Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

RE: [OriginsTalk] The Making of the Fittest

Expand Messages
  • Joe Martin
    From: OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com [mailto:OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Laurie Appleton Sent: October-31-12 5:59 PM To: OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com
    Message 1 of 12 , Oct 31, 2012
    • 0 Attachment
      From: OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com [mailto:OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com] On
      Behalf Of Laurie Appleton
      Sent: October-31-12 5:59 PM
      To: OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: Re: [OriginsTalk] The Making of the Fittest






      ----- Original Message -----
      From: gluadys
      To: OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com <mailto:OriginsTalk%40yahoogroups.com>
      Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2012 4:25 AM
      Subject: [OriginsTalk] The Making of the Fittest

      I have just been reading this book by Sean B. Carroll, also author of
      Endless Forms Most Beautiful.

      In the Prologue he notes that he book has three main parts and says:

      "I would like to think of them as being like the three parts of a good and
      memorable meal--a little bit of preparation, plenty of food, and some
      meaningful conversation."

      I have finished the "preparation"--some info on the mathematics of
      evolution, and the "food"--six chapters of fascinating empirical evidence
      and am about to begin the "meaningful conversation" --why do people continue
      to doubt and deny evolution?

      Here is how Carroll sums up the situation before diving into that question.

      "Today the body of facts concerning evolution continues to expand in all
      dimensions. . . . It is hard to imagine how anyone in command of these facts
      could harbour any reasonable doubt. . . . Yet in the face of all of the
      evidence, there remains much doubt and outright denial of the reality of
      biological evolution. To understand this doubt and denial, we'll leave the
      realm of scientific evidence, because the reasons for such doubt could not
      be, and are not, scientific."

      LA> On the other hand various evolutionists have admitted at various times
      and in various ways that the Creation scientists regularly "routed" their
      evolutionary opponents in a decade of hundreds of open, public, debates on
      the scientific questions! For example noted evolutionist, Niles Eldredge
      wrote the following;

      --------------------------------
      "Creationism-the belief that the cosmos, the earth, and all of life are the
      separate acts of a supernatural Creator-is most closely associated in the
      United States with various sects of fundamentalist Christianity. Other
      religions (for instance, some Orthodox Jewish sects) also reject the
      scientific
      notion of evolution in favor of a literal biblical rendition of the origins
      of
      the earth and living things. Indeed, the religions of nearly all known
      societies
      have creation myths that explain the origin of the world, who people are,
      how they came to be, and why.

      But creationism is far more than a religious belief. As fascinating as the
      comparative study of creation stories may be, it is the political nature of
      creationism in the United States that gave the topic its importance in 1925,
      as it has once again today. William Jennings Bryan, the sterling symbol of
      grass-roots populism who ran for the presidency three times and once served
      as
      Secretary of State, was the spokesman for fundamentalist beliefs against the
      supposedly godless forces of evolution in the Scopes trial. Long past his
      prime as all orator (he died only three days after the trial
      ended), Bryan nonetheless stirred the hearts of creationists during the
      trial, with his masterful blend of religion and politics. No one (except
      journalist H.
      L. Mencken) objected to the right of a student to believe whatever he or she
      wanted. But the activist side of creationism, which attempts to see
      religious-inspired belief taught in schools (or evolution expunged from the
      curriculum), leaves the arena of religion and enters the world of politics.

      The current rise of creationism can only be understood as a part of the
      general upsurge of "neopopulism." The new conservatism sweeping America-a
      conservatism as much anti-General Motors as it is anti-United Auto
      Workers-opposes big companies, big unions, and big government. It seeks more
      local control of
      tax dollars and the programs those dollars support. The tax revolt and the
      attack on a host of issues (e.g., sex education, abortion, the Equal Rights
      Amendment) are all designed to support what are perceived as traditional
      American family values. The Moral Majority, which is pro creationist and
      anti-evolutionist, is merely the latest, most visible, and most successful
      religious organization (primarily fundamentalist Protestant) to engage in
      overt political
      action. The populist form of conservative politics has always gone hand in
      hand with conservative Protestant religious belief. Small wonder creationism
      is
      once more on the political scene.

      Thus, the central importance of creationism today is its political nature.
      Creationists travel all over the United States, visiting college campuses
      and
      staging "debates" with biologists, geologists, and anthropologists. The
      creationists nearly always win. The audience is frequently loaded with the
      already converted and the faithful. And scientists, until recently, have
      been
      showing up at the debates ill-prepared for what awaits them.
      Thinking the creationists are uneducated, Bible-thumping clods, they are
      soon routed by a steady onslaught of: direct attacks on a wide variety of
      scientific topics. No scientist has an expert's grasp of all the relevant
      points of astronomy, physics, chemistry, biology, geology, and anthropology.
      Creationists today-at least the majority of their spokesmen-are highly
      educated, intelligent people. Skilled debaters, they have always done their
      homework. And they nearly always seem better informed than their opponents,
      who
      are reduced too often to a bewildered state of incoherence. As will be all
      too
      evident when we examine the creationist position in detail, their arguments
      are devoid of any real intellectual content. Creationists win debates
      because
      of their canny stage presence, and not through clarity of logic or force of
      evidence. The debates are shows rather than serious considerations of
      evolution.

      The debate tactic reveals the essence of the creationist approach: the
      collision between creation and evolution is still presented as an
      unresolved,
      intellectual problem. When Darwin published the Origin of Species in 1859,
      he
      sparked a genuine controversy. Did a naturalistic explanation of the origin
      and development of life on earth pose a serious theological challenge?
      Thomas
      Henry Huxley (Aldous' and Julian's grandfather and Darwin's main champion in
      England) debated Bishop Wilberforce soon after the Origin appeared. But such
      theological problems as evolution seemed to pose were soon resolved; most
      Christian and Jewish thinkers today see no conflict between science and
      religion.
      Science seeks to understand the universe in naturalistic terms. It depends
      upon observation, accepts nothing on faith, and acknowledges that it can
      never
      claim to know the ultimate truth. Religions, on the the other hand, are
      belief systems, generally involving the supernatural. Both are
      time-honored-but
      utterly different-human activities. Most scientists and members of religious
      communities see no conflict, as the two systems are completely different,
      are
      pursued for different reasons, and serve different functions."

      (Eldredge N., "The Monkey Business: A Scientist Looks at Creationism,"
      Washington Square: New York NY, 1982, pp.16-18)


      JM> Of course the quote was out of context as usual (in context now) AND
      public debating games and shows are not science anyway. Eldredge calls them
      SHOWS and Red Hot Creationist Paul (FAILED balanced treatment author)
      Ellwanger calls them debating games. Too bad YECs can't enter the
      scientific arena with some real science to present.



      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • David
      ... David Williams: If creationism was a real science, it would be taught at mainline universities. Real scientists would cite creation scientist s work in
      Message 2 of 12 , Oct 31, 2012
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com, "Laurie Appleton" <lappleto@...> wrote:
        >
        >
        > ----- Original Message -----
        > From: gluadys
        > To: OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com
        > Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2012 4:25 AM
        > Subject: [OriginsTalk] The Making of the Fittest
        >
        >
        >
        > I have just been reading this book by Sean B. Carroll, also author of Endless Forms Most Beautiful.
        >
        > In the Prologue he notes that he book has three main parts and says:
        >
        > "I would like to think of them as being like the three parts of a good and memorable meal--a little bit of preparation, plenty of food, and some meaningful conversation."
        >
        > I have finished the "preparation"--some info on the mathematics of evolution, and the "food"--six chapters of fascinating empirical evidence and am about to begin the "meaningful conversation" --why do people continue to doubt and deny evolution?
        >
        > Here is how Carroll sums up the situation before diving into that question.
        >
        > "Today the body of facts concerning evolution continues to expand in all dimensions. . . . It is hard to imagine how anyone in command of these facts could harbour any reasonable doubt. . . . Yet in the face of all of the evidence, there remains much doubt and outright denial of the reality of biological evolution. To understand this doubt and denial, we'll leave the realm of scientific evidence, because the reasons for such doubt could not be, and are not, scientific."
        >
        >
        > LA> On the other hand various evolutionists have admitted at various times and in various ways that the Creation scientists regularly "routed" their evolutionary opponents in a decade of hundreds of open, public, debates on the scientific questions! For example noted evolutionist, Niles Eldredge wrote the following;
        >
        > --------------------------------
        > "Creationists travel all over the United States,
        > visiting college campuses (*) and staging "debates" with
        > biologists, geologists, and anthropologists. The
        > creationists nearly always win."
        >
        > "The audience is frequently loaded with the already
        > converted and the faithful. And scientists, until recently
        > have been showing up at the debates ill-prepared for what
        > awaits them. Thinking the creationists are uneducated,
        > Bible-thumping clods, they are soon routed by a steady
        > onslaught of direct attacks on a wide variety of scientific
        > topics."
        >
        > "No scientist has an expert's grasp of all the
        > relevant points of astronomy, physics, chemistry, biology,
        > geology, and anthropology. Creationists today - at least
        > the majority of their spokesmen - are highly educated,
        > intelligent people. Skilled debaters, they have always done
        > their homework. And they nearly always seem better informed
        > than their opponents, who are reduced too often to a
        > bewildered state of incoherence."
        >
        > (The Monkey Business, Niles Eldredge, 1982, p. 17)
        > (*) elsewhere some evolutionists try to pretend that the
        > debates are mostly NOT on College campuses!)
        >
        > =================
        >
        >
        >
        > Laurie
        >
        > "From my earliest training as a scientist, I was very strongly brainwashed
        > to believe that science cannot be consistent with any kind of deliberate
        > creation. That notion has had to be painfully shed.
        > (Chandra Wickramasinghe, noted astronomer and ex-atheist Buddhist, 1981)
        >


        David Williams: If creationism was a real science, it would be taught at mainline universities. Real scientists would cite creation scientist's work in their scientific papers. Such is not the case. Creationism and its offshoot, Intelligent Design have little or no impact on real science.

        Back in the 1970s, I went to one of those sham debates. The evolutionist was not prepared for the debate tricks used on him. Also, I myself was able to refute all of the creationist arguments because I had access to a university library. Scientists who know much more than me have also refuted the creationist's arguments. Creationists keep using most of those failed arguments. That is ok with me. It just shows that creationism is still a flop.

        In USA courtrooms where evidence counts, creationists have never been able to persuade most judges that creationism is a real science and thus eligible to be taught in USA public school science classes. Intelligent Design flopped as a science in Kitzmiller vs Dover in 2005.
      • Laurie Appleton
        ... From: David To: OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2012 11:46 AM Subject: [OriginsTalk] Re: The Making of the Fittest ... GLU:
        Message 3 of 12 , Oct 31, 2012
        • 0 Attachment
          ----- Original Message -----
          From: David
          To: OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com
          Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2012 11:46 AM
          Subject: [OriginsTalk] Re: The Making of the Fittest





          >
          GLU: > Here is how Carroll sums up the situation before diving into that question.
          >
          > "Today the body of facts concerning evolution continues to expand in all dimensions. . . . It is hard to imagine how anyone in command of these facts could harbour any reasonable doubt. . . . Yet in the face of all of the evidence, there remains much doubt and outright denial of the reality of biological evolution. To understand this doubt and denial, we'll leave the realm of scientific evidence, because the reasons for such doubt could not be, and are not, scientific."
          >
          >
          > LA> On the other hand various evolutionists have admitted at various times and in various ways that the Creation scientists regularly "routed" their evolutionary opponents in a decade of hundreds of open, public, debates on the scientific questions! For example noted evolutionist, Niles Eldredge wrote the following;
          >
          > --------------------------------
          > "Creationists travel all over the United States,
          > visiting college campuses (*) and staging "debates" with
          > biologists, geologists, and anthropologists. The
          > creationists nearly always win."
          >
          > "The audience is frequently loaded with the already
          > converted and the faithful. And scientists, until recently
          > have been showing up at the debates ill-prepared for what
          > awaits them. Thinking the creationists are uneducated,
          > Bible-thumping clods, they are soon routed by a steady
          > onslaught of direct attacks on a wide variety of scientific
          > topics."
          >
          > "No scientist has an expert's grasp of all the
          > relevant points of astronomy, physics, chemistry, biology,
          > geology, and anthropology. Creationists today - at least
          > the majority of their spokesmen - are highly educated,
          > intelligent people. Skilled debaters, they have always done
          > their homework. And they nearly always seem better informed
          > than their opponents, who are reduced too often to a
          > bewildered state of incoherence."
          >
          > (The Monkey Business, Niles Eldredge, 1982, p. 17)
          > (*) elsewhere some evolutionists try to pretend that the
          > debates are mostly NOT on College campuses!)
          >
          > =================
          >
          >
          David Williams: If creationism was a real science, it would be taught at mainline universities. Real scientists would cite creation scientist's work in their scientific papers. Such is not the case. Creationism and its offshoot, Intelligent Design have little or no impact on real science.




          LA> Quote true. However, on this question we have American Public education being similar to the bad old days of Joseph Stalin, where only atheism is taugh in schools.



          DW: In USA courtrooms where evidence counts, creationists have never been able to persuade most judges that creationism is a real science and thus eligible to be taught in USA public school science classes.



          LA> You make a strong case for the dreadful state of the Judicial system, where most Judges are probably themselves evolutionists and perhaps should have disqualified themselves. Even then, most cases result in a divided "opinion" among the judges anyway, and this shows that their judgemenmts are questionable at best.



          Laurie.

          Evidence from the fossil record now points overwhelmingly away from the classical Darwinism which most Americans learned in high school; (Newsweek, November, 1980)

          ...




          No virus found in this message.
          Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
          Version: 2013.0.2742 / Virus Database: 2617/5865 - Release Date: 10/31/12


          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • Laurie Appleton
          ... From: Charles Palm To: OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2012 10:55 AM Subject: [OriginsTalk] The Making of the Fittest Gluadys: I
          Message 4 of 12 , Oct 31, 2012
          • 0 Attachment
            ----- Original Message -----
            From: Charles Palm
            To: OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com
            Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2012 10:55 AM
            Subject: [OriginsTalk] The Making of the Fittest



            Gluadys: I have just been reading this book by Sean B. Carroll, also
            author of Endless Forms Most Beautiful.

            Charles P: http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=5658057n I got the DVD
            by Sean B Carroll. His research is very valuable. He has been one of my
            heroes even before he was on CBS.

            http://seanbcarroll.com/

            James A Shapiro, "Evolution: A View From The 21st Century", p.116: Descent
            with modification provides the overall context for this book, whose main
            theme is to illustrate how many exciting facts we have learned about the
            processes that lead to evolutionary inventions. Analyzing the fossil
            record is somewhat outside the scope of this book, but the correlation
            of paleontological novelties and genome organization is a fascinating
            question addressed by the branch of science now called Evo-Devo, the study
            of the evolutionary basis of morphogenetic processes.

            ********************************************************************************

            Laurie Appleton: On the other hand various evolutionists have admitted at
            various times... etc.etc.etc.

            Charles P: http://creationwiki.org/Evolution Creationists also believe in
            evolution. The material that you have quoted might sound very impressive
            in church or a political campaign, but unless there is empirical and
            verifiable evidence contrary to what Sean B Carroll is describing or
            contrary to the descriptions for the diversity of life concluded from
            evo-devo research, Laurie, your quoted material is unscientific.



            LA> Yes Charles. However a number of evolutionists have clearly stated in their writings that it was on the scientific questions that the Creation scientists regularly routed their evolutionary opponents. Besides that the facts of the matter is that the Evolutionist debaters insisted that ONLY scientific arguments were to be debated anyway, and this was what was adhered to. The following is another example of an evolutionary Biologist's written statement;

            -----------------------

            "Why do creationists seem to be the consistent
            winners in public debates with evolutionists? . . .
            We biologists are our own worst enemies in the
            creationist-evolutionist controversies."

            "We must no longer duck this and other issues
            related to biology and human affairs, and when we do
            face them we must think clearly and express ourselves
            accordingly. We may still not be consistent winners in
            the creationist- evolutionist debates, but let the
            losses that occur be attributable to other than lapses
            in professional standards.

            ("Evolution/Creation Debate," Bioscience, Vol.30, January 1980, p. 4)

            =====================

            Laurie.

            "We used to have an open mind, now we realise that the only logical answer to life is creation -- not accidental random shuffling." (Chandra Wickramasinghe, ex-atheist Buddhist, 1981)

            ..





            No virus found in this message.
            Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
            Version: 2013.0.2742 / Virus Database: 2617/5865 - Release Date: 10/31/12


            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • Charles Palm
            David Williams: If creationism was a real science, it would be taught at mainline universities. Real scientists would cite creation scientist s work in their
            Message 5 of 12 , Oct 31, 2012
            • 0 Attachment
              David Williams: If creationism was a real science, it would be taught at
              mainline universities. Real scientists would cite creation scientist's work
              in their scientific papers. Such is not the case. Creationism and its
              offshoot, Intelligent Design have little or no impact on real science.

              Charles P: I suggest that we all try to realize that the vast majority of
              people, regardless of their religion or non-religion, are intelligent and
              reasonable people. It is the arrogant extremists who make all of the
              unreasonable claims that cause the rest of us to take sides on a ridiculous
              debate that can never be resolved based upon philosophies alone.

              Charles P: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ENCODE The ENCODE project has
              clarified much confusion about biology as an information science. It would
              be wise for all of us to read as much as possible about the sciences of
              molecular biology, evo-devo, etc. that are answering the profound questions
              about the origin and diversity of life.

              Charles P: http://www.nnu.edu/academics/academic-departments/biology
              Northwest
              Nazarene University, here in Nampa, Idaho, offers a Bachelor of Science
              Degree in Biology. Real scientists are just like the rest of the
              population. They do not all think alike. Real scientists deserve our
              respect and should not be blamed for the unscientific writings by
              scientific writers with a distorted agenda of trying to impose their
              philosophies in science classes.

              Charles P: http://www.intelligentdesign.org/whatisid.php It is also a
              wise idea to keep in mind that Intelligent Design is not the same as
              creationism. Unless critics have empirical and verifiable evidence that
              contradicts Intelligent Design, their criticism is unscientific.

              Charles P: http://creationwiki.org/Evolution It is also a wise idea to
              keep in mind that creationists also believe in evolution. The empirical
              and verifiable scientific evidence is the same for everyone. It is OK that
              we have different interpretations of that evidence.

              Science: http://www.geosociety.org/positions/position1.htm Science, by
              definition, is a method of learning about the natural universe by asking
              questions in such a way that they can be answered empirically and
              verifiably. If a question cannot be framed so that the answer can be
              tested, and the test results can be reproduced by others, then it is not
              science.

              Charles P: David, I share the same criticism that you do of the arrogant
              extremists who make all of the unscientific claims that are neither
              empirical nor verifiable.


              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            • gluadys
              ... Unless IDists have empirical and verifiable evidence that supports Intelligent Design, it is not possible to offer a scientific criticism of it. What is
              Message 6 of 12 , Nov 1, 2012
              • 0 Attachment
                --- In OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com, Charles Palm <palmcharlesUU@...> wrote:
                >
                >
                >
                > Charles P: http://www.intelligentdesign.org/whatisid.php It is also a
                > wise idea to keep in mind that Intelligent Design is not the same as
                > creationism. Unless critics have empirical and verifiable evidence that
                > contradicts Intelligent Design, their criticism is unscientific.
                >


                Unless IDists have empirical and verifiable evidence that supports Intelligent Design, it is not possible to offer a scientific criticism of it. What is empirically observable is that ID uses the same oratorical strategies & tactics, often even the same arguments, as evolution-denying creationists. So, the observation that it is a repackaging of creationism seems to be borne out by the evidence.


                > Charles P: http://creationwiki.org/Evolution It is also a wise idea to
                > keep in mind that creationists also believe in evolution. The empirical
                > and verifiable scientific evidence is the same for everyone. It is OK that
                > we have different interpretations of that evidence.
                >


                It is not OK to have false interpretations of the evidence, or to treat false interpretations as justifiable "differences of opinion". It is also not OK to cherry-pick evidence (as much evolution-denying literature does) to give a false impression of supportive evidence when the more complete picture is clearly in favour of evolution.
              • Joe Martin
                From: OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com [mailto:OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Laurie Appleton Sent: October-31-12 9:22 PM To: OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com
                Message 7 of 12 , Nov 1, 2012
                • 0 Attachment
                  From: OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com [mailto:OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com] On
                  Behalf Of Laurie Appleton
                  Sent: October-31-12 9:22 PM
                  To: OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com
                  Subject: Re: [OriginsTalk] The Making of the Fittest






                  ----- Original Message -----
                  From: Charles Palm
                  To: OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com <mailto:OriginsTalk%40yahoogroups.com>
                  Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2012 10:55 AM
                  Subject: [OriginsTalk] The Making of the Fittest

                  Gluadys: I have just been reading this book by Sean B. Carroll, also
                  author of Endless Forms Most Beautiful.

                  Charles P: http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=5658057n I got the DVD
                  by Sean B Carroll. His research is very valuable. He has been one of my
                  heroes even before he was on CBS.

                  http://seanbcarroll.com/

                  James A Shapiro, "Evolution: A View From The 21st Century", p.116: Descent
                  with modification provides the overall context for this book, whose main
                  theme is to illustrate how many exciting facts we have learned about the
                  processes that lead to evolutionary inventions. Analyzing the fossil
                  record is somewhat outside the scope of this book, but the correlation
                  of paleontological novelties and genome organization is a fascinating
                  question addressed by the branch of science now called Evo-Devo, the study
                  of the evolutionary basis of morphogenetic processes.

                  ****************************************************************************
                  ****

                  Laurie Appleton: On the other hand various evolutionists have admitted at
                  various times... etc.etc.etc.

                  Charles P: http://creationwiki.org/Evolution Creationists also believe in
                  evolution. The material that you have quoted might sound very impressive
                  in church or a political campaign, but unless there is empirical and
                  verifiable evidence contrary to what Sean B Carroll is describing or
                  contrary to the descriptions for the diversity of life concluded from
                  evo-devo research, Laurie, your quoted material is unscientific.

                  LA> Yes Charles. However a number of evolutionists have clearly stated in
                  their writings that it was on the scientific questions that the Creation
                  scientists regularly routed their evolutionary opponents. Besides that the
                  facts of the matter is that the Evolutionist debaters insisted that ONLY
                  scientific arguments were to be debated anyway, and this was what was
                  adhered to. The following is another example of an evolutionary Biologist's
                  written statement;

                  -----------------------

                  "Why do creationists seem to be the consistent
                  winners in public debates

                  JM> not scientific debates. YECs have never HAD a scientific debate where
                  the merits, theories and hypotheses of the science of creation has been
                  presented for scientific scutiny... WHY?? Because YEC has no scientific
                  evidence to support any of the wild notions proposed by YEC science(sic).
                  Public debating games are not science.



                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                • Charles Palm
                  Gluadys: I have just been reading this book by Sean B. Carroll, also author of Endless Forms Most Beautiful. Charles P:
                  Message 8 of 12 , Nov 1, 2012
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Gluadys: I have just been reading this book by Sean B. Carroll, also
                    author of Endless Forms Most Beautiful.

                    Charles P: http://www.hhmi.org/news/mesozoic20121026.html This is some of
                    what Sean B Carroll is doing nowadays.

                    Sean B. Carroll, HHMI vice president for science education and the film�s
                    executive producer, will introduce the story to teachers on October 31
                    during the second annual HHMI Night at the Movies at the NABT conference in
                    Dallas, Texas. Following the film, Carroll will host a panel discussion
                    with teachers attending the conference.

                    http://www.hhmi.org/biointeractive/shortfilms/ The Day the Mesozoic Died.
                    33 minutes 43 seconds. Watch The Day the Mesozoic Died (720p HD, 2Mbps)

                    ********************************************************************************
                    Charles P: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/OriginsTalk/message/28214 You
                    will probably remember some of the 19 messages we discussed here on Origins
                    Talk in April about stickleback fish research done by evo-devo researchers.

                    Charles P: http://www.hhmi.org/biointeractive/shortfilms/ The Making of
                    the Fittest: Evolving Switches, Evolving Bodies 15 minutes 27 seconds.
                    Watch Evolving Switches, Evolving Bodies(720p HD, 2Mbps). Here is a new
                    updated video with some new evidence that describes the diversity of life
                    similarly to the way James A Shapiro does. The name Mike Shapiro appears
                    on some stickleback slides.

                    http://edenrcn.com/steering/shapiro.html Genetic architecture of
                    evolutionary change. Sticklebacks are ideal model organisms for genetic and
                    developmental studies of natural populations because different populations
                    of these fish vary dramatically in skeletal structures, yet fish from
                    throughout the Northern Hemisphere can be readily crossed in the laboratory
                    for genetic mapping experiments. Previous work determined that cis-acting
                    regulatory changes in the Pitx1 locus are responsible for hind fin (pelvis)
                    loss in a population of threespine sticklebacks (Shapiro et al., 2004,
                    Nature). More recently, we showed that both similar and different genetic
                    changes control pelvic reduction in ninespine sticklebacks (Shapiro et al.
                    2006, PNAS; Shapiro et al., 2009, Current Biology), a different genus of
                    fish that last shared a common ancestor with threespine sticklebacks over
                    10 million years ago. By comparing the genetic basis of other traits
                    between the two different types of fish, we can critically test whether
                    similar genetic mechanisms repeatedly underlie similar adaptive phenotypes,
                    a topic of enduring interest to geneticists and evolutionary biologists.


                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.