The Theory of Evolution

[☭proletarian☭]

The vast majority of genetic mutations are fatal to the owner

Are Mutations Harmful?

 

[edthecynic]

The gene comes out different, on a much smaller more chemical level than say your hand gets blasted by the x-ray machine. I'd also venture to say it usually comes out inferior. But when it does SOMEHOW work to the advantage of the specimen that specimen is more likely to reproduce than its competitors with the normal gene.

Yes, it usually comes out inferior. The vast majority of genetic mutations are fatal to the owner, if I remember correctly, and some percentage of the non-fatal ones are not passed on to the offspring. So assuming millions of random, non-fatal, hereditary mutations in the direction of increasingly more complex and diverse species is . . . reaching.

The flaw in your own argument is obvious.
"SOME PERCENTAGE" is NOT all.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

I'm tempted to call Poes Law on Cecile again

 

[Cecilie1200]

Among those who negate the validity of Darwin and the science communities' theories on the evolution of man and our fellow critters, where is the point of contention? Is it heredity that seems unrealistic? Is it the natural selection (survival of the fittest) mechanism that seems like hogwash? Maybe the time over which it is claimed to take effect? I'm new to this board, but like the responsiveness of this community, and would appreciate some help understanding where the theory has gone wrong.

I find it a bit hard to believe that you've never heard people debate/argue about evolution and what the problems with it are, but okay. The primary problem people have with accepting evolution is the utter lack of evidence for one species changing into another, entirely different species. Despite all the time spent confidently asserting that evolution between species is fact, it remains mere conjecture, and some people simply refuse to accept something as settled fact without it actually being . . . well, settled.

define 'entirely different'

observed speciation - Google Search

So from what I can see after digging through your source's long-winded and boring digressions, your proof of speciation - which is supposed to support the theory of evolution from one species to another by random mutation - is some guy deliberately cross-breeding flowers? And at that, he produced a sterile hybrid, so it wasn't really a species, since it couldn't replicate itself.

When are you ignoramuses going to learn that the intelligently-directed breeding activities of human beings cannot, by definition, prove random evolution? It embarrasses me to even have to utter that painfully, blindingly obvious sentence to someone.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Evolution may be fact. But there's plenty of denying it and arguing it until you can prove it, and right now, you can't.

Which part of evolutionary theory do you have a problem with? Modern changes in species, how life got here in the first place?

Do you consider the following true? "We can watch evolution occur on a modern level. We have ideas on how life formed initially."

Which part of my posts on the subject do you have trouble understanding, because I think I made my problem with evolutionary theory quite clear right from the beginning?

We can't watch evolution occur. We have ideas on how life formed. We have ideas on lots of shit. Doesn't make it correct or provable.

Please refer back to my first post on this thread and let me know where I was unclear about my problem with evolutionary theory.

 

[rdean]

It takes far, far more "faith" to believe in the theory of evolution.

Than it takes to believe in Intelligent Design

I can breed dogs and plants into any shape I desire and watch a version of evolution in my own lifetime.

To sound like more of an non-believer than I am, what do I have to go with to help me believe in Intelligent Design?

I don't even have to go any further to know what ridiculous arguments the right would bring up. They can't really counter science with stupid no matter how they try. But their arguments can sometimes be imaginative. To bad they can't point that intellect to actually "learning" instead of "denying". How many scientists have we lost to mystical mumbo jumbo.

First off, dogs can still breed with dogs or even wolves, the creatures they were bred from. Much better examples would be animals that have genetically "drifted apart into where they can no longer properly reproduce. Two very well known examples are the "lion" and the "tiger" or the "horse" and the donkey". Both can still have offspring, but the offspring is nearly always born "faulty". Either sterile or some other defect. That is why the equine offspring is called a "mule".

Next, you will have the right say, "But they are the same kind". Isn't that funny? The same "kind". They use that same silly canard to explain why Noah could have "millions" of creatures on a boat two thirds the size of the Titanic. The Titanic only carried a couple of thousand people.

To them, the same "kind" means that only one pair of "cats" that became lions, tigers, house-cats, lynx, panthers, cheetahs and so on.

The problem here is that this isn't 1882. We know through genetics, when species "speciated". Worse for the magical creationists, many times the data is supported by other branches of science.

