Re: Commentary: Keeping science in debate over evolution

On Jun 25, 9:17 pm, Kermit <unrestrained_h...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jun 25, 8:32 am, Dr Umesh Bilagi <umeshbil...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:





On Jun 25, 3:41 pm, Jason Spaceman <notrea...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

From the article:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
By Robert M. Pringle and Paul R. Ehrlich -

Published 12:00 am PDT Sunday, June 24, 2007
Story appeared in FORUM section, Page E5

The 82nd anniversary of the Scopes "Monkey" trial occurs in July, and
still evolution simmers on the national political scene. Debates on
teaching evolution rage from California's Central Valley to the
Carolinas, with many legislators and school boards advocating
neo-creationism packaged as "intelligent design."

The subject has even made waves in the 2008 presidential race. Witness
the Republican debate on May 3, when the question "Is there anybody on
the stage that does not believe in evolution?" prompted U.S. Sen. Sam
Brownback of Kansas, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee and Colorado
Rep. Tom Tancredo to raise their hands.

These candidates have scrambled to explain their denials. In so doing,
they have highlighted a rift that not only separates scientists from
evangelicals but also divides the public: a Gallup poll of 1,007
adults June 1-3 indicated that 53 percent of Americans believe that
humans evolved over millions of years, while 66 percent believe in
divine creation in the past 10,000 years. These figures add up to 119
percent, suggesting that Americans are profoundly ambivalent.

Such confusion about evolutionary theory jeopardizes the health of our
nation, and Brownback's waffling typifies how GOP politicians
obfuscate the issue.

In an article following the debate, Brownback wrote, "If belief in
evolution means simply assenting to microevolution, small changes over
time within a species, I am happy to say, as I have in the past, that
I believe it to be true."

The obvious corollary is that he does not accept macroevolution
leading to the formation of new species.

This stance undergirds most anti-evolution arguments.

Since microevolution cannot be denied (it is observable in nature),
politicians attempt to distinguish between that process and
speciation, which produces new species over many human life spans. But
we must scrutinize this distinction. It is deceitful, it is harmful
and it only flies because Americans remain unfamiliar with
evolutionary science and its methods.

Let's be clear: The evidence for the evolutionary origin of species is
every bit as strong as that for microevolutionary processes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------­­---------

Read it athttp://www.sacbee.com/110/story/237292.html

J. Spaceman

Dear J.Spaceman
As I read your post I thought I should add few douts which I have got
against evolution. I will be happy if you can clear them
I group Darwin evlolution evidence in to three groups
1 Fossil
2 Vestgial organs
3 Microbiological evidences

1. Fossil records show reletedeness between organsiums but actual they
do not tell mechanisium of evolution. still this reletedness can
palnned.

Correct. The fossil record was enough to convince scientists that life
is descended from a common ancestor (or a very few common ancestors),
modified over time. As for the mechanism, it depends on what you mean.
Darwin deduced that natural selection acting on a pool of random
genetic variations led to the overall changes we see in the fossil
record, and so far that has held up. (There have been other, usually
lesser agents at work, such as neutral drift, and sexual selection.)
If you mean genetics, it is only by developing the work of Mendel that
we began to understand this.



2. Vestgial organs I have explanation in this connection.check this
linkhttp://umeshbilagi.blogspot.com/2007/04/intelligent-design-vestigial-...

But intelligent design does not predict this. There is no reason to
expect, a priori, that mammalian ears would be derived from reptile
jawbones, or that we wold have an appendix which often kills us, but
is a minor player in our immune system, or that we would have a
plantaris tendon, which stabilizes the foot, but is often misplaced or
even missing with little effect in humans. Other apes use it to grasp
things with their feet.



3. Microbioligical evidence :- these are simple things may occur
accidently

Primates and guinea pigs have inherited mutations which disable the
gene which produces vitamin C. Why i sour mutation very similar to a
chimpanzee's, less similar to a gorilla's, and not at all similar to a
guinea pig's? Common descent via modification explains this, but ID
does not.





apart from this I have I dout please suggest me
=======================================
Please check out thishttp://www.learner.org/channel/courses/biology/textbook/gender/gender...
I read that size of Y chromosome has reduced because it did not have
partner at all. but X chromosome has not reduced, they say that it is
because, it has partner in female sex to recombine.
If Chromosome don't get partner to recombine than there is tendency to
delete genes which may be harmful produced by mutation. which intern
will reduce the size of chromosome is the logic.
Now if X chromosome gets only 50% chances to recombine then I think
size of X chromosome should also reduce to a size in between Y and its
initial size in reptiles
If gene deletion by natural selection if it is correct why there is
preservation of X chromosome size when it has only 50% Chance to
exchange with its real partner. It should also have 50% disadvantage.
How is this?
This is my guess. Please comment.
============================================
there could be many defualt mechansiums set but by that how can we
consider that there is external control over biosphere.
If we are unble detect Intelligent designer as on date.that is our
limitaion but that does not confirm his absence.

Not does science assert an absence. Many evolutionary scientists are
Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Jewish, Buddhist, etc. Just like chemists,
or medical doctors, or carpenters.

Science *does assert that creation is not 6000 years old, or that
humans are not literally related to other life.

Please reply

Kermit- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Please comment on problem of X chromsome also
Please check out thishttp://www.learner.org/channel/courses/biology/textbook/gender/gender...
I read that size of Y chromosome has reduced because it did not have
partner at all. but X chromosome has not reduced, they say that it is
because, it has partner in female sex to recombine.
If Chromosome don't get partner to recombine than there is tendency to
delete genes which may be harmful produced by mutation. which intern
will reduce the size of chromosome is the logic.
Now if X chromosome gets only 50% chances to recombine then I think
size of X chromosome should also reduce to a size in between Y and its
initial size in reptiles
If gene deletion by natural selection if it is correct why there is
preservation of X chromosome size when it has only 50% Chance to
exchange with its real partner. It should also have 50% disadvantage.
How is this?
This is my guess. Please comment.


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: The Heresy of Scientists
    ... >>> And it's not just chromosome number. ... >> To answer Mark Isaak's assertion that there is no nested hierarchy with ... >> If you believe that evolution theory is a science in which there are ... > their reversibility or irreversibility. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Commentary: Keeping science in debate over evolution
    ... still evolution simmers on the national political scene. ... and Brownback's waffling typifies how GOP politicians ... I read that size of Y chromosome has reduced because it did not have ... it has partner in female sex to recombine. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Chex Watt nomination: (was The Heresy of Scientists)
    ... Human chromosome variation with two Robertsonian translocations. ... >>>consistent with evolution theory. ... within single species. ... Was Spetner aware of this way ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Commentary: Keeping science in debate over evolution
    ... still evolution simmers on the national political scene. ... Microbiological evidences ... I read that size of Y chromosome has reduced because it did not have ... it has partner in female sex to recombine. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: The Heresy of Scientists
    ... >>>hierarchy with respect to chromosome number, ... >>>hierarchy prediction of evolution, thereby falsifying evolutionism ... >> And it's not just chromosome number. ... > To answer Mark Isaak's assertion that there is no nested hierarchy with ...
    (talk.origins)