Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   $50 to anyone who can prove to me Evolution is a lie.
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 6475 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 151 of 305 (53169)
09-01-2003 6:27 AM


Hi Percy,
Maybe you could move the "Genetic Bottlenecks and the flood" thread into the evolution forum? I get the impression other interested parties are missing it since it is in a different forum...as Fred pointed out, the topics under discussion don't really fit in this forum so most should probably go into Evolution.
I can open an "SLPx versus Fred Williams insult-a-thon" thread in the Free for All if you and Fred wish

Zealot
Inactive Member


Message 152 of 305 (53191)
09-01-2003 9:37 AM
Reply to: Message 149 by Mammuthus
08-29-2003 9:03 AM


Re: Forum Guidelines Advisory
from Perci
Hi Mammuthus!
Thanks for the cites. Actually, I think they were both pretty good. The first reminds me of one of the fears of the killer bees (Or maybe ants? Wasps?) migrating up from Mexico. They were pretty sure that these bees couldn't come too far north, but they were afraid they might mix with native North American bee species and produce a new more aggressive race of bees with a more northern range.
I hope Zealot finds them helpful.
--Percy
Hi, I dont understand. I thought one of the prerequisites for something to become a new species is that it is unable to continue successfull reproduction with the old species ? How then could 2 different species produce a new species capable of reproduction ?
from Mammuthus
Re: Forum Guidelines Advisory
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi Percy,
No problem...a few suggestions
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Evolution's original definition was "the naturalistic origin of life from non-life" (Fred).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are multiple threads on abiogenesis in the Origins of Life forum
Hi Mammuthus. Is this true ? Evolutions original definition ? I dont understand, wouldn't it have been Darwin's definition though as he introduced the theory, or is Fred inaccurate in his statement ?
cheers

This message is a reply to:
 Message 149 by Mammuthus, posted 08-29-2003 9:03 AM Mammuthus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 153 by Mammuthus, posted 09-01-2003 10:04 AM Zealot has not replied

Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 6475 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 153 of 305 (53201)
09-01-2003 10:04 AM
Reply to: Message 152 by Zealot
09-01-2003 9:37 AM


Re: Forum Guidelines Advisory
Hi Zealot,
First of all, thank you for getting the thread back on topic...or at least back to the interesting drift it was in before Fred's return.
quote:
Hi, I dont understand. I thought one of the prerequisites for something to become a new species is that it is unable to continue successfull reproduction with the old species ? How then could 2 different species produce a new species capable of reproduction ?
You will probably not find that many people who really agree on what species are or at least how they are ultimately constrained. There are some species that produce fertile F1 hybrids but cannot produce F2's or one of the sexes (usually the males) are sterile but the females can be crossed back to either one of the two original species males...regardless, this would result in the introgression of the genes of the "invading" species into a new gene pool. But hybridization is one way of producing new species...common in plants.
quote:
Hi Mammuthus. Is this true ? Evolutions original definition ? I dont understand, wouldn't it have been Darwin's definition though as he introduced the theory, or is Fred inaccurate in his statement ?
Darwin was famous for his treaty on the study of changes in species and populations over time. He is not famous for studying the origin of all life. The Origin of Species and the Descent of Man to name two of his works, are not about the origin of life from non-life. Modern evolutionary biology is not the same as the study of abiogenesis. Different fields studied by people with different scientific backgrounds. Thus, Fred is confused.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 152 by Zealot, posted 09-01-2003 9:37 AM Zealot has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 154 by Karl, posted 09-01-2003 12:55 PM Mammuthus has not replied

Karl
Inactive Member


Message 154 of 305 (53226)
09-01-2003 12:55 PM
Reply to: Message 153 by Mammuthus
09-01-2003 10:04 AM


Re: Forum Guidelines Advisory
Indeed, there are many species which can interbreed and form perfectly viable offspring. Ask anyone who keeps and breeds tropical fish - the common Swordtail (Xiphophorus helleri) and its relative the Platy (Xiphophorus maculatus) are completely interfertile, and few aquarium specimens have pure blood. The black and silver mollies are hybrids of Poecilia sphenops, P. latipinna and P. velifera. In the wild, reproductive isolation is maintained by these species having different niches or by geographical seperation, but in captivity they interbreed freely.
It's actually a problem. There are hundreds of endemic species of Cichlid fish in lake Malawi, but since the lake is young (geologically speaking) many of these species are very closely related (isolated in the wild again by niche and distribution) and interbreed freely in aquaria. Unfortunately, like when you mix different colours of plasticene....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 153 by Mammuthus, posted 09-01-2003 10:04 AM Mammuthus has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 155 by Rei, posted 09-05-2003 5:30 PM Karl has not replied

Rei
Member (Idle past 7013 days)
Posts: 1546
From: Iowa City, IA
Joined: 09-03-2003


Message 155 of 305 (54063)
09-05-2003 5:30 PM
Reply to: Message 154 by Karl
09-01-2003 12:55 PM


Re: Forum Guidelines Advisory
Not only in the animal world. For example, goldenrods (Home | Science | University of Waterloo) are notorious for being difficult to classify as a given species due to their ability to hybridize. Yet, they have such different characteristics (from when they sprout to when they bloom to their flower structure to their stem structure... (etc)) that it's hard to not classify them as separate species.
------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 154 by Karl, posted 09-01-2003 12:55 PM Karl has not replied

PeriferaliiFocust
Inactive Member


Message 156 of 305 (63412)
10-30-2003 12:53 AM


I cannot proove it is a lie, you cannot proove it isn't one. I personally think evolution comes from a certain type of thinking that has certain values--- but scientists put all their faith in it as if it is a religion(though they'd deny this). In my experience it is the more i think about evolution (or anything else i guess) the more questions i have to it. There are certain parts of the evolutionary theory that are undeniable---- but for it to be true it has to be completely true--- and i still have many significant problems with evolution. I will soon start a thread on my questions.

Replies to this message:
 Message 157 by Rrhain, posted 10-30-2003 3:26 AM PeriferaliiFocust has not replied
 Message 158 by mark24, posted 10-30-2003 4:17 AM PeriferaliiFocust has not replied

Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 157 of 305 (63427)
10-30-2003 3:26 AM
Reply to: Message 156 by PeriferaliiFocust
10-30-2003 12:53 AM


nafajoeverclear writes:
quote:
I cannot proove it is a lie, you cannot proove it isn't one.
If I can show you evolution happening right in front of your eyes, is that not proof that it isn't a lie?
Here's an experiment you can do in the privacy of your own bio lab. It doesn't cost very much and the materials can be acquired from any decent biological supply house.
Take a single E. coli bacterium of K-type. This means the bacterium is susceptible to T4 phage. Let this bacterium reproduce until it forms a lawn. Then, infect the lawn with T4 phage.
What do we expect to happen? That's right, plaques should start to form and, eventually, the entire lawn will die. After all, every single bacterium in the lawn is descended from a single ancestor, so if the ancestor is susceptible, then all the offspring should be susceptible, too.
But what we actually see is that some colonies of bacteria in the lawn are not affected by the phage.
How can this be? Again, the entire lawn is descended from a single ancestor. They should all behave identically. If one is susceptible, then they're all susceptible. If one is immune, then they're all immune. This can't be an example of "adaptation" because if one could do it, they all could do it.
But since there is a discrepancy, we are left with only one conclusion: The bacteria evolved. There must be a genetic difference between the bacteria that are surviving and those that died.
Indeed, we call the new bacteria K-4 because they are immune to T4 phage.
But we're not done. Take a single K-4 bacterium and repeat the process: Let it reproduce to form a lawn and then infect the lawn with T4 phage.
What do we expect to happen? That's right: Absolutely nothing. All of the bacteria are descended from a single ancestor that is immune to T4 phage. Therefore, they all should survive and we shouldn't see any plaques form.
But we do. Plaques do, indeed start to form. How can this be? Again, all the bacteria in the lawn are descended from a single ancestor that was immune to T4 phage, so they shold all behave identically. If one is immune, then all are immune. There must be something else going on.
Something evolved, but the question is what. What evolved? Could it be the bacteria experiencing a reversion mutation back to K-type? No, that can't be it. Suppose any given bacteria did revert back to wild. It is surrounded by K-4 type who are immune to T4 phage. As soon as the lawn is infected, those few bacteria will die and immediately be replaced by the offspring of the immune K-4 bacteria. We would never see any plaques forming because the immune bacteria keep filling in any holes that appear.
So if it isn't the bacteria that evolved, it must be the phage. And, indeed, we call the new phage T4h as it has evolved a new host specificity.
So there you go: Evolution right before your eyes. Not once but twice.
So now that we have evidence that evolution happens, how can you say that it cannot be proven not to be a lie?
quote:
I personally think evolution comes from a certain type of thinking that has certain values
And you would be wrong. Tell me how a "certain type of thinking" makes the bacteria somehow immune to T4 phage or converts the phage into being able to infect a new host.
quote:
but scientists put all their faith in it as if it is a religion(though they'd deny this).
And it can't possibly be because it isn't true?
Who do you think is more likely to know if evolution is a religion or not: Those who study it or those who know very little about it?
quote:
In my experience it is the more i think about evolution (or anything else i guess) the more questions i have to it.
Good. That's the best thing to have happen.
The question then becomes how you go about answering those questions.
Do you go into the lab and perform experiments? Do you go into the field and conduct studies? Do you go to the library and read the journals for the results of studies carried out by other researchers? Do you go to the university to take classes and ask the professors your questions to see if they can guide you to find out the answers?
Or do you talk to other people who know just as little about evolutionary theory as you do?
quote:
There are certain parts of the evolutionary theory that are undeniable---- but for it to be true it has to be completely true---
Yes...? For it to be true it has to be completely true. What's wrong with that? There's a reason that evolutionary theory is advanced as it is. It has the evidence to back it up.
What data, studies, articles, or experiments are you using to justify your claim that there is something wrong?
quote:
and i still have many significant problems with evolution.
And your "problems" are "significant" for what reason, specifically?
Look, everybody is entitled to have an opinion. But just because you are entitled to an opinion doesn't mean your opinion has any validity or value.
What evidence are you using to justify yourself? What do you know about evolutionary theory? You need to be specific.
You can disbelieve in the results of the work of literally thousands of scientists all you want, but if you expect anybody to take you seriously, you're going to need more support for that rejection than simply, "I don't like the way it makes me feel."
I'm sorry if I sound like I am being harsh, but you don't do this with other aspects of science. You don't debate the germ "theory" of disease or the atomic "theory" of matter or gravitational "theory" or the photon "theory" of light even though you probably have never seen a germ, have never seen an atom, have no idea what gravity actually is, and have never seen a photon.
You don't go to your tax attorney for advice on how to treat heart disease or to perform an angioplasty. You don't go to your cardiologist for advice on how to change the transmission in your car. You don't go your mechanic for advice on how to best take care of the new lime tree you've planted in the back yard. You don't go to your horticulturist for instruction on how to speak Japanese. You don't hire a language teacher to build your house. You don't seek an architect when trying to build a menu for dinner. You don't ask the chef to prepare your taxes. And yet, you seem to think that somebody other than biologists are the best qualified people to tell you about biology?
I am not saying that it is impossible for biologists to be wrong. I am simply saying that the evidence that will prove them wrong will come from those who are versed in biology. How could it come from anywhere else? How do you show a scientific theory to be wrong when you know nothing about what the theory actually says?
------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 156 by PeriferaliiFocust, posted 10-30-2003 12:53 AM PeriferaliiFocust has not replied

mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 158 of 305 (63433)
10-30-2003 4:17 AM
Reply to: Message 156 by PeriferaliiFocust
10-30-2003 12:53 AM


navajoeverclear,
There are certain parts of the evolutionary theory that are undeniable---- but for it to be true it has to be completely true---
Why?
If I said there are 10 oranges in a box, flashed you the box quickly, so that you couldn't count them, would you deny there were any oranges in the box because you couldn't determine that there were ten?
Scientific theories are held to be tentative, all of them, that means they are subject to change when new data comes along. The theory of evolution, even macroevolution, is supported by so much evidence it is unlikely that there will be a paradigm revision. Details, even large parts will almost certainly change, however, & common descent is unlikely to be one of those parts.
and i still have many significant problems with evolution. I will soon start a thread on my questions.
I'll be glad to help.
Mark

This message is a reply to:
 Message 156 by PeriferaliiFocust, posted 10-30-2003 12:53 AM PeriferaliiFocust has not replied

PeriferaliiFocust
Inactive Member


Message 159 of 305 (63499)
10-30-2003 5:51 PM


Rrhain, thanks for your post, you have lots of good points:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I personally think evolution comes from a certain type of thinking that has certain values
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And you would be wrong. Tell me how a "certain type of thinking" makes the bacteria somehow immune to T4 phage or converts the phage into being able to infect a new host.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
but scientists put all their faith in it as if it is a religion(though they'd deny this).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And it can't possibly be because it isn't true?
Who do you think is more likely to know if evolution is a religion or not: Those who study it or those who know very little about it?
First qoute--Yeah that was stupid of me to say, what we think doesn't change the way things are--- by the same tolken, evolution is something someone thought up.
Second qoute--- sorry that was too general, i still think there is a scientific bias to fill in holes and claim it is one hundred percent fact.
Because i didn't there mention my specific problems doesn't mean i haven't even considered. I do have reasons other than it not feeling right. (i'll talk about it in the thread i'm about to start)
Mark-- i made my post short so my ideas aren't clear. It would depend on your definition of evolution, which is basically every part of the theory scientists accept, which i think are some parts they are ignorantly confident in. I admitted that there are parts of the evolutionary theory i would agree with, others do not seem to have as solid of a basis. I also admit i am not an expert on evolution, but i have asked my questions (which i will specifically address on another thread) a few times before and not gotten suffient answers.
People have told me i should read some books on evolution if i want to know more. For one thing i am in AP biology, i've read the chapters on evolution. I would guess that does not have all the details, but i do not understand why the details it leaves out cannot be summarized for me before i spend money on a book. I know you'll think its stupid of me to not even try to know, and that if i have faith i should not have fear of reading and considering what is written. But i do think i have reason to be cautious, if you don't agree with me please forget i mentioned this (as i know it will go against points on my intelligence) , that i will be numbed to the subtle ignorances the evolutionists that write it share, and i will forget my questions and become either a clone of everyone else who fully supports the theory, or i will choose to deny it, then i don't know what will happen. Anyway i haven't ruled out the book choice though, i am now starting that thread, and would be interested in knowing what books exist that answer my questions.
[This message has been edited by navajoeverclear, 10-30-2003]

Replies to this message:
 Message 160 by Loudmouth, posted 10-30-2003 6:17 PM PeriferaliiFocust has not replied
 Message 161 by nator, posted 10-30-2003 8:29 PM PeriferaliiFocust has not replied
 Message 162 by mark24, posted 10-30-2003 9:25 PM PeriferaliiFocust has not replied
 Message 163 by Rrhain, posted 10-30-2003 9:33 PM PeriferaliiFocust has replied

Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 160 of 305 (63502)
10-30-2003 6:17 PM
Reply to: Message 159 by PeriferaliiFocust
10-30-2003 5:51 PM


Anyway i haven't ruled out the book choice though, i am now starting that thread, and would be interested in knowing what books exist that answer my questions.
You may want to take a look at the TalkOrigins.org faq page. It may have some of the specific answers you are looking for. It includes links to recent speciation events and support for "macroevolution". This site is probably referred to the most in evo vs creation debates, as far as evo sites go.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 159 by PeriferaliiFocust, posted 10-30-2003 5:51 PM PeriferaliiFocust has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 161 of 305 (63518)
10-30-2003 8:29 PM
Reply to: Message 159 by PeriferaliiFocust
10-30-2003 5:51 PM


Hi NEC,
quote:
Yeah that was stupid of me to say, what we think doesn't change the way things are--- by the same tolken, evolution is something someone thought up.
That evolution is "something someone thought up" is true, I suppose, but the evidence for evolution is something literally tens, maybe hunderds of thousands of scientists over the last 150 years or so have observed.
You can observe it too, and you can also read a great deal of current research. The TalkOrigins website Evolution FAQ's are a great place to start. The library is another good place.
quote:
i still think there is a scientific bias to fill in holes and claim it is one hundred percent fact.
Exaples of this happening, please.
The truth is, science doesn't work this way. In fact, science works opposite to this way.
The following essay is a great explanation of what science is and isn't, and how it works:
science - The Skeptic's Dictionary - Skepdic.com
quote:
People have told me i should read some books on evolution if i want to know more. For one thing i am in AP biology, i've read the chapters on evolution. I would guess that does not have all the details, but i do not understand why the details it leaves out cannot be summarized for me before i spend money on a book.
What details do you want to know about? There are several actual Biologists, Geologists, etc. on this site which can help you a lot in this regard.
quote:
I know you'll think its stupid of me to not even try to know, and that if i have faith i should not have fear of reading and considering what is written. But i do think i have reason to be cautious, if you don't agree with me please forget i mentioned this (as i know it will go against points on my intelligence) , that i will be numbed to the subtle ignorances the evolutionists that write it share, and i will forget my questions and become either a clone of everyone else who fully supports the theory, or i will choose to deny it, then i don't know what will happen.
Why do you fear knowledge? Knowledge leads to enlightenment and understanding and fights ignorance and sloppy thinking. It prevents poor descisions and leads to new insights. It is nothing to fear.
Anyway, you have a VERY distorted view of science if you think that eveyone who accepts the evidence for evolution as the best explanation for the diversity of life on Earth as "a clone of everyone else who fully supports the theory."
Do you fear becoming a "clone of everyone else who accepts the theory" that matter is made of atoms, or the theory that the Sun is the center of the solar system, or the theory that germs cause disease?
The Theory of Evolution is an extremely well-supported scientific theory, just like all those others.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 159 by PeriferaliiFocust, posted 10-30-2003 5:51 PM PeriferaliiFocust has not replied

mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 162 of 305 (63526)
10-30-2003 9:25 PM
Reply to: Message 159 by PeriferaliiFocust
10-30-2003 5:51 PM


navajoeverclear,
Mark-- i made my post short so my ideas aren't clear. It would depend on your definition of evolution, which is basically every part of the theory scientists accept, which i think are some parts they are ignorantly confident in. I admitted that there are parts of the evolutionary theory i would agree with, others do not seem to have as solid of a basis. I also admit i am not an expert on evolution, but i have asked my questions (which i will specifically address on another thread) a few times before and not gotten suffient answers.
Please do ask those questions!
Mark

This message is a reply to:
 Message 159 by PeriferaliiFocust, posted 10-30-2003 5:51 PM PeriferaliiFocust has not replied

Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 163 of 305 (63527)
10-30-2003 9:33 PM
Reply to: Message 159 by PeriferaliiFocust
10-30-2003 5:51 PM


navajoeverclear responds to me:
quote:
by the same tolken, evolution is something someone thought up.
No, it was something that was observed. I just showed you how you could observe evolution happening right in front of your eyes. Your thinking doesn't change the bacteria or the phage.
That's the point behind science: It doesn't matter what you believe. It only matters what you can show.
quote:
i still think there is a scientific bias to fill in holes and claim it is one hundred percent fact.
But where is your evidence? I don't deny that you think this, but you need to justify why you think this.
The fact is that evolution happens. I have shown you an experiment that you can do that directly displays evolution right in front of your eyes. The theory of evolution seeks to explain how that happens.
Do we know everything about how evolution happens? Of course not. Nobody will say otherwise. But to pretend that there is some question as to whether evolution happens in the first place is disingenuous at best. To behave as if the extent of evolution is somehow nebulous is to ignore reality.
quote:
Because i didn't there mention my specific problems doesn't mean i haven't even considered.
But the fact that you didn't mention them means we cannot answer them. We are incapable of reading your mind. If you want an answer, you're going to have to ask a question.
Be specific.
quote:
I do have reasons other than it not feeling right.
Which are? You haven't mentioned any that I have seen. How do you expect us to respond to your questions if you refuse to indicate what they are?
Personally, it sounds like you're trying to play a game of gotcha. That isn't very nice.
------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 159 by PeriferaliiFocust, posted 10-30-2003 5:51 PM PeriferaliiFocust has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 164 by PeriferaliiFocust, posted 10-31-2003 3:02 AM Rrhain has replied

PeriferaliiFocust
Inactive Member


Message 164 of 305 (63566)
10-31-2003 3:02 AM
Reply to: Message 163 by Rrhain
10-30-2003 9:33 PM


sorry all, i'll get to that thread tomorrow
I don't dispute the bacteria. I however do not see evolution as in shifting of species happeneing before my eyes. Like i said, not all parts of evolution do i question, that thread on my specifics is coming, i need to go to bed now
[This message has been edited by navajoeverclear, 10-31-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 163 by Rrhain, posted 10-30-2003 9:33 PM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 165 by compmage, posted 10-31-2003 5:47 AM PeriferaliiFocust has not replied
 Message 166 by Rrhain, posted 10-31-2003 9:17 AM PeriferaliiFocust has not replied
 Message 167 by Zhimbo, posted 10-31-2003 12:07 PM PeriferaliiFocust has not replied

compmage
Member (Idle past 5153 days)
Posts: 601
From: South Africa
Joined: 08-04-2005


Message 165 of 305 (63576)
10-31-2003 5:47 AM
Reply to: Message 164 by PeriferaliiFocust
10-31-2003 3:02 AM


navajoeverclear writes:
I don't dispute the bacteria. I however do not see evolution as in shifting of species happeneing before my eyes.
I don't think you know all that much about evolution. Speciation or as some call it, 'macro-evolution', is in most cases simply lots of 'micro-evolution'. You conceed that the bacteria can 'micro-evolve', what exactly is to stop lots of these small changes from adding up until you can tell it is the same creature?
And what if someone were to show you new species evolving? Would you believe it then? Here is a list speciation events, along with a nice little discussion about what species are.
------------------
He hoped and prayed that there wasn't an afterlife. Then he realized there was a contradiction involved here and merely hoped that there wasn't an afterlife.
- Douglas Adams, The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 164 by PeriferaliiFocust, posted 10-31-2003 3:02 AM PeriferaliiFocust has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024