Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   A Guide to the tactics of Evolutionists
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 91 of 214 (367811)
12-05-2006 2:33 PM
Reply to: Message 88 by Wounded King
12-05-2006 2:12 PM


Re: quick response
one quick note: adding in an outsider breaks that isolation.....of course, that can change the equation. I am not sure though that if we envision the smaller, isolated population, continually mixing some with the larger group, if the isolation is then such as to lead to substantial evolution. Certainly, a greater degree of evolution is envisioned where the smaller popuation could not or would not mate with the larger population. Considering the loss of genetic diversity, how many mutations would be expected to occur to increase genetic diversity for the population to remain healthy?
Are mutational rates and types of mutations sufficient?
Asking evos to demonstrate these things is not too much to ask, imo.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by Wounded King, posted 12-05-2006 2:12 PM Wounded King has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by Wounded King, posted 12-05-2006 7:08 PM randman has replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 92 of 214 (367814)
12-05-2006 3:04 PM
Reply to: Message 89 by randman
12-05-2006 2:17 PM


Re: you are dodging and weaving
Sorry, but you have, repeatedly.
No, I have not, which is why the "claim" you attribute me is not a quotation.
I have never, ever claimed "that a process hostile towards macroevolution ... is actually the same as macroevolution."
This is because I am a real human being rather than that pathetic bedraggled bale of straw that you wish to claim is a man.
Maybe you don't realize what you are saying.
So, you can attribute to me claims I have never made, and then claim that I made them without knowing it?
Would you like to substantiate your claim that you're a giant purple elephant? Hey, I bet you didn't know you'd claimed that.
You also ignored repeatedly just about every point put to you, including the rebuttal of your "patently obvious" point where I showed small steps or changes in a process are not sufficient automatically to add up to large steps.
I did not ignore your so-called rebuttal. On the contrary, I pointed out that your nonsense about swimming the Atlantic and prop airplanes has nothing to do with genetics.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by randman, posted 12-05-2006 2:17 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by randman, posted 12-05-2006 8:28 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 93 of 214 (367847)
12-05-2006 7:08 PM
Reply to: Message 91 by randman
12-05-2006 2:33 PM


Re: quick response
Certainly, a greater degree of evolution is envisioned where the smaller popuation could not or would not mate with the larger population.
Actually another interesting corrollary of this is that you do not need any single 'larger' population as such, several partially isolated small populations are sufficient. While each small population may tend towards homozygosity due to drift the stochastic nature of the process means that they will different alleles will run to fixation. So while any one population may lose considerable diversity the larger metapopulation of populations, as it were, is likely to retain a good deal of the variance from the ancestral population and infrequent gene flow will allow the sporadic reintroduction of diversity from such distinct gene pools.
Considering the loss of genetic diversity, how many mutations would be expected to occur to increase genetic diversity for the population to remain healthy?
A loss of genetic diversity need not, as you yourself pointed out, lead to poor health. In extreme cases and with long term inbreeding it very likely would but again why extrapolate from populations on the edge of extinction to any population potentially undergoing speciation from its progenitor population?
There is a dynamic balance between the effects of drift, mutation and selection which depending on a number of the variable we have touched on briefly, i.e. population size and gene flow amongst others, can lead to a number of different outcomes including extinction and the acumulation of detrimental mutations, but also to a higher rate of fixation of beneficial mutations and even, according to some research, to the so called fitness reversal of detrimental mutations to beneficial.
I have a list of references touching on several aspects of the balance between mutation, selection and drift. I am going to be away for the next few days but I'll see if I can put together a short overview of some of the recent research when I get back.
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by randman, posted 12-05-2006 2:33 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-05-2006 8:48 PM Wounded King has not replied
 Message 118 by randman, posted 12-06-2006 1:14 PM Wounded King has not replied

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 94 of 214 (367861)
12-05-2006 8:28 PM
Reply to: Message 92 by Dr Adequate
12-05-2006 3:04 PM


Re: you are dodging and weaving
Dr Adequate, if you aren't going to address the arguments raised, nor introduce factual arguments, you are not welcome on the thread.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-05-2006 3:04 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-05-2006 8:53 PM randman has replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 95 of 214 (367864)
12-05-2006 8:48 PM
Reply to: Message 93 by Wounded King
12-05-2006 7:08 PM


For anyone Who's Interested
Let's do the maths.
If we have a diploid species, then for neutral variations, the equilibrium heterozygosity is *
4Nv/(1 + 4Nv)
This is different if the species is tetraploid, etc*, but the math below works out the same, we just have to define x differently.
In the diploid case, we shall write x = 4Nv, so that the formula above is just
x/(1 + x)
Now, let the population be divided into two isolated gene pools of size pN and qN, without changing the total numbers, so that
p + q = 1
There is no reason why this should change the mutation rate, so the equilbrium heterozygy of the two gene pools is
px/(1 + px)
and
qx/(1 + qx)
respectively.
Now as time -> infinity, and we approach equilibrium, so the probability of the same gene being heterozygous in both gene pools falls to a chance level. Hence the equilibrium combined heterozygosity of the gene pools is
px/(1 + px) + qx/(1 + qx) + pqx2/(1 + px)(1 + qx)
Now, given that N (the original population size) and v (the mutation rate) are both > 0, we have x > 0. Moreover, if the two gene pools into which we have divided the population are both non-empty, then we have p and q > 0.
Hence
pqx2 > 0
Adding pqx3 + x2 + x to both sides, we get
pqx2 + pqx3 + x2 + x > pqx3 + x2 + x
Factorizing, and bearing in mind that p + q = 1, we get:
(1 + x)(pqx2 + x) > x(1 + px)(1 + qx)
Dividing both sides by (1 + x)(1 + px)(1 + qx), which you will note is strictly positive, we get
(pqx2 + x)/(1 + px)(1 + qx) > x/(1 + x)
Rewriting the numerator on the left hand side, again remembering that p + q = 1, we get
(pqx2 + pqx2 - pqx2 + px + qx)/(1 + px)(1 + qx) > x/(1 + x)
We may then rearrange the left hand side as
(px(1 + qx) + qx(1 + px) + pqx2)/(1 + px)(1 + qx) > x/(1 + x)
and finally cancel to get
px/(1 + px) + qx/(1 + qx) + pqx2)/(1 + px)(1 + qx) > x/(1 + x)
---
Conclusion: If a non-empty gene pool is divided into two non-empty isolated gene pools, and the mutation rate is constant and non-zero, then the equilibrium combined heterozygosity of the two gene pools is strictly greater than the heterozygosity of the original population.
Note that this applies to the equilibrium heterozygosity. In the short term, just after we've made the partition, it is not correct to suppose that the probabilities of both gene pools exhibiting heterozygosity in the same gene are independent.
---
I am not so naive as to suppose that randman will pay any attention to this; it is after all, about genetics, not about "prop airplanes" or "swimming to England". Moreover, it's something I've actually said, rather than something he'd like to pretend that I've said.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : I meant to reply to my post, and edited it by accident.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : Fortunately, I had most of it in a text file.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : WTF?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by Wounded King, posted 12-05-2006 7:08 PM Wounded King has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by randman, posted 12-05-2006 10:26 PM Dr Adequate has replied
 Message 100 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-06-2006 11:53 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 96 of 214 (367865)
12-05-2006 8:53 PM
Reply to: Message 94 by randman
12-05-2006 8:28 PM


Re: you are dodging and weaving
Dr Adequate, if you aren't going to address the arguments raised, nor introduce factual arguments, you are not welcome on the thread.
The argument which you raised was that I claimed "that a process hostile towards macroevolution ... is actually the same as macroevolution."
I adddressed your argument by pointing out that I have not claimed that.
You also raised the argument that I had "ignored" your "rebuttal". I addressed your argument by pointing out that in fact I had replied to it.
---
If you have any arguments which don't involve telling me fairy-stories about what my opinion is, and what I have or haven't said, I shall also be happy to answer those, too.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by randman, posted 12-05-2006 8:28 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by randman, posted 12-05-2006 10:14 PM Dr Adequate has replied

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 97 of 214 (367881)
12-05-2006 10:14 PM
Reply to: Message 96 by Dr Adequate
12-05-2006 8:53 PM


Re: you are dodging and weaving
Reread what you wrote. You've consistently ignored my points, and then refused to acknowledge I have addressed your's. You also fail to recognize that you, at the same time, deny claiming the process of microevolution is the same as macroevolution, and then at the very same time, claim microevolutionary steps are the steps of macroevolution (that they add up). This is exact same bait and switch approach that the thread is about. Moroever, you confound such deceitful tactics with semantics arguments rather than deal with the substantive errors you are making.
Personally, I am not even sure you are capable right now of recognizing those errors, perhaps because you are so emotionally involved. Either way, I am tired of you fouling up the thread. I've given you plenty of time to engage truthfully the points raised, and you continually ignore them wholesale.
Either start making factual posts, or get off the thread and let someone else, like WK who is at least trying to engage the topic, post.
last warning....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-05-2006 8:53 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-06-2006 12:16 PM randman has replied

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 98 of 214 (367882)
12-05-2006 10:26 PM
Reply to: Message 95 by Dr Adequate
12-05-2006 8:48 PM


Re: For Anyone Who's Interested
well, at least here you have finally made a fact-based post.......try to stick with this, and quit the other posts fouling up the thread when you don't have an answer but want to someone "score points" anyway.....
There is no reason why this should change the mutation rate, so the equilbrium heterozygy of the two gene pools is
That depends on your explanation of what causes the mutations, but I suppose the "rate" per se has not changed. Nevertheless, if there are x mutations per y members of a population, and you reduce that population by half, then that equals one half the number of mutations, right? So there are less mutations per a smaller population than a larger one.
Regardless, you have not accounted for loss of genetic diversity, and basically, once again, ignore the real world analysis. It seems you don't get the problem, and so are struggling to offer a solution without first taking the time to grasp the dilemna.
You completely leave off the pressures towards isolation, genetic drift and other means of decreasing genetic diversity are just as on-going over long periods of time as mutational rates. In other words, you completely dodged the point....again.
I wouldn't expect you to get this point, Dr Adequate, as you seem to rest your beliefs on a simplistic analysis.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-05-2006 8:48 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 101 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-06-2006 12:01 PM randman has replied
 Message 120 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-06-2006 1:20 PM randman has not replied

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 99 of 214 (367884)
12-05-2006 10:44 PM


some helpful quotations
for the likes of Dr Adequate who displays the typical ignorance of naive evos in asserting that the reason some reject Darwinism is due to not properly understanding it....
Pierre-P. Grasse
"The book of Pierre P. Grasse is a frontal attack on all kinds of `Darwinism'"
"The book of Pierre P. Grasse is a frontal attack on all kinds of `Darwinism.' Its purpose is `to destroy the myth of evolution as a simple, understood, and explained phenomenon,' and to show that evolution is a mystery about which little is, and perhaps can be, known. Now, one can disagree with Grasse hut not ignore him, he is the most distinguished of French zoologists, the editor of the 28 volumes of `Traite de Zoologie,' author of numerous original investigations and ex-president of the Academie des Sciences. His knowledge of the living world is encyclopedic, and his book is replete with interesting facts that any biologist would profit by knowing." (Dobzhansky T.G., "Darwinian or `Oriented' Evolution?" Review of Grasse P.-P., "L'Evolution du Vivant," ["Evolution of Living Organisms"], Editions Albin Michel: Paris, 1973, in "Evolution," Vol. 29, June 1975, pp.376-378) [top]
Lynn Margulis
Darwinism is wrong by what it omits and by what it incorrectly emphasizes
"IT IS TOTALLY WRONG. It's wrong like infectious medicine was wrong before Pasteur. It's wrong like phrenology is wrong. Every major tenet of it is wrong," said the outspoken biologist Lynn Margulis about her latest target: the dogma of Darwinian evolution.... Margulis was now denouncing the modern framework of the century-old theory of Darwinism, which holds that new species build up from an unbroken line of gradual, independent, random variations. Margulis is not alone in challenging the stronghold of Darwinian theory, but few have been so blunt. Disagreeing with Darwin resembles creationism to the uninformed; therefore the stigma that any taint of creationism can bring to a scientific reputation, coupled with the intimidating genius of Darwin, have kept all but the boldest iconoclasts from doubting Darwinian theory in public. What excites Margulis is the remarkable incompleteness of general Darwinian theory. Darwinism is wrong by what it omits and by what it incorrectly emphasizes. A number of microbiologists, geneticists, theoretical biologists, mathematicians, and computer scientists are saying there is more to life than Darwinism. They do not reject Darwin's contribution; they simply want to move beyond it. I call them the `postdarwinians.'" (Kelly K., "Out of Control: The New Biology of Machines", [1994], Fourth Estate: London, 1995, reprint, pp470-471. Emphasis in original) [top]
W.R. Thompson*
"I am not satisfied that Darwin proved his point or that his influence in scientific and public thinking has been beneficial."
"I admire, as all biologists must, the immense scientific labours of Charles Darwin and his lifelong, single-hearted devotion to his theory of evolution. I agree that although, as he himself readily admitted, he did not invent the doctrine of organic evolution, or even the idea of natural selection, his arguments, and especially the arguments in The Origin of Species, convinced the world that he had discovered the true explanation of biological diversity, and had shown how the intricate adaptations of living things develop by a simple, inevitable process which even the most simple minded and unlearned can understand. But I am not satisfied that Darwin proved his point or that his influence in scientific and public thinking has been beneficial." (Kelly K.Thompson W.R.*, "Introduction," in Darwin C.R., "The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection," [1872], Everyman's Library, J.M. Dent & Sons: London, 6th Edition, 1967, reprint, pp.vii-viii). [top]
......
Colin Patterson
"Can you tell me anything you know about evolution, any one thing, that is true?"
"One of the reasons I started taking this anti-evolutionary view, or let's call it a non- evolutionary view, was last year I had a sudden realization for over twenty years I had thought I was working on evolution in some way. One morning I woke up and something had happened in the night and it struck me that I had been working on this stuff for twenty years and there was not one thing I knew about it. That's quite a shock to learn that one can be so misled so long. Either there was something wrong with me or there was something wrong with evolutionary theory. Naturally, I know there is nothing wrong with me, so for the last few weeks I've tried putting a simple question to various people and groups of people. Question is: Can you tell me anything you know about evolution, any one thing, that is true? I tried that question on the geology staff at the Field Museum of Natural History and the only answer I got was silence. I tried it on the members of the Evolutionary Morphology Seminar in the University of Chicago, a very prestigious body of evolutionists, and all I got there was silence for a long time and eventually one person said, `I do know one thing - it ought not to be taught in high school.'" (Patterson C., "Evolutionism and Creationism," Transcript of Address at the American Museum of Natural History, New York, November 5, 1981, p.1). [top]
David W. Hogg
That "evolution proceeds through the process of survival and reproduction of the fittest" "remains barely tested"
"The point of my letter (Science's Compass, 30 July, p. 663), which perhaps was not well articulated, is that there is one hypothesis, central to evolution, that remains barely tested-that evolution proceeds through the process of survival and reproduction of the fittest." (Hogg D.W., Science, Vol. 286, 26 November 1999, p.167).
iiNet | naked dsl - broadband - adsl - phone - voip
The point of these quotes is to show the same criticisms of evo theory are stated by very respected non-creationist scientists, even some that are disdainful of creationism. The criticisms are fact-based and substantial, and evos response to them are bait and switch sophistry. It's time for evos to face criticism head-on and acknowledge the facts that contradict their analysis, and admit when they have erroneously asserted facts that they have not verified.
Edited by randman, : No reason given.

Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-06-2006 12:11 PM randman has replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 100 of 214 (367942)
12-06-2006 11:53 AM
Reply to: Message 95 by Dr Adequate
12-05-2006 8:48 PM


Footnote
I notice that I have tacitly assumed that if both gene pools separately are homozygous with respect to a certain gene, then they are collectively. This is not necessarily true. Fortunately this is a conservative assumption, as, if anything, it must underestimate the equilibrium combined heterozygosity.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-05-2006 8:48 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 101 of 214 (367943)
12-06-2006 12:01 PM
Reply to: Message 98 by randman
12-05-2006 10:26 PM


Re: For Anyone Who's Interested
That depends on your explanation of what causes the mutations, but I suppose the "rate" per se has not changed. Nevertheless, if there are x mutations per y members of a population, and you reduce that population by half, then that equals one half the number of mutations, right? So there are less mutations per a smaller population than a larger one.
Yes, of course.
Regardless, you have not accounted for loss of genetic diversity, and basically, once again, ignore the real world analysis. It seems you don't get the problem, and so are struggling to offer a solution without first taking the time to grasp the dilemna.
No, I have not "accounted for loss of genetic diversity". I have proved that in the long run it is not lost.
Oh, that "real world analysis". Does that have anything to do with "swimming to England"? Where is your "real world analysis"?
You completely leave off the pressures towards isolation, genetic drift
This is not true.
and other means of decreasing genetic diversity are just as on-going over long periods of time as mutational rates.
Isolation and genetic drift combined with mutation, as I have just shown, increase genetic diversity, in the long term
In other words, you completely dodged the point....again.
You have a point?
I wouldn't expect you to get this point, Dr Adequate, as you seem to rest your beliefs on a simplistic analysis.
So "simplistic" that you are apparently completely unable to understand it. That simple, hey?
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by randman, posted 12-05-2006 10:26 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 106 by randman, posted 12-06-2006 12:35 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 102 of 214 (367944)
12-06-2006 12:11 PM
Reply to: Message 99 by randman
12-05-2006 10:44 PM


Re: some helpful quotations
for the likes of Dr Adequate who displays the typical ignorance of naive evos in asserting that the reason some reject Darwinism is due to not properly understanding it....
None of your "helpful quotations" contain actual arguments aginst the theory of evolution. So they're not really that helpful.
Still, if we're playing "argument from authority":
"Since its first appearance on Earth, life has taken many forms, all of which continue to evolve, in ways which palaeontology and the modern biological and biochemical sciences are describing and independently confirming with increasing precision. Commonalities in the structure of the genetic code of all organisms living today, including humans, clearly indicate their common primordial origin."
--- Albanian Academy of Sciences; National Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences, Argentina; Australian Academy of Science; Austrian Academy of Sciences; Bangladesh Academy of Sciences; The Royal Academies for Science and the Arts of Belgium; Academy of Sciences and Arts of Bosnia and Herzegovina; Brazilian Academy of Sciences; Bulgarian Academy of Sciences; The Academies of Arts, Humanities and Sciences of Canada; Academia Chilena de Ciencias; Chinese Academy of Sciences; Academia Sinica, China, Taiwan; Colombian Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences; Croatian Academy of Arts and Sciences; Cuban Academy of Sciences; Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic; Royal Danish Academy of Sciences and Letters; Academy of Scientific Research and Technology, Egypt; Académie des Sciences, France; Union of German Academies of Sciences and Humanities; The Academy of Athens, Greece; Hungarian Academy of Sciences; Indian National Science Academy; Indonesian Academy of Sciences; Academy of Sciences of the Islamic Republic of Iran; Royal Irish Academy; Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities; Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, Italy; Science Council of Japan; Kenya National Academy of Sciences; National Academy of Sciences of the Kyrgyz Republic; Latvian Academy of Sciences; Lithuanian Academy of Sciences; Macedonian Academy of Sciences and Arts; Academia Mexicana de Ciencias; Mongolian Academy of Sciences; Academy of the Kingdom of Morocco; The Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences; Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand; Nigerian Academy of Sciences; Pakistan Academy of Sciences; Palestine Academy for Science and Technology; Academia Nacional de Ciencias del Peru; National Academy of Science and Technology, The Philippines; Polish Academy of Sciences; Académie des Sciences et Techniques du Sénégal; Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts; Singapore National Academy of Sciences; Slovak Academy of Sciences; Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts; Academy of Science of South Africa; Royal Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences of Spain; National Academy of Sciences, Sri Lanka; Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences; Council of the Swiss Scientific Academies; Academy of Sciences, Republic of Tajikistan; Turkish Academy of Sciences; The Uganda National Academy of Sciences; The Royal Society, UK; US National Academy of Sciences; Uzbekistan Academy of Sciences; Academia de Ciencias Físicas, Matemáticas y Naturales de Venezuela; Zimbabwe Academy of Sciences; The Caribbean Academy of Sciences; African Academy of Sciences; The Academy of Sciences for the Developing World (TWAS); The Executive Board of the International Council for Science (ICSU).
"Teaching religious ideas mislabeled as science is detrimental to scientific education: It sets up a false conflict between science and religion, misleads our youth about the nature of scientific inquiry, and thereby compromises our ability to respond to the problems of an increasingly technological world. Our capacity to cope with problems of food production, health care, and even national defense will be jeopardized if we deliberately strip our citizens of the power to distinguish between the phenomena of nature and supernatural articles of faith. "Creation-science" simply has no place in the public-school science classroom."
--- Nobel Laureates Luis W. Alvarez, Carl D. Anderson, Christian B. Anfinsen, Julius Axelrod, David Baltimore, John Bardeen, Paul Berg, Hans A. Bethe, Konrad Bloch, Nicolaas Bloembergen, Michael S. Brown, Herbert C. Brown, Melvin Calvin, S. Chandrasekhar, Leon N. Cooper, Allan Cormack, Andre Cournand, Francis Crick, Renato Dulbecco, Leo Esaki, Val L. Fitch, William A. Fowler, Murray Gell-Mann, Ivar Giaever, Walter Gilbert, Donald A. Glaser, Sheldon Lee Glashow, Joseph L. Goldstein, Roger Guillemin, Roald Hoffmann, Robert Hofstadter, Robert W. Holley, David H. Hubel, Charles B. Huggins, H. Gobind Khorana, Arthur Kornberg, Polykarp Kusch, Willis E. Lamb, Jr., William Lipscomb, Salvador E. Luria, Barbara McClintock, Bruce Merrifield, Robert S. Mulliken, Daniel Nathans, Marshall Nirenberg, John H. Northrop, Severo Ochoa, George E. Palade, Linus Pauling, Arno A. Penzias, Edward M. Purcell, Isidor I. Rabi, Burton Richter, Frederick Robbins, J. Robert Schrieffer, Glenn T. Seaborg, Emilio Segre, Hamilton O. Smith, George D. Snell, Roger Sperry, Henry Taube, Howard M. Temin, Samuel C. C. Ting, Charles H. Townes, James D. Watson, Steven Weinberg, Thomas H. Weller, Eugene P. Wigner, Kenneth G. Wilson, Robert W. Wilson, Rosalyn Yalow, Chen Ning Yang.
"Evolutionary theory ranks with Einstein's theory of relativity as one of modern science's most robust, generally accepted, thoroughly tested and broadly applicable concepts. From the standpoint of science, there is no controversy."
--- Louise Lamphere, President of the American Anthropological Association; Mary Pat Matheson, President of the American Assn of Botanical Gardens and Arboreta; Eugenie Scott, President of the American Association of Physical Anthropologists; Robert Milkey, Executive Officer of the American Astronomical Society; Barbara Joe Hoshiazaki, President of the American Fern Society; Oliver A. Ryder, President of the American Genetic Association; Larry Woodfork, President of the American Geological Institute; Marcia McNutt, President of the American Geophysical Union; Judith S. Weis, President of the American Institute of Biological Sciences; Arvind K.N. Nandedkar, President of the American Institute of Chemists; Robert H. Fakundiny, President of the American Institute of Professional Geologists; Hyman Bass, President of the American Mathematical Society; Ronald D. McPherson, Executive Director of the American Meteorological Society; John W. Fitzpatrick, President of the American Ornithologists' Union; George Trilling, President of the American Physical Society; Martin Frank, Executive Director of the American Physiological Society; Steven Slack, President of the American Phytopathological Society; Raymond D. Fowler, Chief Executive Officer American Psychological Association; Alan Kraut, Executive Director of the American Psychological Society; Catherine E. Rudder, Executive Director of the American Political Science Association; Robert D. Wells, President of the American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology; Abigail Salyers, President of the American Society for Microbiology; Brooks Burr, President of the American Society of Ichthylogists & Herpetologists; Thomas H. Kunz, President of the American Society of Mammalogists; Mary Anne Holmes, President of the Association for Women Geoscientists; Linda H. Mantel, President of the Association for Women in Science; Ronald F. Abler, Executive Director of the Association of American Geographers; Vicki Cowart, President of the Association of American State Geologists; Nils Hasselmo, President of the Association of American Universities; Thomas A. Davis, President of the Assn. of College & University Biology Educators; Richard Jones, President of the Association of Earth Science Editors; Rex Upp, President of the Association of Engineering Geologists; Robert R. Haynes, President of the Association of Southeastern Biologists; Kenneth R. Ludwig, Director of the Berkeley Geochronology Center; Rodger Bybee, Executive Director of the Biological Sciences Curriculum Study; Mary Dicky Barkley, President of the Biophysical Society; Judy Jernstedt, President of the Botanical Society of America; Ken Atkins, Secretary of the Burlington-Edison Cmte. for Science Education; Austin Dacey, Director of the Center for Inquiry Institute; Blair F. Jones, President of the Clay Minerals Society; Barbara Forrest, President of the Citizens for the Advancement of Science Education; Timothy Moy, President of the Coalition for Excellence in Science and Math Education; K. Elaine Hoagland, National Executive Officer Council on Undergraduate Research; David A. Sleper, President of the Crop Science Society of America; Steve Culver, President of the Cushman Foundation for Foraminiferal Research; Pamela Matson, President of the Ecological Society of America; Larry L. Larson, President of the Entomological Society of America; Royce Engstrom, Chair of the Board of Directors of the EPSCoR Foundation; Robert R. Rich, President of the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology; Stephen W. Porges, President of the Federation of Behavioral, Psychological and Cognitive Sciences; Roger D. Masters, President of the Foundation for Neuroscience and Society; Kevin S. Cummings, President of the Freshwater Mollusk Conservation Society; Sharon Mosher, President of the Geological Society of America; Dennis J. Richardson, President of the Helminthological Society of Washington; Aaron M. Bauer, President of the Herpetologists' League; William Perrotti, President of the Human Anatomy & Physiology Society; Lorna G. Moore, President of the Human Biology Association; Don Johanson, Director of the Institute of Human Origins; Harry McDonald, President of the Kansas Association of Biology Teachers; Steve Lopes, President of the Kansas Citizens For Science; Margaret W. Reynolds, Executive Director of the Linguistic Society of America; Robert T. Pennock, President of the Michigan Citizens for Science; Cornelis "Kase" Klein,President of the Mineralogical Society of America; Ann Lumsden, President of the National Association of Biology Teachers; Darryl Wilkins, President of the National Association for Black Geologists & Geophysicists; Steven C. Semken, President of the National Association of Geoscience Teachers; Kevin Padian, President of the National Center for Science Education; Tom Ervin, President of the National Earth Science Teachers Association; Gerald Wheeler, Executive Director of the National Science Teachers Association; Meredith Lane, President of the Natural Science Collections Alliance; Cathleen May, President of the Newkirk Engler & May Foundation; Dave Thomas, President of the New Mexicans for Science and Reason; Marshall Berman, President (elect) of the New Mexico Academy of Science; Connie J. Manson, President of the Northwest Geological Society; Lydia Villa-Komaroff, Vice Pres. for Research Northwestern University; Gary S. Hartshorn, President of the Organization for Tropical Studies; Warren Allmon, Director of the Paleontological Research Institution; Patricia Kelley, President of the Paleontological Society; Henry R. Owen, Director of Phi Sigma: The Biological Sciences Honor Society; Charles Yarish, President of the Phycological Society of America; Barbara J. Moore, President and CEO of Shape Up America!; Robert L. Kelly, President of the Society for American Archaeology; Richard Wilk, President of the Society for Economic Anthropology; Marvalee Wake, President of the Society for Integrative and Comparative Biology; Gilbert Strang, Past-Pres. & Science Policy Chair of the Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics; Prasanta K. Mukhopadhyay, President of the Society for Organic Petrology; Howard E. Harper, Executive Director of the Society for Sedimentary Geology; Nick Barton, President of the Society for the Study of Evolution; Deborah Sacrey, President of the Society of Independent Professional Earth Scientists; J.D. Hughes, President of the Society of Petroleum Evaluation Engineers; Lea K. Bleyman, President of the Society of Protozoologists; Elizabeth Kellogg, President of the Society of Systematic Biologists; David L. Eaton, President of the Society of Toxicology; Richard Stuckey, President of the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology; Pat White, Executive Director of the Triangle Coalition for Science and Technology Education; Richard A. Anthes, President of the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research.
---
Your turn.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by randman, posted 12-05-2006 10:44 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 105 by randman, posted 12-06-2006 12:32 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 103 of 214 (367946)
12-06-2006 12:16 PM
Reply to: Message 97 by randman
12-05-2006 10:14 PM


Re: you are dodging and weaving
Reread what you wrote. You've consistently ignored my points...
This is false.
I have reread what you wrote.
Here it is, in full.
Sorry, but you have, repeatedly. Maybe you don't realize what you are saying. You also ignored repeatedly just about every point put to you, including the rebuttal of your "patently obvious" point where I showed small steps or changes in a process are not sufficient automatically to add up to large steps.
Keep in mind this forum is unmoderated, but at the same time, should you continue to ignore the points I have made to you, nearly ad nauseum, then you will not be welcome on the thread.
I responded both to your "point" that I had "repeatedly" claimed something I haven't claimed, and your "point" that I had "ignored" something which I had in fact responded to.
Everyone reading this thread can see that. I can't see what you hope to achieve by pretending otherwise.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by randman, posted 12-05-2006 10:14 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 104 by randman, posted 12-06-2006 12:30 PM Dr Adequate has replied

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 104 of 214 (367947)
12-06-2006 12:30 PM
Reply to: Message 103 by Dr Adequate
12-06-2006 12:16 PM


Re: you are dodging and weaving
The points you have been ignoring have been repeated ad nauseum to you, such as your claim that the small changes of microevolution add to macroevolution and how that most basic claim is not tested or backed up in reference to the process itself, except with simplistic nonsense that small changes must add up to the larger change. You ignore the factors in the small changes that are moving in the wrong direction decreasing genetic diversity.
Since you have nothing to offer, please excuse yourself from this thread.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-06-2006 12:16 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 107 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-06-2006 12:36 PM randman has replied
 Message 110 by Admin, posted 12-06-2006 12:44 PM randman has replied

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 105 of 214 (367948)
12-06-2006 12:32 PM
Reply to: Message 102 by Dr Adequate
12-06-2006 12:11 PM


Re: some helpful quotations
Once again, you are ignoring the argument entirely. It's not a matter of who thinks what, but that factual criticism of evo models are glossed over in a dishonest fashion by people like you that try to divert the argument from facts into pettiness.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-06-2006 12:11 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-06-2006 12:37 PM randman 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