More proof of evolution!

Originally posted by melatonin

WARNING! Contains actual science. May be harmful to beliefs. READ AT OWN PERIL

Although I agree it does contain science, I don't see where any part of it is harmful to any beliefs...nor any peril.

What is your assessment and conclusions from this study?

Here are mine:
"(1) Fossils may be genuinely sparse; (2) dating may be wildly inaccurate; and (3) the intensity of collecting and study may be variable, so that important fossils may not have been collected or correctly identified"

I believe that answers your question to me asking why you're not able to find some fossils in a layer of strata.

[edit on 22-9-2006 by saint4God]

Originally posted by melatonin
As matty will tell you.

Hmmmm.... not sure how I should take this, mel. I thought we had a good relationship as far as online forums go. We practically never agree, but have managed to keep teh discussions we've had reasonably lighthearted and civil.

And suddenly you begin referring to me in the same disparaging way that Produkt does. What gives?

ID has no problem with common descent (although they would also have no problem if it was falsified, ID fits all because the pesky designer, who we're not interested in obviously, can work wonders).

While ID itself isn't dependent upon ToCD, if ToCD were some how falsified, lots of ID supporters, myself included, would be standing around scratching their heads wondering what in the heck just happened, just like that average evolutionary scientist. I could be wrong, but I somehow don't think disproving ToCD would produce the same reaction in the ID camp that it wouldn't in the creationist camp. Certainly many many individuals within the movement, including myself, Behe, the entire crew at TelicThoughts, Gonzalez, JDavison, and a bunch of others would be at a loss, an and more or less in the same boat as the evolutionary scientists.

Originally posted by mattison0922

Originally posted by melatonin
As matty will tell you.

Hmmmm.... not sure how I should take this, mel. I thought we had a good relationship as far as online forums go. We practically never agree, but have managed to keep teh discussions we've had reasonably lighthearted and civil.

And suddenly you begin referring to me in the same disparaging way that Produkt does. What gives?

Ahh, no. Don't take it negatively. Saint brought you into the discussion earlier, stating how you see the same problems with ToE as he. I doubt this is true, particularly as I gather you believe mutations are possibly directed, Saint seems to deny they even exist.

You mention me occasionally (e.g. that I would claim mutations are random etc) in your posts, I don't take it negatively, I actually find it funny and to be referred to is a sign of respect.

So, please don't see it as disparaging. If you didn't like me using 'matty', I won't in future, I just use 'mattison', 'matt', 'matty', 'that crazy ID guy' (J/K), interchangeably.

Originally posted by melatonin
Ahh, no. Don't take it negatively.
[snip]

You mention me occasionally ... I actually find to be referred to is a sign of respect.


So, please don't see it as disparaging. If you didn't like me using 'matty', I won't in future, I just use 'mattison', 'matt', 'matty', 'that crazy ID guy' (J/K), interchangeably.

'nuff said.

And you're correct about my references to you.

[edit on 23-9-2006 by mattison0922]

Originally posted by saint4God
What is your assessment and conclusions from this study?

Here are mine:
"(1) Fossils may be genuinely sparse; (2) dating may be wildly inaccurate; and (3) the intensity of collecting and study may be variable, so that important fossils may not have been collected or correctly identified"

I believe that answers your question to me asking why you're not able to find some fossils in a layer of strata.

[edit on 22-9-2006 by saint4God]

Well thanks for actually reading the article in some way. Quite an interesting way to assess a scientific article though - completely miss the author's aims and cherry-pick something you think fits your view (i.e. quote-mine?). I hope the freshers under my wing next week will see the error of such an approach. Normal procedure for many creationists I gather.

I mentioned it earlier. If you actually read the paper and understood their aims, rather than cherry-picking part of the discussion as to why some phylogenies are not as congruent as others with the stratiographic data, then you would know why they raise the issue. They are talking about the fine details where some errors in collection, dating of individual species would have a large effect on the analysis, not the large details of complete absence of tetrapods, land plants etc in certain strata, a period of nearly 200 million years for tetrapods - i.e. cambrian to latter devonian. In this period, not one tetrapod fossil, not even a single bone suggesting they existed. Then poof! There they are. Well it's not poof really, we see the transition from fish to tetrapod, like the spectacular Tiktaalik.

I found another paper you would like. It has all your favourite themes - speciation, hybridisation, mutation (or the fantasy they don't exist). I thought it would be a change from the archetypal bacteria monoculture evidence of mutation.

Have a read. I'll find it interesting to see how you analyse this paper...

Ensatina Ring Species

This is just the abstract, but as you're an undergrad, you should have insititutional access to the whole article.

Strong selection against hybrids at a hybrid zone in the Ensatina ring species complex and its evolutionary implications.

Alexandrino J, Baird SJ, Lawson L, Macey JR, Moritz C, Wake DB.

Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, University of California, Berkeley, 3101 Valley Life Science Building 3160, Berkeley, California 94720-3160, USA. [email protected]

The analysis of interactions between lineages at varying levels of genetic divergence can provide insights into the process of speciation through the accumulation of incompatible mutations. Ring species, and especially the Ensatina eschscholtzii system exemplify this approach. The plethodontid salamanders E. eschscholtzii xanthoptica and E. eschscholtzii platensis hybridize in the central Sierran foothills of California. We compared the genetic structure across two transects (southern and northern Calaveras Co.), one of which was resampled over 20 years, and examined diagnostic molecular markers (eight allozyme loci and mitochondrial DNA) and a diagnostic quantitative trait (color pattern). Key results across all studies were: (1) cline centers for all markers were coincident and the zones were narrow, with width estimates of 730 m to 2000 m; (2) cline centers at the northern Calaveras transect were coincident between 1981 and 2001, demonstrating repeatability over five generations; (3) there were very few if any putative F1s, but a relatively high number of backcrossed individuals in the central portion of transects; and (4) we found substantial linkage disequilibrium in all three studies and strong heterozygote deficit both in northern Calaveras, in 2001, and southern Calaveras. Both linkage disequilibrium and heterozygote deficit showed maximum values near the center of the zones. Using estimates of cline width and dispersal, we infer strong selection against hybrids. This is sufficient to promote accumulation of differences at loci that are neutral or under divergent selection, but would still allow for introgression of adaptive alleles. The evidence for strong but incomplete isolation across this centrally located contact is consistent with theory suggesting a gradual increase in postzygotic incompatibility between allopatric populations subject to divergent selection and reinforces the value of Ensatina as a system for the study of divergence and speciation at multiple stages.

My assessment:

Here we have a process of speciation underway (incipient). We have a species spread across a geographical range with a well-defined hybrid zone and two subspecies. Comparisons of genetic data collected over the last twenty years suggests genetic divergence of two sub-species caused by mutation and selction pressure. The two 'ends' of the ring species show incompatability with restrcted gene flow between these groups via the hybrid zone (and these hybrids are selected against). The genetic divergence shows increasing genetic diversity and that pre-existing allele frequency changes are insufficient to explain this increasing genetic divergence.

Given, this is not complete speciation. However, this is the process being observed.

Now I expect you to try to pull this back to an argument of defintion of species etc, but can we get over the semantics. We can define it whatever way you want, as long as it reasonable. What I'm interested in here is the evidence of mutations/new alleles due to differing selection pressures that are resulting in genetic incompatability between two subspecies.

[edit on 24-9-2006 by melatonin]

Originally posted by melatonin
Well thanks for actually reading the article in some way. Quite an interesting way to assess a scientific article though - completely miss the author's aims and cherry-pick something you think fits your view (i.e. quote-mine?).

I did mention also it was an interesting read and did learn some things as well...or are you cherry-picking that information. I brought up the point I was hoping you'd be willing to address.

Originally posted by melatonin
I hope the freshers under my wing next week will see the error of such an approach. Normal procedure for many creationists I gather.

This wasn't the only line in that article with such a disclaimer. There was one in the beginning but I'm willing to forego it for the sake of progress. I know you didn't write the article and would hold you to the same criticisms as the author. That would be unfair. I only wish to gauge what on God's green earth you'd gotten out of it and why the author needed to double-back many times throughout it. I believe it's a pioneering work. Fine. But don't preach it as gospel truth.

Originally posted by melatonin
I mentioned it earlier. If you actually read the paper and understood their aims, rather than cherry-picking part of the discussion

Accusation #2. I get your points the first time, you don't need to repeat them.

Originally posted by melatonin
as to why some phylogenies are not as congruent as others with the stratiographic data, then you would know why they raise the issue. They are talking about the fine details where some errors in collection, dating of individual species would have a large effect on the analysis, not the large details of complete absence of tetrapods, land plants etc in certain strata, a period of nearly 200 million years for tetrapods - i.e. cambrian to latter devonian. In this period, not one tetrapod fossil, not even a single bone suggesting they existed. Then poof! There they are. Well it's not poof really, we see the transition from fish to tetrapod, like the spectacular Tiktaalik.

We see beliefs and assumptions, not proof. Mechanism please.

Originally posted by melatonin
I found another paper you would like. It has all your favourite themes - speciation, hybridisation, mutation (or the fantasy they don't exist).

Where did I say mutation does not exist? It looks to me you're reading what you want to hear.

Originally posted by melatonin
I thought it would be a change from the archetypal bacteria monoculture evidence of mutation.

Have a read. I'll find it interesting to see how you analyse this paper...

Ensatina Ring Species

This is just the abstract, but as you're an undergrad

What's this supposed to mean? Do you have a Bachelor's degree in Biology with a concentration in Genetics or Ecology? I really don't like having a credential slap-fight. But, anyone WITH credentials should know better. The truth is the truth bar-none. I respect people who have taken the personal and professional interest to make this their life-long study but it gives them no right to say they're better than anyone else or speak to another person in a demeaning manner.

Originally posted by melatonin
, you should have insititutional access to the whole article.

How about answering some of my questions before assigning me more homework?

Originally posted by melatonin

Strong selection against hybrids at a hybrid zone in the Ensatina ring species complex and its evolutionary implications.

Alexandrino J, Baird SJ, Lawson L, Macey JR, Moritz C, Wake DB.

Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, University of California, Berkeley, 3101 Valley Life Science Building 3160, Berkeley, California 94720-3160, USA. [email protected]

The analysis of interactions between lineages at varying levels of genetic divergence can provide insights into the process of speciation through the accumulation of incompatible mutations. Ring species, and especially the Ensatina eschscholtzii system exemplify this approach. The plethodontid salamanders E. eschscholtzii xanthoptica and E. eschscholtzii platensis hybridize in the central Sierran foothills of California. We compared the genetic structure across two transects (southern and northern Calaveras Co.), one of which was resampled over 20 years, and examined diagnostic molecular markers (eight allozyme loci and mitochondrial DNA) and a diagnostic quantitative trait (color pattern). Key results across all studies were: (1) cline centers for all markers were coincident and the zones were narrow, with width estimates of 730 m to 2000 m; (2) cline centers at the northern Calaveras transect were coincident between 1981 and 2001, demonstrating repeatability over five generations; (3) there were very few if any putative F1s, but a relatively high number of backcrossed individuals in the central portion of transects; and (4) we found substantial linkage disequilibrium in all three studies and strong heterozygote deficit both in northern Calaveras, in 2001, and southern Calaveras. Both linkage disequilibrium and heterozygote deficit showed maximum values near the center of the zones. Using estimates of cline width and dispersal, we infer strong selection against hybrids. This is sufficient to promote accumulation of differences at loci that are neutral or under divergent selection, but would still allow for introgression of adaptive alleles. The evidence for strong but incomplete isolation across this centrally located contact is consistent with theory suggesting a gradual increase in postzygotic incompatibility between allopatric populations subject to divergent selection and reinforces the value of Ensatina as a system for the study of divergence and speciation at multiple stages.

Didn't I already mention this? Pardon if I didn't say "Ensatina eschscholtzii" specifically.

Originally posted by melatonin
My assessment:

Here we have a process of speciation underway (incipient). We have a species spread across a geographical range with a well-defined hybrid zone and two subspecies. Comparisons of genetic data collected over the last twenty years suggests genetic divergence of two sub-species caused by mutation and selction pressure. The two 'ends' of the ring species show incompatability with restrcted gene flow between these groups via the hybrid zone (and these hybrids are selected against). The genetic divergence shows increasing genetic diversity and that pre-existing allele frequency changes are insufficient to explain this increasing genetic divergence.

Given, this is not complete speciation. However, this is the process being observed.

Now I expect you to try to pull this back to an argument of defintion of species etc,

If my response is anticipated, I'm not sure why we're bothering to discuss.

Originally posted by melatonin
but can we get over the semantics. We can define it whatever way you want, as long as it reasonable.

Surely.

Originally posted by melatonin
What I'm interested in here is the evidence of mutations/new alleles due to differing selection pressures that are resulting in genetic incompatability between two subspecies.

Ecology would be your bag then. Those are the assumptions being made in the class that I'm in. Fortunately Ecology survives because they cling to a truth which is this: The frequency of existing alleles shift over time and can be studied via changes in biotic and abiotic systems.

[edit on 25-9-2006 by saint4God]

Originally posted by saint4God
I did mention also it was an interesting read and did learn some things as well...or are you cherry-picking that information. I brought up the point I was hoping you'd be willing to address.

This wasn't the only line in that article with such a disclaimer. There was one in the beginning but I'm willing to forego it for the sake of progress. I know you didn't write the article and would hold you to the same criticisms as the author. That would be unfair. I only wish to gauge what on God's green earth you'd gotten out of it and why the author needed to double-back many times throughout it. I believe it's a pioneering work. Fine. But don't preach it as gospel truth.

Accusation #2. I get your points the first time, you don't need to repeat them.

We see beliefs and assumptions, not proof. Mechanism please.

That article doesn't contain a mechanism. The article assesses exactly what it claims to, the congruence between phylogeny and stratiography. It shows that around 75% of the clades are highly congruent with the stratiography. If there was no progression as shown via the phylogeny, we would not expect this. Some clades have 100% congruence. This supports common descent.

The part you cherry-picked to support a previous claim of yours, was attempting to show why some clades are not so congruent. That was its context. And I answered your cherry-picking of this article in the previous post.

Where did I say mutation does not exist? It looks to me you're reading what you want to hear.

From earlier posts...

Originally posted by melatonin
We also have evidence of novel genes. Do you not remember the actual scientific articles I posted for you. Then you disappeared...

Do you remember what I had to say about barriers of naturally occuring mutations? I apparently have not disappeared, I am here and have been for a number of years.

Originally posted by melatonin
I also thought you denied the existence of mutations? This article accepts them, even beneficial mutations. Why can they not account for macroevolution?

Okay, since we're choosing to ignore prezygotic mechanisms that prevent mutated critters from reproducing, let's look at the postzygotic mechanisms:

- Sterility
- Breakdown
- Inviability

Again, we're assuming those 6 prezygotic mechanisms have magically been overcome somehow.

If you believe that mutations do exist, why did you not say so? These quotes suggest a natural barrier to mutations that would stop their expression and utilisation for ToE. Mutation is the mechanism proposed. I have already said there are correction mechanisms, but they are not 100% perfect, like the replication.

Even your own reference accepted the existence of beneficial mutations. The title was suggesting why genetics does not support ToE. Mutations are a fundamental mechanism of ToE. I have given evidence of them.

What's this supposed to mean? Do you have a Bachelor's degree in Biology with a concentration in Genetics or Ecology? I really don't like having a credential slap-fight. But, anyone WITH credentials should know better. The truth is the truth bar-none. I respect people who have taken the personal and professional interest to make this their life-long study but it gives them no right to say they're better than anyone else or speak to another person in a demeaning manner.

How about answering some of my questions before assigning me more homework?

The article contains evidence of mutations underlying speciation. I have answered your questions, the mechanism is genetic change over time, mutation producing new alleles, descent with modification. Phenotype can be changed by genotype, genotype can be changed by mutation and new alleles. Macroevolution is large changes in phenotype.

THAT IS THE MECHANISM PROPOSED. Now where is the barrier?

I have produced two papers that contain evidence of novel genes and alleles that support my claims. One above in the context of speciation, one a review of the evidence of novel genes in the other thread (use the reference, like science students are taught, and find the article).

The previous section meant exactly what it stated. As an undergrad, which I gather you are, you will have institutional access to scientific journals. Via this, you can get the whole article, is there anything demeaning there? I don't even have a high school qualification in biology, you are probably more qualified than me in biology. But as you say, credentials are not important, the evidence is.

Didn't I already mention this? Pardon if I didn't say "Ensatina eschscholtzii" specifically.

If my response is anticipated, I'm not sure why we're bothering to discuss.

What? You mentioned how mutation is important to the process of speciation? I don't think so.

I just see no point in focusing on definitions, if you want progression, as you claim. We can define species as exhibiting complete reproductive isolation or a degree of extremely restricted gene flow. Either works and both are used.

Originally posted by melatonin
What I'm interested in here is the evidence of mutations/new alleles due to differing selection pressures that are resulting in genetic incompatability between two subspecies.

Ecology would be your bag then. Those are the assumptions being made in the class that I'm in. Fortunately Ecology survives because they cling to a truth which is this: The frequency of existing alleles shift over time and can be studied via changes in biotic and abiotic systems.

[edit on 25-9-2006 by saint4God]

Forget about your class.

The article contains molecular and genetic evidence of mutations mediating speciation. This is the same mechanism that underlies macroevolution. Mutations producing new alleles that change genotype, that can change phenotype, that can accumulate to first produce speciation, then with enough time, macroevolution.

It is now for you to show the barrier to macroevolution. I have proposed the mechanism, it is based in genetics, the environment interacts.

You can keep telling yourself I have not provided a mechanism. It is above, in many posts previously, in articles I have posted, and in your own link.

[edit on 25-9-2006 by melatonin]

Originally posted by melatonin
That article doesn't contain a mechanism.

Bingo. And the reason is, we don't know of one. We can't even imagine one. This is why someone who has a love of genetics has an issue with big-bully Ecology comes pushing down the block using muscle instead of mind.

Originally posted by melatonin
The article assesses exactly what it claims to, the congruence between phylogeny and stratiography. It shows that around 75% of the clades are highly congruent with the stratiography. If there was no progression as shown via the phylogeny, we would not expect this. Some clades have 100% congruence.

Some tests on some geology. Great. Now, when we can talk about how the biology changes then I think we may be getting in the ballpark of the thread topic.

Originally posted by melatonin
This supports common descent.

That's quite a jump.

Originally posted by melatonin
The part you cherry-picked to support a previous claim of yours, was attempting to show why some clades are not so congruent. That was its context. And I answered your cherry-picking of this article

I'm done. Sick of the repeated accusation of "cherry-picking" said twice more here. It sounds to me you love that phrase, make no move towards a progressive discussion and are quite content in your repetitive world. Unless you have something new to bring to the table, there's no point in discussing further. Enjoy the daydream that the evidence against hobbit-people does not exist and enjoy the silence.

[edit on 25-9-2006 by saint4God]

Originally posted by saint4God

Originally posted by melatonin
That article doesn't contain a mechanism.

Bingo. And the reason is, we don't know of one. We can't even imagine one. This is why someone who has a love of genetics has an issue with big-bully Ecology comes pushing down the block using muscle instead of mind.

What are you on about?

That particular article is not about any mechanism. It is focusing on exactly what the title suggests - congruence between stratiography and phylogeny.

"we can't even imagine one" - now that is just so funny.

Originally posted by melatonin
The article assesses exactly what it claims to, the congruence between phylogeny and stratiography. It shows that around 75% of the clades are highly congruent with the stratiography. If there was no progression as shown via the phylogeny, we would not expect this. Some clades have 100% congruence.

Some tests on some geology. Great. Now, when we can talk about how the biology changes then I think we may be getting in the ballpark of the thread topic.

I have done so repeatedly, metaphorically putting your fingers in ears and repeating "laalalalaalala" will not help you see that though.

Originally posted by melatonin
This supports common descent.

That's quite a jump.

It does, no jumping required. If there was no phylogeny then it would be very unlikely to show congruence with the stratiography by chance.

Originally posted by melatonin
The part you cherry-picked to support a previous claim of yours, was attempting to show why some clades are not so congruent. That was its context. And I answered your cherry-picking of this article

I'm done. Sick of the repeated accusation of "cherry-picking" said twice more here. It sounds to me you love that phrase, make no move towards a progressive discussion and are quite content in your repetitive world. Enjoy the daydream that the evidence against hobbit-people does not exist and enjoy the silence.

[edit on 25-9-2006 by saint4God]

What are you on about?

There is a debate about those fossils. It is in no way resolved. Whether they are a distinct species or not, will have no great effect on the multitude of evidence that supports ToE.

You are forcing my repetition. You claim I proposed no mechanism, I have repeatedly done so numerous times myself with supporting articles. You claimed I did not answer other particular points you raised, I did.

I think Drew Weston's recent study is spot on, cognitive and emotional block to information conflicting with pre-existing beliefs. So, I suppose we found a barrier to your information processing but we still have no barrier to macroevolution

Fine Saint, hope your alleged science course goes well, I'd take those fingers out your ears though...

[edit on 25-9-2006 by melatonin]

Originally posted by melatonin
What are you on about?

That particular article...

What are you on about?

There is a debate about...

The article I'd linked before discusses why Genetics and Ecology don't really get along. I'm not going to be repetitive also.

Originally posted by melatonin
I have done so repeatedly, metaphorically putting your fingers in ears and repeating "laalalalaalala" will not help you see that though.

Fine Saint, hope your alleged science course goes well, I'd take those fingers out your ears though...

More repetition.

Originally posted by melatonin
You are forcing my repetition.

I have forced nothing.

Originally posted by melatonin
I think Drew Weston's recent study is spot on, cognitive and emotional block to information conflicting with pre-existing beliefs.

So, I suppose we found a barrier to your information processing but we still have no barrier to macroevolution

Still spouting same stuff but with different words. It would be difficult to say you're being repetitive while at the same time not listening.

"There is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument. The reason is that statements about ancestry and descent are not applicable in the fossil record." - Colin Patterson, Senior Paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History and editor of a prestigious scientific journal. Patterson is a well-known expert having an intimate knowledge of the fossil record.

I got to visit that museum in June. Impressive and very similar to the Smithsonian in D.C.

[edit on 25-9-2006 by saint4God]

Originally posted by saint4God
The article I'd linked before discusses why Genetics and Ecology don't really get along. I'm not going to be repetitive also.

You mean the article that accepts that beneficial mutations do exist, provides examples of them, how they can increase fitness, and accepts natural selection?

Yeah, genetics and ecology don't get along. The article doesn't even mention at any point that ecology and genetics cannot work together, it discusses no such thing. Read the title, read your own article.

I have forced nothing.

So, repeatedly asking for a mechanism, and denying I have provided one, that I have outlined and provided evidence for numerous times does not force me to repeat that mechanism.....ummmm....OK.

Still spouting same stuff but with different words. It would be difficult to say you're being repetitive while at the same time not listening.

[edit on 25-9-2006 by saint4God]

Oh, no, no. I am listening to you, I am learning a lot about you saint, psychologists have a habit of taking their job home.

Cheers

ABE: yeah we would be stupid to make a conclusion from a single fossil (just like taking the opinion of a single scientist as law, or even taking a book written by uneducated goat-herders as true), however, when the evidence is taken together, with all the other data collected. We can, and do, make a conclusion. That's science.

Oh, look what I found. More quote-mining...

Dear Mr Theunissen,
Sorry to have taken so long to answer your letter of July 9th. I was away for a while, and then infernally busy. I seem fated continually to make a fool of myself with creationists. The specific quote you mention, from a letter to Sunderland dated 10th April 1979, is accurate as far as it goes. The passage quoted continues "... a watertight argument. The reason is that statements about ancestry and descent are not applicable in the fossil record. Is Archaeopteryx the ancestor of all birds? Perhaps yes, perhaps no: there is no way of answering the question. It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages should be favoured by natural selection. But such stories are not part of science, for there is no way to put them to the test."

I think the continuation of the passage shows clearly that your interpretation (at the end of your letter) is correct, and the creationists' is false.

That brush with Sunderland (I had never heard of him before) was my first experience of creationists. The famous "keynote address" at the American Museum of Natural History in 1981 was nothing of the sort. It was a talk to the "Systematics Discussion Group" in the Museum, an (extremely) informal group. I had been asked to talk to them on "Evolutionism and creationism"; fired up by a paper by Ernst Mayr published in Science just the week before. I gave a fairly rumbustious talk, arguing that the theory of evolution had done more harm than good to biological systematics (classification). Unknown to me, there was a creationist in the audience with a hidden tape recorder. So much the worse for me. But my talk was addressed to professional systematists, and concerned systematics, nothing else.

I hope that by now I have learned to be more circumspect in dealing with creationists, cryptic or overt. But I still maintain that scepticism is the scientist's duty, however much the stance may expose us to ridicule.

Yours Sincerely,

[signed]

Colin Patterson

www.talkorigins.org...




[edit on 25-9-2006 by melatonin]

Originally posted by melatonin
I am listening to you, I am learning a lot about you saint, psychologists have a habit of taking their job home.

Cheers

It should be clear then that I've been listening to you and all the information you've posted.

Glad I could assist as being a part of your job. It does make sense now, that this is some sort of game upon me as you'd mentioned before playing a game. It's just that I've found something better to do than "play".

I had no idea a psychologist would find it acceptable to prematurely make assumptive analyses of both subject matters and their "work", so I suppose I've learned a bit myself. I'm always interested in learning more about myself though, so certainly any things you can tell me about me I'm more than interested. Like, who my mother was, where I grew up, the experiences I've had, what specifically I've studied besides what I've mentioned, what my motivations are, etc. Since I'm already part of your work as a unknowing, unwilling "freebie" perhaps we can analyse these results together. But, should be for another thread. I'm sure there are others who are interested in the topic of hobbits, why they don't exist, and why science is presumptiously wishing to stake claim on this faith of transpecies evolution.

[edit on 25-9-2006 by saint4God]

Originally posted by saint4God
Glad I could assist as being a part of your job. I had no idea a psychologist would find it acceptable to prematurely make assumptive analyses of both subject matters and their "work", so I suppose I've learned a bit myself. I'm always interested in learning more about myself though, so certainly any things you can tell me about me I'm more than interested. Like, who my mother was, where I grew up, the experiences I've had, what specifically I've studied besides what I've mentioned, what my motivations are, etc. Since I'm already part of your work as a "freebie" perhaps we can analyse these results together. But, should be for another thread. I'm sure there are others who are interested in the topic of hobbits, why they don't exist, and why science is presumptiously wishing to stake claim on this faith of transpecies evolution.

[edit on 25-9-2006 by saint4God]

No need for the thanks, we all use behaviour to form conclusions. I just found it interesting enough to take it to another level.

Hobbits don't exist.

They are a fictional species, short hairy-footed folk from a series of books about middle-earth written by J.R.R. Tolkein. You really should treat written stories with a little more scepticism....

ABE: well if you were listening/reading, you were quite selective as to what you processed. To ask for something with a claim it was not offered, when in fact, provided repeatedly, does make me question your motives here.

ABE2: Saint, only you have played a game in this thread, defintion games, fingers in ears games, quote-mining games.

[edit on 25-9-2006 by melatonin]

Originally posted by melatonin
They are a fictional species, they are short hairy-footed folk from a series of books about middle-earth written by J.R.R. Tolkein. You really should treat written stories with a little more scepticism....

And yet we were perfectly willing to accept them as a "natural part of our evolution" because of some nutrient deficient bones we'd dug up. See topic. This pattern repeats itself in the hypothesis of evolution.

[edit on 25-9-2006 by saint4God]

Originally posted by saint4God

Originally posted by melatonin
They are a fictional species, they are short hairy-footed folk from a series of books about middle-earth written by J.R.R. Tolkein. You really should treat written stories with a little more scepticism....

And yet we were perfectly willing to accept them as a "natural part of our evolution" because of some nutrient deficient bones we'd dug up. See topic. This pattern repeats itself in the hypothesis of evolution.

[edit on 25-9-2006 by saint4God]

Whoooooooosh.

I'm not getting into another discussion with you, after the last one went so pear-shaped as patterns do repeat themselves. But I thought the other hypothesis was that Homo floresiensis were humans suffering from microencephaly?

Microencephaly is caused by a mutated gene, maybe that's why you would prefer it was a nutritional defect.

[edit on 25-9-2006 by melatonin]

Originally posted by melatonin
Microencephaly is caused by a mutated gene, maybe that's why you would prefer it was a nutritional defect.

Not my words so I don't have a "preference". Argue with the scientists who report this hobbit-like human business is not evolution. As I said, I'm done.

[edit on 25-9-2006 by saint4God]

Originally posted by saint4God

Originally posted by melatonin
Microencephaly is caused by a mutated gene, maybe that's why you would prefer it was a nutritional defect.

Not my words so I don't have a "preference". Argue with the scientists who report this hobbit-like human business is not evolution. As I said, I'm done.

[edit on 25-9-2006 by saint4God]

I'll just read what they actually have to say...

WASHINGTON (AP)—The surprising discovery of bones heralded as a new, hobbit-like human species may turn out to have simply been the remains of a human suffering from a genetic illness that causes the body and brain to shrink, according to researchers challenging the original report.
The bones were discovered in 2003 on the Indonesian island of Flores and caused a stir in the scientific community when researchers declared they represented a new, dwarf, species which they named Homo floresiensis.

Because of its tiny stature it was quickly dubbed the "Hobbit,'' from the creature in the books by J.R.R. Tolkien.

Some scientists questioned whether it was really a new species, however, and Robert D. Martin of the Field Museum in Chicago and co-authors challenge the original classification in a technical comment appearing in Friday's issue of the journal Science.

They say that, instead, it appears to be a modern human suffering from microencephaly, a genetic disorder that results in small brain size and other defects. Other researchers also have proposed this explanation.

www.livescience.com...



[edit on 25-9-2006 by melatonin]

Looks like the right quote to me. Remember, I never said that mutations do not exist. It is clear though that nature has innumerable corrective mechanisms to ensure successive generations do not continue abnormal change up to and including stabilizing selection and the Hardy-Weinberg Principle among others. In addition, genetic variance can only carry as far as the the possible combinations within a gene for organisms. Adenine, Thymine, Guanine, and Cytosine. You don't get a 5th building block, sorry. Four, that's it! So you can only have the the number of combinations within those variances of the four nitrogenous bases. All organisms are hard-coded within that DNA with various on/off switches of different traits and a range inbetween. For example the range of hair color pigmentation goes from observed black to blond with ranges of red and brown inbetween. We will not meet someone born with naturally green hair. Sorry. And, if by the magical faith of evolution one were to culminate, overcoming all the previous barriers that would prevent such a thing, there are even MORE barriers to prevent such defect from continuing on. In any case, I should stop as I had said I should.

Looking back on the thread, I apologize if anything I said was taken personally in any negative manner, as that's not the intent. Otherwise, I've meant what I've said.

[edit on 26-9-2006 by saint4God]

Originally posted by saint4God
Looks like the right quote to me. Remember, I never said that mutations do not exist. It is clear though that nature has innumerable corrective mechanisms to ensure successive generations do not continue abnormal change up to and including stabilizing selection and the Hardy-Weinberg Principle among others. In addition, genetic variance can only carry as far as the the possible combinations within a gene for organisms. Adenine, Thymine, Guanine, and Cytosine. You don't get a 5th building block, sorry. Four, that's it! So you can only have the the number of combinations within those variances of the four nitrogenous bases. All organisms are hard-coded within that DNA with various on/off switches of different traits and a range inbetween. For example the range of hair color pigmentation goes from observed black to blond with ranges of red and brown inbetween. We will not meet someone born with naturally green hair. Sorry. And, if by the magical faith of evolution one were to culminate, overcoming all the previous barriers that would prevent such a thing, there are even MORE barriers to prevent such defect from continuing on. In any case, I should stop as I had said I should.

Looking back on the thread, I apologize if anything I said was taken personally in any negative manner, as that's not the intent. Otherwise, I've meant what I've said.

[edit on 26-9-2006 by saint4God]

Apology accepted and offered from moi

Hopefully you now know we do have a proposed mechanism, if you think it is insufficient, that's your business but if you think genetics shows mutations are not available as a mechanism for ToE, you are mistaken.

We don't need a fifth nucleotide though, there is enough genetic possibilities from DNA. Look around at the range of species and morphologies to see that, all from four nucleotides.

[edit on 26-9-2006 by melatonin]

It seems there is new controversy surrounding the taxonomical classification of Lucy as A. afarensis

From the article on ScienceDaily.com

He explained that the problem is that "Lucy" and this child specimen from Dikika have been placed in Australopithecus afarensis, which is not from Ethiopia but from Laetoli, a site in Tanzania thousands of kilometers to the south. But while other specimens from Laetoli are similar to this specimen, defined as A. afarensis, a recent study of virtually all the fossils from Lucy's region of Hadar by Schwartz and Ian Tattersall, curator of anthropology at the American Museum of Natural History in New York, has revealed that none is similar in detail to the fossils from Laetoli.

"This means, of course, that no Hadar specimen is A. afarensis," said Schwartz...

"Since the chewing surfaces of the Dikika child's teeth have not yet been exposed, one cannot compare it with any of the Hadar specimens or with the type specimen of A. afarensis from Laetoli," Schwarz explained. "Until this can be done, one cannot tell whether the Dikika child really is the first specimen of Ethiopian A. afarensis or, if not, whether it compares favorably with one of the hominids from Hadar or it represents a different taxon altogether."

[edit on 3-10-2006 by ozcore]