01-09-2010, 20:23
|
|
|
Bs'd
Het fossielenverslag laat geen evolutie zien, maar het tegenovergestelde; STASIS, onveranderlijkheid: “Stasis, oftewel onveranderlijkheid, van de meeste fossielensoorten gedurende hun lange geografische levensduur werd stilzwijgend ter kennisgeving aangenomen door al de fossielendeskundigen, maar het werd nooit bestudeerd vanwege het feit dat de overwegende theorie stasis zag als oninteressant non-bewijs voor non-evolutie. ... De overweldigend vaak voorkomende stasis werd een beschamende eigenschap van het fossielenverslag, hetgeen het best genegeerd werd als een bewijs voor niets (dat is non-evolutie). Gould, Stephen J., "Cordelia's Dilemma," Natural History, 1993, p. 15 Stephen J Gould was 1 van de meest bekende evolutionisten en bedenker van de “punctuated equilibrium” theorie, en professor geologie en zoologie aan de Harvard universiteit. ******************** “Fossielendeskundigen zagen gewoon niet de verwachte veranderingen in hun fossielen toen zij hen volgden door het rotsgesteente. ... Dat individuele soorten fossielen duidelijk hetzelfde bleven gedurende de gehele tijd van hun aanwezigheid in het fossielenverslag was al bekend bij fossielendeskundigen lang voordat Darwin zijn “Oorsprong der soorten” schreef. Darwin zelf ... profeteerde dat toekomstige generaties van fossielendeskundigen deze gaten zouden opvullen door ijverig onderzoek. ... Een 120 jaar van fossielonderzoek later is het overduidelijk dat het fossielenverslag Darwin's voorspellingen niet waarmaakt. Het probleem is ook niet gelegen in een onvolledig verslag. Het fossielenverslag laat simpelweg zien dat die voorspelling fout is. ... De waarneming dat de soorten verbazingwekkend conservatieve en statische (= onveranderlijke) dingen zijn heeft al de kenmerken van de nieuwe kleren van de keizer: Iedereen wist het, maar iedereen gaf er de voorkeur aan om het te negeren. Fossielendeskundigen die geconfronteerd werden met een weerspannig fossielenverslag wat koppig weigerde om zich te voegen naar Darwin's voorspelde patroon, keken gewoon de andere kant op. Eldredge, N. and Tattersall, I., The Myths of Human Evolution, 1982, p. 45-46 Niles Eldredge is een evolutionist en mede uitvinder van de punctuated equilibrium theorie. *************************** “Fossielendeskundigen hebben een enorme prijs betaald voor Darwin's argument. We beschouwen onszelf als de enige juiste studenten van de geschiedenis van het leven, maar wanneer we onze favoriete theorie van evolutie door natuurlijke selectie in stand willen houden zien we dat de feiten zo slecht zijn dat we vrijwel nooit het proces zien wat we zeggen te bestuderen. ... De geschiedenis van de meeste fossielen vertonen kenmerken die helemaal strijdig zijn met geleidelijke ontwikkeling: 1: Stasis. (onveranderlijkheid) De meeste soorten vertonen geen gerichte verandering gedurende hun verblijf op aarde. Ze verschijnen in het fossielenverslag op dezelfde manier als wanneer ze eruit verdwijnen, morfologische verandering is meestal beperkt en ongericht. 2: Plotselinge verschijning. In elk gebied verschijnt een soort niet geleidelijk door gestage verandering van zijn voorouders, het verschijnt plotseling, en “volledig gevormd.”" Gould, Stephen J. The Panda's Thumb, 1980, p. 181-182 Stephen J Gould was 1 van de meest bekende evolutionisten en bedenker van de “punctuated equilibrium” theorie, en professor geologie en zoologie aan de Harvard universiteit. *********************** “.... We hebben een gemeenschappelijke stilzwijgende acceptatie van het verhaal van geleidelijk aanpassende veranderingen aangeboden, een verhaal dat sterker werd en zich nog meer ingroef toen het geaccepteerd werd. Wij fossielendeskundigen hebben gezegd dat de geschiedenis van het leven deze interpretatie ondersteunt, terwijl we de hele tijd wisten dat dat niet het geval is.” Eldredge, Niles "Time Frames: The Rethinking of Darwinian Evolution and the Theory of Punctuated Equilibria," Simon & Schuster: New York NY, 1985, p. 44 “Het fossielenverslag weigert botweg om de verwachting van zeer geleidelijke veranderingen waar te maken.” Eldredge, N. and Tattersall, I., The Myths of Human Evolution, 1982, p. 163 ************************************ Gezien het feit dat evolutie volgens Darwin in een constante staat van verandering was ... volgt daaruit logischerwijs dat het fossielenverslag doorspekt zou moeten zijn met voorbeelden van veranderende vormen die leiden van de weinig ontwikkelden tot de veel ontwikkelden. ... In plaats van het vullen van de gaten in het fossielenverslag met de zo genaamde “missing links” zagen de meeste fossielendeskundigen zich geconfronteerd met de situatie waarbij er alleen maar gaten zaten in fossielenverslag, zonder bewijs van veranderende tussenvormen tussen gedocumenteerde soorten fossielen. Schwartz, Jeffrey H., Sudden Origins, 1999, p. 89. Schwartz, Jeffrey H is professor anthropologie aan de Universiteit van Pittsburgh en tevens evolutionist, schrijver van een boek over evolutie: “Sudden Origins”, a provocative new theory on how evolution works by sudden leaps and bounds: http://www.post-gazette.com/books/re...2review395.asp ********************************** “Van soorten waarvan eens gedacht werd dat ze in andere soorten geevolueerd waren is nu gebleken dat tijdsperioden waarin ze leefden gedeeltelijk overeenkwamen met hun veronderstelde nakomelingen. In feite is het zo dat het fossielenverslag geen enkele overtuigende overgang van één soort naar de andere laat zien.” Stanley, S.M., The New Evolutionary Timetable: Fossils, Genes, and the Origin of Species, 1981, p. 95, sprekend over het Bighorn basin in Wyoming USA. S.M. Stanley is evolutionist en professor aan de John Hopkins universiteit in Baltimore. Hij heeft vele artikelen geschreven, ook samen met Niles Eldredge, de co-uitvinder van de punctuated equilibrium theorie. 1 van de artikelen van zijn hand is “Paleontology (fossielenkunde) and earth system history in the new millennium” hetgeen gepubliceerd is in “Geological Society of America” Voor meer info over prof Stanley kijk hier: http://www.jhu.edu/~eps/faculty/stan....html#research ***************************** “De opvattingen van Eldredge-Gould betreffende het “verstoorde evenwicht” worden algemeen geaccepteerd onder fossielendeskundigen. Het probeert een oplossing te vinden voor de volgende tegenstrijdigheid: In constant onderzochte afstammingslijnen vindt men zelden de geleidelijke veranderingen in de afstammingslijnen die voorspeld zijn door de darwinistische evolutietheorie; wat wel gebeurt is dat veranderingen plaatsvinden met het plotseling verschijnen van nieuwe, sterk verschillende soorten. Eldredge and Gould stellen zulke verschijningen gelijk aan specialisatie, ondanks het feit dat de details van deze gebeurtenissen niet bewaard gebleven zijn. ... Het verstoorde evenwicht model is algemeen geaccepteerd niet omdat het een overtuigende theoretische basis heeft, maar omdat het een probleem schijnt op te lossen. Afgezien van de overduidelijke onderzoeksproblemen die deel zijn van de observaties die die theorie gestimuleerd hebben, en afgezien van de cirkelredenering die wezenseigen is aan de theorie, (men zou kunnen beargumenteren dat specialisatie alleen kan plaatsvinden wanneer de veranderingen in de generaties snel gaan, en niet andersom) is de theorie meer een voor dit probleem in het leven geroepen verklaring dan een theorie, en is gebouwd op een wankel fundament.” Ricklefs, Robert E., "Paleontologists Confronting Macroevolution," Science, vol. 199, 1978, p. 59 Robert E Ricklefs is evolutionist en professor biologie aan de University van Missouri te St. Louis: http://www.umsl.edu/~ricklefs ********************************* “Fossielendeskundigen zijn traditioneel beroemd (of berucht) voor het reconstrueren van hele dieren uit de puinhopen des doods. De meeste tijd spieken ze. ..... Als er 1 moment is in de geschiedenis van het leven wat overeenkomt met de creatielegenden, dan is het deze plotselinge verscheidenheid van het leven in zee toen de veelcellige organismes de boventoon gingen voeren als de belangrijkste acteurs in ecologie en evolutie. Verbluffend (en in verlegenheid brengend) voor Darwin brengt dit feit ons nog steeds in verwarring, en het staat voor een grote biologische revolutie, gelijk aan de uitvinding van reproductie en de oorsprong van de eukaryotische cell. De dierlijke afstammingslijnen kwamen uit de voor-cambriaanse nevelen te voorschijn met de meeste attributen van hun moderne nakomelingen.” Bengtson, Stefan, "The Solution to a Jigsaw Puzzle," Nature, vol. 345 (June 28, 1990), p. 765-766 Stefan Bengtson is evolutionist en hoofdcurator van het zweedse museum van natuurhistorie in Stockholm Zweden. Voor meer informatie over S Bentson kijk hier: http://palaeo-electronica.org/staff/stefan.htm ***************************** Moderne veelcellige dieren maken hun eerste onbetwiste verschijning in het fossielenverslag een slordige 570 miljoen jaar geleden- en dat met een luide knal, niet met een langzaam opkomend lang uitgerekt tromgeroffel. Deze “cambrische explosie van leven” markeert de komst (in elk geval met duidelijk bewijs) van vrijwel alle hoofdgroepen van moderne dieren, en dat alles in de minuscule tijdspan van, geologisch gesproken, een paar miljoen jaar.” Gould, Stephen J., Wonderful Life: The Burgess Shale and the Nature of History, 1989, p. 23-24 Stephen J Gould was 1 van de meest bekende evolutionisten en bedenker van de “punctuated equilibrium” theorie, en professor geologie en zoologie aan de Harvard universiteit. ******************************* “Het fossielenverslag verspringt, en al het bewijsmateriaal laat zien dat het verslag echt is: de onderbrekingen die we zien geven de werkelijke gebeurtenissen weer, en zijn geen product van een onvolledig fossielenverslag. Eldredge, N. and Tattersall, I., The Myths of Human Evolution, 1982, p. 59 Niles Eldredge is een evolutionist en mede uitvinder van de punctuated equilibrium theorie. ********************************* “Het fossielenverslag geeft geen doorlopend verslag van geleidelijke verandering van 1 dier of plant naar een ander van geheel andere vorm.” Stanley, S.M., The New Evolutionary Timetable: Fossils, Genes and the Origin of Species, 1981, p. 40 S.M. Stanley is evolutionist en professor aan de John Hopkins universiteit in Baltimore. Hij heeft vele artikelen geschreven, ook samen met Niles Eldredge, de co-uitvinder van de punctuated equilibrium theorie. 1 van de artikelen van zijn hand is “Paleontology (fossielenkunde) and earth system history in the new millennium” hetgeen gepubliceerd is in “Geological Society of America” Voor meer info over prof Stanley kijk hier: http://www.jhu.edu/~eps/faculty/stan....html#research *********************** “De afwezigheid van fossiel bewijs voor tussenvormen tussen grote veranderingen in organisch ontwerp, ja zelfs ons onvermogen om zelfs maar in onze verbeelding zulke functionerende tussenvormen te ontwerpen, is een aanhoudend en irriterend probleem voor geleidelijke evolutie.” Gould, Stephen J., "Is a New and General Theory of Evolution Emerging?," 1982, p. 140 Stephen J Gould was 1 van de meest bekende evolutionisten en bedenker van de “punctuated equilibrium” theorie, en professor geologie en zoologie aan de Harvard universiteit. ********************************* “Kloven tussen hoger ontwikkelde soorten zijn algemeen voorkomend en groot.” Raff R.A, and Kaufman, T.C., Embryos, Genes, and Evolution: The Developmental-Genetic Basis of Evolutionary Change, 1991, p. 35 “Het ontbreken van voorouderlijke vormen of tussenschakels tussen fossiele soorten is geen bizarre eigenaardigheid van de vroege geschiedenis van de meercellige dieren. Ontbrekende schakels zijn algemeen voorkomend en toonaangevend in het fossielenverslag.” Raff R.A, and Kaufman, T.C., Embryos, Genes, and Evolution: The Developmental-Genetic Basis of Evolutionary Change, 1991, p. 34 Rudolf A Raff is evolutionist en professor biologie aan de Indiana University in Bloomingdale, Indiana, USA, en tevens Director—Institute for Molecular and Cellular Biology, Distinguished Professor, Adjunct Professor of History and Philosophy of Science. Meer info over prof Raff kan hier gevonden worden: http://newsinfo.iu.edu/sb/page/normal/608.html ******************************** “Het fossielenverslag weigert botweg om de verwachting van zeer geleidelijke verandering te ondersteunen.” Eldredge, N. and Tattersall, I., The Myths of Human Evolution, 1982, p. 163 Niles Eldredge is een evolutionist en mede uitvinder van de punctuated equilibrium theorie. ********************************* “Het fossielenverslag zoals wij dat kennen is niet in overeenstemming met geleidelijke verandering, en is dat ook nooit geweest. Wat opmerkelijk is, is dat door een verscheidenheid van historische omstandigheden, zelfs de geschiedenis van tegenstand versluierd is .... De meerderheid van de paleontologen (fossielendeskundigen) waren van mening dat hun bewijsmateriaal simpelweg tegenstrijdig was met Darwin's nadruk op zeer kleine, langzame, en opeenvolgende veranderingen die leidden tot verandering in soorten .... hun verhaal is onderdrukt.” Stanley, S.M., The New Evolutionary Timetable, 1981, p. 71 S.M. Stanley is evolutionist en professor aan de John Hopkins universiteit in Baltimore. Hij heeft vele artikelen geschreven, ook samen met Niles Eldredge, de co-uitvinder van de punctuated equilibrium theorie. 1 van de artikelen van zijn hand is “Paleontology (fossielenkunde) and earth system history in the new millennium” hetgeen gepubliceerd is in “Geological Society of America” Voor meer info over prof Stanley kijk hier: http://www.jhu.edu/~eps/faculty/stan....html#research ***************************** “Zoals elke fossielendeskunidge weet, blijft het ondanks deze voorbeelden toch een feit dat de meeste nieuwe soorten, geslachtslijnen, families, en vrijwel alle nieuwe categorieen boven het nivo van families, plotseling verschijnen in het fossielenverslag, en er is niets wat daar naar toe leidt via geleidelijke, geheel doorlopende, veranderende opvolging.” Simpson, George Gaylord, The Major Features of Evolution, 1953, p. 360 Simpson George Gaylord is evolutionist en professor paleontologie (fossielenkunde) in Columbia en Harvard. **************************** “Fossielendeskundigen waren zich lang bewust van een ogenschijnlijke tegenstelling tussen Darwin's hypothese van geleidelijke verandering .... en de feitelijke vondsten van de fossielendeskundigen. Wanneer de evolutionistische lijnen gevolgd worden door de tijd dan laten ze slechts minimale geleidelijke veranderingen zien en geen duidelijk bewijs voor enige verandering van een soort in een andere soort of voor de geleidelijke oorsprong van een evolutionaire vernieuwing. Alles wat werkelijk nieuw is schijnt altijd zeer plotseling te verschijnen in het fossielenverslag.” Mayer, E., Our Long Argument: Charles Darwin and the Genesis of Modern Evolutionary Thought, 1991, p. 138 Ernst Mayer was 1 van de toonaangevende evolutionistische biologen van de 20e eeuw, zie hier: http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Ernst_Mayr ******************************* Het fossielenverslag laat zeker geen geleidelijke veranderingen in de structuur zien in de loop der tijd. In tegendeel, het laat zien dat soorten over het algemeen hetzelfde blijven gedurende de geschiedenis en dat ze plotseling vervangen werden door andere vormen. Nieuwe soorten of families schijnen volledig gevormd te verschijnen, met geen enkel teken van evolutionaire geschiedenis waarmee ze van andere soorten hadden kunnen afstammen.” Bowler, Evolution: The History of an Idea, 1984, p. 187 Peter J Bowler is evolutionist en geleerde op het gebied van Darwin en evolutie, en een veel producerende schrijver, en professor in de geschiedenis en filosofie van wetenschap aan de Queens universiteit van Belfast. http://www.americanscientist.org/tem...l/authorid/296 ******************************* De feiten uit het fossielenverslag zijn in overeenstemming met het feit dat al de nu bekende soorten reeds 525 miljoen jaar geleden geevolueerd waren. Ondanks een half miljard jaar van evolutionaire onderzoekingen zijn er geen nieuwe ontwerpen in hoofdgroepen ontstaan sinds toen. "Developmental Evolution of Metazoan Body plans: The Fossil Evidence," Valentine, Erwin, and Jablonski, Developmental Biology 173, Article No. 0033, 1996, p. 376 ********************************* Chicago Field Museum, Prof. of Geology, Univ. of Chicago, "Een groot aantal hoog opgeleide wetenschappers die niet van het vakgebied fossielenkunde en evolutionaire biologie zijn hebben ongelukkigerwijs de indruk opgedaan dat het fossielenverslag veel meer darwinistisch is dan het in werkelijkheid is. Dit komt waarschijnlijk door de over-vereenvoudiging die onvermijdelijk is in bronnen die niet uit de eerste hand zijn: slechte kwaliteit leerboeken, populaire artikelen, enz. Wat waarschijnlijk ook meespeelt is: "de wens is de vader van de gedachte" In de jaren na Darwin hoopte zijn aanhangers voorspelbare vooruitgang te vinden. Dit is over het algemeen niet gebeurd maar het optimisme laat zich niet makkelijk uitroeien, ***en pure fantasy is in leerboeken terecht gekomen***. Een van de ironische dingen van het creationisme-evolutionisme debat is dat de creationisten de foutieve opvatting geaccepteerd hebben dat het fossielenverslag een gedetailleerde en orderlijke vooruitgang laat zien en dat ze zeer veel moeite gedaan hebben om dit "feit" te integreren in hun zondvloed. Raup, David, "Geology" New Scientist, Vol. 90, p.832,1981 David Raub is een evolutionist, en professor emeritus (voormalig Sewell L. Avery Distinguished Service Professor) in Geophysical Sciences en voormalig curator Geology aan het Field Museum van Natural History aan de University van Chicago. zie hier: http://www.palaeos.com/Evolution/People1.html ******************************* “Een groot probleem in het bewijzen van de de theorie (van evolutie) is het fossielenverslag, de afdrukken van verdwenen soorten in de geologische lagen van de aarde. Dit verslag heeft nooit sporen van Darwin's hypothetische tussenvormen, in plaats daarvan verschijnen en verdwijnen soorten plotseling, en deze tegenstrijdigheid is een aanjager geweest voor het creationistische argument dat elke soort door God geschapen is.” Czarnecki, Mark, "The Revival of the Creationist Crusade", MacLean's, January 19, 1981, p. 56 Czarnecki Mark is een evolutionist en fossielendeskundige. ******************************** “En we vinden velen van hen [fossielen uit het cambrium] reeds in een verregaande staat van evolutie, de allereerste keer dat ze verschijnen. Het is alsof ze daar geplant zijn, zonder enige evolutionaire voorgeschiedenis. Het is onnodig te zeggen dat deze verschijning van plotselinge planting de creationisten zeer verheugd heeft.” Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker London: W.W. Norton & Company, 1987, p. 229. Richard Dawkins is een zeer bekende evolutionist en schrijver, en professor zoologie aan de Oxford universiteit. ******************************* “Alle paleontologen (fossielendeskundigen) weten dat het fossielenverslag zeer weinig zogenaamde 'tussenvormen' bevat, overgangen tussen de soorten zijn kenmerkend plotseling. Mensen die de opvatting van langzame geleidelijke evolutie aanhangen redden zich hier uit door te zeggen dat het fossielenverslag enorme gebreken vertoont.” Gould, Stephen J. The Panda's Thumb, 1980, p.189 Stephen J Gould is 1 van de meest bekende evolutionisten en bedenker van de “punctuated equilibrium” theorie, en professor geologie en zoologie aan de Harvard universiteit. ***************************** “In plaats van het vinden van een geleidelijke ontwikkeling van het leven, wat geologen in Darwin's tijd en de huidige geologen vinden is een enorm ongelijk, of verspringend, fossielenverslag. Dat wil zeggen; de soorten verschijnen zeer plotseling, vertonen geen of zeer weinig verandering gedurende hun bestaan in het fossielenverslag, en verdwijnen dan zeer plotseling uit het verslag, en het is niet altijd duidelijk, feitelijk is het zelden duidelijk, dat de nakomelingen beter aangepast waren dan hun voorouders. Met andere woorden: Biologische verbetering is moeilijk te vinden. Raup, David M., "Conflicts Between Darwin and Paleontology," Bulletin, Field Museum of Natural History, vol. 50, 1979, p. 23 David Raub is een evolutionist, en professor emeritus (voormalig Sewell L. Avery Distinguished Service Professor) in Geophysical Sciences en voormalig curator Geology aan het Field Museum van Natural History aan de University van Chicago. zie hier: http://www.palaeos.com/Evolution/People1.html ************************ 
|
| Advertentie | |
|
|
|
|
01-09-2010, 20:31
|
|
Verwijderd
|
Wat is hier het praktisch nut van?
|
|
01-09-2010, 21:32
|
|
Verwijderd
|
Wel, soorten evolueren doordat ze zich goed aan de omstandigheden aanpassen moeten, toch? Dan lijkt het me niet zo vreemd dat soorten heel lang niet veranderen, totdat de omstandigheden veranderen. Dan evolueren de soorten relatief snel.
En die bronnen over de ontbrekende schakels zijn nogal verouderd. Er worden namelijk zo af en toe een paar ontbrekende schakels gevonden. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiktaalik_roseae Daarbij, waarom is het ontbreken van die tussensoorten zo'n probleem? Hoeveel fossielen hadden we ervan moeten vinden? En hoeveel hebben we er? Laatst gewijzigd op 01-09-2010 om 22:01.
|
|
01-09-2010, 21:37
|
|
Verwijderd
|
“En we vinden velen van hen [fossielen uit het cambrium] reeds in een verregaande staat van evolutie, de allereerste keer dat ze verschijnen. Het is alsof ze daar geplant zijn, zonder enige evolutionaire voorgeschiedenis.
Het is onnodig te zeggen dat deze verschijning van plotselinge planting de creationisten zeer verheugd heeft.” Richard Dawkins Interessant. En wat vond Dawkins er zelf van?
|
|
01-09-2010, 22:18
|
||
Verwijderd
|
Citaat:
|
|
|
01-09-2010, 22:19
|
||
Verwijderd
|
Citaat:
|
|
|
02-09-2010, 00:19
|
||
Verwijderd
|
Citaat:
 Hij is net zo'n overtuigd atheist als dat de paus overtuigd katholiek is. en ik, ach ik vind het wel boeiend om naar beide kanten te kijken 
|
|
|
02-09-2010, 05:35
|
||||
|
|
Citaat:
Althans, dat is nu de theorie. Een theorie waarvoor ieder bewijs ontbreekt. Citaat:
Het is geen "ontbrekende schakel". Citaat:
Er zijn nu meer dan 200 miljoen fossielen opgegraven, en nog steeds is er geen evolutie te zien. Daarom is de algemeen aanvaarde evolutietheorie tegenwoordig de zogenaamde "punctuated equilibrium" theorie, die zegt dat de evolutie plaatsvond in kleine groepen, in afgelegen gebieden, en dat het heel snel ging. Zo probeert men het ontbreken van evolutie in het fossielenverslag weg te redeneren. Maar de feiten zijn dat het fossielenverslag het tegenovergestelde van evolutie laat zien. Eliyahu
|
|||
|
02-09-2010, 05:36
|
||
|
|
Citaat:
Het lijkt me duidelijk dat hij "not amused" was. Eliyahu
|
|
|
02-09-2010, 05:39
|
||
|
|
Citaat:
Wat is de discussiewaarde van een stuk tekst wat tegen jouw wereldbeeld in gaat "poep" te noemen? Daar kan echt niemand wat mee. Eliyahu
|
|
|
02-09-2010, 06:30
|
||
Verwijderd
|
Citaat:
|
|
|
02-09-2010, 06:31
|
||
Verwijderd
|
Citaat:
|
|
|
02-09-2010, 06:50
|
||
|
|
Citaat:
Het lijkt me dat die tekst voor zichzelf spreekt, is het niet? Het komt er op neer dat het fossielenfverslag het tegenovergestelde van evolutie laat zien, namelijk stasis. Exit evolutietheorie. Eliyahu
|
|
|
02-09-2010, 06:54
|
||
|
|
Citaat:
Tja, dat is jouw mening dat elk fossiel een overgangsfossiel is. Hier is de mening van vaklieden: “Van soorten waarvan eens gedacht werd dat ze in andere soorten geevolueerd waren is nu gebleken dat tijdsperioden waarin ze leefden gedeeltelijk overeenkwamen met hun veronderstelde nakomelingen. In feite is het zo dat het fossielenverslag geen enkele overtuigende overgang van één soort naar de andere laat zien.” Stanley, S.M., The New Evolutionary Timetable: Fossils, Genes, and the Origin of Species, 1981, p. 95, sprekend over het Bighorn basin in Wyoming USA. S.M. Stanley is evolutionist en professor aan de John Hopkins universiteit in Baltimore. Hij heeft vele artikelen geschreven, ook samen met Niles Eldredge, de co-uitvinder van de punctuated equilibrium theorie. 1 van de artikelen van zijn hand is “Paleontology (fossielenkunde) and earth system history in the new millennium” hetgeen gepubliceerd is in “Geological Society of America” Voor meer info over prof Stanley kijk hier: http://www.jhu.edu/~eps/faculty/stan....html#research Oftewel: Er zijn geen overgangsfossielen tussen de ene soort en de ander. Eliyahu
|
|
|
02-09-2010, 06:54
|
||
Verwijderd
|
Citaat:
|
|
|
02-09-2010, 07:27
|
||
Verwijderd
|
Citaat:
|
|
|
02-09-2010, 07:33
|
||
Verwijderd
|
Citaat:
Elk dier behoort per definitie een soort toe. Er is geen enkel dier dat geen enkel soort is. De tiktaalik is een dier dat zowel in het water als op het land leeft, zoals aan de poten en enige andere kenmerken te zien is. Het is dus wel een ontbrekende schakel. 200 miljoen fossielen en we hebben niet genoeg verschillende? Ik ben er niet helemaal door overtuigd. Wat zijn de omstandigheden die nodig zijn voor fossilisatie? Dieren zonder harde delen blijven nooit over. Zeedieren blijven makkelijker, aangezien de zeebodem geschikt is voor fossilisatie. Hoeveel verschillende soorten hadden we moeten vinden?
|
|
|
02-09-2010, 07:34
|
||
|
|
Citaat:
De kijk die het mij geeft op de evolutietheorie is dat het nooit gebeurt is. Welke kijk geeft het jouw op de evolutietheorie? Eliyahu
|
|
| Ads door Google |
|
02-09-2010, 07:39
|
|||
|
|
Citaat:
De kikker leeft ook op het water en op het land. Ook een ontbrekende schakel? Citaat:
MAAR, wat we zien in het fossielenverslag is dat soorten zeer plotseling verschijnen, zonder enige verwantschap met andere soorten waar ze vanaf zouden moeten stammen, en we zien ook dat ze dan gedurende hun hele verblijf in het fossielenverslag helemaal niet veranderen. Dit klopt helemaal niet met evolutie, en is volledig in overeenstemming met schepping. Eliyahu Laatst gewijzigd op 02-09-2010 om 10:18.
|
||
|
02-09-2010, 14:24
|
||
|
Citaat:
Het idee aleen als dat er een God zou zijn die miljarden jaren geleden alles in 1 knip met de vingers schiep.. haha
|
|
|
02-09-2010, 14:38
|
||
|
Citaat:
__________________
's Avonds een vent, 's ochtends absent.
|
|
|
02-09-2010, 14:51
|
|||
|
|
Citaat:
Zeg ik dat dan? Dat als evolutie niet waar is, dat dan automatisch het scheppingsverhaal waar is? Wat ik zeg is dat het fossielenverslag totaal in tegenspraak is met evolutie, en volledig overeenkomt met schepping. Citaat:
 Eliyahu
|
||
|
02-09-2010, 14:56
|
|
Verwijderd
|
Lol, je hebt de evolutietheorie duidelijk niet helemaal gelezen. Darwin wist zelf ook echt wel dat er dingen ontbraken. En die citaten van je zijn poep, er staat geen enkel echt bewijs in.
|
|
02-09-2010, 14:56
|
||
Verwijderd
|
Citaat:
En wtf zit je met je bs'd gedoe te doen. Niet zo stoer doen, dit is W&L.
|
|
|
02-09-2010, 16:59
|
|
Verwijderd
|
Eliyahu=Fleet Admiral.
|
| Advertentie |
|
|
|
02-09-2010, 17:47
|
||
|
Citaat:
__________________
"Atheïsm: the religion devoted to the worship of one's own smug sense of superiority" ;)
|
|
|
02-09-2010, 18:25
|
|
Verwijderd
|
Bs'd betekent ook cheating in straattaal.
|
|
02-09-2010, 18:32
|
|||
Verwijderd
|
Citaat:
Citaat:
|
||
|
02-09-2010, 18:40
|
|
|
Is een evolutionist iemand die overtuigd is dat de evolutietheorie op dit moment de meest aannemelijke theorie is over het ontstaan en vergaan van uitingen van bepaalde genen?
ZIjn gravitationalisten mensen die geloven in zwaartekracht?
__________________
Gatara was here! De W van stampot!
|
|
02-09-2010, 18:41
|
|
|
Losse stukjes zonder enige relatie, zonder stelling....
beetje zoals zeggen: he daar een appel, he daar een peer, he daar een banaan. * abracadabra * Fruitsalade. maak er eerst maar een samenhangend verhaal van, met een stelling zodat er uberhaupt over te discussiëren valt... Bs'd
__________________
B. kiest tussen nergens vertroosting in vinden of door niet te speculeren of door filosofisch te redeneren, de derde optie betekent putten uit alle bronnen
|
|
02-09-2010, 18:48
|
|
Verwijderd
|
Het fossielenverslag laat geen evolutie zien, maar het tegenovergestelde; STASIS, onveranderlijkheid.
Dat is de eerste zin in de openingspost, en ik vind het behoorlijk op een stelling lijken. Misschien had je er per ongelijk overheen gekeken, door die enorme lijst 25-jarige citaten.
|
|
02-09-2010, 19:01
|
|
|
|
Ik heb niet echt verstad van fossielen ofzo, maar stapsgewijze evolutie is toch ook evolutie? De stelling bevat dus een valse tegenstelling.
__________________
Gatara was here! De W van stampot!
|
|
02-09-2010, 19:05
|
|||
|
|
Citaat:
Citaat:
|
||
|
02-09-2010, 19:52
|
|
|
Ik ga hier als FB gelijk even heel duidelijk zijn, want ik heb deze discussie al eerder voorbij zien komen:
Ik verwacht dat deze discussie wordt gevoerd voor personen en stellingen. Onderbouw je stellingen met argumenten. Als je wetenschappelijke argumenten wil gebruiken, gebruik dan primaire bronnen (wetenschappelijke artikelen) of secundaire bronnen (stukken die direct verwijzen naar wetenschappelijke artikelen). Als je puur levensbeschouwelijke argumenten geeft, maak dan duidelijk dat het niet gaat om feiten, maar om een visie.
__________________
Altijd nuchter
|
|
03-09-2010, 07:11
|
||
|
|
Citaat:
In deze topic wordt de wetenschap getoetst; "er is geen evolutie" en tegelijk gesteld: "dus de schepping klopt". Wie ga je naar huis sturen?
|
|
|
03-09-2010, 09:20
|
||||
Verwijderd
|
Citaat:
Eldredge and I proposed the theory of punctuated equilibrium in 1972, the . . .". En de volgende alinea: "But Eldredge and I proposed that stasis should be an expected and interesting norm (not an embarrassing failure to detect change), and that evolution should be concentrated in brief episodes of branching speciation. Under our theory, stasis became interesting and worthy of documentation -- as a norm disrupted by rare events of change. We took as the motto of punctuated equilibrium: "Stasis is data." (One might quibble about the grammar, but I think we won the conceptual battle.) Punctuated equilibrium is still a subject of lively debate, and some (or most) of its claims may end up on the ash heap of history, but I take pride in one success relevant to Cordelia's dilemma: our theory has brought stasis out of the conceptual closet. Twenty-five years ago, stasis was a non-subject -- a "nothing" under prevailing theory. No one would have published, or even proposed, an active study of lineages known not to change. Now such studies are routinely pursued and published, and a burgeoning literature has documented the character and extent of stasis in quantitative terms. We zullen het maar op een foutje houden, maar ik neem aan dat de bron bij deze van tafel is. Citaat:
The main impetus for expanding the view that species are discrete at any one point in time, to embrace their entire history, comes from the fossil record. Paleontologists just were not seeing the expected changes in their fossils as they pursued them up through the rock record. Instead, collections of nearly identical specimens, separated in some cases by 5 million years, suggested that the overwhelming majority of animal and plant species were tremendously conservative throughout their histories. That individual kinds of fossils remain recognizably the same throughout the length of their occurrence in the fossil record had been known to paleontologists long before Darwin published his Origin. Darwin himself, troubled by the stubbornness of the fossil record in refusing to yield abundant examples of gradual change, devoted two chapters to the fossil record. To preserve his argument he was forced to assert that the fossil record was too incomplete, to full of gaps, to produce the expected patterns of change. He prophesied that future generations of paleontologists would fill in these gaps by diligent search and then his major thesis - that evolutionary change is gradual and progressive - would be vindicated. One hundred and twenty years of paleontological research later, it has become abundantly clear that the fossil record will not confirm this part of Darwin's predictions. Nor is the problem a miserably poor record. The fossil record simply shows that this prediction is wrong. The observation that species are amazingly conservative and static entities throughout long periods of time has all the qualities of the emperor's new clothes: everyone knew it but preferred to ignore it. Paleontologists, faced with a recalcitrant record obstinately refusing to yield Darwin's predicted pattern, simply looked the other way. Rather than challenge well-entrenched evolutionary theory, paleontologists tacitly agreed with their zoological colleagues that the fossil record was too poor to do much beyond supporting, in a general sort of way, the basic thesis that life had evolved. *************************** Citaat:
"We believe that Huxley was right in his warning. The modern theory of evolution does not require gradual change. In fact, the operation of Darwinian processes should yield exactly what we see in the fossil record. It is gradualism we should reject, not Darwinism." en het stuk daar direct op volgend "Evolution proceeds in two major modes. In the first, phyletic transformation, an entire population changes from one state to another. .... The second mode, speciation, replenishes the earth. New species branch off from a persisting parental stock. "Darwin, to be sure, acknowledged and discussed the process of speciation. But he cast his discussion of evolutionary change almost totally in the mold of phyletic transformation. In this context, the phenomenon of stasis and sudden appearance could hardly be attributed to anything but imperfection of the record; for if new species arise by transformation of entire ancestral populations, and if we almost never see the transformation (because species are essentially static through their range), then our record must be hopelessly incomplete. "Eldredge and I believe that speciation is responsible for almost all evolutionary change. Moreover, the way in which it occurs virtually guarantees that sudden appearance and stasis shall dominate the fossil record." to p183. Goed ik heb nu van je eerste 3 bronnen aangetoond dat het geen bronnen zijn voor je onderbouwing aangezien je gewoon selectief quote. Ik ga er vanuit dat de rest daar ook op gebaseerd is en ga er dus geen tijd aan besteden. Waarschijnlijk komt TS geen eens terug namelijk en zeker nu zal hij met het schaamrood op de kaken zijn vertrokken.
|
|||
| Ads door Google |
|
03-09-2010, 16:12
|
||
Verwijderd
|
Citaat:
|
|
|
03-09-2010, 19:13
|
|
|
|
Mensen kunnen hier wel wetenschappelijke informatie dumpen, het wordt alleen niet zo veel gedaan. Dan helpt een apart forum niet denk ik. Vroeger hadden we religie ja maar die werd constant overspoeld met anti-geloofs uitspraken. Dat was echt niet beter.
Ik vind het wel interessant dat w&l bij elkaar is, want nu kunnen we gewoon vragen: ja maar waarom dan? En mensen weten dat ze dat kunnen verwachten hier. Neem een religieuze stelling als: alles is met elkaar verbonden in de kern. Dat valt dan bijvoorbeeld te matchen met kwantummechanica. Of het boeddhistische: vorm is leegte, leegte is vorm (deeltjes/golven) En ook wat we hier hebben, een religieus geïnspireerd idee wordt gepresenteerd, maar met behulp van wetenschap kunnen we kijken of het klopt.
__________________
"Atheïsm: the religion devoted to the worship of one's own smug sense of superiority" ;)
|
|
04-09-2010, 15:04
|
||
|
Citaat:
Nee.Je hebt het citaat uit de context gerukt; als je verder leest, zie je Dawkins uitleggen waarom de verheugde creationisten toch ongelijk hadden. Je bent overigens niet de eerste creationist die zich aan dit oneerlijke gedrag schuldig maakt. Ziehier een filmpje waarin Dawkins het specifieke citaat bespreekt, vanaf 2:30. Dit is nu al de vierde bron waarvan aangetoond is dat je selectief hebt geciteerd (zie verder Lucky Luciano).
__________________
That's what happens when you look, lady. Now you're a salt pillar, and all the deer are gonna lick ya.
Laatst gewijzigd op 04-09-2010 om 15:21.
|
|
|
06-09-2010, 13:15
|
||
|
Citaat:
Ja dat is wel zo maar: How convincing is the evidence that Darwin was right? Richard Dawkins: The evidence is compelling that Darwin was right. We are descended from simpler animals; we are descended from bacteria ultimately and are cousins of chimpanzees. Darwin wasn’t right about everything – he got some of his genetics wrong because not enough was known about genetics at the time, but the essential point that we are direct cousins of monkeys and kangaroos, octopuses and bacteria is beyond doubt. How significant is Darwin’s influence in realising our place in the world? Richard Dawkins: The human race has had a number of set-backs. We learnt from Galileo that the Earth was not the centre of the universe; Darwin did the same thing for living creatures. We once thought we were the pinnacle of creation, made in God’s own image, but we now know we are cousins of 10 million other species - a tiny twig in a vast bush of branching twigs buried somewhere in the depths of this bush; there is nothing special in the order of humans in creation. There are special things about us, such as the fact that we are cleverer than other animals and we have language, but nevertheless we are just cousins of all other living things. Read on for Richard Dawkins on Fossils, God and Creationism How important is the evidence presented by fossils in backing up Darwin’s theory? Richard Dawkins: Fossils are not necessary to prove evolution nowadays, as we can do that with comparative evidence, especially via chemical molecular evidence. But fossils are very nice for showing the direct course evolution took – fossils are the only evidence we have which show what animals were like in the distant past. We are very lucky to have fossils, if we didn’t have fossils at all, we’d still know evolution was true. There are some gaps in the fossil record too, of course, which those sceptical about evolution think is important, but of course it’s not. The whole fossil record could be one big gap and we would still know evolution was true. But although there are gaps there are still substantial parts of evolution where we have a pretty good record of what exactly happened. How strong a piece of evidence are whales as proof of evolution? Richard Dawkins: If we needed any more evidence for evolution then fossils of whales would provide extremely good evidence. We now know that the closest cousins to whales are in fact hippos. A common ancestor of the hippo and the whale took to the water until it gradually became more wedded to the water and never left. The hind limbs eventually disappear and there is a tiny vestige of hind limb skeleton in whales today. What else could that be but evidence of evolution? There is not the slightest doubt that marine whales are descended from land animals and the fossil record proves this utterly. What do you think of people who adhere to the biblical idea that the Earth is less than 10,000 years old and that we are all God’s creation? Richard Dawkins: Anyone who still believes that the world is less than 10,000 years old, as many creationists do, the best excuse for them is lamentable ignorance. Anyone who is not ignorant and has been shown the evidence and still believes this, then they must have something wrong with them. To give you an example of the magnitude of the error, to believe that the world is less than 10,000 years old, when in fact we know the world is 4.6 billion years old, is equivalent to believing that the width of North America from New York to San Francisco is less than 10 yards. So to believe this you have to be either incredibly ignorant or insane. Why do you think this view is still held by so many people 150 years after Darwin’s theory was published? Richard Dawkins: I think that religious upbringing is immensely powerful and if its hammered into you as a young child it can be very difficult to get rid of in later life, especially if as a child you are taught that the devil will come to try and persuade you of error; sometimes they are told to ignore the evidence because faith is more important than evidence. Some people know that if they come out as non-believers their family will disown them. It really is an appalling stranglehold that these archaic beliefs have over people, whose minds have been warped since childhood. Read on for Richard Dawkins on Human Evolution, God and Darwin Is the creationist movement damaging to society as well as science? Richard Dawkins: I think that it is such a privilege to understand where we come from, a privilege for all of us born after 1859, that to deny children that privilege is wicked, it’s a deprivation that should not be visited on any child, when the truth is so staggeringly exciting. When we have shared ancestors with every living thing, we have a history of four billion years of slow, gradual evolution, that’s not something that we can easily take on board, but the effort of doing so is well worth it. It’s such a beautiful thought that we are the heirs of four billion years of evolution. When you put that against the measly, piddling little ideas in Genesis it’s just no comparison, and it’s a sad and diminishing deprivation of a child’s opportunity to be denied that knowledge. What evidence is there to prove that evolution and Darwin were right? Richard Dawkins: Many pieces of evidence show that evolution is right. I’ll single out just two. The first is the distribution of animals across the globe. They are exactly as you’d expect them to be if evolution occurred. If you go to Australia all the mammals, save for one or two introduced by man, are marsupials. Why are they all there and not in Asia too? It’s exactly as you’d expect if animals evolved. It’s not the way it would be if God had gone around creating animals. Why on Earth would he have gone around creating animals in exactly the places where he would have created animals to give the false impression that evolution took place? If you believe in a god that plays those sorts of tricks then it’s not much of a god to believe in. Secondly, if you look comparatively at all animals, especially biochemically: if you look at molecules in how they differ from animal to animal, or plant to plant, you find a hierarchical pattern of resemblance, which only makes sense if you assume that it’s a family tree, a pedigree. Everything – all the evidence – points to evolution. Once again the only way that you can maintain a creationist viewpoint is if you assume that God deliberately deceived us by planting molecules, that God played an elaborate trick on us. Can you still have faith in God and evolution? Richard Dawkins: There are plenty of theologians who believe in God and evolution, so, yes it is possible. I find it a little bit hard to do so because the main reason for believing in God is as the explanation for the living world. Once that’s gone, the most important argument for God has been kicked out and all you are left with is things like the Bible, which is pathetic: any fool can see is not written by God and it doesn’t have any special authority. Or you are left with personal experiences such as ‘God speaks to me’: if you’re convinced by that you’re convinced by that, but it’s pretty weak. Why are you so convinced that God doesn’t exist? Richard Dawkins: Well, I’m not really convinced that God does not exist. I’m simply turning the question around to say there is no positive reason to say that God does exist and he is therefore as likely to exist as the tooth-fairy or pink unicorns. So why bother to believe in something where there is no evidence, when there is so much for which there is evidence and you could spend a lifetime learning about it? Is there any evidence for some sort of divine order, such as our consciousness or the beginning of the universe perhaps? Richard Dawkins: The human consciousness is a great puzzle; it’s not helped by postulating anything supernatural. Human consciousness must stem from some brain stuff, either as a by-product or as an integral part of its function. The origin of the universe is another mystery, but physicists are working on it. Maybe one day we’ll understand it but, either way, postulating some sort of supernatural explanation doesn’t help us understand, because that simply raises bigger questions than it does answers. So life is all a result of chance and molecular accidents? Richard Dawkins: I would not like to say that we are here today as a matter of chance, because natural selection is not a chance process. Mutation is a matter of chance, but natural selection is a non-random force, because generations of genes have been non randomly chosen for reproduction and survival. If people think that Darwin said that life was down to chance, then no wonder they object to it. Has human evolution come to an end? Richard Dawkins: Nobody knows. If you look at the way natural selection happens, the fittest creatures have the most offspring and are usually the ones that survive. Over the last 2 or 3 million years humans have developed bigger and bigger brains, presumably because those with bigger brains survived better. But there’s no way to suggest that this is happening today, so there’s no reason to suppose that the same natural selection forces are taking place on humans today, though there are natural selection forces at work in terms of resistance to disease and things like that. If you came back in 10 million years then we’ll probably be extinct, because most species do go extinct. There’ll probably be something living but it won’t be our direct descendant. Evolutionists are always very cautious to predict the future course of evolution for one species, but what they don’t mind doing is predicting the general direction of life – small herbivores, large herbivores, big carnivores – we can predict that we will get a similar range of animals, but we can’t predict what the descendants of mice, elephants or humans will look like. I think in a couple of million years humans will be extinct, but we may well have evolved into something else, especially if we colonise other worlds, then we may see natural selection taking place as species start diverging, as there’d be very little gene flow between the separate gene pools. Why should National Geographic Channel and other media celebrate 200 years since Charles Darwin’s birth? Richard Dawkins: The National Geographic Channel should celebrate his birth because Darwin is arguably the greatest thinker that humanity has ever produced. One should put him up there with Galileo, Einstein and Newton. In terms of the problems that he solved, perhaps it wasn’t as difficult to solve as it was for Einstein or Newton, but it was perhaps as revolutionary to preconceived ideas. Darwin has perhaps caused possibly the biggest revolution in humanity’s idea of man’s own nature. Punctuated equilibrium From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Punctuated equilibrium, bottom, consists of morphological stability and rare bursts of evolutionary change Punctuated equilibrium is a theory in evolutionary biology which proposes that most sexually reproducing species will experience little evolutionary change for most of their geological history, remaining in an extended state called stasis. When evolution occurs, it is localized in rare, rapid events of branching speciation, called cladogenesis. Cladogenesis is the process by which species split into two distinct species, rather than one species gradually transforming into another. Thus, "punctuated equilibria is a model for discontinuous tempos of change (in) the process of speciation and the deployment of species in geological time."[1] Punctuated equilibrium is commonly contrasted against the theory of phyletic gradualism, which states that evolution generally occurs uniformly and by the steady and gradual transformation of whole lineages (anagenesis). In this view, evolution is seen as generally smooth and continuous. In 1972, paleontologists Niles Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould published a landmark paper developing this theory and called it punctuated equilibria.[2] Their paper built upon Ernst Mayr's theory of geographic speciation,[3] I. Michael Lerner's theories of developmental and genetic homeostasis,[4] as well as their own empirical research.[5][6] Eldredge and Gould proposed that the degree of gradualism commonly attributed to Charles Darwin is virtually nonexistent in the fossil record, and that stasis dominates the history of most fossil species. Punctuated equilibrium originated as an extension of Ernst Mayr's concept of genetic revolutions by allopatric and especially peripatric speciation. Although much of the basic workings of the theory were proposed and identified by Mayr in 1954,[3] historians of science generally recognize the 1972 paper by Niles Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould as the foundational document of a new paleobiological research program.[7][8][9] Punctuated equilibrium differs from Mayr's hypothesis mainly in that Eldredge and Gould placed considerably greater emphasis on stasis, whereas Mayr was generally concerned with explaining the morphological discontinuity (or "punctuational patterns") found in the fossil record.[7] Mayr later complimented Eldredge and Gould's paper, stating that evolutionary stasis had been "unexpected by most evolutionary biologists" and that punctuated equilibrium "had a major impact on paleontology and evolutionary biology."[7] Prior to the Eldredge and Gould paper, Niles Eldredge published a 1971 paper in the journal Evolution suggesting that gradual evolution was seldom seen in the fossil record and argued that Ernst Mayr's preferred mechanism might suggest a possible resolution.[5] The Eldredge and Gould paper was presented at the Annual Meeting of the Geological Society of America in 1971.[2] The symposium focused its attention on the possibility that modern microevolutionary studies could revitalize various aspects of paleontology and macroevolution. Tom Schopf, who organized that year's meeting, assigned Gould the topic of speciation. Gould recalls that "Eldredge's 1971 publication [on Paleozoic trilobites] had presented the only new and interesting ideas on the paleontological implications of the subject—so I asked Schopf if we could present the paper jointly."[10] According to Gould "the ideas came mostly from Niles, with yours truly acting as a sounding board and eventual scribe. I coined the term punctuated equilibrium and wrote most of our 1972 paper, but Niles is the proper first author in our pairing of Eldredge and Gould."[11] [edit]Theoretical mechanisms When Eldredge and Gould published their 1972 paper, allopatric speciation was considered the "standard" theory of speciation.[2] This theory was popularized by Ernst Mayr in his 1954 paper "Change of genetic environment and evolution,"[3] and his classic volume Animal Species and Evolution (1963).[12] Allopatric speciation suggests that species which are composed of large central populations are stabilized by their large volume and the genetic process of gene flow. New and even beneficial mutations are diluted by the population's size and are unable to reach fixation due to factors such as constantly changing environments.[12] If this is the case, then the transformation of whole lineages should be rare, as the fossil record indicates. Smaller populations on the other hand, which are isolated from the parental stock, are decoupled from the homogenizing effects of gene flow. In addition, pressure from natural selection is especially intense, as peripheral isolated populations exist at the outer edges of ecological tolerance. If most evolution happens in these rare instances of allopatric speciation then evidence of gradual evolution should be rare. This stimulating hypothesis was alluded to by Mayr in the closing paragraph of his 1954 paper. Ernst Mayr often emphasized the use of population thinking to describe species, rather than models which evoked a typological approach. In order to contrast the differences in population structures he coined the terms ecotypic and typostrophic variation. Ecotypic variation describes the genetics of large central populations which are stabilized by the homogenizing effects of gene flow. Small peripherally isolated populations, in contrast, possess typostrophic variation which "have the characteristic features of incipient species, but what is more important they often are species or incipient species of an entirely new type. That is, they may have morphological or ecological features that deviate quite strikingly and unexpectedly from the 'parental' pattern."[3] As time went on Gould moved away from wedding punctuated equilibrium to allopatric speciation, particularly as evidence accumulated in support of other modes of speciation. He also moved away from tying stasis to internal constraints. Gould was particularly attracted to Douglas Futuyma's work on the importance of reproductive isolating mechanisms.[13] The theory of punctuated equilibrium also contributed to the theory that species are Darwinian individuals, and not just classes, thereby providing a stronger framework for a hierarchical theory of evolution. Other biologists have applied punctuated equilibrium to non-sexual species, even the evolution of viruses.[14] Further evidence for the existence of stasis comes from the genetics of sibling species, species which are morphologically indistinguishable, but whose proteins have diverged sufficiently to suggest they have been separated for millions of years.[15] [edit]Common misconceptions Sterelny (2007) claimed that Eldredge and Gould's "hypothesis has been misunderstood in two important ways. In some early discussions of the idea, the contrast between geological and ecological time was blurred. Hence, Gould and Eldredge were interpreted as making a very radical claim: species originate more or less overnight, in a single step. (But) Gould and Eldredge agree that the new structures are almost always assembled over a number of generations, rather than all at once by macromutation...So by 'rapidly', they mean rapidly by geologist's standards". So with a coarse and incomplete fossil record, "a speciation that took 50,000 years would seem instantaneous", relative to the several million years of a species' existence.[16] Sterelny notes that "in recent work, they have clarified a second misunderstanding. In claiming that species typically undergo no further evolutionary change once speciation is complete, they are not claiming that there is no change at all between one generation and the next. Lineages do change. But the change between generations does not accumulate. Instead, over time, the species wobbles about its phenotypic mean. Jonathan Weiner's The Beak of the Finch describes this very process".[17] Punctuated equilibrium is often confused with George Gaylord Simpson's quantum evolution,[18] Richard Goldschmidt's saltationism,[19] pre-Lyellian catastrophism, and the phenomenon of mass extinction. Punctuated equilibrium is therefore mistakenly thought to oppose the concept of gradualism, when it is actually a form of gradualism, in the ecological sense of biological continuity.[2] This is because even though evolutionary change appears instantaneous between geological sediments, change is still occurring incrementally, with no great change from one generation to the next. To this end, Gould later commented that "Most of our paleontological colleagues missed this insight because they had not studied evolutionary theory and either did not know about allopatric speciation or had not considered its translation to geological time. Our evolutionary colleagues also failed to grasp the implication(s), primarily because they did not think at geological scales".[11] The relationship between punctuationism and gradualism can be better appreciated by considering an example. Suppose the average length of a limb in a particular species grows 50 centimeters (20 inches) over 70,000 years—a large amount in a geologically short period of time. If the average generation is seven years, then our given time span corresponds to 10,000 generations. It is therefore reasonable to conclude that if the limb size in our hypothetical population evolved in the most conservative manner, it need only increase at a rate of 0.005 cm per generation (= 50 cm/10,000), despite its abrupt appearance in the geological record.[citation needed] Richard Dawkins dedicated a chapter in The Blind Watchmaker to correcting, in his view, the wide confusion with rate of change, surrounding the theory of punctuated equilibrium. His first, and main point, is to argue that phyletic gradualism in the sense of uniformity of rates—what he refers to as "constant speedism"—is a "caricature of Darwinism"[20] and "does not really exist."[21] His second argument, which follows from the first, is that once this caricature is dismissed, we are left with only one logical alternative, which Dawkins calls "variable speedism." Variable speedism may be distinguished in one of two ways: "discrete variable speedism" and "continuously variable speedism." Eldredge and Gould, believing that evolution jumps between stability and relative rapidity, are described as "discrete variable speedists," and "in this respect they are genuinely radical."[22] They believe that evolution generally proceeds in bursts, or not at all. "Continuously variable speedists," on the other hand believe that "evolutionary rates fluctuate continuously from very fast to very slow and stop, with all intermediates. They see no particular reason to emphasize certain speeds more than others. In particular, stasis, to them, is just an extreme case of ultra-slow evolution. To a punctuationist, there is something very special about stasis."[23] Dawkins therefore commits himself here to an empirical claim about the geological record, in contrast to his claim that: "The paleontological evidence can be argued about, and I am not qualified to judge it.",[24] and it is this particular claim that Eldredge and Gould have aimed to overturn. Another pervasive misunderstanding of punctuated equilibrium was that it invoked large-scale mutations, the sort invoked by Richard Goldschmidt in The Material Basis of Evolution.[25] According to Dawkins, punctuated equilibrium "has no connection with macromutation and true saltation,[26] but rather "followed from long accepted conventional Darwinism," namely Mayrian allopatric speciation.[27] [edit]Criticism Richard Dawkins believes that the apparent gaps represented in the fossil record document migratory events rather than evolutionary events. According to Dawkins, evolution certainly occurred but "probably gradually" elsewhere.[28] However, the punctuational equilibrium model may still be inferred from both the observance of stasis and documented examples of rapid and episodic speciation events documented in the fossil record.[29] Dawkins also emphasizes that punctuated equilibrium has been "oversold by some journalists",[30] but partly due to Eldredge and Gould's "later writings".[31] Dawkins contends that the theory "does not deserve a particularly large measure of publicity".[32] It is a "minor gloss," an "interesting but minor wrinkle on the surface of neo-Darwinian theory," and "lies firmly within the neo-Darwinian synthesis".[33] Criticism of punctuated equilibrium has even appeared from non-scientists. In his book Darwin's Dangerous Idea, philosopher Daniel Dennett is especially critical of Gould's presentation of punctuated equilibrium. Dennett argues that Gould alternated between revolutionary and conservative claims about the theory, and that each time Gould made a revolutionary statement—or appeared to do so—he was criticized, and thus retreated to a traditional neo-Darwinian position.[34] Gould responded to Dennett's claims in The New York Review of Books,[35] and in his technical volume The Structure of Evolutionary Theory.[36] Literary scholars [37] have argued that Gould's use of analogy and metaphor constitutes a non-scientific discourse serving to validate a scientific theory. In a 2007 article Heidi Scott claims that Gould—particularly in his popular essays—uses a variety of strategies from literature, political science, and personal anecdotes to substantiate the general pattern of punctuated equilibrium (long periods of stasis interrupted by rapid, catastrophic change). Gould responded that critics often made the mistake of confusing the context of discovery with the context of justification. While Gould is celebrated for the color and energy of his prose, as well as his massive interdisciplinary knowledge, critics such as Scott have concerns that the theory has gained undeserved credence among non-scientists because of Gould's rhetorical skills.[37] Randy Allen Harris, Professor of Rhetoric at the University of Waterloo, in a more positive evaluation, states that "re-analysis of existing fossil data has shown, to the increasing satisfaction of the paleontological community, that Eldredge and Gould were correct in identifying periods of evolutionary stasis which are interrupted by much shorter periods of evolutionary change."[38] [edit]Relation to Darwin's theories The sudden appearance of most species in the geologic record and the lack of evidence of substantial gradual change in most species—from their initial appearance until their extinction—has long been noted, including by Charles Darwin who appealed to the imperfection of the record as the favored explanation.[39][40] When presenting his ideas against the prevailing influence of catastrophism put forward by Georges Cuvier which envisaged species being supernaturally created at intervals, Darwin needed to forcefully stress the gradual nature of evolution in accordance with the gradualism promoted by his friend Charles Lyell. He privately expressed concern, noting in the margin of his 1844 Essay, "Better begin with this: If species really, after catastrophes, created in showers world over, my theory false."[41] It is often incorrectly assumed that he insisted that the rate of change must be constant, or nearly so, but even the first edition of On the Origin of Species states that "Species of different genera and classes have not changed at the same rate, or in the same degree. In the oldest tertiary beds a few living shells may still be found in the midst of a multitude of extinct forms... The Silurian Lingula differs but little from the living species of this genus". Lingula is among the few brachiopods surviving today but also known from fossils over 500 million years old.[42] In the fifth edition of On the Origin of Species Darwin wrote that "the periods during which species have undergone modification, though long as measured in years, have probably been short in comparison with the periods during which they retain the same form."[43] Thus punctuationism in general is consistent with Darwin's conception of evolution.[41] According to early versions of punctuated equilibrium, "peripheral isolates" are considered to be of critical importance for speciation. However, Darwin wrote, "I can by no means agree ... that immigration and isolation are necessary elements.... Although isolation is of great importance in the production of new species, on the whole I am inclined to believe that largeness of area is still more important, especially for the production of species which shall prove capable of enduring for a long period, and of spreading widely."[44] The importance of isolation in forming species had played a significant part in Darwin's early thinking, as shown in his Essay of 1844. But by the time he wrote the Origin he had downplayed its importance.[41] He explained the reasons for his revised view as follows: Throughout a great and open area, not only will there be a greater chance of favourable variations, arising from the large number of individuals of the same species there supported, but the conditions of life are much more complex from the large number of already existing species; and if some of these species become modified and improved, others will have to be improved in a corresponding degree, or they will be exterminated. Each new form, also, as soon as it has been improved, will be able to spread over the open and continuous area, and will thus come into competition with many other forms ... the new forms produced on large areas, which have already been victorious over many competitors, will be those that will spread most widely, and will give rise to the greatest number of new varieties and species. They will thus play a more important role in the changing history of the organic world.[45] Thus punctuated equilibrium contradicts some of Darwin's ideas regarding the specific mechanisms of evolution, but generally accords with Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection.[41] [edit]Supplemental modes of rapid evolution See also: Rapid modes of evolution Recent work in developmental biology has identified dynamical and physical mechanisms of tissue morphogenesis that may underlie abrupt morphological transitions during evolution. Consequently, consideration of mechanisms of phylogenetic change that have been found in reality to be non-gradual is increasingly common in the field of evolutionary developmental biology, particularly in studies of the origin of morphological novelty. A description of such mechanisms can be found in the multi-authored volume Origination of Organismal Form (MIT Press; 2003). [edit]Punctuated equilibrium in social theory See also: Punctuated equilibrium in social theory Punctuated equilibrium in social theory is a method of understanding change in complex social systems, particularly how policy change and the development of conflicts seem to progress in extended periods of stasis, punctuated by sudden shifts in radical change. [edit]Punctuated equilibrium in language change In linguistics, R.M.W. Dixon has proposed a puncuated equilibrium model for language histories, with reference particularly to the prehistory of the indigenous languages of Australia and his objections to the proposed Pama-Nyungan language family there. Although his model has raised considerable interest, it does not command majority support within linguistics. Separately, recent work using computational phylogenetic methods claims to show that punctuational bursts play an important factor when languages split from one another, accounting for anywhere from 10 to 33% of the total divergence in vocabulary.[46] STEPHEN HAWKING: How to build a time machine By STEPHEN HAWKING Last updated at 10:08 AM on 3rd May 2010 Comments (0) Add to My Stories All you need is a wormhole, the Large Hadron Collider or a rocket that goes really, really fast 'Through the wormhole, the scientist can see himself as he was one minute ago. But what if our scientist uses the wormhole to shoot his earlier self? He's now dead. So who fired the shot?' Hello. My name is Stephen Hawking. Physicist, cosmologist and something of a dreamer. Although I cannot move and I have to speak through a computer, in my mind I am free. Free to explore the universe and ask the big questions, such as: is time travel possible? Can we open a portal to the past or find a shortcut to the future? Can we ultimately use the laws of nature to become masters of time itself? Time travel was once considered scientific heresy. I used to avoid talking about it for fear of being labelled a crank. But these days I'm not so cautious. In fact, I'm more like the people who built Stonehenge. I'm obsessed by time. If I had a time machine I'd visit Marilyn Monroe in her prime or drop in on Galileo as he turned his telescope to the heavens. Perhaps I'd even travel to the end of the universe to find out how our whole cosmic story ends. To see how this might be possible, we need to look at time as physicists do - at the fourth dimension. It's not as hard as it sounds. Every attentive schoolchild knows that all physical objects, even me in my chair, exist in three dimensions. Everything has a width and a height and a length. But there is another kind of length, a length in time. While a human may survive for 80 years, the stones at Stonehenge, for instance, have stood around for thousands of years. And the solar system will last for billions of years. Everything has a length in time as well as space. Travelling in time means travelling through this fourth dimension. To see what that means, let's imagine we're doing a bit of normal, everyday car travel. Drive in a straight line and you're travelling in one dimension. Turn right or left and you add the second dimension. Drive up or down a twisty mountain road and that adds height, so that's travelling in all three dimensions. But how on Earth do we travel in time? How do we find a path through the fourth dimension? Let's indulge in a little science fiction for a moment. Time travel movies often feature a vast, energy-hungry machine. The machine creates a path through the fourth dimension, a tunnel through time. A time traveller, a brave, perhaps foolhardy individual, prepared for who knows what, steps into the time tunnel and emerges who knows when. The concept may be far-fetched, and the reality may be very different from this, but the idea itself is not so crazy. Physicists have been thinking about tunnels in time too, but we come at it from a different angle. We wonder if portals to the past or the future could ever be possible within the laws of nature. As it turns out, we think they are. What's more, we've even given them a name: wormholes. The truth is that wormholes are all around us, only they're too small to see. Wormholes are very tiny. They occur in nooks and crannies in space and time. You might find it a tough concept, but stay with me. Enlarge A wormhole is a theoretical 'tunnel' or shortcut, predicted by Einstein's theory of relativity, that links two places in space-time - visualised above as the contours of a 3-D map, where negative energy pulls space and time into the mouth of a tunnel, emerging in another universe. They remain only hypothetical, as obviously nobody has ever seen one, but have been used in films as conduits for time travel - in Stargate (1994), for example, involving gated tunnels between universes, and in Time Bandits (1981), where their locations are shown on a celestial map Nothing is flat or solid. If you look closely enough at anything you'll find holes and wrinkles in it. It's a basic physical principle, and it even applies to time. Even something as smooth as a pool ball has tiny crevices, wrinkles and voids. Now it's easy to show that this is true in the first three dimensions. But trust me, it's also true of the fourth dimension. There are tiny crevices, wrinkles and voids in time. Down at the smallest of scales, smaller even than molecules, smaller than atoms, we get to a place called the quantum foam. This is where wormholes exist. Tiny tunnels or shortcuts through space and time constantly form, disappear, and reform within this quantum world. And they actually link two separate places and two different times. Unfortunately, these real-life time tunnels are just a billion-trillion-trillionths of a centimetre across. Way too small for a human to pass through - but here's where the notion of wormhole time machines is leading. Some scientists think it may be possible to capture a wormhole and enlarge it many trillions of times to make it big enough for a human or even a spaceship to enter. Given enough power and advanced technology, perhaps a giant wormhole could even be constructed in space. I'm not saying it can be done, but if it could be, it would be a truly remarkable device. One end could be here near Earth, and the other far, far away, near some distant planet. Theoretically, a time tunnel or wormhole could do even more than take us to other planets. If both ends were in the same place, and separated by time instead of distance, a ship could fly in and come out still near Earth, but in the distant past. Maybe dinosaurs would witness the ship coming in for a landing. The fastest manned vehicle in history was Apollo 10. It reached 25,000mph. But to travel in time we'll have to go more than 2,000 times faster Now, I realise that thinking in four dimensions is not easy, and that wormholes are a tricky concept to wrap your head around, but hang in there. I've thought up a simple experiment that could reveal if human time travel through a wormhole is possible now, or even in the future. I like simple experiments, and champagne. So I've combined two of my favourite things to see if time travel from the future to the past is possible. Let's imagine I'm throwing a party, a welcome reception for future time travellers. But there's a twist. I'm not letting anyone know about it until after the party has happened. I've drawn up an invitation giving the exact coordinates in time and space. I am hoping copies of it, in one form or another, will be around for many thousands of years. Maybe one day someone living in the future will find the information on the invitation and use a wormhole time machine to come back to my party, proving that time travel will, one day, be possible. In the meantime, my time traveller guests should be arriving any moment now. Five, four, three, two, one. But as I say this, no one has arrived. What a shame. I was hoping at least a future Miss Universe was going to step through the door. So why didn't the experiment work? One of the reasons might be because of a well-known problem with time travel to the past, the problem of what we call paradoxes. Paradoxes are fun to think about. The most famous one is usually called the Grandfather paradox. I have a new, simpler version I call the Mad Scientist paradox. I don't like the way scientists in movies are often described as mad, but in this case, it's true. This chap is determined to create a paradox, even if it costs him his life. Imagine, somehow, he's built a wormhole, a time tunnel that stretches just one minute into the past. Hawking in a scene from Star Trek with dinner guests from the past, and future: (from left) Albert Einstein, Data and Isaac Newton Through the wormhole, the scientist can see himself as he was one minute ago. But what if our scientist uses the wormhole to shoot his earlier self? He's now dead. So who fired the shot? It's a paradox. It just doesn't make sense. It's the sort of situation that gives cosmologists nightmares. This kind of time machine would violate a fundamental rule that governs the entire universe - that causes happen before effects, and never the other way around. I believe things can't make themselves impossible. If they could then there'd be nothing to stop the whole universe from descending into chaos. So I think something will always happen that prevents the paradox. Somehow there must be a reason why our scientist will never find himself in a situation where he could shoot himself. And in this case, I'm sorry to say, the wormhole itself is the problem. In the end, I think a wormhole like this one can't exist. And the reason for that is feedback. If you've ever been to a rock gig, you'll probably recognise this screeching noise. It's feedback. What causes it is simple. Sound enters the microphone. It's transmitted along the wires, made louder by the amplifier, and comes out at the speakers. But if too much of the sound from the speakers goes back into the mic it goes around and around in a loop getting louder each time. If no one stops it, feedback can destroy the sound system. The same thing will happen with a wormhole, only with radiation instead of sound. As soon as the wormhole expands, natural radiation will enter it, and end up in a loop. The feedback will become so strong it destroys the wormhole. So although tiny wormholes do exist, and it may be possible to inflate one some day, it won't last long enough to be of use as a time machine. That's the real reason no one could come back in time to my party. Any kind of time travel to the past through wormholes or any other method is probably impossible, otherwise paradoxes would occur. So sadly, it looks like time travel to the past is never going to happen. A disappointment for dinosaur hunters and a relief for historians. But the story's not over yet. This doesn't make all time travel impossible. I do believe in time travel. Time travel to the future. Time flows like a river and it seems as if each of us is carried relentlessly along by time's current. But time is like a river in another way. It flows at different speeds in different places and that is the key to travelling into the future. This idea was first proposed by Albert Einstein over 100 years ago. He realised that there should be places where time slows down, and others where time speeds up. He was absolutely right. And the proof is right above our heads. Up in space. This is the Global Positioning System, or GPS. A network of satellites is in orbit around Earth. The satellites make satellite navigation possible. But they also reveal that time runs faster in space than it does down on Earth. Inside each spacecraft is a very precise clock. But despite being so accurate, they all gain around a third of a billionth of a second every day. The system has to correct for the drift, otherwise that tiny difference would upset the whole system, causing every GPS device on Earth to go out by about six miles a day. You can just imagine the mayhem that that would cause. The problem doesn't lie with the clocks. They run fast because time itself runs faster in space than it does down below. And the reason for this extraordinary effect is the mass of the Earth. Einstein realised that matter drags on time and slows it down like the slow part of a river. The heavier the object, the more it drags on time. And this startling reality is what opens the door to the possibility of time travel to the future. Right in the centre of the Milky Way, 26,000 light years from us, lies the heaviest object in the galaxy. It is a supermassive black hole containing the mass of four million suns crushed down into a single point by its own gravity. The closer you get to the black hole, the stronger the gravity. Get really close and not even light can escape. A black hole like this one has a dramatic effect on time, slowing it down far more than anything else in the galaxy. That makes it a natural time machine. I like to imagine how a spaceship might be able to take advantage of this phenomenon, by orbiting it. If a space agency were controlling the mission from Earth they'd observe that each full orbit took 16 minutes. But for the brave people on board, close to this massive object, time would be slowed down. And here the effect would be far more extreme than the gravitational pull of Earth. The crew's time would be slowed down by half. For every 16-minute orbit, they'd only experience eight minutes of time. Inside the Large Hadron Collider Around and around they'd go, experiencing just half the time of everyone far away from the black hole. The ship and its crew would be travelling through time. Imagine they circled the black hole for five of their years. Ten years would pass elsewhere. When they got home, everyone on Earth would have aged five years more than they had. So a supermassive black hole is a time machine. But of course, it's not exactly practical. It has advantages over wormholes in that it doesn't provoke paradoxes. Plus it won't destroy itself in a flash of feedback. But it's pretty dangerous. It's a long way away and it doesn't even take us very far into the future. Fortunately there is another way to travel in time. And this represents our last and best hope of building a real time machine. You just have to travel very, very fast. Much faster even than the speed required to avoid being sucked into a black hole. This is due to another strange fact about the universe. There's a cosmic speed limit, 186,000 miles per second, also known as the speed of light. Nothing can exceed that speed. It's one of the best established principles in science. Believe it or not, travelling at near the speed of light transports you to the future. To explain why, let's dream up a science-fiction transportation system. Imagine a track that goes right around Earth, a track for a superfast train. We're going to use this imaginary train to get as close as possible to the speed of light and see how it becomes a time machine. On board are passengers with a one-way ticket to the future. The train begins to accelerate, faster and faster. Soon it's circling the Earth over and over again. To approach the speed of light means circling the Earth pretty fast. Seven times a second. But no matter how much power the train has, it can never quite reach the speed of light, since the laws of physics forbid it. Instead, let's say it gets close, just shy of that ultimate speed. Now something extraordinary happens. Time starts flowing slowly on board relative to the rest of the world, just like near the black hole, only more so. Everything on the train is in slow motion. This happens to protect the speed limit, and it's not hard to see why. Imagine a child running forwards up the train. Her forward speed is added to the speed of the train, so couldn't she break the speed limit simply by accident? The answer is no. The laws of nature prevent the possibility by slowing down time onboard. Now she can't run fast enough to break the limit. Time will always slow down just enough to protect the speed limit. And from that fact comes the possibility of travelling many years into the future. Imagine that the train left the station on January 1, 2050. It circles Earth over and over again for 100 years before finally coming to a halt on New Year's Day, 2150. The passengers will have only lived one week because time is slowed down that much inside the train. When they got out they'd find a very different world from the one they'd left. In one week they'd have travelled 100 years into the future. Of course, building a train that could reach such a speed is quite impossible. But we have built something very like the train at the world's largest particle accelerator at CERN in Geneva, Switzerland. Deep underground, in a circular tunnel 16 miles long, is a stream of trillions of tiny particles. When the power is turned on they accelerate from zero to 60,000mph in a fraction of a second. Increase the power and the particles go faster and faster, until they're whizzing around the tunnel 11,000 times a second, which is almost the speed of light. But just like the train, they never quite reach that ultimate speed. They can only get to 99.99 per cent of the limit. When that happens, they too start to travel in time. We know this because of some extremely short-lived particles, called pi-mesons. Ordinarily, they disintegrate after just 25 billionths of a second. But when they are accelerated to near-light speed they last 30 times longer. It really is that simple. If we want to travel into the future, we just need to go fast. Really fast. And I think the only way we're ever likely to do that is by going into space. The fastest manned vehicle in history was Apollo 10. It reached 25,000mph. But to travel in time we'll have to go more than 2,000 times faster. And to do that we'd need a much bigger ship, a truly enormous machine. The ship would have to be big enough to carry a huge amount of fuel, enough to accelerate it to nearly the speed of light. Getting to just beneath the cosmic speed limit would require six whole years at full power. The initial acceleration would be gentle because the ship would be so big and heavy. But gradually it would pick up speed and soon would be covering massive distances. In one week it would have reached the outer planets. After two years it would reach half-light speed and be far outside our solar system. Two years later it would be travelling at 90 per cent of the speed of light. Around 30 trillion miles away from Earth, and four years after launch, the ship would begin to travel in time. For every hour of time on the ship, two would pass on Earth. A similar situation to the spaceship that orbited the massive black hole. After another two years of full thrust the ship would reach its top speed, 99 per cent of the speed of light. At this speed, a single day on board is a whole year of Earth time. Our ship would be truly flying into the future. The slowing of time has another benefit. It means we could, in theory, travel extraordinary distances within one lifetime. A trip to the edge of the galaxy would take just 80 years. But the real wonder of our journey is that it reveals just how strange the universe is. It's a universe where time runs at different rates in different places. Where tiny wormholes exist all around us. And where, ultimately, we might use our understanding of physics to become true voyagers through the fourth dimension.  Ik bedoel maar hey, dit laat duidelijk zien dat god niet bestaat en evolutie de enige echte waarheid is.
__________________
Welcome to your mom's house!
|
|
|
06-09-2010, 18:29
|
|
|
|
Oh ja, ik herinner me die Star Trek aflevering,
Data blijft mijn favoriet in die serie. Verder kan er een slotje op lijkt me, het is helemaal duidelijk.
|
|
16-09-2010, 10:58
|
||
|
Citaat:
Waar vind jij in de bijbel dat alle diersoorten die nu op aarde leven door god geschapen zijn?  Of dat er geen evolutie plaatsvind? 
__________________
In omnia paratus
|
|
|
16-09-2010, 17:06
|
||
Verwijderd
|
Citaat:
|
|
|
16-09-2010, 17:20
|
||
|
Citaat:
Die ik momenteel aan het lezen ben, en deze quote is geheel uit zijn context gerukt. Quote dan ook de rest erbij waarin de uitleg van dit fenomeen gegeven wordt. edit: oh deze stelling is al zon 5 keer gedebunked, excuses voor de repetitie
__________________
01110100011001010111011001100101011001010110110000100000011101000
11010010110101001100100001000000011111100111111001000000011101001010000
|
|
|
17-09-2010, 22:35
|
||
|
|
Citaat:
als antwoord op bovenstaande stelling kan ik immers gewoon zeggen: Het fossielenverslag laat wel evolutie zien, kijk maar, dynamiek.
__________________
B. kiest tussen nergens vertroosting in vinden of door niet te speculeren of door filosofisch te redeneren, de derde optie betekent putten uit alle bronnen
|
|
|
18-09-2010, 07:37
|
||
|
|
Citaat:
Maar, inderdaad, dieren in hun oervorm zouden ook van meteorieten naar de aarde gebracht kunnen zijn.. Echter, wederom, zonder aarde is dat onmogelijk.
|
|
|
18-09-2010, 08:00
|
||
Verwijderd
|
Citaat:
|
|
|
18-09-2010, 14:44
|
|||
|
|
Citaat:
Citaat:
__________________
That's what happens when you look, lady. Now you're a salt pillar, and all the deer are gonna lick ya.
|
||
|
18-09-2010, 16:04
|
||
Verwijderd
|
Citaat:
|
|
|
18-09-2010, 16:10
|
||
|
|
Citaat:
Echter, wetenschap toont juist aan dat de aarde elk jaar langzamer draait. De enige reden om er een "slinger" aan te geven is om die fatale meteoriet off-center in te laten slaan. Geeft weer een nieuwe betekenis aan "en de 7e dag zult u rusten".. 
|
|
| Advertentie |
|
|
 |
«
Vorige topic
|
Volgende topic
»
|
|
Soortgelijke topics
|
||||
| Forum | Topic | Reacties | Laatste bericht | |
| Levensbeschouwing & Filosofie |
Evolutie harriej_ | 397 | 08-06-2007 13:25 | |
| Levensbeschouwing & Filosofie |
Dat zijn een hoop beestjes... akumabito | 498 | 23-12-2006 23:08 | |
| Levensbeschouwing & Filosofie |
Leven: "Evolutie of schepping?" BiL@L | 13 | 03-12-2003 11:02 | |
Alle tijden zijn GMT +1. Het is nu 04:41.
Adverteren