Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Evolution moves more quickly than scientists thought
The Kansas City Star ^ | November 18, 2006 | Eric Hand

Posted on 11/19/2006 1:00:27 PM PST by DaveLoneRanger

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 951-992 next last
To: mgstarr

I'm with you. If the moon shots had been real I'd be eating imported green cheese.


101 posted on 11/19/2006 3:13:27 PM PST by From many - one.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: Minutemen

Then the real problem you have is that you don't understand it.


102 posted on 11/19/2006 3:14:53 PM PST by From many - one.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: aimhigh
Ya, like when the geologists described the Mount St. Helens eruption as causing 10,000 years of geologic action in one day. Just another set of unproven theories.

It occurred to me that the nonsense you're trying to peddle is the idea that geologic events which are determined to have taken thousands or millions of years to unfold may instead have occurred quite swiftly, by a single volcanic eruption or some other similarly brief occurrence.

Let me briefly explain why this is idiotic.

I don't have the original quotes of course, assuming that they exist, but I can readily deduce that if a geologist described the Mount St. Helens eruption as causing 10,000 years of geologic action in one day then what the geologist was quite obviously saying is that in the absence of a volcanic eruption this 'geologic action' would take 10,000 years to occur (actually, it'd take far longer than that even to achieve the same results via sedimentation and erosion).

So what?

Even a reasonably bright fifth grade student could probably learn the same in his science class. Volcanic action achieves very swiftly what takes eons to achieve by virtually any other means. That is well known, and readily evidenced in the geologic record, where it's quite easy to distinguish whether such effects were caused very gradually by erosion/sedimentation or very swiftly by volcanic/seismic action.

Of course, to reiterate, I don't have the original quotes, but it's easy enough to deduce what was meant simply because if the geologist meant it in the way that seems to be implied then said geologist should never have received a degree.

103 posted on 11/19/2006 3:15:12 PM PST by AntiGuv ("..I do things for political expediency.." - Sen. John McCain on FOX News)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger
Wow, what was that!

Evolution?


104 posted on 11/19/2006 3:15:39 PM PST by unspun (What do you think? Please think, before you answer.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

To: From many - one.
If the moon shots had been real

Which ones weren't?

105 posted on 11/19/2006 3:16:59 PM PST by RightWhale (RTRA DLQS GSCW)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger

And if I assume a dog's tail is a leg then dogs have 5 legs?

Your assumption is in precisely the place that your inquiry should be


106 posted on 11/19/2006 3:17:16 PM PST by From many - one.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

To: From many - one.

Ha! bear in mind, not everyone believes in it.


107 posted on 11/19/2006 3:17:17 PM PST by Minutemen ("It's a Religion of Peace")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: Wormwood
We are not really sure chimps can't breed successfully with humans.

BTW, the Darwin Finch business cited above probably involves methylated DNA and not permanent mutations. That's something that can be instantly influenced by diet, and within the same generation.

108 posted on 11/19/2006 3:19:27 PM PST by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: RightWhale

All of them or, as I said, I'd be eating imported green cheese.


109 posted on 11/19/2006 3:19:45 PM PST by From many - one.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah
We are not really sure chimps can't breed successfully with humans.

Yes, we are. They can't.

110 posted on 11/19/2006 3:20:22 PM PST by AntiGuv ("..I do things for political expediency.." - Sen. John McCain on FOX News)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: Minutemen

Not my problem.


111 posted on 11/19/2006 3:20:34 PM PST by From many - one.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: From many - one.

Ranger? Surveyor?


112 posted on 11/19/2006 3:21:06 PM PST by RightWhale (RTRA DLQS GSCW)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: Dust in the Wind; navyguy

Again, we are probably looking at processes controlled by DNA methylation and not genetic variation.


113 posted on 11/19/2006 3:21:35 PM PST by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Minutemen
The problem I have with evolutionary theory is: 1)If we evolved from fish, lizards or chimpanzes 2)in such a relatively short period of time, 3)why on earth is it taking so long for the rest of the fish, lizards & monkeys to morph into humans??

