NationStates Jolt Archive

Especially for Bruarong.

In the sister thread to this we (debatably) seemed to come to the conclusion that ID is not science. However, the esteemed member for Bruarong, Mr. Bruarong, asserted that evolution is not science either. I'm going to try to set down some parallel rules to guide a debate into this. Hopefully my bias wont make these too unfair compared with the other thread.

Rules and Points-Of-Order:

1) Evolution here refers to the origin of species. Biodiversity if you will. NOT other areas of science such as Big Bang Theory, or Abiogenesis. Differences in methodology such as natural selection, random mutation, sexual selection, and neutral selection are allowed to be debated to explain their importance to evolution

2) No mention, let alone attacks, on the Intelligent Design. This is NOT an "evolution vs ID" thread. This is merely a place to state the case for Evolution. As with other ideas in science it should be able to state a hypothesis independent of other theories.

3) You must supply testable and falsifiable hypotheses that Evolution predicts. Without this vital requirement of scientific hypotheses, science would be entirely meaningless as we could come up with any reasonable sounding explanation we wanted without providing evidence to back it up....

4) Thus, you must provide evidence to back up your hypothesis. Science does not give absolute truth or "proof" of its theories and the same rule applies here. However, evidence supporting the hypothesis is vital.

Note: I invite Bruarong (and any other anti-evolutionist) to reply to this to comment on how these rules may not parallel the other thread closely enough or to make any further comments needed to introduce the topic.

When evolution was first proposed we knew nothing of DNA or mutations, yet it was evident that there must be a mechanism to pass hereditary traits to the next generation, and there must be a way for those traits to change in order to povide new behaviors, biochemical pathways, and physical forms for natural selection to work on. So, without any knowledge of DNA and mutation evolution predicted that such a thing must exist. That prediction was later confirmed. That supports evolution.

The Evidence link: Exhaustive page on the evolution (through natural selection) of the European peppered moth (http://www.evowiki.org/wiki.phtml?title=Peppered_moth)

The Disclaimer:
I've taken this as an example since it is one of the most exhaustive documented cases of micro-evolution. That is why I also think I can link to an article relating to this moth on a site that has it's roots in the talkorigins usenet group and corresponding website; There is simply to much information about this moth to surpress anything that would go against the evolution theory.

In short:
This moth is a case for natural selection as vector for evolution.

This moth lives on birch trees. Before the industrial revolution in GB this moth was white (with some black speckles to mimic birch bark better). During the industrial revolution in the phase where the steam engines were belching out black soot that covered the white birch, a mutation occurred. Instead of white with black speckles a moth that was black with white speckles started flying around. As it was better camouflaged it survived while the white versions got eaten. around 1900 almost all these moths were black. After introduction of cleaner engines and mandatory maximums to the amount of pollution the number of white moths increased again due to birch trees being white again, to the point that in some places the are almost no black moths anymore.

Cichlids in Lake Victoria as evidence for speciation by sexual selection.

First, let me state that I support evolution through mutation and natural selection as the only rational explanation for biodiversity on this planet. But there is a major problem with scientific evidence to date, as exhibited above: intra-species changes through natural selection have been observed over and over again, but no inter-spieces, i.e. dog to cat, rodent to wolverine, etc. has ever been observed, and that is the stumbling block for anti-evolutionists. The main reason for a lackof evidence is lack of historical soft-tissue. There is likely some prehistoric mammal in the fossel record that spans several millions of years with no fossel change, but if we had soft tissue dna samples we might see thousands of mutated changes from two identical critters millions of years apart. This would allow this undoubtedly little guy to, perhaps when preditor populations are removed, evolve into hundreds of different species in a very short period of time.

Anti-evolutionists have no idea what 500 million years is! Sure, no particular accidental slopping together of chemicals and lightening has a chance to develop that first sting of dna. It is extremely improbable. But millions of accidental slopping together of chemicals and lightening every hour,for 500 million years makes it not only likely, but inevitable. Purely from a mathmatical perspective, life had to happen, since we know the proper combination of things will allow it to happen. Same mathmatical probibilities can be applied to mutations. It had to happen.

First, let me state that I support evolution through mutation and natural selection as the only rational explanation for biodiversity on this planet. But there is a major problem with scientific evidence to date, as exhibited above: intra-species changes through natural selection have been observed over and over again, but no inter-spieces, i.e. dog to cat, rodent to wolverine, etc. has ever been observed, and that is the stumbling block for anti-evolutionists. The main reason for a lackof evidence is lack of historical soft-tissue. There is likely some prehistoric mammal in the fossel record that spans several millions of years with no fossel change, but if we had soft tissue dna samples we might see thousands of mutated changes from two identical critters millions of years apart. This would allow this undoubtedly little guy to, perhaps when preditor populations are removed, evolve into hundreds of different species in a very short period of time.

Anti-evolutionists have no idea what 500 million years is! Sure, no particular accidental slopping together of chemicals and lightening has a chance to develop that first sting of dna. It is extremely improbable. But millions of accidental slopping together of chemicals and lightening every hour,for 500 million years makes it not only likely, but inevitable. Purely from a mathmatical perspective, life had to happen, since we know the proper combination of things will allow it to happen. Same mathmatical probibilities can be applied to mutations. It had to happen.
Click this link for evolution from one species to another that has been documented and observed.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/05/2/l_052_05.html

I have a couple of posts, for what they're worth.

As nomenclature goes, i don't have much time so i'll clip & paste from my saved files.

---
Inter-Species Breeding
U.S. researchers discovered that two animal species can interbreed and
evolve into an entirely new species by moving to a different habitat.
Publishing in the journal Nature, study leader Dietmar Schwarz of
Pennsylvania State University says they found that two animal species can
become one, as opposed to the more common mechanism in which a single
species splits to form two. The discovery was made when they observed a new
fruit fly species being spawned when one species switched its food source to
a non-native honeysuckle plant in the northeastern United States, then
cross-bred with other fruit flies to create hybrids. (Earthweek News, July
29 2005)
-----
Distribution and evolution of the Anopheles punctulatus group (Diptera:
Culicidae) in Australia and Papua New Guinea.

Beebe NW, Cooper RD.
Molecular Parasitology Unit, University of Technology, Westbourne Street,
Gore Hill, 2065, Sydney, NSW, Australia. nigel.beebe@uts.edu.au
The members of the Anopheles punctulatus group are major vectors of malaria
and Bancroftian filariasis in the southwest Pacific region. The group is
comprised of 12 cryptic species that require DNA-based tools for species
identification. From 1984 to 1998 surveys were carried out in northern
Australia, Papua New Guinea and on islands in the southwest Pacific to determine the distribution of the A. punctulatus group. The results of these
surveys have now been completed and have generated distribution data from
more than 1500 localities through this region. Within this region several
climatic and geographical barriers were identified that restricted species
distribution and gene flow between geographic populations. This information
was further assessed in light of a molecular phylogeny derived from the
ssrDNA (18S). Subsequently, hypotheses have been generated on the evolution
and distribution of the group so that future field and laboratory studies
may be approached more systematically. This study suggested that the ability
for widespread dispersal was found to have appeared independently in species that show niche-specific habitat preference (Anopheles farauti s.s. and A.
punctulatus) and conversely in species that showed diversity in their larval
habitat (Anopheles farauti 2). Adaptation to the monsoonal climate of
northern Australia and southwest Papua New Guinea was found to have appeared
independently in A. farauti s.s., A. farauti 2 and Anopheles farauti 3.
Shared or synapomorphic characters were identified as saltwater tolerance
(A. farauti s.s. and Anopheles farauti 7) and elevational affinities above
1500 m (Anopheles farauti 5, Anopheles farauti 6 and A. farauti 2).
--

1) Evolution here refers to the origin of species. Biodiversity if you will. NOT other areas of science such as Big Bang Theory, or Abiogenesis. Differences in methodology such as natural selection, random mutation, sexual selection, and neutral selection are allowed to be debated to explain their importance to evolution
Sounds fine, though the line between Abiogenesis and evolution is a blurry one (ie, does one start with self-replicating amino acids, or cells, or what?)

2) No mention, let alone attacks, on the Intelligent Design. This is NOT an "evolution vs ID" thread. This is merely a place to state the case for Evolution. As with other ideas in science it should be able to state a hypothesis independent of other theories.
Sounds good.

3) You must supply testable and falsifiable hypotheses that Evolution predicts. Without this vital requirement of scientific hypotheses, science would be entirely meaningless as we could come up with any reasonable sounding explanation we wanted without providing evidence to back it up....

Preamble: Evolution began somewhere around three and a half billion years ago, when the first self-replecating organic molecules (essentially free-floating RNA) originated in numerous locations across the globe, as long chains of amino acids (around 100-1000 of them) through a process known as abiogenisis, which will not be dicussed as per the rules. Like RNA, they acted as catalysts in chemical reactions that generated--more of themselves.

These extremely primitive predecessors to life were, of course, in passive "competition" for resources: stray molecules to build themselves out of, and the energy to do it with (sunlight), and to fulfil the all-important act of not getting destroyed before they could reproduce. Complexity filled these roles, most especially the last. This passive competition for greater survivability led to a process known as chemical evolution. Acid chains with greater chances of survival and self-replecation generated more copies of themselves--the evolutionary definition of success. Evolution's process will be discussed in greater depth later.

Certain types of fatty acids are capable of spontaniously having their hydrophobic tails transform into a lipid membrane -- a semipermiable protective bag around the proto-RNA. These membrane-surrounded long chains of amino acids formed the first protocells. The development of these into modern cells, from those into mulitcellular organisms, and from those into primitive plants, animals, and fungi follows the same basic pattern of self-replecation, competition, and mutation leading, in some cases, to increases in complexity.

Evolution-the basic idea:
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/editpost.php?do=editpost&p=9371249

Sample Generation 1:
10,000 squirrils are born in population X. 5,000 of them have less than average extra skin between their front and back legs, and 5,000 of them have more than average. 1,000 of them have very slight amounts of extra skin, and 1,000 have a very large amount. Just like half the human population has slightly longer arms than the other half, and a few have very long or very short arms.

Here is a bell curve to show what I mean.
http://img313.imageshack.us/img313/6263/bellcurve6nq.th.jpg (http://img313.imageshack.us/my.php?image=bellcurve6nq.jpg)

I'm going to talk about the middle population for the moment; I'll come back to the outliers in a minute.

The 8,000 in between the two extremes stay in the current habitat, jumping spread-eagle through the trees (a fairly obvious behavioral adaptation, so simple that it could be re-learned each generation by trial and error). The ones with slightly more extra skin can jump slightly farther, and therefore can exploit a larger environment for more food, can escape more predators, and can look more strong and manly when competing for chicks. For this reason, the ones with more extra skin will have more babies before dying than their less-skin siblings did. This will result in the next generation having slightly more skin than the former, as a whole.

HOWEVER! The same degree of deviation from average will still occur. This is the linchpin of evolution. There will still be 50% of the population with less than average amount of extra skin and 50% with more, but that is only "average" relative to the other squirrils. Relative to the original population, almost all the squirrils have more than the original average. The average has moved, because the half on the right side of the bell curve reproduced more. (bear in mind that the second generation would actually be much larger than the first, given the rate at which rodents reproduce; the second bell curve should have greater area, which I did not include because I thought it would be confusing)

So, for the next generation, we move the bell curve.
http://img313.imageshack.us/img313/6011/bellcurve26rz.th.jpg (http://img313.imageshack.us/my.php?image=bellcurve26rz.jpg)

See, the deviation from average is the same. What is different, is that the average line has moved! The number of squirrils in the second generation with what was, before, considdered a slightly below normal amount of extra skin are now the bottom of the barrel, the nerds of the squirril high school. They are not as capable of getting food and escaping predators, or at getting chicks. They are an evolutionary dead end.

This will keep going on, every generation, until they have reached the proper level of extra skin for their environment. The incriments of change we are talking about here are really quite slight, maybe a milimeter on average per two or three generations. Maybe in a hundred thousand years, they will develop wide flaps, unless the environment changes in the mean while, and being able to run faster on long limbs without extra skin tripping you up becomes an advantage and reverses the process, or something of the sort.

---

Now, on to those 1000 and 1000 I talked about earlier.

Say 1000 of the original population had very slight extra skin..

So slight, in fact, that they were really quite bad at jumping. They just couldn't keep up with their fellows on the upper branches.

However, they could run significantly faster. Some of them noticed that there were a lot of nuts on the forest floor, and dared descend from the trees to forrage. (Though most of the population still stayed up in the trees and interbred as well as it could with the more-extra-skin variety) Since they were fast on their feet, they could escape to the trees when trouble came, unlike their more skin-heavy cousins.

Of those that decided to go down, not up, the ones that learned to exploit the forest floor were more capable of surviving long enough to reproduce, and therefore in successive generations the bell curve moved to favor traits on the squirrels that were favorable to getting stuff from the ground, picking it up, and running away from predators on the ground. Unable to survive uplevels, but thriving down below, the descendants of the ones of the original 1000 that stayed below, stayed on the ground and interbred with others that had stayed, not interbreeding with the upper-levels ones.

Over time, the downlevels descendants began to walk the bell curve further and further towards downlevel life. Ones with eyes with better periferal vision could see enemies approaching easier, and binocular vision was not terribly important. Ones with lighter tails, for speed, were prefered. Ones with fur tones that matched the earth more than the others fur were prefered. Over hundreds of thousands of years, the species slowly changed.

Some time, maybe 100,000 generations after the first generation we looked at, one of the distant descendants of the ones that came down from the tree had changed so much in one direction, while the descendants of those that had stayed in the trees had moved in their own direction, that the downlevels squirrels were unable to breed with the uplevels squirrils and produce, on a regular basis, sexually potent offspring.

Speciation had occurred. There were now officially two species of squirrel. One that dwelt in the trees, had big flaps of skin, and lept from treetop to treetop, and one that dwelt on the ground and only came up into the lower llevels of the trees for shelter, being unable to jump the long distances in the upper forest canopy.

The available data show that a: species tend to have aspects benefitial to the environment of their origin; b: many extinct species are remarkably similar to modern species, usually modern species living in environments similar to the extinct species' environments; c: Organisms exist at all stages of complexity; d: Many extinct organisms resemble more than one modern organism, and many resemble a modern organism and a still more ancient organism at the same time, found in the same place. The more ancient the organism, the more threads of alike-looking fossils leading to modern organisms will begin at it.

Hypothesis: Organisms reproduce, creating similar, but slightly different versions of themselves. Sometimes the difference is more pronounced, caused, not from a slightly new rearangement of the genetic code, but from a large change in it--this change is known as a mutation.

When the difference is benefitial, it will cause an organism to be more successful in its environment. Beneficiality is determined on the basis of it making the organism either naturally selected (survives longer and mates more) sexually selected (another member of the same species with opposite sex is more willing to reproduce with it, leading to more offspring).

Over many mutations, the difference will become so great, (sometimes assisted by the process of reinforcement, as described above with the squirrels) that the new breed will be unable to reproduce sexually potent offspring with the original species, or another branch of that species. When this occurs, speciation has taken place. Speciation acts as its own form of reinforcement, causing the developmental paths, determined by natural and sexual selection, to split and develop independantly.


4) Thus, you must provide evidence to back up your hypothesis. Science does not give absolute truth or "proof" of its theories and the same rule applies here. However, evidence supporting the hypothesis is vital.

Note: I invite Bruarong (and any other anti-evolutionist) to reply to this to comment on how these rules may not parallel the other thread closely enough or to make any further comments needed to introduce the topic.

Evidence: speciation has been observed many times. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html#part5

Mutation is obvious to anyone who has even a rudimentary knowledge of why AIDS is so horrific a disease.

I would recomend that anyone interested in this subject go to the library and checkout the November 2004 copy of "National Geographic" US edition, pgs 2-35--This gives an easy to read explanation of How the theory came to be, what the evidence is, and how it is used in a practical way, especially in medicine.

Evolution has been shown in laboratory experiments with simple, fast reproducing species. The fight against HIV/AIDS is a fight to adapt medicine faster that the virus can adapt to medicine.

Farmers, like myself, deal with the basics of the theory every day. Disease, insects, and all kinds of simple life adapt to pesticides at an amazing rate. New species, such as the milo green bug that nearly wiped out sorghum production in the US about 40 years ago, come to be. With the science of genetic engineering, humans are developing new creatures. If science can do it, surely nature also can. This human tampering is also a concern because nature is changing species using human developed genetic material. "Roundup Ready" soybeans may be releasing human made genetic material into the wild.

Science can be wrong. But so can religious theory. The earth is not the center of the universe. When that theory was first stated, Christians saw it as an attack on religion. Today some Christians would like an inquisition against evolution. As a Christian, I see no conflict and no reason for this paranoia. Christianity survived the earth becoming a minor planet. It will survive this. God spoke in parables in the NT, since God doesn't change, I believe God spoke in parables in the OT. God gives us what we can understand. Could Moses and his followers comprehend a million years, I Can't.

i love talk.origins :)

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution = http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

In addition, there's predictive thought backed up later.

* Snakes presumed to have evolved from tetrapods - later, _Haasiophis_ and _Pachyrachis_ are found, snakes with tiny limbs complete down to the toes.

* Cetaceans from land tetrapods - this is well covered over on talkorigins.org

* Sirenians from land tetrapods - predicted to come from four legged animals - hello _Pezosiren_, a fossil sirenian with four complete legs.

* Tyrannosaurids thought to have descended from small theropods close to the ancestry of birds - late last year, _Dilong paradoxus_ appears, a small basal tyrannosauroid with three fingered hands, and feathery coating.

Unfortunately, to staunch anti-evolutionists, this all looks like gibberish to them. I'm just waiting for the first one (who obviously didn't read the thread,) to bring up one of 3 things:

1. The Big Bang

2. Abiogenesis

3. "It's just a theory!"

I don't really care what people believe. They can teach ID in private schools, but in public secularized schools they should remove all religious beliefs and stick to science.

*BUMP*-ies

I would recomend that anyone interested in this subject go to the library and checkout the November 2004 copy of "National Geographic" US edition, pgs 2-35--This gives an easy to read explanation of How the theory came to be, what the evidence is, and how it is used in a practical way, especially in medicine.

Would you have the title of that article?

I believe that evolution is the theroy that fits the world best (please excuse the spelling i've got a genetic condition that fucks some things up like spelling and stuff)

I'm speaking as a biology student at a university with an exceptional reputation for biology (for its size its incredable as it is only 12,000 people in an area described by the EU as a poverty black spot and this is compared to eastern europe and the balkens!!!)

One thing religious people (i'm talking about the ones that think darwin should have been burnt etc etc not the ones who are moderate and think we should all think what we think) think is that we believe in darwins theroy of evolution like they do the bible (or other book of religion)

for me its just the theroy that fits the facts best

intra-species changes through natural selection have been observed over and over again, but no inter-spieces, i.e. dog to cat, rodent to wolverine, etc. has ever been observed, and that is the stumbling block for anti-evolutionists.

In the Nov. 2004 National Geographic mentioned above. Pg. 30--35 generations of fruit flies produced "inncipient" species in the lab. Also E. Coli species have been produced in the lab.

In order to observe the change it takes generations of interbreeding. This can only be done within the life of a scientist in the lab by quick reproducing species. For that reason you won't live long enough to see a new mammal in the lab through ordinary breeding. It has been done through genetic engineering in plants.

New species are NOT produced by hybridization, ie. cat and dog mating. They are produced when a small number of a species are isolated and interbred. When one advantage comes about by chance, IN ONLY ONE INDIVIDUAL creature that helps survival, father-daughter, brother-sister, son-mother breeding isolates that change. When enough of these changes happen, that small population will no longer be able to breed outside their group. A New species has developed. Because it takes a very small population to conserve a change, the odds of finding that small group in nature is slight. To find it in the fossil record, nearly impossible. Very few individuals were fossilized. To find one of the original group .......

In the Nov. 2004 National Geographic mentioned above. Pg. 30--35 generations of fruit flies produced "inncipient" species in the lab. Also E. Coli species have been produced in the lab.

In order to observe the change it takes generations of interbreeding. This can only be done within the life of a scientist in the lab by quick reproducing species. For that reason you won't live long enough to see a new mammal in the lab through ordinary breeding. It has been done through genetic engineering in plants.

New species are NOT produced by hybridization, ie. cat and dog mating. They are produced when a small number of a species are isolated and interbred. When one advantage comes about by chance, IN ONLY ONE INDIVIDUAL creature that helps survival, father-daughter, brother-sister, son-mother breeding isolates that change. When enough of these changes happen, that small population will no longer be able to breed outside their group. A New species has developed. Because it takes a very small population to conserve a change, the odds of finding that small group in nature is slight. To find it in the fossil record, nearly impossible. Very few individuals were fossilized. To find one of the original group .......
Spelling change---incipient--just one "n"