All they have is one book written by primitives from the Middle East who didn't know to wash after wiping. They didn't even know what a "germ" was.

Then the right will try to put down "peer review" and the "scientific method" as if they know the meaning of either.

The worst part is the hypocrisy. They go to doctors. I can tell you now, you will not find a licensed medical doctor who is both respected and believes in "magical creation". Every single doctor will tell you that evolution is the foundation science for biology, botany and physiology.

The nerve of these people. Using the fruits of science and at the same time trying to stop it's teaching. They are terrible. Truly awful. They want to hamstring their own children, make them less competitive in this world, and all for the sake of ignorant and superstitious mystical beliefs. It's appalling.

Is it any wonder that the Pew Institute poll shows that only 6% of scientists will admit to being Republican? What a terrible indictment against a political party. They have no shame. They have "magic".

Well, good luck on that "magic" the next time a virus evolves and they need to go to a doctor. Otherwise, maybe the can "pray it away".

The next thing you know, someone will tell you having no occult beliefs is itself a religion. Oh wait. Someone is already telling me that on another thread.

Public Praises Science; Scientists Fault Public, Media: Section 4: Scientists, Politics and Religion - Pew Research Center for the People & the Press

Oh the "magical creationists" are going to hate more more than they do now.

You see, scientists have been able to kick-start existing genes for "teeth" in chickens. While they may not seem remarkable, think about it. Why would God put teeth into the genetic code of chickens? If he was magically creating them fresh and new, why bother with teeth? They will never use them.

Genetics are, unfortunately for the "magical creationists" filled with those examples and no matter how much they attempt to put a lid on it, the knowledge will be and is being discovered.

For those genes to be there, that would mean they already existed. When chickens evolved away from having teeth, the code is still there. If you could figure out how to "turn on" that particular genetic switch, then wallah, "teeth".

This is what I mean by "every branch of science now supports every other branch". At some point, the "magical creationists" are just going to have to give up. Why the determination to be ignorant? What are the getting out of it? I'm, well, pardon the word, "mystified".

Surprise: Chickens <i>Can</i> Grow Teeth | LiveScience

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...nging-dinosaurs-life-help-humble-chicken.html

 

[geauxtohell]

Speciation is defined as "The evolutionary formation of new biological species, usually by the division of a single species into two or more genetically distinct ones." The last time I checked, MRSA, while having adapted to be resistant to antibiotics, is still a bacteria. It didn't become a different species. So if you wouldn't mind, could you please tell me when was the last time we observed speciation, ie. the development of a completely new and genetically distinct species, in bacteria? And please provide documentation.

Thanks.

It would be more appropriate to say "MRSA" is still Staph. aureus.

MRSA is genetically distinct from MSSA. I am not sure what more you want.

 

[geauxtohell]

Evolution is like saying:

If a tornado hit a large junkyard and stayed there spinning for a billion years.

When the wind finally died down.

There could easily be a complete 747 jet airplane that had "evolved" from the scrap metal swirling in the air.

Metal doesn't self replicate.

Argument refuted.

It's like we've heard this one before.

Evolution would be a lot more believable if it's proponents didn't so often have to resort to such deliberate obtuseness to avoid addressing points.

No, its deliberately obtuse (or absurd) to make an analogy between material that doesn't self replicate and things that do.

Especially when self replication is the cornerstone of evolutionary theory.

Now I suspect you are being deliberately obtuse.

 

[antagon]

We can look at bacteria, which pass their DNA on in a matter of hours, and readily observe speciation.
I.e. MRSA.

Speciation is defined as "The evolutionary formation of new biological species, usually by the division of a single species into two or more genetically distinct ones." The last time I checked, MRSA, while having adapted to be resistant to antibiotics, is still a bacteria. It didn't become a different species. So if you wouldn't mind, could you please tell me when was the last time we observed speciation, ie. the development of a completely new and genetically distinct species, in bacteria? And please provide documentation.
Thanks.

then youve got to define species. with bacteria, if youll be satisfied with some redefined ideas of speciation which account for bacteria being non sexual, its been observed that they will 'reject' specific genetic 'info' such that certain traits cannot be passed/altered by a 'mate' while others can. that would require breaking speciation down to these partial segments that selectively fail to replicate. im down with that. such failures would stop humans and primates reproducing despite 99-some% success.

*begrudgingly starts digging for documentation*

 

[&#9773;proletarian&#9773;]

I find it a bit hard to believe that you've never heard people debate/argue about evolution and what the problems with it are, but okay. The primary problem people have with accepting evolution is the utter lack of evidence for one species changing into another, entirely different species. Despite all the time spent confidently asserting that evolution between species is fact, it remains mere conjecture, and some people simply refuse to accept something as settled fact without it actually being . . . well, settled.

define 'entirely different'

observed speciation - Google Search

So from what I can see after digging through your source's long-winded and boring digressions, your proof of speciation - which is supposed to support the theory of evolution from one species to another by random mutation - is some guy deliberately cross-breeding flowers? And at that, he produced a sterile hybrid, so it wasn't really a species, since it couldn't replicate itself.

When are you ignoramuses going to learn that the intelligently-directed breeding activities of human beings cannot, by definition, prove random evolution? It embarrasses me to even have to utter that painfully, blindingly obvious sentence to someone.

lol


are you always this dishonest?

In the 1940's a fertile species was produced through chromosome
doubling (allopolyploidy) in a hybrid of two primrose species. The
new species was Primula kewensis. The story is recounted in:

Stebbins, G. L. 1950. Variation and Evolution in Plants.
Columbia University Press. New York

Two strains of Drosophila paulistorum developed hybrid sterility of male offspring between 1958 and 1963. Artificial selection induced strong intra-strain mating preferences.

(Test for speciation: sterile offspring and lack of interbreeding affinity.)

Dobzhansky, Th., and O. Pavlovsky, 1971. "An experimentally created incipient species of Drosophila", Nature 23:289-292.

http://www.evolutionslehrbuch.com/Kutschera+Niklas3.pdf

5.2.3 Speciation as a Result of Selection for Tolerance to a Toxin: Yellow Monkey Flower (Mimulus guttatus)

At reasonably low concentrations, copper is toxic to many plant species. Several plants have been seen to develop a tolerance to this metal (Macnair 1981). Macnair and Christie (1983) used this to examine the genetic basis of a postmating isolating mechanism in yellow monkey flower. When they crossed plants from the copper tolerant "Copperopolis" population with plants from the nontolerant "Cerig" population, they found that many of the hybrids were inviable. During early growth, just after the four leaf stage, the leaves of many of the hybrids turned yellow and became necrotic. Death followed this. This was seen only in hybrids between the two populations. Through mapping studies, the authors were able to show that the copper tolerance gene and the gene responsible for hybrid inviability were either the same gene or were very tightly linked. These results suggest that reproductive isolation may require changes in only a small number of genes.

Canine parovirus, a lethal disease of dogs, evolved from feline parovirus in the 1970s.

Muntzig, A, Triticale Results and Problems, Parey, Berlin, 1979. Describes whole new *genus* of plants, Triticosecale, of several species, formed by artificial selection.

N Barton Ecology: the rapid origin of reproductive isolation Science 290:462-463, Oct. 20, 2000. Science/AAAS | Science Magazine: Sign In Natural selection of reproductive isolation observed in two cases. Full papers are: AP Hendry, JK Wenburg, P Bentzen, EC Volk, TP Quinn, Rapid evolution of reproductive isolation in the wild: evidence from introduced salmon. Science 290: 516-519, Oct. 20, 2000. and M Higgie, S Chenoweth, MWBlows, Natural selection and the reinforcement of mate recognition. Science290: 519-521, Oct. 20, 2000
ECOLOGY: African Elephant Species Splits in Two -- Vogel 293 (5534): 1414 -- Science

chluter, D. and L. M. Nagel. 1995. Parallel speciation by natural selection. American Naturalist. 146:292-301.




and someone was saying mutation is necessarily bad?

Biologists Discover Why 10 Percent Of Europeans Are Safe From HIV Infection
CCR5-delta32 mutation-protective against HIV, but bad for hepatitis C virus?

 

[geauxtohell]

What you are describing is adaptation.

That is not evolution

Yes it is. Adaptation or failure to adapt is part of evolution.

You don't have to believe in evolution, but you don't get to claim fiat on the matter.

Espeically when there are mountains of evidence that support it.

Sorry, but the debate is not whether or not things change. The debate is whether or not things change INTO OTHER THINGS ENTIRELY, and changing within a species does NOT prove change between species, so that tired smokescreen of "evolution is just change over time" ain't gonna work.

Show me a "mountain of evidence" in favor of change between species. Hell, I'll settle for a foothill, or even a speed bump, of evidence. Let's see it.

Since you don't accept the fossil record, I doubt there is much point.

Things change, the changes are passed on. Saying you accept microevolution but not macoevolution is like saying you believe in pennies but not dollars.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Evolution may be fact. But there's plenty of denying it and arguing it until you can prove it, and right now, you can't.

right... so dog breeders and farmers don't exist, we've never watched a cell divide or observed the fertilization of a human egg, MRSA doesn't exist, and the Polio vaccine was never synthesized...

sure thing, boss

Dog breeding and farming, by virtue of having been done deliberately by intelligent beings outside the subjects acting upon the subjects, are examples of intelligent design, not evolutionary theory, dumbass.

We've watched cells divide . . . into two more cells of the exact same species as the original cell. So how does that prove evolution?

We've watched human eggs being fertilized . . . and developing into other humans, just as the providers of the egg and sperm were. So how does that prove evolution?

MRSA exists. It's a type of staphylococcus aureus that is resistant to some antibiotics that are used to treat regular staphylococcus aureus. But it's still staphylococcus aureus, ie. it's still bacteria. It didn't become a different species, any more than I became something other than a human when I developed an immunity to chickenpox as a child. So how does that prove evolution?

The polio vaccine was synthesized by humans, so it is, once again, proof of intelligent design, not evolution. I realize that YOU are not PERSONALLY intelligent, but humans as a species are.

evolution isn't testable,

It's observable


Millenia? Dude. that's why we use flies...

Really? Cite me the last time anyone observed a fly evolving into anything other than a fly. Please show your work.

What the hell word do you live in?

One where graduating high school still required a person to attend class and learn something. Clearly not the one you're occupying.

Gravitation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Alternative theory of gravity explains large structure formation -- without dark matter

Wikipedia. I give you a university, and you give me Wikipedia. I'm not even going to dignify that with an answer.

Slashdot Science Story | New Theory of Gravity Decouples Space & Time

A blog. Seriously, dude? A blog? This is your proof? You should have stuck to "I'm right because only stupid people disagree."

Let me google that for you

At least as much as there is for evolution.

LOL? That's your whole argument?

It's okay if you're not embarrassed, Prole, because I'm embarrassed enough for you to make up for it. That was pathetic.

 

[&#9773;proletarian&#9773;]

We can't watch evolution occur.

Really? We never see the effects of interracial marriages? We never observed generations of flies? We don't have a new flu shot every year? Blue genes don't mutate and locusts aren't becoming immune to our pesticides?

 

[Cecilie1200]

What implications of evolution would make us uncomfortable? Christianity has no need for evolution to be false. .

So they recanted Genesis?

Dude, you can't even argue your OWN side coherently. Don't even try to state someone else's.

 

[&#9773;proletarian&#9773;]

Speciation is defined as "The evolutionary formation of new biological species, usually by the division of a single species into two or more genetically distinct ones." The last time I checked, MRSA, while having adapted to be resistant to antibiotics, is still a bacteria. It didn't become a different species. So if you wouldn't mind, could you please tell me when was the last time we observed speciation, ie. the development of a completely new and genetically distinct species, in bacteria? And please provide documentation.

Thanks.

'Bacteria' is not a species, genius.it's a domain

 

[Cecilie1200]

and by the way, ID doesn't require any supernatural entity at all. It doesn't even address the supernatural. THAT actually comes more from its detractors.

So the intelligence in ID is natural? Were we made by aliens? How does ID explain the aliens?

Are you always this stupid?

ID doesn't purport to explain who or what the intelligence is. It merely points out that some things encountered in nature show clear signs of having been designed, rather than random. Any desire to jump to conclusions and put labels on things originates with YOU, not ID.

The worst thing I can imagine is being anything that a mouthbreather like you would consider "intelligent".

 

[Cecilie1200]

I find it a bit hard to believe that you've never heard people debate/argue about evolution and what the problems with it are, but okay. The primary problem people have with accepting evolution is the utter lack of evidence for one species changing into another, entirely different species. Despite all the time spent confidently asserting that evolution between species is fact, it remains mere conjecture, and some people simply refuse to accept something as settled fact without it actually being . . . well, settled.

sure i have heard some takes, but i have not been in such a debate and didnt want to half-ass an opposing arguement then refute it.

i *theorized* that science is getting its own religious fanaticism about it. all of the claims of 'scientific fact' are oximoronic when put to your pick of the future or the scientific method itself. largely used by non-scientists radicalized against people who believe in god or question what their lab-coat imams had summerized simplisticly in newsweek.

speciation is a weak point if one refutes circumstantial evidence say in fossil records. plenty of speciation is observed in plants through selective breeding. plants, bacteria and fruit flies allow what is millions of years of change to be observed more rapidly. interestingly, when fruitfly males dont recognize females, as in one popular case study (with bald flies and fuzzy flies), they dont voluntarily mate. that is considered a type of speciation, but not the strictest... and those were bred from the same stock on the fuzzy/not fuzzy trait.

the science community does think of the speciation arguement as spoken for, perhaps, and
has moved on to other bits of genetics.

see? i didnt have speciation on my short-list. isnt there anything redeeming about fossil evidences and gene-maps that show divergence with common traits/genes implying ancestry?

It's the word "implying" that's the problem there, because they aren't actually implying anything. Humans are inferring it, according to what they want to see.

 

[geauxtohell]

The gene comes out different, on a much smaller more chemical level than say your hand gets blasted by the x-ray machine. I'd also venture to say it usually comes out inferior. But when it does SOMEHOW work to the advantage of the specimen that specimen is more likely to reproduce than its competitors with the normal gene.

Yes, it usually comes out inferior. The vast majority of genetic mutations are fatal to the owner, if I remember correctly, and some percentage of the non-fatal ones are not passed on to the offspring. So assuming millions of random, non-fatal, hereditary mutations in the direction of increasingly more complex and diverse species is . . . reaching.

Which is why the process is continuous and has been occurring for millions of years.

The mutation for sickle cell anemia is a change of one amino acid on the heme beta globulin gene. That is the change of a single base pair.

People that are homozygous for the gene have the disease. People that are heterozygous for the gene are more resistant to malaria.

Therefore, there is a selective pressure to retain the gene.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Speciation is defined as "The evolutionary formation of new biological species, usually by the division of a single species into two or more genetically distinct ones." The last time I checked, MRSA, while having adapted to be resistant to antibiotics, is still a bacteria. It didn't become a different species. So if you wouldn't mind, could you please tell me when was the last time we observed speciation, ie. the development of a completely new and genetically distinct species, in bacteria? And please provide documentation.

Thanks.

It would be more appropriate to say "MRSA" is still Staph. aureus.

MRSA is genetically distinct from MSSA. I am not sure what more you want.

I want it to be something other than a bacteria. A Chihuahua is genetically distinct from a German Shepherd, but it's still a dog.

Oh, and by the way, adaptation in a species triggered by human activity, ie. the action upon the species of an outside intelligence, doesn't exactly help the argument for evolution.

 

[&#9773;proletarian&#9773;]

Dog breeding and farming, by virtue of having been done deliberately by intelligent beings outside the subjects acting upon the subjects, are examples of intelligent design, not evolutionary theory, dumbass.

lol

Actually, it's simply another evolutionary pressure Intelligent design would be desigining a genome from scratch to create a new lifeform (something we're currently unable to do)

We've watched cells divide . . . into two more cells of the exact same species as the original cell. So how does that prove evolution?

Evolution predicts exactly that. Speciation takes place over more than 2 generations

We've watched human eggs being fertilized . . . and developing into other humans, just as the providers of the egg and sperm were. So how does that prove evolution?

Are an exact genetic duplicate of each of your parents?

MRSA exists. It's a type of staphylococcus aureus that is resistant to some antibiotics that are used to treat regular staphylococcus aureus. But it's still staphylococcus aureus, ie. it's still bacteria.

SA is not the only bacteria on Earth

Really? Cite me the last time anyone observed a fly evolving into anything other than a fly. Please show your work.

'Fly' is not a species. Would you like a dictionary?