Printable Version of Topic
-Antievolution.org Discussion Board
+--Forum: After the Bar Closes...
+---Topic: Southstar's thread started by Woodbine
Posted by: Woodbine on Nov. 08 2011,06:46
This thread is for Southstar/Martina.
She has "some naging questions to which i can't find answers. regarding the mecanics of evolution theory."
Over to you Southstar/Martina.
I, Woodbine, am in no way responsible for how this thread turns out. I just opened it. It's not mine. In fact it has nothing to do with me. Quick look over there - a shiny thing!
Posted by: Southstar on Nov. 08 2011,07:05
Quote (Woodbine @ Nov. 08 2011,06:46) | This thread is for Southstar/Martina.
She has "some naging questions to which i can't find answers. regarding the mecanics of evolution theory."
Over to you Southstar/Martina.
I, Woodbine, am in no way responsible for how this thread turns out. I just opened it. It's not mine. In fact it has nothing to do with me. Quick look over there - a shiny thing! ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Thanks
My brother is getting sucked into the evil sect of creationist people who for some wild reason that is above mindboggeling suggest that evolution is just a theory an bla bla bla.
So I wrote up in one of their forums on evolution and began shining some light on their very dim wits. It was all fine and dandy and I was about to prove that their whole idea was rubish when the called in their version of Darth Maul.
Now see I'm not a biologist and my knowlege of genetics is very superficial.
That said: I had posted a study regarding mutation rates in humans. The study quoted in the talkorigins archive (Nachman, M. W. and S. L. Crowell. 2000. Estimate of the mutation rate per nucleotide in humans. Genetics 156(1): 297-304). was a bit outdated a new study Roach JC, Glusman G, Smit AFA, Huff CD, Hubley R, Shannon PT, Rowen L, Pant KP, Goodman N, Bamshad M, et al. 2010. Analysis of Genetic Inheritance in a Family Quartet by Whole-Genome Sequencing. Science [Internet] 328:636–639. Available from: < http://dx.doi.org/10.1126....186802) > finds that the amount of mutations is about half of the previous study. This new study does create quite an imbaresment for the evolution theory, and creates havok in the timeline.
Any ideas on how I could get out of this
I have other questions but let's take one at a time
Thanks for your help!! Marty
Posted by: Woodbine on Nov. 08 2011,07:39
I'm afraid I can't help you.
Why not post a link to the thread you mentioned? That seems like the best idea.
Posted by: Southstar on Nov. 08 2011,07:46
Quote (Woodbine @ Nov. 08 2011,07:39) | I'm afraid I can't help you.
Why not post a link to the thread you mentioned? That seems like the best idea. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
It's in italian, I live in italy. So you might say well why not ask in some italian forum, well mainly cause I've been "fighting" with the stuff from talk origins and I thought that you guys might be more directly acquainted with it.
While I wait perhaps for a responce for my first question. Here's my second.
Is there any direct evidence that microevolution leads to macroevolution. Feel free to quote studies.
Marty.
Posted by: Woodbine on Nov. 08 2011,07:50
A foreign language is hardly the barrier it once was I'm sure you'll agree.
Please post the link.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Nov. 08 2011,07:53
Your DOI isn't found.
Without the article, then I can't help too much, but I can say a few general things.
The mutation rates in different parts of the genome vary wildly. For example, the membrane proteins in mitochondria would rarely mutate, because any mutation that changed the function would probably kill the organism.
On the other hand, the mutation rate in the immune system, at certain times, is exceptionally high, while the system randomly tries to find a way to latch onto your latest flu.
So, I would take any of these kinds of studies with a serious grain of salt. What genes were they studying?
One thing to remember when arguing with creationists is not to get into the trap of answering every single detail that they bring up. You will run into something no one knows about yet and then they will say "Yeah, see".
What you also need to do is demand that they provide the same level of detail that they demand of you for their own notions.
For example, in terms of genetics, you could ask exactly how (i.e. what mechanism did the designer use) to create the 673 HLA-A alleles from a maximum of 10 alleles (Noah, his wife, and the daughter-in-laws) in less than 6000 years. That would require a mutation rate so high that the entire population would be one big tumor.
Of course, they will explain it away with magic, but the more you require them to explain things away with magic, the more that others will see its really not an explanation.
The point is, don't let them set the pace. Evolution is a very, very powerful tool and it simply works. Industry uses principles of evolution to make a profit... not creationism. Businesses from financial markets to factories use evolutionary principles every day... not creationist principles. Evolutionary principles have developed processes and products that humans could not have, even (in at least one case) a product that humans still don't know how it actually works... yet it does. (Neatly avoiding the potential attack of 'frontloading'.)
Evolution is used to predict where to find cancer treatments and improve agriculture. Evolutionary principles have saved millions of lives. Creationism has not (at least in any actual double blind studies).
They can say all they want, it doesn't change reality.
Hope that helps.
Posted by: Southstar on Nov. 08 2011,08:01
< http://www.sciencemag.org/content....636 >
Sorry this is the correct link to the study
Posted by: OgreMkV on Nov. 08 2011,08:03
Quote (Southstar @ Nov. 08 2011,07:46) | Quote (Woodbine @ Nov. 08 2011,07:39) | I'm afraid I can't help you.
Why not post a link to the thread you mentioned? That seems like the best idea. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
It's in italian, I live in italy. So you might say well why not ask in some italian forum, well mainly cause I've been "fighting" with the stuff from talk origins and I thought that you guys might be more directly acquainted with it.
While I wait perhaps for a responce for my first question. Here's my second.
Is there any direct evidence that microevolution leads to macroevolution. Feel free to quote studies.
Marty. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
First, I would say that there is no such thing as microevolution and macroevolution.
In reality, we shouldn't expect to see macroevolution actually happening. There is a study that showed a plant mutation resulting the offspring being in an entirely new genus. I'll have to get back to the house, it's on my drive there.
But, again, only creationists demand something like this that is just not a requirement of evolution.
It all comes down to the artificial system of taxonomy that we use today.
It can take millions of years for a population to change at the level of the species. For example, in spite of the massive morphology changes in dogs, they are all still dogs. And we've only been breeding them for a few thousand years. When will they become 'not dogs'?
Who knows?
This post might help a little: < Post on orders in forestaro's thread >
I've also got a series of blog articles that you might find useful: < Cassandra's Tears >
They are mainly written for the high school level student, but there are generally a lot of references. I've also specifically talked about macroevolution a couple of times. You might also read the chapter summaries from Neil Shubin's Your Inner Fish which is all about how we know that common ancestry does exist. It's quite enlightening and should serve you well.
Posted by: Woodbine on Nov. 08 2011,08:05
Southstar could you post a link to the Italian forum you mentioned?
Thanks.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Nov. 08 2011,08:07
Quote (Southstar @ Nov. 08 2011,08:01) | < http://www.sciencemag.org/content........636 >
Sorry this is the correct link to the study ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I don't know... the 1.1 x 10^-8 seems right in line with other studies,
< Rates of Spontaneous Mutation >
---------------------QUOTE------------------- Homo sapiens: The human data are less reliable than the C. elegans, Drosophila and mouse data. A number of dominant-mutation rates have been inferred from the frequency of affected children of normal parents, and sometimes confirmed by equilibrium estimates for those dominants with severe effects. These values range from 10-4 to 10-6, with a rough average of 10-5 (VOGEL and MOTULSKY 1997 Down). For genes of size 103 b, this corresponds to a rate of 10-8 per b per generation. An estimate based on specific changes in the hemoglobin molecule gave 0.74 x 10-8 per b per generation (VOGEL and MOTULSKY 1997 Down), but this is clearly an underestimate because other kinds of changes are not included. A third, quite independent estimate is based on rates of evolution of pseudogenes in human ancestry, which are likely to be identical to mutation rates (KIMURA 1983A Down). This gives about 2 x 10-8 per b per generation (CROW 1993 Down, CROW 1995 Down). We shall take 10-8 as a representative value. However, because the overwhelming majority of human mutations occur in males (see below), the male rate must be about twice the average rate, or 2 x 10-8. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Posted by: Occam's Toothbrush on Nov. 08 2011,08:18
Obvious troll is obvious, why waste your time? I've seen this act a hundred times on this board alone.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Nov. 08 2011,08:19
Quote (Occam's Toothbrush @ Nov. 08 2011,09:18) | Obvious troll is obvious, why waste your time? I've seen this act a hundred times on this board alone. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
birds of a feather, and all that
Posted by: Woodbine on Nov. 08 2011,08:27
Martina, perché non si collega al forum Italiano?
Siete ritardati?
Posted by: OgreMkV on Nov. 08 2011,08:33
Two chew toys!?!?!? Wow, this is awesome.
Sorry, I'm a very trusting person.
Posted by: Dr.GH on Nov. 08 2011,08:51
Quote (Southstar @ Nov. 08 2011,05:46) | Is there any direct evidence that microevolution leads to macroevolution. Feel free to quote studies.
