R
reggieM
Guest
That is better than short-winded rhetoric of Darwinist triple talk.
One of the funniest things I’ve ever read on this topic.
Yes, I agree.
I will consult natural selection and see what it tells me to do next!!
- Status
R
reggieM
Guest
Well, I wouldn’t say that it’s a healthy thing to act as if other people do not exist. That tends to be the definition of self-aborbed egotistim.
I certainly would not say that Darwinists do not exist. But then again, perhaps I’ll randomly mutate and natural select them out of existence – so I will win the evolutionary sweepstakes.
R
reggieM
Guest
True. Darwin has about as much credibility as Freud and Marx, among those who are able to look at his theory objectively.
Yes, they’re very angry!
Z
zian
Guest
I just had to laugh out loud when I read that one. Thanks.
oh man, did I just post in this thread?? Drat!
R
reggieM
Guest
Soay sheep live in glorious isolation on the tiny island of St Kilda, off the NW coast of Scotland. They provide interesting case studies for geneticists, ecologists and evolutionary biologists. Their “coat color is either dark brown or light tawny; the two phenotypes have been documented for at least 90 years.” Changes in the frequency of these colours has stimulated the new research.
According to the authors, “variation in coat color is controlled by a single autosomal locus at which the dark allele is dominant to the light allele”. They explain that the “dark coat color is associated with large size, which is heritable and positively correlated with fitness”. Consequently, a reasonable prediction to make would be that the numbers of sheep with darker coats will increase in the population. But this is not happening! Observations show very clearly that “the frequency of dark sheep has decreased”. This unexpected finding provides the rationale for further research. The authors do not consider the Soay Sheep case to be unusual. On the contrary, it is one of many examples of predictions not matching the data.
These comments are important, because nearly all the Darwinian **just-so stories **make use of the ‘one gene - one trait’ concept, which is now outdated. Although their scenarios are presented as plausible and reasonable, failure to address linkage disequilibrium and pleiotropy issues opens the door to faulty presuppositions and flawed logic. Educational programmes need to do more to create awareness of the unscientific nature of these Darwinian speculations.
It is to be welcomed that the authors qualify the word evolution using the prefix “micro”. Phillip Johnson led the way in showing how many different meanings there are to the word “evolution”, but there has been a marked reluctance for editors, authors and journalists to respond positively. If the term “microevolutionary trend” could be used to refer to the vast majority of textbook examples of “evolution”, this would represent a major improvement in communication.
– David Tyler, ARN
According to the authors, “variation in coat color is controlled by a single autosomal locus at which the dark allele is dominant to the light allele”. They explain that the “dark coat color is associated with large size, which is heritable and positively correlated with fitness”. Consequently, a reasonable prediction to make would be that the numbers of sheep with darker coats will increase in the population. But this is not happening! Observations show very clearly that “the frequency of dark sheep has decreased”. This unexpected finding provides the rationale for further research. The authors do not consider the Soay Sheep case to be unusual. On the contrary, it is one of many examples of predictions not matching the data.
“This study shows that selection acting on simple Mendelian traits in natural populations can have a complex genetic basis. This has implications for the study of microevolutionary change in natural populations, because fitness variation at the level of the genotype may not be evident in an analysis of selection on phenotype. Consequently, phenotypic studies may wrongly conclude that selection is not acting on genomic regions containing the loci underlying focal traits and may be unable to explain the microevolutionary dynamics of trait variation.”
These comments are important, because nearly all the Darwinian **just-so stories **make use of the ‘one gene - one trait’ concept, which is now outdated. Although their scenarios are presented as plausible and reasonable, failure to address linkage disequilibrium and pleiotropy issues opens the door to faulty presuppositions and flawed logic. Educational programmes need to do more to create awareness of the unscientific nature of these Darwinian speculations.
It is to be welcomed that the authors qualify the word evolution using the prefix “micro”. Phillip Johnson led the way in showing how many different meanings there are to the word “evolution”, but there has been a marked reluctance for editors, authors and journalists to respond positively. If the term “microevolutionary trend” could be used to refer to the vast majority of textbook examples of “evolution”, this would represent a major improvement in communication.
– David Tyler, ARN
D
drpmjhess
Guest
What I mean is that evolutionary biologists have no need in their work for creationists, any more than do historical geologists, physicists or other scientists. They would no doubt greet you kindly on the street, but your opinion about science is utterly irrelevant to them, unless, of course, creationist Huckabee wins the presidency and appoints you secretary of education. Then no doubt they would worry!
T
The_Barbarian
Guest
(comment that scientists carry on as though creationists don’t exist)
So, I guess you’re really upset about the geologists who ignore flat-earthers.
That would be someone who, although completely ignorant of a particular science, nevertheless thinks he can make intelligent criticisms of it.
T
The_Barbarian
Guest
Hmmm… I remember this one. Someone’s led you down the path, again…
**"Evolution should occur when selection acts on a trait, such as birth weight, that has a genetic basis. Birth weight is closely linked to juvenile mortality, with larger lambs having higher survival and higher fitness. The first six months of life are critical; lamb deaths during this crucial window account for nearly a quarter of all deaths. Even though birth weight has all the raw materials for evolution–a positive correlation between birth weight and survival, and a heritable basis for variation, attributed to maternal genetic effects–previous studies found no evidence for evolution of the trait. Since annual birth weight had not increased over the 20 years, the researchers hypothesized that a variable environment could limit its micro-evolution by limiting heritability, selection, or both. Wilson et al. found evidence that that this is indeed the case.
To study the micro-evolutionary dynamics of a wild population, they adapted a theoretical model long used by animal breeders. Quantitative genetic models measure the genetic contribution (which typically involves multiple genes) to variation in a given trait, such as milk production in dairy cows. With these models, plant and animal breeders maintain or develop desired traits by predicting an evolutionary path based on the strength of selection and the amount of genetic variance underlying the trait. Some of these models assume a constant environment, which is fine for breeders, who can artificially control their subjects’ environment, but proves problematic for evolutionary studies of wild populations.
To overcome these limitations, the researchers incorporated a statistical tool called random regression analysis. With this approach, they could not only model the effects of environmental variation on selection and heritability but also maximize the statistical power of their dataset. This is a particularly effective technique for natural populations, for which the data are inevitably limited. It also allowed the researchers to model the genetic variance underlying lamb birth weight as a function of environmental quality (poor if lamb survival was low, good if survival was high), creating a more realistic evolutionary picture. (Lamb birth weight is primarily influenced by “maternal genetic effects,” which derive from gene products of the mother’s genome, rather than those of the lambs themselves.)
The most powerful modeling result showed that the extent to which birth weight is heritable–that is, the variance caused by maternal genetic effects–increased along with environmental quality. But when Wilson et al. modeled the relationship between birth weight and fitness (defined as lamb survival) across environments, they found that the strength of selection followed a different pattern. Fitness increased with birth weight, and with environmental quality, but the positive relationship between fitness and birth weight–indicating the strength of selection–became weaker in better environments. Environmental quality shapes the trajectories for both genetic variance and the strength of selection. Lambs are not growing bigger and bigger because there’s a lack of heritable variation for selection to act on in harsh environments and there’s a lack of selection to act on higher genetic variation during favorable conditions. These results emphasize the importance of using biologically realistic models to predict the evolution of traits in wild populations–an important component of genetic restoration for endangered species, for example. They also confirm the value of long-term studies on wild populations to better detect patterns of selection and genetic variation in the natural world."**
eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2006-06/plos-nsi060706.php
Z
zian
Guest
Here reggie, you mean this(?)
Since you’ve cut and pasted the whole thing, it really is just a simple matter to cut and paste the link as well, now isn’t it??
Yes, yes, discrepancies are found, more data are studied, new hypotheses are tested, etc. In my day job we just recently found some completely unexpected results related to a catalyst we are using to do some organic chemical reactions. However, the solution is not to doubt the well founded basic modern theory of organic chemistry; the solution is to propose and test new hypotheses within the framework of organic chemistry that may explain the observed phenomena. This is the day to day stuff of all science. It is how new knowledge is obtained, and also how, on rare occasions, that paradigms are overturned.
D
drpmjhess
Guest
Barbarian,I don’t know about you and SpiritMeadow, but I’m not schooled in cardiac medicine. Should I nevertheless launch an attack on that science – perhaps on the theory of pulmonary circulation of the blood – on the grounds that it contradicts magisterial teaching? After all, it must be a species of idolatry to suppose that blood could circulate on its own without God’s finger constantly pushing it through the arteries.
Petrus
R
reggieM
Guest
In this case we see a simple example of micro-evolution that is enough to refute Darwinism. At the same time we hear that evolutionary theory is supposedly “factual”. Apparently, the “facts” can change and this causes no concern for those educators and propagandists who claim that there is nothing to criticize in Darwinism.
Again, in this case we see predictions for micro-evolution in something as simple as the color of fur in sheep, producing results that are the opposite of what Darwinism claims should happen (some even claim that it is “determined” or “necessary” to happen).
As I see it this example is so blatantly obvious. All of the bravado and ridicule coming from the Darwin-camp is a cover-up for these clear and outrageous problems for the theory.
Your response was good as I take it to mean that this theory is far from certain, and the Darwinist paradigm could indeed be “overturned”.
That is a far more reasonable response to this problem then the kind of bitter denials that I usually hear.
That article pointed out also that due to pressures from anti-evolution critics, this scientific publication is using the term “micr-evolution” instead of the generic and meaningless “evolution”.
This shows how ID and other critics of evolution are advancing some precision in science. The critics are necessary and they shouldn’t be censored or ridiculed.
T
The_Barbarian
Guest
As you learned, when the details were understood, it reinforced Darwinism. One prediction of Darwin’s theory was that there would be envirionments which would actually prevent evolution from proceding. This is the case with the sheep in question.
Direct observation of evolution producing irreducible complexity and even macroevolution does tend to do that, yes.
Scientific theories often change, when new evidence calls for that. It must seem like “cheating” to IDers, who are stuck with an unchangable religious belief. That’s how science works, and it works better than almost anything else humans can do.
Could you provide a checkable quote wherein some knowledgable person has asserted “there is nothing to criticize in Darwinism?” It certainly appears that you made it up yourself.
In science, everything is always on the table. That’s how it works. But to overturn it, one needs some evidence. IDers, as in this case, can’t do anything but try to spin evidence for evolution, hoping to somehow disprove it.
That’s not what it said, of course. And as you know, a number of people have already told you that microevolution refers to variation within a species, and macroevolution means the evolution of new taxa. Both have been directly observed.
As usual, they are taking credit for something known long before the religion of ID was invented. I imagine some of them will soon declare that they have discovered that the Earth is round.
As you know, scientists are quite open to dissent. Dissent is how science progresses. Even Stephen Gould accepted a YE creationist candidate. But see how far you get at a creationist institution, if you don’t accept creationism. This is one of the major differences between science and ID.
On the other hand, people who think up new religions and peddle them as science should be frequently ridiculed.
S
SpiritMeadow
Guest
At this point any fact from a reputable science organization or pruduction of creidentials suggesting we should listen. Either one.That is better than short-winded rhetoric of Darwinist triple talk.
One of the funniest things I’ve ever read on this topic.
Yes, I agree.
I will consult natural selection and see what it tells me to do next!!
S
SpiritMeadow
Guest
Since you cannot speak for yourself…who is david tyler ARN?
S
SpiritMeadow
Guest
What is apparent is that you cut and paste these “arguments” understanding not one whit of what they say, they when it is explained to you, you don’t argue, you ignore and go back to ad hominem attacks on Darwinists. Too funny. You thought you were slick in not giving a cite for the posting but did include the author…did you think no one would ask? or worse did you actually not think that somebody here might actually know? What is the real purpose here reggie? Is evolution just too much a threat? Check your faith instead of trying to argue stuff you are not up for.
Z
zian
Guest
SpiritMeadow - see link in my post #328
Then you take it wrongly, so I’ll spell it out for you, as Barbarian has already done. I used the comparison to the theory of organic chemistry because, like evolution, it is a fantastically successful theory backed up my mountains of evidence. Hardly to be considered as “far from certain” at all, but this seems to have flown well over your head. As Barbarian stated, everything in science is “always on the table. That’s how it works. But to overturn it, one needs some evidence.” (emphasis mine)
R
reggieM
Guest
Gosh you are an angry lady.
Every day you’re venting your emotions about some crackpot creationists who have been “refuted” and are not to be taken seriously. So we see your outrage every day – and I’m only more convinced that there’s something going on here. When I see this kind of knee-jerking by you and Barbarian, I know that some kind of emotional chord has been hit. There is some fear.
As for evolution being a “threat” … well, perhaps you might forget that just about the entire science world believes in evolution (as you reminded me). Yes, I am sympathetic with the fact that my opinions go against the vast majority of mainstream science.
Is this a “threat” to having my opinions accepted here or elsewhere? Yes, I think it would be since I reject some fundamental assumptions of mainstream science!!!
R
reggieM
Guest
Ok, but I think the story about the micro-evolution in sheep showed pretty clearly that the results were far from certain or predictable. In fact, the results were the opposite of what Darwinism predicted. Again, I find it hard to call this a “certain fact” when the results on a very simple matter (micro-evolution of the color of sheep’s fur) cannot even be validated, and in fact, in this case evolution was clearly proven false.
T
The_Barbarian
Guest
Many things in nature are unpredictable unless we have very good data on them.
As you learned, such stasis is part of evolutionary theory. You just didn’t read the paper very well, and perhaps some IDer misled you with an “explanation” that gave you part of the truth, but not all of it. From the study you cited, but apparently never read:
"Even though birth weight has all the raw materials for evolution–a positive correlation between birth weight and survival, and a heritable basis for variation, attributed to maternal genetic effects–previous studies found no evidence for evolution of the trait. Since annual birth weight had not increased over the 20 years, the researchers hypothesized that a variable environment could limit its micro-evolution by limiting heritability, selection, or both. Wilson et al. found evidence that that this is indeed the case."
eurekalert.org/pub_releas…-nsi060706.php
In short, not only did a closer look explain why it was happening, but it actually showed that classic Darwinian mechanisms were responsible. As you learned earlier, evolutionary theory says that natural selection, under some circumstances, can prevent evolution. It’s called “stabilizing selection.” Does it make you upset? Upset enough to quit trusting the guys who told you otherwise?
R
reggieM
Guest
Evolution in the sense of common ancestry might be true, but evolution in the neo-Darwinian sense — an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection — is not. Any system of thought that denies or seeks to explain away **the overwhelming evidence for design **in biology is ideology, not science.
CARDINAL CHRISTOPH SCHONBORN
CARDINAL CHRISTOPH SCHONBORN
- Status