Evolutionary theory doesn't postulate 1,2, or 3.
114 posted on 11/19/2006 3:22:09 PM PST by somniferum (Annoy a liberal.. Work hard and be happy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger

“This is NOT the kind of "evolution" necessary to get from a chimpanzee to a human”

Bzzt wrong answer, chimpanzees and humans evolved from a common ancestor, also what is the barrier that prevents accumulations of changes in DNA sequence leading to speciation?

“zero to sixty, in 5.6 million years”

Given that you’ve got at least 100 nucleotide differences in your genome from your parents, exactly why shouldn’t 6 million years be enough time?

“These kinds of small changes within the species are the kind of "evolution" that is true, and with which creationists have no problem. It is dishonest to say this is evolution as evolutionists propagate it.2

Again I ask you, what is the barrier then that prevents accumulation of change leading to speciation?

“Moreover, such unexpectedly rapid change supports a young-earth creationist perspective.”

Incorrect, the above is based on your own desire to bend data to fit your untenable hypothesis, if the above were true, how can we see the Andromeda galaxy which is 2.3 million light years away? Oh, and the natural reactors found in Africa indicate that the Fine structure constant has been invariant over the last 1.2 billion years or so, so please no specious rants about the value of C changing or any other unsubstantiated cant on decay rats etc.

“It shows that these minor changes do not take thousands or millions of years to occur.”

We know that already, perhaps you’ve heard of Punctuated Equilibrium?

“And this is further evidence against neodarwinian evolution.”

No the article is in fact further support for ToE, as it is defined as changes in allele frequency in a population over time.

“If this "microevolution" takes place quicker than it was thought, that means that the macroevolutionary changes would be more readily observable now, yet they are not.”


Speciation events have been observed, for instance you may wish to look at Spartina angelica as but one example.

[snip propaganda weblink]


115 posted on 11/19/2006 3:24:53 PM PST by bodrules
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger
Assume

As my mechanic likes to say, "There's your problem!"

116 posted on 11/19/2006 3:25:10 PM PST by ReignOfError
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

To: RightWhale

If my leg is being pulled, it just came off.

If not, track back to post 93, paragraph 2.

I might add the the earth is unquestionably flat since I can see the edges when I drive in Texas. Harder to see in big cities, though.


117 posted on 11/19/2006 3:25:58 PM PST by From many - one.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: Junior

Back to the news story that starts this thread ~ DNA methylation can create the changes observed without any change whatsoever in allele frequency over time.


118 posted on 11/19/2006 3:26:34 PM PST by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger

This story would be better titled: "How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Theory".


119 posted on 11/19/2006 3:26:34 PM PST by finnigan2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Minutemen
why on earth is it taking so long for the rest of the fish, lizards & monkeys to morph into humans??

Monkeys are a different branch and have evolved to where they are and may evolve to something. Lizards are a different branch and fish are a different branch. Branches are not taken as rejoining once they separate. Speciation is the hypothesis, not despeciation.

120 posted on 11/19/2006 3:26:57 PM PST by RightWhale (RTRA DLQS GSCW)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: ReignOfError

Assumptions take place on both sides. In this case, limitations aren't only assumed, they're already there.


121 posted on 11/19/2006 3:27:33 PM PST by DaveLoneRanger (Celebrating my two-year anniversary! Yehaw!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger

Perhaps this article will help you see the light.

http://www.evolutionpages.com/homo_pan_divergence.htm


122 posted on 11/19/2006 3:28:39 PM PST by UpAllNight
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Alter Kaker
The "original" human beings probably found the eating of many kinds of grass poisonous. Most "modern" human beings can eat just about any kind of grass without difficulty. Still, some folks have some serious problems with some kinds of grass, e.g. what and rye.

Human beings have "adapted" to grass, at least in part.

123 posted on 11/19/2006 3:29:08 PM PST by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: Alter Kaker
Sorry, bananas have not been "selectively bred". In fact, they haven't been "bred" at all. They are "cuttings".

If some change occurs that looks beneficial we might well select that particular cutting for further expansion in the available space.

124 posted on 11/19/2006 3:31:58 PM PST by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: billybudd

Who are these Jewish scholars, from 2,500 years ago?


125 posted on 11/19/2006 3:32:00 PM PST by Treader (Human convenience is always on the edge of a breakthrough, or a sellout.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: From many - one.

I see. Thanks.


126 posted on 11/19/2006 3:34:07 PM PST by RightWhale (RTRA DLQS GSCW)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

To: From many - one.
And if I assume a dog's tail is a leg then dogs have 5 legs?

Which reminds me of an old joke. A a chemist, an engineer and an economist are stranded on an island after a shipwreck. They have an ample supply of canned food, but are unable to open the cans. So after some head-scratching, each has his own suggested solution.

The chemist suggests leaving the cans in the hot sun, then tossing them into a shaded pool, over and over. The repeated heated and cooling should make the metal brittle and make it possible to crack them open just by banging them on a rock.

The engineer suggests finding the longest limb they can and using it as a lever to smash he cans against a rock.

The economist says, "Assume a can opener."

127 posted on 11/19/2006 3:35:06 PM PST by ReignOfError
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: Minutemen
The problem I have with evolutionary theory is:

That you have no idea what it is.

128 posted on 11/19/2006 3:36:30 PM PST by ReignOfError
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: AntiGuv

No, we don't know it for a fact.


129 posted on 11/19/2006 3:37:49 PM PST by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah
To be honest with you, I haven't studied any biology since the early '70s but from this; "DNA methylation is a type of chemical modification of DNA that can be inherited without changing the DNA sequence." I will let my stance on "adaptation" remain, OK?
130 posted on 11/19/2006 3:38:00 PM PST by Dust in the Wind (I've got peace like a river)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: RightWhale

Not fair.

Do I still have a leg and have you seen Elvis?


131 posted on 11/19/2006 3:38:50 PM PST by From many - one.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger
Assumptions take place on both sides.

But only one side questions and tests and actively tries to disprove its assumptions.

132 posted on 11/19/2006 3:39:03 PM PST by ReignOfError
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: Treader

Just checking out the definitions of the various actors, there could not have been any "Jewish scholars" before Abraham. Ergo, the folks who first wrote down the oldest stories in Genesis were not "Jewish" ~


133 posted on 11/19/2006 3:41:16 PM PST by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]

To: Dust in the Wind

Time to catch up. This DNA Methylation explains many things including why there are gay guys, why stuff in your body stops working, how chickens can grow teeth, and so forth.


134 posted on 11/19/2006 3:44:43 PM PST by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies]

To: Theo

“Dave -- I'd have to agree with Alter Kaker on this one. You either believe evolution or don't. "Micro-evolution" is still evolution.”

Belief is for religious dogma, ToE doesn’t require belief, you either accept that it is the best explanation for the data – if you don’t then you have to provide an alternate hypothesis that explains the data in a reproducible and testable manner – preferably your alternate hypothesis should make predictions that can be tested.

I, for one, don't believe in evolution (defined as an increase of genetic information transmitted through generations) at all.

Define “information”, how is this to be quantified? Also you are incorrect, there are a variety of mutational mechanisms, such as insertions, DELETIONS, point mutations, translocations or duplications etc


135 posted on 11/19/2006 3:45:04 PM PST by bodrules
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: From many - one.

There is a list of posters who believe the moon landings were faked. For a few moments you sounded like them, but it is clear that you do believe the moon landings happened. Right? You do, don't you?


136 posted on 11/19/2006 3:47:01 PM PST by RightWhale (RTRA DLQS GSCW)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]

To: D Rider

Look up Spartina angelica, speciation in action. Your hypothesis has therefore been falsified, back to the drawing board for you.


137 posted on 11/19/2006 3:47:18 PM PST by bodrules
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah
Just checking out the definitions of the various actors, there could not have been any "Jewish scholars" before Abraham. Ergo, the folks who first wrote down the oldest stories in Genesis were not "Jewish" ~

Where did you get the idea that everything from "in the beginning" on came from someone's contemporaneous observations? For the first 25 verses of Genesis 1, that's impossible, because there was no one there to take notes.

The pentateuch is traditionally known as the "Books of Moses," and even if his authorship is apocryphal, it was almost certainly a Jew who first put pen to paper, erm, papyrus, or vellum, or whatever.

138 posted on 11/19/2006 3:48:40 PM PST by ReignOfError
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]

To: D Rider
Actually, the ball is in your court, prove that there is no limiting mechanism, and I'll bite.

