Where is the evidence for evolution?

another case of ToE "evolving" to meet different standards is it? would you please cite the evidence for this? or were you there at the time of the evolution since you make such an absolute factual statement. btw, from what did the horseshoe crab evolve?S

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 Peter Borger,You're posting privileges have been restored.------------------
--EvC Forum Administrator

Hi Mammuthus,
Could I have that version in "non-Phd english" please?Sonnikke

I still agree with that fine evolutionist, Margulis, and Ernst Mayr's opinion that Margulis is brilliantly forging ahead with ground-breaking material:

quote:

---

Random mutation is wildly overemphasized as a source of hereditary variation. Mutations are inducible...none lead to new organisms. Mutation accumulation does not lead to new species or even to new organs or new tissues ... 99.9 percent of mutations are deleterious. Even professional evolutionary biologists are hard put to find mutations, experimentally introduced or spontaneous, that lead in a positive way to evolutionary change.

​

The major source of evolutionary change is not random mutation. Random mutation, a small part of the evolutionary saga, has been dogmatically overemphasized...

​

The terminology of most modern evolutionists is not only fallacious but dangerously so, because it leads people to think they know about the evolution of life when in fact they are confused and baffled

---

Quetzel, nor anyone else on this board disseminating the similar evo-piffle Margulis is referring to above, never addressed these points in his quite irrelevant analysis of her book.What is more telling, however, is that Quetzel claims to have read the book last year, but remained suspiciously silent as to the damning revelations contained in Margulis' Book, supra.Guess Q was just embarrassed to reveal the fact that Evo-Scientists far more qualified than himself or any other poster on this board agrees with the patently obvious that Neo Darwinism is DEAD, i.e. bunk. And that the superb evolutionist, Margulis, finds the arguments supporting Neo-Darwinism's alleged and vehemently defended mechanism of mutation quite contradictory to the evidence or lack thereof.See above quote from qualified evolutionist who knows better the landscape of evolutionary science than anyone here.And, according to SLPx, Margulis' statement is evidence we should all believe since SLPx seems to believe that evidence is whatever evo-scientists say it is!!!

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

Mammuthus, I am not sure that a translation would make much difference anyway. While Sonnikke did reply to the minor part of my earlier post, re: the Horseshoe crab, he completely ignored the major part where I translated data concerning the gene duplication of the MAP Kinase translational control pathways from simpler organisms. And that was the part which was a direct answer to one of his earlier questions concerning gene control and evolution. I intend to go ahead and answer his crab one concerning Dr. Behe when I can get the spare time as I like trashing this particular writting of Dr. Behe's. It is the one which I believe, I am sorry to say, is either the most duplicious or the one which highlights his lack of understanding of the basic tenats of the general theories of evolution.------------------
"Chance favors the prepared mind." L. Pasteur
Taz

ARRGGHHHHHH
Delete Duplicate post[This message has been edited by Dr_Tazimus_maximus, 03-19-2003]

Was there anything specific in my very brief overview of what I liked and disliked about Margulis's book that you would like to discuss? After all, it isn't the infallible bible. You shouldn't be terrified of questioning it. No one will send you to hell for actually discussing it (or heaven forbid, disagreeing). "And far better evos than" you disagree with her.However, I've made my views known. You of course merely re-post your original quote followed by a lengthy insult. Tell you what - here's your chance to show how brilliant and knowledgeable you are. Take any one of Margulis's specific ideas OR examples from the book, and we'll discuss it. Karyotypic fissioning? Anastomosis as applied to phylogeny of higher organisms? Symbiotic fusion as origin of chromosomes? Origin of kinetochores via symbiosis? Pick any topic and give it your best shot. Or post exerpts from the book - at least those I can check - if you're too ignorant to post your own synopsis. Go for it - be a man.(edited to add: Or even better, since you clearly accept Margulis as gospel - perhaps you'd like to discuss her Gaia hypothesis. After all, this is also her idea as to how the planet is tied together. If you accept the neodarwin-bashing, you must accept gaia theory as well. Feel free to describe how gaia hypothesis matches your fundy worldview of God.)(edited a second time to add: Out of curiosity, what damning revelations were those? Be specific. If possible, cite page numbers. Must have missed them. I certainly would've remembered if I'd seen anything in there that was so damning. And now we're capitalizing "book". What is it, your new bible?[This message has been edited by Quetzal, 03-19-2003]

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

quote:

---

And, according to SLPx, Margulis' statement is evidence we should all believe since SLPx seems to believe that evidence is whatever evo-scientists say it is!!!

---

Appletoast, tensai, etc.,It appears that you actually have no clue what evidence is.Or you would have explained it to us all by now.The level of your discourse indicates that you, like sonnike, have a minimal desire to actually learn anything, but unlike sonnike, you are angry and belicose.Typical, really.

OK, Sonnike, here is a short list a just a few of the problems with M. Behe's concepts concerning blood clotting, evolution via natural selection and IC/ID. I will start with Dr. Behe's own words.

quote:

---

Since my book came out, as far as I am aware there have been no paprs published by the scientific literature giving a detailed scenario or experiments to show how natural selection could have built the system

---

Sonnikke, the second paper which I cited to you earlier began to do just this. Now, I am aware that Dr. Behe could not have known this as it post-dates this article, however as I sent you the URL you have no such excuse.The biggest problem with this publication is that it make numerous gross error w.r.t. what Darwin, and subsequent evolutionary biologists have been saying. For example, in Behes paper he writes

quote:

---

EVIDENCE OF COMMON DESCENT IS NOT EVIDENCE OF NATURAL SELECTION. Homologies among proteins (or organisms) are the evidence for descent with modificationthat is, evolution. Natural selection, however, is a proposed explanation for how evolution took place--

---

I hate to be the one to tell you this but Darwin called his mechanism Descent with Modification, precisely what Dr. Behe admits is being proven by the demonstrated homologies among proteins. Now, the THEORY for a portion of the driving force/filtering mechanism of evolution is Descent With Modification, AKA Natural Selection. Now while I will agree that a single pathway or a single organ or a single aspect of an organism is capable of providing it with a competitive edge, nowhere in the theory does it state that every single aspect of an organism must be competitively superior for the organism to leave progeny. This is actually a very key point and a major flaw in some of Behe reasoning (also a flaw in certain Ultra-NeoDarwinian camps as well IMO). It is the overall organism which leaves modified descendents, not a specific system within that organism. This error creeps up again and again in Dr. Behe’s discussion, in fact it is one of the chief flaws in his discussion of Keith Robison’s ideas. A specific mutation, duplication, system does not have to be specifically advantageous to be carried along with an organism which, as a whole, is superior enough to leave a greater number of descendents. As has been demonstrated by neutral or semi-neutral theory. One side comment on the section concerning K. Robisons ideas was the oft repeated statistical error (it was actually found in Dr. Behe’s book) of pre-supposing an individual, single outcome and then calculating a probability from it. This has often been called the Fallacy of Large Numbers and has been explained ad nausium on this and other boards.Dr. Behe’s comments on the statements by Kenneth Miller contain a number similar flaws, and one new one. The statements concerning the irrelevancy of the Lobster clotting system which in a number of ways is very similar to the system which I posted from the Horseshoe Crab. The key point which Behe either misses or ignores is that, under Evolution by Natural Selection systems used by one organism can be used in modified forms by other descendent organisms. The reason to being up the Crab cascade is that a simpler form of clotting would be expected from an organism (from an evolutionary older lineage) with a simpler circulatory system. Please look at the map contained in the site belowXiphosuraThe point here is that the genetic maps and the fossil maps MATCH UP, which is what would be expected if these organisms were linked through evolution. Here is a little more info on the same subject,http://www.peripatus.gen.nz/Taxa/Arthropoda/Index.htmlEssentially it demonstrates that the fossil data and the molecular phylogeny data on the evolution of the clotting systems match up w.r.t. the evolution of open vs closed circulatory systems. Expected in Evolution, but not in creation or even necessarily in design.This is just a brief set of problems with this "paper". I did not even address the theoretical problems which I pointed too earlier.
Ball is back in your court. ------------------
"Chance favors the prepared mind." L. Pasteur
Taz

Do you know the sad thing for my current feelings about Dr, Behe's work is that I went into his book with a totally open mind. Not sad because of the open mind but sad because of the final result. Behe actually admitted that ID was non-falsifiable in the creationist book "Mere Creation", and therefore admitted that their scientific enterprise was non-scientific. While I do not agree wth the more drastic aspects of the Popperian concept of science his base concept of falsifiable is, IMO, sound.------------------
"Chance favors the prepared mind." L. Pasteur
Taz[This message has been edited by Dr_Tazimus_maximus, 03-19-2003]

Hi Zephan,You've been here long enough to know the rules. You were banned under Ten-sai, then rejoined as Zephan thereby violating rule 8 of the Forum Guidelines:

8. Participating as more than one ID is extremely strongly discouraged.

I let your Zephan registration remain because when I banned you as Ten-sai several members expressed disappointment that they hadn't been able to complete the discussion. But you will only be allowed to remain for as long as you follow the Forum Guidelines. Rule 4 of the Forum Guidelines states:

4. Assertions should be supported with either explanations and/or evidence for why the assertion is true. Bare assertions are strongly discouraged.

Since you didn't explain or provide any evidence for how Quetzal's analysis was irrelevant, you're in violation of rule 4. Rule 3 of the Forum Guidelines states:

3. Respect for others is the rule here. Argue the position, not the person. The Britannica says, "Usually, in a well-conducted debate, speakers are either emotionally uncommitted or can preserve sufficient detachment to maintain a coolly academic approach."

You violated this rule by accusing Quetzal of deliberately withholding information to avoid embarrassment instead of just sticking to evidence.Finally, I see no indication that you're interested in debate, but simply want to take potshots at evolutionists, thereby violating rule 2 of the Forum Guidelines:

2. Debate in good faith by addressing rebuttals through the introduction of new information or by providing additional argument. Do not merely keep repeating the same points without elaboration.

For all the above violations you're getting off rather easy with only a 24-hour suspension of posting privileges. See you tomorrow.------------------
--EvC Forum Administrator