Evolution for Dummies and Christians

Maybe I'm missing your point. Since you're new here, it would help me (and maybe some others) to clear up exactly where you stand.Do you seriously believe that scientists are giving up on evolution?(By the way, you can learn how to do quote boxes and other "special effects" by clicking the "peek" button in the lower right-hand corner of each post. But don't try to learn too much from my posts - I'm using an unconventional browser of my own concoction, which necessitates certain... oddities. )

---

People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.

The issue here, Thure, is that your expectations do not reflect reality. We have done experiments regarding this in the past. We have observed the formation of new species. There is no arbitrary limit - and you're just claiming that you "expect that there is one" without showing what the limiting factor is.I'm afraid you're arguing from ignorance and projecting your personal expectations as fact, and you're flat wrong.I posted several examples of "speciation events." A species is typically defined as a population that breeds true with other members of the same population, but cannot breed viable offspring with another population (though it's not a great definition - some creatures we define as seperate species can interbreed). In other words, a horse and a pig cannot breed and produce offspring that can breed offspring of their own - thus they are of different species.A "speciation event," then, is the proof of "macroevolution" that you are looking for. It would be defined as the observation of the descendants of a population no longer being able to breed viable offspring with that population - then the creature's great great ad nauseum grandchildren cannot breed with members of the ancestor's species.The example I gave:

quote:

---

In 1983, Macnair and Christie were able to show that varieties of the Mimululs guttatus flower which had developed a tolerance to copper were no longer able to breed with varieties which had not developed this tolerance.

---

demonstrates exactly that. The descendants of Mimululs guttatus flowers who had developed a tolerance to copper could no longer breed with emmbers of the original population. A new species, by the previous definition, had been formed.Your "expectation" of some sort of arbitrary limit is irrelevant. All that matters is observation - and we have seen new species arise directly.You will no doubt contend that this is simply "microevolution," and an example of the "small adaptive changes" that all species can make. But this would be wrong. The new population can no longer breed true with the original population. They are an entirely different species, despite their other similarities, in the same way that a tarantula and a black widow are both different species of spider. An intelligent designer who simply uses the same parts over again would not include such vestigial organs as the human appendix, which actually poses a significant danger to the life of the organism. It serves no real purpose in the human body, and can be removed without altering the life functions of the patient. The same can be said of the vestigial wings of ostriches, the hind leg bones in whales, the erector pili in humans (the miscles that put our hair on end, giving us the useless "goosebumps," which in other, more furry mammals gives a larger and more threatening appearance), the human tailbone (obviously reminiscient of the actual tails of other primates, but not formed fully in humans), the fish Astyanax mexicanus that has eyes but goes blind before its egg even hatches, human wisdom teeth, the sexual organs of dandelions (who have the sexual organs of other flowers, but reproduce asexually and don't ever use them), and sexual behavior in certain whiptail lizards where there are no males in the population, all individuals of the species are female (again, a species which reproduces asexually - they just have "fake sex" - a vestigial behavior). Whew. Sorry for the absurdly long sentence, but there are many examples. These are obviouslty not examples of some designer re-using parts in various creations, thure. They are either useless or downright harmful - they exist only because they have been passed down by ancestors, the most distant of which actually had working and necessary versions of the same features.If the "pot maker" was re-using parts, why not give bats feathers and a more efficient wing structure? Bats can't fly nearly as well as birds - why not re-use that feature? Why give humans and other mammals eyes that have a literal blind spot where the blood vessels that feed the tissue block the retina, when octopi and other species (including birds) have entirely different eyes without the blind spot? Octopi even focus their vision differently - if humans had the same eye structure, I wouldn't be wearing glasses right now. Why woudln't the designer use the good parts?No, the "pot-maker" analogy doesn't fit with reality, either, thure.As far as similarity proving common ancestry - we aren't just talking basic similarity, thure. I'm talking about organs which are identical in structure and placement, but are not used by one species and are necessary for the survival of another. Ostriches don't use their wings at all, but their structure and placement is identical to the wings of chickens, who use them for quick escapes and very short-distance flight. Their wings are also identical in placement and structure to other birds who actually fly. There is a clear diverging branch in ancestry where certain birds lost the power of flight, and yet their wings remain.The evidence for evolution is mountainous. The only people who believe evolution to be inaccurate are Creationists, not scientists (except in a few instances where a "Scientist" is willing to put his religious beliefs above scientific observations, and thus destroys his credibility).I'm sorry, ture, but evolution is a highly accurate description of the mechanism by which new species form. You may not want to accept that personally becuase of your preconceived religious beliefs about a Creator, but you'll never prove evolution wrong by saying "God says so" or "this guy said so" or "I expect we'd find this" with no actual evidence to back your claims.

---

Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.

We are talking about Archaeopteryx. It's a pretty famous fossil, I'm sure you've seen an image of it before, but here's a link in case you haven't.http://www.enchantedlearning.com/...inos/Archaeopteryx.shtmlIt's a particularly pretty fossil, and there are several representatives.Archie falls smack dab between lizard-like dinos and birds. It has fully developed feathers, but still has teeth, a flat sternum, clawed wings, etc.Prior to Archie there were (among many others)
Sinosauropteryx prima - a lizard-like dino that had very primative (downy like) feathers
Caudipteryx zoui - which had long, symetrical feathers (more advanced than downy feathers, but since they are not asymetric, they would have been useless for flight).After Archie there's
IBEROMESORNIS - a small, flying "bird" which had teeth inside it's beak, and it's hip was primative (more dino-like) than modern birds.And many others, including modern birds.Looking at features like feathers, teeth, bone structure, etc. There is a clear line from lizard-like dinos to dinos with primative feathers, to dinos with advanced feathers, to dinos with flight feathers, to archie, to flying dinos/birds with teeth and beaks, to mostly modern birds with a few primative features, to modern birds.We're not talking about "head gets bigger" type features here. Feathers are unique to this line of ancestory, the development of feathers from primative hairlike quills to completely modern flight feathers is well documented.If this is not a good lineage proving macro-evolution, can you please explain what more it would take to convince someone?

Archie is always a fun subject, Nuggin.

quote:

---

Archie falls smack dab between lizard-like dinos and birds.

---

Although perhaps somewhat closer to theropod dinosaurs than to modern birds -- archaeopterix seems to be more of a theropod dinosaur with wings and feathers (or, seeing how many, if not all, theropods had feathers, more simply a theropod dinosaur with wings) than a modern bird.The main reason that archaeopterix is called a "bird" is that taxonomists purposely define Aves in such a way to include Archie.Edited to add:
Oops. I should clarify: by "closer to theropod dinosaurs", I mean in terms of number and morphology of physical characteristics. If archaeopterix is, as is accepted, an offshoot of the lineage that led to modern birds, then phylogenically Archie is closer to modern birds than non-Avian theropods.I also am taking the liberty of correcting a few minor typos.This message has been edited by Chiroptera, 27-Sep-2005 11:10 PM

---

"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt

Chiroptera, this is a bit OT, but I have to share.A few years ago the Peabody Museum in New Haven featured a fantastic exhibit of the feathered fossils from China.My wife and I spent several hours spellbound by the central exhibit of actual fossils. Then we heard an elderly, self-assured voice saying, "You see, this is how the wing works..."We peered around the circular display case. There stood (the recently late) John Ostrom, escorting VIP guests, leaning forward from the waist and demonstrating the avian wing stroke with great aplomb, accompanied by his own expert commentary. We affectionately refer to this as the day we saw the great man do the funky chicken.We were stunned at our good fortune. We followed them through the museum for the next hour--he knew what we were doing (he twinkled at us), but the VIPs were oblivious. What a wonderful day!

Rahvin
You are prolific to say the least, I could only dream of keeping up with you, so on to the disscussion.
The intellegent designer argument is circlar, a Creator could do anything he darn well pleases and if you were the creator clearly you would do them differently, Sorry such a tart answer for such a well written responce.Rahvin writes
"The example I gave:quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 1983, Macnair and Christie were able to show that varieties of the Mimululs guttatus flower which had developed a tolerance to copper were no longer able to breed with varieties which had not developed this tolerance.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------demonstrates exactly that. The descendants of Mimululs guttatus flowers who had developed a tolerance to copper could no longer breed with emmbers of the original population. A new species, by the previous definition, had been formed."Sorry Rahvin it does not demonstrate exactly that, it demonstrates the reduction of the gene pool with an interesting sterility side effect. The copper resistant plant now has a smaller diversity, which is the opposite of what you are claiming. It is not a new diversity. To truly validate this study you would need to do a full genetic map of the Mimululs guttatus flower of both the copper resistant and non copper resistant plants and you would find the copper resistant plants fall with in the genetic genealogy of the regular plants. As far as the non rebreedability of the copper resistant plant it is obvious that when this set of genes comes up (1 in 1000 . .. 1 in 100,000???) it is sterile to all but the small set of genetically similar plants, a phenomenon we would not normally notice in our gardens but obviously occurs. What is important here is to keep in mind here is that the resistant plants are a subset of the normal plants that is to say the gene pattern of the copper resistant plants would normally come up every so often.
I live in farmland USA where the crop duster flies often. They dust cornfields for certain bugs one year and a small percentage of them live. And if they were to dust the next year with the same pesticide a much lager percentage of them live, obviously offspring from the previous years survivors. You might say, “they have adapted”, and I say ” poppycock”! The genes that allow the resistance existed before the dusting, and now the bugs have a much narrow set of genes (all of the none resistant types are gone). So to eliminate this problem the dusters alternate pesticides each year. And luckily for them if there are bugs resistant to both types of pesticide they are not enough in population to be rebreedableThrue

I guess I sound kind of ignorant jumping in the middle of a creation/ evolution disscussion with a remark like that but I have been getting my input from creationest sources reciently and that is the impression I have been getting. But I will curb my 'tude for now.Thure

From what I've read above it seems that -1) There is a type of plant - mimululs guttatus
2) A subset of the plant developed tolerances to copper
3) That subset can breed among itself, but can not breed with the original group from which it spawned.How is this a reduction in genetic diversity? The initial set wasn't copper resistant. So the addition of a copper resistant strain necessarily means that there is more genetic diversity.Additionally, I don't understand where you are concluding sterility? There is a breeding population of copper resistant plants. They are reproducing. How is that sterile?

Thanks for the welcome Chiroptera,
You guys can write more in an hour than I can write in a week.
I found the link you provided ( fossil transitions ) interesting so I replied to that first I will try to address other stuff time permitting.The problem I have with documents like this is that they are built with more conjecture then the authors would care to admit or then they might even know, as many different people are likely involved in its development over several years of time. For an example of ambiguity lets go to a recent article in National Geographic, titled Human Fossil Adds Fuel to Evolution Debate by Hillary Mayell, March 25, 2002, they were discussing the possible age of “Java Man”, originally thought to be million years old then his age was changed to 1.5 million years. Oh really, he got 3 time older overnight, maybe they went the wrong way and he is actually 3 time younger. In the same article paleoanthropologist Tim White, used a newly found skull from Ethiopia to confirm that the hominid distribution (species) is a count of one at 1 mill years old. The skull he was using comprised of a few bone fragments from seven different people, I can see lots of room for conjecture here. How come such extreme differences of age or the solidarity of a skull is hardly noticed and the presented material is considered fact when it clearly contains only a small fraction of easily reinterpreted information. Obviously theoretical license is allowed when evaluating fossil material. But the way it should be presented is; “We have a few bone fragments thought to be 1000 to 1 trillion years old, they seem to be human skull parts and they were found in Ethiopia.” Instead of “We found Arthur Godfrey’s Great XXCIIXXII Grandfather who was a well liked corn farmer”. (Sarcasm intended).
Humans are one of the most looked at and debated areas of evolution and if such room for ambiguity lies in human remains fossil examinations I can only imagine how much deviation is taken in the “lesser” fossils. The discrepancies are likely to be overlooked for long periods of time due to the fact a much smaller group of people examines and debates them. The point is the factual sounding information is highly suspect given the past history of such information.Thure

By the way, thure, welcome to EvCforum. Let's put this in perspective.When these sorts of findings are reported, nobody in science takes them as reporting certain truth. Such findings are always considered tentative, and subject to revision with better evidence that might be identified in the future.There was a mathematician who used to say that he was 2 billion years old. His reasoning: "when I was young, the earth was 2 billion years old. Now it is 4 billion years old. So I must be 2 billion years old." Of course, he was making a joke. But scientific methods do change, and as our techniques improve we can refine and re-evaluate data.The theory of evolution does not depend on the specifics of this data. The ToE is mainly based on what we see with known species, and what we know about the processes involved in biological reproduction. The fossil evidence is not an essential part of the evidence base for ToE, although it does add additional support.Ambiguity and uncertainty is to be expected in fossil evidence. It isn't a problem for evolution.Incidently, the theory of evolution is also revised, as new evidence becomes available. When Darwin first proposed his theory, he did not know about genetics. We know a great deal more than was known at Darwin's time, and that new knowledge has been incorporated into our current understanding of evolution. The new knowledge could have turned out to contradict the theory of evolution. However, it didn't. Instead, it provided strong confirmation.

My interest in the case of evolution vs creation has been sparked by the
upcoming trial. Ive taken the argument of
creation, and I had a few questions i wondered if you could answer. Before
I start I wanted to make one thing clear. I am arguing for creation, not
for any religion in particular. I just want to put to test the creation by
God, or the evolving of everything we see today. Also, I am not taking the
position that the world was created in 7 actual days.1. Where is the "actual" fossil evidence of creatures in-between species?Microevolution is accepted among both creation and evolution. I am not
asking for differences on lets say, a horse, that has a different number of
toes. A horse with one toe and a horse with two are both horses. Where is
the evidence that there can be any evolution from one species to another?2. If we are talking science, which most evolution based men do, how do you
justify evolution when the Law of Entropy and the Law of the conservation of
matter have been scientifically proven?The law of entropy states "The second law of thermodynamics states that in
any isolated system, the degree of disorder can only increase. Our universe
is an isolated system, so the degree of disorder is always increasing. How
is this possible?"(http://me.essortment.com/entropylawssc_recn.htm) If this
is true, which science says it is, how can a random assortment of "stuff" or
"soup" turn into an ordered society like ours today? Furthermore, the law
of the conservation of matter states "The total quantity of matter and
energy available in the universe is a fixed amount and never any more or
less
If this is true, how would a chemical reaction occur between some elements
to produce cells, who somehow multiplied?3. How did the first components that "created the first cells" get there?Lets just say that it was scientifically sound to say that certain gases and
other materials when present together can react(I am not very educated on
the effects of such a thing). How did those gases, and those materials get
there? By combinations of other gases and things? Well then how did they
get there?4. The evolution of the eye.Every component in the eye needs to be present and alligned for it to work.
If they eye is evolving(a fishes eye is different than ours) then how come
everything isnt blind?5. (this is just a point if you want to contradict it you may) Everything
in the world has a creator. Look around. The computer im looking at was
put together in a factory somewhere, and the pieces to make it were formed
by a creator as well. Is it not feasable to conclude that the earth and its
inhabitants have a creator too?6. How do you explain the emotions, passions, love of human beings?You may say because it is an evolving tool that helps us be the fittest.
There is a sense of justice amongst human beings. One such emotion, that I
do not see has a "natural selection" value is love.I am not here to say "you know what, I am right, and you are wrong." All I
want is answers. One thing I would like you to think about though, is this.
When you get off the computer, look into your wife's eyes. Look at your
mother. Pick up your child. Can you look into their eyes and tell me that
they were just some mistake? That the people that you hold dear to you are
just random assortments of chance and stuff and it is just from apes to man
that they are who they are? Can you think of a loved one who you has passed
away and say "Well, they are dead. And because They were just some random
combination of stuff, I will never see them again because they are gone
forever?"This message has been edited by AdminJar, 09-28-2005 09:20 AM

David,Many of us are on these forums quite often, checking many threads. If you post, we'll find you. No need to repeat yourself in multiple threads.

There are plenty of fossils of "in-between" species. However, before we begin, would you like to tell us what you would consider an "in-between" species? Tell us some of the characteristics that we would expect in one of these things? The theory of evolution does not contradict the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Just do a search in the forum for some of the countless discussion on this topic we have had in the past. Dude, take biology 101. It's easy, a creator created them things. The kicker is how the hell did the creator get there? Oh, really? The nautilus seems to be doing fine without lens. What, so who created the creator? The super creator? If so, who created the super creator? The super duper creator? If so, who created the super duper creator? The super duper truper creator? Just make an appointment with a psychologist at a psychology clinic near you.The point is we actually know something here. Don't just assume we're a bunch of ignorant morons. We've seen the stuff you presented many times before. May be these things impressed you, but they don't impress us at all. They're just mumble jumble sugar coated in pseudo-scientific terminologies to fool the easily impressed.This message has been edited by GAW-Snow, 09-28-2005 03:43 AM

---

My favorite quotes of the week.I'd sooner let John Couey, C-O-U-E-Y, who raped and buried alive little Jessica, I'd sooner let him adopt kids, than turn them over to the fags and dykes! That clear enough for ya? --Fred PhelpsYeah, I used to question but I strive to be wise, a questioning philosopher isn't wise, a hard laborer that perhaps lacks education and only has a few simplistic beliefs but does not question those beliefs is wise. -- Guess who

Super Duper Truper?? Meet me in chat if you have a sec.

Speciation events are well documented. The horses you speak of are undoubtedly seperate species, but look around. There is really little or no meaning to a creature that is "in-between species". Thermodynamics has been covered a lot here, so look around. Let me rephrase your 'law of entropy' to the little less equivocal: 'Energy will tend towards a more diffuse state from a concentrated state'. We see this happening. To give a quick answer: The sun...very concentrated source of energy, is becoming more diffuse throughout the universe every second. The natural state of water in high entropy is solid ice. The sun actually makes the ice turn to liquid and fly about in the sky (clouds). This is as much against the 2nd law as evolution.To show evolution is against the 2nd law you need to show that the following process:
Living to a reproductive age.
Reproduction/DNA replication with copying errors
Competing against other organismsResults in a net decrease of entropy in the universe. It has never been done before, I suspect because it doesn't result in such a decrease.AbE: Some of the greatest scientific minds of the 19th and 20th Centuries have written about this, for example: So yeah - the very act of staying alive increases entropy...taking workable energy and gradually turning it into non-workable energy. Reproduction (and the inevitable mutations) is also included. This is called equivocation, not your fault I assume. You have to wonder why creationist websites like to use the word 'order'...its because it has different meanings/usages. An interesting read for youThe amount of matter and energy is the same, its use is being changed. Abiogenesis is an ongoing investigation. The 'origin of everything' is unknown and beyond the scope of this forum (biological evolution). But not every component is needed for it to work differently. It is perfectly feasable. Now, was that creator, sentient or not? Love is complicated but its use in protecting genes is quite clear.This message has been edited by Modulous, Wed, 28-September-2005 01:39 PM