016 7:37 am, edited 1 time in total.



The following user would like to thank Flann 5 for this post:
geo
Tue Jun 07, 2016 7:32 am
Profile Email
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
pets endangered by possible book avalanche

BookTalk.org Moderator
Platinum Contributor

Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 4530
Location: NC
Thanks: 1982
Thanked: 2040 times in 1526 posts
Gender: Male

Post Re: Useful scientific resources to silence fools
Flann 5 wrote:
Actually in the Smithsonian article Geo linked, the whale 'ancestor' went from a mesonychid to an even-toed ungulate on just such a conflict of results on bones versus genes.

http://www.thegrandexperiment.com/whale-evolution.html

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/10/di ... 52021.html

Again, you link to Creationist web sites in an attempt to dispute the work of scientists working in the field? J. G. M. "Hans" Thewissen, a leading researcher in the field of whale paleontology and anatomy, who has published dozens of articles and books, might be the world's foremost expert on whale evolution. And you go with Dr. Carl Werner, a Creationist filmmaker who alleges that some of the exhibits in museums aren’t accurate representations of whale ancestors. Even if it's true that a few museum exhibits were augmented, this has no bearing on the strength of of the theory or the basic information laid out in the Smithsonian's web site.

Also, none of this disputes the basic facts of the evolution of whales. At some point in the past a land mammal made the transition back to the sea. Do you disagree with this? Do disagree that transitional fossils discovered in recent decades are really the ancestors of whales, though this is indeed the consensus of mainstream scientists?

Here is one of Thewissen’s recent articles in Nature magazine.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v4 ... 06343.html

Here’s an article that shows there are nine independent areas of study that provide evidence that whales share a common ancestor with hoofed mammals.

http://www.talkorigins.org/features/whales/


_________________
-Geo
Question everything


Tue Jun 07, 2016 7:44 am
Profile
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

BookTalk.org Moderator
Gold Contributor

Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 7116
Location: Da U.P.
Thanks: 1096
Thanked: 2115 times in 1690 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: Useful scientific resources to silence fools
Flann wrote:
Your response seems to be that o.k if they are optimally adapted to their environment they wont change but if the environment changes drastically this law of recurrent variation will be breached.


A changing environment is necessary for the adaptations you're looking for. That doesn't mean such a change is sufficient. In fact, it's ridiculous to think so. A changing environment could and often does lead to an extinction event. Or, the organism could remain in stasis, which has been found more often than not.

Prothero's findings are interesting, but they do nothing to support your position or undermine evolution. They raise more questions concerning the stasis portion of punctuated equilibrium. But with this evidence of genetic stasis in spite of environmental change, there is no doubt that there has been tremendous genetic change when the environment changes. The evidence abounds.

A single example of stasis does not mean stasis is the norm. You're pointing to a period of equilibrium, and ignoring every other area on the geneological timeline with massive punctuation. This is cherry picking, and to reinforce this point, notice how excited Prothero is over the finding. This sort of finding is exciting, due to the questions it raises.

Quote:
www.evolutionnews.org/2015/02/problem_1 ... 91191.html

http://www.detectingdesign.com/geneticphylogeny.html


Are we trading links then?

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Junk_DNA

The trope that Junk DNA does not exist—or rather, that it is "not really junk"—is a common PRATT when it comes to creationism. It was the subject of a book by Jonathan Wells, The Myth of Junk DNA, which has been reviewed and extensively debunked by Larry Moran at his blog Sandwalk.[4] Other examples abound in the creationist "literature."


While the existence of "junk" DNA may be problematic for creationists, it's actually useful for evolutionary theory. Nonconserved, noncoding DNA inside the chromosome, ie. what we classically think of as "junk", can mutate rapidly and extensively without harm to the organism. It has been hypothesised, and extensively researched, that these noncoding regions can serve basically as sandboxes for gene evolution, where changes can occur randomly without altering the organism, and then be brought into play all at once, producing entire new amino acid sequences in an existing protein.

Regarding the arguments of Sean Pitman on Phylogeny, check out this interesting conversation between he and a few others in a Google group.

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/t ... GFpuFgp50J


_________________
In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move.” - Douglas Adams


Tue Jun 07, 2016 11:09 am
Profile
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

Gold Contributor

Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 5775
Thanks: 1355
Thanked: 951 times in 817 posts
Gender: None specified
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: Useful scientific resources to silence fools
senorcorredor wrote:
I don't find fault with people of ancient times who constructed a religion to fit the facts they had at hand. In a way, they were using a scientific method. They took their observations of the world and worked backwards to what seemed the most likely explanation for their existence and the universe as they observed it. The earth was flat. The earth was the center of the universe. Death was a threatening thing. No one wanted to believe that their loved ones and they themselves would simply stop existing. They didn't want to believe that death and catastrophe were random events.



That's fine and I can appreciate what you said.

However, are you going to start commenting on what comes after death WITH evidence?
The implication from your comments seems as if you are basing your "stop existing " comments on scientific knowledge.

Please evidence nothingness after someone stops existing.



Tue Jun 07, 2016 11:13 am
Profile Email
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
Getting Comfortable


Joined: Jun 2016
Posts: 9
Thanks: 0
Thanked: 2 times in 2 posts
Gender: None specified

Post Re: Useful scientific resources to silence fools
This isn't an argument I want to get into in depth. I'm not a scientist and I'm not an expert on religion. I'm tempted to ask you to evidence somethingness after someone stops existing but that appears to me to be similar to kids in the playground saying "is too" . . . "is not." I respect your opinion. I'm more interested in theoretical physics and its more bizarre implications. I'm not an expert on that either. Mainly, I want to finish the novel I'm working on. I have 60,000 words written and I am aiming for 80,000.



Tue Jun 07, 2016 12:59 pm
Profile Email
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

Gold Contributor

Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 5775
Thanks: 1355
Thanked: 951 times in 817 posts
Gender: None specified
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: Useful scientific resources to silence fools
senorcorredor wrote:
This isn't an argument I want to get into in depth. I'm not a scientist and I'm not an expert on religion. I'm tempted to ask you to evidence somethingness after someone stops existing but that appears to me to be similar to kids in the playground saying "is too" . . . "is not." I respect your opinion. I'm more interested in theoretical physics and its more bizarre implications. I'm not an expert on that either. Mainly, I want to finish the novel I'm working on. I have 60,000 words written and I am aiming for 80,000.



You were implying something about what comes after death, weren't you? Like nothing.
Was wondering what evidence you had for that positive assertion you camouflaged.



Tue Jun 07, 2016 3:27 pm
Profile Email
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

BookTalk.org Moderator
Gold Contributor

Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 7116
Location: Da U.P.
Thanks: 1096
Thanked: 2115 times in 1690 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: Useful scientific resources to silence fools
The best we can tell, the mind supervenes on the brain. Which means, when the brain disintegrates so does the mind. There's a great deal of evidence for supervenience. Although I don't think it's possible to prove absolute supervenience.

The evidence makes for a good default hypothesis. Do you have evidence where the nonphysical does not supervene on the physical? I'd like to see it.


_________________
In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move.” - Douglas Adams


Tue Jun 07, 2016 4:46 pm
Profile
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
Getting Comfortable


Joined: Jun 2016
Posts: 9
Thanks: 0
Thanked: 2 times in 2 posts
Gender: None specified

Post Re: Useful scientific resources to silence fools
Hi ant if you are there. I stopped writing for a while so we can debate if you want to. I didn't intend any camouflaged or implied meaning. I tried to put myself in the mindset of someone in a primitive time and imagine what they might feel. The result I came up with was that they would want to believe their loved ones lived on somehow. That's all I meant to say. I don't know of any scientific proof that there is no afterlife. Personally, I don't think there is, but that is separate from what I wrote. Some versions of M Theory allow for a kind of afterlife, even for communicating with the person who has died, but that's a scientific theory, not a religious one.

Richard



Tue Jun 07, 2016 6:58 pm
Profile Email
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
Nutty for Books


Joined: Jul 2013
Posts: 1581
Location: Dublin
Thanks: 832
Thanked: 705 times in 605 posts
Gender: Male
Country: Ireland (ie)

Post Re: Useful scientific resources to silence fools
Interbane wrote:
Flann wrote:
Your response seems to be that o.k if they are optimally adapted to their environment they wont change but if the environment changes drastically this law of recurrent variation will be breached.




A changing environment is necessary for the adaptations you're looking for. That doesn't mean such a change is sufficient. In fact, it's ridiculous to think so. A changing environment could and often does lead to an extinction event. Or, the organism could remain in stasis, which has been found more often than not.

Prothero's findings are interesting, but they do nothing to support your position or undermine evolution. They raise more questions concerning the stasis portion of punctuated equilibrium. But with this evidence of genetic stasis in spite of environmental change, there is no doubt that there has been tremendous genetic change when the environment changes. The evidence abounds.

A single example of stasis does not mean stasis is the norm. You're pointing to a period of equilibrium, and ignoring every other area on the geneological timeline with massive punctuation. This is cherry picking, and to reinforce this point, notice how excited Prothero is over the finding. This sort of finding is exciting, due to the questions it raises.


This is just another example of the extreme elasticity and unfasifiabilty of the theory. Prothero instanced four major climactic events over 50 million years.
And that's just one study.The curious thing about punctuated equilibrium is that there is no fossil evidence(intermediates) for these rapid transformations.

Of course that's put down to the isolated species part of the theory which conveniently excuses the lack of the very evidence needed to support it.

A bit like the ratio of living species to extinct species being the polar opposite of what the theory predicts.We're to believe in myriads of non-existent extinct species because the theory says they must have existed.


Don't bother looking for them though because you'll find living species vastly outnumbering them. What a farce!

There is no doubt that animals adapt to changes in their environments and this is significant. The Galapagos finches are a good example of this. We're looking for adequate mechanisms for macro-evolution.

Taking Loennig's study it should be clear that mutations are not the engine for this kind of change. You extrapolate from minor changes and speciation among finches to an unencumbered,unbounded and endless process.

Finches are no different than cats and dogs and other farm animals artificially selected and bred over many generations.
What is true for plants and crops is also true for any living things.

Plant and animal breeders describe precisely what Loennig is addressing. Mutations reach a saturation point are repetitively recurrent, and variety is exhausted.
To imagine it would be any different for finches is disregarding the evidence.What is even more evident is that as you go from plants to animals the effects of many mutations are more damaging.

This is due to the greater integrative complexity in animals constraining pathways to major phenotype changes and reorganization. Ally this to mutations at the developmental stage screwing the instruction process up precisely where the body forms are developed.

Interbane wrote:
Are we trading links then?


Looks like it Interbane. The essential point I made about conflicts between trees based on genetics is well documented.
What relationships and classifications you get often depends on where you look. And they do indeed often conflict with morphologically based trees also.

As for "junk Dna" the trajectory here is very much in the direction of discovering function as research proceeds. The diehards at Rational Wiki can hang on while there is yet so much unknown and yet to be researched, but time will tell it's own tale.

geo wrote:
J. G. M. "Hans" Thewissen, a leading researcher in the field of whale paleontology and anatomy, who has published dozens of articles and books, might be the world's foremost expert on whale evolution. And you go with Dr. Carl Werner, a Creationist filmmaker who alleges that some of the exhibits in museums aren’t accurate representations of whale ancestors. Even if it's true that a few museum exhibits were augmented, this has no bearing on the strength of of the theory or the basic information laid out in the Smithsonian's web site.


He doesn't just allege Geo, these guys were caught red handed on film and admitted to their 'augmentations' as you delicately put it. It obviously does have a bearing since these "augmentations" were the very ones suggesting these were whale like creatures,when in fact they were land based animals.

In any case if the fully aquatic Alaskan whale jawbone is confirmed, their fossils become the irrelevancies they deserve to be.
Sternberg's calculations based on population genetics and fixing mutations in populations utterly demolishes the notion of whale evolution by neo-Darwinian mechanisms in even a generous time frame.

If two co-ordinated mutations could (which I doubt) change the heat exchange mechanism from land mammal to whale in the time available (which it can't),this is laughable given the vast number of similar complex changes required in that time-frame.

It's all very well to talk about punctuated equilibrium but lets hear what the mechanisms for these prodigious feats of transformation are.
I suppose that's another argument from ignorance. Neo-Darwinian mechanisms certainly won't do it.



Last edited by Flann 5 on Tue Jun 07, 2016 7:16 pm, edited 1 time in total.



Tue Jun 07, 2016 7:15 pm
Profile Email
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

BookTalk.org Moderator
Gold Contributor

Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 7116
Location: Da U.P.
Thanks: 1096
Thanked: 2115 times in 1690 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: Useful scientific resources to silence fools
Flann wrote:
This is just another example of the extreme elasticity and unfasifiabilty of the theory.


