Where is the evidence for evolution?

S: Ad hoc unsupported gibberish works on creationistsHi SLPx...don't forget not reading about, researching, or making any effort at all to understand the topic they are supposedly so passionately opposed to as a modus operandi...that stategy has served PB and other creationists very well.Back to the grind..M

Hi Andya!
I will only be able to participate occassionally since I am up to my trunk in experiments, training students, writing papers etc. at the moment...but I hope to stomp in once in a while cheers,
M

Well, gas is getting expensive so I guess he has fewer ambulances that he can chase these days...why else would a guy who came onto the site saying PB has great "evidence"..(must be secret evidence) and that the site was a waste of time continue to come back here under different names ..unless there is justice and he has been disbarred

1)You have to actually know what underlies the ToE to evaluate whether schrafinator has altered it to fit her needs. Any expertise on this subject you may have has been thus far extremley hard to discern...or would you care to demonstrate where extreme phenotypic plasticity is a requirement of evolution?2)...from the same ancestors as the other chelicerates
Evol Dev 2001 Nov-Dec;3(6):391-6 Related Articles, LinksConservation and variation in Ubx expression among chelicerates.Popadic A, Nagy L.Department of Biological Sciences, Wayne State University, Detroit, MI 48202, USA. apopadic@biology.biosci.wayne.eduChelicerates are an ancient arthropod group with a distinct body plan composed of an anterior (prosoma) and a posterior portion (opisthosoma). The expression of the Hox gene Ultrabithorax (Ubx) has been examined in a single representative of the chelicerates, the spider Cupiennius salei. In spiders, Ubx expression starts in the second opisthosomal segment (O2). Because the first opisthosomal segment (O1) in spiders is greatly reduced relative to other chelicerates, we hypothesized that the observed Ubx expression pattern might be secondarily modified. Shifts in the anterior boundary of the expression of Ubx have been correlated with functional shifts in morphology within malacostracan crustaceans. Thus, the boundary of Ubx expression between chelicerates with different morphologies in their anterior opisthosoma could also be variable. To test this prediction, we examined the expression patterns of Ubx and abdominal-A (collectively referred to as UbdA) in two basal chelicerate lineages, scorpions and xiphosurans (horseshoe crabs), which exhibit variation in the morphology of their anterior opisthosoma. In the scorpion Paruroctonus mesaensis, the anterior border of early expression of UbdA is in a few cells in the medial, posterior region of the O2 segment, with a predominant expression in O3 and posterior. Expression later spreads to encompass the whole O2 segment and a ventral, posterior portion of the O1 segment. In the xiphosuran Limulus polyphemus, early expression of UbdA has an anterior boundary in the segment. Later in development, the anterior boundary moves forward one segment to the chilarial (O1) segment. Thus, the earliest expression boundary of UbdA lies within the second opisthosomal segment in all the chelicerates examined. These results suggest that rather than being derived, the spider UbdA expression in O2 likely reflects the ancestral expression boundary. Changes in the morphology of the first opisthosomal segment are either not associated with changes in UbdA expression or correlate with late developmental changes in UbdA expression.

Hi sonnikke,
No, I am not going to translate it for you. You made claims regarding what horeshoe crab relationships can and cannot be and claimed that schrafinator was in error or fraudulent in her definition of ToE. If you cannot understand as simple a text as contained in the abstract that I posted then you are clearly basing your own arguments on ignorance of the subject matter. If you want to make absolutist statments regarding humans being animals, chelicerate phylogeny, then please indicate your supporting data for your assertions or admit that your religious views demand that your reject anything that science has to say.cheers,
M

Ahhh and Ten-sai with his wonderful grasp of science and evolution in particular is in a position to state who the authorities in evolutionary biology are or even what the hot topics in any field of science are?..LOL Quetzal did not bring it up because he did not find that the data supported her hypothesis...just like I don't bring up any of Peter Borger's hairbrain nonsense when I discuss my research with other evolutionary biologists.Interesting that your post says nothing about how Quetzal demonstrated that your selective quoting from the book is highly misleading...but I guess if you told the truth you would not be a creationist law clerk

Hi Taz,
I am sure translating anything for him would be worthless. He has had and still has a chance to demonstrate the basis of his assertions but I would guess he will not be able to do more than a one liner about all evo's being evil or the typical "science is anti god" babble...or my personal favorite "humans are not animals" ga ga. But we shall see. If he comes back with more, I will be glad to discuss the paper. I found it rather galling to see him (like many others before him) make absolutist statements about this or that aspect of ToE, living fossils, etc. and then ask to be spoon fed a "translation" of scientific text. First off, if creationist thinks that all of us evolutionary biologists are a bunch of evil idiots why would they rely on our "translation" of a scientific text? Second, you would think that if someone is supposedly so passionately opposed to a theory they would make damn well sure they know as much about it as possible.I look forward to your post regarding Behe...always like to see his ideas getting slapped out of the air cheers,
M

Hi Taz,
I agree with you completely. I am also willing to entertain some fairly radical ideas,I am personally working on a few that are probably totally wrong , but if they are not falsifiable or contradicted by scientific evidence (especially from multiple disciplines)then I have no possible reason to take them seriously. Behe falls squarely into the camp of those that make either non-falsifiable statements or statements not supported by scientific evidence. It is surprising that Behe admits that ID is non-falsifiable because it therefore confirms that his agenda is political/religious and not scientific.Well, before I drag the thread any further off topiccheers,
M

Not to speak for Taz but A) You have no "theory" B) you cannot even define your ideas in an understandable manner much less consistently C) to point out where your "theory" is in trouble please refer to any post you have ever written on this board

It is also interesting to see how many (not all..some exceptions are even on this board) creationist paint both their own religions and science as monolithic entities with completely invariant views..it seems the absolutists don't even really know much about their OWN position much less understanding anybody elses.cheers,
M

"I think what often makes these discussions take a frustrating turn is that thinking scientifically is not something that can simply be explained. It's a skill that takes a long time to develop, and just as some are gifted in music or sports or theology, others are gifted with a scientific outlook. Explaining science to those who have neither the background nor the gift is far more difficult a task than we often realize."Just to point out, as opposed to many creationists who imply that they know much more about natural history, genetics, population biology, and evolution than practicing scientists, most people do not go to a world class opera singer, sports figure etc. and tell them that they have no talent and should be forbidden from performing. But I do agree that explaining science is difficult and the scientific community as a whole does a miserable job of it imo.