Re: why scientists believe in evolution

[Warren W. Aney]

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 fos

Assistant/Associate Faculty Postion - Quantitative Population Ecologist - Colorado State Univ.

[Paul Doherty]

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

[James J. Roper]

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 su

Re: Molecular evolution is not neglected

[Jones, Frank]

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
>
>
>  

Tenure-track position: ecology of climate change

[Swihart, Robert K]

Faculty Position in Ecological Impacts of Climate Change

In support of the Purdue University initiative in Climate Change
Research and the Purdue Climate Change Research Center (PCCRC), the
College of Agriculture (CoA) and the College of Science (CoS) invite
applicants for a tenure track faculty position, at the rank of Assistant
Professor, in the area of Ecological Impacts of Climate Change. We seek
candidates who are studying impacts of climate change on the ecology of
terrestrial and/or aquatic ecosystems at the population, community or
ecosystem level and at landscape, regional or global scales.  Research
could include addressing such questions as how climate change will
influence species distributions and abundances, conservation practices
and/or population viability.  Experiments and modeling that identify
thresholds of responses of communities and species to climate
variability and change also are of interest. We seek to expand the
strengths of the PCCRC and the related Purdue Interdisciplinary Center
for Ecological Sustainability, with its focus on population, community
and landscape ecology, and to complement strengths in biogeochemistry,
atmospheric science, and climate modeling.  These Centers also are
working with the Purdue Discovery Park Center for the Environment, which
brings more diverse talents to bear on environmental issues including
engineering and economics.  We anticipate a joint appointment between
the departments of Forestry and Natural Resources (FNR) and Biological
Sciences. =20

Candidates must have completed the Ph.D. and postdoctoral experience is
preferred.  The appointee is expected to develop and maintain a
vigorous, externally funded, internationally recognized research program
and to teach and mentor students at the undergraduate and graduate
levels.  Screening of applications will begin November 1, 2007 and the
search will continue until the position is filled.  Additional
information on the PCCRC can be found at: http://www.purdue.edu/climate.


APPLICATION PROCESS:  Submit (1) a cover letter, including the names of
three people who have been asked to send letters of reference by the
position closing date; (2) a curriculum vita; and (3) statements of
research and teaching experience and interests.  Application materials
can be emailed to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the subject line "Ecological
Impacts of Climate Change Position" or sent via postal mail to:

Marty Brown, Faculty Search Coordinator

Purdue University

Department of Forestry and Natural Resources

715 West State Street

West Lafayette, IN  47907-2061

=20

Specific questions regarding the position can be directed to Dr. Bryan
Pijanowski ([EMAIL PROTECTED] or 765-496-2215), Chair of the EICC
Search Committee.=20

=20

Purdue University is an equal access/equal opportunity/affirmative
action employer fully committed to achieving a diverse workforce.

Re: Evolution (Was: Christianity survey)

[Jonathan Greenberg]

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 gene

Re: Christianity survey

[Christine Creese (Czerniak)]

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 w

Call for Symposium Proposals for 93rd ESA Annual Meeting, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, August 3-8, 2008

[Aleta Wiley]

Call for Symposium Proposals:
93rd ESA Annual Meeting 
Milwaukee, Wisconsin 
August 3 - 8, 2008 
Call Open: July 2 - September 14, 2007 

We invite symposium proposals for the 93rd ESA Annual Meeting. The meeting 
will be held from August 3 – 8, 2007 in Milwaukee, Wisconsin at the 
Midwest Airline Center. 

Symposia are the scientific centerpiece of the meeting. They will be 
assigned premium meeting space at the Midwest Airline Center and serve as 
the cornerstone for assembly of the scientific program. Proposals 
addressing the meeting theme Enhancing Ecological Thought by Linking 
Research and Education are especially welcome, but any timely and coherent 
subject of broad interest will be considered. Symposia are limited to half-
day sessions (3 ½ hours); full-day symposia will not be considered. This 
meeting will include 24 symposia. Individual talks in symposia range from 
15 to 30 minutes in length at the discretion of the symposium organizer. 
Time devoted to synthesis, summary, and discussion is strongly encouraged. 

Applications must be received on or before Friday, September 14, 2007 . 
You must use the http://eco.confex.com/eco/2008/cfp.cgi that will be 
available on the ESA website (www.esa.org/milwaukee) as of July 2, 2007. 

Do not send proposals to ESA Headquarters. 

Symposium Evaluation Process and Criteria 

All proposals will be peer-reviewed and ranked by reviewers selected by 
the ESA Program Chair. The Program Chair may accept or decline your 
proposal, or offer you the opportunity to present your work in an 
alternative forum (organized oral session, workshop, or special session) 
during the annual meeting. Decisions and alternative offers will be made 
by January 11, 2008. 

Symposium proposals will be assessed using the following criteria. 
Weighting of particular criteria may vary depending on the nature of 
proposals, but proposals should explicitly address these criteria, as 
appropriate. 

I. Scientific strength : Symposia are the scientific centerpieces of the 
meeting, and should: 

· offer significant contributions to ecological understanding 

· present innovative or interdisciplinary approaches, including 
novel collaborations or syntheses across subdisciplines 

· provide examples of how   ecological research benefited from 
attention to public policy concerns, outreach or educational activities. 

· have broad enough appeal to generate large audiences (>250 
people) at the meeting 

II. Structure and organization : Symposia should be more explicitly 
integrated than other sessions, and should be structured to: 

· provide overall synthesis or overview; they should not be simply 
a set of related case studies 

· avoid taking a narrow perspective on the symposium topic; 
organizers should carefully avoid the appearance of biases toward their 
own perspectives 

· build a well-integrated whole; each talk should have clear 
relevance to the overall synthesis provided by the symposium 

III. Integration : Proposals may receive higher priority if they are 
clearly linked to the meeting's overall theme, or if they offer particular 
value or insight in the context of other sessions proposed for this 
meeting or of symposia at recent ESA meetings (see www.esa.org/meetings/ 
for lists of organized oral sessions and symposia from recent ESA 
meetings).

IV. Speakers : Invited speakers may be a mix of well-established 
scientists, – rising stars', and newcomers, but each speaker should bring 
new contributions to the session, not simply reviews of previous work.   
Inclusion of experienced or particularly engaging speakers can strengthen 
a proposal, but new voices are also important.   Proposals with a larger 
proportion of confirmed speakers will be favored. 

Endorsements 

Symposia are often endorsed by internal bodies within ESA such as sections 
and chapters, and occasionally by other groups, agencies, and 
organizations. These endorsements will be considered in the review of 
proposals, particularly if they emphasize why the group finds merit (in 
terms of the evaluation criteria above) in the proposal. Each of these 
groups is allowed to provide a primary endorsement for only one proposal. 
If more than one proposal was considered for primary endorsement by a 
group, the endorsement should describe the process and rationale used to 
select the proposal being endorsed. To enhance interdisciplinary 
connections, groups may provide a secondary endorsement for up to two 
additional proposals. Groups may provide primary endorsements for a 
symposium jointly but are still limited to only one primary endorsement 
per group. Symposium proposers, in requesting endorsements, should make 
this policy clear. There is NO guarantee that a proposal endorsed by any 
group or organization will be accepted. 

Individuals preparing letters of endorsement must submit them directly to 
the proposal submission site and mak

Re: why scientists AGREE WITH evolution

[Damon Ely]

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, that’s creativity.
—Charles Mingus

Molecular evolution is not neglected

[patfoley]

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 molecul

Re: why scientists believe in evolution

[Christie Klimas]

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 
> > scientist

Re: why scientists believe in evolution

[Johannes J L Roux]

 "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 li

Post-doctoral Position: Ant Nutritional Ecology and Foraging Behavior

[Spencer Behmer]

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 A&M 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: Evolution (Was: Christianity survey)

[David M. Lawrence]

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 "unleashe

Fwd: [ECOLOG-L] DDT question

[Abraham de Alba A.]

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. 

Re: why scientists believe in evolution

[Robert Hamilton]

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 s

Job Announcement Champaign County Illinois (Forest Preserve)

[Daniel J. Olson]

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 Bachelor’s 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 driver’s
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

[Russell Burke]

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 

DDT question

[Kelly Stettner]

  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. 

Guide to on-line resources - learning for sustainability

[Will Allen]

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: Christianity survey

[Mike Sears]

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