Here's a carroll in celebration of your ruby

dan sartain - ruby carroll from jonathan purvis on Vimeo.

Thanks for the promote!

In reply to this comment by NicoleBee:
*doublepromote

I've always wondered if you would not just pop up in the middle of empty space if you time travelled without compensating for the fact that the earth is moving through at what like 1500 M/s through the solar system? And the solar system is orbiting the galactic centre. And the galaxy is moving away from all other galaxies (or vice-versa) as spacetime itself apparently expands. It all depends on how you think about frame of reference WRT your model of time-travel.

Like in Back to the Future, they travelled 30 years at a time. And they appeared to "portal/shunt" as opposed to "tunnel". It seems to me on a gut level like a portal or shunt would probably just dump you into empty space a fraction of a light year behind or ahead of the solar system if you jumped 30 years. A wormhole (Doctor Who or Bill and Ted style) is easier to imagine as being connected to the same "place" (according to what frame of reference I can't mentally peg down) in both times.

>> ^MichaelL:

Microevolution leads to macroevolution. Changes in allele frequency that are caused by differences in geography (allopatric), differences in chromosome number or genetics (sympatric) or differences in both (parapatric) cause different adaptations between groups within a population.

There are numerous examples of allopatric speciation, not to mention sympatric and parapatric speciation - including the well-documented and tested examples that I mentioned.

Would you like more well-documented examples of speciation (macroevolution) that are backed up by reams of evidence and published in widely respected scientific peer-reviewed journals? I honestly don't see what else one would need to realize that micro- and macroevolution are credible tried and tested theories.

>> ^shinyblurry:

Microevolution is variation within kind, which I don't dispute..its macroevolution which is in contention, because there isnt a shred of actual scientific evidence to support it. If you want to talk about something testable, you could attempt to calculate the number of transitions it would take to get from one kind to the other..and estimates on that range in the 10's of thousands between something like a sea to land based mammal..and the fossil record clearly doesn't bear that out. We see sudden appearances with little or no change and then extinction with no clear ancestory..perhaps a few sequences here and there..but nothing even approaching the standard of evidence required.

>> ^zombieater:
Since we seem to love quotes so much in this thread, let me throw one out there that sums it up: "There is nothing mysterious or purposeful about evolution...it just happens. It is an automatic consequence of cold, simple mathematics."
-- Scott Freeman & Jon C. Herron, Evolutionary Analysis
Evolution is merely math. Specifically, microevolution is "the change in allele frequency over time." Not only is it just math, but it's been witnessed in our lifetimes over and over.
Take, for example, the story of the Soapberry bug (http://www.carroll-loye.com/_dbase_upl/Genetica_2001.pdf and a more recent scientific article on the topic can be found here http://www.scottcarroll.org/01_cms/details.asp?ID=9).
What about bacterial evolution and disease resistance?
What about the fossil series we have of giraffes, man, whales, horses, mollusks, elephants?
What about the thousands of peer-reviewed scientific articles that definitively show...ugh this is a waste of my time arguing about this.

Microevolution is variation within kind, which I don't dispute..its macroevolution which is in contention, because there isnt a shred of actual scientific evidence to support it. If you want to talk about something testable, you could attempt to calculate the number of transitions it would take to get from one kind to the other..and estimates on that range in the 10's of thousands between something like a sea to land based mammal..and the fossil record clearly doesn't bear that out. We see sudden appearances with little or no change and then extinction with no clear ancestory..perhaps a few sequences here and there..but nothing even approaching the standard of evidence required.


>> ^zombieater:
Since we seem to love quotes so much in this thread, let me throw one out there that sums it up: "There is nothing mysterious or purposeful about evolution...it just happens. It is an automatic consequence of cold, simple mathematics."
-- Scott Freeman & Jon C. Herron, Evolutionary Analysis
Evolution is merely math. Specifically, microevolution is "the change in allele frequency over time." Not only is it just math, but it's been witnessed in our lifetimes over and over.
Take, for example, the story of the Soapberry bug (http://www.carroll-loye.com/_dbase_upl/Genetica_2001.pdf and a more recent scientific article on the topic can be found here http://www.scottcarroll.org/01_cms/details.asp?ID=9).
What about bacterial evolution and disease resistance?
What about the fossil series we have of giraffes, man, whales, horses, mollusks, elephants?
What about the thousands of peer-reviewed scientific articles that definitively show...ugh this is a waste of my time arguing about this.

Since we seem to love quotes so much in this thread, let me throw one out there that sums it up: "There is nothing mysterious or purposeful about evolution...it just happens. It is an automatic consequence of cold, simple mathematics."
-- Scott Freeman & Jon C. Herron, Evolutionary Analysis

Evolution is merely math. Specifically, microevolution is "the change in allele frequency over time." Not only is it just math, but it's been witnessed in our lifetimes over and over.

Take, for example, the story of the Soapberry bug (http://www.carroll-loye.com/_dbase_upl/Genetica_2001.pdf and a more recent scientific article on the topic can be found here http://www.scottcarroll.org/01_cms/details.asp?ID=9).

What about bacterial evolution and disease resistance?

What about the fossil series we have of giraffes, man, whales, horses, mollusks, elephants?

What about the thousands of peer-reviewed scientific articles that definitively show...ugh this is a waste of my time arguing about this.

The gaps are fundemental..here are some more quotes:

"Given the fact of evolution, one would expect the fossils to document a gradual steady change from ancestral forms to the descendants. But this is not what the paleontologist finds. Instead, he or she finds gaps in just about every phyletic series." (Ernst Mayr-Professor Emeritus, Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard University, What Evolution Is, 2001, p.14.)

"All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between major groups are characteristically abrupt. Gradualists usually extract themselves from this dilemma by invoking the extreme imperfection of the fossil record." (Gould, Stephen J. The Panda’s Thumb, 1980, p. 189.)

"What is missing are the many intermediate forms hypothesized by Darwin, and the continual divergence of major lineages into the morphospace between distinct adaptive types." (Carroll, Robert L., "Towards a new evolutionary synthesis," in Trends in Evolution and Ecology 15(1):27-32, 2000, p. 27.)

"Given that evolution, according to Darwin, was in a continual state of motion ...it followed logically that the fossil record should be rife with examples of transitional forms leading from the less to more evolved. ...Instead of filling the gaps in the fossil record with so-called missing links, most paleontologists found themselves facing a situation in which there were only gaps in the fossil record, with no evidence of transformational evolutionary intermediates between documented fossil species." (Schwartz, Jeffrey H., Sudden Origins, 1999, p. 89.)

"He [Darwin] prophesied that future generations of paleontologists would fill in these gaps by diligent search....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 was wrong." (Eldridge, Niles, The Myths of Human Evolution, 1984, pp.45-46.)

"There is no need to apologize any longer for the poverty of the fossil record. In some ways it has become almost unmanageably rich, and discovery is out-pacing integration...The fossil record nevertheless continues to be composed mainly of gaps." (George, T. Neville, "Fossils in Evolutionary Perspective," Science Progress, vol. 48 January 1960, pp. 1-3.)

"Despite the bright promise - that paleontology provides a means of ‘seeing’ evolution, it has presented some nasty difficulties for evolutionists the most notorious of which is the presence of 'gaps' in the fossil record. Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them. The gaps must therefore be a contingent feature of the record." (Kitts, David B., "Paleontology and Evolutionary Theory," Evolution, vol. 28, 1974, p. 467.)

"It is interesting that all the cases of gradual evolution that we know about from the fossil record seem to involve smooth changes without the appearance of novel structures and functions." (Wills, C., Genetic Variability, 1989, p. 94-96.)

"So the creationist prediction of systematic gaps in the fossil record has no value in validating the creationist model, since the evolution theory makes precisely the same prediction." (Weinberg, S., Reviews of Thirty-one Creationist Books, 1984, p.

"We seem to have no choice but to invoke the rapid divergence of populations too small to leave legible fossil records." (Stanley, S.M., The New Evolutionary Timetable: Fossils, Genes, and the Origin of Species, 1981, p. 99.)

"For over a hundred years paleontologists have recognized the large number of gaps in the fossil record. Creationists make it seem like gaps are a deep, dark secret of paleontology..." (Cracraft, in Awbrey & Thwaites, Evolutionists Confront Creationists", 1984.)

"Instead of finding the gradual unfolding of life, what geologists of Darwin’s time, and geologists of the present day actually find is a highly uneven or jerky record; that is, species appear in the sequence very suddenly, show little or no change during their existence in the record, then abruptly go out of the record. and it is not always clear, in fact it’s rarely clear, that the descendants were actually better adapted than their predecessors. In other words, biological improvement is hard to find." (Raup, David M., "Conflicts Between Darwin and Paleontology," Bulletin, Field Museum of Natural History, vol. 50, 1979, p. 23.)

Chicago Field Museum, Prof. of Geology, Univ. of Chicago, "A large number of well-trained scientists outside of evolutionary biology and paleontology have unfortunately gotten the idea that the fossil record is far more Darwinian than it is. This probably comes from the oversimplification inevitable in secondary sources: low-level textbooks, semi-popular articles, and so on. Also, there is probably some wishful thinking involved. In the years after Darwin, his advocates hoped to find predictable progressions. In general, these have not been found yet the optimism has died hard, and some pure fantasy has crept into textbooks...One of the ironies of the creation evolution debate is that the creationists have accepted the mistaken notion that the fossil record shows a detailed and orderly progression and they have gone to great lengths to accommodate this 'fact' in their Flood (Raup, David, "Geology" New Scientist, Vol. 90, p.832, 1981.)

"As we shall see when we take up the creationist position, there are all sorts of gaps: absence of graduationally intermediate ‘transitional’ forms between species, but also between larger groups -- between say, families of carnivores, or the orders of mammals. In fact, the higher up the Linnaean hierarchy you look, the fewer transitional forms there seem to be." (Eldredge, Niles, The Monkey Business: A Scientist Looks at Creationism, 1982, p. 65-66.)

"Transitions between major groups of organisms . . . are difficult to establish in the fossil record." (Padian, K., The Origin of Turtles: One Fewer Problem for Creationists, 1991, p. 18.)

"A persistent problem in evolutionary biology has been the absence of intermediate forms in the fossil record. Long term gradual transformations of single lineages are rare and generally involve simple size increase or trivial phenotypic effects. Typically, the record consists of successive ancestor-descendant lineages, morphologically invariant through time and unconnected by intermediates." (Williamson, P.G., Palaeontological Documentation of Speciation in Cenozoic Molluscs from Turkana Basin, 1982, p. 163.)

"What one actually found was nothing but discontinuities: All species are separated from each other by bridgeless gaps; intermediates between species are not observed . . . The problem was even more serious at the level of the higher categories." (Mayr, E., Animal Species and Evolution, 1982, p. 524.)

"The known fossil record is not, and never has been, in accord with gradualism. What is remarkable is that, through a variety of historical circumstances, even the history of opposition has been obscured . . . ‘The majority of paleontologists felt their evidence simply contradicted Darwin’s stress on minute, slow, and cumulative changes leading to species transformation.’ . . . their story has been suppressed." (Stanley, S.M., The New Evolutionary Timetable, 1981, p. 71.)

"One must acknowledge that there are many, many gaps in the fossil record . . . There is no reason to think that all or most of these gaps will be bridged." (Ruse, "Is There a Limit to Our Knowledge of Evolution," 1984, p.101.)

"We are faced more with a great leap of faith . . . that gradual progressive adaptive change underlies the general pattern of evolutionary change we see in the rocks . . . than any hard evidence." (Eldredge, N. and Tattersall, I., The Myths of Human Evolution, 1982, p. 57.)

"Gaps between families and taxa of even higher rank could not be so easily explained as the mere artifacts of a poor fossil record." (Eldredge, Niles, Macro-Evolutionary Dynamics: Species, Niches, and Adaptive Peaks, 1989, p.22.)

"To explain discontinuities, Simpson relied, in part, upon the classical argument of an imperfect fossil record, but concluded that such an outstanding regularity could not be entirely artificial." (Gould, Stephen J., "The Hardening of the Modern Synthesis," 1983, p. 81.)

"The record jumps, and all the evidence shows that the record is real: the gaps we see reflect real events in life’s history - not the artifact of a poor fossil record." (Eldredge, N. and Tattersall, I., The Myths of Human Evolution, 1982, p. 59.)

"The fossil record flatly fails to substantiate this expectation of finely graded change." (Eldredge, N. and Tattersall, I., The Myths of Human Evolution, 1982, p. 163.)

"Gaps in the fossil record - particularly those parts of it that are most needed for interpreting the course of evolution - are not surprising." (Stebbins, G. L., Darwin to DNA, Molecules to Humanity, 1982, p. 107.)

"The fossil record itself provided no documentation of continuity - of gradual transition from one animal or plant to another of quite different form." (Stanley, S.M., The New Evolutionary Timetable: Fossils, Genes and the Origin of Species, 1981, p. 40.)

"The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution." (Gould, Stephen J., "Is a New and General Theory of Evolution Emerging?," 1982, p. 140.)

"The lack of ancestral or intermediate forms between fossil species is not a bizarre peculiarity of early metazoan history. Gaps are general and prevalent throughout the fossil record." (Raff R.A, and Kaufman, T.C., Embryos, Genes, and Evolution: The Developmental-Genetic Basis of Evolutionary Change, 1991, p. 34.)

"Gaps between higher taxonomic levels are general and large." (Raff R.A, and Kaufman, T.C., Embryos, Genes, and Evolution: The Developmental-Genetic Basis of Evolutionary Change, 1991, p. 35.)

"We have so many gaps in the evolutionary history of life, gaps in such key areas as the origin of the multicellular organisms, the origin of the vertebrates, not to mention the origins of most invertebrate groups." (McGowan, C., In the Beginning . . . A Scientist Shows Why Creationists are Wrong, 1984, p. 95.)

"If life had evolved into its wondrous profusion of creatures little by little, Dr. Eldredge argues, then one would expect to find fossils of transitional creatures which were a bit like what went before them and a bit like what came after. But no one has yet found any evidence of such transitional creatures. This oddity has been attributed to gaps in the fossil record which gradualists expected to fill when rock strata of the proper age had been found. In the last decade, however, geologists have found rock layers of all divisions of the last 500 million years and no transitional forms were contained in them. If it is not the fossil record which is incomplete then it must be the theory." (The Guardian Weekly, 26 Nov 1978, vol. 119, no 22, p. 1.)

“People and advertising copywriters tend to see human evolution as a line stretching from apes to man, into which one can fit new-found fossils as easily as links in a chain. Even modern anthropologists fall into this trap . . .[W]e tend to look at those few tips of the bush we know about, connect them with lines, and make them into a linear sequence of ancestors and descendants that never was. But it should now be quite plain that the very idea of the missing link, always shaky, is now completely untenable.” (Gee, Henry, "Face of Yesterday,” The Guardian, Thursday July 11, 2002.)

>> ^Drax:
Shiny, it's kind of like you're saying,
Ok, we have: . -> O
And you say, ah! But there's no transitional species that spans the gap of . and O
Then we find . -> o -> O
And you say, ah! But there's no transitional species that spans the gap of . and o
or o and O
Basically, the more evidence we find.. the stronger your argument gets! <IMG class=smiley src="http://cdn.videosift.com/cdm/emoticon/oh.gif">
ok, that last part's just a joke.. but seriously.. the other parts ARE your stance.
It's either that, or you're looking at o and e and expecting to find æ, which just doesn't happen.

same is true of the Tolkien series.

After reading the Hobbit at age 10, I felt ready to read Carroll's Alice in Wonderland and after that, well, why not Melville?

>> ^Sagemind:

Not great comedy - but there is a point in there - Harry Potter is just that - a stepping stone to greater literature. Sure Harry Potter books introduced kids who never picked up a book before into the world of literature. (But) How many people people stepped down from a world of literature to read Harry Potter?
There are So many great books out there and kids everywhere just keep re-reading the same Harry Potter books or Twilight books and are stunted from ever moving on. My daughter has read the HP books a few times and the Twilight books perhaps 5-6 times each.
Move on already..., My daughter just finished reading The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy now so I'm hoping to get her moving on to other stuff - Many never will read another book series ...

I love Sean Carroll! I was just at one of Skeptic Magazine's CalTech lectures with Sean in January. It was great! His book "From Eternity to Here: The Quest of the Ultimate Theory of Time" is pretty damn good. It uses a lot of diagrams to help illustrate some of the complexities of the subject and I highly recommend it, BUT, I don't recommend the audiobook because you loose all of the diagrams and the narrator is very dry.

His wife, Jennifer Ouellette, authored "The Calculus Diaries: How Math Can Help You Loose Weight, Win in Vegas, and Survive a Zombie Apocalypse" which I also highly recommend.

He and his wife are really cool!

He left a spammer style comment on my member page. Don't know him, just random. Perhaps this isn't ban worthy?

"I have been in the music business all my life . It was my 70th birthday and I decided to record this song entitled Old Dogs and share this with my Boomer friends . So far the response is to cool . it’s scheduled for Growing Bolder PBS /TV /Radio

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8inY6flQFaE&feature=youtube_gdata

All the best with your creative adventures
Mickey

Mickey Carroll
Grammy Nominee
Gold Record Recipient
"


In reply to this comment by chicchorea:
Hello my friend.

I found your ban of..., I would like to support you but am find pause. I could not establish a line to you via the mentioned Boomer reference. The Red P did not post a vid on the Sift but included one in a profile comment to you so no self link. Can you help me on this so I can proceed?

I read this book in high school (and identified heavily with Jim Carroll, who was also a friend's uncle).

I also remember DiCaprio when he was a runaway on Growing Pains.

Song Two

Song One

Interview with Dave Carroll on Grand Rants.

Sorry PeggedBea, notarobot beat you by almost 4 months.
His version had a single page of credits before the video starts but the music video is the exact same one. One of my favotites from the 80's so I always notice a Jim Carrol post! Sorry about that!



*dupeof=http://www.videosift.com/video/Jim-Carroll-People-Who-Died-Basketball-Diaries

This video has been declared a duplicate; transferring votes to the original video and killing this dupe - dupeof declared by Sagemind.

http://www.videosift.com/video/Ron-Paul-on-Carrol-Quigley