Marty. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
"Macro-evolution" really boils down the emergence of new species from old ones.
The answer is "YES."
I have compiled a list of dozens of speciation events that is handy when creationists claim that there are none.
< "Emergence of new species." >
Posted by: Southstar on Nov. 08 2011,09:00
Quote (Woodbine @ Nov. 08 2011,08:05) | Southstar could you post a link to the Italian forum you mentioned?
Thanks. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Here is the link < http://freeforumzone.leonardo.it/discuss....775&p=9 >
If you need some translating let me know.
There is mainly alot of rubish that I can handle the posts by Ioseb-Bassebet however are the ones that are giving me hassels. He works in a lab and has a degree in something or other (how the hell did he get it?!! mysteries of italy)
My posts are Southstar87
Marty
Posted by: Southstar on Nov. 08 2011,09:06
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 08 2011,08:07) | Quote (Southstar @ Nov. 08 2011,08:01) | < http://www.sciencemag.org/content........636 >
Sorry this is the correct link to the study ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I don't know... the 1.1 x 10^-8 seems right in line with other studies,
< Rates of Spontaneous Mutation >
---------------------QUOTE------------------- Homo sapiens: The human data are less reliable than the C. elegans, Drosophila and mouse data. A number of dominant-mutation rates have been inferred from the frequency of affected children of normal parents, and sometimes confirmed by equilibrium estimates for those dominants with severe effects. These values range from 10-4 to 10-6, with a rough average of 10-5 (VOGEL and MOTULSKY 1997 Down). For genes of size 103 b, this corresponds to a rate of 10-8 per b per generation. An estimate based on specific changes in the hemoglobin molecule gave 0.74 x 10-8 per b per generation (VOGEL and MOTULSKY 1997 Down), but this is clearly an underestimate because other kinds of changes are not included. A third, quite independent estimate is based on rates of evolution of pseudogenes in human ancestry, which are likely to be identical to mutation rates (KIMURA 1983A Down). This gives about 2 x 10-8 per b per generation (CROW 1993 Down, CROW 1995 Down). We shall take 10-8 as a representative value. However, because the overwhelming majority of human mutations occur in males (see below), the male rate must be about twice the average rate, or 2 x 10-8. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Doesn't this push back the common descent with chimps to about 12 million years? An therfore makes it not in line with fossile evidence.
As described here: < http://johnhawks.net/weblog....10.html >
Thanks Marty
Posted by: Dr.GH on Nov. 08 2011,09:08
Quote (Southstar @ Nov. 08 2011,06:01) | < http://www.sciencemag.org/content........636 >
Sorry this is the correct link to the study ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
This is the "money quote" on mutation rates from the cited article;
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Although both the observed transition-to-transversion ratio and the proportion of CpG mutations in our data match predictions, our estimated human mutation rate is lower than previous estimates, the most widely cited of which is 2.5 × 10^-8 per generation (10) based on three parameters: a human-chimpanzee nucleotide divergence per site (Kt) of 0.013, a species divergence time of 5 million years ago, and an ancestral effective population size of 10,000. More recent estimates indicate a nucleotide divergence of 0.012 (9), species divergence time between 6 and 7 million years ago (11–15), and ancestral effective population size between 40,000 and 148,000 (16–19). With these parameter ranges and a generation length of 15 to 25 years, the mutation rate estimate is between 7.6 × 10^-9 and 2.2 × 10^-8 per generation, which is consistent with our intergenerational estimate of 1.1 × 10^-8. Our estimate is within 1 SD of an earlier estimate of 1.7 × 10^-8 (SD of 9 × 10^-9) based on 20 disease-causing loci (20). The rate we report is for autosomes and should be substantially lower than that of the Y chromosome because in the male germ line, more cell divisions occur per generation. Although our rate differs approximately as expected from the recently reported estimate of 3.0 × 10^-8 (95% CI, 8.9 × 10^-9 to 7.0 × 10^-8) for the Y chromosome, this difference is not significant (21). ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Nov. 08 2011,09:23
Quote (Southstar @ Nov. 08 2011,09:06) | Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 08 2011,08:07) | Quote (Southstar @ Nov. 08 2011,08:01) | < http://www.sciencemag.org/content........636 >
Sorry this is the correct link to the study ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I don't know... the 1.1 x 10^-8 seems right in line with other studies,
< Rates of Spontaneous Mutation >
---------------------QUOTE------------------- Homo sapiens: The human data are less reliable than the C. elegans, Drosophila and mouse data. A number of dominant-mutation rates have been inferred from the frequency of affected children of normal parents, and sometimes confirmed by equilibrium estimates for those dominants with severe effects. These values range from 10-4 to 10-6, with a rough average of 10-5 (VOGEL and MOTULSKY 1997 Down). For genes of size 103 b, this corresponds to a rate of 10-8 per b per generation. An estimate based on specific changes in the hemoglobin molecule gave 0.74 x 10-8 per b per generation (VOGEL and MOTULSKY 1997 Down), but this is clearly an underestimate because other kinds of changes are not included. A third, quite independent estimate is based on rates of evolution of pseudogenes in human ancestry, which are likely to be identical to mutation rates (KIMURA 1983A Down). This gives about 2 x 10-8 per b per generation (CROW 1993 Down, CROW 1995 Down). We shall take 10-8 as a representative value. However, because the overwhelming majority of human mutations occur in males (see below), the male rate must be about twice the average rate, or 2 x 10-8. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Doesn't this push back the common descent with chimps to about 12 million years? An therfore makes it not in line with fossile evidence.
As described here: < http://johnhawks.net/weblog.....10.html >
Thanks Marty ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
1) I have no clue, as far as I'm aware, the fossil record of chimpanzees is very, very spotty.
2) It doesn't matter, it's still longer than the creationist timeline anyway. Remember, if your arguing with creationists, your job shouldn't be to defend science. It should be to show them how wrong they are in every particular.
Of course science can be wrong. On the other hand, science corrects itself and (to my knowledge) no creationist has ever corrected mistaken science. All the great hoaxes that creationists point to... corrected by science, not creationists.
Posted by: Southstar on Nov. 08 2011,09:24
Quote (Woodbine @ Nov. 08 2011,08:27) | Martina, perché non si collega al forum Italiano?
Siete ritardati? ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
As I explained, 1) i was drawing from talk origins site 2) i tried looking for an italian site but could find it although I admit I didn't look very hard 3) I'm south African so I think in english, reading technical terms for me is easier in english rather than italian.
Cheers Marty
Posted by: Woodbine on Nov. 08 2011,09:38
Quote (Southstar @ Nov. 08 2011,15:24) | Quote (Woodbine @ Nov. 08 2011,08:27) | Martina, perché non si collega al forum Italiano?
Siete ritardati? ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
As I explained, 1) i was drawing from talk origins site 2) i tried looking for an italian site but could find it although I admit I didn't look very hard 3) I'm south African so I think in english, reading technical terms for me is easier in english rather than italian.
Cheers Marty ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Let me explain.
You came into the forum looking very much like a typical Creationist/ID troll.
I did not believe you were who you said you were, hence the attitude. (Itchy trigger finger, you see.)
If you are legitimate you have my apologies.
One question, though; how did you find AtBC?
Posted by: George on Nov. 08 2011,09:40
Quote (Southstar @ Nov. 08 2011,09:00) | Quote (Woodbine @ Nov. 08 2011,08:05) | Southstar could you post a link to the Italian forum you mentioned?
Thanks. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Here is the link < http://freeforumzone.leonardo.it/discuss....775&p=9 >
If you need some translating let me know.
There is mainly alot of rubish that I can handle the posts by Ioseb-Bassebet however are the ones that are giving me hassels. He works in a lab and has a degree in something or other (how the hell did he get it?!! mysteries of italy)
My posts are Southstar87
Marty ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I speak no Italian, but I had a quick peek over there and noted that one of Ioseb-Bassebet's posts totaled 6731 words.
He didn't use any phrases like "oil-soaked strawman sprinkled with red herrings" did he?
Posted by: OgreMkV on Nov. 08 2011,09:46
Quote (George @ Nov. 08 2011,09:40) | Quote (Southstar @ Nov. 08 2011,09:00) | Quote (Woodbine @ Nov. 08 2011,08:05) | Southstar could you post a link to the Italian forum you mentioned?
Thanks. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Here is the link < http://freeforumzone.leonardo.it/discuss....775&p=9 >
If you need some translating let me know.
There is mainly alot of rubish that I can handle the posts by Ioseb-Bassebet however are the ones that are giving me hassels. He works in a lab and has a degree in something or other (how the hell did he get it?!! mysteries of italy)
My posts are Southstar87
Marty ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I speak no Italian, but I had a quick peek over there and noted that one of Ioseb-Bassebet's posts totaled 6731 words.
He didn't use any phrases like "oil-soaked strawman sprinkled with red herrings" did he? ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
It's common stripe of creationist.
If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, bury them in bullshit.
Posted by: Woodbine on Nov. 08 2011,09:50
I think 'dispensa' is their version of Batsh^t77.
---------------------QUOTE------------------- The Piltdown Chicken: The Archaeopteryx ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Which, to be fair, is quite funny .
Posted by: Southstar on Nov. 08 2011,09:51
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 08 2011,09:46) | Quote (George @ Nov. 08 2011,09:40) | Quote (Southstar @ Nov. 08 2011,09:00) | Quote (Woodbine @ Nov. 08 2011,08:05) | Southstar could you post a link to the Italian forum you mentioned?
Thanks. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Here is the link < http://freeforumzone.leonardo.it/discuss....775&p=9 >
If you need some translating let me know.
There is mainly alot of rubish that I can handle the posts by Ioseb-Bassebet however are the ones that are giving me hassels. He works in a lab and has a degree in something or other (how the hell did he get it?!! mysteries of italy)
My posts are Southstar87
Marty ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I speak no Italian, but I had a quick peek over there and noted that one of Ioseb-Bassebet's posts totaled 6731 words.
He didn't use any phrases like "oil-soaked strawman sprinkled with red herrings" did he? ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
It's common stripe of creationist.
If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, bury them in bullshit. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Yes i'm quite sure he's attempting the "bury them with bullshit" strategy. Unfortunaly my knowlege of molecular biology is not suffiscient to fight back on even grounds.
I thought I'd ask a list of basic claims he could make against evolution.
That way I could take hime down one at a time.
Thanks guys your all great! Marty
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Nov. 08 2011,10:02
maybe ioseb-whatsis is GoP too
Posted by: OgreMkV on Nov. 08 2011,10:08
Quote (Southstar @ Nov. 08 2011,09:51) | Yes i'm quite sure he's attempting the "bury them with bullshit" strategy. Unfortunaly my knowlege of molecular biology is not suffiscient to fight back on even grounds.
I thought I'd ask a list of basic claims he could make against evolution.
That way I could take hime down one at a time.
Thanks guys your all great! Marty ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Remember, the science is well understood.
They MUST support their position. That is all. Remind them and keep reminding them that
"Even if they totally discredit evolution, right now... it still doesn't mean creationism or anything else is correct. Only positive supporting evidence will do that." Then ask them where their positive supporting evidence is. Ask what their research program is. Ask what products their stripe of creationism has produced.
I predict you will be banned in no time.
Then just tell your friend that they obviously can't handle real discussion, therefore you must assume that they have nothing.
Posted by: fnxtr on Nov. 08 2011,10:54
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 08 2011,08:08) | Quote (Southstar @ Nov. 08 2011,09:51) | Yes i'm quite sure he's attempting the "bury them with bullshit" strategy. Unfortunaly my knowlege of molecular biology is not suffiscient to fight back on even grounds.
I thought I'd ask a list of basic claims he could make against evolution.
That way I could take hime down one at a time.
Thanks guys your all great! Marty ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Remember, the science is well understood.
They MUST support their position. That is all. Remind them and keep reminding them that
"Even if they totally discredit evolution, right now... it still doesn't mean creationism or anything else is correct. Only positive supporting evidence will do that." Then ask them where their positive supporting evidence is. Ask what their research program is. Ask what products their stripe of creationism has produced.
I predict you will be banned in no time.
Then just tell your friend that they obviously can't handle real discussion, therefore you must assume that they have nothing. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I've always liked that approach.
"The Beagle went down with all hands, two days out of port. No survivors. Origins was never published. There's no scientific theory of speciation. Your go, but remember: it has to explain all the data, be testable and repeatable by anyone, anywhere, and make verifiable predictions, backed by positive evidence."
Posted by: Southstar on Nov. 08 2011,11:39
Quote (Dr.GH @ Nov. 08 2011,08:51) | Quote (Southstar @ Nov. 08 2011,05:46) | Is there any direct evidence that microevolution leads to macroevolution. Feel free to quote studies.
Marty. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
"Macro-evolution" really boils down the emergence of new species from old ones.
The answer is "YES."
I have compiled a list of dozens of speciation events that is handy when creationists claim that there are none.
< "Emergence of new species." > ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Hi,
Concerning you first example. The italian Sparrow, it derives from a hybridization of two other spieces.
To be a good point should it derive form internal mutation and not hybridization?
I'm shure that if I post it someone will come up with: well dogs have been crosed alot of times and obviuosly their jeans are mixed?
This might sound like a realy stupid question to you but please bear in mind that last time I looked at genetics was at school 8 years ago.
Thanks Marty
Posted by: Southstar on Nov. 08 2011,11:59
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 08 2011,10:08) | Quote (Southstar @ Nov. 08 2011,09:51) | Yes i'm quite sure he's attempting the "bury them with bullshit" strategy. Unfortunaly my knowlege of molecular biology is not suffiscient to fight back on even grounds.
I thought I'd ask a list of basic claims he could make against evolution.
That way I could take hime down one at a time.
Thanks guys your all great! Marty ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Remember, the science is well understood.
They MUST support their position. That is all. Remind them and keep reminding them that
"Even if they totally discredit evolution, right now... it still doesn't mean creationism or anything else is correct. Only positive supporting evidence will do that." Then ask them where their positive supporting evidence is. Ask what their research program is. Ask what products their stripe of creationism has produced.
I predict you will be banned in no time.
Then just tell your friend that they obviously can't handle real discussion, therefore you must assume that they have nothing. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Hi,
Yes I expect to be banned soon, however since alot of people are begining to think somethings up. I expect they need to beat me up first.
Marty
Posted by: Southstar on Nov. 08 2011,12:10
Quote (Woodbine @ Nov. 08 2011,09:38) | Let me explain.
You came into the forum looking very much like a typical Creationist/ID troll.
I did not believe you were who you said you were, hence the attitude. (Itchy trigger finger, you see.)
If you are legitimate you have my apologies.
One question, though; how did you find AtBC? ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Hi,
Well as I explained I was using the Talkorigins.org website as the major inspirational tool. But Alas, some things weren't very clear, (I stopped taking Biology in standard 7). So the postes I made came increasingly under attack by some that were apparently at least more knowelgble than I. So I needed some help. There is a link on the site to a forum Panda's thumb. From there I got here. :)
Cheers Marty
Posted by: Dr.GH on Nov. 08 2011,12:13
Well the entire "molecular clock" notion is always going to be merely supplemental to real fossils, and real geology.
I am either amused, or irritated (depending on the weather = fishing conditions) when people treat these genetic "ages" as if they were real.
To quote Lewis Black to creationists,
< "We have the fossils!" >
Here is another fun one;
< Dara O'Brian >
Posted by: OgreMkV on Nov. 08 2011,12:19
Quote (Southstar @ Nov. 08 2011,11:59) | Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 08 2011,10:08) | Quote (Southstar @ Nov. 08 2011,09:51) | Yes i'm quite sure he's attempting the "bury them with bullshit" strategy. Unfortunaly my knowlege of molecular biology is not suffiscient to fight back on even grounds.
I thought I'd ask a list of basic claims he could make against evolution.
That way I could take hime down one at a time.
Thanks guys your all great! Marty ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Remember, the science is well understood.
They MUST support their position. That is all. Remind them and keep reminding them that
"Even if they totally discredit evolution, right now... it still doesn't mean creationism or anything else is correct. Only positive supporting evidence will do that." Then ask them where their positive supporting evidence is. Ask what their research program is. Ask what products their stripe of creationism has produced.
I predict you will be banned in no time.
Then just tell your friend that they obviously can't handle real discussion, therefore you must assume that they have nothing. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Hi,
Yes I expect to be banned soon, however since alot of people are begining to think somethings up. I expect they need to beat me up first.
Marty ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Just remember... offense is the best defense.
The science is decided. There are no legitimate scientists on the other side of the fence. Not really.
Demand that they give you all the details you are demanding from them.
HLA-A alleles are a good start. Read about them here: < http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki....-A >
If everyone says, "That's OK, that's just microevolution." Then introduce them to the concept of clines (ring species): < http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki....species >
Brief summary: A ring species (or cline) is when you have a series of very closely related species that share some (usually geographical) thing between only two members of the ring.
Say moving from North to South, you have
A - B - C - D - E - F - G - H
Now A and B can interbreed. A and C can interbreed. B can interbreed with A, C, and D. C can interbreed with A,B,D and E.
But none of A, B, or C can interbreed with G or H. Yet H can interbreed with F, which can interbreed with D, which can interbreed with B.
The entire point is that A and H are totally not the same species. Without B--G, then A and H might even be different genuses. But with B--G, where can we draw the line between species?
We can't, in a simple and easy manner, which is about all the creationists can handle.
Life is squishy. It's not cut and dried like physics or chemistry. And a lot of the things that we hold to be true are just made up artifacts and do not always correctly represent reality.
Posted by: Dr.GH on Nov. 08 2011,12:23
Quote (Southstar @ Nov. 08 2011,09:39) | Hi,
Concerning you first example. The italian Sparrow, it derives from a hybridization of two other spieces.
To be a good point should it derive form internal mutation and not hybridization?
I'm shure that if I post it someone will come up with: well dogs have been crosed alot of times and obviuosly their jeans are mixed?
This might sound like a realy stupid question to you but please bear in mind that last time I looked at genetics was at school 8 years ago.
Thanks Marty ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Why should hybrids be excluded? They are merely a way of combining genes, and gene variants. When this results in a self reproducing population with restricted out-breeding, it is 'macroevolution."
If creationshits start redefining "species," "evolution," and what ever else shows them to be fools, just bust them on their inconsistency.
But, there were dozens of other examples, use them if you prefer.
Posted by: Henry J on Nov. 08 2011,12:58
One could also point out that the validity of the theory doesn't depend on direct observation of speciation. As I understand it, that's usually a slow process, in which as two populations diverge the ability to interbreed declines, perhaps slowly.
But, the theory does imply patterns that should be consistently observed if it's correct (or at least a close approximation), but that would not be expected in combination otherwise. The main pattern here is the the matching nested hierarchies constructed from multiple traits or DNA segments. (Ironically, hybridization causes an exception to the nested hierarchy thing.)
Posted by: Southstar on Nov. 08 2011,13:41
Quote (Dr.GH @ Nov. 08 2011,12:13) | < Dara O'Brian > ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Hi,
God I could stop laughing at this, I sat all during supper gigeling like an idiot!
Thanks It was worth it just for this!
Marty
Posted by: Southstar on Nov. 08 2011,14:05
Quote (Southstar @ Nov. 08 2011,13:41) | ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Okay,
One thing that I keep getting back is that fossils that are found are placed in species according to whim of whoever finds the fossil. Now I really can't imagine it going on a whim.. Is there a fixed protocol, or some sort of methodical proof that a fossil belongs to one spieces or another. In some cases only a tooth is found or part of a jaw bone or whatever.
The main example they throw out is well you see the fossils you find are all extinct apes except for Neaderthals they were human.
The main argument I throw out against this is that "I presume" that DNA studies are carried out on the bones and those give proof of who they belong too. But DNA decays over time so how do you go about to prove that let's say a dolphin was once a Basilosaurus.
Any ideas on this Marty
Posted by: OgreMkV on Nov. 08 2011,15:01
Quote (Southstar @ Nov. 08 2011,14:05) | [quote=Southstar,Nov. 08 2011,13:41][/quote] Okay,
One thing that I keep getting back is that fossils that are found are placed in species according to whim of whoever finds the fossil. Now I really can't imagine it going on a whim.. Is there a fixed protocol, or some sort of methodical proof that a fossil belongs to one spieces or another. In some cases only a tooth is found or part of a jaw bone or whatever.
The main example they throw out is well you see the fossils you find are all extinct apes except for Neaderthals they were human.
The main argument I throw out against this is that "I presume" that DNA studies are carried out on the bones and those give proof of who they belong too. But DNA decays over time so how do you go about to prove that let's say a dolphin was once a Basilosaurus.
Any ideas on this Marty ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Well, you can't say that the fossil was once an ancestor of a modern species. That's impossible, but it's also not required for science. The creationists often demand this because they know it's impossible (or they actually think it's required).
That's not what transitional means. Transitional means it has some characters of past species and some characters of future species.
No one thinks that Archeopteryx was the ancestor of all birds. Nor does it exist between dinosaurs and birds. But (using talk.origins archives) when you compare characters, the Archeopteryx has mostly dinosaur characters and only a few bird characters.
Like, read about Tiktaalik. In this case Shubin knew what he wanted to find. He knew the characteristics it had to have... which defines in what environment is had to live. He also had a time range in which it should have existed. He was able to look for rock layers of the appropriate age and type and in only a few years found Tiktaalik.
The creationists might say that Tiktaalik is not transitional because it's the wrong age. That is incorrect. Transitional is about characters (location of holes in bones, numbers of bones, kinds of teeth, even patterns in shells) not time or direct ancestry.
Your dad is transitional between you and your grandparents. But also, your dad is transitional between you and your uncle. Your grandfather is transitional between you and your cousins. Transitional has nothing to do with time. You can look up the definitions of transitional and post those if they think otherwise.
You might also take a look at the evolution of whales on wiki and the testimony of Kevin Paidan in the Kitzmiller trial (on talk.origins). He describes in pretty good detail about the transitionals. It's not just the nose, or the forelimbs, or the hind limbs, or the vertebrae, it's all of them taken together.
That's the one thing that creationists also can't deal with. The volume of information on science. They can't grasp that we aren't just making these supposed links between fossils based on one thing. For whales, for example, we have hundreds of fossils, we have genetic studies, we have biogeographical studies, chemistry (the Oxygen isotope ratio in bones is different for marine creatures than land creatures). So their explanation has to deal with all of that.
Keep asking. "Well, explain how you think it happened. Why do you think so? What evidence supports your opinion?"
As far as the teeth. It's all about expertise. You can't just hand a tooth to anyone and they can say, "that's a new species". The people who are making these determinations are experts in their field. They have been studying their chosen subject for decades. I can watch a movie and tell you the make, model number, number of rounds, and range of about any firearm in the movie, just from a glance. I've been studying firearms for decades. I can't look at a shark tooth and tell you what kind it is from, but I know that there are people that can.
That's all it is. When the scientists propose a new species, it undergoes some intense scrutiny. It's not "Hey, I found a new species." It's "I think I found a new species and here's my evidence why. What do you think?"
Posted by: Cubist on Nov. 08 2011,15:22
Quote (Southstar @ Nov. 08 2011,07:05) | My brother is getting sucked into the evil sect of creationist people who for some wild reason that is above mindboggeling suggest that evolution is just a theory an bla bla bla. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Well, evolution is "just a theory". The thing is, saying that evolution is "just a theory" is kind of like saying that Bill Gates is "just a multibillionaire" -- it's nothing more than a rhetorical flourish intended to cast unwarranted doubt upon its subject. Creationists who say evolution is "just a theory" are counting on their listeners to understand that statement as using the common vernacular meaning of 'theory', which is basically 'a wild guess', never mind the fact that in the context of science, a 'theory' is a well-tested idea that successfully explains a whole lot of data.
Quote (Southstar @ Nov. 08 2011,07:46) | Is there any direct evidence that microevolution leads to macroevolution. Feel free to quote studies. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
What's going to stop 'microevolution' from leading to 'macroevolution'? Arguing that the former doesn't lead to the latter, is very much like saying that yes, you can walk 5 steps, but it's clearly impossible to walk 5,000,000 steps. Demand details. Where's the barrier that prevents microevolution from leading to macroevolution? How does this alleged barrier prevent new mutations from occuring? Also: Since this is a Creationist question, ask your Creationist 'friends' to define 'microevolution' and 'macroevolution'. It's a damn good bet that 'microevolution (as defined by Creationists)' cannot lead to 'macroevolution (as defined by Creationists)' -- but unless they're defining those terms the same way real scientists do, they're refuting a caricature of evolutionary theory, and a refutation of a caricature is a caricature of a refutation. So ask your Creationist 'friends' what they mean by 'microevolution' and 'macroevolution'. Be sure to point out how and where their definitions differ from the definitions used by real scientists. And if their definitions contain vague/undefined terms, demand that they define those vague terms. If they say "macroevolution is a change from one kind to another", ask them what a 'kind' is, and how the heck you can even tell which 'kind' an arbitrary critter belongs to.
Quote (Southstar @ Nov. 08 2011,14:05) | One thing that I keep getting back is that fossils that are found are placed in species according to whim of whoever finds the fossil. ... The main example they throw out is well you see the fossils you find are all extinct apes except for Neaderthals they were human. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
If that's what they're saying about fossils, point them at the < Comparison of all skulls > page, a collection of Creationist "human or ape?" pronouncements about six different fossil specimens -- and the amusing bit is, Creationists themselves can't make up their minds which fossils are human and which are apes! This is very curious indeed. Because if the difference between 100% human!!1! and 100% ape!11! actually was as obvious/evident as Creationists assert it to be, shouldn't Creationist judgments about these specimens be 100% consistent? Alas (for Creationists...), those judgments aren't 100% consistent. For maximum hilarity, look at the cases where a Creationist has changed their mind about whether or not any given Specimen X is human or ape. PS Taylor, in a 1992 publication, asserted that both Java Man and Peking Man were 100% apes -- but he declared them both to be 100% human in a 1996 publication. Similarly, Duane Gish declared the KNM-ER 1470 (Homo habilis) specimen to be 100% human in a 1979 publication, but a 1985 Gish publication declared that specimen to be 100% ape. So... if a Creationist says "Neanderthal human, everything else ape", point out that Duane Gish says Java Man was an ape, and ask them what they know that Duane freaking Gish doesn't?
Posted by: OgreMkV on Nov. 08 2011,16:54
BTW: Southstar,
I don't want you to get your hopes up. Creationists are wedded to their beliefs. They will not change them.
The best to hope for is to instill some doubt and be able to point to them and say, "They can't deal with real science and hard questions about their own beliefs."
You might be able to influence some fence sitters, but you will not change the mind of the real creationist.
Posted by: George on Nov. 09 2011,04:45
Quote (Dr.GH @ Nov. 08 2011,12:23) | Quote (Southstar @ Nov. 08 2011,09:39) | Hi,
Concerning you first example. The italian Sparrow, it derives from a hybridization of two other spieces.
To be a good point should it derive form internal mutation and not hybridization?
I'm shure that if I post it someone will come up with: well dogs have been crosed alot of times and obviuosly their jeans are mixed?
This might sound like a realy stupid question to you but please bear in mind that last time I looked at genetics was at school 8 years ago.
Thanks Marty ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Why should hybrids be excluded? They are merely a way of combining genes, and gene variants. When this results in a self reproducing population with restricted out-breeding, it is 'macroevolution."
If creationshits start redefining "species," "evolution," and what ever else shows them to be fools, just bust them on their inconsistency.
But, there were dozens of other examples, use them if you prefer. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I've just finished reading a paper in the New Journal of Botany on the evolution and taxonomy of the narrow-leaved marsh orchid complex (within Dactylorhiza) in Britain, Ireland and the rest of Europe. These have all originated as allopolyploids of the same two diploid species in apparently four separate episodes. In other words, two species hybridise and the hybrid undergoes genome duplication, which results in instant reproductive isolation (more or less). Biogeographical and molecular evidence suggests that three species evolved after the last glacial maximum, whereas the fourth predates it. What's really interesting are the differences in ecological (habitat) preferences shown by these four species, which serves to further isolate each species from the others, setting them on separate evolutionary trajectories.
Posted by: Southstar on Nov. 09 2011,06:26
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 08 2011,16:54) | BTW: Southstar,
I don't want you to get your hopes up. Creationists are wedded to their beliefs. They will not change them.
The best to hope for is to instill some doubt and be able to point to them and say, "They can't deal with real science and hard questions about their own beliefs."
You might be able to influence some fence sitters, but you will not change the mind of the real creationist. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Hi Everyone,
First I want to thank you all for your great support! I don't have high hopes of making them change their minds after all they do have blind beliefs. But since they have thrown junk around I have prooven that it is junk and maybe it's cause I'm in italy, this site presumes that everyone is dumb and can't read english.
Now what get's my hopes up is that at least a few of them have started asking the right questions. Critical thought. And well my brother is waking up ;) What really did it, however was a quote on their stupid booklet (of which the author remains anonimus can't immagine why) quoted Richard Dawkins as stating that His work "should be taken as Sience fiction", and that therefore all scientists don't really belive in their work anyway. Well since I have most of his books I went to look it up and well it said: " THIS book should be read almost as though it were science fiction. It is designed to appeal to the imagination. But it is not science fiction: it is science. Cliche or not, ‘stranger than fiction’ expresses exactly how I feel about the truth".
Even when my brother get's out... you know what? I'm going to continue fighting so that the truth gets out there! I usually read Badastronomy.com and often wondered why Phil Plait get's so upset... Now I understand I've met them too...
Cheers Marty
Posted by: Southstar on Nov. 09 2011,06:39
Quote (George @ Nov. 09 2011,04:45) | [quote=Dr.GH,Nov. 08 2011,12:23] [quote=Southstar,Nov. 08 2011,09:39]Hi,
I've just finished reading a paper in the New Journal of Botany on the evolution and taxonomy of the narrow-leaved marsh orchid complex (within Dactylorhiza) in Britain, Ireland and the rest of Europe. These have all originated as allopolyploids of the same two diploid species in apparently four separate episodes. In other words, two species hybridise and the hybrid undergoes genome duplication, which results in instant reproductive isolation (more or less). Biogeographical and molecular evidence suggests that three species evolved after the last glacial maximum, whereas the fourth predates it. What's really interesting are the differences in ecological (habitat) preferences shown by these four species, which serves to further isolate each species from the others, setting them on separate evolutionary trajectories. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Hi,
Could you give me a link to the paper.
Thanks Marty
Posted by: k.e.. on Nov. 09 2011,06:58
Quote (George @ Nov. 08 2011,17:40) | Quote (Southstar @ Nov. 08 2011,09:00) | Quote (Woodbine @ Nov. 08 2011,08:05) | Southstar could you post a link to the Italian forum you mentioned?
Thanks. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Here is the link < http://freeforumzone.leonardo.it/discuss....775&p=9 >
If you need some translating let me know.
There is mainly alot of rubish that I can handle the posts by Ioseb-Bassebet however are the ones that are giving me hassels. He works in a lab and has a degree in something or other (how the hell did he get it?!! mysteries of italy)
My posts are Southstar87
Marty ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I speak no Italian, but I had a quick peek over there and noted that one of Ioseb-Bassebet's posts totaled 6731 words.
He didn't use any phrases like "oil-soaked strawman sprinkled with red herrings" did he? ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
MAYBE THEY DEGREASED HIS COMENTS?
oops .....caps lock error
Holy crap where do these twits come from?
One living Creo and a thousand under the woodpile.
Nature in action.
Science inaction.
TARDZ.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Nov. 09 2011,07:12
Quote (Southstar @ Nov. 09 2011,06:26) | Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 08 2011,16:54) | BTW: Southstar,
I don't want you to get your hopes up. Creationists are wedded to their beliefs. They will not change them.
The best to hope for is to instill some doubt and be able to point to them and say, "They can't deal with real science and hard questions about their own beliefs."
You might be able to influence some fence sitters, but you will not change the mind of the real creationist. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Hi Everyone,
First I want to thank you all for your great support! I don't have high hopes of making them change their minds after all they do have blind beliefs. But since they have thrown junk around I have prooven that it is junk and maybe it's cause I'm in italy, this site presumes that everyone is dumb and can't read english.
Now what get's my hopes up is that at least a few of them have started asking the right questions. Critical thought. And well my brother is waking up ;) What really did it, however was a quote on their stupid booklet (of which the author remains anonimus can't immagine why) quoted Richard Dawkins as stating that His work "should be taken as Sience fiction", and that therefore all scientists don't really belive in their work anyway. Well since I have most of his books I went to look it up and well it said: " THIS book should be read almost as though it were science fiction. It is designed to appeal to the imagination. But it is not science fiction: it is science. Cliche or not, ‘stranger than fiction’ expresses exactly how I feel about the truth".
Even when my brother get's out... you know what? I'm going to continue fighting so that the truth gets out there! I usually read Badastronomy.com and often wondered why Phil Plait get's so upset... Now I understand I've met them too...
Cheers Marty ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Ah, quotemining at it's finest (or weakest).
Congratulations and thank you for standing up to them.
Posted by: George on Nov. 09 2011,07:55
Quote (Southstar @ Nov. 09 2011,06:39) | [quote=George,Nov. 09 2011,04:45][quote=Dr.GH,Nov. 08 2011,12:23] Quote (Southstar @ Nov. 08 2011,09:39) | Hi,
I've just finished reading a paper in the New Journal of Botany on the evolution and taxonomy of the narrow-leaved marsh orchid complex (within Dactylorhiza) in Britain, Ireland and the rest of Europe. These have all originated as allopolyploids of the same two diploid species in apparently four separate episodes. In other words, two species hybridise and the hybrid undergoes genome duplication, which results in instant reproductive isolation (more or less). Biogeographical and molecular evidence suggests that three species evolved after the last glacial maximum, whereas the fourth predates it. What's really interesting are the differences in ecological (habitat) preferences shown by these four species, which serves to further isolate each species from the others, setting them on separate evolutionary trajectories. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Hi,
Could you give me a link to the paper.
Thanks Marty ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content....rt00002 > should work. If not, let me know and I'll see what I can do.
Posted by: Southstar on Nov. 09 2011,08:01
Quote (George @ Nov. 09 2011,07:55) | [quote=Southstar,Nov. 09 2011,06:39][quote=George,Nov. 09 2011,04:45] Quote (Dr.GH @ Nov. 08 2011,12:23) | Quote (Southstar @ Nov. 08 2011,09:39) | Hi,
I've just finished reading a paper in the New Journal of Botany on the evolution and taxonomy of the narrow-leaved marsh orchid complex (within Dactylorhiza) in Britain, Ireland and the rest of Europe. These have all originated as allopolyploids of the same two diploid species in apparently four separate episodes. In other words, two species hybridise and the hybrid undergoes genome duplication, which results in instant reproductive isolation (more or less). Biogeographical and molecular evidence suggests that three species evolved after the last glacial maximum, whereas the fourth predates it. What's really interesting are the differences in ecological (habitat) preferences shown by these four species, which serves to further isolate each species from the others, setting them on separate evolutionary trajectories. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Hi,
Could you give me a link to the paper.
Thanks Marty ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content....rt00002 > should work. If not, let me know and I'll see what I can do. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Hi,
I was about to post it then i read the first line of the study "This subjective and highly personal commentary critically reviews..."
They, the dims, have a thing for picking stuff like this out of even well written papers and with that saying something stupid like... See even the people writing it call it a personal whim "see she's puting out rubbish" ha ha ha. I really need to stay a step or two ahead of them.
Thanks anyway Marty
Posted by: Quack on Nov. 09 2011,10:59
Hi Marty,
I have always found the honest opinion of YEC creationist < Kurt Wise > very illuminating.
You will find it < here. > Scroll down to footnotes, or search for "Kurt Wise is".
But of course, the whole document is well worth reading. And the talkorigins archive is a great source of info.
The best of luck with your 'plight'.
Posted by: Southstar on Nov. 09 2011,12:18
Quote (Quack @ Nov. 09 2011,10:59) | ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Okay,
I have a question for me ;)
It sounds awfully stupid but maybe it isn't
At what point do you stop calling a dog a dog and start calling it something else?
Thanks Marty
Posted by: OgreMkV on Nov. 09 2011,12:38
Quote (Southstar @ Nov. 09 2011,12:18) | [quote=Quack,Nov. 09 2011,10:59][/quote] Okay,
I have a question for me ;)
It sounds awfully stupid but maybe it isn't
At what point do you stop calling a dog a dog and start calling it something else?
Thanks Marty ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
That's a REALLY good question and it all depends on how you define species.
To give you an example of the huge inconstancy in this regard, you might be familiar with Escherichia coli. It is a massively diverse species of bacteria. In fact, it's so diverse that only 20% of the DNA is common between all strains of it. {Lukjancenko, O.; Wassenaar, T.M.; Ussery, D.W. (2010). "Comparison of 61 sequenced Escherichia coli genomes". Microb Ecol. 60 (4): 708–720. doi:10.1007/s00248-010-9717-3. PMC 2974192. PMID 20623278.}
When you get to vertebrates, you could go with something like reproductive isolation, but you have to get pretty specific. Lions (Panthera leo) and tigers (Panthera tigris) are obviously different species, yet they can interbreed and produce reproductively capable offspring, which by most indicators would suggest they are the same species.
In short, life is squishy. Humans want everything to be in a category and those categories to have meaning. They don't, not really.
Wolves, dogs, and coyotes interbreed all the time. Three different species. Is the hybrid a wolf-dog or a dog-wolf?
I maintain (and I may be almost alone here), that absent the medium sized dogs, the toy dogs and working dogs should be different species. In fact, there's more diversity within dogs, than there is in all of Carnivora combined. On the other hand, most of that diversity is in a very small amount of DNA {http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2919785/}
So, really, who knows. I doubt anyone will ever be able to say, "look, this dog really isn't a dog". What will be more likely is something like "Hey, 12,000 years ago, in 1995 was the first divergence of this new species of pet from what used to be called 'dogs'."
Posted by: Cubist on Nov. 09 2011,13:05
Quote (Southstar @ Nov. 09 2011,12:18) | Okay, I have a question for me ;) It sounds awfully stupid but maybe it isn't At what point do you stop calling a dog a dog and start calling it something else? ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Not a stupid question at all. "At what point do you stop calling a dog a dog and start calling it something else?" includes, as an unstated premise, the notion that you can distinguish Dog from Not-Dog. More generally, your query hints at the larger question of < how the heck one goes about distinguishing a member-of-species-X from a not-member-of-species-X >. And (as the link to Wikipedia indicates) this is not an easy question! Since we're talking about dogs in particular, I'd say that the BSC (Biological Species Concept) -- i.e., can the critter successfully interbreed with dogs? -- is about as good a distinguishing criterion as you're likely to find. The BSC doesn't work for all living things (like those which reproduce asexually, for instance), but it's pretty good for 'standard' animals like dogs and horses and such.
Posted by: George on Nov. 09 2011,15:11
[quote=Southstar,Nov. 09 2011,08:01][quote=George,Nov. 09 2011,07:55] Quote (Southstar @ Nov. 09 2011,06:39) | Quote (George @ Nov. 09 2011,04:45) | Quote (Dr.GH @ Nov. 08 2011,12:23) | Quote (Southstar @ Nov. 08 2011,09:39) | Hi,
I've just finished reading a paper in the New Journal of Botany on the evolution and taxonomy of the narrow-leaved marsh orchid complex (within Dactylorhiza) in Britain, Ireland and the rest of Europe. These have all originated as allopolyploids of the same two diploid species in apparently four separate episodes. In other words, two species hybridise and the hybrid undergoes genome duplication, which results in instant reproductive isolation (more or less). Biogeographical and molecular evidence suggests that three species evolved after the last glacial maximum, whereas the fourth predates it. What's really interesting are the differences in ecological (habitat) preferences shown by these four species, which serves to further isolate each species from the others, setting them on separate evolutionary trajectories. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Hi,
Could you give me a link to the paper.
Thanks Marty ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content....rt00002 > should work. If not, let me know and I'll see what I can do. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Hi,
I was about to post it then i read the first line of the study "This subjective and highly personal commentary critically reviews..."
They, the dims, have a thing for picking stuff like this out of even well written papers and with that saying something stupid like... See even the people writing it call it a personal whim "see she's puting out rubbish" ha ha ha. I really need to stay a step or two ahead of them.
Thanks anyway Marty ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I understand and it's unfortunate for your purposes that he prefaces the abstract with those words. For what it's worth, there's a lot of "critical review" before he gets to the personal opinions. His review is a good summary of the methods used and issues involved in plant speciation. Very accessible to the non-molecular specialist, like me.
It also illustrates one of the reasons why the biological species concept is less useful when applied to plants than vertebrates. Another reason is the presence within some species of reproductive barriers that serve to promote outcrossing. For example, < primroses > have flowers in two forms, pin and thrum, differentiated by relative length of stamens and styles. Plants with pin flowers pollinate those with thrum flowers or vice versa. Pin to pin or thrum to thrum generally doesn't work. Are primroses one species or two under the biological species concept?
Edited for more caveatness.
Posted by: Timothy McDougald on Nov. 09 2011,19:01
Quote (Southstar @ Nov. 08 2011,14:05) | [quote=Southstar,Nov. 08 2011,13:41][/quote] Okay,
One thing that I keep getting back is that fossils that are found are placed in species according to whim of whoever finds the fossil. Now I really can't imagine it going on a whim.. Is there a fixed protocol, or some sort of methodical proof that a fossil belongs to one spieces or another. In some cases only a tooth is found or part of a jaw bone or whatever.
The main example they throw out is well you see the fossils you find are all extinct apes except for Neaderthals they were human.
The main argument I throw out against this is that "I presume" that DNA studies are carried out on the bones and those give proof of who they belong too. But DNA decays over time so how do you go about to prove that let's say a dolphin was once a Basilosaurus.
Any ideas on this Marty ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Yes, < there is a protocol which involves using comparative material. > In paleontology and paleoanthropology scientists are required to show how a proposed new species is different from other related material.
Posted by: Southstar on Nov. 10 2011,12:18
Quote (afarensis @ Nov. 09 2011,19:01) | ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Hi,
Here is a question that was posted on the site. Which I have a little of a hard time answering.
After mentioning speciation which caused wide spread panic. Obvioulsy a few of them started changing the goal post and started asking for exapmles of new families forming. I answered that you will only see them formed after they are formed and looking back you'll say well at about this time the dog became a ciuaua (which to me classifies as a different spiecis ;) )
Some asked for proof of fish turning into mice, which is great cause it would be proof against evolution if ever it was found.
But then the usual chap comes up with this:
To verify up to what point speciation can lead to macro changes you need to see how much "weight" these changes have in genetic and especially molecular terms. This you need to do in terms of measuring the amount of information that has been modified but more importantly how much information has been added.
I would answer this way: Well if it's a new species, there's got to be different information, probably non much different information but a little different it would get more different the farther away you were from the speciation event. It's the added part that I can't get..
Any ideas? Marty
Posted by: Richardthughes on Nov. 10 2011,12:20
Ask him to define 'information' and give examples of it's measurement in biology.
Posted by: Dr.GH on Nov. 10 2011,12:36
Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 10 2011,10:20) | Ask him to define 'information' and give examples of it's measurement in biology. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I agree. I would insist that the information content of a gene be calculated, and then show us how this varied between species.
The creationist demand seems to be rebutted if they cannot give a cut-off value. This reminds me of Duane Gish's bullshit about protein sequences.
What evolutionary science does instead is to show that molecular, and fossil data generate the same hierarchical trees. Some references I have at hand on whale evolution include;
Thomas A. DEMERE, Michael R. MCGOWEN, Annalisa BERTA, John GATESY 2008 “Morphological and Molecular Evidence for a Stepwise Evolutionary Transition from Teeth to Baleen in Mysticete Whales” Systematic biology, vol. 57, no1, pp. 15-37
Robert W. Meredith, John Gatesy, Joyce Cheng and Mark S. Springer 2011 “Pseudogenization of the tooth gene enamelysin (MMP20) in the common ancestor of extant baleen whales” Proc. R. Soc. B 7 April vol. 278 no. 1708: 993-1002 < http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content....bstract >
Posted by: OgreMkV on Nov. 10 2011,13:08
Thirded.
Ask them for an exact measurement process. What definition of information it's supposed to measure and how it applies to genetics.
Then, once they avoid doing that like the plague, you can hit them with a few studies that show step-wise evolution of major changes in systems.
My personal favorite is Darwinian Evolution on a Chip. < http://www.plosbiology.org/article....0060085 >
Because it shows the stepwise changes in the RNA sequence from the original product all the way through the final sequence which has a 90-fold improvement over the original.
Plus, there is an example of an early negative mutation being a prerequisite mutation for further increasing the effectiveness of the sequence.
Then, you can ask them, exactly where the designer stepped in. Dr. Joyce is still around and they can ask for the original data, including the sequences that were collected throughout the experiment... if they dared.
No, it's not a change in species, genus, or family, but only creationists have those requirements anyway.
You might read up on evolutionary developmental biology as well. I predict that the next move will be the whole "How did body plans develop".
It's in the creationist playbook.
Posted by: Henry J on Nov. 10 2011,13:10
As I understand it, speciation just means that the two populations will then accumulate changes independent of each other, i.e., evolve in different "directions".
For two subpopulations to cease regular interbreeding doesn't appear to me to require any great amount of change, and certainly doesn't require that one of them become more complex (whatever that means) than it was.
Posted by: Cubist on Nov. 10 2011,22:27
Allow me to add my voice to the chorus of not-insane people saying "Ask your Creationist buddies how they measure this 'information' stuff". You might even go further than that, by asking them to determine which of two different nucleotide sequences has more 'information' in it. Or even a series of such questions... First, a pair of arbitrary nucleotide sequences. Which sequence has more information in it?
---------------------QUOTE------------------- Nucleotide sequence 1a: aca acg gaa ttc agc acc acc cca cca tga ctg cag gtc gcg atg acc ccc tgt cgt ttg tcg atc cgt tat tgg Nucleotide sequence 1b: cga act gtc cgg tca acg ccg gga gca aac ggt taa cac tag aca gaa gca gac att cgt tgt tat tca tca tag ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Second, an arbitrary nucleotide sequence, followed by that same sequence plus a one-codon insertion (the inserted codon being underlined in the second sequence here; you needn't preserve the underlining if you present this pair of sequences elsewhere). Which sequence has more information in it?
---------------------QUOTE------------------- Nucleotide sequence 2a: ctc gac gca cat ata acg ata aag tcg cag ctg tag cac aag gca gtt tac act tgg aaa tct ctg gca taa gcg Nucleotide sequence 2b: ctc gac gca cat ata acg ata aag tcg cag ctg tag cca cac aag gca gtt tac act tgg aaa tct ctg gca taa gcg ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Third: An arbitrary nucleotide sequence, followed by that same sequence with one codon deleted from it (the deleted codon is underlined in the first sequence). Which sequence has more information in it?
---------------------QUOTE------------------- Nucleotide sequence 3a: gca agg cta atg ggg gta gtg cca ttg ccc atc taa gaa caa ttt cca agt aaa gag gct ccc gta tag att gcc Nucleotide sequence 3b: gca agg cta atg gta gtg cca ttg ccc atc taa gaa caa ttt cca agt aaa gag gct ccc gta tag att gcc ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Fourth: An arbitrary nucleotide sequence, followed by that same sequence with a single nucleotide inserted into it (inserted nucleotide underlined in the 2nd sequence). Which sequence has more information in it?
---------------------QUOTE------------------- Nucleotide sequence 4a: att aag tgc aaa cat gcc gaa cac aag tga atc gaa tcc gcg caa tct ata agt cgg gct atc tca aac cct aat Nucleotide sequence 4b: att aca gtg caa aca tgc cga aca caa gtg aat cga atc cgc gca atc tat aag tcg ggc tat ctc aaa ccc taa t ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Fifth: An arbitrary nucleotide sequence, followed by that same sequence with a single nucleotide deleted from it (deleted nucleotide underlined in the 1st sequence). Which sequence has more information in it?
---------------------QUOTE------------------- Nucleotide sequence 5a: tac aac cgt ctt gtt taa cag ggt tga atg ttg gat agg taa aaa ctg atc atg atg acc att cgt gcc gcc atc Nucleotide sequence 5b: taa acc gtc ttg ttt aac agg gtt gaa tgt tgg ata ggt aaa aac tga tca tga tga cca ttc gtg ccg cca tc ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Sixth: An arbitrary nucleotide sequence, followed by that same sequence with one codon replaced by some different codon entirely (the relevant codons are underlined in both sequences). Which sequence has more information in it?
---------------------QUOTE------------------- Nucleotide sequence 6a: aaa cgc gag cgc gct cag ccc aga tca gct gcc caa gac gtc gtt acc aca atc gtt acc acc gcg ata tta ttt tga Nucleotide sequence 6b: aaa cgc gag tga gct cag ccc aga tca gct gcc caa gac gtc gtt acc aca atc gtt acc acc gcg ata tta ttt ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Posted by: Henry J on Nov. 10 2011,23:27
Insufficient data to respond to those questions!
Posted by: Southstar on Nov. 11 2011,06:27
Quote (Henry J @ Nov. 10 2011,23:27) | ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Yesterday I had to go for work to Verona, which is about a 2,5 hours trip and this gave me some time to ponder some more questions which will probably come up and to which I have found no clear answer.
If evolution is continuos and you can't stop it, why are there simple organisms around? Are we to assume that bacteria "devolved" or that it continues to reform? Obviously to put forward the question I assumed that complexity indicates evolution and maybe the problem lies there. But I can't quite figure it out.
Thanks Marty
Posted by: OgreMkV on Nov. 11 2011,07:06
Quote (Southstar @ Nov. 11 2011,06:27) | [quote=Henry J,Nov. 10 2011,23:27][/quote] Yesterday I had to go for work to Verona, which is about a 2,5 hours trip and this gave me some time to ponder some more questions which will probably come up and to which I have found no clear answer.
If evolution is continuos and you can't stop it, why are there simple organisms around? Are we to assume that bacteria "devolved" or that it continues to reform? Obviously to put forward the question I assumed that complexity indicates evolution and maybe the problem lies there. But I can't quite figure it out.
Thanks Marty ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Here you are assuming that there is some 'goal' for evolution.
Why should a species or population change if it is already satisfied? i.e. for its environment, it is fit, it has sufficient diversity to resist major changes in the environment, etc.
Basically, what you are asking here is "Why are my grandparents still alive?" Which on the face of it, is pretty silly.
On the other hand, you are exactly correct. Evolution always happens to living things. The Coelocanths that were discovered off the coast of South Africa, while 'living fossils' are as distinct from fossil coelocanths as modern humans are distinct from Homo habilis.
So, on one hand, speciation doesn't need to occur. On the other evolution always does. Two subtly different questions.
You might take a look at the different types of speciation. Once you see what PART of a population is speciating, then you will see why the question is meaningless.
BTW: One other tact for your creationist buddies to deal with about information is to take cubist's stuff and then add one more question to it. Provide them with a strand of DNA that codes for a protein and one that is totally random of the same length (Excel is good for creating this). Then require that the use creationist (ID) principles to determine which is which. If they can't do that (and, even in theory, they can't, I'm pretty sure it is mathematically impossible), then how can they tell designed from evolved?
Note that when I say mathematically impossible, the only tool that IDists have ever said they needed was math. There are some clues in the sequence itself, but they are very subtle and require pretty good knowledge of DNA... which is using science, not creationism.
Posted by: Timothy McDougald on Nov. 11 2011,07:33
Quote (Southstar @ Nov. 11 2011,06:27) | [quote=Henry J,Nov. 10 2011,23:27][/quote] Yesterday I had to go for work to Verona, which is about a 2,5 hours trip and this gave me some time to ponder some more questions which will probably come up and to which I have found no clear answer.
If evolution is continuos and you can't stop it, why are there simple organisms around? Are we to assume that bacteria "devolved" or that it continues to reform? Obviously to put forward the question I assumed that complexity indicates evolution and maybe the problem lies there. But I can't quite figure it out.
Thanks Marty ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
In addition to what OgreMkV said there is the question of whether there is an open < niche > for the population to move into as well as how well they are adapted or specialized for the niche they currently occupy. Your question seems to be a variant of the "why are there still monkeys" question
Posted by: Southstar on Nov. 11 2011,08:56
Quote (afarensis @ Nov. 11 2011,07:33) | Quote (Southstar @ Nov. 11 2011,06:27) | Quote (Henry J @ Nov. 10 2011,23:27) | ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Yesterday I had to go for work to Verona, which is about a 2,5 hours trip and this gave me some time to ponder some more questions which will probably come up and to which I have found no clear answer.
If evolution is continuos and you can't stop it, why are there simple organisms around? Are we to assume that bacteria "devolved" or that it continues to reform? Obviously to put forward the question I assumed that complexity indicates evolution and maybe the problem lies there. But I can't quite figure it out.
Thanks Marty ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
In addition to what OgreMkV said there is the question of whether there is an open < niche > for the population to move into as well as how well they are adapted or specialized for the niche they currently occupy. Your question seems to be a variant of the "why are there still monkeys" question ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Okay I get it but supposing we do some tests on generations of Drosophila, cause they're quite easy to breed and we can do a nice time lap test on them.
But instead of doing it out in the open we do it in in a lab, where the happy flies have really eveything they need. Esentially what we are doing here is eliminating natural selection.
Since we know that mutations happen and they are cumulative. Sooner or later all the build up of cumulative random stuff has got to give way, but after thousands of generations we end up with essentially the same bug. Shouldn't the random cumulative mutations change the bug into a random (but functional) version of a new bug.
Am I making any sense? Marty
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Nov. 11 2011,09:08
Quote (Southstar @ Nov. 11 2011,08:56) | Shouldn't the random cumulative mutations change the bug into a random (but functional) version of a new bug.
Am I making any sense? Marty ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Define "new bug"!
Posted by: Robin on Nov. 11 2011,09:18
Quote (afarensis @ Nov. 11 2011,07:33) | Quote (Southstar @ Nov. 11 2011,06:27) | Quote (Henry J @ Nov. 10 2011,23:27) | ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Yesterday I had to go for work to Verona, which is about a 2,5 hours trip and this gave me some time to ponder some more questions which will probably come up and to which I have found no clear answer.
If evolution is continuos and you can't stop it, why are there simple organisms around? Are we to assume that bacteria "devolved" or that it continues to reform? Obviously to put forward the question I assumed that complexity indicates evolution and maybe the problem lies there. But I can't quite figure it out.
Thanks Marty ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
In addition to what OgreMkV said there is the question of whether there is an open < niche > for the population to move into as well as how well they are adapted or specialized for the niche they currently occupy. Your question seems to be a variant of the "why are there still monkeys" question ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
There's also another misunderstanding presented in Southstar's question - it's basically a rewording of "if humans evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys."
The answer of course, which is beautifully illustrated by ring species, is that while some members of a given species may gain some beneficial or neutral mutation, many members still do not. If the non-mutated parental stock - the original species-remains competitive in its environment and/or has sufficient flexibility to adapt to some other environment, it will continue to exist along with it's daughter and cousin relatives.
Evolution is not all of some parental species morphing into some other species, yet this is what many creationists think evolution is. Similarly, evolution does not require all members of some species to die off/disappear when some portion of that species gain some genetic variation.
A third misconception embedded in the question is that evolution implies that newer organisms with more changes and complexity are "better" than older, simpler organisms. This is not what evolution states or implies. Evolution as a theory merely notes that change occurs and how; there's no implication about change being "good" for organisms in general. Further, if one really understands evolution as an explanation of a process, one also understands the concept of adaption. Mutations and genetic drift are considered "beneficial" if a group of organisms can use the change to help them adapt to given environmental conditions and thus produce more offspring than its competition/predation rates. If an organism group without said change can adapt to given environmental changes such that they produce more offspring than their competition/predation rates, guess what? They'll survive too.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Nov. 11 2011,09:23
Quote (Southstar @ Nov. 11 2011,08:56) | Okay I get it but supposing we do some tests on generations of Drosophila, cause they're quite easy to breed and we can do a nice time lap test on them.
But instead of doing it out in the open we do it in in a lab, where the happy flies have really eveything they need. Esentially what we are doing here is eliminating natural selection.
Since we know that mutations happen and they are cumulative. Sooner or later all the build up of cumulative random stuff has got to give way, but after thousands of generations we end up with essentially the same bug. Shouldn't the random cumulative mutations change the bug into a random (but functional) version of a new bug.
Am I making any sense? Marty ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Do we?
No one has done these experiments for thousands of years. Yet, we do know that speciation can occur within one generation.
We also have Lenski's data of E. coli research over the last 25 years. http://myxo.css.msu.edu/
Now, look at what happened in Lenski's lab. One of the defining characteristics of E. coli is that inability to metabolize citrate. That character is how researchers determine the difference between E. coli and (IIRC) Salmonella.
Yet, Lenski, through natural selection and random mutation has discovered a E. coli strain that can utilize citrate. If this had occurred in non-bacterial species, it would probably be sufficient for it to be declared a new species. Bacteria... meh.
Likewise, it also depends on how you define "something different". Are dachshunds exactly the same thing as wolfhounds? No, are the different species? Honestly, that question is pretty meaningless.
Dachshunds and wolfhounds can interbreed and have grandchildren (i.e. the F1s are not sterile), but so can domestic cats and servals, so can lions and tigers, and we 'know' those are different species.
Species aren't nearly as static or fixed or separate as most people would think. So the question is really moot. Yes, they might still be fruit flies, but the only way to determine if they could interbreed with fruit flies of a 1000 years ago would be to (somehow) get some fruit flies from a 1000 years ago and try it.
Which leads me to a really good question to all.
Could an organism (say human or dog) successfully interbreed with a member of the same species from a thousand or 6000 years ago?
For example Diplodocus has a known time range of almost 4 million years. Do you think that the later members would be sufficiently different from the earlier members to prevent breeding (which is one definition of species, which IMHO is sorely lacking as evidenced above).
Things are not just cut and dried in Biology, no matter how much some people wish or claim that they are.
Posted by: Robin on Nov. 11 2011,09:39
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 11 2011,09:23) | Which leads me to a really good question to all.
Could an organism (say human or dog) successfully interbreed with a member of the same species from a thousand or 6000 years ago?
. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I would say that based on ecological research and personal anecdotes, it depends on the given species' sexual behaviors. For example, mallards are well known to have sex with (or attempt to have sex with) nearly all other duck-like waterfowl, including many species of geese. In other words, mallards have very lax sexual boundaries. Green-eyed Tree Frogs, otoh, are notoriously picky about who they mate with.
We humans are definitely NOT picky about our sexual partners as species go, and I'm more than willing to lay down my net worth on the bet that we as a species would definitely mate (and produce offspring) with our ancestors from 10,000 years ago. Heck, there's evidence we interbred with Neaderthals...how picky could we really be?
Dogs...hmmm...I'm aware of some breeds that will mate with just about any other dog-like animal, so I'm willing to lay a similar bet on them as well.
Posted by: Southstar on Nov. 11 2011,10:09
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 11 2011,09:08) | Quote (Southstar @ Nov. 11 2011,08:56) | Shouldn't the random cumulative mutations change the bug into a random (but functional) version of a new bug.
Am I making any sense? Marty ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Define "new bug"! ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Okay a bug that due to the cumulative passed down mutations is a different genius or family to the original bug.
Let's say that cumulative mutation transmits 1% of mutated DNA from one generation to the other, after 50 generations you should get an interesting amount of mutated DNA.
The numbers are made up, maybe the mutation rate is smaller but that would just push the number of generations needed higher, eventually whatever the amout of generations you need, genetic mutation alone should create a different genius or family right? Now if we do this with a fruit fly it might take us 1000 (depending on mutation rates) years if we do it with e.coli we might need a couple of years.
What it boils down to is that, in the absense of natural selection, do speices evolve randomly.
Posted by: Henry J on Nov. 11 2011,10:12
---------------------QUOTE------------------- Define "new bug"! ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Volkswagen's have changed over the years.
Posted by: Henry J on Nov. 11 2011,10:17
Whether something is labelled as a new family or genus depends on whether that would help in keeping track of species relationships or not. It's not an intrinsic property of the species itself.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Nov. 11 2011,10:42
Quote (Henry J @ Nov. 11 2011,10:12) |
---------------------QUOTE------------------- Define "new bug"! ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Volkswagen's have changed over the years. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
ba-dum-tish! :P
Posted by: OgreMkV on Nov. 11 2011,10:48
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|