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

Re: ONLY TWO! (gradual and not gradual)

Expand Messages
  • stewart8724
    Charles P: http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/feb04.html#run I counted 1,182 word of narrative... but no verifiable evidence that would support the
    Message 1 of 6 , Nov 18, 2012
    • 0 Attachment
      Charles P: http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/feb04.html#run I
      counted 1,182 word of narrative... but no verifiable evidence that would
      support the claim that "paleontologists do agree that evolution is gradual
      change, just as the geneticists do".

      Stewart: Show us the evidence you found that shows they differ in their opinions. Show us evidence that either geneticists or palaeontologists deny evolution is a fact.


      3 Even among scientists, the term "macroevolution" is a vague concept.

      Stewart: That's because science considers it as 'evolution'. The significance in evolutionary terms between micro-evolution and macro-evolution is "a distinction without a difference".

      Gluadys (disagreeing with Charles): You are wrong, for paleontologists do
      agree that evolution is gradual change, just as the geneticists do. You
      will find evidence of that agreement when you read more than quote-mined
      snippets from Eldredge and his colleague, Gould.

      Charles P: Gluadys is wrong. Charles is correct. Paleontologists do not
      agree that evolution is gradual change, just as the geneticists do. You
      will not find evidence of that agreement when you read more than
      quote-mined snippets from Eldredge and his colleague, Gould.

      Stewart: You'll pardon the rest of us if we don't take as axiomatic, your assessment of the validity of your statements over those of Glaudys. Before you put your back out by congratulating yourself to vigorously, it might be prudent to convince just one other person of your speculations, just one. Then your numbers doubled, you'll be in a minority of two.


      Charles P: James A Shapiro has the empirical and verifiable evidence on
      his side. Selection is a purifying force, not a creative force. Before
      his book was written, it was generally thought that there were at least
      five possibilities. The honest science writers could just say, "We don't
      know, but here are five possible areas for biological research".


      Stewart: Where is it, what is it? Show us the evidence! You keep referring to the veracity of what your hero Shapiro has discovered, but you have shown not one scrap of evidence. Endless lines of text giving his conclusions does not qualify as one iota of actual evidence.


      Charles P: James A Shapiro has the empirical and verifiable evidence on
      his side. "How does novelty arise in evolution? Innovation, not selection,
      is the critical issue in evolutionary change. Without variation and
      novelty, selection has nothing to act upon".

      Stewart: And without selection, innovation is nothing more than unconstrained mutations. If your theory was true there would be no species at all, only individuals each different from every other. Your ill conceived theory of evolution without selection would result initially in absolute biological anarchy, followed by the sudden extinction of every life form due to their inability to reproduce one with the other.


      James A Shapiro: So this book is dedicated to considering the many ways
      that living organisms actively change themselves. Uncovering the molecular
      mechanisms by which living organisms modify their genomes is a major
      accomplishment of late 20th Century molecular biology.

      Stewart: Whereas Charles is dedicated to considering anything other than the truth.



      ..

      --- In OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com, Charles Palm <palmcharlesUU@...> wrote:
      >
      > Charles P: http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/feb04.html#run I
      > counted 1,182 word of narrative... but no verifiable evidence that would
      > support the claim that "paleontologists do agree that evolution is gradual
      > change, just as the geneticists do".
      >
      > NCSE: http://ncse.com/rncse/21/1-2/defining-evolution Defining Evolution.
      >
      > 1 Eldredge N, Gould SJ. Punctuated equilibria: An alternative to phyletic
      > gradualism. In: Schopf TJM, ed. Models In Paleobiology. San Francisco:
      > Freeman Cooper, 1972. p 82-115.
      >
      > 2 Those who prefer the allele-frequency definition of evolution argue that
      > every such novelty began as minor variations on a theme in the origination
      > of a slightly different species and that large-scale changes are the result
      > of continued evolution of this kind over large periods of time. Often they
      > think that evolution is always gradual (anagenetic) and that evolutionary
      > trees (phylogenies) are just the additive sum of these gradual changes.
      > Nobody denies either cladogenesis or anagenesis these days, but there is a
      > fair bit of debate over the right mix (see Figure 2).
      >
      > 3 Even among scientists, the term "macroevolution" is a vague concept.
      >
      > 4 Those who prefer the allele-frequency definition of evolution argue that
      > every such novelty began as minor variations on a theme in the origination
      > of a slightly different species and that large- scale changes are the
      > result of continued evolution of this kind over large periods of time.
      > Often they think that evolution is always gradual (anagenetic) and that
      > evolutionary trees (phylogenies) are just the additive sum of these gradual
      > changes. Nobody denies either cladogenesis or anagenesis these days, but
      > there is a fair bit of debate over the right mix (see Figure 2).
      >
      > 5 A more important controversy, however, is between the proponents of the
      > allele-frequency definition and those who reject it altogether as too
      > narrow...
      >
      > 6 Evolution may occur as a result of natural selection, genetic drift, or
      > both; the minimum requirements are those for either process. Natural
      > selection does not necessarily give rise to evolution, and the same is true
      > for genetic drift (Endler 1986: 5).
      >
      > Gluadys (disagreeing with Charles): You are wrong, for paleontologists do
      > agree that evolution is gradual change, just as the geneticists do. You
      > will find evidence of that agreement when you read more than quote-mined
      > snippets from Eldredge and his colleague, Gould.
      >
      > Charles P: Gluadys is wrong. Charles is correct. Paleontologists do not
      > agree that evolution is gradual change, just as the geneticists do. You
      > will not find evidence of that agreement when you read more than
      > quote-mined snippets from Eldredge and his colleague, Gould.
      >
      > Charles P: James A Shapiro has the empirical and verifiable evidence on
      > his side. Selection is a purifying force, not a creative force. Before
      > his book was written, it was generally thought that there were at least
      > five possibilities. The honest science writers could just say, "We don't
      > know, but here are five possible areas for biological research".
      >
      > 1 "Evolution MAY occur as a result of natural selection".
      >
      > 2 Evolution MAY occur as a result of "genetic drift".
      >
      > 3 Evolution MAY occur as a result of BOTH natural selection and genetic
      > drift.
      >
      > 4 Natural selection does not necessarily give rise to evolution.
      >
      > 5 Genetic drift does not necessarily give rise to evolution.
      >
      > Charles P: James A Shapiro has the empirical and verifiable evidence on
      > his side. "How does novelty arise in evolution? Innovation, not selection,
      > is the critical issue in evolutionary change. Without variation and
      > novelty, selection has nothing to act upon".
      >
      > James A Shapiro: So this book is dedicated to considering the many ways
      > that living organisms actively change themselves. Uncovering the molecular
      > mechanisms by which living organisms modify their genomes is a major
      > accomplishment of late 20th Century molecular biology.
      >
      >
      > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      >
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.