Oolon Colluphid

Nope. That is a significant proportion of evolution in general. “Descent with modification” could just as easily apply to antibiotic resistance in bacteria from one generation to the next. Descent with modification is evolution, period. And natural selection is one of the mechanisms that shape the course of evolution. It’s the most important one in terms of forming complexity, but there is also genetic drift and a bunch of lesser elements too.

Nope, ‘macroevolution’ is simply ‘evolution above the species level’. It’s what goes on between species, and is to do with the broader patterns over longer timeframes. So it includes the effects of continental drift, meteorite impacts, vulcanism, climatic changes such as ice ages etc... macroevolution is the bigger picture; ‘microevolution’ is the day-to-day details.

Go for it.

Of macro? Yeah, we chew it over here from time to time too. There’s some debate about whether macro is only cumulative micro (in which case the former term is a bit pointless), or whether other factors work across larger scales, such as species selection.

I’m not sure how “physical scientists” might have anything useful to say about it though. Evolution is about living things. Do you ask a car mechanic about medical problems? Thought not!

Quintessence of drivel. Start here, and don’t come back till you’ve read them (especially the first two):

<a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/" target="_blank">www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/</a>
<a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html" target="_blank">www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html</a>
<a href="http://www.cs.colorado.edu/~lindsay/creation/fossil_series.html" target="_blank">www.cs.colorado.edu/~lindsay/creation/fossil_series.html</a>
<a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/" target="_blank">www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/</a>
<a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-research.html" target="_blank">www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-research.html</a>

I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt here till you’ve read the above links.

Unless you’re using some very odd definition of ‘transitional forms’, that is guano. See links 2 - 4 above.



Maybe I’m reading too much into it, but that “entirely” worries me. Speciation, as predicted by real (as opposed to straw man) evolution, has been observed.
<a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html" target="_blank">www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html</a>

But if you’re implying the ‘no dog ever gave birth to a cat’ variety of “entirely new species” formation, then add this bit to your definition collection: Evolution is gradual and cumulative. No dinosaur gave birth to a sparrow. Instead, down 80 million years or so of populations, some ‘dinosaurs’ -- one lineage of them -- became more and more sparrow-like.

On details. Neither of them comes within light years of arguing evolution is, overall, wrong.

I guess it is confusing for those who don’t understand the real basics...

Do you actually know what Gould and Dawkins disagreed about? Well do you? I was going to tell you, but no, you can bloody well tell us. When you have, we’ll see how relevant it is for supporting your argument.

You got ’em.

It’s not an extension of the definition, it’s a different subject. Evolution is about what happens once you’ve got self-replicators. Abiogenesis is about how self-replicators could come about.

Thanks for your consideration, but

We don’t.

If microevolution could be analogous to car mechanics, macroevolution is the AA producing road maps. And abiogenesis is about the origins of petrol and metals.

So sorry. Okay, so what breed are you?

Not identical, but compared to science, they’re all near enough the same. They are all based on lies and ignorance. The rest is mere details: different lies, variations in ignorance.

Because whatever the claimed differences, they all end up using the same sorts of argument and misinformation. One day a creationist will say something new, but I’ve not seen it yet.

Not irrational, just not an answer to anything. Science is about explaining stuff. In this case, we want to explain bilogical complexity. If we settle for goddidit, we just move the problem, for any god capable of creating biological things (let alone answering prayers, curing the sick etc) must be at least as complex as the stuff we want to explain.

So, where did this complexity, god, come from? We can’t say, nor can we find out. God as an active entity is both unknown and unknowable.

So to replace what we don’t know with what we cannot know is a step backwards. It is a non-explanation. If goddidit is allowed at all, we may as well explain rain as Zeus pissing in a sieve.

Ref your Darwin quote, go learn some basic palaeontology and taphonomy.

Hope that helps.

TTFN, Oolon

Vorkosigan

I can answer these questions and grave objections only on the supposition that the geological record is far more imperfect than most geologists believe. It cannot be objected that there has not been time sufficient for any amount of organic change; for the lapse of time has been so great as to be utterly inappreciable by the human intellect. The number of specimens in all our museums is absolutely as nothing compared with the countless generations of countless species which certainly have existed. We should not be able to recognise a species as the parent of any one or more species if we were to examine them ever so closely, unless we likewise possessed many of the intermediate links between their past or parent and present states; and these many links we could hardly ever expect to discover, owing to the imperfection of the geological record.

-- Charles Darwin, Origin of Species

A beautiful quote. The entire passage, from p. 439-440 of the first edition, runs:

I can answer these questions and grave objections only on the supposition that the geological record is far more imperfect than most geologists believe. It cannot be objected that there has not been time sufficient for any amount of organic change; for the lapse of time has been so great as to be utterly inappreciable by the human intellect. The number of specimens in all our museums is absolutely as nothing compared with the countless generations of countless species which certainly have existed. We should not be able to recognise a species as the parent of any one or more species if we were to examine them ever so closely, unless we likewise possessed many of the intermediate links between their past or parent and present states; and these many links we could hardly ever expect to discover, owing to the imperfection of the geological record. Numerous existing doubtful forms could be named which are probably varieties; but who will pretend that in future ages so many fossil links will be discovered, that naturalists will be able to decide, on the common view, whether or not these doubtful forms are varieties? As long as most of the links between any two species are unknown, if any one link or intermediate variety be discovered, it will simply be classed as another and distinct species. Only a small portion of the world has been geologically explored. Only organic beings of certain classes can be preserved in a fossil condition, at least in any great number. Widely ranging species vary most, and varieties are often at first local, — both causes rendering the discovery of intermediate links less likely. Local varieties will not spread into other and distant regions until they are considerably modified and improved; and when they do spread, if discovered in a geological formation, they will appear as if suddenly created there, and will be simply classed as new species. Most formations have been intermittent in their accumulation; and their duration, I am inclined to believe, has been shorter than the average duration of specific forms. Successive formations are separated from each other by enormous blank intervals of time; for fossiliferous formations, thick enough to resist future degradation, can be accumulated only where much sediment is deposited on the subsiding bed of the sea. During the alternate periods of elevation and of stationary level the record will be blank. During these latter periods there will probably be more variability in the forms of life; during periods of subsidence, more extinction.

In this passage Darwin was recognizing what he thought was the grave difficulty posed to his idea by the lack of transitional forms in the fossil record. 150 years later we do not face this problem, with excellent transitional links for many individual species, including our own (which is, after all, transitional to whatever comes after us), and quite detailed ones between the higher level taxa.

Additionally we have another source of knowledge: genetics. Even if a single fossil had never been found, our history would still be known from our genes. In Darwin's day inheritance was not understood (the prevailing theory was called blending, I believe, and posed a great difficulty for his theory as well). Nowadays, when you see that humans and chimps share more than 99% of their genes, and humans and bananas more than 50%, you get some idea of how closely life on earth is related, and how relatively small genetic change can mean huge changes in the way creatures look and act.

Vorkosigan

DMB

To say that there are no transitional forms in the fossil record is dishonest. Furthermore, the (selective) quote from Darwin is irrelevant. Darwin had the breadth of vision to understand how species had evolved even with the very limited evidence available in his day. To suggest that this situation still obtains is ridiculous.

Creationists, who are usually so used to arguing from biblical authority, just do not get it. Arguments from authority, however eminent, are never conclusive in science. Science, unlike theology, has built-in self-correcting mechanisms. Darwin is enormously admired today, but no-one thinks that he has to be right about everything or even about anything. To me, the amazing thing is how much he did get right as a result of his patient and detailed work without the benefit of our expansion of knowledge and technology.
The words used imply total disagreement and that is plainly wrong. Take any two scientists from the same discipline and they are bound to disagree on some things. This is a reflection of the fact that science is a dynamic process, which is never likely to be able to say, "Well, that's the end. Now we know everything." Gould and Dawkins probably agreed on a lot more than say, the pope and the president of the Southern Baptists. One could probably say with perfect truth that either of them would be in diametrical opposition to any creationist you care to name.

Disagreement within science is not a weakness; it's a strength.

Vanderzyden

Vorkosigan,

The extension to the quotation doesn't provide us with additional context, nor does it afford anything positive to the Darwinist position. Surely you realize that it is nothing but a list of caveats. Highlighting the key words is the simplest way to convey this:

Numerous existing doubtful forms could be named which are probably varieties; but who will pretend that in future ages so many fossil links will be discovered, that naturalists will be able to decide, on the common view, whether or not these doubtful forms are varieties? As long as most of the links between any two species are unknown, if any one link or intermediate variety be discovered, it will simply be classed as another and distinct species. Only a small portion of the world has been geologically
explored. Only organic beings of certain classes can be preserved in a fossil condition, at least in any great number. Widely ranging species vary most, and varieties are often at first local, — both causes rendering the discovery of intermediate links less likely. Local varieties will not spread into other and distant regions until they are considerably modified and improved; and when they do spread, if discovered in a geological formation, they will appear as if suddenly created there, and will be simply classed as new species. Most formations have been intermittent in their accumulation; and their duration, I am inclined to believe, has been shorter than the average duration of specific forms. Successive formations are separated from each other by enormous blank intervals of time; for fossiliferous formations, thick enough to resist future degradation, can be accumulated only where much sediment is deposited on the subsiding bed of the sea. During the alternate periods of elevation and of stationary level the record will be blank. During these latter periods there will probably be more variability in the forms of life; during periods of subsidence, more extinction.

This is nothing but gross conjecture. Pure invention. But wait (!), you say, we must realize that Darwin was looking forward to our enlightened era, where evidence is now plentiful. What constitutes this new evidence?
Where are the bones? Perhaps you will direct me to something like the TalkOrigins website:

<a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/specimen.html" target="_blank">http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/specimen.html</a>

This "evidence" is uncompelling. A slightly different interpretation renders these apes, not men. In fact, some of these are shams, such as Peking Man. Many of the specimens are bone fragments, from which fantastic tales have been developed. With widespread refusal to be critical of Darwinism, one can imagine how much other "evidence" has been procured in similar fashion to the Piltdown Man fabrication:

<a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/piltdown.html" target="_blank">http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/piltdown.html</a>

We are told by the Darwinists that more time is necessary. Well, I find much more impressive the theistic realism that recognizes the readily apparent design we observe in the universe--in terms of both origin and development. This has been long established. By comparison, neo-Darwinism is an upstart worldview. And, upon close inspection, has virtually no warrant for belief.

Genetics brings us no closer. Similarity in DNA is no proof at all of common descent. DNA is genetic brick-and mortar, that's all. To use a non-bio analogy: we don't infer that buildings descend from one another by observing similarities in the building materials. Furthermore, DNA is one element among all of the other INFORMATION that is found in various sub-cellular components.

I'm still looking for a good definition.

The ones that have been advanced by the popular Darwinist priesthood aren't impressive, and leave too many unanswered questions. I see that you are a moderator (of this forum?). Perhaps you can provide me with your best reference for a precise definition of evolution?

Be not deceived. Darwin himself was greatly concerned about the consequences of his dangerous ideas:

With me the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man's mind, which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey's mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind?

--Letter to William Graham, Down, July 3rd, 1881. In The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin Including an Autobiographical Chapter, ed. Francis Darwin (D. Appleton and Company, 1887), vol. 1, p. 255.

Vorkosigan

We are told by the Darwinists that more time is necessary. Well, I find much more impressive the theistic realism that recognizes the readily apparent design we observe in the universe--in terms of both origin and development.

Ah, so you believe a loving god designed ebola, AIDS, malaria and other viscious diseases that kill humans in large numbers.

This has been long established. By comparison, neo-Darwinism is an upstart worldview. And, upon close inspection, has virtually no warrant for belief.



Genetics brings us no closer. Similarity in DNA is no proof at all of common descent.

ROTFL. So if you tested your kid, and found it didn't have a shred of your DNA, would you still assume it was yours? Most people would probably figure their wife had something to tell them....

In every court on Earth, DNA is recognized as evidence for common descent. Now which is it, Vander. Is DNA useless for determining paternity (and every court on earth is wrong), or is it indeed evidence of common descent?

DNA is genetic brick-and mortar, that's all. To use a non-bio analogy: we don't infer that buildings descend from one another by observing similarities in the building materials.

Since buildings do not reproduce, your analogy fails miserably.

I'm still looking for a good definition.

You were given several. The T.O faq has a large number. Simple definitions of complex ideas are hard to come by (try meaningfully defining Postmodernism or Catholicism or Relativity or Plate Tectonics or Foucault's Theory of Power or Technological Determinism in a single swift sentence). Evolution, especially in the modern synthesis of genetics and darwinian natural selection, is a highly complex and broad idea.)

The ones that have been advanced by the popular Darwinist priesthood aren't impressive, and leave too many unanswered questions.

Well, naturally, if you believe that modern science is a lie, you're going to have a lot of questions.

I see that you are a moderator (of this forum?). Perhaps you can provide me with your best reference for a precise definition of evolution?

Try one of the textbooks previously mentioned on this thread, or the talk.origins FAQ, also mentioned.

Vorkosigan

Mageth

Vanderzyden says:

This has been long established. By comparison, neo-Darwinism is an upstart worldview.

And the length of time neo-Darwinism has been around compared to "theistic realism" (an oxymoron if ever I've heard one) matters...how?

Be not deceived. Darwin himself was greatly concerned about the consequences of his dangerous ideas...

And 100+ years later, what consequences Darwin was greatly concerned about matters...how?

Reading that post, all I see is a lot of animated hand waving and head-in-sand-sticking.

lpetrich

Which ones? I see no evidence of that in the professional literature. Descent with modification by natural processes is taken for granted in it; the main controversies are about what is descended from what and exactly how did it happen.

Tell us what counts as a transitional form. And give examples of where expected transitional forms are absent.

There is a big literature on speciation, here is a <a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html" target="_blank">simple discussion</a>.

It's details that they disagree on. And they believe in doing observations and experiments in order to see who's right.

What gives you that idea?

And Vanderzyden, where do you differ from young-earth creationists? If you have no disagreements with them, then why whine that you are being lumped with them?

Because it can account for anything. Vanderzyden, would you take seriously someone who said "Allah did it" in some knee-jerk way? Or "Brahma did it"? Or "lots and lots of elves and fairies and the like did it"?

Richiyaado

First post in thread:

Fourth post in thread:

Alas, this is the alpha and omega of such threads. pz had Vanderzyden pegged instantly.

Vanderzyden is not interested in actually learning anything about evolutionary theory because it's simply not part of his/her agenda. Vanderzyden's agenda is to promote a caricature of evolutionary theory, so it does no good whatever to recommend books or links that explain the theory in depth.

Better to save your breath (and your posts) for those whose only agenda is a sincere wish to understand.

[edited to say pz's was the fourth post in this thread, not the third—sorry.]

[ August 13, 2002: Message edited by: Richiyaado ]</p>

Doubting Didymus

Bravo Richiyaado!

Yes, I agree completely. Vanderzyden so far has been loth to discuss his own theories of choice with us. I suggest that Vanderzyden should, in the spirit of the scientific enterprise, discuss with us his alternative theory.

Daggah

You are utterly wrong. As has already been mentioned, your analogy is flawed, as buildings don't reproduce.

Furthermore, the similiarities we see in genetics (you know, the ones that just "happen" to correspond so well with previous hypotheses originating from the fossil record?) extend far past just similiarities in function. Would you care to explain, dear sir, why we see the same kind of similiarities in junk DNA?

And why is it that similiarities in cytochrome C - of which only a third of the protein sequence actually does anything - show the same pattern that genetics and the fossil record does? Did you know that you could take the cytochrome C protein of a human and use it to replace a yeast's own cytochrome C with no change of functionality to the yeast? The yeast will continue using the human cytochrome C properly! And so, in the non-functional 2/3rds of the cytochrome C, you can make small changes. These changes, according to evolution, are heritable. If evolution is true, we would expect to see a pattern of similiarities and minor differences, and the cytochrome C sequences of species we believe to be more closely related via common descent would be more similiar than the cytochrome C sequences of species who diverged from each other long ago.

Well guess what? How about I just present the hard cold evidence to you to see and analyze with your own eyes?

You can find what the letters stand for <a href="http://"http://www.bio.davidson.edu/courses/Molbio/aatable.html"" target="_blank">here</a>.

[code]mgdvekgkki fimkcsqcht vekggkhktg pnlhglfgrk tgqapgysyt aanknkgiiw gedtlmeyle npkkyipgtk mifvgikkke eradliaylk katne human
mgdvekgkki fimkcsqcht vekggkhktg pnlhglfgrk tgqapgysyt aanknkgiiw gedtlmeyle npkkyipgtk mifvgikkke eradliaylk katne chimpanzee
gdvekgkkif imkcsqchtv ekggkhktgp nlhglfgrkt gqapgysyta anknkgitwg edtlmeylen pkkyipgtkm ifvgikkkee radliaylkk atne rhesus monkey
gdvekgkkif vqkcaqchtv ekggkhktgp nlhglfgrkt gqavgfsytd anknkgitwg edtlmeylen pkkyipgtkm ifagikkkde radliaylkk atne rabbit
mgdvekgkki fvqkcaqcht vekggkhktg pnlhglfgrk tgqaagfsyt danknkgitw gedtlmeyle npkkyipgtk mifagikkkg eradliaylk katne mouse
mgdvekgkki fvqkcaqcht vekggkhktg pnlhglfgrk tgqaagfsyt danknkgitw gedtlmeyle npkkyipgtk mifagikkkg eradliaylk katne rat
gdvekgkkif vqkcaqchtv ekggkhktgp nlhglfgrkt gqaagfsytd anknkgitwg edtlmeylen pkkyipgtkm ifagikkkge radliaylkk atne guinea pig
gdvekgkkif vqkcaqchtv ekggkhktgp nlhglfgrkt gqavgfsytd anknkgitwg eetlmeylen pkkyipgtkm ifagikkkge radliaylkk atne gray whale
gdvekgkkif vqkcaqchtv ekggkhktgp nlhglfgrkt gqavgfsytd anknkgitwg eetlmeylen pkkyipgtkm ifagikkkge radliaylkk atne camel
gdvekgkkif vqkcaqchtv ekggkhktgp nlhglfgrkt gqapgfsytd anknkgitwg eetlmeylen pkkyipgtkm ifagikkkge redliaylkk atne pig
mgdiekgkki fvqkcsqcht vekggkhktg pnlhglfgrk tgqaegfsyt danknkgitw gedtlmeyle npkkyipgtk mifagikkks ervdliaylk datsk chicken
gdvekgkkif vqkcsqchtv ekggkhktgp nlhglfgrkt gqaegfsytd anknkgitwg edtlmeylen pkkyipgtkm ifagikkkse radliaylkd atak duck
gdiekgkkif vqkcsqchtv ekggkhktgp nlhglfgrkt gqaegfsytd anknkgitwg edtlmeylen pkkyipgtkm ifagikkkae radliaylkq atak pigeon
gdiekgkkif vqkcsqchtv ekggkhktgp nlhgifgrkt gqaegfsytd anknkgitwg edtlmeylen pkkyipgtkm ifagikkkse radliaylkd atsk penguin
gdiekgkkif vqkcsqchtv ekggkhktgp nldglfgrkt gqaegfsytd anknkgitwg edtlmeylen pkkyipgtkm ifagikkkse radliaylkd atsk ostrich
gdvekgkkif vqkcaqchtv ekggkhktgp nlhgligrkt gqapgfsyte anknkgitwg eetlmeylen pkkyipgtkm ifagikkkpe radliaylke atsn alligator
gdvekgkkif vqkcaqchtv ekggkhktgp nlngligrkt gqaegfsyte anknkgitwg eetlmeylen pkkyipgtkm ifagikkkae radliaylkd atsk snapping turtle
gdvekgkkif smkcgtchtv eeggkhktgp nlhglfgrkt gqavgysyta anknkgiiwg ddtlmeylen pkkyipgtkm vftglkskke rtdliaylke atak rattlesnake
gdvekgkkif vqkcsqchtv ekggkhktgp nlhqlfgrkt geaegfsyta anknkgitwg edtlfeylen pkkyipgtkm ifagikkkte rddliaylke atak monitor
gdvekgkkif vqkcaqchtc ekggkhkvgp nlygligrkt gqaagfsytd anknkgitwg edtlmeylen pkkyipgtkm ifagikkkge rqdliaylks acsk bullfrog
gdvakgkktf vqkcaqchtv enggkhkvgp nlwglfgrkt gqaegysytd ankskgivwn entlmeylen pkkyipgtkm ifagikkkge rqdlvaylks ats tuna
gdvekgkkvf vqkcaqchtv zbggkhkvgp nlwglfgrkt gqapgfsytb abkskgivwb zztlmeylzb pkkyipgtkm ifagikkkge radliaylks ats carp
gqvekgkkif vqrcaqchtv ekagkhktgp nlngilgrkt gqaagfsytd anrnkgitwk netlfeylen pkkyipgtkm vfaglkkqke rqdliaylea atk starfish
gvpagdvekg kkifvqrcaq chtveaggkh kvgpnlhglf grktgqapgf aytdankakg itwnedtlfe ylenpkkyip gtkmifaglk kpnergdlia ylksatk flesh fly
mgvpagdvek gkklfvqrca qchtveaggk hkvgpnlhgl igrktgqaag faytdankak gitwnedtlf eylenpkkyi pgtkmifagl kkpnergdli aylksatk fruit fly
asfseappgn pkagekifkt kcaqchtvek gaghkqgpnl nglfgrqsgt tagysysaan knkavvween tlydyllnpk kyipgtkmvf pglkkpqera dliaylkeat a corn
asfaeapagd pttgakifkt kcaqchtvek gaghkqgpnl nglfgrqsgt tagysysaan knmaviween tlydyllnpk kyipgtkmvf pglkkpqera dliaylktst a sunflower</pre>[/quote]

You can compare the sequences here. Most notably, compare the sequences of humans and chimps...you'll find that the sequences I gave are identical, and the sequence for the chimps is quite close to the sequence to the rhesus monkey. You'll also notice that the tuna and the carp are very similar, the mouse and the rat are similiar, etc. These things are *exactly* what one would expect to see if one hypothesized that there was an ancestral relationship between species. In plain english, it means that we see what we would expect to see if evolution were true.