Two Plus Two Older Archives  

Go Back   Two Plus Two Older Archives > General Gambling > Psychology
FAQ Community Calendar Today's Posts Search

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old 10-12-2004, 04:40 PM
felson felson is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: San Diego, California
Posts: 182
Default Re: More fuel to the Psychoreligionology fire

[ QUOTE ]
evolution (a proven process observed many times over

[/ QUOTE ]

?
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 10-12-2004, 04:44 PM
toots toots is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Bedford, NH
Posts: 193
Default Re: More fuel to the Psychoreligionology fire

I've long thought that willful ignorance was a hallmark of American politics.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 10-12-2004, 07:05 PM
uw_madtown uw_madtown is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Slaying Party Fish
Posts: 654
Default Re: More fuel to the Psychoreligionology fire

[ QUOTE ]
Evolution is, as far as modern science can tell, a fact. It's been proven in laboratory studies, it's been documented in the field.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you had only started this sentence with the prefix "Micro", you would be correct.

Macro evolution, at least according to what admittedly mediocre, casual research I've done, is unproven and likely to remain so. Micro evolution is an undeniable process.

Note that I'm not saying I don't believe that macro evolution is the most acceptable theory for explaining the development of species, simply that it's not exactly hard fact either.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 10-12-2004, 07:56 PM
maurile maurile is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 95
Default Re: More fuel to the Psychoreligionology fire

[ QUOTE ]
Note that I'm not saying I don't believe that macro evolution is the most acceptable theory for explaining the development of species, simply that it's not exactly hard fact either.

[/ QUOTE ]
It's not your fault, but you've been misled by creationist hucksters.

Speciation (what creationists call "macroevolution") has been directly observed many times. It is a hard fact.

See, for example:

Ahearn, J. N. 1980. Evolution of behavioral reproductive isolation in a laboratory stock of Drosophila silvestris. Experientia. 36:63-64.

Barton, N. H., J. S. Jones and J. Mallet. 1988. No barriers to speciation. Nature. 336:13-14.

Baum, D. 1992. Phylogenetic species concepts. Trends in Ecology and Evolution. 7:1-3.

Boraas, M. E. 1983. Predator induced evolution in chemostat culture. EOS. Transactions of the American Geophysical Union. 64:1102.

Breeuwer, J. A. J. and J. H. Werren. 1990. Microorganisms associated with chromosome destruction and reproductive isolation between two insect species. Nature. 346:558-560.

Budd, A. F. and B. D. Mishler. 1990. Species and evolution in clonal organisms -- a summary and discussion. Systematic Botany 15:166-171.

Bullini, L. and G. Nascetti. 1990. Speciation by hybridization in phasmids and other insects. Canadian Journal of Zoology. 68:1747-1760.

Butters, F. K. 1941. Hybrid Woodsias in Minnesota. Amer. Fern. J. 31:15-21.

Butters, F. K. and R. M. Tryon, jr. 1948. A fertile mutant of a Woodsia hybrid. American Journal of Botany. 35:138.

Brock, T. D. and M. T. Madigan. 1988. Biology of Microorganisms (5th edition). Prentice Hall, Englewood, NJ.

Callaghan, C. A. 1987. Instances of observed speciation. The American Biology Teacher. 49:3436.

Castenholz, R. W. 1992. Species usage, concept, and evolution in the cyanobacteria (blue-green algae). Journal of Phycology 28:737-745.

Clausen, J., D. D. Keck and W. M. Hiesey. 1945. Experimental studies on the nature of species. II. Plant evolution through amphiploidy and autoploidy, with examples from the Madiinae. Carnegie Institute Washington Publication, 564:1-174.

Cracraft, J. 1989. Speciation and its ontology: the empirical consequences of alternative species concepts for understanding patterns and processes of differentiation. In Otte, E. and J. A. Endler [eds.] Speciation and its consequences. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, MA. pp. 28-59.

Craig, T. P., J. K. Itami, W. G. Abrahamson and J. D. Horner. 1993. Behavioral evidence for host-race fromation in Eurosta solidaginis. Evolution. 47:1696-1710.

Cronquist, A. 1978. Once again, what is a species? Biosystematics in agriculture. Beltsville Symposia in Agricultural Research 2:3-20.

Cronquist, A. 1988. The evolution and classification of flowering plants (2nd edition). The New York Botanical Garden, Bronx, NY.

Crossley, S. A. 1974. Changes in mating behavior produced by selection for ethological isolation between ebony and vestigial mutants of Drosophilia melanogaster. Evolution. 28:631-647.

de Oliveira, A. K. and A. R. Cordeiro. 1980. Adaptation of Drosophila willistoni experimental populations to extreme pH medium. II. Development of incipient reproductive isolation. Heredity. 44:123-130.

de Queiroz, K. and M. Donoghue. 1988. Phylogenetic systematics and the species problem. Cladistics. 4:317-338.

de Queiroz, K. and M. Donoghue. 1990. Phylogenetic systematics and species revisited. Cladistics. 6:83-90.

de Vries, H. 1905. Species and varieties, their origin by mutation.

de Wet, J. M. J. 1971. Polyploidy and evolution in plants. Taxon. 20:29-35.

del Solar, E. 1966. Sexual isolation caused by selection for positive and negative phototaxis and geotaxis in Drosophila pseudoobscura. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (US). 56:484-487.

Digby, L. 1912. The cytology of Primula kewensis and of other related Primula hybrids. Ann. Bot. 26:357-388.

Dobzhansky, T. 1937. Genetics and the origin of species. Columbia University Press, New York.

Dobzhansky, T. 1951. Genetics and the origin of species (3rd edition). Columbia University Press, New York.

Dobzhansky, T. and O. Pavlovsky. 1971. Experimentally created incipient species of Drosophila. Nature. 230:289-292.

Dobzhansky, T. 1972. Species of Drosophila: new excitement in an old field. Science. 177:664-669.

Dodd, D. M. B. 1989. Reproductive isolation as a consequence of adaptive divergence in Drosophila melanogaster. Evolution 43:1308-1311.

Dodd, D. M. B. and J. R. Powell. 1985. Founder-flush speciation: an update of experimental results with Drosophila. Evolution 39:1388-1392.

Donoghue, M. J. 1985. A critique of the biological species concept and recommendations for a phylogenetic alternative. Bryologist 88:172-181.

Du Rietz, G. E. 1930. The fundamental units of biological taxonomy. Svensk. Bot. Tidskr. 24:333-428.

Ehrman, E. 1971. Natural selection for the origin of reproductive isolation. The American Naturalist. 105:479-483.

Ehrman, E. 1973. More on natural selection for the origin of reproductive isolation. The American Naturalist. 107:318-319.

Feder, J. L., C. A. Chilcote and G. L. Bush. 1988. Genetic differentiation between sympatric host races of the apple maggot fly, Rhagoletis pomonella. Nature. 336:61-64.

Feder, J. L. and G. L. Bush. 1989. A field test of differential host-plant usage between two sibling species of Rhagoletis pomonella fruit flies (Diptera:Tephritidae) and its consequences for sympatric models of speciation. Evolution 43:1813-1819.

Frandsen, K. J. 1943. The experimental formation of Brassica juncea Czern. et Coss. Dansk. Bot. Arkiv., No. 4, 11:1-17.

Frandsen, K. J. 1947. The experimental formation of Brassica napus L. var. oleifera DC and Brassica carinata Braun. Dansk. Bot. Arkiv., No. 7, 12:1-16.

Galiana, A., A. Moya and F. J. Alaya. 1993. Founder-flush speciation in Drosophila pseudoobscura: a large scale experiment. Evolution. 47432-444.

Gottleib, L. D. 1973. Genetic differentiation, sympatric speciation, and the origin of a diploid species of Stephanomeira. American Journal of Botany. 60: 545-553.

Halliburton, R. and G. A. E. Gall. 1981. Disruptive selection and assortative mating in Tribolium castaneum. Evolution. 35:829-843.

Hurd, L. E., and R. M. Eisenberg. 1975. Divergent selection for geotactic response and evolution of reproductive isolation in sympatric and allopatric populations of houseflies. The American Naturalist. 109:353-358.

Karpchenko, G. D. 1927. Polyploid hybrids of Raphanus sativus L. X Brassica oleraceae L. Bull. Appl. Botany. 17:305-408.

Karpchenko, G. D. 1928. Polyploid hybrids of Raphanus sativus L. X Brassica oleraceae L. Z. Indukt. Abstami-a Verenbungsi. 48:1-85.

Kilias, G., S. N. Alahiotis and M. Delecanos. 1980. A multifactorial investigation of speciation theory using Drosophila melanogaster. Evolution. 34:730-737.

Knight, G. R., A. Robertson and C. H. Waddington. 1956. Selection for sexual isolation within a species. Evolution. 10:14-22.

Koopman, K. F. 1950. Natural selection for reproductive isolation between Drosophila pseudoobscura and Drosophila persimilis. Evolution. 4:135-148.

Lee, R. E. 1989. Phycology (2nd edition) Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK

Levin, D. A. 1979. The nature of plant species. Science 204:381-384.

Lokki, J. and A. Saura. 1980. Polyploidy in insect evolution. In: W. H. Lewis (ed.) Polyploidy: Biological Relevance. Plenum Press, New York.

Macnair, M. R. 1981. Tolerance of higher plants to toxic materials. In: J. A. Bishop and L. M. Cook (eds.). Genetic consequences of man made change. Pp.177-297. Academic Press, New York.

Macnair, M. R. and P. Christie. 1983. Reproductive isolation as a pleiotropic effect of copper tolerance in Mimulus guttatus. Heredity. 50:295-302.

Manhart, J. R. and R. M. McCourt. 1992. Molecular data and species concepts in the algae. Journal of Phycology. 28:730-737.

Mayr, E. 1942. Systematics and the origin of species from the viewpoint of a zoologist. Columbia University Press, New York.

Mayr, E. 1982. The growth of biological thought: diversity, evolution and inheritance. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA. McCourt, R. M. and R. W. Hoshaw. 1990. Noncorrespondence of breeding groups, morphology and monophyletic groups in Spirogyra (Zygnemataceae; Chlorophyta) and the application of species concepts. Systematic Botany. 15:69-78.

McPheron, B. A., D. C. Smith and S. H. Berlocher. 1988. Genetic differentiation between host races of Rhagoletis pomonella. Nature. 336:64-66.

Meffert, L. M. and E. H. Bryant. 1991. Mating propensity and courtship behavior in serially bottlenecked lines of the housefly. Evolution 45:293-306.

Mishler, B. D. 1985. The morphological, developmental and phylogenetic basis of species concepts in the bryophytes. Bryologist. 88:207-214.

Mishler, B. D. and M. J. Donoghue. 1982. Species concepts: a case for pluralism. Systematic Zoology. 31:491-503.

Muntzing, A. 1932. Cytogenetic investigations on the synthetic Galeopsis tetrahit. Hereditas. 16:105-154.

Nelson, G. 1989. Cladistics and evolutionary models. Cladistics. 5:275-289.

Newton, W. C. F. and C. Pellew. 1929. Primula kewensis and its derivatives. J. Genetics. 20:405-467.

Otte, E. and J. A. Endler (eds.). 1989. Speciation and its consequences. Sinauer Associates. Sunderland, MA.

Owenby, M. 1950. Natural hybridization and amphiploidy in the genus Tragopogon. Am. J. Bot. 37:487-499.

Pasterniani, E. 1969. Selection for reproductive isolation between two populations of maize, Zea mays L. Evolution. 23:534-547.

Powell, J. R. 1978. The founder-flush speciation theory: an experimental approach. Evolution. 32:465-474.

Prokopy, R. J., S. R. Diehl, and S. H. Cooley. 1988. Oecologia. 76:138.

Rabe, E. W. and C. H. Haufler. 1992. Incipient polyploid speciation in the maidenhair fern (Adiantum pedatum, adiantaceae)? American Journal of Botany. 79:701-707.

Rice, W. R. 1985. Disruptive selection on habitat preference and the evolution of reproductive isolation: an exploratory experiment. Evolution. 39:645-646.

Rice, W. R. and E. E. Hostert. 1993. Laboratory experiments on speciation: What have we learned in forty years? Evolution. 47:1637-1653.

Rice, W. R. and G. W. Salt. 1988. Speciation via disruptive selection on habitat preference: experimental evidence. The American Naturalist. 131:911-917.

Rice, W. R. and G. W. Salt. 1990. The evolution of reproductive isolation as a correlated character under sympatric conditions: experimental evidence. Evolution. 44:1140-1152.

Ringo, J., D. Wood, R. Rockwell, and H. Dowse. 1989. An experiment testing two hypotheses of speciation. The American Naturalist. 126:642-661.

Schluter, D. and L. M. Nagel. 1995. Parallel speciation by natural selection. American Naturalist. 146:292-301.

Shikano, S., L. S. Luckinbill and Y. Kurihara. 1990. Changes of traits in a bacterial population associated with protozoal predation. Microbial Ecology. 20:75-84.

Smith, D. C. 1988. Heritable divergence of Rhagoletis pomonella host races by seasonal asynchrony. Nature. 336:66-67.

Soans, A. B., D. Pimentel and J. S. Soans. 1974. Evolution of reproductive isolation in allopatric and sympatric populations. The American Naturalist. 108:117-124.

Sokal, R. R. and T. J. Crovello. 1970. The biological species concept: a critical evaluation. The American Naturalist. 104:127-153.

Soltis, D. E. and P. S. Soltis. 1989. Allopolyploid speciation in Tragopogon: Insights from chloroplast DNA. American Journal of Botany. 76:1119-1124.

Stuessy, T. F. 1990. Plant taxonomy. Columbia University Press, New York.

Thoday, J. M. and J. B. Gibson. 1962. Isolation by disruptive selection. Nature. 193:1164-1166.

Thoday, J. M. and J. B. Gibson. 1970. The probability of isolation by disruptive selection. The American Naturalist. 104:219-230.

Thompson, J. N. 1987. Symbiont-induced speciation. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society. 32:385-393.

Vrijenhoek, R. C. 1994. Unisexual fish: Model systems for studying ecology and evolution. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics. 25:71-96.

Waring, G. L., W. G. Abrahamson and D. J. Howard. 1990. Genetic differentiation in the gall former Eurosta solidaginis (Diptera:Tephritidae) along host plant lines. Evolution. 44:1648-1655.

Weinberg, J. R., V. R. Starczak and P. Jora. 1992. Evidence for rapid speciation following a founder event in the laboratory. Evolution. 46:1214-1220.

Wood, A. M. and T. Leatham. 1992. The species concept in phytoplankton ecology. Journal of Phycology. 28:723-729.

Yen, J. H. and A. R. Barr. 1971. New hypotheses of the cause of cytoplasmic incompatability in Culex pipiens L.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 10-12-2004, 08:23 PM
SnakeRat SnakeRat is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 14
Default Re: More fuel to the Psychoreligionology fire

"In biology classes, our students are not learning the largely mathematical facts of 21st-century science; they're imbibing the consolations of a faith-driven 19th-century materialist myth."

Darwinism is too old and faith driven, eh?


NOT AS OLD AND FAITH DRIVEN AS THE BLEEPIN BIBLE!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

What a joke.

Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 10-12-2004, 10:03 PM
Justin A Justin A is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: I travel the world and the seven seas
Posts: 494
Default Re: More fuel to the Psychoreligionology fire

[ QUOTE ]
there is still "debate" about whether evolution (a proven process observed many times over!!!) is a "theory"....


[/ QUOTE ]

This is interesting. How many times has evolution been observed?

Justin A
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 10-12-2004, 10:15 PM
maurile maurile is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 95
Default Re: More fuel to the Psychoreligionology fire

A zillion, give or take . . .
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 10-12-2004, 10:15 PM
CrisBrown CrisBrown is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 1,493
Default Re: More fuel to the Psychoreligionology fire

Hi Justin and felson,

Read maurile's post for citations. Folks, the debate on both micro- and macro-evolution has been quite thorougly resolved. The scientific literature is extensive. There are disputes in the scientific community as to the details of the process, how many generations are required for any given mutation to take hold, etc., etc. But as to the core issue -- that species evolve and morph into new species in response to adaptations to their environment -- sorry, but you're arguing into the wind. You may as well argue that 2+2 really equals 5....

Cris
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 10-12-2004, 10:30 PM
CrisBrown CrisBrown is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 1,493
Default Re: More fuel to the Psychoreligionology fire

Hi toots,

I'm reminded of something the former prime minister of Canada said: "If a Canadian politician said that he felt God had called him to run for office, and that the jury was still out on evolution, his candidacy would be dead before the news cycle was over."

I'm Catholic. I attend Mass every week, and every day during Lent. I believe in the transubstantiation of the Eucharist. I believe there are miracles. I believe there is a phenomenon which we describe as ESP because we don't yet have a scientific model which predicts it. I am hardly a hard-headed realist.

However, I also believe that science is an essential and necessary tool by which we come to understand our universe, and when the scientific method produces replicable results over several studies, I take the hypothesis thus validated as a fact. If that challenges some of my other beliefs -- even my religious beliefs! -- I conclude that it's time to re-examine those beliefs in light of the new evidence.

There are some fundamental premises (so-called "first questions") of religion which cannot be proved or disproved by science. Science cannot prove or disprove the existence of God, for example. That's like trying to use the infield fly rule to prove that Gary Moss' last touchdown catch was illegal.

But when it comes to observable phenomena in the physical domain, science is the best tool we have. The best tool we have says that evolution is a fact. I'll take their word for it.

Cris
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 10-12-2004, 11:20 PM
toots toots is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Bedford, NH
Posts: 193
Default Re: More fuel to the Psychoreligionology fire

[ QUOTE ]
Hi toots,

I'm reminded of something the former prime minister of Canada said: "If a Canadian politician said that he felt God had called him to run for office, and that the jury was still out on evolution, his candidacy would be dead before the news cycle was over."


[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, I heard her say that, too.

I find some irony in the fact that there's so much anti-science, anti-intellectual sentiment in US politics.

The country's affluence of the 20th century is due in very large part to our having the finest scientists and engineers. Science has been playing a greater and greater role in how we make our money, with menial grunt work taking a lesser role. Yet there's continual pressure to dumb down our next generation of high school and college graduates.

The result of this won't be very successful for the US, but I'm sure that developing countries that aren't quite so hostile toward the sciences will very much appreciate our relinquishing our former preeminence.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:10 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2026, vBulletin Solutions Inc.