Argument For Evolution

Off Topic
61

[quote]rg73 wrote:
Franck wrote:
Evolution is a FACT, but the explanation of its mechanism (like darwinism…) is no more than a mere theory whom the arguments are not very convincing nowadays, and needs some major improvement…

Oh do tell, what major improvements does evolutionary biology need?

This should be amusing.

[/quote]
Yeah this should be really amusing if I use english…
In fact and in all honesty I can’t tell you what major improvements evolutionary biology needs, I don’t know and I’m not qualified enough for that.

But can you teach me the evolutionary mechanism which can lead some plants to mimic almost perfectly insects’ pheromones and sexual apparatus in order to attract pollinators for example? Can you describe which evolutionary process lead the gordian worm to be able to control the nervous system of its host? Yeah, I guess you can describe very well the biological process behind it, but can you explain the exact evolutionary process behind it? The good ole Darwinian’s natural selection thing? Just a bunch of random mutations… can lead to such amazing things? Mutations of course. Purely random? hummm…(I don’t mean there is a God’s scheme behind it, I just doubt that a bunch of random mutations can achieve such a perfect result)

By the way, do you really believe the darwinian’s thing, a hundred years old theory, explains everything perfectly? So thanks to Darwin we know everything about evolution? Ok, let’s stop all current researches on the subject! It’s a waste of time because we already know how it works since the 19th century.
Seriously, darwinism is becoming more and more like creationism: nothing more than a dogma, almost a kind of religion. In fact darwinism needs to evolve. Hopefully Neodarwinism is a beginning, but there are still too many taboos on the subject which slow down research…

Darwin was a great man, but I think his theory is getting old…the survival of the fittest - btw does an organism really need to be the fittest to survive and procreate successfully? In darwin’s book yes, in real world it’s not so obvious…-, mutations… don’t explain everything. It is not that ‘simple’. Too many things are still waiting for clarification.

Just my 2 cents :slight_smile:

62

[quote]Digital Chainsaw wrote:
Solomon Grundy wrote:

Please remember that only explanation our education system has provided is Evolution.

Yes, because anything else is faith-based religious teaching, which has no place in a science classroom.[/quote]

I would think that it would take more faith to believe in Evolution. Instead of teaching The Theory of Evolution as a theory we teach it as fact. Thats much better than teaching any other option even if its faith based. I don’t have a problem with teaching Evolution just teach it as a theory and teach other theories with the same vigor.

Me Solomon Grundy

63

Woah… You’re all making my brain hurt.

Either you lot are obscenely brainy, or very very good at googling. I would venture the truth to be somewhere in the middle of those two extremes.

What a wealth of knowledge to stumble across on a bodybuilding site.

I bet if I asked a question about knitting you could still all come back with such in-depth replies. Respect! lol

67

[quote]Psnatch wrote:
Valar Morghulis wrote:
So I was thinking today, i’m a pretty “hardcore” evolutionist, and ive read a few books on the subject lately, but what would I say if I had to debate with someone my own reasons for believing in evolution? Im not trying to start a war here between religious people and evolutionist… so i’d apprecuate if no one posted here trying to convince me that evolution isnt real and stayed on the topic.

Now, to the topic: If you, as someone who believes in evolution, was asked why you believe in evolution, what would you say? I guess I would say something about how you can really watch things evolve, like bacteria, for example, by exposing them to antibacterial chemicals until some mutate, become immune, and all of a suddon its somewhat a form of evolution (not nearly as on a large scale as people coming from bacteria, but you get the point).

I’d also talk about how close our behavior and genetic makeup is to gorillas, chimpanzee’s, etc. I also have some good “comebacks” to certain points someone could bring up, but I wont list all of it here.

So, im done rambling. Tell me why YOU believe in evolution, if in fact you do so, and again, please no one try and start an evlution/creationism thing =P.

The bacteria example you gave is not a very good example of evolution. The cells that show immuntiy are genetic mutations of the original bacteria which is why they are unaffected. But, when the original bacteria is re-introduced the mutated cells that were immune die out as they cannot compete due to their mutation. The immune mutations are actually a step back in terms of evolution.[/quote]

Wrong. The bacterial genome is a ringshaped structure, and the genes for immunity are carried on a seperate ring shaped structure of genetic material, called an r-plasmid. It can contain immunity for as little as one or as many as you can imagine antibiotics, and can be transferred from bacteria to bacteria. Thus, a progressive immunity would in fact be proof of genetic code descending through generations, with natural selection mixed in to ensure that those without the immunity would cease to exist. Natural selection is a key part of evolution.

And by the way, wouldn’t another term for “hardcore evolutionist” be “person who believes in modern science”?

68

[quote]LoneLobo wrote:
Wrong. The bacterial genome is a ringshaped structure,[/quote]

Wrong. Rickettsia? Hello. Linear chromosome. But it is hardly the only one with a non-circular chromosome. Agrobacterium for instance.

Wrong. Antibiotic resistance can be plasmid encoded or chromosomally encoded. Hell, resistance genes can be on phage genomes as well.

69

[quote]pushharder wrote:

For awhile here and for the most part, the posts here have been accurate, thoughtful, and incisive [/quote]

Not really.

That’s nonsense. This has been done with plants and microbes. Actually knowing what you’re talking about before you try to talk about it helps.

Uh, yeah it is.

Umm, ok. Are there genus level transitional fossil in chronological order in fossil beds? Yes. Okie dokie. I guess they got there by magic.

There is no maybe not about it. If you’d had any basic comparative physiology or anatomy courses this would be abundantly evident to you.

Of course. But we have more traits/genes in common with apes. More in common with rats than bacteria. And of course there are genes conserved across domains.

That is fine but you don’t even have any grasp of the evolutionary biology literature.

I am not sure why you are making a distinction between genera and species. These are human categories that are useful for us. There is no fundamental difference between speciation and the process of genus branching save that there are more similarities within a genus than between genera.

Ok. But you can evolve something that would qualify as a new genera of bacteria.

Oh, but you want a bacteria to eukaryote. Ummm, of course you are aware of how many of these transitional symbionts that are described right? There’s plenty of bacterial consortia that have varying degrees of multi-cellularity.

People are working on it in the lab too. I would imagine this will be done in the next 5-10 years. So we’ll have from free living single celled to multicellular and qualifying as a new domain.

I’m not exactly sure why dogs would become anything else. They’ve only been selected to be dogs, not to be, oh cats. We could select dogs to become, oh, marine mammals. It’d probably take about a 1,000 years and involve and awful lot of puppies being eaten by sharks. That’s if we took a purely selection approach. If we tinkered with genes, I’m guessing we could make a seal-dog pretty fast. An evo-devo person would have to comment here. There is no lack of mechanistic understanding. It is simply that no one feels like throwing dogs into the ocean to prove an obvious point.

We know, for example, that polar bears evolved from terrestrial bears into marine mammals in tens of thousands of years. Blink of an eye for mammals.

Again, why would any of these things become anything else? You are making no sense at all.

You change in response to selective pressures. Cats do fine being cats. They get fine tuned, but there is no reason to abandon being a cat–they are a very successful lineage. Humans do really well being humans. Lineages very rarely take dramatic departures in morphology (which is really the thing creationists are hung up on–how come we can’t see a leg turn into a wing?–morphology is really about the least interesting and easiest thing to change).

When do we see the big morphological changes in metazoans? Hmmm, usually after they encounter totally unoccupied niches. So if you find an unoccupied planet, we can introduce whatever animal you want onto that planet and evolve flying dogs or swimming cats or whatever you want. How is something supposed to replace a supremely adapted species/genus already in that niche? This is such basic biology. It astounds me that people with no fucking knowledge at all about anything biological think they are more of an expert than professional biologists.

No one thinks they can question chemists–I never hear, well, maybe that is a catalyst, or maybe not. Maybe the magic faery dust is making the reaction happen. Why do they think they are qualified to make sweeping statements about biology?

70

[quote]Valar Morghulis wrote:
Now, to the topic: If you, as someone who believes in evolution, was asked why you believe in evolution, what would you say? I guess I would say something about how you can really watch things evolve, like bacteria, for example, by exposing them to antibacterial chemicals until some mutate, become immune, and all of a suddon its somewhat a form of evolution (not nearly as on a large scale as people coming from bacteria, but you get the point).
[/quote]

I think evolution is correct for the same reasons I think squatting is a good exercise. I haven’t found anything better yet. The process of natural selection and the evolution it causes is the best explanation that I’ve heard for why life-forms on this planet are the way they are. This is through both personal observation of the world around me, and from reading articles written by people smarter than me on the subject. Similarly, I think squatting is a great exercise because I’ve perceived results myself, and other people smarter than me write articles saying that squatting is good.

I have no belief or faith in squatting, if someone tells me that some other exercise is better for my goals, and can back it up with an abundance of solid evidence, I’ll switch. Same goes with evolution, if you can provide solid evidence that some other explanation of life is better than evolution, I’ll switch.

What always puzzled me is why so many Creationists never thought that God was being metaphorical when creating Genesis. The idea of God always seemed more powerful to me if instead of simply conjuring the universe into existence exactly the way it is now, God caused the big-bang, and in that instant, set various physical constants such as the mass of a proton, gravitational constant, etc. knowing full well that 13 billion years later, an (semi) intelligent life-form would evolve on a pale blue dot in the unfashionable 8th arm of a spiral galaxy that would come to worship God. Just my 2-cents.

71

[quote]Franck wrote:
But can you teach me the evolutionary mechanism which can lead some plants to mimic almost perfectly insects’ pheromones and sexual apparatus in order to attract pollinators for example?[/quote]

Gee, mutation and selection.

Mutation and selection. It isn’t magic.

The exact process of evolution? Yes, mutation and selection.

What you are looking for is the exact history of events. Of course we can’t. That would require time machines. We’d have to find an arbitrary ancestor and follow around its descendents for millions of years. Which is why we do these things in the lab. Just because something is really complicated now doesn’t mean that it didn’t happen it really simple steps.

Well there’s drift too.

Uh, yeah, they can. They aren’t all necessarily random. I mean you have contigency loci and such and hypermutable loci, mutational hot spots and the like. Not all mutations are equally likely, etc. So they aren’t “random” per se.

Well two things: because you don’t believe it doesn’t mean it isn’t happening. Secondly, nothing is perfect.

No, Darwin didn’t even have a mechanism of heredity. Now if you ask me if I believe the Modern Synthesis explains everything perfectly, well, they got pretty damn close. Fisher was pretty much correct about everything, no?

No, thanks to Fisher, Wright, Haldane, Mayr, Dobzhansky, etc. Everything since then has mostly been filling in little bits of esoteric theory.

Drama queen much?

Again, incorrect. But we’ve understood the major principles for about 60-70 years. There’s been a lot of interesting details subsequently (especially with the molecular data), but nothing that has given us any reason to suspect that Darwin and Wallace, and the gang responsible for the Modern Synthesis were wrong.

Sure. That’s right. You obviously haven’t gone through peer review before. LMAO. I’m going to try that on the reviewers next time–take my results on faith.

Umm, it does. Hence, peer review. Shit, does anyone actually understand how science is carried out?

I’m thinking that you are throwing around that term without having the slightest idea what it means.

Neo-darwinism refers to the Modern Synthesis, the principles of which are from the 30s and 40s.

What taboos are there? Do tell?

I’m also curious how you think research is being slowed? Are you on the NSF Population Biology panel? Do you know what grants are being funded? Do you go to the Evolution Conference each year? Do you have any idea what work is being done and how it is being hindered by these “taboos”? No, you don’t.

Your ignorance is stunning. Darwin is such a small part of modern evoutionary biology. How often is the Origin of Species cited in the literature these days?

This is a complicated question. It depends on the amount of frequency dependent selection, disruptive selection and the like, doesn’t it? It also depends on if we are talking relative or absolute fitness, intra- or interspecific fitness. It depends on the nature of the fitness landscape, does it not? It depends on drift, does it not? But these are things, the basic theory of modern evolutionary biology, of which you are utterly clueless.

Which is why we do studies. But frequency dependent selection in natural environments is not terribly exciting to the layfolk. And it doesn’t change the working principles of evolution.

You adhere to neutral theory huh? Big fan of Kimura?

No, it isn’t. But it isn’t terribly more complicated either.

Such as?

Keep the change.

73

Instead of trying to debate this, you need to look at the motivations. As long as you look at it as creation vs evolution aren’t going to get very far with this. We need to understand “why we fight”.

The real issue here is the scriptures and WHO reads and interprets it for us.

In most communities to be a cleric is to be a person who has status and position. Why? Because a cleric is who controls entry to heaven. Clerics are the ones who tell us what god wants us to do.

If something that has been taught for centuries by the clerics can be proved wrong, then their position of authority has been undermined.

If you look at it this way, the motivation of creationists is totally lacking in spirituality.

75

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Many of us have pointed out several of those reasons but it’s intellectually dishonest to also NOT point out its shortcomings and inconsistencies. If one claims there aren’t any - it’s a done deal - then one is a charlatan and a cheeerleader.[/quote]

Valar Morghulis, please read the above paragraph carefully as this is exactly what you will hear, in one form or another, from anyone attempting to argue against evolution.

I didn’t even check this all weekend just to see what grew in the petri dish, and I wasn’t disappointed.

First, they will tell you that the theory of evolution “has flaws”, and that because it is not set in stone and subject to change, it is thus no more valid than saying, “God did it!”.

If one has even a rudimentary understanding of the scientific method and/or logic, and points out the “flaws” in their reasoning, they fall back on appeals to authority. They will trot out a list of names with letters behind them, hoping you won’t take the time to research them and find out that the only journals they’ve published in are so-called “Christian science” journals, and that most of their credentials are either honorary or from some faith-based “university” that promotes this pseudo-scientific drivel.

This is what you’re up against. Banging one’s head against a wall seems like a worthwhile pursuit in comparison. Be ready.

77

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Digital Chainsaw wrote:
…They will trot out a list of names with letters behind them, hoping you won’t take the time to research them and find out that the only journals they’ve published in are so-called “Christian science” journals, and that most of their credentials are either honorary or from some faith-based “university” that promotes this pseudo-scientific drivel.
…

You’re scoffing, ridiculing and …wrong. What you’ve stated is simply wrong.

Your zeal blinds you, DC. It blinds you in a similar fashion that you so accusatorily despise in your creationist nemeses. I mentioned this before and will again: you don’t realize how much of your credibility you discard when you make spurious statements like this.[/quote]

Oops, I almost forgot, Valar! When all else fails, and you show that you can see through their nonsense such as thinking the CRS Quarterly is a real, peer-reviewed science journal (LMAO!!!), you will be battered with accusations of being a zealot intent on furthering the cause of evolutionism (whatever that is) because you are not “open-minded” enough to consider the so-called merit of ID, Creationism, or some other bizarre, faith-based hybrid.

Be prepared to be told that “you don’t understand [fill in name of scientific branch here]” with no explanation of why what you thought was supposedly wrong, just a link to a creationist website.

And then, finally (this almost makes debating them worth it), all avenues exhausted, they finish with, well I can’t say it any better than this so I’ll quote:

“You’re scoffing, ridiculing and …wrong. What you’ve stated is simply wrong.”

The Bard himself had not such power with the written word. Can you not see the trembling, clenched fists? The flared nostrils? The tears of rage welling within the lower eyelids?

Addressing my test subject now: Push, I would like to thank you for participating in this wonderful demonstration for Valar’s benefit. I had hoped someone would help me show him, first-hand, what debating a creationist was like, and you did not disappoint; you jumped through every hoop as I presented it without hesitation and with great enthusiasm.

You have done a great service here, push; don’t ever forget that.

78

[quote]pushharder wrote:
rg73 wrote:
…We could select dogs to become, oh, marine mammals. It’d probably take about a 1,000 years and involve and awful lot of puppies being eaten by sharks…

After making this statement above, you have the audacity to make this statement below?

… Why do they think they are qualified to make sweeping statements about biology?

I have to be very careful here not to be a hypocrite after posting my comment earlier about scoffing and ridiculing but, RG, with all due respect, you’re going to have to get out of the ring now.
[/quote]

Why ever would I do that? By all means scoff and ridicule. Everything you type is nonsense, so I’m not really going to really get upset about a little ridicule from an armchair scientist.