Skip to comments.In Explaining Life's Complexity, Darwinists and Doubters Clash
Posted on 08/22/2005 3:29:51 AM PDT by Pharmboy
click here to read article
Don't know how many scientists have any feelings at all about abiogenesis.
The word itself tells you that it's not about biology, so probably most biologists have little to no involvement.
Evolution,as in the Theory of Evolution, is used by just about everyone, one way or another. Most of the hype you see is journalists, not scientific journals.
The problem for the interested non-scientist is that much of the work doesn't translate well into popularese. Even the much hyped "punctuated equilibrium" so called paradigm shift was kind of ho hum to ecologists, especially botanically oriented ones, who know that a new envrironmental niche opening up means that all kinds of stuff moves in and variants that wouldn't have survived before suddenly have massive new opportunities.
Since all those immobile plant variants just sit there, they can change radically from the versions just over the mountain and sooner or later they don't cross pollinate effectively anymore. Voila: a new species.
Lions and tigers (and their crossbreed offspring) have fertlity levels well below what would be replacement levels in the wild. They are indeed speciated; they just aren't completely infertile. They almost never encounter each other in the wild anymore (although they probably used to before humans restricted their ranges). It's unlikely they would breed with each other absent confinement together by humans. Male tigers are particularly loath to breed with female lions, apparently considering them butt-ugly.
Lions also have some cross-fertility with leopards. This (and the fossil record) shows that the radiation of the big cats is a relatively recent thing.
There's a range of cross-fertilities visible in nature. It's what evolution predicts. Speciation is not an all-at-once thing. It takes time and cross-fertility in isolated groups drops smoothly rather than vanishing all at once.
We see every degree of relatedness in nature. Humans, before the age of exploration, were on the way to speciating based upon their geographic dispersal. It never got that far and now it never will because we've been remelding for centuries now.
A clarification of my previous post:
When I say evolution is used by just about everyone, my referent (imy own mind) was "in biology"
Sorry, it's been a long day.
Oh, another bit.
I think somwehere you asked how the ID business has come so far if it's invalid. Moonie $$$ and support for the Discovery Institute is a large factor not everyone is aware of.
"I don't understand what you're getting at here -- can you please elaborate?"
Let me help you out.
A sentence is not necessarily a proposition and a run on sentence is never a coherent sentence.
A subject connected by a verb to a relevent object plus a few commas would have helped.
There are probably more than 400 signatures in total, but some of the signatories have honorary degrees, some have degrees from unaccredited schools, and some wish they hadn't signed because of the use the list has been put to. There still remains a fair number of true scientists on the list that favour ID over evolution, and/or abiogenesis.
However, if you take a look at the fallacy of appeal to authority, you will note that it is a fallacy only if the authority used is not an authority in the specific field in question. That removes a fair number from the list; all but 70 I do believe. Those that remain will be scientists within one of the central disciplines of evolutionary biology.
You will find similar problems with Project Steve, however the ratio of biologists to non-biologists is quite different.
The use of both of these lists annoys the hell out of me because they are both appeals to popularity and as such really do not impact the validity of evolution, the ToE, or the way evolution is studied, in any way.
ie: If 1,000,000 people told you your left foot and your right foot are reversed, it would not make the claim true.
... you could assume the DNC has put it out as a talking point.
"***but it's below that 10^50 threshold of impossibility. Do I got that right? It looks as though we at least have some numbers to chew on. Thanks again for posting it.
The 1050 number given, is an arbitrary number taken from Borel's law which was a rule of thumb that stated 'Phenomena with very small probabilities do not occur'.
*Borel stated that 'It is evident that the requirements with respect to the degree of certainty imposed on the single law of chance will vary depending on whether we deal with scientific certainty or the certainty which suffices in a given circumstance of everyday life'. For example: He states that 10-6 is negligible on a "human scale", 10-9 is negligible on a "terrestrial" scale, 10-50 on a cosmic scale and 10-10-10 on a supercosmic scale.
In other words, it all depends. Borel himself stated that it is not possible to apply any probability calculation to the appearance of life on our planet.
Without knowledge of the initial conditions at the beginning, any probability calculation made is meaningless. *Taken from a paper on talkorigins
How is it that you can say the same thing I say, but in half the words? I must babble.
Where are the millions of fossels, skeletons, and mummified bodies of animals and humans in transition?
I'm seldom accused of terseness. Thanks! :)
Before anyone pounces to say that lions are in Africa and tigers are in Asia, there's a tiny forest preserve in India containing the last ragtag band of the Indian lion subspecies. I simply don't know if this area still has any tigers.
Lions used to roam southern Europe and much of the Near East. Tigers were once more widespread than now as well.
There are puh-lenty. Check out human evolution, fer instance. Ask patrickhenry and he can direct you to sources.
In any event, most of us just "know" what is ennobling to the human spirit, and allows each to be allowed to seek their full potential. That is all that matters. It does not matter where it came from; all that matters is that it is true. Why get bogged down in trivial irrelevancies, blinding us from seeing the forest through the trees as it were?
The legalities simply followed the thinning of the fog of ignorance, in a slow process which eroded away entrenched interests, animated by more parchochial and selfish, and exploitive concerns.
That is how I see it.
What do you believe is an animal in transition?
Have you ever worked out the probability of finding a specific fossil?
Not to mention a few dozen Indian tribes. Many non-Americans consider this one of America's defining traits.
You can bet your Cabridoux on in.
Don't worry, it probably won't happen again.
Ibex you don't have a goat to stand on.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.