Scientists continue to show test cases that go against Darwinian Evolution
gabriel
have a Darwinian view of evolution. The model that provided the
best fit for the data is surprisingly incompatible with the idea
that speciation is a result of many small small events, Pagel
said."
www.physorg.com/news179737267.html
www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2009/12/19/news-to-note-12192009#one
Evolution is thought to progress slowly, step by step, the
accumulation of hundreds of millions of years� worth of small
changes. Or is it?
The standard story of evolution goes something like this:
populations of species live and die. Every so often, an
individual or individuals in a population change in some way�due
to a genetic mutation, for instance�that allows them to survive
and reproduce better than other individuals. Hence nature
�selects� the more successful individuals while its competitors
die out. Over hundreds of millions of years, these small changes
accumulate into big changes, with new, more complex species
evolving and replacing their less-successful ancestors. The
complex species on earth today�most of which appear to be
designed (evolutionists would acknowledge)�owe their complexity
to millions of years of small changes in their ancestors.
New research from the University of Reading, published in the
journal Nature, challenges this stereotypical view. Scientists
studied 101 groups of plant and animal species and
reconstructions of their evolutionary lineages. They then
compared the reconstructions with four hypothesized models of
speciation. A slow-and-gradual model fit only eight percent of
the trees, while a model ascribing evolution to sudden, rare
events fit eighty percent. The PhysOrg report continues:
The work suggests that natural selection may not be the cause of
speciation, which [one of the scientists] said �really goes
against the grain� for scientists who have a Darwinian view of
evolution. The model that provided the best fit for the data is
surprisingly incompatible with the idea that speciation is a
result of many small events[.]
Granted, these scientists are still working within the
evolutionary framework, and their reconstructions of evolutionary
trees are obviously affected by this bias. However, their
conclusion comports well with the creation framework if the more
prominent evolutionary events are considered separate acts of
creation. Within the resulting kinds, then, speciation (distinct
from molecules-to-man evolution) likely proceeded quite rapidly
after the Flood (against the backdrop of major ecological and
environmental changes). Even today, speciation can happen
quickly�see Rapid Speciation (Video). The research thus fits well
with the creationist viewpoint even while challenging standard
Darwinian ideas.
Bob LeChevalier
>"Pagel said "really goes against the grain" for scientists who
>have a Darwinian view of evolution. The model that provided the
>best fit for the data is surprisingly incompatible with the idea
>that speciation is a result of many small small events, Pagel
>said."
And yet still fully compatible with evolutionary theory. All 4 models
were in fact evolutionary models.
>www.physorg.com/news179737267.html
One would be better to read the actual journal article, or at least
the abstract, so as to possibly understand what they really said, but
gabriel is incapable of understanding.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature08630.html
>Evolution is thought to progress slowly, step by step, the
>accumulation of hundreds of millions of yearsïŋ― worth of small
>changes. Or is it?
Yes and no. "Punctuated equilibrium" is one model of evolution that
does not fit that pattern.
>The standard story of evolution goes something like this:
>populations of species live and die. Every so often, an
>individual or individuals in a population change in some wayïŋ―due
>to a genetic mutation, for instanceïŋ―that allows them to survive
>and reproduce better than other individuals. Hence nature
>ïŋ―selectsïŋ― the more successful individuals while its competitors
>die out.
Inaccurate. Changes occur often, but most of the time have no
significant effect. But the range of variation in the species
potentially grows, and differences in the environment support the
success of different variations, because what is most successful HERE
might not be more successful over THERE (which might be only a few
miles away, or might be on another continent).
>Over hundreds of millions of years, these small changes
>accumulate into big changes,
Over mere millions of years, and perhaps less, these small changes
accumulate in differing populations until the populations no longer
interbreed (geography may make this happen before the changes are
sufficient to prevent interbreeding). One two populations are
genetically and ecologically separate, then they will inherently
diverge.
>with new, more complex species evolving
No. They don't have to be more complex. Simple bacteria and
cockroaches have survived far longer than human beings are likely to.
>and replacing their less-successful ancestors.
Their ancestors died (as ancestors are wont to do). They weren't any
less successful, but they are now dead, and the new generation is
different (i.e. evolved). The current species is not necessarily any
better adapted than the old. But it is the one that is alive.
Nor is it necessarily the case that they are more successful than
their genetic cousins who live elsewhere and evolved differently. Two
species in different ecologies face different challenges, and each is
sufficiently adapted to be successful, or they die out, in which case
something else (not necessarily their descendants) will move into that
ecological niche.
>The complex species on earth todayïŋ―most of which appear to be
>designed
None of which "appear to be designed", except to someone who assumes a
designer.
>(evolutionists would acknowledge)
No.
>owe their complexity to millions of years of small changes in their ancestors.
Oversimplification.
>New research from the University of Reading, published in the
>journal Nature, challenges this stereotypical view.
Which only an ignorant layperson would hold.
>Scientists
>studied 101 groups of plant and animal species and
>reconstructions of their evolutionary lineages. They then
>compared the reconstructions with four hypothesized models of
>speciation. A slow-and-gradual model fit only eight percent of
>the trees, while a model ascribing evolution to sudden, rare
>events fit eighty percent.
In other words, what has been called "punctuated equilibria", a quite
acceptable form of evolutionary change.
The PhysOrg report continues:
>The work suggests that natural selection may not be the cause of
>speciation, which [one of the scientists] said ïŋ―really goes
>against the grainïŋ― for scientists who have a Darwinian view of
>evolution.
An oversimplification relying on a stereotype of "natural selection".
The rare events described in the article are in fact "natural
selection" just as much as the stereotype is.
>The model that provided the best fit for the data is
>surprisingly incompatible with the idea that speciation is a
>result of many small events[.]
That is what happens when you use a news report about a scientific
journal article rather then the journal article itself. As you noted
above, for 8% of the trees in fact "many small events" was the most
compatible model.
>Granted, these scientists are still working within the evolutionary framework,
Which is the only one that works
>and their reconstructions of evolutionary trees are obviously affected by this bias.
How one would come up with an "evolutionary tree" that was NOT within
the "evolutionary framework" is beyond me. It is not a "bias" at all.
It is the only framework that works.
>However, their
>conclusion comports well with the creation framework if the more
>prominent evolutionary events are considered separate acts of
>creation.
If they are separate acts of creation, then NOTHING is explained by
them.
Within the resulting kinds, then, speciation (distinct
>from molecules-to-man evolution) likely proceeded quite rapidly
>after the Flood
What "Flood"?
>The research thus fits well with the creationist viewpoint
It doesn't fit in the least. In order to fit, creationists would have
to come up with a model that fits the species data, and does NOT rely
on an evolutionary framework, and then have it tested in the same way.
And they can't do it, because there is NO creationist model with any
explanatory power at all; they all rely on "Goddidit" for some unknown
and inexplicable reason.
>even while challenging standard Darwinian ideas.
No. Just stereotypes.
lojbab
---
Bob LeChevalier - artificial linguist; genealogist
loj...@lojban.org Lojban language www.lojban.org
Ted L
> gabriel <gabriel_bapt...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >"Pagel said "really goes against the grain" for scientists who
> >have a Darwinian view of evolution. The model that provided the
> >best fit for the data is surprisingly incompatible with the idea
> >that speciation is a result of many small small events, Pagel
> >said."
>
> And yet still fully compatible with evolutionary theory. All 4 models
> were in fact evolutionary models.
>
> >www.physorg.com/news179737267.html
>
> One would be better to read the actual journal article, or at least
> the abstract, so as to possibly understand what they really said, but
>
> >Evolution is thought to progress slowly, step by step, the
> >changes. Or is it?
>
> Yes and no. "Punctuated equilibrium" is one model of evolution that
> does not fit that pattern.
Used to divert attention away from the vain theory of gradual descent
with mod.
"InaccurateChanges occur often, but most of the time have no
significant effectBut the range of variation in the species
potentially grows, and differences in the environment support the
success of different variations, because what is most successful HERE
might not be more successful over THERE (which might be only a few
miles away, or might be on another continent) Over mere [HA! MERE! 2
funny] millions of years, and perhaps less, these small changes
accumulate in differing populations until the populations no longer
interbreed (geography may make this happen before the changes are
sufficient to prevent interbreeding)One two populations are
genetically and ecologically separate, then they will inherently
diverge No They don't have to be more complexSimple bacteria and
cockroaches have survived far longer than human beings are likely to
Their ancestors died (as ancestors are wont to do)They weren't any
less successful, but they are now dead, and the new generation is
different (ie evolved)The current species is not necessarily any
better adapted than the oldBut it is the one that is alive Nor is it
necessarily the case that they are more successful than their genetic
cousins who live elsewhere and evolved differentlyTwo species in
different ecologies face different challenges, and each is
sufficiently adapted to be successful, or they die out, in which case
something else (not necessarily their descendants) will move into that
ecological niche None of which "appear to be designed", except to
someone who assumes a designer In other words, what has been called
"punctuated equilibria", a quite acceptable form of evolutionary
change An oversimplification relying on a stereotype of "natural
selection" The rare events described in the article are in fact
"natural selection" just as much as the stereotype is That is what
happens when you use a news report about a scientific journal article
rather then the journal article itselfAs you noted above, for 8% of
the trees in fact "many small events" was the most compatible model It
doesn't fit in the leastIn order to fit, creationists would have to
come up with a model that fits the species data, and does NOT rely on
an evolutionary framework, and then have it tested in the same way And
they can't do it, because there is NO creationist model with any
explanatory power at all; they all rely on "Goddidit" for some unknown
and inexplicable reason"
That is to say, having failed to retain God in your knowledge, you've
imagined a vain thing. (Romans 1:21)
gabriel
Amen!