Evolution - Reality and Misconceptions
Discussion
This well known experiment with foxes shows how quickly you can change an animals behaviour with selective breeding for certain traits.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domesticated_red_f...
Whether canines are a special case I don't know, maybe they're just more willing to display traits we desire. I mean who would want a friendly hippo about?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domesticated_red_f...
Whether canines are a special case I don't know, maybe they're just more willing to display traits we desire. I mean who would want a friendly hippo about?
if you actually found a mutation had occured such that you could hear radio waves of change the colour of your skin at will etc would you actually admit to it. Evolution is very slow hence we don't have 4 arms etc and infact humans are likely to evolve via mechanical enhancements i.e. chip implants etc
FredClogs said:
This well known experiment with foxes shows how quickly you can change an animals behaviour with selective breeding for certain traits.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domesticated_red_f...
Whether canines are a special case I don't know, maybe they're just more willing to display traits we desire. I mean who would want a friendly hippo about?
A more intelligent horse that isn't terrified of everything might be popular.https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domesticated_red_f...
Whether canines are a special case I don't know, maybe they're just more willing to display traits we desire. I mean who would want a friendly hippo about?
FredClogs said:
I may not be right but I suspect that were some catastrophic environmental event to befall humanity the things that would help us evolve beyond it or possibly speciate there after would not be random mutations but something that is already in us.
could happen at any time, it's possible the last one happened around 10,000 years ago, the younger dryas comet hypothesis, though it might not have been a comet. Or maybe a zombie outbreak. 
Eric Mc said:
Thought I'd start a thread here for those who want to discuss how evolution works i.e. what changes to an organism are due to biological evolution ( i.e. genetics) or other, sociological, factors.
There was a strand developing on this in the "Trump" thread in the news section which is really not appropriate in that forum.
What do you think of "Wallace's probem" ? It shows flaws in Darwin's theory I believe (I haven't look in to it properly). A famous scientist said once that they call it "Wallace's problem" so they don't have to deal with the problem themselves. There was a strand developing on this in the "Trump" thread in the news section which is really not appropriate in that forum.
E34-3.2 said:
What do you think of "Wallace's probem" ? It shows flaws in Darwin's theory I believe (I haven't look in to it properly). A famous scientist said once that they call it "Wallace's problem" so they don't have to deal with the problem themselves.
Wallace's problem was one of denial, a failure to grasp the full implications of evolution, so yes that is Wallace's problem, not Evolution's problem.We've also already covered that ground, so that puts the burden on you to point out the flaws arguments already presented that evolution easily accounts for a runaway growth in intelligence.
4x4Tyke said:
Wallace's problem was one of denial, a failure to grasp the full implications of evolution, so yes that is Wallace's problem, not Evolution's problem.
We've also already covered that ground, so that puts the burden on you to point out the flaws arguments already presented that evolution easily accounts for a runaway growth in intelligence.
You make an interesting point saying that "we've" already covered that ground when top scientist still haven't covered it. Could you explain? We've also already covered that ground, so that puts the burden on you to point out the flaws arguments already presented that evolution easily accounts for a runaway growth in intelligence.
E34-3.2 said:
4x4Tyke said:
Wallace's problem was one of denial, a failure to grasp the full implications of evolution, so yes that is Wallace's problem, not Evolution's problem.
We've also already covered that ground, so that puts the burden on you to point out the flaws arguments already presented that evolution easily accounts for a runaway growth in intelligence.
You make an interesting point saying that "we've" already covered that ground when top scientist still haven't covered it. Could you explain? We've also already covered that ground, so that puts the burden on you to point out the flaws arguments already presented that evolution easily accounts for a runaway growth in intelligence.
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/296/5565/72
http://www.citeulike.org/group/1230/article/697206
In contrast you've made assertion by authority without citing that authority and that is indistinguishable from trolling.
Who is that top scientist?
4x4Tyke said:
Read the thread from the beginning, runaway intelligence has been broadly covered through several posts by several others and myself. The selective pressure is marginal competitive advantage in breeding opportunities, it is well understood field in natural selection, here are a couple of highly cited source, you can easily google many others.
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/296/5565/72
http://www.citeulike.org/group/1230/article/697206
In contrast you've made assertion by authority without citing that authority and that is indistinguishable from trolling.
Who is that top scientist?
I might order that book you recommend in the second link. Sounds interesting. The reason why I asked is because as you said, I have Google a few times but you get very divided opinions on it. The authority I was referring was during a Berlinski Q&A organised by E.Metaxas. I believe he actually quoted another scientist when he made the joke. http://science.sciencemag.org/content/296/5565/72
http://www.citeulike.org/group/1230/article/697206
In contrast you've made assertion by authority without citing that authority and that is indistinguishable from trolling.
Who is that top scientist?
E34-3.2 said:
I might order that book you recommend in the second link. Sounds interesting. The reason why I asked is because as you said, I have Google a few times but you get very divided opinions on it. The authority I was referring was during a Berlinski Q&A organised by E.Metaxas. I believe he actually quoted another scientist when he made the joke.
I just finished reading (quickly) one of the link you sent (Wallace controversy with Darwin..). Heavy reading! Still what I get from it is not a clear conclusion. Maybe I don't fully understand the document. I will read it tonight without rushing so much. E34-3.2 said:
I might order that book you recommend in the second link. Sounds interesting. The reason why I asked is because as you said, I have Google a few times but you get very divided opinions on it. The authority I was referring was during a Berlinski Q&A organised by E.Metaxas. I believe he actually quoted another scientist when he made the joke.