The theory does not predict that every species is likely to change with every climactic event. Why do you think this?

And regarding falsifiability, look who's calling the kettle black.

Quote:
Prothero instanced four major climactic events over 50 million years.


An example of where change doesn't happen does not erase the examples of where change does happen. If you think this is some damaging testament against evolution, then why does Prothero, the expert who performed the study, disagree with you?

Quote:
This is due to the greater integrative complexity in animals constraining pathways to major phenotype changes and reorganization. Ally this to mutations at the developmental stage screwing the instruction process up precisely where the body forms are developed.


So the difference between a great dane and a chihuahua is the absolute limit for dogs? What mechanism would prevent further change?

You do need to reference a mechanism. Because without one, all you have to rely on is "but they haven't changed further yet!" Right, you want an organism to morph into an entirely different species in this short a time span.

Regarding Loennig and his study:

http://www.skeptical-science.com/scienc ... -examined/

Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig, “Mutations: The Law of Recurrent Variation,” Floriculture, Ornamental and Plant Biotechnology, Vol. 1:601-607 (2006).

This was from an invited paper to a book on commercial flower growing.

This so-called “law” seems to exist only in the imagination of Lönnig. No one else has ever referenced, or ‘applied’ it, and it has been cited exactly 4 times by (oh I’m sure you can guess) Mr Lönnig himself and nobody else.

It boils down to the (apparent) limit of induced mutation within plants to alter phenotype (esp. outward appearance) before the chemicals, or radiation used kills the organism. This is hardly big news. Particularly in plants, more new species are the product of polypoid hybrids then any point mutations alone.

Includes references to Behe (his long discredited Irreducible complexity), and also Dembski (no free lunch of course) – yes, he is indeed rather desperately plugging in all the ID stars.

Does this paper actually support Intelligent Design in any way at all? Nope, it is just another of Lönnig’s failed experiments being used as an excuse to promote ID thinking without any justification at all


And: http://www.jackscanlan.com/2010/12/the- ... -mistakes/

Quote:
As for "junk Dna" the trajectory here is very much in the direction of discovering function as research proceeds.


I can get behind this, and appreciate it.

Quote:
The essential point I made about conflicts between trees based on genetics is well documented.


There is no conflict. The issue is trying to reconstruct phylogeny based on observing the phenotype. Of course mistakes will have been made. Integrating molecular phylogeny corrects those mistakes. Where the two disagree, corrections have been made.

https://retrieverman.net/2012/05/11/mor ... phylogeny/


_________________
In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move.” - Douglas Adams


Tue Jun 07, 2016 8:46 pm
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 72 posts ] • Topic evaluate: Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:

Announcements 

• Promote Your FICTION Book on BookTalk.org
Sun Jul 30, 2017 7:33 pm

• Promote Your NON-FICTION Book on BookTalk.org
Sun Jul 30, 2017 7:18 pm



Site Resources 
HELPFUL INFO:
Community Rules & Tips
Frequently Asked Questions
BBCode Explained
Author Interview Transcripts
Book Discussion Leaders

IDEAS FOR WHAT TO READ:
Bestsellers
Book Awards
• Book Reviews
• Online Books
• Team Picks
Newspaper Book Sections

WHERE TO BUY BOOKS:
• Coming Soon!

BEHIND THE BOOKS:
• Coming Soon!

PROMOTE YOUR BOOK!
Advertise on BookTalk.org
Promote your FICTION book
Promote your NON-FICTION book





BookTalk.org is a thriving book discussion forum, online reading group or book club. We read and talk about both fiction and non-fiction books as a community. Our forums are open to anyone in the world. While discussing books is our passion we also have active forums for talking about poetry, short stories, writing and authors. Our general discussion forum section includes forums for discussing science, religion, philosophy, politics, history, current events, arts, entertainment and more. We hope you join us!


Navigation 
MAIN NAVIGATION

HOMEFORUMSOUR BOOKSAUTHOR INTERVIEWSADVERTISELINKSFAQDONATETERMS OF USEPRIVACY POLICYSITEMAP

OTHER PAGES WORTH EXPLORING
Banned Book ListOnline Reading GroupTop 10 Atheism Books

Copyright © BookTalk.org 2002-2019. All rights reserved.
Display Pagerank