Evolution

[Arioch]

I'm curious... after reading a few things about it I want to ask two questions.

What is the scientific *proof* that evolution is real. What is the scientific proof that it's real? Experiments? Anything?

And what evidence works against evolution? Which problems does evolution still have to explain (scientifically)? For example the fossil gap.

I'm open minded. and I do what to collect evidence that both supports it and doubts it.

[Claverhouse]

Ditto, ditto, ditto.
:D


Claverhouse :ph34r:

[Lucas]

What is the scientific *proof* that evolution is real. What is the scientific proof that it's real? Experiments? Anything?

And what evidence works against evolution? Which problems does evolution still have to explain (scientifically)? For example the fossil gap.

I'm open minded. and I do what to collect evidence that both supports it and doubts it.

To ask for scientific proof is to misunderstand what science is. Science never proves anything. Evolutionary hypotheses are not based on ultimate truths. Anyone with training in scientific inquiry knows that it is concievable that evolutionary hypotheses could be wrong. A century from now biologists and geologists could explain life origins with different hypotheses. Science is not infallible. In fact, the key to the scientific method is fallability. Systematically testable hypotheses are what seperates it from other sources of knowledge.

I don't have time or energy to write an essay about evolution or the nature of science here, I just want to say that the theory of evolution has been found to be very strong. The evidence that supports this theory has held up this far, beyond a reasonable doubt. The only scientific argument against evolution is that of the scientific creationists, which has been found over and over again to be un-scientific, as it is a literal interpretation of biblical sources(extremely subjective interpretion of information) and not based on the scientific method.


Thats my three cents anyways,

-Lucas[/b]

[Aryan]

Evolution is not real but NATURAL lol
It has to happen, think about it !

:D

[Boozer]

What is the scientific *proof* that evolution is real. What is the scientific proof that it's real? Experiments? Anything?

And what evidence works against evolution? Which problems does evolution still have to explain (scientifically)? For example the fossil gap.

I'm open minded. and I do what to collect evidence that both supports it and doubts it.

To ask for scientific proof is to misunderstand what science is. Science never proves anything. Evolutionary hypotheses are not based on ultimate truths. Anyone with training in scientific inquiry knows that it is concievable that evolutionary hypotheses could be wrong. A century from now biologists and geologists could explain life origins with different hypotheses. Science is not infallible. In fact, the key to the scientific method is fallability. Systematically testable hypotheses are what seperates it from other sources of knowledge.

I don't have time or energy to write an essay about evolution or the nature of science here, I just want to say that the theory of evolution has been found to be very strong. The evidence that supports this theory has held up this far, beyond a reasonable doubt. The only scientific argument against evolution is that of the scientific creationists, which has been found over and over again to be un-scientific, as it is a literal interpretation of biblical sources(extremely subjective interpretion of information) and not based on the scientific method.


Thats my three cents anyways,

-Lucas[/b]

Nice *high five*
:sombrero:

[indczn]

To ask for scientific proof is to misunderstand what science is. Science never proves anything. Evolutionary hypotheses are not based on ultimate truths. Anyone with training in scientific inquiry knows that it is concievable that evolutionary hypotheses could be wrong. A century from now biologists and geologists could explain life origins with different hypotheses. Science is not infallible. In fact, the key to the scientific method is fallability. Systematically testable hypotheses are what seperates it from other sources of knowledge.

I don't have time or energy to write an essay about evolution or the nature of science here, I just want to say that the theory of evolution has been found to be very strong. The evidence that supports this theory has held up this far, beyond a reasonable doubt. The only scientific argument against evolution is that of the scientific creationists, which has been found over and over again to be un-scientific, as it is a literal interpretation of biblical sources(extremely subjective interpretion of information) and not based on the scientific method.


Thats my three cents anyways,

-Lucas[/b]

My thoughts exactly. Good post.

[Tatsuboshi]

To ask for scientific proof is to misunderstand what science is. Science never proves anything. Evolutionary hypotheses are not based on ultimate truths. Anyone with training in scientific inquiry knows that it is concievable that evolutionary hypotheses could be wrong. A century from now biologists and geologists could explain life origins with different hypotheses. Science is not infallible. In fact, the key to the scientific method is fallability. Systematically testable hypotheses are what seperates it from other sources of knowledge.

I don't have time or energy to write an essay about evolution or the nature of science here, I just want to say that the theory of evolution has been found to be very strong. The evidence that supports this theory has held up this far, beyond a reasonable doubt. The only scientific argument against evolution is that of the scientific creationists, which has been found over and over again to be un-scientific, as it is a literal interpretation of biblical sources(extremely subjective interpretion of information) and not based on the scientific method.


Thats my three cents anyways,

-Lucas[/b]

Just thought I'd chip in with a "Bravo". :thumbup:

[Arioch]

What is the scientific *proof* that evolution is real. What is the scientific proof that it's real? Experiments? Anything?

And what evidence works against evolution? Which problems does evolution still have to explain (scientifically)? For example the fossil gap.

I'm open minded. and I do what to collect evidence that both supports it and doubts it.

To ask for scientific proof is to misunderstand what science is. Science never proves anything. Evolutionary hypotheses are not based on ultimate truths. Anyone with training in scientific inquiry knows that it is concievable that evolutionary hypotheses could be wrong. A century from now biologists and geologists could explain life origins with different hypotheses. Science is not infallible. In fact, the key to the scientific method is fallability. Systematically testable hypotheses are what seperates it from other sources of knowledge.

I don't have time or energy to write an essay about evolution or the nature of science here, I just want to say that the theory of evolution has been found to be very strong. The evidence that supports this theory has held up this far, beyond a reasonable doubt. The only scientific argument against evolution is that of the scientific creationists, which has been found over and over again to be un-scientific, as it is a literal interpretation of biblical sources(extremely subjective interpretion of information) and not based on the scientific method.


Thats my three cents anyways,

-Lucas[/b]

This is how I see it from my point.

I myself have no proof whatsoever that evolution theory is backed up by facts. Meanwhile I only have a handfull of things that suggest that it is incorrect. That some of the facts that are suppose to back it up are false and that there are inaccuracies in the theory. I have put my personal beliefs through the ringer trying to find anything that I felt was false. I see no reason to not look over scientific theory in the same manner.

The argument that "the evidence that supports this theory has held up this far, beyond a reasonable doubt." leaves me almost as cold as "the Bible says that so and thats why it's true". Besides the fact that saying that a higher authority on the subject says so is a poor argument I also do not have faith in the ethical and objective standards of scientists who are above all human beings.

Scientists do not look at all the factors. Sometimes they must just assume something because it is "a theory that is known to be true". To do otherwise would cost far too much time.
Scientists have also been known to deliberately fabricate evidence. Sometimes I fear a theory can be a religion sometimes in the respect that some will do anything to defend it.

Anyhow the short summery is that I want to know whats behind it so I can see for myself. How does evolution cause different species to occur? What about the fossil gap? These are the questions I want answered. Otherwise I must remain skeptical

[Edit: I don't need anyone to write a essay. A weblink would also be nice.]

[Johnny]

Bah. Evolution is just the latest buzzword to apologize for our inability to explain these things without being obvious about it and getting laughed at...or am I wrong in asserting that Imbecilia has global aspirations? :lol:

:sombrero:

[Dunearhp]

Arioch:

Evolution/creationism resource
http://www.talkorigins.org/

The fossil gap
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html


I have put my personal beliefs through the ringer trying to find anything that I felt was false. I see no reason to not look over scientific theory in the same manner.

Good, here is a link to help
http://www.xenu.net/archive/baloney_detection.html

with further information
http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/


Scientists do not look at all the factors. Sometimes they must just assume something because it is "a theory that is known to be true". To do otherwise would cost far too much time.

That first statement is a fairly blanket statement, but true in many cases since it is hard to keep several fields in your head at once. This is why they use peer reviewed journals to publish their research. It allows them to submit their ideas to other people who can try to take the factors into account. Erroneous papers are either debunked, never cited or both.


Scientists have also been known to deliberately fabricate evidence

If they are caught, they lose respect and often find their career in tatters. The scientific community is very unforgiving of deception.


Evolution is a process that has been directly observed.
When two animal reproduce, they pass a mix of their genetic traits onto their offspring. Small random genetic mutations also occur in the offspring due to errors in the DNA copying/splicing process.

If the offspring are capable of surviving long enough to reproduce then they pass their traits onto the next generation.

Offspring that can't survive in their environment fail to reproduce. The characteristics that made them non-viable do not get passed to the next generation.

A couple of examples:
Antibiotic resistant bacteria. Those bacteria strong enough to survive an antibiotic become the parents of the next infection. This is why your doctor always tells you to complete your course of antibiotics. So that your body destroys the infection completely and you don't pass on strengthened bacteria to the next person.

Insects gain resistance to pesticides. New pesticides have to be developed continuously as insects evolve immunity to them.

If you want to know how we end up with different species, consider that the toy poodle, the bulldog and the greyhound all had the same common ancestor only a few thousand years ago. Breeding is evolution using human selection instead of natural selection.

[Arioch]

Thanks for the sites. I'll look at them later on.

Now however I have a few hours to learn how to cook. But hey I learned how to bake by myself so cooking shouldn't be too hard

[Almaviva]

The whole point of science is to constantly challenge assumptions and try to prove them wrong. Doing this to evolution is a good thing.

Evolution has been subject to more of this scrutiny than probably any other scientific theory (including Quantum Mechanics). The fact that it's now at the foundation of all forms of biology shows how successful the historical attempts to poke holes at it have been.

But the kind of thinking that's useless in science is when you have an agenda to prove, and try to find just some piece of data that a theory has trouble with, and then if it does, THIS MUST SUPPORT YOUR AGENDA.

Make no mistake, if some fact were discovered that evolution couldn't explain, then evolution would be wrong. Period. And scientists would accept this.

But the more you look at it, the more you realize that nobody who argues passionately against evolution is trying to put another theory at equal footing to it, and to make a genuine objective attempt to discover (without being pre-convinced of the outcome) which theory is a better fit to the facts. In other words, they're not doing science. This is a red flag for "baloney detection".

There's a standard battery of arguments that are used against evolution. These are nearly always either flat out wrong, or show a serious misunderstanding of the science involved. Examples include "therodynamics", the "watchmaker" argument, problems in the fossil record with transitional forms.

(Lest anyone actually using one of these arguments actually champion another theory that better explains why there are any transitional fossils at all, and open it up to possible holes!!)

One can easily come up with thousands of observed facts which evolution explains quite well and elegantly. Furthermore, evolution is clearly fact at least at one level: Many characteristics are hereditary and so populations will change depending on which characteristics better suit a changing environment.

[Xenophon]

I recently picked up the Book "Darwin's Ghost". I forget who wrote it, but it is an update on Darwin's theory by a modern biology professor. I have to say that it is VERY convincing in its arguments. Here are a few arguments that I think are particularily strong.

1) Darwin formulated the theory of evolution over a hundred years ago, it was without any of the biological knowledge that they have now, but it has been perfectly supported by all biological research that has been done in the past 150 years.

2) The discovery of DNA has been a HUGE boost to the theory, because it takes something that was just speculation based on Darwin's (very convincing) research, and gives it a mechanism.

3) The AIDS virus shows us evolution in action on a much smaller time scale. AIDS has two special properties that make it interesting: First, it multiplies very quickly. Second, it has a higher than normal defect rate when multiplying than normal virus'. There are some 14 varieties of AIDS in 2 major catergories and their evolutionary paths can be traced quite closely.

Obviously I am not a biology Ph. D. so I would recomend that you read the book Darwin's Ghost if you want more information. It certainly convinced me.

Xenophon

[Lucas]

I'm open minded. and I do want to collect evidence that both supports it and doubts it.

http://www.intpcentral.com/uploads/creation.gif


This sums it up very well.



-Lucas

[Arioch]

I'm open minded. and I do want to collect evidence that both supports it and doubts it.

http://www.intpcentral.com/uploads/creation.gif


This sums it up very well.



-Lucas

I've actually seen the creationist approach used for science. Ironically for evolution. Seemed they liked the idea of the theory so much they wanted it accepted wether the facts supported it or not.

Which does not make a theory more true or not.... but I found the thought amusing

[last_caress]

Evolution is the most reasonable explanation for the diversity of life on this planet.
Evolution does not preclude a creator, but seeks to use only data observable to us to form that explanation.
It attempts to offer a best guess as to WHAT is happening, not WHY.
It is based upon:
Overwhelmingly similar shared characteristics among animals, ie. body configuration, senses, brain configuration, locomotion, etc.
Support by our knowledge of genetics which is an empirically provable system.

Again for those with strong religious tendencies, evolution and religion are not necessarily mutually exclusive concepts.

[Arioch]

Evolution is the most reasonable explanation for the diversity of life on this planet.
Evolution does not preclude a creator, but seeks to use only data observable to us to form that explanation.
It attempts to offer a best guess as to WHAT is happening, not WHY.
It is based upon:
Overwhelmingly similar shared characteristics among animals, ie. body configuration, senses, brain configuration, locomotion, etc.
Support by our knowledge of genetics which is an empirically provable system.

Again for those with strong religious tendencies, evolution and religion are not necessarily mutually exclusive concepts.

I wonder about this. After all evolution did come from a rather atheistic point of view. How compatible is religion with evolution? Do people who want evolution advanced say it's compatible with religion to sway those who do want both? Do religious people who want their religion to be popular say that evolution is compatible?

I don't think the answers are that easy to find.

[Claverhouse]

Evolution is the most reasonable explanation for the diversity of life on this planet.
Evolution does not preclude a creator, but seeks to use only data observable to us to form that explanation.
It attempts to offer a best guess as to WHAT is happening, not WHY.
It is based upon:
Overwhelmingly similar shared characteristics among animals, ie. body configuration, senses, brain configuration, locomotion, etc.
Support by our knowledge of genetics which is an empirically provable system.

Again for those with strong religious tendencies, evolution and religion are not necessarily mutually exclusive concepts.

I wonder about this. After all evolution did come from a rather atheistic point of view. How compatible is religion with evolution? Do people who want evolution advanced say it's compatible with religion to sway those who do want both? Do religious people who want their religion to be popular say that evolution is compatible?

I don't think the answers are that easy to find.

And, do some atheists seize on evolution merely as a method of discrediting religion, which they --- for private, and often non-scientific reasons --- detest ? Like people becoming communists in the 30s to annoy their parents, and determining that Das Kapital must be right in order to maintain their stance.



Claverhouse :ph34r:

[jimkopelli]

Anyone read the new National Geo?
There's a pretty good article in there on evolution... tries to keep both sides happy, but leaning heavily towards evolution.

[Boneca]

First of all, I'm a biology student from a very secular country, so I admit to being biased from the beginning. I actually never met a creationist, but we read about them in school. ;)

What I don't understand is why people refuse to believe in evolution without having any other explanation, apart from biblical mythology.
If you believe that hard in biblical mythology, that's OK, but then science should be totally irrelevant to you. But if some scientist claims that this or that food colouring agent causes cancer, people readily believe it, even though religious people should believe that only God can cause cancer, right?
As people have pointed out before, science does not offer the truth, it only tries to find the most likely explanation. And what explanation for our existence have you found that is more likely than evolution?
The answer, as far as I know, is that there is no other rival theory that has any supporting facts. This doesn't mean that scientists want to prove the bible wrong, or that evolution is right, it just means that there are far more empirical data that supports evolution than supports the bible.

If someone can find enough empirical data to support a theory that humankind arrived on Earth in a spaceship from outer space, I'll believe that instead, but with the knowledge we have today, evolution is the most likely theory.

[Lucas]

I actually never met a creationist, but we read about them in school. ;)
Wow :blink: That must be really nice. Outside of a university setting I always feel like I'm being attacked for studying Anthropology and evolution.




.....humankind arrived on Earth in a spaceship from outer space, I'll believe that instead

Hey, according to the Raelians, thats what happened. www.rael.org :rofl:


-Lucas

[last_caress]

I wonder about this. After all evolution did come from a rather atheistic point of view. How compatible is religion with evolution? Do people who want evolution advanced say it's compatible with religion to sway those who do want both? Do religious people who want their religion to be popular say that evolution is compatible?

I don't think the answers are that easy to find.

I don't give a rats ass what evolutionists or creationsists want.
It isn't a matter of advancing one agenda over another, it's about remaining open minded in light of incomplete data.
Evolution has the advantage of being able infer based upon continuously observable phenomena. Theistic models have word of mouth and books.
I know what I trust more.
So look though, it's pretty simple and heres why:
What if it were CREATED to work in the manner which we describe as evolution?
Just because we can split an atom, and understand elementary physics/biology etc. does not mean the universe wasn't created to work according to a set of rules.
It also doesn't mean it was.

Note: When I say created, I mean WITH INTENT by some force/being etc.
Multiple raindrops create a puddle, but the raindrops had no intent.

[Claverhouse]

Yeah, I feel the same way. Basically it doesn't matter, evolution doesn't prove or disprove God: my problem is with those who illogically assume it does.

[ Which, neatly, includes both creationists and evolutionists ].



Claverhouse

[CosmicDust]

I don't think evolutionists all believe that evolution disproves God...I favor evolution and don't think it disproves God. I had a born-again friend/classmate who thought that the Biblical Creation story did a good job of matching evolution in terms of the order in which the creatures were made (by God through the evolutionary process). What evolutionists usually believe is that evolution disproves *creationism* in the classic fundie style.

[mgb]

I find science and religion to be followed just as feverently as one another. It takes as much faith to believe in God as it does to believe that the universe was created by a giant explosion.

The one thing I have learned about science over the years was probably the thing that turned me away from it. It constantly evolves under new theories so you can really never know what is right or not. Something that is absolute fact today might not be tomorrow. I mean, we used to have a pudding model of the atom, now its a cloud model, one day it might be superstrings holding the electrons on.

Religion is just lunacy (to me). My favorite part of modern religion is using science to prove that religious ideas are right. I think that is hilariously ironic. They have their Bible, I think they should stick with that and just believe, have faith in what you believe in because its pretty difficult to prove a lot of what the Bible contains (as a historical piece its pretty unmatched, which is the problem, there aren't a lot of texts to back up what it says).

As for "proof" that evolution is real...you just have to have faith in science that it is. By that I mean you just have to have belief in the research of the past and the present and faith that more will be found in the future.

[Johnny]

I find science and religion to be followed just as feverently as one another. It takes as much faith to believe in God as it does to believe that the universe was created by a giant explosion.

Perhaps, but the problem to me is all about exercising control over one with the other. Both religion and science can offer mechanisms for inquiry into wonderfully rich and fulfilling worlds. I would never wish to supress one with the intent of honoring the other...or have to decide on the merits of some scientific pursuit with respect to human dignity and the sanctity of life...they are hard questions for me because they are ultimately social control questions...for the spin doctors, of course, it's a piece of cake...LOL

[Lucas]

incomplete data....... Evolution has the advantage of being able infer based upon continuously observable phenomena.
Is there any solid data supporting creationism?




What if it were CREATED to work in the manner which we describe as evolution?


This is exactly what the pope said about evolution. He claims that evolutionary processes do occur, but that in the time period that anthropologists call "The Great Leap Forward", (around 40,000 years ago) god injected the human soul into early homo sapiens. This is the time when humans are believed to developed the ability to form syntax and all the cultural glory that has followed.

-Lucas

[Edmond Zedo]

Logic, anyone? Hello?

[Lucas]

Logic, anyone? Hello?

huh?

[Johnny]

Logic, anyone? Hello?
Waiting on you...

[codeElemental]

I was glad to see that talkorigins was already mentioned, but in addition to the links given by Dunearhp, I'd like to point out a specific article on there about evolution as fact and theory, stating that it's occurrence is obvious and well supported, and therefore is fact, but various mechanisms in the past aren't quite as well hammered out, and thus qualify as theory... an interesting and not overlong read anyway.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html

As for the "debate between evolution and creationism" I have to say I'm utterly baffled. Creationism has absolutely no supporting evidence whatsoever, no observable processes, and no obvious mechanism other than a book written millenia ago, which to me seems like basing my views on creation on The Illiad, or some other historical work. So the argument seems pointless. One is a scientific theory, one is a religious story. One belongs in schools, the other in churches. Where's the debate? It should be a non-issue at this point.

[Edmond Zedo]

Waiting on you...

Evolution is such a no-brainer with current knowledge, I continue to be frustrated by debates on it. Even realizing that most people aren't skilled thinkers. I've gone into great detail and made many points over the years, but I'm just worn out.

[Johnny]

Evolution is such a no-brainer with current knowledge...I'm just worn out.I'm no enemy of change or new ideas, EZ. In fact I'm quite happy to see, say, current genetic research argue for the entire human race's common ancestry over the last 50,000 years or so. But your argument - only those with no brains would reject evolution...my laziness to support my claim clearly evidences this - doesn't display much strength.

Care to try another argument?

[SheepDog]

I find science and religion to be followed just as feverently as one another. It takes as much faith to believe in God as it does to believe that the universe was created by a giant explosion.

The one thing I have learned about science over the years was probably the thing that turned me away from it. It constantly evolves under new theories so you can really never know what is right or not. Something that is absolute fact today might not be tomorrow. I mean, we used to have a pudding model of the atom, now its a cloud model, one day it might be superstrings holding the electrons on.

I've been thinking about this a bit. I think that the idea that science is going around proving things is an idea that exists outside of science and is often (mis)applied to it. Science is FULL of theories, and very few things that it claims to be fact. The burden of "proof" is very, very high, as it should be.

The problem I have with science is that it is good at some things, and bad at others, and instead of acknowledging that, there is an assumption that what it is good at is all that matters. For example, quantifying things is often pretty easy. You can find all kinds of ways to count or measure things, so experiments and theories get tied to these things quite often. I like to think that there are things that can be known, but not measured. Science ignores things that it cannot test objectively, and dismisses subjectivity pretty much altogether. Social sciences are a wierd hybrid because they try to count things that are subjective, and try to make generalizations about them. I find that to be a wierd distortion.

I know this hinges on the thought that you can know things that you cannot measure. If you don't agree with that, then I doubt you'd have this objection to science in general.

Which ties me back to your first paragraph, which talks about faith. Science, like religion, requires faith in it's underlying assumptions. Each of these two realms of thought build on their respective assumptions, and I think faith is the step it takes to believe those assumptions.

In the evolution-vs-creation debate, either one requires a "first act". Who created god? Who created the matter (or energy) that became the big bang?

I may never know.

[songbird36]

Yeah, I feel the same way. Basically it doesn't matter, evolution doesn't prove or disprove God: my problem is with those who illogically assume it does.

[ Which, neatly, includes both creationists and evolutionists ].



Claverhouse

If the creation stories in the Bible are regarded as metaphorical (which creation stories are in many other religions) then creationism and evolution are not necessarily mutually exclusive.

That said, it is difficult to see how the Bibical creation stories can be reconciled with evolutionary events such as the transition from simple to complex life forms (bacteria, amoeba, molluscs etc to the animal and human kingdom). Bibical accounts of creation seem to miss out a few of these steps, and to presuppose a leap from nothing at all, to complex life.

A lot of the early Old Testament stories are derived from the Sumerian/Babylonian religious mythology (in which there were many gods) - as the OT Jews came originally from the area which is now Iran/Iraq. I think you'd have to delve a lot more deeply into those ancient religious traditions to gain an understanding of what sorts of processes and time frames the Bibical creation lore is supposed to represent.

[songbird36]

Social sciences are a wierd hybrid because they try to count things that are subjective, and try to make generalizations about them. I find that to be a wierd distortion.

.

Agree totally with this. While I don't dispute its value in some contexts, the MB type indicator (and other psychometric testing) falls into this "quasi science" category also. In another discussion thread my suggestion that it may be unreliable to put a definitive MB label onto a deceased historical figure, was met with outrage. However it does seem to me that social sciences (and psychology in particular) are increasingly purporting to be able to measure things that are inherently incapable of being measured, or which are unsuitable to objective measurement.

[SheepDog]

Too often, "facts" get in the way of understanding. :devil:

[Edmond Zedo]

I'm no enemy of change or new ideas, EZ. In fact I'm quite happy to see, say, current genetic research argue for the entire human race's common ancestry over the last 50,000 years or so. But your argument - only those with no brains would reject evolution...my laziness to support my claim clearly evidences this - doesn't display much strength.

Care to try another argument?

It amuses me that I have the energy to refute this post, but not to discuss evolution. Let me begin.

Firstly: That is an example of twisting another's words beyond sense. A "no-brainer" is "something so simple or easy as to require no thought" (dictionary.com). It refers not to one less a brain; It is an expression. Furthermore, I did not state that my laziness was related to the validity of anything.

Secondly: I made it clear (To some, I suppose) that my position wasn't going to be backed up, and it wasn't meant to have "strength." You are correct; It displays none.

Thirdly: I'm NT, you're NF. We don't think the same way. One will never convince the other of anything. And my assessment, based on what you've said, and NFs I've known before is this: Many things you might have an interest in studying is already, to me, perfectly laid out and clear without effort in thought.

Lastly: At this time, I would rather think of other things than details of debates or dissections I've performed hundreds of times. If one trusted my intellect, which I don't ask one to, one could just take my word for it. After all is said and done, I'd stake everything I'll ever have on the basic correctness of the theory of evolution, and I am staking life eternal on the position that there's no knowable god.

[Johnny]

No problem, EZ. Post what you see fit and enjoy the debates that spring forth.

[Lucas]

However it does seem to me that social sciences (and psychology in particular) are increasingly purporting to be able to measure things that are inherently incapable of being measured, or which are unsuitable to objective measurement.

Yeah, the social sciences are unique. They're unique because human behavior and the brain are unbelievably complex and varied. They require a slightly different method(s) for studying them. I don't agree that psychology isn't scientific, it just isn't based on the model of the hard sciences. Psychology relies mainly on empirical quantitative data, but like you mentioned, it becomes tricky when dealing with something so varied and complex.

Cultural Anthropology(my specialty) on the other hand is very debatable because it mainly relies on qualitative analysis--ethnography. There is the school of thought that believes that C. anthro has been, and continues to be scientific, and thus should be modeled on the natural sciences. Then there are the postmodernists who claim it solely involves cultural interpretation and should be in the humanities.

I think qualitative research can be scientific, AND it can also be a more subjective process, something that belongs in the humanities. I think the same could be said(to varying degrees) about other disciplines in the social sciences.

-Lucas

[Psycherry]

Agree totally with this. While I don't dispute its value in some contexts, the MB type indicator (and other psychometric testing) falls into this "quasi science" category also. In another discussion thread my suggestion that it may be unreliable to put a definitive MB label onto a deceased historical figure, was met with outrage. However it does seem to me that social sciences (and psychology in particular) are increasingly purporting to be able to measure things that are inherently incapable of being measured, or which are unsuitable to objective measurement.

I agree with you in the classification of psycometric testing as such.

Modern psychology, as much as it will purport to be objective, will never be as such. For a field of study to survive in today's world, it must at least seem to generate something of material or easily recognisable value. Does that not make any study subjective to the needs of society?

And what the general populous wants (majority rules) is what is then accepted as practice. Look at the variety of tests that society looks to to classify a person. I think society should be wary of what it thinks is objective at any time. What ever happened to the value of intuition?

[CosmicDust]

Recognizable value can sometimes be cool stuff to chat about in the pub...that's how astronomy survives, I think. "Did you hear about the singing black hole, the baby galaxies at the edge of the Universe, or the rocky planet the size of Uranus in another solar system?"

[Lucas]

I agree with you in the classification of psycometric testing as such.

Modern psychology, as much as it will purport to be objective, will never be as such. For a field of study to survive in today's world, it must at least seem to generate something of material or easily recognisable value. Does that not make any study subjective to the needs of society?

And what the general populous wants (majority rules) is what is then accepted as practice. Look at the variety of tests that society looks to to classify a person. I think society should be wary of what it thinks is objective at any time.

There are many fields that don't generate anything the public would call useful, but all add to the wealth of human knowledge. Psychology doesn't claim to be fully objective. You'd be hard pressed to find a psychologist who didn't want to contribute, in some way to the betterment of human life. But does this make it any less valid?

Most genetic research and modern medicine value human quality of life, yes that is the same value inherent in psychology and in some other social sciences. It isn't any less scientific.

There are difficulties which seem to be peculiar to the social sciences since in them the subject of investigation is human beings, or has as its eventual aim the better understanding of humans. Humans can guide their own behavior in accord with reasons in a way that the rest of nature cannot. A rock or a plant cannot "act" on reasons (the downward motion of a unsupported rock near the earth's surface is not accounted for in terms of reasons the rock might have had for moving downward rather than, say, to the left)

Does this mean we shouldn't even try to be scientific in approaching these areas of study?

[Dman]

Most people who doubt the theory of evolution simply don’t understand it. They have a knee-jerk reaction that it must be wrong because it has earned a reputation as “anti-religious”. This is not necessarily the case. There are some excellent books on the subject, I highly recommend “Evolution : The Triumph of an Idea
by Carl Zimmer “.

Here is a good way to sway some non-believers. Do you believe that a cold or flu can mutate so that your vaccination against it eventually does not work anymore? That is evolution. Do you believe that children inherit certain traits from their parents? That is evolution. I doubt you will find many people that disagree that children inherit traits; yet they will then say they don’t believe in evolution. Those two statements contradict each other, and being at risk for your own intelligence, I would discontinue further conversation with that person!

[Vylence]

I think science proves things... sooner or later there will be nothing more to prove.

[Lucas]

I think science proves things... sooner or later there will be nothing more to prove.

All the scientific research of the last 300 years has only led to more and more questions to be answered.


Imagine everything (life, the universe, human behavior,etc) is sand. If I study and dedicate my entire life to learning, everyday gaining more knowledge....by the time I die I will only have a small handful of sand. Meanwhile I'm in the middle of the Sahara desert, a vast panoply of existence and things to understand.

I think there will always be more to prove.


-Lucas

[Vylence]

Well you and I will disagree, I don't believe in infinity.

[Lucas]

Since we as a species will not live for a very long time, relative to the age of the universe, we can never prove all things. It is impossible even in a finite (although extraordinarily large) universe.

[Vylence]

I'm more optimistic when it comes to how long we will survive. Plus I think once knowledge gets started building it builds by doubles. Or at the very least outpaces the speed of things to be known.

[Lucas]

Even if we live for another 10 million years, (unlikely, we've only been around for about 50,000yrs so far) we couldn't know everything. The number of things to be known is so large, it would be impossible.

On top of that, there are some things that science can't address. It can never prove or disprove the existence of god for example, because science is based on empirical data. It can't say either way.

A few examples of things we can NEVER PROVE:
We can't ever know that a certain strain of ancient bacteria ever lived when all it is all gone, without a trace.

We can never prove that PIE,(Proto-IndoEuropean) language, the mother of languages spoken by almost half of humanity today, was spoken at a certain place during a certain time period.

we can't know precisely when language arose in humans.

We can't know what the universe does after our sun dies.

The list could go on, almost, ad infinitum.

-Lucas

[Vylence]

So you say that we can't know things because of knowledge lost? Well I say we will be able to relearn those things according to knowledge gained.

What happens when we know exactly what makes life? Therefore rules out the existance of all but known bacteria?

What happens when the sun dies? We will know then.

The guesses to how long a species will live have never taken into account intellegent life, odd results keep odd results.

[Sackanaka]

So you say that we can't know things because of knowledge lost? Well I say we will be able to relearn those things according to knowledge gained.

First of all, who's we? Us as individuals, us as a species, or us as intelligent beings? Or us as parts of the universe?


What happens when we know exactly what makes life? Therefore rules out the existance of all but known bacteria?

I don't understand the question.


What happens when the sun dies? We will know then.

Again, who's we? If we refers to human beings of Earth, I doubt we will know for long after that, which is what Lucas is referring to I assume. This is inevitably going to lead to a "If a tree falls in the woods..." argument. I say it doesn't matter :p.


The guesses to how long a species will live have never taken into account intellegent life, odd results keep odd results.

Not sure what that last part means, about odd results. Not sure if it's part of the argument either :unsure: . Clarifications please :D.

D

[Vylence]

I am refering to humans as in we or all of us. If we understand that life takes the form of so much DNA, mutating through the sequences at such an interval with such a pattern, we will understand when it will represent itself and when it won't. This would most certainly lead us to be able to predict when bacteria would be alive.

If life was started by a lightningstrike so long ago we, if we looked at every bit of earth on the planet, would be able to formulate from the other minerals and sediments what life could spring from it. With a very precise understanding of how lightning travels, and the effects of it traveling along the ground, we most likely could exactly predict what would happen.

Its interesting to me that you people can say we won't be able to know everything with your limited knowledge, but do say that we can't learn unlimited knowledge. Therefore making our knowledge limited by unlimited what could be known. I choose to limit both, what can be known, and what we will know. Once again I don't believe in infinity. I don't think there is an unlimited patters of DNA. I don't think they mutate on a random schedule. I actually don't believe in random either.

Even light has behaved in a predictable manner, just in a manner that can't be explained why it would behave as such under understanding from this point.

[Lucas]

Huh? We're just getting into a game of semantics here.

We can never know everything about everything because so much of it is, and will be beyond our reach. (being beyond our ability to observe, such as some thing that existed in the past without leaving any evidence) We can never prove what language was spoken by humans 40,000 years ago in Europe. We can speculate on their communication system and language though.

Some early life never propagated. It is believed that a lot of early life forms met a genetic dead end, leaving absolutely no trace of their existence. We can speculate and hypothesize, but never prove their existence. We could understand the how and why of DNA, which would allow us to support our conjecture about how life began.

OK, for the sake of argument let's say homo sapiens exist on earth from--when the sun first started emitting energy till the sun dies-- we still couldn't know what the universe, or anything would do after we are gone. To do so would be mere conjecture, because the future is beyond our ability to observe.

[Vylence]

Semantics, you're right this comes down to our philosophies more than any truth, I just happen to believe that I am more correct than you.

[Lucas]

Semantics, you're right this comes down to our philosophies more than any truth, I just happen to believe that I am more correct than you.

But with no real argument to back it up.

All the examples that I've given in this thread, things that can never be proved or known, show that we can't prove everything. I'm curious as to how we can know or prove something that we can't observe somehow. Will we do this with a time machine? A deity? A psychic?

It isn't a matter of different worldviews or philosophies. Proving and knowing everything isn't humanly possible.




-Lucas
"Today's Terrorist Level Color is Chartreuse with Pink Polka-Dots. Do not panic. In fact, do nothing."

[Vylence]

It is a matter of philosophy, yours seems to state that you take a negative view of the facts. I don't think the facts paint the picture you're trying to portray.

You are right at this stage it is impossible to know everything. Though like I have said I think we are pointed in the direction of learning more of the answers than what can be known is building. In fact I don't reallly believe what can be known is being increased.

You can easily prove things today that weren't observed back only a few decades ago, one that is saving inmates around the nation is DNA testing. New tests will be invented that can tell us even more, soon there will be no knowledge that won't be within the grasp of a test or simulation.

I don't really see how you can't see this? Though its as I've said this seems to come down to a more overview on how we view science (philosophy) rather than any true knowledge on how the facts play out, as you've said.

[Lucas]

We're still on different pages here, but thats ok. I know what you mean.

We'll have to agree to disagree like you said.

[Phenylethylene]

I don't particularly understand the creationist position either and I don't think evolution has anything to do with proving or disproving god. I am agnostic, but I will momentarily pretend that I 100% believe in god. It seems that most modern views of god do not indicate that it is a micromanager (free will, etc). I am a computer programmer, so I will relate from that perspective. If I was all-knowing and decided to create life programs I would consider two options 1) Meticulously design every detail of every "species" and possibly the individual variation in each instance of those. 2) Create an adaptive, self-regulating system that does the work on its own. Door number 2 looks pretty good to me.

Furthermore, to be technical, I believe that Genesis itself implies evolution with statements like "Let the earth bring forth living creatures...". In my analogy, this seems akin to my saying "Let the 'artificial' universe bring forth programs..." as I simultaneously click a "Go" button.

[Dman]

I don’t follow the argument too closely, because I believe it is silly, but I think the big gap between evolutionists and creationists stems between WHEN everything was created, rather than “if”. I don’t believe anyone would dispute the possibility of the universe being “created” before the big bang by some type of higher being. However, when you say things like the universe was created 6,000 years ago, and fossils were left here by God to "test" us, now you’re getting kind of coo-coo.

At its most basic, rather than "Evolution vs. Creationism", it's "Thinking vs. Feeling".

[lexiphanic]

Evolution is a process that has been directly observed.
When two animal reproduce, they pass a mix of their genetic traits onto their offspring. Small random genetic mutations also occur in the offspring due to errors in the DNA copying/splicing process.

If the offspring are capable of surviving long enough to reproduce then they pass their traits onto the next generation.



I would have to contend that mutations would be more of an example of the second law of thermodynamics, than evolution in action. You don't get an eye, or a heart accidently from mutations. There are other evolutionary theories that seem more valid regarding the complexity of creatures today, but they seem more like scientists openly acknowledging: "We don't have a clue." Aka the theory of burst evolution. New species burst forth from old ones. Think X-men.


A couple of examples:
Antibiotic resistant bacteria. Those bacteria strong enough to survive an antibiotic become the parents of the next infection. This is why your doctor always tells you to complete your course of antibiotics. So that your body destroys the infection completely and you don't pass on strengthened bacteria to the next person.

Insects gain resistance to pesticides. New pesticides have to be developed continuously as insects evolve immunity to them.

Negative. Study genetics. A priest (I believe) figured this out a long time ago. All we are doing are causing recessed genes to be the most prevalent in the species. There have been many many plagues to kill more than half of human populations. If the plague kept sweeping through, you would see that few more people would die. Today though, these plagues would once again typically decimate half or more of any sample population.


If you want to know how we end up with different species, consider that the toy poodle, the bulldog and the greyhound all had the same common ancestor only a few thousand years ago. Breeding is evolution using human selection instead of natural selection.

Breeding does not equal evolution. It is the culmination of Hitler's idea of a master race applied in a socially acceptable method. And just try and tell me how a toy poodle has evolved to better adapt to it's environment.

Proof for a flood: Bubbles in antarctic ice found several hundred feet beneath the surface of the ice. This guy that actually teaches at a school I attended worked on the pole for a couple of years.

Sorry to pick your post apart.

[lexiphanic]

Most people who doubt the theory of evolution simply don’t understand it. They have a knee-jerk reaction that it must be wrong because it has earned a reputation as “anti-religious”. This is not necessarily the case. There are some excellent books on the subject, I highly recommend “Evolution : The Triumph of an Idea
by Carl Zimmer “.

Here is a good way to sway some non-believers. Do you believe that a cold or flu can mutate so that your vaccination against it eventually does not work anymore? That is evolution. Do you believe that children inherit certain traits from their parents? That is evolution. I doubt you will find many people that disagree that children inherit traits; yet they will then say they don’t believe in evolution. Those two statements contradict each other, and being at risk for your own intelligence, I would discontinue further conversation with that person!

If you don't understand basic genetics and inheritance, I think I will avoid further conversation with you regarding this topic.

[Dman]

If you don't understand basic genetics and inheritance, I think I will avoid further conversation with you regarding this topic.

Are you...yeah you...talkin' ta me?

[Dman]

I would have to contend that mutations would be more of an example of the second law of thermodynamics, than evolution in action. You don't get an eye, or a heart accidently from mutations. There are other evolutionary theories that seem more valid regarding the complexity of creatures today, but they seem more like scientists openly acknowledging: "We don't have a clue." Aka the theory of burst evolution. New species burst forth from old ones. Think X-men.

Who says you don't get an eye from mutations? You must understand that not all organs are initially "complex". An eye for example may start out as a few simple cells that detect changes in light. Over vast periods of time it becomes more and more complex through the process of evolution, eventually resembling the more complex structures of eyes we see in higher animals today. Same with brains - some simple organisms have little more than a tiny bundle of nerve cells that could be considered their "brain", and over time could evolve to the more complex organ. Who are these scientists saying "we don't have a clue"? The degree of complexity is not difficult to imagine if you understand the concept of millions of years.


Negative. Study genetics. A priest (I believe) figured this out a long time ago. All we are doing are causing recessed genes to be the most prevalent in the species. There have been many many plagues to kill more than half of human populations. If the plague kept sweeping through, you would see that few more people would die. Today though, these plagues would once again typically decimate half or more of any sample population.

I'm not sure I understand how this argument refutes evolution. Antibiotics that many years ago could kill 99% of the bacteria many years ago with the same antibiotic can now end up not being effective. That small fraction of stronger bacteria that could resist the antibiotics survived, and reproduced with their resistant properties passed on to the next generation. As this happened millions of times over, eventually most of the remaining bacteria were of the antibiotic resistant type, which is what we are seeing today. This process is called evolution.


Breeding does not equal evolution. It is the culmination of Hitler's idea of a master race applied in a socially acceptable method. And just try and tell me how a toy poodle has evolved to better adapt to it's environment.

First off, Hitler's subjective idea of what represents a "master" race is in no way an argument against evolution. That's just plain silly. Second, a toy poodle did not evolve naturally, it was interfered with by humans. The fact that it is not more well-suited to the environment is a direct cause of human interaction. But the point is, it is still the workings of evolution that enabled humans to create a toy poodle. Humans essentially played the part of nature, enabling the more desired traits (the "stronger" animals) to breed more frequently than those without. Surely you know how this works.

Oh, and how are basic genetics and inheritance *not* related to evolution?

[CoHo]

About evolution: Why are there so many damn white people?

Okay, it is a pretty simple question. Unfortunately Google searches have so far provided everything from skin-care suggestions to reviews of Mein Kampf (Yes, I'm now making it a point to include at least one Nazi reference in every post).

Evolution states that we all grew up in Africa as one tribe. Eventually that tribe split off and moved around the world. We all had to start at one place to remain the same species, and it couldn't have been that long ago, else we may have evolved to be so different from each-other that we couldn't reproduce (see Zebras and Horses [edit: oh wait, they CAN breed... neat!]).

So our time of separation had to be early enough that we still remained the same species, but far enough along that we could impose evolutionary differences of skin color, facial features and height.

So, why do Irish people have striking red hair? What caused all the non-red-hair individuals to die out? For that matter, how did blond hair and blue eyes come about if they are both recessive? I mean really, blue eyes?

To put it another way, lets say we reduce the population down to 6,000 individuals all of African descent and scattered them (in groups of 1,000) to Ireland, Brazil, Scandinavia, Australia, North America and India. After 32,000 years we should have red/blond hair and blue/green/hazel eyes along with a varying degree of other seemingly unimportant facial differences? But how does that make sense?

[Dman]

That sounds like a pretty cool exercise.

I would throw out that fair-skinned people with lighter colored eyes (non-brown) - in other words mutations - were born occassionally in sun-drenched climates such as Africa, but did not survive as well as dark-skinned people who could tolerate the intense sun much better. I must say I have blue eyes, and they are very sensitive to sunlight, making it difficult to see on bright sunny days. These types thrived much better in higher latitudes where the sunlight was not as intense. People of dark-skin and eyes would prefer to stay in warmer climates, as food was more abundant, the climate was more comfortable, and they could tolerate the weather conditions.

[Almaviva]

About evolution: Why are there so many damn white people?

The simple explanation is that white skin is better adapted to colder climates, and dark skin to warmer climates.

White skin is less prone to frostbite. Also, with less UV rays, it's wasteful to produce much melanin, since it's not necessary. (And in fact, we do have a mechanism - tanning - to produce more when we're exposed to more sunlight.)

I was laughing at some sports radio show where they said it's racist to say that black people could handle the heat better than white people. In fact, that's just about one of the only non-racist things you can say about black people! "Black" means more melanin in the skin, and the purpose of that is to protect from sunlight.

[Almaviva]

I would have to contend that mutations would be more of an example of the second law of thermodynamics, than evolution in action. You don't get an eye, or a heart accidently from mutations. There are other evolutionary theories that seem more valid regarding the complexity of creatures today, but they seem more like scientists openly acknowledging: "We don't have a clue." Aka the theory of burst evolution. New species burst forth from old ones. Think X-men.

1. Do you understand anything about the second law of thermodynamics? Salt crystals form: structure out of nowhere, right? Refrigerators work: local decrease of entropy! A seed becomes a plant, using only sunlight, water, and carbon dioxide, and a few minerals: complex structure arising from a much simpler one!

Evolution has nothing whatsoever to do with the second law of thermodynamics.

A human being does not have less entropy, in the sense of physics, than the same mass of cockroaches.

2. Show me a scientist who is using X-Men as an analogy. That's a particularly absurd straw-man.

Nobody is saying the process is simple. Things that involve tens of millions or billions of iterations over populations of billions or trillions don't have to be.



Negative. Study genetics. A priest (I believe) figured this out a long time ago. All we are doing are causing recessed genes to be the most prevalent in the species. There have been many many plagues to kill more than half of human populations. If the plague kept sweeping through, you would see that few more people would die. Today though, these plagues would once again typically decimate half or more of any sample population.


What you're talking about, changing gene frequencies, does happen. And it does account for a lot of change within a population.

Are you denying that mutation can be beneficial? And that it can be passed on from generation to generation? And that if a mutated version of a gene is beneficial it will eventually become widely distributed? (One very simple examples would be a "defective" gene for blood protein that causes sickle cell anemia when you have two alleales, but high resistance to malaria with one copy. Or more recently, a "defect" in immune cell receptors that provides high resistance to AIDS. Are you arguing this stuff didn't come from mutation originally?)




Breeding does not equal evolution. It is the culmination of Hitler's idea of a master race applied in a socially acceptable method. And just try and tell me how a toy poodle has evolved to better adapt to it's environment.



A toy poodle has changed over the years by artificial selection. The idea of natural selection is simply that nature can produce selective pressures on populations in the same way. Since humans can produce things as diverse as St Bernards versus toy poodles out of wolves, or brocolli/cabbage/mustard/turnip out of the same plant, over hundreds of years, the idea is that nature can produce much more diverse things given hundreds of millions of years. (And indeed, there is, according to any biologist, overwhelming evidence that this has happened on various scales, smaller changes and speciation over tens or hundreds of thousands of years (e.g. marsupials, finches), and larger changes where there is nonetheless much evidence for connection over longer periods of time. (E.g. similarities between reptiles and early birds.)

Do you have a problem accepting that speciation can occur?




Proof for a flood: Bubbles in antarctic ice found several hundred feet beneath the surface of the ice. This guy that actually teaches at a school I attended worked on the pole for a couple of years.

Sorry to pick your post apart.

Can you clarify what you're talking about? What kind of bubbles were found, and why do they indicate a flood?

I know that experiments drilling through antarctic ice have produced data that strongly suggest the Earth is at least hundreds of thousands of years old. For instance, with astronical cycles in the Earths orbit, for instance becoming more and less circular ("wobbling"), and changes in the tilt of the Earth over time scales of tense of thousands of years, you can predict climate variations. And these have been measured in the Antarctic ice!

(See here for instance midway down: http://discussions.godandscience.org/about71.html)

[Swift]

What is the scientific *proof* that evolution is real. What is the scientific proof that it's real? Experiments? Anything? Evolution is the best thing we have.

[Dman]

Evolution? No way man. Some priest figured out that the X-men created Hitler's toy poodle, and there are bubbles in the ice that prove it.

[Lee]

lol...I find it ironic that mankinds resistance to evolution is a result of evolution.

What better evolutionary advantage than honestly being convinced that we are something special, something unique or even holy. In the end we are just animals, A by product of the laws of physics.

[CoHo]

To continue with white people

I understand that Sunlight is less effective, but it isn't that bad. A white person can survive in a hot climate. White people live in Florida and Texas just fine without thousands of them dying (although people do die of heat exhaustion, but that should affect both races equally).

The problem I see is that our races changed so abruptly on such a short period of time. Why did black people turn white? Even if it was more convenient to be white it defiantly wasn't life threatening. In order for evolution to work you need to have a mutation that is so strong your bloodline survives while the others do not. So how does that make sense for a tribe to give birth to a few white babies and those white babies suddenly have a greater chance of survival in... Ireland?

This doesn't make sense on 2 factors:

#1 The nomads had to live in Ireland for a VERY Long time before giving out mutations. They didn't just pitch a few tents and start popping out the white babies.

#2 After living in Ireland for, oh, twelve thousand years suddenly they give birth to a white child or two and these white children manage to take over the entire tribe. Why? If they mated with anyone else the children would have gradually turned native again [edit: not the children themselves, but the children's bloodline].

Along with that blond hair and blue eyes are recessive genes. This means that thousands of years ago hundreds of these nomads had to give birth to blond haired children so they could mate and make more blond haired children. That just doesn't make sense.

You can argue that evolution is very subtle. That the children weren't instantly white instead they were slightly lighter then the nomads. But evolution is RANDOM. This means with each slightly-lighter child you should also get a slightly-darker child.

I'm not saying evolution is incorrect. I'm saying we should look at these cases not with the mindset of defending evolution but to determine if additional factors have to be introduced.

[Lee]

I have often pondered this question myself...?

could it be connected to the fact that white caucasian people have an extra layer of fat (or so I have heard). So it may be more of a side effect than an adaption...I know this is a very vague theory, just typing thoughts and grasping at straws.

I would like to know the answer if anyone knows...

[Dman]

There is also something to be said of mating preferences. For whatever reasons, some groups may have found lighter skin more attractive for mating purposes, thus the lighter skinned ones had more mates and hence more offspring. Eventually these groups became quite light skinned, to what we see today.

[YardGnome]

Take a look at this article...

http://thecouriermail.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5936,11838285%255E421,00.html

[Lee]

The link will not work? (edit: It's now working)

Saying that people find lighter skin more attractive and that is why there are white people, though true doesn't answer the question, why are lighter skinned people considered more attractive, what evolutionary advantage (in the correct enviroment) does it acheive.

[Dman]

Who says it's an evolutionary advantage?

Just because it is deemed a more attractive trait by many does not imply it is a superior trait for survival. If it eventually turned out to be an impediment to survival, the species would die.

[Lee]

their is almost certainly evolutionary advantage (that term is relative to enviroment), whether it is a side affect of something or an advantage in itself, it must of developed somehow. It seems animals as well as humans seem to be lighter in colour in colder enviroments, I find it hard to beleive it is all coincidence and there must be a evolutionary advantage in this......sadly I cannot see one......?

does nobody know?

[Dman]

Not sure why you feel there * must * be an advantage. Some animal species have neck sacks, and the ones with the larger sacks are preferred by mates. What advantage do they have?

You’re looking at it backwards. Simply because a trait is desired does not automatically mean it is an advantage to the species. Like I mentioned previously, a disadvantageous trait could also be desirable, which may eventually lead to the demise of the species. Or it could be neither advantageous nor disadvantageous. It is the traits that are one or the other which determine the fate of a species.

[Lee]

I understand that lighter skin could well be a result of sexual selection (the peacock effect if you will) however if this were true would it not also apply to all mankind, everyone would be white. Lighter skin is a trait of certain enviromental conditions and so it would seem there is likely to be some underlying advantage to the lighter skin tone under certain conditions. With no need for much protection from the sun the production of melegnma would not be a great necessity, however I find it difficult to beleive this could have such an effect in itself although I am ready to be proved wrong on that.

The only other theory I can think is this: Man originated from africa and in the beggining was dark skinned for protection from the sun, however sexual selection created a desire for lighter skin, this was never acheived and was ofset by the increased survival advantage of darker skin and protection from the sun......until man migrated north to colder climates, at which point the increased survival advantage of dark skin was no longer needed and the sexual selection instinct created a race of lighter skinned humans, plus no longer needing to produce melegnma would have helped.

this theory explains different skin tones and why different cultures seem to prefer lighter skinned people.

[CoHo]

It had taken about 20 generations for this to occur over a 70-year period.

I don't see the snake as a good argument for evolution. Let me see if I can explain what I am thinking properly.

Consider evolution mathematically:

You have 100,000 snakes
They live to be 4 years old
They have 30,000 different genes (not sure, using the number for humans)
Each gene can be altered 100 or 1,000 different ways (found an article hinting at this, once again possibly inaccurate)

This means that there are 100^30,000 different "mutations" that could occur in a single snake. Large heads, small heads, big eyes, blue eyes, white skin, red skin, horns, brain size almost anything imaginable.

So for the period of 70 years, or 20 generations these snakes managed to evolve to survive. Now, out of the 100^30,000 different combinations how possible is it to hit the "smaller head" combination enough times for the snakes to survive?

Or is this an example of breeding and not evolution?
As stated before they Toy Poodle was an example of breeding a new type of animal. Could it be that these snakes would produce a variety of offspring (like humans): Short snakes, long snakes, skinny snakes, fat snakes, snakes with big heads and snakes with small heads? And all the variations except for the small-headed snakes were killed by the frog?

Just like playing with the mating of fruit flies to get the ones with curly wings. Is that an example of evolution or an example of breeding and/or gene therapy?

If it is truly evolution then what are the odds of hitting that magic number in the 100^30,000 combinations enough times in the span of 20 generations?

[Lee]

While there is a certain degree of randomness to genes being past on to the next generation, a snake with a small head will have offspring that predominantly have small heads and if small heads are an advantage then small head genes will be passed onto the next genration in larger numbers.

Imagine all the genes of one species in one place - The gene pool

Imagine that 30% of these genes created small heads and 70% created larger heads.

Over generations small heads are an advantage in the current enviromental conditions. Small headed snakes survive longer and have more mating success (on average) and so small headed snakes pass on more genes to the next generation.

Imagine the change: 35% small head genes agaisnt 65% large head genes, over generations this will change until the species is quite different to how it began. 45% small head vs 55% large head etc.

The basic principals are -

1. Parents pass on their traits to their children.

2. Some traits allow for more mating success than others relative to specific enviroment.

3. 1 & 2 over long periods of time cause all the animals we see on earth.

[CoHo]

But from what I can see there is no difference between this snake example and the common work that you can do with Fruit Flies in your own home (playing with genes).

With Fruit Flies you have a limited number of genes so you have a limited number of "Effects": Change wings, height, eye color and some other stuff I forget.

In a lab I could take a couple thousand snakes and kill off all of the ones that got large, creating a world of tiny snakes. This is no different then killing off all fruit flies with red eyes to have a race of black-eyed fruit-flies.

So is this an example of evolution or gene manipulation and is there a difference? The difference as it applies to fruit flies is you can only breed a fruit fly to do so much, you can breed them to be large, small, and have black or red eyes, you can even make it so they can't fly. But, to the delight of Creationists, so far we haven't been able to breed a fruit fly into a mosquito. Or force a fruit-fly to evolve into a new species. Despite spending over 100 years on them.

The article proves that snakes can be mutated to the extent their genes will allow. Just like dogs, humans and fruit flies can. But it doesn't prove any links to evolution.

And once again, I’m not saying evolution is wrong.

[Lee]

Random mutations help things along.......

But anyway you asked if gene manipulation and evolution are the same thing and yes they are, the difference is that in gene manipulation we know how it works and force a scenario in which it changes a species, we do this through selective breeding, evolution is selective breeding that occurs naturally over millions of years. How far we are evolutionary to other species can largely be determined by how much DNA we share, even a small change in DNA can have a big difference in how the end product ends up.

I am ready to be proved wrong here but I once heared that we share 80% of our genes with the earthworm.

[Dman]

I understand that lighter skin could well be a result of sexual selection (the peacock effect if you will) however if this were true would it not also apply to all mankind, everyone would be white.

No I don't think so. Not * every * culture or human believes that lighter skin is preferable, or has since man's beginnings. If this were true, then most likely there would not be darker skinned humans, as by now they would be pretty much gone. There are obviously other characteristics that have higher priority within some cultures/groups. But there were enough that did prefer lighter skin to cause the large number of "whites" we see today.

[Lee]

Originally Posted by Lee
I understand that lighter skin could well be a result of sexual selection (the peacock effect if you will) however if this were true would it not also apply to all mankind, everyone would be white.



No I don't think so. Not * every * culture or human believes that lighter skin is preferable, or has since man's beginnings. If this were true, then most likely there would not be darker skinned humans, as by now they would be pretty much gone. There are obviously other characteristics that have higher priority within some cultures/groups. But there were enough that did prefer lighter skin to cause the large number of "whites" we see today.

I agree, maybe I did not express myself thouroughly enough, we are talking about very organic models here and I accept there are always exceptions to the averages that I mostly talk in.

edit: I went on in that same post to talk about what you have just said.

[Almaviva]

To continue with white people

I understand that Sunlight is less effective, but it isn't that bad. A white person can survive in a hot climate. White people live in Florida and Texas just fine without thousands of them dying (although people do die of heat exhaustion, but that should affect both races equally).


1. You surely know that conditions before technology were extremely different? Right now, frostbite, sunburn, and heatstroke aren't significant problems, but when you had to spend your entire day outside looking for food it would have been different.

2. There is already a lot of variation in skin shade within any population of any ethnic background.

3. With natural selection, you're dealing with an exponential function. So a tiny difference in survivability can mean that certain traits completely dominate over time. For example, say because of avoiding frostbite and being able to hunt more, lighter skinned people in a region produce 0.1% more children per person per generation. Say the ratio starts 1:1 between light and dark, and that the total population stays the same. (Huge oversimplification, but also when the population stays the same, it means people are dying a lot or producing very few kids, so selection is much more powerful.) After 1 generation, the ratio would be 1.001:0.999.
After 10 generations it would be (1.001)^10: (1/1.001^10) or 101:99
After 100 generations it would be 110.5:90.5
After 1000 generations it would be 272:37 or about 88% lighter skin.

So a tiny difference in survival and reproduction can eventually mean a large change over time. (We're dealing with about 20,000 years here with 1000 generations of humans, but for longer periods, millions of years, even tinier differences can magnify even more.)

Plus, I don't think we're talking about such a tiny difference. If you took a bunch of native Scandinavians and Africans, and put them naked, with almost no technology, in Scandinavia, the Africans would get vastly outcompeted, I think, and vice versa.



The problem I see is that our races changed so abruptly on such a short period of time. Why did black people turn white? Even if it was more convenient to be white it defiantly wasn't life threatening. In order for evolution to work you need to have a mutation that is so strong your bloodline survives while the others do not. So how does that make sense for a tribe to give birth to a few white babies and those white babies suddenly have a greater chance of survival in... Ireland?

This doesn't make sense on 2 factors:

#1 The nomads had to live in Ireland for a VERY Long time before giving out mutations. They didn't just pitch a few tents and start popping out the white babies.


You don't need mutations to explain variations in skin colour. The variations are already there. There's enough diversity in any healthy gene pool to produce rather different characteristics over a short period of time. (See dogs, which came from wolves over period of selection.) There's no reason to think that in a couple thousand years, you couldn't breed humans into people as different looking as Chihuahuas are from St. Barnards.

(In fact, this diversity of genes within a population is itself a product of evolution. Species that don't have it, no matter how suitable they are individually, aren't able to survive changing conditions as well.)

So yes, they did have to move to Ireland first, but after that, we have maybe 40,000 years, or >2000 generations of selection to work with, which can change a lot.

You can even test evolution theories this way: Looking at genetic "drift" between generations, estimating when people moved to Ireland with archaeology, and seeing if the change over time (by measuring different populations) is consistent with the change over smaller periods that we can measure directly. Evolution passes this kind of thing fantastically.



#2 After living in Ireland for, oh, twelve thousand years suddenly they give birth to a white child or two and these white children manage to take over the entire tribe. Why? If they mated with anyone else the children would have gradually turned native again [edit: not the children themselves, but the children's bloodline].

Along with that blond hair and blue eyes are recessive genes. This means that thousands of years ago hundreds of these nomads had to give birth to blond haired children so they could mate and make more blond haired children. That just doesn't make sense.


Again, see above. The variations were already there, and there's enough diversity in species to magnify differences over short (hundreds of years) periods of time when there is a survival advantage to something.

(Another example, see how quickly the predominant colour of moths in England changed in a couple hundred years.)



You can argue that evolution is very subtle. That the children weren't instantly white instead they were slightly lighter then the nomads. But evolution is RANDOM. This means with each slightly-lighter child you should also get a slightly-darker child.


But the selection is not random, especially under harsh conditions, and you don't need large differences.



I'm not saying evolution is incorrect. I'm saying we should look at these cases not with the mindset of defending evolution but to determine if additional factors have to be introduced.

Other factors can and should certainly be tested. But people have done this for hundreds of years. (Which shouldn't stop others from trying.)

People in this line of study have seen that evolution and natural selection alone are sufficient to explain what you're talking about. It isn't a conclusion based on hand-waving, but it can be verified with calculations in many areas of biology. (Maybe practically any area of biology.)

You don't have to take any one person's word on it, there are lifetimes of studies that have been done of this nature by people skeptical of evolution, and they can be researched.

[Almaviva]

No I don't think so. Not * every * culture or human believes that lighter skin is preferable, or has since man's beginnings. If this were true, then most likely there would not be darker skinned humans, as by now they would be pretty much gone. There are obviously other characteristics that have higher priority within some cultures/groups. But there were enough that did prefer lighter skin to cause the large number of "whites" we see today.

Sexual selection theories are interesting. (Especially, to me, the idea that intelligence itself was mostly sexually selected at first, so thinking and music and so forth are really a "peacock's tail". )

But you need environmental selection too. Otherwise, if sexual selection is what lightened skin colour over time in Scandinavia, why didn't the same thing happen in Ethiopia?

There are ideas that sexual selection can speed up these processes a lot, and these are interesting ideas. There's another idea, too, of selection by parents when they have to choose a single child to survive (See this comment: http://www.edge.org/q2005/q05_8.html#harrisj In fact, the whole article is really cool, IMO.)

[Dman]

Sexual selection theories are interesting. (Especially, to me, the idea that intelligence itself was mostly sexually selected at first, so thinking and music and so forth are really a "peacock's tail". )

But you need environmental selection too. Otherwise, if sexual selection is what lightened skin colour over time in Scandinavia, why didn't the same thing happen in Ethiopia?

There are ideas that sexual selection can speed up these processes a lot, and these are interesting ideas. There's another idea, too, of selection by parents when they have to choose a single child to survive (See this comment: http://www.edge.org/q2005/q05_8.html#harrisj In fact, the whole article is really cool, IMO.)

The initial process of people becoming “white” rather than staying “black” is better explained through mating preferences rather than geographic.

But yes, over time as humans roamed, these lighter skinned types would find higher latitudes more comfortable than darker skinned types, and vice versa. This explains the more recent geographic concentrations between skin colors, i.e. why dark skinned types tended to remain in the sun belts while lighter skinned were found elsewhere.

[ObstinateBane]

Here's a useless post. Just the things that jumped out at me.


EZ— Logic, anyone? Hello?

Many things you might have an interest in studying is already, to me, perfectly laid out and clear without effort in thought.



CosmicDust ---- "Did you hear about the singing black hole, the baby galaxies at the edge of the Universe, or the rocky planet the size of Uranus in another solar system?"
I would get slapped in the face for asking my wife this question. :huh:



Lucas----
I'm curious as to how we can know or prove something that we can't observe somehow.

Uh oh.



Dman------
At its most basic, rather than "Evolution vs. Creationism", it's "Thinking vs. Feeling".
Evolution? No way man. Some priest figured out that the X-men created Hitler's toy poodle, and there are bubbles in the ice that prove it.

and the ones with the larger sacks are preferred by mates. What advantage do they have?


lexiphanic----
You don't get an eye, or a heart accidently from mutations.


CW------
About evolution: Why are there so many damn white people?

To continue with white people


ALM-------
Salt crystals form: structure out of nowhere, right?


Lee----

could it be connected to the fact that white caucasian people have an extra layer of fat
Can we say “Twinkie”


These were things I found odd/humorous for some strange reason.

[Dman]

Nice!

I had been wondering if anyone enjoyed my "neck sack" analogy...

(Edit: referring to ObstinateBane's previous post)

[lexiphanic]

Random mutations help things along.......

But anyway you asked if gene manipulation and evolution are the same thing and yes they are, the difference is that in gene manipulation we know how it works and force a scenario in which it changes a species, we do this through selective breeding, evolution is selective breeding that occurs naturally over millions of years. How far we are evolutionary to other species can largely be determined by how much DNA we share, even a small change in DNA can have a big difference in how the end product ends up.

I am ready to be proved wrong here but I once heared that we share 80% of our genes with the earthworm.

Breeding and evolution are different things.

One interesting thing would be if every creature started out as a the typical single cell organism, but then one group branched off, and grew into a different species, of which another bunch 'evolved' into a higher species, and so on and so forth. Until you have all these creatures that share DNA to a certain extent, but are completely different. Of course, this conjecture has many, many, many holes in it, but it is an interesting line of thought.

Because, for evolution to progress, every subspecies would have to suddenly die out, or for some reason be less able to survive. aka, each and every little change in the cavemen would have to result in mass genocide of the previous race, over and over.

I digress. We really don't know much about DNA, and how it changes and mutates, and passes on to offspring, and how a mutation might become a gene, and wether it would be recessive or dominant, etc etc.

[Almaviva]

Breeding and evolution are different things.

One interesting thing would be if every creature started out as a the typical single cell organism, but then one group branched off, and grew into a different species, of which another bunch 'evolved' into a higher species, and so on and so forth. Until you have all these creatures that share DNA to a certain extent, but are completely different. Of course, this conjecture has many, many, many holes in it, but it is an interesting line of thought.



If you've got a better conjecture, which makes testable predictions, that you're prepared to support with a lifetime of objective study and critical review, then we're listening.

Or if you can find serious, unequivocal holes, that aren't just things we don't quite know, or arguments about small details, then people will listen as well.




Because, for evolution to progress, every subspecies would have to suddenly die out, or for some reason be less able to survive. aka, each and every little change in the cavemen would have to result in mass genocide of the previous race, over and over.



No. If taller individuals have a better chance of producing offspring, after many many generations, the population will be dominated by tall people. You don't need genocide for this to take effect, just statistics. E.g. after 1 generation there are 1% more people with a genetic makeup that more predisposes them to being tall. After 10, it's maybe 10%, and after 1000, it's pretty near the entire population.



I digress. We really don't know much about DNA, and how it changes and mutates, and passes on to offspring, and how a mutation might become a gene, and wether it would be recessive or dominant, etc etc.

I think you're confusing "we" with "you". There are all kinds of details which are argued and unknown, but the basic things you talk about are trivial. Whenever a cell reproduces, there can be inaccuracies in the DNA, so that the sequence of nucleotides is a little different. This could take the form of just one point being off (which may or may not make a difference when it's transcripted into a protein), or larger "crossover" events.

Once there is a change in DNA, the change will get duplicated. (This is how viruses work, they subvert this mechanism in cells by adding genetic code for their own production into cells' DNA.)

This is understood well enough that we can use genetic engineering techniques to put genes into other species. (For example, making E Coli that produce insulin.) Once this is done, the offspring retain these changes.

[lexiphanic]

If you've got a better conjecture, which makes testable predictions, that you're prepared to support with a lifetime of objective study and critical review, then we're listening.

Or if you can find serious, unequivocal holes, that aren't just things we don't quite know, or arguments about small details, then people will listen as well.

I apologize, I am way too lazy *and* uninformed to provide any kind of decent debate regarding this particular subject. I do enjoy the various refreshers on various points, and don't care enough to elaborate on points that I feel are underwhelming.

[sbw]

"Do I think George W. Bush is the worst president of my lifetime? Well, of course I do -- but that's not because he's a Republican. It's because he somehow (a) got into Yale, yet (b) claims 'the jury is still out' on the theory of evolution."

(Chuck Klosterman)

Scott