[Sherwin]

To say that "God can't do evolution" is somewhat at odds with "God is all powerful".

God did evolution. Just like it says in Genesis.

[MilkmanDan]

Originally posted by Sherwin:
To say that "God can't do evolution" is somewhat at odds with "God is all powerful".

God did evolution. Just like it says in Genesis.

Why is religion afraid of scientific progress? I mean, this isn't the first time this sort of thing happened. I mean, history is riddled with new scientific ideas being shot down by the church, and in turn by the unshaven masses. Why can't the two live together? Why must we take everything as a literal word? If we did, we would also have to live with the fact that we're just a bunch of inbreed arabs who wondered off of a boat 3000 years ago. (Noah's ark anyone?) Plus, how did all those animals cross from the middle east over to south america? Just wonder.

[greenamp]

Why even bring this topic up here? I mean, it doesn't take a whole lot of insight to see that religion and evolution cannot be discussed here w/o bitterness and name calling.

You are not going to convince a creationist to change his/her mind.
+
You are not going to convince a darwin bunny to change his/her mind.
=
pointless.

[CharlesS]

Originally posted by voodoo:
First off, I'm a biologist and a christian.

Second, you don't understand the word 'theory' in this context. Scientists use the word 'theory' like people would use the word 'law' (e.g. law of gravity). Today it would be called, rightly 'the theory of gravity'. Same goes for the theory of relativity. It is as much unsubstantiated as the law of thermodynamics. Only the old scientific fundamentals are called 'law' but that kind of nomenclature is no longer used and hasn't been for the last 150+ years. The politics and development of modern science called for the discontinuation of the word 'law' in science.

You are thinking of the theory of evolution as the hypothesis of evolution. But it is no hypothesis.

If it had been formulated and proven (as it has today) more than 200 years ago the theory of evolution would be the law of evolution. For all intents and purposes a scientific theory is simply a fact.

From the dictionary:

Theory:

"A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena."

also means:

"An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture."

but that definition NEVER applies in scientific context.

The way I understood it, a law is an observation of a trend in the data, basically a statement of "this is what happens", and a theory is a larger, more expansive thing which tries to explain how and why the stuff happens. Laws are usually pretty simple things, often able to be expressed as a single equation, such as the law of gravity: F = G*m1*m2/r^2. The theory of gravity which Einstein and others came up with is the more complicated part, which tries to explain how gravity works through the curvature of space, etc. Thus a theory can never become a law, because it is simply too complex to reduce to some basic thing that can be represented by a simple equation or a few short sentences.

Same with the laws of thermodynamics: the first law is that the total amount of mass and energy in the universe is constant. We could express that with an equation as mi + Ei = mf + Ef. Or maybe Δ(m+E) = 0. The second law of thermodynamics is that the entropy of a closed system never decreases as the result of natural processes. We could express that as ΔQ/T ≥ 0.

As you can see, the things called "laws" are usually very simple things that I can explain the gist of in a sentence or two, or maybe even just with an equation. Whereas with evolution, it would take quite some time to explain every nuance of that theory. With quantum mechanics or relativity, good luck explaining those completely in a short span of time!

The irony of the situation is that theories require a massive amount of evidence to have the status of theory. A law is something we've just kind of noticed has always worked whenever we've measured it. The second law, for example: why do reactions always go in the direction such that the entropy increases? What causes it to behave that way? The answer is: I dunno, it just always worked that way every time we measured it. Sometimes laws can be wrong, too, when a new scenario shows up that no one had known about before; I believe that instead of the first law of thermodynamics, there were originally two laws, the law of conservation of energy and the law of conservation of matter. No one had ever observed a case where either energy or mass was not preserved. But then nuclear fission came along, and later matter-antimatter annihilation, and now it's quite clear that those two laws are not quite accurate, and the law of conservation of mass and energy is more true.

That's how I've always understood it, anyway.

[OAW]

The problem with this "debate" is that most people tend to try to box themselves into one of two alternatives. Namely, "Evolution" or "Creationism". Personally, I have problems with BOTH of these "theories". First off, the Bible is not a scientific document. That is not its intent. Trying to read the Bible as a science text makes about as much sense as trying to read a Shakespearean play to learn Physics! Period. Dot. End of Sentence. OTOH, to my knowledge there is little to no evidence of inter-species evolution either. That is, one species "evolving" into a completely new species. Now there is, of course, intra-species evolution. We call that "mutation" and we see that all the time. But the jury is still out on anything beyond that. In fact, there doesn't appear to be much of a case at all at this point.

On a higher note, I'm one who is in the camp of those who think that it is patently obvious that there is "Intelligent Design" in the Universe. All one has to do is just marvel at the complexity and order and interconnectivity in the human body itself, in the other life forms and environmental systems on this planet, in the Universe itself to see that something is at work here that is vastly superior to our own understanding. Now people can bicker to their hearts content about what they want to call that. The Creator, God, Jehovah, Allah, The Force .... whatever. Unfortunately, many who call themselves Christians tend to think that they have a "corner on the market" when it comes to that subject .... but I digress. My point is that it seems readily apparent that a vastly superior Intelligence is in the mix. One thing that I disagree with when it comes to the so-called "scientific" approach is the almost knee-jerk attempt to eliminate God, or the Creator, or the Higher Power from the equation. So we end up with all these fanciful theories that try to explain life as we know it as nothing more than atoms "randomly" interacting over millions and billions of years (how convenient!) and eventually we end up with dogs and cats and birds and humans and galaxies! OTOH, the Bible (or any other scripture for that matter) does not contain all that there is to know in the Universe about science (or any other subject for that matter). If that were the case, then humanity should have just stopped publishing any books other than the Bible centuries ago.

OAW

[CharlesS]

Originally posted by OAW:
OTOH, to my knowledge there is little to no evidence of inter-species evolution either. That is, one species "evolving" into a completely new species. Now there is, of course, intra-species evolution. We call that "mutation" and we see that all the time. But the jury is still out on anything beyond that. In fact, there doesn't appear to be much of a case at all at this point.

The evidence:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

Specific observed examples of speciation:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

[mixin visuals]

Originally posted by Sherwin:
To say that "God can't do evolution" is somewhat at odds with "God is all powerful".

God did evolution. Just like it says in Genesis.

so why are bible lovers so afraid of the very thought of evolution?

[BRussell]

Originally posted by Amorya:
I study psychology. I play with such theories all the time - ever tried to prove that memories decay over time? It seems obvious. We have lots of studies that support it. No studies (as far as I know) suggest otherwise. But it's still only theory, because you can't prove something just by many examples.

It's interesting that you use memory decay as an example, because most memory researchers believe that decay does not happen, but rather interference.

Anyway, just for reference, Gallup released a poll just a few days ago. It's registration only, but here's a summary.

45% of Americans are young earth creationists who believe God created people as is.
35% believe evolution is not supported scientifically and 35% believe it is.

Here's what Gallup said:

What do we make of these responses? To be sure, most Americans are not scientists, and it's probable that the last formal exposure to biology and evolution theory for many came decades ago in high school or college -- if then. Confronted with this question asking for thoughts about a scientific theory, it's perhaps surprising that even more did not choose the "don't know enough to say" alternative.

Yet, this is not just any theory. It is one of the most basic theories in science today, and most biologists and other scientists believe that the theory is so well supported by data that it is a basic part of the scientific firmament. As National Geographic stated in its November cover story: "The evidence for evolution is overwhelming."

Thus, it is of great interest to the scientific community to find that the public appears just as willing to say that the theory of evolution "has not been well supported by the evidence" as it is to say that it has been well supported.

Certainly, as noted, some of this skepticism about the scientific validity of Darwin's theory comes from a lack of basic training or knowledge of science. But there's more to views of the theory of evolution than just scientific knowledge. The highly controversial aspect of the theory -- the one that caused such an uproar when Darwin first promulgated it almost a century and a half ago -- was that it implied a contradiction with the story of man's creation as told in the book of Genesis in the Bible.

[ReggieX]

Feh, "Creation Science" is neither and deeply offensive to both sides.

Originally posted by voodoo:
Europe seconds Oceania's motion.

North America thirds and passes the motion!

[greenamp]

Originally posted by mixin visuals:
so why are bible lovers so afraid of the very thought of evolution?

Why are origin of species lovers so afraid of the very thought of creationism?

[phoenixboy70]

Originally posted by greenamp:
Why are origin of species lovers so afraid of the very thought of creationism?

it doesn't have to do with being "afraid", it has to do with the reasoning behind creationism (or the valididty of it).

the question remains: 'what makes your creation story better than anybody else's?' NOBODY on the creationist side of the argument has been able to answer this. why?

[CharlesS]

Originally posted by greenamp:
Why are origin of species lovers so afraid of the very thought of creationism?

Same reason that most intelligent people would be pissed off if the flat-earthers were getting enough attention from ignorant people to pose a threat to the teaching of astronomy in schools.

[Ozmodiar]

Originally posted by greenamp:
Why are origin of species lovers so afraid of the very thought of creationism?

I can't speak for everyone, but I fully accept the theory of evolution to be true. I'm not afraid of the very thought of Creationism. If some new evidence comes forth that totally debunks evolution and leaves us solely with Creationism then I'll say, "wow, I really had that one wrong." Then I'll go back to whatever I was doing.

[Fyre4ce]

Originally posted by Amorya:
People often take 'theory' to mean 'something without a jot of supporting evidence', instead of 'something with lots of supporting evidence and little evidence against it, but can't be explicitly proven with maths or something'.

I study psychology. I play with such theories all the time - ever tried to prove that memories decay over time? It seems obvious. We have lots of studies that support it. No studies (as far as I know) suggest otherwise. But it's still only theory, because you can't prove something just by many examples.

I'm not sure if Darwin got everything right. But I'm damn sure that evolution is the best explanation we have at the moment for how we got here. Those who just say "God made us" are dodging the question. The question is how, not why. (To which they respond "It is impossible to comprehend what God does". Again, dodging. So what if it's impossible - you can at least give it your best shot!)

I'm a Christian, so I believe God did create people. I just don't think saying that is enough -- if "God did it!" was an acceptable answer for everything, scientific progress would halt. Much better to say "God did it, but let's try and find out as much as we can about it anyway".

In fact, in this situation, the "God did it" bit isn't really relevant (to the issue in discussion). It has been done -- we're here, so therefore we got here somehow. I don't find religion that relevant to trying to scientifically learn about the process. Religion's much better at answering questions about "Why" rather than "How". Science still isn't very good at the why's - it doesn't usually concern itself with them. Philosophy has a shot, as does theology. They're the disciplines that creationism should be argued about in - not in biology or psychology.


Amorya

I am a scientific, non-religious, highly pragmatic person, and I cannot see why religion and evolution are mutually exclusive. So what if God set the process of evolution in motion? Darwinian theory says nothing against that.

[mrtew]

Originally posted by Ozmodiar:
I can't speak for everyone, but I fully accept the theory of evolution to be true. I'm not afraid of the very thought of Creationism. If some new evidence comes forth that totally debunks evolution and leaves us solely with Creationism then I'll say, "wow, I really had that one wrong." Then I'll go back to whatever I was doing.

Actually Evolution and the Bing Bang theory are both "Creationist" theories that came into popularity after evidence was discovered to debunk the old scientific 'Steady State' theories which held that the universe had always been similar to how we see it today, and disagreed with the notion of a beginning to time and the Earth wholeheartedly. Together the theories of Evolution and the Big Bang have almost proven the general account in the bible to be true aside from the '6-days' timeline which most believers don't even say should be taken literally. Christians should be flattered that science has totally reversed itself upon discovering that Creationism is true and be teaching evolution etc as scientific proof of the Bible's story instead of defensively insisting that it's not true because anthropoligists haven't found the 'rib' or evidence of God himself yet etc. There's no reason for science and religion to always be at odds over this issue. They both have almost the same story.

[Sherwin]

Originally posted by mixin visuals:
so why are bible lovers so afraid of the very thought of evolution?

Two reasons:

1) They're stupid. From my experience, a lot of creationist Christians tend to be playing with less than a full deck (trust me - I'm exposed to the other thinking habits of the ones that I know).

2) They're defensive. Questioning bits of the Bible and making it fit in with what we've learnt since could lead to a complete disregard of said book by those accepting the scientific theories without God in the equation somewhere.

Mix and match those two reasons and it's usually somewhere in between.

I look at it like this:

Evolution happened. God made it happen. It's not far from what was written in Genesis - just a different time-frame. People are generally stupid. People way back when were even stupider - childlike in their understanding of the World around them. No parent ever gives their 5-year old a copy of War and Peace to get through - they give them something they can understand, like a Bert and Ernie book or something. In the end I wasn't there and this bar of chocolate looks kinda tasty.


Edit (more):

Of course, from a Christian point of view evolution doesn't yet explain the downfall of man (i.e. Eve getting the munchies for apple pie) so it's still a valid version of events until science susses out what made us all into the lowly, depraved, perverted, evil sacks of crap we generally are.

[phoenixboy70]

Originally posted by mrtew:
Actually Evolution and the Bing Bang theory are both "Creationist" theories that came into popularity after evidence was discovered to debunk the old scientific 'Steady State'...

that's a very good point. without christianity most of today's science wouldn't exist. yet, i would still contest that the 'scientific method' is quite distinct and different from religion and spiritual 'accounts' such as the bible.

[GoGoReggieXPowars]

Originally posted by mrtew:
...There's no reason for science and religion to always be at odds over this issue. They both have almost the same story.

Yes there is. Christianity is NOT THE ONLY RELIGION.

[Sherwin]

Originally posted by GoGoReggieXPowars:
Christianity is NOT THE ONLY RELIGION.

Yes it is. All the others are just weird cults.

[CharlesS]

Originally posted by Sherwin:
Of course, from a Christian point of view evolution doesn't yet explain the downfall of man (i.e. Eve getting the munchies for apple pie) so it's still a valid version of events until science susses out what made us all into the lowly, depraved, perverted, evil sacks of crap we generally are.

Natural selection is a vicious process. The organisms that survive are the ones that put themselves first and look out for number one. And those organisms eventually became us.

[Ozmodiar]

Originally posted by mrtew:
Stuff

My point was merely that I, as a man of science, accept that which is supported by the most (and best) evidence. I could have made the same point with gravity and "magic fall-downies" (a hilarious term I picked up in these fora): if some new evidence came to light that totally debunked gravity (or evolution, or Newtonian physics, or anything) then I would accept the new evidence as true and the old evidence as not true.

[CharlesS]

Originally posted by Ozmodiar:
I could have made the same point with gravity and "magic fall-downies" (a hilarious term I picked up in these fora)

No no no, it's Magic Fall-Downiness. Don't profane the name of the Church of Magic Fall-Downiness by misspelling it, or you will invoke the wrath of the God of Magic Fall-Downiness, causing you to trip and fall face-first into a pile of Legos (lego?).

[OAW]

Originally posted by CharlesS:
The evidence:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

Specific observed examples of speciation:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

I actually took the time to read the page on the second link.

What is all of this doing in a discussion of observed instances of speciation? What a biologist will consider as a speciation event is, in part, dependent on which species definition that biologist accepts. The biological species concept has been very successful as a theoretical model for explaining species differences among vertebrates and some groups of arthropods. This can lead us to glibly assert its universal applicability, despite its irrelevance to many groups. When we examine putative speciation events, we need to ask the question, which species definition is the most reasonable for this group of organisms? In many cases it will be the biological definition. In many other cases some other definition will be more appropriate.

The quote above sums up it all. After this statement was made, the article went on to discuss various so-called "speciation" events. Many dealt with plants that were produced by hybridization ... man-made or otherwise. Big deal. Not at all what we are talking about. It then went on to discuss various instances involving insects that upon closer examination were nothing more than observation of changes in mating behavior. That is, groups of insects that were bred separately showing a mating affinity for others in the same group. So if one chooses to define a "species" based upon mating affinity then I supposes one has observed the creation of a new species. However, mating affinity does not, and the article does not claim, mean that members of the separate groups could not interbreed. So are they really different species? Has an "evolutionary" event occurred? Did a bug that couldn't fly all of a sudden sprout wings and take off? Definitely not.

Suffice it to say that I remain unconvinced.

OAW

[CharlesS]

Originally posted by OAW:
The quote above sums up it all. After this statement was made, the article went on to discuss various so-called "speciation" events. Many dealt with plants that were produced by hybridization ... man-made or otherwise. Big deal. Not at all what we are talking about. It then went on to discuss various instances involving insects that upon closer examination were nothing more than observation of changes in mating behavior. That is, groups of insects that were bred separately showing a mating affinity for others in the same group. So if one chooses to define a "species" based upon mating affinity then I supposes one has observed the creation of a new species. However, mating affinity does not, and the article does not claim, mean that members of the separate groups could not interbreed. So are they really different species? Has an "evolutionary" event occurred? Did a bug that couldn't fly all of a sudden sprout wings and take off? Definitely not.

Suffice it to say that I remain unconvinced.

Dude, look at the very first fruit fly example:

5.3.1 Drosophila paulistorum


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).

Ta da, the new species was not able to produce fertile offspring with the original species. Took less than 5 minutes of scanning the page, which tells me that although you claim you read the page, you must have spent less time than that.

[klinux]

November 2004

[Alezone]

Don't know if it's NWS or not... muhaha

Linky

[OAW]

Originally posted by CharlesS:
Dude, look at the very first fruit fly example:

Dude. If two fruit flies do the nasty and produce sterile males then guess what? They interbred! Now granted the offspring is sterile. But go see if you can knock up a billy goat or a cow or a dog .... at all .... and then you might understand my point. Now having said that, one must keep in mind that the flies in question were kept in a laboratory. The article doesn't indicate one way or another what may or may not have been done to them. The fact that after several years they could no longer produce offspring that could themselves reproduce with other flies from their original group is not in and of itself evidence of "evolution". That could be due to any number of reasons. We had soldiers coming home from the Gulf War who are themselves sterile or may very well pass sterility on to their offspring because of the toxins that they have been exposed to ... but they aren't a new "species" of humans are they?

Originally posted by CharlesS:

Ta da, the new species was not able to produce fertile offspring with the original species. Took less than 5 minutes of scanning the page, which tells me that although you claim you read the page, you must have spent less time than that.

Even if I were to grant you this point (which I don't because the situation described could be due to a variety of factors) you still are left with one .... I repeat ... one example. And a very weak one at that.

OAW

[himself]

Like others have said, I don't see why it has to be either-or. It isn't a zero-sum proposition (but then again, it could be), and there is no reason why spiritual belief can't coexist with science. For one thing, I don't know many creationists -- most of the Christians (and others) I know personally are able to adopt scientific knowledge into their religious beliefs... but then you have the "literalists" who believe that every word in the good book should be taken absolutely literally, despite the fact that the meaning of those words has shifted with each translation and revision.

These are the same literalist creationists who would say that the dinosaurs never existed (because they weren't mentioned in the bible) and that the fossil evidence was planted and is thus a hoax, when it is among the most powerful evidence known that is in favor of evolution.

But the best reasoning that I can see to support evolution over creationism has to do with knowing. The creationists claim to know for fact that the almighty created life in this way (as opposed to believing it), where true science doesn't make that claim. Scientific theory says "I don't know this to be true for an absolute irrefutable fact, but there is plenty of evidence to support that this is likely the truth, so I will go by this until it is either disproved, or a better theory comes along." In that sense, science is a search for truth. In most religion, there is no search for truth, because the "truth" is already known (and compiled as the tenets of that religion).

I don't know if evolution will ever be conclusively proven. The only way to "prove" it (or to prove anything else, including the religious assertions) is to observe it directly and document it for others to observe and verify. It may be another couple of millennia before we have the opportunity to complete a first-hand observation and documentation of evolution (as in, the evolution of primates to modern man, as an example), and until then it hasn't been proven, but neither is creationism, and that is much harder to prove, as far as I am concerned.

[Ozmodiar]

Originally posted by CharlesS:
No no no, it's Magic Fall-Downiness. Don't profane the name of the Church of Magic Fall-Downiness by misspelling it, or you will invoke the wrath of the God of Magic Fall-Downiness, causing you to trip and fall face-first into a pile of Legos (lego?).

My most sincere and humble apologies.

And congratulations on 5000 posts.

[CharlesS]

Originally posted by OAW:
Dude. If two fruit flies do the nasty and produce sterile males then guess what? They interbred! Now granted the offspring is sterile. But go see if you can knock up a billy goat or a cow or a dog .... at all .... and then you might understand my point.

So I take it you think that horses and asses are the same species, then? (No no no, I mean "ass" as in a donkey, not as in someone who proudly flaunts his ignorance on the Internet.)

Even if I were to grant you this point (which I don't because the situation described could be due to a variety of factors) you still are left with one .... I repeat ... one example. And a very weak one at that.

Oh great, the old creationist "Because that's the only example you brought up, that proves that it is the only example that exists in the entire literature" argument. If I bring up Archaeopteryx as an example of a transitional life form, then Archaeopteryx is the only transitional life form in the entire fossil record. Why don't you just RTFA instead of making me point everything out one by one until I've reproduced the whole article in this thread?

Okay, you want another example, how about this one?

5.3.4 Sexual Isolation as a Byproduct of Adaptation to Environmental Conditions in Drosophila melanogaster


Kilias, et al. (1980) exposed D. melanogaster populations to different temperature and humidity regimes for several years. They performed mating tests to check for reproductive isolation. They found some sterility in crosses among populations raised under different conditions. They also showed some positive assortative mating. These things were not observed in populations which were separated but raised under the same conditions. They concluded that sexual isolation was produced as a byproduct of selection.

The article also has tons of examples of new species of plants that can't breed with the old ones. Like this for example:

5.1.1.1 Evening Primrose (Oenothera gigas)


While studying the genetics of the evening primrose, Oenothera lamarckiana, de Vries (1905) found an unusual variant among his plants. O. lamarckiana has a chromosome number of 2N = 14. The variant had a chromosome number of 2N = 28. He found that he was unable to breed this variant with O. lamarckiana. He named this new species O. gigas.

Don't forget, I posted two articles. Here are some tidbits from the first one:

One of the most striking instances of partial or incomplete speciation are the numerous "ring species" (for review see Irwin et al. 2001). Ring species, such as the salamander Ensatina, form a chain of interbreeding populations which loop around some geographical feature; where the populations meet on the other side, they behave as completely different species. In the case of Ensatina, the subspecies form a ring around the Central Valley of Californiamdash;the subspecies freely interbreed and hybridize on the east, west, and north sides of the valley, but where they coexist on the south side they are incapable of hybridizing and act as separate species (Moritz et al. 1982; Futuyma 1998, pp. 455-456).

Many species can hybridize, but the resulting offspring have reduced fertility. One example is the English shrew (genus Sorex) whose hybrids are reproductively disadvantaged due to chromosomal differences. This has also been seen in lab experiments mating Utah and California strains of Drosophila pseudoobscura. Another example are the frogs Bombina bombina and Bombina variegata, whose hybrids have low fitness (i.e. they do not reproduce very successfully) (Barton and Gale 1993).

Other species are able to mate with successful fertilization, but mortality occurs in embryogenesis. Such is the case with the frog species Rana pipiens and R. sylvatica (Futuyma 1998, p. 460). This phenomenon has also been observed in Drosophila. Additional examples are also found in plants such as the cotton species Gossypium hirsutum and G. barbadense (Smith 1993; Futuyma 1998, ch. 15 and 16).

Speciation has also been observed in mammals. Six instances of speciation in house mice on Madeira within the past 500 years have been the consequence of only geographic isolation, genetic drift, and chromosomal fusions. A single chromosomal fusion is the sole major genomic difference between humans and chimps, and some of these Madeiran mice have survived nine fusions in the past 500 years (Britton-Davidian et al. 2000).

Keep in mind that these are all under your incorrect restrictions on what speciation must mean. Following actual definitions of speciation, the amount of new species observed are mind-blowing. But even in your narrow view of what a species is, there are still plenty of examples.

Want more? Read the F-ing articles. I'm tired of the creationist tendency to make others do all their homework for them.

[CharlesS]

Originally posted by Ozmodiar:
My most sincere and humble apologies.

And congratulations on 5000 posts.

Don't apologize to me, apologize to the Divine God of Magic Fall-Downiness! You must atone for your sins to avoid a nasty fall. Of course, I could be your intermediary... for a small donation...

[phoenixboy70]

Originally posted by OAW:
On a higher note, I'm one who is in the camp of those who think that it is patently obvious that there is "Intelligent Design" in the Universe.

once again...

[nforcer]

Evolution happens. It is a fact. There is nothing to believe it. You either accept it, or stick your fingers in your ears and yell "I'm not listening" like a true tard.

I feel sorry for the students in schools that don't teach it.

[Amorya]

Originally posted by BRussell:
It's interesting that you use memory decay as an example, because most memory researchers believe that decay does not happen, but rather interference.

OK, 'twas late and I couldn't remember last year's lectures very well. Fair point

Evolution happened. God made it happen. It's not far from what was written in Genesis - just a different time-frame.

Don't forget Genesis talks about 'days' before the earth or sun have been invented.

I feel sorry for the students in schools that don't teach it.

The schools that don't teach it? Do I read you right?


Amorya

[badidea]

Originally posted by Jaey:
Well, it is pretty clear that we aren't flying around in a weightless environment.

We aren't??
What do you think this guy would say about your statement?

[Phat Bastard]

I'm a biochemist. Nothing I'm doing would make sense if evolution is false. If you want me to elaborate, ask me. Without knowing the facts, it is not intelligent to oppose or advocate evolution.

There's a famous quote: "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution" by T. Dobzhansky, a famous evolutionary biologist.

Here's an article I found recently that shows evolution, under the control of one gene, is happening right now:

http://www.the-scientist.com/yr2004/...h1_041108.html
(requires free registration, but here is the full text):


-------
'Big Cross' Lands Sticklebacks in the Spotlight

Threespine sticklebacks emerge as a model system able to uncover the genetic basis of vertebrate evolution | By David Secko

Marine threespine sticklebacks haven't morphologically changed in an estimated 10 million years, but their freshwater offshoots show no signs of slowing down. These 5-cm-long, freshwater fish have undergone a recent evolutionary change, variably losing their calcified body armor and retractable pelvic and dorsal spines. Remarkably, isolated marine and freshwater sticklebacks can be hybridized in the laboratory, a fact that is allowing researchers to analyze the genetics behind their natural diversification.

"Despite all of the interest in how evolution really works, and despite all we know about the genetic pathways that build tissues, we have surprisingly few real examples where traits in natural populations are understood at the molecular level," says David Kingsley, a recent convert to stickleback research at Stanford University. Kingsley and colleagues have made the link, finding that a single gene might control pelvic armor loss in freshwater sticklebacks.

It's a finding that goes against a long-standing belief that numerous small changes, in many different genes, are required for such evolution. Nevertheless, a handful of other recent papers on sticklebacks have begun to suggest the same thing: A small amount of DNA may control the traits required to survive in nature. The stickleback is a wonderful system to answer such a tough evolutionary question, says Mike Bell, ecology and evolution professor at Stony Brook University in New York.

AN EVOLUTIONARY FAVORITE Isolated freshwater populations of the threespine stickleback, Gasterosteus aculeatus, have evolved repeatedly from marine sticklebacks, most recently around 20,000 years ago.1 Marine sticklebacks are prone to do this because they breed in freshwater, and on occasion become trapped in lakes. "The marine fish is a reasonably uniform ancestor, and it has invaded fresh water innumerable times ... this has set up a natural experiment," says Bell.

As with many fish, phenotypic diversity is broad. Most marine sticklebacks have bony plates on their sides running from head to tail and spikes protruding from behind some fins. These defenses are thought to provide protection from predators. But, many freshwater sticklebacks have lost this heavy armor. It's an adaptation to a lake environment without predators that is observed again and again, says Bell. "There are other systems like it, but none of them has phenotypic variation that is as conspicuous."

It was partly this obvious, natural variation that sparked Kingsley to take up sticklebacks as a model. His laboratory had been studying skeletal formation in mice since the 1980s, using chromosome mapping to clone trait genes. But in the summer of 1998, he and Catherine Peichel wondered if a system existed to uncover genes controlling natural traits. They could not use the mouse, owing to its long history as a laboratory animal, or the zebrafish, because of its natural habitat of life in a mud puddle.

But the effort involved in bringing genetics and genomics to a new system seemed worth it for the stickleback, says Kingsley. "The great thing about the sticklebacks is they have morphological, physiological, host-parasite, and so many other changes."

THE BIG CROSS In the fall of 1998, Kingsley and Peichel enlisted the help of Dolph Schluter, an ecologist at the University of British Columbia. Three years later they reported that morphologically distinct stickleback populations could be crossed using in vitro fertilization.2 "[The 2001 paper] showed we could build a genome-wide linkage map in sticklebacks, and that some of the interesting differences in the literature could be mapped to particular chromosome regions," says Kingsley. Unfortunately, the original cross contained too few progeny to enable mapping of trait genes.

Such an undertaking would require a much bigger cross, including F2 progeny of the F1 hybrids, one that playfully came to be known as "the big cross," says Schluter. The big cross, completed over two years in Schluter's laboratory, refers to hybrids made between two of the most extreme phenotypes known: a heavily armored marine stickleback and the defenseless benthic population from Paxton Lake, British Columbia. It was the big cross that really set things in motion, comments Schluter.

Michael Shapiro, Kingsley, Schluter, and their colleagues made use of the big cross and genome-wide linkage mapping to search for genes involved in pelvic armor reduction of freshwater sticklebacks.3 They found that F1 hybrids all showed pelvic armor akin to their marine parent, whereas F2 progeny showed a 3:1 Mendelian ratio of unaffected to reduced pelvic armor. As they searched for chromosome regions, they found one major region apparently controlling this trait.

Shapiro and colleagues localized the effect to a chromosome region containing the Pitx1 gene.3 In mice, Pitx1 is required for hindlimb development and left-right limb symmetry. The big-cross F2 progeny showed left-right asymmetry in their pelvic spines, similar to phenotypes observed in Pitx1 knockout mice, but they exhibited no Pitx1 mutations. Instead, these fish showed site-specific regulatory mutations.

Susan Foster, associate professor at Clark University, Worcester, Mass., cautions that the work does not definitively show that Pitx1 is the gene responsible for pelvic reduction, and that other genes close to Pixt1 also may contribute. Nevertheless, the results do reveal "that loci identified in the laboratory, which have dramatic effects on development, also play a role in naturally occurring variation," says Foster, something that has never been experimentally verified until now.

In a complementary study, Nicholas Cole, Cheryll Tickle, and colleagues from the University of Dundee, UK, found that Pitx1, and its downstream target Tbx4, were differently expressed in sticklebacks with and without pelvic spines.4 This finding further supports the idea that regulatory mutations in key developmental genes may drive adaptive skeletal changes in nature.

In another study, Pamela Colosimo, Kingsley, and others used the big cross to examine variation in bony lateral plates.5 After measuring the plate size, number, and pattern, the research team analyzed the genetic loci that control these phenotypes, finding that one chromosome region could account for 75% of the variation observed. This work has broken new ground and inspired others to try similar experiments, says Cliff Tabin, professor at Harvard Medical School.

John Postlethwait, professor at the University of Oregon, is carrying out similar stickleback crosses that point towards the same conclusions. William Cresko, Postlethwait, Bell, and others recently examined bony armor loss in three geographically isolated freshwater populations of Alaskan stickleback.6 They found large losses in body armor among the freshwater fish as compared to their marine ancestors, and upon crossing these fish, found that a single factor appeared to control the armor loss.

"It came as bit of a surprise to find that, in the case of sticklebacks, the factor controlling the number of plates and the presence or absence of the pelvis were simple Mendelian traits, since the normal idea is that evolution changes by small steps," says Postlethwait. Foster thinks the work is impressive, adding, "I don't think people really expected to see such large-effect genes playing a role in nature."

A GROWING MODEL Overall, the stickleback appears to be gaining momentum as a general model. Recently, the National Institutes of Health established the Center of Excellence in Genomic Sciences at Stanford, aimed at creating genomic resources for fish. Further, a stickleback physical genome map, expressed sequence tag (EST) collection, and bacterial artificial chromosome (BAC) libraries are already available. The NIH has recently approved a program to sequence the stickleback genome.

Peichel suggests that such genomic resources will allow genetic investigation of other evolutionary questions. She recently set up her own lab, at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle, to study the genetic basis of behavior using sticklebacks. "There has been a lot of work on mating behavior and aggression in sticklebacks. I want to take the genetic tools we have developed to try and get at the actual genes that control these behaviors," says Peichel.

Foster says that her lab is already observing the reevolution of pelvic armor in sticklebacks that 10 years ago didn't have any; the reappearance is likely due to the artificial introduction of trout into their territory. With the advent of molecular tools, the genes driving such processes can now be identified, giving a perspective on vertebrate evolution that other systems can't provide. A truly unique opportunity arises, says Bell. "[Sticklebacks] evolve within short enough time intervals that we can study species-level evolution within the professional lifetime of an investigator."

David Secko ([email protected])

References
1. S.A. Foster, J. A. Baker, "Evolution in parallel: new insights from a classic system," Trends Ecol Evol, 19:456-9, September 2004.

2. C.L. Peichel et al., "The genetic architecture of divergence between threespine stickleback species," Nature, 414:901-5, 2001.

3. M.D. Shapiro et al., "Genetic and developmental basis of evolutionary pelvic reduction in threespine sticklebacks," Nature, 428:717-23, April 15, 2004.

4. N.J. Cole et al., "Expression of limb initiation genes and clues to the morphological diversification of threespine stickleback," Curr Biol, 13:R951-2, 2003.

5. P.F. Colosimo et al., "The genetic architecture of parallel armor plate reduction in threespine sticklebacks," PLoS Biol, 2:E109, May 2004.

6. W.A. Cresko et al., "Parallel genetic basis for repeated evolution of armor loss in Alaskan threespine stickleback populations," Proc Natl Acad Sci, 101:6050-5, April 20, 2004.

[OAW]

Originally posted by CharlesS:
So I take it you think that horses and asses are the same species, then? (No no no, I mean "ass" as in a donkey, not as in someone who proudly flaunts his ignorance on the Internet.)

No I don't. But I see you conveniently overlooked my point about the article not mentioning any details of what was done to the flies in the laboratory environment. Horses and Donkeys belong to the same genus Equus. They former have 64 chromosomes and the latter have 62. The Mule hybrid .... which does not occur naturally and is a result of human directed domestication and interbreeding only ... has an odd number of 63 chromosomes. Female mules are 99.99% sterile and male mules are 100% sterile. A bit of a "dead end" n'est pas?

Originally posted by CharlesS:


Okay, you want another example, how about this one?

5.3.4 Sexual Isolation as a Byproduct of Adaptation to Environmental Conditions in Drosophila melanogaster


Kilias, et al. (1980) exposed D. melanogaster populations to different temperature and humidity regimes for several years. They performed mating tests to check for reproductive isolation. They found some sterility in crosses among populations raised under different conditions. They also showed some positive assortative mating. These things were not observed in populations which were separated but raised under the same conditions. They concluded that sexual isolation was produced as a byproduct of selection

Another example about fruit flies subjected to artificial laboratory conditions. The end result was still a fruit fly. And we are up to a whopping two examples. In an article whose purpose is to document such events. Two. Let's talk when there's a example of a fruit fly (or any other living specimen) that produces viable offspring that is a not a fruit fly.

Originally posted by CharlesS:

The article also has tons of examples of new species of plants that can't breed with the old ones. Like this for example:

5.1.1.1 Evening Primrose (Oenothera gigas)


While studying the genetics of the evening primrose, Oenothera lamarckiana, de Vries (1905) found an unusual variant among his plants. O. lamarckiana has a chromosome number of 2N = 14. The variant had a chromosome number of 2N = 28. He found that he was unable to breed this variant with O. lamarckiana. He named this new species O. giga

Tons of examples huh? Oh really? Well in that section there are nine examples and there was only one that discussed a new species being unable to breed with the old one. The one you quoted. Let's talk about that section a bit more shall we? It's entitled ...

5.1 Speciations Involving Polyploidy, Hybridization or Hybridization Followed by Polyploidization.

I assume you know what "hybridization" means so I won't get into that. The key thing to consider is the term Polyploidization. Polyploidization, which is common in plants and rare in animals, results from the fusion of two or more diploid gametes produces sterility or other defects. Not a very efficient mechanism for macro-evolution n'est pas?

Originally posted by CharlesS:


Don't forget, I posted two articles. Here are some tidbits from the first one:

And you go on to cite 4 examples. The first dealing with "ring species" which consists of populations of interbreeding populations that inhabit and loop around a geographic area. They can't successfully reproduce on the other side of the area but can along the way so to speak. Ok fine. But note how the article referred to them as sub-species. All the salamander mentioned are still just that ... salamander. Nowhere does it state that one of the "interbreeding populations" became something ... else. The next 2 examples deal with hybrids that result in significantly reduced fertility of the offspring or outright mortality. Again, not a very efficient mechanism for producing new life forms. The final example was merely mentioned in the article. No supporting evidence was referenced, cited, or quoted.

Originally posted by CharlesS:

Want more? Read the F-ing articles. I'm tired of the creationist tendency to make others do all their homework for them.

As I said before. I did read the articles. I just don't have your rather apparent tendency to uh ... "embellish" what the articles actually say. Furthermore, had you read my initial post you would see that I am by no means a "Creationist" as I explicitly stated. All I said was that the "jury was still out" when it came to macro-evolution. That requires a lot of assumptions. It requires that we assume that because an older fossil (which are bones mind you .. most of which aren't even a complete set!) is physically similar to a younger fossil ... then the older fossil is an "ancestor" to the younger. Perhaps that is true. Then again, perhaps not. Is it not possible that the species that the older fossil was a part of just died out? We here all the time about how species are going extinct and are just gone. Is it not possible that older fossils of the supposedly "younger" species exist but just haven't been found. How do we know if the so-called "species" represented by fossil A and fossil B could interbreed or not? How do you determine that from bones or even bone fragments? How often is a single set of fossils, or maybe even a few sets, used to just "run off the deep end" and draw all sorts of conclusions?

A recent discovery has been all the rage ...

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...stor&e=1&ncid=

A few notable quotes that reiterate my point ...

"The problem is the fossil record," Moya-Sola said. "The fossil record in Africa, especially in the upper Miocene, is very scarce. And the fossils are very rare. But this is only a question of work, and work, and work."

Kohler added: "This does not mean that just this individual � or even this species, exactly this species � must have been the species that gave rise to everything else which came later in the great ape tree. But it is, if not the species, most probably a very closely related species that gave rise to it."

Maybe. Maybe not, argues David Strait, an assistant professor of anthropology at the University at Albany who studies early humans. He said the specimen is "spectacular," but he worried the team's approach to assigning evolutionary relationships was a bit informal and needs confirmation by more rigorous methods.

"'Ancestor' is a loaded term. It's very hard to identify ancestors in the fossil record," Strait cautioned.

(emphasis mine)

It is a very common thing to interpret the facts in a manner that "fits" with one's prevailing view of the situation. If one accepts evolution in the macro sense without question, then similar fossils from different time periods must be evidence of a species changing into another over time. Does such an individual even consider the possibility that these are just similar but different species with no "ancestor - descendant" relationship? Does such an individual even consider the possibility that it is the same species that mutated over time? Humans are on average much larger than they were a thousand years ago ... especially in the Western nations ... but are we a different "species" than our smaller statured brethren in other parts of world or from millennia ago? If one accepts the Bible in a literal sense without question, then fossil evidence from more than a few thousand years ago is a trick designed to test one's faith. Does such an individual even realize that "mathematically" speaking, the notion of flood that covered the entire earth is not possible? A planet whose surface is 3/4 water can't produce rain that covers all or 4/4 of that same surface. 3 just doesn't equal 4. Period.

As I said before, I don't fall into either category.

OAW

[OAW]

Originally posted by phoenixboy70:
once again...

If you can look at the structure and function of an atom and claim that there is no intelligent design there then I could chalk that up to a question of "semantics" over the term "design". If you can look at the organization and function and complexity of the human body ... just a single life form out of millions that we know of on this planet alone ... a life form that to this day our best and brightest scientists will freely admit their lack of a full and complete understanding of how all of its "systems" work ... if you can look at that and claim that there is no "intelligent design" then I would have to question your sanity.

If you went out into a remote area of a jungle and found a 500 ft pyramid structure you would draw the conclusion that some intelligent being constructed it. The human body is enormously more complex than a simple pyramid structure but the notion that it has an "intelligent designer" for some reason is the cause of much consternation in certain circles. The universe is infinitely more complex than the human body but the notion that it is anything other than atoms "randomly" bumping into each other and just happening to form planets, and galaxies, and black holes, and stars, and billions of life forms can't even be considered by some among us.

A rather strange notion indeed.

OAW

[Chris O'Brien]

Originally posted by OAW:

<snip>

A rather strange notion indeed.

OAW

Hmm. Could it not be that having the view that everything with some degree of complexity must have been designed, simply stems from the human mindset? Our whole outlook on life - pretty much everything we do - is to do with manipulating our surroundings. Everything we use (in general) in daily life has been designed. So, is it just that this is such a deeply inbuilt thing for us, that we immediately presume a designer behind anything that is complex?

"That Mac is very complex, and I know that was designed. Oh, and the human body is incredibly complex, so it must've been designed too".

It does seem like an obvious conclusion to jump to. But does that make it right?

I obviously don't know the answer as to whether we have been designed or whether it is random chance. However, unlike some people in this thread, I wouldn't debunk either theory. I don't know enough about it in order to do that. It seems to me that striving for the answer (and knowledge about how things work in general) is far more productive than having the dismissive attitude that some people have. If people hadn't been gathering knowledge and trying to understand the world better, then our lives wouldn't be anywhere near as good as they are now...

[olePigeon]

Originally posted by Jaey:
Well, it is pretty clear that we aren't flying around in a weightless environment.

There's no such thing as weightless.

[AKcrab]

Originally posted by olePigeon:
There's no such thing as weightless.

I assume you're saying that one can never be outside the force of some gravity?

'g' can never = 0?

[OAW]

Originally posted by Black Book:
Hmm. Could it not be that having the view that everything with some degree of complexity must have been designed, simply stems from the human mindset? Our whole outlook on life - pretty much everything we do - is to do with manipulating our surroundings. Everything we use (in general) in daily life has been designed. So, is it just that this is such a deeply inbuilt thing for us, that we immediately presume a designer behind anything that is complex?

"That Mac is very complex, and I know that was designed. Oh, and the human body is incredibly complex, so it must've been designed too".

It does seem like an obvious conclusion to jump to. But does that make it right?

Fair enough.

Originally posted by Black Book:

I obviously don't know the answer as to whether we have been designed or whether it is random chance. However, unlike some people in this thread, I wouldn't debunk either theory. I don't know enough about it in order to do that. It seems to me that striving for the answer (and knowledge about how things work in general) is far more productive than having the dismissive attitude that some people have. If people hadn't been gathering knowledge and trying to understand the world better, then our lives wouldn't be anywhere near as good as they are now...

Again. Holding the view that there is an "Intelligent Design" is not incompatible with science. I'm all for "gathering knowledge and trying to understand the world better" as you put it. I just don't think that doing that and recognizing the possibility (or better yet the likelihood) that there is a vastly greater Intelligence than our own at work in the Universe are incompatible.

Think about it this way. Consider the possibility that the Intelligent Designer, the Creator, God, Jehovah, Allah, The Force ..... whatever you want to call it, actually is the Universe. Or put another way, what if the Creator and the Creation are just two sides of the same coin? What if the Creation is merely the Creator expressing Itself in an infinite number of manifestations ... and the ultimately reality is that everything that exists is but a reflection of this One?

OAW

[undotwa]

God is such a complicated being, beyond our comprehension who manifests Himself through creation in equally complicated ways. Wouldn't it therefore be reasonable to suggest that God's creation and means it came to be as it is today is equally complicated?

[mrtew]

Originally posted by phoenixboy70:

That is one of the best books I've ever read. It really does explain how you can get ever increasing levels of complexity thru evolution without there being a 'design' or a 'designer'. Instead of just insisting that, "it sure looks like great design to me", you should actually read and understand the other viewpoint. The universe is actually more amazing if you understand how it actually formed than if you just pretend that it was made by some super powerful force dude.

[macaddict0001]

Originally posted by AKcrab:
I assume you're saying that one can never be outside the force of some gravity?

'g' can never = 0?

g can = 0
assuming that g is pulling you equally on all sides, rare but nonetheless possible.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by OAW:
If you can look at the structure and function of an atom and claim that there is no intelligent design there then I could chalk that up to a question of "semantics" over the term "design". If you can look at the organization and function and complexity of the human body ... just a single life form out of millions that we know of on this planet alone ... a life form that to this day our best and brightest scientists will freely admit their lack of a full and complete understanding of how all of its "systems" work ... if you can look at that and claim that there is no "intelligent design" then I would have to question your sanity.

You can question mine. I look at the very same evidence and conclude that it's far more plausible that complex organisms would evolve via natural selection than from some "intelligent design" process. How or why does one "design" human brain tissue? Why not design a more efficient organism? Why start with Cromagnons? Why was I born with bad teeth? If you say, "We can't know," that only adds to the implausibility of it all. It's pure conjecture IMO.

Nor do I buy the res ipsa loquitur argument that intelligent design can be inferred from the very existence of complex organisms. You can tell that a pyramid in the woods is an artifice because it isn't organic. It doesn't conform to any natural system. On the other hand, we have considerable (if incomplete) evidence that homo sapiens is subject to the same natural processes as other life forms. I find that more persuasive.

[roberto blanco]

Originally posted by OAW:
If you can look at the structure and function...

have you read the book? it answers your questions and many others quite conclusively.

[OAW]

Originally posted by zigzag:
Nor do I buy the res ipsa loquitur argument that intelligent design can be inferred from the very existence of complex organisms. You can tell that a pyramid in the woods is an artifice because it isn't organic. It doesn't conform to any natural system. On the other hand, we have considerable (if incomplete) evidence that homo sapiens is subject to the same natural processes as other life forms. I find that more persuasive.

So if something is complex and non-organic one can infer design but if it is complex and organic there is no design. Oh I get it now.

OAW

[roberto blanco]

Originally posted by OAW:
So if something is complex and non-organic one can infer design but if it is complex and organic there is no design. Oh I get it now.

show me a pyramid on an island where nobody has been before and we can talk.

[OAW]

Originally posted by roberto blanco:
have you read the book? it answers your questions and many others quite conclusively.

No I haven't read that particular book. Having said that, a book with a subtitle of "How the evidence of evolution reveals a Universe without design" is starting off on the wrong foot with me. What an arrogant claim! Apparently this individual feels qualified to make sweeping conclusions about the nature of the entire Universe based upon evidence gathered on one planet, in one solar system ... of which there are millions in our galaxy alone ... in a Universe containing millions of galaxies. Just a tad bit presumptuous IMO. You never know though. It might be an interesting read anyway.

OAW