So what are the repeatable experiments you can cite for macro-evolution?
Given that macro- evolution is evolutin above the species level, all that I need to show are experiments which have been repeated which show speciation events. You could try Newton and Pellew (Genetics, 1929, 20:405-467) or perhaps Rice and Salt (Evolution, 1990, 44:1140-1152).
What are the falsifiablility criteria?
* Had DNA studies not found close relationships between humans and great apes, with these relationships falling off with a greater age of common ancestors, it would have been falsified.
* Likewise for other related species.
* A lack of vestigial structures would harm the theory of evolution.
* If human biochemistry was substantial different to the biochemistry of other animals (in particular, the great apes), evolution would come a cropper.
* If evolution failed to explain modern biochemisty, then likewise evolution would fall apart.
* If young fossils (by this, I mean species that were thought to have evolved recently) were found in old rocks without a logical means of them getting there, then evolution would be falsified. * If the dominant theory had of inheritance in Darwin's time stood the test of time (ie. no Mendel), then Darwin's theory of evolution (not evolution itself) would run into trouble.
* Evidence for a young earth wouldn't falsify Darwin's theory (it could still occur, but just hasn't been given the time to interact in a meaningful way.
* If a series of proto-human's fossils hadn't been found, the theory of evolution would have to be considerable revised to account for the lack of fossils. * If the rate of genetic change observed in the lab was less than what it appears to be in the fossil record, then evolution would be wrong.
* If the creationist misintrepetation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics was correct, then evolution, along with life would be falsified.
Can you do the same for creationism? That is provide references to repeatable experiments and falsifiable criteria?
The above long post of mine showed that every counter to Gentry has been experimentally disproven in peer-reviewed journals.
I couldn't find the citation (in a peer reviewed journal) where Gentry rebutes Odium. Just a whole lot of excuses as too why Science didn't publish him. Also, just because Gentry and yourself don't believe that a natural explanation exists, doesn't mean that other geologists believe it. Given that all crediable geological societies support a old earth that cooled over a timescan significantly longer than Gentry's research would allow, I don't find it unresonable to suggest that geological community finds Gentrys conclusions to be weak and unsupported.
What further qualifications are you suggesting he should have?
The ability to form conclusions that are fully consistent with the scientific method, ie. not saying that there is irrefutable proof of god in a particular phenomenon, when natural explanations do exist.
In the article, the organisms used were only identifiable via genetic tests. Obviously humans and chimps are different beings, these organisms were not.
You have misread the article in question. While some of the species required genetic tests to tell the difference between them. Many others didn't.
Genetically speaking, the organisms are different that is true, but some of the differences are so miniscule that it is only noticeable to the very keen minded researcher.
Come on... chimps and humans are genetically very similar, but hopefully it's not just the keen mined researchers that can tell the difference between the two.
Natural selection is obvious, it's visible to all. And micro-evolution is the clear outcome of it, things like antibiotic resistance. But in most cases that's due to a loss of genetic information. Think about it - if you have your limbs removed you're resistant to handcuffs. But you lost something to achieve that.
There is no fundamental difference between micro- and macro- evolution. Since we are into analogies, believing in microevolution but not macroevolution, is like saying 1 + 1 = 2, but 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 doesn't equal 5.
That's why once the antibiotic is removed the population drifts back to the norm - the un-selected bacteria are more fit, have more diversity to draw on, in other situations..
Likewise any population which has a evolution pressure removed, will no longer evolve in response to the pressure. Quite elementary, and hardly a critism of evolution.
Yet another headline that is a bit over the top
Given that evolution is the action of natural selection on random mutation, antibiotic resistance in bacteria, is a excellent example of it.
The testing of the Mt. St. Helens lava dome rocks was done using the exact same labs as other scientists use; please don't suggest that the labs knew the philosophy of the submitters of the rocks and altered data based on that...
While Steve Austin may have used the same techniques as other researchers, he didn't use the same techniques. Lava is completely liquid, it often contains solid lumps (which are much much older). Austin claims to have removed the gabbro xenoliths, but doesn't mention removing other older artifacts. His own pictures of the rocks show the presence of zoned feldspars. The zoned appearance indicates a very slow cooling history (hundreds of thousands to millions of years). My source for this information concludes with this statement on the Mt. St. Helen's dating:
"His glass and feldspar fraction is probably a mixture of young glass, old Ca-feldspars, and sodium-rich feldspars that have an intermediate age. Not surprisingly, this mixture gave a younger age of about 340,000 years, but still much older than 1986 AD. His whole rock age was no doubt affected by a mixture of young glass, older feldspar and pyroxene phenocrysts and some possibly ancient xenocrysts or lightly colored (hard to see) xenoliths. In conclusion, Austin's results do NOTHING to refute the validity of K/Ar dating."
Also, the labs which Steve Austin used carry disclaimers about the accuracy of technique when used on young rocks. He ignored this.
The fact that orthodox publications wouldn't accept it for publication tells more about their prejudice than the veracity of the facts.
No, the fact that scientific publications didn't accept it is that it isn't science, rather it is propaganda for those who beliefs are threatened by reality.
Works for gold as well...
on
Phytoremediation
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
This sort of stuff is pretty interesting. At my old university, there was a Prof. who was looking at taking up gold from the soil. You just need to add a simple chemical to the soil, then grow your plants (making sure that you get the species right), and get ready to harvest and extract the gold. While it isn't as cheap as some gold extration methods, it can be used in areas where the gold concentration is too low for other means of extration. Plus you don't have to go pouring tonnes of cyanide into the soil.
but I still find the lack of evidence for macro evolution quite compelling.
Relax. there is plenty of evidence for macro evolution. Speciation events (that is the creation of new species) have been observed directly, plus the fossil record has plenty examples (human evolution is a great example of this).
Given that there are a number of posters on slashdot who seem to willing to jump in and discuss evolution and creationism on much more unrelated topics (such as ice sheets melting), it doesn't strike me as unresonable that a story on evolution can be followed by a discussion on creationism. One person's flamebait mod, is another person's interesting mod.
I agree that my use of the term creationist, isn't the best. There are many Christians who believe in a old earth, with God using evolution as a tool to create life's diversity who would call themselves creationists.
However, the term creationist, is more commonly used to describe those who disbelieve the theory of evolution, and it is these people, who my comment was aimed at.
And one minor point, on evolution speeding up, often it appears that way in the fossil record, however, none of the speeding up is beyond the theoretical rates of genetic change determined by lab based experiments.
Actually micro- and macro- evolution are one and the same. The difference is in degree.
Biologists recognise no fundamental differences between micro- and macro- evolution. However, if it's a speciation event that you want you could look at this page which contains many links to speciation events in the scientific lit.
With every paper like this one, the case for evolution gets stronger (not that it needed it), whereas the pesudoscientists falls apart (not that it hasn't already).
Yes, but you may want to ask yourself how these people got there... It's because of the quality of their code and commitment to maintaining their stuff. So it's rather a meritocracy than a monarchy and that is perfectly fine with me.
I agree, a monarchy isn't the best description of Linux development, giving that anyone can grab the source and run with it.
Also given the large number of small forks in Linux (for example, many distributions use a patched kernal), Linus and co keep their status because of their skills, not history.
The agendas exist everywhere, and while this data may be published on sites who have an agenda, or are hired for a public image, the facts presented there dont change. The link contains references to where the data is from. Can you find any links debunking the actual data?
The actual data isn't a problem. But rather the data which is collected is one-sided, ignores research which doesn't support their case, and misintrepretes the orginal researchers conclusions (without stating this). For the best overall review of the science, you should check out the IPCC and the National Academy of Sciences, rather than a industry funded lobbey group.
According to The Union of Concerned Scientists The Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide & Global Change refuses to disclose their funding sources, however, they have very close links to Greening Earth Society which is in turn funded by Western Fuels Association.
There is no doubt the climate is getting warmer, but if CO2 is the reason, why was the earth far warmer than today when we had no CO2 emissions at all?
Could it be because CO2 isn't the only factor in the earth's temperture?
Personally I doubt the CO2 theory. It doesnt explain earlier climate changes. And if the CO2 theory is invalid, it takes resources away from dealing with the actual problems a climate change we can do nothing about will cause.
You may doubt the effects of CO2 on global temperature change, however, mainstream science doesn't. The role of CO2 in the regulation of global temperatures has been quite well studied, and a general consus has been reached.
I think too many environmentalists ignore the fact that human activity is nothing compared to what Nature can do.
So...
Altering a system is still altering a system, no matter what it was like before you start. The real question, are human effects significant? Mainstream science says yes.
Quite strikingly, the magazine denied the right of reply to Lomborg.
Not quite true. They gave him a page to reply, he wanted longer, which they refused.
All in all the scientific community has done a very shoddy job at debunking Lomborg (which is not to say he's right).
I disagree, they have done some very debunking, however, he has managed to get under the collar of many scientists which has lead them to make remarks which aren't quite fair. If one ignores these, the science behind their claims is very good.
Anyone who uses carbon dating on molluscus is, quite frankly, an idiot (or a creationist trying to trick people into believing their peusdoscience - or most likely, both).
Carbon dating works on species which obtain their carbon via. the atmosphere. Mollusces don't.
Find yourself another strawman.
Likewise Steve Austins dating of the volcano. He delibrately ignored warnings about the use of K-Ar dating (but didn't tell other people this), and then when, surprise surprise, the results were all messed up, he claimed K-Ar dating was wrong. This tells us nothing about dating, but rather about his own honesty, and the guilibility of those who use his arguements.
As for polonium halos, only their existance is peer reviewed. The young earth conclusions which some people draw from them, aren't. Only a creationist could go from, there are holes in rocks (correct), to a 6000 year old earth (wrong).
You made a statement, ie. "microsoft whose only crime (at least its only crime which is being prosecuted) is the fact that it is too big", which is factually incorrect. Basing a statement (or arguement, or whatever you want to call it) on a incorrect basis, isn't good logic. Which was my point.
As for not having it both ways, anybody bar those who reduce reality to a black and white world, can have it both ways. I'm all for antitrust laws, but against piracy taxes on CD-Rs. This is because I don't see government intervention as either good or bad, as a basic principle. It can be either, depending on the situation.
I find it funny that government interference is so selective in this forum. For instance, when it is CD-R's which are being taxed it is a horrible justice, yet when it is microsoft whose only crime (at least its only crime which is being prosecuted) is the fact that it is too big, the people come out in force on how the government isn't doing enough.
Your entire case is built on a false assumption, that microsoft is being prosecuted for being too big.
Slashdot Mirror
So what are the repeatable experiments you can cite for macro-evolution?
Given that macro- evolution is evolutin above the species level, all that I need to show are experiments which have been repeated which show speciation events. You could try Newton and Pellew (Genetics, 1929, 20:405-467) or perhaps Rice and Salt (Evolution, 1990, 44:1140-1152).
What are the falsifiablility criteria?
* Had DNA studies not found close relationships between humans and great apes, with these relationships falling off with a greater age of common ancestors, it would have been falsified.
* Likewise for other related species.
* A lack of vestigial structures would harm the theory of evolution.
* If human biochemistry was substantial different to the biochemistry of other animals (in particular, the great apes), evolution would come a cropper.
* If evolution failed to explain modern biochemisty, then likewise evolution would fall apart.
* If young fossils (by this, I mean species that were thought to have evolved recently) were found in old rocks without a logical means of them getting there, then evolution would be falsified.
* If the dominant theory had of inheritance in Darwin's time stood the test of time (ie. no Mendel), then Darwin's theory of evolution (not evolution itself) would run into trouble.
* Evidence for a young earth wouldn't falsify Darwin's theory (it could still occur, but just hasn't been given the time to interact in a meaningful way.
* If a series of proto-human's fossils hadn't been found, the theory of evolution would have to be considerable revised to account for the lack of fossils.
* If the rate of genetic change observed in the lab was less than what it appears to be in the fossil record, then evolution would be wrong.
* If the creationist misintrepetation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics was correct, then evolution, along with life would be falsified.
Can you do the same for creationism? That is provide references to repeatable experiments and falsifiable criteria?
The above long post of mine showed that every counter to Gentry has been experimentally disproven in peer-reviewed journals.
I couldn't find the citation (in a peer reviewed journal) where Gentry rebutes Odium. Just a whole lot of excuses as too why Science didn't publish him. Also, just because Gentry and yourself don't believe that a natural explanation exists, doesn't mean that other geologists believe it. Given that all crediable geological societies support a old earth that cooled over a timescan significantly longer than Gentry's research would allow, I don't find it unresonable to suggest that geological community finds Gentrys conclusions to be weak and unsupported.
Please explain what the fundamental difference between macro- and micro- evolution?
Macroevolution is simply micro- evolution with a bit more time.
One is easily proven, the other is not.
Wrong. Both are easily proven to the satifisation of the scientific community. It's just that one is harder for pseudoscientists to deny.
What further qualifications are you suggesting he should have?
The ability to form conclusions that are fully consistent with the scientific method, ie. not saying that there is irrefutable proof of god in a particular phenomenon, when natural explanations do exist.
In the article, the organisms used were only identifiable via genetic tests. Obviously humans and chimps are different beings, these organisms were not.
You have misread the article in question. While some of the species required genetic tests to tell the difference between them. Many others didn't.
Genetically speaking, the organisms are different that is true, but some of the differences are so miniscule that it is only noticeable to the very keen minded researcher.
Come on... chimps and humans are genetically very similar, but hopefully it's not just the keen mined researchers that can tell the difference between the two.
The bare minium requirments of a scientific publication are too differcult for Gentry to achieve so his going to take his toys and go home.
To which I can only add; don't forget to shut the door on your way out.
Natural selection is obvious, it's visible to all. And micro-evolution is the clear outcome of it, things like antibiotic resistance. But in most cases that's due to a loss of genetic information. Think about it - if you have your limbs removed you're resistant to handcuffs. But you lost something to achieve that.
There is no fundamental difference between micro- and macro- evolution. Since we are into analogies, believing in microevolution but not macroevolution, is like saying 1 + 1 = 2, but 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 doesn't equal 5.
That's why once the antibiotic is removed the population drifts back to the norm - the un-selected bacteria are more fit, have more diversity to draw on, in other situations..
Likewise any population which has a evolution pressure removed, will no longer evolve in response to the pressure. Quite elementary, and hardly a critism of evolution.
Yet another headline that is a bit over the top
Given that evolution is the action of natural selection on random mutation, antibiotic resistance in bacteria, is a excellent example of it.
The testing of the Mt. St. Helens lava dome rocks was done using the exact same labs as other scientists use; please don't suggest that the labs knew the philosophy of the submitters of the rocks and altered data based on that...
While Steve Austin may have used the same techniques as other researchers, he didn't use the same techniques. Lava is completely liquid, it often contains solid lumps (which are much much older). Austin claims to have removed the gabbro xenoliths, but doesn't mention removing other older artifacts. His own pictures of the rocks show the presence of zoned feldspars. The zoned appearance indicates a very slow cooling history (hundreds of thousands to millions of years). My source for this information concludes with this statement on the Mt. St. Helen's dating:
"His glass and feldspar fraction is probably a mixture of young glass, old Ca-feldspars, and sodium-rich feldspars that have an intermediate age. Not surprisingly, this mixture gave a younger age of about 340,000 years, but still much older than 1986 AD. His whole rock age was no doubt affected by a mixture of young glass, older feldspar and pyroxene phenocrysts and some possibly ancient xenocrysts or lightly colored (hard to see) xenoliths. In conclusion, Austin's results do NOTHING to refute the validity of K/Ar dating."
Also, the labs which Steve Austin used carry disclaimers about the accuracy of technique when used on young rocks. He ignored this.
The fact that orthodox publications wouldn't accept it for publication tells more about their prejudice than the veracity of the facts.
No, the fact that scientific publications didn't accept it is that it isn't science, rather it is propaganda for those who beliefs are threatened by reality.
This sort of stuff is pretty interesting. At my old university, there was a Prof. who was looking at taking up gold from the soil. You just need to add a simple chemical to the soil, then grow your plants (making sure that you get the species right), and get ready to harvest and extract the gold. While it isn't as cheap as some gold extration methods, it can be used in areas where the gold concentration is too low for other means of extration. Plus you don't have to go pouring tonnes of cyanide into the soil.
but I still find the lack of evidence for macro evolution quite compelling.
Relax. there is plenty of evidence for macro evolution. Speciation events (that is the creation of new species) have been observed directly, plus the fossil record has plenty examples (human evolution is a great example of this).
Given that there are a number of posters on slashdot who seem to willing to jump in and discuss evolution and creationism on much more unrelated topics (such as ice sheets melting), it doesn't strike me as unresonable that a story on evolution can be followed by a discussion on creationism. One person's flamebait mod, is another person's interesting mod.
I agree that my use of the term creationist, isn't the best. There are many Christians who believe in a old earth, with God using evolution as a tool to create life's diversity who would call themselves creationists.
However, the term creationist, is more commonly used to describe those who disbelieve the theory of evolution, and it is these people, who my comment was aimed at.
