Another Evolution Thread
Ahnimus
Posts: 10,560
So, I've come to learn recently that as of 2006 half of Americans do not accept evolution. This is primarily based on the Intelligent Design movement.
Let me sort out some myths about evolution.
There are no missing links
There is no controversy in the scientific community
Charles Darwin himself didn't like his own theory but recognized it as the truth.
Proponents of ID argue it's a scientific theory because of the flagellum of bacteria. Flagella are whip-like extensions from organisms like bacteria that propel them. The flagella are fairly complex, for a tiny molecule like bacteria. You can see an animation here and a part description here. The claim is that since a tiny molecule has a complex limb such as the flagellum and since the part is "irreducable" meaning one missing piece renders the flagellum useless, that that is evidence of Intelligent Design.
Scientifically speaking, each individual part of the flagellum serves other purposes. So it is reducable, it just won't have propulsion if key components are missing. Even with 40 missing components the flagellum can still work. Secondly, this isn't a single-cell organism, this isn't the begining of life Darwin was refering to, this is a complex molecule.
Another arguement was the mathematical probability of chance. By reversing the product of chance everything seems impossible. For example, you get dealt a Royal Flush in a game of Five Card Stud. What are the chances? Well if you reverse it the chances are roughly 1 in 2.5 million, but it does happen. Just within our puny existance I'm sure this hand has come up a few times. So, our planet's age is about 4.6 billion years or so, our species age is about 7 million years old, but we've probably only been sentient for a few hundred thousand years. Anyway, the likely hood of us happening is 100% in reflection. The same chance of being dealt a Royal Flush, if you have a Royal Flush in your hand.
You can question the "theory" of evolution but you can't question the fact that we evolved from ape-like creatures. Which is the fundamental problem people have with evolution. Evolution is the basis for most of our scientific research into disease. Without the understanding of Evolution we would never cure cancer or AIDS.
When someone says "I have a dachsund-terrier mix" they are making reference to evolution. Their animal has some traits from the dachsund and some from the terrier, that is evolution and it's undenyable.
Anyway, sorry for rehashing this, it just blows me away that half of Americans buy into that ID crap and the propaganda that goes with it.
Let me sort out some myths about evolution.
There are no missing links
There is no controversy in the scientific community
Charles Darwin himself didn't like his own theory but recognized it as the truth.
Proponents of ID argue it's a scientific theory because of the flagellum of bacteria. Flagella are whip-like extensions from organisms like bacteria that propel them. The flagella are fairly complex, for a tiny molecule like bacteria. You can see an animation here and a part description here. The claim is that since a tiny molecule has a complex limb such as the flagellum and since the part is "irreducable" meaning one missing piece renders the flagellum useless, that that is evidence of Intelligent Design.
Scientifically speaking, each individual part of the flagellum serves other purposes. So it is reducable, it just won't have propulsion if key components are missing. Even with 40 missing components the flagellum can still work. Secondly, this isn't a single-cell organism, this isn't the begining of life Darwin was refering to, this is a complex molecule.
Another arguement was the mathematical probability of chance. By reversing the product of chance everything seems impossible. For example, you get dealt a Royal Flush in a game of Five Card Stud. What are the chances? Well if you reverse it the chances are roughly 1 in 2.5 million, but it does happen. Just within our puny existance I'm sure this hand has come up a few times. So, our planet's age is about 4.6 billion years or so, our species age is about 7 million years old, but we've probably only been sentient for a few hundred thousand years. Anyway, the likely hood of us happening is 100% in reflection. The same chance of being dealt a Royal Flush, if you have a Royal Flush in your hand.
You can question the "theory" of evolution but you can't question the fact that we evolved from ape-like creatures. Which is the fundamental problem people have with evolution. Evolution is the basis for most of our scientific research into disease. Without the understanding of Evolution we would never cure cancer or AIDS.
When someone says "I have a dachsund-terrier mix" they are making reference to evolution. Their animal has some traits from the dachsund and some from the terrier, that is evolution and it's undenyable.
Anyway, sorry for rehashing this, it just blows me away that half of Americans buy into that ID crap and the propaganda that goes with it.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
and "you" are whom? B/c for something that has been studied and debated on many fronts by many people you sure do seem to claim quite the authority on the subject.
no that is interspecies breeding. It does nothing to macro-evolution, which is where most people have a sticking point.
I'm an autodidact and a very resourceful investigator.
I get to the bottom of things.
I've done a lot of studying of evolution and the proposed myths and contraversies. Of course, you could watch this lecture from award winning scientists saying the same thing
http://www.hhmi.org/biointeractive/evolution/lectures.html
So, what is different about macro-evolution?
What exactly do you mean by macro, because if a bacteria or single-cell organism is micro then a dog would be macro relatively speaking. Are you refering to the evolution of planetary bodies, because I don't think that was part of Darwin's original theory.
since you're "an autodidact and a very resourceful investigator" and someone who has read extensively on the subject you should understand what macro and micro evolution are. I'm not getting sucked in to another ID v evolution debate. It's not as simple as you want it to be. Besides, you're not looking for discussion you're looking to play goodwill hunting and wow us with your "brilliance".
Large-scale evolution occurring over geologic time that results in the formation of new taxonomic groups.
That is basically all of evolution, we aren't referring to a single change in DNA. As an example the manatees has a hip bone, but no legs, it has a hip bone but absolutely no use for it, that is macro-evolution.
Mate, don't get me wrong, I'm very much on your side, but your 'facts' are a bit all over the shop. Firstly, bacteria are cells, not molecules. Secondly, the manatee's hip bone is an example of a vestigial body part. According to the definition that you've so cleverly copied and pasted, macroevolution refers to the formation of new taxonomic groups (ie new species), not left over hip bones. Thirdly, your probability argument is confusing and nonsensical, and in no way does it show that the likelyhood of humans appearing on earth was 100%.
-C Addison
That is so sad if that is true.
Yea, the vestigal trait is an example of qualitative evolution. The species went from walking on land to swimming in the ocean, that is the formation of a new group. It just happens to be by losing parts instead of gaining them.
The term "molecule" is what the ID theorists use, I figured someone would pick up on that. I just recently watched a lecture on molecular biology and interfacing synthesized molecules with human physiology. I have a pretty good understanding of molecules and cellular organisms.
I don't see a flaw in the probability arguement. If something exists than the probability of it existing is 100%. If you reverse it then it's near impossible, but none-the-less it still exists.
There are lies, damned lies, and statistics!
A) It doesn't explain anything
C) It's not falsifiable
D) No evidence supports it
E) It started from a conclusion and not an observation
F) It's philosophy, not science.
Oh you saw a lecture. Ok then. I beg your pardon.
If you flip a coin and it comes up heads, is the probabilty of getting heads next time 100%?
I'm on your side, really. Its just important to get your facts straight if you want to discuss something like this.
-C Addison
Huh? I've read a lot about things too, watching a lecture is just one example. What seperates autodidactic studies from formal education? In university you have lectures and books, well I have both of them too.
No, but the probability of it being heads the first time is 100%. What is the probability of me being born with my name, my brithdate, my hair colour, my eye colour and so on? Probably pretty damn slim, but I happened. In retrospect the probability of my existance is 100%.
Let's see the math...
Rock Pocket Mice as explain in that lecture I posted have about one black fur-colour gene mutation per 250,000 births. Each mouse gives birth to 25 baby mice each year. With a population of 10,000 mice:
25 (births) x 10,000 (mice) = 250,000
So there is one black fur-colour gene mutation every year. Now the likelihood of two sandy colour mice giving birth to a black colour mouse isn't that slim. If being black is benneficial as it is to these mice living on lava rock then eventually over many many years they will mostly all be black.
No. The probability of it being heads the first time was 50%. Probability does not work in retrospect, unless you believe in fate. If you do, then there isn't much point arguing about evolution.
-C Addison
(is the this street smart vs the book smart version?)
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Depends on what you mean by fate. Do you mean fate as in random luck or fate as in divine intervention?
-Ashley Montagu
If your idea of fate is that every event in the universe is predetermined, then evolution doesn't matter. If you take away the element of chance there is no evolution as we currently understand it, just the progression of a series of events that was always going to happen anyway.
-C Addison
Exactly, you can't go back and say the probability of humans arising from evolution is nearly impossible and therefor incorrect.
The probability of flipping a coin heads every time is highly improbable but still possible.
My point is that it happened and the probability is really pointless.
I think the probability of it is pretty high myself. Consider that there are literally trillions of trillions of planets out there, then the odds that at least one (probably millions) planet developed intelligent life is huge, even if they are one in 100 billion, there is huge potential for intelligent life on lots of planets in the universe.
My point is, that in our eyes, we see ourselves as very unique, so consider ourselves to be divinely created, when in reality, we are probably just a grain of sand on a beach.
Anyway, that sounds really cheezy, but it makes sense to me.
-Ashley Montagu
Ok, but by the same token you can't say that the fact we're here is evidence of our evolution. Its just evidence that we're here. Its as much evidence of our evolution as it is evidence that we were created by the flying spaghetti monster.
-C Addison
It is an interesting debate, but that's the beauty of evolution is that it can be debated.
Certainly fate and evolution can interoperate. There is not really much chance to evolution, it's par with flipping a coin. When a person flips a coin there is no chance, only perceived chance. The mathematical complexity of flipping a coin dictates how it will land, speed, spin velocity, wind resistance, gravity, etc.. all attribute to the way the coin lands, but it's all fate in the sense that there is no chance, only perceived chance. The same applies to evolution, there is no chance of an animal species developing undesirable traits like humans do. Because we've taken ourselves out of the evolutionary loop in a sense. A whale born with a mutant gene causing a brain tumor will not survive to procreate and pass on the gene, so the chance of all whales eventually having brain tumors is zero.
I'm not sure if brain tumors are linked to genetic traits, but colon cancer and Rett's syndrome are two examples of hereditary gene mutations.
If you believe in evolution (which is really irrifutible at this point) then, yes, our existence is evidence of evolution, just like the fact that the moon orbits the earth is evidence of gravity.
-Ashley Montagu
I agree with you. Interesting church by the way.
Funny you say that, I was browsing some pro-ID sites earlier and one had a contest to see if someone can prove the earth revolves around the sun.
That's pretty easy to prove though. Just go into outerspace and make an observation.
Consider that our universe is one great encompassing whole (comprised of many, many parts) outside our limited awareness. Imagine that our limited human awareness causes us to currently perceive this fascinating whole in a linear, logical way in our efforts to understand it. Our limits perceive the whole in increments seen through time and in dimensions of space. In this whole, or in this everything-that-exists or potentially-exists, the context of time and evolution happens on one hand, and the context of "everything-existing-at-once" still exists perfectly at the same time. The problem only comes in when we are highly attached to a certain perspective, such as how things play out in time, rather than being able to equally see it from backwards in time, forwards in time, or from an encompassing overview. The existence of the overview context does not take away the amazing nature of evolution playing out in our view in time. Anymore than reading a book takes away from the fact that each letter, word, sentence and paragraph are strung together in a linear fashion. They are all the same thing from different persepectives.
Just because one is moved by a beautiful piece of artwork does not mean it cannot also be analyzed brush stroke by brush stroke. Because the beautiful concerto is comprised of various instruments working together, does not minimize the validity of hearing such a tapestry woven together in symphony.
Also, what we see as "chance" now, might be proven to be something else very complicated in the future. Science is a method of understanding our surroundings. It falls far short of being our surroundings.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Exactly my point. IF you believe in evolution. (which I do by the way). If you believe in creation, then our existence may be interpreted as evidence of our creation. All I'm trying to do is get Ahnimus to use logical arguments, not crazy restrospective probability arguments that make no sense and circular "we're here because we evolved therefore our existence is evidence of evolution" arguments.
-C Addison