Evolution: the Facts.

[Dr Adequate]

I've added a bit more to the sex ratio example --- do you think I should add a bit more and split it into a separate article?

 

[The Atheist]

My $0-02 says it looks good as it is - it all relevant and it is an ESS, so it probably ties that together better by staying in that section than having it elsewhere.

 

[jimbob]

There has been a study replicating (and confirming) the classic "Peppered Moth study. In response to the criticisms in the book "Of Moths and Men".

Critics suggested that the key experiments on the peppered moth in the 1950s were flawed. Some went as far as to suggest the research was fraudulent, with the implication that the school textbooks were feeding children a lie.

Creationists smelt blood. The story of the peppered moth became a story of how Darwinism itself was flawed - with its best known example being based on fiddled data.

Now a Cambridge professor has repeated the key predation experiments with the peppered moth, only this time he has taken into account the criticisms and apparent flaws in the original research conducted 50 years ago.

I think this is on topic, as it addresses a specific creationist canard. (found on Ben Goldacre's miniblog)

If creationists responded to reason, then this would help

 

[Dr Adequate]

Thanks, I've added a link to his speech to the article on [swiki]Peppered Moths[/swiki].

Isn't it sweet how biologists can still do science in their back yards?

 

[krazyKemist]

I've found this nice very pointed (and technical) journal which discusses only issues of abiogenesis/origin of life:

Origins of Life and Evolution of Biospheres

In the latest issue, there is an interesting review of the main questions concerning abiogenesis and how advanced science is in answering them, by the scientists involved in the work. A good place to find papers, if you can access it.

Also to Dr. A: shouldn't the SW article on chirality include some of the theories as to the actual breaking of chirality? The papers listed show how chirality can be amplified, but not its actual origin.

the Kemist

 

[Dr Adequate]

Also to Dr. A: shouldn't the SW article on chirality include some of the theories as to the actual breaking of chirality? The papers listed show how chirality can be amplified, but not its actual origin.

At least the last article shows symmetry breaking ... as a Kemist, perhaps you could suggest more articles.

The SW article on abiogenesis needs tarting up ... microspheres, RNA species, the more interesting variants on Miller-Urey (again, some suggestions would be helpful), organics in space, et cetera. All ideas welcome.

 

[articulett]

At least the last article shows symmetry breaking ... as a Kemist, perhaps you could suggest more articles.

The SW article on abiogenesis needs tarting up ... microspheres, RNA species, the more interesting variants on Miller-Urey (again, some suggestions would be helpful), organics in space, et cetera. All ideas welcome.

Here's the cool one on Miller-Urey that came out this year
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa004&articleID=9952573C-E7F2-99DF-32F2928046329479
from this guys: http://online.kitp.ucsb.edu/online/evonet07/bada/
And the Panda's Thumb commentary: http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2007/04/primordial_soup.html
(addressing creationists).

And here's the stuff on primordial soup washing over surfaces with pre-life- ish minerals preferentially sticking from Nov. 2006:

http://www.spaceflightnow.com/news/n0611/14life/

I also thought think J. Craig Venter's speculation for viruses being the first life-ish forms is also compelling: http://www.cogito.org/Articles/ArticleDetail.aspx?ContentID=14225

We have lots of pieces in the abiogenesis puzzle. But I don't think I have the skills to tart anything up. I'll help with resources, but you are the eloquent one, my man.

 

[krazyKemist]

At least the last article shows symmetry breaking ... as a Kemist, perhaps you could suggest more articles.

The SW article on abiogenesis needs tarting up ... microspheres, RNA species, the more interesting variants on Miller-Urey (again, some suggestions would be helpful), organics in space, et cetera. All ideas welcome.

One thing would be to specify that there could not be chirality without prior chirality, because if we look for chirality without life, there are whole journals on asymmetric synthesis.

For the relation between star formation and homochirality via polarized light:
Science 281: 672-674 (1998) But, this is less of actuality today, as most scientists don't believe this could have significantly influenced homochirality.

Another hypothesis for symmetry breaking is parity violation by electroweak forces, which is predicted by theoretical physics. It would explain the present handedness, but some of the experimental observations of this effect on amino acids are today contested. The original paper can be found in Nature:
Kondepudi et al. Nature 314, 438-441

Experimentally, mirror symmetry breaking has also been obtained by stirring:
Science 292: 2063-2066 (2001)

and using an oriented magnetic field:
Nature 405:932-935

There is also the stochastic hypothesis, which relies on random amplification of minute local variations of the enantiomer ratio, and domination of one handedness. In that case the present handedness would be coincidental.

The other papers in the article describe pretty well how minute enantiomeric excess can be ampified.

the Kemist

 

[AmyWilson]

Evolution is like any other fantasy, something that isn't real.

Rule 11: Posts must be on topic to the thread subject. On this Forum thread drift is expected but must follow from the discussion.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: prewitt81

 

[steenkh]

Evolution is like any other fantasy, something that isn't real.

 

[Escuerd]

Not all do. Behe, Meyer, Dembski, and our own resident Young Earth Creationist, T'ai Chi, all understand evolution.

They just choose to lie about it.

Behe actually doesn't deny evolution or common descent. He just denies that natural selection is the mechanism by which all biological adaptations have developed. This is a more respectable position, I think, though I also happen to think it's wrong.

It's quite well-demonstrated (I think molecular phylogenies put the final nail in the coffin) that all known life comes from a common ancestor. But it's a lot harder to come up with such strong evidence for the stronger claim that natural selection plus mutation is the underlying mechanism for all the major adaptations we see.

I don't find Behe's arguments that it's insufficient to be convincing ("irreducible complexity" doesn't cut it), but it's a big jump from failing to be convinced that something is wrong to being sure that it's right. At this point, I must defer to mutation/natural selection as the driver of evolution as merely "the best theory available" as I've seen no better ("god" theories are too ad hoc). I'd very much love anything that could strengthen (or weaken) that position, though.

 

[Escuerd]

Kind of. The next neighbor of your Milky Way (Andromeda) is 2.5 million light years away.

Your argument is not really easy going (redshift, expansion of the Universe, ...). I wonder if geological facts aren't simpler.

Herzblut

Indeed, to really get a firm handle on how distances like that are calculated one has to go into details about the physics of variable stars and other standard candles. Unfortunately, the more effort it takes to understand something like this, the easier it will be for people who think it's all hogwash to simply dismiss it.

Further, the standard answer prepared for this is that the speed of light has decayed over time and/or that it loses energy (and hence its wavelength increases) over time thus causing redshift (as opposed to universal expansion). There are lots of strong observational reasons to rule these particular ideas out, but they tend to be a bit subtle and abstruse for the typical layperson (a category most believers in a young earth fall into), and often are not even immediately obvious to people who know much about the field.

Then again, if a motivated creationist is willing to follow on this route, all the better. It helps people on all sides get better educated about science. Hopefully it will stick with at least some.

 

[Dr Adequate]

[swiki]Flood Myths[/swiki]

 

[Dr Adequate]

Don't mention it, oh, you didn't.

[swiki]Aposematism[/swiki]. Yes, more behavioral ecology. With pretty pictures of Nudibranchia.

 

[The Atheist]

Don't mention it, oh, you didn't.

[swiki]Aposematism[/swiki]. Yes, more behavioral ecology. With pretty pictures of Nudibranchia.

I'll mention it - that's very good.

I hope to get some time to do some collation of all this stuff shortly.

 

[kennytew]

When it comes to transitional forms creationists hide behind the traditions of nomenclature. “After all,” they point out, “each fossil fits into a species and there are no fossils of creatures half way between two species.” Many creationists seem impervious to the fact that the transitional forms are either shoehorned into an existing species, or a new species is created to house them. Therefore when they look at natural history, past and present they see discrete units, species, and have little appreciation for the difficulties and conflicts along the way. Worse still when you point out these difficulties, in an attempt to illustrate how ill equipped Linnaean nomenclature is when dealing with evolution, they simply use this as further evidence that scientists are, “Making it up as they go.” I don’t know if others have had a similar experience, maybe it’s just me, but I have found the concept of transitional forms a devil of a subject for the reasons I have outlined.

 

[The Atheist]

Good point. I think that's why pictorial methods are so impressive - you don't get stuck in nomenclature arguments and some of them are graphically convincing.

Picture & 1000 words and all that.

 

[kennytew]

I agree, the only slight successes I have achieved were in answer to such claims as, “Lucy was a chimp.” Whereby pointing them to some good comparative images, especially the pelvis, has enabled me to place some doubts in their mind’s about the honesty (Or subject knowledge), of those who feed them information. It’s a small step, but a crucial one.

 

[arthwollipot]

I've got myself into trouble recently by claiming that transitional forms both did and did not exist.

On the one hand, nothing is transitional, because every organism survives on its own capabilities, and not because it is partway between one thing and another.

On the other hand, everything is transitional, because evolution operates constantly (though at different rates depending on selection pressure) and all organisms are in the process of evolving into something different.

I've found that this is just too confusing for the poor dears, so I've made a commitment to stick to the "transitionals exist" statements.

 

[arthwollipot]

I agree, the only slight successes I have achieved were in answer to such claims as, “Lucy was a chimp.” Whereby pointing them to some good comparative images, especially the pelvis, has enabled me to place some doubts in their mind’s about the honesty (Or subject knowledge), of those who feed them information. It’s a small step, but a crucial one.

This picture is usually pretty good:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/hominids.html