Evidence of Evolution that was presented but never addressed

[james bond]

It's bull**** that people need to eat? Do tell.

Are you ignorant that Monsanto seeds do not feed the poor in the world?

Oh yeah, you do not believe Jesus could have fed thousands with loaves of bread and fish, but you do believe this.

 

[james bond]

Here is more evidence in terms of a study showing Darwin was wrong. Why do people continue to believe in evolution?

"With $2 million in funding over a five-year period starting in 2010, researchers from the University of Michigan, led by Bradley Cardinale, with help from colleagues at the University of Maryland and UC Santa Barbara, set out to test a fundamental aspect of Darwin's theory. According to Darwin, closely related species compete more than distant ones, because they occupy similar ecological niches. The scientists neither intended nor expected to find Darwin's precept wrong. Examining closely related algae in North American lakes, they expected to find species battling each other for dominance. What they found was "completely unexpected," the report says. Look at the shock these scientists experienced:

The researchers ... were so uncomfortable with their results that they spent the next several months trying to disprove their own work. But the research held up.

"[Darwin's] hypothesis is so intuitive that it was hard for us to give it up. But we are becoming more and more convinced that he wasn't right about the organisms we've been studying," Cardinale says. "It doesn't mean the hypothesis won't hold for other organisms, but it's enough that we want to get biologists to rethink the generality of Darwin's hypothesis." (Emphasis added.)

So it's not about competition. It's about cooperation.

"If Darwin had been right, the older, more genetically unique species should have unique niches, and should compete less strongly, while the ones closely related should be ecologically similar and compete much more strongly -- but that's not what happened," Cardinale says. "We didn't see any evidence of that at all." They found this to be so in field experiments, lab experiments and surveys in 1,200 lakes in North America.

"If Darwin was right, we should've seen species that are genetically different and ecologically unique, doing unique things and not competing with other species," he adds. "But we didn't."

This result is important because competition is a key tenet of Darwinism. It harks back to the ideas of Thomas Malthus, who assumed that organisms, multiplying exponentially, cannot keep up with the food supply that only grows arithmetically. The inevitable consequence, Malthus reasoned, would be widespread death except for those individuals who could successfully compete for limited resources. Darwin depended on this notion when he built his theory of natural selection. In the sixth edition of On the Origin of Species, he used "survival of the fittest," a phrase coined by Herbert Spencer (another follower of Malthus), as a more accurate representation of his ideas, because it avoided the appearance of design (i.e., nature "selecting" something, as if on purpose).

Darwin "was obsessed with competition," Cardinale says. "He assumed the whole world was composed of species competing with each other, but we found that one-third of the species of algae we studied actually like each other. They don't grow as well unless you put them with another species. It may be that nature has a heck of a lot more mutualisms than we ever expected.

"Maybe species are co-evolving," he adds. "Maybe they are evolving together so they are more productive as a team than they are individually. We found that more than one-third of the time, that they like to be together. Maybe Darwin's presumption that the world may be dominated by competition is wrong."

Cardinale is being tentative with his "maybes" because it's a big deal to contradict the man most scientists view as the greatest biologist who ever lived, whose views are central to debates over design and loom large in battles over school science. But the evidence has spoken. If it proves true with other organisms, it's hard to overestimate the impact of this finding. The work was done by scientists supportive of Darwinism. This is huge! What will our Darwin-lobbying friends at the National Censor for Science Education do now? Oh, just ignore it, of course."

Full article here
NSF Study on Green Algae Finds Darwin Was Wrong About Competition

 

[Kirran]

Here is more evidence in terms of a study showing Darwin was wrong. Why do people continue to believe in evolution?

"With $2 million in funding over a five-year period starting in 2010, researchers from the University of Michigan, led by Bradley Cardinale, with help from colleagues at the University of Maryland and UC Santa Barbara, set out to test a fundamental aspect of Darwin's theory. According to Darwin, closely related species compete more than distant ones, because they occupy similar ecological niches. The scientists neither intended nor expected to find Darwin's precept wrong. Examining closely related algae in North American lakes, they expected to find species battling each other for dominance. What they found was "completely unexpected," the report says. Look at the shock these scientists experienced:

The researchers ... were so uncomfortable with their results that they spent the next several months trying to disprove their own work. But the research held up.

"[Darwin's] hypothesis is so intuitive that it was hard for us to give it up. But we are becoming more and more convinced that he wasn't right about the organisms we've been studying," Cardinale says. "It doesn't mean the hypothesis won't hold for other organisms, but it's enough that we want to get biologists to rethink the generality of Darwin's hypothesis." (Emphasis added.)

So it's not about competition. It's about cooperation.

"If Darwin had been right, the older, more genetically unique species should have unique niches, and should compete less strongly, while the ones closely related should be ecologically similar and compete much more strongly -- but that's not what happened," Cardinale says. "We didn't see any evidence of that at all." They found this to be so in field experiments, lab experiments and surveys in 1,200 lakes in North America.

"If Darwin was right, we should've seen species that are genetically different and ecologically unique, doing unique things and not competing with other species," he adds. "But we didn't."

This result is important because competition is a key tenet of Darwinism. It harks back to the ideas of Thomas Malthus, who assumed that organisms, multiplying exponentially, cannot keep up with the food supply that only grows arithmetically. The inevitable consequence, Malthus reasoned, would be widespread death except for those individuals who could successfully compete for limited resources. Darwin depended on this notion when he built his theory of natural selection. In the sixth edition of On the Origin of Species, he used "survival of the fittest," a phrase coined by Herbert Spencer (another follower of Malthus), as a more accurate representation of his ideas, because it avoided the appearance of design (i.e., nature "selecting" something, as if on purpose).

Darwin "was obsessed with competition," Cardinale says. "He assumed the whole world was composed of species competing with each other, but we found that one-third of the species of algae we studied actually like each other. They don't grow as well unless you put them with another species. It may be that nature has a heck of a lot more mutualisms than we ever expected.

"Maybe species are co-evolving," he adds. "Maybe they are evolving together so they are more productive as a team than they are individually. We found that more than one-third of the time, that they like to be together. Maybe Darwin's presumption that the world may be dominated by competition is wrong."

Cardinale is being tentative with his "maybes" because it's a big deal to contradict the man most scientists view as the greatest biologist who ever lived, whose views are central to debates over design and loom large in battles over school science. But the evidence has spoken. If it proves true with other organisms, it's hard to overestimate the impact of this finding. The work was done by scientists supportive of Darwinism. This is huge! What will our Darwin-lobbying friends at the National Censor for Science Education do now? Oh, just ignore it, of course."

Full article here
NSF Study on Green Algae Finds Darwin Was Wrong About Competition

None of that refutes evolution whatsoever, it just shows that Darwin was wrong about details of how the process worked. Which makes sense.

 

[gnostic]

Or better yet, beenherebeforeagain, tell me how the human species follow Darwinism and the survival of the fittest or how the strong survive and the weak die off.

You truly don't understand evolution, especially Natural Selection.

The phrase "survival of the fittest" doesn't mean the "strong survive" and the "weak die off".

The "fittest" mean that EVERY species, genera and families of animals (and plants) that are alive and extant, TODAY, have found their niche, to survive in the environments of that regions of their habitats, whether they be -

• from strong to the weak,
• from the large to very small,
• from carnivores to herbivores,
• from predators to the preys.

In Africa, a lion may be a strong predator and carnivore, and the rest of African animals may be preys to this lion, and yet the gazelles, zebras and others smaller and weaker animals all survive and live in the same region as this lion, because each animal are the "fittest".

The kolas and wombats are weak and slow, when compared to the dingos, and yet they have survived, because they found their ways to live with dingos. Which make the wombats the "fittest" and the kolas the "fittest" just as much the dingos do, because they have managed to adapt, survive, live and procreate, because each ones "fit in" their niche.

Your grasp of "fittest" clearly demonstrate that you don't know what you are talking about.

You are thinking fittest only in term of physical strength, which is completely too narrow. You need to learn what "fittest" or "fitness" actually mean in biology.

This is why I don't think many creationists are intelligent when concerning biology, because let their religions indoctrinated them, that they can't seem to learn what they read, because of the creation and religious preconceptions in the matter of evolution.

It is their hubris that creationists think they know more about evolution than the biologists who have researched and worked in their fields.

 

[sayak83]

Are you a hypocrite? You haven't even read the book and want me to read your theories.

When have I asked you to read any book in this thread? You are free not to read anything in the thread whatsoever. Here I will post various evidence and arguments for evolution, if you have objection and counter-evidence, feel free to post them with quotes and link that are readable on the internet itself. I am not going to read or buy any book just because you link them, and I expect nothing of that sort from you either. If you put in quotes from the books you have read, I will read those quotes however and answer appropriately.

That's disingenuous. You wanted to know if I read the book and I have. You asked me multiple times to complete boredom. And you follow it up with another boring post.

I don't care if you it boring.

Now, why don't you take your own advice and read it to increase YOUR knowledge. Certainly, I have read about game theory so please explain what it has to do with what we are discussing?

Here (a free resource)
Bacteria and game theory: the rise and fall of cooperation in spatially heterogeneous environments | Interface Focus

Experimental evidence of how cooperative game theoretic strategies can emerge and persist in the presence of survival of the fittest.

Stove even has you pegged in his first essay. You take the Soft Man way out of Darwin's Deilemma with your bit about game theory.

Typical ignorant philosopher...

Darwin said that evolution is about competition and the survival of the fittest.

Darwin also said that in many cases survival of the fittest depends on string cooperation within groups and introduced group selection, for example. Its a BIG book. He tackled both cooperation and conflict strategies for gaining fitness. Some of his ideas were correct, some wrong and some partially correct. Darwin is simply the founder of the scientific discipline, not some infallible guy whose every theory we believe.

David Stove counters it very nicely and presents essays to make one think. He is an agnostic. How can evolution happen when humans do not have the traits that are described? I assume you have read Origin of Species and Descent of Man. He has essays on both of them. What about the Selfish Gene by Dawkins? Stove covers it as well. He even covers errors of heredity.

I have read nothing of Darwin's work, just as I have read nothing from Newton, Maxwell, Boltzmann etc. It has historical interest and often provides valuable insights about how to think about things as a scientist. But much of what he said (or how he said it) is obsolete. My knowledge of evolution (of of every other science that I practice in my field or related ones) comes from graduate and undergraduate textbooks, review and symposium papers, technical manuals etc. written almost entirely in the past 10-15 years. Science moves blazingly fast, and its silly to believe that somehow we hold Darwin's various hypotheses sacrosanct. Those that have been experimentally or theoretically validated remain in the latest works, other are simply left out.

But here is cooperation in evolution
http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/44901/title/The-Evolution-of-Cooperation/

Now I have read selfish gene. What specifically is it that he criticizes there? I will note that it is still a non-technical work. It would have been better if these guys criticize an actual science book for once. But feel free to tell what the criticisms are.

 

[McBell]

No fallacy. It's to make you look disabled when you wanted to know what school I went to when we first met. It seemed personal the way you said it. I gave you the answer, but it's hilarious that you don't see it. Bwahahahahahaha.

sad really.

 

[sayak83]

Here is more evidence in terms of a study showing Darwin was wrong. Why do people continue to believe in evolution?

"With $2 million in funding over a five-year period starting in 2010, researchers from the University of Michigan, led by Bradley Cardinale, with help from colleagues at the University of Maryland and UC Santa Barbara, set out to test a fundamental aspect of Darwin's theory. According to Darwin, closely related species compete more than distant ones, because they occupy similar ecological niches. The scientists neither intended nor expected to find Darwin's precept wrong. Examining closely related algae in North American lakes, they expected to find species battling each other for dominance. What they found was "completely unexpected," the report says. Look at the shock these scientists experienced:

The researchers ... were so uncomfortable with their results that they spent the next several months trying to disprove their own work. But the research held up.

"[Darwin's] hypothesis is so intuitive that it was hard for us to give it up. But we are becoming more and more convinced that he wasn't right about the organisms we've been studying," Cardinale says. "It doesn't mean the hypothesis won't hold for other organisms, but it's enough that we want to get biologists to rethink the generality of Darwin's hypothesis." (Emphasis added.)

So it's not about competition. It's about cooperation.

"If Darwin had been right, the older, more genetically unique species should have unique niches, and should compete less strongly, while the ones closely related should be ecologically similar and compete much more strongly -- but that's not what happened," Cardinale says. "We didn't see any evidence of that at all." They found this to be so in field experiments, lab experiments and surveys in 1,200 lakes in North America.

"If Darwin was right, we should've seen species that are genetically different and ecologically unique, doing unique things and not competing with other species," he adds. "But we didn't."

This result is important because competition is a key tenet of Darwinism. It harks back to the ideas of Thomas Malthus, who assumed that organisms, multiplying exponentially, cannot keep up with the food supply that only grows arithmetically. The inevitable consequence, Malthus reasoned, would be widespread death except for those individuals who could successfully compete for limited resources. Darwin depended on this notion when he built his theory of natural selection. In the sixth edition of On the Origin of Species, he used "survival of the fittest," a phrase coined by Herbert Spencer (another follower of Malthus), as a more accurate representation of his ideas, because it avoided the appearance of design (i.e., nature "selecting" something, as if on purpose).

Darwin "was obsessed with competition," Cardinale says. "He assumed the whole world was composed of species competing with each other, but we found that one-third of the species of algae we studied actually like each other. They don't grow as well unless you put them with another species. It may be that nature has a heck of a lot more mutualisms than we ever expected.

"Maybe species are co-evolving," he adds. "Maybe they are evolving together so they are more productive as a team than they are individually. We found that more than one-third of the time, that they like to be together. Maybe Darwin's presumption that the world may be dominated by competition is wrong."

Cardinale is being tentative with his "maybes" because it's a big deal to contradict the man most scientists view as the greatest biologist who ever lived, whose views are central to debates over design and loom large in battles over school science. But the evidence has spoken. If it proves true with other organisms, it's hard to overestimate the impact of this finding. The work was done by scientists supportive of Darwinism. This is huge! What will our Darwin-lobbying friends at the National Censor for Science Education do now? Oh, just ignore it, of course."

Full article here
NSF Study on Green Algae Finds Darwin Was Wrong About Competition

One of the many many hypotheses made by Darwin that was untested and probably wrong. However, the fact that this hypothesis was plausible but has very little actual evidence for it was clearly mentioned on in evolutionary biology and ecology textbook I have read. Neither is this recent news. Several previous studies have shown the same thing,
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1433831907000479
We provide one of the first direct tests of the “competition-relatedness hypothesis” by combining two data sets: the relative competitive ability of 50 vascular plant species competing against 92 competitor species measured in five multi-species experiments, and measures of the phylogenetic relatedness of these species. In contrast to Darwin's assertion, there were weak relationships between the strength of competition and phylogenetic relatedness. Across all species studied, the competition-relatedness relationship was weak and not significant.

Not sure how it affects the theory of evolution though. The fact that closely related species do not compete more strongly greatly increases the chances of speciation and increased diversification of life as newly diverged species do not need to geographically or ecologically seperated and can coexist. But this was already quite obvious as lots and lots of evidence has been gathered of very rapid speciation in plants and animals (cichlid fish for example). Darwin mistakenly thought that species were far more long lived and stable - a holdover from the old Bibolical idea that species exist as constants - and hence put artificial constraints of speciation to make it the case that speciation occurs slowly. Most of these constraints, like this one, has proven to be wrong. Darwin, it appears, was still not thinking radically enough and did not fully comprehend how malleable and changeable and evolvable life really is. yay for evolution!

 

[stevevw]

In reading some of the posts about evolution it seems that some think evolution is all about selection. The evidence shows that life can change in other ways besides natural selection (Adaptations). There are other non-adaptive processes which are more responsible for complexity in organisms. Adaptations cannot explain and account for a lot of what we see but some are turning to adaptations through selection for just about everything that happens in life. This relies on incredible coincidences and circumstances and speculations that can create complex structures through a blind process of natural selection and random mutations.

According to the standard theory of evolution distantly related animals that have the same features is called convergent evolution. This relies on extraordinary coincidences to explain this situation but now we are finding that the similarities extend down to the genetic level with the same genes for these same features. Yet many creatures such as fish, for example, who live in very similar environments are very different. If for example speed is a good feature for survival then why don't all fish swim and dart faster or all land animals grow slim and run fast? They could all run away from each other and survive. Why wouldn't all creatures opt for the best features to survive? So adaptations do not explain this and there may be other processes at work.

Life may follow set paths that are relied upon to live on earth in certain environments. There may be more ability within their genomes that can be tapped into or switched on to help change and develop. It may be that certain animals in certain environments will be more prone to enhance certain features which are suited to the situations they are in depending on that environment and the other animals, plants and microorganisms they cohabit with. It's not all about sifting through many hit and miss adaptations in the hope of finding the mutational change to survive. Life is made to survive and has the ability already there to tap into. If anything it's a case of de-evolution where life is becoming sicker as more slightly harmful mutations are accumulating in genomes. Life was just as complex in the beginning as it is now. It makes more sense to say that life has a program that is already there that helps and directs it to live on earth according to the evidence.

 

[Kirran]

This relies on extraordinary coincidences to explain this situation but now we are finding that the similarities extend down to the genetic level with the same genes for these same features.

Much of the rest of what you say here is open conjecture, and I would suggest you read up further on evolutionary science - you do appreciate the complexity and adaptability of the process - but I wondered if you could provide a source for this one? Of the same genes emerging independently in organisms going through convergent evolution?

 

[sayak83]

In reading some of the posts about evolution it seems that some think evolution is all about selection. The evidence shows that life can change in other ways besides natural selection (Adaptations). There are other non-adaptive processes which are more responsible for complexity in organisms. Adaptations cannot explain and account for a lot of what we see but some are turning to adaptations through selection for just about everything that happens in life. This relies on incredible coincidences and circumstances and speculations that can create complex structures through a blind process of natural selection and random mutations.

According to the standard theory of evolution distantly related animals that have the same features is called convergent evolution. This relies on extraordinary coincidences to explain this situation but now we are finding that the similarities extend down to the genetic level with the same genes for these same features. Yet many creatures such as fish, for example, who live in very similar environments are very different. If for example speed is a good feature for survival then why don't all fish swim and dart faster or all land animals grow slim and run fast? They could all run away from each other and survive. Why wouldn't all creatures opt for the best features to survive? So adaptations do not explain this and there may be other processes at work.

Life may follow set paths that are relied upon to live on earth in certain environments. There may be more ability within their genomes that can be tapped into or switched on to help change and develop. It may be that certain animals in certain environments will be more prone to enhance certain features which are suited to the situations they are in depending on that environment and the other animals, plants and microorganisms they cohabit with. It's not all about sifting through many hit and miss adaptations in the hope of finding the mutational change to survive. Life is made to survive and has the ability already there to tap into. If anything it's a case of de-evolution where life is becoming sicker as more slightly harmful mutations are accumulating in genomes. Life was just as complex in the beginning as it is now. It makes more sense to say that life has a program that is already there that helps and directs it to live on earth according to the evidence.

Lets discuss convergent evolution first. Theory of evolution combined with molecular biology has shown multiple ways in which convergent evolution occurs in organisms. Here is a review paper on topic. If you are interested in the subject, we can discuss this paper (and allied ones) segment by segment and what objections, if any, you have about the currently well known mechanisms that have been shown to produce convergence in evolution.

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/41c6/de5e76a42bb9171a87237b2b018647d9f2d7.pdf

 

[james bond]

None of that refutes evolution whatsoever, it just shows that Darwin was wrong about details of how the process worked. Which makes sense.

Darwin was wrong about competition with humans, too. For example, animals don't have hospitals and let the weak and injured die by the wayside. Humans don't do that. Even a stranger will help. They co-operate and are altruistic. Thus, Darwin was wrong about everything except natural selection (which creation scientists have proposed with Russell).

 

[james bond]

When have I asked you to read any book in this thread? You are free not to read anything in the thread whatsoever. Here I will post various evidence and arguments for evolution, if you have objection and counter-evidence, feel free to post them with quotes and link that are readable on the internet itself. I am not going to read or buy any book just because you link them, and I expect nothing of that sort from you either. If you put in quotes from the books you have read, I will read those quotes however and answer appropriately.


I don't care if you it boring.



Here (a free resource)
Bacteria and game theory: the rise and fall of cooperation in spatially heterogeneous environments | Interface Focus

Experimental evidence of how cooperative game theoretic strategies can emerge and persist in the presence of survival of the fittest.




Typical ignorant philosopher...


Darwin also said that in many cases survival of the fittest depends on string cooperation within groups and introduced group selection, for example. Its a BIG book. He tackled both cooperation and conflict strategies for gaining fitness. Some of his ideas were correct, some wrong and some partially correct. Darwin is simply the founder of the scientific discipline, not some infallible guy whose every theory we believe.


I have read nothing of Darwin's work, just as I have read nothing from Newton, Maxwell, Boltzmann etc. It has historical interest and often provides valuable insights about how to think about things as a scientist. But much of what he said (or how he said it) is obsolete. My knowledge of evolution (of of every other science that I practice in my field or related ones) comes from graduate and undergraduate textbooks, review and symposium papers, technical manuals etc. written almost entirely in the past 10-15 years. Science moves blazingly fast, and its silly to believe that somehow we hold Darwin's various hypotheses sacrosanct. Those that have been experimentally or theoretically validated remain in the latest works, other are simply left out.

But here is cooperation in evolution
http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/44901/title/The-Evolution-of-Cooperation/

Now I have read selfish gene. What specifically is it that he criticizes there? I will note that it is still a non-technical work. It would have been better if these guys criticize an actual science book for once. But feel free to tell what the criticisms are.

You wanted me to read game theory and I've read it. Now, explain what the point of all that was. Quid pro quo. I answered your snide implications of not reading Darwinian Fairytales by David Stove and it turned out he was right. You have no answers to my questions nor the points Stove makes.

Three times you asked me. And you didn't propose anything interesting from asking. Surely, a Phd would be able to come up with something interesting and something I can learn from. What was the point anyway? It was stupid.

I'm going to take a break here and read it when I have time. Will get back to you.

Ha ha. Stove is not ignorant. You do not even know the three types of people he describes, so guess who is the ignorant one? Where did you get your degrees anyway?

 

[james bond]

sad really.

Hilarious really ha ha.

I guess I'll have to explain because you're probably not American.

My evolution website is evolution.berkeley.edu. The berkeley.edu gives you the school's website.

The evolution website also says it is a collaborative project of the University of California Museum of Paleontology.


I went to a liberal school that is one of the most prominent in the US in regards to evolution. There are professors who are famous evolutionists.

However, not all the professors believe such trash.

 

[sayak83]

On the contrary, Genetic research has amply and extensively demonstrated the mechanisms underlying these transformations further bolstering the case for evolution. You seem to have been sadly misled. But no matter, eliminating ignorance and delusion is the prime duty of any Hindu. So read on.

The Genetic Mechanisms Behind Evolutionary Transformations 1

The first question in discussing how novel body forms (like arms and ears) can emerge from older body forms of ancestors is to ask the more current question:- How does the human, animal or plant body, each of whose cells have the same DNA sustain so many different types and shapes of tissues and organs?

The answer to that question is simple. Different stretches of the DNA is active in different types of cells. Thus a nerve cell will have a different stretch of DNA activates (and the rest passivated) in comparison to the heart cell. How does a cell know what to activate and what to passivate. It receives information from the outside regarding
a) What its neighbors are doing and
b) What geometric position it is in with respect to the body (especially within the growing embroyo).

These signals comes in terms of chemicals and chemical and osmotic/Ph (saltiness and acidity) gradients that turn on and off multiple switching genes and hence activate and passivate various stretches of the DNA.

What this means that the cells belonging to the limb (in adults) and responsible for growing the limb (in embroyos) will have a different retinue of activated genes and switches than corresponding cells responsible for the heart or the face and jaws for example.

The big discovery in developmental biology has been that:-

The cells responsible for the fins of fish are the same cells responsible for the arms and legs of animals in all cases. They have the same switching genes and the same activated stretches of DNA, and these switches and DNA stretches differ by only a few mutations from those of lobe finned fish in a way that show clear family relatedness. The entire mechanism of formation of fins and fomation of limbs are essentially identical with minor variations in themes caused by the mutations. When the older fin making gene versions are put back on these limb making cells of animal embroyos, they start to transform into finds rather than limbs (and vice-versa).


In the 1960-1970, very important embryological work identified two sets of developing tissue in any growing tetrapod embroyo (i.e. all animals with legs and arms or wings - birds, reptiles, mammals, amphibians) that governs the manner in which the limbs grow. They are the same tissue in all tetrapods. One controls the development of the limb itself. Remove it, and limb development stops. Add that tissue in somewhere and a new limb crops up. The other controls the development of the five-fingered hand (its called the ZPA). Add it to another part of the limb, and you will get another hand or feet, remove it and you will get a feetless or handless limb. After 1990, when genetic investigations became feasible, researchers began to look for the specific gene that gives these developmental tissue their ability to guide limb development. That gene proved to be the developmental gene called Sonic Hedgehog gene, and yes it is found to be active in the developmental limb buds of all tetrapods and yes, they are all mutated versions of each other showing clear signs of common ancestry. The DNA recipe to build upper arms, forearms, wrists and digits are virtually identical in every creature that has limbs.

I will continue the discussion further in the next post, but for those who are impatient, here is quick link

Limb Evolution

The Genetic Mechanisms Behind Evolutionary Transformations 2

So far I have shown that the genes and the mechanisms behind the group of the diverse types of tetrapod (i.e. land vertebrates) limbs are the same and are simply mutated variations of each other. The next, question is, are these same genes control the fin development of fish as well? To test this hypothesis, researchers looked at hundreds of shark embroyos and did experiments on them as they grew their fins.

These were the results:-
1) The same developmental gene and the associated protein - the sonic hedgehog - is present in shark embroyos as well.
2) They become active at the same stage of embroyo development as land vertebrates (chicken, human, frog etc.)
3) The sonic hedgehog turned on at a patch of tissue at the back end of the fin, corresponding to the spot where our hands and fingers are
4) Activating the sonic hedgehog at a different part of the growing fin led to a duplication of the fin bones just as it causes duplication of the hand in land animal limbs.
5) When a bit of mouse variant of sonic hedgehog was introduced inside the limb of a shark embroyo, that portion developed different types of finger like bones in the shark fin, showing that it was the mutation of the sonic hedgehog gene that has caused the fish fins to become finger like in land vertebrates.

What this suggest is simple. The apparently large difference between the fins of fish and the hands of land animals is an illusion. Only small differences in the developmental genes (like the sonic hedgehog) account for this difference. The same developmental genes are responsible for fin and limb development in all vertebrates, fish to man, and small mutations in these genes, perfectly explainable through evolution, result in the apparently large difference between leg and hands of land animals and the fins of fish.

And how did the first fins develop? More experimental evidence has shown that fins first developed from mutated versions of developmental genes that are responsible for making the gill-arches of marine animals. Once again evolution makes new things by simply copying an old thing and varying it a little.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/03/090323212021.htm

The genetic toolkit that animals use to build fins and limbs is the same genetic toolkit that controls the development of part of the gill skeleton in sharks, according to a new study.

Thus i have shown the excellent adequacy of evolutionary mechanism in explaining the emergence of fins and limbs of vertebrates through inheritance, modification and selection.

 

[james bond]

When have I asked you to read any book in this thread? You are free not to read anything in the thread whatsoever. Here I will post various evidence and arguments for evolution, if you have objection and counter-evidence, feel free to post them with quotes and link that are readable on the internet itself. I am not going to read or buy any book just because you link them, and I expect nothing of that sort from you either. If you put in quotes from the books you have read, I will read those quotes however and answer appropriately.


I don't care if you it boring.



Here (a free resource)
Bacteria and game theory: the rise and fall of cooperation in spatially heterogeneous environments | Interface Focus

Experimental evidence of how cooperative game theoretic strategies can emerge and persist in the presence of survival of the fittest.




Typical ignorant philosopher...


Darwin also said that in many cases survival of the fittest depends on string cooperation within groups and introduced group selection, for example. Its a BIG book. He tackled both cooperation and conflict strategies for gaining fitness. Some of his ideas were correct, some wrong and some partially correct. Darwin is simply the founder of the scientific discipline, not some infallible guy whose every theory we believe.


I have read nothing of Darwin's work, just as I have read nothing from Newton, Maxwell, Boltzmann etc. It has historical interest and often provides valuable insights about how to think about things as a scientist. But much of what he said (or how he said it) is obsolete. My knowledge of evolution (of of every other science that I practice in my field or related ones) comes from graduate and undergraduate textbooks, review and symposium papers, technical manuals etc. written almost entirely in the past 10-15 years. Science moves blazingly fast, and its silly to believe that somehow we hold Darwin's various hypotheses sacrosanct. Those that have been experimentally or theoretically validated remain in the latest works, other are simply left out.

But here is cooperation in evolution
http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/44901/title/The-Evolution-of-Cooperation/

Now I have read selfish gene. What specifically is it that he criticizes there? I will note that it is still a non-technical work. It would have been better if these guys criticize an actual science book for once. But feel free to tell what the criticisms are.

You're boring because for one who has a PhD, you do not seem to understand much. Someone with a PhD would have knowledge and not be afraid to share instead of telling someone to read such and such and then not be interested in what someone else knows. An interesting person would make one want to read the book in question regardless whether they have a PhD or not. They would also have read a variety of works which you do not seem to have. I'll read what you want me to read and I'll make a comment and then it will be the last you hear from me. It's a waste of time to talk with people who brag about what they have and not share it. You deserve that for insulting me by asking me three times if I read a book. Holy shat!

For one, I've already gone over with Jose Fly and how bacteria is the poster boy for evolutionists. I'll ask you the same question. As we all know, bacteria does not reproduce sexually. Do you know bacteria does not reproduce asexually, as well? How do they grow then? What happens? How can they be multicelluar? This article makes a lot of assumptions that we are seeing evolution or what happens is based on evolution. Where does Darwin state this as you go off on a tangent from Darwin when he was wrong.

Regardless, how do you use what the learn from the article in real life? For example, I had to decide whether to get a flu shot or not today. What do you do? Do you take the risk of side effects and get inoculated, or do you trust that most of the people around you will get the vaccine and risk possible illness, sparing you both the disease and the side effects from the vaccine?

It's the same with the "evolution" of cooperation. Where did Darwin state cooperation?

David Stove is not an ignorant philosopher. He isn't typical either. That's like calling Darwin a typical ignorant scientist. You admitted Darwin was wrong about competition, so that destroys part of evolution. That means Stove was right in his argument.

Again, you farking insult me you loser. I am through with you. I have read books that you stated as I am a science nerd. What a rude, boorish loser you are of a Phd.

 

[BioStudent]

As we all know, bacteria does not reproduce sexually. Do you know bacteria does not reproduce asexually, as well? How do they grow then? What happens?

Are you sure you understand the term asexually? Asexual reproduction happens when offspring arise from a single parent, and inherit the genes of that parent only. This can happen in many ways, from division (as in bacteria), to budding and vegetative propagation, to parthenogenesis (done by some lizards). There are many videos of bacteria dividing, and is something most biology students, let alone trained scientists, have observed routinely for the past few centuries. I have seen it many times myself, and it is an extremely well studied and documented process. Your questioning it makes no sense when any microbiologist could take you into their lab and show it to you in real time.

Here's a video of bacteria dividing for your viewing pleasure:

And here is a video explaining the process, and what actually happens inside the bacteria

And before you ask, yes, the mechanisms it shows have been directly observed under the microscope.

 

[sayak83]

You're boring because for one who has a PhD, you do not seem to understand much. Someone with a PhD would have knowledge and not be afraid to share instead of telling someone to read such and such and then not be interested in what someone else knows. An interesting person would make one want to read the book in question regardless whether they have a PhD or not. They would also have read a variety of works which you do not seem to have. I'll read what you want me to read and I'll make a comment and then it will be the last you hear from me. It's a waste of time to talk with people who brag about what they have and not share it. You deserve that for insulting me by asking me three times if I read a book. Holy shat!

Nothing of substance here.

For one, I've already gone over with Jose Fly and how bacteria is the poster boy for evolutionists. I'll ask you the same question. As we all know, bacteria does not reproduce sexually. Do you know bacteria does not reproduce asexually, as well? How do they grow then? What happens? How can they be multicelluar?

@BioStudent has already replied adequately to your questions.

This article makes a lot of assumptions that we are seeing evolution or what happens is based on evolution. Where does Darwin state this as you go off on a tangent from Darwin when he was wrong.

Saying "lots of assumptions" is easy. Point them systematically and we shall discuss one by one.
Biological Altruism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
"The idea that group selection might explain the evolution of altruism was first broached by Darwin himself. In The Descent of Man (1871), Darwin discussed the origin of altruistic and self-sacrificial behaviour among humans. Such behaviour is obviously disadvantageous at the individual level, as Darwin realized: “he who was ready to sacrifice his life, as many a savage has been, rather than betray his comrades, would often leave no offspring to inherit his noble nature” (p.163). Darwin then argued that self-sacrificial behaviour, though disadvantageous for the individual ‘savage’, might be beneficial at the group level: “a tribe including many members who...were always ready to give aid to each other and sacrifice themselves for the common good, would be victorious over most other tribes; and this would be natural selection” (p.166). Darwin's suggestion is that the altruistic behaviour in question may have evolved by a process of between-group selection."

Regardless, how do you use what the learn from the article in real life? For example, I had to decide whether to get a flu shot or not today. What do you do? Do you take the risk of side effects and get inoculated, or do you trust that most of the people around you will get the vaccine and risk possible illness, sparing you both the disease and the side effects from the vaccine?

What has evolution of cooperation in the biological world has to do with you getting a flu shot?

It's the same with the "evolution" of cooperation. Where did Darwin state cooperation?

See above.

David Stove is not an ignorant philosopher. He isn't typical either. That's like calling Darwin a typical ignorant scientist. You admitted Darwin was wrong about competition, so that destroys part of evolution. That means Stove was right in his argument.

No. Many of Darwin's ideas have never been included as part of the evolutionary theory. The part that has been included (and for which Darwin is famous for) is natural selection via survival of the fittest and descent with modification. The specific mechanisms for descent with modification and the mechanisms for natural selection were identified and tested much much later (1920-1970) and many new mechanisms continue to be unraveled.

Again, you farking insult me you loser. I am through with you. I have read books that you stated as I am a science nerd. What a rude, boorish loser you are of a Phd.

Projecting your character onto me, I see. Good bye.

 

[Sapiens]

Yes, it could.

Perhaps we should see how far you can get attempting to make that case.

 

[Sapiens]

You're assuming too much just like the atheist scientists who think it started with some tiny water organism, and this happened 400 million years ago or 3.8 billion years ago. What a fairytale.

1. Show me that abiogenesis happened.

2 and 3. Around 1990, the lungfish and coelacanth (400 million year old fish found still living haha) were found by evolutionists* but the lungfish was discovered in the 19th century by Edward Cope. Your evos thought they found that elusive "transitional" fossil haha.

(* See Box 1 : Getting a Leg Up on Land : Scientific American )

Referencing Stove! Really?

In "The Intellectual Capacity of Women" Stove stated his belief that "the intellectual capacity of women is on the whole inferior to that of men", and in "Racial and Other Antagonisms," he claimed that racism is not a form of prejudice, but rather, "common sense." You still behind him?

 

[james bond]

He SkepticThinker, has Stranger Things 2 started yet? I saw an ad last week, but it did not say when it was going to start again. Hate these teasers.