How can science observe the past?

Bushido216 · Oct 14, 2003

Northern Christian, we can observe the progression of species through evolution both through fossil records and animals living today.

rbrown0049 · Oct 15, 2003

The very rapid evolution of viruses and bacteria can be easily observed. Example: Antibiotic resistant strains of many types of bacteria have evolved from strains that were very susceptible to these same antibiotics. Several speciation events (instances of one species evolving into another) involving multicellular organisms have been observed and documented as well!

The Roman Catholic Church had never formally condemned the theory of evolution. However, in 1950, Pope Pius XII issued a papal encyclical letter Humani Generis which discouraged belief in evolution because it played into the hands of materialists and atheists. Since approximately that time, the Church taught that the Genesis creation story should not be interpreted literally, but symbolically.

Open up your eyes!

Junior Sparagus · Oct 15, 2003

It seems like the practice of science has accelerated everything in the past 100 years: airships are faster, bombs are more destructive, calculations are mind-bogglingly quick. Heck, I can even heat up a spongy frozen waffle in about 15 seconds nowadays, where as before it took me nearly 2 minutes to burn one from scratch.

My question is this: even though scientists supposedly can "observe" evolution all the time, why are they nowhere close to reproducing the ape-to-man evolutionary process in the lab? I could care less about primordial soup and bacteria dancing a jig on a petri dish, or a couple of rocks purporting to be the fossil "record." I want some guy in a white suit to figure out how to get Koko to give birth to a clone of Shirley Temple!

Only then, maybe, will I believe that evolution 1) is a functional, repeatable scientific theory and 2) a practical pursuit. I mean, come on. With an army of Shirley Temples at our command, we could rule the planet!

David Gould · Oct 15, 2003

If Koko ever did give birth to a clone of Shirley Temple that would disprove]/i] evolution.

Evolution is the gradual accretion of minute changes. The reason that it can be done with bacteria is that many, many generations of bacteria can occur in a short time - hours or days.

One single human generation takes about 12 years, provided we were willing to get a 12 year old pregnant for scientific experimentation. So if we wanted to run through 100,000 generations of humans, it would take us 1.2 million years of lab time.

But Shirley Temple clones may indeed be on the march soon. My sources in the Republican Party tell me that Bush junior was the trial run ...

Bushido216 · Oct 15, 2003

This, again, is a strawman.

Refer to the following.

Evolution makes no claims that a chimpanzee (not a monkey, mind) will be able to give birth to Shirley Temple. Humans and Chimps are reproductively isolated from each other.

As well, evolution proports to take a long time, so you'll never see what you want.

revolutio · Oct 15, 2003

David Gould said:
But Shirley Temple clones may indeed be on the march soon. My sources in the Republican Party tell me that Bush junior was the trial run ...

Ewe, they botched that one. Though the image of George Bush dancing and sweetly singing is humourous to say the least.

napajohn · Oct 15, 2003

rbrown0049 said:
The very rapid evolution of viruses and bacteria can be easily observed. Example: Antibiotic resistant strains of many types of bacteria have evolved from strains that were very susceptible to these same antibiotics. Several speciation events (instances of one species evolving into another) involving multicellular organisms have been observed and documented as well!

The Roman Catholic Church had never formally condemned the theory of evolution. However, in 1950, Pope Pius XII issued a papal encyclical letter Humani Generis which discouraged belief in evolution because it played into the hands of materialists and atheists. Since approximately that time, the Church taught that the Genesis creation story should not be interpreted literally, but symbolically.

Open up your eyes!

This is not evolution..the strain for resistance has been in the pool all along....how can you verify that it was an evolution unless you had the complete sequence of the entire population ...its mere speculation that there was mutations that occurred to create the resistsance....Besides after all the testing on bacteria..how we have speeded up the life cycles to simulate thousands upon thousands of generation...shouldn't someone by now said..hey guess what the bacteria is evolving to a higher form that is not bacteria.

Bushido216 · Oct 15, 2003

Actually, napajohn, we can say it's evolution because, frankly it is.

But beyond that, we can be sure that it is caused by mutations, because only some of the bacteria survive. If resistance was a trait, then all of them would survive. However, since only those who have mutated to some form that the anti-bodies don't recognize survive, we can conclude it's a mutation.

And bacteria isn't evolving into something higher, it's merely changing to a different type. Think of it like this, the lifespan of a bacteria is tiny, so we can advance them through the generations quite quickly.

troodon · Oct 15, 2003

napajohn said:
This is not evolution..the strain for resistance has been in the pool all along....how can you verify that it was an evolution unless you had the complete sequence of the entire population ...its mere speculation that there was mutations that occurred to create the resistsance....Besides after all the testing on bacteria..how we have speeded up the life cycles to simulate thousands upon thousands of generation...shouldn't someone by now said..hey guess what the bacteria is evolving to a higher form that is not bacteria.

LOL, I love it. So your claim is that God put an allele for antibiotic resistance into some bacteria when He created them?

What a great guy

David Gould · Oct 15, 2003

troodon said:
LOL, I love it. So your claim is that God put an allele for antibiotic resistance into some bacteria when He created them?

What a great guy

Nice catch, Troodon. I didn't even think of it that way. (Although I should have because Lucaspa points out all the time the theological problems that YEC thinking causes ...)

Junior Sparagus · Oct 16, 2003

I get the fact that evolution theory depends on the accretion of generation after generation of minor changes. I'm just saying that evolution science is science for slow people. I mean, the breakthroughs in physics, computing and chemistry over the last hundred years spin the average (or below average) guy's head. But evolution...it's great innovations include "Holy cow! I discovered a new fossil...wait that's a piece of gum" and that one diagram of the descent of man where the fish becomes the lizard becomes the monkey and eventually turns into Alfred E. Neuman. Still cracks me up...

What I'm saying is evolution science may be important, but it sure is boring. I think that points to the possibility that we, in fact, evolved from cantalopes. Now, if someone can just prove that hypothesis, we'd have a real breakthrough for once. Give those upstart astrophysicists a run for their money, I tell you.

troodon · Oct 17, 2003

Junior Sparagus said:
What I'm saying is evolution science may be important, but it sure is boring.

Perhaps to the public at large. Granted, I'm a boring person, but there are few things I enjoy more than looking at a fossil slab or examining a cladogram or going over a statistical analysis of derived characteristics.

I am so alone

David Gould · Oct 17, 2003

Evolution is as interesting to me as physics, and physics is a passion for me.

Of course, neither are as interesting as cricket.

Junior Sparagus · Oct 17, 2003

But cricket has much more to do with physics than evolution.

That's what evolution needs! A nifty sport it can align itself with. Maybe then it would garner wider appeal. Or at least pick up a few handy and accessible analogies.

Jet Black · Oct 17, 2003

napajohn said:
This is not evolution..the strain for resistance has been in the pool all along...

there is a real problem with this. since a bacterial colony can come from a single bacterium that means that this one bacterium must have a method of combatting every single antibiotic that we will ever discover in it. it will have the information to eat many many more food sources than it currently does. also many resistances are known mutations of known proteins, or entirely novel proteins, or even entirely novel metabolic pathways. Lets say that the gene for something is already there, and just waiting for a mutation.... how does the mutation know where to go?

Lets say we have a completely useless bit of DNA that will later mutate into an enzyme that combats vancomycin, that is say, 100 amino acids long. if we have a single frameshift mutation anywhere in that entire string, the enzyme in waiting will be completely killed. and we know that over time, benign mutations will just accumulate. so what is to stop benign mutations from occuring in all of these pre-prepped resistance genes?

.how can you verify that it was an evolution unless you had the complete sequence of the entire population ...its mere speculation that there was mutations that occurred to create the resistsance.

oh that is easy. bacteria can start from a colony of 1.

...Besides after all the testing on bacteria..how we have speeded up the life cycles to simulate thousands upon thousands of generation...shouldn't someone by now said..hey guess what the bacteria is evolving to a higher form that is not bacteria.

well we have seen multicellular organisms evolve from single celled ones. we have also seen cooperation between bacteria of different types. but remember that "higher" should be replaced with "better able to survive" and being multicellular in a petri dish full of antibiotics would not confer many survival benefits.

David Gould · Oct 17, 2003

Junior Sparagus said:
But cricket has much more to do with physics than evolution.

That's what evolution needs! A nifty sport it can align itself with. Maybe then it would garner wider appeal. Or at least pick up a few handy and accessible analogies.

I don't know. The game has certainly evolved. And so have the population of people playing it.

And it also has religious implications. After all, seagulls are the souls of dead cricketers come back to watch a few more games ...

Jet Black · Oct 17, 2003

do cricketers have an insatiable desire for fish too?

David Gould · Oct 17, 2003

Jet Black said:
do cricketers have an insatiable desire for fish too?

No, but we eat a lot of junk food and that fits seagulls pretty well ...

ObbiQuiet · Oct 17, 2003

I still laugh whenever I read the original post for this thread... northern christian's need to call something he doesn't understand a psuedo science cracks me up. It's like someone from the 15th century seeing a television and calling it witchcraft.

fungle · Oct 17, 2003

AS to cricket do you think that Haydens world record should be recognised.

How can science observe the past?

Well-Known Member

Member

Active Member

Pearl Harbor sucked. WinAce didn't.

Well-Known Member

Apatheist Extraordinaire

Senior Member

Well-Known Member

Be wise and be smart

Pearl Harbor sucked. WinAce didn't.

Active Member

Be wise and be smart

Pearl Harbor sucked. WinAce didn't.

Active Member

Jet Black

Guest

Pearl Harbor sucked. WinAce didn't.

Jet Black

Guest

Pearl Harbor sucked. WinAce didn't.

Eating Heart

Well-Known Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency