• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

Evolution?

TheGnome

Evil Atheist Conspiracy PR Guy
Aug 20, 2006
260
38
Lincoln, Nebraska
✟23,107.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
I don't care who else said what. In science, I think my way.

And, I don't agree with what you said (highlighted). Evolution is fact based. That is fine with me. But evolution predicts little and does not explain well. So it is certainly not a truth. So, why don't you join others and trying to give a definition to the term "evolution"?

Why do you think evolutionary biologists get grant money if it produces no results? A giant conspiracy?

I've noticed that you still view evolution as long-term goal oriented. You also haven't grasped the definition for evolution, but claim everyone else got it wrong.

I doubt your sincerity of wanting to learn. You've started with a conclusion, and it doesn't appear that you're willing to challenge your conclusion.
 
Upvote 0

juvenissun

... and God saw that it was good.
Apr 5, 2007
25,452
805
73
Chicago
✟138,626.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Does it matter? You already ignore what I say.

Reading is not understanding.

I did not ignore your argument except insults. I may not reply to everyone of yours. But I did not mean to ignore them.

Matter or not matter is your call.
 
Upvote 0

juvenissun

... and God saw that it was good.
Apr 5, 2007
25,452
805
73
Chicago
✟138,626.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Why do you think evolutionary biologists get grant money if it produces no results? A giant conspiracy?

I've noticed that you still view evolution as long-term goal oriented. You also haven't grasped the definition for evolution, but claim everyone else got it wrong.

I doubt your sincerity of wanting to learn. You've started with a conclusion, and it doesn't appear that you're willing to challenge your conclusion.

I did not say what you said.

People get grant because the reviewers like to see the results, not the interpretation. No one takes any interpretation seriously.
 
Upvote 0

juvenissun

... and God saw that it was good.
Apr 5, 2007
25,452
805
73
Chicago
✟138,626.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
[serious];48942644 said:
Which of the 4000 evolved species of roaches is the one that hasn't evolved?

Roaches are remarkably effective survivors as they are so they aren't changing rapidly, but they do still evolve.

OK, my ignorance.

So, do species of roaches that lived with dinosaurs no longer exist now? If so, how old is the oldest roach species?

Well, roach is only an arbitrary example. This question may apply to any species. The point is to find out how resistant is that species to mutation. If it is longer than a few million years, then we need to ask how could it be so resistant, if mutation took place randomly and constantly. What determine if a mutation would be accepted by the life of not? Environmental stress? Didn't those species receive enough environmental stresses over millions of years? How much environmental stress is needed to make a particular mutation accepted?
 
Upvote 0

juvenissun

... and God saw that it was good.
Apr 5, 2007
25,452
805
73
Chicago
✟138,626.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
It has been defined this way ever since we know what genes are, which means for the past 50 years at the least. And no, it is not becoming a problem in the biological field.

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.

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?

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

But not for you, if you stick with your definition of evolution.
 
Upvote 0

Bombila

Veteran
Nov 28, 2006
3,474
445
✟28,256.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married
OK, my ignorance.

So, do species of roaches that lived with dinosaurs no longer exist now? If so, how old is the oldest roach species?

Well, roach is only an arbitrary example. This question may apply to any species. The point is to find out how resistant is that species to mutation. If it is longer than a few million years, then we need to ask how could it be so resistant, if mutation took place randomly and constantly. What determine if a mutation would be accepted by the life of not? Environmental stress? Didn't those species receive enough environmental stresses over millions of years? How much environmental stress is needed to make a particular mutation accepted?

With regard to cockroaches, many species have evolved quite remarkably. We have species of cockroach where the young feed on secretions from the anal glands of the parent. We have termites, which evolved from ancient roaches.

Saying a species is 'resistant to mutation' is not very accurate. Think: you have one million ancient cockroaches. One of them acquires a mutation. All of them reproduce. Now you have one hundred million cockroaches, only a few of which have that mutation. Nothing is killing the ordinary cockroaches off before they reproduce, so they continue on. In the course of a few generations, the mutation is thoroughly diluted within the population - only a few cockroaches have it.

Or it is equally possible that a small population of these cockroaches, including a few that have the mutation - let's say it causes more waterproof egg cases to form - ends up living in a swampy area. A lot of eggs don't make it, they get mouldy or the case doesn't protect the eggs from water damage. But the mutated cockroach eggcases almost always hatch. Within a few generations, most of the cockroaches in that swampy area are descended from the few with the mutation. They still look exactly like the other cockroaches, but they have evolved.

But back in another habitat, there is still nothing preventing cockroaches without the mutation from merrily laying eggs as usual, and this prolific, widespread species is likely always able to survive in a friendly habitat somewhere in their range.

Modern cockroaches which are similar to ancient cockroaches are an example of what has turned out to be a very successful bodyplan and set of habits. And yes, there hasn't been enough selection pressure to eliminate these cockroaches, many mutations have no doubt occurred, but most are diluted in the larger population.

Nevertheless, many populations of cockroaches have evolved due to mutation and selection pressure, so we have termites, and hissing cockroaches, and huge palmetto bugs, and little beetle-like German cockroaches.

And even those common cockroaches, looking so much like their ancestors, there are minute differences, and they evolve pesticide resistance regularly.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Wiccan_Child
Upvote 0

Split Rock

Conflation of Blathers
Nov 3, 2003
17,607
730
North Dakota
✟22,466.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
The point is to find out how resistant is that species to mutation. If it is longer than a few million years, then we need to ask how could it be so resistant, if mutation took place randomly and constantly. What determine if a mutation would be accepted by the life of not? Environmental stress? Didn't those species receive enough environmental stresses over millions of years? How much environmental stress is needed to make a particular mutation accepted?
It is not a case of fewer mutations, it is called stabilizing selection. If a particular trait common to a population continues to maximize fitness, despite changes in the environment, it will not likely change.

If a new trait increases fitness it will be selected for. If it does not and is neutral, it will not be and genetic drift may (or more likely may not) cause it to be spread through a population. A trait which reduces fitness will be selected against in the population and will most likely be kept a low frequency.


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?

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.
 
Upvote 0

TheGnome

Evil Atheist Conspiracy PR Guy
Aug 20, 2006
260
38
Lincoln, Nebraska
✟23,107.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
I did not say what you said.

People get grant because the reviewers like to see the results, not the interpretation. No one takes any interpretation seriously.

It's obvious how you view evolution--to everyone.

As for your last comment, that makes no sense. Interpretation? What interpretation?
 
Upvote 0

Blayz

Well-Known Member
Aug 1, 2007
3,367
231
60
Singapore
✟4,827.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
It's obvious how you view evolution--to everyone.

As for your last comment, that makes no sense. Interpretation? What interpretation?

Aparenly Juvy thinks scientific publications come with no conclusions, they are just lists of results without any interpretation.

Given his complete and utter lack of knowledge of even the simplest aspects of biology, it comes as no surprise that he has no understanding of how grants are awarded or papers published.
 
Upvote 0

juvenissun

... and God saw that it was good.
Apr 5, 2007
25,452
805
73
Chicago
✟138,626.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
It's obvious how you view evolution--to everyone.

As for your last comment, that makes no sense. Interpretation? What interpretation?

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.
 
Upvote 0

juvenissun

... and God saw that it was good.
Apr 5, 2007
25,452
805
73
Chicago
✟138,626.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
It is not a case of fewer mutations, it is called stabilizing selection. If a particular trait common to a population continues to maximize fitness, despite changes in the environment, it will not likely change.

If a new trait increases fitness it will be selected for. If it does not and is neutral, it will not be and genetic drift may (or more likely may not) cause it to be spread through a population. A trait which reduces fitness will be selected against in the population and will most likely be kept a low frequency.


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.

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.

Comes back to the topic of the thread: evolution in genetic sense is NOT the same as that in paleontological (biological?) sense. 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.
 
Upvote 0

eMesreveR

The Light Fantastic
Sep 16, 2008
76
7
✟22,733.00
Faith
Humanist
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.

Why not? Why can't we call them different degrees of evolution? If you move either 5 millimeters or 5 meters, you've still moved. (strictly speaking, human didn't evolve from ape anyway, but i'm sure people have pointed that out and you're just saying it cuz it's easier than saying "the progenitor to both apes and humans")
 
Upvote 0

Split Rock

Conflation of Blathers
Nov 3, 2003
17,607
730
North Dakota
✟22,466.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
Thanks for the first point. I will try to get to that at later time.
OK.

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.


Comes back to the topic of the thread: evolution in genetic sense is NOT the same as that in paleontological (biological?) sense. 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.
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.
 
Upvote 0

juvenissun

... and God saw that it was good.
Apr 5, 2007
25,452
805
73
Chicago
✟138,626.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Why not? Why can't we call them different degrees of evolution? If you move either 5 millimeters or 5 meters, you've still moved. (strictly speaking, human didn't evolve from ape anyway, but i'm sure people have pointed that out and you're just saying it cuz it's easier than saying "the progenitor to both apes and humans")

No, it is not different "degree". It is different "nature".
We have not proven that mutations lead ape to man.
 
Upvote 0

juvenissun

... and God saw that it was good.
Apr 5, 2007
25,452
805
73
Chicago
✟138,626.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
OK.


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.

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.
 
Upvote 0

Tomk80

Titleless
Apr 27, 2004
11,570
429
45
Maastricht
Visit site
✟36,582.00
Faith
Agnostic
Fine. I have no problem if you want to define it that way.

Before others give their opinion, I want to ask you, based on your definition:

How do you provide any evidence to show that ape did "evolve" to human according to your definition? In fact, if you use your definition, you can not give a single evidence to any evolutional features presented in paleontology.
By looking at the effects that genes have on morphology. In the end, morphology is caused by genetics.

Next to this, we can run predictions from paleontology against genetic comparisons. For example, the paleontologic evidence in favor of human evolution from a common ancestor with chimps is corroborated by genetic evidence in classification and evidence of the fusion of chromosome 2 in humans.

The theory of evolution, like all other scientific theories, is a construct of multiple lines of evidence.
 
Upvote 0

Naraoia

Apprentice Biologist
Sep 30, 2007
6,682
313
On edge
Visit site
✟23,498.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
OK, since the beginning of this thread, it was always you people asked me what does evolution mean. It was like you know it and I don't. Somehow I was only trying to answer the question and forgot to ask back.

Now, I am going to ask you (people): WHAT IS EVOLUTION? You people better give me a consistent answer, which is biologically meaningful and not ambiguous. What I want is a definition, not content or explanation. So, go for it and make my day.

Tomk80 already gave me one:
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.
 
Upvote 0