|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Summations Only | Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
At least try to understand what you object to. If you don't you just look like an idiot. There comes a point where creationists are indistinguishable from poes. /irony... LOLZby 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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 168 days) Posts: 6174 Joined:
|
Genetic variations in a bacteria population mean that some bacteria may survive the antibiotic and thus eventually come to dominate the population. This scenario is, in effect, no different to colour variations in a Peppered Moth population allowing the dark-winged variety to dominate during the "sooty years" - in other words, a simple case of natural selection. You're a hoot. "Genetic variations in a bacteria population" + "natural selection" = evolution. Duh.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 168 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
It is a "known lie" that Bouroune never said, "This theory (evolution) has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless"? What "known" proof do you have that he never ever said that? Logic fail. Such a negative cannot be proved. However, the previous posts have established beyond a shadow of reasonable doubt that the did not believe or say that. You made the initial positive and provable claim; either provide more evidence or address the evidence we've posted.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 8996 From: Canada Joined:
|
I've been thinking a bit about the definition of species. As others have pointed out species can have fuzzy boundaries some of the time.
Perhaps it would be useful to construct a definition that puts that fuzziness front and center. A population of individuals may consist of one or many groups that have gene flow between them to a greater or lessor extent. What we think of as a "species" in most cases is a population that has effective gene flow through out the entire population and zero gene flow with any other population. However, there are many cases where there is a bit of gene flow with other groups and not 100 % uniform flow within. So a group can be 30 % speciated, 80 %, or more or less. It is a mistake to focus on cases and think they have to be at the extremes only. In fact, that case might be the lessor occurring example. So looking at gene flow between all different dog breeds and wolves we might decide that there are a number of sub populations that are almost zero % separated from wolves (feral huskies) or effectively 100 % separated from wolves (pomeranians).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9972 Joined: Member Rating: 5.5 |
Dredge writes: I quoted from somewhere without reading the original sources. Nevertheless, evolution remains a useless theory. I already demonstrated that evolution is useful with many different examples. Seems your memory is a bit dodgy.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9972 Joined: Member Rating: 5.5
|
Dredge writes: Genetic variations in a bacteria population mean that some bacteria may survive the antibiotic and thus eventually come to dominate the population. You can start an experiment with a single bacterium and grow an entire population from that single founder. What you will find is that 1 in a few hundred million bacteria will produce resistance to different kinds of antibiotic. This isn't a case of pre-existing variation. This is a case of mutations producing new characteristics. The same applies for the pocket mice. We know which mutations produce black fur, and we also know that those mutations had to arise in a population of brown mice because the black rocks they are found on are very recent (geologically speaking).
The theory that all life on earth evolved from a common ancestor = common descent ... and this is not evolution? Common descent is a conclusion, not a theory.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9972 Joined: Member Rating: 5.5
|
NosyNed writes: A population of individuals may consist of one or many groups that have gene flow between them to a greater or lessor extent. My preferred definition for species is "a population that is evolving together".
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 8996 From: Canada Joined: |
My preferred definition for species is "a population that is evolving together".
Much more crisp!But evolving together isn't binary. They can be evolving together a lot or only a very little.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CRR Member (Idle past 2242 days) Posts: 579 From: Australia Joined: |
evolution.berkeley.edu writes: MISCONCEPTION: Species are distinct natural entities, with a clear definition, that can be easily recognized by anyone. CORRECTION: Many of us are familiar with the biological species concept, which defines a species as a group of individuals that actually or potentially interbreed in nature. That definition of a species might seem cut and dried and for many organisms (e.g., mammals), it works well but in many other cases, this definition is difficult to apply. For example, many bacteria reproduce mainly asexually. How can the biological species concept be applied to them? Many plants and some animals form hybrids in nature, even if they largely mate within their own groups. Should groups that occasionally hybridize in selected areas be considered the same species or separate species? The concept of a species is a fuzzy one because humans invented the concept to help get a grasp on the diversity of the natural world. It is difficult to apply because the term species reflects our attempts to give discrete names to different parts of the tree of life which is not discrete at all, but a continuous web of life, connected from its roots to its leaves. The Theory of Evolution thinks the root is LUCA (Last Universal Common Ancestor), Creationists think the roots are the created kinds.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CRR Member (Idle past 2242 days) Posts: 579 From: Australia Joined: |
Taq writes: You can start an experiment with a single bacterium and grow an entire population from that single founder. What you will find is that 1 in a few hundred million bacteria will produce resistance to different kinds of antibiotic. This isn't a case of pre-existing variation. This is a case of mutations producing new characteristics. Almost right. However the mutations aren't produced in response to antibiotics. Samples of bacteria preserved from before the use of antibiotics (e.g. Franklin Expedition) have a very small proportion that are resistant. So wild populations have pre-existing variation which includes antibiotic resistance. However the reason these resistant strains are at minuscule levels in wild populations is that the mutation is usually a defect that is detrimental in the absence of antibiotics. The mutations constantly occur and are constantly removed by natural selection. A similar situation applies to insecticide resistance in insects. Since the antibiotic/insecticide gives strong selection against the majority of the population resistance can develop rapidly; within years. On the other hand the mutation is usually only mildly detrimental so it disappears more slowly when the toxin is removed.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
JonF writes: "Genetic variations in a bacteria population" + "natural selection" = evolution. Duh.[/qs]
You have tautologised yourself into an illogical statement - the process of natural selection requires genetic variation in a population to be present in order for it to act. Think about it ... if there were no genetic variation in the population, all the relevant organisms would be exactly the same, so no particular strain of the population would be selected for survival. (In which case, the entire popularion would survive or the entire population would die.) Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9489 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
CRR writes: The Theory of Evolution thinks the root is LUCA (Last Universal Common Ancestor), Creationists think the roots are the created kinds. Yes we know, is this all you're trying to tell us? If so you can stop. Meanwhile you don't see to be making any progress telling us what a 'kind' actually is. In fact you're avoiding all my questions on it. Like are pigs and cows seperate kinds and elephants and tapirs?Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London. "Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
Dredge says:
It is a "known lie" that Bouroune never said, "This theory (evolution) has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless"? What "known" proof do you have that he never ever said that? JonF writes:
If I read Taq post correctly, he claimed that it is a "known lie" that Bouroune never uttered or wrote the words I quoted. To reiterate, in order make the claim something is a "known lie", one must have "known" proof that it is a lie. This is just simple, inescapable logic. Logic fail. Such a negative cannot be proved. However, the previous posts have established beyond a shadow of reasonable doubt that the did not believe or say that. You made the initial positive and provable claim; either provide more evidence or address the evidence we've posted.So I would like to know what this "known" proof is. If no "known" proof that it is a "known lie" is forthcoming, then it is reasonable to conclude that Taq's claim has no basis in fact. Edited by Dredge, : No reason given. Edited by Dredge, : No reason given. Edited by Dredge, : No reason given. Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CRR Member (Idle past 2242 days) Posts: 579 From: Australia Joined: |
Taq writes: ERVs are evidence for common ancestry because they are found at the same position in the genomes of multiple species (Message 470) HERVs are thought to play at least three major roles. One role is to control the regulation of genes (the expression of proteins from genes). Members of the HERV-K family are typically found in areas near genes. The regulatory role of HERVs has been demonstrated in the liver, placenta, colon, and other locations. Hence it is not surprising that ERVs will be found in similar locations with reference to corresponding genes in different genomes and does not necessarily indicate common ancestry.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
Taq writes:
I accept that there are many practical uses for some of the things that come under the umbrella of what you call "evolution". However, you have not demonstrated that the theory that all life shares a common ancestor (ie, evolution) has any use in applied science. Good luck with that one. I already demonstrated that evolution is useful. Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024