The evidence for evolution
Discussion
durbster said:
Sorry, I don't follow... 
Evolution is complex life mutating itself into all sorts of crazy solutions to the problem of staying alive and duplicating itself. There's no such thing as adapting within the constraints of a species.
Any evolution is only from the life forms present at the time of the change to the environment.Evolution is complex life mutating itself into all sorts of crazy solutions to the problem of staying alive and duplicating itself. There's no such thing as adapting within the constraints of a species.
Prof Prolapse said:
I wouldn't recommend anyone read the origin of species as it's a bit wordy, but Richard Dawkins is a good writer on the subject. He himself is a huge admirer of Darwin. As anyone who understands the discovery must also be. The Selfish Gene is a good one.
I read Almost Like a Whale, by Steve Jones. It is, to my mind, and introduction/explanation to/of Origin for those of us with simple minds. Clarified a lot for me. His style is not to everyone's taste, but you could say that about Darwin.
I'm with you regarding The Selfish Gene.
The Spruce goose said:
The question should be why does evolution heppen, why are we not perfect.
Are genetic mutations not random and actually part of RNA and DNA sturcture, i think more reaserch may she that how we perecive this to change. a lot of mutations make no difference to eolouton some do.
I think the research has been done. You just need to go out there and read it. Are genetic mutations not random and actually part of RNA and DNA sturcture, i think more reaserch may she that how we perecive this to change. a lot of mutations make no difference to eolouton some do.
How you define "perfect" in context, is tricky. If you mean "free from mutations" then the answer is pretty straight forward.
DNA replication and repair does not always produce a perfect copy. Whilst it varies depending on the species and mechanisms, we understand the types of mutations and incidence quite well, in fact most biology undergraduates will be expected to be able to define and describe all possible mutations and their approximate incidence. Additionally there's environmental factors to consider like UV-light and smoking.
Perfect DNA copying would seem contrary to natural selection as mutations are both beneficial and necessary at species level even if at an individual level they can be devastating. I think I am correct in saying that if DNA did not degrade you would effectively defy the aging process which is very bad at species level.
Why or why not the changes make a difference is entirely due to how they affect the phenotype, and a lot of DNA has redundancy within it, so it won't always do so. In fact we have a huge amount of "junk DNA" which may actually offer some protection from mutations. There's also numerous protective enzymes guarding against this.
There are numerous ways that even if a gene is defective they can still exist in populations. An example of this is the defective gene which carries Cystic Fibrosis. This is the most common genetic disease and would sensibly be agreed to be from a mutation. 1 in 15 of us carry this defect (IIRC), however we always have two pairs of genes, so as long as you have another functional copy you are fine. However, when you have children, if your partner also has a copy, you are given a 25% chance of your children having two copies. Thus their mucous production is defective, and they have what is a very serious illness.
So my point, is that this in everyday example of a mutated gene, albeit defective and even potentially deadly, has been allowed to proliferate in the population and so is not necessarily selected against by natural selection.
That is just an example though. Most mutations simply do not affect the phenotype, or the cell machinery corrects the transcription error (if that is where the error occurs), or the cell "commits suicide" via the p53 enzyme. This last part is critical to preventing cancer, which is another example of a mutation which we could spend all day talking about as it's hugely researched.
Edited by Prof Prolapse on Friday 7th August 09:43
durbster said:
Sorry, I don't follow...
Evolution is complex life mutating itself into all sorts of crazy solutions to the problem of staying alive and duplicating itself. There's no such thing as adapting within the constraints of a species.
Because what you are describing is not Darwin's Theory of evolution.Evolution is complex life mutating itself into all sorts of crazy solutions to the problem of staying alive and duplicating itself. There's no such thing as adapting within the constraints of a species.
Prof Prolapse said:
How you define "perfect" in context, is tricky. If you mean "free from mutations" then the answer is pretty straight forward.
Yep - I think the problem is people seem to think evolution has some goal to improve the organism or make it better (or perfect). Nothing could be further from the truth. The only goal (if there is such a thing) is that an organism should be able to successfully pass on it's genes to the next generation.For that to happen - the organism doesn't need to be perfect - just "good enough".
Yup, good enough to reproduce.
I always liked the immune system as an example of that. After about forty years it starts to give up. But why not? By that point you've had kids, provided for them, and you're no longer a priority for selection.
