"Modern Cell Biology doesn't support Darwinism"

Uh-huh. And the definition of "small" is, "any time we actually observe it, it's just 'small' evolution."Circular reasoning, of course.

quote:

---

Nah, you can do that, please. Define kind,

---

I know of no useful definition of "kind" with regards to how you are using it in this context, which is why I thought I'd ask you to define it.Otherwise, it is meaningless and useless.Please stop dodging this very basic, very direct question of clarification.Define "kind". I'd also like to know what system to use in identifying which "kinds" are which. For example, is my housecat and a Bengal tiger the same "kind"? Are a Chimpanzee and Homo Sapiens the same kind?What consistent system do I use to determine if they are or not?

quote:

---

and while you are at it, define species, random, and vestigal.

---

I definitely will, after you provide a definition of "kind".Considering I have not used "species, random, nor vestigial" in this thread, while you have used "kind" in this thread, I think it makes more sense for you to define your meaning of the word so we can discuss it first.

Sorry shraf. Please define kind, will, randomness, etc,....If you cannot, then why are you mentioning these terms?On "kind", I have defined it before for you and you still bring it up. If you don't want to learn, why should I repeat it for you. Kinds refer to the theoritical life form groupings stemming from the first created life forms. Barimonology is the study of kinds.Even though I am not a YECer, I find evo criticism laughable in criticizing imprecision in determining and measuring for kinds, defining kinds, when evos have the same problem with randomness, and even at times with "species."As such, I don't consider your post and you worthy of paying much attention to since you don't seem to be willing to acknowledge the reality of these issues.

The recent discussion seems wholly generic. This thread has a topic, if no one is interested in discussing it then I might as well close the thread down.Anyone care to discuss the Maresca and Schwartz paper and its agreement, or lack thereof, with Randman's ideas about the fossil record? Or should this thread be put to bed?TTFN,AWThis message has been edited by AdminWounded, 22-Feb-2006 12:58 PM

It's an interesting claim in the paper. I am not sure why it did not or is not getting more responses and comments. Sorry for my part in taking the thread off-topic.

That's because the paper really doesn't address the EvC dispute. The paper is part of the continuing discussion with evolutionary science, as to exactly what the mechanisms are. It is not opposed to evolution.

nwr, can you explain what the paper is talking about when the authors say: You guys seem fond of claiming they are talking about PE, but they do not believe they are reiterating Punctuated Equilibrium.Can you explain that?

I have only read the abstract and the newspaper article. I haven't had time to check the library to see if there is a copy available that I can read. That's where I'm at a disadvantage, not having read the paper. If "Darwinism" is narrowly defined, almost everbody is against it - we know a lot that was unknown to Darwin. If broadly defined, it means about the same as "evolution", and nobody is against it (except creationists).I'm opposed to narrowly defined Darwinism. I'm also opposed to narrowly defined neo-Darwinism. But most biologists seem to have a rather broader view of what that is, broad enough to adequately account for common descent.Apparently Maresca & Schwartz have problems with gradualism, which they see as contrary to the evidence. I tend to agree with that, as do the PE folk. I don't see it as a problem for evolution, although I do see neo-Darwinism as not dealing with it adequately. The proposal of the authors, that there can be bursts of high rate mutation, doesn't strike me as the correct explanation.

You aren't at a disadvantage, it isn't as if Randman has read the paper after all.If he had he might have noticed that his quote isn't actually in the paper at all.One of the authors may have said it, but they didn't say it in the paper.You can make an argument that the statement is a natural corrollary of what is said in the paper, but that is not what Randman chose to do.TTFN,WK

I hope this isn't too substantial a lift from the paper. We can see a number of straw man representations of evolutionary theory here. What the distinction is between eliminating 'wrong' phenotypes and selecting 'right' phenotypes is is beyond me, it seems purely semantic. This is especially a problem since what is the 'wrong' phenotype is determined by a number of environmental factors one of which is the rest of your population, so there is nothing to stop the criteria for a 'wrong' phenotype shifting as one might expect in some form of directional selection. This isn't a claim which is made, there is no hypothetical "correct" sequence, there is just what works and what doesn't and some things work better than other in certain conditions. This could apply to almost any scale of mutation. The only 'unique' thing about this theory seems to be the blending of the stress induced mutation models common in bacterial studies with some sort of large scale make or break level of catastrophic mutation, such as you might see with large scale chromosomal rearrangements or wholesale duplications.TTFN,WK

quote:

---

Sorry shraf. Please define kind,

---

I can't. I have never been able to find a definition....which is why I asked.

quote:

---

will, randomness, etc,....
If you cannot, then why are you mentioning these terms?

---

I would happy to define randomness as it pertains to evolution, although your demand that I define "will" is new and I am not sure why it is relevant.However, YOU are the one who used the word "kind" in this thread.I have never found a definition of that word, so I do not know what you mean when you use it...which is why I asked you to define it.

quote:

---

On "kind", I have defined it before for you and you still bring it up.

---

I am terribly sorry. I don't remember seeing your definition of "kind". Could you please either link to the post where you defined it or provide it again for me?Even better, you could participate in my new thread that is devoted to defining "kind" as you have used it. Faith is on her own in there and could really use your help. she is, in fact, under the impression that "kind" has no definition currently and that there is no consistent way at present to tell the difference between different "kinds".Since you clearly DO have a definition, perhaps you could pop in on that thread and help us all out.I, for one, am looking forward to learning from you, randman.

quote:

---

If you don't want to learn, why should I repeat it for you.

---

Why don't you pretend that we're talking about Haeckel, but instead of talking about his drawings, substitute the definition of "kind"?That way, you might not mind repeating yourself so much.

quote:

---

Kinds refer to the theoritical life form groupings stemming from the first created life forms.

---

I am confused.I thought that the first created life forms as listed in the Bible were the "kinds", not the life form groupings which have stemmed from them.Also, how can I tell what "kind" an organism is? What consistent system can I use to tell where organisms should be grouped?(Don't answer those questions here, please take them to the thread where Faith needs your help.)

quote:

---

Barimonology is the study of kinds.

---

Yes, this a knew.Can you link to a baraminology site which has a precise definition of "kind", and also describes the system they use to determine what "kind" a given organism fits into?This message has been edited by schrafinator, 02-22-2006 09:56 AM

Thanks for those quotes and comments.It seems that the paper is refuting the creationist's strawman theory of evolution.It seems to me that evolutionary biology does have a problem. Much of the general public has picked up a strawman version of ToE. And a lot of the skepticism (and consequent support of ID) is because they find the strawman ToE quite implausible. And they are right about that.

quote:

---

Phenotypes do not change to “fit” their environment as a result of “correct” sequences of mutation

​

This isn't a claim which is made, there is no hypothetical "correct" sequence, there is just what works and what doesn't and some things work better than other in certain conditions.

---

That is perhaps the most serious of the common misunderstandings. Many people want to think of evolution as progressive, goal oriented. There are deeply held views in western culture and philosophy which tend to emphasize the idea of "correct", or of judgement based on truth. People vastly underestimate the importance of pragmatic judgement (what works). The pragmatism of science is not properly appreciated, so that science is often described as a search for truth.