Evolutionary Confusion

[quote]deanec wrote:
Are these the same fundamentalists that don’t need convincing?
[/quote]

yes…you’re preaching to the choir…no evidence is needed…

fact…religion and science attempt to answer different questions…

for example…science attempts to answer how things work…religion attempts to answer why things exist at all (a question which is far beyond the scope of science)…

the ID argument has about as much in common with modern science as alchemy, magic, phrenology, or astrology…

religion has it’s place in society but not in a science classroom.

I was raised a christian (although not a fundamentalist) and believe in god…

but, I like to argue…even though I have little firm belief in either ID or evolution…

I don’t distain you, but your argument against evolution is poor at best…you will never convince a proponent of evolution with that weak of an argument …I was hoping you might see that…oh well…

[quote]DPH wrote:
deanec wrote:
Are these the same fundamentalists that don’t need convincing?

yes…you’re preaching to the choir…no evidence is needed…

Is this fact, or your opinion?

fact…religion and science attempt to answer different questions…

for example…science attempts to answer how things work…religion attempts to answer why things exist at all (a question which is far beyond the scope of science)…

the ID argument has about as much in common with modern science as alchemy, magic, phrenology, or astrology…

religion has it’s place in society but not in a science classroom.

I find it difficult to believe that a person that does not care one way or the other would waste time arguing with someone of whose ilk he obviously disdains.

I was raised a christian (although not a fundamentalist) and believe in god…

but, I like to argue…even though I have little firm belief in either ID or evolution…

I don’t distain you, but your argument against evolution is poor at best…you will never convince a proponent of evolution with that weak of an argument …I was hoping you might see that…oh well…[/quote]

nor will convince a creationist that evolution is true science…The evidence requires great imagination to make it all work. What you call fact I would not agree; it is fact to you only because that is what you believe. No amount of evidence I offer is going to convince you (or these omniscient scientists) of anything. Evolution approached things backwards; a conclusion without a story.

It also is not helpful to go name calling, a weak tactic that does not further an argument. Trying to make me look stupid doesn’t make you look any smarter.

What evidence it would take to convince you that ID or creation is true? I would be interested to know.

As was written shortly ago in a similar post…

Aspects of evolution occur in relatively short periods that can be observed directly-such as the evolution in bacteria of resistance to antibiotics.

Fossil records are sound since evolution is gradual. There are examples of the evolution from simple fishes to boney. New species of fruit flies have been created in the laboratory.

What hasn’t been observed is one animal abruptly changing into a radically different one, such as a frog changing into a cow. This is not a problem for evolution because evolution doesn’t propose occurrences even remotely like that. In fact, if we ever observed a frog turn into a cow, it would be very strong evidence against evolution.

Scientific theories leave the option open for disproof, so they can be modified with new information. Evolution is supported with examples of empirical evidence.

And I believe Behe has yet to publish a scientific article in a science journal.

“Aspects of evolution occur in relatively short periods that can be observed directly-such as the evolution in bacteria of resistance to antibiotics.”

Just to make it clear this is not adaptation. The bacteria that survives does not change to survive. The mutation that caused it to be different enough to survive was already there. Its surives and that mutation is passed on. Tougher form of the original bacteria.

An example I use and bear with me…Is making yougurt. One cant just let milk sit and become yogurt, because it wont. It will just sour. So you heat it kill off the bacteria in the milk then add the species you want (acidophilos?) and because it has no competition it takes over and turns the milk to yogurt, instead of nasty rotten milk.

Thanks…and Behe is a nut.

[quote]deanec wrote:
Evolution approached things backwards; a conclusion without a story.
[/quote]

evolution approaches things from a scientific standpoint…not backwards…

stories are not needed in science…

name calling? I don’t recall calling you anything…

if you look stupid you do it all on your own…

hmmm…

what evidence would convince me that a fundamentalist view is accurate?

even though I am a christian to me fundamentalism = crazy…humans living inside whales…come on…if you believe this kind of nonsence you’re an imbecile …

however if we brush aside a considerable amount of pure insanity…some things that would make me have a more ‘fundamentalist’ point of view…

accurate geological evidence that the earth is only six thousand years old would help…

accurate evidence that dinosaurs didn’t exist sixty-five or more million years ago…

the list could go on and on…

Miserere and DPH know the score.

[quote]Jersey5150 wrote:
macroevolution? Please explain how you mean that.

I think I understood the Fruit fly experiment differently.

By fact I mean, take the dog breeding example and by you being the agent of selective pressure rather then the environment, pick a dog with a certain charectiristic, say you get a pup that was born with short legs, breed them and then of their offsprin sellect for the shortest legged animals and eventually you can get to a do with legs much shorter then their “anscestors”

I wrote this quick but perhaps I got my point across.[/quote]

Just a thought…
So that would be a loss of genetic information then?

Wolves (more info) → chihuahua
Chihuahua -/-> Wolf

Same with the elephants example from someone else, the hunters shoot all the tusked elephants, so the occurence of a tusked beasty is less likely to happen…

thoughts?

[quote]d-dub wrote:
Jersey5150 wrote:
macroevolution? Please explain how you mean that.

I think I understood the Fruit fly experiment differently.

By fact I mean, take the dog breeding example and by you being the agent of selective pressure rather then the environment, pick a dog with a certain charectiristic, say you get a pup that was born with short legs, breed them and then of their offsprin sellect for the shortest legged animals and eventually you can get to a do with legs much shorter then their “anscestors”

I wrote this quick but perhaps I got my point across.

Just a thought…
So that would be a loss of genetic information then?

Wolves (more info) → chihuahua
Chihuahua -/-> Wolf

Same with the elephants example from someone else, the hunters shoot all the tusked elephants, so the occurence of a tusked beasty is less likely to happen…

thoughts?[/quote]

I guess you would say its a decrease in the frequency of that allele.

Or, in other words, there are less elephants with tusks.

Allele…jesus.

[quote]Panther1015 wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
If it your religion that gives you pause, don’t let it. Much of the bible is metaphor.

Seven of gods “days” could be 7 billion years.

Amen to that. People need to stop taking religious documents - particularly the Bible - so literally.[/quote]

As for what Zap said, and I don’t know if he was referring to this or not, the beginning of Genesis is probably the most disputed passage in the Bible because of its importance in telling how the world was created along with the author’s use of the word “yom.” This word can mean both “day” and “age.”

Many Christians do not believe that the world was created in seven days, and many believe that the order of creation was different from the outline presented in Genesis. They believe that the story of creation is presented in the Bible in a figurative way for multiple reasons. These folks are probably the majority of scholars out there teaching today.

Just wanted to let you know that all Christians don’t just sit back, worship George Bush, oppress truth and interpret every biblical account as literal.

[quote]superpimp wrote:
Actually as far as evolution not being able to be proven, if you look at the African Elephant you will see that due to poaching more and more elephants are being born without tusks. This genetic mutation was found in 1/100 elephants but because paochers kill the elephants with the tusks the non-tusked gene is becoming more dominant.

Outside forces exerting pressure on a species=evolution, austrolphicus(our earliest found ancestor) could stand upright and see predators in the grassland this is the begining of our evolution, predators eat us= standing upright to see predators, change over time. Makes more sense to me than people living to be 900 years old, or survivng in a whales stomach for a month, but hey I bet that water to wine trick was cool at parties.[/quote]

I guess I’m failing to understand how a gene becoming dominant or a creature losing a characteristic could be considered evolution. Environmental pressures are forcing changes on a species, sure, but the elephant is becoming something less complex than it once was, not more complex.

[quote]Mr. Bear wrote:

Environmental pressures are forcing changes on a species, sure, but the elephant is becoming something less complex than it once was, not more complex. [/quote]

Complexity is not the issue for evolution. This is a common misconception. Survival is the issue.

And I don’t see why you think that losing tusks equals becoming less complex.

In fact, when/if elephants do evolve such that none have any tusks, they will likely have to develop a number of other traits to compensate for not having tusks, which would be making them more “complex,” in a way.

But IagoMB is right, evolution does not necessarily involve living organisms becoming more complex. They become better at surviving and procreating. The toughest, most successful creature on Earth, that will outlive humans and all other animals around today by many millions of years, is the bacteria. And they’re pretty simple!

It’s interesting how this guys User name is "Ihategymmorons? and then he posts a moronic, ignorant post like this and then to top it all off he fails to respond to the aggravation he caused. Maybe he is embarrassed of his post, or maybe he hates himself now after realizing he too is a moron.

But I guess its good that he posted and I applauded everyone for having the energy to educate him.

It?s just so much easier to insult rather than educate.

I honestly don?t know where all this confusion about micro vs macro evolution and things like that come from.

The way I see it, DNA is digital information. This information is made up of parts that remain more or less stable over a given period of time. You could call them genes.

Now this constant data-flow has some emergent patterns, data complexes, that could be called individuals or species, genus, depending on how far up the taxonomic letter you want to climb.

However,all those labels do not matter. All there is, is a neverending flow of digital information, constantly changing, because the genes interact with the environment, but mostly with each other.

As a visual aid, think of Matrix (the original, not the crappy sequels) where Neo realizes that there is no “door”, “wall”, or “bullets”, only the Matrix.

If one sees it that way, discussions like micro vs macro evolution are simply irrelevant. It means denying that constant small changes in a information cluster can make a big difference in the end.

If you change the code of a word processor long enough, you can change it into a media player, or any other programm. No programmer, i.e intelligent designer, would choose to do it that way, but evolution simply has no other way than making one small information change after another and see how the programm (i.e. the individual) works in reality. If it doesn?t it gets terminated. If it does, the information stream follows a new path.

[quote]deanec wrote:
The only fact is that we have never observed one species evolve into another. [/quote]

Not even remotely true. My undergrad advisor demonstrated incipient speciation in fruit flies in about a years time. A post-doc in my Ph.D. lab repeatedly speciated yeast in the lab. I believe you’ll find a Science paper he published if you looked hard enough. I’m pretty sure speciation in dandelions in the field has been demonstrated. These are the three obvious examples, I’m sure there’s more but it isn’t really considering a big problem anymore. The aforementioned post-doc has moved on to more interesting problems. So speciation has been demonstrated in animals, plants and fungi. Done deal.

Oh yeah, and the species concept as defined by Mayr is really more or less an issue with animals–which, as we all know, are a sort of eccentric group amongst the eukarya, an atypical case if you will. Lay people sit around arguing about speciation when biologists are busy trying to come up with an entirely new framework outside of the species concept (since it doesn’t make a lot of sense for about 99.9999% of life–which is mostly Bacterial and Archeal).

Nope. See above. Flies in a year with moderate selection. You can do the yeast in a week.

Hmmm, it’s been observed in the field and lab countless times. Go look in the literature.

Repeated? Gee, I don’t know, Lenski ring a bell? Funny, my dissertation demonstrates repeatable evolution in 4 different species of bacteria. Hell, I even demonstrate repeatable ecological dynamics. And I got the stats to back it up. Not mere “adaptation”–fixed genetic change in a population under selection. If you have another definition of evolution, I’m all ears. But you’re wrong.

It’s so trivially easy to demonstrate evolution in the lab. Take the bacteria or virus, or hell, yeast, or nematode of your choice. Sequence its genome. Apply selection. Selection can be as trivial and propagating it under lab conditions (which are hugely selective for any buggers fresh from “nature”). Sequence said buggers after a thousand generations. Witness fixed genetic changes. Witness measurable phenotypic changes. Evolution, no? You can repeat it. Over and over and over again. You can predict the genetic changes that will happen and even the exact type of mutation that will happen at certain loci given a certain selective pressure. You can make a hypothesis–if I apply “x” selective force to this virus I expect to see certain changes. You can falsify it by sequencing (or whatever your phenotypic marker is).

But whatever, you’re caught up in “macro” evolution (ummm, hello, the evo-devo folks have been making huge headway there, no?) and speciation (again, we can show it in the lab and field–nothing more to explain here)–two issues that really only affect animals, and, to a degree plants and fungi. I expect the evo-devo folks will figure out how “macro” evolution occurs in the next decade. Hell, if people don’t get to bent out of shape, they’ll probably demonstrate it in the lab by making something horrible (as if the fruitflies with legs coming out of their eyes weren’t bad enough…imagine the rats sprouting wings).

So do you have any real arguments or are you too lazy to actually bother to look into the real science and you just want to throw around your half-assed ideas? Anyway, I’ll be sure to evolve something over the weekend just for you.

[quote]deanec wrote:
That was sort of my point…they can “say” anything they want, the larger problem is proving it. As far as fossil records, these are highly problematic, in that the fossils that should be there, so called “transition” fossils, are not. There are huge leaps in “development” between those that are thought to be in our ancestral line. [/quote]

Ummm, what fossils should be there and based upon what do you think they ought to be there? Based upon what do you think there are huge leaps? Could be one mutation in a regulatory gene.
Basically what you are saying is that:
a) I am not a paleontologist and I really have no clue what fossils are or not there.
b) I am not a developmental biologist, so I really don’t know what mutations are necessary to go from fossil A to fossil B.
c) I am not an evolutionary ecologist so I really don’t know what the selective pressures were to generate the organisms that we do see in the fossil record.

Next.

What bothers me the most about the people criticizing evolution is this infantile notion that in order for something to be “provable,” we have to witness it as it happens right before our eyes. This protestation is so ignorant and so contrary to almost anyone’s common sense that I don’t understand how people can use it.

If I’m alone in the woods, fall asleep, and wake up and see snow all around, I’m pretty sure snow fell from the sky. I didn’t watch it happen, but what are the chances that it didn’t snow? If we see a fossil from 3 million years ago that no longer appears after that point, and then see an extremely similar fossil, yet a different species, from 2 million years ago in the exact same geographical place, only someone being obstinate would disagree that the latter evolved in some way from the former.

We have never observed a black hole being created, yet scientists know how it happens.

We have never observed star formation, yet scientists know how they are created.

We have never observed massive tectonic plate shift in order to prove that the continents used to be all in one big landmas, yet scientists know this has ocurred.

We have never witnessed an extinction level asteroid impact, yet scientists know that these have occured.

And in a more mundane example, juries routinely sentence people to entire lives in prison for crimes that no one watched occur.

That’s kind of the point of evidence; it allows us to construct accounts of what happened without having to sit around and watch something happen before our eyes.

[quote]deanec wrote:
I would argue that macroevolution is not a theory at all; it is not observable, repeatable, or refutable, and therefore cannot be defined as fact or theory. It is probably more appropriately called a hypothesis.[/quote]

Oh, this is fun. Any competent developmental biology grad student could pretty much make some monumental changes in a Drosophila. Double thorax. 10 legs. That kind of crap. Basically shift its body plan so it doesn’t have a typical insect body plan. It would take just modest genetic change. Said grad student could give said flies to the evolutionary biology grad student next door who could select on this population of hopeful monsters. You’d have stable macroevolution in a few months. The same process occurrs in nature all the time. You think we got stalk-eyed flies or the picture wing Drosophilas in Hawaii thorugh some other process?

If genetic changes fixed in the population it is evolution. That is the definition of evolution as per Fisher I believe.

Why would it? Insects never become birds. There isn’t any selective pressure for them to do so.

Survived and grew with modification and descent, but yeah. What else is a fly supposed to do?

Well you just did. And almost all creationist or ID dolts mix up adaptation with evolution when it is convenient.

Right, so you come in to shoot your wad of ignorance and expect us to just be, yeah, let’s not actually point out his monumental ignorance because it might become a pissing match. if you don’t want to get pissed on don’t piss off the people who actually can show you don’t have a fucking clue about anything at all.

[quote]PublickStews wrote:
What bothers me the most about the people criticizing evolution is this infantile notion that in order for something to be “provable,” we have to witness it as it happens right before our eyes. This protestation is so ignorant and so contrary to almost anyone’s common sense that I don’t understand how people can use it.[/quote]

Except that we can demonstrate evolution within something like 24 hours with a virus. What bothers me is that such rapid evolution before our eyes has been shown time and time again and these twats won’t bother to actually read the literature.

So this would be a fine and valid point except for the fact that we already know evolution can happen fast, we’ve shown it happens fast, and we can show people over and over again that it happens rapidly.

The whole notion that we couldn’t see evolution happen in human lifetimes was sort of disproved, at the latest, 30 odd years ago with Lenksi, Levin, Chao, etc. doing their pioneering work with bacteria and bacteria viruses. Nevermind folks in the field like the Grant’s who’ve shown rapid evolution with finches in the wild. The fish literature is rather large–sticklebacks, cichlids, etc. We’ve seen them evolve within a year or two in the field. So this isn’t anything we need to take on faith from fossils–we see it happen all the time.

And need I mention the medical literature? Viral evolution, antibiotic resistance, etc. All this happens quickly–before our eyes–and is reported all the time.