News:

Welcome to our site!

Main Menu

Evolution for Beginners

Started by Smartmarzipan, September 11, 2013, 03:21:05 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

peacewithoutgod

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.
There are two types of ideas: fact and non-fact. Ideas which are not falsifiable are non-fact, therefore please don't insist your fantasies of supernatural beings are in any way factual.

Doctrine = not to be questioned = not to be proven = not fact. When you declare your doctrine fact, you lie.

peacewithoutgod

Quote from: 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! <!-- 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.
There are two types of ideas: fact and non-fact. Ideas which are not falsifiable are non-fact, therefore please don't insist your fantasies of supernatural beings are in any way factual.

Doctrine = not to be questioned = not to be proven = not fact. When you declare your doctrine fact, you lie.

jonb

Quote from: peacewithoutgod on November 08, 2015, 05:40:45 PM
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.

peacewithoutgod

#78
Quote from: jonb on November 08, 2015, 05:47:26 PM
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.
There are two types of ideas: fact and non-fact. Ideas which are not falsifiable are non-fact, therefore please don't insist your fantasies of supernatural beings are in any way factual.

Doctrine = not to be questioned = not to be proven = not fact. When you declare your doctrine fact, you lie.

Cavebear

Bump!  This one looks interesting...
Atheist born, atheist bred.  And when I die, atheist dead!

Cavebear

Could someone give easily-undertandable examples for the scientifically unknowledgable.  Like the variable dark and light moths in coal-burning England?
Atheist born, atheist bred.  And when I die, atheist dead!

trdsf

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."
"My faith in the Constitution is whole, it is complete, it is total, and I am not going to sit here and be an idle spectator to the diminution, the subversion, the destruction of the Constitution." -- Barbara Jordan

Hydra009

Quote from: 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?
Peppered moths and walking sticks, as well as lizard camouflage.

Baruch

Quote from: 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."

Can't we already study alien life forms at oceanic thermal vents?  They are sulfur based, not oxygen based, right?
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

PopeyesPappy

Quote from: Baruch on January 09, 2017, 06:22:33 PM
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.
Save a life. Adopt a Greyhound.

Baruch

Quote from: PopeyesPappy on January 10, 2017, 11:51:45 AM
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 ;-)
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

BettaPonic

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.

Baruch

Quote from: 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.

I actually worked on silicon based life forms when I was in college ... but unfortunately it only produced politicians ;-)
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

Unbeliever

First life with 'alien' DNA
QuoteAn engineered bacterium is able to copy DNA that contains unnatural genetic letters.
QuoteFor billions of years, the history of life has been written with just four letters â€" 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.
God Not Found
"There is a sucker born-again every minute." - C. Spellman

Cavebear

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.
Atheist born, atheist bred.  And when I die, atheist dead!