nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW
13,254
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 79:
Line 79: + + + + + + + + + + +
Talk:Patterns of biological evolution (view source)
Revision as of 15:39, May 26, 2007
, 15:39, May 26, 2007→Additional New Genetic Information: genome/population/homology/etc.
::::A rationalization with many supportive observations. Humans have been recording birth and deaths for centuries, to look at this data and deny that the human race has not experienced a change in its birth rate is to deny the evidence that shows it. Whereas linking the data with technological development timelines maybe a rationalization attempt, the overall study of population growth and birth rates is observation and shows a change in said rate.
::::A rationalization with many supportive observations. Humans have been recording birth and deaths for centuries, to look at this data and deny that the human race has not experienced a change in its birth rate is to deny the evidence that shows it. Whereas linking the data with technological development timelines maybe a rationalization attempt, the overall study of population growth and birth rates is observation and shows a change in said rate.
::::I have seen the claims before, I agree many can be deceptive, however it is once again up to the reader to verify the source of the claim. A masters student knows more than an undergrad but a PhD knows more than a masters. This is why I often point out that a physicist should stick to explaining physics and not try to explain biology and why a biologist should stick with biology and not explain physics. Many of the posts on the AIG site are by people who are outside their area of expertise, not to mention very few with degrees higher that a masters. This holds true for some pro-evolution sites as well. I have a friend who believes in aliens landing on the planet. I tell him the same I tell everyone, check the sources and see if they really are qualified to report on what they are claiming and check to see what motivation they have for doing so.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 12:06, 25 May 2007 (EDT)
::::I have seen the claims before, I agree many can be deceptive, however it is once again up to the reader to verify the source of the claim. A masters student knows more than an undergrad but a PhD knows more than a masters. This is why I often point out that a physicist should stick to explaining physics and not try to explain biology and why a biologist should stick with biology and not explain physics. Many of the posts on the AIG site are by people who are outside their area of expertise, not to mention very few with degrees higher that a masters. This holds true for some pro-evolution sites as well. I have a friend who believes in aliens landing on the planet. I tell him the same I tell everyone, check the sources and see if they really are qualified to report on what they are claiming and check to see what motivation they have for doing so.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 12:06, 25 May 2007 (EDT)
:::::"''...most of the sites that are sourced for argument against evolution talk about the need for an increase of genetic material.''". I would think that most such sites, and certainly including CMI and AiG, talk about the need for an increase in genetic ''information'', not ''material''.
:::::"''The genome is only half of what is needed to produce the results for the organisms we have today...''". I don't think we know enough about the genome yet to make that sort of claim.
:::::"''The micro and macro stances, I see it used all of the time on uncommondesent. Behe and Demski use it ...''. I said creationary scientists, not Intelligent Designers.
:::::"''It has been used by many of the creationist organizations in the US still.''". I linked to CMI's caution against using it, and AiG have the same page. I don't know about the various smaller groups in America. Perhaps they haven't got the message yet.
:::::Sickle-cell anemia is a ''defect'' that is harmful to the carrier, except in the specific case of being exposed to malaria. It is a ''loss'' of some of the information required for a person to be healthy.
:::::"''...how can you not state that macroevolution is not an extrapolation of microevolution... ''". Did you intend that double negative? If you were asking how I can claim that macro- is not an extrapolation of micro-, I did no such thing. I avoided talking about them at all, except to disown them.
:::::Homology arguments ignore that one would expect similar creatures to have similar DNA, being designed by the same God.
:::::I wasn't suggesting that there's been no change in the birth rate. I was saying that nobody has observed as big a long-term change as what would be required by the evolutionary timescale, i.e. essentially static for hundreds of thousands of years.
:::::"''A masters student knows more than an undergrad but a PhD knows more than a masters.''". Yet the definitions weren't from students.
:::::"''Many of the posts on the AIG site are by people who are outside their area of expertise, not to mention very few with degrees higher that a masters''". On the contrary, many of the articles on the AiG site (at least ones predating the end of 2005) are by PhD scientists, and in any case, all those articles are reviewed by people in their fields before being posted.
:::::