Another Evolution Thread

Ahnimus

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.

chopitdown

Ahnimus wrote:

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.

.

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.

chopitdown

Ahnimus wrote:

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.

no that is interspecies breeding. It does nothing to macro-evolution, which is where most people have a sticking point.

Ahnimus

chopitdown wrote:

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.

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

jlew24asu

half is a deceiving number when only 10% actually give a fuck about evolution or ID theories.

Ahnimus

chopitdown wrote:

no that is interspecies breeding. It does nothing to macro-evolution, which is where most people have a sticking point.

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.

chopitdown

Ahnimus wrote:

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".

Ahnimus

chopitdown wrote:

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.

Ahnimus

I think the problem with ID folks is they are looking for quantitative changes in time, but all they find are small qualitative changes. Our genome compared to a mouse is pretty much the same as compared to a chimp, the code is pretty much the same. Only 1/100 genes are different, if I recall correctly. That's a good indication of the qualitative changes that occur during "macro-evolution".

Scubascott

Ahnimus wrote:

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%.

RockinInCanada

jlew24asu wrote:

half is a deceiving number when only 10% actually give a fuck about evolution or ID theories.

That is so sad if that is true.

Ahnimus

Scubascott wrote:

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%.

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.

chopitdown

jlew24asu wrote:

half is a deceiving number when only 10% actually give a fuck about evolution or ID theories.

There are lies, damned lies, and statistics!

Ahnimus

Counter-arguements to Intelligent Design:

A) It doesn't explain anything
It's not measurable
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.

Scubascott

Ahnimus wrote:

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.

Oh you saw a lecture. Ok then. I beg your pardon.

Ahnimus wrote:

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.

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.

Ahnimus

Scubascott wrote:

Oh you saw a lecture. Ok then. I beg your pardon.

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.

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.

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.

Scubascott

Ahnimus wrote:

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%.

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.

angelica

This is one of the coolest evolution debates I've seen in my entire year on this board! Two pro-evolutionists debating one another! Very interesting!

(is the this street smart vs the book smart version?)

angelica

Scubascott wrote:

Probability does not work in retrospect, unless you believe in fate. If you do, then there isn't much point arguing about evolution.

Speaking of which, isn't there a possibility that evolution can work in hand with fate? Certainly it would include a different perspective, and one beyond the bounds of science, but you're not saying it's impossible, are you?

Mookie Baylock

angelica wrote:

Speaking of which, isn't there a possibility that evolution can work in hand with fate? Certainly it would include a different perspective, and one beyond the bounds of science, but you're not saying it's impossible, are you?

Depends on what you mean by fate. Do you mean fate as in random luck or fate as in divine intervention?

Scubascott

angelica wrote:

Speaking of which, isn't there a possibility that evolution can work in hand with fate? Certainly it would include a different perspective, and one beyond the bounds of science, but you're not saying it's impossible, are you?

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.