Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,812 Year: 3,069/9,624 Month: 914/1,588 Week: 97/223 Day: 8/17 Hour: 4/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Punk Eek for Redwolf
Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3974
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 16 of 50 (101653)
04-21-2004 6:39 PM


Topic drift alert!
I haven't studied this topic closely, but I must suspect things are getting remote from "Punk Eek".
A probability topic is available at the old improbable probability problem.
Adminnemooseus

WHERE TO GO TO START A NEW TOPIC (For other than "Welcome, Visitors!", "Suggestions and Questions", "Practice Makes Perfect", and "Short Subjects")
Comments on moderation procedures? - Go to
Change in Moderation?
or
too fast closure of threads

  
Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 17 of 50 (101664)
04-21-2004 6:59 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by redwolf
04-21-2004 6:18 PM


The picture of the calf is an example of conjoined twins, not a mutation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by redwolf, posted 04-21-2004 6:18 PM redwolf has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by bondserv, posted 04-21-2004 11:39 PM Loudmouth has not replied

  
GSHS
Inactive Member


Message 18 of 50 (101716)
04-21-2004 10:52 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by redwolf
04-21-2004 6:18 PM


No beneficial Mutations
I have never seen any beneficial mutations. All are bad always.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by redwolf, posted 04-21-2004 6:18 PM redwolf has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by NosyNed, posted 04-21-2004 11:05 PM GSHS has not replied
 Message 20 by Coragyps, posted 04-21-2004 11:06 PM GSHS has not replied
 Message 34 by Charity, posted 04-22-2004 5:52 PM GSHS has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 19 of 50 (101717)
04-21-2004 11:05 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by GSHS
04-21-2004 10:52 PM


Re: No beneficial Mutations
LOL, GSHS, so? Do you know that you have several mutations yourself. Most are, in fact, neutral. Besides beneficial or not depends on the circumstances.
Welcome here GSHS, but if you're first post is representative I suggest you ask more questions and make fewer statments. You might be astonished to know that you have a heck of a lot to learn.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by GSHS, posted 04-21-2004 10:52 PM GSHS has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by Charity, posted 04-22-2004 5:50 PM NosyNed has not replied

  
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 734 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 20 of 50 (101718)
04-21-2004 11:06 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by GSHS
04-21-2004 10:52 PM


Re: No beneficial Mutations
You haven't looked. Try hemoglobin C, lactose tolerance, and atherosclerosis "immunity" for three starters, just in humans.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by GSHS, posted 04-21-2004 10:52 PM GSHS has not replied

  
bondserv
Inactive Member


Message 21 of 50 (101720)
04-21-2004 11:39 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by Loudmouth
04-21-2004 6:59 PM


Evolution: Like a Waterfall That Flows Upward!
Picture a little boy at a waterfall, who has been convinced by a trickster that water flows upward. At the base of any waterfall there are droplets that bounce and splash up temporarily. The boy becomes fixated on those splashes, hoping against hope that his observations will, in time, demonstrate the truth of the theory he has been led to believe. All the while, the big picture demonstrates the exact opposite.
Link

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Loudmouth, posted 04-21-2004 6:59 PM Loudmouth has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by Asgara, posted 04-21-2004 11:40 PM bondserv has replied

  
Asgara
Member (Idle past 2302 days)
Posts: 1783
From: Wisconsin, USA
Joined: 05-10-2003


Message 22 of 50 (101721)
04-21-2004 11:40 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by bondserv
04-21-2004 11:39 PM


Re: Evolution: Like a Waterfall That Flows Upward!
How is a statement by a "trickster" a theory?

Asgara
"Embrace the pain, spank your inner moppet, whatever....but get over it"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by bondserv, posted 04-21-2004 11:39 PM bondserv has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by bondserv, posted 04-21-2004 11:44 PM Asgara has not replied

  
bondserv
Inactive Member


Message 23 of 50 (101724)
04-21-2004 11:44 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by Asgara
04-21-2004 11:40 PM


Re: Evolution: Like a Waterfall That Flows Upward!
Have you ever been to an NEC meeting? Trickster is the proper designation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Asgara, posted 04-21-2004 11:40 PM Asgara has not replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 24 of 50 (101803)
04-22-2004 5:30 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by redwolf
04-21-2004 3:50 PM


redwolf,
What you conveniently ignored in so doing is that, while something like that might happen here or there, and very rarely, you cannot base an entire theory of the origins or our present biosphere (like punc-eek) upon such a notion because, in the overwhelming majority of cases as I note, geting penned into a "peripheral area" DOES make a population of animals unviable or at least reduces its viability in a major kind of way (as in the case of the heath hen)
Once again, & as as I've mentioned before, I am not basing the formation of our present biosphere on PE. Gradualism is recorded in the rocks, too. I merely point out that Gouldian PE lacks unequivocal fossil evidence whilst anagenetic PE has lots.
Furthermore, & this should be abundantly clear by now, I am not advocating Eldredge & Gould's formulation of PE & I refuse to defend it specifically, but I am defending the notion that rate change in some form or another does occur.
As I have pointed out previously, in order to get rate change you do not require a geographical change of location at all. In fact, the fossil evidence of rate changes generally occurs in the same geographical location, by definition. That is, in order to see ERC it is simply easier for palaeontologists study fossils in the same geographical location (with reference to range of exposed rock units), & then study the changes in fossil character values vertically in the rock beds.
This doesn't to my mind particularly weigh against Gouldian PE, it just makes it a much more tentative proposition. There is nothing to suggest that allopatric PE doesn't occur, but the new species will, by definition, exist in a different habitat, one in which is either not exposed rock, or has a lesser chance of fossilisation. So, in this sense there may very well be a sampling error when comparing the efficacy of Gouldian PE & the more general idea of evolutionary rate change. What you shouldn't be taking your eye off is that ERC occurs in the same geographical location.
There is no such thing as a globally adapted organism. If there were globally adapted organisms we'd get dogs existing arboreally in triple canopy rain forest. They are adapted to an environment, & can achieve a greater or lesser degree of success in others. If they find themselves in a location that has open niches to which they possess exaptations, they will flourish. That we have seen three organisms do this in recent history suggests it is not rare or at all unlikely.
in the overwhelming majority of cases as I note, geting penned into a "peripheral area" DOES make a population of animals unviable
Well, you've mentioned the heath hen, & I've shown three times as many examples that aren't unviable when population levels are small. Care to swamp me with studies that show small populations are unviable?
and the globally adapted creatures (like dogs) DO win out and prevail over locally/perochially adapted creatures (like the tasmanian wolf which perished after dogs were introduced to its habitat).
Nope, dogs did not compete with the thylacine, humans did. Actually, this is a stab in the heart of your "globally adapted organism" notion. According to you, the thylacine should simply have become extinct because of the competition of introduced dogs. They didn't, indicating your beloved globetrotting canines aren't as environmentally ubiquitous as you'd like them to be.
The problem is that evolution, regardless of stripe or flavor, demands that we stand everything we know about probability theory on its head and believe that, whenever any sort of a question of the theories of Chuck Darwin of Steve Gould come up, the laws of probability get stood on their heads and reversed.
Nope, I've addressed this, when there is a mechanism for choosing what gets kept & thrown out the improbabilities vanish.
Once again:
quote:
Rubbish. This is like saying a miracle occurred because two cars whose registrations are X590 1DZ & G790 7WE followed on from each other. The odds of this are (26*10*10*10*10*26*26)^2 = 30,891,577,600,000,000 : 1. Praise the Lord!! After the event reasoning.
You assume that entire sequences have to appear in situ. They don't. If they did you'd have a point. Mutations are retained or culled by natural selection, they don't all occur at the same time. You are basically equating PE with saltationism.
An analogy; consider the number 12345678900987654321. The chance of me rolling a 10 sided die for each loci & getting the correct no is 10^20:1. Effectively impossible to do in my lifetime. However, if I get to throw away the wrong numbers & roll again, whilst retaining the right ones the whole proposition becomes much more likely. I could do it in about half an hour. So much for a probablistic miracles.
  —mark
In real life, mutations all have names, such as Down's Syndrome, Tay-Sachs disease, cystic fibrosis etc. etc.
You seem to be clinging to "ye olde creationist improbability argument". Barry Hall (Hall 1982) eliminated the lac operon in E.Coli. That is, he eliminated the enzyme itself, the associated permease, & the expression control system. He grew this on a substrate of lactose & another sugar. Lo & behold, genes for all three evolved.
Isn't that impossible? Vanishingly unlikely? No, that's the efficacy of RM&NS. Isn't that an increase in function, complexity, information? Only if you define information in such a way as to exclude function from information. Then you face the problem that you have just defined DNA as a non-information carrying molecule. Throw the baby out with the bathwater!
Anyhow, this thread is about PE, if you wish to discuss genetics, please open a new thread.
In summary, if you are insisting that PE occur allopatrically/peripherally then you are contradicted by evidence. Even if I accepted this premise, you still have only provided one example to my three. Did it occur to you that many species get by very happily only ever having small population sizes? Practically any species living on a small island, for example, or the megafauna almost anywhere you look numbers thousands rather than millions.
If you accept Noah's ark existed, then the biblical account requires rapid evolution from small population numbers a tad more than the ToE does! For this reason I've always wondered why fundies want to discredit PE when they need it more than we.
Mark
[This message has been edited by mark24, 04-22-2004]

"Physical Reality of Matchette’s EVOLUTIONARY zero-atom-unit in a transcendental c/e illusion" - Brad McFall

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by redwolf, posted 04-21-2004 3:50 PM redwolf has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by redwolf, posted 04-22-2004 9:18 AM mark24 has replied

  
redwolf
Member (Idle past 5790 days)
Posts: 185
From: alexandria va usa
Joined: 04-13-2004


Message 25 of 50 (101810)
04-22-2004 9:18 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by mark24
04-22-2004 5:30 AM



Once again, & as as I've mentioned before, I am not basing the formation of our present biosphere on PE. Gradualism is recorded in the rocks, too. I merely point out that Gouldian PE lacks unequivocal fossil evidence whilst anagenetic PE has lots.
Furthermore, & this should be abundantly clear by now, I am not advocating Eldredge & Gould's formulation of PE & I refuse to defend it specifically, but I am defending the notion that rate change in some form or another does occur.
Gradualism does not "occur in the rocks"; if it did, there would have been no need for PE in the first place.
As nearly as I can tell, you are dealing in BS. A google search of "anagenetic pe" turns up nothing, as does also a search on "anagenetic punctuated equilibrium". A pure search on "anagenetic" turns up zippo in normal dictionaries and, in Don Lindsay's little glossary of evolutionary terms, turns up only this:

Anagenetic: When one species transforms into another across time.
That, of course, doesn't really cut it by way of an explanation as to how these "speciation events", which Gould and Eldredge are using as a synonym for "abracadabra shazaam happens", actually happen and what causes them.
To the impossible requirement of the simultaneous appearance of the baker's dozen special adaptations needed by flying birds, the flight feathers, the special system for TURNING flight feathers on upstrokes and downstrokes, the light bone structure, the specialized flow-through heart and lungs, the balance parameters for flying, the beak etc. etc., Gould and Eldredge are adding the final impossible condition that these things all simultaneously occur FAST, and yet still via mutation. You'd think they'd at least try to tell the world HOW and WHY this happens, nonehtless they do not, and all you are adding is bafflegab and BS.
Steve Gould and Don Carney
I know Snopes views the story of Don Carney as an urban legend but Snopes probably view the life of Christ as an urban legend and I've spoken to people who heard the broadcast in question on the Uncle Don show, which I feel is a good analogy to the motivation which Steve Gould had in putting together his "Punctuated Equilibria" theory.
Uncle Don was the most popular childrens show on the radio waves in and around NY in the heyday of radio until the day when, having finished his goodbye song and thinking the mike was off, he uttered the famous "Well, I guess that takes care of the little bastards for another day".
Likewise, Steve Gould was a paleontologist and not an evolutionary biologist or anything of the sort. Starting from a point somewhere back int he 60s and 70s, evolutionary biology had become a dead hand over the entire field of paleontology; paleontologists simply were not being allowed to publish legitimate findings because they contradicted the dogmas of Darwinism in virtually all cases. And so, in order to make paleontology something which somebody could actually practice in the world, Gould, Eldredge, and a couple of others came up with what they apparently viewed as an appropriate concoction of BS to "hold the little bastards" (how they view evolutionists) not just for another night, but for all time, while they went about their profession unmolested.
Now, in the automative profession, there are a certain number of unscrupulous salesmen who have devised a sort of a variant of Adolf Hitler's "big lie" principle adapted to the requirements of salesmanship, which goes thus: If I tell some potential buyer a lie so overwhelmingly preposterous that nobody with any brains or talent or even the IQ you normally associate with dogs and cats could possibly buy off on it, then my conscience is clear; I don't have to feel sorry for the guy.
This is undoubtedly the way in which Gould and Eldredge managed to construct their theory without having to worry about losing sleep over feeling sorry for anybody.
switched around formatting tags, tho on my browser formatting looked fine - The Queen
[This message has been edited by AdminAsgara, 04-22-2004]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by mark24, posted 04-22-2004 5:30 AM mark24 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by redwolf, posted 04-22-2004 9:20 AM redwolf has not replied
 Message 27 by mark24, posted 04-22-2004 11:06 AM redwolf has replied

  
redwolf
Member (Idle past 5790 days)
Posts: 185
From: alexandria va usa
Joined: 04-13-2004


Message 26 of 50 (101811)
04-22-2004 9:20 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by redwolf
04-22-2004 9:18 AM


Is there an admin in the audience?
The red font looked good to go in a preview and should only pertain to the one line which says "Steve Gould and Uncle Don". The remaining text should be normal.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by redwolf, posted 04-22-2004 9:18 AM redwolf has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by RAZD, posted 04-22-2004 11:19 AM redwolf has not replied
 Message 29 by AdminAsgara, posted 04-22-2004 11:23 AM redwolf has not replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 27 of 50 (101826)
04-22-2004 11:06 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by redwolf
04-22-2004 9:18 AM


redwolf,
Gradualism does not "occur in the rocks"; if it did, there would have been no need for PE in the first place.
Yes it does. You can draw a straight line between P. ralstoni & P. jarrovii. It will be diagonal indicating gradualism.
As nearly as I can tell, you are dealing in BS. A google search of "anagenetic pe" turns up nothing, as does also a search on "anagenetic punctuated equilibrium". A pure search on "anagenetic" turns up zippo in normal dictionaries and, in Don Lindsay's little glossary of evolutionary terms, turns up only this:
Once more for the hard of understanding. I used the terms cladogenetic PE & anagenetic PE to distinguish between two modes of rate change. One is Eldredge & Goulds version of PE & is associated with spoeciation; hence the word "cladogenetic". The other, the one that is observed in the fossil record is associated with single lineages, hence the word "anagenetic". I'll happily use the terms strong & weak PE if you'd like, but quite obviously I have to make a distinction by putting words together into phrases. We call this "sentence construction".
Oh, & I'm very sorry you can't get all of your scientific information from a google. God forbid you should actually be forced into reading books & consulting the scientific literature directly. The terms as I've used them are used in the standard literature when such discussions come up. If you recall, I cited two studies showing rate changes in the fossil record. Why don't you stoop to reading them rather than trying a standard search engine?
Anagenetic: When one species transforms into another across time.
Correct, that's not one species brances into TWO, which would be cladogenesis. It's one lineage staying one lineage. Right? All the textbooks I have describe the words as I've been using them.
Do you understand what I mean by Gouldian PE/cladogenetic PE/strong PE, & anagenetic rate change/anagenetic PE/weak PE, & how the latter differs from the strong claim made by Gould & Eldredge?
That, of course, doesn't really cut it by way of an explanation as to how these "speciation events", which Gould and Eldredge are using as a synonym for "abracadabra shazaam happens", actually happen and what causes them.
You'd better see Gould & Eldredge about that, I'm not defending rate change with cladogenesis. How can I be more clear about this? Do I have to spell it out AGAIN?
To the impossible requirement of the simultaneous appearance of the baker's dozen special adaptations needed by flying birds, the flight feathers, the special system for TURNING flight feathers on upstrokes and downstrokes, the light bone structure, the specialized flow-through heart and lungs, the balance parameters for flying, the beak etc. etc., Gould and Eldredge are adding the final impossible condition that these things all simultaneously occur FAST, and yet still via mutation. You'd think they'd at least try to tell the world HOW and WHY this happens, nonehtless they do not, and all you are adding is bafflegab and BS.
Bullshit yourself. It happens the same way phyletic gradualism would do it, just rapidly followed by relative stasis. They don't need to provide a new mechanism because it's the same as before. The mechanism of rate change is also provided, you just need to be able to read (one of my previous posts, for example). The only difference between PE & phyletic gradualism is rate change brought about by the changing environment (including the species in question) at large.
You should become familiar with the subject you are criticising.
And again, please don't conflate PE with macroevolution. It smacks of evasion & goalpost moving. This thread is about Puntuated Equilibrium/ Evolutionary rate change.
Mark
[This message has been edited by mark24, 04-22-2004]
[This message has been edited by mark24, 04-22-2004]

"Physical Reality of Matchette’s EVOLUTIONARY zero-atom-unit in a transcendental c/e illusion" - Brad McFall

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by redwolf, posted 04-22-2004 9:18 AM redwolf has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by RAZD, posted 04-22-2004 11:49 AM mark24 has not replied
 Message 37 by redwolf, posted 04-22-2004 7:01 PM mark24 has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 28 of 50 (101827)
04-22-2004 11:19 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by redwolf
04-22-2004 9:20 AM


edit your message and try switching {/font} with {/center}
the message does look right in the preview. interesting.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by redwolf, posted 04-22-2004 9:20 AM redwolf has not replied

  
AdminAsgara
Administrator (Idle past 2302 days)
Posts: 2073
From: The Universe
Joined: 10-11-2003


Message 29 of 50 (101830)
04-22-2004 11:23 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by redwolf
04-22-2004 9:20 AM


I see no problem redwolf.
You have a centered title "Steve Gould and Don Carney" in a size 6 font and color red. The rest of post is regularly formated.

AdminAsgara
Queen of the Universe

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by redwolf, posted 04-22-2004 9:20 AM redwolf has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by RAZD, posted 04-22-2004 11:51 AM AdminAsgara has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 30 of 50 (101837)
04-22-2004 11:49 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by mark24
04-22-2004 11:06 AM


(redwolf)
Gradualism does not "occur in the rocks"; if it did, there would have been no need for PE in the first place.
(mark)
Yes it does. You can draw a straight line between P. ralstoni & P. jarrovii. It will be diagonal indicating gradualism.
try Foraiminifera
http://www.cs.colorado.edu/...y/creation/foram_article3.html
In short, the finding upholds Darwin's lifelong conviction that "nature does not proceed in leaps," but rather is a system perpetually growing in extreme slow-motion. This means that, in foram evolution at least, the highly touted Eldredge-Gould theory of punctuated equilibrium apparently doesn't work.
In divulging this revelation, Arnold could be forgiven for taking a modicum of perverse glee, the kind a highschool smart-aleck displays when he catches the teacher in a mistake. Gould, now among the most famous scientists in the world, directed Arnold's Harvard dissertation. But there's no room for that here, he says. Arnold maintains a warm professional relationship with his former mentor, who paid his lab a visit when FSU's Distinguished Lecture Series brought him to campus last year. Gould concedes that the forams don't fit his model of punctuated equilibrium, Arnold said.
Can't get more classic gradualism than that. Even admitted by Gould.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by mark24, posted 04-22-2004 11:06 AM mark24 has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024