Honest question about "Origin of Species"

[PsychoSarah]

doing a statistacal analysis and then plotting the data is not empirical evidence.

which convinces me more that you used an invalid method of obtaining your data.
i'm not going to argue this point with you.
i provided a source that says these transitions do not have empirical evidence for them.
frankly i'll believe the source i posted, thank you.

A source you likely misread, given your track record. I think you have just settled in to just 1 mindset and will do anything you can to remain in it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

doing a statistacal analysis and then plotting the data is not empirical evidence.

Actually you can't do a statistical analysis and plot the data without empirical evidence.

"Empirical evidence (also empirical data, sense experience, empirical knowledge, or the a posteriori) is a source of knowledge acquired by means of observation or experimentation.[1] The term comes from the Greek word for experience, ἐμπειρία (empeiría)."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empirical_evidence

which convinces me more that you used an invalid method of obtaining your data.
i'm not going to argue this point with you.
i provided a source that says these transitions do not have empirical evidence for them.
frankly i'll believe the source i posted, thank you.

So since his empirical evidence shows that you are wrong you won't argue with him. That seems to be a very wise decision on your part. And I doubt if your source was valid. Did it perhaps come from a site that required their workers to abandon the scientific method?

 

[whois]

A source you likely misread, given your track record. I think you have just settled in to just 1 mindset and will do anything you can to remain in it.

you can read it for yourself sarah.

maynard lists 8 major transitions of evolution:
1. replicating molecules to populations of molecules in compartments.
2. unlinked replicators to chromosomes.
3. RNA as gene and enzyme to DNA and protien (genetic code)
4. prokaryotes to eukaryotes.
5. asexual clones to sexual populations.
6. protists to animals, fungi and plants (cell differentiation)
7 solitary individuals to colonies (non-reproductive castes)
8 primate societies to human societies (language)

maynard says these transitions were the result of the way information is stored and retrieved instead of "genetic accumulation".
my opinion is that HGT could account for some of these transitions.

 

[JasonClark]

you can read it for yourself sarah.

maynard lists 8 major transitions of evolution:
1. replicating molecules to populations of molecules in compartments.
2. unlinked replicators to chromosomes.
3. RNA as gene and enzyme to DNA and protien (genetic code)
4. prokaryotes to eukaryotes.
5. asexual clones to sexual populations.
6. protists to animals, fungi and plants (cell differentiation)
7 solitary individuals to colonies (non-reproductive castes)
8 primate societies to human societies (language)

maynard says these transitions were the result of the way information is stored and retrieved instead of "genetic accumulation".
my opinion is that HGT could account for some of these transitions.

It is teachings and beliefs like this that are holding the US back, while America stands still the rest of the world are moving forward.
It will be a generation at least before the US drops this way of thinking by which time they will have endured so much pain and be so far behind it will cost them dearly,
religions do not come cheap the price is always high.

 

[USincognito]

doing a statistacal analysis and then plotting the data is not empirical evidence.

which convinces me more that you used an invalid method of obtaining your data.
i'm not going to argue this point with you.
i provided a source that says these transitions do not have empirical evidence for them.
frankly i'll believe the source i posted, thank you.

No matter how many times I see newbies lecturing sfs on science, it never gets old.

 

[DogmaHunter]

this type of "evolution" is variation about a mean and does not explain the increasing genetic complexity of the record.

It's not different at all, and what you said makes no sense.

The only difference between "micro evolution" and "macro evolution" is the amount of generations that have passed.

Macro is the accumulation of micro. It's the exact same underlying process:

Micro-changes that accumulate over generations.

 

[DogmaHunter]

no one has provided ANY empirical evidence of increasing genetic complexity.

Please explain exactly what you mean with "increasing genetic complexity".

this type of transition (increasing genetic complexity) is a major one, and not the result of an "accumulating" type of change.

Please give an example. From the real world.

 

[justlookinla]

Darwin was wrong, thus neo-Darwinism.

 

[whois]

It is teachings and beliefs like this that are holding the US back, while America stands still the rest of the world are moving forward.

this stuff was published in a BRITISH science journal by 2 Ph.D.s.
i doubt if you have the credentials to call them liars.

 

[whois]

No matter how many times I see newbies lecturing sfs on science, it never gets old.

i'm not "lecturing" anybody on anything.
i posted a source that disagrees with sfs said, and i agree with the source i posted.

 

[whois]

It's not different at all, and what you said makes no sense.

The only difference between "micro evolution" and "macro evolution" is the amount of generations that have passed.

Macro is the accumulation of micro. It's the exact same underlying process:

Micro-changes that accumulate over generations.

the source i posted, HGT, and recent scientific findings, disagrees.

 

[sfs]

doing a statistacal analysis and then plotting the data is not empirical evidence.

Since I'm the one who wrote the post, I'm pretty sure I'd remember if I'd done a statistical analysis for it. Statistical analyses take work, after all. What I did was plot some data in a spreadsheet. And of course it was empirical data. It was the observed differences between the reference human genome (which is mostly that of a man from Rochester, NY) and the genome of a chimpanzee named Clint. How could that not be empirical data? I was comparing that to genetic differences seen in a group of African Americans. Again, how is that not empirical?

which convinces me more that you used an invalid method of obtaining your data.
i'm not going to argue this point with you.

It doesn't matter whether you argue or not. You said that there was no evidence for evolution at all. I showed you evidence. And you absolutely, positively will not address that evidence. But the evidence doesn't go away just because you don't want to talk about it.

i provided a source that says these transitions do not have empirical evidence for them.
frankly i'll believe the source i posted, thank you.

What source? "Maynard" (by which I assume you mean Maynard Smith)? I've read his book on major evolutionary transitions (or at least some of it). Excellent work by an outstanding evolutionary biologist. If you're claiming that Maynard Smith disputes common descent, you are completely off base.

He's also quite irrelevant, unless he happens to address the specific evidence I posted. Because I'm not talking about the grand sweep of evolution. I'm presenting very specific evidence for a specific claim: that humans and chimpanzees share a recent common ancestor. Evidence that you claim doesn't exist, and that you don't want to talk about.

 

[whois]

Since I'm the one who wrote the post, I'm pretty sure I'd remember if I'd done a statistical analysis for it. Statistical analyses take work, after all. What I did was plot some data in a spreadsheet. And of course it was empirical data. It was the observed differences between the reference human genome (which is mostly that of a man from Rochester, NY) and the genome of a chimpanzee named Clint. How could that not be empirical data? I was comparing that to genetic differences seen in a group of African Americans. Again, how is that not empirical?

the original post you made on this subject seems to suggest it was.
can you find this post for me?

It doesn't matter whether you argue or not. You said that there was no evidence for evolution at all. I showed you evidence. And you absolutely, positively will not address that evidence. But the evidence doesn't go away just because you don't want to talk about it.

actually i was talking about the transitions maynard mentioned (and i listed them).

What source? "Maynard" (by which I assume you mean Maynard Smith)? I've read his book on major evolutionary transitions (or at least some of it). Excellent work by an outstanding evolutionary biologist. If you're claiming that Maynard Smith disputes common descent, you are completely off base.

then why, pray tell, does maynard expressly say there is no reason to expect evolutionary lineages to increase in complexity with time, and there is no empirical evidence of it?

He's also quite irrelevant, unless he happens to address the specific evidence I posted. Because I'm not talking about the grand sweep of evolution. I'm presenting very specific evidence for a specific claim: that humans and chimpanzees share a recent common ancestor. Evidence that you claim doesn't exist, and that you don't want to talk about.

i actually believe that either, your data is in error, or the method you used is invalid.
i say this because of what was published by 2 PHDs in a respected journal on the subject, i posted the link to the paper if you wish to read it (post 15).
i also posted the 8 transitions maynard refers to (post 23).

 

[Loudmouth]

doing a statistacal analysis and then plotting the data is not empirical evidence.

That's exactly what empirical evidence is. When you take empirical observations and test them against a hypothesis using statistics, that is the very definition of the scientific method and empirical evidence.

which convinces me more that you used an invalid method of obtaining your data.
i'm not going to argue this point with you.
i provided a source that says these transitions do not have empirical evidence for them.
frankly i'll believe the source i posted, thank you.

You are pointing to a gap in our knowledge for the evolutionary transitions in the origin of eukaryotes. This gap in our knowledge does not cast doubt on the knowledge we do have for the evolution of humanity from an ancestor shared with other apes.

 

[sfs]

the original post you made on this subject seems to suggest it was.
can you find this post for me?

I gave the evidence here.

actually i was talking about the transitions maynard mentioned (and i listed them).

I'm talking about the evidence I gave you, and your claim that it doesn't exist.

then why, pray tell, does maynard expressly say there is no reason to expect evolutionary lineages to increase in complexity with time, and there is no empirical evidence of it?

Good question Why don't you start a thread on the subject and we can discuss it. Here, I'd like to discuss your claim that there is no evidence for evolution.

i actually believe that either, your data is in error, or the method you used is invalid.

Well, of course you do. But so far you have given no basis for your belief. You're sure the evidence doesn't exist, but you're not sure why.

i say this because of what was published by 2 PHDs in a respected journal on the subject, i posted the link to the paper if you wish to read it (post 15).

Thanks, I missed it. If you want to start a thread, or even a subthread, about that article, I'd be happy to discuss it. It has nothing at all to do with the evidence I'm talking about here. (Also, I've collaborated with thousands of people with PhDs, and I have one of my own. You don't believe me because I have a PhD, do you?)

 

[PsychoSarah]

you can read it for yourself sarah.

maynard lists 8 major transitions of evolution:
1. replicating molecules to populations of molecules in compartments.
2. unlinked replicators to chromosomes.
3. RNA as gene and enzyme to DNA and protien (genetic code)
4. prokaryotes to eukaryotes.
5. asexual clones to sexual populations.
6. protists to animals, fungi and plants (cell differentiation)
7 solitary individuals to colonies (non-reproductive castes)
8 primate societies to human societies (language)

maynard says these transitions were the result of the way information is stored and retrieved instead of "genetic accumulation".
my opinion is that HGT could account for some of these transitions.

Which wouldn't disprove evolution. It would just add an influential mechanism to it.

 

[JasonClark]

this stuff was published in a BRITISH science journal by 2 Ph.D.s.
i doubt if you have the credentials to call them liars.

Perhaps but I'm sure only American creationist would use it to back up their religious beliefs, every time you turn around someone is calling creationists fools and liars,
why do you think that is? could they be jealous of them or worried for them?

 

[Loudmouth]

Perhaps but I'm sure only American creationist would use it to back up their religious beliefs, every time you turn around someone is calling creationists fools and liars,
why do you think that is? could they be jealous of them or worried for them?

We demonstrate that professional creationists are fools who knowingly mislead well meaning christians. I think it is legitimate to be worried about a religiously driven political movement that is fueled by these professional creationists, especially if one is concerned about science education in this country.

 

[bhsmte]

.

 

[whois]

I gave the evidence here.


I'm talking about the evidence I gave you, and your claim that it doesn't exist.

the source i posted in 15 refutes it sfs.

Good question Why don't you start a thread on the subject and we can discuss it. Here, I'd like to discuss your claim that there is no evidence for evolution.

it's maynard that says this is a major transition.

Well, of course you do. But so far you have given no basis for your belief. You're sure the evidence doesn't exist, but you're not sure why.

i'm sure i posted post 15

Thanks, I missed it. If you want to start a thread, or even a subthread, about that article, I'd be happy to discuss it. It has nothing at all to do with the evidence I'm talking about here. (Also, I've collaborated with thousands of people with PhDs, and I have one of my own. You don't believe me because I have a PhD, do you?)

the link i gave in post 15 directly refutes it sfs.
this is one of the major transitions maynard talks about in his paper.