Could this be Evidence of Evolution in Action?

[NCclimber 0]

Here you go:
http://science.howstuffworks.com/evolution7.htm

Have fun.

[pirana 0]

Quote

The fossils were hidden in the ground by an evil conspiracy of secular humanists. who also caused the 9/11 attacks.

. . . and built the pyramids, by going back in time, using the large black obilisk on the Moon.

" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

[pirana 0]

Quote

Here you go:
http://science.howstuffworks.com/evolution7.htm

Have fun.

Interesting article on that site. Kinda misleading though the way they pose the questions in order to disqualify the common (and wrong) answers.

How does evolution create change? It doesn't. Mutations create change, which is evolution.

How does it work so quickly? It doesn't.

And the 3rd question confuses (or appears to confuse) creation of life with evolution. It is likely not possible to create a boundary between a time of no life and the the first thing we might recognize as being alive. Evolution, as we define it nowadays, did not create life.

" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

[jakee 1,489]

Quote

Here you go:
http://science.howstuffworks.com/evolution7.htm

Have fun.

You aren't convinced about evolution because howstuffworks.com told you it had holes in it?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

Quote

Here you go:
http://science.howstuffworks.com/evolution7.htm

Have fun.

You aren't convinced about evolution because howstuffworks.com told you it had holes in it?

Yeah. That's it.

[diverborg 0]

Quote

How does it work so quickly? It doesn't.

I'm assuming you read this section of the article. But they had some interesting numbers that pointed to certain stages of evolution would have had to happen relatively rapidly to account for the timeline that scientists have created. Basically even the 4.6 billion years isn't enough to account for the change we claim has happend, unless it happened relatively quickly.

One of my biggest struggles with understanding evolutionists is the current fossil record. Its claimed that our current fossil record shows the transition of species as we know it. Now even if it were without a doubt true, I still wouldn't expect the fossil record to be perfect so I do take that into account. I'm also not a scientist, but I've taken my share of college level science courses from a state University and I'm not completely ignorant on the subject either. I've done a little studying on the side. I do not retain everything that I've ever learned as this is not my career field.

Lets take the evolution of birds from certain dinosaurs to use as an example. We do have plenty of fossils of land dwelling dinosaurs we believe evolved to birds. We also have plenty fossils of birds. Then we have the so called transitional species fossils (ie Archaeopteryx, Sinosauropteryx, and Protarchaeopteryx). I've seen these fossils I know they exist, but there are some serious gaps to fill in between even the dinosaur to any one of these fossils as well as any one of these fossils to birds. The one thing I don't know is actually how many of each of these specific transitional species have been uncovered. But in order for evolution to be such huge cumulation of small scale changes over vast periods of time, then we should have thousands upon thousands of fossils for every tiny stage along the way. Not only would there have to be a way for each transitional species to survive but to reproduce with each mutation before its lost, and somehow pass that "beneficial mutation" onto several members of the following generation. So in order to fit the "slowly" adverb, each mutation would have to take over the species and live for generations before it changed some more.
Basically what I'm saying is that either evolution happened a lot quicker at times than what you're saying or we should see just as many fossils of transitional species for the transitional species for the transitional species as we do the from theropods to modern birds. Or neither of the above.

Also to add that some on here like to think that evolution of species based on the fossil record is indisputable fact. Fossils are only evidence and not proof. There is no way to prove that any fossil found whether a commonly known species or transitional species ever even reproduced or died as it was before passing on a mutation. What the scientific community has come up with is the best possible explanation based on scientific findings. This is still far from perfect, and one who questions it should hardly be classified as an ignorant lunatic. There are plenty of valid arguments showing problems with modern theory as on the "How it works" website. Some of you have such a strong preconcieved opinion that no opposing argument will ever be considered no matter how valid it may be. Just as some of us "religious, wealthy, ignorant con-men" have our minds made up already too.

[SpeedRacer 1]

there are no "transitional species."

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[diverborg 0]

Quote

there are no "transitional species

Hey, I didn't make that word up.

What difference does it really make. That is their purpose in describing evolution. There needs to be species in between major transitions.

[Nick 0]

Quote

Quote

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6896753.stm

For those who may be confused the report was originally published in the Sience magazine and relates to work conducted at University College London.

Interesting article. Thanks for posting it.

Sorry my stating that I'm not completely convinced about the process of macroevolution caused such a stink.

No problem, glad to see that it has sparked off a good debate.

Nick
Gravity- It's not just a good idea, it's the LAW!

[jakee 1,489]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Here you go:
http://science.howstuffworks.com/evolution7.htm

Have fun.

You aren't convinced about evolution because howstuffworks.com told you it had holes in it?

Yeah. That's it.

That's really stupid.

Seriously though, why do you not accept evolution, the cornerstone of biology and one of the most researched and unanimously accepted theories in modern science? What exactly is it about this particular theory that makes you think so many thousands of professionals are wrong?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[billvon 2,990]

>Basically what I'm saying is that either evolution happened a lot quicker
>at times than what you're saying or we should see just as many fossils
>of transitional species for the transitional species for the transitional
>species as we do the from theropods to modern birds. Or neither of the
>above.

Gould describes this as "punctuated equilibrium." From an essay on the subject:

"A new species can arise when a small segment of the ancestral population is isolated at the periphery of the ancestral range. Large, stable central populations exert a strong homogenizing influence. New and favorable mutations are diluted by the sheer bulk of the population through which they must spread. They may build slowly in frequency, but changing environments usually cancel their selective value long before they reach fixation. Thus, phyletic transformation in large populations should be very rare—as the fossil record proclaims. But small, peripherally isolated groups are cut off from their parental stock. They live as tiny populations in geographic corners of the ancestral range. Selective pressures are usually intense because peripheries mark the edge of ecological tolerance for ancestral forms. Favorable variations spread quickly. Small peripheral isolates are a laboratory of evolutionary Change.

What should the fossil record include if most evolution occurs by speciation in peripheral isolates? Species should be static through their range because our fossils are the remains of large central populations. In any local area inhabited by ancestors, a descendant species should appear suddenly by migration from the peripheral region in which it evolved. In the peripheral region itself, we might find direct evidence of speciation, but such good fortune would be rare indeed because the event occurs so rapidly in such a small population. Thus, the fossil record is a faithful rendering of what evolutionary theory predicts, not a pitiful vestige of a once bountiful tale."

Most biologists today think evolutionary rates fluctuate continuously from very fast to very slow and stop, with all intermediate speeds. It depends on evolutionary pressures, size of the population, advantage of a given mutation etc. The example presented at the beginning of this thread, for example, would be an example of a mutation being so very beneficial that it is rapidly spread throughout a population. If insects could fossilize well (such that we could analyze their biochemistry later) we'd see a very sudden jump in the fossil record when this mutation occurred.

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Here you go:
http://science.howstuffworks.com/evolution7.htm

Have fun.

You aren't convinced about evolution because howstuffworks.com told you it had holes in it?

Yeah. That's it.

That's really stupid.

I was being sarcastic. Sorry you missed it.

Quote

Seriously though, why do you not accept evolution, the cornerstone of biology and one of the most researched and unanimously accepted theories in modern science? What exactly is it about this particular theory that makes you think so many thousands of professionals are wrong?

Go read diverborg's post. I generally agree with his points.

Do you accept the current scientific consensus about life - from the Big Bang to the present - as indisputable fact?

For me, the consensus is the best explanation, at this time. Kind of a "warts and all, but it's clearly superior to any other" theory. For some, this level of acceptance is unacceptable. All in or a target for ridicule.

[billvon 2,990]

>Seriously though, why do you not accept evolution . . .

Not answering for NC. but many people equate scientific positions to political or religious ones. Hence their political or religious leanings influence their acceptance of certain areas of science. This is most often seen when the science opposes a given religious doctrine (evolution, geology, cosmology) informs political decisions (climate change) or has objectionable religious/political/moral implications (cloning.)

When there's none of the above implications there's not much debate about the subject outside scientific circles. I doubt you'll see any protests, petitions or political movements going on about the existence of the Higgs boson, for example.

[diverborg 0]

I'm gonna hafta read this a few times and think about it for awhile before I can post again. Just a little over my head at the moment.

[jakee 1,489]

Quote

I was being sarcastic.

No shit Shirley.

Quote

Go read diverborg's post. I generally agree with his points.

So basically.... you think there should be more fossils?

Four links about fossils. (Actually the last one is about punctuated equilibria, a theory concerning fast "bursts" of evolution, eg Cyclids)

But again, you realise that evolution as a theory comprises possibly the largest body of knowledge in modern science to be found 'under one roof' yes? Where do you get the idea that it might be wrong? Did you come up with it all by yourself, or have you been influenced by the PR efforts of other organisations?

Is there any other area of science even remotely comparable in scale and unanimous acceptance where you, as a layman, would feel confident in stepping up to the combined works of tens of thousands of professional academics and saying "No, I think you are wrong"? If the answer to the question is no (and I think it must be) what makes evolution so special that you feel you are qualified to judge it?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[diverborg 0]

Quote

Gould describes this as "punctuated equilibrium." From an essay on the subject:

"A new species can arise when a small segment of the ancestral population is isolated at the periphery of the ancestral range. Large, stable central populations exert a strong homogenizing influence. New and favorable mutations are diluted by the sheer bulk of the population through which they must spread. They may build slowly in frequency, but changing environments usually cancel their selective value long before they reach fixation. Thus, phyletic transformation in large populations should be very rare—as the fossil record proclaims. But small, peripherally isolated groups are cut off from their parental stock. They live as tiny populations in geographic corners of the ancestral range. Selective pressures are usually intense because peripheries mark the edge of ecological tolerance for ancestral forms. Favorable variations spread quickly. Small peripheral isolates are a laboratory of evolutionary Change.

What should the fossil record include if most evolution occurs by speciation in peripheral isolates? Species should be static through their range because our fossils are the remains of large central populations. In any local area inhabited by ancestors, a descendant species should appear suddenly by migration from the peripheral region in which it evolved. In the peripheral region itself, we might find direct evidence of speciation, but such good fortune would be rare indeed because the event occurs so rapidly in such a small population. Thus, the fossil record is a faithful rendering of what evolutionary theory predicts, not a pitiful vestige of a once bountiful tale."

Most biologists today think evolutionary rates fluctuate continuously from very fast to very slow and stop, with all intermediate speeds. It depends on evolutionary pressures, size of the population, advantage of a given mutation etc. The example presented at the beginning of this thread, for example, would be an example of a mutation being so very beneficial that it is rapidly spread throughout a population. If insects could fossilize well (such that we could analyze their biochemistry later) we'd see a very sudden jump in the fossil record when this mutation occurred.

Took me a little while, but I think I'm following. I knew there would be a scientific explanation to the questions I brought up. If I can recognize certain holes, I'm sure scientists will recognize them as well and do their best to fill them in. I do follow the logic on this post, its still the best possible scientific solution. I don't know how testable this really is, because the evolution that we can observe in our lifetimes cannot account for what's explained in these paragraphs on the large scale needed to fit the entire picture. I can definitely see how punctuated equilibrium influences natural selection, which is something that I don't disagree with one bit. Its still a stretch to me to make the connection between natural selection/adaptation and macro-(I know you guys don't like this word) evolution. This is just gonna be the difference between us. Until some of you actually see/experience God you will never believe in Him. Until I physically see concrete evidence of Macro-evolution. (ie lizard to bird), its gonna be a stretch to me. There is evidence of both (yes I believe mans writings in the bible are evidence not proof) as well as the fossil record as evidence and not proof. We just have a differing opinion of where the evidence points. The one thing that makes us Christians so much more convinced of biblical evidence is that we feel we have experienced God in our lives. (Note-I use the term Christians lightly because I'm not what most would consider a good Christian at this point in my life) Those who don't believe in God would probably never experience Him. I still want to learn everything about evolutionary theory and I'm not saying every bit of it conflicts with what I believe, just certain parts. I have a strong appreciation for science and what its done for the world and do not disbelieve in scientific findings. I just don't completely buy into certain areas which I view as less evident, and are more of a stretch for me to think as being possible.

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

Quote

Go read diverborg's post. I generally agree with his points.

So basically.... you think there should be more fossils?

Four links about fossils. (Actually the last one is about punctuated equilibria, a theory concerning fast "bursts" of evolution, eg Cyclids)

Talk Origins, eh? What scientific organization are they affiliated with?

Quote

But again, you realise that evolution as a theory comprises possibly the largest body of knowledge in modern science to be found 'under one roof' yes? Where do you get the idea that it might be wrong? Did you come up with it all by yourself, or have you been influenced by the PR efforts of other organisations?

Is there any other area of science even remotely comparable in scale and unanimous acceptance where you, as a layman, would feel confident in stepping up to the combined works of tens of thousands of professional academics and saying "No, I think you are wrong"? If the answer to the question is no (and I think it must be) what makes evolution so special that you feel you are qualified to judge it?

With your leading questions and implied insults, it seems you're pretty tightly wound on this subject. That said, I'll just move along.

Cheerio.

[jakee 1,489]

Quote

Do you accept the current scientific consensus about life - from the Big Bang to the present - as indisputable fact?

Life started with the Big Bang? It is a confusing tendency of religious folks to lump cosmology and astrophysics (both physics) in with evolution (biology).

Quote

For me, the consensus is the best explanation, at this time. Kind of a "warts and all, but it's clearly superior to any other" theory. For some, this level of acceptance is unacceptable. All in or a target for ridicule.

The Theory of Evolution is not a finished product. Most likely never will be. However the framework is solid. Evolution happens. This is as much a fact as gravity, relativity, mass, the electromagnetic spectrum and so many other things that we cannot yet fully and completely explain.

There are most certainly current elements of the theory of evolution which will, in time, prove to be false - but these are the explanations, the mechanisms, the nitty gritty. Not the fact that evolution happens.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[jakee 1,489]

Quote

With your leading questions and implied insults, it seems you're pretty tightly wound on this subject. That said, I'll just move along.

No, I actually do want to know. As I said before, the state of 'belief' in the ToE in American society is something that really baffles me.

Why do you pick out this one theory (one of the strongest in all of modern science) as the one to disagree with? Why with this one theory do you feel qualified to take on the unanimous scientific concensus?

Did you come up with your points of disagreement on your own, or did you get them from a religious organisation? Were your biology classes at school run by religious types? Does it have nothing at all to do with religion? Why?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[dorbie 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Well, at least your open to honestly discussing the matter and not inclined to prejudge anyone with a differing perspective.

I judge the issue based on the evidence & let the chips fall where they may.

You should dive for cover behing Gould's nonoverlapping magisteria instead of denying the science. The science debate is beyond recovery for you now, people who deny the science and in particularly those who believe in a young Earth are profoundly ignorant of the science, and in many cases willfully ignorant. That is not pejorative it is just the fact of the matter.

You seem to have a lot of emotional equity invested in this matter.

I'm not the one railing against the evidence and scientifically established fact. You are always free to attempt a better response than impugning my commitment to the truth.

Quote

I'll just move along now.

If only you could.

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

Quote

You seem to have a lot of emotional equity invested in this matter.

I'm not the one railing against the evidence and scientifically established fact.

Could you give some examples of my "railing against the evidence"?

[dorbie 0]

Quote

With your leading questions and implied insults, it seems you're pretty tightly wound on this subject.

Just because you say you're being implicitly insulted in an attempt to portray yourself as a martyr doesn't make it so. Please offer us more than appeals to your martyrdom or observations about how people committed to the truth are tightly wound up when all they've done is direct you towards enlightenment on evolution and science. That's not a request for more links to How it Works.

Quote

That said, I'll just move along.

Cheerio.

You said that already, yet here we are.

[dorbie 0]

Quote

Could you give some examples of my "railing against the evidence"?

Still here?

[kallend 2,026]

Quote

That said, I'll just move along.

Cheerio.

Sure!

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[pajarito 0]

Quote

Paj, you're just plain wrong.

Natural selection is just a mechanism whereby favorable traits that are heritable become more common in successive generations of a population of reproducing organisms, and unfavorable traits that are heritable become less common. After a given mutation in the DNA sequence, the information contained in the sequence is different but there isn't any more or less information there. The overall amount of information doesn't change as a result of natural selection.

He just mentioned Natural Selection. You mention mutation but that won't help the cause either.

Quote

However, a mutation does not necessarily reduce specified complexity—just that it is so likely to do so that it cannot be the mechanism for generating the huge amount of specified complexity that we see in living things. That mutations are known primarily by the defects they cause testifies to the overwhelming tendency for them to reduce the information in living things (just like a mistake on my computer keyboard will decrease the information content of what I am typing). Spetner also discusses gene duplication at the above URL. However, just think: if you buy two copies of the newspaper, do you buy twice as much information? Of course not. Duplication of anything does not constitute an increase of information. Random mutations to change the duplicated gene would not add information unless the mutated sequence coded for some new, useful protein (no one has demonstrated such a thing happening; there have only been imaginative scenarios proposed). To illustrate: if “superman” were the duplicated “gene”, and mutations in the letters changed it to “sxyxvawtu ”, you have clearly lost information, although you have a new sequence. This is the difference between complexity and specified complexity. A pile of sand is complex , but is information-poor, because it specifies nothing.
--Dr. Don Batton

How is information content measured?