Animals appearing whole - ie anti-evolution

a reply to: Snarl

Howdy,

I suppose this was your post in response to my Darwin's finches argument, yes?

If you accept that evolution happens, I find it silly to be arguing whether evolution happens. Yes, certainly scientists have already moved on to the "why" and the "how" it happens. Originally, competition was proposed with natural selection. It worked all right, being consistent with real behavior, and it was easy to model (still is). In reality, speciation often followed mass extinction events, suggesting that climate changes/environmental changes/ecosystem changes are more responsible for speciation than competition might be.

It does seem odd that most of the higher taxonomic units of life have existed for a very long time, until you consider the probability of things... Life fills the empty roles (niches) in an environment. When there are no roles to fill, then new life cannot adapt to fill those non-existent roles, can it? Now, certainly, higher levels of taxa have evolved, usually as a result of smaller species level changes and seemingly after large scale environmental changes. For example, look at mammals.
onlinelibrary.wiley.com...

What you refer to with species no longer breeding when diverged is perhaps the phenomenon known as ring species. I've seen it mentioned in bird populations, but not finches. Below is some basic info and a short article on the topic.
en.wikipedia.org...
scholar.google.com...
(In the above link, I was referring specifically to the warbler paper, third one down. Click on the PDF link on the far right to access the article.)

You can call Darwin's finches "slight deviations" if you wish, but do know that in science the biological definition of species holds true to these finches. They are all different species, some different genera, of finch related to one ancestral organism. This is the definition of speciation and is evolution. You cannot walk around the scientific definitions and simply say that it is not so. You are truly moving goalposts when you say that, "Ah, these finches are defined as different species, even genera (a higher taxonomic unit, like you ask for), and they are all related, but this is not evolution, despite it being the definition of evolution..."

Yes, hoaxes can fool the uneducated. That's what happens, and certainly you might still be under the influence of some of these hoaxes that claim to refute evolution or what have you (certainly some people reading this are, if you are not). Scientists clear these shrouds of ignorance around the hoax, they bring hoaxes and hoaxers to light with science.

Scientists are very much focused on discovering the true "causes" of speciation. Geographic isolation, natural selection, and large scale ecological changes seem to be correlated. Currently, my paleontology professor has been doing research on populations dealing with paleoclimatic changes... The information is out there if you want to look for it.

Yes, the temperature dependence of gender for alligators is genetic. You can even see some temperature dependent affects in mortality rates in birds.
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

Yet, this doesn't change anything. They are still different species... This is still evolution.

Sincere regards,
Hydeman

a reply to: hydeman11

Hello Hydeman,

Let's examine one classic understanding. You've got a beetle. It's genetically coded to be either green or brown. There's bunches of them ... both colors. We introduce birds into the equation and they can easily spot the green ones. The birds wipe out all of the green beetles and move on. A decade later the beetles are green and brown again. Now, was that mutation, adaptation or natural selection? Was the recurrence of green beetles something God wanted (so he re-Created them) or de-Evolution.

Yes, hoaxes can fool the uneducated. That's what happens, and certainly you might still be under the influence of some of these hoaxes that claim to refute evolution or what have you (certainly some people reading this are, if you are not). Scientists clear these shrouds of ignorance around the hoax, they bring hoaxes and hoaxers to light with science.

Watch out for the agenda. That's what hammers the young and naïve. I'd estimate more than 99% of the folks I meet never heard the Piltdown Chicken was a ruse. It's not that they're uneducated, it's that they heard something interesting, noted it, and moved forward in their own fields of endeavor. In fact, I was unaware it had been debunked until I started participating earnestly in this thread ... and I am far from uneducated ... a bit dated though. LOL

This may sound unremarkable to you. You're in school, you're bright, and you've got the entire world laid out at your feet. Where do you see yourself 40 years from now? I hope you'll remember our exchange, as you realize the evolutionary debate progressed less than the distance you could measure between your thumb and forefinger. Might even take a full step backwards and still be 'called' progress. It all comes down to $$$.

a reply to: Snarl

Howdy,

Ah, beetles and natural selection. A classic example, and a good one for explaining the basics. Very nice choice.

To answer why the colour of a beetle may reappear in a population from which it was lost, we need to look at genetics. Let's start with meiosis. Basically a splitting of diploid cells to form two haploid cells. For our purposes, let's just say these haploid cells become gametes directly.
en.wikipedia.org...

Now, you'll notice that the genetic information inherited by a child is only half of what is held by the parents (less, if you include mutation and other processes that can alter the DNA). Now, phenotype (physical appearance) is determined by genotype (usually, not always), so the genes passed on by the parents determine the characteristics of the offspring.

To discuss this, we need to look at alleles...
en.wikipedia.org...

Of importance to note from the above link, there exist "dominant" alleles and "recessive" alleles. When a dominant allele is inherited, it will almost invariably be displayed in the offspring. This is true in the case of the offspring inheriting two dominant alleles and in the case of one dominant, one recessive. Now, in order for recessive trait phenotypes to be observed, the offspring needs to inherit two recessive alleles. This is often demonstrated by a Punnett square.
en.wikipedia.org...

Also note, that sometimes multiple genes affect the same physical trait, as is the nature of human eye colour. That said, it works the same way, basically. For an example, say my father had brown eyes and my mother had blue eyes. Now, say I had blue eyes. This must mean that my father is carrying the genetic information for blue eyes while displaying the dominant physical characteristic of brown eyes.

To be more to the point, what if a child with blue eyes was born to two parents with brown eyes? If the paternity test says the child is the father's, it is perhaps safe to say that both parents have the recessive alleles and both passed them to the offspring.

See, genetics isn't all about mutation or "devolution" (not a thing, really), it's about probability. I know a lot of people don't like probability, but that's how the world works. If a colour of beetles returns to a population it is not devolution, but evolution with one less selective pressure, or a change occurred. For example, the beetles continue giving birth to some green, some brown offspring, but the birds that selectively eat the green ones have all died from some unknown variable. The result would be a mix of the coloured beetles in the population. This is still natural selection occurring, it's just the loss of a "selector," so to speak.

As for the hoax thing, you're kinda proving my point then. You were still under the influence of a hoaxer, one which was disproved by scientists AND skeptical peoples. If people are ignorant of something, then they are uneducated in the field. That is truth. I don't mean to say you've never had an education, merely that you lack one in the current information, thus making you (or anyone this pertains to) ignorant of you. And no, ignorance is not necessarily a bad thing. It is when people make claims/arguments/demands from ignorance that is bad.

You aren't a bad person, I get that. You're actually listening and arguing for some things (although I must say I do not think you have provided sufficient evidence for your claims against mine, but I will chalk that up to self-bias...). This isn't me just talking to a brick wall, and I'm fine with admitting that I am still young and naive in a lot of ways. But the way you speak of the theory of evolution just resounds with ignorance (not a bad thing) of the modern studies relevant to the topic. Certainly it may be the case that you were once very educated in the field, but if you don't stay current, the world rushes past you, and you end up ignorant of modern theory.

There is no cash to be had in "proving" evolution true, except in fields such as medicine, where evolution being true would be beneficial to making medicines/treatments. What other money would come of the study of evolution? Academics don't make much, do they? They could have spent their lives going into the private sector and making more money than any research would make them. For example, paleontologists could go work for oil companies looking at microfossils and finding oil reserves if they wanted the money. (And let me tell you, there is good money in fossil fuels. >.>) When I see scientists studying biology, paleontology, evolution in any field, I see people passionate about learning how the world works. Sometimes they're wrong, but I don't personally know a single scientist who doesn't actively seek the truth.

Sincere regards,
Hydeman

originally posted by: Snarl

Let's examine one classic understanding. You've got a beetle. It's genetically coded to be either green or brown. There's bunches of them ... both colors. We introduce birds into the equation and they can easily spot the green ones. The birds wipe out all of the green beetles and move on. A decade later the beetles are green and brown again. Now, was that mutation, adaptation or natural selection? Was the recurrence of green beetles something God wanted (so he re-Created them) or de-Evolution.

I think your question here is entirely valid and also illustrates a rather common misunderstanding about evolution, that its got to be a one or the other proposition. I think, based on my own education and research, that evolution can be and is more often than not, influenced by multiple factors. In your example with the beetles, the birds ability to more easily spot the green beetles is a classic example of natural selection. Once the birds have decimated the population of green beetle, what then becomes their new source of sustenance? Do they switch to a new insect? If that is the case I would likely attribute the reemergence of the green colored beetles into the population of brown beetles to recessive genes. basically, the birds have moved on and the scant few green beetles that were able to survive continue breeding with the brown colored guys or even if all of the original green population were eliminated, the brown beetles would still carry the gene for green colored offspring. Once there is no longer a threat they are able to survive to maturity and reproduce, adding more of that gene to the beetle population. Once the population recovers sufficiently however, the cycle is likely to begin anew. One thing it would not be is an example of DE-evolution as there isn't such a thing. Evolution isn't always about moving in a particular direction, its about trying to get your genetics to survive long enough to pass those genes down to successful offspring. It doesn't always work out that way though because we're only focusing on the beetles who are the prey and there are also multiple variables within the predator population to examine. Honestly, we could go on all day long about this and there's probably enough here for a long-term study and eventual publication.

Watch out for the agenda. That's what hammers the young and naïve. I'd estimate more than 99% of the folks I meet never heard the Piltdown Chicken was a ruse. It's not that they're uneducated, it's that they heard something interesting, noted it, and moved forward in their own fields of endeavor. In fact, I was unaware it had been debunked until I started participating earnestly in this thread ... and I am far from uneducated ... a bit dated though. LOL

another excellent point. The level of education or intelligence, at the end of the day, doesn't always have the amount of impact on given scenario as most want to think. The ever missing concept of due diligence, which isn't limited by either education or intelligence is going to be the defining factor a lot of times. Who has the drive to continue to look a little farther at a problem or situation. Piltdown is a rather prescient example because I see it brought up and cited with alarming frequency and its been debunked for decades and was considered suspect right from the start.

This may sound unremarkable to you. You're in school, you're bright, and you've got the entire world laid out at your feet. Where do you see yourself 40 years from now? I hope you'll remember our exchange, as you realize the evolutionary debate progressed less than the distance you could measure between your thumb and forefinger. Might even take a full step backwards and still be 'called' progress. It all comes down to $$$.

this I don't know that I'm going to so readily agree with you on. In the decade and a half since I've been out of school, the world and knowledge of anthropology and evolutionary biology has changed rather dramatically in many ways, mostly in regards to what we know, or at least what we think we know for the moment as well as the tools we have to make better assessments of things being found. just my 2 cents

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
Ok for the purpose of this OT, let's assume that evolution isn't true and that the counterpoint, Creationism, is true. We will also assume for the purposes of this exercise that with one being untrue that the other is true.

If evolution isn't true, then that must mean that God creates animal species whole and just deposits them onto the planet, correct? Now we know for a fact through uncovering fossils 99% of all animals on the planet are extinct. Also with 5 mass extinctions throughout history, there had to be points where God repopulated the earth with new animals. Heck scientists are discovering new species of animals all the time. So my question for the Creationists is, if evolution isn't true and God just magics species whole onto the planet, where is the evidence of this occurring? Why has no one seen this happen?

A whole species appearing on the planet would be quite an event, so naturally SOMEONE should have mentioned this. Yet we see nobody saying this. Even religious people aren't exclaiming that they've seen animals suddenly appearing whole on the planet. There are people all over the planet, shouldn't SOMEONE have seen this happen? Many breeds of modern dogs wouldn't be able to survive in the wild. So it reasons that at least THAT species should have been witnessed to its creation. But no mention of this. Even in the ancient texts.

Also, if your counterpoint is that god only created animals once, I'd say that is wrong since we do not see evidence of say the Megolodon and the Mammoth existing in the same time periods. So it therefore reasons that god is creating new animals all the time. So I ask again, where is the evidence that new species are being created and deposited on the earth? Fair's fair Creationists, you guys spend countless hours demanding evidence (that you ignore) from people who recognize evolution as true, so it's your turn to provide the evidence for your side of things.

Why does it have to be Evolution or Creationism? Neither one can stand on their own without leaving questions. It makes more sense that it is combination of both. God's creative technique in time/space is evolution. In the spiritual world God does create "whole" beings. Fully endowed. The point of evolution/experience is that nothing can replace actual experience. So the type of beings we are destined to become will be something different than the "whole" beings God has already created. If you look at it from this angle basically evolution is a super complex bio-chemical self-adapting program. The spiritual beings entrusted with this technology bring it to the planets that are favorable for the type of life projected. They are able to assemble the necessary requisites for life, but do not initial life. God supplies the "spark" of life, turns the dead matter into living matter. These spiritual beings then attempt to foster the genetically superior species throughout the early epochs of life. Once a species reaches the advanced stages of mind, worship and wisdom, these spiritual beings terminate their influence. Intelligent life has been initiated on another planet.

If you would like to know more about this read about it in the Urantia Book. (www.urantia.org...)

a reply to: UB2120

That sounds really snazzy of you're a god fearing human but doesn't really take into account every other form of life that's been here the past few billion years.

I just have to say; Peter Vlar and Hydeman. You guys are on fire today! Awesome responses! I don't even have to touch this one! I loved the detailed analysis. Well done.

a reply to: Barcs

Thanks, I appreciate the kind words. It's always a little humbling when praise is given by a poster who I can honestly say I've learned a thing or two from. While it's all fine and good to hop up on my soapbox and pontificate from time to time, the main reason I come here is to learn and keep up with what's going on with the field behind that piece of paper I have framed over in the corner that should hopefully be paid off this year. Every once in awhile I know what I'm talking about, today just happened to be one of my better days lol

originally posted by: Barcs
I just have to say; Peter Vlar and Hydeman. You guys are on fire today! Awesome responses! I don't even have to touch this one! I loved the detailed analysis. Well done.

That's what I love about the tail-ends of threads. Cheerleaders and consensus abound.

a reply to: Snarl

Howdy,

If you disagree with the consensus, please argue against the evidence presented and pay no mind to those who are in agreement. I certainly agree with you that there is little merit in consensus, except when consensus is based in evidence, which those refutations to your posts were.

I mean, if you believe I'm not reading your replies and merely agreeing with those others with similar viewpoints to my own, I ask you look at the structure of my replies and see how each paragraph I wrote directly responds to one or two of those written by yourself. That's the essence of how logical discussions/debates work, right? I tried to address all of your questions about evolution with the mainstream view. If you wish to make a claim, you need to provide evidence to justify it.

Sincere regards,
Hydeman

originally posted by: hydeman11
a reply to: Snarl

Howdy,

I suppose this was your post in response to my Darwin's finches argument, yes?

If you accept that evolution happens, I find it silly to be arguing whether evolution happens. Yes, certainly scientists have already moved on to the "why" and the "how" it happens. Originally, competition was proposed with natural selection. It worked all right, being consistent with real behavior, and it was easy to model (still is). In reality, speciation often followed mass extinction events, suggesting that climate changes/environmental changes/ecosystem changes are more responsible for speciation than competition might be.

It does seem odd that most of the higher taxonomic units of life have existed for a very long time, until you consider the probability of things... Life fills the empty roles (niches) in an environment. When there are no roles to fill, then new life cannot adapt to fill those non-existent roles, can it? Now, certainly, higher levels of taxa have evolved, usually as a result of smaller species level changes and seemingly after large scale environmental changes. For example, look at mammals.
onlinelibrary.wiley.com...

What you refer to with species no longer breeding when diverged is perhaps the phenomenon known as ring species. I've seen it mentioned in bird populations, but not finches. Below is some basic info and a short article on the topic.
en.wikipedia.org...
scholar.google.com...
(In the above link, I was referring specifically to the warbler paper, third one down. Click on the PDF link on the far right to access the article.)

You can call Darwin's finches "slight deviations" if you wish, but do know that in science the biological definition of species holds true to these finches. They are all different species, some different genera, of finch related to one ancestral organism. This is the definition of speciation and is evolution. You cannot walk around the scientific definitions and simply say that it is not so. You are truly moving goalposts when you say that, "Ah, these finches are defined as different species, even genera (a higher taxonomic unit, like you ask for), and they are all related, but this is not evolution, despite it being the definition of evolution..."

Yes, hoaxes can fool the uneducated. That's what happens, and certainly you might still be under the influence of some of these hoaxes that claim to refute evolution or what have you (certainly some people reading this are, if you are not). Scientists clear these shrouds of ignorance around the hoax, they bring hoaxes and hoaxers to light with science.

Scientists are very much focused on discovering the true "causes" of speciation. Geographic isolation, natural selection, and large scale ecological changes seem to be correlated. Currently, my paleontology professor has been doing research on populations dealing with paleoclimatic changes... The information is out there if you want to look for it.

Yes, the temperature dependence of gender for alligators is genetic. You can even see some temperature dependent affects in mortality rates in birds.
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

Yet, this doesn't change anything. They are still different species... This is still evolution.

Sincere regards,
Hydeman

when did it happen?
evolution. when did they see it happen from the time of darwin till now?
I am just curious!

originally posted by: Snarl

originally posted by: Barcs
I just have to say; Peter Vlar and Hydeman. You guys are on fire today! Awesome responses! I don't even have to touch this one! I loved the detailed analysis. Well done.

That's what I love about the tail-ends of threads. Cheerleaders and consensus abound.

I learned a few things that I wasn't currently aware of in regards to evolution, so to me that's a win. That's essentially the reason I'm here. I was thinking about responding to your post to me, but they covered it much better than I would have, so I have to give props where it is due. Hopefully you can present some of your own sources to back up what you are saying so I can learn from you as well

a reply to: viibird

In Dr Lenski's lab, over a period of 20 years and 60,000 generations of E. coli we have witnessed a variety of genetic changes and adaptations tat continue to evolve.

In 1971, ten Italian wall lizards were introduced to the island of Pod Mrčaru from a neighboring island. The lizards were left for decades, and compared to the colony from which they were taken. The wall lizards on Pod Mrčaru, having passed through a tiny genetic bottleneck, were found to have thrived and adapted to their new island. They were found to have shifted from a mainly insectivorous diet to one heavy in vegetation.

We've seen 3 toed skinks evolve from laying eggs to giving live birth

Peppered moths are a rather famous example.

And of course Darwin's finches, just to name a few off the top of my head.

a reply to: Snarl

It's not about cheerleading or ass kissing. It's about sharing knowledge and learning from others as opposed to perpetuating ignorance. But hey...whatever you fancy isn't really any of my business I guess. Besides, they say ignorance is bliss so who am I to deny someone else their happiness?

originally posted by: peter vlar
a reply to: viibird

In Dr Lenski's lab, over a period of 20 years and 60,000 generations of E. coli we have witnessed a variety of genetic changes and adaptations tat continue to evolve.

In 1971, ten Italian wall lizards were introduced to the island of Pod Mrčaru from a neighboring island. The lizards were left for decades, and compared to the colony from which they were taken. The wall lizards on Pod Mrčaru, having passed through a tiny genetic bottleneck, were found to have thrived and adapted to their new island. They were found to have shifted from a mainly insectivorous diet to one heavy in vegetation.

We've seen 3 toed skinks evolve from laying eggs to giving live birth

Peppered moths are a rather famous example.

And of course Darwin's finches, just to name a few off the top of my head.

the wikipedia page about dr Lenski experiment resulted in germs that are less able to survive in stationary (like e coli life in stool) the e coli will not survive long enough to be able to use such changes to oxegen. So from the point of view of the e coli it was damaged in the lab, to become a strain that can only survive in a stressful situation but cannot survive in normal situation, wouldnt that be evolution towards destruction, and would lab be considered a natuiral environment or a creation lab, where dr linki is the creator

a reply to: peter vlar

Besides, they say ignorance is bliss so who am I to deny someone else their happiness?

In your reply, just before the one to me ... did you not perpetuate another hoax/fraud/stretch as a 'famous example'? I mean, you have to be aware of Kettlewell's practices to 'really' wallow in your version of happiness. Your credibility just took a major hit.

Might want to refresh your memory on the definition of the Scientific Method ... especially if you're planning to associate a member (other than yourself) with ignorance. Quite fascinating these discussions of soft science. True character comes alive even if you mask it in subtlety.

-Cheers

a reply to: viibird

The idea was to change the species and to adapt to whatever enviroment the scientists made for it. The fact that the new strain can no longer survive outside the environment the scientists created is irrelevant. If a fish like species that lives under the water, evolves to live on land, we don't expect it to continue to live in the water.

originally posted by: peter vlar
a reply to: UB2120

That sounds really snazzy of you're a god fearing human but doesn't really take into account every other form of life that's been here the past few billion years.

How do you figure that? It takes into account all forms of life. From the most primitive to the most advanced on this world or any other world.

By the way, I am not a God fearing person. I am a God loving, respecting person. The purposed theories of evolution and creation as discussed by most people today only refer to this planet. The information in the Urantia Book discuss this process on a universal scale. As we will one day find out, the universe is teeming with life, intelligent life.

originally posted by: UB2120

originally posted by: peter vlar
a reply to: UB2120

That sounds really snazzy of you're a god fearing human but doesn't really take into account every other form of life that's been here the past few billion years.

How do you figure that? It takes into account all forms of life. From the most primitive to the most advanced on this world or any other world.

By the way, I am not a God fearing person. I am a God loving, respecting person. The purposed theories of evolution and creation as discussed by most people today only refer to this planet. The information in the Urantia Book discuss this process on a universal scale. As we will one day find out, the universe is teeming with life, intelligent life.

That isn't entirely true. There is no reason to assume that the natural laws of how evolution works don't apply to life outside our world. Extremophiles lend credence to this idea since these are lifeforms that have evolved to live in conditions that are almost alien to the majority conditions on this planet.

a reply to: Snarl
Are you referring to the peppered moths? Then you might want to do a little further research as Kettlewell's research was not a hoax and has been validated.

whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com...

You might want to make sure your own fly is zipped before you start pointing and laughing at someone else prematurely.

paulbraterman.wordpress.com...