Evolution

[thatpfunk]

Arguments for and against?

Any interesting sites?

Interested to hear both sides...
(should this be in politics?)

[daryn]

evolution is probably correct. i don't think it should be in politics as it has nothing to do with politics. politics often divides itself according to beliefs in evolution and religion, but those two things don't really have anything to do with politics.

[peachy]

for...but way too on meds to get into it

and evolution stikes a note in politics b/c of religion etc etc

[thatpfunk]

ya, i just thought with the nature of the too forums, politics is better suited

[[censored]]

Evolution certainly exists although I do not think this absolutely precludes the existance of some higher power which is at the core of religion.

[Lazymeatball]

you remember in textbooks that story about those moths outside some factory town in England, and it showed how they evolved to a darker pattern to blend in with the darker trees (darker from the pollution). And it has those pictures of dark moths on dark trees, and lighter moths on lighter trees. I read somewhere those were fake, and the moths were nailed to the trees. I have no sources to back this up.

[jason_t]

It's correct and you should read The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins if you're truly curious about this subject. It is one of the best books I've read. Ever.

[thatpfunk]

Ya, I'm basically looking for people with either science or theological backgrounds who have well developed arguments.

I believe in human evolution, but lack the actual facts/ basic concepts/ reasons to believe in it.

I also like to hear the alternate views as I am always open to info.

[peachy]

i have some scientific facts supporting it...but am too out of it to get into detail right now...and without a doubt there r many articles out theer supporting evolution in all facets of life

many organisms have evolved and mutated in order to adjust to various conditions

[jason_t]

[ QUOTE ]
you remember in textbooks that story about those moths outside some factory town in England, and it showed how they evolved to a darker pattern to blend in with the darker trees (darker from the pollution). And it has those pictures of dark moths on dark trees, and lighter moths on lighter trees. I read somewhere those were fake, and the moths were nailed to the trees. I have no sources to back this up.

[/ QUOTE ]

This story, about the peppered moths in England, is ridiculously complicated. The experiment conducted in the 1800s was flawed, however the experiment has been repeated in multiple locations and the original conclusion that the melanism levels have changed as a result of pollution stands. If I remember correctly, this story is detailed in Dawkins' book, The Selfish Gene, among other books by him.

[Lazymeatball]

I like the idea of someone out there nailing moths to stuff.

[jason_t]

[ QUOTE ]
I like the idea of someone out there nailing moths to stuff.

[/ QUOTE ]

If humans had a tradition of doing this, in a few million years we'd have nail-resitant moths.

[Piz0wn0reD!!!!!!]

For the most part, the scientific community belives that the theory of evolution is the best/most logical theory based on the evidence we have thus far.

As for religion and politics... This is a matter of science. Not faith, philosophy or politics. There must be evidence to support a theory, not just belifes.

[college_boy]

[ QUOTE ]
i have some scientific facts supporting it...but am too out of it to get into detail right now...and without a doubt there r many articles out theer supporting evolution in all facets of life

many organisms have evolved and mutated in order to adjust to various conditions

[/ QUOTE ]

It's slightly more complicated than that. The argument is not whether species can adjust to different conditions. It's whether those adjustments can spawn new species. Microevolution/ Macroevolution.

[peachy]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
i have some scientific facts supporting it...but am too out of it to get into detail right now...and without a doubt there r many articles out theer supporting evolution in all facets of life

many organisms have evolved and mutated in order to adjust to various conditions

[/ QUOTE ]

It's slightly more complicated than that. The argument is not whether species can adjust to different conditions. It's whether those adjustments can spawn new species. Microevolution/ Macroevolution.

[/ QUOTE ]

thats evolving and mutation like i said...over time they branch out and become new speices/sub-speices

[thatpfunk]

[ QUOTE ]
As for religion and politics... This is a matter of science. Not faith, philosophy or politics. There must be evidence to support a theory, not just belifes.

[/ QUOTE ]

I obviously know this. The only reason I suggested the politics forum is because that is usually where people yell and scream about their ideological beliefs. I didn't want to burden oot with it.

[college_boy]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
i have some scientific facts supporting it...but am too out of it to get into detail right now...and without a doubt there r many articles out theer supporting evolution in all facets of life

many organisms have evolved and mutated in order to adjust to various conditions

[/ QUOTE ]

It's slightly more complicated than that. The argument is not whether species can adjust to different conditions. It's whether those adjustments can spawn new species. Microevolution/ Macroevolution.

[/ QUOTE ]

thats evolving and mutation like i said...over time they branch out and become new speices/sub-speices

[/ QUOTE ]

That's not what you said at all.

[jstnrgrs]

How did sexual reproduction evolve. As I understand it, evolution must occur in very small steps (mutations) each one of which must be beneficial (otherwise they would not be naturaly selected).

Can anyone think of a list of mutations, each of which is beneficial, which lead from asexual to sexual reproduction?

[jason_t]

There is a whole chapter on this in Dawkins' The Selfish Gene and Matt Ridley has a book The Red Queen entirely devoted to this subject. This title comes from the name of a theory from the 1980s which in turn gets it's name from Through the Looking Glass where the Red Queen says to Alice "It takes all the running you can do, to keep in the same place." What does this have to do with evolution?

Species are in competition with each and they coevolve to gain survival edges. To just stay alive and keep their place in the world, they must keep pace with all the species around them that are evolving. The advantage of sex comes from the recombination of DNA. In particular, species are attacked constatly by parasites. Parasistes work by finding a weakness in the protein molecules of a species. If a whole generation of a species is weak to this parasite, they will vanish. But with sex, their genes are mixed rapidly and the ones that have strong defenses to a parasite will propogate and save the species whereas an asexual species would not be able to mutate as quickly.

Here's some evidence. First, most asexual species that exist are typically impervious to the existence of disease hence they don't have a need to recombine their DNA. Next, there is a type of fish called the topminnow which sometimes reproduces with another species of fish and this creates an asexual cross-species. The topminnow is prone to attacks from a certain worm. However, the asexual cross-species are more prone to attacks from this parasite precisely because they have been unable to keep their defenses up with the pace of evolution of the parasite whereas the sexually reproducing topminnow has kept ahead of the race and is less prone to attacks from the worm! This is strongly supportive of the theory.

As for the mutations you are looking for, there are single-celled organisms that exchange genetic information through small "sexual organs." The natural advantage to this exchange of information was outlined above, and from there the mutations continued into the sex that we have today.

Edit: Fixed wording and grammatical errors.

[ChristinaB]

[ QUOTE ]
As I understand it, evolution must occur in very small steps (mutations) each one of which must be beneficial (otherwise they would not be naturaly selected).

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't think in terms of mutations. It is just a matter of random natural variations that sometimes make a part of a species better able to survive.

Just as you have variation from your brothers and sisters (height, fleetness of foot, bone structure, etc.), all species have such variation.

Take bacteria, for thousands of years a small percentage (lets say 1%) had an immunity to penacillan. As long as this trait didn't matter, the percentage in the population remained the same. Along comes the drug and wipes out the non-immune bacteria while the immune ones survive. After a few generations, only the descendants of the immune bacteria are still around. It looks like bacteria evolved into Penicillan immunity, when in fact what really happened is the trait helped the one group survive better than the rest, and that group grew as it encountered less competition for food from the others (who were dead). No mutation occurred.

In the moth example, there were always lighter and darker moths born, but if their natural enemies suddenly found it easier to catch the lighter moths, more descendants of the darker moths would survive, and over several generations would dominate the moth colony. Again - no actual mutations occurred.

[jstnrgrs]

So two single celled organisms that had previously reproduced asexually come together and exchange genetic information (by random chance) which creates more fit offspring. After this has happened several times, those who are inclined to exchange genetic information gain an advantage, and eventually loose the ability to reproduce asexually (since that would no longer put them at a disadvantage.) Am I understanding this more or less correctly?

[wacki]

Copy and pasted from previous post I made in politics:


I am telling you evolution exists and I personally have created numerous species of plants and bacteria that have never existed before. (Including glow in the dark plants!) I have created these new species using both genetic engineering and forced evolution. For bacteria, evolving a new species does not require years, it takes days.


Here is a simple experiment that will allow you to create a new species. Apply some unpasteurized milk on a petri dish and allow the E. coli to grow. When the E. Coli has propogated throughout the petri dish expose the E. coli to an UV sanitatizing lamp until 90% of the E. Coli has died. Transfer the remaining E.coli to a new petri dish and repeat several times. Before you know it E. coli will evolve into a new species. The E. coli will develope thicker skin/coatings that block UV light, DNA repair proteins, and much more. This evolutionary process takes days, not weeks. Now you can do the same thing with antibiotics or any other outside force.

Evolution is a fact.


......................


[ QUOTE ]
Question: would that new E.Coli developed under that petri/UV experiment actually be a new species, or would it merely be a new strain?

My uninformed guess is that it seems more like a strain rather than a species, something along the lines of darker or lighter skin colors among humans having developed in different climates.

[/ QUOTE ]


You are right about the E. coli being a different strain and not a species.... most of the time. Thankyou for catching my error. Most of the time this experiment will produce a new strain and not a new species. However, this experiment can produce new species, it is a simple matter of time/odds.

A group of organisms belong to the same biological species if they are capable of interbreeding to produce fertile offspring. However the biological test of a species is not always available, and so there is also a morphological species concept based on anatomical similarities. Since E. Coli is asexual it falls into this anatomical similarity category. In otherwords, creating a new bacteria strain can always be argued against due to the lack of sexual reproduction. To solve this problem we simply have to move the experiment to fungus. fungi can be sexual and asexual reproducers. Therefore we simply have to change a species of fungus to the point that it cannot mate with it's original species. The UV experiment for producing rock solid proof of evolution is still viable.

The problem with the way most people look at evolution is that they think that evolution is caused by animals adapting. Animals don't adapt at all. The mechanism that cells use to copy DNA is intentionally error prone. It intentionally (intentionally is argueable) makes mistakes all of the time. Most of these mistakes are harmless, a few of them are harmfull and even lethal. However, every once in a while the mistake is benificial to the organism. That organism is healthier than the rest of the organisms and spreads it's DNA by reproduction. Organisms don't adapt, they are selected, hence the term natural selection.

The UV experiment is so powerfull because the UV light hits the DNA molecules in the cells and causes random mutations. Just like the mistakes in DNA copying, some of these mistakes are harmless, some bad, and some are good. You use UV light to increase the mutation rate. Simply adding in other factors like antibiotics or different food will drastically change the organism in time. Bacteria, viruses, and fungi evolve at an amazing rate even without UV light. Accelerating mutations with UV light allows these organisms to change at simply mind boggling rates. Even with UV acceleration you are still playing a game of chance as all of the mistakes and mutations happen at random places on the organisms genome. Creating a new species with UV light is alot like a hitting a straight flush. You may get the straight flush on the first try, but odds are you are going to have to play a lot of poker before you hit it just right.

Genetic engineering doesn't work this way, with genetic engineering, you are literally designing the organism. The problem with genetic engineering is that you have to "speak" DNA. Not very many people can "speak" DNA.

[Zeno]

Interesting article and site Discussion (http://www.csicop.org/specialarticles/terminology.html)

-Zeno

[AEKDBet]

we came from that garden with the talking snake. duh.

[jason_t]

[ QUOTE ]
So two single celled organisms that had previously reproduced asexually come together and exchange genetic information (by random chance) which creates more fit offspring. After this has happened several times, those who are inclined to exchange genetic information gain an advantage, and eventually loose the ability to reproduce asexually (since that would no longer put them at a disadvantage.) Am I understanding this more or less correctly?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes.

[Dr. Strangelove]

College_boy: your name is spelled wrong; it's "Collage." Now don't you just feel like a doofus?

[peachy]

[ QUOTE ]
College_boy: your name is spelled wrong; it's "Collage." Now don't you just feel like a doofus?

[/ QUOTE ]

/images/graemlins/confused.gif /images/graemlins/confused.gif /images/graemlins/confused.gif /images/graemlins/confused.gif /images/graemlins/confused.gif /images/graemlins/confused.gif /images/graemlins/confused.gif

[Dr. Strangelove]

Can you really call that trolling? More like clubbing baby seals in barrel.