And one minor point, on evolution speeding up, often it appears that way in the fossil record, however, none of the speeding up is beyond the theoretical rates of genetic change determined by lab based experiments.
Actually micro- and macro- evolution are one and the same. The difference is in degree.
Biologists recognise no fundamental differences between micro- and macro- evolution. However, if it's a speciation event that you want you could look at this page which contains many links to speciation events in the scientific lit.
With every paper like this one, the case for evolution gets stronger (not that it needed it), whereas the pesudoscientists falls apart (not that it hasn't already).
Yes, but you may want to ask yourself how these people got there... It's because of the quality of their code and commitment to maintaining their stuff. So it's rather a meritocracy than a monarchy and that is perfectly fine with me.
I agree, a monarchy isn't the best description of Linux development, giving that anyone can grab the source and run with it.
Also given the large number of small forks in Linux (for example, many distributions use a patched kernal), Linus and co keep their status because of their skills, not history.
The agendas exist everywhere, and while this data may be published on sites who have an agenda, or are hired for a public image, the facts presented there dont change. The link contains references to where the data is from. Can you find any links debunking the actual data?
The actual data isn't a problem. But rather the data which is collected is one-sided, ignores research which doesn't support their case, and misintrepretes the orginal researchers conclusions (without stating this). For the best overall review of the science, you should check out the IPCC and the National Academy of Sciences, rather than a industry funded lobbey group.
According to The Union of Concerned Scientists The Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide & Global Change refuses to disclose their funding sources, however, they have very close links to Greening Earth Society which is in turn funded by Western Fuels Association.
There is no doubt the climate is getting warmer, but if CO2 is the reason, why was the earth far warmer than today when we had no CO2 emissions at all?
Could it be because CO2 isn't the only factor in the earth's temperture?
Personally I doubt the CO2 theory. It doesnt explain earlier climate changes. And if the CO2 theory is invalid, it takes resources away from dealing with the actual problems a climate change we can do nothing about will cause.
You may doubt the effects of CO2 on global temperature change, however, mainstream science doesn't. The role of CO2 in the regulation of global temperatures has been quite well studied, and a general consus has been reached.
I think too many environmentalists ignore the fact that human activity is nothing compared to what Nature can do.
So...
Altering a system is still altering a system, no matter what it was like before you start. The real question, are human effects significant? Mainstream science says yes.
Quite strikingly, the magazine denied the right of reply to Lomborg.
Not quite true. They gave him a page to reply, he wanted longer, which they refused.
All in all the scientific community has done a very shoddy job at debunking Lomborg (which is not to say he's right).
I disagree, they have done some very debunking, however, he has managed to get under the collar of many scientists which has lead them to make remarks which aren't quite fair. If one ignores these, the science behind their claims is very good.
Anyone who uses carbon dating on molluscus is, quite frankly, an idiot (or a creationist trying to trick people into believing their peusdoscience - or most likely, both).
Carbon dating works on species which obtain their carbon via. the atmosphere. Mollusces don't.
Find yourself another strawman.
Likewise Steve Austins dating of the volcano. He delibrately ignored warnings about the use of K-Ar dating (but didn't tell other people this), and then when, surprise surprise, the results were all messed up, he claimed K-Ar dating was wrong. This tells us nothing about dating, but rather about his own honesty, and the guilibility of those who use his arguements.
As for polonium halos, only their existance is peer reviewed. The young earth conclusions which some people draw from them, aren't. Only a creationist could go from, there are holes in rocks (correct), to a 6000 year old earth (wrong).
For those who don't speak German, wolfram is another name for tungsten.
You made a statement, ie. "microsoft whose only crime (at least its only crime which is being prosecuted) is the fact that it is too big", which is factually incorrect. Basing a statement (or arguement, or whatever you want to call it) on a incorrect basis, isn't good logic. Which was my point.
As for not having it both ways, anybody bar those who reduce reality to a black and white world, can have it both ways. I'm all for antitrust laws, but against piracy taxes on CD-Rs. This is because I don't see government intervention as either good or bad, as a basic principle. It can be either, depending on the situation.
I find it funny that government interference is so selective in this forum. For instance, when it is CD-R's which are being taxed it is a horrible justice, yet when it is microsoft whose only crime (at least its only crime which is being prosecuted) is the fact that it is too big, the people come out in force on how the government isn't doing enough.
Your entire case is built on a false assumption, that microsoft is being prosecuted for being too big.
Come back when you have a real arguement.