Mod The Sims - Evolution?

Doddibot

10th Sep 2007, 12:19 PM

Yep, we need to have this debate. Again.

So, the topic I want to discuss is whether you think evolution is an accurate explanation for the diversity and complexity of life. Or, perhaps you think it is nonsense.

But first, let me remind you that the Big Bang is not part of evolution. Arguably, the formation of the first living organism is not part of it either, although I suppose it could be relevant as long as we don't digress too much in that direction.

First, I shall express my opinion. Evolution is most certainly a well-substantiated theory of biology. It is the only logical conclusion given the evidence we can see today, and the evidence that science continues to provide.

Now, I think I shall just touch briefly on a couple of misunderstandings of science that will arise in this debate. If you understand evolution, skip this indented section:

Evolution (as the word is generally used) is a theory. But in science, theory is far better than a fact or a law. We have facts (eg. objects fall). We have laws (e.g. Newton's law of universal gravitation) that show the relationship between various facts. Then we have hypotheses and theories, which seek to explain how those relationships work and what is behind them. A theory is a hypothesis that has been shown to be true on numerous occasions and explains the facts better and makes more accurate predictions than the competing hypotheses (e.g. the theory of general relativity).

Also, don't bother with the "if evolution is true, and humans evolved from apes, why are there still apes?" nonsense. Honestly, if you just thought about it for a second. The question is like: "If Quebec was settled by the French, why are there still Frenchmen?" (Not all French people went to Canada - not all ancestral apes evolved into humans. There is no 'progression' where all Europeans leave for the 'newer' lands, just as all animals do not evolve towards 'higher' animals like humans.)

So, with those out of the way, what does everyone feel about evolution? Feel free to not only talk about the science, but also the politics and the ethics behind it. And, if you must, I don't mind you bringing other evidence (dusty old holy books) into the discussion, but just remember that evolution is a scientific theory, so any theory you think supplants it must explain 'facts' and make predictions.

Black_Barook!

10th Sep 2007, 1:04 PM

Don't Believe:Humans evolved from Apes

Do Believe: Living things must change to adapt to fit in a new niche.

Basically, I believe most of it except that Animals and Humans evolved, though we may never know the true...

urisStar

10th Sep 2007, 1:32 PM

I think you are using the same route that religion took to get others to believe.

I saw a piece on television yesterday on evolution and it seems that they have found another skull in Chad, Africa that they are dating back a million years older than the oldest one they had already. According to what they are saying now, humans did not evolve from chimps but has been its own group. In other words they have always been humans not evolving from anything else but themselves.

The whole thing about evolution is that answers are still coming and you should not force conclusions because all the pieces have not yet been found and understood. I never believed the chimp part of it because its presentation is to wide open, and like I stated in the last debate, there is always the possibility of inbreeding with humans and chimps. You find the objects and try to tell the story but you are not always right because you still don’t know. The truth is never forced nor do it become the truth through violence. :D

Vaalyah

10th Sep 2007, 1:50 PM

urisStar

10th Sep 2007, 3:07 PM

Sorry guys for acid words but... why shoul we speak about this AGAIN? I mean, scientists have PROVED that evolution does exist. Scientists do that for job so, I suppose they are a bit more specialized than us to speak on this subjects. Ergo, evolution exists and whoever still pretends this is not true... well, s/he simply pretend not to see the truth. Even if I believe the Sun is a glass vase, that doesn't mean the Sun will actually become a glass vase! So evolution is true. Who admits that, ok. Who doesn't... well, I am literally tired of trying to make people accept something that is obvious! :rolleyes:

No one is disputing evolution only the conclusions. If you believe that science is infallible you have every right but not all of us share your sentiment. If we have learned anything from history it is to not jump to a final conclusion. :D

nixie_SC

10th Sep 2007, 3:08 PM

hahahaha,

can anyone proof yesterday existed?

believe me, if no one can proof yesterday existed, then evolution can't have existed. right.

so, I was thinking that someone might say that how about the things you buy yesterday and put in the refrigerator or what about the whole closet filled with clothes that you remember that you buy from age 10 and photo book, etc etc, but the question is how do you know all this memories and stuffs surrounding you isn't something that appear today?

like if you have a cut on your fingers which you remember happened yesterday but how do you proof that it really did happen yesterday?

so if you have no way of prooving that yesterday happened, how can anyone proof evolution existed. :P maybe everyday is a "new day"

runs far far far far away. I'll have some fun trying to disproof evolution althought I think evolution does exist.

Chelleypie

10th Sep 2007, 3:46 PM

Sorry guys for acid words but... why shoul we speak about this AGAIN? I mean, scientists have PROVED that evolution does exist. Scientists do that for job so, I suppose they are a bit more specialized than us to speak on this subjects. Ergo, evolution exists and whoever still pretends this is not true... well, s/he simply pretend not to see the truth. Even if I believe the Sun is a glass vase, that doesn't mean the Sun will actually become a glass vase! So evolution is true. Who admits that, ok. Who doesn't... well, I am literally tired of trying to make people accept something that is obvious! :rolleyes:

I don't believe in evolution as the be all and end all. I'm apparently a follower of Intelligent Design. I believe that God created an environment that allowed evolution. In other words, I believe in evolution, but I also believe in God. Please remember that I AM NOT A CREATIONIST. I do not think that the Genesis account of creation should be taken literally. I see it as a myth. But I do believe that God created the world to evolve. Evolution is a valid theory, but it begs the question 'how did it come to be'? I'm sure it wasn't just a lucky accident.

davious

10th Sep 2007, 4:15 PM

I don't believe in evolution as the be all and end all. I'm apparently a follower of Intelligent Design. I believe that God created an environment that allowed evolution. In other words, I believe in evolution, but I also believe in God. Please remember that I AM NOT A CREATIONIST. I do not think that the Genesis account of creation should be taken literally. I see it as a myth. But I do believe that God created the world to evolve. Evolution is a valid theory, but it begs the question 'how did it come to be'? I'm sure it wasn't just a lucky accident.

I concur. I call myself an Evolutionary Creationist, myself. I believe that while the Bible tells us why God does things, Science tells us how. I don't see why the two have to be mutually exclusive. God gave human beings incredible intelligence. It stands to reason then, that the purpose of that intelligence is to assist in our survival, but also so we can explore the wonderful world God made for us. Science tells us how old the planet is, so either our intelligence is really faulty and the technology is so innaccurate that we must throw it all away, or it really is that old. If its really that old, then the science is good, and we can trust it. Personally, I think God gave us the brains to figure out whether carbon dating and other methods are reliable, which would mean that cavemen, dinosaurs, etc really existed.

If they didn't exist, which is the position of some hardline Creationists, then I am faced with the prospect of believing in a God that actively seeks to deceive his creation by falsifying carbon dating information on dinosaur bones, cavemen fossils, etc. I am not comfortable with that prospect at all...I would much rather believe in a God that gave us the intelligence to explore the world correctly, than one that actively deceives us by tricking us with practical jokes for us to dig up. The world is how God made it. That means dinosaurs and cavemen once roamed its lands.

kinneer_SC

10th Sep 2007, 8:23 PM

Rabid

10th Sep 2007, 8:28 PM

Modestgurl88

10th Sep 2007, 9:20 PM

I'm an evolutionist. All scientific leads point toward evolution, common sense points toward evolution, natural design points towards capabilities of evolution, etc. As an atheist, I personally believe that the creationism argument is crap; evolution can be scientifically proven, whereas creationism is not scientific in the least and can only be fantasized and theorized about. I've heard the argument that evolution can't just be some accident where everything happened to fall into a good place, but how do we know? Maybe the start of evolution was a lucky chemical reaction and everything followed suit from there. Being nonreligious, I can't even begin to fathom the faintest religious side of this argument at all and it makes no sense to me. I know that science isn't the pinnacle of reason and don't need to be told, but I think the scientists are right on this one. All the scientific leads fall into place; the religious ones have nothing to go on.
I agree. I don't get the idea of a god making every thing. Then again I don't really believe in a god. Also why does it have to be a god...why not a goddess? I don't think the creation theory has any business in schools. School is about facts not religion.We have fossils for proof of evolution. Really, I want to know what proof do people have that god made or caused evolution. I mean solid proof not just belief. I support people having different beliefs but can't help asking why do you believe that way.I think that's why I'm not into religion.I ask too many questions and analyze everything

urisStar

10th Sep 2007, 9:21 PM

I'm an evolutionist. All scientific leads point toward evolution, common sense points toward evolution, natural design points towards capabilities of evolution, etc. As an atheist, I personally believe that the creationism argument is crap; evolution can be scientifically proven, whereas creationism is not scientific in the least and can only be fantasized and theorized about. I've heard the argument that evolution can't just be some accident where everything happened to fall into a good place, but how do we know? Maybe the start of evolution was a lucky chemical reaction and everything followed suit from there. Being nonreligious, I can't even begin to fathom the faintest religious side of this argument at all and it makes no sense to me. I know that science isn't the pinnacle of reason and don't need to be told, but I think the scientists are right on this one. All the scientific leads fall into place; the religious ones have nothing to go on.

Don’t be so quick to jump to conclusions! Unless I was dreaming or having an out of body experience, I know I heard some scientist saying with my own ears that yes, we have been humans all along. Even though I may have reasons to believe that religion is not natural, I have not allowed it to poison my mind into thinking that a higher power do not exist. Not because religion has got it all wrong doesn’t mean that they have cause the non-existence of a Creator. Read my first post, if I knew this debate was coming around, I would have gotten names, serial numbers and dates of birth of the scientists with their claims of new findings, gosh I would have tape the thing! :egg :D

sayyadina_SC

10th Sep 2007, 9:25 PM

I would like to refer to my thread "Red Rain". Cause I believe in evolution, but it seems that something can change how we look at evolution just the same.
(Though I realise, It takes some imagine and some visions to actually see) If one was to take the polarity between "biblical" (or religious in general)and "scientific" just a bit further, one could start to think (I, for one) that there is really no diversity between the two.
Its all somehow "one" creation.
The bible talks in symbols, scientists talk in "lingo" that most people dont understand. The bible can, at its best, be scientific. Scientists are irrational humans too!
Somewhere this two apparently different things meet. At least in my mind.
My bet is: They are all going to come to the same conclusion. :lol: Now, knowing what I know, I shall withdraw into my mountain cave, and wait for the obvious to happen (100 years, give or take?)
Peace!

(Participating in this debates are not at all very exiting. Sorry. Im dissapointed in you all...)

davious

10th Sep 2007, 9:32 PM

What is a garden, without the gardener?

Kinneer, I think what you are struggling with is the concept that God could create life on Earth, and evolution creates life on Earth at the same time. The Bible, for those of us that believe in God, tells that God created the world. It tells the "who", and it tells us the "why", but it does not tell us the "how". The Bible is not a science textbook, nor was it ever intended to be used as such. Evolution is the method of life on Earth, God provides the purpose. Those ideas are not contradictory. Nor does it mean we had to start out as being fully homo sapiens. I chose to compare God to a gardener for a reason. If I were to create a garden, I would not plant flowers. Indeed, we plant seeds, that grow into flowers. The seed did not start out smelling fragrant, nor did it have a stem, or leaves. In order to be satisfied with the results of your planting, you have to wait until the seeds mature into flowers. Its not instantaneous. Why could human beings not be "seeds" that have to evolve into what God intends for us to be as well?

In the previous incarnation of the Evolution thread, I compared it to trees being cut down...Evolution is the chainsaw, God the lumberjack wielding it. If you are being literal, you would say the chainsaw cut the tree. And, you would be accurate, to a point. But you could also say that the lumberjack cut the tree, indeed, were it not for the lumberjack, the chainsaw could not have cut the tree down. Both statements are true. You can state the chainsaw AND the lumberjack cut the tree down, and both are just as correct as the other.

kinneer_SC

10th Sep 2007, 10:48 PM

Kinneer, I think what you are struggling with is the concept that God could create life on Earth, and evolution creates life on Earth at the same time. The Bible, for those of us that believe in God, tells that God created the world. It tells the "who", and it tells us the "why", but it does not tell us the "how". The Bible is not a science textbook, nor was it ever intended to be used as such. Evolution is the method of life on Earth, God provides the purpose. Those ideas are not contradictory. Nor does it mean we had to start out as being fully homo sapiens. I chose to compare God to a gardener for a reason. If I were to create a garden, I would not plant flowers. Indeed, we plant seeds, that grow into flowers. The seed did not start out smelling fragrant, nor did it have a stem, or leaves. In order to be satisfied with the results of your planting, you have to wait until the seeds mature into flowers. Its not instantaneous. Why could human beings not be "seeds" that have to evolve into what God intends for us to be as well?

I am sorry. I though we were discussing about ID and Evolution. Why creatures look and live the way they are. Whether this is by design or by adopting to the environment. Not who created life in the first place.

If we were to use your analogy, then wouldn't the seeds determine what will grow? If the gardener choose to plant pink with red polka dots flowers, then wouldn't those flowers be pink with red polka dots?

Chelleypie

10th Sep 2007, 11:34 PM

davious, I like your term for it better. I'm an Evolutionary Creationist. And he explains it better than I can. I believe that God or some other omnipresent being created an environment that allowed evolution to occur. I CANNOT think that it was all just a happy accident. I find that fallacious. Probably because I also don't believe in accidents. I believe everything happens with a purpose from (pardon) God, because I am a Christian.

And as part of our belief, davious and I (and perhaps others, but he and I are the only ones I've seen state this view) believe that God created the earth and allowed it to evolve. So you see, the 'Who' is part of our belief, so we must tell you that in order for our belief to make sense. Make sense?

davious

10th Sep 2007, 11:54 PM

I am sorry. I though we were discussing about ID and Evolution. Why creatures look and live the way they are. Whether this is by design or by adopting to the environment. Not who created life in the first place.

If we were to use your analogy, then wouldn't the seeds determine what will grow? If the gardener choose to plant pink with red polka dots flowers, then wouldn't those flowers be pink with red polka dots?

no analogy is perfect, but, had the gardener not been there, there would be no seeds in the garden to grow. That was the point I was trying to get across...the gardener plants the seeds, knowing what they will become, as God planted the seeds of humanity, knowing what we would become, will become. ID doesn't state that the Earth is in a state of unchanging. Depending on the soil in the garden, the climate, etc, you can get different results. Some gardens will grow huge roses, some will not. A rose seed cannot become a daisy flower, obviously, however, depending on how well the garden is maintained, the weather, the quality of the soil, the rose can develop much differently than it would somewhere else. This is true in plants, and it is true with people and animals. Depending on where we live, after generations and generations, we will be better adapted to that region than someone just coming in. It takes time though. But, since God exists outside of time, thats really not an issue for God.
God = Gardener
Earth = Garden
Seeds = life, environment affects how it grows.

Doddibot

11th Sep 2007, 12:10 AM

I saw a piece on television yesterday on evolution and it seems that they have found another skull in Chad, Africa that they are dating back a million years older than the oldest one they had already. According to what they are saying now, humans did not evolve from chimps but has been its own group. In other words they have always been humans not evolving from anything else but themselves.
Link? I know the recent ape fossil pushed the date for gorilla-human common ancestor back by quite a few thousand years, but I don't know of any scientist that said humans have always existed.

You find the objects and try to tell the story but you are not always right because you still don’t know.
It's the same with all science. Even though we can have evidence (facts), we can never be sure of the theory explaining those facts, because there could always be evidence discovered tomorrow that out current theories can't explain.

I think God gave us the brains
You mean, God set up the environment to cause us to evolve the brains? I can deal with this (though I don't agree). After all, God must have been pretty good to get the universe set up just right so that planets would be created from stellar clouds, life would form from chemicals and eventually humans would evolve from other animals. Sounds much more elegant than ID idea of God constantly kicking life to get it going again when it hits some 'irreducible complexity'.

Modestgurl88

11th Sep 2007, 1:16 AM

cary123

11th Sep 2007, 2:46 AM

full non-thestic evolution for me!

I think evoultion made us and the bubble theory was the start of it!

innoscenteyes

11th Sep 2007, 3:03 AM

science is nothing but what we think now. it continues to change. what we think now might not be true, but it is what we are thinking. in a few more years we will think otherwise. no dout things do evolve from other things but i am not goingt o go into a debate about human evolution because i am a christian.

Doddibot

11th Sep 2007, 3:11 AM

How can you debate about evolution when one side has some scientific facts about evolution and the other side just has a 1,000 year old book.
The Abrahamic creation myth (of Judaism, Christianity and Islam) is at least 2000 years old, if not more (seeing as it borrowed from the Babylonian creation myth: 'Enuma Elish').

We may think that makes it bad, but some people argue that if something has been believed for that long, it must be true. :lol:

goodnightpeter

11th Sep 2007, 3:46 AM

How can you debate about evolution when one side has some scientific facts about evolution and the other side just has a 1,000 year old book.

I don't believe in evolution nor do I believe the Bible or any other religious script. I think you are jumping to conclusions assuming that anyone who believes in Intelligent Design automatically bases their opinion on religion. Out of the multiple reasons I believe in ID, not one of them has to do with religion. I think it's important to remember that there is a difference between Intelligent Design and Creationism.

davious

11th Sep 2007, 5:03 AM

How can you debate about evolution when one side has some scientific facts about evolution and the other side just has a 1,000 year old book. Basically it all really comes down to who believes in a god and who doesn't which becomes a religious debate, etc. You would think in 2007 this debate would be over by now :(

and what do you do about me and Chelleypie? We are both Christians, but we both accept evolution as fact. Which side do we fall on? We claim "scientific fact", and a "1,000 year old book" to both be true.

Doddibot

11th Sep 2007, 6:03 AM

I think it's important to remember that there is a difference between Intelligent Design and Creationism.
But ID is not still not a scientific theory.

goodnightpeter

11th Sep 2007, 6:22 AM

But ID is not still not a scientific theory.

And that's where opinions seem to differ. Not all of us need "scientific proof" or a "scientific theory" to explain every little thing about our world, because we will never find "scientific proof" for everything. Plus, not everyone trusts science anyways, so to say that just because evolution is supported by science means absolutely nothing to someone who supports Intelligent Design. We use man made tools and idea's to ration science, so I believe a lot of "science" is bull.

urisStar

11th Sep 2007, 7:24 AM

Link? I know the recent ape fossil pushed the date for gorilla-human common ancestor back by quite a few thousand years, but I don't know of any scientist that said humans have always existed.

It's the same with all science. Even though we can have evidence (facts), we can never be sure of the theory explaining those facts, because there could always be evidence discovered tomorrow that out current theories can't explain.

I said I saw the piece on television so I don’t have a link or I would have been happy to provide one. I didn’t think it a big deal at the time because I never believed the chimp story anyway, however if I knew you were going to resurrect this debate I would have paid more attention to at least write down names.

But ID is not still not a scientific theory.

Where were the scientist back when everything started anyway? No one was intelligent enough to come up with scientific theory and hypotheses and put them in writing like those who recorded what we now have the pleasure to disentangle/pick apart and call mythology/tradition? We all can get cocky cause if we were to really think logically we could conclude that maybe there was nothing back then to theorized or hypothesized about or we would have had scientific records dating back at lest 600 to 1000 years BC to go by today, don’t you think? :lol: :D

Doddibot

11th Sep 2007, 10:22 AM

Not all of us need "scientific proof" or a "scientific theory" to explain every little thing about our world, because we will never find "scientific proof" for everything.
Well, that is true I guess. Perhaps science isn't the only way to find 'truth'.

I'm still putting my money with the evidence.

We use man made tools and idea's to ration science, so I believe a lot of "science" is bull.
What else can we use?

Where were the scientist back when everything started anyway? No one was intelligent enough to come up with scientific theory and hypotheses and put them in writing like those who recorded what we now have the pleasure to disentangle/pick apart and call mythology/tradition?
Well, science was in its primitive form back then. Most of the ancients simply relied on their own thoughts, rather than actually testing them. That is, they made hypotheses but didn't explicitly do experiments.

Aristotle (~350BC), though, did rely on evidence, but he still didn't really use it to determine what was true. More, he used observations extensively to form his hypotheses, but didn't really accept that the observations would be useful in proving hypotheses.

The first reliance on actually going about testing predictions was with the Arab scholars in the 10th and 11th century. It wasn't adopted in Europe until around the 12th and 13th century. Yet it didn't really achieve any use (mostly because the church saw science as a threat) until the Renaissance and Reformation saw people start to question the old traditions.

Really, it wasn't a problem with people not being intelligent enough, but rather they needed to get out of their usual way of doing things and be prepared to accept evidence over ideas - reality rather than thought.

spookymuffin

11th Sep 2007, 11:43 AM

Look, I'm a zoology student and have been an atheist since I was seven(when I first read "the origin of species" by Charles Darwin)
Even if you leave science out of the equation, evolution is right in front of our eyes. Anyone with a basic knowledge of anatomy will see convergent evolution amongst every organism.
Every animal with a spine today can trace its ancestry back to the first fish, your bones and your basic body plan were all first worked out inside that primative fish millions of years ago.
Your limbs are modified fins, your jaw and the tube that conects your ear to your mouth are modified gills.

Someone said something about humans always being humans and that we didn't evolve from chimps. First of all, we didn't evolve from chimps(or any primate alive today for that matter.) we evolved from a common ancestor that we share with chimps and gorrillas that is now extinct. Second of all, How could we always have been humans if there are no humans in the fossil record until recently? do you seriously believe that humans were running around amongst the dinosaurs 65 million years ago? humans have only been around for a blink of an eye in terms of how long life has existed on earth.

There is no shame in admitting to your ancestry. If you admit that you evolved from another ape it wont suddenly cause you to grow hair on your knuckles or make your IQ drop.
They are simple facts, not opinions. I mean, you can't say "In my opinion, the sky is purple" becuase that would be ludicrous. Saying that humans did not evolve from other animals is just as ridiculous.
There are many proofs for evolution, if you want me to go into them in detail I will, but it gets pretty techinical.

And science can explain everything, it just takes time.

A little food for thought: Evidence of common descent (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_common_descent)

Doddibot

11th Sep 2007, 12:54 PM

There is no shame in admitting to your ancestry. If you admit that you evolved from another ape it wont suddenly cause you to grow hair on your knuckles or make your IQ drop.
Exactly. As an example, just because your great-great grandfather couldn't tie his shoes it doesn't make you stupid and just because your great-great grandmother was hairier than any man, that doesn't make you hairy too.

We already dissociate enough from our immediate ancestors (our parents and grand-parents). How often do people exclaim "Oh no, I'm turning into my mother/father!"? So why do we stress about what our ancestors were like millions of years ago, and believe that we are like them, when we don't even believe we are like our immediate parents?

urisStar

11th Sep 2007, 5:50 PM

Exactly. As an example, just because your great-great grandfather couldn't tie his shoes it doesn't make you stupid and just because your great-great grandmother was hairier than any man, that doesn't make you hairy too.

We already dissociate enough from our immediate ancestors (our parents and grand-parents). How often do people exclaim "Oh no, I'm turning into my mother/father!"? So why do we stress about what our ancestors were like millions of years ago, and believe that we are like them, when we don't even believe we are like our immediate parents?

While I believe that everyone have every right to what facts and or realities they chose to believe and support, I reserve the right to not allow other people's choices to trump my own. I find it fascinating that with all this knowledge coming forward by the scientists in regard to humans point of origin, why do men still hold on to the religious state of mind that men have the power to somehow assign women a place that is not equal to his in society? If we are all fish-monkeys/chimps/gorillas of something that no longer exist, that had no intelligence enough to ensure its own survival, what signifying purpose is this new knowledge? Will it now make men feel better about themselves that they no longer have the need to bully his fellow fish-monkey/chimp/gorilla/humankind?

I will stay unconfused until the facts and realities brought forth through theory and hypotheses make enough sense to me that I don’t have to force myself to believe in something that my inner-self can’t stop laughing at. :lol: :D No disrespect intended but alike does not mean same and as intelligent as men are they don't use enough of the brain thereby causing their intelligence to be something like 75% limited and I am being modest here. :idea: :lol:

Vaalyah

12th Sep 2007, 10:53 AM

spookymuffin

12th Sep 2007, 12:04 PM

@ Chelleypie: I believe in God too. I believe that God has created the Universe and that He has created it with a plan in His mind. The plan is that he has put Physics, chemistry, Biology, etc, to rules the universe. So, the evolution is just one of the priciples God has put in the Universe! As you can see, God and science can be together ;)

I really don't want to start a religious debate here, but if your God created the principles of physics, chemistry and biology, how can you explain the random nature of evolution?
Or the fact that evolution implies that we are no more "special" than any other animal that has ever lived? i.e made in your God's image etc

I don't want to sound condescending, but I think that if the general populace where more informed about evolution and the processes behind it there would be no arguement. It would be obvious to everyone.

davious

12th Sep 2007, 12:09 PM

spookymuffin

12th Sep 2007, 12:16 PM

Evolution is not random though...its trial by error sometimes, yes...however traits that are not beneficial to the thing being evolved get phased out. Random implies that there is no purpose to evolution, which goes against what Darwin was trying to get across. Randomness and survival of the fittest do not suit each other well.

It is random, the mutations are completely at random. Animals do not begin to mutate because of unfavourable conditions, it's just that the mutations do not become apparent until they are benificial.

For example, albinism is a common mutation that is detrimental to an organism and it occurs all of the time. But, if something happened to make albinism beneficial, such as very low sunlight after some kind of natural disaster, Albinism would become a favourable trait and only organisms who posses it would survive to breed. Eventually leading to a population made entirely of these individuals, which decreases the gene-pool, which forces mutation, which causes diversity and eventually forming a seperate species from the original.
Entirely at random

Chelleypie

12th Sep 2007, 1:36 PM

But it's not 'random'. Random would mean that the trait spontaneously becomes desirable. Albino animals carry a double recessive gene - both parents have to carry that recessive gene in order for offspring to be albino, and then it's still a 50/50 shot.

And I can believe that God and science can co-exist. Just because YOU can't doesn't mean it isn't possible. I'm still special - I am the only one wearing my genes, God has a plan in mind for me. And the chimp in my local zoo is special - he's the only one wearing his genes. Now, how can you say that is 'random'? My daughter is unique - even if she does look and act a lot like I did at her age. She's still the only one with her genes, and God has a plan in mind for her. Everything happens for a reason, and it is by design. You don't have to believe that, but I do.

And davious just earned a spot in my sig - I am now his fangirl.

spookymuffin

12th Sep 2007, 1:45 PM

But it's not 'random'. Random would mean that the trait spontaneously becomes desirable.

I mean that the appearance of mutations are random, and that the events that can make them desireable are random. Therefore the end result is random and cannot be predicted.

I am not saying that you cannot believe that science and your religion can co-exist. You have every right to your belief system, just as I have the right to my opinion that religion directly contradicts scientific fact.
I was just asking why someone would believe that the two can mix, not saying that they can't believe that if they want to.

What I meant by "special", is the belief that many(not all) religions hold that humans are different from other animals and chosen by their God in some way to be special.

Doddibot

12th Sep 2007, 1:45 PM

It is random, the mutations are completely at random.
Yes, but mutations aren't the only part of evolution. In fact, Darwin didn't even know about genes or DNA, much less mutations, when he authored On the Origin of Species by means of Natural Selection. So clearly, random variation isn't all that one has to worry about, but more important is 'selection'.

Selection isn't random now, is it? You can have a random mix of anything, but put it through a filter (like natural selection), and you get a non-random result. So even though a mutation may be random, like albinism, you end up with a non-random mix because of the 'pressure' of the environment.

As an example, if you roll 100 dice, then throw away all those with numbers less than 5, you end up with a very non-random result because of that selection, correct?

spookymuffin

12th Sep 2007, 1:47 PM

Yes, but mutations aren't the only part of evolution. In fact, Darwin didn't even know about genes or DNA, much less mutations, when he authored On the Origin of Species by means of Natural Selection. So clearly, random variation isn't all that one has to worry about, but more important is 'selection'.

Selection isn't random now, is it? You can have a random mix of anything, but put it through a filter (like natural selection), and you get a non-random result.

But the factors that effect the result are random. Genes, environment etc.
My point was that, evolution follows a chaotic course that does not seem to indicate an itelligent force working behind the scenes.

Doddibot

12th Sep 2007, 1:53 PM

My point was that, evolution follows a chaotic course that does not seem to indicate an itelligent force working behind the scenes.
I think what you mean to say that evolution is a natural designing process, that can occur without intelligence. But just because you can explain it occurring without intelligence doesn't mean that none is guiding it. Just that it appears to be natural. Not really anything to do with randomness.

If God wants to create people by evolution, then by all means He can. He's God - He can do anything, right?

spookymuffin

12th Sep 2007, 2:01 PM

I think what you mean to say that evolution is a natural designing process, that can occur without intelligence. But just because you can explain it occurring without intelligence doesn't mean that none is guiding it. Just that it appears to be natural. Not really anything to do with randomness.

If God wants to create people by evolution, then by all means He can. He's God - He can do anything, right?

I agree that I can't prove that there is no intelligent force behind evolution, but there is no evidence to suggest that there is. While there is evidence that it happens naturally and without guidance.
There is no evidence to support the existance of any deity, other than human accounts, which are, at best, unreliable.

I'm still going to stick with the word random, we just have to agree to disagree here.

I suppose that God can do anything he wants to do, but of course, he would have to exist in the first place to do so.

GothPunk

12th Sep 2007, 2:27 PM

Evolution is completely random.

What we must remember, is that our genes change at the molecular level all the time. There are processes within our cells - for example a process called recombination - which randomly changes the genetic code of an organism. This is completely random, genes are swapped, deleted, copied and crossed over. This process happens during meiosis - through which eggs and sperm are created. Now, the changes are usually very small, and very large changes in your DNA can result in miscarriage or one of the disorders from a very long list of genetic disorders, and therefore do not get passed on.

Our DNA changes all the time, but this only rarely results in a change in a gene, and a change in the gene does not neccesarily result in a mutation in that gene or affect the organism, either beneficially or negatively. Therefore the change of a gene occurs at random, and any mutations that do appear do so at random.

Evolution, in essence, is a result of these minute random changes. But 'Natural Selection' is the other side of the coin.

Selection isn't random now, is it? You can have a random mix of anything, but put it through a filter (like natural selection), and you get a non-random result.

Now natural selection also is a completely random process. The environment changes at random - weather changes, climates change, food sources appear and disappear, predators and prey are constantly in imbalance. These differences put pressure on organisms all the time, but only when the changes are extreme does it affect the organisms.

If Organism A is somehow slightly better adapted than sister Organism B because of random mutations, how is the 'selection' of Organism A not random? The mutations are random, and the selective pressures are random, giving a random result. It is not a given that Organism A will be the only one to survive, therefore the result is random. Natural selection is not a filter, or if it is, it has too many holes for you to call it so. (If you want I can go into great detail about this, but I'm sure I'm boring you all to death by now. But ask me more if you're interested!)

Organisms do not change in response to the environment and selective pressures. An organisms genes are simply always changing, it is just a random change in the selective pressures that give one organism a better chance than another. In a stable environment, where selective pressure does not affect the population, any mutations, or 'changes' in individuals will be phased out, and there will be no mutants. E.g. if you have two siblings, who have the mutation, versus a population of 200 who don't, after two generations will the mutation exist? No, it will not.

Oh yeah, btw, yes, I do think that evolution is an accurate explanation for the diversity and complexity of life. :anime:

spookymuffin

12th Sep 2007, 2:31 PM

GothPunk, honey? have I told you lately how much I love you? :anime:
You are so much better at expressing what you have to say through writing than I am.

Hooray for randomness

davious

12th Sep 2007, 6:27 PM

If evolution is completely random, why does the basic biology of most animals stay the same? Randomness cannot account for the odds that most species (most, not all) have a single pair of eyes, positioned either in front of the head, such as humans, chimps, cats, etc, or to the side. Its pretty much those two places, and those two places only. Randomness cannot explain why the basic functions remain the same among higher order animals...hearts, lungs, stomachs, etc, all developed relatively similarly in different animals, when they had no real reason to. You may not see a natural pattern, but that could mean you just aren't looking in the right places. There is an order to life. If it were completely random, there would be more variety in terms of biology. Yet, if you open up a pig, cow, dog, cat, elephant, rhinoceros, bear, deer, etc, you would expect to see versions of the same organs appearing in each. If evolution were completely random, you would have no reason to expect that each animal would have their own version of each organ. It is what makes animals similar to each other that prevents me from accepting evolution as completely random. Obviously, God, mother nature, whoever found something that worked, and it got applied to multiple species. Randomness would have no concept of sticking with what works. We simply have too many different animals with similar traits to be explained away by random mutations.

Haylifer

12th Sep 2007, 6:45 PM

I've never really understood evolution, and I do A level biology...

So somewhere along the grand timeline of the world, some species of fish's brain began to grow outwards and form ears? Then one day one was born with fully-formed feet? It'd need to be born with those organs fully formed otherwise they'd actually be a hinderance rather than an advantage. And it'd need to evolve both feet and lungs simultaneously, otherwise there's no point in getting out of the water if you're gunna die (and likewise, there's no point in having lungs if you're gunna drown because you can't get out of the water). My old biology teacher (MSc in Biology) thinks likewise and supports Intelligent Design.

GothPunk

12th Sep 2007, 8:26 PM

If evolution is completely random, why does the basic biology of most animals stay the same?

There is an order to life.

We simply have too many different animals with similar traits to be explained away by random mutations.

The reason why so many organisms (namely, vertebrates) have such a similar body plan is because they (and we) all share a common ancestor, fish. Fish, as you know, have 2 eyes at the front of their head, and four basic limbs. As you mentioned, they also have similar organ systems to us, with a heart and circulatory system, liver, intestines. In addition, they also have senses, a spinal cord and a brain. It is because of random mutations, and not in spite of them, that the fish evolved in such a way. It took an awfully long time for the fish to evolve, but once that happened life on this planet ballooned to the diverse array of vertebrates we see today. In fact, it is because mutations occur at random that evolution takes so long to bring about change. If mutation was not random (or was guided) surely it wouldn't take so long? And would always result in an effective mutation?

Any discussion about the randomness of evolution must talk about ecological niches. A niche basically explains where an organism fits into the big scheme of things. For example, in your back yard you may have two types of birds. Bird A eats insects, and Bird B eats nectar from flowers. Each bird is occupying the same environment, but a different niche.

This is another basic principle of evolution. Animals evolve and occupy different niches within a different environment, due to selective pressure. e.g. lack of food.

But we must be careful here. Evolution has no brain - animals do not decide to suddenly grow gills or long necks. And evolution does not always create the best adaptation - it's just that the best mutations survive over time - survival of the fittest. If you want an example of an animal that has evolved and is badly adapted, look at panda's. When we say a mutation was 'selected' for, we do not mean the animal chose it. We mean that selective pressure, e.g. a fast predator, at that particualr moment in time, created an environment in which the mutation was advantageous.

Anyway, back to the fish. All the fish in the sea occupy different niches. So millions of years ago a group of fish started occupying a new niche - land! A fast-forward through evolutionary history from here gives you amphibians, reptiles, mammal-like reptiles, dinosaurs, and mammals.

The reason why all vertebrates are so similar can be explained by evolution. The vertebrate body plan is just very successful, and therefore is not very prone to change. Although many random mutations occur, (and as I said before, not all mutations result in changes) any mutation that does occur, e.g. a third eye, will most likely not be 'selected' for, as what bonus does it give? The reason why we see so many animals with two eyes on the front of their head is 1. Because of common ancestry and 2. Two eyes on your head just works very well! Have you ever seen a newt or sheep with two heads? Wonder how that happened? Random mutations in their genes. Did those animals look very healthy? Most likely not. Because not all mutations are good, and the animal usually dies in the womb or dies before it can reproduce.

In addition, the majority of random mutations result in things we can't see. Ever wonder why one person can taste cucumber and another can't? Random mutations. What advantage does being able to taste cucumber give you? That's right, nothing. Again, not all mutations result in big or good changes. And you're saying evolution is not random?

The reason why everything is so similar is because it is actually very hard to have a new mutation and be more sucessful. Not that big changes don't occur, it just takes a long time. It requires millions of years of small random mutations and natural selection for a big change to be noticed. For example, go back and compare reptiles and mammals. We know that reptiles evolved into mammals (via mammal-like-reptiles). They look kinda similar right? 2 eyes, a heart, liver, lungs, a stomach. But look closer. Reptiles are cold blooded, and have a different, simpler heart than a mammal. Their immune system is completely different. Their digestive system and metabolism is very different - theirs is very slow and efficient, a mammals is very quick but more wasteful. A reptile can go for months with little water, whilst a mammal will die after a few days without water. Need I go on? All vertebrates are similar at a very basic level, but differ as we look closer.

Mutations in the genetic code occur at random. Evolution occurs at random. Evolution does not only explain how and why a certain animal evolved, it also explains the in between animals(i.e. 'missing links'.) The theory of evolution also explains why most mutations don't result in a sizeable change in the organism, as a great selective pressure is needed.

Haylifer

12th Sep 2007, 8:34 PM

spookymuffin

12th Sep 2007, 9:14 PM

But surely a fish would need to evolve both limbs and lungs to live on land, not to mention a rework of the digestive system so they can actually eat plants and stuff on land. I don't know if you're as familiar with a fish's innards as I (not that I'm a fish gutter, I work in an aquarium), but basically all a fish will do is suck in food and take a scraping off then excrete the rest. They don't chew because they don't have teeth. On land, obviously, that digestive system would be pretty useless as a land animal would need teeth to chew up the solid lumps which are normally soggy in an aquatic environment. And I'd say all of that's a pretty sizeable change to mutate to...

I wholeheartedly disagree with the 'over millions of years' idea. How is the tinest tiniest hint at developing primitive stump limbs going to give a fish an advantage over other fish thus make its own kind more successful? Unless it used them to hit its rivals over the head...

Plenty of fish have teeth, sharks are one example. These "stump limbs" did give some of the early fish advantages, they used them to cross small pieces of land to reach a pool to spawn away from predators. Check out the mudskipper (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mudskipper) for example, and the suspected anscestors of the first amphibians, the lobe-finned fishes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lobe_finned_fish)
The evolution of complex lungs took quite some time, it happened gradually, the first vertebrate animals to take a breath of fresh air where very primitive amphibians.
They had very simple lungs compared to those of reptiles, mammals or birds, who developed complex lungs throughout millions of years of adapting to the harsh climate on land.
For primitive lungs you can look up the aptly named lungfish (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lungfishes) these are fish that can also breath air.

GothPunk

12th Sep 2007, 9:16 PM

And I'd say all of that's a pretty sizeable change to mutate to...

I wholeheartedly disagree with the 'over millions of years' idea. How is the tinest tiniest hint at developing primitive stump limbs going to give a fish an advantage over other fish thus make its own kind more successful? Unless it used them to hit its rivals over the head...

First off, I found this video you might like, it might explain things better than I can, or maybe I can answer any questions you may have about it. The good bit starts at about 35 seconds in...:

Fish Evolution (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1KlyEwOqucQ)

(Oh, and just so you know, there is a fossil record of this stuff. If you saw fit, you could find pictures of the fossils of these fish at each stage of evolution, and that is how they came up with what is in the Walking with Monsters video that I linked).

Who says the stump legs (heh heh) have to give an advantage? This is what I mean about evolution being random. Some fish might have had fins that were becoming leg like, and other fish were evolving fins that were bigger and more like the fish we have today. For example, maybe one fish swam faster, whilst the other could change direction better. They are both different, but both equally able to survive. Some people are taller than others, or have webbed toes. These are mutations, but they give you no advantage over the person next to you really.

Now a lot of fish don't have teeth, but some of them, e.g. sharks and angler fish, evolved teeth. Teeth evolved first, as obviously a lot of predatory fish would need teeth and any animals that had teeth like protrusions would do better than fish that had no teeth. Most of these fish stayed like this (like sharks and all the other fish we know) but some of them continues evolving, and their limbs changed, until they had leg like fins. It is this small group of 'fish' that went on to live near shores and spend time out on land. It was advantageous for them to leave the sea as there were few or no predators on land, and lots of vegetation. Over millions of years, some of the animals gills mutated and were able to absorb oxygen from air and the water. These 'fish' would now be called amphibians. These amphibians then became more land adapted.

In response to your comment about diet - there are many examples, even of animals nowadays, that have diets that make no sense, like panda's. Panda's are bears. Most bears as you know are omnivorous, generally leaning towards eating meat. Panda's eat bamboo. It's not very nutritious and the panda's digestive system is not very well adapted to eating bamboo. But they do eat bamboo! And they have to eat a hell of a lot of it to get even a small amount of energy and survive. Remember, life, animals, and evolution of some animals does not have to make sense, we just know that it happened that way. The panda helps us explain that animals do not have to be the best, fastest animals, they just have to survive. The panda is a very strange animal, it does not make sense for it to eat bamboo, but they survive, and therefore if humans were not around, maybe the panda would evolve into a much smaller herbivorous bear? Or maybe it would just die out, as its random mutations made it unfit and not very successful evolution wise. (I believe that panda's are dying out primarily because of unsuccessful mutations and not because of peoples interference.)

The 'land-fish'/amphibian on the other hand would have been very sucessful, with no predators on land, who would kill them? What did it need to survive against? And by living on land the fish was occupying a completely new niche and could be very successful.

primal_ee

12th Sep 2007, 9:20 PM

I don't think I will seriously enter this debate, since, as somebody previously said, I am an Orthodox Christian, which means Creationist and think that evolution is just a misinterpretation of the Old Book... but I do suggest reading a book by (blessed) Seraphim Rose, "Genesis, Creation and Early Man ". And here is a part of the review you can find here on the Internet:

"Philip Johnson, leader of the IDM, follows the preface with an introduction (pp. 49–62) which summarizes the arguments for biological evolution (natural selection and mutation producing tiny changes which over time lead to dramatic diversity of life forms) and two of the key scientific arguments against biological evolution (abrupt appearance/stasis in the fossil record and irreducible complexity). He also briefly discusses the fact that ‘scientific’ evolution is inherently atheistic, quoting the much used statement by Richard Lewontin about not allowing ‘a Divine Foot in the door’ of scientific study. He concludes by posing the question whether science can tell us a true story of origins and is clearly sympathetic to Rose’s conclusion that it cannot."

Doddibot

13th Sep 2007, 12:43 AM

Now natural selection also is a completely random process. The environment changes at random - weather changes, climates change, food sources appear and disappear, predators and prey are constantly in imbalance. These differences put pressure on organisms all the time, but only when the changes are extreme does it affect the organisms.

True. But with respect to that environment, the evolution of species is not random. Species evolve to be better suited to their environs. If the world gets hotter, through random processes, then the species will evolve to the now hotter world.

Now, evolution is random in the great cosmic sense that it has no aim. Species just evolve to survive in their environment.

Natural selection is not a filter, or if it is, it has too many holes for you to call it so. (If you want I can go into great detail about this, but I'm sure I'm boring you all to death by now. But ask me more if you're interested!)
Yes, do go on.

Organisms do not change in response to the environment and selective pressures.
True, but species do change in response to pressures.

An organisms genes are simply always changing, it is just a random change in the selective pressures that give one organism a better chance than another. In a stable environment, where selective pressure does not affect the population, any mutations, or 'changes' in individuals will be phased out, and there will be no mutants. E.g. if you have two siblings, who have the mutation, versus a population of 200 who don't, after two generations will the mutation exist? No, it will not.
There will certianly be mutants with no selection pressure, as they wouldn't be able to die. I think you are refering to stabilising selection. Even so, that will still result in mutants, as most mutations are neutral or miniscule in effect.

GothPunk

13th Sep 2007, 12:03 PM

True. But with respect to that environment, the evolution of species is not random. Species evolve to be better suited to their environs. If the world gets hotter, through random processes, then the species will evolve to the now hotter world..

No, species do not evolve to be better suited to their environments. This is a common misconception. For that to happen, one would assume that the organism was somehow able to guide its own evolution, or that organisms only mutate in favourable ways in response to selective pressures.

This is not what happens. The example of the sudden change in climate is a great example, as we have many examples in the fossil record of mass extinctions associated with such climate changes (be they a global warming or an ice age.) When such an event occurs, a mass extinction always follows. Why is this? Why did the organisms simply not evolve in response to selective pressures?

The answer is that mutations in DNA, and therefore in our genes, occur at random. Organisms that do not die out in a mass extinction are the organisms that are already better able to deal with a change in the environment, and a small number of organisms will not die out as they have some small mutation(s) or differences that enable to cope better than their sister and brother species.

Biologists call this a population bottleneck, of which, a mass extinction is the most extreme example.

Now, evolution is random in the great cosmic sense that it has no aim. Species just evolve to survive in their environment.
.

Population bottlenecks occur on a small scale all the time. Let's take a herd of migrating deer. One large group of deer separates into two groups, A and B, on either side of a canyon. On one side, Group A are primarily eating ground vegetation, as there is lots of grass, but no trees etc. But on the other side, there is no grass or ground vegetation, but lots of bushes, fruits and trees. Group B is able to eat these and survive very well.

What will happen over time to each group? They most likely will become better adapted to their environments, right?

The deer will become better adapted due to random mutations, not due to any push due to natural selection. Some deer will be born bigger, and some smaller, just as we can see in humans and all other organisms on the planet. The deer born bigger and taller will be more sucessful on the bush/fruit/tree eating side, and small or short necked deer on this side will be less sucessful. And as we all know, all it can take is a couple of bad winters for the unsuccessful dear to become less common, or die out. Then all the deer that are left will be tall or long necked deer. Their offspring that are taller, or that have slightly longer necks, again, will be more sucessful. This is natural selection. It is a slow, violent process, in which any favourable mutation enables you to have more offspring than those weaker around you, and therefore your mutations are passed on to the next generation.

Sure, some of the deer may have other random mutations, such as a darker or lighter coat, but mutations only start to become more apparent in a population if the mutation gives them some sort of an advantage. This is natural selection. Otherwise, the new mutation will just disappear, as it gets diluted and is lost. In order for your new mutation to get passed on down the generations, generally speaking it must give some advantage. If the mutation is for the worse - i.e. bad eyesight or a brightly coloured coat; most likely you will be at a disadvantage, die young without reproducing and therefore your mutation is lost.

Natural selection 'selects' the favourable random mutations and gets rid of the unfavourable mutations. Although it may appear that all the organisms are evolving favourably - that is only because those with 'bad' mutations are dying out, or are 'selected' to fail.

Yes, do go on.
.

Okay, I'm going to have to reply when I get home - I've got college work to do! :eviltongu But I promise to reply later and better explain how natural selection is a very bad filter, how pressures on organisms result in change, and why and how organisms that are in a stable environment (generally) do not change.

angieb

13th Sep 2007, 12:40 PM

Are things on our planet still evolving? It seems to me that they are beginning to become extinct. The universe is still evolving and seems to be the only evidence for evolution other than things on this planet from our past.

Apart from disease which is helping extinction.

Doddibot

13th Sep 2007, 1:34 PM

No, species do not evolve to be better suited to their environments. This is a common misconception. For that to happen, one would assume that the organism was somehow able to guide its own evolution, or that organisms only mutate in favourable ways in response to selective pressures.
No, we wouldn't. All we would have to assume is that the environment is changing slowly enough not to kill off all members of species. I will grant you that a sudden change will cause mass extinction. But that's just because the 'filter with small holes' doesn't let many species through.

The deer will become better adapted due to random mutations, not due to any push due to natural selection. Some deer will be born bigger, and some smaller, just as we can see in humans and all other organisms on the planet. The deer born bigger and taller will be more sucessful on the bush/fruit/tree eating side, and small or short necked deer on this side will be less sucessful. And as we all know, all it can take is a couple of bad winters for the unsuccessful dear to become less common, or die out. Then all the deer that are left will be tall or long necked deer. Their offspring that are taller, or that have slightly longer necks, again, will be more sucessful. This is natural selection. It is a slow, violent process, in which any favourable mutation enables you to have more offspring than those weaker around you, and therefore your mutations are passed on to the next generation.
But if it wasn't for that 'push', there is no way the species could become better adapted. Different reproductive successes (a selection pressure) in addition with variability introduced by mutations (and recombination), is evolution.

Sure, some of the deer may have other random mutations, such as a darker or lighter coat, but mutations only start to become more apparent in a population if the mutation gives them some sort of an advantage. This is natural selection. Otherwise, the new mutation will just disappear, as it gets diluted and is lost. In order for your new mutation to get passed on down the generations, generally speaking it must give some advantage. If the mutation is for the worse - i.e. bad eyesight or a brightly coloured coat; most likely you will be at a disadvantage, die young without reproducing and therefore your mutation is lost.
Not at all. What mechanism, apart from selection, stops genetic drift? Without selection, mutations just take the genome for a ride.

GothPunk

14th Sep 2007, 2:37 PM

First off, let me just clear up what I mean. Mutations, and therefore new alleles, occur at random. Natural selection is a random process, but the results of natural selection are not random. I am not debating that. I'm talking about all the numerous processes which collectively we call 'natural selection' being random. I'm trying to help people understand how natural selction works. I am also trying to help people understand that evolution only occurs in unstable - or random - environments. Otherwise the environment is in balance and the population remains unchanged, i.e. the times when evolution and selection at large does not occur.

Do you not think that the process of natural selection is random? That better adapted offspring are not guaraunteed survival, they just have better chances? That the reason why evolution takes so long is because natural selection is itself a chaotic process?

To me it seems like you're just looking at the final product - i.e. a better adapted species to a certain niche or environment. Obviously that is not random, because that's why evolution is so interesting to me - that over very long periods of time we see some amazing adaptations, and that these adaptations (although randomly occuring due to random mutations) eventually will happen (well in a population thats environment isn't in complete turmoil.)

BUT.. if natural selection was not a random process, answer me this: Why is it that statistically we cannot predict that a certain trait will become dominant over another due to natural selection? Because I doubt it that you will argue that every possible positive mutation will become a dominant trait. There are too many variables at work, at the molecular level, at the species level, and at the environmental level.

No, we wouldn't. All we would have to assume is that the environment is changing slowly enough not to kill off all members of species. I will grant you that a sudden change will cause mass extinction. But that's just because the 'filter with small holes' doesn't let many species through.

What I meant when I said that 'No, species do not evolve to be better suited to their environments' is that mutations are not always beneficial and in some way conferring a trait enabling an organism to be better adapted. You said 'Species evolve to be better suited to their environs. If the world gets hotter, through random processes, then the species will evolve to the now hotter world'. But you know that's not true, which is why species go extinct. Random mutations enabling better adaptation are not a given. Even over long periods of time, in an environment that is changing slowly, a species as a whole is not guaraunteed to become better adapted. This is what I mean when I say that evolution is a random process. Natural selection will select the best adapted animals (not random), but the species is not guaraunteed survival (random). I am trying to help people understand that often organisms are unable to adapt (as mutations occur randomly) and therefore die out. (I think what's actually happening here is that we're saying the same thing regards evolution, but that without tone of voice etc, it seems like we're disagreeing. Hopefully I've better explained what I mean now.)

But if it wasn't for that 'push', there is no way the species could become better adapted. Different reproductive successes (a selection pressure) in addition with variability introduced by mutations (and recombination), is evolution.

What I meant by 'The deer will become better adapted due to random mutations, not due to any push due to natural selection.' is that random mutations are the determining factor, not selection. If no mutations arise that make the organism better adapted, there is nothing to 'select' for.

Not at all. What mechanism, apart from selection, stops genetic drift? Without selection, mutations just take the genome for a ride.

Wait a second. That's a pretty grand sweeping statement to make. Selection and genetic drift are rarely isolated from each other, but even if the population is in a stable environment, the population size would need to be fairly small for any effects of genetic drift to be noticed. (I really like your phrase 'mutations taking the genome for a ride'! :D )

Now this is what I meant when I said that selection was a bad filter. Because you must realise, that not all mutations confer a positive or negative effect on the organism. Because of this, natural selection does not affect all new alleles that have arisen because of mutations. Natural selection generally only affects phenotypes (these are the physical attributes we associate with genes - i.e. blue eyes, brown eyes, broad leaves, long leaves etc).

Selection is a bad filter because of genetics. Organisms (well eukaryotes i.e. animals and plants) can be either homozygous dominant, heterozygous, or homozygous recessive. In order for selection to completely remove a particular dominant allele from a population, all homozygous recessive AND all heterozygous members must be selectively removed. Phenotypically, heterozygotes could share more in common with dominant or recessive alleles, or be somewhere in between (i.e. a pink flower versus red(dominant) or white (recessive). Therefore heterozygotes have a small chance of being removed from the population, and as in general heterozygotes make up a larger percentage of the population, it is safe to assume that a large proportion of heterozygotes in any population undergoing selective pressures will survive and breed.

Now, when a population exists which now contains primarily homozygous dominant and heterozygous members goes to breed, what does the resulting progeny that makes up the next generation look like? That's right, you'll find a percentage of homozygous recessive members in the populatuion now exist, as any heterozygotes that reproduce together have a 1 in 4 chance of having a homozygous recessive progeny.

This is why selection is a bad filter, as it (generally) selects for phenotypes and not genotypes. Even if/when an allele that has arisen from random mutations reaches dominance, (obviously a vast achievement in its own right genetically speaking) in order for the next generation to be completely made up of organisms that are homozygous dominant for the allele being selected for, all heterozygotes need to be selected against. For obvious reasons, this does not happen.

Selection acts on every generation, and every generation independently of the one that came before. Obviously, in the grand scheme of things, natural selection is a good filter, as we can see the results - i.e. organisms becoming better adapted. It's certainly a good thing that selection is a bad filter, as it means that the population does not change too rapidly (as that would be a great disadvantage).

Selection takes tens of thousands of generations to have any strong visible impact on a population, and perhaps hundreds of thousands of generations to cause a speciation. If you had a coffee filter that took 10,000 years and 20,000 runs to completely filter your coffee, would you call it a good filter? Sure it gets the job done, and does it well, but it sure takes a lot of tries and one helluva long time!

Doddibot

15th Sep 2007, 12:48 AM

Because I doubt it that you will argue that every possible positive mutation will become a dominant trait. There are too many variables at work, at the molecular level, at the species level, and at the environmental level.
That's true, but that doesn't make it not random. I mean, if I toss two dice, I can't predict which faces will come up. But if I knew the exact force I tossed those dice, and the friction of the surface, and the air resistance, I could predict it. Dice are technically determined by the tossing action, but it can appear very random because no person can calculate all those variables. But, it isn't random.

What I meant when I said that 'No, species do not evolve to be better suited to their environments' is that mutations are not always beneficial and in some way conferring a trait enabling an organism to be better adapted. You said 'Species evolve to be better suited to their environs. If the world gets hotter, through random processes, then the species will evolve to the now hotter world'. But you know that's not true, which is why species go extinct. Random mutations enabling better adaptation are not a given. Even over long periods of time, in an environment that is changing slowly, a species as a whole is not guaraunteed to become better adapted. This is what I mean when I say that evolution is a random process. Natural selection will select the best adapted animals (not random), but the species is not guaraunteed survival (random).
I have a feeling you are using a different definition of randomness to me. I am saying that randomness is a correlation between two things - that is, the chances of A occuring change if B occurs. So something like a loaded die would be non-random, even though I have no guarantee that it will always give a 6. Just that on average, there is bias towards 6, indicating non-random results.

I think the global warming I mentioned earlier is a good example of an overall trend (that is, a non-random one. A correlation between time and temperature increase) with random elements to it. So, we don't see warming every year, or every day, but we do see an overall trend. Evolution is much the same, I think.

What I meant by 'The deer will become better adapted due to random mutations, not due to any push due to natural selection.' is that random mutations are the determining factor, not selection. If no mutations arise that make the organism better adapted, there is nothing to 'select' for.
True, over a long scale. On a short scale (a half-dozen generations), also consider gene transfer and recombination as a mechanism of providing variation on which selection can act.

Wait a second. That's a pretty grand sweeping statement to make. Selection and genetic drift are rarely isolated from each other, but even if the population is in a stable environment, the population size would need to be fairly small for any effects of genetic drift to be noticed. (I really like your phrase 'mutations taking the genome for a ride'! :D )
Genetic drift could be noticed over a long scale in large populations, especially without any form of selection pressure. That means that no mutation can ever be lethal, and the population must be mating randomly and deaths must also be random. No correlation between genes and mate choice or death. But yes, as the population approaches infinity, this genetic drift will make less impact on the population.

If you had a coffee filter that took 10,000 years and 20,000 runs to completely filter your coffee, would you call it a good filter? Sure it gets the job done, and does it well, but it sure takes a lot of tries and one helluva long time!
I see what you mean. It's a filter, but I think we all agree that it isn't a very effective one filter. But given enough time and successive passes through the filter, it can do its job.

davious

15th Sep 2007, 12:53 AM

DNA is slightly more complicated than brewing a cup o'joe though.

nixie_SC

15th Sep 2007, 3:47 PM

There is no yesterday :P!

angieb

15th Sep 2007, 11:33 PM

Doddibot

16th Sep 2007, 8:30 AM

You wish to confuse people who do no understand the scientific, I understand from the word to evolve means open out naturally, to adapt to one's surroundings to exist, to survive, science (man) has taken over this option forcing people into its surroundings that propably would not be natural to existance. Therefore there is no concept in evolution. Man's evolution is a totally different concept to natures evolution in which neither can survive.
I think I get what you are trying to say. Yes, ever since humans started to manipulate their surrounding, the environment has had less of an impact on us. But we are still evolving. For humans not to evolve, then there would have to be absolutely no link between your genes and the amount of kids that you have who live to reproduce. This isn't the case.

Man is forcing itself out of this world. There will only be one winner. Nature.
Why can't man win?

davious

16th Sep 2007, 8:37 PM

Yeah, I agree Doddibot...it does seem that while animals adapt to suit their environments, man adapts the environment to suit him. As a species, we can survive in deserts, grasslands, tropics, even snow filled environments. There isn't a single animal on this planet that can survive in more places than humans can. We can't survive in space? No problem, we will invent spacesuits that allow us to walk on the moon...The point is, we humans have a tendency to be extremely adaptable. We can survive almost anywhere on the planet, we can eat both plants and meat, which means we have more options available to us for nutrition, we are more intelligent than any other creature on the planet, and our ability to make tools etc turned us into the most potent predator on the planet. We have no natural enemies, our biggest threat is ourselves. If any species on this planet can "tame" it, we have the best shot, if we haven't tamed it for the most part already.

Doddibot

20th Sep 2007, 12:36 PM

We have no natural enemies, our biggest threat is ourselves.
Yes, and I think that was what angieb was trying to say. We fiddle with nature, but we may end up making a mess rather than making it better, and that may be our downfall in the end.

davious

20th Sep 2007, 12:44 PM

Well, I was trying to point out that because we have no natural enemies, it gives us a much better chance of taming the planet...same facts, different outcome.

GothPunk

28th Sep 2007, 4:10 PM

Apologies for my absense from this discussion, I've had a lot of college work to do.:eviltongu

angieb: Yes, everything on the planet is still evolving, but seeing as it is a process which (in most organisms) takes a very long time to notice it's effects, it is unlikely that any human would live long enough to witness any one species evolve. There are exceptions to this though - we can very easily witness bacteria and viruses evolve - every time a virus or bacteria develops resistance to a drug or treatment, it has evolved. It's a very small evolution, but an evolution nonetheless. Rats have evolved in very recent history to develop a resistance to Warfarin - a rat poison. Biologists use flies in many studies as because they mate so rapidly, small adaptations can be observed.

Humans are putting an extreme selective pressure on so many animals on the planet, and that is why so many species are going extinct. Humans are changing so many environments at such a rapid place that it is impossible for adaptations to arise.

Humans are still evolving, but not necessarily towards a 'better' or more highly adapted animal. We live in systems devoid of many pressures and therefore many things are not selected against. For example, I have pretty bad eyesight and wear glasses. In a natural system people with bad eyesight would likely die and not pass on bad eyesight genes.

DNA is slightly more complicated than brewing a cup o'joe though.

Davious, I would appreciate it if you wouldn't take my words out of context, I was using an analogy.

There isn't a single animal on this planet that can survive in more places than humans can.

What about rats, cockroaches, the grey wolf (before we killed them all/domesticated them) and orcas(killer whales)? In fact, Orca's are the most widely distributed mammal on this planet, and certainly much more efficient predators than any human.

Our ability to make tools etc turned us into the most potent predator on the planet. We have no natural enemies, our biggest threat is ourselves. If any species on this planet can "tame" it, we have the best shot, if we haven't tamed it for the most part already.

Perhaps for those living in Europe or America, but try tell people living in Africa, India or South America that they have no natural predators. Are they just imagining all those elephants, tigers and snakes? The statistics for humans killed by animals every year makes for an unsettling read, with many infants being eaten every year, but many grown adults too. I don't think we're the outstanding example of physiological advancement that you make us out to be. And what about bear attacks where you are in the US?

And if we're so smart, how come we're stupid enough to poison the land we live on? To consume every last natural resource? And to upset the natural balance in a multitude of environments?

Basically the reason why I am making this point is because I believe that it is through people being humble and realising their place in the grand scheme of things that humans will suceed far into the future, and not through a blatent disrespect for nature and a belief that we can lay claim to the entire planet because we are so 'intelligent' and 'well adapted'.

That's true, but that doesn't make it not random. I mean, if I toss two dice, I can't predict which faces will come up. But if I knew the exact force I tossed those dice, and the friction of the surface, and the air resistance, I could predict it. Dice are technically determined by the tossing action, but it can appear very random because no person can calculate all those variables. But, it isn't random.

Doddibot, I think if you made that statement to a statistician their head would explode. You cannot compare a biological system, in its immense variability and dynamism, to an artificial system. And besides, to predict the two faces of the die that will appear, you must create an artificial system in order to make that prediction. You'd have to control the air resistance and air force in an isolated chamber, regulate the force at which the die is thrown, regulate the angle etc. And after all that, it is feasible you could predict the outcome, but in practice it would take an immense amount of work and control of the system in order for any prediction to remain accurate.

In a biological system, there is a huge number of variables - predators, weather, water availability, soil fertility, nutrition availability, and endless list of organisms and their associations. In order for you to make any predictions about such a system you'd have to limit as many variables as possible - i.e. a controlled experiment. But this is impossible in terms of natural selection, it is dependent upon the environment, thus being called natural selection. There is such a thing as artificial or non-random selection - such as non-random mating : i.e. birds will go for the brightest feathers/beaks, frogs for the loudest call etc.

It seems to me that you are over simplifying natural selection, and only looking at the end of the process.

To best explain myself, I'll make a comparison between natural selection and a marathon race. Let's say you have a marathon with 30,000 participants. Can you predict who will win? You can make observations of the participants training, look at their past sucesses etc, and try to make an informed guess. But you can never accurately and repeatedly predict the outcome of such a race. That is because there are many variables at work, that is why so many times in sport the underdog surprises everyone and wins. This is why there is an entire gambling industry based on the fact that people can make informed guesses and think the know who is going to win, but in reality they are just lucky if they consistently make the right guess.

And why do bookmakers stop taking bets once the race starts? Thats because, obviously, as the race progresses, it becomes easier and easier to predict the outcome.

This is what I think you're doing with natural selection. You're looking at a biological system in which a given organism already has an advantage (i.e. close to the end of the race), and predicting that it will survive or become the dominant species. But in doing so you're ignoring the bulk of the process of natural selection.

A race or natural selection is not random insofar as there (most likely) will be a winner.
A race or natural selection is random in terms of being unable to predict who will win.

The entire system of natural selection is limited by random mutations - the entire genetic system underlying everything is random and dynamic, yet you expect me to believe that you can predict that an organism with no foreseeable advantage will adapt and survive?

Doddibot, if you could do that you'd win a Nobel Prize. You'd probably be better off predicting the stock markets though (which are a much simpler system in comparison) and make yourself a whole lot of money.

davious

28th Sep 2007, 4:45 PM

Davious, I would appreciate it if you wouldn't take my words out of context, I was using an analogy.

And you are being defensive when you don't need to be. I was merely illustrating that because of the complexity of DNA, any filtering process would have to be significantly more complicated, and far more time consuming. Perhaps if you hadn't automatically assumed that I was ripping your analogy, you would have understood that.

Perhaps for those living in Europe or America, but try tell people living in Africa, India or South America that they have no natural predators. Are they just imagining all those elephants, tigers and snakes? The statistics for humans killed by animals every year makes for an unsettling read, with many infants being eaten every year, but many grown adults too. I don't think we're the outstanding example of physiological advancement that you make us out to be. And what about bear attacks where you are in the US?

And if we're so smart, how come we're stupid enough to poison the land we live on? To consume every last natural resource? And to upset the natural balance in a multitude of environments?

No, they aren't just imagining those elephants, however, you have to understand WHY humans in Africa are being attacked, and its not because of natural pecking order. Humans are expanding their turf, their hold on the continent. Consequently, that reduces the land area of the animals natural habitats. They attack humans because we are stripping the land of their natural prey. None of these animals attack humans for the hell of it, they attack humans because we did something to affect them, whether remove their food source, take their land, or hunt their family. You want to discuss the statistics of humans being killed by those animals, fine...lets also discuss the statistics of those animals being killed by humans...which statistics do you suppose are going to be in greater numbers? Bears don't attack people unless we do something to piss them off too...They only approach our campsites if we leave food out for them to smell, they attack only when we back them into a corner, and they feel threatened. Bears natural instincts are to avoid humans. Bear attacks are almost always the fault of the humans intruding on the bear's turf, not because the bear has a instinctual craving for human flesh. The same can be said about the animals in Africa attacking humans...they attack because we threaten them in some way, not because they recognize us as a prime food source. The reasons behind the attacks are unnatural, so I stand by my statement that humans have no NATURAL predators.

And if we're so smart, how come we're stupid enough to poison the land we live on? To consume every last natural resource? And to upset the natural balance in a multitude of environments?

Why do humans poison the land? Because some humans put their intelligence to work on less than ideal goals...namely, the pursuit of money. Some humans do work hard to protect the environment. There is such a difference in philosophies regarding environmentalism, that it is unfair to assign the attribute to the entire species as poisoning the land. Some humans do, some humans don't. Its not a trait that every human shares. However, that same intelligence is also responsible for tremendous scientific leaps, greatly increased our survival rate because of technology and medicine, and landed us on the moon. You might not think that those are significant evolutionary traits, but, some of us do. We don't dream about chasing an animal so we can eat, we dream about setting foot on another planet. Our intelligence gives us loftier goals.

GothPunk

28th Sep 2007, 8:43 PM

And you are being defensive when you don't need to be. I was merely illustrating that because of the complexity of DNA, any filtering process would have to be significantly more complicated, and far more time consuming. Perhaps if you hadn't automatically assumed that I was ripping your analogy, you would have understood that.

Actually, DNA is that simple. 4 molecules that have remained unchanged across a couple of billion years. And besides, Doddibot and I were talking about individual animals surviving or being wiped out - i.e. being filtered out from the population. This is what I mean when I say that you are taking what I said out of context.

No, they aren't just imagining those elephants, however, you have to understand WHY humans in Africa are being attacked, and its not because of natural pecking order. Humans are expanding their turf, their hold on the continent. Consequently, that reduces the land area of the animals natural habitats. They attack humans because we are stripping the land of their natural prey. None of these animals attack humans for the hell of it, they attack humans because we did something to affect them, whether remove their food source, take their land, or hunt their family. You want to discuss the statistics of humans being killed by those animals, fine...lets also discuss the statistics of those animals being killed by humans...which statistics do you suppose are going to be in greater numbers? Bears don't attack people unless we do something to piss them off too...They only approach our campsites if we leave food out for them to smell, they attack only when we back them into a corner, and they feel threatened. Bears natural instincts are to avoid humans. Bear attacks are almost always the fault of the humans intruding on the bear's turf, not because the bear has a instinctual craving for human flesh. The same can be said about the animals in Africa attacking humans...they attack because we threaten them in some way, not because they recognize us as a prime food source. The reasons behind the attacks are unnatural, so I stand by my statement that humans have no NATURAL predators.

What? Seriously, what? Are you saying that other animals attack humans for some kind of political reasons, or for revenge? Do you really believe that a lion or tiger attacks and eats humans out of anger?

Humans evolved in Africa. Lions, hyenas and leopards have fed on primates (including our species) ever since they made their first evolutionary appearance. We have always been part of their food chain, and with only our natural abilities we cannot be counted as the apex predator. It has nothing to do with encroaching on their territory, as we have always co existed with them in Africa. And why wouldn't a lion want to eat a human? We have no defences, no big teeth, no thick hide, no claws, poor hearing and a non-existant sense of smell when compared to a cat. Four legs are much faster than two. Compared to other primates, physically we are very weak - chimpanzees (who are generally about the size of a 4 year old) are many times stronger than a human. Now, imagine you are walking home from the well, back to your village, what are the chances that you will have a weapon on your person capable of dealing with an animal the size of a lion, never mind a pride of them? Your intelligence is of little use with a pair of jaws around your neck. People don't usually leave their village with a spear let alone a gun.

You or I may have a nice Jeep and a guide with a gun, but the average Joe in Africa where these animals predate does not have such things. Humans survive by living together in large noisy groups (a bit like herding animals) with a few fires going and strange smells. Lions did not get to where they are now by being choosy over what they eat. Predators are opportuinistic. They will eat you given a chance, unless of course you give them reason not too (Jeep, gun, missile launcher etc.) Hell even people with guns have been known to get eaten from time to time.

These animals have a lot more practice sneaking up on you then any hunting skills you may have. They also have better equipment to work with - extremely sharp hearing, amazing eyesight and an excellent sense of smell. They are honed predators who must kill to survive. We can survive on berries if we really have to. They are the highly adapted apex predator, not us.

I admit bears are a bad example, I should not have used them. They are not natural predators of humans. But tigers, lions, hyenas and leopards certainly enjoy eating people, and are natural predators of humans, in natural situations.

Why do humans poison the land? Because some humans put their intelligence to work on less than ideal goals...namely, the pursuit of money. Some humans do work hard to protect the environment. There is such a difference in philosophies regarding environmentalism, that it is unfair to assign the attribute to the entire species as poisoning the land. Some humans do, some humans don't. Its not a trait that every human shares. However, that same intelligence is also responsible for tremendous scientific leaps, greatly increased our survival rate because of technology and medicine, and landed us on the moon. You might not think that those are significant evolutionary traits, but, some of us do. We don't dream about chasing an animal so we can eat, we dream about setting foot on another planet. Our intelligence gives us loftier goals.

Don't get me wrong, I do think that human intelligence is an amazing and fascinating trait, but then again, I am also amazed at the abilities of every other animal too. The human brain in particular fascinates me. But it is that intelligence that we speak of that gives us every idealistic environmentalist and every unconcerned capatalist. Humans have certainly done more to harm the Earth than help it.

In a natural situation, any animal, human or otherwise, has little time to dream. In a natural situation one is more concerned with general survival, like not being eaten - and where the next meal is coming from, than trips to the Moon or Mars. Many of us live in artificial environments that we created - which although have allowed us to tap our potential - have also harmed the planet.

I'm just sick of hearing people talk about humans as if we are the apex of evolution. Journeys to the Moon are frivolous in the grand scheme of things, not every human on the planet has the luxury of dreams of space travel, let alone any education at all.

Yes humans are the 'best' at being smart, and that intelligence has alowed us to make tools, to form societies and to populate the Earth. That's great.

In terms of evolution though, cockroaches and other insects are the apex of evolution. They have, can and will survive almost every major extinction event. To them, dreams are a frivolity. Dreams, industry and medecine is unimportant to them, they are only concerned with survival. The purpose of evolution is to survive and pass on your genes. The purpose of evolution is not to paint a painting, to make music or go to the moon, it is simply to survive and to do that well. The animal that does that the 'best' is the one that can lay claim to being the apex of evolution. The animal that is the best at surviving and adapting is not the human, whale, parrot or crocodile, it is an insect.

Humans just have delusions of grandeur.

davious

28th Sep 2007, 9:42 PM

Actually, DNA is that simple. 4 molecules that have remained unchanged across a couple of billion years.

Then why do we still not fully understand it? The problem isn't the 4 molecules, its how they all relate to each other in a long chain. We haven't even fully mapped the human genome, and you are saying its simple?

What? Seriously, what? Are you saying that other animals attack humans for some kind of political reasons, or for revenge? Do you really believe that a lion or tiger attacks and eats humans out of anger?

http://www.lairweb.org.nz/tiger/maneating3.html

They attack because we encroach on their turf, because we startled them, or they are defending their cubs. They do not attack us as normal prey, like a gazelle. They will attack if ncessary, but, if they have the chance, most will avoid us. Watch Animal Planet sometime.

Humans evolved in Africa. Lions, hyenas and leopards have fed on primates (including our species) ever since they made their first evolutionary appearance. We have always been part of their food chain, and with only our natural abilities we cannot be counted as the apex predator. It has nothing to do with encroaching on their territory, as we have always co existed with them in Africa. And why wouldn't a lion want to eat a human? We have no defences, no big teeth, no thick hide, no claws, poor hearing and a non-existant sense of smell when compared to a cat. Four legs are much faster than two. Compared to other primates, physically we are very weak - chimpanzees (who are generally about the size of a 4 year old) are many times stronger than a human. Now, imagine you are walking home from the well, back to your village, what are the chances that you will have a weapon on your person capable of dealing with an animal the size of a lion, never mind a pride of them? Your intelligence is of little use with a pair of jaws around your neck. People don't usually leave their village with a spear let alone a gun.

You completely missed the point as to why man is the ultimate predator. We are the ultimate predator because we have the intelligence to find ways around our physical limitations. Our brains are the most important weapon we have. It enabled us to develop artificial claws, when we had none of our own. Spears, arrows, knifes and swords. It gives us speed when we have none. Jeeps, riding horseback. It allows us to strike from long distances. Guns. You make an erroneous assumption that humans hunt in singles. Like lions, we are far more effective when hunting as a pack. The cavemen weren't wiped out by lions, tigers, etc because they hunted in groups, just like the lions do. Think of a bundle of sticks. Much harder to break than a single twig.

These animals have a lot more practice sneaking up on you then any hunting skills you may have. They also have better equipment to work with - extremely sharp hearing, amazing eyesight and an excellent sense of smell. They are honed predators who must kill to survive. We can survive on berries if we really have to. They are the highly adapted apex predator, not us.

And we don't need to kill to survive, but we still kill them far more than they kill us. They are professional hunters, we are strictly amateur by now (100,000 years ago we would have been professional too) yet, it is man that endangers the survival of the lion, not the other way around.

Humans just have delusions of grandeur.

Yeah, because the ability to explore the universe is a delusion. The ability to understand our world pales in comparison to a cockroach being able to survive an bad conditions.

GothPunk

29th Sep 2007, 1:56 AM

Then why do we still not fully understand it? The problem isn't the 4 molecules, its how they all relate to each other in a long chain. We haven't even fully mapped the human genome, and you are saying its simple?

Of course we fully understand DNA, who told you we didn't? All DNA is is a chain of molecules arranged in a pattern which encodes for amino acids making proteins. The 4 molecules are always the same, they always have a deoxy ribose sugar and phosphate backbone, they are always bound together by hydrogen bonds. This is why Watson, Crick and Wilkins won a Nobel Prize, for resolving the structure of DNA and confirming it as the molecule encoding genetic information. Crick went on to develop the Central Dogma of molecular biology and to show how DNA encodes for proteins. This represented the birth of 'molecular biology' as a discipline. (A subject in which I have an honours degree and am currently studying for my PhD in. It's not like I'm talking out of my ass or making it all up.)

In fact it is because DNA is such a simple molecule that for years many biologists did not believe it could be the molecule encoding genetic information.

As for the human genome, it just took molecular biologists many years to develop the equipment to accurately map the genome. It is not a mark of the complexity of any genome that we have not completely mapped it, it is just the fact that there's so damn much of it! It's not the DNA itself that is complex, it is the genes themselves, where they are located on a chromosome and what the gene encodes for that is harder to ascertain.

Whether a gene is passed on or not is very simple - you either survive and reproduce or you don't. That's why Doddibot was calling natural selection a filter, because a gene is either passed on or not, and in this way some genes are 'filtered' from the population.

http://www.lairweb.org.nz/tiger/maneating3.html

They attack because we encroach on their turf, because we startled them, or they are defending their cubs. They do not attack us as normal prey, like a gazelle. They will attack if ncessary, but, if they have the chance, most will avoid us. Watch Animal Planet sometime.

I'm confused, that website confirms what I was saying, and I quote "Twenty-six Indians and a similar number of Africans lost their lives before the lions were shot.

In 1932, another famous series of attacks commenced in Tanzania near the southern town of Njombe.

It took until 1947 to kill the final 15 lions from the pride and by this time over 1,000 people had been killed, with some being eaten."

And these are only the documented cases.

"Other attacks come about when a tiger begins hunting domestic stock; often the first human victim is a herdsman protecting his animals. The cat may then learn that people are easy prey."

That website is only playing down the role of tigers as man-eaters, because they get a bad reputation and people start killing vast numbers of them. The writer then goes on to back up everything I've said about lions. And I do watch Animal Planet, but I've not only done that, I've actually studied zoology and animal behaviour. You want to know why there aren't that many shows documenting animals eating people? Because who would possibly want to watch that? People like their lions to be all cuddly and lazy, or to see them take down a gazelle. Personally I'd worry about any person who actually wanted to watch a show about other animals eating people. And besides, since when has TV been the gospel truth? The reason why most people don't know about this stuff is because people don't want to hear about it, because it's unsettling, and very sad. It makes me sad to think about people, especially babies or young children, being killed and eaten. But it does happen, thats why safari's have guides with powerful rifles.

You completely missed the point as to why man is the ultimate predator. We are the ultimate predator because we have the intelligence to find ways around our physical limitations. Our brains are the most important weapon we have. It enabled us to develop artificial claws, when we had none of our own. Spears, arrows, knifes and swords. It gives us speed when we have none. Jeeps, riding horseback. It allows us to strike from long distances. Guns. You make an erroneous assumption that humans hunt in singles. Like lions, we are far more effective when hunting as a pack. The cavemen weren't wiped out by lions, tigers, etc because they hunted in groups, just like the lions do. Think of a bundle of sticks. Much harder to break than a single twig.

And you completely missed my point. The people who are hunted are usually alone with no weapon. That's the natural situation. Are you telling me that every person in Africa living with these animals has a gun, and travels everywhere in a group? I specifically said that the majority of people going to the well for water aren't carrying a weapon (you know, because they're carrying water) and aren't travelling in a group. I know we have tools and guns and that we can organise hunts, but we are not the 'ultimate hunter'. If your weapon breaks, or you run out of ammunition, what will you use then? A lion could take you down bare handed, and it could probably track you from a couple of miles away. You or I wouldn't last alone in the African bush or savannah. Like the website you linked to said, people are 'easy prey'.

And we don't need to kill to survive, but we still kill them far more than they kill us. They are professional hunters, we are strictly amateur by now (100,000 years ago we would have been professional too) yet, it is man that endangers the survival of the lion, not the other way around.

100,000 years ago we were not professional. We managed pretty well, but there is documented fossil evidence of humans being a prey animal as well as a predating animal. Think about all those sabre-tooth cats that used to rule the lands - now they were close to an ultimate predator. Since when do people in natural situations not need to kill to survive? Last time I checked there were plenty of tribes around the world living off the land and killing to survive, whilst still respecting the highly adapted predators that can eat them. Remember, people stay out of other animals territories just as much as they stay out of ours. Those same people also recognise that it is wrong for us to endanger the lion, as that will unsettle the natural balance of the environment. You're right, humans do endanger the lion, but that's because of mindless destruction of wildlife, like poaching. I can't think of any people that hunt and kill lions to eat them. I don't think being able to shoot a bunch of lions makes you the 'ultimate hunter'.

What's with the supremist attitude anyway? Is there really any shame in admitting that humans are not the apex predator in most situations?

And if you care to switch over from Animal Planet to Discovery Civilisation, you might catch a show about tribes around the world, and look at what they hunt. Not big game. They hunt bushmeat, like monkeys and large birds. Humans in a natural situation. Humans that are not the apex predator.

Yeah, because the ability to explore the universe is a delusion. The ability to understand our world pales in comparison to a cockroach being able to survive an bad conditions.

But humans do have delusions of grandeur. Too many people seem to talk about our species as if we inherited the planet, that we are the 'ultimate predator', that we are the pinnicle of evolution. They use this as an excuse to abuse the natural world.

I did not say that humans are not special, or that art, science or space exploration is not fascinating. But in the grand scheme of things, and in terms of evolution, they are unimportant, frivolous.

If you polled lots of evolutionary biologists what species they thought was the pinnicle of evolution, they would most likely say a cockroach, or some similar insect. You know those guys can survive nuclear winter. Very few would ever say humans, even though we are pretty good at what we do!

davious

29th Sep 2007, 3:30 AM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apex_predator

We ARE the ultimate predator. We hunt every animal, unlike lions, leopards, etc, there is no environment we cannot live in, which means no animals are safe. Perhaps the single greatest predator of the seas, the great white shark owns the ocean, but, even sharks are not immune. Shark attacks on humans are very rare, and then, its because they confuse humans splashing with seals and other sea animals that they DO hunt.

We have the capability to hunt them on their own turf, they cannot do the same. There is nowhere on this planet that humans cannot seek out prey. Lions have a specific environment they hunt in, for humans that specific environment is called Earth. We have greater range. We kill them in far more numbers than they kill us, and then, scientists attribute most lion attacks as being the fault of the humans for doing something to cause the attacks. There is no animal we cannot hunt, if we chose to.

And, your being confused is no surprise, as the examples from the article that I posted that you claim refute my claims, do nothing of the sort. I never said that they never preyed on humans, merely that its because of unnatural circumstances...

"Other attacks come about when a tiger begins hunting domestic stock; often the first human victim is a herdsman protecting his animals. The cat may then learn that people are easy prey."

Notice the word learn. That implies that hunting humans is NOT instinctual to them. They had to learn that humans can be eaten. Perhaps they came across the corpses of dead humans left to rot in the jungle because of disease, and figured it out. Doesn't matter. The point is, they had to be taught to eat people its not something they instinctually do. The lion knows from the time it is a cub that it is supposed to chase and kill certain animals. It just knows. Just like a housecat that has never seen one before would know that a mouse was prey, so too the lion knows that it is supposed to eat gazelle. It has to learn to eat humans through some unnatural cause. It could be caused by a human startling a lion, and it strikes in defense, it could be protecting cubs. However, even then, it is a rare lion that will go into a human village to hunt. They are naturally inclined to keep their distance, it takes unordinary circumstances for them to seek us out as prey.

You know what we do with other apex predators? We keep them as exotic pets. In some cases, we train them to jump through hoops of fire. We ride them. We keep them in cages, we put them in zoos, so our children can look at them. Shoot, we even name our sports teams after them.

If keeping the other apex predators as pets does not show our domination of them, I don't know what will.

Doddibot

29th Sep 2007, 4:56 AM

And besides, to predict the two faces of the die that will appear, you must create an artificial system in order to make that prediction. You'd have to control the air resistance and air force in an isolated chamber, regulate the force at which the die is thrown, regulate the angle etc. And after all that, it is feasible you could predict the outcome, but in practice it would take an immense amount of work and control of the system in order for any prediction to remain accurate.
Not necessarily. You just need to have accurate data on all the variables and how they are varying over time. Controlling them will make it easier to do, but still that misses the point. Given enough data, you can predict it. The result is determined by other factors, rather than random. It only seems random because we have insufficient data.

The same goes for your examples too.

And why do bookmakers stop taking bets once the race starts? Thats because, obviously, as the race progresses, it becomes easier and easier to predict the outcome.
Yep, because you're getting more data.

This is what I think you're doing with natural selection. You're looking at a biological system in which a given organism already has an advantage (i.e. close to the end of the race), and predicting that it will survive or become the dominant species. But in doing so you're ignoring the bulk of the process of natural selection.
True. To make any kind of accurate prediction would certainly require knowledge of all the genotype-phenotype relationships and all the mutations possible and all their effects and all the location and timing of all the possible causes of those mutations. It's very hard to predict, and it seems to be random because we don't have anywhere near enough data to predict anything.

A race or natural selection is not random insofar as there (most likely) will be a winner.
A race or natural selection is random in terms of being unable to predict who will win.
No, it seems random because we don't have the data to make an accurate prediction.

The entire system of natural selection is limited by random mutations - the entire genetic system underlying everything is random and dynamic, yet you expect me to believe that you can predict that an organism with no foreseeable advantage will adapt and survive?
I can't predict which organism will survive any more than I can predict a coin toss or dice roll. But that's only because I don't know all the parameters involved.

Doddibot, if you could do that you'd win a Nobel Prize. You'd probably be better off predicting the stock markets though (which are a much simpler system in comparison) and make yourself a whole lot of money.
Another non-random system with too many influences.

Of course, pseudo-random processes are best approximated as random in computer models. But that's only because we can't program all the data into the computer and have it work out which mutations will occur from all the various cosmic rays, mutagens and conversions of purines etc.

spookymuffin

29th Sep 2007, 10:58 AM

Watch Animal Planet sometime.

This actually made me laugh. GothPunk and I are both in college studying related topics to this subject (cell and molecular biology and zoology respectively)
I think they are better reference points than a television channel that is more concerned with propaganda to fuel conservation than the truth.

Of course they don't want people to think that the big cats (or other large predators) are eating people on a regular basis, that would hurt conservation efforts and tourism in the areas that these animals live.

The fact is, a lot of animal attacks go unnoticed because when an animal takes you to eat you, they don't usually leave any evidence behind. They drag you to a secluded spot and eat almost every piece of you, in some species they will even eat the clothes.
So, the person is filed as missing and never seen again.

Of course Tigers have to learn to eat people, they have to learn what animals to eat from their mother when they are young. They are not born with the knowledge of what species are the best to eat. These are intelligent animals we're talking about here.

It's lions, leopards and hyenas that I really want to stress here, because they are our natural predators. We evolved alongside these animals in Africa and we have always been on their menu; as long as we share the same environment we probably always will be.

You talk about guns and other man-made weapons like they are a common commodity to the average person in Africa. These animals don't need to make or acquire weapons because they are born with them.

You use sharks as an example as the ultimate predator in the sea, why is that? Sharks are not remarkable predators, in fact, a lot of the time they take bites out of things that aren't even food.
The apex predator in the sea is definitely the Orca, they hunt in close-knit groups using complex vocalisations to organise hunting strategies.
There isn't an animal in the sea that is safe from the orca, except for a few adult whales, they are a true example of an opportunistic predator and we pale in comparison.

Also, I really don't see how keeping large predators in captivity (where they still regularly maim humans) is proof of our dominion over them.
We keep them behind fences and moats but they still break free. We try to bond them to handlers so that humans can deal with them and they still eat us. They are unpredictable living things, they are not machines that can be controlled. The lack of humility you show in the face of nature and our kin is mind boggling to say the least.

At the end of the day something will eventually happen to wipe our species out (mammals don't in general have a very long shelf life) and then we will just be another blip on the evolutionary scale. Our art, books, culture, trips to the moon and beyond will have no bearing on our successors and it certainly wouldn't save us from an inevitable event like extinction.

When we are gone a new animal will take our place and we will be forgotten. In the great scheme of things and in terms of the age of life on the planet, we are a miniscule annoyance that threatened other organisms for a time, and when we are gone life will continue as it always has.

Doddibot

29th Sep 2007, 12:25 PM

Well, I'd be inclined to agree with Davious in some respects. Human intelligence does certainly make us 'better' in some respects. But who said that the 'best' animal or the 'pinnacle' of evolution was the one with the biggest brain-body ration or the top predator?

A falcon might think the pinnacle is fasted dive speed, or a cheetah might think it was fastest running speed.

Our brains are awesome (so says me, the guy at college studying neuroscience). So I'm not biased at all....:p

GothPunk

29th Sep 2007, 1:41 PM

Our brains are awesome (so says me, the guy at college studying neuroscience). So I'm not biased at all....:p

This is totally of topic, but that is so cool! I studied neuropharmacology last year, and at the moment I'm doing research into the molecular basis of neurodegenerative diseases (specifically amyloid and prion based diseases.) What fascinates me about the human brain is to think about small molecular and therefore genetic changes in the brain having an effect upon behaviour, because as you know we often see signs of neurological illness earlier in humans compared to other animals. I had no idea we were studying similar topics. :beer:

Not necessarily. You just need to have accurate data on all the variables and how they are varying over time. Controlling them will make it easier to do, but still that misses the point. Given enough data, you can predict it. The result is determined by other factors, rather than random. It only seems random because we have insufficient data.

This is in effect a falsity. You and I both know that biology is a grey area, with exceptions to almost every rule written down. This goes against physics, which is more black and white, following strict patterns - forces can be predicted with mathematical formula, and predictions can be made accurately and precisely, repeatedly. Chemistry is also like this to a certain extent - reaction kinetic studies can be predicted and formulated within a very small margin of error, and experimentation is easy as controlled conditions are usually easily created.

The same goes for your examples too.

No it doesn't. You're comparing an artificial system to a biological system. You cannot make that comparison, even in theoretically predictable biological systems, because biological systems are dynamic. Predictions based on artificial systems can be made because the system remains the same. Biological systems are dynamic, and although perhaps 80% of the time may follow a set pattern, there are always exceptions to the rule, and therefore your predictions will never be 100% accurate. So even if you could map say, a system such as the weather, within an infinately powerful computer, your predictions will never be 100% accurate, and therefore you cannot call the system non-random. Like you called the stock market, it's more pseudo random.

Yep, because you're getting more data.

I wouldn't call it getting more data, at the point where one species is showing some dominance over another, natural selection has already occured. This is why ecologists and molecular biologists get into arguements, because too often ecologists ignore the molecular processes occuring during natural selection. They basically say they can predict the outcome, but they're cheating. They're looking at the close to end result - almost anyone can make that prediction and come out about 95% accurate. They're completely ignoring the tumultous process within the genome of each individual organism in a population, that can take over 5000 generations to show any kind of dominance or shift in the population.

True. To make any kind of accurate prediction would certainly require knowledge of all the genotype-phenotype relationships and all the mutations possible and all their effects and all the location and timing of all the possible causes of those mutations. It's very hard to predict, and it seems to be random because we don't have anywhere near enough data to predict anything.

No, it seems random because we don't have the data to make an accurate prediction.

I can't predict which organism will survive any more than I can predict a coin toss or dice roll. But that's only because I don't know all the parameters involved.

This is where we get to the crux of my arguement. There is one variable within this sytem that we're talking about that is random, and definately cannot be predicted. That variable is genetic recombination.

Another non-random system with too many influences.

Of course, pseudo-random processes are best approximated as random in computer models. But that's only because we can't program all the data into the computer and have it work out which mutations will occur from all the various cosmic rays, mutagens and conversions of purines etc.

You'll notice I said the stock market was much simpler in comparison to natural selection, and that is because it is completely random, whereas as you said, the stock market is pseudo-random.

When I say random mutations I do not mean those caused by thymine pairings, mutagens or radiation. I'm talking about the completely random biological process called genetic recombination. Specifically chromosomal crossover and transpositional crossover.

Although as molecular biologists we can say that a particular gene is less or more likely to undergo recombination depending on where the gene is on a particular chromosome, the system itself is unpredictable. In one organism it may result in a new allele, a deletion, an insertion or a duplication. In another organism it may cause a fatal phenotype. A third organism may experience no phenotypic difference at all.

We cannot predict how the recombination will occur, because the system is random. The enzymes involved operate at random. This is an advantage though, because it results in new alleles. The system would be nowhere near as diverse if it was predictable.

A perfect simple example is VDJ joining, which is how Immunoglobulins and T-cell receptors gain different specificities. I suggest you read about it because its very interesting, and is a system model for how genetic recombination occurs in general. It is a system model that has been well studied and confirmed as a random system. No matter how much data is collected or variables are controlled, you cannot make enzymes that react randomly fit a specific predictable pattern.

And in my world, everything comes down to genes and proteins. This is how I can be so certain that the full process of natural selection is random.

Fayreview

29th Sep 2007, 6:50 PM

Ok i wish I had the time to read ALL the posts but i dont so i read the last through.

Natural selection is random but has nothing to do with chance.... it has to do with breeding ,and natural selection is just the composition of hundreds of slightly improbable things that just make the end product seem impossible. :)

Doddibot

30th Sep 2007, 4:51 AM

GothPunk, I think we might just have to agree to disagree. I think that an infinitely powerful computer with enough up-to-date data could in fact predict the weather. By enough, that might have to mean knowing the exact wind speed, wind direction, humidity, temperature and so on for every cubic centimeter of atmosphere, but the important thing is that it would be possible. Well, at least 99.999% of the time, it could get it right.

Anyway, I think we both agree that evolution happens and that it is the explanation of life on earth. I was kind of hoping we'd get some creationists in here...oh well.

GothPunk

30th Sep 2007, 11:23 AM

GothPunk, I think we might just have to agree to disagree.

Anyway, I think we both agree that evolution happens and that it is the explanation of life on earth. I was kind of hoping we'd get some creationists in here...oh well.

Okay, I have to say though that I enjoyed debating this with you. :anime:

Yes I think that evolution is the explanation of the diversity for life on Earth. And also, if needs be in the future, I can prove the Intelligent Design arguement - which involves Irreducible complexity, Specified complexity and Abrupt appearance - to be false.

Seriously, if these people read up on some molecular phylogenetics there would be no need for an arguement.

Good luck in your studies Doddibot. :)

leenetje

13th Oct 2007, 2:49 PM

i will say it fast and clear
1. evolition is proved AND true
2. we don't come from apes, they are our cousins, there were ape like things on the planet and we coome from those, not from apes. we just have the same antsesters, but we don't come from apes

PennyTheCorgi

14th Oct 2007, 1:23 AM

Evolution is one of those iffy topics like religion that doesn't have a concrete right or wrong answer. Regardless of what anyone says, there is no proof of where we came from, just like there is no proof of a "god" existing (no, a three thousand year old man made book is not proof). Somehow I see alot more logic in humans evolving from apes then being poofed onto earth by "god", but again, if there's no proof (which there isn't) mine is just another opinion.

Doddibot

14th Oct 2007, 5:37 AM

Yes, Penny, you're right. There is no proof. There is evidence. Lots of evidence. But no amount of evidence amounts to proof.

GothPunk

16th Oct 2007, 7:51 PM

2. we don't come from apes, they are our cousins, there were ape like things on the planet and we coome from those, not from apes. we just have the same antsesters, but we don't come from apes

Who told you that, because they would be wrong. We did come from apes, we just didn't come directly from Chimpanzee's, which so many people often assume when they hear 'we share 99.9% of our DNA with a chimpanzee'. Chimps and humans both evolved from a common ancestor, which was a higher primate, in other words, an ape. This is supported by both fossil and genetic evidence. Are the 'ape-like things' you speak of species of humanoids like Homo erectus and Homo habilis? Technically these 'ape-like things' are humanoid, as they are from our genus (grouping of animals) Homo. Our species is the only living member of this genus, Homo sapiens.

And let's not forget that humans are apes. That's a fact, the same way the sky is blue and the Sims 2 is a computer game.

Evolution is one of those iffy topics like religion that doesn't have a concrete right or wrong answer. Regardless of what anyone says, there is no concrete proof of where we came from, just like there is no concrete proof of a "god" existing (no, a three thousand year old man made is not proof). Somehow I see alot more logic in humans evolving from apes then being poofed onto earth by "god", but again, if there's no proof (which there isn't) mine is just another opinion.

I'm not quite sure what you mean PennyTheCorgi, and I apologise if I'm taking you up wrong. Do you mean that there is no concrete proof of where life itself originated, or where humans came from?

There is some some scientific evidence and theory to suggest how life first evolved in the first place billions of years ago, but you're right, there is no proof based on evidence. We have some very good theories, but as yet, no 'concrete proof'.

There is however 'concrete proof' of where humans came from. There is a library of fossils documenting the evolution of primates, from lemurs to humans and chimpanzee's. Then there is the molecular phylogenetic data, the information biologists get by comparing the genes of different animals and linking them together. If this is not concrete proof, then what is? Perhaps you're right, and it is just my opinion that there is concrete proof, when in fact all there really is is an overwhelming large library of evidence.

But with that logic one begins to enter the realm of metaphysics. Can you prove that you are living on Earth? There is an overwhelmingly large body of evidence to support the fact that you and I are living on Earth, but having never personally travelled into space and observed the Earth, how can we have concrete proof that we are, in fact, on Earth. And if we did go in to space, how do we prove that the planet we see is Earth. What if it is just a planet that looks like Earth?

This might seem like crazy talk, but some philosophers will tell you that it is very difficult to prove anything, as everything we see in this world is biased, as it is percieved by human eyes. All we can go by is large bodies of evidence. The more evidence, the closer it gets to being truth, or in your words, concrete proof. In terms of human society, all that is ever required to 'prove' anything is enough evidence, for example, the criminal justice system.

With your logic, a criminal can never be proven guilty in a case in which there is no witness, as there is no 'concrete proof' that they did it. And even if there is a witness, their view may be biased, or they may be lying. So again there would be no concrete proof. But obviously people do go to jail without 'concrete proof', as there is forensic, physical and circumstantial evidence. If enough evidence is all it takes to prove someone guilty of a crime, then why does a large body of evidence not prove the evolution of humans? Does the same logic not apply?

So personally I would say a large library of evidence *is* concrete proof.

Large bodies of evidence are the entire basis for the collections of human knowledge; it just seems that evolution faces more resistance than other theories for no substantial reason at all.

Troll

19th Oct 2007, 9:33 PM

No animal actually sets forth to prey on humans as humans do with animals. We move out into their territory to hunt. When they attack us it is usually because we are in very close proximity to their habitat or directly in it.

A man gets a gun, forms a plan , finds a place and will travel a great distance if need be to hunt the animal. The animal remains in its local area. You don't see lions and tigers moving into the cities to kill humans.

Man is more willing to hunt and kill making it the top predator.

Don't need a degree or a tv channel to figure that much out.

With that said, do try to stay on the topic of evolution itself a little more than who is the top predator.

Troll

19th Oct 2007, 9:43 PM

Who told you that, because they would be wrong. We did come from apes, we just didn't come directly from Chimpanzee's, which so many people often assume when they hear 'we share 99.9% of our DNA with a chimpanzee'. Chimps and humans both evolved from a common ancestor, which was a higher primate, in other words, an ape. This is supported by both fossil and genetic evidence. Are the 'ape-like things' you speak of species of humanoids like Homo erectus and Homo habilis? Technically these 'ape-like things' are humanoid, as they are from our genus (grouping of animals) Homo. Our species is the only living member of this genus, Homo sapiens.

And let's not forget that humans are apes. That's a fact, the same way the sky is blue and the Sims 2 is a computer game.

Actually man and apes evolved from a common ancestor, thus the whole evolving thing. It was not an actual ape, but an ape-like creature. So you cannot say we evolved from apes anymore than you can say we evolved from mice or apes and man evolved from mice becuase of man and mice sharing about 99% of the same genes and on a letter-by-letter basis, the genes are 85 percent the same.

So technically your statement about us evolving from apes is incorrect

GothPunk

20th Oct 2007, 1:41 AM

Actually man and apes evolved from a common ancestor, thus the whole evolving thing. It was not an actual ape, but an ape-like creature. So you cannot say we evolved from apes anymore than you can say we evolved from mice or apes and man evolved from mice becuase of man and mice sharing about 99% of the same genes and on a letter-by-letter basis, the genes are 85 percent the same.

So technically your statement about us evolving from apes is incorrect

You are incorrect if you are separating 'man and apes' from each other, when in fact humans are apes, and are placed in the same taxon, the family Hominidae. Or perhaps you are just taking me up wrong. leenetje said that we didn't come from ape's at all, but 'ape-like' organisms, and therefore that we are not apes. But we are apes, and our ancestor which forms the root of our group, the Hominini (which includes humans and chimpanzees), was an ape, not an 'ape-like' organism.

So the common ancestor was an ape. Obviously the common ancestor is extinct, but if still around today would be classed within the Family Hominidae, making it a great ape, and meaning that humans and chimpanzees direct ancestors were apes. The common ancestor of humans and chimpanzee's likely closely resembled modern day gorilla's, and are gorrila's not ape's?

Seeing as how I was directly responding to leenetje's comment that humans direct ancestor was not an ape, when in fact it was, I don't see why you're bringing up mice. We weren't debating that fact, in the context of the discussion it's obvious we were talking about humans closest and direct ancestors.

Molecular phylogenticists do not just lump animals together based on a per centage of matching DNA, it is wholly a lot more complicated than that. It involves looking for homologous (similar and shared) genes within and between the organisms being studied, and from that making 'trees' based on this information. That is how we can so possitively ascertain that humans and chimpanzee's evolved from a common ancestor, and that that ancestor was quite similar to modern day gorillas.

So unless you've just re-written the molecular phylogenetics of the family Hominidae, I do not see how any of my statements were incorrect.

Freelancer_SC

23rd Oct 2007, 8:11 PM

You could always stop vaccinating people who don't believe in evolution. That would show 'em. ;)

footballer_17

24th Oct 2007, 3:26 PM

First of all, humans have rational souls. Apes, being brutes, have sentient souls. Rational souls have abilities that sentient souls do not have. These are intellect, will, and memory. So, a sentient soul cannot simply evolve to a rational soul. It cannot gain the ability to have intellect, will, and memory. (btw I'm just saying what i learned.) hehehe :D

GothPunk

24th Oct 2007, 9:48 PM

Seeing as the concept of the 'soul' is a human creation and a philosophical concept, I do not see how the topic of souls comes into a debate about evolution.

Apes, especially chimpanzees, do have 'intellect, will, and memory.' There has been a lot of time and money spent to prove this, so please do the people who took the time and care to figure it out a favour and at least look at their research. Chimpanzees can be observed making tools [1], exhibiting altruistic behaviour [2] and other highly intelligent traits we associate with humans.[3] I resent the use of the word 'brute' to describe a highly intelligent animal that is our closest living relative. Insult chimpanzee's and you are only insulting yourself in the process.

Basically what I take from what you're saying is that "We are more intelligent than (other) apes." Well that's obvious. We are more intelligent than other apes because we have evolved beneficially to be more intelligent. In addition, your statement "a sentient soul cannot simply evolve to a rational soul" does not take account of all the facts. Humans and chimpanzee's diverged from a common ancestor millions of years ago, and there have been many species of humanoid apes over that time. Evolution doesn't just happen overnight, or within a generation. It takes thousands upon millions of years to occur.

Just because someone chooses to be ignorant of the truth does not make their own personal beliefs true. You can complain and raise the bar all you like, the fact remains that humans are apes. This is a fact, not an opinion. Please take note of it.

References:
[1]: Chimps Learned Tool Use Long Ago Without Human Help (http://www.livescience.com/animals/070212_chimp_tools.html)
[2]: Human like altruism shown in Chimpanzees (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/06/070625085134.htm)
[3]: Gardner, R. A., Gardner, B. T. (1969). "Teaching Sign Language to a Chimpanzee". Science 165: 664-672.

JohnnyJohnson

31st Oct 2007, 11:59 AM

I've just read/skimmed through this particular debate and how nice it is to see such a diversity in beliefs. Anyway as I read I've noticed the debate has gone from "what do you think?" to battle-of-the-words on the subject matter of what evolution and natural selection is.

I won't join the discussion of what evolution is et cetera, but I will provide my opinion of evolution.

I think it is a fair explanation. But I also think that the concept of an omniscient and omnipotent being is a fair explanation. I also think the concept of continuous life is a fair explanation. I guess I'm agnostic on things.

One problem I see is that of those who say "it's in front of your eyes, it must be true", in my opinion the only problem is how do we know that what is infront is reality (think Plato's Allegory of The Cave, or The Matrix Trilogy). Secondly, science has been (and will) continuously changing, we had Galileo, Newton, then Einstein and many others who have changed our scientific beliefs. So I think an important factor is whether or not current science is "true".

I read the garden analogy.Maybe I missed it but anyway - for those who believe in an omni-potent/scient being - if there need be a builder for the building than how did the builder come to existence? The one answer I believe that is a good one is that the builder has always existed (that to me is pretty uncrompehensable to an extent)...and the provider of this explanation (my cousin) said that "God" is like energy, He cannot be created or destroyed (obviously my cousin is a believer - he's Christian, and a science-guy...plus he is "wiccan). The problem as explained before the theory of energy is only to our current science - this may change in the future.

Essentially I believe that all of our beliefs come done to faith. Although everything we know of evolution and religion may be true, it may also be false - or it could be partially true and/or false. I mean yes there is no "physical evidence" for Holy Scriptures except for the scriptures, so yes it could be false, but just because there is no evidence now doesn't mean there is no evidence at all. Just because there is physical evidence for evolution, this may not mean it is true, maybe the Flying Spaghetti Monster created the humans, and in trying to hide it's existence placed this "evidence". So I believe that nothing can really be proven nor can anything be disproven. Which is why faith is such a major part of our beliefs. We find out this stuff and which ever we find to be more "truthful" we use the knowledge in that field to explain our existence, with "faith" as the energy booster for our huge enthusiasm.

Anyway I hope someone can enlighten me on this subject matter, I probably have made some errors so if anyone finds one please feel free to correct.

GothPunk

1st Nov 2007, 12:22 AM

One problem I see is that of those who say "it's in front of your eyes, it must be true", in my opinion the only problem is how do we know that what is infront is reality (think Plato's Allegory of The Cave, or The Matrix Trilogy). Secondly, science has been (and will) continuously changing, we had Galileo, Newton, then Einstein and many others who have changed our scientific beliefs. So I think an important factor is whether or not current science is "true".
Science, as it has it's root in philosophy, does not claim absolute truth (or 'concrete proof' as was mentioned in a slightly earlier post.). Science itself is based on logical reasoning, with the more probable and logical likelyhood accepted as being the truth. Because rightfully, as you say, how can we prove that we do not exist within a computer program such as 'The Matrix'?

The truth is, we can't. But, using logic and scientific reasoning, it would seem that such a proposition is highly unlikely. The philosophical reasoning of Ockham's Razor suggests that the most simple explanation is usually the right one. I think the justice system in democratic countries is a great example of this. For a court case to even be brought to trial, the claimant must make their case based on at least some evidence. I cannot sue George Bush for stealing my car with no evidence. The judge knows that the likelyhood that George Bush came here to Ireland and stole my car last night is so small that the case would never be brought to trial. In all areas of our lives, when someone provides us with information, we criticise it. Is it true? What are their references? Where is their evidence? In court cases, in our everyday lives, and with science, our conclusions are made to the best of our abilities based on evidence. Of course such a system gets things wrong every now and then, but in a world which is based on human perception of reality, it is certainly the best and most fair system.

So although it is possible that we all live within 'The Matrix', or that a God or Gods created the universe, it is highly improbable. There is no evidence to suggest it. It is illogical. Without evidence, we assume a default position. In the justice system, the default should be that all suspects are innocent until proven guilty. In terms of science and our everyday lives, the default position should be that something does not exist until proven via evidence.

This is why scientific ideas change over time, because more evidence is provided. With more evidence, the likelyhood that what is considered 'current science' to be true increases, in the same way that the likelyhood that a suspect commited a murder increases with more evidence.

What I mean by this is: there is enough evidence in mathematical formulae, evidence and experimentation to support both the Theory of Gravity and the Theory of Evolution. No more evidence is needed to prove them in the eyes of science. To go back to the court case example, if the suspect has been found guilty based on a sound eyewitness testimony and forensic evidence, why bring circumstantial evidence into the case? The likelyhood that the suspect is the murderer is so high that the case is 'solved'. We all consider the concept of gravity to be 'solved', no further evidence is required. This is also true for evolution, yet for personal reasons people resist it. It is highly unlikely that any evidence will be provided in the future to refute Newton's Theory of Gravity or the Theory of Evolution.

Essentially I believe that all of our beliefs come done to faith. Although everything we know of evolution and religion may be true, it may also be false - or it could be partially true and/or false. I mean yes there is no "physical evidence" for Holy Scriptures except for the scriptures, so yes it could be false, but just because there is no evidence now doesn't mean there is no evidence at all. Just because there is physical evidence for evolution, this may not mean it is true, maybe the Flying Spaghetti Monster created the humans, and in trying to hide it's existence placed this "evidence". So I believe that nothing can really be proven nor can anything be disproven. Which is why faith is such a major part of our beliefs. We find out this stuff and which ever we find to be more "truthful" we use the knowledge in that field to explain our existence, with "faith" as the energy booster for our huge enthusiasm.
Scientific beliefs are not based on faith. Faith is a belief in something based on no evidence. A 'gut feeling' is a good example. Scientific beliefs and ideas are based on facts and evidence, and we accept or refute these ideas. So I think 'acceptance' is a better term when talking of scientific ideas and theories.

You are right about what is true or false, but with that logic we cannot in the grand scheme of things prove that anything we percieve is real. But based on logic, we must assume that what we can see/touch/hear/smell and taste is real. But we don't speak of having 'faith' in our senses. We accept that our senses give us a good understanding and perception of reality.

So the original proposition of this thread, do you believe that evolution is the right explanation for life on Earth and all the diversity we see, is based on evidence. The creationist arguement for example, is based on faith, and is not based on evidence.

In most other areas of our lives, we would not accept something without evidence. But for some reason, when it comes to our own lives and how life came to exist, many choose to have faith in something with no evidence. I can believe all I want that George Bush stole my car last night, that doesn't make it true.