82 replies to this topic

[HavocWing]

Bling, on 08 October 2012 - 08:16 PM, said:

Science too hard? Try religion!


Sorry I couldn't resist

That's not funny!

And I'm not defending religion either.

Edited by HavocWing, 08 October 2012 - 09:13 PM.

[Imaginarynumber1]

Gummug, on 08 October 2012 - 07:44 PM, said:

Did you realize almost all, if not all, mutations are harmful? And genetic drift implies unguided...I still find this an unconvincing argument for greater complexity.

No. They are not. The vast majority of mutations are neither beneficial nor harmful.
Genetic drift happens all the time. Maybe you have offspring and I don't. Therefore your genes continue into the population whereas mine do not. Viola. Genetic Drift.

[Imaginarynumber1]

HavocWing, on 08 October 2012 - 09:12 PM, said:

That's not funny!

And I'm not defending religion either.

I laughed. Seems to be the way the majority in America think. And some on these boards...

[None of the above]

As an atheist I can tell you that the fact that a few extremist nut jobs think I'll burn in hell is not a probelm.
It's kind of like being threatened with Bugs Bunny.
If they say "you're going to burn in Hell and I'm going to send you there"
Then it's a problem.

[Mr Walker]

Alienated Being, on 07 October 2012 - 08:15 PM, said:

While a certain form of education and knowledge may be required, that does not mean that it is not as observable as gravity - even if it is viewed through a different "lens" (that lens being through the eyes of a biologist/virologist). It is just as observable, however... perhaps not to the common population.


But that does not make it true. Belief in the heliocentric model/geocentric model was also a "cultural" norm, as well... however, we know both to be quite untrue.


Perhaps not in a "normal" person's life, however... it is most certainly as observable as gravity through the eyes of a virologist.

Also, I suppose the same could be asked with regards to Sir Isaac Newton. If gravity is so easily observed, why did it take such a long period of time for an individual to codify it, and explain why it occurs?


If you ask an individual who has no idea as to what gravity is, would they be able to tell you what it is? They can see what happens as a result, but they do not instinctively know, "Oh, that's gravity". In order to understand gravity, we have to understand its principles, and how it works.



And the Greeks saw Zeus in thunder and lighting, the Egyptians saw Ra in the sun... What's your point?

To start at the end, my point was pointing out that evolution is not observable at all. some elements of it under powerful microscopes may be observed but as you point out, tha e is not available to most o the populace and the mere observation of those elemants doesnt lead to a knolwedge of evolution That means that ordinary peole have to take it on fauith ie believ in the scientists who tell the it is all so. And the sceintists are right, but  the point i made originally was that ordinary peole dont/cant see evolution occuring, so they have a choice. Believe in what scientists tell them or believe perhaps in what the bible tells them.

One has to have an  knolwedge of evolutionary process to appreciate what one is observing and how it fits into the overall mechanisms of evolution.

As you point out, gravity, while difficult to understand, IS observable, but how does an ordinary person OBSERVE evolution? One can't. One must lean about it in science. Without a scientific education and a long historical record of scientific understandings,  evolution is quite unobservable and actually difficult to deduce.

Those models were based on observations by very intelligent and rational "scientists" of the day They were reasonable but false, again illustrating that mere observaton without scientific understanding does not lead to the right answer.

Edited by Mr Walker, 09 October 2012 - 08:23 AM.

[spud the mackem]

I believe on a t.v. program Sir D, did not say that he was an atheist,what he said was that he was agnostic,he did not have to say anything at all,so give him credit for being honest.
   To me he is one of the Greatest persons to ever have walked on this rock.

All the hate mailng "religeous" cretins would do well to follow his example of what a true human really is,and to send hate mail to him is obnoxious.
Why dont these Cowards come out from under the rocks they hide under,and say who they are ?.

[Gummug]

Imaginarynumber1, on 08 October 2012 - 09:28 PM, said:

No. They are not. The vast majority of mutations are neither beneficial nor harmful.
Genetic drift happens all the time. Maybe you have offspring and I don't. Therefore your genes continue into the population whereas mine do not. Viola. Genetic Drift.

OK I was thinking genetic drift meant mutational change of genes...my bad.

[Supersquatch]

Gummug, on 08 October 2012 - 06:58 PM, said:

To my knowledge, however, no species has ever "evolved" into another species.

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.

Edited by Taylor Reints, 09 October 2012 - 08:46 PM.

[Cradle of Fish]

Gummug, on 08 October 2012 - 07:16 PM, said:

Well, if I'm an idiot I'm in pretty good company, including Isaac Newton and George Washington, among others, who believed the Bible.

Actually it's one or the other sorry mate. The former was anglican and the latter was episcopal. It'd be a coinflip if there weren't so many other sects and religions.

[Imaginarynumber1]

What people need to understand about evolution is that it is just the change in allele frequency of a population over time. That is it. That is evolution. If you have a child, it's allele frequency is different than yours. That is evolution. If many people in one group have children, the frequency of alleles is different. That is evolution.
Macro and Micro are never really used in scientific study. They are sometimes used as shorthand categorizations, but they are not biologically relevant terms. The ONLY different between the two is time.

As for people being able to have their own opinions, at what point do we stop allowing willful ignorance to be the new norm? Look at the issue of "race", for example. Biologically, scientifically, there is no such thing. It does not exist. Socially, however, it is very very real. What kind of massive paradigm shift is going to have to occur for people to stop seeing the things like "race", which really aren't there at all and start accepting the factual things that are existent in our world? Evolution, regardless of ones belief, is a very real, very observable and very well understood biological process.

[Bling]

Poor Sir Attenborough has got lost...

[Alienated Being]

Mr Walker, on 09 October 2012 - 08:13 AM, said:

To start at the end, my point was pointing out that evolution is not observable at all.

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...

Quote

In 1988, Lenski started an experiment with 12 populations of E. coli bacteria ‐‐ all starting with the same ancestral strain and all living in identical environments ‐‐ to see just how similarly or differently they would evolve. He wanted to keep the experiment going for at least a year and culture about 2,000 bacterial generations. Twenty‐one years and almost 50,000 generations later, the experiment is still growing strong.

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

Quote

some elements of it under powerful microscopes may be observed but as you point out, tha e is not available to most o the populace and the mere observation of those elemants doesnt lead to a knolwedge of evolution

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.

Quote

That means that ordinary peole have to take it on fauith ie believ in the scientists who tell the it is all so.

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.

Quote

And the sceintists are right, but  the point i made originally was that ordinary peole dont/cant see evolution occuring, so they have a choice. Believe in what scientists tell them or believe perhaps in what the bible tells them.

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.

[Rlyeh]

Gummug, on 08 October 2012 - 07:04 PM, said:

What an intelligent rebuttal...anything you disagree with, just call it stupid...works for most children, so I guess it should work for you too...

Nothing intelligent about the videos you posted, the guy is completely ignorant of evolution. Animals magically turning into other animals? Now that is stupidity.

[Gummug]

Rlyeh, on 10 October 2012 - 06:44 AM, said:

Nothing intelligent about the videos you posted, the guy is completely ignorant of evolution. Animals magically turning into other animals? Now that is stupidity.

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

[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.