Evolution?

[Tomk80]

Did you have a paleontology course? I don't think you can apply any gene stuff in issues of that study. Evolution is defined differently there.

No, evolution is not defined differently there. Only we look at the results of changes genetic changes on the appearance of animals. But in the end, that also comes down to genetics.

The simplest, yet the hardest challenge for you, a genetic biologist, is to show how could ape evolve into human. 90+% of the gene are the same. So what? Two mechanisms illustrated the change of gene. So what?

Is it? In most cases the differences between the gene of a chimp and that of a human constitutes of about 1 to 2 mutations. That's it. Then there are changes in regulatory genes and sequences in the DNA. Small changes in many genes, but small nevertheless. Next to this, the evidence of fusions in the genome of humans give evidence for the fact that we have 46 rather than 48 chromosomes. No need for your magical mysticism anywhere.

This challenge is not as hard to a paleontologist or an anthropologist. In, fact, to many of them, the evolution has been perfectly demonstrated.

Why would you think this is any different for geneticists, Juvenissun? In biology, and with that I mean all of biology, evolution is seen as overwhelmingly demonstrated and uncontroversial. There are good reasons for that. Maybe you should study on those instead of making empty (and phenomonably wrong) assertions time after time?

But not for you, if you stick with your definition of evolution.

I see no problem for me. But then, I have a bit more to offer than ignorance.

 

[Tomk80]

So what? It helps us answer your question, that is what. If the genetic difference is small between humans and chimpanzees, then that means there were only a small number (relatively speaking) of genes involved in our divergence. We are currently looking at those genes that are different between us and are trying to determine what they do.

This is not exactly right. Comparisons between the human and chimp genome have shown that most (if not all) genes have undergone some mutation. Only the differences between chimp and human genes are small for most of them.

 

[Tomk80]

Thanks for the first point. I will try to get to that at later time.

For the second point, what you said exactly supports my argument: genetically, we can not prove that ape evolved to human. And the proof is not going to come for a long long while, if it ever came.

I already treated this point in previous points. As always, Juvenissun is dead wrong.

Comes back to the topic of the thread: evolution in genetic sense is NOT the same as that in paleontological (biological?) sense.

Yes it is, as I already showed.

If you call the change from ape to human as evolution, then genetic change in bacteria should not be called evolution, at least NOT YET.

Euh, yes it should. Because genetic change underlies morphologic change. In the end, it all comes down to genes. Read a basic book on genetics, next to that basic book on biology you still need to read.

 

[Tomk80]

He gave you the correct one. And I don't think it's the first time you've been given it in this thread.

It's biologically meaningful, simple, unambiguous and quantitative. The best sort of definition.

I've looked back. Since around post #60 this definition has been provided to him by multiple people regularly.

 

[TheGnome]

Every research article has one or two paragraphs of interpretation after the analysis of data. Unfortunately, that is the part which gives lay people wrong idea.

And you think the discussion section is where evolution is concluded? You don't even read any papers related to evolution, so how would you know?

 

[Tomk80]

And you think the discussion section is where evolution is concluded? You don't even read any papers related to evolution, so how would you know?

Well, given that the discussion section is usually the part where conclusions are drawn, he is right about that. Who cares? Whining about how one interpretation is as good as another is a sure sign of ignorance or insanity or both for me.

 

[TheGnome]

Well, given that the discussion section is usually the part where conclusions are drawn, he is right about that. Who cares? Whining about how one interpretation is as good as another is a sure sign of ignorance or insanity or both for me.

The results, however, speak for itself. The discussion isn't just to state the conclusion, it also expands on the ramifications of the conclusion. Juvi seems to think that the results are interpreted so wildly as to mislead the populace who, for some odd reason, only read the discussion section.

Juvi thinks that science works just as religion. He reminds me of a guy I ran into a few months ago who claimed that how scientists and the religious believe depend on how they interpret the evidence. I'm not a fan of that kind of post-modernist worldview that's been pervading Christianity.

 

[Naraoia]

Juvi seems to think that the results are interpreted so wildly as to mislead the populace who, for some odd reason, only read the discussion section.

"The populace" being the non-specialist people who don't understand the paper anyway?

 

[Split Rock]

We cannot "prove" (in the scientific sense) anything from only one line of evidence. Rather, evolution is supported by multiple lines of evidence, including genetics. Genetics is not isolated from morphology, anatomy, biochemistry, development, embryology, or any other field of biology... they all support evolution.

So, you are saying that evolution can not be defined. It only has content, but no definition.

How on earth did you reach this conclusion from what I wrote?? Read it again, please.

I still do not follow you. What is the difference? Genetically, they are many differences between diffferent phyla of bacteria, just as there are with different phyla of animals.

But we could not "observe" the mutations like we are doing to bacteria. If the mutations from ape to man make a line, then we have only observed "a few points" of the "alleged" process. So, if you call the change of bacteria as evolution, then the process goes from ape to man is not evolution. At least NOT YET.

Is this a "micro-" vs. "macro-" evolution argument? Evolution is descent with modification. Common Descent of Man and chimp obviously cannot be observed directly, since it happened in the past. However, it is strongly inferred by all the physical evidence.

 

[Split Rock]

This is not exactly right. Comparisons between the human and chimp genome have shown that most (if not all) genes have undergone some mutation. Only the differences between chimp and human genes are small for most of them.

I was referring to non-neutral differences.

 

[SiderealExalt]

Juvi thinks that science works just as religion. He reminds me of a guy I ran into a few months ago who claimed that how scientists and the religious believe depend on how they interpret the evidence. I'm not a fan of that kind of post-modernist worldview that's been pervading Christianity.

A condition I am afraid that is rampant among christians in general and on this boad. The irony being is that what is such a Christian trying to say? That science is as bad as religion for determining facts?

 

[juvenissun]

No, evolution is not defined differently there. Only we look at the results of changes genetic changes on the appearance of animals. But in the end, that also comes down to genetics.


Is it? In most cases the differences between the gene of a chimp and that of a human constitutes of about 1 to 2 mutations. That's it. Then there are changes in regulatory genes and sequences in the DNA. Small changes in many genes, but small nevertheless. Next to this, the evidence of fusions in the genome of humans give evidence for the fact that we have 46 rather than 48 chromosomes. No need for your magical mysticism anywhere.


Why would you think this is any different for geneticists, Juvenissun? In biology, and with that I mean all of biology, evolution is seen as overwhelmingly demonstrated and uncontroversial. There are good reasons for that. Maybe you should study on those instead of making empty (and phenomonably wrong) assertions time after time?


I see no problem for me. But then, I have a bit more to offer than ignorance.

What you said is very different from that of Split Rock. I take his as a much better one.

 

[juvenissun]

I already treated this point in previous points. As always, Juvenissun is dead wrong.


Yes it is, as I already showed.


Euh, yes it should. Because genetic change underlies morphologic change. In the end, it all comes down to genes. Read a basic book on genetics, next to that basic book on biology you still need to read.

We have discussed the relationship between gene and morphology. The conclusion is: We knows very little. You may "believe" that the gene controls the morphology. But that is only a belief.

 

[TheGnome]

A condition I am afraid that is rampant among christians in general and on this boad. The irony being is that what is such a Christian trying to say? That science is as bad as religion for determining facts?

They're trying to argue that science is just faith disguised as an honest attempt to find the truth. So the first step is trying to establish that science is faith, and the second step is trying to convince us why their faith is superior.

Unfortunately, because of their poor understanding of science, they really don't understand why their argument of the first step is so unconvincing. While I do a lot of reading, it's not all I do. I actually participate in a lab gathering results for a project, so I understand the process behind it. It's not just looking at nature and making a wild guess, it's actually using puzzle solving skills to put the pieces together. The genetic evidence for evolution pretty much settles the debate, but Christians have no response to it other than, "it's just your interpretation," even without having examining the evidence for themselves. I have no particular emotional investment in science other than that is aids in my philosophy, but I'm concerned about the truth, at least as close as I can get to the truth. Christians have an emotional investment to Christianity because of its amazing reward: eternal life. Any doubt on the religion means doubt of eternity, and our impermanence is really very scary to think about. I don't have anything to lose, so I'll put stock in whatever is a reliable indicator of what reality is really like.

 

[juvenissun]

And you think the discussion section is where evolution is concluded? You don't even read any papers related to evolution, so how would you know?

Hey, that is how papers are written. Have you written your thesis yet? I tell you, the last section is: discussion and conclusion. That is where you add "your story" to your data.

 

[juvenissun]

Originally Posted by Split Rock

We cannot "prove" (in the scientific sense) anything from only one line of evidence. Rather, evolution is supported by multiple lines of evidence, including genetics. Genetics is not isolated from morphology, anatomy, biochemistry, development, embryology, or any other field of biology... they all support evolution.

Originally Posted by juvenissun

So, you are saying that evolution can not be defined. It only has content, but no definition.

How on earth did you reach this conclusion from what I wrote?? Read it again, please.

I was asking for the definition, you gave the this and that except the definition. What do you want me to think about your reply?

 

[juvenissun]

Is this a "micro-" vs. "macro-" evolution argument? Evolution is descent with modification. Common Descent of Man and chimp obviously cannot be observed directly, since it happened in the past. However, it is strongly inferred by all the physical evidence.

I guess that is it. So, let me rephrase my OP: Bacteria did not show any macro-evolution in the past 4+ billion years. (while everything else did)

Why could someone point this out at earlier time?

 

[TheGnome]

Hey, that is how papers are written. Have you written your thesis yet? I tell you, the last section is: discussion and conclusion. That is where you add "your story" to your data.

If your conclusion is not explained by the results, the reviewers are just going to throw your paper back at you. The results should speak for itself. The discussion isn't just there to tell the idiots what the results mean, it's supposed to indicate the implications of the results and what it means for future research and such.

 

[juvenissun]

And, since some discussions have been made, I would add the following:

Micro-evolution can not tie to macro-evolution by the current science understanding.

 

[pgp_protector]

I was asking for the definition, you gave the this and that except the definition. What do you want me to think about your reply?

Follow the full chain of post
Nothing about the Definition in this chain of quotes.

For the second point, what you said exactly supports my argument: genetically, we can not prove that ape evolved to human. And the proof is not going to come for a long long while, if it ever came.

We cannot "prove" (in the scientific sense) anything from only one line of evidence. Rather, evolution is supported by multiple lines of evidence, including genetics. Genetics is not isolated from morphology, anatomy, biochemistry, development, embryology, or any other field of biology... they all support evolution.

So, you are saying that evolution can not be defined. It only has content, but no definition.

How on earth did you reach this conclusion from what I wrote?? Read it again, please.