tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post5825894661308358048..comments2024-01-23T02:32:28.567-08:00Comments on Darwin's God: Blind GuidesUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger145125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-74770690245625476082010-10-13T06:38:03.702-07:002010-10-13T06:38:03.702-07:00The issue over fixation of human chromosome 2 is a...The issue over fixation of human chromosome 2 is addressed in a series of essays over at the Panda’s Thumb, collectively called “The Rise of Human Chromosome 2”: <br /> <br /> <br />The Dicentric Problem <br /><br />http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2009/02/the-rise-of-hum.html<br /><br />The Fertility Problem <br /><br />http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2009/02/the-rise-of-hum-1.html<br /><br />Fixation within a Deme<br /><br />http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2009/05/the-rise-of-hum-2.html<br /><br />Beyond the Deme :<br />http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2009/09/the-rise-of-hum-3.html<br /><br /><br />Dave WiskerAllopatrikhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11569878194858225554noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-21994875161937600052010-07-31T01:44:41.637-07:002010-07-31T01:44:41.637-07:00second opinion said:
"Eocene
This is an obs...second opinion said:<br /><br />"Eocene<br /><br />This is an observation that you can make on a lot of blogs. Take for example any blog post in favour of AGW. At the latest the fifth reply of a skeptic either contains the words „hockeystick“ or „climategate“ even if the original post was completely unrelated to these topics. It is telling that certain people very deliberately don't stay on topic. "<br /><br />=============================================<br /><br />Trust me I understand completely. The hometown news paper that I read daily online from the USA has regular articles abour simple local weather events for which right-wing religiously motic´vation shills continually bring up the subject of Global Warming, Al Gore, etc, etc, etc.<br /><br />Seems any subject can become a religious fogmatic debate.Eocenehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08897350463133321355noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-53261590088853697252010-07-30T15:43:21.071-07:002010-07-30T15:43:21.071-07:00When are you clowns going to wake up and realize t...When are you clowns going to wake up and realize that evolution is finished and has been for quite some time?<br /><br />Now delete this you cowardly blowhards.<br /><br />jadavison.wordpress.comAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-64818365973276670162010-07-29T14:20:03.001-07:002010-07-29T14:20:03.001-07:00Eocene
This is an observation that you can make o...Eocene<br /><br />This is an observation that you can make on a lot of blogs. Take for example any blog post in favour of AGW. At the latest the fifth reply of a skeptic either contains the words „hockeystick“ or „climategate“ even if the original post was completely unrelated to these topics. It is telling that certain people very deliberately don't stay on topic.second opinionhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17790522541732472791noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-15479710226874360462010-07-29T14:03:55.228-07:002010-07-29T14:03:55.228-07:00Nat: But scientists themselves don't have a cl...<i>Nat: But scientists themselves don't have a clear definition of a species.<br /><br />And I understand that the amount of genetic variance within species varies widely between species. So I'm not sure how significant that is.</i><br /><br />Everything you just said points to the fluidity of species, rather than them being fixed entities.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08653724994545850549noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-62524796890319005012010-07-29T13:47:45.515-07:002010-07-29T13:47:45.515-07:00But scientists themselves don't have a clear d...But scientists themselves don't have a clear definition of a species.<br /><br />And I understand that the amount of genetic variance within species varies widely between species. So I'm not sure how significant that is.natschusterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13127240463824366637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-27854071913510704212010-07-29T13:30:54.343-07:002010-07-29T13:30:54.343-07:00Nat: Or maybe they won't evolve any further. M...<i> Nat: Or maybe they won't evolve any further. Maybe this partial hybridization is as far as they can diverge. </i><br /><br />That would require mutations to cease occurring. They're with us, and have been, for 3.8 billion years.<br /><br /><i>And who gets to make up the definition of species, anyway. Maybe as long as there is some interbreeding, it is enough.</i><br /><br />Expert scientists who produce the data get to make the definitions, not kindergarten teachers. Sorry if that seems unfair to you. The reason they define it this way is from the study of so many other species. The two salamanders are genetically divergent at similar levels to what we find in separate species that never interbreed, rather than what we find for populations that do interbreed. The road shared by these two forms until now is forking. Hybrids are selected against, and preferences for their own kind are rewarded with more viable offspring.<br /><br /><i>And the paper cited seems to be mostly speculation.</i><br /><br />This study is based on years of genetic study of the salamanders. The hubris of people who have never contributed to the scientific endeavor never ceases to amaze.<br /><br /><i>And if this is the best evidence for evolution, I must say I am a little disappointed.</i><br /><br />No one piece of evidence is key. Here, one story, but we also have species where there are distinct-looking populations that freely interbreed and others where they look similar but do not interbreed. A continuum exists.<br /><br />And of course, there are so many other lines of evidence. As others have noted, what can be frustrating, is that all of the creation sympathizers have very small amounts of relevant information in their head at any one time. So they look at each example, and then say "oh, well is that the best you can do?"<br /><br />The totality of numerous lines of evidence is why among those who have gone to the trouble of getting a Ph. D. in a relevant field, acceptors of the evidence outnumber evolution deniers by a 1000 to 1 ratio.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08653724994545850549noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-12694932700768366482010-07-29T11:14:10.500-07:002010-07-29T11:14:10.500-07:00...continued from above:
=======================......continued from above:<br /><br /><br />===========================<br />"My response is that a box eye illustration with a couple parts showing how the eye could have evolved falls far short of what a real eye is. My challenge is for someone to not use a couple parts and a box but get a real prop of an eye from an optometry college and show how the 32 parts evolve. The response to my challenge is that Dawkins showed how it could have happened in a basic why and details aren't necessary. I beg to differ. "<br />===========================<br /><br />Look. The objection I was answering, the main objection Dawkins was probably answering, the objection that creationists have been making for 150 years is this: "How could a complex organ like the eye possible evolve from simpler precursors, with each iteration conveying a selective advantage?" Stated in the negative it goes something like this: "The eye <i>couldn't</i> have evolved from simpler precursors, because what good is 'part of an eye'?"<br /><br /><b>That</b> is what is being answered in the video. It is not confirming evolution. It is not proving evolution. It is answering the objection: "How <i>could</i> an eye could evolve one step at a time with each slight modification being more advantageous than the last?"<br />With the answer: "<b>This</b> is how an eye could evolve one step at a time with each slight modification being more advantageous than the last."<br /><br />It's like coming home to find your living room couch torn to shreds, and your only dog sitting on a pile of the stuffing. "Look what the dog did!" your wife exclaims. You reply: "No, the dog <i>couldn't</i> have done that; he's much too small, and the fabric too tough." As you are watching, the dog goes and rips a piece of fabric and stuffing from the couch, and chews it relentlessly. Your wife quips: "See? He <i>could</i> too have done it!" You think for a minute and reply: "That's just one little piece! It's not the same as a whole couch!, And even if he <i>could</i> have done it, that doesn't mean he <i>did!</i>"<br /><br />The fact that you challenge someone to get a real prop of a modern vertebrate eye and show how <i>its</i> parts could arise simultaneously to form a modern working organ demonstrates beyond the shadow of a doubt that you have absolutely, positively, totally, utterly, unconditionally, categorically, unquestionably, <b>NO EARTHLY IDEA WHAT EVOLUTIONARY THEORY SAYS.</b><br /><br />Before you can even <i>attempt</i> to have a meaningful conversation with your opponent, <b>you have to know what your opponent's position IS.</b> You don't.<br /><br />The number of strawman arguments used to defend your position alone should give someone pause about holding that position. (That goes with anything, not just creation/evolution.)<br /><br />===========================<br />Dawkins is right in line with the Living World textbook propaganda. While the movie is absolutely a hoot, it is sad that students are actually taught this hogwash. A class in weather forcasting based on reading rabbit droppings would be on par with this stuff.<br />===========================<br /><br />So to sum up your argument: <br />1. Dawkins accent sounds funny to you. <br />2. The video is simplistic. (the video where he is talking to an audience full of <i>children</i>)<br />3. It doesn't 'prove' evolution. <br />4. No one can demonstrate an eye evolving in a way in which evolution <b>doesn't say it would form</b>; therefore evolution is false.<br /><br />Did I miss anything?Derick Childresshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04957020457782757629noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-61546106391350264962010-07-29T11:13:15.083-07:002010-07-29T11:13:15.083-07:00Neal, seriously, what is it with you and illustrat...Neal, seriously, what is it with you and <i>illustrations?</i> My four year old niece understands simile and metaphor better.<br /><br />===========================<br />"I suspected your eye link would take me to Richard Dawkins' box-eye movie and I was correct. I would invite everyone reading this post to check out the Dawkins link from Derick. It is a great illustration of why evolutionary theory misses the mark."<br />===========================<br /><br />I picked that specific video <i>because</i> Dawkins is illustrating the evolution of the eye in such a way that <b>children</b> can understand it. I wanted to err on the side of not going over anyone's head, but apparently I failed. Would you care to explain <b>why</b> it misses the mark?<br />(I would also recommend everyone following along to watch it.)<br /><br />===========================<br />"I find it a very humorous link. I'm not being sarcastic, I really do find it entertaining. It reminds me of one of my favorite movies, Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory (the old classic version). Does anyone remember the scene where the computer guy is asking the computer where the golden ticket is? Richard Dawkins accent and tone sounds just like him and about as believable, although I'm leaning more towards Willy Wonka. Back to the point..."<br />===========================<br /><br />Neal, I don't know where to start. That you think Dawkins 'has a funny voice' and sounds like someone from a movie you watched doesn't really have any bearing on the subject at hand. You say you found it humorous, but you don't say <b>why.</b> (other than "Englush people tawk funny")<br /><br />===========================<br />"The eye has at least 32 components and is much more complex than Dawkins over-the-top simplification. In the movie, Dawkins brings out a box with a couple parts and begins to weave his LIE into the minds of his students (or more accurately, his victims). "<br />===========================<br /><br />Neal, I'm gonna go slow so you can follow along: Evolution is a process that moves from <b>simple</b> to <b>complex</b>. The first 'eye' wasn't as complex as a modern vertebrate eye - it didn't have the same number of parts, let alone the same configuration of them. I'm really not so sure why this is so hard to grasp: <b>No one is saying an eye with 32 modern components popped into existence.</b><br /><br />===========================<br />"I've discussed the shortcomings of the movie with evolutionists before and for some odd reason they all seem to feel like that it confirms eye evolution beyond doubt."<br />===========================<br /><br /><b>No they didn't.</b> (Unless they're also so dense they don't know the difference between evidence and an illustration) Illustrations and analogies don't <i>prove</i> evolution. They aren't <i>evidence</i> for evolution. They don't <i>confirm</i> evolution. They <b>illustrate</b> evolution. I don't know how to say that more simply.<br /><br />continued below...Derick Childresshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04957020457782757629noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-58721131382469354592010-07-29T10:22:37.130-07:002010-07-29T10:22:37.130-07:00Or maybe they won't evolve any further. Maybe ...Or maybe they won't evolve any further. Maybe this partial hybridization is as far as they can diverge. <br /><br />And who gets to make up the definition of species, anyway. Maybe as long as there is some interbreeding, it is enough.<br /><br />And the paper cited seems to be mostly speculation.<br /><br />And if this is the best evidence for evolution, I must say I am a little disappointed.natschusterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13127240463824366637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-71848902473797053912010-07-29T08:35:26.400-07:002010-07-29T08:35:26.400-07:00Nat: Or maybe since they do interbreed across part...<i>Nat: Or maybe since they do interbreed across part of their range, they are one species.</i><br /><br />To be considered one species, they have to interbreed wherever they meet up, at a minimum. You don't get to make your own definitions (you can, but they only apply in natschusterspace). If they don't interbreed at all in part of their range, they're two species, by all definitions, as noted in the teaching site you quoted. The limited interbreeding to the north is not sufficient gene flow to stop further divergence. Speciation is an inevitable consequence of population genetics and migration.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08653724994545850549noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-7121169652273480052010-07-29T07:29:40.755-07:002010-07-29T07:29:40.755-07:00natschuster said...
Or maybe since they do in...<i>natschuster said...<br /><br /> Or maybe since they do interbreed across part of their range, they are one species. </i><br /><br />They are *borderline* one species that has split into seven distinct subspecies and are well on their way to full speciation<br /><br /><a href="http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/118734757/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0" rel="nofollow">STRONG SELECTION AGAINST HYBRIDS AT A HYBRID ZONE IN THE ENSATINA RING SPECIES COMPLEX AND ITS EVOLUTINARY IMPLICATIONS</a><br /><br />"Abstract: The analysis of interactions between lineages at varying levels of genetic divergence can provide into the process of speiation through the accumulation of incompatiable mutations. Ring species, and especially the Ensatina eschscholtzii system exemplify this approach. The plethodontid salamanders E. eschscholtzii xanthoptica and E. eschscholtzii platensis hybridize in the central Sierran foothills of California. We compared the genetic structure across two transects (southern and northern Calaveras Co.), one of which was resampled over 20 years, and examined diagnostic molecular markers (eight allozyme loci and mitochondrial DNA) and a diagnostic quantitative trait (color pattern). Key results across all studies were: (1) cline centers for all markers were coincident and the zones were narrow, with width estimates of 730 m to 2000 m; (2) cline centers at the northern Calveras transect were coincident between 1981 and 2001, demonstrating repeatability over five generations; (3) there were very few if any putative F1S, but a relatively high number of backcrossed individuals in the central portion of transects; and (4) we found substantial linkage disequilibrium in all three studies and strong heterozygote deficit both in northern Calaveras, in 2001, and southern Calaveras. Both linkage disequilibrium and heterozygote deficit showed maximum values near the center of the zones. Using estimates of cline width and dispersal, we infer strong selection against hybrids. This is sufficient to promote accumulation of differences at loci that are neutral or under divergent selection, but would still allow for introgression of adaptive alleles. The evidence for strong but incomplete isolation across this centrally located contact is consistent with theory suggesting a gradual increase in postzygotic incompatibility between allopatric populations subject to divergent selection and reinforces the value of Ensatina as a system for the study of divergence and speciation at multiple stages."<br /><br />Seriously Nat, we've been over this Ensatina speciation evidence with you before. Are you playing clueless for a reason?Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-54767554046439543632010-07-29T07:21:39.152-07:002010-07-29T07:21:39.152-07:00Eocene said...
Thus far we've concluded t...<i>Eocene said...<br /><br /> Thus far we've concluded that finches are still finches, salamanders are still salamanders , etc , etc, etc. How about that Macro , eh ???</i><br /><br />How about that scientific definition of KIND you keep forgetting to provide?Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-78805681515562992372010-07-29T06:56:27.394-07:002010-07-29T06:56:27.394-07:00Or maybe since they do interbreed across part of t...Or maybe since they do interbreed across part of their range, they are one species.natschusterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13127240463824366637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-42931550304216773052010-07-29T03:19:54.021-07:002010-07-29T03:19:54.021-07:00LOL
This is why such threads should have a shorte...LOL<br /><br />This is why such threads should have a shortened temporary lifespan, because they take on a sort of pseudo life of their own. Does anyone remember what the OP was about at the beginning ??? Oh that's right, slamming Dr hunter. <br /><br />Thus far we've concluded that finches are still finches, salamanders are still salamanders , etc , etc, etc. How about that Macro , eh ???Eocenehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08897350463133321355noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-81329346945950081102010-07-29T02:57:34.005-07:002010-07-29T02:57:34.005-07:00Nat:
You have failed at reading comprehension onc...<b>Nat:</b><br /><br />You have failed at reading comprehension once again. The <b> southern populations </b> of the two species are sympatric (meaning they geographically overlap) but they do not interbreed. For two populations to be considered the same species, they must freely interbreed where they overlap.<br /><br />From http://www.pnas.org/content/94/15/7761.full :<br /><br />While klauberi and eschscholtzii hybridize, they do so less frequently and in even narrower hybrid zones (10, 13). <b> At the southernmost area of contact, the two forms are sympatric with no evidence of past or present hybridization (13, 14). </b><br /><br />From the Santa Rosa site:<br /><br />What is most interesting about this species of salamander, is that the two southern most subspecies, eschscholtzi and klauberi, meet in several locations. Near Mount Palomar, these two subspecies meet in a very narrow zone and hybridize infrequently. (Brown, 1974) <b>To the south near Cuyamaca State Park, klauberi and eschscholtzi meet and apparently fail to interbreed under natural conditions even though they are narrowly sympatric. In fact, by analyzing electrophoretic separations of selected enzymes and studying DNA patterns, the two subspecies klauberi and eschscholtzi are <i>different species by every definition.</i></b> <br /><br />The speciation is fully complete in the south, and essentially complete in the north, where there is rare interbreeding. Unless interbreeding is common, populations will genetically drift away from one another.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08653724994545850549noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-86340592457323372752010-07-28T18:56:34.414-07:002010-07-28T18:56:34.414-07:00This also says that the newts do hybridize:
htt...This also says that the newts do hybridize: <br /><br /><br />http://www.pnas.org/content/94/15/7761.fullnatschusterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13127240463824366637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-56019225134326683772010-07-28T15:50:11.630-07:002010-07-28T15:50:11.630-07:00Neal,
Sorry, but the parallel between theory of ...Neal, <br /><br />Sorry, but the parallel between theory of evolution and string theory is not justified. The former has lots of experimental support, the latter has none.oleghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11644793385433232819noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-27186832787886463442010-07-28T15:47:54.363-07:002010-07-28T15:47:54.363-07:00According to this:
http://www.santarosa.edu/lifes...According to this:<br /><br />http://www.santarosa.edu/lifesciences2/ensatina2.htm<br /><br />the newts do interbreed, they just aren't very good at it.natschusterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13127240463824366637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-24684469552117829852010-07-28T14:17:50.950-07:002010-07-28T14:17:50.950-07:00Neal,
Be honest for a change. Tell us what your e...Neal,<br /><br />Be honest for a change. Tell us what your education in science amounts to. Be specific.<br /><br />You claim some posters here have the 19th century view of cells, even though you must know this is false. Again, you expose yourself as a liar. Nevertheless, you feel qualified to lecture people (e.g. your flock in church) on ethics. Amazing.troyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05136662027396943138noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-49410945832661710702010-07-28T14:10:40.494-07:002010-07-28T14:10:40.494-07:00Neal: Stew implies a level of entropy that is inde...Neal: Stew implies a level of entropy that is indeed inappropriate. Granted. But the assembly is a Rube Goldberg of cascades of signalling molecules and layer upon layer of regulatory genes. If you were to construct a body intelligently, indeed DNA would be more like a blueprint.<br /><br />The accidents and inefficiencies are real, Neal. The sperm whale catches its food about 1 km below sea level, but has to resurface every hour to breathe. Why did our creator choose to give gills to the whale shark, but not to the whale? Science has a good answer for that. I'm guessing you don't, or that it involves God's chosen species being able to harpoon them for lamp oil.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08653724994545850549noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-15414623141391983652010-07-28T14:03:50.718-07:002010-07-28T14:03:50.718-07:00oleg, if physicists taught like Darwinists they wo...oleg, if physicists taught like Darwinists they would tell everyone that string theory is a fact that is settled and anyone that doesn't accept it believes the earth is flat.<br /><br />If climatologies taught like Darwinists they would tell everyone that global warming caused by humans was a fact that is settled and anyone that doesn't accept it believes the earth is flat... O wait an minute, they did. <br /><br />Perhaps biology needs its own DarwinGate to shake up things up.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-28158919733513163372010-07-28T13:55:58.473-07:002010-07-28T13:55:58.473-07:00John said, "The parts that are not filler are...John said, "The parts that are not filler are a recipe for chemical stew that might produce a new organism, but only in the proper chemical environment"<br /><br />Chemical stew? It's the typical evolutionist dumbing down of the complexity of life. The evolutionist is biased to see junk, filler, accidents, and inefficiencies where they do not exist and are often blinded to the wonder of life. Your 19th century view of the cell needs to be updated and perhaps you will no longer be an evolutionist if you do.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-79185907394493397142010-07-28T13:32:00.460-07:002010-07-28T13:32:00.460-07:00Nat: And if DNA is the blueprint for morphology, t...<i>Nat: And if DNA is the blueprint for morphology, then I would expect DNA of organisms that are similar to have similar DNA.</i><br /><br />DNA is not a blueprint; you can't guess the animal or body part by looking at segments of DNA. Most DNA appears to be filler in eukaryotes. The parts that are not filler are a recipe for chemical stew that might produce a new organism, but only in the proper chemical environment (for humans, bake at 98 F for nine months, and lay off the alcohol, Mom).<br /><br />Species that were known to be closely related based on morphology, embryology, and fossils have been shown to indeed be closely related genetically. Species that are somewhat distant but have similar functional needs can produce superficially similar structures or appearance due to natural selection. But prior to confirming genetics, we knew bats weren't birds.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08653724994545850549noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-87480450140024975562010-07-28T11:57:45.049-07:002010-07-28T11:57:45.049-07:00Janfeld: If this is not a sequence showing modific...Janfeld: If this is not a sequence showing modification over time - then what is it instead?????? <br /><br />CH: What is it instead? It is a set of fossil species. The idea that they are genetically related via common descent with modification is a hypothesis, not a factual observation from the sequence. [Am I dreaming all this ?] <br /><br />Complaints about indirect observations can be made against any branch of science. Particle physicists have never directly observed quarks: thanks to color confinement, a lonely quark cannot exist in isolation, only when it is paired with an antiquark (that's a meson) or forms a triple with two more quarks (a baryon). But if I open the 8th Edition of Serway and Jewett's <i>Physics for Scientists and Engineers</i> I'll find this on page 8: <br /><br />"Protons, neutrons, and a host of other exotic particles are now known to be composed of six different varieties of particles called <b>quarks</b>, which have been given the names of <i>up, down, strange, charmed, bottom,</i> and <i>top.</i> The up, charmed, and top quarks have electric charges of +2/3 of that of the proton, whereas the down, strange, and bottom quarks have charges of −1/3 that of the proton. The proton consists of two up quarks and one down quark as shown at the bottom of Figure 1.2..." <br /><br />Not even a word on the lack of direct observation of quarks. For some reason, that does not scandalize anyone. The reason, I suppose, is that it would take a lot of space to explain how particle physicists are able to deduce the presence of quarks—by indirect methods only!—and their physical characteristics including charge and spin. But with the textbook containing nearly 1200 pages, it's just impossible to cram even more material in it. <br /><br />The bottom line is the students have to trust the authors. The fact of the existence of quarks is well established and so is the common descent of the fossils that appear at the top of this page. Cornelius can shake his fists at the authors and the publisher, but his rage is impotent. He lacks credibility with mainstream biologists, so his rants are not going to convince any mainstream professor of biology to skip this textbook. And conservative Christian colleges like Biola do not even consider this text for adoption, so again, I see no point in his rant. He can and does get sympathy from his fan base, but if that is the intent of this post then I am not sure it was worth the effort.oleghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11644793385433232819noreply@blogger.com