Evolutionary Debate

POSTED BY: AnthonyT
UPDATED: Tuesday, February 20, 2007 16:16
VIEWED: 20170
PAGE 2 of 20

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NEXT PAGE

TRENCHMONKEY

Tuesday, February 6, 2007 7:43 PM

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.

RUE

Tuesday, February 6, 2007 8:21 PM

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.

KANEMAN

Tuesday, February 6, 2007 9:12 PM

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..............

FLETCH2

Tuesday, February 6, 2007 9:48 PM

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.

DARKJESTER

Tuesday, February 6, 2007 9:59 PM

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

ANTHONYT

Tuesday, February 6, 2007 11:59 PM

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

KHYRON

Wednesday, February 7, 2007 12:07 AM

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.

CHARLIETHEBLOODY

Wednesday, February 7, 2007 12:51 AM

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."

SIGNYM

Wednesday, February 7, 2007 4:51 AM

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.

MRIG

Wednesday, February 7, 2007 5:33 AM

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."

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NEXT PAGE