Comments on: Sam Brownback Proves: Some of us Didn’t Evolve (Much) from Monkeys http://www.juliansanchez.com/2007/05/31/sam-brownback-proves-some-of-us-didnt-evolve-much-from-monkeys/ Just another geek in the geek kingdom Thu, 09 Feb 2012 05:38:37 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2 By: razib http://www.juliansanchez.com/2007/05/31/sam-brownback-proves-some-of-us-didnt-evolve-much-from-monkeys/comment-page-1/#comment-2439 razib Fri, 01 Jun 2007 20:04:03 +0000 http://juliansanchez.com/?p=1823#comment-2439 <i>Really, it's just kind of a neat semantic trick.</i> species questions are kind of semantical tricks if you ask me. Really, it’s just kind of a neat semantic trick.

species questions are kind of semantical tricks if you ask me.

]]> By: mediageek http://www.juliansanchez.com/2007/05/31/sam-brownback-proves-some-of-us-didnt-evolve-much-from-monkeys/comment-page-1/#comment-2438 mediageek Fri, 01 Jun 2007 17:53:36 +0000 http://juliansanchez.com/?p=1823#comment-2438 Interestingly enough, Brownbeck simply takes an old creationist standby argument: that there are no "transitional" fossils or species, and turns it on it's head. The base of the "microevolution" creationist claim is that one can certainly see changes among species, but those changes aren't big enough to create an entirely new species. Which, I suppose, is true, if you're willing to narrow your view of a species enough so that no given "transitional" creature varies too much from the ones around it and can therefore be shoehorned into a particular category. Really, it's just kind of a neat semantic trick. Interestingly enough, Brownbeck simply takes an old creationist standby argument: that there are no “transitional” fossils or species, and turns it on it’s head.

The base of the “microevolution” creationist claim is that one can certainly see changes among species, but those changes aren’t big enough to create an entirely new species.

Which, I suppose, is true, if you’re willing to narrow your view of a species enough so that no given “transitional” creature varies too much from the ones around it and can therefore be shoehorned into a particular category.

Really, it’s just kind of a neat semantic trick.

]]> By: razib http://www.juliansanchez.com/2007/05/31/sam-brownback-proves-some-of-us-didnt-evolve-much-from-monkeys/comment-page-1/#comment-2437 razib Fri, 01 Jun 2007 07:08:20 +0000 http://juliansanchez.com/?p=1823#comment-2437 <i> I thought the position of the "micro yes, macro no" people was that there is no mutation, so the only kind of evolution you can get is changing the frequencies of genes already in the gene pool. </i> you must mean non-deleterious mutation? after all, mutation is an observable process biophysically. I thought the position of the “micro yes, macro no” people was that there is no mutation, so the only kind of evolution you can get is changing the frequencies of genes already in the gene pool.

you must mean non-deleterious mutation? after all, mutation is an observable process biophysically.

]]> By: David J. Balan http://www.juliansanchez.com/2007/05/31/sam-brownback-proves-some-of-us-didnt-evolve-much-from-monkeys/comment-page-1/#comment-2436 David J. Balan Fri, 01 Jun 2007 05:49:51 +0000 http://juliansanchez.com/?p=1823#comment-2436 I'm certainly no expert, but Derbyshire's thing seems wrong to me. I thought the position of the "micro yes, macro no" people was that there is no mutation, so the only kind of evolution you can get is changing the frequencies of genes already in the gene pool. If you mate the biggest flies with the biggest flies, you get really big flies after a while, but that's it. It's wrong, of course, but the people who hold that position do have a story that they tell. I’m certainly no expert, but Derbyshire’s thing seems wrong to me. I thought the position of the “micro yes, macro no” people was that there is no mutation, so the only kind of evolution you can get is changing the frequencies of genes already in the gene pool. If you mate the biggest flies with the biggest flies, you get really big flies after a while, but that’s it. It’s wrong, of course, but the people who hold that position do have a story that they tell.

]]> By: razib http://www.juliansanchez.com/2007/05/31/sam-brownback-proves-some-of-us-didnt-evolve-much-from-monkeys/comment-page-1/#comment-2435 razib Thu, 31 May 2007 19:17:11 +0000 http://juliansanchez.com/?p=1823#comment-2435 brownback is a bizarre cookie since catholic theology gives him an out re: secondary causes and first causes and all that stuff. as i note on my weblog, he objects <b>both</b> to the absolute determinism and randomness of material processes ;-) you can't lose! brownback is a bizarre cookie since catholic theology gives him an out re: secondary causes and first causes and all that stuff. as i note on my weblog, he objects both to the absolute determinism and randomness of material processes ;-) you can’t lose!

]]> By: LP http://www.juliansanchez.com/2007/05/31/sam-brownback-proves-some-of-us-didnt-evolve-much-from-monkeys/comment-page-1/#comment-2434 LP Thu, 31 May 2007 18:32:25 +0000 http://juliansanchez.com/?p=1823#comment-2434 As it's usually put by Christians: Science is the study of God's order. As it’s usually put by Christians: Science is the study of God’s order.

]]>