Darwin Day Celebration... for developers? How about other religions? [modified]
-
The Grand Negus wrote:
Therefore, since the hypothesis can't be tested, it doesn't qualify under the usual rules as "science".
but it can be tested, and it is tested, all the time. you can predict, given current knowledge, that we will find evidence of a species that fits into an antecedent/descendant space between two species (a.k.a. "transitional species" in the fossil record). and, lo and behold, they are found, all the time. no, we haven't yet created a new species ourselves (at least not enough to satisfy those who say it's impossible. but someday we will - and the creationists will move the goalposts somewhere else). but we have more than ample evidence that it has happened in the past.
-- modified at 23:45 Friday 16th February, 2007
Chris Losinger wrote:
you can predict, given current knowledge, that we will find evidence of a species that fits into an antecedent/descendant space between two species (a.k.a. "transitional species" in the fossil record). and, lo and behold, they are found, all the time.
Better check your data, Chris. If this was so, the Master Darwinian, Stephen Jay Gould. never would have come up with his "punctuated equilibrium" hypothesis - to which he was driven by the absence of transitional forms in the fossil record.
-
Chris Losinger wrote:
you can predict, given current knowledge, that we will find evidence of a species that fits into an antecedent/descendant space between two species (a.k.a. "transitional species" in the fossil record). and, lo and behold, they are found, all the time.
Better check your data, Chris. If this was so, the Master Darwinian, Stephen Jay Gould. never would have come up with his "punctuated equilibrium" hypothesis - to which he was driven by the absence of transitional forms in the fossil record.
-
Chris Losinger wrote:
you can predict, given current knowledge, that we will find evidence of a species that fits into an antecedent/descendant space between two species (a.k.a. "transitional species" in the fossil record). and, lo and behold, they are found, all the time.
Better check your data, Chris. If this was so, the Master Darwinian, Stephen Jay Gould. never would have come up with his "punctuated equilibrium" hypothesis - to which he was driven by the absence of transitional forms in the fossil record.
The Grand Negus wrote:
If this was so, the Master Darwinian, Stephen Jay Gould. never would have come up with his "punctuated equilibrium" hypothesis
i suggest you go read what Gould actually wrote, not just selected out-of-context quotes. and when you're done with that, you'd do well to brush up on the science that's been done in the decades since Gould came up with that hypothesis - including work from Gould himself. and then you should work on the idea that Gould does not represent evolution as a whole, and for that matter, neither does Darwin, or Dawkins, or any of the other bogeymen you might want to quote.
image processing toolkits | batch image processing | blogging
-
The Grand Negus wrote:
If this was so, the Master Darwinian, Stephen Jay Gould. never would have come up with his "punctuated equilibrium" hypothesis
i suggest you go read what Gould actually wrote, not just selected out-of-context quotes. and when you're done with that, you'd do well to brush up on the science that's been done in the decades since Gould came up with that hypothesis - including work from Gould himself. and then you should work on the idea that Gould does not represent evolution as a whole, and for that matter, neither does Darwin, or Dawkins, or any of the other bogeymen you might want to quote.
image processing toolkits | batch image processing | blogging
Do you really think Negus of all people is going to listen?
Using the GridView is like trying to explain to someone else how to move a third person's hands in order to tie your shoelaces for you. -Chris Maunder
-
Do you really think Negus of all people is going to listen?
Using the GridView is like trying to explain to someone else how to move a third person's hands in order to tie your shoelaces for you. -Chris Maunder
aodksiemnsignvcldkjeksldkeiksdldk aodksiemnaignvcldkjeksldkeiksdldk aoiksiemnaignvcldkjeksldkeiksdldk aoiksiemnaihnvcldkjeksldkeiksdldk aoiksiemnaihnvcldkjeksldkmiksdldk aoiktiemnaihnvcldkjeksldkmiksdldk aoiktiemnairnvcldkjeksldkmiksdldk (I'm working up a clever reply by changing letters at random. Bear with me.) aoiktiemnairnvcldkjeksldkmikspldk aoiktiemnagrnvcldkjeksldkmikspldk boiktiemnagrnvcldkjeksldkmikspldk bziktiemnagrnvcldkjeksldkmikspldk bziktiewnagrnvcldkjeksldkmikspldk bziktiewnagrnvcldkjeksldkmikspqdk bziktiewnagrfvcldkjeksldkmikspqdk -- modified at 21:25 Friday 16th February, 2007 aoiktiemnairnvcldkjeksldkmikspldk aoiktiemnagwnvcldkjeksldkmikspldk boiktiemnagrnvcldkjeksldkmikspldk bziktiemnagrnvcldkjekslikmikspldk bziktiewnagrnvcldkjeksldkmikspldk bzikoiewnagrnvcldkjeksldkmikspqdk bziktiewnagrfvcldkjeksldkmlkspqdk -- modified at 21:27 Friday 16th February, 2007 bziktiewnagrfvcldkjeksldkmikspqdk aoiktiemnairnvcldkjeksldkmikspldk aoiktiemnagwnvcldkjeksldkmikspldk boiktiemnagrnvcldkjeksldkmikspldk bziktiemnagrnvcldkjekslikmikspldk bziktiewnagrnvcldkjeksldkmikspldk bzikoiewnagrnvcldkjeksldkmikspqdk bziktiewnagrfvcldkjeksldkmlkspqdk aoiksiemnaignvcldkjeksldkeiksdldk aoiksiemnaihnvcldkjeksldkeiksdldk aoiksiemnaihnvcldkjeksldkmiksdldk aoiktiemnaihnvcldkjeksldkmiksdldk (Y'know, I don't think this will ever work out. Ever.)
-
aodksiemnsignvcldkjeksldkeiksdldk aodksiemnaignvcldkjeksldkeiksdldk aoiksiemnaignvcldkjeksldkeiksdldk aoiksiemnaihnvcldkjeksldkeiksdldk aoiksiemnaihnvcldkjeksldkmiksdldk aoiktiemnaihnvcldkjeksldkmiksdldk aoiktiemnairnvcldkjeksldkmiksdldk (I'm working up a clever reply by changing letters at random. Bear with me.) aoiktiemnairnvcldkjeksldkmikspldk aoiktiemnagrnvcldkjeksldkmikspldk boiktiemnagrnvcldkjeksldkmikspldk bziktiemnagrnvcldkjeksldkmikspldk bziktiewnagrnvcldkjeksldkmikspldk bziktiewnagrnvcldkjeksldkmikspqdk bziktiewnagrfvcldkjeksldkmikspqdk -- modified at 21:25 Friday 16th February, 2007 aoiktiemnairnvcldkjeksldkmikspldk aoiktiemnagwnvcldkjeksldkmikspldk boiktiemnagrnvcldkjeksldkmikspldk bziktiemnagrnvcldkjekslikmikspldk bziktiewnagrnvcldkjeksldkmikspldk bzikoiewnagrnvcldkjeksldkmikspqdk bziktiewnagrfvcldkjeksldkmlkspqdk -- modified at 21:27 Friday 16th February, 2007 bziktiewnagrfvcldkjeksldkmikspqdk aoiktiemnairnvcldkjeksldkmikspldk aoiktiemnagwnvcldkjeksldkmikspldk boiktiemnagrnvcldkjeksldkmikspldk bziktiemnagrnvcldkjekslikmikspldk bziktiewnagrnvcldkjeksldkmikspldk bzikoiewnagrnvcldkjeksldkmikspqdk bziktiewnagrfvcldkjeksldkmlkspqdk aoiksiemnaignvcldkjeksldkeiksdldk aoiksiemnaihnvcldkjeksldkeiksdldk aoiksiemnaihnvcldkjeksldkmiksdldk aoiktiemnaihnvcldkjeksldkmiksdldk (Y'know, I don't think this will ever work out. Ever.)
-
The Grand Negus wrote:
Therefore, since the hypothesis can't be tested, it doesn't qualify under the usual rules as "science".
but it can be tested, and it is tested, all the time. you can predict, given current knowledge, that we will find evidence of a species that fits into an antecedent/descendant space between two species (a.k.a. "transitional species" in the fossil record). and, lo and behold, they are found, all the time. no, we haven't yet created a new species ourselves (at least not enough to satisfy those who say it's impossible. but someday we will - and the creationists will move the goalposts somewhere else). but we have more than ample evidence that it has happened in the past.
-- modified at 23:45 Friday 16th February, 2007
-
don't bother understanding him.... he's proof of non-intelligent design.
_________________________ Asu no koto o ieba, tenjo de nezumi ga warau. Talk about things of tomorrow and the mice in the ceiling laugh. (Japanese Proverb)
-
Maybe I'll just point out the irony of calling for skeptical and critical evaluation of evidence and using a huge "appeal to ridicule" fallacy against evolution science in the same post.
- F "You are really weird." - Kyle, age 16
Fisticuffs, Your point is well taken. I have to confess I get carried away with my sarcasm. That said, however, please note that my argument was not in the form: "this sounds ridiculous, therefore it is false". My appeal was for your scientific knowledge to provide some reasons why you believe these things happened and integrate them in a consistent worldview. Your quick and smart response makes me think you are capable of doing more than dismissing my question by pointing out my mistake. 0 reasons so far. - J
Juanfer
-
aodksiemnsignvcldkjeksldkeiksdldk aodksiemnaignvcldkjeksldkeiksdldk aoiksiemnaignvcldkjeksldkeiksdldk aoiksiemnaihnvcldkjeksldkeiksdldk aoiksiemnaihnvcldkjeksldkmiksdldk aoiktiemnaihnvcldkjeksldkmiksdldk aoiktiemnairnvcldkjeksldkmiksdldk (I'm working up a clever reply by changing letters at random. Bear with me.) aoiktiemnairnvcldkjeksldkmikspldk aoiktiemnagrnvcldkjeksldkmikspldk boiktiemnagrnvcldkjeksldkmikspldk bziktiemnagrnvcldkjeksldkmikspldk bziktiewnagrnvcldkjeksldkmikspldk bziktiewnagrnvcldkjeksldkmikspqdk bziktiewnagrfvcldkjeksldkmikspqdk -- modified at 21:25 Friday 16th February, 2007 aoiktiemnairnvcldkjeksldkmikspldk aoiktiemnagwnvcldkjeksldkmikspldk boiktiemnagrnvcldkjeksldkmikspldk bziktiemnagrnvcldkjekslikmikspldk bziktiewnagrnvcldkjeksldkmikspldk bzikoiewnagrnvcldkjeksldkmikspqdk bziktiewnagrfvcldkjeksldkmlkspqdk -- modified at 21:27 Friday 16th February, 2007 bziktiewnagrfvcldkjeksldkmikspqdk aoiktiemnairnvcldkjeksldkmikspldk aoiktiemnagwnvcldkjeksldkmikspldk boiktiemnagrnvcldkjeksldkmikspldk bziktiemnagrnvcldkjekslikmikspldk bziktiewnagrnvcldkjeksldkmikspldk bzikoiewnagrnvcldkjeksldkmikspqdk bziktiewnagrfvcldkjeksldkmlkspqdk aoiksiemnaignvcldkjeksldkeiksdldk aoiksiemnaihnvcldkjeksldkeiksdldk aoiksiemnaihnvcldkjeksldkmiksdldk aoiktiemnaihnvcldkjeksldkmiksdldk (Y'know, I don't think this will ever work out. Ever.)
I Love you Man. You rock!
If evidence reaches a conclusion then it makes sense. If it doesn't, it's just lame to go on TRYING to prove a theory that you made up when all the evidence points the other way. That's how crazy is made. -espeir
-
Fisticuffs, Your point is well taken. I have to confess I get carried away with my sarcasm. That said, however, please note that my argument was not in the form: "this sounds ridiculous, therefore it is false". My appeal was for your scientific knowledge to provide some reasons why you believe these things happened and integrate them in a consistent worldview. Your quick and smart response makes me think you are capable of doing more than dismissing my question by pointing out my mistake. 0 reasons so far. - J
Juanfer
juanfer68 wrote:
some reasons why you believe these things happened and integrate them in a consistent worldview.
the arguments are specifically "found" or created in order to produce doubt, most have no reason. The so called macro-micro evolution debate split when we found "evolution" in micro world proving evolution occured. having no discourse to avoid that issue, the "doubters" simply split the argument allowing for "micro" evolution but not "macro" evolution. I believe the "scientific" proof done by one theologen was to toss an animal into a blender (dead already luckily, not that he wouldn't have, but it was more convenient already dead) and then poured the mixture on a table and watched it until it putrified "proving" that macro evolution doesn't exist. which is all together as rediculous as the argument. there is no macro/micro split. There is only evolution. the holes have been filling in, the "doubters" simply disregard the hole filled and dance to a new hole. The fact that they must dance because the holes in the transitional record are in fact filling in as we find more shows how desperate they are. The fact that they had to split the whole micro evolution gambit out when we found RNA to DNA evolution in extremophile evolution as well as new evolutionary micro spheres so alien to the surface as to be 100% unique from the external animal life (including micro). Completely evolved in an isolated state they are new. Extremophile research has ended once and for all the existance of evolution as a conceptual idea at least in the micro world. Which is why the "doubters" had to dance and say "micro" evolution exists, but "macro" cannot be proved....
_________________________ Asu no koto o ieba, tenjo de nezumi ga warau. Talk about things of tomorrow and the mice in the ceiling laugh. (Japanese Proverb)
-
I am talking about the link to Darwin Day Celebration from the 2/12/07 edition of the Insider Daily Developer News. Is the Developer News section also open for theological issues? Please don't get me wrong, I am all for science; I just want to know how evolution qualifies as such and how it fits in a forum for Developers. Before replying with any dismissing ad-hominem argument pointing out my presumable ignorance on the subject, which I humbly admit to a certain extent even after spending several years studying it from the inside and then the outside, please consider how strictly we use the term 'science' for things that affect our everyday life, especially in this forum, but how loosely we are willing to play with the term when discussing evolution. Let's be consistent and apply the same strict process! Besides the fact that most people and intelligent scientists believe in it, can we honestly mention at least five (5) things about evolution that we KNOW FOR SURE! Why is it that we find the following a believable story: - Billions of years ago, the universe exploded into being; why? We don't know but as Sagan once said: we don't need to go there. - After that, matter organized itself, even though all subsequent observed explosions evidently produce disorder… Boy, this one was singular(ity)! (Check evolutionist Fred Hoyle's analogy of the Boeing 747) - Uniform matter then became diverse. How? - Some matter formed stars while other formed planets and it just happened that the earth was a very special case, as there must be many others elsewhere. - Simplicity then became complexity and many different compounds were formed. How? Do we not in the lab expect always the same results out of the same components and conditions? - Some complex compounds started interacting with their environment and became complex living organisms. Not to mention that we really know what live is... don't we? - Strong organisms then survived while the weak perished. By the way, every time an organism survives we can conclude that it was stronger than the others; this might make it seem as if natural selection is not a falsifiable scientific principle, but don't think too much about it... just trust us on this one too! - At first, simple organs (yes, there is such a thing) developed with specific functions in the living organism. Even though in all known species these organs need the others to survive, like the heart needs the lungs and the lungs the heart, they just started to develop with the expectation of working later in h
Nice start - by throwing Darwin in the same pot as religion. :mad:
Developers, Developers, Developers, Developers, Developers, Developers, Velopers, Develprs, Developers!
We are a big screwed up dysfunctional psychotic happy family - some more screwed up, others more happy, but everybody's psychotic joint venture definition of CP
Linkify!|Fold With Us! -
Fisticuffs, Your point is well taken. I have to confess I get carried away with my sarcasm. That said, however, please note that my argument was not in the form: "this sounds ridiculous, therefore it is false". My appeal was for your scientific knowledge to provide some reasons why you believe these things happened and integrate them in a consistent worldview. Your quick and smart response makes me think you are capable of doing more than dismissing my question by pointing out my mistake. 0 reasons so far. - J
Juanfer
juanfer68 wrote:
Your quick and smart response makes me think you are capable of doing more than dismissing my question by pointing out my mistake.
Okay, since you want a serious discussion... IMO I comment first that you are mushing three major lines of investigation into one umbrella - those of the Big Bang, of abiotic synthesis, and of evolution. None of these theories/hypotheses require the other to be valid. Secondly, you are attempting to discredit evolutionary theory by specifically pointing out the gaps in knowledge or evidence that currently exist. This is disingenuous - it's basically goalpost shifting, as Chris suggested above. The question is, how consistent is evolutionary theory based on the preponderance of existing evidence? How well does evolution explain what we can measure in the world? As a biochemist, I rely on the experts in other fields to make such conclusions based on their observations. From the fields paleontology, biology, geology, chemistry, and physics etc, there exists various independent lines of evidence that are consistent with the hypothesis that the earth is billions of years old. So I ask: How consistent is that with my own observations? I am specifically capable of discussing, say, the overall structure and function of the human genome, or the structure and function of the immune system. Various observations in these fields are explained extremely well by evolutionary theory. For example, the human genome is ~44% comprised of noncoding crap DNA. Evolutionary theory explains this well - retroviral infections, shifts, duplications, translocations, etc, none of which are selected against. We observe a roughly 0.01% difference in the genome between each human, a ~0.05% difference in the genome between humans and the latest neandertal sequences, a ~0.1% difference between the human genome and the chimpanzee genome. Divergence from a common ancestor explains this observation very well and supports findings by paleontologists. The immune system is a system that is explained extremely well by evolutionary theory. For example, the diversity in humans is created by a specific enzyme that mediates DNA rearrangement in developing B and T cells. If we examine the immune system of distantly related species (as determined by the field of biology), we find that jawed fishes have adaptive immunity, where jawless fishes do not. Evolution can explain this by suggesting gene disruption from an exogen
-
I am talking about the link to Darwin Day Celebration from the 2/12/07 edition of the Insider Daily Developer News. Is the Developer News section also open for theological issues? Please don't get me wrong, I am all for science; I just want to know how evolution qualifies as such and how it fits in a forum for Developers. Before replying with any dismissing ad-hominem argument pointing out my presumable ignorance on the subject, which I humbly admit to a certain extent even after spending several years studying it from the inside and then the outside, please consider how strictly we use the term 'science' for things that affect our everyday life, especially in this forum, but how loosely we are willing to play with the term when discussing evolution. Let's be consistent and apply the same strict process! Besides the fact that most people and intelligent scientists believe in it, can we honestly mention at least five (5) things about evolution that we KNOW FOR SURE! Why is it that we find the following a believable story: - Billions of years ago, the universe exploded into being; why? We don't know but as Sagan once said: we don't need to go there. - After that, matter organized itself, even though all subsequent observed explosions evidently produce disorder… Boy, this one was singular(ity)! (Check evolutionist Fred Hoyle's analogy of the Boeing 747) - Uniform matter then became diverse. How? - Some matter formed stars while other formed planets and it just happened that the earth was a very special case, as there must be many others elsewhere. - Simplicity then became complexity and many different compounds were formed. How? Do we not in the lab expect always the same results out of the same components and conditions? - Some complex compounds started interacting with their environment and became complex living organisms. Not to mention that we really know what live is... don't we? - Strong organisms then survived while the weak perished. By the way, every time an organism survives we can conclude that it was stronger than the others; this might make it seem as if natural selection is not a falsifiable scientific principle, but don't think too much about it... just trust us on this one too! - At first, simple organs (yes, there is such a thing) developed with specific functions in the living organism. Even though in all known species these organs need the others to survive, like the heart needs the lungs and the lungs the heart, they just started to develop with the expectation of working later in h
Of course you're right, and a testable hypothesis is always worth questioning and testing. Which I believe that one has for a while now, as few others have. In the interest of fair play, I'll include links to this site[^] when they declare a day of celebration and contemplation. By linking to the Darwin Days celebration Web site, I was not promoting any religious beliefs. I'll likely do the same to remind everyone of International Talk Like a Pirate Day[^], SysAdmin Day[^] and similar "geek" holidays. PS: Apologies to the eyesight and psyche of any Web designers who follow the link above[^]. I know you're fragile creatures.
-------------- TTFN - Kent
-
The Grand Negus wrote:
If this was so, the Master Darwinian, Stephen Jay Gould. never would have come up with his "punctuated equilibrium" hypothesis
i suggest you go read what Gould actually wrote, not just selected out-of-context quotes. and when you're done with that, you'd do well to brush up on the science that's been done in the decades since Gould came up with that hypothesis - including work from Gould himself. and then you should work on the idea that Gould does not represent evolution as a whole, and for that matter, neither does Darwin, or Dawkins, or any of the other bogeymen you might want to quote.
image processing toolkits | batch image processing | blogging
Chris Losinger wrote:
i suggest you go read what Gould actually wrote...
I wasn't commenting on what Gould said, but on what he did. If there was ample evidence of gradual evolution in the fossil record, as you suggest, he would not have felt it necessary to come up with an alternative hypothesis.
-
Chris Losinger wrote:
i suggest you go read what Gould actually wrote...
I wasn't commenting on what Gould said, but on what he did. If there was ample evidence of gradual evolution in the fossil record, as you suggest, he would not have felt it necessary to come up with an alternative hypothesis.
The Grand Negus wrote:
I wasn't commenting on what Gould said, but on what he did.
:wtf:
The Grand Negus wrote:
he would not have felt it necessary to come up with an alternative hypothesis
you clearly have no idea what Gould actually wrote. again, go read it for yourself, quit relying on out of context quotes. punctuated evolution is not an 'alternative' to evolution, nor does it say there won't be any transitional fossils. in fact, all it says is that species apparently stay stable in the fossil record for long periods of time but then are replaced by new (but similar) species over geologically short time scales. the transitional fossils are still there, but they are not as plentiful as those from 'stable' species (because they aren't around long enough to leave plentiful fossils); nature appears to go from one long-lived species to another with geologically-short bursts of change in between. evolution and natual selection are still at work, Gould's simply talking about the rate at which they progress. if PE is an alternative to anything, it's an alternative to the idea that evolution is a constant, gradual, steady process. and actually it's not even an alternative, since Gould says PE is one possible explanation, but not the only one; he was comfortable with PE existing side by side with 'gradualism'. but strict gradualism's a theory that few defend anyway - not even Darwin believed that. in fact, Darwin's own books show that he clearly recognized that speciation appears to occur irregularly.
"...the periods during which species have undergone modification, though long as measured by years, have probably been short in comparison with the periods during which they retained the same form."
that's PE in a nutshell. but Darwin wrote it 100 years before Gould proposed his PE theory. and, in any case, the specifics of Gould's theory, interesting as it was at the time, have been beaten up pretty well in the 30+ years since he first proposed it. do yourself a favor, read what Darwin wrote, read what Gould wrote. then learn what thousands of other scientists have learned in the decades since Gould proposed his hypothesis. because, if you don't, you're just embarassing yourself.
-
juanfer68 wrote:
Your quick and smart response makes me think you are capable of doing more than dismissing my question by pointing out my mistake.
Okay, since you want a serious discussion... IMO I comment first that you are mushing three major lines of investigation into one umbrella - those of the Big Bang, of abiotic synthesis, and of evolution. None of these theories/hypotheses require the other to be valid. Secondly, you are attempting to discredit evolutionary theory by specifically pointing out the gaps in knowledge or evidence that currently exist. This is disingenuous - it's basically goalpost shifting, as Chris suggested above. The question is, how consistent is evolutionary theory based on the preponderance of existing evidence? How well does evolution explain what we can measure in the world? As a biochemist, I rely on the experts in other fields to make such conclusions based on their observations. From the fields paleontology, biology, geology, chemistry, and physics etc, there exists various independent lines of evidence that are consistent with the hypothesis that the earth is billions of years old. So I ask: How consistent is that with my own observations? I am specifically capable of discussing, say, the overall structure and function of the human genome, or the structure and function of the immune system. Various observations in these fields are explained extremely well by evolutionary theory. For example, the human genome is ~44% comprised of noncoding crap DNA. Evolutionary theory explains this well - retroviral infections, shifts, duplications, translocations, etc, none of which are selected against. We observe a roughly 0.01% difference in the genome between each human, a ~0.05% difference in the genome between humans and the latest neandertal sequences, a ~0.1% difference between the human genome and the chimpanzee genome. Divergence from a common ancestor explains this observation very well and supports findings by paleontologists. The immune system is a system that is explained extremely well by evolutionary theory. For example, the diversity in humans is created by a specific enzyme that mediates DNA rearrangement in developing B and T cells. If we examine the immune system of distantly related species (as determined by the field of biology), we find that jawed fishes have adaptive immunity, where jawless fishes do not. Evolution can explain this by suggesting gene disruption from an exogen
excellent post.
image processing toolkits | batch image processing | blogging
-
The Grand Negus wrote:
I wasn't commenting on what Gould said, but on what he did.
:wtf:
The Grand Negus wrote:
he would not have felt it necessary to come up with an alternative hypothesis
you clearly have no idea what Gould actually wrote. again, go read it for yourself, quit relying on out of context quotes. punctuated evolution is not an 'alternative' to evolution, nor does it say there won't be any transitional fossils. in fact, all it says is that species apparently stay stable in the fossil record for long periods of time but then are replaced by new (but similar) species over geologically short time scales. the transitional fossils are still there, but they are not as plentiful as those from 'stable' species (because they aren't around long enough to leave plentiful fossils); nature appears to go from one long-lived species to another with geologically-short bursts of change in between. evolution and natual selection are still at work, Gould's simply talking about the rate at which they progress. if PE is an alternative to anything, it's an alternative to the idea that evolution is a constant, gradual, steady process. and actually it's not even an alternative, since Gould says PE is one possible explanation, but not the only one; he was comfortable with PE existing side by side with 'gradualism'. but strict gradualism's a theory that few defend anyway - not even Darwin believed that. in fact, Darwin's own books show that he clearly recognized that speciation appears to occur irregularly.
"...the periods during which species have undergone modification, though long as measured by years, have probably been short in comparison with the periods during which they retained the same form."
that's PE in a nutshell. but Darwin wrote it 100 years before Gould proposed his PE theory. and, in any case, the specifics of Gould's theory, interesting as it was at the time, have been beaten up pretty well in the 30+ years since he first proposed it. do yourself a favor, read what Darwin wrote, read what Gould wrote. then learn what thousands of other scientists have learned in the decades since Gould proposed his hypothesis. because, if you don't, you're just embarassing yourself.
-
Chris Losinger wrote:
because, if you don't, you're just embarassing yourself.
Funny, I don't feel embarrassed. And I know how to spell it. "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth." Not ashamed to say so.
The Grand Negus wrote:
"And I know how to spell it.
that's all ya got? whew.
The Grand Negus wrote:
"In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth." Not ashamed to say so.
prove it. show your work.
image processing toolkits | batch image processing | blogging
-
The Grand Negus wrote:
"And I know how to spell it.
that's all ya got? whew.
The Grand Negus wrote:
"In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth." Not ashamed to say so.
prove it. show your work.
image processing toolkits | batch image processing | blogging
Chris Losinger wrote:
prove it. show your work.
These things can't be proved, Chris. No one has ever proved that there is a God; no one has ever proved that there isn't. The closest we come to an argument for the existence of God in the Bible is a handful of statements - typically made in passing - regarding things that should be obvious to all; for example, "Every house is built by some man, but He who built all things is God." The Bible speaks of faith as a gift, given to some and withheld from others (who are frequently labeled as blinded, not unconvinced). "The Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom; but we preach Christ crucified, to the Jews a stumblingblock, and to the Greeks foolishness; but to those that are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God." "He who has ears to hear, let him hear."