Do you believe in evolution?
- Thread starter pssh
- Start date
jojackson
New Member
pssh
Avid Member
Wow. Lots of action on this.
I don't have the complete understanding of this, but have any of the fruit fly population experiments changed the flies to the point that they might be considered a different species? I don't see how it wouldn't be natural as we have done all sorts of things that wouldn't be considered natural to animals and their environments. Or since we have evolved to this extent, you could consider it completely natural as we are, after all, still animals. We just got ahead enough to affect the world in a larger way than our ancestors.
Or is what we do, not considered natural to the scientific community?
I don't have the complete understanding of this, but have any of the fruit fly population experiments changed the flies to the point that they might be considered a different species? I don't see how it wouldn't be natural as we have done all sorts of things that wouldn't be considered natural to animals and their environments. Or since we have evolved to this extent, you could consider it completely natural as we are, after all, still animals. We just got ahead enough to affect the world in a larger way than our ancestors.
Or is what we do, not considered natural to the scientific community?
I think you're focusing on the wrong part of the explanation. Evolution occurs even if it doesn't result in a new species. Eventually that could be the outcome of that population's evolutionary change, but it's not defined as becoming a new species. To become a new species your genetic code has to deviate by some measurable quantity that I don't know off the top of my head from the original population and considering the time it takes for just a single genetic mutation to become prevalent, that magnitude of change could take eons (and does). Even though we have altered the flies, we aren't doing it to make a new species. The different strains are crossbred and rebred to normals over and over to get new varieties. If there was one population that was totally isolated from all other for the next few decades in a challenging environment that favored particular traits over others then maybe you see the beginning of deviation from the original fruit fly.
But evolution can still occur without being a new species. Say you have a bunch of giraffes with short necks, but the main food is too high to reach. Well there is some variation in the individuals already, the same that you may have a big nose, dark hair and are short whereas your neighbor has a small nose, blond hair and is tall. Genetic variation occurs naturally from the recombination of genes from each parent. So then there are a few giraffes who were born with necks that are a little longer than the rest. Well those will get more of the food, which allows them to grow strong and be healthy and thrive in their environment. When it comes to breeding time those females have the most nourishment to make the strongest babies and those males are better suited to fight off competitors - same as you would be able to win a track race against someone your age who is homeless and doesn't eat as well as you. So now the longer necked giraffes are breeding more than the weaker shorter necked giraffes, therefore perpetuating their long neck genes. That is natural selection. The original trait is random, just normal genetic variability, but it allowed them to do better in their environment because it was favorable to be able to reach the food. So those animals are strong enough to have lots of babies and there are more long necked giraffes. Just because it's not turning into a whole new giraffe never seen before doesn't mean it's not evolving (over several generations in a population over time, NOT on an individual or single generation basis). But the trait that gives them an advantage is now a prominent species feature.
Peppered moth evolution documented
But evolution can still occur without being a new species. Say you have a bunch of giraffes with short necks, but the main food is too high to reach. Well there is some variation in the individuals already, the same that you may have a big nose, dark hair and are short whereas your neighbor has a small nose, blond hair and is tall. Genetic variation occurs naturally from the recombination of genes from each parent. So then there are a few giraffes who were born with necks that are a little longer than the rest. Well those will get more of the food, which allows them to grow strong and be healthy and thrive in their environment. When it comes to breeding time those females have the most nourishment to make the strongest babies and those males are better suited to fight off competitors - same as you would be able to win a track race against someone your age who is homeless and doesn't eat as well as you. So now the longer necked giraffes are breeding more than the weaker shorter necked giraffes, therefore perpetuating their long neck genes. That is natural selection. The original trait is random, just normal genetic variability, but it allowed them to do better in their environment because it was favorable to be able to reach the food. So those animals are strong enough to have lots of babies and there are more long necked giraffes. Just because it's not turning into a whole new giraffe never seen before doesn't mean it's not evolving (over several generations in a population over time, NOT on an individual or single generation basis). But the trait that gives them an advantage is now a prominent species feature.
Peppered moth evolution documented
James45
New Member
Yes i Believe.
Here is evolution is progress. enough said.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KurTiX4FDuQ
Here is evolution is progress. enough said.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KurTiX4FDuQ
Maurer3D
New Member
That is a trick question.... The answer is the egg. Dinosaurs laid eggs long before chickens....
fluxlizard
Avid Member
Fish laid eggs before dinos and crustaceans laid eggs before that...
Did anyone check the second link in my last post about radiation from the sun causing rapid evolution during certain periods? Just wondering what people thought who were more educated about such things- sound plausible or not?
Did anyone check the second link in my last post about radiation from the sun causing rapid evolution during certain periods? Just wondering what people thought who were more educated about such things- sound plausible or not?
jojackson
New Member
Flux, I missed it sorry, Ill check it out.
Ill come back to this.....
http://www.livingcosmos.com/evolution.htm
Thankyou Flux, first major contribution to this thread , it seems I've been living under a rock!
Its alot to take in, Im still digesting it, will be for some time, but I have the general Gist of it, I think.
In simple terms:
Genetic change and its effect/function, or lack, begins at a molecular level.
Natural selection is incidental aftereffect/byproduct of said changes.?
Organisms are 'programmed' to self repair, rebuild, 'adapt', at this level.
Ionizing Radiation causes changes at the molecular level and the response to such changes results in genetic/chromosonal change leading ultimately to organisms 'evolving' or failing.
This has been shown to be the process involved in mass extinctions/speciation.
This brings to mind that line from the movie Jurrassic park, 'life, finds a way'. This is even more incredible and im going to say it anyway, 'miraculous' ,to my mind, and still, for me, poses the question of why such 'perfection'? And rather than say 'who/what, then, is the 'programmer/designer' , Ill just say im even more Impressed!
It does leave more questions than answers though, such as, if we accept this idea (I have no reason nor qualification to oppose it) then what is the connection in the case of individual species, where we see apparent cause and effect? for example the link on pg4 regards P.porphriacus and Bufo Marinus, (red belly snake and cane toad) in Oz.
For those who read it, cane toads were introduced to Oz during the 30's and have had a devastating effect on select fauna here, but some, like this snake, have physically adapted to minimise the threat.
I posed the question earlier, why hasnt the red belly simply died out in the effected areas? What was the mechanism (or perhaps molecular circumstance? (still seems enormously co-incidental)) that led to adaption of this species in this particular instance, and why only in areas effected?
If the radiation theory is relevant in individual cases of species evolution, like this, what is the connection?
So many questions coming to mind, so much to digest. I have to work at it this like a dog with a bone!
Thanks Flux!
Ill come back to this.....
http://www.livingcosmos.com/evolution.htm
Thankyou Flux, first major contribution to this thread , it seems I've been living under a rock!
Its alot to take in, Im still digesting it, will be for some time, but I have the general Gist of it, I think.
In simple terms:
Genetic change and its effect/function, or lack, begins at a molecular level.
Natural selection is incidental aftereffect/byproduct of said changes.?
Organisms are 'programmed' to self repair, rebuild, 'adapt', at this level.
Ionizing Radiation causes changes at the molecular level and the response to such changes results in genetic/chromosonal change leading ultimately to organisms 'evolving' or failing.
This has been shown to be the process involved in mass extinctions/speciation.
This brings to mind that line from the movie Jurrassic park, 'life, finds a way'. This is even more incredible and im going to say it anyway, 'miraculous' ,to my mind, and still, for me, poses the question of why such 'perfection'? And rather than say 'who/what, then, is the 'programmer/designer' , Ill just say im even more Impressed!
It does leave more questions than answers though, such as, if we accept this idea (I have no reason nor qualification to oppose it) then what is the connection in the case of individual species, where we see apparent cause and effect? for example the link on pg4 regards P.porphriacus and Bufo Marinus, (red belly snake and cane toad) in Oz.
For those who read it, cane toads were introduced to Oz during the 30's and have had a devastating effect on select fauna here, but some, like this snake, have physically adapted to minimise the threat.
I posed the question earlier, why hasnt the red belly simply died out in the effected areas? What was the mechanism (or perhaps molecular circumstance? (still seems enormously co-incidental)) that led to adaption of this species in this particular instance, and why only in areas effected?
If the radiation theory is relevant in individual cases of species evolution, like this, what is the connection?
So many questions coming to mind, so much to digest. I have to work at it this like a dog with a bone!
Thanks Flux!
Last edited:
Ace
Avid Member
Elizadolots
New Member
That is exactly what's up....there is no reason evolution and a belief in God are contradictory. Heck, it takes a far more subtle God to set up a system where his creations evolve.
As Chris Anderson has made clear, a "scientific theory" is not anything like when a detective on a TV show offers a theory on the crime. A scientific theory is a compilation of facts which point to a conclusion. Were the facts to change, the conclusion would as well.
Humans are continually evolving. We are taller and heavier than our ancestors and we are losing things which no longer benefit us. I offer wisdom teeth as an example.
Once, we needed those late appearing big teeth...but when we stopped hunting our own food with our mouths they became a disadvantage. We didn't do the heavy "chomping" that was needed to bring those teeth out so they became health issues. Some mutants were born without wisdom teeth and so they lived longer and produced more progeny. Their children also lived longer (because they did not suffer from the infections that impacted wisdom teeth cause) and produced more "wisdom teeth free" kids.
And so on....
My daughter does not have wisdom teeth. Right now, more than 1/4 of the American population does not have wisdom teeth.
That's evolution.
No scientist can tell us how LIFE comes to be. We cannot create life in a lab.
That's God.
As Chris Anderson has made clear, a "scientific theory" is not anything like when a detective on a TV show offers a theory on the crime. A scientific theory is a compilation of facts which point to a conclusion. Were the facts to change, the conclusion would as well.
Humans are continually evolving. We are taller and heavier than our ancestors and we are losing things which no longer benefit us. I offer wisdom teeth as an example.
Once, we needed those late appearing big teeth...but when we stopped hunting our own food with our mouths they became a disadvantage. We didn't do the heavy "chomping" that was needed to bring those teeth out so they became health issues. Some mutants were born without wisdom teeth and so they lived longer and produced more progeny. Their children also lived longer (because they did not suffer from the infections that impacted wisdom teeth cause) and produced more "wisdom teeth free" kids.
And so on....
My daughter does not have wisdom teeth. Right now, more than 1/4 of the American population does not have wisdom teeth.
That's evolution.
No scientist can tell us how LIFE comes to be. We cannot create life in a lab.
That's God.
Amanda1801
New Member
Gravity is a myth!
I came out with that one in my physics class and the rest of the class joined in - the teacher nearly cried Edit: I'm a Darwin-ist.... he's certainly on my "if i could invite people to a dinner party i'd invite..." list - im 100% behind evolution...
fluxlizard
Avid Member
Life has been created in a lab (well sort of, they cheated on the cell wall a little, but they did make their own dna out of a few dollars of basic chemicals).
"it eats, it multiplies, it’s as alive as you or me. And it was created out of inert, non-living chemicals."
http://www.naplesnews.com/news/2010/jun/12/ben-bova-life-created-lab-changes/
Last edited:
jojackson
New Member
Thats Clever (though they had a head start with the existing bacteria), but is it really 'life'?
That begs a definition. "It eats, it multiplys' ,ok, but can it evolve on its own?
This is the essence of life. Perhaps 'Pseudo life' might be more apt.?
For some reason I cant quite put my finger on, calling it 'life' seems a bit like calling a dead twig a tree.
Its really just a deliberately mutated bacteria isnt it. Nor really 'new' since they had to begin with the old and build on it. When they can create something like that with nothing but chemicals, then it will truly a new life form, as the first was, according to theory.
If they can do that ill concede all that exist is pure random, and I will struggle
to care about anything at all since life will be meaningless and pointless and proven so.
A rather depressing idea.
I think the nature of humanity needs, nay, demands meaning and reason to exist.
Self awareness in an existance without meaning would be too much for the ego to bare.
Mine anyway!
Getting rather philosophical now isnt it!
That begs a definition. "It eats, it multiplys' ,ok, but can it evolve on its own?
This is the essence of life. Perhaps 'Pseudo life' might be more apt.?
For some reason I cant quite put my finger on, calling it 'life' seems a bit like calling a dead twig a tree.
Its really just a deliberately mutated bacteria isnt it. Nor really 'new' since they had to begin with the old and build on it. When they can create something like that with nothing but chemicals, then it will truly a new life form, as the first was, according to theory.
If they can do that ill concede all that exist is pure random, and I will struggle
to care about anything at all since life will be meaningless and pointless and proven so.
A rather depressing idea.
I think the nature of humanity needs, nay, demands meaning and reason to exist.
Self awareness in an existance without meaning would be too much for the ego to bare.
Mine anyway!
Getting rather philosophical now isnt it!
fluxlizard
Avid Member
Wouldn't bother me if they were able to create even higher life like a lizard of some sort- I would still believe all life had an origination somewhere at some point beyond our control, and therefore scientists whipping up something new in the lab would not effect my sense of mystery or awe or meaning or life purpose.
Playing even with chemicals to create dna, or even if they were to slap together a lizard from scratch is just playing with the pieces that were already here. The origination of something from nothing (the universe and all the chemicals and life in it for example) - now that to me is a little more amazing. Show me scientists doing something on that scale, then I'll be impressed.
Playing even with chemicals to create dna, or even if they were to slap together a lizard from scratch is just playing with the pieces that were already here. The origination of something from nothing (the universe and all the chemicals and life in it for example) - now that to me is a little more amazing. Show me scientists doing something on that scale, then I'll be impressed.
jojackson
New Member
I must confessed to contradictory thoughts on this matter though, late at night when im lying in bed pondering all kinds of grand notions, as much as I want (or need) there to be a meaning to it all, I sometimes wonder if the meaning of life is simply to balance the absence of it!
All things in balance, light/dark, good/evil..etc Perhaps its only the ego that complicates what is both incredibly complex but perhaps also, incredibly simple?
All things in balance, light/dark, good/evil..etc Perhaps its only the ego that complicates what is both incredibly complex but perhaps also, incredibly simple?
Elizadolots
New Member
Doesn't it seem like they re-animated a dead bacteria with a DNA transplant?
fluxlizard
Avid Member
Well, at the very least to me it seems like they cheated by using the cell wall of another bacteria, but the article uses the words "assembled" and "created" for the dna strand- I guess I don't really understand if they are insinuating creation from assembling or if they assembled from scratch and therefore created.
