User Tag List

Page 6 of 8 FirstFirst ... 345678 LastLast
Results 76 to 90 of 109

Thread: Expelled? Go to the movies!

  1. #76
    Pain Killer Prisca's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    583
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 3 Times in 3 Posts

    Blog Entries
    8
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    202
    Quote Originally Posted by aharvey View Post
    The fossil record preserves only a small, and as far as we can tell, relatively highly conserved, fraction of an organism. That is, just because the bones aren't changing doesn't mean the organisms aren't evolving.
    In other words, even if we can't see it, it must be evolution.
    For you, brethren, have been called to liberty; only do not use liberty as an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another. For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” But if you bite and devour one another, beware lest you be consumed by one another!
    Galatians 5:13-15

  2. #77
    Over 1000 post club csuguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    1,029
    Thanks
    82
    Thanked 127 Times in 95 Posts

    Blog Entries
    1
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    33017
    Quote Originally Posted by aharvey View Post
    Actually, you're misrepresenting Gould's position so badly that you clearly haven't read what he wrote. He did not invoke anything resembling "instantaneous large mutations." Rather, he (and Niles Eldredge, his co-author on the original punctuated equilibrium papers) made the up-til-then underappreciated observation that a geologic instant still spanned many thousands of generations for most organisms, plenty of time for significant changes to occur.

    It's been a while since I've read these papers, but I also think that in discussing statis (the long periods of little noticeable change), they made two rather extremely relevant observations, both of which are central to the phenomenon and neither of which require any sort of adjustment to evolutionary theory. First is that organisms usually don't evolve for no reason; thus, just because time passes doesn't mean organisms have to evolve. Second, the fossil record preserves only a small, and as far as we can tell, relatively highly conserved, fraction of an organism. That is, just because the bones aren't changing doesn't mean the organisms aren't evolving.

    Indeed, the great thing about these papers was not that they identified some new mysterious type of evolutionary process, but that they showed that the evolution that paleontologists studied and the evolution that neontologists studied, though they looked extremely different, were actually one in the same, and that these two groups of scientists, who historically paid little attention to each other, really had a lot to talk about.
    Gould suggested that most of the time species very slowly changed over time - like with the traditional theory - but at times something caused this rate to drastically speed up. This new process he called a Macro Mutation- which is NOT a micro mutation. Thus his theory is not combatible with the synthetic view that macro and micro mutations are the same thing.
    If you have material wealth, but do not give to those in need, then the love of God is not in you. Whatever you have done for the least of these you have done for HIM. To give to the poor is to lend to the LORD.

  3. #78
    Over 500 post club aharvey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    689
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    172
    Quote Originally Posted by Becky View Post
    In other words, even if we can't see it, it must be evolution.
    This is one of those statements that inspire the "Lying for Jesus" label for creationists, Becky. Do you really, really, really fail to see the fundamental difference between these two statements?

    "Just because the bones aren't evolving doesn't mean the rest of the critter isn't."

    "The rest of the critter must be evolving even if we can't see it."

    To me, the first statement is true whereas the second statement is false. Please, set me straight!

  4. #79
    Over 500 post club aharvey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    689
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    172
    Quote Originally Posted by csuguy View Post
    Gould suggested that most of the time species very slowly changed over time - like with the traditional theory - but at times something caused this rate to drastically speed up. This new process he called a Macro Mutation- which is NOT a micro mutation. Thus his theory is not combatible with the synthetic view that macro and micro mutations are the same thing.
    csuguy,

    I suppose some full disclosure might be helpful here: even though I hadn't looked at the original Gould and Eldredge papers in a while, I have more than a passing familiarity with their work (and them; I had several discussions, some of them fairly intense with the former, and worked for years in the same department as the latter). Not that this means you can't be right and I can't be wrong, but you're going to have to do more than simply repeat your claims.

    For example. How do Gould and Eldredge summarize their arguments? Here's an extensive quote (no quote-mining for me!) from their 1977 followup paper:

    We wanted to expand the scope of relevant data by arguing that morphological breaks in the stratigraphic record may be real, and that stasis is data-that each case of stasis has as much meaning for evolutionary theory as each example of change. We did this by recognizing that the model of speciation preferred by most evolutionary biologists did not yield a prediction of gradual change in large populations. Most evolutionary change, we argued, is concentrated in rapid (often geologically instantaneous) events of speciation in small, peripherally isolated populations (the theory of allopatric speciation). The norm for a species during the heyday of its existence as a large population is morphological stasis, minor non-directional fluctuation in form, or minor directional change bearing no relationship to pathways of alteration in subsequent daughter species. In local stratigraphic sections, we expect no slow and steady transition. but a break with essentially sudden replacement of ancestors by descendants: this break may record the extinction or emigration of a parental species and the immigration of a successful descendant rapidly evolved elsewhere in a small, peripherally isolated population. (Small numbers and rapid evolution virtually preclude the preservation of speciation events in the fossil record; in any case, speciation does not occur in local sections inhabited by abundant ancestors.)

    (My emphases) They are arguing that conventional models of speciation and population genetics, taken together, imply patterns in the fossil record that more closely match what paleontologists actually find, obviating the need to explain away periods of stasis or transitional fossils as "gaps in the fossil record."

    They also contradict your claim that they're proposing something incompatible with traditional evolutionary theory: For all the hubbub it engendered, the model of punctuated equilibria is scarcely a revolutionary proposal. Their contribution was synthetic (that is, bringing together several already existing, well established models) not novel (that is, they did not invoke some revolutionary new phenomenon like, Macro Mutations!).

    Now, Gould did speculate in his popular Natural History column about Goldschmidt's hopeful monsters notion. But it was taken completely out of context by all manner of folks (so you're not the first, if it's any consolation). Here's what Niles Eldredge (1995) had to say about it:

    Steve Gould wrote two consecutive essays in Natural History in 1977. Among other things, Steve speculated that the recent (sic) discovery of regulatory genes -genes that turn other genes on and off— raised the possibility that mutations in the regulatory apparatus might occasionally have the sort of effect Goldschmidt had in mind with his notion of 'macromutations.' These macromutations had the large-scale effects of the sort he posited for his 'hopeful monsters.' Nowhere in either article did Steve mention punctuated equilibria.

    But it was enough, it seems, that he, champion of a new model positing bursts of relatively rapid change, would, a few years later, discuss Goldschmidt in favorable terms.


    I'll also add that in his essays Gould directly contradicts even the most specific claim you attribute to him: he says that these macromutations could be impressive in their effects, but they are fundamentally compatible with traditional Darwinian processes. Macromutations are just like micromutations, except that their effects are bigger.

  5. #80
    Over 1500 post club GuySmiley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    1,829
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 25 Times in 21 Posts

    Blog Entries
    2
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    160614
    Saw the movie . . . it was excellent. I'm suprised he went into the Nazi's and eugenics and abortion. He's really got guts. Entertaining film too.
    "I believe in Christianity, as I believe the sun has risen, not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else." C.S. Lewis

    "Don't believe that there's nothing that's true, don't believe in this modern machine." Switchfoot

  6. #81
    Over 1000 post club csuguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    1,029
    Thanks
    82
    Thanked 127 Times in 95 Posts

    Blog Entries
    1
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    33017
    Quote Originally Posted by aharvey View Post
    I suppose some full disclosure might be helpful here: even though I hadn't looked at the original Gould and Eldredge papers in a while, I have more than a passing familiarity with their work (and them; I had several discussions, some of them fairly intense with the former, and worked for years in the same department as the latter). Not that this means you can't be right and I can't be wrong, but you're going to have to do more than simply repeat your claims....
    I appreciate your detailed response. You are right that I have not directly read his work - and I should go and read his work (any references appreciated). What I know is mostly what I learned from my Anthropology class. Perhaps I misunderstood my professor, but he presented the theory like I have thus far described. Seeings as how has his PhD in evolutionary anthropology I assume he knows what he is talking about - but he could be wrong. I will have to find Gould's work and read it for myself - when I get some free time any way.

    Ryan
    If you have material wealth, but do not give to those in need, then the love of God is not in you. Whatever you have done for the least of these you have done for HIM. To give to the poor is to lend to the LORD.

  7. #82
    ...then I woke up. Knight's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    26,595
    Thanks
    218
    Thanked 1,386 Times in 714 Posts

    Blog Entries
    6
    Mentioned
    72 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    1009111
    Quote Originally Posted by Becky View Post
    In other words, even if we can't see it, it must be evolution.
    POTD
    Also be sure to.... Join TOL on Facebook | Follow TOL on Twitter
    TOL Newbies CLICK HERE or....upgrade your TOL today!

    Download the new TOL app for iPhone, iPad, and Android...


  8. #83
    Does Whatever A Light-House Can Lighthouse's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Anderson, IN
    Posts
    20,720
    Thanks
    1,174
    Thanked 13,200 Times in 10,085 Posts

    Blog Entries
    1
    Mentioned
    10 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    2147865
    Quote Originally Posted by Wamba View Post
    He only says that because he's envious. He went to see Spiderman eight times.
    I'm proud to be a geek. That is not the same as a nerd. Also, I only went to see Spider-Man 4 times.

    P.S.
    Even the spell check doesn't recognize Spiderman as a word.


  9. The Following User Says Thank You to Lighthouse For Your Post:

    Tambora (June 24th, 2016)

  10. #84
    Pain Killer Prisca's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    583
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 3 Times in 3 Posts

    Blog Entries
    8
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    202
    Quote Originally Posted by aharvey View Post
    This is one of those statements that inspire the "Lying for Jesus" label for creationists, Becky. Do you really, really, really fail to see the fundamental difference between these two statements?

    "Just because the bones aren't evolving doesn't mean the rest of the critter isn't."

    "The rest of the critter must be evolving even if we can't see it."

    To me, the first statement is true whereas the second statement is false. Please, set me straight!
    I guess you didn't think it was funny....
    For you, brethren, have been called to liberty; only do not use liberty as an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another. For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” But if you bite and devour one another, beware lest you be consumed by one another!
    Galatians 5:13-15

  11. #85
    Journeyman laughsoutloud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    102
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    117
    CSU Guy Writes (re: Gould)
    I think you misunderstood what I wrote. I in no way implied that his work some how supported creationism or invalidates evolution - what I was saying is that his version of evolution is starkly different from the standard model of evolution that is typically taught. He disagrees with the core element of that model - the process by which new species emerge. He doesn't dismiss the idea that small mutations throughout time have the potential to create new species - but he does NOT accept this as the primary source of evolutionary change.
    No, your perspective distorts the situation. What Gould did was to look at the evidence (for example, the Burgess Shale), and propose some changes - rather than the idea of a continuous gradient of change (that is, a constant rate of change), he recognized that the record supports stasis punctuated by multi-million year periods of change.

    His never separated himself from the idea of evolution - he simply proposed a refinement to the process based on the data.

  12. #86
    Journeyman laughsoutloud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    102
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    117
    CSUguy writes
    Well, as Ben Stein stated in his new movies (which I watched tonight - excellent ) - you are entitled to freewill so long as you are on the right side of the wall (paraphrase). Regardless of much faster/slower Gould's theory, the fact remains that his model requires a new process - a process which is not compatible with the old theory.
    Again, this is simply not true. Gould was an evolutionist, and there is nothing here that identified a new process. If anything, it simply suggests that evolution is in response to some change - perhaps in the environment, perhaps the result of a "critical mass" of smaller change.

    Again, the point to note here is that he was more closely aligning the theory with the data - which still does not support creationism in any guises - there "rapid" speciation events took millions of years, and in any event, are contained in fossil histories that cover hundreds of millions of years.

  13. #87
    Journeyman laughsoutloud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    102
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    117
    CSUguy writes:
    Ignorance is bliss. You obviously have not studied very much theology - or Church History.
    Actually, I have an MDiv, with some additional graduate work. I have studied quite a bit of church history, and I remain convinced that, even if an individual group thinks that there is some critical distinction (for example, as you make between some protestant groups and the Catholic church, Paul teaches us that there is in fact 1 faith, 1 Lord, 1 baptism. - right? Do you recall Roman's 10:9 "That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved." I don't think you have any Biblical basis to separate yourself from Catholics - even if you disagree with their theology.

    Likewise, evolutionists accept descent with modification, random mutation, genetic drift, natural selection. The rest is details in the process of being worked out.
    Last edited by laughsoutloud; April 22nd, 2008 at 03:47 PM.

  14. #88
    Formerly Shimei! Servo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    3,046
    Thanks
    2
    Thanked 17 Times in 14 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    6919
    Quote Originally Posted by Becky View Post
    In other words, even if we can't see it, it must be evolution.

    Right. And it was all started by aliens!

  15. #89
    Journeyman laughsoutloud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    102
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    117
    Quote Originally Posted by Shimei View Post
    Originally Posted by Becky View Post
    In other words, even if we can't see it, it must be evolution.
    Right. And it was all started by aliens!
    Of course, we see evolution all the time - just because you don't believe in it, doesn't mean it is not real.

  16. #90
    Pain Killer Prisca's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    583
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 3 Times in 3 Posts

    Blog Entries
    8
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    202
    Quote Originally Posted by laughsoutloud View Post
    Of course, we see evolution all the time - just because you don't believe in it, doesn't mean it is not real.
    Show me.
    For you, brethren, have been called to liberty; only do not use liberty as an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another. For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” But if you bite and devour one another, beware lest you be consumed by one another!
    Galatians 5:13-15

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
About us
Since 1997 TheologyOnline (TOL) has been one of the most popular theology forums on the internet. On TOL we encourage spirited conversation about religion, politics, and just about everything else.

follow us