As you say, same reason whales have hip bones, it's "good enough" to get the job done.
I always liked the immune system as an example of that. After about forty years it starts to give up. But why not? By that point you've had kids, provided for them, and you're no longer a priority for selection.
As you say, same reason whales have hip bones, it's "good enough" to get the job done.
Prof Prolapse said:
Yup, good enough to reproduce.
I always liked the immune system as an example of that. After about forty years it starts to give up. But why not? By that point you've had kids, provided for them, and you're no longer a priority for selection.
As you say, same reason whales have hip bones, it's "good enough" to get the job done.
Many things give up after 40-odd years. Cataracts, for example, start to appear after 40-something years - http://openi.nlm.nih.gov/detailedresult.php?img=32...I always liked the immune system as an example of that. After about forty years it starts to give up. But why not? By that point you've had kids, provided for them, and you're no longer a priority for selection.
As you say, same reason whales have hip bones, it's "good enough" to get the job done.
otolith said:
Jinx said:
Evolution is from one species to another new one - inter generational changes are merely adaptation.
No, speciation is a consequence of evolution, not the definition of it. Change in gene frequencies within a population is evolution.Natural selection is the process where beneficial traits are are "selected" by nature as organisms with these traits are most likely to survive and/or be able to pass these traits on to their off spring. This traits are coded for by genes.
A population of organisms evolves as natural selection works on a population to select for adaptations that are beneficial to the organisms in it.
Speciation is where a population of organisms changes significantly enough from another population of the same organism, so that they no longer interbreed. This may be due to change in behaviour or a physical change on the organisms.
Edited by jimmy156 on Monday 10th August 22:41
ash73 said:
I found this video interesting - Dawkins lecturing to a class of children about evolution; and none of them believe him. They are only 14-15 years old, it's really sad their parents (and the school?) have closed their minds, it's nothing short of child abuse imo. The Islamic lad is striking in his determination not to listen.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jNhtbmXzIaM
Saw that video a short while ago.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jNhtbmXzIaM
Made me rage, how stupid are children now, how beyond backwards are their parents that they don't know how to question things, let alone learn new things.
Most of the people in that class are wasted with dawkins, what a shame it is that such retards get to share the room with great men.
Just hope most went home and caused their parents blood pressure to explode.
ash73 said:
I assumed it was a faith school from their attitudes, but Google says it's just a normal high school. Very odd. Perhaps schools are too shy to teach kids the truth for fear of offending parents? Or maybe the teachers are just crap.
Many of the questions seemed to be coming from the viewpoint that the theory of evolution is in opposition to religion and says something about the nature or existence of god. Where do people get this misconception from - it must be from the religious side as I never heard god or religion mentioned in any science class I had on the subject of evolution and the theory of evolution itself makes no mention of god nor religion.
I also see that the utterly predictable "it's just a theory" line also got thrown into the mix at 22 minutes in.
You've lost me Moonhawk. Evolution is in opposition to notions of god. At best it demonstrates his impotence, and categorically destroys several key biblical texts in one swoop.
They are perfectly correct to feel threatened by the theory of evolution and indeed the scientific method. They need to deny the evidence for faith to be maintained.
They are perfectly correct to feel threatened by the theory of evolution and indeed the scientific method. They need to deny the evidence for faith to be maintained.
Evolution doesn't say anything about gods. Religious people have their own stories about origins based on - well, nothing at all - which creates conflict when science offers an evidence based explanation which contradicts the religious stories, but that's religion's problem, not science's.
otolith said:
Evolution doesn't say anything about gods. Religious people have their own stories about origins based on - well, nothing at all - which creates conflict when science offers an evidence based explanation which contradicts the religious stories, but that's religion's problem, not science's.
Well it does, albeit not directly. It shows life was not created or designed. It shows the hand of god never sculpted it, and it demonstrates the world is ancient beyond almost all religions' measure, and has existed without any intelligent design. This has huge negative implications for any religion.Science literally means "truth", and truth is always a threat to faith. The Christian fundamentalist tendancy towards creationism actually seems more sensible to me than the half-baked, "we believe in sort of guided by god type evolution", that most moderate religious people believe in.
Religious moderation in general makes little sense to me. It's usually one of half-denial, half-hoping for the magical in order to be reasonable and successfully fit in with society. Evolution is a powerful example of this.
So yes. Extreme opposition makes sense to me. If you believe in god.
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff