Navigation
Disclaimer
Authors are solely responsible for the content of their articles on PandasThumb.org. Linked material is the responsibility of the party who created it. Commenters are responsible for the content of comments. The opinions expressed in articles, linked materials, and comments are not necessarily those of PandasThumb.org. See our full disclaimer.
Recent Comments
- John A. Davison on May 7, 2005 05:54 PM
- John A. Davison on May 7, 2005 04:43 PM
- jeffw on May 7, 2005 04:40 PM
- John A. Davison on May 7, 2005 03:49 AM
- qetzal on May 6, 2005 11:43 PM
- Flint on May 6, 2005 10:41 PM
- Steph on May 6, 2005 10:38 PM
- Steph on May 6, 2005 10:35 PM
- qetzal on May 6, 2005 10:21 PM
- Henry J on May 6, 2005 10:18 PM
Recent Trackbacks
Recommend this entry to a friend
Site Traffic
Posted by Yang Yang on April 20, 2005 09:27 AM
With any tavern, one can expect that certain things that get said are out-of-place. But there is one place where almost any saying or scribble can find a home: the bathroom wall. This is where random thoughts and oddments that don’t follow the other entries at the Panda’s Thumb wind up. As with most bathroom walls, expect to sort through a lot of oyster guts before you locate any pearls of wisdom.
Just because this is the bathroom wall does not mean that you should put your #$%& on it.
The previous wall got a little cluttered, so we’ve splashed a coat of paint on it.
Trackback URL: http://www.pandasthumb.org/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/970
Comment #25897
Posted by Bob Maurus on April 20, 2005 11:33 AM (e) (s)
Shades of JAD! I was unable to access the Bathroom Wall comments for the past several days - had to use the main page link, which took me to the previous BW page, with comments from 25 March through 05 April. Links to the other threads worked fine. How do I pull up the comments I missed?
Comment #25898
Posted by Ken Shackleton on April 20, 2005 11:41 AM (e) (s)
Creationists look for absolutes, if it can’t be proved absolutely true [and nothing can be], then it could be absolutely false….so reject it.
It is like they need the security of knowing that they can count on something in some absolute fashion. They are even willing to foregoe rational thought in order to maintain this false sense of security….it kinda reminds me of a small child that always needs his “blanky”.
Comment #25899
Posted by Bob Maurus on April 20, 2005 11:41 AM (e) (s)
Clicking on the “the previous wall” link above takes me to Comment 21883, 25 March through Comment 23194, 04 April.
Comment #25900
Posted by David Heddle on April 20, 2005 11:51 AM (e) (s)
Gee Ken, that was very insightful. You must be really, really smart.
Comment #25901
Posted by Aureola Nominee on April 20, 2005 11:54 AM (e) (s)
Oooohhh, we have a winner! I was ready to bet that the first crank to visit the new BW would be JAD…
Comment #25902
Posted by David Heddle on April 20, 2005 12:05 PM (e) (s)
Crank? Would that be me? Nah, I’m just a humble scientist.
Comment #25903
Posted by Ken Shackleton on April 20, 2005 12:17 PM (e) (s)
Gee Ken, that was very insightful. You must be really, really smart.
You liked that eh? What colour is your blanky?
Comment #25904
Posted by Ken Shackleton on April 20, 2005 12:19 PM (e) (s)
I must admit that I have a flare for stating the obvious….it’s a gift.
Comment #25905
Posted by Aureola Nominee on April 20, 2005 12:20 PM (e) (s)
Scientist? Possibly.
Humble? No way.
Comment #25906
Posted by Evolving Apeman on April 20, 2005 12:26 PM (e) (s)
Nothing can be proved absolutely true? Does that apply to macroevolution?
Comment #25907
Posted by Great White Wonder on April 20, 2005 12:34 PM (e) (s)
http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/04/20/mary.underpass.ap/index.html
Here’s the latest “evidence” in support of creationism.
A steady stream of the faithful and the curious, many carrying flowers and candles, have flocked to an expressway underpass for a view of a yellow and white stain on a concrete wall that some believe is an image of the Virgin Mary.
Will miracles never cease????
Comment #25908
Posted by Flint on April 20, 2005 12:38 PM (e) (s)
Nothing can be proved absolutely true? Does that apply to macroevolution?
Of course. Macroevolution is simply the best known explanation of all currently available evidence. Produce some new evidence in conflict with current evidence, and (assuming it’s valid) the theory must change to fit. This is what makes science special: it’s explanations change to fit the data, rather than vice versa. I hope to be as insightful as Ken someday!
Comment #25909
Posted by Aureola Nominee on April 20, 2005 12:40 PM (e) (s)
I hear the noise of straw being frantically collected by our resident Apeman…
Comment #25910
Posted by Great White Wonder on April 20, 2005 12:41 PM (e) (s)
You can catch John Davison’s speaking schedule for the summer here
Not sure why they keep spelling his name wrong. I heard a rumor that DaveScot might be joining him at the Cerrito, CA conference in May.
Although not on the schedule, it’s virtually guaranteed that Davison will make an appearance for at this one leg of this summer’s Trollapalooza.
Comment #25912
Posted by Great White Wonder on April 20, 2005 01:05 PM (e) (s)
AWESOME quote from Carl Bernstein reported today’s Daily Howler:
ANGLE (4/19/05): Former Washington Post reporter Carl Bernstein, who helped break the Watergate story, says journalism nowadays is squandering the public’s trust, insisting the, quote, “triumph of the idiot culture in news, particularly TV news, has weakened journalist drive for the truth.”
At a press convention in Kansas, Bernstein said, quote, “The consequences to a society that is misinformed and disinformed by the grotesque values of this idiot culture are truly perilous. For the first time in our history,” he went on, “the weird, the stupid, the coarse, the sensational and the untrue are becoming our cultural norm, even our cultural ideal.”
Isn’t it the truth? And how many unknowing souls have been sucked into the idiot culture? It’s going to be unpleasant for those simple folks when they receive the wake up call where they are informed about how terribly they’ve been let down.
Comment #25913
Posted by fwiffo on April 20, 2005 01:29 PM (e) (s)
Nothing can be proved absolutely true? Does that apply to macroevolution?
Yes, that is one of the limitations of science (contrast with Mathematics). Our current models of gravity, the atom, cell theory, germ theory, etc. are also among the things that science cannot prove to be absolutely true.
Comment #25914
Posted by Malkuth on April 20, 2005 01:32 PM (e) (s)
I hear the noise of straw being frantically collected by our resident Apeman.
