Evolution and Jesus

[Zhavric]

Quote by: Chris the Chees I suspect, you are in fact, thinking not of the renaissance, but the enlightenment. The renaissance was a highly religious period which included the Protestant Reformation and Counter-Reformation.

But what happened in the protestant reformation? :)

[Chris the Chees]

Quote by: Zhavric But what happened in the protestant reformation? :)

The schism of the Catholic Church into a new faction, a faction that is, if possible still more fervent than in its orgional form.

[LOGAN]

Quote by: Zhavric Dodd and Powell (1985) tested this hypothesis using D. pseudoobscura. A large, heterogeneous population was allowed to grow rapidly in a very large population cage. Twelve experimental populations were derived from this population from single pair matings. These populations were allowed to flush. Fourteen months later, mating tests were performed among the twelve populations. No postmating isolation was seen. One cross showed strong behavioral isolation. The populations underwent three more flush-crash cycles. Forty-four months after the start of the experiment (and fifteen months after the last flush) the populations were again tested. Once again, no postmating isolation was seen. Three populations showed behavioral isolation in the form of positive assortative mating. Later tests between 1980 and 1984 showed that the isolation persisted, though it was weaker in some cases. Galina, et al. (1993) performed similar experiments with D. pseudoobscura. Mating tests between populations that underwent flush-crash cycles and their ancestral populations showed 8 cases of positive assortative mating out of 118 crosses. They also showed 5 cases of negative assortative mating (i.e. the flies preferred to mate with flies of the other strain). Tests among the founder-flush populations showed 36 cases of positive assortative mating out of 370 crosses. These tests also found 4 cases of negative assortative mating. Most of these mating preferences did not persist over time. Galina, et al. concluded that the founder-flush protocol yields reproductive isolation only as a rare and erratic event. Ahearn (1980) applied the founder-flush protocol to D. silvestris. Flies from a line of this species underwent several flush-crash cycles. They were tested in mate choice experiments against flies from a continuously large population. Female flies from both strains preferred to mate with males from the large population. Females from the large population would not mate with males from the founder flush population. An asymmetric reproductive isolation was produced. In a three year experiment, Ringo, et al. (1985) compared the effects of a founder-flush protocol to the effects of selection on various traits. A large population of D. simulans was created from flies from 69 wild caught stocks from several locations. Founder-flush lines and selection lines were derived from this population. The founder-flush lines went through six flush-crash cycles. The selection lines experienced equal intensities of selection for various traits. Mating test were performed between strains within a treatment and between treatment strains and the source population. Crosses were also checked for postmating isolation. In the selection lines, 10 out of 216 crosses showed positive assortative mating (2 crosses showed negative assortative mating). They also found that 25 out of 216 crosses showed postmating isolation. Of these, 9 cases involved crosses with the source population. In the founder-flush lines 12 out of 216 crosses showed positive assortative mating (3 crosses showed negative assortative mating). Postmating isolation was found in 15 out of 216 crosses, 11 involving the source population. They concluded that only weak isolation was found and that there was little difference between the effects of natural selection and the effects of genetic drift. A final test of the founder-flush hypothesis will be described with the housefly cases below. 5.4 Housefly Speciation Experiments 5.4.1 A Test of the Founder-flush Hypothesis Using Houseflies Meffert and Bryant (1991) used houseflies to test whether bottlenecks in populations can cause permanent alterations in courtship behavior that lead to premating isolation. They collected over 100 flies of each sex from a landfill near Alvin, Texas. These were used to initiate an ancestral population. From this ancestral population they established six lines. Two of these lines were started with one pair of flies, two lines were started with four pairs of flies and two lines were started with sixteen pairs of flies. These populations were flushed to about 2,000 flies each. They then went through five bottlenecks followed by flushes. This took 35 generations. Mate choice tests were performed. One case of positive assortative mating was found. One case of negative assortative mating was also found. 5.4.2 Selection for Geotaxis with and without Gene Flow Soans, et al. (1974) used houseflies to test Pimentel's model of speciation. This model posits that speciation requires two steps. The first is the formation of races in subpopulations. This is followed by the establishment of reproductive isolation. Houseflies were subjected to intense divergent selection on the basis of positive and negative geotaxis. In some treatments no gene flow was allowed, while in others there was 30% gene flow. Selection was imposed by placing 1000 flies into the center of a 108 cm vertical tube. The first 50 flies that reached the top and the first 50 flies that reached the bottom were used to found positively and negatively geotactic populations. Four populations were established: Population A + geotaxis, no gene flow Population B - geotaxis, no gene flow Population C + geotaxis, 30% gene flow Population D - geotaxis, 30% gene flow Selection was repeated within these populations each generations. After 38 generations the time to collect 50 flies had dropped from 6 hours to 2 hours in Pop A, from 4 hours to 4 minutes in Pop B, from 6 hours to 2 hours in Pop C and from 4 hours to 45 minutes in Pop D. Mate choice tests were performed. Positive assortative mating was found in all crosses. They concluded that reproductive isolation occurred under both allopatric and sympatric conditions when very strong selection was present. Hurd and Eisenberg (1975) performed a similar experiment on houseflies using 50% gene flow and got the same results. TalkOrigins Archive: Exploring the Creation/Evolution Controversy

As I said, go claim your reward...for you are the FIRST IN HISTORY to prove that Evolution is a "proven" fact. Thus we now have a new physical Law. "The Law of Evolution" as defined by the egghead "Zharic" the great. Now all that is left is for "YOU" to prove it in a "repeatable experiment" and observe one life form morphing into a complete new creature...IN NATURE. And if you can observe it in nature I am sure the are plenty of "fossil" remains of before and after. Just when can we expect your picture on the front of NEWS WEEK, TIME,etc? Most amuzing. Oh buy the way good job of pasting and parroting in the form of "pseudo knowledge" or the false claim of having facts. Again, I am about to fall from the chair, in uncontrollable laughter. Simply due to the pomposity and arrogance presented. Do you actually believe that anyone really accepts your demonstration as anything other than denying reality, when you were proven wrong? CHILDREN, CHILDREN. Logan

[Jack]

I find this amusing. If those who don't grasp evolution yet are determined to try and debunk it were half as skeptical toward their own mythology there would be a lot fewer believers in the world. They willingly swallow fantastic stories of giants and burning bushes that talk and all sorts of nonsense, but when it comes to appreciating a theory about the functioning of the planet around them they're suddenly skeptical.

If we are expected to understand religion before we criticize it, it would be nice if those who wish to debate evolution would at least understand the basics of it. It's impossible to debate misstatements and misunderstandings.

[doittoit]

Quote by: Tycoon Anybody who tries to put creationism and evolution together and still retain their faith is just trying to cling to it despite obvious flaws and contradictions. They most likely try to do so because they think if they stop believing they will go to hell.

You would be surprised to know that even before the theoy of evolution there were many who believed that the old testiment was allegorical.

[doittoit]

Quote by: Jack I find this amusing. If those who don't grasp evolution yet are determined to try and debunk it were half as skeptical toward their own mythology there would be a lot fewer believers in the world. They willingly swallow fantastic stories of giants and burning bushes that talk and all sorts of nonsense, but when it comes to appreciating a theory about the functioning of the planet around them they're suddenly skeptical. If we are expected to understand religion before we criticize it, it would be nice if those who wish to debate evolution would at least understand the basics of it. It's impossible to debate misstatements and misunderstandings.

Every time I see a thread on evolution it deisolves into supporters of evolution claiming supior knowledge without argument of the facts and/our a purposeful intermixing of the terms evolution and spcieation. Most christians don't deny evolution, they deny speciation in a closed sexual system and use the term "evolution" as short hand. While most psuedo-scientest will talk about evolution in the exact same manor and knowing interswitch jargon when it suits their argument.

Sepciation is far from imperical. There has been very little research on the subject. The research that has been done is suspect and inconclusive (i'll add why later), but often used by evolution supporters out of ignorance and desire to protect their paradigm. As well, the very few fossile records used to identify spciation is very conjectural and the absent of such records is suspicious.

[Jack]

...it deisolves into supporters of evolution claiming supior knowledge without argument of the facts and/our a purposeful intermixing of the terms evolution and spcieation...Sepciation is far from imperical. There has been very little research on the subject. The research that has been done is suspect and inconclusive, but often used by evolution supporters out of ignorance and desire to protect their paradigm. As well, the very few fossile records used to identify spciation is very conjectural and the absent of such records is suspicious.

Fair enough. Here are a couple of examples of what science has concluded about speciation. Then you can present support for your contention.

Observed Instances
of Speciation
Genetic evidence for complex speciation of humans and chimpanzees

[Zhavric]

Quote by: LOGAN Spam Deleted

I kept looking for the part where you refuted the evidence I presented, but you never actually addressed it by presenting counter-evidence. I guess all that spam was just a long winded way of saying either, "I agree" or "I disagree, but I got nothin'."

[Zhavric]

Quote by: doittoit Every time I see a thread on evolution it deisolves into supporters of evolution claiming supior knowledge without argument of the facts and/our a purposeful intermixing of the terms evolution and spcieation. Most christians don't deny evolution, they deny speciation in a closed sexual system and use the term "evolution" as short hand. While most psuedo-scientest will talk about evolution in the exact same manor and knowing interswitch jargon when it suits their argument. Sepciation is far from imperical. There has been very little research on the subject. The research that has been done is suspect and inconclusive (i'll add why later), but often used by evolution supporters out of ignorance and desire to protect their paradigm. As well, the very few fossile records used to identify spciation is very conjectural and the absent of such records is suspicious.

You missed the part where evolution supporters present evidence as I and Isherwood(Jack) have... and then people like you and Logan call it "psudo-science" and ignore it.

[gallo]

Quote by: LOGAN As I said, go claim your reward...for you are the FIRST IN HISTORY to prove that Evolution is a "proven" fact.

That's pretty muddled. He's the first to "prove that evolution is a proven fact"? What exactly does that mean? It is especially muddled and unclear since you are supposedly talking about science. You don't seem to know what it is or how it works. Finally, there aren't any scientists anywhere who are offering any such reward as you claim. Either you didn't understand the offer or you have no idea of what a scientist is, or both.

Thus we now have a new physical Law. "The Law of Evolution" as defined by the egghead "Zharic" the great.

If you had bothered to learn the basics of science you would know that facts don't grow up to become laws. Laws are just simple observations that are used by science as part of the complex structure of complex theories. Some examples of scientific laws are the law of conservation of charge, the law of conservation of energy/matter, the law of dominance, the law of gravitation, the law of independent assortment, the law of inertia, the law of large numbers, the law of segregation, the law of superposition, the laws of thermodynamics. Those are all laws of physics, math, chemistry, or biology. They are statements about phenomena that seem to always be observed in certain specific circumstances. They are used, along with other observations, hypotheses, predictions, and tests to build scientific theories. For example, the laws of segregation and independent assortment are both part of Mendel's theory of genetics.

Now all that is left is for "YOU" to prove it in a "repeatable experiment" and observe one life form morphing into a complete new creature...IN NATURE.

He did show you that it was repeatable. And why is it necessary to show some organism morphing into a "complete" new creature? What does that have to do with it? Do you know what evolution is? What exactly would an "incomplete" new creature look like?

And if you can observe it in nature I am sure the are plenty of "fossil" remains of before and after.

Before and after what? What are you talking about?

Just when can we expect your picture on the front of NEWS WEEK, TIME,etc? Most amuzing.

Did I miss yours? By the way, what does "amuzing" mean?

Oh buy the way good job of pasting and parroting in the form of "pseudo knowledge" or the false claim of having facts.

Do you mean "by the way"? What pseudo knowledge are you talking about? How about your knowledge of science. Show us where he is wrong and why. Show us the facts that you claim to have. Mythology doesn't count.

Again, I am about to fall from the chair, in uncontrollable laughter.

Been reading your Bible again?

Simply due to the pomposity and arrogance presented.

So you think that your pomposity and arrogance is a joke? For someone who dares to attempt to discuss a topic with so little knowledge, you are indeed arrogant.

