Scientists' quotes

[whois]

"Common sense" is not applicable in almost all of science. The evidence is. And it's perhaps important to remember that "fish" and "bird" are relatively arbitrary* boxes drawn around what amounts to a spectrum. A fish will always give birth to a fish, but to a slightly different fish, and eventually those differences add up. If you were to view the entire evolution of dinosaurs in real time (imagine, for the moment, that you are immortal), you could go from early theropods to modern seagulls and at no point would you look and say, "that's no longer a dinosaur", but if you were given an early therapod and a modern bird, you could easily draw some boxes. Make sense?

*There are non-arbitrary characteristics, but how the boxes are drawn and what characteristics are chosen are, to a certain extent, arbitrary. To make this clear, if you look at this image:

You could say that red stops at "actually", at "purple", or at "tiny changes", and it would be hard to claim that any is more valid than the last. That's what I mean by "arbitrary". When we draw a box between "humans" and "non-human apes", we have a similar difficulty determining what in the fossil record can count as each.

hey, a very nice analogy, too bad it doesn't apply to evolution.
again from koonin:
The discovery of pervasive HGT and the overall dynamics of the genetic universe destroys not only the Tree of Life as we knew it but also another central tenet of the Modern Synthesis inherited from Darwin, gradualism. In a world dominated by HGT, gene duplication, gene loss, and such momentous events as endosymbiosis, the idea of evolution being driven primarily by infinitesimal heritable changes in the Darwinian tradition has become untenable.
Equally outdated is the (neo)Darwinian notion of the adaptive nature of evolution: clearly, genomes show very little if any signs of optimal design, and random drift constrained by purifying in all likelihood contributes (much) more to genome evolution than Darwinian selection 16, 17. And, with pan-adaptationism, gone forever is the notion of evolutionary progress that undoubtedly is central to the traditional evolutionary thinking, even if this is not always made explicit.
The summary of the state of affairs on the 150th anniversary of the Origin is somewhat shocking: in the post-genomic era, all major tenets of the Modern Synthesis are, if not outright overturned, replaced by a new and incomparably more complex vision of the key aspects of evolution (Box 1). So, not to mince words, the Modern Synthesis is gone.

 

[Loudmouth]

really?
let's see what eugene koonin, lead investigator of NCBI, and a molecular biologist has to say about it:
The origin of life is one of the hardest problems in all of science, but it is also one of the most important. Origin-of-live research has evolved into a lively, interdisciplinary field, but other scientists often view it with skepticism and even derision. This attitude is understandable and, in a sense, perhaps justified, given the “dirty” rarely mentioned secret: Despite many interesting results to its credit, when judged by the straightforward criterion of reaching (or even approaching) the ultimate goal, the origin of life field is a failure – we still do not have even a plausible coherent model, let alone a validated scenario, for the emergence of life on Earth. Certainly, this is due not to a lack of experimental and theoretical effort, but to the extraordinary intrinsic difficulty and complexity of the problem. A succession of exceedingly unlikely steps is essential for the origin of life, from the synthesis and accumulation of nucleotides to the origin of translation; through the multiplication of probabilities, these make the final outcome seem almost like a miracle.
-Eugene V. Koonin, molecular biologist, The Logic of Chance: The Nature and Origin of Biological Evolution (Upper Saddle River, NJ: FT Press, 2011), 391

How many creationists are studying the origin of life?

 

[whois]

How many creationists are studying the origin of life?

why are you associating koonin with creationist?
funny thing about uncomfortable truths isn't it?
you see things where they don't exist.

i feel sorry for koonin, really i do.
the man has jeopardized his career by speaking out on what is actually known about evolution.

 

[Loudmouth]

why are you associating koonin with creationist?
funny thing about uncomfortable truths isn't it?
you see things where they don't exist.

i feel sorry for koonin, really i do.
the man has jeopardized his career by speaking out on what is actually known about evolution.

This is the post you were replying to:

"Unlike the bible and the creation theory, science moves forward all the time."

Even Koonin agrees that people are trying to tackle the problem on the science side of things. So what research are creationists doing on the origin of life? None, right?

 

[Loudmouth]

The discovery of pervasive HGT and the overall dynamics of the genetic universe destroys not only the Tree of Life as we knew it but also another central tenet of the Modern Synthesis inherited from Darwin, gradualism.

"The comparative infrequency of HGT in the eukaryote part of the biological world means, however, that in this case the conceptual implications for the TOL might not be as drastic: the evolutionary histories of many eukaryotes appear to produce tree-like patterns."--Eugene Koonin
http://www.biologydirect.com/content/6/1/32

Perhaps you should actually listen to Koonin.

 

[lasthero]

why are you associating koonin with creationist?
funny thing about uncomfortable truths isn't it?
you see things where they don't exist.

i feel sorry for koonin, really i do.
the man has jeopardized his career by speaking out on what is actually known about evolution.

Jeopardized? Even if I assume that you're right about his take on the matter, Koonin has actually found more work in the years since that article was published. His career is just fine.

 

[whois]

Even Koonin agrees that people are trying to tackle the problem on the science side of things.

yes, koonin makes it clear that science is indeed working on the problem.
he also makes it clear that lack of research is not the reason it hasn't been solved.
do you realize what it takes for a scientist such as koonin to call something a miracle after years of research?

So what research are creationists doing on the origin of life? None, right?

i have no idea how many scientists are also creationists.
i believe the vast majority of them will say they are more than what natural laws can account for.

in my opinion, it's highly unlikely there is a god, but yet we are faced with unexplainable dilemmas.
the best we can do is keep the truth before the people and hope someone can put it all together for us.

 

[Loudmouth]

yes, koonin makes it clear that science is indeed working on the problem.

That was the point being made. With science, people actually try to tackle these problems. With creationism, it's just "God did it", and nothing else. There is a complete lack of curiosity on the creationist side.

he also makes it clear that lack of research is not the reason it hasn't been solved.
do you realize what it takes for a scientist such as koonin to call something a miracle after years of research?

It takes a poor choice of words in an article no one really cares about. Really. Other scientists could care less what Koonin says about abiogenesis research.

i have no idea how many scientists are also creationists.
i believe the vast majority of them will say they are more than what natural laws can account for.

How many of them are doing scientific research to support that belief?

in my opinion, it's highly unlikely there is a god, but yet we are faced with unexplainable dilemmas.

So what do we do? Do we just shrug our shoulders in defeat, close up all of our labs, and forever wallow in our ignorance?

 

[whois]

"The comparative infrequency of HGT in the eukaryote part of the biological world means, however, that in this case the conceptual implications for the TOL might not be as drastic: the evolutionary histories of many eukaryotes appear to produce tree-like patterns."--Eugene Koonin
http://www.biologydirect.com/content/6/1/32

Perhaps you should actually listen to Koonin.

well, let's see:
CONCLUSIONS:

We argue that HGT has occurred, and continues to occur, on a previously unsuspected scale in metazoans and is likely to have contributed to biochemical diversification during animal evolution.

see upload

 

[Loudmouth]

well, let's see:
CONCLUSIONS:

We argue that HGT has occurred, and continues to occur, on a previously unsuspected scale in metazoans and is likely to have contributed to biochemical diversification during animal evolution.

How large is that scale, and how much contribution did it make compared to VGT?

 

[OliviaMay]

I think the major problem is that there cannot be any honest discussion of academics when people wish to continually act like antagonistic petulant children. Magic did it. na na na na fingers in my ears. Magic. You are deceived. Magic.

 

[HitchSlap]

It's not hard to understand, but apparently not all of your buddies agree with you. And as a bonus, you've made the first ad hominem attack of the thread.

I think the major problem is that there cannot be any honest discussion of academics when people wish to continually act like antagonistic petulant children. Magic did it. na na na na fingers in my ears. Magic. You are deceived. Magic.

Unfortunately, many Christians are informed by professional creationists that an effective strategy is incessant quote mines. It's pathetic really.

 

[OliviaMay]

Unfortunately, many Christians are informed by professional creationists that an effective strategy is incessant quote mines. It's pathetic really.

Right wing fascists are out to undermine the very idea that knowledge is real. The thought that all things are mere opinion is a blight on our culture.

http://www.houstonpress.com/arts/no-it-s-not-your-opinion-you-re-just-wrong-7611752

 

[whois]

How large is that scale, and how much contribution did it make compared to VGT?

HGT is probably responsible for most of the major changes in evolutionary history.

the way i see it, VGT is responsible for changes at the species level, the different breeds of canines for example.
HGT is responsible for what is known as punctuated equilibrium, or the apparent discontinuities of the record.
the above is my opinion, but it makes sense.

we are going to have to ditch the gradualism in relation to the diversity of life.
modern genomics has shown there are a number of mechanisms involved, and it's the interaction of these mechanisms that result in diversity, not gradualism.

 

[Loudmouth]

HGT is probably responsible for most of the major changes in evolutionary history.

Probably? Have any references for that?

the way i see it, VGT is responsible for changes at the species level, the different breeds of canines for example.

Then why does more than 95% of the chimp and human genomes align?

HGT is responsible for what is known as punctuated equilibrium, or the apparent discontinuities of the record.

How so?

the above is my opinion, but it makes sense.

"It makes sense" is not how science is done.

we are going to have to ditch the gradualism in relation to the diversity of life.
modern genomics has shown there are a number of mechanisms involved, and it's the interaction of these mechanisms that result in diversity, not gradualism.

What are these mechanisms, and how prominent are they?

 

[dysert]

"Common sense" is not applicable in almost all of science.

That's gotta be one of the most obvious tenets related to the whole theory of evolution.

 

[florida2]

We should take him seriously because what he says is consistent with common sense.

If you knew anything about science, you'd know that the universe does not work according to common sense and our everyday thoughts and experiences. Just scratch the surface of quantum mechanics and you'll find a whole load of weirdness, but correct weirdness.

 

[Loudmouth]

hey, a very nice analogy, too bad it doesn't apply to evolution.
again from koonin:
The discovery of pervasive HGT and the overall dynamics of the genetic universe destroys not only the Tree of Life as we knew it but also another central tenet of the Modern Synthesis inherited from Darwin, gradualism.

"The comparative infrequency of HGT in the eukaryote part of the biological world means, however, that in this case the conceptual implications for the TOL might not be as drastic: the evolutionary histories of many eukaryotes appear to produce tree-like patterns."--Eugene Koonin
http://www.biologydirect.com/content/6/1/32

Could you at least acknowledge that you have read this quote?

 

[Loudmouth]

could you at least acknowledge i did in post 114?

Do you agree with Koonin that the Tree of Life still works for eukaryotes?

 

[whois]

I saw it. Means nothing to me. I clearly saw what you claimed he said. I clearly saw the email exchange where he clearly said you misrepresent him went on to give his actual position. That you can't be honest is the issue.

i will believe what koonin published in papers at NCBI before i would some mysterious internet nobody that claims they "emailed koonin".