The IDiots have painted themselves into a corner and they don't know what to do. They have been ranting against "Darwinism" for so long that they've come to believe that their silly version of evolution is what is being taught in the schools. When scientists objected to the "Darwinist" version of evolution the IDiots assumed that this was an objection to evolution. Gradually it seems to be dawning on them that there are legitimate scientific debates over the mechanisms of evolution and the relative contributions of various processes. These controversies have nothing to do with the FACTS of evolution. But now the IDiots are in a bind. They can't retreat by admitting that their characterization of evolution has been wrong for the past few decades. That would make them look foolish. On the other hand, they can't continue to ignore the fact that major critics of "Darwinism" (or the "Modern Synthesis" or "Neo-Darwinism") are strong supporters of evolution and opponents of creationism, including Intelligent Design Creationism. Oops!
What to do? Watch how Casey Luskin squirms as he tries to get out of the corner in Recant! Pushing Creeds as Damage Control for Darwin.
When writing in technical journals, evolutionary biologists like McPeek or Koonin admit stark problems with neo-Darwinian evolution--i.e.:Do you see the strategy? The IDiots are going to claim that their silly misunderstanding of evolution ("Darwinism" or "neo-Darwinism") is the "fact" of evolution that's being taught in the schools. Thus, it's not their fault that their understanding of evolution is wrong—blame it on the evolutionary biologists.
"elucidating the materialistic basis of the Cambrian explosion has become more elusive, not less, the more we know about the event itself, and cannot be explained away by coupling extinction of intermediates with long stretches of geologic time, despite the contrary claims of some modern neo-Darwinists" (McPeek)
"The edifice of the modern synthesis has crumbled, apparently, beyond repair" (Koonin)
But when their criticisms are cited by a proponent of intelligent design, they quickly toe the materialist party line, designed to reassure the masses that the paradigm has everything in order. Thus, when called upon by the NCSE to publicly defend the paradigm, Koonin eagerly endorses Dobzhansky's creed. As Newton eagerly boasted:
As the geneticist Theodosius Dobzhansky famously said - and as Eugene Koonin explicitly agreed - "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution."
Since when do creeds take precedence over the evidence?
None of this, however, changes the fact that Koonin, McPeek, and many other scientists are writing technical papers stating that the neo-Darwinian model is flawed at its very core. Koonin undoubtedly believes Dobzhansky's statement is true, but I doubt he would say "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of neo-Darwinism." Why, then, must this model be taught to students as unadulterated fact?
Yeah, that'll work! :-)
The alternative is to admit that the IDiots are, well .... idiots. Don't hold your breath waiting for that to happen.
I suppose we should be happy that they are finally beginning to see the very problem we've been telling them about for 25 years. They simply don't understand the real scientific version of evolution.
[Image Credit: I got it from James Preller's Blog.]
What is the real scientific version of evolution?
ReplyDelete"Elucidating the materialistic basis of the Cambrian explosion has become more elusive, not less, the more we know about the event itself."
ReplyDeleteWell, I'm wondering what scientific proposal might have a non-materialistic basis! Surely this comment reflects more than a quandrum of (neo)Darwinism.
Do you expect that someone can type a complete description into a comment field? There are stacks of textbooks on the subject. Go to the NCBI books collection and start reading one.
ReplyDeleteSurely, a lot of what is being taught at schools is not first rate, cutting edge science.
ReplyDeleteWorse, a lot of what is being understood by pupils falls far short of that what is being taught.
But, of course, the conclusion from this cannot be to stop teaching evolution or start teaching some pseudo-scientific cum creationistic muddle. On the contrary.
So, maybe (just maybe) some ID advocated got some small part of the diagnosis right, but their remedy is like blood-letting of the medieval times.
"That would make them look foolish."
ReplyDeleteSurely they would avoid saying anything that would make them look foolish, eh?
TomS
Dr. Moran, you have referred to the "real scientific version of evolution".
ReplyDeleteCould you tell us what that is please?
anonymous asks,
ReplyDeleteDr. Moran, you have referred to the "real scientific version of evolution".
Could you tell us what that is please?
Check out the many articles in the sidebar of this blog.
Don't expect people to spoonfeed you when your questions aren't sincere. If you don't understand evolution then you have no business participating in this debate.
Speaking of those sidebar articles, Larry, I really wanted to read some of them for an article I am writing on genetic drift, but many of them have dead links. For example, your essays "Random genetic drift" and "Evolution by accident" go nowhere. It would be great to see these fixed.
ReplyDeleteTo the Anonymous who asked about the real scientific version of evolution, science is not like religion: we do not have a sacred text and a single version of the truth. There is broad agreement on many aspects of evolution, but open debate about other aspects, as we should expect of an empirical science that is searching for truth. There really are a lot of good books about evolution in any university library which discuss these issues.
Dr. Moran posted:
ReplyDelete"I suppose we should be happy that they are finally beginning to see the very problem we've been telling them about for 25 years. They simply don't understand the real scientific version of evolution."
This means that for the last 25 years the "real scientific version of evolution" has been known.
What is that "real scientific version of evolution" that has been known for 25 years?
Luskin listed the 3 different meanings of the word "evolution":
"(1) Change over time
(2) A grand tree of life
(3) Natural selection acting on random mutations as primary driving force of adaptive change."
The only thing that has been known for 25 years is that things "change over time".
That is all there is to the "real scientific version of evolution".
Moran:
ReplyDelete"Gradually it seems to be dawning on them that there are legitimate scientific debates over the mechanisms of evolution and the relative contributions of various processes. These controversies have nothing to do with the FACTS of evolution."
What are the FACTS of evolution?
The only FACT is that things "change over time".
If there are other FACTS of evolution, please let us know.
anonymous says,
ReplyDeleteThe only thing that has been known for 25 years is that things "change over time".
That is all there is to the "real scientific version of evolution".
Keep in mind Luskin's three definitions of evolution then read What Is Evolution?.
The standard population genetics definition of evolution was first proposed at the time of the Modern Synthesis in the 1940s.
Not to worry, that means that Luskin and the other IDiots are only 60 years out of date. That's pretty good for a creationist. Many of the rest of them are several thousand years out of date.
We've known since the late 1960s that natural selection is not the most common mechanism of evolution—using the scientific definition of evolution.
Do you think Casey Luskin knows this? If so, why didn't he mention it?
anonymous asks,
ReplyDeleteIf there are other FACTS of evolution, please let us know.
I'm not about to list all the known facts of evolution. If you don't know of any then it's time you started doing your homework.
Here's one scientific FACT for you to chew on: humans and chimpanzees descend from a common ancestor that lived millions of years ago in Africa.
If you don't accept that as a scientific fact then you don't accept science.
As soon as we try to define evolution in terms of the historical record, we run into all kinds of problems because we confuse evolution as a process with evolution as a history of life.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous writes:
ReplyDeleteAs soon as we try to define evolution in terms of the historical record, we run into all kinds of problems because we confuse evolution as a process with evolution as a history of life.
As Tonto is alleged to have said, "Who is this 'we,' Kemosabe?"
You may get confused. 'We' listen and learn.
It looks like Jud missed the point.
ReplyDeleteIs there anyone here who agrees with Dr. Moran that:
ReplyDelete"Here's one scientific FACT for you to chew on: humans and chimpanzees descend from a common ancestor that lived millions of years ago in Africa."
Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution."
ReplyDeleteIn fact, evolution can be precisely defined as any change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next.
Putting these together:
Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution defined as any change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next.
Right?
Anonymous, I cannot think of a single working biologist (one who regularly publishes in the scientific literature) who would disagree with Larry's statement:
ReplyDelete"Here's one scientific FACT for you to chew on: humans and chimpanzees descend from a common ancestor that lived millions of years ago in Africa."
Long ago there were some scientists who thought the split between human and non-human primates occurred in Asia, but now the evidence is clear that it happened in Africa.
The common ancestry of chimps and humans is really undeniable, and people who do deny this are hard to take seriously on any other subject. Now that we have sequenced the genomes of both chimps and humans, the common descent is evident. That is why everyone who has worked on the subject, including fervent Bible-believing Christians like Francis Collins (who led the first human genome sequencing project), have no doubt about our common ancestry.
By the way, we could go further. There is virtually no doubt about:
ReplyDelete1. Common ancestry of all vertebrates.
2. Common ancestry of all flowering plants.
3. The orderly appearance of plants and animals in the fossil record, so that fossil assemblages become less like modern communities the deeper they are found. The deepest fossil assemblages contain no mammals, no vertebrate fish, no flowering plants. (The pattern expected under the hypothesis of a single creation event is the opposite of what we see. Under that hypothesis, we should see modern forms in the deepest deposits.)
4. The great age of the earth (billions of years).
5. The even greater age of the universe.
Anonymous writes:
ReplyDeleteIt looks like Jud missed the point.
A point which you apparently either do not actually have or are embarrassed to make explicitly.
We run into these tactics so repeatedly, on this and so many other blogs. "Looks like you missed the point...." "You're obviously too stupid to understand what I was driving at...." But never explicitly making any point at all. It's so very transparent.
Anonymous:
ReplyDeleteNothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution defined as any change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next.
Right?
Not really. Dobzhansky was talking about the interrelatedness of biology, so a better characterisation of the phrase would be:
'Nothing makes sense in biology except in the light of descent with modification from common ancestry'
Allele change is the descent with modification part, but doesn't, by and of itself, explain the interrelatedness of biology. For that you need common ancestry.
For example you could have allele change in populations who have distinct, separate and unrelated ancestors (the baramin approach). That would not provide the interrelatedness we see in biology
Today's scientific fact of evolution:
Arthropods evolved hundreds of millions of years before mammals
Luskin listed the 3 different meanings of the word "evolution":
"(1) Change over time
(2) A grand tree of life
(3) Natural selection acting on random mutations as primary driving force of adaptive change."
Luskin is wrong on all three.
(1) "change over time" from common ancestry. Luskin keeps forgetting the last bit.
(2) "a grand tree of life" is only a graphic description of the consequences of descent with modification from common ancestry.
(3)"natural selection" is only one of a number of evolution mechanisms, it does not define evolution. I would note the sneaky phraseology used by Luskin, "adaptive change". Well yes, natural selection is a primary driving force for adaptive change. But adaptive change is not the only evolutionary process.
"Here's one scientific FACT for you to chew on: humans and chimpanzees descend from a common ancestor that lived millions of years ago in Africa."
ReplyDeleteCould you please tell us about this common ancestor?
What are the characteristics? And most important what specific fossil evidence is there?
Please indicate the fossils that were found, by whom they were found and where they were found.
If it is a FACT, then there must be physical evidence. Right?
Or is physical evidence not required for facts?
Is there anyone here who agrees with Dr. Moran that:
ReplyDelete"Here's one scientific FACT for you to chew on: humans and chimpanzees descend from a common ancestor that lived millions of years ago in Africa."
I would be very surprised if there is any serious person here who did not agree with that.
Anonymous - can you supply some facts about your Intelligent Designer?
ReplyDeleteWhat are Its properties? How does It operate? What color is Its hair?
AnonX
Anonymous writes:
ReplyDeleteCould you please tell us about this common ancestor?
What are the characteristics? And most important what specific fossil evidence is there?
Please indicate the fossils that were found, by whom they were found and where they were found.
If it is a FACT, then there must be physical evidence. Right?
Or is physical evidence not required for facts?
Are genes physical? Last I looked they were. Want to explain the commonalities between the genomes if not from common ancestry?
Regarding fossils, here's what Wikipedia says:
There are no known fossils that represent the CHLCA [chimpanzee-human last common ancestor], so the age of the CHLCA is an estimate. The fossil find of Ardipithecus kadabba, Sahelanthropus tchadensis, and Orrorin tugenensis are closest in age and expected morphology of the CHLCA and suggest the LCA is older than 7 million years. [There's the answer to your question "What are the characteristics?"] Earliest studies of apes suggest the CHLCA may have been as old as 25 million years, however protein studies in the 1970s suggested the CHLCA was less than 8 million years in age. Genetic methods based on Orangutan/Human and Gibbon/Human LCA times have then been used to estimate Chimpanzee/Human LCA of 6 million years and LCA times between 5 and 7 million years are currently used in the literature.
So we haven't found fossils of the exact CHCLA yet, just as we haven't of Mitochondial Eve. It would be amazing if such a specific, ancient fossil actually were found. It would be like asking you to find the exact "second-best bed" that William Shakespeare willed to his wife, and that of course is many orders of magnitude more recent.
But even when fossil evidence has been found of "missing links" along the chain between chimps and humans (and there are many such), those who can't deal with the fact of evolution won't acknowledge their significance anyway.
How would you know if you found the last common ancestor of humans and chimps?
ReplyDeleteIs it fair to say that no matter what fossil you found, you would never consider it to be that last common ancestor?
I have a question that never seems to be addressed.
ReplyDeleteIdentifying the one particular individual last common ancestor is not really the issue. The issue is identifying the line of fossils from that particular individual.
Is there a line of fossils leading from that unfound last common ancestor?
Should there not be a set of individuals?
But not one of that set has been found has it?
Or has that lineage been found?
Unfortunately, the whole research on proximate mecahnisms (physiology etc.) is usually making sense without the slightest allusion to evolution. And part of the problem is, after all, that researchers of these quartiers can have a carriere without a proper understanding of evolutionary theory and become ID advocates in turn (see Michael Behe).
ReplyDeleteJoe
P.S.: Dobzhansky's quote is a statement about an "ought" rather than an "is".
Anonymous writes:
ReplyDeleteThe issue is identifying the line of fossils from that particular individual.
Is there a line of fossils leading from that unfound last common ancestor?
Should there not be a set of individuals?
But not one of that set has been found has it?
Or has that lineage been found?
The mistake is in thinking of a "line." There's a bush that forks at the last common ancestor (LCA); a couple of the branches off that fork eventually wind up as chimps and humans. Fossils that have been found which postdate the date range of the LCA may be from other branches off that fork (thus not part of the chimp or human lineage); they may be forks off one or the other of those branches (thus part of the lineage but not directly ancestral); or they may be on the branches themselves (thus directly ancestral). I hope you're still with me - if not, let me know. Sorry I'm no good at "ASCII art" or I'd try drawing you a picture.
Let's take Neanderthals as an example. As they've been studied, they've gone from being thought of as directly ancestral to being thought of primarily as a fork off the branch leading eventually to humans. With the latest genome research, it now appears that at least some small portion of their DNA has wound up in modern humans - i.e., there was some limited interbreeding between Neanderthals and the contemporary (more) direct human ancestors. So now that we've been able to do the DNA research - no easy task, and certainly not possible with all or even a majority of ancient hominid fossils of interest - we can answer the question of whether Neanderthals were directly ancestral to us by saying "Well, partially."
Being able to identify an LCA would involve finding very ancient bones and/or teeth with DNA sufficiently intact to show direct ancestry for both humans and chimps, and even then we'd have no real assurance it was the last such animal that exhibited such direct ancestry.
Identifying the precise LCA is a bit beside the point anyway, since genetic studies on humans, chimps, and other animals demonstrate to any reasonable individual beyond a shadow of a doubt that common ancestry is a feature of the species here on Earth. Thus there was an LCA that lived in a population of others of its species just as there was an individual Mitochondrial Eve who lived with others of her species, whether we manage to dig up the bones of those particular individuals or not. Even if we do dig up their bones, without testable DNA, there's no way to say "They're the ones," rather than more or less good candidates.
Jud earlier you had said:
ReplyDelete"But even when fossil evidence has been found of "missing links" along the chain between chimps and humans (and there are many such), those who can't deal with the fact of evolution won't acknowledge their significance anyway."
You are saying there is a chain from chimps to humans.
Is that your position?
Jud:
ReplyDelete"The mistake is in thinking of a "line." There's a bush that forks at the last common ancestor (LCA); a couple of the branches off that fork eventually wind up as chimps and humans. Fossils that have been found which postdate the date range of the LCA may be from other branches off that fork (thus not part of the chimp or human lineage); they may be forks off one or the other of those branches (thus part of the lineage but not directly ancestral); or they may be on the branches themselves (thus directly ancestral). I hope you're still with me - if not, let me know. Sorry I'm no good at "ASCII art" or I'd try drawing you a picture. ETC."
My question is still the same and still unanswered.
"Should there not be a set of individuals?
But not one of that set has been found has it?
Or has that lineage been found?"
Can anyone identify an actual fossil of an actual creature that is claimed to be an ancestor of modern chimps?
Can anyone identify an actual fossil of an actual creature that is claimed to be an ancestor of modern humans?
Anonymous writes:
ReplyDelete[Quoting me]
"The mistake is in thinking of a "line."
[Anonymous continues]
My question is still the same and still unanswered.
...and your question is still based on your incomplete and mistaken notions, so it will "remain unanswered" by reality. If you do get an answer, positive or negative, that is a signal the answer is not based on reality. The solution to your problem is not for someone to answer your question, but for you to read and learn more concerning the explanation I gave as to why you're asking the wrong question.
Here, I'll make it simpler, perhaps oversimplified:
- Yes, there are a group of individuals of a single species, among whom was the last common ancestor of chimps and humans.
- Finding fossils of this group is difficult and a crapshoot, like all fossils of such ancient vintage. But it is possible, and in fact such a fossil may already have been found.
- Determining through morphology whether a fossil, once found, is a potential candidate for LCA is possible. Such "potential candidates" have been found.
- Determining more exactly whether a fossil is of a creature in the lineage of both chimps and humans requires DNA testing. I don't know if any of the "potential candidate" fossils would have viable DNA to test. (I doubt any have so far - I think I would have read about it.) This, again, is a crapshoot.
- Determining scientifically whether a creature is in fact from the group containing the LCA is pretty much impossible, since there is always the chance of an undiscovered fossil of at least a few generations' more recent vintage, or that the actual LCA was from a group of slightly more recent individuals, none of whom wound up as fossils. (Fossils of that vintage are exceedingly rare, so it's strictly up to chance whether any individuals from the "right" population fossilized. As I keep saying, crapshoot.)
So: We may already have fossils from the group containing the LCA. But there's no way to be scientifically certain we have the "right" fossil.
Nevertheless, such an individual, genetically and mathematically, must have existed. It is equally as certain as the fact that you must have had great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-grandparents, though chances of you knowing who they all were are minuscule. Your doubting the LCA existed is equally as wrongheaded as my doubting you had great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-grandparents on the basis that you can't produce documentation. The question you are asking is equivalent to my demanding documentation proving who your great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-grandparents were (though not exactly equivalent - there's a better chance you could produce the documentation, since it's of many orders of magnitude more recent vintage).
You need to read and learn about either the last common ancestor, mitochondrial Eve, or both, if your want to know why your question is based on an incomplete/incorrect understanding.
Well Jud is still pretending not to get it and try to overwhelm just by posting a lot of words.
ReplyDeleteThere have been many fossils found and they have been categorized. Some are categorized as "sister taxon".
But no fossil has ever been found which is actually on the claimed line that led to chimps nor any that is actually on the claimed line to humans.
What I am saying is simply a fact.
Nobody has ever found an actual fossil between the hypothetical (unfound) LCA and todays chimps or humans.
In fact there is no line. There is just a sudden appearance of the new creature type. That is what the fossil record shows.
And Dr. Shapiro at the Univ of Chicago is showing out how that could happen.
Jud earlier you had said:
ReplyDelete"But even when fossil evidence has been found of "missing links" along the chain between chimps and humans (and there are many such), those who can't deal with the fact of evolution won't acknowledge their significance anyway."
You are saying there is a chain from chimps to humans.
Is that your position?
Anonymous says:
ReplyDeleteWell Jud is still pretending not to get it and try to overwhelm just by posting a lot of words.
Thus you indicate both your continuing current lack of understanding (the "lot of words" I posted weren't very complicated at all, which indicates to me at least some degree of willful failure to understand on your part) and your lack of any motivation to do what I've been asking - learn something.
If you would bother to learn (it's not difficult - if I can, most folks certainly can), you'd figure out just how basic and elementary the misunderstanding behind your current question is. But I get the distinct impression that rather than endanger the invincible ignorance of your current position, you'd far rather characterize your own failure as a lack in evolutionary theory. That's fine - evolutionary theory won't suffer one bit, nor will I: I'm going to stop my obviously futile effort to cast bread upon the waters, having found in this case that the Bible verse most applicable is the one about pearls before swine.
Jud earlier you had said:
ReplyDelete"But even when fossil evidence has been found of "missing links" along the chain between chimps and humans (and there are many such), those who can't deal with the fact of evolution won't acknowledge their significance anyway."
You are saying there is a chain from chimps to humans.
Is that your position?
It looks like Jud is not going to acknowledge this.
And yet he still thinks he has credibility to lecture others.
Anonymous writes:
ReplyDeleteYou are saying there is a chain from chimps to humans.
Is that your position?
It looks like Jud is not going to acknowledge this.
What are you, hard up for an argument and I'm not playing?
Sorry to leave you all excited that maybe I wasn't "going to acknowledge" what I said.
Yep, I used the word "chain." It's not the best description of the actual relationship between us and chimps. The description I used in another comment was more accurate: If one thinks of a bush, the Last Common Ancestor of chimps and humans is at the junction of two twigs/branches. Chimps are on one branch and humans are on the other. The relationship is still an extremely close one, though, as the commonalities between the genomes show.
Poor Jud.
ReplyDeleteHe keeps getting caught.
Not only is he now claiming a chain (or not) but he actually has humans evolving from chimps.
Notice his reference to the chain of creatures "between chimps and humans".
And yet he gamely maintains his supercilious attitude in the face of all this.
But this is all a distraction anyway, since there is no line of found fossils between the LCA and any of these creatures. As the fossil record shows, there is just the sudden appearance of the new creature types.
But neither Jud nor others can acknowledge that fact.
ReplyDeleteBut this is all a distraction anyway, since there is no line of found fossils between the LCA and any of these creatures. As the fossil record shows, there is just the sudden appearance of the new creature types.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punctuated_equilibrium
"Punctuated equilibrium (also called punctuated equilibria) is a theory in evolutionary biology which proposes that most sexually reproducing species will experience little net evolutionary change for most of their geological history, remaining in an extended state called stasis. Punctuated equilibrium also proposes that stasis is broken up by rare and rapid events of branching speciation called cladogenesis. Cladogenesis is the process by which species split into two distinct species, rather than one species gradually transforming into another."
Anonymous - Tuesday, April 19, 2011 11:25:00 AM
ReplyDeleteI attempted to read Dr. Shapiro's 2009 (Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2009 Oct;1178:6-28). After reading the paper, it's impossible for me to become that impressed by his "theory". He spends the paper attacking false statements about what modern biology thinks. In every instance he is incorrect on what modern biologists actually think, and is attacking concepts not held by anyone I work with.
He also over-inflates the importance of things like epigenetics, and the claims about whole genome transcription (boy those salamanders must be really complex!).
Nothing to see here
the other Jim posted:
ReplyDelete"But this is all a distraction anyway, since there is no line of found fossils between the LCA and any of these creatures. As the fossil record shows, there is just the sudden appearance of the new creature types."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punctuated_equilibrium
"Punctuated equilibrium (also called punctuated equilibria) is a theory in evolutionary biology which proposes that most sexually reproducing species will experience little net evolutionary change for most of their geological history, remaining in an extended state called stasis. Punctuated equilibrium also proposes that stasis is broken up by rare and rapid events of branching speciation called cladogenesis. Cladogenesis is the process by which species split into two distinct species, rather than one species gradually transforming into another."
the other Jim seems to understand what I am saying.
Anonymous writes:
ReplyDeletePoor Jud.
He keeps getting caught.
You mean saying a term I used in a blog comment wasn't the best word to describe the reality? It's called being duly humble and straightforward. Try it sometime.
Not only is he now claiming a chain (or not) but he actually has humans evolving from chimps.
Notice his reference to the chain of creatures "between chimps and humans".
So you crow about my statement saying "chain" was the wrong word to use, then go on about my claiming there's a "chain"? How very disingenuous.
the other Jim seems to understand what I am saying.
So you now agree there was a Last Common Ancestor of chimps and humans? Because I guarantee you the other Jim isn't arguing with that proposition one iota, nor does the theory of punctuated equilibrium contradict that fact in any way.
So will you do what I did and say you perhaps did not express yourself correctly in your past statements? Or do you lack the humility and honesty to do so?
Or is it (more likely, I'd guess) that you have no least idea how punctuated equilibrium actually fits into a discussion of the Last Common Ancestor?
I understand the observation you are pointing to. I just disagree with your inferred interpretation of what this means.
ReplyDeleteWhat do you think my inferred interpretation is?
ReplyDeleteAnd why do you disagree with it?
Jud is doing his best to avoid admitting that he spoke of humans evolving from chimps and not both evolving from a common ancestor.
ReplyDeleteRemember he said:
"the chain between chimps and humans.
Presumably this is yet another instance of him not expressing himself correctly.
Or misspeaking.
Or just being wrong.
But it is tiresome to keep correcting him.
What do you think my inferred interpretation is?
ReplyDeleteAnd why do you disagree with it?
Ooh, can I guess? Perhaps 'cause it looks like you're trying to use Punctuated Equilibrium to question common ancestry, and as Larry commented earlier in this thread:
Here's one scientific FACT for you to chew on: humans and chimpanzees descend from a common ancestor that lived millions of years ago in Africa.
If you don't accept that as a scientific fact then you don't accept science.
If you are not questioning common ancestry, then your last 10 or so comments in this thread are a remarkably incoherent way of expressing that. (But of course your attempt to use punctuated equilibrium as an objection to common ancestry is an incoherent argument as well, so who can guess which way you have chosen to be nonsensical?)
Anonymous writes:
ReplyDeleteJud is doing his best to avoid admitting that he spoke of humans evolving from chimps and not both evolving from a common ancestor.
I'm quite sure anyone with rudimentary reading comprehension skills looking at my comments in this thread easily understands what I'm saying about common ancestry. Yet after 5 comments specifically about this, you apparently still haven't got it. Oh, but I did specify rudimentary reading comprehension.
But it is tiresome to keep correcting him.
Why stop at a mere 5 comments? I bet you could keep from having to say anything at all about your own "understanding" of punctuated equilibrium, common ancestry, etc., virtually forever if you just keep banging away at this "chain" business.
C'mon, Anonymous, inquiring minds want to know - how does punctuated equilibrium relate to the Last Common Ancestor?
Someone called Moran should really not use the cute IDiots expression... just saying.
ReplyDelete