Evolution: Why Has it Stopped?

conorh · February 6, 2009, 6:54pm

[quote]jakshafter wrote:
conorh wrote:
I love the objections citing thermodynamics. It reminds me of a thread somewhere where the poster was arguing, and I’m paraphrasing:

The third law clearly denies the possibility of evolution. I mean, if there were a giant energy source pumping out energy to the earth, scientists would surely know about it.

Indeed, they do know about it.

Ignorance is not an insult although it can be used as one. It is just being unlearned about a subject. I might be 180 off but i think you may not have a good grasp on what thermo is. This might be outside of this discussion depending on what level of evo we are discussing. I can address this in more detail if need be. I am a chemical engineer by education so thermo is kind of my speciality.[/quote]

My grasp of thermodynamics is s solid as my general physics and biochemistry education demanded it be. I should have said second law above, because I’ve seen it given as an objection that more complex structures can’t have evolved because of the local decrease in entropy, when of course the total entropy is increasing and the local decrease is only accomplished because of the energy derived from the sun.

conorh · February 6, 2009, 7:02pm

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
jakshafter wrote:
2. A dog producing something that is a non dog species. Some might even lump coyotes, wolves, dogs and foxes having a common ancestor (they have diffrent # of chromozones) into this. I do have some trouble with this one because it uses post hoc, and correlationary evidence to back it up (see previous post if you need explanation). I think there are several problems with this.

Using the dog example, creatures with different chromozome sets are incompatable as breeders (either not genetically possible or the resulting offspring is steril like a mule). Therefore a male and female pair would have to mutation freakshow, show up at the same time and place.

Or even more extream a dog gives birth to some thing that is totally nondog. This would explain why there are a lack of definate missing links but requires a huge leap of faith i think of as being nonscientific.

Unfortunately it appears that you do not understand the processes of genetic replication (Meitosis and Meiosis). This is where you are getting confused about chromosone numbers.

Let me link you up with a great explanation that even has some helpful pictures (way easier than me trying to explain it here in words.) This might help you (and a number of confused people) out.

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/04/basics_how_can_chromosome_numb.php
[/quote]

Folks with down syndrome aren’t sterile. It’s possibly a species could evolve a different number of chromosomes than some ancestor.

If we agree that the concept of a species is fuzzy, it’s easy to see how a duck can give birth to a non-duck. It’s just a question of how non-duck it would have to be before we regard it is a different species.

Is it the “can breed with other ducks” definition? Well, what if it’s an otherwise normal but sterile duck? Is it a different species?

If we add up enough of the non-duck changes, then we can wind up with something that because of environment, behavior or biology, doesn’t breed with the the ducks and we’re pretty comfortable calling it a Non-Duck.

Lonnie123 · February 6, 2009, 7:17pm

[quote]conorh wrote:
jakshafter wrote:
conorh wrote:
I love the objections citing thermodynamics. It reminds me of a thread somewhere where the poster was arguing, and I’m paraphrasing:

The third law clearly denies the possibility of evolution. I mean, if there were a giant energy source pumping out energy to the earth, scientists would surely know about it.

Indeed, they do know about it.

Ignorance is not an insult although it can be used as one. It is just being unlearned about a subject. I might be 180 off but i think you may not have a good grasp on what thermo is. This might be outside of this discussion depending on what level of evo we are discussing. I can address this in more detail if need be. I am a chemical engineer by education so thermo is kind of my speciality.

My grasp of thermodynamics is s solid as my general physics and biochemistry education demanded it be. I should have said second law above, because I’ve seen it given as an objection that more complex structures can’t have evolved because of the local decrease in entropy, when of course the total entropy is increasing and the local decrease is only accomplished because of the energy derived from the sun.[/quote]

Yeah, it is usually the 2nd law and entropy argument, totally fallacious. I always love how people defending pseudo-science and attacking real science will use real science as their weapon. You cant have it both ways people…

jakshafter · February 6, 2009, 7:50pm

[quote]conorh wrote:
jakshafter wrote:
conorh wrote:
I love the objections citing thermodynamics. It reminds me of a thread somewhere where the poster was arguing, and I’m paraphrasing:

The third law clearly denies the possibility of evolution. I mean, if there were a giant energy source pumping out energy to the earth, scientists would surely know about it.

Indeed, they do know about it.

Ignorance is not an insult although it can be used as one. It is just being unlearned about a subject. I might be 180 off but i think you may not have a good grasp on what thermo is. This might be outside of this discussion depending on what level of evo we are discussing. I can address this in more detail if need be. I am a chemical engineer by education so thermo is kind of my speciality.

My grasp of thermodynamics is s solid as my general physics and biochemistry education demanded it be. I should have said second law above, because I’ve seen it given as an objection that more complex structures can’t have evolved because of the local decrease in entropy, when of course the total entropy is increasing and the local decrease is only accomplished because of the energy derived from the sun.[/quote]

It seems like you quoted that up there and attributed it to my views. Please don’t strawman me into someone elses views.

That was directed at an origins standpoint and is a discussion for another topic since we are not dealing with that here. Although I did not say or believe the the 2nd law would interfer with evolution if it indeed does occur. I think both sides view the 2nd law to simplistically.

For creationists who say it is impossible, i would say that DNA is an organizing force that can be powered by the Sun. For example cholorophyll does this.
For evolutionists the second law doesn’t really matter until it comes to the origins question, and that is a different topic.

HoratioSandoval · February 6, 2009, 8:57pm

[quote]jakshafter wrote:
HoratioSandoval wrote:
jakshafter wrote:
JohnnyNinja wrote:
Jackshafter: learn the scientific definitions of the words fact and theory. You are currently using them incoorectly and applying faulty logic based on the incorrect usage.

Also listen to Lonnie.

Also Evolution does not make choices. Evolution is what we see in the rear view mirror.

Fact = Knowledge or information based on real occurrences or empirically verifiable

Theory = A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena

Nope, I am not using them incorrectly and my logic is not faulty. If you think it is, will you show me where and what logic principle it breaks.

BTW i am a scientist

Well, we can do empirically verifiable tests on DNA replication error rates in vitro, and find they make powerful predictions about what is empirically found in the fossil record.

Also to look at what happens to dna on a 1 to 1 changing basis is a very narrow scope. The predictions are not powerful at all. In fact they are extrapolating out side out their dataset thousands of orders of magnitude. If you did this in any other field you would be laughed at.

We did this research for several years. 1 order of magnitude. This is what happened 1,000,000,000 years ago 9 orders of magnitude. This is examining a millimeter saying what happened over the last 1000 kilometers. This is not powerful a prediction.

For example since we can build a bridge over a mile with 100% confidence. Based on our data set we should be able to build a bridge to the moon if we can extrapolate 10k to a millon orders out side or our data set.[/quote]

I don’t know why you have the bias that biologists who study evolution don’t adhere to the same statistical standards that your discipline follows. Humans, monkeys, dogs, crocodiles share certain cellular machinery necessary for life. A gene that encodes for one of these essential protein “machines” may change by less than one order of magnitude in 1,000,000,000 years.

Also, we are finding new extinct and extant life constantly, and the predictions hold true with these new discoveries.

I also don’t know why you think psych isn’t a science. It’s a lot more complex than rape and ice cream, and has a significant impact on the law and courts. Check this out.

conorh · February 6, 2009, 9:59pm

[quote]jakshafter wrote:
conorh wrote:
jakshafter wrote:
conorh wrote:
I love the objections citing thermodynamics. It reminds me of a thread somewhere where the poster was arguing, and I’m paraphrasing:

The third law clearly denies the possibility of evolution. I mean, if there were a giant energy source pumping out energy to the earth, scientists would surely know about it.

Indeed, they do know about it.

Ignorance is not an insult although it can be used as one. It is just being unlearned about a subject. I might be 180 off but i think you may not have a good grasp on what thermo is. This might be outside of this discussion depending on what level of evo we are discussing.

I can address this in more detail if need be. I am a chemical engineer by education so thermo is kind of my speciality.

My grasp of thermodynamics is s solid as my general physics and biochemistry education demanded it be. I should have said second law above, because I’ve seen it given as an objection that more complex structures can’t have evolved because of the local decrease in entropy, when of course the total entropy is increasing and the local decrease is only accomplished because of the energy derived from the sun.

It seems like you quoted that up there and attributed it to my views. Please don’t strawman me into someone elses views.

That was directed at an origins standpoint and is a discussion for another topic since we are not dealing with that here. Although I did not say or believe the the 2nd law would interfer with evolution if it indeed does occur. I think both sides view the 2nd law to simplistically.

For creationists who say it is impossible, i would say that DNA is an organizing force that can be powered by the Sun. For example cholorophyll does this.
For evolutionists the second law doesn’t really matter until it comes to the origins question, and that is a different topic.[/quote]

Nope, I think we’re pretty much in agreement and I certainly didn’t intend to strawman you. I think we’re setting a dangerous precedent for internet civility…

Lonnie123 · February 6, 2009, 10:08pm

Guys, while I dont want to get into a back patting session here, I think we should take a moment to reflect on the fact that we have had pages and pages of civil discourse about a very controversial topic with not so much as a single ad hominem attack (from the people engaged in the discussion at least)

Lets try and keep the precedent up and keep the ball rolling.

I’m still waiting for a response to the points I made on page 4 however… I have a crazy ass work schedule this weekend (I work from 7pm-7:30am for the next 3 days) so I wont have quite as much time to join in, but I’ll do my best to keep up.

Makavali · February 7, 2009, 1:27am

Creationists and Scientific Logic
Scott Anderson

Creationists are of the opinion that creationism constitutes a better explanation of the evolutionary process? By what standard would they consider it better?

Creationism demands that the logic of the scientific method be abandoned in favor of whatever logic one might be able to scrape out of the Bible.

Special creationism demands that we believe that some six thousand years ago the universe was magically created, with the sun appearing long after plants, and man apparently living concurrently with carnivorous animals (perhaps including dinosaurs). It demands that all the planetary evidence that coincides with evolutionary theory (the geologic table, continental drift, erosion, et cetera), all the biological evidence (DNA, biochemistry, microbiology, anthropology, et cetera), all the historical evidence (the fossil record, archaeology, anthropology, et cetera), all the astronomical evidence (quantum singularities, the age of stars, the history of the universe, et cetera) has been misinterpreted.

The evidence from physics and chemistry (the speed of light, the laws of thermodynamics, amino acids and proteins, et cetera, et cetera, ad infinitum, ad absurdum) have all been misinterpreted. And I’m even leaving out several fields.

They are all in error, I take it? Why, then, has it all seemed to fit so well? Was it a conspiracy, or was it simply science’s way of hiding the fact that they had no idea?

Creationists still have to show that science is, in fact, wrong. This must first occur before they can begin postulating how the errors (as they must call them) persisted for so long. Creationists are more than happy to accept scientific reasoning but are unwilling to accept the conclusions. That’s why the battle is not creation versus evolution. Perhaps many creationists believe that, but it is not the case.

The same thoughts and processes thereof that led to the theory of evolution exist in all branches of science.

It’s called the scientific method. In addition, evolution gets direct and indirect support from a thousand different facts from every constellation in the sky of science. In addition, evolution gives direct and indirect support to every constellation. Science is not a batch of unrelated theories - science is a unit.

To replace evolution with creationism would dictate that we throw out all the data we have about the age of the universe (all of it points to billions of years, not thousands). We would have to throw away the psychological data gained from testing on, for instance, lab rats.

How could the data from rats relate in any way to the inspired, specially created souls of human beings? Anthropology would have to be dispensed with. Archaeology would find itself in the trash bin. Biology books would be so much toilet paper. In short, a thousand different independent but strangely cohesive facts and theories - a million tidbits of knowledge about ourselves and our world - would have to be destroyed in favor of magic and mysticism.

We’ve been through that before - it was called the Dark Ages. I see no logical reason why we should return to them.

I know this is more of a statement on creationism, but the last part makes a good statement about science and why writing evolution off as mere “theory” is bull.

Also read this:

http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/lenski.html

And accept the fact that while evolution may be overturned in your lifetime, it won’t be by YOU - the armchair scientist.[/quote]

EPIC win!

PonceDeLeon · February 7, 2009, 10:51am

Evolution gave up on man when it saw how he could use technology to get lazier and get by with less and less effort.

roybot · February 7, 2009, 9:43pm

[quote]PonceDeLeon wrote:
Evolution gave up on man when it saw how he could use technology to get lazier and get by with less and less effort.
[/quote]

/thread.

z0k · February 7, 2009, 10:17pm

There’s more to evolution than just natural selection. Many traits are neutral (i.e. they don’t affect fitness).

At the molecular level evolution can potentially occur after every single generation (as somebody pointed out, it is the change in genotypic frequency in a population). The reason we don’t readily see it sometimes is that many changes in the genotype do not manifest as changes in the phenotype (observable physical characteristics).

Basically, a lot, if not MOST variation occurs due to genetic drift (the stochastic change in allele frequencies).

I didn’t read through the entire thread but it seems that some people still refute the theory of evolution. This is probably because most people have a huge misconception of what evolution is and is NOT.

D_S · February 7, 2009, 10:43pm

[quote]Lonnie123 wrote:
I guess to give a quick and dirty answer to to OP’s original questions is that it hasnt really. Although humans may not be evolving as fast as we were previously because we are able to manipulate our environment instead of the other way around.

We can make eye glasses instead of evolving better eyes. We can make hearing aids instead of evolving better ears. We can create medicines that would normally kill off those who catch diseases or have hearts that pump ineffectively. We can perform surgery to correct birth defects that would be deadly otherwise.

All of these luxuries of the modern era, call it “Western Medicine” if you want, are probably having a real impact on the future course of what humans may have been.[/quote]

One thing to keep in mind as well is the fact that certain diseases and conditions that shorten life spans and are affected by certain genetic dispositions (i.e. heart disease, cancer, diabetes) don’t usually have an impact on reproduction of these individuals because these conditions often don’t arise before these people have a chance to reproduce. Other medical conditions, such as asthma or allergies, which could have lethal results in the wild, have little to no impact on an individual’s chances of mating (thanks to medical technology). Hence why they get passed along, even though they are negative traits.

Social factors can also tend to take precedence over biological ones, which could mean that any “evolution” of the human species will be more cultural than biological, or at least cultural evolution will occur at a faster pace than biological evolution, barring any sudden or catastrophic changes in the environment.

As far as why so many people on T-Nation, or in this thread at least, are on board with the idea of evolution could be because of the nature of T-Nation compared to other bodybuilding sites, which is that it is more scientific and intellectual in its approach when compared to others, and in my opinion, the theory of evolution is adopted by those that are more intellectual and scientific minded because it is not the easiest concept to understand, especially when compared to creationism.

roybot · February 7, 2009, 11:01pm

[quote]z0k wrote:
There’s more to evolution than just natural selection. Many traits are neutral (i.e. they don’t affect fitness).

At the molecular level evolution can potentially occur after every single generation (as somebody pointed out, it is the change in genotypic frequency in a population). The reason we don’t readily see it sometimes is that many changes in the genotype do not manifest as changes in the phenotype (observable physical characteristics).

Basically, a lot, if not MOST variation occurs due to genetic drift (the stochastic change in allele frequencies).

I didn’t read through the entire thread but it seems that some people still refute the theory of evolution. This is probably because most people have a huge misconception of what evolution is and is NOT.[/quote]

Are you saying that we are becoming progressively inbred, and that external influences on evolution are a secondary concern?

Lonnie123 · February 8, 2009, 4:29pm

[quote]roybot wrote:
z0k wrote:
There’s more to evolution than just natural selection. Many traits are neutral (i.e. they don’t affect fitness).

At the molecular level evolution can potentially occur after every single generation (as somebody pointed out, it is the change in genotypic frequency in a population). The reason we don’t readily see it sometimes is that many changes in the genotype do not manifest as changes in the phenotype (observable physical characteristics).

Basically, a lot, if not MOST variation occurs due to genetic drift (the stochastic change in allele frequencies).

I didn’t read through the entire thread but it seems that some people still refute the theory of evolution. This is probably because most people have a huge misconception of what evolution is and is NOT.

Are you saying that we are becoming progressively inbred, and that external influences on evolution are a secondary concern?

[/quote]

Can you give me a source that cites that most of evolution is accomplished through genetic drift. I’m not implying you are wrong, I’ve just never heard that claim and dont feel like looking at the moment.

z0k · February 8, 2009, 7:08pm

[quote]roybot wrote:
Are you saying that we are becoming progressively inbred, and that external influences on evolution are a secondary concern?
[/quote]

The question of what the primary mechanism for evolution is a point that is still under debate. I’m not advocating any one view here. I’m just trying to point out that there is much more to evolution than just natural selection. Many people seem to think that natural selection alone is all evolution entails.

As for us becoming progressively inbred, I’m not sure what you mean by that. If you’re referring to inbreeding strictly as the measure of heterozygosity in a population, then yes,

Heterozygosity in a single isolated population will decrease due to drift, but this isn’t because of inbreeding (rather, the inevitable fixation or loss of new and existing neutral alleles), and is not representative of a real world scenario.

z0k · February 8, 2009, 7:28pm

[quote]Lonnie123 wrote:
Can you give me a source that cites that most of evolution is accomplished through genetic drift. I’m not implying you are wrong, I’ve just never heard that claim and dont feel like looking at the moment.[/quote]

Try looking up ‘Lewontin and Hubby’ and ‘Motoo Kimura’ and ‘The Neutral Theory of Molecular Evolution’. I don’t know of any websites, but I’m sure a google search will yield results.

The idea is basically this:

Mutation is the ultimate source of all novel genetic material
Mutations can be deleterious (negative impact on fitness) in which case they are quickly lost from the population by natural selection, mutations can be beneficial and be subsequently fixed in the population quite rapidly (since natural selection selects for the beneficial allele) OR mutations can be neutral.

So, according to this theory, most of the intermediary allele frequencies (values between 1 and 0) are neutral alleles.

Again, as I said above, I’m not necessarily saying that this is the cause of most variation. I really don’t know enough to make that claim. It is definitely a significant and often overlooked aspect of evolution though.

Edit: also, keep in mind that we are talking about variation at the molecular level here.

jakshafter · February 9, 2009, 1:54pm

[quote]conorh wrote:
jakshafter wrote:
conorh wrote:
jakshafter wrote:
conorh wrote:
I love the objections citing thermodynamics. It reminds me of a thread somewhere where the poster was arguing, and I’m paraphrasing:

The third law clearly denies the possibility of evolution. I mean, if there were a giant energy source pumping out energy to the earth, scientists would surely know about it.

Indeed, they do know about it.

Ignorance is not an insult although it can be used as one. It is just being unlearned about a subject. I might be 180 off but i think you may not have a good grasp on what thermo is. This might be outside of this discussion depending on what level of evo we are discussing.

I can address this in more detail if need be. I am a chemical engineer by education so thermo is kind of my speciality.

My grasp of thermodynamics is s solid as my general physics and biochemistry education demanded it be. I should have said second law above, because I’ve seen it given as an objection that more complex structures can’t have evolved because of the local decrease in entropy, when of course the total entropy is increasing and the local decrease is only accomplished because of the energy derived from the sun.

It seems like you quoted that up there and attributed it to my views. Please don’t strawman me into someone elses views.

That was directed at an origins standpoint and is a discussion for another topic since we are not dealing with that here. Although I did not say or believe the the 2nd law would interfer with evolution if it indeed does occur. I think both sides view the 2nd law to simplistically.

For creationists who say it is impossible, i would say that DNA is an organizing force that can be powered by the Sun. For example cholorophyll does this.
For evolutionists the second law doesn’t really matter until it comes to the origins question, and that is a different topic.

Nope, I think we’re pretty much in agreement and I certainly didn’t intend to strawman you. I think we’re setting a dangerous precedent for internet civility…
[/quote]

Sorry I have been gone guys. My comp broke friday so i have been without the internet all weekend. I will try to respond duing lunch today.

jakshafter · February 9, 2009, 3:17pm

[quote]Lonnie123 wrote:
Guys, while I dont want to get into a back patting session here, I think we should take a moment to reflect on the fact that we have had pages and pages of civil discourse about a very controversial topic with not so much as a single ad hominem attack (from the people engaged in the discussion at least)

Lets try and keep the precedent up and keep the ball rolling.

I’m still waiting for a response to the points I made on page 4 however… I have a crazy ass work schedule this weekend (I work from 7pm-7:30am for the next 3 days) so I wont have quite as much time to join in, but I’ll do my best to keep up.[/quote]

Shouldn’t be much of a problem. My computer is broke so i am doing this at work, which is not exactly acceptable. I am gonna be on and off randomly but i should get my box fixed early this week if things go right.

Topic		Replies	Views
Argument For Evolution Off Topic	146	12889	May 3, 2006
Intelligent Design Politics & World Issues	833	28854	October 24, 2008
Charles Darwin Film 'Too Controversial for Religious America' Politics & World Issues	296	17007	September 12, 2009
Evolutionary Confusion Off Topic	252	21338	August 23, 2005
I Realized Why Evolution Is a Fact Off Topic	230	14224	February 9, 2009

Related topics