Evolution: Is it Real? Answers from Biologists

[selfAdjoint]

Immigration is a filter in and of itself; Only the more actve and outlooking fragment of a population is willing to pull up stakes and move to another country.

Two jokes:
Garrison Keiler: "In Lake Woebogone my home town, all the chiildren are above average"

Will Rogers: "when the Okies moved from Oklahoma to California, they raised the IQs of both places."

 

[Nereid]

Is it just me or do some of you seem to be EXTREMELY irritable?

What makes you think that?

Nereid you mention another thread that discusses whether there actually ARE different races. I have not read it and I doubt if I will take time to. If you are going to start questioning that then I think I will bow out of this discussion as I thought we could all pretty much agree that people from various parts of the globe are in fact different.

Here's what you said in an earlier post:

In another thread there is discussion of blacks evolving into whites. Go read it if you haven't. Humans evolving into 2 different types or races of humans. Supposedly the whites branched off.

Either you have just contradicted yourself, or you are confused.

There is significant genetic variation within any (geographically defined) group of the mammal homo sap. However, the genetic variation between most such groups is far smaller than within them. Further, there are no significant groups which are reproductively isolated, a huge change from only ~500 years ago when (for example) the New Guineans and Australians interbred with their (geographic) neighbours at a very low rate. If 40,000 years or so of isolation didn't result in a new sub-species among a population of ~<1 million, a few hundred generations of inter-breeding among a population of ~>6 billion isn't likely to do much more than greatly reduce whatever small geographic variations there are today.

I did overlook imigration, but not really. The imigrants are just like you and I.

What do you know about me?

It takes the same money for them to survive legally in this country and they will not likely produce enough work through manual labor to compete with existing machines.

Historically, war, rape, subjugation, enslavement and so on have been major factors in migration and inter-breeding between geographically defined populations. This has been so for most of the past 10 generations or so too. Even within the last generation there are plenty of counter examples, from adoption, through migration of refugees and family members, to the practice of some immigrant men of seeking brides from abroad (home town, for example, or 'mail-order').

Not only that, but using this argument aren't you basically stating that all imigrants are sub-intelligent?

From a biological/evolutionary perspective, 'economic migration' is probably trivial.

Your last paragraph implies that we know nothing of how the environment will change in the future. That is true as I already stated none of us will be around long enough to prove what I've said. But looking at the current trend I would say that the odds are stacked against those who are less than intelligent.

Let's take a look at this idea from the perspective of a period of time long enough to be likely to make a difference to the evolution of an inter-breeding population of ~5 billion with near-global geographical scope.

First, as I said above, 40,000 years hasn't been long enough to make any significant difference to homo sap.'s gene pool (in Finland, I'm told, there are lively discussions about when the last blond will be born). Yet in that time the mammal's social organisation and population dynamics have undergone dramatic change - starting with permanent agricultural settlements ~10,000 years ago, and the rise of 'states' (~6,000 years ago?). Less than 20 generations ago a new form of organisation arose among some population groups, let's call it industrialisation. Less than 5 generations ago the most profound change of all began - dramatic declines in death rates at all ages of evolutionary significance (there's no difference between immortality and death at menopause, for example). This change has now spread to essentially all populations, albeit incompletely for some. Finally, in one generation, the economies of geographic regions with ~10% of the total population shifted to being predominantly services-based.

If 1,000 generations produced no significant change in a population of ~1 million, what makes you think you can extrapolate meaningfully about the evolutionary significance, to a population of ~6 billion, of a trend that isn't even 1 generation old?

 

[Nereid]

Immigration is a filter in and of itself; Only the more actve and outlooking fragment of a population is willing to pull up stakes and move to another country.

Some of them. If they subsequently seek brides from their home towns, or adopt orphans from other countries, and so on the 'filter' may not be all that important.

From an evolutionary perspective, how many generations of economic migration do you need to make a significant difference? Assume an interbreeding population of ~100 million.

 

[aychamo]

aychamo you mention jobs that people with no formal education can handle. You are correct, but having no fomal education does not gaurantee lack of intelligence. You then mention borderline retarded people doing some of these jobs. Road construction? Once again, VERY little manual labor required due to mechanization. Oh yeah, parts of it still are like the guy holding the sign and whatnot. But when you consider the amount of manual labor compared to the manual labor that went into construction of this countries railroad system it isn't even in the same ballpark.

The amount of manual labor is irrelevant. The people still have jobs. In fact, it takes less intelligence to stand there and hold a sign than it does to physically construct a railroad system. The fact is there still exists jobs for individuals of very low intelligence. They are not all ending up on the streets or in jail.

aychamo, you then mention the ability to reproduce in jail or on the streets. Obviously it's not impossible. Saying that would be just plain stupid. But the odds are stacked against them.

I didn't say reproduce in jail, I said reproduce before or after their jail sentences.

aychamo. In another post you mention that I haven't proven the less intelligent are being rapidly selected against. You are correct. I haven't. I don't plan on it because none of us will be alive long enough to actually prove it. 'Rapid' when speaking of evolution is still a long time.

This is you saying you have absolutely nothing to support your original post with. Case closed.

 

[aychamo]

Is it just me or do some of you seem to be EXTREMELY irritable?

ad Hominem abusive. Your argument is fallacious.

 

[Averagesupernova]

If 1,000 generations produced no significant change in a population of ~1 million, what makes you think you can extrapolate meaningfully about the evolutionary significance, to a population of ~6 billion, of a trend that isn't even 1 generation old?

I'm not speaking of just one generation and I never was. Sure, lots of changes have been made in the last 20 years or so. The day that hundreds of men digging by hand were replaced by machinery is farther back than 20 years.

The amount of manual labor is irrelevant. The people still have jobs. In fact, it takes less intelligence to stand there and hold a sign than it does to physically construct a railroad system. The fact is there still exists jobs for individuals of very low intelligence. They are not all ending up on the streets or in jail.

This is you saying you have absolutely nothing to support your original post with. Case closed.

You mention physically construct a railroad system. You speak of this as if 5 or ten people did all the work. There were HUNDREDS of men per crew that basically moved dirt and that is it. I think someone holding a sign and knowing when to turn it SHOULD have more intelligence than a grunt that is told: 'put dirt here until we tell you to stop'.

The shoe fits on the other foot too. If I cannot support my original post for the obvious reason given, then you cannot support your view either.

I give up. A discussion cannot be had with you guys simply because you come back with a counter argument that is twisted. Implying that I am saying things I never have said.

 

[Nereid]

I'm not speaking of just one generation and I never was. Sure, lots of changes have been made in the last 20 years or so. The day that hundreds of men digging by hand were replaced by machinery is farther back than 20 years.

[nitpick]A generation in the mammal homo sap. is closer to 30 years than 20[/nitpick]

Here's how you began:

Think about what it takes to survive in todays high tech world and think about where those who can't fit in are ending up.

Then you explained what you meant as follows:

But they are not what I consider the lowest on the scale. The lowest would be the ones who are in prison and live on the street. With any natural selection the lowest or weakest are the first to go. Do you get my point yet? There are other example of what I am talking about.

and

But the big picture tells me that for many many years people lived a simple life doing manual labor farming, hunting and whatnot and suddenly LOTS of people moved to the city. For a while they still did manual labor but now even rural jobs mostly are mechanized.

and

But looking at the current trend I would say that the odds are stacked against those who are less than intelligent.

and so on.

What evidence have you provided that a) those who can perform only manual labour (or are less than intelligent) are significantly less likely to produce viable offspring, b) such people form a significant minority of the total population, and c) the ability to perform only manual labour is hereditary? If you can't show these things, then *even if* earning a living by manual labour (or being less than intelligent) becomes impossible, how would there be an evolutionary change in homo sap?

I give up.

Please don't.

A discussion cannot be had with you guys simply because you come back with a counter argument that is twisted. Implying that I am saying things I never have said.

So, would you please clearly state your thesis? Then I can come back with counter arguments that are to the point.

For the record, here's what I interpreted your thesis to be:
There is a socio-economic trend in the US: those of low intelligence or inability to earn a living except by manual labour do not produce fertile offspring at a rate that is at least equal (on average) to the rate at which all others in the US do. Further, low intelligence and the inability to earn a living except by manual labour have high hereditability.

 

[aychamo]

The shoe fits on the other foot too. If I cannot support my original post for the obvious reason given, then you cannot support your view either.

Hey now, you are the one that made the claim that there is rapid natural selection acting on people these days. You are the one that is required to prove it, if you fail to convince us of your claim, we are logicallly correct in not accepting your claim. We don't have a "view" to support.

 

[Averagesupernova]

Sorry, I said I give up.

 

[Thallium]

I am just breaking in.

We have no reason to talk about evolution as a fact. People do so because schoolbooks do so. Expderts within this field are too uncertain if evolution is real. We have many unaswered and intriguing questions that raise doubt about this theory. We have no reason to speak of a real human evolution from ape to modern man BECAUSE no one has found any missing link.

 

[aychamo]

I am just breaking in.

We have no reason to talk about evolution as a fact. People do so because schoolbooks do so. Expderts within this field are too uncertain if evolution is real. We have many unaswered and intriguing questions that raise doubt about this theory. We have no reason to speak of a real human evolution from ape to modern man BECAUSE no one has found any missing link.

Err, evolution is observable. Anytime an antibiotic is applied evolution is happening via natural selection.

A "missing link" is an outdated term that was used about a hundred years ago. There are two problems with the idea of a missing link: 1. The supposition of the existence of something that may not exist, and 2. Any time a missing link B is found between organisms A and C, it creates a new gap for a missing link between (A and B), and (B and C). That means that for each missing link one finds, it creates a gap for two more.

 

[selfAdjoint]

I am just breaking in.

We have no reason to talk about evolution as a fact. People do so because schoolbooks do so. Expderts within this field are too uncertain if evolution is real. We have many unaswered and intriguing questions that raise doubt about this theory. We have no reason to speak of a real human evolution from ape to modern man BECAUSE no one has found any missing link.

See this essay: evidence for macroevolution. It shows that your assertions are false. You have been listening to fakers.

 

[loseyourname]

Experts in the field do not doubt whether evolution is real. Quit being silly. They have questions about tempo and mechanisms and taxonomic relationships; that is all.

 

[FZ+]

Experts in the field only doubt evolution is real in the same way that all theories must be doubted - to make room for a new, better theory, if and when it arrives. This doubting of evolution by people in the know has aided the theory's development and adaptation to new facts and evidence. It does not amount to a sense of nostalgia for a prehistoric fundamentalist pseudoscience, such as creationism, or ID.

 

[Thallium]

Err, evolution is observable. Anytime an antibiotic is applied evolution is happening via natural selection.

A "missing link" is an outdated term that was used about a hundred years ago. There are two problems with the idea of a missing link: 1. The supposition of the existence of something that may not exist, and 2. Any time a missing link B is found between organisms A and C, it creates a new gap for a missing link between (A and B), and (B and C). That means that for each missing link one finds, it creates a gap for two more.

The evolution of Modern Man needs to have more genetical developments than what has been found(Rudolfensis, affarensis and so on). The "evidence" we have is not enough. A missing link is far from outdated.

 

[Thallium]

Experts in the field do not doubt whether evolution is real. Quit being silly. They have questions about tempo and mechanisms and taxonomic relationships; that is all.

Even BIOLOGISTS doubt the theory of evolution and some have found evidence against it. Silly? Stop being so audacious.

 

[BlackVision]

Even BIOLOGISTS doubt the theory of evolution and some have found evidence against it. Silly? Stop being so audacious.

Which biologists are these? I would be surprised if even 2% of biologists doubt evolution.

 

[Nereid]

Experts in the field do not doubt whether evolution is real. Quit being silly. They have questions about tempo and mechanisms and taxonomic relationships; that is all.

Even BIOLOGISTS doubt the theory of evolution and some have found evidence against it. Silly? Stop being so audacious.

Er, loseyourname said 'do not doubt whether evolution is real' (my emphasis), note the absence of the word 'theory'. There are several theories of evolution, but no doubt about evolution ... just as there is a Newtonian theory about gravity - about which doubts and discussions are not uncommon (and which General Relativity superceded) - and no one doubts gravity.

Of course there are observations and experiments which are inconsistent with, say, Darwin's original theory of evolution! It's through these inconsistencies that science works - otherwise it'd be a dogma, infallible, etc, and no scientist claims infallibility!

 

[aychamo]

Even BIOLOGISTS doubt the theory of evolution and some have found evidence against it. Silly? Stop being so audacious.

Poor argument. Just because some biologists may or may not doubt evolutionary theory doesn't make evolution any less real.

 

[Thallium]

No that is a valid arguement. They are the ones doing research on evolution. The reason for their doubts is that they have found out different things. Read "The Seven Sister of Eve" by Brian Sykes. That is a prime example that raises suspicion about Modern Man's evolution.

 

[aychamo]

No that is a valid arguement. They are the ones doing research on evolution. The reason for their doubts is that they have found out different things. Read "The Seven Sister of Eve" by Brian Sykes. That is a prime example that raises suspicion about Modern Man's evolution.

No, it is still a poor argument. You are saying that since a few people (who stand to gain $$ by publishing books, etc) doubt evolution, that we should all doubt it and question it.

If you want us to doubt/question evolution, you need to provide reasons for doing so, such as huge flaws in it that would make it seem doubtable. Stating the beliefs of a few individuals is not an argument that will convince one of its conclusion.

 

[Nereid]

No that is a valid arguement. They are the ones doing research on evolution. The reason for their doubts is that they have found out different things. Read "The Seven Sister of Eve" by Brian Sykes. That is a prime example that raises suspicion about Modern Man's evolution.

You're joking, right?

Assuming you're not, would you be so kind as to expand on your comment? What 'suspicion about Modern Man's evolution' did that book raise for you?

 

[Nereid]

No, it is still a poor argument. You are saying that since a few people (who stand to gain $$ by publishing books, etc) doubt evolution, that we should all doubt it and question it.

If you want us to doubt/question evolution, you need to provide reasons for doing so, such as huge flaws in it that would make it seem doubtable. Stating the beliefs of a few individuals is not an argument that will convince one of its conclusion.

aychamo, have you read the Sykes book? It's about showing that 'local' British women apparently have a common European 'mother', who had seven 'daughters'. I.e. analysis of some mitochondrial genes, and constructing a phylogenetic tree, from a sample of women living in Britain today. AFAICS, a thoroughly modern evolutionary approach, with completely mainstream results (which is why I'm surprised that Thallium thinks it raises suspicions).

 

[Phobos]

A missing link is far from outdated.

The term is outdated in the sense that it is based on an outdated notion...the "march of progress". Evolution does not proceed in a simple, linear, ladder-like fashion. It involves a lot of complex branching, interactions, and variations.

 

[Phobos]

Ok. If you re-read my post you will see I did not define argument. I defined a sound argument.

Your post first said "There is no such thing as an anti-evolution argument" and then went on about the soundness of it. But this is beside the point. My concern was simply that you were simply being insulting of others ("faith based bull****") without discussing the scientific merits of the arguments (sound or not) they care to put forth. Just trying to keep this a discussion rather than a fight.

Perhaps you are upset with my "Errrrrrrrrrrrrrrr?" reply to you. Phobos, you stated "If you are asking for absolute, no uncertainty, complete in every way Truth, then you won't find that anywhere except in Blind Faith." That just doesn't make sense. You are saying "Truth = Blind Faith" (Or perhaps "Truth is found in Blind Faith"). Faith is "belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence." Truth is "a statement proven to be or accepted as true." Your statement just doesn't make sense.

To clarify, I just meant that science does not offer absolute certainty, the meaning of life, etc. Science offers explanations of physical phenomena which are called theories out of respect for the uncertainties. Only in religion will you find claims of having Universal Truth.

And regarding my "lol. No we aren't." statement, I stand by that.

You later went on to explain that reply which is all I was asking for. Again, just trying to promote quality discussions...

 

[kirkmcloren]

I suppose the duck bill platypus is proof beaver evolved from ducks.
Evolution is a religion too.

 

[Nereid]

I suppose the duck bill platypus is proof beaver evolved from ducks.
Evolution is a religion too.

Would you mind expanding a bit on that last statement please?

To set the context, think of the term 'gravity' - what it describes is pretty uncontrovertable, or do you have a different opinion?

'Evolution' is equivalent to 'gravity' - a word to describe something which just *is*. A theory of evolution - such as Darwin's now quite quaint one - seeks to account for what is, just as Newton's did for gravity.

So if 'evolution is a religion', then so too must 'gravity' be.

But I somehow doubt that you would claim 'gravity is a religion' (or maybe you would?)

 

[kirkmcloren]

Nope. Gravity is verifiable.
You have never seen a transitional specie and natural selection involves reduction of diversity from the parent--not evolution. Tumblers can be bred from park pigeons but not the other way round.

Can you prove life on Earth wasn't put here by the mother ship? No more ridiculous than your god, evolution.

 

[Nereid]

First, deliberate conflation: evolution (the observable fact) is quite different from the origin of life on Earth (that's abiogenesis). AFAIK, this is a standard, cynical tactic used by 'creationists' (i.e. they are perfectly well aware that evolution has nothing to do with how life on Earth began, but nonetheless deliberately conflate the two, to confuse those who aren't aware of their tactics).

Second, next time you get a bacterial infection that is not treatable with the traditional anti-biotics, do you a) sue the doctor (she should have prescribed you the precious anti-biotics for which resistance hasn't yet set in), b) sue the pharmaceutical company (how dare they market an anti-biotic, knowing full well that there are resistant strains), c) sue god (she should not have created, in the last ten years, a strain of that bacterium that previously didn't exist), d) creationists (they have mislead you), e) something else?

Third, if we're going to discuss a *theory* of evolution, no I can't prove anything ... because that's not science (it's mathematics). If you would like to believe something, without the benefit of testing the belief using the scientific method, OK, go ahead. However, I do have to ask you - how can you use a computer, the internet, etc without being deeply hypocritical? After all, it's exactly the same process and principles that lead to you being able to post your nonsense on PF as lead to theories of evolution I'll be charitable; perhaps you are merely ignorant, not cynically hypocritical.

 

[loseyourname]

He talked about beavers evolving from ducks. Other than the fact that they are both mascots of major Oregon universities, these animals have no relationship. Heck, one's a mammal and one's a bird. I'd say he's pretty ignorant.

 

[kirkmcloren]

He talked about beavers evolving from ducks. Other than the fact that they are both mascots of major Oregon universities, these animals have no relationship. Heck, one's a mammal and one's a bird. I'd say he's pretty ignorant.

Don't even recognise sarcasm.
Sigh
Evolutionists claim you can trace ancestorship through attributes. I gave you an example showing how absurd the theory is.

The only thing you know for sure is you don't know. But most people can't live with that.

 

[loseyourname]

Evolutionists claim you can trace ancestorship through attributes. I gave you an example showing how absurd the theory is.

I take it you don't know the difference between a homology and an analogy. Have you never heard of molecular systematics? I figured you're joking, but you're also badly displaying a lack of basic knowledge, and no desire whatsoever to learn. You also jumped into the middle of a fairly decent discussion with an extremely stupid statement and got what you deserved.

 

[kirkmcloren]

First, deliberate conflation: evolution (the observable fact) is quite different from the origin of life on Earth (that's abiogenesis). AFAIK, this is a standard, cynical tactic used by 'creationists' (i.e. they are perfectly well aware that evolution has nothing to do with how life on Earth began, but nonetheless deliberately conflate the two, to confuse those who aren't aware of their tactics).

I think your position is evolution made everything from the 1st spark of life. I say you have no proof. In fact the mother ship is a less fantastic theory.

Second, next time you get a bacterial infection that is not treatable with the traditional anti-biotics, do you a) sue the doctor (she should have prescribed you the precious anti-biotics for which resistance hasn't yet set in), b) sue the pharmaceutical company (how dare they market an anti-biotic, knowing full well that there are resistant strains), c) sue god (she should not have created, in the last ten years, a strain of that bacterium that previously didn't exist), d) creationists (they have mislead you), e) something else?

So the bacteria never possessed a recessive trait that the antibiotic bred for? You would rather believe a more fantastic solution? Occam's razor says otherwise.

Third, if we're going to discuss a *theory* of evolution, no I can't prove anything ... because that's not science (it's mathematics). If you would like to believe something, without the benefit of testing the belief using the scientific method, OK, go ahead. However, I do have to ask you - how can you use a computer, the internet, etc without being deeply hypocritical? After all, it's exactly the same process and principles that lead to you being able to post your nonsense on PF as lead to theories of evolution I'll be charitable; perhaps you are merely ignorant, not cynically hypocritical.

You? Charitable? You are indulging in obfuscation and diversion. Course when you have no argument then sophistry is the only way left. You will not possesses truth until you desire it above all else. The mind works that way.

To claim evolution has been proven via the scientific method -- shame sir, shame. You have proven nothing.

As for me I would prefer, like most people, that the unknowable be known. But wanting something doesn't make it so. And intellectual integrity demands you stick with the facts -- even when they are troubling. To have blind faith in evolution when it is logically unknown is a testament to your religion. You have faith do you not? Smells like religion. Sounds like religion. Maybe ;)

 

[kirkmcloren]

I take it you don't know the difference between a homology and an analogy. Have you never heard of molecular systematics? I figured you're joking, but you're also badly displaying a lack of basic knowledge, and no desire whatsoever to learn. You also jumped into the middle of a fairly decent discussion with an extremely stupid statement and got what you deserved.

A legend in your own mind and a bag of chips. Modest too.
So you have proof of evolution? Why didn't you post that?
That would be pretty basic to the discussion. Course that doesn't fit your style of diversion from the topic. A little argumentum ad hominum is usually a good tactic, right. Works for you, huh?

 

[iansmith]

So the bacteria never possessed a recessive trait that the antibiotic bred for? You would rather believe a more fantastic solution? Occam's razor says otherwise.

In bacteria there is no recessive genes. Bacteria only have one copy of a gene with some exceptions. Antibiotics are occurs naturally and some species of bacteria naturally evolved genes involved in the resistance. These genes can be exchanged from species to species, can be pick up from DNA being in the environment, exchanged by transposon or carried by viruses. The other way antibitotic resistance can arise is by spontaneous mutation of the targeted molecules. The use of antibiotic will selected the resistant strains. The latter can be done in the lab by growing bacteria in the presence of antibiotic and selecting the resitant colonies. It was also obseved in nature.

All the above is natural selection and evolution working. Occam's razor is not always the best explanation in biology.

To claim evolution has been proven via the scientific method -- shame sir, shame. You have proven nothing.

As for me I would prefer, like most people, that the unknowable be known. But wanting something doesn't make it so. And intellectual integrity demands you stick with the facts -- even when they are troubling. To have blind faith in evolution when it is logically unknown is a testament to your religion. You have faith do you not? Smells like religion. Sounds like religion. Maybe ;)

I worked in lab and i have seen evolution in the lab and I tested evolution. I will state this again, evolution is the change of genotype over time, speciation is the result of evolution and other factors, and abiogenesis is the biological explantion for the origin of life. Evolution, speciation and abiogensis are three distinct events and cannot be group and define as evolution. Evolution is a fact, speciation and abiogenesis are hypothesis and are debatle. However, speciation is closer to becoming a theory than abiogenesis will ever be.