That can’t be proved absolutely true. There are many other potential explanations that can account for [what seems to be] the noise that you [are supposedly] hearing that all can all be made to fit observations. Therefore, I choose to completely overlook the fact that it is the best explanation for the observation that we have and propose that a supernatural deity made the noise because it would be nihilistic to reject the notion that the supernatural deity made the noise. And if we tried to explain the origin of that noise in entirely naturalistic terms, life would be ultimiately meaningless and we’d have to resort to deviant behaviors in order to deal with the emptiness in our lives.
Comment #25915
Posted by Evolving Apeman on April 20, 2005 01:36 PM (e) (s)
Malkuth, you have become quite the apt pupil. Bravo
Comment #25921
Posted by Ken Shackleton on April 20, 2005 01:44 PM (e) (s)
And if we tried to explain the origin of that noise in entirely naturalistic terms, life would be ultimiately meaningless and we’d have to resort to deviant behaviors in order to deal with the emptiness in our lives.
Now that is some serious insight……seriously, no sarcasm on my part [the sarcasm is all his]. The creationist thinks that society will fall apart without God…..but it is only the creationist that will do so. I don’t need the promise of paradise or the threat of damnation to show me right from wrong….again, the child with the blanky analogy seems to fit the creationist quite well.
Comment #25922
Posted by Aureola Nominee on April 20, 2005 01:50 PM (e) (s)
You can squirm, Evolving Strawman, but you can’t hide…
Comment #25923
Posted by Evolving Apeman on April 20, 2005 01:56 PM (e) (s)
Is it absolute truth that there is no absolute truth?
Comment #25925
Posted by Aureola Nominee on April 20, 2005 02:11 PM (e) (s)
I like this game! Wait, I got one too: what is the sound of one hand clapping?
Comment #25927
Posted by Sir_Toejam on April 20, 2005 02:16 PM (e) (s)
“You can catch John Davison’s speaking schedule for the summer here”
quite the mullet on that ol boy.
Comment #25928
Posted by Russell on April 20, 2005 02:18 PM (e) (s)
Is it absolute truth that there is no absolute truth?
Yes and no.
Comment #25929
Posted by Sir_Toejam on April 20, 2005 02:18 PM (e) (s)
“I like this game! Wait, I got one too: what is the sound of one hand clapping?”
the same as the sound of a tree falling in the forest, when no-one is present.
Comment #25930
Posted by Malkuth on April 20, 2005 02:20 PM (e) (s)
I like this game! Wait, I got one too: what is the sound of one hand clapping?
A series of compressions and refractions of a medium that propagate through that medium.
My turn: If a tree falls in the woods and there’s no-one there to hear it, will someone prate about such inconsequential things as the tree?
Comment #25931
Posted by Aureola Nominee on April 20, 2005 02:21 PM (e) (s)
A minor quibble: “rarefactions”, nor “refractions” ;-)
Comment #25932
Posted by Ken Shackleton on April 20, 2005 02:24 PM (e) (s)
Is it absolute truth that there is no absolute truth?
Russell replied: “Yes and no.”
Hmmm…..I would say….most likely true….absolutely.
Comment #25933
Posted by Stephen Elliott on April 20, 2005 02:26 PM (e) (s)
Posted by steve on April 20, 2005 10:24 AM (e) (s)
Creationists Suck
Is that true?
If so, it’s got be a creationist girlfriend for me.
Comment #25934
Posted by Flint on April 20, 2005 02:26 PM (e) (s)
My turn: If a tree falls in the woods and there’s no-one there to hear it, will someone prate about such inconsequential things as the tree?
But it’s not inconsequential at all! If Apeman’s God didn’t hear the tree fall, then YOUR life is meaningless. Since your life is not meaningless, the tree’s fall was Heard. QED.
Comment #25935
Posted by Ken Shackleton on April 20, 2005 02:29 PM (e) (s)
Graffiti Time:
As I sit here broken hearted,
Paid my dime and only farted,
Next time I’ll take a chance,
Save a dime, but s**t my pants.
Is there truth in this?
Comment #25936
Posted by Malkuth on April 20, 2005 02:34 PM (e) (s)
Apparently, I was both proven wrong by Flint and had a serious minor quibble corrected by Aureola Nominee (I’ve apparently mixed up terms regarding two entirely different kinds of waves, one of which probably isn’t even a wave).
As for absolute truth, I’m going to have to say that we can provide evidence for it but can’t prove it absolutely true. We can, however assume a few things regarding absolute truth:
1.) Absolute truth exists.
2.) Even if we can’t ascertain it, we can make models close to the absolute truth which are good enough—that is, until we can make better models of the world.
3.) Evolving Apeman hasn’t ascertained it.
Comment #25939
Posted by Evolving Apeman on April 20, 2005 02:42 PM (e) (s)
If Apeman’s God didn’t hear the tree fall, then YOUR life is meaningless.
Correction, you Darwinian Fundamentalists have falsely conclude your existence is due to a chance driven undirected process. Because you deny absolute truth, you absolutely know nothing. Further evidence of your deluded nihilistic tendencies. Whether God exists or not depends neither on you or me. But for those who have decided that that they can never known anything, will complete their self-fulfilling prophecy.
BTW, In science, I consider anything with a p-value value < 10^-6 to be absolute truth. I can accept that my conclusion may be wront and my findings may been actually due to chance 10^-6th time.
Of course I recognize that Darwinists have problems with statistical inferences as Dembski has repeatedly pointed out.
Comment #25940
Posted by fwiffo on April 20, 2005 02:44 PM (e) (s)
Is it absolute truth that there is no absolute truth?
The answer (within one tenth of a plausability unit) is an emphatic MAYBE!
Comment #25941
Posted by Evolving Apeman on April 20, 2005 02:45 PM (e) (s)
Evolving Apeman hasn’t ascertained it.
That is correct those who view themselves as evolving apemen can never ascertain absolute truth. We finally agree!
<Group hug>
Comment #25942
Posted by Aureola Nominee on April 20, 2005 02:46 PM (e) (s)
Neither can anyone else for that matter, they can only pretend.
Evolving Strawman, congratulations! You’ve finally said one true thing!
Comment #25943
Posted by Ken Shackleton on April 20, 2005 02:50 PM (e) (s)
Because you deny absolute truth, you absolutely know nothing.
Wow….if we can’t know it all, then we must know nothing…..no room for anything in between? I am sure that I can know quite a bit while accepting that I will never know anything with absolute certainty.
[quote=Evolving Apeman]
BTW, In science, I consider anything with a p-value value < 10^-6 to be absolute truth. I can accept that my conclusion may be wront and my findings may been actually due to chance 10^-6th time.
[quote]
So….even the absolutes aren’t absolute….looks like we are in agreement.
Comment #25945
Posted by Gary Hurd on April 20, 2005 02:58 PM (e) (s)
“I like this game! Wait, I got one too: what is the sound of one hand clapping?”
the same as the sound of a tree falling in the forest, when no-one is present.
What if apeman farts in the woods and no-one claps?
Comment #25946
Posted by Ken Shackleton on April 20, 2005 03:01 PM (e) (s)
What if apeman farts in the woods and no-one claps?
God would still smell it….although he may not say that it was good.
Comment #25947
Posted by Colin on April 20, 2005 03:08 PM (e) (s)
News on the Kansas hearings:
A Topeka civil rights attorney has volunteered to represent Science.
He plans to present witnesses, and has been ordered to submit his witness list by May 2.
“Board member Connie Morris said she was planning on “praying over” the list of witnesses.”
Comment #25949
Posted by Traffic Demon on April 20, 2005 03:12 PM (e) (s)
Oh man, I made the mistake of googling Old Man Davison’s name and got punched in the eyeball of that God-awful visage. Wow, if there ever was an ark, Johnny sure as hell couldn’t get on it, because what would condescend to mate with him?
Comment #25950
Posted by Great White Wonder on April 20, 2005 03:18 PM (e) (s)
How disturbing is this?
http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/science/04/20/ape.research.ap/index.html
The animals, which have a life span of up to about 50 years, will be allowed to mate and have families — and develop cultures that will be studied for generations to come, Savage-Rumbaugh said.
….
The bonobos will be able to cook in their own kitchen, tap vending machines for snacks, go for walks in the woods and communicate with researchers through computer touchscreens. The decor in their 18-room home includes an indoor waterfall and climbing areas 30 feet high.
What a great beginning for a “developing culture.”
Comment #25951
Posted by Evolving Apeman on April 20, 2005 03:19 PM (e) (s)
So….even the absolutes aren’t absolute….looks like we are in agreement.
We are in agreement in a sense when it comes to science, which is not the only source of knowledge. The problem in science has less to do with measurement error, but that what we measure may not be the phenomena we think it is. Of course with Darwinian fundamentalists, macro-evolution is assumed, its “just a matter of time” before we figure out how it actually happened. The only way to make advances in science is to ask honest questions without forcing your data to fit a prescribed model.
Of course a basic understanding (or willingness to understand) of the philosophy of science would have prevented you from converting to Darwinian Fundamentalism
BTW, 1+1=2 is an absolute.
Comment #25953
Posted by Ken Shackleton on April 20, 2005 03:26 PM (e) (s)
Of course with Darwinian fundamentalists, macro-evolution is assumed, its “just a matter of time” before we figure out how it actually happened.
I am certain that others have provided you with evidence that supports this. It is not assumed, it has been demonstrated.
And I agree that science is not the only source of knowledge, but it is a very powerful one.
BTW:
Math isn’t the real world….it is a tool that allows us to approximate the real world….so absolutes can exist in math, but I have yet to see an absolute in the real world.
Comment #25954
Posted by Aureola Nominee on April 20, 2005 03:26 PM (e) (s)
Evolving Strawman:
Are you trying to argue that mathematics is anything but a human construct? Man, oh man, and you claim to be a scientist…
Comment #25955
Posted by Evolving Apeman on April 20, 2005 03:26 PM (e) (s)
What a great beginning for a “developing culture.”
You get to watch your “big daddy” get fat. I’m sure there will be some publications out in a few years how our “ancestors” had wisdom in their simple cultures before “religion” could pollute it. <yawn> You guys are so predictable and stupid.
Comment #25957
Posted by Aureola Nominee on April 20, 2005 03:32 PM (e) (s)
Evolving Strawman,
having to look at all your squirming, misrepresenting, and semantic dancing around is physically painful.
Your arguments are half-baked, your knowledge is conspicuous for its absence, and even your insults are weak.
In short, you are not even particularly interesting as an idiotic troll.
Over and out.
Comment #25960
Posted by jeff-perado on April 20, 2005 03:38 PM (e) (s)
“You jerk off?”
“Does a bear sh*t ni the woods?”
“No. No. No. Does a bear jerk off?”
“I sh*t in the woods, but I can’t jerk off”
—The Big Chill
Comment #25961
Posted by Ken Shackleton on April 20, 2005 03:38 PM (e) (s)
Apedude:
One other point….knowing HOW something occurs is not necessary to determine that it in fact DOES occur. Macroevolution has been clearly demonstrated to occur with complete independance from any mechanism that might explain HOW it occurs.
Knowing that apples fall does not first require an understanding of Newton’s Laws of Motion.
Comment #25965
Posted by Evolving Apeman on April 20, 2005 04:07 PM (e) (s)
I love it when Darwinian Fundamentalists compare their observations of Macro-evolution to that events like an apple falling. Ken if your lucky you’ll live to a 100 years. An apple falling from a tree lasts a second or two. The great apes, “our supposed distant cousins” that GWW is all excited about studying diverged from us how many human lifetimes ago?
As a more honest scientist, I concern myself with drawing grandiose inferences only from data that can be measured.
BTW, Aureola are your really going to let me have the last word. I think you find my arguments irresistable. You just haven’t figured out why. Perhaps that spark of doubt in the back of your soul may see the folly of your nihilism one day. Here is a “your welcome” for that day, when I’m no longer in your picture.
Comment #25967
Posted by Great White Wonder on April 20, 2005 04:13 PM (e) (s)
Apeman
Are you trying to argue that mathematics is anything but a human construct?
Are you implying that only humans can add?
I’m sure there will be some publications out in a few years how our “ancestors” had wisdom in their simple cultures before “religion” could pollute it.
Um, no. Our ancestors who were too dumb to practice science successfully surely invented religions to keep themselves sane (and to keep the stupider ones from getting uppity) — you can bet your life on that, bro’.
Comment #25969
Posted by Ken Shackleton on April 20, 2005 04:19 PM (e) (s)
Of course with Darwinian fundamentalists, macro-evolution is assumed, its “just a matter of time” before we figure out how it actually happened.
I was pointing out that knowing the mechanism is not necessary to determine the fact of a thing. Your statement implies that we cannot know the facts without also know the mechanism that is responsible for the observation.
The fact of macro-evolution has been demonstrated [and I do not need to live long enough to see it for myself when there is plenty of evidence to support its existence] independant of any mechanism that may be responsible for that fact.
The fallacy is all yours my friend.
Comment #25970
Posted by Great White Wonder on April 20, 2005 04:20 PM (e) (s)
Apeboy
As a more honest scientist, I concern myself with drawing grandiose inferences only from data that can be measured.
And as a dishonest hack, you pretend that such data is most consistent with the idea that mysterious alien beings “somehow” created all the life forms that ever lived on earth.
Nothing “grandiose” about that, according to Apeboy, whose theory is consistent with the absence of reports about flying saucers in the headlines and network news. After all, everyone knows that flying saucers and mysterious alien beings exist. They evidence is all around us.
Comment #25974
Posted by Sir_Toejam on April 20, 2005 04:56 PM (e) (s)
As we can all see, the story of Evolving Apeman (EA) is quite tragic. Working with others in the field of ignorance prevention (IP), we have developed a proposal to help prevent the tragic story of EA from happening in the future.
Won’t you please help?
post your comments and suggestions here:
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/evolution-ngo…
thanks for your consideration in helping to end world ignorance.
p.s. (don’t mind the “adult” warning - It’s a default for this beta group - I’m trying to get rid of it)
Comment #25978
Posted by John A. Davison on April 20, 2005 05:33 PM (e) (s)
I believe that macroevolution, which most certainly did take place in the past, did so by the rerepression of prescribed information, a process which required no genetic input from the environment and most certainly did not involve allelic mutation or natural selection.
John A. Davison
Comment #25979
Posted by Aureola Nominee on April 20, 2005 05:36 PM (e) (s)
GWW:
You may have misunderstood my comment (about the obviously artificial nature of mathematics) for one from that obnoxious troll.
But I forgive you. ;-)
Comment #25986
Posted by John A. Davison on April 20, 2005 06:16 PM (e) (s)
In a Darwinian world there could be no phyla or any other taxa. It would be and would have been a gigantic mishmosh which it most certainly is not and never has been. There are no intermediates between phyla just as there are no intermediates between species or any of the other taxonomic levels. The entire living world is characterized by profound interruptions which is what makes the Linnaean system possible. It is the very antithesis of arbitrary. It is defined almost to perfection by discrete features which by their very nature can not have had been gradually transformed one from another. From the very first bifurcation that separated the protostomes from the deuterostomes, evolution proceeded by a series of convulsive all-or-none irreversible transformations for which intermediate or gradual states are neither demonstrable nor conceivable. Does anyone think there is an intermediate condition between the extremes represented by whether the embryonic blastopore becomes the mouth or the anus? I hope not.
It is this feature of evolution that enables taxonomic keys to be completely unambiguous as they proceed from one binary alternative to the next and untimately to the positive identification of every organism involved in that particular taxon. It is particularly obvious in the birds, the area of specialization of Ernst Mayr who described himself as a “dyed-in-the-wool Darwinian.” It is hard to believe that he ever said such a thing isn’t it? But he did.
“The Growth of Biological Thought” page 132
John A. Davison
Comment #25987
Posted by Great White Wonder on April 20, 2005 06:20 PM (e) (s)
Aureola — you are correct!
I spare no one — even by accident. ;)
Thanks for the forgiveness. And my apologies if my remarks inadvertantly provided coal for the trolltrain.
Comment #25988
Posted by Great White Wonder on April 20, 2005 06:24 PM (e) (s)
Davidson
It would be and would have been a gigantic mishmosh which it most certainly is not and never has been.
A mishmosh? Be serious. A mishmash maybe but a mishmosh? Please. Stop pulling our chains.
Comment #25993
Posted by John A. Davison on April 20, 2005 06:50 PM (e) (s)
I am not pulling any chains. I am still trying (don’t ask me why) to enlighten those who are incapable of it. I am trying to explain why the Darwinian model is the biggest farce in the history of science and all GWW can do is take exception with my use of mishmosh instead of his preferred mishmash. Doesn’t that speak volumes about just how deluded the evolutionary establishement really is? Of course it does. It is hard to believe isn’t it? But there it is for all to see from the Great White Wonder himself, the man with a thousand aliases.
In case anyone wonders, my most recent post here was meant for the Down With Phyla Thread hosted by Nick Matzke, where I was met with one block after another until my index finger became paralyzed alternately punching the back and the post buttons. I am a slow learner I guess.
How do you like them Broccolis?
John A. Davison
Comment #25994
Posted by John A. Davison on April 20, 2005 06:53 PM (e) (s)
I am not pulling any chains. I am still trying (don’t ask me why) to enlighten those who are incapable of it. I am trying to explain why the Darwinian model is the biggest farce in the history of science and all GWW can do is take exception with my use of mishmosh instead of his preferred mishmash. Doesn’t that speak volumes about just how deluded the evolutionary establishement really is? Of course it does. It is hard to believe isn’t it? But there it is for all to see from the Great White Wonder himself, the man with a thousand aliases.
In case anyone wonders, my most recent post here was meant for the Down With Phyla Thread hosted by Nick Matzke, where I was met with one block after another until my index finger became paralyzed alternately punching the back and the post buttons. I am a slow learner I guess.
How do you like them Broccolis?
John A. Davison
Comment #25997
Posted by John A. Davison on April 20, 2005 07:12 PM (e) (s)
I figure by now I own Panda’s Thumb. I am only sorry that DaveScot isn’t here to share this glorious moment with me. He certainly helped to make this possible.
How do you like them Okras?
John A. Davison
Comment #25998
Posted by Aureola Nominee on April 20, 2005 07:14 PM (e) (s)
JAD:
For the sake of our eyes, already tired of reading your mishmash of poorly digested notions plus misguided certitude, write this down somewhere:
It’s not “post-back-post-back-post-etc”;
it is “post-wait-wait a little more-back-back-reload”.
Comment #26000
Posted by Sir_Toejam on April 20, 2005 07:24 PM (e) (s)
” I am still trying (don’t ask me why)”
WHY! WHY! WHY!
really.
Comment #26008
Posted by Stuart Weinstein on April 20, 2005 08:56 PM (e) (s)
Davison writes: I believe that macroevolution, which most certainly did take place in the past, did so by the rerepression of prescribed information, a process which required no genetic input from the environment and most certainly did not involve allelic mutation or natural selection.
I believe that piece of fissonable U235 with the mass of your grey matter wouldn’t yield enough energy to blow your nose.
I like my beliefs better then your beliefs.
When you learn to stop talking about your beliefs, and instead about your evidence, you can call yourself a scientist.
Comment #26011
Posted by Evolving Apeman on April 20, 2005 09:47 PM (e) (s)
Ken:
The fact of macro-evolution has been demonstrated [and I do not need to live long enough to see it for myself when there is plenty of evidence to support its existence] independant of any mechanism that may be responsible for that fact.
Clearly you don’t understand that evolution is a mechanism. The only thing that has ever been demonstrated is biological diversity. You can falsely conclude common descent via macroevolution. You can resort to your “anti-theory of the gaps” approach. Yes you certainly can.
One of my frustration with this site is having to constantly explain evolution 101 to Darwinian Fundamentalists. They are so caught up in trying to defend their nihilistic atheism, they don’t bother to learn the basics of science.
JAD how do you go about testing your “rerepresion of prespecified info.” hypothesis?
Comment #26014
Posted by Sir_Toejam on April 20, 2005 10:00 PM (e) (s)
anyone want to have some fun?
go here:
http://www.biblelandstudios.com/nuke/…
check out the story titled “eye of the storm”.
then go to their forum and educate them.
cheers
Comment #26016
Posted by Sir_Toejam on April 20, 2005 10:04 PM (e) (s)
@ea:
i’ll stop trying to defend my “nihilistic atheism” the moment you get brain surgery to repair that apparent defect you have in your cortex.
otoh, if i stop defending my nihilistic atheism, will you shut the hell up and let me get back to my darwinian fundamentalism?
:p
Comment #26017
Posted by Sir_Toejam on April 20, 2005 10:20 PM (e) (s)
did anyone catch the debate between shanks and nelson on npr last night?
i missed it.
there does not seem to be any record of it i can find on the justice talking site.
anyone who caught it remember details?
Comment #26037
Posted by John A. Davison on April 21, 2005 05:56 AM (e) (s)
Weinstein said it all:
“I like my beliefs more than your beliefs.”
Of course he does. That is why he remains a Darwinian. He has no choice. There is no longer any question that the way we view our world has a genetic component just as do our political preferences, our belief or lack of same in a Creator, our choice of toothpaste, our IQ and our eye color. In fact there seems to be nothing that escapes our genetic heritage, absolutely nothing.
I don’t care a fig about anyone’s beliefs including my own. I am only concerned about evidence. That is what science is all about. In the manuscript, “A Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis,” I presented both indirect and direct evidence, much of it in the several authors’ own words, in support of that hypothesis. If one chooses to ignore or even peruse that evidence, that is just fine with me. I’ll bet even that has a genetic basis. To paraphrase an old saw:
“You can lead a man to the literature but you cannot make him comprehend.”
How do you like them sweet potatoes?
John A. Davison
Comment #26038
Posted by John A. Davison on April 21, 2005 06:15 AM (e) (s)
Posts #25978 and #26008
I meant derepression not repression. A simple typo. Sorry about that.
John A. Davison
Comment #26042
Posted by Sandor on April 21, 2005 07:35 AM (e) (s)
JAD wrote:
“Does anyone think there is an intermediate condition between the extremes represented by whether the embryonic blastopore becomes the mouth or the anus? I hope not.”
Judging by the complete ID crap that you so regularly produce on this forum I’m tempted…
Comment #26045
Posted by John A. Davison on April 21, 2005 08:47 AM (e) (s)
Thanks Sandor. You fit right in here.
Who is next?
Comment #26046
Posted by bill on April 21, 2005 08:56 AM (e) (s)
In the manuscript, “A Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis,” I presented both indirect and direct evidence, much of it in the several authors’ own words, in support of that hypothesis.
-J. Davison
I read your short story, all 8 pages, twice. I’m envious of you being retired to have an hour of spare time to write down your opinion. Although it’s clear that you own a copy of the Giant Book of Quotes, it appears that you lack a dictionary. Otherwise you would have chosen a different title for your opus minimus. The only word in your title that accurately reflects your understanding of science, in my opinion, is “A.”
From personal experience allow me to offer you the following recommendation. If you want to expand your readership you must try to use humor that is less obtuse. I’d try a few E. coli jokes. You’ll have people crapping in their pants with laughter. To this end, spend a few hours a week at a Creative Writing night course at your local community college. With Dave Barry retired and Seinfeld off the air there’s a niche into which you could evolve.
Good luck with your studies. Oh, and, p.s. pick up a dictionary while you’re at it.
Comment #26047
Posted by John A. Davison on April 21, 2005 09:05 AM (e) (s)
There is nothing philosophical about a species. Two forms are different species if their hybrid is sterile partially or completely. If not they are the same species. That definition, proposed by Theodosius Dobzhansky, a Darwinian through and through, is a valid, reasonable and, above all, testable definition of species which conforms very nicely with the Linnaean nomenclature developed long before the Darwinian fairy tale appeared, a fairy tale that has done nothing to further our understanding of evolution and much to deter it.
John A. Davison
Comment #26051
Posted by Ken Shackleton on April 21, 2005 10:37 AM (e) (s)
Clearly you don’t understand that evolution is a mechanism. The only thing that has ever been demonstrated is biological diversity. You can falsely conclude common descent via macroevolution. You can resort to your “anti-theory of the gaps” approach. Yes you certainly can.
Clearly, I understand that it is both FACT and MECHANISM. The FACT of biodiversity and the FACT that ALL known forms [extant and extinct] can be placed in a nested hierarchy speaks to the FACT of macroevolution without needing to speak to the MECHANISM that brought it about.
The FACT that we also have a MECHANISM that explains OBSERVATIONS and gives solid predictions makes it all fit. It also makes it USEFUL…..clearly, ID has failed on all fronts when compared with contemporary evolutionary facts and theory.
Comment #26052
Posted by Ken Shackleton on April 21, 2005 11:04 AM (e) (s)
One of my frustration with this site is having to constantly explain evolution 101 to Darwinian Fundamentalists. They are so caught up in trying to defend their nihilistic atheism, they don’t bother to learn the basics of science.
Let’s see now…..Evolution 101:
1. Imperfect replication ensures that offspring will be slightly different from their parents.
2. Some of these differences will be heritable and will make a difference [due to environmental conditions] in the individuals’ chances for reproductive success.
3. The individuals with more offspring will pass on their heritable traits more often than those that have fewer offspring, the population changes [evolves] as a result.
4. The process continues with the next generation.
I think that covers the basic mechanisms of mutation and natural selection….without giving too much detail.
Hmmm…..the basics of science:
1. Make an observation
2. Construct a hypothesis [guess] to explain the observation in the context of known phenomina [be consistent with existing scientific knowledge].
3. Devise a test that will try to DISPROVE the hypothesis.
4. If the results support the hypothesis….create another test.
5. If the results do not support the hypothesis….change the hypothesis to incorporate the new observations and try again.
Keep doing this until you can come up with a hypothesis that is consistently supported by tests and further observations…..you may then actually have a theory.
Is my understanding reasonably sound…even for a nihilistic atheist?
Comment #26053
Posted by John A. Davison on April 21, 2005 11:21 AM (e) (s)
You too Bill. Just one more member of the groupthink herd. Thanks for exposing yourself.
Who is next?
John A. Davison
Comment #26054
Posted by John A. Davison on April 21, 2005 11:25 AM (e) (s)
Ken
Your Evolution 101 outline does not contain a single grain of evolutionary reality. Not one.
Who is next?
John A. Davison
Comment #26058
Posted by Ken Shackleton on April 21, 2005 12:08 PM (e) (s)
Your Evolution 101 outline does not contain a single grain of evolutionary reality. Not one.
Really…..elaborate please. Offspring aren’t different from parents? The differences aren’t selected upon by the environment? The heritable differences aren’t passed on to their offspring?
You need to clarify your assertion.
Comment #26067
Posted by bill on April 21, 2005 01:10 PM (e) (s)
Sticks and stones, John, sticks and stones.
But, you are right and I’ll admit that I have exposed myself as an educated, literate scientist with a fully-charged baloney detector and it was going off like a parking lot full of car alarms reading your codswallop. At least L. Ron Hubbard had the decency to write science fiction, and call it that, in addition to his lunatic screeds. I’m trying to tell you, John, balance, balance. You know you’re on the wrong track when even the ID crowd doesn’t reference your work. Take my advice, add the subtitle “A Comedy by John Davison”, throw in some E. coli jokes and I think you’ll find you have a new career. Come on! Let’s get started. Two E. coli and a penguin go into a bar and the bartender says…
Comment #26072
Posted by Evolving Apeman on April 21, 2005 01:38 PM (e) (s)
Let’s see now…..Evolution 101:
1. Imperfect replication ensures that offspring will be slightly different from their parents.
2. Some of these differences will be heritable and will make a difference [due to environmental conditions] in the individuals’ chances for reproductive success.
3. The individuals with more offspring will pass on their heritable traits more often than those that have fewer offspring, the population changes [evolves] as a result.
4. The process continues with the next generation.I think that covers the basic mechanisms of mutation and natural selection….without giving too much detail.
Time for our lesson boys and girls. If Ken’s defintion of evolution was correct we could easily falsify evolution:
1. Offspring our ensured to be different from their parents because they receive a seperate chromosome from each parent. Imperfect replication plays a trivial role, and in humans we typically call it disease.
2. Which nuclear DNA is not heritable? What other role does DNA play other than to directly or indirectly increase reproductive success? Even altruism can be explained by evolution. A rodent gives a self-sacrificng alarm call to warn his close relatives (with similar DNA) of a predator.
3. Humans are among species with the fewest offspring, I’m sure natural selection can argue reasons for that.
All aspects of humanity can be explained by evolution and none can be falsified. How dare I call Darwinism a religion!
Tomorrow I’ll teach you about science 101, but now I must get back to my publications.
Comment #26073
Posted by Flint on April 21, 2005 01:40 PM (e) (s)
Ken Shackleton:
You omitted something important, I think. We must presume that all organisms produce more offspring than the environment can accommodate. Otherwise, essentially all would be selectable, and no filtering could take place.
Comment #26074
Posted by John A. Davison on April 21, 2005 01:43 PM (e) (s)
Kenneth
I have clarified my assertions and those of my many predecessors in my papers. Natural selection had absolutely nothing to do with evolution, only with the maintenance of that which had appeared and that typically for only relatively short periods of time. You obviously are not familiar either with my papers or those of my sources.
So far I’m bowling a perfect game. Set them up in the other alley.
Now, let’s see, who is next?
John A. Davison
Comment #26076
Posted by fwiffo on April 21, 2005 02:11 PM (e) (s)
JAD, I think it’s only fair to inform you that you’re being made fun of, since you don’t seem to have caught on.
I have some questions for you though… Based on the definition you use for “species”, and your assertion that there are no intermediaries, what do you think of wholphins? Do you believe that Atlantic bottle-nose dolphins and false killer whales are the same species or two separate species? There are other incidents where hybrids of two closely related species are sometimes fertile, and sometimes infertile. Very rarely, even a fertile mule is born. Do you have an explantation for that?
There are species which have characteristics which vary across their geographic range, and in some cases, members from extreme ends of that range are do not interbreed. How would you characterize those? What is your opinion of ring species?
Comment #26078
Posted by Ken Shackleton on April 21, 2005 02:20 PM (e) (s)
I have clarified my assertions and those of my many predecessors in my papers. Natural selection had absolutely nothing to do with evolution, only with the maintenance of that which had appeared and that typically for only relatively short periods of time. You obviously are not familiar either with my papers or those of my sources.
Wow….so every other paper that I have ever read regarding Natural Selection is wrong….but your’s is correct….I guess you win then, congratulations.
You omitted something important, I think. We must presume that all organisms produce more offspring than the environment can accommodate. Otherwise, essentially all would be selectable, and no filtering could take place.
You are correct, I did omit that point…thanks for that.
Time for our lesson boys and girls. If Ken’s defintion of evolution was correct we could easily falsify evolution:
1. Offspring our ensured to be different from their parents because they receive a seperate chromosome from each parent. Imperfect replication plays a trivial role, and in humans we typically call it disease.
2. Which nuclear DNA is not heritable? What other role does DNA play other than to directly or indirectly increase reproductive success? Even altruism can be explained by evolution. A rodent gives a self-sacrificng alarm call to warn his close relatives (with similar DNA) of a predator.
3. Humans are among species with the fewest offspring, I’m sure natural selection can argue reasons for that.All aspects of humanity can be explained by evolution and none can be falsified. How dare I call Darwinism a religion!
Tomorrow I’ll teach you about science 101, but now I must get back to my publications.
I kept my terms general enough so that it could be applied to any replicating organism, not just humans. I should have stated that imperfect replication ensures that SOME offspring will be different from their parents. This also applies to asexual reproduction.
The differences can be any differences, not only disease. I did not specify that the differences would only be reflected in the nuclear DNA, the only requirement is that the differences be heritable.
Nice rant though, where do you get all that straw…..you better get back to your publications.
Comment #26079
Posted by Great White Wonder on April 21, 2005 02:23 PM (e) (s)
Imperfect replication plays a trivial role, and in humans we typically call it disease.
Ah, yes, the disease of “DNA fingerprintitis”. Maybe Apeboy can tell us what the symptoms are.
Comment #26080
Posted by John A. Davison on April 21, 2005 02:27 PM (e) (s)
Since I have been blocked here also, adieu. have a nice groupthink.
Comment #26081
Posted by Longhorm on April 21, 2005 02:27 PM (e) (s)
Evolving Apeman wrote:
Clearly you don’t understand that evolution is a mechanism. The only thing that has ever been demonstrated is biological diversity. You can falsely conclude common descent via macroevolution. You can resort to your “anti-theory of the gaps” approach. Yes you certainly can.
There may have been multiple biogenesis events. But all “complex organisms” that have lived on earth over the last 3.8 billion years descended from the very same cell (or cluster of self-replicators) that was on earth about 3.8 billion years ago. Humans, dinosaurs, mice and bacteria share common ancestors.
It is sometimes hard to determine every kind of event that caused a subsequent event. However, some organisms having reproduced more times than some other organisms has contributed significantly to the differences between all organisms to live on earth subsequent to the first primordial cell(s).
Some cell divisions are followed by the daughter-cell having a genome that is different than the genome of its parent-cell. Meiosis occurs sometimes. In the human male’s testes, the 46 chromosomes clump together in the middle of one cell. They then break apart and recombine in new patterns. There are still 46. Then that cell divides and there are two cells with 46. Then those two cells divide one more time and we have four cells each with only 23 chromosomes in each. All four have a different genome. Then these cells divide and we get sperm cells. In the woman’s reproductive organs, the same series of event occurs. This happens in all sexually reproducing organisms, from plants to elephants, from sponges to sperm whales.
Sometimes a sperm-cell penetrates an egg-cell. The 23 chromosomes that come from the sperm never blend with the 23 chromosomes that are in the egg. The two clusters of 23 rest close to each other in the nucleus of the cell. This cell divides. Maybe we get a fetus. Maybe an offspring is born. This process is called “sexual reproduction” and/or “genetic recombination.” Moreover, some organisms reproduce more times than some others. These two kinds of events — sexual reproduction and differences in reproductive success — have contributed significantly to the differences among sexually reproducing organisms. For instance, much of the differences among the dogs at the big dog show in Madison Square Garden were caused by these two kinds of events. In sexual reproduction, the offspring always has a genome that is different than the genome of either of its parents. That is one of the beauties of sexual reproduction. It also has contributed to more complex organisms. An organism doesn’t get immediately thrust out into the cold cruel world. It may develop and mature inside the parent.
Recessive genes have also played a huge role in bringing about the differences between some organisms. Some traits are triggered if both the mother and the father have a particular gene.
On a different note, sexual reproduction didn’t even evolve until perhaps 1.5 billion to 650 million years ago. Sponges, sea anemone and cnidarians are probably similar to some of the early sexual reproducers. When cells divide, sometimes the daughter-cell has a genome that is different than the genome of its parent-cell. When this occurs, scientists tend to say: “The daughter-cell has a new mutation.” Sometimes the daughter-cell has a larger number of nucleotides. What kinds of events cause daughter-cells to have different genomes than their parent-cells? I’ll touch on this below.
Moreover, “mutations” occur during sexual reproduction, as well. During the series of divisions following the fertilization of an egg-cell, a daughter-cell may have a genome that is different than the genome of its parent-cell. Sometimes a subsequent division results in a cell that is identical to the original — “pre-mutant” — cell. But sometimes not. Sometimes the cell with the novel genome divides over and over again and the organism is comprised of some or all of those cells. When this happens, scientists tend to say: “the organism has a new mutation.” This kind of event resulted in achondroplasia (dwarfism). It is also resulted in humans with blue eyes. And I think hermaphrodites, as well. This kind of event also resulted in humans that are resistant to malaria and bacteria that is resistant to antibiotics.
Fins evolved into limbs partly because of mutation — cell-divisions that were followed by daughter-cells with genomes that were different than the genomes of their parent-cells. Humans with blues eyes was triggered by by one of these kinds of divisions.
The combination of (1) time (2) sexual reproduction, (3) mutation (cell-divisions followed by daughter-cells with genomes that are different than the genomes of their parent-cells) and (4) varying levels of reproductive success contributed significantly to the existence of the first eyes. It is this combination that seems to play a huge role in bringing about some of the most significant differences among organisms.
So-called mutations occur frequently. RNA-based lytic viruses average 1 new mutation per division. Humans average about 1.5 new mutations per divisions among coding genes and maybe 100 muations across the entire genome. Mice average about 1 new mutation per division among coding genes.
What causes mutations — cell divisions which are followed by daughter-cell having genomes that are different than the genomes of their parent-cells? Well, varying levels of reproductive success has been hugely causally significant. For instance, lytic viruses are mutating at the rate they are partly because, over many hundreds of millions of years, it has helped populations of lytic viruses live and reproduce. Lower rates of mutation have resulted in less reproduction. Higher rates have resulted in less reproduction.
Comment #26082
Posted by John A. Davison on April 21, 2005 02:30 PM (e) (s)
Why don’t you guys get together and get your system fixed? As long as I can get through I shall.
Who is next?
Comment #26085
Posted by Longhorm on April 21, 2005 02:42 PM (e) (s)
Here is a link to an Op-Ed on the issue of abiogenesis that appeard in this week’s New York Times by Paul Davies. He is a professor at the Australian Center for Astrobiology at Macquarie University:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/10/opinion/10davies.html…?
To read the Op-Ed requires a brief registration. To read this particular Op-Ed costs $2.95.
On a different note, here is a passage from Mayr’s What Evolution Is. He was one of the greatest biologist to ever live. He wrote the book for a general audience. Mayr was a professor at Harvard. He recently passed away.
Astronomical and geophysical evidence indicate that the Earth originated about 4.6 billion years ago. At first the young earth was not suitable for life, owing to heat and exposure to radiation. Astronomers estimate that it became livable about 3.8 billion years ago, and life apparently originated about that time, but we do not know what this first life looked like. Undoubtedly, it consisted of aggregates of macromolecules able to derive substance and energy from surrounding inanimate molecules and from the sun’s energy. Life may well have originated repeatedly at this early stage, but we know nothing about this. If there have been several origins of life, the other forms have since become extinct. Life as it now exists on Earth, including the simplest bacteria, was obviously derived from a single origin. This is indicated by the genetic code, which is the same for all organisms, including the simplest ones, as well as by many aspects of cells, including the microbial cells. The earliest fossil life was found in strata about 3.5 billion years old. These earliest fossils are bacterialike, indeed they are remarkably similar to some of the blue-green bacteria that are still living (What Evolution Is, p. 40).
Finally, here is a link to an article on gene duplication that appeard in the year 2000 in Science Magazine. When cells divide, sometimes the daughter-cell consists of a larger number of nucleotides than does it parent-cell.
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/290/5494/1151?ijk…
The article is entitled The Evolutionary Fate and Consequences of Duplicate Genes. It is by Michael Lynch and John S. Conery. Here is the abstract:
Gene duplication has generally been viewed as a necessary source of material for the origin of evolutionary novelties, but it is unclear how often gene duplicates arise and how frequently they evolve new functions. Observations from the genomic databases for several eukaryotic species suggest that duplicate genes arise at a very high rate, on average 0.01 per gene per million years. Most duplicated genes experience a brief period of relaxed selection early in their history, with a moderate fraction of them evolving in an effectively neutral manner during this period. However, the vast majority of gene duplicates are silenced within a few million years, with the few survivors subsequently experiencing strong purifying selection. Although duplicate genes may only rarely evolve new functions, the stochastic silencing of such genes may play a significant role in the passive origin of new species.
Comment #26089
Posted by John A. Davison on April 21, 2005 03:11 PM (e) (s)
Why don’t youb guys get together and get your system fixed?
Comment #26094
Posted by Longhorm on April 21, 2005 03:25 PM (e) (s)
Here is a link to illustrations of different dogs:
http://www.akc.org/breeds/breeds_a.cfm…
Some dogs are quite different than others, for instance. chihuahuas and Saint Bernards. Also, how old is the youngest ancestors that chihuahuas and Saint Bernards share? I’m sure less 100,000 years old. That is a blink of an eye in terms of geologic time. Organisms have been reproducing on planet earth for 3.8 billion years.
Of course, my understanding that chihuahuas and saint bernards share a common ancestor that is less than 100,000 years old does not, by itself, enable me to determine that humans and dinosaurs share common ancestors. But that is not the only relevant data available to me. We also have fossil data, embryology, genetic data, etc. We also know that billions and billions of organisms have come into being through sexual reproduction. When organisms sexually reproduce, the offspring is always a little different (in terms of genotype and phenotype) than either of its parents. And we know that billions and billions of organisms have come into being through cell division. When cells divide, the daughter-cell often is a little different (in terms of genotype and phenotype) than either of its parents.
A silly (but still instructive) contrast: Over the last 500 years, no extraterrestrial has used a high-tech device to turn dust — poof! — directly into any elephant on planet earth. In the meantime, lots of elephants have been born by their mothers.
Comment #26095
Posted by Sir_Toejam on April 21, 2005 03:25 PM (e) (s)
@flint:
“You omitted something important, I think. We must presume that all organisms produce more offspring than the environment can accommodate. Otherwise, essentially all would be selectable, and no filtering could take place.”
well, I think you need to clarify that a bit. selection can still act on individuals in populations below carrying capacity. unless by saying “the environment can accomodate” you mean the environment acting as bilogical as well as physical? Incomplete unless you include predation, disease, parasitism, mate choice, etc. as selection pressures as well as intra/inter species competition for resources.
I’m sure you can see where confusion would arise.
Comment #26099
Posted by Longhorm on April 21, 2005 03:39 PM (e) (s)
I posted:
So-called mutations occur frequently. RNA-based lytic viruses average 1 new mutation per division. Humans average about 1.5 new mutations per divisions among coding genes and maybe 100 muations across the entire genome. Mice average about 1 new mutation per division among coding genes.
When talking to someone who is not familiar with evolution and/or skeptical that it occurred, it is generally good to (a) use the word “mutation,” (b) to indicate that “mutation” have been a hugely important part of evolution and (c) to try to get across some of the kinds of events that contribute to mutations. That seems to help people understand evolution and realize that it occurred.
Interestingly, what scientists call “natural selection” has contributed significantly to the occurrance of many — perhaps almost all — mutations. In others words, if an organism is born with a mutation, it is probably partly because a particular frequency of mutation has helped similar organisms live and reproduce.
However, I would like a better idea of the kinds of events that cause daughter-cells to have genomes that are different than the genomes of their parent-cells. Especially, the first cell that was on earth about 3.8 billion years. What events caused it to divide? And what kinds of events caused those early daughter-cells to be different than their parent-cells?
Comment #26102
Posted by Flint on April 21, 2005 03:57 PM (e) (s)
Sir_Toejam:
I doubt there is any real confusion here. In sexually reproducing species, on the average each mated pair must replicate themselves, which means two of their offspring must survive to breed again. This requires that (again on the average) each pair must produce more than two offspring, because of the conditions you mention (predation, disease, etc.) Two or fewer, the species won’t survive very long. Greater than two and some sort of selection must winnow the number back down to two (if any more than two survive to breed on average, a resource shortage will shortly ensue).
In a nutshell: For natural selection to work, (a) there must be winners to breed; and (b)there must be losers who do not.
Longhorn:
I’m always uncomfortable with discussion of the “first cell”. Do you suppose the first molecules meeting the minimal biological requirements (replication, capability to evolve) were cells?
Comment #26108
Posted by John A. Davison on April 21, 2005 04:18 PM (e) (s)
Sexual reproduction is incapable of doing anything more than producing varieties or subspecies. Many organisms can’t even manage that.
Comment #26109
Posted by Sir_Toejam on April 21, 2005 04:22 PM (e) (s)
“For natural selection to work, (a) there must be winners to breed; and (b)there must be losers who do not.”
i like this far better as a general statement.
Comment #26119
Posted by Henry J on April 21, 2005 05:22 PM (e) (s)
Re “I’m always uncomfortable with discussion of the “first cell”. “
Wonder if that’s analogous to “first mammal” or “first primate” - i.e., somewhat arbitrary between those almost but not quite meeting some definition, and those who just barely meet that definition.
Henry
Comment #26130
Posted by Longhorm on April 21, 2005 06:17 PM (e) (s)
I posted:
Finally, here is a link to an article on gene duplication that appeard in the year 2000 in Science Magazine. When cells divide, sometimes the daughter-cell consists of a larger number of nucleotides than does it parent-cell.
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/290/5494/1151?ijk……
The above link just gives you the registration form for Science Magazine. The link I provide below is to a detailed abstract of the article, and you can get the whole article by going over to the right-hand side of the page and clicking on “PDF Version of This Article.”
Comment #26132
Posted by Longhorm on April 21, 2005 06:31 PM (e) (s)
John Davison posts:
Sexual reproduction is incapable of doing anything more than producing varieties or subspecies.
If I reproduce with a woman, the offspring isn’t going to be that different than us. But, John, what reason is there to believe that (1) sexual reproduction/genetic recombination, (2) varying levels of reproductive success and (3) massive lengths of time has never resulted in significant differences between organisms?
You might be right. I’m not sure.
Comment #25893
Posted by steve on April 20, 2005 10:24 AM (e) (s)
Creationists Suck