Article on Accelerated Evolution rates

[Canuckster1127]

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 083359.htm

Fascinating article on a possible new twist in evolutionary rates.

I can see Young Earth creationists, who ironically if they are consistent and go deep enough to examine the implications of their position jumping on this as proof or at least a strong suggestion of accelerated evolution rates which are pretty much required if you argue for a world wide flood with common descent for most species from the ark.

Would that argument be a reasonable one in view of this article?

[zoegirl]

I don't see these accelerated rates as being supportive of the YEC/flood position, simply because those rates are still bot high enough for the post-flood times. I mean, wouldn't they need a HUGE numebr of speciation events within 100 years?

[Canuckster1127]

I don't see these accelerated rates as being supportive of the YEC/flood position, simply because those rates are still bot high enough for the post-flood times. I mean, wouldn't they need a HUGE numebr of speciation events within 100 years?

That was my thought too. I'm not as smart or learned on a lot of these things though as many of you, but the article struck me and made me think there will be some YEC people who jump on the suggestion of a faster evolution rate while ignoring that the article itself is still speaking in terms of millions of years for the type of events mentioned here.

[zoegirl]

btw, if you want to look a tthe original article...

http://biology.plosjournals.org/perlser ... 60071&ct=1

(although the math went right over my head.... statistical analysis was a LONG time ago)

But the main point of the article is true to what was summarized. I was searching for hard numbers referencing what they would consider faster rates.

I find it ludicrous to hear them to support evolutionary rates with regards to post flood conditions and yet then turn around and reject them in other avenues.

[Himantolophus]

Faster evolutionary rates would hardly be "fast" enough to support a YEC view by any means but they could go a long way in supporting punctuated equilibrium and the numerous "explosive" radiations in Earth's history.

[Canuckster1127]

Faster evolutionary rates would hardly be "fast" enough to support a YEC view by any means but they could go a long way in supporting punctuated equilibrium and the numerous "explosive" radiations in Earth's history.

I understand and agree. That's not stopped some YEC people though from taking something like this as a means to suggest something more than what the evidence can support. Maybe I'm being unkind, but I'm willing to bet this will turn up on some YEC sites as a means to promote their point with the claim that science is not understanding it properly.

[Robert Byers]

The biggest point in science is always why if a new idea has come WAS the old idea wrong. Why was the science backing it up , wrong? Why did the original tests or attempts to falsify fail? Was there any science to begin with? Since it was wrong and since creationism said it was wrong then creationism should be listened too first.
All these rates of evolution are mere informed speculation. There is no science here but mere weighing of data and making conclusions.
Robert Byers
Toronto,ontario

[Canuckster1127]

The biggest point in science is always why if a new idea has come WAS the old idea wrong. Why was the science backing it up , wrong? Why did the original tests or attempts to falsify fail? Was there any science to begin with? Since it was wrong and since creationism said it was wrong then creationism should be listened too first.
All these rates of evolution are mere informed speculation. There is no science here but mere weighing of data and making conclusions.
Robert Byers
Toronto,ontario

Science, by its very nature, is continually modifying changing and adjusting as new information is discovered.

The old idea was not necessarily "wrong". It was simply the best interpretation or understanding of the evidence that existed and now either additional evidence has been found or a better or more plausible explanation advanced.

What do you mean by "creationism?" There are many forms of creationism and differing understanding within creationism itself. Does this invalidate "creationism" or are you making an appeal to something else?

If there is not science here, than what is it? Please be specific.

[Himantolophus]

The biggest point in science is always why if a new idea has come WAS the old idea wrong. Why was the science backing it up , wrong? Why did the original tests or attempts to falsify fail? Was there any science to begin with? Since it was wrong and since creationism said it was wrong then creationism should be listened too first.
All these rates of evolution are mere informed speculation. There is no science here but mere weighing of data and making conclusions.

what Canuckster said... humans are fallible and do not know everything so science is based on hypotheses, testing, and validation. Often, ideas that are established are replaced or modifed as new data becomes available. Hardly a reason to doubt science, it's more of a reason to trust it!

Compare that to literal creationism which has remained unchanged for 2000 years despite all of the new information we've found. Secular science has abandoned YE Creationism for >150 years, so by your logic it should be ignored as well.

Of course rates of evolution are up to speculation since macroevolution takes much longer than science can directly measure. The rates have obviously been variable as we have gradualism and punctuated equilibrium which are on opposite ends of the spectrum. But we are left with the fact that there has been some changes in life on Earth in the last billion years and evolution is the best explanation so far.

[Robert Byers]

For everyone. Wrong is wrong. No escape. Especially in something claiming to be science. Science is a method to sure up conclusions. it is not just about the best answer. If the answer was not done by the scientific method then its not a scientific answer. waiting for "revision".
These rates guessing are the usual stuff of evolutionary ideas. Presumption on presumption.
robert byers

[Canuckster1127]

For everyone. Wrong is wrong. No escape. Especially in something claiming to be science. Science is a method to sure up conclusions. it is not just about the best answer. If the answer was not done by the scientific method then its not a scientific answer. waiting for "revision".
These rates guessing are the usual stuff of evolutionary ideas. Presumption on presumption.
robert byers

Can you back up what you're saying here. Again, all I see you doing is repeating assertions without backing them up.

[zoegirl]

For everyone. Wrong is wrong. No escape. Especially in something claiming to be science. Science is a method to sure up conclusions. it is not just about the best answer. If the answer was not done by the scientific method then its not a scientific answer. waiting for "revision".
These rates guessing are the usual stuff of evolutionary ideas. Presumption on presumption.
robert byers

If you are so convinced that science is bad, then I guess you don't go to the doctor, take any medicines, or engage in any surgery that resulted from said science.

Out of curiousity, do you think that God intended Adam and Eve to never ask questions? In the garden, how were they to know how to be good stewards if not to ask questions? They had the infinite good fortune to have the best relationship with God and to be curious in HIs prsence, but I doubt that they simply tripped along the garden path "la la la" and never asked questions. We were given minds to explore and investigate.

My point is that curiousity and problem-solving is God-given and eve, dare I presume, mandated by God (LOve the LOrd your God ...with your *mind*) Our mind is one aspect of our love, devotion, and worship and we are derelict in our relationship with Him to blithely disregard seeking truth.

UNfortunately, our fallen nature changed that relationship. For Christian scientists and engineers, yes they should seek wisdom and answers and guidance from God, but in our finite knowledge, science is simply and planned, methodical method for us to examine God's creation. It's as simple as that....a method of examining an event. The PROCESS is neutral. But just as ANY other endeavor by mankind, it is contaminated by sin. But we don't abandon the method or the invesigation because of the sin, but seek God's guidance in the process, just as we do theology, history, philosophy, and other academia.

[Robert Byers]

For everyone. Wrong is wrong. No escape. Especially in something claiming to be science. Science is a method to sure up conclusions. it is not just about the best answer. If the answer was not done by the scientific method then its not a scientific answer. waiting for "revision".
These rates guessing are the usual stuff of evolutionary ideas. Presumption on presumption.
robert byers

If you are so convinced that science is bad, then I guess you don't go to the doctor, take any medicines, or engage in any surgery that resulted from said science.

Out of curiousity, do you think that God intended Adam and Eve to never ask questions? In the garden, how were they to know how to be good stewards if not to ask questions? They had the infinite good fortune to have the best relationship with God and to be curious in HIs prsence, but I doubt that they simply tripped along the garden path "la la la" and never asked questions. We were given minds to explore and investigate.

My point is that curiousity and problem-solving is God-given and eve, dare I presume, mandated by God (LOve the LOrd your God ...with your *mind*) Our mind is one aspect of our love, devotion, and worship and we are derelict in our relationship with Him to blithely disregard seeking truth.

UNfortunately, our fallen nature changed that relationship. For Christian scientists and engineers, yes they should seek wisdom and answers and guidance from God, but in our finite knowledge, science is simply and planned, methodical method for us to examine God's creation. It's as simple as that....a method of examining an event. The PROCESS is neutral. But just as ANY other endeavor by mankind, it is contaminated by sin. But we don't abandon the method or the invesigation because of the sin, but seek God's guidance in the process, just as we do theology, history, philosophy, and other academia.

I agree with what you say.
I'm not against science. I'm against claims that science has been done in ordinary "weighing the evidence" stuff. The prestige of science has been used to push gibberish about evolution and gang. So a tactic of the thinking creationist is to pint out WRONGNESS in origin subjects. Then analysis why they were wrong. Demonstrating they are not doing science and never did.
Docs ain't doing science either by the way. Nobody calls Doctors SCIENTISTS.
Not up here.
Robert Byers

[Canuckster1127]

For everyone. Wrong is wrong. No escape. Especially in something claiming to be science. Science is a method to sure up conclusions. it is not just about the best answer. If the answer was not done by the scientific method then its not a scientific answer. waiting for "revision".
These rates guessing are the usual stuff of evolutionary ideas. Presumption on presumption.
robert byers

If you are so convinced that science is bad, then I guess you don't go to the doctor, take any medicines, or engage in any surgery that resulted from said science.

Out of curiousity, do you think that God intended Adam and Eve to never ask questions? In the garden, how were they to know how to be good stewards if not to ask questions? They had the infinite good fortune to have the best relationship with God and to be curious in HIs prsence, but I doubt that they simply tripped along the garden path "la la la" and never asked questions. We were given minds to explore and investigate.

My point is that curiousity and problem-solving is God-given and eve, dare I presume, mandated by God (LOve the LOrd your God ...with your *mind*) Our mind is one aspect of our love, devotion, and worship and we are derelict in our relationship with Him to blithely disregard seeking truth.

UNfortunately, our fallen nature changed that relationship. For Christian scientists and engineers, yes they should seek wisdom and answers and guidance from God, but in our finite knowledge, science is simply and planned, methodical method for us to examine God's creation. It's as simple as that....a method of examining an event. The PROCESS is neutral. But just as ANY other endeavor by mankind, it is contaminated by sin. But we don't abandon the method or the invesigation because of the sin, but seek God's guidance in the process, just as we do theology, history, philosophy, and other academia.

I agree with what you say.
I'm not against science. I'm against claims that science has been done in ordinary "weighing the evidence" stuff. The prestige of science has been used to push gibberish about evolution and gang. So a tactic of the thinking creationist is to pint out WRONGNESS in origin subjects. Then analysis why they were wrong. Demonstrating they are not doing science and never did.
Docs ain't doing science either by the way. Nobody calls Doctors SCIENTISTS.
Not up here.
Robert Byers

Again. Statements without backing. Let's see some evidence and analysis at work instead of just talking about it.

[zoegirl]

WEll, I would disagree with you concerning many doctors who ARE invovled in clinical studies and in hard research (love to hear you state that around JOhns Hopkins or Duke UNiversity or the Mayo Clinic); however, my point is that much of the current medical knowledge IS based on science. I visit my GI and see the rows and rows of medical research journals. So if you go to the doctor and follow his or her advice, then you are accepting the medical research that comes from conclusions from experimental and clinical studies.

Look, if you accept current medical knowledge and surgical procedures and pharmacology, then you are accepting the results of the scientific method. And it is rather capricious to on one hand be willing to accept the scientific research (you don't furiously debate the results of medical research with the same fervor) and yet completely reverse positions and immediatley reject the research from scientists.

And the scientific method merely asserts that until evidence proves otherwise, then hypothesis and theories and models are accepted as the best understanding.

There are thousands of CHristian scientists who disagree with YEC models. Are they wrong? They haven't the same philosophical reasons for embracing an OEC/fossil record viewpoint as the atheist scientists and yet they view the same data.