New Evolution information-> big re-think

[EnemyPartyII]

Evolution River - November 2
A discovery in an ancient river demands a re -think of the time frame of human evolution.

Astounding work done by two New Zealand scientists is set to rock the world of evolutionary biology. For years, we’ve assumed that the rate of evolution – which is determined by changes in our DNA – came about very slowly. However, an Otago University study suggests that the pace of evolutionary change may be happening ten times faster than we previously thought.

Evidence of this radical discovery has been found in New Zealand’s Marlborough Sounds. Here it was discovered that an ancient river had separated into two, thereby separating the fish population and allowing scientists a unique opportunity to measure the pace of DNA change. The study could have huge implications for the history of human evolution.

Transcript

http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/

 

[marshgreencohen]

that's weird...it gives me creezes...

 

[EnemyPartyII]

that's weird...it gives me creezes...

Huh?

 

[Gwenyfur]

and just when science thinks it's found the answer another set of questions comes up and proves their answers false....

Gotta love G-d's sense of humor!

 

[sfs]

Based on the limited information in the news report, it's impossible to evaluate the story being told. Unfortunately, the report doesn't say anything about a scientific paper describing the work. I can say that it sounds like an extremely difficult and inaccurate way of estimating how fast DNA changes. Perhaps they have a way of coping with the difficulties, but it seems a bit premature to be talking about revolutionizing our understanding of human history based on this.

 

[busterdog]

Among the structures that appeared in the Cambrian were limbs, claws, eyes with optically perfect lenses, intestines. These exploded into being with no underlying hint in the fossil record that they were coming. Below them in the rock strata (i.e., older than them) are fossils of one-celled bacteria, algae, protozoans, and clumps known as the essentially structureless Ediacaran fossils of uncertain identity. How such complexities could form suddenly by random processes is an unanswered question. It is no wonder that Darwin himself, at seven locations in The Origin of Species, urged the reader to ignore the fossil record if he or she wanted to believe his theory. Abrupt morphological changes are contrary to Darwin's oft repeated statement that nature does not make jumps. Darwin based his theory on animal husbandry rather than fossils. If in a few generations of selective breeding a farmer could produce a robust sheep from a skinny one, then, Darwin reasoned, in a few million or billion generations a sponge might evolve into an ape. The fossil record did not then nor does it now support this theory.

http://www.geraldschroeder.com/evolution.html

Pretty darn quick. Miraculous even.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

and just when science thinks it's found the answer another set of questions comes up and proves their answers false....

Thats not what its about at all!

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Based on the limited information in the news report, it's impossible to evaluate the story being told. Unfortunately, the report doesn't say anything about a scientific paper describing the work. I can say that it sounds like an extremely difficult and inaccurate way of estimating how fast DNA changes. Perhaps they have a way of coping with the difficulties, but it seems a bit premature to be talking about revolutionizing our understanding of human history based on this.

Could you not open the transcript?

 

[sfs]

Could you not open the transcript?

Yes, I could open the transcript -- that's what I'm talking about. There are no details there. They talk about finding more genetic differences between the two fish populations than they expected after 100,000 years, but that's it. What genetic loci were they looking at -- mitochondrial DNA? autosomes? How did they correct for the unknown level genetic variation in the parent population? That can be a big issue: when a population splits in two, some genetic variants in the original population will end up in one population and some in the other, making them look different genetically even if no new mutation has occurred. 100,000 years is short enough that that kind of genetic difference could dwarf the differences from new mutations -- depending on the population size of the fish, and on whether they're using mitochondrial or nuclear chromosomes.

This isn't to suggest that they're doing something wrong, just that a news report isn't enough to judge scientific work.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Ah... sorry... I didn't read the transcript *sheepish* I saw the whole thing on TV. Just thought it was interesting. You could always follow up the story through the university of otago (I think?) I'm sure the biology department has a wwesite

 

[[serious]]

I'd wait for the actual scientific paper. Journalists are notorious for screwing up such things. Interesting, but hardly a support for YEC. After all, 100,000,000 years is just as damning as 1 billion for the 6000 year old earth.

 

[billwald]

Same thing happened down river from an east coast power plant. Cooling water warmed the river and after several years the down river some kind of small fish couldn't mate with the up river fishies.
Evolution is a random process so the speed of change is also random.

 

[sfs]

Ah... sorry... I didn't read the transcript *sheepish* I saw the whole thing on TV. Just thought it was interesting. You could always follow up the story through the university of otago (I think?) I'm sure the biology department has a wwesite

I've already sent an email to the more senior of the two zoologists, asking if they have a paper describing the work.

 

[Gwenyfur]

Thats not what its about at all!

Actually it is...

Just when they had the timeline of evolution set where they wanted it, along comes another discovery to make them rethink and question a portion of the theory...yet again...

And when they get this integrated and sorted into a coherent time line of evolutionary development, another will come along and challenge that until they integrate it and make it fit...

and so on ... and so on....and so on....

or they'll just ignore it and call it "creation science"

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Just when they had the timeline of evolution set where they wanted it, along comes another discovery to make them rethink and question a portion of the theory...yet again...

Science is always changing in accord to the newest information. Thats one of its strengths.

The article hardly shows that evolutionary theory is "WRONG", merely that a further fine tuning may be required as more observed evidence is dociumented

 

[EnemyPartyII]

SFS, be interested to hear what you think if/when they get back to you

 

[Gwenyfur]

Science is always changing in accord to the newest information. Thats one of its strengths.

The article hardly shows that evolutionary theory is "WRONG", merely that a further fine tuning may be required as more observed evidence is dociumented

geeze...even a car only takes so much "fine tuning"


maybe they just need a new theory...I can give 'em one...hehe

 

[manchambo]

geeze...even a car only takes so much "fine tuning"


maybe they just need a new theory...I can give 'em one...hehe

Indeed. It is far better to pick some crazy idea and stick with it no matter what comes along to prove it false.

 

[Gwenyfur]

Creation isn't crazy
Believing you evolved from a rock...now that's crazy!

 

[Dannager]

maybe they just need a new theory...I can give 'em one...hehe

No, you can't. In fact, you can't provide anything even remotely resembling a valid scientific theory that can challenge the modern synthesis of evolutionary theory.

Believing you evolved from a rock...now that's crazy!

I agree. It's a good thing evolutionary theory has nothing to do with evolving from rocks.