No, the ball is not in my court. You agree that evolutionary mechanisms takes place in the short term, and you observe the wide variety speciation extant today, and you're suggesting that the two are still not related. If they're not, you have to explain yourself. How, where, when and why does evolution suddenly stop taking place? Can you find me an example of that happening?

139 posted on 11/19/2006 3:51:25 PM PST by Alter Kaker ("Whatever tears one sheds, in the end one always blows one's nose." - Heine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: D Rider
Actually, the ball is in your court, prove that there is no limiting mechanism, and I'll bite.

No, the ball is not in my court. You agree that evolutionary mechanisms takes place in the short term, and you observe the wide variety speciation extant today, and you're suggesting that the two are still not related. If they're not, you have to explain yourself. How, where, when and why does evolution suddenly stop taking place? Can you find me an example of that happening?

140 posted on 11/19/2006 3:51:26 PM PST by Alter Kaker ("Whatever tears one sheds, in the end one always blows one's nose." - Heine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: RightWhale

Didn't I tell you that I don't?

I even gave you a hint of my proof. We all know that the moon is made of green cheese. If we had ever gotten there we'd be mining cheese and selling it at a profit. Simple capitalism. Or are you one of those anti-American people who don't believe in capitalism? What else are capitals for, anyway.


141 posted on 11/19/2006 3:52:12 PM PST by From many - one.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 136 | View Replies]

To: ReignOfError
Writing had been in existence for several thousand years BEFORE the first Jew walked the face of the Earth.

In fact, Abram started out very near the place writing was first developed. Wonder if God revealed a few stories to him, hmmm?!

142 posted on 11/19/2006 3:55:53 PM PST by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 138 | View Replies]

To: From many - one.

"What else are capitals for, anyway"

Housing politicians and providing increased sales of sign paint!


143 posted on 11/19/2006 3:56:34 PM PST by bodrules
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 141 | View Replies]

To: RightWhale

From a certain point of view the Moon "landed on" our rockets.


144 posted on 11/19/2006 3:57:00 PM PST by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 136 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah
No, we don't know it for a fact.

Yes, we do know it for a fact, or at least for as much of a fact as we know just about any fact..

A series of experiments by Soviet researchers in the 1920s failed to produce a human/ape hybrid. In the 1970s another series of experiments established that human sperm will not fuse with other primate eggs and that human chromosomes will not align themselves with chimp chromosomes.

There is no doubt that a human/chimp chimera could be engineered in the lab, but so what? Virtually any kind of chimera theoretically could be engineered in the lab. A chimera is not bred like a hybrid; it's an artificial amalgam.

BTW, please keep in mind that just because someone can navigate a keyboard and mouse well enough to post some ridiculous nonsense doesn't make it true.

145 posted on 11/19/2006 3:59:51 PM PST by AntiGuv ("..I do things for political expediency.." - Sen. John McCain on FOX News)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 129 | View Replies]

To: padre35

I believe what you are describing is the first time an entire species running off the proverbial cliff at the same time.


146 posted on 11/19/2006 4:02:34 PM PST by Recon Dad (Marine Spec Ops Dad)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah; billybudd

I found the choice of descriptions & time frame interesting- thus my query of billybudd...


147 posted on 11/19/2006 4:03:43 PM PST by Treader (Human convenience is always on the edge of a breakthrough, or a sellout.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger
[ Evolution moves more quickly than scientists thought ]

That is.... If it happened AT ALL...

148 posted on 11/19/2006 4:05:53 PM PST by hosepipe (CAUTION: This propaganda is laced with hyperbole)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AntiGuv

Those experiments in the 1920s were doomed to failure since all they had on hand were examples of "Modern Soviet Man", and you know how worthless those guys were.


149 posted on 11/19/2006 4:06:56 PM PST by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 145 | View Replies]

Because they have not been posted in a while, here are a couple of useful links for anyone wishing to learn about evolution:

PatrickHenry's List-O-Links (now the Un-Missing Links).

Index of Creationist Claims


150 posted on 11/19/2006 4:12:36 PM PST by Coyoteman (Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 148 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 951-992 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson