Jump to content
Evolution Fairytale Forum


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About Sapiens

  • Rank
  • Birthday 01/25/1950

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Ka'u, the Island of Hawaii

Previous Fields

  • What is your Gender?
  • How old are you?
  • What is your affiliation/religion?
    no affiliation
  • What is your Worldview?
  • Where do you live (i.e. Denver, Colorado)
    Ka'u, Island of Hawaii
  1. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, confirmation is required. This is not evidence, it is a refusal to rush to an unlikely judgement. I don't care about the guy's credentials, that has no bearing on his claims. But I do object (as a separate issue) of the misrepresentation. Yes, even if his claim is true, it does not indicate that the triceratops is 4,000 years old. “Tell someone that his wife is cheating on him, or that frozen yogurt can make a him invisible, and he is likely to require as much evidence as anyone else, and to be persuaded only to the extent that you give it."― with apologies to Sam Harris, The End of Faith: Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason
  2. Although bats are one of the most diverse groups of mammals today, they are one of the least common groups in the fossil record. Bats have small, light skeletons that do not preserve well. Also, many live in tropical forests, where conditions are usually unfavorable for the formation of fossils. Thus we know little about the early evolution of bats, save that we can discern from DNA and immunological studies . For other groups, for example horses , the sequence is well defined. as is the evolution of tetrapod limbs and the development of birds, Hopson (1994) noted, "Of all the great transitions between major structural grades within vertebrates, the transition from basal amniotes [egg-laying tetrapods except amphibians] to basal mammals is represented by the most complete and continuous fossil record...., in 1997, Gingerich and Uhen noted that whales (cetaceans) "... have a fossil record that provides remarkably complete evidence of one of life's great evolutionary adaptive radiations: transformation of a land mammal ancestor into a diversity of descendant sea creatures." Your changing the topic, keep your rope. Evolution doesn't deal with the “molecules to first life” part: abiogenesis does, and that is not my field. Fred Williams spells out nothing but foolishness, his website exhibits any number of clear (and fatal) errors.
  3. "Materialism claims everything is predetermined" That's news to me. Stochasticity is a major term in the equation last time I checked.
  4. So, he's a mod ... big deal. He is still equivicating. Someone needs to point out the naked emperor. That's "lies" as in "lies on the ground," not "lies" as tells intentional untruths.
  5. I must admit you confuse me. At what level must I demonstrate evolution. We seem to be in agreement that one species can evolve into two different species, do we agree that these two species can diverge further given time and isolation into two genera (BTW, could you define, exactly, that it takes to be a different genera?). Do we agree that these two genera can diverge further given time into two families (BTW, could you define, exactly, that it takes to be a different family?). Do we agree that these two families can diverge further given time and into two orders (BTW, could you define, exactly, that it takes to be a different order?). Do we agree that these two orders can diverge further given time into two classes (BTW, could you define, exactly, that it takes to be a different class?). Etc. You see, it is basically the God of the Gaps horse pucky you are distributing.
  6. I was responding to: "I will ask in advance that the evidence given will not be based on assuming similarities = ancestry... This is the thing you are being asked to support so to use something that is based on this assumption is committing the begging the question fallacy. In previous versions of this thread evolutionists (for some reason) feel that this is a logical answer... Sorry logical fallacies are not logical Bonus points to evolutionists who can post evidence from a peer-reviewed article. Since apparently the evolutionists provide support for these assumptions despite I not seeing any hint of such, since most evolutionists do not realise they are making these assumptions." I think I answered those questions completely and thoroughly. As to equivocation: You are the one equivocating. Evolution is evolution, large or small, micro or macro, evolution, by definition, is just the change in allele frequency over time. I leave it to you to equivocate as to what the amount of change required is, where between micro and macro the differences between the ill-defined "kind" you are so taken with lies. I have presented examples that conform to the usual lay definition of species that demonstrate the development of new species. Was that not what was asked for?
  7. 1. I never said anyone should be fired for their religious beliefs, did I? I said the calling him a scientist, whether you base that on education or philosophical alignment, is a mistake in his case. 2. My point is that in positions like the one he (and I) held there is little security. 3. Yes, I've read the paper, it does not seem particularly earth shattering, but then it is not my field. He makes claims that he has found osteocytes, I have my doubts and will await independent confirmation. But even if they are, it proves nothing specific except that osteocytes can survive much longer than anyone thought possible ... it does not mean that the horn is 4,000 years old! And BTW, I never stated an opinion ... I said, "The paper is a red herring, it makes not claims of age, but they are implied, and implied without support except for his subjective appraisal." By that I meant implied in this and similar discussions, not in the paper itself. Sorry if I was unclear. Y'all make a big deal about the fact that the paper was in a reviewed journal ... yet you denigrate the value of peer review when it comes to conclusions that contradict your belief system, seems two-faced to me. 4. Rather hard to show what someone does not do. But, in any case, the usual ways of supporting a controversial idea are to develop independent methods of confirmation. In this case that might include DNA, imuno-assays, radiometrics, etc. Best not to shoot your mouth off without some other support for such a far out claim. 5. Radiometric dating is a well proven technique. It has problems and errors when individual techniques are used, but when multiple techniques are used and cross compared with samples of know ages, radiometry has been shown to yield useful and accurate dates. I know that you can't accept this because it knocks all you believe into a cocked hat ... sorry. Have you ever done any radiometric dating? Do you even know how it is accomplished and what the cross checks are?
  8. SPECIATION refers to SPECIES, not to Genus, Family, Order, or any other taxon ... that's why the work is SPECIATION and not Genusiation, Familiation or Ordination. You asked a question that I answered in a striaghtforward fashion and now you want to play God of Gaps with me. It doesn't matter what I tell you, you will establish a strawman that is outside of it. It is an inherently dishonest approach to inquiry, but typical of the creationists. Just like micro vs. macro evolution. There's not difference, just the degree of selective pressure and the time frame. No, not at all. There are discussions concerning the speed(s) of evolution and the modalities. There are cases, albeit rare, where new species form quickly due to sudden isolation and other factors that might include founder effect, high selective pressure or mutation rate that result in sudden shifts in gene frequencies and content (e.g., if at age 10 every child with blue eyes were sterilized, there would be no blue eyed children until there was a new occurrence of the OCA2 gene). There are multiple paths of evidence that confirm both rare rapid creation of species as well as rare long term stable species that change little over long stretches (e.g., coelacanths) most species go along, little changed, except when reproductively isolated from con-specifics and also exposed to differing selective pressures. You need to examine the conclusion you are jumping to from your initial assumption, that "every species has the potential to become two in just a couple of generations." Sure it's possible, and it's been observed in a single generation (Digby, in1912, crossed the primrose species Primula verticillata and P. floribunda to produce a sterile hybrid. Polyploidization occurred in a few of these plants to produce fertile offspring. The new species was named P. kewensis. Newton and Pellew, in 1929, note that spontaneous hybrids of P. verticillata and P. floribunda set tetraploid seed on at least three occasions in 1905, 1923 and 1926.) The potential is there, but to assume that it occurred, because the potential exist, requires a great deal of wishful thinking. The shortest number of generations that I can find in the literature for producing a new species is 15 generations, and that was under intense selection and complete isolation and only resulted in what I'd call "incipient" speciation (Halliburton and Gall in 1981 established a population of flour beetles collected in Davis, California. In each generation they selected the 8 lightest and the 8 heaviest pupae of each s@x. When these 32 beetles had emerged, they were placed together and allowed to mate for 24 hours. Eggs were collected for 48 hours. The pupae that developed from these eggs were weighed at 19 days. This was repeated for 15 generations. The results of mate choice tests between heavy and light beetles was compared to tests among control lines derived from randomly chosen pupae. Positive assortative mating on the basis of size was found in 2 out of 4 experimental lines.) In nature such intense selection of mating choice is unlikely and other selective factors would be likely to favor a single weight and size and thus prevent this sort of speciation. In short I'd say that: no, it is not possible for the diversity of life to have evolved out of a rather small number of species over a period of, say, shorter than 10 000 years. It's taken 10,000 years just to spread the blue eyed gene in humans are far as it has (University of Copenhagen. (2008, January 31). Blue-eyed Humans Have A Single, Common Ancestor. ScienceDaily. Retrieved August 1, 2014 from www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080130170343.htm).
  9. Want a few more observed instances of speciation? Here you go, all reported in peer reviewed, and most cases highly rated, journals: Evening Primrose (Oenothera gigas) Kew Primrose (Primula kewensis) Tragopogon Raphanobrassica Hemp Nettle (Galeopsis tetrahit) Madia citrigracilis Brassica Maidenhair Fern (Adiantum pedatum) Woodsia Fern (Woodsia abbeae) Stephanomeira malheurensis Maize (Zea mays) Yellow Monkey Flower (Mimulus guttatus) Drosophila sp. (many examples) Houseflies (multiple examples) Apple Maggot Fly (Rhagoletis pomonella) Gall Former Fly (Eurosta solidaginis) Flour Beetles (Tribolium castaneum) Culex pipiens Nasonia vitripennis and N. giraulti. Chlorella vulgaris there are more ...
  10. Here is one of the clearest examples, complete with the journal reference (Weinberg, J. R., V. R. Starczak and P. Jora. 1992. Evidence for rapid speciation following a founder event in the laboratory. Evolution. 46:1214-1220.): Speciation in a Lab Rat Worm, Nereis acuminata In 1964 five or six individuals of the polychaete worm, Nereis acuminata, were collected in Long Beach Harbor, California. These were allowed to grow into a population of thousands of individuals. Four pairs from this population were transferred to the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute. For over 20 years these worms were used as test organisms in environmental toxicology. From 1986 to 1991 the Long Beach area was searched for populations of the worm. Two populations, P1 and P2, were found. Weinberg, et al. (1992) performed tests on these two populations and the Woods Hole population (WH) for both postmating and premating isolation. To test for postmating isolation, they looked at whether broods from crosses were successfully reared. The results below give the percentage of successful rearings for each group of crosses. WH × WH - 75% P1 × P1 - 95% P2 × P2 - 80% P1 × P2 - 77% WH × P1 - 0% WH × P2 - 0% They also found statistically significant premating isolation between the WH population and the field populations. Finally, the Woods Hole population showed slightly different karyotypes from the field populations.
  11. 1. No argument, just fact, he is not a "scientist." Calling him a scientist is like calling me "Reverend," it gives the listener or reader the wrong idea. 2. Again, no argument ... just fact. Employment as a technician at university is not like a public sector job, say a cop or fireman ... it has none of the stability or assurance of continuance. In my forty years working at universities, I performed basically three different job functions but held about two dozen actual (and different) positions. I'd often be moved from one position to another, even though my duties would remain the same. That's the way it is. Hi claim of a "permanent" is just so much horse pucky offered up to buttress his discrimination claim. 3. The paper is a red herring, it makes not claims of age, but they are implied, and implied without support except for his subjective appraisal. It mazes me how you now suddenly believe in the sanctity of peer review, but deny its value for the huge body of support for evolutionary theory. 4. Proof in absolute terms does not exist. Falsification (disproof) in absolute terms does. When you make a claim that is way out there (at least with respect to the currently excepted views) you need to support the claim in as many ways as possible if you want to alter the existing paradigm. 5. There no doubt about the utility of radiometric dating when it is carefully applied and used with correlation between different isotopic dating methods to confirm the age of a sample. For example, a study of the Amitsoq gneisses from western Greenland used five different radiometric dating methods to examine twelve samples and achieved agreement to on an age of 3,640 Ma, plus or minus 30 Ma. I understand that your faith demands that you invent problems with radiometric dating in as much as accepting the reality would contradict your core wrongheadedness.
  12. "Mark H. Armitage earned a BS in Education from Liberty University and an MS in Biology (parasitology), under Richard Lumsden (Ph.D. Rice and Dean of Tulane University’s graduate program) at the Institute for Creation Research in San Diego, CA. He later graduated Ed.S. in Science Education from Liberty University and is a doctoral candidate there." Liberty University is unaccredited, its degrees are not recognized by accredited institutions (so called "real" schools). He would not be eligible to enter into any graduate program at an accredited school. Thus, as far as "real" schools are concerned, he is a high school graduate (MAYBE).
  13. That goes along with the idea that you can not prove anything since you must be open to something being different the next time you test it (check out Zeno's paradoxes), that is why science is based on falsification of a hypothesis ... a single such failure is all it takes. Science's "inability" to "prove" anything with absolute certainty is one of its major advantages over religion, you see, you need to have an open mind ... just not so far open that your brains fall out.
  14. Accreditation is rather straightforward: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Educational_accreditation A few other things need to be undertood here: 1) He is not a "scientist" nor is he a "professor" he is a technician who on occasion has performed as a lecturer as an ancillary duty (often done with special skills like microscopy or, in my case, research diving). 2) There is not really such a thing as a "permanent" position (in the dictionary meaning of the word) with the exception of the top and bottom: tenured faculty and union contracted maintenance personnel, everyone else is there at the whim of funding. Middle management and technicians are not real secure positions. 3) Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence 4) One (or two, or even a dozen) individual observations mean nothing. The more extraordinary, the more supporting evidence needs to be brought forward. He went off half cocked. 5) Conversely, it only take a single falsifying observation to disprove something ... but this is not it. First it must be demonstrated that this really is original soft tissue then other explanations need to be falsified, and even then all you've done is prove that soft tissue can stick around a long time. I'd suggest that both DNA and radiometric conformation would be needed to prove it is original material and that it is "young."
  15. Sapiens

    A Challenge

    David Berlinski's PhD is not in science, but in philosophy. He has no background in any of the science that impact on the study of evolution.

Important Information

Our Terms