talk origins is bogus???

[EggplantTrent]

I was recently given this link (http://www.alternativescience.com/faq_or_fiction.htm)

I dont' have a biology degree, and the only information I know about evolution was from my AP Biology class my senior year in highschool, the guys (and girls) in this forum, and talkorigins. I just wanted to know what you guys think of this guy, and his articles, and maybe learn something along the way.

EggplantTrent

[markfiend]

I dont' have a biology degree

Nor, it would appear, does the author of the site:

from here (http://www.alternativescience.com/alternative-evolution.htm): I'm a journalist, not a scientist

IOW he's not qualified to hold an opinion.

{edit to add} Also, a few of the "usual suspects" make an appearance here (http://www.alternativescience.com/evidence-for-darwinism.htm): The number of scientists who have seriously criticised Darwinism in print is growing all the time._ Most notably in recent years molecular biologist, Michael Denton (Evolution: a theory in crisis) biologist Rupert Sheldrake (A new science of life) and molecular biologist Michael Behe (Darwin's black box)._ Harvard's Stephen Jay Gould has famously criticised the central feature of Darwinist thinking, gradualism, in many books.

[fried beef sandwich]

For a journalist, he does a pretty shitty job at rigorously documenting his sources.

And if he's trying to be an investigatory journalist, he should be trying to document and interview both sides of the story.

His writings reflect his agenda. There is no data offered, no lucid explanation or analysis for his nonexistent data. Just a bunch of conspiracy theories of evil university scientists smacking down "alternative" science because they want their grant money.

Where the hell did he get his journalism degree? Hollywood Upstairs Newspaper College?

[RufusAtticus]

Some comments about the speciation page (http://www.alternativescience.com/talk-origins-speciations.htm).

Any rational person visiting this site will naturally expect to find a list of cases where scientists, under controlled experimental conditions, have actually observed the process of speciation taking place.

Perhaps any person without a background in biological sciences my think this. False expectations don't produce valid criticisms.

Notice that the strong definition is strong because it demands laboratory experiment to determine securely whether inter-breeding is possible or not, while the weak definition merely speaks ambiguously about 'reproductive isolation', leaving it to individual experimenters to decide whether their subjects are 'isolated' or not and leaving them to choose for themselves the criteria for regarding them as 'isolated'.

Once again this journalist shows his ignorance of biology by thinking that "reproductive isolation" is an ambigious term. Reproductive isolation == lack of gene flow. He is also trying to invent a distinction between Mayr's and Dobzhansky's views of speciation that does not exist.

This only leaves one question: what exactly does Boxhorn mean by 'reproductively isolated'? A little later he tells us. 'Behavioral isolating mechanisms,' he says, 'rely on organisms making a choice of whether to mate and a choice of who to mate with.'

So there you have it. If two individuals choose not to mate then, according to Boxhorn's definition, they are 'reproductively isolated.' And if they are reproductively isolated then -- voila! They are now no longer the same species. A 'speciation event' has occurred.

Note the confusion of "behaviorial isolating mechanisms" to "isolating mechanisms" in general. His critism of BIMs is kind of silly. If two populations won't breed, then clearly they are not exchanging gene, and hence are reproductively isolated.

But if Boxhorn imagines that this makes them different species, then he is mistaken because they are merely varieties of the same species, Canis familiaris. Nor is it scientifically difficult to prove this. All that is needed is to artificially inseminate (say) a Great Dane female with sperm from the Chihuahua and nature does the rest.

This is the dumbest statement he could make and it demonstrates his lack of understanding about speciation and biology in general. Artifical insemination is just that, artificial. In nature, Chihuahua's and Great Dane even if they occur in the same habitats would have difficulty mating if at all.

But though they normally 'choose' not to mate, they are able to do so, and produce fertile young -- despite Darwinist obfuscation about 'hybridisation'. That they are physiologically able to mate shows conclusively that there are not 13 different species of finches but merely 13 varieties of the same species.

Wrong. If the journalist had paid any attention to the BSC, then he'd know that small levels of hybridization between morphologically distinct forms are not considered enough to break down species differences.

But no Darwinist would ever suggest that Polyploidy plus natural selection is the engine of evolution because such a suggestion would be seen at once to be ludicrous.

Perhaps this journalist should look at some botany literature, then perhaps he wouldn't make such obvious mistakes.

Every one of these examples is a case of polyploidy. For reasons given earlier, none of them has any relevance to the kind of adaptive genetic mutations that Darwinists claim can occur.

Except for the fact that they are clearly observed instances of speciation, which even this journalist, admits fits his "strict" defination. In fact we have many examples of polyploidy that are adaptive, such as the ones in domestic plants. Polyploidy is clearly adaptive to hybrid taxa. So in fact none of the claims made about these examples are true.

Regrettably, the next version of this document never materialised.

This slight of hand does not change the fact that observed instances of animal speciation have been observed. Even a journalist can check the references provided.

Here Boxhorn has suddenly and without warning shifted the goalposts. He is now claiming that different species may be defined simply by counting their seeds or pollen. One naturally wonders why, if it was so simple, Mayr and Dobzhansky had so much difficulty drawing up a definition.

They did. It's called hybrid inviability. This journalist has quickly forgotten the fact that these two species are morphologically different, chromosomially different, and reproductively different, despite that it is mentioned in the text he quotes.

This is merely an attempt to define species status by employing ad hoc measures to suit his example.

More ignorance. Hybrid inviability is a ubiquiteous test of reproductive isolation. It's no more "ad hoc" than allozymes.

I'm tired. Anybody want to pick up where I left off (Maize)?

[demoninho]

Originally posted by markfiend
Harvard's Stephen Jay Gould has famously criticised the central feature of Darwinist thinking, gradualism, in many books.

Eh, listing Stephen Jay Gould as an opponent of evolution? Did I miss his(SJG) point?

Maybe it's just that I am really stupid:banghead:

[markfiend]

Originally posted by demoninho
Eh, listing Stephen Jay Gould as an opponent of evolution? Did I miss his(SJG) point?

Maybe it's just that I am really stupid:banghead:

May I point out that it's the site from the OP doing this, not me!

[EggplantTrent]

Notice the words; "The characteristics themselves do not directly matter at all." This innocent phrase fatally undermines Darwin's original key conception: that each animal's special physical characteristics are what makes it fit to survive: the giraffe's long neck, the eagle's keen eye, or the cheetah's 60 mile-an-hour sprint.

This seems like a strange statement to make. Although geneticists say that fitness deals with effectiveness in breeding, and that physical characteristics do not directly matter, that doesn't necessarily mean that physical characteristics are irrelvant, right? Am I missing something here?

EggplantTrent

[Heathen Dawn]

Richard Milton. Pseudoscientist Supremo. You know it is so when he looks favorably on Rupert Sheldrake. ;)

Yeah, that's what he says. Upon being asked about a credible alternative to Darwinian evolution, he replied, "maybe morphic resonance". Morphic resonance is Sheldrake's brain-child.

[monkenstick]

what the hell is "morphic resonance"?

[demoninho]

Originally posted by markfiend
May I point out that it's the site from the OP doing this, not me!

I know you were quoting the site, I was just being ironic ;)

[Oolon Colluphid]

Originally posted by monkenstick
what the hell is "morphic resonance"?
Mr Monkenstick, meet Mr Google (http://www.google.com). :p :D

Morphic resonance (http://skepdic.com/morphicres.html)

What the hell is morphic resonance? (http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Atlantis/3425/page133.htm)

Note that according to Sheldrake on the second link, "The whole idea of morphic resonance is evolutionary".

Hmmm. A crackpot, but not exactly a creationist crackpot then...

I suppose it's the old 'my enemy's enemy is my friend' principle, creationists will side with any loony as long as they're against science...

Oolon

[Happy Wonderer]

The alternative science site makes my teeth hurt. His criticism of the Galapagos finch study as an observation of a speciation event is that the different species of finches can -- in unusual circumstances -- mate with one another. Who in the blue blazes does he think that the first member of any new species (cartoon darwinism) mates with?

Bah, I had more to say but this hack job isn't worth it. It is much more fun to look at real scientific work on the finches, here is an update (http://www.carlzimmer.com/articles/2002/articles_2002_4.html). So are the Grants trying to hide the fact that the species are interfertile?


Cactus finches have evolved as well, although natural selection has acted more weakly on them. When the 1983 El Niñ o swamped the birds' favored cactuses, birds with slightly blunter beaks could eat the small seeds of other plants. But the Grants found a paradox: Cactus finch beaks have been getting significantly blunter year after year, even though selection pressures from the birds' food source have diminished.

The reason, the Grants found, is that cactus finches have been fraternizing with ground finches--and the latter's genes are shaping the former's beaks. After the 1983 floods, female cactus finches starved as the larger males drove them away from the few remaining fruits. That left as many as five male cactus finches for every female. A few desperate males mated with female ground finches, which then produced perfectly healthy and fertile hybrids. These hybrids only mate with cactus finches, because they imprinted on the songs of their cactus-finch fathers. "The sons will sing the same song as the fathers sing, and the daughters, having paid attention to the songs of their father, will pick a cactus finch male when they grow up," Peter Grant explains. As a result, ground finch genes are flowing into the cactus finch gene pool--a process called introgression--making their beaks blunter.


Is that interesting, or what?

hw

[Skydancer]

Originally posted by Oolon Colluphid
Mr Monkenstick, meet Mr Google (http://www.google.com). :p :D

Morphic resonance (http://skepdic.com/morphicres.html)

What the hell is morphic resonance? (http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Atlantis/3425/page133.htm)

Note that according to Sheldrake on the second link, "The whole idea of morphic resonance is evolutionary".

Hmmm. A crackpot, but not exactly a creationist crackpot then...

I suppose it's the old 'my enemy's enemy is my friend' principle, creationists will side with any loony as long as they're against science...

Oolon

Is he serious? 'Morphic resonance' is the buzzword that Terry Pratchett uses in the Discworld books to 'explain' why werewolves only have two basic forms...

[scombrid]

Originally posted by EggplantTrent
I was recently given this link (http://www.alternativescience.com/faq_or_fiction.htm)

I just wanted to know what you guys think of this guy, and his articles, and maybe learn something along the way.

EggplantTrent

Well, he isn't a scientist but he did sleep at a Holiday Inn Express last night.

I only read the speciation page. Rufus has already commented on that. If I get bored with my slides I'll read another section and provide a comment or two.

Meanwhile I'm going to waste some time reading about the finches.