NY Times Article: Fossils Reveal Clues on Human Ancestor

[loco]

Mutations are rare??? Are you SURE, loco? Are you absolutely SURE?? You mean, like, one in a million years??

Damn, now all of modern biology has collapsed under the weight of loco's criticism........

Having problems reading, columbusdude82?  Or are you simply being dishonest again, putting words in my mouth?  When did I ever say that mutations are rare? 

I said "Positive or beneficial mutations are so rare"  "Harmful and destructive mutations, on the other hand, abound."

Do you deny this?

[loco]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6896753.stm

Butterfly shows evolution at work

Scientists say they have seen one of the fastest evolutionary changes ever observed in a species of butterfly.

The tropical blue moon butterfly has developed a way of fighting back against parasitic bacteria.
Six years ago, males accounted for just 1% of the blue moon population on two islands in the South Pacific. But by last year, the butterflies had evolved a gene to keep the bacteria in check and male numbers were up to about 40% of the population. Scientists believe the comeback is due to "suppressor" genes that control the Wolbachia bacteria that is passed down from the mother and kills the male embryos before they hatch. "To my knowledge, this is the fastest evolutionary change that has ever been observed," said Sylvain Charlat, of University College London, UK, whose study appears in the journal Science.

Thank you, Straw Man!  This is evidence of micro-evolution.  They are still butterflies.  They did not evolve into a new, unknown thing.  I am a firm believer in micro-evolution.   

[loco]

Those creationist fuckheads will just say god did it or call it micro-evolution...

Yeah, and every scientist out there will call it micro-evolution too. 

Trapezkerl, can we not have a friendly, civilized debate without cursing and name calling?  Is that really necessary?

[NeoSeminole]

Ive supplied my evidence.Starts in the book of genesis.Evidence surrounds you.

sorry, but you haven't provided any evidence to support your belief.

Science tells you your belief is actually impossible.

how so?

The thought of a higher deity actually is too much for your mind to handle at this time. Your diagrams and pictures of genetic dead ends as our origin is hard to understand.Would you mind breaking it down for me and explain whats going on?

PS. Who made the balls and the box and who set them in motion neo?

who made whatever made those balls and the box, and set them into motion?

[NeoSeminole]

So glad I can amuse you, NeoSeminole!

you're too kind - amusing me at your own expense.

To what "great lengths" are your referring to?  It's so easy.  Just google positive mutations or beneficial mutations.  It's a joke.

you spend a great deal of time and effort trying to disprove that which you don't understand.

So, why don't you explain to all of us what you mean "it takes is a simple glance to realize your posts are full of bullshit"?  Why don't you tell us what it is you saw at first glance?  What is it about Dr. Maddox's quote that isn't true?  Come on, tell us.

it's not that I disagree with the content of your post. It's just that I fail to see how any of that disproves what I said.

[loco]

I watched about 75% of it.    This guy might consider doing stand up.  

Very good points.  

I watched 100% of it.  Very entertaining, but if you watch until the end, you realize his whole point is to trash Islam.  Watch it again, but skip to the end.

According to him, since Republicans/Christians are so worried about dying poor, and since they know that the future of the US economy depends on scientific advancements, he is not worried about Republicans/Christians.  He is worried about Muslims.

He conveniently fails to mention all the scientific advancements we owe scientists who believed in God such as Nicholas Copernicus,Sir Francis Bacon ,Johannes Kepler,Galileo Galilei ,Rene Descartes,Isaac Newton,Robert Boyle, Michael Faraday, Gregor Mendel, William Thomson Kelvin, Max Planck, Sir Ronald Aylmer Fisher, etc.

[NeoSeminole]

Nothing, just supporting what nzhardgain said, which NeoSeminole denied.

show me where I denied that mutations are harmful. I said they can be beneficial, harmful, or neutral.

[Straw Man]

Thank you, Straw Man!  This is evidence of micro-evolution.  They are still butterflies.  They did not evolve into a new, unknown thing.  I am a firm believer in micro-evolution.   

The only thing this example shows is that the evolutionary process can happen very quickly.

As I'm sure you know, the vast majority of  scientist don't bother with the macro/micro distinction and instead look at the entire process.   The term macroevolution is primarily used by ID propoents as a form of evolution that they reject.

[Deicide]

I watched 100% of it.  Very entertaining, but if you watch until the end, you realize his whole point is to trash Islam.  Watch it again, but skip to the end.

According to him, since Republicans/Christians are so worried about dying poor, and since they know that the future of the US economy depends on scientific advancements, he is not worried about Republicans/Christians.  He is worried about Muslims.

He conveniently fails to mention all the scientific advancements we owe scientists who believed in God such as Nicholas Copernicus,Sir Francis Bacon ,Johannes Kepler,Galileo Galilei ,Rene Descartes,Isaac Newton,Robert Boyle, Michael Faraday, Gregor Mendel, William Thomson Kelvin, Max Planck, Sir Ronald Aylmer Fisher, etc.

Who cares? Their achievements have nothing to do with their belief in an invisible sky daddy.

[loco]

He conveniently fails to mention all the scientific advancements we owe scientists who believed in God such as Nicholas Copernicus,Sir Francis Bacon, Johannes Kepler, Galileo Galilei, Rene Descartes,Isaac Newton, Robert Boyle, Michael Faraday, Gregor Mendel, William Thomson Kelvin, Max Planck, Sir Ronald Aylmer Fisher, etc.

Who cares? Their achievements have nothing to do with their belief in an invisible sky daddy.

I care, and you should care too.  The guy in the video, Tyson, is saying that he does not want brilliant scientists in the lab if they believe in "an invisible sky daddy" because that, according to him, would retard the advancement of science. 

That is actually backwards.  If you keep brilliant scientists, whatever their beliefs, out of the lab, you will retard the advancement of science.  Everyone of the scientists I listed above believed in "an invisible sky daddy".  That did not keep them from advancing science.  Imagine, on the other hand, what would have happened if what Tyson is suggesting had been done to them, imagine if we had kept all those brilliant scientists out of the lab.  We would be stuck in the middle ages today.

[loco]

The only thing this example shows is that the evolutionary process can happen very quickly.

Actually, if evolution can happen very quickly, that would cause more problems for macroevolution.  If evolution can happen very quickly, then why have we not observed large changes directly?  Why have we not seen, say a butterfly evolve into some new, unknown thing?

From TalkOrigions.org:
"We would not expect to observe large changes directly. Evolution consists mainly of the accumulation of small changes over large periods of time. If we saw something like a fish turning into a frog in just a couple generations, we would have good evidence against evolution."
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB901.html
 

As I'm sure you know, the vast majority of  scientist don't bother with the macro/micro distinction and instead look at the entire process.   The term macroevolution is primarily used by ID propoents as a form of evolution that they reject.

Not all scientists who bother with the macro/micro distinction are ID proponents or young earth creationists.  Examples are Sir Frederick Hoyle and Dr. Lee M. Spetner.

Further

"Antievolutionists argue against macroevolution so loudly that some people think they invented the term in order to dismiss evolution. But this is not true; scientists not only use the terms, they have an elaborate set of models and ideas about it"

"At least some macroevolution is the result of microevolutionary processes. So we are only asking now if all is. This is open to debate: the E (environmental) factors that affect macroevolution are not within-species (Mi) forces, but do microevolutionary processes like gene frequency changes necessarily mediate them? And this question is still unresolved amongst specialists. One thing we can say now, though, is that we cannot draw a simple equals sign between the two domains. It is an open question, one much argued within evolutionary biology and related disciplines, whether Mi = Ma in any sense."
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/macroevolution.html

[columbusdude82]

Lee Spetner is not a biologist. He's a physicist. He isn't an authority on biology

[Straw Man]

Actually, if evolution can happen very quickly, that would cause more problems for macroevolution.  If evolution can happen very quickly, then why have we not observed large changes directly?  Why have we not seen, say a butterfly evolve into some new, unknown thing?

From TalkOrigions.org:
"We would not expect to observe large changes directly. Evolution consists mainly of the accumulation of small changes over large periods of time. If we saw something like a fish turning into a frog in just a couple generations, we would have good evidence against evolution."
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB901.html
 
Not all scientists who bother with the macro/micro distinction are ID proponents or young earth creationists.  Examples are Sir Frederick Hoyle and Dr. Lee M. Spetner.

Further

"Antievolutionists argue against macroevolution so loudly that some people think they invented the term in order to dismiss evolution. But this is not true; scientists not only use the terms, they have an elaborate set of models and ideas about it"

"At least some macroevolution is the result of microevolutionary processes. So we are only asking now if all is. This is open to debate: the E (environmental) factors that affect macroevolution are not within-species (Mi) forces, but do microevolutionary processes like gene frequency changes necessarily mediate them? And this question is still unresolved amongst specialists. One thing we can say now, though, is that we cannot draw a simple equals sign between the two domains. It is an open question, one much argued within evolutionary biology and related disciplines, whether Mi = Ma in any sense."
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/macroevolution.html

I didn't say ALL scientist - I said the VAST MAJORITY.

Again - the vast majority don't bother with the micro/macro distinction because the macro is the just the sum of the micro - it's all ONE PROCESS.

Prior to the example with the butterfly there have been other examples of rapid (relatively speaking) evoloution. 

This theory proposes that instead of miniscule changes over long periods of time there are longs periods of stasis in between periods of rapid change.   

[MCWAY]

I didn't say ALL scientist - I said the VAST MAJORITY.

Again - the vast majority don't bother with the micro/macro distinction because the macro is the just the sum of the micro - it's all ONE PROCESS.

Prior to the example with the butterfly there have been other examples of rapid (relatively speaking) evoloution. 

None of which show a creature rapidly evolving into a completely different one. The example given was butterflies having certain characteristics change rapidly. But, as Loco stated, they are STILL BUTTERFLIES (not birds or fish).

This theory proposes that instead of miniscule changes over long periods of time there are longs periods of stasis in between periods of rapid change.  

Then, for those who subscribe to reptile-to-bird evolution, you should be able to grab an iguana; replicate the circumstances and environment that allegedly called for its evolving; fiddle with its gene; and end up with a chicken. And, it should NOT take "millions" of years for it to happen, either, if this theory is accurate.

[MCWAY]

fill a box with 10 ping pong balls and 10 billiard balls. Then, shake it for a while. What do you see? The heavy billiard balls settle on bottom while the lighter ping pong balls settle on top. It doesn't take a genius to figure out why. Much in the same way, atoms arrange themselves to form bonds according to the principles of chemistry and physics. These simple bond interactions are the basis for more complex molecules. While all of this occurs at the microscopic level, we perceive the resulting 'organization' at the macroscopic level. Salt, for example, is nothing more than a bunch of sodium (Na) atoms bonded with chlorine (Cl) atoms. Now let's take this a step further, say... a billion years in the making. The blueprint for life - DNA - originated from molecules that arranged themselves to form copies of itself. The replication of these molecules required resources which soon became limited, resulting in natural selection. Thus began the evolutionary radiation that resulted in all the life forms you see around you today.

So, molecules and atoms are sentient beings that can arrange themselves; yet, there can't be a sentient, supernatural Being that can arrange (or create them).

Arrangement implies order, structure, planning, and DESIGN. And only living sentient beings can do that.

[NeoSeminole]

Arrangement implies order, structure, planning, and DESIGN. And only living sentient beings can do that.

snowflakes, hurricanes, and lightning are all forms of order coming from disorder yet none of them require an intelligent creator.

[columbusdude82]

snowflakes, hurricanes, and lightning are all forms of order coming from disorder yet none of them require an intelligent creator.

Thor is not amused!!!

[NeoSeminole]

Thor is not amused!!!

[Straw Man]

None of which show a creature rapidly evolving into a completely different one. The example given was butterflies having certain characteristics change rapidly. But, as Loco stated, they are STILL BUTTERFLIES (not birds or fish).

Then, for those who subscribe to reptile-to-bird evolution, you should be able to grab an iguana; replicate the circumstances and environment that allegedly called for its evolving; fiddle with its gene; and end up with a chicken. And, it should NOT take "millions" of years for it to happen, either, if this theory is accurate.

I never said the example of the butterfly explained or even suggested that butterflys were turning into another species.  It merely suggests that the evolutionary process of positive adaption can happen very quickly rather than slowly over a long period of time.

Regarding your suggested lab experiment - just because you say "you should be able to grab an iguana, fiddle with it's gene's ect.... doesn't make it true.  I also suspect that if this experiment were possible it still wouldn't satisfy the ID propenents

If you seriously question the evolution from one species to another there are plenty of transitional fossils but that's a whole other argument (yes I know ID proponents reject those too)

It seems that the main group of people that have a problem with evolution are fundamentalist christians who see it as a direct assualt on their beliefs.  Unfortunately they seem to forget that even if the theory of evolution is proved to be false (don't hold your breath) it still won't get them one step closer to proving ID or Biblical Creationism (or Hindu or Buddhists Creation Myths for the that matter) are true. 

[MCWAY]

I never said the example of the butterfly explained or even suggested that butterflys were turning into another species.  It merely suggests that the evolutionary process of positive adaption can happen very quickly rather than slowly over a long period of time.

Regarding your suggested lab experiment - just because you say "you should be able to grab an iguana, fiddle with it's gene's ect.... doesn't make it true.  I also suspect that if this experiment were possible it still wouldn't satisfy the ID propenents

If you seriously question the evolution from one species to another there are plenty of transitional fossils but that's a whole other argument (yes I know ID proponents reject those too)

It seems that the main group of people that have a problem with evolution are fundamentalist christians who see it as a direct assualt on their beliefs.  Unfortunately they seem to forget that even if the theory of evolution is proved to be false (don't hold your breath) it still won't get them one step closer to proving ID or Biblical Creationism (or Hindu or Buddhists Creation Myths for the that matter) are true. 

That's the point. Why make reference to the so-called "transitional fossils"? If "Goo-to-you-by-way-of-the-zoo" evolution can occur rapidly, that means that you can get a bird to evolve from a non-bird QUICKLY, instead of waiting allegedly millions of years. That's part of scientific process: having observable, REPEATABLE phenomena.

If evolutionists supposedly got birds from non-birds once; they should be able to do so again, especially with their claiming to know the circumstance under which such allegedly occured

[Straw Man]

That's the point. Why make reference to the so-called "transitional fossils"? If "Goo-to-you-by-way-of-the-zoo" evolution can occur rapidly, that means that you can get a bird to evolve from a non-bird QUICKLY, instead of waiting allegedly millions of years. That's part of scientific process: having observable, REPEATABLE phenomena.

If evolutionists supposedly got birds from non-birds once; they should be able to do so again, especially with their claiming to know the circumstance under which such allegedly occured

OK - now you've lost me.  Your example would require the scientist to have perfect knowledge about the the evolutionary process works. From the little that I can read about the butterfly example the scientists who observed this tiny bit of the evolution process are still not sure how it happened:

"Scientists believe the comeback is due to "suppressor" genes that control the Wolbachia bacteria that is passed down from the mother and kills the male embryos before they hatch."

"The researchers are not sure whether the gene that suppressed the parasite emerged from a mutation in the local population or whether it was introduced by migratory Southeast Asian butterflies in which the mutation already existed.   But they said that the repopulation of male butterflies illustrates rapid natural selection, a process in which traits that help a species survive become more prominent in a population."

This is just one change within a one specific species - this says nothing and suggests nothing about massive evolutionary changes and no scientist has suggested that evolution from one species to another (our own definitions) happens this quickly

NO ONE is saying that a bird could evolve to a "non-bird" this quickly so your suggested experiment is impossible.

Your suggested experiment would not only require perfect knowledge of the process but also millions of years to run the experiment


 

[columbusdude82]

BUMP for mightymouse72