How can you deny evolution?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
20-09-2010, 09:30 AM
RE: How can you deny evolution?
What I find interesting, are tests done with foxes. They had alot of foxes in cages and the most tame ones were chosen to reproduce. In the next generation of tame foxes, there were alot of differences in the fenotype when compared to a wild fox. The changes were similar to the differences between wolfs and dogs.
Hehe, d-o-g g-o-d.

Quote:the origins of dogs from wolves.
It seems impossible to me that humen could have tried to domesticate wolfs (tens of thousands of years ago). What I think is the most possible theory, is that for some reasons (of course for reasons caused by humen) there were much usable resources near human settlements, and the wolfs who were the most tame got more of the resources because they were'nt so afraid about going near human settlements and by time they got tamer and tamer and dogs became ''humens best friends''.
Of course, I'm not a specialist, I just have memories about some documentary about the subject.

Correct me when I'm wrong.
Accept me or go to hell.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-09-2010, 01:22 PM
RE: How can you deny evolution?
(20-09-2010 09:30 AM)Kikko Wrote:  What I find interesting, are tests done with foxes. They had alot of foxes in cages and the most tame ones were chosen to reproduce. In the next generation of tame foxes, there were alot of differences in the fenotype when compared to a wild fox. The changes were similar to the differences between wolfs and dogs.
Hehe, d-o-g g-o-d.

Quote:the origins of dogs from wolves.
It seems impossible to me that humen could have tried to domesticate wolfs (tens of thousands of years ago). What I think is the most possible theory, is that for some reasons (of course for reasons caused by humen) there were much usable resources near human settlements, and the wolfs who were the most tame got more of the resources because they were'nt so afraid about going near human settlements and by time they got tamer and tamer and dogs became ''humens best friends''.
Of course, I'm not a specialist, I just have memories about some documentary about the subject.

I´m I wrong if i say that you have read "the greatest show on earth"? Both the fox experiment and the domestication of the wolf are explained in great detail in that book. Shy

I want to rip off your superstitions and make passionate sense to you
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-09-2010, 02:10 PM
RE: How can you deny evolution?
Quote:I´m I wrong if i say that you have read "the greatest show on earth"? Both the fox experiment and the domestication of the wolf are explained in great detail in that book.
It's been time when I read most of it, I could'nt finish it because I had to return it to the library. I would have borrowed it again, but the mean library-aunt wanted to close the library a couple of minutes before the normal closing time. But I do remember hearing that stuff from television a long time ago.
If they're really explained in detail in the greatest show on earth, I have to borrow it again. Dawkins' books are just usually unavaiable (it's good that they're popular). I waited weeks for ''the selfish gene'', but somebody else always took it before my nose and I ended up buying the english 30th anniversiry edition.

Correct me when I'm wrong.
Accept me or go to hell.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-09-2010, 11:00 PM
 
RE: How can you deny evolution?
(20-09-2010 07:17 AM)Kikko Wrote:  2buckchuck already stated that evolution is adaption, which it is, but I'd like to hear what makes you think they're two different things?

Didn't I answer that in my posting? Adaptation (creationists' micro-evolution) is making use of the group diversity and possibly reusing recently cast off genes to adapt to some change in the environment. Evolution (macro-evolution) is use of mutation, as opposed to existing diversity, to effect a better fit to the environment. Most creationists are cool with the former, but deny the latter happens. Either can effect a species-wide change to an environmental stimulus; the former is quick but constrained to what is available in the gene pool; the latter can do almost anything but it takes great time and is usually very complex in interlocking many individually small changes.
(20-09-2010 03:09 AM)2buckchuck Wrote:  Interesting point, and one well worth making, but - I would guess, without knowing for sure (I'm not a biologist, either) that genes for resistance to many new antibiotics, for example, were not in the original gene pools of most microorganisms. The introduction of these antibiotics on a wide scale is pretty new to the scene, so it seems unlikely that they already would have resistance genes in the pool. As I understand it, true evolution based on mutations occurs in microevolution, not just adaptations from within an existing gene pool.

Oh, I'll agree with you there. Just as the nylonase change was a documented de-novo mutation (and thus macro-evolutionary) so might resistance to antibiotics. However, if that were true in all cases, then antibiotics would be 100% successful in wiping out bacteria. Instead, microbio's describe using antibiotics to wipe out 95 or 98% of germs, leaving those who have some inborn protection against the antibiotic to live and breed with almost no competition - that is practically the definition of an successful adaptation, one in which we assist the bacteria in adapting.

Quote:Evolution is adaptation, taken to the next level.

It's true that the huge variety of dogs all have been created from the original wolf genes, as so are pretty much all capable of interbreeding. Thus, they are still all members of the same species (as are we humans). No one has documented the emergence of an an entirely new species from microevolution (or selective breeding), to my knowledge - where the new species is no longer capable of breeding with its progenitor species. That step has yet to be made, although the paleontological evidence for speciation by evolution is pretty compelling. Only if we can document the emergence of an entirely new species from microevolution will the evidence for speciation by evolution be complete. It may be possible in the future ...

Let me drop a new definition of a species on you and see what it does for your ideas about speciation. Suppose that, instead of demanding that species cannot interbreed, you use the less strict criteria that a subgroup of a species speciates when it simply does no longer interbreed with the main group, leaving capability out of it. Now, this is much weaker, but it actually defines what happens when, for example, we can interbreed a Dromedary with a Llama (in two different genera, let alone species) to get a fully functional Cama, or a H sapiens with an H neandertalensis to get ... us (well, some of us, anyway).
Quote this message in a reply
22-09-2010, 01:16 AM
RE: How can you deny evolution?
(21-09-2010 11:00 PM)puncheex Wrote:  Let me drop a new definition of a species on you and see what it does for your ideas about speciation. Suppose that, instead of demanding that species cannot interbreed, you use the less strict criteria that a subgroup of a species speciates when it simply does no longer interbreed with the main group, leaving capability out of it. Now, this is much weaker, but it actually defines what happens when, for example, we can interbreed a Dromedary with a Llama (in two different genera, let alone species) to get a fully functional Cama, or a H sapiens with an H neandertalensis to get ... us (well, some of us, anyway).

Careful now. the meaning of the word "species" already has a meaning, and it is not for you to redefine. That said. you do make sort of make a point. When a subgroup does not interbreed with the main group, you are probably not many generations away from true speciation. I never heard of the "Cama" before, but i am curious. Are the Cama able to produce offspring of their own? It´s an important question, because if they can not, teh Dromedary and Lama are not really capable of interbreeding.

I want to rip off your superstitions and make passionate sense to you
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-09-2010, 07:01 AM (This post was last modified: 22-09-2010 08:33 AM by Kikko.)
RE: How can you deny evolution?
Quote:Didn't I answer that in my posting? Adaptation (creationists' micro-evolution) is making use of the group diversity and possibly reusing recently cast off genes to adapt to some change in the environment. Evolution (macro-evolution) is use of mutation, as opposed to existing diversity, to effect a better fit to the environment. Most creationists are cool with the former, but deny the latter happens. Either can effect a species-wide change to an environmental stimulus; the former is quick but constrained to what is available in the gene pool; the latter can do almost anything but it takes great time and is usually very complex in interlocking many individually small changes.
So, when a population gets divided into 2 because of a goelogical change or something else which would divide the population, and the 2 groups now live in different environments, and by natural selection, the individuals which fit the changed environment the best survive and get their good genes spreaded and by time the population adapts to its new environment and their fenotype has changed a little. But mutation did'nt happen, so evolution did'nt happen?

I wo'nt be writing much in the next few days, I had a littel accident with a cutter and it took a little of my left nameless finger, so I cant use my left hand much. My own fault, I did'nt have the safety thing close enough to the object I was working with.
But I had no idea how little it would hurt, maybe it's because there's not much left of what would hurt.Smile
edit: I'll take my words back, it's not that hard to type with just one hand.

Correct me when I'm wrong.
Accept me or go to hell.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-09-2010, 11:02 AM
 
RE: How can you deny evolution?
(22-09-2010 01:16 AM)ThinkingNorseman Wrote:  
(21-09-2010 11:00 PM)puncheex Wrote:  Let me drop a new definition of a species on you and see what it does for your ideas about speciation. Suppose that, instead of demanding that species cannot interbreed, you use the less strict criteria that a subgroup of a species speciates when it simply does no longer interbreed with the main group, leaving capability out of it. Now, this is much weaker, but it actually defines what happens when, for example, we can interbreed a Dromedary with a Llama (in two different genera, let alone species) to get a fully functional Cama, or a H sapiens with an H neandertalensis to get ... us (well, some of us, anyway).

Careful now. the meaning of the word "species" already has a meaning, and it is not for you to redefine. That said. you do make sort of make a point. When a subgroup does not interbreed with the main group, you are probably not many generations away from true speciation. I never heard of the "Cama" before, but i am curious. Are the Cama able to produce offspring of their own? It´s an important question, because if they can not, teh Dromedary and Lama are not really capable of interbreeding.

Oh, my. Go look at the wiki page on species, and count the definitions. Can you find the one that I gave above in there? I knew you could do it. As it happens I've discussed exactly this matter with several research microbios and they are mainly in agreement that evolutionarily, it is the best definition of a species. Anyone who claims an exact definition is possible is deluded, and biologists live with it.

Look up Cama in wiki too. It's there as well. It seems they are, or will be "fully functional". They're being bred on the Arabian peninsula, in an attempt to breed a camel with a better disposition; so far all they have is a small, nasty camel. Efforts continue.
(22-09-2010 07:01 AM)Kikko Wrote:  
Quote:Didn't I answer that in my posting? Adaptation (creationists' micro-evolution) is making use of the group diversity and possibly reusing recently cast off genes to adapt to some change in the environment. Evolution (macro-evolution) is use of mutation, as opposed to existing diversity, to effect a better fit to the environment. Most creationists are cool with the former, but deny the latter happens. Either can effect a species-wide change to an environmental stimulus; the former is quick but constrained to what is available in the gene pool; the latter can do almost anything but it takes great time and is usually very complex in interlocking many individually small changes.
So, when a population gets divided into 2 because of a goelogical change or something else which would divide the population, and the 2 groups now live in different environments, and by natural selection, the individuals which fit the changed environment the best survive and get their good genes spreaded and by time the population adapts to its new environment and their fenotype has changed a little. But mutation did'nt happen, so evolution did'nt happen?

That's what you think I said? Mutations happen all the time; there is an actual number to express it:

wiki Wrote:Human mitochondrial DNA has been estimated to have mutation rates of ~3×10−6 or ~2.7×10−5 per base per 20 year generation (depending on the method of estimation); these rates are considered to be significantly higher than rates of human genomic mutation at ~2.5×10−8 per base per generation.

This equates out to about 150 mutations sent to your offspring from that you inherited from your parents. Some creationists claim that that number is zero, or sometimes that none of those mutations are positive , or "add to the genomic information"; I most certainly don't claim that.

I wasn't denying mutations; I was drawing a difference between the two engines of change that allow for both "quick and dirty" responses and the other which provides long term, more complicated but well-coordinated responses to environmental change. Of course both happen together, all the time; they are essentially chemical reactions in a biological setting under no control by anyone.

Quote:I wo'nt be writing much in the next few days, I had a littel accident with a cutter and it took a little of my left nameless finger, so I cant use my left hand much. My own fault, I did'nt have the safety thing close enough to the object I was working with.
But I had no idea how little it would hurt, maybe it's because there's not much left of what would hurt.Smile
edit: I'll take my words back, it's not that hard to type with just one hand.

Sorry about your hand; I hope it gets better without complications. I've very prone to injuries on my shins; it looks like a battlefield down there.
Quote this message in a reply
22-09-2010, 01:49 PM
RE: How can you deny evolution?
(22-09-2010 11:02 AM)puncheex Wrote:  Oh, my. Go look at the wiki page on species, and count the definitions.

Would you care to copy/paste some text from the wiki for me? I can´t seem to find the part you are referring to. I hop you will excuse me, it´s a pretty long article.
The definition of "species as taken from Princetons on-line dictionary is the following:
(n) species ((biology) taxonomic group whose members can interbreed)

I want to rip off your superstitions and make passionate sense to you
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-09-2010, 05:56 PM
 
RE: How can you deny evolution?
(22-09-2010 01:49 PM)ThinkingNorseman Wrote:  Would you care to copy/paste some text from the wiki for me? I can´t seem to find the part you are referring to. I hop you will excuse me, it´s a pretty long article.
The definition of "species as taken from Princetons on-line dictionary is the following:
(n) species ((biology) taxonomic group whose members can interbreed)

wiki: species Wrote:Consequently, any single, universal definition of "species" is necessarily arbitrary. Instead, biologists have proposed a range of definitions; which definition a biologists uses is a pragmatic choice, depending on the particularities of that biologist's research.

Typological species
A group of organisms in which individuals are members of the species if they sufficiently conform to certain fixed properties or "rights of passage". The clusters of variations or phenotypes within specimens (i.e. longer or shorter tails) would differentiate the species. This method was used as a "classical" method of determining species, such as with Linnaeus early in evolutionary theory. However, we now know that different phenotypes do not always constitute different species (e.g.: a 4-winged Drosophila born to a 2-winged mother is not a different species). Species named in this manner are called morphospecies[11]

Morphological species
A population or group of populations that differs morphologically from other populations. For example, we can distinguish between a chicken and a duck because they have different shaped bills and the duck has webbed feet. Species have been defined in this way since well before the beginning of recorded history. This species concept is highly criticized because more recent genetic data reveal that genetically distinct populations may look very similar and, contrarily, large morphological differences sometimes exist between very closely related populations. Nonetheless, most species known have been described solely from morphology.

Biological / Isolation species
A set of actually or potentially interbreeding populations. This is generally a useful formulation for scientists working with living examples of the higher taxa like mammals, fish, and birds, but more problematic for organisms that do not reproduce sexually. The results of breeding experiments done in artificial conditions may or may not reflect what would happen if the same organisms encountered each other in the wild, making it difficult to gauge whether or not the results of such experiments are meaningful in reference to natural populations.

Biological / reproductive species
Two organisms that are able to reproduce naturally to produce fertile offspring of both sexes. Organisms that can reproduce but almost always make infertile hybrids of at least one sex, such as a mule, hinny or F1 male cattalo are not considered to be the same species.

Recognition species
based on shared reproductive systems, including mating behavior. The Recognition concept of species has been introduced by Hugh E. H. Paterson.

Mate-recognition species
A group of organisms that are known to recognize one another as potential mates. Like the isolation species concept above, it applies only to organisms that reproduce sexually. Unlike the isolation species concept, it focuses specifically on pre-mating reproductive isolation.

Evolutionary / Darwinian species
A group of organisms that shares an ancestor; a lineage that maintains its integrity with respect to other lineages through both time and space. At some point in the progress of such a group, some members may diverge from the main population and evolve into a subspecies, a process that eventually will lead to the formation of a new full species if isolation (geographical or ecological) is maintained.

Phylogenetic (Cladistic)[verification needed]
A group of organisms that shares an ancestor; a lineage that maintains its integrity with respect to other lineages through both time and space. At some point in the progress of such a group, members may diverge from one another: when such a divergence becomes sufficiently clear, the two populations are regarded as separate species. This differs from evolutionary species in that the parent species goes extinct taxonomically when a new species evolve, the mother and daughter populations now forming two new species. Subspecies as such are not recognized under this approach; either a population is a phylogenetic species or it is not taxonomically distinguishable.

Ecological species
A set of organisms adapted to a particular set of resources, called a niche, in the environment. According to this concept, populations form the discrete phonetic clusters that we recognize as species because the ecological and evolutionary processes controlling how resources are divided up tend to produce those clusters.

Genetic species
based on similarity of DNA of individuals or populations. Techniques to compare similarity of DNA include DNA-DNA hybridization, and genetic fingerprinting (or DNA barcoding).

Phenetic species
based on phenotypes.[verification needed]

Microspecies
Species that reproduce without meiosis or fertilization so that each generation is genetically identical to the previous generation. See also apomixis.

Cohesion species
Most inclusive population of individuals having the potential for phenotypic cohesion through intrinsic cohesion mechanisms. This is an expansion of the mate-recognition species concept to allow for post-mating isolation mechanisms; no matter whether populations can hybridize successfully, they are still distinct cohesion species if the amount of hybridization is insufficient to completely mix their respective gene pools.

Evolutionarily Significant Unit (ESU)
An evolutionarily significant unit is a population of organisms that is considered distinct for purposes of conservation. Often referred to as a species or a wildlife species, an ESU also has several possible definitions, which coincide with definitions of species.
Quote this message in a reply
22-09-2010, 06:13 PM
RE: How can you deny evolution?
(20-09-2010 09:30 AM)Kikko Wrote:  What I find interesting, are tests done with foxes. They had alot of foxes in cages and the most tame ones were chosen to reproduce. In the next generation of tame foxes, there were alot of differences in the fenotype when compared to a wild fox. The changes were similar to the differences between wolfs and dogs.
Hehe, d-o-g g-o-d.

I watched a documentary about that. My mother watched it too. She didn't talk to me for a couple months and spent 2 weeks fasting.
Cool

Another reason to only let my father in the house.

Jesus Jumping Christ on a traction engine wearing a kilt and eating a marmite sandwich!!!
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply

Possibly Related Threads...
Thread: Author Replies: Views: Last Post
  Significance of Evolution vs. Intelligent Design Locke 7 143 08-08-2014 11:35 PM
Last Post: Locke
  micro "versus" macro evolution goodwithoutgod 9 162 08-08-2014 07:49 PM
Last Post: goodwithoutgod
  Are we impacting our own evolution? Impulse 55 798 26-05-2014 08:25 PM
Last Post: cjlr
  Is Evolution a Belief? (Clearly Not) Forthright Atheist 28 513 23-05-2014 05:05 PM
Last Post: dancefortwo
  Is American Evolution Education Good Enough? (Teachers and Professors Only Please) carasaurus_wres 2 83 25-04-2014 09:22 PM
Last Post: jaguar3030
  Evolution in the Classroom Survey carasaurus_wres 10 223 24-04-2014 05:56 AM
Last Post: wazzel
  Evolution test #2 Full Circle 14 208 10-04-2014 12:13 PM
Last Post: Full Circle
Forum Jump: