Printed on August 27, 2007
NGC Forums
Not a Member? Register Now!
Forgot Password
Evolution Q&A
On Sunday, February 8, starting at 7pm, the Inside NGC Blog will host a live discussion between scientists, biology teachers and theologians on the topic of Evolution.
During this live-blogging event, we'll be posting questions from our audience.
If you'd like to ask a question of our guests on any topic relating to Evolution -- the science, the history, its teaching, its cultural/religious relevance -- please post it here by adding a reply to this message. We can't promise your question will be asked, but we'll pose as many audience questions to our guests as time permits!
82 Replies
January 14, 2009 9:02 PM
My understanding is that one school of thought has evolution happening
in bursts of dramatic change across many species in a relatively short period, over time -- as opposed to small, gradual changes over time as proposed by Darwin. First, is this correct, and second, if so, what would account for this?
February 8, 2009 6:44 PM
Actually, you're talking about punctuated equilibrium.
As far as I know, it looks pretty likely, but it's not instead of slow gradual change. It's in addition to.
I really don't know enough about the details. It involves small groups being cut off from the larger population. That gives more opportunity for evolutionary changes because it limits the gene pool.
I'm sure someone else could explain better than I can.
April 18, 2009 8:09 PM
I have no pedigree in this field. However, I believe there are four stages in the circle of life. Impetus (source), creation (initiation), evolution (come into being), and last but not least adaptation. There are many divergent theories as to creation vs evolution. It is my belief that one begets the other and all of the major trains of thought would do well to embrace the validity of the other claims vs discount the idea or theory altogether. There is much truth in mythology. An idea has to originate somewhere.
January 15, 2009 5:42 PM
I'd like to know if significant evolutionary leaps, like apes to humans, could ever repeat themselves. A gorilla baby was recently born at the National Zoo and the pictures reminded me of the similarities between the great apes and humans. The evolution we're usually taught in school tends to cite examples of evolution that started millions of years ago (e.g. homo habilis and homo erectus to homo sapiens) and progressed in more or less a linear straight line. This implies that homo sapiens today have more or less reached the end of the line, and there's no possibility that today's apes could diverge and evolve once more again. Are there any significant examples of evolution that are being recorded today and began somewhat more recently? Could chimpanzees or gorillas evolve into a new class of "human" over the next hundreds of thousands of years, and, if so, what are the conditions that would allow this to happen?
January 22, 2009 2:49 AM
It’s interesting to see other people’s interpretation of evolution. I have somewhat of a different understanding of the theory. For me, evolution isn’t linear at all, and it certainly doesn’t end in modern humans. Evolution is constantly happening any time two people decide to have children. Those children will have a totally unique genetic makeup, which they will pass on to future generations. Human populations aren’t at all static, but they’re constantly changing over time. People living 20,000 years ago were certainly different than people living today.
February 8, 2009 6:51 PM
Hi Laura
You should check out the Tedtalks presentation on the Bonobo.
You can find it easily on youtube. Just search Tedtalks and Bonobo. It will blow your mind.
No matter the advancements, they wouldn't become humans. They could, however, become a different species entirely.
I'm not saying it's likely, but I would certainly say it's possible.
February 8, 2009 9:02 PM
My understanding of evolution is also extremely non-linear. Also, I have come to understand that evolution has no purpose or goal, and that there is never an end result. An ape species will never again evolve into homo sapiens, but the eventual evolution of another intelligent species is likely. It just will take an extremely long period of time.
January 15, 2009 10:47 PM
Often scientists make discoveries that they never thought could be true and disproved what they previously thought or ever considered. Do you ever wonder that is what will happen with the theory of evolution? One day we'll discover something unbelieveable that disproves our theory of evolution??
January 16, 2009 11:47 AM
In the panelists' experience or opinion, can the theological view of the creation of man and the scientific view of evolution co-exist? Do you feel they are mutually exclusive? Do any of the scientists have religious beliefs and if so, how do you fit the science facts into your own religious beliefs? And vice versa for the theologians, for that matter.
January 21, 2009 4:08 PM
Why aren't scientists, specially in the Earth sciences disciplines, more actively involved in ensuring a proper foundation in basic scientific education?
Even a basic understanding of the scientific method seems severely lacking in the United States and the entire "controversy" over teaching creationism ("Intelligent Design") is embarrassing.
January 21, 2009 9:09 PM
Great topic. I certainly believe humans have evolved and there is clear evidence of subtle evolutionary change over hundreds of years and of course very coarse change over thousands of years. Yet the fact that our existence began with apes is something I have a hard time with. Where is the proof. There must be a lot of alternate theories. Of all the living creatures that inhabit this planet, lots have similarities with creatures of the current and past but may have not evolved from a species with similar features. How do we really know? Is there anything we can glean from our short history to help us understand how fast we evolve and what our destiny holds?
January 21, 2009 9:16 PM
My question is: why don't creationists pursue the study of common ancestry in order to derive the first created life forms, and to demonstrate the limits of common ancestry to such life forms?
Virtually all creationists agree with the basic elements, the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation, and the division of parent populations into reproductively isolated daughter populations - what many call "microevolution" and speciation. We can also call it variation and adaptation, or descent with modification.
These are observable in the world today, so it would indeed be foolish to deny that these processes are ongoing in nature.
These processes add diversity to life as we know it, and it was Darwin's insight that this could be sufficient to explain all the diversity of life that we know of.
The division of populations by isolated evolution and speciation also means that both daughter populations are related by a common ancestor population, and one can theorize that such relationships are plentiful in the past.
It seems to me that the basic concept of creationism - that life on earth started with a set number of "kinds" of life, and has since evolved - is not in conflict with this basic view of evolution.
The only real question is whether life extends back to a common ancestral pool of single cell organisms, or does life extend back to a set of created organisms and then stop.
By investigating common ancestry one should be able to answer this question one way or the other.
Enjoy.
January 21, 2009 9:35 PM
Wow! Very interesting addition. You had me right up till the question of creationism. Looks like I've got some reading to do. Thanks RAZD.
February 8, 2009 9:32 PM
The fact that every living organism shares the same genetic building block (DNA) negates your hypothesis that "life on earth started with a set number of "kinds" of life, and has since evolved." Genetics has all but proven (nothing can truly be proven) that every organism has evolved from one ancestor.
Also, most forms of creationism (even one's with microevolution) have a "new earth" base that requires multiple ancestors instead of one. It is utterly ridiculous to imagine a new earth. Over approximately 3.5 billion years, microevolution will, slowly but surely, become macroevolution.
February 9, 2009 12:52 PM
Hi ejstaats
[quote------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The fact that every living organism shares the same genetic building block (DNA) negates your hypothesis that "life on earth started with a set number of "kinds" of life, and has since evolved." Genetics has all but proven (nothing can truly be proven) that every organism has evolved from one ancestor.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------/quote]
Curiously, "1" is a set number - the point is not what evolution says, but that the only real disagreement between evolution and creationism is how many original ancestors were in involved. One could be a Last-Thursdeist (LTist) and claim that there are billions of original created kinds, all created last Thursday. The real question is not what evolution or creationism or LTism says, but how such claims compare with the evidence.
Strangely, current thinking is that there was not one single organism, but that there was a pool of primitive proto-organisms that were sharing proteins, RNA and DNA by various means, from horizontal transfer to consumption and adsorbtion, and that the development of DNA and the double layer cell wall came later, after evolution was already operational on these proto-organisms.
[quote------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Also, most forms of creationism (even one's with microevolution) have a "new earth" base that requires multiple ancestors instead of one. It is utterly ridiculous to imagine a new earth. Over approximately 3.5 billion years, microevolution will, slowly but surely, become macroevolution.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------/quote]
You've never heard of Old Earth Creationists then, nor Hindu Creationists (who think the scientically derived age is too young).
Interestingly, saying that something is "utterly ridiculous to imagine" is just an argument from incredulity, a logicl fallacy. There are whole parts of scientific theory, especially in physics, that can be considered "utterly ridiculous to imagine" yet that appear the best explanation to date.
And to be pendantic (or dogmatic for Colinbaker's sake) microevolution doesn't turn into some other kind of evolution at some magic time. Instead both are continual processes, where microevolution is the evolution occurring within species, and macroevolution is the result of that evolution within all the different populations of species, the comparison of changes in two or more lineages. One looks at evolution within a population of organisms and the other looks at evolution from outside the populations of organisms.
Enjoy.
January 22, 2009 1:45 AM
Darwin’s theory of speciation, in one form or another, has withstood intense scrutiny for the past 150 years. The mainstream scientific community holds the theory as a well established fact; Yet some polls suggest that up to 50% of Americans do not believe in, or disagree with the theory. This must be a disheartening statistic for scientists to hear. Most of the controversy surrounding evolution among the general public seems to stem from a poor understanding of the theory. Some of the arguments made against evolution suggest a completely distorted view of what the theory is and how it works. What can teachers and scientists do to better educate the public, not just about Darwin’s theory, but science in general?
February 8, 2009 9:44 PM
My idea is to start teaching the basis of science at an earlier age. Teaching young children to explore their curiosities, and then explaining questions they ask logically is something that would do great things to improve scientific thinking in young children. At an older age, teaching evolution properly (as fact) is needed. For help with teaching evolution, go to http://evolution.berkeley.edu/
January 30, 2009 7:26 AM
Hello again Mr Moderator,
I have a question on the issue of "kind"
Over in the Evolution - General Discussion section we've had a typical post for a creationist:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
josh
January 24, 2009
2:33 PM
NO EVOLUTION
"THE SAME KIND" is stressing the fact that one species cannot, I repeat, cannot, evolve into another species. Their can be variations within a species microevolution (tiger/cat), but one animal does not evolve into another macroevolution....God saw that it was good (his work).
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My question is two-fold related:
(1) what IS a "kind" if it is a taxonomic style designation, and/or
(2) are you (theologians, christians, creationists, etc) sure that a
taxonomic style designation is what is meant, rather than a generic descriptions of type, sort, kind of animal.
Reproduction within a kind could simply mean reproduction within a population, just as we see in all species, with no limitation to what occurs over time from generation to generation.
This would not prevent evolution - the change in traits in populations from generation to generation - from occurring, now would it somehow magically limit what evolution can accomplish.
Most creationists now accept the overwhelming evidence that evolution (often referred to as microevolution) occurs, and that speciation also occurs.
Species have been observed to evolve, with a parent population dividing into reproductively isolated daughter populations, new species now free to evolve their own path in their different ecologies.
Ring species, like Asian Greenish Warblers, show how little difference is needed to result in reproductive isolation.
Dog breeds show how much can be changed with reproductive isolation and strong selection.
Convergent evolution shows that there is no barrier to evolution for one type, sort, kind of animal to evolve to be similar to another type, sort, kind of animal.
Flying Squirrels and Sugar Gliders
Bats and Pterodactyls and Birds
Sharks and Killer Whales
These organisms come from very different ancestral populations after diverging from some remote common ancestor population, coming from high level taxons that include very different types, sorts and kinds of animals.
If these are all one "kind" then all life is one "kind" and if they are different "kinds" then there is no limit in their "kinds" to what can evolve.
Enjoy.
February 6, 2009 4:57 AM
The Hebrew word translated "kind" in the Bible is Baramin, a classification which has no direct equivalent in modern taxonomy, but which is usually thought to be closest to the order or family level. Perhaps the best means of testing whether two animals belong to the same Baramin is to try and mate them together and see if they produce fertile offspring. If yes, then they belong to the same kind.
February 6, 2009 11:22 PM
Thanks Audi alteram partem,
quote--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Perhaps the best means of testing whether two animals belong to the same Baramin is to try and mate them together and see if they produce fertile offspring. If yes, then they belong to the same kind.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So if I try to mate a sugar glider and a flying squirrel, and no offspring are produced, then they are not the same kind, but they have evolved to be the same type of organism, thus invalidating any genetic barrier or limit to what can evolve.
And if they do produce viable reproductively able offspring then all mammals and marsupials are of one kind.
Enjoy.
February 8, 2009 6:55 PM
If they did not produce viable offspring, that does not necessarily mean they are not the same kind. It may be the case that one or the other has so degenerated genetically that they can no longer successfully mate with each other.
February 9, 2009 1:00 PM
Hi Audi alteram partem
[quote------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If they did not produce viable offspring, that does not necessarily mean they are not the same kind. It may be the case that one or the other has so degenerated genetically that they can no longer successfully mate with each other.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------/quote]
So, following the logic from before, you are saying that whether or not flying squirrels and sugar gliders can mate and reproduce viable offspring, that all mammals and marsupials could be one kind, that birds, bats and dinosaurs could all be one kind, that all mammals and all cartilagenous fish could be one kind.
Seems like it is either a useless term to use in any way, as it can always be made to fit the facts. Facts that include things like two closely related (DNA) species of mosquito that appear identical except for having different shaped genitals making interbreeding impossible.
Enjoy.
January 31, 2009 8:46 AM
Hi again. I have another question base on a post in the discussion column:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
cosmosteel
January 30, 2009
12:28 PM
"With his theory of evolution, Darwin sought to apply this philosophy of selfishness to the natural sciences. ... When his theory of evolution was applied to human society, social Darwinism appeared on the scene."
"Some people suggest that Social Darwinism was born in the second half of the 19th century and lost its influence during the second half of the 20th. ..."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So does "Social Darwinism" automatically derive from the theory of evolution?
This is the definition from
The American Heritage® New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, Third Edition, Copyright © 2005 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
social Darwinism
A theory arising in the late nineteenth century that the laws of evolution, which Charles Darwin had observed in nature, also apply to society. Social Darwinists argued that social progress resulted from conflicts in which the fittest or best adapted individuals, or entire societies, would prevail. It gave rise to the slogan “survival of the fittest.”
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dawkins argues for the evolution of "memes" within populations
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition, Copyright © 2006 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
meme
n. A unit of cultural information, such as a cultural practice or idea, that is transmitted verbally or by repeated action from one mind to another.
[Shortening (modeled on gene) of mimeme, from Greek mimēma, something imitated, from mimeisthai, to imitate; see mimesis.]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In other words a belief or a behavior that is subject to modification and selection and that is passed from one generation to the next.
At face value, aren't these essentially the same concept?
And also from Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Darwanism
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Darwinism and Hypotheses of Social Change
Hypotheses of social evolution and cultural evolution are common in Europe. The Enlightenment thinkers who preceded Darwin, such as Hegel, often argued that societies progressed through stages of increasing development. Earlier thinkers also emphasized conflict as an inherent feature of social life. Thomas Hobbes's 17th century portrayal of the state of nature seems analogous to the competition for natural resources described by Darwin. Social Darwinism is distinct from other theories of social change because of the way it draws Darwin's distinctive ideas from the field of biology into social studies.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thus the enlightenment, American society and the Constitution are a result of "Social Darwinism" and the selection of beneficial "memes" for social behavior.
Is this a bad thing?
Enjoy
February 4, 2009 7:39 AM
Is there proof of continuing human evolution - are people losing wisdom teeth (I only had 2!) truly a sign of continue evolution?
February 8, 2009 6:23 PM
My understanding is that there are a couple of interesting things popping up here and there.
There is a certain bloodline (in Italy, I believe) where more and more of the women have vision that drifts slightly into the ultraviolet spectrum. I don't believe that gives them an advantage in any way, but it doesn't hinder their ability to mate so it continues on.
There is also a growing number of people with an immunity to HIV. They can be traced back to a village in England that seemed to have many fewer deaths from the black plague. The same mutation is effective against both.
If anyone has any more information on these examples, I would love to hear about it.
Or, I could stop being so lazy and look it up myself.
February 8, 2009 9:20 PM
I don't have the time or energy to find sources for what I'm about to say but I have read it before, and it is easy to follow the logic.
Evolution in humans has slowed extremely compared to other animals. This is because, as Darwin stated in Origin, there needs to be a "struggle for existence" in order for natural selection to take place. Human population is growing almost exponentially, due to technological and medical advances. Therefore, more humans are living long enough to pass on their genes. This extremely inhibits natural selection.
One area where humans have been evolving is toward immunity to retro-viruses, such as HIV. Humans are in a struggle for existence with these retro-viruses, therefore anyone with a resistance to them has an extreme advantage over those who don't.
Intelligence is what separates us from the rest of the animals, and in my opinion, as well as others who enjoy the popular website darwinawards.com, believe that humans are still evolving to become more intelligent. It's easy to see how someone with a brain in their skull would be less likely to put themselves in a situation that would lead to their demise.
Others have said that the lack of wisdom teeth is an advantage for the humans that lack them. Humans aren't entirely vegetarian like their ancestors, so growing wisdom teeth is a waste of resources.
So in my opinion, humans are still evolving, just at a slower pace than most animals. Unlike most animals, a lot of humans last long enough to pass on their genes.
February 4, 2009 2:16 PM
I would like to know the final answer on who created us - the missing link. Because, although i have seen you program 'Ancient Astronauts', there weren't any particular statements on a yes or no, just 'maybe'...There is proof, that in the times of Ancient Egypt, Maya, Atlantians and many more old cultures, the inhabitans of those times were visited by different space civilizations, which helped them with their society and technical difficulties. There are found artifacts from those times that prove it - pictures on walls, many ; writings (even in the Bible in some parts), items for eg. in shape of rockets, the Baghdad Battery, etc. The fact other civilisations in space exist, advanced far more than our own, are all around us these days, but they are just hidden from the public and at this time still denied by the world governments...But i want to know about our origin, the missing link. Have extraterrestrial beings genetically interfered with our genes to create humans ? Because i dont see any other explanation - how come if we originate from monkeys, monkeys are still here and havent evolved like we did ?
February 8, 2009 9:59 PM
"Have extraterrestrial beings genetically interfered with our genes to create humans?"
I doubt it.
how come if we originate from monkeys, monkeys are still here and havent evolved like we did ?
We didn't evolve from monkeys that are here today. Modern monkeys and humans share a common ancestor. Animals evolve in branches. Where 2 branches meet, there is a common ancestor between those species further up on the branches. Therefore, Humans did not evolve from any other animal present on Earth today, we evolved from animals that previously were present on Earth. This is a very common mistake that people not versed in evolution make. My suggestion to you is read up on it.
February 4, 2009 10:13 PM
It is astounding that in this day and age, there are obscurantists in Texas and Louisiana and on many school boards across this country, working deceptively to advance "intelligent" design, using code-words in science standards such as "teaching the weakness of evolution". What would your panel say to such people who shamelessly use the benefits that science affords, but would seek to kill it with dogmatic approaches to learning?
February 5, 2009 7:30 PM
How does natural selection work when there is no nature to select from? In other words how does macroevolution explain the origin of life from nothing to something?
Respectfully yours, ColinBaker
February 8, 2009 6:37 PM
Hi Colin
I'm a little lost here.
What are you refering to as "nature" that you think there wasn't any at some point?
Also, a couple points to clear up.
Evolution does not explain the origin of life. It doesn't even attempt to.
Abiogenesis is attempting to explain the origin of life, and it's not something from nothing. It's something from something else.
February 5, 2009 9:53 PM
Here's a question for creationists:
Why not use terms the way they are defined in science?
Scientific terms have specific meanings to clarify communication, not confuse it.
Enjoy.
February 6, 2009 4:59 AM
Terms such as...?
February 6, 2009 11:17 PM
Terms such as used by ColinBaker above - natural selection, evolution, macroevolution, and confusing them with the origin of life.
It is a rare creationist website that offers an accurate definition of evolution, and it's all downhill when they get to macroevolution.
February 8, 2009 7:18 PM
Actually, authoritative creationist institutions discourage the use of the terms "microevolution" and "macroevolution." At the heart of the issue is not amount of change, but type of change. I think this can give you more information http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v5/i1/kind.asp
As for the terms "evolution" and "natural selection," you have to remember that most likely none of the people whom you debate on the Internet are going to be professionals, and so cannot be realistically expected to have a completely correct grasp of the issue, or to be competent in debating the subject.
February 8, 2009 8:44 PM
Thanks Audi alteram partem
quote---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As for the terms "evolution" and "natural selection," you have to remember that most likely none of the people whom you debate on the Internet are going to be professionals, and so cannot be realistically expected to have a completely correct grasp of the issue, or to be competent in debating the subject.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Curiously, this would be a good reason for such people to become educated in the actual science instead of pretending, or assuming, that they know more about the issue than they do.
This would be a good reason for creationist websites to promote accurate portrayal of the scientific usage of the terms and the real meaning in science, rather than try to confuse the issue with false representations, and confuse people with false information.
quote---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Actually, authoritative creationist institutions discourage the use of the terms "microevolution" and "macroevolution." At the heart of the issue is not amount of change, but type of change. I think this can give you more information http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v5/i1/kind.asp
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am aware of this, and of AiG's attempt to divert the discussion to one about "information" rather than what evolution really involves.
This is part of their continuing program to advise creationists not to use PRATTs (points refuted a thousand times) by their advice of arguments they advise creationists to avoid using:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers/topic/arguments-we-dont-use
This is a commendable move in the right direction, and one I have not seen on any other creationist site, however they replace old arguments with new ad hoc arguments that are no better.
In this specific instance they try to move the question from what "microevolution" and "macroevolution" actually involve according to the science of biology to one that is undefined and unmeasured: "information" ...
quote from Aig--------------------------------------------
All observed biological changes involve only conservation or decay of the underlying genetic information. Thus we do not observe any sort of evolution in the sense in which the word is generally understood. ....
----------------------------------------------------------
The first problem with this is that there is no definition of what "information" means in this argument, including how it is actually measured from organism to organism so that increase or decrease could actually, honestly, be compared. What you have is an assumption presented as a fact, something creationists are always complaining that evolutionary people are doing.
Without a metric to measure actual amounts of "information," followed by actual scientific studies to compare actual amounts of "information" in organisms from generation to generation, studies that show evidence for this conclusion, this claim is just plain dishonest. If this type of dishonesty is typical of what you consider an "authoritative creationist institution" then I still remain unimpressed by creationist arguments, creationist websites, and their pursuit of knowledge regarding reality instead of falling for arguments based on confirmation bias.
The second problem with this claim is that it is irrelevant.
Traits have been observed to evolve in organisms that did not exist in the population before, traits that provide a survival advantage to the organism that have it compared to those that don't.
Either "information" has been added, or the term "information," as intended by creationists, has no meaning in terms of what can and cannot evolve, and the term "information" is irrelevant.
quote from Aig--------------------------------------------
... For reasons of logic, practicality and strategy, it is suggested that we:
1. Avoid the use of the term ‘microevolution’.
2. Rethink our use of the whole concept of ‘variation within kind’.
3. Avoid taxonomic definitions of the created kind in favour of one which is overtly axiomatic.
----------------------------------------------------------
This can be taken as a tacit admission by AiG that the terms "microevolution and "macroevolution" have been improperly used, don't match the scientific usages in most creationist literature, and thus lead to confusion instead of clarity.
The third point is rather humorous - it means that they advised that creationists avoid addressing the issue. Curiously, that is not how science operates.
Enjoy.
February 9, 2009 1:48 AM
I wonder how far into the article you read, for you criticize the initial summary for not being detailed in its explanation. If you had read only a few paragraphs further down, you would have found this: "The limits to variation—observed or unobserved—will come about inevitably because gene pools run out of ‘functionally efficient’ genetic information (or ‘teleonomic’ information)." Further still, the second major heading in the article is "The concept of information."
February 9, 2009 1:27 PM
Hi Audi alteram partem
[quote------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I wonder how far into the article you read, for you criticize the initial summary for not being detailed in its explanation.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------/quote]
Sadly, I read the whole article. It was a pathetic mess of poor logic, bland assertion and lack of evidence. Curiously I also don't debate articles but points that people think are valid. If you think the argument of information is valid, can you define what it is and how it is measured?
Can you tell me which of these mutations cannot occur?
AAGCTTAGGAC + C becomes AAGCTTAGGACC
AAGCTTAGGACC - C becomes AAGCTTAGGAC
If you cannot show some reason for one not to occur, then your claim of information not increasing is invalidated.
[quote------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you had read only a few paragraphs further down, you would have found this: "The limits to variation—observed or unobserved—will come about inevitably because gene pools run out of ‘functionally efficient’ genetic information (or ‘teleonomic’ information)." Further still, the second major heading in the article is "The concept of information."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------/quote]
And this too is misinformation. We still have no definition of "information" and now we have two kinds and an added parameter"‘functionally efficiency" which is ALSO not defined nor measured nor compared from one generation to the next.
Biologists talk about the change in frequency of alleles in populations from generations, and you know what? They go out and MEASURE them, DOCUMENT them, COMPARE them, and they actually SHOW that there IS a difference between generation "A" and generation "B" while all AiG does is ASSERT that things do or do not occur.
Made up stuff is not science.
Enjoy.
February 10, 2009 10:53 PM
Well, there's only so far that I can go in defending their statements for them. Why don't you contact them and see what they say? http://www.answersingenesis.org/feedback/sendmail.aspx?TopicID=inquiries
http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers/v/recent/k/feedback
February 11, 2009 5:49 PM
Thanks Audi alteram partem,
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, there's only so far that I can go in defending their statements for them.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In other words, you don't know enough about the topic to discuss it on your own, which also means you do not know enough about the topic to judge whether the information they present is true or false.
You just assumed it was true because it "sounded good" and matched your beliefs. This is called confirmation bias.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why don't you contact them and see what they say?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
When I have shown that their information is false? Why should I trust a single thing they say? (why should you?)
Enjoy.
February 6, 2009 5:04 AM
Question #1: Pertaining to the origin of life: In 1998, Klaus Dose, one of the foremost biochemists in the world, said this: "More than thirty years of experimentation on the origin of life in the fields of chemical and molecular evolution have led to a better perception of the immensity of the problem of the origin of life on earth rather than to its solution. At present all discussions on principle theories and experimentations in the field either end in stalemate or in a confession of ignorance" (1). Aside from the idea of extraterrestrial seeding (which only moves the location of the origin of life, and does not solve it), how do you respond to this?
(1) Dose, Klaus, "The Origin of Life: More Questions than Answers," Interdisciplinary Science Review 13, (1998), 348
Question #2: Pertaining to the anthropic principle, or so-called "fine-tuning" of the universe: According to Robin Collins, physics Ph.D. and prominent science speaker, if the strength of the force of gravity (relative to the total range of natural force strengths, with gravity being the weakest and the strong nuclear force being the strongest) differed from its present value by one part in 10^22, life would be impossible (2). Furthermore, if the cosmological constant (the energy density of empty space) were off by one part in 10^53, that would also make life impossible (3). These are but two of many such parameters, all of which must be set with similar degrees of precision, that are required for life. Aside from the infinite multiverse hypothesis (which has no supporting evidence whatsoever), how do you say that a naturalistic view of the origin of the universe can possibly account for this? (In case you are going to refer to the Weak Anthropic Principle, please see this http://www.philosophyofreligion.info/theistic-proofs/the-teleological-argument/the-argument-from-fine-tuning/the-weak-anthropic-principle/)
(2) Collins, Robin, Interview with Lee Strobel in: Strobel, Lee, "The Case for a Creator: a journalist investigates the scientific evidence that points toward God." Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2004.
(3) Ibid.
Question #3: Pertaining to Ernst Haeckel's embryo drawings: these drawings, which show striking similarities between embryos of diverse species, are prominently featured in most, if not all, biology textbooks today. The principle that these demonstrate is called "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny, " basically meaning that, as they develop in their earliest stages, animals retrace their evolutionary history. However, evolutionary experts have recognized for more than a century that these drawings were deliberately faked. According to Dr. Jonathan Sarfati, within months of their publication, "L. Rtimeyer, professor of zoology and comparative anatomy at the University of Basel, showed [them] to be fraudulent. William His Sr., professor of anatomy at the University of Leipzig...corroborated Rtimeyer's criticisms."(4) In 1965, evolutionist George Gaylord Simpson said, "It is now firmly established that ontogeny does not recapitulate phylogeny."(5) In 1997, Dr. Michael Richardson photographed the embryos featured in Haeckel's drawings and showed them to bear no resemblance to Haeckel's depictions.(6) In light of the thorough and longstanding discrediting of the drawings, what do you think of the fact that they are still featured in textbooks today?
(4) Sarfati, Jonathan, "Refuting Evolution 2," Green Forest: Master Books, 2002
(5) Simpson, George Gaylord and W. Beck, "An Introduction to Biology," New York: Harcourt Brace and World, 1965
(6) Nigel Hawkes, The Times (London), August 11, 1997, p. 14
February 6, 2009 5:52 PM
My question pertains to the similarity in design that we see in nature. I was wondering why it is that the similarities we see necessarily means that one thing must have eveloved from similar counterparts? In otherwords, why does the similarities in a monkey and a human being mean that they had to evolve from a common source? Can't the similarity in design simply suggest that certain designs worked well and were repeated by the designer? For example--consider the eye.
February 8, 2009 7:01 PM
one last thing i wanted to add to my Q.:
how do you feel about the statement, that we are all one, meaning that everything in cosmos came from a once grain, which then expanded to the universe we knoe today and therefore we are all mentally contected (like energy) ? Wouldn't then the evolution on Earth lose its 'weight' if you know what i mean ?
February 8, 2009 9:09 PM
I'm watching Morphed: Dinosaur to Turkey right now. It showed the Microraptor with feathers, which I believe is to be true. But what I was confused with was that the Microraptor was flapping its wings and actually flying. The way Microraptors' feathers were formed, it's too "skimpy" to be able to literally fly for long periods of time. I thought that Microraptors were only capable of gliding for short periods of time.
Is there any reasonable answer?
February 8, 2009 9:24 PM
The one that was flapping its wings was the Archaeopteryx. I was confused until I realized it.
February 8, 2009 9:21 PM
Has anyone ever actually observed, with their own eyes, the process of evolution at work and can anyone prove this is an on-going endeavor?
February 8, 2009 9:39 PM
The answer to that question is a bit too much for this forum, I think. I suggest you pick up some books and start reading. The Origin of Species is always a good starting point, or any college level biology text book. Richard Dawkins has put out some remarkably entertaining and easy to understand books on evolution: The Selfish Gene, The Blind Watchmaker, etc.
February 8, 2009 9:35 PM
I am watching the whale episode of Morphed and my question is why did whales and aquatic mammals evolve to swim by moving their tails up and down and not side to side like fish or crocodilians? What is the advantage of this evolutionary characteristic?
February 8, 2009 9:51 PM
It's not really an evolutionary advantage, but more of a left over from their ancestors. The spines of mammals move better in an up and down motion than a side to side motion, so it would be extremely hard for whales to evolve into swimming like a fish. An animal has to deal with what it's ancestors give it.
February 8, 2009 10:01 PM
I, too, am watching the whale episode of Morphed, and my question is how exactly would a population's general body shape become more streamlined? Did the more streamlined individuals of the original land mammal simply have greater survival and therefore reproductive success? I guess this applies to all of the characteristics, but how would such fine and specific details begin to appear?
February 8, 2009 10:04 PM
Just what is the difference between dinosaurs and reptiles?
February 9, 2009 1:52 AM
I missed the live blogging event. Is there a transcript of it somewhere?
February 9, 2009 8:46 AM
Click on "Inside NGC" seen on right side panel-->
February 9, 2009 1:01 PM
I found it rather disappointing, it seemed to rehash punkeek several times and avoid other issues altogether.
I was also under the impression that there were going to be some theologians on the panel.
What did you think?
February 9, 2009 6:36 PM
I thought it was completely one-sided nd that never lends to interesting debate. This forum is also hard to follow. I can't seem to find my way around easily enough. I get dizzy scrolling all over the place.
February 9, 2009 9:15 PM
Yes, I thought it was narrow focus as well.
quote------------------------------------------------------------
This forum is also hard to follow. I can't seem to find my way around easily enough. I get dizzy scrolling all over the place.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Especially when replying to a reply up in the middle of the thread.
Please come try www.evcforum.net to see if you think it is a better format.
February 9, 2009 1:12 PM
Okay, this is a variation on the theme discussed here: our 6 year old son and I have been watching "Morphed" -- brings up an evolutionary question. How does it happen? Is there some kind of anomoly that develops accidentally that HAPPENS to be useful to the survival of a species (i.e. an animal suddenly has webbed feet. Land food dwindles, web-foot discovers food in water, is able to catch and therefore survives and continues to morph) OR, does said animal search for alternate food, enter the water and SUBSEQUENTLY develops adaptations that apply to survival. If the latter...well...how? I mean, that would suggest some cellular intelligence somehow that would say,"gee, we're in the water now. If we want to survive, we need this body to adapt". How would that even be possible? And how would that cellular knowledge know to develop, say, gills and flipper and not feathers? The accidental mutation seems most likely but I've never heard it explained that way.
It becomes easy to see why the divine ends up being brought in! (not by me, but I can understand how others would turn that way).
Love to know if anyone even knows for sure!
February 10, 2009 10:53 AM
Doesn't that just sound a little too silly? People should have developed web feet by now since we swim all the time, yes? No. Our DNA does not have that sort of information designed into it. Where would the information come from, wishful thinking? Talk about fairtales...this is harder to believe than anything that the Bible tells us, in my opinion.
February 10, 2009 6:03 PM
Hello Melissa,
I just had to comment on the reply by Curious. His answer is very silly, it is also misinformed.
People have had mutations that cause various degrees of webbed feet:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Webbed_feet
Thus to claim that our DNA "does not have that sort of information designed into it" is just another creationist falsehood, invalidated by reality.
If there were selection pressure for this to develop further, then we would see more of it.
In reality there is no advantage to survival or breeding for webbed feet in humans, so there is no positive selection.
In reality there is disadvantage to sexual attraction that may inhibit success in breeding = negative selection. This is demonstrated by the fact that people choose to operate and remove this condition.
Such would not apply to a predator chasing food in the water.
To answer your question:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I mean, that would suggest some cellular intelligence somehow that would say,"gee, we're in the water now. If we want to survive, we need this body to adapt". How would that even be possible?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That is not possible. What happens is that small mutations offer small advantages to those that have them, and their traits get spread into the population. These then form a base for more mutation and development.
Webbing between even two toes would be such an advantage.
One possible way this can occur is to arrest development of an earlier stage - such as stopping the absorption of the webbing between feet in fetal growth, which is controlled by hormones. Such mutations in the timing of development are common, and this is shown by the prevalence of similar mutations in people in the wiki article.
Enjoy.
Enjoy.
February 10, 2009 6:42 PM
You can't be serious??
Webbed feet in any people today are not signs of evolution towards being better swimmers, but rather are the result of some sort of malformation. Lol!
February 10, 2009 7:07 PM
Proving once more that you do not know what you are talking about. That "malformation" is a common genetic\develomental mutation, occurring in 1 in 2,500 live births.
In our current ecology they are a disadvantage for sexual selection and are selected against. All your opinion does is reinforce my comment about there being a negative sexual selection pressure for this feature in the current human population, and thus, even though it occurs on the order of 1 in 2,500 live births sexual selection will continue to suppress it.
If the ecology changed to a "waterworld" then they would be an advantage. For the protowhale such "malformation" was an advantage that was selected for further development.
From an evolutionary viewpoint there is no such thing as a "malformation" - there are only advantageous traits, neutral traits and disadvantageous traits, and the distinction between them can vary from ecology to ecology. One organisms "malformation" is another organisms beneficial mutation, and vice versa.
For instance, the human brain is usually considered an advantage, but drop a human in the antarctic water and see if he can figure out how to do better than the penguin. Note that the penguin has "malformed" wings that make it impossible for this bird to fly in the air.
Organisms are adapted to their ecologies, and human ecology does not require webbed feet to survive and breed, so there is no selection pressure to make this adaptation, regardless of how much swimming you do.
You've also said silly things like this:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Our DNA does not have that sort of information designed into it. Where would the information come from, wishful thinking?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DNA is a combination of 4 amino acids. These amino acids can only occur in 12 combinations of pairs, one following the other.
(adapted from http://www.themathpage.com/aprecalc/permutations-combinations.htm):
ag ga ca ta
ac gc cg tg
ad gt ct tc
All the rest of DNA just repeat these combinations, and thus there is no combination that is not already present in any organisms DNA, no combination that cannot occur in one organisms DNA, because it already exists in that DNA.
Likewise the silly fallacy of information loss.
If one mutation results in an information loss then the opposite mutation results in information gain. Thus if you have a pair {ag} and a mutation replaces g with c you have {ac} and if you have a pair {ac} and a mutation replaces c with g you have {ag}. Both cannot result in information loss, and thus the concept that there is only information loss is invalidated, false and wrong.
Enjoy.
February 10, 2009 7:19 PM
The argument for evolution is that species will change slightly over time and eventually change into something completely different and will over eons of time eventually become a new species. This theory was thought up as a hypothesis and as science advances, the facts have not been found to support it, but much has been provided to dispute it. There are no examples in nature that even remotely indicates a change of species through evolution. The fossil records have zero transitional forms. Even fossilized insects such as spiders and ants that have been dated to pre-historic times are identical to modern day spiders and ants. There are three critical flaws in the theory of evolution through gradual change: Dysfunctional change, the DNA code barrier, and natural selection removes DNA information but does not add new information.
The DNA code barrier. A fact of genetics is that trait changes have a ceiling. This perhaps is the biggest obstacle to gradual change through micro-evolution. Each rung of DNA is made up of four chemicals called nucleotides, designated by the symbols: A (adenine), G (guanine), C (cytosine), and T (thymine). These rungs of DNA are combined to provide a blueprint of the traits that organism will have. If you took all the DNA in the human body and put it in written format, it would fill up one million volumes the size of a 500 page encyclopedia. With all this genetic data, if two people could have as many children as there are atoms in the universe, no two children would be identical. Though there are a limitless combinations of traits that we possess, there is a limit to how far each trait can change. There is a limit to the number of combinations of these chemicals; therefore there are a limited number of trait variations. No new genetic material can be added. Trait changes result in re-arranging the genetic code that is already present. Mixing the available genetic code will produce variations in the trait but will not change into a completely different feature. For example, your parents genes are combined to produce your various traits. People have several different colors of hair, eyes, and skin, but without a mutation, these traits will remain within its boundaries. There are mutations that can occur and mutations almost always cause diseases or defects. However, even under mutation, skin will still be skin and eyes will still be eyes. Because of the code barrier, there are a limited number of variations in eye color. Different genes can create distinct variations but there is a limit. There can be rapid changes but inevitably, there is a return to the norm.
see exchangedlife.com/Creation/macro-evol.shtml
February 10, 2009 9:15 PM
Thanks again, Curious
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Different genes can create distinct variations but there is a limit. There can be rapid changes but inevitably, there is a return to the norm.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Which of course explains why we have seen speciation, and the divergence of daughter species from the parent species, populations no longer able, due to mutations, to interbreed, forever different.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
see exchangedlife.com/Creation/macro-evol.shtml
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Which just means that this is another site with false information if that is where you got the above invalidated comment.
The facts just keep proving your assertions to be false.
Enjoy.
February 11, 2009 10:57 AM
RAZD, your belief system is what it is, but I do not accept it because it has never been shown that any species has evolved into another. The evidence show that that idea is nothing more than wishful thinking.
February 11, 2009 5:42 PM
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
... because it has never been shown that any species has evolved into another.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You are free to have your own opinion, however opinion has proven totally ineffective in controlling reality.
You can believe what you like, but facts are facts, and one of those facts is that speciation has occurred, it has been observed, both in the lab and in the field. Denial of facts is just delusion due to cognitive dissonance. Nobody is immune to cognitive dissonance, but there are degrees of delusion that result, depending on how you resolve the dissonance.
Google "speciation events" and look at the results.
It may help to remember that we are talking about species as defined in evolutionary biology by evolutionary biologists, and not some "creolution" misrepresentation.
Enjoy.
February 12, 2009 10:49 AM
Speciation due to macroevolution has never been observed RAZD. That would be impossible to see or observe in any one lifetime.
The whole idea is comical, actually. It takes place to slowly to observe in life and supposedly happens in quick bursts (too quickly) to be seen in the fossil record.
Bottom line? It has never been actually observed, anywhere and there is no evidence of it.
February 12, 2009 8:08 PM
It's just as comical as believing that the earth revolves around the sun. I've never observed this phenomenon. I would have to be a total fool to believe that everyone else is right.
February 12, 2009 8:19 PM
[quote-------------------------------------------
Speciation due to macroevolution has never been observed RAZD. That would be impossible to see or observe in any one lifetime.
------------------------------------------/quote]
Correct, but not for the reason you think. There is no macroevolution process in the science of evolutionary biology, only in creolution. This concept is only found on creationist websites and is a misrepresentation of evolution.
Speciation occurs by evolution within populations, by the change in hereditary traits in those populations from generation to generation.
When two populations of a species are isolated in some way from interbreeding and sharing their gene-pool they will accumulate different sets of mutations and adaptations to their necessarily different ecologies, and thus they will become different by the process of evolution, by the change in hereditary traits in those populations from generation to generation.
At some point a level of difference between the two populations will become so distinct that the populations will not interbreed when they have the opportunity, and at this point speciation has occurred, by the change in hereditary traits in those populations from generation to generation.
Macroevolution is the result of continued evolution within each population, as each continues to accumulate different sets of mutations and adaptations to their necessarily different ecologies, and thus they will become increasingly different by the process of evolution, by the change in hereditary traits in those populations from generation to generation.
Macroevolution doesn't cause anything, it is only a result of continued evolution, by the change in hereditary traits in those populations from generation to generation.
[quote-------------------------------------------
The whole idea is comical, actually. It takes place to slowly to observe in life and supposedly happens in quick bursts (too quickly) to be seen in the fossil record.
------------------------------------------/quote]
Which is why evolutionists usually laugh at such silly straw man arguments posted by creationists - the evolutionists KNOW that this is not what evolution says.
[quote-------------------------------------------
Bottom line? It has never been actually observed, anywhere and there is no evidence of it.
------------------------------------------/quote]
The bottom line is that speciation has occurred, it has been documented, it is a fact, and denial of this fact is delusion.
As I said before, google "speciation observed" and see how many pages list instances of observed speciation.
You can either insist on being wrong or you can learn the truth, and there is no better day to do it on:
http://www.darwinday.org/
Happy Darwin Day.
Enjoy.
February 12, 2009 8:30 PM
put a long line in your post to make it wider
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
February 9, 2009 2:19 PM
To all: goodbye and thanks for all the fish.
I am leaving this forum for one that is better (IMHO) than this, in both structure and in the moderation (you are always told when it happens, and the guidelines are published and referenced in moderation)
www-evcforum-net (replace the - with .)
I invite all who have participated here to join us, especially the creationists, as it is one of the more civil boards I know of. I found this forum through a post on that forum, so I am returning the favor.
Enjoy.
February 12, 2009 8:28 PM
Happy Darwin Day folks,
[quote--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Darwin Day is a global celebration of science and reason held on or around Feb. 12, the birthday anniversary of evolutionary biologist Charles Darwin. This year marks the 200th anniversary of Charles Darwin's birth.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------/quote]
http://www.darwinday.org/learn/cohe.html
[quote--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free Online Course on Evolution
The Continuum of Humanist Education (COHE) is the Internet's first website offering interactive courses in humanist thought. COHE is a service of the Institute for Humanist Studies, a non-profit U.S. organization promoting nonreligious perspectives on social, political, and ethical issues and serving as a resource for and about the humanist community.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------/quote]
Enjoy.
February 20, 2009 12:45 PM
QUESTIONS: Much talk and studies about evolution deals mainly with structures but what about certain behavioral traits ( individual, populations, community level etc.) that allows for natural selection to work. I think this could not be ignored when it comes to survival. If this is important, how can this be studied in line with fossil records? Use of forensic science perhaps? Are there already models about certain trends in animal behavior in line with evolutionary models?
March 9, 2009 5:21 AM
I don't understand what you are all talking about, but I would really like to. Some of it just sounds disturbing and scary to me, like we are speaking different languages. What's going on here?
March 9, 2009 5:22 AM
God created all things, is what I believe with great conviction, by definition, God is all things good. Do you agree?
March 9, 2009 5:25 AM
I believe that God created us and that Jesus Christ died for our sins. That is my morality as I see it. Jesus Christ is my personal savior What is "astronaut astronaut"? That does not make any sense.
March 9, 2009 5:28 AM
There is a solution to all problems. Always a resolution is possible. With man may be impossible, with God is possible.
March 9, 2009 5:29 AM
What is "old earth"?
March 9, 2009 5:32 AM
Science and Gog (Theology) are essential for existence. God created mathematics. God created physics.
March 11, 2009 2:04 PM
Hi Martin. How do you know god created anything? How do you know he exists? "
Science and Gog (Theology) are essential for existence. God created mathematics. God created physics."
How are you sure of this?
You said you wanted to learn more to understand what we are talking about. Here are some very good web sites.
http://www.livescience.com/
http://www.scientificblogging.com/
http://www.sciencedaily.com/news/health_medicine/
http://www.space.com/
http://www.stfc.ac.uk/Home.aspx
Also go to youtube.com and punch in the phrase history of the universe made easy. There is a section of 12 videos for people who are new to evolution. Each are 10 minutes long.
Enjoy
May 29, 2009 9:38 PM
I was watching the Discovery Channel. They were featuring a program about Nature's Most Amazing Events. They reported that Science has recently discovered small pieces of iron in the brains of Salmon that helps them travel back to the original streams where they had hatched. They indicated that the little pieces of iron help the Salmon follow the Earth's magnetic field back to those same waters to spawn. We had always been told it was a genetic thing. I guess they hatched with the little pieces of iron in their brain or they had to pick them up somwhere along the way. Isn't Evolution wonderful? He has intelligence. His name is God.
June 4, 2009 11:25 AM
At what point in the "tree of life" did it become advantageous from an evolutionary standpoint for creatures to hold their urine, only releasing it periodically? Seems like something that would work better to just sweat out...
June 4, 2009 11:27 AM
God smiles on both those who champion evolution, as well as those who resist the idea. This is all amusement to him/her/it.
Add a Reply