The evolution thread

Quote from: "dysfunction"

A pig cannot grow beyond a certain point because its skeletal structure would be unable to support its weight- and if pigs were selected to grow a radically different skeletal structure, they could grow much larger- but such a change would take millions of years (perhaps less with cleverly implemented artificial selection).

They don't need radical changes in structure, same structure only bigger, thicker and longer leg bones. There are decorative pigs that are no bigger than 50 lbs, and there are big ones 400 lbs ones, both have same skeletal structures, only difference - size. So if 50 pound one can be made into 400 pound one why stop there? Lets go to 40000 lbs. After all, elephants are bigger than pigs and they don't have radical differences in skeleton structure from pigs.

Elephants do have quite different bone densities, and yes, the proportions of their skeletal structures are quite different. This in no way proves your point. These are not limits placed upon evolution by its own nature, merely by the laws of physics. However, the laws of physics say little about generation of novel genetic information, structures, and functions.

A fly cannot resist impacts with a certain amount of force because the materials it is made of possess a certain inherent strength, determined by their chemistry.

Did you just say that limit of fly's change is determined by the chemistry of their bodies? Sounds like a limiting factor to me, does it not?[/quote]

Yes, but it is not a limiting factor evolution imposes on itself. None of your examples have anything to do with limits prohibiting changes of "kinds".

Elephants do have quite different bone densities

So why can't evolution just change bone density and size to accomodate change in mass?

Quote from: "googleSearch"

Did you just say that limit of fly's change is determined by the chemistry of their bodies? Sounds like a limiting factor to me, does it not?

Yes, but it is not a limiting factor evolution imposes on itself.

I don't care who or what imposes limits, I'm simply stating that they exist. If evolution cannot change chemistry of fly's shell so that it can survive a hit, than it surely cannot make a dog out of nondog.

So why can't evolution just change bone density and size to accomodate change in mass?

Nobody's saying it can't (well I'm saying that it can't do so to an arbitrary degree) but they're saying that eventually you will get a different kind.

If evolution cannot change chemistry of fly's shell so that it can survive a hit, than it surely cannot make a dog out of nondog.

I'm pretty sure that everybody here who supports evolution believes that it can change the chemical composition of organisms.

Quote from: "dysfunction"

Elephants do have quite different bone densities

So why can't evolution just change bone density and size to accomodate change in mass?

It certainly can.

I don't care who or what imposes limits, I'm simply stating that they exist. If evolution cannot change chemistry of fly's shell so that it can survive a hit, than it surely cannot make a dog out of nondog.

These limits are irrelevant to whether evolution can change kinds. Evolution will never produce a dog out of a nondog, because species are fluid. It doesn't require any generation to be radically different from the previous generation. Each generation will be the same species as its parents; but it may well not be the same species as its ancestors a hundred thousand generations back. There isn't some rigid line between one species and another. One generation will be almost-totally not a dog, and the next generation will be totally not a dog; but both will be the same species.

Each generation will be the same species as its parents; but it may well not be the same species as its ancestors a hundred thousand generations back. There isn't some rigid line between one species and another.

You probably want to rephrase that, possibly by adding "exactly" or "usually" in a few places.

A problem with determining where the species boundary actually took place is that the newly evolved kind is often geographically separated from its cousin.

There are decorative pigs that are no bigger than 50 lbs, and there are big ones 400 lbs ones, both have same skeletal structures, only difference - size. So if 50 pound one can be made into 400 pound one why stop there? Lets go to 40000 lbs. After all, elephants are bigger than pigs and they don't have radical differences in skeleton structure from pigs.

I know that creationists love pulling things out of ass, but this is enough. Elephants have many serious differences in skeleton structure.

Quote from: "dysfunction"

Elephants do have quite different bone densities

So why can't evolution just change bone density and size to accomodate change in mass?

I think it's important to realise that evolution is not trying to achieve anything.  The results of evolution happen because things that survive better last longer.  It's like water running down a slope - it doesn't do it because it wants to get to the bottom.  

If evolution cannot change chemistry of fly's shell so that it can survive a hit, than it surely cannot make a dog out of nondog.

Again it's important to understand that evolution does not have a goal - it's not trying to do anything.  Perhaps in millions of years flys will evolve to survive fly hits, perhaps they wont.  Does surviving a fly hit give a fly a better chance of long term survival?  Flies already breed very well.

I remember a while ago some people came up with some ideas of how people would evolve if we lived in space our whole lives - but this is a false premise.  Would people be more likely to breed with people with longer arms and shorter legs?  In today's society that seems very unlikely - so there is no reason to expect that evolution to occur simply because while there is a physical advantage if we lived in 0 gravity of having longer arms and shorter legs, it doesn't appear to give any reproductive advantage.

there is no reason to expect that evolution to occur simply because while there is a physical advantage if we lived in 0 gravity of having longer arms and shorter legs, it doesn't appear to give any reproductive advantage.

