Evolution: the Facts.

[Aridas]

Well, since you resurrected the thread, Jimbob...

Hmm, I see where you are coming from. But surely there are those who are educated enough to understand, as well as honest with themselves. Maybe not the person directly involved in the conversation, but perhaps the spectators?

Not on the Creationist side. Creationism is just *that* dishonest, as serious and in depth understanding of the subjects that each of their claims rest on has demonstrated over and over. Even basic understandings of subjects in question are often enough to utterly debunk "falsifiable" claims that are made, completely sincerely by otherwise intelligent proponents, even though they have very often been known to hold onto completely irrelevant and demonstrably wrong things as "proof" of their beliefs, regardless of the evidence against it. NASA proves the Bible is just one of the really obvious ones that has been used on me. There's a lot more.

 

[jimbob]

Science gets a grip on wrinkly fingers

Spontaneous reflex may have evolved to improve because it improved handling of wet objects.

Wrinkly fingers make your grip less slippery.

Scientists think that they have the answer to why the skin on human fingers and toes shrivels up like an old prune when we soak in the bath. Laboratory tests confirmed a theory that wrinkly fingers improve our grip on wet or submerged objects, working to channel away the water like the rain treads in car tyres.

 

[jimbob]

Actually Nature seems to have made its website more user friendly since I last looked. (both the above stories I linked to are from there)

 

[Acleron]

Science gets a grip on wrinkly fingers

Spontaneous reflex may have evolved to improve because it improved handling of wet objects.

Marvellous.

I thought the wrinkly appearance was just water absorption, but now I see there is not only a reason for it happening but that it's been known for eighty years to be more than a simple physical process.

 

[jimbob]

Marvellous.

I thought the wrinkly appearance was just water absorption, but now I see there is not only a reason for it happening but that it's been known for eighty years to be more than a simple physical process.

Me too -although you can tell from my failed attempt at a strikeout, that even the magazine Nature uses "Evolved to"

Grr

 

[Dessi]

Here's a stumper for you guys: if evolution is true, why hasn't Superman evolved a resistance to kryptonite? Take THAT evilyoushunists!

 

[jimbob]

IT'S A STORY.

And evolution works over generations, and he's only one generation

 

[Dinwar]

Here's a stumper for you guys: if evolution is true, why hasn't Superman evolved a resistance to kryptonite? Take THAT evilyoushunists!

Well, if we ask why Kryptonians aren't immune to kryptonite, it's easy to answer: it's for the same reason that humans aren't immune to arsenic. Basically, unless their entire planet is awash in the stuff the selection pressure isn't very high, and frankly without a massive selection pressure you'll never evolve resistance to something that attacks cellular function.

Yes, I know I'm putting way too much thought into it. It does get at a very valid question, though.

 

[Akri]

Well, if we ask why Kryptonians aren't immune to kryptonite, it's easy to answer: it's for the same reason that humans aren't immune to arsenic. Basically, unless their entire planet is awash in the stuff the selection pressure isn't very high, and frankly without a massive selection pressure you'll never evolve resistance to something that attacks cellular function.

Yes, I know I'm putting way too much thought into it. It does get at a very valid question, though.

I always thought that Kryptonite became radioactive as a result of the explosion that destroyed Krypton. Thus there's no reason to ask why the Kryptonians didn't evolve an immunity--it wasn't a part of their environment.

 

[332nd]

I always thought that Kryptonite became radioactive as a result of the explosion that destroyed Krypton. Thus there's no reason to ask why the Kryptonians didn't evolve an immunity--it wasn't a part of their environment.

Correct.

 

[Dinwar]

I always thought that Kryptonite became radioactive as a result of the explosion that destroyed Krypton. Thus there's no reason to ask why the Kryptonians didn't evolve an immunity--it wasn't a part of their environment.

That wouldn't necessarily make it toxic. An organism encountering a completely novel substance is just as likely to be unaffected by it as detrimentally affected by it. Their body simply may not process it--as in, it goes straight through, without actually doing anything to the organism.

As far as radiation goes, radiation is a fact of existence. There's something called the banana dose in radiology--roughly, the amount of radiation you get from eating one banana (high in potassium, which includes a certain percentage of a radioactive isotope). Simple radiation wouldn't explain it--it would have to be a different TYPE of radiation, one different from the background. Either Krypton has no alpha or beta radiation (gamma is deadly no matter what, at least for any Earth-like life), or kryptonite became vastly more radioactive than anything on the planet previously.

I know this is a comic book, but I think it gets at interesting questions about evolution--particularly as we become a space-traveling species: how will WE be impacted by exposure to completely novel selective pressures?

 

[jimbob]

Dinwar, I'd say that the laws of physics would have to be grossly different but the laws Ilf evolution wouldn't, as the basic idea (not the mechanism of transfer if information from parent to child) is just a consequence of logic..

on a phone so apologies for brevity

 

[Akri]

That wouldn't necessarily make it toxic.

No, but it answers the question of "why didn't they evolve an immunity to it". Like you said, it comes down to selection pressure--and that pressure was zero. There's actually more pressure for us to evolve an immunity to arsenic, because we actually HAVE arsenic on our planet.

Simple radiation wouldn't explain it

No, see, this is Comic Book Radiation--it gives powers, takes powers away, and even makes julienned fries!

I know this is a comic book, but I think it gets at interesting questions about evolution--particularly as we become a space-traveling species: how will WE be impacted by exposure to completely novel selective pressures?

Would it really be that different from how humans in the past were impacted when they moved to new parts of the world with new selection pressures? Sure, the pressures themselves would be different, but how many ways can there be to react to something like that? Either you benefit from it, don't react to it, or react badly to it.

 

[Dinwar]

No, but it answers the question of "why didn't they evolve an immunity to it". Like you said, it comes down to selection pressure--and that pressure was zero. There's actually more pressure for us to evolve an immunity to arsenic, because we actually HAVE arsenic on our planet.

Well, it still doesn't explain fully why they weren't immune to it--at a selection pressure of 0 (ie, absolutely no pressure) the explanation would be "random chance".

Would it really be that different from how humans in the past were impacted when they moved to new parts of the world with new selection pressures?

Not really. Remember, all Earth-like life is related--so it would be extremely unlikely that we'd encounter completely novel chemicals or environments here on Earth. Adaptations to deal with previous environments would likely be applicable to other environments. For example, if we have an immunity to some plant compound we'll be likely to be able to tolerate related compounds from related plants.

Where we'll really start to see this come into play is space exploration. Once we find an alien world with any life at all in it we'll encounter novel compounds, environments, etc.--stuff that is, as far as our evolutionary history is concerned, completely random.

 

[Akri]

Not really. Remember, all Earth-like life is related--so it would be extremely unlikely that we'd encounter completely novel chemicals or environments here on Earth. Adaptations to deal with previous environments would likely be applicable to other environments. For example, if we have an immunity to some plant compound we'll be likely to be able to tolerate related compounds from related plants.

Even on earth, though, there are examples of one group getting nearly wiped out by exposure to something they weren't used to (Native Americans and Smallpox) or of a group surviving REALLY WELL off of a substance they weren't exposed to in their old environment (invasive species). Those two plus "no reaction" seem to cover all the possibilities when it comes to encountering a new substance. Either you react badly, you react well, or you don't react at all.

 

[jimbob]

Socieobiology

From Nature

Monkeys stay away from meanies

Capuchin monkeys show biases against humans who deny help to others.

05 March 2013
Expand

After watching humans interact, capuchin monkeys similar to this French Guiana male tended to shun persons who had acted selfishly.


When does a monkey turn down a free treat? When it is offered by a selfish person, apparently.

Given the choice between accepting goodies from helpful, neutral or unhelpful people, capuchin monkeys (Cebus apella) tend to avoid individuals who refuse aid to others, according to a study published today in Nature Communications1

“Explicit refusal to help is a signal that you’re dangerous, that you’re negative,” says Kiley Hamlin, a developmental psychologist at the University of British Columbia in Vancouver, Canada. Similar biases have been shown in chimpanzees2 and in 3-month-old humans3. Hamlin says that the capuchin study suggests that being able to identify undesirable social partners has ancient evolutionary roots.

 

[TubbaBlubba]

Here's a stumper for you guys: if evolution is true, why hasn't Superman evolved a resistance to kryptonite? Take THAT evilyoushunists!

AMAZO, the ability-copying android, quickly developed a kryptonite resistance after copying Superman's traits.

Then he wiped the floor with the Justice League and flew away.

That overpowered bastard.

 

[Dessi]

These images have been circulating around recently, verified as authentic by Snopes:

Yeah, were you there?!

Bible: 1 million
Worldwide cabal of evil atheist scientists trying to trick the world into believing in evolution for some reason: ZERO

QED

 

[Aridas]

Yeah, were you there?!

Yeah. I've had that tossed at me before. At the moment, I'm pretty sure I'd point out why that's really, really worthy of contempt. Now, that said, I think I saw a thread specifically for these pictures and the surrounding circumstances.

Either way, pointing out the utter failures brought to us by young earth creationism is practically too easy. It's just sad when the creationists try to defend them.

 

[Sideroxylon]

When fair minded people have to go to Snopes on your apologetics, you may have jumped the shark.

Answers in Genesis may as well actually produce the Jesus riding dinosaur colouring book.