Evolution question

[Bishadi]

or the platypus....

is that just not the funniest looking little critter;

does zeus have a sense of humor or what?

does anyone know where Noah put them on the ark?

 

[Autodidact]

By intermediate I'm referring to the thousands of progressively more human-like sub-species that must have existed between the australopithecus and the modern human.

Why thousands?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I'm guessing not to the full extent you guys have, but riddle me this; is it or is it not crucial to understand how the very first organism came into being?

Is it crucial to understand how electrons came into existence to understand and apply Ohm's Law?

We can talk back and forth all day about evolution and the theories that support it, but regardless of whether or not it is important to you in your belief system, it is important to me. My view is that if life isn't eternal then there had to be a beginning, if there is a beginning then that means something had to occur to bring about that beginning. Considering Geisler's and Turek's remark that the law of entropy would prevent life from forming because that would imply that universe is actually trying to create order from disorder, what caused life to form?

Three points:

- the law of entropy only applies to closed systems. The Earth is not a closed system; in fact, it receives a great deal of energy input continuously from a big bright ball in the sky that rises and sets every day.

- entropy and disorder are not synonymous. If a substance can have a form with apparent order that has lower potential energy, then the ordered form is higher in entropy than the disordered form. A good example of this is a snowflake: they form complex regular shapes because it would take more energy to form something with less apparent order.

- do you think that net impact of life is a decrease in entropy? I'm personally not convinced it is.

Even the most devout scientists can't deny the impossibility of abiogenesis. This to me is the foundation of evolution, answer this and we can start having a talk on evolution after this point. I look forward to hearin from ya.

"Devout scientist"? :sarcastic

Try Googling Miller-Urey.

 

[Nero777]

No, because determining how electrons came into existence isn't as important as determining the source of all creation. How can we talk about Darwin's Origin of the Species when no one can explain how the origin of the first creature in existence? Let me ask this: can anyone here prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that evolution is the only true way we could be here today? I just want a simple yes or no.


"Devout scientist"?

Yeah; it sounds strange, but do you not believe that scientists have to have faith in order to compensate for the lack of answers in certain areas of science. If you have faith and aren't willing to back down from your beliefs, then that is a sign of how devoted you are to that system. Everyone has faith, regardless of whether or not you have a god in your life.

 

[fantome profane]

No, because determining how electrons came into existence isn't as important as determining the source of all creation.

Why not?

How can we talk about Darwin's Origin of the Species when no one can explain how the origin of the first creature in existence? Let me ask this: can anyone here prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that evolution is the only true way we could be here today? I just want a simple yes or no.

No, science doesn’t work like that. We can only say that it is the best scientific explanation we have. Actually it is the only scientific explanation we have.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

No, because determining how electrons came into existence isn't as important as determining the source of all creation.

My bet is that these two things are exactly the same.

How can we talk about Darwin's Origin of the Species when no one can explain how the origin of the first creature in existence?

Because evolution and abiogenesis are two different things. The theory of evolution, which was first described in the mainstream press in On the Origin of Species by Darwin, concerns how life changes and evolves over time. This presupposes that life exists in some form.

Here's an analogy: you find a rock partway down a hill, still rolling downward. You can see the trail that it's left through the dirt as it rolled down from the peak. You can do all sorts of tests and calculations on the path and on the rock to confirm with a high degree of precision that the rock did make that trail. You can do fancy computer modelling and confirm that the path of the rock perfectly lines up with how it would have descended if rolling freely. How valid do you think it would be for someone to claim that if you don't know who or what started the rock rolling at the very top of the peak, you can't know anything about how it rolled down?

Let me ask this: can anyone here prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that evolution is the only true way we could be here today? I just want a simple yes or no.

Pretty much. There's always some variation in science, but there's as much support for evolution being the driving force for the development of life on Earth as there is for gravity being the driving force for planetary motion.

"Devout scientist"?

Yeah; it sounds strange, but do you not believe that scientists have to have faith in order to compensate for the lack of answers in certain areas of science.

Can you give some examples?

Personally, I think any scientist who fills in gaps in scientific knowledge with faith rather than just saying "I don't know" has missed the overall point of science.

 

[painted wolf]

some quick easy info on abiogenesis.

primer video on the work of Dr. Szostak's work producing protocells.
YouTube - The Origin of Life - Abiogenesis

Talk origins on abiogenesis.
Lies, Damned Lies, Statistics, and Probability of Abiogenesis Calculations

audio interview with Dr. Szostak about his work producing protocells
YouTube - Abiogenesis - Audio Interview with Jack Szostak

news article on his work producing protocells that can copy DNA
HHMI News: Researchers Build Model Protocell Capable of Copying DNA
Getting Closer To Life’s Dawn | The Loom | Discover Magazine

wa:do

 

[Autodidact]

No, because determining how electrons came into existence isn't as important as determining the source of all creation. How can we talk about Darwin's Origin of the Species when no one can explain how the origin of the first creature in existence?

Well, this is ridiculous, but if that's your view, then stop talking about it immediately and start a thread on the origin of the first creature. This is a question that science has not yet resolved.

Let me ask this: can anyone here prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that evolution is the only true way we could be here today? I just want a simple yes or no.

No, of course not. Science never proves anything beyond a shadow of doubt. If that were the case, it wouldn't be science; it would be math.

You don't seem to know about evolution or science. Are you interested in learning?

"Devout scientist"?

Yeah; it sounds strange, but do you not believe that scientists have to have faith in order to compensate for the lack of answers in certain areas of science.

No, they don't. What they don't know, they mark "not known." They don't make something up and have faith in it.

If you have faith and aren't willing to back down from your beliefs, then that is a sign of how devoted you are to that system. Everyone has faith, regardless of whether or not you have a god in your life.

Any scientist worth his or her salt is willing to change any position if that's where the evidence leads, and unwilling to do so if it does not. That's not faith, it's empirical science.

So apparently you are not interested in talking about evolution then? Why are you in this thread?

Apparently you think the only important question for Biology is abiogenesis? Are you planning to study it yourself? It's a very difficult problem, not yet resolved.

 

[painted wolf]

it may not be resolved... but it is amazing how close we are getting.

check out Dr. Szostak's work on the subject... It's very eye opening. (and protocell forming)

wa:do

 

[crystalonyx]

By intermediate I'm referring to the thousands of progressively more human-like sub-species that must have existed between the australopithecus and the modern human.

.

Try a handful, certainly not much more. Species really are rather static and stable, the "gradualism" you insist upon really doesn't happen. It takes a big change in environment or a disaster for a new species to come on the scene.

 

[Polaris]

Why thousands?

I realize that percentage-wise we are quite similar to australopithecus, but when your talking about a few billion DNA base pairs those small percentages equate to fairly large numbers. I have a hard time seeing the transition from australopithecus to modern man in just a few dozen evolutionary stages when such a transition requires the mutation of several thousands of DNA base pairs.

Now I admit, I'm no DNA expert and there may be something I'm missing here, hence the reason for this thread.

 

[Autodidact]

I realize that percentage-wise we are quite similar to australopithecus, but when your talking about a few billion DNA base pairs those small percentages equate to fairly large numbers. I have a hard time seeing the transition from australopithecus to modern man in just a few dozen evolutionary stages when such a transition requires the mutation of several thousands of DNA base pairs.

Now I admit, I'm no DNA expert and there may be something I'm missing here, hence the reason for this thread.

A change of only a few genes would not be enough to be classified as a new species. You and I have a few different genes, but belong to the same species. The difference between us and chimps is small enough to leave room for only a few species steps between us and them. Do you know what the definition of a species is?

Do you feel like you have a basic grasp of what the theory of evolution says?

 

[Polaris]

A change of only a few genes would not be enough to be classified as a new species. You and I have a few different genes, but belong to the same species. The difference between us and chimps is small enough to leave room for only a few species steps between us and them. Do you know what the definition of a species is?

Do you feel like you have a basic grasp of what the theory of evolution says?

I'm not sure of the offical definition of a species that you refer to, but when I think of species I think of animals of similar genetic makeup such that they are capable of producing offspring. It seems that evolution would call for a whole spectrum of subspecies where at some point an animal at one end of that spectrum can no longer reproduce with an animal at the other end. At that point one of two things could occur: the "new" animal just dies off, or the "new" animal successfully reproduces with the more proximate subspecies. From there the new emerging subspecies may potentially overtake the species, or it may only overtake a portion of the species and develop into its own new species.

Assuming this to be an accurate description, my questions are these:

- How do you figure that there is only room enough for a few species steps between us and chimps?
- When actually broken down are there still not hundreds, if not thousands of significant genetic differences between humans and chips?
- Which subspecies among humans (if any) lies on the end of the spectrum closest to our evolutionary ancestors?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I'm not sure of the offical definition of a species that you refer to, but when I think of species I think of animals of similar genetic makeup such that they are capable of producing offspring. It seems that evolution would call for a whole spectrum of subspecies where at some point an animal at one end of that spectrum can no longer reproduce with an animal at the other end. At that point one of two things could occur: the "new" animal just dies off, or the "new" animal successfully reproduces with the more proximate subspecies.

Or... the two now-separate species coexist, like herring gulls and lesser black-backed gulls.

I like ring species. They make it much easier to demonstrate evolutionary concepts with examples that are directly observable right now; they're like evolution stretched over distance instead of time.

 

[Autodidact]

Do you feel like you have a basic grasp of the theory of evolution?

(From the fact that I have to ask the question twice to get an answer I surmise that you are Christian.)

 

[Autodidact]

I'm not sure of the offical definition of a species that you refer to, but when I think of species I think of animals of similar genetic makeup such that they are capable of producing offspring. It seems that evolution would call for a whole spectrum of subspecies where at some point an animal at one end of that spectrum can no longer reproduce with an animal at the other end. At that point one of two things could occur: the "new" animal just dies off, or the "new" animal successfully reproduces with the more proximate subspecies. From there the new emerging subspecies may potentially overtake the species, or it may only overtake a portion of the species and develop into its own new species.

Kinda. A key point that you leave out is reproductive isolation. But yet, once they become isolated, those at one "end" of this chain become a new species.

Assuming this to be an accurate description, my questions are these:

- How do you figure that there is only room enough for a few species steps between us and chimps?

How do you figure there isn't? How many genetic differences are there between us and our closest cousins? How many genetic differences are there to differentiate a species?

- When actually broken down are there still not hundreds, if not thousands of significant genetic differences between humans and chips?

There are hundreds of genetic differences between you and me, but we're still the same species.

- Which subspecies among humans (if any) lies on the end of the spectrum closest to our evolutionary ancestors?

There are no sub-species of humans.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

There are no sub-species of humans.

In Dinosaur in a Haystack, Steven Jay Gould makes a pretty convincing (IMO) argument against the idea of subspecies generally. Species have variation within them; subspecies are really just an artificial and largely arbitrary construct created by humans for their own convenience, and using them tends to narrow people's thinking about how life actually works. Subspecies are a way to reconcile life as it exists with our preconceived notion that species should be completely homogenous. It's more useful to just throw out the preconception than to try to make the world fit it.

 

[Polaris]

Do you feel like you have a basic grasp of the theory of evolution?

A basic grasp? Sure.

(From the fact that I have to ask the question twice to get an answer I surmise that you are Christian.)

Why do you so often feel the need to talk down to people?

How do you figure there isn't? How many genetic differences are there between us and our closest cousins? How many genetic differences are there to differentiate a species?

I don't know exactly. I've read that our DNA is about 95% equivalent, yet 5% of 3 billion DNA pairs is still 150 million DNA differences, many of which can be attributed to differences in junk DNA that has no real genetic effect. The question is how many of those 150 million differences are legitimate and how do they translate to perceptible genetic differences?

There are no sub-species of humans.

Why not?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Why not?

Because subspecies are artificial divisions assigned by people for their own purposes. When it comes to homo sapiens, virtually the only reason for this would be as some sort of support for racism.

 

[Autodidact]

Now let me make sure I understand you, Polaris. What you are saying is:

The entire field of modern Biology is mistaken. Using the scientific method and process, the entire field has gone completely wrong. New species do not come into existence from old ones by variation plus natural selection. Rather, what happened is that God magically poofed each individual species into existence, and they never change or develop new species; they always stay the same. 99% of them have gone extinct, but no new species ever arise.

Is that what you're maintaining?