And my response:
You start with PRIMITIVE TWENTIETH CENTURY, to which I must comment that it seems to be the simplest of minds that insist on this all capitals as a style of writing. As for the content of the section itself I will get back to it shortly. But, I would like to add at this point that it is safe to say, you don't read much news or anything else for that matter.
Josh, you continue this derision of science, evolution, knowledge etc. in THE TASADAY TRIBESMEN by blaming it for the political and media hoax that was actually uncovered by science - linguistics to be specific.
"And so, a "major anthropological find" enjoyed over a decade of "historical significance" before turning into a "major historical fraud." And had it not been for diligent investigation by the news media, this hoax could very well have remained the "anthropological find of the twentieth century" in history books."
These are claims made by you, the media, and even the logging industry had a hand in the story - not science, and besides, this has nothing to do with evolution in any case. Science did not bring this to the attention of the world, but the media did. Did science perpetrate this fraud? No! A politician did. This immediately shows your bias against science. But why? Is it because science has also shown your religion to be a fraud? That is what I think. Only, let's be clear, I know religions are fraudulent. I am only trying to discern your claim against evolution. Does science have a history of some oddball hypotheses, of course it does. But unlike religion, where the conclusions can't be questioned, in science, all findings are peer reviewed. And the claims stand, or fall, on their own merit. This is how the hoax was revealed in 1986, when Ferdinand and Imelda Marcos were removed from power and the politician, Manuel Elizalde, that perpetrated the hoax left the country. But even before that, some investigators had their doubts based on clues garnered by those brave enough to circumvent the armed guards who held positions at the access points in the wall that was built to keep out those that were not hand picked by Elizalde himself. Words like 'roof' that should not have been part of a cave dweller's vernacular, initiated further investigations, by scientists, if what I read here is correct. It was science that revealed the hoax, similar to the case of superstitions and religions.
THE EVOLUTION OF EVOLUTION
See, this is the problem of a limited intellect, in replacing ignorance with something similar to a guess, an unsubstantiated assertion, or some supernatural explanation in lieu of an actual evidenced based conclusion, the simpleton shows that he is quite uncomfortable with open ended or unanswered questions. Science, and in this case the science of evolution, almost always produces more questions than answers. By answering certain questions, we are prepared to ask new ones with the knowledge garnered. That is the battle between religion and science, those asserting unsupported answers that can never be questioned vs. those that never stop asking questions based on the evidence previously gained and finding actual answers supported by evidence. See, science is also an evolving system of questions and answers that breed more questions.
This 'Evolution of Evolution' section would be humorous if not for the fact that so many scientifically illiterate people actually buy into it, as though it has anything to do with facts. It is obvious that you could use some science 101 here. First, evolution is a fact every bit as much as the claim, Paris is a city in France, is a fact or the electrical theory, gravitational theory, etc. The claim you allude to with term "versions" I see as your attempt to obfuscate the fact that scientific method allows for, even, insists on peer modification for the accuracy of the hypothesis. Like aiming artillery, one can usually get the accuracy to target, knowledge or understanding, more perfect. So it's not a falsification of the information but more like focusing, a fine tuning of the knowledge garnered. But we both know you could care less about actual science, for your strawman is easier to attack, which is of course, your main goal.
The comment by Ben Morrish:
"Transitional fossils have been found, indeed almost all fossils are transitional (the only exceptions being fossils of organisms that did not have any descendants)."
is correct; everything is a transitional form, but to know this you would have to know that the concept of 'species' is a human construct that designates whether specified life forms can breed successfully. The life form itself doesn't know or care that is has diverged from it's ancestors to the point that it couldn't conceive a viable or fertile embryo (eg. Mules - horse donkey cross, Liger - a cross between lions and tigers huge but both are sterile). Furthermore, at no point in any species' genetic line does the offspring not carry the traits of the parents and/or grandparents, remember gradual changes, very gradual. You may be suffering from the "chicken or the egg" syndrome, in which religionists intent on disproving evolution can't seem to fathom the idea that at no time in the chicken's evolutionary history was there a "first chicken" or a last dinosaur. The fact is that every egg contained a dinosaur that had just a few more chicken-ish traits than its distant relatives. So to say that you may have dino eggs for breakfast is accurate as well as fascinating. Although, I'm sure you could not care less about the actual facts, why let a few inconvenient facts get in the way of a great story, they didn't stop early religionists or the authors of the canonized books of the Bible.
Your strawman concerning "punctuated equilibrium." Which is a property of evolution that is held by some scientists who see the gradual accumulation of adaptations as too slow for some situations such as island adaptations. Punctuated equilibrium does not say, "species appear more suddenly and retain their basic forms until they become extinct" as you claim. But what are a collection disingenuous remarks like this to someone who sees lying as just another form of communication? No! Punctuated equilibrium is what it sounds like, species evolve to a point of ecological equilibrium at a rate proportional to their fit, or lack thereof, to the niche to which they avail themselves. This is an associated driver of evolution like natural selection. Which is the Darwinian innovation that superseded Lamarckian "guided, progression of acquired traits." A form of evolution very popular with religionists in their 18th century version of creationism. And, as such, has nothing to do with that lame symptom of the "chicken or the egg" syndrome; a need for "missing links," which is another simple minded, media concoction. But hey, what are a few facts to a guy like you? We can't have a theory that is the basis of biology, pharmacology, genetics, zoology, modern medicine and on and on; get between the religiose and their god delusion or that ever important failed god hypothesis, now can we. But if you are interested in actual knowledge try "The Greatest Show On Earth" by Richard Dawkins or anything of his, like "The Selfish Gene" or maybe Jerry A. Coyne's "Why Evolution Is True" or E.O.Wilson's "Sociobiology" ah, hell - anything but Genesis.
If nothing else, you will not be so quick to put your ignorance on display, for all to see, but I digress.
BORN OF IGNORANCE is the next fallacy, I mean...
I could not have put it better myself. Your ignorance has to be inherited, oh wait, apparently that isn't what your alluding to - just yet, anyway. It's a Lamarckian thing anyway - so it wouldn't work! You are right Charles Darwin was ignorant of genetics, but he didn't need an understanding of genetics to clarify a theory based on taxonomic properties of observed species. It was Darwin's theory that initiated inquiries into, what would become genetic principles of, hereditary traits. Although in 1865, Gregor Mendel, a monk in an Austrian Roman Catholic monastery concluded that "discrete hereditary elements" (not called genes until the 1900's when those like Oswald T. Avery discovered that deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) was the blue print of embryonic development) as postulated during his work with peas some years earlier, were responsible for communicating inherited traits. But the lie in your assertion comes with the claim that genetics shows that evolution doesn't work. Quite to the contrary, genetics has shown just the opposite - very powerfully in fact. We now know that we share 98.5% of our DNA with our cousin the chimpanzee and less but still some of our DNA with fish, field mice and cucumbers. I know the only reason you don't know this is because you don't want to. But hey, what's a little convenient ignorance for your beliefs, right?
You really should read some science books, though, really! Maybe "On the Origin of Species" by Charles Darwin for a start. Although, I am enjoying the humor of your lunacy, it's just that... well, evolution is so basic to so many fields of biological science. For someone actually educated in the field, of your obvious ignorance, the assertions are delusional at best - I feel like I'm laughing at someone who's mentally handicapped. The fact that Mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) is traceable and shows with few exceptions that our tentative conclusions based on the fossil record are, in fact, very accurate. Which shows that we can be reasonably sure that our assimilative practices are sound with regard to phenotypic relatedness of species. I mean it has gotten so well refined that Tiktaalik, was predicted to be discovered in the strata and with the features it was in fact found in and with. For further reading on the subject see Tiktaalik roseae from the University of Chicago. If there is a stronger way to verify a method of inquiry and explanation, I don't know of it.
How about that abiogenesis, well since you originally wrote this blog we have the replication of RNA ribonucleic acid (ribonucleotides), under laboratory conditions of course. That's inanimate to something deemed animate, as though there is that distinction at that level of complexity. Or the evidence of recent evolution from the altitude acclimation of the indigenous peoples of the Himalayan Mountains, (i.e. Ethnic Tibetans). But I just know you are going to give me some crap about a "link" between species which as Ben Morrish and I have explained and I'm sure you can find elsewhere is, like the god concept, the product of an overly simplistic understanding of living organisms. There are four geographic modes of speciation in nature, based on the extent to which speciating populations are geographically isolated from one another: allopatric, peripatric, parapatric, and sympatric. Speciation is a wonderful topic to study. Like Three Spined stickleback fish that has developed into fresh water varieties with fin variations etc. since the last ice age. The variation within the porpoise family, with dynamic differences in the Pacific and Atlantic species. But this isn't what you are talking about is it? You are looking for the evidence of macro-evolution when in reality it's nothing more than micro-evolution over a long period of time, many millions of years, but with mtDNA we have the ability to see back in time for eons. And with the feather covered dinosaurs discovered in China we have phenotypic evidence that birds are dinosaurs. Only, if you are looking for something along the lines of a "crock-o-duck" that is the figment of a fundamentalist's mind virus. The evidence is out there just Google it.
Don't think it has gone unnoticed that you have made many unsubstantiated assertions without the first iota of evidence or an alternative theory of your own, oh wait, are we to assume the "god did it" failed hypothesis of a bronze age desert goat herder myth variety - I await with bated breath for the new evidence in that field of inquiry. Not!
For those having trouble following along, I have taken the liberty of combining some of Josh's many asinine assertions into one relatively coherent rebuttal because so many minor sections are not actually differing thoughts. Some even go so far out that I am convinced he is totally clueless as to what genetic, random mutations are actually. And it is this misconception of what random mutations are with respect to evolution, how they are involved with reproduction, propagation even DNA that has clouded Josh's comprehension of evolution. Only, even forgiving him for this misconception doesn't release him from his responsibility for talking crap about something he knows nothing about. But I will attempt to reel these topics into something other than a semblance of coherency. Josh's more entertaining, yet asinine, claims only rate ridicule in groups. Such is the state of the rest of the assertions, which I must say displays an ignorance of genetic processes that I didn't think possible. Therefore I will deal with them as one grand misconception which is as generous as I can get with this garbage, honestly.
Alas, Josh, you were so close writing about genetic manipulation, "gene splicing" correctly noting that it's not evolution, but that's baby brain stuff. Why didn't you remark on the overwhelming evidence from genetics in support of evolution? It's not that religious blind spot is it, pandering maybe, hypocrisy? Don't forget that unnatural selection has been going on for maybe ten thousand years, domestication of the dog for one, chickens and more recently bananas as well - just a shout out to the Banana Boys, Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron. But I will agree that gene splicing has little to do with evolution. But knowing of no professional in the field that claims it does, leaves me only minimally interested as to why you would even conflate the two.
But that doesn't keep you from jumping off the deep end does it Josh, where is your evidence for your claim that genetics deals a devastating blow to evolution. I think you have just proven yourself intellectually negligible. All the evidence is actually in the other direction my poorly educated, or at least inculcated and ignorant friend. But please, I beg, show some conformation for this absurdity. Got another one for you, Michael Ruse's "Evolution" is a good compilation of data. Then you would see that mutations are random but the selection is surgical. The ones that live to reproduce are the specimens that are most acclimated to the environment in which they find themselves. So, let me emphasize by stating that again; Then you would see that mutations are random but the selection is surgical.
And the absurdities just keep coming. Josh Greenberger please read a book on evolution, it is obvious you have no idea what you are writing about, at all, not even close. In the first place you are obviously conflating random mutation with cellular destruction, which is what radiation exposure actually does. It also shows just how lame your argument is, when no one has even bothered to shred it in 4 years. The display of blatant ignorance is absolutely pathetic. If it wasn't for the link to this site some misguided young lady gave me I would never have known people could be so misinformed about how evolution works or genetics, genes, crossover, chromosomes, genetic drift, selection pressure etc. amazing. The first chance you get, look into the concept of genetic crossover which is one place for a random mutation to slip in. But these are not random molecules or even random base pairs. It is not even random genes, but the exchange of homologous chromosomes during meiotic recombination preceding embryogenesis.
Cellular destruction aside, even chromosomal destruction via radioactive exposure would only end in an inviable embryo which would have a minimal chance of survival. This is because the destruction that you are conflating with random gene selection (mutation) is similar to taking a hatchet to one's DNA, not even the random recombination of distinctive genetic traits as observed with respect to reproduction. Really, look into what random mutation is, might I suggest "Genome" by Matt Ridley, or, and I can't stress this enough, "The Selfish Gene" by Richard Dawkins, but any of the books I listed so far will get you further than you are now with at least some understanding of evolution. And don't forget there is not one scientific organization on the planet that doesn't accept evolution as fact, not one. What you obviously haven't taken into consideration is that the randomness and mutations, that you seem to be overly focused on, have had billions of years to become viable genomes. Even gene clusters that have already been tested otherwise your parents, or anyone else, wouldn't be carrying them. In fact, you are over emphasizing the whole randomness aspect almost as much as you misunderstand what is meant by mutation, really it's beyond believability. But, your argument in this regard isn't anymore thought out than has been exemplified in the rest of this blog. Then there's this:
"To say that a human being is the result of an accidental evolutionary process is sheer lunacy."
What you don't understand is that I absolutely agree, but the only people in the world that would assert something like that is a preacher or a pious devotee of some back woods superstition. There is almost nothing accidental about evolution, the randomness you are so fond of involves a choice from a bracketed group of preformed genetic groups, this is high school stuff. The mutations come from chromosomal packets that have been correctly copied otherwise we don't get a viable embryo. Again, elementary, sustaining my original take on your diatribe - as religiously motivated, complete with blinkered thinking. But, for someone who obviously has absolutely no training in science to claim that evolution is a "product of the imagination" proves my theory that arrogance is, with out question, a property of ignorance.
If you don't think creativity is a part of our evolutionary history then your understanding of the hunter-gatherer is also lacking. Only, how could anyone with as little background in science, anthropology, especially, even claim an opinion - arrogance? It's like your misunderstanding of the phrase 'survival of the fittest' I'm sure, since I know the story of how Darwin was persuaded to use that phrase, and its subsequent misused in certain circles - that reproductive fitness is not what you have in mind at all. In other words you are using the phrase out of context. And because of this blinkered view, you are retarding your ability to comprehend how humor, art, music and many other attributes that you see as unproductive regarding survival are, in fact, a product of our evolutionary history. The truth of the matter is reproductive fitness includes many altruistic traits producing our morality, compassion, love, feelings and from these are derived our need to create, rejoice in happiness, protect and teach our families.
Now as I promised at the beginning of this response I would like to comment on your assertion that the theory of evolution is primitive, which, even if it were true, has no relevance. I think your blathering is just a simpleton's attempt at a poisoning the well fallacy. Didn't Galileo discover the moons of Jupiter in the 1400's and wasn't the Calculus created in the 1700's at the same time gravity was described and by the same man that described it along with many other forces, you know Newton. But I think your main problem is that, due to your religious mind set, you fail to see the scientific method as a growing and evolving accumulation of data and improved methodologies. Hence the rudimentary theory that has actually stood up very well to every attack by everyone from rival scientists to threatened theologians, ill-equipped educators, misinformed Sunday school teachers and fearful fundamentalists, has actually grown to be a very powerful basis for thousands of theories that encompass concepts ranging from behavior science, ethology, psychology along with physiology and anthropology to theories relating to the evolution of solar systems, galaxies etc., not to mention genetic therapy relating to viral evolution, antibacterial evolution, and manipulation through cross breeding.
Then you have the audacity to claim, without a shred of evidence - I might add, that, along with trying to stir the magical thinking of religion and superstition into a mix with evolution, which is science - regardless of your comprehension of such, the following is anything other than a statement of your delusion:
"In the midst of all of this state-of-the-art technology, there seems to be a rather primitive theory which, although steadily losing credibility even among those who have adhered to it for a long time, still has many convinced that it is based on science."You have yet to come forth with any evidence for any of your assertions, so I'm not holding my breath on this one either, but I'll ask anyway. Is it because the friggin' Pope has excepted evolution as a validated theory? Where is your evidence that evolution is loosing credibility? Where is there any evidence that this scientific fact has even wavered in its strength or for that matter, done anything but get substantially stronger - where?
And, this "hoax" as you call it, has produced 99% of the medical advancements of the last century, infinitely increased our understanding with regard to living organisms, and systems in general. So, your blatant stupidity has only emboldened my original feeling that you are another "Liar for Jesus" unless you can come across with any evidence of what you assert. Also, as evidenced by your, I think intentional, misunderstanding of survival of the fittest, how nuclear force could have some sort of relationship with evolution, by causing random mutations(?) or whatever, and that genetics has only validated evolution while increasing our understanding of it, including our relationships to everything else on the planet, in addition to the stars and planets themselves. I conclude you have an agenda and are most likely clueless as to the actual facts supporting evolution, of which, there is literally tons.
But if I thought for a moment that you actually cared about the truth, I would take the time to enlighten you with ... never mind. All these authors I've listed have sites on the net, very good ones, look into them. And if you need additional evidence for what I've asserted, I have spelled everything correctly, Google it.
Continually combating despotic suppression of the freedom and brilliance of the human mind, by fervently guarding against dogmatic superstition - a product of the arrogance of ignorance.
~ Brian
Beachbum, you have no idea what you're talking about. DO you have eggs in your head?
ReplyDeleteI take it you disagree with my blog on this matter. That's fine; not everyone is endowed with an intellect. The shame is, everyone is endowed with an opinion.
ReplyDelete