• 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.

For scientists who accept evolution

hgc said:
I've thought each of these things about hammy at various times, but I have to keep modifying my theory with the evolution of his silliness.
Click to expand...
"As a dog returneth to his vomit, so a fool returneth to his folly."
 
Last edited:
hammegk said:
Indeed, and every one of them is predicted by mutation and genetics, classic micro-ev.
Click to expand...
Could you clarify what you mean by "micro-ev?" From the post I'm quoting here it seems that you are including speciation within your definition.

You seem to be accepting in this response to new drkitten's post that speciation has been observed. Do you accept that the cumulative effect of a series of small changes over a long period of time can amount to a larger change? There is no suggestion in the theory of evolution by natural selection that large changes come about within a couple of generations. The idea that evolution is anything other than gradual is a creationist strawman.
 
Mojo said:
Could you clarify what you mean by "micro-ev?" From the post I'm quoting here it seems that you are including speciation within your definition.

You seem to be accepting in this response to new drkitten's post that speciation has been observed. Do you accept that the cumulative effect of a series of small changes over a long period of time can amount to a larger change? There is no suggestion in the theory of evolution by natural selection that large changes come about within a couple of generations. The idea that evolution is anything other than gradual is a creationist strawman.
Click to expand...
Unless you can come up with a dog-cat intermediate form, hammy's lying, insane, retarded ramblings will continue unabated.
 
This is the first I've heard of the Meyer paper, but this kind of stuff interests me, so I've read a bunch of things on the subject, including stamenflicker's links. My conclusions are as follows:

1) The actual scientific controversy over this paper appears to have nothing to do with Intelligent Design whatsoever, however the idea may have caught on with the public.

2) At the heart of the matter is Sternberg's acceptance of the paper without an associate editor or a board of reviewers. This is not standard academic practice. Sternberg admits to having done this. He also admits to having done this in the past. He claims to have "discussed" the matter with colleagues, but this does not cut the mustard. Sternberg claims that this was in accordance with editorial policy; the editors of the journal claim otherwise. As an erstwhile academic, I have reviewed my share of papers, and we are not even told the name, sex, or nationality of the authors of the papers that we review, so as to eliminate as well as possible sources of bias. We take this extremely seriously, and so the practices that Sternberg admits to seem to me eye-wateringly incompetent. This is sufficient to indicate a dereliction of duty as an editor.

3) The Meyer paper itself appears not to be very good and not up to publication standards. It boils down to an elaborate case of begging the question, where an essentially phyletic rather than cladistic system is assumed, and the difference between that and cladistics is used as an argument against the basis of cladistics, which is common descent. While there is a fairly vicious fight between cladists and phyleticists, it occurs largely in publication. Phyletics papers are published all the time, but they have to be good, that is, honestly argued.

4) Sternberg admits not to specializing in taxonomy, and so was not in a particularly good position to detect sleight-of-hand. Furthermore, his subscription to "process structuralism" would be consistent with a higher level of selection bias. This compounds the problems in 2.

5) Sternberg whines a lot about having had to give up his master key at the Smithsonian and being forced to leave by a hostile work environment. He may have some legal recourse for this, as his editing is "off-duty." Legal standards are a whole different kettle of fish from academic standards. However, Sternberg cannot complain from an academic standpoint if he feels the effects of his own choice to tarnish his reputation.
 
epepke said:
As an erstwhile academic, I have reviewed my share of papers, and we are not even told the name, sex, or nationality of the authors of the papers that we review, so as to eliminate as well as possible sources of bias. We take this extremely seriously, and so the practices that Sternberg admits to seem to me eye-wateringly incompetent. This is sufficient to indicate a dereliction of duty as an editor.
Click to expand...

This anonymity policy varies widely from field to field - I have never reviewed an anonymous paper, and I think I've reviewed for all the major physics journals. (It simply wouldnt be possible, since the papers normally go up on the arxiv before being submitted to a journal.) I can certainly therefore imagine situations in which it may be the "standard" policy, but not necessarily rigorously enforced in practise...
 
mojo said:
Could you clarify what you mean by "micro-ev?" From the post I'm quoting here it seems that you are including speciation within your definition.
Click to expand...
The word "species" has been twisted to Alice-in-Wonderland status since no single, good definition exists. Micro-ev is change by mutation and heredity within what the layman would accept as a "species", say, "all dogs", or "all fruit flies (no matter how bizarre a forced mutation might be)", or all bacteria of strain x(however x are correctly specified).

You seem to be accepting in this response to new drkitten's post that speciation has been observed. Do you accept that the cumulative effect of a series of small changes over a long period of time can amount to a larger change? There is no suggestion in the theory of evolution by natural selection that large changes come about within a couple of generations.
Click to expand...
The interesting thing is that major change does occur nearly instantaneously both in the lab and in the fossil record, ergo, punctuated equilibrium or whatever the current buzz is. What we don't find -- anywhere -- are incontrovertible intermediate forms.

The idea that evolution is anything other than gradual is a creationist strawman.
Click to expand...
Too bad the data don't support this where data exists, in the lab and in nature (dogs is dogs) for micro-ev, and in the fossils for the big picture.


Dr Adequate said:
....As I and all scientists know, they are in the fossil record.
Click to expand...
Cite the "intermediate form" you like best, and we'll take a detailed look at the underlying data and assumptions.

Something good: Huntsman mentioned "the Chihuahua is a good Dog-rat transitional". That'd do it, huh? If you were looking at fossils spanning a fair amount of geologic time, that might make a great fit. LOL!


hgc & me go way back: The following is a sample of 99% of his contributions:
Unless you can come up with a dog-cat intermediate form, hammy's lying, insane, retarded ramblings will continue unabated.
Click to expand...
Dog-Cat? Who mentioned hyena? Oh yeah Deetee .... ;)

chipmunk stew said:
So your answer to speciation is what, exactly?
Click to expand...
Ask Dr Adequate; he purports to know. Perhaps he will explain it to your satisfaction. First you might have him fess up the number of definitions of species he finds useful.

More on point, how many abiogenesis events occurred? One, two, 3, 3 dozen, 3 thousand? And how convenient that common ancestor is the word, until, whoops, parallel evolution explains this similarity.



Finally, may I suggest Dr. Adequate and hgc get a room & practice trading tongue-lashings since that seems something both enjoy.:D
 
hammegk said:
chipmunk stew said:
So your answer to speciation is what, exactly?
Click to expand...
Ask Dr Adequate; he purports to know. Perhaps he will explain it to your satisfaction. First you might have him fess up the number of definitions of species he finds useful.
Click to expand...
I can reasonably surmise what Dr. A believes based on his responses. I'm asking you. You come at evolution with your hole-poker from every direction, trying to break through, even at risk of self-contradiction. I'm asking you: if evolution does not adequately explain the origin of species, then what does?
 
hammegk said:
Cite the "intermediate form" you like best, and we'll take a detailed look at the underlying data and assumptions.
Click to expand...
I'd be happy to let you pick, but since you ask, let's do the transition through forms represented by featherless therapods such as Deinychus and Comsognathus, feathered wingless therapods such as Caudipteryx, Sinosauropteryx, Sinornithosaurus, and Protoarchaeopteryx, winged therapods such as Archaeopteyrx, primitive birds such as Sinornis, and modern birds.

The underlying assumption is that "intermediate forms" means exactly what Darwin said it did in the Origin of Species, and the underlying data is the fossils.
 
hammegk said:
The interesting thing is that major change does occur nearly instantaneously both in the lab and in the fossil record, ergo, punctuated equilibrium or whatever the current buzz is. What we don't find -- anywhere -- are incontrovertible intermediate forms.
Click to expand...
the reason transitional forms are rarely seen in the fossil record is that the formation of fossils is a fairly rare event, and while change, when it occurs, is gradual, the timescale over which the change happens seems to be short compared with the amount of time for which species exist in a stable form. A species that is well adapted to its environment will tend to stay the same for as long as the environment remains stable. It is also thought that changes may take place in comparatively small and temporarily isolated sub-populations of a species, thus making it even less likely that the relevant individuals are fossilised.

As for your suggestion that intermediate forms are not found, you might as well discuss the example Dr. A has provided, but ambulocetus is also pretty neat.
 
hammegk said:
The word "species" has been twisted to Alice-in-Wonderland status since no single, good definition exists.
Click to expand...

No good definition exist because species as you understand them simply don't exist. The differences between organisms can not be classified in such a simplistic discrete way. In all organisms, we see the same continuous variability caused by incremental mutations from common ancestors.

The more distantly related two animals are, the more different the mutations their non-mutual ancestors passed on to them. Our concept of "species" is just a crude way of noting how nature has culled out the less successful variations along the way.

You'll find exactly the same problem in defining "family" in humans. Is your grandmother related to you? Are her children related to you? Are your great grandmother's children's children related to you? Technically, everyone is related to everyone else. But if we adopt that interpretation, then the words "family" and "related" don't mean anything anymore.

"Family" and "species" are nouns that refer to a subset of a whole, but the selection of that subset reflects only vague characteristics shared by the members of the subset. Any strict definition of that subset is unsatisfactory. What we are describing doesn't actually exist as a physical phenomena. You cannot define "species" or "family," in the strict sense, because there is always some grey area. Humans created the words for convenience. Don't get hung up on them.
 
One thing that comes to mind when talking about species changing and claims that macroevolution is impossible: "Before a river changes course, does it ask a map for permission?"

"Species," to me, seems to be just a convenient way to label a large group of organisms that are genetically compatible with each other.
 
epepke said:
The Meyer paper itself appears not to be very good and not up to publication standards. It boils down to an elaborate case of begging the question, where an essentially phyletic rather than cladistic system is assumed, and the difference between that and cladistics is used as an argument against the basis of cladistics, which is common descent. While there is a fairly vicious fight between cladists and phyleticists, it occurs largely in publication. Phyletics papers are published all the time, but they have to be good, that is, honestly argued.
Click to expand...

Do you have links to any scholarly reviews of his article, particularly the outlining of his questions? Just looking for more reading material on the subject.

Flick
 
chipmunk stew said:
I'm asking you: if evolution does not adequately explain the origin of species, then what does?
Click to expand...

That's not really a fair question. A better one would be, "If evolution does not adequately explain the origin of species, then why not?" An alternative theory is not a pre-requisite to debunking a current one. Either the theory stands scientifically, or it does not... if we are to be logical about it anyway.

Flick
 
Dr Adequate said:
The underlying assumption is that "intermediate forms" means exactly what Darwin said it did in the Origin of Species, and the underlying data is the fossils.
Click to expand...

But the underlying assumptions drawn from the underlying data in the fossils doesn't always agree with the underlying data of molecular biology. It may not have to agree in all situations, but as soon as we begin the taxa process, it should at least be considered. In the end, we are still left with a historical sketch drawn from the evidence, which may or may not be accurate. So the decision really comes down to, "Is the best we have?"

http://www.ulb.ac.be/sciences/ueg/pdf_files/Milinkovitch&Weiler_98.pdf

Flick
 
A bit of light reading for our hardcore evolutionists on some of Dr.A's favorite "intermediate links".

http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/471

Notice that cited best cases have dissenters other than myself. ;)




I still like 'hyena' as the intermediate link between dogs & cats. ROTFL.:D


A question on intermediate links: Do textbooks no longer use the horse lineage? And finally, cetaceans are cetaceans, (useable) legs or not.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom