• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Evolution: the Facts.

Dr Adequate said:
Could you be more explict? Thanks.
Click to expand...

It goes from

A saltation, if it ever happened, would be the sudden production of one species from another: for example, a sheep giving birth to a lion. This never happens.
Click to expand...

which I take to mean that parents of one generation will never produce offspring which are of a different, new species, i.e. incapable of breeding with their parents or members of their parents' population.
[ Other than for reasons like non-overlapping generations. ]

Later on we have

Consider the following fact: two people, both over six feet tall, can have sex and produce a child who is an achondroplasic dwarf. Is this not saltation?
Click to expand...

My initial reaction is that it isn't, from the definition given, because achondroplasic dwarfs are not a different species from 6+footers.

But you say :

It is and it isn't.
Click to expand...

And then

Morphologically, it is a great big leap. But in genetic terms, we should say that it is the smallest change possible: it is a single nucleotide substitution.
Click to expand...

But what has this to do with the definition? It was just about one species being produced 'instanteously' from another - not about the magnitude of the physical or genetic difference between them. So it doesn't seem relevant as to why 6+footers > dwarf might be considered a saltation.

So when we say that saltations don't happen, what we mean is not that a sudden morphological change can't happen; what we mean is that a whole lot of coordinated mutations won't all happen together.
Click to expand...

So now saltation seems to mean "a whole lot of coordinated mutations".

We also know of mechanisms such as polyploid mutation and lateral gene transfer which can suddenly produce new genomes and new species from old. But both these mechanisms involve the production of new genomes by shuffling together pre-existing genes. These mechanisms do not involve the sudden coordinated simultaneous production of a whole lot of brand-new genes.
Click to expand...

And now we have mechanisms which, it's implied, do produce new species in a single generation, so saltations CAN occur. Or can they? :confused:
 
I've added a piece on [swiki]Volcanic Ash[/swiki].

---

I note that my article on [swiki]Igneous Rocks[/swiki] is among the top ten google hits if you search on this subject.

I hope that I'm the first person to notice that I said in it that Ma was the chemical symbol for magnesium.

* bangs head on desk *

I know perfectly well that that isn't true.

---

I shall get round to addressing sphenisc's concerns about [swiki]Saltation[/swiki] eventually. Unfortunately I'm currently suffering from a painful bout of laziness complicated by congenital apathy.
 
[swiki]Volcanic Ash[/swiki]


:( it comes out of volcanoes, and ou can hardly get more igneous than that

:) it comes out of volcanoes, and you can hardly get more igneous than that




:( when we see a horizontally continous layer of volcanic ash

:) when we see a horizontally continuous layer of volcanic ash




:( where the clasts have been squashed and welded togeth

:) where the clasts have been squashed and welded together
 
Last edited:
Dr Adequate said:
I note that my article on [swiki]Igneous Rocks[/swiki] is among the top ten google hits if you search on this subject.
Click to expand...
On your machine, perhaps... but not on mine...

One possible explanation is that Google has 'learned' about your surfing history/trends and, in recognising your 'fondness' for sWiki, adds weight to the whole site in your SERPs
 
Introduction
Volcanic ash is the name given to the fine particles of igneous rock produced by a volcano. As such, the name "volcanic ash" is a misnomer, since "ash" means a residue after incineration: the name is left over from times when people thought that volcanic ash really was ash.
Click to expand...
Upon reading this intro (to yet another fascinating article:)), my first line of questioning concerned the mass, volume, etc of a typical particle of ash...

I.e. if it ain't really ash, how come it floats in the air for so long?
 
six7s said:
On your machine, perhaps... but not on mine...

One possible explanation is that Google has 'learned' about your surfing history/trends and, in recognising your 'fondness' for sWiki, adds weight to the whole site in your SERPs
Click to expand...
It can do that?

(I don't even know what a SERP is.)

I'm not sure if this is the right explanation, because other people who look at it a lot less have confirmed high page ranks for SW articles. I have noticed a slight variation from country to country (you're a Kiwi aren't you?). I'll check next time I'm at the library by using their computer to search for some pages which come up high-ranked when I do it. Or perhaps other people reading this thread could give me some data?

---

Thanks for catching the typos. I do use the Firefox spellchecker, but I don't think it makes the red lines thick enough, 'cos I often manage to overlook a few.
 
If I search google for "igneous rocks" (in quotes), the SkepticWiki link appears as entry number 59 (next to last on page 6, 10 entries per page).
 
Thanks.

Hmm ... perhaps google is keeping tabs on me then.

Is there anything google doesn't know?

And ... is it ever ... wrathful?
 
Dr Adequate said:
Hmm ... perhaps google is keeping tabs on me then.
Click to expand...
It will be, unless you have explicitly excluded its 'intelligence gathering' functionality

Dr Adequate said:
Is there anything google doesn't know?
Click to expand...
Maybe... seems it knows nothing of "french military victories" ;)

For more, see Google bombing

Dr Adequate said:
And ... is it ever ... wrathful?
Click to expand...
Not towards surfers... only to webmasters that engage in Black-Hat SEO tactics (aka Spamdexing)

The Google minus 30 penalty
The minus 30 penalty is usually reserved for good and beneficial websites that have a few minor flaws which can be black hat (bad) or even grey hat (the grey area between bad and good). Usual infractions include SEO steps like keyword spamming, hidden text, too many affiliate links (especially casino and hotel links at this time), and duplicate content issues amongst other similar infractions.

No one at the Google plex is talking about or admiting to this penalty, but the fact is it is happening right now and you cannot deny it when you move from page #1 to page #4 and stay there
Click to expand...



Fixing the Google 950 Penalty
What is the google 950 penalty? A website or page suddenly drops to the last page of google results, a loss of approximately 950 places, hence the term "950 penalty"

Does the penalty actually exist? Absolutely yes. A website does not drop to the last page because it has suddenly become less important or relevant than all the websites that havent dropped. It drops to the last page because it has been penalized.

Why is the penalty applied to a website? Google isnt saying anything, so nobody knows for sure. Our guess would be that the most likely explanation is that the website does not follow the google webmaster guidelines, or has triggered some kind of spam filter. But we can only guess at this stage.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
I give up figuring which, if either, of you I agree with because you've strayed so far afield. I really shouldn't show up without reading the previous 30 pages, but they WERE previous and there WAS 30 of them.
 
I've added an article on [swiki]Hydrological Sorting[/swiki], one of the stupider ad hoc creationist attempts to explain away the evidence.
 
Dr Adequate said:
I've added an article on [swiki]Hydrological Sorting[/swiki], one of the stupider ad hoc creationist attempts to explain away the evidence.
Click to expand...
Luckily, I speak stupid fluently :p



:( "Hydological sorting" or "hydrologic sorting" is a phrase

:) "Hydrological sorting" or "hydrologic sorting" is a phrase
 
Getting the Theory of Evolution Wrong:

Sometimes creationists take the trouble to get the theory of evolution wrong in much more detail.

'---------
Evolution and Complexity

"The "opposite of evolution" would be an evolutionary trend towards decreased adaptation to a species's way of life,"

Not according to the Futuyama definition you give under "Theory of Evolution". That refers simply to change without indicating a particular direction. A trend towards decreased adaptation would still be evolution, though not one driven by natural selection.
The opposite of evolution would be "no change" - like salt in a salt cellar; individual grains may come and go, but the population as as whole doesn't change

... such as the addition of useless excrescences to whales. This, of course, does not happen. "

Right Whales do have excrescences http://whale.wheelock.edu/archives/ask03/0208.html[/url, and their function is unknown.
 
Mmm ... a fine point. But I guess you're technically correct. How about if I said: "The opposite of the evolutionary process, as specified by the theory of evolution ..."

---

I don't see why you've bolded the "t" in "trouble". If this is a hint that I've made a mistake, please let me know what it is.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom