Evolutionary Debate by AnthonyT

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:

I am a non-scientific layman. I think in simple terms.

I had trouble with basic biology in High School, because my teacher kept telling me that viruses weren't alive, and that seemed wrong to me for reasons I couldn't completely explain.

Anyhow, I'm not a scientist. I don't claim any special understanding of the scientific process.

But I frequently find debate here about evolution. Some people argue it exists, other people argue it doesn't exist. Some people divide evolution up into 'macro' and 'micro' and dissect it thus. A lot of the arguments on both sides don't make a lot of sense to me.

I remember that in my frustrating biology class in High School, a small-scale example of evolution was presented to us. There were some light-colored moths in a forest. Then a factory started up near the forest. Soot from the factory turned all the trees dark. After a few years, the moths in the forest were all dark-colored.

The explanation was that all the light-colored moths got eaten (because their coloration made them stand out) and some random dark-colored moths proliferated (because their coloration allowed them to blend in) and so a species of light colored moths 'evolved' into a species of dark-colored moths.

This made sense to me. I could also imagine how, if other random traits came to determine the life-or-death of the moth, these traits might become the basis for new kinds of moths that we have never seen before. Like maybe a mutant moth with more aerodynamic wings could fly from danger faster, and thus survive to breed an entire species of aerodynamic moths.

But there are other things that make me wonder. There are insects that look like leaves or twigs, and this strikes me as much more complicated than light or dark colored moths. I am forced to wonder how many random mutations need to occur in a particular order to make an insect look exactly like a leaf. Or a twig. I mean, it seems rather improbable to me. It'd make a lot more sense if the insect could look at a twig and say, "Hey, I bet if I looked like a twig, I wouldn't get eaten." And then if it could somehow, over countless generations, WILL itself to become a twig... Well, that would feel more right. But an insect can't will the final result of its evolution. It's all supposed to be random. And so it seems like startlingly good luck for an insect to look like a twig. And this good luck seems to happen a lot.

I've heard of something called 'Intelligent Design' and have wondered if this sensation is the one that they're trying to capture. You know, the sensation that someone was WILLING the insect to look like a twig. Because it it was someone's active will, then the amazing good luck would be a lot more plausible.

So, I guess I'm in a tough spot on this evolution thing. Because while the basic concept of evolution makes a lot of sense to me, some of the end-results of evolution seem bloody unlikely.

Now, I believe in God, but I don't have any particular inclination as to how God operates. If he does his work by evolving his creatures, that's his business. The Bible says the world was a done deal in six days, but I don't need to take that at face value. I know too much about how the Bible came to be, and that certain books were included or excluded or edited or oddly translated at various points in history. At best, the Bible is the Will of God as Filtered through the Minds of a Thousand Idiots over the course of Millenia. I kind of just hope that the central themes survived intact.

On the other hand, I don't have anything AGAINST the idea that God Zapped things into being, and then provided them with a mechanism for adaptation called evolution. That way they wouldn't be like computers: Hopelessly outdated and doomed to replacement after a few short years. Rather, they could gradually become better.

I guess what I really want to know is this...

Is the entire community of Fireflyfans divided into "Evolution is It!" and "Evolution is Sacriligeous Crap?!"

I mean, aren't there any religious folks out there who, like me, think, "Evolution seems pretty logical and compelling!"

And aren't there any scientific folks out there who, like me, think, "Yeah, evolution and all... But some of these things seem darned improbable!"

Are there any middle grounders out there like me, who enjoy a little from column A and a little from column B, and who are waiting for a column C to split the difference?"

Or is it very retarded of me to think this way?

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

Hey all, I've been reading here for awhile, but this is my first post. I can't resist evolution, what can I say? :)

I think the biggest problem with evolution right now is that it isn't taught very well. Even if it seems implausable at first, if you're taught it well, there's a sort of "eureka!" moment where it just makes so much sense. The theory took a genius to piece together, but it's elegant and simple, and anyone can understand it. So I'm not a scientist m'self, but I love evolution.

As far as I can tell, you have a good understanding of the basic mechanisms, but have some valid questions about the probability of the thing. As a matter of fact, it *is* darned improbable, if you look at it from a human perspective. But the Earth is so ridiculously old by our standards that "darned improbable" in human terms becomes "very likely" in Earth-terms.

I'm going to try a little (actually, massive) summary here, but I'd recommend looking at some of the scientists who explain it to laypeople. My favorite is Richard Dawkins, and the two books of his I've read, The Selfish Gene and The Blind Watchmaker are fantastic. Dawkins is also, if this bothers you, an unabashed atheist, and unfortunately tends to frame atheism as more "scientific" in his arguments for it. I'm an atheist myself and I usually agree with him, but if you read him it's important to keep in mind that the God question is a philosophical one, not a scientific one, and he mixes the two too much.

If you're not a fan of Dawkins, look into Ken Miller, who's an eloquent advocate for evolution, and also a devout Roman Catholic. Here's a very long YouTube video of him talking about Intelligent Design:

There, if my attempted explainations make no sense, look at theirs :).

The theory of Evolution by Natural Selection was first proposed by Charles Darwin in the 19th Century. Sice then the theory has been refined to include genetics and DNA, and has become the defining paradigm of modern biology, and it's about as well-supported as scientific theories get.

The way it works is that, very rarely a gene will undergo a mutation, or a mistake in copying the plans to build an organism. This is the "random," part, in the sense that mutations aren't directed toward improvement. Usually, these mutations are bad, but occasionally they're beneficial to the organism in some way, which helps it survive and/or reproduce better than those around it. This part, the Natural Selection part, is ruthlessly non-random. If your moth isn't fast enough, it gets eaten, and that's the end of that mutation. These changes, on their own very small, accumulate over millions, sometimes billions of years to create the diversity of life we see today.

One of the reasons that's so hard to fathom is that our brains haven't evolved to think in that sort of timeframe or probability. We're "designed" to assess risks like "what are my chances of getting killed by this mastadon I'm about to throw a pointed stick at," and other such risks that are worth worrying about in a human lifetime. Thinking about million-year periods is like thinking in the fifth dimension; we just can't do it.

So, take the walking-stick example, which Dawkins talks about in one of his books. It took a long time for that species insect to look like a stick, and if we imagine it as some sort of instant jump it makes no sense. In Evolution, any mutation has to work *right now,* in the short run. So, looking just like a stick in broad daylight to a bird on the hunt is too much for one step, and it didn't happen that way. But let's say that bird is flying home at night, and you look slightly like a stick from a dozen yards away in the dark? If the bird was looking for food, he'd spot you, but if he's just passing through that could be the difference between becoming dinner and being ignored. That small advantage is enough, and a million years later, your descendants can fool a bird in broad daylight. In the same way, eyes start out as a light-sensitive point on the cell, wings start out as little gliders like flying squirrels have, and legs start out as fins that can be used to hop from tidepool to tidepool.

The light moth/dark moth example (which I think is taken from London during the industrial revolution) is an example of evolution that happens fast enough for humans to see. As I understand it, some moths were black and some were white already, and the black ones became more common after the factories were built because they were camoflauged by the smog. Occasionally you can see evolution happen within a human lifetime. Dog or horse breeding is an example of evolution by human selection instead of natural selection: breed timid, friendly wolves for a century or two and they become huskies. Diseases evolve to fit us, also. Your flu shot from one year becomes obselete the next, because flu viruses adapt to the medications each year. They're simple enough that they can change much faster than multicellular organisms can.

Oh, about viruses not being alive, a virus, like the flu, is a just strand of DNA or RNA inside a protein coat. They are similar to living things, but are not considered living because they don't share any other traits with living organisms. It's important not to confuse viruses with bacteria, though; bacteria *are* alive.

As for the walking-stick willing itself to look more like a stick, that's actually called "Lamarckism," a mechanism for evolution proposed by a biologist called Jean-Baptiste Lamarck before Darwin came along. Larmarckism has since been proved wrong, however.

The important thing about natural selection is that it's not a conscious process. Organisms don't decide to change themselves, and genes aren't orchestrating everything from behind the scenes. DNA is simply a molecule that copies itself, and the copies of it that build the best "survival machines," as Richard Dawkins calls them, are the ones that survive.

Evolution's got mountains of evidence supporting it. The geographic distribution of every species on the planet fits where evolution predicts it to be. The fossil record, pieced together, shows how evolution works. Because fossils are so rare, most pieces are missing, but they all fit where they should go. To disprove evolution, it would take, as one famous biologist (don't remember who) put it, "Fossil rabbits in the Precambrian." No such out-of-place fossils have been found. Evolution predicted something like DNA before the molecule was discovered. And we can see the effects of evolution animals all around the world. We humans, for instance, have tailbones, a "vestigal trait" left over from when we had actual tails. Ever see a dog get angry, and their hair stands up, to make them look menacing? That's what we're doing when we get goosebumps, but it's no longer useful because we don't have fur to make us scary.

These very same pieces of evidence also indicate that evolution is an unguided process without a final plan in mind. Intelligent Design, which claims that some sort of designer planned out the evolutionary process, but advocates of ID really haven't done much but look for holes in Evolution. This is a very important thing to do in science, to always question the prevailing theories. But most of their objections can be answered with evolution, and even were this not the case, it wouldn't be nearly enough to displace the prevailing theory, especially one so well-supported. And of course, there's the classic question, "who designed the Designer?" Theologically, you can say that the designer is an a priori God, but that's philosophy, not science. So, ultimately, right now, ID is a "God did it," theory that, like a walking-stick, has cleverly disguised itself as science. If ID's proponents produced some really compelling evidence that stood up to peer review, then they would have something, but that hasn't happened yet, and it doesn't look like it ever will. Hopefully, though, their attempts to call evolution into question will reveal new angles to study it from, and ultimately produce an even stronger and more useful theory. The great thing about science is that it's always improving itself.

Gosh, that was long to type, but I think a lot of fun. As for the God thing, I'd love to discuss that too, but it's important to remember that pretty much every credible biologist believes in evolution, and so do most sophisticated theologins. As much as I love the Dawkins-types (I am one), we have a tendancy to blur philosophy and science. The jury is out on the existence of God. But the question of Evolution was answered over a century ago.

Hope that was at least a little helpful.

"Well, here I am."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, February 5, 2007 10:08 PM

NEWOLDBROWNCOAT

I've done some reading on Artificial Life, notably Steven Levy's book of the same title, and fooled around with some of the simpler computer programs detailed there.

While those programs are computer simulations of life, and are in fact incredible simplifications, some of them do mimic the mechanisms of real animals, to a sufficient degree to be used for prediction of real world events.

Many of them have shown evolution-- a mutation introduced into the computer DNA, in a very low percentage of a very large sample, can, over many generations, become a dominant trait. This is much the mechanism that evolution suggests in animals- many small changes in a few individuals, spread thru the whole population over a very long time.

This is why evolution doesn't show over the period we have studied it-- 1000's of years are too short a time frame. If I remember correctly, the most current date on the pre-humanoid remains from Africa is 4 million years. It usedta be about 1 million.

On another level, Levy suggests that computer viruses are very close to life forms-- even simple ones can be programmed to reproduce and spread and to defend themselves against extermination-- and they often cause results unpredictable to their creator, as their designs contain imperfections. That's why they're such a nuisance, cause so much damage, and are so hard to get rid of.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, February 6, 2007 3:58 AM

CHARLIETHEBLOODY

great post Mrig, you laid it all out really well.

anthonyT your post was very interesting and not at all retarded, I think there are a lot of people somewhere in the middle, we don't (at least I don't) fully understand the evolutionary process, it can seem quite mind boggling, but I've seen enough evidence to lead me to accept it as real.

Mrig pointed out that there are plenty of religious scientists who believe in both evolution and god, and it's worth noting that darwin himself (I believe) did not see his theories as conflicting with his faith, there's a myth about him retracting it on his deathbed but that was made up by people wanting to discredit him and make it into a science vs religion thing, which it really isn't...

--------------------------------------
"I'm an artist, with an e and a beret."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, February 6, 2007 7:40 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!

I am also a layperson on this issue, and have no formal degrees related to this topic. However, this is how I see it....

Folks who don't study evolution for a living tend to simplify this issue into either
A. God did it, evolution is a lie by Satan ,- the 'Young Earth Creationist'....or,
B. Life sprang and evolved purely from real world, natural events, and progressed, over time , to what we have today.

There is another group which feels life evolved, but with in the frame work of some intelligence. THOSE folks are more accurately described at Theistic Evolutionist. These folk are not to be confused w/ the Intelligent Design folks, who are little more than re-packaged Creationist.

When it comes to things like the Bombadier Beetle, the Sea Dragon ( leafy lookin Sea Horse ), etc... I'm a bit perplexed. And yet from studying paleontology on my own for over 20 yrs, I come to realize that this planet has seen far more variations of life than most could even imagine. In fact, much of our imagination has invented creatures which owe some basis of fact in this planet's past. I'm fully convinced, for example, that many of the creatures from mythology come from man's inability to understand the fossilized animals they stumbled across. The Gryphon, for example, was seen as a cross between a lion and a bird, with wings. Turns out, there was an creature which looks very similar to that mythical animal,( w/ out the wings ). A dinosaur, which fossils can be found in exactly the same area that the legendary Gryphon hails from. That animal, is a type of Ceratops, cousin to the much larger Triceratops.

Anyway, there's all sorts of facts and stories which most of us are never taught in HS or even college biology courses. And it's because of this lack of knowledge, ( and yes, a likely case of lack of interest by most folk ) which leads to such a misunderstanding and incomplete picture of the issue. Pretty much like anything else, it's often not stupidity on the part of the individual, but simply a lack of knowledge ( ignorance ) which develops how folks see the world.

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, February 6, 2007 8:14 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Just as an aside, I look at all the mis-designed, useless (vestigial) pieces of our anatomy and I think... "This was supposed to be designed by God??? " God sure is practical joker!

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, February 6, 2007 8:32 AM

CITIZEN

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
I had trouble with basic biology in High School, because my teacher kept telling me that viruses weren't alive, and that seemed wrong to me for reasons I couldn't completely explain.

You're teacher wasn't very good, whether Viruses are Alive or merely complex chemicals, RNA operating as it does, but not alive in it's own right, is still debated. Stating it in a class room, in a Science class no less as fact when it's still debated is pretty poor. In my science class the teacher told what a virus was, how it functioned and told us people weren't sure if it was alive or not.

Personally I think it is alive, just missing the DNA mechanisms that allow it to reproduce autonamously, though it's clear it does reproduce because of it's own 'desire' to do so, i.e. the Virus sets its reproduction in motion. I think Viruses are probably a lot closer to some of the earliest distinct life forms than modern bacteria.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, February 6, 2007 8:49 AM

FREMDFIRMA

Some real intelligent posts on the topic for once, I guess miracles do happen - might by a lottery ticket today

I file the whole durned shebang in my mental back burner labelled "Who the fuck knows?!".

I will say though, that if Cats ever develop opposable thumbs, the human race is totally screwed.

-F

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, February 6, 2007 9:43 AM

TRENCHMONKEY

just a couple of points,

Quote:
In Evolution, any mutation has to work *right now,* in the short run.

Not quite true in darwin and elsewhere the mutation merely shouldnt prove a disadvantage, it doesnt necesserily need to provide an immediate advantage, as an aside the Science of the Discworld books, by Terry Pratchet (and a couple of others cant remember who), give a good accessable overview in places

I dont suffer from madness, I enjoy it.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, February 6, 2007 10:21 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

I can be shown that a mutation that's not under evolutionary pressure (neither advantage nor disadvantage) remains in the population at the same level.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, February 6, 2007 11:12 AM

KANEMAN

Anthonyt - "so a species of light colored moths 'evolved' into a species of dark-colored moths."

There is no evolution on the moths in that example. It is the same species as before. It has the same chromosomal make-up. There is zero proof that any species has ever evolved into another....zero. That is why it is "THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION". Anyone who tells you different, is full of sh*t..............

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, February 6, 2007 11:48 AM

FLETCH2

The white moths lost habitat to the black moths because the black ones were better adapted to the new conditions. This is used as an example of natural selection, not one of evolution. To get a verifiably new species requires a significant genetic change, too big a step to ever be seen at one time.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, February 6, 2007 11:59 AM

DARKJESTER

Ask away, Anthony! The only ones who think asking a question is retarded are the ones who are convinced they have the answers. And quite often, they'll end their arguement/argue-rant with a variation of the old clincher "If you don't believe like me you're a poopy-head!"

MAL "You only gotta scare him."
JAYNE "Pain is scary..."

http://www.fireflytalk.com - Big Damn Podcast

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, February 6, 2007 1:59 PM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Thanks for all the input, guys.

Is it really true that no species has ever evolved into another species within the verifiable scope of human observation?

Not even bugs or rats or such? I mean, they reproduce like crazy, so I'd imagine they're the most likely candidates for observed evolution? I'm supposing you need thousands of generations.

What about my chijuajua (sp?) Or a toy poodle? Or one of those long, short dogs with the floppy ears? I've often heard that humans have bred these dogs from a common stock animal, selecting desirable traits. There sure are a lot of different and distinct kinds of dog with very different physical attributes.

Are they all the same species as a wolf? Just how different do you need to get from your source animal before you can be said to have 'evolved' into something new?

Is it at all possible to ever observe an evolutionary process, or will evolution always be a theory just because we can't see it from start to finish? (Takes too long, even for little critters?)

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, February 6, 2007 2:07 PM

KHYRON

I suggest to everyone to look up what a theory is in a scientific context. It's not what you seem to think.

And natural selection occurs all the time, and this is, after all, the driving mechanism behind evolution. But I don't know what criteria are used to determine when a new species has evolved due to natural selection.

The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, February 6, 2007 2:51 PM

CHARLIETHEBLOODY

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Is it really true that no species has ever evolved into another species within the verifiable scope of human observation?

Not even bugs or rats or such?

I don't know about whole species (though as khyron said, where do you draw the line between species?) but strains of bacteria show evolution, like MRSA which is rampaging through hospitals, methicilin resistant staphylococcus aureus, that has evolved it's resistance to antibiotics.

but then anti-evolution people draw a distinction between micro and macro, because they can't deny micro evolution but still want to deny larger scale stuff. I don't see that distinction myself, it just takes an awful lot longer to get to humans than it does to a different type of bacteria.

and dogs, while obviously not natural selection still show how advantagous (for whatever reason) traits are developed, it's just orchestrated by humans rather than the environment, either way the dog doesn't get to breed if it doesn't have the right ('fit') characteristics.

--------------------------------------
"I'm an artist, with an e and a beret."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, February 6, 2007 6:51 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

If course, theocrats are busy burying their heads in the sand to avoid the evidence....

Quote:
Deep in the dusty, unlit corridors of Kenya's national museum, locked away in a plain-looking cabinet, is one of mankind's oldest relics: Turkana Boy, as he is known, the most complete skeleton of a prehistoric human ever found. But his first public display later this year is at the heart of a growing storm -- one pitting scientists against Kenya's powerful and popular evangelical Christian movement. The debate over evolution vs. creationism -- once largely confined to the United States -- has arrived in a country known as the cradle of mankind.
"I did not evolve from Turkana Boy or anything like it," says Bishop Boniface Adoyo, head of Kenya's 35 evangelical denominations, which he claims have 10 million followers. "These sorts of silly views are killing our faith."He's calling on his flock to boycott the exhibition and has demanded the museum relegate the fossil collection to a back room -- along with some kind of notice saying evolution is not a fact but merely one of a number of theories.

¡pobrecito!

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, February 6, 2007 7:33 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by TrenchMonkey:
just a couple of points,

Quote:
In Evolution, any mutation has to work *right now,* in the short run.

Not quite true in darwin and elsewhere the mutation merely shouldnt prove a disadvantage, it doesnt necesserily need to provide an immediate advantage, as an aside the Science of the Discworld books, by Terry Pratchet (and a couple of others cant remember who), give a good accessable overview in places

I dont suffer from madness, I enjoy it.

Yeah, that makes sense. A mutation doesn't have to be positive, it just can't be negative. However, it's hard for me to imagine a mutation that isn't one or the other, because anything that wastes energy is negative. Thus, if a mutation makes some minor, inconsequential change for a small increase in energy cost, it is still negative and detrimental to survival.

My main point, though, was that it can't be something that doesn't help in the short term but might help a few generations down the line. A species can't have half an eye now and hope to evolve the other half a million years later. ID proponents like to pretend that Evolution is supposed to work that way. It's not.

"Well, here I am."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, February 6, 2007 8:33 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:

Thanks for all the input, guys.

Is it really true that no species has ever evolved into another species within the verifiable scope of human observation?

Not even bugs or rats or such? I mean, they reproduce like crazy, so I'd imagine they're the most likely candidates for observed evolution? I'm supposing you need thousands of generations.

What about my chijuajua (sp?) Or a toy poodle? Or one of those long, short dogs with the floppy ears? I've often heard that humans have bred these dogs from a common stock animal, selecting desirable traits. There sure are a lot of different and distinct kinds of dog with very different physical attributes.

Are they all the same species as a wolf? Just how different do you need to get from your source animal before you can be said to have 'evolved' into something new?

Is it at all possible to ever observe an evolutionary process, or will evolution always be a theory just because we can't see it from start to finish? (Takes too long, even for little critters?)

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

Sorry for double-posting, I'm still figuring out the details of how this forum works.

I don't know of any examples of seeing one species branch out into another within recorded human history. Considering how long it takes, and how recent we are, there might not be any. Speciation takes not only the ordinary mechanisms of evolution but also geographic isolation. Darwin saw different species of finches on different islands in the Galapagos, which had clearly originated from one common ancestor. Because the islands prevented them from interbreeding, they became seperate species. Most of the evidence for evolution we don't see firsthand. Scientists piece together a picture of what happened with clues left behind in the same way that forensic investigators do to a crime scene.

However, nature doesn't have a precise line for "species." Dogs, for instance, used to be classified as all the same species, Canis familiaris, which evolved by human breeding from wolves, Canis lupis. Apparently it's since been renamed a "subspecies" of wolf. However, each breed shows more variation, so my dachshunds(the long ones with the floppy ears--I have two) are the same species as your chihuahua (I can't spell it either, I looked it up. Same with "dachshund"). However, there are clearly differences between the two. Both of them are also the same species as a wild dog or a gray wolf.

The definition I've heard is that two animals are considered the same species if they can mate and produce fertile offspring. Thus, two breeds of dog are the same species, but horses and donkeys are not, because mules are sterile. But, of course, this line is quite blurry and difficult to categorize.

Evolution will always be a theory, but that's not a bad thing. In science, a theory is a step up from facts, because theories explain facts. The question is how well-supported a theory is. Evolution is an example of a well-supported theory. Intelligent Design is also a theory, but it's not a very good one, because it isn't well-supported.

Another key element that all scientific theories must share, but ID doesn't have, is called falsifiability. What this means is that if the theory is wrong, there is some way to show that it is wrong. If we found a fossil rabbit in the Precambrian, that would falsify Evolution. However, if similar evidence comes up against Intelligent Design, a proponent of ID can always say "the Designer put it there," or something similar, meaning that ID can't be falsified.

The fact that we can't see Evolution happen from start to finish doesn't mean we can't figure out what happened, in the same way that fingerprints and DNA evidence can catch a murderer even without witnesses. So if someone says that Evolution is "only" a theory, they aren't using the word "theory" properly.

Whew. I really need to stop caring so much about evolution, so that I can spend less time on my posts.

"I have to understand the world, you see."
~Richard Feynman

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, February 6, 2007 9:04 PM

FLETCH2

Quote:
Originally posted by MRig:

Yeah, that makes sense. A mutation doesn't have to be positive, it just can't be negative. However, it's hard for me to imagine a mutation that isn't one or the other, because anything that wastes energy is negative. Thus, if a mutation makes some minor, inconsequential change for a small increase in energy cost, it is still negative and detrimental to survival.
.

I can give you an example. Sickle Cell anemia is a genetic mutation that can be very painful and before modern medicine highly fatal. These days most folks that have it have an ancestors that come from Africa, where the mutation is quite common. Why is this? Well Sickle Cell gives some protection against the Malaria parasite. Malaria tends to attack the weaker members of societies, principally the very young and the very old where as Sickle Cell tends to become more debilitating the older a person gets.

As a result we have the following situation. Children born without the mutation have an increased chance of dying young because Malaria kills the young and the Sickle Cell mutation offers some protection. This means more kids with the mutation manage to grow up and survive to produce children than kids without it. Of course those survivors with Sickle Cell won't live as long as the survivors without it, but since they live long enough to pass on their genes to the next generation that doesn't matter.

So here we have a mutation that while decreasing the lifespan of the organism actually increases it's chance of breeding successfully. It has both positive and negative effects.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, February 7, 2007 7:06 AM

TRENCHMONKEY

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:

Is it really true that no species has ever evolved into another species within the verifiable scope of human observation?

I have Some memory of an article in New scientist in the later half of last year that talked about a verifiable case not sure though will look it up over the weekend (New scientist is weekly so migfht take some time)

I dont suffer from madness, I enjoy it.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, February 7, 2007 8:12 AM

FREMDFIRMA

Quote:
Is it really true that no species has ever evolved into another species within the verifiable scope of human observation?

I dunno, you could make a good case for some of our posters for human evolution (or would that be devolution?) into Troglodyte.

-F

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, February 7, 2007 8:20 AM

CITIZEN

Quote:
Is it really true that no species has ever evolved into another species within the verifiable scope of human observation?

Why would that be hard to believe? We've only been here five minutes.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, February 7, 2007 8:54 AM

CHARLIETHEBLOODY

Quote:
Originally posted by TrenchMonkey:

I have Some memory of an article in New scientist in the later half of last year that talked about a verifiable case not sure though will look it up over the weekend (New scientist is weekly so migfht take some time)

that sounded familar so I had a search and this came up from the review of the year:

Review 2006: Evolution in action
23 December 2006
From New Scientist Print Edition.
Bob Holmes

STUDYING evolution is a lot like studying tigers. You know your subject is there by the traces it leaves, but you don't often see it in the flesh. This year, though, evolutionary biologists were treated to not one but several glimpses of evolution in action right before their eyes.

Take the little lizard known as Anolis sagrei. When researchers introduced a larger, predatory lizard onto the tiny Caribbean islands where they live, A. sagrei immediately began to evolve longer legs for speedier escapes. But then the little lizards learned to flee into the branches of shrubs, where the predator could not follow - and within six months evolution had changed tack again to favour shorter-legged lizards, which are better climbers.

However, such changes are small beer compared with the hard stuff of evolution: making new species. Yet here too evolution put on a show in real time. Biologists reported not one, but two butterfly species that arose abruptly from hybridisation between existing species, a form of instant speciation formerly known only in plants.

Biologists also witnessed evolutionary misfires, where new species in the act of diverging from a parent species failed to retain their distinct identity and merged back again through hybridisation. These failed speciations are probably common - indeed, our own genome bears traces of a failed divergence from chimpanzees before the split finally happened. However, some experts suggest that human activity may make such failures more common by homogenising habitats and erasing ecological differences that once kept new species distinct.

From issue 2583 of New Scientist magazine, 23 December 2006, page 13

--------------------------------------
"I'm an artist, with an e and a beret."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, February 7, 2007 9:55 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Thanks both.

There was an article (probably too long ago to be googled successfully) about a North American (?) bird that was evolving into two distinct species at the eastern and western ends of its range (species that could not interbreed), whereas the middle range was an intermediate between both.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, February 7, 2007 1:07 PM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Evolved into a duplicate post...

--Anthony

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, February 7, 2007 1:07 PM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Quote:
Is it really true that no species has ever evolved into another species within the verifiable scope of human observation?
Why would that be hard to believe? We've only been here five minutes.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

Well, it's hard to believe because of scale. Sure, I don't expect to be able to witness evolution on something like a tiger or a moose, because these are long-lived creatures.

But I hear there are bugs whose entire lifecycle is like a couple of days. I'd think a scientist or team of scientists should be able to simulate evolution in such bugs by selective breeding (pretending that their choices are 'natural selection') and manually forcing the hand of hundreds of thousands of generations of bugs.

I mean, like you said, humans have only been here for five minutes. So something that lives a lifespan 1/15,000 as big as ours ought to show its evolution 15,000 times faster. 70 years of breeding little bugs that live for a couple of days would be like nearly a million years of human evolution. Which means like maybe we can go completely from one species to another in a single human lifespan.

So is there any work being done to go from one species of X to another in order to create definitive verifiable proof of what some people call macro-evolution?

I think it'd be cool.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, February 7, 2007 3:11 PM

ERIC

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:

But I hear there are bugs whose entire lifecycle is like a couple of days. I'd think a scientist or team of scientists should be able to simulate evolution in such bugs by selective breeding (pretending that their choices are 'natural selection') and manually forcing the hand of hundreds of thousands of generations of bugs.

Don't need a team of scientists- I once did exactly this in elementary school on a science field trip with a plastic vial of fruit flies. It's a classic exhibition activity in kid-oriented scientific institutions.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, February 7, 2007 3:55 PM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Quote:
Originally posted by Eric:
Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:

But I hear there are bugs whose entire lifecycle is like a couple of days. I'd think a scientist or team of scientists should be able to simulate evolution in such bugs by selective breeding (pretending that their choices are 'natural selection') and manually forcing the hand of hundreds of thousands of generations of bugs.

Don't need a team of scientists- I once did exactly this in elementary school on a science field trip with a plastic vial of fruit flies. It's a classic exhibition activity in kid-oriented scientific institutions.

You created a new evolution of fruit flies?

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, February 7, 2007 4:13 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

If you want one bird (or lizard) species X into another bird (or lizard) species y then it's already there.

If you want bird into snake, or bacteria into algae it probably isn't going to happen.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, February 7, 2007 6:42 PM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Well, that other guy said it doesn't count if one moth turns into a different color/shaped moth, so I'm guessing different kinds of lizards or birds or dogs don't count either.

Unless they can't have sex, apparently. If they can't have sex then they count as a new species.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, February 7, 2007 6:53 PM

ERIC

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:

You created a new evolution of fruit flies?

Well, we tracked mutations across several unnatually selected generations. Fruit flies only have a 24 hour life span, making them very useful for kids with much shorter attention spans

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, February 7, 2007 7:42 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fletch2:
Quote:
Originally posted by MRig:

Yeah, that makes sense. A mutation doesn't have to be positive, it just can't be negative. However, it's hard for me to imagine a mutation that isn't one or the other, because anything that wastes energy is negative. Thus, if a mutation makes some minor, inconsequential change for a small increase in energy cost, it is still negative and detrimental to survival.
.

I can give you an example. Sickle Cell anemia is a genetic mutation that can be very painful and before modern medicine highly fatal. These days most folks that have it have an ancestors that come from Africa, where the mutation is quite common. Why is this? Well Sickle Cell gives some protection against the Malaria parasite. Malaria tends to attack the weaker members of societies, principally the very young and the very old where as Sickle Cell tends to become more debilitating the older a person gets.

As a result we have the following situation. Children born without the mutation have an increased chance of dying young because Malaria kills the young and the Sickle Cell mutation offers some protection. This means more kids with the mutation manage to grow up and survive to produce children than kids without it. Of course those survivors with Sickle Cell won't live as long as the survivors without it, but since they live long enough to pass on their genes to the next generation that doesn't matter.

So here we have a mutation that while decreasing the lifespan of the organism actually increases it's chance of breeding successfully. It has both positive and negative effects.

Aha! You seem to understand this better than I. Richard Dawkins talks about a parasite in snails that increases their lifespan, but is harmful to their genes because it prevents them from reproducing.

As for fruit flies, it is pretty easy to breed for certain eye colors and such. I wish I had done those experiments in elementary school myself.

"I have to understand the world, you see."
~Richard Feynman

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, February 7, 2007 10:33 PM

6IXSTRINGJACK

AnthonyT - Great question. I can't believe that I read through this whole thing and nothing even resembling a flame war has taken place yet.

I don't believe or disbelieve in evolution or God. It's very possible that either or both or neither was the case. I mentioned this in another thread and was asked, "How can you believe that maybe neither took place?" My answer to that is a resounding OPEN MIND. Maybe we DON'T have ANY of the answers. Anything we've heard about evolution is an educated guess at the very best. Scientists still can't agree if milk from a cow is good or bad for me, so why would I agree with and suffer from blind faith of anything they have to tell me.... particularly when their studies are used so often to sell us pills that we don't need which modify our behavior and others convince people that not only is my cigarette smoke killing them, but it also is a leading contributor to the ozone layer evaporating and a reason babies die of SIDS. Great... I need that on my conscience right? Go to hell with the anti-smoking campaign and their paid-for and manipulated "studies".

Anyhow.... as I was saying, it is very possible that evolution is real, especially in the light you put it in. Your entire question is pretty much the way I think evolution could have come about.

Here's my problem with evolution though. Being that there are still a lot of people who don't buy into the whole evolution thing (not only religious people, btw), I do tend to get annoyed with the arrogance of scientists and so-called enlightened individuals who push evolution on us everyday, just as a priest would push God on us. At least with religion, for the most part, I actually have to make a trip to the church to get a lesson in theology. Scientists have become preachy and pretentious, and they're able to effect our lives and way of thinking everyday through schools, newspapers and particularly the daily News on TV. Personally, I don't believe that evolution has any more a place in school than religion of any kind does. I think, just like a belief in god, evolution should only be taught to those who actively seek it. If for no other reason than the fact that neither one is provable beyond a shadow of a doubt and one is more often than not at odds with the other. No one will ever give me one good reason to believe that it is necessary to make the child of God fearing parents sit through something everyday at school that is so anti-religion (at least the way it is portrayed and taught in school today anyhow).

Quote:
BY MRIG: One of the reasons that's so hard to fathom is that our brains haven't evolved to think in that sort of timeframe or probability. We're "designed" to assess risks like "what are my chances of getting killed by this mastadon I'm about to throw a pointed stick at," and other such risks that are worth worrying about in a human lifetime. Thinking about million-year periods is like thinking in the fifth dimension; we just can't do it.

I think that's an interesting take, but I don't believe it at all. I think there are people who are very outside of the box who can unquestionably think along these terms. Aldus Huxley, George Orwell, Issac Assimov, Phillip K Dick... all certainly among them. I won't argue though that most people I've ever met think the way you describe us... short-sighted, self-serving and tunnel-visioned, but I'm betting that this way of thinking is due more to social engineering, you know.... what people see on TV, read in magazines, hear in music, etc., than any sort of inherant traits. Most often, thinking about the very distant future entails putting how you live your own life into a perspective that you might not want to dwell on for too long, what when you consider the pollution your car puts out, the landfills that are overflowing with your trash, the diminishing ozone layer... etc. No... it's much nicer just to live in the materialistic "here and now".

What you're suggesting here has ties with the evolutionary theory itself and you're going to have a hard time convincing a skeptic of evolution that we can't think into the future because this is how we're hard coded. That arguement seems very circular and very convenient for the die-hard evolutionist-athiest to throw out there to confound somebody who doesn't agree with their point of view. I realize that's not how you're presenting your point of view however and I do appreciate that.

Quote:
BY MRIG: The jury is out on the existence of God. But the question of Evolution was answered over a century ago.

So say the Blind Faith Evo-believers. I could find people on the other side who will say the exact opposite and believe it just as much as you do. This is the type of arrogance I speak of when I refer to the scientific community in general.

Quote:
BY AURAPTOR:
There is another group which feels life evolved, but with in the frame work of some intelligence. THOSE folks are more accurately described at Theistic Evolutionist. These folk are not to be confused w/ the Intelligent Design folks, who are little more than re-packaged Creationist.

If I were to classify myself into one of your three, which I won't, I would probably be most apt to choose this classification.

Quote:
BY SIGNYM: Just as an aside, I look at all the mis-designed, useless (vestigial) pieces of our anatomy and I think... "This was supposed to be designed by God??? " God sure is practical joker!

What's the fun of everything being perfect? Everyone is a critic. If he's been out there forever and he got bored, he probably amused himself with a few little tricks like this to entertain our brains with when our technology caught up with our curiosity and we got aroud to poking around inside ourselves. At the very least, it is a poor arguement against a greater power that we have extra parts.

Quote:
BY FREM:
I file the whole durned shebang in my mental back burner labelled "Who the fuck knows?!".

LOL.... That's probably the fourth classification of people that Auraptor left out. Yeah I fit there the most.

Quote:
BY KANEMAN: There is no evolution on the moths in that example. It is the same species as before. It has the same chromosomal make-up. There is zero proof that any species has ever evolved into another....zero. That is why it is "THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION". Anyone who tells you different, is full of sh*t..............

Every once and a while Kaneman, you do say something that I'm inclined to agree with. I'm willing to give the theory of evo a bit more openmindedness than this myself, but they have yet to prove that this has happened once, let alone ever brought about human beings as we know them.

Quote:
BY CHARLIETHEBLOODY: but strains of bacteria show evolution, like MRSA which is rampaging through hospitals, methicilin resistant staphylococcus aureus, that has evolved it's resistance to antibiotics.

Everytime you get a cold and don't die from it you build an immunity. I wouldn't go as far as to call that evolution.

Quote:
BY MRIG: Evolution will always be a theory, but that's not a bad thing. In science, a theory is a step up from facts, because theories explain facts. The question is how well-supported a theory is. Evolution is an example of a well-supported theory. Intelligent Design is also a theory, but it's not a very good one, because it isn't well-supported.

I am very aware of the difference between a theory in the real use of the word and the convenient way that scientists use the word to make a theory better than truth. The cold hard truth is that a lot of scientific "theories" have been proven false by the scientific process (see your example of Lamarckism above). Unfortunately, I think the word theory has been manipulated in science as a way to make people who don't believe in every "theory of the day" scientists propose as being stubborn, backwards, close-minded hicks or religious zealots..... very unfortunate, if you're not a scientist/atheist. Especially when this point of view isn't limited only to scientists anymore and laypeople start believing that it's true because Ted Koppel told them that it is.

As far as intelligent design is concerned, since a majority of the pro-evo types don't believe in a creator in the first place, I think this may be a particularly hard topic for them to prove and to accept were they to find "compelling" evidence. I myself, being of the belief that it is possible for God and evolution to exist hand-in-hand, tend to think of intelligent design as a very feesable theory... certainly just as good as any others that are out there. Especially considering that if there were a creator that put evolution into place, than everything around us would be an example and proof that he/she were to exist in the first place. How could you possibly prove that as untrue with science or math?

Oh... I see you answer that in the next paragraph.... Well, given that answer, don't you think that it would be possible for somebody to be out there calling the shots and making things that don't fit perfectly into the scientific scope? Perhaps the whole idea of scientific theory is unsound given that there may be ouside circumstances that invalidate it. We think we're so smart. Even Einstein believed that there may be other worlds which host a completely different set of Physics laws than those we are accostomed to. Perhaps there are many things on Earth that we haven't legitimately explained without a doubt with science because they are unprovable one way or another, given our limited knowledge and intellect.

Quote:
BY ERIC: Don't need a team of scientists- I once did exactly this in elementary school on a science field trip with a plastic vial of fruit flies. It's a classic exhibition activity in kid-oriented scientific institutions

I've done this twice actually. Once in Junior High and once in High School. This is not displaying evolution, but simply displaying the effects of dominant and recessive traits in a species over the course of several generations. It does however leave room for one to begin to understand how evolution could come about though.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 8, 2007 9:32 AM

MALACHITE

I noticed that people keep talking about the peppered moths. What do people make of the article entitled "Not black or white" in Nature Magazine Nov 5, 1998, which, if I'm remembering right, stated that methodological flaws in that study made the results invalid? Has anyone read this article? I just did a search for it on the internet and couldn't find it -- I obtained a hard copy from my local library. Just curious.

Edit: I found a link for it.
http://bill.srnr.arizona.edu/classes/182/Melanism/Coyne-Nature.pdf

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 8, 2007 10:22 AM

SAHARA

From Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution

There are a number of common misunderstandings about evolution, some of which have hindered its general acceptance and form the basis of various objections to evolution.[47][48][49] Critics of evolution frequently assert that evolution is "just a theory", a misunderstanding of the meaning of theory in a scientific context: whereas in colloquial speech a theory is a conjecture or guess, in science a theory is "a model of the universe, or a restricted part of it, and a set of rules that relate quantities in the model to observations that we make".[50] Critics also state that evolution is not a fact, although from a scientific viewpoint evolution is considered both a theory and a fact.[51][52][53]

Another common misunderstanding is the idea that one species, such as humans, can be more "highly evolved" or "advanced" than another. It is often assumed that evolution must lead to greater complexity, or that devolution ("backwards" evolution) can occur. Scientists consider evolution a non-directional process that does not proceed toward any ultimate goal; advancements are only situational, and organisms' complexity can either increase, decrease, or stay the same, depending on which is advantageous, and thus selected for.[54]

Evolution is also frequently misinterpreted as stating that humans evolved from monkeys; based on this, some critics argue that monkeys should no longer exist. This misunderstands speciation, which frequently involves a subset of a population cladogenetically splitting off before speciating, rather than an entire species simply turning into a new one. Additionally, biologists have never claimed that humans evolved from monkeys—only that humans and monkeys share a common ancestor, as do all organisms.[55]

It is also frequently claimed that speciation has only been inferred, never directly observed. In reality, the evolution of numerous new species has been observed.[56] A similar claim is that only microevolution, not macroevolution, has been observed; however, macroevolution has been observed as well, and modern evolutionary synthesis draws little distinction between the two, considering macroevolution to simply be microevolution on a larger scale.[57]

Whew, I'm glad that's settled.
Next topic?

Sahara
Blackbird fly into the light of the dark, black night.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 8, 2007 10:40 AM

KHYRON

Quote:
Originally posted by sahara:
Whew, I'm glad that's settled.

Lol, if only. Now the claim will be that that article in Wikipedia was clearly written by somebody who is pro-evolution and it therefore has no place in an objective debate of the matter.

The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 8, 2007 10:50 AM

SAHARA

Rats!

Anyway, it sounds pretty objective to me. It's science, it's SUPPOSED to be objective.

Sahara
Blackbird fly into the light of the dark, black night.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 8, 2007 11:41 AM

MILFORD

AnthonyT, the entire FFF community is just like any other community, meaning that we're all mostly somewhere in the middle on most issues. In terms of evolution, I'm with you, but coming from the other side. I'm a Christian, meaning I certainly believe in the Bible, but not necessarily how it was presented there. I've heard arguments that the creation story is there to teach a lesson more than relate what happened. Either way, I'm with you: there's just some stuff that doesn't make sense on both sides. We'll let the noisy ones rail against each other all day, I say we just sit back and watch it all unfold.

By the way, there's a dynamtie article about a scientist with the same type of questions you have that works with the Human Genome Project in this month's National Geographic. No answers, but interesting discussion.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Customizeable handmade baby gifts personalized by my wife! Check them out at www.baby-bobo.com. All proceeds go towards international adoption.

Leaning into the wind that used to carry me-Stavesacre

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 8, 2007 12:40 PM

CITIZEN

Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
Quote:
BY CHARLIETHEBLOODY: but strains of bacteria show evolution, like MRSA which is rampaging through hospitals, methicilin resistant staphylococcus aureus, that has evolved it's resistance to antibiotics.
Everytime you get a cold and don't die from it you build an immunity. I wouldn't go as far as to call that evolution.

That's specious reasoning, at best.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 8, 2007 4:33 PM

6IXSTRINGJACK

Call it whatever reasoning you'd like Cit. Seeing as how I don't buy into any of it myself, I find the entirety of the evolution arguement specious, at best. That is not to say that it's wrong, but no one has ever come close to making a believer out of me on either the Evo issue or the God issue. I'm thinking if I ever do choose to have blind faith in either, I'm going to have to throw my chips in with the big guy up there because being wrong on that decision could mean losing a lot, while being wrong about evolution isn't going to effect me one way or the other.

I'm quite impressed that with everything I said in that post, that this is all you had anything to say about. I must be getting better at this debate thing.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 8, 2007 5:07 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

I see the right-wing-nut process of triangulation has worked well on the Amerikanskis. It goes like this:

You start with something very moderate:
evolution is the current leading scientific theory
If your agenda is to change the debate, you hammer on an extreme opposing position:
id is an equally valid scientific proposal
Then the 'moderates' declare that the position in the middle of both 'extremes' is probably right:
Both theories are equally valid, or invalid

----------------------

"Being that there are still a lot of people who don't buy into the whole evolution thing ... " Only in fundamentalist countries like the US and Pakistan. It's non-controversial everywhere else.

As to evolution being a theory that should not be taught in schools b/c it's 'only' a theory - should we not teach about gravity? Electricity? DNA? All of these are mere 'theories'.

BTW, there are penalties to be paid for being scientifically illiterate, personally and socially. Look at Pakistan, where most are taught in madrassas. The unemployment rate is phenomenally high b/c no one literally knows anything modern. So, if the choice is leave out science (with all its 'theories') and lose jobs in the here and now, but potentially gain some eternal something or other, I'd go with keeping the jobs.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 8, 2007 5:19 PM

FREMDFIRMA

Quote:
I'm thinking if I ever do choose to have blind faith in either, I'm going to have to throw my chips in with the big guy up there because being wrong on that decision could mean losing a lot, while being wrong about evolution isn't going to effect me one way or the other.

Jack ?
That's generally known as Pascal's Wager.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal's_Wager

-F

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 8, 2007 5:25 PM

ANTIMASON

to be fair.. there is some science in Creationism, it just envolves scrutinizing evolutionary theory a little more then most people

a couple objections im aware of

-we have no fossil evidence of any living organisms below the Cambrian layer of earth(or roughly '500 million yrs ago). if you believe that each layer of sediment represents a certain amount of time.. then within the Cambrian period we find a whole range of incredibly complex, fully evolved species, seemingly out of nowhere. i have to wonder what the catalyst was that suddenly facilitated the perfect evolution of millions of species(randomly?). is it not strange that millions/billions of species evolved incredibly rapidly within this time frame, before which there was nothing?

-are the laws of thermodynamics still recognized? the first law states that energy is not created, but changed or transferred- if this is true, wouldnt that mean that energy had to exist before the big bang, witch then transferred it into the visible universe? this also goes for the first living organism on earth or in the universe.. didnt it require some kind of 'life' to proceed it? or is the universe some kind of living creative field(which sounds a little bit like GOd)

-using our own experiences as an example, small changes to an ecosystem have pretty drastic effects, since everything is dependant on eachother to survive and function in harmony. that being said, how did all these species evolve seperately, yet randomly, and still manage to sustain this intricate balance of interdependence?

-supposedly 90-99% of mutations are negative changes, defects or abnormalities, or otherwise. if this is true, why are their no known mutations in the fossil record? by that i mean something that would contribute the to the 'missing link' of mankind

-how is a fossil formed? anything that dies above ground is subject to the elements, and would not likely have withstood the vast periods of time for sediment to cover(and still preserve)it, within a distinct geologic age. what is likely is a species(example) becomes rapidly inundated, such as in a flood or mudslide, with soil, water or debris, which would preserve the animal relatively intact. there is evidence for this, since many fossils, allegedly from different eras, have been found within the same area of ground(google it). this casts a lot of doubts on dating methods, since carbon dating is only accurate up to a few hundred thousand years; without carbon dating, they are reduced to circular reasoning, arguing that the age of the fossil determines the earth, and vice versa

the point in all this being that the earths age is far from being an established immutable truth

i could list a few more arguements of the Creationists, but im sure ill get a barrage of comments on these few alone. it never hurts to hear the other side though..

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 8, 2007 5:30 PM

FREDGIBLET

If anyone ever offers an arguement that Evolution isn't real go here: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html They've got more rebuttals of anti-evolution arguements than you are likely to ever need.

I can't really add much to this thread except to say that evolution is one of the most heavily tested theories ever and has weathered everything that has been thrown at it. If you want an excellent explanation get The Blind Watchmaker by Richard Dawkins, he lays it all out (though as someone else mentioned he is somewhat militant in his atheism). The title of your post indicates that you think there is actual debate, I can't speak for the forum (I've been gone for a while) but as far as nearly every biologist is concerned there is no question regarding the factuality of evolution, just questions as to specifics. That being said evolution neither explains nor tries to explain the origin of life so believing in god does not in any preclude belief in evolution it simply means that literal interpretations of religious texts get a little harder.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 8, 2007 5:33 PM

ANTIMASON

a militant atheist? what does that mean? wheres Citizen when you need him?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 8, 2007 5:43 PM