Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 185 (8022 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 04-25-2014 1:40 AM
184 online now:
dwise1, Ed67, Pressie, subbie, vimesey (5 members, 179 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: tellmeverbatim
Post Volume:
Total: 724,285 Year: 10,126/28,606 Month: 1,816/2,455 Week: 534/592 Day: 6/173 Hour: 1/5


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1234
5
6Next
Author Topic:   "Best" evidence for evolution.
Taq
Member
Posts: 5049
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 61 of 82 (502144)
03-09-2009 9:24 PM


To add one more log on the fire, I would add conservation of exons and divergence of introns to the list. Francis Collins (the guy who headed the NIH Human Genome Project) wrote and excellent essay called "Faith and the Human Genome" (found here). In it (pg 148) he talks about a gene that is conserved across quite a few vertebrates, from puffer fish to humans. He shows how areas of the exons are conserved while meaningless introns become much different through the accumulation of neutral mutations. To me, this is very compelling, especially in the Evolution v. Creationism forums. Why? Well, why would a creator change introns so that they exactly match evolutionary predictions? Why not just copy the introns exactly from one species to the next?
  
Simonster
Junior Member (Idle past 1630 days)
Posts: 3
Joined: 03-10-2009


Message 62 of 82 (502272)
03-10-2009 3:15 PM


The best evidence for the theory of evolution for me personally is irreducible complexity.

IC is scientific and it is very clever in my opinion and it had the potential to break the ToE's neck.

Unfortunately it not only failed to falsify the ToE, but the fact that scientists were able to explain how IC parts of creatures were formed actually reinforced my confidence in the ToE. But I still admire Behe for it, since it was plausible and I learned how "IC" parts actually evolve thanks to Millers explanation during the Dover trial in response to Behe's hypothesis.

Edited by Simonster, : Put the third IC in quotes, since it became clear that there is no such thing as a IC part that couldn't have evolved as far as we know.

Edited by Simonster, : D'oh! It's called DoveR not Dove...


Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by olivortex, posted 03-10-2009 6:15 PM Simonster has not yet responded

  
olivortex
Member (Idle past 1062 days)
Posts: 70
From: versailles, france
Joined: 01-28-2009


Message 63 of 82 (502290)
03-10-2009 6:15 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by Simonster
03-10-2009 3:15 PM


yep
I agree on this. here is a page with the details from ken Miller, though you may have seen it before:

The "flagellum unspun".
http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/design2/article.html

It is indeed an "important" point in the battle between ID an ET people, once more, the argument didn't stand long.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by Simonster, posted 03-10-2009 3:15 PM Simonster has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by Taq, posted 03-10-2009 6:33 PM olivortex has responded

    
Taq
Member
Posts: 5049
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 64 of 82 (502292)
03-10-2009 6:33 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by olivortex
03-10-2009 6:15 PM


Re: yep
It is indeed an "important" point in the battle between ID an ET people, once more, the argument didn't stand long.

The IC argument was dealt the death blow before Behe was even born. This is a quote from 1918:

"Most present day animals are the result of a long process of evolution, in which at least thousands of mutations must have taken place. Each new mutant in turn must have derived its survival value from the effect which it produced upon the "reaction system" that had been brought into being by the many previously formed factors in cooperation; thus a complicated machine was gradually built up whose effective working was dependent upon the interlocking action of very numerous elementary parts or factors, and many of the characters are factors which, when new, where originally merely an asset finally become necessary because other necessary characters and factors had subsequently become changed so as to be dependent on the former. It must result, in consequence, that a dropping out of, or even a slight change in any one of these parts is very likely to disturb fatally the whole machinery; ..."--"Genetic Variablity, Twin Hybrids and Constant Hybrids, in a Case of Balanced Lethal Factors", by Hermann J Muller, in Genetics, Vol 3, No 5, Sept 1918, pp 422-499.

The ironic twist is that we should actually expect to see IC systems if evolution is true.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by olivortex, posted 03-10-2009 6:15 PM olivortex has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by olivortex, posted 03-10-2009 6:44 PM Taq has not yet responded

  
olivortex
Member (Idle past 1062 days)
Posts: 70
From: versailles, france
Joined: 01-28-2009


Message 65 of 82 (502294)
03-10-2009 6:44 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by Taq
03-10-2009 6:33 PM


Re: yep
Sure, it brings us way back, but i actually think many people got it all wrong because of this:

"To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree. Yet reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a perfect and complex eye to one very imperfect and simple, each grade being useful to its possessor, can be shown to exist; if further, the eye does vary ever so slightly, and the variations be inherited, which is certainly the case; and if variation or modification in the organ be ever useful to an animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, can hardly be considered real." [p. 217, Charles Darwin, 1859. The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. John Murray, London, 1859 (published by Penguin Books, London, England, 1968, reprinted 1986 with an introduction and bibliography by J.W. Burrow]

That brings us even earlier, to the starting point of the battle, in fact :)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by Taq, posted 03-10-2009 6:33 PM Taq has not yet responded

    
Sarawak
Member (Idle past 1762 days)
Posts: 47
Joined: 03-07-2009


Message 66 of 82 (503311)
03-17-2009 5:19 PM


Plants
I think plants offer some of the easiest to understand and experimentally reproducible evolution work. A good book to start with is Karl Niklas' The Evolutionary Biology of Plants. Botanists estimate that 20-40% of existing plant species have arisen through a process of hybridization, a process not normally available to animals (but who knows?). That is an astounding number and several plant species have been experimentally derived from known wild plants through a plant hybridization process and the produced species are identical to known wild species. The rapid life cycles of plants compared to animals is a big advantage.

Our green friends often get ignored.


Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by Taq, posted 03-17-2009 5:55 PM Sarawak has responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 5049
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 67 of 82 (503312)
03-17-2009 5:55 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by Sarawak
03-17-2009 5:19 PM


Re: Plants
Our green friends often get ignored.

I avoided them in college, too. I went for a degree in zoology so I wouldn't have to take a botany class. With that said . . .

We often focus on mammalian examples of human breeding programs, such as dogs. However, our cultivars are pretty impressive examples of evolution as well. One of the most impressive is teosinte, the wild version of corn. If you were to run across it in the wild you might mistake it for a wierd looking grass with a wheat-like head. Not so. The evolutio of teosinte into modern corn varieties is a very good story.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by Sarawak, posted 03-17-2009 5:19 PM Sarawak has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by Sarawak, posted 03-17-2009 6:33 PM Taq has not yet responded
 Message 69 by Lithodid-Man, posted 03-17-2009 7:22 PM Taq has not yet responded

  
Sarawak
Member (Idle past 1762 days)
Posts: 47
Joined: 03-07-2009


Message 68 of 82 (503315)
03-17-2009 6:33 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by Taq
03-17-2009 5:55 PM


Corn/Teosinte
Taq:

Ah, yes corn. I spent hours discussing corn with George Beadle. Late in life he hit the lecture circuit with something like "The Mystery of Maize". It was pretty good.

Did you have an opportunity to hear that?

I was thinking sunflowers. It's in Niklas' book.

Edited by Sarawak, : an oops!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by Taq, posted 03-17-2009 5:55 PM Taq has not yet responded

  
Lithodid-Man
Member (Idle past 319 days)
Posts: 504
From: Juneau, Alaska, USA
Joined: 03-22-2004


Message 69 of 82 (503322)
03-17-2009 7:22 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by Taq
03-17-2009 5:55 PM


Re: Plants
I reallly like the example of corn because it contains all of the critical elements with a result that most anyone can understand. iirc the natural part of corn evolution was polyploidy followed by mutations in several of the duplicated genes. Then hoo-mons came along and further selected those genes further. I may have some elements wrong, as it has been many years since my evolutionary genetics class.

This is a great counter to the 'no new information' (or similar) argument. You have duplication of existing genes, then those genes mutate and the result is something brand new, an ear, a tassle, a soft seedcoat, etc that did not exist in the wild form.


Doctor Bashir: "Of all the stories you told me, which were true and which weren't?"
Elim Garak: "My dear Doctor, they're all true"
Doctor Bashir: "Even the lies?"
Elim Garak: "Especially the lies"
This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by Taq, posted 03-17-2009 5:55 PM Taq has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by RAZD, posted 03-17-2009 7:56 PM Lithodid-Man has not yet responded

    
RAZD
Member
Posts: 15475
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 4.4


Message 70 of 82 (503325)
03-17-2009 7:56 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by Lithodid-Man
03-17-2009 7:22 PM


Re: Plants
My dad talks about when sweet corn first appeared on the market - the ear was about 8" long and the kernals were in paired rows with gaps between them, 16 rows in 8 groups around the cob.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweet_corn

quote:
There are several different genetic mutations responsible for various types of sweet corn. Early varieties, such as those used by American Indians, were the result of the mutant su ("sugary") allele.[5] They contain about 5-10% sugar by weight. Another form of the same gene, the se or "sugary enhanced" allele, was responsible for so-called "Everlasting Heritage" varieties, such as "Silver Queen". Varieties with the se alleles have a much longer storage life and contain 12-20% sugar.[6] Beginning in the 1950s, plant breeders at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign began developing supersweet varieties, which occur due to a mutation at another gene (the sh or "shrunken" gene).[7]

All of the alleles responsible for sweet corn are recessive, so it must be isolated from any field corn varieties that release pollen at the same time; the endosperm develops from genes from both parents, and heterozygous kernels will be tough and starchy.


Probably one of those supersweets.

Enjoy.

Edited by RAZD, : wiki


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by Lithodid-Man, posted 03-17-2009 7:22 PM Lithodid-Man has not yet responded

  
shalamabobbi
Member
Posts: 396
Joined: 01-10-2009
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 71 of 82 (503355)
03-18-2009 3:29 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by wardog25
10-23-2008 10:21 AM


dino chickens !
These count for evidence IMO.
At the very least, they promise greater variety at KFC..
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by wardog25, posted 10-23-2008 10:21 AM wardog25 has not yet responded

    
Sarawak
Member (Idle past 1762 days)
Posts: 47
Joined: 03-07-2009


Message 72 of 82 (503377)
03-18-2009 11:15 AM


More Plants
Here's a shortened paragraph (p64, Niklas' Evolutionary Biology of Plants)

"One of the most stunning "laboratory" investigations of speciation is that of Loren Rieseberg and his coworkers, who reproduced the genetic changes leading to the formation of a naturally occurring species of sunflower (Helianthus anomalus)......Under laboratory conditions these changes are repeatable across independent experiments....The two putative ancestral species of H. anomalus are H. annuus and H. petiolaris. All three species are self incompatible annuals....hybridized H. annuus and H. pertiolaris to produce three independent hybrid lines that were subjected to different sib mating and back crossing regimes......lines converged to nearly identical gene combinations including parallel changes in the nonrearranged portions of chromosomes.....the path of evolutionary change was repeatable in ways suggesting that selection rather than chance governs the genetic composition..."

Sorry about hacking the paragraph so much, but there are copyright concerns. If you have access to Science, here's a reference:

Science 28 November 2003:
Vol. 302. no. 5650, p. 1499
DOI: 10.1126/science.302.5650.1499

Edited by Sarawak, : No reason given.


  
WarriorArchangel
Member (Idle past 288 days)
Posts: 14
From: Lynn MA US
Joined: 03-02-2013


Message 73 of 82 (692489)
03-03-2013 11:56 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by Admin
10-24-2008 4:39 AM


Fact and a question....
Our species is 99.8% Neanderthal genome. How did that happen?
They eneded up in the Northern Israeli wilderness, circa 700,000 years ago. The people in the wilderness that Cain thought, would kill him.

He interbred with them, and borne the first modern humans....


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Admin, posted 10-24-2008 4:39 AM Admin has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by Adminnemooseus, posted 03-04-2013 12:14 AM WarriorArchangel has responded

    
Adminnemooseus
Director
Posts: 3498
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 74 of 82 (692492)
03-04-2013 12:14 AM
Reply to: Message 73 by WarriorArchangel
03-03-2013 11:56 PM


Things Neanderthal
I'll track down a good Neanderthal topic for you, so you don't plaster things Neanderthal in bad places.

But I have some downloads happening right now, and my internet connection is really bogging down - So it may take a while.

Adminnemooseus

Added by edit: I bumped a topic. It can also be found via this link.

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : ABE.


Or something like that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by WarriorArchangel, posted 03-03-2013 11:56 PM WarriorArchangel has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by WarriorArchangel, posted 03-04-2013 11:28 AM Adminnemooseus has acknowledged this reply

    
WarriorArchangel
Member (Idle past 288 days)
Posts: 14
From: Lynn MA US
Joined: 03-02-2013


Message 75 of 82 (692512)
03-04-2013 11:28 AM
Reply to: Message 74 by Adminnemooseus
03-04-2013 12:14 AM


Re: Things Neanderthal
Don't do me ay favors. They ended up in Northern Israel circa 700,000 years ago. They were made by Lucifer to be sexually compatible with the modern humans HaShem would make. The
"Adam" means 'a new species'. He wanted to have His son borne
by the virgin He made. It didn't turn out that way, because of Lucifer. In the guise of a serpent.....

Made the "New Species" experience auto-erotic orgasm by biting
in to the "forbidden fruit".....

HaShemRules his legions....
OrgasmRules mankind.....

Can't have immortality and have a kid every nine months.....

"Strange race these dumbed down humans."

All of that entails the Almighty God. (I am the Almighty God, and there is none else.)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by Adminnemooseus, posted 03-04-2013 12:14 AM Adminnemooseus has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by Admin, posted 03-04-2013 12:23 PM WarriorArchangel has responded

    
Prev1234
5
6Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2014 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2014