Query on evolution

[EnderX]

From what I've seen, any discussion of any kind of scientific or pseudoscientific material on this board will nearly inevitably lead into a comparison with evolution. This is in addition to instances where the issue is brought up in terms of other beliefs, such as the depiction of Mike Huckabee given recently in the Presidential Poll thread by ZZucker.

I recognize that many people here believe in evolution. So, I would like to make a request of you. If you accept that the principles of evolution as generally taught in schools and universities now are true, would you please list the specific evidence that lead you to believe this?

Thank you,
-EnderX

[zandiago]

This ought to be interesting

[jasimp]

The HIV virus evolves all the time to try and survive in its host. Humans share almost 98% of our DNA with chimps. How close our arm bones look to that of a mouse. Animals that live on completely different continents and are completely different species look very similar. How similar chimps and humans act. Neanderthal man and how we have changed from him. Darwin discovered finches that all lived relatively close together yet all had different beaks specialized for the food on their island. Thats not everything but it a good list. And evolution does not challenge god. God could have created the beginning animals and let themselves evolve. I don't believe that but if you are religious it makes sense.

[Sturm]

The "defects" of organisms is quite damning as well.
For example, the human eye has light receptors underneath muscle. We also get goose bumps when we're cold, the original purpose of which was to fluff hair. The tail bone also suggests evolution. Look in any biology book and I assure you that you'll find more examples of evolution.

[joshSCH]

If you don't believe in evolution then you are an idiot.

I site history, archeology, psychology, etc. as proof.

As the previous two posters have already stated, DNA and observations of species are our main evidence for evolution. Humans are imperfect, and there are many things which can still be improved upon.. the fact that microevolution occurs on a daily basis: viruses such as HIV, humans adapting to different environments and developing new characteristics (webbed feet, higher tolerance of certain poisons, immunity, etc.)

Quite frankly, I really don't understand how you cannot believe in evolution. The connections are so damn obvious! Step outside your house and take a look around you!

[GrimJack]

From what I've seen, any discussion of any kind of scientific or pseudoscientific material on this board will nearly inevitably lead into a comparison with evolution. This is in addition to instances where the issue is brought up in terms of other beliefs, such as the depiction of Mike Huckabee given recently in the Presidential Poll thread by ZZucker.

I recognize that many people here believe in evolution. So, I would like to make a request of you. If you accept that the principles of evolution as generally taught in schools and universities now are true, would you please list the specific evidence that lead you to believe this?

Thank you,
-EnderX

Ender - very good question!
In order to talk about the principles of evolution, there are a couple of things that must be accepted (or not <grin>):
1) The universe is very, very old - the latest (revised) estimates put the age at between 11 and 20 billion years old, using astronomic observations (red shift, etc.);
2) The solar system is very old (currently believed to be 4.5 billion years old, counting from the ignition of the sun's fusion)
3) The earth is old - the oldest rocks on earth are approximately the same as the solar system (let's just wave hands here and say someone looked at radioactivity and lead) and after an incredibly long time, it cooled and so on.

If you can accept the above, we can proceed to plate tectonics - the idea that the earth is a huge ball of molten nickel and iron with a thin skin of minerals that have solidified floating on the surface. Convection currents move the continents around (stuff bubbles up under the Pacific and Atlantic oceans and subsides around the rim of the Pacific Ocean - the so-called ring of fire). All this moves so slowly that stuff that happened 300 million years ago is layered below stuff that happened 200 million years ago (and so on). Earthquakes, volcanoes and so on can mix up some of the layers but in obvious ways.

Fossils laid down during one era are separated from fossils laid down in different eras.
There is a fossil record in the earth that can be read; the record appears to show that living things change over time to match changes in the environment. The fossil record shows intermediate species between one form and a later one.

More recently, we have DNA records in the form mitochondrial DNA which is passed only through women (more hand-waving at biology). The mitochondriaDNA (call it mDNA) from a - er, 'pure-blooded' woman from the Ethiopian rift compared to the mDNA from a 'pure-blooded' Eskimo vary in quite specific ways that can actually be tracked by testing the mDNA from Africa across the Mediterranean up through Europe to Greenland. A different but similar trail can be followed from Ethiopia across Asia to the Eskimos of Siberia and North America (and of course some lateral transfer around the arctic circle << I use the term Eskimo advisedly here as I do not know the names of all the different peoples who live in that area which include but is not limited to the Inuit groups >>.

This is just a general description of the reasons I believe in evolution and should not be taken as anything more than a rough sketch. If you would like more specific and exacting evidence, I can provide that. I am willing to discuss any of this in more detail - though I have pretty much reached my limits w.r.t. DNA.

While researching this blurb I ran into a couple of interesting digression including this question:
Which came first - mitochondria or chloroplasts? (no consensus - mitochondria require oxygen and don't (aerobic vs. anaerobic) so they could survive in the early, pre-oxygen atmosphere -- on the other hand it the mitochondria that produce energy in living systems).

I hope this helps somewhat??

[Dave Sinkula]

I enjoyed this article recently.

[jasimp]

Another one of Daves endless drivel spouting links.

[GrimJack]

Some of the comments were interesting but the article itself was pretty deficient.

[Dave Sinkula]

Another recent read -- more of a political angle.

[vegaseat]

Since EnderX holds the view of a small but vocal minority, maybe he/she should explain his/her reasoning.

[Lardmeister]

When truth is nothing but the truth, it's unnatural, it's an abstraction that resembles nothing in the real world. In nature there are always so many other irrelevant things mixed up with the essential truth.
(Aldous Huxley)

[MidiMagic]

A paradox that disproves random chance as the origin of life:

Two elements are needed for self-reproducing life:

1. The DNA with the instructions on it.
2. The ribosome, to read the DNA and make the proteins.

Bit it's that first cell, and even more, the second cell, that bother me:

- If ribosomes were plentiful for some strange reason when the DNA appeared, then how did the instructions for making a ribosome get on the DNA?

- If, instead, the ribosome is first described on the DNA, then what was used to read the first DNA strands.

It's the equivalent of using the first CD Recorder, and finding the blueprints and instructions for making the recorder already recorded on the first blank CD.

[ZZucker]

Also, what came first, the chicken or the egg?

[GrimJack]

Also, what came first, the chicken or the egg?

The egg, since birds are descended from dinosaurs which were egg-layers.

[GrimJack]

A paradox that disproves random chance as the origin of life:

Two elements are needed for self-reproducing life:

1. The DNA with the instructions on it.
2. The ribosome, to read the DNA and make the proteins.

Bit it's that first cell, and even more, the second cell, that bother me:

- If ribosomes were plentiful for some strange reason when the DNA appeared, then how did the instructions for making a ribosome get on the DNA?

- If, instead, the ribosome is first described on the DNA, then what was used to read the first DNA strands.

It's the equivalent of using the first CD Recorder, and finding the blueprints and instructions for making the recorder already recorded on the first blank CD.

If I take the time to answer you points will it make a difference in your beliefs or will you just ignore my post? I take time to make thoughtful responses to such questions but my responses seem to be ignored. If you really want a response to these points, I will provide it.

I will note here that those 2 points don't disprove anything. They might cast doubt, in your mind, on the hypothesis that random chance can account for self-reproducing cells but they disprove nothing.

[jbennet]

biological opinion:

antibiotic bacteria is an example of natural selection

the selection pressure is one made by man (to survive the antibiotics) and the resistant ones have an advantage

e.g

1000 bacteria - mainly normal, a tiny number are resistant

antibiotics are used. normal ones die, resistant ones are left. they multiply. this happens again in many seperarte cases, until eventually the majority of bacteria are resistant

this can be applied to animals. if one has a selective advantage, it will survive.

e.g in africa there isnt much food. the giraffe can reach high trees which is an advantage as other animals cant therefore there is less competion. biologists believe that initially there was many short necked giraffes and a small number of tall necked giraffes (due to a random mutation) and when africa became desertified (many tens of thousdands of years ago it was a swamp/jungle type place) the tall necked ones suddenly had an advantage and could outcompete the short ones, which then died, leaving tall necked ones as the dominant species.

this is natural selection.

[GrimJack]

biological opinion:

antibiotic bacteria is an example of natural selection

the selection pressure is one made by man (to survive the antibiotics) and the resistant ones have an advantage

e.g

1000 bacteria - mainly normal, a tiny number are resistant

antibiotics are used. normal ones die, resistant ones are left. they multiply. this happens again in many seperarte cases, until eventually the majority of bacteria are resistant

this can be applied to animals. if one has a selective advantage, it will survive.

e.g in africa there isnt much food. the giraffe can reach high trees which is an advantage as other animals cant therefore there is less competion. biologists believe that initially there was many short necked giraffes and a small number of tall necked giraffes (due to a random mutation) and when africa became desertified (many tens of thousdands of years ago it was a swamp/jungle type place) the tall necked ones suddenly had an advantage and could outcompete the short ones, which then died, leaving tall necked ones as the dominant species.

this is natural selection.

I am sure you meant to start the post off with 'antibiotic-resistant' bacteria

The giraffe has the same number of neck vertebrae as all other mammals - 7, they are just bigger.

[jbennet]

yes

exactly, its still a mutation though

[jwenting]

Everyone knows the giraffe was created by Ford Prefect after he got bored during a trip to Africa during the stone age :)

[GrimJack]

yes

exactly, its still a mutation though

Yep, another way to say it is that there was a niche open and the longer necked mammals could eat stuff their shorter-necked brethren couldn't reach.

[jbennet]

exactly

same with birds - in africa there is this bird that has an unusually long beak - it can break open hard seeds and nuts - it was caused by a mutation too

evolution is all around us. reaon people dont believe it is becase people who dont know what they are talking about say that we are evolved from monkeys. this is not the case. what we did was share a common ancestor.

[Colin Mac]

Richard Dawkins talks about the flatfish
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bldN-lbyqsE

[Aeneassan]

In the BBC series (quite old series though still accurate) Life on Earth, David Attenborough explains evolution in a simple yet all encompassing fashion.

[jbennet]

i just watched that "life in cold blood" yesterday - it was awesome

[Aeneassan]

yeah it is :) david attenborough is great for that kind of stuff

[Ravenous Wolf]

i am not a fan of josch but i have to repeat what he said. for almost anyone who knows how DNA and evolution (sub that into mutation and natural selection) works it is difficult to belief otherwise. they fit together so perfectly.

look at the process and look at a philogenic scale. with enough imagination one can almost see one life form evolve into another. all lifeforms on any given branch anywhere on a gigantic map which depicts all kingdoms, phylums, orders, families etc(a very detailed phylogenic scale which gives more than just phylums but also families and orders) will have elements in common. not just one or two but practically everything. for example practically all animals of the order primata cannot make vitamin C inside their bodies but plenty of other orders can.

what convinced(perhaps i should say confirm) me more than anything else is the fact that when you classify animals by common characteristics(i.e. a phylogenic scale) you get what scientists believe to be the evolutionary paths. for example reptile, bird, mamal and amphib all have things in common and scientists believe that reptile evolved from fish and mamal and bird from reptile. there is a consistency between whatever means you use to classify animals together based on physical characteristics and the path that we believe evolution took. that is too much of a coincidence. if God created all animals then there would have been no such similarity. we might as easily have found cortex and neocortex in reptiles but instead we only find them in mamal. of course it possible for two different branches to evolve similar characteristics if subject to identical environmental pressures but such similarities tends to be not only rare but often artificial as well. another example. the wing of a bird has far more in common with the forelimbs of the rest of the phylum chordata than with the wings of an insect. similar goes for the flukes of dolphin and whales.

[jbennet]

yeah the thing between birds, mammals and fish can be seen between human leg , whale leg and bird leg

[venomlash]

Evolution...how about that classic example of those finches Darwin discovered???
And if an omniscient creator (whose name rhymes with Todd) *had* created everything, would He have allowed humans to progress enough to question His divine postulate???
EnderX, I respect your right to free speech, but this is about as dumb as the Scopes trial.

"Show me some evidence" indeed! Is there a SINGLE point of evidence against evolution???

And also, if you don't believe in evolution, you'll have a tough time working with those new "evolved" circuits that people are proposing (the best randomly generated circuits are mixed together to create very efficient circuits--it's all in R&D. Look in Scientific American for more information.)

[Ravenous Wolf]

@venomlash

come on. lets respect enderx's right to believe in a God. Lets not now start burning them at the stake the way they used to burn us at the stake. lets try and be the bigger men.

just kidding enderx. i could not resist. by the way. someone called you the minority. i surmise most people in your community are atheist.

it must suck. here atheists are the minority and i constantly get religious people trying to convert me. ironic isn't it.

@venomlash

eveolved curcuits? like design basic elements and simple circuit parts on a computer and let them interact. the best will then be distinguished and we shall have better curcuits than if we(humans) tried to design all by ourselves? can you imagin 20 billion curcuit time units from today the much more evolved circuits debating amongst themselves as to whether humans exists and whether humans created them or if they evolved natuarally. when some dogmatic circuit elder tells his resultant circuits that "Human have created circuit!" the resulted circuit says: "bs. we learn this in school. i am a physical manifestation of Diagram(equivalent of DNA). and i get half of diagram from my father and half of them from my mother(or whatever creative way Diagram use to exchange info in a way similar to how DNA use sex to exchange genetic info)!