Useful scientific resources to silence fools

[geo]

Show me where biologists have described this [whale] evolution biochemically. They line up dubious and even discredited fossils as if these were proof of whale evolution..

For more than a century, our knowledge of the whale fossil record was so sparse that no one could be certain what the ancestors of whales looked like. Now the tide has turned. In the space of just three decades, a flood of new fossils has filled in the gaps in our knowledge to turn the origin of whales into one of the best-documented examples of large-scale evolutionary change in the fossil record.

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-n ... -73276956/

What's striking here is the sheer will to find problems in evolution where actual scientists find none. Flann, I would say you are an expert at coming up with ID propaganda that purports to find gaps in our knowledge and insinuate problems with evolutionary theory. Someone who is similarly motivated could find "problems" in just about any scientific field. Evolution is the target here for obvious reasons.

This information taken from Smithsonian's web site is just a a summary of our current understanding of whale evolution, but it offers a strikingly different take than whatever this is that Flann dredged up somewhere. Which source do you think is more trustworthy or credible? Flann, what is the reason why you disregard mainstream science sources such as National Geographic, Smithsonian, Berkeley University, or any other university or high school science text book (or encyclopedia)? To answer this question you will have to resort to conspiracy-thinking and assertions of mass delusion, borrowing the tactics used by Holocaust deniers and other conspiracy theorists. You are missing the big picture on purpose, forever focusing on miniscule problems. Your personal "skepticism" of evolution, like Ant's "skepticism" of gravitational waves, speaks only to your own personal motivations, not for the actual state of the science which can be learned in numerous well written science books and by mainstream and credible science organizations. The fact that you continue to seek scientific answers in Creationist literature shows a remarkably stubborn and disingenuous approach. But in the end you're only fooling yourself.

http://carlzimmer.com/books/evolution-m ... xcerpt.pdf

http://www.ucpress.edu/book.php?isbn=9780520277069

[Interbane]

This is simply not true Interbane. You refuse to recognize that decades long experiments with plants and crops throws up the law of recurring variation. The same mutations keep recurring.

As Jones points out in his talk in relation to the Cichlid fish family,what is observed are variations of recurring patterns based on permutations of a small number of primary characters. The same is true of teeth and even their different behaviours.

I acknowledge that you've linked to studies where the environment wasn't altered. For an organism optimally suited to it's environment, variation is a detriment. When that environment changes, variation has the opportunity to become an improvement.

Can you link to the study you're referencing? It's documented that mutations are not perfectly random. If they were perfectly random, the majority would lead to a stillborn organism. Not to say that such deadly mutations don't happen. They do, all the time. The plethora of fatal or disabling diseases a human newborn can have testify to this. But the majority happen where the phenotype can shift and the organism will still be viable.

http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles. ... y-random-/

You now postulate acquired characteristics. Fair enough but even these are not fundamental changes to the essential nature of the animal.

So now you admit to speciation, but you no longer believe that constitutes a major change. How much change do you expect to occur to organisms that are suited to their environment? Read up on punctuated equilibrium, and how an altered environment is what fosters speciation. A fruit fly will not ever change into a dragon. That is not what evolution postulates. A fruit fly will also never change into a hummingbird. Evolution doesn't postulate that either.

On the other hand, maybe I'm wrong. It might happen with the perfect catastrophic changes in environment and a hundred thousand years(change into a hummingbird, not a dragon). But that timeline doesn't make sense to a person who believes the Earth is young. If major changes can't happen in a century, then you don't believe it. Right?

You realize you're now at the point where the "major" changes you require to satisfy you are not able to occur in the time available. Evolution doesn't work that fast. Perhaps in exceedingly rare instances where all the conditions are perfect. But good luck with that in any species being documented, let alone in a lab.

What do you think the limitation is that would prevent a fruit fly from going through another speciation event? An event that takes it even further from the fruit fly we knew a century ago? And when that happens, what would the limitation be to prevent it from going even further? And on and on ad infinitum. Because the mountain of evidence supports that as the process that has lead to the diversity of life we see all around us. What arbitrary limit do you think there is that would prevent that? It has to be a powerful and well understood limiting mechanism, because it has a tremendous amount of contrary evidence to overcome.

Phylogony? Morphologically based genealogical trees vary significantly from genome based ones. What molecular evidence?
Historical vestiges? Evolutionist myth of non functional vestigial organs and rapidly diminishing "junk Dna".
A failed prediction of the theory.

I'd love to see your source material for these ridiculous claims. But please, no videos. I don't have the time or patience. If someone's talking about it, then you can be sure it's written down somewhere.

Are you suggesting entire biological systems changes can be accomplished instantly by a single mutation or a series of mutations? Back to the early developmental problem again.

Entire biological systems? Instantly? Please link to your source for this garbage.

If you really want to investigate the very real problems with the whole macro story, Michael Denton's recent book "Evolution still a theory in Crisis" does a far better and more detailed job on this than I can.

Flann, I've passed the point where I'll entertain that sort of thing. You are wrong. I'll do my diligence on a public forum, but the case truly is closed. There isn't a debate here. The diversity of life all around us is a result of evolution. Either that, or whatever god exists is intentionally deceiving us into discovering that truth.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/denton.html

[ant]

I like tbe interchanges here mostly between Interbane and Flann. I admit that i have never really dug that deep on the issue. Perhaps mainly because i see no conflict between the possibility of an omnipotent Being and evolved life in all its remarkable and wonderful forms.

Kudos to the two of you.

[Flann 5]

I acknowledge that you've linked to studies where the environment wasn't altered. For an organism optimally suited to it's environment, variation is a detriment. When that environment changes, variation has the opportunity to become an improvement.

So now you admit to speciation, but you no longer believe that constitutes a major change. How much change do you expect to occur to organisms that are suited to their environment? Read up on punctuated equilibrium, and how an altered environment is what fosters speciation. A fruit fly will not ever change into a dragon. That is not what evolution postulates. A fruit fly will also never change into a hummingbird. Evolution doesn't postulate that either.

On the other hand, maybe I'm wrong. It might happen with the perfect catastrophic changes in environment and a hundred thousand years(change into a hummingbird, not a dragon). But that timeline doesn't make sense to a person who believes the Earth is young. If major changes can't happen in a century, then you don't believe it. Right?

Hi Interbane. More homework for you! It's never been the position of creationists or any theist skeptics of evolution that speciation cannot occur. That's a common misconception of the position.

The most pervasive aspect of the fossil record is stasis with sudden appearances of new complex life forms. We are told that the beak variations of the Galapagos finches are adaptive. The inference being that given enough time such modifications can over time result in major changes from one type of animal to another.
They adapt to food types available or those who can not are naturally selected out of the population.

I'm saying that studies and experiments show limits to variation and evolution. Loennig's thoroughly referenced article on the law of recurrent variation being one.
Your response seems to be that o.k if they are optimally adapted to their environment they wont change but if the environment changes drastically this law of recurrent variation will be breached.

And yet evolutionary paleontologist Donald Prothero admits his perplexity on this very point. He says; "In four of the biggest climactic vegetational events of the last 50 million years,the mammals and birds show no noticeable changes in response to changing climates." Stasis despite four major climactic events.

Lest I be accused of quote mining,here's the article from the horse's mouth.
http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/12-02-15/#feature

Quote:
Phylogony? Morphologically based genealogical trees vary significantly from genome based ones. What molecular evidence?
Historical vestiges? Evolutionist myth of non functional vestigial organs and rapidly diminishing "junk Dna".
A failed prediction of the theory.




I'd love to see your source material for these ridiculous claims. But please, no videos. I don't have the time or patience. If someone's talking about it, then you can be sure it's written down somewhere.

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2015/02/pr ... 91191.html

http://www.detectingdesign.com/geneticphylogeny.html

This information taken from Smithsonian's web site is just a a summary of our current understanding of whale evolution, but it offers a strikingly different take than whatever this is that Flann dredged up somewhere. Which source do you think is more trustworthy or credible? Flann, what is the reason why you disregard mainstream science sources such as National Geographic, Smithsonian, Berkeley University, or any other university or high school science text book (or encyclopedia)?

Actually in the Smithsonian article Geo linked, the whale 'ancestor' went from a mesonychid to an even-toed ungulate on just such a conflict of results on bones versus genes.

http://www.thegrandexperiment.com/whale-evolution.html

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/10/di ... 52021.html

[senorcorredor]

I don't find fault with people of ancient times who constructed a religion to fit the facts they had at hand. In a way, they were using a scientific method. They took their observations of the world and worked backwards to what seemed the most likely explanation for their existence and the universe as they observed it. The earth was flat. The earth was the center of the universe. Death was a threatening thing. No one wanted to believe that their loved ones and they themselves would simply stop existing. They didn't want to believe that death and catastrophe were random events.

[Flann 5]

I don't find fault with people of ancient times who constructed a religion to fit the facts they had at hand. In a way, they were using a scientific method. They took their observations of the world and worked backwards to what seemed the most likely explanation for their existence and the universe as they observed it. The earth was flat. The earth was the center of the universe. Death was a threatening thing. No one wanted to believe that their loved ones and they themselves would simply stop existing. They didn't want to believe that death and catastrophe were random events.

Hi senorcorredor. Thanks for your ideas on this.There are lots of seemingly plausible explanations that various people proffer to answer the question of why The Flintstones "got religion."

The subject needs far better research than is usually afforded to it by these theorists. The presupposition seems to be that it can't be because there actually is any God.

Daniel Dennet's "Breaking the Spell," a tour de force of "just so" story telling served up as 'scientifically' based theory is a good example of this.

For anyone who want's to have a look at Loennig's extensive article on the law of recurrent variation,so you know what I'm referring to,here's the link.

http://www.weloennig.de/Loennig-Long-Ve ... iation.pdf

In a couple of the links in my previous post Richard Sternberg was referenced. Sternberg actually believes in evolution but thinks the neo-Darwinian mechanisms woefully inadequate to the task. He also accepts the fossils hypothesized,though I don't.

Geo seems to just discredit the arguments based on source. But that's really not good enough. If they are bad arguments what's bad about them? If the Smithsonan interpretation is correct on whale evolution it should be able to withstand scrutiny. Are they aware of the problems with Gingerich and Thewissen's fossils,which are the basis for the supposed 'transitionals'?

There are creationists,theistic intelligent design advocates, and even agnostics who are skeptical of the neo-Darwinian paradigm.

Sternberg debated Donald Prothero on origins and mechanisms for evolution. My personal leaning is towards direct creation,while recognizing design at the same time, but there are other views among theists and Christians.

So again,it can be debated and judged on the scientific arguments whether good or bad.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lzwHqqMMSaU

[geo]

Actually in the Smithsonian article Geo linked, the whale 'ancestor' went from a mesonychid to an even-toed ungulate on just such a conflict of results on bones versus genes.

http://www.thegrandexperiment.com/whale-evolution.html

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/10/di ... 52021.html

Again, you link to Creationist web sites in an attempt to dispute the work of scientists working in the field? J. G. M. "Hans" Thewissen, a leading researcher in the field of whale paleontology and anatomy, who has published dozens of articles and books, might be the world's foremost expert on whale evolution. And you go with Dr. Carl Werner, a Creationist filmmaker who alleges that some of the exhibits in museums aren’t accurate representations of whale ancestors. Even if it's true that a few museum exhibits were augmented, this has no bearing on the strength of of the theory or the basic information laid out in the Smithsonian's web site.

Also, none of this disputes the basic facts of the evolution of whales. At some point in the past a land mammal made the transition back to the sea. Do you disagree with this? Do disagree that transitional fossils discovered in recent decades are really the ancestors of whales, though this is indeed the consensus of mainstream scientists?

Here is one of Thewissen’s recent articles in Nature magazine.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v4 ... 06343.html

Here’s an article that shows there are nine independent areas of study that provide evidence that whales share a common ancestor with hoofed mammals.

http://www.talkorigins.org/features/whales/

[Interbane]

Your response seems to be that o.k if they are optimally adapted to their environment they wont change but if the environment changes drastically this law of recurrent variation will be breached.

A changing environment is necessary for the adaptations you're looking for. That doesn't mean such a change is sufficient. In fact, it's ridiculous to think so. A changing environment could and often does lead to an extinction event. Or, the organism could remain in stasis, which has been found more often than not.

Prothero's findings are interesting, but they do nothing to support your position or undermine evolution. They raise more questions concerning the stasis portion of punctuated equilibrium. But with this evidence of genetic stasis in spite of environmental change, there is no doubt that there has been tremendous genetic change when the environment changes. The evidence abounds.

A single example of stasis does not mean stasis is the norm. You're pointing to a period of equilibrium, and ignoring every other area on the geneological timeline with massive punctuation. This is cherry picking, and to reinforce this point, notice how excited Prothero is over the finding. This sort of finding is exciting, due to the questions it raises.

www.evolutionnews.org/2015/02/problem_1 ... 91191.html

http://www.detectingdesign.com/geneticphylogeny.html

Are we trading links then?

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Junk_DNA

The trope that Junk DNA does not exist—or rather, that it is "not really junk"—is a common PRATT when it comes to creationism. It was the subject of a book by Jonathan Wells, The Myth of Junk DNA, which has been reviewed and extensively debunked by Larry Moran at his blog Sandwalk.[4] Other examples abound in the creationist "literature."


While the existence of "junk" DNA may be problematic for creationists, it's actually useful for evolutionary theory. Nonconserved, noncoding DNA inside the chromosome, ie. what we classically think of as "junk", can mutate rapidly and extensively without harm to the organism. It has been hypothesised, and extensively researched, that these noncoding regions can serve basically as sandboxes for gene evolution, where changes can occur randomly without altering the organism, and then be brought into play all at once, producing entire new amino acid sequences in an existing protein.

Regarding the arguments of Sean Pitman on Phylogeny, check out this interesting conversation between he and a few others in a Google group.

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/t ... GFpuFgp50J

[ant]

I don't find fault with people of ancient times who constructed a religion to fit the facts they had at hand. In a way, they were using a scientific method. They took their observations of the world and worked backwards to what seemed the most likely explanation for their existence and the universe as they observed it. The earth was flat. The earth was the center of the universe. Death was a threatening thing. No one wanted to believe that their loved ones and they themselves would simply stop existing. They didn't want to believe that death and catastrophe were random events.

That's fine and I can appreciate what you said.

However, are you going to start commenting on what comes after death WITH evidence?
The implication from your comments seems as if you are basing your "stop existing " comments on scientific knowledge.

Please evidence nothingness after someone stops existing.

[senorcorredor]

This isn't an argument I want to get into in depth. I'm not a scientist and I'm not an expert on religion. I'm tempted to ask you to evidence somethingness after someone stops existing but that appears to me to be similar to kids in the playground saying "is too" . . . "is not." I respect your opinion. I'm more interested in theoretical physics and its more bizarre implications. I'm not an expert on that either. Mainly, I want to finish the novel I'm working on. I have 60,000 words written and I am aiming for 80,000.