Verdict In : Darwin's Theory Confirmed And Accepted

[Harry Pristis]

It's a bit unnerving to find amateur paleontologists attacking the Theory of Evolution. There is no competing scientific theory to explain the phenomena we discuss in this forum.

Attacks on evolution are the latest tactic of fundamental religionists to promote their religious ideas in the public schools.

The first tactic was to promote creation [pseudo]science as a theory co-equal to the theory of evolution. That was rejected a few years ago by a federal judge in Arkansas.

The second tactic was to promote Intelligent Design as an alternative theory in school science curricula. That attempt was slapped down by a federal judge in Dover, Pennsylvania, not long ago.

The current tactic of the fundamentalists is to attack and undermine confidence in the theory of evolution in order to inject "teaching the controversy" into the science curricula.

A battle is currently underway in Tallahassee over new science standards in Florida school curricula. These standards are strong on evolution which is a change. Fundies are arguing for "teaching the controversy," the wedge they would use to get their unscientific ideas into the curricula.

Whatever the current tactic, it's all about creation pseudoscience.

The essential components of the creation pseudoscience vision of the origin of the Earth and its life forms is contained in the following pledge sworn to by each member of the Creation Research Society:

1. The Bible is the written Word of God, and because we believe it to be inspired throughout, all of its assertions are historically and scientifically true in all the original autographs. To the students of nature, this means that the account of origins in Genesis is a factual presentation of simple historical truths.

2. All basic types of living things, including man, were made by direct creative acts of God during the Creation Week as described in Genesis. Whatever biological changes have occurred since Creation have accomplished only changes withing the original created kinds.

Within these precepts, it is easy to see how important is the notion of a relatively recent inception of the Earth and living things. Other beliefs important in this scheme of things are the occurence of a global flood and a separate ancestry for man and apes.

It is clear that in order to make their case, creation pseudoscientists must attack the conventional scientific views on the great age of the earth and the evolution of species, including humans.

This is religion which has co-opted scientists' language. When a creation pseudoscientist says he believes in "micro-evolution" but not "macro-evolution," he is saying that he believes in the biblical account of creation in Genesis and not in evolution as scientists understand that concept. Those who promote this creation pseudoscience are like preachers disguised in lab coats.

Why would these fundamentalists (Christian and Muslim) go to all the trouble to disguise their religion as science? It is because they want to teach their fundamentalism in government schools. They want unsuspecting young people exposed to their religion -- in effect, using the public schools to proselytize those children in contravention of the Bill of Rights and federal law.

This proselytizing effort is on-going. In Arkansas a few years ago, creation pseudoscience was rebuffed in a federal court decision. In doing so, the Judge William Overton established a list of criteria for deciding whether or not creationism is science. The Overton criteria are:

It [science] is guided by natural law.

It has to be explanatory by reference to natural law.

It is testable against the empirical world.

It's conclusions are tentative, i.e., are not necessarily the final word.

It is falsifiable. [That is, it is testable and refutable.]

Creation pseudoscience fails on every count.

Creation pseudoscientists can collect fossils in a disciplined way. They can even catalog fossils and describe their appearance. They cannot be trusted to interpret the fossils as to age and affinity. Any taxonomy by a creation pseudoscientist would be highly suspect. Many ideas about the evolution of life on our planet cannot be entertained by a creation pseudoscientist -- not based on the evidence, but on the basis of dogma.

Don't be distracted by fruitless arguments about details and examples. These often are canards (such as "irreducible complexity") offered up to distract us from the struggle between science and pseudoscience taking place in school systems across the nation.

---------Harry Pristis

[Harry Pristis]

It's a bit unnerving to find amateur paleontologists attacking the Theory of Evolution. There is no competing scientific theory to explain the phenomena we discuss in this forum.

Attacks on evolution are the latest tactic of fundamental religionists to promote their religious ideas in the public schools.

The first tactic was to promote creation [pseudo]science as a theory co-equal to the theory of evolution. That was rejected a few years ago by a federal judge in Arkansas.

The second tactic was to promote Intelligent Design as an alternative theory in school science curricula. That attempt was slapped down by a federal judge in Dover, Pennsylvania, not long ago.

The current tactic of the fundamentalists is to attack and undermine confidence in the theory of evolution in order to inject "teaching the controversy" into the science curricula.

A battle is currently underway in Tallahassee over new science standards in Florida school curricula. These standards are strong on evolution which is a change. Fundies are arguing for "teaching the controversy," the wedge they would use to get their unscientific ideas into the curricula.

Whatever the current tactic, it's all about creation pseudoscience.

The essential components of the creation pseudoscience vision of the origin of the Earth and its life forms is contained in the following pledge sworn to by each member of the Creation Research Society:

1. The Bible is the written Word of God, and because we believe it to be inspired throughout, all of its assertions are historically and scientifically true in all the original autographs. To the students of nature, this means that the account of origins in Genesis is a factual presentation of simple historical truths.

2. All basic types of living things, including man, were made by direct creative acts of God during the Creation Week as described in Genesis. Whatever biological changes have occurred since Creation have accomplished only changes withing the original created kinds.

Within these precepts, it is easy to see how important is the notion of a relatively recent inception of the Earth and living things. Other beliefs important in this scheme of things are the occurence of a global flood and a separate ancestry for man and apes.

It is clear that in order to make their case, creation pseudoscientists must attack the conventional scientific views on the great age of the earth and the evolution of species, including humans.

This is religion which has co-opted scientists' language. When a creation pseudoscientist says he believes in "micro-evolution" but not "macro-evolution," he is saying that he believes in the biblical account of creation in Genesis and not in evolution as scientists understand that concept. Those who promote this creation pseudoscience are like preachers disguised in lab coats.

Why would these fundamentalists (Christian and Muslim) go to all the trouble to disguise their religion as science? It is because they want to teach their fundamentalism in government schools. They want unsuspecting young people exposed to their religion -- in effect, using the public schools to proselytize those children in contravention of the Bill of Rights and federal law.

This proselytizing effort is on-going. In Arkansas a few years ago, creation pseudoscience was rebuffed in a federal court decision. In doing so, the Judge William Overton established a list of criteria for deciding whether or not creationism is science. The Overton criteria are:

It [science] is guided by natural law.

It has to be explanatory by reference to natural law.

It is testable against the empirical world.

It's conclusions are tentative, i.e., are not necessarily the final word.

It is falsifiable. [That is, it is testable and refutable.]

Creation pseudoscience fails on every count.

Creation pseudoscientists can collect fossils in a disciplined way. They can even catalog fossils and describe their appearance. They cannot be trusted to interpret the fossils as to age and affinity. Any taxonomy by a creation pseudoscientist would be highly suspect. Many ideas about the evolution of life on our planet cannot be entertained by a creation pseudoscientist -- not based on the evidence, but on the basis of dogma.

Don't be distracted by fruitless arguments about details and examples. These often are canards (such as "irreducible complexity") offered up to distract us from the struggle between science and pseudoscience taking place in school systems across the nation.

---------Harry Pristis

I didn't see your post urging us to avoid the topic of creationism until after I posted this. If it violates your rules, go ahead and delete it.

My own feeling is that there is no topic in paleontology more important right now.

-------Harry Pristis

[fossil man]

this was added without reading some posts

The neck does disprove evolution besides we are talking about giraffes not all animals here. So if one is trying to say that morphological variation in a single speceies is a benifit then why dont we still see these variation, because they dont exist nor did they ever. besides if, keeping with the giraffes, variation that was seen within the giraffe species, enough so that nich partitioning was "need" then the whole definition of evolution would be (is) wrong, because by suposed definition evoution is supposed to happen on a POPULATION level not individual level which is what is trying to be eluded to, that evolution has allowed one population to have such great difference amongest individuals then its up to the individuals to sort it. Pretty crazy right? but this what people are trying to say here. I mean come on think about it for such an event to happened it would imply the individuals would have to have high intellegence and be able to control their morphological development, and again crazy.

an adaptation would be growing longer hair or putting on weight for cold periods not adjusting the length on ones neck for forage. Adaptation happens all the time but it doesnt envolve extreme morphological changes.

Evolution is supposed to be an animals change to better secure food, water, territory, mate, and survival. Now the statement that niche partitioning only proves evolution is incorrect because if this process (idea) was happening then why would everything not be an opportunistic feeder (omnivore), have an impenetrabel armor that is brightly colored for mates, etc. Becasue if evolution led to niche partitioning that would be a henderence because if climate, diesease, or pest changes occured a niche specific anamil would be wiped out fast and not have time to adapte, after all the answer to evolution has always been throw more time at it and that will make it possible. Figureing how why are how just arent possible because they are not there to be found. sorry for the spelling

[fossil man]

harry you didnt see ansons post did you

[Gatorman]

Harry, your post does violate the rules, but we'll let it go for now. I do not want to see the topic of creation brought back into this conversation though. This debate is on whether or not the theory of evolution as its understood now is valid or if the theory has flaws. This topic is not comparing the theory of evolution or the belief in a higher power. So please people leave religion out of the equation it is not up for debate on this forum.

[Boesse]

Fossil Man, you bring up several points, which I will challenge:

1). There is no morphological variation in giraffes (or other organisms, but we'll stick with giraffes).

2). A long neck is not an adaptation.

3). Populations with genetic or morphological variation or diversity need to be organisms with high intelligence to control their morphological development.

4). IF evolution led to niche partitioning, there would be some new niches that would lead to early extinction of a lineage. This doesn't happen.

My Challenges:

1). First off, before I state any facts, I challenge you to study morphological variation in giraffes and back up your claim with evidence. You could start on google images, or go and examine bones at a museum.

If you examine several photos of giraffes, you'll see that no two giraffes look exactly alike, particularly in their coloration. Your claim states that every single giraffe on earth is a morphologic clone. Furthermore, genetic studies (just search for 'variation giraffa' on google and several peer-reviewed articles will come up) show that in fact, there is genetic variation and diversity in giraffes. Simply put, you need not look further than google to disprove your claim. Also, next time you're with a family member, you'll notice you aren't twins (i.e. you aren't identical in height, shape, eye/hair/skin color, etc) - thats morphological variation in human beings.

2). A definition of an adaptation: a historical process in which natural selection leads to an increase in performance of an organism (from Levinton, 2001; Genetics, Paleontology, and Macroevolution). Or, if you prefer a dictionary (Websters, in this case): Adjustment to environmental conditions; modification of an organism or its parts that makes it more fit for existence under the conditions of its environment.

Putting on weight for winter is not an adaptation in this sense - sure, a person might be adapting to the winter climate, but an adaptation is genetic in origin. An example of an adaptation is the blue eyes and blonde hair in Northern Europeans, in order to produce vitamin C. A giraffe neck is a perfect example of an adaptation, whether its a product of sexual selection, or selection for high browsing.

3). In order to dispute this, all one needs is to identify a group of organisms that exhibits morphological variation, and are obviously not intelligent. Interestingly enough, there are plenty of studies on the variation of organisms such as snails (gastropods) and clams (bivalves) that are obviously not intelligent. Or, we could pick organisms that don't even have a brain: go out and look for toadstools in the spring, and you'll find that they all look different (even from within the same fungus 'colony'). Or look at poison oak or ivy - the leaves of every single poison oak plant will look vastly different, but all slight variations on a common theme.

4). Simply put, this does happen, quite a lot in fact. Niche partitioning is one method for developing or causing an adaptive radiation. Good examples of niche partitioning include dogs (canids), cats (felids), rodents, birds, darwin's finches, the list goes on and on - basically, groups of closely related organisms that have different niches and slightly different modifications for those niches. An example of a lineage occupying a new niche that is in danger of going extinct is the polar bear. It is closely related to the grizzly bear (or alaskan brown bear, I can't recall, but thats besides the point), and has been adapted towards an aquatic existence for only a couple million years at the very most. And now its going extinct due to ice breakup in the arctic circle.

In conclusion, before making these dubious claims, I highly suggest you read some material on evolutionary biology. I appreciate and understand your enthusiasm about your beliefs (whatever they are), but the field of biology isn't conducted in its entirety by a lot of arm waving and B.S. - the theory of evolution is quite possibly one of the most well studied and most well understood regions of scientific research today.

A professor of mine (J. Horner) put it simply: "the opportunity to disprove evolution would make me quite possibly the most famous scientist of the century... unfortunately, the opportunity just doesn't exist. If it had, there are literally tens of thousands of scientists worldwide who would jump on that sort of opportunity."

[ashcraft]

If you want to see evolution in action- just look at white-tailed deer. There is a tremendous variation in morphology as you go across its range, from the tremendous bodies of the Northern subspecies, in excess of 350 pounds (I think the record is over 400 pounds), to the Keys subspecies, with maximum weights of 70 pounds. That is gradualism in action, the slow change of a species to adapt to its environment. In this case, Bergman's rule is the pushing force. If you come back in a geologic instant (100,00 years or so), I doubt that the Keyes and Northern whitetail will be able to interbreed, voila, a new species. (Some would argue that they are already geographically isolated to the point of speciation).

Brent Ashcraft

[PrehistoricFlorida]

Harry, I suppose you also believe in the crock of human caused global warming as well?

[Guest Cris]

This really isn't the place to argue over other's beliefs...no matter what they may be. There's PM's for that. This topic may be interesting, but it is on the verge of being locked.

[Guest solius symbiosus]

Harry, I suppose you also believe in the crock of human caused global warming as well?

What does that have to do with the price of eggs in China.

[fossil man]

CoMe ON

Boesse

If you examine several photos of giraffes, you'll see that no two giraffes look exactly alike, particularly in their coloration. Your claim states that every single giraffe on earth is a morphologic clone. Furthermore, genetic studies (just search for 'variation giraffa' on google and several peer-reviewed articles will come up) show that in fact, there is genetic variation and diversity in giraffes. Simply put, you need not look further than google to disprove your claim. Also, next time you're with a family member, you'll notice you aren't twins (i.e. you aren't identical in height, shape, eye/hair/skin color, etc) - thats morphological variation in human beings

CoMe On Man!!! you must think that i am a blind retard living in a cave, isolated since birth, but i have some how figured out how to use the internet without visual ques and exiled from human interaction. That can be the only explanation for this imput, yes i have seen eye, hair, skin color and high differences. You may not agree with me but there is no way you can interperut what i wrote in to what your reply is. Give me some credit.

Now then i think there is obviouls some miss understanding going on about the giraffes, when it says short necks then i am assuming so short that it inhibbits there ability to eat trees, maybe that is not what your making out of it. like i said earlier if the article is talking about mere inches (except for females which are smaller) then what is the big deal, i mean the image i am getting from that article (and hey Boesse maybe you should write the writer of this article and tell them to prove proof or bones of these short neck giraffes so that we would all be on the same page) is giraffes with necks like have the length of others. So i dont knwow what you think of when you read the article, but hopefully that will clear up some of the confusion and maybe we can get beyond the length thing.

Second Boesse when you give a definition dont use a biased source

A definition of an adaptation: a historical process in which natural selection leads to an increase in performance of an organism (from Levinton, 2001; Genetics, Paleontology, and Macroevolution). This would be like me giving a definition to dispute evolution coming from "the creationist guied to creationism" (this a fake title, not real, doesnt exist) dont give a definition of adaptation from a book that partly has to deal with MACROEVOLUTION. a historical process, what, it doesnt take yaks hundreds of years to shead its winter coat EACH year, it doest take a ptarmigan hundreds of years to change from dark brown plumage to white in the winter. Second off what section did you get your definition out off? But i was glad to see you recovered by quoting an unbiased source Websters.

Or, if you prefer a dictionary (Websters, in this case): Adjustment to environmental conditions; modification of an organism or its parts that makes it more fit for existence under the conditions of its environment. And by the unbiased definition you wrote, my previous discussion about hair and fat content ( modification of an organisms parts) your probably thinking "it also says modification of an organism which again would be hair and fat content .

Second off what do you mean "an adaptation is genetic in origin" you can only get so much out of genetic recombination not new and improved parts.

Your rebutale (3.) once again will be cleared up by my previous statement but to spell it out for all i was thinking that the no descriptive example of the long and short neck giraffes was implying that within the same geographic region there was giraffes with 3ft necks, and 5ft, 7.5ft, and 10ft but apparently that is not what other people where thinking but still genetic recombination will only get a neck so long or short.

Your reading and comprehension skills lack a bit

you wrote "IF evolution led to niche partitioning, there would be some new niches that would lead to early extinction of a lineage. This doesn't happen

i never said some newniches. and i hope in your rebutal when you said dogs and cats that you arent talking about domestic cats and dogs becasue those niches (if you wanted to call them niches) are created not by natural causes and shoot niches could be created all the time and it would take less than year to do so and you could even say beef cattle operated a niche. Humans havent always been the best conservationist, its thanks to humans that many niche specific species are gone or in trouble. Besides even if you looked at a created niche the species that fills the nich does do it to the fullest as the previous (get ready Boesse here is an example) when wolves were elminated from the majority of north america it left coyotes to fill the niche. well coyotes cant fill that niche because they cant take down full grown elk, muledeer, bison, and it would be a strech for a whitetail. Which the impact has become very evident in the exploding elk population and deer population which then experience exponintial growth beyond carring capacity, which leaves only disease to control the population. Also coyotes were previously before the exterpation of wolves living on rabbits and rodents now such populations have increased do to the decrease in hunting pressure from coyotes, not saying that they have totally stop hunting rabbits and rodents just decreased the hunting pressure.

In conclusion, before making these dubious claims, I highly suggest you read some material on evolutionary biology. I appreciate and understand your enthusiasm about your beliefs (whatever they are), but the field of biology isn't conducted in its entirety by a lot of arm waving and B.S. - the theory of evolution is quite possibly one of the most well studied and most well understood regions of scientific research today

No offense here but you should pratice what you preach, "back up your claim with evidence" because you certainly didnt provide anything but one biased definition and a definition from websters, and a generic reference to google, everything else you said was "dubious claims and recommendations". Second of why would i read anything about evolution when i am TRYING TO DISPROVE IT now theres a real puzzler. And i like your enthusiastic rebutal. you never developed them to prove a point so in your own words "back up your claim with evidence". You have me lost on your statement the field of biology isn't conducted in its entirety by a lot of arm waving and B.S. not sure what that is supposed to mean or some kind of suddal personal attack. Here is a mind boggler i agree with you that evolution is one of the most studied subject ( i wouldn't call it scientific research)

your professor sounds like he needs to do a little more teaching and a little less rambleing but hey thats just me

its been good debating with you boesse i look forward to it again. later

[Harry Pristis]

Fossil Man, you bring up several points, which I will challenge:

1). There is no morphological variation in giraffes (or other organisms, but we'll stick with giraffes).

2). A long neck is not an adaptation.

3). Populations with genetic or morphological variation or diversity need to be organisms with high intelligence to control their morphological development.

4). IF evolution led to niche partitioning, there would be some new niches that would lead to early extinction of a lineage. This doesn't happen.

My Challenges:

1). First off, before I state any facts, I challenge you to study morphological variation in giraffes and back up your claim with evidence. You could start on google images, or go and examine bones at a museum.

If you examine several photos of giraffes, you'll see that no two giraffes look exactly alike, particularly in their coloration. Your claim states that every single giraffe on earth is a morphologic clone. Furthermore, genetic studies (just search for 'variation giraffa' on google and several peer-reviewed articles will come up) show that in fact, there is genetic variation and diversity in giraffes. Simply put, you need not look further than google to disprove your claim. Also, next time you're with a family member, you'll notice you aren't twins (i.e. you aren't identical in height, shape, eye/hair/skin color, etc) - thats morphological variation in human beings.

2). A definition of an adaptation: a historical process in which natural selection leads to an increase in performance of an organism (from Levinton, 2001; Genetics, Paleontology, and Macroevolution). Or, if you prefer a dictionary (Websters, in this case): Adjustment to environmental conditions; modification of an organism or its parts that makes it more fit for existence under the conditions of its environment.

Putting on weight for winter is not an adaptation in this sense - sure, a person might be adapting to the winter climate, but an adaptation is genetic in origin. An example of an adaptation is the blue eyes and blonde hair in Northern Europeans, in order to produce vitamin C. A giraffe neck is a perfect example of an adaptation, whether its a product of sexual selection, or selection for high browsing.

3). In order to dispute this, all one needs is to identify a group of organisms that exhibits morphological variation, and are obviously not intelligent. Interestingly enough, there are plenty of studies on the variation of organisms such as snails (gastropods) and clams (bivalves) that are obviously not intelligent. Or, we could pick organisms that don't even have a brain: go out and look for toadstools in the spring, and you'll find that they all look different (even from within the same fungus 'colony'). Or look at poison oak or ivy - the leaves of every single poison oak plant will look vastly different, but all slight variations on a common theme.

4). Simply put, this does happen, quite a lot in fact. Niche partitioning is one method for developing or causing an adaptive radiation. Good examples of niche partitioning include dogs (canids), cats (felids), rodents, birds, darwin's finches, the list goes on and on - basically, groups of closely related organisms that have different niches and slightly different modifications for those niches. An example of a lineage occupying a new niche that is in danger of going extinct is the polar bear. It is closely related to the grizzly bear (or alaskan brown bear, I can't recall, but thats besides the point), and has been adapted towards an aquatic existence for only a couple million years at the very most. And now its going extinct due to ice breakup in the arctic circle.

In conclusion, before making these dubious claims, I highly suggest you read some material on evolutionary biology. I appreciate and understand your enthusiasm about your beliefs (whatever they are), but the field of biology isn't conducted in its entirety by a lot of arm waving and B.S. - the theory of evolution is quite possibly one of the most well studied and most well understood regions of scientific research today.

A professor of mine (J. Horner) put it simply: "the opportunity to disprove evolution would make me quite possibly the most famous scientist of the century... unfortunately, the opportunity just doesn't exist. If it had, there are literally tens of thousands of scientists worldwide who would jump on that sort of opportunity."

My congrats and thanks to Boesse for a cogent argument in defense of the theory of evolution (it is just short of amazing that the theory of evolution needs to be defended).

All I can add is this: It's a bit unnerving to find amateur paleontologists attacking the Theory of Evolution. There is no competing scientific theory to explain the phenomena we discuss in this forum.

If anyone thinks there is a better scientific theory that explains the progression of life whose scraps we collect and study, tell us what it is. Remember, you cannot bring religion into the discussion.

--------Harry Pristis :huh:

[Guest Cris]

As interesting as this topic may be for some people, this topic is just making this board seem like a less friendly place to the new members. Every time this type of discussion is started, it only goes downhill.... The first page of posts seem very educational and people have good points... Then, just about every post gets a bit more rude and nasty.. Not accusing anybody of being rude, but most of the staff agree that we see where this topic is heading and we'd like to stop it before it gets there. We know that sometimes debates can be very educational, but none of us like when they get heated. If anyone wants to continue this debate, the PM's are there and you can send quite a few members a message at once if you want. You can continue it there, but we believe this topic is just about through for the public forum. This is the third topic where this is come up and this is the third that we've had to put a stop to... If you feel that ending this topic was a poor decision, we're sorry. More than anything, we want this forum to keep a friendly atmosphere and this....isn't helping...

Feel free to continue this discussion through your personal messenger.