Every physical advantage is a reproductive advantage, since the longer you live the more time you have to um, do the dirty deed.

Quote from: "beast"

there is no reason to expect that evolution to occur simply because while there is a physical advantage if we lived in 0 gravity of having longer arms and shorter legs, it doesn't appear to give any reproductive advantage.

Every physical advantage is a reproductive advantage, since the longer you live the more time you have to um, do the dirty deed.

Not necessarily- the reason so many more diseases and such happen in old age is because we no longer are capable of reproducing by that point, so it doesn't matter what happens to us from an evolutionary standpoint. Of course the reasons why we don't continue to reproduce over our entire lifespans is more complex; Richard Dawkins goes into it at length in The Selfish Gene, which is probably the most concise, well-though exposition of evolution for non-scientists ever written.

Not necessarily- the reason so many more diseases and such happen in old age is because we no longer are capable of reproducing by that point, so it doesn't matter what happens to us from an evolutionary standpoint.

Okay granted, but if the physical advantage makes a difference between dying young or not, then it's a reproductive advantage.

Also, having old people around, traditionally, is a reproductive advantage for the group, since they often bear some of the burden of raising young.

Quote from: "dysfunction"

Not necessarily- the reason so many more diseases and such happen in old age is because we no longer are capable of reproducing by that point, so it doesn't matter what happens to us from an evolutionary standpoint.

Okay granted, but if the physical advantage makes a difference between dying young or not, then it's a reproductive advantage.

Also, having old people around, traditionally, is a reproductive advantage for the group, since they often bear some of the burden of raising young.

Even that isn't cast in stone... It's possible to be TOO physically strong... or fast... or whatever. The advantaged mutation is the one that best fits the available environment.

Evolution isn't 'trying' to make organisms better. But organisms best suited for whatever the environment happens to be will do better.

Once you get to highly developed animals like humans, though... natural selection gives way to societal selection. (Hmm.. is that even a scientific term?)

(Hmm.. is that even a scientific term?)

'Tis in my Anthropology class.

If evolution cannot change chemistry of fly's shell so that it can survive a hit, than it surely cannot make a dog out of nondog.

This particular logical fallacy happens to be the name of one of my favorite cartoons.

Quote from: "dysfunction"

Not necessarily- the reason so many more diseases and such happen in old age is because we no longer are capable of reproducing by that point, so it doesn't matter what happens to us from an evolutionary standpoint.

Okay granted, but if the physical advantage makes a difference between dying young or not, then it's a reproductive advantage.

Also, having old people around, traditionally, is a reproductive advantage for the group, since they often bear some of the burden of raising young.

But not if it doesn't give you an advantage in reproduction.  For example imagine a human mutation making people stronger.  Would stronger people have a greater chance of reproduction in our society today than normal people?

edit: what I wrote doesn't really make sense.  Sorry.  Obviously if a physical advantage gives you a reproductive advantage then it will probably become part of evolution.  What I was arguing in my above comment was that not all physical advantages are reproductive advantages.

Quote from: "Erasmus"

Quote from: "dysfunction"

Not necessarily- the reason so many more diseases and such happen in old age is because we no longer are capable of reproducing by that point, so it doesn't matter what happens to us from an evolutionary standpoint.

Okay granted, but if the physical advantage makes a difference between dying young or not, then it's a reproductive advantage.

Also, having old people around, traditionally, is a reproductive advantage for the group, since they often bear some of the burden of raising young.

But not if it doesn't give you an advantage in reproduction.  For example imagine a human mutation making people stronger.  Would stronger people have a greater chance of reproduction in our society today than normal people?

edit: what I wrote doesn't really make sense.  Sorry.  Obviously if a physical advantage gives you a reproductive advantage then it will probably become part of evolution.  What I was arguing in my above comment was that not all physical advantages are reproductive advantages.

You can't apply a direct parallel in human mutations and non human mutations. Let me rephrase that... There is a ...curve of societal override to natural selection in social animals, the more social a population of animals is, the more it's 'view of beauty' override simple niche filling. I.E. 'Selecting a mate for beauty' overrides selecting a mate because it lived long enough.

'Beauty selection' is part of the exceedingly complex topic of 'sexual selection'. Non-human animals certainly do select mates based on beauty; why do you think male peacocks have such extravagant plumage?

All I'm saying is, if you live longer, you get more opportunities to reproduce, though I admit that this works only up to the point where you become sterile in your old age.

As for "societal selection", how about "social selection".  Relatedly, there's also "memetic evolution".

Your evolution is your religion, and that's fine, just don't call it science. Because a real scientist will investigate the facts and draw conclusions, whereas you already have your conclusion and deny facts that don't fit it.

can you prove this?

Quote from: "MaDeR"

Not to mention that dinos can't survive without their own whole ecology, plant-eaters, predators, preys, parasites etc. Such ecological systems are impossible to hide completely. In other words, if alive dinos exists today, they're would be in zoos and biology books like all other species, for example birds.

How do you know what dinos needs to survive if you deny that they exist? Do you have this knowlage because you saw bones of one in the museum?

its not just piles of bones we dig up. associated fossils, and the type of rock they are in can tell us about their environment. you can even find fossilized food within the tibcages of some mesozoic reptiles, and even pebbles inside sauropods which they must have swallowed.

it's not guesswork you know. we know quite a lot.

Didn't you say that aminoacids from which your abiogenesis started were deposited on Earth by an asteroid? Since aminoacids cannot fly or survive in space they were probably enclosed in rocky shell of an asteroid, so if it wasn't for the the asteroid's rocky shell you'd have no abiogenesis and no evolution. Hence: you come from a space rock, accept it and get over it.

huh?
some people think this, yes.
but it is suprising what complex molecules you can find in space. there is a nebula somewhere, its spectrograph implies that it contains cellulose. (from John Gribbin: Genesis)

You should probably review you theory once again, especially its timeline, and don't forget to look up the reason why mamals' evolution took off, and the reason why dino fossils are found in lower layers of strata.

still haven't got to grips with radiometric dating then?

guess what: it is reliable. and it can be verified with non-radiometric methods. we can easily prove that the half-lives of the isotopes we use have not changed over the age of the earth.

And if you believe that river carved that canyon, you better check the elevations of the river and canyon, make a chart and put on it elevations from the beginning of that river all the way to the end of canyon. And since you "understand both the theory of evolution and the declaration of creationism" you should discover a very interesting fact. And while you do that keep in mind that river do not flow uphill

a) evolution has nothing to do with geology

2) the western US has been / is being uplifted due to the orogeny forming the Rockies. check a geological map - see all the reverse faults?

You probably haven't been around animals much, have you? Or been very hungry yourself. When I was 15 my grandma had a cat, forgot the name of it, but that cat prefered cucumbers and bananas to meat, and was completely healthy.

tried to feed a lion solely on fruit for over a month? or a vulture?

what about flukes, eyeworms and other parasites? what did they eat? the salty sea would have killed them so Noah would have had to look after them.

So why can't evolution just change bone density and size to accomodate change in mass?

if a slight change brings about an advantage, then it will. you can get pygmy elephants on indonesian islands, cant you?

I don't care who or what imposes limits, I'm simply stating that they exist. If evolution cannot change chemistry of fly's shell so that it can survive a hit, than it surely cannot make a dog out of nondog.

its hardly a common scenario though. the vast majority of flies probably never even encounter a fly swat.  if, say, a million flies are swatted and killed by humans each year, what bearing would it have on the countless billions and billions that live and die without encountering a flyswat. Flyswat resistance would barely be an advantage worth having. all that energy put into making an ultra-resistant exoskeleton, and it probably wont even need it.

and its pretty hard to swat a fly anyway. arent they good enough survivors as it is?

To anybody who is interested, Answers in Genesis has a scholarship for the person who writes the best research paper about the topic described on their site.  The scholarship is worth $50,000 to Liberty University for the best paper.  I think the paper has to support Creationism and attempt to shed bad light on evolution (prove it wrong or something).  Info can be found here:  http://www.answersingenesis.org/cec/research-paper-challenge/

AiG has absolutely no credibility whatsoever. Check out this little gem from their 'Statement of Faith':

No apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record.

AiG has absolutely no credibility whatsoever

I understand your concerns.  Certainly their beliefs are dogmatic and do not follow the requirements to be good philosophy (or good thinking) in that they break the requirement of "Adequacy" (an interpretive scheme needs to be able to incorporate new information/data).  However, I see value in keeping an open mind about any and all beliefs, as we can never be sure what is really true.

I see value in keeping an open mind about any and all beliefs, as we can never be sure what is really true.

I agree.  For my part I will keep in mind the possibility that the Bible is literally true, to be confirmed the day the Lord himself comes down from on high and Rapture begins.  Other than that, I don't see how the possibility that the Bible might be literally true can lead to any new discoveries about the universe, so its status will be relegated to "Sure I guess so maybe so what?"

AiG has absolutely no credibility whatsoever. Check out this little gem from their 'Statement of Faith':

Quote from: "AiG"

No apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record.

Aig might have no credibility but they're willing to give you $50,000 if you can write a convincing pro-creationism paper!

I have no morals *starts writing paper*

Do you think they would get angry if I won and then they found out I was an athiest/nihilist?

I have no morals *starts writing paper*

Do you think they would get angry if I won and then they found out I was an athiest/nihilist?

Maybe.  Do you think you would get angry if you won and then found out that the money is only good at a school founded by Jerry Falwell?