<p>Gutrade, your opinions on punctuated equilibrium, please. Agree with Gould? Or are you on the camp of gradual adaptation?</p>
<p>LOLZ at Gentlemen's comment</p>
<p>So I guess with the existence of computers, we will all one day have a macro-evolutionary event where we all develope intel microprocessors in our brain through DNA replication. And then become electrons to further our evolutionary process. You can't rule this out after all, its all within the possibility of macro-evolution. </p>
<p>The entire idea of my existence coming from one single amoeba just seems ridiculous. Sure I can believe in micro-evolution, like getting taller, smarter, browner, etc... over thousands of years, but to suddenly grown intel microprocessors just seems too ridiculous. </p>
<p>Of course, I do believe that the jump from humans creating some elements of cell structure with no life, to massive odds of a living cell being reproduced and then one day becoming a human takes a certain amount of faith as well. Just like religion does.</p>
<p>I love organic soup...the wonders of evolution.</p>
<p>I recommend Jared Diamond, professor at UCLA and author of Collapse, The Third Chimpanzee, and Guns, Germs, and Steel.</p>
<p>"Gutrade, your opinions on punctuated equilibrium, please. Agree with Gould? Or are you on the camp of gradual adaptation?"</p>
<p>Although many creationists took the observation of punctuated equilibrium (punk eek) to be a sign that the theory of evolution is out of whack and that scientists finally caved in on Darwin's theories, that is certainly not the case. Punk eek does not disprove gradualism or darwin's theories. In fact, punk eek is merely a special form of gradualism. Although you might think that these "quick changes" that occur out of nowhere are contrary to the theory that species evolve gradually, I'll explain why this is not the case. In the punk eek theory, species are still eveolving gradually. It's not like lizards grows wings overnight or that humans arise from monkeys in the blink of an eye. Things are still taking millions of years to take effect. </p>
<p>I think that there is a perfectly sound scientific explanation for punk eek. Things might not evolve for long periods of time because conditions on earth might have remained steady. But these radical changes come about when the conditions on earth radically change (the ice age for example). When these radical changes on earth occur, species radically adapt to them. This explains why there are long periods of time when no evolution seems to occur, and huge spurts when so many changes happen. Change begets change, and punk eek is merely a subset of gradualism. Darwin wasn't wrong, things still eveolve gradually, and there is always a perfectly sound scientific explanation for things that might seem perplexing and hard to understand.</p>
<p>Ok i found this one to be just too funny to pass up so let me start.
1) Intelligent design in no way contradicts evolution. It simply states that there was some higher being that got the ball rolling in the first place. It provides a mechanism with which the Big Bang actually occured. You people can harp on the discoveries in quantum mechanics that make a circular timeline possible and how the big bang wasnt really the beginning at all but one of an infinite series, but when it comes down to it its an equally large leap of faith to get to I.D. as it is to a chance "Big Bang" theory. </p>
<p>2) I personally am not for intellignt design, actually im a creationist. Im also an MCB if youre curious. Now before the arrows start falling id like to question the proposed link between Creationism and Anti-Intellectualism. My main objection is how many of you seem to treat Macroevolution as a proven fact, an infallible truth, the contradiction of which should be punished by death by stoning. Macroevolution, in fact has not been proven. There is no true definitive proof that it work as theorized, or that nautral selection is its driving force. While there are certain species in the fossil record that may indicate common descent, the link, or fork in the tree is nonexistent. </p>
<p>For the record i am not an expert, and by no means make any claim to be. Tell me im wrong sure, but just be aware, you know as well as i do and hopefully the rest that macroevolution has not been proven, as to do so one would actually have to make a cell from nothing but a pool of chemicals. Please tell me when that happens. So before you begin insulting people's intelligence with attacks against personal beliefs which require an equally large leap of faith as yours, stop and remember that you have no more claim to truth than i do. I dont believe in macroevolution but at least i dont call you a moron.</p>
<p>yllwjep, don't even bother. Support anything other than strict Darwinism and these enlightened souls won't consider you seriously; they'll just assume you're a brainwashed ignorant fool. Doesn't matter if your argument makes sense or not.</p>
<p>And just for the record, I think Professor Johnson is smarter than anyone on this board right now, and I'm pretty sure that's a majority opinion. So don't belittle his intelligence and proudly state how you're smarter than him because you're an evolutionist.</p>
<p>I probably shouldn't feed the trolls, youre right. But I'd like to invite those of you who would tout evolution's strength to actually read the enitre article and notice that there are some intelligent microbiologists and biochemists who can find physical and biological reasons to support creationism. I say reasons because it is not proof. But then again where is yours?</p>
<p>Professor Johnson has a basic misconception about the fundamentals of science. Therefore, I can say with enough confidence, that he is not the smartest person on this board when it comes to biology and science. He's definitely smarter than any of us when it comes to law, but as Max Weber argues in his essay, "Science as a Vocation," nobody can be the best at every discipline under the sun. The Berkeley professor might be really good at law, but when it comes to scientific inquiry and the basic fundamentals of empirical, logical observation....well let's just say he isn't the brightest star in the sky.</p>
<p>Well, you have the arrogance befitting a stereotypical Ivy Leaguer, let me tell you that.</p>
<p>I would argue that due simply to age and experience within a learning environment would give Professor Johnson a better capacity to understand such complex discussions, and let's not forget that law is based extremely heavily on logic (heck, the LSAT is basically a logic exam!) and since you seem so heavily bent on strict logic and no faith, it would indeed seem to indicate that the advantage is heavily slanted towards the Professor. Let's get this straight: you can get accepted to any top-notch university in the world, but until you spend your time there and in the real world, you can't say that you have a better/smarter perspective on matters such as this.</p>
<p>Let's hope you treat your professors in New Haven with more respect and decency than Professor Johnson..."isn't the brightest star in the sky"...you got cojones, kid, I'll give you that...granted, it's an anonymous Internet post, but you sure aren't lacking in the confidence department.</p>
<p>I think the Professor has cojones as well. It's a testament to him that he has the confidence to make a statement that he knows most people are going to argue with. Isn't that the job description of a lawyer?</p>
<p>Dude. Remember that Cornell is the best in the sciences for ivies. Expecting a viewpoint the level of yllwjep from a non Cornell ivy league science major is like expecting a little league pitcher to pitch game 7 of the world series.</p>
<p>This has happened to me countless of times after I graduated and ended up working in i-banking, smoking out with co-workers etc... in the end, all u can do is feel sorry for them. You guys will know what I am talking about once u graduate.</p>
<p>Let me also remark that just because somebody is in a position of power, whether it is a professor, a teacher, or even the President of the United States, it doesn't mean that they know so much more than you that to even question would be an act of complete folly and arrogance. We don't live in an autocratic society like Nazi Germany or Imperial Japan, and questioning those in power is a fundamental part of being a responsible, thinking, and autonomous individual. We are all going off to college. We are all going to sit down and listen to lecturers, professors, and TA's talk about a certain world view. It is our responsibilities as students to think for ourselves and formulate our own opinions. I don't know how they do things at Berkeley, but I'm pretty sure brainwashing isn't supposed to be part of the cirriculum. So if you guys decide to listen to professor Johnson and believe in everything he says without ever thinking for yourself, then I feel that you will be doing yourself one of the greatest disservices a student could ever do. Johnson might be smart, but he's certainly wrong on the theory of evolution. Just because he's a professor it doesn't mean he's 100 percent correct all of the time. I hope you guys remember that.</p>
<p>I'm not saying Professor Johnson is 100% correct. I'm just saying he's correct a lot more often than you are. So you aren't exactly in a position to badmouth the guy's opinions as vehemently as you currently are.</p>
<p>Regardless, you are giving remarkable short shrift to the creationist and ID beliefs. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you've never given any extensive study to these two subjects, so all your opinions about it being hogwash are simply conjecture. I'm confident that Professor Johnson has quite thoroughly explored both the evolutionary theories as well as the beliefs he now defends. So intelligence aside, he's much more qualified to announce his beliefs on the matter than yourself.</p>
<p>Questioning opinions that oppose yours is natural and healthy. But you need to be able to keep an open mind about the opposing viewpoint or else you're simply a bigot. And (I hate to delve into the realm of flaming, but here goes) your closed-minded bashing of the Professor is pretty darn bigoted. Get off your pedestal and look back on your posts with an objective eye.</p>
<p>Okay, I just wanted to clear up some stuff here and get it off my conscience...</p>
<p>rooster08 said, </p>
<p>
[quote]
WHy else do you think there is such an uproar in Asia about Japan's callous decision to gloss over their horrendous WWII war crimes in their student textbooks?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>According to an estimate by the PRC itself, only 1/10 of 1% of Japanese textbooks whitewash. On the contrary, almost all PRC textbooks use anti-Japanese rhetoric as a teaching tool and whitewash the Great Leap and Cultural Revolution.</p>
<p>Bubbles said,</p>
<p>
[quote]
And sorry to say, but UCLA isn't even competing on Cal's level. It's like comparing the economies of North and South Korea.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I agree with you for the most part, but the last part is just trolling. C'mon.</p>
<p>Anyway, there is no serious argument here: Evolution is a FACT. If you want to argue a FACT, go ahead. This post-modernist crap about what fact really is I think is half to blame. Evolution is a FACT. No self-respecting biologist thinks otherwise.</p>
<p>Let's examine something here. From looking at the quality of his posts and the depths of his arguments, I think I can safely say that Gutrade is pretty darn intelligent. I didn't even full understand what he was talking about when he quoted Max Weber or talked about punctuated equilibrium and gradualism. (I guess I need to do some more reading). He's also going to Yale and even received a likely letter from them. He's probably more intelligent than everyone on this board, so I find it ironic that you guys are attacking his level of intellect. So far, he has killed everybody's arguments. All you guys can do now is dish out personal attacks because there is no way you can beat him in a logical, informed debate. </p>
<p>And dude, you got rejected by Stanford? ***? They must have made some sort of mistake. I assume that in addition to Yale, you probably got into Harvard, Princeton, MIT, etc. What's up with Stanford? Do they only accept Einsteins or something and they thought you were only an Enrico Fermi? LOL!</p>
<p>First of all, thank you collegeperson12 :) I guess Stanford admissions are sort of random, but I still love that school. I'm even thinking about transferring there after my freshman year. </p>
<p>Second of all, I'd like to respond to UCLA's comment that "According to an estimate by the PRC itself, only 1/10 of 1% of Japanese textbooks whitewash. On the contrary, almost all PRC textbooks use anti-Japanese rhetoric as a teaching tool and whitewash the Great Leap and Cultural Revolution."</p>
<p>I don't think you understand, UCLAri, the extent of the barbarism and evil maliciousness of Japan during WWII. They genocidally murdered 19 million Chinese alone, not to mention the countless people in other Asian nations. In my opinion, the Japanese were worse than the Nazis. They tortured people in such horrendous ways that it just gives me nightmares thinking about it. Check up on The Rape of Nanking and Unit 731. What you might discover will simply shock you beyond belief. I know I am writing in a very emotional way right now, but it really makes me frustrated when people gloss over horrible events in history as if they were nothing.</p>
<p>Oh and yes, UCLAri, I agree with you that evolution is indeed a scientifically proven fact.</p>
<p>Gutrade,</p>
<p>I have read Rape of Nanking. I guarantee I know more about the subject than you do, at least from a historical perspective. However, it doesn't change the fact that it is a complete lie that Japan has not apologized, paid reparations, and included the fact in its textbooks.</p>
<p>I never said they've done a good job, however. Japan did not kowtow to Asia as Germany did to Europe. Nonetheless, China has been notoriously dubious in its demands. Have you read what China asks for? They are so unclear it's absurd. That, and every time a Japanese official apologizes, they claim it's not "heartfelt" enough. This has gone on for about a dozen times.</p>
<p>To blame the living Japanese for the sins of the past however, is as asinine as blaming me for what Andrew Jackson did to Native Americans. Am I at fault? Many believe so.</p>
<p>And I have never seen 19 million in any history book. The most I've seen is 15 million. Yeah, we're talking about lives here, but 19 million is still way too high based on even the most liberal estimates.</p>
<p>Well in case you guys didn't know, US history textbooks are also notorious for omitting a lot of facts. </p>
<p>One is that Chinese Muslim Admiral Zheng He has documented reports of meeting Aztecs in Baja California in 1406, almost a century before Columbus arrived. </p>
<p>Also, they found remains of an ancient Black tribe from Australia, and also Polynesian tribes that arrived here many many thousands of years ago. This was also found in Southern California. I do not anticipate US history textbooks incorporating that any time soon unless you see Antonio Villagoroisa pushing that agenda with the LA Unified School district. </p>
<p>Also, micro-evolution can be said with confidence as fact. But as far as macro-evolution is concerned, I don't think so. Even the most ardent scientists will say that macro-evolution is the best scientific theory to explain what happened according to scientific terms, but it is very very far from fact.</p>
<p>Really, this central argument is the crux of the entire thread. And all I see is a lot of huffing and puffing, but no real facts that support macro-evolution as an absolute fact.</p>