How predictable is evolution?

Feb 19, 2013

Understanding how and why diversification occurs is important for understanding why there are so many species on Earth. In a new study published on 19 February in the open access journal PLOS Biology, researchers show that similar—or even identical—mutations can occur during diversification in completely separate populations of E. coli evolving in different environments over more than 1000 generations. Evolution, therefore, can be surprisingly predictable.

The experiment, conducted by Matthew Herron, research assistant professor at the University of Montana, and Professor Michael Doebeli of the University of British Columbia, involved 3 different populations of bacteria. At the start of the experiment, each population consisted of generalists competing for two different sources of dietary carbon (glucose and acetate), but after 1200 generations they had evolved into two coexisting types each with a specialized physiology adapted to one of the carbon sources. Herron and Doebeli were able to sequence the genomes of populations of bacteria frozen at 16 different points during their evolution, and discovered a surprising amount of similarity in their evolution.

"In all three populations it seems to be more or less the same core set of genes that are causing the two that we see," Herron said. "In a few cases, it's even the exact same genetic change."

Recent advances in sequencing technology allowed Herron and Doebeli to sequence large numbers of whole bacterial genomes and provide evidence that there is in evolutionary diversity. Any evolutionary process is some combination of predictable and unpredictable processes with , but seeing the same in different populations showed that selection can be deterministic.

"There are about 4.5 million in the E. coli genome," he said. "Finding in four cases that the exact same change had happened independently in different populations was intriguing."

Herron and Doebeli argue that a particular form of selection—negative frequency dependence—plays an important role in driving diversification. When bacteria are either glucose specialists or acetate specialists, a higher density of one type will mean fewer resources for that type, so bacteria specializing on the alternative resource will be at an advantage.

"We think it's likely that some kind of negative frequency dependence—some kind of rare type advantage—is important in many cases of diversification, especially when there's no geographic isolation," Herron said.

As technology advances, Herron believes that similar experiments in larger organisms will soon be possible. Some examples of diversification without geographic isolation are known in plants and animals, but it remains to be seen whether or not the underlying evolutionary processes are similar to those in bacteria.

Explore further: Human sense of fairness evolved to favor long-term cooperation

More information: PLOS Biol 11(2): e1001490. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.1001490

Related Stories

Salamanders spell out evolution in action

Jul 06, 2011

Lungless salamanders (Ensatina eschscholtzii) live in a horseshoe-shape region in California (a 'ring') which circles around the central valley. The species is an example of evolution in action because, while neighboring popula ...

How Volvox got its groove

Feb 19, 2009

Some algae have been hanging together rather than going it alone much longer than previously thought, according to new research.

Recommended for you

User comments : 197

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

verkle
1.6 / 5 (42) Feb 19, 2013
The experiment is all good. But it has nothing to do with evolution. There is large variation within our genes and this makeup can change generation to generation. But this is not evolution.

Evolution as taught by crack scientists is that genes actually change over time, and new unique genes are created randomly. We have never observed this anywhere. Anytime. Or in any form. It is pure science fiction.

jacky 750
4.6 / 5 (20) Feb 19, 2013
Proof continues to mount for evolution and naysayers continue with their stupid denials. They don't have any proof whatsoever for their miracle creation hypothesis.

This is a great study lending experimental support to mathematical models of frequency-based diversification.
dogbert
1.7 / 5 (39) Feb 19, 2013
Yes, verkie. What is being described is selection. Selection can drive a lot of diversity within a species (witness dogs), but it is not evolution.

Even mutation which does not cause the creation of a new species is not evolution.

Evolution has never been demonstrated.
Telekinetic
3.6 / 5 (17) Feb 19, 2013
On the recent completion of the Neanderthal genome:
"Researchers found that sequenced human genomes from one San from southern Africa, one Yoruba from West Africa, one Papua New Guinean, one Han Chinese and one French person shared 1 to 4 percent common genomic material with Neanderthals, the result of these people's ancient ancestors interbreeding with the close relative. The genes appear to offer no benefit and be randomly placed. Additionally the transfer appears one way, from Neanderthals to humans.
The new work is not without controversy. The hard evidence it provides is discomforting for those whose religious doctrines claim that the Earth is less than 10,000 years old. Furthermore, it provides further evidence of how humans and other hominids evolved, a concept that is opposed by several religions."

God forbade lying, liars.
dogbert
2.2 / 5 (32) Feb 19, 2013
Telekinetic,

Homo Sapiens and Neanderthals were not the same species. They would not have successfully interbred.

That the are similar genes in diverse hominids is hardly surprising.

The earth is not 10,000 years old. You need to get off that stump.
Telekinetic
3.7 / 5 (18) Feb 19, 2013
More lies, dogbert- The genes aren't similar, they are FROM the Neanderthal. And what does "close relative" mean? Are you saying you can't mate with a cousin?
Lurker2358
1.9 / 5 (7) Feb 19, 2013
TK:

It only takes about 7 generations to reduce a single ancestor's genetic contribution to less than 1% following some "inter-racial" relationship.
dogbert
2.2 / 5 (23) Feb 19, 2013
Telekinetic,
More lies, dogbert- The genes aren't similar, they are FROM the Neanderthal.


You don't know that. Humans have similar DNA to many animals.

Personal attacks are the hallmark of the insecure and unsure. You cannot logically support your assertions so you attack personalities.
Telekinetic
4.1 / 5 (17) Feb 19, 2013
Telekinetic,
More lies, dogbert- The genes aren't similar, they are FROM the Neanderthal.


You don't know that. Humans have similar DNA to many animals.

Personal attacks are the hallmark of the insecure and unsure. You cannot logically support your assertions so you attack personalities.

If someone perpetuates a lie, and an historically harmful one, and you call them on it, that's not a personal attack, it's a service to mankind. And your use of "similar" is disingenuous, or an outright lie.
dogbert
2.3 / 5 (22) Feb 19, 2013
Telekinetic,

Calling someone a liar is a personal attack.

Such personal attacks are indicative of the insecure and unsure.

You should try to argue on facts rather than innuendo.
ScooterG
2.1 / 5 (30) Feb 19, 2013
"How predictable is evolution?"

Build a self-healing, self-correcting computer model, load it with assumptions, bias, and data from other biased sources: then one can predict evolution with 100% confidence - just like the global warming research whores do.

Oh...and to serve as a guide and minimize efforts, be sure to begin with the desired ending in mind.

Simple!
Telekinetic
4.1 / 5 (23) Feb 19, 2013
Telekinetic,

Calling someone a liar is a personal attack.

Such personal attacks are indicative of the insecure and unsure.

You should try to argue on facts rather than innuendo.

Outdated dogma, imprisoning mankind in darkness for centuries, is based on lies handed down by liars. The evidence that we humans are the result of evolution can be found everywhere, and to refuse to see it or believe it is crazy.
ValeriaT
2.6 / 5 (11) Feb 19, 2013
We know about many examples, when the evolution developed the same solution multiple-times and/or at many places at the same moment. So that the evolution definitely IS predictable, until it converges to the optimal solution. If it wouldn't converge to it, it would become useless.
C_elegans
3.9 / 5 (7) Feb 19, 2013
Ya'll should probably decide what a species is before wanting to see one.
Bacteria are convenient because they can replicate thousands of times in a few months, but asexual organisms dont have any clear species boundary.

Thought experiment: Imagine three arbitrary 'species', Apples, Berries, and Cherries.
Apples can mate with Berries, and Berries can mate with Cherries, but Apples can not mate with Cherries.

This is a common scenario between divergent ecological groups (see island lizards).
Where is the species boundary set? Are Apples and Berries of the same species? What about Apples and Cherries?
RealScience
4.6 / 5 (11) Feb 19, 2013
Evolution as taught by crack scientists is that genes actually change over time ... We have never observed this anywhere. Anytime. Or in any form.


@verkle You might want to at least check today's articles before making such a broad statement.
http://phys.org/n...ain.html
dav_daddy
1.7 / 5 (11) Feb 19, 2013
More lies, dogbert- The genes aren't similar, they are FROM the Neanderthal. And what does "close relative" mean? Are you saying you can't mate with a cousin?


Do you have any idea what you are talking about or are you just clueless what the term relative means in this context?

Related or relative as used when referring to species means they share similarities such as primates, pachiderms, rodents. Different related species can't interbreed and have viable offspring. You can interbreed a lion and tiger to make a liger. The liger will be sterile meaning that its genes will never be passed on.
Telekinetic
3.5 / 5 (13) Feb 20, 2013
@day daddy:
"Researchers found that sequenced human genomes from one San from southern Africa, one Yoruba from West Africa, one Papua New Guinean, one Han Chinese and one French person shared 1 to 4 percent common genomic material with Neanderthals, the result of these people's ancient ancestors interbreeding with the CLOSE RELATIVE. The genes appear to offer no benefit and be randomly placed. Additionally the transfer appears one way, from Neanderthals to humans." Getting the picture now? The offspring of Neanderthals and humans did NOT become sterile. Feel free to apologize at any time.

"The virus now turns out to have an intimate bond with every person on Earth. In the latest issue of Nature, a team of Japanese and American scientists report that the human genome contains borna virus genes. The virus infected our monkey-like ancestors 40 million years ago, and its genes have been passed down ever since."- Carl Zimmer N.Y. Times

That's what you'd call a smoking gun, suckers.
antialias_physorg
4.4 / 5 (19) Feb 20, 2013
Selection can drive a lot of diversity within a species (witness dogs), but it is not evolution. Even mutation which does not cause the creation of a new species is not evolution.


Selection is not evolution: true

Mutation is not evolution: true

BUT

Mutation AND Selection is evolution.

And that is what they (and many other experiments, archaeological findings and real life observations) demonstrate.

Calling someone a liar is a personal attack.

Are you sure about this? I would have thought that it is not a personal attack when backed up with hard evidence that that person has lied. And the evidence for your lies are all over this site.

I would say his statement that you are a lier is simply that: a statement of fact. Observable, repeatable and demonstrable.

The liger will be sterile meaning that its genes will never be passed on.

Speciation with non-sterile offspring has been observed. E.g in the Hawthorn fly we see speciation in progress.
dogbert
2.1 / 5 (28) Feb 20, 2013
antialias_physorg,

Mutation AND Selection is evolution.


No, it is not. Does that make you a liar?

Certain northern Europeans and North Africans have a mutation which allows the consumption of milk. This mutation was selected by the simple fact that milk consumption provided an advantage to those people who had that genetic capability. Those people did not become a separate species. They are just as human and the human beings who today cannot consume milk (most of the world).

Skin color variations might also be discussed as non-evolutionary changes, unless you want to argue that skin color is speciation.

Obviously mutation plus selection is not evolution.
antialias_physorg
4.1 / 5 (18) Feb 20, 2013
No, it is not. Does that make you a liar?

Nope - because you cannot back your statement up with anything but "I say so". While I can back my statement up with every textbook definition of evolution.

Those people did not become a separate species.

I think you are confusing the words 'evolution' and 'speciation'.
Speciation does occur in the process of evolution. However, not every evolutionary change is also a speciation event.

Speciation is one apsect of evolution - not the totality of it (Just like tires are part of your car - but they aren't the car)
dogbert
2.3 / 5 (27) Feb 20, 2013
However, not every evolutionary change is also a speciation event.


No. Evolution by definition leads to speciation. No speciation, no evolution.

People confuse (deliberately in most cases) selection and mutation with evolution. It is not. You have evolution when new organisms evolve, not when you select a trait.

Mutation has been demonstrated.
Selection has been demonstrated.
Evolution has never been demonstrated.
peter09
4.6 / 5 (10) Feb 20, 2013
From:
http://www.talkor...ion.html

Easy really.

"Three species of wildflowers called goatsbeards were introduced to the United States from Europe shortly after the turn of the century. Within a few decades their populations expanded and began to encounter one another in the American West. Whenever mixed populations occurred, the specied interbred (hybridizing) producing sterile hybrid offspring. Suddenly, in the late forties two new species of goatsbeard appeared near Pullman, Washington. Although the new species were similar in appearance to the hybrids, they produced fertile offspring. The evolutionary process had created a separate species that could reproduce but not mate with the goatsbeard plants from which it had evolved."
antialias_physorg
4.4 / 5 (19) Feb 20, 2013
Evolution by definition leads to speciation. No speciation, no evolution.

That is only your very personal re-definition of the word 'evolution'.
If you choose to use the word in a different way than 7 billion people then that is your problem.

Don't expect your say-so to be a very convincing argument, though.
dogbert
2.2 / 5 (27) Feb 20, 2013
antialias_physorg,
That is only your very personal re-definition of the word 'evolution'. If you choose to use the word in a different way than 7 billion people then that is your problem.


If you want to define the word evolution to mean the absence of evolution, don't let me stop you. You should be clear that you are talking about the absence of evolution, however, to prevent people from believing erroneously that you are talking about evolution.
antialias_physorg
4.3 / 5 (16) Feb 20, 2013
If you want to define the word evolution to mean the absence of evolution, don't let me stop you.

Go to any textbook. Look it up.

thefreedictionary.com:
A gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form.


wikipedia:
Evolution is the change in the inherited characteristics of biological populations over successive generations.


Merriam Webster:
a theory that the various types of animals and plants have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations; also : the process described by this theory


And yes: all of these also include the notion that speciation CAN occur. Speciation IS a fundamental PART of the theory of evolution.
But speciation is not the defining characteristic of what evolution is. Evolution can occur without speciation ever taking place (Example: Dogs)
dogbert
2.2 / 5 (24) Feb 20, 2013
But speciation is not the defining characteristic of what evolution is. Evolution can occur without speciation ever taking place (Example: Dogs)


Nope. Dogs are a perfect example of selection in the absence of evolution. All dogs are dogs. Nothing new.

Again, define evolution as the absence of evolution if you want to, but make it clear that you are talking about the absence of evolution to prevent confusion.
Telekinetic
4.1 / 5 (14) Feb 20, 2013
@ The Prevaricator (better?)
"Dogs evolved from a handful of wolves domesticated in east Asia about 15,000 years ago, a new genetic analysis reveals.
A team led by Peter Savolainen at the Royal Institute of Technology in Stockholm analysed samples of mitochondrial DNA from dogs in Asia, Africa, Europe and arctic America.
The analysis showed that modern dogs fall into five distinct genetic groups, with three of the groups accounting for more than 95 per cent of the dogs sampled. Each group is thought to be descended from a single female wolf."- Newscientist
Eikka
4.5 / 5 (15) Feb 20, 2013
All dogs are dogs. Nothing new.


That's a tautology. It depends on your arbitrary definition of what is a dog. It is perfectly possible to continue selecting for differences in dogs until you arrive at something that is no longer a dog by any stretch of imagination.

Evolution as defined by pretty much everyone simply means change by variation and selection.

Speciation is an event where one species becomes two or more different distinct species. A species can also evolve into a different species by accumulating enough difference that it becomes distinct from its older version.

Like dogs from wolves.
dogbert
2 / 5 (23) Feb 20, 2013
Eikka,
It is certainly possible that something not dog will evolve from dogs.
That has not happened, however. Dogs remain dogs in their various forms.

Saying that the possibility of evolution is evolution is foolish.
Telekinetic
4.1 / 5 (16) Feb 20, 2013
It's really shameful that religion hasn't evolved along with everything else. DNA evidence is the one scientific tool that can accurately trace the ancestry of the animal kingdom as well as conclusively prove the guilt or innocence of people accused of a crime. It's one of the few things admissible in a court of law. To dismiss it is to not be living in this world.
antialias_physorg
4.4 / 5 (14) Feb 20, 2013
It is certainly possible that something not dog will evolve from dogs. That has not happened, however. Dogs remain dogs in their various forms.

That's sort of contradictory 'logic'.
If something not-dog would evolve from a dog (by spciation) then it wouldn't fit under the 'dogs are dogs' header anymore. So saying that have remained dogs adds nothing to the proceedings. Dogs are the end product (for now) of the line of that particular part of the species tree.

We have observed speciation in the wild and in the lab. See chapter 5 for a good list
http://www.talkor...ion.html

(That is the biological definition of speciation - which says that the resultant species can no longer cross-breed. There exist older/deprecated definitions of speciations which aren't as stringent. The cross-breed concept is also not without controversy because there are many asexual species so it may be TOO stringent)
dogbert
2.2 / 5 (24) Feb 20, 2013
antialias_physorg,

You're commentary is irrelevant.
Evolution, by definition, results in new organisms. That was the concept which led Darwin to theorize evolution.

I understand that the inability to demonstrate evolution has frustrated evolutionists and that evolutionists now want to define the processes which are theorized to result in evolution as evolution. This its as silly and as dishonest as defining the process of getting pregnant as
pregnancy.
antialias_physorg
4.3 / 5 (16) Feb 20, 2013
Evolution, by definition, results in new organisms.

You keep saying that - but it's not the way the word 'evolution' is defined. Nowhere.

The Theory of Evolution (which is what Charles Darwin wrote about) INCLUDES the concept of speciation.

I understand that the inability to demonstrate evolution

Did you check out the link I posted? Plenty of real-world observed examples of sepcaitaion there.
And you yourselgf ahve already pointed out many examples of evolution (dogs, people with different skin colors).

So we even have observed in the wild and created in the lab everything - even by your unique definition of what the word 'evolution' should mean.
On what grounds do you still deny that?
dogbert
2.3 / 5 (21) Feb 20, 2013
antialias_physorg,

You may say it a thousand times, but selection is not evolution.

Dogs are an example of selection, not evolution. (They remain dogs).

Human skin color is an example of selection, not evolution. Humans remain human regardless of skin color.
ValeriaT
3.8 / 5 (13) Feb 20, 2013
Human skin color is an example of selection, not evolution
...ಠ_ಠ Evolution is based on selection. The classical Darwinian evolution is even based on sexual selection nearly exclusively.
dogbert
2.4 / 5 (21) Feb 20, 2013
ValeriaT,

You are calling selection evolution. It is not. Selection is selection. That is why it is called selection.

The theory of evolution says that selection may result in evolution (and it may not).

ValeriaT
3.7 / 5 (12) Feb 20, 2013
You are calling selection evolution. It is not.
Nope, I wrote that evolution is based on selection. Check it yourself, it's still visible in the thread. Do you have some example of selection, which doesn't result into evolution (other than artificial breeding of domestic plants and animals)?
dogbert
2.4 / 5 (20) Feb 20, 2013
ValeriaT,

There are many examples and I have listed some:

Dogs are the result of selection, not evolution. All dogs are dogs.

Human beings have diverse traits through selection, not evolution. All human brings are human beings.
jacky 750
5 / 5 (9) Feb 20, 2013
@dogbert,

///Dogs are the result of selection, not evolution///

What crap?
DNA studies have clearly shown that dogs evolved from wolves:

http://www.newsci...ves.html

It's ridicuolous to say that evolution hasn't been observed.

We've recovered many transitional fossils showing the change from land mammal to fully-aquatic whales with intermediates in between. We've got fossils showing the transition from dinosaurs to birds. We've dug out fossils that record the change from apes to humans. These intermediate fossils clearly have part-ape and part-human features. While the older fossils are more ape-like, the newer ones are more human-like.

Moreover, DNA sequencing & genome mapping efforts have confirmed the evolutionary history of both humans and other animals.
These are undeniable evidence for evolution, no matter what you say. All you can do is close your eyes towards the facts and keep on denying the mountain of evidence.
ValeriaT
3 / 5 (8) Feb 20, 2013
So until you provide other example of selection than the artificial breeding of domestic plants and animals, I'm forced to think, that you're considering a human races a product of artificial human breeding. For example, the black people are black because they were selected with their owners in the distant past. And of course, white people have pale color from the same reason. Or maybe we were breded with some gods or extraterrestrial beings? This is what you're implying here.

So, do you have some example of selection, which doesn't result into evolution other than artificial breeding of domestic plants and animals?
dogbert
2.4 / 5 (20) Feb 20, 2013
jacky750,

I have no problem with the theory of evolution. I have a problem with people claiming that selection is evolution.

I did not say we have no evidence of evolution. I said evolution has not been demonstrated.
dogbert
2.4 / 5 (20) Feb 20, 2013
ValeriaT,

Surely you do not assert human beings are comprised of multiple species? You think black and white people are not equal? Really?
jacky 750
5 / 5 (9) Feb 20, 2013
jacky750,

I have no problem with the theory of evolution. I have a problem with people claiming that selection is evolution.

I did not say we have no evidence of evolution. I said evolution has not been demonstrated.


Evolution has indeed been demonstrated. That's what I was telling you. A past event may not be re-creatable today, especially if it happens over very long periods of time, such as millions of years. But the smoking guns the event leaves can be observed, recorded and studied. We have observed exactly the kind of things we expect to observe if evolution had happened. So, it's downright stupid to say that evolution hasn't been observed. Every inch of what we are can be traced to our evolutionary origins.
dogbert
2.2 / 5 (23) Feb 20, 2013
But evolution has not been demonstrated.

Thrasymachus
4.6 / 5 (9) Feb 20, 2013
I don't know how many times I have to spell this out for you anti-evolution idiots.

There are no such things as species in nature. There are merely individual organisms, more or less closely related to one another. You think all dogs are dogs? I don't. I think calling a Chihuahua or a toy poodle a dog is an insult to German Shepherds. And I'll even use your completely irrelevant criterion of species to prove it: Chihuahuas cannot naturally reproduce with German Shepherds. Even if you put the thing on a box so the German Shepherd could reach, the mismatch in sizes of reproductive organs would mean no mating could occur. In vitro fertilization is the only way to get a Chihuahua/GS cross-breed, and that's pretty far from natural. And who knows if the cross would be viable? Hell, sometimes pure-bred dogs with immaculate pedigrees are still-born/sterile.
dogbert
2.5 / 5 (19) Feb 20, 2013
Thrasmachus,

I don't like the word species either. It its a poorly defined word that generally means whatever the person using it wants it to mean.

Dogs, wolves and coyotes can all interbreed with viable and fertile offspring.
Thrasymachus
5 / 5 (8) Feb 20, 2013
Evolution is about the change over time in the distribution of traits in a population of organisms. Notice I didn't say anything about how related those organisms are or whether they reproduce together? That's because there are a variety of strategies for reproduction, and some organisms are capable of using nearly all of them. How an organism reproduces is irrelevant to whether the mix of traits shared by a population of organisms changes in its composition over time. All that's required is reproduction of some kind.

And if you don't like the word "species" dogbert, perhaps you shouldn't be making it the central point in your argument against evolution?
antialias_physorg
4.3 / 5 (11) Feb 20, 2013
I have a problem with people claiming that selection is evolution.

Since no one in history has ever made that claim - where's your problem?

Selection and mutation - that's evolution.
The ability to breed (or loss of said ability - viz. speciation) is just like any other trait in evolution. Whether the descendants start diverging in terms of skin color because of a mutation or whether the mutation results in additional chromosomes (which would make them unable to cross breed with others that don't have that additional chromosome) - it's all mutation and selection.

Speciation IS a mutation (and selection) - just like any other mutation (and selection) process in evolution.
Thrasymachus
4.2 / 5 (5) Feb 20, 2013
Technically, mutation isn't really required for evolution, just for the appearance of wholly new traits. Though, equally technically, whenever a mutation occurs, that counts as evolution, whether the trait is proliferated through the population in subsequent generations or not, because the appearance of a brand new trait, even if in only one individual, is a change in the distribution of traits in the population of which that individual is a member.

For all dogbert's insistence that evolution has not been demonstrated, evolution has in fact been demonstrated in the mathematical sense many times. All that is required for evolution to proceed is variation, reproduction and selection. With those three things, evolution is mathematically guaranteed to proceed. Mutation is merely a way to introduce new variation.
Modernmystic
3.2 / 5 (9) Feb 20, 2013
Phylogeny and ontogeny, the tailbone? Innumerable similarities in morphology, micro biology, physiology, anatomy, kinesology between human beings and the animal kingdom are self evident, not contested, and in no way shape or form suggest anything but evolution from a common ancestor...period.

Not to MENTION all the DNA evidence we now have which is icing on a cake that was baked long ago.

The sky is blue, quit debating with people who insist it's purple...
dogbert
2.4 / 5 (20) Feb 20, 2013
Thrasymachus,

I am not arguing against evolution. I am arguing against calling selection evolution.

antialias_physorg,

Selection and mutation - thats evolution.


It does not become true because you assert it multiple times. The process is not the result.
Evolution theory posits that selection and mutation may result in the emergence of a new organism. Selection and mutation is evolution only after a new organism emerges.

Selection and mutation are only selection and mutation.
Thrasymachus
4.2 / 5 (11) Feb 20, 2013
A new organism is created every time an existing organism reproduces, stop trying to create hurdles where none exist. Your insistence that evolution doesn't happen because it's not been shown to produce new kinds of organisms is silly. There's no such thing in nature as "kinds of organisms." "Kinds" are a human tool for categorization. Depending on your need for categorization, a human being can be the same "kind" of organism as a paramecium.
antialias_physorg
4.1 / 5 (13) Feb 20, 2013
Evolution theory posits that selection and mutation may result in the emergence of a new organism.

Not may. Has. It's been done in the lab and observed in the wild. On REAL, and LIVE organisms. If you don't want to read the evidence I posted, fine. But that doesn't make it go away.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.3 / 5 (16) Feb 20, 2013
There are no such things as species in nature. There are merely individual organisms, more or less closely related to one another.
Yah this a typical philobabble interpretation which thankfully most all of science disagrees with.
http://en.wikiped...eciation

-Philos should accept what scientists tell them because scientists after all have respect for evidence. And evidence says that animals which cannot impregnate one another belong to different 'thingies' which are called species by convention.
dogbert
2.3 / 5 (22) Feb 20, 2013
antialias_physorg,
Not may. Has. It's been done in the lab and observed in the wild. On REAL, and LIVE organisms.


No it has not.

If you don't want to read the evidence I posted, fine. But that doesn't make it go away.


Your links are no more correct than your posts, and why do you expect me to argue with a link? All arguments you have made are that selection is evolution or selection plus mutation is evolution.

Saying it does not make it real.

Hybridization is not evolution. Plants which double their DNA are not examples of evolution. Dogs are not examples of evolution. Human beings with diverse traits are not examples of evolution.

Evolution posits the emergence of a new organism(s) as a result of selection and/or mutation. The process is not the result.

If you want to claim that evolution has been demonstrated in the lab, cite the demonstration. (Not a link. Make your own arguments).
Thrasymachus
4 / 5 (8) Feb 20, 2013
Evolution posits the emergence of a new organism(s) as a result of selection and/or mutation.


No, it doesn't. Mere reproduction is sufficient to result in a new organism. Evolution is about the distribution of traits in a population of organisms. It postulates a change in distribution as a result of selection and reproduction. It doesn't matter how you select the organisms to be members of your original population. Your continuing population is always going to be surviving members of the original population plus their offspring. The distribution of traits within that population will change, and some members may come to possess traits or lack traits that would have disqualified them from being included in the original population. That's all that "speciation" is.

And otto, go back under your bridge. Your variant Scientologial religion based on Asimov instead of Hubbard is still only half-baked.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.3 / 5 (19) Feb 20, 2013
No it has not.
YES it has.
http://en.wikiped...eciation
Dogs are not examples of evolution. Human beings with diverse traits are not examples of evolution.

Three-spined sticklebacks ARE evidence of evolution. So is the hawthorn fly. So are the fruit flies created by William Rice and G.W. Salt.

I know you guys have trouble with change that you cannot actually see happening. The hour hand on a clock is moving even though it looks like it is standing still. Did you know it?

Some change happens even slower. Continents move did you know it? We know the continents were once all one big thing because of the evidence. We KNOW that speciation occurs because of similar such evidence.

Dont worry in a few hundred years there will be so much direct observational evidence for speciation that even guys like you will have to accept it. But by then guys like you will no longer exist so -?
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.7 / 5 (17) Feb 20, 2013
And otto, go back under your bridge. Your variant Scientologial religion based on Asimov instead of Hubbard is still only half-baked.
-And you did not visit the site which lists all the mainstream scientists who think that your amorphous voodoo is unscientific. Which it is.

Funny. Im searching for your unspeciation idea and all I can find are alternate reality and creationist websites. Wonder why?
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.9 / 5 (18) Feb 20, 2013
No, it doesn't. Mere reproduction is sufficient to result in a new organism.
-But as most any scientist will tell you, this cannot happen among members of different species. The rest of your post is crapola.
Evolution is about the distribution of traits in a population of organisms. It postulates a change in distribution as a result of selection and reproduction. It doesn't matter how you select the organisms to be members of your original population. Your continuing population is always going to be surviving members of the original population plus their offspring. The distribution of traits within that population will change, and some members may come to possess traits or lack traits that would have disqualified them from being included in the original population. That's all that "speciation" is.
-See? I was right.
Thrasymachus
5 / 5 (4) Feb 20, 2013
Actually, it was you who apparently didn't read the link or you'd have seen that there's a rather silly problem with the concept of "species." It's the second link down on the related links of the wiki page you linked. http://en.wikiped..._problem

It's a silly problem because there is no problem with any modern theory of biology if you simply abandon the old-fashioned concept of "species." A "species" is simply a method of constructing a set of individual organisms that share some trait or set of traits. There are lots of different mechanisms for constructing such sets, and their appropriateness depends on what kinds of correlations a researcher is attempting to find. Meyr's BSC is appropriate for a lot of them, but not all of them. The modern view is that there is no single, all-encompassing method that sufficiently defines what "species" means, at least, not without leaving some organisms without a species to belong to. That means there's no such thing as species.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.7 / 5 (17) Feb 20, 2013
Right. I found your favorite part
http://en.wikiped..._aspects
there is no problem with any modern theory of biology if you simply abandon the old-fashioned concept of "species."
And this is the same thing as saying that there would be no gender bias if we just eliminated the notion of gender.

Genders exist. Species exist. Both terms have valuable and irreplaceable use.
Thrasymachus
3 / 5 (2) Feb 20, 2013
Actually, the references were my favorite part. Particularly this one:

Mishler, BD; Donoghue, MJ (December 1982). "Species concepts: A case for pluralism". Systematic Zoology (Society of Systematic Biologists) 31 (4): 491–503.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.4 / 5 (18) Feb 20, 2013
Actually, the references were my favorite part. Particularly this one:

Mishler, BD; Donoghue, MJ (December 1982). "Species concepts: A case for pluralism". Systematic Zoology (Society of Systematic Biologists) 31 (4): 491–503.
Who this guy?
http://ucjeps.ber...ler.html

-He looks like a hippy.
Thrasymachus
4.6 / 5 (9) Feb 20, 2013
Who this guy?
http://ucjeps.ber...ler.html

-He looks like a hippy.


From looking at his biography and CV, he looks like a scientist to me. And now you're disrespecting a respected, Harvard educated biologist just so you can get your digs in against people who know you for the fraud you are and aren't afraid to call you out on it? You're among the most egregious trolls on these boards.
RealScience
5 / 5 (8) Feb 20, 2013
@Dogbert - Evolution occurs on many levels, some of which have been observed.
Individual genes have been observed to evolve through mutations, such as in acquisition of antibiotic resistance through mutations that are then selected for.
Divergence into species is typically the result the accumulation of on the rough order of a million such changes.
While it is true that we have never seen a species split into two from start to finish, that is like saying that we've never seen a mountain erode from start to finish - that process takes thousands of times longer than we have been observing.
And there are numerous populations of creatures that have been observed at various stages in this process, so that it proceeds is well documented and even how it typically proceeds is starting to be documented.
dogbert
2.6 / 5 (20) Feb 20, 2013
RealScience,
Divergence into species is typically the result the accumulation of on the rough order of a million such changes. While it is true that we have never seen a species split into two from start to finish, that is like saying that we've never seen a mountain erode from start to finish - that process takes thousands of times longer than we have been observing.


Correct. As I have been saying, evolution has never been observed.
Thrasymachus
5 / 5 (9) Feb 20, 2013
RealScience,
Correct. As I have been saying, evolution has never been observed.


And that's bull. Evolution has been observed in every system that exhibits variation, reproduction and selection from the variation. And it's not just been observed, it's a mathematical certainty that it must occur in any system that displays those three qualities.
RealScience
5 / 5 (6) Feb 20, 2013
@Dogbert - No, that's not what I said regarding evolution.
I said that evolution occurs on many levels, some of which have been observed.

I also said that we have never seen a species split in two from START TO FINISH. Nor would we expect to, as this typically takes many thousands of years.
If you found a large number of individual frames from a movie, you could be pretty sure that it was a movie even if you had never seen the whole movie and were still missing some frames.
Many things in science work that way; for example, the motion of the continents was deduced before we had instruments precise enough to actually see it happening.
If you personally want to reject the processes that science uses, then fine, but don't go preaching non-science on a science web site.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.6 / 5 (19) Feb 20, 2013
get your digs in against people who know you for the fraud you are and aren't afraid to call you out on it? You're among the most egregious trolls on these boards.
And I have often noted what appears to be a complete lack of a sense of humor in there trashy. May we see this as an actual hole in your head or is the damage somewhat less obvious? Scary at any rate.

I don't have the facilities to dismantle your argument at the moment. But let me make a prediction: I will do a little research and demonstrate that the bohemian you reference holds views somewhat less radical than yours, and that they are still far from generally accepted in the community. Certainly nowheres near the certaintude you express when you say
I don't know how many times I have to spell this out for you anti-evolution idiots...There are no such things as species in nature.
-when with only a little research we find the MAJORITY of the scientific community disagrees with you.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2 / 5 (20) Feb 20, 2013
Correct. As I have been saying, evolution has never been observed.
You say this despite the 3 examples I gave you.

Faith is belief DESPITE evidence. Your beliefs teach you to reject evidence which does not agree with what you believe. This is exactly why faith is evil. Dawkins says this.
dogbert
2.6 / 5 (22) Feb 21, 2013
RealScience,
I also said that we have never seen a species split in two from START TO FINISH. Nor would we expect to, as this typically takes many thousands of years.


And I said I agree. We have never demonstrated evolution.

If you found a large number of individual frames from a movie, you could be pretty sure that it was a movie even if you had never seen the whole movie and were still missing some frames.


A few pictures my imply a movie, but they do not constitute a movie. You may not demonstrate a movie from a few still frames.

If you personally want to reject the processes that science uses, then fine, but don't go preaching non-science on a science web site.


I am not rejecting the processes that science uses. I do not reject the theory that diversity results from evolution. I only note that evolution has not been demonstrated. You even agree, but then say I should not point that out. Science is about reality, not delusion.

Thrasymachus
5 / 5 (8) Feb 21, 2013
And I said I agree. We have never demonstrated evolution.
And that's complete bull. Evolution has been demonstrated by any definition of demonstration you care to give, multiple times.
dogbert
2.7 / 5 (21) Feb 21, 2013
Thrasymachus,
And I said I agree. We have never demonstrated evolution.

And that's complete bull. Evolution has been demonstrated by any definition of demonstration you care to give, multiple times.


No. We have demonstrated selection. We have demonstrated mutation. We have not demonstrated evolution.

Saying that we have multiple times does not change reality.
Thrasymachus
4.6 / 5 (9) Feb 21, 2013
No. We have demonstrated selection. We have demonstrated mutation. We have not demonstrated evolution. Saying that we have multiple times does not change reality.


On the contrary, selection, by itself, leads to nothing other than the reduction of the population. If you have variation, reproduction and selection, then you'll get evolution. Variation, Selection and Reproduction =/= Selection. Variation, Selection and Reproduction = Evolution. You saying otherwise multiple times does not change reality.
dogbert
2.7 / 5 (21) Feb 21, 2013
Thrasymachus,

The process is not the result.

Variation, Selection and Reproduction = Variation, Selection and Reproduction

Variation, Selection and Reproduction plus time may result in evolution (that is what the theory of evolution posits). It may not result in evolution.

The process is not the result.

Most theories are tested to see if they hold up. The theory of evolution is the only theory I know of that the hypotheses the theory is built on are simply declared to validate the theory.

The process is not the result. The hypotheses do not confirm the theory.

Demonstrating actual evolution would tend to confirm the theory of evolution -- something which has not yet been done.
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
3.5 / 5 (8) Feb 21, 2013
Creationists shouldn't comment on science, it is hilarious and it helps makes deconverts from superstition, see Dawkins's Convert's corner.

Biology is not only the most well tested science we have, due to its complex processes, it is observed in _all_ of the million species seen today. The universal common ancestry is the best observed fact in all of science, more than 10^2000 times likelier than creationism random assembly of organisms.

And this was yet another observation of the process of ancestry.

@Telekinetic: What lies? And if so, shouldn't you stop lying about the existence of magical beings?

@dogbert: You can't define away science. Selection is part of the observed evolutionary process. Also, tests of that validate the theory, you can't "confirm" facts. As mentioned above, no other science has managed so good tests. You can't define away those either.
RealScience
4.5 / 5 (8) Feb 21, 2013
I only note that evolution has not been demonstrated. You even agree, but then say I should not point that out.

FALSE.
I clearly said that "EVOLUTION occurs on many levels, SOME OF WHICH HAVE BEEN OBSERVED".
To say that I agree that evolution has not been demonstrated is a FLAT OUT LIE. I have known you to be wrong before, but not DISHONEST. You should be ashamed of yourself.

Your statement that only the complete start-to-finish creation of new species constitutes evolution is simply FALSE according to the way science uses the term evolution. What you are talking about is SPECIATION.
Genes and genomes have been observed to evolve (through mutation and selection), gene pools have been observed to evolve (through genes evolving and through selection of existing variations), and species have been observed to evolve (through both of the above plus lateral gene transfer and selection).
Even in speciation all of the steps have individually been observed.
dogbert
2.7 / 5 (21) Feb 21, 2013
RealScience,

You said we have not observed start to finish evolution.

I then said you agreed with me that we have not demonstrated evolution.

I was not dishonest. You did say what you said.
antialias_physorg
4 / 5 (12) Feb 21, 2013
The evolution should lead into formation of new species - so far we never observed any

Wrong.
This lists 28 cases (some created in the lab, some observed in the wild) that are unambiguous instances of speciation. It also includes 2 cases that are somewhat ambiguous
http://www.talkor...ion.html

Note that some of these were created in the lab.
I.e. under VERY CLOSELY observed conditions. Unless you have another definition of what you want to classify as "observed" then this is an open and shut case.
dogbert
2.6 / 5 (22) Feb 21, 2013
antialias_physorg,

A link to a list of hybridization events, gene doubling, selection, etc. is not an example of evolution. If you want to argue that evolution has been demonstrated, simply present your argument(s).
antialias_physorg
4.3 / 5 (12) Feb 21, 2013
Erm. How is this NOT a speciation event?
Dobzhansky and Pavlovsky (1971) reported a speciation event that occurred in a laboratory culture of Drosophila paulistorum sometime between 1958 and 1963. The culture was descended from a single inseminated female that was captured in the Llanos of Colombia. In 1958 this strain produced fertile hybrids when crossed with conspecifics of different strains from Orinocan. From 1963 onward crosses with Orinocan strains produced only sterile males. Initially no assortative mating or behavioral isolation was seen between the Llanos strain and the Orinocan strains. Later on Dobzhansky produced assortative mating (Dobzhansky 1972).
dogbert
2.6 / 5 (20) Feb 21, 2013
A possible mutation prevented further hybridization. May have been something else. Certain bacteria can affect ability to reproduce.

1) Hybridization is not an example of evolution.
2) The experiment started with drosphila paulistorum. The experiment ended with drosphila paulistorum.
Modernmystic
3.3 / 5 (12) Feb 21, 2013
dogbert,

Are you afraid that if you admit to evolution that would somehow threaten your spiritual beliefs?

I'm just trying to clarify here. I'm not debating evolution with you, but I just want to know your spiritual stance on the issue. I know for some people it does (threaten) and others it does not. If it's not too intrusive I'd like to know which "camp" you fall into.

Thank you.
C_elegans
5 / 5 (7) Feb 21, 2013
Dogbert how can you be so dense. Instead of asserting your own logic fallacies and misplaced definitions, try thinking about how the world might actually work. What would happen after 100,000 generations of dog 'selections'. Would they all still be dogs and interbreed? Not if they've accumulated incompatible mating strategies or genes.

Just like in these computer models - we're able to apply the theory of evolution to the selection and differentiation of any system We could even examine your mistaken faith in words. Languages are reproduced, mutated, selected, and undergo extinctions. Over time, two populations of people that originated in the same area will accumulate such a large amount of differences that they become incompatible and separate into two distinct languages.

If evolution does not happen, then where do species come from? Give me a long term explanation of life on earth by your definition, where things can be the same but different.
dogbert
2.6 / 5 (22) Feb 21, 2013
Modernmystic,

I am not afraid of evolution. In fact, evolution in some form probably accounts for the diversity of life we see about us.

I have no spiritual stance on evolution. The bible its silent on the issue.

My only commentary has been to point out (repeatedly) that evolution has not been demonstrated.

Calling a theory a fact because you want it to be a fact is more suited to dogma than science.
dogbert
2.7 / 5 (19) Feb 21, 2013
C_elegans,

You ask what would happen if evolution were true? Then it would be true.

How would I explain species diversification? I think evolution is the best candidate to explain the diversity of life.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2 / 5 (16) Feb 21, 2013
Are you afraid that if you admit to evolution that would somehow threaten your spiritual beliefs?
He's not afraid. There is great comfort in a faith which simply requires that you IGNORE any evidence which would make you feel uncomfortable.

Take some advice from pat robertson. Even he concludes that religionists can no longer lie to their kids and get away with it.
http://tv.msnbc.c...-theory/
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.7 / 5 (18) Feb 21, 2013
human races a product of artificial human breeding. For example, the black people are black because they were selected with their owners in the distant past. And of course, white people have pale color from the same reason.
Human change has indeed been driven by artificial, as opposed to natural, influence. Skin color is of course driven by natural influence; but brain function, body shape, digestion, and immune system function have been artificially influenced.

Our technologies shaped our posture and the configuration of our hands and arms for activities like making and carrying weapons, and throwing them. The tribal dynamic, including endemic intertribal competition and warfare, quickly selected for cooperative humans who could communicate, plan, scheme, remember, anticipate, and follow detailed instruction, in order to best employ weapons tech against enemies.

Tribes whose members were less skilled at these things were overrun, their males killed, and their females absorbed.
Thrasymachus
4 / 5 (4) Feb 21, 2013
I'm going to reiterate it for you, since you seem to be insistently missing the point.

The phenomena of evolution happens to populations. Specifically, it is the change in the distribution of traits within that population over time.

A change in the distribution of traits over time has been observed in every population that possesses a variation in traits among individuals, where individuals have the capacity to reproduce themselves, and where there is some selection of the individuals who reproduce. Moreover, the occurrence of such change has been mathematically demonstrated as an absolute necessity in every population that displays those characteristics. "Speciation" is completely irrelevant. If a population displays a different distribution of traits after some amount of time has passed, then evolution has occurred, regardless of what you want to name those populations. Otherwise, you could claim that evolution from ape to man has not occurred, because both are still primates.
obama_socks
2.7 / 5 (13) Feb 21, 2013
Creationists shouldn't comment on science, it is hilarious and it helps makes deconverts from superstition
The censors of any opinion have absolutely no place in EVERY scientific discussion, no matter which paradigm this discussion is based on.

For example, the recent http://imgur.com/a/UsgY2 the presence of fossil vertebrates on Mars. In this way the terrestrial evolution could be infected with higher life forms from Mars or external space and violate the evolutionary mechanisms at the Earth in this way.

The evolutionary theory is just a theory, now matter how well supported it appears by now. The people, who are confusing the theories with facts aren't scientists in my eyes in the same way, like the censors.
-zephir/natello

I accessed your link and examined those pix, I must caution you that what you think is proof of vertebrae are, in reality small crevasses in the sand where 1 side (right side) is a bit higher than the left side, creating shadows (contd)
dogbert
2.8 / 5 (20) Feb 21, 2013
Thrasymachus,

You may say as many times as you want that diversity within a population is evolution. That does not make it true.
Throughout human history, we manipulated the traits of various populations through selection. Evolution did not happen to those populations. In fact, the concept of evolution was not widely known or accepted until Darwin proposed it.

Evolution posits the emergence of new, distinct populations as a result of selection and other factors.
Evolution is not variation within a population.

You may believe whatever you want.

obama_socks
2.7 / 5 (12) Feb 21, 2013
(contd))
creating shadows due to the sunlight coming in from the right side of the pix. The shadow(s) render the shallow or slightly deeper depression(s) in the sand as something that seems familiar to you, thus appearing as vertebrae...while holes in rocks can appear as eye sockets but are only holes created by water or wind. The pix are blurry and apparently were shot from some distance from the rover.
You must consider all other possibilities before coming to a conclusion of there having been life on Mars. Do not be fooled as Blotto in another thread re: Mars. In Blotto's case, Blotto seems to believe that there is an object sticking out of the Martian sands that came from a '68 Impala or a beach umbrella. Blotto not only suffers from DISSOCIATIVE IDENTITY DISORDER, but now also Pareidolia.
obama_socks
2.4 / 5 (17) Feb 21, 2013
Sorry Thrasymachus, but dogbert is correct in that humans and animals have not evolved further since their last evolutionary stage(s). We have not grown a third eye, a huge skull and much larger brain than what we already have, nor have we evolved to reproduce by splitting into two equal parts similar to amoebae.

The last time homo sapiens evolved, we shed our fur while monkeys and apes kept theirs...and our appendix and tailbone no longer served a purpose. Evolution DID occur, but most likely not since homo sapiens became a separate species from all others.

@dogbert
I firmly believe that humans are not the first sentient beings with intelligence to have been created and then evolved on our planet. I believe this because of the age of the Earth and other factors. I will not go into details of my hypothesis due to mindsets of the average commentator here on this Physorg and their religion of science as already settled unless bona fide scientists say something to the contrary.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.9 / 5 (17) Feb 21, 2013
We have not grown a third eye, a huge skull and much larger brain than what we already have, nor have we evolved to reproduce by splitting into two equal parts similar to amoebae.
-As did many other large vertebrates and even a few primates. This is why we are unable to find bigfoot placentas in the forest. Unless they eat them. Bwahaaahaaahahahahhaaaaaaa!!
I firmly believe that humans are not the first sentient beings with intelligence to have been created and then evolved on our planet. I believe this because of the age of the Earth and other factors.
-Says the NASA engineer (consultant, contract.) Correction - says the fucking dimwit.
Thrasymachus
4.5 / 5 (8) Feb 21, 2013
Again, you're insistently refusing to get the point. Diversity within a population is not caused by evolution. Diversity within a population is a prerequistite for evolution. Evolution is a change in the kinds of diversity present in a population over time. When human beings imposed selection on a population of organisms, whether to increase diversity in that population, as in the case of dogs, or to decrease diversity in that population, as in the case of production cattle or chickens, we directed the evolution of those populations. Whether we understood the concept of evolution when making these selections or not is irrelevant to whether evolution occurred.
JVK
3.2 / 5 (13) Feb 21, 2013
Biology is not only the most well tested science we have, due to its complex processes, it is observed in _all_ of the million species seen today. The universal common ancestry is the best observed fact in all of science, more than 10^2000 times likelier than creationism random assembly of organisms.


Sickle-cell disease is caused by a single nucleotide mutation that leads to a substitution of glutamate for valine. The result is decreased solubility of the deoxygenated form of hemoglobin.

When asked how the molecular mechanisms that characterize the disease from the bottom up are selected from the top down, theorists go silent or spout nonsense. In their view sickle cell disease represents natural and sexual selection for something. It must, because the disease exists in populations and is mutation caused. As in every other case, however, mutations from the bottom up do not enable their selection from the top down -- except in theory sans the biology.
dogbert
2.7 / 5 (19) Feb 21, 2013
Thrasymachus,

I do get your point. It is wrong.

Selection is not evolution.

Diversity in a population is not evolution.
Changes in the diversity of a population is not evolution.

Selection is not evolution.

You may insist that it is, but you will continue to be wrong.

The process is not the result.
C_elegans
4.3 / 5 (6) Feb 21, 2013
Many examples of evolution exist. No one can do the reasoning for you, think it out.

Lake Victoria is an extremely well studied example. The lake originally formed about 400,000yrs ago when a natural geological event created a large dam. This mixed several founding populations of fishes from several rivers. The lake has a well defined history of drying during each ice age, creating thousands of much smaller lakes. Each of these events caused a burst of diversification, with each isolated subpopulation forming its own isolated species. When each ice age ends, the lake reunites, but fish from the same original population no longer recognize each other as potential mates, they have become new species.

This was demonstrated through many disciplines of science. Geological histories correspond with bursts in genetic diversity. ie, every possible study of observational reason has reached the same conclusions about the history of lake victoria. Think about genes and it will all make sense.
Thrasymachus
5 / 5 (7) Feb 21, 2013
Changes in the diversity of a population is EXACTLY what evolution is, no more no less. No accepted definition of evolution disputes this. The creation of a "new organism" is done through reproduction alone. Every individual organism is absolutely unique.

In other words, YOU are wrong, your insistence on your own definitions and criteria is WRONG and asinine. And your repeated insistence that everybody else in the world is wrong and you alone are right is a hallmark of delusion.
dogbert
2.6 / 5 (20) Feb 21, 2013
Thrasymachus,

You may define evolution as simply selection. Do it.

Now you have eliminated evolution. You are just left with selection.

So why do you insist on using the term evolution when you really mean selection?

Evolution posits the process by which diversity arises. Diversity does not constitute evolution.

Again, believe anything you want to believe.

I will continue to point out that selection is selection, diversity is diversity and evolution is a theory which posits that selection and mutation may result in the emergence of new organisms.

Telekinetic
3.7 / 5 (12) Feb 21, 2013
"@Telekinetic: What lies? And if so, shouldn't you stop lying about the existence of magical beings?" Torbjorn Larsson,OM
I'm referring to the "lies" of Christian doctrine, i.e., God made the earth and its inhabitants 6,000 years ago, that we were born in original sin, that we must accept Jesus as lord and savior lest we burn in eternal hellfire come the apocalypse, etcetera...
But I'm going to address the impetus behind your hostility- you're
still licking your wounds since I pointed out that the scientist and assistant professor at Case Western, Erik Andrulis, had co-authored over a dozen papers in peer-reviewed journals to your none. You, Torbjorn Larsson OM (Operations Manager?) are a self- admitted lay person, not a biologist, also self-admitted, so it's understandable that you've carried a grudge this far. In regard to my "magical beings" as you put it, I recounted an event witnessed by Sir William Crookes, discoverer of Thallium. I'd believe his testimony over yours. Any day.
Thrasymachus
5 / 5 (6) Feb 21, 2013
And you would be wrong about all of that.

Selection is the same thing in general as culling, where culling is the human practice of removing organisms from the population before they can reproduce.

Evolution is not the source of diversity in individual organisms. Go and read Origin of Species. Darwin is explicit that he doesn't know, and isn't proposing to explain, the variation between individual organisms. He's explaining the origin of diversity between natural kinds of organisms. That is, the diversity in populations.

In other words, he's explaining how, when you build a population set of some group of organisms using a set of shared traits, subsequent generations of that group of organisms will eventually include a subset of organisms that would be disqualified from inclusion in the original group. That's all that evolution is.

The origin of novel variation in individual organisms is mutation and recombination in reproduction. Novel variation is not a requirement of evolution.
dogbert
2.7 / 5 (19) Feb 21, 2013
Thrasymachus,

And you may depreciate the concept of evolution.

Why you argue about a process you deny is a mystery.
Thrasymachus
5 / 5 (8) Feb 21, 2013
And now you're just trolling. You're the one that claims evolution has never been demonstrated, all the while demonstrating you have no idea what evolution is.
dogbert
2.8 / 5 (20) Feb 21, 2013
Thrasymachus,

I say that evolution has not been demonstrated because it has not. I do not argue that evolution does not happen.

You say that evolution is really just selection, denying the theory entirely.

Why you argue about a theory you deny is a mystery.
Thrasymachus
4.2 / 5 (10) Feb 21, 2013
You clearly don't know what the theory is, leaving you in no position to judge whether it's been demonstrated or not, nor in any position to judge who's denying it.

Your repeated insistence that a process that involves variation, reproduction and selection is just selection does not make it so.

Why you argue about a theory you don't understand isn't a mystery to me. It's just trolling.
depth
3.7 / 5 (9) Feb 21, 2013
Thrasymachus,

I say that evolution has not been demonstrated because it has not. I do not argue that evolution does not happen.

You say that evolution is really just selection, denying the theory entirely.

Why you argue about a theory you deny is a mystery.


If you want to understand evolution, stop trolling with definitions and meaning of selection, diversity etc which is what you are doing.
You are trolling to irritate everyone who actually understand.
dogbert
2.7 / 5 (19) Feb 22, 2013
depth,

To redefine evolution to mean variation, reproduction and selection just means that evolution has no real meaning. It leaves no theory to account for the diversity of life, since evolution is not the path for diversity, it is just the diversity itself along with reproduction and selection.

You may choose to say that we no longer have a theory about how diversity emerges. Do that if you want.

If I were to claim that evolution did not exist, you would chastise me for trolling. When I note that your redefinition of evolution effectively eliminates evolution, you chastise me for trolling.

Personal attacks are the hallmark of someone who cannot support their position.

Evolution is the only theory we have to account for the diversity of life. There are other possibilities, but they have not been formalized into a theory. If you eliminate it, you should at the very least offer an alternative theory.

depth
3.2 / 5 (9) Feb 22, 2013
depth,

To redefine evolution to mean variation, reproduction and selection just means that evolution has no real meaning. It leaves no theory to account for the diversity of life, since evolution is not the path for diversity, it is just the diversity itself along with reproduction and selection.

Nope you are just "Trolling". You want go do semantics or definitions of words , go read a dictionary. Evolution is not a perfectly defined state, since nature is not a perfect machinery.

Its obivious you have an agenda so you want play tricks with word play. You are not here to learn , you are here prove your ignorance.

Eikka
4.3 / 5 (6) Feb 22, 2013
Selection is not evolution.


Selection over variation is evolution.

Diversity in a population is not evolution.


Indeed, it is the result of evolution.

Changes in the diversity of a population is not evolution.


Indeed, it is the result of evolution.

Selection is not evolution.


Selection over variation is evolution.

You may insist that it is, but you will continue to be wrong. The process is not the result.


Evolution is not a result, evolution is a process.

Speciation is the result of evolution. A change in the phenotype of a species is the result of evolution. The distribution and changes of different traits in populations are a result of evolution. All this happens because there is (1) Variation, and (2) Selection, and (1) plus (2) equals (3) Evolution.

The combination of variation and selection is called the process of evolution. It has been demonstrated, observed, proven to happen many times over.
Eikka
3.9 / 5 (7) Feb 22, 2013
To redefine evolution to mean variation, reproduction and selection just means that evolution has no real meaning.


It is no re-definition. It is the original and true definition.

It leaves no theory to account for the diversity of life, since evolution is not the path for diversity, it is just the diversity itself along with reproduction and selection.


Evolution is a process. It is not a state, it is not a result of anything, it is an ongoing chain of events that explains how beings change from one form to another and how diversity is made.

Variation introduces new information into the living system, selection discriminates the information, and reproduction passes all the information onto new copies where more variation and selection can happen.

On the whole this process causes new traits to emerge, old traits to dissapear, and the distribution of these traits in populations to vary over time.
Eikka
3.3 / 5 (7) Feb 22, 2013
As far as dogs go, even they are an example of evolution and not just selection.

Because selection can only select from variation. If there is no variation then there is nothing to select. Since there must be variation, and there is selection, and there is breeding, we must conclude that dogs evolve. The example of dogs is of artifical selection, ergo artifical evolution, but evolution nonetheless.

To topple that, you would have to argue that all the variation happened with the first dog and all subsequent dogs are just combinations of the genes of this original dog - i.e. the baramin theory.

But that is a weak hypothesis, because even the random combination of existing genes without any mutation can create new information (variation) that did not exist in the genome before. Shuffle a simple deck of playing cards, and by all probability the order of the 52 cards you pull out is entirely novel - never to be repeated again in the life of this universe.
Modernmystic
2.7 / 5 (7) Feb 22, 2013
While I accept evolution entirely I think to use dogs as an example is specious at best.

In the end they are still the same species.

It does go to show that variation, selection, and reproduction can produce tremendous changes in "short" periods of time, however AFAIK all dogs have genetically compatible material and each breed is still considered a dog.

Would I be incorrect in that assertion?

I think what dogbert is looking for is an example of speciation. Even though he has them everywhere he seems to be able to need an example that is documented in real time to have his "a ha" moment.
Eikka
3 / 5 (6) Feb 22, 2013
In the end they are still the same species.


That is a tautological error. Dogs are of the same species only because we define them to be.

Even when there are great enough differences between the phenotypes of dogs to warrant splitting them into subspecies, like a chihuahua and a great dane for example, we still insist calling them the same species partly because our definitions of species are vague enough to allow that.

Yet if you try to breed a chihuahua with a great dane, it wouldn't be possible. Not naturally and not even artifically because it would only work one way around - the chihuahua as the bitch would die.

I think what dogbert is looking for is an example of speciation.


He's not looking for anything. He's just dodging the question by applying false definitions of evolution.
Modernmystic
2.7 / 5 (7) Feb 22, 2013
In the end they are still the same species.


That is a tautological error. Dogs are of the same species only because we define them to be.

Even when there are great enough differences between the phenotypes of dogs to warrant splitting them into subspecies, like a chihuahua and a great dane for example, we still insist calling them the same species partly because our definitions of species are vague enough to allow that.

Yet if you try to breed a chihuahua with a great dane, it wouldn't be possible. Not naturally and not even artifically because it would only work one way around - the chihuahua as the bitch would die.


Irrelevant as the genetic material would still produce a viable embryo. Dogs are a difficult case because they are artificial. However, I don't think it's an error to call them the same species.

I do think it's an error to call horses and donkeys the same species for example...

Semantics? Perhaps, but I don't think so.
Q-Star
3.7 / 5 (9) Feb 22, 2013
Biology and Zoology are not fields I know in a deep way,,,

Can someone please point out where my "thinking" is wrong in this.

I thought "evolution" is the process for "speciation".

But not all "evolution" must lead to "speciation".

Don't mere "varieties" appear through the process of "evolution"?

What do you call it when the process of "evolution" is cut-short before a new species emerges? "Selection".

So I'm thinking "evolution" is not an ALL or NOTHING process, but has stages,,,, it is the stages that I'm seeing as the basis of the disagreement here.

Where am I going wrong here?
Eikka
3.4 / 5 (5) Feb 22, 2013
Irrelevant as the genetic material would still produce a viable embryo.


That is an irrelevant requirement. A tiger and a lion will produce a viable embryo, yet we don't consider them the same species. A horse and a donkey will produce a viable embryo, yet we don't consider them the same species.

A chihuahua and a great dane would perhaps produce a viable embryo, but if you managed to grow that embryo in a surrogate womb it would probably be a horribly disfigured mongrel that would most likely die on its own.

What do you call it when the process of "evolution" is cut-short before a new species emerges?


Evolution.
Modernmystic
2.7 / 5 (7) Feb 22, 2013
He's not looking for anything. He's just dodging the question by applying false definitions of evolution.


Well he's certainly stacking the deck in his favor :)

The "problem" I think is one of what's "admissible evidence", and yes one of definitions too. However if we considered the fact that there ARE different species and that no god exists to create them at once and whole-cloth the situation is CRYSTAL clear. If "we" don't then "we" need a verifiable example of speciation in action.

I'm not playing devils advocate, I'm just saying if you really are interested in convincing someone you have to understand where their convictions come from at the root.
Eikka
3.7 / 5 (6) Feb 22, 2013
Where am I going wrong here?


In thinking that evolution has stages, stops, goals or beginnings.

Variation, selection and reproduction together constitute the process of evolution, just like heat, fuel and air constitute the process of burning.

Take away one and the process stops, but that doesn't mean it wasn't happening.
Modernmystic
3 / 5 (8) Feb 22, 2013
That is an irrelevant requirement. A tiger and a lion will produce a viable embryo, yet we don't consider them the same species.


Indeed and touche'. The differences I suppose are problems with sterility. Though I understand female ligers are fertile.

Nonetheless I don't think you're going to convince dogbert with the example. I guess that was my main point...
Eikka
4.2 / 5 (5) Feb 22, 2013
If "we" don't then "we" need a verifiable example of speciation in action.


What dogbert is doing is claiming that evolution is not evolution until it produces visible results, because he defines that evolution is not a process.

Well we have examples of speciation, and of changes in phenotype within a species, but he won't accept them because "dogs are still all dogs". In other words, he rejects all the examples because they don't match his arbitrary definition of what speciation is or what a species is, and then argues that because his requirements are not met then evolution has not been demostrated.

It's a double fallacy. A double strawman - a russian doll strawman if you will.
Modernmystic
2.7 / 5 (7) Feb 22, 2013
What dogbert is doing is claiming that evolution is not evolution until it produces visible results, because he defines that evolution is not a process.


I think it's far more subtle than all that. I would think that evolution qua evolution wasn't evolution either unless it produced different species. This is in fact the central theme of the theory. To deny it is to deny what the theory proposes. It IS a process that PRODUCES specific results or it isn't.

If I said that making cars was a process I'd be right. If I said that making cars need not necessarily produce cars I'd technically be correct also, but then what's the process about?

The description of a process that produces different biological species as a process only and divorce it from the results of the process is too compartmental IMO.
depth
3 / 5 (6) Feb 22, 2013
The "problem" I think is one of what's "admissible evidence", and yes one of definitions too. However if we considered the fact that there ARE different species and that no god exists to create them at once and whole-cloth the situation is CRYSTAL clear. If "we" don't then "we" need a verifiable example of speciation in action.I'm not playing devils advocate, I'm just saying if you really are interested in convincing someone you have to understand where their convictions come from at the root.

No he wants his view of evolution, while he dosen't realise nature does not follow our definition of speciation. No one will find such a example.
What he is asking for a dog become a dinosaur during the time period of human, which is not possble, because we can study only what was in the fossil record.
Modernmystic
3 / 5 (8) Feb 22, 2013
What he is asking for a dog become a dinosaur during the time period of human, which is not possble, because we can study only what was in the fossil record.


Indeed true. Hence my reference to his attempt to stack the deck heavily in his favor.

At the same time, downplaying the fact that something like a dog could become a dinosaur via a process we call evolution isn't...I don't know what word to use....it's not helpful I guess.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.9 / 5 (17) Feb 22, 2013
What dogbert is doing is claiming that evolution is not evolution until it produces visible results, because he defines that evolution is not a process.
And he is using the same empty argument that kevin does, that no one has actually ever 'seen' it happen. This disregards all the equally valid EVIDENCE available in the fossil and genetic records, which shows us that evolution is a real thing and has been operating since life began.

This evidence is actually better than direct observation as it is a static data set that can be examined by innumerable methods, and reexamined as new science becomes available.
Eikka
4 / 5 (4) Feb 22, 2013
I would think that evolution qua evolution wasn't evolution either unless it produced different species. This is in fact the central theme of the theory. To deny it is to deny what the theory proposes. It IS a process that PRODUCES specific results or it isn't.


The problem is the semantic difference between "different species", and "difference in a species", which by all accounts really just mean the same thing. It's just an arbitrary line you draw, where dogs are no longer dogs. Micro- vs. macroevolution. You can stretch the boundaries untill they're just about to snap, and the some, as dogbert does by his rejection of all examples.

It's actually called the continuum fallacy - that grains of sand won't eventually become a heap.

But really, we only need to demonstrate a tiny change brought on by variation, selection and reproduction, and we've demostrated evolution. Just as we only need to demostrate a small heap of sand coming off of a mountain to demostrate erosion.
Modernmystic
2.7 / 5 (7) Feb 22, 2013
The problem is the semantic difference between "different species", and "difference in a species", which by all accounts really just mean the same thing.


At the fundamental level I agree. Dogbert doesn't. I don't agree with his reasons, but I understand them I think. I don't think he's being swayed by your argument. Do you?

It's actually called the continuum fallacy - that grains of sand won't eventually become a heap.


Or in the case of evolution that removing grains of sand obliterates the heap. IOW how did the heap get here? None of us contests there is a heap. I think you should START there and move backward. It would be a stronger argument in the case of dogbert's objections IMO.

Eikka
3.7 / 5 (3) Feb 22, 2013
One could draw the boundaries, like for example we could say that a dog that looks like a cat and meows is not a dog.

Okay, I recon we could do that in 20-30 years. Feed them slightly radioactive food to introduce mutation, breed huge litters, select for traits agressively - it wouldn't be very humane but we could probably produce an animal whose ancestor was a dog, and who now meows and looks like a cat, using the process of evolution.

And once that is done, we would agree this is evolution because we have produced a different species. But then again, at any point along the way there, when was it not evolution?
Modernmystic
2.7 / 5 (7) Feb 22, 2013
But then again, at any point along the way there, when was it not evolution?


You and I agree, at no point was it not evolution....

Do you allow that other people might view it differently however? Given that they do whether or not you allow for it is it helpful to speak to their objections specifically and change minds or is it more important for you to put forth your argument and preach to the choir so to speak...
obama_socks
2.3 / 5 (12) Feb 22, 2013
We have not grown a third eye, a huge skull and much larger brain than what we already have, nor have we evolved to reproduce by splitting into two equal parts similar to amoebae. (Edit: These would have been proof of further evolution of homo sapiens)


-As did many other large vertebrates and even a few primates. This is why we are unable to find bigfoot placentas in the forest. Unless they eat them. Bwahaaahaaahahahahhaaaaaaa!!
-Blotto

That from Blotto who believes that a gearshift from his old Camaro is jutting out from a rock on Mars.
"TheGhostofOtto1923 Feb 20, 2013 Rank: 3/5 after 12 votes Quit screwing around. Get back to that gearshift thing sticking out of that rock, and figure out what the heck it is.

http://phys.org/n...tml#jCp"

Blotto also believes that it could be a beach umbrella or an artifact from a '68 Impala.

Bwahaaahaaahahahahhaaaaaaa!!

Thrasymachus
4 / 5 (4) Feb 22, 2013
All this back and forth about what dogbert thinks, it's pretty clear where his hang-up is. And it's a hang-up that some of you are feeding.

It leaves no theory to account for the diversity of life, since evolution is not the path for diversity, it is just the diversity itself along with reproduction and selection. You may choose to say that we no longer have a theory about how diversity emerges...


This is the root of the mistake, because it shows that dogbert thinks that the Theory of Evolution purports to explain the origin of diversity in individuals. It does not, and never has. It explains how pre-existing diversity among individuals, when combined with selection and inheritance, leads to new organizations of that diversity in new individuals, in other words, to new kinds of organisms.

The origin of diversity in life is not evolution. Diversity is caused by DNA and RNA and how they transcribe proteins. Evolution does not create DNA or RNA, it merely reorganizes them.
obama_socks
2.7 / 5 (12) Feb 22, 2013
I firmly believe that humans are not the first sentient beings with intelligence to have been created and then evolved on our planet. I believe this because of the age of the Earth and other factors.
-Says the NASA engineer (consultant, contract.) Correction - says the fucking dimwit. -ThegoatsofBlotto

Yep, that is MY personal belief, and as usual, it is Blotto that proves itself to be much less than the purported worshipper in the "religion of science" as it claims to be, in so many words.

Additionally, I have NEVER said that I am an employee of NASA. This is also a result of Blotto's DISSOCIATIVE IDENTITY DISORDER, Pareidolia, and possible schizophrenia.

Blotto has proven itself to be a "jack of all trades, master of none", and it has been also proven time and time again that Theghostofotto1923/Blotto and its many sock puppets (SEE MY PROFILE) has never studied any particular scientific discipline at an accredited University, but relies on Google Search info.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.5 / 5 (16) Feb 22, 2013
Blotto also believes that it could be a beach umbrella or an artifact from a '68 Impala.
Pussytards 2D personality has no room at all for sarcasm but plenty of room for wondering about human agamogenesis.
Additionally, I have NEVER said that I am an employee of NASA.
Yeah check my profile page for instant confirmation you liar.
sock puppets (SEE MY PROFILE)
-most of which are not me. And has nothing to do with the crap you post, the possibility that unrestricted evolution would have produced an eye in our foreheads, or that intelligent life arose here previously.
but relies on Google Search info.
-and you rely on buzzle search info so -?
Thrasymachus
3.5 / 5 (4) Feb 22, 2013
Will you two just go get a room?
obama_socks
2.7 / 5 (12) Feb 22, 2013
(contd)
Theghostofotto1923 and its many sock puppets resort to insults and belittlement of other commentators in this Physorg, and will continue to do so until it either dies first or becomes too feeble physically as well as mentally to put a sentence together. Blotto has been very effective in that it reads comments and almost always fails to comprehend what it has read. Armed with such incomprehension, it proceeds to submit false copies of comments which have been fucked up beyond any recognition from the original statement(s).

It is a big surprise that anyone else who comments in these threads would pay any attention to Theghostofotto1923 and/or its sock puppets once they have found out that Blotto is a "false prophet" with regard to Artificial Intel, war, tribal dynamics, and its favorite "Empire" et al, unless they are in full agreement with Blotto's obviously sick opinions and Blotto's NAZI tendencies which is why it is named after the infamous NAZI, Otto Skorzeny - Hitler's b.g
obama_socks
2.5 / 5 (11) Feb 22, 2013
Agamogenesis = Asexual reproduction

Blotto prefers to make up lies such as saying that I said anything about the above definition, which I never have...ever.

Blotto has so many sock puppets that it probably has forgotten many of the names it owns.

Blotto has a problem with the Buzzle website, but has been known many times to provide the name of the " Stormfront ' website, which is a neo-NAZI org - possibly in Blotto's fanatical reverence for the NAZI bodyguard for Hitler, Otto Skorzeny.

Blotto and its sock puppets (who are actually Blotto) are the only ones who have called my comments crapola, bullshit, and other expletives, whereas others such as Caliban and VD are in disagreement with my politics.

Blotto is STILL under the impression that I have taken up the role of Pussycat_Eyes, even though I am male and Pussycat is female AND is a new Mom as well as a Psychiatric Registered Nurse.
I have no knowledge of nursing arts, but Blotto insists that I am a phony nurse, farmer, et al
obama_socks
3 / 5 (12) Feb 22, 2013
Oh, by the way, I have created two new user names for commenting on this Physorg and I will be using them in the threads that I find interesting. I will miss using my Obama_socks name but I will keep it, at least until the screw-up Socialist leaves the White House permanently in ~4 years. Somehow, I doubt it will happen and an excuse for continuing as POTUS will be made up through a possible coup, or a sudden crisis that will necessitate a "Martial Law" to go into effect. But, I digress.

As I said, dogbert is correct that "evolution" in homo sapiens has not occurred since our ancestors deviated from apes and monkeys...and shed our fur, tail, and began to walk upright. Diversification was a natural result of such as environment, isolation, climate, et al.

As to my hypothesis, only one person on this Physorg has been informed as to its basic details. It is a work in progress and much more research has to be done before I ever publish my hypothesis. I do my research in my spare time.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.7 / 5 (17) Feb 22, 2013
Oh, by the way, I have created two new user names for commenting on this Physorg and I will be using them in the threads that I find interesting.
Yah sickpuppets are temporary but stupid is forever. What makes you think you can hide? This has never worked has it?

You post crap, you get treated like crap. This will not change. Such as...
lies such as saying that I said anything about the above definition, which I never have...ever.
...nor have we evolved to reproduce by splitting into two equal parts similar to amoebae. ...Right??
As to my hypothesis, only one person on this Physorg has been informed as to its basic details.
-Uh, yourself maybe?
dogbert
3.3 / 5 (14) Feb 22, 2013
Thrasymachus,

This is the root of the mistake, because it shows that dogbert thinks that the Theory of Evolution purports to explain the origin of diversity in individuals. It does not, and never has. It explains how pre-existing diversity among individuals, when combined with selection and inheritance, leads to new organizations of that diversity in new individuals, in other words, to new kinds of organisms.


No, I have not confused the issue. I believe that evolution theory posits that selection, mutation, reproduction, etc. will result in, as you say "to new kinds of organisms".

Where we differ is your claim that selection, mutation, reproduction, etc. which does not result in new kinds of organisms is somehow evolution.

The process is not the result.

continued...
dogbert
3.3 / 5 (14) Feb 22, 2013
continued ...

Let me state it another way. Evolution posits that selection, mutation, reproduction, etc. results in new kinds of organisms. To say that the elements which are posited to produce the theoretical result is the result is circular reasoning. No theory is tested by saying that its elements exist, therefore the theory is proven. Only when the theorized result is observed is the theory validated.

We have not demonstrated evolution, but we do see the elements which are posited to result in evolution.
Eikka
3 / 5 (2) Feb 22, 2013
The origin of diversity in life is not evolution. Diversity is caused by DNA and RNA and how they transcribe proteins. Evolution does not create DNA or RNA, it merely reorganizes them.


Yes and no.

The latter point is still under debate, because evolution can apply to the precursors to DNA/RNA just as well as it can apply to any system that undergoes variation, selection and reproduction. After all, in any system that can self-reproduce, the reproduction itself becomes the selecting criteria due to the fact that the replicators displace everything else by replicating.

But evolution can't continue without variation, and it's the ongoing variation that fundamentally explains all the diversity.

Eikka
3 / 5 (2) Feb 22, 2013
Let me state it another way. Evolution posits that selection, mutation, reproduction, etc. results in new kinds of organisms.


And that's exactly what it does, and that's exactly what has been observed.

Your only problem is that you don't accept that the difference is a difference. You keep saying that a dog is a dog, and ignoring that "a dog" is an arbitrary definition, and in fact all dog breeds are different. They are all new kinds of organisms that hadn't existed before and more are in the making every day.

Q-Star
3.1 / 5 (8) Feb 22, 2013
It still seems like a debate in semantics to me.

Darwin never posited a process called "evolution". He never even used the word in "On the Origin of Species". He used the word "evolved" only once, at the end of his book. (On the last page, in the last paragraph if I am remembering correctly, but I might be mistaken on the location of where the single use of "evolved" occurred.)

His term for the process was "Natural Selection". He didn't even use the term "survival of the fittest". That was a social philosophy phrase that pre-dated Darwin by several years. It was co-opted first by his detractors.

Eikka
3 / 5 (4) Feb 22, 2013
We have not demonstrated evolution, but we do see the elements which are posited to result in evolution.


That's like saying "I see two wheels, a frame and seat, a chain and pedals all connected in the proper way, but you haven't demonstrated that it is a bicycle."

You're being completely unreasonable.

Evolution is not a result - evolution is a process that is characterized by the presence of certain other processes. Whenever these processes are present, evolution is - like rain is a process which is present when there's condensation of water in air and gravity.

We call the presence of variation, selection and reproduction, evolution.
Thrasymachus
4.3 / 5 (3) Feb 22, 2013
No, I have not confused the issue. I believe that evolution theory posits that selection, mutation, reproduction, etc. will result in, as you say "to new kinds of organisms".


And you believe wrongly. Mutation is not a necessary part of evolutionary theory. What is required is variation, selection and reproduction. Mutation is a way to introduce novel kinds of variations.

Variation, selection and reproduction alone, without mutation, are sufficient to result in changes in kinds. Mutation expands the possibilities of kinds that may result. That fact that you don't understand this proves that you don't understand evolutionary theory, and are therefore unqualified to comment on it.

And while the theory of evolution was first offered to solve some problems in biology, it is not a biological theory, but a mathematical one (Set Theory). Such a theory is demonstrated with proofs. The applicability of this theory to biology is established with evidence, which is overwhelming.
Thrasymachus
4 / 5 (3) Feb 22, 2013
@Eikka: Evolution does not produce novel traits. It produces novel combinations of traits. The traits themselves, in biological organisms, come from DNA and RNA transcription processes. Novel traits come from mutation in DNA/RNA coding. Reproduction produces new DNA/RNA, but reproduction alone, like selection alone, is not evolution.

In every kind of evolution, the origin of variation depends upon the medium by which traits are inherited, and the ways that medium can be effected/changed. Evolution DOES NOT change that medium. Any changes to that medium are done by mutation/reproduction alone.
evolutionary
1.3 / 5 (4) Feb 22, 2013
Imagine this (Part 1). A society of religious nutters have children being born with down syndrome. Although they are nutters they are more humane than their ancestors and decide to excommunicate and banish the outcasts to a remote group of islands in the south pacific. The outcasts upset with there treatment from their normal relatives decide to start their own religion and decide any offspring that are not born with down syndrome are to be put to death at birth like there relatives had done for thousands of people with down syndrome in the past. This colony becomes isolated from the normal population for thosands of years and adapt to their new environment and diet. After afew thousand years the amount of normal people being born is nil due to interbreeding. After about ten thousand years a boat rocks up on their shores wrecked from a storm containing normal humans.
The community is fascinated by the strange looking people and have also forgotten their religion.
evolutionary
1 / 5 (4) Feb 22, 2013
Imagine this (Part 2). One of the outcasts falls in love with one of the normal humans and they have a child. This child grows up and falls in love and tries to have children but to no avail. it turns out that his parents DNA have too many differences to be able to produce fertile offspring.(Possibly why IVF is so common for people of today's world). Through human history man has played god by not allowing people with mutations such as down syndrome to survive let alone reproduce and evolve.
Eikka
3.4 / 5 (5) Feb 22, 2013
Novel traits come from mutation in DNA/RNA coding.


I view that statement with suspicion, because the simple re-arrangement of existing genes may produce novel traits without changing the contents of the genes, just as re-arranging the words in a sentence may produce a different new meaning.
Thrasymachus
3.3 / 5 (6) Feb 22, 2013
Rearrangement of existing genes is simply the reorganization of existing traits. The reason this might seem weird to you is that the organization of traits is itself a trait. Thus, a novel organization of existing traits is, in itself, a novel trait. And it's important to note that evolution is not responsible for such a novel organization. That's accomplished in recombination and reproduction. Evolution is not about novelty, it's about change. Evolution can accommodate novelty, but does not require it.
Telekinetic
1 / 5 (3) Feb 22, 2013
Imagine this (Part 2). One of the outcasts falls in love with one of the normal humans and they have a child. This child grows up and falls in love and tries to have children but to no avail. it turns out that his parents DNA have too many differences to be able to produce fertile offspring.(Possibly why IVF is so common for people of today's world). Through human history man has played god by not allowing people with mutations such as down syndrome to survive let alone reproduce and evolve.

Yet you seem to have escaped Man's clutches.
C_elegans
5 / 5 (4) Feb 22, 2013
Eikka is right.

Traits are phenotypes encoded by genotypes. Genes are stretches of DNA that begin with a promoter that is followed by the translational ATG (met) start and then many exons (continuous sections coded into the protein) and introns (non-coding regions). Any part of the gene can be rearranged with other genes to create a new function or phenotype (trait) without actually causing any point mutations in the DNA sequence. Switching promoters will cause the gene to express earlier, later, or for longer. Many developmental adjustments are made this way, such as alterations in color ratios and patterns. Switching exons can add a new targeting peptide to the protein to make it travel to a new part of the cell, where it acts on a unique set of proteins. Just to name a few examples.
Thrasymachus
3 / 5 (2) Feb 22, 2013
@C elegans. As I said, the organization of existing traits is itself a trait. That a reordering of existing traits within the organism results in novel traits is to be expected. But these changes in the organization of traits originate in a single act of reproduction. For evolution to be implicated, those new traits have to be selected for or against, and those traits proliferated or removed from the population.

In other words, evolution is not responsible for the existence of those traits, or even for the possibility of those kinds of traits. It's responsible for their commonness or lack in populations. The source of variety is DNA/RNA and epigenetic cellular machinery, and all the ways they can be expressed into traits. Evolution acts on DNA/RNA/epigenetics only indirectly only by selecting for/against traits, i.e. the expressions of them.

And to get really semantic on you, all that stuff you mentioned is still mutation of the original DNA, if not point mutations.
C_elegans
5 / 5 (2) Feb 22, 2013
That a reordering of existing traits within the organism results in novel traits is to be expected.


My point is just that traits are phenotypes, and DNA are genotypes. Modifying the DNA will create new functions (traits) that did not exist before.

And not to be particular, but the original DNA can be preserved. DNA can duplicate and then make these modifications to the 'extra' copy during recombination.

Ok I think we've scared off the dog talk.
Jaeherys
not rated yet Feb 23, 2013
Until near the end of this discussion, there was almost nothing mentioned of the most important part of all this, the molecular biology. Evolution is a process that is elucidated by these molecular interactions at the cellular level. This disconnect is common in discussion about evolution due to the sheer complexity of molecular biology, i.e. having a conversation about factors involved in DNA pol. ε error rates and there evolutionary effects is pointless unless everyone shares similar knowledge. Just like with quantum mechanics (ignoring the possibility of intrinsic randomness), probability and stats are used to reduce the complexity of a system down to a level that is manageable and maybe more importantly, understandable. In conclusion, I think it's impossible to understand evolution without first learning a thing or two about cells and the molecular biology of cells. Evolution of populations are more abstract and better described with math, imo.

continued...
Jaeherys
not rated yet Feb 23, 2013
To exemplify this, anyone who has gone into tissue culture will have undoubtedly taken a course (or at least part of a course) on cell evolution. The production of stable (continuous/immortal) cell lines is common in many fields of biology and this is done by artificial evolution. We apply some sort of selective pressure and/or mutagenic environment causing the cell line to become immortal (oncogene p53 activation for example). The stable part of this comes into play with evolution. The cells are initially engineered so we can test certain phenotypes which are then cultured in "poor" environments to promote mutation and increase selection. The end product is the evolution of a stable (continuous) cell line which can handle the modifications engineered into the cell.

I am currently involved in research on pre-eclampsia in which many different stable cell lines were produced from HUVEC cells or cytotrophoblasts by the above mentioned process.
Jaeherys
1 / 5 (1) Feb 23, 2013
And don't forget vaccine production. For example, yellow fever virus vaccine was produced by Dr. Max Theiler in 1937 by cultivating a neurotropic strain of yellow fever in minced embryonic mice with the head and spine removed. This caused the evolution of this strain of virus into a new less pathogenic, predominantly viscerotropic, strain of YF; this is now called live attenuation. An interesting note about live attenuation is that it is highly repeatable and predictable, i.e. I can repeat the above experiment and get the same or similar results.

The list goes on and on but evolution is used in the lab to let nature do what it does best, optimize. Humans go and bluntly fiddle with the cells, most likely ruining many different functions of the cells in the process, and then evolution cleans it up and optimizes the new population. Without this ability, genetic engineering would be even worse than what it is today.
evolutionary
1 / 5 (3) Feb 23, 2013
"Yet you seem to have escaped Man's clutches."

Sorry if I have offended you Telekinetic with the IVF thing. All I am saying is that you might not be shooting blanks after all. Your wife an youself may just not be that genetically compatable.
Telekinetic
2.7 / 5 (7) Feb 23, 2013
"Yet you seem to have escaped Man's clutches."

Sorry if I have offended you Telekinetic with the IVF thing. All I am saying is that you might not be shooting blanks after all. Your wife an youself may just not be that genetically compatable.

It is I who shouldn't have mentioned your extra number 21 chromosome. You deserve love as much as any other child.
Tausch
2.3 / 5 (3) Feb 23, 2013
Summation ...is not the sum.
A process... is not the result.
I can not extend this to the physical.
Dogbert can.
Impressive.
lol
humy
4 / 5 (4) Feb 23, 2013
The experiment is all good. But it has nothing to do with evolution. There is large variation within our genes and this makeup can change generation to generation. But this is not evolution.


Silly man. That IS evolution. Try looking up the word "evolution" anywhere other than a Creationist/religious-nut propaganda site.
Parsec
5 / 5 (2) Feb 23, 2013
Having a single species diverge into two quite distinct populations because of selection and mutation is pretty close to creating 2 different species. Its entirely unclear to me what the anti-evolutionists are trying to argue. Its hard to argue with someone who can't see a process of 1200 generations creating this kind of differentiation not able to imagine what nature could produce in a million or 100 million generations.
Telekinetic
2.1 / 5 (7) Feb 23, 2013
@Parsec-
It's also hard to argue with someone who doesn't want to believe this either:
http://www.huffin...Religion
verkle
1 / 5 (6) Feb 23, 2013
Evolution as taught by crack scientists is that genes actually change over time ... We have never observed this anywhere. Anytime. Or in any form.


@verkle You might want to at least check today's articles before making such a broad statement.
http://phys.org/n...ain.html


I read the article. It does not say anything about a new gene being formed. Maybe some genes being turned off. No real evolution observed. I believe my comments still stand.

Telekinetic
2.3 / 5 (6) Feb 23, 2013
Evolution has never been demonstrated in the pederasty of Vatican Priests because they've always been and always will be pederasts.
antialias_physorg
3.9 / 5 (7) Feb 23, 2013
It does not say anything about a new gene being formed

You might have heard of something called down syndrome (where an entire additional chromosome is present). This is an example of a non-fatal mutation where additional genes (actually an entire additional chromosome consisting of some 47 million base pairs) turn up.

While this is an exteme case with males being mostly infertile (and women somewhat less fertile than those without down syndrome) this is a pretty clear case of change in gene number being possible - and happening not that infrequently.
C_elegans
4.2 / 5 (5) Feb 23, 2013
Duplication of chromosome arms happens all the time. Most of the time it's fatal, other times it's debilitating. Very rarely, it leads to X-men.
dogbert
2.6 / 5 (10) Feb 24, 2013
Parsec,
Its entirely unclear to me what the anti-evolutionists are trying to argue. Its hard to argue with someone who can't see a process of 1200 generations creating this kind of differentiation not able to imagine what nature could produce in a million or 100 million generations.


I'm curious. Who do you think is arguing against evolution on this thread?
verkle
1.4 / 5 (10) Feb 24, 2013
You might have heard of something called down syndrome (where an entire additional chromosome is present). This is an example of a non-fatal mutation where additional genes (actually an entire additional chromosome consisting of some 47 million base pairs) turn up.

While this is an exteme case with males being mostly infertile (and women somewhat less fertile than those without down syndrome) this is a pretty clear case of change in gene number being possible - and happening not that infrequently.


I know several people with Down's Syndrome. Very special people. But no, they do not prove anything about evolution. There are no new genes in these people. Just duplicates. Really bad example.
_Eye_ndy_ky
1 / 5 (5) Feb 24, 2013
If molecular evolution is scientific that it will take millions of years to develop biosynthesis with vitamin k producing bacteria to produce hemorrhage averting prothrombin to coagulate blood in wounds, then the women have only a month to live due to the menstrual cycle and the men up to and until they suffer even a pin prick wound which then could be a death sentence.
Tausch
1.7 / 5 (6) Feb 24, 2013
State this in your language. The above is a wave collapse.
antialias_physorg
4 / 5 (4) Feb 24, 2013
But no, they do not prove anything about evolution.

They show that
a) you can get a variation in the number of genes and have it viable(and potentially fertile)
b) a variation in the number of genes -even if it's just a copy- does already lead to a different organisms. People with down syndrome are different from other people.

That you don't get supermen all the time is to be expected. When an ecological niche is relatively stable then evolution slows down to a crawl after a while. After that the vast majority of mutations aren't beneficial. But occasionally you do get one that is - and that's enough.
baudrunner
1 / 5 (6) Feb 24, 2013
I'm not quite sure how creationists perceive the word evolution.
From the Free Dictionary:
.ev·o·lu·tion (v-lshn, v-)1. A gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form.
Curious.

What I do know is that most people are just too lazy to do any research and read the text that predates biblical text in order to find out exactly from what and where that biblical text was derived. None of them can accurately explain Genesis 6:1-8... the word gods - in plural - for example. The story of Adam and Eve suits them just fine because they are not in the bit scientific. That begs the question, "What are they doing on this site, anyway?"
dogbert
3 / 5 (14) Feb 24, 2013
baudrunner,
That begs the question, "What are they doing on this site, anyway?"


No, the question is "Why are you discussing religion on a science site on an article concerned with evolution?".

And there is nothing ambiguous about Genesis 6:1-8, but it is not appropriate to this discussion of evolution.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (6) Feb 24, 2013
Scientists attacked over claim that 'junk DNA' is vital to life; "astonishingly vitriolic attack" divides scientistsIt's evident, whole the dispute is motivated ideologically if not religiously (note the vitriolic denomination "evolution-free gospel of ENCODE"), because the proponents of creationism don't like the "junk" of intelligent designer. But the junk DNA actually accelerates the evolution in the sense of classical neo-Darwinism based on sexual selection. Analogously the dark matter which seemingly violates GR it actually does support in, when extradimensions are involved.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (6) Feb 24, 2013
This comparison is not accidental, because in AWT the "junk DNA" essentially plays the role of the genetic dark matter, analogous to dark matter around galaxies. The repulsive action of dark matter prohibits ("protects") the galaxies in their merging up to certain extent - well, and the genetic dark matter restricts the interbreeding of species and accelerates horizontal gene transfer, so it accelerates the independent evolution of newly established mutations, i.e. the speciation in this way. The junk DNA therefore doesn't affect the intrinsic phyllogenetic fitness, which species exhibit at the individual level, but their extrinsic ontological fitness with respect to other genomes. For biological functions of single species or even individual, which is living isolated from another species the junk DNA has a little or no significance from short-term perspective.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (6) Feb 24, 2013
Errata: phyllogenetic = ontogenetic, ontological = phylogenetic
obama_socks
2.3 / 5 (12) Feb 24, 2013
Evolution has never been demonstrated in the pederasty of Vatican Priests because they've always been and always will be pederasts.
-Telekinetic

Evolution obviously has nothing to do with pederasty or any other homosexual activity. But you seem to be lumping ALL Vatican priests in the category of "pederast". It is simply not true that ALL Catholic priests, bishops, cardinals, etc. prey on boys and young men. I believe that the greater majority of those clergy are dedicated to the Catholic church and to helping humanity and have no such deviant sexual and/or malevolent thoughts and at the same time believing in holy scripture and the precepts of the Catholic church.
Pederasty within the conclave has been covered up in the past and, possibly at present. But parishioners have been waking up to the realization of its existence, and are now protesting mightily against such behavior and activity against Catholic boys. Pope Benedict XVI is well aware of its insidious presence. (cont
Telekinetic
1.3 / 5 (4) Feb 24, 2013
Jumping through hoops to convince the religiously-indoctrinated of evolution is counter-productive, but turning the tables on them may be entertaining. I always wondered how in Christian theology, the resurrection of Jesus, who rose from the dead, has been accepted by hundreds of millions based on hearsay. Is it repeatable and reproducible? And Mary, a virgin birth- c'mon.
And who has actually seen the Father, Son, or the Holy Ghost other than the very drunk? Seems to me everything children are taught in Sunday school flies in the face of science.
Telekinetic
3 / 5 (6) Feb 24, 2013
Obama Socks-
Do not defend one of the most divisive institutions in human history. The Vatican is a business first and foremost, and has made its gold-filled coffers from the misery and shame of innocent people for millenia. There are many THOUSANDS of sexually molested children by priests over centuries, the truth now just beginning to emerge.
obama_socks
2.7 / 5 (12) Feb 24, 2013
(contd)
Some are saying that it is for the "pederasty question" within the church that has motivated the Pope, most of all, to retire. It is possible that Pope Benedict views the problem as being beyond his capabilities to remove the scourge from the Catholic church...as well as his age and health as factors for retirement. But there may be some light at the end of the tunnel, so to speak.

Cardinal Keith O'Brien of Scotland has decided to introduce a "bill" or suggestion to make it possible for priests, etc. to marry (women, of course) and to have children. He has said that nowhere in scripture, New or Old Testament does it say anything forbidding Catholic clergy to marry. Nowhere.

Hopefully, allowing priests to marry (women) and have kids and still remain priests within the Catholic church may help the situation, and the pederasts will be easier to find and remove.

By the By, I am not Catholic.
obama_socks
2.8 / 5 (13) Feb 24, 2013
@Telekinetic What do you propose could possibly completely replace religion in the hearts and minds of believers? Is there anything at all that all believers of whatever religions can bring themselves to chuck their religious values and fully indulge in something else that will fully replace it? I doubt that there is anything...science? philosophy? Religion is a type of philosophy and many religious people are not equipped in the intelligence that is required for understanding and extolling the virtues of science.

Telekinetic
3.2 / 5 (9) Feb 24, 2013
I object to the psychology of the "mob" more than religion. When people can't think for themselves and turn en masse to superstition then it's the end of rationality. I don't object to "spirituality" either, but it's an extremely private pursuit, and it's no one else's business meddling in your own meditations. The criminal corruption in organized religion is tolerated for what reason?- fear. If you criticize the Church and its hierarchy you're tempting the wrath of God. Let thinking replace believing.
obama_socks
2.8 / 5 (13) Feb 24, 2013
Well why didn't you state such opinions before? People who get together who are of like mind whether it's due to religion or politics or some other belief system only get together to support each other and to be seen and heard supporting each other and their leadership. The only way they become a mob, is when they have nothing else going on in their lives other than their religious beliefs...or political. You must have noticed, e.g. the adulation and hero worship given to Barack Obama by those who voted for him. He has been given star quality...even god quality to some extent and his support comes from the pseudo-intellectuals who are in complete agreement, lock-step, with Obama's destructive agenda(s). They don't realize what is really happening; they only know that their "god" is going to give them "free" goodies and make them happy. THAT is religion...the false religion of a false prophet.
I agree that spirituality should be kept as a "private" pursuit, unless others pursue the same
obama_socks
2.8 / 5 (13) Feb 24, 2013
You also seem to be equating the belief in a spiritual God with superstition. They are not the same things. As humans evolved, they learned to place their trust, belief, hope, understanding, and faith in a Supreme Spirit who would come to their aid (in most cases) when they needed some assistance in the physical world. The world is a dangerous place, after all, and it was only natural and logical to pray for guidance and whatever help was needed to avoid being eaten by wild animals, or whatever the case.
But then, there is a conundrum, which is, why place your faith in something or someone that you cannot see. It is far from scientific, having no physical evidence to support such faith. And yet, the faith and belief grows in spite of lack of physical evidence. There is but one answer, and that is prayers have been answered, lives have been saved, illnesses have been healed, and guidance has been given...not by church leaders, but by a genuine one-to-one relationship with God.
obama_socks
2.7 / 5 (12) Feb 24, 2013
Islam is a very peculiar religion, in that its believers think that their God is superior to the Christian and Jewish God...not realizing that all three religions have belief in the same God. The concept of ONE GOD and ONLY one is an ancient memory that could be built into the brain, thus the need for homo sapiens to always go back to that Supreme Being in times of danger, stress, anxieties, etc.
For all our maturity and our need for total independence to exercise our free will, there is always something missing...the lack of that something frightens us and that fright is deeply embedded in our psyche.
The point I am trying to make is that we all need our father...just as much as a child needs his or her Daddy to watch out for us and take care of us...keep the bad things away and help us to grow. In the 3 major religions, our Father comes in the form of God, our ancient Father, the benevolent Spirit who loves us, and yet, punishes us when we disobey...just like a loving Dad would do.
Telekinetic
2.1 / 5 (7) Feb 24, 2013
"There is but one answer, and that is prayers have been answered, lives have been saved, illnesses have been healed, and guidance has been given...not by church leaders, but by a genuine one-to-one relationship with God."- O.S.

OR... Things just work themselves out.
Modernmystic
1.8 / 5 (5) Feb 25, 2013
I guess the main question I have for those who disagree with the concept/theory of evolution is how did all millions (billions?) of species that do in fact exist get here if not by those means?

Or do you not have an alternate explanation?

OR do you not agree that there are in fact different species on this planet?
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.5 / 5 (15) Feb 25, 2013
Islam...its believers think that their God is superior to the Christian and Jewish God...not realizing that all three religions have belief in the same God
-And this is of course true for all 2B of them. Percentage-wise, believers of the other 2 are just as ignorant. Just like YOU, pussytard.
The concept of ONE GOD and ONLY one is an ancient memory that could be built into the brain
-which was a very speedy installation, as monotheism didnt emerge until a few thousand years ago.

You TALK just to hear yourself TALK and you dont give one SHIT about what you say. Do you KNOW how IGNORANT this is??
and yet, punishes us when we disobey...just like a loving Dad would do.
-And your dad would whup you for disrespecting people the way you do, and pretending to be what you most obviously are not, and he would tell tk and the others here not to encourage you to do so.

'Quit LYING jeannie!' he would say. 'You are going to go to HELL!!'
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.3 / 5 (14) Feb 25, 2013
I don't object to "spirituality" either, but it's an extremely private pursuit, and it's no one else's business meddling in your own meditations.
"Belief without evidence is evil." -dawkins

Faith NEVER stays personal and private.
obama_socks
2.7 / 5 (12) Feb 26, 2013
How pitiful that Thegoatsofotto1923 is all perturbed again to know that I have posted comments and is now calling me "Jeannie" (unless it is referring to someone else in this thread), although Blotto does quote MY words. It is evident that Blotto suffers not only from Dissociative Identity Disorder, thus the need for many sock puppets, but also Pareidolia insisting that there is a gearshift from his old Camaro sticking out of a rock on Mars.
http://phys.org/n...ple.html

"There is but one answer, and that is prayers have been answered, lives have been saved, illnesses have been healed, and guidance has been given...not by church leaders, but by a genuine one-to-one relationship with God."- O.S.

OR... Things just work themselves out.
-Telekinetic

TK...I respect your opinion but you seem to be saying that it is only coincidence that people have been blessed with all the things aforementioned. (contd)
obama_socks
3 / 5 (12) Feb 26, 2013
(contd)
Telekinetic..If it happens once or twice after prayer, even three times, then it could be coincidence. But if the prayers are answered consistently and with any kind of guidance to the one praying, then it cannot be mere coincidence. The righteous man (not self-rightious) who is penitent and prays with full faith and belief that God will come to his aid, will be the one whose prayers are answered.
But someone like Richard Dawkins or some idiot like Thegoatofotto1923 will get zilch, nada, nothing...and that nothing would reinforce their disbelief.
obama_socks
3 / 5 (12) Feb 26, 2013
I have nothing against Evolution, and I do believe it has happened to Homo Sapiens, as well as to animals and plants. The Earth itself undergoes its own Evolution. We just don't see it because, for the most part, it is a very slow process.
There must be some way to make the fundamentalist religious understand that the biological part of physical Nature that includes Evolution, is not a threat to the Spiritual part of Nature. You might think that Spirituality has nothing to do with Nature, but it does. I am going out on a limb again when I say this: I believe that the Soul resides in a special place within the brain. I cannot say for certain whether or not the Soul is immortal, but I do believe it is affected by the physical world, environment, experiences and behaviors. And I believe that at the moment of death, those who lived a righteous life will rise out of the body and be taken to a nice place; while those who lived an evil life remain in their dead body and are able to FEEL.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.3 / 5 (14) Feb 27, 2013
And I believe that at the moment of death, those who lived a righteous life will rise out of the body and be taken to a nice place; while those who lived an evil life remain in their dead body and are able to FEEL.
-But evidence indicates, as anyone here can see, that you will not make it to that happy place because you cannot help but lie.

God does not let psychos slide jeannie. At least thats what the book says.

"So his fame spread throughout all Syria, and they brought him all the sick, those afflicted with various diseases and pains, those oppressed by demons, epileptics, and paralytics, and he healed them." Matthew 4:24

Repent you freak.
obama_socks
3 / 5 (10) Feb 27, 2013
Why Blotto calls me jeannie, for about the second time now, is unfathomable. I am not female and never have been, so Thegoatofotto1923 is obviously pulling bullshit out of its ass and loading up this thread with it, as Blotto is known to do on a regular basis ever since it registered onto Physorg years ago.

In this thread, for example: http://phys.org/n...ple.html

TheBloatedOtto has no sense of shame, no embarrassed moments at all the bullshit it drops into this and other threads simply because it can. No sense of remorse and care towards this website is ever shown by this Theghostofotto1923 and/or its dozens of sock puppets. Blotto has lost all credibility as to its value and comprehension re: what it is doing to Physorg...and the fact that Physorg has many commercial sponsors who prefer to spend their money on a website that does not tolerate the spreading of bullshit comments in threads that are associated with their goods or services.
Deukestor
3.3 / 5 (3) Mar 05, 2013
As Mr. Herron said, "In all three populations it seems to be more or less the same core set of genes that are causing the two phenotypes that we see. In a few cases, it's even the exact same genetic change."

I find it interesting that the various studies and experiments do more to show that the selection process, as attributed to the THEORY of evolution, denies species change took place at all. Though creationists may not be able to prove that CREATION took place, which is more a matter of faith rather than so-called, science, the fact remains that a so-called, evolutionary process which changed one species to another, never happened.
Tausch
3 / 5 (4) Mar 05, 2013
How predictable is evolution?
One hundred percent certainty.
All life goes extinct.