Evolution: the Facts.

[Kotatsu]

How can you be angry at folks who cannot follow this profoundly complex, 150-year-old theory? After all, it is contemporaneous with the Caloric Theory of Heat, which was completely discredited.

How is that relevant? Can the validity of all theories be ascertained based on the validity of whatever else was discovered at the same time?

 

[JonathanQuick]

TheAtheist: It occurs to me, seeing yet more fundies explaining why evolution is bunkum, that they come from the same pod as "No plane" CTists - lacking facts, behaving irrationally and refusing to accept evidence.



I won't be posting any data since I'm not a scientist, but I envisage lots of data such as the stuff dr Adequate and others were recently posting in one troll or another's thread. I'll just keep things on topic, then take all the credit for everyone else's brains! (In business, we call that management.)



Debunking popular ID myths. Questions to ask IDiots.

Seems like a good idea, though it does seem a big project and I think it should include critiques of evolutionary theory.

TheAtheist begins by hatefully attacking "fundies" who he claims are "IDiots" who lack facts, behave irrationally, and refuse to accept evidence.

Then comes John Hewitt who suggests "critiques of evolutionary theory."

Clearly anyone who would deign to "critique evolutionary theory" is, in the words of TheAtheist, a "fundie," an "IDiot" who eschews science, rational thinking and evidence.

How do YOU, oh wise Manager of the Thread, resolve this unbridgeable chasm of your own making?

 

[Dinwar]

And you do. After all, "evolution" is extremely complex:

1. Random mutation, followed by
2. Natural selection.

Wow.

Yup. And force equals mass times acceleration. The devil, however, is in the details. What is the tempo of these events? How do they occur in the wild? What is the mechanism for mutation (you speak of Darwinism as if The Origin was the only book ever published on the topic; I suggest googling "modern synthesis)? Why did some forms evolve and not others? Why are there gaps in viable morphospace? Etc. ad nauseum. I mean, Hardy/Weinburg Equilibrium consists of p^2+2pq+q^2=1, yet it can easily be used to demonstrate a huge variety of concepts.

If there's anything math has taught me, it's that simple things can have surprisingly complex results.

How unscientific of Einstein. In the same fashion, any discussion of the myriad problems with macro-evolution is impossible. All we get in response is "You don't understand evolution."

True. Because 1) Creationists use a fictional definition of macroevolution (ONLY Creationists use that definition in my experience; it's a straw man), and 2) the overwhelming majority of the time (again, in my experience) the question demonstrates such a lack of understanding that it's honestly difficult to figure out how to start explaining the concept.

Such responses are condescending. They are arrogant. They are anti-scientific. And they are anti-intellectual.

They are condescending. And for good reason--those of us who have taken the time to learn the theory of evolution actually understand it, while those who argue against it almost universally do not. They are NOT arrogant, however; you're confusing arrogance with earned pride. As for anti-scientific and anti-intellectual, these are hardly true. When a Creationist presents their arguments in a peer-reviewed article (meaning that the arguments are good enough that the reviewers aren't compelled to reject it), we can discuss it in terms of a scientific theory. Otherwise, there's nothing. And as far as intellectualism goes, when someone states that their case rests on a foundation of faith and the supernatural, without providing the evidence thereof, they are abandoning the rules of intellectualism.

 

[Delvo]

Shouldn't these posts from the creationist and those who are debating him be cut off and moved into their own thread in some other forum? I thought this thread was just for collecting interesting facts on evolution, not debating religious denial of it.

 

[Mahaha]

Ehi there, let me try to bring this back in topic.

I read the first posts and the last ones, but I joined tuesday and I don't have the time to read ALL the thread.
So, I'm a molecular biologist, so I'm really into evolution, I studied it a long time and I dealt with a lot of creationists.

Where is the discussion at? Is there any point to be cleared up?

P.S. Good idea this thread, really great.

 

[Dinwar]

Perhaps a discussion of the nuances would help. It seems that a major sticking point (and a relatively new one, from my experience) is that evolution is too simple an explination to account for all of life. Considering this gets into allele frequencies, your expertise would be most appreciated.

 

[Mahaha]

I can try, can you just tell me what the issue is? I mean, is there a particular problem about allele frequencies?

 

[Dinwar]

I don't mean to sound offensive, but if you want to know what the main issue is I would suggest reading the conversation. It'll take a bit of digging on your part, but you should be used to that (in that you're a scientist).

Also, to be frank, you are not the only expert in evolution here. I doubt you intended to come off as insulting, but there are people here who probably know certain aspects of evolution as well as or better than you. Offering to clear up any points has the implication that we don't understand the theory ourselves (again, I doubt it's intentional, but that's how it comes off). I doubt many people will take you up on your offer. You'll have to just jump into the conversation and offer your side.

As for the problem I mentioned, here's the part of the conversation I was referring to:

And you do. After all, "evolution" is extremely complex:

1. Random mutation, followed by
2. Natural selection.

Wow.

Yup. And force equals mass times acceleration. The devil, however, is in the details. What is the tempo of these events? How do they occur in the wild? What is the mechanism for mutation (you speak of Darwinism as if The Origin was the only book ever published on the topic; I suggest googling "modern synthesis)? Why did some forms evolve and not others? Why are there gaps in viable morphospace? Etc. ad nauseum. I mean, Hardy/Weinburg Equilibrium consists of p^2+2pq+q^2=1, yet it can easily be used to demonstrate a huge variety of concepts.

I was hoping that you could expand upon this particular point. My training has been focused on the phenotype, rather than the genotype, while you are likely to have more training in the genotype.

 

[Mahaha]

I don't mean to sound offensive, but if you want to know what the main issue is I would suggest reading the conversation. It'll take a bit of digging on your part, but you should be used to that (in that you're a scientist).

Also, to be frank, you are not the only expert in evolution here. I doubt you intended to come off as insulting, but there are people here who probably know certain aspects of evolution as well as or better than you. Offering to clear up any points has the implication that we don't understand the theory ourselves (again, I doubt it's intentional, but that's how it comes off). I doubt many people will take you up on your offer. You'll have to just jump into the conversation and offer your side.

Sorry if I gave the wrong idea, you're absolutely right, I think it's best if I read the whole thing first and offer my opinion if I think it can add something to it.

I bet that almost anyone in here is more qualified than me, I actually specialized in intracellular pathways and virology. Besides, a lot of the posts I have read so far are actually pretty explanatory.

So, I apologize again, I'll jump right back in when I'm done reading everything. Later.


EDITED: Also, sorry if sometimes I don't get the mood of the post right. English is not my first language and conveing tone is kinda hard via internet.

 

[Dinwar]

Also, sorry if sometimes I don't get the mood of the post right. English is not my first language and conveing tone is kinda hard via internet.

Thus the reason for my "I don't mean to offfend" in the begining there. Anyone who's spent as much time debating as I have learns quick that tone is often difficult, if not impossible, to convey via the internet. And your English is remarkably good for it not being your first language.

There is something you could clarify far more than me. What role do viruses play in evolution? I know that retroviruses can transfer DNA between hosts--does that reach across species boundaries?

 

[Mahaha]

Thus the reason for my "I don't mean to offfend" in the begining there. Anyone who's spent as much time debating as I have learns quick that tone is often difficult, if not impossible, to convey via the internet. And your English is remarkably good for it not being your first language.

There is something you could clarify far more than me. What role do viruses play in evolution? I know that retroviruses can transfer DNA between hosts--does that reach across species boundaries?

Thank you for your understanding in the first part.

You are absolutely right about retroviruses. The thing is that they fuse their genetic material with the host's, and use the host's replicating mechanisms to replicate themselves. When the retrovirus is reassembled from the provirus (the virus' genetic material you now carry) it is possible that something else other than its own DNA is replicated, and so it carries away a little copy of some of your DNA.

This mechanism could theoretically bring to an exchange in genetic material between hosts, but there are some problems for this to become an important factor in evolution. One of them being that retroviruses have very small genomes, somewhere near 350.000 times smaller than a human genome, so even if they take something with them it would be such a small piece that it is higly unlikely to be a functioning sequence (regulation or transcription wise).

It is however possible that a retrovirus, in integrating its transcripted RNA into you DNA, could cause a significant alteration of important regions of it, leading to genetic malfuctions of different kind. There is no one mechanism or illness that arises from this, because it depends on what genes and what cells are involved... I just thought I'd mention it.

So basically there is no evidence, to this day, that horizontal gene transfer has ever been a relevant factor in the evolution of multicellular organisms as it has been for microorganisms. Of course some hypotheses have been formulated, but nothing consistent showed up.

It is out of the questions that retroviruses have been part of our evolutonary history, though: nearly 8% of human DNA is formed of retroviral "fossils". Meaning that we still possess a big portion of the genetic material of retroviruses who infected us throughout history. These parts are however not included in our normal gene expression, even if sometimes you can find some particles produced by said DNA in the bloodstream. However these particles have shown to be quite harmless.

Speaking of which, the presence of retroviral DNA in our chromosomes is, to my opinion, a big fat slap in the face for those who do not believe in evolution. If God had created us perfect with exactly what we needed... well, he kind of forgot some retroviral DNA inside of us.

 

[DallasDad]

Mahaha, your English is excellent for a non-native speaker. Your command of idiom and grammar is surprisingly good.

 

[Mahaha]

Mahaha, your English is excellent for a non-native speaker. Your command of idiom and grammar is surprisingly good.

Why thank you... [blush]

 

[Darkhole]

After all, "evolution" is extremely complex:

Want to learn about evolution?
Your place to go: http://groups.google.nl/group/sci.bio.evolution/topics?lnk=srg&hl=nl

 

[JonathanQuick]

Yup. And force equals mass times acceleration. The devil, however, is in the details.

Any challenge to ANY of these details is instantly and irreversibly met with personal attacks by Darwinists.

Never mind that skepticism is a critical foundation of science.
Never mind the important quote by Peter Medawar that consensus is meaningless in biology. All Darwinists DO is parrot "consensus" 24/7.

