Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9077 total)
92 online now:
AnswersInGenitals, dwise1, nwr, Tanypteryx (4 members, 88 visitors)
Newest Member: Contrarian
Post Volume: Total: 894,045 Year: 5,157/6,534 Month: 577/794 Week: 68/135 Day: 8/6 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Questions on Evolution.
coffee_addict
Member
Posts: 3645
From: Indianapolis, IN
Joined: 03-29-2004


Message 5 of 43 (168125)
12-14-2004 2:03 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by CreepingTerror
12-14-2004 1:23 PM


(1) Depends on what you mean by "current state." The vast majority of life on Earth are single celled organisms. So, I'd say that it did not take that long for life to get where it is now.

(2)Whenever someone use the word "improbably," I always ask the question, "can I see the math?" The fact of the matter is we really don't know all the different factors and variables to accurately calculate a mathematical model that describes it.

(3)Sure.

(4)Um... chimps don't have tails. And we didn't come from chimps. We both are homonoids, meaning we came from the same ancestor. What that common ancestor is/was, we are still not sure.

Going back to the tail thing, we lost our tail because of gradual random mutation that turned out to either be advantagious or is just neutral enough that it wasn't a disadvantage.

Added by edit.

Going back to the probability, or rather the improbability, of evolution, just because something is improbable doesn't mean it never occurred. I could very easily argue that the chance of a hurricane forming in the southern hemisphere is so miniscue that we can conclude that it is impossible. Well, we were proven wrong in 2004 when the first recorded hurricane ever to have formed in the South Atlantic hit Brazil.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1106469/posts

Experts are still debating whether to call the storm a hurricane or not.

This message has been edited by Lam, 12-14-2004 02:20 PM


Hate world.

Revenge soon!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by CreepingTerror, posted 12-14-2004 1:23 PM CreepingTerror has taken no action

coffee_addict
Member
Posts: 3645
From: Indianapolis, IN
Joined: 03-29-2004


Message 9 of 43 (168189)
12-14-2004 4:15 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by CreepingTerror
12-14-2004 4:13 PM


Looks like a nobel prize is waiting for you, that is if you can figure out how to make even a rough estimate.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by CreepingTerror, posted 12-14-2004 4:13 PM CreepingTerror has taken no action

coffee_addict
Member
Posts: 3645
From: Indianapolis, IN
Joined: 03-29-2004


Message 14 of 43 (168228)
12-14-2004 6:23 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by CreepingTerror
12-14-2004 4:38 PM


Re: improbablity of what
CT writes:

Well, my point is that if the entire evo process took Approx 3.5 billion years, and the earth has been around for what 4-4.5 billion years then the universe must be rolling it's dice really well. and heck, who knows if the planet was favorable for the rise of Evo during that whole time. (pre the 3.5 bill years)


Well, it's not as simple as rolling your dice until you get what you need.

For example, would you say that if you have in your possession 10 dices then the probability of you rolling and getting all 6's is very low?

Now, what if everytime you get a 6 then you can put that 6 over to the side and keep rolling the other ones? Say that you have one 6 out of the 10. You put that one 6 over and you keep rolling the other nine dices. Whenever you have more 6's, you just keep those 6's and only keep rolling the ones that you haven't had a 6.

If you keep doing this, you will eventually have all ten 6's in a relatively short time.

Evolution works like that. The traits that are advantageous to the survival of the organism is kept through natural selection. After many generations and many individual beneficial mutations that are kept through natural selection, you will end up with an organism that seemed to have gotten there by design.

So no, it's not as simple as just rolling dices like you said. It's rolling dices and keeping the ones that you want.

To me, it seems to come down to a matter of faith. I mean, evolution is still theory. We're not completely sure. Jump me if you want, but that's how I see it. Fine there's a lot of evidence, but we're not completely sure.

I'm gay, so you wouldn't want me to "jump" on you.

Evolution is not just a theory. It is both a scientific theory and fact. Yes, it is an observable fact. About the scientific theory part, you have to understand that in order for something to be recognized as a scientific theory, it must have lots and lots and lots of evidence. In other words, the scientific community is 99.9999% sure that it is true. It's that .0001% that is uncertain, which makes it a theory.

Would you doubt gravity? Would you say that things sometimes fall up instead of down (assuming there is no outside influence involved)? The theory of evolution is just as prominent as gravity, germ theory of disease, you name it. It is not something that you take in by faith.

If you can convince me otherwise, by all means go ahead. Just because I have this opinion now, doesn't mean that I'm closed minded.

The problem here is not whether we can convince you or not. The problem is whether you can understand any of what we will present to you. Do not take this as an offense, but the truth is you are ignorant of this subject just like I am ignorant of the field of geology.

These are things that take much more than a life time to study. If it were as simple as posting 10 posts and adequately present enough evidence to show why the theory of evolution is a valid scientific theory and fact, everyone would be a doctorate in whatever field they choose.

Here, we debate about the specific things about evolution. However, noone can teach you the entire theory on this board. You will either have to read some books or take some classes on it.

and lam, thanks for the intellectually cloaked, you're a dumbass remark.

Hahaha. Easy there. And it's Lam, not lam.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by CreepingTerror, posted 12-14-2004 4:38 PM CreepingTerror has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by CreepingTerror, posted 12-14-2004 10:35 PM coffee_addict has replied

coffee_addict
Member
Posts: 3645
From: Indianapolis, IN
Joined: 03-29-2004


Message 23 of 43 (168341)
12-15-2004 12:31 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by CreepingTerror
12-14-2004 10:35 PM


Re: improbablity of what
CT writes:

But that doesn't change the fact that the chances of a mutation having a beneficial effect are extremely low.


Low by whose standard?

There have been experiments where a single non-penincillin resistant E. coli bacterium is placed in a dish and allowed to divide. Just in case you don't know, bacteria reproduce through mitosis where the daughter cells are completely identical to the mother cells. After the culture is sufficiently large enough, a dose of penicillin is administered into the colony and voila! Most of the bacteria died but a few survived and began to grow into a new colony.

What I have just described, which have been observed many times in laboratories, is a beneficial mutation happening right in front of our eyes. Even though bacterial daughter cells are supposed to be identical to the mother cells, somehow along the line there must have been a mutation that gave some bacteria an advantage over the others.

The chances of such a mutation, specifically one that would give the bacteria resistance to a specific anti-biotic is, you could say, infinitesimally small. Yet, it happens all the time.

You are still thinking in small terms. It is unlikely if there are, say, a hundred breeding individuals. However, multiply that number by a a few billion and the chances of getting beneficial mutations are a lot higher.

Have scientists been able to replicate this process (molecules to amino acids to life)to any extent. I vaguely remember hearing that they had, but I'm not sure.

They have successfully produced pre-cells, which have most of the charateristics of a cell, through natural processes. However, as far as I know noone has produced a living cell from non-organic matter.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by CreepingTerror, posted 12-14-2004 10:35 PM CreepingTerror has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by CreepingTerror, posted 12-15-2004 12:35 AM coffee_addict has replied

coffee_addict
Member
Posts: 3645
From: Indianapolis, IN
Joined: 03-29-2004


Message 25 of 43 (168350)
12-15-2004 12:49 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by CreepingTerror
12-15-2004 12:35 AM


Re: improbablity of what
CT writes:

...but is there a difference between micro and macro evolution. Is it harder to change "species" or does it just require more time?

There is no difference between micro and macro evolution except the fact that one occur frequently over a relatively short amount of time and the other is a combination of the first one.

Micro-evolution describes a mutation such as a change in color of a species or a production of an enzyme to allow the organism to become immune to a certain chemical. But suppose you have micro-evolution happening over a very long period of time. After this long period of time combining with some kind of barrier such as a body of water seperating a population into two, a new species emerges.

Try to think of it this way. Micro-evolution is like taking a walk to your next door neighbor. Macro-evolution is like taking a walk to the nearest convienient store but stopping at every house along the way.

I suppose that's not the clearest thing to say. What I mean is, is it harder to go from reptile to bird, than it is for bacteria to develope immunity, or does it just require more time.

Depends on what you mean by "harder" I suppose. It would certainly seem like a big jump.

Let's refer back to my walking example. Say that my house is number 1 and the convienient store is number 100. When I'm at house 7, someone use a camera and takes a snapshot of me being there. When I'm at house 36, someone else takes a snapshot of me at that house. When I'm at house 74, again someone takes a snapshot of me being there. Finally, I'm at the convienient store.

The question is did I walk from my house to the store or there are at least 4 versions of me walking around?

The fossil record is a snapshot of evolution happening through a very long period of time. Just in case you didn't know, fossilization is a very rare process, especially one that would preserve enough data for us to look at.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by CreepingTerror, posted 12-15-2004 12:35 AM CreepingTerror has taken no action

coffee_addict
Member
Posts: 3645
From: Indianapolis, IN
Joined: 03-29-2004


Message 27 of 43 (168358)
12-15-2004 12:57 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by CreepingTerror
12-15-2004 12:35 AM


Re: improbablity of what
If examples in bacteria isn't enough, I suppose I can name a few others.

Does the tetraploid rat in Argintina count?

http://www.intl-pag.org/pag/8/abstracts/pag8374.html

http://www.cricyt.edu.ar/institutos/iadiza/ojeda/grecia%202000.htm

First Tetraploid Mammal Reported

quote:
"It's a highly specialized animal that has adapted well to living with little water," Honeycutt said. "It has to have certain conditions to live. It has brushes in its mouth, for example, to strip sage for eating."


We have also observed a mutation in a lab condition where a group of snails gained a mutation that caused the shape of their shells to change preventing them from physically mate with snails of the original population.

Pinky writes:

The researchers witnessed a speciation event in a closed population they were studying, a single gene mutation changed the shell pattern of a snail, and the constraints of the new shell shape prevent the snails with the two types of shells from aligning their genitals to mate. But, the old-shelled snails could mate with the old-shelled, and the new-shelled could mate with other new-shelled snails. Thus snails with the shell-changing mutation are incapable of "interbreeding" with the ones without the mutation - even if they are sitting next to each other in the same pond - thus reproductive isolation.

www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=5&t=509&m=47#47 -->www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=5&t=509&m=47#47">http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=5&t=509&m=47#47

Want more examples?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by CreepingTerror, posted 12-15-2004 12:35 AM CreepingTerror has taken no action

coffee_addict
Member
Posts: 3645
From: Indianapolis, IN
Joined: 03-29-2004


Message 30 of 43 (168370)
12-15-2004 1:13 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by NosyNed
12-15-2004 1:01 AM


Re: Macro Harder?
Ned writes:

Obviously something as large as reptile to mammal doesn't happen in only 1,000's of generations.


Let's count the zeros.

So, we believe that the first life on Earth came about say 3.8 billion years ago.

That's 3,800,000,000. It is also important to note that the humans have the longest lifespans among the mammals. So, say that each generation is 50 years.

3,800,000,000 / 50 = 76,000,000

That's 76 million generations, and I'm being conservative, too. Up until 200 years ago, a human generation is only about 30 years. That would make 3.8 billion years to equal 126,666,666. That's about 130 million generations.

But we know for a fact that the vast majority of organisms both in the past and present have much shorter lifespans, thus much more generations per unit time.

Certain insects only have about 10 days per generation. So, for them 3.8 billion years mean 138,700,000,000 generations. That's 138.7 billion generations.

The question is how often do you see this kind of number show up in your everday life? Another reason why you don't want to use common sense for something like this.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by NosyNed, posted 12-15-2004 1:01 AM NosyNed has taken no action

coffee_addict
Member
Posts: 3645
From: Indianapolis, IN
Joined: 03-29-2004


Message 32 of 43 (168377)
12-15-2004 1:23 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by CreepingTerror
12-15-2004 1:08 AM


Re: improbablity of what
CT writes:

The problem that we as fundamentalists have with the whole Evolution side of things is that almost all of us see it as a direct attack on our faith, that God didn't create the universe, an idea reinforced by the fact that evolution has been a secular institution for a very long time, and most of the proponents of it are athiests or agnostics, or whatever people say when they don't believe in God.


It's simply not true that evolution is completely a secular thing. The vast majority of the scientists that came up with the principles of evolution were christians. Darwin himself was a christian. Mendel, the father of genetics, was a priest.

Also, have you ever considered that because god is all powerful and all knowing that he might have created the universe with more complex principles than what is said in the bible?

If god is all powerful and all knowing, why shouldn't it be the case that he created the universe with the natural laws? What is wrong with an all powerful and all knowing god to create the universe in such a complex way that we still don't know most of the things about it?

My personal opinion is that the fundy view of god is too simplistic.

Say that I am a a world famous inventor. I then invent a super computer that could solve all of the world's problems. Then comes along the fundies who argue that the computer isn't complex at all, that it is only made of some simple material and me snapping my fingers to make it the way it is. How do you think I would feel? After all the efforts I put into building this super computer, how do you think I would feel if the fundies claim that it's really not that complicated?

The fact of the matter is that evolution, along with all the other natural laws, are very complex and take much more than a life time to learn and investigate. Creation is a very simple idea that any 10 year old can memorize and repeat, "goddunit."

Which one more accurately portray an all powerful and all knowing being? A set of very complex laws or a very simple idea came up by primitives thousands of years ago? You decide.

Added by edit.

Do you ever want to have children? Would you like your children to go to school and learn as much knowledge that is available out there as possible or would you rather have them sit in the dark and know nothing but the phrase "goddunit" to explain everything that happens in their lives?

If we are all god's children, do you think that he would rather us trying to investigate and find out all the wonders of the universe that he had put out there or do you think he would rather have us remain ignorant and never truly know about the true scale of his creation?

Simply say "goddunit" all the time isn't going to help you learn the laws of electromagnetism, or the germ theory of disease, or the drag forces, etc...

This message has been edited by Lam, 12-15-2004 01:32 AM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by CreepingTerror, posted 12-15-2004 1:08 AM CreepingTerror has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by CreepingTerror, posted 12-15-2004 1:28 AM coffee_addict has replied

coffee_addict
Member
Posts: 3645
From: Indianapolis, IN
Joined: 03-29-2004


Message 36 of 43 (168385)
12-15-2004 1:41 AM
Reply to: Message 34 by CreepingTerror
12-15-2004 1:28 AM


Re: improbablity of what
CT writes:

It is a secular institution though,


It has become secularized for a very simple reason, the enlightened people that were involved, most of which were christians, saw the problem with christian fundamentalism interfering with finding truths.

Here is an example. Before Copernicus, Kepler, and, most notably, Galileo figured out the heliocentric model of the solar system through empiricle data, everyone was forced to accept the geocentric model because of (1) since god created the universe that the universe must be perfect, (2) we are god's children therefore we are special, and (3) therefore we must be in the center of the universe and that the universe is unchanging. All of these were doctrines with no objective evidence whatsoever.

Now, imagine the scientific community approaching and trying to solve the various mysteries of the universe and having the christian fundamentalists tell them what they can and can't do or can say and can't say? It would significantly handicap the intellectual minds that are out there.

Secularizing science is perhaps the greatest achievement we ever made. We are no longer handicapped by unfounded doctrines that are based on ignorance.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by CreepingTerror, posted 12-15-2004 1:28 AM CreepingTerror has taken no action

coffee_addict
Member
Posts: 3645
From: Indianapolis, IN
Joined: 03-29-2004


Message 38 of 43 (168388)
12-15-2004 1:59 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by CreepingTerror
12-15-2004 1:55 AM


Re: Difficult for you
CT writes:

...would someone toss out a definition of a fundamentalist please.

Haha. Been waiting all night to say this. Like pornography, I'll know a fundy when I see one


This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by CreepingTerror, posted 12-15-2004 1:55 AM CreepingTerror has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by CreepingTerror, posted 12-15-2004 9:39 AM coffee_addict has taken no action

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022