Help me out here guys.

[plindboe]

"Are you a paleontologist who've spend (sic) a lifetime carefully examining the evidence, or are you a layman who read some articles by Gould and agree with him because he wrote some provocative things that you liked to see?"

Explain the insistence on the constant effort to minimalize anyone who doesn't agree with all aspects of the evolutionary party line. Are you a sheep who worships at the alter of science, or do ever actually think about any of these things?

"Fact is, there's still lots of debate in the scientific community"

Which I would think would allow for debate for it elsewhere. In addition, I tried to post diagrams in a few of my prior post illustrating the two schools of thought, but due to the odd rules of this web-site, will not be able to until I reach the magic number of 100 post. This makes no sense, but it is what it is. But you still seem to take the position that I have never seen any of this stuff before.

I apologize for the ad hom. Even though you made several earlier in this thread, I don't think two wrongs make a right, so I should have been more polite.

I've been a biology student for two years now and I know I still have alot to learn. I try to insert words such as "probably", "perhaps" and "indicate" etc. into my writing, because I realize that I don't know enough to take a firm stand on the issues yet. I'm also sure I make mistakes here and there. I'll go wherever the evidence points, in other words dogmatism isn't my thing.

This is probably why it bothers me when I see people who determine scientific truth based on religious bias (i.e. dogmatism). Now I'm not saying that's what you do, but you've inserted 'theism vs. atheism' into the discussion several times, which is one reason why I suspected that there was something other than pure objectivity at play here.

That said, do you accept Gingerich's evidence for phyletic gradualism? Gould and Eldredge took it very seriously and said that it could falsify their theory, but they felt more research was needed.

Peter

 

[Vene]

"I did read the quote"

Yes, but obviously not the entire post.

Wrong again, I did read the whole post.

"majority of the people on this board disagree with you"

About what, specifically? I did get some responses on the 'moral relativism' issue, but not much else.

Then why do you get people arguing with you over evolution?

"and the majority of them were atheists."

Which goes to prove the point I made in that particular post.

So, are the others not moral as well? And you feel you can judge a whole group based on a few individuals on a debate board (which, by it's very nature is very confrontational). Get some thicker skin, just because people don't immediately fawn over you and your great ideas doesn't mean that they're immoral. It's an insult and is actually quite petty.

"you happen to like Lamarckian evolution."

I think the study of epigenetics and neo-lamarckism can account for processes which neo-darwinism can't. Read up on Steele's work along with studies on the epigenetic control on the HIV-1 virus.

Epigenetic=/=Lamarck. I know what Larmarckian evolution is, Larmarck thought that altering the phenotype of the parent organisms would change the characteristics of the offspring. It's long been disproven.

"Which is just as stupid as creationism by the way."

This comment validates the points I made in the post you seem to be so upset about. Thanks.

I'm upset? Really? Calling something stupid stupid doesn't mean I'm upset. And here's why I called Larmackian evolution stupid. In the Soviet Union a man by the name of Lysenko decided that Darwinian evolution was not fit for Communism. It was because of him following Lamarck that the USSR has such big problems with agriculture. Whereas, in Western Europe and North America, Darwinian evolution was used by biologists and we didn't have those problems. Not to mention the political backlash against geneticists. This is why I call Lamarckian evolution stupid, it was used and it was a failure. And don't say it was because the Soviets were scientifically illiterate, they had great physicists and chemists.
source 1
source 2
source 3

 

[milkyway]

From ignorance.

I feel a quote coming on! Time to teach you a lesson about science from one the 20th Century's greatest scientists:

"The scientist has a lot of experience with ignorance and doubt and uncertainty, and this experience is of very great importance, I think. We have found it of paramount importance that in order to progress, we must recognize our ignorance and leave room for doubt. Scientific knowledge is a body of statements of varying degrees of certainty — some most unsure, some nearly sure, but none absolutely certain. Our freedom to doubt was born out of a struggle against authority in the early days of science. It was a very deep and strong struggle: permit us to question — to doubt — to not be sure. I think that it is important that we do not forget this struggle and thus perhaps lose what we have gained."

