Re: Christianity survey
For a counterexample to this tired argument for irreducible complexity, check out : Bridgham, Carroll, and Thornton. 2006. Evolution of hormone-receptor complexity by molecular exploitation. Science 312:97-101. Turns out all the parts don't have to be there simultaneously afterall. Cheers, Mike On Sunday 26 August 2007 09:08:38 pm Carissa Shipman wrote: I am a biology student at Temple University and I have conducted an NSF funded systematics project for the order Hymenoptera at the American Museum of Natural History. My question is why is the scientific community so convinced of evolution? There are very few publications concerning evolution at the molecular or biochemical level. Most scientists are baffled at how such molecular systems such as blood clotting actual evolved in a step by step manner. It looks to me like many of the molecular inter workings all needed to be there simultaneously for the end product to function properly. The biosynthesis of AMP is just as baffling. How could that have happened in a step by step fashion? You can speculate, but no evolutionist has the answer. So if you can not explain how the most nitty gritty machines of life molecules learned to function in the intricate ways that they do why are you so certain that everything evolved? Science is looking at the details. All science textbooks I have read have relayed very little evidence of evolution at the molecular level. They just say it happened. Since Darwinian evolution has published very few papers concerning molecular evolution it should perish. Systematics addresses genetic similarities between species, but it does not address exactly how those genetic differences and similarities came to be. There maybe fossils and genes, but you need more than this. I am not convinced of evolution, but still choose to educate myself in what it teaches and believes. How do scientists explain how even the slightest mutation in the human genome is highly detrimental most of the time? If even the slightest change occurs in our genome it is oftentimes fatal. Believing that this mechanism lead to all the species we see today takes a great deal of faith.For instance if even one step of the blood clotting process were disturbed the effects would be disastrous. Also, why does evolution leave out mathematical statistics of how each mutation arose. TPA a component of blood clotting has 4 domains. If we attempted to shuffle the genes for these four domains the odds of getting all four domains together is 30,000 to the fourth power, and that is just for TPA! Calculating mutation rates and the odds of getting certain genes to match up perfectly for the ultimate function shows us that it takes more faith to believe that we evolved from primordial slime. The earth has had thousands of lightning bolts hit it every year and we have not seen life spawn from molecules. If evolution happened we would see it reoccuring time and time again from the bottom. Why have we not seen it, because conditions have not been perfect? I do not deny adaptation within species, but this is far different than the assumptions of macro evolution. If an evolutionist can challenge my arguments I would gladly like to hear your rebuttal. Publications for molecular evolution use many words such as unleashed. How was it unleashed, what were the step by step mechanisms that you can say for certain occurred, leaving macro leapages out of the picture? You see fossils, but you have no detailed explanations as to how one may have turned into the other at the molecular level. If you can not explain it at the molecular level you have nothing to base your assumptions on. Also all the breeds of dogs are very different from one another and some of their skeletal structures look unrelated. The different types of dogs that you see arrived through intelligent interaction, not evolutionary processes. Change occurs in nature to a limited extent. That is all. Sincerely, Carissa Shipman -- Michael W. Sears, Ph.D. Assistant Professor Department of Zoology Center for Ecology Soutern Illinois University Carbondale, IL 62901 phone: 618-453-4137 cell: 618-528-0348 web: http://www.science.siu.edu/zoology/people/sears.html
Guide to on-line resources - learning for sustainability
Dear colleagues, The LearningForSustainability website - http://learningforsustainability.net - has been substantially revised and updated over the past few months. This site focusses on sustainability issues such as natural resource management, and provides an on-line guide for government agency staff, NGOs and other community leaders working to support multi-stakeholder learning processes. Here this support is used to refer to building the capacity of those many individuals in agencies and communities that directly or indirectly take the lead in initiating and supporting the many social process strands that support a learning society. These strands include networking, dialogue, adaptive management, knowledge management and evaluation. A short introduction to each section outlines the nature of the resource links provided, and provides pointers to other topic areas which are closely related in use. Other pages provide links to guides, manuals and checklists that address issues such as participation and engagement. Collectively these pages highlight that we can learn common human dimesnions lessons across different sectors, such as the HIV/AIDS sector, public health, and protected natural areas. A new section points to resources on underpinning social research methods including systems thinking, interdisciplinarity and action research. One page lists on-line resources for both research students and their supervisors. Topics include links to thinking about the supervisory team, as well as tips for structuring and writing a thesis or dissertation. The LearningForSustainability.net site also manages additional pages on finding volunteering and job opportunities. These are directly accessible from the main site indexing system. As with the rest of the site these sections bring links to lot of on-line resources together in one easy to access site, each link is annotated to provide a guide to its contents. Please feel free to pass this posting on to colleagues and friends who may be interested in this content. Regards Will Dr. Will Allen LearningForSustainability.net - http://learningforsustainability.net/ - Supporting dialogue, collective action and reflection for sustainable development E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: why scientists believe in evolution
Carissa: you've got quite a collection of concerns about evolution here, and you're asking a lot of readers to go thru them all and teach you a basic course in evolution. too bad you didn't have one already, then it would be possible to start this discussion at some point later than where it was in Darwin's time--we're on to more advanced issues now. that's right, almost every one of your concerns here was familiar to Darwin and he quite nicely rebutted them in his time. sure, he didn't ask about molecular evolution, but replace the molecular terms in your email with parts of the vertebrate eye and he answered it 150 years ago. ID arguments are so old hat by now that they're pretty boring. sorry if that's offensive, I don't mean to be. except maybe the origin of life question, which is quite separate from evolution--evolution being change over generations, evolution doesn't specifically address origin of life. that's a different issue that's often conflated with evolution. you asked why the scientific community is so convinced of evolution? I'd say three main reasons. 1. there is a gigantic amount of morphological, behavioral, molecular, and fossil evidence to support it. pick up any basic text book in evolution and you'll see what I mean. 2. it has another characteristic that scientists like: using the theory of evolution, we can and do generate testable hypotheses, and by testing them, we practice science. in fact, many thousands of tests of evolution have been performed, and evolution is holding up quite well. 3. it is the only game in town. no other theory of how the biological world got to be this way has evidence supporting it and generates testable hypotheses. if you or someone else comes up with an alternative, you can replace the theory of evolution with your own ideas when you produce substantial amounts of data and successfully use it to generate and test meaningful hypotheses. especially given your background and institutional placement, its surprising that you haven't made better use of the tremendous resources at your disposal to educate yourself on the evidence for evolution, and at least bring your education up to current issues. I'll bet the people in your lab would be glad to hear your thoughts, and if not, you are surrounded by resources that can answer your question: why is the scientific community so convinced of evolution? RBurke Carissa Shipman [EMAIL PROTECTED] 08/26/07 10:08 PM I am a biology student at Temple University and I have conducted an NSF funded systematics project for the order Hymenoptera at the American Museum of Natural History. My question is why is the scientific community so convinced of evolution? There are very few publications concerning evolution at the molecular or biochemical level. Most scientists are baffled at how such molecular systems such as blood clotting actual evolved in a step by step manner. It looks to me like many of the molecular inter workings all needed to be there simultaneously for the end product to function properly. The biosynthesis of AMP is just as baffling. How could that have happened in a step by step fashion? You can speculate, but no evolutionist has the answer. So if you can not explain how the most nitty gritty machines of life molecules learned to function in the intricate ways that they do why are you so certain that everything evolved? Science is looking at the details. All science textbooks I have read have relayed very little evidence of evolution at the molecular level. They just say it happened. Since Darwinian evolution has published very few papers concerning molecular evolution it should perish. Systematics addresses genetic similarities between species, but it does not address exactly how those genetic differences and similarities came to be. There maybe fossils and genes, but you need more than this. I am not convinced of evolution, but still choose to educate myself in what it teaches and believes. How do scientists explain how even the slightest mutation in the human genome is highly detrimental most of the time? If even the slightest change occurs in our genome it is oftentimes fatal. Believing that this mechanism lead to all the species we see today takes a great deal of faith.For instance if even one step of the blood clotting process were disturbed the effects would be disastrous. Also, why does evolution leave out mathematical statistics of how each mutation arose. TPA a component of blood clotting has 4 domains. If we attempted to shuffle the genes for these four domains the odds of getting all four domains together is 30,000 to the fourth power, and that is just for TPA! Calculating mutation rates and the odds of getting certain genes to match up perfectly for the ultimate function shows us that it takes more faith to believe that we evolved from primordial slime. The earth has had thousands of lightning bolts hit it every year and we have not
Job Announcement Champaign County Illinois (Forest Preserve)
Below is a job announcement at The Champaign County Forest Preserve District in east central Illinois. Please only reply back to the address given in the announcement. Not this email address. Thank you. Champaign County Forest Preserve District POSITION ANNOUNCEMENT Director of Business, Finance and Human Resources The Champaign County Forest Preserve District seeks qualified applicants for its Director of Business, Finance and Human Resources. This position reports directly to the Executive Director. Only candidates with a minimum of a Bachelors Degree from a four-year college or university plus a minimum of three years experience in a like position will be considered. Two years supervisory experience required. Minimum annual salary of $60,000. Twelve paid vacation days per year after one year of service and 12 paid holidays per year. One sick day earned per month. Benefits include health, dental, and life insurance and pension plan (Illinois Municipal Retirement Fund). All applicants must have a valid Illinois drivers license, clean driving record and be able to pass a criminal background check, drug screen and physical. For full consideration a resume, cover letter and three references must be received at the address below by September 4, 2007. Champaign County Forest Preserve District Attn: Jerry Pagac, Executive Director PO Box 1040 Mahomet, IL 61853 217-586-3360 A complete job description is available at: www.ccfpd.org EOE
Re: why scientists believe in evolution
The answer is much simpler. The Theory of Evolution explains those data. No other theory does. Someone wants to propose another theory to explain those data, I'd be all ears, but my ears are closed the theories that are nothing more than criticisms of other theories. Rob Hamilton So easy it seemed once found, which yet unfound most would have thought impossible John Milton Robert G. Hamilton Department of Biological Sciences Mississippi College P.O. Box 4045 200 South Capitol Street Clinton, MS 39058 Phone: (601) 925-3872 FAX (601) 925-3978 Russell Burke [EMAIL PROTECTED] 8/27/2007 8:09 AM Carissa: you've got quite a collection of concerns about evolution here, and you're asking a lot of readers to go thru them all and teach you a basic course in evolution. too bad you didn't have one already, then it would be possible to start this discussion at some point later than where it was in Darwin's time--we're on to more advanced issues now. that's right, almost every one of your concerns here was familiar to Darwin and he quite nicely rebutted them in his time. sure, he didn't ask about molecular evolution, but replace the molecular terms in your email with parts of the vertebrate eye and he answered it 150 years ago. ID arguments are so old hat by now that they're pretty boring. sorry if that's offensive, I don't mean to be. except maybe the origin of life question, which is quite separate from evolution--evolution being change over generations, evolution doesn't specifically address origin of life. that's a different issue that's often conflated with evolution. you asked why the scientific community is so convinced of evolution? I'd say three main reasons. 1. there is a gigantic amount of morphological, behavioral, molecular, and fossil evidence to support it. pick up any basic text book in evolution and you'll see what I mean. 2. it has another characteristic that scientists like: using the theory of evolution, we can and do generate testable hypotheses, and by testing them, we practice science. in fact, many thousands of tests of evolution have been performed, and evolution is holding up quite well. 3. it is the only game in town. no other theory of how the biological world got to be this way has evidence supporting it and generates testable hypotheses. if you or someone else comes up with an alternative, you can replace the theory of evolution with your own ideas when you produce substantial amounts of data and successfully use it to generate and test meaningful hypotheses. especially given your background and institutional placement, its surprising that you haven't made better use of the tremendous resources at your disposal to educate yourself on the evidence for evolution, and at least bring your education up to current issues. I'll bet the people in your lab would be glad to hear your thoughts, and if not, you are surrounded by resources that can answer your question: why is the scientific community so convinced of evolution? RBurke Carissa Shipman [EMAIL PROTECTED] 08/26/07 10:08 PM I am a biology student at Temple University and I have conducted an NSF funded systematics project for the order Hymenoptera at the American Museum of Natural History. My question is why is the scientific community so convinced of evolution? There are very few publications concerning evolution at the molecular or biochemical level. Most scientists are baffled at how such molecular systems such as blood clotting actual evolved in a step by step manner. It looks to me like many of the molecular inter workings all needed to be there simultaneously for the end product to function properly. The biosynthesis of AMP is just as baffling. How could that have happened in a step by step fashion? You can speculate, but no evolutionist has the answer. So if you can not explain how the most nitty gritty machines of life molecules learned to function in the intricate ways that they do why are you so certain that everything evolved? Science is looking at the details. All science textbooks I have read have relayed very little evidence of evolution at the molecular level. They just say it happened. Since Darwinian evolution has published very few papers concerning molecular evolution it should perish. Systematics addresses genetic similarities between species, but it does not address exactly how those genetic differences and similarities came to be. There maybe fossils and genes, but you need more than this. I am not convinced of evolution, but still choose to educate myself in what it teaches and believes. How do scientists explain how even the slightest mutation in the human genome is highly detrimental most of the time? If even the slightest change occurs in our genome it is oftentimes fatal. Believing that this mechanism lead to all the species we see today takes a great deal of faith.For instance if even one step of the blood clotting
Fwd: [ECOLOG-L] DDT question
Dear Kelly: Don´t know about the revutal to R. Carson's allegations, but there are tons of info (I am in the middle of México, a bit far from a library, and so I am at a disadvantage to give you relevant references ) on estrogen-like compounds that result from the breakdown of DDT, and that`s the concern with aquatic organisms, fish, amphibians and reptilians. I do remember a good paper in American Scientiest a while back if you want a more precise answer. Kelly Stettner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2007 06:06:18 -0700 From: Kelly Stettner [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [ECOLOG-L] DDT question To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU While I whole-heartedly agree that the larger and long-term picture must be considered with regards to ecology, I also think that emotional, knee-jerk reactions need to be tempered with real scientific investigation. Before our imaginations get too fired up over sensationalism, we need to be responsible and look at ALL the evidence, not just that which supports our hypothesis. For some reason, I thought that Rachel Carson's allegation about sea bird eggshells had been disproven? Can someone point to some of the research on both sides of the issue? Also, have there been studies on DDT's effects on animals, through groundwater or as an airborne spray or some other vector? What are these 'adverse impacts to polar bears and penguins' that you mention? How does it get there, does it last that long in the upper atmosphere to be carried to the poles on the wind? Sex reversal in fish ~ I'd also like to know about studies on this particular issue, since I've never heard of it, either. Are the fish affected when DDT moves through groundwater? What happens to DDT when it hits soil or water? Does it break down into component molecules? Thank you for considering my questions. Kelly Stettner Springfield, Vermont Black River Action Team (BRAT) 45 Coolidge Road Springfield, VT 05156 [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.blackriveractionteam.org ~Making ripples on the Black River since 2000! ~ - Need a vacation? Get great deals to amazing places on Yahoo! Travel. Abraham de Alba Avila Terrestrial Plant Ecology INIFAP-Ags Ap. postal 20, Pabellón Arteaga, 20660 Aguascalientes, MEXICO Tel: (465) 95-801-67, 801-86 ext. 118, FAX ext 102 alternate: [EMAIL PROTECTED] cel: 449-157-7070 - Pinpoint customers who are looking for what you sell.
Post-doctoral Position: Ant Nutritional Ecology and Foraging Behavior
A 2-year postdoctoral research associate position is available starting this fall/winter to study the nutritional ecology and foraging behavior of red imported fire ants. We are specifically interested in exploring macronutrient selection at the colony level and the extent to which macronutrient selection changes seasonally. This is a collaborative project involving Spence Behmer, Micky Eubanks and Roger Gold (all at Texas AM University). The postdoctoral research associate will be based in the Behmer Lab (http://behmerlab.tamu.edu/index.html) and will be responsible for leading laboratory studies using an experimental framework that quantifies nutrient intake. These experiments will also explore how changes in the nutritional environment impact collective behavior. Information gained in the laboratory will then be used to design a series of related field experiments. A Ph.D. in Entomology, Ecology, or a related field is required as well as a strong background in physiology and behavior. Research experience with ants is strongly preferred, but not required. Please send a C.V., a brief statement of research interests, and contact information for three references to Spence Behmer ([EMAIL PROTECTED]). Review of applications will begin September 3 and continue until the post is filled. We would like the postdoctoral research associate to begin the position in October 2007.
Re: why scientists believe in evolution
I do not think evolution is supremely important because it is my specialty. On the contrary, it is my specialty because I think it is supremely important. - /George Gaylord Simpson/ JJ Le Roux ~~~ Department for Tropical Plant and Soil Sciences University of Hawai'i at Manoa Hawai'i tel (808) 956 0781 fax (808) 956 3894 http://www.ctahr.hawaii.edu/rubinoffd/jaco.htm - Original Message - From: Robert Hamilton [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Monday, August 27, 2007 5:06 am Subject: Re: why scientists believe in evolution To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU The answer is much simpler. The Theory of Evolution explains those data.No other theory does. Someone wants to propose another theory to explain those data, I'd be all ears, but my ears are closed the theories thatare nothing more than criticisms of other theories. Rob Hamilton So easy it seemed once found, which yet unfound most would have thought impossible John Milton Robert G. Hamilton Department of Biological Sciences Mississippi College P.O. Box 4045 200 South Capitol Street Clinton, MS 39058 Phone: (601) 925-3872 FAX (601) 925-3978 Russell Burke [EMAIL PROTECTED] 8/27/2007 8:09 AM Carissa: you've got quite a collection of concerns about evolution here, and you're asking a lot of readers to go thru them all and teach you a basic course in evolution. too bad you didn't have one already, then it would be possible to start this discussion at some point later than where it was in Darwin's time--we're on to more advanced issues now. that's right, almost every one of your concerns here was familiar to Darwin and he quite nicely rebutted them in his time. sure, he didn't ask about molecular evolution, but replace the molecular terms in your email with parts of the vertebrate eye and he answered it 150 years ago. ID arguments are so old hat by now that they're pretty boring. sorry if that's offensive, I don't mean to be. except maybe the origin of life question, which is quite separate from evolution--evolution being change over generations, evolution doesn't specifically address origin of life. that's a different issue that's often conflated with evolution. you asked why the scientific community is so convinced of evolution? I'd say three main reasons. 1. there is a gigantic amount of morphological, behavioral, molecular, and fossil evidence to support it. pick up any basic text book in evolution and you'll see what I mean. 2. it has another characteristic that scientists like: using the theory of evolution, we can and do generate testable hypotheses, and by testing them, we practice science. in fact, many thousands of tests of evolution have been performed, and evolution is holding up quite well. 3. it is the only game in town. no other theory of how the biological world got to be this way has evidence supporting it and generates testable hypotheses. if you or someone else comes up with an alternative, you can replace the theory of evolution with your own ideas when you produce substantial amounts of data and successfully use it to generate and test meaningful hypotheses. especially given your background and institutional placement, its surprising that you haven't made better use of the tremendous resources at your disposal to educate yourself on the evidence for evolution, and at least bring your education up to current issues. I'll bet the people in your lab would be glad to hear your thoughts, and if not, you are surrounded by resources that can answer your question: why is the scientific community so convinced of evolution? RBurke Carissa Shipman [EMAIL PROTECTED] 08/26/07 10:08 PM I am a biology student at Temple University and I have conducted an NSF funded systematics project for the order Hymenoptera at the American Museum of Natural History. My question is why is the scientific community so convinced of evolution? There are very few publications concerning evolution at the molecular or biochemical level. Most scientists are baffled at how such molecular systems such as blood clotting actual evolved in a step by step manner. It looks to me like many of the molecular inter workings all needed to be there simultaneously for the end product to function properly. The biosynthesis of AMP is just as baffling. How could that have happened in a step by step fashion? You can speculate, but no evolutionist has the answer. So if you can not explain how the most nitty gritty machines of life molecules learned to function in the intricate ways that they do why are you so certain that everything evolved? Science is looking at the details. All science textbooks I have read have relayed very little evidence of evolution at the molecular level. They just say it happened. Since Darwinian evolution has published very few
Re: Evolution (Was: Christianity survey)
Two further problems with this thread. First -- and this may be my weakest argument -- I think Shipman overestimates the chances for the four domains of TPA to come together. Without being sure of the formula she used to get to 30,000^4, but I suspect there is a fatal flaw in the assumptions. Namely, I'll bet there is an assumption of starting from scratch for each of the four domains. Evolution never starts from scratch. It always works on material already available -- proteins, etc., that have already been filtered through the process of selection. The range of modifications that can be performed on an existing work are far more limited than the range of possibilities that can be produced from a blank slate, so to speak. Second -- the lightning argument offered has no merit whatsoever. One cannot compare what happens at the surface of the Earth today with what happened more than 4 billion years ago, if for no other reason that the chemical and physcial characteristics of the surface of the Earth -- especially that of the atmosphere -- are so dissimilar. The early Earth had a reducing atmosphere with very little of the oxygen that makes most life possible today. But as early life evolved, it produced oxygen, driving the evolution of the atmosphere into the oxygen-rich environment we depend on today. Later, Dave -- David M. Lawrence| Home: (804) 559-9786 7471 Brook Way Court | Fax: (804) 559-9787 Mechanicsville, VA 23111 | Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] USA | http: http://fuzzo.com -- We have met the enemy and he is us. -- Pogo No trespassing 4/17 of a haiku -- Richard Brautigan -Original Message- From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Carissa Shipman Sent: Sunday, August 26, 2007 10:09 PM To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: Re: Christianity survey I am a biology student at Temple University and I have conducted an NSF funded systematics project for the order Hymenoptera at the American Museum of Natural History. My question is why is the scientific community so convinced of evolution? There are very few publications concerning evolution at the molecular or biochemical level. Most scientists are baffled at how such molecular systems such as blood clotting actual evolved in a step by step manner. It looks to me like many of the molecular inter workings all needed to be there simultaneously for the end product to function properly. The biosynthesis of AMP is just as baffling. How could that have happened in a step by step fashion? You can speculate, but no evolutionist has the answer. So if you can not explain how the most nitty gritty machines of life molecules learned to function in the intricate ways that they do why are you so certain that everything evolved? Science is looking at the details. All science textbooks I have read have relayed very little evidence of evolution at the molecular level. They just say it happened. Since Darwinian evolution has published very few papers concerning molecular evolution it should perish. Systematics addresses genetic similarities between species, but it does not address exactly how those genetic differences and similarities came to be. There maybe fossils and genes, but you need more than this. I am not convinced of evolution, but still choose to educate myself in what it teaches and believes. How do scientists explain how even the slightest mutation in the human genome is highly detrimental most of the time? If even the slightest change occurs in our genome it is oftentimes fatal. Believing that this mechanism lead to all the species we see today takes a great deal of faith.For instance if even one step of the blood clotting process were disturbed the effects would be disastrous. Also, why does evolution leave out mathematical statistics of how each mutation arose. TPA a component of blood clotting has 4 domains. If we attempted to shuffle the genes for these four domains the odds of getting all four domains together is 30,000 to the fourth power, and that is just for TPA! Calculating mutation rates and the odds of getting certain genes to match up perfectly for the ultimate function shows us that it takes more faith to believe that we evolved from primordial slime. The earth has had thousands of lightning bolts hit it every year and we have not seen life spawn from molecules. If evolution happened we would see it reoccuring time and time again from the bottom. Why have we not seen it, because conditions have not been perfect? I do not deny adaptation within species, but this is far different than the assumptions of macro evolution. If an evolutionist can challenge my arguments I would gladly like to hear your rebuttal. Publications for molecular evolution use many words such as unleashed. How
Re: why scientists believe in evolution
Evolutionary Analysis by Freeman and Herron is a good introductory textbook that will explain many of your questions about the validity of the theory of evolution. It is easy to read and interesting and should provide a basis for further exploring any other questions you have. Christie Forest Resources and Conservation University of Florida --- Johannes J L Roux [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I do not think evolution is supremely important because it is my specialty. On the contrary, it is my specialty because I think it is supremely important. - /George Gaylord Simpson/ JJ Le Roux ~~~ Department for Tropical Plant and Soil Sciences University of Hawai'i at Manoa Hawai'i tel (808) 956 0781 fax (808) 956 3894 http://www.ctahr.hawaii.edu/rubinoffd/jaco.htm - Original Message - From: Robert Hamilton [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Monday, August 27, 2007 5:06 am Subject: Re: why scientists believe in evolution To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU The answer is much simpler. The Theory of Evolution explains those data.No other theory does. Someone wants to propose another theory to explain those data, I'd be all ears, but my ears are closed the theories thatare nothing more than criticisms of other theories. Rob Hamilton So easy it seemed once found, which yet unfound most would have thought impossible John Milton Robert G. Hamilton Department of Biological Sciences Mississippi College P.O. Box 4045 200 South Capitol Street Clinton, MS 39058 Phone: (601) 925-3872 FAX (601) 925-3978 Russell Burke [EMAIL PROTECTED] 8/27/2007 8:09 AM Carissa: you've got quite a collection of concerns about evolution here, and you're asking a lot of readers to go thru them all and teach you a basic course in evolution. too bad you didn't have one already, then it would be possible to start this discussion at some point later than where it was in Darwin's time--we're on to more advanced issues now. that's right, almost every one of your concerns here was familiar to Darwin and he quite nicely rebutted them in his time. sure, he didn't ask about molecular evolution, but replace the molecular terms in your email with parts of the vertebrate eye and he answered it 150 years ago. ID arguments are so old hat by now that they're pretty boring. sorry if that's offensive, I don't mean to be. except maybe the origin of life question, which is quite separate from evolution--evolution being change over generations, evolution doesn't specifically address origin of life. that's a different issue that's often conflated with evolution. you asked why the scientific community is so convinced of evolution? I'd say three main reasons. 1. there is a gigantic amount of morphological, behavioral, molecular, and fossil evidence to support it. pick up any basic text book in evolution and you'll see what I mean. 2. it has another characteristic that scientists like: using the theory of evolution, we can and do generate testable hypotheses, and by testing them, we practice science. in fact, many thousands of tests of evolution have been performed, and evolution is holding up quite well. 3. it is the only game in town. no other theory of how the biological world got to be this way has evidence supporting it and generates testable hypotheses. if you or someone else comes up with an alternative, you can replace the theory of evolution with your own ideas when you produce substantial amounts of data and successfully use it to generate and test meaningful hypotheses. especially given your background and institutional placement, its surprising that you haven't made better use of the tremendous resources at your disposal to educate yourself on the evidence for evolution, and at least bring your education up to current issues. I'll bet the people in your lab would be glad to hear your thoughts, and if not, you are surrounded by resources that can answer your question: why is the scientific community so convinced of evolution? RBurke Carissa Shipman [EMAIL PROTECTED] 08/26/07 10:08 PM I am a biology student at Temple University and I have conducted an NSF funded systematics project for the order Hymenoptera at the American Museum of Natural History. My question is why is the scientific community so convinced of evolution? There are very few publications concerning evolution at the molecular or biochemical level. Most scientists are baffled at how such molecular systems such as blood clotting actual evolved in a step by step manner. It looks to me like many of the molecular inter workings all needed to be there simultaneously for the end product to function properly. The biosynthesis
Molecular evolution is not neglected
Carissa, There are journals and books specifically on molecular evolution including molecular phylogenetics. You might want to examine the works of Kimura, Nei, Gillespie, Ohta, Felsenstein, Li, and many others. They might even help you in your systematics project. Molecular evidence is finally helping to sort out the phylogeny of bees, for example, and a recent DNA-based phylogeny of bumblebees is available. The millennial breakthrough in mammal phylogeny at the order level depended critically on DNA evidence. When you examine the actual research being conducted on evolution, you will find that _most_ of it involves examination of molecular evolution. Although I am mainly a population/community ecologist/evolutionist, my PhD work was on molecular clock rates and genetic variability under nearly neutral selection. Presently I am helping work out the timing of evolution of a tick borne bacterial clade using DNA substitution rates, and I am modeling the evolution of recombination in the same bacteria under the natural selection imposed by ticks. Real DNA sequences are involved. Real DNA is being cycled through real bacteria through real ticks to find out what changes occur. The mechanisms of molecular evolution are modeled until they fit the data. Nobody is hiding molecular evolution from you. Instead there appears to be a conspiracy in this country to raise our kids ignorant about the facts of life. You might ask yourself who benefits from this deception. If you have no clue, pick up a few CD's by the punk group Bad Religion. Patrick Foley [EMAIL PROTECTED] Carissa Shipman wrote: I am a biology student at Temple University and I have conducted an NSF funded systematics project for the order Hymenoptera at the American Museum of Natural History. My question is why is the scientific community so convinced of evolution? There are very few publications concerning evolution at the molecular or biochemical level. Most scientists are baffled at how such molecular systems such as blood clotting actual evolved in a step by step manner. It looks to me like many of the molecular inter workings all needed to be there simultaneously for the end product to function properly. The biosynthesis of AMP is just as baffling. How could that have happened in a step by step fashion? You can speculate, but no evolutionist has the answer. So if you can not explain how the most nitty gritty machines of life molecules learned to function in the intricate ways that they do why are you so certain that everything evolved? Science is looking at the details. All science textbooks I have read have relayed very little evidence of evolution at the molecular level. They just say it happened. Since Darwinian evolution has published very few papers concerning molecular evolution it should perish. Systematics addresses genetic similarities between species, but it does not address exactly how those genetic differences and similarities came to be. There maybe fossils and genes, but you need more than this. I am not convinced of evolution, but still choose to educate myself in what it teaches and believes. How do scientists explain how even the slightest mutation in the human genome is highly detrimental most of the time? If even the slightest change occurs in our genome it is oftentimes fatal. Believing that this mechanism lead to all the species we see today takes a great deal of faith.For instance if even one step of the blood clotting process were disturbed the effects would be disastrous. Also, why does evolution leave out mathematical statistics of how each mutation arose. TPA a component of blood clotting has 4 domains. If we attempted to shuffle the genes for these four domains the odds of getting all four domains together is 30,000 to the fourth power, and that is just for TPA! Calculating mutation rates and the odds of getting certain genes to match up perfectly for the ultimate function shows us that it takes more faith to believe that we evolved from primordial slime. The earth has had thousands of lightning bolts hit it every year and we have not seen life spawn from molecules. If evolution happened we would see it reoccuring time and time again from the bottom. Why have we not seen it, because conditions have not been perfect? I do not deny adaptation within species, but this is far different than the assumptions of macro evolution. If an evolutionist can challenge my arguments I would gladly like to hear your rebuttal. Publications for molecular evolution use many words such as unleashed. How was it unleashed, what were the step by step mechanisms that you can say for certain occurred, leaving macro leapages out of the picture? You see fossils, but you have no detailed explanations as to how one may have turned into the other at the molecular level. If you can not explain it at the molecular
Re: why scientists AGREE WITH evolution
On a very fundamental level, we agree with evolution because the theory was borne out of the scientific process, a process that has made possible all of the scientific knowledge we have today. Humans have constructed and embraced the scientific process as a rigorous, critical, objective manner in which to gain all scientific knowledge. To deny evolutionary theory, you must also deny medicine, electricity, thermodynamics, and all other products of the scientific process. We have no choice but to accept evolutionary theory until an alternate hypothesis with equal support, explanatory power, and predictive capability comes along. -- Damon Ely Ph.D. Candidate Department of Biology 2119 Derring Hall Virginia Tech Blacksburg, VA 24061 540-231-6679 Office: 1027 Derring Hall http://filebox.vt.edu/users/elyda1/streamteam/homepage.html Making the simple complicated is commonplace; making the complicated simple, awesomely simple, thats creativity. Charles Mingus
Re: Christianity survey
Hello Carissa, Interesting post. I'm curious - why are creationists so convinced of intelligent design? There are very few publications concerning intelligent design at the molecular or biochemical level. Most ID folks (if not all) seem baffled at how such incredibly complex mechanisms and structures arose in a step-by-step creation process by God. Those that adhere strictly to Genesis claim that God created life in 6 days (boy did he need that 7th day to rest if that was the case!) - but HOW did God do this? If belief in God is based on faith, Creation Science (and Intelligent Design) must be based on the 'nitty gritty' details of creation as science is in the details right? Unfortunately, there aren't fossils and genes that support ID or any evidence at all for that matter. So I remain unconvinced of Intelligent Design for the origins of life. Fortunately for me, this does not affect my academic pursuits. Evolution does not try to explain the origin of life - just how said life changes through time. You included a great example of dog species. Dogs are a nifty model system for demonstrating the effects of selection on organismal diversity. Select two very different phenotypes for breeding and presto chango - we have a new dog breed! Selection is a pretty powerful mechanism. There is some great literature on Drosophila demonstrating rapid changes in phenotype if you're curious about scientific studies 'documenting evolution'. We can all continue to ponder how life began, grasping at different hypotheses that attempt to explain this phenomena, but in the meantime, we have a good functioning model (evolution) to help us explain the extraordinary diversity in organisms and help us predict what changes may lie ahead. Best of luck in your quest to learn more about evolution. Cheers, Christine Quoting Carissa Shipman [EMAIL PROTECTED]: I am a biology student at Temple University and I have conducted an NSF funded systematics project for the order Hymenoptera at the American Museum of Natural History. My question is why is the scientific community so convinced of evolution? There are very few publications concerning evolution at the molecular or biochemical level. Most scientists are baffled at how such molecular systems such as blood clotting actual evolved in a step by step manner. It looks to me like many of the molecular inter workings all needed to be there simultaneously for the end product to function properly. The biosynthesis of AMP is just as baffling. How could that have happened in a step by step fashion? You can speculate, but no evolutionist has the answer. So if you can not explain how the most nitty gritty machines of life molecules learned to function in the intricate ways that they do why are you so certain that everything evolved? Science is looking at the details. All science textbooks I have read have relayed very little evidence of evolution at the molecular level. They just say it happened. Since Darwinian evolution has published very few papers concerning molecular evolution it should perish. Systematics addresses genetic similarities between species, but it does not address exactly how those genetic differences and similarities came to be. There maybe fossils and genes, but you need more than this. I am not convinced of evolution, but still choose to educate myself in what it teaches and believes. How do scientists explain how even the slightest mutation in the human genome is highly detrimental most of the time? If even the slightest change occurs in our genome it is oftentimes fatal. Believing that this mechanism lead to all the species we see today takes a great deal of faith.For instance if even one step of the blood clotting process were disturbed the effects would be disastrous. Also, why does evolution leave out mathematical statistics of how each mutation arose. TPA a component of blood clotting has 4 domains. If we attempted to shuffle the genes for these four domains the odds of getting all four domains together is 30,000 to the fourth power, and that is just for TPA! Calculating mutation rates and the odds of getting certain genes to match up perfectly for the ultimate function shows us that it takes more faith to believe that we evolved from primordial slime. The earth has had thousands of lightning bolts hit it every year and we have not seen life spawn from molecules. If evolution happened we would see it reoccuring time and time again from the bottom. Why have we not seen it, because conditions have not been perfect? I do not deny adaptation within species, but this is far different than the assumptions of macro evolution. If an evolutionist can challenge my arguments I would gladly like to hear your rebuttal. Publications for molecular evolution use many words such as unleashed. How was it unleashed, what were the step by step mechanisms that you can say for
Re: Evolution (Was: Christianity survey)
I'm curious -- are there any lines of Christian philosophical thought which address the (in my eyes) issue that those Christians who argue evolution using (pseudo)scientific approaches are basically stating to the world I have no real faith in my God, and I need proof that He exists? If one truly has faith in their god(s), then why be threatened by what is essentially a different philosophical model (i.e. Empirical thought)? My two cents... Kaching, kaching... --j On 8/27/07 9:26 AM, David M. Lawrence [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Two further problems with this thread. First -- and this may be my weakest argument -- I think Shipman overestimates the chances for the four domains of TPA to come together. Without being sure of the formula she used to get to 30,000^4, but I suspect there is a fatal flaw in the assumptions. Namely, I'll bet there is an assumption of starting from scratch for each of the four domains. Evolution never starts from scratch. It always works on material already available -- proteins, etc., that have already been filtered through the process of selection. The range of modifications that can be performed on an existing work are far more limited than the range of possibilities that can be produced from a blank slate, so to speak. Second -- the lightning argument offered has no merit whatsoever. One cannot compare what happens at the surface of the Earth today with what happened more than 4 billion years ago, if for no other reason that the chemical and physcial characteristics of the surface of the Earth -- especially that of the atmosphere -- are so dissimilar. The early Earth had a reducing atmosphere with very little of the oxygen that makes most life possible today. But as early life evolved, it produced oxygen, driving the evolution of the atmosphere into the oxygen-rich environment we depend on today. Later, Dave -- David M. Lawrence| Home: (804) 559-9786 7471 Brook Way Court | Fax: (804) 559-9787 Mechanicsville, VA 23111 | Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] USA | http: http://fuzzo.com -- We have met the enemy and he is us. -- Pogo No trespassing 4/17 of a haiku -- Richard Brautigan -Original Message- From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Carissa Shipman Sent: Sunday, August 26, 2007 10:09 PM To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: Re: Christianity survey I am a biology student at Temple University and I have conducted an NSF funded systematics project for the order Hymenoptera at the American Museum of Natural History. My question is why is the scientific community so convinced of evolution? There are very few publications concerning evolution at the molecular or biochemical level. Most scientists are baffled at how such molecular systems such as blood clotting actual evolved in a step by step manner. It looks to me like many of the molecular inter workings all needed to be there simultaneously for the end product to function properly. The biosynthesis of AMP is just as baffling. How could that have happened in a step by step fashion? You can speculate, but no evolutionist has the answer. So if you can not explain how the most nitty gritty machines of life molecules learned to function in the intricate ways that they do why are you so certain that everything evolved? Science is looking at the details. All science textbooks I have read have relayed very little evidence of evolution at the molecular level. They just say it happened. Since Darwinian evolution has published very few papers concerning molecular evolution it should perish. Systematics addresses genetic similarities between species, but it does not address exactly how those genetic differences and similarities came to be. There maybe fossils and genes, but you need more than this. I am not convinced of evolution, but still choose to educate myself in what it teaches and believes. How do scientists explain how even the slightest mutation in the human genome is highly detrimental most of the time? If even the slightest change occurs in our genome it is oftentimes fatal. Believing that this mechanism lead to all the species we see today takes a great deal of faith.For instance if even one step of the blood clotting process were disturbed the effects would be disastrous. Also, why does evolution leave out mathematical statistics of how each mutation arose. TPA a component of blood clotting has 4 domains. If we attempted to shuffle the genes for these four domains the odds of getting all four domains together is 30,000 to the fourth power, and that is just for TPA! Calculating mutation rates and the odds of getting certain genes to match up perfectly for the ultimate function shows us that it takes more faith to believe
Re: Molecular evolution is not neglected
Carissa, Very interesting statement. I suggest that you write your own NSF grant and use the money to study the apparent discrepancies in our understanding of blood clotting, molecular evolution, and design. If your hypotheses hold true, you will overturn centuries of misunderstanding and you will find the entire world shifting towards your point of view. You will be famous. In fact, I'm sure if your hypotheses hold true, you would become one of the most famous scientists who ever lived, respected and revered by evolutionists and creationists alike. Isn't that exciting! You might ask yourself, if this is so obvious to someone like me who has very little background in evolutionary thought, why hasn't someone else done such at thing?, Well, maybe all of us scientist types are just too trusting of what we read in books or are told to believe by our parents, community, or authority figures at our various institutions. Could be. It happens all the time. tongue firmly in cheek, AJ Carissa Shipman wrote: I am a biology student at Temple University and I have conducted an NSF funded systematics project for the order Hymenoptera at the American Museum of Natural History. My question is why is the scientific community so convinced of evolution? There are very few publications concerning evolution at the molecular or biochemical level. Most scientists are baffled at how such molecular systems such as blood clotting actual evolved in a step by step manner. It looks to me like many of the molecular inter workings all needed to be there simultaneously for the end product to function properly. The biosynthesis of AMP is just as baffling. How could that have happened in a step by step fashion? You can speculate, but no evolutionist has the answer. So if you can not explain how the most nitty gritty machines of life molecules learned to function in the intricate ways that they do why are you so certain that everything evolved? Science is looking at the details. All science textbooks I have read have relayed very little evidence of evolution at the molecular level. They just say it happened. Since Darwinian evolution has published very few papers concerning molecular evolution it should perish. Systematics addresses genetic similarities between species, but it does not address exactly how those genetic differences and similarities came to be. There maybe fossils and genes, but you need more than this. I am not convinced of evolution, but still choose to educate myself in what it teaches and believes. How do scientists explain how even the slightest mutation in the human genome is highly detrimental most of the time? If even the slightest change occurs in our genome it is oftentimes fatal. Believing that this mechanism lead to all the species we see today takes a great deal of faith.For instance if even one step of the blood clotting process were disturbed the effects would be disastrous. Also, why does evolution leave out mathematical statistics of how each mutation arose. TPA a component of blood clotting has 4 domains. If we attempted to shuffle the genes for these four domains the odds of getting all four domains together is 30,000 to the fourth power, and that is just for TPA! Calculating mutation rates and the odds of getting certain genes to match up perfectly for the ultimate function shows us that it takes more faith to believe that we evolved from primordial slime. The earth has had thousands of lightning bolts hit it every year and we have not seen life spawn from molecules. If evolution happened we would see it reoccuring time and time again from the bottom. Why have we not seen it, because conditions have not been perfect? I do not deny adaptation within species, but this is far different than the assumptions of macro evolution. If an evolutionist can challenge my arguments I would gladly like to hear your rebuttal. Publications for molecular evolution use many words such as unleashed. How was it unleashed, what were the step by step mechanisms that you can say for certain occurred, leaving macro leapages out of the picture? You see fossils, but you have no detailed explanations as to how one may have turned into the other at the molecular level. If you can not explain it at the molecular level you have nothing to base your assumptions on. Also all the breeds of dogs are very different from one another and some of their skeletal structures look unrelated. The different types of dogs that you see arrived through intelligent interaction, not evolutionary processes. Change occurs in nature to a limited extent. That is all. Sincerely, Carissa Shipman
Re: why scientists believe in evolution
A comment on this question. I would draw to our attention that the question Why do scientists believe...? is phrased in the same context as Why do people believe...in = a god. However, this wording falsely put those two questions into the same apparent conceptual framework. However, I would say that scientists do not believe but rather they accept that the evidence for all the testable hypotheses of origins, adaptations and so on are supported by evolution by natural selection (with minor quibbles here and there on details). On the other hand, and contrastingly, religious people really do just believe without testing alternative and testable hypotheses. So, with religion comes a belief system, with science comes accepting the evidence. Those ar= e both not the same conceptual thing. Jim On 8/27/07, Christie Klimas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Evolutionary Analysis by Freeman and Herron is a good introductory textbook that will explain many of your questions about the validity of the theory of evolution. It is easy to read and interesting and should provide a basis for further exploring any other questions you have. Christie Forest Resources and Conservation University of Florida --- Johannes J L Roux [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I do not think evolution is supremely important because it is my specialty. On the contrary, it is my specialty because I think it is supremely important. - /George Gaylord Simpson/ JJ Le Roux ~~~ Department for Tropical Plant and Soil Sciences University of Hawai'i at Manoa Hawai'i tel (808) 956 0781 fax (808) 956 3894 http://www.ctahr.hawaii.edu/rubinoffd/jaco.htm - Original Message - From: Robert Hamilton [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Monday, August 27, 2007 5:06 am Subject: Re: why scientists believe in evolution To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU The answer is much simpler. The Theory of Evolution explains those data.No other theory does. Someone wants to propose another theory to explain those data, I'd be all ears, but my ears are closed the theories thatare nothing more than criticisms of other theories. Rob Hamilton So easy it seemed once found, which yet unfound most would have thought impossible John Milton Robert G. Hamilton Department of Biological Sciences Mississippi College P.O. Box 4045 200 South Capitol Street Clinton, MS 39058 Phone: (601) 925-3872 FAX (601) 925-3978 Russell Burke [EMAIL PROTECTED] 8/27/2007 8:09 AM Carissa: you've got quite a collection of concerns about evolution here, and you're asking a lot of readers to go thru them all and teach you a basic course in evolution. too bad you didn't have one already, then it would be possible to start this discussion at some point later than where it was in Darwin's time--we're on to more advanced issues now. that's right, almost every one of your concerns here was familiar to Darwin and he quite nicely rebutted them in his time. sure, he didn't ask about molecular evolution, but replace the molecular terms in your email with parts of the vertebrate eye and he answered it 150 years ago. ID arguments are so old hat by now that they're pretty boring. sorry if that's offensive, I don't mean to be. except maybe the origin of life question, which is quite separate from evolution--evolution being change over generations, evolution doesn't specifically address origin of life. that's a different issue that's often conflated with evolution. you asked why the scientific community is so convinced of evolution? I'd say three main reasons. 1. there is a gigantic amount of morphological, behavioral, molecular, and fossil evidence to support it. pick up any basic text book in evolution and you'll see what I mean. 2. it has another characteristic that scientists like: using the theory of evolution, we can and do generate testable hypotheses, and by testing them, we practice science. in fact, many thousands of tests of evolution have been performed, and evolution is holding up quite well. 3. it is the only game in town. no other theory of how the biological world got to be this way has evidence supporting it and generates testable hypotheses. if you or someone else comes up with an alternative, you can replace the theory of evolution with your own ideas when you produce substantial amounts of data and successfully use it to generate and test meaningful hypotheses. especially given your background and institutional placement, its surprising that you haven't made better use of the tremendous resources at your disposal to educate yourself on the evidence for evolution, and at least
Assistant/Associate Faculty Postion - Quantitative Population Ecologist - Colorado State Univ.
Colorado State University -- Fort Collins, Colorado POSITION ANNOUNCEMENT - QUANTITATIVE POPULATION ECOLOGIST POSITION #010626.0002 FWCB [8 Oct. 2007]: Assistant/Associate Professor in Quantitative Population Ecology LOCATION: Department of Fish, Wildlife, and Conservation Biology, Warner College of Natural Resources, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado, USA APPOINTMENT: Nine-month tenure track QUALIFICATIONS: Required: 1) Ph.D. in wildlife biology, ecology, biometrics, statistics, applied mathematics, or closely related field; 2) research experience in quantitative population ecology emphasizing conservation and management of animals. Highly Desirable: 1) Post-doctoral research experience; 2) strong record of publications in refereed, high quality scientific periodicals; 3) teaching experience; 4) skilled in using modern methods, technologies, and media in teaching, research, and outreach; 5) experience working with natural resource agencies. DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES: 1) Teach an undergraduate course in wildlife data collection and analysis; 2) teach a second undergraduate course to be determined or developed 3) teach, in alternate years, a graduate-level course such as population estimation and modeling; 4) advise undergraduates; 5) establish a nationally recognized program of externally funded research and scholarly activity, including support for graduate students; 6) Participate in professional and university service and outreach activities. SALARY AND FRINGE BENEFITS: Commensurate with qualifications and experience. Sick leave per University policy, group health, life, dental, disability, and retirement benefits. ACADEMIC AND LOCAL COMMUNITIES: The Department of Fish, Wildlife, and Conservation Biology is one of the largest programs in the country with approximately 350 undergraduates, 50 graduate students, and 12 academic faculty. In addition to the Colorado Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit which is housed in our department, faculty have established strong connections with a diverse group of local research partners, including The Colorado Division of Wildlife, The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, The U.S. Department of Agriculture's National Wildlife Research Center (located on our foothills campus), The Forest Service's Rocky Mountain Experiment Station (located on our main campus), USGS Fort Collins Science Center, and the Colorado Natural Heritage Program (CNHP) (housed with our program). Recently ranked by Money Magazine as the best small city in the U.S. and by as Outside Magazine one of ten New American Dream Towns, Fort Collins is a midsize community (approximately 134,000 residents) located in northern Colorado at the base of the Rocky Mountains. APPLICATION PROCEDURE: You can also find this job posting by visiting our college website at http://www.warnercnr.colostate.edu/ with links to apply on-line at https://welcome.warnercnr.colostate.edu/jobs/. Please include your curriculum vita, official transcripts from all universities attended, representative publications, a list of four references, and a cover letter with a statement of interest that includes your outlook for combining your philosophy of teaching with your research and scholarly work in this field. DEADLINE: Applications will be accepted until the position is filled. However, to guarantee full consideration by the search committee, all materials must be received by the application review deadline of 8 October 2007. Preferred start date is August 2008. http://www.cnr.colostate.edu/FWB/ E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Colorado State University is an equal opportunity/affirmative action employer and complies with all Federal and Colorado State laws, regulations, and executive orders regarding affirmative action equirements in all programs. The Office of Equal Opportunity and Diversity is located in 101 Student Services Building. In order to assist Colorado State University in meeting its affirmative action responsibilities, ethnic minorities, women and other protected class members are encouraged to apply and so identify themselves. The Colorado Open Records Act may permit the University to treat application as confidential to a limited extent. If you wish to have your application treated as confidential, to the extent permitted by law, it must be accompanied by a written request that all materials submitted be held in confidence to the extent permitted under the Colorado Open Records Act at the time it is submitted to the Search Committee. Under the Act, applications of finalists become public. Finalists are those applicants selected by the Search Committee or applicants still being considered 21 days before the position is to be filled. If there are six or fewer applicants for the position, however, they are all considered finalists and their applications are open to public inspection immediately after the closing date.
Re: why scientists believe in evolution
A student once asked a science teacher, What is most important, knowledge or belief? The professor answered, Knowledge, of course. The student then asked a church pastor the same question, and the pastor replied, Belief, of course. The student then went to a wise philosopher with this question. The wise philosopher said, Both knowledge and belief are important, but they are matters of the head. Faith is really what is most important, because faith is a matter of the heart. Warren W. Aney Senior Wildlife Ecologist Tigard, Oregon -Original Message- From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of James J. Roper Sent: Monday, August 27, 2007 5:28 PM To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: Re: why scientists believe in evolution A comment on this question. I would draw to our attention that the question Why do scientists believe...? is phrased in the same context as Why do people believe...in = a god. However, this wording falsely put those two questions into the same apparent conceptual framework. However, I would say that scientists do not believe but rather they accept that the evidence for all the testable hypotheses of origins, adaptations and so on are supported by evolution by natural selection (with minor quibbles here and there on details). On the other hand, and contrastingly, religious people really do just believe without testing alternative and testable hypotheses. So, with religion comes a belief system, with science comes accepting the evidence. Those ar= e both not the same conceptual thing. Jim On 8/27/07, Christie Klimas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Evolutionary Analysis by Freeman and Herron is a good introductory textbook that will explain many of your questions about the validity of the theory of evolution. It is easy to read and interesting and should provide a basis for further exploring any other questions you have. Christie Forest Resources and Conservation University of Florida --- Johannes J L Roux [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I do not think evolution is supremely important because it is my specialty. On the contrary, it is my specialty because I think it is supremely important. - /George Gaylord Simpson/ JJ Le Roux ~~~ Department for Tropical Plant and Soil Sciences University of Hawai'i at Manoa Hawai'i tel (808) 956 0781 fax (808) 956 3894 http://www.ctahr.hawaii.edu/rubinoffd/jaco.htm - Original Message - From: Robert Hamilton [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Monday, August 27, 2007 5:06 am Subject: Re: why scientists believe in evolution To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU The answer is much simpler. The Theory of Evolution explains those data.No other theory does. Someone wants to propose another theory to explain those data, I'd be all ears, but my ears are closed the theories thatare nothing more than criticisms of other theories. Rob Hamilton So easy it seemed once found, which yet unfound most would have thought impossible John Milton Robert G. Hamilton Department of Biological Sciences Mississippi College P.O. Box 4045 200 South Capitol Street Clinton, MS 39058 Phone: (601) 925-3872 FAX (601) 925-3978 Russell Burke [EMAIL PROTECTED] 8/27/2007 8:09 AM Carissa: you've got quite a collection of concerns about evolution here, and you're asking a lot of readers to go thru them all and teach you a basic course in evolution. too bad you didn't have one already, then it would be possible to start this discussion at some point later than where it was in Darwin's time--we're on to more advanced issues now. that's right, almost every one of your concerns here was familiar to Darwin and he quite nicely rebutted them in his time. sure, he didn't ask about molecular evolution, but replace the molecular terms in your email with parts of the vertebrate eye and he answered it 150 years ago. ID arguments are so old hat by now that they're pretty boring. sorry if that's offensive, I don't mean to be. except maybe the origin of life question, which is quite separate from evolution--evolution being change over generations, evolution doesn't specifically address origin of life. that's a different issue that's often conflated with evolution. you asked why the scientific community is so convinced of evolution? I'd say three main reasons. 1. there is a gigantic amount of morphological, behavioral, molecular, and fossil evidence to support it. pick up any basic text book in evolution and you'll see what I mean. 2. it has another characteristic that scientists like: using the theory of evolution, we can and do generate testable hypotheses, and by testing them, we
