Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
i would love to know where that little tidbit came from, but unfortunately it was printed in a newspaper and no other source was given.Pretty sure a link to a source would be nice. But we do have transitional fossils for horses though. http://donglutsdinosaurs.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/horse-evolution-postcard-1000x631.jpg
It was in a post I didn't notice. I don't search for your posts, and this is not the only forum I frequent. I also have a job and a family and other responsibilities and hobbies. I don't see every post. If you seriously think I would lie about something so stupid, you're confused about more than evolution.frankly i don't believe you.
it was a post made in the conversation about an experiment you was concerned about.
"MA experiments involve propagating many replicate lines at very small effective population sizes so that the effect of natural selection is swamped out by that of genetic drift, allowing weakly selected mutations to accumulate randomly."you know, i can't find that statement in the paper i posted.
did you make that up?
The date of the most recent conference on evolution? No, I have no idea. The Society for Molecular Biology and Evolution meets every year, as does the Society for Vertebrate Paleontology. There are others I know less about. I attend Boston-area meetings on evolution every month. There have been hundreds of conferences about evolution since 1980.can you provide the most recent, time and place?
Which is to say, it was largely about punctuated equilibrium.actually it was about whether the process of microevolution can be applied to macroevolution.
the conclusion was, no, it can't.
That was the impression of the reporter. Participants in the conference disagreed quite strongly that any such conclusion has been reached, as you can see if you read the letters to Science afterward. More to the point, the field of evolutionary biology since then has not drawn that conclusion. To the extent that there's any consensus, it is that sometimes evolution proceeds fitfully, and sometimes it proceeds gradually. Oh, and there's also the one thing that there is full consensus on, something that every participant in the conference would assent to: all species share common ancestry, and the evidence for this fact is overwhelming. If you really want to invoke these experts, you'd better start with the things they're certain of, not the secondary matters that are in dispute.actually it concerns the small matter of transitional fossils.
it was a conference to wrangle with the fact that species suddenly appear in the record and remain relatively constant until they disappear from the record.
the record simply does not support "small accumulating changes".
the conclusion of the conference reflects that.
the gould reference can be found in "science" and was said at the conference on evolution.
i found the eldredge reference from an old newspaper clipping.
the eldredge reference has an added bonus in regards to the horse "transitional" fossils we supposedly have.
its no surprise to me why you have never heard of this stuff.
he was also an award winning editor of science at the time of the conference.That was the impression of the reporter.
yes, i've read the letters.Participants in the conference disagreed quite strongly that any such conclusion has been reached, as you can see if you read the letters to Science afterward.
or in some cases not at all.More to the point, the field of evolutionary biology since then has not drawn that conclusion.
To the extent that there's any consensus, it is that sometimes evolution proceeds fitfully, and sometimes it proceeds gradually.
yes, we all seem to share DNA.Oh, and there's also the one thing that there is full consensus on, something that every participant in the conference would assent to: all species share common ancestry, and the evidence for this fact is overwhelming.
you would be hard pressed to prove "science" is a creationist publication.I have an issue of 'Science' where Gould and Eldrege say the exact opposite, and that the earlier stuff was a 'deliberate falsification by creationists'
i can see why.It's no surprise you haven't hear about it.
I have an issue of 'Science' where Gould and Eldrege say the exact opposite, and that the earlier stuff was a 'deliberate falsification by creationists'
It's no surprise you haven't hear about it.
since when has "science" been a creationist source?I have had a similar conversation with this person over her sources. What she must come to realise is that, if she persists in looking to creationist sources for her support, she is likely to be regularly repeating mistruths. Whether she is aware of it or not.
since when has "science" been a creationist source?
prove that the "NY times" is a creationist source.
since the times article was reprinted in the houston chronicle, prove that it too is creationist.
as a matter of fact, show where i have relied on creationist sources for any of my material
what does this imply to you?Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups."
- Gould, Stephen Jay 1983. "Evolution as Fact and Theory" in Hens Teeth and Horse's Toes: Further Reflections in Natural History. New York: W. W. Norton & Co., p. 258-260.
and this proves i'm a creationist?A quick search of a handful of your sources and your points leads to a bunch of creationist websites that have twisted and misinterpreted actual scientific information.
since when has "science" been a creationist source?
prove that the "NY times" is a creationist source.
since the times article was reprinted in the houston chronicle, prove that it too is creationist.
as a matter of fact, show where i have relied on creationist sources for any of my material
Binary fission is just the science vocab term for when bacteria divide to reproduce from one cell into 2 cells, and is the most common method of bacterial reproduction. But, you are missing some of the more uncommon ones.
https://micro.cornell.edu/research/epulopiscium/binary-fission-and-other-forms-reproduction-bacteria
If participants in a conference deny that there was a single conclusion reached by the conference, they probably have a point.he was also an award winning editor of science at the time of the conference.
Quite probably. But the fact that there were lots of dissenters means that consensus wasn't reached at the meeting. If you know that, why are you arguing that consensus was reached?yes, i've read the letters.
i was specifically interested if ayala or NAIG wrote to science concerning this article.
10 to 1 says all of the dissenters are gradualists.
Quite true. Sometimes morphological change is extremely slow. So?or in some cases not at all.
i'm sure you are familiar with the book "kon tiki".
they discovered a fish that was thought to have went extinct over a million years ago.
but there it was, in all its shining originality.
No, that's not the evidence for common descent. When I've presented you with a small piece of the evidence, you said it was over your head. If you know that you don't understand the evidence for something as basic as common descent, why on earth do you think you are in a position to judge what experts mean about more subtle matters? Why, indeed, aren't you trying to understand the evidence you've been giving, rather than raising different points?yes, we all seem to share DNA.
and this proves i'm a creationist?
that i quote from creationist sites?
where are these links you speak of?
all of my material comes from sources other than "creationist".
you know, that must be a pretty safe harbor for evolution, anyone or anything that questions it is put into a "creationist" category and canned.
i have repeatedly stated i am not a creationist.
the very first thread i posted in my introduction states such.
i've made numerous posts since then that state such, and you know it.
just more evidence that correlation is not evidence for causation.
Just an observation
"letters to the editor" have no weight in regards to any kind of conclusion.If participants in a conference deny that there was a single conclusion reached by the conference, they probably have a point.
i'm not saying a consensus was reached, you keep using that word, possibly as a strawman attempt.Quite probably. But the fact that there were lots of dissenters means that consensus wasn't reached at the meeting. If you know that, why are you arguing that consensus was reached?
i presented you with evidence in regards to "your experiment", evidence you have yet to answer.No, that's not the evidence for common descent. When I've presented you with a small piece of the evidence, you said it was over your head. If you know that you don't understand the evidence for something as basic as common descent, why on earth do you think you are in a position to judge what experts mean about more subtle matters? Why, indeed, aren't you trying to understand the evidence you've been giving, rather than raising different points?
an observation you have yet to support.Just an observation
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?