Why did some forms evolve and not others?

Well, to quote Darwinists, "If you must ask such a question, then you don't understand evolution."

How do you like it when the shoe is on the other foot?

True. Because 1) Creationists use a fictional definition of macroevolution (ONLY Creationists use that definition in my experience; it's a straw man), and 2) the overwhelming majority of the time (again, in my experience) the question demonstrates such a lack of understanding that it's honestly difficult to figure out how to start explaining the concept.

1. Any question or challenge to evolution instantly evokes claims, like yours, of "Creationists." I have never said I am a "Creationist." Only you say that.
2. You and your friends incessantly CLAIM that I have "a lack of understanding." And it is NOT "honestly" claimed either.

They are condescending. And for good reason--those of us who have taken the time to learn the theory of evolution actually understand it, while those who argue against it almost universally do not.

Your pretense. Your claim. It is without merit, but you make it like all Darwinists do at all times.

They are NOT arrogant, however; you're confusing arrogance with earned pride. As for anti-scientific and anti-intellectual, these are hardly true. When a Creationist presents their arguments in a peer-reviewed article (meaning that the arguments are good enough that the reviewers aren't compelled to reject it), we can discuss it in terms of a scientific theory. ///

This is NOT a "peer-reviewed" forum, is it.

More critically, there you go again with your "Creationist" comments.

Let's talk about evolution, shall we? Isn't that, after all, the TITLE of this thread?

You keep trying to change the subject.

 

[DallasDad]

Are you a creationist?

 

[Dinwar]

Are you a creationist?

It's a good bet that anyone who uses the term Darwinist, Evolutionist, Darwinism, and the like is.

Any challenge to ANY of these details is instantly and irreversibly met with personal attacks by Darwinists.

Wait, I'm confused. First off, are there details or is evolution entirely encompassed by the two statements you made? Secondly, what specific details are met with personal attacks?

Also, this is demonstrably untrue. While the debate about Punctuated Equilibrium got heated, there was little in the way of personal attacks (and if you're a paleontologist you've got to expect SOME--it's not like we don't warn the newbies when they come in). When Dawkins proposed his meme theory there were few personal attacks, and none that came from scientists studying evolution as far as I know. Hardy/Weinburg equilibrium is literally never reached, so you can say that the system isn't there with impunity (just establish which of the 7 assumptions is wrong and you're golden). The theory of evolution has gone through some major changes; it's not Darwin's theory anymore, despite Creationist claims.

Well, to quote Darwinists, "If you must ask such a question, then you don't understand evolution."

How do you like it when the shoe is on the other foot?

I don't mind, because I *do* know the answers (or, at least, have a good idea about the answers). I merely presented those as questions that people who study evolution ask, which are not directly related to the two statements you provided. Those pesky details I mentioned.

Your pretense. Your claim. It is without merit, but you make it like all Darwinists do at all times.

Fine. Show me you understand the theory. Then I'll take your statements about it seriously. So far, you have not.

This is NOT a "peer-reviewed" forum, is it.

More critically, there you go again with your "Creationist" comments.

Let's talk about evolution, shall we? Isn't that, after all, the TITLE of this thread?

You keep trying to change the subject.

I never said it was--I said that that is the criteria scientists have for whether or not an idea is worth discussing--whether it passes peer review or not. As for the discussion of evolution, you're not doing so either. You're basically saying "They won't listen to me, the big meanies!" while using incorrect terms, meaningless terms, ad homonym attacks, complete misrepresentations of the theory being discussed, etc. When I tried to discuss it (those pesky details I listed) you missed the point entirely.

But okay. What aspect of evolution do you wish do discuss?

 

[John Jones]

Let's talk about evolution, shall we? Isn't that, after all, the TITLE of this thread?

After you, sir.

 

[Dancing David]

Nope, I haven't done so, nor shall I, I shall ask instead the standard questions, I am not seeking consensus, I am asking for discussion.

1. What about antibiotic resistance, does that not demonstrate natural selection ?
2. Then there is the confusing issue of the fused chromosome, humans have one less chromosome pair than the other great apes and a chromosome pair that has telomeres in the middle and an extra centomere, as though it was made from the fusing of two chromosomes.
3. Then there are the strange traits like the peacock's tail.

So please let us talk about those three Mr. Quick shall we?
What alternative explanation do you offer , as that is what theories are approximate models. So I say that these three data points are possibly explained by the process of natural selection through reproductive success.

What say you.

 

[JonathanQuick]

Are you a creationist?

DallasDad, you have read post after post after post CALLING me a "creationist" and you did not think to ask ONE of those people the basis for such an assumption. Not ONE.

Think about that for a few seconds.

I will answer in a day or two, but doesn't it appear quite obvious to you that
I have NEVER claimed to be a "creationist"?

Nor have I made any claims about the Bible trumping science.
Darwinists consistently jump to baseless conclusions which are anti-scientific and anti-intellectual, and then - THEN they have the temerity, the galling arrogance to claim that THEY are paragons of science, and the object(s) of their enmity are ignorant hillbillies.