Adam. Man or Myth?

[wildleafblower]

** [1]**There is no such thing as scientific proof…every hypothesis and theory in science (including evolution) can be displaced with new evidence or a theory that explains the data better. In science, nothing is proven, everything is tentative.

[snip]

**[2]**He [Alec (hecd2)] did not submit a proofread manuscript. Gee, he was typing a little fast on an online forum.

1) The same principles that apply to The Theory of Evolution also apply to Cosmology:

“One of the most important discoveries in modern astronomy was published in the Reviews of Modern Physics in 1957. Astronomers refer to the paper as simply B2FH, from the initials of the authors’ surnames. The first B refers to E. Margaret Burbidge. The scientific journal article opens with a quotation from Shakespeare: “It is the stars, the stars above us, govern our conditions.” The words, from King Lear, are certainly appropriate, Burbidge and her colleagues—Geoffrey Burbidge (her husband), William Fowler and Fred Hoyle—had provided a map of the routes by which elements heavier than hydrogen and helium are forged within the fiery bellies of the stars. The calcium in our bones, the iron in our blood and the oxygen we breathe all came from the ashes of ancient stars, which had either exploded as a supernovae or died slowly, releasing their matter into space.

“**Margaret Burbidge’s colleagues worked on theory and laboratory experiements; she employed the telescope, seeking direct evidence from the heavens. Others had speculated about the origins of elements, but B2FH delivered the proof.” **(Smithsonian Magazine, Special Anniversary Issue, “MARGARET BURBIDGE, Stars, quasars, supervovae, galaxies–if it’s out of this world, she has seen it”/ by Marcia Bartusiak, November 2005, P.34)

The above statement is evidence that SCIENCE PROVIDES proof and does relate to the arts! A wonderful article to read. **Scientists obtain evidence by observation or data that delivers the proof that a theory is no longer a hypothesis. **(Wildleafblowers msg. 291, thread - Magisterium concerning Creation/evolution controversy)

**2)**Alec misspelled only one word ‘amd’ [and] within his text which FromTheCrossroa presented, " Humans, like all other mammals (we are amniotes and deuterostomes and chordates and vertebrates and tetrapods and mammals and primates amd great apes) have, on average, three mutations in our genome.You, like me, have got three errors in the copying of your genome from your mother and father. It is the variation in the genome that arises from these mutations that makes the genotype and phenotype of a population change over time. Some mutations make us more fitted for the environment, some less. Fitter phenotypes pass on their genes more effectively thereby fixing their mutations. That’s all evolution is, and it’s powerful over time and incontrovertible.Evolution doesn’t exclusively occur through huge revolutionary positive mutations and to think it does is a basic error. [break-text missing]Sure - chromosomal abnormalities have, generally, severe consequences. You are making. however, an egregious error - chromosomal abnormalities are rare (one in several hundred births). Other mutations are common (three or four per live birth). Furthermore trisomy 21 doesn’t add a gene - it adds a chromosome. Don’t you think you should get kindergarten biology right before you presume to criticise professional scientists? snippits from hecd2 msg170)"

ribozyme, I’m confident Alec proofread his manuscript with its little typo.

 

[PhilVaz]

And to end the thread on a high note…

“i dont know why so many Catholics believe in Evolution. Its a ridiculous theory with no evidence. Darwin said in ‘Origin of Species’ that if his theory was true scientists should find innumerable intermediate species (missing links). Well, in the 150 years since his theory zero have been found, neither missing links from ape to human or from anything to anything else.”

“PhilVaz you are so quick to be a spokesperson against the Bible. I wonder–whose team are you on, God or satan’s? What if when you get to Heaven and the Judgment Seat of Christ, He is upset with you for defending a lie from the pit of Hell?”

“God says that He created the Heavens and Earth in seven days. These must be literal days and not long periods of time because He created the sun a day after He created plants. Think about it… I know, Phil, that He did things like that just to humble the proud and foolish people that believe in evolution…”

“while i knew you so admire Charles Darwin as to name yourself after his science fiction book, i must confess that you are judging me in a much more unfair way than i have judged Groundhog Phil. You see, Orogeny of the Species, my view is in accord with Church teaching and you know it.”

Top that.

Phil P

 

[Orogeny]

ribozyme, you earlier said, “In science, nothing is proven, everything is tentative.” You are wrong. Also, I know many people in law enforcement. My statement is valid, “1) Keep in mind Forensic Science in Criminal Fact Investigations. Evidence is proof whether a person is guilty or not. Also, I did mention in another thread you participated in how proof is applied to science. I’m sure you’ll remember”. Do you remember? Hint, it was taken out of a scientific magazine.

Wildleafblower,

Ribozyme is correct. There is no “proof” in science. I cannot prove that gravity exists. I can, however, give you plenty of evidence that it does and make predictions based on that evidence that will, most probably, be accurate. That may seem a bit nitpicking, but it is significant. Without that concept, Einstein could never have been accepted. All science is open to correction. It must be.

Your example of forensic science is not a valid comparison in my mind, because forensic science isn’t doing scientific research, it is applying science to a criminal investigation. Even there, it is not proof, it is evidence. I’m not a laywer (thank goodness, I would not want to dislike myself!), but I don’t think there is “proof” in a courtroom. There is overwhelming and/or incontrovertible evidence, but not proof.

Peace

Tim

 

[Orogeny]

“while i knew you so admire Charles Darwin as to name yourself after his science fiction book, i must confess that you are judging me in a much more unfair way than i have judged Groundhog Phil. You see, Orogeny of the Species, my view is in accord with Church teaching and you know it.”

Wow, that one brings back memories!

Peace

Tim

 

[FromTheCrossroa]

2) Alec misspelled only one word ‘amd’ [and] in the quoted text of his which FromTheCrossroad stated, " Before you continually insult the intelligence of someone here, try learning how to spell the big words you use."

My tirade was in all fun. Actually there were some big words misspelled. I did find the tone to be quite insulting, and disrespectful but not unexpected.

I am not against the theory of evolution. If you want to define evolution as an all encompassing theory describing the mechanics employed by a benevolent Creator, I am fine with it. When you remove the creator and suggest random chance did it all, our understandings respectfully part ways. No matter what, it IS ALL speculation. I don’t believe in young earth. I don’t believe God deceives with the “appearance of age” or puts bones in the ground of creatures that never existed. Thats absolutely crazy. I am not against the idea that God re-used or built on the original code of life.

Computers and programming are what I know best. When a programmer writes their first program, it is usually a program called “hello world”. It does nothing more than print “hello world” on the screen. This is the single cell life equivalent. It has all the basics to make a working program.

The difference between hello world and say Microsoft Word is profound. When you build a program like Microsoft Word, it is built on many hundred thousand lines of code. A lot of code can be and is re-used by programmers. After all, why re-invent the wheel to build it. When I create a new program, I use a standard template and put together modules I wrote previously to make something new. At the end of the day, a program doesn’t become more complex without its creator making changes. Microsoft Word 10 will continue to be and run indefinitely until the environment goes awry or the program is terminated. Without intervention, it is incapable of going beyond its code. When features are added or better stated becomes more complex, the more knowledge/trial and error it takes to make it work.

Why is it so hard for some scientists to accept a creator that exists outside our space, and time may be doing the same thing scientists do in our labs, except he knows a lot more about the code than we do?

The world around us testifies to careful thought, planning and design. Thats why I mentioned several things about earlier than expected order (a claim made this year by cosmologists), heavy elements (only produced by previous nova’s), and the configuration of our solar system. We’ve only been able to catalog around 50 extra solar planets so far. While not enough to generate an all encompassing generalization about solar systems, it is interesting that so far, our configuration is proving to be anywhere from uncommon to rare.

Why is our solar system important? Astronomers state without the moon and Jupiter, there would not be life on earth. Jupiter continues to change orbits of meteors with many getting pulled into a collision course. Our asteroid belt was also likely created due to Jupiter’s influence and not a planet that never was. The moon has taken a lot of meteor impacts for us as well. You can see them with your naked eye on a clear night. One six mile meteor destroyed the dinosaurs along with over 90 percent of the species on this planet. If you have access to a earth model, put some of the jovian meteors and all the moon impacts…see what the prospect for life on earth looks like after that

This summer, one of our satellites designed to study gamma ray bursts detected an ancient nova. The nova was so large, it not only outshone the entire galaxy, but its gamma ray burst was bigger than scientists had ever dreamed possible. That nova was powerful enough to sterilize any life that may have been there. Had that “bomb” went off in our galaxy, every living thing would have been handed a death sentence.

Our galaxy DOES have a date with destiny. According to blue shift, the Milky Way and Andromeda will merge, long after we are gone. The reality of our universe is its a quite hostile place. It’s amazing life has continued here for as long as it has.

Nothing in science goes directly against a Creator except secular scientists. You can’t entertain the possibilities when you start with the premise there is no God. Lastly, I am not the most eloquent apologist for this side of the argument. Its not my job. I write code, scripts and keep a bunch of servers running. I am a quite reasonable, intelligent and rational person, and ALWAYS open to learning something new. I am not alone in my views. There are many in the scientific community that do believe as I do. All I ask from the other side is honesty. Both viewpoints require faith based on evidences and assumptions.

 

[steveandersen]

And to end the thread on a high note…

Top that.

Phil P

Wow that was a blast from the past.

CreosMary March 31, 2005, 07:21 AM

…

I am sorry but I must alert everyone, there has been ‘new revelation’

Mr Steve Anderson is GOD.

I had almost forgotten that one

Really scary.

and she spelled my name wrong too

I might have to smite her

 

[FromTheCrossroa]

An interesting article:

news.yahoo.com/s/space/20061204/sc_space/whyareweheretheoreticiansdebatethefundamentals

 

[ribozyme]

Here’s the link to the original paper… arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/0610/0610330.pdf and arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/0607/0607227.pdf

 

[wildleafblower]

Wildleafblower,

Ribozyme is correct. There is no “proof” in science. I cannot prove that gravity exists. I can, however, give you plenty of evidence that it does and make predictions based on that evidence that will, most probably, be accurate. That may seem a bit nitpicking, but it is significant. Without that concept, Einstein could never have been accepted. All science is open to correction. It must be.

Your example of forensic science is not a valid comparison in my mind, because forensic science isn’t doing scientific research, it is applying science to a criminal investigation. Even there, it is not proof, it is evidence. I’m not a laywer (thank goodness, I would not want to dislike myself!), but I don’t think there is “proof” in a courtroom. There is overwhelming and/or incontrovertible evidence, but not proof.

Peace

Tim

Hi Tim

I have to disagree with your argument. Since ‘scientific proof’ is the realm of “logic and pure mathematics” (Douglas Theobald, Ph.D, talkorigins.org), more emphasis is now being placed in public elementary and high schools for mathematics. Let’s face it, logically speaking, science wouldn’t exist without it. Mathematics and science go hand in hand. It is one of the first building blocks taught to pre-school children; 1+1=2, mommy + daddy =me. Furthermore, the house I live in is proof that mathematics is the major root for the existence of science and technology.

Here’s the proof in the pudding as far as Forensic Science. Forensic Chemistry and Toxicology, Forensic DNA Analysis, etc. tncrimlaw.com/forensic/ .

Evidence is considered to be proof in a criminal case. . .
“forensic science has come to mean the application of the natural and physical science to the motion of matters within a legal context2. Forensic Science can be viewed as a tripartite structure consisting of
a. Collection, which pertains to the science investigation
b. Examination, which pertains to the investigation and,
c. Presentation, which pertains to the courts.
A forensic case will involve all aspects of each of the three structured elements.”
learninghaven.com/articles/forensic-science-types.html

Another proof for my argument: “Margaret Burbidge’s colleagues worked on theory and laboratory experiments; she employed the telescope, seeking direct evidence from the heavens. Others had speculated about the origins of elements, but B2FH delivered the proof.” (Smithsonian Magazine, Special Anniversary Issue, “MARGARET BURBIDGE, Stars, quasars, supervovae, galaxies–if it’s out of this world, she has seen it”/ by Marcia Bartusiak, November 2005, P.34) msg. 181

I’ll substitute a shot of whisky for a shot of espresso!

High energy peace,

Wild

 

[wildleafblower]

Wildleafblower,

Ribozyme is correct. There is no “proof” in science. I cannot prove that gravity exists. I can, however, give you plenty of evidence that it does and make predictions based on that evidence that will, most probably, be accurate. That may seem a bit nitpicking, but it is significant. Without that concept, Einstein could never have been accepted. All science is open to correction. It must be.

Your example of forensic science is not a valid comparison in my mind, because forensic science isn’t doing scientific research, it is applying science to a criminal investigation. Even there, it is not proof, it is evidence. I’m not a laywer (thank goodness, I would not want to dislike myself!), but I don’t think there is “proof” in a courtroom. There is overwhelming and/or incontrovertible evidence, but not proof.

Peace

Tim

Hi Tim

I have to disagree with your argument. Since ‘scientific proof’ is the realm of “logic and pure mathematics” (Douglas Theobald, Ph.D, talkorigins.org), more emphasis is now being placed in public elementary and high schools for mathematics. Let’s face it, logically speaking, science wouldn’t exist without it. Mathematics and science go hand in hand. It is one of the first building blocks taught to pre-school children; 1+1=2, mommy + daddy =me. Furthermore, the house I live in is proof that mathematics is the major root for the existence of science and technology.

Here’s the proof in the pudding as far as Forensic Science. Forensic Chemistry and Toxicology, Forensic DNA Analysis, etc. tncrimlaw.com/forensic/ .

Evidence is considered to be proof in a criminal case. . .
“forensic science has come to mean the application of the natural and physical science to the motion of matters within a legal context2. Forensic Science can be viewed as a tripartite structure consisting of
a. Collection, which pertains to the science investigation
b. Examination, which pertains to the investigation and,
c. Presentation, which pertains to the courts.
A forensic case will involve all aspects of each of the three structured elements.”
learninghaven.com/articles/forensic-science-types.html

Another proof for my argument: “Margaret Burbidge’s colleagues worked on theory and laboratory experiments; she employed the telescope, seeking direct evidence from the heavens. Others had speculated about the origins of elements, but B2FH delivered the proof.” (Smithsonian Magazine, Special Anniversary Issue, “MARGARET BURBIDGE, Stars, quasars, supervovae, galaxies–if it’s out of this world, she has seen it”/ by Marcia Bartusiak, November 2005, P.34) msg. 181

I’ll substitute a shot of whisky for a shot of espresso!

High energy peace,

Wild

 

[wildleafblower]

Wildleafblower,

Ribozyme is correct. There is no “proof” in science. I cannot prove that gravity exists. I can, however, give you plenty of evidence that it does and make predictions based on that evidence that will, most probably, be accurate. That may seem a bit nitpicking, but it is significant. Without that concept, Einstein could never have been accepted. All science is open to correction. It must be.

Your example of forensic science is not a valid comparison in my mind, because forensic science isn’t doing scientific research, it is applying science to a criminal investigation. Even there, it is not proof, it is evidence. I’m not a laywer (thank goodness, I would not want to dislike myself!), but I don’t think there is “proof” in a courtroom. There is overwhelming and/or incontrovertible evidence, but not proof.

Peace

Tim

Hi Tim

I have to disagree with your argument. Since ‘scientific proof’ is the realm of “logic and pure mathematics” (Douglas Theobald, Ph.D, talkorigins.org), more emphasis is now being placed in public elementary and high schools for mathematics. Let’s face it, logically speaking, science wouldn’t exist without it. Mathematics and science go hand in hand. It is one of the first building blocks taught to pre-school children; 1+1=2, mommy + daddy =me. Furthermore, the house I live in is proof that mathematics is the major root for the existence of science and technology.

Here’s the proof in the pudding as far as Forensic Science. Forensic Chemistry and Toxicology, Forensic DNA Analysis, etc. tncrimlaw.com/forensic/ .

Evidence is considered to be proof in a criminal case. . .
“forensic science has come to mean the application of the natural and physical science to the motion of matters within a legal context2. Forensic Science can be viewed as a tripartite structure consisting of
a. Collection, which pertains to the science investigation
b. Examination, which pertains to the investigation and,
c. Presentation, which pertains to the courts.
A forensic case will involve all aspects of each of the three structured elements.”
learninghaven.com/articles/forensic-science-types.html

Another proof for my argument: “Margaret Burbidge’s colleagues worked on theory and laboratory experiments; she employed the telescope, seeking direct evidence from the heavens. Others had speculated about the origins of elements, but B2FH delivered the proof.” (Smithsonian Magazine, Special Anniversary Issue, “MARGARET BURBIDGE, Stars, quasars, supervovae, galaxies–if it’s out of this world, she has seen it”/ by Marcia Bartusiak, November 2005, P.34) msg. 181

I’ll substitute a shot of whisky for a shot of espresso!

High energy peace,

Wild

 

[wildleafblower]

I don’t understand why my message showed up three times Hummm. ah, it must have been the Holy Spirit of God. I love Jesus!

 

[namguy69]

Hi Tim

I have to disagree with your argument. Since ‘scientific proof’ is the realm of “logic and pure mathematics” (Douglas Theobald, Ph.D, talkorigins.org), more emphasis is now being placed in public elementary and high schools for mathematics. Let’s face it, logically speaking, science wouldn’t exist without it. Mathematics and science go hand in hand. It is one of the first building blocks taught to pre-school children; 1+1=2, mommy + daddy =me. Furthermore, the house I live in is proof that mathematics is the major root for the existence of science and technology.

Here’s the proof in the pudding as far as Forensic Science. Forensic Chemistry and Toxicology, Forensic DNA Analysis, etc. tncrimlaw.com/forensic/ .

Evidence is considered to be proof in a criminal case. . .
“forensic science has come to mean the application of the natural and physical science to the motion of matters within a legal context2. Forensic Science can be viewed as a tripartite structure consisting of
a. Collection, which pertains to the science investigation
b. Examination, which pertains to the investigation and,
c. Presentation, which pertains to the courts.
A forensic case will involve all aspects of each of the three structured elements.”
learninghaven.com/articles/forensic-science-types.html

Another proof for my argument: “Margaret Burbidge’s colleagues worked on theory and laboratory experiments; she employed the telescope, seeking direct evidence from the heavens. Others had speculated about the origins of elements, but B2FH delivered the proof.” (Smithsonian Magazine, Special Anniversary Issue, “MARGARET BURBIDGE, Stars, quasars, supervovae, galaxies–if it’s out of this world, she has seen it”/ by Marcia Bartusiak, November 2005, P.34) msg. 181

I’ll substitute a shot of whisky for a shot of espresso!

High energy peace,

Wild

I don’t take that deep, I just use The Bible.

 

[hecd2]

Partner, let me give you a nickel’s worth of free advice. Before you continually insult the intelligence of someone here, try learning how to spell the big words you use. Better yet, try learning to talk using smaller ones if you can’t master the simple concept called spell check. That should fix the spelling errors…

Actually there were some big words misspelled.

I’ll get on to the substantive stuff in a while, but let’s deal with this accusation of poor spelling first. In the two posts in which I addressed your erroneous claims (posts #170 and #171 in this thread) I misspelled two words (amd and bioogy), both of which were plainly typos. Every other word was spelled precisely correctly. If you are ill-advised enough to want to argue by spelling then it behoves YOU to get it right. Since you claim spelling mistakes where there were none, what does that say about your spelling ability?

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[hecd2]

Are you Catholic or religious? If not, then why are you wasting your time here? It certainly isn’t to inform or educate. I pray you don’t teach as your replies prove you are ill equipped to teach anything to anyone. Certainly you are too arrogant to be open to learning something new…the mark of a true closed minded non-intellectual.

You are projecting your inability or unwillingness to learn on to me. I am very amenable to an educated, well developed argument. That doesn’t mean that I, or anyone else, needs to be open-minded to ill-conceived, poorly argued opinions built on ignorance. I am perfectly able to explain science to those who want to learn. That was not my purpose in this case, since I was responding to the fact that you confidently state your ‘opinion’ that the foundations of modern biology are flawed and that professional scientists are misled and misleading, without having the decency or modesty to learn even the most basic biology yourself.

Ditto my astute egg-headed friend. Seriously, this is only a forum. Might I suggest mutating your brain with prozac.

Requires no response.

Your best answer is viruses? One of my arguments against secular evolution is the lack of demonstratable proof (science) with increasingly complex lifeforms.

Viruses? What do you think E coli or MRSA are? NOT viruses. You asked for evidence that evolution is demonstrably occurring and I was careful to point out that over a short time it is most obvious in species with short generations (as the effects of evolution take many generations to be obvious). But since you want evidence from more complex organisms than viruses and bacteria, perhaps you should read about mudskippers or cichlid fish or Anopheles gambiae or Ensatina salamanders or Drosophila pseudoobscura or Larus gulls.
Aury et al, *Global trends of whole-genome duplications revealed by the ciliate Paramecium tetraurelia, *Nature 444, 171 - 178 (09 Nov 2006)
Kutschera, *Mudskippers undermine ID claims on macroevolution, *Nature 439, (01 Feb 2006)
Strumbauer and Meyer, *Genetic divergence, speciation and morphological stasis in a lineage of African cichlid fishes , *Nature 358, 578 - 581 (13 Aug 1992)
Irwin et al, Speciation in a ring , Nature 409, 333 - 337 (18 Jan 2001)
Barton and Hewitt, *Adaptation, speciation and hybrid zones, *Nature 341, 497 - 503 (12 Oct 1989)
Sorenson et al, *Speciation by host switch in brood parasitic indigobirds, *Nature 424, 928 - 931 (21 Aug 2003)
Noor, Speciation driven by natural selection in Drosophila, Nature 375, 674 - 675 (22 Jun 1995)
Rieseberg et al, Hybrid speciation accompanied by genomic reorganization in wild sunflowers, Nature 375, 313 - 316 (25 May 1995)
Greig et al, *Hybrid Speciation in Experimental Populations of Yeast, *Science 29 November 2002 298: 1773-1775,
Irwin et al, *Speciation by Distance in a Ring Species, *Science 21 January 2005 307: 414-416
della Torre et al, *Speciation within Anopholes gambiae, *Science 4 October 2002 298: 115-117
Tauber and Tauber, *Sympatric Speciation Based on Allelic Changes at Three Loci: Evidence from Natural Populations in Two Habitats, *Science 23 September 1977 197: 1298-1299
*
To be continued
*

 

[hecd2]

Are you Catholic or religious? If not, then why are you wasting your time here? It certainly isn’t to inform or educate. I pray you don’t teach as your replies prove you are ill equipped to teach anything to anyone. Certainly you are too arrogant to be open to learning something new…the mark of a true closed minded non-intellectual.

You are projecting your inability or unwillingness to learn on to me. I am very amenable to an educated, well developed argument. That doesn’t mean that I, or anyone else, needs to be open-minded to ill-conceived, poorly argued opinions built on ignorance. I am perfectly able to explain science to those who want to learn. That was not my purpose in this case, since I was responding to the fact that you confidently state your ‘opinion’ that the foundations of modern biology are flawed and that professional scientists are misled and misleading, without having the decency or modesty to learn even the most basic biology yourself.

Ditto my astute egg-headed friend. Seriously, this is only a forum. Might I suggest mutating your brain with prozac.

Requires no response.

Your best answer is viruses? One of my arguments against secular evolution is the lack of demonstratable proof (science) with increasingly complex lifeforms.

Viruses? What do you think E coli or MRSA are? NOT viruses. You asked for evidence that evolution is demonstrably occurring and I was careful to point out that over a short time it is most obvious in species with short generations (as the effects of evolution take many generations to be obvious). But since you want evidence from more complex organisms than viruses and bacteria, perhaps you should read about mudskippers or cichlid fish or Anopheles gambiae or Ensatina salamanders or Drosophila pseudoobscura or Larus gulls.
Aury et al, *Global trends of whole-genome duplications revealed by the ciliate Paramecium tetraurelia, *Nature 444, 171 - 178 (09 Nov 2006)
Kutschera, *Mudskippers undermine ID claims on macroevolution, *Nature 439, (01 Feb 2006)
Strumbauer and Meyer, *Genetic divergence, speciation and morphological stasis in a lineage of African cichlid fishes , *Nature 358, 578 - 581 (13 Aug 1992)
Irwin et al, Speciation in a ring , Nature 409, 333 - 337 (18 Jan 2001)
Barton and Hewitt, *Adaptation, speciation and hybrid zones, *Nature 341, 497 - 503 (12 Oct 1989)
Sorenson et al, *Speciation by host switch in brood parasitic indigobirds, *Nature 424, 928 - 931 (21 Aug 2003)
Noor, Speciation driven by natural selection in Drosophila, Nature 375, 674 - 675 (22 Jun 1995)
Rieseberg et al, Hybrid speciation accompanied by genomic reorganization in wild sunflowers, Nature 375, 313 - 316 (25 May 1995)
Greig et al, *Hybrid Speciation in Experimental Populations of Yeast, *Science 29 November 2002 298: 1773-1775,
Irwin et al, *Speciation by Distance in a Ring Species, *Science 21 January 2005 307: 414-416
della Torre et al, *Speciation within Anopholes gambiae, *Science 4 October 2002 298: 115-117
Tauber and Tauber, *Sympatric Speciation Based on Allelic Changes at Three Loci: Evidence from Natural Populations in Two Habitats, *Science 23 September 1977 197: 1298-1299
*
To be continued
*

 

[hecd2]

Are you Catholic or religious? If not, then why are you wasting your time here? It certainly isn’t to inform or educate. I pray you don’t teach as your replies prove you are ill equipped to teach anything to anyone. Certainly you are too arrogant to be open to learning something new…the mark of a true closed minded non-intellectual.

You are projecting your inability or unwillingness to learn on to me. I am very amenable to an educated, well developed argument. That doesn’t mean that I, or anyone else, needs to be open-minded to ill-conceived, poorly argued opinions built on ignorance. I am perfectly able to explain science to those who want to learn. That was not my purpose in this case, since I was responding to the fact that you confidently state your ‘opinion’ that the foundations of modern biology are flawed and that professional scientists are misled and misleading, without having the decency or modesty to learn even the most basic biology yourself.

Ditto my astute egg-headed friend. Seriously, this is only a forum. Might I suggest mutating your brain with prozac.

Requires no response.

Your best answer is viruses? One of my arguments against secular evolution is the lack of demonstratable proof (science) with increasingly complex lifeforms.

Viruses? What do you think E coli or MRSA are? NOT viruses. You asked for evidence that evolution is demonstrably occurring and I was careful to point out that over a short time it is most obvious in species with short generations (as the effects of evolution take many generations to be obvious). But since you want evidence from more complex organisms than viruses and bacteria, perhaps you should read about mudskippers or cichlid fish or Anopheles gambiae or Ensatina salamanders or Drosophila pseudoobscura or Larus gulls.
Aury et al, *Global trends of whole-genome duplications revealed by the ciliate Paramecium tetraurelia, *Nature 444, 171 - 178 (09 Nov 2006)
Kutschera, *Mudskippers undermine ID claims on macroevolution, *Nature 439, (01 Feb 2006)
Strumbauer and Meyer, *Genetic divergence, speciation and morphological stasis in a lineage of African cichlid fishes , *Nature 358, 578 - 581 (13 Aug 1992)
Irwin et al, Speciation in a ring , Nature 409, 333 - 337 (18 Jan 2001)
Barton and Hewitt, *Adaptation, speciation and hybrid zones, *Nature 341, 497 - 503 (12 Oct 1989)
Sorenson et al, *Speciation by host switch in brood parasitic indigobirds, *Nature 424, 928 - 931 (21 Aug 2003)
Noor, Speciation driven by natural selection in Drosophila, Nature 375, 674 - 675 (22 Jun 1995)
Rieseberg et al, Hybrid speciation accompanied by genomic reorganization in wild sunflowers, Nature 375, 313 - 316 (25 May 1995)
Greig et al, *Hybrid Speciation in Experimental Populations of Yeast, *Science 29 November 2002 298: 1773-1775,
Irwin et al, *Speciation by Distance in a Ring Species, *Science 21 January 2005 307: 414-416
della Torre et al, *Speciation within Anopholes gambiae, *Science 4 October 2002 298: 115-117
Tauber and Tauber, *Sympatric Speciation Based on Allelic Changes at Three Loci: Evidence from Natural Populations in Two Habitats, *Science 23 September 1977 197: 1298-1299
*
To be continued
*

 

[hecd2]

Are you Catholic or religious? If not, then why are you wasting your time here? It certainly isn’t to inform or educate. I pray you don’t teach as your replies prove you are ill equipped to teach anything to anyone. Certainly you are too arrogant to be open to learning something new…the mark of a true closed minded non-intellectual.

You are projecting your inability or unwillingness to learn on to me. I am very amenable to an educated, well developed argument. That doesn’t mean that I, or anyone else, needs to be open-minded to ill-conceived, poorly argued opinions built on ignorance. I am perfectly able to explain science to those who want to learn. That was not my purpose in this case, since I was responding to the fact that you confidently state your ‘opinion’ that the foundations of modern biology are flawed and that professional scientists are misled and misleading, without having the decency or modesty to learn even the most basic biology yourself.

Ditto my astute egg-headed friend. Seriously, this is only a forum. Might I suggest mutating your brain with prozac.

Requires no response.

Your best answer is viruses? One of my arguments against secular evolution is the lack of demonstratable proof (science) with increasingly complex lifeforms.

Viruses? What do you think E coli or MRSA are? NOT viruses. You asked for evidence that evolution is demonstrably occurring and I was careful to point out that over a short time it is most obvious in species with short generations (as the effects of evolution take many generations to be obvious). But since you want evidence from more complex organisms than viruses and bacteria, perhaps you should read about mudskippers or cichlid fish or Anopheles gambiae or Ensatina salamanders or Drosophila pseudoobscura or Larus gulls.
Aury et al, *Global trends of whole-genome duplications revealed by the ciliate Paramecium tetraurelia, *Nature 444, 171 - 178 (09 Nov 2006)
Kutschera, *Mudskippers undermine ID claims on macroevolution, *Nature 439, (01 Feb 2006)
Strumbauer and Meyer, *Genetic divergence, speciation and morphological stasis in a lineage of African cichlid fishes , *Nature 358, 578 - 581 (13 Aug 1992)
Irwin et al, Speciation in a ring , Nature 409, 333 - 337 (18 Jan 2001)
Barton and Hewitt, *Adaptation, speciation and hybrid zones, *Nature 341, 497 - 503 (12 Oct 1989)
Sorenson et al, *Speciation by host switch in brood parasitic indigobirds, *Nature 424, 928 - 931 (21 Aug 2003)
Noor, Speciation driven by natural selection in Drosophila, Nature 375, 674 - 675 (22 Jun 1995)
Rieseberg et al, Hybrid speciation accompanied by genomic reorganization in wild sunflowers, Nature 375, 313 - 316 (25 May 1995)
Greig et al, *Hybrid Speciation in Experimental Populations of Yeast, *Science 29 November 2002 298: 1773-1775,
Irwin et al, *Speciation by Distance in a Ring Species, *Science 21 January 2005 307: 414-416
della Torre et al, *Speciation within Anopholes gambiae, *Science 4 October 2002 298: 115-117
Tauber and Tauber, *Sympatric Speciation Based on Allelic Changes at Three Loci: Evidence from Natural Populations in Two Habitats, *Science 23 September 1977 197: 1298-1299
*
To be continued
*

 

[hecd2]

Are you Catholic or religious? If not, then why are you wasting your time here? It certainly isn’t to inform or educate. I pray you don’t teach as your replies prove you are ill equipped to teach anything to anyone. Certainly you are too arrogant to be open to learning something new…the mark of a true closed minded non-intellectual.

You are projecting your inability or unwillingness to learn on to me. I am very amenable to an educated, well developed argument. That doesn’t mean that I, or anyone else, needs to be open-minded to ill-conceived, poorly argued opinions built on ignorance. I am perfectly able to explain science to those who want to learn. That was not my purpose in this case, since I was responding to the fact that you confidently state your ‘opinion’ that the foundations of modern biology are flawed and that professional scientists are misled and misleading without having the decency or modesty to learn even the most basic biology yourself.

Ditto my astute egg-headed friend. Seriously, this is only a forum. Might I suggest mutating your brain with prozac.

Requires no response.

Your best answer is viruses? One of my arguments against secular evolution is the lack of demonstratable proof (science) with increasingly complex lifeforms.

Viruses? What do you think E coli or MRSA are? NOT viruses. You asked for evidence that evolution is demonstrably occurring and I was careful to point out that over a short time it is most obvious in species with short generations (as the effects of evolution take many generations to be obvious). But since you want evidence from more complex organisms than viruses and bacteria, perhaps you should read about mudskippers or cichlid fish or Anopheles gambiae or Ensatina salamanders or Drosophila pseudoobscura or Larus gulls.
Aury et al, *Global trends of whole-genome duplications revealed by the ciliate Paramecium tetraurelia,*Nature 444, 171 - 178 (09 Nov 2006)
Kutschera, *Mudskippers undermine ID claims on macroevolution, *Nature 439, (01 Feb 2006)
Strumbauer and Meyer, *Genetic divergence, speciation and morphological stasis in a lineage of African cichlid fishes , *Nature 358, 578 - 581 (13 Aug 1992)
Irwin et al, Speciation in a ring , Nature 409, 333 - 337 (18 Jan 2001)
Barton and Hewitt, *Adaptation, speciation and hybrid zones, *Nature 341, 497 - 503 (12 Oct 1989)
Sorenson et al, *Speciation by host switch in brood parasitic indigobirds, Nature 424, 928 - 931 (21 Aug 2003)
Noor, Speciation driven by natural selection in Drosophila, Nature 375, 674 - 675 (22 Jun 1995)
Rieseberg et al, Hybrid speciation accompanied by genomic reorganization in wild sunflowers, Nature 375, 313 - 316 (25 May 1995)
Greig et al, Hybrid Speciation in Experimental Populations of Yeast, Science 29 November 2002 298: 1773-1775,
Irwin et al, Speciation by Distance in a Ring Species, Science 21 January 2005 307: 414-416
della Torre et al, Speciation within Anopholes gambiae, Science 4 October 2002 298: 115-117
Tauber and Tauber, Sympatric Speciation Based on Allelic Changes at Three Loci: Evidence from Natural Populations in Two Habitats, Science 23 September 1977 197: 1298-1299
*
To be continued

 

[hecd2]

*Continuation
*

Major problem with the website database has resulted in multiple copies of my last post.

Its anecdotal because the fossil record is at best incomplete. The assumptions made from it are just that. Be honest enough to call it a guess. I’d have more respect for your opinions.

The evidence for evolution goes far beyond the fossil record but even if that’s all the evidence there was, it would not be anecdotal and the conclusions we draw would be no more ‘assumptions’ than the ‘assumption’ that the force between two point bodies goes as the inverse of the square of the distance between them.

Funny, not even I suggested we look at every generation of humanity for “proof”. You built that straw man sir.

No, I did not - you were the one who introduced short term changes in humans into the discussion, through your discussion of increased human lifespan and size. I am merely pointing out that it is an absurd strawman to think we can see significant evolutionary changes in humans over a human life time (or even over 150 years or a couple of thousand years.)

Blah blah blah.

Very intelligent response to a reasoned argument, I must say.

I did not say every human was born with three or more errors.

No, but I did. We are each, on average, born with three mutations in our genome - this refutes the bizarre notion that all mutations are disabling, when in fact mutations are present in every human being. They are the basis of variation over time, on which natural selection operates. You responded to this with the grown-up argument: ‘blah blah blah’.

Alec
evolutionpages.com