Insights I've gained from my Bio class so far
Daniel Harper
problems with work (the store where I've worked for the last six years is
closing, leaving me jobless at the end of April at the latest) and my
class schedule interfering with my "general goof-off" time. But I've been
taking BYS 119 here at UAH for about three weeks now, and already I've
seen stuff that others may find interesting in relation to even
introductory biology and the creationism/ID "debate".
Firstly, I was going over some of my notes today from the first week of
class. (Got a test in a couple of weeks and I was taking some time to go
back over the material.) Obviously, it was some very basic stuff, but I
ran across the little pie chart the professor drew that indicated the
relative percentages of organisms in the diversity of life -- i.e. how
many species of chordates, insects, mammals, primates, et cetera. A number
that jumped out at me was that there are approximately 4200 species of
mammals in the animal kingdom, of which approximately 1000 are bats, and
that approximately 1.8 million species are known.
Whenever we see anti-evolutionists (especially YECers) around here talking
about problems with evolution, the examples they give of problem organisms
always seem to revolve around large, macro-scale organisms that all of us
are generally familiar with. (I.E. dogs turning into cats, cattle giving
birth to ducks, et cetera.) I have no doubt that if you asked most
creationists about the relative diversity of species, they would likely
believe that large-scale organisms like these represented a fair
percentage of the life on earth. (To be fair, the same is also true of
many of those who support evolution as the primary means of describing the
history of life on Earth; ignorance cuts both ways.)
The "leap" that anti-evolutionists like to have their audiences mentally
jumping over in evolution is from tiny one-celled organisms (amoeba always
seems to be the favorite example) up to cats, dogs, and humans. But how
many of them have the understanding of just how tiny a branch on the
evolutionary tree all of these macro-scale organisms really are, even if
including non-mammalian species like fish and crustaceans, or even the
many species of plants? The unimaginably complex diversity of Kingdom
Protista, or the "extremophile" Archaea living in deep-sea vents and the
like, provide a much larger baseline from which to view the vastness and
power of evolutionary change than simple (but profound) changes in
morphology identified in commonplace plants and animals. Surely there are
anti-evolutionists who are well-versed in the diversity of life, but upon
seeing the numbers, it seems like the intuitive "oomph" that many shrewd
anti-evolutionists (like Hovind or Ham) like to feed to their audiences
shrinks to almost nothing.
Furthermore, much of the awareness-changing "heavy lifting" of the class
has happened not so much in the class environment itself, but in the lab.
Sure, these have been very simple labs intended only to show some of the
tools and methods of science, but I suspect that the vast majority of
anti-evolutionists have never spent any amount of time in a serious
biology lab (except perhaps to dissect a frog or two) and have never
examined life through a scientific-quality microscope.
The first lab that we did was quite simple, involving simply measurement
and the use of various scientific measuring tools. I found it to be a
reasonably fascinating way of examining the inherent difficulties in
obtaining good data from very simple things, even given reasonably
scientifically-accurate equipment. To wit: one of our tasks was to measure
out a certain volume of water using two different-sized pipettes, and to
place them into identical beakers of water. Due to inherent difficulties
in reading _exactly_ where the meniscus was on the different pipettes, the
volumes of water collected varied by a fairly large percentage -- this
shows the importance to science of not only having very good equipment,
but of running many tests to ensure that human error is not getting in the
way.
To be fair, I have had personal experience with this concept in a much
more mundane setting at work. I have spent some time working at a small
copy shop where one of our regular tasks is to do various paper-cutting
jobs like business cards or postcards. Even with a large ream-cutter with
a stop and a sharpened blade, doing what seem to be very simple tasks like
cutting a sheet of paper into thirds is nearly impossible to do
accurately. Very tiny human errors on the macro-scale can cause large
disruptions in the finished product, when trying to get cut sizes that are
identical to the naked eye and that leave a smooth finish when running
one's finger along the entire stack. I leave work almost every day wishing
I had a $3000 digital paper cutter like the local Kinko's has.
The second and third labs both involved microscopy...
(An aside. I've read accounts that Babe Ruth gave when he first stepped up
onto the pitcher's mound for the first time and felt this unbearable sense
of "rightness" to the sensation, that on some level, he felt that pitching
was what he was _born_ to do. When I first started playing with the
microscope in that lab, I felt many of the same sensations, that the
mechanism seemed natural and obvious to me, and that the power and
capability of the device simply "felt right" under my admittedly
completely unschooled guidance. It was one of the most amazing feelings in
my still-young life to realize how much I simply enjoyed operating that
mechanism and viewing things at high-powered resolution.)
...microscopy, the second lab being a sort of set-up for the third. The
second lab was meant really just to teach us how to use the microscope --
we first examined prepared slides of threads crossing, then various plant
materials like a species of grass and one of water algae. We even examined
ourselves, at some degree, using a toothpick to get a cheek sample from
ourselves and looking at our own component parts underneath a microscope.
Not to be too mystical or paradigm-shifty about it, but the experience
really made me look at the world around me in a whole new way -- when
you've _seen_ cell walls with your own eyes it turns eating salad into a
new process of understanding.
Intellectual assent to the similarity of all life takes on new meaning
when you've looked at various microbes under high magnification, as we did
in the second lab. While getting a sample of amoebae for examination, one
of my lab partners must have accidentally let loose a skin cell or two,
because I happened to get a glance at something that is undeniably not an
amoeba right alongside that one-celled organism, and simply seeing them
next to each other really helped to drive home the point that _we are all
essentially the same thing_. We are all made of the same materials, all a
product of evolutionary processes that act on all of nature, and all
subject to the same physical laws.
Besides, watching a paramecium use its cilia to swim around on the slide
was just freakin' cool. And I actually got to see a Euglena's flagellum in
motion, although they were a bit too faint to see clearly.
All in all, with every class period I have, I have become more and more
convinced that the biological sciences are really the right home for me. I
would never have imagined that I'd enjoy the life sciences this much a few
short years ago, but seeing the fascinating properties of life as shaped
by evolutionary processes has really opened my eyes. Since it was
anti-evolutionists who originally inspired me to come here, I guess on
some level I'm going to have to thank them for pushing me in this
direction.
(Then again, my first test is in two weeks. Maybe I'll change my tune if
my grade is too low. :-> )
--
Get it in libraries. Let the public decide.
danielharper.blogspot.com
(Change terra to earth to email)
Tiny Bulcher
Daniel Harper wrote:
<snip one very cool post>
That's my nomination for POTM.
--
Tiny
Bill Wayne
Seconded.
Stanley Friesen
>
>Firstly, I was going over some of my notes today from the first week of
>class. (Got a test in a couple of weeks and I was taking some time to go
>back over the material.) Obviously, it was some very basic stuff, but I
>ran across the little pie chart the professor drew that indicated the
>relative percentages of organisms in the diversity of life -- i.e. how
>many species of chordates, insects, mammals, primates, et cetera. A number
>that jumped out at me was that there are approximately 4200 species of
>mammals in the animal kingdom, of which approximately 1000 are bats, and
>that approximately 1.8 million species are known.
Add to that, there are many *unknown* species.
>
>Whenever we see anti-evolutionists (especially YECers) around here talking
>about problems with evolution, the examples they give of problem organisms
>always seem to revolve around large, macro-scale organisms that all of us
>are generally familiar with. (I.E. dogs turning into cats, cattle giving
>birth to ducks, et cetera.) I have no doubt that if you asked most
>creationists about the relative diversity of species, they would likely
>believe that large-scale organisms like these represented a fair
>percentage of the life on earth. (To be fair, the same is also true of
>many of those who support evolution as the primary means of describing the
>history of life on Earth; ignorance cuts both ways.)
Indeed the tinyness of our branch gets even more profound when you add
in the fact that microscopic (unicellular) life forms are under-sampled
relative to macroscopic one (due to difficulty in collecting). There
are gene assays that suggest a vast diversity of prokaryotes in the soil
and elsewhere that have never shown up in any lab culture or otherwise
been seen by humans. The proportion of prokaryotes that are actually
known is likely to be well under half.
>
>The "leap" that anti-evolutionists like to have their audiences mentally
>jumping over in evolution is from tiny one-celled organisms (amoeba always
>seems to be the favorite example) up to cats, dogs, and humans. But how
>many of them have the understanding of just how tiny a branch on the
>evolutionary tree all of these macro-scale organisms really are, even if
>including non-mammalian species like fish and crustaceans, or even the
>many species of plants? The unimaginably complex diversity of Kingdom
>Protista, or the "extremophile" Archaea living in deep-sea vents and the
>like, provide a much larger baseline from which to view the vastness and
>power of evolutionary change than simple (but profound) changes in
>morphology identified in commonplace plants and animals. Surely there are
>anti-evolutionists who are well-versed in the diversity of life, but upon
>seeing the numbers, it seems like the intuitive "oomph" that many shrewd
>anti-evolutionists (like Hovind or Ham) like to feed to their audiences
>shrinks to almost nothing.
>
>Furthermore, much of the awareness-changing "heavy lifting" of the class
>has happened not so much in the class environment itself, but in the lab.
>Sure, these have been very simple labs intended only to show some of the
>tools and methods of science, but I suspect that the vast majority of
>anti-evolutionists have never spent any amount of time in a serious
>biology lab (except perhaps to dissect a frog or two) and have never
>examined life through a scientific-quality microscope.
I am not sure I would call dissecting a frog a real lab experiment - it
is more of an interactive visual aid :-)
>
>The first lab that we did was quite simple, involving simply measurement
>and the use of various scientific measuring tools. I found it to be a
>reasonably fascinating way of examining the inherent difficulties in
>obtaining good data from very simple things, even given reasonably
>scientifically-accurate equipment.
Ah yes, the measuring lessons. I remember those. Quite enlightening,
as you say.
>
>To be fair, I have had personal experience with this concept in a much
>more mundane setting at work. I have spent some time working at a small
>copy shop where one of our regular tasks is to do various paper-cutting
>jobs like business cards or postcards. Even with a large ream-cutter with
>a stop and a sharpened blade, doing what seem to be very simple tasks like
>cutting a sheet of paper into thirds is nearly impossible to do
>accurately. Very tiny human errors on the macro-scale can cause large
>disruptions in the finished product, when trying to get cut sizes that are
>identical to the naked eye and that leave a smooth finish when running
>one's finger along the entire stack. I leave work almost every day wishing
>I had a $3000 digital paper cutter like the local Kinko's has.
Gee, sounds like a good investment.
[Seriously, I would find your job totally frustrating].
>
>The second and third labs both involved microscopy...
>
>(An aside. I've read accounts that Babe Ruth gave when he first stepped up
>onto the pitcher's mound for the first time and felt this unbearable sense
>of "rightness" to the sensation, that on some level, he felt that pitching
>was what he was _born_ to do. When I first started playing with the
>microscope in that lab, I felt many of the same sensations, that the
>mechanism seemed natural and obvious to me, and that the power and
>capability of the device simply "felt right" under my admittedly
>completely unschooled guidance. It was one of the most amazing feelings in
>my still-young life to realize how much I simply enjoyed operating that
>mechanism and viewing things at high-powered resolution.)
You can see some amazing things under a microscope - especially if you
have one of the ones with advanced optics, such as I got to use when I
worked for Dr. Bovee years ago. Somewhere I believe I still have the
drawings I made of an undescribed species of amoeba I found *once* (and
never again, despite several attempts).
>
>Intellectual assent to the similarity of all life takes on new meaning
>when you've looked at various microbes under high magnification, as we did
>in the second lab. While getting a sample of amoebae for examination, one
>of my lab partners must have accidentally let loose a skin cell or two,
>because I happened to get a glance at something that is undeniably not an
>amoeba right alongside that one-celled organism, and simply seeing them
>next to each other really helped to drive home the point that _we are all
>essentially the same thing_. We are all made of the same materials, all a
>product of evolutionary processes that act on all of nature, and all
>subject to the same physical laws.
>
>Besides, watching a paramecium use its cilia to swim around on the slide
>was just freakin' cool.
Yep. I have even seen wild paramecia, that is ones I found in random
water samples from campus rather than a prepared culture. Some of the
other ciliates are quite amazing - like the one with the long "neck"
(really just a long, motile cellular extension).
> And I actually got to see a Euglena's flagellum in
>motion, although they were a bit too faint to see clearly.
That is largely due to the motion, which is rather rapid.
If you like microscopy, it is worth pulling water samples out of any
pond or puddle you see and letting "ferment". Just among the
unicellular eukaryotes there is an amazing variety to be seen. Ciliates
with little rigid bodies shaped like a barrel. Cryptomonds. Amoebas of
all shapes and sized (I suspect the ones you used in lab were the common
giant amoeba, _Amoeba proteus_ - most species are much smaller).
Seeing wild amoebas can be a touch tricky - you have to pull up some
substrate into your pipette, and then wait a few minutes for the amoebae
to crawl off of it onto the slide (all without letting the microscope
light overheat the sample and kill them). Also, amoebae are often
rather transparent, and thus easy to overlook.
[I got rather a lot of experience on this, as Dr. Bovee was, in his day,
one of the top amoeba experts in the world].
--
The peace of God be with you.
Stanley Friesen
John Wilkins
I used to be a commercial guillotine operator in a print shop. It had a
micrometer scale for getting it *exactly* right, and even so I managed to
stuff up more than a few reams of paper...
....
--
John S. Wilkins, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Biohumanities Project
University of Queensland - Blog: evolvethought.blogspot.com
Servum tui ero, ipse vespera
Marc
John Wilkins wrote:
>
...... snip.
>
> I used to be a commercial guillotine operator in a print shop. It had a
> micrometer scale for getting it *exactly* right, and even so I managed to
> stuff up more than a few reams of paper...
>
Gee, and I stuff up reams of paper by writing on it.
(signed) marc
M Buhler
Parramatta
Daniel Harper
<snip>
> I used to be a commercial guillotine operator in a print shop. It had a
> micrometer scale for getting it *exactly* right, and even so I managed
> to stuff up more than a few reams of paper...
>
> ....
The one that we use at work is very similar to this one. (At least
cosmetically -- I haven't really looked at the details of the capabilities
of either to do a direct comparison.
http://www.abcoffice.com/cut3905.htm
In any case, the one that we use is accurate down to maybe an eighth of an
inch. Fine for a lot of purposes, not fine for a lot of others. During one
of the periodic maintenance calls on the cutter, I chatted with the
service tech about accuracy and precision -- i.e. how exactly to get the
cutter to make those business cards _exactly_ 3.5 X 2 inches. His response
was basically, "Well, the strip is glued to the board at slightly
different places depending on the model. Your best bet is to measure it
once and then mark it with a Sharpie." All of which just gives you a
margin of error approximately equal to the width of the Sharpie marker,
which isn't any better than we had before.
<sigh> It's been a frustrating experience; part of me is _glad_ the store
is closing.
Glad to know it wasn't just _me_ that was the screwup there, though.
(BTW, if anyone knows of any job openings in Huntsville, AL, please let me
know.)
Daniel Harper
> Daniel Harper <daniel...@terralink.net> wrote:
>>
>>Firstly, I was going over some of my notes today from the first week of
>>class. (Got a test in a couple of weeks and I was taking some time to go
>>back over the material.) Obviously, it was some very basic stuff, but I
>>ran across the little pie chart the professor drew that indicated the
>>relative percentages of organisms in the diversity of life -- i.e. how
>>many species of chordates, insects, mammals, primates, et cetera. A number
>>that jumped out at me was that there are approximately 4200 species of
>>mammals in the animal kingdom, of which approximately 1000 are bats, and
>>that approximately 1.8 million species are known.
>
> Add to that, there are many *unknown* species.
You mean there are things _science doesn't know_? Psst, don't tell McCoy.
>>
>>Whenever we see anti-evolutionists (especially YECers) around here talking
>>about problems with evolution, the examples they give of problem organisms
>>always seem to revolve around large, macro-scale organisms that all of us
>>are generally familiar with. (I.E. dogs turning into cats, cattle giving
>>birth to ducks, et cetera.) I have no doubt that if you asked most
>>creationists about the relative diversity of species, they would likely
>>believe that large-scale organisms like these represented a fair
>>percentage of the life on earth. (To be fair, the same is also true of
>>many of those who support evolution as the primary means of describing the
>>history of life on Earth; ignorance cuts both ways.)
>
> Indeed the tinyness of our branch gets even more profound when you add
> in the fact that microscopic (unicellular) life forms are under-sampled
> relative to macroscopic one (due to difficulty in collecting). There
> are gene assays that suggest a vast diversity of prokaryotes in the soil
> and elsewhere that have never shown up in any lab culture or otherwise
> been seen by humans. The proportion of prokaryotes that are actually
> known is likely to be well under half.
Is there a source where I can get some more information on this?
<snip a bit>
>>Furthermore, much of the awareness-changing "heavy lifting" of the class
>>has happened not so much in the class environment itself, but in the lab.
>>Sure, these have been very simple labs intended only to show some of the
>>tools and methods of science, but I suspect that the vast majority of
>>anti-evolutionists have never spent any amount of time in a serious
>>biology lab (except perhaps to dissect a frog or two) and have never
>>examined life through a scientific-quality microscope.
>
> I am not sure I would call dissecting a frog a real lab experiment - it
> is more of an interactive visual aid :-)
And, ironically, it was that sort of thing that had made me decide years
ago that I "didn't like" Biology -- because instead of dealing with hard
science like physics or chemistry did, all biologists were up to was
dissecting things and generally making a mess. (I was young, and I
apologize.) In 10th grade we dissected frogs, and I _hated_ it, largely
due to the awful smells and sensations of dealing with preserved flesh,
and also because memorizing all that anatomy (largely learned off of
bad-quality Xeroxes of book originals) seemed rather pointless.
I wonder how many other potential scientists are turned off by such
things. If my high school biology class had emphasized evolutionary
processes, survival strategies, et cetera in a more rigorous way, I might
have found myself much more interested ten years ago.
>>
>>The first lab that we did was quite simple, involving simply measurement
>>and the use of various scientific measuring tools. I found it to be a
>>reasonably fascinating way of examining the inherent difficulties in
>>obtaining good data from very simple things, even given reasonably
>>scientifically-accurate equipment.
>
> Ah yes, the measuring lessons. I remember those. Quite enlightening,
> as you say.
Funnily enough, several of the groups in the lab section quickly sussed me
out as a science major, since I seemed to already know what to expect in
that lab. Little did they know that I just worked at a copy shop... :->
>>
>>To be fair, I have had personal experience with this concept in a much
>>more mundane setting at work. I have spent some time working at a small
>>copy shop where one of our regular tasks is to do various paper-cutting
>>jobs like business cards or postcards. Even with a large ream-cutter with
>>a stop and a sharpened blade, doing what seem to be very simple tasks like
>>cutting a sheet of paper into thirds is nearly impossible to do
>>accurately. Very tiny human errors on the macro-scale can cause large
>>disruptions in the finished product, when trying to get cut sizes that are
>>identical to the naked eye and that leave a smooth finish when running
>>one's finger along the entire stack. I leave work almost every day wishing
>>I had a $3000 digital paper cutter like the local Kinko's has.
>
> Gee, sounds like a good investment.
>
Well, as I said, the store is closing, so maybe the company made some
other bad decisions. A digital cutter is not the only piece of equipment
that we asked for, but it was the one that would have been first on our
list to receive if we'd had any say in the matter.
> [Seriously, I would find your job totally frustrating].
Retail in general requires a certain type of personality. Namely, one that
is willing to put up with extreme amounts of stress due to upper
management and angry customers for little pay. (No, I'm not bitter at all.)
>>
>>The second and third labs both involved microscopy...
>>
>>(An aside. I've read accounts that Babe Ruth gave when he first stepped up
>>onto the pitcher's mound for the first time and felt this unbearable sense
>>of "rightness" to the sensation, that on some level, he felt that pitching
>>was what he was _born_ to do. When I first started playing with the
>>microscope in that lab, I felt many of the same sensations, that the
>>mechanism seemed natural and obvious to me, and that the power and
>>capability of the device simply "felt right" under my admittedly
>>completely unschooled guidance. It was one of the most amazing feelings in
>>my still-young life to realize how much I simply enjoyed operating that
>>mechanism and viewing things at high-powered resolution.)
>
> You can see some amazing things under a microscope - especially if you
> have one of the ones with advanced optics, such as I got to use when I
> worked for Dr. Bovee years ago. Somewhere I believe I still have the
> drawings I made of an undescribed species of amoeba I found *once* (and
> never again, despite several attempts).
Amoeba frieseni? I can buy it.
Seriously, that sounds very cool.
>>
>>Intellectual assent to the similarity of all life takes on new meaning
>>when you've looked at various microbes under high magnification, as we did
>>in the second lab. While getting a sample of amoebae for examination, one
>>of my lab partners must have accidentally let loose a skin cell or two,
>>because I happened to get a glance at something that is undeniably not an
>>amoeba right alongside that one-celled organism, and simply seeing them
>>next to each other really helped to drive home the point that _we are all
>>essentially the same thing_. We are all made of the same materials, all a
>>product of evolutionary processes that act on all of nature, and all
>>subject to the same physical laws.
>>
>>Besides, watching a paramecium use its cilia to swim around on the slide
>>was just freakin' cool.
>
> Yep. I have even seen wild paramecia, that is ones I found in random
> water samples from campus rather than a prepared culture. Some of the
> other ciliates are quite amazing - like the one with the long "neck"
> (really just a long, motile cellular extension).
We did spend a few minutes examining random "pond water", but I'm afraid I
didn't have enough time to really get into anything interesting. For some
reason, my fellow lab mates were more interested in finishing the lab and
getting the grade than in letting me play with my expensive new toy for a
few hours. (I'm sure the lab instructor would have been displeased with
that as well.)
>
>> And I actually got to see a Euglena's flagellum in
>>motion, although they were a bit too faint to see clearly.
>
> That is largely due to the motion, which is rather rapid.
>
We used a bit of methyl cellulose to slow the organisms down, which seemed
to freeze many in their tracks, and even the Euglena didn't move around a
whole lot, if at all. We had a prepared slide that we viewed (I used a
slightly darker setting on the light source) and I got a better view of
the flagellum. Guess that's why it's a prepared slide.
(BTW, does methyl cellulose slow down these organisms by chemical or
physical means? Is it a poison? I asked the lab instructor, but she seemed
unsure.)
>
> If you like microscopy, it is worth pulling water samples out of any
> pond or puddle you see and letting "ferment".
If I continue in this vein, I may consider buying a 'scope for myself,
although prices seem to be way higher than I'm in the market to spend for
the foreseeable future. Any tips for getting the university to let me
spend some free time (oh, such copious free time) seeing what I can find
for myself? Or is that just a pipe dream until I get to graduate work?
> Just among the
> unicellular eukaryotes there is an amazing variety to be seen. Ciliates
> with little rigid bodies shaped like a barrel. Cryptomonds. Amoebas of
> all shapes and sized (I suspect the ones you used in lab were the common
> giant amoeba, _Amoeba proteus_ - most species are much smaller).
>
Yeah, _proteus_ was the one we were examining. I even thought I saw one or
two with the naked eye at one point, although I could have just been
seeing air bubbles.
> Seeing wild amoebas can be a touch tricky - you have to pull up some
> substrate into your pipette, and then wait a few minutes for the amoebae
> to crawl off of it onto the slide (all without letting the microscope
> light overheat the sample and kill them). Also, amoebae are often
> rather transparent, and thus easy to overlook.
>
We had to try two or three times to get the little buggers even with the
prepared sample.
> [I got rather a lot of experience on this, as Dr. Bovee was, in his day,
> one of the top amoeba experts in the world].
Sounds fascinating. I feel like such a dork for saying this, as I am not
the sort to express excitement or happiness readily, but I am excited to
be in every single lesson I'm taking, even though I know this stuff is the
brain-dead material they feed even to <gasp> philosophy majors. <ducks>
I'm feeling really good about this, and I'm hoping to stick to an academic
environment, teaching and doing research, once I complete all my
undergraduate and graduate work.
What is it about learning science that just makes you feel _good_? Must be
all that ignorance leaving your body. :->
John Wilkins
> John Wilkins wrote:
> ....... snip.
>> I used to be a commercial guillotine operator in a print shop. It had a
>> micrometer scale for getting it *exactly* right, and even so I managed to
>> stuff up more than a few reams of paper...
>>
>
>
> Gee, and I stuff up reams of paper by writing on it.
>
Me too. I graduated.
John Wilkins
> On Mon, 30 Jan 2006 09:25:26 +1000, John Wilkins wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> I used to be a commercial guillotine operator in a print shop. It had a
>> micrometer scale for getting it *exactly* right, and even so I managed
>> to stuff up more than a few reams of paper...
>>
>> ....
>
> The one that we use at work is very similar to this one. (At least
> cosmetically -- I haven't really looked at the details of the capabilities
> of either to do a direct comparison.
>
> http://www.abcoffice.com/cut3905.htm
Huh. I had that in my last office. No, I'm thinking of something more like this:
http://screenprintsource.com/images/polar115em90.jpg
In fact, if memory serves, that is *exactly* the one I used.
>
> In any case, the one that we use is accurate down to maybe an eighth of an
> inch. Fine for a lot of purposes, not fine for a lot of others. During one
> of the periodic maintenance calls on the cutter, I chatted with the
> service tech about accuracy and precision -- i.e. how exactly to get the
> cutter to make those business cards _exactly_ 3.5 X 2 inches. His response
> was basically, "Well, the strip is glued to the board at slightly
> different places depending on the model. Your best bet is to measure it
> once and then mark it with a Sharpie." All of which just gives you a
> margin of error approximately equal to the width of the Sharpie marker,
> which isn't any better than we had before.
>
> <sigh> It's been a frustrating experience; part of me is _glad_ the store
> is closing.
I used to use technical metal rulers, laser engraved, the ones that have
nothing past the zero mark. The problem is in knowing how far out from the
press edge the blade cuts, but I solved that by lowering the blade to the card
underlay and marking it.
>
> Glad to know it wasn't just _me_ that was the screwup there, though.
>
> (BTW, if anyone knows of any job openings in Huntsville, AL, please let me
> know.)
>
Alas, no. Sorry...
an...@sci.sci
> of organisms in the diversity of life -- i.e. how many species of
> chordates, insects, mammals, primates, et cetera.
Among animal species, what fraction are insects, more than half?
What fraction of animals are *all* arthropods (insects and all the rest)?
Given that the word "species" isn't well-defined for prokaryotes,
because they don't engage in meiosis or fertilization, how do you
rightly compare number of species of prokaryotes vs. eukaryotes? Does
the pie chart somehow attempt to show relative numbers of "species" of
each in a single chart? IMO it'd be better to show prokaryote clades
and eukaryote species separately, whereby the pie chart for eukaryote
species is factually meaningful whereas the pie chart for prokaryote
clades is pretty much arbitrary.
> watching a paramecium use its cilia to swim around on the slide
> was just freakin' cool.
I always wanted to see that, but never could find any. But I discovered
rotifers, which were amazing to watch through the microscope.
> And I actually got to see a Euglena's flagellum in motion, ...
No, you're mixing up the terms for the flagellum, which only bacteria
have, with the undulipodium, which only eukaryotes (including Euglena)
have. (Ask your instructor to explain the difference. They operate by
quite different mechanisms.) Do you have microscopes good enough to
watch bacteria, so you can see the difference yourself?
Otherwise your article shows you are getting enlightened about a bunch
of biological topics, such as the amazing variety of protists and
extremophile prokaryotes. Have you had a chance to examine any
Caryoblastea or Dinoflagellata or Chrysophyta or Haptophyta or
Cryptophyta or Zoomastigina or Xanthophyta or Eustigmatophyta or
Bacillariophyta (Diatoms) or Actinopoda or Ciliophora (Ciliates) or
Cnidosporidia or Chytridiomycota in the microscope? Each is so
amazingly different from any of the others. There are zoos where people
can view mid-sized and large mammals and birds, and acquariums where
people can view fish and cetaceans and other sealife, and observatories
where people can view distant objects in space. There should be a
micro-zoo where people can view the full variety of protists through
microscopes! I don't suppose there's one near you, where perhaps your
class can take a field trip someday?
.
thissteve
Daniel Harper wrote:
>
> Besides, watching a paramecium use its cilia to swim around on the slide
> was just freakin' cool. And I actually got to see a Euglena's flagellum in
> motion, although they were a bit too faint to see clearly.
Have fun. You'll probably find that even the simplest and smallest
things will make your head spin.
Our minds like reductionism: breaking up the complex into simpler
components. But no matter how deeply you go down, in particle physics
as well as biology, our world is incredibly rich and profound.
This inability of ours to "break down" our world is one of my evidences
for God. I will of course be told that this doesn't count as evidence,
likely by people who accept only scientific evidence while
simultaneously declaring that science by definition can't reveal
anything about God. Or I might be told that this isn't _proof_ of God,
which I agree with.
And this post is not in any way an attack on the validity of
evolutionary theory.
Daniel Harper
> Daniel Harper wrote:
>> On Mon, 30 Jan 2006 09:25:26 +1000, John Wilkins wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>> I used to be a commercial guillotine operator in a print shop. It had a
>>> micrometer scale for getting it *exactly* right, and even so I managed
>>> to stuff up more than a few reams of paper...
>>>
>>> ....
>>
>> The one that we use at work is very similar to this one. (At least
>> cosmetically -- I haven't really looked at the details of the capabilities
>> of either to do a direct comparison.
>>
>> http://www.abcoffice.com/cut3905.htm
>
> Huh. I had that in my last office. No, I'm thinking of something more like this:
>
> http://screenprintsource.com/images/polar115em90.jpg
>
> In fact, if memory serves, that is *exactly* the one I used.
Which just shows the difference in scale we're talking about. I'm
currently working at a very small copy shop that does maybe five hundred
US dollars on a good day -- most times I'm there completely alone to deal
with whatever comes up.
But it is interesting to learn that similar problems crop up even with
much higher-quality equipment.
>>
>> In any case, the one that we use is accurate down to maybe an eighth of an
>> inch. Fine for a lot of purposes, not fine for a lot of others. During one
>> of the periodic maintenance calls on the cutter, I chatted with the
>> service tech about accuracy and precision -- i.e. how exactly to get the
>> cutter to make those business cards _exactly_ 3.5 X 2 inches. His response
>> was basically, "Well, the strip is glued to the board at slightly
>> different places depending on the model. Your best bet is to measure it
>> once and then mark it with a Sharpie." All of which just gives you a
>> margin of error approximately equal to the width of the Sharpie marker,
>> which isn't any better than we had before.
>>
>> <sigh> It's been a frustrating experience; part of me is _glad_ the store
>> is closing.
>
> I used to use technical metal rulers, laser engraved, the ones that have
> nothing past the zero mark. The problem is in knowing how far out from the
> press edge the blade cuts, but I solved that by lowering the blade to the card
> underlay and marking it.
>>
From what I understand from one of my co-workers, the more modern devices
(even smaller devices like the one I'm using) actually use a laser to mark
the sheet where it's being cut. Mine, well, it's a sort of "guess and hope
you're right" procedure half the time.
>> Glad to know it wasn't just _me_ that was the screwup there, though.
>>
>> (BTW, if anyone knows of any job openings in Huntsville, AL, please let me
>> know.)
>>
> Alas, no. Sorry...
Rats.
AndreVan
>
> Whenever we see anti-evolutionists (especially YECers) around here talking
> about problems with evolution, the examples they give of problem organisms
> always seem to revolve around large, macro-scale organisms that all of us
> are generally familiar with. (I.E. dogs turning into cats, cattle giving
> birth to ducks, et cetera.) I have no doubt that if you asked most
> creationists about the relative diversity of species, they would likely
> believe that large-scale organisms like these represented a fair
> percentage of the life on earth. (To be fair, the same is also true of
> many of those who support evolution as the primary means of describing the
> history of life on Earth; ignorance cuts both ways.)
Presenting your case along with the conclusive scientific evidence, and
the selection processes that caused their evolution in the first place.
>
> The "leap" that anti-evolutionists like to have their audiences mentally
> jumping over in evolution is from tiny one-celled organisms (amoeba always
> seems to be the favorite example) up to cats, dogs, and humans. But how
> many of them have the understanding of just how tiny a branch on the
> evolutionary tree all of these macro-scale organisms really are, even if
> including non-mammalian species like fish and crustaceans, or even the
> many species of plants? The unimaginably complex diversity of Kingdom
> Protista, or the "extremophile" Archaea living in deep-sea vents and the
> like, provide a much larger baseline from which to view the vastness and
> power of evolutionary change than simple (but profound) changes in
> morphology identified in commonplace plants and animals. Surely there are
> anti-evolutionists who are well-versed in the diversity of life, but upon
> seeing the numbers, it seems like the intuitive "oomph" that many shrewd
> anti-evolutionists (like Hovind or Ham) like to feed to their audiences
> shrinks to almost nothing.
present us with the scientific evidence showing how the magnificent
diversity of life came about by random genetic mistakes from a
primordial cell? Also, did you observe any of this evolution occurring
in the lab?
>
> All in all, with every class period I have, I have become more and more
> convinced that the biological sciences are really the right home for me. I
> would never have imagined that I'd enjoy the life sciences this much a few
> short years ago, but seeing the fascinating properties of life as shaped
> by evolutionary processes has really opened my eyes. Since it was
> anti-evolutionists who originally inspired me to come here, I guess on
> some level I'm going to have to thank them for pushing me in this
> direction.
Glad you appear to be enjoying it, pity your whole approach is from a
belief in evolution, which is just a supposition of how we all got
here. Hopefully as you continue your studies, you'll come to see the
awesome power of God's creation, and not some random blind process of
naturalism.
Are you willing to consider the supernatural over the natural?
Pithecanthropus Erectus
> On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 15:10:02 -0800, Stanley Friesen wrote:
>
>
>>Daniel Harper <daniel...@terralink.net> wrote:
>>
>>>Firstly, I was going over some of my notes today from the first week of
>>>class. (Got a test in a couple of weeks and I was taking some time to go
>>>back over the material.) Obviously, it was some very basic stuff, but I
>>>ran across the little pie chart the professor drew that indicated the
>>>relative percentages of organisms in the diversity of life -- i.e. how
>>>many species of chordates, insects, mammals, primates, et cetera. A number
>>>that jumped out at me was that there are approximately 4200 species of
>>>mammals in the animal kingdom, of which approximately 1000 are bats, and
>>>that approximately 1.8 million species are known.
>>
>>Add to that, there are many *unknown* species.
>
>
> You mean there are things _science doesn't know_? Psst, don't tell McCoy.
Don't worry. He is too busy ignoring the things that science has all
ready discovered.
John Wilkins
I'm pre-laser. I think they;d just discovered steel when I was working in a
print shop.
I also spotted negatives (now *there's a fun job) and stripped in PMS negs.
>
>>> Glad to know it wasn't just _me_ that was the screwup there, though.
>>>
>>> (BTW, if anyone knows of any job openings in Huntsville, AL, please let me
>>> know.)
>>>
>> Alas, no. Sorry...
>
> Rats.
>
--
Stanley Friesen
>On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 15:10:02 -0800, Stanley Friesen wrote:
>> Indeed the tinyness of our branch gets even more profound when you add
>> in the fact that microscopic (unicellular) life forms are under-sampled
>> relative to macroscopic one (due to difficulty in collecting). There
>> are gene assays that suggest a vast diversity of prokaryotes in the soil
>> and elsewhere that have never shown up in any lab culture or otherwise
>> been seen by humans. The proportion of prokaryotes that are actually
>> known is likely to be well under half.
>
>Is there a source where I can get some more information on this?
>
Well, *my* source was the book _Assembling the Tree of Life_, 2004.
edited by Joel Cracraft and Michael Donoghue. Oxford University Press.
Much of it is scattered throughout chapter 4 (several of one-liners
about ciPCR studies). Of course the book also has a good bibliography,
so you could go deeper if you have the time.
For instance on page 55: "However ciPCR suggests that both groups are
much broader, particularly the Crenarcheota. ciPCR also indicates the
possible existence of two additional major divisions of Archaea (fig.
4.3), the Korarcheota, known only from ciPCR studies (Barns et al.,
1996), and the extremely small (0.4 microm.) Nanoarcheota (Huber et al.
2002b)."
And on the next page: "Although all the cultured members of Crenarcheota
are hyperthermophilic and often anaerobic, ciPCR indicates the existence
of mesophilic aerobic taxa throughout the group. Unlike the
crenarchaeal thermophiles, many of the mesophiles appear to be
widespread." [The last with references to Hershberger et al. 1996,
DeLong 1992, and Fuhrman et al. 1992].
These are followed by several additional remarks under several of the
sub-groups of Crenarcheota. There is a similar mention of ciPCR in the
introduction to the section on eukaryotes.
><snip a bit>
>
>>>Furthermore, much of the awareness-changing "heavy lifting" of the class
>>>has happened not so much in the class environment itself, but in the lab.
>>>Sure, these have been very simple labs intended only to show some of the
>>>tools and methods of science, but I suspect that the vast majority of
>>>anti-evolutionists have never spent any amount of time in a serious
>>>biology lab (except perhaps to dissect a frog or two) and have never
>>>examined life through a scientific-quality microscope.
>>
>> I am not sure I would call dissecting a frog a real lab experiment - it
>> is more of an interactive visual aid :-)
>
>And, ironically, it was that sort of thing that had made me decide years
>ago that I "didn't like" Biology -- because instead of dealing with hard
>science like physics or chemistry did, all biologists were up to was
>dissecting things and generally making a mess. (I was young, and I
>apologize.) In 10th grade we dissected frogs, and I _hated_ it, largely
>due to the awful smells and sensations of dealing with preserved flesh,
>and also because memorizing all that anatomy (largely learned off of
>bad-quality Xeroxes of book originals) seemed rather pointless.
Well, it *is* largely pointless unless one actually wants to do research
on the organisms in question, then it becomes critical.
>
>I wonder how many other potential scientists are turned off by such
>things. If my high school biology class had emphasized evolutionary
>processes, survival strategies, et cetera in a more rigorous way, I might
>have found myself much more interested ten years ago.
>
Yeah, I know what you mean. I found high school biology, except for the
Advanced Biology class with Mr. Roth, quite tedious and boring. Luckily
I had a father who *was* a scientist, and knew various professors, so I
knew better. In those years I learned rather more about science by
reading. Take heart, college biology is much more interesting (and
ultimately more difficult).
[More science teachers like Mr. Roth might be nice: how many teachers
keep cool things like rattlesnakes in the classroom?]
>>
>> Ah yes, the measuring lessons. I remember those. Quite enlightening,
>> as you say.
>
>Funnily enough, several of the groups in the lab section quickly sussed me
>out as a science major, since I seemed to already know what to expect in
>that lab. Little did they know that I just worked at a copy shop... :->
>
LOL. At least in science you don't actually have to make them all
identical, you just need to determine the error bars :->
>
>> [Seriously, I would find your job totally frustrating].
>
>Retail in general requires a certain type of personality. Namely, one that
>is willing to put up with extreme amounts of stress due to upper
>management and angry customers for little pay. (No, I'm not bitter at all.)
>
Oh, I have done my share of retail. I hated it with a passion, for the
most part. Only the time working retail was tolerable (though still
unpleasant) was at Bucky's (a burger place no less), and that was
because the owner was such a fun guy.
>> You can see some amazing things under a microscope - especially if you
>> have one of the ones with advanced optics, such as I got to use when I
>> worked for Dr. Bovee years ago. Somewhere I believe I still have the
>> drawings I made of an undescribed species of amoeba I found *once* (and
>> never again, despite several attempts).
>
>Amoeba frieseni? I can buy it.
>
Oh, I doubt I would have the chutzpah to name it after myself. I might
have used _boveei_ though. Technically it would have been in the genus
_Vexillifera_, if I remember correctly. [Genus _Amoeba_ is restricted
to a few largish species with large tubular pseudopodia].
>Seriously, that sounds very cool.
>
Yeah, and if I had been able to collect it more than once I probably
would have described it formally, sigh.
>>
>> Yep. I have even seen wild paramecia, that is ones I found in random
>> water samples from campus rather than a prepared culture. Some of the
>> other ciliates are quite amazing - like the one with the long "neck"
>> (really just a long, motile cellular extension).
>
>We did spend a few minutes examining random "pond water", but I'm afraid I
>didn't have enough time to really get into anything interesting.
You often get more results if you let it grow in the bottle for a while.
The disadvantage of this is that it changes the environment somewhat, so
some of the more narrowly fresh-water species may disappear.
> For some
>reason, my fellow lab mates were more interested in finishing the lab and
>getting the grade than in letting me play with my expensive new toy for a
>few hours. (I'm sure the lab instructor would have been displeased with
>that as well.)
>
Well, that was where working for Dr. Bovee was so cool. When I had no
immediate task at hand he let me play with his microscopes, including
one that would make your lab scope look cheap. Seriously, a job as an
RA (not TA) for a laid-back, cool professor is a major plus for
everyone. [OK, so I *did* have to wash glassware and prepare stinking
growth media made of pre-digested protein, but it was worth it]. Check
the campus job listings. Also, see if you can find time to just *chat*
with interesting professors that in itself can be very educational. It
is amazing how friendly they can be to somebody who shows a *genuine*
interest in their work.
>>
>>> And I actually got to see a Euglena's flagellum in
>>>motion, although they were a bit too faint to see clearly.
>>
>> That is largely due to the motion, which is rather rapid.
>>
>
>We used a bit of methyl cellulose to slow the organisms down, which seemed
>to freeze many in their tracks, and even the Euglena didn't move around a
>whole lot, if at all. We had a prepared slide that we viewed (I used a
>slightly darker setting on the light source) and I got a better view of
>the flagellum. Guess that's why it's a prepared slide.
Yeah, flagella are tricky. I had the advantage of the special optics on
Dr. Bovee's *expensive* microscope. It had a number of fancy contrast
enhancing modes that you do not see on cheaper scopes. [Mid-70s, and it
cost several thousand dollars].
>
>(BTW, does methyl cellulose slow down these organisms by chemical or
>physical means? Is it a poison? I asked the lab instructor, but she seemed
>unsure.)
I am not totally sure myself, but I *think* it is purely mechanical. It
is a rather viscous, fairly inert substance. Think of it as a weird
sort of starchy water (cellulose and starch are closely related
chemicals). I rather suspect the advantage of methyl-cellulose over
starch is mainly optical - it is more transparent.
>
>> If you like microscopy, it is worth pulling water samples out of any
>> pond or puddle you see and letting "ferment".
>
>If I continue in this vein, I may consider buying a 'scope for myself,
>although prices seem to be way higher than I'm in the market to spend for
>the foreseeable future. Any tips for getting the university to let me
>spend some free time (oh, such copious free time) seeing what I can find
>for myself? Or is that just a pipe dream until I get to graduate work?
It is really largely a matter of finding ways of spending "quality time"
with actual professors. There are often even some "courses" called
undergraduate research courses which are really doing this for class
credit, though they are all junior-senior course, AFAIK. I actually did
a small paper for Dr. Bovee on amoeba taxonomy under that rubric, though
I had worked for him for some time prior to doing so, so we knew each
other.
>
>> Just among the
>> unicellular eukaryotes there is an amazing variety to be seen. Ciliates
>> with little rigid bodies shaped like a barrel. Cryptomonds. Amoebas of
>> all shapes and sized (I suspect the ones you used in lab were the common
>> giant amoeba, _Amoeba proteus_ - most species are much smaller).
>
>Yeah, _proteus_ was the one we were examining. I even thought I saw one or
>two with the naked eye at one point, although I could have just been
>seeing air bubbles.
No, you were correct. _A. proteus_ is *just* visible with the naked eye
(I used to pluck individual ones out of the culture bottle). Of the
ordinary amoebae, only _Pelomyxa palustris_ (which I never managed to
see) and _Chaos carolinensis_ (which I purchased cultured) are larger.
Of course these are all tiny compared to the syncytial slime molds, such
as _Physarum_ (which I grew in a petri dish - which it tried to
outgrow). But syncytial slime molds have thousands of nuclei in their
multi-cm wide bodies, so one might argue they are actually multicellular
despite a lack of cell membranes. They also reproduce by spores
produced by fruiting bodies that look like mold (hence the name).
>
>What is it about learning science that just makes you feel _good_? Must be
>all that ignorance leaving your body. :->
Well, I call it the excitement of discovery. The Eureka moments.
Of course there are many *other* fascinating parts of biology, from
walking through a forest and actually *seeing* its structure, to
studying how animals grow [I still remember the embryology lab where we
put windows in fertilized chicken eggs and watched them grow over the
span of the course - of course we had to *draw* and *identify* what we
saw to get credit].
Dana Tweedy
"AndreVan" <andre...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1138590515.5...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
snipping
> Considering that you've spent some time in the lab, are you able to
> present us with the scientific evidence showing how the magnificent
> diversity of life came about by random genetic mistakes from a
> primordial cell?
You forgot the role of natural selection, genetic drift, etc.... That
evidence can be found in any basic biology textbook.
>Also, did you observe any of this evolution occurring
> in the lab?
Others have. See:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
http://www.uh.edu/admin/media/nr/2002/112002/yeast11272002.html
>
>>
>> All in all, with every class period I have, I have become more and more
>> convinced that the biological sciences are really the right home for me.
>> I
>> would never have imagined that I'd enjoy the life sciences this much a
>> few
>> short years ago, but seeing the fascinating properties of life as shaped
>> by evolutionary processes has really opened my eyes. Since it was
>> anti-evolutionists who originally inspired me to come here, I guess on
>> some level I'm going to have to thank them for pushing me in this
>> direction.
> Glad you appear to be enjoying it, pity your whole approach is from a
> belief in evolution,
As opposed to what? What other scientific theory is there to explain the
diversity of life?
> which is just a supposition of how we all got
> here.
No, scientific theories are more than "just a supposition".
> Hopefully as you continue your studies, you'll come to see the
> awesome power of God's creation,
Why can't God use evolution as his means of creating?
> and not some random blind process of
> naturalism.
Since all science uses "naturalism" any system that does not use naturalism,
is not science.
> Are you willing to consider the supernatural over the natural?
Are you willing to present some physical evidence of the supernatural?
DJT
Iain
No soul on earth believes that.
> Also, did you observe any of this evolution occurring
> in the lab?
Well I have, and I'm sure he has by now also, if he's at college.
Subtle shades of variation of everything in every way among a
population lend their weight to a moving average - and is also
shared, shuffled and boosted by sexual reproduction.
This average is the thing that evolves.
Whatever restricts the population from growing ad infinitum, forces the
population-wide frequencies of variations to wax in strict accordance
with their degrees of mutual aptitude at circumventing the restriction
until the point of reproduction. The members are all linked by gene
flow and so all resemble the evolving average to some degree.
Hence we call evolution by natural selection "non-random" -- Like how a
fractal is non-random.
~Iain
Iain
> Daniel Harper wrote:
> >
> > Whenever we see anti-evolutionists (especially YECers) around here talking
> > about problems with evolution, the examples they give of problem organisms
> > always seem to revolve around large, macro-scale organisms that all of us
> > are generally familiar with. (I.E. dogs turning into cats, cattle giving
> > birth to ducks, et cetera.) I have no doubt that if you asked most
> > creationists about the relative diversity of species, they would likely
> > believe that large-scale organisms like these represented a fair
> > percentage of the life on earth. (To be fair, the same is also true of
> > many of those who support evolution as the primary means of describing the
> > history of life on Earth; ignorance cuts both ways.)
> What do you believe the cats, dogs, cattle, ducks evolved from and how?
> Presenting your case along with the conclusive scientific evidence, and
> the selection processes that caused their evolution in the first place.
You ask for a common ancestor of cats dogs cattle and ducks,
specifically? You'd have to go right back to before the mammal-like
reptiles to find such a link. A form of therapsid from about 220
million years ago I think link feline and canine, but I don't know
about bovine. Either way you'd have to go back further to incorporate
avian. I'm not sure what the common ancestor would be but it would be
some sort of early reptile.
How: Natural selection guiding the allele frequencies of populations of
in-exactly replicating organisms, which by sundry isolation divided and
offshot.
Note: Selection processes do not "cause the evolution in the first
place". In-exact copying ensures that the motor of the process is
always running.
~Iain
Ye Old One
enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>Are you willing to consider the supernatural over the natural?
You present evidence and we will consider.
--
Bob.
Frank J
Correct. ~45% of adult Americans are "creationists" (mostly YEC, deny
common descent, etc.), and ~50% claim to accept evolution, but the
great majority of both groups have a false caricature of evolution in
mind. A false caricature that is constantly promoted by professional
anti-evolutionist and the media. Make sure which "kind" of creationist
you are dealing with. If you get one of the majority (or a misinformed
"evolutionist") you will likely get a "gee, I never thought of it that
way!" response. But if you are dealing with a professional or obssessed
amateur anti-evolutionists, you are likely to get a lot of "buts." The
more skilled ones will do a Gish gallop.
>
> The "leap" that anti-evolutionists like to have their audiences mentally
> jumping over in evolution is from tiny one-celled organisms (amoeba always
> seems to be the favorite example) up to cats, dogs, and humans. But how
> many of them have the understanding of just how tiny a branch on the
> evolutionary tree all of these macro-scale organisms really are, even if
> including non-mammalian species like fish and crustaceans, or even the
> many species of plants? The unimaginably complex diversity of Kingdom
> Protista, or the "extremophile" Archaea living in deep-sea vents and the
> like, provide a much larger baseline from which to view the vastness and
> power of evolutionary change than simple (but profound) changes in
> morphology identified in commonplace plants and animals. Surely there are
> anti-evolutionists who are well-versed in the diversity of life, but upon
> seeing the numbers, it seems like the intuitive "oomph" that many shrewd
> anti-evolutionists (like Hovind or Ham) like to feed to their audiences
> shrinks to almost nothing.
Good. You notice that the professionals seem to know that they are
peddling nonsense. This is even more striking with the "don't ask,
don't tell" IDers. They have no problem ripping off the long-refuted
misrepresentations of evolution from the classic creationists (YECs and
OECs), but are more skilled at weaseling out of their own position
other than "some designer did something, at some time, other than
'Darwinism'"
>
> Furthermore, much of the awareness-changing "heavy lifting" of the class
> has happened not so much in the class environment itself, but in the lab.
> Sure, these have been very simple labs intended only to show some of the
> tools and methods of science, but I suspect that the vast majority of
> anti-evolutionists have never spent any amount of time in a serious
> biology lab (except perhaps to dissect a frog or two) and have never
> examined life through a scientific-quality microscope.
But don't forget that fringe minority with advanced degrees in
biology/biochemistry (e.g. Gish, Behe, Wells). Knowing a lot about a
subject means the ability to misrepresent it to a larger audience.
These days the professionsls, including nonscientists like Johnson,
know their evolution, and exactly which parts of it to take out of
context.
I thought that Babe Ruth's claim to fame was hitting, not pitching. But
I'n no baseball expert, so I can't rule out that he did the latter as
well. Either way, a skilled anti-science type could spin it that your
"materialistic" philosophy drove your desire to work with microscopes
and defend "Darwinism."
>
> ...microscopy, the second lab being a sort of set-up for the third. The
> second lab was meant really just to teach us how to use the microscope --
> we first examined prepared slides of threads crossing, then various plant
> materials like a species of grass and one of water algae. We even examined
> ourselves, at some degree, using a toothpick to get a cheek sample from
> ourselves and looking at our own component parts underneath a microscope.
> Not to be too mystical or paradigm-shifty about it, but the experience
> really made me look at the world around me in a whole new way -- when
> you've _seen_ cell walls with your own eyes it turns eating salad into a
> new process of understanding.
>
> Intellectual assent to the similarity of all life takes on new meaning
> when you've looked at various microbes under high magnification, as we did
> in the second lab. While getting a sample of amoebae for examination, one
> of my lab partners must have accidentally let loose a skin cell or two,
> because I happened to get a glance at something that is undeniably not an
> amoeba right alongside that one-celled organism, and simply seeing them
> next to each other really helped to drive home the point that _we are all
> essentially the same thing_. We are all made of the same materials, all a
> product of evolutionary processes that act on all of nature, and all
> subject to the same physical laws.
>
> Besides, watching a paramecium use its cilia to swim around on the slide
> was just freakin' cool. And I actually got to see a Euglena's flagellum in
> motion, although they were a bit too faint to see clearly.
Playing Devil's advocate, I say: "how can you think that all that arose
by chance?" I can't blame the person on the street from mindlessly
repeating that sound bite. But it's scary how some people are told
repeatedly that evolution is not "chance" and that abiogenesis and
evolution are 2 different things, and yet they keep recycling that
nonsense.
Frank J
AndreVan wrote:
(snip)
> Considering that you've spent some time in the lab, are you able to
> present us with the scientific evidence showing how the magnificent
> diversity of life came about by random genetic mistakes from a
> primordial cell? Also, did you observe any of this evolution occurring
> in the lab?
See what I mean Daniel? :-)
(snip)
Stanley Friesen
>AndreVan wrote:
>
>You ask for a common ancestor of cats dogs cattle and ducks,
>specifically? You'd have to go right back to before the mammal-like
>reptiles to find such a link. A form of therapsid from about 220
>million years ago I think link feline and canine, but I don't know
>about bovine. Either way you'd have to go back further to incorporate
>avian. I'm not sure what the common ancestor would be but it would be
>some sort of early reptile.
Actually, all placental mammals (which all of the listed ones are)
derive from a common ancestor in the Cretaceous (or perhaps Late
Jurassic). Cats and dogs are both Carnivora, and have an even more
recent common ancestor.
The therapsid and the "true" reptile branch (including birds) split
almost at the beginning of amniotes. Their common ancestor would be a
basal "reptile" - something like a captorhinid.
Greg G.
Frank J wrote:
> Daniel Harper wrote:
snippage
> > (An aside. I've read accounts that Babe Ruth gave when he first stepped up
> > onto the pitcher's mound for the first time and felt this unbearable sense
> > of "rightness" to the sensation, that on some level, he felt that pitching
> > was what he was _born_ to do. When I first started playing with the
> > microscope in that lab, I felt many of the same sensations, that the
> > mechanism seemed natural and obvious to me, and that the power and
> > capability of the device simply "felt right" under my admittedly
> > completely unschooled guidance. It was one of the most amazing feelings in
> > my still-young life to realize how much I simply enjoyed operating that
> > mechanism and viewing things at high-powered resolution.)
>
> I thought that Babe Ruth's claim to fame was hitting, not pitching. But
> I'n no baseball expert, so I can't rule out that he did the latter as
> well.
Babe Ruth was one of the best pitchers in baseball when he started, so
it was controversial when he was moved to the outfield. He wasn't a
typical hitter of the era, but he went on to revolutionize the game as
a hitter. (Ruth's 54 homers in 1920 surpassed the totals of every other
_team_ except for the Phillies' 64.) So there is some irony in the
statement above that he felt that pitching was a perfect situation for
him.
--
Greg G.
He got stung by a bee, the natural enemy of a tightrope walker.
Josh M.
"Frank J" <fn...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:1138628271.6...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Babe Ruth began his professional baseball career as a pitcher, but was later
moved to the outfield because of his prodigious power. Pitchers don't play
every day (once every 4 or 5 days) so they don't get as many at-bats
(pitchers in the AL hit for themselves in those days; AL teams have a
designated hitter now to take the place of the pitcher in the batting order)
as the everyday players. By moving to the outfield, he could play every day
and therefore get more at-bats, giving him more opportunities to drive in
runs. It was, needless to say, a good move.
Jim Willemin
news:pan.2006.01.30....@terralink.net:
<snip>
>
> In any case, the one that we use is accurate down to maybe an eighth
> of an inch. Fine for a lot of purposes, not fine for a lot of others.
> During one of the periodic maintenance calls on the cutter, I chatted
> with the service tech about accuracy and precision -- i.e. how exactly
> to get the cutter to make those business cards _exactly_ 3.5 X 2
> inches. His response was basically, "Well, the strip is glued to the
> board at slightly different places depending on the model. Your best
> bet is to measure it once and then mark it with a Sharpie." All of
> which just gives you a margin of error approximately equal to the
> width of the Sharpie marker, which isn't any better than we had
> before.
Well, why not make the mark using the Sharpie, then take a sharp pointy
thing and scribe a thin line through the ink right on the measurement?
Machinists used to do that (make a broad dye line at about the right place,
then scribe a narrow line at exactly the right place) in the days before
CNC.
--
Jim
"Value nothing but truth, compassion, and love"
Mark Isaak
<daniel...@terralink.net> wrote:
>Hi all. I've been absent off and on for the last few weeks, . . . .
>
>Firstly, I was going over some of my notes today from the first week of
>class. (Got a test in a couple of weeks and I was taking some time to go
>back over the material.) Obviously, it was some very basic stuff, but I
>ran across the little pie chart the professor drew that indicated the
>relative percentages of organisms in the diversity of life -- i.e. how
>many species of chordates, insects, mammals, primates, et cetera. A number
>that jumped out at me was that there are approximately 4200 species of
>mammals in the animal kingdom, of which approximately 1000 are bats, and
>that approximately 1.8 million species are known.
I think there are over 2 million species known now, with another
estimated million or so that are known of but not named. (One of
those, which is likely still sitting in a drawer waiting for a
taxonomist to describe it, is a springtail which I discovered in the
hills above Silicon Valley. New species are really not hard to find.
The trick is recognizing them as new.)
Several years ago, someone (Terry Erwin?) fogged some rain forest
trees with insecticide, looked at how many unknown species fell down,
and estimated that there are about 80 million species of insects in
the world. Now, that estimate was based in part on several weak
assumptions, so the real number could easily be as low as 8 million.
And then there is selection bias. Nematodes are harder to study than
insects and so get less attention, but it has been suggested that
there may be more species of nematodes than of insects.
Someone else asked about a source on this subject. Sorry, I don't
remember. The best I can do is say that there was an article in
_Scientific American_ on it at least three years ago, and that the
author's last name was May.
>Furthermore, much of the awareness-changing "heavy lifting" of the class
>has happened not so much in the class environment itself, but in the lab.
>Sure, these have been very simple labs intended only to show some of the
>tools and methods of science, but I suspect that the vast majority of
>anti-evolutionists have never spent any amount of time in a serious
>biology lab (except perhaps to dissect a frog or two) and have never
>examined life through a scientific-quality microscope.
I hope you get some time with a binocular disecting scope, too. The
magnification does not get as good, but you see things in 3-D, not
flattened by cover slip.
And later, you might get to play with scanning electron microscopes.
--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) earthlink (dot) net
"Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of
the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are
being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and
exposing the country to danger." -- Hermann Goering
wal...@easystreet.com
AndreVan wrote:
> Daniel Harper wrote:
> >
> > Whenever we see anti-evolutionists (especially YECers) around here talking
> > about problems with evolution, the examples they give of problem organisms
> > always seem to revolve around large, macro-scale organisms that all of us
> > are generally familiar with. (I.E. dogs turning into cats, cattle giving
> > birth to ducks, et cetera.) I have no doubt that if you asked most
> > creationists about the relative diversity of species, they would likely
> > believe that large-scale organisms like these represented a fair
> > percentage of the life on earth. (To be fair, the same is also true of
> > many of those who support evolution as the primary means of describing the
> > history of life on Earth; ignorance cuts both ways.)
> What do you believe the cats, dogs, cattle, ducks evolved from and how?
> Presenting your case along with the conclusive scientific evidence, and
> the selection processes that caused their evolution in the first place.
You can pick up any number of scientific tomes and articles on the
evolution of cats, dogs, cattle and ducks. And please point us to, or
post excerpts from, scientific papers that support a magical origin of
these organisms.
> >
> > The "leap" that anti-evolutionists like to have their audiences mentally
> > jumping over in evolution is from tiny one-celled organisms (amoeba always
> > seems to be the favorite example) up to cats, dogs, and humans. But how
> > many of them have the understanding of just how tiny a branch on the
> > evolutionary tree all of these macro-scale organisms really are, even if
> > including non-mammalian species like fish and crustaceans, or even the
> > many species of plants? The unimaginably complex diversity of Kingdom
> > Protista, or the "extremophile" Archaea living in deep-sea vents and the
> > like, provide a much larger baseline from which to view the vastness and
> > power of evolutionary change than simple (but profound) changes in
> > morphology identified in commonplace plants and animals. Surely there are
> > anti-evolutionists who are well-versed in the diversity of life, but upon
> > seeing the numbers, it seems like the intuitive "oomph" that many shrewd
> > anti-evolutionists (like Hovind or Ham) like to feed to their audiences
> > shrinks to almost nothing.
> Considering that you've spent some time in the lab, are you able to
> present us with the scientific evidence showing how the magnificent
> diversity of life came about by random genetic mistakes from a
> primordial cell? Also, did you observe any of this evolution occurring
> in the lab?
First, let's establish that you do not understand evolutionary theory
and appear to be completely ignorant about natural selection, all
right? You could start with some of Stephen J. Gould's excellent
essays. Then, let's get you acquainted with the geologic time scale.
After you've gotten some of the basics, ask yourself if it's likely
that one would observe evolution during a 3-hour biology lab.
>
> >
> > All in all, with every class period I have, I have become more and more
> > convinced that the biological sciences are really the right home for me. I
> > would never have imagined that I'd enjoy the life sciences this much a few
> > short years ago, but seeing the fascinating properties of life as shaped
> > by evolutionary processes has really opened my eyes. Since it was
> > anti-evolutionists who originally inspired me to come here, I guess on
> > some level I'm going to have to thank them for pushing me in this
> > direction.
> Glad you appear to be enjoying it, pity your whole approach is from a
> belief in evolution, which is just a supposition of how we all got
> here. Hopefully as you continue your studies, you'll come to see the
> awesome power of God's creation, and not some random blind process of
> naturalism.
> Are you willing to consider the supernatural over the natural?
Scientific inquiry, by definition, excludes the supernatural. If you
invoke magic, you have left the realm of science, instantly. It's
really that simple.
MLW
Daniel Harper
I'm not by any means a baseball fan, but I remembered a snippet of text
from my Freshman Honors English class (was it really almost eight years
ago?) in an essay by Howard Gardner, "A Rounded Version: The Theory of
Multiple Intelligences". (Note to self: never, ever throw anything away,
especially a book. You never know when it might be useful.) Under a
section called "Boldily-Kinesthetic Intelligence", Gardner quotes:
"Fifteen-year-old Babe Ruth played third base. DUring one game his team's
pitcher was doing very poorly and Babe loudly criticized him from third
base. Brother Mathias, the coach, called out, "Ruth, if you know so much
about it, YOU pitch!" Babe was surprised and embarrassed because he had
never pitched before, but Brother Mathias insisted. Ruth said later that
at the very moment he took the pitcher's mound, he KNEW he was supposed to
be a pitcher and that it was "natural" for him to strike people out.
Indeed, he went on to become a great major league pitcher (and, of course,
attained legendary status as a hitter)."
Gardner's source is _Voicer from Cooperstown_, by A. Connor. Without
getting into any details about whether bodily-kinesthetic intelligence is
a valid concept, that was the source I had for Ruth's innate feeling of
"rightness" when first stepping up to the pitcher's mound.
AndreVan
scientific fact. I believe in it by faith. However, the majority of
members on this forum claim that evolution is a "scientific fact", yet
are never able to provide the clear congruent evidence for it. Where is
the observable, repeatable scientific experimental evidence that shows
life diverging from a primordial cell?
After all, evolution is a "scientific theory" is it not?
DJT
AndreVan wrote:
> Ye Old One wrote:
> > On 29 Jan 2006 19:08:35 -0800, "AndreVan" <andre...@yahoo.com>
> > enriched this group when s/he wrote:
> >
> > >Are you willing to consider the supernatural over the natural?
> >
> > You present evidence and we will consider.
> Sorry Bob, I don't claim supernatural creation by God to be a
> scientific fact. I believe in it by faith.
That's fine, but don't try to equivocate that faith, with science.
> However, the majority of
> members on this forum claim that evolution is a "scientific fact"
That's because it is a scientific fact.
>, yet
> are never able to provide the clear congruent evidence for it.
What would you consider to be "clear congruent evidence"? Is not
observed speciation clear enough? Is not the genetic studies showing
common descent "congruent" enough? What, exactly, do you expect to
see?
> Where is
> the observable, repeatable scientific experimental evidence that shows
> life diverging from a primordial cell?
We observe species diverging from populations of other living things,
both in the lab, and in the wild. The genetic studies show that life
forms are all connected. We have fossil evidence showing intermediate
forms, and the biostrategraphical evidence showing how life has changed
over the millenia. Observation of this evidence is repeatable.
Divergence from a "primordial cell" can be inferred from the genetic
evidence, and that evidence is repeatable.
> After all, evolution is a "scientific theory" is it not?
Yes, the theory of evolution explains the fact that life has evolved.
Theories in science explain and organize observations, and act as a
framework for further studies. In science a theory is more important,
and more useful than a simple "fact".
DJT
AndreVan
> AndreVan wrote:
> > Daniel Harper wrote:
> > >
> > > Whenever we see anti-evolutionists (especially YECers) around here talking
> > > about problems with evolution, the examples they give of problem organisms
> > > always seem to revolve around large, macro-scale organisms that all of us
> > > are generally familiar with. (I.E. dogs turning into cats, cattle giving
> > > birth to ducks, et cetera.) I have no doubt that if you asked most
> > > creationists about the relative diversity of species, they would likely
> > > believe that large-scale organisms like these represented a fair
> > > percentage of the life on earth. (To be fair, the same is also true of
> > > many of those who support evolution as the primary means of describing the
> > > history of life on Earth; ignorance cuts both ways.)
> > What do you believe the cats, dogs, cattle, ducks evolved from and how?
> > Presenting your case along with the conclusive scientific evidence, and
> > the selection processes that caused their evolution in the first place.
>
> You can pick up any number of scientific tomes and articles on the
> evolution of cats, dogs, cattle and ducks.
unable to find any for biological evolution?
I am not interested in evolutionary suppositions or evolutionary
philosophical stories about where the above animals came from. I'm
interested in the scientific evidence for their "evolutionary" origins.
>And please point us to, or post excerpts from, scientific papers that support a magical
>origin of these organisms.
believe by faith because I've never witnessed this creation first-hand,
just as you have never witnessed the evolution of a cell to all present
life today first-hand.
Are you implying that we need more time in the lab before we can
observe molecules to man evolution?
Gould was forced to consider the ridiculous notion of "punctuated
equilibrium" because of the lack of evidence for "gradual evolution" in
the fossil record and the obvious stasis it showed. ["The Structure of
Evolutionary Theory", S.J. Gould]
Why don't you enlighten me as to how natural selection is a scientific
mechanism for life diverging from a primordial cell.
>
> >
> > >
> > > All in all, with every class period I have, I have become more and more
> > > convinced that the biological sciences are really the right home for me. I
> > > would never have imagined that I'd enjoy the life sciences this much a few
> > > short years ago, but seeing the fascinating properties of life as shaped
> > > by evolutionary processes has really opened my eyes. Since it was
> > > anti-evolutionists who originally inspired me to come here, I guess on
> > > some level I'm going to have to thank them for pushing me in this
> > > direction.
> > Glad you appear to be enjoying it, pity your whole approach is from a
> > belief in evolution, which is just a supposition of how we all got
> > here. Hopefully as you continue your studies, you'll come to see the
> > awesome power of God's creation, and not some random blind process of
> > naturalism.
> > Are you willing to consider the supernatural over the natural?
>
> Scientific inquiry, by definition, excludes the supernatural. If you
> invoke magic, you have left the realm of science, instantly. It's
> really that simple.
Your argument is not sound. Naturalistic explanations exclude the
supernatural, but why should we only consider the naturalistic?
Especially when a naturalistic explanation of the origin of everything
lacks scientific evidence.
The creation of everything can only have come about in one of two ways:
1. by a supernatural process, or 2. by a natural process. Which one
does the available evidence support the most?
Christopher A. Lee
wrote:
>Are you too afraid to post the scientific evidence yourself, or are you
>unable to find any for biological evolution?
Why are creationists such persistent liars?
wf...@comcast.net
wrote:
why do you think 'molecules to man' has to be demonstrated in the lab?
no one has ever created a star in the lab yet we know thermonuclear
fusion powers the stars.
we can see evolution happening today. we can see its results in the
fossil record.
your view of science is, to say the least, bizarre.
Ye Old One
enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>Ye Old One wrote:
>> On 29 Jan 2006 19:08:35 -0800, "AndreVan" <andre...@yahoo.com>
>> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>>
>> >Are you willing to consider the supernatural over the natural?
>>
>> You present evidence and we will consider.
>Sorry Bob, I don't claim supernatural creation by God to be a
>scientific fact.
Good.
> I believe in it by faith.
So. No evidence whatsoever and yet your have faith in it - do you
understand how really stupid that is?
> However, the majority of
>members on this forum claim that evolution is a "scientific fact", yet
>are never able to provide the clear congruent evidence for it.
Now that is really very strange. There is a whole website:
http://www.talkorigins.org/index.html jammed packed with evidence that
evolution is a scientific fact - and that is only one source amoung
thousands.
> Where is
>the observable, repeatable scientific experimental evidence that shows
>life diverging from a primordial cell?
Learn a little about genetics and you will understand.
>After all, evolution is a "scientific theory" is it not?
Yes. Now, the question is, do you know what a scientific theory is?
--
Bob.
Robert J. Kolker
> Sorry Bob, I don't claim supernatural creation by God to be a
> scientific fact. I believe in it by faith. However, the majority of
> members on this forum claim that evolution is a "scientific fact", yet
> are never able to provide the clear congruent evidence for it. Where is
> the observable, repeatable scientific experimental evidence that shows
> life diverging from a primordial cell?
> After all, evolution is a "scientific theory" is it not?
A theory with gobs of supporting evidence. Relativity is "just a theory"
also. The existence of atoms is "just a theory". The motion of the earth
around the sun is "just a theory". The laws of theormodynamics are "just
a theory".
Bob Kolker
Robert J. Kolker
>
>
> So. No evidence whatsoever and yet your have faith in it - do you
> understand how really stupid that is?
If you believe the future will be pretty much like the past that is an
article of faith. There is no guarantee that it will be. Read the
philosophy of David Hume to see just how much rational people take on faith.
Bob Kolker
CreateThis
> If you believe the future will be pretty much like the past that is an
> article of faith.
If you believe the sun will rise in the east tomorrow, that is an
'article of faith'. But it's founded on a history of daily observations
of that phenomenon by every sighted human since recorded history, not to
mention other objective evidence that it preceded us by billions of years.
How is that comparable to a naive faith, contrary to all observed
evidence, in a feeble human notion of a universe-creating 'god' who just
happens to regard humans above all else and promises to 'save' us from
that which we fear most?
CT
Christopher A. Lee
wrote:
>Robert J. Kolker wrote:
>
>> If you believe the future will be pretty much like the past that is an
>> article of faith.
Except that this isn't a belief. It's just passively taken for
granted. If it isn't, we will be surprised, but so what?
>If you believe the sun will rise in the east tomorrow, that is an
>'article of faith'. But it's founded on a history of daily observations
>of that phenomenon by every sighted human since recorded history, not to
>mention other objective evidence that it preceded us by billions of years.
>
>How is that comparable to a naive faith, contrary to all observed
>evidence, in a feeble human notion of a universe-creating 'god' who just
>happens to regard humans above all else and promises to 'save' us from
>that which we fear most?
That's why the first one shouldn't be called faith or belief -
especially in the context of theistic faith and belief.
>CT
Ernest Major
AndreVan <andre...@yahoo.com> writes
Common descent with modification through the agency of natural selection
and other processes is an inference supported by literally billions of
observations, from several distinct lines of evidence, including
anatomy, biogeography, the fossil record, biochemistry, protein and DNA
sequences, the near universal genetic code, observed speciation,
observed natural selection, observed variation in organisms. etc. If you
want all the evidence for evolution you're going to be disappointed -
there's just too too too much of it to be presented here (try
<URL:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/Taxonomy/Browser/wwwtax.cgi?mode=Root&id
=1&lvl=3&lin=f&keep=1&srchmode=1&unlock> for starters). If you want some
of the evidence, then you are in error in saying that people are unable
to provide the evidence; they can and do provide the evidence.
--
alias Ernest Major
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 267.15.10/263 - Release Date: 16/02/2006
unrestra...@hotmail.com
AndreVan wrote:
> wal...@easystreet.com wrote:
> > AndreVan wrote:
> > > Daniel Harper wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Whenever we see anti-evolutionists (especially YECers) around here talking
> > > > about problems with evolution, the examples they give of problem organisms
> > > > always seem to revolve around large, macro-scale organisms that all of us
> > > > are generally familiar with. (I.E. dogs turning into cats, cattle giving
> > > > birth to ducks, et cetera.) I have no doubt that if you asked most
> > > > creationists about the relative diversity of species, they would likely
> > > > believe that large-scale organisms like these represented a fair
> > > > percentage of the life on earth. (To be fair, the same is also true of
> > > > many of those who support evolution as the primary means of describing the
> > > > history of life on Earth; ignorance cuts both ways.)
> > > What do you believe the cats, dogs, cattle, ducks evolved from and how?
> > > Presenting your case along with the conclusive scientific evidence, and
> > > the selection processes that caused their evolution in the first place.
> >
> > You can pick up any number of scientific tomes and articles on the
> > evolution of cats, dogs, cattle and ducks.
> Are you too afraid to post the scientific evidence yourself, or are you
> unable to find any for biological evolution?
There's lots. I would think that if you were interested in the subject,
you would have looked.
> I am not interested in evolutionary suppositions or evolutionary
> philosophical stories about where the above animals came from. I'm
> interested in the scientific evidence for their "evolutionary" origins.
OK. It comes from multiples line of evidence, from various sciences.
PLease note that not only are several of these in themselves sufficient
to suggest common descent via modification by natural selection, but
that they all point to the same scenario.
1. Simple forms in fossils approaching the modern forms, sorted
chronologically by (geographical) strata. (No human fossils old as
coal.)
2. Fossil ecosystems of plants and animals, with certain flora & fauna
co-existing. (No lobster fossils found with trilobites.)
3. These fossil ecosystems diverge and are associated with continental
drift. (When north Maerica joined South America, all placentals but the
possum went extinct.)
4. Nested hierarchy of morphology. Not only do the Linnaean-type
distribution of organisms lend itself to a family tree shape, but all
structures are modified from similar structures in predecessor
organisms. Moreover, these structures come in clusters matching
antecedants - no lateral mixing os organs. (No whales with gills, nor
birds with milk.)
5. Vestigial organs and behaviors. (Humans have a plantaris tendon, and
whales have fingers, and horses have three toes but only walk on one.)
6. Genetic science shows a nested hiearchy of life corresponding almost
perfectly (where it doesn't, we were less certain anyway) with the
nested hiearchy of morphology. (Human DNA is a lot like chimps. Even
mutations like the one that turned off the vitamin C maker.)
6. Miscellaneous supporting roles played by behavioral sciences, etc.
> >And please point us to, or post excerpts from, scientific papers that support a magical
> >origin of these organisms.
> I believe their origins by God's supernatural creation account. I
> believe by faith because I've never witnessed this creation first-hand,
> just as you have never witnessed the evolution of a cell to all present
> life today first-hand.
Not the same. It's all well and good if you want to believe in a
creator god - about 40% of scientists think so. But we have evidence
that supports common descent. See above.
Yes. Haven't you been listening? It took three billion years. How much
time do you have - doing anything this afternoon? And it wouldn't be
man next time around. It would be something, though.
> Gould was forced to consider the ridiculous notion of "punctuated
> equilibrium" because of the lack of evidence for "gradual evolution" in
> the fossil record and the obvious stasis it showed. ["The Structure of
> Evolutionary Theory", S.J. Gould]
Why is it rediculous? Because it fits the data better than it fits your
preconception?
>
> Why don't you enlighten me as to how natural selection is a scientific
> mechanism for life diverging from a primordial cell.
Um, that rather what evolutionary science is all about.
Do you believe mutations happen?
Do you believe some organisms are more likely than others to reproduce?
Do you believe that this is at least partly due to inheritable traits?
Then how could evolution *not happen? Scientists assumed this after
going over the evidence in the early nineteenth century. They just
didn't know *why it happened. Since then, we have only accumulated more
evidence, all pointing ot the same thing.
>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > All in all, with every class period I have, I have become more and more
> > > > convinced that the biological sciences are really the right home for me. I
> > > > would never have imagined that I'd enjoy the life sciences this much a few
> > > > short years ago, but seeing the fascinating properties of life as shaped
> > > > by evolutionary processes has really opened my eyes. Since it was
> > > > anti-evolutionists who originally inspired me to come here, I guess on
> > > > some level I'm going to have to thank them for pushing me in this
> > > > direction.
> > > Glad you appear to be enjoying it, pity your whole approach is from a
> > > belief in evolution, which is just a supposition of how we all got
> > > here. Hopefully as you continue your studies, you'll come to see the
> > > awesome power of God's creation, and not some random blind process of
> > > naturalism.
> > > Are you willing to consider the supernatural over the natural?
> >
> > Scientific inquiry, by definition, excludes the supernatural. If you
> > invoke magic, you have left the realm of science, instantly. It's
> > really that simple.
> Your argument is not sound. Naturalistic explanations exclude the
> supernatural, but why should we only consider the naturalistic?
Because that's the only thing we can study. If ghosts exist, but are
rarely seen, and never by skeptics, and leave no footprints and no
images on film, ho wcould we study them?
We have to be able to hold something; photograph or record it; taste it
or hit it with a hammer or weigh it or measure its length with a tape
measure. When your god leaves evidence we can percieve in some way,
then he will be a fit subject for study.
> Especially when a naturalistic explanation of the origin of everything
> lacks scientific evidence.
You are confusing methodolgical naturalism with philospophical
naturalism. The scientific method requires the former. It does not
require anyone to be a naturalistic philospher.
Science only assumes that anything it can investigate regarding
evolution will be material evidence - that's methodological naturalism.
Nothing assumed metaphysically or theologically.
> The creation of everything can only have come about in one of two ways:
> 1. by a supernatural process, or 2. by a natural process. Which one
> does the available evidence support the most?
There are many ideas which are compatible with the evidence. The ones
which most cosmologists prefer are testable (or may be soon). The ones
that are not testable (whether proposed by a cosmologist or a Hindu or
a Last Thrusdayist) are not hypotheses, are not scientific. They are
philosphy or religion, and cannot be investigated.
Do you think god makes it rain? Do you think weather is a fit subject
for scientific study? A scientist who is a theist would say that
science is studying how God does things. How does he make it rain? How
does he make new species?
Kermit
AndreVan
statement, you've gone completely off topic.
We can observe the motion of the earth around the sun, we can test it
over and over, and guess what, the earth will orbit the sun every time.
Where have we ever observed a cell diverging into all present life
forms? A theory can be tested, how have you scientifically tested a
cell evolving into a variety of new life forms? Please provide your
empirical scientific evidence for this.
AndreVan
do. The above inferences, assumptions and speculation are not empirical
scientific evidence for all present life evolving from a common cell.
One scientific experiment would be a good start.
AndreVan
speculation. It is not the kind of empirical evidence required to make
evolution a 'scientific fact'.
Where is the observable, testable and repeatable scientific evidence
that all present day life evolved from a common cell?
So you're saying that we cannot actually observe a cell evolving into
various life forms in the lab?
>
> > Gould was forced to consider the ridiculous notion of "punctuated
> > equilibrium" because of the lack of evidence for "gradual evolution" in
> > the fossil record and the obvious stasis it showed. ["The Structure of
> > Evolutionary Theory", S.J. Gould]
>
> Why is it rediculous? Because it fits the data better than it fits your
> preconception?
>
> >
> > Why don't you enlighten me as to how natural selection is a scientific
> > mechanism for life diverging from a primordial cell.
>
> Um, that rather what evolutionary science is all about.
>
> Do you believe mutations happen?
Yes.
> Do you believe some organisms are more likely than others to reproduce?
'Others' as in the same organism?
> Do you believe that this is at least partly due to inheritable traits?
It is possible.
>
> Then how could evolution *not happen? Scientists assumed this after
> going over the evidence in the early nineteenth century. They just
> didn't know *why it happened. Since then, we have only accumulated more
> evidence, all pointing ot the same thing.
The following are not scientific mechanisms for the origin of all life
forms evolving from a common primordial cell, and go against
'biological evolution':
1.natural selection
2.genetic mutations.
Natural selection:
Organisms having an inheritable trait or character that gives it an
advantage in an environment over those who don't have the trait, will
have more chance of passing on the trait to future generations. Those
without the trait will not succeed in the population, an example is
Darwin's finches, where finches with a certain type of beak size
survived in an environment that suited the type of beak, as the
environment was dictating the type of food supply available.
In this way organisms become more adapted to their environment, those
without the trait are eventually lost from the population.
What natural selection actually does is get rid of genetic variation in
a given population, and by definition it cannot cause anything new to
arise.
The price paid for adaptation, or specialization, is always the
permanent loss of some of the genetic information in that group of
organisms.
In an information losing process such as adaptation, there is always a
limit to the amount of variation, as gene pools cannot keep on losing
their genetic information indefinitely, as can be seen by some
experiments with fruit flies, variation only went so far.
Scientists tested Drosophila birchii in the lab to see how quickly this
rainforest fly would be able to adapt to a dryer environment.
They exposed flies to desiccation (drying) stress until 80 to 90% had
died, and then bred from the survivors. The offspring were no better
than there parents at surviving drier-than-normal conditions. With
mounting surprise, the researchers repeated the process, for 30 cycles
over 50 generations, but still no increase in desiccation resistance.
Even after dry-stressing fresh batches of the flies from 4 separate
rainforest populations, the researchers noted that, "the most
resistant population lacks the ability to evolve further resistance
even after intense selection over 30 generations."
Natural selection eliminates genes in a population. It cannot create
new ones. This is noticeable in extreme environments, eg. In dry
conditions, flies that lose body moisture too quickly will die out and,
without offspring, their genes will be lost from that population. But
in a wet rainforest environment, there's no advantage in conserving
body moisture; what's needed is just the opposite; the ability to
withstand high humidity and the rampant diseases that thrive in such
conditions.
Therefore Drosophila birchii populations have become highly adapted to
life in the rainforests, but it has come at a cost. The price paid for
such specialization is the permanent loss of genetic information useful
for survival in a drier environment.
In contrast, the Drosophila flies (D. melanogastor, D. simulans, D.
serrata) from intermediate (less humid) environments still contain
sufficient genetic variation to enable the population to adapt to drier
conditions.
[Science 301(5629): 58-59 & 100-102, 2003.]
What we have here is a culling of genes already in existence. No new
genetic information was created, and the flies remained flies.
Darwin's Finches showed that adaptation and speciation may occur in a
couple of hundred years. What was observed with the finches was
variations in beak sizes due to environmental changes causing changes
in their diets. This is not "evolution" but adaptation, the finches
remained finches. The same loss of genetic information as with the
Drosophila flies occurs, a process in direct conflict with what
evolution of all life from a cell requires, because "molecules to
man" evolution requires massive amounts of new genetic code to be
added to an organism (and retained) that did not exist before. This is
a fact of science.
In a similar way dog breeders manipulate genes to breed new kinds of
dogs. Chihuahuas were bred by selecting the smallest dogs to breed from
over many generations. This was done by eliminating the genes for large
size. This type of breeding has separated genetic information from one
type of dog and another.
All observed examples of natural selection involve sorting or loss of
pre-existing genetic code (information); evolution requires new genes
with new information. Neo-Darwinism requires that mutations can
generate this new information, but observed mutations have never been
shown to do so. Natural selection and adaptation occur, but do not
support the hypothesis of diversification of complex life from a common
cell at all, even when we witness rapid organelle generation rates and
adaptation.
Natural selection is the effect the environment has on living forms,
selecting out life forms that are able to survive from those that
cannot handle their environment and therefore perish.
The reason why Darwin was never elected to the prestigious Zoological
Section of the French Institute, was given by a member of the Academy
as follows:
"What has closed the doors of the Academy to Mr. Darwin is that the
science of those of his books which have made his chief title to
fame-the "Origin of Species," and still more the "Descent of Man," is
not science, but a mass of assertions and absolutely gratuitous
hypotheses, often evidently fallacious. This kind of publication and
these theories are a bad example, which a body that respects itself
cannot encourage."[From Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, D.
Appleton and Co., London, 2:400, footnote, 1911.]
This is still true today; Neo-Darwinism and evolution in general
survive on philosophical speculation and assertions about the
historical past of life and the universe. Neo-Darwinian evolution is a
religion, partly born out of spiritism (the domain of the demonic
spiritual realm) and partly due to a disbelief in the Creator God.
Natural selection does not contradict creation it supports it. God
created various life forms to reproduce after themselves, this is what
we observe occurring today.
"Survival of the fittest" demonstrates only how an organism has
survived, not how it has evolved.
Genetic Mutations:
Random genetic mutations is not a mechanism for molecules to man
evolution.
Chance random genetic mutations are central to evolution hypothesis,
however, genetic copying mistakes have never been observed to add or
create any new genetic information (code) to an organism. In no known
case is antibiotic resistance the result of new information (base
pairs). [Spetner, L.S., Not by chance!, The Judaica Press Inc., New
York, 1998.]
Mutation rates per nucleotide per generation are very low. A mutation
is a random change in the nucleotides of a DNA molecule and occurs
during reproduction. They are small, random, and harmful alterations to
the genetic code.
You can change the gene frequency or the ratio of the genes that are
already present as much as you like, but unless you add new genes you
won't get 'molecules to man' evolution.
There are a large amount of genes in each germ cell that can be
rearranged to allow for a wide range of variation in a life form, the
variation is limited within that life form. Isolation and inbreeding
within a population can cause genetic features to become fixed in that
population.
New mutations are extremely rare because DNA has it's own 'proof
reading' system, only low mutation rates can be tolerated, otherwise
error catastrophe would result.
Existing genetic mutations are inherited from parent organisms during
reproduction. The reason we appear to have many mutations in the human
gene pool is due to genetic load over many generations. We are becoming
more and more genetically "impure" as over thousands of years of
reproduction we've accumulated and retained most mutations in the
gene pool. Yet new mutation rates are too low to give any credible
support to diversification of complex life from a cell (evolution).
The 'simplest' known living organism has 580,000 letters of code
compared to humans who have 3 billion [Fraser, C.M. et al., The minimal
gene complement of Mycoplasma genitalium, Science 270(5235):397-403,
1995; perspective by Goffeau, A., Life with 482 Genes, same issue, pp.
445-446.].
Where are the empirical scientific experiments that show an organism
gaining new additional letters of code 'de novo' by random mutations
within itself?
In reproduction the fertilized egg already has all the genetic code to
form a particular organism. The DNA code is the blueprint for the
construction of organism.
Adaptation of a type of bacteria to feeding on nylon is not a mechanism
or process for 'common cell to all life evolution', the bacterium
did not evolve into a different type of organism, no directional change
occurred, just stasis. An analysis can be found here:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v17/i3/bacteria.asp
Even in genetic experiments of rapid generation cycles of bacteria,
there has never been an occasion where the bacteria evolved into
anything new, the bacteria always remained bacteria.
Random genetic drift and population bottlenecks severely limit the
genetic variation, which is the raw material of evolution by natural
selection. Therefore not scientific evidence that all present life
evolved from a common primordial cell.
Evolution by 'beneficial mutations': so-called beneficial mutations
are a small fraction of genetic mutations: 90-95% of mutations are
harmful, 5-10% are neutral. Observed beneficial mutations are not the
information-gaining type needed for evolution.
The smaller the change, the smaller the selective advantage.
This is expressed by the selection coefficient s. If a mutation has s =
0.001 or 0.1%, a supposedly typical value, then the number of surviving
offspring is 0.1% greater for organisms with the mutant than without
it. But the smaller the selective advantage, the more likely that
random effects (e.g. genetic drift) will eliminate it: its probability
of survival is about 2s.
So the above mutation has only one chance in 500 of surviving, even
though it is beneficial.
Take a population of 100,000. If only a male and female pair have a new
trait, natural selection must eliminate the other 99,998 and all their
heirs. If there is perfect selection (s = 1), this can happen in one
generation. But this means that for every new trait, 49,999 individuals
must be eliminated without offspring. Then the population must be
regenerated with these survivors.
Even if evolution happened at its maximum speed for 10 million years,
how many traits could be substituted in a creature with human-like
generation times of say 20 years? Only 500,000. This small number of
nucleotides is only a small fraction of the forty 500-page books worth
of information (120 million base pairs) which are needed to transform
an ape into a man. And in real life, selection is far less intense,
meaning that only about 1700 substitutions could occur. [AiG
http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v12/i1/improbable.asp]
Even if a beneficial mutation survives, for it to become fixed in a
population, the organisms not carrying it must be eliminated. This is
the cost of substitution. This limits the amount of substitution which
can occur in a given time. [ Haldane, J.B.S., 1957. The Cost of Natural
Selection. J. Genetics, 55:511-24.]
All observed examples of natural selection involve sorting or loss of
pre-existing information (genetic code); evolution requires new genes
with new genetic information that leads to a positive selection and
creation of a new organism. Neo-Darwinism requires that mutations can
generate this new genetic code and instructions, but observed mutations
have never been shown to do so. Sometimes a loss of information can
help an organism so is 'beneficial', e.g. beetles born without
wings are less likely to be blown into the sea. But loss of wings is
the opposite sort of change to what cell to present life evolution
requires.
Many debilitating diseases are caused by mutations, like cancer. Most
mutations do not provide a selection advantage.
The fact that it took considerable human intelligence, effort and time
to decode the genetic code (as in the human genome etc), how were these
very same DNA codes encoded in the first place without intelligence?
As biological evolution is claimed to be a 'scientific fact', what
other processes/mechanisms are then left for 'common cell to all life
evolution' to be scientifically possible?
All life present today is the result of God's once off creative fiat
and can be examined.
>
> > Especially when a naturalistic explanation of the origin of everything
> > lacks scientific evidence.
>
> You are confusing methodolgical naturalism with philospophical
> naturalism. The scientific method requires the former. It does not
> require anyone to be a naturalistic philospher.
>
> Science only assumes that anything it can investigate regarding
> evolution will be material evidence - that's methodological naturalism.
> Nothing assumed metaphysically or theologically.
>
> > The creation of everything can only have come about in one of two ways:
> > 1. by a supernatural process, or 2. by a natural process. Which one
> > does the available evidence support the most?
>
> There are many ideas which are compatible with the evidence. The ones
> which most cosmologists prefer are testable (or may be soon). The ones
> that are not testable (whether proposed by a cosmologist or a Hindu or
> a Last Thrusdayist) are not hypotheses, are not scientific. They are
> philosphy or religion, and cannot be investigated.
Their story about origins can be tested against the available evidence.
Josh M.
"AndreVan" <andre...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1140848302.4...@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
> Robert J. Kolker wrote:
>> AndreVan wrote:
>>
>> > Sorry Bob, I don't claim supernatural creation by God to be a
>> > scientific fact. I believe in it by faith. However, the majority of
>> > members on this forum claim that evolution is a "scientific fact", yet
>> > are never able to provide the clear congruent evidence for it. Where is
>> > the observable, repeatable scientific experimental evidence that shows
>> > life diverging from a primordial cell?
>> > After all, evolution is a "scientific theory" is it not?
>>
>> A theory with gobs of supporting evidence. Relativity is "just a theory"
>> also. The existence of atoms is "just a theory". The motion of the earth
>> around the sun is "just a theory". The laws of theormodynamics are "just
>> a theory".
> Surely you're not as dim-witted as you appear to sound by your above
> statement, you've gone completely off topic.
No he hasn't. He's pointing out to you that saying "just a theory" is
stupid. Creationists are always quick to point out that evolution is "just a
theory," yet never say that about, for example, atomic theory.
> We can observe the motion of the earth around the sun, we can test it
> over and over, and guess what, the earth will orbit the sun every time.
I don't think you realize that the scientific usage of the word "theory"
differs from the everyday usage of the word (a common mistake). A scientific
theory is not a guess; it's a testable explanation for a set of data and
observations. A scientific theory is supported by much evidence, is
falsifiable, and allows one to make predictions based on it.
> Where have we ever observed a cell diverging into all present life
> forms?
You don't believe that all forms of life share an early common ancestry?
Evidence from comparative anatomy and the fossil record say otherwise. The
earliest fossils--single cell bacterium-like cells--very strongly suggest
that all life shares a common ancestry.
> A theory can be tested, how have you scientifically tested a
> cell evolving into a variety of new life forms? Please provide your
> empirical scientific evidence for this.
Individuals don't evolve; populations do. Evolution has been observed (for
example, speciation) many times.
Examples of observed speciation:
http://talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
Marc
OK..... the molecular phylogeny data is the evidence (of course)
First - go here and learn what this shows....
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/COG/
see their refs (free full text) such as
BMC Bioinformatics. 2003 Sep 11;4:41. Epub 2003 Sep 11
************************
These other web sites (from google = "microbial phylogeny" etc)
may futher explain things for you (if you care to look in detail)
http://www.bact.wisc.edu/Bact303/MajorGroupsOfProkaryotes
http://tolweb.org/tree?group=life_on_earth
http://planetaryprotection.nasa.gov/pp/summaries/verysmall.htm
http://www.bacterialphylogeny.com/archaea.htm
http://www.peripatus.gen.nz/Biology/MolPhy.html
http://www.cbi.pku.edu.cn/mirror/GenomeWeb/prokaryote-gen-db.html
http://cbr.jic.ac.uk/dicks/publications/savva2003.pdf
(signed) marc
NashtOn
Definetely POTM material. Thank you.
AndreVan, please post in this evo-cheerleader-infested ng more often:)
--
Nicolas
"The reason the theory of evolution is so controversial is that it is
the main scientific prop for scientific naturalism. Students first learn
that "evolution is a fact," and then they gradually learn more and more
about what that "fact" means. It means that all living things are the
product of mindless material forces such as chemical laws, natural
selection, and random variation. So God is totally out of the picture,
and humans (like everything else) are the accidental product of a
purposeless universe. Do you wonder why a lot of people suspect that
these claims go far beyond the available evidence?" Phillip E.Johnson,
The Church Of Darwin
Stile4aly
AndreVan wrote:
> unrestra...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > AndreVan wrote:
> > > wal...@easystreet.com wrote:
> > > The creation of everything can only have come about in one of two ways:
> > > 1. by a supernatural process, or 2. by a natural process. Which one
> > > does the available evidence support the most?
> >
> > There are many ideas which are compatible with the evidence. The ones
> > which most cosmologists prefer are testable (or may be soon). The ones
> > that are not testable (whether proposed by a cosmologist or a Hindu or
> > a Last Thrusdayist) are not hypotheses, are not scientific. They are
> > philosphy or religion, and cannot be investigated.
> Their story about origins can be tested against the available evidence.
Excellent idea. Let's pit origin stories against each other and test
against the available evidence. You believe that the origin of the
universe took place 6000 years ago in a literal 6 day creation event,
correct? I believe that all life was created this past Thursday.
Please test my idea against the available evidence.
Stile4aly
Zachriel
"AndreVan" <andre...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1140848302.4...@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
>> AndreVan wrote:
>>
>> > Sorry Bob, I don't claim supernatural creation by God to be a
>> > scientific fact. I believe in it by faith. However, the majority of
>> > members on this forum claim that evolution is a "scientific fact", yet
>> > are never able to provide the clear congruent evidence for it. Where is
>> > the observable, repeatable scientific experimental evidence that shows
>> > life diverging from a primordial cell?
>> > After all, evolution is a "scientific theory" is it not?
>>
>> A theory with gobs of supporting evidence. Relativity is "just a theory"
>> also. The existence of atoms is "just a theory". The motion of the earth
>> around the sun is "just a theory". The laws of theormodynamics are "just
>> a theory".
> Surely you're not as dim-witted as you appear to sound by your above
> statement, you've gone completely off topic.
> We can observe the motion of the earth around the sun, we can test it
> over and over, and guess what, the earth will orbit the sun every time.
Actually, Galileo and his scientific successors reached the conclusion that
the Earth moved without any ability to directly observe the motion. They
made reasonable inferences from the existing evidence, then made additional
predictions that were subject to validation by additional observations. The
coup-de-grace was Sir Edmond Halley's prediction of the re-appearance of a
comet, now named in his honor. (Similarly for other scientific inferences,
e.g. Atomic Theory and Plate Tectonics.)
Your objection is not based in science, but is clearly due to your religious
prejudices.
--
Zachriel, angel that rules over memory, presides over the planet Jupiter.
Member AMF, Angelic Motive Force: Pushing planets on celestial spheres — one
epoch at a time.
http://zachriel.blogspot.com/
>
> Where have we ever observed a cell diverging into all present life
> forms?
The evidence of common descent is found in the nested hierarchy.
* The nested hierarchy of extant life.
* The nested hierarchy in time of extinct life.
* The nested hierarchy of embryonic development.
* The nested hierarchy of biochemistry.
* The nested hierarchy of biogeography.
* The recently discovered nested hierarchy of genomes (including endogenous
retroviruses and pseudo-genes).
--
Zachriel
"Evolution is .... The Theory of Evolution explains ...."
http://zachriel.blogspot.com/2005/08/evolution-defined.html
> A theory can be tested, how have you scientifically tested a
> cell evolving into a variety of new life forms? Please provide your
> empirical scientific evidence for this.
>
--
Zachriel
"The scientific method: hypothesis, prediction, observation, validation,
repeat."
http://zachriel.blogspot.com/2005/08/scientific-method.html
Stanley Friesen
>Ernest Major wrote:
>> Common descent with modification through the agency of natural selection
>> and other processes is an inference supported by literally billions of
>> observations, from several distinct lines of evidence, including
>> anatomy, biogeography, the fossil record, biochemistry, protein and DNA
>> sequences, the near universal genetic code, observed speciation,
>> observed natural selection, observed variation in organisms. etc. If you
>> want all the evidence for evolution you're going to be disappointed -
>> there's just too too too much of it to be presented here (try
>> <URL:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/Taxonomy/Browser/wwwtax.cgi?mode=Root&id
>> =1&lvl=3&lin=f&keep=1&srchmode=1&unlock> for starters). If you want some
>> of the evidence, then you are in error in saying that people are unable
>> to provide the evidence; they can and do provide the evidence.
>
>For which you and every other evolutionist on this forum has failed to
>do. The above inferences, assumptions and speculation are not empirical
>scientific evidence for all present life evolving from a common cell.
>One scientific experiment would be a good start.
You seem to have the odd notion that science equals experiments. This
is not so - it is about structured observation. Experiments are just
one obvious way to perform structured observations.
However, a great many experiments *have* been done on natural selection,
mutation and do on, from the old classics like the Tribolium flour
beetle experiments to more recent field manipulations of the
environment.
--
The peace of God be with you.
Stanley Friesen
Robert Weldon
"NashtOn" <na...@na.ca> wrote in message
news:%ViMf.35464$VV4.4...@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca...
> AndreVan wrote:
>> unrestra...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>
-major snippage
>>
>
> Definetely POTM material. Thank you.
>
> AndreVan, please post in this evo-cheerleader-infested ng more often:)
>
Yes, please do, it's so much fun to see your lies get ripped apart by the
truth.
CreateThis
>>Definetely POTM material. Thank you.
How do you know that without reading it?
CT
AC
> Ye Old One wrote:
>> On 29 Jan 2006 19:08:35 -0800, "AndreVan" <andre...@yahoo.com>
>> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>>
>> >Are you willing to consider the supernatural over the natural?
>>
>> You present evidence and we will consider.
> Sorry Bob, I don't claim supernatural creation by God to be a
> scientific fact. I believe in it by faith. However, the majority of
> members on this forum claim that evolution is a "scientific fact",
It is. It has been observed.
> yet
> are never able to provide the clear congruent evidence for it. Where is
> the observable, repeatable scientific experimental evidence that shows
> life diverging from a primordial cell?
> After all, evolution is a "scientific theory" is it not?
Wake me up when you dispense with your ridiculous cariacature of evolution.
--
Aaron Clausen
mightym...@hotmail.com
AC
>
> Where have we ever observed a cell diverging into all present life
> forms? A theory can be tested, how have you scientifically tested a
> cell evolving into a variety of new life forms? Please provide your
> empirical scientific evidence for this.
The fossil and molecular records. And now I wager that you'll basically
cast dispersions on inference, with some variant of the "were you there"
nonsense. That's okay, because I'm hoping that you'll be demanding the
release of a large number of convicted criminals, found guilty by indirect
means like forensics.
--
Aaron Clausen
mightym...@hotmail.com