There's the Theory of Evolution and the Interpretation of Evolution

a reply to: turbonium1

The moon is simultaneously moving past and away from the earth and at the same time being pulled toward the earth, it fall's but is moving fast enough that it never reaches the ground this is called a stable orbit and it work's.

The fact is that the time we live, the moon earth and sun and all those mysteriously almost perfect ratio's is far too unlikely to just be chance so the solar system in at least some measure show's the presence of an intelligence behind it's form.

Gravity is real, the moon is a separate body from the earth but has a necessary stabilizing effect upon our climate and rotation, it is however the most unlikely moon in our solar system BUT then there are the mysterious moon'let's of mars which also defy standard model's with one having to be a hollow body to account for it's orbit and having all those lovely perfectly linear scar features on it's surface?.


When you fire a bullet it does not immediately fall to the ground or gun's would not work, if the bullet was moving fast enough then it would simply never reach the ground as it would fall at the same rate as the curve of the earth's surface fell away beneath it - of course a bullet would slow down because of wind resistance so it would never maintain such an orbit and our ground is not level so it would hit terrain at some point but the argument stand's.

The moon is like that bullet, it is passing the ground at the right speed so that it follow's the curve of the earth and never reaches the ground, it is both large enough and there sufficiently little impedance to it's motion in space were there is very little gas that it's inertia is not slowing down, in fact the moon may be receding from us about 1 meter per year which will actually slowing increase over the millions of years until it break's away from the earth's orbit entirely and goes off on it's own path through the solar system but that is a very long time from now AND if it's orbit was engineered then it is possible that some unknown force would once again intervene.

originally posted by: turbonium1
We have never, ever, found a single species, on Earth, to show any indication of 'evolving' into a different species.

Not over 10,000 years.

Complete nonsense. Everything evolves constantly. Thre is no end goal of "evolving into" anything. Organisms just slowly change.

Let's consider the odds...

Every species is evolving, continually, into different species, and we are all evolving now...

About 8.7 million different species exist on Earth, today, by current estimates.

That's a fairly decent sample size, to find 'evolution' of just one, single species.... isn't it?

Over 10,000 years, nothing.

Evolution is measurable and testable. It has been seen dozens upon dozens upon dozens of times. Why make a dishonest argument like that? The genetic mutations can be measured in every single replication.

How many thousands of years does it take before they finally have no choice but to admit 'evolution' was all made up, it's just a bunch of BS, and how sorry, and ashamed, they all are?

As soon as somebody can falsify ALL the evidence and come up with a better or more accurate explanation for the diversity of life on earth.

So what are the odds?

Multiply 10,000 x 8.7 million.

87 billion to 1.

LOL! You might want to brush up on your math. That isn't how it works or how you determine odds.

Floating around, within 0 gravity of space, is not exactly being "held in place".

If there is a force on Earth, which pulls everything towards the Earth, it cannot suddenly 'hold' things far away, in place, at a distance. I know you have no other excuse, but that's not even close to reality!

Complete nonsense. You may want to look up the mechanics of being in orbit. There is ABSOLUTELY still gravity while orbiting earth, but the momentum of the craft is moving just fast enough to even out the pull, which is why it stays in orbit instead of falling to the earth. This makes the rest of your 2 responses completely bunk. Why the unwillingness to even look it up? You just assume flat earth propganda videos are automatic truth without even fact checking them. This why people are so quick to dismiss science. Science takes work and effort. You can't just watch a youtube video and fully understand it.

originally posted by: chr0naut
When I prayed, It rained a deluge, enough to put out a house fire, out of a cloudless sky,within seconds of praying (and I didn't pray for rain). The circumstances were particularly weird.

So again, you prove confirmation bias because you have no idea the prayer is the cause. You just assume, when sudden rainstorms happen all over the world on a consistent basis. When I was into new age meditation, my grandfather was dying in the hospital and given a 20% chance to live. I focused my energy via chakra meditation and within an hour of that, he suddenly he woke up and was fine. Obviously the meditation didn't heal him, either the doctors made a mistake (or intentionally said the odds were low to avoid a disappointment if he died) or my grandfather simply beat the odds, which happens. Funny enough my aunt was deeply religious and says her prayers are what healed him. Nobody actually knows, and inserting the explanation YOU WANT is a poor method of determining truth. The situation with my grandfather helped me realize that spiritual mumbo jumbo does nothing for the person being prayed/meditated for, it helps the person DOING IT because it makes them feel better and gives them hope. That is how it always has worked. It's a crunch to help keep us hopeful.

Plus this creates a huge dilemma of why god only would selectively answer prayers. What about the billion starving children around the world that are prayer for by millions of people on a daily basis? God comes and intervenes in YOUR situation just because YOU prayed, while ignoring all the kids dying from cancer, starving, sick or being abused. That is quite the ego you have there if you actually think that is what happened. Why do people that get prayed for the most still end up dying? There is literally no connection between prayer and health, it just gives hope.

You still haven't given any explanation as to what in the 'Omega idea' was absurd. When I asked last time, you told me how hypotheses were testable.

I'll discuss that idea when testable evidence that supports the premise can be provided.

But sure, ridicule all you want. Ad hominem is usually a sure fire indicator that you have run out of legitimate argument.

I don't use ad hom, I explain my points. You have already proved you don't grasp what that or other fallacies are.

Self contradictory.

Either testable or not.

Either there is gradualism or there isn't.

Absolute laughable nonsense.

