Best Evidence for Evolution.

[The Barbarian]

MacGuy, if you want, I have a number of good statistical simulations that I use in class to demonstrate probability and biology.

If you're at all mathematically inclined, you might be interested in a similar one that shows why stabilizing natural selection produces a distribution of alleles that follows the binomial expansion. (The Hardy-Weinberg Principle was discovered jointly by a mathematician and a biologist)

 

[bob b]

Ok, so far I've posted two things that accomplish the following:

1. A controlled experiment that demonstrates that random mutations can drive natural selection within a species.
2. That natural selection can lead to reproductive isolation and the formation of new species.

And so far silence. But it's early.

I think you should consider that some of us might sometimes do other things in life than sit in front of our computers all day.

As far as your experiment is concerned I think it was a good experiment and a reasonable conclusion for its time, but its time was before anything much was known about DNA. Since then, further experiments have shown that non-random mutations occur. This creates a real problem for NeoDarwinism which must assume that all mutations are random, otherwise the basis of the NeoDarwinism theory is falsified.

Your second claim is merely an assertion based on the first assumption being true. It may well be that the creation of a new species, if that actually occurs, has nothing to do with "random mutations plus natural selection" but is merely a rapidly occurring phenomenon that was "triggered" by a change in the environment. In other words the capability was built-in from the beginning as a clever survival mechanism. If you wish I will post several experiments (more recent than yours) that suggest this explanation.

 

[The Barbarian]

As far as your experiment is concerned I think it was a good experiment and a reasonable conclusion for its time, but its time was before anything much was known about DNA. Since then, further experiments have shown that non-random mutations occur. This creates a real problem for NeoDarwinism which must assume that all mutations are random, otherwise the basis of the NeoDarwinism theory is falsified.

That seems like a rather large leap of faith. What is your evidence for that? Suppose, what appears to be random, is actually God, planting mutations that merely appear to be random because He carefully sets them so. What would be different in the way evolution worked?

Your second claim is merely an assertion based on the first assumption being true. It may well be that the creation of a new species, if that actually occurs, has nothing to do with "random mutations plus natural selection" but is merely a rapidly occurring phenomenon that was "triggered" by a change in the environment.

Um, that's what natural selection is.

In other words the capability was built-in from the beginning as a clever survival mechanism.

The evidence shows that also evolved. Would you like to learn how?

If you wish I will post several experiments (more recent than yours) that suggest this explanation.

That might be interesting. Be sure to post the citation.

 

[macguy]

MacGuy, if you want, I have a number of good statistical simulations that I use in class to demonstrate probability and biology.

That would be interesting Sure, why not?!

 

[The Barbarian]

OK. First one. Take a bag and put in it 20 red beads and 80 white ones. Assume that they represent the frequency of two different alleles for the same gene in a population. Make a table with headings:

RR Rr rr

(R=Red, r=White)

Draw them out blindly two at a time. Make a hash mark in each column, depending on whether you got two red, two white, or one of each.

Then put 40 red beads and 60 white beads in the bag. Repeat.

Then put 60 red beads and 40 white beads in the bag. Repeat

Then put 80 red beads and 20 white beads in the bag Repeat.

(if you have time, you can vary it by tens, instead of twenties)

Graph the number of each result. You will get the Hardy-Weinberg distribution.

The result will approximate the binomial expansion of (R+r)^2 for each step in the process. This test is used to determine if there is any evolution going on in a population (Hardy-Weinberg applies to stable populations of well-adapted organisms in a stable environment)

Step 2:

Assume R is dominant for light fur color, and r is recessive for dark fur color. Assume the organism is a rodent living in a desert. The light color is adaptive for cooling and camoflage reasons.

Start with 50 R and 50 r. Each time you draw, again record the number of each, but then check survival by rolling a 6-sided die.

For RR or Rr: (identical phenotypes)
1-4 lives, put in the "Live" pile
5-6 dies; put in the "dead" pile

For rr:
1-2 lives, put in "Live" pile
3-6 dies; put in the "dead" pile

Count the survivors and proportionately add more beads of each color to simulate reproduction, and repeat at least 8 times.

Graph the number of R and r genes in each generation. Why do harmful recessives persist in a population, albeit at very low levels?

Let me know how it works for you.

 

[Hank]

If choosing art as a measure is arbitrary, then so is anything else you choose to link humans to animals. Similarities in biology are but one side of a two sided coin, at least as far as humans is concerned. The fact is, man extends beyond the dictates of biology, unlike the animals. I choose art, because art illustrates this fact perfectly.

When I made this post “One of the biggest problems that Creationists face is the excellent collection of skulls that link apes to modern humans. They have never been able to agree on where the line is between where apes end and humans begin.”, I was referring to the excellent collection of skulls that represent the gradual evolution of man from when his ancestors split from the other apes. It appears to me you are now debating the difference between a modern man and a modern ape. Actually man is considered an ape but I know what you are talking about.

Art is a good indication of mankind’s development. But art is known to be a gradual development. So in the context I was using, defining exactly what kind of art distinguishes the first man is just as difficult as any other measure.

Nah, it is as clearly divided as white is from black, it has nothing to do with "what we would like". They have biological similarities but thats about it. The apes have not even begun building any sort of civilization nor do they have any culture, nothing that resembles even the most primitive of human inventions. This same fact applies not only to apes but to all animals as well. If evolution is true, then one would expect to find at least some rudimentary development of culture between the animals. But we do not, and like art, it is exclusive to man.

Mankind also developed agriculture, animal husbandry, metalurgy, and storytelling. All of these are the result of a more developed brain which is mankind’s evolved method of survival. While mankind developed a brain as a survival mechanism, other animals developed other methods. Man doesn’t produce poisons but some animals do and it works well for their survival. There is no part of TOE that requires a development of culture in animals.

Ah, so you admit that there is an "enormous intelligence gap between humans and apes", good. I am not saying that this is necessarily evidence against the TOE. I am saying that it is evidence that should bring into question some of the claims it makes and that the case for the evolution of man from lower animals is not as strong and stablished as it is touted to be.

There is an enormous intelligence gap between humans and apes. But intelligence is not necessary for survival. There is a huge range of different levels of intelligence in the animal kingdom yet there is still a tremendous amount of evidence for evolution. So different intelligence is in no way a problem for TOE.

Since you do not have evidence for degrees of intelligence, as it developed towards the one found in humans and are left with the "enormous intelligence gap between humans and apes". And since we don't find even a rudimentary development of culture, art, civilization, etc in any of the animals living today, then how is your scenario here anything more than a "just so story"?

We don’t have direct evidence for degrees of intelligence developing in man but the fact that the size of the brain cavity in fossils increases gradually with time is certainly indirect evidence that intelligence gradually increased in the evolution of man. The same is apparent for other animals.

Further, intelligence is not necessarily linked to the ability of passing on genes.

It is if the species primary method of survival is intelligence.

Being more intelligent does not entails that your genes will become more dominant in a population. Poor people, without much education for example, tend to have more children than rich and successful people, as a consequence, their genes and traits are more dominant in a population. This fact argues for the very opposite of what you described in your scenario.

Being poor does not make you an idiot and being rich does not make you intelligent. Up until modern medicine in the last 50 years or so, birth control was practically non-existent so families were large regardless of education. I don’t see how this argues for anything regarding intelligence and passing on genes.

"old" Evoken would be willing to embrace any evolutionary explanation with religious fervor. I have observed that among atheists, there is a tendency to accept evolutionary explanations without much use of critical thinking. "new" Evoken is more skeptical about this issue and won't accept evolutionary explanations without first subjecting them to the amount of scrutiny that they deserve.

I agree with you completely on this. Everything should be subjected to scrutiny, otherwise you are not using your intelligence.

 

[bob b]

When I made this post “One of the biggest problems that Creationists face is the excellent collection of skulls that link apes to modern humans.

Actually evolutionists face a bigger problem: the obviously huge difference mentally between animals and man. It is true that man has an animal nature from a mechanistic or physical point of view. The question is whether the human mind is only a minor factor in the gulf that separates us from the animals or whether there is something there that alludes conclusive analysis which concentrates only on physical homology.

The reality of human origins is not affected by the ability of creationists to define a demarcation line between a series of skulls, because the key factor in making us human has so far escaped human analysis. What makes us human is not so much our body but our mind.

 

[bob b]

Ok, bob b, here's the beef. Semantic arguments are done. You want your proof.

The problem with the 40s analysis is that it shows only that the changes were not due to bacteria that had survived and not the nature of the changes (mutations) that one concludes were occurring. Remember, this was before the discovery of how extensive the DNA was in even a simple lifeform.

Since that day evidence has arisen through other experiments to show that in many cases mutations are not occurring randomly. One can conclude this for two reasons: first, the results of the experiments are repeatable, and two, the results occur too quickly to be due to random mutations in the DNA of genomes that consist of many millions of elements. An appeal to the rapid reproduction rate of bacteria does not solve the dilemma, because this is taken into account by the experimenters in calculating the mean expected time for the results to show up. They typically occur millions of times more quickly than they would if they were truly random, as neoDarwinism theory requires.

Of course, many reject the nonrandom hypothesis because it violates a key tenet of the modern synthesis (i.e. NeoDarwinism), which assumes that mutations are random, and many are loath to abandon this theory and head into uncharted territory.

But the evidence remains.

 

[The Barbarian]

So bob, having retreated from the evidence to another bald assertion ("mind can't evolve") you're still stuck.

You now need to demonstrate, using available evidence, that a brain couldn't evolve to have a mind.

Fact, remember. Let's see how it goes.

 

[Yorzhik]

OK. First one. Take a bag and put in it 20 red beads and 80 white ones. Assume that they represent the frequency of two different alleles for the same gene in a population. Make a table with headings:

RR Rr rr

(R=Red, r=White)

Draw them out blindly two at a time. Make a hash mark in each column, depending on whether you got two red, two white, or one of each.

Then put 40 red beads and 60 white beads in the bag. Repeat.

Then put 60 red beads and 40 white beads in the bag. Repeat

Then put 80 red beads and 20 white beads in the bag Repeat.

(if you have time, you can vary it by tens, instead of twenties)

Graph the number of each result. You will get the Hardy-Weinberg distribution.

The result will approximate the binomial expansion of (R+r)^2 for each step in the process. This test is used to determine if there is any evolution going on in a population (Hardy-Weinberg applies to stable populations of well-adapted organisms in a stable environment)

Step 2:

Assume R is dominant for light fur color, and r is recessive for dark fur color. Assume the organism is a rodent living in a desert. The light color is adaptive for cooling and camoflage reasons.

Start with 50 R and 50 r. Each time you draw, again record the number of each, but then check survival by rolling a 6-sided die.

For RR or Rr: (identical phenotypes)
1-4 lives, put in the "Live" pile
5-6 dies; put in the "dead" pile

For rr:
1-2 lives, put in "Live" pile
3-6 dies; put in the "dead" pile

Count the survivors and proportionately add more beads of each color to simulate reproduction, and repeat at least 8 times.

Graph the number of R and r genes in each generation. Why do harmful recessives persist in a population, albeit at very low levels?

Let me know how it works for you.

So you would admit that this is microevolution in a nutshell. Right?

 

[aikido7]

SCIENCE, FUNDAMENTALISM AND CONSISTENCY

SCIENCE, FUNDAMENTALISM AND CONSISTENCY

Why don't fundamentalist evangelicals reject ALL science?

It is definitely unfair at the least--and literally dishonest--to refuse to deal with the theory of evolution and then, for example, take an antibiotic when you get a virus.
Granted--creation is in the Bible and evolution isn’t. But aren't there still are a lot of things in the Bible that clearly don’t apply today, like killing your wife is she’s not a virgin or eating lobster or shrimp in defiance of Leviticus.

Isn't the distrust of science fairly selective, then?

Anyway, this distrust or rejection of science it clearly doesn’t extend to the point to where you are willing to die from a sort throat. Does it?

I am posting this on other threads with "evolution" and/or "creationism" in their titles.

 

[bob b]

Why don't fundamentalist evangelicals reject ALL science?

Most people love science, which is probably why they reject the pseudocientific interloper called evolution.

 

[aikido7]

Most people love science, which is probably why they reject the pseudocientific interloper called evolution.

...but:

You might also want to check out the latest scientific findings which are showing that evolution is false and it is environmental cues that trigger predesigned capabilities that people have previously mistaken for evidence of "evolution".

?????

 

[PlastikBuddha]

Most people love science, which is probably why they reject the pseudocientific interloper called evolution.

Than why is it that most people who know and understand science accept it? It is those with less knowledge and more "faith" that reject evolution.

 

[SUTG]

Most people love science, which is probably why they reject the pseudocientific interloper called evolution.*

*excluding actual scientists.

 

[bob b]

*excluding actual scientists.

You have identified the key problem: most scientists are not active in the field of evolution, but unfortunately they have been convinced by the presence of evolutionary journals and their papers that the inferences of evolutionists are valid.

For example, my brother is a scientist, but in discussions with him I found that he has only a superficial knowledge of evolution and believes in it mainly because he thinks the evolutionists must have a strong case to convince all scientists the theory is true. (It probably also is true that all scientists prefer naturalistic solutions, because that makes it possible for them to eventually solve all mysteries. But what if the greatest mystery of all, creation, was not natural?)

Once in a while a scientist in another field takes a look at evolution in detail and is surprised that it has so little evidence to support it and so much evidence to cause one to doubt it. This happened with the famous scientist Fred Hoyle. But any scientist in another field who has the gall to attack evolution is met with great resistence and outrage to the point where the resultant hue and cry can affect his career (i.e. the dreaded politically incorrect "creationist" label).

Hoyle undoubtedly would have received a Nobel prize in Physics for his work on the formation of the elements if he had been more prudent and kept his mouth shut about his doubts on the subject of evolution. I am sure that lesson was not lost on scientists in other fields who are well advised to keep any personal doubts about evolution to themselves if they wish to advance without hinderance in their own major field of interest.

 

[Hank]

Actually evolutionists face a bigger problem: the obviously huge difference mentally between animals and man. It is true that man has an animal nature from a mechanistic or physical point of view. The question is whether the human mind is only a minor factor in the gulf that separates us from the animals or whether there is something there that alludes conclusive analysis which concentrates only on physical homology.

There you are. You always avoid answering my questions and just change the subject. I have noticed for a long time that as long as posters just make assertions, you are pretty good at making rebuttal assertions. But when evidence is presented in detailed form, you just change the subject.

As to this question, why would the human mind being a major factor or minor factor make any difference in TOE. Many animals have major advantages over man in other areas and it’s not a problem.

The reality of human origins is not affected by the ability of creationists to define a demarcation line between a series of skulls, because the key factor in making us human has so far escaped human analysis.

It certainly does affect the reality of human origins. When you have a number of fossil skulls showing a gradual change in shape and size from ape to human, you can’t just ignore that evidence and be taken seriously. The fact that creationist can not agree on which are ape and which are human is exactly the kind of evidence that practically proves TOE. Saying that it doesn not affect the reality of human origins says in no uncertain terms that you DO ignore evidence. If no one can determine the dividing line, there is no dividing line.

What makes us human is not so much our body but our mind.

There is no difference between our mind and an ape’s mind except for capacity. Since you think there is, lets see some evidence.

The real difference between man and apes is a spirit, if you believe man has one which I do.

And Bob, why are almost all the marsupials in Australia?

 

[baloney]

Bob, the chances that different species by chance would have similar DNA is 10E267. To give you an idea what that number means, scientists estimate that there are 10E867 particles in the universe.

The similarities in DNA had to happen by common decent. Change in species and the tree of life are observable facts not theory. Get with the 21st century.

 

[bob b]

The fact that creationist can not agree on which are ape and which are human is exactly the kind of evidence that practically proves TOE.

I would think that truth is independent of what anyone agrees or disagrees upon. Calling opinions "scientific evidence" is a bit of a stretch.

Saying that it doesn not affect the reality of human origins says in no uncertain terms that you DO ignore evidence. If no one can determine the dividing line, there is no dividing line.

With logic like that who needs evidence? (certainly not an evolutionist).

BTW, I do not ignore the skulls. I do not accept the dates people assign to the skulls, because they are not determined scientifically. Julian Huxley lined up some horse fossils and his lecture I attended as a freshman in college convinced me that evolution had to be true. Later researchers found problems with his "transition progression" and the museum exhibits based on his guesses were quietly removed from view.

There is no difference between our mind and an ape’s mind except for capacity. Since you think there is, lets see some evidence.

Why do you believe there is no difference? Brain size alone is not a reliable indicator. Do you also think that women's minds are inferior to men's? If not why not?

The real difference between man and apes is a spirit, if you believe man has one which I do.

Why do you believe in an immaterial spirit but not an immaterial mind?

And Bob, why are almost all the marsupials in Australia?

Because that is where they are found today. There is no scientific evidence to back up any guesses as to why this is so. As the saying goes, your guess is as good as mine (equally worthless).

 

[CRMRC]

BTW, I do not ignore the skulls. I do not accept the dates people assign to the skulls, because they are not determined scientifically. Julian Huxley lined up some horse fossils and his lecture I attended as a freshman in college convinced me that evolution had to be true. Later researchers found problems with his "transition progression" and the museum exhibits based on his guesses were quietly removed from view.

Bob, I have been looking for a baby, did you by any chance throw it out with the bathwater?