Evolution in action: new plant species

[Guest]

Um...didn't you want to reply to hammegk, not just quote him?

Ya think? Slowwwwww line today. Okay, take two....

 

[rwald]

If a fly randomly mutated into a wasp, it would prove that natural selection is not needed to generate species diversity. It would directly counter all extant forms of evolution. I think I'm not being immodest when I say I understand evolution better than you.

 

[Guest]

Not Darwinism as currently stressed. Too many theories & mechanisms -- none demonstrated other than by speculation.
)

Truly, hammy, you were misinformed. "Speculation"? Hardly.

For your edification, sir, the word you keep mangling is "drosophila." And, actually, speciation has already been observed in drosophila. How about one of Theodosius' papers:

Dobzhansky, Th., and O. Pavlovsky, 1971. "An experimentally created incipient species of Drosophila", Nature 23:289-292.

Or would you prefer to discuss the mathematics of the "speculation?"

I'm prepared to continue with citations or to discuss the mathematics. Your call. I suggest you take off your shoes and socks, so that we can go toe to toe. I've got clothespins.

Your move,

 

[hammegk]

If a fly randomly mutated into a wasp, it would prove that natural selection is not needed to generate species diversity. It would directly counter all extant forms of evolution. I think I'm not being immodest when I say I understand evolution better than you.

Or, it could actually provide a demonstrable mechanism, unlike the "currently extant" theories. But those black moths sure happened (geologically) fast, didn't they?

Oh, you say that wasn't "evolution"? More of a hoax by well-meaning Scientists, perhaps? LOL. Can you say Piltdown?

 

[hammegk]

For your edification, sir, the word you keep mangling is "drosophila."

Good one. I was wondering if anyone was going to notice.

What species do you call the cute ones with legs where the eyes should have been?

 

[Guest]

Good one. I was wondering if anyone was going to notice.

What species do you call the cute ones with legs where the eyes should have been?

Imaginal discs. They have no direct bearing on the topic at hand. Would you like to return to the topic, or are you, by deflecting, already conceding you are out of your depth?

Cheers,

 

[rwald]

What do you mean, "current theories have no demonstrable mechanisms"? We have natural selection and mutation. What do you expect?

And I would expect a creationist like you to know that the moths were not an example of speciation, but of allele frequencies being directionally shifted by an environmental stress (after all, I thought you would gleefully exclaim that this much-praised example of evolution is merely a demonstration of variation within a species). No actual new species was formed. The two main routes to speciation are 1. species A evolving into species B over a long period of time (called "anagenesis"), and 2. species A diverging into species B and C (called "cladogenesis"). For anagenesis to take place, the species needs to evolve so much that modern versions could not mate with ancestral versions. While this is not actually testable, differences in physiology can suggest that it has taken place. For cladogenesis to take place, the population of A needs to be divided into two sub-populations which cannot mate with one another (say, if a flood separates the population into two groups, or if some individuals get lost in new territory and can't find their way back), and then B and C need to evolve to the extent that they cannot interbreed even if reintroduced to one another. In the classic moth example, neither of these happened; no new species was created.

 

[hammegk]

What do you mean, "current theories have no demonstrable mechanisms"? We have natural selection and mutation. What do you expect?

It's the demonstrable problem. Let's see one of your allele shifts actually do anything that could remotely be considered evolutionary rather than provide some minor interspecies adaptation, or let's mutate something & get a male-female pair.

And I would expect a creationist like you ...

A creationist would note that any God capable of providing what Science has to work with -- in 6 days 6000 yrs ago -- could have designed the whole shebang to appear 15b yrs old just as you and science currently postulate. What fun is that?

I mentioned that my recent shift to Idealism provides me with some rationale for "life" (may I postulate Energy=Life) evolving to forms that support higher "consciousness".

"anagenesis" and "cladogenesis"...

Theoretically elegant I agree. Demonstrated, no.

 

[rwald]

It's called "the fossil record." That's where the evidence lies. We can see species over periods of thousands of years, and we can tell that their changes correspond with those predicted by evolution. We can even make predictions about what fossils we would expect to find in a given place, and then go out and find fossils of that nature. The proof is in the fossil record.

Oh, and I forgot to ask something which the evolutionist should always ask the creationist in debates such as this: If you don't like evolutionary theory, what theory do you have which better accounts for the evidence? If you know of no theory which better explains all the evidence than evolution, then what complaint do you have?

 

[hammegk]

Imaginal discs. They have no direct bearing on the topic at hand. Would you like to return to the topic, or are you, by deflecting, already conceding you are out of your depth?

Cheers,

Thanks. Imaginal discs; that's new info.

However, I won't concede you (and science) offer a real knowledge of "life" until you vivisect a critter, re-animate it, build a mate for that critter from scratch, and see how the offspring do.

 

[rwald]

"Until scientists recreate Big Bang in a laboratory, I won't believe in Big Bang theory," huh? I know you didn't literally say that, but your claim is of about equal merit. Science claims that life is a complex process. We'll even admit that we don't know absolutely everything about life (if we did, then why do biologists still exist?). However, just because we don't know everything about life doesn't mean we don't know something about life. I think the term for this fallacy is "false dichotomy."

 

[hammegk]

It's called "the fossil record." That's where the evidence lies. We can see species over periods of thousands of years, and we can tell that their changes correspond with those predicted by evolution. We can even make predictions about what fossils we would expect to find in a given place, and then go out and find fossils of that nature. The proof is in the fossil record.

Or looking at the situation from a slightly different angle, the circularity of "look at record" -- "revise theory" -- etcetc is undeniable. Of course the fossil record supports the theory.

Oh, and I forgot to ask something which the evolutionist should always ask the creationist in debates such as this: If you don't like evolutionary theory, what theory do you have which better accounts for the evidence? If you know of no theory which better explains all the evidence than evolution, then what complaint do you have?

The problem here is I like the concept of "life evolving" as well as if not better than you do.

 

[rwald]

Well, if the only evidence of "macroevolution" you're going to consider is actually seeing it happen in your lifetime, then you'll have to wait a while. A long while. Naturally, your counter-argument to this is "unfalsifiability." The short answer to that is that, while you may not consider the fossil evidence to prove anything, most scientists do. Including most geologists. Somehow, I trust their opinion over your. If you're interested, there's a list here at the Talk.Origins Archive discussing 29 falsifiable examples of macroevolution in the fossil record. Though, I'm sure you'll ignore this.

I'm not sure I understand your opinion on evolution. Do you think it happend, but through a mechanism other than natural selection? What do you mean, "The problem here is I like the concept of "life evolving" as well as if not better than you do."?

 

[hammegk]

Well, if the only evidence of "macroevolution" you're going to consider is actually seeing it happen in your lifetime, then you'll have to wait a while. A long while. Naturally, your counter-argument to this is "unfalsifiability."

Yet all of us would be very pleased to see a demonstrable macro-evolutionary event.

The short answer to that is that, while you may not consider the fossil evidence to prove anything, most scientists do. Including most geologists.

Geologist: An Earth Scientist who couldn't pass calculus.

Is the bar up to diff-e-q yet?

If you're interested, there's a list here at the Talk.Origins Archive discussing 29 falsifiable examples of macroevolution in the fossil record. Though, I'm sure you'll ignore this.

Ignore, no. Find compelling for the theory du jour of evolution per materialists/atheists, no also. It would also be nice to consider the abiogenesis problem too don't you think?

I'm not sure I understand your opinion on evolution. Do you think it happend, but through a mechanism other than natural selection? What do you mean, "The problem here is I like the concept of "life evolving" as well as if not better than you do."?

It's a good theory. I like it.

Big Bang. I like that too, but forgive me if I join a group who thinks it will turn out the universe is just, barely, closed.

Some postulate we are in the 7th or 8th 100 billion year expansion/contraction cycle.

 

[rwald]

OK. I see the short answer was not enough for you. Now, the long answer.

In this particular case, the null hypothesis would be that fossils are strewn about randomly, or at least that if they form a pattern, the pattern does not confirm evolution by descent with modification. In other words, if there existed fossils which disproved evolution, then that would suggest that evolution is a flawed theory. Based on evolutionary theory, scientists can describe fossils which, if they existed, would disprove evolution. Therefore, evolution is falsifiable; if those fossils were discovered, evolution would be falsified.

For example, if a fossil appeared to be a "transition form" between birds and mammals, this would falsify the current phylogenetic tree. Yes, scientists would attempt to find their flaw, but if they could not explain this fossil, they would need to reconsider the whole theory. Since no such falsifications have been found, and all the evidence continues to point in favor of evolution, scientists still hold that the phylogenetic tree we have is mostly correct, and that this tree gives examples of the types of speciation I above described.

The veracity of abiogenesis theories does not prove or disprove the veracity of evolution. It's theoretically possible that God created the first organism, and that evolution acted from there. Yes, abiogenesis is a theory which needs to be proven for a complete naturalistic description of the universe, but the truth of abiogenesis does not directly affect the truth of evolution.

And your understanding of the Big Bang is somewhat lacking. All the Big Bang theory says is that the universe is expanding, and that a finite time ago, all the matter and energy in the universe was located in an infinitely dense point (string theory modifies this a bit, but keeps the gist of the theory). The question of whether the universe is closed, open, or flat has no direct relation to Big Bang theory. Actually, a recent study found that the universe cannot be closed, and that there will be no Big Crunch. If I understand you correctly, you think the universe is flat, which is still a possibility.

 

[hammegk]

OK. I see the short answer was not enough for you. Now, the long answer.

... snippity, snip .....

I see nothing to quibble with there, just want to mention -- again -- there is some circularity in the reasoning.

And abiogenesis is indeed a "problem" of its own.

And your understanding of the Big Bang is somewhat lacking. All the Big Bang theory says is that the universe is expanding, and that a finite time ago, all the matter and energy in the universe was located in an infinitely dense point (string theory modifies this a bit, but keeps the gist of the theory).

Actually, I think I have reasonable layman's grasp of the current thinking. BTW, I like strings, too!

The question of whether the universe is closed, open, or flat has no direct relation to Big Bang theory.

I disagree. It was and is very very very very close to flat, or we wouldn't be doing this.

Actually, a recent study found that the universe cannot be closed, and that there will be no Big Crunch.

Do you have an online citation you could furnish, or at least a citation. Thanks.

 

[Oso]

Do you have an online citation you could furnish, or at least a citation. Thanks.

Here's a recent thread that covers it.
http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=13965

 

[Guest]

hammy's up to his usually disingenuous bull. He sets up preposterous criteria. He makes drive-by assertions and absolutely deflects when challenged on them. And he pulls the No True Scotsman maneuver. First, he wants fruit flies, whose genus he can't even spell, to turn into wasps, whose genus he hasn't even name. Then, as we begin to address the issues within that demand, he ups the stake to encompass abiogenesis. Oh, and we will certainly go beyond that as his illogic careens down his twisted highway.

Now, sir, will you sit still long enough to address your assertion that evolutionary theory is "speculation?" Or that the definition is circular?

Stop running and take your shoes off. Let us take this one hamm-handed assertion at a time.

Ground rules: No illogic. No deflection. No bullsh!t. Straight presentation of evidence along normal lines, following normal rules, informed by science rather than drive-by assertions.

Frankly, I don't think you have either the intellectual caliber, the requisite background or the intestinal fortitude to do other than your puerile solipsistic games.

Cheers,

 

[Guest]

hammy,

Do you want to go to diff equ? Just say the word, twerp.

Cheers,

 

[Hazelip]

Thanks. Imaginal discs; that's new info.

However, I won't concede you (and science) offer a real knowledge of "life" until you vivisect a critter, re-animate it, build a mate for that critter from scratch, and see how the offspring do.

Absence of scientific explanation of every bit of a mechanism, or reproduction of an event in controlled circumstances, does not mean that magic is, indeed, the answer. It simply means that all the scientific knowledge has not been obtained. It is actually the impetus to ask further questions...