TOE and the Reasons for Doubt

Firstly, neither is good or bad, but each is the skin colour best suited to the respective climates. Skin colour is caused by mellanin (spelling?) which protects us from ultraviolet radiation.I am not sure whether the ToE would suggest that dark-skinned Africans came about through the natural selection of people who produce more mellanin. I somehow doubt this. Human beings are too sophisticated to die out because their skin is the wrong colour (lilly-white Europeans have lived in sun-soaked Africa and Australia for 200 years without many problems). Also, there doesn't seem to be an advantage to white skin- dark skin should also be a plus in cold climates because it absorbs heat.I'm guessing that you were asking for predictions, as without consulting a dictionary predications probably means "basings". I rather think that the ToE would agree with me that humans are too sophisticated to be selected out on skin colour, so it probably wouldn't make any predictions.Edited by Kaichos Man, : avatar

---

"Often a cold shudder has run through me, and I have asked myself whether I may have not devoted myself to a fantasy." Charles Darwin

There aren't any natural population of fruitflies without antennae and there never have been. Antannae evolved in much simpler organisms, through modification of the frontal appendages.

Indeed, the darker skin is considered the more ancestral phenotype. This should be obvious considering that Africa is the area that modern humans are thought to have migrated out from. There are advantages, the migrating populations who moved to cooler temperate regions like northern Europe would not recieve the same benefit of the melanin in terms of sun protection, and might in fact suffer due to a reduced production of vitamin D in the weaker light. Darker skinned children in cooler temperate climates are consequently at higher risk of suffering rickets although diet or supplementation can address this. Therefore the loss of high melanin levels is beneficial in the cooler temperate environment.Your point about heat absorption is arguable since in more Arctic regions populations like the Inuit do indeed have darker skin, the most current explanation I have seen of this phenomenon however is again related to vitamin D, namely that the Inuit diet is high in oily fish which naturally contain high levels of vitamin D.TTFN,WK

"Does not deny" is pretty faint praise, isn't it. The fact is that Kimura's research showed that the vast majority of selection is negative, weeding out nearly neutral mutations that had accumulated through genetic drift.As I have said before Kimura found "beneficial" mutations to be so rare he didn't even factor them into his comprehensive calculations on "fitness". Because evidence can be a cumulative thing. I have heard evolutionists on this forum talk about "all the other evidence" when challenged on a given point. The same rules apply for those of us on the other side of the debate.Darwin asserted that the Cambrian explosion could be used as a valid objection to his theory. Haldane showed mathematically that 300 times a population had to die out to fix a single mutation. Eldredge and Gould demonstrated that the fossil record did not exhibit gradualism and further observed that species spend 90% of their time in stasis. Kimura showed that the vast majority of natural selection is negative in nature; absolutely useless for molecule-to-man evolution.All of these men are, or were, evolutionists. But each have also, probably unwittingly, contributed significant ammunition to the Creationist side.

---

"Often a cold shudder has run through me, and I have asked myself whether I may have not devoted myself to a fantasy." Charles Darwin

Wow- how fascinating. Can you give me reference for this, Mr Jack?

---

"Often a cold shudder has run through me, and I have asked myself whether I may have not devoted myself to a fantasy." Charles Darwin

I don't have a web source you can easily access to hand, but pretty much any decent undergraduate level or above text book covering the invertebrates will tell you that antennae are modified appendages. Then you just have to look at the phylogenic distribution of antennae to confirm it evolved long before insects did.It's easily confirmed by insect embryology and the behaviour of hox genes, in any case.Now would you like to address the point? That your toy example of antennae emerging in antennae free fruitfly is nonsense?Edited by Mr Jack, : The point

this is a drive-by commenting, but puh-lease. darwin gave significant ammunition to the creationist side of the evolution debate?Do you know how retarded that sounds?Haldane's Dilemma is far from being proven (he himself was of the opinion that it needed "more work").Eldredge and Gould talk about punctuated equilibrium...and that's a problem why?Kimura i don't know much about, but I sincerely doubt his work means what you think it means.

Kimura is neither praising nor critisizing. He's affirming that natural selection guides adaptive evolution. Neutral mutations, by definition, cannot be adaptive.Kimura believed that adaptive evolution is a result of natural selection, but that most evolutionary change is non-adaptive, a result of genetic drift. Since most mutations are deleterious and so would be selected against, what you're claiming Kimura showed was already obvious by definition. Or are you merely saying that while he's primarily known for his neutral theory that he was also responsible for determining that most mutations are deleterious. If that's what you're saying then I can't verify whether that's true or not, but nothing on the web attributes this to Kimura, and it's irrelevant to your point. Kimura would not agree with you that he showed natural selection was "absolutely useless," since he himself has stated the opposite, that natural selection plays the primary role in adaptive evolution. Well, sure, obviously this is true, but it isn't scientific ammunition. The distortions of their viewpoints are only effective at persuading those unfamiliar with science and/or possessing a religious reason for rejecting science.The last few months have seen a sudden influx of creationists all arguing along the same lines that various very prominent evolutionists rejected one or more of the primary foundational principles of evolution. Gould and Eldredge have often complained about creationist mischaracterizations of their views, and if Kimura, Haldane and Darwin were alive they would no doubt do the same.--Percy

"The number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed must be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory." (Darwin, Charles, Origin of Species, 6th edition, 1902 p. 341-342)" Do you know how retarded that sounds?

Ah, yes, the text book. In there with embryonic recapitulation and the evolution of the horse, is it? Science based on artist's impressions... Common organs. An argument for common descent. Oh, and, um, common design. This is a fairly obvious diversionary tactic, Mr Jack. Have it your way. The antenna did not emerge with the fruitfly. Now, will you agree that a 1000 base pair gene contributing to the antenna (or any other organ) on a fruitfly (or any other organism of your choice) would occur at odds of 1 in 4¹⁰⁰⁰?Edited by Kaichos Man, : html

---

"Often a cold shudder has run through me, and I have asked myself whether I may have not devoted myself to a fantasy." Charles Darwin

The idea that this comment gives ammunition to the creationist view doesn't hold water in my opinion. This quote is a perfect example of the willingness in science to acknowledge gaps in understanding, and to admit that they give rise to concern. Darwin did NOT say "...perhaps is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory in favour of a theory involving a creator/designer".Had Darwin been aware of the modern day state of geology, he would undoubtedly have addressed this issue with a lesser degree of concern. The existence of enormous gaps in the fossil record are to be expected given our present understanding of the processes involved.To quote a small portion of Bill Bryson's A Short History of Nearly Everything": Despite these problems, we are slowly finding transitional fossils. Here's a pretty good partial list of those found so far:Page Not Found - HolySmoke!As further support for the notion that Darwin's concerns regarding the fossil record would later prove to be unwarranted, here's an excerpt from the above-linked website: Edited by Briterican, : No reason given.

Excuse me? Kimura only said it does not deny. He didn't add a "but" to his sentence. Don't start nit-picking his grammar just because English doesn't have a specific method of offering a super-negative-never-meaning-a-positive sentence. That is the basic way of saying negative statements, so don't assume doubt when no doubt exists.It'd be like me saying "Thou shalt not kill" is a pretty faint phrase. Wrong again. 1 point for trying. Kimura stated that

quote:

---

molecular evolution is dominated by selectively neutral (emphasis mine) evolution, but at the phenotypic level changes in characters were probably dominated by natural selection rather than sampling drift (Provine 1991).

---

he was talking about molecular evolution. EVOLUTION at the MOLECULAR level. Hence the reason his theory is called the Neutral Theory of Molecular Evolution; otherwise it would be known as the Not-So-Neutral-And-Maybe-Negative-Theory-of-Molecular-Evolution. Get it? It's neutral at the molecular level, because one sequence of codons may produce the same amino acids as another sequence of codons so a mutation of a single nucleotide is neutral. You know who did say the neutral theory wasn't so neutral? Kimura's student, Tomoka Ohta. And he went back to neutrality and included a concept of "near-neutrality."Even still, the debate isn't about whether evolution has occurred. It is about the mechanism that has the greater effect on evolution. You are using theories and ideas that don't even contradict evolution. Just because there is debate within the field of the exact processes and how it occurs, there is no debate as to whether evolution is a crackpot idea. Darwin's assertion was based in a time when the study of the geological record was still in its infancy. Haldane's Dilemma was based on faulty calculations, Eldridge and Gould argued for punctuated equilibrium rather than gradualism, and again Kimura said that most mutations were neutral at the molecular level. So you have in support of your argument 1) the writings of a person who had incomplete information; 2) a dilemma based upon a faulty equation that was later corrected and the dilemma dealt with; 3) 2 people who were arguing for one process of evolution instead of another; and 4) your own interpretation of a theory when the man himself has said that mutations are neutral.The thing is, you can list all these people, but you are twisting their words and ideas to fit your way of thinking. It's be like me using my own interpretation of Scripture to prove that God doesn't exist. You wouldn't accept that, would you? If you want to argue the evidence, show how these processes deny evolution. Show how punctuated equilibrium denies evolution. Show how the neutrality of molecular evolution denies evolution. Show how the corrected equations Haldane later used denies evolution. Show that natural selection doesn't occur.If you can show those, then I'd be willing to consider your argument. And don't just say people's ideas disprove the theory. Show us how they do.Once again, Kimura said most mutations are neutral at a molecular level because multiple sequences of codons probably code for the same amino acid. Over time, genetic drift will determine if that single mutation will be found in more individuals in a population.Edited by Izanagi, : No reason given.

Precisely my point, Perce. This statement would make no sense without the word "distortions". That's a pretty serious charge and I will ask you to substantiate it. In what ways have I distorted the views of these scientists? If by "mischaracterizations" you mean Creationists arguing that these scientists spoke out against evolution, I would agree with you. As I have stated, all of these men were/are evolutionists.But my point is this; if you take the problems posed by each of them and add them all together the ToE, rather like an organism bearing too many slightly deleterious mutations, is doomed. That was not the intention (or indeed, belief) of any one of them, but it could well be the cumulative effect of all of their observations.

---

"Often a cold shudder has run through me, and I have asked myself whether I may have not devoted myself to a fantasy." Charles Darwin

What is with you and those odds? Natural Selection is not a person in a bar throwing darts at a board. We are not calculating how much closer he'll get to the bullseye on the next throw. You're attributing a characteristic to a process when that process is not even a living thing. It's like me arguing that the goal of Gravity is to keep people down. That's absurd!Natural Selection is a PROCESS (read not living.) There are no targets, no five year plans. It only shows how certain mutations can be selected for or against. It only says that the environment determines how a population changes over time. If the environment is stable, the population may not change (punctuated equilibrium) or may change gradually (gradualism.) If the environment changes rapidly (as we are seeing currently,) then natural selection will show whether a population of an organism has a genetic variation that allows it to adapt and survive or if it doesn't, then that organism will probably go extinct due to the fact that it cannot adapt.Again, calculating odds for a specific goal is pointless. There are no goals. The adaptation, or lack thereof, either helps the population or it doesn't.(I apologize if my explanations are a little too simplistic.)

This is one of the more common quote mines that we see. Darwin is raising the objection because he has a response. The paragraph's final sentence that makes clear more is to come is missing from the quote mine: The complete passage can be found at many places around the web, including here: Quote Mine Project: "Miscellaneous"--Percy