83 replies to this topic

[Gummug]

Taylor Reints, on 09 October 2012 - 08:45 PM, said:

Speciation, more commonly called "macroevolution", is a term used to describe one species evolving into another species. The diversification of life, both morphologically and genetically, that evolution seems to explain is caused by speciation. Some people deny speciation altogether because it has never been witnessed, even though the opposite is true.

Meet the hawthorn fly, also known as the apple maggot fly:

It is a remarkable case of speciation, as it was not developed in a laboratory, but by nature. In the nineteenth century, after apples were introduced in North America, a distinct "race" of hawthorn flies began feeding on them exclusively, even though they usually ate hawthorns. In this new race, called apple maggot flies, six out of thirteen allozyme loci are different than the original hawthorn-eating flies, hawthorn flies mature later in the season and take longer to mature than apple flies and there is little evidence of interbreeding (researchers have documented a 4-6% hybridization rate). This suggests that apple flies are evolution in progress.

• McPheron, B.A., Smith, D.C., Berlocher, S.H. (1988). "Genetic differentiation between host races of Rhagoletis pomonella". Nature. 336: 64-6.
  
• Feder, J.L., Chilcote, C.A., Bush, G.L. (1988). "Genetic differentiation between sympatric host races of the apple maggot fly, Rhagoletis pomonella." Nature. 336: 61-4.
  
• Smith, D.C. (1988). "Heritable divergence of Rhagoletis pomonella host races by seasonal asynchrony." Nature. 336: 66-7.

Here's the evening primrose:

While studying the genetics of the evening primrose, Oenothera lamarckiana, botanist and geneticist Hugo de Vries found an unusual variant among his plants. O. lamarckiana has a chromosome number of 2N = 14. The variant had a chromosome number of 2N = 28. He found that he was unable to breed this variant with O. lamarckiana. He named this new species Oenothera gigas.

• de Vries, H. (1905). "Species and varieties, their origin by mutation."

Here is the kew primrose:

L. Digby crossed the primrose species Primula verticillata and P. floribunda to produce a sterile hybrid. Polyploidization occurred in a few of these plants to produce fertile offspring. The new species was named P. kewensis.

• Digby, L. 1912. "The cytology of Primula kewensis and of other related Primula hybrids." Ann. Bot. 26: 357-88.

You can find several more observed instances of speciation, or "macroevolution", here.

Well, this is the most compelling post I have seen so far to support evolution, and the most objectively (read: ad-hominem-less) given, and I will need to look into it better. It makes me wonder if the donkey was originally from horse stock because as probably everyone knows a donkey and a horse can interbreed, but the offspring, a mule, is sterile. Still, the fly, although a different species, is still a fly, and the flower is still a flower...the fly didn't become a dragon fly nor did the flower become a cactus. However, this is at least worthy of serious thought.

[Orcseeker]

Those who decide who will go to hell and who won't obviously then believe they are higher up than the thing they worship, judging from the supposed actions of this being, I don't think he will be pleased to hear others trying to do it's job for it. "Only God may judge me" isn't that what they say?

Edited by Orcseeker, 11 October 2012 - 04:22 PM.

[WoIverine]

Rlyeh, on 04 October 2012 - 06:10 AM, said:

Not the Biblical God, unless you're willing to admit he (or his authors) fibbed a bit in genesis.

Depends on how you look at it. I think there's room for both evolution and creation. Creation could even jump start evolution. Creation could take an already evolving organism and push it in a new direction as well. Our scientists are already capable of creating new forms of life. For all we know, humanity could have similar origins.

Edited by WoIverine, 11 October 2012 - 05:08 PM.

[Chronoking]

It is wrong of these people to send some one hate mail or any form of hatred because they believe in one thing more than another. Thats the kind of thing that pisses me off.

[Rlyeh]

Gummug, on 10 October 2012 - 04:14 PM, said:

I thought that was what evolution was...animals turning into other animals...over billions of years of course.

That's not what your video says. And no, populations evolve, change, gain/lose traits.

[The Silver Thong]

Gummug, on 10 October 2012 - 04:14 PM, said:

I thought that was what evolution was...animals turning into other animals...over billions of years of course.

Thats the issue, some people think it`s magic.  Magic or as it`s better known as, is called trickery. Religion owns the market when it comes to magic.  Billions fooled every year as it must be due the secret sauce.

[The Silver Thong]

As far as Sir David goes he states people that believe in creationism only see the beauty and not the brutality of a so called gods creation.  Talk about never seeing the other side of a coin.

Edited by The Silver Thong, 12 October 2012 - 03:09 AM.

[Urisk]

Gummug, on 10 October 2012 - 04:17 PM, said:

Well, this is the most compelling post I have seen so far to support evolution, and the most objectively (read: ad-hominem-less) given, and I will need to look into it better. It makes me wonder if the donkey was originally from horse stock because as probably everyone knows a donkey and a horse can interbreed, but the offspring, a mule, is sterile. Still, the fly, although a different species, is still a fly, and the flower is still a flower...the fly didn't become a dragon fly nor did the flower become a cactus. However, this is at least worthy of serious thought.

Cacti have flowers. They are flowering plants.

As for flies and dragonflies. As is often the case, but invariably conveniently forgotten, flies and dragonflies came from a common ancestor. But over time as this CA spread out, and populations started looking for different niches to occupy that would reduce competition, some, like dragons, would look to water, live near water, and over time would lay their eggs closer and closer to the water until the first part of their life history is aquatic, and we're not talking one dragonfly thinking "oh this year I'll just lay my eggs a foot closer to the pond", this is occurring over generation upon generation, probably laying eggs in flood-prone spots until those that are more tollerant of being inundated survive, reproducing with likewise individuals, being pushed down that path by the environment they inhabit until dragonfly nymphs become fully aquatic. Evolution is NOT linear, nor is it concious. Indeed evolution is not the change to a stimulus, but a change BY a stimulus. In this the death of less able individuals is a very important factor. It's complex, but it's not some improbable, magic phenomenon. To me many people who try to discredit evolution just don't want the hassle of challenging themselves to be comfortable with something complex, so it's easier to just say "oh, God did it". Of course then you have to be comfortable with a super-powerful being who poses as some benevolent force, but has created some of the most horrid things, afflictions, incidents, and then requires it's "children" to be spiritual slaves to it.

The Silver Thong, on 12 October 2012 - 03:08 AM, said:

As far as Sir David goes he states people that believe in creationism only see the beauty and not the brutality of a so called gods creation.  Talk about never seeing the other side of a coin.

Exactly! Like parasitic organisms, lionesses giving their cubs a live baby antelope to "play with" and learn hunting skills, that harrowing video of the orcas ganging up on a baby right whale (think it was a right? maybe hump back?) only to eat the jaw and waste the rest while the mother looks on helpless. Why would a God allow nature to be so cruel? Because nature IS cruel! Nature is nasty, and any associations with ultimate beauty are merely coincidence, and only an interpretation made by us; the only animal that can perhaps rationalise things as something more than threat, friend or food. Butterflies are not beautiful because they want to be. It's because brightly-coloured patterns are an effective warning to both colour-vision animals like birds who can distinguish the colours, and colour-blind animals like most mammals who can distinguish the pattern. I absolutely love nate, and I do indeed view it as a beautiful thing, but I'm well aware of the other side of it (have you ever seen skuas taking baby plover chicks? or a fox going for a wee teal? It's heartbreaking, but these animals NEED to do this). Nature has my utmost respect!

Edited by Urisk, 12 October 2012 - 12:36 PM.

[Mr Walker]

Alienated Being, on 09 October 2012 - 10:45 PM, said:

Yes, it absolutely is. That statement is quite false. I will direct you to this observation of the reproduction of E. Coli bacteria...

Taken directly from the paper...



source: http://news.msu.edu/...5acae041269.pdf


Actually, after giving it a bit of thought, evolution is arguably more observable than gravity. What we see is the result of gravity, we don't see the actual physical manifestation of the forces involved in gravity. When we throw something, we know it will fall... because of gravity. However, we do not actually see the physical forces pulling the object towards earth. In a lab, we can observe absolutely every physical attribute of evolution. As for gravity? All we see are the results of the forces, not the actual forces themselves.


It's not really faith when the information provided is reinforced with evidence that can be reproduced, my friend. Faith encompasses a belief independent of evidence, which contradicts a scientific theory/law.


You don't see gravity occurring, either - you see the result of gravity's force, but not the actual force in itself as it pulls on the object.

I can understand your pov esp as a scientost and it mus tbe very frustrating tha tothers cant see it but just as a feather falling is not an observation of gravity  the change in an  E coli bactria is not an observation of evolution UNLESS you already know it is and understand the processes occuring. My original point was that you can not deduce or understand evolution via observation And it is not fair to say that people who cant see evolution at work in the world around them are stupid Even today most peole acept the works of science by faith, not by knowledge or understanding As a modern person and especially as a cientist it may be hard to get into the mond of a perosn form the past or one not trained in science but it requires a an accumulation of learned knowledge to se the things which you take for granted when you observe the world.