Evolution discussion

[dualstow]

I wish I had my evolution books with me. I'd type excerpts here occasionally, but they are in storage as my home is still undergoing renovation.

Thought of the day: I once read that if white Australians lacked hats & sunscreen, they would quickly evolve the same skin pigment as the aborigines.  (I guess you'd also have to take away cars and the luxury of spending most of the day indoors).

[Mountaineer]

I wish I had my evolution books with me. I'd type excerpts here occasionally, but they are in storage as my home is still undergoing renovation.

Surely, you do not mean your home is evolving?  Was it not created to acceptable long-lasting standards?

... Mountaineer

[moda0306]

Dualstow, I think I'll go with the Dawkins book, even though I'm pretty sure I'd enjoy the Hitchens book more.  It seems like Dawkins is the leading voice for evolution these days.  Correct me if I'm wrong...

He's up there. Watchmaker is not a new book, but I think it will be revered as a classic.

Yeah, it sounds like it.  And Dawkins seems to be maybe the most outspoken proponents of evolution.  I'll check it out. 

By the way, my job is really getting in the way of my reading and discussing things on this forum.  Can anyone think of a solution to that problem?? 

ERE... I mean, The Bible even says, it's easier for a camel to fit through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to get into heaven .

[Mountaineer]

Dualstow, I think I'll go with the Dawkins book, even though I'm pretty sure I'd enjoy the Hitchens book more.  It seems like Dawkins is the leading voice for evolution these days.  Correct me if I'm wrong...

He's up there. Watchmaker is not a new book, but I think it will be revered as a classic.

Yeah, it sounds like it.  And Dawkins seems to be maybe the most outspoken proponents of evolution.  I'll check it out. 

By the way, my job is really getting in the way of my reading and discussing things on this forum.  Can anyone think of a solution to that problem?? 

I once had a boss that really pushed me to the brink.  The only thing that kept me from doing something really stupid was a sign I posted over my desk:

Remember, Families Require Food!

... Mountaineer

[Benko]

On a vaguely related note:



I miss the far side...

[dualstow]

  So it's the generation of new, positive mutations that I don't YET see evidence for.  Men with wings, women with a horn growing from their foreheads, things like that.  Characteristics that are not contained in our present DNA sequences; i.e., not a dominant or recessive gene.

There are humans who have grown something like a horn, but they tend not to get dates. (I can't imagine why.  ) Wings would take time. There would have to be humans who started growing some flap of skin on their arms and or/back, and they'd have to have a lot of descendants. I don't think the ladies would go for it. As you already know, you won't see anything like that which is portrayed on Heroes or X-Men. These things take eons.

There are less visible mutations, like a guy in Finland who has a natural resistance to stroke and heart disease.

[Mountaineer]

There are less visible mutations, like a guy in Finland who has a natural resistance to stroke and heart disease.

Doesn't everyone resist those .... until they have the 'big one'? 

Then it evolves to be called unnatural succumbing (in Finland). 

... Mountaineer

[dualstow]

Nah, this guy and several others with the same mutation have something special going on. They could live on doughnuts, vodka and linguine al fredo and still be better protected than someone with so-so genetics on a diet of kale and oatmeal.

[l82start]

  So it's the generation of new, positive mutations that I don't YET see evidence for.  Men with wings, women with a horn growing from their foreheads, things like that.  Characteristics that are not contained in our present DNA sequences; i.e., not a dominant or recessive gene.

Wings would take time. There would have to be humans who started growing some flap of skin on their arms and or/back, and they'd have to have a lot of descendants. I don't think the ladies would go for it. As you already know, you won't see anything like that which is portrayed on Heroes or X-Men. These things take eons.

There are less visible mutations, like a guy in Finland who has a natural resistance to stroke and heart disease.

wouldn't wings also take an environmental advantage? people living in tree tops being attacked by a predator, and the guy with a little extra skin gets a little further from the base of the tree when he jumps out of it, increasing his survival prospects (and future mating prospects) over the guys that just fall straight down into the mouths of other waiting beasties... (magnified over many many generations millions of years?)

[dualstow]

I'll see if I can find the study in the morning.

[l82start]

Hmm, yeah, I suppose if a flying squirrel evolved into something with wings, that would work.  But take a look at those two critters, and you'll find they are entirely different.  Evolution has a problem, in my view:  The changes, or mutations, must necessarily be small so they don't result in the utter failure of the new life form.  But they have to be significant enough to confer an advantage, in order to be naturally selected.  Wings are useless for a land animal (or fish).  In fact, they're worse than useless.  Who needs wings when you're trying to outrun your buddy when a tiger's chasing you (you don't have to be faster than the tiger, but ya gotta be faster than your buddy).  And what woman in her right mind wants to reproduce with some bird boy with little wing stubs.

Evolution is a tough one to prove.  I'm trying not to just stand back and ridicule, but I'm also darn happy I don't bear the burden of defending the theory.  Although I'm trying to take a fresh look at the latest defenses, I'm not new to the theory.  It's looking pretty tired.

well in this case the wings or proto wings would confer some small advantage, the ability to stay aloft for a few seconds longer than your buddies (you don't have to be faster able to jump glide better than the tiger, but ya gotta be faster able to jump glide better than your buddy) as for breeding that's a tough one.. but look at how many species develop weird plumage, mating rituals, sounds etc to attract a mate, that stuff developed some how...

[dualstow]

wouldn't wings also take an environmental advantage? people living in tree tops being attacked by a predator, and the guy with a little extra skin gets a little further from the base of the tree when he jumps out of it, increasing his survival prospects (and future mating prospects) over the guys that just fall straight down into the mouths of other waiting beasties... (magnified over many many generations millions of years?)

There are a million directions in which evolution can go and you guys are picking one direction and saying, Why didn't this happen? I don't know. I had a book on biophysics but it had too much math so it made way for something else.  My best guess is that people and people-sized things are just too heavy. Notice that most creatures that develop flight tend to be small. Insects, bats and birds. Even birds that get too big become flightless.

[dualstow]

Desert, I can't find the study so far. If I recall, this was in the 90s, and I'm pretty sure it was in Time magazine. I don't know whether they identified something in his DNA, but his body was proven to produce something that protected him from atherosclerosis. (Interestingly, I recently learned that Lithuanian Jews may have the opposite, a tendency toward hypercholesterolemia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithuanian_Jews#Genetics By the way, the wiki page on the Founder effect is an interesting vignette of evolutionary studies).

[kka]

The problem is that evolution has multiple meanings.

"When evolution is defined as mere change over time within species, no one disputes that such evolution is a fact. But neo-Darwinian evolution -- the great claim that unguided natural selection acting upon random mutations is the driving force that produced the complexity of life -- has many scientific problems because such random and unguided processes do not build new complex biological features. Neo-Darwinian evolution is a theory that has been falsified by the evidence."

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/08/ev ... 49111.html

[l82start]

wouldn't wings also take an environmental advantage? people living in tree tops being attacked by a predator, and the guy with a little extra skin gets a little further from the base of the tree when he jumps out of it, increasing his survival prospects (and future mating prospects) over the guys that just fall straight down into the mouths of other waiting beasties... (magnified over many many generations millions of years?)

There are a million directions in which evolution can go and you guys are picking one direction and saying, Why didn't this happen? I don't know. I had a book on biophysics but it had too much math so it made way for something else.  My best guess is that people and people-sized things are just too heavy. Notice that most creatures that develop flight tend to be small. Insects, bats and birds. Even birds that get too big become flightless.

i am not picking the example to say why it didn't happen, i was using the example given to expand on the manner in which these things do happen (as best i can remember.. not an expert) and yes flight begins in small light weight animals not big ones...  BTW some do become pretty large and still fly, condors, eagles and pterodactyls..

[Benko]

I think part of what goes in for some people in this debate is that either you believe in evolution and everything that goes with that, or you are "one of those"  who believes in God, etc.  The fact that some of the science may be lacking in some areas, is less relevant. 

[Jan Van]

I think part of what goes in for some people in this debate is that either you believe in evolution and everything that goes with that, or you are "one of those"  who believes in God, etc.  The fact that some of the science may be lacking in some areas, is less relevant. 

And that "the science may be lacking in some areas" is to be expected. It takes a while to figure things out. So if you aren't "one of those" you're not prone to think that "God made it happen", but you'll just wait and see what science comes up with...

[dualstow]

...
So if you aren't "one of those" you're not prone to think that "God made it happen", but you'll just wait and see what science comes up with...

Exactly. This is as much a Science discussion as an evolution discussion. Atheists and agnostics don't claim to have all the answers, and in fact when you get down to the level of "it's a wave, but it's a particle...but it's a wave", I think there is as much of a satisfying sense of wonder as religious people have.

[Mountaineer]

I'll take this a step further.  If one subscribes to the theory of evolution, you have to be pretty depressed about the future.  The most "successful" humans (in terms of quantity of offspring they're contributing to the future gene pool) are the poor and the uneducated.

Looking at it from the other angle, I'd say it's kind of ironic that in order to be "successful" as defined by American culture, it helps to have no offspring.

$245,340: Cost of raising a child born in 2013

Boy, there is another topic with likely wide ranging perspectives - Define "success".

... Mountaineer

[Mountaineer]

One more quick comment:  I know I'm just one of many in this thread, but I do want to say that I'd prefer to have this thread be more about evolution and less about religion.  I know the two can sometimes feel inseparable, but as much as possible, I'd love to focus in on how some of you have managed to come to a belief in evolution.  When I read or watch videos about evolution, I probably feel like some of you do when you're reading about religion.  It just seems too preposterous to be true; so many impossible holes to fill, so much contradiction, and no ability to test the theory in the present. 

So what are your favorite sources of evidence for evolution?

Desert and Pugchief,

I really appreciate what you are saying about more focus on evolution and less on religion - that would be great with me as I too am curious what leads the evolutionists to have faith in that hypothesis, just as I think they are curious as to how I can have faith in an unseen God.  I've been thinking quite a lot about it since Desert's post and had it reinforced with Pugchief's +100.  So far, I'm struggling because it seems Christianity and Creationism are directly and closely linked just like Evolution and Atheism, Environmentalism and perhaps Agnosticism (that one is a stretch), and peanut butter and jelly in a PB&J sandwich, but my point is by my observation of the practitioners, environmentalism and evolutionism are just as much a religion as Christianity is, albeit those involved in it don't see it that way most likely.  To refresh you, a god is what you put your trust and identity in or derive meaning and security from; when you worship at the throne of envionmentalism or evolution, that is your religion.  In our postmodern culture, those who put their trust in themselves and not an external source of right and wrong, have really made themselves their own god - and thus their thoughts are their own religion.  So, any help or insights you guys can offer - I'm all ears.  I think I'm missing something. 

... Mountaineer

Mountaineer, I didn't explain my earlier comment very well, I think.  What I meant to say was this:  While the debate over evolution can appear to be a debate between science and theology, or between those that believe in God and those that don't, I think it's also worthwhile to look at evolution in isolation.  In other words, look at it and see if it stands on its own feet, not whether it effectively competes with some other view.  I guess the reason I want to look at it this way is because I went through 25 years as an athiest/agnostic who couldn't accept evolution.  I really wanted to accept it.  I wanted to free myself of all religious "hangups" and just go about life.  And I pretty much did that.  But each time I'd go to a museum, planetarium, etc., I'd be reminded that the only naturalistic explanation for the origins of humans was evolution.  And every time I'd look at it, with an intensely secular mindset, I just couldn't buy it.  So I was going in with a strong bias FOR evolution, for a naturalistic explanation, but couldn't find one. 

But others seem to just accept evolution and run with it, including, of course, the majority of educated scientists.  But of course society is often wrong, and often for lengthy periods.  Accepting what we're spoon fed is not healthy, and it bothers me a lot that many on this board question so much in the world, but seem to be able to just sit back and accept a notion like evolution. 

So, the goal of my comment was simply this:  I want evolution on trial in this thread, not religion.  We have the other thread to question religion; here, I want to question evolution.  I want to look at the naturalists' holy grail and subject it to the ridicule it's begging for. 

  How's that for honesty?

Excellent explanation, perspective, and goal.  Thank you.  Honestly 

... Mountaineer

[moda0306]

...
So if you aren't "one of those" you're not prone to think that "God made it happen", but you'll just wait and see what science comes up with...

Exactly. This is as much a Science discussion as an evolution discussion. Atheists and agnostics don't claim to have all the answers, and in fact when you get down to the level of "it's a wave, but it's a particle...but it's a wave", I think there is as much of a satisfying sense of wonder as religious people have.

This is where I disagree.  I don't see much use of science in the defense of evolution.  Science depends on testable ideas.  It seems lately that the word "science" has been expanded to include theories about history, so in that sense some defenses of evolution can be classified as science.  But frankly I see more of what I'd describe as sweeping conclusions based on sparse and often conflicting data. 

I don't think it's accurate to say that evolution is science, and those that don't accept it are unscientific.  Some that don't support it simply evaluate the available data and don't see support for the hypothesis.

Some areas of science are inherently untestable. How do we know the temperature of the center of the earth?  How do we know the temperature of the sun?  There are a TON of things we have to work on it get answers that aren't testable in a lab. Evolution is one of those. It's part of science, but it is certainly different in its testability this is why it took so much longer to figure out than the general rules of the law of gravity on earth.

It's more difficult. It's untestable in a lot of ways. That doesn't make it "not science."  Understanding the natural world is the goal of science. Evolution of life is a part of the natural world. It behooves us to try to figure out how things actually happened.

[moda0306]

This is where I disagree.  I don't see much use of science in the defense of evolution.  Science depends on testable ideas.  It seems lately that the word "science" has been expanded to include theories about history, so in that sense some defenses of evolution can be classified as science.  But frankly I see more of what I'd describe as sweeping conclusions based on sparse and often conflicting data. 

I don't think it's accurate to say that evolution is science, and those that don't accept it are unscientific.  Some that don't support it simply evaluate the available data and don't see support for the hypothesis.

Some areas of science are inherently untestable. How do we know the temperature of the center of the earth?  How do we know the temperature of the sun?  There are a TON of things we have to work on it get answers that aren't testable in a lab. Evolution is one of those. It's part of science, but it is certainly different in its testability this is why it took so much longer to figure out than the general rules of the law of gravity on earth.

It's more difficult. It's untestable in a lot of ways. That doesn't make it "not science."  Understanding the natural world is the goal of science. Evolution of life is a part of the natural world. It behooves us to try to figure out how things actually happened.

Moda, I agree with all that.  I really do.  But I think we all should be honest about the uncertainties as we progress.  And I don't see that in evolution.  I took my kid to a planetarium a few weeks ago, and I heard statements like "scientists believe" followed by a bunch of complete conjecture.  I find evolutionists (or at least their non-educated mouthpieces out on the streets) to be irresponsible (at best) or dishonest.

I think in areas that can't be proven with 100% certainty, we need to make these conversations easier to have. If the vast majority of the scientific community believes some scientific theory is correct, then I don't see a problem in educating people using generalized terminology like "scientists believe."

Perhaps they should always attach a number there.  But this is reasonable behavior, IMO.

[Benko]

I think in areas that can't be proven with 100% certainty, we need to make these conversations easier to have. If the vast majority of the scientific community believes some scientific theory is correct, then I don't see a problem in educating people using generalized terminology like "scientists believe."

I propose these words:

"Current theory (which may be overturned tomorrow, and often has in the past) states..."

For example  From Michael Crighton:
http://www.michaelcrichton.net/essay-st ... erous.html

Imagine that there is a new scientific theory that warns of an impending crisis, and points to a way out.

This theory quickly draws support from leading scientists, politicians and celebrities around the world. Research is funded by distinguished philanthropies, and carried out at prestigious universities. The crisis is reported frequently in the media. The science is taught in college and high school classrooms.

I don't mean global warming. I'm talking about another theory, which rose to prominence a century ago.

Its supporters included Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, and Winston Churchill. It was approved by Supreme Court justices Oliver Wendell Holmes and Louis Brandeis, who ruled in its favor. The famous names who supported it included Alexander Graham Bell, inventor of the telephone; activist Margaret Sanger; botanist Luther Burbank; Leland Stanford, founder of Stanford University; the novelist H. G. Wells; the playwright George Bernard Shaw; and hundreds of others. Nobel Prize winners gave support. Research was backed by the Carnegie and Rockefeller Foundations. The Cold Springs Harbor Institute was built to carry out this research, but important work was also done at Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Stanford and Johns Hopkins. Legislation to address the crisis was passed in states from New York to California.

These efforts had the support of the National Academy of Sciences, the American Medical Association, and the National Research Council. It was said that if Jesus were alive, he would have supported this effort.

All in all, the research, legislation and molding of public opinion surrounding the theory went on for almost half a century. Those who opposed the theory were shouted down and called reactionary, blind to reality, or just plain ignorant. But in hindsight, what is surprising is that so few people objected.

Today, we know that this famous theory that gained so much support was actually pseudoscience. The crisis it claimed was nonexistent. And the actions taken in the name of theory were morally and criminally wrong. Ultimately, they led to the deaths of millions of people.

The theory was eugenics...

[stone]

As I see it, the theory of evolution by natural selection gets tested each time technical advances are made that enable us to uncover another layer to see how living things work in previously unseen detail.
When Wallace and Darwin came up with their theory of evolution by natural selection they based their reasoning on what they were able to see at the time. They saw different living things and knew about selective breeding of traits in crops and chickens and such like. Their theory made sense of what they knew then.
Since then, people have been able to delve much deeper into the nuts and bolts of how living things are put together. Every time such new observations have been made, they have fitted in with the theory of evolution by natural selection.

Examples include how the basic machinery of genetic material is much the same across all living things but variations accumulate over evolutionary distance. For instance everything from a bacterium to a tree to a person makes its proteins using a structure called a ribosome. These ribosomes can nowadays be analysed in atomic detail.  When the molecular detail of ribosomes from across a broad swathe of the "tree of life" is fed into a computer and the computer sorts them into those with most similar sequences, it gives a "family tree" that shows how each living thing is related to each other -right the way through from bacteria to trees to humans. That family tree fits in with the fossil record and previous views of what was related to what based on previous biological understanding.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phylogenetic_tree

Another example is how the gene (called pax6) that in humans signals where in the embryo an eye should form is the same gene that signals in flies  where an eye should form. That is despite the fact that flies have eyes that are so so different from ours. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PAX6#Species_distribution

In some cases if a gene is lost from a yeast, then replacing that gene with the equivalent gene from a human will rescue the yeast and allow it to grow again. http://bfg.oxfordjournals.org/content/6/2/104.long

I know someone who is an evangelical Christian and spends his Saturdays giving out leaflets about Christianity but is also an enthusiastic investigator of the molecular detail of how evolution occurs and has published work about it. I guess he sees no contradiction between his understanding of evolution and his faith.
I just googled and saw that he is on this list: http://www.lausanne.org/en/documents/al ... ?start=100

[stone]

Earlier on in this thread people were wondering what use "5% of an eye" might be.
Light detection with very low resolution is nevertheless useful. The way that snakes can "see" heat is an example of a useful sight organ despite it being so crude:
http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100314/ ... 0.122.html

I also think that it is so important to bear in mind that for evolution to kick off all that is needed is for something to  be able to copy itself. The first "living thing" only needs to be a self replicating molecule or assembly of a few molecules:
http://www.livescience.com/26173-hydrot ... igins.html