Evolution in action

[Tormod]

Creationists love to say that nobody has seen evolution happen. Well, it ir true that monkeys do not have a tendency to turn into human beings, but good examples of visible evolution of species are for example known infectious viruses like HIV and the peppered moth ("limited evolution", as one creationist called it ).

 

Anyway, in Nature a few weeks ago there was a very interesting article about evolution in action - in human beings:

 

Tibetans show 'evolution in action'

http://www.nature.com/news/2004/040913/full/040913-20.html

Tibetan mothers have provided anthropologists with a prime example of ongoing human evolution. Researchers have found that women who are able to store more oxygen in their blood have more offspring that live to maturity.

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: Tormod

Creationists love to say that nobody has seen evolution happen.

Thanks for the additional info. But we have found that Creationists don't care no matter how often FACTS are shown to the contrary. They do not believe Creationism because of FACTS. They may pretend to try and use facts when they attack Science. But they ignore FACTS intentionally at every turn.

 

Your referred site discusses possible Evolutionary Advantage which would be genetically herditary. But this falls into the obfuscation effort of Creationists to pretend there are various levels of Evolution. Some Creationists state Evolution does not happen. Others are willing to concede that Evolution happens, but only as minor changes within existing species such as different dog breeds. Still others allow for Evolution, but under their god's control. Yet others allow for Evolution for OTHER species, but not humans (The official Catholic Church/ Pope's claim). NONE allow for full speciation as the reason for ALL diversity of past, current and future species.

 

Your example fits into their invented division of Evolution into "micro" and "macro". Most Creationists realize it makes them look too stupid to try to pretend that a species may not evolve new environmental advantages, such as beak size. Or in your example, blood oxygen levels and infant mortality. But they use non-scientific termonology to invent different types of Evolution based on what they call "kinds".

 

But even if they scream MACRO, MACRO, MACRO, ... they are intentionally ignoring faactual lab experiments which have proven "marco"-evolution, speciation

[LeeCollins]

Originally posted by: Tormod

Creationists love to say that nobody has seen evolution happen. Well, it ir true that monkeys do not have a tendency to turn into human beings, but good examples of visible evolution of species are for example known infectious viruses like HIV and the peppered moth ("limited evolution", as one creationist called it ). Anyway, in Nature a few weeks ago there was a very interesting article about evolution in action - in human beings: Tibetans show 'evolution in action' http://www.nature.com/news/2004/040913/full/040913-20.html

Tibetan mothers have provided anthropologists with a prime example of ongoing human evolution. Researchers have found that women who are able to store more oxygen in their blood have more offspring that live to maturity.

 

What is evolution? I thought it was the "gradual modifications over time" and this "modification" having

 

 

no GOAL to speak of. If that is correct then how can the peppered moth be an example of evolution.

The peppered moths react to a situation - this condition caused then to change color. When the condition was removed the peppered moth went back to its normal color. This is NOT purposeless as evolution is supposed to be. This would seem more like "problem solving" than evolution.

 

 

I do agree that things can change over time. But I do not agree that this kind of change could take us from ameoba to man. Remember, after all this changing, the peppered moth is still a peppered moth. HIV and the peppered moth give absolutely NO insight into a drastic change such as that.

 

 

Now, about the Tibetan women:

Most living things are able to adapt. They are not able to change from one thing to another. I say this only because noone has shown me otherwise. The Tibetan women ARE STILL WOMEN! They could still mate with a man born in Chicago with no problem. Over time the women adapted to low oxygen areas. We as people adapt to many things - we can even see this when we workout at a gym. When we lift weight, our bodies adapt to the new level of stress on them - as a solution to this the body builds muscle. Is this evolution ... i don't think so. It looks like "problem solving" to me.

[Freethinker]

Hi Lee: Welcome to our discussion. Thanks for your comments. We look foward to the exchange of ideas.

Originally posted by: LeeCollins

What is evolution? I thought it was the "gradual modifications over time"

This is a reasonable if somewhat simplistic defintion, acceptable for this discussion.

and this "modification" having no GOAL to speak of. If that is correct then how can the peppered moth be an example of evolution. The peppered moths react to a situation - this condition caused then to change color.

And this is where we see a failure to properly represent Evolution. This is trying to elevate both Evolution and peppered moths to include intentional intellectual decision making.

 

When it is said that Evolution has "no GOAL to speak of", what is meant is a lack of intellectual design. No entity made a specific determination which established an end "GOAL".

 

Ockham's Razor keeps us from the embarrasment of arbitrarily inventing additional intellegent agents in explanations that don't require them.

 

Just as there is no valid reason to assert that "peppered moths" CAN "react to a situation" in an intellectually intentional chameleon manner.

When the condition was removed the peppered moth went back to its normal color.

Thus changing wardrobe for different occasions?

There is not a single example of an individual peppered moth ever changing it's colors because of the environment. This would require Lamarkian Evolution which has been completely rejected.

 

What WAS proven is that peppered moths thru genetic mutation over GENERATIONS found more advantageous colorings to survivablity for procreation, based on conditions at the specific time frames invloved. Evolution based increases and reductions of survivablity to procreation based on specific environmental conditions of each generation.

This is NOT purposeless as evolution is supposed to be. This would seem more like "problem solving" than evolution.

Again, if by "purpose" you are pretending there is intellectual intent to Evolution, then yes it is wrong! Evolution does not "solve problems". It would not even "know" there IS a problem.

I do agree that things can change over time.

And that is called "Evolution".

But I do not agree that this kind of change could take us from ameoba to man.

The beauty of Science is that it is not based on VOTES. Valid Scientific Theories operate regardless of who agrees or disagress with them.

Remember, after all this changing, the peppered moth is still a peppered moth. HIV and the peppered moth give absolutely NO insight into a drastic change such as that.

Shame you are not able to see it. But that is your loss, not others. To some a fuzzy crawling thing offers no insight to the beauty of a butterfly.

[LeeCollins]

Originally posted by: Freethinker

And this is where we see a failure to properly represent Evolution. This is trying to elevate both Evolution and peppered moths to include intentional intellectual decision making. When it is said that Evolution has "no GOAL to speak of", what is meant is a lack of intellectual design. No entity made a specific determination which established an end "GOAL".

 

No I am not saying that the peppered moth "decided" to become another color for any reason.

Either the change is in response to something or not.

 

What I am saying is that:

 

1) There was a problem - the moths were NOT surviving as well as previously because of the new conditions.

 

2)A solution was introduced to solve this problem.

 

3) When the condition was reversed, the solution to the problem was removed.

 

To say this was 'random' is to say that the moths would have make the same color change without the conditions that were placed on them. And, it just happens that this 'random' mutation occurred as a coincidence and not in direct response to the condition.

Is this what you are saying?

 

Originally posted by: Freethinker

Shame you are not able to see it. But that is your loss, not others.

 

See what? I am trying to understand how the plight of the peppered-moth shows evolution. Did you show me? If not, please do. I assume that this is the point of the original post.

 

What you seem to be saying is that change is change - period - and any change is evolution. Science can show that living things change but there is NO evidence that one species changes to another. I know it is BELIEVED but has not been proven. I say maybe one day we someone will PROVE that evolution is the cause of all the species we see today. It hasn't happened yet. I am trying to see what is actually KNOWN.

 

All I get from people is: "This looks like that so this evolved from that." or "These species have the same organ so one evolved from the other." or the more modern "the DNA of this species is identical to the DNA of that speciesso they have a common ancestor."

 

These are leaps of FAITH.

[Tormod]

Originally posted by: LeeCollins

Science can show that living things change but there is NO evidence that one species changes to another. I know it is BELIEVED but has not been proven.  I say maybe one day we someone will PROVE that evolution is the cause of all the species we see today.  It hasn't happened yet.  I am trying to see what is actually KNOWN.

 

Hi Lee, welcome to our forums!

 

There is ample evidence of one species changing to another.

 

Here is an in-depth discussion, with examples:

 

Observed Instances of Speciation

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

 

However, narrowing evolution down to a question og species-jumping is oversimplification. Evolution is science's answer to how life has evolved on Earth. So, the proof is found in the natural sciences - biology, zoology, paleonthology, geology etc. It is plain wrong to say that this is just something that is "believed" by scientists.

 

Viruses change from one species to another in an instant. The chicken virus which recently just infected people via chickens is turning into a new species and is now able to move via people. This happens right before our eyes.

 

New Scientist: Bird flu transmitted between humans in Thailand

http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99996450

 

How is this "belief"?

[LeeCollins]

Observed Instances of Speciation

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

 

The new species, if they are that, cannot be attributed to Darwinian Evolution.It is the nature of a virus to mutate/adapt - to change its genetic makeup in reproducing. This is known thatviruses can only beactive inside a host - it adapts to that environment.

I have found that some bacteria canchange its makeup based on necessity. Is that Darwinian Evolution? No. This is not how the particular virus came to be. This is what it does now that it is here.

 

The plant examples are ALLcases of polyploidy not Darwinian Evolution.

 

When it comes to the animal part, the author says to wait for the "next version of this document."

I would like to see that also.

 

New Scientist: Bird flu transmitted between humans in Thailand

http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99996450

 

I don't see the point here - a virus known to live in chickensadapted to humans. What does this have to do with evolution? I would point out one thing: Its still called the FLU.

 

 

 

 

How is this "belief"?

It is believed that because this animal looks another (exterior or genetic), it MUST be related. That in itself is a LEAP of FAITH. I will admit that if we assume common descent, then the only viable answer to species is evolution. The problem is that common descent IS NOT FACT.

 

For instance, I have seen NO documents explaining how the first cell arrived. I see many theories of how it COULD have arrived but none include the binding of the amino-acids which is the FIRST THING to be done. The cell has TOO MANY unexplainable characteristics when veiwed through evolutionary glasses. To say: We are here so it must have happened." I find to be a cop-out.

[Freethinker]

We are carrying on this discussion in two threads. That will do nothing but cause confusion. Let's all stick to one thread or the other.

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: LeeCollins

For instance, I have seen NO documents explaining how the first cell arrived.

Ah yes, once more we see how far you have to go to even begin discussing Evolution from a knowledgable stance.

explaining how the first cell arrived

has NOTHING to do with Evolution.

 

That is the discussion of ABIOGENESIS.

 

This is a typical error of someone just starting to learn about these scientific facts.

 

Don't worry, we are here to help you.

 

You will find a discussion about Abiogenesis at

 

Abiogenesis anyone?

 

http://www.hypography.com/forums/messageview.cfm?catid=21&threadid=679&enterthread=y

[Tormod]

I agree with FT - let's keep this to one thread unless it obviously diverges into several topics.

[DAK]

I posted this on another thread too, but I think it belongs here. I highly recommend Dr. David Hawkins books. He deals with a lot of related issues too. One of his comments:

 

"This hoopla over creationism vs evolution is so stupid, evolution IS creationism unfolding."

 

I think a lot of religious people think evolution means no god... in fact, evolution seems to be pointing the other way with the strange jumps and quick evolutionary moves that seem to be being uncovered.

 

DAK

[Stargazer]

I posted this on another thread too, but I think it belongs here. I highly recommend Dr. David Hawkins books. He deals with a lot of related issues too. One of his comments:

 

"This hoopla over creationism vs evolution is so stupid, evolution IS creationism unfolding."

 

I think a lot of religious people think evolution means no god... in fact, evolution seems to be pointing the other way with the strange jumps and quick evolutionary moves that seem to be being uncovered.

 

DAK

Why introduce one's favourite god, when it's not necessary? Why not simply let science do its stuff and we get to see and understand more and more about the universe. God seems to be a temporary explanation, and a terrible one too. After all it's not an explanation at all, just yet another mystery, that has no place there unless we have reason to believe so.

[DAK]

<Why introduce one's favourite god, when it's not necessary?>

 

I didn't... I simply said there was no reason religious people need to believe the theory of evolution negates it.

 

<Why not simply let science do its stuff and we get to see and understand more and more about the universe.>

 

Agreed... present day mystics are all pointing to the latest discussion physics as important.

 

<God seems to be a temporary explanation, and a terrible one too. After all it's not an explanation at all, just yet another mystery, that has no place there unless we have reason to believe so.>

 

I think the spirit of your comment above could be repeated here: Why feel the need to comment about {your idea of} what god is, or negate god? I would think it is up to the individual inquirer as to whether there "is a place" for god... your usage of "unless WE have reason to believe so" seems to point to a negation of that idea and a backing of the need of some sort of universal denial of god unless god is proven to exist?

 

Doesn't sound scientific to me.

 

DAK

[dad2bkmj]

you should read the transcript of Dr. Hugh Ross's seminar called "where did the universe come from? new scientific evidence for the existence of god" you see i am a christian. i beleive god created everything acording to his plan and the seminar gives some compeling facts to that point. the problem with creationism is it's based on creation taking 6 days or 24 hour periods. but it is a mistranslation of the hebrew language. to quote Dr. ross "the english language is the largest vocabulary language that man has ever invented. there are 4,000,000 nouns in the english language. the hebrew language by contrast is one of the most noun poor languages that man has invented. so the english reader has a difficult time appreciating that in the hebrew old testament, there are very few words to describe periods of time. " so the word that was translated into english was yom, "for day long", but it can mean 12 hours, 24 hours, or a long time period. look at genesis to see what it really means. the first 6 days(time periods) have a morning and night. the seventh does not so the seventh day is still going on. and by the way the hebrew words for morning and night also mean begining and ending.

[sergey500]

I dunno. As I see it, to answer that question that most creationists ask, "If we evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?" Well I answer like this....

 

Rewind, ok we have our evolving monkeys, before nentherthals (sp?) and other cavemen. So one group decides to move North, since we find evidance that we started evolving into our humaniod states in Africa, the other group stayed behind. This grouping moving North found different climates and enviroments and were forced to make changes. They stayed over hundreds of years and evolved, learned to walk...etc. And then we have our famous evoltion how they traveled and evolved. My point is, one group stayed in their current habitat, the other moved on and evolved.

 

Now to write my favortie evolution quotes.

"If you believe in creationism, then you might as well believe in stork idea." (you know, the one with babies being brought by storks)

 

"Evolution is just a 'theory', just like gravity, if you don't believe in it or don't like it, go jump off a bridge."

[joel]

But we didn't evolve from monkeys... (Well maybe I did, and I've got hairy toe knuckles to prove it (proof of evolution?)). Anyway, must of us and most monkeys both evolved from some common ancestor who is no longer with us.

 

I'd like to see better demonstrations of newly emerging species, more compelling than the Talk.Origins article. I suspect it happens all the time, but it isn't really a sudden thing, so its hard to notice.

 

Aside from the fossil record, nested features, DNA comparison studies, and population genetics (all of which I find quite compelling), what kind of experiments could we do that would clearly demonstrate evolution?

 

Perhaps introduce a genetic modification into some laboratory species, apply various selection pressures, and determine if the Hardy/Weinberg principle is being satisfied as generations go by... It wouldn't convince the creationists because they'd say it's all artificial, but explicitly measuring how a mutation propogates through a population under selection pressure would be very powerful.

 

What else? Are scientists working on this exact question of demonstrating evolution in the lab, or are they entirely focussed on teasing out the details of the natural world?

 

Just some thoughts...

[dad2bkmj]

i feel evolution is just a living thing changing to fit changes in its enviroment. changes in tempature, introduction of new predators, things of the sort. its evolve or go exstinked.