Urvogel Reverie

Specious rot. Shift in allele frequency is at the very heart of allopatric speciation in that it precludes the mixture of populations and the maintenance of genotypic homogeneity. It is not possible to construe the variation in the frequency of alleles within populations both isolated and otherwise, as anything but the most compelling of data to substantiate evolutionary biology. It furthermore accounts for the dynamism which was implicit in the Darwinian treatment of organic evolution and yet unquantified due to the lack of genetic understanding comparative to ours, in 1859--after all, it was not even until 1900 that Mendel's work on heredity was rediscovered, and it would be another half century before the composition of the gene would be discovered. Genetics, synthesized with the traditional Darwinian mechanisms, has rather than refuting evolutionary biology, as anti-evolutionists long predicted, overwhelmingly corroborated it.

As a side note, as not a single work of evolutionary biology labels giraffes or any other eutherians as the phyletic progenitors of even a paraphyletic hodgepodge such as "fish", your claim to the contrary is quite simply assinine.


Urvogel Reverie

Urvogel Reverie

CD:

I hate to have to be the one to tell you this, but there's a whole bunch we don't know about micro biology. So, no, I'm afraid I can't explain the presence of the telomeres in the middle of chromosome 2 in humans and apes.



And you completely avoid the issue that the fusion of chromosomal elements plesiomorphic in chimps, in humans (constituting an autapomorphy of genus Homo), is compelling evidence for evolutionary biology, not the least of the reasons being that by anti-evolutionary standards, no such fusion should be present. Your response to this particular claim was nothing less than categoric dismissal without examination of the data presented. I believe if you modify it slightly, one could have a Gish Gallop.

Urvogel Reverie

Charles Darwin

Yes, I do understand the retroviral insertion argument. They are supposed to be irreversible markers; which is why, for example, the [Ape + chimp but not human] ERV is interesting since at the homologous human site the DNA sequence clearly shows a clean pre insertion site. I also understand know that ERVs can have site selectivity. And I also understand that, if evolution is true, there must have been a sort of "punctuated equilibrium" in the HERV world; and that HERVs must have played a role in evolution since they, in fact, have a regulatory function.

One can always contrive some sort of explanation if one is willing to invoke enough contingencies, special events, what-if's, and so forth. And so therefore, you may argue this is not evidence against evolution. But the price you pay is your theory becomes less compelling because it is so moldable. And your position that it is a fact is likewise weakened (as if it ever had any strength to it).

Charles Darwin

Sorry, you have to read down to the bottom of the post. I was typing fast, and meant for that response to go along with my other responses for the remainder of the post, because he was bringing up similar types of claims.

I was not at all disimissing the claim, but merely pointing out the nature of the claim. I fully agreed with him that evolution becomes a fact (for him).

lpetrich

Charles Darwin:
(29 evidences for macroevolution, talkorigins.org)
... There is, in fact, no explanation for how life and her species are supposed to have evolved.

What did you expect? These are evidence of a fairly continuous chains of species that have a branching-tree topology.

CD, are you challenging that? And if you think that some alternative is closer to the truth, then what is it?

Do you accept this topology of equine relationships, or do you believe it was something else?

And if you do, do you believe that it represents ancestor-descendant chains or something like

55 myr: *POOF!* Hyracotherium was created
50 myr: *POOF!* Orohippus was created
40 myr: *POOF!* Mesohippus was created
35 myr: *POOF!* Miohippus was created
17 myr: *POOF!* Merychippus was created
12 myr: *POOF!* Dinohippus was created
4 myr: *POOF!* Equus was created
2 myr: *POOF!* Various present-day equine species created

And in human ancestry:

5 myr: *POOF!* Ardipithecus ramidus was created
4 myr: *POOF!* Australopithecus afarensis was created
3 myr: *POOF!* Australopithecus africanus was created
2.7 myr: *POOF!* Paranthropus aethiopicus was created
2.3 myr: *POOF!* Paranthropus boisei was created
2 myr: *POOF!* Paranthropus robustus was created
2.5 myr: *POOF!* Homo habilis was created
2 myr: *POOF!* Homo erectus was created
0.7 myr: *POOF!* Homo heidelbergensis was created
0.3 myr: *POOF!* Homo neanderthalensis was created
0.1 myr: *POOF!* Homo sapiens was created

With each species having a suspicious resemblance to existing species.

And of course there still is no explanation for how something like our friend echolocation is supposed to have evolved; or did the first bacteria echolocate too?

Echolocation is much simpler to develop than CD seems to think -- why does he seem to think that only a full-scale, very-fancy echolocation system could ever be useful?

All you have to do to start echolocating is making sounds and listening for echoes. It's that simple.

Charles Darwin

That's an interesting claim. How could it be that :

"It is not possible to construe the variation in the frequency of alleles within populations both isolated and otherwise, as anything but the most compelling of data to substantiate evolutionary biology."

Starting with the 2nd half of the claim, you are saying that these data are "most compelling." That's awfully strong language for something that, in fact, creates no new sequences. Obviously evolution requires massive genetic changes, and this gives us none. Hmmm.

Then, on to the 1st half of the claim, you seem to think "it is not possible to construe" the data "as anything but" supporting evolution. This is, of course, not a scientific statement. In science we propose theories rather than make metaphysical proclamations. We say, "If P, then Q", not "If and only if P, then Q". The former describes the expected outcome of a theory. The latter is a universal truth claim about Q. But then again, who said this was science.

Then why is the recurrent laryngeal nerve evidence for evolution?

Charles Darwin

I really don't know, but I do know that the mythical horse sequence convinced many a lay person for the better part of a century before it was finally admitted to be, well, ... mythical. What we have is a bunch of different species which, if evolution is true, must have punctuated into each other. I also know that evolution, beyond handwaving, doesn't explain how any of those species got there in the first place anyway. Why is it you think this makes evolution a scientific fact?



I see. You and the other folks -- I see a pattern. Of course we cannot believe they were created, so ..., evolution must be true. We were talking about a scientific fact, but this is a switch. What you are really saying is this is a metaphysical fact. Given your metaphysical position, evolution is a fact. Ok, I'll buy that.

Sorry, it is a little more complicated than that.

Charles Darwin

But since I did not, in fact, say that, your point is irrelevant.

Charles Darwin

But, in fact, I did not say that.

Doctor X

Look OUT! TAKE COVER!!!



--J.D.