Richard Feynman

 

[Assyrian]

Are you a sheep who worships at the alter of science, or do ever actually think about any of these things?

I am alway puzzled by the phrase "worship at the altar of science". Who came up with it? Because whoever they, are they know nothing about either science, or for that matter worship. So why would Christians who do know what it means to truly bow your heart in worship, repeat such an empty slogan?

 

[pgp_protector]

I am alway puzzled by the phrase "worship at the altar of science". Who came up with it? Because whoever they, are they know nothing about either science, or for that matter worship. So why would Christians who do know what it means to truly bow your heart in worship, repeat such an empty slogan?

it's an easy attack would be my guess.

 

[Vene]

Are you a sheep who worships at the alter of science, or do ever actually think about any of these things?

So far, I've been told that atheists worship the following:
Allah
Nature
Time
Death
The Goddess
Darwin
Dawkins (granted, he's described as a prophet)
The government

And now, I'll have to add science to that list. Wow, for claiming not to worship anything, us atheists have a lot of gods.

 

[Chalnoth]

it's an easy attack would be my guess.

Or just psychological projection. Those who make the attack think so little of religion and worship that they're willing to use them as epithets to attack their opponents. Obviously if a person is worshiping something, after all, they lose all objectivity and ability to distinguish truth from falsity. All that is important is that their image of the object of their worship be left untainted.

At least, that seems to be the impression they're attempting to provide. Makes me wonder why they're still religious.

 

[MasterOfKrikkit]

So far, I've been told that atheists worship the following:
Allah
Nature
Time
Death
The Goddess
Darwin
Dawkins (granted, he's described as a prophet)
The government

And now, I'll have to add science to that list. Wow, for claiming not to worship anything, us atheists have a lot of gods.

Even more than the three that those monotheistic Christians have...

 

[Loudmouth]

I am alway puzzled by the phrase "worship at the altar of science". Who came up with it?

Sounds like a Hovindism to me. He was always big on comparing evolution to religion.

Because whoever they, are they know nothing about either science, or for that matter worship. So why would Christians who do know what it means to truly bow your heart in worship, repeat such an empty slogan?

Indeed, it is quite telling. It also reads like a tacit admission that science is better than religion. I have yet to see a scientist claim that creationism is just another science in order to denigrate creationism, and yet creationists try to denigrate creationism by comparing it to a religion.

It's also projection. Creationists base their ideas on religious dogma so they figure everyone else does too.

 

[Tomk80]

Because PE came up, I will write my short introduction to PE again.

PE is a theory that evolution proceeds in variable timephrames. Long times of stasis, short times of change. This shows as a jump in the fossil record. Now, the cause of this jump in the fossil record, according to the theory, is because the evolution proceeds gradually in an isolated location in a small population. Kind of like this:

Location 1          Location 2[INDENT]Species A           Species A
Species A           Species B
Species A           Species C
Species A           Species D
Species A           Species E
Species A           Species F
Species F           Species F[/INDENT]

This would give the appearance of a jump. However, as can be seen, it would not be an actual jump. So whether PE or "gradualism" are right, this doesn't mean much for the molecular mechanism behind it. It is only a change in location and population involved in the evolution, not the biological mechanism behind it. The jump would be an illusion, with the evolution going on behind the scenes. Like any good magic trick, the action is not going on where you look. So it will be very hard to find the actual location. The evidence Eldridge and Gould provided was to find the gradual evolution sequence in that isolated location for a number of species.

 

[Loudmouth]

Because PE came up, I will write my short introduction to PE again.

PE is a theory that evolution proceeds in variable timephrames. Long times of stasis, short times of change. This shows as a jump in the fossil record. Now, the cause of this jump in the fossil record, according to the theory, is because the evolution proceeds gradually in an isolated location in a small population. Kind of like this:

Location 1          Location 2[INDENT]Species A           Species A[/INDENT]

[INDENT]Species A           Species B[/INDENT]

[INDENT]Species A           Species C[/INDENT]

[INDENT]Species A           Species D[/INDENT]

[INDENT]Species A           Species E[/INDENT]

[INDENT]Species A           Species F[/INDENT]

[INDENT]Species F           Species F[/INDENT]

This would give the appearance of a jump. However, as can be seen, it would not be an actual jump. So whether PE or "gradualism" are right, this doesn't mean much for the molecular mechanism behind it. It is only a change in location and population involved in the evolution, not the biological mechanism behind it. The jump would be an illusion, with the evolution going on behind the scenes. Like any good magic trick, the action is not going on where you look. So it will be very hard to find the actual location. The evidence Eldridge and Gould provided was to find the gradual evolution sequence in that isolated location for a number of species.

This is exactly what Darwin hypothesized in Origin of 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. [Charles Darwin, Origin of Species 1st Edition 1859, p.439]
​

So the idea that PE is somehow non-Darwinian is a bit of a misnomer.

 

[Tomk80]

This is exactly what Darwin hypothesized in Origin of 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. [Charles Darwin, Origin of Species 1st Edition 1859, p.439]​

So the idea that PE is somehow non-Darwinian is a bit of a misnomer.

True. This is also something that has been pointed out by many people before. Probably Gould's habit of overstatement has caused a bit more harm than good in this case.

On the other hand, creationists would have twisted what he said anyway.

 

[dad]

The key word was reasonable. Proven beyond reasonable doubt. Your doubts are quite unreasonable.

What I was talking about is not even addressed, let alone proven beyond reason. You guys simply put the facts on the altar of so called science, and do your best to slay the truth.

 

[sfs]

Darwinian gradualists insist that evolution was the product of slow genetic drift and natural selection. One problem with this lies in the fossil record. The so-called "gaps" in the fossil record were assumed to have simply not been geologically preserved, as you suggest. While it is likely that most past species were not preserved as fossils...it is unlikely that the lack of preservation would be so heavily biased against the missing transitional species.

Could you provide the calculation of these probabilities? For how many closely related species pairs do we have numerous finely spaced fossils?

Gould and his fellow "punk eeks" suggested that evolution occurs in sudden bursts which punctuate long periods of stasis or equilibrium. The best evidence for evolutionary explosions comes from the Cambrian Period. Within as little as 10 million years and no more than 40 million years the lineages of almost all modern animals appeared.

Who is proposing the Cambrian explosion as evidence for punk eek, you or the paleontologists? My understanding of punk eek is that it has little to do with adaptive radiations (which can occur under either punk eek or phyletic gradualism) and everything to do with the timing of change: clustered around the time of speciation, or spread out throughout the lifetime of the species. I'll repeat my first question: how many closely related species pairs, this time just those in the early Cambrian, do we have numerous finely spaced fossils?

Evolutionary explosions have generally followed almost every mass extinction. Did the extinctions create a wealth of niches to fill?

Since we can observe smaller adaptive radiations in recent colonization events, in which there was no mass extinction, the answer is almost certainly yes.

Or was something else going on?

All of the major extinctions in geologic history, apart from the Permian (251 MYA), coincide with the galactic cosmic ray flux associated with Earth's migration across the Milky Way. This is also true for the Cambrian explosion. I had a chart to illustrate this quite well, but the mods won't let me post it. (This site has some strange rules, as it makes it hard to debate without access to all of the tools.)

The Permian extinction could have been the result of a massive episode of volcanism or perhaps a massive impact event. Oddly, the Permian extinction wasn’t followed by an evolutionary explosion, as its recovery was prolonged relative to the others.

The Permian extinction was followed by a radiation, but it took longer than most (or possibly the radiation is harder to see because of rarer fossilization during that period).

Is it possible that the intense cosmic radiation that bombards the Earth during its transits through the bright spiral arms of the Milky Way is the catalyst for the mutations required for the evolution of new species?

I would call that possible but extremely unlikely. The model that I can find proposes that the (hypothesized) increased radiation causing the extinctions, not the subsequent increase in diversity. That might be possible, if the radiation (assuming it exists) causes climate change, but increased mutation contributing to speciation seems implausible to me. Radiation is currently a very minor contributor to mutation, and cosmic radiation is a minor contributor to background radiation generally. Even if you could arrange such a massive increase in radiation, I would expect the change to the cause of mutation would change the genetic divergence patterns seen when comparing species that split just prior to a radiation event.

I also don't understand the physical model (and probably won't, since there doesn't seem to be a published paper associated with this hypothesis). The increased radiation is supposed to be produced by the shock wave of the northern face of the Milky Way encountering extragalactic material, i.e. it's basically a spatially extended planar source. So why is the intensity supposed to increase so much as we approach the source?

 

[Tomk80]

People, the discussion with Gawron was actually interesting. Please do not feed the trolls in this thread. I don't care if you feed them in their own cages, but let's not derail this thread to much. Please?

 

[Gawron]

Posted by Chalnoth:

“if you had any evidence whatsoever to back up your notions about evolution”

If you have read my post, you know that I do back up my assertions with evidence. You simply do not agree with certain facts and interpretations of that evidence.

“you wouldn't have to resort to specious ad hominem attacks.”

I respond to these attacks. But plindboe is probably correct, two wrongs don’t make a right.

“Resorting to them just tells us you've got nothing.”

I have posed questions and discussed information on various threads which have gone completely un-addressed. Should I interpret this to mean you have nothing?

“Finally, debate outside the scientific community tends to be pointless, because people outside the scientific community don't have the expertise to make significant contributions.”

Then why are you here? Why are any of us here? Close down all the blogs and forbid all of the discussion and simply leave all questions about the whys and wherefores of life to the only people capable of any rational thought, scientist. Whatever they say, we will accept as literal and unquestioned truth, and of course never question. Because scientist, of course, are not affected by their human failings and are never influenced by a belief or an agenda.

Posted by Baggins:

“as someone who studied micro-fossils I think the fossil record is a better indicator for gradulaism than for PE”

Then we disagree. I know geologist and Paleontologist who are of the opposite mind.

Posted by plindboe:

“which is one reason why I suspected that there was something other than pure objectivity at play here.”

On a blog, I freely admit that I may not always be completely objective. Where this may influence my longer postings is when I comment on the manner in which data is presented by others (and not just here), but I do make the effort to limit myself to the realm of fact and interpretation, especially when talking to you.

“This is probably why it bothers me when I see people who determine scientific truth based on religious bias (i.e. dogmatism).”

Didn’t someone else say on these boards that science wasn’t a search for the truth? However, I do not use religious bias, or the fact that I believe in god, to interpret scientific evidence any more than you or Chalnoth use your non-religious bias, or your non-belief in god, to do so. I am hazarding a guess here, but I would think we are all human.

“but they felt more research was needed.”

Which is the point I made about Steele’s work and neo-lamarckism.

Posted by Vene:

“Then why do you get people arguing with you over evolution?”

Because, as is often the case in the ‘scientific community’, certain conclusions are not interpreted in the same manner. As I have said before, debate without conflict is no debate at all.

“I know what Larmarckian evolution is”

The term I have been using is neo-larmarckian, and I am not the only one. To use your own quote:

“Scientific knowledge is a body of statements of varying degrees of certainty — some most unsure, some nearly sure, but none absolutely certain.”

Posted by Chalnoth:

“All that is important is that their image of the object of their worship be left untainted.”

Does this account for your manic defense of all things Darwin?

Posted by Loudmouth:

“Creationists base their ideas on religious dogma so they figure everyone else does too.”

I think this is my 49th post. For at least the 5th time, I am not a creationist, nor do I debate creationism. If I was a creationist I wouldn’t be posting about such things as the Cambrian explosion or gradualism vs. PE. Because one believes in god does not automatically make him a creationist. Unlike some others out there, any attempt to truly decipher the mind of god I leave to the theologians.

If I missed anyone, I will be back later. Note to sfs, responding to your excellent post will require more time than I have at this moment. Please be patient.

 

[Gawron]

For some reason the above was posted twice, so this was an edit to clear it off.

 

[Chalnoth]

Then why are you here? Why are any of us here? Close down all the blogs and forbid all of the discussion and simply leave all questions about the whys and wherefores of life to the only people capable of any rational thought, scientist. Whatever they say, we will accept as literal and unquestioned truth, and of course never question. Because scientist, of course, are not affected by their human failings and are never influenced by a belief or an agenda.

Mostly because I find it interesting. I like learning new things. I am aware that no new insights into human knowledge will come from my spending time on these forums, but I don't care that much. I'm just interested in finding out more for myself.

And no, blindly accepting the assertions of scientists is also foolhardy. The importance of their expertise is in having the knowledge of the field in question to be capable of presenting coherent, evidence-supported arguments.

Furthermore, of course scientists are influenced by beliefs or agenda. However, science as a whole is very, very good at correcting for these flaws. You see, different scientists have different beliefs and agendas. The scientific community as a whole is a massive and diverse community, and members of it are frequently at loggerheads debating about various issues. In short, because of the competitiveness of scientists and the independent checks that they perform, personal bias gets stamped out by evidence. When a scientific theory reaches consensus, it only does so because scientists have hammered that theory from every direction they could think of, brought up every potential flaw and test of the theory that they could conceive, and the theory still held strong (oh, and scientists are very clever at examining potential flaws and weak points in theories....these theories are put through a gauntlet that is simply incredible).

P.S. As it turns out, I am a scientist. I do work in theoretical cosmology.

Does this account for your manic defense of all things Darwin?

Huh? No, I don't "defend all things Darwin." No scientist does. Darwin's ideas stand on their own merits, and many of them were flat-out wrong. But the general theory of evolution that he proposed turned out to be right, and has been validated by the evidence. So, largely I debate because I'm somewhat like this guy:

Alt text: "What do you want me to do? LEAVE? Then they'll keep being wrong!"
Source: http://xkcd.com/386/

In short, I enjoy it. And besides, it's a vehicle to learn new things. Which I do, all the time. And, from time to time, I even manage to be convinced that certain of my beliefs or opinions happen to have been wholly incorrect.

 

[Baggins]

Posted by Baggins:

“as someone who studied micro-fossils I think the fossil record is a better indicator for gradulaism than for PE”

Then we disagree. I know geologist and Paleontologist who are of the opposite mind.

But do they know anything about the appearance of foraminiferids in the fossil record?

I do, and I am telling you that if you spent your time studying marine micro fossils you would be convinced of gradualism.

I assume you know nothing of globigerinoides, so I won't mock.

I happen to believe that different animals evolve in different ways, but I don't know why PE can't just be called allopatric speciation as it was in my day.

I think it would be self evident to most palaeontologists that there is no one evolutionary mechanism shown in the record.

What we see is a battle for pre-eminence in the palaeontological community rather than a battle of mechanisms for evolution. Gould lost because he died

 

[Gawron]

Posted by Baggins:

"I think it would be self evident to most palaeontologists that there is no one evolutionary mechanism shown in the record."

Ok, I think we have identified our disconnect. I do not recall stating that there was only one evolutionary mechanism, or that PE was the only one. Simply that PE seemed to be the favored one. As previously stated, I had diagrams to illustrate what I was discussing, but couldn't put them up. In this case I think may have helped.

Look, no-one can be an expert in every field. As Chalron alluded to, one needs to specalize, particularly by the time they reach graduate school. So no, although I do know what foraminifers are, I do not know all about globigerinoides. But like you, I do know how to read. And besides, without looking, what is the difference between a lacI and a lacZ?

Posted by sfs:

"also don't understand the physical model (and probably won't, since there doesn't seem to be a published paper associated with this hypothesis)."

I don't think there is one. This was something which occurred to me one night while studying mutation rates of e coli, and simply out of interest I kicked it around in my spare time.