Longest Running Experiment of Evolution Hits a Dead End

[Old Rocks]

Unfortunately, that article a fatal misunderstanding of how evolution functions.

Genetic mutation doesn't happen to adapt fitness to the environment. Genetic mutations are unrelated to the suitability of the organism to survive. Genes have no way of perceiving the requirements of survival in the environment. Genetic mutations are spontaneous and random and are mostly inconsequential to the organism, frequently harmful, and only occasionally useful in adaptability to the environment. When a mutation is useful, that increases the likelihood of it being passed on to future generations.

The experiment proves that organisms mutate and that those mutations are passed on. It would be highly unlikely for a major adaptive change to occur -- particularly in the closed and controlled environment of the experiment -- in as few as 70,000 generations. Human evolution happened over 85 million years or 6.5 million generations.

Everything you say is quite right, except that last part. Hominids first appeared about 6 million years ago. Bipeds about 4 million years ago and genus Homo about 2 million years ago, so there was about a 2 million year stretch between each major development; assuming 20 years per generation, that is about 100,000 generations. But your point is valid: removed from the process of natural selection, where accidentally beneficial mutations give rise to better adaptation to an ever-changing environment, the study means little in and by itself.

I believe that he is referring to the line of primates, of which we are part.

 

[Old Rocks]

Unfortunately, that article a fatal misunderstanding of how evolution functions.

Genetic mutation doesn't happen to adapt fitness to the environment. Genetic mutations are unrelated to the suitability of the organism to survive. Genes have no way of perceiving the requirements of survival in the environment. Genetic mutations are spontaneous and random and are mostly inconsequential to the organism, frequently harmful, and only occasionally useful in adaptability to the environment. When a mutation is useful, that increases the likelihood of it being passed on to future generations.

The experiment proves that organisms mutate and that those mutations are passed on. It would be highly unlikely for a major adaptive change to occur -- particularly in the closed and controlled environment of the experiment -- in as few as 70,000 generations. Human evolution happened over 85 million years or 6.5 million generations.

You mean the experiment doesn't understand evolution. The article simply reported on the longest running experiment on evolution ending in failure.

And no, mutations are not beneficial to any organism.

And as I posted in another thread, DNA research shows humans, apes, aardvarks, etc all appeared at the same time, less than 200K years ago according to their timescale.

I would love to see the mutation that caused organisms to fly in the air.

I mean, how long did they mutation take to begin changing the organism? My guess is at the best case scenario, 10 seconds before hitting the ground dead.

Dumb fuck, have you ever seen a flying squirrel? People like you are willfully blind.

 

[Old Rocks]

Right........................OK........................just don't buy it is all.

Here’s the great part. You don’t have to buy it. It free will, baby.

Ok, Ok, I found a picture as well and now I'm starting to believe.

Well, it certainly looks like it works for you.

 

[Old Rocks]

There are numerous instances that show evolution throughout time. For example, webbed toes is actually a dominant gene, but happens very rarely.

I have the most trouble with the changing of species.

I don't buy it.

Nobody really gives a damn what a person of your mentality buys. Evolution has occurred, is occurring, and will continue to occur as long as there is life on earth.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Unfortunately, that article a fatal misunderstanding of how evolution functions.

Genetic mutation doesn't happen to adapt fitness to the environment. Genetic mutations are unrelated to the suitability of the organism to survive. Genes have no way of perceiving the requirements of survival in the environment. Genetic mutations are spontaneous and random and are mostly inconsequential to the organism, frequently harmful, and only occasionally useful in adaptability to the environment. When a mutation is useful, that increases the likelihood of it being passed on to future generations.

The experiment proves that organisms mutate and that those mutations are passed on. It would be highly unlikely for a major adaptive change to occur -- particularly in the closed and controlled environment of the experiment -- in as few as 70,000 generations. Human evolution happened over 85 million years or 6.5 million generations.

You mean the experiment doesn't understand evolution. The article simply reported on the longest running experiment on evolution ending in failure.

And no, mutations are not beneficial to any organism.

And as I posted in another thread, DNA research shows humans, apes, aardvarks, etc all appeared at the same time, less than 200K years ago according to their timescale.

I would love to see the mutation that caused organisms to fly in the air.

I mean, how long did they mutation take to begin changing the organism? My guess is at the best case scenario, 10 seconds before hitting the ground dead.

Maybe if you put a little more effort into thinking about it, you might puzzle out the idea that animals learned to glide before they learned to fly.

I mean, seriously, dude. Do you think that you have thought of something that scientists have not? What's wrong with you?

 

[fncceo]

One thing I won’t understand is why people have to show so much animosity to those with opposing beliefs.

People who don’t accept evolution are no threat to people who do and, vice versa, those who do are no threat to those who do not.

They are just beliefs, mine have no impact on anyone else.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

One thing I won’t understand is why people have to show so much animosity to those with opposing beliefs.

People who don’t accept evolution are no threat to people who do and, vice versa, those who do are no threat to those who do not.

They are just beliefs, mine have no impact on anyone else.

Of course, that's utter nonsense and they absolutely do affect other people. The willingness to reject empirical knowledge in favor of magic bullshit can do and does great harm to humans and to societies.

 

[fncceo]

One thing I won’t understand is why people have to show so much animosity to those with opposing beliefs.

People who don’t accept evolution are no threat to people who do and, vice versa, those who do are no threat to those who do not.

They are just beliefs, mine have no impact on anyone else.

Of course, that's utter nonsense and they absolutely do affect other people. The willingness to reject empirical knowledge in favor of magic bullshit can do and does great harm to humans and to societies.

I see no signs that America, a country where people hold many disparate beliefs is suffering any great harm.

 

[Wuwei]

I see no signs that America, a country where people hold many disparate beliefs is suffering any great harm.

I think there will be harm when creationism is taught in state schools along with evolution as an alternative. It's name was changed to intelligent design and has been earnestly proposed in some states, but was fortunately shot down. (so far)

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

One thing I won’t understand is why people have to show so much animosity to those with opposing beliefs.

People who don’t accept evolution are no threat to people who do and, vice versa, those who do are no threat to those who do not.

They are just beliefs, mine have no impact on anyone else.

Of course, that's utter nonsense and they absolutely do affect other people. The willingness to reject empirical knowledge in favor of magic bullshit can do and does great harm to humans and to societies.

I see no signs that America, a country where people hold many disparate beliefs is suffering any great harm.

Right, thanks to active efforts to keep religion out of government, and the protections outlined in our constitution, and the efforts to preserve these things. So, in essence, you are trying to use the success of the efforts of people who agree with me as a cudgel against them. By your logic, so many fewer people die in car accidents now that seat belts are unnecessary...when, of course, this is why fewer people are dying.

Been to sub Saharan Africa lately? Know anything about the AIDS epidemic there?

 

[fncceo]

One thing I won’t understand is why people have to show so much animosity to those with opposing beliefs.

People who don’t accept evolution are no threat to people who do and, vice versa, those who do are no threat to those who do not.

They are just beliefs, mine have no impact on anyone else.

Of course, that's utter nonsense and they absolutely do affect other people. The willingness to reject empirical knowledge in favor of magic bullshit can do and does great harm to humans and to societies.

I see no signs that America, a country where people hold many disparate beliefs is suffering any great harm.

Right, thanks to active efforts to keep religion out of government, and the protections outlined in our constitution, and the efforts to preserve these things. So, in essence, you are trying to use the success of the efforts of people who agree with me as a cudgel against them. By your logic, so many fewer people die in car accidents now that seat belts are unnecessary...when, of course, this is why fewer people are dying.

Been to sub Saharan Africa lately? Know anything about the AIDS epidemic there?

I'm not getting the connection between a belief in spirituality and AIDS in Sub-Saharan Africa. Perhaps you could include a graph or flow chart?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I'm not getting the connection between a belief in spirituality and AIDS in Sub-Saharan Africa.

While that is a nice attempt at distraction, anyone can clearly see that we were discussing specific beliefs that contradict empirical evidence, not a general sense of spirituality. And we were discussing the results of the application of these beliefs in lifestyle and policy,as anyone can see.

And one can look at both the stigmatization of prophylactics and even the complete denial of the disease that is AIDS, and find the original 9f these beliefs on religious superstition, and see how these things have greatly exacerbated the epidemic.

 

[fncceo]

I think it’s a pretty impressive stretch to connect a personal decision to take religious position on the creation of life on earth and connect that to high disease rates in Africa.

The Sub Saharan region of Africa is one of the most impoverished areas on this earth you can’t blame that on a failure to accept empirical scientific data.

I’m America, we’ve never had any serious cultural problem reconciling a religious belief with a scientific acceptance. We remain a nominally spiritual people as well as a technology innovator and there’s no inconsistency in that.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I think it’s a pretty impressive stretch to connect a personal decision to take religious position on the creation of life on earth and connect that to high disease rates in Africa.

I am not equating them, but I am comparing the similarity, specifically the ability and desire to codify superstition into policay and law. I think it is a slippery slope and we must stay stalwart against these things. For example, our AG using a Bible verse to justify executive branch policy. If you are fine with that, that's too bad. I am not. I am not fine with teaching children the idea that magical nonsense goes on the same shelf asb scientific knowledge.

 

[fncceo]

I think it’s a pretty impressive stretch to connect a personal decision to take religious position on the creation of life on earth and connect that to high disease rates in Africa.

I am not equating them, but I am comparing the similarity, specifically the ability and desire to codify superstition into policay and law. I think it is a slippery slope and we must stay stalwart against these things. For example, our AG using a Bible verse to justify executive branch policy. If you are fine with that, that's too bad. I am not. I am not fine with teaching children the idea that magical nonsense goes on the same shelf asb scientific knowledge.

That’s your personal choice. Allow others their personal choices as well.

 

[Votto]

What a boring world it would be if everyone believed the same thing.

Thank biology we’ve evolved to be different.

I find there is often an element of truth in most things. I just don't buy the notion that scientists understand it all.

Scientists, real scientists, will be the first to say they don’t know it all. They will say that they will accept the best explanation that fits the evidence known at the time. As the evidence changes, the explanation must change to match the evidence. The idea that science is ever ‘settled’ is not science.

People who say, ‘science explains everything’ are just as foolish as those who say, ‘science explains nothing’.

Science is a tool for discarding those ideas that don’t match the proveable facts.

Nope, global warming has been settled by scientists.

Take it back or the global warming police will come get ya!

 

[Votto]

I think it’s a pretty impressive stretch to connect a personal decision to take religious position on the creation of life on earth and connect that to high disease rates in Africa.

I am not equating them, but I am comparing the similarity, specifically the ability and desire to codify superstition into policay and law. I think it is a slippery slope and we must stay stalwart against these things. For example, our AG using a Bible verse to justify executive branch policy. If you are fine with that, that's too bad. I am not. I am not fine with teaching children the idea that magical nonsense goes on the same shelf asb scientific knowledge.

That’s your personal choice. Allow others their personal choices as well.

Allow people to believe what they want?

You sir are a madman. You are an anarchist.

Why, before you know it people will be running wild in the streets burning down buildings.

And where did it all start? You guessed it, right here thanks to YOU!

 

[fncceo]

I don’t mind a bit of well organized anarchy.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I think it’s a pretty impressive stretch to connect a personal decision to take religious position on the creation of life on earth and connect that to high disease rates in Africa.

I am not equating them, but I am comparing the similarity, specifically the ability and desire to codify superstition into policay and law. I think it is a slippery slope and we must stay stalwart against these things. For example, our AG using a Bible verse to justify executive branch policy. If you are fine with that, that's too bad. I am not. I am not fine with teaching children the idea that magical nonsense goes on the same shelf asb scientific knowledge.

That’s your personal choice. Allow others their personal choices as well.

Steaming pile of horseshit. At no point have I suggested or even implied that people cannot believe what they choose.