Nothing I said was self contradictory. Your claim was not testable. Gradualism is not the be all end all. There are other mechanisms like punctuated equilibrium. This is just your all or nothing mentality shining through again. You can't even understand that just because most evolutionary changes show gradualistic principles does not mean that every single transition in history was gradual. You keep using the false dilemma (black and white) fallacy repeatedly. There are many methods involved, it's not simply all gradualism or all not gradualism.

a reply to: chr0naut

You will find that some places (like the USA) continued Heoric medicine into the 20th century. The Spannish flu stopped that in the end (actualy scientific medicine helpd, leaches did not)

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: chr0nautWhen I prayed, It rained a deluge, enough to put out a house fire, out of a cloudless sky,within seconds of praying (and I didn't pray for rain). The circumstances were particularly weird.

So again, you prove confirmation bias because you have no idea the prayer is the cause. You just assume, when sudden rainstorms happen all over the world on a consistent basis. When I was into new age meditation, my grandfather was dying in the hospital and given a 20% chance to live. I focused my energy via chakra meditation and within an hour of that, he suddenly he woke up and was fine. Obviously the meditation didn't heal him, either the doctors made a mistake (or intentionally said the odds were low to avoid a disappointment if he died) or my grandfather simply beat the odds, which happens. Funny enough my aunt was deeply religious and says her prayers are what healed him. Nobody actually knows, and inserting the explanation YOU WANT is a poor method of determining truth. The situation with my grandfather helped me realize that spiritual mumbo jumbo does nothing for the person being prayed/meditated for, it helps the person DOING IT because it makes them feel better and gives them hope. That is how it always has worked. It's a crunch to help keep us hopeful.

Plus this creates a huge dilemma of why god only would selectively answer prayers. What about the billion starving children around the world that are prayer for by millions of people on a daily basis? God comes and intervenes in YOUR situation just because YOU prayed, while ignoring all the kids dying from cancer, starving, sick or being abused. That is quite the ego you have there if you actually think that is what happened. Why do people that get prayed for the most still end up dying? There is literally no connection between prayer and health, it just gives hope.

Does confirmation bias preclude the possibility that something did occur as believed, because it would seem that you are suggesting that it didn't occur for those reasons 'because there may have been confirmation bias involved in interpreting the observation'.

As an argument aginst those occurrences happening in the way that the the bias suggests, it isn't particularly strong. It is, in effect, saying 'I don't really know and you don't really know'.

If you recall, back to that distant topic thread, I also suggested that perhaps there was a naturalistic explanation that would also account for it and I proposed that perhaps a high water content cometary fragment happened to hit the atmosphere above. Did that also evice confirmation bias?

If evolution is a supposition, guess, hypothesis or theory, and even if experiments have been performed on parts of it, your assertion of its predominance over alternate explanations is an example confirmation bias. Because it cannot be asserted as fact, it cannot be asserted as fact!

You have consistently drawn absolutist conclusions from from suppositions, hypotheses and theories and then chided me (and others) from doing the same, seemingly oblivious to the application of your own confirmation biases.

You still haven't given any explanation as to what in the 'Omega idea' was absurd. When I asked last time, you told me how hypotheses were testable.

I'll discuss that idea when testable evidence that supports the premise can be provided.

So, you will reason about something only when reasoning is no longer required?

But sure, ridicule all you want. Ad hominem is usually a sure fire indicator that you have run out of legitimate argument.

I don't use ad hom, I explain my points. You have already proved you don't grasp what that or other fallacies are.

Then explain what in the 'Omega idea' is absurd.

You said it was absurd and I asked for explanation (several times).

Testability is a non-answer.

Tell me what is absurd in the 'Omega idea' and why.

Self contradictory.

Either testable or not.

Either there is gradualism or there isn't.

Absolute laughable nonsense.

Nothing I said was self contradictory. Your claim was not testable. Gradualism is not the be all end all. There are other mechanisms like punctuated equilibrium.

Punctuated Equilibrium is not part of the MES. Punctuated equilibrium is also more of an outcome of observation than a particular and mechanistic cause and effect process. Punctuated Equilibrium was proposed because it became obvious that the gradualism required by the MES could not have occurred in the much of the observed data.

This is just your all or nothing mentality shining through again. You can't even understand that just because most evolutionary changes show gradualistic principles does not mean that every single transition in history was gradual. You keep using the false dilemma (black and white) fallacy repeatedly. There are many methods involved, it's not simply all gradualism or all not gradualism.

In the case of speciation, according to the MES, gradualism and partitioning of populations are mandatory components. There is no mechanism to speciate, according to the MES, in their absence.

If there are examples proposed as explicatory of evolution, where there is no gradualism, or no population partitioning, or (usually) both, then they simply are not examples of evolution as proposed in the MES. This has not stopped people from proposing that the data evidences evolution.

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: chr0nautYou will find that some places (like the USA) continued Heoric medicine into the 20th century. The Spannish flu stopped that in the end (actualy scientific medicine helpd, leaches did not)

People even today still think the Earth is flat.

It wouldn't surprise me if there were people out there even now peddling bleeding by leeches to remove bad humors from the blood.

Kooks are.

a reply to: chr0naut

The point returns however, when you talk about evolution. Its a science. Thus you need to talk science.

If we were talking magic or prayer, then another tool would be appropriate.

This particular forum suffers from people using the wrong tool, to talk about something.

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: turbonium1We have never, ever, found a single species, on Earth, to show any indication of 'evolving' into a different species.

Not over 10,000 years.

Complete nonsense. Everything evolves constantly. Thre is no end goal of "evolving into" anything. Organisms just slowly change.

i.e: it is travelling quite well... but it is going nowhere.

Let's consider the odds...

Every species is evolving, continually, into different species, and we are all evolving now...

About 8.7 million different species exist on Earth, today, by current estimates.

That's a fairly decent sample size, to find 'evolution' of just one, single species.... isn't it?

Over 10,000 years, nothing.

Evolution is measurable and testable. It has been seen dozens upon dozens upon dozens of times.

Parts of evolution have been shown to occur, even experimentally.

The whole string of processes, end to end, not so, though.

There are some parts of the process, that we cannot directly observe or experiment on. This means that evolution doesn't even have the evidential strength for us to call it a scientific hypothesis.

Doesn't stop some people from calling it that, though.

Why make a dishonest argument like that? The genetic mutations can be measured in every single replication.

It is nowhere near as frequent as that. If it were, we'd be a scrambled genetic mess in a few hours.

As it is,the average mutation rate for the human genome is between 100-200 point mutations per generation.

and, for example, In E-Coli, the measured mutation rate per replication event is 10^-10.

How many thousands of years does it take before they finally have no choice but to admit 'evolution' was all made up, it's just a bunch of BS, and how sorry, and ashamed, they all are?

As soon as somebody can falsify ALL the evidence and come up with a better or more accurate explanation for the diversity of life on earth.

There exist right now other equally scientifically evidenced and plausible explanations for biodiversity.

Not to mention there is also some evidence of biological diversity where evolutionary models (such as the Modern Evolutionary Synthesis) are evidenced against.

So what are the odds?

Multiply 10,000 x 8.7 million.

87 billion to 1.

LOL! You might want to brush up on your math. That isn't how it works or how you determine odds.

Actually, turbonium1 was mathematically correct in calculation of simple possiblility. But in truth, considering the total field of outcomes is usually mathematically factorial, the probability is magnitudes closer to zero, which, I believe, is the gist of his point.

Floating around, within 0 gravity of space, is not exactly being "held in place".

If there is a force on Earth, which pulls everything towards the Earth, it cannot suddenly 'hold' things far away, in place, at a distance. I know you have no other excuse, but that's not even close to reality!

Complete nonsense. You may want to look up the mechanics of being in orbit. There is ABSOLUTELY still gravity while orbiting earth, but the momentum of the craft is moving just fast enough to even out the pull, which is why it stays in orbit instead of falling to the earth. This makes the rest of your 2 responses completely bunk. Why the unwillingness to even look it up? You just assume flat earth propganda videos are automatic truth without even fact checking them. This why people are so quick to dismiss science. Science takes work and effort. You can't just watch a youtube video and fully understand it.

I believe the confusion comes from the fact that, for something in orbit, all directional force vectors counterbalance and the sum of those vectors is zero.

This is one of those relativistic things dependent upon viewpoint.

a reply to: chr0naut

Punctuated Equilibrium is not part of the MES.

Punctuated Equilibrium is generally accepted by Biologists as an important part of evolution.

ERGO: Punctuated Equilibrium is part of the MES.

Why do you continue to deny something that is fact, and not even controversial? Your entire thesis seems to be to argue just for the sake of arguing.

(source)

The concept of punctuated equilibrium was, to some, a radical new idea when it was first proposed by Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge in 1972. Now it is widely recognized as a useful model for one kind of evolutionary change. The relative importance of punctuated and gradual patterns of evolution is a subject of debate and research.
...
Although the patterns predicted by punctuated equilibrium have been observed in at least some cases, debate continues over how frequently this model of evolutionary change occurs -- is it the norm, or only an exception? Punctuated equilibrium also generates interesting questions for further research. What, for example, are the processes that produce rapid evolution? Population genetic studies show us that small changes can accrue quickly in small populations. And evolutionary developmental biology is revealing new mechanisms that regulate the expression of small genetic changes in ways that can have a large effect on phenotype. Which evolutionary factors are primarily responsible for the periods of stasis -- in which lineages persist without change -- that can be observed in the fossil record? In seeking the answers to these questions, researchers will continue to advance our understanding of the evolutionary processes that produced the remarkable variety of life on Earth.

originally posted by: rnaa
a reply to: chr0naut

Punctuated Equilibrium is not part of the MES.

Punctuated Equilibrium is generally accepted by Biologists as an important part of evolution.

ERGO: Punctuated Equilibrium is part of the MES.

So are magic pink unicorns, too, I suppose.



You can't arbitrarily make stuff up and expect anyone to believe it.

"The Modern Evolutionary Synthesis" was coined and fully defined in Julian Huxley's book "Evolution: The Modern Synthesis", back in 1942.

It doesn't mention punctuated equilibrium, epigenetics or horizontal gene transfer. They just weren't ideas in biology or genetics back then. We have learned a few things since then.

They just aren't part of the MES.

Why do you continue to deny something that is fact, and not even controversial? Your entire thesis seems to be to argue just for the sake of arguing.

(source)

The concept of punctuated equilibrium was, to some, a radical new idea when it was first proposed by Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge in 1972. Now it is widely recognized as a useful model for one kind of evolutionary change. The relative importance of punctuated and gradual patterns of evolution is a subject of debate and research.
...
Although the patterns predicted by punctuated equilibrium have been observed in at least some cases, debate continues over how frequently this model of evolutionary change occurs -- is it the norm, or only an exception? Punctuated equilibrium also generates interesting questions for further research. What, for example, are the processes that produce rapid evolution? Population genetic studies show us that small changes can accrue quickly in small populations. And evolutionary developmental biology is revealing new mechanisms that regulate the expression of small genetic changes in ways that can have a large effect on phenotype. Which evolutionary factors are primarily responsible for the periods of stasis -- in which lineages persist without change -- that can be observed in the fossil record? In seeking the answers to these questions, researchers will continue to advance our understanding of the evolutionary processes that produced the remarkable variety of life on Earth.

Punctuated evolution is one way that evolution may occur. But many evolutionary biologists also disagree with it, too.

a reply to: chr0naut

"The Modern Evolutionary Synthesis" was coined and fully defined in Julian Huxley's book "Evolution: The Modern Synthesis", back in 1942.

You are simply wrong. Hopelessly, demonstrably, definitively wrong.

(source)
We've been through this before: The MES was 'proposed' in 1942 by Huxley and has changed radically since then, both in detail and comprehensiveness. Mayr added systematics and the (now deprecated) definition of 'species' that same year. Paleontology was added to the synthesis in 1944. The framework finally gained serious acceptance beginning around 1946. Botany was added in 1950. The 50's also saw the development of DNA and its impact on genetics. The 60's saw major developments in how selection works not just at the individual fitness level but also at the inclusive fitness level and via the change of frequency of alleles. The 1970's added sociobiology (now called evolutionary psychology) and evolutionary developmental biology.

You cannot review those major changes (and innumerable since) and honestly claim that the MES is unchanged since 1942 when it was only the beginning of a suggestion. It is simply ludicrous.

The MES 'evolves' as new information is discovered and woven into the big picture. I said before, and you agreed with my statement, that nobody has ever said that the MES was complete, perfect, or unchanging. 1942 is a long time, and evolutionary thought has undergone a lot of changes.

The operative word is 'synthesis': the MES is the synthesis of the knowledge from all biology disciplines that relate to evolution - basically then all of biology. Put simply, evolution is the central organizing principle of all of biology.

That is part of the reason 'you' get laughed at when you call biologists 'Darwinists'. Evolutionary biology today is as far beyond Darwin as Physics is beyond Newton.

originally posted by: chr0naut
Does confirmation bias preclude the possibility that something did occur as believed, because it would seem that you are suggesting that it didn't occur for those reasons 'because there may have been confirmation bias involved in interpreting the observation'.

As an argument aginst those occurrences happening in the way that the the bias suggests, it isn't particularly strong. It is, in effect, saying 'I don't really know and you don't really know'.

Something happened that you can't explain or seems like a huge coincidence. You assume the explanation because it is the one you prefer. That is confirmation bias. That doesn't mean it can't occur as you believe, it means you are using bias to make that determination. I'm not saying your belief about it is wrong or saying I know the exact cause. I'm saying that you are using bias to claim your perceived cause is responsible, so it creates a logical problem when referring to it as evidence.

If you recall, back to that distant topic thread, I also suggested that perhaps there was a naturalistic explanation that would also account for it and I proposed that perhaps a high water content cometary fragment happened to hit the atmosphere above. Did that also evice confirmation bias?

Yes. Sure, that is a possibility and is based on something that can happen, but yes it would still be bias if you said that the sudden rainstorm is evidence of a comet fragment hitting the upper atmosphere, because it could be caused by numerous different things. The problem isn't postulating possibilities, it's using the outcome as evidence for one thing or another, which you did with the god explanation.

If evolution is a supposition, guess, hypothesis or theory, and even if experiments have been performed on parts of it, your assertion of its predominance over alternate explanations is an example confirmation bias. Because it cannot be asserted as fact, it cannot be asserted as fact!

Not true. Evolution has been tested rigorously and confirmed repeatedly. Geneticists can directly look at genomes, compare genetic mutations and see what they have caused. Biologists can observe selection and have observed speciation in a lab. Comparing the theory of evolution to a rainstorm caused by god is completely invalid. There is no part of rainstorms caused by god that is testable. There are no alternate explanations to evolution that are testable. Organisms slightly changing as a result of genetic mutations and natural selection have been directly shown.

You have consistently drawn absolutist conclusions from from suppositions, hypotheses and theories and then chided me (and others) from doing the same, seemingly oblivious to the application of your own confirmation biases.

They are not even close to the same thing.

So, you will reason about something only when reasoning is no longer required?

I suggest making a new thread about it if you want to discuss the specifics about it. I prefer not to discuss speculation about unknowns. It's not about reasoning, it's about literally ZERO testable evidence. You seem to think that made up explanations are just as valid as scientific testable ones based on the premise that you can't prove it's NOT the case, and that's completely wrong. Science requires inductive reasoning, which is not possible to use in order to reach any conclusions related to the omega concept.

Then explain what in the 'Omega idea' is absurd.

How is that related to the ad hominem fallacy? I already explained that the absurd part is that is it a complete guess that isn't backed by evidence and is completely untestable. I could come up with some random explanation for things based on what we don't know, and show how it doesn't conflict with anything we do know. That doesn't make the idea logical or valid.

Punctuated Equilibrium is not part of the MES. Punctuated equilibrium is also more of an outcome of observation than a particular and mechanistic cause and effect process. Punctuated Equilibrium was proposed because it became obvious that the gradualism required by the MES could not have occurred in the much of the observed data.

PE is definitely part of evolution.

Genetic evidence for punctuated equilibrium

www.pbs.org...

More information taken from the EVOLUTION section of PBS. Claiming it's not part of MES is a bit off. It's not completely fully understood, but that doesn't mean it's some rogue idea outside of evolution or that you can't have both concepts apply in different circumstances.

In the case of speciation, according to the MES, gradualism and partitioning of populations are mandatory components. There is no mechanism to speciate, according to the MES, in their absence.

There is no mechanism for speciation at all. It's just an accumulation of genetic changes over long enough time periods to make the 2 referenced organisms genetically incompatible. Partitioning and gradualism is NOT always required. Sometimes you have PE, sometimes you have genetic drift. I really don't understand why everything is all or nothing for you. Science is not absolute by nature, there is no reason to think a scientific understanding of one aspect of a theory is the only possible way it can happen.

originally posted by: chr0naut
Parts of evolution have been shown to occur, even experimentally.

The whole string of processes, end to end, not so, though.

There are some parts of the process, that we cannot directly observe or experiment on. This means that evolution doesn't even have the evidential strength for us to call it a scientific hypothesis.

You really still have no idea what a scientific theory is after all this time. Scientific theories contain both confirmed tested facts AND hypotheses being actively worked on. We already went over this. Not knowing every single detail of every single transition for the entirety of the history of life on earth does not invalidate it or make it a complete guess. You keep trying to repeat this complete nonsense, but it's patently wrong. Science is not absolute. No theory is perfectly complete. Your understanding of how theories are developed is way off base.

It is nowhere near as frequent as that. If it were, we'd be a scrambled genetic mess in a few hours.

Prove it. Show me an instance where a cell has perfectly replicated with no transcription errors. Most mutations are just neutral so don't impact the survivibility of an organism and they are not always permanent. 100 or so mutations per replication does not change much when you are talking about a few hundred BILLION base pairs.

and, for example, In E-Coli, the measured mutation rate per replication event is 10^-10.

How does this or the other link support your claim?

There exist right now other equally scientifically evidenced and plausible explanations for biodiversity.

Again, you are going to have to prove this. Equally scientifically evidenced my ass. Go ahead and show me that and please make sure it's falsifiable and testable. Cherry picking will not be accepted. Good luck!

Not to mention there is also some evidence of biological diversity where evolutionary models (such as the Modern Evolutionary Synthesis) are evidenced against.

Yawn, here we go again. You will bring up HGT and Epigenetics and claim it's separate and not part of evolution. The gimmick is old, not to mention completely false.

Actually, turbonium1 was mathematically correct in calculation of simple possiblility. But in truth, considering the total field of outcomes is usually mathematically factorial, the probability is magnitudes closer to zero, which, I believe, is the gist of his point

No, it was completely bogus. He claimed that since there are X amount of animals on earth we should be able to observe evolution (not actual evolution, his straw man version). It's nonsense and does not give odds about anything or affect the probability of evolution.

I believe the confusion comes from the fact that, for something in orbit, all directional force vectors counterbalance and the sum of those vectors is zero.

This is one of those relativistic things dependent upon viewpoint.

No it's not dependent on viewpoint. Things in orbit are not held in place, they are constantly moving. In regards to the moon itself, it is moving slightly faster, so the sum of vectors is NOT zero. It is getting a few inches further away from earth each year. It will eventually break orbit unless another force acts upon it and slows down the velocity.

originally posted by: rnaa
a reply to: chr0naut
You are simply wrong. Hopelessly, demonstrably, definitively wrong.

(source)
We've been through this before: The MES was 'proposed' in 1942 by Huxley and has changed radically since then, both in detail and comprehensiveness. Mayr added systematics and the (now deprecated) definition of 'species' that same year. Paleontology was added to the synthesis in 1944. The framework finally gained serious acceptance beginning around 1946. Botany was added in 1950. The 50's also saw the development of DNA and its impact on genetics. The 60's saw major developments in how selection works not just at the individual fitness level but also at the inclusive fitness level and via the change of frequency of alleles. The 1970's added sociobiology (now called evolutionary psychology) and evolutionary developmental biology.

You cannot review those major changes (and innumerable since) and honestly claim that the MES is unchanged since 1942 when it was only the beginning of a suggestion. It is simply ludicrous.

The MES 'evolves' as new information is discovered and woven into the big picture. I said before, and you agreed with my statement, that nobody has ever said that the MES was complete, perfect, or unchanging. 1942 is a long time, and evolutionary thought has undergone a lot of changes.

The operative word is 'synthesis': the MES is the synthesis of the knowledge from all biology disciplines that relate to evolution - basically then all of biology. Put simply, evolution is the central organizing principle of all of biology.

That is part of the reason 'you' get laughed at when you call biologists 'Darwinists'. Evolutionary biology today is as far beyond Darwin as Physics is beyond Newton.

OK, lets say that Punctuated Equilibrium is scientifically accepted as a way biological change occurs. That's fair, as it is based upon good scientific data.

What does that do to the gradualism in evolutionary therory? Doesn't it clearly disprove instances of gradualism? So then the gradualism that is part of evolutionary theory (and that BARCS is happy to quote at me all the time), is disproven. To be honest, surely the synthesis would have to loose 'gradualism' as a universal mechanism, to remain viable? Do you see that happening?

Then we take horizontal gene transfer. That means that successful traits can be carried from one organism to another entirely, with no reference to intervening natural selection. A mouse can suddenly aquire the ability to photosynthesize or can develop gills (as we do with human directed gene transfers - genetic engineering). WTF happens to evolutionary theory, then, when biological change can, and does, occur at that level and almost at random?

Then lets look at epigenetics. Traits already built into the genome just waiting for activation or deactivation. No gradualism, rapid response to selection pressures without the need to breed traits into the population.

You combine all three of these in any particular scenario and evolution becomes utterly incapable of describing the resulting biodiversity.

These things aren't part of evolution because their implications actively destruct evolution as an idea and possible process.

An Extended Evolutionary Synthesis (EES) was proposed in 2007 that incorporated these new ideas but it is not accepted by many evolutionary biologists - for damn good reason.

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: chr0naut

Something happened that you can't explain or seems like a huge coincidence. You assume the explanation because it is the one you prefer. That is confirmation bias. That doesn't mean it can't occur as you believe, it means you are using bias to make that determination. I'm not saying your belief about it is wrong or saying I know the exact cause. I'm saying that you are using bias to claim your perceived cause is responsible, so it creates a logical problem when referring to it as evidence.

Yes. Sure, that is a possibility and is based on something that can happen, but yes it would still be bias if you said that the sudden rainstorm is evidence of a comet fragment hitting the upper atmosphere, because it could be caused by numerous different things. The problem isn't postulating possibilities, it's using the outcome as evidence for one thing or another, which you did with the god explanation.

I didn't just posit that there was only a single possible explanation. I presented two that are diametrically opposed. One may have represented a bias but positing an opposite as well, clearly negates that bias.

The argument that confirmation bias was involved in that case, is facile.

Nor would legitimate confirmation bias negate the possibility that a conclusion drawn from it may possibly be entirely correct.

You tried to imply that because I have belief in God, that I am incapable of overcoming confirmation bias. I do have confirmation biases (as do you) but I am aware of them and they don't apply to everything I consider. There is nothing to say that because I have a confirmation bias, that it is a rule I use everywhere. I also reason, usually from a naturalistic and experiential standpoint.

You are just taking things out of context, playing semantics with that, and have not even advanced your argument one iota.

Not true. Evolution has been tested rigorously and confirmed repeatedly. Geneticists can directly look at genomes, compare genetic mutations and see what they have caused. Biologists can observe selection and have observed speciation in a lab. Comparing the theory of evolution to a rainstorm caused by god is completely invalid.

You made that comparison, bringing up something unrelated to this topic thread.

Doesn't matter, because it is clear that you deflected from the topic with an unrelated interjection and your line of reasoning with it is a fail anyway.

There is no part of rainstorms caused by god that is testable.

There are no part of rare random occurrences that are testable either (like advantageous random mutations, which are probable, evidenced for and reasonable, but not testable).

There are no alternate explanations to evolution that are testable.

Punctuated equilibrium, epigenetic change, saltationism/catastrophism and horizontal gene transfer are not testable? Get real.

and Organisms slightly changing as a result of genetic mutations and natural selection have been directly shown.

They are not even close to the same thing.

I suggest making a new thread about it if you want to discuss the specifics about it. I prefer not to discuss speculation about unknowns. It's not about reasoning, it's about literally ZERO testable evidence. You seem to think that made up explanations are just as valid as scientific testable ones based on the premise that you can't prove it's NOT the case, and that's completely wrong. Science requires inductive reasoning, which is not possible to use in order to reach any conclusions related to the omega concept.

Just because you say it doesn't make it true.

You can apply inductive reasoning to almost all the various components of the 'Omega idea'.

They are evidenced in analogues that exist and the whole idea is an extension of a possible outcome of those evidenced and testable concepts.

How is that related to the ad hominem fallacy?

Not at all, I don't know why you thought it would.

I already explained that the absurd part is that is it a complete guess that isn't backed by evidence and is completely untestable. I could come up with some random explanation for things based on what we don't know, and show how it doesn't conflict with anything we do know. That doesn't make the idea logical or valid.

Actually, if it doesn't conflict with anything we know, it does make the idea rational ('logical' has too vague a meaning) and valid.

PE is definitely part of evolution.

But not part of the MES. It is part of the EES but evolutionary biologists are aware of what PE and other recent findings (epigenetics & HGT) imply to evolution.

They don't agree with the EES because it negates a lot of the previous evolutionary models and makes it possible random traits to appear in a species without gradualism, mutation or natural selection.

Genetic evidence for punctuated equilibrium

www.pbs.org...

More information taken from the EVOLUTION section of PBS. Claiming it's not part of MES is a bit off. It's not completely fully understood, but that doesn't mean it's some rogue idea outside of evolution or that you can't have both concepts apply in different circumstances.

There is no mechanism for speciation at all.

That's just laughable. What did Darwin call his book?

It's just an accumulation of genetic changes over long enough time periods to make the 2 referenced organisms genetically incompatible. Partitioning and gradualism is NOT always required. Sometimes you have PE, sometimes you have genetic drift. I really don't understand why everything is all or nothing for you. Science is not absolute by nature, there is no reason to think a scientific understanding of one aspect of a theory is the only possible way it can happen.

But PE means no gradualism.

PE means that changes only occur in major and rapid steps when the normal balance is disrupted.

You put PE and gradualism in the same paragraph as if they didn't outright contradict.

a reply to: chr0naut

But not part of the MES. It is part of the EES but evolutionary biologists are aware of what PE and other recent findings (epigenetics & HGT) imply to evolution.

False. PE is, in large part based on the work of Ernst Mayr, one of the 'founding fathers' of the MES, and Darwin, who had nothing to do with the MES, but whose work defines a central concept with in the MES thought that while evolution was a slow gradual process, it must surely vary over time, circumstance, environment and species. Darwin knew that many species exhibit what Gould called 'stasis' - long term evolutionary stability, and others change constantly and relatively quickly.

They don't agree with the EES because it negates a lot of the previous evolutionary models and makes it possible random traits to appear in a species without gradualism, mutation or natural selection.

No it doesn't. Some people want to rethink the basic framework because there are too many obsolete ideas in it (for example, the definition of the word 'species'), and they think the focus should be placed more pointedly at their favorite research areas. Maybe they are right, that the focus should be moved, but NOTHING in their work 'negates' the MES.

More importantly, the ADDITION of another evolution vector DOES NOT negate gradualism, mutation, or natural selection. NOTHING.

Punctuated equilibrium, epigenetic change, saltationism/catastrophism and horizontal gene transfer are not testable? Get real.

Of course they are testable. They are scientific concepts and are NOT alternate hypotheses (or theories if you insist) to the MES. They are new observational data that needs to be fitted in to the story of evolution. They are ADDITIONAL evolutionary "mechanisms" NOT alternative, mutually exclusive mechanisms.

But PE means no gradualism.

No it doesn't. It means that sometimes evolution occurs faster than at other times. You know what? Gould complained all the time about people promoting this false idea of his work.

PE means that changes only occur in major and rapid steps when the normal balance is disrupted.

You put PE and gradualism in the same paragraph as if they didn't outright contradict.

They DO NOT 'outright contradict. This is really, really silly.

(source)

In an often quoted remark, Gould stated, "Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists—whether through design or stupidity, I do not know—as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups." Although there exist some debate over how long the punctuations last, supporters of punctuated equilibrium generally place the figure between 50,000 and 100,000 years.

So a PE event means 50-100 thousand years, not overnight. Yeah, not millions of years, but still slow on a human time scale.

Punctuated equilibrium is often portrayed to oppose the concept of gradualism, when it is actually a form of gradualism. This is because even though evolutionary change appears instantaneous between geological sedimentary layers, change is still occurring incrementally, with no great change from one generation to the next. To this end, Gould later commented that "Most of our paleontological colleagues missed this insight because they had not studied evolutionary theory and either did not know about allopatric speciation or had not considered its translation to geological time. Our evolutionary colleagues also failed to grasp the implication(s), primarily because they did not think at geological scales".

In the fourth edition (1866) of On the Origin of Species Darwin wrote that "the periods during which species have undergone modification, though long as measured in years, have probably been short in comparison with the periods during which they retain the same form." Thus punctuationism in general is consistent with Darwin's conception of evolution.

originally posted by: rnaa
a reply to: chr0naut

False. PE is, in large part based on the work of Ernst Mayr, one of the 'founding fathers' of the MES, and Darwin, who had nothing to do with the MES, but whose work defines a central concept with in the MES thought that while evolution was a slow gradual process, it must surely vary over time, circumstance, environment and species. Darwin knew that many species exhibit what Gould called 'stasis' - long term evolutionary stability, and others change constantly and relatively quickly.

No it doesn't. Some people want to rethink the basic framework because there are too many obsolete ideas in it (for example, the definition of the word 'species'), and they think the focus should be placed more pointedly at their favorite research areas. Maybe they are right, that the focus should be moved, but NOTHING in their work 'negates' the MES.

More importantly, the ADDITION of another evolution vector DOES NOT negate gradualism, mutation, or natural selection. NOTHING.

Of course they are testable. They are scientific concepts and are NOT alternate hypotheses (or theories if you insist) to the MES. They are new observational data that needs to be fitted in to the story of evolution. They are ADDITIONAL evolutionary "mechanisms" NOT alternative, mutually exclusive mechanisms.

No it doesn't. It means that sometimes evolution occurs faster than at other times. You know what? Gould complained all the time about people promoting this false idea of his work.

So are you implying that there was gradual genetic change occurring at the same time there was morphological stasis?

They DO NOT 'outright contradict. This is really, really silly.

(source)
In an often quoted remark, Gould stated, "Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists—whether through design or stupidity, I do not know—as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups." Although there exist some debate over how long the punctuations last, supporters of punctuated equilibrium generally place the figure between 50,000 and 100,000 years.

No, what is silly is that you engage in doublethink and can't see the obvious truth.

I didn't suggest anything about transitional forms not existing. Gould was decrying something other than than my argument.

My argument was that PE and gradual cumulative genetic change are mutually exclusive in process. The argument still stands.

So a PE event means 50-100 thousand years, not overnight. Yeah, not millions of years, but still slow on a human time scale.

Long time scales do not necessarily equate with the gradual accrual of small cumulative changes.

Punctuated equilibrium is often portrayed to oppose the concept of gradualism, when it is actually a form of gradualism. This is because even though evolutionary change appears instantaneous between geological sedimentary layers, change is still occurring incrementally, with no great change from one generation to the next. To this end, Gould later commented that "Most of our paleontological colleagues missed this insight because they had not studied evolutionary theory and either did not know about allopatric speciation or had not considered its translation to geological time. Our evolutionary colleagues also failed to grasp the implication(s), primarily because they did not think at geological scales".

In the fourth edition (1866) of On the Origin of Species Darwin wrote that "the periods during which species have undergone modification, though long as measured in years, have probably been short in comparison with the periods during which they retain the same form." Thus punctuationism in general is consistent with Darwin's conception of evolution.

After much searching, I am now fairly sure that Darwin never wrote "the periods during which species have undergone modification, though long as measured in years, have probably been short in comparison with the periods during which they retain the same form." The quote is erroneous and only appears to exist online in posts and pages relating to Punctuated Equilibrium.

Despite your objections and justifications, the EES, contentious as it is, exists as proof of the inadequacies of the MES and earlier evolutionary concepts.

originally posted by: chr0naut
I didn't just posit that there was only a single possible explanation. I presented two that are diametrically opposed. One may have represented a bias but positing an opposite as well, clearly negates that bias.

No it doesn't, because the conversation was about the LACK of evidence for the existence of god. When I brought that up you responded with the rain putting out a fire story as if that counted as evidence. Sorry, but once again you are backtracking and changing the meaning of your posts. You love to do this after being called out on fallacious claims.

You tried to imply that because I have belief in God, that I am incapable of overcoming confirmation bias. I do have confirmation biases (as do you) but I am aware of them and they don't apply to everything I consider. There is nothing to say that because I have a confirmation bias, that it is a rule I use everywhere. I also reason, usually from a naturalistic and experiential standpoint.

I didn't imply that your belief in god made you incapable of overcoming confirmation bias. You used that as an example when arguing against my claim that there was not any testable evidence for god, hence showed bias in that particular instance.

You are just taking things out of context, playing semantics with that, and have not even advanced your argument one iota.

Says the guy that routinely changes the meaning of what he said in hindsight, continuously makes excuses, won't EVER admit when wrong and argues almost exclusively with semantics. My argument was that there is no objective evidence for god. That's literally it, and that point still stands. It's not my fault that you tried to argue against that and failed.

There are no part of rare random occurrences that are testable either (like advantageous random mutations, which are probable, evidenced for and reasonable, but not testable).

That's a complete lie. Advantageous mutations have been demonstrated numerous times. The lactose tolerance mutation in humans is one of those where the exact mutation has been isolated, just like the peppered moths that you love so much. How is that NOT testable? I fail to see the logic in saying that when they have mapped and analyzed the specific genomes and figured out exactly what genes are linked to what functions and show how they have specifically changed in comparing the 2 organisms. You literally believe that science is only applicable if you directly watch something happen live. Stop exploiting semantics. It's really getting old. Scientific observations are made on EVIDENCE. It's not just watching things.

Punctuated equilibrium, epigenetic change, saltationism/catastrophism and horizontal gene transfer are not testable? Get real.

You already tried to argue this lie. PE, HGT and epicgenitic changes are part of evolution, they aren't alternative theories.

Just because you say it doesn't make it true.

Then prove it, instead of repeating nonsense. If you think something I said in that paragraph is wrong, then demonstrate why instead of some vague dismissal like this. You clearly don't grasp inductive reasoning or how it is used in science.

You can apply inductive reasoning to almost all the various components of the 'Omega idea'.

Wrong. You can't run a single test that points to an "omega" concept. Not a single one. Name the inductive tests that point to this conclusion. Again, cherry picked things that don't conflict with it, are not evidence FOR it. There needs to be a direct testable connection, and you simply do not have this, so stop trying to compare complete guesses to scientific theories. It is completely dishonest.

Not at all, I don't know why you thought it would.

The post you quoted was explaining ad hominem and how I have not used it once. Please try actually following the conversation instead of going off on all these unrelated tangents.

Actually, if it doesn't conflict with anything we know, it does make the idea rational ('logical' has too vague a meaning) and valid.

No it doesn't. That just makes it a POSSIBILITY. I could just as easily say the universe exists as a microscopic fragment on the back of a giant turtle. That doesn't conflict with anything about the universe itself or the laws of physics. Inductive reasoning DOES NOT work that way.

That's just laughable. What did Darwin call his book?

LMAO! You really don't get it. I clearly explained it and once again your resort to silly semantics. Pathetic.

But PE means no gradualism.

Not universally. Jesus Christ! All you do is appeal to extremes. It's either ALL or NOTHING. You think there can't possibly be circumstances where one applies and other situations where the other one applies. WHY? Rnaa destroyed you on this point.

So are you implying that there was gradual genetic change occurring at the same time there was morphological stasis?

OF COURSE! Why would there not be gradual genetic change, just because the morphology stays relatively the same? Genetic changes do not stop, just because they are neutral to their survival in their current environment.

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: chr0nautI didn't just posit that there was only a single possible explanation. I presented two that are diametrically opposed. One may have represented a bias but positing an opposite as well, clearly negates that bias.

No it doesn't, because the conversation was about the LACK of evidence for the existence of god. When I brought that up you responded with the rain putting out a fire story as if that counted as evidence.

Look at the topic thread title.

As you said, you brought it up (the argument of 'the lack of evidence for the existence of God') in this thread.

You aren't even addressing the topic thread but are again pushing your off-topic line of argument.

Sorry, but once again you are backtracking and changing the meaning of your posts. You love to do this after being called out on fallacious claims.

How could I go back and change my posts after the 'edit time' has expired?

I will repeat, I never made those claims that you believe are fellacious. You came in to the topic thread without reading the posts I was replying to, you made some (false) assumptions about what you believed my argument was and you have consistently accused me of writing something that you made up entirely in your head.

What you keep claiming I said was entirely contrary to what I actually wrote, in both inference and fact.

I have provided links and proof of what I did actually write here in this post..

Your repeated libelous claims are an ad-hominem, an attack on my personal integrity rather than addressing the topics (because you have repeated the false accusation across a number of threads).

Your continued suggestion that my beliefs are absurd (without any specific explanation of what you find absurd, even when asked politely), is an ad-hominem, an attack on my personal integrity rather than addressing the topic.

When you wrote that you don't use ad-hominem, that is more of your BS because you most definitely have.

I have now complained to the ATS moderators as such false and libelous claims are clearly against ATS policy and you keep repeating them.

I will repost links to the proof of your outright defamatory lies every time you attempt to respond.

Jonathan Wells of UC Berkeley destroys a natural interpretation of evolution in 13:35