from the Science Desk

[briscoetheque]

I think BGAB should post as much as possible.

[soapit]

I think BGAB should post as much as possible.

i believe that is the approach he's taking.

[Droo]

Debating is not about proving you're right or even convincing the other side that they're wrong. It's a matter of endurance and a contest of attrition. Amirite?

[Big Girls Are Best]

... Not the science articles.

Again, is the information contained in the articles I have posted incorrect (i.e., "crap")?

In some cases, yes.

Can you please provide specific examples?

[MarsGirl~Descends to Hell for a bottle of milk]

... Not the science articles.

Again, is the information contained in the articles I have posted incorrect (i.e., "crap")?

In some cases, yes.

Can you please provide specific examples?

No, teacher, I cannot. Not because I don't have an opinion... I just find engaging conversation with you boring.

[Joe90usa]

DNA and RNA disprove Darwin's tree of life theory
"'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 source is a non-peer reviewed magazine that openly admits it prints speculation. Nice.

I posted several articles and find it curious that you only elected to mention this one which is supported by various peer reviewed studies and publications…

Darwin's Tree of Life May Be More Like a Thicket (PhysOrg, January 27, 2009)
The possibility that evolution isn't as clear as the tree of life is not a brand new idea to biologists, but it has slowly risen from various studies. In the 1950s and following decades, the discovery of DNA, RNA, and protein sequences revealed that species once thought to be near each other on the tree are in fact quite different, molecularly speaking. In the early '90s, scientists had hoped that gene sequencing would help them piece together the tree of life, but instead it showed conflicting results. For instance, some species that are closely related based on their DNA are not closely related at all based on their RNA.

New Theory of Cell Evolution Rejects Single-Ancestor Doctrine (Scientific American, June 2002)
Instead of one universal evolutionary tree, picture a three-trunk stand sharing a communal root system. A new theory of cellular evolution published in the current issue of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences rejects Charles Darwin's Doctrine of Common Descent—the idea that all organisms are derived from a single primordial ancestor. Instead, Carl Woese of the University of Illinois-Champaign proposes that the three cell types that comprise life on earth arose from three forms of proto cells that swam together in a dense genetic soup, freely sharing their DNA…  The idea could overturn conventional cell evolution wisdom. Instead of the individual, "it is the community as a whole, the ecosystem which evolves," Woese remarks. "We can’t expect to explain cellular evolution if we stay locked in the classical Darwinian mode of thinking," he adds. "The time has come for biology to go beyond the Doctrine of Common Descent."

See: On the evolution of cells (PNAS June 25, 2002 vol. 99 no. 13 8742-8747)

It is also interesting to note in this reaction from Dawkins, Dennett, Coyne and Myers (February 18, 2009)  that they don't actually dispute the claims made in the New Scientist article, rather they express great displeasure with the title:   

What on earth were you thinking when you produced a garish cover proclaiming that "Darwin was wrong" (24 January)?

First, it's false, and second, it's inflammatory. And, as you surely know, many readers will interpret the cover not as being about Darwin, the historical figure, but about evolution.

Nothing in the article showed that the concept of the tree of life is unsound; only that it is more complicated than was realised before the advent of molecular genetics. It is still true that all of life arose from "a few forms or... one", as Darwin concluded in The Origin of Species. It is still true that it diversified by descent with modification via natural selection and other factors.

Of course there's a tree; it's just more of a banyan than an oak at its single-celled-organism base. The problem of horizontal gene-transfer in most non-bacterial species is not serious enough to obscure the branches we find by sequencing their DNA.

The accompanying editorial makes it clear that you knew perfectly well that your cover was handing the creationists a golden opportunity to mislead school boards, students and the general public about the status of evolutionary biology. Indeed, within hours of publication members of the Texas State Board of Education were citing the article as evidence that teachers needed to teach creationist-inspired "weaknesses of evolution", claiming: "Darwin's tree of life is wrong".

You have made a lot of extra, unpleasant work for the scientists whose work you should be explaining to the general public. We all now have to try to correct all the misapprehensions your cover has engendered.

Of course there's a tree; it's just more of a banyan than an oak = Comedy gold!!

So you didn't read the articles you presented as evidence? Both of your "supporting" articles make changes to Darwin's tree but still fully support a tree model with horizontal and vertical growth patterns. Your original article claims that there is "no evidence at all" to support Darwin...or at least the part that is not behind a subscription wall of the infotainment magazine of choice.

I know your debate tactic of choice is to overwhelm with "evidence" from any and all sources and force those on the other side to weed through the crap to determine what might be valid and what is not while acting that it is all valid. Clearly it wears on everyone here. You've also admitted that you enter into these debates disingenuously because you'll never admit when you're proven wrong - your words. It's tiresome for all involved though at this point it has become a joke for everyone. As long as you are getting the attention you crave though, I guess it will continue.

[KitCat]

If you starve a fire it will extinguish. Scientific fact.

[MarsGirl~Descends to Hell for a bottle of milk]

If you starve a fire it will extinguish. Scientific fact.

Are you sure? Maybe God put it out.

[imaginary friend]

I think BGAB should post as much as possible.

this ain't his first time at the rodeo:

[Big Girls Are Best]

You've also admitted that you enter into these debates disingenuously because you'll never admit when you're proven wrong - your words.

C’mon, Joe, you're better than that!  Unless you can provide my exact quote saying that I will never admit when I am wrong, I claim that you have fabricated this in an attempt to besmirch my character.  (However, I will give you credit for not calling me a "liar" as others on this forum often do.)

So you didn't read the articles you presented as evidence? Both of your "supporting" articles make changes to Darwin's tree but still fully support a tree model with horizontal and vertical growth patterns.

No surprises there.  All scientific articles I have ever read where the evidence clearly conflicts with conventional evolutionary wisdom the researchers always say something like this…


Mammals Beat Reptiles in Battle of Evolution (LiveScience, July 31, 2009)
"The timing of the rate increases does not correspond to the appearance of key characteristics that have been invoked to explain the evolutionary success of these groups, such as hair on mammals or mammals’ well-coordinated chewing ability or feathers on birds," Alfaro said. "Our results suggest that something more recent is the cause of the biodiversity. It may be that something more subtle explains the evolutionary success of mammals, birds and fish. We need to look for new explanations."

Wait… mammals beat reptiles?  That's not what all my science textbooks said.

Your original article claims that there is "no evidence at all" to support Darwin...or at least the part that is not behind a subscription wall of the infotainment magazine of choice.

Here is the full article: http://postbiota.org/pipermail/tt/2009-February/004416.html

More context…

Nobody is arguing - yet - that the tree concept has outlived its usefulness in animals and plants. While vertical descent is no longer the only game in town, it is still the best way of explaining how multicellular organisms are related to one another - a tree of 51 per cent, maybe. In that respect, Darwin's vision has triumphed: he knew nothing of micro-organisms and built his theory on the plants and animals he could see around him.

Even so, it is clear that the Darwinian tree is no longer an adequate description of how evolution in general works. "If you don't have a tree of life, what does it mean for evolutionary biology?" asks Bapteste. "At first it's very scary... but in the past couple of years people have begun to free their minds." Both he and Doolittle are at pains to stress that downgrading the tree of life doesn't mean that the theory of evolution is wrong - just that evolution is not as tidy as we would like to believe. Some evolutionary relationships are tree-like; many others are not. "We should relax a bit on this," says Doolittle. "We understand evolution pretty well - it's just that it is more complex than Darwin imagined. The tree isn't the only pattern."

But as is the case with historical sciences, there are always two sides to the story…

Others, however, don't think it is time to relax. Instead, they see the uprooting of the tree of life as the start of something bigger. "It's part of a revolutionary change in biology," says Dupré. "Our standard model of evolution is under enormous pressure. We're clearly going to see evolution as much more about mergers and collaboration than change within isolated lineages."

Rose goes even further. "The tree of life is being politely buried, we all know that," he says. "What's less accepted is that our whole fundamental view of biology needs to change." Biology is vastly more complex than we thought, he says, and facing up to this complexity will be as scary as the conceptual upheavals physicists had to take on board in the early 20th century. If he is right, the tree concept could become biology's equivalent of Newtonian mechanics: revolutionary and hugely successful in its time,  but ultimately too simplistic to deal with the messy real world. "The tree of life was useful," says Bapteste. "It helped us to understand that evolution was real. But now we know more about evolution, it's time to move on."

Of course I disagree with the last line from Bapteste.  See: human and chimp genomes… Not! Even! Close!



John Hawks says, "Just glancing at the ideograms, they don't even look like homologous chromosomes! Obviously they are..."  LOL!

He added in another posting (January 2010): "Two knowledgeable people independently told me we should wait for the gorilla. We'll see if it's equally weird in some third way, or if chimps are the odd ones out." 

Well, the results for the gorilla genome are in and they are equally weird!!  Now what?

[soapit]

.....Wait… mammals beat reptiles?  That's not what all my science textbooks said.

......Well, the results for the gorilla genome are in and they are equally weird!!  Now what?

its an interesting character ur playing there. some kind of annoying buffoon stumbling across scientific articles and trying to make sense of them. is that what ur going for there?

[MarsGirl~Descends to Hell for a bottle of milk]

I think BGAB should post as much as possible.

this ain't his first time at the rodeo:

I love this picture.

[Big Girls Are Best]

.....Wait… mammals beat reptiles?  That's not what all my science textbooks said.

......Well, the results for the gorilla genome are in and they are equally weird!!  Now what?

its an interesting character ur playing there. some kind of annoying buffoon stumbling across scientific articles and trying to make sense of them. is that what ur going for there?

It's rather apparent with such a comment that you (et al.) would rather tear me down personally instead of actually debating the issues.  It somewhat reminds me of Richard Dawkins talking about Ben Stein...

The whole tone of the film [Expelled] is whiny, paranoid -- pathetic really. The narrator is somebody called Ben Stein. I had not heard of him, but apparently he is well known to Americans, for it is hard to see why else he would have been chosen to front the film. He certainly can't have been chosen for his knowledge of science, nor his powers of logical reasoning, nor his box office appeal (heavens, no), and his speaking voice is an irritating, nasal drawl, innocent of charm and of consonants. I suppose that makes it a good voice for conveying the whingeing paranoia that I referred to, so maybe that was qualification enough.

[soapit]

.....Wait… mammals beat reptiles?  That's not what all my science textbooks said.

......Well, the results for the gorilla genome are in and they are equally weird!!  Now what?

its an interesting character ur playing there. some kind of annoying buffoon stumbling across scientific articles and trying to make sense of them. is that what ur going for there?

It's rather apparent with such a comment that you (et al.) would rather tear me down personally instead of actually debating the issues.  It somewhat reminds me of Richard Dawkins talking about Ben Stein...

The whole tone of the film [Expelled] is whiny, paranoid -- pathetic really. The narrator is somebody called Ben Stein. I had not heard of him, but apparently he is well known to Americans, for it is hard to see why else he would have been chosen to front the film. He certainly can't have been chosen for his knowledge of science, nor his powers of logical reasoning, nor his box office appeal (heavens, no), and his speaking voice is an irritating, nasal drawl, innocent of charm and of consonants. I suppose that makes it a good voice for conveying the whingeing paranoia that I referred to, so maybe that was qualification enough.

i was responding to what you wrote. if you dont want people to tear you down dont write such crap. if you stop doing this we all win. someone might eventually even be willing to debate you again (as opposed to the comedy value you currently represent).

and as the forum is text only i have no problem with your whiny voice. i didnt even know you had one before now so i dont know why you brought that up.

[briscoetheque]

I want to marry BGAB