Evolution

411 posts / 0 new
Last post
Greensnake's picture
Algebe,

Algebe,

Piltdown Man was a hoax, but even most scientists at the time suspected that something wasn't Kosher. Stephen Jay Gould wrote a nice essay on that topic which is found in one of his popular paperback books. Today we can trace Homo sapiens back to a common ancestor in one of the ape lines, at a point where chimps and hominids diverged. Our evolutionary path through the hominids is not that clear as more fossils will no doubt be found, but it's clear enough that our line passed that way. Indeed, there was some hanky-panky with Neanderthal Man. Some of us, especially red-haired folks, have a dose of Neanderthal genes!

David Killens's picture
Yes Algebe, it was a hoax and

Yes Algebe, it was a hoax and I should not have included it in my list.

Cognostic's picture
@Up Sentry

@Up Sentry

Really? All you are asserting when you claim "evolution is not real, is how ignorant you are. Without even looking at any of the other comments, I know you are confusing the origin of life with evolution or you have made a false dichotomy and separated evolution into micro and macro. Evolution is everywhere around you and it is an accepted scientific fact.

Seedless watermelons, GMOs, Ring Species, Fish with Gills and Lungs that climb trees, Human beings born with tails, Chromosome 2 in humans, the Fossil record, DNA, and more, all support the theory of evolution. I really hate to be the harbinger of bad news, but if you do not accept Evolution, you really are quite ignorant.

There is just evolution. No micro or macro evolution. Evolution is change over time.

Evolution and the origin of life are not the same thing. No one knows for sure how life began. (Calling it created is begging the question. You are making a false comparison; things that occur naturally with things that are created. Things that are created have a creator. Things that occur naturally occur naturally and we have to go back to their origins to figure out how all this natural stuff began.) We do not know! Is the correct answer to "Where did all this natural stuff come from."

Inserting a God into the "creator" position is like explaining something complex and unknown with something even more complex and more unknown. Assuming that evolution is not real because we do not know the origins of life is .... well.... moronic. Evolution is an observable fact. On top of that, if you can assert a god did it, I can assert that a Leprechaun did it and the evidence is exactly the same for both. FACT IS - "No one knows how life originated." And - "Evolution is a verifiable, valid, explanatory, fact."

There is absolutely nothing around you that is living and has not been a part of the evolutionary process. NOTHING!

Old man shouts at clouds's picture
@ Cog

@ Cog

"One hundred and EIGHTY" Cog wins the internet today with that post...loved it...

ʝօɦռ 6IX ɮʀɛɛʐʏ's picture
"There is just evolution. No

"There is just evolution. No micro or macro evolution."

No, that is not a false dichotomy; understanding the bridge between microevolution and macroevolution is essential to the whole theory.

Sheldon's picture
Yet again you ate making a

Yet again you are making a claim about a scientific theory that is at odds with all the data and the opinions of the entire scientific world. Though I note as usual you dishonestly couch your objection with semantics. Macro and micro evolution are the same thing on different timescales. I don't ever remember reading a book on evolution that made a distinct reference as if they are different descriptions of a separate process other than in duplicitous creationist propaganda.

Could you help me out as I'm just a plodding dullard, and provide half a dozen citations to peer reviewed research that supports your claim?

I'm also dubious that your claim about taxonomy being inaccurate is correct. Of course some species are going to be harder to categorise than others, and morphology alone won't be enough. For this DNA will help. However most of the taxonomies are according to the little I have read very accurate.

I sense we're reading different opinions on evolution, and it's odd that yours so often reflect creationist propaganda rather than scientific opinion. Well perhaps not odd, in fact I think predictable would be more accurate, though less tactful.

Try the talk origins website. They have actually taken the time to debunk many creationist lies about evolution as well as providing a large amount of data on species evolution and natural selection.

I simply don't see the point in pretending you're offering a scientific fact if it's nothing but creationist propaganda. The one thing science is good at is spotting and falsifying inaccurate claims. The talk origins website is a good starting point for those indoctrinated with lies by the creationist propaganda movement.

Of course you have to be open minded, so must accept facts based on evidence even if they refute a priori beliefs.

CyberLN's picture
That! ^^^

That! ^^^

Qu@si's picture
oohhhh........snnaaappppppp..

oohhhh........snnaaappppppp... done it again, shelly.....

ʝօɦռ 6IX ɮʀɛɛʐʏ's picture
"I don't ever remember

"I don't ever remember reading a book on evolution that made a distinct reference as if they are different descriptions of a separate process other than in duplicitous creationist propaganda."

Well, when was the last time you took a biology course? Campbell's Biology textbook essentially has a monopoly on Biology textbooks. They define microevolution as those changes occurring below the species level, and macroevolution as occurring above the species level. Speciation being the bridge linking the two together. The book dedicates Chapters 23, 24, and 25 to each of these three concepts. In that same textbook you'll learn about taxonomy, and the various methods of classification which have been used.

I have friends and family that have gone to other universities; they've all used the same biology textbook I've used.

Sheldon's picture
Wheezy "They define

Wheezy "They define microevolution as those changes occurring below the species level, and macroevolution as occurring above the species level."

So not different processes at all then, as I said, Just on a different timescale. Once again I'm asking myself if you're being deliberately obtuse in misunderstanding the salient point? I'll try bullet points....

1) Micro evolution = short time
2) Macro evolution = long time
3) They're the same process, one over short timescales and the other describing THE SAME process over much longer timescales.

NB Your textbook says macro evolution occurs, one assumes it cites the mechanisms that drive it as natural selection? You wouldn't be cherry picking which bits of this fantastic textbook you accept would you?

" In that same textbook you'll learn about taxonomy, and the various methods of classification which have been used."

Be a dear and quote where it says those methods produce inaccurate results as you claimed. Then cite a few other sources. When you're done there could you flip to the page that says species evolution doesn't happen, and everyone was created by magic.

"I have friends and family that have gone to other universities; they've all used the same biology textbook I've used."

Good then you should be able to get a copy lickety-split, then after quoting where it says taxonomy is inaccurate, and macro and micro evolution are different processes, rather than the same process on different timescales, and then you can cross reference those claims with a few other sources,.

Tempus fugit.

ʝօɦռ 6IX ɮʀɛɛʐʏ's picture
Timescales do not matter,

Timescales do not matter, that's a secondary observation with no repercussions on evolution. In microevolution alleles are undergoing changes; such changes can possibly go on forever without ever changing the species. Likewise, speciation can possibly go on forever, producing countless species of butterflies, which never stop being butterflies.

Sheldon's picture
"Timescales do not matter"

"Timescales do not matter"

You have yet to offer a quote from that text book or cite any other sources?

"Microevolution is the change in allele frequencies that occurs over time within a population. This change is due to four different processes: mutation, selection (natural and artificial), gene flow and genetic drift. This change happens over a **relatively short (in evolutionary terms) amount of time** compared to the changes termed 'macroevolution' which is where greater differences in the population occur."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microevolution

" Campbell's Biology textbook essentially has a monopoly on Biology textbooks. They define microevolution as those changes occurring below the species level, and macroevolution as occurring above the species level."

Q1) Does it say macro evolution occurs over less, more or the same timescale as microevolution?

"Macroevolution encompasses the grandest trends and transformations in evolution, such as the origin of mammals and the radiation of flowering plants. Macroevolutionary patterns are generally what we see when we look at the large-scale history of life.

It is not necessarily easy to "see" macroevolutionary history; .....Just as in microevolution, basic evolutionary mechanisms like mutation, migration, genetic drift, and natural selection are at work and can help explain many large-scale patterns in the history of life. The basic evolutionary mechanisms — mutation, migration, genetic drift, and natural selection — can produce major evolutionary change ***if given enough time."

https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_48
--------------------------------------
" Campbell's Biology textbook essentially has a monopoly on Biology textbooks. They define microevolution as those changes occurring below the species level, and macroevolution as occurring above the species level."

Q2) Are you claiming the text says they occur on the same timescales? Could you quote that please, and offer some other sources that agree.

Q3) Also if it agrees that speciation occurs why do you deny it? I did ask if you agree with everything in the text book? Otherwise we're back to you using selection bias to cherry picking only the facts that align with your religious beliefs. Am I going to get an answer?

I've numbered the questions in my post to make it easier for you to see where I have asked a question as you seem to miss these quite often.

Here's another one you missed...

Q4) Could you provide half a dozen citations to peer reviewed research that supports your claim that macro and micro evolution are not part of the same process, but are separate processes, and that timescales are irrelevant?

Sheldon's picture
Q1) Does it (text book your

Q1) Does it (text book your citation) say macro evolution occurs over less, more or the same timescale as microevolution?

Q2) Are you claiming the text says they occur on the same timescales? Could you quote that please, and offer some other sources that agree.

Q3) Also if it agrees that speciation occurs why do you deny it? I did ask if you agree with everything in the text book? Otherwise we're back to you using selection bias to cherry picking only the facts that align with your religious beliefs. Am I going to get an answer?

Q4) Could you provide half a dozen citations to peer reviewed research that supports your claim that macro and micro evolution are not part of the same process, but are separate processes, and that timescales are irrelevant?

It's gone very quiet? You there John?

ʝօɦռ 6IX ɮʀɛɛʐʏ's picture
Your questions seem

Your questions seem unintelligent, as if you've put no thought into the subject before asking them.

CyberLN's picture
Well, another fire lit

Well, another fire lit elsewhere, allowing avoidance of providing answers to direct questions. It seems to be your SOP, John.

ʝօɦռ 6IX ɮʀɛɛʐʏ's picture
What?

What?

Sheldon's picture
ʝօɦռ 6IX ɮʀɛɛʐʏ "Timescales

ʝօɦռ 6IX ɮʀɛɛʐʏ "Timescales do not matter"

You have yet to offer a quote from that text book or cite any other sources that support your claim above?

"Microevolution is the change in allele frequencies that occurs over time within a population. This change is due to four different processes: mutation, selection (natural and artificial), gene flow and genetic drift. This change happens over a *****relatively short (in evolutionary terms) amount of time***** compared to the changes termed 'macroevolution' which is where greater differences in the population occur."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microevolution

It's plain enough, Cyber is pointing out that avoidance of salient questions is pretty much your MO.

Qu@si's picture
"What?" god replied:

"What?"

god replied:

Attachments

Attach Image/Video?: 

Yes
Sheldon's picture
The pretence of scientific

The pretence of scientific credence doesn't extend to defending his claims unsurprisingly,though no one can really be surprised as this is the case in every topic he posts on. His unabashed obfuscation by resorting to puerile ad hominem tells you all you need to know about him, and his grandiloquent claims to know better than the entire scientific world.

Ask him to demonstrate one piece of objective evidence for a creator, never mind a scientific theory that has withstood 150+ years of scientific scrutiny and still stands as a scientific fact established with a weight of evidence that is beyond any reasonable doubt.

So I guess it's easier for his ego if he insults me than gives candid answers to my questions. I mean christ, how many asinine questions from theists do we all give candid and expansive answers to on here? Too much to hope for some integrity from him for once.

ʝօɦռ 6IX ɮʀɛɛʐʏ's picture
Saying your question was

Saying your question was unintelligent is not an ad hominem. Your timescale questions in particular don't make sense given what I've already mentioned concerning them.

Sheldon's picture
Yes it certainly was ad

Yes it certainly was ad hominem, as it ignored the content of my post and focused on insulting me with the pretence it was directed at my post, but hey ho, I'm used to your arrogant condescension.

"Your timescale questions in particular don't make sense given what I've already mentioned concerning them."

So repetition of your claim and another dismissive avoidance of my question.

This is simple enough you claimed timescales were irrelevant to micro and macro evolution, and you claimed taxonomies were inaccurate. When this was challenged for evidence you stated and I quote " Campbell's Biology textbook essentially has a monopoly on Biology textbooks."

So I then asked..

Q1 "Are you claiming the text says they Macro / micro evolution) occur on the same timescales? Could you quote that please, and offer some other sources that agree?"

Q2" Are you claiming the text says they occur on the same timescales? Could you quote that please, and offer some other sources that agree."

Q3) Also if it agrees that speciation occurs why do you deny it? I did ask if you agree with everything in the text book? Otherwise we're back to you using selection bias to cherry picking only the facts that align with your religious beliefs. Am I going to get an answer?

Q4) Could you provide half a dozen citations to peer reviewed research that supports your claim that macro and micro evolution are not part of the same process, but are separate processes, and that timescales are irrelevant?

Your response was to ignore my question completely and insult me, as follows....

"ʝօɦռ 6IX ɮʀɛɛʐʏ "Your questions seem unintelligent, as if you've put no thought into the subject before asking them."

NOTE you offered no explanation of why you claim the questions are "unintelligent", just the bare irrelevant ad hominem fallacy.

ʝօɦռ 6IX ɮʀɛɛʐʏ's picture
I found the question

I found the question unintelligent exclusively on it's content. Just like I find your ad hominem claim unintelligent based solely on it's content.

Sheldon's picture
So a repetition of your ad

So a repetition of your ad hominem with no attempt to address that content, just insult it.

you claimed timescales were irrelevant to micro and macro evolution, and you claimed taxonomies were inaccurate. When this was challenged for evidence you stated and I quote " Campbell's Biology textbook essentially has a monopoly on Biology textbooks."

So I then asked..

Q1 "Are you claiming the text says they Macro / micro evolution) occur on the same timescales? Could you quote that please, and offer some other sources that agree?"

Q2" Are you claiming the text says they occur on the same timescales? Could you quote that please, and offer some other sources that agree."

Q3) Also if it agrees that speciation occurs why do you deny it? I did ask if you agree with everything in the text book? Otherwise we're back to you using selection bias to cherry picking only the facts that align with your religious beliefs. Am I going to get an answer?

Q4) Could you provide half a dozen citations to peer reviewed research that supports your claim that macro and micro evolution are not part of the same process, but are separate processes, and that timescales are irrelevant?

Your response was to ignore my question completely and insult me, as follows....

"ʝօɦռ 6IX ɮʀɛɛʐʏ "Your questions seem unintelligent, as if you've put no thought into the subject before asking them."

NOTE you have still offered no explanation of why you claim the questions are "unintelligent", just the bare irrelevant ad hominem fallacy.

I know from past experience when your claims are pressed for proper evidence you clam up, but you must know by now that insulting me won't provoke me into a similar reaction. I shall leave it to others to decide what it says about your beliefs that you have to deny facts, insult those who question your claims, and lie about what they've said.

aperez241's picture
About your assertion that

Brexy: About your assertion that micro and macroevolution are two different things. Evolution is defined as the change in the frequency of genes in a population. Now, these frequencies change for various reasons: Natural selection, sexual selection, and genetic drift, plus the adding, deleting or reshuffling of genes and chromosomes through the inaccurate copying of the DNA and RNA and interspecies gene transfer through viruses. These forces do not ever stop so changes of the genotype of a species are always happening, with no limits. Small changes are more common and add up to the point when they amount to a large change, but also large changes can happen less frequently, and these can cause significant variations. As nobody has ever shown a biological mechanism to stop these changes, big and small to happen, species divergence into higher orders is unavoidable and a continuum. For "macroevolution" not to occur, there has to be a mechanism to stop variation to happen after a certain level of differentiation from the "original " species and that has never been proved or even theorized. (Edited for completion)

ʝօɦռ 6IX ɮʀɛɛʐʏ's picture
"For 'macroevolution' not to

"For 'macroevolution' not to occur, there has to be a mechanism to stop variation to happen after a certain level of differentiation from the "original " species
and that has never been proved or even theorized."

I agree with this sentiment, however, I do think there are at least three possible obstructions. The first is obvious, some mutations produce death and disease, placing limits to the possible changes. The second is that we have mechanisms that attempt to correct mutations when they happen. The third is degeneracy, which allows for redundancy, preventing mutations from having effects.

I wouldn't be surprised if more obstacles exist that prevent changes above the species level.

aperez241's picture
Breezy : The first "Some

Breezy : The first "Some mutations produce death and disease.." is equivalent to saying "plants are not good because some plants are poisonous". It is true that some mutations are incompatible with life but not all or most. In fact, every living being carries mutations. It has been estimated that each human carries around 60 mutations as an average. Mutations (those who allow the organism to function) are mostly neutral and only become negative or positive when there is a change in the environment.

"The second is that we have mechanisms that attempt to correct mutations when they happen": The very fact that every organism is a mutant tells you these mechanisms do not stop them from happening. In fact, they never work 100% in any reproductive cell division and that is what explains why every organism is a mutant.

"The third is degeneracy, which allows for redundancy, preventing mutations from having effects." Degeneracy, in fact, is a boom for evolution as it allows a system that is used for one function to be used for another and work as a backup. It means that if a system that was used for X suffers a mutation and is now carrying out a totally novel function Y, an already existing system can take over the old X function. As a result, the organism is able to continue to work as before as a whole, but now has a totally new function Y available.

Definition of degeneracy: "Within biological systems, degeneracy occurs when structurally dissimilar components/modules/pathways can perform similar functions (i.e. are effectively interchangeable) under certain conditions, but perform distinct functions in other conditions."

So, so far, there is nothing in the way of continuous endless genetic change in populations, that will end up giving rise to new forms that drift away from their origins.

ʝօɦռ 6IX ɮʀɛɛʐʏ's picture
My purpose was to show there

My purpose was to show there are limitations to mutation, and therefore evolution. If some plants are poisonous, then by default we are limited in the number of plants we can eat. Likewise organisms are limited in the genetic changes they can undergo do the detrimental effects they may cause. The same applies to the correction mechanism; mutation rates remain low because DNA is constantly being repaired, limiting the number of mutations that can occur.

I'm not sure what you're referring to when you talk about degeneracy, but I'm talking about genetic degeneracy in codons. The nucleotides in a codon have wiggle room, they can undergo some changes and still code for the same amino acid.

Sheldon's picture
"My purpose was to show there

"My purpose was to show there are limitations to mutation, and therefore evolution."

Does the text book you cited as having a "monopoly on biology" support this claim? Or are happy to cherry pick the bits of it you like, and disregard the rest? Actually forget it, I think we all know the answer to this one now John.

Here's a quote from another book

"The intelligent design movement was bankrolled by an evangelical Christian organisation called the discovery Institute. Its original stated goal was to defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral cultural and political legacies and renew science and culture along evangelical Christian lines. They have called this the wedge strategy. Now that intelligent design in biology seems to be scientifically (but not yet politically) dead It is beginning to pursue other areas where they might demonstrate the existence of the creator. It would not be objectionable if they did so with an open mind, and were willing to accept, as science does, the verdict of the data. However their mode of operation is to scan for data and arguments that support their faith, and discard any data and arguments that do not."

Note the last two sentences carefully, they could have been written with your posts in mind Breezy.

aperez241's picture
Brexy : Yes, if some plants

Brexy : Yes, if some plants are poisonous we are limited in the number of plants we an eat but we cannot say that plants are not good in general which is what I understood from your assertion about mutations. If it was not that what you intended then it is like with the plants, they are very good, useful, even indispensable, despite the fact that some are poisonous ( or deadly when talking about mutations).

"I'm not sure what you're referring to when you talk about degeneracy" : I gave you the definition of degeneracy in biology. Re- read that please.

About codon degeneracy the situation is that yes, a small mutation will not stop the codon from producing the given amino acid, but more importantly, degeneracy also means that there can potentially be more than one codon coding for a given amino acid, since the number of codons exceeds the number of amino acids that need to be coded for. Hence, there is a one-to-many correspondence between an amino acid and the codons. It means that if a codon mutates so much that it cannot produce a given amino acid but produces another, other codons (those redundant ones) can take over and keep the previous amino acid being produced, assuring the continuity of whatever function depended on the amino acid but now besides, producing a new one maybe allowing a new function.

So, the endless change of the genotype goes on, with these safeguards that allow new functions to emerge or lie dormant to be used at the right time without having to renounce to old functions and make the organism non viable. The accumulation of these small changes can make organisms drift far away from their origin seamlessly creating new taxa. That is not counting the sudden and drastic changes that can be introduced by horizontal (inter species) gen transfers.

ʝօɦռ 6IX ɮʀɛɛʐʏ's picture
"It means that if a codon

"It means that if a codon mutates so much that it cannot produce a given amino acid but produces another, other codons can take over and keep the previous amino acid being produce..."

I'm not sure I agree or understand. You seem to be saying there are backup codons ready to replace the original codon, the moment it mutates itself out of service.

What I remember learning is that the original codon can undergo a mutation or two and still remain functional. If the mutation goes beyond that boundary then it's game over, and that amino acid won't be produced.

Pages

Donating = Loving

Heart Icon

Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.

Or make a one-time donation in any amount.