The Scientific Method & Macroevolution?

[whois]

Support what? Your points and your sources can be found on creationist sites. That's a fact. I'm not drawing a conclusion from that. Just making an observation. I don't have to support anything.

the problem is, my sources aren't creationist, and you haven't proven they are.
"science" is not creationist.
the "NY times" is not creationist.
"pub med" and "NCBI" are not creationist.
"nature" is not creationist.

but, let's play your little strawman game here.
what if i WAS (notice the caps) creationist?
what of it?
how does that negate any of the material i have presented?

 

[Mr Strawberry]

an observation you have yet to support.

edit:
as a matter of fact i am going to ask that you do so now, or your post will be reported for flaming.

We are a sensitive flower aren't we.

 

[crjmurray]

whois mentioned Boyce Rensberger and horse evolution.
The first page of a google search brings up these results:

Creation.com

Talkorigins.com (article on quote mining)

Darwinismrefuted.com

gen1rev22.blogspot.com

harunyahya.com

books.google.com (The Evolution Deceit)

books.google.com (Atlas of Creation)

amazon.com (The Myth of Horse Evolution)

My observation that your points can be found in creationist material is accurate. Whether you found them there or not, I can't say.

 

[whois]

Whether you found them there or not, I can't say.

only because you are willfully blind.
i told you where i found this information.

 

[whois]

the question i have about this is, why would boyce say the horse transitional fossils have long been known frauds?
i fail to believe he would just cook this observation.
there has to be corroborating evidence somewhere.

 

[crjmurray]

My point was, the reason people are accusing whois of using creationist material is that all of these sources along with the points whois is making can be found on creationist sites and in creationist books.

 

[bhsmte]

My point was, the reason people are accusing whois of using creationist material is that all of these sources along with the points whois is making can be found on creationist sites and in creationist books.

And, creationist sites, will use material, that supports creationism.

Anybody who has visited these sites and has any ability to reason, can see the misrepresentation of science these sites embark on, that involve; quote mining, selective reasoning and outright denial.

Some people are creationists, some agree with evolution and there are others, who are simply; anti-evolution and will use the same tactics that creationists do.

Not difficult to figure out what is going on here.

 

[crjmurray]

the question i have about this is, why would boyce say the horse transitional fossils have long been known frauds?
i fail to believe he would just cook this observation.
there has to be corroborating evidence somewhere.

Where does he say fraud?

 

[Mr Strawberry]

trust me, i've thought about it, and still might.

You're going to report yourself? Go for it.

 

[whois]

here is the excerpt:

the popularly told example of horse evolution, suggesting a gradual sequence of changes from four-toed, fox-sized creatures living nearly 50 million years ago to today's much larger one-toed horse, has long been known to be wrong

-boyce rensberger, the new york times 1980

the above article has this to say about the conference me and sfs were discussing:

exactly how evolution happened is a matter of great controversy among biologists (and) it reached a crescendo last month, as some 150 scientists specializing in evolutionary studies met for 4 days to thrash out a variety of new hypothesis that are challenging older ideas.
no clear resolution of the controversies was in sight.

-ibid.
contrast that with what lewin had to say.
the above comes from a newspaper, lewins quote comes from a well respected science source.

taking all of the evidence seems to suggest lewin was closer to the answer.
corroborating evidence for lewins stand comes from another well respected source, "nature" in the form of a graph of primate transitional fossils.
there are so few primate fossils that no conclusion at all can be reached.

 

[Loudmouth]

correct.
i have seen no indication that bats were anything other than bats, they always have been, and they will always be.

Where is your evidence that bats have always been bats?

the commonality of DNA makes it easy to come up with "similarities" that aren't reality.
there can easily be 2 different organisms that displays enough similarities to assume one came from the other when in fact nothing like that happened.

It isn't just the similarities that evidence evolution. It is the nested hierarchy that evidences evolution. It is the PATTERN of similarities. This is one of the most basic concepts in the theory of evolution, and you should know this if you claim to understand the theory.

the "mutations" of which you speak, most of these are transposons.

Evidence?

From what I have seen, this isn't the case. If we look at Table 2 from the chimp genome paper we see that there is around 7,000 insertions taking up 20 million bases from transposon activity between the two lineages.

This compares to 35 million substitution mutations and and 75 million bases added by other types of indels. Transposons make up a minority of the mutations that caused humans and chimps to diverge over time.

the "mutations" that matter take place in our HOX genes, and are responsible for some of our nastiest deformities.

Evidence?

We have already shown you that there are humans in the population that have mutations in HOX genes without any deformities. When will you stop with this misinformation?

they are responsible for the majority of miscarriages, and they are responsible for some cancers.

Evidence?

in my opinion, these types of mutations will not accumulate, but instead result in a profound change in the organism.

You were born with 50 mutations. How did those 50 mutations cause profound change in you?

this implies that each organism has a unique HOX pattern that cannot be breached.

We already showed you humans with HOX mutations and no deformities. I have also showed you that mutations in the HOX genes of other species are not lethal and perfectly normal.

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

Not difficult to figure out what is going on here.

Has anyone seen Zosimus?

 

[Loudmouth]

the problem is, my sources aren't creationist, and you haven't proven they are.

You just happened upon these quotes in your own reading of the original source material?

Do you really expect us to believe that?

 

[bhsmte]

Has anyone seen Zosimus?

Good call!

IMO, there are a few posters on this site, that likely post under multiple identities.

 

[crjmurray]

Has anyone seen Zosimus?

He disappeared after attempting to discuss criminal investigations. It didn't go well.

 

[Loudmouth]

i see.
how do you put this in perspective with the recent findings of HOX genes?

Are you ever going to acknowledge known mutations in human HOX genes that are not lethal and are found in a high percentage of people in the human population?

Are you ever going to acknowledge that homologous HOX genes differ between species, demonstrating that they can mutate without causing deformations?

how do you resolve this with the most recent (1980) conference on evolution?

What makes you think that a conference 35 years ago was the most recent one?

the conclusion of this conference was that small changes do not accumulate.

Nowhere do you show that.

gould referred to the record as being in a "woeful state".
eldredge goes a step further by saying "some would say no transitional fossils exist".
the findings about HOX genes seems to support that conclusion.
and this, from a recent genetics experiment:


what do you suppose the story is here?

And here we go with the usual misinformation. Where did Gould or Eldredge ever mention mutations?

 

[whois]

You just happened upon these quotes in your own reading of the original source material?

no.
they came to me in a vision i had when i was in a tarot session.

 

[Loudmouth]

no.
they came to me in a vision i had when i was in a tarot session.

You got them from creationist sites, right?

 

[whois]

Are you ever going to acknowledge known mutations in human HOX genes that are not lethal and are found in a high percentage of people in the human population?

yes, when you post them.

What makes you think that a conference 35 years ago was the most recent one?

it's the most recent that i'm aware of.
have any others where 150 scientists gathered to discuss the issue, if so then post it now.

And here we go with the usual misinformation. Where did Gould or Eldredge ever mention mutations?

i never said they did to my knowledge.
but knowing you like i do, you have probably taken 2 or 3 or 4 or 5 posts and woven them together.
great job dude.

 

[crjmurray]

here is the excerpt:
-boyce rensberger, the new york times 1980

the above article has this to say about the conference me and sfs were discussing:
-ibid.
contrast that with what lewin had to say.
the above comes from a newspaper, lewins quote comes from a well respected science source.

taking all of the evidence seems to suggest lewin was closer to the answer.
corroborating evidence for lewins stand comes from another well respected source, "nature" in the form of a graph of primate transitional fossils.
there are so few primate fossils that no conclusion at all can be reached.

Where does rensberger say fraud?