Darwinian Evolution!

[_Quasimodo]

The problem you will get from evolutionist is that they all think that by rejecting evolution as described by current science is by default an argument for God. And in many cases that is what happens in these kinds of talks. So the typical response is to attack the man and ignore the ideas which he presents. Much easier to attack a man and discount his talk than to actually deal with the content of the talk.

I watched about 30 minutes of the video and there was nothing I have not seen a hundred times before. So I doubt if I will watch the rest.

Now let me make some comments about this subject. In the science camp we have people who just know in their hearts that evolution is true and factual. They base this belief in the current opinion of the scientific experts and what they have personally studied. Even though science can't directly observed evolution they feel is it fact none the less. They have faith that all future findings in biology will support the evolution theory. Then we have the other camp which knows in their heart that God designed everything and science is just wrong. In my case the current understanding of the mechanics of evolution does not fit what Darwin defined. Small steps over great time. The fossil record has major jumps in it. So being honest science would reject Darwin and replace his theory with something else. I have always thought it strange that science allowed Darwin's theory to evolve with all gathered data. Something like saying Newton's theories stand but were just morphed by Einstein. A very odd situation indeed. This situation is like idol worship. A very odd idol if you ask me. I have read hundreds of Darwin's letters to find out about this man. A good thinker but far from someone who deserves to be worshiped.

Hi Frank!

The process and mechanics behind evolution (natural selection) is very easy to see. It's around us all the time. How did we get from wild wolves to toy poodles?

If it weren't for the evolutionary process, wolves would always breed true... no dogs.

If evolution didn't work, all the people passing down the sidewalk in front of my house would be walking wolves every morning instead of the vast variety dogs I see them with.

[_Franktalk]

Hi Frank!

The process and mechanics behind evolution (natural selection) is very easy to see. It's around us all the time. How did we get from wild wolves to toy poodles?

If it weren't for the evolutionary process, wolves would always breed true... no dogs.

If evolution didn't work, all the people passing down the sidewalk in front of my house would be walking wolves every morning instead of the vast variety dogs I see them with.

Come now you must know that selective breeding makes offspring with desired traits. But you can select all you want with a dog and you will not get a cat. Many think that selective breeding will make new species. This is an unfortunate byproduct of the way science talks about evolution. It does not work that way. A better way to look at this is that a dog one day might have a bunch of DNA mutations and a cat pops out. I know it is hard to believe but that is the theory.

[_Bret Ripley]

It's not as if "Darwinism" is set in stone and shouldn't be questioned...

I agree. Things should be questioned -- that's how science works.

Then there's that house of ill-repute and "religious bias" in the eyes of the more-sure, the Discovery Institute:

100 Scientists, National Poll Challenge Darwinism.

They should be written off without question...

Certainly not without question:

"100 Scientists" --
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Scientific_Dissent_From_Darwinism
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/A_Scientific_Dissent_From_Darwinism

"National Poll" --
http://www.nmsr.org/id-poll.htm
http://web.archive.org/web/20030816135718/http://blogs.salon.com/0001092/2003/07/30.html
http://web.archive.org/web/20080327041611/http://csicop.org/doubtandabout/polling/

Now they can be written off (or not) on methodological grounds.

[_keithb]

The scientific debate over Darwinian Evolution is over and has been over for about 150 years. No serious scientist of whom I am aware in the field debates that is the sole mechanism for the development of life on this planet. This include members of the Biology department at BYU.

With the same degree of certainty that I have for the existence of Napoleon, I can say that evolution occurred and s responsible for life.

[_Tarski]

A better way to look at this is that a dog one day might have a bunch of DNA mutations and a cat pops out. I know it is hard to believe but that is the theory.

No it is not.

[_Quasimodo]

Hi Frank!

The process and mechanics behind evolution (natural selection) is very easy to see. It's around us all the time. How did we get from wild wolves to toy poodles?

If it weren't for the evolutionary process, wolves would always breed true... no dogs.

If evolution didn't work, all the people passing down the sidewalk in front of my house would be walking wolves every morning instead of the vast variety dogs I see them with.

Come now you must know that selective breeding makes offspring with desired traits. But you can select all you want with a dog and you will not get a cat. Many think that selective breeding will make new species. This is an unfortunate byproduct of the way science talks about evolution. It does not work that way. A better way to look at this is that a dog one day might have a bunch of DNA mutations and a cat pops out. I know it is hard to believe but that is the theory.

I totally disagree! Cats, wolves and bears (and other carnivores) are descended from a common ancestor. Zebras and horses are different species, but anyone can see that they are related. Elk (wapiti), moose, deer and caribou are all very close relatives and obviously descended from a single species. DNA backs all this up.

Selective breeding works by the same principles as natural selection.

Are horses and donkeys related? One can interbreed them, but they are different species.

I'm not sure you have a working knowledge of what a species actually is.

[_Franktalk]

The scientific debate over Darwinian Evolution is over and has been over for about 150 years. No serious scientist of whom I am aware in the field debates that is the sole mechanism for the development of life on this planet. This include members of the Biology department at BYU.

With the same degree of certainty that I have for the existence of Napoleon, I can say that evolution occurred and s responsible for life.

I did not know the debate was over. That is great news. Now that it is all figured out maybe you can do me a favor. Take any simple life form and trace back its evolutionary history. Do this mutation by mutation all the way back to the goo that made the first organic molecules. Now that you know the mechanics it should be an easy task. Just use your complete knowledge of the mechanism of change and reverse engineer some simple life form. Can you do this or are you just kidding that you know the mechanism of change? If indeed you know the mechanism then prove it. After all isn't that what science does. You form a theory and test it. The proof is right there. Just take a simple life form and show all of the steps. Now if that is beyond your ability then direct me to someone who has taken any life form and traced it back all the way to simple molecules. You either know what your talking about or you have faith in what your talking about. Which is it? Or do you wish for me to just trust you that one day you will be able to figure out the steps. But it was Darwin who said that each step was simple and over time added up into new species. Just show me the simple steps. Prove that what you say is true.

[_Franktalk]

No it is not.

Yes it is.

"Mutations are changes in the genetic sequence, and they are a main cause of diversity among organisms."

http://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpag ... ation-1127

Let me know when you get past bio 101

[_Franktalk]

Before someone makes a fool of them self and tells me that natural selection is the main cause in biodiversity just ask yourself what comes first, the mutation or the process of natural selection?

[_EAllusion]

You continue to misunderstand Puncutated Equilibria Ray. I've explained this in the past, but you continue to return to sources that leave you confused about what that is and what disagreements over it in evolutionary biology are about.

Gould and Eldrege make an argument that there are gaps in the fossil record where a particular morphological form seems to stay the same (be in stasis) for long periods of time followed by a rapid change, geologically speaking. What they proposed, and what PE is, is that one species evolved from another in a particular geological location (via allopatric speciation) then migrated over a larger territory and rapidly outcompeted the predecessor species. So imagine you have ant group A whose habitat extends 1000 units. Let's say a small section of that, say 50 units, becomes an island where Ant group B evolves. Then, later on, the island rejoins the mainland allowing Ant group B to migrate out. Ant group B outcompetes A everywhere and in the course of a few generations now dominates the full habitat.

So the pattern you'd see in the fossil record is the first species seemingly instantly replaced by the new clade. They also argued that if you looked in just the right places, you'd find the slower transitional area in the fossil record. So if you dug in the ground in units 1-950, the transition looks near instantaneous, but if you dug in the island area, you'd find a different pattern. And their initial paper on this subject covered examples of this being the case.

The dispute over PE is over how often people think this actually occurs and Gould and Eldredge's provocative idea that evolution only occurs through splits in clades rather than transitions. A always becomes A and B rather than A gradually turning into B, in other words. (Only cladeogensis and no anagensis to use the correct jargon.)

This isn't a disagreement about "Darwinism" in the sense the lecture above is using the term. And whether you recognize it or not, you actually labeled Dawkin's invoking of PE to explain the fossil record as a criticism of PE. That's because you still think PE means rapid, "jumping" evolution, and you're relying on a questionably written wiki article for your source.

Creationists habitually confuse this with the idea that evolutionary rates can be discontinuous, a point Gould and Eldridge emphasized, and disagreements over to what extent that is the case. But discontinues rates of evolution is not what PE refers to.