Evolution in action: new plant species

Originally posted by hammegk:
LIFE strives towards organisms that support higher & higher consciousness (human the best we know of at the moment).
Click to expand...

This is not accurate. LIFE strives to survive, through the survival of individual organisms. A species is simply a group of individual organisms that can reproduce. Species adapt and evolve through the survival of individuals. You will not find species evolving the ability to outrun foxes in those environments that do not have foxes. You will also not find species evolving "higher consciousness" in those habitats where this is not a beneficial feature for survival of individuals. When the environment changes too quickly, individuals perish before they can reproduce and the species becomes extinct.

If "higher consciousness" provides a selective advantage in some habitat, then with enough time, species with that trait may appear in that habitat. Let me know when you see one.

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

I resent that remark. I passed calculus, I failed differential equations.
 
LIFE strives towards organisms that support higher & higher consciousness (human the best we know of at the moment).
Click to expand...

I should point out that multi cellular life is a rather recent development in the history of life on earth. And "intelligent" life is a very recent development in the history of multi cellular life. If life was actually striving towards this development, shouldn't it have happened a lot sooner?

It's also worth noting that even with the advent of multi cellular life, the dominant form of life, by any measure (species diversity, habitat diversity, absolute numbers, or even total bio-mass) is still single cell life (and by a wide margin). Again, this would seem to contradict that assertion that life is striving for higher conciousness. From the bacterial point of view, conciousness bearing complex life is just a curious evolutionary side show (and possibly an interesting new habitat to conquer ;) ).
 
Congratulations, ham-troll, you decimated another good thread with assinine drive-by assertions. Go away.

Jeers,
 
Now let's get to the important stuff, like hybrids between Earthlings and aliens. How come the aliens always want to hybridize with humans, and not with kangaroos or something that might offer interesting biological innovations?
 
That would mean they need to anal probe kangaroos too. You see, in order to create one human/alien hybrid they need to anal probe 1000 humans. I imagine for kangaroos they would have to anal probe about the same number. It's my speculation that the aliens do not have sufficient technology for anal probing marsupials, so I don't think we will see any kangaroo/alien hybrids any time soon.
 
Getting back to the original post...

I didn't express myself very well - apologies - but the initial comments were on the track I was interested in pursuing.

That is, does the article in the original post contribute anything new to the argument?

Does it provide an example that will give those who do not accept evolution pause for thought?

Does it provide a proof for evolution we didn't already have?

Is evolution as discussed by the media, creationists, teachers, etc, set out in over-simplified terms that would prevent many from seeing the possible significance of the existence of a new plant species?
 
I think I agree, spoonhandler. For those who disagree with evolution, the mere evolution of a new plant species will mean nothing; they will call it "variation within a kind," or some-such. For those of us who know that evolution is true, it is also relatively meaningless; it's interesting in that a new species has developed, but we don't need anything proven. Overall, I don't think that one new species is going to sway any opinions either way.
 
spoonhandler said:
Getting back to the original post...

I didn't express myself very well - apologies - but the initial comments were on the track I was interested in pursuing.

That is, does the article in the original post contribute anything new to the argument?
Click to expand...
Not in any new sense.

Does it provide an example that will give those who do not accept evolution pause for thought?
Click to expand...
No.

Does it provide a proof for evolution we didn't already have?
Click to expand...
No.

Is evolution as discussed by the media, creationists, teachers, etc, set out in over-simplified terms that would prevent many from seeing the possible significance of the existence of a new plant species?
Click to expand...
I don't believe so. I'd like to hear rwald comment on what he considers the best iron-clad example supporting evolution, in the fossil record, and also the latest, greatest, biochem thinking.
 
The whole point of evolution is that there isn't just one piece of evidence which is the "best iron-clad example supporting evolution." All the evidence supports evolution. If you want, I'll list the different lines of evidence supporting evolution: fossil record, homology, development ("ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny"), vestigial organs, convergence, island biogeography, and the molecular (genetic) record. If you'd like, I can cite specific examples within each line of evidence, but the point is that there isn't one piece of evidence supporting evolution, there's every piece of evidence.

Speaking of evidence, can you cite one piece of evidence which refutes evolution?
 
rwald said:
The whole point of evolution is that there isn't just one piece of evidence which is the "best iron-clad example supporting evolution." All the evidence supports evolution. If you want, I'll list the different lines of evidence supporting evolution: fossil record, homology, development ("ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny"), vestigial organs, convergence, island biogeography, and the molecular (genetic) record. If you'd like, I can cite specific examples within each line of evidence, but the point is that there isn't one piece of evidence supporting evolution, there's every piece of evidence.
Click to expand...
I agree, but would you pretend it is an exam question and the request is for you to list -- in your opinion -- the best fossil record evidence, and the single best genetic/biochem finding. (Just name a couple of penguins; don't write a book about them. ;)

Speaking of evidence, can you cite one piece of evidence which refutes evolution?
Click to expand...
Nope. Just that "why" is important to me, personally, and the current materialist/atheist Theory just ignores that question (and always will). Idealism as the basis for what-is at least hints at a "why" answer, imho.
 
OK. Just because I feel that I want to provide the most complete evidence possible, I'll cite some evidence from all the above mentioned lines of evidence:

Fossil record: All known fossils fit into one phylogenetic tree. For example, we'll find fossils which appear to be one species, and then fossils in the same area but thousands of years later which are similar but which have some changes, which correlate with known changes in the environment during the same time in the same area. Also, we'll find evidence for geological isolating events, and find that two new populations rose from where one existed. Basically, we see evolution in action.
If you want me to cite specific genus and species, and specific specimens, I'll go look some up at Talk.Origins later. Or you could do so yourself, at the link I already provided.

Homology: The fact that all mammals have 7 neck vertebra, 5 finger appendages (or fossil evidence showing exactly how and when those 5 finger appendages were lost); the fact that many mammals have two "radius/ulna" and "tibia/fibula" bones in their appendages, but only one "humerus" or "femur" bone (as opposed to having two bones in each place, or one bone in each place)...is that enough?

Development: The embryological development of organisms approximates the phylogenetic tree we've established from the fossil record, providing independent confirmation of our findings (there's an article in the current (March 2003) issue of Scientific American about the evolution of feathers, and how the embryological development of same reflects their evolution).

Vestigial organs: Human coccyx and appendix, snake legs, whale diaphram...not even including examples of "bad design" such as the human testes and eye and the insect vascular system (I think).

Convergence: the fact that the same features can evolve in different groups, but in different manners showing that the organisms did not have recent common ancestors (some examples being the wings of bats, birds, and bugs, and placental vs. marsupial mammals).

Island biogeography: the fact that species on an island more closely resemble species on the nearest mainland than they do species on distant (but similar in climate) islands. This actually was the line of evidence that Darwin first noted.

Molecular record: the difference between the genetic code of different species matches how long ago the two species had a common ancestor, again allowing for independent confirmation of the phylogenetic tree. If you want specific examples, I'll find them.

Of course, if you're going to insist that only the fossil and molecular records count, than I'll go find more specific examples in the given fields.

Now, as to your last comment...what do you mean, the question of "why"? Evolution is not teleological -- there is no "goal" of evolution (other than to generate species more "fit" to their environments). I'm still not certain what you're talking about with this.
 
The article linked to was a newspaper item--I'm sure the original, in the Journal of the Botanical Society of the British Isles, must have been more informative. I've seen a number of somewhat similar articles in Science magazine over the years, where hybridization was involved in speciation, so, while (from what I can tell from the linked article) nothing particularly new to biology was described, it did provide yet another example of the possibilities.
 
First, thanks for the nicely done summarizing overview.


rwald said:

Now, as to your last comment...what do you mean, the question of "why"? Evolution is not teleological -- there is no "goal" of evolution (other than to generate species more "fit" to their environments). I'm still not certain what you're talking about with this.
Click to expand...

Teleology, Aristotle's Final Cause, etcetc. are not addressed by Science. "How" is what Science examines, and if one prefers to proceed no farther, so be it. I contend "Why" still is a valid question; materialists/atheists should conclude they have no interest in pursuing this question, in fact that the question is "meaningless".
 
hammegk said:
proceed no farther, so be it. I contend "Why" still is a valid question; materialists/atheists should conclude they have no interest in pursuing this question, in fact that the question is "meaningless".
Click to expand...

*ahem* Further. Now that I've addressed my little pet peeve, I can get on with addressing your why question.

The question of 'why' isn't meaningless, it simply doesn't exist. Only people interested in magic care about an answer to a fabricated conundrum. Only people who deny our existence as animals need to create an answer to the created question of 'why'. Talented and gifted animals, to be sure, but animals all the same. The really odd part is that believers in magic understand this, and that's why evolutionary theory is resisted even when applied to plants, moths, flies, or dinosaurs. If it affects other life on this planet, we are subject to it as well...because we're animals, living creatures, just like plants, moths, flies, etc.

That's why I love being an atheist, and not a religious dullard. I am comfortable with not having all the answers. When I am unable to explain the mechanism of something, I just don't feel the need to turn to magic as my answer. I simply wait and see if someone else find the answer through science.
 
because we're animals, living creatures, just like plants, moths, flies, etc.
Click to expand...

:)

For me it was always ants. When I was told about some abstract concept like an afterlife, eternal punishment or whatever, I would always find myself asking if the same thing would happen to ants, because I was never able to see any difference between an ant and me.

Heaven? Ant heaven? Naaahhh....
 
hammy,

How surprising to see you ignore my challenge. Do carry on cherry-picking your arguments and setting up poison-welled criteria.

I don't blame you for being afraid. I'll bet you read the only post in which I gave a bit of bio, didn't you?

Pathetic troll.

Cheers,
 
rwald quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Speaking of evidence, can you cite one piece of evidence which refutes evolution?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

hammegk said:

Nope. Just that "why" is important to me, personally, and the current materialist/atheist Theory just ignores that question (and always will). Idealism as the basis for what-is at least hints at a "why" answer, imho.
Click to expand...

Wild applause!

Thanks to both of you. This entire thread was an excellent exchange.

Hammegk I applaud your willingness to admit that you believe what you do just because that's what feels right to you. BillHoyt I really think you should give him credit on this one.

And rwald you have the patience of Job. Through persistence and solid reasoning you slowly forced the exchange down to it's basics. I'm closer to having BillHoyt's attitude, but Im not even willing to start down the path. I gave up any hope for these guys long ago. Hammegk's not going to modify his belief system no matter how solid your argument is.

Again, thanks! It's what keeps me coming back.
 
Re: Re: Blind natural selection, is the evolution's only driving force!

DrMatt said:


No.
Longer legs may make mating more difficult. The long-legged rabbits may flourish where foxes tend to give chase and eliminate the short-legged rabbits; in neighboring regions where the foxes are loathe to go (e.g. because of briar patches), short legs may prevail because of their greater proliferation. This split may be the first in several which eventually lead to two populations of rabbit which are somehow different enough that they are no longer able to mate--or to produce fertile offspring. Or, this may not happen.
Click to expand...

TO DR MATT

Soderqvist1: You say no! :confused:
My post was not from my top off the head, the dinner/life concept stems from Dawkins!

But now, what if there are asymmetries in the economic calculations on the two sides of the arms race? Two thousand years ago, Aesop noted that the rabbit runs faster than the fox, because the rabbit is running for his life, while the fox is only running for his dinner. The cost of failure in running speed, for the fox, is merely a lost dinner. The cost of failure in running speed, for the rabbit, is a lost life. In the trade-off between spending resources on leg muscles and on reproduction, therefore, the optimum for the fox population could well come out very different from the optimum for the rabbit population.
http://www.world-of-dawkins.com/Dawkins/Work/Articles/1989univpara.htm
 
hammegk said:
Neither of us know the correctness of the fly to wasp jump, but I contend any evolutionist would leap on such an event as "the final proof". (Given of course there was a simultaneous appearance of a male/female pair. ;) )
Click to expand...

This is simply incorrect. Consider this story from Cosmos by Carl Sagan, describing a time when he was a student working in the lab of H.J. Muller:

One day I was looking through a low-power binocular microscope at a newly arrived batch of adult Drosophila immobolized with a little ether, and was busily separating the different varieties with a camel's-hair brush. To my astonishment, I came across something very different: not a small variation such as red eyes instead of white, or neck bristles instead of no neck bristles. This was another, and very well-functioning, kind of creature with much more prominent wings and long feathery antennae. Fate had arranged, I concluded, that an example of a major evolutionary change in a single generation, the very thing Muller had said could never happen, should take place in his own laboratory. It was my unhappy task to explain it to him.
Click to expand...

It turned out that it was actually a different type of fly that took advantage of the laboratory breeding conditions and managed to sneek it's own eggs in sometimes. In any case, this doesn't sound much like the triumphant feeling of final vindication.

At the risk of repetitive futility, I have to ask: what about evolutionary theory or evolutionary mechanisms do you find speculative? Why?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom