Evolution - is it real?
Discussion
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Yes, I get what you mean, and I agree, as we are both backing the same dog in this fight. Although just to be contrary, I would point out that animals with 4 legs, floppy ears and that go woof are largely the product of unnatural selection, i.e they have only exist due to selective breeding by humans. I'm no expert of canine evolution, but I think if you go back just a very short time in evolutionary terms, say 15k years, all we had was wolves. Then a couple of unusually tame wolves were adopted by humans and that bred even tamer wolves, and we were off and running. Now we have chihuahuas and great danes, as a result of selective breeding.
I'm sure I've banged on about it before, but just in case...Professor Alice Roberts wrote a book called Tamed which covers how all dogs are descended from European Grey Wolves (or did they domesticate us?), how we came to be so fond of apples, wheat, the domestication of cattle, etc. It's a fascinating read, highly recommended.underwhelmist said:
I'm sure I've banged on about it before, but just in case...Professor Alice Roberts wrote a book called Tamed which covers how all dogs are descended from European Grey Wolves (or did they domesticate us?), how we came to be so fond of apples, wheat, the domestication of cattle, etc. It's a fascinating read, highly recommended.
It would be more accurate to say that dogs share a common ancestor with wolves.Wolves kept evolving after the split, although they're still pretty close to the common ancestor.
Nimby said:
There seems to be some debate about whether domesticated dogs and wolves are separate species. As they can interbreed and produce fertile offspring current opinion seems to be they are the same species.
The boundary between species is fairly arbitrary. The more precisely one tries to compartmentalise what is actually a lumpy continuum, the less important the distinctions become. I spent a bit of time with some botanists plant-spotting, and it sounded like the "is it a species?" question was orders of magnitudes worse in the plant kingdom compared to the animals.ATG said:
The boundary between species is fairly arbitrary. The more precisely one tries to compartmentalise what is actually a lumpy continuum, the less important the distinctions become. I spent a bit of time with some botanists plant-spotting, and it sounded like the "is it a species?" question was orders of magnitudes worse in the plant kingdom compared to the animals.
Ring species make defining a species even more tricky (but good evidence for evolution nevertheless).The good ole 'does it breed' concept did kind of die a death in biology a while back. Given that a Daschund and a Great Dane are not going to be having pups any time soon but a Tiger and a Lion can produce fertile young.
As mentioned it is a lumpy contiuum. Some humans can't have kids, are they still human? Oooh lizard people is the only explanation!
As mentioned it is a lumpy contiuum. Some humans can't have kids, are they still human? Oooh lizard people is the only explanation!
AW111 said:
Can we get away from pointless religion bashing and back to evolution please.
General question on this point:I wonder how many people who reject the concept of evolution are also atheists?
I'm guessing if this was a venn diagram, it would be two circles with virtually no overlap.
Nimby said:
ATG said:
The boundary between species is fairly arbitrary. The more precisely one tries to compartmentalise what is actually a lumpy continuum, the less important the distinctions become. I spent a bit of time with some botanists plant-spotting, and it sounded like the "is it a species?" question was orders of magnitudes worse in the plant kingdom compared to the animals.
Ring species make defining a species even more tricky (but good evidence for evolution nevertheless).Johnnytheboy said:
AW111 said:
Can we get away from pointless religion bashing and back to evolution please.
General question on this point:I wonder how many people who reject the concept of evolution are also atheists?
I'm guessing if this was a venn diagram, it would be two circles with virtually no overlap.
Only half jokingly, the kind of crazy st some theoretical physicist believe or suggest is possible is no more philosophically daunting than wondering if there might be some Prime Mover setting up the rules of the game and then freeing the ball to roll down hill. My prejudices tell me they're out of their gourds too. But like sophisticated religionists, they aren't thick either, nor are their ideas trivially dismissible.
My point was I assume that a resistance to the idea of evolution is almost always coming from a feeling that it contradicts your religious belief.
If you don't believe in any god and you are smart enough to have given evolution any thought, I'd be interested to know how you arrived an opinion that you didn't believe in it.
If you don't believe in any god and you are smart enough to have given evolution any thought, I'd be interested to know how you arrived an opinion that you didn't believe in it.
Nimby said:
ATG said:
The boundary between species is fairly arbitrary. The more precisely one tries to compartmentalise what is actually a lumpy continuum, the less important the distinctions become. I spent a bit of time with some botanists plant-spotting, and it sounded like the "is it a species?" question was orders of magnitudes worse in the plant kingdom compared to the animals.
Ring species make defining a species even more tricky (but good evidence for evolution nevertheless)."Ring species represent speciation and have been cited as evidence of evolution."
"However, it is unclear whether any of the examples of ring species cited by scientists actually permit gene flow from end to end, with many being debated and contested."
"Many examples have been documented in nature. Debate exists concerning much of the research, with some authors citing evidence against their existence entirely."
"Many examples have been disputed by researchers, and equally "many of the [proposed] cases have received very little attention from researchers, making it difficult to assess whether they display the characteristics of ideal ring species."
M5-911 said:
Confusing when in the same article you have:
"Ring species represent speciation and have been cited as evidence of evolution."
"However, it is unclear whether any of the examples of ring species cited by scientists actually permit gene flow from end to end, with many being debated and contested."
"Many examples have been documented in nature. Debate exists concerning much of the research, with some authors citing evidence against their existence entirely."
"Many examples have been disputed by researchers, and equally "many of the [proposed] cases have received very little attention from researchers, making it difficult to assess whether they display the characteristics of ideal ring species."
Wikipedia so you probably need to check who has edited which parts of it to see if the contradictions have a source."Ring species represent speciation and have been cited as evidence of evolution."
"However, it is unclear whether any of the examples of ring species cited by scientists actually permit gene flow from end to end, with many being debated and contested."
"Many examples have been documented in nature. Debate exists concerning much of the research, with some authors citing evidence against their existence entirely."
"Many examples have been disputed by researchers, and equally "many of the [proposed] cases have received very little attention from researchers, making it difficult to assess whether they display the characteristics of ideal ring species."
Johnnytheboy said:
My point was I assume that a resistance to the idea of evolution is almost always coming from a feeling that it contradicts your religious belief.
If you don't believe in any god and you are smart enough to have given evolution any thought, I'd be interested to know how you arrived an opinion that you didn't believe in it.
If you didn't believe in god and then you weighed up the evidence and decided evolution didn't make sense then you'd have to be looking at creation somehow else.If you don't believe in any god and you are smart enough to have given evolution any thought, I'd be interested to know how you arrived an opinion that you didn't believe in it.
And that's going to end with little green men.
Upinflames said:
Johnnytheboy said:
My point was I assume that a resistance to the idea of evolution is almost always coming from a feeling that it contradicts your religious belief.
If you don't believe in any god and you are smart enough to have given evolution any thought, I'd be interested to know how you arrived an opinion that you didn't believe in it.
If you didn't believe in god and then you weighed up the evidence and decided evolution didn't make sense then you'd have to be looking at creation somehow else.If you don't believe in any god and you are smart enough to have given evolution any thought, I'd be interested to know how you arrived an opinion that you didn't believe in it.
And that's going to end with little green men.
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff