Darwin's Apparatchiks

[Sunshine]

Here is some scientific evidence supporting evolution in a nutshell.

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent

Read it, then sit down and shut up.

That is nothing more than a 'paper' with no scientific studies cited, only references to other 'papers' with no scientific study cited.

Fail!

 

[Hollie]

The really angry fundamentalists such as PC don't understand that the sciences of biology, chemistry, paleontology, etc., have progressed substantially since Darwin's time.

This is the issue that Christian fundies refuse to come to terms with. It is often a result of profound ignorance and / or a refusal to understand the terms being used: that the theory and fact of evolution is not contingent upon whatever mechanism ignited the first cell. Similatly, the really notion of trying to link the science of evolution with Marxism is among the more really goofy notions furthered by the fundamentalist crowd.

Creationism is not a theist vs. atheist controversy. It is a Fundamentalist Christian vs. everybody else controversy. It is a single biblical literalist perspective versus even other Christians who have no trouble with the scientific perspective.

It is not the issue of abiogenesis that actually concerns the creationist movement. It is irrelevant to the actual disagreement with science, and many creationists already know that. The disagreement fundamentally is about evolution, not abiogenesis. And specifically, the issue is about the evolution of human beings, not the origin of the first cell.

Organisms still evolve through a combination of genetic mutation and natural selection. And all the relevant evidence still reflects a common origin for all living things from a common ancestor via a process of descent with modification, no matter how life arose in the first place. That is the problem for creationists.

And it is the problem they are running from when they are unable to reconcile the relevant subjects of abiogensis vs. evolution.

Well, sorry Hollie, but you lost all credibility with me when you labeled PC as an "angry fundamentalist." She is anything but. Lord knows she and I don't agree on everything, but on this issue I will happily say I am much more in her camp than yours. But you do illustrate the point being made that the dedicated Darwinists are really REALLY hatefully negative about any Christian who doesn't share your point of view.

I am fairly certain that the scientists who have come to realize that evolution is not possible based upon genetics are not Christians of any stripe.

Not surprisingly, it is primarily Christians who form the overwhelming majority of the anti-science / ID'iot crowd.

There does not exist a significant "anti-evolution" movement outside of Christian creationism. This is (as it appears to me) the source of your own arguments, and therefore it is fair game, if only from a history of the philosophy perspective. It would be easier to take your comments seriously were your arguments not so tightly in lockstep with those of the Institute for Creation Research, the Center for Scientific Creationism, or the Discovery Institute. But that is not the case.

Further, were you not essentially arguing as a classic Creationist, I would expect you to actually have a scientific alternative to propose, which (of course) Creationists and their ID brethren do not. Creationism has always consisted primarily of arguments against evolution rather than argument in favor of a different theory of origins. This is also the manner in which you are arguing. If I am mistaken regarding your perspective here, it is not because you gave me any reason to see you as unique.

 

[Sunshine]

There are NO alternate scientific theories.

The Theory of Evolution is the fundamental basis of all biological science.

So when you say some say we must accept Darwin's theories to the exclusion of others, you wrongly assume there are other scientific theories. There are NONE.

No it isn't.

It is philosophy rather than science.


Work this idea through those congealed cogs in your brain: Darwin claimed that the accumulation of mutations would result in one species evolving into another.

"And let us dispose of a common misconception. The complete transmutation of even one animal species into a different species has never been directly observed either in the laboratory or in the field." Dean H. Kenyon (Professor of Biology, San Francisco State University), affidavit presented to the U.S. Supreme Court, No. 85-1513, Brief of Appellants, prepared under the direction of William J. Guste, Jr., Attorney General of the State of Louisiana, October 1985, p. A-16.



BTW.....'scientists' have proposed numerous bird-brained theories that would be acceptable to bird-brains like yourself.

Here's one:

Dr. Francis Crick of DNA fame suggested that life was 'dropped' here by aliens from another planet......

Directed Panspermia - postulates that the roots of our form of life go back to another place in the universe, almost certainly another planet; that it had reached a very advanced form there before anything much had started here; and that life here was seeded by microorganisms sent on some form of spaceship by an advanced civilization. Crick, Francis 'Life Itself: Its Origin and Nature', p.141


According to Crick, this is the only alternative that satisfactorily explains what Darwinism and punctuated equilibria do not - this planet's absence of transitional forms; transitional forms being the evidence for evolution which, "would only have existed on the sender planet, not on Earth," p.144



Stupid enough for you to accept?

You just got burned by your own ignorance.

Kenyon was wrong.

Speciation has been observed on numerous occasions.

Check this link. Observed Instances of Speciation

It's also simply untrue that there is an absence of transitional forms. There are literally thousands of transitional forms in both the living and fossil record.

From the article:

5.4 Housefly Speciation Experiments



5.4.1 A Test of the Founder-flush Hypothesis Using Houseflies

Meffert and Bryant (1991) used houseflies to test whether bottlenecks in populations can cause permanent alterations in courtship behavior that lead to premating isolation. They collected over 100 flies of each sex from a landfill near Alvin, Texas. These were used to initiate an ancestral population. From this ancestral population they established six lines. Two of these lines were started with one pair of flies, two lines were started with four pairs of flies and two lines were started with sixteen pairs of flies. These populations were flushed to about 2,000 flies each. They then went through five bottlenecks followed by flushes. This took 35 generations. Mate choice tests were performed. One case of positive assortative mating was found. One case of negative assortative mating was also found.

5.4.2 Selection for Geotaxis with and without Gene Flow

Soans, et al. (1974) used houseflies to test Pimentel's model of speciation. This model posits that speciation requires two steps. The first is the formation of races in subpopulations. This is followed by the establishment of reproductive isolation. Houseflies were subjected to intense divergent selection on the basis of positive and negative geotaxis. In some treatments no gene flow was allowed, while in others there was 30% gene flow. Selection was imposed by placing 1000 flies into the center of a 108 cm vertical tube. The first 50 flies that reached the top and the first 50 flies that reached the bottom were used to found positively and negatively geotactic populations. Four populations were established:

Population A + geotaxis, no gene flow
Population B - geotaxis, no gene flow
Population C + geotaxis, 30% gene flow
Population D - geotaxis, 30% gene flow

Selection was repeated within these populations each generations. After 38 generations the time to collect 50 flies had dropped from 6 hours to 2 hours in Pop A, from 4 hours to 4 minutes in Pop B, from 6 hours to 2 hours in Pop C and from 4 hours to 45 minutes in Pop D. Mate choice tests were performed. Positive assortative mating was found in all crosses. They concluded that reproductive isolation occurred under both allopatric and sympatric conditions when very strong selection was present.

Hurd and Eisenberg (1975) performed a similar experiment on houseflies using 50% gene flow and got the same results.

5.5 Speciation Through Host Race Differentiation

Recently there has been a lot of interest in whether the differentiation of an herbivorous or parasitic species into races living on different hosts can lead to sympatric speciation. It has been argued that in animals that mate on (or in) their preferred hosts, positive assortative mating is an inevitable byproduct of habitat selection (Rice 1985; Barton, et al. 1988). This would suggest that differentiated host races may represent incipient species.

5.5.1 Apple Maggot Fly (Rhagoletis pomonella)

Rhagoletis pomonella is a fly that is native to North America. Its normal host is the hawthorn tree. Sometime during the nineteenth century it began to infest apple trees. Since then it has begun to infest cherries, roses, pears and possibly other members of the rosaceae. Quite a bit of work has been done on the differences between flies infesting hawthorn and flies infesting apple. There appear to be differences in host preferences among populations. Offspring of females collected from on of these two hosts are more likely to select that host for oviposition (Prokopy et al. 1988). Genetic differences between flies on these two hosts have been found at 6 out of 13 allozyme loci (Feder et al. 1988, see also McPheron et al. 1988). Laboratory studies have shown an asynchrony in emergence time of adults between these two host races (Smith 1988). Flies from apple trees take about 40 days to mature, whereas flies from hawthorn trees take 54-60 days to mature. This makes sense when we consider that hawthorn fruit tends to mature later in the season that apples. Hybridization studies show that host preferences are inherited, but give no evidence of barriers to mating. This is a very exciting case. It may represent the early stages of a sympatric speciation event (considering the dispersal of R. pomonella to other plants it may even represent the beginning of an adaptive radiation). It is important to note that some of the leading researchers on this question are urging caution in interpreting it. Feder and Bush (1989) stated:


"Hawthorn and apple "host races" of R. pomonella may therefore represent incipient species. However, it remains to be seen whether host-associated traits can evolve into effective enough barriers to gene flow to result eventually in the complete reproductive isolation of R. pomonella populations."

5.5.2 Gall Former Fly (Eurosta solidaginis)

Eurosta solidaginis is a gall forming fly that is associated with goldenrod plants. It has two hosts: over most of its range it lays its eggs in Solidago altissima, but in some areas it uses S. gigantea as its host. Recent electrophoretic work has shown that the genetic distances among flies from different sympatric hosts species are greater than the distances among flies on the same host in different geographic areas (Waring et al. 1990). This same study also found reduced variability in flies on S. gigantea. This suggests that some E. solidaginis have recently shifted hosts to this species. A recent study has compared reproductive behavior of the flies associated with the two hosts (Craig et al. 1993). They found that flies associated with S. gigantea emerge earlier in the season than flies associated with S. altissima. In host choice experiments, each fly strain ovipunctured its own host much more frequently than the other host. Craig et al. (1993) also performed several mating experiments. When no host was present and females mated with males from either strain, if males from only one strain were present. When males of both strains were present, statistically significant positive assortative mating was seen. In the presence of a host, assortative mating was also seen. When both hosts and flies from both populations were present, females waited on the buds of the host that they are normally associated with. The males fly to the host to mate. Like the Rhagoletis case above, this may represent the beginning of a sympatric speciation.

5.6 Flour Beetles (Tribolium castaneum)

Halliburton and Gall (1981) established a population of flour beetles collected in Davis, California. In each generation they selected the 8 lightest and the 8 heaviest pupae of each sex. When these 32 beetles had emerged, they were placed together and allowed to mate for 24 hours. Eggs were collected for 48 hours. The pupae that developed from these eggs were weighed at 19 days. This was repeated for 15 generations. The results of mate choice tests between heavy and light beetles was compared to tests among control lines derived from randomly chosen pupae. Positive assortative mating on the basis of size was found in 2 out of 4 experimental lines.

5.7 Speciation in a Lab Rat Worm, Nereis acuminata

In 1964 five or six individuals of the polychaete worm, Nereis acuminata, were collected in Long Beach Harbor, California. These were allowed to grow into a population of thousands of individuals. Four pairs from this population were transferred to the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute. For over 20 years these worms were used as test organisms in environmental toxicology. From 1986 to 1991 the Long Beach area was searched for populations of the worm. Two populations, P1 and P2, were found. Weinberg, et al. (1992) performed tests on these two populations and the Woods Hole population (WH) for both postmating and premating isolation. To test for postmating isolation, they looked at whether broods from crosses were successfully reared. The results below give the percentage of successful rearings for each group of crosses.

WH × WH - 75%
P1 × P1 - 95%
P2 × P2 - 80%
P1 × P2 - 77%
WH × P1 - 0%
WH × P2 - 0%

They also found statistically significant premating isolation between the WH population and the field populations. Finally, the Woods Hole population showed slightly different karyotypes from the field populations.

You can't be serious.

None of those instances resulted in a new species.

 

[Hollie]

Here is some scientific evidence supporting evolution in a nutshell.

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent

Read it, then sit down and shut up.

That is nothing more than a 'paper' with no scientific studies cited, only references to other 'papers' with no scientific study cited.

Fail!

Learn to use the scroll button.



References


American Association for the Advancement of Science (1990) Science for All Americans. SFAA Table of Contents

American Association for the Advancement of Science (2006) Multiple Resolutions Regarding Evolution and Creationism. AAAS - The World's Largest General Scientific Society

Darwin, C. (1872) The Origin of Species. Sixth Edition. The Modern Library, New York.

Dawkins, R. (1996) The Blind Watchmaker. New York, Norton.

Feynman, R. P. (1985) QED: The Strange Theory of Light and Matter. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Freeman, S. and Herron, J. C. (2004) Evolutionary analysis Third edition. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/Prentice Hall.

Futuyma, D. (1998) Evolutionary Biology. Third edition. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates.

Geological Society of America (2009) "Evolution." The Geological Society of America - Position Statement on Teaching Evolution

Gould, S. J. (2002) The Structure of Evolutionary Theory. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.

Mayr, E. (1991) One Long Argument. Cambridge, Harvard University Press.

National Academy of Sciences. (2005) multiple statements. Evolution Resources from the National Academies

National Center for Science Education. (2012) "Voices for Evolution: Statements from Scientific and Scholarly Organizations."
A compilation of statements from 109 of the world's largest and most prestigious societies of professional research scientists, on the importance of evolutionary theory.
Statements from Scientific and Scholarly Organizations | NCSE

Rhodes, F. H. T. (1983) "Gradualism, punctuated equilibria, and the origin of species." Nature 305: 269-272.

Ridley, M. (1993) Evolution. Boston: Blackwell Scientific.



FAIL for you.

 

[Sunshine]

The really angry fundamentalists such as PC don't understand that the sciences of biology, chemistry, paleontology, etc., have progressed substantially since Darwin's time.

This is the issue that Christian fundies refuse to come to terms with. It is often a result of profound ignorance and / or a refusal to understand the terms being used: that the theory and fact of evolution is not contingent upon whatever mechanism ignited the first cell. Similatly, the really notion of trying to link the science of evolution with Marxism is among the more really goofy notions furthered by the fundamentalist crowd.

Creationism is not a theist vs. atheist controversy. It is a Fundamentalist Christian vs. everybody else controversy. It is a single biblical literalist perspective versus even other Christians who have no trouble with the scientific perspective.

It is not the issue of abiogenesis that actually concerns the creationist movement. It is irrelevant to the actual disagreement with science, and many creationists already know that. The disagreement fundamentally is about evolution, not abiogenesis. And specifically, the issue is about the evolution of human beings, not the origin of the first cell.

Organisms still evolve through a combination of genetic mutation and natural selection. And all the relevant evidence still reflects a common origin for all living things from a common ancestor via a process of descent with modification, no matter how life arose in the first place. That is the problem for creationists.

And it is the problem they are running from when they are unable to reconcile the relevant subjects of abiogensis vs. evolution.

And how many of those sciences that you spout off have you actually taken. I'm guessing in the range of the goose egg. You cannot have organisms without some kind of biogenesis. So, biogenesis is exceedingly important. You have no understanding of genetics.

You make the common mistake of not understanding that the TOE is completely silent on biogenesis, abiogenesis or the beginning of life.

Further, you are welcome to deny the overwhelming evidence for evolution. We discriminate between ideas based on evidence and reason. There are a certain number of ideas in science in which we have such overwhelming evidence that confidence regarding the underlying theory is at the highest level. Man’s evolution from apelike ancestors is one of those ideas.

There will always be a significant number of people who for religious or philosophical reasons reject that idea. Some of them may even become politically influential. But there is a reason the ID / creationist crowd are dismissed as cranks, because they tell us nothing about what is actually true.

And there you have it. Evolution is an IDEA. Nothing more.

And FWIW, you have no idea if I do or do not subscribe to any religion whatsoever. I have read them all. I can quote them all. You should at least take Biology 101 before you assert yourself as some kind of authority, which you definitely are not.

 

[Sunshine]

Here is some scientific evidence supporting evolution in a nutshell.

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent

Read it, then sit down and shut up.

That is nothing more than a 'paper' with no scientific studies cited, only references to other 'papers' with no scientific study cited.

Fail!

Learn to use the scroll button.



References


American Association for the Advancement of Science (1990) Science for All Americans. SFAA Table of Contents

American Association for the Advancement of Science (2006) Multiple Resolutions Regarding Evolution and Creationism. AAAS - The World's Largest General Scientific Society

Darwin, C. (1872) The Origin of Species. Sixth Edition. The Modern Library, New York.

Dawkins, R. (1996) The Blind Watchmaker. New York, Norton.

Feynman, R. P. (1985) QED: The Strange Theory of Light and Matter. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Freeman, S. and Herron, J. C. (2004) Evolutionary analysis Third edition. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/Prentice Hall.

Futuyma, D. (1998) Evolutionary Biology. Third edition. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates.

Geological Society of America (2009) "Evolution." The Geological Society of America - Position Statement on Teaching Evolution

Gould, S. J. (2002) The Structure of Evolutionary Theory. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.

Mayr, E. (1991) One Long Argument. Cambridge, Harvard University Press.

National Academy of Sciences. (2005) multiple statements. Evolution Resources from the National Academies

National Center for Science Education. (2012) "Voices for Evolution: Statements from Scientific and Scholarly Organizations."
A compilation of statements from 109 of the world's largest and most prestigious societies of professional research scientists, on the importance of evolutionary theory.
Statements from Scientific and Scholarly Organizations | NCSE

Rhodes, F. H. T. (1983) "Gradualism, punctuated equilibria, and the origin of species." Nature 305: 269-272.

Ridley, M. (1993) Evolution. Boston: Blackwell Scientific.



FAIL for you.

Those are only citations of 'statements' aka 'papers,' they are not scientific studies.

God dog! You are dense.

 

[Sunshine]

Well, sorry Hollie, but you lost all credibility with me when you labeled PC as an "angry fundamentalist." She is anything but. Lord knows she and I don't agree on everything, but on this issue I will happily say I am much more in her camp than yours. But you do illustrate the point being made that the dedicated Darwinists are really REALLY hatefully negative about any Christian who doesn't share your point of view.

I am fairly certain that the scientists who have come to realize that evolution is not possible based upon genetics are not Christians of any stripe.

Not surprisingly, it is primarily Christians who form the overwhelming majority of the anti-science / ID'iot crowd.

There does not exist a significant "anti-evolution" movement outside of Christian creationism. This is (as it appears to me) the source of your own arguments, and therefore it is fair game, if only from a history of the philosophy perspective. It would be easier to take your comments seriously were your arguments not so tightly in lockstep with those of the Institute for Creation Research, the Center for Scientific Creationism, or the Discovery Institute. But that is not the case.

Further, were you not essentially arguing as a classic Creationist, I would expect you to actually have a scientific alternative to propose, which (of course) Creationists and their ID brethren do not. Creationism has always consisted primarily of arguments against evolution rather than argument in favor of a different theory of origins. This is also the manner in which you are arguing. If I am mistaken regarding your perspective here, it is not because you gave me any reason to see you as unique.

That is completely ludicrous. I could not have practiced in my profession if I were 'anti science.' I am anti pseudoscience. A thing which you clearly gobble down like a hog.

 

[Hollie]

And how many of those sciences that you spout off have you actually taken. I'm guessing in the range of the goose egg. You cannot have organisms without some kind of biogenesis. So, biogenesis is exceedingly important. You have no understanding of genetics.

You make the common mistake of not understanding that the TOE is completely silent on biogenesis, abiogenesis or the beginning of life.

Further, you are welcome to deny the overwhelming evidence for evolution. We discriminate between ideas based on evidence and reason. There are a certain number of ideas in science in which we have such overwhelming evidence that confidence regarding the underlying theory is at the highest level. Man’s evolution from apelike ancestors is one of those ideas.

There will always be a significant number of people who for religious or philosophical reasons reject that idea. Some of them may even become politically influential. But there is a reason the ID / creationist crowd are dismissed as cranks, because they tell us nothing about what is actually true.

And there you have it. Evolution is an IDEA. Nothing more.

And FWIW, you have no idea if I do or do not subscribe to any religion whatsoever. I have read them all. I can quote them all. You should at least take Biology 101 before you assert yourself as some kind of authority, which you definitely are not.

Your argument seems best suited for the ID’iot / creationist crowd.

Evolution as a fact and a theory is not at issue among the relevant science community. Obviously, it is an issue with you and the IDiot / religious fundamentalist crowd.

Actually, a course in the biological sciences would be a good starting point for you.
Here, I’ll help you on your road to enlightenment. There does not exist a single species living today for which we have fossils older than about 750 thousand years. We do have similar species that occupied similar environments multiple millions of years ago, but they are not the same species. In fact, I am unaware of any that are even in the same genus, indicating significant anatomical difference.

Claims coming from ID’iots originate from the fact that so many creationist have no background in the disciplines they pontificate upon. To them, “a lung fish is a lung fish.”

But to anyone who actually has studied lungfish, that makes about as much sense as saying “a bat is a bird.”

Darwin was meticulous in archiving his notes, writings and correspondence, and none of it reveals any hint of doubts about his theory between the first publication of his book in 1859 and his death 23 years later. And yet, it is a favorite canard of creationists to pretend that somehow, Darwin himself never bought his own theory. In many cases, they have even dishonestly and knowingly edited his writing to say the opposite of his explicit statements. And yet, it would be a meaningless claim, even if it were true.

One man did not decide that evolution was correct, an entire scientific establishment did. And one man’s doubts wouldn’t begin to balance the overwhelming consensus of tens of thousands of other scientists. The hostility coming from the Christian fundamentalists towards Darwin’s theory (as opposed to the fact of evolution) is obvious, and yet they still miss the point. Darwin's book did two things:

It demonstrated the fact of evolution with evidence.

It provided a theory with which to explain that fact.

The value of the Scientific Method used by Darwin: testing, modification and eventual theoretical consensus is actually a demonstration of the process by which science takes plausible but imperfect ideas, and makes them better. The point missed by the ID’iot crationists is that the skeptical attitudes of the greatest scientific minds in biology were fielded to find every possible flaw in Darwin’s theory they could find. And still, the final result was not “creationism” but a theory of evolution that is orders of magnitude more comprehensive and rigorous than Darwin’s original.

 

[Hollie]

I am fairly certain that the scientists who have come to realize that evolution is not possible based upon genetics are not Christians of any stripe.

Not surprisingly, it is primarily Christians who form the overwhelming majority of the anti-science / ID'iot crowd.

There does not exist a significant "anti-evolution" movement outside of Christian creationism. This is (as it appears to me) the source of your own arguments, and therefore it is fair game, if only from a history of the philosophy perspective. It would be easier to take your comments seriously were your arguments not so tightly in lockstep with those of the Institute for Creation Research, the Center for Scientific Creationism, or the Discovery Institute. But that is not the case.

Further, were you not essentially arguing as a classic Creationist, I would expect you to actually have a scientific alternative to propose, which (of course) Creationists and their ID brethren do not. Creationism has always consisted primarily of arguments against evolution rather than argument in favor of a different theory of origins. This is also the manner in which you are arguing. If I am mistaken regarding your perspective here, it is not because you gave me any reason to see you as unique.

That is completely ludicrous. I could not have practiced in my profession if I were 'anti science.' I am anti pseudoscience. A thing which you clearly gobble down like a hog.

I'm really not interested in your falsified / invented "credentials".

 

[Hollie]

That is nothing more than a 'paper' with no scientific studies cited, only references to other 'papers' with no scientific study cited.

Fail!

Learn to use the scroll button.



References


American Association for the Advancement of Science (1990) Science for All Americans. SFAA Table of Contents

American Association for the Advancement of Science (2006) Multiple Resolutions Regarding Evolution and Creationism. AAAS - The World's Largest General Scientific Society

Darwin, C. (1872) The Origin of Species. Sixth Edition. The Modern Library, New York.

Dawkins, R. (1996) The Blind Watchmaker. New York, Norton.

Feynman, R. P. (1985) QED: The Strange Theory of Light and Matter. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Freeman, S. and Herron, J. C. (2004) Evolutionary analysis Third edition. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/Prentice Hall.

Futuyma, D. (1998) Evolutionary Biology. Third edition. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates.

Geological Society of America (2009) "Evolution." The Geological Society of America - Position Statement on Teaching Evolution

Gould, S. J. (2002) The Structure of Evolutionary Theory. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.

Mayr, E. (1991) One Long Argument. Cambridge, Harvard University Press.

National Academy of Sciences. (2005) multiple statements. Evolution Resources from the National Academies

National Center for Science Education. (2012) "Voices for Evolution: Statements from Scientific and Scholarly Organizations."
A compilation of statements from 109 of the world's largest and most prestigious societies of professional research scientists, on the importance of evolutionary theory.
Statements from Scientific and Scholarly Organizations | NCSE

Rhodes, F. H. T. (1983) "Gradualism, punctuated equilibria, and the origin of species." Nature 305: 269-272.

Ridley, M. (1993) Evolution. Boston: Blackwell Scientific.



FAIL for you.

Those are only citations of 'statements' aka 'papers,' they are not scientific studies.

God dog! You are dense.

I can see you are infuriated that the science position is defended by facts and evidence where your ID'iot / creationist notions amount only to failed attacks on evolutionary science.

 

[Hollie]

That is nothing more than a 'paper' with no scientific studies cited, only references to other 'papers' with no scientific study cited.

Fail!

Learn to use the scroll button.



References


American Association for the Advancement of Science (1990) Science for All Americans. SFAA Table of Contents

American Association for the Advancement of Science (2006) Multiple Resolutions Regarding Evolution and Creationism. AAAS - The World's Largest General Scientific Society

Darwin, C. (1872) The Origin of Species. Sixth Edition. The Modern Library, New York.

Dawkins, R. (1996) The Blind Watchmaker. New York, Norton.

Feynman, R. P. (1985) QED: The Strange Theory of Light and Matter. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Freeman, S. and Herron, J. C. (2004) Evolutionary analysis Third edition. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/Prentice Hall.

Futuyma, D. (1998) Evolutionary Biology. Third edition. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates.

Geological Society of America (2009) "Evolution." The Geological Society of America - Position Statement on Teaching Evolution

Gould, S. J. (2002) The Structure of Evolutionary Theory. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.

Mayr, E. (1991) One Long Argument. Cambridge, Harvard University Press.

National Academy of Sciences. (2005) multiple statements. Evolution Resources from the National Academies

National Center for Science Education. (2012) "Voices for Evolution: Statements from Scientific and Scholarly Organizations."
A compilation of statements from 109 of the world's largest and most prestigious societies of professional research scientists, on the importance of evolutionary theory.
Statements from Scientific and Scholarly Organizations | NCSE

Rhodes, F. H. T. (1983) "Gradualism, punctuated equilibria, and the origin of species." Nature 305: 269-272.

Ridley, M. (1993) Evolution. Boston: Blackwell Scientific.



FAIL for you.

Those are only citations of 'statements' aka 'papers,' they are not scientific studies.

God dog! You are dense.

I actually find it laughable that the ID'iot / Creationist crowd whines about "scientific studies"

Not surprisingly, real scientists are taking issue with the charlatans at the christian creationist Discovery Institute for their fake "lab" and their fake "research".

This is one of the many reasons why creationist charlatans don't submit for peer review. Fake science, phony labs and christian creationist charlatans caught yet again in an embarrassing lie.


Behold! The Legendary Intelligent Design Creationism Research Laboratory! » Pharyngula

The Discovery Institute released a video of one of their stars, Ann Gauger, explaining the flaws in “population genetics” (I put it in quotes because it wasn’t a description of the field of population genetics that any competent biologist would recognize). Larry Moran points out the errors. (Sandwalk: Ann Gauger Describes the Intelligent Design Creationist Version of Population Genetics)

But then, someone noticed something else: the video was fake. It was Ann Gauger, all right, talking in a “lab”. Again, the quotes are because she was actually talking in front of a green screen, and a stock photo of a lab was spliced in behind her. Oops. It adds comic absurdity on top of the egregious errors in her babbling.

But of course that’s exactly what the DI wants. They can’t answer for the stupidity of her comments, but they can wave their hands and shout, “We do too have a lab! A real lab! And it’s sciencey and everything!” Because, after all, when you’re doing cargo cult science, (Cargo cult science - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) the props are all important, and the substance doesn’t matter.

 

[Chuckt]

You know, when I was 18 and decided to go to college (the first time), I sat down and thought about what I wanted to become. I was so intrigued by Anthropologists. You know, the Louis Leakey type of doctor that went into remote Africa and unearthed Austrolopithicus. I wanted to be one of those. So I took classes in Anthropology and the sciences. And I believe what I was taught and what I learned about early man and the development of Homo Sapiens as a species. I didn't get to go to Africa, instead opting for the police department and another type of de-evolution of the species.

I saw men, women and children die in my arms. I saw that it wasn't so black and white. When I held my son and saw him take his last breath I felt his very soul slip away. I am an Evangelical Christian and I believe that the bible is the very word of God Himself. That Jesus Christ is His son and that He rose from the dead after three days. And that through Him, we shall have eternal life. I have had pastors ask me how I reconcile the two worlds. To me, they are not mutually exclusive but actually compliment each other.

Darwin said that through mutations new species, adapted better to coping with the environment, thrived and replaced older species along with cataclysmic events. The Bible says that God created the heavens and the earth in six days. And a day to God is what? And a day for God began when and ended when? God is all powerful. It is what He makes it to be. Day one may have begun and may not have completely ended yet as well as Day two, or Day Three.

Man is so insignificant and so prone to ignorance that it defies comprehension. Those who tell me that you must accept Darwin's theories to the exclusion of others are as willfully rigid as those who tell me that God is bound by a 24 hour day. How can such a "flawed" organism such as ourselves, "KNOW" anything at this time for sure about this matter? I submit that this is still over our heads. We can contemplate, but to believe that our theory is the only correct answer is ridiculous.

Good thread Political Chic...

There are NO alternate scientific theories.

The Theory of Evolution is the fundamental basis of all biological science.

So when you say some say we must accept Darwin's theories to the exclusion of others, you wrongly assume there are other scientific theories. There are NONE.

The alternate theories are Intelligent Design and Theoretical Physics.

 

[Hollie]

You know, when I was 18 and decided to go to college (the first time), I sat down and thought about what I wanted to become. I was so intrigued by Anthropologists. You know, the Louis Leakey type of doctor that went into remote Africa and unearthed Austrolopithicus. I wanted to be one of those. So I took classes in Anthropology and the sciences. And I believe what I was taught and what I learned about early man and the development of Homo Sapiens as a species. I didn't get to go to Africa, instead opting for the police department and another type of de-evolution of the species.

I saw men, women and children die in my arms. I saw that it wasn't so black and white. When I held my son and saw him take his last breath I felt his very soul slip away. I am an Evangelical Christian and I believe that the bible is the very word of God Himself. That Jesus Christ is His son and that He rose from the dead after three days. And that through Him, we shall have eternal life. I have had pastors ask me how I reconcile the two worlds. To me, they are not mutually exclusive but actually compliment each other.

Darwin said that through mutations new species, adapted better to coping with the environment, thrived and replaced older species along with cataclysmic events. The Bible says that God created the heavens and the earth in six days. And a day to God is what? And a day for God began when and ended when? God is all powerful. It is what He makes it to be. Day one may have begun and may not have completely ended yet as well as Day two, or Day Three.

Man is so insignificant and so prone to ignorance that it defies comprehension. Those who tell me that you must accept Darwin's theories to the exclusion of others are as willfully rigid as those who tell me that God is bound by a 24 hour day. How can such a "flawed" organism such as ourselves, "KNOW" anything at this time for sure about this matter? I submit that this is still over our heads. We can contemplate, but to believe that our theory is the only correct answer is ridiculous.

Good thread Political Chic...

There are NO alternate scientific theories.

The Theory of Evolution is the fundamental basis of all biological science.

So when you say some say we must accept Darwin's theories to the exclusion of others, you wrongly assume there are other scientific theories. There are NONE.

The alternate theories are Intelligent Design and Theoretical Physics.

ID / Creationism is not at alternate theory. It meet none of the criteria for a scientific theory. And, if we’re going to be honest in our argumentation, we need to understand that ID / Creationism is simply Christian apologetics in a burqua with a new name.

ID / creationism offerer nothing to refute the vast amounts of hard scientific evidence that demonstrates evolution has actually taken place. For example, there are large collections of transitional fossils which provide a timeline of the evolution of birds from dinosaurs, mammals from reptiles, whales from land dwellers etc. Genetic evidence now allows us to also track such connections at the biological and chemical level.

Similar evidence comes from ecology, geology, anatomy, population genetics and related fields. That's just the outline. But against all the above, creationists counter with "The Gods Did It". Although not every bone from every animal that has lived for millions of years has not been recovered or preserved, the processes of evolution have left behind plenty of evidence to be tested. We can compare, contrast and examine the features and structures of living organisms. Doing so, we find an order to the organisms that establishes a definable hierarchy of characteristics. This was known even before Darwin. We know that skeletal structures of many animals have changed over vast time scales. We can use processes such as carbon dating to establish timelines and compare the fossil evidence at different ages and see how these skeletal structures have changed. We apply these technologies to better understand biology, cell development, genetics, and so on.

The reason why fundie creationist Christians refuse to accept and will ignore the science before them is because they must have a literal Adam and Eve. Genesis, and subsequent scripture, defines all human beings as being born totally depraved with Original Sin, and because of that, the requirement of Salvation through Christ. That was the reason for the crucifixion. This is crucial to fundamentalist Christians and why their hatred and revulsion for science runs so deep.

Believe what you wish regarding gods, you are free to believe what you like. But you cannot brute force you gods into the realm of science for resolution as science cannot examine the supernatural.

 

[NoNukes]

You act as if stupidity were a virtue

The same problem that you usually evince.

What difference who said it if you cannot show that it isn't true?


It is as totally correct as you are totally ignorant.

I have shown it isn't true.

You haven't disproved it.

There, thumpy. Double negative^2.

You're a liar.....

...but this is amusing: I'm both defrosting a turkey, and posting to one at the same time.

Cannibalism?

 

[Hollie]

I have shown it isn't true.

You haven't disproved it.

There, thumpy. Double negative^2.

You're a liar.....

...but this is amusing: I'm both defrosting a turkey, and posting to one at the same time.

Cannibalism?

Stupidity.

When PC can't cut and paste from Harun Yahya and is forced to assemble words into coherent sentences on her own, she's reduced to stuttering and mumbling.

 

[NoNukes]

You're a liar.....

...but this is amusing: I'm both defrosting a turkey, and posting to one at the same time.

Cannibalism?

Stupidity.

When PC can't cut and paste from Harun Yahya and is forced to assemble words into coherent sentences on her own, she's reduced to stuttering and mumbling.

And stupid, failed attempts at humor.

 

[Smilodonfatalis]

No it isn't.

It is philosophy rather than science.


Work this idea through those congealed cogs in your brain: Darwin claimed that the accumulation of mutations would result in one species evolving into another.

"And let us dispose of a common misconception. The complete transmutation of even one animal species into a different species has never been directly observed either in the laboratory or in the field." Dean H. Kenyon (Professor of Biology, San Francisco State University), affidavit presented to the U.S. Supreme Court, No. 85-1513, Brief of Appellants, prepared under the direction of William J. Guste, Jr., Attorney General of the State of Louisiana, October 1985, p. A-16.



BTW.....'scientists' have proposed numerous bird-brained theories that would be acceptable to bird-brains like yourself.

Here's one:

Dr. Francis Crick of DNA fame suggested that life was 'dropped' here by aliens from another planet......

Directed Panspermia - postulates that the roots of our form of life go back to another place in the universe, almost certainly another planet; that it had reached a very advanced form there before anything much had started here; and that life here was seeded by microorganisms sent on some form of spaceship by an advanced civilization. Crick, Francis 'Life Itself: Its Origin and Nature', p.141


According to Crick, this is the only alternative that satisfactorily explains what Darwinism and punctuated equilibria do not - this planet's absence of transitional forms; transitional forms being the evidence for evolution which, "would only have existed on the sender planet, not on Earth," p.144



Stupid enough for you to accept?

You just got burned by your own ignorance.

Kenyon was wrong.

Speciation has been observed on numerous occasions.

Check this link. Observed Instances of Speciation

It's also simply untrue that there is an absence of transitional forms. There are literally thousands of transitional forms in both the living and fossil record.

I destroyed that link earlier....as follows:




The example you provide is exactly the bogus double talk that convince the uninformed....

....that would be you.

In this case, there is no disrespect involved....simply that you are uninformed, and therefore easily convinced.



From your link:

"A discussion of speciation requires a definition of what constitutes a species. This is a topic of considerable debate within the biological community."

This alone should warn you that the rest will be double talk.


Then, there's this:
"What a biologist will consider as a speciation event is, in part, dependent on which species definition that biologist accepts."


Do you have a definition of 'species'?


This is it:
spe·cies
ˈspēsēz,-SHēz/Submit
noun
1.
BIOLOGY
a group of living organisms consisting of similar individuals capable of exchanging genes or interbreeding.



Science is based on evidence, not polls.

"...the literature contains many instances where a speciation event has been inferred."

Do you know what 'inferred' means?


And, the uninformed accept things like this:
"Most biologists are convinced that speciation occurs."

If you accept this as science, you probably accept 'global warming,' too.



Again....no speciation has been been observed.


"NOT ONE of the examples studied documents the origin of large-scale biological change. The vast majority of the examples do NOT even show the production of new species, where a "species" is defined by the standard definition of a "reproductively isolated population."
Thus, not a single bona fide example of speciation in animals -- e.g. the establishment of a completely reproductively isolated population -- was found. - Specious Speciation: The Myth of Observed Large-Scale Evolutionary Change - Evolution News & Views

Try reading the link again.

Scientists documented at least 26 instances of observed speciation in both the wild and the lab. Everything from evening primroses to fruit flies.

 

[Smilodonfatalis]

I have no problem with any beliefs in this connection....

..my contention is that one must know all that goes into a calculation in order to come up with the correct answer.


For example.....those who champion Darwin probably had no knowledge of the connections to communism, and such views from 'evolutionary biologists.'

There are no connections whatsoever between a scientific fact and communism.

Your post is a ludicrous joke.

You could not be more wrong. You could try, but you would not be successful.

As the OP clearly proves you to be in error, either you cannot read, or you cannot comprehend.

Please advise as to which is the case.

How did the OP show I was in error?

Scientific fact is apolitical.

The earth revolves around the sun. That is a scientific fact. How is that communism?

 

[PoliticalChic]

You just got burned by your own ignorance.

Kenyon was wrong.

Speciation has been observed on numerous occasions.

Check this link. Observed Instances of Speciation

It's also simply untrue that there is an absence of transitional forms. There are literally thousands of transitional forms in both the living and fossil record.

I destroyed that link earlier....as follows:




The example you provide is exactly the bogus double talk that convince the uninformed....

....that would be you.

In this case, there is no disrespect involved....simply that you are uninformed, and therefore easily convinced.



From your link:

"A discussion of speciation requires a definition of what constitutes a species. This is a topic of considerable debate within the biological community."

This alone should warn you that the rest will be double talk.


Then, there's this:
"What a biologist will consider as a speciation event is, in part, dependent on which species definition that biologist accepts."


Do you have a definition of 'species'?


This is it:
spe·cies
ˈspēsēz,-SHēz/Submit
noun
1.
BIOLOGY
a group of living organisms consisting of similar individuals capable of exchanging genes or interbreeding.



Science is based on evidence, not polls.

"...the literature contains many instances where a speciation event has been inferred."

Do you know what 'inferred' means?


And, the uninformed accept things like this:
"Most biologists are convinced that speciation occurs."

If you accept this as science, you probably accept 'global warming,' too.



Again....no speciation has been been observed.


"NOT ONE of the examples studied documents the origin of large-scale biological change. The vast majority of the examples do NOT even show the production of new species, where a "species" is defined by the standard definition of a "reproductively isolated population."
Thus, not a single bona fide example of speciation in animals -- e.g. the establishment of a completely reproductively isolated population -- was found. - Specious Speciation: The Myth of Observed Large-Scale Evolutionary Change - Evolution News & Views

Try reading the link again.

Scientists documented at least 26 instances of observed speciation in both the wild and the lab. Everything from evening primroses to fruit flies.

Try understanding the link.

It is bogus....as you are.


In your posts one sees an example of the old saying, one that you so aptly demonstrate: “He knew his way out of the harbor, but after that, everything was open sea.”

 

[Smilodonfatalis]

Well, PC, I love it when they declare science 'settled' and then call us all 'ignorant.' Science is anything BUT settled. Man cannot as of yet make it out of his own solar system, nor can he see far enough with even the best telescopes to truly explain the universe. When we see a star explode, we have to realize based on Einstein that the event occurred thousands of years ago and we are just now seeing it as the light reaches us. Even knowing the speed of light, we cannot see things like that in 'real time' because they are too far away. AND we do not know what has occurred in that spot in the interim thousands of years. Research in all fields is ongoing as it should be. I have two degrees the foundation of which are biological science. We have medicines that treat the human brain, and how they work, although they do work, is still largely a matter of theory. Some of them work and we can't even postulate a theory of why they work. The FDA only requires that they beat placebo. We don't know any more about the brain today than we did 100 years ago. We do know a little more about the substances that act upon it.

We are taught by science that life cannot be generated from inorganic matter, then we are told, 'oh well it DID happen once.' And there are people who are clueless enough and dense enough to buy that contradictory shit. Bottom line, we don't really know how life on earth came about. We also don't know if there is life outside our own solar system, and if there is even how to find it or how to get there.

I find the board know it alls most boring indeed. They have it all sewn up in their microscopic little two celled minds and make great haste to label those of us who have a real education in science, and the ability to think critically about such things as religion and the origin of the species as stupid. And yet they cannot cite one single study to show probability that their theory is correct. Not one. One theory is as good as another. None of them have been shown to be scientifically valid. None of them. Evolution is not even mathematically possible as shown in another thread. (And those who published this are mainstream scientists completely aware that Darwin had no knowledge of genetics.) Therefore, those who religiously and relentlessly cling to it are nothing more than religious fanatics themselves.

Can't find one study where the theory of evolution has been shown to be scientifically valid?

How about a whole basic college biology textbook?

Would a 600 page biology textbook be enough for you?

Try reading one before spouting your total ignorance.

LOL. A biology text is not a study. Name one scientific study which validates evolution. And for your information, I have more than a few college hours in science - biology, chemistry, organic and inorganic, (strange how they separate those two isn't it), microbiology, anatomy, physiology, advanced pharmacology, advanced psychopharmacology, and advanced pathophysiology, as well as algebra and statistics.

Good luck on your Biology 101 class. Your text will be outdated in just a few years. Might want to just sell it when you are done.

There are literally tens of thousands of studies that validate Evolution.

That you don't understand this proves you are not paying attention in your science classes.

A biology textbook consists of a body of knowledge based on thousands of studies.

The science of genetics alone validates the theory of evolution.

You left yourself wide open. All I have to do is find just 1 study to make you look like a fool. That will be a piece of cake.

Stay tuned.