Evolutionists Moving the Goalposts Again

[supersport]

You know the theory of evolution is on the brink of utter collapse when an uneducated redneck hick from Texas like me can figure it out in just few months.

The fact is, not only has this redneck figured out that neo-darwinism is false, but so has most of the scientific community. But I've noticed that the scientific community is playing a little game....it goes like this: "let's just keep this quiet and hope no one notices that the rug's been pulled out from under them and all the rules have changed.....Then, if/when people do start to notice, we'll say “Oh, yea…we’ve known that for a long time.”

Well the fact is random mutations have never had anything to with evolution. Even this dude in the following link, who seems to have dislike for Creationists/IDists admits as much. In the article, if you can look past the rhetoric and biased against IDists, you’ll see these quotes, which in my opinion are pretty telling coming from an evolutionist:

http://evolutionlist.blogspot.com/20...selection.html

In particular, while it is true that any given mutation is random (as far as we can tell), a series of mutations which are then preserved as the result of natural selection aren't really random at all…


However, subsequent field and laboratory investigations into the genetic and developmental control of such variable traits have shown the multiple allele/continuous variation model upon which the "modern synthesis" was based is, in fact, not the way most traits apparently evolve…

This process, called genetic accommodation [2], is part of the new science of evo-devo, which renders much of the classical "evolutionary synthesis" obsolete…

A decade ago such comments would have been heresy….(and they still are, really).

In this next link, a scientist is attempting to show us something new. He has evolved different colors of the same worm based on temperature. While this is nice that it’s finally being shown in the lab, the fact is, the same thing is done in nature all the time. This stuff happens all over the globe. Look what this guy says:

It’s long been known that polyphenisms are controlled by hormones, with the brain sensing environmental signals and altering the pattern of hormonal secretions. In turn these hormonal patterns turn sets of genes on or off to produce different traits.

Wow! (I couldn't have said it better -- but it's taken evolutionists decades to admit this.)

http://biosingularity.wordpress.com/2006/02/04/scientists-evolve-a-complex-genetic-trait-in-the-laboratory

So, once again we have evolutionists moving the goalposts. For the past century they’ve been telling us that microevolution and macroevolution use the same mechanism. Well now the microevolution’s mechanism has been quietly replaced without the general public knowing about it. So where does that lead macro-evolution? (The land of make-believe, maybe?) ...And the concept of gradualism is has gone up like poof of smoke.

And the fact is, these guys actually admit that individual genes mean very little when it comes to defining an organism. In fact, it’s been found that the same gene that determines an insect’s eyes is the same gene that determines the human’s eye. Thus, the question is…… how is it that monkey genes are expressed differently than human genes? Indeed all the rules have changed. The silly cumulative selection hypothesis is out the window. As are random mutations. And without those, the neo-darwins new synthesis is impotent.

I’m not saying there still cannot be an atheist version of evolution, but the fact is, your tried and true theory that's considered FACT by so many millions of people and that is being taught in our schools is no longer viable.

At this point the only thing evolutionsts have left is the belief in natural selection. But even this concept has never been tested nor proven by controlled studies. The fact is, this is just as insignificant as random mutations when it comes to biological change in animals.

It’s fun to watch what evolutionists will do and say to try and get around the fact that every animal on earth is individually adaptive to a wide range of environments. And since this is true, it shatters any notion that luck or accidents or randomness has anything at all to do with evolution.

I’m probably not going to do a lot of debating on this here because this concept is a done deal. What used to be considered the greatest scientific theory ever has collapsed under the weight of the truth.

Here in the next couple days I’ll try to come up with rational post on how traits really evolve and how they get passed down from parent to offspring. Have a nice day. S

 

[nvxplorer]

Complete with tinfoil hat theory and all

 

[Mallon]

We've been hearing for countless years about how the theory of biological evolution is in trouble, and about how more and more scientists are turning their backs on it. Well, it's the year 2006 and today, evolution remains the strongest, most powerful, and best-supported theory in all of biology. It is being taught and practiced in classrooms and laboratories all around the world. It continues to be developed in the best science journals and at leading conferences across the globe. So despite your well-informed, self-professed redneck understanding of evolution, the theory remains in practice the world round, which is what counts in the face of all your ill-founded doubt.

You sound like a holocaust denier.

 

[supersport]

We've been hearing for countless years about how the theory of biological evolution is in trouble, and about how more and more scientists are turning their backs on it. Well, it's the year 2006 and today, evolution remains the strongest, most powerful, and best-supported theory in all of biology. It is being taught and practiced in classrooms and laboratories all around the world. It continues to be developed in the best science journals and at leading conferences across the globe. So despite your well-informed, self-professed redneck understanding of evolution, the theory remains in practice the world round, which is what counts in the face of all your ill-founded doubt.

You sound like a holocaust denier.

you must have missed this quote from your scientist buddy:

This process, called genetic accommodation [2], is part of the new science of evo-devo, which renders much of the classical "evolutionary synthesis" obsolete…

 

[rmwilliamsll]

I’m probably not going to do a lot of debating on this here because this concept is a done deal.


on drive-by-postings there seems to be this constant disclaimer somewhere down the line, but not often in the OP itself.

"I know i am right. so i will not waste my time defending my ideas with you'all."

we ought to keep track of which message it gets posted in, for example, this is a drive-by-posting message 1.


however there is one interesting thing in the OP.
http://evolutionlist.blogspot.com/2006/06/random-mutation-and-natural-selection.html
leading to:
This process, called genetic accommodation [2], is part of the new science of evo-devo, which renders much of the classical "evolutionary synthesis" obsolete, and at the same time explains how such phenomena as punctuated equilibria can be integrated into a unified theory of evolutionary development. In particular, genetic accommodation and similar processes can explain how natural selection alone can produce both rapid and directional change in phenotypes over time, thereby making any resort to "intelligent design" unnecessary and irrelevant.
as quoted in the OP.

footnote 2 leads to:
[2] West-Eberhard, M. J. (2003) Developmental Plasticity and Evolution. Oxford, UK, Oxford University Press. See especially pages 147 to 158.

which is at my local Univ library.
but needs to be recalled.
does anyone have it and can tell us what these pages say?
it will be a week before i have the book in hand.


in the meantime i'll be working my way through:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=ISO-8859-1&q="genetic+accommodation"&btnG=Google+Search

unless someone posts the crucial review paper on the topic that we all need to read...

tia

 

[vajradhara]

Namaste all,

perhaps Dr. Gould will help clear the issue:

In the American vernacular, "theory" often means "imperfect fact"—part of a hierarchy of confidence running downhill from fact to theory to hypothesis to guess. Thus creationists can (and do) argue: evolution is "only" a theory, and intense debate now rages about many aspects of the theory. If evolution is less than a fact, and scientists can't even make up their minds about the theory, then what confidence can we have in it? Indeed, President Reagan echoed this argument before an evangelical group in Dallas when he said (in what I devoutly hope was campaign rhetoric): "Well, it is a theory. It is a scientific theory only, and it has in recent years been challenged in the world of science—that is, not believed in the scientific community to be as infallible as it once was."

Well, evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts do not go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's, but apples did not suspend themselves in mid-air, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from apelike ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other, yet to be discovered.

Moreover, "fact" does not mean "absolute certainty." The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science, "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.

Evolutionists have been clear about this distinction between fact and theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred. Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and proposing a theory—natural selection—to explain the mechanism of evolution. He wrote in The Descent of Man: "I had two distinct objects in view; firstly, to show that species had not been separately created, and secondly, that natural selection had been the chief agent of change. . . . Hence if I have erred in . . . having exaggerated its [natural selection's] power . . . I have at least, as I hope, done good service in aiding to overthrow the dogma of separate creations."

Thus Darwin acknowledged the provisional nature of natural selection while affirming the fact of evolution. The fruitful theoretical debate that Darwin initiated has never ceased. From the 1940s through the 1960s, Darwin's own theory of natural selection did achieve a temporary hegemony that it never enjoyed in his lifetime. But renewed debate characterizes our decade, and, while no biologists questions the importance of natural selection, many doubt its ubiquity. In particular, many evolutionists argue that substantial amounts of genetic change may not be subject to natural selection and may spread through the populations at random. Others are challenging Darwin's linking of natural selection with gradual, imperceptible change through all intermediary degrees; they are arguing that most evolutionary events may occur far more rapidly than Darwin envisioned.

Scientists regard debates on fundamental issues of theory as a sign of intellectual health and a source of excitement. Science is—and how else can I say it?—most fun when it plays with interesting ideas, examines their implications, and recognizes that old information might be explained in surprisingly new ways. Evolutionary theory is now enjoying this uncommon vigor. Yet amidst all this turmoil no biologist has been lead to doubt the fact that evolution occurred; we are debating how it happened. We are all trying to explain the same thing: the tree of evolutionary descent linking all organisms by ties of genealogy. Creationists pervert and caricature this debate by conveniently neglecting the common conviction that underlies it, and by falsely suggesting that evolutionists now doubt the very phenomenon we are struggling to understand.

......

"Scientific creationism" is a self-contradictory, nonsense phrase precisely because it cannot be falsified. I can envision observations and experiments that would disprove any evolutionary theory I know, but I cannot imagine what potential data could lead creationists to abandon their beliefs. Unbeatable systems are dogma, not science. Lest I seem harsh or rhetorical, I quote creationism's leading intellectual, Duane Gish, Ph.D. from his recent (1978) book, Evolution? The Fossils Say No! "By creation we mean the bringing into being by a supernatural Creator of the basic kinds of plants and animals by the process of sudden, or fiat, creation. We do not know how the Creator created, what process He used, for He used processes which are not now operating anywhere in the natural universe [Gish's italics]. This is why we refer to creation as special creation. We cannot discover by scientific investigations anything about the creative processes used by the Creator." Pray tell, Dr. Gish, in the light of your last sentence, what then is scientific creationism?

the full article can be read here:

http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_fact-and-theory.html

metta,

~v

 

[Valkhorn]

you must have missed this quote from your scientist buddy:

This process, called genetic accommodation [2], is part of the new science of evo-devo, which renders much of the classical "evolutionary synthesis" obsolete…

Is this yet another quote mine?

Quotes don't destroy scientific theories - that's what evidence is for.

 

[AnEmpiricalAgnostic]

You know the theory of evolution is on the brink of utter collapse when an uneducated redneck hick from Texas like me can figure it out in just few months.

Maybe you should figure again. Let me illustrate by dissecting your very first assertion, which also happens to be blatantly wrong (I know, what are the chances right?).

Well the fact is random mutations have never had anything to with evolution.

In particular, while it is true that any given mutation is random (as far as we can tell), a series of mutations which are then preserved as the result of natural selection aren't really random at all…

Right away you refute your own statement with a quote you provide as support for your assertion. You see, if you actually had the TofE anywhere close to figured out as you claim you would have realized that once natural selection acts upon the random mutations it causes differential reproductive success within the population of organisms possessing varying alleles (caused by the random mutations) and becomes a process that, in its entirety, is no longer random but guided by said selection.

 

[GoSeminoles!]

The fact is, not only has this redneck figured out that neo-darwinism is false, but so has most of the scientific community.

Who are these scientists? What papers have they written detailing their evidence that evolution is false? If evolution is false, then it should be useless as framework for scientific research. It is very surprising then that so many scientists, particularly those in private for-profit companies, still rely so heavily on evolutionary theory. Are they just stupid?

Or maybe -- here's a wacky thought -- they aren't the idiots.

 

[Gracchus]

You know the theory of evolution is on the brink of utter collapse when an uneducated redneck hick from Texas like me can figure it out in just few months.

In Developmental Plasticity and Evolution, Mary Jane West-Eberhard, an evolutionary biologist at the Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute and a member of the National Academy of Sciences, undertakes to explain how developmental plasticity fits within a genetic theory of evolution.

http://www.americanscientist.org/te...etail/assetid/29782;jsessionid=aaa4SWF-p36BMV

A good read. But it does not “disprove” evolution.

Looks like the “redneck hick from Texas” overlooked something! How is it possible?

Now consider a situation in which an environmental change (for example, a drought), selected for individual finches with larger beaks. At the level of the controlling homeotic gene, this could mean one of two things: either the larger beaks are still within the developmental limits of the original allele, or another allele (i.e a mutant) has arisen, with an overlapping developmental pattern but a higher mean value for beak size. If the former is the case, then a return to the original environment would result in a return to the original mean beak size.

However, if the latter were the case, then there would be a built-in bias toward finches with larger beaks in the resulting population. This would also mean that the "base" allele - i.e. the new mutant allele - would start out producing a larger mean beak size along with the usual normal distribution of beak sizes. If the environmental change persisted, new alleles might arise, but they would begin with a "norm of reaction" that would produce significantly larger mean beak sizes, along with a normal distribution with significantly larger beaks at the upper tail of the distribution.

In other words, the existing alleles for such a trait would bias subsequent mutations in the "direction" of larger beaks, simply because the pool of potential new alleles would already start out biased in that direction. Therefore, the mutations and developmental changes that were available from one generation to the next would be biased in the direction of whatever phenotypic trait resulted in the highest reproductive success.

This process, called genetic accommodation [2], is part of the new science of evo-devo, which renders much of the classical "evolutionary synthesis" obsolete, and at the same time explains how such phenomena as punctuated equilibria can be integrated into a unified theory of evolutionary development. In particular, genetic accommodation and similar processes can explain how natural selection alone can produce both rapid and directional change in phenotypes over time, thereby making any resort to "intelligent design" unnecessary and irrelevant.

http://evolutionlist.blogspot.com/2006/06/random-mutation-and-natural-selection.html

Dang. I reckon you put your brand on a prairie dawg instead of steer, Supersport. Don’t worry, it could happen to any ol’ “redneck hick from Texas”.

Y'all come back, ya heer.

 

[supersport]

http://www.americanscientist.org/te...etail/assetid/29782;jsessionid=aaa4SWF-p36BMV

A good read. But it does not “disprove” evolution.

Looks like the “redneck hick from Texas” overlooked something! How is it possible?



http://evolutionlist.blogspot.com/2006/06/random-mutation-and-natural-selection.html

Dang. I reckon you put your brand on a prairie dawg instead of steer, Supersport. Don’t worry, it could happen to any ol’ “redneck hick from Texas”.

Y'all come back, ya heer.

well actually you're right...nothing will really disprove evolutoin because it is a religion that lives in peoples hearts. In order to change one's outlook, the heart needs to be changed first. S

 

[rmwilliamsll]

you deserve reps for finding this excellent book review.
but as always---you must blah blah before repping Gracchus again....

West-Eberhard argues that information about the
environment can, through the inherited bridging phenotype, be transmitted across generations through epigenetic means—for example, through maternal effects and cultural transmission. Natural selection favors those inherited bridging phenotypes that best provide specific genetic and environmental information that enhances development and survival of the offspring.
from: http://www.americanscientist.org/te...etail/assetid/29782;jsessionid=aaa4SWF-p36BMV


is anyone really familiar with these ideas?
looks a lot like the way desert locusts respond to turn into plagues of locusts or solitary grasshoppers. there really are two forms, determined by the hormones in the eggs.

 

[Gracchus]

you deserve reps for finding this excellent book review.
but as always---you must blah blah before repping Gracchus again....

I don't deserve a thing. It was a simple Google. And Supersport provided the links I used!

is anyone really familiar with these ideas?

We have known about phenotypic plasticity for some time. "Genetic accomodation" is, I believe, a newer concept. But still it is one of those things that, when discovered, makes one slap his forehead and say, "Why didn't I think of that?"

 

[notto]

Google - the creationists worst nightmare.

0 for 2.

 

[notto]

well actually you're right...nothing will really disprove evolutoin because it is a religion that lives in peoples hearts. In order to change one's outlook, the heart needs to be changed first. S

Just like gravity and atomic theory.

Emotional appeal - the last desperate rant of the defeated creationist.

 

[Tomk80]

Just like gravity and atomic theory.

Emotional appeal - the last desperate rant of the defeated creationist.

Can I keep him, can I keep him? Can I, can I? He's kind of cute, in a mildly masochistic manner.

 

[supersport]

I don't deserve a thing. It was a simple Google. And Supersport provided the links I used!



We have known about phenotypic plasticity for some time. "Genetic accomodation" is, I believe, a newer concept. But still it is one of those things that, when discovered, makes one slap his forehead and say, "Why didn't I think of that?"

yea you've known about plasticity for the past 100 years...yet you can't explain it with a biological mechanism. And the fact is, it's a biological mechanism that does not require selection.

"without selection there is no evoluiton" Richard Dawkiins

 

[Tomk80]

yea you've known about plasticity for the past 100 years...yet you can't explain it with a biological mechanism.

Euh, yes we can. See the article you quoted.

And the fact is, it's a biological mechanism that does not require selection.

Ah, so we do have a biological mechanism then.

And mutations also don't require selection. However, in the theory proposed above, selection works on the results of the mechanism, just as with mutations.

"without selection there is no evoluiton" Richard Dawkiins

Luckily for us then, that this selection will still be present.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Just like gravity and atomic theory.

Emotional appeal - the last desperate rant of the defeated creationist.

Then why is it all-too-often the first club out of their bag?

 

[Edx]

I’m probably not going to do a lot of debating on this here because this concept is a done deal.

UH, then what good are ya?



Ed