Profile

Cover photo
Michael Gee
Attended Sanger High
Lives in Sanger
380 followers|37,107 views
AboutPostsPhotosVideos

Stream

Michael Gee
moderator

Meet the Moderators  - 
 
Did I not have a post in here?  Hrmmm.  Anyway, Hello fellow humans.
8
Roland Taylor's profile photoLee Hicks's profile photo
2 comments
 
Hello!
Add a comment...

Michael Gee

Shared publicly  - 
 
my Dragon Age thingy
1

Michael Gee

Shared publicly  - 
 
Sad news...  Happened at a wonderful place to visit not even 40 minutes away from my house.  

Apparently grew up in your neck of the woods +Jeff Vinson  
1
Add a comment...

Michael Gee
moderator

Did you know?  - 
 
"Darwin anticipated that microevolution would be a process of continuous and gradual change.  The term macroevolution, by contrast, refers to the origin of new species and divisions of the taxonomic hierarchy above the species level, and also to the origin of complex adaptations, such as the vertebrate eye.  Macroevolution posed a problem to Darwin because his principle of descent with modification predicts gradual transitions between small-scale adaptive changes in populations and these larger-scale phenomena, yet there is little evidence for such transitions in nature.  Instead, the natural world is often characterized by gaps, or discontinuities.  One type of gap relates to the existence of 'organs of extreme perfection', such as the eye, or morphological innovations, such as wings, both of which are found fully formed in present-day organisms without leaving evidence of how they evolved."-- Reznick, David N., Robert E. Ricklefs. 12 February 2009. Darwin's bridge between microevolution and macroevolution. Nature, Vol. 457, pp. 837-842.
2
Paul Rocks's profile photosheryl coetzer's profile photo
2 comments
 
That is just an abstract. Think of it like a teaser before a movie.

Darwin came up with the theory over a hundred years ago! The beauty of science is the fact that it can be wrong. Science was in its infancy when Darwin came up with the theory, of course there were HUGE gaps. Modern science has greatly improved on his original theory.

Here is the conclusion of the article:

"Although Darwin might have erred in some of the details of his principle of divergence, particularly the generally agreed starting point of reproductively isolated species, his basic idea has merit. The fundamental truth of his principle of divergence has emerged in different facets of evolutionary ecology; a field in which the same principle, in the form of character displacement or some models of sympatric speciation was discovered independently in different contexts over a centrury after the publication of On the Origin of Species. Darwin's linking of extinction to diversification did not re-emerge as the study of extinction rose to prominence in conservation biology. Competitive replacement leading to extinction was once generally and uncritically accepted by palaeontologists before fading into the background after the discovery of mass extinctions. There is compelling evidence, however, of a role for biotic interactions in at least some extinction events and a complementory relationship between divergence and extinction finds enough support for Darwin's proposal to merit further consideration as a viable link between microevolution and macroevolution. 

Darwin's Proposal carries a more general message for contemporary discussions of macroevolution, namely that microevolution cannot explain macroevolution. Understanding macroevolution requires the integration of ecology, evolution and the role of history in shaping the diversification or decline of lineages. Other investigators, most recently David Jablonski, have conveyed similar messages."

Here is the full article if you are interested: (it took me some time to dig it up)

http://download.bioon.com.cn/upload/201105/17122645_1006.pdf
Add a comment...

Michael Gee
moderator

Scientific discussion  - 
 
Added this Category for exploring Evolution and Creation based solely on science.   Discussion of scientific facts and how they support either creation or evolution.  
A fair amount of reading and personal research may be required to post adequately here.  

links to articles, journals, and the like are encouraged but should be backed up with at least some small bit of information introducing it, or summarizing.

Direct weblinks with no specific context other than sharing should still be posted in the Websites & Resources

Also be very careful how you post, I wont tolerate insensitivity.  We can discuss opposing views without fighting.
1
Add a comment...
Have him in circles
380 people

Michael Gee

Shared publicly  - 
 
I find this funny and relevant to our times.
 
After #NSA   #PRISM  : New #Facebook privacy settings 
3
Kenton Sani's profile photo
 
Better on Google Plus as well.
Add a comment...

Michael Gee

Shared publicly  - 
2
Add a comment...

Michael Gee

Shared publicly  - 
 
Good for him!  Thats one lucky nerd!
1
Wesley Sanders's profile photo
 
Who? And why?
Add a comment...

Michael Gee
moderator

Scientific discussion  - 
 
Just to start this off (Notice: I have almost no time to post here for like the next week)

Id like to see a few people posting in here with good solid science.

My personal beliefs on evolution is that the amount of cross talk between cell systems in a human body is too complicated to accidentally form.  The amount of links between separate organs, chemicals, impulses, and the like make evolution as described by Macro-evolution Impossible.

We are incredibly complex, the way our systems work would need to have evolved with the knowledge of what it was going to be in the future.  Evolution via mutation has no blueprint for future development.  

As described in text books and scientific journals it would be impossible for 1 creature to have a very minor mutation that would allow it to not only thrive (rarely the mutation is in any way beneficial) but also prepare its progeny for another highly unlikely mutation to advance it in any viable way.

The odds of it surviving to pass this on also affected by the conditions it is subjected to.  If all carriers of this mutation get killed its a clean slate again and it must start from scratch.  Many mutations are recessive, and can even be overwritten by the mixing of the genetic codes through mating with others of their kind.

If the current fish in the ocean have the ability to breathe through gills, why would any mutation somehow sets them up for lungs in the far far future be beneficial.   Ever opened up a fish?  Do you see a bunch of extra room in there for possible improvements?  Any internal mutation of a fish would be largely detrimental to the current creature.  multiple changes would become catastrophic if not done in a very precise and protected environment along with a blueprint in which to build towards.

Once the tiny lump in the fish is formed, what process turns it into a useable organ without a set goal or blueprint?  DNA does not write or change itself.  Outside influence is required for all changes.

Have to end it here but you get the drift.

Have fun!
1
Paul Rocks's profile photosheryl coetzer's profile photo
3 comments
 
This video is super cool! Check it out: Amazing animals - Mudskipper
Add a comment...
People
Have him in circles
380 people
Places
Map of the places this user has livedMap of the places this user has livedMap of the places this user has lived
Currently
Sanger
Links
Education
  • Sanger High
    1998
Basic Information
Gender
Male
Relationship
Married