Atheistforums

Science Section => Science General Discussion => Topic started by: Smartmarzipan on September 11, 2013, 03:21:05 PM

Title: Evolution for Beginners
Post by: Smartmarzipan on September 11, 2013, 03:21:05 PM
I think we should have an Evolution sticky post to refer to and add to whenever we get an inquiring newbie or even an obstinate creationist. We can cover the basics at first, and then delve into the more nuanced details of the theory.

Anyway, here goes.

What is Evolution?

Quote
In biology, the process of evolution is the change in a population's genetic structure over successive generations. Specifically, it is the change in allele frequency over time. The many sub-processes of evolution account for the diversity of life, such as genetic inheritance, which accounts for the continuity of traits, mutation, which accounts for novel traits, and natural selection, which accounts for the environmental filtering of traits.
Source (http://evolutionwiki.org/wiki/Evolutionary_biology)
What's an allele? (http://biology.about.com/od/geneticsglossary/g/alleles.htm)
(http://img189.imageshack.us/img189/7193/zb9d.jpg)

Processes of Evolution[/u]

Well, what causes these changes in a population's genetic structure over time, anyway? [url=http://evolutionwiki.org/wiki/Theory_of_Evolution#Mutation]Mutation (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/189/zb9d.jpg/[/url) plays a key role.

Quote
Initially variation is introduced by mutation, a process which can create new alleles. Mutations are commonly seen as something bad, often associated with cancer, but can also be good, or have no effect at all. Tissue cells divide by mitosis, and cells are dividing constantly in large multi-cellular organisms, like humans. Mutations, therefore, occur in humans every second. These may make the daughter cell more, or less, efficient. They may damage the mechanisms which control mitosis, making the cell divide uncontrollably, forming a tumor, or they may affect a gene which is never expressed in the cell, having no effect. Mutations in mitosis are never passed on, but mutations in meiosis are. Meiosis is the type of cell division which occurs in gametogenesis, the process by which gametes (sex cells) are produced. The same processes of mutation take place in both types of cell division.
How do cells divide? (http://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/handbook/howgeneswork/cellsdivide)Process of Gametogenesis (https://www.boundless.com/biology/reproductive-systems/gamete-production-and-transportation/process-of-gametogenesis/)

What is Natural Selection?

Quote
Natural selection is described as "survival of the fittest", or a "struggle for survival". There is, of course, no conscious struggle, it is simply that those good at surviving survive, while those who aren't, don't. Genes, therefore, that make an individual good at surviving, also survive. Those which aren't so good don't survive.
Genes are selected for, or against, when there is a selection pressure, or collection of them. A commonly used example of a selection pressure is that of predator and prey running speed. This is also an example of different species "co-evolving" (changes to one species phenotype exert a selection pressure on another species). A population of big cats living in the African grasslands run at approximately the same speed as their preferred prey. By the mechanisms of variation the running speed of the prey increases slightly. The slowest big cats can no longer catch enough food, and they all die out. The average running speed of the population of big cats increases. By the mechanisms of variation the running speed of the big cats increases slightly - the new phenotype might be slightly longer legs or more streamlined body - the individuals who carry the new genes are better at catching prey, live longer and reproduce more. The new gene spreads through the population. By the mechanisms of variation the running speed of the big cats may decrease, the individuals carrying the new gene are less well adapted to hunting and starve, removing the deleterious gene from the gene pool.
Source (http://evolutionwiki.org/wiki/Theory_of_Evolution#Natural_Selection)
What is a Phenotype? (https://www.23andme.com/gen101/phenotype/)Darwin's Finches (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwin's_finches)
(http://img203.imageshack.us/img203/9130/hmh9.jpg)

What is Sexual Selection?

 (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/203/hmh9.jpg/[/url)
Quote
In addition to simple survival, organisms must reproduce for their genes to be passed on to later generations. There are many genes which control the processes involved in sexual reproduction, and this includes the choosing of partners. In sexual selection genes are selected for because genes for a particular phenotype and genes for finding that phenotype desirable in a mate are passed on to offspring such that those genes spread throughout the population.
Sexual selection can be, but does not have to be, exclusive of natural selection. In English slang the word "fit" is often used to describe an attractive body, because attractive bodies are fit and healthy. When humans were hunters and gatherers, people who were fit and healthy were better at providing food for their families, so that their offspring, who carried their genes, did not starve but grew up to pass on their genes.

Sexual selection can occur against the pressures of natural selection, however. Or, at least, against many of the obvious pressures of natural selection. Peacocks and male Birds of Paradise have large bright feathers, which provide no advantage to flying, and might actually impede flight, thus attracting predators. These spectacular feathers have evolved because they attract potential mates.
Source (http://evolutionwiki.org/wiki/Sexual_selection)
Asexual Reproduction (http://evolutionwiki.org/wiki/Asexual_reproduction)

What is Speciation?

Quote
Speciation is the evolutionary process by which new biological species arise.

There are four geographic modes of speciation in nature, based on the extent to which speciating populations are isolated from one another: allopatric, peripatric, parapatric, and sympatric. Speciation may also be induced artificially, through animal husbandry, agriculture, or laboratory experiments.
Source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciation)
Observable speciation (http://www.darwinwasright.org/observations_speciation.html)
Speciation 2 (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/7/mj96.jpg)
(http://img7.imageshack.us/img7/655/mj96.jpg)



Please feel free to add more!
Title: Re: Evolution for Beginners
Post by: Fidel_Castronaut on September 11, 2013, 03:36:20 PM
Further Evidence of Speciation:

link (http://http://lasierra.edu/news-events/news-archive/2011/march-2011/dna-yields-new-gecko-species-mar-18)

2nd link (http://http://www.bbc.co.uk/nature/life/Gecko#p00cqcl0)
Title: Re: Evolution for Beginners
Post by: Smartmarzipan on September 11, 2013, 03:50:41 PM
Different Types of Speciation  Source (http://www.sparknotes.com/biology/evolution/speciation/section2.rhtml)

Sympatric Speciation

Quote
Sympatric speciation occurs when populations of a species that share the same habitat become reproductively isolated from each other. This speciation phenomenon most commonly occurs through polyploidy, in which an offspring or group of offspring will be produced with twice the normal number of chromosomes. Where a normal individual has two copies of each chromosome (diploidy), these offspring may have four copies (tetraploidy). A tetraploid individual cannot mate with a diploid individual, creating reproductive isolation.

Sympatric speciation is rare. It occurs more often among plants than animals, since it is so much easier for plants to self-fertilize than it is for animals. A tetraploidy plant can fertilize itself and create offspring. For a tetraploidy animal to reproduce, it must find another animal of the same species but of opposite sex that has also randomly undergone polyploidy.
What's a polyploid? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyploid)

Allopatric Speciation

Quote
Allopatric speciation, the most common form of speciation, occurs when populations of a species become geographically isolated. When populations become separated, gene flow between them ceases. Over time, the populations may become genetically different in response to the natural selection imposed by their different environments.
(http://img819.imageshack.us/img819/2433/koqz.jpg) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/819/koqz.jpg/)

Parapatric Speciation

Quote
Parapatric speciation is extremely rare. It occurs when populations are separated not by a geographical barrier, such as a body of water, but by an extreme change in habitat. While populations in these areas may interbreed, they often develop distinct characteristics and lifestyles. Reproductive isolation in these cases is not geographic but rather temporal or behavioral. For example, plants that live on boundaries between very distinct climates may flower at different times in response to their different environments, making them unable to interbreed.

Sympatric Speciation  Source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciation#Sympatric)

Quote
Sympatric speciation refers to the formation of two or more descendant species from a single ancestral species all occupying the same geographic location.
Often-cited examples of sympatric speciation are found in insects that become dependent on different host plants in the same area.[10][11] However, the existence of sympatric speciation as a mechanism of speciation is still hotly contested. Scientists have argued that the evidences of sympatric speciation are in fact examples of micro-allopatric, or heteropatric speciation.[/quote
What's Heteropatric speciation? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heteropatric_speciation)
(http://img594.imageshack.us/img594/9272/xgpu.jpg) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/594/xgpu.jpg/)
Title: Re: Evolution for Beginners
Post by: Smartmarzipan on September 11, 2013, 05:15:46 PM
Evolution of the Eye

Quote
When evolution skeptics want to attack Darwin's theory, they often point to the human eye. How could something so complex, they argue, have developed through random mutations and natural selection, even over millions of years?

If evolution occurs through gradations, the critics say, how could it have created the separate parts of the eye -- the lens, the retina, the pupil, and so forth -- since none of these structures by themselves would make vision possible? In other words, what good is five percent of an eye?

Darwin acknowledged from the start that the eye would be a difficult case for his new theory to explain. Difficult, but not impossible. Scientists have come up with scenarios through which the first eye-like structure, a light-sensitive pigmented spot on the skin, could have gone through changes and complexities to form the human eye, with its many parts and astounding abilities.

Through natural selection, different types of eyes have emerged in evolutionary history -- and the human eye isn't even the best one, from some standpoints. Because blood vessels run across the surface of the retina instead of beneath it, it's easy for the vessels to proliferate or leak and impair vision. So, the evolution theorists say, the anti-evolution argument that life was created by an "intelligent designer" doesn't hold water: If God or some other omnipotent force was responsible for the human eye, it was something of a botched design.

Biologists use the range of less complex light sensitive structures that exist in living species today to hypothesize the various evolutionary stages eyes may have gone through.
Source (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/01/1/l_011_01.html)

(http://img585.imageshack.us/img585/6672/z4qa.jpg) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/585/z4qa.jpg/)

Quote
Here's how some scientists think some eyes may have evolved: The simple light-sensitive spot on the skin of some ancestral creature gave it some tiny survival advantage, perhaps allowing it to evade a predator. Random changes then created a depression in the light-sensitive patch, a deepening pit that made "vision" a little sharper. At the same time, the pit's opening gradually narrowed, so light entered through a small aperture, like a pinhole camera.

Every change had to confer a survival advantage, no matter how slight. Eventually, the light-sensitive spot evolved into a retina, the layer of cells and pigment at the back of the human eye. Over time a lens formed at the front of the eye. It could have arisen as a double-layered transparent tissue containing increasing amounts of liquid that gave it the convex curvature of the human eye.

In fact, eyes corresponding to every stage in this sequence have been found in existing living species. The existence of this range of less complex light-sensitive structures supports scientists' hypotheses about how complex eyes like ours could evolve. The first animals with anything resembling an eye lived about 550 million years ago. And, according to one scientist's calculations, only 364,000 years would have been needed for a camera-like eye to evolve from a light-sensitive patch.
Eye Evolution (http://learn.genetics.utah.edu/content/variation/eye/)
(http://i1318.photobucket.com/albums/t651/smartzie/eyeevolution_zpsbb57381b.jpg) (http://s1318.photobucket.com/user/smartzie/media/eyeevolution_zpsbb57381b.jpg.html)
Title: Re: Evolution for Beginners
Post by: Colanth on September 11, 2013, 11:47:47 PM
We're still going to get "but getting an eye doesn't make a fish give birth to a cat".  A thread that explains it all simply enough to a creationist is going to be about as large as one of Dawkins' books.  (It actually takes a few of his books to  fully explain evolution.)

One thing they should be made aware of is that "species" is an arbitrary division invented by man - it's not like the dividing line between land and ocean.  Are the donkey and the horse different species?  The lion and tiger?  Simple question, complex answer.

And would anyone want to post a couple of examples of ring species?
Title: Re: Evolution for Beginners
Post by: Solitary on September 12, 2013, 02:44:54 AM
Appearance isn’t everything
Organisms may appear to be alike and be different species. For example, Western meadowlarks (Sturnella neglecta) and Eastern meadowlarks (Sturnella magna) look almost identical to one another, yet do not interbreed with each other—thus, they are separate species according to this definition.

 (http://http://i.imgur.com/FoVXimU.jpg)          (http://http://i.imgur.com/rblgvE1.jpg)

The Western meadowlark (left) and the Eastern meadowlark (right) appear to be identical, and their ranges overlap, but their distinct songs prevent interbreeding.

(http://http://i.imgur.com/wDrc3qI.jpg)


Organisms may look different and yet be the same species. For example, look at these ants. You might think that they are distantly related species. In fact, they are sisters—two ants of the species Pheidole barbata, fulfilling different roles in the same colony.

Many characteristics can vary within a single species. For example, the plant hydrangea may have pink “flowers”—they’re actually modified leaves—or blue “flowers.” But that doesn’t mean that we should classify the two forms as different species. In fact, you could cause a blue-“flowered” plant to become a pink-“flowered” plant just by changing the pH of the soil and the amount of aluminum taken up by the plant.
Adding to the problem  

We already pointed out two of the difficulties with the biological species concept: what do you do with asexual organisms, and what do you do with organisms that occasionally form hybrids with one another? Other difficulties include:

What is meant by “potentially interbreeding?” If a population of frogs were divided by a freeway, as shown below, that prevented the two groups of frogs from interbreeding, should we designate them as separate species? Probably not—but how distantly separated do they have to be before we draw the line?

Ring species are species with a geographic distribution that forms a ring and overlaps at the ends. The many subspecies of Ensatina salamanders in California exhibit subtle morphological and genetic differences all along their range. They all interbreed with their immediate neighbors with one exception: where the extreme ends of the range overlap in Southern California, E. klauberi and E. eschscholtzii do not interbreed. So where do we mark the point of speciation

Chronospecies are different stages in the same evolving lineage that existed at different points in time. Obviously, chronospecies present a problem for the biological species concept—for example, it is not really possible (or very meaningful!) to figure out whether a trilobite living 300 million years ago would have interbred with its ancestor living 310 million years ago.
This trilobite lineage below evolved gradually over time:

(http://http://i.imgur.com/OepHevi.gif)

Should we consider trilobite A as a separate species from trilobite D, and if so, where should we divide the lineage into separate species?
Solitary
Title: Re: Evolution for Beginners
Post by: SGOS on September 12, 2013, 07:21:20 AM
Geeze, Smartzie.  You're really serious about this!
Title: Re: Evolution for Beginners
Post by: Smartmarzipan on September 12, 2013, 11:19:35 AM
Quote from: "SGOS"
Geeze, Smartzie.  You're really serious about this!

I don't fuck around when it comes to SCIENCE!! *Maniacal laughter* *cue lightning bolt*
Title: Re: Evolution for Beginners
Post by: Smartmarzipan on September 12, 2013, 11:44:34 AM
What is a Ring Species?  Source (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/05/2/l_052_05.html)

Quote
Some critics of the theory of evolution argue that it doesn't convincingly explain the origin of new species. They say that members of one species couldn't become so different from other individuals through natural variation that they would become two separate non-interbreeding species.

One of the most powerful counters to that argument is the rare but fascinating phenomenon known as "ring species." This occurs when a single species becomes geographically distributed in a circular pattern over a large area. Immediately adjacent or neighboring populations of the species vary slightly but can interbreed. But at the extremes of the distribution -- the opposite ends of the pattern that link to form a circle -- natural variation has produced so much difference between the populations that they function as though they were two separate, non-interbreeding species.

In concept, this can be likened to a spiral-shaped parking garage. A driver notices only a gentle rise as he ascends the spiral, but after making one complete circle, he finds himself an entire floor above where he started.

A well-studied example of a ring species is the salamander Ensatina escholtzii of the Pacific Coast region of the United States. In Southern California, naturalists have found what look like two distinct species scrabbling across the ground. One is marked with strong, dark blotches in a cryptic pattern that camouflages it well. The other is more uniform and brighter, with bright yellow eyes, apparently in mimicry of the deadly poisonous western newt. These two populations coexist in some areas but do not interbreed -- and evidently cannot do so.

Moving up the state, the two populations are divided geographically, with the dark, cryptic form occupying the inland mountains and the conspicuous mimic living along the coast. Still farther to the north, in northern California and Oregon, the two populations merge, and only one form is found. In this area, it is clear that what looked like two separate species in the south are in fact a single species with several interbreeding subspecies, joined together in one continuous ring.

(http://img821.imageshack.us/img821/9822/klyv.jpg) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/821/klyv.jpg/)

Quote
The evolutionary story that scientists have deciphered begins in the north, where the single form is found. This is probably the ancestral population. As it expanded south, the population became split by the San Joaquin Valley in central California, forming two different groups. In the Sierra Nevada the salamanders evolved their cryptic coloration. Along the coast they gradually became brighter and brighter.

The division was not absolute: some members of the sub-populations still find each other and interbreed to produce hybrids. The hybrids look healthy and vigorous, but they are neither well-camouflaged nor good mimics, so they are vulnerable to predators. They also seem to have difficulty finding mates, so the hybrids do not reproduce successfully. These two factors keep the two forms from merging, even though they can interbreed.

By the time the salamanders reached the southernmost part of California, the separation had caused the two groups to evolve enough differences that they had become reproductively isolated. In some areas the two populations coexist, closing the "ring," but do not interbreed. They are as distinct as though they were two separate species. Yet the entire complex of populations belongs to a single taxonomic species, Ensatina escholtzii.

Ring species, says biologist David Wake, who has studied Ensatina for more than 20 years, are a beautiful example of species formation in action. "All of the intermediate steps, normally missing, have been preserved, and that is what makes it so fascinating."

Taxonomy and Phylogeny: Classifying Living Organisms (http://evolutionwiki.org/wiki/Taxonomy_and_Phylogeny)
Cladistics (http://evolutionwiki.org/wiki/Cladistics#Fundamental_Concepts_of_Cladistics)
(http://img842.imageshack.us/img842/8499/9kl.gif) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/842/9kl.gif/)

More Examples of Ring Species (http://darwiniana.org/rings.htm)
What's a Hybrid species? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hybrid_(biology))

(http://img17.imageshack.us/img17/2228/ieus.jpg) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/17/ieus.jpg/)


(http://img4.imageshack.us/img4/5088/uywe.jpg) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/4/uywe.jpg/)
Title: Re: Evolution for Beginners
Post by: Smartmarzipan on September 12, 2013, 12:13:47 PM
The Ages of the Earth

Geologic Time Scale  Source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geologic_time_scale)
Quote
The geologic time scale (GTS) is a system of chronological measurement that relates stratigraphy to time, and is used by geologists, paleontologists, and other earth scientists to describe the timing and relationships between events that have occurred throughout Earth's history. The table of geologic time spans presented here agrees with the dates and nomenclature set forth by the International Commission on Stratigraphy standard color codes of the International Commission on Stratigraphy.

Evidence from radiometric dating indicates that the Earth is about 4.54 billion years old. The geology or deep time of Earth's past has been organized into various units according to events which took place in each period. Different spans of time on the GTS are usually delimited by changes in the composition of strata which correspond to them, indicating major geological or paleontological events, such as mass extinctions. For example, the boundary between the Cretaceous period and the Paleogene period is defined by the Cretaceous�Paleogene extinction event, which marked the demise of the dinosaurs and many other groups of life. Older time spans which predate the reliable fossil record (before the Proterozoic Eon) are defined by the absolute age.
What is Stratigraphy? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratigraphy)
(http://img838.imageshack.us/img838/6659/58p.gif) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/838/58p.gif/)

Full Table of the Geologic Time Scale (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geologic_time_scale#Table_of_geologic_time)

What Epoch Do We Live In?

The Holocene  Source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene)
Quote
The Holocene is a geological epoch which began at the end of the Pleistocene (at 11,700 calendar years BP) and continues to the present. The Holocene is part of the Quaternary period. It has been identified with the current warm period, known as MIS 1 and based on that past evidence, can be considered an interglacial in the current ice age.

he Holocene also encompasses within it the growth and impacts of the human species world-wide, including all its written history and overall significant transition toward urban living in the present. Human impacts of the modern era on the Earth and its ecosystems may be considered of global significance for future evolution of living species, including approximately synchronous lithospheric evidence, or more recently atmospheric evidence of human impacts. Given these, a new term Anthropocene, is specifically proposed and used informally only for the very latest part of modern history and of significant human impact since the epoch of the Neolithic Revolution (around 12,000 years BP).
Quaternary Glaciation: "The Last Ice Age" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quaternary_glaciation)
(http://img855.imageshack.us/img855/2458/dexq.jpg) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/855/dexq.jpg/)
(http://img199.imageshack.us/img199/2893/oocb.jpg) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/199/oocb.jpg/)
Title: Re: Evolution for Beginners
Post by: Smartmarzipan on September 12, 2013, 01:23:56 PM
I'm having a lot of fun doing this, so I'm just going to keep going. <!-- s:) -->:)<!-- s:) --> Everyone is welcome to add whatever pieces of information they want! The more, the better.

Introduction to Human Evolution  Source (http://humanorigins.si.edu/resources/intro-human-evolution)

Quote
Human evolution is the lengthy process of change by which people originated from apelike ancestors. Scientific evidence shows that the physical and behavioral traits shared by all people originated from apelike ancestors and evolved over a period of approximately six million years.

One of the earliest defining human traits, bipedalism -- the ability to walk on two legs -- evolved over 4 million years ago. Other important human characteristics -- such as a large and complex brain, the ability to make and use tools, and the capacity for language -- developed more recently. Many advanced traits -- including complex symbolic expression, art, and elaborate cultural diversity -- emerged mainly during the past 100,000 years.

Humans are primates. Physical and genetic similarities show that the modern human species, Homo sapiens, has a very close relationship to another group of primate species, the apes. Humans and the great apes (large apes) of Africa -- chimpanzees (including bonobos, or so-called �pygmy chimpanzees�) and gorillas -- share a common ancestor that lived between 8 and 6 million years ago.
Timeline of Human Evolution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_human_evolution#Hominidae)
Lucy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australopithecus_afarensis)
(http://img842.imageshack.us/img842/803/anr.gif) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/842/anr.gif/)

Quote
Human evolution is the evolutionary process leading up to the appearance of modern humans. While it began with the last common ancestor of all life, the topic usually covers only the evolutionary history of primates, in particular the genus Homo, and the emergence of Homo sapiens as a distinct species of hominids (or "great apes"). The study of human evolution involves many scientific disciplines, including physical anthropology, primatology, archaeology, linguistics, evolutionary psychology, embryology and genetics.
What's Embryology? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embryology)

Evidence
Quote
The closest living relatives of humans are bonobos and chimpanzees (both genus Pan) and gorillas (genus Gorilla). With the sequencing of both the human and chimpanzee genome, current estimates of the similarity between their DNA sequences range between 95% and 99%. By using the technique called the molecular clock which estimates the time required for the number of divergent mutations to accumulate between two lineages, the approximate date for the split between lineages can be calculated. The gibbons (family Hylobatidae) and orangutans ( genus Pongo) were the first groups to split from the line leading to the humans, then gorillas followed by the chimpanzees and bonobos. The splitting date between human and chimpanzee lineages is placed around 4-8 million years ago during the late Miocene epoch.
Who is Mitochondrial Eve? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve)
Human Evolutionary Genetics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolutionary_genetics)

Quote
There is little fossil evidence for the divergence of the gorilla, chimpanzee and hominin lineages. The earliest fossils that have been proposed as members of the hominin lineage are Sahelanthropus tchadensis dating from 7 million years ago, Orrorin tugenensis dating from 5.7 million years ago and Ardipithecus kadabba dating to 5.6 million years ago. Each of these have been argued to be a bipedal ancestor of later hominins but, in each case, the claims have been contested. It is also possible that one or more of these species are ancestors of another branch of African apes, or that they represent a shared ancestor between hominins and other apes.

The question of the relationship between these early fossil species and the hominin lineage is still to be resolved. From these early species, the australopithecines arose around 4 million years ago and diverged into robust (also called Paranthropus) and gracile branches, one of which (possibly A. garhi) probably went on to become ancestors of the genus Homo. The australopithecine species that is best represented in the fossil record is Australopithecus afarensis with more than one hundred fossil individuals represented, found from Northern Ethiopia (such as the famous "Lucy"), to Kenya, and South Africa. Fossils of robust australopithecines such as A. robustus (or alternatively Paranthropus robustus) and A./P. boisei are particularly abundant in South Africa at sites such as Kromdraai and Swartkrans, and around Lake Turkana in Kenya.

The earliest members of the genus Homo are Homo habilis which evolved around 2.3 million years ago. Homo habilis is the first species for which we have positive evidence of the use of stone tools. They developed the oldowan lithic technology, named after the Olduvai gorge in which the first specimens were found. Some scientists consider Homo rudolfensis, a larger bodied group of fossils with similar morphology to the original H. habilis fossils, to be a separate species while others consider them to be part of H. habilis - simply representing species internal variation, or perhaps even sexual dimorphism. The brains of these early hominins were about the same size as that of a chimpanzee, and their main adaptation was bipedalism as an adaptation to terrestrial living.

During the next million years, a process of encephalization began and, with the arrival of Homo erectus in the fossil record, cranial capacity had doubled. Homo erectus were the first of the hominina to leave Africa, and this species spread through Africa, Asia, and Europe between 1.3 to 1.8 million years ago. One population of H. erectus, also sometimes classified as a separate species Homo ergaster, stayed in Africa and evolved into Homo sapiens. It is believed that these species were the first to use fire and complex tools.
Source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution#Evidence_from_molecular_biology)
What is Sexual Dimorphism? (http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/537133/sexual-dimorphism)

(http://img692.imageshack.us/img692/6559/o5p7.jpg) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/692/o5p7.jpg/)(http://img833.imageshack.us/img833/3526/omw6.jpg) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/833/omw6.jpg/)

Quote
For almost a century after Darwin, most views on human origins posited a linear progression (orthogenesis) from an ape to modern humans. This is often illustrated as a march of hominids (see picture at right), usually starting with chimpanzees, which become more human-like as they progress across the page (usually left to right). This view echoed the religious ideas of the time, namely the Great Chain of Being (a ladder of forms, with humans as the top of the physical forms, just below the angels and God). Even great evolutionary scientists, such as Thomas Huxley, were of the opinion that humans were a very special type of animal, somehow the pinnacle of biological evolution.

This anthropocentric view began to diminish as paleoanthropologists found it difficult to find fossils that fit within this progressive lineage. During the 1950s and 1960s, fossil finds of primates and humans led to the conclusion that humans did not evolve from an extant ape species, but both apes and humans evolved independently from a common ancestor (which would be classified as an ape). Indeed, independently divergent evolution became a central view throughout evolutionary theory, and scientists began to appreciate the many speciation events that led to humans. No longer was it assumed, as Theodosius Dobzhansky and Ernst Mayr had proposed, that only one species of hominin could exist at once. Molecular genetics confirmed the view of cladogenesis and multiple extinction events, rather than anagenetic human origins.
 
Source (http://evolutionwiki.org/wiki/Human_evolution)
Cladistics (http://evolutionwiki.org/wiki/Cladistics#Fundamental_Concepts_of_Cladistics)
Walking Upright: Bipedalism
(http://img69.imageshack.us/img69/5311/mm8n.jpg) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/69/mm8n.jpg/)
Title: Re: Evolution for Beginners
Post by: MrsSassyPants on September 12, 2013, 02:44:35 PM
Geez this has been incredibly interesting to read.  And only SLIGHTLY over my head.  Thanks yall!!!!
Title: Re: Evolution for Beginners
Post by: Icarus on September 12, 2013, 03:24:09 PM
Exploring the origins of life:

http://exploringorigins.org/index.html (http://exploringorigins.org/index.html)
Title: Re: Evolution for Beginners
Post by: josephpalazzo on September 12, 2013, 03:36:27 PM
A good video in The Origin of Cellular Life on Earth (http://http://atheistforums.com/viewtopic.php?f=78&t=1442&hilit=origin+of+life) from Szostak, the Medicine Nobel Prize winner.
Title: Re: Evolution for Beginners
Post by: AllPurposeAtheist on September 12, 2013, 03:43:45 PM
I gotta tell you.. very few, if ANY of the religious nitwits I know would bother reading much past: see evolution sticky note..
God would certainly render them blind and they automatically qualify for the government dole..
Sorry to be such a stick in the mud. :)
Title: Re: Evolution for Beginners
Post by: AllPurposeAtheist on September 12, 2013, 09:59:38 PM
One of the zealots working here at the VOA today informed me our kind will have jobs shining the gold throne he'll be sitting at. Well, it's good to know at least we're no longer sent to stoke the furnaces. Janitorial isn't all that bad.
Title: Re: Evolution for Beginners
Post by: Eric1958 on September 13, 2013, 01:46:21 AM
I've taken college classes that I have put less work into than reading through this thread. Is there a test?
Title: Re: Evolution for Beginners
Post by: Smartmarzipan on September 13, 2013, 10:32:17 AM
Quote from: "Eric1958"
I've taken college classes that I have put less work into than reading through this thread. Is there a test?

Yes.

And it's one third of your grade.  :shock:
Title: Re: Evolution for Beginners
Post by: antediluvian on September 13, 2013, 12:33:25 PM
Quote from: "AllPurposeAtheist"
I gotta tell you.. very few, if ANY of the religious nitwits I know would bother reading much past: see evolution sticky note..
God would certainly render them blind and they automatically qualify for the government dole..
Sorry to be such a stick in the mud. :)
Well, this atheist nitwit is lovin the thread.
Title: Re: Evolution for Beginners
Post by: Hydra009 on September 13, 2013, 02:19:40 PM
Evolution of novel traits: e. coli evolve to metabolize citrate (http://http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Escherichia_coli_long-term_evolution_experiment)
Quote
The E. coli long-term evolution experiment is an ongoing study in experimental evolution led by Richard Lenski that has been tracking genetic changes in 12 initially identical populations of asexual Escherichia coli bacteria since 24 February 1988. The populations reached the milestone of 50,000 generations in February 2010.

Since the experiment's inception, Lenski and his colleagues have reported a wide array of genetic changes; some evolutionary adaptations have occurred in all 12 populations, while others have only appeared in one or a few populations. One particularly striking adaption was the evolution of a strain of E. coli that was able to use citric acid as a carbon source in an aerobic environment.
Quote
In 2008, Lenski and his collaborators reported on a particularly important adaptation that occurred in the population called Ara-3: the bacteria evolved the ability to grow on citrate under the oxygen-rich conditions of the experiment. Wild-type E. coli cannot grow on citrate when oxygen is present due to the inability during aerobic metabolism to produce an appropriate transporter protein that can bring citrate into the cell, where it could be metabolized via the citric acid cycle. The consequent lack of growth on citrate under oxic conditions, referred to as a Cit- phenotype, is considered a defining characteristic of the species that has been a valuable means of differentiating E. coli from pathogenic Salmonella. Around generation 33,127, the experimenters noticed a dramatically expanded population-size in one of the samples; they found clones in this population could grow on the citrate included in the growth medium to permit iron acquisition. Examination of samples of the population frozen at earlier time points led to the discovery that a citrate-using variant (Cit+) had evolved in the population at some point between generations 31,000 and 31,500.
Title: Re: Evolution for Beginners
Post by: Smartmarzipan on September 13, 2013, 02:57:09 PM
What is Abiogenesis?

Quote
Abiogenesis, or biopoiesis, is a natural process by which life arises from simple organic compounds. The earliest life on Earth existed at least 3.5 billion years ago, during the Eoarchean Era when sufficient crust had solidified following the molten Hadean Eon.

Scientific hypotheses about the origins of life may be divided into a number of categories. Many approaches investigate how self-replicating molecules or their components came into existence. For example, the Miller�Urey experiment and similar experiments demonstrated that most amino acids, often called "the building blocks of life", can be racemically synthesized in conditions thought to be similar to those of the early Earth. Several mechanisms have been investigated, including lightning and radiation. Other approaches ("metabolism first" hypotheses) focus on understanding how catalysis in chemical systems in the early Earth might have provided the precursor molecules necessary for self-replication.
Source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis)
What's the Urey-Miller Experiment? (http://www.chem.duke.edu/~jds/cruise_chem/Exobiology/miller.html)

Quote
There is no "standard model" of the origin of life. Most currently accepted models draw at least some elements from the framework laid out by the Oparin-Haldane hypothesis. Under that umbrella, however, are a wide array of disparate discoveries and conjectures such as the following, listed in a rough order of postulated emergence:

The Oparin-Haldane hypothesis suggests that the atmosphere of the early Earth may have been chemically reducing in nature, composed primarily of methane (CH4), ammonia (NH3), water (H2O), hydrogen sulfide (H2S), carbon dioxide (CO2) or carbon monoxide (CO), and phosphate (PO43-), with molecular oxygen (O2) and ozone (O3) either rare or absent.

In such a reducing atmosphere, electrical activity can catalyze the creation of certain basic small molecules (monomers) of life, such as amino acids. This was demonstrated in the Miller�Urey experiment by Stanley L. Miller and Harold C. Urey in 1953.

Phospholipids (of an appropriate length) can form lipid bilayers, a basic component of the cell membrane.
A fundamental question is about the nature of the first self-replicating molecule. Since replication is accomplished in modern cells through the cooperative action of proteins and nucleic acids, the major schools of thought about how the process originated can be broadly classified as "proteins first" and "nucleic acids first".

The principal thrust of the "nucleic acids first" argument is as follows:

The polymerization of nucleotides into random RNA molecules might have resulted in self-replicating ribozymes (RNA world hypothesis)

Selection pressures for catalytic efficiency and diversity might have resulted in ribozymes which catalyse peptidyl transfer (hence formation of small proteins), since oligopeptides complex with RNA to form better catalysts. The first ribosome might have been created by such a process, resulting in more prevalent protein synthesis.

Synthesized proteins might then outcompete ribozymes in catalytic ability, and therefore become the dominant biopolymer, relegating nucleic acids to their modern use, predominantly as a carrier of genomic information.

No one has yet synthesized a "protocell" using basic components which would have the necessary properties of life (the so-called "bottom-up-approach"). Without such a proof-of-principle, explanations have tended to be focused on chemosynthesis of polymers. However, some researchers are working in this field, notably Steen Rasmussen at Los Alamos National Laboratory and Jack Szostak at Harvard University. Others have argued that a "top-down approach" is more feasible. One such approach, successfully attempted by Craig Venter and others at The Institute for Genomic Research, involves engineering existing prokaryotic cells with progressively fewer genes, attempting to discern at which point the most minimal requirements for life were reached. The biologist John Desmond Bernal coined the term biopoiesis for this process,[46] and suggested that there were a number of clearly defined "stages" that could be recognised in explaining the origin of life.

Stage 1: The origin of biological monomers
Stage 2: The origin of biological polymers
Stage 3: The evolution from molecules to cell
Bernal suggested that evolution commenced between Stage 1 and 2.
More scientific models for Abiogenesis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis#Current_models)

Quote
Certain creationists correctly point out that abiogenesis must have taken place at some point to begin the process of evolution. They then attempt to use this premise to "disprove" evolution, claiming that Louis Pasteur had conclusively refuted it. However, he only showed that it is not a typical present-day occurrence even for the simplest of free-living organisms.

Creationists also like to rebut abiogenesis by pointing out seeming prebiotic environments where it does not happen, like in their Peanut Butter Argument. However, the most suitable environment has been the subject of active research, like that of G�nter W�chtersh�user with his hypothesis of an iron-sulfur world of hydrothermal vents.

Another creationist statement often made is that evolution is abiogenesis; this is simply ignorance of scientific terminology. Evolution is the gradual change of organisms over time, whereas abiogenesis is the start of life itself. The creationists may also be projecting their belief in separate creations onto mainstream biologists.

Yet more creationist illogic is, "Scientists can't explain the origin of life, therefore it must have been God and specifically the God I believe in."
Source (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Abiogenesis#Creationists_and_abiogenesis)
What is the Peanut Butter Argument? (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Peanut_Butter_Argument)
(http://img17.imageshack.us/img17/2260/eble.jpg) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/17/eble.jpg/)

Hydrothermal Vents
Possible site for the Origin of Life?

Quote
A hydrothermal vent, also called a "black smoker", is a fissure in a planet's surface from which geothermally heated water issues. Hydrothermal vents are commonly found near volcanically active places, tectonic plates that are moving apart, ocean basins, and hotspots.

Hydrothermal vents are abundant on Earth because it is both geologically active and has large amounts of water on its surface. Common land types include hot springs, fumaroles and geysers. The most famous hydrothermal vent system is probably Yellowstone National Park in the United States.

Relative to the majority of the deep sea, the areas around hydrothermal vents are biologically productive, often hosting complex communities fueled by the chemicals dissolved in the vent fluids. Chemosynthetic archaea form the base of the food chain, supporting diverse organisms, including giant tube worms, clams, and shrimp.
Source (http://evolutionwiki.org/wiki/Hydrothermal_vent)
What's Chemosynthesis? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemosynthesis)
(http://img594.imageshack.us/img594/2763/akri.jpg) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/594/akri.jpg/)

Quote
There are many different theories about where the origin of life occurred. These theories range from life beginning in deep sea thermal vents to bacterial life arriving from other places in the universe, among others. Some of these theories are more credible than others, yet all provide an interesting explanation for life's beginnings.

Significance of Water
Everyone knows that liquid water is essential for humans to survive. In fact, it is essential in the chemistry of all biological systems. Water provides the medium in which the transport of molecules can occur in reactions. Because water is necessary for all life, scientists look for evidence of liquid water wherever they search for life, whether it is somewhere on Earth, or even somewhere else in our solar system or beyond. In fact, astronomers are currently examining the satellites of Jupiter, Europa and Ganymeade, and Titan, one of Saturn's satellites, to see if they contain liquid water and the conditions which may give rise to life as we know it.

Before we look to see where life may have begun elsewhere in the universe, let's look at where, or how, life might have begun on the earth.

Thermal Vents
One current theory is that life originated deep beneath the surface of the ocean at deep sea hydrothermal vents. These hydrothermal vents were first discovered in 1979. Soon after, scientists made an exciting discovery. These vents release hot gaseous substances from the center of the earth at temperatures in excess of 572oF. Previously scientists were sure that life could not exist, deep beneath the surface of the ocean. After the discovery of hydrothermal vents, they found ecosystems thriving in the depths of the ocean. These ecosystems contained various types of fish, worms, crabs, bacteria and other organisms which had found a way to survive in a cold, hostile environment without energy input from sunlight. Because life had been found to exist where it previously was thought unable to, many scientists began to ask questions as to whether or not this was where life may have originated on the earth.

On the molecular level, the chances of life originating at deep sea thermal vents is not likely. It is known that organic molecules are unstable at high temperatures, and are destroyed as quickly as they are produced. It has been estimated that life could not have arisen in the ocean unless the temperature was less than 25oC, or 77oF.

Supporters of this theory claim that the organic molecules at the thermal vents are not formed in 300oC temperatures, but rather in a gradient formed between the hydrothermal vent water, and the extremely cold water, 4oC (39.2oF), which surrounds the vent at the bottom of the ocean.

The temperatures at this gradient would be suitable for organic chemistry to occur. Debates still remain, however, as to the gradient's effectiveness in producing organic compounds.
Source (http://www.chem.duke.edu/~jds/cruise_chem/Exobiology/sites.html)
Hydrothermal Vent Communities (https://php.radford.edu/~swoodwar/biomes/?page_id=1027)
(http://img401.imageshack.us/img401/818/ygg3.jpg) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/401/ygg3.jpg/)
Title: Re: Evolution for Beginners
Post by: Colanth on September 13, 2013, 04:15:28 PM
Quote from: "Hydra009"
Evolution of novel traits: e. coli evolve to metabolize citrate (http://http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Escherichia_coli_long-term_evolution_experiment)
Of course theists will say "they're still E. coli" or, worse yet, "they're still bacteria".

And they're right.  So if a fish gives birth to an elephant it shouldn't surprise them - it's still an animal.
Title: Re: Evolution for Beginners
Post by: Colanth on September 13, 2013, 04:18:07 PM
Quote from: "Smartmarzipan"
What is Abiogenesis?
Anyone save the link to the youtube video showing how abiogenesis could have occurred?  (It was posted on the forum not too long ago.)  It definitely belongs here.
Title: Re: Evolution for Beginners
Post by: josephpalazzo on September 13, 2013, 05:56:43 PM
Quote from: "Colanth"
Quote from: "Smartmarzipan"
What is Abiogenesis?
Anyone save the link to the youtube video showing how abiogenesis could have occurred?  (It was posted on the forum not too long ago.)  It definitely belongs here.

Page 1
Title: Re: Evolution for Beginners
Post by: Smartmarzipan on September 13, 2013, 06:32:38 PM
I found a good resource for an Introduction to Evolution (http://https://www.boundless.com/biology/introduction-to-evolution/introduction-to-evolution/brief-overview-of-evolution/). It's like an online textbook. :)
Title: Re: Evolution for Beginners
Post by: Brian37 on September 13, 2013, 06:52:54 PM
Um all this detail means something to those who already accept it.

I'd argue to Creationists who seem to be bloodthirsty vengeful people if they sat on a jury of a murder trial, would they accept DNA evidence to convict the accused. I'd bet my life that most of them would accept DNA evidence in a trial.

I'd simply point out to these morons that they cant cherry pick science because DNA BACKS UP EVOLUTION. So if they deny evolution, then they should discount any DNA evidence in a murder trial when sitting on a jury.

They use and love what science produces, but spit on it all the time.
Title: Re: Evolution for Beginners
Post by: Smartmarzipan on September 13, 2013, 06:54:16 PM
Quote from: "Brian37"
Um all this detail means something to those who already accept it.

I'd argue to Creationists who seem to be bloodthirsty vengeful people if they sat on a jury of a murder trial, would they accept DNA evidence to convict the accused. I'd bet my life that most of them would accept DNA evidence in a trial.

I'd simply point out to these morons that they cant cherry pick science because DNA BACKS UP EVOLUTION. So if they deny evolution, then they should discount any DNA evidence in a murder trial when sitting on a jury.

They use and love what science produces, but spit on it all the time.

Well, this isn't just for creationists. This is for everyone.
Title: Re: Evolution for Beginners
Post by: AllPurposeAtheist on September 13, 2013, 07:38:11 PM
Science has been horifically destructive as well as beneficial to everyone. I view it more neutral. It's not like the football team the Scientist vs the Creationists.
GOOOO TEAM! :)
Title: Re: Evolution for Beginners
Post by: josephpalazzo on September 14, 2013, 10:07:06 AM
Quote from: "AllPurposeAtheist"
Science has been horifically destructive as well as beneficial to everyone. I view it more neutral. It's not like the football team the Scientist vs the Creationists.
GOOOO TEAM! :)


Yes, science is neutral. It is how human uses it for either good or bad. However in the case of creationists, it is sheer hypocrisy on their part, as they are quite willing to go with science as long as they can reap its benefits  but where it clashes with their core belief, they deny it. If science is capable of producing MIR, sending people to the moon, build the internet, etc., it's also capable of explaining the origin of life, something the creationists go all out to deny.
Title: Re: Evolution for Beginners
Post by: Thumpalumpacus on September 14, 2013, 11:38:21 AM
Evolution for dummies: Slow cheetahs starve.
Title: Re: Evolution for Beginners
Post by: Colanth on September 14, 2013, 02:48:46 PM
Quote from: "josephpalazzo"
Quote from: "Colanth"
Quote from: "Smartmarzipan"
What is Abiogenesis?
Anyone save the link to the youtube video showing how abiogenesis could have occurred?  (It was posted on the forum not too long ago.)  It definitely belongs here.

Page 1
Somehow I missed the link.
Title: Re: Evolution for Beginners
Post by: josephpalazzo on September 14, 2013, 02:56:29 PM
Quote from: "Colanth"
Quote from: "josephpalazzo"
Quote from: "Colanth"

Anyone save the link to the youtube video showing how abiogenesis could have occurred?  (It was posted on the forum not too long ago.)  It definitely belongs here.

Page 1
Somehow I missed the link.


Here's a repeat:

Quote
A good video in The Origin of Cellular Life on Earth (http://http://atheistforums.com/viewtopic.php?f=78&t=1442&hilit=origin+of+life) from Szostak, the Medicine Nobel Prize winner.
Title: Re: Evolution for Beginners
Post by: Smartmarzipan on September 19, 2013, 07:11:35 PM
I was going through my favorite Youtube videos and found this video on Abiogensis.

[youtube:nrb1oyht]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6QYDdgP9eg[/youtube:nrb1oyht]
Title: Re: Evolution for Beginners
Post by: pucstudent0915 on February 21, 2014, 02:27:40 PM
Hello,
A group of college students are conducting am anonymous survey to see if there is a relationship between age/religion and the views on the origin of life. It would be great if we could get viewpoints from you guys. Thank you so much!

http://kwiksurveys.com/s.asp?sid=ybzootthkee0icg307813 (http://kwiksurveys.com/s.asp?sid=ybzootthkee0icg307813)
Title: Re: Evolution for Beginners
Post by: Passion of Christ on February 21, 2014, 04:30:26 PM
Evolution is a process of organic development via natural selection that occurs once you have all necessary condition for life set. You only need to create a universe that has everything you need to set these conditions to begin with then leave the system the system to generate the living forms. All species will have ecological niche and a niche for humanity/intelligent life will have opened up at some stage which our ancestral species went down. This will happen on other planets as well of course so there's no real issue between evolution and God as far as I can tell.
Title: Re: Evolution for Beginners
Post by: Plu on February 21, 2014, 05:31:22 PM
Depending on your version of god, there are anywhere between 0 and infinite problems. Since no two people seem to have the same god, and all people refuse to define actual properties for their gods, it's kinda meaningless.

I guess it's nice to know that your specific, personal god is one that works alongside evolution, though.
Title: Re: Evolution for Beginners
Post by: AllPurposeAtheist on February 21, 2014, 06:16:32 PM
So obviously god evolved from a lower life form.. I guess that explains Jesus fish. He evolved into a little metal thing on car trunks.. Cool, huh?
Title: Re: Evolution for Beginners
Post by: Sonwinks on February 22, 2014, 01:23:34 PM
A question for creationists:
Do you believe in the quantifiable and calculable 'speed of light'?
Then.... How is it possible for us on earth to see the stars.... If the earth is 6000-10000 years old?
It really just boggles my mind how they can be so delusional.....
Title: Re: Evolution for Beginners
Post by: Hydra009 on February 22, 2014, 01:34:55 PM
Quote from: "Sonwinks"
A question for creationists:
Do you believe in the quantifiable and calculable 'speed of light'?
Then.... How is it possible for us on earth to see the stars.... If the earth is 6000-10000 years old?
http://http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creationist_cosmologies#The_.22starlight_problem.22  Heh.

Quote
It really just boggles my mind how they can be so delusional.....
With God, all things are possible.  :P
Title: Re: Evolution for Beginners
Post by: PopeyesPappy on February 22, 2014, 02:11:22 PM
Haven't you heard? The speed of light traveling towards a YEC is instantaneous. Traveling away from a YEC it is equal to C/2.
Title: Re: Evolution for Beginners
Post by: Passion of Christ on February 23, 2014, 06:19:00 AM
Quote from: "Plu"

I guess it's nice to know that your specific, personal god is one that works alongside evolution, though.

It would do more than work alongside evolution it explains why evolution existed and why the final outcome of evolution is what it was. You have intelligent beings capable of rational thought who are then able to have an understanding of God who would be in relationship with them. This would explain why humans have religion and certain kinds of beliefs evolution wouldn't account for. Religion is an energy intensive exercise with no obvious survival advantage but is present in all human cultures throughout the entire length of human (homo sapien) history and pre-history. So God and the transcendent in general is absolutely fundamental to the core of the whole thing. You can get into the specifics of which religion has the most correct perspective of God (which is Christianity naturally) but that's a different debate. Refuting atheism/materialism is a nice little starter.
Title: Re: Evolution for Beginners
Post by: Passion of Christ on February 23, 2014, 06:19:01 AM
Quote from: "Plu"

I guess it's nice to know that your specific, personal god is one that works alongside evolution, though.

It would do more than work alongside evolution it explains why evolution existed and why the final outcome of evolution is what it was. You have intelligent beings capable of rational thought who are then able to have an understanding of God who would be in relationship with them. This would explain why humans have religion and certain kinds of beliefs evolution wouldn't account for. Religion is an energy intensive exercise with no obvious survival advantage but is present in all human cultures throughout the entire length of human (homo sapien) history and pre-history. So God and the transcendent in general is absolutely fundamental to the core of the whole thing. You can get into the specifics of which religion has the most correct perspective of God (which is Christianity naturally) but that's a different debate. Refuting atheism/materialism is a nice little starter, a little tastier of the truth.
Title: Re: Evolution for Beginners
Post by: Plu on February 23, 2014, 07:27:03 AM
But it doesn't predict where evolution will go, so it's useless conjecture without any kind of scientific power. Anything can be made up to explain current knowledge, but it's only valuable if it can predict currently unknown events. Which your religion cannot.
Title: Re: Evolution for Beginners
Post by: Gawdzilla Sama on February 23, 2014, 08:00:02 AM
If it hasn't been said already, "The Big Bang is part of the evolutionary theory". Repeat that as needed.

(http://http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-9NrUZzG1aw8/UCDxUjKtlqI/AAAAAAAAE8o/KzxyOipagR4/s1600/Big+Bang+theory+universe+creation+and+expansion+model.JPG)
Title: Re: Evolution for Beginners
Post by: Hydra009 on February 23, 2014, 12:10:24 PM
Quote from: "Passion of Christ"
Religion is an energy intensive exercise with no obvious survival advantage but is present in all human cultures throughout the entire length of human (homo sapien) history and pre-history. So God and the transcendent in general is absolutely fundamental to the core of the whole thing.
That or, yanno, religion evolved (http://http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_religion).  But your explanation makes a lot of sense, too.  Religion exists because God exists. (Jesus, obviously, not those heathen gods)  Sounds watertight to me.

Quote
You can get into the specifics of which religion has the most correct perspective of God (which is Christianity naturally) but that's a different debate.
Naturally.  LOL.
Title: Re: Evolution for Beginners
Post by: St Giordano Bruno on March 06, 2014, 07:30:56 PM
Listen to This Garbage (http://https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1_LalpC4ROc)


   :rollin:  :rollin:  :rollin:  



You heard in first, God is a giant monkey, feed him a giant banana, especially made to fit his creative hand.
And which scientist are they quoting that all life on earth evolved from a jar of giant peanut butter?

Peanut butter analogy! epic fail!
Title: Re: Evolution for Beginners
Post by: darsenfeld on March 09, 2014, 12:40:21 PM
er..:

variation-selection-speciation

So a group of deer have all different traits, some big, small, some can eat different types of grass, others can eat leaves.   But when the environment changes from a woodland to grassland, those who can digest the grass do better, and become a new species.
Title: Re: Evolution for Beginners
Post by: Hydra009 on March 09, 2014, 05:52:33 PM
Quote from: "darsenfeld"
So a group of deer have all different traits, some big, small, some can eat different types of grass, others can eat leaves.   But when the environment changes from a woodland to grassland, those who can digest the grass do better, and become a new species.
It doesn't necessarily have to result in a new species, but basically, yes, that's basically how evolution works.
Title: Re: Evolution for Beginners
Post by: ApostateLois on April 24, 2014, 05:29:01 PM
Is anyone else getting fonts like this?

(http://i975.photobucket.com/albums/ae233/ElveeKaye/HUGEfont_zps3b3f9fb3.jpg) (http://s975.photobucket.com/user/ElveeKaye/media/HUGEfont_zps3b3f9fb3.jpg.html)

Also, none of the links in this thread are working. I keep getting a 502 Error page.

Anyway, I always direct people to the Understanding Evolution website made by Berkely University.  http://evolution.berkeley.edu/  They investigate various aspects of evolution in a manner that is clear, simple, and concise while still being thorough. Their Evolution 101 series takes you step-by-step through a basic understanding of evolutionary processes, how we know they are happening in real time, and how we make use of such knowledge in everyday life. http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_01

I don't know if any creationist has ever actually gone to these pages, though. They are so closed-minded and brainwashed that they can't even bring themselves to read about evolution, for fear that it will somehow compromise their faith.
Title: Re: Evolution for Beginners
Post by: wolf39us on April 24, 2014, 05:41:56 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Is anyone else getting fonts like this?

(http://i975.photobucket.com/albums/ae233/ElveeKaye/HUGEfont_zps3b3f9fb3.jpg) (http://s975.photobucket.com/user/ElveeKaye/media/HUGEfont_zps3b3f9fb3.jpg.html)

Also, none of the links in this thread are working. I keep getting a 502 Error page.

Anyway, I always direct people to the Understanding Evolution website made by Berkely University.  http://evolution.berkeley.edu/  They investigate various aspects of evolution in a manner that is clear, simple, and concise while still being thorough. Their Evolution 101 series takes you step-by-step through a basic understanding of evolutionary processes, how we know they are happening in real time, and how we make use of such knowledge in everyday life. http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_01

I don't know if any creationist has ever actually gone to these pages, though. They are so closed-minded and brainwashed that they can't even bring themselves to read about evolution, for fear that it will somehow compromise their faith.

What browser are you using?
Title: Re: Evolution for Beginners
Post by: Munch on May 15, 2014, 07:47:17 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I gotta tell you.. very few, if ANY of the religious nitwits I know would bother reading much past: see evolution sticky note..
God would certainly render them blind and they automatically qualify for the government dole..
Sorry to be such a stick in the mud. <!-- s:) -->:)<!-- s:) -->

(http://www.quickmeme.com/img/0b/0bed1bbe48f725fe2db508352a74e9aca6f42c5057cd8a8e6627728d9314c565.jpg)

^^
Title: Re: Evolution for Beginners
Post by: Gawdzilla Sama on May 15, 2014, 08:19:55 AM
Sorry if these have already been posted.

First book is more scientifically inclined. The second covers more of the historical perspective, now evolution evolved as we studied it. They are complimentary and I've owned at least six sets.

Evolution For Dummies (http://www.amazon.com/Evolution-Dummies-Greg-Krukonis/dp/0470117737/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1400156156&sr=1-1&keywords=evolution+for+dummies)

Quote
Today, most colleges and universities offer evolutionary study as part of their biology curriculums. Evolution For Dummies will track a class in which evolution is taught and give an objective scientific view of the subject. This balanced guide explores the history and future of evolution, explaining the concepts and science behind it, offering case studies that support it, and comparing evolution with rival theories of creation, such as intelligent design. It also will identify the signs of evolution in the world around us and explain how this theory affects our everyday lives and the future to come.

The Complete Idiot's Guide(R) to Evolution (http://www.amazon.com/Complete-Idiots-Guide-Evolution/dp/0028642260/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1400156253&sr=1-1&keywords=evolution+for+complete+idiots)

Quote
You're no idiot of course. You've heard of Charles Darwin and how his theories changed the world. However, many scientists prior to Darwin examined where we came from - and many today wonder where we're going. Don't let scientific jargon make you feel like a primitive species! This shows you exactly what evolutionary theory is and why it remains controversial to this day. In the Complete Idiot's Guide to Evolution, you get: The principles of natural selection and the role of the environment in determining an organism's chances of survival. How scientists expanded upon Mendel's discovery and research of genetics - including inherited traits. How DNA was discovered and its relationship with inherited traits. Modern evolutionary concepts such as macroevolution and microevolution.
Title: Re: Evolution for Beginners
Post by: Solitary on May 27, 2014, 06:03:51 PM
It's a lot easier to just believe God did it. whew! Even I got tired reading it. I really believe anyone so lazy they don't want to learn will get past the first word. Solitary
Title: Re: Evolution for Beginners
Post by: josephpalazzo on May 28, 2014, 07:19:02 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login



I don't know if any creationist has ever actually gone to these pages, though. They are so closed-minded and brainwashed that they can't even bring themselves to read about evolution, for fear that it will somehow compromise their faith.

They go to AiG for their regular dose of brainwashing.
Title: Re: Evolution for Beginners
Post by: wolf39us on January 06, 2015, 08:52:00 AM
I have fixed all of the formatting errors for this epic thread.

Title: Re: Evolution for Beginners
Post by: Unbeliever on February 25, 2015, 04:25:51 PM
I've just come across a book called The Evolution Handbook (http://www.temcat.com/L-4-Topical-Library/Creation/Handbook-all.pdf) (PDF), which is truly amazing! It claims to have "thousands of scientific facts, disproving every basic area of evolutionary theory."

Just to give you a general idea of the kinds of "facts" presented, here's a section about the history of Hiroshima.

Beginning at the bottom of pg. 361, he dramatically leads us through the bombing itself, mentioning the number missing or killed (over 92,000), and then says:

Quote
These poor creatures struggled with radiation-damaged bodies through the remainder of their shortened lives. Researchers studied them for decades: not one of them evolved into a new species or a new super race.
:exclaim:

I've only just begun to peruse the book, but I suspect there are many more gems like this. Have any of you heard of it? Could it be a spoof?

Title: Re: Evolution for Beginners
Post by: hrdlr110 on February 25, 2015, 05:42:23 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I've just come across a book called The Evolution Handbook (http://www.temcat.com/L-4-Topical-Library/Creation/Handbook-all.pdf) (PDF), which is truly amazing! It claims to have "thousands of scientific facts, disproving every basic area of evolutionary theory."

Just to give you a general idea of the kinds of "facts" presented, here's a section about the history of Hiroshima.


Beginning at the bottom of pg. 361, he dramatically leads us through the bombing itself, mentioning the number missing or killed (over 92,000), and then says:
:exclaim:

I've only just begun to peruse the book, but I suspect there are many more gems like this. Have any of you heard of it? Could it be a spoof?

As I started reading, spoof came to mind, but if it is a spoof it's the mother load longest spoof in the history of mankind and spoofing. Gems such as the one you posted would be buried Ina mountain of spoof. Based on the length, I'm going with "not" a spoof - and that makes me very sad.
Title: Re: Evolution for Beginners
Post by: kilodelta on February 25, 2015, 05:52:46 PM
I think the book is just looking at the people that were affected by the atom bomb. The author totally overlooked the evolution of Godzilla and the entire Monster Island.

(https://skreeonk.files.wordpress.com/2013/07/destroy-all-monsters-retouch.jpg)
Title: Re: Evolution for Beginners
Post by: Unbeliever on February 25, 2015, 06:06:44 PM
Indeed, they failed to take into account the possible evolution of new species among the microbes and insects, as well.

I intend to go through the book with a fine toothed comb, if it seems to be worth it. I have The Counter-Creationism Handbook to help.
Title: Re: Evolution for Beginners
Post by: Brian37 on February 25, 2015, 06:40:27 PM
Um I would like to point out that "survival of the fittest" needs to stop being used out of context. It is not the goal of evolution. It is one aspect of "the ability to adapt" on all levels as from genes to environment. But if the "fittest" individual dies before reproducing they have not spread their genes.

You can have say, have two guys at a bar. One 5' 5" fat guy with 4 kids spill a beer on a 6'2" muscle bound guy who responds to the spilled beer attempting to start a fight, this guy has no kids. The fat guy pulls out a gun and kills the fit guy with no kids. The unfit guy wins at evolution and the fit guy dies not spreading his genes.

It is more the ability to adapt and reproduce, heath in the individual can and does play a role, but in evolution what is important is reproduction and luck can and does play some role in that as well. You don't have to be the biggest or the toughest. Bacteria can kill the most fit human and far outnumber humans.
Title: Re: Evolution for Beginners
Post by: Hydra009 on February 25, 2015, 07:10:09 PM
We should also try to inform people that fitness is not some absolute quality, but relative to the prevailing local conditions, which often change.  Adaptions that work in colder climates fail in warmer climates and vice versa, being tall can be an asset in some circumstances but a detriment in others, etc.
Title: Re: Evolution for Beginners
Post by: Unbeliever on February 25, 2015, 07:24:48 PM
Yeah, s'more like survival of the luckiest!
Title: Re: Evolution for Beginners
Post by: eylul on May 30, 2015, 07:13:36 AM
Today i hated evolution. I have learnt pigs cant see the sky because of their physical situation. I want to hug them all and show them to sky :/
Title: Re: Evolution for Beginners
Post by: TomFoolery on May 30, 2015, 08:12:32 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
We should also try to inform people that fitness is not some absolute quality, but relative to the prevailing local conditions, which often change.  Adaptions that work in colder climates fail in warmer climates and vice versa, being tall can be an asset in some circumstances but a detriment in others, etc.

Agreed. And also that things don't "devolve" per se. Things evolve in one direction only, and sometimes to the detriment of a species, but that doesn't mean it's reverting back to some previous form.
Title: Re: Evolution for Beginners
Post by: Hydra009 on May 30, 2015, 12:48:10 PM
Yeah.  "Devolve" is a meaningless term brought about by a fundamental misunderstanding of evolution - that it has some ultimate goal and the species in question is evolving in the opposite direction.  Meanwhile in reality, evolution is just genetic change.  There's no such thing as reverse evolution.
Title: Re: Evolution for Beginners
Post by: Summertimeyeah on August 21, 2015, 01:58:13 PM
Where did the first living thing come from?
Title: Re: Evolution for Beginners
Post by: Summertimeyeah on August 21, 2015, 02:07:46 PM
Before animals evolved plants evolved. where did the plants come from? What was the first animal? Did insects come before animals? What was the first insect?

Why have things only evolved on earth, how come there isn't any plants or suitable life on other planets. Like how come nothing has evolved on the sun?


Title: Re: Evolution for Beginners
Post by: Hydra009 on August 21, 2015, 02:13:40 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Where did the first living thing come from?
You're talking about abiogenesis, which is separate from evolution.  You can read up on that here (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis).  The jist of it is that fairly simplistic (compared to modern bacteria and eukaryotic cells) self-replicating molecules gave rise to the first cells.
Title: Re: Evolution for Beginners
Post by: Hydra009 on August 21, 2015, 02:27:32 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Before animals evolved plants evolved. where did the plants come from?
Green algae (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_plants).

Quote
What was the first animal?
Unknown.

Quote
Did insects come before animals?
Insects are animals.

Quote
What was the first insect?
Unknown.  Here's the oldest one (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhyniognatha) that anyone knows of. 

Quote
Why have things only evolved on earth, how come there isn't any plants or suitable life on other planets.
Obviously, favorable conditions for life were not sustained on nearby planets.  There might be some traces of life elsewhere in the solar system, but the Earth is definitely the mother lode.

Quote
Like how come nothing has evolved on the sun?
:confused: :wall:
Title: Re: Evolution for Beginners
Post by: Summertimeyeah on August 22, 2015, 11:48:44 AM
You think that things can't evolve on the sun is wrong.
Title: Re: Evolution for Beginners
Post by: Termin on August 22, 2015, 11:59:05 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You think that things can't evolve on the sun is wrong.

 Here's the thing, life can evolve anywhere life can survive.

 If there is a form of life capable of living on the sun , we are not aware of it, and probably never will be as we are only able to observe the sun at a distance, and only very carefully, as we have no way to physically examine the sun. 

  I am curious however why do you think life can evolve on the sun and what you base that upon ?

Title: Re: Evolution for Beginners
Post by: Hijiri Byakuren on August 22, 2015, 07:41:36 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Before animals evolved plants evolved. where did the plants come from?
Probably some form of chlorophyll-producing protozoa.

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
What was the first animal?
Impossible to know. It would have been an invertebrate, and they rarely leave fossils.

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Did insects come before animals?
Insects are animals.

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Why have things only evolved on earth
We don't know if Earth is the only place with life.

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
how come there isn't any plants or suitable life on other planets
We don't know one way or the other. Also, this has nothing to do with evolution. The formation of life from non-life is abiogenesis, not evolution.

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Like how come nothing has evolved on the sun?
You have no way to know whether or not something evolved on the sun. It's difficult enough for us to even look at the sun, much less determine if something lives there.
Title: Re: Evolution for Beginners
Post by: Hydra009 on August 23, 2015, 01:02:48 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You think that things can't evolve on the sun is wrong.
Just out of curiousity, what sorts of chemical reactions do you surmise are taking place on a very hot and heavily pressurized (understatement) ball of what is almost entirely hydrogen and helium?
Title: Re: Evolution for Beginners
Post by: TomFoolery on August 23, 2015, 10:42:31 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You think that things can't evolve on the sun is wrong.
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Just out of curiousity, what sorts of chemical reactions do you surmise are taking place on a very hot and heavily pressurized (understatement) ball of what is almost entirely hydrogen and helium?
Agreed. The sun is essentially a nuclear reactor.

However, it is true that life can evolve in some pretty spectacular places. Extremophiles on Earth are a great reason to believe life could possibly exist on planets incapable of supporting most other Earth life, thanks to the nature of their perfectly evolved enzymes. Yet we call them extremophiles from our own human perspective. There are organisms alive on Earth flourishing in the presence of high levels of ionizing radiation, in environments completely deprived of oxygen, in under alpine snowpacks at temperatures below -15 °C and in hydrothermal vents. Yet even in hydrothermal vents, where the temperature reaches around 122 °C (251.6 °F), still doesn't even scratch the sun's surface temperature of 5500 °C (9940.73 °F).

But I would say the fact that even these creatures exist should open our mind's to the possibility that there could well be life on planets that are too cold, hot, acidic, basic, etc. to support human life.
Title: Re: Evolution for Beginners
Post by: PopeyesPappy on August 23, 2015, 11:32:36 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Just out of curiousity, what sorts of chemical reactions do you surmise are taking place on a very hot and heavily pressurized (understatement) ball of what is almost entirely hydrogen and helium?

Nuclear molecules (http://www.biblioteca.org.ar/libros/89994.pdf) that bind elements via the exchange of neutrons instead of electrons like we see in conventional chemistry were first observed in the 1960s. All observations to date have shown them to be unstable and short lived, but the higher pressures and energies found on the surface of stars could affect that in ways we don't understand. The bottom line is energy based life forms are a possibility that have been a subject of discussion for decades. Carl Sagan and Degrasse Tyson both admit the possibility. It is a big ass universe and there might be a lot of things happening out there that our limited understanding of how things work currently tells us are improbable.
Title: Re: Evolution for Beginners
Post by: peacewithoutgod on November 02, 2015, 08:41:42 AM
Richard Dawkins already explained it to the lay-person world, the gist of how evolution works is best summed up in his first and most recent book (Greatest Show On Earth), and he did such a great job at making it understandable to even the dullest among us that I see no point in redundant efforts for now - just refer them to Dawkins! What, Creationists don't want to read the Devil Dawkins? Feministas hate him because he isn't female? Well, that's too bad, but when people are going to be that ignorant, there's no point in trying to reason with them at all.
Title: Re: Evolution for Beginners
Post by: peacewithoutgod on November 08, 2015, 05:40:45 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Science has been horifically destructive as well as beneficial to everyone. I view it more neutral. It's not like the football team the Scientist vs the Creationists.
GOOOO TEAM! <!-- s:) -->:)<!-- s:) -->
No, I don't think science has ever been responsible for any social damage at all, and its important that society recognize how it has not. It always took humans to do that, and it's been how they used science, always in some half-baked manner, acting on false conclusions.
Title: Re: Evolution for Beginners
Post by: jonb on November 08, 2015, 05:47:26 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
No, I don't think science has ever been responsible for any social damage at all, and its important that society recognize how it has not. It always took humans to do that, and it's been how they used science, always in some half-baked manner, acting on false conclusions.

If that is you view, that science did no harm it was the humans use of it that did harm, then the opposite must also be true, science did no good it was the humans using it that did the good, as such the argument science is neutral is proven.
Title: Re: Evolution for Beginners
Post by: peacewithoutgod on November 08, 2015, 06:17:31 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
If that is you view, that science did no harm it was the humans use of it that did harm, then the opposite must also be true, science did no good it was the humans using it that did the good, as such the argument science is neutral is proven.
The misunderstanding is on what science is. Numerous people here, who are atheists and therefore supposedly of sound and logical mind, have damned science as just another ideological entity, or even as a religion. It is neither - science is a method of inquiry, nothing more. It is only because it works so much better than other said methods for evaluating the truth on ideas that so-called "sciencists" (a very rotten pejorative created by woo-peddlers) insist on deference to that method for evaluating the claims that people make.

When people used science to back up Social Darwinism, the Genetic Determinism model of behavior, and eugenics policies, they used it without being in any way themselves scientific - they cherry-picked the convenient bits which supported ideas which had already been formed. When science was used to build the atomic bomb, it was used correctly, if not for human good. It can be used for good or for evil, but then science itself is the best course for determining what applications are evil or good. In this case it was not so used, when President Truman decided to build a nuclear weapon with the unscientific idea that it would end all war.
Title: Re: Evolution for Beginners
Post by: Cavebear on October 29, 2016, 11:13:48 AM
Bump!  This one looks interesting...
Title: Re: Evolution for Beginners
Post by: Cavebear on November 17, 2016, 05:15:35 AM
Could someone give easily-undertandable examples for the scientifically unknowledgable.  Like the variable dark and light moths in coal-burning England?
Title: Re: Evolution for Beginners
Post by: trdsf on January 09, 2017, 02:03:04 PM
Here's the evolution experiment I would like to see.  Unfortunately, it would probably take decades and no one wants to underwrite grants for that long.  But I bet the results would be fascinating.

We know, thanks to the rover program, what the composition of Martian soil is like.  We can replicate that in a sealed environment -- and it actually doesn't matter if it's sterile.  We want to introduce bacteria (and a few tardigrades, those things are nearly indestructible) that can exist in the alkaline conditions of Martian soil, and any stragglers that got sealed inside are on their own.

Over a long period of time (probably at least a decade, maybe longer), slowly reduce the water and air pressure and temperature to typical Martian levels, and adjust the atmospheric content from Terrestrial to Martian.  Change the lighting to the Martian daily cycle, dim it, add the UV component.

We already have the technology to replicate a small sample of the Martian environment in a sealed system, everything but the gravity.  And I am willing to bet that at the end of it, there will be some bacterial survivors eking out a bare living in the arid dust.

What does this demonstrate?  Well, evolution by mutation and natural selection, for one.  If there are survivors, they are life forms that can not otherwise exist on Earth and so did not exist previously.  They can not have simply appeared out of nothing, they must be the end result of the collection of changes in what were originally completely Terrestrial organisms.  Take them out of their 'Mars jar' and they'll die, poisoned by oxygen and too much water and not enough alkalinity.

Now, part II: take some of those Earth-born "Martians" and reverse the process.  And compare whatever survives at the end of it to the original organisms from the very beginning of the experiment -- and there will be considerable differences, of that I am certain, enough to call it a different subspecies at a minimum, if not a different species entirely.

What that will demonstrate is convergent evolution, because returning the newly created Martians to their original Terrestrial climate does not simply unwind the evolutionary clock.  They can not regress to the earlier state, they must evolve forward into something that can occupy the same environmental niche as their 'ancient' ancestors, leading to superficial similarities but identifiably different biological mechanisms to accomplish the same tasks.

The ultimate experiment would be to take our artificial Martians and actually send them to Mars to see if they survive, but I don't think we want to contaminate that planet without a better reason than "Hey, let's see what this does."
Title: Re: Evolution for Beginners
Post by: Hydra009 on January 09, 2017, 02:23:43 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Could someone give easily-undertandable examples for the scientifically unknowledgable.  Like the variable dark and light moths in coal-burning England?
Peppered moths and walking sticks (http://phenomena.nationalgeographic.com/2013/10/09/evolution-in-color-from-peppered-moths-to-walking-sticks/), as well as lizard camouflage (http://www.nbcnews.com/id/34823460/ns/technology_and_science-science/t/lizards-camouflage-reveals-evolution-action/).
Title: Re: Evolution for Beginners
Post by: Baruch on January 09, 2017, 06:22:33 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Here's the evolution experiment I would like to see.  Unfortunately, it would probably take decades and no one wants to underwrite grants for that long.  But I bet the results would be fascinating.

We know, thanks to the rover program, what the composition of Martian soil is like.  We can replicate that in a sealed environment -- and it actually doesn't matter if it's sterile.  We want to introduce bacteria (and a few tardigrades, those things are nearly indestructible) that can exist in the alkaline conditions of Martian soil, and any stragglers that got sealed inside are on their own.

Over a long period of time (probably at least a decade, maybe longer), slowly reduce the water and air pressure and temperature to typical Martian levels, and adjust the atmospheric content from Terrestrial to Martian.  Change the lighting to the Martian daily cycle, dim it, add the UV component.

We already have the technology to replicate a small sample of the Martian environment in a sealed system, everything but the gravity.  And I am willing to bet that at the end of it, there will be some bacterial survivors eking out a bare living in the arid dust.

What does this demonstrate?  Well, evolution by mutation and natural selection, for one.  If there are survivors, they are life forms that can not otherwise exist on Earth and so did not exist previously.  They can not have simply appeared out of nothing, they must be the end result of the collection of changes in what were originally completely Terrestrial organisms.  Take them out of their 'Mars jar' and they'll die, poisoned by oxygen and too much water and not enough alkalinity.

Now, part II: take some of those Earth-born "Martians" and reverse the process.  And compare whatever survives at the end of it to the original organisms from the very beginning of the experiment -- and there will be considerable differences, of that I am certain, enough to call it a different subspecies at a minimum, if not a different species entirely.

What that will demonstrate is convergent evolution, because returning the newly created Martians to their original Terrestrial climate does not simply unwind the evolutionary clock.  They can not regress to the earlier state, they must evolve forward into something that can occupy the same environmental niche as their 'ancient' ancestors, leading to superficial similarities but identifiably different biological mechanisms to accomplish the same tasks.

The ultimate experiment would be to take our artificial Martians and actually send them to Mars to see if they survive, but I don't think we want to contaminate that planet without a better reason than "Hey, let's see what this does."

Can't we already study alien life forms at oceanic thermal vents?  They are sulfur based, not oxygen based, right?
Title: Re: Evolution for Beginners
Post by: PopeyesPappy on January 10, 2017, 11:51:45 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Can't we already study alien life forms at oceanic thermal vents?  They are sulfur based, not oxygen based, right?

No, not sulfur based. All known organisms are considered carbon based. Some Earthly organisms use sulfur instead of oxygen for cellular respiration. Others oxidize sulfur into sulfuric acid for use as an energy source. But to be considered sulfur based they'd have to use sulfur based compounds in place of amino acids for basic cellular structures.
Title: Re: Evolution for Beginners
Post by: Baruch on January 10, 2017, 01:56:33 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
No, not sulfur based. All known organisms are considered carbon based. Some Earthly organisms use sulfur instead of oxygen for cellular respiration. Others oxidize sulfur into sulfuric acid for use as an energy source. But to be considered sulfur based they'd have to use sulfur based compounds in place of amino acids for basic cellular structures.

"use sulfur instead of oxygen for cellular respiration"  ... that is what I meant ... thanks for clarifying.  Of course actual regular living organisms do have sulfur and phosphorus as part of their biochemistry, but I wouldn't call the sulfur or phosphorus based.  Since people are mostly made up of water, rather than carbon, they could be called water based ... or at least all wet ;-)
Title: Re: Evolution for Beginners
Post by: BettaPonic on January 27, 2017, 10:12:32 PM
I was fascinated that silicon based life forms are possible. I have been breeding a Tomatoes for five generations and have seen genetic drift in many traits.
Title: Re: Evolution for Beginners
Post by: Baruch on January 28, 2017, 04:14:50 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I was fascinated that silicon based life forms are possible. I have been breeding a Tomatoes for five generations and have seen genetic drift in many traits.

I actually worked on silicon based life forms when I was in college ... but unfortunately it only produced politicians ;-)
Title: Re: Evolution for Beginners
Post by: Unbeliever on January 28, 2017, 05:38:05 PM
First life with 'alien' DNA (http://www.nature.com/news/first-life-with-alien-dna-1.15179)
Quote
An engineered bacterium is able to copy DNA that contains unnatural genetic letters.
Quote
For billions of years, the history of life has been written with just four letters — A, T, C and G, the labels given to the DNA subunits contained in all organisms. That alphabet has just grown longer, researchers announce, with the creation of a living cell that has two 'foreign' DNA building blocks in its genome.


Life may or may not be sacred, but it's eminently manipulable, and it has much potential for both good and bad.
Title: Re: Evolution for Beginners
Post by: Cavebear on January 31, 2017, 12:49:25 PM
Life simply *IS*.  It is inwardly-directed, not outwardly.  No deity determines which frog eggs mature to reproduce.  No deity decided that peacocks would have fancy tails.  No deity chose anyone or group to survive or thrive.  No deity supports US.
Title: Re: Evolution for Beginners
Post by: TJ on February 01, 2017, 01:46:59 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I think we should have an Evolution sticky post to refer to and add to whenever we get an inquiring newbie or even an obstinate creationist.

'Evolution' is a funny word. There is no reason why a person could believe in the following forms of 'evolution' and not be a creationist:

1) Microbial evolution. This is a form of micro-evolution. Microbes are subject to mutations and can adapt. They still remain microbes.

2) Speciation. 'Species' is also a funny word. However, there is no reason to believe that a particular species cannot change into a closely related sister species (as defined by scientists). This is also micro-evolution. The species still remains as one biblical 'kind.' One can see a finch species become another finch species (yet still remain finches.)

These are the types of evolution that a creationist with a knowledge of science need not to accept, since the evidence is lacking:

1) Macro-evolution. Seeing one type of animal evolve into an entirely different type of animal. For example, a dog-like animal evolving into a bear-like animal. This has never been observed and isn't supported by the fossil record, which shows stasis (giving rise to the Punctuated Equilibrium hypothesis).

2) Chemical evolution. Otherwise known as abiogenesis. The hypothesis that life arose from natural chemical reactions. This is unobserved, non-repeatable. The mechanisms of how this was supposed to have happened are currently not established.

Here is what a creationist would need to believe in a naturalistic explanation of all life (and this list is by no means exhaustive):

1) Multiple examples of macro-evolution (examples cannot be explained by other means).
2) A convincing explanation, with conclusive evidence, for the stasis seen in the fossil record.
3) Convincing explanation, with conclusive evidence, for the "big bangs" of species appearing after mass extinctions in the fossil record.
4) Convincing explanation, with conclusive evidence, for the "big bang" of mankind's unique behavior bursting onto the archeological scene, with all the traits seen in modern humans, with no such behaviors observed in the archeological record "evolving" from the hominids.
5) Convincing explanation, with conclusive evidence, for why 50% - 80% of all known phylas appeared within, arguably, a 3 million year time period in the Cambrian Explosion.
6) Convincing explanation for why the Long Term Evolution Experiment, decades of mutations experiments with fruit flies, and 70 years of plant mutation experiments have never produced the results that evolutionists expected.
7) Any convincing explanation, which should be repeatable, for abiogenesis.
Title: Re: Evolution for Beginners
Post by: TJ on February 01, 2017, 02:00:25 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Life simply *IS*.  It is inwardly-directed, not outwardly.  No deity determines which frog eggs mature to reproduce.  No deity decided that peacocks would have fancy tails.  No deity chose anyone or group to survive or thrive.  No deity supports US.

As the saying goes, the survival of the fittest does not explain the ARRIVAL of the fittest.

Life exists. It is all around us. We are alive, or living beings, creatures, either intentionally (intelligently) made/designed or the product of time, a lot of time and chance, and unintentional in design and in purpose or function. But we're alive! Even the most ardent skeptic must accept this.

So how does that help us, or answer the question, What is the origin of life?

Here is an argument which I believe demonstrates sufficiently the origin of life is life, and therefore life must ultimately be eternal, since we are alive now. According to how we generally consider a matter to be "scientific," that is, by having sufficiently demonstrable results according to a repeated and testable process, I believe this argument fits the requirements for being accepted as the best available means of reliably explaining the origin of life:

    1) Life exists.

    2) Based on all known, shared, and/or otherwise available scientific study and information life can only come from something or from someone already alive or living.

    3) Therefore, since based on all known, shared, and/or otherwise available scientific study and information life can only come from something or from someone already alive or living, the origin of life must be life, or something or someone already alive.

    4) Further, and based on the above, namely, all known, shared, and/or otherwise available scientific study and information shows us without exception life can only come from something or from someone already alive or living, life must be considered eternal (without any beginning or start from non-life) because life is here now.

I also believe the above argument sufficiently responds to any argument which claims not to be able to account for the origin of life as life itself, or as something or someone already alive or living. This also means it is scientific to say life is eternal. This provides a basis for claiming it is scientific to believe "God" or some other superhuman being or alien is also eternal.
Title: Re: Evolution for Beginners
Post by: Hydra009 on February 01, 2017, 02:15:15 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
a creationist with a knowledge of science
So basically, a unicorn.

Quote
need not to accept, since the evidence is lacking:
Am I replying to a creationist right now?

Quote
1) Macro-evolution. Seeing one type of animal evolve into an entirely different type of animal.
That's not what macroevolution (or any form of evolution) is.  Evolution involves gradations, creationism is the one that makes leaps.  You must have the two confused.

Quote
For example, a dog-like animal evolving into a bear-like animal.
Not directly, obviously.  Only a complete idiot (or a creationist) would expect that.

Quote
This has never been observed and isn't supported by the fossil record
Actually... (https://youtu.be/bJ-DawQKPr8?t=8m38s)
Title: Re: Evolution for Beginners
Post by: TJ on February 01, 2017, 03:30:56 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
So basically, a unicorn.

So you are suggesting that the founding fathers of modern science (Galileo, Bacon, Newton, Einstein etc.) were unicorns?

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
That's not what macroevolution (or any form of evolution) is.  Evolution involves gradations, creationism is the one that makes leaps.  You must have the two confused

No confusion. The theory of evolution asserts that humans evolved from fish. That's a pretty big leap.

The basic definition of the *word* Evolution is simply " to change over time", which I think every informed creationist agrees with: Tails get shorter or longer, certain species become extinct while others flourish, etc.

Then there's the *theory* of Evolution: Organic evolution is the theory that the first living organism developed from lifeless matter. Then, as it reproduced, it is said, it changed into different kinds of living things, ultimately producing all forms of plant and animal life that have ever existed on this earth. All of this is said to have been accomplished without the supernatural intervention of a Creator.

As one geneticist said: "The scientific community is well aware of the complexity found in life. But these fascinating facts are generally presented in a strong evolutionary context. In my mind, however, the arguments against the Bible account of creation fall apart when subjected to scientific scrutiny. I have examined such arguments over decades. After much careful study of living things and consideration of the way the laws governing the universe seem perfectly adjusted so that life on earth can exist, I am compelled to believe in a Creator."

Actually...

Claiming that fossils are transitional dog-bear forms is a blatant assumption, not a fact.

Evolutionists refer to the entire collection of organisms between two points in time as 'transitionals.' Implicit in this reference is the assumption that evolution must be true.

When evolutionary biologists have no real understanding of the precise evolutionary pathway that connects two organisms, they remain convinced that one must exist.

Biblical creationism predicts that:

1) Forms appear suddenly in the fossil record.
2) They remain essentially unaltered.
3) They are optimal as soon as they appear.

Evolutionary theory predicts that:

1) New forms should appear gradually in the fossil record.
2) Gradual evolutionary forms between different types should be evident.
2) Some transitional forms should appear crude and inefficient.

The fossil record matches the creation model, not the evolutionary model.
Title: Re: Evolution for Beginners
Post by: TJ on February 01, 2017, 03:59:42 AM
And as for the so-called "vestigal" dew claw on the inner side of the dog's hind leg, it is not vestigal at all. It is a functional structure.

When the dog runs it can make contact with the ground, and the dog uses it when making quick turns.  Even if the claw does not make contact with the ground, or take any weight, the dog can use it to scratch itself to remove irritants from around eyes, ears and in its fur.  In some dogs it is robust enough to be used to help manipulate objects, such as bones and sticks.

Some larger breeds e.g. Rottweiler, German Shepherd etc. can have two or three “toes/nails” on the rear dewclaw, and are these are usually unattached by bone.  These dewclaws can be used for grooming, scratching and clasping, and even in play or hunting.

And not all dog breeds have dewclaws.  Our domestic breeds are often quite removed and different from wild dogs due to selective breeding.

In some breeds the dewclaw is present but lacks the muscle and tendons needed to make it useful, and in these cases it could be called “vestigial”.  However, this is not evidence for evolution.  It just means that a functional claw has become degenerate and lost part of its structure, and is no longer useful. 
Title: Re: Evolution for Beginners
Post by: TJ on February 01, 2017, 04:10:42 AM
"Vestigial" features is not a good argument for evolutionists.

For example, they say 'A' is a vestigial organ, and is evidence for evolution.' Then, a few years later, A is shown to have function.

Does that mean that A now disproves evolution? No, evolutionists don't accept that, and the old 'evidence' is quietly sweep under the rug.

Evolution would predict vestigial organs. Creation would predict function for all organs. Scientific findings show that all organs have function. Organs that are thought to have no function are shown to have function. Thus, creation has fulfilled scientific predictions.
Title: Re: Evolution for Beginners
Post by: TrueStory on February 01, 2017, 05:02:15 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
'Evolution' is a funny word. There is no reason why a person could believe in the following forms of 'evolution' and not be a creationist:

1) Microbial evolution. This is a form of micro-evolution. Microbes are subject to mutations and can adapt. They still remain microbes.

2) Speciation. 'Species' is also a funny word. However, there is no reason to believe that a particular species cannot change into a closely related sister species (as defined by scientists). This is also micro-evolution. The species still remains as one biblical 'kind.' One can see a finch species become another finch species (yet still remain finches.)

These are the types of evolution that a creationist with a knowledge of science need not to accept, since the evidence is lacking:

1) Macro-evolution. Seeing one type of animal evolve into an entirely different type of animal. For example, a dog-like animal evolving into a bear-like animal. This has never been observed and isn't supported by the fossil record, which shows stasis (giving rise to the Punctuated Equilibrium hypothesis).

2) Chemical evolution. Otherwise known as abiogenesis. The hypothesis that life arose from natural chemical reactions. This is unobserved, non-repeatable. The mechanisms of how this was supposed to have happened are currently not established.

Here is what a creationist would need to believe in a naturalistic explanation of all life (and this list is by no means exhaustive):

1) Multiple examples of macro-evolution (examples cannot be explained by other means).
2) A convincing explanation, with conclusive evidence, for the stasis seen in the fossil record.
3) Convincing explanation, with conclusive evidence, for the "big bangs" of species appearing after mass extinctions in the fossil record.
4) Convincing explanation, with conclusive evidence, for the "big bang" of mankind's unique behavior bursting onto the archeological scene, with all the traits seen in modern humans, with no such behaviors observed in the archeological record "evolving" from the hominids.
5) Convincing explanation, with conclusive evidence, for why 50% - 80% of all known phylas appeared within, arguably, a 3 million year time period in the Cambrian Explosion.
6) Convincing explanation for why the Long Term Evolution Experiment, decades of mutations experiments with fruit flies, and 70 years of plant mutation experiments have never produced the results that evolutionists expected.
7) Any convincing explanation, which should be repeatable, for abiogenesis.
Lol, you can't even count right.

But forget about evolution, what is the theory of creation, how does that work?
Title: Re: Evolution for Beginners
Post by: Baruch on February 01, 2017, 07:22:46 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Life simply *IS*.  It is inwardly-directed, not outwardly.  No deity determines which frog eggs mature to reproduce.  No deity decided that peacocks would have fancy tails.  No deity chose anyone or group to survive or thrive.  No deity supports US.

Made up friends, do have marginal benefit, psychosomatically.
Title: Re: Evolution for Beginners
Post by: PopeyesPappy on February 01, 2017, 07:31:50 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Please get your head out of Ken Hams ass, and spend some time at biologos.org (http://biologos.org) reading up on what other Christians think about your beliefs on evolution.
Title: Re: Evolution for Beginners
Post by: Hydra009 on February 01, 2017, 06:09:34 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
So you are suggesting that the founding fathers of modern science (Galileo, Bacon, Newton, Einstein etc.) were unicorns?
I've never seen that argument before (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA114.html).  How many of those listed lived and died before there even was a theory of evolution via natural selection?  Everyone on your list but Einstein.

Einstein is an odd choice, btw.  He called the idea of an anthropomorphic deity "naĂŻve" and "childlike".  And you seriously expect me to buy your obviously bullshit claim that he was a creationist?

(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/98/9d/9a/989d9a0eddd5019dcf4d6e7803dd1f23.gif)

Quote
No confusion. The theory of evolution asserts that humans evolved from fish. That's a pretty big leap.
1) It seems like a pretty big leap only when you omit the shitload of intermediate forms.
2) Natura non facit saltus.
3) FFS, read a biology textbook or something.  You're clearly getting what can laughably be called "information" from Dr Dino or Ken Ham or some other charlatan pseudoscientist.  LRN2LRN.

Quote
The basic definition of the *word* Evolution is simply " to change over time"
The colloquial definition of the word doesn't matter in a discussion about the scientific concept.

Quote
Then there's the *theory* of Evolution: Organic evolution is the theory that the first living organism developed from lifeless matter.
In trying to define evolution, you actually described abiogenesis instead.  Bro, do you even science?

(http://www.reactiongifs.com/r/idjut.gif)
Title: Re: Evolution for Beginners
Post by: Unbeliever on February 01, 2017, 06:37:52 PM
(http://www.troll.me/images/richard-dawkins/ha-ha-you-tried-to-reason-with-a-creationist-thumb.jpg)



(https://ethicalrealism.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/why-creationists-reject-evolution2.png)


(https://ethicalrealism.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/debunking-creationism-in-two-minutes.png)



(http://img.memecdn.com/troll-god_c_5154073.jpg)
Title: Re: Evolution for Beginners
Post by: Hijiri Byakuren on February 01, 2017, 10:57:25 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
No confusion. The theory of evolution asserts that humans evolved from fish. That's a pretty big leap.
Sure, we evolved from fish... if you ignore every evolutionary stage between ancient fish and modern humans.

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Then there's the *theory* of Evolution: Organic evolution is the theory that the first living organism developed from lifeless matter.
No, that's abiogenesis, which is still a hypothesis since it's yet to be observed.

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Then, as it reproduced, it is said, it changed into different kinds of living things, ultimately producing all forms of plant and animal life that have ever existed on this earth. All of this is said to have been accomplished without the supernatural intervention of a Creator.
Yup. Because we've seen it happen. It's part of why you need a new flu shot every year.

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
As one geneticist said: "The scientific community is well aware of the complexity found in life. But these fascinating facts are generally presented in a strong evolutionary context. In my mind, however, the arguments against the Bible account of creation fall apart when subjected to scientific scrutiny. I have examined such arguments over decades. After much careful study of living things and consideration of the way the laws governing the universe seem perfectly adjusted so that life on earth can exist, I am compelled to believe in a Creator."
I suppose I can't fault a geneticist for being ignorant of science outside his own field; but as Stephen Hawking once said, the only thing the universe seems "fine-tuned" to do is produce black holes. Life is more of a by-product than anything else.

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Actually...

Claiming that fossils are transitional dog-bear forms is a blatant assumption, not a fact.
It's a conclusion based on skeletal comparison. Contrary to what you seem to believe, most ancestral lines have tell-tale features linking them to one or more modern lineages. That's how we know ancient land-whales were whales, for example, and not just weird-looking wolves.

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Evolutionists refer to the entire collection of organisms between two points in time as 'transitionals.' Implicit in this reference is the assumption that evolution must be true.
Every life form that has ever produced offspring is a "transitional organism." My parents are transitional organisms (between myself and my grandparents). However the term is usually reserved for specific species whose fossils are used to determine how modern features came about. That being said, "transitional" species were just as fully-formed as any other animal, and did just fine in the habitat they were adapted to at the time.

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
When evolutionary biologists have no real understanding of the precise evolutionary pathway that connects two organisms, they remain convinced that one must exist.
Well when basically every other organism on Earth does it, the logical conclusion is that your mystery creature does too.

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Biblical creationism predicts that:

1) Forms appear suddenly in the fossil record.
2) They remain essentially unaltered.
3) They are optimal as soon as they appear.

Evolutionary theory predicts that:

1) New forms should appear gradually in the fossil record.
2) Gradual evolutionary forms between different types should be evident.
2) Some transitional forms should appear crude and inefficient.

The fossil record matches the creation model, not the evolutionary model.
Again, you are completely off-base. What we call transitional forms were perfectly functional in their own habitat. If they weren't they wouldn't have "transitioned" into their descendants; their line would just be extinct. Evolution only occurs in the wild when one of two things happens: either certain traits get winnowed out of the gene pool due to outside factors, or a new niche opens up that favors a particular trait. This is how you get a billion species of birds in the Galapagos Islands, but the coelacanth remains almost unchanged after hundreds of millions of years.
Title: Re: Evolution for Beginners
Post by: trdsf on February 02, 2017, 11:44:02 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Evolutionary theory predicts that:

1) New forms should appear gradually in the fossil record.
Which we see in the fossil record.  What we do not have, of course, is a complete fossil record, so there are gaps.  That's the nature of the process of fossilization.

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
2) Gradual evolutionary forms between different types should be evident.
Which we see, where the fossils exist.

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
2) Some transitional forms should appear crude and inefficient.
I think you mean 3, and evolution makes no such prediction.  Transitional forms should appear adapted to their then-current environment.  Evolution doesn't cause an organism to go from efficient to less efficient, even on its way to finding a better-adapted form.

Inefficiencies are caused by environmental changes occurring at a pace faster than evolutionary changes, and you are making the common error of thinking that evolution has a goal.  If evolution were goal-oriented rather than survival-oriented, temporary inefficiencies might appear en route to a newer form enabled by that inefficiency.

Instead, when we see inefficient forms, it is because the environment changed, and evolution had to play catch up.

Simple as that.

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
The fossil record matches the creation model, not the evolutionary model.
Now this is just flat wrong.
Title: Re: Evolution for Beginners
Post by: Hydra009 on February 02, 2017, 12:07:15 PM
I'd also like to address the common creationist claim that microevolution (wolves to dogs) is indisputably true, but macroevolution (dogs to bears, fish to people, whatever other BS creationists think it means) is a lie from the pits of hell.

Microevolution and Macroevolution refer to the exact same thing, just on different timescales.  And the mechanisms driving these cumulative genetic changes are exactly the same.

Creationists are essentially arguing that erosion can change the shape of a beach but not the shape of an entire country's coastline.  This distinction is illogical and factually wrong and we all know that the underlying motivation of this sort of thinking has more to do with maintaining religious beliefs in the face of reality than anything involving science.

(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-i94qZqIJolY/TcNdIM9emkI/AAAAAAAAALY/8dACHdxg6MM/s1600/the+difference+between+micro+and+macro+evolution.jpg)
Title: Re: Evolution for Beginners
Post by: trdsf on February 02, 2017, 01:04:12 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Microevolution and Macroevolution refer to the exact same thing, just on different timescales.  And the mechanisms driving these cumulative genetic changes are exactly the same.
Exactly.

Also, I've never seen any sort of case presented as to why evolution is okay on the micro scale, but not on the macro.  Creationists need to offer a mechanism for why evolution stops at the micro level, or some sort of semi-logical argument as to why it shouldn't work at larger time frames.

"It just doesn't" isn't good enough, without explaining why it doesn't.
Title: Re: Evolution for Beginners
Post by: PopeyesPappy on February 02, 2017, 01:23:58 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-i94qZqIJolY/TcNdIM9emkI/AAAAAAAAALY/8dACHdxg6MM/s1600/the+difference+between+micro+and+macro+evolution.jpg)

The first time I ever saw this graphic was on this forum several years ago. I seem to remember, perhaps incorrectly,  that the member that posted it was the person that created it, but I can't remember who it was. Does anyone else remember that and know who it was?

In the meantime kudos to whoever it was for creating a great graphic that's now all over the interwebs!

Title: Re: Evolution for Beginners
Post by: Cavebear on February 11, 2017, 02:18:18 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Exactly.

Also, I've never seen any sort of case presented as to why evolution is okay on the micro scale, but not on the macro.  Creationists need to offer a mechanism for why evolution stops at the micro level, or some sort of semi-logical argument as to why it shouldn't work at larger time frames.

"It just doesn't" isn't good enough, without explaining why it doesn't.

Microevolution is OK to Creationists because it doesn't seem important.  A crab can slightly change its shell shape in the 6,000 years of Earthly existence and they don't care.  Who cares about those Samuri crabs, after all?

But when you talk about macro, one ape becoming a human, THAT threatens them.  That takes too long.  And, of course, Adam and Eve.
But when you talk about
Title: Re: Evolution for Beginners
Post by: trdsf on February 13, 2017, 10:43:22 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Microevolution is OK to Creationists because it doesn't seem important.  A crab can slightly change its shell shape in the 6,000 years of Earthly existence and they don't care.  Who cares about those Samuri crabs, after all?

But when you talk about macro, one ape becoming a human, THAT threatens them.  That takes too long.  And, of course, Adam and Eve.
And yet no creationist "theory" ever puts forth a mechanism for why evolution doesn't work at the macro level, beyond "it just doesn't".  Granted, it's no surprise that they don't understand how science works.

As far as I'm concerned, it is perfectly legitimate to reject IDiocy out of hand until they can rectify that glaring hole.  Of course they never will, because that glaring hole is exactly what they hang their creationism on: "it just doesn't, therefore..."
Title: Re: Evolution for Beginners
Post by: Hydra009 on February 13, 2017, 11:05:43 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
And yet no creationist "theory" ever puts forth a mechanism for why evolution doesn't work at the macro level, beyond "it just doesn't".
Which is funny, because a lot of these same people think that modern species came from a bunch of "kinds" created just a few thousand years ago.  What they're proposing is evolution on steroids.  And then they turn around and say that regular evolution couldn't possibly work because evolution can't generate large changes, a lie so obviously false that not even the people saying it actually believe it.

The real truth of the matter is they want their reality ice cream with the God cherry on top and whatever they have to believe to maintain that belief is what they're going to go with.  Evolution threatens their narrative, so they need it to not be so.  They have the unenviable task of trying to make modern science work with bronze age mythology, and the end result is inevitably a massive disservice to both.
Title: Re: Evolution for Beginners
Post by: trdsf on February 13, 2017, 12:42:54 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Which is funny, because a lot of these same people think that modern species came from a bunch of "kinds" created just a few thousand years ago.  What they're proposing is evolution on steroids.  And then they turn around and say that regular evolution couldn't possibly work because evolution can't generate large changes, a lie so obviously false that not even the people saying it actually believe it.

Pretty much, yeah.  The reason they present to refute macro-evolution is to implicitly assume macro-evolution on a scale even faster than the one they already reject as being not long enough to bring about major changes that can't happen anyway.

I don't suppose there's any fossil evidence for their "kinds".  Or, it being only a few thousand years ago, any bones -- which can't be carbon dated because they reject carbon dating as evidence.  Maybe a creationist "archaeologist" could find Noah's Ark?

Oh, wait.  Genesis didn't say anything about kinds, it said animals, described more or less as the modern ones with which we are familiar, all the way back to chapter 1.  So the theory of kinds isn't in accord with their own text.

Yup.  Accepting the theory of "kinds" means rejecting biblical literality.

Color me amused but not surprised.
Title: Re: Evolution for Beginners
Post by: Baruch on February 13, 2017, 12:52:46 PM
"kind" = [Old English gecynd nature; compare Old English cyn kin, Gothic kuni race, Old High German kikunt, Latin gens] ... so similar to species

But ...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baraminology

This is a translation problem, turned into a tempest in a teapot.
Title: Re: Evolution for Beginners
Post by: Cavebear on February 17, 2017, 08:53:14 AM
Creationism is basically the idea that species do not change and therefore, all species were created by a deity at the same time and individually, yet with all the  similarities. The deity must have been lacking in creative thought.

Our similarities in DNA suggest our common origin, and the differences go so smoothly along the timescale that the progression seems obvious.  I often feel sorry for those who have to deny that in order to keep their theistic views consistent.
Title: Re: Evolution for Beginners
Post by: AllPurposeAtheist on February 17, 2017, 09:13:40 AM
Donald Trump is a prime example of the failure to prove evolution. He's still pond scum. Checkmate evolutionists..
Title: Re: Evolution for Beginners
Post by: Baruch on February 17, 2017, 01:07:37 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Donald Trump is a prime example of the failure to prove evolution. He's still pond scum. Checkmate evolutionists..

Pond scum at least converts carbon dioxide to oxygen ... and you do what?
Title: Re: Evolution for Beginners
Post by: Cavebear on February 19, 2017, 04:47:05 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Pond scum at least converts carbon dioxide to oxygen ... and you do what?

We animals provide some of the carbon dioxide... 
Title: Re: Evolution for Beginners
Post by: Baruch on February 19, 2017, 06:35:23 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
We animals provide some of the carbon dioxide...

If you were a ruminant, you could also provide methane and cow tipping.
Title: Re: Evolution for Beginners
Post by: Cavebear on March 02, 2017, 06:09:58 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
If you were a ruminant, you could also provide methane and cow tipping.

Last I checked, I was not a ruminant.  Though I DO try to chew my food carefully.  Its the cud I try to avoid...
Title: Re: Evolution for Beginners
Post by: hrdlr110 on May 07, 2017, 10:11:40 PM
did some mining, just to blow some minds. Nostalgic.
Title: Re: Evolution for Beginners
Post by: Unbeliever on May 08, 2017, 07:39:48 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
If you were a ruminant, you could also provide methane and cow tipping.



(http://captainscratchy.com/comics/2012-07-13-cow-tipping-jerk.jpg)
Title: Re: Evolution for Beginners
Post by: Hydra009 on May 08, 2017, 07:57:22 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Creationism is basically the idea that species do not change and therefore, all species were created by a deity at the same time and individually, yet with all the  similarities. The deity must have been lacking in creative thought.

Our similarities in DNA suggest our common origin, and the differences go so smoothly along the timescale that the progression seems obvious.  I often feel sorry for those who have to deny that in order to keep their theistic views consistent.
Late reply I know, but we have some very startling similarities.  Not just anatomical similarities, but genetic similarities including endogenous retroviruses and pseudogenes.  Either God makes mistakes and repeats said mistakes for funsies, or species descend from common ancestors.
Title: Re: Evolution for Beginners
Post by: Cavebear on May 09, 2017, 03:55:28 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Late reply I know, but we have some very startling similarities.  Not just anatomical similarities, but genetic similarities including endogenous retroviruses and pseudogenes.  Either God makes mistakes and repeats said mistakes for funsies, or species descend from common ancestors.

Late replies are fine with me.  I consider the commonality of DNA going back several 100 millions of years to be per se evidence of common origin.  Heck, I hardly even think about that as debatable.

Some do, but stupidity is persistent.
Title: Re: Evolution for Beginners
Post by: Baruch on May 09, 2017, 06:32:35 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login


(http://captainscratchy.com/comics/2012-07-13-cow-tipping-jerk.jpg)

I also tip waitrons ... but they get up and punch me!
Title: Re: Evolution for Beginners
Post by: Unbeliever on May 09, 2017, 05:47:38 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I consider the commonality of DNA going back several 100 millions of years to be per se evidence of common origin.


I'd rather they hadn't used the name "Eve (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve)" for the ancestral mother of us all - it confuses the creationists!
Title: Re: Evolution for Beginners
Post by: Baruch on May 09, 2017, 06:44:42 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

I'd rather they hadn't used the name "Eve (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve)" for the ancestral mother of us all - it confuses the creationists!

Chava in Hebrew = Life.  Adam named her ... Chava and Isha (woman).  Adam got to name all the animals ...
Title: Re: Evolution for Beginners
Post by: trdsf on May 10, 2017, 12:23:29 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I'd rather they hadn't used the name "Eve (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve)" for the ancestral mother of us all - it confuses the creationists!
As if confusing them takes much effort... ;)
Title: Re: Evolution for Beginners
Post by: Hydra009 on May 10, 2017, 12:50:58 AM
I've had to explain to people that mitochondrial eve wasn't literally the first woman nor did she shack up with Y-chromosomal adam.  She's just the most recent common matrilineal ancestor of everyone currently alive and he's the same thing but patrilineal.  And few words put people to sleep faster than most recent common matrilineal ancestor.

Also unlike biblical eve, mitochondrial eve had a mother.  That's a question I had to field once.  Yeah, humanity didn't just pop out of thin air one day.  It's not like the first human was delivered via stork and this pregnancy stuff is a modern invention.  Instead, it's a long line of sex and pregnancy, from anatomically modern humans all the way back to archaic humans and eventually to non-human apes.  Evolution is weird like that.
Title: Re: Evolution for Beginners
Post by: SGOS on May 10, 2017, 10:54:42 AM
I suppose that to gain the interest of casual readers, that mitochondrial ancestor was given a name to create interest that was more literary than explanatory.  The name "Eve" is dramatic and adds an element of particular fascination in that it helps publicize it.  But we could point to millions of evolutionary ancestors and simply call them "Where we came from."  I would question whether the one called mitochondrial Eve was more eventful or dramatic than it's ancestors.  It may be more useful as a taxonomic device than anything else.  I'm speculating this with a bit of trepidation, however.  It may be more significant than I realize.  On the other hand, every evolutionary change in our family tree is significant and dramatic in the sense that if you remove any one of them from the chain of events, we wouldn't be here.
Title: Re: Evolution for Beginners
Post by: Cavebear on July 11, 2017, 08:40:18 AM
I understand the annoyance of "Eve" SGOS and Hydra.  It would have been better not to use the name.  WE understand what they meant, but those of lesser minds take it literally.  And if there was a "Eve" and an "Adam", they think that is scientific proof of the 2 mating in some Eden. 

I would have been more happy with other names or none at all.  "Last common female and male ancestors" would have been just fine.  I suppose marketers got involved.
Title: Re: Evolution for Beginners
Post by: trdsf on July 12, 2017, 07:04:36 AM
Also, 'Eve' lived about 80,000 years before 'Adam'.  Which observation led Stephen Fry to comment that that era was dominated by heavy to industrial-strength lesbianism... :D
Title: Re: Evolution for Beginners
Post by: Baruch on July 12, 2017, 01:09:01 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Also, 'Eve' lived about 80,000 years before 'Adam'.  Which observation led Stephen Fry to comment that that era was dominated by heavy to industrial-strength lesbianism... :D

Nah, they all lived longer than Methuselah ;-)
Title: Re: Evolution for Beginners
Post by: Cavebear on July 14, 2017, 06:24:38 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Also, 'Eve' lived about 80,000 years before 'Adam'.  Which observation led Stephen Fry to comment that that era was dominated by heavy to industrial-strength lesbianism... :D

I interpret the "Eve" being older than the "Adam" to be some mild evidence that woman always were more selective than males.  As it is, so it was...
Title: Re: Evolution for Beginners
Post by: Unbeliever on January 09, 2019, 08:18:39 PM
Quote
Join us as we explore the fascinating transition from early cells to multi-celled animals. This transition, as well as several other major evolutionary transitions, dramatically increased the complexity of lifeforms on our planet.




https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VUfNEHl44hc
Title: Re: Evolution for Beginners
Post by: Unbeliever on January 10, 2019, 07:50:47 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mRzxTzKIsp8
Title: Re: Evolution for Beginners
Post by: Cavebear on January 12, 2019, 03:24:27 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VUfNEHl44hc

Yeah to sponges.  Wow.
Title: Re: Evolution for Beginners
Post by: Baruch on January 12, 2019, 08:06:15 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mRzxTzKIsp8

Bad name.  Chemical change, not chemical evolution.  Unless you think that molecules compete for sexual mates.  Also the notion that the water molecules in my body are people.
Title: Re: Evolution for Beginners
Post by: Baruch on January 12, 2019, 08:07:09 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Yeah to sponges.  Wow.

Most sophisticated voters on this planet ;-)  Most sponges are artificial, like most voters.  They were never alive.
Title: Re: Evolution for Beginners
Post by: Cavebear on January 12, 2019, 09:37:37 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Most sophisticated voters on this planet ;-)  Most sponges are artificial, like most voters.  They were never alive.

But sponges were really the first complex animal life on the planet.  So give them their due respect.  We wouldn't be here without them.
Title: Re: Evolution for Beginners
Post by: Baruch on January 12, 2019, 12:01:34 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
But sponges were really the first complex animal life on the planet.  So give them their due respect.  We wouldn't be here without them.

And without them, no clean bathrooms.
Title: Re: Evolution for Beginners
Post by: Cavebear on January 12, 2019, 01:20:04 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
And without them, no clean bathrooms.

Those aren't the same sponges.   I mean the first ones that developed inhalation of seawater to filter food. 
Title: Re: Evolution for Beginners
Post by: Baruch on January 12, 2019, 09:12:58 PM
Fads in anthropology, though we are getting closer to the truth, thanks to effective peer review and criticism of sacred cows ...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G_hl804lSfc

The story of the original soy boy (no knock on vegetarian ancestors).
Title: Re: Evolution for Beginners
Post by: trdsf on January 13, 2019, 07:39:40 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Those aren't the same sponges.   I mean the first ones that developed inhalation of seawater to filter food.
Are you still trying to deal with Baruch on a rational basis?  Good luck with that.
Title: Re: Evolution for Beginners
Post by: Baruch on January 13, 2019, 12:56:42 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Are you still trying to deal with Baruch on a rational basis?  Good luck with that.

Some may still use sponges as a anti-pregnancy device.  Rational = I only accept the ratio between integers.  Irrational numbers aren't real.
Title: Re: Evolution for Beginners
Post by: Unbeliever on January 13, 2019, 05:30:07 PM
Irrational numbers are just as "real" as the real numbers and the complex numbers - and quaternions and octonions.
Title: Re: Evolution for Beginners
Post by: Baruch on January 13, 2019, 05:52:46 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Irrational numbers are just as "real" as the real numbers and the complex numbers - and quaternions and octonions.

You make Pythagoras cry ;-(  Negative numbers and zero are heresy too.  Only positive integers and their ratios are ... eternal forms.  Just ask Plato.
Title: Re: Evolution for Beginners
Post by: Unbeliever on January 13, 2019, 05:54:16 PM
I can't ask Plato, as I've never learned necromancy.
Title: Re: Evolution for Beginners
Post by: Baruch on January 13, 2019, 06:56:50 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I can't ask Plato, as I've never learned necromancy.

Yeah, necrophilia sounds icky to me (sarc)
Title: Re: Evolution for Beginners
Post by: Unbeliever on June 12, 2019, 05:28:07 PM
This is a good explanation of evolution:



Quote
As a scientific concept, evolution was revolutionary when it was first introduced. With the help of all three of our hosts and the Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History’s new Deep Time Hall, we’ll try to explain how evolution actually works and how we came to understand it.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dyiZaHIRM6w


Here's the Deep Time Hall mentioned in the video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=612lLaov3q0
Title: Re: Evolution for Beginners
Post by: Cavebear on June 15, 2019, 10:36:49 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
This is a good explanation of evolution:

I'm just waiting for the tourists to go away in September so I can visit in peace...  I mean I live here, LOL!
Title: Re: Evolution for Beginners
Post by: Unbeliever on June 15, 2019, 02:03:08 PM
Yeah, those dang tourists sure get in a fellow's way, huh? But they spend money, so what's a guy to do?

:-p
Title: Re: Evolution for Beginners
Post by: Cavebear on June 15, 2019, 02:16:50 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Yeah, those dang tourists sure get in a fellow's way, huh? But they spend money, so what's a guy to do?

:-p

I don't get any of that money, I live in nearby Maryland.  Mostly, none of us go to DC in the Summer.  I even just watch the Mall fireworks on TV.
Title: Re: Evolution for Beginners
Post by: Baruch on June 15, 2019, 03:35:06 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I don't get any of that money, I live in nearby Maryland.  Mostly, none of us go to DC in the Summer.  I even just watch the Mall fireworks on TV.

But, but ... isn't the whole E Coast in summer, humid?  Old people should stay in.
Title: Re: Evolution for Beginners
Post by: Unbeliever on September 30, 2019, 07:15:05 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MQWJbLTyDlc&t=8s
Title: Re: Evolution for Beginners
Post by: Baruch on September 30, 2019, 07:23:58 PM
That is a really big night crawler!  Bet we can catch Moby Dick with that one!
Title: Re: Evolution for Beginners
Post by: Unbeliever on September 30, 2019, 07:29:47 PM
Yeah, what a nightmare, huh?
Title: Re: Evolution for Beginners
Post by: Baruch on September 30, 2019, 07:44:17 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Yeah, what a nightmare, huh?

Not if you are a giant bird.  The giant killer land parrot of Argentina could have handled him!

http://mentalfloss.com/article/58683/9-extinct-big-birds

Look at the Titanis in particular!
Title: Re: Evolution for Beginners
Post by: trdsf on September 30, 2019, 07:48:59 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MQWJbLTyDlc&t=8s
Ah, proof that extinction is a good thing sometimes; that is a screenshot just chock full of FUCK NO!
Title: Re: Evolution for Beginners
Post by: Baruch on September 30, 2019, 07:53:35 PM
Yep, those humans are SCARY!
Title: Re: Evolution for Beginners
Post by: Unbeliever on October 02, 2019, 05:24:52 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v8nYTJf62sE