Fish with Limbs

kpogoda writes "American scientists have unearthed the world's oldest arm bone, a 365-million-year-old fossil that provides key evidence that fish used limbs in water well before animals used them to climb up on land."

Comments

yay for science!

[Leroy_Brown242]

without reading into the article at all, it sounds to me like good evidence supporting evolution. Yay for science!

Don't let the religious zealots see this story.

[scumbucket]

Religious zealots do not like science, because there is no 'believing' involved. Also Darwinist, being scientists, do not have as extreme prejudice in discussions as religious zealots. Scientists change their pov when they are proven wrong, they do not run away with fingers in their ears like some others do. Has there ever been a creationist in a court of law for telling about the Adam & Eve story?

Re:Don't let the religious zealots see this story.

[bccomm]

Not to mention the fact that Darwinism and Creationism are not necessarily mutually exclusive. There was an article here that gives some insight.

Note: I am not affiliated with the LW church.

-Bruce
---------
|\|3+85D: f0r t3h r3al 133+ h4x0r5. Those who know will attest! They will agree! They already use it! They will not use annoying hacker-esque stereotypes!

Re:Don't let the religious zealots see this story.

[Anonymous Coward]

Rather, Darwinist scientists run away with their fingers in their ears when someone takes Darwinism/evolution to its natural (racist) conclusion of Eugenics. Scientists have a hard time accepting that if evolution is true, then we are, as a species, acting irresponsibly with our genetic heritage, in that we do things like help the poor, and allow people with birth defects to live. To follow evolution to its logical conclusion is to close all hospitals, and ban any and all free choice in human reproduction, instead relying upon some scientific group to tell us who is allowed to reproduce, and with whom.

That Darwin wholeheartedly agreed with this proposition is something that your average evolutionary scientist does not talk about very often.

On the other hand, very few rational believers of intelligent design theory would suggest that microevolution does not exist. You'd be hard pressed however, to find an evolutionist who accepts the possibility that intelligent design and evolution might not be mutually exclusive.

Re:Don't let the religious zealots see this story.

[Atrahasis]

Eugenics is one possible product of "Darwinism", but not the only possible product. If you consider "fitness" as "the ability to survive", that being the only logical definition in evolutionary terms, then "survival of the fittest" means "survival of those best able to survive". Belonging to a society that increases your chances of survival despite your genetic defects is an effective evolutionary strategy, the equal and opposite of eugenics. As long as the ability to treat and minimise the effects of these defects remains effective, eugenics is unnecessary.

Re:Don't let the religious zealots see this story.

[Tyreth]

That is the largest load of rubbish propoganda. Darwinists are not zealots? Ha! Among Darwinist evolutionists I encounter the greatest zealotry and unwillingness to listen. When I talk to evolutionists in depth, they say that biology doesn't know exactly how evolution occurred, but we do know it occurred because of the fossil record. Yet the fossil record shows no evidence of evolution, and it's claimed this is expected because of the way fossils are formed. How convenient. Stephen Gould said:

The history of most fossil species includes two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism:
1. Stasis. Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking pretty much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and directionless.
2. Sudden appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and "fully formed".

Stephen Jay Gould, "Evolution's Erratic Pace," in Natural History, May 1977, p. 14.

Darwinist evolutionary has amazing explanatory power, but absolutely no predictive power. Do you really think Darwin would have predicted that today's fossil evidence would be only Archaeopteryx and an out of order, incorrect reptile->mammal sequence? Yet Darwinist evolution which once predicted a multitude of fossil evidences now predicts an absence of them. Wow, you have me convinced. So now I am supposed to look at the lack of evidence for evolution and be persuaded? Think again.

As for zealotry, woe to anyone who questions the holy grail of Darwinist evolution, for he shall be beat down on by hordes of angry slashdotters, atheists and agnostics worldwide, and not to mention a handful of theistic evolutionists. Ever tried holding a conversation with 5 people at once, all desparate to defend their pet theory? Ever looked at a christian forum where evolutionists hang day and night to correct people on creationism? That's zealotry.

If you really want to persuade people you need to show evidence for darwinist evolution. Not general stories with no predictive power. Take some risks. Make a prediction that if false will demonstrate evolution a lie. I've had numerous people say that if this or that was discovered, evolution would be false. In all those cases I could easily conceive stories that darwinists would conjure to explain the new thing.

Ah, I just had a thought. My discussions on slashdot about evolution seem to be of a more primitive nature than those I'm used to of recent times. So undoubtedly one of you will point to something akin to Darwin's finches and natural selection as evidence. To which my reply is:
What if natural selection does not improve the species? What if all living things were created in their best form, and have been heading downhill since then? Natural selection then plays the role not of improving a species, but of slowing its decline - such that if the power of natural selection was absent, the fall of a species would be hurried. Yet if natural selection was present, the species would still degrade, but at a much slower rate.

Re:Don't let the religious zealots see this story.

[Ieshan]

What if natural selection does not improve the species? What if all living things were created in their best form, and have been heading downhill since then? Natural selection then plays the role not of improving a species, but of slowing its decline - such that if the power of natural selection was absent, the fall of a species would be hurried. Yet if natural selection was present, the species would still degrade, but at a much slower rate.

I have no idea who you are, so I'll try to be as cordial as possible.

You're completely misreading evolution.

Natural Selection doesn't try to DO anything. It's the name for a simple "phenomenon" - anything that survives 'til the opportunity to reproduce has some of it's genetic material passed down to the next generation.

There's no way anyone could construe Natural Selection in the way you're talking about. There's no "absense" of natural selection possible. If nothing survives, then quite simply, everything was "selected against", that is, it couldn't survive in it's current environment and didn't. End of story. If everything survives, then the current environment is safe until 'Time K', which is some time in the future when the Carrying Capacity [i.e., amount of our species the environment can sustain] of said environment has been reached.

Evolution happens, whether or not it's of divine design. Things were not *created*, they *happened*. DNA isn't that big of a coincidence when you consider the practical infinity of time and the practical infinity of the universe.

Your idea that things might have started off as "better" is bogus. The point of evolution is simple: The thing that survives moves on in the form of the gene.

Re:Don't let the religious zealots see this story.

[Ieshan]

Creation wasn't meant to be taken literally.

If it was, why are there *two* totally different stories?

Re:Don't let the religious zealots see this story.

[Tyreth]

When I said an absence of natural selection I was not speaking about reality, but a hypothetical situation. For us to understand what natural selection does, we must be able to imagine what would happen if it did not play a part. You have given no reason why natural selection as we understand it couldn't fulfil the role I proposed (though I'm not the first to propose it).

What proof have you that natural selection improves a species, rather than just slowing the survival of harmful genes, and reducing diversity of the gene pool?

Evolution happens, whether or not it's of divine design.

Please define "evolution", as it has different meanings in different contexts and for different things. Quite often darwinists will point to proof of one use of the word "evolution" and try to fool people into thinking it's proof for other types.

Re:Don't let the religious zealots see this story.

[Ieshan]

Evolution is the process by which things change because of random mutation and because environments [see: actual environment, other organism, outside events] only allow a subset of the original population to survive.

Simple.

Re:Don't let the religious zealots see this story.

[Tyreth]

I fail to see what that has to do with countering anything I said.

After all, if that is the definition of evolution, it says nothing about the common ancestry of all living things, which most people put under the title of "evolution".

Personally I prefer the definition from talkorigins:

Biological evolution is a change in the genetic characteristics of a population over time.

I will not dispute the definition you gave. I still believe that species are degenerating over generations, and that we do not share a common ancestor with, say, sharks. Your definition says nothing about these things.

Re:Don't let the religious zealots see this story.

[mikelu]

Actually, allowing people with genetic defects to reproduce is an advantage. The more genetic variation a species possesses, the more robust it is. What seem like defects today may infact save the species at some future date.

Take, for example, the relationship between sickle-cell anemia (recessive genetic disease) and malaria. Individuals who have sickle-cell anemia are immune to malaria, and those who are just carriers are highly resistant.

Ultimately, it benefits us to let anyone and everyone reproduce....or at least store all their genes in a database somewhere. :P

Re:Don't let the religious zealots see this story.

[Ieshan]

I'd really like to carry this conversation over something better than slashdot. Too much latency. My definition says everything about the common ancestor, and so does the definition from talkorigins, I suppose.

Feel free to IM me, at Ieshan.

I'll be on later tonight and some of tomorrow.

Re:Don't let the religious zealots see this story.

[Black Parrot]

> On the other hand, very few rational believers of intelligent design theory

Rational people see that ID is based on some very elementary logical fallacies. Nor does it have any more of a theory behind it than spoon bending does.

> You'd be hard pressed however, to find an evolutionist who accepts the possibility that intelligent design and evolution might not be mutually exclusive.

No I wouldn't. I'd go over to talk.origins and post a message with subject line "Ping Stanley Friesen", and get a response from one of the most respected 'evolutionists' and one of the very few respected Christians in the group.

Lots of Christians accept the reality of evolution. The only ones that don't are those who have promoted evolution denial to the status of "article of faith".

Re:Don't let the religious zealots see this story.

[Black Parrot]

> When I said an absence of natural selection I was not speaking about reality, but a hypothetical situation. For us to understand what natural selection does, we must be able to imagine what would happen if it did not play a part.

That's easy enough: download the code for your favorite genetic algorithm, hack it to replace selection-by-fitness with random selection, and see how well it works.

> Please define "evolution", as it has different meanings in different contexts and for different things. Quite often darwinists will point to proof of one use of the word "evolution" and try to fool people into thinking it's proof for other types.

Could you give an example of what you're talking about?

Re:Don't let the religious zealots see this story.

[Black Parrot]

> Ha! Among Darwinist evolutionists I encounter the greatest zealotry

Zealotry? What's different about these discussions and everything else that goes on on Slashdot? Or anywhere else on the internet?

> and unwillingness to listen.

Maybe it's because we've spent the last couple of years patiently explaining what's wrong with your claims and watching others do likewise, only to have you jump in with the same claims again every time the subject comes up.

> As for zealotry, woe to anyone who questions the holy grail of Darwinist evolution, for he shall be beat down on by hordes of angry slashdotters, atheists and agnostics worldwide, and not to mention a handful of theistic evolutionists. Ever tried holding a conversation with 5 people at once, all desparate to defend their pet theory? Ever looked at a christian forum where evolutionists hang day and night to correct people on creationism? That's zealotry.

The persecution complex doesn't become you.

> If you really want to persuade people you need to show evidence for darwinist evolution. Not general stories with no predictive power. Take some risks. Make a prediction that if false will demonstrate evolution a lie.

• A few million years from now, the biological makeup of earth will be substantially different from now.
• As we continue to harvest information about the past, we will continue to see that a few million years ago the biological makeup of earth was substantially different from now.

> Ah, I just had a thought. My discussions on slashdot about evolution seem to be of a more primitive nature than those I'm used to of recent times. So undoubtedly one of you will point to something akin to Darwin's finches and natural selection as evidence. To which my reply is:
What if natural selection does not improve the species? What if all living things were created in their best form, and have been heading downhill since then?

Great! Now all you have to do is define what you mean by "created in their best form" and what it means to head downhill from that form, and then you can start going through the mountains of evidence we have about biohistory to see how well your conjecture fits the facts.

It's quite possible that our piscine ancestors were better than we are, but without a definition of "better" I'm reluctant to venture an opinion on it.

Re:Don't let the religious zealots see this story.

[Zan Zu from Eridu]

What if natural selection does not improve the species? What if all living things were created in their best form, and have been heading downhill since then? Natural selection then plays the role not of improving a species, but of slowing its decline - such that if the power of natural selection was absent, the fall of a species would be hurried. Yet if natural selection was present, the species would still degrade, but at a much slower rate.

This "genetic entropy" concept has a fundamental flaw: if there was but little pressure on the population, the population would grow larger but at the same time devolve faster, while if there was great pressure on the population, it would decline but devolve slower.

This means a prey species that's on the menu of a lot of different predators (take insects) wouldn't stand a chance and would be decimated, because the devolution would be spread out over a lot of preditor species, leaving them enough time to kill off the prey species; while by killing off prey species predators would slow down their devolution. Ultimately this leaves you with predator species which are still allmost perfectly suited for hunting prey species that no longer exist...

Re:Don't let the religious zealots see this story.

[09za]

Dude how about the 2 million year old humanlike skull? Did Darwinists accept that? N0. They just ignored it. How about the massive ruins that have been discovered 2000 feet under the ocean off Japan and off Cuba? Did archeologists accept these? No. Science has become its own religion... only accepting evidences that support the currently popular theories. Stop the bashing of religious ideas... many of them have much more evidence to support them than have been made public. To place your beleif in todays science ignores all the errors that have been found in such science...You don't beleive we know everything do You?

Re:Don't let the religious zealots see this story.

[Tyreth]

As you've probably noticed, I usually don't reply to you in particular - but this post was most cordial, so I will.

That's easy enough: download the code for your favorite genetic algorithm, hack it to replace selection-by-fitness with random selection, and see how well it works.

Thanks for supporting my argument. I already could imagine life without natural selection, but the person I was responding to could not.

Could you give an example of what you're talking about?

Certainly. Darwin's finches are the best known example. The changes in these birds were the result of selection of pre-existing traits. That form of 'evolution' has nothing to do with the introduction of new traits through mutations that leads to the creation of new species. In other words, it says nothing about common ancestry - because it involved the selection of already existing traits. The example that the finches gaves also coincides perfectly with the creationist model.

To summarise, it is a great evidence for the definition of 'evolution' on talkorigins ("Biological evolution is a change in the genetic characteristics of a population over time."), but not of darwinist evolution, which involves selection of beneficial mutations by which all genetic diversity initially arose. Yet people will point to cases like the finches as proof of that talkorigins definition of evolution and assume that it is proof of other uses of the word 'evolution' which have nothing to do with selection of pre-existing traits.

Re:Don't let the religious zealots see this story.

[Tyreth]

What's to say this hasn't already happened? Besides, I don't think your example is true. I would reject the claim that insects would be wiped out if "genetic entropy" was true. Insects are hard to find and numerous - far more numerous than their predators, which are hunted by other creatures. The circle of life ;)

Ultimately I don't believe that the predators of insects are powerful enough to destroy them. This is obvious from reality, and I'm saying that in reality creatures could be devolving. Natural selection would still work to balance things out, as would predators of predators. If a predator feeds off insects, then when the insect population gets low, so would the predators start to die, giving the insects a chance to grow, and so on.

Re:Don't let the religious zealots see this story.

[Zan Zu from Eridu]

Natural selection would still work to balance things out, as would predators of predators. If a predator feeds off insects, then when the insect population gets low, so would the predators start to die, giving the insects a chance to grow, and so on.

No, natural selection can't balance out devolution; the more selective pressure there is on a species, the less it would devolve. This is not symmetrical to evolution!

Evolution would speed up when the selective pressure is high, causing the species to change faster and adapt to the new situation. Devolution OTOH would slow down, causing the species to change slower, rendering it incapable of adapting to the new situation; ergo the species would die out.

Re:Don't let the religious zealots see this story.

[lineinthesand]

I don't believe you really do have a lot to do with scientists - they can be pretty stubborn even though they dub themselves open minded.

Re:Don't let the religious zealots see this story.

[Tyreth]

I now realise that we are talking about two separate parts of darwinist evolution.

Natural selection can be split into these two functions, for purposes of clarifying this debate:
1. Selection of existing traits - Darwin's finches are a good example. This is when a creature inherits traits from its parents, but only those that inherit certain traits have a better chance of survival. This has the dual effect of producing rapid speciation and reducing diversity in the gene pool.
2. Selection of mutations - most mutations are harmful/harmless, and this role of natural selection is to insure that the harmless ones are removed from the gene pool, while the beneficial ones (if such exist) are kept.

Now what you are talking about is the first situation, while I was talking about the second. Selection and adaptation can only go so far before the species is optimally adapted to its environment as far as the gene pool can handle. This has been demonstrated, for example, in the selective breeding of sugar canes by farmers for optimum output. After 100 years of selective breeding, the best possible breed was selected by farmers, and no more amount of selection could improve it.

So if we accept the premise that natural selection performs a slowing function (slowing degredation of a species) rather than enhancing it, then we would see the following:
1. Rapid speciation - the gene pool would initially be large, and offspring would be selected based on the traits they inherited. This is the faster change you noted when there's high selective pressure
2. Slow degeneration - the purity of the gene pool would be reduced, and in a species where the genetic diversity is low we would see greater degredation until inter-species relations re-introduce the initial diversity in the gene pool

To clarify further, there would be over time a slow degredation of the gene pool, but much of this would be masked through the rapid speciation of creatures through the selection of pre-existing traits.

I hope this helps to make sense.

Re:Don't let the religious zealots see this story.

[Zan Zu from Eridu]

So if we accept the premise that natural selection performs a slowing function (slowing degredation of a species) rather than enhancing it, then we would see the following:
1. Rapid speciation - the gene pool would initially be large, and offspring would be selected based on the traits they inherited. This is the faster change you noted when there's high selective pressure

I'm sorry, but I still don't get this. The way I see it: if we accept the concept of devolution, meaning the genetic makeup of species was perfect to begin with and can only degrade over time; we must also accept that losing bits of these perfect genes is one of the processes by which devolution does its job. If there is no such thing as evolution, all processes that change the genetic markup of a species must be devolutionary. IOW the way I see it, rapid speciation means rapid devolution; rapid speciation and slow devolution at the same time would be contradictory. I tried to demonstrate this contradiction by my entropy example: if you apply more pressure to a chaotic system it tends to speed up/increase in temperature, not the other way around.

Even metaphysically speaking, if you would argue natural selection speeds up devolution, I could only agree with you; this way the whole of creation would move farther and farther from God('s perfection), but creatures would still be able to adapt to the hell they're descending into, picking up speed and creating an even deeper hell in the process.

Re:Don't let the religious zealots see this story.

[Tyreth]

I'm sorry, but I still don't get this. The way I see it: if we accept the concept of devolution, meaning the genetic makeup of species was perfect to begin with and can only degrade over time; we must also accept that losing bits of these perfect genes is one of the processes by which devolution does its job. If there is no such thing as evolution, all processes that change the genetic markup of a species must be devolutionary.

Evolution is a change in allele frequencies in a population. Or, at least one definition of evolution is (the one typically put forward by darwinists when asked for a scientific theory of evolution). However, this theory says nothing about the direction evolution takes. Through its overuse in the context of the advancement of a species, evolution is assumed to mean a progression. Technically, however, the observational data of evolution does not support that position. It is equally plausible, and indeed more probable, that evolution results in the degeneration of a species.

Under the scenario that I described we would observe rapid changes in species, as we do, but those rapid changes would be accompanied by an increasing amount of harmful mutations entering the gene pool. Many of these would be selected against through natural selection, but not all. Two points of note:
1. This is undoubtedly the reason why the Biblical account of brother and sister marriages would have been no problem in the past, but forbidden at later times, as we now forbid in many places cousins to marry. In the conceivable future this restriction could be made even further as even more harmful mutations enter the gene pool.
2. We know relatively little about biology, and there is one proposal I read about alleles having the ability to produce new variants in a non-harmful way, through recombination. http://www.nwcreation.net/articles/recombinationre view.html - in case you are interested.

IOW the way I see it, rapid speciation means rapid devolution; rapid speciation and slow devolution at the same time would be contradictory.

Not with careful defining of the terms. Rapid speciation is not devolution. It is merely the reduction of genetic diversity in a gene pool, but with the advantage of specialisation in a particular area or areas. For example, humans of different skin colours being suited to different environments. And diversity can be reintroduced simply by two different species that share a common ancestor interbreeding to have children with greater diversity again. This happens amongst humans, and typically the offspring of mixed races (whether human or animal) are better than the offspring from within races due to far less mutations in common. What the 'devolution' as you call it is, is the introduction of harmful mutations into the gene pool. That is what causes the degeneration.

I tried to demonstrate this contradiction by my entropy example: if you apply more pressure to a chaotic system it tends to speed up/increase in temperature, not the other way around.

Not sure what you mean by this, sorry.

Even metaphysically speaking, if you would argue natural selection speeds up devolution, I could only agree with you; this way the whole of creation would move farther and farther from God('s perfection), but creatures would still be able to adapt to the hell they're descending into, picking up speed and creating an even deeper hell in the process.

It is possible that natural selection slows degeneration of a species, but still helps with the adaptation to the increasingly degenerate world. I don't see rapid speciation as harmful, and in fact it is even an integral part of the darwinist model.

Re:Don't let the religious zealots see this story.

[Zan Zu from Eridu]

However, this theory says nothing about the direction evolution takes. Through its overuse in the context of the advancement of a species, evolution is assumed to mean a progression.

The question is how you define qualifications like "progess" and "perfection". If progess means "better adapted to the current habitat/environment" then most certainly evolutionary progress is taking place. This however says nothing about the state (of perfection) of the changing environment; which makes evolution and devolution interchangeable in a metaphysical context, but not in a physical/biological context. IOW you can speak of devolution if you (morally) judge the environment to be degrading, while evolution does not make such moral judgements.

Not with careful defining of the terms. Rapid speciation is not devolution. It is merely the reduction of genetic diversity in a gene pool, but with the advantage of specialisation in a particular area or areas. For example, humans of different skin colours being suited to different environments. And diversity can be reintroduced simply by two different species that share a common ancestor interbreeding to have children with greater diversity again.

This begs the question of how to call these changes in genetic markup if they're not of devolutionary nature and there is no such thing as evolution.

Not sure what you mean by this, sorry.

Earlier in this discussion I was under the impression you believed that more selective pressure causes less changes in genes. I was just trying to show the contradiction in that statement by various examples.

I don't see rapid speciation as harmful, and in fact it is even an integral part of the darwinist model.

I know, but again, the problem I have with this is how to call this rapid speciation if it's not devolution and there is no evolution.

Re:Don't let the religious zealots see this story.

[Tyreth]

The question is how you define qualifications like "progess" and "perfection". If progess means "better adapted to the current habitat/environment" then most certainly evolutionary progress is taking place.

Agreed.

This however says nothing about the state (of perfection) of the changing environment; which makes evolution and devolution interchangeable in a metaphysical context, but not in a physical/biological context. IOW you can speak of devolution if you (morally) judge the environment to be degrading, while evolution does not make such moral judgements.

This part confuses me, because I don't know what IOW stands for, and I don't think I have the same definition for evolution and devolution as you. Can you word it another way please?

This begs the question of how to call these changes in genetic markup if they're not of devolutionary nature and there is no such thing as evolution.

Again, I'm confused, possibly by different understandings of the words evolution and devolution.

Earlier in this discussion I was under the impression you believed that more selective pressure causes less changes in genes. I was just trying to show the contradiction in that statement by various examples.

Selective pressure itself does not cause changes in genes. Mutations do. Higher selective pressure causes the elimination of a number of existing traits, which produces a species more adapted to the environment - less diversity, but more specialised. Is that what you are saying?

I know, but again, the problem I have with this is how to call this rapid speciation if it's not devolution and there is no evolution.

Again, see above :)

Definitions aside, do you see how it is possible to interpret the available data as showing rapid speciation and a degredation of the gene pool - both through a loss of diversity, and the introduction of harmful mutations?

Re:Don't let the religious zealots see this story.

[Zan Zu from Eridu]

This part confuses me, because I don't know what IOW stands for, and I don't think I have the same definition for evolution and devolution as you. Can you word it another way please?

IOW stands for In Other Words :) If we agree that natural selection causes better adaptation to the environment (by adaptation and speciation), we can only describe this as a negative development or as "less perfect" if we think the global environment/world itself is degrading independent of adaptation and speciation. This is where morals and/or metaphysics come into play in devolution, aside from presenting an explanation of how all those different species, families and kingdoms came into existence in the first place, if it wasn't by evolutionary diversification.

Again, I'm confused, possibly by different understandings of the words evolution and devolution.

I think that if we're only talking about micro-evolution (defined as the generation to generation change in a population's frequencies of alleles or genotypes), there would be no dispute; adaptation and speciation are micro-evolution, and we both agree these processes are observeable.

Selective pressure itself does not cause changes in genes. Mutations do.

My mistake, I should have said genotype or genetic makeup (of the population). I was under the impression you called micro-evolution devolution too, but that's cleared up now.

Definitions aside, do you see how it is possible to interpret the available data as showing rapid speciation and a degredation of the gene pool - both through a loss of diversity, and the introduction of harmful mutations?

I did already admit such an interpretation is possible, but I think this interpretation raises more questions than the (macro-)evolutionary interpretation does. The loss of diversity by adaptation is not per definition permanent (cross-breeding brings back diversity), and in the case of speciation I can't see how that would count as losing diversity. Generally harmful mutations do get introduced, but get rooted out by natural selection if they don't give some advantage (like sickle cell anemia enables immunity to malaria). That's one of the big questions of this interpretation (aside from introducing metaphysics as mentioned above): how can (absolutely) harmful mutations survive natural selection? (In building hypotheses, when you throw in absolutisms, you're almost always on the brink of metaphysics.)

Re:Don't let the religious zealots see this story.

[BobTheLawyer]

"species degenerating over generations" ?

There is not the slightest piece of evidence, in the fossil record or in zoology to support this.

The only reason you believe in this nonsense is because your particular interpretation of the bible tells you that must be the case.

(The irony is that this particular interpretation of the Fall is entirely modern: you won't be able to find any proponent of such a view before the 1800s.)

Re:Don't let the religious zealots see this story.

[Tyreth]

Not sure how long this thread has left, but it's been interesting talking with you.

I did already admit such an interpretation is possible, but I think this interpretation raises more questions than the (macro-)evolutionary interpretation does. The loss of diversity by adaptation is not per definition permanent (cross-breeding brings back diversity), and in the case of speciation I can't see how that would count as losing diversity.

I'm not sure why you think it wouldn't. In order for speciation to occur, genetic diversity must be lost. That's what speciation does - more useful genes are selected for in a particular environment under particular selective pressures, and the harmful ones are lost. Allowing the most beneficial ones to dominate most or all of the time.

Generally harmful mutations do get introduced, but get rooted out by natural selection if they don't give some advantage (like sickle cell anemia enables immunity to malaria).

Yet in this case, sickle cell anemia is spreading quite well because it has some advantage, even if that advantage is less than the disadvantage(s) it causes.

That's one of the big questions of this interpretation (aside from introducing metaphysics as mentioned above): how can (absolutely) harmful mutations survive natural selection? (In building hypotheses, when you throw in absolutisms, you're almost always on the brink of metaphysics.)

Answering how harmful mutations survive natural selection - strong warriors fall in love with beautiful, weak women. A woman falls in love with a handsome man in a family full of heart troubles that don't express until after child birth. Natural selection is, ultimately, a guideline. It is a general and not absolute law. Hence why I was saying it is possible that evolution has the role of slowing degeneration, rather than causing the advancement of a race. Darwin expressed natural selection as an absolute (close to) strong rule which selected for the tiniest advantage and against the minutest harmful mutation. Yet reality speaks against this, showing that natural selection is an imperfect force, that generally but not always applies. Darwin also admitted later, it seems, that natural selection was not so strong as he indicated - but was useful to express in such terms in order to defeat opponents of evolution.

Regarding metaphysics, I fail to see the problem. The arguments for the existence of God are *very* strong (so much so that I believe the atheist has no reasonable reply). If we can assume that God exists, then there is absolutely no problem with talking about absolutes. That's one thing I dislike about the current state of science. No, I should say, I detest. People seem to think that science and naturalism go hand in hand. This is in fact an unproven, unfounded philosophical position. When has the atheist/naturalist ever shown us that God does not exist? When has he ever answered the proofs for God's existence? Indeed, Darwin's evolution was the answer for how a world filled with life could arrive without God's intervening hand. It was founded on the assumption that God did not appear. Here is a great secret into the current debate: evolution does not prove that God does not exist - evolution is founded on the premise that He does not exist. The naturalist gives no reason for believing that God played no part in the creation other than a theory they think fits best. If it doesn't fit (and I do not believe it does, since the world shows a degeneration), then we have no reason to believe the naturalist assumption is true.

As I was reading, occam's razor is often said to apply to evolution - the simplest answer to life is evolution. However, this application of occam's razor is based on a naturalist assumption. If one finds proof for God's existence, then suddenly evolution is no longer the simplest answer. Some other special creation, and a degenerating world, becomes the simplest answer. A

Re:Don't let the religious zealots see this story.

[Zan Zu from Eridu]

In order for speciation to occur, genetic diversity must be lost. That's what speciation does - more useful genes are selected for in a particular environment under particular selective pressures, and the harmful ones are lost. Allowing the most beneficial ones to dominate most or all of the time.

Yes, but speciation does not remove genes from the originating species genepool (it could wipe out the species by competition though), it creates a new species from those useful genes but leaves the originating species' genes intact. More importantly, once a species boundary has formed the new species' genepool quickly becomes more varied; instead of one genepool we now have two.

Answering how harmful mutations survive natural selection - strong warriors fall in love with beautiful, weak women.

If the women are beautiful and by their beauty achieve to reproduce more often, their beauty is not a harmful genetic feature but a useful one; their weakness is relative and only becomes harmful if it interferes with their capacity to reproduce (to survive childhood and give birth). Of course such real weakness gets rooted out by natural selection quickly.

A woman falls in love with a handsome man in a family full of heart troubles that don't express until after child birth.

Then in a genetic sense, the mans heart troubles are irrelevant. Genes are "selfish", they could care less about about an adult that's passed the reproductive stage. In fact, in many species genes strive to kill their hosts (especially male hosts) once they have reproduced: the fiercest competition to an individual in its biotope is always members of the same spiecies; killing off non-reproductive individuals strongly reduces competition.

This one of the reasons I warned about introducing morals: Judeo-Christian morals don't adapt well to the observable "selfishness" or even "immorality" (quoted because these a moralistic statements) of genes; it leads you to percieve life -or the world itself- as evil.

Darwin also admitted later, it seems, that natural selection was not so strong as he indicated - but was useful to express in such terms in order to defeat opponents of evolution.

Natural selection is not a constant, agreed. Higher social animals for instance build a "culture" and tend to those unable to care for themselves; humans are particulary strong at this and consequentially natural selection in humans is rather weak.

Regarding metaphysics, I fail to see the problem. The arguments for the existence of God are *very* strong (so much so that I believe the atheist has no reasonable reply).

I wanted to avoid this, but here we go. I'll highlight just one problem for all mentioned categories:

The problem of metaphysics in general: they are by definition not observable, if you can measure/observe something, it's called a physical entity/process. By introducing metaphysics you introduce unprovable assertions in your hypothesis, because you have nothing to measure.

The problem with gods in general: everybody talks about them (even atheists), but there are various disagreeing concepts of what a god is. There is no objective way of telling if say the Christian-trinitary god-concept is better than the hinduist god-concept.

The problem with (the Christian) God: He is supposed to be immanent and transcendent at the same time (thus not be completely metaphysical), yet the immanent (worldy) part of God has never been objectively demonstrated. Needless to say there is disagreement about the nature of God amongst the Christian sects also (Mormons LDS believe that God is a deified man, that God was a human once; Gnostics OTOH didn't believe that even Christ was a human).

That's one thing I dislike about the current state of science. No, I should say, I detest. People seem to think that science and naturalism go hand in hand. This is in fact an unproven, unfounded philosophical position.

What you seem to for

Late april fool's joke maybe?

[Toxygen]

After all, it says in the article that the upper arm bone they found was "humerus"!

Re:Late april fool's joke maybe?

[Anonymous Coward]

yeah, humour us...

Reminds me of wings

[PIPBoy3000]

One of the typical arguments by creationists is how can evolution make these jumps from legs to fully functional wings. The latest thinking is that there's wasn't a giant leap, but rather a series of gradual steps between limbs that didn't impart flying, but still had some use.

For example, chickens don't fly very well, but have you ever tried to catch a chicken? Those "vestigial" wings sure impart bursts of speed and the ability to leap over obstacles.

It's neat to see the discovery of similar intermediaries between swimming and walking limbs. Evolution is an amazing and beautiful thing.

Re:Reminds me of wings

[Anonymous Coward]

The latest thinking is that there's wasn't a giant leap, but rather a series of gradual steps between limbs that didn't impart flying, but still had some use.

As far as I know, that's not "the latest thinking", but a concept that was established a long time ago. Even when I was a kid back in the 80s, I remember reading about how the origins of flight were thought to be lizards with ever-increasing flaps that allowed them to glide slightly (and, of course, the increased surface area helped them when "sunbathing").

Re:Reminds me of wings

[alan_dershowitz]

I see this argument, but its by the less sophisticated creationists. Their main beef is not so much with legs to wings (or fins to arms), but things like scales to feathers. We see animals with scales, we see animals with feathers, we see animals with scales AND feathers. the argument is, where are the animals that are covered with something that's BETWEEN a scale and a feather?

I think it's a valid question, but I wonder if the problem is with classification, not that these intermediate animals exist or not. These things exist, but based on what we have now, would they be classified as "freaks"? So basically, I'd assume there are fossils all over the place that are intermediate forms, but they don't get as much attention because they are not strictly classifiable? But then, the creationist argument is that we aren't finding fossils of these intermediate forms at all, so who knows.

I'm not a scientist or a creationist, so I don't know how to validate their claims in the context of this discovery. I don't think smarter creationists would be bothered by a fish with underdeveloped arms, but I could be wrong.

Re:Reminds me of wings

[Zerth]

Longisquama had long feather shaped solid scales, although not used for flight. Plus, while not considered in the ancestor path of modern birds, Archaeopteryx had both feathers and scales.

Feathers don't fossilize well(lack of granularity in the surrounding matrix hides detail such as barbules), so many of the intermediate forms may also not have fossilized cleanly. Some birds who have been found without clear feather impressions have been mistaken for dinosaurs such as Compsognathus.

Lastly, there's a few real nuts who think everyone has it backwards and dinosaurs evolved from birds and everyone is looking in the wrong direction:)

Re:Reminds me of wings

[nadda]

Maybe the fish sank to the bottom requiring great effort to 'float'.
I could see the use of arms to aid them in staying near the surface, you know, swinging amongst the kelp vines the way Tarzan swung through the jungle?
Next logical step was use the arms to crawl onto the shore.

Re:Reminds me of wings

[SmackCrackandPot]

There was an video segment on Discovery science about the evolution of insect wings. The basis of the research was based on stonefies and demonstrated how gills could have evolved into stubs which would not have given flight by themselves, but would have provided enough acceleration for the critter to escape from predators. The arms race between these two species would have forced ever faster acceleration to occur, until being fast enough to make flight possible.

Re:Reminds me of EYES

[Baron_Yam]

I love the standard creationist line that eyes couldn't have evolved - they must have been planned.

I once read an excellent rebuttal of that which described how to get from a photosensitive cell to a full eye while each stage had a noticable survival benefit... and then followed up by mentioning that it's happened on multiple seperate occasions in evolutionary history.

Heh.

Planned evolution?

[erykjj]

That's like saying that because I would like to fly, I'll just imagine/think myself into having wings (and hopefully ALL my descendants will imagine/think the same) and flap my arms so that a few generations down the road there will be a grandchild with more 'wing-like' arms. Now, let's only hope that (s)he doesn't imagine/think [him|her]self into having more normal arms (because that would destroy all my plans)...
And, to add to the whole difficulty of it all, fish can't plan for the future that way.

Re:Planned evolution?

[Strange Ranger]

Does your post make any sense? Do you know what Mutation and Natural Selection are. Google is your friend, especially when your high school bio classes were not:

The second type of mutation is called a micromutation, or a mutation that involves a very small change. An incredibly vast majority of all mutations fall into this category. These mutations can be (and generally are) harmful in effect, but are not drastic changes, but rather fine gradations. Micromutations are what evolutionists discuss when studying natural selection.

Natural selection is quick to seize upon the very rare beneficial mutations that arise. Even a small survival advantage will be selected for over generations, eventually saturating the overall gene pool with the altered gene. Natural selection may depend on random mutations, and its operation may be slow and fitful, but it is extremely efficient in "weeding out" successful adaptations to be passed on to future generations.

Things don't plan or wish to mutate. It happens sporadically, and over thousands of generations the rare good mutations are naturally selected for because the good mutations give a slight survival edge, and thus a slight breeding edge, which carries on that mutation to the next generation. In other words the rare good mutation is a self fulfilling prophecy. Not believing in it is sort of like not believing water will flow down the path of least resistance.

Re:Planned evolution?

[Anonymous Coward]

Nice definitions. Anybody can come up with a 'definition'. The point is this (and think about it in the context of your definitions):

Out of thousands of specimen in a species, once in a while there will be born a mutant. In the great majority of the cases, this will be a harmful mutation and the mutant will die off. If, in the very slight almost non-existent case the mutation is "positive" (i.e., beneficial, an improvement - by the way, is living on land "better" than living in water?), that is still just ONE specimen in a generation of thousands (or more). This mutation would have to be persistent (i.e., genetic and not just a physical deformity) and would have to survive a reproduction. And so the chances keep decreasing.
And if you're talking about a series of such "positive" gradual micromutations happening in a row, even millions of years and a corresponding number of generations does not mathematically make that possible.
I should add, that a micromutation such as is supposed to have taken place here - of twisting a bone in a fin or shortening a muscle - does not make that specimen stronger nor more likely to survive - it does not give him a survival advantage that would improve its chances.

Re:Planned evolution?

[Hater's Leaving, The]

"That's like saying that because I would like to fly, I'll just imagine/think myself into having wings... a few generations down the road ..."

Not at all.

You can plan evolution. You put yourself, and thousands of like-minded individuals, in an environment which provides a concrete advantage to having a particular trait.

If the central asian tribes of 10000 years ago had _wanted_ to be shorter and stumpier, then they could have chosen to migrate further north, and then procreate sufficiently such that the ill-suited ones dying would not be terminal for the tribe.

And who the buggery bollocks mentioned "a few generations"? Resistance to disease can become a prediminant trait in 20 generations, but that's a population evolution, a change in the balance of the genetic make-up of the species as a whole, and involves little or no genetic evolution. Genetic evolution on the whole takes many more generations just to become significant.

If you can contrive an environment where having wing-like upper limbs becomes a concrete survival/breeding advantage for tens of thousands of generations, then yes, you will see evolution in that direction occur.

Either that or wait a few years for the US to plunge the world into nuclear war, and watch your genes mutate like billy-o.

THL

Re:Planned evolution?

[Tango42]

Firstly, yes, living on land is a good survival mechanisim, because all your predators, all your competitors for food, etc, are living in the water. Evolution is not about animals getting "better", it's about them suiting their environment more. Of course evolution is possible, what you are trying to say is that it is very unlikely, and that is the only arguement against evolution that I've heard that actually makes some sort of sense. I'm in favour of the solar radiation burst stimulating large numbers of mutations theory, which should make the probabilities high enough. Also, just because something is unlikely, doesn't mean it is impossible. This is a very unusual part of the universe, but that fact that we can realise that means that we are in such an unusual place, so the chances of us being in such a place are almost 100%. The same idea can apply to evolution. And lastly, a tiny survival increase is enough to make a huge difference in extreme conditions, over a few generations. Most new species take off when those around them die for some reason, rather than because they live better.

Re:Planned evolution?

[FlyingOrca]

OK, I shouldn't, but I'll bite. First, mutation is not the only (or even, necessarily, the most important) source of genetic change. Bear in mind that each individual has unique DNA. Normal variation is enough to drive a certain amount of evolution.

Second, your question about whether living on land is beneficial is incorrectly framed. It's not a question of "benefit". The question is, "Will this mutation give the individual's descendants a reproductive edge, however slight?" In the case of moving into a new ecological niche, the answer might well be, "Yes."

Your next layer of argument (mutation not surviving reproduction) is redundant. You have already eliminated harmful mutations; mutations that impair reproduction are by definition harmful. Nothing to see here except obfuscation; move along.

"The chances keep decreasing"? No, the cumulative effect is INCREASED. We're not talking about the likelihood of specific changes to one descent line; we're talking about changes that propagate laterally through a gene pool over time as new genetic combinations provide a reproductive advantage. The math is quite possible; I wouldn't call yours "impossible", just misapplied.

Finally, by what logic do you assert that the twisted bone or shortened muscle to which you refer does not make the specimen more likely to confer reproductive advantage on its progeny (NOT survival)? Your assertion is groundless and poorly stated. In fact, I can think of several ways this physical change could confer reproductive advantage. Perhaps your imagination is more limited. Regardless, the fossil record is full of species (up to and including our own) that found bone and muscle structures tuned to living on land to be useful.

I'd suggest you read some of Richard Dawkins' excellent writing for a better understanding of how evolution is thought to work. Have a nice day.

Re:Planned evolution?

[Anonymous Coward]

Human beings select for height, and have generally become much taller in the last few thousand years since agriculture allows the tall alpha males to stay safely at home and plow fields.

Why couldn't fish do this for long fins?

How about sickle cell anemia in African's? Did God give them all sickle cell anemia tendencies so they could escape malaria? No. Malaria kills, mild sickle cell does not. This sickle cell is a survival trait.

Your idea of mutation seems to have come from to many X-Men comics.

Re: Planned evolution?

[Black Parrot]

> Out of thousands of specimen in a species, once in a while there will be born a mutant. In the great majority of the cases, this will be a harmful mutation and the mutant will die off.

Actually, the vast majority of mutations are neutral.

Of course, the resulting genetic diversity may help ensure that some members of some future generation survive a change to their environment.

> And if you're talking about a series of such "positive" gradual micromutations happening in a row, even millions of years and a corresponding number of generations does not mathematically make that possible.

Please show your math so we can evaluate it. (Be sure to spell out all your assumptions.)

Re:Planned evolution?

[Anonymous Coward]

Hmm... "few generations" involves the relationship between the individuals with the desired trait in proportion to those without the trait, as well as the reproducability of the trait.

Sheep have certain traits that are male-dominated and female-dominated. Cross-breeding one breed with the ram of another breed can add the positive traits of that ram to the progeny, and then can be added back to the other breed (by breeding those x-breed rams with more y-breed ewes, until most of the "blood" from the x-breed is gone, leaving only the positive traits in the y-breed).

For most breeds, it has been or has become desired for sheep to have a tendancy to throw twins (but not triplets or singles). Why? Faster reproduction rate (i.e., more lambs to sell or add back to the flock). Also, some breeds can be bred more than once per year, so breeding that trait into a different breed could be seen as good, all other things being kept equal.

Most farmers know about applied evolution, whether they think of it in those terms or not, and they certainly do practice eugenics on their herds/flocks/crops!

Such a positive, evolutionary response

[AtariAmarok]

fish used limbs in water well before animals used them to climb up on land.

Such a positive and evolutionary interpretation. It is far more likely that they used the arms to slug other fish.

Re:Such a positive, evolutionary response

[RLW]

Somebody call the Fish Police.
Hey, that's what the limbs were really for. So fish could dial 911.

I'm Troy McClure

[Anonymous Coward]

Hi. I'm Troy McClure. You might remember me from such fish-arm films as "Hugged by a Halibut" and "Atlantis Arm-Wrestling 2003"

Re:I'm Troy McClure

[Anonymous Coward]

Wah wah wah. This is far from the first time Troy McClure posts have been made.

Re:I'm Troy McClure

[Anonymous Coward]

Well do what should be done for these Troy McClure posts: mod them Troll. They sure ain't funny.

Re:I'm Troy McClure

[NonSequor]

Why is it a troll to express a distaste for bland formulaic attempts at comedy?

Re:I'm Troy McClure

[Anonymous Coward]

Because.... you have a pet halibut.

that's quite the fish!

[wibs]

an aquatic, salamander-like creature that would have pushed its arms downward to move through shallow rivers, and used them to prop itself up while waiting for prey or to get air.

sounds like a fish to me!

COMMON MISCONCEPTION

[Kiyooka]

Evolution is NOT planned. It has nothing to do with intention. Suppose we lived in a world with increasingly intense sunlight (for whatever reason), so that the darker and thicker your skin/hair pigmentation, the more you resist exposure in the wild. If you have sensitive light skin, you'll get burns everywhere, which may perhaps develop into cancer. In 1000 years, when sunlight is extremely intense, most of the pale sensitive-skinned people are dead, while most of the dark tough-skinned are alive. Did anyone plan this? No. Did dark skinned people think "hey! I'm gonna start developing darker skin to survive better"? No. But the population has just "evolved" darker and tougher sun-resistant skin, like it or not, because the ones that didn't have it died off. It's as simple as that.

People only talk about evolution as a "shaping force" figuratively. It's in fact nothing but an observation about consequence. It's not some insidious super-power you can will.

Re:COMMON MISCONCEPTION

[Deflagro]

Now how hard is that to understand? I just don't get the Creationist point of view. It's all about adaptation. You evolve because you need to adapt. Some magical bearded humanoid in the clouds doesn't just say "CHANGE!" and voila we have a different kind of being. It's just silly.

Re:COMMON MISCONCEPTION

[iggymanz]

Nope, actually, it's all about dying because you couldn't adapt

Re:COMMON MISCONCEPTION

[BobaFett]

Actually, very few creationists argue against evolution as adaptation (otherwise called microevolution). The changes in species like those Darwin observed at Galapagoss islands happen all the time, many become observable in lifetime of one or two generations (of humans), so a) it's hard to argue with, and b) it does not really threaten the creationist ideology. What creationists rally against is the macroevolution, emergence of completely new species, and even more so, creation of life itself. Not coincidentally, it's also the weakest point of the evolution theory - we don't really know how and why the life first formed in some primordial goop. The odds of that happening seem pretty low, on the other hand, over a billion years even low-odds things tend to happen once or twice.

Re:COMMON MISCONCEPTION

[Anonymous Coward]

Did dark skinned people think "hey! I'm gonna start developing darker skin to survive better"?

Yeah, they just wanted to be cooool and get the babes

Re:COMMON MISCONCEPTION

[JohnnyCannuk]

Evolution says nothing of how life is created, but only how it changes in response to the environment.

That's all.

Any Creationist arguement based on any such thing like " evolution says we began in a goop and life spontaneously occured " is a straw man attack and is not worth a respose.

As for "Macroevolution" arguement, I don't know where you got the idea. There are 4 species of Orchid in Hawaii that are traced back to a single species. The only controversy in evolution is whether it occurs slowly and incrementally or in sudden, orgasmic changes or in a combination of the two.

Despite any controversy, I'll take the logic and scientifically provable idea of evolution over the big bearded guy in the sky that created the Earther 6000 years ago and hides dinosaur fossils around that are millions of years older to "test us"...

Alabama Lie Detector

[AtariAmarok]

You can't talk police without talkin about the Alabama Lie Detector. Better swim fast if there is a catfish coming at you weilding one.

Re:Reminds me of EYES

[Hater's Leaving, The]

"...multiple seperate occasions..."

Not just that, but _differently_ in each of the major eye types. There's no "animal eye", there are at least 3. (I forget exactly how they're categorised, but they're roughly vertibrate, cephalopod, and creepy-crawly.)

In particular, our retinas are 'back to front'. It's an flawed design, and that's why we have blind spots -- it's where the nerves leave the inside of the eyeball. If our eyes came about through _design_ then it was _crap_ design.

God-freaks can take the soft cheese out of their ears now.

THL.

Reminds me of...

[FlyingOrca]

the epaulette shark:

http://www.elasmo-research.org/education/shark_p ro files/orectolobiformes.htm
(scroll down)

It uses its limbs to "walk" around, and will even "walk" away when threatened rather than swimming (which would be faster, one thinks).

story

[sirhc7]

Well after reading the article what comes to mind is that considering how old this bone is, we can all be pretty sure that the authors put together a story that would not fit what actually happened if we could have been there to see it.

Re:Reminds me of EYES

[Baron_Yam]

As someone with eyes rated in the -2.25 diopter range, I'm kind of anxious for the day when you take a pill and grow new & improved eyes... when that day comes, I want the damn retina to plug in at the back.

Oh great.

[kulakovich]

Now it's fish with limbs.

Next they'll keep changing the channel and mucking with the volume.

kulakovich

Darwin fish

[caffeine_monkey]

So the Darwin fish on my car is anatomically correct? Cool.

Fish are not animals?

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

Funny item text.

Mineral

Vegetable

Animal

Fish!

Does it always regsiter a lie ?

[RLW]

Maybe the fish really need limbs to use these things. Hm, sounds like they may have been involved in some sort of arms race.

A minor nit...

[ArghBlarg]

"Permanent land-living animals took another 30 million years to develop into reptiles, birds and mammals, but what happened during that transition is unclear."

Birds didn't evolve, to our knowledge, for a LOT more than 30 million years after the Devonian. Late Cretaceous, 65 million years or so.

(IANAPaleontologist, but I wanted to be one when I was a kid, heh)

Re:Reminds me of EYES

[Tree131]

I'm kind of anxious for the day when you take a pill and grow new & improved eyes
I want the damn retina to plug in at the back

So, what happens when you overdose on the pill?
hind sight?
extra eyependages?
eye in ass... er.. ass in eye... er... asinine?

Karma or not, I coudln't pass that up...

Re:Reminds me of EYES

[GrumpySimon]

Not only that but there are at least 65 (yes, 65) phylogenetically distinct eye-forms. Wow - independant evolution 65 times.

see: Weiss, K. (2002). "How the eye got its brain." Evolutionary Anthropology 11: 215-219.

Cheers,
Simon

Bestiality?

[Reverend Olle]

"The story of the emergence of animals with limbs from their fish ancestors is the sexiest part of what we do."

I don't know if i would like to see the part of natural science that turns him off,
seeing as how the good doctor considers the fossil of a salamander like fishie to be sexy.

Genetics

[yet another coward]

Genes are the elements of evolution. They duplicate, mutate, recombine and otherwise change with time. Focusing on phenotype to the exclusion of genotype is the wrong approach. While the clues from paleontology are rarely genetic, the genetic case for evolution is overwhelming because the premises are simple and demonstrable. Genes have anatomical and physiological consequences. Genes are subject to mutation. Anti-evolution people have a much harder time making a case against molecular biology and thermodynamics than they do arguing against transitional forms.

Eugenics? Pull the other one...

[FlyingOrca]

Bzzzt! Wrong. I've let myself be trolled twice today, and my mouth is getting sore from the hooks, but I've got to correct your idiotic post.

First, "Darwinism/evolution" has no "natural (racist) conclusion of Eugenics". Evolution, as a theory - and if you can't handle what "theory" really means, go back to school, I don't want to get into it - describes how genomes change over time. Period. Like it or not, it's working on humans just as it works on every other living thing.

Second, scientists generally do NOT "have a hard time accepting" etc. Helping the poor is quite acceptable; they have not demonstrated a genetic disadvantage in reproduction. In fact, if they are reproducing at a greater rate than those who are not poor, they are demonstrating an advantage! Short term, I would think, but still an advantage.

As for birth defects, most are not carried into the next generation, being caused by either prenatal trauma (of one kind or another) or chromosome replication error. Most people with developmental disabilities, believe it or not, will have genetically normal children if they have any at all.

Close hospitals and ban free choice in human reproduction? What on earth makes you think this is part of the theory of evolution? I suppose some deeply twisted individuals might make a logically flawed argument that this is necessary, but I've never heard it advocated. Got a citation from a reliable source?

Now, personally, I'd like to see reproduction controlled, but only because there are too many people around already. However, that's irrelevant to the theory of evolution; we will be acted upon by selection pressure no matter what. It's the way things work. If we exceed our carrying capacity, a bunch of us will die; the survivors will be those whose genes (and memes, if you're into that kind of thing) confer advantage in that situation.

I'd like to see some kind of quote before I believe that Darwin "wholeheartedly believed in this sort of proposition"; I think that's complete hogwash, but I could be wrong. Again, got a citation from a reliable source?

"Rational believers of intelligent design theory"? Sorry, I don't think there IS a scientific theory of "intelligent design". A bunch of stuff promulgated by religious believers, yes, but I'm not aware of a scientific theory of that nature.

As far as "intelligent design" as a religious proposition (not scientific theory), I think you'd find that MANY scientists believe it to be quite compatible with evolution... the religious ones, anyhow. They just place the design further back in time - say, about 15 billion years further back.

Evolutionary theory describes a mechanism of great beauty and elegance; it's a shame that people's preconceptions often hide that truth from them. Still, if you can get past your prejudice long enough to read some good books on the subject, you might come away with a bit more appreciation for the subject.

Thanks for playing, have a nice day.

Re:Eugenics? Pull the other one...

[Tyreth]

Well, we have two breeds of Darwinists then. Those who say that natural selection and evolution no longer takes place for humans, because our culture has eliminated its role with things such as the support of those in need. Then we have your proposition, that a different form of evolution takes place. Wow, the word "evolution" can yet again be used to explain anything it wants to.

But anyway, if I suppose that evolution is true, what moral argument can you give me to stop me from murdering the weak, hurting the downtrodden, and generally getting my way when I know I can get away with it? As far as I can tell, any argument you give me I can respond with, "so?". As long as it's benefitting me, what do I care?

Re:Eugenics? Pull the other one...

[Ieshan]

You're misreading evolution. Again.

Evolution isn't moral license to go do whatever you like. Evolution is the phenomenon that surviving members of a species transmit their genes to the next generation. Killing what you percieve to be the "weak" certainly has an effect on that subsequent generation, but it has little to do with ethical principle.

The major problem with anti-evolutionists is that they read too much into the idea.

Re:Eugenics? Pull the other one...

[FlyingOrca]

***sigh***

OK. Anyone who says "natural selection and evolution no longer takes place for humans" is, IMNSHO, just plain wrong. And furthermore, doesn't understand the concept very well. Culture does not - repeat, does not - replace natural selection! It may alter the environment in which natural selection operates, but you can't convince me that it removes selection pressure. And since everything humans do is "natural", things humans do to change their selection environment is a change to - not the removal of - natural selection.

This is not a new use of evolution, merely the proper application of the model.

As for moral arguments, what of them? Evolution has very little to do with moral arguments of the sort you seem to seek. Try a religion. Heck, try a bunch of them and see which one fits best. My morals are rooted in ecology and the nearly universal Golden Rule, but YMMV.

You make the mistake, though, of thinking that what is good for you will increase your genes' representation in the gene pool. Say it with me, now: "What's good for the individual does not necessarily confer evolutionary advantage."

Thank you for playing. Next!

Re: Eugenics? Pull the other one...

[Black Parrot]

> But anyway, if I suppose that evolution is true, what moral argument can you give me to stop me from murdering the weak, hurting the downtrodden, and generally getting my way when I know I can get away with it? As far as I can tell, any argument you give me I can respond with, "so?". As long as it's benefitting me, what do I care?

Kind of like with atomic theory, eh?

Also, regarding your speculative position, do you observe that people who accept evolution behave any worse than people who don't?

I know creationists much prefer armchair arguments over arguments based on observations, but in this case you might want to give it a try.

Re:Eugenics? Pull the other one...

[Tyreth]

My point is, so what? If I want to do those things, who cares whether it helps others or not? What is wrong with murder, rape, etc?

Re:Eugenics? Pull the other one...

[Ieshan]

They're morally reprehensible to most humans.

Otherwise, you're right. In a structured society, if you can deal with the consequences of your actions, then you're free to do what you wish.

Re:Eugenics? Pull the other one...

[Tyreth]

I agree with you that a different form of selective pressure takes place. No arguments there.

As for moral arguments, what argument can you give me that could possibly make me care what you think, unless somehow that benefits me? If my desires carry me to rape or murder someone, then why shouldn't I? You can use arguments like "you might get caught", fine. But they are only good because they appeal to my desire of self-preservation. If I believe I am in no danger, what argument can you offer? I may not even care that my genes get passed on! I just follow my carnal urges, which most darwinists arbitrarily label "wrong".

And if I am a die hard darwinist and I believe that another race is evolutionarily inferior, then what reason can you offer me that would make me care about them? After all, if we kill animals for food, what difference is a distant human? I can make friends with my close family, and destroy those who are inferior. Why should I care? I'm not asking you to give logical arguments why cooperation is more beneficial. I'm asking you why I should listen to it. If I genuinely believe that it is better to rid the earth of them. Or even if I believe it is acceptable to just ignore them, conquer them, enslave them, whatever, what response do you give?

Thank you for playing. Next!

Such arrogance is not befitting an argument. You should not declare your opponents defeat before he responds. This is merely a crowd swaying attempt.

Re:Eugenics? Pull the other one...

[FlyingOrca]

I thought I made it clear that evolution and moral arguments have very little to do with one another. You seem to be looking for some kind of moral law.

I know of only one explicitly stated "moral law" based upon evolutionary theory. It's called the Law of Limited Competition, and was popularized by a guy named Daniel Quinn. It goes like this: "You may compete to the full extent of your capabilities, but you may not hunt down competitors or destroy their food or deny them access to food. In other words, you may compete but you may not wage war."

The reason for the limits is that indulging in the proscribed behaviours is manifestly bad for long-term survival; species which follow the resulting, evolutionarily unstable strategy lose representation in the gene pool.

As to your next moral question, "what difference is a distant human" etc.: Can you demonstrate an evolutionarily stable strategy that results from "destroying those who are inferior"? If you're so messed up as to believe that "another race is evlutionarily inferior", I'm not about to try to change your mind. I'm going to (a) try to put some distance between you and my genes, or (b) get yours out of the pool.

Look, I can't make you care about other people. I happen to believe that we do better AS A SPECIES if we look after each other. Cannibalism can be evolutionarily stable for some species; I'm a little surprised to hear you advocating it, but hey, it's your brain (ick, prions). As I said earlier, though, YMMV. It's hardly my business to choose your morals.

It's a silly argument, anyway. Evolution != moral law. Apples and crankshafts. What response do I give? Mu.

Oh, and arrogance? I suppose the shoe fits. It's probably more impatience than arrogance, but I can see how it looks. Really, though, your arguments are based upon a lack of understanding of evolution and an attempt to apply that misunderstanding to unrelated moral philosophy. It's lame, it's tired, and it's daft. It makes me impatient.

Cheers!

Re:Eugenics? Pull the other one...

[Tyreth]

First of all, I don't believe any of those things are good. You mistook me for a darwinist it seems.

Second of all:

If you're so messed up as to believe that "another race is evlutionarily inferior"

If you assume darwinism, then it would be irrational to suppose that one human race is not inferior or superior to another. So what the heck has that got to do with being 'messed up'? It's just pure logic, and the necessary conclusion of darwinism.

Third of all, if I assume darwinism, then what do I care if you don't like the conclusions I draw from evolution? If we are all the product of chance, then there is no good or evil. What I'm saying is there are no morals given darwinism. Darwin himself said,
With me the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man's mind, which has been developed from the mind of lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey's mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind? (Darwin's letter to William Graham Down, dated July 3, 1881, in The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin Including and Autobiographical Chapter, ed. Francis Darwin, 2 vols. (London: John Murry, Albermarle Street, 1887), 1:315-316)

So it's not a question of whether your arguments are reasonable or not. It's a question of whether it's worth me (if we assume I'm a darwinist) paying attention to them. What do I care if you don't like me? If I can fool you into thinking I'm your friend, then betray you and come out on top, then I have done no 'evil', for such does not exist. If you try to appeal to my emotions, what makes your conclusions any more trustworthy than mine, since we are both descended from lower animals? To suppose that Darwinism doesn't lead to racism is the ultimate in willful blindness. You absolutely, necessarily, have to be racist to be a Darwinist. Darwinism does not say which race is better - but at some point you have to say "this group is more worthy of survival than that group". You cannot have every group survive, because some must fail.

Yet this also brings up the question of care. Just because one accepts darwinism does not mean that they automatically think it is important to maintain evolution and the progress of the species. Why do I need to see the progression of my species? I won't be around to enjoy the greater evolution. So I may reasonably conclude that the destruction of my own race for my own greed and pleasure is better than any altruistic sacrifice for the good of future generations. Of course, I may not. The point is that there is no good or evil, and that we can't trust the convictions of our mind if we assume Darwinism.

Re:Eugenics? Pull the other one...

[Tyreth]

Tell me why it is that your post is modded informative, yet mine are modded off topic - and they're both talking about the same topic? The pro-evolutionary zealotry on slashdot is irritating to say the least.

I wish that skeptics would apply their brand of thought to their own beliefs - so quick to criticize followers of religions as chasing after myths, yet so stubbornly refusing to look at their own beliefs.

Re:Eugenics? Pull the other one...

[Vindicator9000]

I'd like to see some kind of quote before I believe that Darwin "wholeheartedly believed in this sort of proposition"; I think that's complete hogwash, but I could be wrong. Again, got a citation from a reliable source?

How about Darwin's own pen?

"At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes ... will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilized state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla."

-Charles Darwin, "The Descent of Man", 2nd edition, New York, A L. Burt Co., 1874, p. 178

Re:Eugenics? Pull the other one...

[FlyingOrca]

Good try. However, parsing that carefully, I read Darwin as stating two things:

1) The "civilized races", etc. (first sentence)
- Genocidal practices of the colonial era, anyone? I don't see Darwin ENDORSING this - just saying it will "almost certainly" happen. Which it has. And may continue to.

2) "...will no doubt be exterminated. The break between" etc. (final sentences)
- Again, this is already happening; most great ape species (with the exception of ourselves, if you count us) are in danger of extinction. I read this as Darwin hoping that (hu)man(ity) attains a more civilized state. Of course, he's also indulging in the Caucasion-centric view of civilization that was typical of his culture...

But so what? Although certain people like to toss around the term "Darwinism", it's a false characterization. The theory of evolution has come a long way, baby. Just because the first guy to put forward a coherent statement of evolution through natural selection had some of the same wacky ideas as his compatriots doesn't make the theory wrong.

Cheers!

Re:Eugenics? Pull the other one...

[Narchie Troll]

There's nothing we can do to convince you otherwise, but if we don't like what you're doing, we are equally free to throw you in jail.

Morality is a farce. People make decisions primarily based on what they like, weighed against the possible repercussions of those actions. So, no, there is nothing inherently wrong with what you propose. But society has an equal right to punish you for such actions.

Re:Eugenics? Pull the other one...

[Vindicator9000]

1) The "civilized races", etc. (first sentence)
- Genocidal practices of the colonial era, anyone? I don't see Darwin ENDORSING this - just saying it will "almost certainly" happen. Which it has. And may continue to.

If Darwin saw genocide of "inferior" races as the natural cause of his own theory, then wouldn't it follow that he would endorse it? I find it rather hard to believe that he would present natural selection as being a universally good thing (since it rewards creatures and species with desireable traits), yet suggest that it is somehow bad at the same time to reward those species. This is the point of the original AC's argument - that it's very hard to separate natural selection and racism, because one tends to follow the other.

As a simple syllogism:

A.If you believe that some humans have more desireable traits than others (which you have to, if you believe in evolution)

B. and you believe that reinforcement of those traits is of utmost importance for the furthering of the species (which is arguably another truism when talking about evolution)

C. then it must follow that you believe that it's at least not evil for persons with undesireable traits to be prevented from passing those traits on.

Of course, he's also indulging in the Caucasion-centric view of civilization that was typical of his culture...

I can understand the argument that Darwin was afflicted with the racism typical of his era and society, but I can't agree - rather I think that his racism was inorexably linked to his understanding of the implications that his theory entailed.

Re:Eugenics? Pull the other one...

[Scrameustache]

Tell me why it is that your post is modded informative, yet mine are modded off topic

Because he's informative and you're a troll.

Now, I don't know why you get modded offtopic instead of troll, but I know why your denial of evolution in a thread about a find that supports evolution is modded down while a post that clarifies evolution in a thread about a find that supports evolution is modded up.

Re:Eugenics? Pull the other one...

[Tyreth]

Well, I'm glad you see my point. Your use of the word "right" in "society has an equal right to punish you for such actions" is meaningless. They have no "right" to do so, nor any reason to justify. There is just meaningless events that happen. The fact that we feel certain things are good and bad under a naturalistic worldview can only be explained in terms of their ability to increase our chances of survival. Therefore we can have no trust in our faculties to determine logic or truth, since our mind would not be 'designed' for such things. Instead, our mind would be geared towards greater survival - and logic is meaningless. What is meaningful is a lie or a truth that increases our chances of survival and reproduction. For all we know our mind could be considering certain lies as truth because that helped us survive. An example being a man who believes that lions should be petted, but the best way to pet them is to run away at breakneck speed. His reasoning is nonsensical, but it increases his chances of survival nonetheless.

Therefore if darwinism is true, we cannot trust our minds to determine that it is true. It defeats itself.

Re:Eugenics? Pull the other one...

[Tyreth]

Because he's informative and you're a troll.

Nice job. You refuted your own answer with your second paragraph. Troll I could understand, because that comes from the biases inherent in the slashdot crowd. But off-topic was a completely hypocritical moderation. And, it turns out, you agree with me but didn't want to make it look like you did.

Re:Eugenics? Pull the other one...

[Burstwave]

As for birth defects, most are not carried into the next generation, being caused by either prenatal trauma (of one kind or another) or chromosome replication error. Most people with developmental disabilities, believe it or not, will have genetically normal children if they have any at all.

Birth defects resulting from genetic abnormalities are not typically caused by chromosome replication errors or prenatal trauma. Depending on the racial group, most humans are heterozygous for one or more genes conferring a detrimental phenotype. However, these defects are often masked because of functional expression of the non-mutant gene.

As far as "intelligent design" as a religious proposition (not scientific theory), I think you'd find that MANY scientists believe it to be quite compatible with evolution... the religious ones, anyhow. They just place the design further back in time - say, about 15 billion years further back.

Although there are scientists who believe in "intelligent design," the theory remains untestable and, I think, works as as a rationalization for those who are uncomfortable with the idea of a godless universe. The theory of intelligent design has no practical application within the scientific community, and remains firmly entrenched within the domain of religion.

Re:Eugenics? Pull the other one...

[FlyingOrca]

Overall, I agree with you. That being said, though, I've worked with people with mental disabilities for many years. The *majority* of my clients' diagnoses involve either trauma or chromosome damage/replication error. That's where I was coming from with that particular part of my post. You're bang on about the recessive thing, though, and I've often wondered how much of the replication error is DUE to recessives...

And on intelligent design, I'd say we agree. I was being conde^H^H^H^H^Hdiplomatic. I wouldn't even go so far as you do and call intelligent design a "theory" - I try to reserve that word for its proper scientific meaning. ;-)

Cheers!

Re:Reminds me of EYES

[Tyreth]

That's an amazing argument. You are saying that the following steps in the argument:
1. An article made a proposal on how to get from a photosensitive cell to a full eye while each stage had a noticable survival benefit
2. It was supported by an appeal to the myth of evolution
That's not very persuasive. *If* we are questioning the validity of evolution in the first place, you _cannot_ appeal to it as evidence for an argument. If the article makes a proposition like this, then it must demonstrate that such steps can take place, and that must be done through experiments. You cannot just accept the truth of darwinist evolution and point to that as the evidence for the article's proposition.

Re:Reminds me of EYES

[Baron_Yam]

It is not a circular argument at all.

The original anti-evolution statement is (roughly) 'Something as complex as an eye could not have evolved via the tiny increments evolutionary theory describes'.

The rebuttal is, 'Yes it can, here are the steps, here is why each step is consistent with evolutionary theory, and here are actual (multiple) examples from nature'.

You can deny evolution all you want, it just makes you either stupid or willfully ignorant.

Re:Reminds me of EYES

[Tyreth]

You can deny evolution all you want, it just makes you either stupid or willfully ignorant.

Damn, that's one persuasive argument. Well, I guess I was wrong, because I don't want you to think I'm stupid or willfully ignorant. Seriously - I want evidence of evolution. How often people say someone is an idiot to deny it. Then, I imagine, they conjure in their minds images of children different from parents and suppose that it is proof of 'evolution'. And they then wonder to themselves, given that evolution is obvious all around, how could poor creationists be so foolish as to deny it? If that's you, then you have seriously misunderstood the issues.

You mention an article (without reference) that demonstrates hypothetical steps of eye biological evolution, and points to the hypothetical evolutionary history of nature as proof? So, I'm still waiting for the actual proof of any of this. Of course, without actually seeing the article, how can a creationist respond?

The most amusing thing about invented evolutionary steps is that they ignore the smaller steps between those steps. In Darwin's time he had no idea how complex life really was at the micro level. It was easy to glibly say that a creature might form basic wings over time which then improve in functionality. It's another thing entirely to describe how that is possible at the most basic level. After all, when he looked at the finches he found proof of his theory. Yet what he was actually seeing was the selection of pre-existing traits - which was not at all what he needed as proof of his theory. I saw a horrid piece of evolutionary poetry once, it was a terrible mix of fantasy and imagination. That's what most evolutionary explanations are.

One persuasive argument

[FlyingOrca]

Looking for a reference? Richard Dawkins deals extensively with the evolution of the eye - numerous times, numerous mechanisms. Chapter 5 of _Climbing Mount Improbable_, entitled "Forty-fold Path To Enlightenment", is a good place to start.

The evidence for evolution is all around you. It's in every living thing, it's in the fossil record, and it's in recorded natural history. If anyone has "seriously misunderstood the issues", it's you. Your blatant misunderstandings and mischaracterizations of evolutionary theory and mechanisms demonstrate that you simply don't understand it. I'm not knocking your intellect, and I'm not trying to condescend; I'm trying to point out your obvious need for some better information.

There's no such thing as "invented evolutionary steps". There's no such thing as "the smaller steps between those steps". Evolution is a process, though the punctuated-equilibrium model posits a process that varies in "speed".

Also, Darwin didn't need to know "how complex life really was at the micro level". Scientists of his time understood the concept of heredity. At the most basic level, as you put it, it's just genes doing their thing. Many (I would think the vast majority, but I could be wrong) of evolutionary changes involve what you try to dismiss as "the selection of pre-existing traits". Minor changes to the expression of a gene can result in remarkable structural variation.

And if you think "most evolutionary explanations" are "a terrible mix of fantasy and imagination", I'd say you have misunderstood the word "fantasy". Imagination I'll grant you - most scientific theories began as the work of great imaginations. They gain "theory" status by explaining our universe better than any other explanation. If you find that "terrible" (did you mean "terrifying"?), I'd guess it's because your world-view can't handle it...

Cheers!

Re:One persuasive argument

[Tyreth]

The evidence for evolution is all around you. It's in every living thing, it's in the fossil record, and it's in recorded natural history. If anyone has "seriously misunderstood the issues", it's you. Your blatant misunderstandings and mischaracterizations of evolutionary theory and mechanisms demonstrate that you simply don't understand it. I'm not knocking your intellect, and I'm not trying to condescend; I'm trying to point out your obvious need for some better information.

As I stated in another post in this very story, the fossil record does NOT support evolution. The current observed processes in biology do NOT support evolution. The facts are all in the minds of people.

I do not try to "dismiss" evolutionary changes by talking about selection of pre-existing traits, as if I was missing the main point. What Darwin observed was not darwinist evolution. What darwin saw was genes that already existed, and were being selected. Darwinist evolution is a story about how those genes arrived in the first place, and THAT is what I have a problem with. I do not deny at all that changes in gene frequencies can result in remarkable structural variation (though that can be interpreted in many ways). You think that merely because a child is different from his parents that evolution is supported. Yet you confuse one type of evolution with another. Selection of pre-existing traits exhibits two features (among others):
1. Rapid speciation
2. Reduction of diversity in gene pool
Neither of these support the darwinist position of slow speciation and an increase of diversity in the gene pool. I do not deny that mutations occur. I deny the plausibility of them as the mechanism by which today's already existing diversity originally came about.

I suggest you read my first post which covers some things you said:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=102702&cid=875 2031

Re:One persuasive argument

[09za]

How convenient...Darwin didn't have to understand the mechanisms behind "evolution" to create a theory You use to understand "evolution". Sounds good to me . So I don't have understand how we have a brain that we use only ten percent of to know that we got that brain from lesser beings. Makes such perfect sense! So We don't have to understand change to comment on the cause of the change? How is that science? It seems like it asks us to make a leap of faith that is no less than call to beleive as religion. Try to see Evolution for what it is... a theory....unproven, maybe unprovable. BTW I was once an atheist if Your'e thinking I'm some kind of religious nut. I looked at the structure of what we call the Universe and I came to the conclusion that it appears to form in the same way as "life". From there I made the leap that we must live in a life form (the supreme being) This being is like You to one of Your cells in your body. It also explains why the universe appears to be expanding ever faster...it's called growth. Wake up and look around...Science only benefits the scientist.

I'd be happy to continue this conversation...

[FlyingOrca]

...over a better medium. You can reach me at slashstuff@flyingorca.net - I may not have much time, but I'll give it a go. Cheers!

Re:I'd be happy to continue this conversation...

[Tyreth]

Well, in all honesty, that would make you the fourth such person (the second from today's story, and two from another time), so I'm not sure I want to commit to another conversation. And since you say you may not have much time, it might be in both our interests not to. Still, if you are interested I won't ignore you :) I'll send this to you via email also.

Re: Two Christian creation myths

[some guy I know]

OK, I give.
I know about the seven-day creation myth (and the "Who was Cain's wife?" and other paradoxes contained therein), but I am unfamiliar with a second creation story.

A simple syllogism, indeed

[FlyingOrca]

Talk about missing the point. Darwin *didn't* see "genocide of 'inferior' races as the natural cause of his own theory". He saw genocide as a possible *effect*.

Neither did he "present natural selection as being a universally good thing". He presented it as a mechanism to explain evolution. Did Newton present his physics as a "universally good thing"? No, he presented them as an explanation. Stop trying to read morality into natural law and then attacking the resulting morality - it's moronic, and akin to insisting that gravity is evil because people hurt themselves when they fall. WTF?

Now, on to your syllogism:

A. Flawed because traits are neither desireable nor undesireable; they simply confer differing degrees of survival advantage in different situations.

B. Flawed because "reinforcement of those traits" is not "of utmost importance for the furthering of the species". The species will be acted upon by whatever selection pressure exists. Period. News flash: Humans don't have to take any action for evolution to work. In fact, it worked just fine before we came along, and will work just fine after we're gone.

C. Finally you got something right, but for the wrong reasons. Yes, for the record, I believe that it's not evil to prevent people with undesirable traits from passing them on. It might well be misguided, it might well be implemented badly, but I don't think it "evil" in a blanket sense.

However, that has nothing to do with evolution. Humans have no place judging whether a given set of genes are *evolutionarily viable* - and we don't need to. Evolution through natural selection will determine both viability and long-term success.

As to your notions about Darwin's racism, how do you explain the racism of the people around him, who espoused exactly the same racist ideas without agreeing with his new theory? How about his predecessors, who also had the same racist ideas? You've got cause and effect mixed up - again!

Not surprising, given the quality of the stuff you've tried to pass off as "logical" in your posts. Cheers!

Re:A simple syllogism, indeed

[Vindicator9000]

A. Flawed because traits are neither desireable nor undesireable; they simply confer differing degrees of survival advantage in different situations.

so a trait that confers survival advantage of our species is neither undesireable nor desireable? Asking as a human, why not?

B. Flawed because "reinforcement of those traits" is not "of utmost importance for the furthering of the species".

Again, why not?

Period. News flash: Humans don't have to take any action for evolution to work. In fact, it worked just fine before we came along, and will work just fine after we're gone

no argument.

However, that has nothing to do with evolution. Humans have no place judging whether a given set of genes are *evolutionarily viable* - and we don't need to. Evolution through natural selection will determine both viability and long-term success.

Ahh, the problem with your argument. If humans evolved the capacity for thought, then we did so because it presented an advantage in reproduction. Now that we are thinking beings, are you saying that we should stop using our thinking powers to present greater advantages in the long-term viability of the species? I'm not suggesting that humans can 100% accurately predict environmental changes requiring adaptation, or even come close to 100%, but don't we as a species have an obligation to ourselves to attempt to further the species to the best of our ability? Even amoebas do that, though they know not why. I think that if natural selection is right, then we owe it to ourselves to make the best guesses we can about what traits are desireable, and reinforcing them. Also according to natural selection, it is of course the duty of "inferior" beings to attept to promulgate their genes despite our attempts.

The problem is that the human psyche has a hard time reconciling this thought because the very intelligence that we've possibly evolved also gives us compassion, a trait that could very well be our downfall should Darwinian evolution turn out to be correct.

Not surprising, given the quality of the stuff you've tried to pass off as "logical" in your posts.

Kant suggested that if a theory, carried out to its extreme, results in an impossible condition, then it must be wrong. While I can't totally agree with either Kant or Darwin, I think that there is value in looking at the extremes of ideas, regardless of whether those extremes actually come to pass or not. I was merely trying to show that evolution can very easily devolve into genocide.

Re:A simple syllogism, indeed

[Scrameustache]

I think that if natural selection is right, then we owe it to ourselves to make the best guesses we can about what traits are desireable, and reinforcing them. Also according to natural selection, it is of course the duty of "inferior" beings to attept to promulgate their genes despite our attempts.


Man, you're chuck full of hubris aren't you?

Natural selection occurs naturally, it doesn't need our guesses to make it happen.

The problem is that the human psyche has a hard time reconciling this thought because the very intelligence that we've possibly evolved also gives us compassion, a trait that could very well be our downfall should Darwinian evolution turn out to be correct.


Not at all.
We also evolved compassion. By helping each other out in the short term we help the entire species in the long run.
You want your genes to win out on the long run, but you and your entire family could die in a catastrophic event, so the stranger you helped out could be the closest thing to your genes that get passed on in the end.

Its the same thing as with the mountain goat's horns. They evolved so that they don't usually seriously hurt themselves during the mating season's fights. If one mutant evolved the short-term advantage of horns that kill the oponents, he would have a great reproductive advantage, but his descendants would kill each other and he would prove to be an evolutionary dead end.

Re: Two Christian creation myths

[Ieshan]

Huh?

Read the bible. There are two listed right in a row.

Persistent, aren't you? Wrong, but persistent...

[FlyingOrca]

so a trait that confers survival advantage of our species is neither undesireable nor desireable? Asking as a human, why not?

Because you're talking about evolution, which is a natural force. It doesn't desire things; it doesn't even want to be anthropomorphized. ;-)

If you're asking whether I consider a given trait to be desireable, you're asking a different question. Likewise, whether you consider a given trait to be desireable. Or Joe. Or Jane. But the traits that we (as fallible human beings) consider desireable are not "of utmost importance for the furthering of the species". They don't particularly matter, for reasons stated already.

are you saying that we should stop using our thinking powers to present greater advantages in the long-term viability of the species?

Not at all. I'm saying that your reductio ad absurdum argument against doing so is not a valid indictment of evolutionary theory, but rather an indictment of your own suggested use of our thinking powers. It's the old bait'n'switch.

As for your opinion that "we owe it to ourselves to make the best guesses we can about what traits are desireable, and reinforcing them": it's just that - your opinion. Or rather, in this case, a strawman (let me know if you don't know what that means).

Kant suggested that if a theory, carried out to its extreme, results in an impossible condition, then it must be wrong. While I can't totally agree with either Kant or Darwin, I think that there is value in looking at the extremes of ideas, regardless of whether those extremes actually come to pass or not. I was merely trying to show that evolution can very easily devolve into genocide.

And you figure that genocide is impossible? Ask the Jews, the Tutsi, et cetera ad nauseum. Again, you're indulging in faulty logic and bait'n'switch. You're not trying to show logical inconsistency, you're trying to derive morality from natural law and then argue against that morality.

I stand by what I said about the logical abilities displayed in your posts. Cheers!

Darwinism is NOT A RELIGION!

[Scrameustache]

First of all, you do not understand the theory of evolution AND you use "darwinist" in a way that does not reflect its true meaning.

Darwinist is in opposotion to Lamarckist, who was an evolutionary theory from before Darwin that postulated that the evolution of species was the result of adaptation made by members of the species in their life times (to Lamarck, if giraffes had long necks it was because proto-giraffes had had to stretch their necks to get to high branches and so their descendants had longer necks).
Darwin's theory was that natural selection of mutants was what shaped evolution.

If you assume darwinism, then it would be irrational to suppose that one human race is not inferior or superior to another.

Well, that might be what the grand wizard at your "racial pride" rally told you, but that is completly wrong.

If I take an Inuit and a Massai and switch them, they'll both be fucked. Because one is from a race that has adapted to the artic climate and the other to the savannah. Wich is the inferior one? The one that can survive in a cold hostile land or the one that can survive in a hot hostile land?

Races are not inferior or superior in an absolute sense, they are better adapted to specific situations.

If we are all the product of chance, then there is no good or evil.

Ah, yes, you're the type of person for whom the only reason not to hurt other people is the fear of hell.

So clearly, you do not reject darwinist evolution based on rational arguments, but based on irrational fears. Fear of what people would do if they didn't have the fear of hell in them...

To suppose that Darwinism doesn't lead to racism is the ultimate in willful blindness.

You retard. There was racism before Darwin, there was racism before the theory of evolution.
The bible promotes racism. There are the superior tribes, descendants of angels, and the others are inferior. God commanded the israelites to genocide at jehricho.

Stop trying to discredit things you don't like by linking them to things others don't like.

You absolutely, necessarily, have to be racist to be a Darwinist.

You absolutly, necesserily have to be a racist to believe in god, because god is racist.

You cannot have every group survive, because some must fail.

Again, wrong because you do not understand the theory of evolution and the darwinist theory of survival of the fittest.

As long as there are enough ressources, all groups can survive. There is no magic need for one group to diappear.

The point is that there is no good or evil, and that we can't trust the convictions of our mind if we assume Darwinism.

That's nihilism, not darwinism.
And you should never trust the convictions of your mind.

Re:Darwinism is NOT A RELIGION!

[Tyreth]

First of all, you do not understand the theory of evolution AND you use "darwinist" in a way that does not reflect its true meaning. Darwinist is in opposotion to Lamarckist, who was an evolutionary theory from before Darwin that postulated that the evolution of species was the result of adaptation made by members of the species in their life times (to Lamarck, if giraffes had long necks it was because proto-giraffes had had to stretch their necks to get to high branches and so their descendants had longer necks). Darwin's theory was that natural selection of mutants was what shaped evolution.

And how was this something I didn't know? I use the term "Darwinist" as opposed to "evolutionist", because darwinist makes it clear I am talking about that brand of evolution which states that all life descends from a common simple single celled lifeform, and that the method through which this occurred was natural selection of mutations.

If you assume darwinism, then it would be irrational to suppose that one human race is not inferior or superior to another.

Well, that might be what the grand wizard at your "racial pride" rally told you, but that is completly wrong.

How witty of you. Now on to your flawed reasoning...

If I take an Inuit and a Massai and switch them, they'll both be fucked. Because one is from a race that has adapted to the artic climate and the other to the savannah. Wich is the inferior one? The one that can survive in a cold hostile land or the one that can survive in a hot hostile land?

What about if we took one human who could survive well in both environments and compare him to either one of these people? By your reasoning we'd then have to conclude that he's superior. You neglect to address the problem of other flaws which are not so easily measured, nor so easily interchanged. Take, for example, a mutation which results in internal bleeding after the softest blows. Would you consider that person to be superior or inferior to another who did not have it in that specific area?

If we take your intention with that argument to its conclusions we can then say that a single bacteria is not inferior or superior to a human. Or that if we switch places of a fish swimming deep underwater with a human walking in a dry desert, that since they would both die that they are 'equal'?

*If* you agree that one living thing can be considered superior or inferior to another (eg, a human vs a rat), then you cannot reasonably draw a line where such comparisons of superiority should end. And if no line can be drawn, then out of any two given humans, one is superior to the other - even if such superiority cannot be measured. If, however, you disagree and say that a human and a rat are equal, then I will be content to consider you either a madman (or woman) or one who is so blind he/she will accept any proposition, no matter how absurd, to defend a lie.

It is my belief that humans will be able to survive in more circumstances, with greater superiority, and achieve more, than rats ever could. If humans and rats were to "wage war" or strive against each other for limitted resources, that my money would be on the humans. And please don't mention the plague - since it is equally possible that humans could carry a disease fatal to rats. I would say humans are superior to rats.

Races are not inferior or superior in an absolute sense, they are better adapted to specific situations.

Yes, and some creatures are more capable of surviving in more circumstances with greater results than others. Equality among living things is nonexistent. Is an adult equal with a child? Is a banana equal to a pear?

If we are all the product of chance, then there is no good or evil.

Ah, yes, you're the type of person for whom the only reason not to hurt other people is the fear of hell.

So clearly

Re:Darwinism is NOT A RELIGION!

[Scrameustache]

Or that if we switch places of a fish swimming deep underwater with a human walking in a dry desert, that since they would both die that they are 'equal'?

Jaques.
Cousteau.

logic, etc. People do have morals and a concept of right and wrong. Without going into more detail at the moment, this is a proof of God.

Human society has evolved behaviours that tend to eliminate people without morals. We lock them up, execute them, and in lots of ways pretty much take 'em out of the gene pool.

And we recently have found an new way to breed out rapists, by aborting their unborn spawns, but apparently god is pro rape or someting, all the preachers are against that.

It is also true that so long as there are no selective pressures (such as when there are enough resources), there is no darwinist evolution.

That's a phase of evolution. Darwin figured that evolution occured slowly over very long periods of time, but since he was a scientists, not a prophet, his theory has evolved too. There is evidence that points to punctual evolution, where major changes occur rather quickly (geologically speaking, not X-Men fast) when some radical change in the environment makes selection much harsher. In the interim only the occasional minor change occurs, since the pressure to change is less. That would be the part where subtle changes and minor diversity is introduced in the gene pool.

if one creature had a feeling of greed to take more than it wanted, and killed for it, then that creature would be selected for. Thus darwinist evolution favours in this case something we consider immoral.

Yes, evolution occurs without a sense of morality.
But taking more than you want is not a balanced trait, and chances are that the short-term advantage this (apparently genetic) trait would be outweighed by the long-term negative effect of such behaviour.
Remember the story of the grasshoper and the ant? Selfish and short sighted behaviour works great when the conditions are easy (summer), but when things get though (winter), you die man.

Re:Darwinism is NOT A RELIGION!

[Anonymous Coward]

What about if we took one human who could survive well in both environments and compare him to either one of these people? By your reasoning we'd then have to conclude that he's superior. You neglect to address the problem of other flaws which are not so easily measured, nor so easily interchanged. Take, for example, a mutation which results in internal bleeding after the softest blows. Would you consider that person to be superior or inferior to another who did not have it in that specific area?

Depends. Does that mutation confer some advantage in another situation that makes those with that defect more likely to survive than those without?

Socially, we see it as a disadvantage, but this is almost a red herring because it is hard to see from most of our perspectives of NOT having that problem how it could be beneficial, because we percieve how detrimental it is for individuals (but evolution is not about individuals, it is about offspring...).

So it is hard to objectively look at any percieved genetic anomaly or mutation because our own biases and judgements tend to get added to the equation.

Look at how bent out of shape some people get with regards to giving children cochlear implants, whether they're currently hearing impaired or not.

Morality, or immorality, is left up to the individual, is it not?

While we sit on our anti-Morman thrones, are fringe sects of Mormonism to be persecuted because of their pro-polygamy mini-societies that exist in the US (Colorado City, AZ), that runs counter to all good people's sense of morality?

AS far as a situation where there are sufficient resources for all organisms, mutations do occur, and it could so happen that one individual gets a mutation that, as it is passed on to its individuals, results in that species consuming enough resources to throw the system out of balance, thus restablishing a selection pressure on all the other species. Or, another species could happen along...

Since one cannot also guarantee that those resources can be maintained in that abundant state perpetually, either...

Again, your argument is a red herring.

Morality seems to be a human condition. Is it immoral for a pack of coyotes or feral dogs to plot against the farmer and sheep flock to nab a couple of young lambs?

I used to HATE top-level predators, because it seemed cruel (tones of morality here) for them to pick out the weakest or most unlucky of the group to eat. But then I grew up a little bit.

Are sharks (or wolves, or lions, bears, tigers, etc) inherently immoral or evil because they happen to snack on an unlucky surfer or mountain bike rider occaisionally?

Re:Darwinism is NOT A RELIGION!

[Tyreth]

I'm impressed by the change in your demeanor since your initial post.

Jaques.

Cousteau.

I don't understand this response/reference.

logic, etc. People do have morals and a concept of right and wrong. Without going into more detail at the moment, this is a proof of God.

Human society has evolved behaviours that tend to eliminate people without morals. We lock them up, execute them, and in lots of ways pretty much take 'em out of the gene pool.

Sure, but it wasn't always this way. The natural history as told by darwinists is curiously devoid of things we consider virtues, yet is replete with betrayel, murder, rape, greed, etc. At what point did that rule of success change? After all, there is still much to be gained through betrayel, yet people shun it.

And we recently have found an new way to breed out rapists, by aborting their unborn spawns, but apparently god is pro rape or someting, all the preachers are against that.

What a strange conception. "god is pro rape or someting"...yes, 'or someting'. Strange as it may seem to you, Christians in general value the life of all people, no matter what race or age. In particular we see a need to defend those who are helpless. The child of a rapist is also a victim. And for that reason alone Christians teach that such children should not be aborted. For the mistakes of another, we do not consider the murder of a child a just recompense. Of course, the standard response may be to call that child just a tissue, or the mother's body, but nothing could be more absurd. Especially when one considers the fact that, even in the mother's womb, the child needs to set up defences because the mother's body naturally desires to reject the foreign body. And the child has it's own DNA. A unique, and valuable life, with a chance to lead a life completely different to that of the rapist who spawned it. Completely separate from the mother, relying on her for sustenance. Not an easy thing for a mother to look after, but it does not justify murder.

It is also true that so long as there are no selective pressures (such as when there are enough resources), there is no darwinist evolution.

That's a phase of evolution. Darwin figured that evolution occured slowly over very long periods of time, but since he was a scientists, not a prophet, his theory has evolved too. There is evidence that points to punctual evolution, where major changes occur rather quickly (geologically speaking, not X-Men fast) when some radical change in the environment makes selection much harsher. In the interim only the occasional minor change occurs, since the pressure to change is less. That would be the part where subtle changes and minor diversity is introduced in the gene pool.

Yes, and Gould's motivation for punctuated equillibrium was the fact that the fossil record does not support Darwinist evolution. As Gould said, it shows stasis (no change) and saltation (sudden appearance of creatures). So, I'm still waiting for proof of darwinist evolution. Biologists search for the method in biology on the assumption that darwinist evolution is justified elsewhere - such as the fossil record. But here there is no proof. Each field assumes that the next one has the proof.

if one creature had a feeling of greed to take more than it wanted, and killed for it, then that creature would be selected for. Thus darwinist evolution favours in this case something we consider immoral.

Yes, evolution occurs without a sense of morality. But taking more than you want is not a balanced trait, and chances are that the short-term advantage this (apparently genetic) trait would be outweighed by the long-term negative effect of such behaviour. Remember the story of the grasshoper and the ant? Selfish and short sighted behaviour works great when the conditions are

Re:Darwinism is NOT A RELIGION!

[lineinthesand]

Why I think Darwinism IS a religion: Darwinism as being based on the concept of evolution (which AFAIK is not proven) is something you have to BELIEVE in because the only thing you have is a theory (supported by IMHO vague evidence) raised to a dogma. I know there is a thing called 'micro-evolution' which is something we can observe. But it is _extremely_ unlikely that even many, many steps of micro-evolution do (although it seems to be very convincing for most people) result in something called 'macro-evolution'. Now I don't make up this by myself but that's rather what I've heard in a talk by a Microbiologist (Professor Siegfried Scherer). He gave a nice mathematical example which I don't recall in detail (concerning the numbers he mentioned but you can read it here [hope I got that html tag right] under 5b, given that you understand german.). It says that it is very unlikely for an 'irreducibly complex organ' like a microbial motor we would call simple to evolve by chance. And even if the parts of the motor would evolve, there's still no mechanism implemented to build up that motor which makes the 'spontaneous forming' even more unlikely. So we're talking about microbes, remember, and dub ourselves a more complex lifeform... just decide for yourselves: is this really something you can KNOW or do you have to BELIEVE in these unlikely events to have brought about what we call life?

Re:Darwinism is NOT A RELIGION!

[Scrameustache]

Jaques.
Cousteau.

I don't understand this response/reference.

Men are superior to fish because our giant brains let us find ways to go beyond the limits of our bodies.
So if you switch a fish in the ocean with a man in the desert, the fish can do nothing but the man can put on a scuba, thanks to a certain frenchman.

The natural history as told by darwinists is curiously devoid of things we consider virtues, yet is replete with betrayel, murder, rape, greed, etc. At what point did that rule of success change? After all, there is still much to be gained through betrayel, yet people shun it.

These things, betrayal and everything, still occur. Natural selection can hardly remove traits that give its bearer advantages, but virtues also give advantages.

And you have awnserd your own question, using the exact word I was going to use too: Virtues help the community, betrayal helps the individual. The communities defend themselves by shunning the individuals that put themselves above the community through betrayal and the like.

We are social creatures, our society are a genetic advantage, since we have the instinct to band together that that there is strenght in numbers (bringing down a mamoth is not a one-man job). Natural selection applies to societies too. The ones that have all the tools to be strong and prosperous survive, the others die out.

But here there is no proof.

No one is as blind as the person who refuses to look.

When people like you are shown proof they either refuse to look in the telescope and threaten excommunion or they make up words like "microevolution" and "macroevolution" to obfuscate the situation.

I've read a few of your posts and I see you have read up on the subject, but you show such bad faith...

Yes, but that opens up a fundamental flaw - how is natural selection intelligent enough to select for long term advantage?

Its not intelligent.

The short term advantage is the one that will express itself first, and by the time the long term advantage comes into play, the creature that possessed that 'advantage' has already been eliminated by the one that went for the quick gain.

How do you know that?
What makes you so sure that the short-term advantage will eliminate all other competitors in such a short term?
The world is a big place, populations can be isolated on islands, behind mountains, etc. The short-term-only creatures will extinguish in the long-term, the isolated population that wasn't subject to that change will survive.

"Go forth and multiply" isn't just a commandment, its a pretty strong instinc too. The more there are of you over the more terrain, the more likely you'll survive in the long run.

Re:Darwinism is NOT A RELIGION!

[Tyreth]

I don't understand this response/reference.

Men are superior to fish because our giant brains let us find ways to go beyond the limits of our bodies. So if you switch a fish in the ocean with a man in the desert, the fish can do nothing but the man can put on a scuba, thanks to a certain frenchman.

So you affirm my point that all living things are not equal?

The natural history as told by darwinists is curiously devoid of things we consider virtues, yet is replete with betrayel, murder, rape, greed, etc. At what point did that rule of success change? After all, there is still much to be gained through betrayel, yet people shun it.

These things, betrayal and everything, still occur. Natural selection can hardly remove traits that give its bearer advantages, but virtues also give advantages.

I'm interested by your use of the word "virtue" without qualifying it, since virtue only has meaning in a world with a God.

At any rate, while society working together has benefits, betrayel does too. While an individual may find cooperation more useful, that society as a whole may find betrayal and war more beneficial - hence genocide, and the elimination of the weaker.

At any rate, it cannot be said by the darwinist that any action is just or unjust. And here is one absurdity of the darwinist position. No one argues on the pros or cons of a potential war based on the evolutionary damage. Eg, "we should wipe out that race because they are weaker than ours" or, "do not wipe out that race for they are superior to us". Usually it is for more altruistic reasons, "do not wipe out that race because they have done no evil" - even if such an action would produce an advantage for the agressor and a disadvantage if he/she does not act. Instead, we use terms and judgements that affirm the existence of a Creator.

Of course, if evolution is true, then one cannot trust our minds for any reason or logic, since all thoughts will be directed towards survival and reproduction, and not truth or 'good' (whatever that means). That we take for granted we are rational creatures is a result of a belief in God. When one accepts darwinism, there is no more reason to conclude that we have a rational mind, and such terms become meaningless.

And you have awnserd your own question, using the exact word I was going to use too: Virtues help the community, betrayal helps the individual. The communities defend themselves by shunning the individuals that put themselves above the community through betrayal and the like.

betrayel can help the community, in a great number of scenarios, when the betrayel involves one community against another. Even betrayel that benefits the individual may benefit the community in some circumstances. Of course, the only reason I can see that you would want to logically defend behaviour like loyalty and trust is so that darwinists cannot be labelled by their opponents as evil encouragers of wickedness. If darwinists were to truly follow their beliefs to their conclusions, then they could offer no argument against those who wish to do what Christians consider evil.

But here there is no proof.

No one is as blind as the person who refuses to look.

When people like you are shown proof they either refuse to look in the telescope and threaten excommunion or they make up words like "microevolution" and "macroevolution" to obfuscate the situation.

Of course, that reference leaves no room for the man who has looked, considered, and rejected the findings on reasonable grounds.

I've read a few of your posts and I see you have read up on the subject, but you show such bad faith...

I'm curious to know what you mean by bad faith.

Yes, but that opens up a fundamental flaw - how is natural selection intelligent enough to select for long t

Re:Darwinism is NOT A RELIGION!

[Scrameustache]

I'm curious to know what you mean by bad faith.

that:

I'm interested by your use of the word "virtue" without qualifying it, since virtue only has meaning in a world with a God.

Tired of your god nonsense, buh-bye now.

Re: Bible studies

[some guy I know]

I don't have one.
There's probably one online somewhere, but I'm not really that interested.
It's just that I've only heard about the seven days dealie, and was somewhat surprised that there allegedly is another one.

Re:Reminds me of EYES

[Hater's Leaving, The]

Is that guy for real?

"blue shifted light" - wrong!
"essentially X-ray vision" - wrong!

(Section "Darkly through a lens", first paragraph.)

THL.

Re: Two Christian creation myths

[lineinthesand]

I also don't know which second 'version' you're referring to - maybe you could cite which verses you mean...
Apart from that I do believe the creation story is to be taken literally - it's just too much a complex act that we can even imagine it really occurred like it is written.
As for the 'Cain's-wife-thing' - that's something I've asked myself too. But the answer is simple: Cain's wife must also have been his sister - that's not a contradiction at all. In those days this wasn't a problem yet. So just because not every birth of every human alive then is mentioned does not mean they didn't exist. After all people were told to crowd the earth - so wasn't like it is nowadays where families tend to have 1 - 3 children...

Re: Two Christian creation myths

[Ieshan]

...

Read Genesis 1.

Now start at Genesis 2.4a and continue 'til ~2:25.

See? Two stories, and it's commonly held that this is the case.

When was the last time you had read Genesis?

Fish, breathing fish, hoping fish, not fish.

[Scrameustache]

arwinism as being based on the concept of evolution (which AFAIK is not proven) is something you have to BELIEVE in because the only thing you have is a theory (supported by IMHO vague evidence) raised to a dogma. I know there is a thing called 'micro-evolution' which is something we can observe. But it is _extremely_ unlikely that even many, many steps of micro-evolution do (although it seems to be very convincing for most people) result in something called 'macro-evolution'.

"There is no proof of evolution!"

"Look, microbes that evolve..."

"Er...that's just microbes, now there is no proof of er...what will I call this...ah! There is no proof of MACROevolution (hmmm...I'm clever)!"

But, even though you won't listen:

Fish have swim blatters: simple organs that hold in air to controll buyoncy.

Some fish in the amazon that live where the water level drops dramatically in the dry season can breathe using this swim blatter. They take in gulps of air from their mouths and "swallow" them. The tissues of their swim blatter passes the oxygen to the bloodstream through capillaries.

Frogs have gills when infants, and then grow lungs that they fill with positive pressure created by their tongues pushing air inwards. They can hop out of the water and onto dry land, but they need to come back to the water to reproduce.

We have lungs, filled by negative pressure created by a big muscle situated below the lungs. Placed at the same place as swim blatters, connected to the mouth in much the same way, but they are much more complex, divided in countless small chambers to maximise the exposure of capillaries to the air we take in.
We walk around on dry land all the time, and don't need to come back to water to reproduce.

There you go. An organ that starts simple with a definate advantage (better swimming) and later evolves to be used as something else (from buyancy to oxygen gathering) and evolves further still to become more and more sofisticated. All the while giving new advantages (in the form of niches that the creatures without these advantages can't inhabit).
And you have a bunch of intermediary steps to boot. Fish, fish that can survive in low-water condition, something that starts out as a fish-like creature and then grows legs and lungs and can go over dry land from one low-water hole to the next, and then not-fish-at-all creatures that still need to take in water but that can live out of it all their lives.

Re:Fish, breathing fish, hoping fish, not fish.

[lineinthesand]

It's a pity you do not understand German, but I'll try to translate the difference between micro- and macro-evolution for you (source) The DNA-molecule has got the ability to copy itself with the help of certain polymerase enzymes in a way that 'daughter-threads' have got the same sequence of nucleotides as the 'matrix-threads'. In the process of copying errors may occur: mutations. This is the molecular mechanism of Darwinian 'alteration of genetic material'. Through mutation, selection and isolation new species are said to have evolved (macro-evolution) and within one species adaptive changes according to the Darwinian Theory of Evolution. But forming of a _new species_ requires formation of _new genes_. New genes are additional pieces in the macromolecule DNA. Their formation and installation is a synthesis reaction called polycondensation. Kann this happen through mutation? Short answer: 'no'. Of course this answer is reasoned, but I don't have the time to translate all this. (At least not now) Micro-evolutionary processes are mostly processes of optimization. German version from here Das DNS-Molekul hat die Fahigkeit, sich mit Hilfe von speziellen Polymerasen-Enzymen so zu verdoppeln, dass die Nukleotidreihenfolge der Tochterstrange dieselbe ist wie die der Matrix-Strange. Es kann zu Kopierfehlern kommen: Mutationen. Das ist der molekulare Mechanismus der Darwinschen Erbgutanderungen. Durch Mutation, Selektion und Isolierung (Restabilisierung) sollen sich (der von Darwin begrundeten Evolutionstheorie zufolge) immer wieder neue Arten gebildet haben (Makroevolution) und innerhalb der Arten Anpassungen, adaptive Veranderungen. Die Entstehung neuer Arten setzt die Entstehung neuer Gene voraus. Neue Gene sind neue Kettenstucke des Makromolekuls DNS. Ihre Entstehung, ihr Einbau, ist eine Polykondensation genannte Synthesereaktion. Kann sie durch Mutation erfolgen? - Dazu wieder Bruno Vollmert, die Fortsetzung seines bereits oben zitierten Radiovortrages Was Darwin nicht wissen konnte und Darwinisten nicht wissen wollen. Seine Antwort ist Nein. Im folgenden die Begrundung. [...]Mikroevolutive Vorgange sind meist Optimierungsvorgange.[...]

Interesting translation

[FlyingOrca]

In the process of copying errors may occur: mutations. This is the molecular mechanism of Darwinian 'alteration of genetic material'.

Not quite. Mutation also occurs through the action of outside agents - viruses, radiation, etc. Even that, though, is not the whole story; remember that every individual (broadly speaking) has a unique arrangement of genetic material. Evolutionary forces work upon both unique arrangements and the products of mutation and other forces.

An oft-quoted example of this is the pepper moth, a common insect of the British Isles. The pepper moth, like many species, has two distinct colour phases - individuals may be light or dark.

Prior to the Industrial Revolution, the light phase was most common, because light-coloured pepper moths were harder to spot against the bark of the trees on which they typically hung about. Once the Industrial Revolution's coal smoke darkened trees and buildings, the dark-phase moths came to dominate the species. That trend has reversed itself as the chemical composition of air pollution has changed. No mutation was necessary for this example of evolution through natural selection.

Through mutation, selection and isolation new species are said to have evolved (macro-evolution) and within one species adaptive changes according to the Darwinian Theory of Evolution. But forming of a _new species_ requires formation of _new genes_.

Blatantly untrue. New genes are NOT required to create a new species; rearranging existing genes or their expression is quite sufficient.

I don't have the time to translate all this. (At least not now)

How convenient. Not to worry, though; the bits that you quoted were enough to convince me that your source is pseudo-science at its, um, "best".

Micro-evolutionary processes are mostly processes of optimization.

The whole micro- vs. macro-evolution thing is one enormous red herring perpetrated by people who could not refute the inescapable, demonstrated fact of evolution through natural selection. Evolution in general (micro-, macro-, myxo-, whatever) is not a process of optimisation per se. It is a process whereby natural variation in genetic material is sifted on the basis of ability to propagate in a particular situation. Your use of the term "optimisation", which implies a goal or value, is incorrect.

Cheers!

Re:Interesting translation

[lineinthesand]

> Not quite. Mutation also occurs through the action of outside agents - viruses, radiation, etc. Well, viruses could possibly do the task I guess, requires of course creation of the virus in front. But that's not the point. When you're talking about outside agents like radiation or chemicals: what is the way they do the mutation? They alterate the DNA (Alkylation, 2+2 Cycloadditions...) so that it cannot be read correctly anymore, but the basic set of bases ATGC remains the same after copying. So the statement 'In the process of copying errors may occur: mutations' still holds true, no matter what caused the errors. > Blatantly untrue. New genes are NOT required to create a new species; rearranging existing genes or their expression is quite sufficient Could you give an example for this? > [...] light-coloured pepper moths were harder to spot against the bark of the trees on which they typically hung about. Once the Industrial Revolution's coal smoke darkened trees and buildings, the dark-phase moths came to dominate the species. That trend has reversed itself as the chemical composition of air pollution has changed. No mutation was necessary for this example of evolution through natural selection. OK, the way I understand this, the dark and the light coloured moths were out of the same species weren't they? And the existence of these variations is due to mutation, or am I completely mistaken? > Not to worry, though; the bits that you quoted were enough to convince me that your source is pseudo-science at its, um, "best". The only thing which seems pseudo-scientific to me is your way of leading a discussion.

Re:Interesting translation

[lineinthesand]

> Not quite. Mutation also occurs through the action of outside agents - viruses, radiation, etc.

Well, viruses could possibly do the task I guess, requires of course creation of the virus in front. But that's not the point. When you're talking about outside agents like radiation or chemicals: what is the way they do the mutation? They alterate the DNA (Alkylation, 2+2 Cycloadditions...) so that it cannot be read correctly anymore, but the basic set of bases ATGC remains the same after copying. So the statement 'In the process of copying errors may occur: mutations' still holds true, no matter what caused the errors.
> Blatantly untrue. New genes are NOT required to create a new species; rearranging existing genes or their expression is quite sufficient

Could you give an example for this?

> [...] light-coloured pepper moths were harder to spot against the bark of the trees on which they typically hung about. Once the Industrial Revolution's coal smoke darkened trees and buildings, the dark-phase moths came to dominate the species. That trend has reversed itself as the chemical composition of air pollution has changed. No mutation was necessary for this example of evolution through natural selection.

OK, the way I understand this, the dark and the light coloured moths were out of the same species weren't they? And the existence of these variations is due to mutation, or am I completely mistaken?

> Not to worry, though; the bits that you quoted were enough to convince me that your source is pseudo-science at its, um, "best".

The only thing which seems pseudo-scientific to me is your way of leading a discussion.

P.S.: Sorry for double posting - this time readable.

Re:Interesting translation

[FlyingOrca]

Didn't want you to think I've been ignoring your post, but I've become ridiculously busy. Briefly:

My first point was that mutations / genetic changes may take place PRIOR to copying, not solely IN copying.

New genes not required to create a new species: isn't this what some folks call "micro-evolution"?

Moths: same species, sure. But species aren't discrete little boxes, with a population jumping neatly from one to another; this example of natural selection is valid. Add up enough such changes, especially in an isolated population, and you have speciation.

Anyway, I don't really have time for this. I suggest you go read the FAQs at talkorigins.org - they cover all this ground quite thoroughly. Cheers!

Re:Interesting translation

[lineinthesand]

> Didn't want you to think I've been ignoring your post, but I've become ridiculously busy.

I wasn't thinking that (I understand you have a lot work to do).

While I consider this discussion to be finished just two more responses:

> My first point was that mutations / genetic changes may take place PRIOR to copying, not solely IN copying.

Agreed. First the change in the DNA then the copy error (Cause eg alkylated DNA doesn't propagate to following generations with the alkyl group still attached. But the alkyl group may cause a 'read error' possibly resulting in a base to be chosen different from the one carrying the alkyl group)

> Add up enough such changes, especially in an isolated population, and you have speciation

As I stated before that's the point that I doubt heavily but let's agree to differ.

Re: Two Christian creation myths

[lineinthesand]

Actually I read it about two weeks ago. I don't see two different reports here. The first one (Genesis 1) is a general one. The second one (Genesis 2) includes more details in particular concerning the creation of man. Do you see a contradiction here?

Holy wackos, Batman!

[FlyingOrca]

Right, Darwin didn't have to understand the *chemical details of genetics* to put forward a theory of evolution through natural selection. Just like Newton didn't have to understand the underlying mechanisms of light or gravity to write seminal works on optics or describe gravity.

The rest of your post is confusing nonsense, but I'll try to adress what seem to be points. Yes, you don't have to understand change at every level to comment on or describe change at a given level. Again, Newtonian physics vs. modern quantum/relativistic physics is the perfect example.

Faith, in the religious sense, has nothing to do with science. Science is about evidence. Religion offers no evidence in the scientific sense. Science and religion, rightly, should have nothing to do with each other.

Your use of the terms "theory" and "proof" suggest that you don't understand the scientific meaning of the former or the inapplicability of the latter (try "evidence", of which there is plenty). I suggest a visit to talkorigins.org and a thorough perusal of their FAQs.

As for you being a religious nut, well, it sounds that way to me, but YMMV. Your last few sentences are obviously some new cosmology; have you submitted it for peer review and publication in the journals? I'd love to hear the results.

Oh, and as for science only benefitting the scientist - since that includes technology, do you believe that technology has only helped the person who developed it? If not, you're simply using bad logic.

If that really is what you believe, though, you're a genuine wacko. Congratulations!