Do you actually believe that anyone really accepts your demonstration as anything other than denying reality, when you were proven wrong?

Who proved him wrong? Just denying facts is not proof of error. You'll need more than "I don't believe it" before you will be worthy of respect.

CHILDREN, CHILDREN. Logan

We know. Learn. Then speak.

[doittoit]

Quote by: Jack Fair enough. Here are a couple of examples of what science has concluded about speciation. Then you can present support for your contention. Observed Instances of Speciation Genetic evidence for complex speciation of humans and chimpanzees

Actually the article does a good job of summing up some of the concerns about speciation evidence. There is little work done on speciation. Scientists often accept speciation without even knowing the research. Most of the research that has been done hasn’t been verified and given the pressure to publish the likelihood of misrepresentation is high.

Laboratory studies in plants and fruit flies often don’t test or state if there is off spring, what are characteristics of the new species, or determine (delimit) the parents genealogy/species origins. They usually assign characteristics that aren’t actually speciation but simply a change in phenotype. Spiciest put to much weight in the research done using examples where the results are often suggestive, but not conclusive.

When studies are recounted they don’t get the same press as the original studies and are often over looked. A good example of this is 5.7. This is used by spiciest often as a main source of evidence even though it was overturned in another study done by Weinberg over a decade ago (1996 EVOLUTION 50(1):457-461 RODRIGUEZ TRELLES; WEINBERG JR; AYALA FJ) Hardly anyone even knows this and I see the Weinberg original 1992 used by scientists/spiciest all the time. Who knows how many other studies are discounted that are less popular and never been addressed.

If you were to take these concerns and cross apply them to the list of species studies, people would be amazed at how these studies begin to be invalidated (fact most materialists would deny it regardless of the facts). This is obviously an over view and while most of the studies below I have read it would take a considerable amount of time to discount them all one by one. However, these criticism are hardly new and supported by other scientists and intellectuals, it’s just this view is often drowned out by layman beliefs. The unfortunate fact is that laymen beliefs saturate our media (about many subjects) and scientists now often don’t question “facts” that aren’t factual. This is a phenomenon that has destroyed our scientific community.

[doittoit]

Quote by: Zhavric I kept looking for the part where you refuted the evidence I presented, but you never actually addressed it by presenting counter-evidence. I guess all that spam was just a long winded way of saying either, "I agree" or "I disagree, but I got nothin'."

obviously because you didn't actually read or consider what I wrote. Which, is why you missed the part where I would be more specific later. Another critism I have about people on forums is they are so busy trying to prove themselves right that they never read any posts. they just look for highlights they can disagree with.

[Zhavric]

Quote by: doittoit Which, is why you missed the part where I would be more specific later.

WTF are you talking about? All you did in your last post was give the typical "I haven't studied evolution, but I've read answersingenesis.com" line of reasoning and in the one before that you spammed about how people thought the OT was alegorical. You never said anything about being more specific later and if you said it earlier, well... ya had plenty of time.

It's getting so any 7 post wonder can get on here and try to derail a thread. Here's a clue, hoss. The less you lie about what you've posted the more the rest of us will take you seriously. Criminy, your posts are right freakin' there. I'm all for nipping off to research a source, but don't tell us you said things you didn't say.

[doittoit]

Quote by: Zhavric WTF are you talking about? All you did in your last post was give the typical "I haven't studied evolution, but I've read answersingenesis.com" line of reasoning and in the one before that you spammed about how people thought the OT was alegorical. You never said anything about being more specific later and if you said it earlier, well... ya had plenty of time. It's getting so any 7 post wonder can get on here and try to derail a thread. Here's a clue, hoss. The less you lie about what you've posted the more the rest of us will take you seriously. Criminy, your posts are right freakin' there. I'm all for nipping off to research a source, but don't tell us you said things you didn't say.

what i said in my post was "The research that has been done is suspect and inconclusive (i'll add why later)"

I stand by my assertion that you have no desire to actually read/consider anyones ideas that differ from yours. Not only is this obviouse from your statements, but your aggressive tone.

PS considered yourself ignored as I wish to express and challenge ideals, my own as well as others, and not get in a pissing contest to stroak my own ego.

[Matt W]

Let's tone it down, please. This is a debate site - address the argument, not the individual. That mean you too, Z.

DO NOT RESPOND IN THIS THREAD TO THE PRECEDING MESSAGE. Please contact a member of the staff privately if you have any questions.

[gallo]

Quote by: doittoit Every time I see a thread on evolution it deisolves [sic] into supporters of evolution claiming supior [sic] knowledge without argument of the facts and/our a purposeful intermixing of the terms evolution and spcieation [sic].

Wow! That's not a very clear statement of anything. I'll work from what I infer you said. I think that it is probably your misunderstanding that leads you to believe that anyone knowledgeable about evolutionary biology would intermix the terms "evolution" and "speciation" without knowing what they were saying. In fact, speciation is always evolution while evolution may not be speciation. In my experience, discussions of evolution dissolve into discussions about speciation, or "organism morphing" as another on this board claims, is because creationists lead the discussion there. Very few creationists are educated enough to understand that speciation, or "new complete creatures" as the uneducated say it, are not necessary.

Most christians don't deny evolution, they deny speciation in a closed sexual system and use the term "evolution" as short hand.

That almost made sense. What's a "closed sexual system?" How is that relevant? Is that some sort of interswitching of jargon? Is your clumsy phrasing your way of talking about reproductive isolation?

While most psuedo-scientest will talk about evolution in the exact same manor and knowing interswitch jargon when it suits their argument.

So you admit that you are being pseudo-scientific in your discussion. After all, you are misrepresenting evolutionary theory by "interswitching" your jargon for anything that resembles real scientific discussion.

Sepciation [sic] is far from imperical [sic].

But it has been observed.

There has been very little research on the subject.

I suspect that you haven't been paying attention. Your statement is silly in the extreme.

The research that has been done is suspect and inconclusive (i'll add why later), but often used by evolution supporters out of ignorance and desire to protect their paradigm.

Forgive my if I doubt that you will add anything meaningful later. Sadly, there is no research to support your position. Creationism is nothing more than superstition based on mythology.

As well, the very few fossile [sic] records used to identify spciation [sic] is very conjectural and the absent [sic] of such records is suspicious.

I suspect that we are seeing your ignorance here. Or, it is the typical creationist position that it can't be true because your Bible tells you different.

[gallo]

I'm not sure what "spiciest" means in this context. What are you talking about?

Quote by: doittoit When studies are recounted they don’t get the same press as the original studies and are often over looked.

That a load. Dumping on the paradigm is a good way to get famous in science. Not only do such papers get published, they make the cover and get picked up by the press.

A good example of this is 5.7. This is used by spiciest often as a main source of evidence even though it was overturned in another study done by Weinberg over a decade ago (1996 EVOLUTION 50(1):457-461 RODRIGUEZ TRELLES; WEINBERG JR; AYALA FJ) Hardly anyone even knows this and I see the Weinberg original 1992 used by scientists/spiciest all the time.

Again, what is a "spiciest" and what does it have to do with evolution?

Please sumarize the above original paper and then the one that you cite. Please compare the specific parts of the two papers that are in conflict. In other words, specifically what data from the Rodriguez et al. paper shows the first to be incorrect. Your failure to do so will reduce your discussion to babble.

[doittoit]

Quote by: gallo I'm not sure what "spiciest" means in this context. What are you talking about? That a load. Dumping on the paradigm is a good way to get famous in science. Not only do such papers get published, they make the cover and get picked up by the press. Again, what is a "spiciest" and what does it have to do with evolution? Please sumarize the above original paper and then the one that you cite. Please compare the specific parts of the two papers that are in conflict. In other words, specifically what data from the Rodriguez et al. paper shows the first to be incorrect. Your failure to do so will reduce your discussion to babble.

The word speciest as I was using it is simply an identifier of someone who believes that one species can evolve/diverge into another. It's a common convention to identify sides when writing by identifying point of views by a single word identifer ie idealist, racist,Marxist ect. Given the context and my statements it should be obvious to anyone bothering to use any amount of evaluation to my post.

It's actually very hard to get funding to verify experiments, the work doesn't bring nearly the same notoriety as proving something "new" (easy to varify with sources if you disagree with what should be common knowledge). As for an example you can compare the two Weignberg articles by doing a simple search. You can find 2 dozen or more hits with the 1992 article and about 4 for the 1996 article 3 of which will send you to the same source.

The original 1992 article is in Jack's link, which I refered to previously. It studies worms and concluded a change in worm population believed to a significant change in karyotypes. The 1996 article recounted after finding that the protein variation didn't support the conclusion. This should all of been self evident if you would of read the 5.7 section (about a paragragh) of the link Jack provided and done a 10 second search for the 1996 article instead of disecting my post line by line spamming irrelevant comments (for the same reason Zhavric did) while ignoring the whole section that actually talked about the short comings of the research.

[gallo]

Quote by: doittoit The word speciest as I was using it is simply an identifier of someone who believes that one species can evolve/diverge into another.

But you didn't use the word "speciest". You see, I already knew what "spiciest" means, but in your context it was rendered meaningless. Now you pretend that you wrote "speciest" instead of "spiciest". You could at least have the integrity and honesty to admit sloppy spelling, sloppy editing, or both.

It's a common convention to identify sides when writing by identifying point of views by a single word identifer ie idealist, racist,Marxist ect.

That may be true, but it is also common convention to define a term when you coin it, especially if the word is already in use to mean something completely different, as in "spicy - spiciest." Just how, exactly, are we to get "spiciest" out of "species"?

Given the context and my statements it should be obvious to anyone bothering to use any amount of evaluation to my post.

That's not true. In order to understand any of your posts requires a lot of "evaluation" and guesswork to figure out what you meant to say. Even if one reaches a reasonable guess as to your intended meaning after dealing with the bad grammar and misspellings, it doesn't seem to be all that logical and well thought out.

It's actually very hard to get funding to verify experiments, the work doesn't bring nearly the same notoriety as proving something "new" (easy to varify [sic] with sources if you disagree with what should be common knowledge). As for an example you can compare the two Weignberg [sic] articles by doing a simple search. You can find 2 dozen or more hits with the 1992 article and about 4 for the 1996 article 3 of which will send you to the same source.

How is that relevant? What does that have to do with evolution?

The original 1992 article is in Jack's link, which I refered [sic] to previously.

The 1992 article is not in Jack's link. There is a citation of the 1992 article and some information about what the article said. I asked you to summarize the actual article. It seems that you are unable to do that.

It studies worms and concluded a change in worm population believed to a significant change in karyotypes.

The study concluded a change? What commenced the change? Do you have any idea about maintaining the same tense throughout a sentence? Your above line actually be considered a sentence? Karyotypes differences were a secondary finding. As I understand it, they were not postulated as being causal. Further, the karyotype changes were specifically mentions as being "slight". How do you arrive at "...significant change in karyotypes" from that?

The 1996 article recounted after finding that the protein variation didn't support the conclusion.

Since you couldn't adequately and correctly summarize the original paper, we can only wonder what conclusion the 1996 paper failed to support, if that is indeed true. Moreover, "recount" would mean to count or to tell again. Since the second paper was not by the original authors, you couldn't possibly have meant recant. So it is anyone's guess what you are trying to say. How are we to rely on your context for meaning, as you suggest, when it is so confused?

This should all of [sic] been self evident if you would of [sic] read the 5.7 section (about a paragragh [sic]) of the link Jack provided and done a 10 second search for the 1996 article instead of disecting [sic] my post line by line spamming irrelevant comments (for the same reason Zhavric did) while ignoring the whole section that actually talked about the short comings of the research.

In other words, you can't summarize either paper and explain why the second fails to support the first. I suspect that you haven't read either paper and it seems clear to me that you wouldn't understand them if you did. Since a 10 second search will not provide access to the paper without a subscription to the journal, what good is it?

Please summarize both papers, the methods, data, and conclusions of each and explain, specifically, why the second fails to support, or in fact, debunks the first. Please try to use correct grammar, spelling, and an orderly progression of ideas.

[LOGAN]

Quote by: Zhavric