Darwin's theory

EoghanIRL

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/180301.stmIn elephant terms 1930 was just 3 generations ago.



We've witnessed so many species that have been made extinct by introduced animals. Extinctions are so common that there's even the story of Tribbles the cat who was alleged to have wiped out a whole species of flightless bird. Some of the main agents of extinction today are the cats, rats and mice that out compete and eat native species. And cane toads.

So god wants elephants to be born with tusks .

Capt'n Midnight

marieholmfan wrote: »

Surely one can be a creationist while accepting that the universe seems to be 14 billion years old (to humans).

Actually the universe is just 5 minutes old.

Fake fossils and fake memories I'm afraid.

Capt'n Midnight

Wibbs wrote: »

And again what about Neandertals and homo Erectus and all other archaic humans? How do they fit into your Adam and Eve story?

Well who else was there for Cain and Able to marry ?

This diluting of the gene pool was obviously responsible for the decreasing longevity of biblical patriarchs through Genesis.

SaveOurLyric

Edgarfrndly wrote: »

It is not a claim. It is a fact.

Or at least, you believe that it is a fact. Some do some dont.
This is where belief in a particular branch of science makes makes some scientists unbearably self righteous.
On balance, I think now Darwins theory of man evolving from ape type animals over hundreds of thousands of years probably is correct. So lets say its a 'working' fact. A best estimate. Probably correct. A reasonable claim. But its probably the best scientists who keep an open mind and dont dogmatically label things as facts.

Capt'n Midnight

Wibbs wrote: »

To save the ecosystem of just the Phoenix park in Dublin would require a vessel at least the size of the largest oil tanker in the world today and you couldn't make it from "gopher wood".

You could.

Dead easy , any time you wanted to extend the ark you'd have to gopher wood.

Cianmcliam

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Cystic Fibrosis is probably a better example.

1 in 19 Irish people have the gene for it.

For most of history if you got a copy of the gene from both parents it was very unlikely you'd have a family yourself.

True, although the link was that the gene combinations had main effects that were detrimental to reproduction but had adaptive effects in other combinations that allowed the mutation to persist.

In the examples given before the main effects of the certain combination are all very rare compared to the 1 in 10 figure given for homosexuality. They probably wouldn't survive many generations outside our very large gene pool.
To be that prevalent you would need some fairly obvious adaptive advantage in family lineages that have it. All the proposed adaptive advantages seem severely underpowered to explain it.

I still think some kind of hormonal priming/androgen disruption in the womb is going to be a large part of the mechanism and not simply a flip of the genetic dice.

mickrock

The results of evolution are really amazing.

Especially from a process that is supposedly blind, dumb and directionless.

Capt'n Midnight

SaveOurLyric wrote: »

But its probably the best scientists who keep an open mind and dont dogmatically label things as facts.

People who don't keep an open mind and dogmatically label things as unchangeable facts just aren't scientists unless you completely abuse the meaning of science.


The first three decades of the last century was full of seismic shifts in physics. Such that a joke from the 1920's was about some physics students sneeking a look at the exam paper and saying "it's the same as last year's exam" and their professor telling them "yes , but the answers are different"

Max Planck who came up the concept of quanta of energy had this to say "My unavailing attempts to somehow reintegrate the action quantum into classical theory extended over several years and caused me much trouble."

He just didn't like quantum theory and he wasn't the only one. It was too abstract , it's only saving grace is that the maths matches most of the evidence. It's a tool that works and many would gladly ditch it if something more rational came along.

endacl

SaveOurLyric wrote: »

Or at least, you believe that it is a fact. Some do some dont.

With respect, it's statements like that that highlight the gap in understanding. It's not about belief. It's about acceptance of demonstrated facts, based on supporting evidence. That's all it is. Belief does not negate the validity of a fact. Nether does disbelief. Belief, in fact , has nothing whatsoever to do with it. It's not a matter of opinion.

You either deny the facts because it shakes your belief, or you accept the facts in the face of that belief and adjust accordingly. Some people, for whatever reason, can't do this. They of course have an absolute right to their beliefs. I respect that. What they do not have is the right to have those beliefs respected. Certainly not to the extent that conversations like this might, to the casual observer, imply a parity between opposite but equal arguments. They're not equal. They're not even equatable.

Faith and fact are to different things. Religion does not belong in the laboratory. Funnily enough, science certainly does belong in the church. Steeples would fall down without engineers and architects with a solid grasp of physics.

endacl

mickrock wrote: »

The results of evolution are really amazing.

Especially from a process that is supposedly blind, dumb and directionless.

Nothing new then? :rolleyes:

Knasher

SaveOurLyric wrote: »

But its probably the best scientists who keep an open mind and dont dogmatically label things as facts.

That is why scientists call it a theory. I.E. Something that fits and explains all the facts we have observed thus far, and that offers predictive power that has allowed us to predict newer facts that were then tested and found to be true. Something that we accept as true only so long as we haven't yet found a fact that disagrees with the theory, or had the theory predict a fact that then turned out to not be true.

People use the terms "fact" and "theory" in a very different way than scientists do.

Wibbs

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

You could.

Dead easy , any time you wanted to extend the ark you'd have to gopher wood.

:mad: Get out. :mad: :pac:

Edgarfrndly

SaveOurLyric wrote: »

Or at least, you believe that it is a fact.

No, I don't believe it's right. Based on the huge array of evidence available to me, I wholly accept that it's a fact. Belief doesn't come into the equation.

SaveOurLyric wrote: »

Some do some dont.

I like how nonchalant you stated that, as if it's fifty/fifty. Let's be clear, over 95% of all scientists accept that evolution by natural selection is a fact. Those who do not in most part have no qualifications in biology, and for the very minute number of biologists who oppose it, it's largely due to religious reasons. They are unable to come to terms with something that contradicts the bible, and are outright in saying so.

endacl

Knasher wrote: »

That is why scientists call it a theory. I.E. Something that fits and explains all the facts we have observed thus far, and that offers predictive power that has allowed us to predict newer facts that were then tested and found to be true. Something that we accept as true only so long as we haven't yet found a fact that disagrees with the theory, or had the theory predict a fact that then turned out to not be true.

People use the terms "fact" and "theory" in a very different way than scientists do.

Well.....

No. That would be a hypothesis. The word 'theory' in this context is actually closer to the common understanding of the word 'fact'. Newton's Theory of Gravity, for example. Not a matter of opinion. Stuff falls down. It doesn't fall up. Ever.

http://www.livescience.com/21491-what-is-a-scientific-theory-definition-of-theory.html

endacl

Edgarfrndly wrote: »

I like how nonchalant you stated that, as if it's fifty/fifty. Let's be clear, over 95% of all scientists accept that evolution by natural selection is a fact. Those who do not in most part have no qualifications in biology, and for the very minute number of biologists who oppose it, it's largely due to religious reasons. They are unable to come to terms with something that contradicts the bible, and are outright in saying so.

Funnily enough, if over 95% of scientists didn't accept that evolution by natural selection was a fact, it'd still be a fact. That's the beauty of facts. They're impervious to opinion. In much the same way that dogmatic religious thinking is impervious to facts.

Knasher

endacl wrote: »

Well.....

No. That would be a hypothesis. The word 'theory' in this context is actually closer to the common understanding of the word 'fact'. Newton's Theory of Gravity, for example. Not a matter of opinion. Stuff falls down. It doesn't fall up. Ever.

http://www.livescience.com/21491-what-is-a-scientific-theory-definition-of-theory.html

A hypothesis wouldn't yet have the part where it has been found to predict new facts, and those facts were tested and found to be true. (though it is a somewhat fuzzy demarcation). Every theory, no matter how established, is only accepted so long as a fact hasn't been found that disagrees with it. If something was to fall up (hypothetical negative matter maybe), then first that thing would be tested to see if it really was a fact, then the theory would have to be adjusted to accommodate it.

endacl

Knasher wrote: »

A hypothesis wouldn't yet have the part where it has been found to predict new facts, and those facts were tested and found to be true. (though it is a somewhat fuzzy demarcation). Every theory, no matter how established, is only accepted so long as a fact hasn't been found that disagrees with it. If something was to fall up (hypothetical negative matter maybe), then first that thing would be tested to see if it really was a fact, then the theory would have to be adjusted to accommodate it.

I'm open to correction, consider me corrected! There's a danger to using the word theory in its commonly understood sense though. There is a world of difference between the definition of a 'scientific theory' and a 'well, that's just a theory and I don't believe it' theory. For some, this is a very convenient distinction.

yellowlabrador

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

Anatomical and genetic homology between humans and apes.

mickrock

endacl wrote: »

Funnily enough, if over 95% of scientists didn't accept that evolution by natural selection was a fact, it'd still be a fact. That's the beauty of facts. They're impervious to opinion. In much the same way that dogmatic religious thinking is impervious to facts.

"Evolution is dumb, blind and directionless."

Is this a fact or a belief?

endacl

mickrock wrote: »

"Evolution is dumb, blind and directionless."

Is this a fact or a belief?

Yes.

obplayer

mickrock wrote: »

"Evolution is dumb, blind and directionless."

Is this a fact or a belief?

All the evidence shows this to be the case, as a previous poster said we do not 'believe' in evolution, we accept it. Because all the evidence shows it to be a fact.

mickrock

obplayer wrote: »

All the evidence shows this to be the case, as a previous poster said we do not 'believe' in evolution, we accept it. Because all the evidence shows it to be a fact.

I didn't ask whether evolution was true.

The fact of evolution and the possibility of evolution being a creative, intelligent process are not mutually exclusive.

I think the idea of it being a dumb, blind process is far fetched and requires a lot of faith. Although the evidence points to intelligence, this is normally rejected from the beginning on philosophical or metaphysical grounds.

endacl

mickrock wrote: »

Although the evidence points to intelligence, this is normally rejected from the beginning on philosophical or metaphysical grounds.

You say this as if it's a given.

1. There is no evidence that points to intelligence. You believe that 'creation' is driven by intelligence.

2. It is not rejected on philosophical or metaphysical grounds. It is not included because it is not necessary to describe the process.

It least be honest with your horseshyte, mick.

obplayer

mickrock wrote: »

I didn't ask whether evolution was true.

The fact of evolution and the possibility of evolution being a creative, intelligent process are not mutually exclusive.

I think the idea of it being a dumb, blind process is far fetched and requires a lot of faith. Although the evidence points to intelligence, this is normally rejected from the beginning on philosophical or metaphysical grounds.

My reply was in response to your query
"Evolution is dumb, blind and directionless."

Is this a fact or a belief?

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=92615993&postcount=1251

That was not, as far as I can see, a question about the fact of evolution.
I responded to your query.

AngryHippie

mickrock wrote: »

I didn't ask whether evolution was true.

The fact of evolution and the possibility of evolution being a creative, intelligent process are not mutually exclusive.

I think the idea of it being a dumb, blind process is far fetched and requires a lot of faith. Although the evidence points to intelligence, this is normally rejected from the beginning on philosophical or metaphysical grounds.

Cobblers.

The facts of evolution, means the only possibility of it being an intelligent process are on the grounds that it has an infinite timescale and low probabilities in its favor. Again, meaning that something that isn't technically impossible, is fairly well definitely going to happen at some stage.

nozzferrahhtoo

Cianmcliam wrote: »

having a gay male child might make female relatives slightly more fertile. This just doesn't seem to balance out.

A super-fertile female simply can't produce many more children than a normaly healthy female because they can't avoid the 9 months gestation and subsequent weaning period that other mothers also can't avoid.

It is not JUST about how many off spring the woman herself has but ALSO how reproductive successful THEY are, and THEY are, and THEY are. Fecundity, contrary to popular belief, is not a measure of evolutionary success. It is just one strategy. Did you know, for example, that studies have shown that families a couple 100 years ago who had the LEAST children actually often have the MOST surviving descendants today?

Your issue with the 9 month gestation period would be mathematically valid if all women were reproducing to their maximum capability all the time. But this does not happen. Most have 1, 2 or 3 children. So the 9 months gestation is actually not as relevant as you think.

But all of this might not even be relevant either, because for a gene to perpetuate successfully through a species it does not HAVE to confer a reproductive advantage either. If a "gay gene" were to exist in a family and only expressed in, say, one male, the chances are that it exists in the siblings of that male and will be passed on to next generations anyway.

nozzferrahhtoo

robinph wrote: »

So your proof of the flood actually being a real event is that they made a film about it?

In fairness to him, he offered the film AND the claim that things with holes in them float.

But seriously catallus has taken Appeal To Authority to a level I have never seen before. Not only was he appealing to the authority of the director in this case.... he was ASSUMING That authority merely because he had made the film. Appeal to Assumed Authority maybe?

mickrock wrote: »

The results of evolution are really amazing.

Especially from a process that is supposedly blind, dumb and directionless.

Which does not surprise me much. When I grew up I taught myself programming on old commodore computers.

One thing we could do was input INCREDIBLY simple mathematical equations and have the computer general graphical representations off them.

And what one learns early on, and I wish every kid at that age could be made learn it as part of the school curriculum, is that the most simple and inconsequential equation can result in the most amazingly complex results. And that is before they are then made to interact with each other.

So I am as amazed by it is you are, but I certainly do not make the implications off the back of my amazement that you do, while dodging posts.

mickrock wrote: »

"Evolution is dumb, blind and directionless."

Is this a fact or a belief?

It depends what you mean by directionless. Essentially what you say is correct. But there are constraints on it too which add "direction".

I used this analogy earlier in the thread. The passage of a water drop down your window in a rain storm is mindless and essentially directionless. Try predicting where it will go next sometime. It is hardly ever STRAIGHT down. It veers left, right, stops, starts again.

But it is NOT wholly directionless. Gravity constraints it. You might fail to predict its exact course, but at no point will it go UP the window. Only down.

Evolution is the same. It is essentially directionless sure, but like the droplet it has constraints that give some direction.

mickrock wrote: »

The fact of evolution and the possibility of evolution being a creative, intelligent process are not mutually exclusive.

No one is claiming anything of the sort. So you are rebutting a point no one has made. No one is saying it is not an intelligent process. We are simply saying there is ZERO substantiation or reasoning on offer at this time to expect that it is.

mickrock wrote: »

Although the evidence points to intelligence, this is normally rejected from the beginning on philosophical or metaphysical grounds.

It is rejected on the grounds that you keep talking about there being evidence, but never present a SHRED of it. Anywhere. Ever.

You merely assert the existence of evidence and act like that means your claim has been evidenced. It does not.

Instead you use your lack of evidence as an excuse to claim people are rejecting it on biased grounds.

One can not reject what one has not been offered however. Your claim that we are rejecting the evidence is, quite simply, a canard.

nozzferrahhtoo

SaveOurLyric wrote: »

OK. I'm willing to buy the 14 billion years old universe and 4.5 billion years old earth. But is the evidence for Darwins theory really that compelling ?

Yes. It is. But to understand this you would need to understand what is "compelling" in science. Do you understand, for example, just how important the concept of "Prediction" is in science when validating a Theory? And do you know off hand just how many predictions have been made and verified using Evolutionary Theory on everything from the macro level in fossils, to the micro level in gene sequences?

And this is before we point out we observe evolution in action even in shorter time scales than we might have predicted. The baltic lizard species observed recently when peace broke out around the Island that contained them is an amazing story which I can go into if you wish.

SaveOurLyric wrote: »

Accepting the science about the age thing, could it still not be that

Of course it "could" be. In science you recognize anything "could" be. It "could" be that we were all actually created 2 seconds ago with everything intact and in place, including our memories of being here longer than that.

"Could" be says nothing. It is just gazing into ones midriff hole. The question is.... of all the multitude of "coulds" which ones are in some way substantiated. And at this time the idea we were all created 10000 years ago is simply unsubstantiated. In even the smallest way.

Does this mean it did NOT happen that way? Clearly not. But it is a non-runner of a hypothesis at this time.

SaveOurLyric wrote: »

If modern science requires testing and proving predictions, how can you prove the past.

By making predictions about what you will find when investigating evidence related to that past, and seeing if those predictions hold through.

For example take Whale evolution. It was long surmised that Whales evolved from Land Mammals. Creationists used to make a joke of this. The populated the media with cartoon images of a half whale half mammal "nonsense" animal
to illustrate their mirth at how ridiculous they found the idea.

Suddenly these caricatures dried up however when the fossil of what is now called "Ambulocetus Natans" (The walking whale) was found.

But did the science community pat themselves on the back and call it case closed? Hell no, science is at its core self critical. It made predictions. It said "We found a fossil, so now we know where to look. If we look we will find more". That prediction was true.

Case closed? No. They then said "Ok we have all these transitional fossils now. If we date them using a variety of different techniques they should all line up the same way each time".

They did.

Case closed? Hell no. They THEN said "Ok if we line them up based on the dating and nothing else then what we should observe is two fundamental things that are required for this evolution to be true."

Those two things were:

1) The steady migration of the nostrils of the original land fossils to the dorsal location in the modern whale. CHECK. It lined up.

2) Whales hear great under water. Land Mammals do not. We should therefore find a steady slow modification of the inner ear structure of the fossils showing a steady move towards improved under water hearing. CHECK. That lines up too.

So predictions are made based on the Theory. And either the verification of the predictions verify the theory.... or you need to believe in an astounding and quite incredible amount of mere "luck" on behalf of the scientists here.

SaveOurLyric wrote: »

Even if they are right and man evolved from apes (10000 or 1 million years ago, whatever), then how can the test a past event?

Actually if you look at what the Theory suggests are our closest cousins in the animal kingdom you will find they have an extra chromosome than us.

Evolution Theory suggests this is impossible. The sudden development of a whole structure in them, or the sudden loss of one in us, would be catastrophic and impossible under the claims of incremental Evolution.

So another prediction was made. IF the theory is correct then the only explanation that works is that somewhere in human evolutionary history there would have to be a fusing point in one of our Chromosomes.

How do we find this? Well there are genetic markers that we only every observe in certain places in a genome. So a very powerful and specific prediction set was made:

1) We would find a fusion point where two chromosome pairs in our cousins match exactly ONE pair in us.
2) Those genetic markers we only observe in certain places? We would find them in the "wrong" place, just sitting there, doing essentially nothing.

We found both. It is human chromosome number 2. In fact our knowledge is now advancing so well we can pinpoint it to a precise fusion point of base pairs. The precise fusion site has been located in 2q13–2q14.1 (ref. 2; hg 16:114455823 – 114455838)

Predicting not just fusion but that genetic markers that have no business being there will BE there.... is remarkable unless the Theory of Evolution is simply correct.

SaveOurLyric wrote: »

If they could take few apes and evolve them into humans, then I would be listening.

Then you would be listening to something that is NOT the Theory of Evolution because the Theory says NOTHING about apes evolving into humans. What it DOES claim is that apes and Humans evolved from a common ancestor.

If you were walking in a thick forest with impenetrable trees, and you and a friend seperate at a fork in the path and each reach a clearing, there is no way for you to get from your clearing to his, without retracing your step back to the fork and then going up his fork.

Suggesting we evolve Apes into Humans is essentially asking me to get between the clearings without retracing those steps.

SaveOurLyric wrote: »

So the Darwin evolution thing could still be wrong, and is it wrong to give it the term science by those who also object to the use of the same term in 'creation science' ?

But there is good reason for objecting to it there. There has been no papers, no predictions, no substantiation, no peer review, nothing. It simply is not a science. They merely use that word to gain credibility by association with it.

SaveOurLyric wrote: »

It isnt. No one claims you can turn a carrot cake into a chocolate log. But people are claiming, that by tiny steps, an apes beget men.

Nope. No one is claiming anything of that sort. You have merely incorporated a lay man misunderstanding of the Theory. Hopefully what I wrote above corrected it.

To use your cake analogy.... we are claiming that the initial process for making both cakes was the same up to a point.... then you separate the cake mix.... and after that separation you add different ingredients.

In other words no one is turning a carrot cake into a chocolate log...... but splitting one common base mix and turning each of THOSE into a carrot cake and a log.

SaveOurLyric wrote: »

Well explained, thanks. And it does sort of make sense. So if evolution is correct, why are there still people who dont believe in it ? Are they simply not evolved enough ?

Well the perpetuation of nonsense version of it, as displayed by your own misunderstanding of it which I hope I have now helped you with, is certainly a huge factor in this. The version of evolution you talk of IS ridiculous and I would not believe it either.

Science and scientists are notoriously bad at communicating facts to the lay public. The Dawkins, Sagans, and Tysons of the world are working hard to improve that, but it is a slow process and there are still some negative elements in that community that deride it. Sagan for example was scoffed at and ostracized for even making the attempt. The success of the recent incarnation of Cosmos, nothing short of jaw dropping, shows how successfully this landscape has been changed however.

But the obvious parallel issue here is religion and human hubris. IT is not that people do not believe it. Many simple do not WANT to. They can not abide the truth of it, and what they see as the implications of that truth. And if there is one thing we know about our species is that our "rationality" is all too often over shadowed by the heart. We are convinced as a species by arguments from emotion rather than rationality.

Our species wants to believe it is special, something more, something above and separate from the animal kingdom. Shakespeares "How like a god". And the implications of Evolutionary Theory chop such rhetoric off at the knees.

floggg

Cianmcliam wrote: »

In theory it sounds plausible, however I just can't see how the math can stack up on this. Take the hypothesis discussed earlier in the thread, that a set of genes that contributed to having a gay male child might make female relatives slightly more fertile. This just doesn't seem to balance out.

A super-fertile female simply can't produce many more children than a normaly healthy female because they can't avoid the 9 months gestation and subsequent weaning period that other mothers also can't avoid. They also have a finite amount of time, until the middle of their fourth decade, before their reproduction stops altogether.
The homosexual male could well forfeit any amount of children almost up to his death bed, could be several dozen in polygamous societies or raiding tribes. The families with homosexual males in their line would then be replaced in the population by those whose men were fond of one night stands, multiple wives and taking back many women during wars.

As I said before, there's surely genetic factors at play but I can't see a very good argument for it being an adaptation.

Disclaimer: I'm only speculating.

It may be over simplistic to consider only reproductive capacity without considering the effect of outside forces, and how any link between the two could have helped counter those outside forces.

Given that infant and maternal mortality rates would have been very high back then, the link between fertility and homosexuality may have paid off if the early humans lived know social/family groups and the non-breeding homosexuals contributed to child rearing.

So if we take a one in five child mortality rate, having am extra parent may have been able to lower that rate that to one in seven. For the group as a whole that would be sizeable I'm sure.

It may also have had a role in cases of maternal deaths - they would be able to pick up the slack in child raising and/or food gathering which boosted the childrens chances of survival.

In considering reproductive capacity, you should also factor in rates of infertility. If for example the rate was one in ten un the general population but one in fifteen or twenty for women carrying that gene, then you have a noticeable benefit already.

donegaLroad

Fluid intelligence and disorders such as Autism are the next step in human evolution. Interesting theory. There must be some explanation as why there is a huge surge in Autism. I know that science is also pointing the finger at IVF.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=25ppkyKUDEw