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

Originally posted by Xeros
This argument is always going to be between complete.

obsessive fundamentalist people from the US and reasoning intelligent people.

Which are you? Which am I? How do you qualify this statement?

Originally posted by Xeros
I have never seen someone outside the US go on a tirade against evolution.

Not sure what your travel experiences have to do with the topic.

Originally posted by Xeros
Just what do they teach you in church over there.

You're welcomed to come and find out, though this statement is irrelevant to the topic.

Originally posted by Xeros
Is it a coincidence hat the bible says otherwise. No. So, if you are right faithfully, just leave the science alone. It has not place for faith. I think people, deep down, are scared of science and cannot face a world where we are not ruled by dogmatic principles. I think that's pretty sad really.

Irrelevant. I'm here for a scientific discussion. If you'd like to have a thread about faith versus science, you're free to make one.

... I don't think I can make it any worse. Well... maybe not

Originally posted by shaunybaby

Originally posted by saint4God
Please display the data of evolution. Not height, size and weight measurements from just a bunch of birds, but a change in species

But the change in beak size is the data. And the beak size is the change in the species.

The data doesn't fit your model any better that a creationist (stasis) one... less so imo.


Natural Selection was discovered by Creationist Edward Blyth in the 1830s. Darwin's idea was that that mechanism could account for the origin of new species. That would be evolution, as it pertains to this discussion. You see creationists don't argue against variation in species via NS... it was their idea.


Natural Selction is a conservative process. The Grants' data supports this:

Darwin's Finches

While these types of changes are noteworthy, and undoubtedly have contributed to our understanding of natural selection and reproductive success as a function of population size, climatic fluctuations and food availability, are they evidence for the variety of evolution that is thought to be responsible for the origin of new genes, new metabolic functions, new biological structures and ultimately new biological forms?

[...]


Based on the long term data it appears that mean beak size fluctuates about 5% in either direction. In other words, it appears that the 5% fluctuations either way are the ‘noise’ in the data that fluctuates about the mean. No real change has been observed, simply a shifting in the numbers of pre-existing genes for varying beak sizes. The most noteworthy thing in my own mind is that the beak size, no matter what the selective pressure appears to fluctuate about a mean, and not change.

[...]

In conclusion, I don't wish to devalue the work that has been carried out by the Grant's. As I've mentioned, their work has provided significant insight into the relevance of certain morphological features as a function of different selective pressures, but given that said evidence supports stasis and a creation model as much as an evolutionary model, perhaps the headline proclaiming the finches are evolving is somewhat..... overstated.

(Emphasis Rren)



I'm guessing this will be hand-waved away, but, if after 40+ pages there's still no agreement on what "evolution" is ... or what "evidence" supports NS as the mechanism for the origin of new species (common ancestry) ... perhaps it's time to move on.


Wishful thinker,
~Rren

I wouldn't wave that away, made for an interesting read.

I think I got the jist of it. Is it that even though there are varying beak sizes, as much as this could be a model for evolution, it could also be a model for creation?

I think the vast variety of species we have on this planet is evidence enough for evolution. It doesn't prove evolution, but just by looking around we can see evidence 'for'. All you need to do is ask yourself why, when God created dolphins, did he create 30-something different species. Replace dolphins with any other creature, and replace the 30-something with a smaller or even larger number. There are something like 10,000 known species of ant. That's ants. Maybe it's not for us to question 'God', but maybe it is up to us to question 'why' there are this many species.

1) God created them.

2) Through millions of years of evolution.

3) Your own alternative.

Take your pick.

I think this discussion has carried on mainly because I think it's absurd to deny there's evidence for evolution, because there is evidence 'for' it. It may not be proof for evolution, but it's still evidence. So long as people keep coming here saying there's no evidence, I'll be here trying to show them that there is.

Originally posted by shaunybaby
I wouldn't wave that away, made for an interesting read.

I think I got the jist of it. Is it that even though there are varying beak sizes, as much as this could be a model for evolution, it could also be a model for creation?

Well, imo, it can't be used to falsify either one. An evolutionary model would have to extrapolate from that data (minor change + billions of years) to argue NS could create something novel (new). The finch data/variation is something that everyone agrees on. Its like the peppered moth or viral antibiotic resistance. The mechanism there is not in dispute.


What that mechanism (NS) is capable of doing (the inference not the data itself) over deep time is what is in dispute. Finches, moths and/or viruses don't explain common ancestry. Creationists tend to seperate adaptation (micro) from evolution (macro.) BTW, those terms (micro, macro) come from evolutionists not creationists, ie, the distinction is recognized.

So when a creationist asks for evidence for "evolution" (s)he means common ancestry (macro). Micro data sets don't get the job done. Typically you guys use, interpretations of fossils (ie, transitionals) and genetic homology to demonstrate the relationships.

All you need to do is ask yourself why, when God created dolphins, did he create 30-something different species.

A creationist would just say something like, "they're all dolphins" get on topic shauny, baby.

Maybe it's not for us to question 'God', but maybe it is up to us to question 'why' there are this many species.

Absolutely. I will probably always be stubborn when it comes to some blind mechanism for it all (think ID not special creation) but I'm not to concerned (even Biblically speaking) with common ancestry. I even think its extremely possible that man and ape are the same "kind," if you will. Not universal common ancestry via a 'blind watchmaker,' but that's, imo, as dogmatic and exterme as young earth creationism

1) God created them.

2) Through millions of years of evolution.

3) Your own alternative.

Take your pick.

They're not mutually exclusive. False Dilemma

New missing link needed: Apply within

On topic (if that even matters anymore )



Oops... Who coulda seen it comin'?

I haven't gone anywhere, in fact the discussion has become progressive and so interesting that it's probably best if I shut my mouth and listen. Shauny has nice points, Rren is articulating the diametric view very well. By all means continue. I'm learning stuff...at the very least, about Rren and Shauny.

The results were 'unexepected' because 'one' bone closely matches that of gorillas, rather than chimpanzees (human's 'thought to be' closest living relative).

Why does this prove that we couldn't be decended from lucy's species?

All this theorizes is that perhaps from this lucy, three or more species could be decendents, being gorillas, chimpanzees, and humans.

Or perhaps all we've dug up is a very very old early gorilla in-the-making.

Evidence for evolution? Yes. Proof? No.

encarta.msn.com...'s_Hawk_Moth.html

"Scientists were looking for this particular moth, Xanthopan morganii, even before they were sure of its existence. The 19th-century naturalist Charles Darwin, studying an orchid whose nectar-producing organs lay 30 cm (12 in) inside the flower structure, hypothesized that there must be a moth with a tongue long enough to pollinate it. He proved to be correct: This Madagascan species, with the long front wings and thick body characteristic of other hawk moths, has a proboscis that measures between 30 and 35 cm (12 and 14 in) in length."

It is generally considered that a theory that predicts the existence of something that is then found later, is 'proven'. This happened with Relativity, which postulated the existence of black holes, and Quantum theory, which postulated the existence of many of the sub-atomic particles that subsequently turned up in particle accelerators.

Also, in some rain forests it is possible to witness evolution.

Everybody's heard of Morning Glory, right? Well, in its natural environment the plant is the only one chosen by a certain species of butterfly as a nursery/food source for its young. The butterfly lays eggs on the underside of each leaf, and when the caterpillars hatch they consume virtually the entire plant. The female butterflies will not attach egg-sacs to plants which have already had another female's eggs on it. However, certain individuals in the Morning Glory population have begun developing fake egg sacs on the underside of their leaves. Some look more convincing than others (to the butterflies as well as us Humans) and the more succesful copies mean that the plant that produced them will not be attacked by butterflies and will go on to reproduce. Eventually the butterflies will have to evolve in turn, either to use a different species to lay on, or to recognise real egg-sacs, as with each succesive generation, more of the morning glory population will descended from the successful fake egg producers.

I suggest anybody who doesn't believe in evolution watch David Attenborough's "Secret Life of Plants", the series from which I learnt both of the above.

Now I don't think Darwin had it all right, but modern theories incorporating Complexity Theory, the study of dynamic systems far from equilibrium, come far closer to a complete story.

www.wisdom.weizmann.ac.il...

I enjoyed the article about the moth. It's totally fun learning about these new things. However, it no more gives support to evolution as a it does creationism. A creationist could say, "What we see is evidence that both the moth and the flower had to be created at the same time, else the symbiotic relationship would break down". Things that make you go hmmmm.

Regarding complexity theory, I could only read a little until it wanted me to download a bunch of stuff .

I like shauny's approach towards the whole thing, that one can use observation/evidence to reason things (though I feel we need to reason many different things, not just one). Rren demonstrates that just when we think we know it all...we don't. For example...

“With insects slight structural differences, if constant, are generally esteemed of specific value: and the fact of the races of man being infested by parasites, which appear to be specifically distinct, might fairly be urged as an argument that the races themselves ought to be classed as distinct species” (p.177) Decent of Man, Charles Darwin

“… But the sense of smell is of extremely slight service, if any, even to the dark colored races of men, in whom it is much more highly developed than in white and civilized races” (p.18).

“Idiots also resemble the lower animals in some other respects; thus several cases are recorded of their carefully smelling every mouthful of food before eating it. One idiot is described as often using his mouth in aid of his hands, whilst hunting for lice. They are often filthy in their habits, and have no sense of decency; and several cases have been published of their bodies being remarkably hairy” (pp.36,37)
(even more interesting is who he's referring to as an "idiot")

“Idiots also resemble the lower animals in some other respects; thus several cases are recorded of their carefully smelling every mouthful of food before eating it. One idiot is described as often using his mouth in aid of his hands, whilst hunting for lice. They are often filthy in their habits, and have no sense of decency; and several cases have been published of their bodies being remarkably hairy” (pp.36,37)

Of course there's more, probably more impactful statements as well. My point is this. The modern idea of evolution as originally proposed is very different than what C. Darwin formulated. In fact, much of what Darwin says is flat out wrong. Being a valuable part of science. If you don't "take a stab" at it, then you'll never find out anything!

Rren makes a good point, when you blur the definition of evolution with adaptation, it's difficult to see the existing difference between idea and actual mechanism. Adaptation can be observed as a variance within a species, testable, and following the Hardy-Weinburg Principle of equilibrium (balancing out of adaptations within a given population). This is contradictory to the idea that a mutation occurs which leads to a divergence of successfully passed along genetic traits. I'd like to hear some attempt at reconciliation between the two.

[edit on 4-5-2007 by saint4God]

The examples of Darwin's statements above are simply a product of his typical Upper-Class Victorian attitudes. IMHO, you including them is more of an emotional appeal against the concept of evolution (as opposed to Darwinism) than a rational one.

Without much effort it would be possible to post a tranche of bigotted, ignorant views from Creationists.

Actually, it could probably be done only using modern Creationists, whereas I doubt that many proponents of modern evolutionary thinking would oblige.

What Complexity Theory supplies to the theory of evolution is impetus. It shows that systems held far from equilibrium by external perturbations are more inclined to undergo mutation and differentiation, in contradiction to the 2nd Law of thermodynamics.

Originally posted by Karilla
The examples of Darwin's statements above are simply a product of his typical Upper-Class Victorian attitudes. IMHO, you including them is more of an emotional appeal against the concept of evolution (as opposed to Darwinism) than a rational one.

Without much effort it would be possible to post a tranche of bigotted, ignorant views from Creationists.

Actually, it could probably be done only using modern Creationists, whereas I doubt that many proponents of modern evolutionary thinking would oblige.

Hold on there friend, The only thing I was illustrating was that there is a difference between original evolutionary theory where we thought one thing and in reality it is another. Emotional appeal is useless and pointless here (see topic "...where is the evidence..."). Whatever influence Darwin had for saying these things is immaterial. After all, science is objective, not subjective, is it not? I do find it interesting though that an emotional response was triggered merely by quoting Darwin. Why do you think that is?

Originally posted by Karilla
What Complexity Theory supplies to the theory of evolution is impetus. It shows that systems held far from equilibrium by external perturbations are more inclined to undergo mutation and differentiation, in contradiction to the 2nd Law of thermodynamics.

Now we're talking. Wish I could see the files, evidences, etc. Still, even given The Founder's Effect, which is what it looks like you're suggesting here, when reintroduced to the original population it seems to revert to Hardy-Weinburg principles, no? Also, is there not limitation to changes even held at the extreme of the spectrum though the mechanisms of transcription and translation? Finally, how do you account for the observations that unusual traits in a species means reduced (not increased) fitness? Or are you saying that all evolution is based on beneficial mutation? If so, we're opening up a big set of problems, but one set of questions at a time.

[edit on 4-5-2007 by saint4God]

Sorry, I think I misunderstood...

Try this link:
complexity.orcon.net.nz...

The basic tutorial is garish, but good.

I simply cannot find the name of the author whose recent book on Complexity Theory I read that was very succinct. It went the way of all my good books. Lent to a friend, never to be seen again. Not for years anyway.

Originally posted by saint4God
Adaptation can be observed as a variance within a species, testable, and following the Hardy-Weinburg Principle of equilibrium (balancing out of adaptations within a given population). This is contradictory to the idea that a mutation occurs which leads to a divergence of successfully passed along genetic traits. I'd like to hear some attempt at reconciliation between the two.

Why?

Hardy-Weinberg Equilibrium

If individuals in a population mate randomly, without regard to genetic constitution, the offspring can have any combination of genes or alleles from the gene pool. That is, whatever alleles are present in the population will have equal chance of appearing from generation to generation. The population is said to be in equilibrium. This generalization is known as the Hardy-Weinberg principle. It operates only when there is random mating, no introduction of new alleles by mutation or migration of alleles into the population (gene flow), and no natural selection or chance change in allele frequency (genetic drift). If any of these conditions are not present, inheritable changes result and evolution occurs.

faculty.uca.edu...




[edit on 4-5-2007 by melatonin]

Originally posted by melatonin
Why?

If there is a mutation, the organism goes through both phenotypic and genotypic problems with reproduction. I'd gone through greater details a few pages ago.

Hardy-Weinberg Equilibrium

It operates only when there is random mating, no introduction of new alleles by mutation or migration of alleles into the population (gene flow), and no natural selection or chance change in allele frequency (genetic drift). If any of these conditions are not present, inheritable changes result and evolution occurs.

faculty.uca.edu...

This is good science. It's the first time I'd hear this exception to the rule put in. I have to admit though, it puts a thorn in my side because the principle encompasses what happens with genetic drift in the big picture whereas this says it is excluded. Also, the principle can explain what happens to the gene flow when immigrating and emigrating alleles are reintroduced. I think we're on the right trail here and am very curious to find out if this exception to the rule is valid or lacks comprehensive definition. Nevertheless, good find melatonin and am curious to hear more. The reference is pretty solid in the other regards . Nice work here.

The BIG question though is what does "no introduction of new alleles by mutation" mean exactly? That's where we need to see the examples, backed up by numbers, tests, models and reproducable results.

[edit on 8-5-2007 by saint4God]

Originally posted by saint4God
The BIG question though is what does "no introduction of new alleles by mutation" mean exactly? That's where we need to see the examples, backed up by numbers, tests, models and reproducable results.

I think the hardy-weinberg equation is a sort of ideal model, they use this approach a lot in physics (ideal gases). Some populations do hold to an approximate hardy-weinberg equilibrium, but not pefectly, as we know selection, drift et al do occur.

So the hardy-weinberg is essentially the null hypothesis. It really shows that without mutations, selection, drift etc (i.e. the mechanisms of evolution), no evolution would happen and a relatively stable equilibrium would result. A textbook on mathematical genetics might give an outline of much of the theoretical basis of this, but I do know that Reed Cartwright has a few posts on his own blog, and PandasThumb, about EvoMath.

Originally posted by melatonin
I think the hardy-weinberg equation is a sort of ideal model, they use this approach a lot in physics (ideal gases). Some populations do hold to an approximate hardy-weinberg equilibrium, but not pefectly, as we know selection, drift et al do occur.

Ya, but makes a lot of sense from a genetics standpoint, whereas magic mutation does not.

Originally posted by melatonin
So the hardy-weinberg is essentially the null hypothesis. It really shows that without mutations, selection, drift etc (i.e. the mechanisms of evolution), no evolution would happen and a relatively stable equilibrium would result. A textbook on mathematical genetics might give an outline of much of the theoretical basis of this, but I do know that Reed Cartwright has a few posts on his own blog, and PandasThumb, about EvoMath.

What's your assessment after reading it? I remember PandasThumb, but am new to Reed Cartwright. I still have to look up more on Hardy-Weinburg too. You're reference was the first I've seen of the cavaet. It was a good find and am glad you're willing to listen & work on tackling the problems instead of spinning rhetoric.

[edit on 8-5-2007 by saint4God]

What's your assessment after reading it? I remember PandasThumb, but am new to Reed Cartwright. I still have to look up more on Hardy-Weinburg too. You're reference was the first I've seen of the cavaet.

Well, they use the hardy-weinberg as a basis to mathematically model how evolutionary mechanisms can affect gene frequency. Hardy's original article in 1908 does mention some of the assumptions (random mating, equal fertility etc)

www.esp.org...

Reed is a relatively young researcher on mathematical genetics and evolutionary algorithms, and other related stuff. He actually got his name on an article due to a blog post he made. Here's a couple of posts where he uses Hardy-Weinberg as the basis to assess drift and selection (I can't see the math notation on this lappy for one of the posts, can on the uni system though, so not sure if it will work for you).

dererumnatura.us...

www.pandasthumb.org...

[edit on 8-5-2007 by melatonin]

Originally posted by melatonin
Well, they use the hardy-weinberg as a basis to mathematically model how evolutionary mechanisms can affect gene frequency. Hardy's original article in 1908 does mention some of the assumptions (random mating, equal fertility etc)

www.esp.org...

Bravo! Nice find in challenging Mendel's ratios. I've not heard the dispute before ^_^. This is the part where the professor asks, "Is he right?" and the class looks around at each other and shrugs. Three cheers for Hardy, why don't they teach this stuff in college? It's epic!

Originally posted by melatonin
Reed is a relatively young researcher on mathematical genetics and evolutionary algorithms, and other related stuff. He actually got his name on an article due to a blog post he made. Here's a couple of posts where he uses Hardy-Weinberg as the basis to assess drift and selection (I can't see the math notation on this lappy for one of the posts, can on the uni system though, so not sure if it will work for you).

dererumnatura.us...

www.pandasthumb.org...

Ugh, all the variables are blotted out with black boxes so I can't read them...assuming I would understand them that is . I'd like to think I would get the concept but I hope there's no exam on memorizing equations.

Still the problem here exists that both the Hardy-Weinberg Principle and Mendelian Genetics follow the Scientific Method (can collect data, produce a model, test, predict and produce results) where the same cannot be said for evolutionary ideas. The issue is that evolution is the exception to the rule of both verifiable principles.

Let's now consider (for the sake of argument) the dynamics of the situation post-exception. Supposing then that both HWP and MG do not account for evolution, what does that mean about the evolved trait entering into them?

[edit on 10-5-2007 by saint4God]

Originally posted by saint4God
Ugh, all the variables are blotted out with black boxes so I can't read them...assuming I would understand them that is

. I'd like to think I would get the concept but I hope there's no exam on memorizing equations.

Yeah, think it may be something to do with codecs.

Still the problem here exists that both the Hardy-Weinberg Principle and Mendelian Genetics follow the Scientific Method (can collect data, produce a model, test, predict and produce results) where the same cannot be said for evolutionary ideas. The issue is that evolution is the exception to the rule of both verifiable principles.

Well, the issue is that the Hardy-Weinberg is an idealised model. Populations will only reach this ideal if no evolution is taking place. Some can reach an approximation.

So, as much as the maths of Hardy-weinberg can be scientifically verified when no evolutionary mechanisms are in play, when the mechanisms are in play (sexual selection, natural selection, drift etc; which is usually the case to a lesser or greater degree), then the same maths clearly shows that changes in gene frequencies will occur, that is evolution takes place and the ideal Hardy-Weinberg principle does not hold.

www.pickens.k12.sc.us...

Let's now consider (for the sake of argument) the dynamics of the situation post-exception. Supposing then that both HWP and MG do not account for evolution, what does that mean about the evolved trait entering into them?

If a new allele enters the population, then drift and selection can act on it.

Here is a link that helps with evidence for evolution:
Here
Its all to do with when fish came out on to land.



G