Posted on 06/17/2003 7:05:07 PM PDT by Pharmboy
H. E. Hoekstra
Evolution has allowed some rock pocket mice,
pictured on light and dark rocks, to produce
distinct fur that helps disguise them.
In the deserts of the Southwest, among the towering saguaros and the spiny cholla cactuses, rock pocket mice hop and dash in search of a meal of seeds. But while these mice may seem to scamper haphazardly across the desert floor, their arrangement in nature is strikingly orderly.
Nearly everywhere these mice are sandy-colored, well camouflaged as they scurry across beige-colored outcrops. But in some areas, ancient lava flows have left behind swaths of blackened rock. There the same species of rock pocket mouse has only dark coats, having evolved an entirely distinct and, for their surroundings, equally well-disguised pelage.
Now, in a recent study in The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, researchers report identifying the gene responsible for the evolution of dark coat coloration in these mice, pinpointing the DNA sequence changes that underlie this classic story of evolutionary change, the cute and furry counterpart to the famous case of the peppered moth.
Researchers say the study is the first documentation of the genetic changes underlying an adaptive change where the evolutionary forces were natural. Scientists point out that other well-known cases involve evolution caused by humans; some have suggested that those changes may be atypical of natural evolutionary change, since they have typically involved intense, directed pressures destroying most of a population, like the spraying of pesticides or the application of antibiotics.
"This work is very important," said Dr. Mike Majerus, an evolutionary geneticist at Cambridge University, who was not part of the study. "Here man is just not involved. The sandy and lava flow substrates are entirely natural phenomena."
Other well-studied examples of human-driven adaptive change include the evolution of pesticide resistance in insects after widespread spraying and the increase in the numbers of dark-winged forms compared with light-winged forms of the peppered moth in the United States and England after industrialization turned air sooty and polluted.
Dr. Michael W. Nachman, a population geneticist, along with colleagues at the University of Arizona, Dr. Hopi E. Hoekstra and Susan L. D'Agostino, studied mice living on Arizona's Pinacate lava flow in Arizona and on light-colored rocks nearby. The researchers were able to take advantage of decades of meticulous work in which other scientists identified some 80 genes that affected coat color in laboratory mice.
On close examination, the light-colored rock pocket mice could be seen to have a type of hair coloration similar to standard, sandy-colored laboratory mice. In this pattern, known as agouti, the hair is black at the base, yellow in the middle and black again at the tip. The dark-colored rock pocket mice had completely dark hairs.
Researchers knew that mutations in a few well-known coat coloration genes in laboratory mice could cause such complete darkening of the hair, and they began by looking at two genes known as agouti and Mc1r. When they looked at DNA sequences in light and dark mice, changes in the agouti gene did not appear to be associated with light-colored fur versus dark-colored. Still, the researchers found that a certain cluster of mutations at Mc1r could be found in every dark-colored mouse.
"It's a textbook story," Dr. Nachman said. "Now we have all the pieces of the puzzle together in a natural setting."
Dr. Nachman noted that while the new study points to the Mc1r gene as the key to turning mice dark on the Pinacate lava flow, the team also found that dark mice on another lava flow in New Mexico did not share those mutations.
"So the same dark color has evolved independently in the two different populations," he said, "through different genetic solutions to the same evolutionary problem." Dr. Nachman said changes in another gene, perhaps the agouti gene, could be responsible for dark coloration in the New Mexico's Pedro Armendaris lava flow.
One could easily imagine that coloration would be of no consequence to the rock pocket mice, as they are nocturnal, darting about under the desert night sky. But researchers, working early in the last century, released light and dark mice on light and dark backgrounds in an enclosure at night and found that owls, a major predator of mice, could easily spot a mouse on a mismatched background.
Dr. Nachman noted, however, that these early researchers did not use rock pocket mice in their study, but instead used a species in which the dark and light forms were actually much less distinct.
As a result, he said, "we think the owls are discriminating even more strongly in our species." He said tiny bits of rock pocket mouse were often found in pellets at owl roosts.
Dr. Majerus said many kinds of animals showed light and dark forms, from deer mice to squirrels and chipmunks. There are even black ladybugs.
"A lot of the dark forms show an association with a particular type of substrate they're on, or the frequency of burning and charring of the trees in the woodlands," he said, noting that it would be interesting to do genetic studies in other animals, to see how many genetic solutions these other animals have come up with to turn dark.
But while many dark forms are abundant and can be studied at scientists' leisure, Dr. Majerus said that of the peppered moth was slowly disappearing.
So while there is nearly unanimous praise for the increasingly clean air in industrialized regions of the United States and Britain, there may be, at least for some scientists, a downside. "We've got about 15 or 16 years," Dr. Majerus said, "before those black forms, if they continue to disappear at the current rate, disappear completely."
Hey thug, why don't you refute what was said. It is not mindless. It is a list of examples that show evolution to be complete garbage. Insulting the poster does not refute what was said.
LOL, are you saying that peppered moths change color when they die? Because that's the only way that would be relevant.
Shame on you Jenny. The reason that he had to paste them to the side of trees is that they do not rest on the side of trees - as I said. His statement was that they rested on the side of trees and that was when they were picked off by birds. The man was a liar and a fraud and it is an example of the shamefullness and dishonesty of evolution that they still try to use this fraud as an example of evolution.
It is not irrelevant, because the moths are very hard to see if they perch in the branches of the trees and the coloring would not matter very much in such cases. So you are wrong on both counts.-me-
O...M...G... Well sure: If it's hard for humans to see them way up there in the branches of trees, then it must be just as hard for birds to see them too,
No Jenny, you know exactly what I am speaking of. Mixed in with the leaves and branches they are hard to spot by birds.
The desperation of evolutionists in defending this fraud which in no way proves anything regarding evolution shows the desperation of evolution giving evidence of its theory.
This is science, and this is precisely why he was so brilliant.
In particular, the surfacing of such snippets is Creationist Quote Science. Darwin stated his theory as precisely as possible. He anticipated every objection which he could himself imagine. Thus, his text is replete with rhetorical questions, counter-proposals, qualifiers, and conditions. Any of these out of context looks like agonizing self-doubt.
Of course, given that Darwin was merely trying to be understood precisely, the quoter has to be willing to be dishonest in trying to insure that Darwin is misunderstood. Such willingness occurs in abundance amid the community of creationist writers.
Does your Mommy know that you talk this way, little boy?
Gore, whatever you do, DO NOT READ THE FOLLOWING:
Contrary to Wells's assertions, data given by Majerus indicate that the moths do indeed rest on the trunks of trees 25% of the time. The rest of the time moths rest in branches (25%) or at branch-trunk junctions (50%). The facts have been pointed out repeatedly to Wells; his response has been mostly to claim that moths don't rest on "exposed" tree trunks (). But this is not what he said in the text of Icons, which remains flatly wrong. Moths are found all over trees, which is not a surprise () and it is mentioned in the references that Wells cites.
Nearly everywhere these mice are sandy-colored, well camouflaged as they scurry across beige-colored outcrops. But in some areas, ancient lava flows have left behind swaths of blackened rock. There the same species of rock pocket mouse has only dark coats, having evolved an entirely distinct and, for their surroundings, equally well-disguised pelage.
If, as the excerpt above says, it is the same species, then this is no more of a big deal than guernsies and holsteins as far as I can tell.
Every time evolutionists are asked for proof they give the very same
Because it is quite simply the best single article on the subject intended for laymen available on the internet, and it contains dozens of citations to further information.
I could instead provide pointers to several thousand technical articles which firmly support evolution and common descent, but I doubt that most readers of these threads have either the time or the background to fully benefit from such a large volume of material. So instead, we provide a pointer to the above article, which gives a birds-eye overview of the multiple lines of evidence which strongly support evolution. Readers who wish to investigate further can then follow the provided links and citations.
But if you're tired of the fact that you have no proper refutation for that link and would like something new to chew on, check this out: The Fossil Record: Evolution or "Scientific Creation" . It focuses on only *one* line of evidence (the fossil record) instead of 29+, and on only one major example from the fossil record, but it does so thoroughly and devastatingly. Have fun.
unscientific article
You clearly don't understand the words you're using here. The article is quite scientific. If you feel that it isn't, you're strongly invited to point out what, exactly, you feel is unscientific about it -- or retract your unsupported accusation.
which has been thoroughly debunked in A Critique of 29 Evidences for Macroevolution as well as on several threads right here on FreeRepublic.
Oh, puh-leaze... "Frantically denounced" is not the same thing as "thoroughly debunked". Let's take a look at your link, shall we?
Ashby Camp attempts to "debunk" item "4.2 DNA Coding Redundancy", but he screws it up royally. First, he attempts to summarize the argument as:
The alleged prediction and fulfillment are:This COMPLETELY misses the point of the DNA Coding Redundancy argument. In fact, it practically *reverses* the actual argument entirely. It's a downright laughable attempt at summarizing the actual argument, and grossly misrepresents the original point being made.1. If universal common ancestry is true, then ubiquitous genes will have the same or a similar codon sequence in two or more species.
2. Ubiquitous genes have the same or a similar codon sequence in two or more species.
Ashby Camp can hardly "debunk" an argument if he doesn't even understand it to start with.
Instead, the actual argument which Camp is misrepresenting goes like this: If modern life arose through common descent, then the redundancy in the DNA coding (which allows *many* different DNA sequences to produce *identical* protein results) should result in very similar DNA sequences between recently-related species (for the same protein), less similar DNA sequences for less-recently-related species, and very less similar DNA sequences for distantly-related species. For *all* species relationships and *all* coding sequences.
That's *quite* a bit different than Camp's ridiculously oversimplified version, which grossly distorts the above into "some sequences will be found to be similar, somewhere". The *actual* prediction is *far* more specific, and *vastly* less likely to occur by chance or some other method which does not involve common descent. The actual prediction makes testable, narrow predictions about *every* ubiquitous gene sequence in *every* species. It's extremely specific, and leaves no wiggle-room for observations which might violate the prediction.
Camp then uses his own skewed version of the argument to say, "It is not a prediction of the hypothesis of universal common ancestry or the more specific hypothesis of Neo-Darwinism that ubiquitous genes will have the same or a similar codon sequence in two or more species." That's true enough for Camp's distorted version, but *NOT* for the original.
Camp further claims: "If the codon sequence in such a gene was not the same or “similar” in two or more species, evolutionists simply would vary the time of divergence and/or the mutation rate, which is claimed to vary for different genes, to account for the differences." No, absolutely not. What Camp is missing is that this line of evidence applies not to absolute amounts of differences, but *relative* amounts of differences. Yes, the neutral mutation rate for some genes is larger than others. But that's irrelevant to this line of evidence, because whatever the mutation rate for a given gene, what's being compared is larger differences versus smaller differences when examining multiple pairs of species. "Larger" is distinguishable from "smaller" no matter what the absolute sizes might be.
Camp reveals his further misunderstandings when he writes: "Once again, the real argument being made is theological, not scientific. The claim is that, since God could make a gene for a protein with many different codon sequences, he would not have used an identical or similar series of codons in the cytochrome c gene of separately created species." No, Camp blows it again. There is, in fact, absolutely no argument of any sort in 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution about what God might or might not choose to do. That's Camp's own hallucination. What's worse, he obviously entirely misunderstands the *evidenciary* arguments being made in 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution. What makes this even more unforgiveable is that the points that Camp misses are spelled out explicitly in one of the "29+ Evidences" pages (this one).
What Camp entirely misses is that the 29+ lines of evidence for macroevolution are *not* given as "proofs". Nowhere is the argument made that there could be no other possible explanation for a particular type of observation, or that any given observation might not match the predictions of some other theory as well. That's *always* a "given" in science, because there's *always* some other theor(ies) which could likewise explain the evidence (if nothing else, some sort of unrecognized variation on the current theory, or even something radically different that no one's thought of).
What Camp misses entirely, because he's not a scientist (he's a lawyer) is that you don't "prove" a given theory by allegedly presenting something which can't be explained any *other* way (because this is almost always impossible to do even in principle), instead you *support* a theory by working out as many of its implications (i.e. predictions) as you can, and then check to see (via examination of known evidence, and experiment, and other methods) whether all observations you can manage to do actually "fit" the theory (and more importantly, whether any are found which *don't*).
The more evidence which falls into line to match the expectations of the theory, the more the theory is strengthened. Any evidence which appears to be a blatant violation of the expectations of the theory weighs *very* heavily against it. Furthermore, a theory is very much strengthened if the evidence which matches its predictions are from not just one type of prediction or line of argument, but from many. In the 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution page, there are over *29* independent lines of evidence, all of which beautifully match the predictions of the theories of common descent and macroevolution. And each line of evidence is supported by *thousands*, and in some cases *millions*, of individual pieces of evidence.
In short, evolution has an enormous amount of evidence supporting it.
I strongly invite readers to ignore Gore3000's "pay no attention to the man behind the curtain" attempt, and actually go *read* 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution for yourself (yes, all several pages). It'll take a couple hours, but it's well worth the time. After you read it, you'll understand why creationists are being hugely dishonest when they claim that there is "no" evidence supporting evolution, or that evolution is not a "scientific" or "predictive" theory. The pages at that link show in great detail how empty those claims are, even if you choose argue with a few particular points or disagree with its conclusion. There's an enormous amount of meticulous, well-researched evidence for evolution, and that page gives a large taste. Don't let anyone tell you there's not. And I trust any reader with an open mind will see for themselves how strong the evolutionary foundation truly is, contrary to hte "house of cards" declarations by its opponents. Again, even if you disagree with the conclusion, at least be honest enough to admit there's a lot of good evidence behind it -- if you take the time to look.
Camp blusters in several sections about how "well, maybe God chose to make things the way that the evidence indicates". Fine, maybe he did. Feel free to go off and develop a "scientific theory of creationism". But note that you can't just say (as Camp does), "maybe God wanted to do it in a way that only *appears* to match the expected results of evolution, we don't know why", because that's *not* a *scientific* prediction, because it doesn't let you predict *ahead* of your observations what you think you're going to find and why. As soon as you develop a "scientific theory of creationism" which *does* claim to grasp enough of God's processes and reasons to be able to predict (repeat: *predict*) enough of the details of His works that you'll be able to test your theory against the evidence (and also honestly deal with it if your predictions are falsified), *then* you'll have something that can truly be called "scientific". So far, no one has offered such a theory. "God could make it any way at all if he wanted to for His own mysterious reasons" does *not* qualify, because it is neither predictive nor falsifiable. It is, in fact, a declaration of *lack* of knowledge rather than a contribution to science (which is the *accumulation* of what we know and can confidently count on and predict about the world).
Camp even unwittingly admits this when he writes, "But even if there were no unknown design constraints on the gene for cytochrome c, how could one be sure that God would not conserve codon sequences when creating cytochrome c gene in separate species?" Yes, exactly. If one "can't be sure" -- if there's no way to test the unknowability of God's whims or predict what they will be in a given case -- then it's a philosophical issue, but it's not a scientific theory.
Camp's concluding paragraph for this section of his "debunking" only further reveals his misunderstandings:
Thus, the similarity of codon sequences in the cytochrome c gene of humans and chimps does not “make it look exactly like we are genealogically related.”This quote appears nowhere in 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution. Camp is either summarizing, or was working off an older version of the web page. In any case, he misunderstands it. The meaning is that the gene similarities and differences between man/chimp are exactly the type we would expect to see if we were genealogically related, and closely so. It's not a claim that the gene sequences by themselves are some sort of irrefutable proof that we are.
That conclusion only follows if one ignores the possibility of unknown design constraints, insists that God introduce novelty for novelty’s sake, and denies that there could be other divine purposes, such as sending a biotic message, for the pattern of similarity.See above. Camp repeatedly misunderstands the argument(s) which are actually being made in 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution, and thus his "debunking" misses the mark entirely.
Similar major flaws are present in the rest of his alleged "debunking" article. And you have "forgotten" to mention that talk.origins itself posts a lengthy rebuttal to Camp's sloppy 'critique'. In it, they describe his attempts to critique their material (and quite fairly, in my opinion), as:
Mr. Camp's critique is error-ridden in various ways, and is primarily characterized by:...and then they go on to very thoroughly document those errors in Camp's critique.
- Straw man arguments
- Red herrings
- Self-contradictions
- Equivocation
- Two wrongs make a right
- Fallacies of accident and converse accident
- Ignoratio elenchi
- Naive theological assumptions
- Insufficient knowledge of basic biology, molecular biology, biochemistry and genetics
- Misunderstanding of the scientific method
- Forwarding of untestable competing "hypotheses"
- Mischaracterization of evolutionary theory
- Misleading mis-quotes
- Fallacies of accent
- Distortion of scientific controversies
- Arguments from authority
- False analogies
The repeated use of these errors and others in Camp's "Critique" will be abundantly clear in the following rebuttal.
There is tons of Evidence Disproving Evolution which evolutionists constantly ignore
Yeah. Right. Sure.
Name one piece of evidence which you think evolutionists "constantly ignore" and I'll show you were they've dealt squarely with it, so that you can retract your false accusation. Go for it.
and which unlike their articles, is based on solid scientific facts.
You have yet to support your claim that the 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution article is *not* "based on solid scientific facts". Do so now, or retract it.
Furthermore, the link you supplied is a scattershot mish-mash of links, many of which (contrary to the title "Evidence Disproving Evolution"), actually *supports* evolution (such as this one, which that page misleadingly includes under the heading "Biology Disproving Evolution "), and/or are simple biological primers which in no way "disprove evolution" (such as this one, a simple introduction to the platypus, which that web page misleadingly includes under the heading "Species Disproving Evolution"). That page is dishonestly attempting to impress readers with the sheer volume of links in the hopes that the reader will mistakenly think that all of the links actually "disprove evolution", when they most certainly do not. The few that *do* attempt to do so are shoddy and error-ridden. I again make the challenge that you have dodged before: Point out the *one* argument linked from that page which you feel is one of the *best* examples of "evidence disproving evolution", and we'll see just how good it actually is. Go for it. If you dare.
Hey thug, why don't you refute what was said.
Gladly. I'm not going to waste my time with all of that insulting, dishonestly distorted pap, but I'll dismantle one of them to show you just how disingenuous it is. If you'd like to see any other *one* "definition" taken off at the knees, let me know which one (I'm not going to waste my time on all of them, so be sure to take your "best shot", son).
From that pack of creationist lies:
EVOLUTIONFirst lie: No one claims that the theory of evolution (or any *other* scientific theory) is "perfect". Scientific theories are always open to correction and refinement as needed.A truly perfect scientific theory which explaims in detail how everything in the universe came into being -- slowly. The theory of evolutions is so perfect and flexible in its ability to explain virtually all observable phemomena or opinions that it would be impossible to even conceive of an experiment capable of disproving it. (see Law).
Second lie: The passage "so perfect and flexible in its ability to explain virtually all observable phemomena or opinions" is obviously a facetious way to imply that it's defined in a weasely way so that anything whatsoever could be claimed to fit. This is wildly false, as anyone who has passed Biology 101 would recognize. It's also a wildly disingenuous way to try to explain away the fact that evolution *does* "explain virtually all" biological observations which it pertains to. "Oh," says the creationist, "yeah, evolution really does fit the biological record really well, but that's only because, um, it's so loose it'd fit anything, yeah, that's the ticket, just ask my wife, Morgan Fairchild."
Third lie: "it would be impossible to even conceive of an experiment capable of disproving it". Utter and complete bilge. Not only are there obvious ways to falsify evolution (if indeed it were false), and constant discussions in the science community about what would or would not constitute potential falsification of evolution, THERE ARE A LIST OF SEVERAL DOZEN SPECIFIC EXAMPLES OF SUCH ON A WEBSITE THAT I KNOW YOU'VE BEEN REFERRED TO COUNTLESS TIMES NOW. Here's just one sample from that site, WHICH YOU ARE VERY FAMILIAR WITH:
Potential Falsification:Lie much?It would make no sense, macroevolutionarily, if certain other mammals (e.g. dogs, cows, platypi, etc.), had these same retrogenes in the exact same chromosomal locations. For instance, it would be incredibly unlikely for dogs to also carry the three HERV-K insertions that are unique to humans, as shown in the upper right of Figure 4.4.1, since none of the other primates have these retroviral sequences.
That whine is just sour grapes from the creationists, who have tried and *failed* to falsify evolution countless times now. "Gosh," they say, "it can't be that our attacks are flawed, it *must* be that evolution just refuses to be falsified, yeah, I feel better already, right Morgan?"
It is not mindless.
Well, that was the kind assumption. The alternative is that it is knowingly dishonest and intentionally bears false witness.
It is a list of examples that show evolution to be complete garbage.
No, it is a list of false accusations which show the author -- and those who willingly promulgate it -- to be bearers of false witness.
Insulting the poster does not refute what was said.
No, but the description of the list was entirely accurate.
Even S.J. Gould noticed the problem posed by the lack of transition forms in the record--which is precisely why he invoked his "hopeful monster" theory."
The only people who confuse punctuated equilibrium and Richard Goldschmidt's never-widely-accepted "hopeful monster" idea from the 1940s are creationists. Really, they're the only ones. Isn't that odd?
An intro to current mainstream teachings: Tempo and Mode of Speciation (slide show). When announcing that what someone said is wrong, know what they said!
You really wanted me to read it eh!
Problem with your source is that its main argument:
The facts have been pointed out repeatedly to Wells;
is a lie. Wells knew the arguments when he wrote the book. He dealt with the Majerus statement DIRECTLY. For the author of the article you quoted to say Wells has not done so is as dishonest as the actions of Kettlewell in faking the evidence. From Icons of Evolution pp 154-155:
In 1998 University of Chicago evolutionary biologist Jerry Coyne wrote a review in Nature of Michael Majerus's book, Melanism: Evolution in Action. As we have seen, Majerus defends the classical story, but he also acknowledged the problems with it. And the problems were enough to convince Coyne that the story is in serious trouble. "From time to time," Coyne wrote, "evolutionists re-examine a classic experimental study and find, to their horror, that it is flawed and downright wrong." According to Coyne, the fact that peppered moths do not rest on tree trunks "alone invalidates Kettlewell's release-and-recapture experiments, as moths were releaseddby placing them directly onto tree trunks."
Further, another evolutionist who defends Kettlewell, Bruce Grant admits "we still do not know the natural hiding places of peppered moths".
So shame on all evolutionists for defending a fraud and adding to the shame by using lies.
NO profanity, NO personal attacks, NO racism or violence in posts.
You are not only abusing the posters by your personal attacks but you are also abusing your host's site by breaking its rules.
When you have something to say in a civil manner, then speak. If you cannot speak in a civil manner then go elsewhere. People are trying to have a civil discussion here and your heckling is disruptive.
It certainly does. When a so called scientist willfully, with malice and intent distorts the evidence and commits fraud it certainly discredits his entire work. People do not commit fraud without reason, and that reason is to deceive others. That evolutionists look on fraud and dishonesty as if it was nothing and argue and even insult those who dare to point it out shows quite well the low morals of the followers of evolution. They are following the dictum learned from Darwin - that the end justifies the means.
The article was written by a total nobody for a site which is totally biased towards evolution. Let me take a few "predictions" myself to show how wrong they are:
6. Some of the more renowned evidences for evolution are the explanations it provides for nonfunctional or rudimentary vestigial characters, both anatomical and molecular.
Now the above is of course an example of what evolutionists love to use to attack opponents with: an argument from ignorance. Evolutionist claims that the tonsils, the appendix and junk DNA were vestigial proofs of evolution have been thoroughly shown to be false by science.
It is interesting that you make the following admission:
What Camp entirely misses is that the 29+ lines of evidence for macroevolution are *not* given as "proofs". Nowhere is the argument made that there could be no other possible explanation for a particular type of observation, or that any given observation might not match the predictions of some other theory as well.
Seems to me that if one is supposedly giving evidence for a specific theory then the evidence should be pretty specific to that theory and not liable to interpretation in some other way. Else what is it but a bestiary?
5.1 - Extremely extensive genetic change has been observed, both in the lab and in the wild. We have seen genomes irreversibly and heritably altered by numerous phenomena, including gene flow, random genetic drift, natural selection, and mutation. Observed mutations have occurred by mobile introns, gene duplications, recombination, transpositions, retroviral insertions (horizontal gene transfer), base substitutions, base deletions, base insertions, and chromosomal rearrangements. Chromosomal rearrangements include genome duplication (e.g. polyploidy), unequal crossing over, inversions, translocations, fissions, fusions, chromosome duplications and chromosome deletions (Futuyma 1998, pp. 267-271, 283-294).
Of course he does not give any examples. True, there are many examples of mutations and many examples of mutations occurring according to many diverse reasons. What there is not though, and the reason he does not cite examples is that these mutations are extremely harmful and deadly. Killing organisms is not evidence of evolutionary descent but the opposite. It is evidence of DEvolution, not evolution. In this context it is interesting to point out the example of Hiroshima. While numerous mutations were found, many of which were passed on to children, no cases are cited of any beneficial mutations.
As to speciation, he gives the following example:
One of the most striking instances of partial or incomplete speciation are the numerous "ring species." Ring species, such as the salamander Ensatina, form a chain of interbreeding populations which loop around some geographical feature; where the populations meet on the other side, they behave as completely different species. In the case of Ensatina, the subspecies form a ring around the Central Valley of California - the subspecies freely interbreed and hybridize on the east, west, and north sides of the valley, but where they coexist on the south side they are incapable of hybridizing and act as separate species (Moritz et al. 1982; Futuyma 1998, pp. 455-456).
The study on these salamanders has been used as evidence on these threads many times by a certain evolutionist whose name shall remain unmentioned. The interesting thing about this study is that in spite of the claim about the biological species concept supporting the examples, the so called 'scientists' who did this study (and wasted enormous amounts of your money and mine) did not bother themselves to test if the ends of the ring could actually interbreed. They just declared them to be separate species.
The above should be sufficient to show that the article is extremely biased and not at all accurate. One would think that with the tremendous number of scientific papers available on the internet alone, evolutionists would be able to point to actual discoveries, actual scientific findings, actual scholarly articles (it is after all they who constantly claim that if it has not been peer-reviewed it is not science).
A truly perfect scientific theory which explaims in detail how everything in the universe came into being -- slowly. The theory of evolutions is so perfect and flexible in its ability to explain virtually all observable phemomena or opinions that it would be impossible to even conceive of an experiment capable of disproving it. (see Law). -quote being disputed-
First lie: No one claims that the theory of evolution (or any *other* scientific theory) is "perfect". Scientific theories are always open to correction and refinement as needed.
Really? Please list the admitted (by evolutionists) imperfections of the theory.
Second lie: The passage "so perfect and flexible in its ability to explain virtually all observable phemomena or opinions" is obviously a facetious way to imply that it's defined in a weasely way so that anything whatsoever could be claimed to fit.
Okay, so tell us exactly what evolution claims is not in its purview regarding species and their descent.
Third lie: "it would be impossible to even conceive of an experiment capable of disproving it".
Actually there is a very good example of why the above is correct in The Case of the Pseudogenes . The article details the misadventures of Ken Miller who long claimed that pseudogenes being useless proved descent when it was found that one of them is indeed useful (Makorin1-p1). So what do evolutionists do? They claim pseudogenes to be useful to evolution!
This is the reason why evolution is not falsifiable - in spite of numerous requests (AND THIS IS ANOTHER ONE) evolutionists always fail to state what THE theory of evolution actually states. The reason is shown above, they always want to be able to dance their way out of trouble by claiming the theory never did say what has just been refuted (a la 1984).
It should be noted that in this 'refutation' you have failed to do the one thing which would have made your point: state the theory of evolution and show how the points you dispute do not fit the stated theory. However you failed to do that and thus your refutation is just more rhetoric and the statement made in the quote stands as correct.
Gould was a commie lover as I showed clearly from his own writings. The truth is never libelous, so it is you who is lying, not me.
Spontaneous generation, inheritance of acquired characteristics,...
In North America the black bear was seen by Hearne swimming for hours with widely open mouth, thus catching, like a whale, insects in the water. Even in so extreme a case as this, if the supply of insects were constant, and if better adapted competitors did not already exist in the country, I can see no difficulty in a race of bears being rendered, by natural selection, more aquatic in their structure and habits, with larger and larger mouths, till a creature was produced as monstrous as a whale. [Charles Darwin, Origin of the Species, expunged from later editions to keep Darwin from being perceived as the imbecile he was]
"At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked, will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilized state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla." [Darwin, The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex]
"It may be quite true that some negroes are better than some white men; but no rational man, cognisant of the facts, believes that the average negro is the equal, still less the superior, of the average white man. And, if this be true, it is simply incredible that, when all his disabilities are removed, and our prognathous relative has a fair field and no favour, as well as no oppressor, he will be able to compete successfully with his bigger-brained and smallerjawed rival, in a contest which is to be carried on by thoughts and not by bites. The highest places in the hierarchy of civilisation will assuredly not be within the reach of our dusky cousins, though it is by no means necessary that they should be restricted to the lowest." [T.H. Huxley, Darwin's most ardent and outspoken disciple, earned the nickname "Darwin's Bulldog"]
"Haeckel was the chief apostle of evolution in Germany. Nordenskiold (1929) argues that he was even more influential than Darwin in convincing the world of the truth of evolution. ... But, as Gasman argues, Haeckel's greatest influence was, ultimately, in another, tragic direction-national socialism. His evolutionary racism; his call to the German people for racial purity and unflinching devotion to a "just" state; his belief that harsh, inexorable laws of evolution ruled human civilization and nature alike, conferring upon favored races the right to dominate others; the irrational mysticism that had always stood in strange communion with his brave words about objective science-all contributed to the rise of Nazism. The Monist League that he had founded and led, though it included a wing of pacifists and leftists, made a comfortable transition to active support for Hitler." (Gould, Stephen J. [Professor of Zoology and Geology, Harvard University]
Charles Darwin, stupidist white man [and racist] of all time.
FIRST you say this:
And THEN you go on to say this:
Which is exactly what I already stated... "In order to evolve to some hostile new environment, the organism must have the genes to survive in that kind of environment to some capacity". Random Mutations are "necessary" to evolutionary theory (whether Neo-Darwinian or Punctuated Equilibriumist), in the sense that they are the only Mechanism which evolutionists have proposed to overcome the "Genetic Survivability -- Hostile Biome" Road-Block.
If you're just going to REPEAT WHAT I SAY, what is the point of arguing with me?
Care to explain?
Somewhere, nestled deep inside your Post, you had a Point to make. At least I hope so.
But you failed badly. You managed only Sarcasm -- and I do Sarcasm much better than do you, Neophyte.
C'mon. You had a Pont you were trying to make. I'm certain of it.
Why don't you try again -- this time, with gusto.
Somewhere, nestled deep inside your Post, you had a Point to make. At least I hope so.
But you failed badly. You managed only Sarcasm -- and I do Sarcasm much better than do you, Neophyte.
C'mon. You had a Point you were trying to make. I'm certain of it.
Why don't you try again -- this time, with gusto.
I think you're missing the point. Regardless of the exact delineation of a "Salt Marsh" in geographic terms, a Species can tolerate what it can tolerate (within its existent Genetic Code). Certain levels of salinity, in our hypothetical "salt marsh", are survivable for at least certain members of the Species in question, provided that they have inherited the requisite Genes in question from their ancestors.
But if the Genetic Code of the Species does not possess the requisite Genes for survival in a certain environment of salinity, then it doesn't really matter whether "more-robust" or "more-deficient" members of the Species are being considered -- they're all going to Die, regardless.
In such a situation, the Species requires New Genetic Information, hence the evolutionist appeal to Random Mutation.
No, you've increased the survivability. If the mutants are a new subspecies, then the species as a whole has now gone from 4 to 5 different environments. If they're a new species altogether, then you went from 1 species in 4 environments to 2 species in 5 environments. But in another sense you've actually gone from 4 to 7! You've gone from (1 species in 4 environments) to (1 species in 4 environments plus 1 new species in 3 environments). No matter how you measure it, the end result for the original population's offspring as a whole is increased biodiversity.
However, you've changed the terms of my argument somewhat, from Vertical Evolution (A into B) to Horizontal Evolution (A coexisting with B). That's not actually what I was talking about, but I can dig it.
Let us say that you continually sub-divide the Species into less-survivable sub-groups of the Core Species.
What you end up with is a bunch of Genetic Variants which are relatively more vulnerable to Local Extinction Events (since their overall range of Adaptation is absolutely reduced) and a Genetic Core Species which is as vulnerable as ever to a Mass Extinction Event (leaving, in the Best Case, a Genetic Variant which is still relatively more vulnerable to Local Extinction Events -- since their overall range of Adaptation is absolutely reduced).
Any way you slice it, sub-division into relatively less-survivable Genetic Variants simply cannot be a recipe for Species Survival and Genetic Success... because as long as the Species is subdividing into LESS-Survivable Variants with no Subspecies enjoying an ABSOLUTE expansion of its genetic adaptability in the presence of Local and Mass Extinction Events, you still end up with an Agatha Christie novel... "And Then There Were None."
However, you've changed the terms of my argument somewhat, from Vertical Evolution (A into B) to Horizontal Evolution (A coexisting with B). That's not actually what I was talking about, but I can dig it.
Ah, well that is the standard model for speciation.
Let us say that you continually sub-divide the Species into less-survivable sub-groups of the Core Species.
What you end up with is a bunch of Genetic Variants which are relatively more vulnerable to Local Extinction Events (since their overall range of Adaptation is absolutely reduced) and a Genetic Core Species which is as vulnerable as ever to a Mass Extinction Event...
That's an interesting way of looking at it! But the problem is, we're talking about your hypothetical scenario: One species originally suited to "biomes" A, B, C, & D, splits into the original plus the second suited for C, D, & E. Why not postulate the offshoot being suited for B, C, D, & E? Or indeed why not A, B, C, D, & E? I've never heard of any evidence or biological/ecological principle that says that a breakaway subspecies or species has to be adapted to fewer environments than the original population was. It could just as easily be more.
I'm not much interested in "probably". If I want to hear "Just-So" stories, I'll listen to the latest Government Propaganda.
Besides, as I said before, this particular Link is more argumentative than informative.
At any rate, I thought that your article on the Apolipoprotein Mutations was a lot more interesting.
Also see this T.O. article that examines the Apo-AIM mutation in humans. This mutation gives the person more-efficient HDL cholesterol particles so they scavenge arterial plaques better than the standard type, and it also helps suppress arterial inflammations. The article explains how this mutation represents an increase in information (by all the popular creationist measures).
The TalkOrigins article cites the AIG (that is, Answers In Genesis) response, in a pre-emptive Rebuttal to the counter-argument that AIG is attempting to construct. I respect this on their parts -- It is proficient Debate Tactics on the part of TalkOrigins to intercept AIG in advance, and dis-arm their objections.
That said, I am not particularly surprised that TalkOrigins is able to pre-emptively disarm "Answers In Genesis". Meaning no offense whatsoever to Backwoods Southern Fundamentalists (of whom I am myself a brethren), "Answers In Genesis" has always struck me as a very Backwoods Southern Fundamentalist sort of website.
When I want scientifically rigorous Creationism, I don't go to "Answers In Genesis" (http://www.answersingenesis.org/). I personally prefer "True Origins" (http://www.trueorigin.org/), which typically enjoys a much higher participation rate among M.D.s and Ph.D.s than does AIG.
I'm not trying to pull a "bait and switch" on you, but since you brought up AIG, I'll give my own Creationist opinion -- I personally think that TrueOrigins is the place you're gonna find the genuine scientific monographs, whereas AnswersInGenesis is the place you're gonna find the glorified Chick Tracts (or perhaps, the "Ernst Haeckel" version of Creationism, though not quite so fraudulent as Haeckel's evolutionism).
JMHO.
That said, "True Origins" has only recently begun to discuss the Apolipoprotein Mutation issue -- their first reference to the subject is as of June 2003 (which, after all, is probably fair -- the TalkOrigins article which you cited only dates from April 2003. The Scientific Method wasn't built in a day). I look forward to their full examination of the Argument.
My own friend "the_doc" is, at any rate, infinitely more qualified to speak to the genetic-adaptation issues than am I.
I shall, instead, advance a rather more subversive line of Argumentation -- if we adopt, for the sake of argument, the (theoretical) affirmation that the Apo-AIM mutation which (theoretically) increases the average life-span of elderly Humans who would otherwise die of Heart Disease -- what kind of Insanity causes you to imagine that this has increased the Overall Survivability of the Human Race?
Even if we ASSUME every good thing that is claimed therefore, the Apo-AIM Mutation is associated with a decreased risk of arteriosclerosis (clogged arteries), heart attack, and stroke -- diseases generally associated with the Elderly, at least 90%+ of the time, if not more.
This is not a Biologically GOOD thing. It is a Biologically BAD thing. Harmful Mutations come in a variety of baskets -- including the Demographic harm of over-populating the Species with an excessive weight of biologically non-contributing members. Such as the weight of biologically non-contributing members who no longer Work, and no longer Bear Children. And least you think I am advocating Euthanasia, Eugenics, or any such abominations -- I remind you in advance: My Christian Ethics breed an abhorrence to any such atrocities. I am simply making a demographic observation -- the Human Race (or any Bioligical Species) cannot long survive if over 50% of its Population is composed of biologically non-contributing members who no longer Work, and no longer Bear Children.
This is not a Biologically GOOD thing. It is a Biologically BAD thing. Harmful Mutations come in a variety of baskets -- including the Demographic harm of over-populating the Species with an excessive weight of biologically non-contributing members. As such -- even if the Apo-AIM mutation extends the life-span of biologically non-contributing members of the Species, how on Earth could you consider this a "beneficial" mutation in a Darwinist sense?
It might make sense to Christians, who are taught to "respect their Father and their Mother" even when the Patriarch is soaking up life-support in an Iron-Lung. I'll let my friend "the_doc" deal with the genetic biology; I am speaking only of the socio-biology: how can it possibly be construed as a "beneficial" Mutation in the Darwinian sense?
Well, that's sorta what I am asking. If you have evidence of either a horizontally-evolved sub-species, or a vertically-evolved successor-species, enjoying inherent genetic adaptability to more "environments than the original population was" (that is, an ABSOLUTE increase in genetic survivability), that's what I would be interested in seeing.
Because otherwise, given Local and Mass Extinction Events, Relative increases in Genetic Survivability won't cut it... we ultimately end up reading an Agatha Christie novel. "And Then There Were None."
To judge Darwin's 19th century attitudes towards blacks is as ridiculous as judging today's Americans by 19th century slavery (and I'm not just speaking of the south, since slavery was legal in NY State until 1821).
Biology is real and evolution is the foundation of our understanding of biology, from molecular biology to anthropology to medicinal chemistry. Get with the program; it does not deny the existence of God any more than our understanding of nuclear physics or chemistry does.
Best,
PB
Actually I did, after a long rhetorical tirade against Camp, Ichmeunon admitted that the evidence in 29 Evidences could itself be used against evolution. Since regardless of the title, the article is used as 'proof' of evolution it seems to me that Ichmeunon himself debunked the article. I therefore just needed to show some salient points where the article and evolutionary 'evidence' have been disproven.
LOL! ~~ 143 posted on 06/19/2003 11:26 PM PDT by the_doc
You know what the funniest thing of all is, Vade? You don't even realize why "the_doc" is laughing at you. Perhaps he doesn't "suffer Fools gladly". Or perhaps he is just too Charitable a Christian to blatantly make sport of you.
I, however, am not. I am more-or-less an insufferable Cad... I am a Boor. A Lout. An incarnate superabundance of caustic solipsism (Well, unlike so many "sensitive 90's Men", at least I don't cower at being called "egotistical" and "arrogant" -- I freely admit the charge).
So howzabout I let you "in" on the Joke?
Here's the scoop:
If we look at the bat's wing, it has the simplistic appearance of a flap of skin on a long, thin bone which reaches out from an upper body appendage somewhat like a rat's foreleg. But the question is, How did the "thumb" of the rat's foreleg develop this elongation and skin covering?
Or maybe I should say that this is the typical evolutionists' question. A better scientist would have asked, Did the "thumb" of the rat's foreleg develop this elongation and skin covering?
Anyway, if we assume that it did happen, and if we go on to ask ourselves how it did, we should notice that it didn't. But the diehard evolutionists don't notice this. They just invoke the presuppositional notion that a macroevolutionary change (i.e., yielding wing formation) took place through a summation of microevolutionary changes. This is their answer to the "How did it happen?" question. But it's no answer, really, because it is not at all scientific. It's just presuppositional. Unfortunately for them, it doesn't work. Their presupposition is demonstrably false.
I could add, out of my own amateur observations, that the Hollow Bones enjoyed by Bats (alone among Mammals) would also be helpful... it's not much use to a Rat to be structurally-fragile while living on the Ground; but as a Flying critter, you need those Hollow Bones to stay airborne... if you can get airborne in the first place. Please be sure to develop them at the same time as Wings, otherwise you're kinda screwed...
In response.... you offered him a non-transitional BIRD.
Here is one "competent" (by which I mean, "evolutionist", just to salve your biases) artist's rendition of the Confuciusornis...
...Courtesy of the Basel Museum of Natural History.
Oh, look at that! It's a BIRD!!
Why, it's not a Bat at all!! In fact, you've somehow managed to hopelessly FUBAR the entire Phylogenetic Column, endeavoring to confuse Class Mammalia of Phylum Chordata with Class Aves of Phylum Chordata.
And not only that, you've somehow managed to hopelessly FUBAR the entire Evolutionary Chronological-Fossil Column, confusing a non-transitional, feather-winged BIRD which allegedly dates from 150 Million Years BC, with a skin-winged MAMMAL which appeared (fully-formed) in the Fossil Record allegedly at least 100 MILLION YEARS later?
Let's not even discuss the Bat's (apparently functionally-perfect, from the inception of the species) Sonar, it's just too embarassing. After all, what's a little matter of f*cking up the entire phylogenetic and chronological evolutionary "record", between friends?
Heck, I'm prepared to be charitable. In fact, I shall (in this one case) even be more Charitable than "The_Doc".
He just Laughed at you. But I shall offer you a fair choice:
Please advise.
Best, OP
... perhaps [doc] is just too Charitable a Christian to blatantly make sport of you. I, however, am not. I am more-or-less an insufferable Cad... I am a Boor.
Actually, the shock of discovery I felt a few years ago came from realizing that all creationists argue and reason as you do.
I could add, out of my own amateur observations, that the Hollow Bones enjoyed by Bats (alone among Mammals) would also be helpful...
All mammals have hollow bones. Appalling ignorance even for a knuckle-dragging YEC. Your bones and mine contain hollows full of marrow, where the blood cells and various lymphocytes are formed. I can imagine that the bat, as the only flying mammal, has the lightest structure of all mammals, but the difference would be one of degree and easily accountable as part of the evolution toward flight.
Confuciusornis is a perfectly good answer to doc's dumb-dumbing on the impossibility of a thing having half a wing. Confuciusornis had a wing-claw thing which is exactly what doc says makes evolution impossible.
Note also that in this case, it is the creationist (you) arguing from a particular favorite reconstruction (among several), whereas I directly cited fossil evidence which unambiguously shows my point.
In fact, you can find just about every manner of feathered foreclaw or wing in the fossil record of dinosaurs and birds. That of Confuciusornis just happens to be about perfectly halfway.
To the extent that the foam about your mouth allows some message to escape, you seem to be claiming that anything which seems adapted, non-malformed, whatever, is not transitional. That only further undermines doc's point, if you concede that C. sanctus was perfectly well adapted for some place and time. If your escape from facing transitionals lies in such a claim--"That creature is integrated and functional, thus not a transitional!"--you don't understand evolution. (But we knew that, didn't we? You don't want to understand.) Populations evolve by staying adapted under changing pressures, not by becoming maladapted under unchanging ones.
Also, unchanged from a few years ago, you're playing the "bin" game. (Every bird is just "A bird!") However, the bin game breaks down as you go back in time. From Taxonomy, Transitional Forms, and the Fossil Record:
Moving further up the taxonomic hierarchy, the condylarths and primitive carnivores (creodonts, miacids) are very similar to each other in morphology (Fig. 9, 10), and some taxa have had their assignments to these orders changed. The Miacids in turn are very similar to the earliest representatives of the Families Canidae (dogs) and Mustelidae (weasels), both of Superfamily Arctoidea, and the Family Viverridae (civets) of the Superfamily Aeluroidea. As Romer (1966) states in Vertebrate Paleontology (p. 232), "Were we living at the beginning of the Oligocene, we should probably consider all these small carnivores as members of a single family." This statement also illustrates the point that the erection of a higher taxon is done in retrospect, after sufficient divergence has occurred to give particular traits significance.As the preceding link shows, similar statements can be made for transitions all over the tree of life. Birds and dinosaurs are just another case in point. There's no problem telling any modern bird from any modern reptile, so why does Caudipteryx zoui get argued over and reclassified? Why does a fish get reclassified as a tetrapod?
I've started canning my answers to people who claim that there are no transitionals. A sample of what you're LOL-ing away.
Do you want to put on the Ronald McDonald Clown Make-Up First, or should we just laugh at you Already??
You seem to have dropped all scientific pretension in favor of the ALS school of japing and mocking for the Lord as currently practiced on FR. I approve, as there's a certain unintentional honesty in the approach.
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.