Answering any questions on Evolution

[bjt2024]

Hi,

I'm an atheist and a genetic/microbiological scientist and because this is a Christian forum I've opened this thread so anyone who wishes to know more about Evolution or my beliefs or why I hold them can ask me questions accordingly.

I would however like a respectful debate, but feel free to counteract anything I say if you disagree. I will try my hardest to remain respectful. Thanks

OK people, ask away.

​

 

[KhaosTheory]

Hi,

I'm an atheist and a genetic/microbiological scientist and because this is a Christian forum I've opened this thread so anyone who wishes to know more about Evolution or my beliefs or why I hold them can ask me questions accordingly.

I would however like a respectful debate, but feel free to counteract anything I say if you disagree. I will try my hardest to remain respectful. Thanks

OK people, ask away.

Thank you for joining! Could you please explain to these people how the classification system that was designed by Christian creationist Carolus Linnaeus based on morphological similarities is now also verifiable from the top down genetically?

 

[bjt2024]

Thank you for joining! Could you please explain to these people how the classification system that was designed by Christian creationist Carolus Linnaeus based on morphological similarities is now also verifiable from the top down genetically?

My field of genetics is mainly DNA based so my knowledge on this topic is not too extent however I shall try my best to answer this question with what I understand.

So Carl Linnaeus based his system of taxonomy on dividing categories which denoted certain morphological similarities. For example, the Phylum - Mollusca, which contains organisms which have a single muscular foot and mantle of an outer shell.

With the modern understanding of genetics, and how certain areas of genes, for example the homeobox, code for the regulation of the morphological appearance of an organism. Therefore the appearance differences of two different organisms can be followed across to certain differences in their genomes. This means that the taxonomy system of Linnaeus can be mostly applied a system of genetic catergorisation of life.

 

[Jazer]

I've opened this thread so anyone who wishes to know more about Evolution

Why is it that the syrian hamsters in the lab are brown but other hamsters in the wild come in many different colors?

Crazy Hamster Dance - YouTube

 

[AV1611VET]

Hi,

Hello, Thompson!

Welcome to CF!

I hope you stick around for awhile; you're in for a great ride here!

 

[JanetReed]

Hi,

I'm an atheist and a genetic/microbiological scientist and because this is a Christian forum I've opened this thread so anyone who wishes to know more about Evolution or my beliefs or why I hold them can ask me questions accordingly.

I would however like a respectful debate, but feel free to counteract anything I say if you disagree. I will try my hardest to remain respectful. Thanks

This is the creationist forum so facts mean nothing here, for creationists dogma tops facts every time,
having said that, it can do no harm to explain evolution to people who do not understand it,
and amazingly not understanding evolution has never stopped them from saying it's wrong!

 

[bjt2024]

Why is it that the syrian hamsters in the lab are brown but other hamsters in the wild come in many different colors?

I was not aware of the hamsters, however I would think logically that many of the Syrian hamsters used worldwide today came from a much smaller group of hamsters, predominately brown phenotypically and had the genes to code for that phenotype. As a result, through breeding, the major population of laboratory hamsters today are brown in colour.

As for the wild hamsters, they are subject to environmental changes and therefore some coloured coats may prevail over said brown in different environments. A brown hamster would be killed off in a desert due to predators being able to see it, whereas a more sandy/yellow coloured would thrive.

 

[bjt2024]

This is the creationist forum so facts mean nothing here, for creationists dogma tops facts every time,
having said that, it can do no harm to explain evolution to people who do not understand it,
and amazingly not understanding evolution has never stopped them from saying it's wrong!

I believe this is true to some extent, there are people who are very much solid in their beliefs I think though that it is important to teach the facts and evidence for the accepted method of evolution so that children or undecided adults can choose to make up their minds when presented with the religious accounts and the scientific accounts.

 

[AV1611VET]

I think though that it is important to teach the facts and evidence for the accepted method of evolution so that children or undecided adults can choose to make up their minds when presented with the religious accounts and the scientific accounts.

I don't mind people telling me there's a pole in Boston, and there's a pole in Cleveland, and there's a pole in Wichita, and there's a pole in San Diego; but then when they expect me to believe there's a wire connecting all four poles, when they don't see this wire themselves, I [pun] draw the line [/pun].

 

[bjt2024]

I don't mind people telling me there's a pole in Boston, and there's a pole in Cleveland, and there's a pole in Wichita, and there's a pole in San Diego; but then when they expect me to believe there's a wire connecting all four poles, when they don't see this wire themselves, I [pun] draw the line [/pun].

I'm sorry could you post me a link to this pole-business? I have not heard of it and I want to know more. Or if this is just an analogy, could you explain what you mean by it in a more scientific setting? Thanks

 

[AV1611VET]

Or if this is just an analogy, could you explain what you mean by it in a more scientific setting?

Going backwards, let the dots represent:

• Homo sapiens sapiens
• Homo sapiens idaltu
• Homo rudolfensis
• Homo rhodesiensis
• Homo neanderthalensis
• Homo hiedelbergensis
• Homo habilis
• Homo georgicus
• Homo gautengensis
• Homo floresiensis
• Homo ergaster
• Homo erectus
• Homo cepranensis
• Homo antecessor

I'm not going to believe that there is a line connecting all these dots.

 

[Mr Strawberry]

Going backwards, let the dots represent:

• Homo sapiens sapiens
• Homo sapiens idaltu
• Homo rudolfensis
• Homo rhodesiensis
• Homo neanderthalensis
• Homo hiedelbergensis
• Homo habilis
• Homo georgicus
• Homo gautengensis
• Homo floresiensis
• Homo ergaster
• Homo erectus
• Homo cepranensis
• Homo antecessor

I'm not going to believe that there is a line connecting all these dots.

What do you think your reason for refusing to accept the evidence is?

 

[AV1611VET]

What do you think your reason for refusing to accept the evidence is?

What evidence?

I'm talking about a line linking those dots.

They are called 'missing links.'

You want me to accept them as missing? is that what you expect me to do?

In my opinion, each one of those dots could have been a productive member of society at one time; kissing his wife and kids 'goodbye' and going off to work; until they were struck down by what the Bible calls a 'wonderful disease.'

 

[bjt2024]

Going backwards, let the dots represent:

• Homo sapiens sapiens
• Homo sapiens idaltu
• Homo rudolfensis
• Homo rhodesiensis
• Homo neanderthalensis
• Homo hiedelbergensis
• Homo habilis
• Homo georgicus
• Homo gautengensis
• Homo floresiensis
• Homo ergaster
• Homo erectus
• Homo cepranensis
• Homo antecessor

I'm not going to believe that there is a line connecting all these dots.

There is not a single line connecting these species of the homo genus. It's a tree-like map of divergence of a species to form a new species which can no longer breed with the original and form fertile offspring. Over millions of years the genomes of the species changed and certain characteristics either became prevailant or were eliminated because of natural selection, environmental changes. It wasn't like a domino effect were one species arose after the one before fell. They co-existed.

 

[Mr Strawberry]

What evidence?

I'm talking about a line linking those dots.

They are called 'missing links.'

You want me to accept them as missing? is that what you expect me to do?

In my opinion, each one of those dots could have been a productive member of society at one time; kissing his wife and kids 'goodbye' and going off to work; until they were struck down by what the Bible calls a 'wonderful disease.'

Well, the evidence isn't in doubt. The interesting thing is seeing how your mind is processing the denial.

 

[AV1611VET]

What evidence?

Well, the evidence isn't in doubt.

What evidence?

what;

pronoun

1. used interrogatively as a request for specific information

 

[AV1611VET]

There is not a single line connecting these species of the homo genus.

No kidding.

I could have told you that.

(And I believe I did.)

 

[Mr Strawberry]

What evidence?

what;

pronoun

1. used interrogatively as a request for specific information

You might find this interesting. Then again, you might not:

Hostility (also called inimicality) is a form of angry internal rejection or denial in psychology. It is a part of personal construct psychology, developed by George Kelly. In everyday speech it is more commonly used as a synonym for anger and aggression.
In psychological terms, Kelly defined hostility as the willful refusal to accept evidence that one's perceptions of the world are in some way askew from or out of alignment with objective reality. Instead of realigning one's feelings and thoughts with objective reality, the hostile person attempts to force or coerce the world to fit their view, even if this is a forlorn hope, and even if it entails varying degrees of emotional expenditure or harm to self and others.
While challenging "apparent reality" with alternative approaches can be a useful part of life, and persistence in the face of failure is often a valuable trait in the fields of invention or discovery, in the case of hostility there is the distinction that the evidence is not accurately assessed when the decision is made to repeat the same approach. Instead the evidence is suppressed or denied, and deleted from awareness - the unfavorable evidence which might suggest that a prior belief is flawed is to various degrees ignored and willfully avoided. Metaphorically, it can be said that reality is being held for ransom, and in this sense hostility is a form of psychological extortion - an attempt to force reality to produce the desired feedback, in order that preconceptions become validated. In this sense, hostility is a response that forms part of discounting of unwanted cognitive dissonance.

Hostility - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[bjt2024]

No kidding.

I could have told you that.

(And I believe I did.)

Yeah. but you seem to believe that scientists believe there is a single line. There is no single line, and I do not dispute this and neither would any credible scientist. Do you argee though that there is a genetic tree connecting these species?

 

[AV1611VET]

Do you argee though that there is a genetic tree connecting these species?

I believe scientists have come up with many drawings to keep their doctrines straight; yes.

Drawings, pictures -- anything to convince us commoners.

Haeckel was notorious for it.