Roadkill Forcing Cliff Swallows To Evolve

sciencehabit writes "Cliff swallows that build nests that dangle precariously from highway overpasses have a lower chance of becoming roadkill than in years past thanks to a shorter wingspan that lets them dodge oncoming traffic. That's the conclusion of a new study based on 3 decades of data collected on one population of the birds. The results suggest that shorter wingspan has been selected for over this time period because of the evolutionary pressure put on the population by cars."

Comments

Re:first

[pecosdave]

That will be the downfall of your species. Those who march in front are merely the meat-shields for the warriors that follow, the first torn down by the musket balls and horse mounted cavalry while those behind remain to actually fight.

Tricky EIRs

[Anonymous Coward]

This could be tricky, if this gets classified as a new species, how do we factor in the need for persistant traffic in environmental impact reports? If we cut traffic this species would lose its competitive edge and thus habitat and could become extinct!

Re:Tricky EIRs

[cheater512]

Quick! Before it becomes a new established species, if you see one swerve your car dangerously to try and hit it!

Re:Tricky EIRs

[Luckyo]

No. The change is likely morphological rather then genealogical. As a result they will stay the same species, just like dogs do.

Re:Tricky EIRs

[NFN_NLN]

This could be tricky, if this gets classified as a new species, how do we factor in the need for persistant traffic in environmental impact reports? If we cut traffic this species would lose its competitive edge and thus habitat and could become extinct!

Unlike religion, taxonomy is based on science. You can't just name something a new species because of a slight variation.

Species:
A group of living organisms consisting of similar individuals capable of exchanging genes or interbreeding.

If the short wing swallows can breed with the long wing swallows to create fertile offspring... they probably aren't a new species.

Re:Tricky EIRs

[fustakrakich]

...environmental impact reports?

Don't be a smartass...

Re:Tricky EIRs

[Anonymous Coward]

This could be tricky, if this gets classified as a new species, how do we factor in the need for persistant traffic in environmental impact reports? If we cut traffic this species would lose its competitive edge and thus habitat and could become extinct!

Unlike religion, taxonomy is based on science. You can't just name something a new species because of a slight variation.

Species:
A group of living organisms consisting of similar individuals capable of exchanging genes or interbreeding.

If the short wing swallows can breed with the long wing swallows to create fertile offspring... they probably aren't a new species.

That's not "based on science". Nobody experimentally determined that to be the definition as if the English word "species" and its definition were a immutable naturally occurring property of the universe. That's merely "based on semantics".

Re:Tricky EIRs

[captainpanic]

If you take a population of poodles, and breed them selectively for long enough, they would become a separate species. It just hasn't gotten that far yet.
These swallows can just mix with the general population too, but given enough time, would become a separate species.

Re:Tricky EIRs

[Razgorov Prikazka]

>> No. The change is likely morphological rather then genealogical. As a result they will stay the same species, just like dogs do.

And what if hedgehogs 'evolve' tungsten-carbide spikes that make car tires deflate so that they are fighting back the cars that kill them, and the car makers fit all their cars with caterpillar tracks... Would you consider those cars 'merely morphological' or genealogical different?
And what about flying cars, is /that/ a new breed to you?

Re:Tricky EIRs

[Anonymous Coward]

As far as I can tell, breed != species. A car is a car is a car, no matter it's shape and features. Some people even interbreed them and obtain viable (for various sizes of "viable") offspring.

Re:Tricky EIRs

[serviscope_minor]

A group of living organisms consisting of similar individuals capable of exchanging genes or interbreeding.

You make it sound so easy, when it is not, and the GP has a point.

It's easy to tell when two things aren't the same species in many cases: e.g. a grey parrot and a rainbow trout.

But in many cases it's very much harder. Evoloution isn't a neat tree with branches handily cut off as species (or clades). It's a DAG which at coarse scales rather resembles a tree. The arrows point in the direction of time since that is the only hard constraint. As such there are no real "branches", only things that kind of appear to be from a distance.

Speciation is very hard to detect definitevely, especially when there are so many awkward cases. For example a ring species, where most members cannot interbreed. Or plants which can hybridise across qite wide gaps and remain a little bit fertile.

And what about when eucaryotes absorbed organelles like mitochondria? At that point to disparate species *merged* into one---a rare occurance but it appears to have happened.

Since the definition of species is essentially a somewhat arbitrary clustering of the DAG describing all parent/child relations the definition gets spotty and difficult aound the edges.

Re:Tricky EIRs

[Lotana]

Species definition is quite messy. Easiest example is Tiger and Lion; They are listed as members of two separate species, yet they can interbreed.

Re:Tricky EIRs

[wisnoskij]

That is the same thing. They would still become different species after their outward appearance changed sufficiently, just like dog breeds.

A 180-pound English Mastiff and a two-pound Chihuahua, are not the same species, by any definition of the term.

Re:Tricky EIRs

[bluefoxlucid]

A group of living organisms consisting of similar individuals capable of exchanging genes or interbreeding. The species is the principal natural taxonomic unit, ranking below a genus and denoted by a Latin binomial, e.g., Homo sapiens

If the sperm from one can create fertile offspring in the other, it's the same species...

Re:Tricky EIRs

[sargon666777]

That's amazing.. I've never seen someone interbreed a car... :-)

Re:Tricky EIRs

[dlingman]

Rule 34 applies, even to autos.

Re:Tricky EIRs

[morgauxo]

Oh, like homo sapiens and neanderthals right?

Re:Tricky EIRs

[tehcyder]

A 180-pound English Mastiff and a two-pound Chihuahua, are not the same species, by any definition of the term.

Yes they are. "Dog" is a species. All dogs can breed with each other. That's good enough for me.

Re:Tricky EIRs

[hoboroadie]

My friend Don's Pontiac GTO came equipped with a Ford top-loader four-speed. We always wondered how that happened...

Re:Tricky EIRs

[wisnoskij]

First off that is not the definition of a species.

And even using that definition, the would not be considered a species.

We all use DNA, so it would not be difficult to interbreed any two species on the planet together. How a species puts together its sperm and eggs prevents most species from interbreeding, but that is a tiny part of an organism and not particularly important when defining species.

Let us assume that even if you could impregnate a female Mastiff with with Chihuahua sperm that she came to term and game birth and that that pup could be raised with human intervention. If you did the inverse with a female Chihuahua all you would get is a dead Chihuahua. So the genetics of these two species cannot be mixed, so by your definition they are different species.

But, this is all theoretical stuff that would be confined to a laboratory, as they cannot mate. So even by the interbreeding definition of a species they are different species.

But that is really just the populous, easy to quantify, definition of a species. Which is not to say that a better defined definition exists, just that a species is not a distinct easily identified group. No definition really holds water in real world, as most real world examples do not fit within it. Their are loads of different species that can and do interbreed, currently and historically. Our Human ancestors and Neanderthals for example, which are sometimes classified as subspecies because of this fact, but their is probably not a species that ever existed that could not interbreed with at least one other species. That is part of the point of the long and involved mating rituals and bright distinctive markings on animals, to prevent interbreeding when it could physically and biologically occur.

Re:Tricky EIRs

[wisnoskij]

No they cannot. It is physically impossible.

And loads of different species can interbreed, in that if we could force them breed together they could produce offspring. That does not make them the same species...

This seems to be a pretty good introduction to what a species is, but I just glanced at it (http://rafonda.com/interbreeding_between_species.html)

Re:Tricky EIRs

[Muad'Dave]

Physical compatibility aside, the definition of a species is the biocompatibility and viability of their germ cells, NOT THEIR PHYSICAL ABILITY TO MATE AND CARRY OFFSPRING TO TERM.

You said, "And loads of different species can interbreed, in that if we could force them breed together they could produce offspring." Yes, horses and donkeys can interbreed - but their progeny are NOT (typically) FERTILE.

From the most often accepted definition of species (emphasis mine): "groups of actually or potentially interbreeding natural populations, which are reproductively isolated from other such groups. ... In a few cases it may be physically impossible for animals that are members of the same species to mate. However, these are cases, such as in breeds of dogs, in which human intervention has caused gross morphological changes, and are therefore excluded by the biological species concept."

You cling to your incorrect definition of 'species' like your life depends on it; what's up with that?

Re:Tricky EIRs

[wisnoskij]

The idea of a species is effected most of all by morphological changes.

When a scientist discovers a new bug, he does not find other bugs that are closely related and put them all in a bucket filled with alcohol and massage oil. He decides if it looks different enough to be labeled a different species.

When a bird watcher finds a new group of birds with completely different bright and distinctive markings that do not interbreed with other birds, he does not say: other than the color this group is almost identifiable to twelve other tropical birds, I am going to inseminate twelve females from each group with the sperm from all the other specie's males (one male to a female) and see if they can technically interbreed.

No, he decides if it is a species based on looks (morphological changes). Mostly interbreeding does not even play a factor, as if they look distinctive than they must not interbreed very often if at all. But similarly , you can define a two distinct species as two groups that do not normally interbreed.

Re:Tricky EIRs

[Sique]

Actually, they can't. First, they live on different continents. Thus they don't interbred (experiments in zoos notwithstanding). Second, the male Liger, the offspring of a male lion and a female tiger, is infertile. The interbreding doesn't continue into the second generation (you could probably interbred a female liger with both tigers and lions, but ligers are much larger than both tigers and lions, thus no male tiger or lion would ever try to interbred with a liger female).

Re:Tricky EIRs

[Runaway1956]

You seem to be looking at one characteristic, size, and ruling out any possibility of the dogs breeding.

You could take a smallish border collie, breed into the chihuahua, breed into mastiff - then breed the two litters together. We'll end up with some small mastiff looking dogs, and some large chihuahua looking dogs, but mostly average sized border collie looking dogs. I'm oversimplfying, of course, but the point is, the two breeds you've named are the same species. Each species can interbreed with any number of a third species, with ease.

Re:Tricky EIRs

[wisnoskij]

I am not overlooking this. Yes you can do this, and it even could work. You might even just be able to skip the intermediate steps and grow the babies in a test tube.

But you could do that for many many different species. Different species most often can interbreed. A money and a human, for example, hell if you intervened enough you might be able to find something as different as a seal and a human create a living organism together. Also these chains of one species can breed with anouther that can breed with a third, but the first cannot breed with the third directly, happen all the time an part of the reason that defining species is so hard. But that does not invalidate every species involved in this chain and does not means that the first can interbreed with the third, etc..

By that logic, you could breed a human with a proto-human, and then breed that offspring with a chimp, and so on a so forth until you get a lizard. That does not mean we are the same species as a lizard or a chimp.

BTW that human/chimp idea was just off the cuff, but apparently that hybrid actually has a name, a Humanzee (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanzee).

Re:Tricky EIRs

[VoidCrow]

That wikipedia link was fascinating - thanks for that.

Re:Tricky EIRs

[Luckyo]

I don't think you understand the numbers involved. Morphological changes are adaptation for short term. Genealogical are typically long term. In terms of evolutionary progress. "Long term" means either to nine digits of years and up.

So i a way you're correct, but you're either splitting hairs or being silly. Because you're have to "bred pooches" for at least some hundreds of thousands to millions of years for them to start to meaningfully diverge on genetic level. Dogs for example are still wolves as far as genealogy is concerned. The difference is only morphological.

Same thing with these swallows. It's highly unlikely that threat of highway cars will persist long enough to cause genealogical changes.

Re:Tricky EIRs

[bluefoxlucid]

We all use DNA, so it would not be difficult to interbreed any two species on the planet together. How a species puts together its sperm and eggs prevents most species from interbreeding, but that is a tiny part of an organism and not particularly important when defining species.

Categorically false. Chromosome counts are the lay-explanation; but notably, DNA comes in pairs. You have a gene for blue eyes... on one set of your DNA. You also have a second complete set of human DNA, the entire genome, which is matched and sequenced correctly. In this set is the gene for brown eyes. This determines your eye color.

If your genetics don't match up properly, your chromosomes can't pair correctly and they can't do the job of supplying genetic data. You need a complete set of homologous chromosomes to create offspring, aside from the gender-determining chromosomes which are slightly different (i.e. an XX pair for male seagulls versus an XY pair for female seagulls).

Chromosome counts being wrong obviously means the data's incompatible, either by being wrong or being theoretically compatible but mismatched and incapable of aligning and interacting. Also the chromosomes may have different structure--the crossing vertex may occur at a different point (i.e. the intersection of the X is higher/lower), or at the ends (producing a V or a straight line); the position of genes may be completely wrong, shuffled around different chromosomes, or there may be non-existent genes etc; the chromosomes may even just be larger/smaller. Obviously, drastic changes must occur to have different chromosome counts--different genes, different layout of the same genes (i.e. more compact, less junk, longer/shorter chromosomes), and the like. Drastic changes may occur without changing the number or even major structure of the chromosomes, yet produce something completely incompatible.

Honestly, some women die when impregnated, because they're too small for babies. Are these women who cannot give birth without dying and killing the baby as well a different species? Do they need smaller men?

Re:Tricky EIRs

[ChrisMaple]

It's also worth noting that biologists are continually quibbling over whether or not two particular varieties of creatures are separate species or not. It's a difficult technical issue. We're looking for a definition that provides the best utility for human understanding, and that involves criteria from general appearance all the way down to the molecular scale.

Re:Tricky EIRs

[Luckyo]

Mastiff and chihuahua are the same species. They merely have severe morphological differences that may cause birth defects. In fact, many of the dog "races" are so selectively bred, that their morphology is simply pushing the boundaries of what their wolf genetics allow for. So you get things like pugs with massive problems from their brain not fitting their skull and so on.

Definition of new species is "outcome of interbreeding of two different species that can interbreed among themselves and produce offspring that can also breed to produce more of the same kind".

For example mules are a species hybrid of a horse and a donkey. They are viable, but they cannot produce offspring. As a result, they are not new species.

You can on the other hand cross-breed any dog with a wolf, and get viable offspring that can produce viable offspring. That's because dogs are merely morphologically different from wolves and from one another.

There are significant morphological differences amongst humans as well. We call them "race", "height", "weight" and so on. For example, colour of skin is a morphological change within species to adapt to amount of sunlight of the region. These are different expressions of existing genome, coupled with effects of environment.

Also, a significant genealogical difference is required to make something classified as new species. For example mutation that causes sickle red cell anaemia is significant as it was used by humans to adapt against malaria parasite. But it's not enough to make humans who inherit the necessary genome into entirely new species.

Re:Tricky EIRs

[cusco]

In terms of evolutionary progress. "Long term" means either to nine digits of years and up.

Nonsense. English Sparrows are very close to speciation already, and they've only been in North America for a couple hundred years. The songs of North American sparrows have diverged enough that sparrows from England show little to no interest in breeding with them. You could undoubtedly artificially inseminate them, genetically they're pretty much identical, but one of the various definitions of 'species' refers to natural interbreeding. It would not be at all surprising to see short-winged cliff sparrows preferentially breeding with other short-winged sparrows, to the point where eventually they will refuse long-winged suitors. If their plumage changes color because of some other environmental factor (not unlikely) you'd see the divergence even quicker.

Re:Tricky EIRs

[Luckyo]

So you claim that people with dwarfism and people with uncontrolled growth due to thyroid gland issues are not the same species? The difference is largely the same as one between chihuahua and mastiff.

Re:Tricky EIRs

[wisnoskij]

Thanks for the involved explanation, but the fact that we all use the same DNA does make all species far more compatible than if we used different ways to encoding genetic information. And in fact different Chromosome counts/order is not an absolute interbreeding prevention, to the best of my knowledge see quote: "Having different numbers of chromosomes is not an absolute barrier to hybridization. Similar mismatches are relatively common in existing species, a phenomenon known as chromosomal polymorphism".

"Honestly, some women die when impregnated, because they're too small for babies. Are these women who cannot give birth without dying and killing the baby as well a different species? Do they need smaller men?" Great example, and along the same lines as I what have been saying.
Which is not to rule it out. I would say that their is enough difference in modern Humans for some of them to be considered distinct species or subspecies. A different color and geographic location is more than enough to get a pair of similar birds labeled as separate species, for example.

Re:Tricky EIRs

[iamgnat]

Let us assume that even if you could impregnate a female Mastiff with with Chihuahua sperm

We don't have to assume anything. Different breeds mate all the time and produce viable offspring. Poodles and Labradors are the current most famous generating the recently accredited Labradoodle. I personally have 3 lab mixes (Walker Coonhound, Border Collie, and Norwegian Elkhound) and we previously had a Dachshund/Coonhound. All common dogs are from the base Canine species (Canis lupus familiaris if you want to be technical), which is then in turn a sub-species of the Grey Wolf (Canis lupus). Wolf != Dog at the species level. Chihuahua == Mastiff at the species level. Chihuahua != Mastiff at the breed level.

Next time please understand the subject of your analogy before throwing it out. In fact if you had spent 5 seconds you'd see that your "impossible" mix is indeed quite possible.

Re:Tricky EIRs

[wisnoskij]

Facepalm. It is like no one is eve listening.

morphological is not something separate from evolution and the definition of a species.

The mule example is an easy to explain and understand definition that is taught to grade 9s. It is not like that in the real world. It is entirely possible that a Chimp and a Human could produce viable and fertile offspring (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanzee). That does not make us the same species, and I guarantee you that both use and Chips could breed with proto-humans and produce viable offspring.

The idea of evolution only works because different species can interbreed and produce viable offspring. There are no distinct borders, and I could inseminate something, that could itself mate with something else, and so on and so forth all the wary down to green slimly algae, if you included all species who ever existed

Re:Tricky EIRs

[wisnoskij]

Not really, but if they could not produce fertile offspring that is what others are claiming.
But there is enough difference in modern humans to create a few species or subspecies within the current population.

If this dwarfism is genetic and inheritable, and the uncontrolled motherer is the same. Such that we have a population of 3 foot humans and another one of 10. Well yes those would obviously be different species. A asian village filled with 3-4 footers and an african one where everyone is over 6 are different species, in so many ways (possibly even the giant african male could not breed successfully with the tiny asian).

Re:Tricky EIRs

[Luckyo]

Just wondering how long it will take you to realise that none of these changes make them different species.

Re:Tricky EIRs

[cusco]

Depends on which definition of 'species' you use. Grizzly bears and polar bears can physically interbreed, but they don't. Are they the same species? Some biologists will say yes, others will say no. Species is one of the messier words in science.

BTW, **NINE** digits of years? 100 million or more? Only three million years ago we were Australopithecenes, do you actually think Homo Sapiens haven't made 'long term' changes in the interim? 70 million years ago we were rat-sized egg-laying insectivores, are you really sure that we haven't changed significantly since then?

Re:Tricky EIRs

[Zalbik]

Just wondering how long it will take you to realise that none of these changes make them different species.

That's what I thought too, but then I actually looked it up and found the GP is actually right. Two groups of animals can be morphologically the same, but still considered different species due to natural inhibitions against interbreeding.

Re:Tricky EIRs

[serviscope_minor]

Actually, they can't. First, they live on different continents. Thus they don't interbred (experiments in zoos notwithstanding).

By that definition I'd be a different species from Americans and Austrailians among others. It doesn't hold.

Liger, the offspring of a male lion and a female tiger, is infertile.

Not according to wikipedia.

but ligers are much larger than both tigers and lions, thus no male tiger or lion would ever try to interbred with a liger female

Again, not according to wikipedia (complete with citations).

Ring species are even more complicated, where members of the same species really cannot interbreed.

Re:Tricky EIRs

[wisnoskij]

Yes, and we could create a proto-humans + human + chip mix. We are still not the same species as a chimp.

Re:Tricky EIRs

[Luckyo]

We're listening. You're just spouting ridiculous claims.

For example, by your own words, a human with hyperactive thyroid and person with dwarfism are in fact two different species.

Re:Tricky EIRs

[nitehawk214]

...environmental impact reports?

Don't be a smartass...

Sounds like something the Mythbusters would do. Reminds me of the chicken cannon....

Re:Tricky EIRs

[Sique]

Actually, they can't. First, they live on different continents. Thus they don't interbred (experiments in zoos notwithstanding).

By that definition I'd be a different species from Americans and Austrailians among others. It doesn't hold.

Humans are known to travel between continents. Lions and tigers aren't. Thus the argument still stands.

Liger, the offspring of a male lion and a female tiger, is infertile.

Not according to wikipedia.

According to the german Wikipedia, male ligers (you gracefully omitted the "male" while quoting) are infertile. So we have Wikipedia against Wikipedia.

Re:Tricky EIRs

[Alsee]

Definition of new species is "outcome of interbreeding of two different species that can interbreed among themselves and produce offspring that can also breed to produce more of the same kind".

Your biology teacher needs to be SHOT.
Or more likely, you never had one.

-

Re:Tricky EIRs

[idunham]

Notwithstanding all the rumors, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanzee has this to say:
"Chimpanzees and humans are closely related (95% of their DNA sequence, and 99% of coding DNA sequences are in common), leading to contested speculation that a hybrid is possible...

However, despite speculation, no case of a human-chimpanzee cross has ever been confirmed to exist."
And no, that article about "specificity of human spermatazoa" (http://dx.doi.org/10.1002%2Far.1091880407) does not mean that a gibbon-human cross is necessarily possible: the test described is simply whether the sperm can attach. From the abstract, even monkey sperm could attach to human oocytes:
"For the failure of human spermatozoa to attach to the zona surface of all non-hominoid oocytes stands in contrast to the behaviour of spermatozoa of the several other mammals studied which, in most combinations, adhered readily to foreign oocytes, including those of man."

Re:Tricky EIRs

[Luckyo]

So, by your measuring stick, how many species of humans exist? We have black humans, pink humans, red humans, yellowish humans, humans with dwarfism, humans with hyperactive thyroid who grow well past 2 meters tall and so on.

Fact it, your measuring stick is utterly absurd and serves only one purpose: to meet your own arbitrary requirements. Generally accepted scientific requirements are well laid out, and while it is indeed sometimes difficult to tell species apart without significant and costly genetic testing, the accepted norm of what defines species has been stated in this thread.

You're essentially that one person that tries to ram through intelligent design as a real scientific theory because it's the only one that matches his religious beliefs.

Re:Tricky EIRs

[Luckyo]

Being morphologically same does not mean being genealogically same. Also, this is turning the entire argument here on its head - the argument was that species that are genealogically same but morphologically dramatically different are same species.

Re:Tricky EIRs

[Luckyo]

Because nothing solves an argument between humans like good old fashioned murder. Survivor is always right.

Re:Tricky EIRs

[cusco]

Would you mind informing me what my 'religious beliefs' are? I'm afraid that I wasn't aware that I had any, this should be educational . . .

Are polar bears and grizzly bears the same species? Yes or no? Are red wolves and coyotes the same species? They can mate and have fertile offspring.

Re:Tricky EIRs

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, when do the car manufacturers start putting soft, auto lubricating exhaust pipes to their cars!? The metal Kitty hurts.

Re:Tricky EIRs

[Luckyo]

Basic genetics: all of these people may have the same genes, just expressed differently. Cross-breeding creates new expressions of existing genes.

Re:Tricky EIRs

[serviscope_minor]

Humans are known to travel between continents. Lions and tigers aren't. Thus the argument still stands.

Sure they do: humans move them. 10,000 years ago, humans did not travel from where I am (UK) to Austrailia. We're still the sams species.

According to the german Wikipedia, male ligers (you gracefully omitted the "male" while quoting) are infertile. So we have Wikipedia against Wikipedia.

Didn't notice the male, no intent to misquote. OK, well English wikipedia points to a recent 2012 source showing a fertile liger. Perhaps the German one hasn't been updated yet.

You also ignored my point about ring species.

And what about fertile plant hybrids across quite wide species gaps?

And even broader horizontal gene transfer among bacteria?

Re:Tricky EIRs

[Sique]

Sure they do: humans move them. 10,000 years ago, humans did not travel from where I am (UK) to Austrailia. We're still the sams species.

10.000 years are just 400 generations, not enough for speciation. And humans travelled during the whole history. Not necessarily a single person from the British Islands directly to Australia, but Britons to continental Europe, continental Europeans to the Persian Mountains, Persians to India, Indians to Indochina, Indochinese people to Polynesia, and Polynesians to Australia and New Zealand. Lions and tigers had their last common ancestor at least 2 million years ago. The fossil record of tigers starts on the indochinesian islands (especially Java, with fossils about 1,6 to 1,8 million years old), and only 100,000 to 70,000 years ago the species Panthera tigris seems to have started to spread through the whole of Asia. Given the average live expectation of tigers in the wild of less than 10 years, 2 million years means 200,000 generations - quite a difference compared with 400 generations.

You also ignored my point about ring species.

I had no reason to argue against ring species. So why repeat the argument?

And what about fertile plant hybrids across quite wide species gaps?

And even broader horizontal gene transfer among bacteria?

We can agree that the term "species" is not as sharp defined within Biology as some people would like (mostly people outside Biology who insist on some holy and only meaning of a term without knowing how it's actually used). But that's life -- in the true meaning of the word. There are much more complicated examples than Panthera leo and Panthera tigris. If you can get a good write-up of the reproduction of Taraxacum officinale, you will notice that the common dandelion is everything but common, when it comes to reproduction. One could easily argue that there are thousands of different dandelion species, or just a single one, or that each generation of dandelion would be a separate species.

The term "species" is more of a concept than a strict definition, a concept which is helpful in many cases, but creates but confusion in others. Terms make sense anyway only within a theory, and are never absolute. Species within the theory of evolution is about generating common offspring, and natural selection. In this sense, lions and tigers are not naturally interbreeding, being separated by thousands of miles without any natural occurence of neither lions nor tigers. Thus it makes sense to view them as separate species, because without human interference, they will never mate. As the speciation itself is a gradual process and nothing that happens suddenly from one generation to the next, you will always find border cases which are "nearly still the same species" or "two separate species in most cases with some exceptions proving the rule". But that's ok. Nature is not neatly sorted and categorized, it's just our human understanding that needs those categories and tries to sort everything.

Re:Tricky EIRs

[Alsee]

Saying your teacher (if you had one) should be shot is a rather obviously a figure of speech. Whinging about "murder" is a rather weak diversion from the fact that evolution-denialists typically little or no understanding of biology and what evolution actually says. It's like someone arguing "Relativity is wrong, I drove my car in reverse and my watch didn't run backwards".

Your definition of species made no sense, it had no resemblance to biology. Defining speciation as the "outcome of interbreeding of two different species" sounds like you have some bizzaro-cartoon image that evolution says something like a fish and a lizard have sex and a new species amphibian pops out.

-

Re:Tricky EIRs

[Luckyo]

I drew a comparison between your line of arguing, and that of a religious person pushing for intelligent design as science. I did not at any point make any claims as to knowing what your religious beliefs are.

Re:Tricky EIRs

[Luckyo]

I see the problem now. You missed a very important word in the sentence. Not "species". "New species". Apples to oranges. A new species which is born of out union of two different species.

Definition of EXISTING species is much harder to make, because we lack detailed genealogical data on most species. As a result, same species can often be classified as several different ones until we find out differently and vice versa. I imagine if we were a higher life form and met humans today, we'd likely classify them into many species rather then single one based on morphology, until more detailed tests could be made.

Re:Tricky EIRs

[serviscope_minor]

ok.

Re:Tricky EIRs

[Alsee]

You missed a very important word in the sentence. Not "species". "New species".

No, I didn't miss anything. Your definition of new species is ridiculous. News species (almost) never originate from the union of two different species. New species (nearly always) arise from a single population which splits into two (or more sub-populations which cease interbreeding for any reason.

A single original species called mammal splits, developing into a rodent population, a whale population, a primate population, a carnivore population, and others. That single original carnivore species splits into a feline population, an ursine (bear) population, and a canine population. That original canine species splits into a fox population, a jackal population, a coyote population, and a wolf population. That original (ancient)wolf species splits into a (modern)wolf population and a dog population. That original dog population splits into a multitude of modern breeds. The exact same process, every step of the way. The only difference is how much time has passed since animals shared a common ancestor, how much time there has been for differences to accumulate. If every breed of dog except great danes and chihuahuas were to drop dead today, great danes and chihuahuas would be two separate species. The size difference alone is enough to make (natural)mating between them physically impossible. They would have two completely separate gene pools, making them two separate species. With no possibility for geneflow between them, their genetics will inevitably and increasingly diverge over time. Given 50 million years - the same time since the canine-feline split, great danes and chihuahuas would become as physically and genetically different as cats and dogs.

-

Re:Tricky EIRs

[dywolf]

That's only because they keep breeding poodles to be poodles. They arent selectively breeding them to change them into something new.
If it was me, I'd be going for size....big,,,curly haired...attack poodles!

Re:Tricky EIRs

[dywolf]

Actually, they used to share much of their terrirtory. Its only in the last 160 years or so that their ranges have dwindled to the extent that they can no longer mix.

Re:Tricky EIRs

[dywolf]

Because lions and tigers know and care what continents are...
or, sorry, I didn't realize there was an anti-animal-immigration wall between Africa, Eurasia, and East Asia....
or...i'll stop witht he jokes cause this is jsut silly

Actually, they used to share much of their terrirtory. Its only in the last 160 years or so that their ranges have dwindled to the extent that they can no longer mix. Both used to inhabit much of the Indian subcontinent, as well as the eurasian subcontinent (think Turkey and Caucaus mountains)

Re:Tricky EIRs

[Anonymous Coward]

do you actually think Homo Sapiens haven't made 'long term' changes in the interim? 70 million years ago we were rat-sized egg-laying insectivores, are you really sure that we haven't changed significantly since then?

Well we haven't gotten any smarter

Re:Tricky EIRs

[cusco]

In answer to your question, since the red, yellow, pink, dwarf and giant humans all willingly (and frequently) interbreed, one species. Grizzly bears and polar bears do not. Red wolves and coyotes do not. Both of them can be crossed and produce viable, fertile offspring. Are there two species of bear, and two species of canine, or just one of each? Different biologists will give you different answers, depending on which definition seems most relevant to them.

I'm really not sure where you have trouble with my "line of arguing", the question seems fairly straightforward to me. Are red wolves and coyotes the same species? Are grizzly bears and polar bears the same species?

Re:Tricky EIRs

[Luckyo]

Start reading the thread from beginning. You went so far off topic, that you ended up concluding that our conclusions on a completely different topic were in fact wrong.

Specifically, we were talking about interbreeding and its results in short (hundreds of generations or so). You're talking about genealogical divergence, which takes many orders of magnitude more generations.

Re:Tricky EIRs

[Luckyo]

Your question basically hinges on the fact that we did not possess understanding of how genes work, or even their existence while we mapped many of species on our planet. Essentially your argument is akin (note: another comparison, do not take this literally either please) saying that blood is generated in liver and consumed by the body, which was the common belief in medical science until very recently.

Same thing happened to definition of species. We used to define them based on how they looked instead of genealogical definition, just like we defined our blood system as "generation and consumption" rather then "circulation". Both changed when better understanding became available.

Problem is that unlike medical science which requires immediate change to our understanding regardless of opposition due to very lethal outcome for many people if such change is not implemented, genealogy like many modern sciences tends to be "up to belief". Some people still believe that earth is flat. Some believe that species should be defined by how they look.

Both claims are absurd, because they are based on prioritising what we can observe with our immediate sensory organs over understanding how the system actually works. It's not different then rejecting concept of blood circulation in favour of blood creation and consumption because we can't easily observe circulation.

On a final note, if species are genealogically significantly different, but can cross-breed and produce viable offspring, the offspring are typically considered a new species. Such species may not be evolutionarily viable as it would not be able to compete with its parent species. As a result, it's likely that there are built-in fail safes in our mating procedures (just like there is a certain natural revulsion to mating with ones parents and brothers/sisters as well as breeding with individuals who look very different in most species) which make such breeding fairly rare.

Re:Tricky EIRs

[comnonsense]

What amazes me is otherwise intelligent people buy this nonsense. Evolutionary pressure? Exactly what is that? I know what people claim it is but in order to change a bird {or anything else for that matter} into a non-bird would require writing a new biotic code for the creature. That cannot be down by sorting random copying mistakes with Natural Selection. Selection requires something to select and something is always lost in the process. All natural selection can do is sort out genetic information for avian lungs , avian brains, avian skeletons, wings feathers etc. There is a big difference between a swallow and a condor but they are both birds and no amount of time and chance one can imagine will ever change that. Only God can create. I don't want to believe in God and you can't mak me is not a scientific statement. It's like being told to investigate a man stabbed in his sleep but no matter what you cannot conclude an intelligent being killed him on purpose.

Re:Tricky EIRs

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, Grizzly and Polar bears are interbreeding in the wild:

http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/animals/stories/first-wild-polar-grizzly-bear-hybrid-offspring-discovered

Scary shit!

Re:Tricky EIRs

[comnonsense]

Apparently you are satisfied with having others think for you. First of all ALL people are religious, nothing is more religious than secular humanism! I am a creationist but most of the scientific arguments from I.D. I agree with. You have been brainwashed into believing all scientist accept evolution and millions of years, that is a lie from hell. The best geo-physicist on earth is a creationist , the best surgeon , over 50 biology professors , and one of the best astro-physicist as well. No evolutionist has ever founded a major branch of science and to the best of my knowledge none have made any world changing inventions like the M.R.I. as the staunch creationist Dr. David Damadian did. Claiming there is no scientific argument for an ancient earth , 6000 years is ancient compared to our lifespans, or for a supernatural creation is elephant hurling. It is a fallacious {dishonest} argument that simply tries to ignore the opposing arguments which you are ignorant of. To turn a gull into a non-bird you would have to rewrite the code and codes do not write themselves, that requires intelligence!

Re:Tricky EIRs

[comnonsense]

Neanderthals are human beings.

Re:Tricky EIRs

[Anonymous Coward]

The best thing about your religion is that it will disappear someday, as all religions eventually become extinct.

Interesting fact: the Bible doesn't mention evolution at all - not even to warn believers away from it. Why is that?

Re:Tricky EIRs

[comnonsense]

Millions of years and evolution are religious as can be. Any scientific evidence , which is overwhelming. that the earth cannot be billions of years old and self reproducing organisms cannot form from an inorganic soup sans intelligence atheism require great time periods and evolutiojn. To be a secular humanist you have to have millions of years to imagine the impossible . Basing your beliefs on , in your words. {. Generally accepted scientific requirements} is a sure sign one is ignorant of the subject at hand and is afraid to think for themselves and too intellectually lazy to learn the facts and decide truth for themselves, even if you get laughed at by the flock.

Re:Tricky EIRs

[comnonsense]

Talk about ramming through nonsense as science:\ Article from: Creation Volume 20Issue 3 Cover Amazing admission Professor Richard Lewontin, a geneticist (and self-proclaimed Marxist), is certainly one of the world’s leaders in evolutionary biology. He wrote this very revealing comment (the italics were in the original). It illustrates the implicit philosophical bias against Genesis creation—regardless of whether or not the facts support it. ‘We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.

Re:Tricky EIRs

[comnonsense]

Actually evolutionists are shocked that speciation happens billions of times faster than Darwin imagined and it can happen in just a few generations. The finches of the Galapogos are now estimated to be able to speciate in 200 years. The big question is ,SO WHAT ? Just because an animal no longer breeds with animals it use to does not make them something else. There are rabbits in America that have speciated but they are still rabbits . To make them something other than a rabbit require rewriting their biotic code. Codes do not write themselves , intelligence does not rise by itself from matter. Information is prima facia evidence of intelligence. Researchers in Trinidad relocated guppies (Poecilia reticulata) from a waterfall pool teeming with predators to previously guppy-free pools above the falls where there was only one known possible predator (of small guppies only, therefore large guppies would be safe).1 The descendants of the transplanted guppies adjusted to their new circumstances by growing bigger, maturing later, and having fewer and bigger offspring. The speed of these changes bewildered evolutionists, because their standard millions-of-years view is that the guppies would require long periods of time to adapt. One evolutionist said, ‘The guppies adapted to their new environment in a mere four years—a rate of change some 10,000 to 10 million times faster than the average rates determined from the fossil record.’2 Morell, V., Predator-free guppies take an evolutionary leap forward, Science 275(5308):1880, 1997. Flies, fish and finches Wikimedia commons: Marrabbio2 Other examples of rapid adaptation, even to the extent of producing ‘new species’—speciation—abound. (If a population arises from another which cannot interbreed anymore with its parent population, it is generally defined as a new species.) Creation magazine recently reported how evolutionists described as ‘alarming’ the rate of change in the wingspan of European fruit flies introduced accidentally to America.8,9,10 Similarly, rapid changes have been reported recently for Drosophila fruit flies and sockeye salmon—within just nine and thirteen generations respectively.11 In the case of Darwin’s famous finches, it had been estimated that from one million to five million years would have been necessary for today’s Galapagos Island species to radiate from their parent populations. But actual observations of rapid finch adaptation have forced evolutionists to scale that back to a timeframe of just a few centuries But again it was the speed of adaptation, many thousands of times higher than (their interpretation of) the ‘fossil record’ that surprised evolutionists. Case, T.J., Natural selection out on a limb, Nature 387(6628):15–16, 1997

excellent!

[arekin]

Now if only humans would evolve that fast...

Re:excellent!

[Anonymous Coward]

Now if only humans would evolve that fast...

Or at all!

Re:excellent!

[Anonymous Coward]

We are, haven't you seen all the obese folks walking around? Apparently it is no inhibition to reproduction anymore.

Re:excellent!

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe we'll evolve smaller thumbs for texting on smartphones? That would be an evolutionary advantage, of sorts.

Re:excellent!

[Grayhand]

Now if only humans would evolve that fast...

We have. Our asses have spread to better secure ourselves to couches. Our bellies are also evolving into shelves for beer cans.

Re:excellent!

[foreverdisillusioned]

Err, that's nothing to do with the evolution of sexual desire, that's only because we've become so incredibly good at making cheap food. Haven't you ever seen those stone fertility idols? Or heard of societies where obesity is/was a sign of the aristocracy? People have gotten extra sex because they were fat for far longer than they've been denied reproductive opportunities for the same.

Re:excellent!

[skine]

If creating roadkill is the cause, then I've been doing part for years!

Re:excellent!

[Anonymous Coward]

Humans are. Just look at all the solo mothers with 8 kids.

Re:excellent!

[DNS-and-BIND]

Fatness was a sign that you had enough to eat, and thus a sign of fitness. It has not functioned in this way for a long time now. Even back then, "fat" did not mean the lumbering whales we see today. Look at famous fat men like W.C. Fields or Curly from the Three Stooges. They're quite modest by today's standards.

Re:excellent!

[gstoddart]

Just look at any Wal Mart ...

Re:excellent!

[cusco]

Not if you drive, in fact among vehicle-driving humans the likelihood of texting while driving is an evolutionary pressure against reproduction.

Does this mean

[NEDHead]

If I keep on smacking my kids, their arms will get shorter?

Re:Does this mean

[pecosdave]

Their skulls may become thicker.

Re:Does this mean

[X0563511]

That would help explain recent observed behavioral patterns...

Re:Does this mean

[nitehawk214]

If I keep on smacking my kids, their arms will get shorter?

Only after several generations. Thus the phrase "I will hit you so hard your great-grandchildren will feel it!"

Re:Does this mean

[Anonymous Coward]

If I keep on smacking my kids, their arms will get shorter?

When they get older, YOU could become extinct

You're Welcome

[Anonymous Coward]

...And this is yet another proof that God exists. My prayer circle has spent the last 10 years asking for Divine intervention to halt the senseless deaths of road-adjacent animals. Thanks to our unceasing intervention, He knew to trim a wee bit off the tip of every bird's wings (gradually, of course, so that mommy birds would still recognize their babies - and left longer wings on the sinner birds so that they would die and serve as a warning to others). Praise Jesus!

Re:You're Welcome

[Anonymous Coward]

That is a really tough story to... Swallow...

Re:You're Welcome

[paxcoder]

Bugger ye off a wee bit, won't you laddie?

Re:You're Welcome

[comnonsense]

These hate filled , mean spirited attacks on those who reject your religion of secular humanism and do not believe they are the supreme being as you do is all one needs to know to determine the intelligence of the argument and the one presenting it. Read a history book , Louis Pasteur was tha father of modern biology , Gregor Mendel the founder of genetics, Nicholas Steno founded the study of strata ,the founder of physics was Sir Issac Newton {full time theologian-part time scientist} , the founder of the scientific method was Boyle, today the world's leading expert on plate tectonics , earthquakes , and super computer modeling for geo physicist is John Baumgardner N.A.S.A. 's fair haired golden boy} , the astro-physicist with the greatest prediction since Newton is Dr. Russell Humphreys, the best surgeon {seperates conjoined twins} , over 50 biology professors etc. etc. are all staunch creationist. Yet you who would lose a debate with one of my 6th grade Sunday school students think anyone who does not blindly follow the ruling paradigm is an idiot and you are a genius. If you actually read the creationist arguments in . for instance, the "Thousands not Billions" report that was created over an 8 year period with some of the world's best scientist you might learn a thing or 2. C-14 can only measure {in theory} thousands of years yet ALL fossils have easily identifiable anponts of it and that includes diamonds and coal as well . Dinosaurs and coal "date" around 40k years and diamonds around 60. That does not mean that they are that old but it does prove they could not be even 1 million , let alone hundreds of millions and died out 65 ma. ago. The rocks of a known age in New Zealand, England , Hawaii , Mt. St. Helens and many others date at least 200 ma old and in the case of Hawaii 3 billion. So far no one has ever been able to show me a rock of known age that the date was not off by an incredible amount. The only good 'dates" are ones that could never be proved and all the ones that we watched form are wrong yet I am stupid to not buy the story? When rocks are tested with different methods they get very different results. At the Grand Canyon the lava at the bottom "dates" 500 ma older than that on the rim and the same rocks gave dates from 500 ma to 1.7 billion years depending on the method uses. Read the report. you can download a layman;s copy or an advanced version for free. All of their data came from secular sources. The science of meassuring the individual isotope atoms is incredible, amazing, the "dates' are purely religious and by changing the starting assumptions will give any answer you want.

Re:You're Welcome

[saveferrousoxide]

I hate responding to these type of posts, because I expect my effort will fall on deaf ears and that the greatest show of gratitude I can expect will be some stream of vitriolic nonsense, but I'll keep it directed and non-antagonistic.

C-14 can only reliably measure {in theory} thousands of years

FTFY.

The fact is, Uranium-235 is used for the old stuff with its half-life of 703.8 million years. That is more than ample to describe things back to 4.5 billion years since 1/64 of the original isotope would still be present; but dinosaurs would still be at something like 4/5.

Evolution is happening. We see it in fossils and today in animals with short generation cycles. You can argue for it being guided by an intelligent entity, but we've seen simple environmental pressure guide it time and time again.

Finally, the existence of a divine power cannot be proven with science or math and trying to do so is folly, because there is zero tangible evidence that is unequivocally linked to that being. There is no repeatable experiment that can be devised to demonstrate an existence. Well, not until we die or the Apocalypse.

That's it, I'm not going to argue with you; that's just my piece that I hope you will be able reconcile with your worldview because I truly believe it is currently dampening your ability to appreciate the majesty of our planet and our lives.

lies, all lies

[spongman]

these evolutionists are just trying to force these lies down your throats.

how can the birds be changed by the overpasses? the bible tells us that the overpasses have existed since the creation of the universe, 3 decades ago.

Re:lies, all lies

[Trepidity]

This is clearly heresy. As is recorded in the bible quite clearly, overpasses do not exist, and have never existed.

Re:lies, all lies

[Anubis IV]

The funny thing, at least to me as a Christian, is that none of the other Christians I know would take issue with anything said in the summary, other than the use of "evolution" to describe natural selection and adaptation: principles with which they have no problems.

Re:lies, all lies

[Anonymous Coward]

A Christian would not call himself Anubis (heathen idol). Back under your bridge. Almost got away with it this time.

Re:lies, all lies

[X0563511]

... even though that's exactly what evolution is?

I think they have a hard time understanding what the Theory of Evolution really is. If they did, they'd suddenly find it's compatible with faith as-is.

Re:lies, all lies

[Anonymous Coward]

The funny thing, at least to me as a Christian, is that none of the other Christians I know would take issue with anything said in the summary, other than the use of "evolution" to describe natural selection and adaptation: principles with which they have no problems.

But that doesn't lend itself as well when people are trying to show how stupid Christians are, if they don't repeat the stereotype of a small subset of Christians then who will they feel superior to?

Re:lies, all lies

[girlintraining]

The funny thing, at least to me as a Christian, is that none of the other Christians I know would take issue with anything said in the summary, other than the use of "evolution" to describe natural selection and adaptation: principles with which they have no problems.

Dude, I gotta ask, how can you be on the internet and not have seen them?

Re:lies, all lies

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.gallup.com/poll/155003/hold-creationist-view-human-origins.aspx

"Forty-six percent of Americans believe in the creationist view that God created humans in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years. The prevalence of this creationist view of the origin of humans is essentially unchanged from 30 years ago, when Gallup first asked the question. About a third of Americans believe that humans evolved, but with God's guidance; 15% say humans evolved, but that God had no part in the process."

Re:lies, all lies

[ediron2]

Small subset... LOL.

Re:lies, all lies

[Anonymous Coward]

This is a strawman. Not believing in universal common descent is different from not believing in natural selection and (random) mutation. In fact, it was originally theists and Christians even that formulated the idea that natural selection and mutations had a huge influence on our variations. Atheists came up with stuff like acquired traits, which turned out to be wrong. In fact, Darwin turned out to be wrong about just about everything. That atheists attempt to distort history after stealing Christian ideas and pretending it was their own, that it was something UCD and 'atheism' predicts is disingenuous.

"Eiseley, not a creationist, wrote that "Blyth is more than a Darwinian precursor, he is, instead, a direct intellectual forebear. . . ." In Eiseley's estimation, Blyth "belongs in the royal line . . . one of the forgotten parents of a great classic." On the same page, Eiseley also affirmed that "Darwin made unacknowledged use of Blyth's work."3

Editor Kenneth Heuer concluded, "this is Eiseley's discovery." Darwin had "failed to acknowledge his obligation to Blyth."4 He did acknowledge others (and even Blyth peripherally), but, as Eiseley demonstrates persuasively, Darwin for some reason chose not to credit creationist Blyth with the key element in his theory — natural selection."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Blyth#On_natural_selection
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Blyth#On_natural_selection

How dishonest of Dawrin. That's how these evolutionists work. Theists have these great epiphanies based on their belief in God and evolutionists steal the idea, refuse to give credit, and act like it is evolution that is what is supported by the evidence.

If you are willing to seriously debate this I am more than willing to debate this. Universal common descent is indefensible in the face of the evidence. But building strawman arguments and just assuming UCD to be true as an argument is just silly. I know these views maybe unpopular and the very judgmental nature of those here will try to discriminate against me for these views. But I am more than willing to defend my views. I say with confidence, universal common descent is absolutely indefensible in the face of the evidence. I am willing to defend that beyond simply making the assumption that UCD is true without any critical thought whatsoever. and deep down no one here will debate me because you know I'm right.

BTW, I am not the author of this site, but I visit this site and read it and post on it from time to time.

http://jackhudson.wordpress.com/2013/03/02/science-and-the-concept-of-god/

Re:lies, all lies

[LordLucless]

Evolution and abiogenesis are frequently conflated. Many Christians have no problem with the former, but do not agree with the latter.

Re:lies, all lies

[cheaphomemadeacid]

Yes well , evolution is just a nice way of saying that all the birds with too long wings that chose to nest at an overpass, got splattered by traffic...

Re:lies, all lies

[Anubis IV]

Hmm...yes and no. When people talk about "evolution", they're generally talking about the creation of new species via the combined mechanics of random mutation and natural selection. Natural selection is something that everyone I know is fine with. Random mutation is something that everyone I know is fine with. But the creation of new species? Not so much. And in this case, we're merely seeing natural selection at play, which is not evolution, in and of itself, any more than a motor by itself should be considered a car.

Re:lies, all lies

[Anonymous Coward]

We Aren't the World: Why Americans Make Bad Study Subjects

http://science.slashdot.org/story/13/02/25/1659230/we-arent-the-world-why-americans-make-bad-study-subjects

Re:lies, all lies

[Anubis IV]

I don't see a point in debating someone who I agree with. ;)

Go back and re-read what I said. You inferred something where no implied message was intended. All I stated was that the Christians I know, myself included, do not have a problem with natural selection or adaptation. Just a simple statement of fact. I did not mean to imply that because they have no problems with those that they must then therefore accept all of the tenets of typical evolutionary theory. It wasn't until I read your response that I even realized it could be taken that way, and that a few others seem to have taken it that way as well.

If you want the honest truth, I'm actually a young-earther, which is about as far away from a popular belief on Slashdot as you can get. :-/

Re:lies, all lies

[Anubis IV]

I'm not denying that they exist, merely that they're representative of the whole. I'm aware that they're out there. I just don't know any personally, despite having grown up in the church. In fact, I learned about those principles while attending a private Christian school, back almost 20 years ago now (and no, I didn't learn them as "these are evil ideas that Godless people will try to tell you are truth", despite the stereotypes and Internet crazies that might lead you to believe otherwise :P).

Re:lies, all lies

[Anubis IV]

Calling an engine a "car" does not make it one. Natural selection is an important mechanic. In fact, you can't have evolution without natural selection, but that doesn't mean that natural selection is suddenly "evolution", despite your claims to the contrary.

Re:lies, all lies

[spongman]

Fortunately, zero percent of all the grains of sand in the world believe that god created man. There are fewer incorrect grains of sand than there are ignorant Americans.

Re:lies, all lies

[Artea]

They must be pressing B to stop evolution.

Re:lies, all lies

[serviscope_minor]

They do not agree that at some point life appeared where there was none before via some process---which is hte definiion of abiogenesis.

That's an odd thing to believe.

Re:lies, all lies

[serviscope_minor]

do not have a problem with natural selection or adaptation. Just a simple statement of fact. I did not mean to imply that because they have no problems with those that they must then therefore accept all of the tenets of typical evolutionary theory.

All of what tenets? I think you have it slightly back to front.

Evoloution is an observable fact: one can observe species change, speceiate and even develop new biochemical processes. Mutation and natural selection is how evolution occurs. The mechanism for mutation is DNA, which has been directly observed many times.

Re:lies, all lies

[Anonymous Coward]

And still how many of "them" will believe a story where God teleported some short-winged birds to please the traffic?

Re:lies, all lies

[LordLucless]

No. Abiogenesis is life arising from non-living matter. In context as a piece of scientific terminology, it also usually conotes a natural process (i.e. not divine intervention).

Merriam-Webster
Wikipedia

Re:lies, all lies

[Sigg3.net]

That's more likely a question that was misphrased and misunderstood rather than believing everything was created in 6 earth days.

Many Christians I know say it's a metaphor and has no objection to evolutionary biology.

If presented thus, the %s would probably be lower.

Re:lies, all lies

[drinkypoo]

But the creation of new species? Not so much.

All "new species" means is "genetically incompatible". When people talk about evolution, they'd better fucking know what species means.

And in this case, we're merely seeing natural selection at play, which is not evolution

Uh wrong. If the changes we're seeing are genetic, then we're seeing evolution at play, through the mechanism of more or less natural selection. Consult your dictionary, it can help you the way it has helped so many others not be blatantly, stupidly wrong.

Re:lies, all lies

[Anonymous Coward]

Which of course imposes the false dichotomy of living and non-living matter.

I guess my problem with divine creation as an acceptable approach to cosmology is... erm.. who made the watchmaker? Or did the watchmaker come from some natural (not miraculous) a-deus-genesis? But of course that would leave us with the original problem.

Re:lies, all lies

[Anonymous Coward]

Natural selection is something that everyone I know is fine with. Random mutation is something that everyone I know is fine with. But the creation of new species? Not so much.

so what, they believe all species always existed? noah had dinosaurs on his ark?

Re:lies, all lies

[LordLucless]

It's a problem that's universal across all cosmology, not just divine creation. Either you propose that the universe is infinitely old, and never had a beginning, or you posit that there was some sort of First Effect - an effect without a cause - that started the whole thing running. And if the universe itself is infinitely old and un-caused, then that too is a violation of the notion of cause and effect every bit as great as that of the First Effect.

And while the nature of matter may not be inherently living or non-living, that's really just nit-picking. There is a quantative distinction between an organism engaged in biotic processes and other collections of matter which are not.

Re:lies, all lies

[Anonymous Coward]

Which of course imposes the false dichotomy of living and non-living matter.

This is a good point, which people often overlook. Science did a lot of searching for the basis of animism in the 18th and 19th centuries, and found... nothing. There is simply no evidence that living matter is in anyway different from non-living matter except in its organization.

So the question becomes, how did the organization begin? Atoms in your body don't follow "special" rules; a carbon atom in your hand interacts with surrounding atoms by the same rules a carbon atom in the core of a star does.

Maybe that's the answer: location, location, location!

Re:lies, all lies

[digitig]

For what it's worth, none of the Christians I know personally have any problem at all with evolution or abiogenesis. Nowhere near all Christians are creationists.

Re:lies, all lies

[EvolutionInAction]

There really isn't a difference in kind between 'alive' things and 'collections of matter.'

Muscles are not magical energy conversion systems, they are composed of complicated proteins that bend and twist and contract, driven by chemical reactions that are well known. We can make the same reactions happen with artificial proteins, no problem.

Cells are not magical 'alive' packages, they are sacks of dirty water contained in a lipid bilayer. Something we can make with a syringe of oil and a bucket of water.

'Alive' is shorthand for 'complicated.' But science is pretty clear about what's happening.

Re:lies, all lies

[Anonymous Coward]

There is a quantative distinction between an organism engaged in biotic processes and other collections of matter which are not.

And what is that distinction, pray tell? Besides the tautological one that "those-which-are" are and "those-which-are-not" are not?

Re:lies, all lies

[Anonymous Coward]

The separation between living and non living is non-obvious when dealing with edge cases. Trying to define life such that engine grit, Prions, and virus are not all alive or all dead is surprisingly hard without limiting things to organic chemistry.

Re:lies, all lies

[Anonymous Coward]

Woo, edgy,

Re:lies, all lies

[VoidCrow]

So, how do you draw the line between natural selection and adaptation via selective pressure on random mutations within the genome of some species, and, er, *evolution*?

Re:lies, all lies

[VoidCrow]

> In fact, you can't have evolution without natural selection, but that doesn't mean that natural selection is suddenly "evolution", despite your claims to the contrary.

Explain the difference.

Re:lies, all lies

[Anonymous Coward]

I used to believe that the evidence supported a young earth, before I was really aware of the evidence though. After debating the subject for a while I am forced to concede that there is evidence that is difficult to explain, at least for me, from a young earth perspective. The most compelling is the Milanktovitch cycles and how they correspond to O3 (was it O3) layers in the ice cores.

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

Look at those graphs and see how far back some of them go.

I have no problem with an old earth from a Biblical perspective. It doesn't state the Earth is young. It may indirectly imply it, I'll admit that, and if it does then I believe that it's young by faith, not evidence, or at least not on my interpretation of the evidence. But, really, it doesn't matter to me either way and it plays little role in my faith. My faith is not built on science.

Re:lies, all lies

[Creedo]

And if the universe itself is infinitely old and un-caused, then that too is a violation of the notion of cause and effect every bit as great as that of the First Effect.

The obvious response is that we have evidence of the universe, so until we find evidence that that is not sufficient then there is no need to pretend that some amorphous mind simply popped it into existence.

There is a quantative distinction between an organism engaged in biotic processes and other collections of matter which are not.

Sorry to bust your bubble, but it is just chemistry. Complex chemistry, mind you, but chemistry all the same.

Re:lies, all lies

[Creedo]

When I was in college, I could say that the vast majority of Christians I knew accepted evolution. I currently live in central Kansas, and the situation is completely reversed. I'm sure I know a Christian who accepts evolution who lives here, but I literally couldn't name one off of the top of my head. Given what we know from polling in the US, I would guess that this is not an uncommon situation, especially in less urbanized areas.

Re:lies, all lies

[Creedo]

Natural selection is something that everyone I know is fine with. Random mutation is something that everyone I know is fine with. But the creation of new species? Not so much. And in this case, we're merely seeing natural selection at play, which is not evolution, in and of itself, any more than a motor by itself should be considered a car.

Until the sub-species is altered in some way to prevent interbreeding(physical isolation, physical inability to mate, behavioral changes which prevent mating, etc), it is indeed not a speciation event. It is, however, evolution("a change in heritable traits over time"). The term "species" is just a convienent label to place on living things in order to categorize them. It is just a snapshot of a particular group of living things at a particular time. All species are always adapting, always evolving. Some can interbreed(even long after they diverged, like lions and tigers), some can't.

Saying that you accept all of the mechanisms of the evolutionary process and yet reject the logical result of those processes is irrational.

Re:lies, all lies

[Creedo]

Many Christians I know say it's a metaphor and has no objection to evolutionary biology.

Great. Same here, though not locally(I have many theistic evolutionist friends in other places, but I live in a stronghold of pure creationism). That has no bearing on the statistics. I invite you to watch an episode of 700 Club, or listen to one of the many Christian radio stations run by creationists and then try to envision the audience for those programs. There is a large part of that 46%. I can even point you to Catholic and Eastern Orthodox people who reject evolution entirely(and Muslims and Jews, to round out the program). Do you think it was just a crazy statistical anomaly that so many of the GOP candidates for president in this last election were creationists?

If presented thus, the %s would probably be lower.

What part of this is unclear?

Forty-six percent of Americans believe in the creationist view that God created humans in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years.

You may not like it, but it's still true. A lot of your fellow citizens believe in creationism, and they are not bashful about it.

Re:lies, all lies

[Creedo]

If you want the honest truth, I'm actually a young-earther, which is about as far away from physical reality as you can get

There, fixed that for you.

Re:lies, all lies

[Creedo]

He's a young earth believer. Once you've gone that far down the rabbit hole, everything else is up for grabs.

Re:lies, all lies

[Sigg3.net]

I am Norwegian, they are not my fellow citizens, and you seems to know this in more detail so you are probably right. I assumed the sampling was incorrect, but I stand corrected.
But you have the Mormons too! Truly the land of the brave as in crazy. The Christians and "creationists" I have talked to, are "regular" Christians lured by the 'intelligent design' title (sounds intelligent, doesn't it?), and change their minds once they know the details (using the metaphor opt-out).

Anyway, recommend these vids from the NCSE I found last night; http://www.sigg3.net/entry/1666

Re:lies, all lies

[Creedo]

I am Norwegian, they are not my fellow citizens

Enough said. The situation is very different between Europe and the US. The US has a strong strain of Fundamentalism which is wields a depressingly large amount of political power. It's slowly changing and I hope to reach a more rational point in my lifetime.

Re:lies, all lies

[Sigg3.net]

Good luck with that! If it doesn't work out, you're welcome over here :)

Re:lies, all lies

[ChrisMaple]

Natural selection is the process whereby some living things continue living and reproduce while other living things die before reproducing.

Evolution is the process whereby groups of similar living things change their characteristics over the course of a large number of generations. (This process includes two critical components, that differences occur sometimes from one generation to the next [such as by mutation or sexual recombination], and that selective pressures move the typical successful offspring's heritable characteristics away from the heritable characteristics of its parent[s].)

Re:lies, all lies

[Anonymous Coward]

Either you propose that the universe is infinitely old, and never had a beginning, or you posit that there was some sort of First Effect - an effect without a cause - that started the whole thing running.

Do the definition of causal relationship require the existence of time? I think not. For this reason the requirement that the First Effect has no cause would not be .. required. Otherwise the First Cause is always the Big Bang, the start of space-time and universe we call home.

Re:lies, all lies

[Creedo]

Good luck with that! If it doesn't work out, you're welcome over here :)

You have no idea how appealing that is...

Re:lies, all lies

[Anonymous Coward]

Do the definition of causal relationship require the existence of time? I think not.

I think so.

Causality "...(also referred to as causation) is the relationship between an event (the cause) and a second event (the effect), where the second event is understood as a consequence of the first."

Consequent - from Latin consequent-, consequens, present participle of consequi to follow along, from com- + sequi to follow

follow - intransitive verb
1: to go or come after a person or thing in place, time, or sequence
transitive verb
6a : to come or take place after in time, sequence, or order

Re:lies, all lies

[LordLucless]

Never said they were magic, nor that biotic processes aren't understandable. We can understand the components that make up a living organism, and we can understand the chemical processes through which they interact. We can even create the components that make a living organism. What we can't do (although I'm not saying it's impossible) is initiate those processes, transforming something that is an inert collection of material into an autonomous entity; we can create a cell, but we can't create a monad.

The distinction between a living and organism and a collection of matter are those processes. And all life we've observed has originated from a previously living organism. Abiogenesis is sort of miniature version of the cosmological debate; one needs to find an effect without a cause, the other needs to find an individual without an ancestor (or possibly, a non-living ancestor).

Re:lies, all lies

[EvolutionInAction]

Not Really. We can make self-replicating amino-acid chains [ http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8700225 ], and we can make amino acids themselves through electrical discharges (ie. lightning) into common compounds. The two occurring together might be low probability, but hardly impossible.

To dig into your 'distinction' a bit - Are viruses alive? They have none of the machinery required to 'live.' No way to move, no way to generate energy, no way to reproduce. Yet they evolve and adapt, features we normally would limit to living creatures. Or Prions, misfolded proteins. They have no machinery at all, simply acting as a catalyst to misfold other proteins. Yet they reproduce.

Re:lies, all lies

[comnonsense]

I would bet your knowledge of the history of the paradigm shift in geology in the 19th century is non-existent as well as your grasp of dating methods used to sell dates decided nearly a century befory we discovered radioactivity . There are many top flight scientist including the world's foremost expert on plate tectonics and super computer modeling {The Terra Program} for geo-physics wrote the program to explain Noah's Flood who argue from science against great ages and their arguments are overwhelming but most Americans prefer to let the state tell them what to think. . His model is the only one that explains why the plates started to move in the first place. Of course atheism has to have millions of years as no one could believe the world just popped into existence sans intelligence. They have to have the millions of years to be their creator god. The Pangea theory was founded by the creationist Antonio Snyder in 1859 and if you have any knowledge of this subject whatsoever you can guess why he had to publish in French. Same thing happened to Gregor Mendell , the repackaging of the ancient anti-God religion of evolution set science back 60 years in genetics and plate tectonics . BTW th idea for Pangea came strait out of Genesis . 9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so. 10 And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good. Has it ever occured to you that from the many frauds of Ernst Haekel to Piltdown man to Piltdown Bird {archeoraptor} to the incredible fraud against school childrenwith Lucy dolly that show her with human genitailia , human eyes, nose and most of all human hands and feet despite the fact people like the curator of the St. Louis museum have been presented with the new bones found that show Lucy's hands and feet are more curved than most apes and her wrists lock for walking on her knuckles that when you make snide remarks like the e decades ago it is you that sounds stupid . Save for medical quackery the greatest assault on scientific integrity in world history is the repackaged ancient anti-God religion of evolution.. The fact most leading evolutionists have no integrity whatsoever is a matter of public record. Why not read and study the Thousands not Billions report instead of having your beliefs spoon fed to you by the State?

Re:lies, all lies

[comnonsense]

Faith in what? Your neighbors cat? If evolution is true then Jesus Christ is a myth , if great ages are true Jesus Christ is a myth. Jesus is the last Adam , if He is descended from a metaphor you have a problem. Jesus Christ said Adam and Eve were created in the beginning and that death was the last enemy. If there were millions of years of death before Adam then Jesus died for nothing because God thinks cancer and predation are very good. Your problem is you are a coward , and your intellectually lazy, no offense, just the facts. If you knew the Bible at all you would not say what you did but you are more concerned about being laughed at than obeying God. Jesus told us we would be persecuted and killed for following Him and 100k a year are. It is going to get much worse and the day will come when you have to choose between life in this world or life in the next. The very first verse of the Bible are the most majestic ever uttered by man: " In the Beginning God created the Heavens and the Earth" . It does not say He created the earth 10 ba after the heavens , it says the sun ,moon and stars were created after the earth , it does not say we evolved but that we were created the same day as the land animals which would include dinosaurs and the word translated great whales on the 5th day is translated as sea monsters every where else. There are sea monsters , live and in the fossils , the giant squid is one. This idea of apeasing the atheist philosophers who sold this idea of great ages was tried by Bishop Paley 200 years ago and is the same argument the I.D. movement uses to day. It will never work, any argument you bring will be countered no matter how ridiculous their argument is even more inportently people like Richard Dawkins are smart enough to see Christians like you don't believe their own book and that great ages and/or evolution are true then God is an ogre no oe would be inclined to worship, including me. Exodud 20 8-11 KJV 8 Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. 9 Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: 10 But the seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: 11 For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it. Is that clear enough? Calling God a liar is not recommended.

Re:lies, all lies

[spongman]

Your gaps argument is not helped by the inane conspiracy theory rambling. Forget to take your meds today?

Re:lies, all lies

[X0563511]

I think you're confusing the specific writings of specific people (almost all, if not actually all, of which was written before we had any kind of deep understanding of the world around us) with the actual messages, philosophies, and foundations of Faith. But I'm not going to argue with someone who wants to write 489 words without a single line break.

Re:lies, all lies

[comnonsense]

ROFUMEB !!!!!!!!! So you proved intelligence is required, congatulations!

Re:lies, all lies

[comnonsense]

That is bait and switch. No informed creationist disagrees with the facts of natural selection and speciation. People like Hugh Ross who believe insane things like souless humans beleves in the fixity of species but biblical creationist certainly do not . As a matter of fact they are absolutley crucial to the creation model . What we disagree with is the fairy tale that we are all related to a common ancestor that arose byitself from inorganic chemicals. Creationist were using natural selection to argue for the truth of God's word centuries before Darwin was born and it was the creationist Edward Blyth who first wrote a scientific paper on the subject in 1835-37 . The Marxist atheist Steven J. Gould had access to papers of Darwin no one else did and found proof that Darwin lied when hw sais he never heard of Blyth before he wrote the origin despite the fact his paper was written in the leading naturalist journal of the day.

Re:lies, all lies

[comnonsense]

That just proves that the church has cowtowed to atheist phlosophers. It was not scientist who jumped on tyhe band wagon of great ages and evolution it was liberal theologians and the next generation of scientist raised in the compromising church finally bought the fairy tale. No offense but is there an echo when you think? Jesus Christ is the last Adam, if the first Adam wqs a metaphor Jesus Christ is a metaphor. I can count the people who have that view on one hand that one of my 6th grade Sunday school students would have trouble debating. They no nothing about the Bible and next to nothing about the "science" . Even if science did support it, which it does not, so what? Scientists are fallible human beings capable of mistakes and dishonesty and they were not there. God was there and cannot lie or make mistakes. Even rabid atheists like Steven J. Gould and Derek Ager said that secular geologist were conned and brainwashed {their words not mine} for 150 years by people like the lawyer Charles Lyell who laid out the ground work for Darwins so called theory. These great dates were in place many decades before we discovered radioactivity not to mention the various methods. Exodus 20 vs 8-11 8 Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. 9 Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: 10 But the seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: 11 For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it. Is that vague to you? 1 Corinthians 15:45-47 King James Version (KJV) 45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit. 46 Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual. 47 The first man is of the earth, earthy; the second man is the Lord from heaven. Matthew 24:37-39 King James Version (KJV) 37 But as the days of Noah were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. 38 For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, 39 And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. 6 But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. Jesus Christ believed in a 6000 year old universe and He created it, a "christian" who claims he was wrong is worshipping the wrong Jesus.

Re:lies, all lies

[Anonymous Coward]

That just proves that the church has cowtowed to atheist phlosophers. It was not scientist who jumped on tyhe band wagon of great ages and evolution it was liberal theologians and the next generation of scientist raised in the compromising church finally bought the fairy tale.

Lamarck was a theist. Lyell was a theist. Lemaître was a theist. Get your facts straight.

Re:lies, all lies

[EvolutionInAction]

And you've proved you are either a troll or an idiot. Good job!

Re:lies, all lies

[Sigg3.net]

I'm not defending this view, just pointing it out.
I think the Jesus being worshipped is as manifold as the number of worshippers. We don't know anything for certain about Jesus' personal views, and there were many competing "Jesus-cults" in his contemporary society as well (from military to highly spiritual/The Beatles like crowds).

Also, don't get hung up on Jesus. You'd still have to battle the Holy Spirit and God himself, not to mention the nature of trinity (a highly controversial theme among Christians). For instance, who are we to say that the process of evolution isn't the holy spirit? Science has nothing to do with this, thankfully, but for a Christian there's always a way out.

Bridgekeeper

[Anonymous Coward]

What is the new air speed velocity of an unladen cliff swallow?

Re:Bridgekeeper

[pecosdave]

The one impaled on the antenna of a passing vehicle or not?

Re:Bridgekeeper

[Anonymous Coward]

Evolved, or unevolved?

Re:Bridgekeeper

[ninlilizi]

I'd imagion Evolved would be faster. Due to decreased drag on its wings.
Conversely, it would also suffer less lift. Making its kinetic advantage limited to gravitationally focused flights.

Re:Bridgekeeper

[Grayhand]

The one impaled on the antenna of a passing vehicle or not?

I don't know but the little fucker dropped his coconut and cracked my windshield.

Re:Bridgekeeper

[Anonymous Coward]

The one impaled on the antenna of a passing vehicle or not?

I don't know but the little fucker dropped his coconut and cracked my windshield.

It was trying to do you a favour: cut the coconut in half, bang the halves together and you'll not need to pay for a car anymore.

Re:Bridgekeeper

[Anonymous Coward]

American of Canadian?

Re:Bridgekeeper

[Anonymous Coward]

Blast, I just got a T-shirt with the formula, dont you hate it when you just cant calculate the velocity of a unladen swallow? Now I better check it to make sure its still correct!

On another note, has anyone seen my coconuts?

Re:Bridgekeeper

[Anonymous Coward]

African or European?

Re:Bridgekeeper

[Anonymous Coward]

"How do you know so much about swallows?" ... And please don't tell me you're a king too and you have to know this things...

not evolution

[Anonymous Coward]

Natural selection. Not evolution.

No new genetic material is being added.

Two completely different things.

Re:not evolution

[WWJohnBrowningDo]

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution:
Evolution by natural selection is a process that is inferred from three facts about populations:
1) more offspring are produced than can possibly survive
2) traits vary among individuals, leading to different rates of survival and reproduction
3) trait differences are heritable.

Re:not evolution

[Nadaka]

The definition of evolution existed for over century before genetic material was discovered.

Keep changing the goalpost because the facts don't match your dogma, kinda like "climate change"

Re:not evolution

[khallow]

OK so change the definition when things stop working out for you.

Like you just did when you claimed natural selection but not evolution? No. That has always been the definition of evolution from when Charles Darwin first put it in writing.

Re:not evolution

[wonkey_monkey]

1) more offspring are produced than can possibly survive

Why is this fact required? Don't the other two suffice by themselves?

Re:not evolution

[Anonymous Coward]

If all the offspring survive and reproduce, there's no "selection". On the other hand, (2) can include individuals with zero survival and reproduction rates...

Re:not evolution

[SillyHamster]

Evolution by natural selection is a process that is inferred from three facts about populations:
1) more offspring are produced than can possibly survive
2) traits vary among individuals, leading to different rates of survival and reproduction
3) trait differences are heritable.

None of that generates new genetic material.

Without new genetic material, this "evolution" is unable to "progress". If evolution is simply "change", there is no controversy - it's quite obvious that organisms are able to change from generation to generation. (And evolutionary theory is completely unnecessary to observe this, as Mendel illustrates)

But there is an evolution controversy, and it's rooted in the evolutionary belief that if you add up a lot of small changes, you eventually end up with a big change; and that you can get from simple species to complex species by a lot of small incremental steps.

Re:not evolution

[SillyHamster]

Keep changing the goalpost because the facts don't match your dogma, kinda like "climate change"

What change in goalpost?

Without new genetic material, evolution from simple to complex species does not happen.

Re:not evolution

[Creedo]

Why is this fact required?

It's just a fact of life. It is significant to evolution because living things of the same species compete for the same resources, and those with even a slight advantage conferred by a heritable trait are more likely to pass that advantage on. Hence, natural selection.

Re:not evolution

[Creedo]

None of that generates new genetic material.

No, it doesn't. New material is generated in a variety of ways. Mutations are(as far as I know) the most common development of novel genetic material. Duplications, inversions, copy mistakes, mistakes in damage repair, etc. You can get new genetic material from interbreeding between related species(say, lions and tigers). You can even get direct genetic integration from virus infections(endogenous retroviruses) and the like. This is grist used by the process of evolution. It does take a while, as there is no guarantees that any individual change will be beneficial or will spread to others. In the only example we know of, it took about 3.6 billion years to turn a basic single celled organism into us.

But there is an evolution controversy, and it's rooted in the evolutionary belief that if you add up a lot of small changes, you eventually end up with a big change; and that you can get from simple species to complex species by a lot of small incremental steps.

In as much as it is possible to prove that, it has been done.

Re:not evolution

[ChrisMaple]

You missed the critical word "more". Suppose that there is a bird that produces both blue and orange offspring, and that there is plenty of food and lodging available for both types. However, the polka-dot hawk eats all the orange offspring. Over time, the blue-orange bird may well evolve to not produce orange offspring, because those offspring aren't successful. Note that it is not that "more offspring are produced than can possibly survive", just that one type of offspring doesn't survive because it is unfit for an environment including polka-dot hawks.

Re:not evolution

[SillyHamster]

In as much as it is possible to prove that, it has been done.

You do not have enough time for random mutations to generate enough possible answers for natural selection to sift out the "right ones". You're left with some unexplained and unobserved form of guided mutation, which natural selection is incapable of providing.

It's not remotely proven, which is why it is necessary to point out the difference between natural selection and evolution, and why the various examples of natural selection are not actually proofs for evolution as it is claimed.

Re:not evolution

[cusco]

There are species of bacteria who have several times more 'genetic material' than humans or swallows. The amount of DNA has nothing to do with evolution. If you meant 'changed' rather than 'added' when you said "new genetic material" then I agree with you, the sentence is a bit ambiguous.

Re:not evolution

[Creedo]

You do not have enough time for random mutations to generate enough possible answers for natural selection to sift out the "right ones".

3.6 billion years is plenty of time.

You're left with some unexplained and unobserved form of guided mutation, which natural selection is incapable of providing.

What a useless, unsupported claim. Who was guiding this "guided mutation" that you start with? And upon what grounds are you basing your idea that natural selection is incapable of producing the results we see?

Re:not evolution

[cusco]

there is an evolution controversy

No, not really. It's about as close to a settled fact as you can get in science.

if you add up a lot of small changes, you eventually end up with a big change

Right. What is the alternative, add up a lot of small changes and then not see any change? Australopithecus came down from the trees, got longer legs, shorter arms, better vision, upright posture, wider pelvis, smaller teeth and a larger brain. Is it still an Australopithecus, or is it now a Homo Habilis? I fail to see any logic in your statement, these small changes have added up to a new animal.

Re:not evolution

[SillyHamster]

3.6 billion years is plenty of time.

Human genome size is 3 billion base pairs, with 4 possible values for each pair.

Let's say that you can vary half of the human genome without consequence . (Note: Many human genetic defects are caused by very small genetic changes; this restricts the actual number of viable variations) That leaves 1.5 billion base pairs that *must* be a certain value in order to create a functional human being.

Out of 4^1.5e9 possibilities, you need a specific sequence for a human being. You need to try 9*1e1e8 possibilities to expect to randomly happen upon it. Note that a googol is a 1e1e2 (1e100).

Even if we relax the "minimum number of base pairs for a human being", the numbers are still ridiculously large. If only 300 million base pairs are necessary, you still need to try 1.8e1e8 possibilities before you might randomly hit the human combination.

How many combination do you need to try each year to reach that in 3.6 billion years? That's 3.6e9, or 3.6e1e0.95.

1.8e1e8 divided by 3.6e1e0.95 - you're still dealing with around 1e1e8 (1e100000000) individuals every year. Again, for reference, a googol is 1e100. The number of chances we need to have tried per year is orders of orders of magnitude greater than an already ridiculously large number.

One more fun calculation. Mass of single bacterium: 1e-14g. 1e100000000 individuals is 1e99999986g, or 1e99999983 kg. Mass of earth? 6e24 kg.

So no, we don't have enough time, because for the expected chance of human life to pop up to equal one, we need a universe much much much much older than it is currently calculated to be.

What a useless, unsupported claim. Who was guiding this "guided mutation" that you start with? And upon what grounds are you basing your idea that natural selection is incapable of producing the results we see?

You just agreed with me that natural selection does not generate new genetic material. It is incapable of creating, is it only able to destroy the failures.

Random mutation doesn't have enough tries in several billion years to exhaust the entire sample space of "possible genetic combinations".

That leaves non-random mutation, which is "guided" mutation - but then we need a mechanism that provides non-random mutation, which as I note is "unexplained" and "unobserved".

Re:not evolution

[SillyHamster]

There are species of bacteria who have several times more 'genetic material' than humans or swallows. The amount of DNA has nothing to do with evolution. If you meant 'changed' rather than 'added' when you said "new genetic material" then I agree with you, the sentence is a bit ambiguous.

Can you have a self-reproducing lifeform with a single DNA basepair?

Considering that you need to code for proteins to decode DNA, proteins to build protein building blocks, and proteins to harvest energy to operate the other proteins, there is a minimum size of genetic material needed for a bacterium, let alone a vertebrate with specialized cells and tissues.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genome#Genome_size

Looking at the list on wiki, there is most definitely a correlation between amount of genetic material and functionality/capability. You cite the existence of bloated code, but that fails to prove there is no minimum size for code. In fact, that's an absurd claim to anyone with passing knowledge of software development.

Re:not evolution

[SillyHamster]

if you add up a lot of small changes, you eventually end up with a big change

Right. What is the alternative, add up a lot of small changes and then not see any change?

Yes. If a body part gets bigger, then smaller, then bigger over hundreds of generations, you end up in an equilibrium rather than with runaway "progress".

See Darwin's finches - they're not becoming a large beak/small beak species, but rather varying with the cycle of seasons for their part of the world. Hundreds of years later, they're still finches, and their beak sizes are still varying up *and* down.

There was change, but there is no net change. Thus the need to distinguish between "natural selection" (variation within a species) and "evolution" (one species into something entirely new).

Re:not evolution

[Creedo]

Well, you have demonstrated that you have no clue how evolution actually works, so congratulations on that. I would suggest some remedial high school biology. You haven't even made it to Behe's level.

I'll use a more basic example for you. Suppose that we had 65 six sided dice, and that 65 sixes represents a particular complex genome(you could use any combination of 65 results, but it is mathematically immaterial). Randomly hitting that result has a probability of 3.8x10^50. That would correspond to the silly conception that you are using above. Pretty damned unlikely. But, then, that bears no resemblance to actual evolutionary theory. Take a very much simplified version where results of 6 are kept. At that point, it generally only takes 25-30 rolls to get the required result. Quite a difference, wouldn't you say? Here's a simple example of that in Perl if you want to try it yourself:

#!/usr/bin/perl

my $number_of_sixes = 0;
my $number_of_rolls = 0;
my $number_of_attempts = 1000;
my $total_rolls = 0;

for(my $i = 0; $i while($number_of_sixes my $number_of_dice = 65 - $number_of_sixes;

while($number_of_dice > 0) {
my $dice_roll = int(rand(6)) + 1;
if ($dice_roll == 6) {
$number_of_sixes++;
}
$number_of_dice--;
}
$number_of_rolls++;
}
$total_rolls += $number_of_rolls;
}
print "Total number of rolls: $total_rolls\n";
print "Total number of experiments: $number_of_attempts\n";
print "Average number of rolls to get 6 dice each time: " . $total_rolls/$number_of_attempts . "\n";

Now, in reality, natural selection acts as a filter on the random inputs of genetic additions. Thus, your prime mistake is exemplified in this statement:

you still need to try 1.8e1e8 possibilities before you might randomly hit the human combination

Natural selection acts to conserve working combinations and discard detrimental combinations. Just like applying the filter of selecting 6's dramtically drops the required number of tries to reach an unlikely outcome, so to does natural selection radically drop the generations required to reach complex lifeforms.

You just agreed with me that natural selection does not generate new genetic material. It is incapable of creating, is it only able to destroy the failures.

Non sequitur. It does not follow that because natural selection does not generate new genetic material that it is a process which is only destructive. It facilitates increased fitness. This is certainly an additive or, as you seem to prefer, creative process.

Random mutation doesn't have enough tries in several billion years to exhaust the entire sample space of "possible genetic combinations".

Since such a thing isn't remotely required by evolution, this is another non sequitur.

That leaves non-random mutation, which is "guided" mutation - but then we need a mechanism that provides non-random mutation, which as I note is "unexplained" and "unobserved".

No, this is just your attempt to interject a "god of the gaps" into your inability(or refusal) to correctly understand what evolutionary theory is and how it works. A sadly common occurance.

Re:not evolution

[Creedo]

There was change, but there is no net change.

The level of ignorance which this statement implies is breathtaking.

Re:not evolution

[SillyHamster]

The level of ignorance which this statement implies is breathtaking.

Apparently the concept of oscillation is beyond you.

What is the average of a sin wave?

Re:not evolution

[SillyHamster]

Take a very much simplified version where results of 6 are kept. At that point, it generally only takes 25-30 rolls to get the required result. Quite a difference, wouldn't you say? Here's a simple example of that in Perl if you want to try it yourself:

Your model is incapable of failure (extinction), which makes it rigged.

It assumes that every single "correct" base pair you hit is "hard-saved" from ever being lost. Your model only takes 25-30 independent rolls to "hit" the target, because every dice is rolled in parallel and is utterly independent of the dice around it. You end up measuring how long it takes a single dice to roll a 6, which on average is 6 rolls, and should definitely have been hit once by the 30th roll P(30) = 1-(5/6)^30.

If that model had any bearing on reality, it predicts we should see life from scratch and new lifeforms popping up every day! After all, with 4 base pairs, all 4 possibilities can be rolled pretty easily. (You're also looking at a 100% mutation rate for every base pair location. I wonder how an organism with 10 million base pairs rolls for 300 million base pair slots?)

Natural selection acts to conserve working combinations and discard detrimental combinations. Just like applying the filter of selecting 6's dramtically drops the required number of tries to reach an unlikely outcome, so to does natural selection radically drop the generations required to reach complex lifeforms.

That estimate was a first pass approximation and did ignore natural selection; but it also ignores extinction rates and "bad mutations".

Certainly there's no real world guarantee that every "correct" mutation to the genome gets saved and never gets corrupted. (Natural selection is going to determine survival or death with 100% certainty based on a single base pair mutation in a 10 million/1 billion base pair sequence?)

The models we've used also ignore that code doesn't work incrementally. Half of a protein is more likely going to be a non-effective protein rather than a half-effective protein. The dice are interdependent. "THE" is a word and has meaning. "TNE" is not.

So let's try a different analysis. How many generations do you need to get from "nothing" to human? If we assume each generation can add one "correct" base pair, that takes 3 billion generations. That's not too hard to hit with just bacteria, but at the "halfway point", it's not bacteria any more - it's something with a reproduction period measured in years, not hours. To fit evolutionary timelines, we are exponentially increasing genome size, but organisms with larger genomes have much slower reproduction rates and longer reproduction periods (less individuals, less chances). To make it fit, the mutation rate on the later generations has to be much higher, and there has to be more than one addition per generation.

You end up cramming billions of "good" mutations into several hundred million years. But we don't observe rampant mutation in higher life forms - and rampant mutation is more likely to break than to improve. ex: With 30 million "correct" base pairs; 30 million chances to mutate "incorrectly", and being generous, several million chances to mutate "correctly".

Non sequitur. It does not follow that because natural selection does not generate new genetic material that it is a process which is only destructive. It facilitates increased fitness. This is certainly an additive or, as you seem to prefer, creative process.

If natural selection only removes individuals from the population, it cannot increase genetic diversity, which means it cannot add the information needed to get from life Zero to humanity.

Perfect natural selection does improve your chances if it only lets the "most correct" individuals reproduce, but that assumes a winner take all system where every tiny reproductive advantage is propagated across the entire po

Re:not evolution

[Creedo]

Apparently the concept of oscillation is beyond you.

Apparently the history of life on this planet is a mystery to you.

Re:not evolution

[Nadaka]

Its a claim so absurd that it could only be brought up as a strawman in order to discredit an opponent when you no longer have an effective rational argument to use...

Re:not evolution

[Creedo]

Your model is incapable of failure (extinction), which makes it rigged.

And your model ignores everything we know about the development of life, which makes it at best an example of a complete misunderstanding of evolution.

It assumes that every single "correct" base pair you hit is "hard-saved" from ever being lost. Your model only takes 25-30 independent rolls to "hit" the target, because every dice is rolled in parallel and is utterly independent of the dice around it.

And you completely miss the point. My example is a very crude example of how filters turn random input into non-random output. Of course it doesn't take into account mutations, extinctions, etc. It's a model which can be expressed in a short Perl script, after all. But it's still closer to what is actually happening than the mess you posted.

Certainly there's no real world guarantee that every "correct" mutation to the genome gets saved and never gets corrupted.

Of course not. That's a legacy of my model. And I've made more complex models which do not guaranteee survival of "correct" genes and model sexual reproduction, random deletions, random additions and various mutations. The same filtering process is apparent there, too.

(Natural selection is going to determine survival or death with 100% certainty based on a single base pair mutation in a 10 million/1 billion base pair sequence?)

If the mutation is sufficiently detrimental, certainly. Most of the time, it is not. You and I both have novel mutations in our genes which are not present in our parents. Yet, we've survived long enough to type out these messages, and I've survived long enough to reproduce, so my novel combinations have a chance to perpetuate.

The models we've used also ignore that code doesn't work incrementally. Half of a protein is more likely going to be a non-effective protein rather than a half-effective protein. The dice are interdependent. "THE" is a word and has meaning. "TNE" is not.

Proteins do not have to be perfectly effective to work. And non-functional or semi-functional proteins are not necessarily detrimental to survival, thus having no effect on survivability. For example, suppose a primitive proto-bacteria had a duplication event and now two proto-genes are generating the same protein. This very well may have no effect on its ability to reproduce(and it very well could, too; there are no guarantees). However, now one of those copies can be subject to mutation without affecting the original protein. It may end up non-functional(so called "junk DNA"), it may end mutating and functioning slightly different from the original gene(like the many related proteins responsible for blood clotting) or it may end up deleted at some point. In fact, if you want a good example of how proteins can evolve, look up the evolutionary history of blood clotting mechanisms.

So let's try a different analysis. How many generations do you need to get from "nothing" to human? If we assume each generation can add one "correct" base pair, that takes 3 billion generations.

Given that we share a large part of our genes with bacteria, roughly along the lines of 40%, then a lot of that took place rather rapidly. At a generation rate of 20 minutes and shooting for 40%(1.2 billion generations), that takes 937,000 years, roughly. Subtract that from 3.6 billion years, and you have a 40% human genome with 3.599 billion years left to generate the remaining 60%. The generations do get longer for multicellular organisms, but that is counter balanced by the development of sexual reproduction which speeds up the exchange of novel and complimentary genetic changes.

Let's look at it from the opposite side. We differ from chimpanzees by roughly 2% of our DNA, or 60 million base pairs. We diverged from their line about 6 million years ago. That's a rate of 10 base pair ch

Re:not evolution

[SillyHamster]

Apparently the history of life on this planet is a mystery to you.

You've called my statement ignorant, but my statement accurately describes an oscillating function. A sin wave is always changing, but if you sum up the entirety of its changes, it will always be between the value 1 and -1. If you pick an interval that is a precise multiple of its period, you have an average value of 0. There is no net change.

If you only looked at an interval where the sin wave is increasing and extrapolated, you might predict that the function goes to infinity as time goes to infinity, and that would be completely wrong.

Faced with an inability to defend your assertion, you have switched topics. Keep digging.

Re:not evolution

[Creedo]

Faced with an inability to defend your assertion, you have switched topics. Keep digging.

You are the one switching topics. The fossil record clearly demonstrates the changes in lifeforms over billions of years. You refute that by appealing to a sine wave, with no justification for ignoring the evidence. Saying that you are ignorant is the kindest assumption.

Re:not evolution

[SillyHamster]

And you completely miss the point. My example is a very crude example of how filters turn random input into non-random output. Of course it doesn't take into account mutations, extinctions, etc. It's a model which can be expressed in a short Perl script, after all. But it's still closer to what is actually happening than the mess you posted.

An algorithm designed to create a sequence of 6s succeeded in creating a sequence of 6s.

Is natural selection an algorithm that is "looking for" humans?

Of course not. That's a legacy of my model. And I've made more complex models which do not guaranteee survival of "correct" genes and model sexual reproduction, random deletions, random additions and various mutations. The same filtering process is apparent there, too.

That inheritance improves the odds slightly was not in question. The point was that there are other unaccounted forces (survival, environmental changes, luck) working against the unaccounted filtering effect, such that you cannot assume progress just because a filtering effect exists.

Proteins do not have to be perfectly effective to work. And non-functional or semi-functional proteins are not necessarily detrimental to survival, thus having no effect on survivability. For example, suppose a primitive proto-bacteria had a duplication event and now two proto-genes are generating the same protein. This very well may have no effect on its ability to reproduce(and it very well could, too; there are no guarantees). However, now one of those copies can be subject to mutation without affecting the original protein. It may end up non-functional(so called "junk DNA"), it may end mutating and functioning slightly different from the original gene(like the many related proteins responsible for blood clotting) or it may end up deleted at some point. In fact, if you want a good example of how proteins can evolve, look up the evolutionary history of blood clotting mechanisms.

Half a protein doesn't do what the full protein does. You want to claim every single half-protein or non-working protein is a survival advantage over not having one? (no bad consequences for non-functioning cellular components?) A significant enough survival advantage that the population is guaranteed to acquire the trait, 300 billion times?

Given that we share a large part of our genes with bacteria, roughly along the lines of 40%, then a lot of that took place rather rapidly. At a generation rate of 20 minutes and shooting for 40%(1.2 billion generations), that takes 937,000 years, roughly. Subtract that from 3.6 billion years, and you have a 40% human genome with 3.599 billion years left to generate the remaining 60%. The generations do get longer for multicellular organisms, but that is counter balanced by the development of sexual reproduction which speeds up the exchange of novel and complimentary genetic changes.

Again, for reference:

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

Consider that bacteriums have genomes in the range of Mbs, while humans have a genome 3.2 Gbs, The genomes are different by orders of magnitude, so 40% gene similarity does not capture all the relevant details.

Do you believe that 3.1 Gbs of human genome is filler? If true, you should be able to irradiate and randomly mutate somewhere around 99% of a human's DNA sequence with no ill effect.

Let's look at it from the opposite side. We differ from chimpanzees by roughly 2% of our DNA, or 60 million base pairs. We diverged from their line about 6 million years ago. That's a rate of 10 base pair changes per year. Using that rate, we have a possible 5 billion base changes in the past 500 million years, which is roughly the age of fish. We only differ from fish by about 25% of our DNA, or 750 million base pairs. At that rate, there was enough time to evolve a human from a fish 6.6 times.

You assumed that human

Re:not evolution

[SillyHamster]

You are the one switching topics. The fossil record clearly demonstrates the changes in lifeforms over billions of years. You refute that by appealing to a sine wave, with no justification for ignoring the evidence. Saying that you are ignorant is the kindest assumption.

Slashdot topic: Bird wing sizes changing near highway, evolution!

My point: Finch beak changed and is still changing; but not really example of evolution.

Your point: Fossils. You're ignorant. (topic change + name-calling)

You're appealing to a subjective interpreted history extrapolated from fossils, switching the topic away from a scientifically observed fact.

Scientific observations of Darwin's finches is that their beak sizes have continued to oscillate over the seasons. They are certainly an example of natural selection, but there is no evolutionary "progress" going on - unless you think "smaller beaks" just like previous finches is to be considered a "novel mutation" and progress towards some sort of new lifeform. If you graphed the change of their beak size over time, you'd probably find something that looks like a sin wave. Is change without net change a good example of evolution? Does evolution just mean change, any change?

Observations of Darwin's finches are scientific evidence, and at no point in this back and forth have you addressed my interpretation (large/small beaks is oscillation, not progress), which is itself a very relevant analog to the original topic.

If you want to ignore scientific evidence and analysis, that's your call.

Re:not evolution

[Creedo]

Is natural selection an algorithm that is "looking for" humans?

Nope. We are just a happy accident in the history of life.

That inheritance improves the odds slightly was not in question. The point was that there are other unaccounted forces (survival, environmental changes, luck) working against the unaccounted filtering effect, such that you cannot assume progress just because a filtering effect exists.

Given that the evidence supports the fact that this is in fact what happened, that assumption is more than justified.

Do you believe that 3.1 Gbs of human genome is filler? If true, you should be able to irradiate and randomly mutate somewhere around 99% of a human's DNA sequence with no ill effect.

See, this is where your simplified version gets you into trouble. Genes are added to genomes all the time, from gene copying mistakes to interspecies breeding to bacterial gene interchange to endogenous retroviruses. Entire chromosomes are sometimes duplicated. Random events are adding genetic material all the time, and natural selection is winnowing out the non-working combinations.

You assumed that humans evolved from chimpanzees, extrapolated that rate to the past, and found it reasonable that humans evolved from chimpanzees and fish. That's circular reasoning.

Nope. I demonstrated that, if evolutionary theory is true, the rate of change as demonstrated by our closest living relatives is consistent with the amount of time that change had to have happened, which is precisely what you are denying.

Can you support the assumed human mutation rate with a measured human mutation rate?

Sure. Start here:

The average mutation rate was estimated to be ~2.5 × 108 mutations per nucleotide site or 175 mutations per diploid genome per generation

6 million years divided by an average generation time(20 years for humans, 15 for chimpanzees, so 17.5 average for both species) gives us 342,857 generations. This yields 59,999,975 mutations.

Can we reverse engineer all those intermediate organisms? (Can't do that now, but should be possible if evolution is true!)

Can we extrapolate the likely form and location of the intermediate organisms? Sure. That's how we discovered Tiktaalik, for example. The researchers worked from an understanding of the development of the tetrapods and the population distribution in the fossil records and predicted that they would find a proto-tetrapod in Devonian strata in Canada. And they did. As for whether they can be recreated exactly, then no, and there is no reason to expect it to be possible at all. We can compare related organisms to determine which genes were likely conserved or developed independently. That can get us in the ballpark(which is why we can infer a lot about intermediate species), but recreating an entire extinct genome is likely never going to be possible.

Filters always remove information. At best, with an analog signal carrying digital encoded information, you can remove the noise without harming the information.

Hey, you are almost there! Congrats!

Filters can be a part of an overall creative process

Bingo! That's what I was saying!

A random string generator has the potential to "write" a novel.

Indeed. And I have generated the first paragraph of "Romeo & Julliette" using one that starts with a small string of random gibberish and uses random mutations and selection to generate it. Of course, the couplet is just a model used to represent a theoretical genome which is fit to survive in a particular environment.

Having solved that simpler problem, does

Re:not evolution

[Creedo]

You ignored the grandparent's discussion of Australopithecus in favor of focusing on finches. Let's look at the parts of their questions that you cut out:

Right. What is the alternative, add up a lot of small changes and then not see any change? Australopithecus came down from the trees, got longer legs, shorter arms, better vision, upright posture, wider pelvis, smaller teeth and a larger brain. Is it still an Australopithecus, or is it now a Homo Habilis? I fail to see any logic in your statement, these small changes have added up to a new animal.

Why did you ignore this? Is it because it doesn't fit your "all changes are minimal," sine wave theory? Australopithecus is not just a variation of humans. We don't vacillate between those extremes. Why are you ignoring the thousands of examples out there of biological change over time in favor of your static vision of species?

This is why I bandied the term "ignorant" around. Either you are not aware of the numerous examples of cumulative changes resulting in new species, or you are. One is a form of ignorance, which is blameless and can be easily remedied. The other is a rejection of the evidence, and, given the fact that you are a literate human with access to the Internet for research, is far more problematic. I apologize for being dismissive, but I am really trying to get you to justify your position that changes over time cannot add up to speciation events.

Re:not evolution

[SillyHamster]

See, this is where your simplified version gets you into trouble. Genes are added to genomes all the time, from gene copying mistakes to interspecies breeding to bacterial gene interchange to endogenous retroviruses. Entire chromosomes are sometimes duplicated. Random events are adding genetic material all the time, and natural selection is winnowing out the non-working combinations.

"All the time" ... Observed how?

Nope. I demonstrated that, if evolutionary theory is true, the rate of change as demonstrated by our closest living relatives is consistent with the amount of time that change had to have happened, which is precisely what you are denying.

Danger, Will Robinson.

"If evolutionary theory is assumed to be true, I shall extrapolate a pattern that I shall then claim proves evolutionary theory to be true."

Sure. Start here:

"We investigated the rate and pattern of mutations at the nucleotide level by comparing pseudogenes in humans and chimpanzees to (i) provide an estimate of the average mutation rate per nucleotide"

In short, no, human mutation rate was not measured. They compared human and chimp genomes, assumed the difference is due to evolution and then treated that difference as the human mutation rate using dates derived from evolutionary assumptions. Exactly what you just said before in summary, which I challenged for being circular when used as a rebuttal to my challenge.

You plugged the estimated mutation rate into the problem and claim vindication when it matches evolution. That you seem to think this is amazingly convincing evidence for evolution is pathetic. Do I need to spell out why circular reasoning is not valid?

Can we extrapolate the likely form and location of the intermediate organisms? Sure. That's how we discovered Tiktaalik, for example. ..

Read this and question for a moment the fallibility of human imagination.

http://io9.com/5965389/a-book-that-will-make-you-question-everything-you-know-about-dinosaurs

Then look at these two pictures and tell me why the concept art is "scientific" as opposed to "fantasy".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Tiktaalik_skull_front.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Tiktaalik_BW.jpg

. As for whether they can be recreated exactly, then no, and there is no reason to expect it to be possible at all.

See, if evolution is true, then there's no reason why we can't one day reverse engineer DNA completely (hey, it's random and we're semi-intelligent). At that point in time, we can create any arbitrary DNA sequence, and should be able to reconstruct the intermediate life forms from the DNA sequences. If it happened once by lucky circumstances, we can do it again, intentionally.

Natural selection works on a higher level, so to speak. Genes live or die in the organisms which they build. So, while the filters represent a high level view of how natural selection works, it would take a few more steps to make it more realistic: interpreting the "genome," building an "organism" from that genome and allowing it to compete in a simulated environment. This is, coincidentally, one of my current personal projects.

In short, there's nothing in natural selection that can select against specific base pair mutations. Natural selection can't select for the future, it only compares against now.

OK, let's go with that, noting that we are ignoring a large part of the organisms on earth. Most catastrophic genetic combinations are selecting against before birth.

Not by natural selection based on overall fitness, but by highly specific genetic "error-check" systems (against what reference?). Now how did natural selection work *before* that system evolve

Re:not evolution

[SillyHamster]

Why did you ignore this? Is it because it doesn't fit your "all changes are minimal," sine wave theory? Australopithecus is not just a variation of humans. We don't vacillate between those extremes. Why are you ignoring the thousands of examples out there of biological change over time in favor of your static vision of species?

When was that observed?

Oh, it wasn't? You're extrapolating based on fossil evidence? That's nice.

This is why I bandied the term "ignorant" around. Either you are not aware of the numerous examples of cumulative changes resulting in new species, or you are. One is a form of ignorance, which is blameless and can be easily remedied. The other is a rejection of the evidence, and, given the fact that you are a literate human with access to the Internet for research, is far more problematic. I apologize for being dismissive, but I am really trying to get you to justify your position that changes over time cannot add up to speciation events.

You still aren't talking about the finches. Did you concede that as a point?

If you're going to concede the finches, which of those other "numerous" examples are based on observation of live specimens, and which are extrapolations from fossil records?

Do you think it is useful for the sake of scientific observation to distinguish between "evolution" that results in no change, as opposed to "evolution" that results in brand new organisms? Is it impossible to distinguish between the two, even though Darwin's finches are still finches after hundreds of years of "evolving"? Do you prefer a scientific lexicon that deliberately obfuscates different activity by using the same word in different senses?

Re:not evolution

[Anonymous Coward]

...even though Darwin's finches are still finches after hundreds of years of "evolving"?

Gosh. Hundreds of years! They should be condors by now!

Re:not evolution

[Anonymous Coward]

See Darwin's finches - they're not becoming a large beak/small beak species, but rather varying with the cycle of seasons for their part of the world. Hundreds of years later, they're still finches, and their beak sizes are still varying up *and* down.

There's no reason they should continue increasing or decreasing indefinitely if there's no selection pressure, and with the stable climate and established niches in the islands, no such pressure exists. They are in a period of stasis. Punctuated Equilibrium is a possible explanation for this.

"Philosopher Kim Sterelny adds, 'In claiming that species typically undergo no further evolutionary change once speciation is complete, they are not claiming that there is no change at all between one generation and the next. Lineages do change. But the change between generations does not accumulate. Instead, over time, the species wobbles about its phenotypic mean. Jonathan Weiner's The Beak of the Finch describes this very process.'"

Re:not evolution

[Creedo]

"All the time" ... Observed how?

Examples include trisomy, insertions and gene duplication.

In short, no, human mutation rate was not measured. They compared human and chimp genomes, assumed the difference is due to evolution and then treated that difference as the human mutation rate using dates derived from evolutionary assumptions. Exactly what you just said before in summary, which I challenged for being circular when used as a rebuttal to my challenge.

Point taken. So, start here, then(a good overview of precisely the mistake I made). The lowest estimated mutation rate based simply upon human genomes is 1.0 x 10-8 per site per generation. Still the same order of magnitude, so it won't have a substantial effect on my point.

Read this and question for a moment the fallibility of human imagination.

And I suggest you read some of the comments by actual paleotologists on that page.

Then look at these two pictures and tell me why the concept art is "scientific" as opposed to "fantasy"

Because we also have fossils of the related species as well, which gives us a good idea of how the intermediate species will look. But, then, judging by your later comments, you've already decided that physiology can't be derived from fossil records, so I wouldn't expect it to matter.

See, if evolution is true, then there's no reason why we can't one day reverse engineer DNA completely (hey, it's random and we're semi-intelligent). At that point in time, we can create any arbitrary DNA sequence, and should be able to reconstruct the intermediate life forms from the DNA sequences. If it happened once by lucky circumstances, we can do it again, intentionally.

And why would you assume that? We could create a lookalike, but we will never know if we got all of the genes correct.

In short, there's nothing in natural selection that can select against specific base pair mutations. Natural selection can't select for the future, it only compares against now.

Of course.

Not by natural selection based on overall fitness, but by highly specific genetic "error-check" systems (against what reference?).

What are you talking about? I am talking about death. An organism with a broken metabolism won't survive past a single cell stage. An organism lacking cellular adhesion would not survive past that stage. No "reference" involved at all. Things that are broken just die.

Now how did natural selection work *before* that system evolved into existence, and where is your evidence that life works without it? (Even "basic" bacteria have this functionality)

Early life would have had more errors in transcription, which is exactly what we would expect. Later, as gene expression became more robust and complicated, selection pressure would increase for less error prone mechanisms.

It was a starting point to illustrate the enormity of the problem

And, as I pointed out, you ignored the reality of the theory in order to artificially inflate the problem.

This is part of why I don't consider evolutionary theory to be "solid scientific fact" as you do - it fails to do rigorous mathematical modeling. If it is so plausible, there should be math that puts my rough model to shame; and yet I haven't seen anything that attempts to capture the probabilities involved or how evolution comfortably meets the challenge.

That is because you are starting off from a bad theoretical foundation and expecting th

Re:not evolution

[Creedo]

When was that observed? Oh, it wasn't? You're extrapolating based on fossil evidence? That's nice.

Fossil evidence, DNA evidence, geological evidence. You know, converging lines of evidence.

You still aren't talking about the finches. Did you concede that as a point?

Nope. Why would I? You have simply rehashed an old creationist canard which is usually presented to assert that microeveolution occurs while macroevolution does not. It's also usually presented as an example of Biblical "kinds." It is certainly an example of evolution. Whether it is an example of complete speciation is another question, but it has no bearing on the larger issue.

If you're going to concede the finches, which of those other "numerous" examples are based on observation of live specimens, and which are extrapolations from fossil records?

We have exactly two categories of specimens to examine: live and dead. The expectation that we are going to see vast evolutionary leaps in real time is part of this distorted view of evolution that you are pushing. It doesn't correspond to reality or to the theory of evolution. You can choose to ignore evidence from fossils and DNA comparisons all you like. It's just dishonest.

Do you think it is useful for the sake of scientific observation to distinguish between "evolution" that results in no change, as opposed to "evolution" that results in brand new organisms?

All evolution, by definition, results in change. So, no, it's not a useful distinction. It's just an attempt to evade the obvious conclusions of evolutionary theory.

s it impossible to distinguish between the two, even though Darwin's finches are still finches after hundreds of years of "evolving"?

I'm tempted to rescind my prior apology. Are you really so obtuse that you think that we should expect some drastic evolutionary change in those finches in hundreds of years?

Do you prefer a scientific lexicon that deliberately obfuscates different activity by using the same word in different senses?

No, I prefer honesty in approaching science and evidence, not deliberate obfuscation to support creationism.

Re:not evolution

[SillyHamster]

Fossil evidence, DNA evidence, geological evidence. You know, converging lines of evidence.

So you can bring those to bear on the subject of finches and cliff swallows? Please, do cite away.

Nope. Why would I? You have simply rehashed an old creationist canard which is usually presented to assert that microeveolution occurs while macroevolution does not. It's also usually presented as an example of Biblical "kinds." It is certainly an example of evolution. Whether it is an example of complete speciation is another question, but it has no bearing on the larger issue.

...All evolution, by definition, results in change. So, no, it's not a useful distinction. It's just an attempt to evade the obvious conclusions of evolutionary theory.

So if a population oscillates between two dominant phenotypes (small beak/big beak; short wings/long wings), you are satisfied that this is an example of evolution even if there are no net changes to the organism's genome?

And you find that this is strong evidence that over a time period of millions/billions of years, that this oscillation will result in an entirely different animal?

I'm tempted to rescind my prior apology. Are you really so obtuse that you think that we should expect some drastic evolutionary change in those finches in hundreds of years?

If there is no net change over hundreds of years, how do you that into non-zero net change over millions of years?

No, I prefer honesty in approaching science and evidence, not deliberate obfuscation to support creationism.

We can both accuse each other of obfuscation, but I haven't relied on accusations of dishonesty and ignorance. I don't find it useful to slap "evolution" on any type of change, when the character of the change is entirely different. Does a child "evolve" into an adult?

Re:not evolution

[Creedo]

So you can bring those to bear on the subject of finches and cliff swallows? Please, do cite away.

No, I bring those to bear on the larger issue of evolution.

So if a population oscillates between two dominant phenotypes (small beak/big beak; short wings/long wings), you are satisfied that this is an example of evolution even if there are no net changes to the organism's genome?

If that trait is being passed on to offspring, then yes, it is. In the case of Darwin's finches, you have distinct species(little to no interbreeding) which inhabit different niches and which display morphological differences which are readily apparent. You can find similar examples in ring species. The cliff swallows are indeed evolution(provided that the traits are indeed being passed on to offspring), but this is not a speciation event(at least, not yet).

And you find that this is strong evidence that over a time period of millions/billions of years, that this oscillation will result in an entirely different animal?

Since this is couched within the larger body of evidence regarding evolution, certainly. As for what type of animal the decendents of those birds will be, it all depends on the variety of environmental pressures which are exerted upon the species. In a few million years, those swallows may well give rise to flightless sea birds. In a few million years, invasive species in the Galapagos Islands may lead to the evolution of larger meat eating finches. Genetic drift may lead to something entirely unexpected. And they may all just go extinct, leaving some other species to adapt and fill their respective niches. It would take the ability to see the future to know how environmental pressures are going to affect their genomes in next few million years.

If there is no net change over hundreds of years, how do you that into non-zero net change over millions of years?

I said drastic evolutionary change. Those species are indeed ungoing evolution right now. Every species is. The process runs on geological time. We can chart genetic change, but you have already made it clear that you hold to the creationist idea of there being different "types" of evolution. You won't be satisfied by anything short of a major morphological change happening in your lifetime. Do you also dismiss plate tectonics because mountains don't spring up over the course of a human lifetime?

We can both accuse each other of obfuscation, but I haven't relied on accusations of dishonesty and ignorance.

Good for you. Having cornered many creationists into finally admitting their a priori assumptions, I no longer have the patience to assume that someone who is presenting the same old arguments is doing so in good faith.

I don't find it useful to slap "evolution" on any type of change, when the character of the change is entirely different.

The character is not different. That's the point.

Does a child "evolve" into an adult?

Is a child a population?

Re:not evolution

[SillyHamster]

Examples include trisomy, insertions and gene duplication.

Trisomy: "Trisomies can occur with any chromosome, but often result in miscarriage"

Insertions: "Insertions can be particularly hazardous if ..."

Gene duplication: "Gene duplication doesn't necessarily constitute a lasting change in a species' genome. In fact, such changes often don't last past the initial host organism"

Clearly evolutionary progress is inevitable.

Point taken. So, start here, then(a good overview of precisely the mistake I made). The lowest estimated mutation rate based simply upon human genomes is 1.0 x 10-8 per site per generation. Still the same order of magnitude, so it won't have a substantial effect on my point.

So estimate 30 million mutations over 6 million years - but not every mutation is an improvement - what is the ratio of "good" to "bad" mutations?

See, if evolution is true, then there's no reason why we can't one day reverse engineer DNA completely (hey, it's random and we're semi-intelligent). At that point in time, we can create any arbitrary DNA sequence, and should be able to reconstruct the intermediate life forms from the DNA sequences. If it happened once by lucky circumstances, we can do it again, intentionally.

And why would you assume that? We could create a lookalike, but we will never know if we got all of the genes correct.

The reason that's important to verify is that we don't know that you can generate a continuous line of organisms from bacteria to human with incremental changes.

In the CS world, the equivalent would be to mutate your way from DOS to Win8 with random bit flips. It may be possible, but it is tedious and not very efficient.

If it turns out that you need to make discrete million base pair jumps between viable species, you put a stake into the heart of gradual evolution. (Leaving you with punctuated equilibrium, hoping for consecutive lottery wins)

What are you talking about? I am talking about death. An organism with a broken metabolism won't survive past a single cell stage. An organism lacking cellular adhesion would not survive past that stage. No "reference" involved at all. Things that are broken just die.

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

Early life would have had more errors in transcription, which is exactly what we would expect. Later, as gene expression became more robust and complicated, selection pressure would increase for less error prone mechanisms.

You're giving me a headache with the repeated circular reasoning. "I expect this, which is what I would expect". That's nice, but that's not evidence.

That is because you are starting off from a bad theoretical foundation and expecting the theory to match up to that.

Your dogmatic faith in evolution is noted. There is no reason why there cannot be a solid mathematical model for evolutionary probabilities. It involves many large numbers which places it solidly in the realm of statistics.

"Take away some of the proof, and all you have left is evidence that I personally disagree with."

If all the remainder of your evidence is fossil interpretation, then yeah, you're not even doing science any more.

If you're trying to recreate the past, you're performing forensics to discover history. What happened 200 million years ago is not something you determine with control groups and scientific experiments. You can collect scientific evidence to support a historical theory, but one does not deal with "proofs" in history. ("proofs" is the realm of logic and math)

Re:not evolution

[Anonymous Coward]

you are satisfied that this is an example of evolution even if there are no net changes to the organism's genome?

Evolution is defined in biology as a change in the frequency of gene alleles in a population over time. Learn this and remember it. If you want to argue against evolution, that is the assertion you must refute.

In the case of the finches, it entirely depends on which genes you're considering and the length of the observation. It does no good to just say "there is no net change" without specifying a time period.

To use your sine wave example, if you look at it through 1 cycle or n cycles, you see no net change. If you look at it through half a cycle, you see a big change.

Re:not evolution

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry, I should have said "quarter cycle," not "half cycle." It was late. :)

Re:not evolution

[SillyHamster]

Evolution is defined in biology as a change in the frequency of gene alleles in a population over time. Learn this and remember it. If you want to argue against evolution, that is the assertion you must refute.

I am arguing against the part of evolution that claims that bacteria can be incrementally improved by random mutation into a human being.

Evolutionary proponents don't help the issue by deliberately obfuscating the word to mean any type of generational change observed in biology. I can describe the difference with words, why do we need to obfuscate the vocabulary to prevent people from recognizing the distinction?

In the case of the finches, it entirely depends on which genes you're considering and the length of the observation. It does no good to just say "there is no net change" without specifying a time period.

I don't need to specify a time period. I only need to show that a sin wave does not scale with time. As time goes to infinity, a sin wave value stays within [-1, 1]. Contrast that to a linear, exponential, or even square root function, where value->infinity as t->infinity.

To use your sine wave example, if you look at it through 1 cycle or n cycles, you see no net change. If you look at it through half a cycle, you see a big change.

If you then extrapolate that quarter cycle observation to say that you will see an even bigger change over 1 cycles or 20 cycles, you'd be wrong. The net change you can have in a oscillating function is bounded. This does not help a bacteria evolve into a human being, which is the claim I dispute.

If evolution just means "change", I'm an "evolutionist", I just find that it doesn't scale as well as commonly believed.

Re:not evolution

[SillyHamster]

No, I bring those to bear on the larger issue of evolution.

Which was not the original topic. The topic was whether the examples of "natural selection evolution" support that "larger issue of evolution".

For the sake of argument, let's say that the larger issue of evolution is 100% correct. Do cliff swallows and finches oscillating between phenotypes provide the type of change that will result in evolutionary "progress"? Note that no genetic testing has been performed here, and for all we know, the birds develop their beak/wings differently depending on food availability. (like how current generations are taller than previous generations due to better nutrition)

I believe your topic switch to the broader issue of evolution has already conceded that point - it's "No". You didn't make it explicit, but you're saying, "No, it doesn't, but we can believe that evolution happened in the past because of fossils and other evidence!" In other words, this isn't strong evidence for evolution, but there's other strong evidence!

Thank you for sharing your faith that evolution happened, but I don't find it relevant to the discussion. Science isn't about dogma, it's about reliable processes and repeatable observations.

You can test a process against a reference - put in known inputs and see if you get the expected outputs. Unfortunately, belief in evolution is a horrible litmus test for one's scientific ability. It's a subjective belief in a provisional history - how is historical belief a prereq for scientific observation and experimentation? It isn't. Yet that's what you have used when you call me ignorant for not professing evolutionary faith.

I hope our discussion on various evolutionary and scientific concepts has demonstrated that I am not ignorant. Mistaken and wrong, perhaps, but definitely not ignorant. Are you willing to incorporate that observation into your understanding, or does your evolutionary faith require you denounce me as a heretic against Science regardless of my ability or argument? Your call.

Good for you. Having cornered many creationists into finally admitting their a priori assumptions, I no longer have the patience to assume that someone who is presenting the same old arguments is doing so in good faith.

Having seen the logical fallacies you've flung against my points, I have little faith that you actually have answers to those "same old arguments". But that's okay, because I'm not threatened by the existence of an opposing viewpoint.

The bigger problem is ...

[pollarda]

There is going to be less meat on the little swallow wings. Less meat == less reason for swallows. Perhaps I should hit a few short winged swallows with my car to select for swallows with more tasty swallow wing meat.

Re:The bigger problem is ...

[ozmanjusri]

There is going to be less meat on the little swallow wings.

So instead of swallows, they'll be gags?

Re:The bigger problem is ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Less meat would mean fewer swallows. Oh! No, uh... Ha! A joke! Yes, yes, a joke!

Re:The bigger problem is ...

[Anonymous Coward]

...tasty swallow wing meat.

That's what your mom said last night.

Maybe birds with shorter wings don't fly as much

[Leuf]

The article says it's because they are more maneuverable, but what if they just sit on their asses a lot unlike their easier flying longer winged relatives? Fly less, get hit less.

Cliff Swallows

[Anonymous Coward]

I have yet to see a Cliff chew let alone swallow.

Not impressed.

[Anonymous Coward]

I would have at least expected some controlled laboratory tests and a data plot pertaining to air-speed velocity...

Re:Maybe birds with shorter wings don't fly as muc

[Anonymous Coward]

The article says it's because they are more maneuverable, but what if they just sit on their asses a lot unlike their easier flying longer winged relatives? Fly less, get hit less.

Fly less, grow obese

Re:Maybe birds with shorter wings don't fly as muc

[viperidaenz]

Fly less, get less food, starve to death?

Saw a Chipmunk Up In the Mountains

[Greyfox]

I was driving up in the mountains a year or so ago and saw a chipmunk run out into the road between me and the car coming the other way. Now normally this is pretty much certain doom for the chipmunk, but this one stopped calmly on the yellow line, stood up and waited for us to pass before continuing. I've always wondered if the evolutionary pressure of traffic combined with their short generation cycles would lead to critters less likely to become roadkill. Guess I have my answer.

Re:Saw a Chipmunk Up In the Mountains

[KC1P]

I'm wondering the same thing about moths. In the last few years I've really started noticing that when I'm driving my car at night on a quiet road with no traffic, moths that are fluttering over the lane will suddenly drop to the pavement as my headlights hit them.

Sort of like a fainting goat, only more useful -- moths who have mini-seizures when they see headlights must have a higher survival rate because now all they have to worry about (besides being bashed up a bit by the fall) is my tires, which are a lot less likely to cream them than the windshield/grill.

Re:Saw a Chipmunk Up In the Mountains

[TheLink]

Similar here I was wondering how long it would take for dogs, cats, etc to evolve to wait for traffic to pass before crossing.

I see hawks or eagles circling some highways nowadays - I wonder if roadkill makes up a significant part of their diet. But they'd better learn to avoid becoming roadkill too ;).

On a related note, I wonder if we are doing the wrong thing by eating/killing the larger members of various fish species while leaving the smaller ones alive. Seems to me for millions of years its been the smaller members of a fish species that have a higher death rate. Perhaps we should be eating the small ones and leaving the big ones alone. The big ones can usually produce more small ones.

Re:Saw a Chipmunk Up In the Mountains

[DigiShaman]

Squirrels. They used to zig-zag back and forth (can't make up their mind) and get crushed. Now, they either wait patiently or bolt across the road when everything looked all in the clear.

But yes, it would seem the indecisive critters got weeded out.

Re:Saw a Chipmunk Up In the Mountains

[Grayhand]

I was driving up in the mountains a year or so ago and saw a chipmunk run out into the road between me and the car coming the other way. Now normally this is pretty much certain doom for the chipmunk, but this one stopped calmly on the yellow line, stood up and waited for us to pass before continuing. I've always wondered if the evolutionary pressure of traffic combined with their short generation cycles would lead to critters less likely to become roadkill. Guess I have my answer.

I wish deer would learn this trick. I had a pair of them stop and stare at my car. Unfortunately they chose a night when the road was like glass and my brakes were nearly useless. I finally managed to change lanes a few feet from them and they only moved after my car was even with them. If I hadn't grown up driving on ice I would have had a face full of air bag and two deers riding shotgun. Apparently Chipmunk behavior is evolving faster than deer behavior.

Re:Saw a Chipmunk Up In the Mountains

[lazy genes]

The wolves are starting to learn new hunting tricks too. I watched a wolf chase a deer into traffic the wolf stopped on the side of the road and watched the deer dodge traffic. At night they wait by the side of the roads and wait for the car headlight to shine into the woods to help locate deer.

Re:Saw a Chipmunk Up In the Mountains

[Anonymous Coward]

Now, if he'd given you the bird as you passed, I would have taken that as direct support for evolution :-)

Re:Saw a Chipmunk Up In the Mountains

[Anonymous Coward]

My theory is deer like to play chicken.

Re:Saw a Chipmunk Up In the Mountains

[Anonymous Coward]

Did you honk your horn at them or flash your headlights? Just curious.

Re:Saw a Chipmunk Up In the Mountains

[sjames]

Crows in Japan have made the most of it. They drop nuts into an intersection, wait for the walk signal and then pick out the meat after car tires do the hard work for them. When the sign changes to don't walk, they fly back up to a wire and wait.

Re:Saw a Chipmunk Up In the Mountains

[only_human]

And crows in Japan are tremendous coat hanger thieves for use as a nesting material.

Re:Saw a Chipmunk Up In the Mountains

[Clueless Nick]

I think smarter dogs, who check for oncoming vehicles before venturing onto a road, will survive more. You can notice this behaviour in a few dogs in places that have large numbers of strays.

It would be interesting to note how quickly this could result into an increase in the average intelligence of dogs (heh heh). Of course, not all dogs live near highways. This roadkill risk has arisen only in the last 100 years.

Re:Saw a Chipmunk Up In the Mountains

[TheLink]

You can notice this behaviour in a few dogs in places that have large numbers of strays.

The males seem to lose their traffic sense once a female in heat is in sight.

But that happens to humans too ;).

Re:Saw a Chipmunk Up In the Mountains

[wonkey_monkey]

They drop nuts into an intersection... and then pick out the meat

They can keep away from my meaty nuts, I says.

Re:Saw a Chipmunk Up In the Mountains

[ArsenneLupin]

... as long as chicken don't try to play deer...

Re:Saw a Chipmunk Up In the Mountains

[Sigg3.net]

So the surviving nut crackers have greater nuts?

Re:Saw a Chipmunk Up In the Mountains

[drinkypoo]

Similar here I was wondering how long it would take for dogs, cats, etc to evolve to wait for traffic to pass before crossing.

At this rate, forever. That's because we're preserving so many dogs and cats that haven't evolved to wait for cars, and we so frequently permit them to escape and interbreed. Natural selection cannot take effect while we are so fervently interfering with the natural breeding processes. These swallows can be said to be under natural selection, because we're not doing that, even though the pressure that is forcing their evolution is manmade, and indeed, man-piloted.

Re:Saw a Chipmunk Up In the Mountains

[Anonymous Coward]

Modern placement of horn buttons off center and right next to an explosive airbag makes using the horn less likely, and quite a bit more risky to do. They should start making them a trigger button on common hold points on the steering wheel. The horn in my car is nigh-useless for anything but low speed parking lot use or getting someone to stop picking their nose and come get in the car.

The last place I want my hand in an emergency is the middle of the steering wheel.

Re:Saw a Chipmunk Up In the Mountains

[Anonymous Coward]

Crows are awesome.

Re:Saw a Chipmunk Up In the Mountains

[Anonymous Coward]

The stray dogs in my country, at least the ones in town, frequently cross on pedestrian crossings.

Re:Saw a Chipmunk Up In the Mountains

[Anonymous Coward]

They don't zig-zag because they can't make up their minds. Well, that might be the immediate cause (we can't read their minds), but the real reason they do it is that it improves Darwinian fitness: when a raptor is swooping down on you, it's good to be unpredictable. Works if people are shooting at you as well.

Re:Saw a Chipmunk Up In the Mountains

[The Raven]

I'd like to point out something few people really think about when it comes to animals: they have as much variation in their intelligence as pets and people. We all know some dogs are for smarter than others... so are some chipmunks, crows, cows, etc. Every population has its geniuses.

Point being that just because one chipmunk figured out what a yellow striped line represented, doesn't mean his siblings, relatives, and neighbors understand. Evolution works by selecting against unviable variations... and that means that variation has to exist.

Re:Saw a Chipmunk Up In the Mountains

[ChrisMaple]

The survival of a smaller variety of a single species of game fish has already been observed. Sorry, no citation.

Re:Saw a Chipmunk Up In the Mountains

[cusco]

I used to live in a big shared house in the '80s, and one of my housemates had a dog named Smith who was our regular companion everywhere. Susan and Smith moved a couple of miles away but Smith would still come to visit, unaccompanied by a person. After the fourth or fifth time we wondered how he managed to get across a couple of very busy streets between our two homes.

One day a friend was waiting for the bus and noticed Smith waiting at the intersection the next block down. Before he could get there a random person arrived and pushed the crosswalk button. When the light changed they crossed the street, with Smith close behind. After they got to the curb Smith went happily and safely on his way.

Re:Saw a Chipmunk Up In the Mountains

[cusco]

Chipmunks can have multiple generations in a year, deer need at least two years per generation.

Re:Saw a Chipmunk Up In the Mountains

[Anonymous Coward]

My cat Winston used to be such an outdoors cat that when he was inside we'd say he was just over visiting. Anyway, whenever he planned on crossing the street, he'd slow his run to a slow jog and look both ways before he crossed. He's still alive. He's 20 this August and still in good shape!

Evolution? Maybe...

[camperdave]

Yes, this may be due to evolution, not of the birds, but the automobile.

To generate increased fuel economy, today's automobile is a lot more streamlined than ones of the past. So there is less air disturbance. It may be that the birds with smaller wings are not affected by the turbulence as much as the larger winged birds are now, and can thus survive an encounter, whereas in the past, there was enough turbulence to affect the birds regardless of wingspan. Also, changes in traffic patterns and vehicle types changes the exhaust, which changes the local plant life, which changes the insect life, which ultimately changes the birds.

While it is simple to observe that long winged birds are being disproportionately killed and that the population's wingspan is growing shorter, and conclude that some sort of selection (Is it natural selection when birds are hit by cars?) is taking place, the reality may be quite different.

Re:Evolution? Maybe...

[Vreejack]

Um, what? Are you trying to suggest that bird wings are shrinking because automobiles produce less turbulence than they used to?

I have seen some really stupid write-ups in Science, but this one was concise and accurate. Roadkill birds have longer wings and the average wingspan has decreased over the decades of the study. It is known that birds with shorter wingspans are more agile in the air. The conclusion is that roadkills are placing a selection pressure on the birds for shorter wingspans. Turbulence is not actually believed to play much of a part, as death is caused when the birds are struck by cars, not when they get caught in their wake.

Re:Evolution? Maybe...

[Anonymous Coward]

Is it natural selection when birds are hit by cars?

Why would it not be natural selection?
The environment in which the birds exist was rapidly changed due to the actions of another migratory species.
This new environment is more dangerous to birds with a larger wing span. The birds with dominant short wing span alleles were able to survive longer and produce more offspring. Ergo, the nature of the environment selectively breed for short wing span alleles in this species in bird. The fact that the environmental change that catalyzed this selective process was instigated by humans doesn't nullify the premise that this is natural selection at work.

To believe that humans are so far removed from nature to no longer be considered natural is hubris. Homo Sapiens is a transformer of the environment not unlike the earliest cyanobacteria that polluted the atmosphere with an over abundance of oxygen billions of years ago through their development of photosynthesis.

Re:Evolution? Maybe...

[Anonymous Coward]

Gee I bet the researchers who cared about this enough to study it didn't consider your top of the head imaginings. Thanks armchair scientist!

Re:Evolution? Maybe...

[ArsenneLupin]

maybe, caught in their wake, and then struck by the next car? (which they might have been able to avoid if they weren't caught in turbulence)?

Re:Evolution? Maybe...

[Sigg3.net]

The ones that survive (short wingspan) gets to reproduce (short wingspan offspring).

Natural selection is not a process of choice, but of who survives; so genes is only part of it (surviving traits and beneficial random mutations) with the environment being the ultimate judge whether the genes will be "allowed to pass".

In this case there has been a sudden change (remember to use a "geological timescale") in the environment with devastating effects.

Natural selection does not imply "nature selects" but the outcome of a number of factors where some factors are more favorable given the circumstances.

Re:Evolution? Maybe...

[drinkypoo]

today's automobile is a lot more streamlined than ones of the past. So there is less air disturbance.

Yes, that is true.

It may be that the birds with smaller wings are not affected by the turbulence as much as the larger winged birds are now, and can thus survive an encounter,

That means less car, less turbulence, less lift, and birds would actually need more wing surface. But what they actually need is more maneuverability, probably in part because the cars are more streamlined, and produce less turbulence, and thus less lift.

Re:Evolution? Maybe...

[camperdave]

today's automobile is a lot more streamlined than ones of the past. So there is less air disturbance.

Yes, that is true.

It may be that the birds with smaller wings are not affected by the turbulence as much as the larger winged birds are now, and can thus survive an encounter,

That means less car, less turbulence, less lift, and birds would actually need more wing surface. But what they actually need is more maneuverability, probably in part because the cars are more streamlined, and produce less turbulence, and thus less lift.

Perhaps. My point is that because the vehicles, and traffic patterns have changed, the conclusion is not automatic. There are other variables involved which could play a role in what's happening here.

Re:Evolution? Maybe...

[drinkypoo]

Perhaps. My point is that because the vehicles, and traffic patterns have changed, the conclusion is not automatic. There are other variables involved which could play a role in what's happening here.

I fail to see how changes in the vehicles are especially relevant when the underlying issue (that many vehicles are going by very quickly) has not changed. The nature of the hazard has changed slightly, but its basic underlying nature (metal boxes going by very quickly) has not.

Re:Evolution? Maybe...

[camperdave]

Um, what? Are you trying to suggest that bird wings are shrinking because automobiles produce less turbulence than they used to?

No, I am suggesting that bird wings are shrinking because the automobiles are using a different blend of fuel than they used to.

Further, I am suggesting that turbulence inducing vehicles might be harder to avoid. The wake could cause a bird to hit the side or rear of a vehicle, or whip it into the ground, or just be violent enough to snap the wing altogether without the bird even hitting anything. Who knows? If the types and sizes of vehicles, the frequency and distribution of traffic, and even the fuel composition of the vehicles travelling through the underpass were the same, then the conclusion would have been a slam-dunk. However, the traffic now is not the same as it was thirty years ago, so there is another variable in the scenario; a variable that could cause the same observed phenomenon (unlikely though it may be).

Re:Evolution? Maybe...

[Anonymous Coward]

No, I am suggesting that bird wings are shrinking because the automobiles are using a different blend of fuel than they used to.

What have you been sniffing??

Swallows, to not get hit, have to fly closer to the bottom of the overpasses. That requires more maneuverability. They can't make a big, lazy banking maneuver to get to the nest. They have to fly straight, stop and change direction quickly.

They don't "dodge" cars. They fly in the small area where they are not hit, even by semis. That is difficult.

CO2 emissions

[growingtedium]

It's actually related to the amount of CO2 in the air - atmosphere volume has increased via burning liquid fuels, which increased the air density at the surface, which allowed shorter wings to provide the same lift as the larger historical wings. Or the car thing.

Re:CO2 emissions

[ChrisMaple]

The concentration of CO2 in the air is about 0.04%. It is simply not aerodynamically significant.

Re:Maybe birds with shorter wings don't fly as muc

[Leuf]

Fly with a purpose when needed, live. Play dodge the highway traffic because you can, splat. If it takes more effort to fly then maybe you cut down on your recreational flying. Sort of like higher gas prices.

Just who is

[Anonymous Coward]

Cliff Swallows?

Re:Maybe birds with shorter wings don't fly as muc

[Anonymous Coward]

Not if you're a short-winged pimp swallow, having all the other long-winged swallows doing all the wing-work, while taking a cut out of every insect returned.

Likewise, all the idiot-proofing tech creates...

[KrazyDave]

more idiots. From antilock brakes to airbags to life-saving medicine and surgery, the more people likely to benefit from these technological advances ensures that more idiots, imbeciles and morons remain alive and viable to pass on their stupid-genes.

Wow.....

[Anonymous Coward]

You moonbats will believe anything. Yet you call those who believe in God crazy.

Look in the mirror, idiots.

"Roadkill Forcing Cliff Swallows to Evolve"

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow...am I the only one who thought thid was a new game devo? Or maybe, a new distro of Linux that I hadn't heard of this week.

AMEN!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Finally, someone with the guts to tell it like it is! Why can't you moonbats see the truth? Why can't you see that everything FOX News says is true? Why can't you see that Mitt Romney really did win the election, that he's sitting in the Oval Office right now, and that the sky is purple?

Glory, glory hallelujah! And you call us crazy??? Look in the mirror, idiots.

*Shakes head*

Kinda Related...

[SuperCharlie]

I had to go through a set of lights by a couple truck stops back in the day more than once a week. I noticed grackles (crowish kinda birds) that would wait on the posts or nearby for the lights to turn red. Then they would jump down and pick the grasshoppers and bugs out of the 18 wheeler grills. When the light turned green, they all flew back up and waited. They were quite well fed.

Re:Kinda Related...

[Sigg3.net]

In the North of Norway last summer I witnessed the consistent practice among seagulls to wait for cars come to them and drop sea urchins on the road. They were quick to swoop down once we passed (even right behind the car) because of the competition.

Re:Kinda Related...

[cmdr_klarg]

Back in the day when I was still at home helping my father on the farm, I'd be out plowing the fields after harvest. More often than not I'd have a group of seagulls congregating about in the middle of the field waiting for me to go by. They would fly up out of the way as I went by on the tractor, and they would land behind the plow, feasting on worms and bugs that had been dug up.

Re:Kinda Related...

[ChrisMaple]

I doubt that the grackles were paying attention to the lights. More likely, they were watching the motion of the trucks.

sure, thats one possibility, what about the other?

[Anonymous Coward]

ill take the dark side of the observation and say its just the pollution from the vehicles that pass by as well as chemical's seeping into the roadkill before they eat it causing the birds to have stunted growth issues, in this case, when it comes to the bird's wing's...

Re:Maybe birds with shorter wings don't fly as muc

[Solandri]

Yeah, the maneuverability part was supposition (it's not like they tested the birds with shorter wingspans to see how much more maneuverable they were).

Here's an alternative possible explanation. Older birds are bigger. Older birds have slower reactions. As overpasses became more common, it was predominantly older birds which were killed disproportionately by passing cars. Consequently the birds may have increased in number, but their population distribution is now skewed towards the younger, smaller end.

"Forcing cliff swallows to evolve"

[muncadunc]

Slight pedantry: The swallows aren't being forced to evolve. The selection pressure is causing evolution among the swallows.

The real questions

[sjames]

What effect does this have on their air speed and coconut carrying ability?

Re:The real questions

[ArsenneLupin]

They'll just land on a truck with their coconut, and ride along. Much less tiring this way, and faster too...

hawks and eagles circling highway thermals

[girlinatrainingbra]

re: I see hawks or eagles circling some highways nowadays
:>)
My understanding of why birds of prey are often seen circling highways is that they are taking advantage of thermals, rising columns of air heated by the asphalt/cement roadway surfaces, to power and maintain their gliding and flying. The fact that there's also an abundance of roadkill may have something to do with it also. See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedge-tailed_Eagle#Behaviour_and_diet for how the eagles can observe thermals with their infrared vision.

Re:hawks and eagles circling highway thermals

[Anonymous Coward]

That, and nicely built perches out in open areas with a good view tend to be along highways. Trees, power lines, and signs all make great places to roost for a bit and check things out.

Re:hawks and eagles circling highway thermals

[girlinatrainingbra]

Makes sense. Roadways are like long linear fields and plains, cleared out by us and maintained as a cleared plain. You often see sea-birds sitting on the lamp posts as you go on and off Coronado island's bridge.

Re:hawks and eagles circling highway thermals

[dywolf]

they were just waiting for the buffet line to open at the Roadkill Cafe

That quickly?

[flimflammer]

Is that seriously enough time for such an evolution to take place? I was not aware evolution happened so quickly, even accounting for their quicker viability for reproduction. Seems like there might be a million other reasons why this is happening, not because of something so recent.

Re:That quickly?

[wonkey_monkey]

Is that seriously enough time for such an evolution to take place? Seems like there might be a million other reasons why this is happening, not because of something so recent.

It happened recently, so yeah, it probably is due to something recent. Don't believe it? You can always get yourself a PhD like the scientists who did the study and repeat the research yourself.

Evolution can easily occur in a single generation if the selection pressure is high enough. In fact, it does occur, all the time, in every generation, but just isn't always this noticeable.

Re:That quickly?

[Alsee]

This sort of thing can easily be that fast when it's simple selection within the range of pre-existing variation. My quickie calculations indicate it would only take about a 4% to 5% percent annual mortality rate among longer winged birds to produce the 30-year observed results.

-

Re:That quickly?

[flimflammer]

I'm sorry; I wasn't aware we needed a PhD to discuss articles on slashdot of all sites. My bad.

Re:That quickly?

[wonkey_monkey]

To discuss? No. To dismiss offhand? It helps.

Re:That quickly?

[comnonsense]

Creationist have always said speciation happenns much faster than Darwin imagined. Evolutionist themselves have discovered it happens billions of times faster than Darwin imagined in many cases. It can happen in a few generations. Reznick, D.N., Shaw, F.H., Rodd, F.H. and Shaw, R.G., Evaluation of the rate of evolution in natural populations of guppies (Poecilia reticulata), Science 275(5308):1934–1937, 1997 There are dozens of similar examples from evolutionist themse;ves A theory that explains everything explains nothing. You hardly hear of the incredible speed that we now know by observation occurs all the time because any evidence that can only be interpreted as a strike against evolution is simpoly ignored. When they get caught with their pants down they just claim that rapid speciation is just as much proof of evolution as imperceptible change is. Heads I win, tales you lose . real scientific! The Galopagos finches are now estimated by evolutionist such as Grant who studied them that they ALL INTERBREED and can speciate in as little as 200 years. But again , so what? Even if they do they are still finches. Why is it so hard to see that leading evolutionst who have been committing one massive fraud after another from Ernst Haekel to Piltdown Man to PiltdownBird to phony Lucy dolls that convince children she was almost human when her hands and feet were even more apelike that most modern knuckle walking apes would think twice about ignoring evidence that sheds a questionable light on the ancient anti-God religion of evoution? Speciation is crucial to the creation model but worthless to evolution. Speciation is a loss , evolution needs gains. Nat. Geographic called the beak size changes in the finches " Instant Evolution" because they cahange very rapidly according to the weather. It is not evolution at all, just a built in survival mechanism

Re:Maybe birds with shorter wings don't fly as muc

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm a short-winged pimp swallow. And short-winged pimp swallows don't commit suicide.

Re:How come no animals have evolved 4D

[Forty Two Tenfold]

Because, contrary to popular judeo-christian mythology, evolution is NOT magic.

Why didn't they evolve...

[ArsenneLupin]

... to simply avoid building nests that dangle precariously from highway overpasses? Why not chose safer nesting places? What if a huge truck passes on top of the bridge, shaking it so much that the nest comes off and falls down on the highway below? Then the brood is dead, shorter wingspans or not...

Re:Why didn't they evolve...

[Anonymous Coward]

Why do humans build nests next to volcanoes? Humans can even use informed reason to self-select against the volcano, yet they still do it.

Re:Why didn't they evolve...

[drinkypoo]

Why don't humans evolve to stop building homes on floodplains?

Re:Why didn't they evolve...

[cusco]

Well, your scenario doesn't happen, the nests are attached amazingly well. Even when the Department of Transportation peels them off the side of the bridges there is a tough 'foundation' left behind.

Cliff swallow populations are increasing in many areas because more nesting places are available than ever before. The cliff swallow population in Bellevue, WA, where I live used to be negligible, but since the freeway construction a couple of decades ago there are now hundreds of them and they're actually pushing out the tree swallows and barn swallows in some areas because predation on their nests is almost non-existent while crows are still able to access the tree and barn swallow nests. I've noticed that there are now swallows in downtown Seattle now as well, a place which has never had any natural locations for cliff swallows.

Useless hindsight

[petman]

We often get stories like this where some scientists make some observation and declare that that was due to evolution. If evolution is such a great theory, how about someone come up with a prediction for once, as in something like, "Due to these conditions, this so-and-so life form will eventually evolve to have such-and-such appurtenances with such-and-such characteristics". Anybody up for the challenge?

Re:Useless hindsight

[serviscope_minor]

how about someone come up with a prediction for once, as in something like, "Due to these conditions, this so-and-so life form will eventually evolve to have such-and-such appurtenances with such-and-such characteristics". Anybody up for the challenge?

How about Darwin himself predicting that ther must be some mechanism for passing on most of the characteristics of parents on to children but with the opportunity for relatively small random changes to happen: small enough to be not necessarily harmful.

DNA cropped up later, and fitted the predictions pretty darn well.

Re:Useless hindsight

[petman]

That's not a prediction. That's a proposition. Prediction is about estimating a future event. DNA already existed at the time, it's just that Darwin didn't know about it. So Darwin made a proposition, not a prediction.

Re:Useless hindsight

[Anonymous Coward]

How about not getting your science degree from the pulpit

Re:Useless hindsight

[3.5 stripes]

I propose due to generalized ignorance of how science works that posters like petman will evolve to make stupider and stupider claims about what a theory should be able to do. People do predict that something will evolve, but knowing or predicting how nature and evolution will do so exactly is on the same order as picking the right numbers for a lottery, there are simply too many ways that something could evolve, that a latent gene could prove valuable, or that a mutation of any type could provide that edge necessary.

Re:Useless hindsight

[Anonymous Coward]

So it's not enough for Darwin, but Einstein's predictions of gravitational lensing are fine? (Look up the eclipse of 1919)

Re:Useless hindsight

[petman]

So you're saying is that evolution is a totally useless theory. Oh. that's not what you're saying? So tell me, how does knowing the theory of evolution change any of your decisions today, tomorrow or any time in the future? In my book, if it does not make a prediction that can be proven, then it's useless.

Re:Useless hindsight

[SleazyRidr]

This isn't the exact study I was thinking about, but it makes some of the same points: http://www.futurity.org/science-technology/sexually-precocious-super-flies-decoded/

There are two major hurdles that come to me immediately that make the kind of study you suggest practical:
1. Evolution doesn't happen quickly, it takes many generations. Using fast breeding species, like flies, is one way to get some results in a "reasonable" period of time. You can also look at historical accounts: breeding wild dogs into the range of dogs we see today, for instance. We can predict that breeding small dogs with other small dogs will eventually get you really tiny dogs, can you imagine something like a teacup chihuahua surviving in the wild?
2. The interesting parts of evolution are pretty much random. The feathers that appeared on dinosaurs could not have been predicted, they just happened one day and now we have birds. Around the time of the industrial revolution there were white moths who could camoflage themselves on the predominantly white trees in the area (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peppered_moth_evolution). Luckily for them, there was a freak mutation that turned some of them black, allowing them to hide against trees covered in coal dust. A scientist would predict that these moths would just go extinct (or at least not live around coaly areas) but the unexpected changes have altered their evolutionary course completely.

Re:Useless hindsight

[RobinH]

There was a recent prediction, in the news, that polar bears might become brown eventually if their habitat stops being as icy. Guess we'll have to wait (a long time) to find out.

Re:Useless hindsight

[serviscope_minor]

That's not a prediction. That's a proposition. Prediction is about estimating a future event.

So, the prediction of quarks etc was not a prediction?

Re:Useless hindsight

[Creedo]

So Darwin made a proposition, not a prediction.

He made predictions, too. For example, a famous moth that, in 1862, he predicted must exist was finally discovered in 1903.

But that's not all. Let's try a more recent example. Based on evolutionary theory, several paleotologists began searching Ellesmere Island in Canada for examples of proto-tetrapods in sediment from the Devonian period. And guess what they found, just where they had predicted? This little bugger.

Evolutionary theory is actually very useful in predicting things, from the probable location of certain fossils to the genetic changes which occurred in the various families that results in the species we see today. Go look at whale evolution and how it was worked out, for another example.

Re:Useless hindsight

[Creedo]

So tell me, how does knowing the theory of evolution change any of your decisions today, tomorrow or any time in the future? In my book, if it does not make a prediction that can be proven, then it's useless.

I'm not the parent, but I'll answer. As I pointed out before, it is quite useful for prediction. But, it certainly does have an effect on my decisions. The use of antibiotics, for example, is a decision which is affected by the fact that bacteria evolve quickly. My choice of diet and activity is affected by what I know of the evolutionary history of my species. My choice of pets is partially dictated by evolution(I avoid certain breeds of cats and dogs due to genetic problems). And, of course, if you count indirect effects, evolution touches on virtually everything I experience, from social interactions to my appreciation of nature.

Finally, I would study evolution for no reason other than to learn. I am not one to revel in ignorance and call it pragmatism.

Re:Useless hindsight

[ChrisMaple]

There is implicit prediction in any tying together of environmental change and a species' physical change in response, that similar environmental changes in the future will result in similar responses, and that a change in the other direction will result in a reversion of the physical change. Such response was noted even in Darwin's work.

Re:Useless hindsight

[ChrisMaple]

Anybody up for the challenge?

See The Next Million Years by Darwin's grandson.

Re:Useless hindsight

[cusco]

Scientists predicted in the 1970s that if cod continued to be fished the in same manner that the evolutionary pressure would give greater advantage to fish that reproduced younger and smaller than was common at the time. Guess what?

shorter wings...

[Anonymous Coward]

What's their air speed velocity now?

Re:first

[newcastlejon]

In other words, while the early bird gets the worm it's the second mouse that gets the cheese?

Hares still didn't evolve though

[ArsenneLupin]

My mother had a funny encounter with a hare when she was young. She was driving on a small country road at night, and suddenly a hare jumped from the field onto the road between her headlights. Not knowing how to dress one anyways, she slowed down.

What happened then was hilarious. The hare saw the left head light, became scared and jumped to the right. Being now closer to the right head light, it became scared again and jumped to the left. Then again to the right, and so the hare became trapped between her head lights. This continued until the next village where there was light all over the place, and the hare got away (... while the village people shook their head how anybody could let a perfectly good hare run away after having had such an easy opportunity for miles...)

Fast forward 35 years later. I was also driving on a nightly country road, and you guessed it a hare. Not knowing how to dress one either (and not being that fond of venison anyways), I just followed it for 2-3 jumps, then briefly switched off my lights to let it go...

So, apparently hares didn't evolve in those 35 years...

Re:Hares still didn't evolve though

[3.5 stripes]

Venison is deer, you could possibly call the meat game, if you're looking for a generalized name for roadkill meat.

Re:Hares still didn't evolve though

[ArsenneLupin]

This seems to be a more recent usage of the word. The original meaning did cover all local wildlife, including hares.

Re:Hares still didn't evolve though

[Cro Magnon]

That's because your mom let the first hare go and it reproduced a bunch of stupid hares like it was. If she had taken out the hare, the survivors might have been smarter.

Re:Hares still didn't evolve though

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes rabbits and hares can often get caught between lights or run along side as they still want to cross the road. They run very fast too for short periods.
But as long as you don't have anyone in the car that likes rabbits, a quick small veer and centre will normally (dress/undress maybe) the pest.
On New Zealand roads I have killed dozens of possums, rabbits, hares, rats and wild cats. Some are legendary and people talk of a one eyed possum they missed going over the Lewis Pass etc.
Maybe the increase in swallow populations has led to them having smaller hunting areas as other swallows are already feeding those areas. Maybe more civilized/large populations mean they no longer need to fly as greater distance?

Re:Hares still didn't evolve though

[Alsee]

Your mother got stuck at a walking-pace behind a rabbit all the way till the next town, while you "just followed it for 2-3 jumps, then briefly switched off my lights to let it go..."

So, apparently humans evolved greater intelligence in those 35 years.

-

Re:How come no animals have evolved 4D

[funkboy]

Because, contrary to popular judeo-christian mythology, evolution is NOT magic.

Please defend your statement by pointing out the section of the Bible where evolution is discussed.

Because folks confusing what a bunch of right-wing fundamentalist nutjobs spout on TV vs. actual Christian religious tradition is part of the problem.

... wow, that was stupid

[SmallFurryCreature]

You are aware that the size difference in fish is NOT to seperate fit from unfit fish but that is a seperation on AGE of the fish?

Basically you are suggesting that the answer to a healthy fish stock for the future is to kill all the young and life the adults to swim free...

I know this is Slashdot and that with your intelligence we should all be grateful you got so little practical experience with reproduction but I think that even you might need to read up a bit on how a species survives.

Hint: It involves adults dying and being replaced by something that came out of them before they died.

You know people are to far removed from nature when people seriously suggest that killing the babies is the way to preserve a species.

Re:... wow, that was stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

You're the one being stupid. Who other than you said anything about killing ALL the young?

Many of the fishes (not all) we eat produce large numbers of young of which only a small percentage survive to reproductive maturity. That's how their reproductive strategy works. See: http://spo.nmfs.noaa.gov/mfr413/mfr4131.pdf

If you eat a lot of the big ones, you screw up that strategy. Such species can often cope with losing large percentages of the young - that's what happens all the time anyway. Losing a large percentage of the adults would be a bigger impact on their long term survival. You're basically removing the "factories" producing baby fish.

Losing say 50% of the baby fish per year could merely mean, 50% fewer _new_ adults per year. The population might even continue to grow with such pressure. Whereas killing 50% of the adults every year could drive the species to extinction.

Re: zig-zag squirrels

[Anonymous Coward]

Now, they either wait patiently or bolt across the road when everything looked all in the clear.

Here the squirrels like to run 3/4 across a road, where they do a quick 180 and then head back to the original curb. And the little rat bastards always make it, even if you floor it. I guess only running 3/4 across the road is an evolutionary advantage to running curb-to-curb. 8^B (squirrel smiley face)

Which is very funny

[Anonymous Coward]

Because evolution of the form in fossile record and outside is what we observe. Natural selection is the theory trying to explaining it. Those folk thinks it is the theory of evolution when in reality it is the theory of natural selection based on observed evolution....

Re:How come no animals have evolved 4D

[nedlohs]

There is more to "judeo-chistian mythology" than just the Bible.

Re:I call fake

[able1234au]

One centimeter ain't going to help you there either...

It was long enough for your father.

The 36 in your name is your IQ?

Re:How come no animals have evolved 4D

[tehcyder]

Because, contrary to popular judeo-christian mythology, evolution is NOT magic.

Please defend your statement by pointing out the section of the Bible where evolution is discussed.

Because folks confusing what a bunch of right-wing fundamentalist nutjobs spout on TV vs. actual Christian religious tradition is part of the problem.

I'd say that the Book of Genesis was part of Christian tradition, and that explicitly states that God created animals and man from scratch, in direct contradiction to the Theory of Evolution.

I know it's fashionable for non-idiotic Christians to say that these unscientific bits of the Bible are, ha ha, obviously not meant to be taken literally, but if I'm asked to ignore the details of what God did when he created the universe, why should I even believe He was/is there at all?

Re:How come no animals have evolved 4D

[Anonymous Coward]

Humans have miraculously evolved 4D.

Dog breeding is not evolution

[Latent Heat]

Using the swallows to dis' religion is merely helping the anti-evolutionists say "I told you so."

Are the short-winged swallows unable to mate with other swallow in their parent population?

There is no dispute that traits are inherited and that of the traits in the gene pool of an organism, certain traits can be selected, either through breeding or through environmental selection pressure such as road kill of swallows, soot on trees with moths, or superbugs emerging with antibiotic resistance.

Has anyone, however, observed this selection effect going on for a long enough time for the emergence of new species?

Has anyone seen mutations arise that weren't in the gene pool of an organism and seen the mutated form "take over" a population because the mutation conferred a survival advantage, in other words, a Hopeful Monster in the lingo of evolutionary biology?

So in the Arthur C Clarke sense of any tech beyond current knowledge takes on the appearance of magic, evolution is and remains magic. There are a variety of hypothesized ways to generate entirely new species, but they have not been observed directly.

Re:Dog breeding is not evolution

[CoolBru]

There are a variety of hypothesized ways to generate entirely new species, but they have not been observed directly.

Not true.

Re:Dog breeding is not evolution

[Sique]

Are the short-winged swallows unable to mate with other swallow in their parent population?

This normally happens only if the two strains of livings are separated and allowed to develop independently. And even then it doesn't necessarily mean that the now occuring species can't interbred anymore. Polar bear and grizzly are a wellknown example of two species who could interbred, but normally don't do because they live in different environments. In this case, we talk about geographical species.

What we see here, is a so called genetic drift. While still being the same species, the average genotype is moved to shorter wings.

Has anyone, however, observed this selection effect going on for a long enough time for the emergence of new species?

Yes, there was an experiment with strains of E. coli (a type of bacteria), which were fed citric acid additionally to their normal diet. E. coli normally doesn't metabolize citric acid. But after about 12,000 generations, there was a new strain of E. coli which could metabolize citric acid. Bacteria don't interbred at all, they reproduce by cell division. Thus a definition of a species via cross-breeding doesn't make sense. E. coli is differentiated from other similar bacteria strains by not digesting citric acid. Thus, this new strain of citric acid digesting E. coli is a new bacteria species.

Re:Dog breeding is not evolution

[BattleApple]

Has anyone seen mutations arise that weren't in the gene pool of an organism and seen the mutated form "take over" a population because the mutation conferred a survival advantage

I saw a documentary recently that said there are nurse sharks near the bikini atoll that are believed to have developed a mutation (missing second dorsal fin) due to exposure to radiation from nuclear testing in the late 40's, early 50's. Normally that type of mutation only affects one or two generations, but the mutation has persisted to this day. I don't think anyone has theorized an advantage yet. They didn't detect any abnormal radiation levels in the water at this time.

Re:Dog breeding is not evolution

[ChrisMaple]

Human-directed selection in plants, particularly decorative flowers, has lead to new types that are reproductively incompatible with their forebears, and also new types that are sterile.
To a lesser degree of separation, go to a grocery and look for pluots, plumcots, and apriums. Hybridized from plums and apricots, they aren't plums and they are obviously not apricots.

Re:Dog breeding is not evolution

[RabidReindeer]

Has anyone seen mutations arise that weren't in the gene pool of an organism and seen the mutated form "take over" a population because the mutation conferred a survival advantage

I saw a documentary recently that said there are nurse sharks near the bikini atoll that are believed to have developed a mutation (missing second dorsal fin) due to exposure to radiation from nuclear testing in the late 40's, early 50's. Normally that type of mutation only affects one or two generations, but the mutation has persisted to this day. I don't think anyone has theorized an advantage yet. They didn't detect any abnormal radiation levels in the water at this time.

Not all mutations are an advantage or disadvantage. Mutations, if bound to procreative genes, can potentially persist forever. It's not like they wear out and fade away. Whether the fin gene is was originally atomically-induced, chemically triggered or set off by a passing cosmic ray doesn't matter. As long as it doesn't materially interfere with the ability of the bearer and its descendants (if any) to reproduce, it won't make any difference how many fins the shark has. That's what evolutionary "survival" is.

On the other hand, listen to a lot of people's concept of "survival of the fittest" and you'd think that the real signs of evolution would be when swallows develop ramming beaks for shattering oncoming windshields and built-in grenade launchers.

Oh, and

Re:Dog breeding is not evolution

[RabidReindeer]

Human-directed selection in plants, particularly decorative flowers, has lead to new types that are reproductively incompatible with their forebears, and also new types that are sterile.

To a lesser degree of separation, go to a grocery and look for pluots, plumcots, and apriums. Hybridized from plums and apricots, they aren't plums and they are obviously not apricots.

All of the preceding are members of genus prunus, if not directly inter-fertile. It would be harder to cross-breed citrus with them, because, while citrus and prunus are both rosids, their genetics are less similar. Cross-breeding them with dachsunds would require an assistant named Igor.

Sterile hybrids are an excellent example of how sometimes Survival of the Fittest doesn't merely mean not killing everything else in sight, but actually not even being able to breed on your own. As long as these species maintain their pet humans, they're likely to continue to propagate. Some of them have already outlived species who didn't require artificial propagation. Dodos, for example.

Re:Dog breeding is not evolution

[Alsee]

Has anyone, however, observed this selection effect going on for a long enough time for the emergence of new species?

Yes.
Try googling: observed speciation.

Has anyone seen mutations arise that weren't in the gene pool of an organism and seen the mutated form "take over" a population because the mutation conferred a survival advantage, in other words, a Hopeful Monster in the lingo of evolutionary biology?

Yes.
Try googling: evolution nylonase, for just one of many examples.

So in the Arthur C Clarke sense of any tech beyond current knowledge takes on the appearance of magic, evolution is and remains magic.

Just because you haven't studied Evolution, or Quantum Mechanics, or Relativity, or Chemistry, or whatever other field of science, and you don't understand it, and you know exactly ZERO of the experiments and evidence and observations that does exist in that field .... it may seem like magic... to you.... however is absurd of you to ignore the scientists that have studied it... absurd of you to assume that the evidence doesn't exist when you obviously haven't bothered to look for what does exist.... and WILDLY ABSURD of you to assert any of those fields of science "is and remains magic" simply because you never bothered learning anything about it.

There are a variety of hypothesized ways to generate entirely new species, but they have not been observed directly.

Yes, they have.
As I said above, try googling: observed speciation.

Or better yet, find a good highschool biology textbook or a good website on evolution. Evolution doesn't seem at all "magical" if you read up enough to really understand it, and you check out the iron-clad scientific evidence that's out there.

-

No respect

[TheSkepticalOptimist]

I have no respect for a bird that gets killed 4 - 6 feet off the ground.

Re:No respect

[cusco]

I have huge respect for a bird that can dive at 40 miles an hour to snatch a fly two inches off the ground without going 'splat'.

Re:Adaptation vs. Evolution

[TheSkepticalOptimist]

Its the same thing, get educated:

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

Re:I call fake

[Anonymous Coward]

Just read the article. The wing span only decreased one centimeter. That is less than one millimeter a year. A one centimeter difference in wingspan won't help a bird at all, let alone one millimeter. You are not going to be "selected" because of one centimeter. Most of the birds I have hit with my car are usually in the middle of the windshield. To avoid the impact, the bird would have had to suddenly move more than two+ feet out of the way. One centimeter ain't going to help you there either... I remember the 1980's. Lots of rain, lush green fields. Now here in the south in 2012, Everything is dead and brown, with fires everywhere from drought. Yet these two dimwitted "scientist" blame "evolution" for these smaller birds. Probably just used the word evolution to get more grant money. Crooks...

You've been modded down but you do point out some things that seem obvious to the casual reader. Have they compared other birds wing span lengths in the area? Perhaps the food sources have caused all birds to have shorter wings. I agree, a couple mm in wing span is negligible in aerodynamics in helping avoid a car in the numbers listed in the article. There is something else going on here.

Re:How come no animals have evolved 4D

[Zordak]

I'd say that the Book of Genesis was part of Christian tradition, and that explicitly states that God created animals and man from scratch, in direct contradiction to the Theory of Evolution.

What Bible are you reading? From Genesis 1:

11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.

12 And the earth abrought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

I'm missing the part where it "explicitly" says "from scratch with no evolution involved." It just says God said, "Make it so," all Captain Picard like, and then it was carried out through some unspecified agency.There are literally no details about how it was done. Likewise with the animals:

20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.

21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

22 And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.

23 And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.

24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.

25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

Even the word "day" could better be rendered "time period." A "day" might be 1 billion years. In any case, evolutionary theory neither proves nor disproves God. In fact, if you read Origin of Species, you'll find that Charles Darwin was not the atheist demigod smarmy atheists like to make him out to be. He speaks quite openly about God and pontificates that "Hey, maybe this is how God speciates animals." (Also, he wasn't particularly concerned with the ultimate origin of life. He was specifically concerned with speciation.)

Forcing?

[Anonymous Coward]

Nothing is forcing anything. The swallows with longer wingspans are dead. It's a filter, not a change. It's not like there was a swallow conference where they adopted new, shorter wing standards.

Re:first

[yurtinus]

I'm pretty sure none of these analogies are valid...

Re:first

[yurtinus]

Sorry, I meant to add the correct analogy you guys were looking for: the first model year of a car is always to be avoided, because they haven't worked out the kinks yet.

Haha, almost had me!

[yurtinus]

Up until "abrought" I almost believed you!

Re:Haha, almost had me!

[Zordak]

You almost believed what? That this is what Genesis 1 says? I was copying from a text that had footnote references, and I missed taking one out. But feel free to otherwise compare it to any KJV text.

Re:How come no animals have evolved 4D

[gsslay]

A "day" might be 1 billion years.

And "seed" might be asteroids, "fowl" might be spaceships, "creeping thing" might be nanotech bots and "blessed" may be "provided a 1 billion year support contract". If you like to provide your own translation of every word and concept in the Bible, you can make it anything you want it to be, prove anything you like and be infinitely update-able.

If we were to accept this, it must be very comforting that Genesis can seem to be more than simplistic myth. But it doesn't stop it being fiction.

Re:How come no animals have evolved 4D

[yurtinus]

I'm pretty sure any non-idiotic *anybody* simply says the Bible is a collection of stories and parables with valuable life lessons for the place and time in which it was written. As with all old stories, they're usually rooted in some factual event that occurred at the time. Christians take it a step further claiming its writing was guided by God. Idiotic Christians take it even one step further claiming every word as a literal truth, but luckily there are very few of those.

I know it's fashionable to assume everybody who believes in Christianity takes every kernel of the Bible as an absolute truth, but most take the book as a whole. You talk about ignoring the details - with all of our modern science, we *still* can't grasp the details of how the universe was created.

Hell, I'm not even a Christian. Why do you jump to inflammatory conclusions and make me take their side?

Fish size

[SirGarlon]

On a related note, I wonder if we are doing the wrong thing by eating/killing the larger members of various fish species while leaving the smaller ones alive.

There is an exhibit at the New England Aquarium about exactly this. It claims that fishing has drastically reduced the size of Atlantic cod since the 17th century.

Re:How come no animals have evolved 4D

[Zordak]

Except I literally mean that "day" in the sense of a 24-hour period is not the best translation for this word. The Old Testament wasn't written in English. It was written in Hebrew. The Hebrew word "yom" does not have an identical meaning to the English "day," and can be used to refer to lots of different spans of time.

As far as "myth," I don't know that the atheist myth of the universe simply creating itself spontaneously and purely by accident is any more credible than believing that a really smart person was directing those same natural processes to achieve an intended result.

Re:How come no animals have evolved 4D

[ChrisMaple]

"Atheist myth" is an oxymoron. Atheism, in and of itself, has nothing to say about the origin of the universe beyond rejecting the absurdity of supernatural beings bring involved.

Re:How come no animals have evolved 4D

[Zordak]

has nothing to say about the origin of the universe beyond rejecting the absurdity of supernatural beings bring involved.

And where is your observational proof that there is no God? What is your repeatable experiment? Affirmatively believing in an absence is at least as much an article of faith as believing in a presence. Far from being an oxymoron, "atheist myth" is a tautology.

Re:How come no animals have evolved 4D

[Smauler]

And where is your observational proof that there is no God?

Exactly the same place as my observational proof that there are no unicorns. I don't believe in them either, do you?

Re:first

[greghodg]

the early worm gets eaten.

This is species morphism not evolution

[Anonymous Coward]

This is the same as Darwin's finches. Their beaks lengthen again after some amount of years when their environment changed back.

These birds already had the genes for shorter wings...they were just selected out. Once we are all using flying vehicles don't be surprised when their wings lengthen back to equilibrium. It's natures way of saving a species.

Re:How come no animals have evolved 4D

[Quiet_Desperation]

They have evolved 4D.

You just can't see them.

They can see you, though.

They watch.

A lot.

Re:I call fake

[Anonymous Coward]

One centimeter ain't going to help you there either...

That is not what your mom said last night.

Wait...

Re:How come no animals have evolved 4D

[Zordak]

I have never seen a unicorn. I will happily admit to that. But it would take a huge leap of faith for me to affirmatively deny that a horse-like creature with a horn on its head has ever existed here or anywhere else in the universe. The best I can say about unicorns is I don't know. Much less would I form an entire secular religion around the fact that I have never seen a unicorn and therefore affirmatively deny their existence.

Re:How come no animals have evolved 4D

[Anonymous Coward]

Take the statement, "In my grandfathers day there was no internet". Here "day" refers to about 80 years. Turns out that in Hebrew (the language of Genisis) the word for day can be used in a similar manner.

Re:How come no animals have evolved 4D

[Anonymous Coward]

and how many times has theory of evolution been tweaked and reimagined? Quit flaming. The original was in Hebrew and there are differences in opinion for the interpretations of words.

Re:Maybe birds with shorter wings don't fly as muc

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, the maneuverability part was supposition (it's not like they tested the birds with shorter wingspans to see how much more maneuverable they were).

They didn't need to. Other experiments have established that shorter wingspan correlates with faster takeoff times and greater maneuverability.

Re:How come no animals have evolved 4D

[Alsee]

YOU are the one providing an incorrect translation, you are the one insisting it means what you want it to mean.

The Hebrew word "yom" means "period of time". It may be used to mean 12 hours, may be used to mean 24 hours, and it may be used longer periods of time. For example Genesis 4:3: "And in process of time(yom) it came to pass, that Cain brought of the fruit of the ground an offering unto the Lord." In that case "yom" means "one growing season". That is a several month period of time.

To quote Lewis Black:

He believes that the earth was created in seven days. Whew! Takes my breath away. And why does he believe that? Because he read it in the Old Testament, which is the book of my people - the Jewish people. And that book wasn't good enough for you Christians, was it? You went, "No, we've got a better book, with a better character, you're going to LOVE him!" And you called your book NEW, and said our book was OLD!

And yet every Sunday I turn on the television set, and there's a priest or a pastor reading from my book, and interpreting it, and their interpretations, I have to tell you, are usually wrong. It's not their fault, because it's not their book. You never see a rabbi on the TV interpreting the New Testament, do you? If you want to truly understand the Old Testament, if there is something you don't quite get, there are Jews who walk among you, and THEY - I promise you this - will take TIME out of their VERY JEWY, JEWY DAY, and interpret for you anything that you're having trouble understanding. And we will do that, if, of course, the price is right.

The next time you want to argue Old Testament translation and interpretation, try asking someone who speaks the language. I don't claim to be fluent in the Hebrew, but I rather suspect I've spent more time in Hebrew School than you have.

-

Re:How come no animals have evolved 4D

[Alsee]

P.S.

I Kings 11:42: "And the time(yom) that Solomon reigned in Jerusalem over all Israel was forty years."
Yom = a period of 40 years.

Isaiah 30:8: "Now go, write it before them in a table, and note it in a book, that it may be for the time(yom) to come for ever and ever."
Yom = a FOREVER period of time.

-

Re:How come no animals have evolved 4D

[greywire]

Yeah and it also says that the plants grew from the earth the way they do today. God didnt just produce full grown trees, they were brought forth and then yielded seeds. It could have said "And God created trees of their full stature already bearing their fruits", but it doesn't. Also the hebrew word for day has three meanings... it means "a 24 hour day" but it also means an unspecific era of time much longer than a day. Many words had multiple meanings because they had fewer words back then, and you have to translate based on context and historical setting.

Re:Maybe birds with shorter wings don't fly as muc

[lazy genes]

They could be suffering from depression, they know they are doomed in twenty years when the world runs out of oil.

Re:How come no animals have evolved 4D

[spongman]

'Creation' implies a creator, and a time before which the universe existed. Most rational materialists believe in neither.

Re:How come no animals have evolved 4D

[gsslay]

Well that's the difference between Evolution and Creationism, isn't it? Evolution is a scientific theory that is, and indeed must, be open to constant refinement and challenge in the light of the proven, reproducible evidence. Creationism is based on the bible, the infallible word of God, no proof needed, end of discussion.

If you want to open the can of worms that says the bible might be wrong because it's the work of mere men, then that's fine with me.

Re:How come no animals have evolved 4D

[gsslay]

This is all well and good. But you'll find a great number of people have based a religion on the translation being a "day". What the Hebrew translation is matters very little.

It also seems a bit odd to split a totally flexible periods of time into defined parts. On the first totally arbitrary and flexible period of time God did this. On the second totally flexible and arbitrary period he did this. Exactly when the first became the second is totally flexible, as there is no obvious reason to split the two, The first could cover the period of the second, being totally of a totally flexible length.

I guess my point is the story is riddled with literary devices, metaphors and figures of speech. Which is fine, because that's what it ultimately is; a story. It was designed to be a good read. It is no basis for understanding the universe.

Re:Maybe birds with shorter wings don't fly as muc

[dywolf]

smaller body, smaller food requirement.

Evolution? Dude, try "diplomacy"

[Latent Heat]

No, my understanding of evolution is limited to attending a public lecture of the late Stephen Jay Gould and reading most of his popular-literature-for-the-layman books on the subject. There are things observed directly, such as the moths in smoggy London or the swallows in the highway overpass, and there are many things observed indirectly, such as the cladistic relationships in the fossil record or the Woese genetic distances. Gould discusses many of the gaps in scientific understanding of evolution, and maybe I haven't kept up on the latest science on the filling in of those gaps. But I was suggesting, that parts of evolution are "magic" in these sense of Arthur C Clarke, not magic in the sense of violating any natural laws, but magic in the sense that there are many hypothesized mechanisms for which scientific research is still filling in the details. At your suggestion, I Googled "nylonase", and as the name suggests, this is an enzyme that is inferred to have entered the gene pool of bacteria through a mutation that allows these bacteria to process a man-made substance. As another response to my post suggested, there is a big gap between what happens in bacteria with speciation in sexual-reproducing multi-celluar eucaryotic species. And something for which there is compelling evidence can be discussed in reasoned, even-tempered prose, without ad-hominen attacks on the knowledge of someone one barely knows, and without the words "zero" and "absurd" in shouting caps.

Re:How come no animals have evolved 4D

[Marxist Hacker 42]

"that explicitly states that God created animals and man from scratch, in direct contradiction to the Theory of Evolution."

Explain why random movements of quarks creating animals and man from scratch is any different that God using the engineering method of evolution to create animals and man from scratch.

Bigotry goes both ways, you know.

Re:How come no animals have evolved 4D

[Marxist Hacker 42]

I do, using the definition of unicorn documented by Pliny the Elder. We usually call them rhinoceros (horn-nose) today.

Re:How come no animals have evolved 4D

[Marxist Hacker 42]

To be exact, from Pliny the Elder- a horse like animal with no fur, feet like an elephant, and a horn on it's nose. I've seen a few, in the zoo. But we usually call them by their Greek name instead of their Latin name, and that might confuse you.

Re:How come no animals have evolved 4D

[Zordak]

It also seems a bit odd to split a totally flexible periods of time into defined parts. On the first totally arbitrary and flexible period of time God did this. On the second totally flexible and arbitrary period he did this. Exactly when the first became the second is totally flexible, as there is no obvious reason to split the two, The first could cover the period of the second, being totally of a totally flexible length.

I don't see any problem with this. It's just dividing a big event we call "creation" into a discrete set of tasks, like you would do if you were writing:

World Create(ingredient matter, ingredient energy, String name)
{
LetThereBeLight();
Divide(light, darkness);
Gather(waters, dry_land);
BringForth(plants); Create(animals);
Create(man);
... (and so on)

I am a devoutly religious person. But I don't confuse the Bible with a science textbook. A person can believe the Bible without believing that it contains a detailed blueprint of the Universe. If God is a God of truth, then scientific investigation---which is a search for truth---bring us closer to him, not farther away. Science is only a problem for people who believe that the Bible contains all the truth that there ever is or will be; that if something is not explicitly in the Bible it must be false. I am not one of those people. I accept the Bible for what it claims to be: a testament of Christ that is more focused on our relationship with God than with specifically how we got zebras. I do not believe that God wants his children to be idiots. He wants us to explore the world around us and see all the cool stuff there is to figure out. If he spoon fed us every detail through religious texts, we wouldn't learn anything, just like you don't learn algebra by copying answers out of the teacher's manual.

Re:How come no animals have evolved 4D

[Zordak]

But we usually call them by their Greek name instead of their Latin name, and that might confuse you.

Actually, no, because that's what they call a rhino in the Bible too.

Re:Maybe birds with shorter wings don't fly as muc

[viperidaenz]

Shorter wings, yes. Same organs, same brain, same pretty much every thing except wingspan. Less efficient flight, requires more energy.

Re:Maybe birds with shorter wings don't fly as muc

[dywolf]

touche

Re:How come no animals have evolved 4D

[DEN_GUY]

Maybe I am crazy, but

"And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. And God said, 'Let there be light,' and there was light."

sounds a lot like the Big Bang. The Infinitesimal giving rise to the Infinite sounds exactly like the work of a masterful God to me.

Re:How come no animals have evolved 4D

[DEN_GUY]

And none of this means you can't believe in Evolution. Because nowhere in the Bible, that I am aware of, does it say that nothing an change.

Re:How come no animals have evolved 4D

[Anonymous Coward]

Not saying you're crazy, but there are lots of differences between the Big Bang theory and the Genesis story.

For starters: no expansion (no "bang") in the Genesis story. No waters anywhere in the Big Bang process. Creation of day and night before Earth and Sun. Sun and stars come before Earth in Big Bang, opposite in Genesis. Dry ground comes before waters in Big Bang theory, opposite in Genesis. Life in water comes before life on land in Big Bang theory, opposite in Genesis... there's lots more, but you get the picture. It takes a lot of stretching to reconcile the two stories.

Re:**NINE** digits of years

[Anonymous Coward]

BTW, **NINE** digits of years? 100 million or more? Only three million years ago we were Australopithecenes, do you actually think Homo Sapiens haven't made 'long term' changes in the interim? 70 million years ago we were rat-sized egg-laying insectivores, are you really sure that we haven't changed significantly since then?

Meet my ex-wife