Evolution Confusion

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

Technically, yes, in the sense that you could force reproduction between the two. In the "wild," it's not going to happen. I'm not sure what you think that changes.

By some definitions of species, they are still the same species. Arguing that they are distinct is really just semantics.

Okay. And?

Nothing?

It's an image of Euglena. Photo sensitive cells, no nerve fibers. Clearly, one has use without the other.

I'm in the middle of a rather excellent game of Dominion, and am doing this in between turns .

Semantics? Do you look at Darwin's finches, and see one and the same bird?

[Mavorpen]

By some definitions of species, they are still the same species.

No, they really aren't. As was pointed out, many of them can't physically do this.

Arguing that they are distinct is really just semantics.

Um. Yes. That doesn't mean they are the same species. I really don't understand why shouting "SEMANTICS!" equates to winning an argument for some people.

Euglena is a photsynthetic organism, not an eye.

I never said it was an eye. What are you talking about?

On a Limpet, it would serve no practical purpose in forming an eye.

Of fucking course not. It's not a Euglena. You're not refuting my point. You're just stating the obvious.

I'm in the middle of a rather excellent game of Dominion, and am doing this in between turns .

I'd ask whether that's why your arguments are so terrible, but I have a feeling that it isn't the reason at all.

[Lost heros]

I'm 100% sure this has been stated before, but I want to reiterate it because I can.

Micro-evolution and macro-evolution are not actual scientific concepts. They are straw-men against the actual evolution argument. Evolution is the process in which, over large periods of time, populations of a species change genetically through mutations, selective pressures, and environmental effects to acquire unique characteristics and become new species.

[Excidium Planetis]

By some definitions of species, they are still the same species.

No, they really aren't. As was pointed out, many of them can't physically do this.

But they can.

Arguing that they are distinct is really just semantics.

Um. Yes. That doesn't mean they are the same species. I really don't understand why shouting "SEMANTICS!" equates to winning an argument for some people.

They are the same species by some definitions. Therefore, continuing this argument that they are or are not the same species is going to nowhere

Euglena is a photsynthetic organism, not an eye.

I never said it was an eye. What are you talking about?

So then you agree a Limpet could not have evolved an eye with simultabeously evolving both the light sensitive cells and the nerve fibers? And that Euglena thing was a waste of time that had no bearing on the discussion of Limpet eye evolution?

On a Limpet, it would serve no practical purpose in forming an eye.

Of fucking course not. It's not a Euglena. You're not refuting my point. You're just stating the obvious.

So then, there is indeed no way the Limpet could have evolved the light sensitive cells first?

[Geilinor]

No, they really aren't. As was pointed out, many of them can't physically do this.

But they can.

Not in nature and the offspring won't be fertile. People have done horse and donkey hybrids for thousands of years and mules generally can't reproduce.

[Lordieth]

I'm 100% sure this has been stated before, but I want to reiterate it because I can.

Micro-evolution and macro-evolution are not actual scientific concepts. They are straw-men against the actual evolution argument. Evolution is the process in which, over large periods of time, populations of a species change genetically through mutations, selective pressures, and environmental effects to acquire unique characteristics and become new species.

So much this. Drawing an imaginary line through a scientific theory and saying "because we can't directly observe this, it can't be proven" is ludicrous, and scientific denialism.

[Mavorpen]

But they can.

What's "they"?

They are the same species by some definitions.

Which ones?

Therefore, continuing this argument that they are or are not the same species is going to nowhere

I agree, because ultimately they're separate species regardless of this.

So then you agree a Limpet could not have evolved an eye with simultabeously evolving both the light sensitive cells and the nerve fibers?

Where did you get this from?

And that Euglena thing was a waste of time that had no bearing on the discussion of Limpet eye evolution?

No, because, again the Euglena has photo sensitive cells without any nerve fibers, demonstrating one has use without the other. Is reading not your strong suit?

So then, there is indeed no way the Limpet could have evolved the light sensitive cells first?

Yes, there is, as I've already showed. If you're not going to actually read my posts, please don't' bother responding.

[Geilinor]

I'm 100% sure this has been stated before, but I want to reiterate it because I can.

Micro-evolution and macro-evolution are not actual scientific concepts. They are straw-men against the actual evolution argument. Evolution is the process in which, over large periods of time, populations of a species change genetically through mutations, selective pressures, and environmental effects to acquire unique characteristics and become new species.

According to experts in evolution, the concepts exist but creationists use them incorrectly. http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_36

[Cetacea]

Burke, Molly K., Joseph P. Dunham, Parvin Shahrestani, Kevin R. Thornton, Michael R. Rose, Anthony D. Long. 30 September 2010. Genome-wide analysis of a long-term evolution experiment with Drosophila. Nature, Vol. 467, pp. 587-590.

1. the experiemnt ran for 35 years and hundreds of generations of fruit flies
2. the bred fruit flies develop from egg to adult 20% faster than normal.
3. the fruit flies weighed less, lived shorter lives, and were less resistant to starvation.
4 none of the identified mutations became permanent and indeed the article states "Despite decades of sustained selection in relatively small, sexually reproducing laboratory populations, selection did not lead to the fixation of newly arising unconditionally advantageous alleles... "The probability of fixation in wild populations should be even lower than its likelihood in these experiments."
5 also "forward experimental evolution can often be completely reversed with these populations".

[Sun Wukong]

Burke, Molly K., Joseph P. Dunham, Parvin Shahrestani, Kevin R. Thornton, Michael R. Rose, Anthony D. Long. 30 September 2010. Genome-wide analysis of a long-term evolution experiment with Drosophila. Nature, Vol. 467, pp. 587-590.

1. the experiemnt ran for 35 years and hundreds of generations of fruit flies
2. the bred fruit flies develop from egg to adult 20% faster than normal.
3. the fruit flies weighed less, lived shorter lives, and were less resistant to starvation.
4 none of the identified mutations became permanent and indeed the article states "Despite decades of sustained selection in relatively small, sexually reproducing laboratory populations, selection did not lead to the fixation of newly arising unconditionally advantageous alleles... "The probability of fixation in wild populations should be even lower than its likelihood in these experiments."
5 also "forward experimental evolution can often be completely reversed with these populations".

Oh hey, someone who doesn't understand large-population stagnation. Goodie.

[Sociobiology]

So then, there is indeed no way the Limpet could have evolved the light sensitive cells first?

in limpets the light sensitive cells ARE nerves, which is also true of us.
there are about half a dozen light sensitive reactions in your brain right now, all that has to happens is the evolution of more specific neural wiring to use that information. which isn't hard, the reactions may already be part of sequence of a different sensory process.
want to see one of the simplest multi-cellular eyes in existence. here it is and it consists of literally two cells which connect directly to nerves responsibly for movement. they literally do nothing more than covert the energy of light into extra stimulus for that nerve they connect to, and that makes the organism swim towards light. It doesn't even need the second cell to work the second cell just makes it more efficient.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/11/081119140705.htm

[Mavorpen]

Burke, Molly K., Joseph P. Dunham, Parvin Shahrestani, Kevin R. Thornton, Michael R. Rose, Anthony D. Long. 30 September 2010. Genome-wide analysis of a long-term evolution experiment with Drosophila. Nature, Vol. 467, pp. 587-590.

1. the experiemnt ran for 35 years and hundreds of generations of fruit flies
2. the bred fruit flies develop from egg to adult 20% faster than normal.
3. the fruit flies weighed less, lived shorter lives, and were less resistant to starvation.
4 none of the identified mutations became permanent and indeed the article states "Despite decades of sustained selection in relatively small, sexually reproducing laboratory populations, selection did not lead to the fixation of newly arising unconditionally advantageous alleles... "The probability of fixation in wild populations should be even lower than its likelihood in these experiments."
5 also "forward experimental evolution can often be completely reversed with these populations".

And?

[Sociobiology]

Burke, Molly K., Joseph P. Dunham, Parvin Shahrestani, Kevin R. Thornton, Michael R. Rose, Anthony D. Long. 30 September 2010. Genome-wide analysis of a long-term evolution experiment with Drosophila. Nature, Vol. 467, pp. 587-590.

1. the experiemnt ran for 35 years and hundreds of generations of fruit flies
2. the bred fruit flies develop from egg to adult 20% faster than normal.
3. the fruit flies weighed less, lived shorter lives, and were less resistant to starvation.
4 none of the identified mutations became permanent and indeed the article states "Despite decades of sustained selection in relatively small, sexually reproducing laboratory populations, selection did not lead to the fixation of newly arising unconditionally advantageous alleles... "The probability of fixation in wild populations should be even lower than its likelihood in these experiments."
5 also "forward experimental evolution can often be completely reversed with these populations".

Key point underlined

hundreds of generations is not a lot in sexual species, that is even the conclusion of the paper itself if you actually read it. that whole bit about soft sweep is describing how in sexual species it is difficult to completely eliminate a gene in a short time, it requires prolonged persistent selective pressure. which many have argued is one of the biggest advantages of sexual selection.

there is 11,000 generations between dogs and wolves and they can still interbreed after all. although in some cases interbreeding is more hypothetical than actual.

[Mavorpen]

Burke, Molly K., Joseph P. Dunham, Parvin Shahrestani, Kevin R. Thornton, Michael R. Rose, Anthony D. Long. 30 September 2010. Genome-wide analysis of a long-term evolution experiment with Drosophila. Nature, Vol. 467, pp. 587-590.

1. the experiemnt ran for 35 years and hundreds of generations of fruit flies
2. the bred fruit flies develop from egg to adult 20% faster than normal.
3. the fruit flies weighed less, lived shorter lives, and were less resistant to starvation.
4 none of the identified mutations became permanent and indeed the article states "Despite decades of sustained selection in relatively small, sexually reproducing laboratory populations, selection did not lead to the fixation of newly arising unconditionally advantageous alleles... "The probability of fixation in wild populations should be even lower than its likelihood in these experiments."
5 also "forward experimental evolution can often be completely reversed with these populations".

Key point underlined

hundreds of generations is not a lot in sexual species, that is even the conclusion of the paper itself if you actually read it. that whole bit about soft sweep is describing how in sexual species it is difficult to completely eliminate a gene in a short time, it requires prolonged persistent selective pressure. which many have argued is one of the biggest advantages of sexual selection.

there is 11,000 generations between dogs and wolves and they can still interbreed after all. although in some cases interbreeding is more hypothetical than actual.

Yep.

There are several possible explanations for our failure to observe the
signature of a classic sweep in these populations, despite strong selection.
Classic sweeps may be occurring, but have had insufficient time to
reach fixation. This explanation is consistent with observed data, but
requires that newly arising beneficial alleles have small associated
selection coefficients (Supplementary Fig. 7). Alternatively, selection
in these lines may generally act on standing variation, and not new
mutations. This soft sweep model predicts partial losses of heterozygosity
flanking selected sites, provided that selection begins acting
when mutations are at low frequencies12,17, and this is consistent with
our observed data. However, if a large fraction of the total adaptive
response is due to loci fixed by means of soft sweeps, there should be
insufficient genetic variation to allow reverse evolution in these populations.
But forward experimental evolution can often be completely
reversed with these populations5, which suggests that any soft sweeps
in our experiment are incomplete and/or of small effect (Supplementary
Fig. 5). A third explanation is that the selection coefficients associated
with newly arising mutations are not static but in fact decrease
over time. This could be the case if initially rare selected alleles increase
to frequencies where additional change is hindered, perhaps by linked
deleterious alleles or antagonistic pleiotropy. Laboratory evolution
experiments typically expose populations to novel environments in
which focal traits respond quickly and then plateau at some new value
(compare with refs 13, 18). Chevin and Hospital19 recently modelled
the trajectory of an initially rare beneficial allele that does not reach
fixation because its selective advantage is inversely proportional to the
distance to a new phenotypic optimum, and that optimum is reached,
because of other loci, before the variant fixes. This model therefore has
appeal in the context of experimental evolution, as it assumes populations
generally reach a new phenotypic optimum before newly arising
beneficial mutations of modest effect have had time to fix.

[Tekania]

I am not talking about 19th Century creationists, but modern creationists. They acknowledge micro, but not macro, evolution.


That depends on your definition of species and genus, really.



Because those are mutations of already existing genes, not the creation of new ones. In order to get a finch with fins, you'd need a whole lot more mutations, and the transitional forms would not be "fit" for either air or water. Please explain how whales evolved from land mammals, in a way in which the transitional forms would have any decent chance of survival. Microevolution can certainly occur, but that doesn't mean macroevolution does.

I'm sorry, Gerald. It seems you cannot exist, because you don't have survival skills.

Look at how sad you made him. Shame on you.

Seals are not a transitional form between land mamals and whales. At any rate seals are qells suited for swimming already, having tails rather than legs. Please demonstrate a transtional form between a seal and a land mammal, that could do well in both land and water. After all, that tail didn't come out of nowhere. What would a half-tail, half-hind legs mammal do?[/quote]

Okay, Hippopotamus

[Tekania]

Have you heard of these things called amphibians? No? How about; semi-aquatic mammals? You do realize that many animals can survive both on land and in the sea, correct?

Land mammal hips and whale hips are designed for completely different forms of movement. Any mid-way transition could neither swim nor run. What would a hip bone halfway between a land mammals and a whales look like?

Why don't you ask the Dorudon, theRodhecetus, the Kutchicetus, or the Ambulocetus.... transition forms of whales are well documented in the fossil record. We don't need to imagine what their hips looked like because we have in fact seen them.

[Tekania]

because they think there is a difference, there isn't, its like accepting micro-continental drift, and not macro-continental drift.
its the same exact process, the only difference is how long it runs for.

False analogy.

ah no those are the formation of new genes, do you not know what genes are ? Bacteria can produce completely new genes with ease, its not hard several common mutation can produce duplicates or even completely new genes. Remember all you genes are just a sequence of 4 nucleotides bases, even changing one of these can completely alter the gene. Look up codons and transcription, a singe change can completely change the finished protein.

Changing one protein is the not the same as a whole new organ. I hate to bring up the common argument, but how do you get a functional eye through a sequence of single nucleotide changings? Anything before a fully functioning eye would be useless, or wprse than useless.

penguins, its actually easier to make a flipper from a wing than a limb.

Your inability to distinguish between flippers and fins is alarming.

Otters, swimming shrews, polar bears, and seals.
not actually otters or seals whale ancestors are extinct but they are living organisms living the exact lifestyle you believe is impossible.

Otters, shrews, and polar bears are excellent swimmers, but aren't transitions to whales. They still have perfectly functioning hind legs, whereas whales have a tail. Please show an example of a transition between a tail and hind legs that is remotely viable.

actually it does, if so called microevolution proceeds for long enough it has to produce greater changes, AKA "macro-evolution"

That's like saying if Toyota keeps making improvements on their models every year, they will eventually be building nuclear bombs. Changes in a species does not mean those changes will eventually result in a new species.

its the same as walking across the room or across the country, the mechanism is the same, all that changes is how long it occurs for.

False analogy. Microevolution is the idea that genes change. Macroevolution is the idea that those changes can eventually result in a dofference of species. I argue that irreducable complexity limits the ability of microevolution, in that microevolution cannot create certain new traits.

To use your false analogy, I can change the distance I walk every day, but I will never be able to walk from New York to San Francisco in a day.

No, initially eyes were simple light sensing tissue that could see no detail, just a difference in light intensities.... they had a use, just not the exact same use as the modern eye, because the modern eye is the result of over a billion years of small changes.

[Tekania]

We've already observed macro-evolution (Darwin's finches), so no, this is blatant bullshit.

Finches > Finches.
That's microevolution, not macroevolution.

Also, stop ignoring my posts. I love that you ask for evidence and then blatantly ignore the posts containing it.

Excuse me for not having the ability to read every post in a thread in which I am now the only one arguing one side.

(Image)

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrar ... vograms_03

(Image)

Let's start with the Limpet eye, already fully formed. It has two noticible components, light sensitive cells and nerve fibers. Which evolved first? Without one, the other is useless. Surely the whole thing didn't form in one spectacular mutation, a whole new type of cell and the nerves appearing in one change?

Those pictures of mammals are very beautiful. I should like to see the bones they based those on.

Are you honestly telling me you think nerve fibers are useless without sight? We have a shitload of nerve fibers in our own body that have absolutely nothing to do with sight..... are they all useless?

[Daburuetchi]

Why is something that 99% of the scientific community agrees on subject to so many debates?

[Gim]

Why is something that 99% of the scientific community agrees on subject to so many debates?

Mostly, because of some philosophy major not knowing how to debate in a scientific manner. He kept insisting we debate using syllogisms and premises: Deductive reasoning, that is.

[Mega City 5]

One of you had posted somewhere in this thread about arguments from lack of evidence. I'd like to take this up again:

1. If A murdered B with a rusty spoon, then A would probably have blood all over him.
2. A does not have blood all over him.
3. It is less likely that A murdered B.

I grant that, in this case, the lack of evidence constitutes some degree of evidence for the non-commission of the crime by A.

Note, however, that the lack or absense of evidence did not constitute the major premise of the syllogism. It constituted the minor premise.

In order for absense of evidence to function evidentially, you have to tell me a very specific story about the kinds of evidence that you would expect to find if some given proposition were true. Your major premise has to take the form of a conditional: "If it is the case that A, then B [here, indicate a piece of expected evidence.]"

It is only then that the absense of evidence can take the place of the minor premise and bring about the desired conclusion.

[In fact, the cliche line "one cannot prove a negative" springs to mind. Of course you can prove a negative. This is what a reductio ad absurdum argument is all about.]

Unless such a major premise (i.e., a conditional statement indicating the kind of expected evidence) is present, then it is fallacious to appeal to a lack of evidence.

Thus, if the question is whether or not there are forms of cognition which are not tied down to the body, absense of evidence is a fallacious argument unless you can tell me about what kind of evidence you would expect if it were true.

Again, if the question is whether or not God miraculously created man from the slime of the earth, absense of evidence is a fallacious argument unless you can tell me about what kind of evidence you would expect if it were true.

And note, at that point, if you are making a negative claim (i.e., that God did not make man from the slime of the earth, or that there are no such forms of cognition), all that I have to do is defeat your conditionals. I merely have to show that the evidence that you would expect need not be present.

[Mega City 5]

Mostly, because of some philosophy major not knowing how to debate in a scientific manner. He kept insisting we debate using syllogisms and premises: Deductive reasoning, that is.

All forms of valid reasoning, inductive or deductive, take the form of syllogisms. If you can't syllogize it, then it's not proof of any kind. Period.

[Mega City 5]

Thoughts are a product of chemical reactions in the brain and the cells die without a supply of oxygen.

How would you prove that?

And I have a contrary proof.

Let us grant that thoughts are a product of chemical reactions in the brain.
If this were the case, then the cause of thought is a certain kind of chemical reaction.
If this were the case, then chemical reactions outside of the brain would think.
In point of fact, chemical reactions outside of the brain do not think.
Therefore, thoughts are not the product of chemical reactions in the brain.

[Mega City 5]

Cognition is shown by neuronal and axonal activity in the brain; it's not entirely incorporeal.

This doesn't follow. My intention to turn right is shown by or signaled by a little flashing light on the back of my car.

It does not follow that my intention to turn right is reducible to or caused by a little flashing light on the back of my car.

[Geilinor]

Thoughts are a product of chemical reactions in the brain and the cells die without a supply of oxygen.

How would you prove that?

And I have a contrary proof.

Let us grant that thoughts are a product of chemical reactions in the brain.
If this were the case, then the cause of thought is a certain kind of chemical reaction.
If this were the case, then chemical reactions outside of the brain would think.
In point of fact, chemical reactions outside of the brain do not think.
Therefore, thoughts are not the product of chemical reactions in the brain.

Cells outside the brain aren't brain cells.