Denial of Evolution V

Discussion in 'Biology & Genetics' started by Hercules Rockefeller, Mar 7, 2012.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. leopold Valued Senior Member

    have you ever thought about being nice, or is the concept foreign to you?
    you could have told me to correct or retract the post in question or risk a warning.
    but nooooo, hell no.
    you are hell bent on giving me infractions, bans, and warnings.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. billvon Valued Senior Member

    You recently posted:

    wake your lazy asses up.
    . . .
    fuck your god and fuck your theory, THAT'S the attitude you must take.

    The crocodile tears over people not "being nice" to you would be more believable if you didn't post things like that.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Here ya go.

    5.3.1 Drosophila paulistorum

    Dobzhansky and Pavlovsky (1971) reported a speciation event that occurred in a laboratory culture of Drosophila paulistorum sometime between 1958 and 1963. The culture was descended from a single inseminated female that was captured in the Llanos of Colombia.

    . . .

    5.3.5 Sympatric Speciation in Drosophila melanogaster

    In a series of papers (Rice 1985, Rice and Salt 1988 and Rice and Salt 1990) Rice and Salt presented experimental evidence for the possibility of sympatric speciation. They started from the premise that whenever organisms sort themselves into the environment first and then mate locally, individuals with the same habitat preferences will necessarily mate assortatively. They established a stock population of D. melanogaster with flies collected in an orchard near Davis, California. Pupae from the culture were placed into a habitat maze. Newly emerged flies had to negotiate the maze to find food. The maze simulated several environmental gradients simultaneously. The flies had to make three choices of which way to go. The first was between light and dark (phototaxis). The second was between up and down (geotaxis). The last was between the scent of acetaldehyde and the scent of ethanol (chemotaxis). This divided the flies among eight habitats. The flies were further divided by the time of day of emergence. In total the flies were divided among 24 spatio-temporal habitats.

    They next cultured two strains of flies that had chosen opposite habitats. One strain emerged early, flew upward and was attracted to dark and acetaldehyde. The other emerged late, flew downward and was attracted to light and ethanol. Pupae from these two strains were placed together in the maze. They were allowed to mate at the food site and were collected. Eye color differences between the strains allowed Rice and Salt to distinguish between the two strains. A selective penalty was imposed on flies that switched habitats. Females that switched habitats were destroyed. None of their gametes passed into the next generation. Males that switched habitats received no penalty. After 25 generations of this mating tests showed reproductive isolation between the two strains. Habitat specialization was also produced.

    They next repeated the experiment without the penalty against habitat switching. The result was the same -- reproductive isolation was produced.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    Have you ever thought about being honest, or is the concept foreign to you?
  8. Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    That's awesome

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  9. leopold Valued Senior Member

    how on earth can you force a teacher to say something isn't a fact when indeed it is?
    there is NO WAY you would force me to do such a thing.

    these "gaps" should be explicitly spelled out.
    how can this be so if evolution is a dyed in the wool fact?
    remember, these are the teachers that spent the most time teaching evolution.
    you don't see a problem here?

    anything else you want me to comment on?

    Last edited: May 4, 2012
  10. leopold Valued Senior Member

    i am being as honest as i can be.

    oh, i get it, you want me to join the goose stepping status quo.

    the fossil record does not support what i was taught in school.
    dr. ayala put it even plainer.
  11. Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    This, right here, is precisely what I'm talking about.

    Bollocks. Alternatively, maybe evolutionary theory itself has evolved since you were last in grade-school. As theories tend to when new evidence comes to light.

    I only if we accept your twisted out of context misrepresentation of Ayala's words.
  12. leopold Valued Senior Member

    my twisted version?
    don't forget that HR has full access to the article in question.
    i'm positive HR would be only too willing to give me an infraction, or at the very least a warning, if i misrepresented him.
    so, go away.
    Last edited: May 4, 2012
  13. Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    [citation needed]
  14. Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    Do you mean this retraction?

    The one where he says, among other things:
    I don't know how Roger Lewin could have gotten in his notes the quotation he attributes to me. I presented a paper/lecture and spoke at various times from the floor, but I could not possibly have said (at least as a complete sentence) what Lewin attributes to me. In fact, I don't know what it means. How could small changes NOT accumulate! In any case, virtually all my evolutionary research papers evidence that small (genetic) changes do accumulate.

    Or were you refering to something else?
  15. leopold Valued Senior Member

    the source was "science".
    the source retracted nothing.
  16. Aqueous Id flat Earth skeptic Valued Senior Member

    Ah, good, we're finally getting to the text of your source. *whew * (mops brow)
    13% admit to believing Ussher's view of creation. They're pushovers. 60% admit that God directed evolution. They probably don't need too much persuasion. The rest may accept the risk of retaliation and buck, or quit. They can be replaced by creationists. (A new niche opens.)
    in that case maybe you should consider teaching biology
    What do you mean, to the teachers? They presumably have already taken geology and understand it. Or are you asking about it
    That's two questions: (1) is evolution a fact and (2) how can teachers deny evolution. What do experts, such as the National Academies, say about (1), and what does Berkman say about (2), and how do you address those positions?
    13% of whom adhere to Ussher, 60% of whom follow ID
    I see prima facie evidence of the teaching of religion in the public school science class. Don't you?
    Several pages ago you introduced this study as an argument against evolution. We ran a steeplechase to get to this moment where you are inside the text. All along I've been trying to understand you. Now we're here and you seem uninterested in the main point of Berkman's findings. What does it mean to you? What are the creationist teachers doing, according to Berkman? How does this central theme of theirs dovetail with your own ideas about natural history, the theory of evolution, the school curricula in evolution, and response of experts (such as the National Academy of Sciences) to creationist attacks on science?
    Last edited: May 4, 2012
  17. leopold Valued Senior Member

    citation? what citation?
  18. leopold Valued Senior Member

    to the students.
    if teachers are being forced to say this, then the gaps should be explained.
    i have already posted my intent with this piece.
    to show that well educated people that should know their field are reluctant to teach it.
    i fail to believe that religion is the motivator here.
    even the most ardent theist will not deny PI is app. 3.14159265 . . .
    my honest opinion?
    the survey is somehow flawed.
    first of all i have never bought into "things becoming alive", it's the most ridiculous concept i've ever heard.
    second, there must be some fundamental quality that explains consciousness, a quality that has not been found or explained.
    third, the complete lack of verified lab results that prove evolution.
    this is why i wanted to see this stuff from "science", to get their veiwpoint on this matter.
    to be assured the survey wasn't flawed somehow.
    we cannot discount that possibility.
    it could very well be that berkman et al WANTED a religious connection and constructed their survey to get exactly that.
  19. Bells Staff Member

    No. The source is actually Dr. Ayala.

    I'll give you an example. Lets just say you quote someone. Are you the source of the information you just quoted? Or is the person who made the statement originally the true source?

    Dr. Ayala, as the original source, not only retracted the statement, but corrected it. Dr. Ayala is the true and original source of what was written and misrepresented in Science.

    So by reporting directly what the teachers said, now you are claiming they wanted a religious connection? Is this like when you tried to claim that others were bullied without any proof whatsoever?

    Really, those straws must be grasped.

    Leo, your questions have been answered, over and over again. You were provided with evidence, repeatedly. You refuse to acknowledge it.

    So I am going to ask you outright.

    How do you think we came to be? How do you think human beings and all animals, insects, plants, etc, came to be on this planet?
  20. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    We have covered the Ayala matter in depth previously. Ayala himself repudiated the quote mined statement he supposedly made, as Trippy mentioned again in post #151 above.

    I have issued an official warning to leopold for trolling and knowingly posting lies.

    Any further instances of him relying on this mischaracterisation of Ayala's views may result in a ban from sciforums.
  21. Bells Staff Member

    So "Science" published a flawed study, which would make the magazine itself untrustworthy, would it not?

    It astounds me that because you disagree with the result of that study, that you automatically state the survey must be flawed, because the result goes against what you believe.

    Prove that the survey was flawed.

    You have the raw data available to you. Prove it.

    Which is bizarre. You do not believe in evolution, but you are offended if you are called or treated like a creationist.


    Why can't such a thing evolve over time?

    Your statement is religious in and of itself.

    You seek an external source.

    Just because you don't believe or recognise what has been presented to you countless of times now does not mean it does not exist.

    Evolution is proven constantly.

    Yes, but Science published it. Are you now saying you don't trust them to go over the survey and report before they published it?
  22. Aqueous Id flat Earth skeptic Valued Senior Member

    Fossilization would be just one of many casualties of a creationist agenda. What in particular brought that to mind?
    What do you think the fossil record reveals?
    Are you dissatisfied with the current state of science concerning fossils and evolution, and if so, why?
    I think school teachers vary in their command of knowledge. Education of the teachers was measured in the survey.

    Do you mean you think the teachers are honest because of their education?

    But you also express suspicion about educated people. What gives you the impression that the teachers are more honest than Berkman, who you now distrust?
    Why? 13% admit they follow Ussher's model of human origins. 60% say humans evolved under God's guidance.
    Many people don't even know what you mean by that. For those that do, how is that significant to you?
    Why? Did you change your mind after reading it? If so, why?
    What kind of flaw do you suspect?
    When did you first become suspicious of Berkman?
    You mean abiogenesis? OK, at least now I understand part of your viewpoint.
    Why is abiogenesis ridiculous?

    Is this more or less ridiculous:

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    This is the liver fluke. The adult infests the liver which is rich in blood. But it's evolutionary history requires that the eggs hatch in the gut of a snail. So it evolved a way to get back into a host liver as shown.

    Does that sound ridiculous? There have been discoveries of several species that do multiple symbiotic stages like this. I think the most complicated one has six stages.

    My reason for giving this is that you say abiogenesis is the most ridiculous thing you've ever heard. I never had that reaction to it - it seems logical to me. But these worms - they're life cycle is so ridiculous. Yet that's simply the way it is. Each of these phases had to be evolved. Perhaps primitive people ate snails. Then perhaps they stopped eating snails and started eating ants. At some point they started herding cows, so that would complete the last stage. All of that is just inference. But now the ridiculous begins to come together as something plausible. There are countless examples in nature like this. Many mysteries of how living organisms function, how they are structured, are seen in the way things evolve. So the ridiculousness you see in abiogenesis is more than balanced by the removal of ridiculousness by evolutionary relationships to issues like these.

    At what point do you overcome doubt and suspicion and replace it with evidence? If that's what the evidence shows, why doubt it? How much good evidence are you throwing away by being suspicious, especially of honesty?
    That wouldn't be an issue for the primitive cells arising out of the primordial soup, nor the complex cells alive today. Nor would it be an obstacle to the evolution of the plant kingdom, and lower animals - worms, sponges, hydra, etc.

    Does everything have a cause? What causes an isotope to decay at a particular time?

    This idea that there must be something to explain something breaks down all the time. We are intelligent beings, but not omniscient. So we have limitations. You, me, Berkman, are all created equal. Berkman just did his homework. And he got it done while you and I were just talking about whether it can be done, whether it's true, whether he's honest.
    Indeed science is a work in progress, don't you think? Consciousness is not a very central theme to evolution, and here you seem to be referring to human evolution only, which is a very recent event in the 3.5-4 billion year history of nature, and only after millions of species have come and gone.
    Does DNA analysis count in your definition? You see no evidence of evolution in DNA? Your genome contains traces of bacteria, yeast, even banana in your ancestral history. Unless you are a native African of pure heritage, then youu probably carry up to 3% of the Neanderthal genome. Who were they? How did they get here? How is it possible that there is a genetic match between you and them?

    As for lab verification:

    What's to prove, and which of those is appropriately done in a lab?

    Other than lab proofs, what other proofs are available?

    Does every idea have a specific form of proof to substantiate it?

    Do we prove the qualities of a star in a lab? Why not?

    How did germs become resistant to antibiotics?

    What does the fossil record tell us about natural history?

    Why is it difficult to observe evolution inn real time?

    Are you aware of any cases in which evolution took place during an experiment or study?

    If so, would you even believe the investigators who reported it?

    These are just some thoughts that occur to me as I read you comments.

    You can read the first page free and you can read Berkman's supporting paper, which establishes that the Science article has no silver bullet. It's just a rehash of the PLoS publication. You can get the review from sources like Penn State, Science Daily, Huffington Post, and countless others.

    What I don't understand is: how is Science more interesting to you than the original article by Berkman, and if you already don't trust Berkman, then why would you trust their rehash in Science?

    Is it back to the steeplechase then?
    Not if there was cause to discount it. But why do that? What is your criteria for discounting this or any other finding.

    How do you avoid confirmation bias, in your own mind, if you are too quick to believe that scientific evidence is fabricated?

    How will you avoid false positives, that is, throwing out a certain truth and keeping a falsehood, as a result of bias?

    What measures did Berkman take to mitigate bias?
    What reason is there to suspect they wanted to prove a connection, and then lied?

    I notice they received federal funding. Normally it's a crime to lie on a government document. Do you think there are people that would risk prosecution, loss of job, income and reputation for being caught doing this? For what possible benefit? I noticed they used some kind of auditing process. Would that matter to you? At what point is anything credible to you? What standards apply?

    At what point do you differentiate your suspicions of experts from the reality of the natural world? For example, at some point you became aware of the "gaps" in the fossil record. Did you approach that with the same kind of incredulity that you now approach Berkman? Why or why not?

    Is there any other trustable source of information at all? Why is Science your benchmark for trust?

    Do you trust the National Academy of Sciences?
  23. leopold Valued Senior Member

    uh, excuse me?
    what lie have i told when i said "science retracted nothing"?
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page