The Scientific Method & Macroevolution?

[whois]

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

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.
the only source i have is the article in the NY times by an author names boyce rensberger, published 1980.

i've looked for corroborating evidence but haven't found any yet.
i find it hard to believe this person would outright cook this quote.
i haven't found any reason to suggest he did.

 

[sfs]

frankly i don't believe you.
it was a post made in the conversation about an experiment you was concerned about.

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.

you know, i can't find that statement in the paper i posted.
did you make that up?

"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."

can you provide the most recent, time and place?

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.

actually it was about whether the process of microevolution can be applied to macroevolution.
the conclusion was, no, it can't.

Which is to say, it was largely about punctuated equilibrium.

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.

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.

 

[lasthero]

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.

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.

 

[whois]

That was the impression of the reporter.

he was also an award winning editor of science at the time of the conference.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

yes, we all seem to share DNA.

 

[whois]

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'

you would be hard pressed to prove "science" is a creationist publication.
you have presented nothing that supports what you have said.

It's no surprise you haven't hear about it.

i can see why.

can you post anything from the NT times that says the piece boyce authored is in error?

 

[SteveB28]

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.

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.

 

[whois]

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

 

[crjmurray]

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

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.

 

[SteveB28]

"I count myself among the evolutionists who argue for a jerky, or episodic, rather than a smoothly gradual, pace of change. In 1972 my colleague Niles Eldredge and I developed the theory of punctuated equilibrium. We argued that two outstanding facts of the fossil record -- geologically "sudden" origin of new species and failure to change thereafter (stasis) -- reflect the predictions of evolutionary theory, not the imperfections of the fossil record. In most theories, small isolated populations are the source of new species, and the process of speciation takes thousands or tens of thousands of years. This amount of time, so long when measured against our lives, is a geological microsecond . . .

Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists -- whether through design or stupidity, I do not know -- as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. 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.

 

[whois]

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.

what does this imply to you?

 

[whois]

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.

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.

 

[PsychoSarah]

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

I will mention that sometimes creationist sites have names that suggest they support the other position or perhaps are more "scientific". Evolution News comes to mind.

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

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

Oh, that's a great website thanks. Good flowing sentences, plus some cool images to make it easier to understand.
I'll read some more and then go back to your initial post, to see if I can offer you a better interaction.
Thanks so much for the effort.

 

[sfs]

he was also an award winning editor of science at the time of the conference.

If participants in a conference deny that there was a single conclusion reached by the conference, they probably have a point.

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 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?

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.

Quite true. Sometimes morphological change is extremely slow. So?

yes, we all seem to share DNA.

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?

 

[crjmurray]

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

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

Just an observation

it's true, creationists are the only ones who use caps

 

[crjmurray]

it's true, creationists are the only ones who use caps

Hehehehe

 

[whois]

If participants in a conference deny that there was a single conclusion reached by the conference, they probably have a point.

"letters to the editor" have no weight in regards to any kind of conclusion.
also notice the semantics here.
i'm using conclusion, the word used in the article.
you keep using consensus.
you are correct, there was no consensus, but the conclusion was the process of microevolution cannot be applied to macroevolution.

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'm not saying a consensus was reached, you keep using that word, possibly as a strawman attempt.

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?

i presented you with evidence in regards to "your experiment", evidence you have yet to answer.

 

[whois]

Just an observation

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.

 

[crjmurray]

an observation you have yet to support.

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.