Notices
Results 1 to 28 of 28

Thread: evolution

  1. #1 evolution 
    Guest
    Well in my recent readings of both theistic material (got to love theistic parents) and delving deeper into evolution I've decided to give a few nice informative "facts". I'm going to list a few choice ones to get the ball rolling and some of you researching. A lot of information is avalible at http://www.talkorigins.org/. Including "lies" and "misinformation" theists love to spread. This is not to say all theists do, just creationist websites in general which http://www.answersingenesis.org/ is (in)famous for.

    To counter http://www.answersingenesis.org/ see http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/default.htm
    Or talking origins, again.

    Fact: Evolution is a proven fact despite religious claims. The theory of how it happens, however, is still a theory. This is one piece of information that most atheists don't even know!

    Fact: Microevolution is accepted almost universally due to it's obvious obvervable evidence in viruses and other organisms. Contrary to other claims, it is not "the same virus that just adapted".
    However this is normally from mutations in those viral cells, rather than simple adaptations.

    Fact: Mutations are proven beneficial in organisms such as viruses and bacteria. http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoMutations.html states this as well as many other sources.

    Fact: Mutations usually don't "appear" beneficial, but still add genetic data that can be highly useful. Smaller mutations in humans, that still allow them to breed, are also useful. It aids in slowly but surely increasing the amount of genes in the population. Some of these mutations aren't even noticable.

    And here is a link to a news piece on backtracking evolution
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/5245950.stm


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2 Re: evolution 
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, AB, Canada
    Posts
    120
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeremyhfht
    Fact: Evolution is a proven fact despite religious claims. The theory of how it happens, however, is still a theory. This is one piece of information that most atheists don't even know!
    true.

    Fact: Microevolution is accepted almost universally due to it's obvious obvervable evidence in viruses and other organisms. Contrary to other claims, it is not "the same virus that just adapted".
    However this is normally from mutations in those viral cells, rather than simple adaptations.
    false? I don't know what you mean here. mutations provide the variations required for natural selection to work upon. accumulations of these mutations leads to adaptations and possibly speciation (given enough time). Also, people have observed microevolution in domesticated plants and animals for centuries!

    Fact: Mutations are proven beneficial in organisms such as viruses and bacteria. http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoMutations.html states this as well as many other sources.
    False. Mutations can can be beneficial, harmful, or have no effect at all. It really just depends.

    Fact: Mutations usually don't "appear" beneficial, but still add genetic data that can be highly useful. Smaller mutations in humans, that still allow them to breed, are also useful. It aids in slowly but surely increasing the amount of genes in the population. Some of these mutations aren't even noticable.
    true and false? Yes, mutations do add genetic variation. But not all mutations increase the number of genes. some large deletions can delete huge percentages of the genome!


    It is not so much that I have confidence in scientists being right, but that I have so much in nonscientists being wrong. --- Isaac Asimov
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Guest
    Pardon, but none are false. I should have worded it more extensively, but I was referring to mostly organisms to get the basic idea. Micro, not MACRO evolution.

    Also, people have observed microevolution in domesticated plants and animals for centuries!
    That's macroevolution. I said microevolution.

    False. Mutations can can be beneficial, harmful, or have no effect at all. It really just depends.
    I was saying they can be beneficial. I did not say they CAN'T be harmful or have no effect at all.

    true and false? Yes, mutations do add genetic variation. But not all mutations increase the number of genes. some large deletions can delete huge percentages of the genome!
    Now that's my fault for omitting the deletion part. However those aren't beneficial now, are they? If they destroy a large percentage of the genome it suggests they're not helpful. If you care to read up on theistic views, almost all of them state that mutations can't be beneficial. This is the premesis of my post.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4 Re: evolution 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Perth, Western Australia
    Posts
    33
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeremyhfht

    Fact: Evolution is a proven fact despite religious claims. The theory of how it happens, however, is still a theory. This is one piece of information that most atheists don't even know!
    Be careful with using "theory" in this context. The vernacular usage of "theory" and the usage in science is quite different. Consider the following, "The principle of natural selection is one of the principles that explains the theory of evolution." In science, a theory is a set of well developed principles used to explain a phenomena. Eg: theory of light, theory of gravity, endosymbiont theory, theory of evolution. Some more encompasing than others. Evolution is one of the more robust and testable ones. In every day usage, a theory is "something we just recently made up," which doesn't suit the scientific usage.

    I (and some people disagree) refuse to use "fact" and "proof" in writing or doing science. This implies an absolute certainty that is bad for science. "Proof is for maths and alcohol", so they say. :P
    ~TaO!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, AB, Canada
    Posts
    120
    Now that's my fault for omitting the deletion part. However those aren't beneficial now, are they? If they destroy a large percentage of the genome it suggests they're not helpful.
    One of the few differences between the human and chimp genome is a recombination event that caused a deletion.
    It is not so much that I have confidence in scientists being right, but that I have so much in nonscientists being wrong. --- Isaac Asimov
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, AB, Canada
    Posts
    120
    Deletion of an entire chromosome, I should add.
    It is not so much that I have confidence in scientists being right, but that I have so much in nonscientists being wrong. --- Isaac Asimov
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7 Re: evolution 
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by TaO!
    Be careful with using "theory" in this context. The vernacular usage of "theory" and the usage in science is quite different. Consider the following, "The principle of natural selection is one of the principles that explains the theory of evolution." In science, a theory is a set of well developed principles used to explain a phenomena. Eg: theory of light, theory of gravity, endosymbiont theory, theory of evolution. Some more encompasing than others. Evolution is one of the more robust and testable ones. In every day usage, a theory is "something we just recently made up," which doesn't suit the scientific usage.
    How, exactly, did I use the word "theory" wrong? I said how evolution happens is still a theory. It's not fact.
    Evolution happening, however, is a fact. Science has time after time refuted theistic claims about evolution, supposed weaknesses, or something that "makes it impossible". It's pretty much earned it's right to be considered fact, but how it happens is almost always going to be theory.

    Gravity, it exists. How it happens will always be theory. How things happen tends to be stuck in "theory" mode for the rest of all eternity. The "fact" that it happens, however, normally doesn't stay in "theory" mode for long. Especially if it's directly observable.

    In everyday usage, at least MY usage, a HYPOTHESIS is something of a more "guessing" nature. I used the word theory properly. You, on the other hand, seem to have read something wrong.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by sigmafactor
    Now that's my fault for omitting the deletion part. However those aren't beneficial now, are they? If they destroy a large percentage of the genome it suggests they're not helpful.
    One of the few differences between the human and chimp genome is a recombination event that caused a deletion.
    Didn't know that part. Source?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9 Re: evolution 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    54
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeremyhfht
    Fact: Evolution is a proven fact despite religious claims. The theory of how it happens, however, is still a theory. This is one piece of information that most atheists don't even know!
    I had a good chuckle at this one. How would you define evolution Jeremyhfht? If it's a fact you must have it well defined. I'm going to guess you use something like this: "In biology, evolution is the change in the heritable traits of a population over successive generations, as determined by shifts in the allele frequencies of genes."
    That's from a link in wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution

    Now what's the problem with that? Well, it's the old shifting goal posts, for one. Mr Darwin had no idea what a gene was, and allele frequency would have meant as much to him as cosmological constant. He was working on the notion that there were all these species and they must have come from somewhere. He was dealing with humans evolving from tiny little lemurs. (No, I'm not going to fall into the silly trap of claiming you evolutionists think man descended from the apes.)
    Well, when that couldn't be demonstrated and armed with what they thought the new science of genetics was telling them, the evolutionists introduced a definition like the one I have given above.

    Look at that definition. If I kill one member of a population of pansies, or trout, or whatever, I have changed the allele frequency. I have caused evolution - by that definition. Don't you think that is plain silly? Yes, on that basis evolution is a fact. Point conceded. But what a dumb definition. It's meaningless.

    So why have evolutionists chosen to use such? Because it is the only way they can demonstrate that evolution has occured. By making it a meaningless minor variation in allele frequency. Wow. Big deal. That is not science, that is simple (and simple minded) propaganda.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10 Re: evolution 
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by TruePath
    I had a good chuckle at this one. How would you define evolution Jeremyhfht? If it's a fact you must have it well defined. I'm going to guess you use something like this: "In biology, evolution is the change in the heritable traits of a population over successive generations, as determined by shifts in the allele frequencies of genes."
    That's from a link in wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution
    No, that's not what I use. Wiki can be a great research tool, but fails as a dictionary.

    # Biology.

    1. Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species.
    2. The historical development of a related group of organisms; phylogeny.
    http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery?s=evolution&gwp=13

    He was dealing with humans evolving from tiny little lemurs. (No, I'm not going to fall into the silly trap of claiming you evolutionists think man descended from the apes.)
    Lucky for you that you didn't. However...we didn't evolve from lemurs either. Going back insanely far it was a single celled organism. Farther than that it was the big bang. Beyond that, nobody has the balls to try and find out.

    Look at that definition. If I kill one member of a population of pansies, or trout, or whatever, I have changed the allele frequency. I have caused evolution - by that definition. Don't you think that is plain silly? Yes, on that basis evolution is a fact. Point conceded. But what a dumb definition. It's meaningless.
    On that basis you know nothing of genetics. Chances of the person you killed having a gene that nobody else has is astronomically slim. assuming he did, you've not caused evolution, you've caused a stop in evolution.

    So why have evolutionists chosen to use such? Because it is the only way they can demonstrate that evolution has occured. By making it a meaningless minor variation in allele frequency. Wow. Big deal. That is not science, that is simple (and simple minded) propaganda.
    You're oversimplifying so much it's funny. And that isn't the only demonstration or theory of how it occured. Keep in mind, the idea of evolution is a fact.
    How it happens, is still a theory. And hotly debated between evolutionists.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, AB, Canada
    Posts
    120
    My true source was that i learnt it in a second year genetics class ... a more reliable source is...

    "Molecular Characterization of the Pericentric Inversion That Causes Differences Between Chimpanzee Chromosome 19 and Human Chromosome 17" The American Journal of Human Genetics, volume 71 (2002), pages 375–388

    A comparison of the human genome with that of the chimpanzee is an attractive approach to attempts to understand the specificity of a certain phenotype's development. The two karyotypes differ by one chromosome fusion, nine pericentric inversions, and various additions of heterochromatin to chromosomal telomeres

    The 'fusion' that they refer to is what i was talking about.
    It is not so much that I have confidence in scientists being right, but that I have so much in nonscientists being wrong. --- Isaac Asimov
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12 Re: evolution 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    54
    You offer up a couple of definitions of evolution that do not match the consensus definitions held by biologists today. However, I shall be fair. You felt wiki was not a great resource:
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeremyhfht
    No, that's not what I use. Wiki can be a great research tool, but fails as a dictionary.
    I have no idea of your scientific qualifications jeremy, but do you really think any kind of dictionary is the correct place to be seeking a scientific definition?
    I'll go with your recommendation from your opening post - the one for www.talkorigins.org. In this we find the following defintion is favoured:
    "In fact, evolution can be precisely defined as any change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next."
    - Helena Curtis and N. Sue Barnes, Biology, 5th ed. 1989 Worth Publishers, p.974


    Gosh, isn't it amazing how close the formal definition from your recommended website is to the definition I suggested was followed by most biologists today.
    :
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeremyhfht
    However...we didn't evolve from lemurs either.
    Don't be coy young Jeremy, I didn't say lemurs, I said tiny little lemurs. I should have thought the juxtaposition of twoadjectival diminutives next to a zoological diminutive would have conveyed the sense I was speaking metaphorically and approximately. I shall try to keep it simpler for you in future.
    :
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeremyhfht
    Going back insanely far it was a single celled organism. Farther than that it was the big bang. .
    So you concede that evolution, abiogenesis and the Big Bang are all part and parcel of the same thing. Thank you. Most evolutionists begin a period of wordplay on this point. Your honesty is refreshing.
    :
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeremyhfht
    Quote Originally Posted by TruePath
    Look at that definition. If I kill one member of a population of pansies, or trout, or whatever, I have changed the allele frequency. I have caused evolution - by that definition. Don't you think that is plain silly? Yes, on that basis evolution is a fact. Point conceded. But what a dumb definition. It's meaningless.
    On that basis you know nothing of genetics. Chances of the person you killed having a gene that nobody else has is astronomically slim. assuming he did, you've not caused evolution, you've caused a stop in evolution..
    Wow! You clearly understand nothing about definitions or frequency. Evolution is defined as a change in allele frequency. If the gene appears in twenty out of one hundred individuals, then the frequency is 20%. If I kill one of them, the frequency changes to 19.2%. That's a change in allele frequency. That, by the favoured definition taken from your recommended website, is evolution. Dear me, dear me.:
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeremyhfht
    You're oversimplifying so much it's funny. .
    All the oversimplifying is coming from the evolutionists, anxious to cover up the gaping holes in their arguments.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Ph.D. william's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Wherever I go, there I am
    Posts
    935
    TruePath,
    The way you use the term "evolutionists" conjoined with "they," is it fair to assume that you are a creationist?

    Just wondering....

    cheers
    "... the polhode rolls without slipping on the herpolhode lying in the invariable plane."
    ~Footnote in Goldstein's Mechanics, 3rd ed. p. 202
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    54
    Quote Originally Posted by william
    The way you use the term "evolutionists" conjoined with "they," is it fair to assume that you are a creationist?
    Well, it might be fair, but that is not the same as saying it is true. Pathological liars might make the same sort of statements.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15 Re: evolution 
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by TruePath
    So you concede that evolution, abiogenesis and the Big Bang are all part and parcel of the same thing. Thank you. Most evolutionists begin a period of wordplay on this point. Your honesty is refreshing.
    Well, not exactly. I just followed along a theoretical line. Which could probably change at any point in time.

    Quote Originally Posted by TruePath
    Wow! You clearly understand nothing about definitions or frequency. Evolution is defined as a change in allele frequency.
    I believe the problem was I misread "allele". However evolution isn't defined by this "allele frequency", as that's still only part of it. TalkingOrigins is interesting because it's a collaberation of largely unofficial writing in a lot of areas. The definition you gave, is one that is contradicted on other areas of the website if you look.
    Sufficed to say, a dictionary usually carries the literal definition for words. Not a scientifically garbled and destroyed one. Naturally I prefer dictionaries, and so far they've not failed me.

    If the gene appears in twenty out of one hundred individuals, then the frequency is 20%. If I kill one of them, the frequency changes to 19.2%. That's a change in allele frequency. That, by the favoured definition taken from your recommended website, is evolution. Dear me, dear me.
    Specifics. If the frequency is 20% relative to the total population we'd have about 20% of 6 billion. By the time you killed one of THAT large 20%, two (or more) will have been born again already. This "evolution" you claim seems a bit of a screwed up conception.
    Perhaps, rather than evolution, you're speaking of the proccess of preventing genes from being passed along the evolutionary line. I supposed, depending on the circomstances, it could be through "unnatural selection" and more "natural" selections.

    And that recommended website has quite a lot of different views all at once. I prefer it because it's a very good research tool for different views, information, etc, on evolution.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Ph.D. william's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Wherever I go, there I am
    Posts
    935
    Quote Originally Posted by TruePath
    Quote Originally Posted by william
    The way you use the term "evolutionists" conjoined with "they," is it fair to assume that you are a creationist?
    Well, it might be fair, but that is not the same as saying it is true. Pathological liars might make the same sort of statements.
    Well... then I'll ask;
    Are you a creationist?

    cheers.
    "... the polhode rolls without slipping on the herpolhode lying in the invariable plane."
    ~Footnote in Goldstein's Mechanics, 3rd ed. p. 202
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by william
    Well... then I'll ask;
    Are you a creationist?
    If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and lays eggs, it is either a duck, or a first rate animal impressionist. 8)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Guest
    I agree with oph.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Forum Masters Degree invert_nexus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    638
    How, exactly, did I use the word "theory" wrong? I said how evolution happens is still a theory. It's not fact.
    Evolution happening, however, is a fact.
    You used it wrong in that you imply that someday it will be more than a theory and move into the world of 'facts'.

    There is no such thing as a scientific fact. Theory is as good as it gets. Logical positivism has been shown long ago to be flawed. The best that science can do these days is put up a hypothesis for testing and as long as it doesn't get disproven then it can remain as theory.

    But, there is no such thing as proof.
    Science operates on falsifiability.

    As to "evolution happening" being a fact. You could say that this is so. Why and how does this escape the aforementioned epistomological topic? Simple. The simple statement that 'evolution happens' isn't a scientific statement. It is informal and can thus be informally proven and accepted.

    This is the pros and cons of formal systems vs informal ones.
    You know. Godel and all that.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by invert_nexus
    You used it wrong in that you imply that someday it will be more than a theory and move into the world of 'facts'.
    Er, no I didn't. I said previously (although in a different post aside from the main one you're commenting on) that things in science tend to remain theories. Although that's summing it up.

    [/quote]
    There is no such thing as a scientific fact. Theory is as good as it gets. Logical positivism has been shown long ago to be flawed.[/quote]

    DUH.

    You apparently interpreted my statements wrong. So there is no need for an argument, just read what I mean. Not what you think I mean.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, AB, Canada
    Posts
    120
    Some things become more than theories...
    They get the wonderful title of Law.
    It is not so much that I have confidence in scientists being right, but that I have so much in nonscientists being wrong. --- Isaac Asimov
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Forum Masters Degree invert_nexus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    638
    Jeremy,

    Er, no I didn't.
    Er. Yeah you did.
    And you did it again.

    Behold:

    "I said how evolution happens is still a theory."

    "Still a theory" implies that it can become more than just a theory. You use the term fact in your post as the ideal. I.e. Evolution happening is fact. How it happens is still just a theory.


    "...things in science tend to remain theories."

    'Tend" also implies an escapre route from theory. Some higher plateau upon which the theory may someday settle.

    (I'd actually tend to disagree with you on this one, however, for reasons other than your misuse of words. Theories in science actually tend to be disproven and thus become nothing. But that's another story altogether.)

    DUH.

    You apparently interpreted my statements wrong. So there is no need for an argument, just read what I mean. Not what you think I mean.
    Arguing?
    Man. You're like all sensitive and stuff, aren't you?
    I was just stating a fact (ha!).
    Your language is sloppy. If you meant to say exactly what I did, then you failed miserably. You might want to be more careful in the future.



    Sigma,


    Some things become more than theories...
    They get the wonderful title of Law.
    Yeah. But a Law is still just a theory. Just a special sort of theory. One with wide-ranging consequences.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Guest
    *sigh* I said "tend" because there is a probability for it to become fact at any point in an infinite timescale. I deal with probabilities, not cold hard "facts". My grammar is perfectly fine for what I wished to use it for. Your interpretations need work, however.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Forum Masters Degree invert_nexus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    638
    I said "tend" because there is a probability for it to become fact at any point in an infinite timescale.
    *sigh*

    That's exactly my point.
    It'll NEVER become fact.
    Not on an infinite timescale. Not on any timescale.
    It'll only be theory.
    Ever.

    Unless, that is, a whole new theory of science is developed.

    My grammar is perfectly fine for what I wished to use it for.
    Apparently so. Which brings us back to the original point that you are mistaken in your use of the word.

    Your interpretations need work, however.
    Nope. My interpretation is just fine. It's your understanding of science that needs work.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Guest
    I'm accepting the probability that it COULD become fact. No matter how small the probability. Open minded language vs. closed-minded language.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, AB, Canada
    Posts
    120
    If a law was just a theory it wouldn't be called a law :?
    It is not so much that I have confidence in scientists being right, but that I have so much in nonscientists being wrong. --- Isaac Asimov
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Forum Masters Degree invert_nexus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    638
    Jeremy,

    I'm accepting the probability that it COULD become fact. No matter how small the probability. Open minded language vs. closed-minded language.
    Well that's a shame. Because as long as you accept the possibility that theory can become fact, then you are failing to grasp the mechanism of science.

    Your choice. I can't force you to understand.

    Look. I'm not arguing or being an asshole. I'm simply stating a simple fact about the philosophy of science. This is just the way it is. It all has to do with the problem of induction and the justification of knowledge

    Anyway, you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink.
    Enjoy.


    Sigma,

    If a law was just a theory it wouldn't be called a law
    Yeah. Like I said. A law is a theory with far reaching consequences.

    Here, from Wikipedia:

    "Physical laws are distinguished from scientific theories by their simplicity. Scientific theories are generally more complex than laws; they have many component parts, and are more likely to be changed as the body of available experimental data and analysis develops. This is because a physical law is a summary observation of strictly empirical matters, whereas a theory is a model that accounts for the observation, explains it, relates it to other observations, and makes testable predictions based upon it. Simply stated, while a law notes that something happens, a theory explains why and how something happens."

    I'm not really entirely satisfied with that explanation, but I suppose it'll do for now.
    A scientific law is a very simple theory. It is a reductionist theory upon which more theories are based.

    But, in the end, it suffers the same problem as the more complicated theory. That is the problem of induction.

    This is really simple and basic stuff guys. You shouldn't be having such problems with it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, AB, Canada
    Posts
    120
    As Aristotle might say, it is an axiom. Of course he prolly wouldn't be saying it in english....
    It is not so much that I have confidence in scientists being right, but that I have so much in nonscientists being wrong. --- Isaac Asimov
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •