Evolution

[Stefan Bauwens]

Double post.

 

[KERFUFFLE]

On the contrary, this article from a perfectly reputable source suggests the beneficial effects of mutations as well as the fact that they may well be adding to genetic material: https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13673-evolution-myths-mutations-can-only-destroy-information.html

The fact that we are all able to find good sources to support what we believe about evolution establishes how much we as humans still don't know know about evolution and how much some pieces of information fly in the face of others and yet are equally credible.

Therefore, can we please refrain from the use of the words "right" and "wrong" when discussing what we think of other members posts? This is a debate, where everybody's opinion is of value, whoever's side of information or theory it supports. So far everybody seems to have expressed their opinion with enough knowledge that makes what they believe seem perfectly plausible. Until scientists find absolute proof of one thing or another, are we not all as right as each other?

Personally I'm not sure whether mutations can add genetic material, or if they simply alter it- I don't know enough about this particular part of it to say. Either way I don't think it has to mean evolution isn't taking place in some form if it's change rather than addition.

Edit note 10:21pm : Not sure what's happened to the link at the moment... Maybe a website error? Sorry if it's stopped working altogether...

 

[Moussette]

The fact that we are all able to find good sources to support what we believe about evolution establishes how much we as humans still don't know know about evolution and how much some pieces of information fly in the face of others and yet are equally credible.

+1

I personnaly think that to be able to discuss such a subject, we must read / learn about it from every kind of source possible.

As for my personal opinion (i'm a cosmology nerd btw) about the vague subject of the evolution :

I agree with the Big Bang theory that says that the universe was created 13.8 billions of years ago or so.

Then the supernovae were created.. the galaxies.... the stars... Planets... moons...

And the lucky planet called Earth ,wich gathers everything necessary to welcome life : the right sun, the right distance from the sun, water, giant planets in the sun system.........

After millions of chaotic years, simple, unicellular life forms started to emerge.

Here is a cute and simple video of what it's all about :

//www.tamatalk.com/IB/applications/core/interface/js/spacer.png


But then again, there is no real proof that this theory is the right one... Same goes for the existance of a god, who created the universe, or us.

I'm trying to be as impartial as possible but... We could say that Cosmology is my religion so...

 

[Midorime]

Um, I would be leery of sites that are not credible. Angelfire is not a credible hosting site, the people could have written anything.

 

[Stefan Bauwens]

Um, I would be leery of sites that are not credible. Angelfire is not a credible hosting site, the people could have written anything.

It doesn't really matter if it's angelfire.

Doesn't mean that if you don't have the money to pay your own hosting site that everything you say is most likely false. Anyway, he's quoting out of a book, published by a doctor. So, I believe it's quite credible.

 

[hwd45]

//www.tamatalk.com/IB/applications/core/interface/js/spacer.png Another great video for those who are interested

 

[Midorime]

It doesn't really matter if it's angelfire.

Doesn't mean that if you don't have the money to pay your own hosting site that everything you say is most likely false. Anyway, he's quoting out of a book, published by a doctor. So, I believe it's quite credible.

If this were the case, we'd be allowed to use such sites in our Works Cited for research and debate papers in school. But we can't, now can we use Wiki. Things can be altered very easily on various websites. More trust sites would be news sites, government sites, health and science sites, etc. And if it's out of the book, you'd need to get that book and directly quote it, then cite it appropriately. Since we don't have the book, we cannot verify if it's directly quoted and true.

It's the internet, don't believe everything that is posted.

 

[Stefan Bauwens]

Found this interesting article: https://english.pravda.ru/science/earth/10-04-2009/107388-microevolution-0/

 

[hwd45]

Found this interesting article: https://english.pravda.ru/science/earth/10-04-2009/107388-microevolution-0/

Although the article does make a lot of false claims. For example,
'Evolutionists have nothing else to rely on except random genetic mutations caused by random forces of the environment, such as radiation, to make their theory work.'

Well... they don't. There's a vast amount of evidence for evolution. Am I saying that that evidence only points towards evolution? No, but am saying that the evidence is undeniable fact. And evolution doesn't rely on 'Random forces' and genetic mutations aren't only caused by radiation as they'd make it seem. There's no particular 'force' involved with the process and it's certainly not a random path of mutations.

 

[Stefan Bauwens]

Well, isn't the whole idea of evolution not mainly based on the mutations that happen?

The thing is there is a VERY big difference between mutation and evolution.

 

[hwd45]

I think you misunderstood what I was saying a little Indeed, there is a HUGE difference between mutations and evolution.

...Not sure what else to say really? The point is that the process that causes 'micro-evolution' is pretty much identical to the process that causes 'macro-evolution', only they happen over different time periods.

The example the article used was that different breeds and variations of dog and other animals are due to 'micro-evolution'. A variation in a certain species is usually the natural variation caused due there being a massive amount of genes in every animal... Dog breeds work a little different since they're actually the product of domestication, a human driven process that favours particular genes but not necessarily the ones necessary for survival. 'Macro-evolution' is essentially the same process but isn't caused by human activity, so there's no reason why it wouldn't work if 'micro-evolution' does. That's kind of the idea behind the theory!

Sorry if that sounded like I was saying that evolution is a thing despite people having different opinions on the matter, but that's what I believe. I would have re-worded it to make it sound more open to different beliefs if I knew how xD

 

[Midorime]

Here are excerpts from the Merriam-Webster Encyclopedia:

evolution
Biological theory that animals and plants have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations. It is one of the keystones of modern biological theory. In 1858 Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace jointly published a paper on evolution. The next year Darwin presented his major treatise On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, which revolutionized all later biological study. The heart of Darwinian evolution is the mechanism of natural selection. Surviving individuals, which vary (see variation) in some way that enables them to live longer and reproduce, pass on their advantage to succeeding generations. In 1937 Theodosius Dobzhansky applied Mendelian genetics (see Gregor Mendel) to Darwinian theory, contributing to a new understanding of evolution as the cumulative action of natural selection on small genetic variations in whole populations. Part of the proof of evolution is in the fossil record, which shows a succession of gradually changing forms leading up to those known today. Structural similarities and similarities in embryonic development among living forms also point to common ancestry. Molecular biology (especially the study of genes and proteins) provides the most detailed evidence of evolutionary change. Though the theory of evolution is accepted by nearly the entire scientific community, it has sparked much controversy from Darwin's time to the present; many of the objections have come from religious leaders and thinkers (see creationism) who believe that elements of the theory conflict with literal interpretations of the Bible. See also Hugo de Vries, Ernst Haeckel, human evolution, Ernst Mayr, parallel evolution, phylogeny, sociocultural evolution, speciation.

natural selection
Process that results in adaptation of an organism to its environment by means of selectively reproducing changes in its genotype. Variations that increase an organism's chances of survival and procreation are preserved and multiplied from generation to generation at the expense of less advantageous variations. As proposed by Charles Darwin, natural selection is the mechanism by which evolution occurs. It may arise from differences in survival, fertility, rate of development, mating success, or any other aspect of the life cycle. Mutation, gene flow, and genetic drift, all of which are random processes, also alter gene abundance. Natural selection moderates the effects of these processes because it multiplies the incidence of beneficial mutations over generations and eliminates harmful ones, since the organisms that carry them leave few or no descendants. See also selection.

mutation
Alteration in the genetic material of a cell that is transmitted to the cell's offspring. Mutations may be spontaneous or induced by outside factors (mutagens). They take place in the genes, occurring when one base is substituted for another in the sequence of bases that determines the genetic code, or when one or more bases are inserted or deleted from a gene. Many mutations are harmless, often masked by the presence of a dominant normal gene (see dominance). Some have serious consequences; for example, a particular mutation inherited from both parents results in sickle-cell anemia. Only mutations that occur in the *** cells (eggs or sperm) can be transmitted to the individual's offspring. Alterations caused by these mutations are usually harmful. In the rare instances in which a mutation produces a beneficial change, the percentage of organisms with this gene will tend to increase until the mutated gene becomes the norm in the population. In this way, beneficial mutations serve as the raw material of evolution.

 

[KERFUFFLE]

I know this isn't totally relevant to evolution, but since we're having the discussion about creationism versus science, I thought this might interest people since it links to the Big Bang- which of course started it all, if thats what you believe, and poses similar issues as evolution to creationists- and because it's at the cutting edge of current science:

Literally within the last couple of months, Physicists have discovered the "Higgs Boson" particle which supposedly holds the secrets to the existence of the universe and absolutely everything within it- to put it very simply, since I know nothing about Quantum Physics! The search for it has been going on for about 50 years and its discovery greatly strengthens the theory of the occurrence of the Big Bang, which already had considerable supporting evidence such as the continual expansion of the universe.

https://www.isciencetimes.com/articles/4701/20130314/higgs-boson-found-big-bang-theory-mysteries.htm

I just think it's amazing that these kinds of discoveries are happening right now. I mean, we're always taught theories that are often many years old and because of this sometimes it feels that we're not really making a lot of headway, but this discovery is brand new and opens up a whole new area of study for Physicists.

 

[hwd45]

I know this isn't totally relevant to evolution, but since we're having the discussion about creationism versus science, I thought this might interest people since it links to the Big Bang- which of course started it all, if thats what you believe, and poses similar issues as evolution to creationists- and because it's at the cutting edge of current science:

Literally within the last couple of months, Physicists have discovered the "Higgs Boson" particle which supposedly holds the secrets to the existence of the universe and absolutely everything within it- to put it very simply, since I know nothing about Quantum Physics! The search for it has been going on for about 50 years and its discovery greatly strengthens the theory of the occurrence of the Big Bang, which already had considerable supporting evidence such as the continual expansion of the universe.

https://www.isciencetimes.com/articles/4701/20130314/higgs-boson-found-big-bang-theory-mysteries.htm

I just think it's amazing that these kinds of discoveries are happening right now. I mean, we're always taught theories that are often many years old and because of this sometimes it feels that we're not really making a lot of headway, but this discovery is brand new and opens up a whole new area of study for Physicists.

I'm absolutely obsessed with Quantum Mechanics so the confirmation of the Higgs Boson was a BIG thing for me xD It's something that I find really interesting, and it's most likely going to be what I get a job in in the future if I don't choose to go down the Maths route.

 

[Midorime]

I'm absolutely obsessed with Quantum Mechanics so the confirmation of the Higgs Boson was a BIG thing for me xD It's something that I find really interesting, and it's most likely going to be what I get a job in in the future if I don't choose to go down the Maths route.

Watch out! We've got a Sheldon here! (Kudos if you know who he is.)

I'm not very math-y, sadly, but I do find it fascinating how we learn about and discover this stuff more and more.

 

[KERFUFFLE]

Watch out! We've got a Sheldon here! (Kudos if you know who he is.)

I'm not very math-y, sadly, but I do find it fascinating how we learn about and discover this stuff more and more.

Haha, I hope not! Sheldon is hilarious on the show, but I think in real life he'd just be a total pain (well, even more so than he usually is anyways!). But at the same time I really wish I was that smart xD

I agree though. I was pretty good at Maths when I had to take it, and Physics too, but Biology was definitely more my thing (not that I study that any more either- and plus, I think Sheldon would tell me off anyways), and I don't know the first thing about higher level Physics. But I still like reading up about the latest things going on, usually from an article not intended for any decent scientists out there but for those of us who didn't want to stick it out past GCSE

Anyways, to return to the article, it's really amazing to think we're around when what has been named as being probably the greatest scientific discovery of the last century. And, given the complexity of life and other substances on earth, the size of the planet and the universe, biologists, chemists and physicists will be able to make so many more. The Higgs Boson is surely going to open up the information about the origins of our universe and also, since it is in the makeup of everything, the origins of life on earth and where it came from.

 

[hwd45]

Watch out! We've got a Sheldon here! (Kudos if you know who he is.)

I'm not very math-y, sadly, but I do find it fascinating how we learn about and discover this stuff more and more.

Haha, yeah, people often point out my similarities with Sheldon Cooper :/

 

[Midorime]

Haha, yeah, people often point out my similarities with Sheldon Cooper :/

But he is the ultimate and awesome troll. That means you're awesome, too!

 

[VioletchiGirl]

I think evolution is pretty valid in it's evidence. I mean there's always the classic example of Darwin's finches on Galapagos but the bone structures of animals are pretty similar. The bone structure in a whale's fin is remarkably similar to a humans and I don't understand why this topic is controversial because why can't someone believe in religion and science?

If you compare Darwin's theory to Lamarck's theory it shows that Darwin's is more sensible. But still natural selection seems to be slow in humans, whether it's just because we don't really notice I'm not sure. But antibiotic resistant bacteria is a key example as well of evolution that even we struggle to control.

Although mutation and evolution are similar, they are not the same. People are different because of genetic mutation, hence the fittest survive. But cancer is incorrect DNA replication and not exactly the same because it isn't changes to adapt to the habitat like evolution is, it's a simple error made by the body ._.

 

[ForeverWaiting]

Evolution doesn't work in any singular direction it is simply the changes in the environment that favour (or not) certain traits within a population. This happens in colonies of bacteria all the time when antibiotics are introduced to the environment those whom have the resistance mutation will survive and proliferate and soon the entire population will have the mutation.
Yes evolution can be a very touchy topic in some places but religion and abortion are also very touchy.
I personally do believe in evolution, how else would multicellularity come about? If you look at unicellular organisms (trust me there are more on in and around 1 human than the entire human population just because you can't see them doesn't mean they aren't there. And not all bacteria are bad ones, you have natural bacteria on your hands that prevent more harmful ones from forming colonies) these seemingly simple organisms are complex and complete all the essential things that the human body does. They grow, reproduce, metabolize, digest, and move. Bacteria can even communicate between one another.
One cell is immensely complicated, a multicellular organism like a person, is a trillion times more complicated.
Think about it this way, how is the the human body held together and doesn't fall to peices at every second? How does every single cell know what it should be doing and when?

Side tracked much, evolution is a term that has been warped twisted and manipulated by pop culture (every day life basically) same way as the word cure is thrown around for something like type 1 diabetes. ( this is an autoimmune disease it's the body killing the cells that make insulin) there is no cure for that and probably won't be, what researches should be doing is trying to find prevention, or a way to manage the symptoms better (cough medicine does this when you are sick)
Evolution is simply defined: as the changing allele frequency in a population, that's it a genetic change, it is the progression of a population gaining a multitude of these changes, and if these changes are so great that this population now can no longer mate with a poplulation of the same species then that population has evolved.

Also in developmental biology there is a lab right now (can't remember which but we looked at it in ornitology and mammalogy ( university class on birds and mammals,birds have creepy feet anyways) ) and they were experimenting with the developmental pathways in chicken embryos to test to see if the ancient prehistoric DNA ( dinosaurs) was there and through the right cell signals they where actually able to have the chicken embryo develop a long tail (characteristic of dinosours) and the front limb claw appendages and I think a couple others as well and I feel that this is a strong reinforcement of the theory deviced by Charles Darwin himself.

(TM Edit: You can edit replies / add to them for up to 24hrs after posting. I merged your second post with this one.)