Ask me anything about the science of Evolution :)

[sayak83]

I searched it and there is no definition for Evolutionary Scientist or Evolutionary Biologist, perhaps you meant Evolutionary Biology which is a study.

Evolutionary Biologist Career Description | Career Descriptions

 

[bobhikes]

Your inflammatory rhetoric aside, there's a simple reason for why scientists attribute everything in biology to evolutionary mechanisms. In all the time we've studied life, with all the populations of organisms we've ever studied whether in the lab or in the wild, one thing is true.....every single trait, ability, species, and genetic sequence we've seen arise has done so via evolutionary mechanisms, regardless of the setting, the type of organism, or any other variable.

So when scientists look into the past and see that over the course of the history of life on earth various traits, abilities, species, and genetic sequences have come and gone, it's entirely reasonable to conclude that they did so via evolutionary mechanisms. It's no different than how when geologists see certain ash layers in ancient strata, they conclude that they're the result of past volcanic eruptions. Why? Because that's what we see generate those layers today.

Now, if you or anyone else wants to argue that everything was completely different in the past, and traits, abilities, species, and genetic sequences arose via some other mechanism(s), then you need to explain why it all seemed to change over to evolutionary mechanisms once we started looking. Anything short of that and you're just some crank on the internet throwing meaningless virtual rocks.

Yes I know I even heard people argue a Car is just another evolutionary advancement.

 

[Jose Fly]

Yes I know I even heard people argue a Car is just another evolutionary advancement.

You're either missing, or deliberately dodging the point. As I described, there is a very good reason why scientists have concluded that all the traits, abilities, species, and genetic sequences that existed in the past came about via evolutionary mechanisms.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Evolutionary Biologist Career Description | Career Descriptions

Thank you, I just lost it when he used the "It is not in my dictionary" argument.

 

[sayak83]

Thank you, I just lost it when he used the "It is not in my dictionary" argument.

I recommend meditation.

 

[sayak83]

You're either missing, or deliberately dodging the point. As I described, there is a very good reason why scientists have concluded that all the traits, abilities, species, and genetic sequences that existed in the past came about via evolutionary mechanisms.

This is not completely true. Complex emergent adaptive systems and self-organizing principles are also very important.

 

[Jose Fly]

This is not completely true. Complex emergent adaptive systems and self-organizing principles are also very important.

I understand what you're getting at, but for the purposes of this thread and given the level of discourse in this forum, I'm sure you know what I mean.

 

[Nigel Hoath]

Jose, I thank you for that and I can see what you suggest in several posters here.

But it surprises me that there are not more posters who: go with the bible but not as a literal source, but still believe in a creation.

As I understand it no one is claiming that evolution resolves the issue of how life began. Is there room for a god to be responsible there? And if Genesis is a fictional lesson I do not see how that negates the Jesus bit.

I am now studying non-Abrahamic religions (mainly in the Himalayas) and there is no shortage of creation stories there. But the people I talk to have no issue reconciling creation and evolution.

Maybe it is this site that doesn't attract a broader range?

But I say again thanks to the thinking contributors on this thread who have given me so much to ponder. It is rare you find people of such quality, knowledge, ability to express themselves, and in some cases patience, in the online world.

 

[Jose Fly]

Jose, I thank you for that and I can see what you suggest in several posters here.

But it surprises me that there are not more posters who: go with the bible but not as a literal source, but still believe in a creation.

They do pop up now and then, but because a lot of folks on either side are itching for a fight, the "middle ground" doesn't get much attention.

As I understand it no one is claiming that evolution resolves the issue of how life began. Is there room for a god to be responsible there? And if Genesis is a fictional lesson I do not see how that negates the Jesus bit.

I guess the people who advocate those positions can speak for themselves.

I am now studying non-Abrahamic religions (mainly in the Himalayas) and there is no shortage of creation stories there. But the people I talk to have no issue reconciling creation and evolution.

Maybe it is this site that doesn't attract a broader range?

Honestly, IMO most people see this "debate" as rather silly and juvenile, so they just stay out of it altogether. While I tend to agree, I'm still fascinated by creationism and creationists from a human behavioral standpoint.

But I say again thanks to the thinking contributors on this thread who have given me so much to ponder. It is rare you find people of such quality, knowledge, ability to express themselves, and in some cases patience, in the online world.

That's one good thing about RF.....there are some very knowledgeable posters here.

 

[Sapiens]

It would be helpful if you read the question, understood it, and then responded appropriately.

The question has two parts:

1. HOW did sexual reproduction evolve
and
2. WHY did sexual reproduction evolve

Even assuming that your long cut-and-paste answered the latter part of the question, it fails miserably at answering the first part.

Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that there is some species of animal (I'll call it a bibbab) that only reproduces asexually. Let's also assume that one single point mutation is sufficient to make the bibbab reproduce sexually. Obviously, this is an extremely generous assumption! Let's also assume that the bibbab will spend the first half of its life reproducing asexually and the second half reproducing sexually. We will assume that the bibbab has a four-sexual-cycle lifespan.

So, during the first two cycles, the bibbab reproduces asexually producing one copy of itself that survives the first year, and each of these bibbabs produce surviving copies. So when the first sexual bibbab becomes sexual, there are four bibbabs floating around that are theoretical sexual partners. However, none of these bibbabs have gone sexual yet, so the bibbab foregoes a cycle of reproduction. In the final year of its life, the initial bibbab is able to find a sexual partner, that is to say, it's asexual offspring from the first year. So all the genetic combination and recombination results basically in recombining two genomes that are 99.999% the same. In the fourth, and last cycle, of the original bibbab's life, it produces one offspring through sexual reproduction whereas had it stuck to asexual reproduction, it would have done better because in cycle 3, it would have reproduced asexually (but did not) whereas in cycle 4, both it and its direct offspring would have reproduced asexually (producing 2 offspring) whereas in fact, together they produced merely one sexual offspring.

So you require me to believe that this inefficient system survived long enough for additional mutations to convert said system into a system in which the sexual genes turn on and off depending on the situation in the environment that made them beneficial or not?

Excuse me for being blunt, but do you take me for a fool?

You don't really want me to answer that, do you? Your hypothetical is rather badly flawed, as are most creationist arguments, by the assumptions of instantaneous change and binary possibilities.

 

[Tasnim Mohammed]

Hi, I'm glad that you are open to be asked about evolution.
If humans evolved from apes why wasn't there humans evolved to something rather than us evolving from others?

 

[Christ's Prophet]

As a scientist who closely follow the scientific research on biological evolution, I am in full agreement with 99% of US scientists that evolution is the mechanism by which all life has evolved into its current multifarious forms on earth.

Ask me any specific questions or clear any specific doubts you have about evolutionary science and its conclusions.

Also note that evolutionary science follow the scientific method. If you reject the scientific method as a means of knowing about reality, then this thread is not for you.

Otherwise ask away

Doesn’t science rely on observation and testing and retesting to understand what is true? In the theory of evolution, who was around 13.8 billion years ago to see the Big Bang happen? So the theory of the Big Bang is not science. If the whole universe came from one source, how is it then that there is such a diversity of structure, i.e. there are stars that have different types of gasses, some are a mixture of gasses and solids, others are solids such as moons? They are all different one from another. If there is such a thing as the Big Bang theory, where did the mass before the Big Bang come from?? Did it just come out of nothing?? I admire your faith, because it is greater than mine.
I find it very difficult to believe in Evolution. Observable changes and adaptions in nature are not evolution. I see the miraculous designs of everything around me and how every life works together. They all could not have happened by accident. Where there is design, I see a great Designer. Certainty for eternity.

 

[Astrophile]

The

You are probably right. Far too many complete and utter errors have been made by someone that supposedly understood the sciences, but religious beliefs can do strange things to one's thinking processes. Take the example of Dr. Jason Lyle. a YEC astrophysicist with an actual PhD in the science from a real university, not a Bible college or diploma mill. His lectures led a YouTube physicist to make a series of videos refuting his claims:

Religious beliefs can cause one to lose one's ability to be both reasonable and honest.

There is an odd coincidence here. Dr. Lisle cites un-named 'secular scientists' as saying that there could be only 1022 stars in the universe because there were only 1022 stars in Ptolemy's catalogue. (This is obviously absurd; John Flamsteed's catalogue of 1725 contained nearly 3000 stars, and Lalande's catalogue of 1801 contained about 50,000 stars.) However, when I was learning astronomy in the 1960s, it was estimated that there were about 10^22 (ten thousand billion billion) stars, on the basis that our Galaxy contains about 10^11 (a hundred billion) stars and there are about 10^11 galaxies. Could Dr. Lisle have confused 10^22 stars with 1022 stars?

 

[sayak83]

Jose, I thank you for that and I can see what you suggest in several posters here.

But it surprises me that there are not more posters who: go with the bible but not as a literal source, but still believe in a creation.

As I understand it no one is claiming that evolution resolves the issue of how life began. Is there room for a god to be responsible there? And if Genesis is a fictional lesson I do not see how that negates the Jesus bit.

I am now studying non-Abrahamic religions (mainly in the Himalayas) and there is no shortage of creation stories there. But the people I talk to have no issue reconciling creation and evolution.

Maybe it is this site that doesn't attract a broader range?

But I say again thanks to the thinking contributors on this thread who have given me so much to ponder. It is rare you find people of such quality, knowledge, ability to express themselves, and in some cases patience, in the online world.

You are living in the Himalayas? There is internet connectivity there!

 

[sayak83]

Hi, I'm glad that you are open to be asked about evolution.
If humans evolved from apes why wasn't there humans evolved to something rather than us evolving from others?

Modern Humans are a very recent species, evolving a mere 200,000 years ago. There has not been time or opportunity for them to evolve into some other species yet.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Doesn’t science rely on observation and testing and retesting to understand what is true? In the theory of evolution, who was around 13.8 billion years ago to see the Big Bang happen? So the theory of the Big Bang is not science. If the whole universe came from one source, how is it then that there is such a diversity of structure, i.e. there are stars that have different types of gasses, some are a mixture of gasses and solids, others are solids such as moons? They are all different one from another. If there is such a thing as the Big Bang theory, where did the mass before the Big Bang come from?? Did it just come out of nothing?? I admire your faith, because it is greater than mine.
I find it very difficult to believe in Evolution. Observable changes and adaptions in nature are not evolution. I see the miraculous designs of everything around me and how every life works together. They all could not have happened by accident. Where there is design, I see a great Designer. Certainty for eternity.

We do not need to be at an event to observe the evidence of that event. The Big Bang Theory and the theory of evolution are obviously scientific to anyone that understands the sciences.

If you want to learn people will gladly help you with the basics.

 

[sayak83]

...

Yes it is entirely likely what you are saying is true.

 

[sayak83]

Doesn’t science rely on observation and testing and retesting to understand what is true? In the theory of evolution, who was around 13.8 billion years ago to see the Big Bang happen? So the theory of the Big Bang is not science. If the whole universe came from one source, how is it then that there is such a diversity of structure, i.e. there are stars that have different types of gasses, some are a mixture of gasses and solids, others are solids such as moons? They are all different one from another. If there is such a thing as the Big Bang theory, where did the mass before the Big Bang come from?? Did it just come out of nothing?? I admire your faith, because it is greater than mine.
I find it very difficult to believe in Evolution. Observable changes and adaptions in nature are not evolution. I see the miraculous designs of everything around me and how every life works together. They all could not have happened by accident. Where there is design, I see a great Designer. Certainty for eternity.

The scientific method nowhere states that one can't use it to understand natural events that happened in the past. The only requirement is that these events would leave their signatures in the currently observed happenings, and hence can be reconstructed and verified by the scientific method.

Here is the method itself,
The scientific method requires observations of nature to formulate and test hypotheses.[1] It consists of these steps:[2][3]

1. Asking a question about a natural phenomenon
2. Making observations of the phenomenon
3. Hypothesizing an explanation for the phenomenon
4. Predicting logical, observable consequences of the hypothesis that have not yet been investigated
5. Testing the hypothesis’ predictions by an experiment, observational study, field study, or simulation
6. Forming a conclusion from data gathered in the experiment etc. , or making a revised/new hypothesis and repeating the process
7. Writing out a description of the method of observation and the results or conclusions reached
8. Review of the results by peers with experience researching the same phenomenon

Nowhere is it required that the explanation that successfully explains and predicts all observed data cannot be a past event that occured long time ago. When something occured is irrelevant. As long as it predicts one would see now successfully, it is scientific.

Observation - Wikipedia

 

[Subduction Zone]

The


There is an odd coincidence here. Dr. Lisle cites un-named 'secular scientists' as saying that there could be only 1022 stars in the universe because there were only 1022 stars in Ptolemy's catalogue. (This is obviously absurd; John Flamsteed's catalogue of 1725 contained nearly 3000 stars, and Lalande's catalogue of 1801 contained about 50,000 stars.) However, when I was learning astronomy in the 1960s, it was estimated that there were about 10^22 (ten thousand billion billion) stars, on the basis that our Galaxy contains about 10^11 (a hundred billion) stars and there are about 10^11 galaxies. Could Dr. Lisle have confused 10^22 stars with 1022 stars?

Hard to say. Martymer seems to think that that concept came from those on the creationist/theist side. And cognitive dissonance can cause people to make strange claims.

By the way, that is part one of a four part series.

 

[james dixon]

Certainly. Here are intermediate species leading to modern whales.

If you want to concentrate on something particular, I am happy to discuss it.

This is just one example of an evolutionary sequence postulated with a great deal of imagination. .

What you are providing is an artists conceptual imagery that does not represent any factual evidence to back it up. Some people still believe we "evolved" from monkeys and yet there are still monkeys climbing trees today. What happened, where they just left out of the lop or what?

There is no skeletal evidence showing this supposed transition or evolution; none, nada, zip.

What we do have in common with every living thing on this planet, including the birds, fish, insects and microbes is DNA.

If we single out that portion of the DNA chain that is common to all the above we will find our true origin.

In my view, anyway
.