SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
What are you doing here, countering arguments? Pfft, don't be such a troll.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Verifiable evidence for creationism?
- Thread starter leibowde84
- Start date
McBell
Unbound
Comical that you think you have "debated" anything.
leibowde84
Veteran Member
Can you provide an explanation of where you are getting the odds of evolution being accurate? What are the actual odds? Are you including the immense time involved ... billions of years.
leibowde84
Veteran Member
Trolling aside, can you provide your specific calculation of probability?
james bond
Well-Known Member
It's some kind of DNS issue when your browser's cache is full, and has happened to others recently.
http://www.religiousforums.com/threads/rf-redirecting-to-www-aspiescentral-com.185837/
The resolution seems to be clearing your browser's cache or using
https://www.religiousforums.com .
Note the "https" instead of http.
Not so fast. The chances of suviving a jump from ESB can be analized mathematically, if one really wish. You can calculate the speed of impact, the energy released, the resilence property of bones and internal tissue when such an energy is absobed, etc. etc. or you can make a statistical analysis of how many people survived a jump from the ESB, based on many attempts.
The procedure is to identify the set of possible end states and the exact operation performed in order to get one of the outcomes. In case of the ESB building scenarios, the set of possible outcomes is {dead, alive} and the operation is "jump".
So, now I wish to see a mathematical analysis of your probability statement. Please, specify the exact set of end states and the operation involved to reach one of them. Especially without the latter, all your probabilistic statements are vacuous.
Ciao
- viole
james bond
Well-Known Member
Yes, science is more wrong than they are right until they get it right. That is what I have been saying all along. The Bible has to get it right the first time as it cannot change. And in the end, science ends up backing the Bible.
Darwin's Origin of the Species (1859) has been refuted. Apparently, Alfred Russell Wallace, Darwin's partner, had the same idea and Darwin had to fight being a plagiarist.
There was a bit of a problem with all of this natural selection stuff, though: Darwin didn’t know how it, uh, worked. Offspring had a mix of their parents’ features, sure. But how? What was going on at the moment of conception? It was a huge hole in Darwin’s theory of evolution. So in 1868, almost a decade after he published On the Origin of Species, Darwin tried to plug that hole with the theory of “pangenesis,” a wildly wrong idea that goes a little something like this:
Every cell in our bodies sheds tiny particles called gemmules, “which are dispersed throughout the whole system,” Darwin wrote, and “these, when supplied with proper nutriment, multiply by self-division, and are ultimately developed into units like those from which they were originally derived.” Gemmules are, in essence, seeds of cells. “They are collected from all parts of the system to constitute the sexual elements, and their development in the next generation forms a new being.”
Because both parents contribute these cell seeds, offspring end up blending the features of mom and dad. But what about a child exhibiting more features of one parent than the other? This comes about when “the gemmules in the fertilized germ are superabundant in number,” where the gemmules “derived from one parent may have some advantage in number, affinity, or vigor over those derived from the other parent.” In other words, they kinda just put more effort into it.
Gemmules must develop in the proper order to build a healthy organism. When something glitches along the way, though, you get birth defects. “According to the doctrine of pangenesis,” Darwin wrote, “the gemmules of the transposed organs become developed in the wrong place, from uniting with wrong cells or aggregates of cells during their nascent state.”
But most important of all, Darwin’s theory of pangenesis could finally explain variations among organisms—the raw fuel of evolution. This has two causes. First, “fluctuating variability” comes from “the deficiency, superabundance, and transposition of gemmules, and the redevelopment of those which have long been dormant.” In other words, they’re expressed in a grandchild after skipping a generation, though the gemmules themselves haven’t “undergone any modification.”
http://www.wired.com/2014/12/fantastically-wrong-thing-evolution-darwin-really-screwed/
Then, there is his Tree of Life. It's more an Orchard of Life like creation science proposed.
http://www.examiner.com/article/cha...ientists-debunk-darwin-s-tree-of-life-diagram
According to Darwin, closely related species compete more than distant ones, because they occupy similar ecological niches. Yet, this intuitive Darwin concept was wrong about "survival isn't always about competition."
NSF Study on Green Algae Finds Darwin Was Wrong About Competition
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/05/nsf_study_on_al085331.html
What about Darwin's Descent with Modification?
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_15
It states all life on earth has come about through descent with modification from a single common ancestor (a hypothetical, primitive, single-celled organism). This has not been falsified, so how can evolution be considered science? All evo has been able to show is microevolution.
james bond
Well-Known Member
Does biology work without common descent with modification? I think it does.
What about competing against another living creature or organism similar to it? What does Darwin or evo say about that?
james bond
Well-Known Member
Most likely, there was no 530 million years ago. Almost all species do not live that long. Probably all, but I can't falsify it. Can you?
james bond
Well-Known Member
DNA would not change to something better or beneficial by mutation to the extent evolutionists think. New gene alleles are accumulating in populations today, but there are two possible sources for these changes -- mutations, and intentional changes introduced by genetic recombination or design. Mutation can change the genome over time, most biological evolution is actually due to genetic recombination followed by natural selection. There are many examples put forward by evolution biologists that attempt to show how new genes have been introduced into the genome of an organism. However, in most documented cases it merely illustrates the built-in plasticity or variation within the original created kind. Merely shuffling of already existing genes becomes woefully inadequate if the observational science is followed.
Land crawling fish doesn't sound too "evolutionary" to me. We know that man didn't evolve from it. It could kill the natural habitat for others though.
http://www.theguardian.com/lifeands...fish-a-major-disaster-if-it-reaches-australia
And more evidence that birds did not evolve from dinosaurs. How can it when it was their meal?
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn21182-first-evidence-that-dinosaurs-ate-birds/
That is no a sequitur. A species can arise 530 millions ago, and get extinct 429 millions ago. Ergo, the species lived 1 million years. Or less, if you set the time of extinction farther in the past.
That hardly entails that there cannot be no 530 millions years ago.
What has species life expectancy anything to do with how far the past can "go"?
Ciao
- viole
james bond
Well-Known Member
Do you mean the species lived for 101 million years? What current species has lived that long? Today, a species goes extinct in hundreds of years. According to evolution, the species should be living longer before extinction. Yes? Yet, no one has been able to prove when a species started existing. I live in Cali, and we know the California Grizzly went extinct around 1924. It was first seen by European immigrants around when they first settled around the late 1800s in abundant population around 10,000.
There is no 530 million years ago because if there was, then we would be more advanced. For example, there would be no shortage of computer memory. Let's say there was no human life until 300 million years ago. Even then, we should be more advanced. The Jetsons would pale in comparison. Look how far we've changed in 100 years from 1916. People being 6,000 years old would make more sense than 300 million years.
Sapiens
Polymathematician
No, science examines and rejects what is clearly wrong, thus gets it closer to right and then continuously corrects, the bible gets wrong in the first place, swallows it whole, and never fixes it's mistake.
Really? That will come as news to all of science. Please enlighten us.
Wrong and wrong-headed. Darwin could have easily demonstrated precedence, that is why today we refer to is as Darwinism and not Wallaceism. However, but Darwin humbly offered co-authorship which Wallace gladly accepted.
That's right. There was a copy of Mendel's paper in Darwin's study, but unfortunately Darwin did not speak German. But not knowing "how" it worked did not prevent his clearly elucidated "what" it was.
No, Origin of Species stands on its own and was amazingly correct in almost all aspects. Ten years later Darwin was working in the "how" and started off where knowledge was at the time, Conway Zirkle wrote: "The hypothesis of pangenesis is as old as the belief in the inheritance of acquired characters. It was endorsed by Hippocrates, Democritus, Galen (?), Clement of Alexandria, Lactantius, St. Isidore of Seville, Bartholomeus Anglicus, St. Albert the Great, St. Thomas of Aquinas, Peter of Crescentius (?), Paracelsus, Jerome Cardan, Levinus Lemnius, Venette, John Ray, Buffon, Bonnet, Maupertius, von Haller and Herbert Spencer."
So it was not something Darwin invented to "plug a hole." It was a logical progression of knowledge give where knowledge stood at the time. Too bad he didn't learn German instead. In any case, it was not until about 1900, when new researchers worked with Mendel’s discoveries, that natural selection and heredity were synthesized into the dominant paradigm of modern biology. There are those who would give Darwin credit that I do not feel he deserves, as in (wiki): "... by some accounts in modern interpretation, gemmules may be considered a prescient mix of DNA, RNA, proteins, prions, and other mobile elements that are heritable in a non-Mendelian manner at the molecular level."
Your attempt at falsifying Darwinism and at vilifying Darwin founders on the rocks of reality and instead provides an excellent example of science succeeds.
Trace your citation back ... you find a the root a piece in the Guardian and then New Scientist, which was roundly and justly criticized for sensationalism in pursuit of profit. Here's an example., Larry Moran, Professor of Biochemistry at the University of Toronto:
The cover is this week's issue of New Scientist is sure to get your attention.
I happen to believe that the science of evolutionary biology has moved on since 1859, and I happen to be a proponent of evolutionary processes that Darwin new nothing about. Nevertheless, proclaiming that "Darwin was wrong" is a different story. That's an egregious example of journalistic hype and it's unacceptable in a magazine like New Scientist.
The main article is Why Darwin was wrong about the tree of life. The author is science journalist Graham Lawton.
Last edited:
Sapiens
Polymathematician
The essence of the story is that the early history of evolution is probably characterized by a net of life and not a traditional tree. The "net" metaphor is due to many examples of lateral gene transfer.
This net, or web, of life is characteristic of the earliest stages of evolution when all organisms were single cells and the distinction between eukaryotes and prokaryotes was barely discernible. Once the main groups rose out of the web, they evolved pretty much as you light expect by binary speciation events. This gives rise to a traditional tree-like pattern.
As Jan and I discussed, for the last three billion years of evolution the tree of life is a very good metaphor for evolution. Darwin was mostly right about that. On the other hand, the New Scientist article discusses some problems with the tree of life that extend beyond the early history. It makes several valid points that should make everyone skeptical of claims about evolution that are too simple. The tree isn't perfect.
The bottom line is that it's unfair to say that Darwin was wrong. It's as unfair as saying the Newton was wrong because of Einstein. We need to recognize that modern evolutionary biology is an improvement over the view of the Victorian founder of the field, but a cover saying that Darwin was wrong conveys the wrong message. It suggests that up until recently scientists believed that Darwin was right about everything.
A better headline might be: "More evidence that Charles Darwin didn't know everything there is to be known about evolution when he published his book in 1859."
UPDATE: In a surprising development, the IDiots at Uncommon Descent have picked up on these recent (sic) developments in evolutionary theory. Paul Nelson, a Young Earth Creationist philosopher, writes: “The tree of life is being politely buried”.
Here's the summary from the paper:
In summary, we have shown that coexistence among pairs of freshwater green algae is more strongly influenced by species’ niche differences than by their relative fitness differences. Our data do not support Darwin’s competition-relatedness hypothesis, as phylogeneticdistance had no impact on species coexistence or the mechanisms of coexistence. These findings reflect the maturation of a very old question in ecology (Mayfield & Levine 2010). For many years, the question of how species coexist had been answered with incomplete (in hindsight) theories and empirical observations that focused only on niche differentiation. Today, Chesson’s theory of coexistence has spawned the generation of operational measures of the mechanisms of coexistence, including both niche and relative fitness differences among species, that can completely explain the outcome of competition (e.g. Fig. 2). This maturation is key for ecologists to be able to address many ecological dilemmas presently facing humanity, including the causes and consequences of biodiversity loss, and the impacts of species invasions, range shifts resulting from climate change, and land-use changes and homogenisation. All of these questions are fundamentally tied to the question of how species coexist and how adaptable their mechanisms of coexistence are. The further investigation of the influence of evolution on both niche and neutral mechanisms of coexistence will help us to make more effective management and conservation decisions aimed at protecting biodiversity into the future.
Darwin's argument, in a nutshell, was that more offspring than can survive are produced and then nature winnows those that are less well equipped to produce the next generation. In order to avoid semantic BS I have avoided using the word "compete." Elucidating mechanisms of coexistence, even of cooperation does no violence to basic Darwinian perspectives, it just advances knowledge concerning what it means to be "fit" in a world where "survival of the fittest" is of paramount importance.
Ever since Darwin the tree has been the unifying principle for understanding the history of life on Earth. At its base is LUCA, the Last Universal Common Ancestor of all living things, and out of LUCA grows a trunk, which splits again and again to create a vast, bifurcating tree. Each branch represents a single species; branching points are where one species becomes two. Most branches eventually come to a dead end as species go extinct, but some reach right to the top - these are living species. The tree is thus a record of how every species that ever lived is related to all others right back to the origin of life.
For much of the past 150 years, biology has largely concerned itself with filling in the details of the tree. "For a long time the holy grail was to build a tree of life," says Eric Bapteste, an evolutionary biologist at the Pierre and Marie Curie University in Paris, France. A few years ago it looked as though the grail was within reach. But today the project lies in tatters, torn to pieces by an onslaught of negative evidence. Many biologists now argue that the tree concept is obsolete and needs to be discarded. "We have no evidence at all that the tree of life is a reality," says Bapteste. That bombshell has even persuaded some that our fundamental view of biology needs to change.
As it happens, I was at a function last night with Jan Sapp of York University (Toronto, Canada). Loyal Sandwalk readers might recall a series of articles on theThree Domain Hypothesis. The articles were based on a book edited by Jan Sapp. Sapp is a supporter, as am I, of the scheme advocated by Ford Doolittle (see below).For much of the past 150 years, biology has largely concerned itself with filling in the details of the tree. "For a long time the holy grail was to build a tree of life," says Eric Bapteste, an evolutionary biologist at the Pierre and Marie Curie University in Paris, France. A few years ago it looked as though the grail was within reach. But today the project lies in tatters, torn to pieces by an onslaught of negative evidence. Many biologists now argue that the tree concept is obsolete and needs to be discarded. "We have no evidence at all that the tree of life is a reality," says Bapteste. That bombshell has even persuaded some that our fundamental view of biology needs to change.
This net, or web, of life is characteristic of the earliest stages of evolution when all organisms were single cells and the distinction between eukaryotes and prokaryotes was barely discernible. Once the main groups rose out of the web, they evolved pretty much as you light expect by binary speciation events. This gives rise to a traditional tree-like pattern.
As Jan and I discussed, for the last three billion years of evolution the tree of life is a very good metaphor for evolution. Darwin was mostly right about that. On the other hand, the New Scientist article discusses some problems with the tree of life that extend beyond the early history. It makes several valid points that should make everyone skeptical of claims about evolution that are too simple. The tree isn't perfect.
The bottom line is that it's unfair to say that Darwin was wrong. It's as unfair as saying the Newton was wrong because of Einstein. We need to recognize that modern evolutionary biology is an improvement over the view of the Victorian founder of the field, but a cover saying that Darwin was wrong conveys the wrong message. It suggests that up until recently scientists believed that Darwin was right about everything.
A better headline might be: "More evidence that Charles Darwin didn't know everything there is to be known about evolution when he published his book in 1859."
UPDATE: In a surprising development, the IDiots at Uncommon Descent have picked up on these recent (sic) developments in evolutionary theory. Paul Nelson, a Young Earth Creationist philosopher, writes: “The tree of life is being politely buried”.
You'd best be careful with your "according to Darwins" 'cause you've got it wrong from the get go, niche similarity is not the issue, niche overlap and competitive exclusion is. I guess that's what comes from getting your information from a website put up by ID advocates rather than from original sources.
Here's the summary from the paper:
In summary, we have shown that coexistence among pairs of freshwater green algae is more strongly influenced by species’ niche differences than by their relative fitness differences. Our data do not support Darwin’s competition-relatedness hypothesis, as phylogeneticdistance had no impact on species coexistence or the mechanisms of coexistence. These findings reflect the maturation of a very old question in ecology (Mayfield & Levine 2010). For many years, the question of how species coexist had been answered with incomplete (in hindsight) theories and empirical observations that focused only on niche differentiation. Today, Chesson’s theory of coexistence has spawned the generation of operational measures of the mechanisms of coexistence, including both niche and relative fitness differences among species, that can completely explain the outcome of competition (e.g. Fig. 2). This maturation is key for ecologists to be able to address many ecological dilemmas presently facing humanity, including the causes and consequences of biodiversity loss, and the impacts of species invasions, range shifts resulting from climate change, and land-use changes and homogenisation. All of these questions are fundamentally tied to the question of how species coexist and how adaptable their mechanisms of coexistence are. The further investigation of the influence of evolution on both niche and neutral mechanisms of coexistence will help us to make more effective management and conservation decisions aimed at protecting biodiversity into the future.
Darwin's argument, in a nutshell, was that more offspring than can survive are produced and then nature winnows those that are less well equipped to produce the next generation. In order to avoid semantic BS I have avoided using the word "compete." Elucidating mechanisms of coexistence, even of cooperation does no violence to basic Darwinian perspectives, it just advances knowledge concerning what it means to be "fit" in a world where "survival of the fittest" is of paramount importance.
All evidence supports the idea that all life came about through descent with modification from a single common ancestor. That is correct. This hypothesis has not been falsified, that is correct. There is no difference between micro and macro evolution, just that micro is easier to demonstrate and see because of the similar time frame for each. I would point out to you that lots of long time frame things require inference.
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
Guy Threepwood
Mighty Pirate
I think we agree on something here, Darwin wasn't wrong, he prophetically, correctly identified many potential flaws in the theory, long before they were borne out scientifically. As a good scientist does.
Rather the Darwinists were wrong, they were the ones who in contrast, dogmatically insisted the flaws didn't exist
james bond
Well-Known Member
No, science examines and rejects what is clearly wrong, thus gets it closer to right and then continuously corrects, the bible gets wrong in the first place, swallows it whole, and never fixes it's mistake.
Really? That will come as news to all of science. Please enlighten us.
Wrong and wrong-headed. Darwin could have easily demonstrated precedence, that is why today we refer to is as Darwinism and not Wallaceism. However, but Darwin humbly offered co-authorship which Wallace gladly accepted.
That's right. There was a copy of Mendel's paper in Darwin's study, but unfortunately Darwin did not speak German. But not knowing "how" it worked did not prevent his clearly elucidated "what" it was.
No, Origin of Species stands on its own and was amazingly correct in almost all aspects. Ten years later Darwin was working in the "how" and started off where knowledge was at the time, Conway Zirkle wrote: "The hypothesis of pangenesis is as old as the belief in the inheritance of acquired characters. It was endorsed by Hippocrates, Democritus, Galen (?), Clement of Alexandria, Lactantius, St. Isidore of Seville, Bartholomeus Anglicus, St. Albert the Great, St. Thomas of Aquinas, Peter of Crescentius (?), Paracelsus, Jerome Cardan, Levinus Lemnius, Venette, John Ray, Buffon, Bonnet, Maupertius, von Haller and Herbert Spencer."
So it was not something Darwin invented to "plug a hole." It was a logical progression of knowledge give where knowledge stood at the time. Too bad he didn't learn German instead. In any case, it was not until about 1900, when new researchers worked with Mendel’s discoveries, that natural selection and heredity were synthesized into the dominant paradigm of modern biology. There are those who would give Darwin credit that I do not feel he deserves, as in (wiki): "... by some accounts in modern interpretation, gemmules may be considered a prescient mix of DNA, RNA, proteins, prions, and other mobile elements that are heritable in a non-Mendelian manner at the molecular level."
Your attempt at falsifying Darwinism and at vilifying Darwin founders on the rocks of reality and instead provides an excellent example of science succeeds.
Trace your citation back ... you find a the root a piece in the Guardian and then New Scientist, which was roundly and justly criticized for sensationalism in pursuit of profit. Here's an example., Larry Moran, Professor of Biochemistry at the University of Toronto:
The cover is this week's issue of New Scientist is sure to get your attention.
I happen to believe that the science of evolutionary biology has moved on since 1859, and I happen to be a proponent of evolutionary processes that Darwin new nothing about. Nevertheless, proclaiming that "Darwin was wrong" is a different story. That's an egregious example of journalistic hype and it's unacceptable in a magazine like New Scientist.
The main article is Why Darwin was wrong about the tree of life. The author is science journalist Graham Lawton.
The Bible is right in the first place because it had to. Why would Christians and other believers follow it if it was not true? Basically, the differences in pov is based on worldview, and only one side can be right. I like science, but science in regards to the Theory of Evolution is wrong.
As for the New Scientist cover, my link describes it as,
"Modern scientists and geneticists are now saying that representing evolutionary history as a tree is misleading. A more realistic way to represent the origins and inter-relatedness of species would be an “impenetrable thicket.”
Darwin himself also wrote about evolution and ecosystems as a “tangled bank.”
"We have no evidence at all that the tree of life is a reality," Eric Bapteste, an evolutionary biologist at the Pierre and Marie Curie University in Paris, told New Scientist magazine.
Genetic tests on bacteria, plants and animals increasingly reveal that different species crossbreed and form hybrids more than originally thought, meaning that instead of genes simply being passed down individual branches of the tree of life, they are also transferred between species on different evolutionary paths. The result is a messier and more tangled “web of life.”
The findings mean that to link species by Darwin's evolutionary branches is an oversimplification.
"The tree of life is being politely buried," said Michael Rose, an evolutionary biologist at the University of California, Irvine. "What's less accepted is that our whole fundamental view of biology needs to change."
It is interesting to note, too, that Darwin, evolution’s best-known advocate, when advancing his theory of evolution, had his own doubts about mankind’s origin and indicated an awareness of his theory’s limitations.
In his conclusion to The Origin of Species, he wrote of the grandeur of the “view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one,” thus making it evident that the subject of origins was open to further examination.
And Darwin conceded in Chapter 9 of his book that “the distinctness of specific [living] forms and their not being blended together by innumerable transitional links, is a very obvious difficulty.”
The author Graham Lawton is not even mentioned. I'll try to reply to your previous post next.
james bond
Well-Known Member
The essence of the story is that the early history of evolution is probably characterized by a net of life and not a traditional tree. The "net" metaphor is due to many examples of lateral gene transfer.
Ever since Darwin the tree has been the unifying principle for understanding the history of life on Earth. At its base is LUCA, the Last Universal Common Ancestor of all living things, and out of LUCA grows a trunk, which splits again and again to create a vast, bifurcating tree. Each branch represents a single species; branching points are where one species becomes two. Most branches eventually come to a dead end as species go extinct, but some reach right to the top - these are living species. The tree is thus a record of how every species that ever lived is related to all others right back to the origin of life.As it happens, I was at a function last night with Jan Sapp of York University (Toronto, Canada). Loyal Sandwalk readers might recall a series of articles on theThree Domain Hypothesis. The articles were based on a book edited by Jan Sapp. Sapp is a supporter, as am I, of the scheme advocated by Ford Doolittle (see below).
For much of the past 150 years, biology has largely concerned itself with filling in the details of the tree. "For a long time the holy grail was to build a tree of life," says Eric Bapteste, an evolutionary biologist at the Pierre and Marie Curie University in Paris, France. A few years ago it looked as though the grail was within reach. But today the project lies in tatters, torn to pieces by an onslaught of negative evidence. Many biologists now argue that the tree concept is obsolete and needs to be discarded. "We have no evidence at all that the tree of life is a reality," says Bapteste. That bombshell has even persuaded some that our fundamental view of biology needs to change.
This net, or web, of life is characteristic of the earliest stages of evolution when all organisms were single cells and the distinction between eukaryotes and prokaryotes was barely discernible. Once the main groups rose out of the web, they evolved pretty much as you light expect by binary speciation events. This gives rise to a traditional tree-like pattern.
As Jan and I discussed, for the last three billion years of evolution the tree of life is a very good metaphor for evolution. Darwin was mostly right about that. On the other hand, the New Scientist article discusses some problems with the tree of life that extend beyond the early history. It makes several valid points that should make everyone skeptical of claims about evolution that are too simple. The tree isn't perfect.
The bottom line is that it's unfair to say that Darwin was wrong. It's as unfair as saying the Newton was wrong because of Einstein. We need to recognize that modern evolutionary biology is an improvement over the view of the Victorian founder of the field, but a cover saying that Darwin was wrong conveys the wrong message. It suggests that up until recently scientists believed that Darwin was right about everything.
A better headline might be: "More evidence that Charles Darwin didn't know everything there is to be known about evolution when he published his book in 1859."
UPDATE: In a surprising development, the IDiots at Uncommon Descent have picked up on these recent (sic) developments in evolutionary theory. Paul Nelson, a Young Earth Creationist philosopher, writes: “The tree of life is being politely buried”.
You'd best be careful with your "according to Darwins" 'cause you've got it wrong from the get go, niche similarity is not the issue, niche overlap and competitive exclusion is. I guess that's what comes from getting your information from a website put up by ID advocates rather than from original sources.
Here's the summary from the paper:
In summary, we have shown that coexistence among pairs of freshwater green algae is more strongly influenced by species’ niche differences than by their relative fitness differences. Our data do not support Darwin’s competition-relatedness hypothesis, as phylogeneticdistance had no impact on species coexistence or the mechanisms of coexistence. These findings reflect the maturation of a very old question in ecology (Mayfield & Levine 2010). For many years, the question of how species coexist had been answered with incomplete (in hindsight) theories and empirical observations that focused only on niche differentiation. Today, Chesson’s theory of coexistence has spawned the generation of operational measures of the mechanisms of coexistence, including both niche and relative fitness differences among species, that can completely explain the outcome of competition (e.g. Fig. 2). This maturation is key for ecologists to be able to address many ecological dilemmas presently facing humanity, including the causes and consequences of biodiversity loss, and the impacts of species invasions, range shifts resulting from climate change, and land-use changes and homogenisation. All of these questions are fundamentally tied to the question of how species coexist and how adaptable their mechanisms of coexistence are. The further investigation of the influence of evolution on both niche and neutral mechanisms of coexistence will help us to make more effective management and conservation decisions aimed at protecting biodiversity into the future.
Darwin's argument, in a nutshell, was that more offspring than can survive are produced and then nature winnows those that are less well equipped to produce the next generation. In order to avoid semantic BS I have avoided using the word "compete." Elucidating mechanisms of coexistence, even of cooperation does no violence to basic Darwinian perspectives, it just advances knowledge concerning what it means to be "fit" in a world where "survival of the fittest" is of paramount importance.
All evidence supports the idea that all life came about through descent with modification from a single common ancestor. That is correct. This hypothesis has not been falsified, that is correct. There is no difference between micro and macro evolution, just that micro is easier to demonstrate and see because of the similar time frame for each. I would point out to you that lots of long time frame things require inference.
Last point first. I can see we are not going to agree. There is a difference in micro and macroevolution. There is no macroevolution. Microevolution is simply a change in gene frequency within a population. Macroevolution is above the species level. Macroevolution is evolution on a grand scale — what we see when we look at the over-arching history of life: stability, change, lineages arising, and extinction. Creation scientists do not think it exists.
So the Tree of Life has changed now into a thicket. Thus, Darwin was wrong about ToL. That part is now pseudoscience. CS stated from the beginning it is more an orchard. When will evolutionists state that the thicket is more an orchard?
I think you are agreeing that Darwin's competition-related hypothesis is dismissed even though you do not like the link.
We can discuss descent with modification from a single common ancestor next.
Kilgore Trout
Misanthropic Humanist
I take it that, as is always the case with these threads, after 1300+ posts nobody has actually presented any verifiable evidence for creationism.
What a shock.
What a shock.
Sapiens
Polymathematician
You make no case. You say the mainstream view is wrong. You describe the mainstream view is wrong. You quote mine. You misunderstand what Darwin and all subsequent biology says. Here's is a rather simplistic overview that may help you: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evoscales_01