Bob Talks to Kids about Evolution

[The Barbarian]

I don't think wanting a civil discussion makes one crabby.

But you don't seem to want that.

Barbarian observes:
Show me where they said it was "failing falisfication" in textbooks or the literature. I think you made that up. But we'll see what you can show us.

There is a video on YouTube..

Barbarian chuckles:
So you can't find one? Neither can anyone else. No surprise there.

I didn't say that the chromosome 2 information was in a textbook.

Apparently, you found it on You Tube. But scientists didn't say it. Other than You Tube, where did you find that "failing falsification" story?

That was your manuevering to try to obfuscate. I said that evolutionists said that. The first YouTube video you come to when typing in chromosome 2 speaks to how this was a "major problem".

Sorry. You Tube doesn't speak for scientists.

No, he doesn't say "failed falsification" and yes I overpushed his statement to link the comparison. Basically claiming an "issue" only after the fact, that previously was glossed over is very similar to the jello arguments we see.

We're still waiting for you to substantiate the idea.

You have a nice blend of spin and abusive language.

You seem to have a low regard for evidence. That's how things are decided in science.

Why are you afraid of addressing the issues!

Evidence is the way we do it. It's why creationists here are having such a hard time. Disney and You Tube is not the way to do it.

Barbarian observes:
But that's not what I said, was it? The fact that a single human chromosome precisely matches the genes on two chimpanzee chromosomes, and has remnants of telomeres precisely where they would be if those two chromosomes had fused, is a smoking gun.

They don't match exactly

They match precisely. If they matched exactly, that would be a problem, because even genetic drift would guarantee that after a few million years, there would be some differences. What's remarkable is that they differ so little.

and that's nor even the argument with chromosome 2. The argument is that it was predicted by evolution and turned out to be true.

And that's what happened.

Barbarian observes:
Yep. Ancient history in science. There's been an explosion of knowledge.

Okay, that's quite a spin.

That's how it is. Check the literature. Few cites are for 25 y/o papers.

Barbarian oberves:
I've shown you a good deal of evidence, and demonstrated what it means. I'm surprised you consider it insulting. And you've told me to go look in You Tube for your argument.

What evidence did you offer?

Comparative chromosome diagrams and the evidence for a fusion.

I was the one who offered the arguments for chromosome 2. You merely ran with something we are all already familiar with (adding erroneously that the chromosomes are identical).

Perhaps you think "precisely" means "exactly." Check the dictionary.

You asked for "textbook" for chromosome two, and I fail to see where you got that I said that came from a textbook.

Textbook or literature. You couldn't find either.

No the only "textbook" argument I gave was that I was taught both that giraffes necks grew due to eating from trees and that we were taught recapitulation in biology when in high school around 30 years ago.

In what school district? In the 80s, I was reviewing science textbooks. Never saw such a thing. Of course, it's always possible that some backwater district hire teachers who didn't know anything about science, but it seems pretty unlikely.

To this you claimed I am lying (as if I would)

I did? (Barbarian checks) No, turns out I didn't. Shame on you.

and suggested the only way to prove I was not was to produce a textbook I haven't seen in 30 years (if 25 years is ancient, what is 30?).

Do you remember the district? I can run it down from there.

Of course that would be a massive waste of my time for a book I doubt if I could pick out of a lineup even it was before me. (I doubt I could pick my topography book out of a lineup and I was in graduate scoop only half that time ago.)

Darn. And now you'll never be able to verify your story.

Nevertheless I remember many if the things I was taught in that class, and I am not lying about it. Asking to produce a book you know is impossible to produce is only juvenile and manipulative.

So we're basically going to have to take your word for it. No evidence in the literature, no textbook, nothing. Of course notice that I didn't say you lied. It's just that given the evidence in the literature and in textbooks we know about, there's no support for your claim. But maybe you had a really, really dumb science teacher.

Barbarian observes:
Probably because you don't know very much about the issue. Creationists are inclined to offer Disney and You Tube as evidence, instead of scientific papers or facts.

More spin.

Check the thread. That's what you guys offered.

Once again, the argument scares you so much that you must lie about it?

Where have I lied?

You accuse me of lying,

Nope. Go back and check.

It would be better if you addressed issues rather than merely resorting to attacks against the person only. Focusing on the evil Barbarian isn't going to make you more credible.

Barbarian
Mostly frustration. Like your response on learning the evidence for a common ancestry for humans and chimps.

Learning? LOL. I brought it up.

But it wasn't the way they told you. And that seems to be what riled you.

Barbarian, regarding Stein's dishonesties:
A good example, is his claim that scientists were directing his family into the ovens at Auschwitz. Even the Anti-Defamation League roasted him for that bit of libel. And of course, his decision to ban from his film any scientist who was a Christian and accepted evolution. "No Intelligence Allowed" You betcha.

I haven't heard that about the film. Did he ban them, or is it just coincidence?

He wouldn't even let them into the preview of his film.

He let Eugene Scott on who proposed evolution and Christianity could co exist. He let Dawkins on. Why would he need someone else?

He "needed" to show that Christianity and science were incompatible. If he let on Kenneth Miller, or Francis Collins, or Francisco Ayala, it would have blown his message.

 

[ApologeticJedi]

This objection has already been addressed by at least two different people. Would my addressing it make you any less incredulous?

If you could invalidate the idea that scientists could simply reconstruct evolution, then I could see how that might be a falsifiable statement. Considering that we've seen challenges to the understood beginnings of other classes like birds, I think there is sufficient evidence there that we are making a bigger claim on this side of the evidence than what we would make on the other.

You understand that for something to be a falsifying preposition it would need to leave little to no wiggle room. Logically no one has provided that yet.

Because if scientists can merely push back the understandings of one class and move on with evolution, then clearly it is not a falsifiable statement.

No. Such a finding runs completely contrary to the very keystone of the theory itself.

So natural selection couldn't happen if there is an earlier date for the appearance of mammals? Please explain.

This objection has already been addressed by at least two different people. Would my addressing it make you any less incredulous?

If you could invalidate the idea that scientists could simply reconstruct evolution, then I could see how that might be a falsifiable statement. Considering that we've seen challenges to the understood beginnings of other classes like birds, I think there is sufficient evidence there that we are making a bigger claim on this side of the evidence than what we would make on the other.

You understand that for something to be a falsifying preposition it would need to leave little to no wiggle room. Logically you've not provided that.

Because if scientists can merely push back the understandings of one class and move on with evolution, then clearly it is not a falsifiable statement.

Your objections are not well reasoned and your understanding of evolution is below the standard which would make for productive discussion.

Eyeroll time.

If they were not well reasoned then you would be able to find the flaw in them surely. This is like bothering to post to say it is not worth the time to post. How laughable.

And claiming that my understanding of evolution is below a standard would sound less like a cop-out if you can show where I inaccurately portrayed evolution in some way.

While I freely admit I'm not expert on evolution, thus far I've made no inaccurate statements that anyone has even suggested, and we've hardly talked about anything that would test the extents of the knowledge I do have on the subject. This sounds very much like a weak copout.



I've known a lot of Christians that behave the same way about the Bible that you do about evolution. They claim that anyone who disagrees simply doesn't understand, and this allows them to speak authoritatively without being questioned or being required to prove anything they say. It's a nice convenience.

 

[The Barbarian]

So natural selection couldn't happen if there is an earlier date for the appearance of mammals? Please explain.

Natural selection is directly observed. So realistically, it's hard to imagine how something could refute what is seen.

And claiming that my understanding of evolution is below a standard would sound less like a cop-out if you can show where I inaccurately portrayed evolution in some way.

Well that's testable. Let's start basic. What are the four basic principles of Darwinian evolution?

While I freely admit I'm not expert on evolution, thus far I've made no inaccurate statements that anyone has even suggested, and we've hardly talked about anything that would test the extents of the knowledge I do have on the subject. This sounds very much like a weak copout.

You certainly were surprised to find that Haeckel's recapitulation theory, and Lamarckism was never part of modern evolutionary theory.

I've known a lot of Christians that behave the same way about the Bible that you do about evolution. They claim that anyone who disagrees simply doesn't understand, and this allows them to speak authoritatively without being questioned or being required to prove anything they say. It's a nice convenience.

Well, you've given us reason to doubt. Let's see how you do on basic Darwinism.

 

[ApologeticJedi]

But you don't seem to want that.

I've asked for and provided civil discussion that I know of.

I did make one statement that I feared was not too civil and I have apologized twice for it, and if needed I will use this opportunity to apologize again.

Apparently, you found it on You Tube. But scientists didn't say it. Other than You Tube, where did you find that "failing falsification" story?
Sorry. You Tube doesn't speak for scientists.

So catching a scientist (and evolutionary author), Dr. Ken Miller, on video saying it, doesn't prove that scientists say it --- because that video is on youtube?

If a video of a scientist saying it, isn't evidence that they say it for you, I doubt you could be convinced by anything. But I wanted to repeat this here so that it becomes obvious to any reader just how unreasonable in denial you are.

They match precisely. If they matched exactly, that would be a problem, because even genetic drift would guarantee that after a few million years, there would be some differences. What's remarkable is that they differ so little…. Perhaps you think "precisely" means "exactly." Check the dictionary.

LOL … “exactly” is one of the more common definitions of precisely.

Being exactly that and neither more nor less
​

The way you used it seemed to be in the instance of a measurement or comparison of the chromosomes. The definition for that usage would be:

exact in measuring, recording, etc​

"Precisely" and "exactly" mean basically the same thing in most definitions of the word(http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/precisely), but I'll let this one go and assume you misapplied the word and really meant “nearly exact”. I have no interest to play semantical games and if that was what you meant.

I believe Australian scientists find it remarkable how we are "precisely" like sea sponges too. LOL (just a joke --- I’ll let your new definition of “precisely” go).

Yep. Ancient history in science. There's been an explosion of knowledge.

Well typically the speaker is the best judge of how a word is used (notice the grace I give you on the "precisely" discrepancy). And compared to how long the ToE has been with us I doubt it takes a truck load of grace to accept that 25 years is recent, but if it moves the conversation along from semantical games, I retract the word "recent".

I did? (Barbarian checks) No, turns out I didn't. Shame on you.

You did call me a liar, but not on the point I was referring to. I apologize. Here is where you actually called me a liar.....

Barbarian -- "Show me where they said it was "failing falisfication" in textbooks or the literature. I think you made that up."


Not-withstanding, I still owe you an apology since you didn't call me a liar on the issue of my anecdotal recollection. I apologize. I was clearly confusing the two lines of thought and you are right to call me out on that.

I hope that you can accept my apology.

Do you remember the district? I can run it down from there.

Typically I don't give out any information whatsoever on myself over the internet for any reason so please understand why I will be private mailing you.

Darn. And now you'll never be able to verify your story.

If only I had foresight at the time to write it down (or swipe it) so that I could verify my own grievance with the public school required of me 30 years later. It's hard to imagine what I was thinking of at the time, that I couldn't forsee this moment.

Oh yeah, now I remember, I was a believer in evolution so I didn't think anything of it.

Edit: I should note that I still believe in evolution to this day, just not in vast common ancestries across species. I think the human race has and is evolving, I just don't think we share an ancestor with apes. I just think that too many leaps are needed to join unrelated creatures.

Where have I lied?

Let us say that it is a purposeful misrepresentation

"Show me where they said it was "failing falisfication" in textbooks or the literature."
​

Of course that's not what I said at all. I claimed that scientists were saying not that it was in a textbook. This allows you to dishonestly spin the conversation as if I had said textbook even as you are doing now.

A video of a scientist saying it should be sufficient to show scientists are saying it. I don't know how much more "caught" than on video could be. I know you won't accept the obvious but will cling merely to the fact that the video is on YouTube as a point of discredit. I think this shows how much in denial you are and how unwilling to concede even the most minor a point you've made yourself.

These little twists and turns of what I said, claims that I am somehow being educating by your explosistions on things I have already brought up, and other attempts to put up strawman arguments are what I am referring to.

I retract "liar", but I will be pointing out the mistruths from here so that they are clear to you.

It would be better if you addressed issues rather than merely resorting to attacks against the person only. Focusing on the evil Barbarian isn't going to make you more credible.

I like how you use ad homien attacks all through your posts, and then when I complain about it -- project your own abusiveness back. Sad, but clever.

But it wasn't the way they told you. And that seems to be what riled you.

They told me? Another deception.

Who told me? Notice how you are making up facts yet again.

I was informed about Chromosome 2 from evolutionists not creationists as I'm assuming your are referring. You described it "precisely" as I've heard it before (only they didn't use "precise").

I've portrayed Chromosome 2 exactly how all scientists do, and "precisely" enough to spot your seeming mistake.

He wouldn't even let them into the preview of his film.

I didn't get an invite either. I mean maybe your right, but I'm very cynical about things and it takes something I can't dismiss as coincidence to convince me, especially concerning conspiracy theories

 

[Alate_One]

So catching a scientist (and evolutionary author), Dr. Ken Miller, on video saying it, doesn't prove that scientists say it --- because that video is on youtube?

If a video of a scientist saying it, isn't evidence that they say it for you, I doubt you could be convinced by anything. But I wanted to repeat this here so that it becomes obvious to any reader just how unreasonable in denial you are.

I've been reading your conversation here and I'm a little confused as to what your issue is here. Are you saying that Ken Miller said that Evolution HAD failed in terms of falsification with respect to the differing chromosome numbers between humans and apes?

"Precisely" and "exactly" mean basically the same thing in most definitions of the word(http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/precisely), but I'll let this one go and assume you misapplied the word and really meant “nearly exact”. I have no interest to play semantical games and if that was what you meant.

I believe Australian scientists find it remarkable how we are "precisely" like sea sponges too. LOL (just a joke --- I’ll let your new definition of “precisely” go).

Defining similarity in common language is always fraught with these kinds of problems. How it is reported in the scientific literature is this either X% similar OR X% identical. Most of the entire sequence of Chimpanzees vs. humans are in the high 90s in terms of percent identity. For a lot of people that might be close enough to be "precisely"

Chromosomal banding patterns (what Barbarian originally showed) are usually indicative of sequence similarity.

Edit: I should note that I still believe in evolution to this day, just not in vast common ancestries across species. I think the human race has and is evolving, I just don't think we share an ancestor with apes. I just think that too many leaps are needed to join unrelated creatures.

What sorts of organisms would you consider "unrelated"?

 

[ApologeticJedi]

Natural selection is directly observed. So realistically, it's hard to imagine how something could refute what is seen.

I agree -- that's my point.

So that's out, so it's not falsifiable because it contradicts that "keystone", so lets prod you along. Does it dispel the notion of inherited traits?

Well that's testable. Let's start basic. What are the four basic principles of Darwinian evolution?

Well hold back a second. I thought the claim was that I had already shown some lack of knowledge of Darwinian evolution? Are you now saying you have to go on a fishing expedition to find it?

Wouldn't that imply that right now the claim is baseless? I think it does.

As to the question, narrowing evolution to only four principles would require me to guess at how to narrow them down --- or I could google, which would probably be your claim if I got them right anyway.

Honestly, without googling I could probably come up with five points
1) Equilibrium -- a species will reach it within the confines of its environment.
2) Inheritance -- The passing on of genes from one generation to the next
3) Variation -- The fact that the genes contain some variation that allows the species to change.
4) Mutation -- That mutations can affect a creature within the process
5) Survival -- The mutation will be relegated by the environment around the creature as to whether it gets passed on (also works on traits NOT related directly to mutations).

I know that's five and probably not a book answer, but I believe I've covered the basis. Perhaps two of these are combined to get to 4, or maybe I've listed one that isn't generally considered critical. I will be googling shortly after to discover for myself.

Not sure what this proves other than the fact that you are quick to try to establish the misstatement that I lack evolutionary knowledge by any means that you can.

Well, you've given us reason to doubt. Let's see how you do on basic Darwinism.

Why when I ask for an example do I only get crickets chirping. Since truth is an affirmative defense, please show where I've made an inaccurate statement rather than going on a fishing expedition.

 

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
Apparently, you found it on You Tube. But scientists didn't say it. Other than You Tube, where did you find that "failing falsification" story?
Sorry. You Tube doesn't speak for scientists.

So catching a scientist (and evolutionary author), Dr. Ken Miller, on video saying it, doesn't prove that scientists say it --- because that video is on youtube?

I'd be willing to see the quote from Miller, if you want to show it to us.

If a video of a scientist saying it, isn't evidence that they say it for you, I doubt you could be convinced by anything. But I wanted to repeat this here so that it becomes obvious to any reader just how unreasonable in denial you are.

Videos are easy to edit. But let's take a look at the quote, and I'll check it out.

Barbarian observes:
They match precisely. If they matched exactly, that would be a problem, because even genetic drift would guarantee that after a few million years, there would be some differences. What's remarkable is that they differ so little…. Perhaps you think "precisely" means "exactly." Check the dictionary.

LOL … “exactly” is one of the more common definitions of precisely.

But we're talking science here. "Precision" is never "exact."

The way you used it seemed to be in the instance of a measurement or comparison of the chromosomes. The definition for that usage would be:

exact in measuring, recording, etc

No. It is impossible to be exact in measurements. On can only get a result to a certain degree of error.

Physical measurements are never exact, and it is important to assess the uncertainty in measurements.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/class/phscilab/balltrack.html

Well typically the speaker is the best judge of how a word is used (notice the grace I give you on the "precisely" discrepancy).

If you want to talk about science, you'll have to learn what words mean.

And compared to how long the ToE has been with us I doubt it takes a truck load of grace to accept that 25 years is recent, but if it moves the conversation along from semantical games, I retract the word "recent".


Barbarian observes:
I did? (Barbarian checks) No, turns out I didn't. Shame on you.

You did call me a liar, but not on the point I was referring to. I apologize. Here is where you actually called me a liar.....

Barbarian asks:
Show me where they said it was "failing falisfication" in textbooks or the literature. I think you made that up.

Oh, so I didn't call you a liar. I merely said I thought you made it up. But even though you can't show this to us, I still can't be sure you're lying, so I won't say so.

Not-withstanding, I still owe you an apology since you didn't call me a liar on the issue of my anecdotal recollection. I apologize. I was clearly confusing the two lines of thought and you are right to call me out on that.

I was right to say I didn't call you a liar. I merely thought you made up the story about the "failing falsification." The fact that you can't show it to us, does not conclusively confirm my suspicion.

Barbarian suggests:
Do you remember the district? I can run it down from there.

Typically I don't give out any information whatsoever on myself over the internet for any reason so please understand why I will be private mailing you.

Fair enough.

Barbarian asks:
Where have I lied?

Let us say that it is a purposeful misrepresentation

Well, let's see the evidence before we call it anything more than an accusation.

"Show me where they said it was "failing falisfication" in textbooks or the literature."

Of course that's not what I said at all. I claimed that scientists were saying not that it was in a textbook.

Scientists make such statement in textbooks and the literature. If not there, show us where.

I retract "liar", but I will be pointing out the mistruths from here so that they are clear to you.

If you were more careful to say only what is true, it wouldn't be necessary.

Barbarian suggests:
It would be better if you addressed issues rather than merely resorting to attacks against the person only. Focusing on the evil Barbarian isn't going to make you more credible.

I like how you use ad homien attacks all through your posts, and then when I complain about it -- project your own abusiveness back.

You just had to apologize for saying I called you a liar. Such things don't help your argument that I'm being dishonest.

Barbarian observes:
But it wasn't the way they told you. And that seems to be what riled you.
They told me? Another deception.

Who told me? Notice how you are making up facts yet again.

Well, you do have a lot of misconceptions. Familiar ones.

I was informed about Chromosome 2 from evolutionists not creationists as I'm assuming your are referring. You described it "precisely" as I've heard it before (only they didn't use "precise").

Barbarian on Stein, and his exclusion of Christian evolutionists from his film:
He wouldn't even let them into the preview of his film.

I didn't get an invite either.

But he would have let you in, unless he thought you were a Christian evolutionist.

I mean maybe your right, but I'm very cynical about things and it takes something I can't dismiss as coincidence to convince me, especially concerning conspiracy theories

It takes more than one to have a conspiracy. Stein just kept out any Christians like that, because it would have invalidated the premise of his movie.

 

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian suggests:
Well that's testable. Let's start basic. What are the four basic principles of Darwinian evolution?

Well hold back a second. I thought the claim was that I had already shown some lack of knowledge of Darwinian evolution? Are you now saying you have to go on a fishing expedition to find it?

You said it was unfair that we thought you don't understand the theory. I'm asking you to show you do.

As to the question, narrowing evolution to only four principles would require me to guess at how to narrow them down --- or I could google, which would probably be your claim if I got them right anyway.

Honestly, without googling I could probably come up with five points
1) Equilibrium -- a species will reach it within the confines of its environment.
2) Inheritance -- The passing on of genes from one generation to the next
3) Variation -- The fact that the genes contain some variation that allows the species to change.
4) Mutation -- That mutations can affect a creature within the process
5) Survival -- The mutation will be relegated by the environment around the creature as to whether it gets passed on (also works on traits NOT related directly to mutations).

I know that's five and probably not a book answer, but I believe I've covered the basis.

Nope. Not even close.

Not sure what this proves other than the fact that you are quick to try to establish the misstatement that I lack evolutionary knowledge by any means that you can.

You've just confirmed it for us.

 

[ApologeticJedi]

I've been reading your conversation here and I'm a little confused as to what your issue is here. Are you saying that Ken Miller said that Evolution HAD failed in terms of falsification with respect to the differing chromosome numbers between humans and apes?

No. I was just commenting on how a different conversation of convienance had seemed similar (in reverse) to Ken Miller admitting that there was a problem with the different number in chromosomes of apes and humans only after the fact of the discovery of chromosome 2.

It was a tangential comment, but they are looking for every dotted I rather than sticking to what I really asked. Serves me right for allowing my mind to wander in the first place I suppose. .

Defining similarity in common language is always fraught with these kinds of problems. How it is reported in the scientific literature is this either X% similar OR X% identical. Most of the entire sequence of Chimpanzees vs. humans are in the high 90s in terms of percent identity. For a lot of people that might be close enough to be "precisely"

So it similar to an industry term -- very well. I accept it. I'm not going to get hung on semantics. What matters is what he meant. I took it to mean exactly which is the way it is normally used, but I'd rather not chase down semantical arguments.

Giving the speaker a little grace is a best practice I find.

What sorts of organisms would you consider "unrelated"?

Probably a poor word choice. I'm not sure I can think of the right way to put it. I am cynical about common ancestries that cross the family level.

 

[The Barbarian]

Fact is, the problem of the disparity in chromosomes was commented on long before Ken Miller mentioned it.

The karyotypes of man and of the closely related Pongidae--chimpanzee, gorilla, and orangutan--differ by a small number of well known rearrangements, mainly pericentric inversions and one fusion which reduced the chromosome number from 48 in the Pongidae to 46 in man. Dutrillaux et al. (1973, 1975, 1979)
Genetica. 1987 Aug 31;73(1-2):37-52.
Chromosome phylogenies of man, great apes, and Old World monkeys.
De Grouchy J.

So it was first noted about 38 years ago. Of course, we didn't have the ability to check the fusion hypothesis then, but notice that it was predicted as the only possible answer.

And then, as Ken Miller pointed out, we developed the means to test that prediction, and it was verified.

How about that?

 

[The Barbarian]

The point, of course, is that the hypothesis was presented as the only possible answer, long before we could test it. It was exactly as Ken Miller said, a prediction that could invalidate evolution.

And then, when the technology was sufficiently advanced, we tested it, and the hypothesis was confirmed.

There are two possible interpretations:

1. Common ancestor for humans and apes
2. A deceptive "designer" just designed a human chromosome to look exactly as though it was the result of the fusion of two ape chromosomes.

 

[ApologeticJedi]

You said it was unfair that we thought you don't understand the theory. I'm asking you to show you do.

LOL. Yet another mistruth.

The argument was that I had ALREADY demonstrated some lack of knowledge. As I said, truth is an affirmative defense.

I'm not asking you for a textbook from 30 years ago, I'm asking for any post in the thread till now.

Nope. Not even close.

So what were the specific answers you were looking for?

I'm curious because I found several websites, all seem to be basically what I said although some drew out what I said into additional points and others condensed. There are at best minor variations showing I have more a layman's understanding rather than a book.


http://www.blurtit.com/q608394.html

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_are_the_Basic_principles_of_evolution

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/The_four_principles_of_natural_selection

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100322212624AAScCNV

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080313173501AAWjces

Unless everyone else is wrong, your answer seems to draw more questions to your credibility than to mine. Without exception all of mine are found in all of these different sources, exception mutation (which I had extra).

Edit: Mutation is found in the second link, which lists 5

 

[ApologeticJedi]

Fact is, the problem of the disparity in chromosomes was commented on long before Ken Miller mentioned it.

Without a doubt. I didn't say no one else had commented on it before Ken Miller.

 

[The Barbarian]

A couple of hints:

1. Darwin had no idea of genes, and no notion of how variation was caused. So nothing about mutations.

2. There is also a variation of the Malthusian argument.

Here, take a look at what you said, and what Darwin said:

1) Equilibrium -- a species will reach it within the confines of its environment.
2) Inheritance -- The passing on of genes from one generation to the next
3) Variation -- The fact that the genes contain some variation that allows the species to change.
4) Mutation -- That mutations can affect a creature within the process
5) Survival -- The mutation will be relegated by the environment around the creature as to whether it gets passed on (also works on traits NOT related directly to mutations

Darwin:
1. More are born than can live.

2. Every organism is a bit different than its parents.

3. Some differences affect the likelihood of an organism living long enough to reproduce.

4. Natural selection sorts them out, and the new population in the next generation is different. This effect accumulates over time and can explain the variation in life.

BTW, this invalidates the argument that natural selection is a tautology or that it doesn't do anything positive. It changes the pool of variation each generation, and this determines the point from which new variation is possible.

 

[ApologeticJedi]

1. Darwin had no idea of genes, and no notion of how variation was caused. So nothing about mutations.

Darwin? You wanted to test my knowledge of history or of modern evolution?


Okay sure, Darwin didn't know of mutation, so maybe that's why I had one extra since I thought you were asking for principles that would make the foundation of a modern evolutionary standing.

Darwin:
1. More are born than can live.

2. Every organism is a bit different than its parents.

3. Some differences affect the likelihood of an organism living long enough to reproduce.

4. Natural selection sorts them out, and the new population in the next generation is different. This effect accumulates over time and can explain the variation in life.

1) Got it --- #1.
2) Got it --- #3.
3) Got it --- #5.
4) Got it --- #2.


And it sounds like these groups agree basically with me that I got it right:

http://www.blurtit.com/q608394.html

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_are_the_Basic_principles_of_evolution

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/The_four_principles_of_natural_selection

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100322212624AAScCNV

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080313173501AAWjces
​

I think this has been fruitful in giving a demonstration of just how argumentative you are (I refrain from casting all evolutionists with the same brush because I know that would not be true.) It appears I did pretty good for non-bookish answers, and this shows just how biased your stance is.

I don't perceive this turned out as well for you as you had hoped.

Ok, Maybe you can quibble about one or two saying I didn't add the exact book answer, (none phrased it as "Equilibrium" as I did) but I'm amazed how uncanningly close I got for being 20+ years removed from my bachelors, and not really having any classes along this field in graduate school. I guess it pays to pay attention to evolutionary articles in a casual, amateurish fashion.

 

[ApologeticJedi]

So now that I've shown I have a pretty good grasp of evolution (I'm feeling cocky since I got so remarkably close) .... how about you return to my question of providing evidence that I have a fundamental misunderstanding of evolution buried somewhere in this thread that warrented the previous remark that I have "understanding of evolution is below the standard".

Since the claim was that I had already made it, you should be able to point to it without quibbling over my miraculous portrayal of the four evolutionary principles.

It would be nice to get one honest answer from you at some point. I keep holding out hope. It grows tiring pointing to all your attempts to spin the conversation. Honestly, I wonder how you function in life.

 

[The Barbarian]

Even Googling, you didn't do so well, inserting "equilibrium" and failing to note the creative aspect of natural selection in Darwin's theory. And of course, inserting genes and mutations, neither of which were part of his theory.

Darwin? You wanted to test my knowledge of history or of modern evolution?

The question was:
What are the four basic principles of Darwinian evolution?

That was Darwin's contribution, and they have been validated by subsequent evidence. You failed to get the difference between Darwin's theory and modern evolutionary theory. Not so good so far.

Let's see if you do better with the modern synthesis.

Tell us how the findings of the geneticists affected the modern synthesis.

 

[Alate_One]

Probably a poor word choice. I'm not sure I can think of the right way to put it. I am cynical about common ancestries that cross the family level.

So you don't think that cats, dogs and bears could be related? Or that New and old world monkeys are related?

 

[voltaire]

Alateone. The following is a list of ape traits that are not shared by man. If the first hominim lived 7 million years ago, how does random mutation and natural selection account for this vast amount of difference in such a short period of time?

 

[voltaire]

Apes Man
1 Brain size small, up to
about 400 cc Brain size larger, average
about 1350 cc
2
No neck – spine joins skull
from the back; extensive
muscular connections
between head and shoulder Neck – spine joins skull
from below; head stabilised
by nuchal ligament
3 C-shaped spine for walking
on all fours, sacrum narrow,
straight and parallel to
spine; typically four lumbar
vertebrae S-shaped spine for upright
stance and walking, sacrum
broad, curved and tilted;
typically five lumbar
vertebrae, larger than in
apes
4 Blades of iliac crest (upper
part of hipbone) flat and
parallel to each other Blades turned backward
and projecting to increase
leverage of spine muscles
5 30 facial muscles for
expression and recognition 54 facial muscles for more
complex social
relationships
6 Small semi-circular canals
in the inner ear Large semi-circular canals
in the inner ear, for balance
in the vertical plane
7 Arms longer than the legs Legs longer than the arms
8 Chest funnel-shaped Chest barrel-shaped
9 Hands have a weak
relatively short thumb, long
curved finger bones and
long palm Strong mobile thumb (3
additional muscles)
connected to wrist by
saddle joint; finger bones
straight; apical tufts
10 Feet are like hands, with
opposable big toes for
grasping; apes usually walk
on all fours Feet used for walking
rather than climbing; big
toe not opposable
11 Knee joints do not lock
upright Knee joints lock upright
12 Hip joints do not extend
fully upright and pelvis is
broad; apes can stand only
with legs bent Hip joints extend upright;
large buttock muscles and
pelvic attachment areas aid
running
13 Short Achilles tendon;
medial arch of the foot is
low Long Achilles tendon (for
running); high medial arch
14 Hairy body for heat
insulation, no female pubic
hair or male top lip; nails
grow quickly; fewer sweat
glands Constantly growing hair on
top of head; hairy male
face, pubic hair, elsewhere
hair is fine and sparse;
nails grow slowly
15 Sclera of the eye
(surrounding the iris) is
brown Sclera is white; eyes
horizontally more
elongated
16 Larynx and vocal cords
capable of only simple
sounds Larynx and vocal cords
capable of complex sounds,
including singing
17 Ears sensitive to
frequencies of 1-8 kilohertz Ears sensitive to
frequencies of 2-4 kilohertz
(suitable for hearing
speech)
18 No hymen in female; males
mate from behind Hymen in female; vulva at
45° angle to permit frontal
mating
19 Mammary glands purely for
milk production Female breasts enhanced
by body fat for
attractiveness/beauty
20 Ovulation (fertility)
apparent Ovulation concealed
21 Birth of young easy and
rapid; broad pelvic canal Birth of young painful and
slow, though may have
been easier when crania
were smaller
22 No menopause Menopause
23 Male has a penis bone
(baculum) for erection;
female has a clitoral bone. Penis boneless, erection
achieved by blood; no
clitoral bone
In to