(06-21-2009 08:20 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(06-21-2009 08:05 PM)Paul M Wrote:  Sorry Rob but your replys are little more than dog poo.

THis coming from you and a group of republicans who don't understand the difference between weather and climate, lacks understanding of global warming and how it relates to global climate change, have no clue as to what science is and believe the Bible is the only science you need to know.

POO! I say. POO!

Gould was an evolutionist. I was reading a book by a paleontologist who said that one of the Creatonists' favorite tactics is to take Gould's quotes out of context, to imply basically the opposite of what he really meant. Anyway, I'm not sure how you can criticize looking to the authority of the scientific community, but then quote Gould to further your arguments.

(06-21-2009 06:51 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(06-21-2009 02:55 PM)UofL07 Wrote:  [quote='DrTorch' pid='4435947' dateline='1245612004']
I only have a problem w/ your unnecessary interjection of them in this discussion. You've spent an awful lot of space trying to demonstrate that gravity describes an empirically observed phenomenon, while I did it by using a single link.

You also assert that I'm not using these terms correctly, which in fact, I am. So if you insist on being in violent agreement, that's your choice. But stop wasting my time.

I only disagree with you because your link underscores your inability to differentiate between a scientific theory and a scientific law. Here is a link to a scientific article:

Yes, thank you for your links. But did you actually read the thread. It was stated (by someone else) that "gravity is just a theory." Even your own references demonstrate that not to be true.

You seem awfully quick to jump in and explain how I'm wrong, ought to be sure that you know what you're talking about next time.

Quote:

(06-21-2009 01:40 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  So an insect "evolved" into an inset. Is that all you mean by evolution?

No, they are undergoing the process of speciation - the evolutionary process by which new species arise. They have not evolved yet but one can consider them to be on a trajectory towards evolution.

You can consider all you like. You can consider, infer, hope, pray, whatever. It is still nothing at all like evidence or proof of the theory. It is the mildest of support in that it doesn't contradict the theory, but that's a pretty far cry from good support. And moreover, that's the best you've got.

In order for speciation to be complete, an reproductive isolation

Quote: An no, that is not all I mean by evolution, it is simply an example of it.

Wait, you just said it wasn't an example, rather it was headed "towards evolution." See what I mean. Even the ardent supporters get caught in their own words when they're being honest. I suspect you fool yourself with the word games needed to support evolution.

"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." R. Feynman

Quote:

(06-21-2009 01:40 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  Hmm, you suddenly don't know what my point is. Better to spout off than actually take the time to understand, is that it? You wrote that the International scientific community accepts evolution. I am pointing out why I am not impressed. To be brief, that fallacious appeal to authority isn't proof for evolution.

And your proof for intelligent design is a group of theologians, many of whom have no scientific background?

Quote:Quick w/ the straw man argument too I see. You should be embarassed. I never made any full case for ID, nonetheless, the supporters of ID go well beyond theologians, and include many scientists. Your straw man and ad homenim attacks are predictable, but rather sad.

[quote] Also, if we are going to examine historical scientific topics such as the heliocentric/geocentric universe concept, then it is also important to also bring up the influence of dominant religious powers and what those did to those who opposed them. Galileo, for example, was imprisoned in his on home for the remainder of his life for supporting a heliocentric view of the universe.

Yes he was, but it wasn't really on religious grounds. Once again, you ought to do some research on the subject, not just accept the urban legends that your teachers threw around.

Everything I've ever read in science books indicates that he was imprisoned for heresy related to his support of the heliocentric theory. There might be some religious writings that will try to pass it off as due to something else. Giordano Bruno was another one declared as a heretic, in part, for the same thing. I'm sure the church doesn't want to admit that they were responsible for burning someone at the stake for no reason, even if it was a long time ago.

(06-21-2009 06:51 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  Yes, thank you for your links. But did you actually read the thread. It was stated (by someone else) that "gravity is just a theory." Even your own references demonstrate that not to be true.

Again, gravity is both a theory and a law. The two are not mutually exclusive. Here's a short list of some of the current theories of gravity

The Universal Theory of Gravity, General relativity, Brans-Dicke theory of gravity, induced gravity, the self-creation cosmology theory of gravity, Non-symmetric gravitational theory (NGT), Tensor-vector-scalar gravity, Shifting Theory.

(06-21-2009 01:40 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  You can consider all you like. You can consider, infer, hope, pray, whatever. It is still nothing at all like evidence or proof of the theory. It is the mildest of support in that it doesn't contradict the theory, but that's a pretty far cry from good support. And moreover, that's the best you've got.

Here is an article out of the scientific journal Nature citing 15 examples of supporting evidence for evolution.

http://www.nature.com/nature/newspdf/evolutiongems.pdf

Fossils

The fossil record provides snapshots of the past that, when assembled, illustrate a panorama of evolutionary change over the past four billion years. The picture may be smudged in places and may have bits missing, but fossil evidence clearly shows that life is old and has changed over time.

Fossils or organisms that show the intermediate states between an ancestral form and that of its descendants are referred to as transitional forms. There are numerous examples of transitional forms in the fossil record, providing an abundance of evidence for change over time.

Pakicetus is described as an early ancestor to modern whales. Although pakicetids were land mammals, it is clear that they are related to whales and dolphins based on a number of specializations of the ear, relating to hearing. The nostril position of Pakicetus is at the front of the skull.

A skull of the gray whale that roams the seas today has its nostrils placed at the top of its skull. It would appear from these two specimens that the position of the nostril has changed over time and thus we would expect to see intermediate forms.

Scientific Article discussing evolution and the fossil record
http://springerlink.com/content/93465202...ltext.html


Homologies

Evolutionary theory predicts that related organisms will share similarities that are derived from common ancestors. Similar characteristics due to relatedness are known as homologies. Homologies can be revealed by comparing the anatomies of different living things, looking at cellular similarities and differences, studying embryological development, and studying vestigial structures within individual organisms.

Individual organisms contain, within their bodies, abundant evidence of their histories. The existence of these features is best explained by evolution.

* Several animals, including pigs, cattle, deer, and dogs have reduced, nonfunctional digits, referred to as dewclaws. The foot of the pig has lost digit 1 completely, digits 2 and 5 have been greatly reduced, and only digits 3 and 4 support the body. Evolution best explains such vestigial features. They are the remnants of ancestors with a larger number of functional digits.

* People (and apes) have chests that are broader than they are deep, with the shoulder blades flat in back. This is because we, like apes, are descended from an ancestor who was able to suspend itself using the upper limbs. On the other hand, monkeys and other quadrupeds have a different form of locomotion. Quadrupeds have narrow, deep chests with shoulder blades on the sides.

* Hoatzin chicks have claws on their wings, as do some chickens and ostriches. This reflects the fact that bird ancestors had clawed hands.

Organisms that are closely related to one another share many anatomical similarities. Sometimes the similarities are conspicuous, as between crocodiles and alligators, but in other cases considerable study is needed for a full appreciation of relationships.

Whales and hummingbirds have tetrapod skeletons inherited from a common ancestor. Their bodies have been modified and parts have been lost through natural selection, resulting in adaptation to their respective lifestyles over millions of years. On the surface, these animals look very different, but the relationship between them is easy to demonstrate. Except for those bones that have been lost over time, nearly every bone in each corresponds to an equivalent bone in the other.

Studying the embryological development of living things provides clues to the evolution of present-day organisms. During some stages of development, organisms exhibit ancestral features in whole or incomplete form.

Some species of living snakes have hind limb-buds as early embryos but rapidly lose the buds and develop into legless adults. The study of developmental stages of snakes, combined with fossil evidence of snakes with hind limbs, supports the hypothesis that snakes evolved from a limbed ancestor.

Toothed whales have full sets of teeth throughout their lives. Baleen whales, however, only possess teeth in the early fetal stage and lose them before birth. The possession of teeth in fetal baleen whales provides evidence of common ancestry with toothed whales and other mammals. In addition, fossil evidence indicates that the late Oligocene whale Aetiocetus, from Oregon, which is considered to be the earliest example of baleen whales, also bore a full set of teeth.

Again, these observations make most sense in an evolutionary framework where snakes have legged ancestors and whales have toothed ancestors.

At the cellular and molecular level living things are remarkably similar to each other. These fundamental similarities are most easily explained by evolutionary theory: life shares a common ancestor.

All organisms are made of cells, which consist of membranes filled with water containing genetic material, proteins, lipids, carbohydrates, salts and other substances. The cells of most living things use sugar for fuel while producing proteins as building blocks and messengers. Notice the similarity between the typical animal and plant cells pictured below — only three structures are unique to one or the other.

Different species share genetic homologies as well as anatomical ones. Roundworms, for example, share 25% of their genes with humans. These genes are slightly different in each species, but their striking similarities nevertheless reveal their common ancestry. In fact, the DNA code itself is a homology that links all life on Earth to a common ancestor. DNA and RNA possess a simple four-base code that provides the recipe for all living things. In some cases, if we were to transfer genetic material from the cell of one living thing to the cell of another, the recipient would follow the new instructions as if they were its own.

These characteristics of life demonstrate the fundamental sameness of all living things on Earth and serve as the basis of today's efforts at genetic engineering.


Distribution of Species

The distribution of living things on the globe provides information about the past histories of both living things and the surface of the Earth. This evidence is consistent not just with the evolution of life, but also with the movement of continental plates around the world-otherwise known as plate tectonics.

Marsupial mammals are found in the Americas as well as Australia and New Guinea. They are not found swimming across the Pacific Ocean, nor have they been discovered wandering the Asian mainland. There appear to be no routes of migration between the two populations. How could marsupials have gotten from their place of origin to locations half a world away?

Fossils of marsupials have been found in the Antarctic as well as in South America and Australia. During the past few decades scientists have demonstrated that what is now called South America was part of a large land mass called Gondwana, which included Australia and Antarctica. Marsupials didn't need a migration route from one part of the world to another; they rode the continents to their present positions.


Evidence by Example

Although the history of life is always in the past, there are many ways we can look at present-day organisms, as well as recent history, to better understand what has occurred through deep time. Artificial selection in agriculture or laboratories provides a model for natural selection. Looking at interactions of organisms in ecosystems helps us to understand how populations adapt over time. Experiments demonstrate selection and adaptive advantage. And we can see nested hierarchies in taxonomies based on common descent.

Artificial selection provides a model that helps us understand natural selection. People have been artificially selecting domesticated plants and animals for thousands of years. These activities have amounted to large, long-term, practical experiments that clearly demonstrate that species can change dramatically through selective breeding. Broccoli and brussels sprouts bear little superficial resemblance to their wild mustard relatives.

If domesticated dogs were discovered today they would be classified as hundreds of different species and considered quite distinct from wolves. Although it is probable that various breeds of dogs were independently domesticated from distinct wild dog lineages, there are no wolf relatives anywhere in the world that look much like dachshunds or collies.

These observations demonstrate that selection has profound effects on populations and has the ability to modify forms and behaviors of living things to the point that they look and act very unlike their ancestors. Artificial selection provides a model that helps us understand natural selection. It is a small step to envision natural conditions acting selectively on populations and causing natural changes.

As predicted by evolutionary theory, populations evolve in response to their surroundings. In any ecosystem there are finite opportunities to make a living. Organisms either have the genetic tools to take advantage of those opportunities or they do not.

House sparrows arrived in North America from Europe in the nineteenth century. Since then, genetic variation within the population, and selection in various habitats, have allowed them to inhabit most of the continent. House sparrows in the north are larger and darker colored than those in the south. Darker colors absorb sunlight better than light colors and larger size allows less surface area per unit volume, thus reducing heat loss — both advantages in a cold climate. This is an example of natural selection acting upon a population, producing micro-evolution on a continental scale.

John Endler of the University of California has conducted experiments with the guppies of Trinidad that clearly show selection at work. The scenario: Female guppies prefer colorful males for mating purposes. Predatory fish also "prefer" colorful males, but for a less complimentary purpose — a source of food that is easy to spot. Some portions of the streams where guppies live have fewer predators than others and in these locations the males are more colorful (top frame). Not surprisingly, males in locations where there are more predators tend to be less colorful (bottom frame).

When Dr. Endler transferred predatory fish to the regions with brightly colored male guppies, selection acted rapidly to produce a population of duller males. This demonstrates that persistent variation within a population provides the raw material for rapid evolution when environmental conditions change.


Here are a series of lectures on the same topics I outlined above:
http://www.hhmi.org/biointeractive/evolu...tures.html

(06-21-2009 06:51 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  Wait, you just said it wasn't an example, rather it was headed "towards evolution." See what I mean. Even the ardent supporters get caught in their own words when they're being honest. I suspect you fool yourself with the word games needed to support evolution.

A massive star that is in the process of forming a black hole does not provide support for the theory of general relativity? Just because a process is currently occurring does not mean that it cannot be used to provide support for an idea. Speciation is the core process in evolution and looking for active examples of the process is vital in confirming whether or not the theory of evolution is valid.

(06-21-2009 01:40 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  Quick w/ the straw man argument too I see. You should be embarassed. I never made any full case for ID, nonetheless, the supporters of ID go well beyond theologians, and include many scientists. Your straw man and ad homenim attacks are predictable, but rather sad.

In science, if you reject one idea, you put forth a competing idea with data to backup your claims. This is how science advances and evolves over time. If you are so convinced that evolution is not the answer, then I would expect you to postulate at least some base level hypothesis and provide scientific evidence as to how the biotic world works.

(06-21-2009 01:40 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  Yes he was, but it wasn't really on religious grounds. Once again, you ought to do some research on the subject, not just accept the urban legends that your teachers threw around.

Actually, it was partially on religious grounds. For centuries, the Church had wed the geocentric concepts of Aristotelian science with traditional scriptural interpretation. The Church leaders could not make a distinction between Aristotle and Christian teachings. For the Church, if Aristotle was wrong, Christianity was wrong. Galileo's heliocentric concept challenged not only the Aristotelian philosophy of Church theologians, but also the traditional scriptural interpretation they had wed to it. The Church used its position as a religious institution to condemn Galileo as a heretic and imprison him.

The Church eventually lifted the ban on Galileo's Dialogue in 1822, when it was common knowledge that the Earth was not the center of the Universe. Still later, there were statements by the Vatican Council in the early 1960's and in 1979 that implied that Galileo was pardoned, and that he had suffered at the hands of the Church. Finally, in 1992, three years after Galileo Galilei's namesake spacecraft had been launched on its way to Jupiter, the Vatican formally and publicly cleared Galileo of any wrongdoing.

the Church

(06-21-2009 06:38 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  It's not hard to find a page full of Gould quotes stating that the fossil record does NOT provide the evidence you say it does. Since Gould is on your side, I figure you ought to pay attention to that sometime.

http://ncseweb.org/cej/2/4/misquoted-scientists-respond

Here is an article printed by the National Center for Science Education. The authors asked leading evolutionists (such as Gould) in various fields to comment briefly on misinterpretations of their areas of expertise and of their work. Most scientists who were approached replied, although a few cited other commitments that prevented their participation and a couple noted that they could not explain their position in just a few paragraphs. I've posted Dr. Gould's response below.

Dr. Stephen Jay Gould

Professor of geology, Harvard University; author of The Panda's Thumb; and probably the single most misquoted and misused scientist among the creationists' unwilling allies. This excerpt is from "Evolution as Fact and Theory, " Discover, May 1981.

It is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists—whether through design or stupidity, I do not know—as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level but are abundant between larger groups. The evolution from reptiles to mammals . . . is well documented. Yet a pamphlet entitled "Harvard Scientists Agree Evolution Is a Hoax" states: "The facts of punctuated equilibrium, which Gould and Eldredge . . . are forcing Darwinists to swallow fit the picture that [William Jennings] Bryan insisted on and which God has revealed to us in the Bible."

Let's set that information aside for a moment and address some of Gould's actual "quotes". Here is probably the most famous and most misleading quote that anti-evolutionists like to use regarding the fossil record:

"We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life's history, yet
to preserve out favored account of evolution by natural selection
we view our data as so bad that we never see the process we profess
to study"... "The family trees which adorn our textbooks are
based on inference, however, reasonable, not the evidence of
fossils."

That quote is taken from an essay entitled "The episodic nature of evolutionary change". However, if you go back and read the original essay, you'll notice that the quote is actually a perversion of the original text. Not only is the text out of order, but it also has important omissions that alter the meaning of the text itself. Here is the first originating sentence:

"The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the
tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however
reasonable, not the evidence of fossils."

Note that the clause "have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is" is completed omitted. This bridge substitution was never penned by Gould and in fact distorts the implied meaning of the sentence. It gives the impression that no part of the evolutionary trees was based on actual data, which is unequivocally a lie.

For the second sentence, the mechanics of quotation are almost accurate, but the context has been neatly excised:

"Paleontologists have paid an exorbitant price for Darwin's argument.
We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life's history, yet
to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection
we view our data as so bad that we never see the very process we profess
to study."

That statement, taken by itself, seems to imply that Gould thinks Darwin's argument is rubbish. However, contextual information is always the key in understanding a text's true meaning. The 'argument' Gould was referring to was not the theory of natural selection, but rather Darwin's assessment that natural selection occurred via phyletic gradualism*. Phyletic gradualism is the theory that natural selection progresses by extremely small genetic differences spread over long periods of evolutionary time.

* It should be noted; however, that Darwin's original proposal of gradual evolutionary change may have been misunderstood by Gould. On page 551 of "On the Origin of Species", Darwin stated that "the periods, during which species have undergone modification, though long as measured by years, have probably been short in comparison with the periods during which they have retained the same form."

http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/fram...ageseq=583

Gould's argument was that phyletic gradualism is not supported by the fossil record, though Cuffey (1973) suggests that a more accurate statement is that support for phyletic gradualism in the fossil record is rare, not absent. I've provided a citation to Cuffey's book below. But I digress. Gould's original argument was not the evolution by natural selection was incorrect, but that it occurs via the process of punctuated equilibria (an idea that he and Niles Eldredge championed during the 1970s). Later in the essay, Gould writes that punctuated equilibria is supported by the pattern of change that is recorded, by and large, in the fossil record.

The problem many Gould quoters have is that they have read many of his "quotes" (and I apply that terms loosely) but have not actually read his original works. This leads to a loss of critical contextual information and the propensity to be mislead. In addition, many who like to quote scientists like Gould saying 'there are no transitional forms' neglect to mention that they are only referring to transitional forms at the species level. Gould has stated that transitional forms between orders and families are in fact abundant.

Cuffey, R. 1973 An improved classification, based upon numerical-taxonomic analyses, for the higher taxa of entoproct and ectoproct bryozoans. In G. P. Larwood, ed., Living and Fossil Bryozoa, pp. 549-64. London: Academic Press.

(06-21-2009 06:38 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  Furthermore, even if you provide something factual (Piltdown man anyone?) you've not considered any other models that fit the data you provide.

Please enlighten me to any scientific alternatives that have an equivalent amount of support behind them. Remember to that science, by definition, explains natural phenomena through natural not supernatural processes. Science isn't the world of gods or fairies or aliens.

Here is a website host by Berkeley that explains what science is, how it works, and the processes that are involved:

http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0_0/intro_01

(06-21-2009 06:38 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  I don't need to offer you any other model when critiquing evolution. Just like I don't need to know the exact geology of the moon to tell someone it's not made of green cheese. (It isn't you know. That's just more 19th C fiction).

In science, if you reject one idea, you put forth a competing idea with data to backup your claims. This is how science advances and evolves over time. If you are so convinced that evolution is not the answer, then I would expect you to postulate at least some base level hypothesis that is more parsimonious than evolution via natural selection. I find it odd that you continue to demand evidence (provide several times above despite your dismissals), yet you yourself have not provided any counter-evidence to suggest that evolution is not, in fact, the correct scientific theory.

Quote:I find it odd that you continue to demand evidence (provide several times above despite your dismissals), yet you yourself have not provided any counter-evidence to suggest that evolution is not, in fact, the correct scientific theory.

I'm beginning to notice that's his M.O.

Frankly, I think God was created by Man - In his own image - and not the other way around. There's plenty of empirical evidence to back me up...

(06-22-2009 09:38 AM)GRPunk Wrote:  

Quote:I find it odd that you continue to demand evidence (provide several times above despite your dismissals), yet you yourself have not provided any counter-evidence to suggest that evolution is not, in fact, the correct scientific theory.

I'm beginning to notice that's his M.O.

Hmm, you don't offer any compelling "evidence" yet I'm supposed to counter all of it?

Let's see, lots of Gould's and others' quotes insists that the fossil records don't support the standard Darwinian model...yet somehow that doesn't refute things.

The similarities among anatomical structures is at best a necessary condition of evolutionary theory, but it is far from sufficient.
Moreover, it provide equal "evidence" for competing theories.

the geographic distribution of related species-
the recorded genetic changes in living organisms over many generations-
If you want to limit evolution to what is referred to as "microevolution" then perhaps. But that's not really where the contention lies. I've asked before, what do you mean by evolution, b/c you've made vague references to a variety of definitions even in this short conversation.

Funny how I'm suppose to provide "counterarguments" yet you don't even propose a single, clear definition for this THEORY. If I were to use the term "atom" and define it in several ways, I would do chemistry and atomic theory a grave disservice.

Not coincidentally, I mentioned this fact early on as well. The supporters of evolutionary theory keep trying to slip past this most basic elements.

(06-21-2009 09:36 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  Gould was an evolutionist. I was reading a book by a paleontologist who said that one of the Creatonists' favorite tactics is to take Gould's quotes out of context, to imply basically the opposite of what he really meant. Anyway, I'm not sure how you can criticize looking to the authority of the scientific community, but then quote Gould to further your arguments.

Really? This confuses you? I mean we get UL07 ridiculing the credentials of some premier scientists, so they don't accept their conclusions. Then you wonder why people cite the evolutionists themselves? Tell me who else is left?

Fact is Gould's comments aren't all taken out of context. I've read their context, and most of the quotes are provided w/ references, so you can verifty them too. I have a photocopy of a SciAm column that says the same thing. Other paleontologists have made similar claims.

Moreover, paleontology is not exactly the same calibre of science as chemistry or physics. You don't get to repeat those experiments in the lab and gather your own inductive proofs for their theories.

Interpretation of fossils is up to the paleontologist. And he comes in w/ explicit assumptions, that affect his conclusions. It's simply not the same quality of evidence as used by Newton, Lavosier, etc. Which is one reason why there is so much fraud in the fossil world. It's also a reason why many studies of fossils are reportedly suppressed...they don't fit with the current models, so they are ignored. The way science is done (and UL should admit this) is to revise the theory w/ the new evidence. You don't hide evidence to protect a theory. That's actually an impediment to science.

(06-22-2009 09:38 AM)GRPunk Wrote:  I'm beginning to notice that's his M.O.

I'm of the position that if you are going to debate someone, you should at least make an attempt to provide counter-points to sustain your argument. For example, if someone wants to argument against my position on evolution, I would expect them to at least write something like:

"Evolution cannot be valid because random genetic mutations could never lead to the development as something as complex as the human eye"

- or -

"Evolution cannot be valid because vestigial organs would be a waste of energy and therefore be disfavored by natural selection".

- or -

"Evolution cannot be valid because it cannot properly explain the development of altruistic behavior"

- or -

"Evolution isn't valid because my pastor said so"
(This is also a poorly constructed argument because there is really no means of arguing against it. It does, however, provide an explanation for a person's reasoning)

(06-21-2009 10:14 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  Everything I've ever read in science books indicates that he was imprisoned for heresy related to his support of the heliocentric theory. There might be some religious writings that will try to pass it off as due to something else. Giordano Bruno was another one declared as a heretic, in part, for the same thing. I'm sure the church doesn't want to admit that they were responsible for burning someone at the stake for no reason, even if it was a long time ago.

Assuming you don't read Italian, and don't feel like learning the language just to research these primary sources (and I don't blame you, I don't read Italian either) you should consider reading James Burke's review of the subject. As you probably know, Burke is a leading science historian, who's had a few shows aired on PBS and did a regular column for SciAm for a few years.

There is also a fairly recent book on Galileo that goes into more depth regarding his rivalry with Scheiner, and how that really spurred on his persecution.

Here's a nice summary that presents this competing view that you've never heard of
http://article.nationalreview.com/print/...UzZWQxNWE=

Regardless, the Roman Catholic Church has apologized for these events.

(06-22-2009 10:01 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  Hmm, you don't offer any compelling "evidence" yet I'm supposed to counter all of it?

Read the links above.

(06-22-2009 10:01 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  Let's see, lots of Gould's and others' quotes insists that the fossil records don't support the standard Darwinian model...yet somehow that doesn't refute things.

Gould states that evolution may not have happened exactly as Darwin described (phyletic gradualism versus punctuated equilibria); however, he doesn't argue against evolution at all. In fact, he says many times that the fossil record provides substantial evidence for the theory of evolution (and as illustrated above, he became exasperated when people misquoted him saying that fossils don't support evolution).

(06-22-2009 10:01 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  The similarities among anatomical structures is at best a necessary condition of evolutionary theory, but it is far from sufficient. Moreover, it provide equal "evidence" for competing theories.

Such as?

(06-22-2009 10:01 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  the recorded genetic changes in living organisms over many generations-
If you want to limit evolution to what is referred to as "microevolution" then perhaps. But that's not really where the contention lies.

Re-read the above posts. The provide several examples of macro-evolution (marsupial mammal distribution for one).

(06-22-2009 10:01 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  Funny how I'm suppose to provide "counterarguments" yet you don't even propose a single, clear definition for this THEORY. If I were to use the term "atom" and define it in several ways, I would do chemistry and atomic theory a grave disservice.

Evolution (n.) - the change in the genetic material of a population of organisms from one generation to the next, that can, over time, lead to the formation of new species.

(06-22-2009 10:11 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  Really? This confuses you? I mean we get UL07 ridiculing the credentials of some premier scientists, so they don't accept their conclusions. Then you wonder why people cite the evolutionists themselves? Tell me who else is left?

Read my post above. I've already explained this in agonizing detail and provided a letter from Gould himself on the topic (and a link to other evolutionist that are often misquoted).

(06-22-2009 10:11 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  Fact is Gould's comments aren't all taken out of context. I've read their context, and most of the quotes are provided w/ references, so you can verifty them too. I have a photocopy of a SciAm column that says the same thing. Other paleontologists have made similar claims.

Read my post above. I've already explained this in agonizing detail and provided a letter from Gould himself on the topic (and a link to other evolutionist that are often misquoted). But for the fun of it, let's ask Dr. Gould and Scientific American what they have to say.

What do you have to say on the topic Dr. Gould?

"It is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists—whether through design or stupidity, I do not know—as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level but are abundant between larger groups. The evolution from reptiles to mammals . . . is well documented. Yet a pamphlet entitled "Harvard Scientists Agree Evolution Is a Hoax" states: "The facts of punctuated equilibrium, which Gould and Eldredge . . . are forcing Darwinists to swallow fit the picture that [William Jennings] Bryan insisted on and which God has revealed to us in the Bible."

How about you Scientific American, what do you have to say about it?

http://www.scientificamerican.com/articl...r-punk-eek

"Punk eek has had its ups and downs. After an enthusiastic reception by journalists and some scientists, the theory was seized on by creationists as a sign that the theory of evolution was not universally accepted. Gould and Eldredge retorted that their model does not deny evolution but merely offers an alternative description of how it occurs."

(06-22-2009 10:15 AM)UofL07 Wrote:  

(06-22-2009 09:38 AM)GRPunk Wrote:  I'm beginning to notice that's his M.O.

I'm of the position that if you are going to debate someone, you should at least make an attempt to provide counter-points to sustain your argument. For example, if someone wants to argument against my position on evolution, I would expect them to at least write something like:

Blah blah and blah

Of course you "expect" this. That' what you've always been told the criticism of evolution would look like. (Not that the concept of "irreducible complexity" doesn't hold some validity...in fact it is quite compelling, and it's ironic that biologists of all people don't accept it.) That's why you're woefully unprepared to deal with a true critique of the theory.

That's why you can't provide a singlular, clear definition of what evolution is. You alternate between various phenomena, citing each distinct event as "evolution."

That's why you have to recant your comments on how evolution is required for agriculture and medicine, and rephrase what you actually meant.

That's why you are unprepared to meet the rigors of true science and consider alternative theories.

That's why you provide hand-waving arguments and appeals to authority, because there is a dearth of empirical evidence to support this theory.

In short, if this were a theory used to defend an ineffective antibiotic or a silly concept like phlogiston, it would have been dismissed decades ago. The fraudulent support for the theory, like Piltdown Man, pepper moths, and embryonic recapitulation, should embarass supporters to give up this notion like n-rays. But instead, they cling to this 19th C creation myth.

Why?

I can offer you answers, but it does involve speaking for others, always a bit risky. Of course they have books on this subject too, and they're written far better than I could put together. But they're worth reading, So you can live up to standards of science discussed by Feynman. You are the easiest person to fool, why have you let yourself be fooled?

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution Part 1: The Unique Universal Phylogenetic Tree
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html


29+ Evidences for Macroevolution Part 2: Past History
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section2.html


29+ Evidences for Macroevolution Part 3: Opportunism and Evolutionary Constraint
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section3.html


29+ Evidences for Macroevolution Part 4: The Molecular Sequence Evidence
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section4.html


29+ Evidences for Macroevolution Part 5: Change and Mutability
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section5.html


29+ Evidences for Macroevolution Closing remarks
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/closing.html

(06-22-2009 10:40 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  Of course you "expect" this. That' what you've always been told the criticism of evolution would look like. (Not that the concept of "irreducible complexity" doesn't hold some validity...in fact it is quite compelling, and it's ironic that biologists of all people don't accept it.) That's why you're woefully unprepared to deal with a true critique of the theory.

So I provide expert scientific evidence accumulated over the last 150 years by thousands of international researchers (most all of who have advanced scientific degrees and/or training). Yet I am the one unprepared? Once again, you fail to provide any shred of counter-evidence to suggest why evolution is incorrect or even why a different theory is more parsimonious.

(06-22-2009 10:40 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  That's why you can't provide a singlular, clear definition of what evolution is.

Read above post.

(06-22-2009 10:40 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  That's why you have to recant your comments on how evolution is required for agriculture and medicine, and rephrase what you actually meant.

I explained what I meant because apparently information that is disseminated in any introductory college level biology course seemed to be too complicated for you to grasp. When one debates, it is best to speak/write in a manner that is understandable to the audience at hand.

(06-22-2009 10:40 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  That's why you are unprepared to meet the rigors of true science and consider alternative theories.

My dissertation committee would beg to differ with your assessment. I am a Ph.D. student focusing on urban ecology and have 7 years of laboratory training in both cellular/molecular biology and ecology.

(06-22-2009 10:40 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  That's why you provide hand-waving arguments and appeals to authority, because there is a dearth of empirical evidence to support this theory.

I appeal to the international community of scientists and their research for support because that is what a scientist is trained to do regardless of the field they are in. If you've ever read a scientific journal (not SciAm - I'm talking about Nature, Science, J. Ecol., Cell, etc), you will notice that scientists cite past studies and the works of other scientists constantly. It is the accepted way of providing support for your arguments. Even researchers in the humanities, Arts, etc rely on the authority of their peers ro lead evidence to their ideas. I prefer scientific based evidence (which I have provided in great detail) over personal opinion (which you have provided in great detail).

(06-22-2009 10:40 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  In short, if this were a theory used to defend an ineffective antibiotic or a silly concept like phlogiston, it would have been dismissed decades ago. The fraudulent support for the theory, like Piltdown Man, pepper moths, and embryonic recapitulation, should embarass supporters to give up this notion like n-rays. But instead, they cling to this 19th C creation myth.

I'm not aware of a single evolutionary biologist that presently bases their support for the theory on the Piltdown Man (that assumption is ridiculous). Science is what disproved Piltdown Man as a hoax back in 1953 . Relying on a well known hoax that is well over 50 years seems to be a tenuous argument at best and ignores the fact that science has discovered the fossil remains of Homo habilis, Homo rudolfensis, Homo ergaster, Homo georgicus, Homo antecessor, Homo cepranensis, Homo erectus, Homo heidelbergensis, Homo rhodesiensis, Homo neanderthalensis, Homo sapiens idaltu, Archaic Homo sapiens, and Homo floresiensis.

The theory of recapitulation, which is often expressed as "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny", was put forward by Étienne Serres in 1824-1826 (before evolution). It was further developed by Haekel during the 1890s. Modern biologists and evolutionists have since come to reject this idea because although humans are generally understood to share ancestors with other taxa, stages of human embryonic development are not functionally equivalent to the adults of these shared common ancestors.. Again, no modern evolutionary biologist relies on Haeckel's work for evidence to support evolution. Dr. Gould wrote a book on the topic if you are interested:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0674639...0674639413


I've read several article on the Peppered Moth, in particular the one presented by creationist Dr. Jonathan Wells who describes himself as "devoting his life to destroying Darwinism and evolution" (sounds like an objective researcher to me but here is his original article http://www.arn.org/docs/wells/jw_pepmoth.htm)

1. Although the experiments were not perfect, they were not fatally flawed. Even though Kettlewell released his moths in daylight when a night release would have been more true to nature, he used the same procedure in areas that differed only in the amount of industrial pollution, showing conclusively that industrial pollution was a factor responsible for the difference in predation between color varieties. Similar arguments can be made for all other experiments. Although no experiment is perfect (nor can be), even imperfect experiments can give supporting or disconfirming evidence. In the case of peppered moths, many experiments have been done, and they all support the traditional story (Grant 1999).

2. Even without the experiments, the peppered moth story would be well established. Peppered moth melanism has both risen and fallen with pollution levels, and they have done so in many sites on two continents (Cook 2003; Grant 1999).

3. The peppered moth story is consistent with many other experiments and observations of crypsis and coloration in other species. For example, bird predation maintains the colorations of Heliconius cydno, which has different coloration in different regions, in both regions mimicking a noxious Heliconius species (Kapan 2001). Natural selection acting on the peppered moth would be the parsimonious hypothesis even if there were no evidence at present to support it.

4. The peppered moth story is not simple. The full story as it is known today fills thousands of pages of journal articles. Familiarity with the literature and with the moths in the field is needed to evaluate all the articles. But the research and the debates over its implications have all been done in the open. Charges of fraud and misconduct stem from neglect and misrepresentation of the research by the people making the charges (Grant 2000). Of those familiar with the literature, none doubt that bird predation is of primary importance in the changing frequencies of melanism in peppered moths (Majerus 1999).

5. After reading the Wells article, I suggest people read the Tamzek (2002) article entitled "Icon of obfuscation". http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/wells/iconob.html#moths


References:

1. Cook, L. M., 2003. The rise and fall of the carbonaria form of the peppered moth. Quarterly Review of Biology 78(4): 399-417.
2. Grant, Bruce S., 1999. Fine tuning the peppered moth paradigm. Evolution 53(3): 980-984.
3. Grant, Bruce, 2000. Letter: Charges of fraud misleading. Pratt Tribune, 13 Dec. 2000. Reprinted at http://www.indiana.edu/~ensiweb/lessons/icon.cr.html
4. Kapan, Durrell D., 2001. Three-butterfly system provides a field test of mullerian mimicry. Nature 409: 338-340.
5. Majerus, Michael E. N., 1999. (Letter). Quoted by Frack, Don. 1999. Peppered moths, round 2, part 2. http://www.calvin.edu/archive/evolution/.../0103.html
6. Rudge, David Wyss, 2000. Does being wrong make Kettlewell wrong for science teaching? Journal of Biological Education 35(1): 5-11.

(06-22-2009 10:27 AM)UofL07 Wrote:  Evolution (n.) - the change in the genetic material of a population of organisms from one generation to the next, that can, over time, lead to the formation of new species.

Finally. But, here's the rub. That's not the same as this

Quote:Gould's argument was that phyletic gradualism is not supported by the fossil record, though Cuffey (1973) suggests that a more accurate statement is that support for phyletic gradualism in the fossil record is rare, not absent. I've provided a citation to Cuffey's book below. But I digress. Gould's original argument was not the evolution by natural selection was incorrect, but that it occurs via the process of punctuated equilibria (an idea that he and Niles Eldredge championed during the 1970s). Later in the essay, Gould writes that punctuated equilibria is supported by the pattern of change that is recorded, by and large, in the fossil record.

Phyletic gradualism is NOT equivalent to a change in species. That's a huge leap, and the former does not follow the latter necessarily.

That's one example of what I mean by changing the definition of evolution.

Moreover, while Gould's model does fit better with the fossil record (or perhaps more accurately, Gould's model fits better with the GAPS in the fossil record) it still offers little evidence for evolution. Rather it assumes evolution to be true, and then tries to capture what it looks like based on the fossils. There are other models that fit just as nicely w/in the evidence he's unearthed (pun intended).

So you want another challenge to evolution? How about the monostereoisomerism seen in biological species?

(06-22-2009 11:37 AM)UofL07 Wrote:  

(06-22-2009 10:40 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  Of course you "expect" this. That' what you've always been told the criticism of evolution would look like. (Not that the concept of "irreducible complexity" doesn't hold some validity...in fact it is quite compelling, and it's ironic that biologists of all people don't accept it.) That's why you're woefully unprepared to deal with a true critique of the theory.

So I provide expert scientific evidence accumulated over the last 150 years by thousands of international researchers (most all of who have advanced scientific degrees and/or training).

I realize you had some long posts that I just skimmed, but you give yourself far too much credit. You merely cite a few topics in biology, and expect that to serve as unquestioned "evidence."

Many of those do nothing to support theories of evolution. At best, the honest ones provide a description of some phenomenon. If the author connects it to evolution, it is usually a contrived explanation (often tautological) or no connection at all, rather a token nod to the prevailing religion of the day.

I could cite 150 years worth of physics ranging from Maxwell to Gelman, but it wouldn't "prove" string theory. At best it might show that some brand of string theory doesn't contradict what's already known. "Necessary but not sufficient" is the common phrase used, I'd like to see more biologists (and climate scientists) learn what that means.

Rather at your best you provided one example of an insect species evolving into another insect species.

I could discuss the bonding energies of hundreds of aromatic compounds, but it doesn't prove "resonance theory." Resonance theory is an excellent example of a contrived, empirically based model that describes one phenomenon reasonably well, but distracts from more satisfactory and thorough models, and is not at all widely applicable. While not a perfect parallel to evolution, it does demonstrate that scientific fields are riddled with these vestiges from the past, that serve no purpose, yet persist.

Quote:Yet I am the one unprepared? Once again, you fail to provide any shred of counter-evidence

I'll say it again, you think too highly of yourself and your "evidence."

Quote:to suggest why evolution is incorrect or even why a different theory is more parsimonious.

Because that IS science. If your readings haven't said that then let me be the first to introduce you to that concept.

Quote:

(06-22-2009 10:40 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  That's why you have to recant your comments on how evolution is required for agriculture and medicine, and rephrase what you actually meant.

I explained what I meant because apparently information that is disseminated in any introductory college level biology course seemed to be too complicated for you to grasp.

No, once again, you explained what you meant because your original statement was incorrect. You overstated what evolution was and its role in various disciplines. That's why your explanation was different from your original assertion.

Quote:

(06-22-2009 10:40 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  That's why you are unprepared to meet the rigors of true science and consider alternative theories.

My dissertation committee would beg to differ with your assessment. I am a Ph.D. student focusing on urban ecology and have 7 years of laboratory training in both cellular/molecular biology and ecology.

Yeah, well you might not want me on your committee, especially if you make overstated claims in your dissertation. I'll tip my hat to you and assume you've worked to achieve success in the lab. You have likely mastered technique, and integrated that into a broad understanding of the systems you are studying.

However, your views on science are naive at best. Those Feynman quotes weren't trivial.

Quote:

(06-22-2009 10:40 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  That's why you provide hand-waving arguments and appeals to authority, because there is a dearth of empirical evidence to support this theory.

I appeal to the international community of scientists and their research for support because that is what a scientist is trained to do regardless of the field they are in.

I know scientists are supposed to do that, but there is plenty of history to demonstrate they DON'T do that. Moreover, they get past peer review w/o doing that. Worse, peer review often REQUIRES that they avoid presenting conclusions that disagree w/ the international community.

So while you're busy telling me what scientists are supposed to be doing, I'm pointing out that like any human endeavor, people are making mistakes. And if you aren't honest and rigorous, you will overlook those mistakes, and repeat them yourself.

(06-22-2009 10:40 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  In short, if this were a theory used to defend an ineffective antibiotic or a silly concept like phlogiston, it would have been dismissed decades ago. The fraudulent support for the theory, like Piltdown Man, pepper moths, and embryonic recapitulation, should embarass supporters to give up this notion like n-rays. But instead, they cling to this 19th C creation myth.

Quote: Relying on a well known hoax that is well over 50 years seems to be a tenuous argument at best

Then you should look and see how long embryonic recapitulation has been used to provide "evidence" supporting evolutionary theory. Those results were known to be fraudulant in the 1920s.

The theory of recapitulation, which is often expressed as "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny", was put forward by Étienne Serres in 1824-1826 (before evolution). It was further developed by Haekel during the 1890s. Modern biologists and evolutionists have since come to reject this idea because although humans are generally understood to share ancestors with other taxa, stages of human embryonic development are not functionally equivalent to the adults of these shared common ancestors.. Again, no modern evolutionary biologist relies on Haeckel's work for evidence to support evolution. [/quote]

Good, although you leave out the part where the work was fabricated. Furthermore, that doesn't mean it isn't taught that way. It has persisted in textbooks for decades after the results were known to be falsified.

It's intersting that you concede that something like pepper moths is not simple, yet it was a simplified form that was commonly used to teach evolution, while the complex description does not fit the model nearly so well. Trying to force the real, complex results into the simplified model is a form of scientific fraud. It's one of the big marks against evolutionists, and why Dr. Jonathan Wells should be commended.

(06-23-2009 07:37 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  Phyletic gradualism is NOT equivalent to a change in species. That's a huge leap, and the former does not follow the latter necessarily.

Phyletic gradualism (n.) - the macroevolutionary hypothesis which states that species continue to adapt to new challenges over the course of their history, gradually becoming new species.

Punctuated equilibrium (n.) - the macroevolutionary theory which states that species experience little evolutionary change for most of their geological history and that when speciation does occur, it is a localized, rapid event.

Phyletic gradualism and punctuated equilibrium are both evolutionary mechanisms that have been proposed by scientist to explain how speciation occurs (i.e. whether it occurs slowly or rapidly). Saying that phyletic gradualism is not equivalent to a change in species is incorrect as it completely ignores the basic definition of the term. Gould's point was that the fossil record supports punctuated equilibrium in almost all cases.

(06-23-2009 07:37 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  That's one example of what I mean by changing the definition of evolution.

Again, the definition of evolution is as follows.

Evolution (n.) - the change in the genetic material of a population of organisms from one generation to the next, that can, over time, lead to the formation of new species.

Note that definition does not include any reference to mechanistic processes or time scale. All the definition states is that over time gene frequencies in a population change and that this can lead to the formation of a new species. It does not say how this process occurs (the theory of natural selection and the theory of genetic drift explain that) or the time scales that are involved (pyletic gradualism and punctuated equilibrium both offer explanations). The definition of evolution has remained the same, its the mechanism of explaining how it has happened that has changed.

A simple analogy can be used to illustrate this point. Gravitation is a natural phenomenon by which objects with mass attract one another. That definition does not explain how the process occurs, which is why scientists have developed the theory of universal gravitation, general relativity, Non-symmetric gravitational theory, Tensor-vector-scalar gravity theory, etc. Just because you change the theory explaining HOW gravitation operates does not mean you are changing the definition of what gravitation actually is.

(06-23-2009 07:37 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  Moreover, while Gould's model does fit better with the fossil record (or perhaps more accurately, Gould's model fits better with the GAPS in the fossil record) it still offers little evidence for evolution. Rather it assumes evolution to be true, and then tries to capture what it looks like based on the fossils. There are other models that fit just as nicely w/in the evidence he's unearthed (pun intended).

Again, Gould's model is an evolutionary explanation dealing with the spatial scales involved in evolution. It is merely an attempt to explain the evidence he found in the fossil record (long periods of stasis punctuated by short periods of rapid speciation). Also, Gould himself has stated that while transitional forms between species are rare (most likely due to the difficult is actually forming fossils, the lack of funding necessary to conduct expansive research efforts, and the luck involved in uncovering fossils in the first place), transitional forms between higher orders are abundant. This is, in and of itself, evidence that evolution has occurred.

(06-23-2009 09:48 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  I realize you had some long posts that I just skimmed, but you give yourself far too much credit. You merely cite a few topics in biology, and expect that to serve as unquestioned "evidence."

So you skim the post without actually reading any of the links and then complain about the evidence? That is not only an illogical argument but it also show that no matter what information I post, you will simply ignore it.

(06-23-2009 09:48 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  I could cite 150 years worth of physics ranging from Maxwell to Gelman, but it wouldn't "prove" string theory.

Biologist have been researching the topic of evolution since 1859 when it was first published. Given that string theory was developed in the 1960s and 1970s, I doubt you could provide 150 years of evidence supporting it.

(06-23-2009 09:48 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  Rather at your best you provided one example of an insect species evolving into another insect species.

Again, if you fail/refuse to read the links I provide, then there isn't much I can do to provide you with evidence.

(06-23-2009 09:48 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  I could discuss the bonding energies of hundreds of aromatic compounds, but it doesn't prove "resonance theory." Resonance theory is an excellent example of a contrived, empirically based model that describes one phenomenon reasonably well, but distracts from more satisfactory and thorough models, and is not at all widely applicable.

I'm not a chemist by training and have no problem admit my own ignorance on resonance theory. I also freely admit that I don't have the knowledge necessary to say whether or not this example is applicable to evolution.

Quote:I'll say it again, you think too highly of yourself and your "evidence."

And I'll say again, if you don't bother to even read the evidence, then you are purposely choosing ignorance.

Quote:Because that IS science. If your readings haven't said that then let me be the first to introduce you to that concept.

Once again, if you have an alternate theory that is more parsimonious than evolution, I am all ears. However, simple rejection of a theory without providing any counter-evidence (falsification - one of the basic elements to the scientific process), without reading the small sample of evidence provided, or without forwarding an alternate theory with supporting evidence is NOT science. If I walked into a room of physics and said "General relativity is incorrect and you have no evidence to support" and stop at that, I'd be laughed out of the room.

Quote:

(06-22-2009 10:40 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  No, once again, you explained what you meant because your original statement was incorrect. You overstated what evolution was and its role in various disciplines. That's why your explanation was different from your original assertion.

Once again, I explained what I meant because apparently information that is disseminated in any introductory college level biology course seemed to be too complicated for you to grasp. I attempted to re-phrase my original statement in order for you to understand the point.

Quote:[quote='DrTorch' pid='4437403' dateline='1245685203']Yeah, well you might not want me on your committee, especially if you make overstated claims in your dissertation.

And what exactly are your qualifications?


[quote='DrTorch' pid='4437403' dateline='1245685203']
I know scientists are supposed to do that, but there is plenty of history to demonstrate they DON'T do that. Moreover, they get past peer review w/o doing that. Worse, peer review often REQUIRES that they avoid presenting conclusions that disagree w/ the international community.

Here are articles from Nature, the Journal of the American Dental Association, Journal of Genetics Counseling (provided by the National Center for Biotechnology Information) explaining why the Peer Review process is critical to science.

http://www.nature.com/embor/journal/v2/n...or333.html

http://jada.ada.org/cgi/content/full/138/5/568
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15617209

Here is a presentation put together by Rutgers University on the importance of peer review.
http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/~estec/tutori...olarly.htm

Here is an article put out by James Madison University stating the difference between scholarly publications (Nature, Science, JAMA, etc.) from popular ones (SciAm, PopSci, etc).
http://www.lib.jmu.edu/help/peer.aspx

(06-22-2009 10:40 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  So while you're busy telling me what scientists are supposed to be doing, I'm pointing out that like any human endeavor, people are making mistakes. And if you aren't honest and rigorous, you will overlook those mistakes, and repeat them yourself.

Is the peer-review process perfect. No, it is not. But it is a system that does a fairly good job of maintaining academic integrity and catching the very same mistakes you are discussing. For example, I've had to read a number of scientific manuscripts (pre-journal stage) in which researchers made a number of statistical mistakes (used the wrong statistical analysis) or unsubstantiated claims (there data didn't support their assertion). The peer review process caught these mistakes before the manuscript was published and made available to the public. Anonymous review doesn't catch every problem and has a few problems of its own, but it is a critical part of the scientific process.

(06-22-2009 10:40 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  Then you should look and see how long embryonic recapitulation has been used to provide "evidence" supporting evolutionary theory. Those results were known to be fraudulant in the 1920s.

It is 2009, not 1920. No modern scientist utilizes embryonic recapitulation as evidence for evolution just as no modern chemist uses Thompson's plum pudding model to describe the organization of the atom.

(06-22-2009 10:40 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  Good, although you leave out the part where the work was fabricated. Furthermore, that doesn't mean it isn't taught that way. It has persisted in textbooks for decades after the results were known to be falsified.

Science and the publishing industry (business) are two separate things. While it would be nice to have textbooks that were peer-reviewed by the scientific community (such a process would more than likely catch such an obvious error), the publishing business often decided that that option is too expensive to be practical. Instead, many companies simply print new editions of older editions without consulting the scientific community. This is why it is important for scholars (scientists teaching at universities) to stay current on the up-to-date scientific peer-reviewed literature so that they can correct deficiencies present.

(06-22-2009 10:40 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  It's intersting that you concede that something like pepper moths is not simple, yet it was a simplified form that was commonly used to teach evolution, while the complex description does not fit the model nearly so well.

When you teach freshman literature to a group of 18 year olds, do you introduce the concept of advanced composition to them or do you start out with something simple? Likewise, when teaching physics to people who may never have had physics before, do you teach the Newton's law of universal graviation to introduce the concept of graviation or do you describe the complexities of general relativity and why Newtonian physics are not entirely accurate. In a basic, introductory physics/chamistry class, do you teach students about protons, electrons, and neutrons, or do you introduce the complexity of fermions (quarks and leptons), bosons, etc? In an introductory ancient history course, are students taught about how Rome fell to the goths in 410 A.D. or do they examine the complex political, economic, social, and natural conditions which percipitated the decline of the Roman Empire?

In teaching any subject to beginners, simplifying complex topics is proper. The peppered moth story is a valuable tool for helping students understand how nature really works. Teachers would be right to omit the complexities from the story (like they do in practically every field) if they judged that their students were not yet ready for that higher level of learning

For years the story of the peppered moth, Biston betularia, has provided one of the best-known examples of natural selection in action. However, Michael Majerus (Melanism -Evolution in Action) makes it clear that the peppered moth story has changed in recent years.

The light-colored form of the moth, known as typica, was the predominant form in England prior to the beginning of the industrial revolution. Shown at left, the typica moth's speckled wings are easy to spot against a dark background, but would be difficult to pick out against the light-colored bark of many trees common in England.

Around the middle of the 19th century, however, a new form of the moth began to appear. The first report of a dark-colored peppered moth was made in 1848. By 1895, the frequency in Manchester had reached a reported level of 98% of the moths.

This dark-colored form is known as carbonaria, and (as shown at right), it is easiest to see against a light background. As you can well imagine, carbonaria would be almost invisible against a dark background, just as typica would be difficult to see against a light background. The increase in carbonaria moths was so dramatic that many naturalists made the immediate suggestion that it had to be the result of the effects of industrial activity on the local landscape. Coal burned during the early decades of the industrial revolution produced soot that blanketed the countryside of the industrial areas of England between London and Manchester. Several naturalists noted that the typica form was more common in the countryside, while the carbonaria moth prevailed in the sooty regions. Not surprisingly, many jumped to the conclusion that the darker moths had some sort of survival advantage in the newly-darkened landscape.

In recent years, the burning of cleaner fuels and the advent of Clean Air laws has changed the countryside even in industrial areas, and the sootiness that prevailed during the 19th century is all but gone from urban England. Coincidentally, the prevalance of the carbonaria form has declined dramatically. In fact, some biologists suggest that the dark forms will be all but extinct within a few decades.

For evolutionary biologists, the question behind the rise and fall of the carbonaria form is "Why?" Why should the dark phenotype have appeared so suddenly, come to dominate the population in industrial areas, and then have declined just as sharply when levels of pollution declined? To many biologists, the answer seemed obvious. In areas where pollution had darkened the landscape, the darker moths were better camouflaged and less like to be eaten by birds. Under less-polluted conditions, the light-colored moths prevailed for similar reasons.

But was the obvious answer correct? That's what Kettlewell set out to check in a series of classic studies carried out in the 1950s. As described in Chapter 14 of the text, his results seemed to confirm that background camouflage was the key:

"Kettlewell found that in unpolluted areas, more of his light-colored moths had survived. In soot-blacked areas, more of the dark-colored moths had survived. Thus Kettlewell showed that in each environment the moths that were better camouflaged had the higher survival rate. It was logical to conclude that when soot darkened the tree trunks in the area, natural selection caused the dark-colored moths to become more common. Today Kettlewell's work is considered to be a classic demonstration of natural selection in action

However, in 1998, Michael E. N. Majerus of the Department of Genetics at the University of Cambridge carefully re-examined Kettlewell's studies, as well as many others that have since appeared. What he reported, first of all, was that Kettlewell's experiments, indicating that moth survival depends upon color-related camouflage, were generally correct:

" Differential bird predation of the typica and carbonaria forms, in habitats affected by industrial pollution to different degrees, is the primary influence on the evolution of melanism in the peppered moth."

However, Majerus also discovered that many of Kettlewell's experiments didn't really test the elements of the story as well as they should have. For example, in testing how likely light and dark moths were to be eaten, he placed moths on the sides of tree trunks, a place where they rarely perch in nature. He also records how well comoflaged the moths seemed to be by visual inspection. This might have seemed like a good idea at the time, but since his work it has become clear that birds see ultraviolet much better than we do, and therefore what seems well-camouflaged to the human eye may not be to a bird. In addition, neither Kettlewell nor those who checked his work were able to compensate for the degree to which migration of moths from surrounding areas might have affected the actual numbers of light and dark moths he counted in various regions of the countryside.

These criticisms have led some critics of evolution to charge that the peppered moth story is "faked," or is "known to be wrong."

Neither is true. In fact, the basic elements of the peppered moth story are quite correct. The population of dark moths rose and fell in parallel to industrial pollution, and the percentage of dark moths in the population was clearly highest in regions of the countryside that were most polluted. As Majerus, the principal scientific critic of Kettlewell's work wrote, "My view of the rise and fall of the melanic form of the peppered moth is that differential bird predation in more or less polluted regions, together with migration, are primarily responsible, almost to the exclusion of other factors."

Well, the best way to put it is that what we are seeing is the scientific process at its best. Majerus and other ecologists have carefully examined the details of Kettlewell's work and found them to be lacking. As Majerus explains, to be absolutely certain of exactly how natural selection produced the rise and fall of the carbonaria form, we need better experiments to show that birds (in a natural environment) really do respond to camouflage in the ways we have presumed, that the primary reason the dark moths did better in polluted areas was because of camouflage (and not other factors like behavior), and that migration rates of moths from the surrounding countryside are not so great that they overwhelm the influence of selection in local regions by birds. Until these studies are done, the peppered moth story will be incomplete. Not wrong, but incomplete.

What we do know is that the rise and fall of dark-colored moths, a phenomenon known as "industrial melanism," remains a striking and persuasive example of natural selection in action. What we have to be cautious about is attributing 100% of the work of natural selection in this case to the camouflage of the moths and their direct visibility to birds.