It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
For someone who 'claims ignorance' you seem ONLY to object to evolution, but don't object to creationism or those who openly [and with honestly and integrity] support it. In fact you give kudos and pats on the back to them. I think i smell a fraud. Could it be you have a not-so-hidden agenda?
I have repeatedly denied being a creationist, and have not mentioned God or genesis, other than to plead ignorance.
You are so troubled with evolutionist's explanation yet offer no other logical reasoned explanation of your own.
[Evolution] is a theory developed around a particular set of observed facts and speculative reasoning. Because the story agrees with the facts does not make it correct.
Well that is what SCIENCE does, doesn't it? It takes facts and tries to understand and explain how all these facts fit together.
It's written with a knowledge of certain observations, in an effort to explain said observations.
.link
baseline surveys showed malaria infection rates in children of 60-90%
www.question.com...
During epidemics the fatality rate was often as high as 85%
I have repeatedly denied being a creationist, and have not mentioned God or genesis, other than to plead ignorance.
For someone who 'claims ignorance' you seem ONLY to object to evolution, but don't object to creationism or those who openly [and with honestly and integrity] support it.
In fact you give kudos and pats on the back to them. I think i smell a fraud. Could it be you have a not-so-hidden agenda?
[Evolution] is a theory developed around a particular set of observed facts and speculative reasoning. Because the story agrees with the facts does not make it correct.
You are so troubled with evolutionist's explanation yet offer no other logical reasoned explanation of your own.
It's written with a knowledge of certain observations, in an effort to explain said observations
.Well that is what SCIENCE does, doesn't it? It takes facts and tries to understand and explain how all these facts fit together.
BTW the 'law of large numbers says that if you flip a coin a large enough number of times the proportion of heads to tails will be almost exactly even.'
What it means is over the long run the probabilistic odds of something occuring will be represented in actual outcomes. If something will happen 33% of the time one third of the outcomes will be that outcome.
Maybe it is only me to whom it seems apparent but entities best suited to an ecological niche will survive in greater numbers than those that are not as well adapted. And further they will do so in proportion of their suitability to a given environment.
Sickle-cell anemia is common with populations of humans that live in areas that have mosquitoes and malaria. One copy of the gene confirs resistance to malaria, Two copies causes Sickle cell anemia. If my memory serves there is a 40% chance of passing the gene on to offspring.
That means the odds of getting two copies is 0.4^2 = 0.16, one copy is 2 * 0.4 * 0.6 = 0.48, and no copies is 0.6^2 = 0.36. [0.16+0.48+0.36=1=100%]
This leaves about half the population with some resistance to malaria, A little over a third with no protection and a little over 1/6th of the population sick with sickle cell anemia.
This also has to be calculated with the infection rate of malaria quote: baseline surveys showed malaria infection rates in children of 60-90%
If malaria was absolutely fatal the proportion of the population having the gene would be higher, if the fatality of malaria was lower the proportion would be lower. quote: During epidemics the fatality rate was often as high as 85%www.question.com...
I believe sickle cell anemia without bone marrow transplants or new drugs is close to 100%.
So with 60% infection rate: 16% die of sickle cell, 48% are protected, and .40*.36=.144 unprotected-uninfected, .60*.36=.216 infected unprotected of those .216*.15=.0324 survive; .48+.144+.0324=.6564 survive or about 2/3rds
With 90% infection rate: 16% die of sickle cell, 48% are protected and .10*.36=.036 unprotected-uninfected, .90*.36=.324 infected unprotected, of those .324*.15=.0486; .48+.036+.0486=.5646 survive or a little over 1/2
In short what the system does to optimize survival is balance the sickle cell deaths against the malaria deaths to optimize survival: 16% die of sickle cell and from 18.36% to 27.54% of malaria deaths. (total 16+18.36=34.36 to 16+27.54= 43.54)
This is an example of evolution in its crude mindless way optimizing survival.
This sounds to me like all double Hemaglobin S persons get the disease.
If two parents who are carriers have a child, there is a 1-in-4 chance of their child developing the illness
'Early' is an imprecise term, but certainly must mean die sooner than would otherwise be expected. Whether that means before puberty or not is not clear.
The sufferers of the illness usually die early.
[A]nyone who suffers from either sickle cell disease or thalassemia. Premature death is likely . . .
tmcr.usuhs.mil...
Hemoglobin S is widely distributed; it is found most frequently in tropical Africa, with a gene incidence of up to 40% in some tribes.
It is the ONLY relevant thing that explains the mechanisms involved. Too many children die of sickle cell, those less likely to have it survive. Too many children die of malaria those less likely to get it survive. NOTE: this is what happens when an environment has a stable condition. The population is optimized for that environment. Most civilized people looking at it would think it brutal and barbaric to balance one kind of death with another kind of death. Only a mindless mechanism would come up with that kind of natural solution.
but the distribution within the population isn�t really relevant.
You really should look this stuff up before you post it. I mean you are correct 100% of people with sickle cell are going to die, but so are 100% of people without. If you want to talk actual statistics, even if they are not relevant to this thread, about 50% of people with sickle-cell anemia live into their fifth decade. With some versions of the disease men have an average life expectancy of about 60, and women about 68 years (See: N Engl J Med. 1994 Jun 9;330(23):1639-44.)
en.wikipedia.org...
In probability theory, several laws of large numbers say that the average of a sequence of random variables with a common distribution converges (in the senses given below) to their common expectation, in the limit as the size of the sequence goes to infinity.
7 individuals is not a large sample size, a long way from infinity. The preponderance for 1/2 male and 1/2 female only shows clearly when you look at a large number of births. (After birth males have a higher death rate so there is some imbalance there)
My mom has 6 sisters and 1 brother obviously ~50% is not represented in the actual outcomes.
Originally posted by slank
If two parents who are carriers have a child, there is a 1-in-4 chance of their child developing the illness
This sounds to me like all double Hemaglobin S persons get the disease.
The sufferers of the illness usually die early.
'Early' is an imprecise term, but certainly must mean die sooner than would otherwise be expected. Whether that means before puberty or not is not clear.
[A]nyone who suffers from either sickle cell disease or thalassemia. Premature death is likely . . .
Hemoglobin S is widely distributed; it is found most frequently in tropical Africa, with a gene incidence of up to 40% in some tribes.
tmcr.usuhs.mil...
If you have two carrier parents the ratio of their offspring is 25%, 50%, 25%
If the population as a whole is 40% carriers the ratio is 16%, 48%, 36%
(I'm suprised my memory is better than i thought. Yay! no alzheimers yet)
but the distribution within the population isn�t really relevant.
It is the ONLY relevant thing that explains the mechanisms involved. Too many children die of sickle cell, those less likely to have it survive. Too many children die of malaria those less likely to get it survive. NOTE: this is what happens when an environment has a stable condition. The population is optimized for that environment. Most civilized people looking at it would think it brutal and barbaric to balance one kind of death with another kind of death. Only a mindless mechanism would come up with that kind of natural solution.
You really should look this stuff up before you post it. I mean you are correct 100% of people with sickle cell are going to die, but so are 100% of people without. If you want to talk actual statistics, even if they are not relevant to this thread, about 50% of people with sickle-cell anemia live into their fifth decade. With some versions of the disease men have an average life expectancy of about 60, and women about 68 years (See: N Engl J Med. 1994 Jun 9;330(23):1639-44.)
Your citation of the New England Medical Journal Is working with modern day first world subjects with health care, NOT pre-medical indigenous populations.
In probability theory, several laws of large numbers say that the average of a sequence of random variables with a common distribution converges (in the senses given below) to their common expectation, in the limit as the size of the sequence goes to infinity.
en.wikipedia.org...
I believe this means if you roll a single die enough times the odds of getting a one is 1/6, a two is 1/6, etc.
My mom has 6 sisters and 1 brother obviously ~50% is not represented in the actual outcomes.
7 individuals is not a large sample size, a long way from infinity. The preponderance for 1/2 male and 1/2 female only shows clearly when you look at a large number of births. (After birth males have a higher death rate so there is some imbalance there).
Interestingly many pretty severe DNA alterations are not fatal. Some do create an essentially sterile adult though.
It is estimated that from 10�20% of all human fertilized eggs contain chromosome abnormalities, and these are the most common cause of pregnancy failure (35% of the cases)
users.rcn.com...
Random assortment in humans produces 223 (8,388,608) different combinations of chromosomes. . ., none of these chromosomes is "pure" maternal or paternal. So I think it is safe to conclude that of all the billions of sperm produced by a man during his lifetime (and the hundreds of eggs that mature over the life of a woman), no two have exactly the same gene content.
Firstly I would inquire [with any] whether or not you believe in evolution
or not a species retaining as much genetic diversity gives it more [often unexpected] viability/robustness in response to changing environmental conditions?
Obviously I do, and am curious about others. Mono culture in any species, including crop species worries me a great deal.
(note: the following is speculation from a non-expert)
At one time radiation was given as a possible source of mutations. This is certainly possible, but It seems to me it would more likely just cause damage. In earlier more primative organisms this may have been possible, This would concur with the slow rate of genetic change and 'evolution' towards the beginning of life.
Alternatively I would look closely at the transcription process for errors/goofs that occassionally happen.
For single celled dividing organisms the minor (one amino acid change) if not fatal/crippling would probably be reflected in the new divided cells.
Since the effect of a single amino acid change in a structural protein (if not in a crucial point) probably doesn't make a big difference one way or the other. In a critical enzyme or something it probably could be crucial.
With sexual reproduction since two copies of a gene, even if one parent had passed a fatal gene construct (as long as it was recessive) the other working gene would most likely cover it. Sexual reproduction, by having two copies of each gene may allow for a looser handling of genetic materials and inheiritance.
A likely place to look for creation of original genetic combinations is Meiosis:
In Meiosis, prophase I, the chromatids(single paired strand of duplicated chromosome) exchange chunks of genetic material. I have been unable to get clear whether the chiamata (exchange points) ever happen in the middle of a gene or if there is some sort of modularization that blocks this. If the swap point occurs in mid-gene this seems like an easy way new/altered genes can be introduced.
There are also any number of other things that sometimes occur in prophase I, swapping material from two different chromosomes, inversion of a chunk of DNA, duplications, insertions, deletions and Triploids, Monoploids instead of the standard Diploids (two sets of Chromosomes). quote: It is estimated that from 10�20% of all human fertilized eggs contain chromosome abnormalities, and these are the most common cause of pregnancy failure (35% of the cases)Interestingly many pretty severe DNA alterations are not fatal. Some do create an essentially sterile adult though.
The amount of genetic variation between the maternal and paternal gene lines in a single individual in the reproductive cells is huge.quote: Random assortment in humans produces 223 (8,388,608) different combinations of chromosomes. . ., none of these chromosomes is "pure" maternal or paternal. So I think it is safe to conclude that of all the billions of sperm produced by a man during his lifetime (and the hundreds of eggs that mature over the life of a woman), no two have exactly the same gene
If this is the case it seems like a point where differences of the maternal genes and paternal genes can be combined into unique combinations. This is one point where creation of unique traits seem likely, over a long period of time.
When geneticists look at human DNA they say 9/10ths of it are 'junk'.
What if it is sort of like many people, who store junk in the attic, garage, or basement?
Many genes are activated by master control genes. There might be some mechanism that stimulates a master control gene to activate some of these unused chunks of DNA. Also if this 'junk' DNA gets spliced in the middle of an existing gene it would create a new gene combination.
Chemical toxins and Radiation would, I think in most cases just be destructive, and therefore not (very often) create viable mutations. Transcription and Meiosis errors seem, especially with duplicate copies of each chromosome, to have a higher (still low though) probability to seamlessly introduce new viable genetic variations.
I thought about the 40% carriers ratio.
My math was wrong. There is only a 50% of getting the gene from a carrier. So in the population overall the probability of getting the gene is 20% if 40% are carriers.
So it becomes 4% have sickle cell (die), 32% are protected and 64% have no protection.
During an Epidemic: 4% die, 32% live, 54.4% die, 9.6% live
The next generation would be 77% carriers
Not during an Epidemic: 4% die, 32% live, 64% live
The next generation would be 33% carriers
I would speculate that epidemics are periodic. So the number of carriers would go up and down with Epidemics.
In a weird way paired chromosomes sort of works like having an alternative card to play. With variability in a sexually reproduced population it allows for different genetic strategies to be held in reserve.
With constant epidemics after a few generations one would approach 100% carriers. (But non-carriers would always be present in the next generation)
If epidemics stopped the number of carriers would drop, but I think it would be a very long time before the trait was completely gone.
Would migrating animals tend to be more adaption oriented?
I was wondering if with more than one pair of a gene eccentric proportions of of a trait might be expressed. If it were a completely recessive trait with two genes from each parent it would show only 1/16th of the time. If it showed when 3 out of 4 copies of the recessive gene were present that would be 5/16ths of the time.
The image that still comes to my mind is fluid, like a water balloon. In freefall a water balloon becomes mostly spherical, when [non-puncturingly] manipulated it can conform to any number of shapes. I see it as a thing rolling/flowing downhill into the future. When something to one side gets in the way it flows off to the other side. Only when blocked broadly flat or cupped does it stop its progress. Maybe a lava lamp also works where sometimes the mass cleaves into a new species or sub-species.
Odd thought: Perhaps (intermitant?) stresses keeps the gene pool flexing and changing, which keeps more variant strains of DNA code active/numerous making for a species ready to adapt.
Sort of like, use it or lose it for genetic code. So if a species occupies many environments yet still migrates to interbreed (maintain species cohesiveness) it attains a richer genetic code.
I've often thought the best minds/nervous systems are those that are stimulated, including negative stimulation. Sometimes that can even be mildly torturous, but in a constructive manner. [I may get flamed for being so bluntly honest] In our culture we always want to make everything 'easy' for children, but many of the most outstanding people come from troubled childhoods. I don't want to say people should make children's lives unnecessarily miserable, but we should probably instill certain standards upon them. Within reason I think this is almost arbitrary what they are in particular. Hopefully not ownerous, but certainly offspring should know the world does not revolve soley around them. This also demands of people that they determine what their core values are first. 'To them much is given, from them much is expected' makes a good balance. They will of course find their own ways to shine. They should have a sense that the Universe operates in balance.
Originally posted by Corinthas
New fake leads left by God found...
Originally posted by Corinthas
the ice core drilling in the artic has found more (fake) evidence to suggest the Earth is older than 6000 years.
That alongside all the fake dinsaur bones means god is a great forger and has a good sense of humor?
Originally posted by Corinthas
Naaah.. it means these gullible creationist muppets have it very wrong... veeeery wrong indeed.
When I was talking about 'use it or lose it' I meant the species as a whole. (Not Lamarkian)
Without occasional malaria the sickle cell might at some point disappear from the genepool. So I guess I mean all potentially beneficial genes should be utilized by some portion of the species to keep those genes active as an adaptive trait.
It seems to me that the scrambling and re-pasting of genetic material together is 'designed' to create genetic variation. I am not sure if something like this happens in non-sexually reproducing species. But this was probably a big step in accellerating change in genetic code.
Have you heard of the 'Red Queen Theory'? Running/changing as fast as you can just to stay in place. Pathogenic organisms/viruses are constantly changing and the only way potential target organisms can keep up is to adapt and change rapidly too.
We do have immune systems, but this isn't sufficient defense against many organisms. It works often as a 'second time around' defense system.
I find it hard to believe there are not occasional transcription errors. In clone reproduction organisms this would pass the variation on.
I also am inclined to think there are any number of errors that happen during Prophase one of Mieosis.
I have heard speculations that viruses have introduced variation of the genetic code. If these spred to or are in the reproductive cells these variations would be spread to offspring. We are very aware of severly injurious viruses like the flu, but it seems quite possible that there are a lot of more benign viruses, that because they are not injuriously apparent are not hunted for and therefore not noticed. It could be that many chunks of what we call our (human) DNA is actually some ancient virus that has been incorporated into our DNA.
I believe the mechanisms for splicing genes may have come originally from observing certain viruses.
It has been speculated that the mitocondria is actually an organism that combined with a nuclear cell.
Perhaps the nucleous was originally a cell within a cell.
I can see where one might think that the virtual sameness between individuals in a species might imply that there isn't much to work with for creating original genes. But chimpanzees are only 2% different from ourselves.
Originally posted by mattison0922
Phew! Here it is.
I would like to preface this post by again reiterating my intentions here.
but my point has always been based on the available evidence, we CANNOT argue evolution as being a fact.
As I have said, I never would have joined this thread if Aeon had not stated that �evolution is a fact.� That kind of dogmatic speech just pushes my buttons.
These references are offered for contextual purposes: What is often promoted is �fact� is something for which there isn�t even a consensus opinion among scientists.
I haven�t seen you state this here, but are you stating that evolution is a �fact?�
Your objection is of course acknowledged. However this quote was offered for historical perspective, particularly when coupled with the quote from Raup. Again these refs. are offered in refutation re: the statement that evolution is a fact.
In many ways, I don�t feel like we are coming from different perspectives. While I understand the context of these particular quotes, it�s nice that you are elaborating for the rest of the post. My continued assertion: stating evolution is a fact is not science, it�s dogma.
Interestingly enough, this [punctuational evolution] is where some of my biggest problems with evolution began. There is no reasonable mechanism postulated for the rapid change suggested by the fossil record.
Well, as you know from the massive amount of trees that have been sacrificed to the 'Punk Eek' debate, this is not somethign that should probably be discussed here in detail.. I would only put forward that the mechanism that causes the punctuational pattern is promoted as Gould and Eldridge as being Mayrs 'peripatric speciation' mode, wherein speciation, instead of happening in large populations over a large area, happens in very small populations that are practically isolated at the periphery of the species range.
Perhaps you�d care to comment in the flawed methods used by Wickramasingh, especially in light of the flawed analysis of Spetner.
places like say The British Museum have impeded this kind of research. Why?
Why should the BM grant more access to archaeopteryx? Wickramasingh's analysis was teribly flawed and the specimins are clearly not frauds. Also, the BM doesn't control all the specimins. Are you suggesting that the most rational answer is that they know its a fraud and are covering it up?
Ahhhh, then you see my point. The point is there are so many different issues with respect to this stuff that to argue it a fact is absurd.
I�m sorry, but similar features does NOT necessarily imply similar ancestry. It�s not an unreasonable assumption, but it�s not a fact.
Clear to who, clear to you? Not clear to every scientists in the field.
its a quasi walking ape showing a trend torwards increasing brain size and human like facial and dental features. What else could a transitional between a man and a chimp look like?
These would of course argue against the factual nature of evolution, and again point out the speculative, not factual nature of the theory.
. In fact, the DNA sequences for all people are so similar that scientists generally conclude that there is a �recent single origin for modern humans, with general replacement of archaic populations.
Did you insert this for a point of personal irony? Just Curious.
here is ASU's Institute of Human Origns take on it
Point taken. I was using the point of convergence to illustrate the fact that different explanations are offered when evidence doesn�t fit the currently accepted scenario. The point was that because things are similar doesn�t prove common ancestry. It may suggest it, but there could be other reasons for the similarity.
I am sure that you are aware of �convergent evolution� as Aeon felt it necessary to point out to me.
Also, on convergent evolution, if it were to occur, it'd be an example of macroevolution. So you can't maintain that australpithecines are animals that have converged on the human type, and still say macroevolution doesn't occur. Unless you would say that they were all instantaneously created and the similiarity isn't due to convergence or any other evolutionary phenomenon.
Based on observable evidence, such as the rate of natural, unrepaired mutation in an organisms DNA for example
While your point about existing variation is taken, existing variation in genetic structures in unable to account for the appearance of new genetic information,
Perhaps this is the greatest stumbling block then. If the genetic evidence demonstrates that, despite appearances, evolution cannot occur, if it refutes the idea that evolution occurs, then that woudl be significant.
This is not the point. The point is that there is considerable dissention
There is considerable dissention on the transitions, but none of the authors cited argue that evolution doesn't occur. As far as any of them can tell, and say, it does occur. They simply argue that a different set of archosaurs evolved into birds, or that a particualar organism is more terrestrial than usually thought, but the factual occurance of evolution is not based on this weak, theoretical transitions. Indeed, you are quite right, there is dissention and lack of consensus on some of these aspects, but there is a consensus that evolution occurs.
On Kow Swamp man and the differences betwen sapiens and erectus, only slightly features distinguish man from primitive apes in the first place. And I think that the point about the Kow Swamp specimin is that, its not erectus, its sapiens, and this means that erectus has a suite of features that are not found in sapiens. Of course, those features are "quantatative" in a sense, not qualitative. IE erectus has no chin or a smaller braincase, whereas modern man and kow swamp man has a larger braincase and more of a chin, differences in degree, not in kind, which is acceptable under the understanding of the differences between species.
We can�t look at the specimen as a whole without analyzing the individual components of that whole. If parts of the whole don�t add up though, HOW is the whole going to add up?
Perhaps I am being obtuse but I am not entirely sure I understand the comment. erectus, or any organism, doesn't need say one or two characters that are not had in any other organism in order to be considered a distinct species. They can have quantitative differences than other organisms, they can have no characters that are unique in and of themselves, but are merely 'more' or 'less' than others, ie more expanded, less vaulted, more keratinized, more sculptured, etc etc. Look at foxes and wolves. These are differences of degrees. Or even dogs and cats. Extend the snout, alter the musculature, allow the claws to retract, these aren't immpossible changes that would so radically alter the genome that the organism couldn;t function. If a fruit fly can have legs growing in place of antennae or have entire bod y segments lost, or duplicated, then surely these sorts of changes are possible. (agian, I'd hedge that there is a difference between hypothesised changes in the fossil record and deliberate changes in the lab, but it does show that the genome can be altered, that, as complex and interconnected it is, it can be radically altered, and, even in the fruit fly experiements, the changes were brought about by exposing the organisms to radiation and the like, not be selectively designing the freaks).
Nygdan, I�m sorry but this absurd, and doesn�t take evolution as a whole into account. There absolutely are kind barriers.
Ah, this is a strong statement, and probably the one we should try to focus on.
There are multiple very real, very difficult barriers that must be explained for this theory to be a �fact.�
The issue that I have with this is that, just what are these 'kind' barriers? For example, one could've said that feathers were a kind barrier, that they are something that had to have been formed ad hoc and at once. But they don't have to be. There are plausible antecedants to flight feathers in the fossil record. Given that, even tho we can't state as fact that "dino-fuzz" evolved into feathers, we can say that there isn't anything barring feathers from evolving. The 'kind barrier' of feathers doesn't exist, because feathers aren't limited to any kind of animal. And the tetrapod limb, similarly, there is nothing 'kind like' about it. Its just a limb with some bones. Its not far fetched to say that it could've come from more primitive antecedents, even if, as in other cases you've brought up, the genetic information has altered radically also. Its not insurmountable change, given that flys can have their entire body plan altered and survive. I understand that it ends up meaning a lot of changing of the genome, but obviously the genome can withstand change. At least thats how I understand it to be.
Now, of course you are not a fan of the Talk Origins newsgroup's archive, but there is a page about this subject.
www.talkorigins.org...
www.talkorigins.org...
www.talkorigins.org...
I note them because they do discuss the issue, and because they have the references relevant to the issue at hand. I, however, haven't been able to read those particualr references. The case made in them is that, infact, new structures can arise from old ones, and that 'arbitrary' gene sequences can result in functional ones.
I think that one of their notes is intersting:
According to Shannon-Weaver information theory, random noise maximizes information.
Its interesting because 'information theory' is often brought up, and it can be a counter-intuitive subject.
I will reiterate the is no proposed reasonable mechanism to account for the formation of new genetic information.
I do not understand. Why are mutations an insufficient source of new variation/information? Mutations are known to occur, they alter the genome, why aren't they able to alter it in such a way that results in a slightly different phenotype? And why can't natural selection act on this to result in new structures? I'll agree that the process isn't entirely understood, I'll agree that this is a theorectical portion of evolution, but the lack of a complete answer as to how evolution operates isn't in itself a refutation of hte concept or something that allows us to say that the factual observations of change in populations don't occur. We see change in populatins within a species. We see the evolution of new species. We see the induced but drastic alteration of the genome. We see evolution occuring, and, insofar as we do see that, we can state that evolution is a fact.
Dawkins for a refutation of this concept.
Which of his books refutes this?
On the out of place skulls, I am generally unfamiliar with the literature on them, so I can't really say anythign more than I already have.
1. �new� species that are �new� to man, but whose �newness� remains equivocal in light of observed genetic �variation� vs. genetic �change� (as discussed above), and/or because a species of unknown age is being observed by man for the first time.
If I understand this correctly you are saying its an issue because, say, in chichilids the new species isn't particularly different than the old right? Its just a different variation on the same type right?
2. �new� species whose appearance was deliberately and artificially brought about by the efforts of intelligent human manipulation, and whose status as new �species� remain unequivocally consequential to laboratory experiments rather than natural processes.
Indeed, human based selection is what inspired, some say, Darwin to come up with natural selection. The agent of selection isn't necesarily whats important here. Afterall, the humans didn't create ad hoc a new gene or set of genes and work out how it could be inserted into the organisms without disturbing their genome to the point of destruction. They selected for traits. Nature, too, can Select for traits. But, this sort of thing is the theory of natural selection, not the fact of evolution. The fact that the populations can be changed so radically is enough to show that evolution occurs. Infact, aren't you arguing that it doesn't occur, not that it occurs at the direction of any intelligence, man or god?
In neither of the above examples cited by Isaak was the natural (i.e., unaided) generation of a new species accomplished or observed, in which an unequivocally �new� trait was obtained (i.e., new genetic information created) and carried forward within a population of organisms.
in 5.9.1of this one of those pages one finds that multicellularity was observed to have occured in a unicellular organism Chlorella vulgaris, and in 5.9.1 Nakajima and Kurihara 1994 observed multicellurlarity in a bacterium, Shikano et al observed a morphological change of a size increase of 13 times the original size, from short rods to long filaments along with a size increase of 13 times. The human element shouldnt be rejected as 'design', since often all they are doing is providing selection pressure, or causing more exposure to radiation and thus an increase in random mutations. If the problem is that a totally new structure hasn't been observed to have evolved in nature de novo, well, thats not exactly what is expected to be the fact of evolution. Bird wings, for example, needn't have evolved out of nothing and all at once. Its the 'progressive' change that is the key to it. The change in a population of finches to have beaks that are stronger and larger than before, and a shift in diet from small plants to large hard shelled nuts has to be evolution. The new variation did not exist before, its new variation and new information. Yes, finches had beaks to begin with, but they didn't have those kind of beaks.
not just variations within a type of organism but the emergence of entirely new organisms.
Well, if its a question of massive change into entirely different sorts of organisms without any human selection, then I agree, this has not been observed. This does not mean macroevolution does not have a factual basis. Organisms speciate, and organisms change. Thats all that is required for macroevolution.
Definitions of �species� and (therefore) �speciation� remain are and varied, and by most modern definitions, certain changes within organism populations do conveniently qualify as �speciation events.� However after many decades of study, there remains no solid evidence that an increase in both quality and quantity of genetic information (as required for a macro-evolutionary speciation event) has happened or could happen.
As for Dobzhansky�s fruit fly experiments, it should be pointed out that an example of a laboratory-induced physiological change in a specimen, even if it involves genetic change, can hardly be considered proof that NATURAL evolution occurs, since the change did not take place without the deliberate activity of man.
But he didn't directly and specifically alter it. He, in a sense, caused possibly hundreds of years of random, no directed mutations to occur over a few generations. And the result was entirely new body plans. If mere mutations can produce that, then what is supposed to prevent them from causing anything else? And these organisms needn't be more fit, becuase there was no selective pressure. Think about it, without selective pressure, all those changes occured. What would happen if there was selection and time for it to act on the organism?
I would again encourage you to consider the big picture and the amount of genetic information to be added to go from E. Coli like organisms to homo sapien like organisms�. Really, seriously ponder that for a while, and I encourage you to try and answer it for yourself.
Even the bird to dinosaur transition almost starts to fall 'below the level of kinds' of animals and into the 'microevolutionary' change level.
BS. Dinosaur to bird transitions have never been classified as microevolution. Please point out a reference where this is referred to this way.
The change from somethign like herrerasaurus to modern pigeons is of course huge, and I am not claiming that, if one accepts the existence of 'kinds' (which I do not accept as a biological term) is 'inter-kind' change. What I am saying is that the change from things like archaeopteryx to birds, or microraptor and other very bird like dinosaurs shows that the 'morphological gap' between birds and dinosaurs is extremely small. Birds, again, have extremely few features that dinosaurs don't. How can one seriously contend that more co-ossification of vertrebrae is huge and fanatastic 'inter-kind' change? Or more reduction of the tail bones, or more fusion of the hand bones? Kinds simply do not exist in biology.
I was sold on evolution until the subject of the primordial cell came up, then I started seriously researching it.
Gravity seems to hold up very well at all levels except the quantum level.
This is the essence of my argument, notice how I didn�t say gravity is a �fact.�
Please see my above rebuttal. While reactions can�t be observed, their results can be measured with some degree of reproducibility. Furthermore transition states can be studied; there are entire fields of study devoted to this,
If you want to reject "macroevolution" because you've never witnessed it, then you'd also have to reject almost any chemical reaction, or the existence of transitional states within those reactions that are too small to see or too ephemeral to be 'observed' in the same manner than you want to observe macroevolution.
one of the major one�s is drug development. I specifically did a major portion of my graduate work re: enzyme thermodynamics and transition state analogs.
Originally posted by mattison0922
Nygdan,
Thanks for replying. I genuinely had lost faith in your response.
My impression [correct if wrong], mattison0922 is that you see and acknowlege microevolution as is observable, but since there is no smoking gun macro evolution you feel free to challenge macro [new-gene production] evolution. [In true science everything is open to scrutiny, It is always the search for truth and not the supposition of truth]
Q: do you take exception to any/all dating methodologies?
Devine intervention will never be proven. However, claiming evolution is a fact would tend to halt progress. If something�s a fact, what challenge is there to said theory.
Now anything may be possible, but barring divine intervention the best logical explanation,
I am certainly open to hearing some other explanation that accounts for the fossil record as it is. I just don't have one off the top of my head. [Aliens intermitently playing with genetic material, mostly spoofing, but you never know]
There might be some kind of stress factor that pulls idle genes into action, but that is extremely speculative.
Certain stress conditions might create enzymes that break DNA into short chunks for recombination. This under stress conditions creates many mutated forms, mostlly unsuccessful, but increases the odds of a new beneficial mutation. Randomly trying to create a useful mutation would be favored by a high population and high reproductive rate.
It could be there may be some radical behavior that causes/creates new forms to occur. [Another wild idea] Maybe instead of creating new genes from scratch there is some way that genes are taken whole from other species and somehow concatenated with the 'evolving' species DNA. This would mean that the gene had some intrinsic [if possibly irrelevant] logic to it. Certainly the probability for usefulness is far better than simple random mutation of protiens. [Would that mean evolution was a 'thief'?]
Maybe after several [one?] generations of malnutrition it stimulates a need for new forms. Which has a sort of logic to it. A well fed species in biological rationale has no need to change. A species that is struggling needs to change. Maybe we should examine a species that is struggling to survive without actually being wiped out. Interestingly enough nutritionally balanced caloric deprivation up to a point creates a longer life-span in mammals. This would allow an individual to create more offspring which would allow for a higer number of mutated offspring without endangering the species.