evolution, where is the evidence???!!! I see none

Originally posted by AnAbsoluteCreation
People argue evolution when it doesn't even matter. Evolution is from the root word evolve. Evolving happens everyday in nature. Take a look at a giraffe. The neck grew over thousands of years to reach higher branches. It evolved. Now when looking at a number of these cases, it could be determined as evolution.

I agree people argue when it doesn't matter but just to put you right on one point Giraffes NEVER evolved necks to reach the high branches, it just so happens that a giraffes evolution ALLOWED it to reach the higher branches. Its the same with birds say, birds never evolved wings so they could fly but evolved in a way that allowed them to fly and therefore have an advantage over ground dwelling predators. Nothing evolves for a purpose!!!


G

It's all nice saying don't argue, lets live in peace and harmony.. But at the end of the day, that's never going to happen.. Not as long as there's people like saint4god who think evolution is a hypothesis etc. Statements like that need to be defended, if it wasn't people would just see 'evolution, just a hypothesis', and it's a misrepresentation of evolution.

The same as people who say to me 'I just really don't think we came from apes'. That's all good, cause neither do I.

Too many misconceptions surround evolution, people need to be educated on what it actually means.

One it does not mean we evolved from apes.

Two it's not a hypothesis.

Now that's a start.

Originally posted by shaunybaby
It's all nice saying don't argue, lets live in peace and harmony.. But at the end of the day, that's never going to happen.. Not as long as there's people like saint4god
The same as people who say to me 'I just really don't think we came from apes'.

THIS is perhaps the funniest thing I've ever read on ATS! There can never be peace as long as people like saint exist.

Classic.

saint is perhaps the most down to earth peaceful person I've met here. He just happens to be a Christian with a skeptical streak. Why do you think he's here. Because of this, he's a 'danger'

That's all good, cause neither do I.

Too many misconceptions surround evolution, people need to be educated on what it actually means.

One it does not mean we evolved from apes.

So then you're saying that distant primate relatives were not 'apes?' If they were not 'apes' what term would be used to describe them?

More or less, scientifics describe these distinct primates as 'apes.'

Originally posted by mattison0922

THIS is perhaps the funniest thing I've ever read on ATS! There can never be peace as long as people like saint exist.

Classic.

It's not because he 'exists'. It could be any Tom, Dick or Harry, it just so happens that saint is the best example. The fact that he thinks evolution is a hypothesis, that's why there is no let up in the arguement/discussion.

saint is perhaps the most down to earth peaceful person I've met here. He just happens to be a Christian with a skeptical streak. Why do you think he's here. Because of this, he's a 'danger'

That's fine. I wasn't putting saint down. I'm saying, as long as there are people with different oppinions, there will be arguements/discussions.

So then you're saying that distant primate relatives were not 'apes?' If they were not 'apes' what term would be used to describe them?

More or less, scientifics describe these distinct primates as 'apes.'

I didn't say distant relatives of ours weren't apes. Pretty much the point I was trying to make.. More misconceptions..

When someone says ''hey, I really don't think we evolved from apes''. They don't mean the scientific term 'ape' as in species that lived say 100,000 years ago, they are on about the apes that are living today.

For example a person might think ''If we evolved from apes (apes of today), howcome there are still apes around, and howcome 'they' didn't evolve''.

I wouldn't mind getting saint's response on my other post though. He kept on and on about evolution not being testable and then concluding that it's a hypothesis. Yet, the scientific description of a hypothesis is that it is testable. Just like to hear his thoughts on that.

I agree there is an inconsistency as to what a hypothesis is in the general representation due to misusage. I concede to the following for the right definitions as they are applied in science:

Main Entry: hy·poth·e·sis
Pronunciation: hI-'pä-th&-s&s
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural hy·poth·e·ses /-"sEz/
Etymology: Greek, from hypotithenai to put under, suppose, from hypo- + tithenai to put -- more at DO
1 a : an assumption or concession made for the sake of argument b : an interpretation of a practical situation or condition taken as the ground for action
2 : a tentative assumption made in order to draw out and test its logical or empirical consequences
3 : the antecedent clause of a conditional statement
www.m-w.com...

NOUN:
pl. the·o·ries
A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.
education.yahoo.com...

I'm willing to concede that it's not even a hypothesis upon valid argument but think the idea has gained more credibility than that.

Rather than "going there", I'm going to crux upon the scientific method as the university taught it regarding the difference between the two. Simply put, if hypothesis and theory were the same word, you wouldn't need two words. A story for a different thread on how we like to interchange the words carelessly.

One thing I'm not going to do is repeat myself when I think I've been heard. No point, waste of time. I like progressive discussions, seeing no benefit to bulldozer insistences. Doubly so regarding this subject matter.

Thanks for the props Mattison! I do appreciate it, especially since you know far more about the details than I do.

[edit on 7-8-2006 by saint4God]

Buy a Nefertiti based on carbon dating and you will definitely end up hating the Renaissance! Older dates depend. There is a shadow cast over the precision of many radiocarbon datings. See History: Fiction or Science? By A.T. Fomenko.
WF Libby was the author of the method. Archaeologists specimens are actually destroyed, being burned in the radiocarbon measurement process. Kolchin and Sher state: "the dates calculated in assumption of the atmospheric C-14 content from ancient times to our age need to be revised. See Kolchin, BA and YA Sher, Absolute Archeological Datings and Their Problems. Moscow, Nauka, 1972: stating that "the dates calculated in assumption of the constancy of atmospheric C-14 is 5570 years, with a possible deviation range of 30 years in each direction..." p-4, and that "the half life period for C-14 is set ...at 5730 years, give or take 40! 160 years-That's some correction." "We have learned that the real activity of ancient specimens may alter from the average value due to: 1) Temporal change in timber activity-2%, 2) Cosmic ray intensity changes (theoretical estimation): 20%,
Short-term changes in solar activity: plus 2%, 4) Increase in mixing content of oceanic water: minus 2%, 5) Variations in radiocarbon concentration depending on geographical location and the tree species: 8.5% deviation range, etc. id at p-88. Additionally, what does "the moment of the objects departure from the exchange reservoir actually mean? The problem is that carbon exchange does not stop with death. Libby's hypothesis that radiocarbon content in the exchange reservoir remains constant all the time has been proven (along with numerous other assumptions) to be false. Due to thermonuclear tests explosions: the activity of the specimens grew by 25% as measured in 1959, and this growth had reached 30% by 1963. Ids at 86. Finally, one has to consider the imprecision of the currently used C-14 half life value, that has been corrected by almost 10% as of late...id. "The shortcomings of the synthesis of the latter is that only 10% of the carbon (C-12 vs. C-14 carbon content in volume) is transformed into benzol; this increases the possibility of an error resulting from isotope separation." See MJ Aitken. To really screw it to the wall, the unacceptable practice of familiarizing the physical laboratories the perform radiocarbon dating with the opinions of the archaeologists about the estimated ages of findings still exists. Fomenko Vol. 1 Chronology at p-90. "The shell of a living American mollusk has the radioactivity index of 13.8 as compared to the average value of 15.3, which makes it 1200 years old...A shell from Florida with a value of 17.4 shall only appear in 1080 years...per Vladimir Miloicic, see also LS Klein. That about covers it.
by Flash_dancer.

Originally posted by Slicky1313

I have looked into Carbon 14 dating, and this is what the science books say is used to date dino's back millions of years. well, theoretically the carbon is gone out of the "thing" your dating every 50K years and is filled with new carbon, and Carbon 14 dating is only used for thousands of years, not meant fro millions. I read in science magaizne of how they took a shell from a snail still alive and carbon dated it and found the shell was 26K years old, even though it wasnt actually that old. a Mammoth was carbon dated and one half of its body was years older than its other half its body. Ive heard reports of dinosaur bones being carbon dated and coming out to be only 26K years old, when evolution states all dinos become extinct 65M years ago.

Another article in a scientifc magazine did samples on Volcanic rock just formed from the Hawaiian Islands a few hundred years ago and it came back millions of years old. obviously, Carbon 14 dating isnt entirely correct, and its not correct for millions of years old object, only thousands of years old.

Originally posted by Slicky1313
I have looked into Carbon 14 dating, and this is what the science books say is used to date dino's back millions of years. well, theoretically the carbon is gone out of the "thing" your dating every 50K years and is filled with new carbon, and Carbon 14 dating is only used for thousands of years, not meant fro millions.

Well one: Carbon 14 dating IS NOT used to date dinosaur fossils. To my knowledge they don't date the actual fossil, as of carbon renewal, it would be pointless. They date the rock/material that the fossil was found in by the layer type. As from your geography lessons, I'm sure you're aware that rock has layers. From these layers, depending on which one the fossil is found in, you can tell how old the dinosaur would be.

Ive heard reports of dinosaur bones being carbon dated and coming out to be only 26K years old, when evolution states all dinos become extinct 65M years ago.

Wrong. They don't carbon 14 date dinosaur fossils. And they're not bones. Fossils are pretty much just compressed sediment, and fossilization like that does not take 26 thousand years.

obviously, Carbon 14 dating isnt entirely correct, and its not correct for millions of years old object, only thousands of years old.

I know. It's not used to date things millions of years old, and nor is it used to date dinosaurs fossils. What's your point?

(pronounced ka-KOO-roo or KA-koo-roo) Kakuru (meaning "rainbow serpent," because it is known from an opal tibia) was a dinosaur from the early Cretaceous period, about 119-113 million years ago. It is known from a tibia, a leg bone which was fossilized as an opal (and the only dinosaur fossil preserved this way). Kakuru was a small, bird-like theropod, a meat-eater perhaps related to Avimimus. It was found in Australia. It was named by Molnar & Pledge in 1980.

That's a little story I found. Now do you really think a bone can fossilize as an opal in 26 thousand years? Since the formation of oil, which is basically compressed decayed dead sea creatures, takes millions of years. I'd hazard a logical guess that the formation of bone to opal takes a lot longer than 26,000 years.

[edit on 9-8-2006 by shaunybaby]

It seems that pulling the evolution trigger causes backfires. Sometimes we want something to be true so badly we overlook the evidence.

Rather than duplicating posts, I'd like to direct attention to this thread. I think there's a pretty interesting news article update and really like what Mattison has to say here as well:

More proof of evolution!

Two more classes to go until my biology degree. Wohoo! I did want to make mention in my Ecology class they've preferred to give broad definitions for evolution, instead of the difference between adaptation (shift of allelic frequency) and trans-speciation. Interesting how they like to throw them into the same pot and mix it up. They'd also mentioned that Ecology didn't become a booming and independent science until the last twenty years...so specific definitions and large-scale information is lacking.

that wasn't proof of evolution, simply the supposed discovery of a divergent species

see, saint, you're playing into the creationist stereotype of not proving anything while poking holes at a constantly evolving (excuse the pun) scientific theory

with you creationists it's all about inductive reasoning...
sigh

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
with you creationists it's all about inductive reasoning...
sigh

Did you just learn this word in class today or something?

In any case you still don't seem to understand what you're saying.

From what you would likely describe as an unbiased source: atheism.about.com

The scientific method involves a combination of induction and deduction, each feeding back upon the other. The first part, known as the Method of Induction, is the process by which we take particular information from our senses and attempt to produce general statements about our world.

Silly Creationists!

Watch out saint, it appears that madness has discovered the dictionary, even if he hasn't figured out how to apply the knowledge quite yet.



[edit on 31-8-2006 by mattison0922]

Originally posted by saint4God
Two more classes to go until my biology degree. Wohoo! I did want to make mention in my Ecology class they've preferred to give broad definitions for evolution, instead of the difference between adaptation (shift of allelic frequency) and trans-speciation. Interesting how they like to throw them into the same pot and mix it up.

Congrats in advance.

Maybe you could outline what the difference is between 'adaptation' (microevolution) and 'trans-speciation' (macro-evolution) within the ToE framework. If we could assess a 'trans-speciation' event in a month, would we not see a shift in allelic frequency between original population and new population?

Originally posted by melatonin
Congrats in advance.

Thanks! I'm hoping it goes well.

Maybe you could outline what the difference is between 'adaptation' (microevolution) and 'trans-speciation' (macro-evolution) within the ToE framework. If we could assess a 'trans-speciation' event in a month, would we not see a shift in allelic frequency between original population and new population?

This is a good point. This could be why I have such a "thorn in my side" about evolution. It is not properly defined in all fields of science but is rather frivolously thrown about as a pat-answer instead of finding out specifically what, how and why things are going on. My biggest beef with this class is they seem to refuse to go into specifics. Genetics was not so much the case. The language was very specific. Adaptation was the shifiting of alleles within a population in regards to its environment. Evolution was the physical change of DNA that was successively passed on from generation to the next. According to my notes in Ecology, "nature" or God's design, however you'd like to look at it, has mechanisms in place to prevent both the microscopic change in DNA and the macroscopic passing on of changed biological traits with Natural Selection being a key mechanism to that point. I did not bring my notes, but I'm going to have to post them when I get to them either today or this weekend. In there it outlines some of the macroscopic mechanism to prevent these changes. I don't remember the exact terms for them without my notes, but in essence among those are:

- Behaviour modification: Physical and/or psychological changes causes undesireable mating calls and actions. They have to demonstrate both fitness and familiarity to the point that it is desireable for mating.
- Polypoids: Having the wrong number of chromosomes, disallowing reproduction
- Mutation: Causes defects such as sterility. Mutated traits (physical changes in the DNA) are not passed on to successive generations
- Physical Incompatibility: The parts don't fit.
- Chemical Incompatibility: Whereas the chemicals surrounding the egg reject the sperm or sperm is not viable to produce offspring.
- Inbreeding Fitness reduction: Defects making the animal alienated and/or sterility.
- Outbreeding Fitness reduction: Mating two extremes of the spectrum make the animal unfit for the current environment.

I'm missing two or three more >_

Originally posted by saint4God
According to my notes in Ecology, "nature" or God's design, however you'd like to look at it, has mechanisms in place to prevent both the microscopic change in DNA and the macroscopic passing on of changed biological traits with Natural Selection being a key mechanism to that point.

This is by no means a new idea (not saying you said it was ) in biology. People have described NS as a stabilizing force for quite some time.

Perhaps you are familiar Reginald Punnett - of Punnett Square fame? This quote is lifted from his book Mimicry in Butterflies, published in 1915

Natural selection is a real factor in connection with mimicry, but its function is to conserve and render preponderant an already existing likeness, not to build up that likeness through the accumulation of small variations, as is so generally assumed.

Another good one comes from ag sciences pioneer Luther Burbank. Burbank developed more than 800 strains and varieties of plants over throughout his career. Among his various creations are grains, grasses, fruits, flowers, and vegetables. There exists some controversy re: the scientific nature of Burbanks work, as he wasn't much of a notetaker, nor did he have an interest in basic research. However, his experience with plant varieties and artificial selection is undeniable. In any case, this somewhat lengthy quote is lifted from his 1939 book Partner of Nature

There is a law of which I have not yet spoken that is useful to plant-breeders, as well as being a limitation on them. It is called the "Law of the Reversion to the Average". I know from my experience that I can develop a plum half an inch long or one two and a half inches long, with every possible length in between, but I am willing to admit that it is hopeless to try to get a plum the size of a small pea, or one as big as a grapefruit. I have daisies on my farm little larger than my finger nail and some that measure six inches across, but I have none as big as a sunflower, and never expect to have. I have roses that bloom pretty steadily for six months in the year, but I have none that will bloom twelve, and I will not have. In short, there are limits to the developments possible, and these limits follow a law.

But what law, and why? It is the law that I have referred to above. Experiments
carried on extensively have given us scientific proof of what we had already guessed at by observation; namely, that plants and animals all tend to revert, in successive generations, toward a given mean or average. Men grow to be seven feet tall, and over, but never to ten; there are dwarfs not higher than 24 inches, but none that you can carry in your hand... In short, there is undoubtedly a pull toward the mean which keeps all living things within some more or less fixed limitations.

So the concept of selection as a stabilizing force isn't a new one.


[edit on 1-9-2006 by mattison0922]

Originally posted by saint4God
This is a good point. This could be why I have such a "thorn in my side" about evolution. It is not properly defined in all fields of science but is rather frivolously thrown about as a pat-answer instead of finding out specifically what, how and why things are going on. My biggest beef with this class is they seem to refuse to go into specifics. Genetics was not so much the case. The language was very specific. Adaptation was the shifiting of alleles within a population in regards to its environment. Evolution was the physical change of DNA that was successively passed on from generation to the next. According to my notes in Ecology, "nature" or God's design, however you'd like to look at it, has mechanisms in place to prevent both the microscopic change in DNA and the macroscopic passing on of changed biological traits with Natural Selection being a key mechanism to that point. I did not bring my notes, but I'm going to have to post them when I get to them either today or this weekend. In there it outlines some of the macroscopic mechanism to prevent these changes. I don't remember the exact terms for them without my notes, but in essence among those are:

What I understand is that the major differences in allele frequency is how they act within/between the populations for micro/macro. Thus if we have a single population, with a free-flowing genetic pool, we will see convergence of alleles to an equilibrium. However, if we split the populations restricting genetic flow, we find that the allele frequencies between the two population's will eventually diverge (although, they will converge within the two populations).

Given enough time, mutations and environmentally-based selection pressures, these two populations may well result in, what you term, 'trans-speciation' (and a large divergence in allele frequency, particularly when small and at the peripheral range). So, in essence, macro needs micro, but micro does not always lead to macro, the new mutations are dependent on the same processes as adaptation, once formed (i.e. convergence of alleles).

But in both cases, shifting of allele frequencies would be observed?

[edit on 2-9-2006 by melatonin]

Originally posted by mattison0922

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
with you creationists it's all about inductive reasoning...
sigh

Did you just learn this word in class today or something?

In any case you still don't seem to understand what you're saying.

From what you would likely describe as an unbiased source: atheism.about.com

The scientific method involves a combination of induction and deduction, each feeding back upon the other. The first part, known as the Method of Induction, is the process by which we take particular information from our senses and attempt to produce general statements about our world.

Silly Creationists!

Watch out saint, it appears that madness has discovered the dictionary, even if he hasn't figured out how to apply the knowledge quite yet.

[edit on 31-8-2006 by mattison0922]

ALL about inductive reasoning, not partially about inductive reasoning
deduction is necessary for induction

maybe you didn't understand the grammer, but PLEASE try not to insult my level of intelligence, it makes you seem less than legitimate.

Originally posted by melatonin
What I understand is that the major differences in allele frequency is how they act within/between the populations for micro/macro. Thus if we have a single population, with a free-flowing genetic pool, we will see convergence of alleles to an equilibrium. However, if we split the populations restricting genetic flow, we find that the allele frequencies between the two population's will eventually diverge (although, they will converge within the two populations).

Hmmm... have to ask for some clarification here, Mel. It sounds like what you are going for is Hardy-Weinberg Equilibrium, is this what you're talking about. If so, it's not really directly applicable, ie: it makes some significant assumptions, specifically, no mutation, no gene flow, and no selection.

Perhaps you can clarify this.

Given enough time, mutations and environmentally-based selection pressures, these two populations may well result in, what you term, 'trans-speciation' (and a large divergence in allele frequency).

Well... this is the concept that's causing all the controversy, at least on some level... I suppose what you said says nothing about the nature of the mutations, but since I know you, I can assume we're talking about random mutations.

However, I would like to again ask for clarification. When we're talking about 'trans-speciation,' what exactly are we talking about? I'll bring up one of my favorite examples again, the domestic dog. Now the dog is a different species from the coyote, the wolf, the dingo, and the jackal.... however all have 39 pairs of chromosomes and can interbreed freely. This type of 'trans-speciation' certainly falls within the realm of even the most conservative mainstream YEC models.

An even further point related to this is that between the domestic dog, wolf, dingo, jackal, and coyote we don't actually know what the nature of the differences between these species are. The Dog Genome is complete... I think it was a boxer, and I believe they chose it because the genome was less variable than other breeds. I know that they sequenced a wolf and a coyote with the dog, but I don't believe there are projects for the coyote, dingo, or jackal though. In any case, the variation is not necessarily related simply to allele frequencies. This certainly could be a factor, but is not necessarily the primary, or only factor.

So, in essence, macro needs micro,

Is this really true though? Does micro have to occur for macro to occur? Certainly this is the case with the modern synthesis, but in reality does this have to be the case? I don't believe so, that is unless you count complex mechanims like exon shuffling, gene duplications, chromosome fusions/translocations as shuffling of alleles.


[edit on 2-9-2006 by mattison0922]

Originally posted by mattison0922

Originally posted by melatonin
Hmmm... have to ask for some clarification here, Mel. It sounds like what you are going for is Hardy-Weinberg Equilibrium, is this what you're talking about. If so, it's not really directly applicable, ie: it makes some significant assumptions, specifically, no mutation, no gene flow, and no selection.

Perhaps you can clarify this.

Well what I'm focusing on is why many will talk of shifting frequency of alleles as evolution. I'm trying to gather how this fits with macro-evolution. I thought that Gould believed that with a large population, mutations are generally less effective, sort of diluted throughout the population and have difficulty becoming fixated. But of course, normal adaptive processes occur. Thus for Darwins finches, if short beaks become more adaptive, a shift in pre-exisitng alleles will occur favouring this variation, leading to an eventual equilibrium biased towards this feature (i.e. individuals with this favoured form of variation are more successful).

Given enough time, mutations and environmentally-based selection pressures, these two populations may well result in, what you term, 'trans-speciation' (and a large divergence in allele frequency).

Well... this is the concept that's causing all the controversy, at least on some level... I suppose what you said says nothing about the nature of the mutations, but since I know you, I can assume we're talking about random mutations.

However, I would like to again ask for clarification. When we're talking about 'trans-speciation,' what exactly are we talking about? I'll bring up one of my favorite examples again, the domestic dog. Now the dog is a different species from the coyote, the wolf, the dingo, and the jackal.... however all have 39 pairs of chromosomes and can interbreed freely. This type of 'trans-speciation' certainly falls within the realm of even the most conservative mainstream YEC models.

An even further point related to this is that between the domestic dog, wolf, dingo, jackal, and coyote we don't actually know what the nature of the differences between these species are. The Dog Genome is complete... I think it was a boxer, and I believe they chose it because the genome was less variable than other breeds. I know that they sequenced a wolf and a coyote with the dog, but I don't believe there are projects for the coyote, dingo, or jackal though. In any case, the variation is not necessarily related simply to allele frequencies. This certainly could be a factor, but is not necessarily the primary, or only factor.

I won't answer the doggie business yet, well except to say that a Chihuahua and Great Dane would find it difficult to breed (just pulling your leg) - I'll try to clarify what I'm trying to say.

Well following on from my last point. Doesn't Gould suggest that in an isolated population, mutations are generally more effective and are major driving force of evolution? So, if we compared the parent and isolated populations after a suitable period of time we would see a large divergence in the frequency of alleles (i.e. different alleles and frequencies of common alleles), whereas if we just compare within the populations we would just see a convergence (i.e. shifting towards whatever features are adaptive)?

I'm not exactly clear and I am asking if what I think is correct. Or where exactly I'm getting this confused.

So, in essence, macro needs micro,

Is this really true though? Does micro have to occur for macro to occur? Certainly this is the case with the modern synthesis, but in reality does this have to be the case? I don't believe so, that is unless you count complex mechanims like exon shuffling, gene duplications, chromosome fusions/translocations as shuffling of alleles.

Again, my knowledge is not perfect on this, but wouldn't these other mechanisms, if they produce a mutation that is neutral or beneficial, eventually result in changing allele frequencies? Thus if we have a new beneficial (or non-destructive) mutation, this becomes another allele that will spread through the population if the conditions are suitable (i.e. those with the new favoured allele are more successful)?

For example, the FOXP2 gene would be suggested to have been a result of mutation of some sort. At some point, this was very rare within our ancestors, its adaptive nature led to it spreading through the population and it is now just another fixated allele (i.e. is a normal part of the human genome and to not have this is actually unusual)? So if we compared original parent population of our ancestors and current human population, we would see a major divergence of allele frequencies including new alleles, such as FOXP2 (i.e. originally 0% FOXP2, eventually say 99.5% FOXP2 [some people don't have it] and therefore some decrease in an original allele)?

If I'm talking BS, just go ahead and tell me. I'm just wondering if these notions are correct or not (saint should be doing this, it would do his revision a lot of good, haha).

[edit on 2-9-2006 by melatonin]

Originally posted by melatonin
Well what I'm focusing on is why many will talk of shifting frequency of alleles as evolution. I'm trying to gather how this fits with macro-evolution. I thought that Gould believed that with a large population, mutations are generally less effective, sort of diluted throughout the population and have difficulty becoming fixated. But of course, normal adaptive processes occur. Thus for Darwins finches, if short beaks become more adaptive, a shift in pre-exisitng alleles will occur favouring this variation, leading to an eventual equilibrium biased towards this feature (i.e. individuals with this favoured form of variation are more successful).

Understood, and thanks for the clarification. As far as your statement about Gould is concerned, I believe this is a correct analysis, and I believe many, myself included would agree with this overall statement.

However, with respect to Darwin's Finches, I agree with your statement... I mean how could I not agree, it's more or less been demonstrated by the Grants, it's just our interpretation of the significance of this that differs.

So I guess what you're saying is that you're willing to accept the finch beak alleles shifting as evidence of macroevolution.

I just can't do this. I still insist that saying a shift in the frequency of pre-existing alleles, doesn't account for the origins of new biological novelty... molecular, morphological or otherwise. That creatures can adapt and vary practically infinitely within a particular biological type has been known for some time. In fact, that nature could act on pre-existing variation to create new variety within types predates Darwin. The first instances I know of were attributed to Edward Blyth, a creationist. In 1836 he wrote:

"The true physiological system is evidently one of irregular and indefinite radiation, and of reiterate divergence and ramification from a varying number of successively subordinate typical plans; often modified in the extremes, till the general aspect has become entirely changed, but still retaining, to the very ultimate limits, certain fixed and constant distinctive characters, by which the true affinities of species may be always known; the modifications of each successive type being always in direct relation to particular localities, or to peculiar modes of procuring sustenance; in short, to the particular circumstances under which a species was appointed to exist in the locality which it indigenously inhabits, where alone its presence forms part of the grand system of the universe, and tends to preserve the balance of organic being, and, removed whence (as is somewhere well remarked by Mudie), a plant or animal is little else than a “disjointed fragment.”"

So I think that a change in allelic frequencies as a means of adaptive radiation, variation in isolated populations etc, makes complete sense, and for the most part is undisputed. As I've mentioned before this type of variation often fits in with the most conservative creation origins model.

I won't answer the doggie business yet, well except to say that a Chihuahua and Great Dane would find it difficult to breed (just pulling your leg) - I'll try to clarify what I'm trying to say.

Funny you should mention this. My cousin had a mix between a chihuahua and a greyhound.

It was years before I knew they were talking about an Italian Greyhound.

Well following on from my last point. Doesn't Gould suggest that in an isolated population, mutations are generally more effective and are major driving force of evolution?

I believe this is inferred from or implied by a variety of sources, including but not limited to Gould. I think there's a major problem with the above statement though... when Gould wrote this, and for the most part it's always been assumed that mutation is the source of this variation. Of course no one's demonstrated that finches with one beak verses another beak can be localized to any specific allele. I mean they've not identified exactly why the finch beaks differ. The Grant stuff has really been a matter of comparing morphology with relative fitness, and less concerned with the mechanism of said morphology.

My point is we can't say that finch beak morphology is the result of some specific mutation or caused by a change of some particular nucleotide. Perhaps it's a regulatory issue, or something developmental. There are really a number of different reasons the morphology of a beak could differ that aren't related to mutation. IOW, while it's conveinent in this case to talk about a 'beak size allele,' the fact is we don't have any evidence of it.

I mentioned earlier some work in oral research where diet and size of the human jaw were somehow correlated. That is the more mastication a diet required, the larger the bone structure was in the jaw. Perhaps a similar thing happens in the birds? Who knows. Until we actually identified the reason for the finch beaks shifting in size, IMO, it's premature to talk about their shifts in allele frequencies being evidence for the origin of new biological novelty.

So, if we compared the parent and isolated populations after a suitable period of time we would see a large divergence in the frequency of alleles (i.e. different alleles and frequencies of common alleles), whereas if we just compare within the populations we would just see a convergence (i.e. shifting towards whatever features are adaptive)?

Yes... what you'll see in isolated populations is often different frequencies of existing alleles, and it happens, as I'm sure you're aware due to reproductive isolation. But in fact what these reproductively isolated populations represent is less genetic diversity than the parent population. That is they contain only a subset of the alleles present in the parent population. But I don't think you'll necessarily see a convergence in the parent population. I suppose, in the absence of selective pressure, you would see a convergence, but isn't that the point of NS... at the very least, we can all agree that NS stabilizes certain alleles within populations. Certainly the fossil evidence suggests this with the stasis observed in something like the lungfish.

Again, my knowledge is not perfect on this, but wouldn't these other mechanisms, if they produce a mutation that is neutral or beneficial, eventually result in changing allele frequencies?

Well not necessarily... while not my opinion, some believe it can result in entirely new genes, which is not technically a shifting of allele frequencies, which is in part the point I wanted to make. Perhaps you believe I am splitting hairs, but hey I'm a molbio guy... , and creating new genes and shifting allele frequencies are different things.

For example, the FOXP2 ...[snip] (i.e. originally 0% FOXP2, eventually say 99.5% FOXP2 [some people don't have it] and therefore some decrease in an original allele)?

If I'm talking BS, just go ahead and tell me. I'm just wondering if these notions are correct or not (saint should be doing this, it would do his revision a lot of good, haha).

Could you perhaps elaborate on this point. I don't know much about FOXP2. I thought.... I recall, it had something to do with language, but I thought mutation caused impairment of language. If you could perhaps describe in more detail this point with respect to this discussion, I would appreciate it.

In any case, I don't think you're talking BS, quite the opposite, and I'm sorry for jumping in on your's and saints discussion, but I am starved for good origins conversation here. Thanks.

Originally posted by mattison0922
Understood, and thanks for the clarification. As far as your statement about Gould is concerned, I believe this is a correct analysis, and I believe many, myself included would agree with this overall statement.

However, with respect to Darwin's Finches, I agree with your statement... I mean how could I not agree, it's more or less been demonstrated by the Grants, it's just our interpretation of the significance of this that differs.

So I guess what you're saying is that you're willing to accept the finch beak alleles shifting as evidence of macroevolution.

Oh no, I do mean this is just microevolution, hence the pre-existing alleles point. My lack of clarity. The next section was meant to focus on macroevolution.

I won't answer the doggie business yet, well except to say that a Chihuahua and Great Dane would find it difficult to breed (just pulling your leg) - I'll try to clarify what I'm trying to say.

Funny you should mention this. My cousin had a mix between a chihuahua and a greyhound.

It was years before I knew they were talking about an Italian Greyhound.

I guess that the funny thing with dogs, they can be seen as a sort of pseudo-ring species. I suppose the chihuahua would have difficulty with a great dane, but we could find an intermediate-sized species to breed and plug the gap (maybe the italian greyound).

Again, my knowledge is not perfect on this, but wouldn't these other mechanisms, if they produce a mutation that is neutral or beneficial, eventually result in changing allele frequencies?

Well not necessarily... while not my opinion, some believe it can result in entirely new genes, which is not technically a shifting of allele frequencies, which is in part the point I wanted to make. Perhaps you believe I am splitting hairs, but hey I'm a molbio guy...

, and creating new genes and shifting allele frequencies are different things.

For example, the FOXP2 ...[snip] (i.e. originally 0% FOXP2, eventually say 99.5% FOXP2 [some people don't have it] and therefore some decrease in an original allele)?

If I'm talking BS, just go ahead and tell me. I'm just wondering if these notions are correct or not (saint should be doing this, it would do his revision a lot of good, haha).

Could you perhaps elaborate on this point. I don't know much about FOXP2. I thought.... I recall, it had something to do with language, but I thought mutation caused impairment of language. If you could perhaps describe in more detail this point with respect to this discussion, I would appreciate it.

Well this is where I was trying to enter macro territory. I was using the FOXP2 gene as an example of a new biological variation. Thus, we think that this gene appeared in homo species in the last 200,000 years. So if we compared homo erectus to homo sapien population now, we would see that a new allele has appeared causing a shift in allele frequency - that is, the old variant of this gene would be rare and less frequent. This, of course, requires acceptance of the current ToE framework. This is to the extent that other variations and mutations of FOXP2 would be considered abnormal but I suppose at some point in the past, possession of FOXP2 would actually be rare and abnormal.

Therefore, using the idea of small, isolated populations becoming new species (allopatric speciation?), we would probably see old alleles becoming less frequent and new alleles spreading through the population, as well as common pre-existing alleles shifting, when comparing parent to speciated population.

In any case, I don't think you're talking BS, quite the opposite, and I'm sorry for jumping in on your's and saints discussion, but I am starved for good origins conversation here. Thanks.

No problem, as I said I'm just trying to see how 'shifting allele frequency' can fit with macroevolution. I suppose I'm trying to force the notion to fit macroevo, I do feel that if we could get that time machine, go back and assess allele frequency of homo erectus and compare to now, we would see shifting allele frequency caused by new allele variation (i.e. new genetic variation becoming common in the stock genome, causing old alleles to be less frequent - if that is acceptable wording). Maybe I'm just pushing to hard, I guess if 'changing allele frequencies' was the wording, there is no problem.

And answering another point you made earlier, I guess there may be mechanisms that result in macro, that bypass micro, but as far as I can gather, there is little evidence of such mechanisms? I suppose if we found that speciation could happen so rapidly, it would be akin to a rat giving birth to a bat and a bit of an issue for ToE.



[edit on 3-9-2006 by melatonin]

I think it's possible that all of the different stages of 'man' may have been different species just as you get different species of dogs. The type of human we are may have come from another place in the universe (ive already posted that on here before) and being a particularly aggressive species, killed off the others that were co-existing on earth prior to our arrival.

Humans, spread like a plague of rats and became the most dominant species on the planet. Now we have built up this civilisation and we're having trouble controlling it because we are so destructive.

All these stories linked to aliens and our interest in 'whats out there' stems from a gene in all of us that 'subconsciously/genetically' remembers where we came from. Maybe our DNA is missing home and we're trying to figure a way to get back!