I'll check that latter when I have some time, but Berlinski is well known as a creationist. Extreme caution needs to be exercised because many ID/Creationists miss-use the proper terms in a deliberate attempt to mislead.New Scientist, Nature and Science magazines all provide extensive online back catalogues of good quality articles for modest subscriptions.
Google Scholar will provide excellent sources, while many of the actual papers are paywall, searching the titles and authors will typically result is more accessible summaries and articles.
https://scholar.google.co.uk/
FredClogs said:
This well known experiment with foxes shows how quickly you can change an animals behaviour with selective breeding for certain traits.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domesticated_red_f...
Whether canines are a special case I don't know, maybe they're just more willing to display traits we desire. I mean who would want a friendly hippo about?
THat's the experiment I alluded to earlier.https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domesticated_red_f...
Whether canines are a special case I don't know, maybe they're just more willing to display traits we desire. I mean who would want a friendly hippo about?
4x4Tyke said:
I'll check that latter when I have some time, but Berlinski is well known as a creationist. Extreme caution needs to be exercised because many ID/Creationists miss-use the proper terms in a deliberate attempt to mislead.
New Scientist, Nature and Science magazines all provide extensive online back catalogues of good quality articles for modest subscriptions.
Google Scholar will provide excellent sources, while many of the actual papers are paywall, searching the titles and authors will typically result is more accessible summaries and articles.
https://scholar.google.co.uk/
Thanks 4x4Tyke for these great infos.New Scientist, Nature and Science magazines all provide extensive online back catalogues of good quality articles for modest subscriptions.
Google Scholar will provide excellent sources, while many of the actual papers are paywall, searching the titles and authors will typically result is more accessible summaries and articles.
https://scholar.google.co.uk/
I am an actual believer but I really enjoy all the debates about evolution/creation and how people will interpret theories/bible to fit their thinking. Sadly it very often goes out of control.
Halb said:
A believer in creationism?
Yes but no. 
Difficult to explain as English is my third language but I belive God created the earth. Not in seven days. if you read the first line of Genesis, God created the earth before the first day is even mention. I think that it was a much longer process and evolution of some sorts was part of it as animals where asked to breed (some evolution I believe). I have no religion above my head but that is another subject and let's enjoy the knowledge and infos provided on this thread. E34-3.2 said:
Halb said:
A believer in creationism?
Yes but no. Difficult to explain as English is my third language but I belive God created the earth. Not in seven days. if you read the first line of Genesis, God created the earth before the first day is even mention. I think that it was a much longer process and evolution of some sorts was part of it as animals where asked to breed (some evolution I believe). I have no religion above my head but that is another subject and let's enjoy the knowledge and infos provided on this thread. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acceptance_of_evolut...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_interpreta...
Religious people should respect science, but scientific people absolutely should not respect religion. Or this "god of the gaps", bulls
t (it is a very old anti-science argument parading as something more intelligent).
It's quite simple, when a theory has part of it unanswered, that doesn't undermine the entirety of it, as being a scientific theory it should be observably true in at least some instances. Instead, in the vast majority of occasions, it just means there is just more to understand.
So what a gap also doesn't do, in any intelligent rational person at least, is mean that a solution based on magic suddenly becomes more likely than a refinement of an exiting hypothesis. Scientific truth is rooted in probability, there are no certainties, but we similarly don't spend our days throwing away theories which have withstood over a hundred years of scrutiny based on a problem. We would if we had to, but it simply isn't necessary.
I would be very confident, that never in the history of empirical truth, have we ever left a gap so big an intelligent person could fit a "god" into it.
t (it is a very old anti-science argument parading as something more intelligent).It's quite simple, when a theory has part of it unanswered, that doesn't undermine the entirety of it, as being a scientific theory it should be observably true in at least some instances. Instead, in the vast majority of occasions, it just means there is just more to understand.
So what a gap also doesn't do, in any intelligent rational person at least, is mean that a solution based on magic suddenly becomes more likely than a refinement of an exiting hypothesis. Scientific truth is rooted in probability, there are no certainties, but we similarly don't spend our days throwing away theories which have withstood over a hundred years of scrutiny based on a problem. We would if we had to, but it simply isn't necessary.
I would be very confident, that never in the history of empirical truth, have we ever left a gap so big an intelligent person could fit a "god" into it.
ash73 said:
Actually wings are an interesting example, I was wrong to include them in my list above, apparently they first evolved in insects about 400 million years ago, so about 140 million years after the Cambrian explosion. Powered flight evolved four times independently (insects, pterosaurs, birds and bats).
I still find it remarkable every other body configuration (phylia) evolved in the space of about 20-25 million years, and it's interesting there are no creatures with tripedalism for example.
Errr... Think you're forgetting Jake the Peg (with the extra leg). I still find it remarkable every other body configuration (phylia) evolved in the space of about 20-25 million years, and it's interesting there are no creatures with tripedalism for example.
With regards to the rhetoric above, I don't wish to derail the thread but there's an excellent 10 minutes here from Neill de grasse tyson on use of the A word...
https://youtu.be/I2itlUlD10M
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff