Evolution of Darwins Finches
How can anyone doubt the fact of evolution, the evidence is everywhere.
A medium sized species of Darwin's finch has evolved a smaller beak to take advantage of different seeds just two decades after the arrival of a larger rival for its original food source.The altered beak size shows that species competing for food can undergo evolutionary change, said Peter Grant of Princeton University, lead author of the report appearing in Friday's issue of the journal Science.
Grant has been studying Darwin's finches for decades and previously recorded changes responding to a drought that altered what foods were available.
Comments
God is just testing our faith, making it "appear" that finches are evolving, just like those fossils. He's gotta step up his tactics to compete in this flashy, hi-tech world.
It is still a finch though right? When it evolves into a reptile then I'll be impressed. The ability to be able to adapt to your environment doesn't disprove design. DW
Satan is trying to trick you.
How about the story about reptile changing to a duck?
The ability to adapt to an environment shows a clear laspe of judgement by the Designer who was so fallible that he did nnot foresee that the environment will change for any loving being.
Btw, I'm sorry to inform that there is no research to prove Design, so there's no need to disaprove.
Simply pointing out gaps to be filled in evolution does not disprove design.
Kindly explain to me why God created Whales with leg bones and men with a vestigal tail.
Evolution says that the Whale's ancestors came from land nd evolved into a sea creature while our ancestors lived in trees where the tail is eminently useful.
What does ID or your God says about this?
I still don't get why so many Christians in America (there's comparitively few here in Australia it seems... or at least we don't ban teaching science even in Christian schools) seem to believe that evolution is a threat to the belief in God.
For starters I don't believe that God would purposefully be deceptive... why if God actually did use the point and click version to create the world and everything living in it within 6 days... would he also go to the effort of hiding fossils and creating the backstory of the bigbang/evolution to throw us off the scent. Doesn't really make sense. Also remember that the old testament was written by people that knew far less about the world than we do... and ideas such as evolution and the world not being flat would have been far beyond what they were capable of imagining.
Personally, I believe that God is timeless and it doesn't matter to me whether God made me out of thin air, or set a process in motion that resulted in me (evolution). What matters, is that I am intentional, God love me and has a purpose for me. Evolution just shows that he's got good planning skills.
Science and God are not mutually exclusive.
Hi Bryan, science welcomes criticisms if they are well-founded but faith will never do so.
Ducklike Fossil Points to Aquatic Origins for Modern Birds 16 June 06 http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa003&articleID=00073E23-CDE6-1491-8DE683414B7F0000
Modern birds--the rulers of the sky--appear to have gotten their start in the water, scientists say. The fresh insights derive from the fossilized remains of a bird that lived some 110 million years ago and was preserved in the soft muddy bottom of an ancient lake in what is now the Gansu province of northwestern China. The amphibious, ducklike creature--named Gansus yumenensis--is the oldest known member of the so-called ornithuran group that includes modern birds. Fossils of those avians that gave rise to the modern bird lineage "are relatively rare in the Cretaceous," explains Matthew Lamanna of the Carnegie Museum of Natural History, co-author of a paper detailing the finds, published today in Science. But "when we mapped ecology onto our evolutionary tree, a pattern became apparent that species leading up to modern birds are mostly aquatic," Lamanna notes.
Excavators spent years splitting mudstone to find the Gansus remains. "[It was] like turning the pages of a book," Lamanna says. They were rewarded, however, with five exquisitely preserved skeletons of the ancient bird. The fossils even reveal impressions of feathers, webbed feet and other rare details, though none of the remains include a skull. During Gansus's time, a group of birds called the Enantiornitheans--known as opposite birds because their wing joints are reversed compared to their modern relatives--dominated the skies. But the opposite birds perished along with the dinosaurs 65 million years ago. How Gansus's group--the ornithurans--persevered remained to be discovered. "It's hard to answer this question just based on bird fossils," says lead author Hai-lu You of the Chinese Academy of Geological Sciences. "We need more information on the paleoclimate." The scientists also need more of G. yumenensis. "Gansus likely behaved much like its modern relatives, probably eating fish, insects and the occasional plant," says co-author Jerald Harris of Dixie State College of Utah. "[But] we won't have a definitive dietary answer until we find a skull." --David Biello
JRP, the finch is still a finch and oddly enough, humans are still primates. That seems to be one of the basic points you've never caught on to.
We are a species of the primate family. We did not develope out of the chimpanze. Humans and chimps share a common ancestor. Chimps and humans are both modern animals, equally distant from that common ancestor
Your gibberish is meaningless. You might want to have some basic understanding of evolution before entering the debate. Then you might be able to say something sensible on the subject.
The recent adaptation by that particular group of finches, is a living example of evolution in action.
It is one more of the many, many 'proofs' of basic evolutionary theory.
It doesn't address your design fantasy. It is an observation of the real world.
A theory attempts to explain the observation within the context of the natural world.
Design doesn't even fit the scientific definition of a theory.
Evolution is happening right now, not just in the past. All living organisms are subject to the process.
The beak development in finches is a tiny step in evolutionary development, just as simian development in primates was. It takes at least thousands - or millions - of years to observe drastic species divisions and change. This is where science can be mighty helpful, because scientists are willing to consider fossil evidence and place it in a timeline.
Those who think evolution is some wacked-out theory with no backing are incurious at best. One of the difficulties in observing large scale evolution is that we humans live in a very brief timeline in relation to the life or our habitat. As a species, we are a blip on the radar screen or evolution. A single human is almost undetectable on that screen.
I remember a very cool link that Norm posted months ago ; here it is again: http://www.johnkyrk.com/evolution.html
unfortunately the evolutionary timeline is constantly changed to fit new evidence. its only six months since it was widely accepted that birds evolved from dinosaurs.
anyone who denies evolution is certainly faced with the challenge that evolution predicts changes in species due to environmental pressures, but evolutionary theory over the entirety of history is facing huge hurdles in process and timing that may prove fatal to many of its currently assumed qualities.
in a nutshell - evolution by mutation and natural selection continues to require numerous supplements to account for additional complexity, convergence, interdependence and simple mathmatics.
additions to a theory are acceptable, but continual additions turn into 'epicycle' routines .. a more substantial theory needs to be established quickly to serve science better.
there are a few paths of thought .. multiple emergence seems to be the most popular where life did not originate with one common ancestor, but rather with dozens or even hundreds.
evolution aint dead .. but its in dire need of a facelift, lube and rebranding.
on the finch issue - this is exactly the same case as with the bacteria proof for evolution. finch evolution (citing the story quoted) is unargued, but it is not evolution by mutation and natural selection.
Since we're talking evolution, I have a dumb question. Since non-lethal mutations are usually pretty subtle, are basically evenly distributed through time, why do we see distinct species at all?
Obviously I'm missing something, but given my understanding of neo-darwinism, I would think that you'd only see distinct, identifiable species in very isolated environments where specific mutations would build up.
Grant (and maybe his wife too) wrote a book not that long ago (well maybe several, like 6 years) called The Beak of a Finch. It's a good read for laypeople and still a decent read for those of us more scientifically literate. My favorite part of the book as how evolution ebbs and flows. It goes in one direction then ebbs back. That evolution takes place on small time scales not just over millions of years.
Do anyone else think that evolutionary theory itself "evolving" over time due to changing pressure (in the form of uncovered evidence) is poetic?
After double checking the book I mentioned was written by Jonathan Weiner. It's about what Grant and his wife are doing.
stipe: "on the finch issue - this is exactly the same case as with the bacteria proof for evolution. finch evolution (citing the story quoted) is unargued, but it is not evolution by mutation and natural selection."
There you go again, stipe, with your "not [...] by mutation and natural selection" nonsense. Here is that comment of mine in the other thread with the pertinent passage from Freeman and Herron that explains why it is precisely "evolution by mutation and natural selection." Perhaps you missed it the first time around, or read it but failed to grasp the significance of Freeman and Herron's argument. If so, kindly (re-)read it and explain to us why this is not an instance of mutation and natural selection at work.
Ignoring the inconvenient truth or lying about it won't make it go away.
the explanation you provided:
"...the rpoB point mutation occurred in bacteria living in the patient's lungs and ultimately rose to high frequency due to selection imposed by treatment with rifampin."
the mutation is not proven, it is assumed. my experiment in that thread as applied to the case you mention would show that the same resistance would result every time and it would arise immediately.
in this bird case my point is even more obvious. 20 years is more than substantially not enough time for a random mutation to arise and propogate throughout the population. some other mechanism must be at work.
again my theory is eminently testable. take 10 indentical populations of birds and seclude them in identical environments then introduce the same variable to each. the results in biodiversity will be identical as will the timing.
i realise ignoring the inconvenient truth and lying about it wont make it go away, but im not going to see the film regardless.
So how else would these birds suddenly have a change in beak size? It takes a change in the individual offspring to bring out a change in the population through the natural selection of said offspring. Unless you honestly think some force acting upon the population changes their beak size.
It's the gnomes! They grab each and every bird and radiate their beaks!
I really don't understand what point you're trying to make. Sure, the mutation is assumed, unless you want to map the genome of each generation so we can PROVE when it mutates, but so far the assumption that it IS a mutation hasn't really hit any roadblocks.
If the population is under enough strain, wouldn't it be feasible that after a lesser number of generations the few birds with the slightly better beak sizes would be able to propagate more? Makes sense to me...
stipe: "the mutation is not proven, it is assumed."
No, it most emphatically is not assumed. The bacteria without the rifampin resistance (from the patient's initial infection) had the identical RFLP (DNA) fingerprint as the bacteria with the rifampin resistance (which killed the patient), except for the substitution of leucine for serine at codon 531 of the rpoB gene in the latter.
I almost hate to respond to a few of the comments above. I think people see what you want to see.
Creationists are mostly ignorant people who claim to an illogical literal interpretaion of the Bible. For example: the whole 6 literal days of creation. The Bible does not use a literal 24 hour day definition of the word day. It is often employed to convey a period of time. A creative day then could have easily been a million years, rather than a solar day. I do not expect any reasonalbe person to agree to Creationist or ID's platform.
I personally believe the Bible's brief description of Creation. It is hardly a moment by moment breakdow of the time. It merely seperates the creation into different periods. I do not believe in hellfire, an immortal soul, a triune god, or many other popular beliefs that churches promote. Precisely because they are not actually biblical.
I understand why many people would embrace an evolutionary theory of life; especially when compared to the often vile, ignorant and misleading teachings of churches. However, if you can seperate yourself from the notion of a terrible, unfeeling "God of the Ignorant" and consider the wisdom and genius of a Creator then life is more bearable.
A person should marvel at Creation instead of rushing to make conclusions.
I don't want to engage in verbal war with anyone. So cut and paste my comments all you like. I do enjoy discussing respectfully and free of invective. DW
I will bet you anything at all that your theory and conclusion are wrong
We will have to clone the birds in order make sure you have exactly 10 identical populations.
If you start off with 10 populations of identical sizes, but different individuals, you will inevitably get 10 different results, and I'll win whatever you're betting much more quickly.
With 10 equal sized populations made of clones we can put it all to rest indisputably...
In the cloned group, where the genetics will be identical, individual behaviours will vary the outcome.
On top of that, I'll guarantee that at least one of the groups will go extinct, and better still, in the cloned populations we can draw DNA from each group and finally prove ID theory completely false, as the DNA tests will show a divergence in all surviving populations. (Because, if your theory where correct, all the birds in the first generation have identical clones in the other populations, the final generations should also be identical)
I look forward to acquiring whatever it is you wish to bet on your theory, as it shows you have absolutely no understanding of the science.
Ummm . . . I'm not a biologist, so I have a few questions:
If finch beak size is not a genetic trait (and, hence, changes in it are mutations by definition), then what mechanism controls it?
If natural selection doesn't take place, what are people doing when they breed show cats? Or roses? Or dairy cows? Or beef cattle? Or race horses?
I realize that it's not technically "natural" selection when it is controlled by humans, but the mechanism must be in place regardless of whether they're wild or domestic, right?
Just a few questions. Thanks.
If finch beak size is not a genetic trait (and, hence, changes in it are mutations by definition), then what mechanism controls it?
Naturally (pun intended) beak size is a genetic trait. Though I fail to see how it follows that "changes in it are mutations by definition" if beak size were not a genetic trait. Perhaps you meant to write ". . . are not mutations?"
Yes, the various breeds of dog, from the Irish Wolfhound to the Chihuahua, are testament to the power of (artificial) selection. And this huge diversity only took a few tens of millennia to achieve once the wolf was domesticated. Even ants practice animal husbandry; they farm and milk aphids. You can be certain that there is natural selection at work here, too.
"Though I fail to see how it follows that 'changes in it are mutations my definition' if beak size were not a genetic trait. Perhaps you mean to write '. . . are not mutations?"
Where's my Elements of Style? (Can you believe that one of my majors in college was Creative Writing? Did I learn anything at all?)
I was throwing several ideas into one very sloppy sentence. It was also meant to be a leading question. Allow me to explain myself in a clearer fashion:
Stipe said "finch evolution (citing the story quoted) is unargued, but it is not evolution by mutation and natural selection."
My intended idea and question were: "If finch beak size is controlled by genetics, then by definition any alteration in it is a mutation. If this is not mutation, what mechanism controls finch beak size (since it cannot be genetics)?"
Curse you, Grammar Cop! Can't people just read my mind?
I wonder what a chihuahua / wolf mutt would look like (have they drifted too far away to do that?). At the very least, the chuhuahua should be renamed "Cajones".
JRP, sorry I ragged on you but it is very difficult not to. You really haven't got a clue what you are talking about regarding science and evolution. I don't say that as an insult. It is the fact of the matter and it makes it very difficult to discuss this with you.
Your opening statement revealed a complete lack of understanding regarding the thing you are so determined to reject.
Your second post does clarify that you are coming from a purely emotional position. One that can't be discussed in any meaningful way.
You seem to believe that evolution, like your version of religion is just a series of chosen beliefs.
The assumption that one chooses evolution because they don't like the character of your god, demonstrates that you haven't got the wherewithal to even understand the questions.
Again, this is not intended as an insult. It appears to be a simple and true fact, based upon your own words.
You strongly reject science because you were told to. You don't understand enough of it to come to your conclusions on your own. Because they aren't conclusions.
You don't understand the subject well enough to make an informed decision. You are forced to close your eyes and make a guess, based on the guesses of the people and authority figures in your life.
It is impossible to have a coherent discussion with you, on a topic such as evolution. You really don't have a clue. And once again, that isn't intended as a personal attack, it is a statement that appears to be factual.
Religious and scientific methods have absolutely nothing in common. Until you have a basic grasp of what was said and implied in that sentence, it is impossible to have a rational discussion with you concerning scientific ideas. I may as well be trying to explain radio to a primitive who is still looking for the tiny people trapped inside the box.
Mr. McCay, you might also want to learn a little about evolutionary theory before chiming in. There is a massive difference between origin of species (one species evolves into another, like chimps and man from another primate) and natural selection, wherein species adapt to their surroundings (like the finches). The latter is scientificly sound and well-proven, while the former is a theoretical explanation of how this planet came to be populated. Some also use the terms micro-evolution and macro-evolution. Origin of species has been questioned more and more recently, and not just by ignorant right-winged extremists. Many in the scientific community have been looking at the problems in macro-evolution coming from the Cambrian explosion to the irreducibly complex mechanisms as explained in Behe's "Darwin's Black Box" to the latest ideas about how the very first life could have begun. It has been popular for some time to make fun of those who don't buy into Darwinism by pretending they're uninformed, but a new, educated and rational force has emerged in light of the problems that origin of species continues to create (no pun intended). Many of these are in the scientific community. What it boils down to is this: you have to have as much faith to believe in macro-evolution as you do to believe in Intelligent Design.
nothing is more depressing to me that a group of people demonstrating the failure of science education in america.
anyway, explaining science to people of faith is a waste of time for this simple reason: science depends on uncertainty and faith depends on certainty.
so, when a person of faith sees science as the accumulation of failures and revisions, they see only weakness. in fact, that is the strength of science.
when a scientist undertakes to test a hypothesis, what they're actually trying to do is falsify it. if you develop a theory that withstands your efforts to break it, it persists. if it fails, it is discarded or revised.
i think the real, underlying motive for the attacks on science is a deep philosophical/emotional fear of change. the word of science is inconstant and unreliable. science evolves atop an ever-expanding axiomatic foundation, any element of which could be disproven at any moment. that very fact terrifies some people, but as i've said, that's the whole point: you do not hang on to broken theories, no matter how comfortable you've become with them.
it's no wonder, then, that the opposition of faith to science mirrors the opposition of conservatism to liberalism (to take the literal meanings of those words).
something i've never managed to figure out is why people take the argument over evolution so personally. i understand that christian (to pick one religion of many) bigotry against gays, women, etc. is threatened by the idea that if evolution is right, genesis must be wrong and it would follow that the whole bible is suspect.
but why must one, when another hypothosizes on the origin of species, dredge the internet looking for ways contradict them? if the consensus of scientists supports a given theory, it is likely that many scientist are either working in the field themselves, or have studied the literature (there is no such thing as scientific apologism. a hypothesis is testable, or it is not). as the scientific community builds upon a theoretical foundation, the research progresses toward a finer granularity which inevitably reveals the flaws in the underlying science. if no such flaw emerges, it makes sense to take for granted that the fondation is solid until such time as it does fail.
the fact is that the, "aha! what about this?" strategy for "debunking" science is inherently unscientific. when you point out a gap in a scientific theory, all you're really doing is giving a post-grad student a bright idea.
finally, this is a great place to discuss political issues, but if you're arguing science you ought to do it on a science forum. i suspect that most of the anti-science posters here realize that they're so pitifully outgunned in that respect that they stick to forums where their amateurish polemics don't stand out. seriously. if you want to talk about evolution, go visit PZ Meyers. but if you think you can go there, with anything but the deepest humility (whether you support evolution or not), prepare to have your ego deflated.
I do understand the difference. You might want to get your head around the fact that these adaptations to the environment, as demonstrated in the finch, are part of the process of the development of new species.
Species differentiation is a product of those adaptations and other environmental factors such as separated breeding pools.
Evolution is not a belief system. When you come to understand the basics of the theory and how it was developed and how it continues to be tested and studied, you will understand that. Until then, it will appear to be yet another made up system of blind belief founded upon authority figures rather than facts.
To equate your so called design (not quite a) theory, with evolution is a childish absurdity based on a lack of understanding.
You can't believe evolution away. You might wish to ban it but the facts still remain. Then the rest of the world continues to advance while you are stuck with an unworkable religious belief, instead of working science.
Chime in as much as you like. The facts are laughing at you.
fiddlejack I think you need to do some reading as well. Let's make this nice and simple.
I'm sure you know there are 2 species, called Lions and Tigers. They are distinctly 2 very different animals both of the big cat family. If you breed them you get a hybrid. This is proof that there must be a common ancestor, otherwise there genetics would be completely incompatible.
Even further, if you breed a male tiger to a female lion you get a tigon, yet if you breed a female tiger to a male lion you get a liger, and they are very different looking cats. As female x chromosomes tend to be hardier then the male y chromosomes and more likely to carry mutations, the characteristics that appear are very different.
So please explain to me how your so called "intelligent designer" could have made such a huge oversite as to make 2 diffent species capable of procreating, and once more explain to me how your "intelligent designer" would bother with a detail like getting different result based on which parent is male or female.
It's proof of a divergence of one species into 2. Enough said...
The fact is, there is no serious challenge to evolution except the one bible thumping retards have created to sooth their own little heads, that they can't wrap around scientific fact, or refuse to as they would have to change their world view. (As in, it's not as simple as some old dude in the clouds saying "Let there be tigrs...")
It's a book, but together by a group of men in Nicea, that has been edited to promote their own world view, and political agenda, so the unwashed massed could be controlled by bullsh*t ideas like the divine right of kings. Get over it...It's the communist manifesto from Constantine.
In the mean time, bible beaters pervert the language to change the meaning of words like theory, to make it more difficult for laypeople, and what's even worse, they missinterpret science fact to serve their own misconceptions. (So what's changed in 1700 years, I ask...)
I never understood how some folks feel insulted when they're told they evolved from an ape, but they're okay thinking they were made from mud and magic breath...
firstly in response to those on topic:
Smudge - the only mechanism responsible for these birds suddenly having a change in beak size is genetics. unfortunately, when we are talking about such short timeframes it cannot be natural selection. lets assume a one year generation cycle. that means the entire process of mutation and propogation has to happen in only 20 generations. 20 generations is not enough time. unless you wish to conclude an amazing piece of good fortune in finding the correct mutation after one generation. then produce an entire population from only the decendents of that bird who also show the same trait.
the point im trying to make is that the mutation is assumed and mapping out the genome of each generation will not prove when mutations happen, or even that they are mutations. the assumption that it is a mutation has hit a roadblock when you try to claim the same result will occur every time and immediately by chance.
If the population is under enough strain it would be feasible that after a lesser number of generations the few birds with the slightly better beak sizes would propagate more, but that is natural selection, not mutation.
inwit - yes it is assumed. your substitution observation is unargued, but the idea of mutation still is. if you test the conditions you will find the same result every time. not a mutation, some other mechanism is in charge.
tmonsta - and i will bet you nothing that my experiment will provide the results i say it will
We wont have to clone the birds ... identical populations are not necessary. in fact non-identical populations will make the experiment less likely to turn out as i say it will. yet i remain confident of a positive result.
With 10 equal sized populations made of clones we could put it all to rest but that is unrealistic. i prefer not to engage in hopeless discussions.
and i'll guarantee that none of the groups will go extinct. and if youre trying to prove id false then just ask me .. i'll tell you straight up that id is a dishonest term and not worthy of attention.
you dont know much about sexual recombination if you think different pairs of clones will produce identical offspring
you dont have to look forward to acquiring nothing .. i'll give it to you now. the experiment will still bear up as i say it will regardless.
phil - finch beak size is a genetic trait and changes in it are due to sexual recombination. every physical trait is. mutations is a rare and unguided process.
breeding dogs race horses and roses might well be termed intelligent selection. natural selection generally breeds diversity because of its unguided aspect.
inwit - the various breeds of dog do not need tens of millennia to achieve.
and now in response to those off topic (and please get back on :P ):
Johnny Rocket Pants - creationists are not ignorant people and if you want to show illogicity then you are burdened with actually pointing out errors. needless to say this discussion neednt ever mention creationism.
i will point out errors on your logic so i dont need to go the extra step and call you ignorant. you cannot logically believe the bibles brief description of creation and not believe in an immortal soul or a triune god. if youre trying to make your life more bearable then honesty and objectivity will necessarily suffer. if you dont want to engage in verbal war with anyone then dont call people ignorant.
thomasmccays response to you was spot on.
fiddlejock - the minute you think about mentioning faith you should first think "different thread".
rob - is my hypothesis testable?
Anonymous (i assume kes) - the lions and tigers rant was good, but what does that have to do with nicea?
stipe, perhaps, when you complete your degree in biology, you can test it yourself and let us know how it turns out.
biology is not philosophy or conjecture. it's not something you can figure out over a beer at the pub.
most people gladly admit that fixing a car or a computer is over their head. but why do so many of them think they're qualified to pontificate on the inner workings of a machine that is many orders of magnitude more complex?
let's take a poll. how many people here are biologists?
note: if you passed a highschool biology course, or read "Darwin's Black Box," it does not make you a biologist.
snak attack:
I don't understand the question. If non-lethal mutation is subtle (which isn't always the case, just for the most part) and evenly distributed through time, then mutations would be cumulative. Maybe you're confused about how the mutation spreads in the population. At first, depending on the type of mutation, it can either become prevalent in the entire population, or simply disappear. It could also be that carriers of the mutation become a majority, minority or sensibly half of the population (an innordinate ammount of factors come into play at this point, natural selection being one of them). Secondly, the mutations would be cumulative. This explains how there are different individuals in each population. You have to be aware that while mutation is evenly distributed through time, what mutates in each population will always be different. Taking into account geographical barriers (very important) you'd eventually see initially equal populations differ from one another. After a given time, there'll be different species. Another way to create barriers is that the mutation affects some part of the populations sexual habbits, which eventually would result in sexual sepparation. Yet another way is that the mutation simply affects the reproductive organs, again resulting in sexual sepparation. In truth, whatever results one population to become in some fashion sepparated from another population will eventually result that both populations will be different, because mutations that wouldn't be transmitted would cumulate. Note that when I say time passes, is that the number of generations (since the individual who originated the mutation) are passing.
I hope this answers you. If not, here's some links to help out. http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/search/topicbrowse2.php?topic_id=41
And it's still widely accepted. Nothing has come to disprove this. Your point being?
Wrong. More time has passed and populations have since differed from each other. The bacterial case is for one generation. These are distinct cases.
Why? Natural selection is sufficient if strong selective pressure arises. Please aqquaint yourself with the Hardy-Weinberg equation. This mathematical model explains how a gene propagates from one generation to the next, given a certain ammount of selective pressure. If the pressure is sufficient, then one of the dominant alleles could become almost extinct, or a simple minority.
You're assuming results. Which means your point is entirely moot.
lol. Believe it or not, this is a question brought up during one of my evolution classes (on another context). The answer from the teacher is that they have mechanical dificulties :p. Also, refer to the first part of the post. The debate about dog species is interesting. All dogs are considered to be the same species, but many races that emerged would never mate in the wild with other breeds, because of the simple problem of size... Does this mean they are different species? A question that has a difficult and debated answer at this point.
Who? Name some please. The proponents of I.D. claim to have respect, or at least presence in the scientific community. They do not. The people who peddle this notion generally aren't IN the scientific community. As someone who takes part in it, and socialize in scientific circles, I assure you that they do not. Not one valid scientific work has been accredited by scientific journals, the leading form of recognition for said community. Journals, who for the most part even publish "maverick" work which goes against conventional theory, as long as it follows scientific guidelines. But no I.D. papers have been published, or even appear in conventions and congresses. The scientific community shunes the work of I.D. proponents: none of it follows any true scientific guideline.
Regarding the notion of macro-evolution and micro-evolution: it's a good point, however, while that discussion arises from the data supporting both theories, and the fact there is no concusive evidence disproving either theory, I.D. theory is disproven by simple common sense, an abbundancy of facts proving evolution (and by definition disproving I.D.) and their apparent lack of a true scientific method.
Also, if the POPE accepts evolutions, why can't these lot? Too stuck far up their asses, that's what.
Yes it can. Natural selection works on one to several generations.
Now that's just silly. The basis of evolution theory is that there ALREADY WAS variability in the population. In fact the story clearly states that the population clearly consisted of large beaked and small beaked finches for a while now. So this silly idea that the mutation happened at the same time of the selection is simply a misconception of yours.
Why are you making the distinction? The question is wether this is evolution or not. Since natural selection is a part of the evolutionary process, the finches beak size change is clearly an evolutionary process.
And yet you did by posing an entirely hypothetical scenario of which you can't prove the results. It's moot. So why do you insist on claiming that this is a great argument for your part?
So you're fat because your parents gave you the genes?
rob:
I am :). Trying to, at leat. Half way through college, with my evolution final just next week. So this is good practice actually :)
snak attack:
I don't understand the question. If non-lethal mutation is subtle (which isn't always the case, just for the most part) and evenly distributed through time, then mutations would be cumulative. Maybe you're confused about how the mutation spreads in the population. At first, depending on the type of mutation, it can either become prevalent in the entire population, or simply disappear. It could also be that carriers of the mutation become a majority, minority or sensibly half of the population (an innordinate ammount of factors come into play at this point, natural selection being one of them). Secondly, the mutations would be cumulative. This explains how there are different individuals in each population. You have to be aware that while mutation is evenly distributed through time, what mutates in each population will always be different. Taking into account geographical barriers (very important) you'd eventually see initially equal populations differ from one another. After a given time, there'll be different species. Another way to create barriers is that the mutation affects some part of the populations sexual habbits, which eventually would result in sexual sepparation. Yet another way is that the mutation simply affects the reproductive organs, again resulting in sexual sepparation. In truth, whatever results one population to become in some fashion sepparated from another population will eventually result that both populations will be different, because mutations that wouldn't be transmitted would cumulate. Note that when I say time passes, is that the number of generations (since the individual who originated the mutation) are passing.
I hope this answers you. If not, here's some links to help out. http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/search/topicbrowse2.php?topic_id=41
And it's still widely accepted. Nothing has come to disprove this. Your point being?
Wrong. More time has passed and populations have since differed from each other. The bacterial case is for one generation. These are distinct cases.
Why? Natural selection is sufficient if strong selective pressure arises. Please aqquaint yourself with the Hardy-Weinberg equation. This mathematical model explains how a gene propagates from one generation to the next, given a certain ammount of selective pressure. If the pressure is sufficient, then one of the dominant alleles could become almost extinct, or a simple minority.
You're assuming results. Which means your point is entirely moot.
lol. Believe it or not, this is a question brought up during one of my evolution classes (on another context). The answer from the teacher is that they have mechanical dificulties :p. Also, refer to the first part of the post. The debate about dog species is interesting. All dogs are considered to be the same species, but many races that emerged would never mate in the wild with other breeds, because of the simple problem of size... Does this mean they are different species? A question that has a difficult and debated answer at this point.
Who? Name some please. The proponents of I.D. claim to have respect, or at least presence in the scientific community. They do not. The people who peddle this notion generally aren't IN the scientific community. As someone who takes part in it, and socialize in scientific circles, I assure you that they do not. Not one valid scientific work has been accredited by scientific journals, the leading form of recognition for said community. Journals, who for the most part even publish "maverick" work which goes against conventional theory, as long as it follows scientific guidelines. But no I.D. papers have been published, or even appear in conventions and congresses. The scientific community shunes the work of I.D. proponents: none of it follows any true scientific guideline.
Regarding the notion of macro-evolution and micro-evolution: it's a good point, however, while that discussion arises from the data supporting both theories, and the fact there is no concusive evidence disproving either theory, I.D. theory is disproven by simple common sense, an abbundancy of facts proving evolution (and by definition disproving I.D.) and their apparent lack of a true scientific method.
Also, if the POPE accepts evolutions, why can't these lot? Too stuck far up their asses, that's what.
Yes it can. Natural selection works on one to several generations.
Now that's just silly. The basis of evolution theory is that there ALREADY WAS variability in the population. In fact the story clearly states that the population clearly consisted of large beaked and small beaked finches for a while now. So this silly idea that the mutation happened at the same time of the selection is simply a misconception of yours.
Why are you making the distinction? The question is wether this is evolution or not. Since natural selection is a part of the evolutionary process, the finches beak size change is clearly an evolutionary process.
And yet you did by posing an entirely hypothetical scenario of which you can't prove the results. It's moot. So why do you insist on claiming that this is a great argument for your part?
So you're fat because your parents gave you the genes?
so that's one hand raised then?
anyone else?
(disclaimer: i studied biology for two years, then switched. i am not a biologist, nor do i play one on TV)
"thomasmccay" thank you so much for not insulting me. What a relief to find such high minded civility paraded out for all to see. Again, thank you.
Outside of the political arguments about ID vs. Evolution there are those individuals who believe in creation bu do not engage in the argument. There are many reasons for doing so. But a few of the main reasons is the association with political activism and fundamentalists teaching.
I hold science and scientists in high esteem. They have added more to our lives than most religious leaders combined. However, I have not found any contradictions between the bible and science. Creation and the belief in a creator allows for the realities of cross-breeding and adaptablity. The example of different breeds of cat (tigers and lions) to prove evolution is faulty. If a people from two different races were to have a child, there child would still be considered human though wouldn't it? The cats remained cats too. Car parts are interchangeable as well. It would still be a car though.
It is not ignorance or emotionalism that prompts me to defend a creation standpoint. I am sorry for the way Creation is represented today. The vocal champions are often arrogant, superstitious and whose teachings have serious contradictions from their claimed authority the Bible. Let me put it this way, if there is an intelligent, benign, and wise creator then he certainly wouldn't want these hypocrites representing him.
The reason I comment occasionally on the evolution posts is that I believe they are included on this blog to equate a belief in creation as being indicative of the ultra-right wing and fundamentalists that claim its standard. This is unfortunate.
Creation is not as weak a target as it often seems. DW
rob - is my hypothesis testable?
P.Almada - so this is an example of natural selection .. not of evolution. apologies for the confusion.
rob - is my hypothesis testable?
P.Almada - so this is an example of natural selection .. not of evolution. apologies for the confusion.
"if you can seperate yourself from the notion of a terrible, unfeeling "God of the Ignorant" and consider the wisdom and genius of a Creator then life is more bearable."
don't worry, jrc. i'm not quoting you to attack you.
but i think this illustrates an important point. in my life, uncertainty is foundational. while some would consider my tendency to doubt as self-destructive or pessimistic, i see it as the fuel for the engine of curiosity.
i am not seeking a place of contentment, or the right to be right, so much as to continue to learn throughout my life. as it stands, the arguments for creation are simply not convincing. if i continue to accept evidence without bias (to the degree that that's possible), i may at some point discover that i am wrong. i only hope that i am prepared to accept it.
my life is not empty without an overseer. my girlfriend, a mennonite, marvels the qualities in me that most christians wouldn't expect to find in a heathen. like any christian, i am moral, i live with a sense of awe, i can love and make peace (or war, as the situation demands). i can do this without the guidance of scripture.
what human qualities you ascribe to the influence of god, you will be shocked to find in those who live without god. those that you ascribe to godlessness, you are no doubt aware of, repressed by guilt and shame in people who call themselves christian.
it would be dishonest as for me to say that all atheists are motivated by rationality. one might refuse god on the basis of his apparent cruelty. one might refuse god out of self-loathing (how could he make me this way?). one might refuse god to stir up controversy, or rebel against familial or societal strictures. there are as many reasons to deny god as there are atheists. they will all claim to be rational, but it will rarely be the case. i have my reasons. my father is a cynical atheist who was himself raised by a communist, my mother is a deist, raised by orthodox ukranians. my sister has been born again.
but as much variety as you'll find in atheists, you'll also find in christians. most christians in my life have been born again after periods of trauma or substance abuse. why do such people have such a strong tendency toward religion? well, if what's missing from your life is a sense of self worth, or the feeling of being understood, or the sense that there is a purpose to your life, then it follows that you'd seek to fill the void with something that promises to do just that. in short, jesus becomes a surrogate drug, or a crutch for codependents. other christians i know have simply been raised that way. religion is simply a part of their emotional and philosophical constitution, much as their native language is.
my point is that our emotional nature informs our rational choices to a degree that most of us would rather not admit. how does that apply to the study of evolution, or to science in general? well, a scientist who desires a particular outcome, or wants their theory to be true is a bad scientist. a christian who wants the bible to be true is a good christian. you can spot a fundamental intellectual schism there, i'm sure.
take behe, for an example, and the term "irreducible complexity." the very phrase implies an assumption about certain biochemical structures; that their parts cannot have had uses apart from their current function, and that they would have to have been designed for that specific purpose. now, how do you test that? an appeal to incredulity is not a scientific strategy, it's a logical fallacy. behe's failure to acknowlege the demonstrated evolutionary progression toward motile flagella or hormone receptors before starting a movement based on his default hypothesis is deeply unscientific. for whatever reason, despite the evidence, he wants to be right.
fortunately, it isn't necessary to test the theory, because it's demonstrably untrue. again, a quick search of PZ Meyers' site will hook you up with some links.
wanting genesis and the flood myth to be true will not make them moreso. wanting evolution to be false will have about the same effect. if you want to argue in the context of science, you must be prepared to apply scientific tools to the raw material that you bring to the debate.
This is a case of evolution as well stipe. In a simplified explanation: from an initially diverse population, a single character was selectively favored, and the population consists almost entirely of individuals with that character after a few generations. This is called character displacement and is considered micro-evolution. This is a case of evolution. Why do you insist it isn't?
rob: why did you quit? It's a great field to work on at this point in history. It's considered the begining of a golden age for biology when it comes to research!
p, i just wasn't satisfied with school at that point, and with biology in general. i left for a while to try and figure out where i wanted to go (among other things). my interests are elsewhere now.
i agree that science, especially evolutionary biology, is an exciting field, but i'll participate from the sidelines.
stipe, you've asked twice whether i thought your theory is testable. that's right out of the "prove i didn't see it" school of UFO reporting.
it's your theory, you find a way to falsify it.
this statement by itself proves you know nothing about the science your trying to discredit. First off, Tigers and Lions are different SPECIES, not breeds, not races. Two people from different races isn't even an equal anology. Think of it more like breeding a human and a chimpanzee, would be on par to breeding a tiger and a lion. Two members of the same family of mammals that share a common ancestor. And Car parts... are you really going to compare living organisms to car parts...a manufactured device...(I mean, I'm sure it makes you feel all warm and squishy on the ID front, as a car part is obviously designed and built, and you feel like everything was designed too, but come on... even you have to see how sad that anology is...
Oh, never mind, just pass me that divinely inspired fuel injector... it must be the work of god
I don't think I have to go any further to prove your lack of understanding.
and thanks for the kind words on my tiger lion rant (pardon the need to hit post before filling in the fields)
the Nicea connection... well let's see. As evolution, and the teaching of it in our PUBLIC schools is a huge political issue these days, perhaps you should realize that it all started in Nicea, when a bunch of clerics and politicians got together to decide what the christian faith was and wasn't.
I'm still not a biologist. I'm learning new stuff all the time in this conversation (tigons, and ligers, oh my!). If it gets over my head, I''ll shut up and watch the big boys and girls play, but it's not even close to over my head yet.
P. Almada -
Wolf / chihuahua mutts are, then, theoretically possible (I recognized the difficulties of their physical act of mating. That's why I dubbed the chihuahua "Cajones"). Since humor is the most important of human endeavors, I demand we develop a breeding program for them immediately (artificial insemination, anyone?)! Carrot Top needs new props!
Stipe -
I understand the difference between sexual recombination and mutation, but I don't think you realize the connection between the two. Sexual recombination results in changes when there are variants of genes available. If there is only one version of a gene available (say one that codes for large beaks), then no amount of sexual recombination alone will result in finches with small beaks. The only way for the small beak variant to show up is if there's a mutation in the original large beak gene. Thus, to have sexual recombination mean anything at all, you first have to have mutations that give rise to variants of genes.
Now, there were both types of finches existing at the beginning of the study, but that doesn't change the fact that at some point in the long history of finches there had to be at least one mutation to account for variations in beak size.
Did I explain that well?
What point are you trying to make whan you say, "mutation is a rare and unguided process" I'm not sure how rare it is, but either way it doesn't dispute what I'm saying at all.
I agree that natural selection can wind up with more diversity than artificial selection. I'm just saying they work on exactly the same principle: Selection of the breeding population results, over generations, in selection of the offspring. Since you don't seem to dispute that evolution can work in that fashion, my point is redundant, anyway.
rob - falsifying my hypothesis? run the experiment i suggested and if the diversity is all dissimilar and/or the timing different then my hypothesis is wrong .. the only theory we have left is evolution by mutation and natural selection ..
but my experiment in the bird case is moot given there is no mutation at work over the 20 year period .. the population already has genetic information for long and short beaks so the only process at work is natural selection.
my experiment stands for the microbe situation where new functionality can arise predictably in response to a change in environment. its falsifiable if you can run the controlled experiment on identical populations and aquire different results every time. evolution by random mutation and natural selection dictates the populations will react randomly to the same change in environment.
even if the theories for convergent evolution predict a limited number of evolutionary pathways the timing will not be affected. so if identical populations produce the same results but at different rates then my hypothesis is wrong.
thats 2 easy ways to falsify my hypothesis .. is it now testable?
P.Almada - with a population showing only one trait it is still possible to produce offspring with the opposite trait. with these finches, if the introduced variable was removed you would see the population revert somewhat to how it was before.
even if the trait expressed is the result of a dominant pairing in all cases the submissive trait will still re-emerge .. though examples of this happening are rare.
darwins finches ARE a case of evolution .. i do not debate that .. but showing it as an example of evolution by mutation and natural selection over a 20 year period is not true.
this is another casualty of facts in the war between evolution and ID.
Why all this argumentation then? No one disputes this. No one said that a mutation occured within the 20 year period. We actually explained to you that it happened long before, and was already clearly present in the population. So why all the fuss? It still is an example of mutation and natural selection. The mutation didn't occur in the 20 year period, the selection did.
"if the introduced variable was removed you would see the population revert somewhat to how it was before."
Yes and no. Depends no how much time has passed. If sufficient time has passed, speciation will occur, and if the pressure is removed, the trait will remain. Wether we remove it or not, wether they revert or not, the simple fact the population shifted from one character distribution (some large beaked, small beaked) to another (mostly small beaked) is an example of micro-evolution.
If you're not disputing evolution occured (a dispute which you infer when you make your comparison with the microbe case) then this entire discussion is moot.
stipe wrote:
From PBS's Evolution (2001) Library: Evolution of the Dog
A later mitochondrial DNA study by Peter Savolainen et al. (2002) puts the date of domestication at closer to 15,000 years ago. Here are the original Science articles (with commentaries). If you can't access them online, get thee to a library.
From 2002: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/298/5598/1540 http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/298/5598/1540 http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/298/5598/1610
From 1997: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/276/5319/1647 http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/276/5319/1647 http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/276/5319/1687
I advisedly wrote "tens of millennia" to encompass both these studies. I appreciate that the tens-of-millennia time frame poses difficulties for young-Earth creationists who believe-without-evidence that the Earth is only about 6 to 10 millennia old. That's their problem, not mine.
I wrote:
stipe responded:
So you concede the substitution of leucine for serine at codon 531 of the rpoB gene. Well, this substitution of leucine for serine was caused by a change in the base sequence from TCG (which codes for leucine) to TTG (which codes for serine) at codon 531, as revealed by gene sequencing. This change from cytosine (C) to thymine (T) is a textbook example of a point mutation.
Bishai et al. write:
Correction:
I wrote, ". . . from TCG (which codes for leucine) to TTG (which codes for serine) . . ."
That should be corrected to ". . . from TCG (which codes for serine) to TTG (which codes for leucine) . . ."
i understand that the evidence for natural selection may point to many thousands of years for the different species of dog to evolve, but that is not necessary with guided selection.
yes i concede the substitution of leucine for serine at codon 531 of the rpoB gene. this substitution at codon 531 may be a textbook example of a point mutation, but the mutation is still assumed. there MUST BE a factor controlling this substitution when the change occurs EVERY TIME and IMMEDIATELY.
i undertand what you are saying inwit .. i understand that i disagree with the definition and most of the people who have spent years studying this and i understand that i have not the data to show my conclusions true .. but what i am proposing is the very definition of scientific advance (minus the actual application, which is out of my range of operations at this time .. ).
stipe, i am not going to run you experiment, and neither are you. you're just going to make assumptions about the outcome, and parrot them as fact.
i mean, that's your right, but don't expect anyone familiar with the scientific metheod to take you imaginary results seriously.
i dont expect anyone to take 'no results' seriously .. and im not in any position to do the work myself .. and i dont expect theres much interest to go out and show how evolution doesnt happen..
so the truth of the situation will lie hidden for a while yet ... meanwhile we proceed forward on mere assumption.
i dont expect anyone to take 'no results' seriously .. and im not in any position to do the work myself .. and i dont expect theres much interest to go out and show how evolution doesnt happen..
so the truth of the situation will lie hidden for a while yet ... meanwhile we proceed forward on mere assumption.
No, you don't understand. There is only ONE species of dog. The several forms of dogs you see are breeds, not species. A fox terrier, a german shepperd and a chihuaha are all the same species, different breeds. And the different breeds aren't the result of natural selection, they are the result of controlled artificial selection.
So, you admit evolution exists, and is a fact of life? Well, Why this whole debate then? Please help me on this as I'm starting to lose the whole point of this argument.
No one said that. Your notion of mutation is highly distorted. The mutation occured BEFORE the 20 year period on which the natural selection occurs. So it's an example of evolution by natural selection and mutation, just not of natural selection AND mutation in a 20 year period. Which no one said it was.
There is no war, merely a circus, evolution watching, I.D. performing. Unfortunately some audience members from kansas are getting hit with leftover pie from the performers on stage.
This makes no sense whatsoever. The substitution itself IS a mutation. What do you mean the idea of mutation is in question? To say that is to make a mockery of tens of thousands of scientists, who not only were able to explain the mechanisms behind it, but also REPLICATED them in laboratory.
This is simply insulting to all scientists. No you won't. Fact: I have done laboratory work with bacteria. Fact: I have applied to different cloned populations, the same antibiotic. FACT: There were differing results. Mostly though, THEY ALL DIED! There was ONE who appeared to have resistance. NOW explain to me your reasoning. The designer was asleep that day?
"so the truth of the situation will lie hidden for a while yet ... meanwhile we proceed forward on mere assumption."
What truth? What assumptions? That mutation is a colective fiction, that even though it has been DIRECTLY observed, it's just a myth?
Stipe: On the other argument I tried to help a little because you made (apparently by chance) a correct statement. A single generation of bacteria surviving a dose of antibiotics is a case of adaptation, but not necessarily evolution. I tried to ignore your weak argumentation, because it seemed to me you were just confused. It's apparent now that not only are you misinformed about the mechanisms of mutation and evolution, you want your confusion to be true. Your entire argumentation is based on assumptions. Which have been proved wrong, not just by us, but by countless scientists. Why is it so hard for you to accept this?
on dogs - what is the difference between a breed and a species .. and where do you draw the line?
of course evolution is accounted for in change in populations over time. have you seen me question that?
the point of this discussion from my point of view is to test the validity of using finches to show an example of evolution.
No one said that these finches were an example of mutation and natural selection over a 20 year period, but i think its easy to simply assume that from teh title of the thread. as you may guess i do question some very fundamental facets of evolution, but i have preferred to focus on very detailed and minor aspects rather than launch into a full blown counter theory. if you find this approach unreasonable then i apologise, but my intentions are for the best as i hope to explain.
i think both our analogies on the ID/evolution situation have merit .. i think youll agree that the most important thing is to ascertain what is fact and what is assumption.
my assertion that the mutation is assumed is the important point. i do not question the existence of mutations .. i have read about experiments with increased radiation levels producing more mutations than normal .. im sure youd have more sources than my memory might provide.
my proposed experiment should not be insulting to scientists, pedantic and wrong perhaps, but how is it insulting?
according to the experiments you ran my hypothesis is disproved. would you mind discussing them a little more?
Stipe,
You would save yourself a lot of time if you had the basic vocabulary. Get yourself a copy of What Evolution Is I do expect the patience of those still responding to you is growing thin.
my vocabulary is fine .. misunderstanding only arises because i approach the data from a vastly alternate point of view.
i fully expect to have to explain my points a lot more to try and communicate them effectively... that is not because any of us lacks understanding or intelligence .. but simply because we are speaking a different language.
i will never suggest that resolving our differences toward the distinct truth is easy.
the book you suggest might help me understand a little more but in the end i will raise the same objections with it as i have done here .. issues of definition and assumption versus fact.
No as a matter of fact your vocabulary isn't fine. You either need to use the words in the same way as everyone else or carefully define what you mean by the terms you use. To date you've done a poor job resulting in constant confusion as to what the hell you're talking about. It is revealing that you believe no matter how much you learn you will raise the same objections. That's not science that's a person looking for ways to confirm pre-existing views whether the evidence supports them or not.
I'm sorry and apologize if my last post as a little more "furious" but what you said made no sense.
Norm makes a good point. You can never approach new information with a stance of wether it holds up to what you believe. It should be the other way around.
But Inwit has clearly proven and given you information which provide a definite answer on this point. Yet you dismiss it with your assumed results.
These two statements are incoherent with each other...
About the experiment: During my microbiology lessons we did several simple experiments, mostly just to get the hang of lab work and techniques. One of these experiments was to incubate a petri dish (with a proper nutrient environment) with E. Coli (a cloned population from our teachers' petri dish). Then we let it incubate for a while for a colony to develop. Afterwards we added an antibiotic (can't for the life of me remember which, but some groups used one and other groups another). Then we saw wether the colony mantains growth. (All of this with control populations of course). Not much to it. Even though I only did let one population grow, others repeated the experiment, and on other classes aswell. The results were pretty much the same (only my class had a colony that apparently survived! yay!).
Sooo. Any questions?
I've conceeded to the fact that stipe is deeply conflicted over what science says is fact, and what faith says is truth...
Though what a mutation is has been defined over and over again here, he refuses (for whatever reason) to believe that that is what a mutation is(remember what I said about perverting the language) If somehow he can explain it away as Not a Mutation, he thinks he's somehow proved his point...
it works like this stipe... you have a normal range of variation of any trait, like say beak size... some are longer, some are shorter. The environment changes, temperature food supply whatever... Those with longer beaks survive (that's the natural selection part) From those survivors, those with the longest beaks do best, (that's the mutation) and from the initial population that trait or characteristic gets passed on, changing the shape of the species.
Sometimes, a population gets divided (that would be the common ancestor) and because each population has different environmental pressures, different traits get passed on in each population (that's divergence) As generations pass, the two different population have enough disimiliar traits that they become different species.
What you fail to realize with your proposed finch experiment is that A) you have no control group ( a group of birds that have no environmental change that you can compare the other populations to and record differences)
B) that the same environmental pressure can lead to 2 completely different mutations in different populations. Some may grow longer beaks, some may grow smaller to conserve resources, some may grow shorter beaks and exploint a completely different resource.
Accidents, and predation will happen, and even from the firs to the second generation the survivors will be the only one passing on there genes, which means a useful mutation may die out before having a chance to pass on it's genes, therefore I can concretely say that at least one population will die. Which demonstrates to me that you aren't taking all of the environmental pressures into account.
If you think you can get 10 populations and put them in cages, and turn the thermostat up 3 degrees and evolution just happens, you really aren't getting how evolution works.
D) even if your experiment was run, you'd probably attempt to explain the results away as divine intervention.
I also find it odd that you are attempting to pervert the definition of evolution by trying to convince others what it is and isn't...
but I gotta ask... if you could prove ID, then wouldn't you be proving the existence of a god, and isn't that completely counter intuitive to the idea of faith... so does this mean ID supporters are having a faith crisis between their rational 21st century brains and what they think they need to do to avoid (non existent) eternal hell fire...
So stipe, other then a science dictionary so everyone here is speaking the same language, please tell me, exactly what it would take to CONVINCE YOU IRREFUTABLY that evolution is a real biological process?
to norm - my vocabulary is fine. i cant and dont use words in the same way as everyone else because i dont agree with the way many terms are used. i do need to carefully define what i mean and that just takes time. please bear with me.
when i raise objections in science they should be judged according to their testability and falsifiability .. what i believe should never be considered. that is science. obviously im not free to mock people by constantly changing my position, but im not doing that.
to p.almada - i will try to make more sense. norm does not make a good point. people necessarily approach new information with a pre-determined stance. attempting to call scientists objective and everyone else not is an exercise in futility. thats why the rules of science have been adjusted to account for this. this conversation belongs in another thread though.
my assertion that the mutation is assumed is still my point, though you have given me some points to ponder .. not to mention evidence.
inwit has not clearly proven that mutations are not assumed .. i intend to try and clarify this point next time i post.
any incoherency between my statements is probably easily understood if you accept that im very pedantic about what is proof for evolution. you must show mutation and natural selection operating within your example and you must show a permanent change. i realise these standards are so high that it removes the possibility of anything but theoretical examples, but i dont believe my standards are too high .. and i think they fit with the theory.
on your experiment - its damaging to my position that only one population survived, but this experiment does not investigate why the population survived. i would still prefer a more horough investigation of the emergence of resistance before it was assumed that evolution (by mutation and natural selection) was responsible.
i think im being fair and i apologise if i dont read clearly ... but my intentions are honest.
Please read this section on Begging the Question and this on Circular Definitions when you are creating your new definitions.
I don't understand. You accepted it was a case of evolution. Do you mean by this that a case of evolution isn't proof of evolution? 0_o
It seems that while analyzing this case you confused a few things. First, when the mutation occurs. In the finches, it had already occured, shown by the fact that the beak forms were already present in the population. Then all that had to occur was natural selection (which you admited must've occured). Sure, permanent change can't be proved yet. But: your definition describes SPECIATION, not evolution. Evolution needn't mean speciation. Refering to our previous argument, inwit used the definition "Evolution is change in allele frequency in a population" to which I added that time was an important factor. It says nothing about speciation, or your definition. While there is controversy about the definition, that one is the basis for all other definitions, and this case can not be considered as "not-evolution".
Why can't you assume that people who work with evolution rather than comment on it online know more than you to call it evolution? There is no definite definition of evolution in science at this point. However it's unanimous that character displacement, which I and others already described this was, is an evolutionary process regardless of wether speciation occurs.
About the experiment:
Nothing was assumed, much less evolution, or mutation (it's so rare that the teachers just assumed the experiment was botched by the student). Your entire argument still dies because you said that all populations should survive. Because almost ALL died, your argument is clearly just based on assumptions. You also don't seem to see how this reinforces the idea of mutation as primary source of diversity: if a cloned population only survived once out of (by my calculations) some 50 attempts, then there IS no inherent resistance mechanism. And this experiment has been repeated several years now. If there was an inherent mechanism, and given that this is a cloned population, ALL should have created resistance, by your theory.
Also, tmonsta summarizes everything (mechanisms) nicely.
norm - why do you refer me to those definitions?
p.almada - perhaps i can retract some of what i have said and try and make my position clear. i saw the thread title which says "Evolution of Darwins Finches - How can anyone doubt the fact of evolution, the evidence is everywhere".
when i read the article i saw immediate contradiction because evolution is made up of mutation and natural selection and i saw no way that both mechanisms could operate to an observable extent in the 20 year timeframe mentioned. the clarification that the mutation occured previously means i must restate my case but it also means that a price is paid in the value of this example as evolution. without mutation at work within the given timeframe it is not a case of evolution .. only of natural selection. i realise this is a pedantic point, but its important to me at least.
i will leave further discussion of speciation aside as i dont think its going to help anyone.
about my experiment - ive read before that bacterial adaptation to antibiotics is a case of evolution and i disagree. i disagree not because there is no change in the genes and not because there is no natural selection going on. i disagree because i do not believe the change is due to a random mutation. my proposed experiment is designed to show that resistance will develop along the same pathways and the same timframe every time. i disagree not at all with any of the observations made and the results gained.. the only thing i disagree with is that a mutation is responsible for the formation of resistance. i consider the mutation assumed .. or poorly named.
i believe cellular function to have adaptive resistance inherent in its design .. yes this is an assumption on my part .. but i have made observations and predictions and created an experiment that will show whether i am wrong or whether my theory stands up against the evidence.
i believe what i am proposing to be consistent with the practices of science .. regardless of my inability to communicate it effectively.
i also think you have misread the nature of my experiment. i propose we take a culture that has previously been shown to form resistance to a limited introduction of antibiotic and then repeat the same procedure. the observations of the formation of resistance should be very similar and very consistent. my predictions are that resistance will form every time in the same way and it will form in the same timeframe.
So what your asking for is an example where a dog evolved into a cat? That's not, never has been, and never will be how it works, and is a sad misrepresentation of what evolution is(most often found in anti-evolution church literature, as is the bolt evolving into a car anology)
No species is "permanent", they are in constant flux, and there are ranges of a trait (like say nose size or skin color), and as the environment puts new obstacles into a species survival, the species either adapts or goes extinct. The more complex the organism, the more traits are available for mutation. Most mutations are subtle changes (like say 3mm of beak length) but sometimes there are radical changes (take the 3 armed baby in china for instance, though I doubt it will increase his chance for survival, or enhance his chances of procreating)
If you're looking for x-men style mutation like birds with psychokinisis, and the ability to control water molecules, put the comic book down, and read a biology book.
If you get a flu shot every year, (or just wait and catch the flu) then you should realize that organism has mutated so much that your body doesn't recognize it from the last time you caught the flu (otherwise your antibodies would have already fought it off as they recognize the virus and know it's a foriegn invader; Think chickenpox which doesn't mutate as quickly, and therefore you catch it once and it's gone for good)
And there sir is your proof of mutation and natural selection
to break it down simply--> random trait leads to greater success at survival, which leads to more offspring, which leads to greater chance of survival, ad infinitum...
norm .. why do you ask me to read your links?
P.Almada - I accept the finches as a case of evolution only with the specification that the mutation process is not involved in the 22 year timeframe given. 22 years cannot provide an example of evolution by mutation and natural selection.
the unanimity that character displacement is an evolutionary process is unargued .. what i do argue is the assumptions that lie behind it.
i can assume that many people know more than i .. but that in no way obliges me to believe them.
about our respective experiments - your experiment did nothing to analyse the reasons for the (non)emergence of resistance .. and it was assumed that the preparation was botched leading to the survival of the one sample.
my experiment would be set up using identical cultures that are known to have developed resistance to a given antibiotic in a previous test. i dont claim that all bacteria has the ability to develop resistance to all antibiotics and survive in every case.
when the test is repeated on these samples the same result (immediate production of offspring with resistance) will occur in the same timeframe in every case. my hypothesis is that all the populations known to have developed resistance in the past will survive given the ability of bacteria to develop resistance without random mutation.
have i explained my experiment better because the one you describe is very unlike what i have in mind.
on the finch business - ive changed my response to the article given a clarity in my mind about what is intended by norms title for this thread.
so given my change i now question the assumption that mutation caused both traits for beak size. every physical trait in every species has a natural variation between individuals. no mutations are required to produce this.
obviously i do not (and cannot) question that mutation is a real factor in evolution.
if a mutation produces a new physical trait then that new piece of hardware will immediately show variation in size (and other traits) in all similarly endowed offspring.
unfortunately it will be a lot harder to think up a valid experiment for this hypothesis.
so again, you choose to redefine mutation and evolution so you can discredit it...
tmonsta .. youre still assuming that random mutation inspired all the adaptations in organisms.
i realise the world is a diverse and strange place but i havent once mentioned the evolution of cars or comic books .. please try to respond to what i actually propose even if you equate it with science fiction.
your chicken pox example is an interesting case. does every person who contracts the bug develop resistance in the same fashion? does the resistance developed in humans equate with the resistance developed by flu strains?
first, I don't like the word inspired. It's not like the animal had an idea and decided to mutate. It just happened, due to an error in replicaion, or other environmental factors... that's why it's random...
as for any virus, your body gets infected, and you get sick, once your body figures out what it is, it creates an antibody to kill off the virus. Once your body produces that antibody, it can recognize the virus and kill it, if you get reinfected. (That's why you can't get the same cold twice)
Yes, everybody develops the resistance in the same fashion (or they die from the infection). If you catch the flu early in the season, and get sick, your body fights it off, and you're clear til the next year, even if your trapped in a house full of people that have the same flu. When a more mutated strain your body doesn't recognize appears, and you get sick again.
If the virus wasn't evolving, you could use the same flu shot year after year, or get innoculated once and never worry again (like small pox)
at this point I'm thinking you need to do some reading on DNA replication, and perhaps then you'll understand how a mutation (a change in an organism's DNA sequence) can occur, and I think that will dispell a lot of the confusion you think is going on, versus what is really going on...
Stipe - norm .. why do you ask me to read your links?
So that you can learn how to explain what you're trying to say in such a way that the discussion doesn't go on and on and on and on forever and ever without anyone ever really understanding what on earth it is you're trying say, that's why.. sigh...
What you believe is useless in a scientific debate. Fact shows that mutation is the origin of resistance in bacteria. You choose to ignore facts, and when you make statements like the ones you insist on, you ignore the work of thousands of scientists who not only proved beyond the shadow of doubt, but shown that mutation is the origin of resistance.
Read the links, then read your posts so far, and see if you notice a pattern. Please. Consider it a personal favor.
Scientific method is FIRST observe facts, then formulate a theory. You formulated a theory, then compared facts to wether the fact holds up to the theory.
Ignorance is bliss.
Which assumptions? WHICH??? You speak these things but then don't develop...
But then in the next time the antibiotics would be introduced, they would already be resistant!! It proves nothing, other than the fact that the population has resistance developed from the first time. It shows nothing about the mechanism involved. This, even regardless of the fact you are assuming results.
Define natural variation, and what gives origin to this variation, if not mutation, because that argument is just silly. Natural variation is genetic based. Variation in the genetic code is mutation based.
Again, you theorize before looking at the facts. Poor science at it's prime.
Oh god, tmonsta, what have you done? Now he probably thinks it's all the same, resistance in bacteria and in humans, completely ignoring the mammal immune system!
And I was going to continue, but I give up. You just continously ignore everything we say, and keep that view of yours regardless of the facts. Stubborn one, you are.
well, he could try praying next time he gets the flu, and see if it clears up by divine providence... me, I'll get the flu shot...
yes im stubborn .. but ill resist arguing all points but one .. in an attepmt to be understood:
"my experiment would be set up using identical cultures that are known to have developed resistance to a given antibiotic in a previous test."
the next time the antibiotics would be introduced, they would NOT already be resistant because the cultures used would not have been previously exposed. only identical cultures would have been exposed and shown to be able to develop resistance.
my hypothesis is that the identical tests would always produce the same result .. ie if it can produce resistance then it will and it will do so in the same fashion and in the same timeframe.
this experiment is based on what i believe .. but it could be based on anything and it would still be science because it is testable and falsifiable. i am not disqualified from academic processes just because i have different ideas from other people.
i generally dont pray to get rid of flu .. i usually lie in bed for a few days and it goes away ...
more people should try this and save millions in lives, manpower and $$$...
Once again, a discussion with Stipe just goes round and round in circles. Why? Because he already has his mind made up and cannot or will not listen to what anyone has to say. There is no point whatsoever engaging him in a conversation. A complete waste of time!
Stipe keeps saying things such as:
Many people attempt to clear up the confusion, but no, Stipe persists in being stubborn and refusing to accept reason.
Philmarlowe explains:
Anonymous further explains
Now, we get to the other point that Stipe keeps making, all the while refusing to accept facts and reason.
Stipe says:
Stipe says responding to Inwit:
Palmada has tried to explain this to Stipe, to no avail.
Palmada says:
In an earlier thread, Palmada patiently explained:
So, Stipe, please stop giving the same tired answers repeated over and over again and please respond directly to what Inwit, Palmada and others have said. Otherwise, just forget it and admit that you're talking out of your ass because you refuse to believe in evolution. This way, you will save everyone a lot of wasted time on you!
never, in my whole life, have i sworn allegiance to ...
oh wait .. that quote dont work ..
i havent challenged the theory of evolution jo ann.
i only doubt that mutation is responsible or even present in many cases.
if resistance or physical changes could be shown to respond similarly in every similar case then i would consider my hypothesis (that something other than mutation is also responsible) somewhat confirmed.
unfortunately i dont seem to possess the communicative skills to express this eloquently. so perhaps someone smarter and with more resources could pursue the idea further for me.
but i dont expect anyone to invest much time in showing how mutation doesnt work. so i will leave this idea alone and try and make sense of that delicious looking philosophy thread ...
cheers ;)
so then what IS responsible?
supernatural selection?
the power of prayer?
your hypothesis is poorly concieved, and based on an assumption you've already made...
Darwin's hypothesis is based on 22 of data collecting, in multiple species, and multiple locations, followed by an interpretation of the data...
his work is science (supported by biologists, paleoneologists, embryologists, and geneticists)... yours is faith supported by demagogues, and religious fascists.
I think I'll choose intellectual honesty over rainbows and lollipops
oops
read that as 22 years of data collecting
and paleotologists
stipe, its simple really
think along with me
a species of finch has a beak, and let's say it's normal range is 10-15 mm long.
a food source disappears because of competition or drought, whatever
the birds with the 15mm beaks can exploit a new food source
the birds with 10-14mm beaks can't and they die
THAT IS NATURAL SELECTION
The remaining birds pass on their 15 mm beaks to offspring, but some of the finches actually grow longer beaks (say 17 mm) and they are better able to exploit this new food source
THAT IS MUTATION
The species now shows a range of 15-17mm beaks, and the shorter 10-14mm beaks disappear
THAT IS EVOLUTION
Now, what your failing to grasp here is that THE VARIATION is the mutation, and it normally occurs BEFORE the environment change.
It could be 2 mm of beak length, it could be a skin color that's slightly different. It doesn't matter what it is...
What's important is that only those that have the trait survive to pass it on, and the "normal" range for a given trait changes with the environment.
if you can't wrap your head around this simple idea, then please read it over and over again until you understand it...
but enough with your proposed experiments. If you want to see them in action, go to a farm, and watch how they have to change pesticides as your mysterious force makes all the bugs change at the same time identically
According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), in a normal flu season about 200,000 Americans are hospitalized, 38,000 of whom die from the disease. Most of those deaths occur among people older than 65; on average, 98 of every 100,000 seniors with the flu die. Influenza costs the U.S. economy about $12 billion annually in direct medical costs and loss of productivity.
You were saying...?
i was saying i wouldnt be continuing this thread ... but this article linked to by 1gm sums my position up a lot more eloquently than i can.
i usually dont provide outside sources but since many here demand them then i will acquiesce:
"The breakthrough came in 1972, when psychologist Jonathan Winson came up with a simple theory: The rabbit brain exhibited the same pattern of activity when it was scared and when it was dreaming because it was dreaming about being scared. The theta rhythm of sleep was just the sound of the mind processing information, sorting through the day's experiences and looking for any new knowledge that might be important for future survival. They were learning while dreaming.
Winson's theory was ridiculed. At the time, most scientists assumed that our dreams were accidents of the brain stem, nothing more than a Dadaist montage of meaningless hallucinations. But Winson maintained that this hypothesis made no sense. For one thing, our dreams don't seem random. Instead, they unfold in intricate narrative scenarios, which tend to reflect our daily activities. According to Winson, these nighttime stories—that flurry of theta rhythm—were actually carefully scripted events, in which our new knowledge was put to the test. Did our new learning help us solve our invented problems? Was it a good "survival strategy?" If the answer was yes, then the knowledge was woven into the brain. We woke up a smarter person. The rabbit figured out how to escape its predator. We also, therefore, learn by pretending to do."
sorry for reneging on my inference that i had ceased activity on this thread. someone else have the last word and that will be it.
;)
Post a comment