Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
October 01, 2014, 04:21:51 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
 
   Home   Help Login Register  
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 7   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: For my buddy uberman...  (Read 4855 times)
Wiggs
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 31663


Child of Y'srael


« Reply #25 on: December 06, 2012, 01:20:00 PM »

First, you've got to understand that evolution takes a very long time, making it difficult to observe, particularly drastic changes in species. It took single celled organisms billions of years to evolve into humans and others species. Transitional fossil exist in abundance that clearly demonstrate evolution of species.  Scientist have found not one but a dozen of the so-called missing links.  

Scientist have observed evolution in nature.   The finches on Galapagos and the peppered moths in England are two great examples  The evolution of those species occurred within a normal humans life time which makes it easier to study.

LOL...STOP.  It takes a long time to observe?  So then who documented these changes over these billions of years?  NO ONE did because it's a theory and like I said, NO PROOF.  Please provide links to this study in the peppered moths.  I'd like to see it.  Same with these, "missing links".
Report to moderator   Logged

7
BikiniSlut
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 5023


I'm dating and love Uncle Junior! Xoxoxo


« Reply #26 on: December 06, 2012, 01:20:16 PM »

Yeah, only lifeforms able to adapt whatever the way they adapt, survive, while those who cant adapt fast enough disapear.

And?

What kind of moron are you exactly, you just proved..nothing.

Congrats, now go get a job instead of looking for white whores to pose with for internet tough guy picture contests.

Spot on.
Report to moderator   Logged
Archer77
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 11530

Team Shizzo


« Reply #27 on: December 06, 2012, 01:41:27 PM »

LOL...STOP.  It takes a long time to observe?  So then who documented these changes over these billions of years?  NO ONE did because it's a theory and like I said, NO PROOF.  Please provide links to this study in the peppered moths.  I'd like to see it.  Same with these, "missing links".

Well, I should have said is, it would take millions to billions of years of observation to document the kind of dramatic change seen in the evolution of a single celled organism to a human being, so for that reason its impossible to directly observe the changes in ones lifetime, in particular those in the past that have already occurred...unless you have a time machine.   In place of direct observation, scientist document evolutionary changes through the fossil record, carbon dating and more recently through DNA. Evolution isn't always slow in the case of the finches on Galapagos and the peppered moth of England.

And you want links?  Google that shit, Homey!
Report to moderator   Logged

A
The True Adonis
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 41771


"We Will Correct All This."


« Reply #28 on: December 06, 2012, 01:44:55 PM »

I was waiting for you Adam, I knew you'd eventually show.

Whenever you're ready...

I'm going to take my morning walk and when I return, I expect to see your argument accompanied with proof...

BTW Adam, notice how you didn't show any proof debunking anything I said.  You're usually good for articles or links...I'll expect to see them when I return.



You haven`t said anything other than juvenile creationist nonsense that is not even really worthy of this pithy response.  I really didn`t surmise that you were this stupid.

All you are doing is reflecting your own ignorance by speaking such drivel.

This might actually do you some good.

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ptV9sNezEvk" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ptV9sNezEvk</a>
Report to moderator   Logged

E
The True Adonis
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 41771


"We Will Correct All This."


« Reply #29 on: December 06, 2012, 01:46:09 PM »

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=shkWhBVfe3o" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=shkWhBVfe3o</a>

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cARUZyBJtdY" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cARUZyBJtdY</a>
Report to moderator   Logged

E
bebop396
Getbig IV
****
Posts: 1444


Getbig!


WWW
« Reply #30 on: December 06, 2012, 01:47:59 PM »

http://www.ucl.ac.uk/taxome/jim/pap/malletgensoc03.pdf

The peppered moth: a black and white story after all
Preprint from Genetics Society News 50: 34-38, January 2004
Published online at: www.genetics.org.uk/?page=issue_50
© Jim Mallet, November 2003 (updated January 2004)
Galton Laboratory, Dept. of Biology, University College London
Perhaps the most famous example of natural selection is the story of industrial melanism in the
peppered moth.  Recently there has been a sudden outbreak of disbelief in this classic story, even
though no new experiments or even reanalyses of earlier data have been performed.  Here I argue
that these recent critiques almost entirely lack substance – a careful examination of all the data
shows that evidence for natural selection on the peppered moth could hardly be bettered.
Peppered moth melanism – the classic story of natural selection in the wild
Among a number of examples of natural selection in nature, industrial melanism in the peppered
moth has been perhaps the most iconic. The peppered moth story was, at least until recently, a key
demonstration of natural selection used in almost every textbook of evolution.  Briefly, in the
industrial revolution, "melanic" or black forms of the peppered moth (Biston betularia – family
Geometridae) became much more common than the typical pale form in polluted areas of Britain
and elsewhere.  From the 1890s onwards, biologists argued that the moths, which rest with their
wings open on tree bark, are adapted in wing colour to the prevailing background. This is a form of
camouflage, because bird predators would be able to find the moths if they didn't match their
background visually (Figs. 1, 2).  When the trees are dark and sooty, the moths are better off being
black; when the trees are soot-free or lichen-covered, they are better off pale and mottled. 
Fig. 1.  Industrial melanism in the peppered moth.
Dark forms of the British peppered moth (Biston betularia), as well as many other species of
moth, became common in the middle of the 19th century near centres of industrial pollution.
Soot coated the trunks and branches of trees, and killed lichens.  In the photo, a pale form
(typica, left) and a dark form (carbonaria, right) rest side-by-side on an unpolluted lichen
covered trunk in Dorset. (From HBD Kettlewell, 1956, Heredity 10: 300). 2
Fig. 2.  Industrial melanism in the peppered moth
This photo was taken on a soot-covered trunk near
Birmingham (B).  Pale form (typica), top right; dark
form (carbonaria), bottom left.  In both Figs. 1 and 2,
the moths have been placed on tree trunks to
demonstrate the camouflage effect.  It is now known
that the moths normally rest at the bases of major
branches rather than on vertical tree trunks, although
this makes little difference to the camouflage because
the bark is similar.  (From HBD Kettlewell, 1956,
Heredity 10: 300).
JBS Haldane calculated long ago that the melanics must have had about 50% higher survival than
typical mottled forms to explain the rapid rise in melanic gene frequency.  In the last half of the last
century, field experiments at 35 sites were performed by a number of scientists. These experiments
directly demonstrated how bird predation affected the survival of adult moths, and demonstrated
that the strength of natural selection was of the same order as that required by Haldane's
calculations (Fig. 1).  There is good geographic evidence for a tight correlation across Britain
between the frequency of melanism and the degree of urbanization and smoke pollution. This
relationship becomes even more convincing when one considers the considerable declines in
frequency of melanism since the clean air acts of the late 1960s in Britain. These reversed selection
pressures must have been of a similar order to those implicated in the original rise of melanism
(Clarke et al. 1985).  The peppered moth story is remarkably complete: it combines an easilyappreciated, visual form of selection, knowledge of the genes involved (albeit in the Mendelian,
pre-molecular sense; see also True 2003 for an update on research towards understanding the evodevo and molecular genetics of melanism), direct experimental demonstration, geographic
correlation with the purported ecological causes, and direct observation of increase and decline of
the phenotype in synchrony with the supposed selective agent – soot on tree bark.
The peppered moth story – refuted?
Today, suddenly, doubt that peppered moth melanism is due to bird predation is surfacing, and the
story is even being dropped from textbooks. Serious scientists and the lay public alike are
convinced by apparent new evidence that the story was false all along. This change in opinion dates
only from the last few years.  Why?  This sudden change in our views of the peppered moth story is
baffling, especially, as I will show, no actual new data have been produced to refute the earlier
experimental work.
The seeds of doubt were probably sown by the maturation of the British ecological genetics school,
considered by Lewontin to have resulted from a "genteel upper middle class fascination with snails
and butterflies".  It became more difficult to justify basic studies of natural selection; people were 3
beginning to be interested in the wrinkles and exceptions as well. My colleague Steve Jones (1982)
epitomised this phase of the peppered moth story with a commentary entitled "More to melanism
than meets the eye": he and others began to argue that non-visual selection could be important as
well as camouflage.  Mike Majerus's recent book "Melanism" (1998), which contains a long
discussion of the peppered moth story, continues very much in this vein. This is hardly surprising.
Writing about work mainly done in the 1950s to 1970s, Majerus needed a new angle to discuss in
the 1990s. He therefore carefully laid out some unsolved problems about the exact mechanisms of
selection. However, neither Majerus nor Jones, nor indeed any serious scientist knowledgeable
about the field at this stage doubted the central idea that natural selection was caused by bird
predation. To quote Majerus (p. 116): "In my view, the huge wealth of additional data obtained
since Kettlewell's initial predation papers does not undermine the basic qualitative deductions from
that work.  Differential bird predation of the typica and carbonaria forms, in habitats affected by
industrial pollution to different degrees, is the primary influence on evolution of melanism in the
peppered moth". These critics merely argued that other factors, such as thermal ecological effects of
the same genes, might be involved as well, and might explain some of the scatter around the overall
geographic and temporal trends in the evolution of melanism.
However, more aggressive criticism soon appeared in the scientific literature.  Ted Sargent et al.
(1998) argued that "there is little persuasive evidence, in the form of rigorous and replicated
observations and experiments to support this explanation [i.e. bird predation as the agent of
selection] at the present time."  Notably, this maverick view was based not on new experiments, but
on a sceptical re-evaluation by two Americans and a New Zealander of the largely British data.   
The biggest bombshell, however, was dropped in a review of Majerus' book by Jerry Coyne (1998). 
Some quotations: "Majerus concludes ... that all we can deduce from this story is that it is a case of
rapid evolution, probably involving pollution and bird predation".  Note the contrast with the
Majerus quotation above.  Coyne continues: "I would, however, replace 'probably' with 'perhaps'. ...
one senses [Majerus] is making a virtue of necessity.  My own reaction resembles the dismay
attending my discovery ... that it was my father and not Santa who brought the presents on
Christmas Eve."  "... for the time being we must discard Biston as a well-understood example of
natural selection in action, although it is clearly a case of evolution".
This single book review, published in the journal "Nature", was enormously influential, and it was
widely and in many cases wilfully misread as a rejection of the best-documented case of natural
selection by a major evolutionary biologist.  This was not intended at all. Coyne's statement, quoted
above, was unfortunately worded.  He meant, I think, that understanding of the causes ("action") of
natural selection were still obscure, rather than that the rapid rise and then fall of melanism in the
peppered moth was anything other than an excellent example of natural selection (Coyne 2002). But
the damage was done: citations of Coyne's (1998) review, especially the part about Santa, soon
appeared in anti-evolution literature.  Recently, I found over 200 websites using search terms
"Coyne, peppered", consisting mainly of creationist diatribes, or of evolutionary biologists' attempts
to rebut the anti-evolution literature on this topic.
More recently, Judith Hooper's (2002) history of the peppered moth story has reopened this can of
worms, and indeed prominently cites Coyne's review.  Hooper's well-written, racy story of the
British ecological genetics school, and of Bernard Kettlewell in particular, appeals particularly to
laymen and was widely reviewed and discussed in media such as the London broadsheet
newspapers.  Kettlewell performed the prototype field experiments on the peppered moth, and
Hooper's argument amounts to an allegation of fraud.  Initially, in a 1953 field experiment,
Kettlewell was getting poor recaptures. If this had continued, the experiment would certainly have
been a failure, but the recapture rates suddenly went up soon after Kettlewell received an 4
encouraging letter from the ecological geneticist EB Ford (
1
actually, even this turns out not to be
correct -- see below). Hooper searched the meteorological data for 1953, but found no evidence for
a sudden change in weather to explain the increase in recaptures.  Therefore, according to Hooper,
the increase in recapture rates were highly suspicious.  At first, Hooper asks, mildly (p. 118) "Is it
possible that [Kettlewell] made modifications in his experimental design?"  Although she doesn't
directly answer this rheorical question, Hooper has convinced herself a score of pages later (p. 136):
"what had passed unnoticed by their peers for at least a decade, was that Bernard had done a little
tweaking ... in Birmingham in 1953".
Figure 3.  Relative fitness of adult typica (normal, pale form) compared with carbonaria
(melanic form) in 35 field experiments with the peppered moth, Biston betularia.  The
survival data are plotted against the frequency of typica in the population, and the trend shows
that adults of each form tend to have higher survival in areas where its own form is most
abundant, as expected under the industrial melanism hypothesis.  The equation for the bestfitting line is y = 0.83 + 0.65x; r
2
 = 0.20, P=0.007).  The data are from Cook (2000); see also
Lees (1981).  Laurence Cook has told me he doesn't believe the simple regression analysis
performed here is sensible, as different groups of experiments were done in very different
ways and with different sample sizes.  However, I am merely using this regression as a
conservative heuristic tool to display the data, because I believe it shows the results clearly.
Cook's own (2000) sample-size-weighted analysis of the data after log-transforming the
relative fitness values gave similar results (P < 0.001).
Hooper's book is an excellent read, but I feel that this particular allegation, based on such slender
evidence, is unfair. Hooper's outlook is strongly influenced by friendly relations with Ted Sargent
who, according to Hooper, had his career ruined by his iconoclastic views on the peppered moth. 
The possibility that opinions of Sargent might be largely a result of his failure to perform successful
experiments to back up his negative take on bird predation does not seem to have occurred to
Hooper.  In any case, as Cook (2000) has demonstrated, even if Kettlewell was a fraud (and there is
no good evidence that this was the case; see above), the other 30-odd experiments on survival of
adult moths in the field done by different scientists are convincing on their own (Fig. 3).
One reason the melanism/bird predation story may be so prone to attack is that it is so neat and easy
to understand. It’s too good to be true! At the same time it perhaps doesn't gibe with most non-5
lepidopterists' personal experiences.  To me, a geneticist working on Lepidoptera, the convincing
evidence for the classical explanation comes not just from the field experiments, but on the
background natural history evidence from over 70 moth species, and in multiple geographic areas
(Lees 1981, Clarke et al. 1985, Cook et al. 1986, Grant et al. 1998, Majerus 1998).  Experiments
can prove selection at one time and in one place, but cannot prove the overall evolutionary
hypothesis; for this, we must generalise from the experiments using comparative natural history
data.
I am involved in another case of this kind.  "Mimicry" is the situation where the wing pattern of one
species of butterfly or other insect is a copy of that in a second distasteful species. The mimic
thereby remains unmolested by visual predators that have learnt to avoid the distasteful species. Far
fewer field experiments have been done to test for the selective advantage of mimicry than have
been done on melanism in the peppered moth, yet I find the argument for mimicry in butterflies,
proposed by Henry Walter Bates on the basis of extensive South American butterfly collections in
1862, absolutely convincing. It is almost incredible that anything other than visual predation could
cause such perfect colour-pattern matching in unrelated species, and in such a geographically
coherent manner.  I conclude this article with some of the background information that makes
industrial melanism so convincing.
The environmental backdrop of industrial melanism
I have never worked specifically on the peppered moth, but I know the species well and have
trapped it and other moths with melanic polymorphisms in both industrial and non-industrial areas. 
I have also done serious field experiments on mimicry in Heliconius butterflies.  Thus I feel
qualified to comment on this topic.   
For those readers who have never experienced coal-era industrial pollution, it may seem unlikely
that environmental changes over the last couple of centuries can have been great enough to lead to
rapid evolution of melanism and its recent, equally rapid decline.  My own experiences suggest that
there have been plenty.  I spent part of my childhood in London during the 1960s. Our heating
system was originally a messy coal-fired stove in the basement around which we huddled for
warmth, although my parents soon installed gas-fired central heating. Towering over our street was
the tall chimney of the nearby hospital incinerator, which periodically released foul-smelling black
vapours. Electricity was then provided by the coal-fired Battersea Power Station across the river,
with its four giant chimneys belching smoke over our area (a photograph of this now derelict power
station achieved new post-coal-era fame on the cover of Pink Floyd's "Animals" LP). As a child, my
handkerchief was always black from soot-stained snot, due to constant inhalation and subsequent
condensation of sooty particulates on my mucous membranes.  The walls of our house, and in fact
the surfaces of every building or tree were covered in black grime and soot.  My parents warned me
not to put my head out of the open window of the then coal-fired steam trains in case a "smut", or
large clot of soot coming out of the smokestack, went in my eye.  I was present in some of the last
great "London Fogs" (more properly called "smogs"), when the air was so full of soot and other
pollutants that it turned dark at midday, and visibility was down to a few feet.  Today, the situation
has radically changed: apart from the odd sulphurous inversion layer due to car exhaust, our windy
and rainy climate together with a ban on coal or wood as fuels ensures that London has remarkably
clean air.  The soot on most buildings has long since been cleaned off, and the trees have all
sloughed their black bark.
As a small child I don't remember seeing many moths in Central London, but in the 1970s, when I
went "mothing" with a friend in Hull in industrial E. Yorkshire, I was surprised to find it almost
impossible to identify the local moths.  Many of their colour patterns had been obliterated by
melanism. This was particularly true of smaller noctuids (such as the "minors", Oligia spp. – 6
Noctuidae) and geometrids.  Although experimental work has been done mostly on the peppered
moth, over 70 other British moths show (or rather showed) industrial melanism (Lees 1981); this is
not generally appreciated from the text-book accounts. Meanwhile, moths were much more
distinguishable at other places I visited, such as rural Hampshire and Kent where the trees were
covered in crustose and foliose lichens rather than soot, and the moths were usually brown, grey
and mottled instead of uniformly black.   
Recently, reversals of melanism in industrial areas have been dramatic, and again not just confined
to the peppered moth.  The marbled beauty moth Cryphia domestica, for example, was said to have
melanic forms that "predominate in London" (Skinner 1984: 122).  The moth "may be found during
the day on walls", and its larvae feed "on lichens ... growing on walls, roofs, rocks etc." From the
1990s onwards, this pretty, greenish-grey noctuid has been a common visitor to my home in
Highbury, north-central London, on summer evenings. But I have never seen a melanic.  It would
be hard to explain the resemblance of the typical adult Cryphia pattern to the mottled grey-green
encrusting lichens on these surfaces other than as a camouflage adaptation, and to deny that the
melanism "predominating" earlier was a response to the grimy surfaces on which the moth rested,
until recently, in London.
For the peppered moth there are controversies too complicated to go into here about the importance
of lichens, settling position and background matching by the moth. Lichens are generally absent or
at least different in industrially polluted regions.  To me, the arguments are largely irrelevant to the
question of visual predation.  The peppered moth doesn't do exact background matching, but the
melanic moth is clearly less visible on a black sooty background, and the pale form is less visible on
a non-sooty, mottled background, whether or not there are lichens, whether or not the moth rests on
the tree trunks or on branches higher up.  This is as true for birds as it is for humans (see Lees
1981).  All that is required for us to know is that the moths rest on bark (they do), and that the bark
gets darker in industrially polluted sites (it does, or at least, did), and that birds find it harder to
detect melanics on sooty backgrounds, and easier on an unpolluted backgrounds (extensive
experiments prove they do).
What and who do you believe?
So, disbelieve the peppered moth story if you must.  But if you do want to disbelieve it, make sure
your sources are good.  Don't just take it from the Daily Telegraph, Hooper's book, Ted Sargent's
critiques, Coyne’s review, or word of mouth.  Ask yourself: in what direction does the weight of
experimental, geographic, temporal evidence, and maybe also a little common sense, lead?  Read
Laurence Cook's papers reviewing the evidence, especially Cook (2000)
2
. Look at Fig. 3.  I believe
that if you do this, you will conclude that the peppered moth story is about as convincing an
example of natural selection by bird predators as you could possibly hope to find.
Literature cited
Bates, H. W. 1862. Contributions to an insect fauna of the Amazon valley.  Lepidoptera:
Heliconidae. Trans. Linn. Soc. Lond. 23:495-566.
Clarke, C. A., G. S. Mani, and G. Wynne. 1985. Evolution in reverse: clean air and the peppered
moth. Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 26:189-199.
Cook, L. M. 2000. Changing views on melanic moths. Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 69:431-441.
Cook, L. M., G. S. Mani, and M. E. Varley. 1986. Postindustrial melanism in the peppered moth.
Science 231:611-613. 7
Coyne, J. A. 1998. Not black and white.  Review of "Melanism: Evolution in Action" by Michael
E.N. Majerus. Nature 396:35-36.
---. 2002. Evolution under pressure.  Review of Judith Hooper: "Of Moths and Men: Intrigue,
Tragedy and the Peppered Moth. Nature 418:19-20.
Grant, B. S., A. D. Cook, C. A. Clarke, and D. F. Owen. 1998. Geographic and temporal variation
in the incidence of melanism in peppered moth populations in America and Britain. J. Hered.
89:465-471.
Hooper, J. 2002. Of Moths and Men: Intrigue, Tragedy and the Peppered Moth. Fourth Estate, New
York.
Jones, J. S. 1982. More to melanism than meets the eye. Nature 300:109-110.
Lees, D. R. 1981. Industrial melanism: genetic adaptation of animals to air pollution. Pp. 129-176 in
J. A. Bishop and L. M. Cook, eds. Genetic Consequences of Man Made Change. Academic Press,
London, London.
Majerus, M. E. N. 1998. Melanism. Evolution in Action. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Sargent, T. D., C. D. Millar, and D. M. Lambert. 1998. The 'classical' explanation of industrial
melanism. Evol. Biol. 30:299-322.
Skinner, B., and D. Wilson. 1984. Colour Identification Guide to Moths of the British Isles
(Macrolepidoptera). Viking Penguin, Harmondsworth, Middlesex.
True, J.R. 2003. Insect melanism: the molecules matter. Trends Ecol. Evol. in press, available
online. 
Footnotes
1. Footnote added 12 January 2004.  Matt Young and Peter Dunkelberg have independently written
to me to point out that Ford’s commiserating letter to Kettlewell is dated the day after recapture
rates had started increasing.  In this article, I had taken Judith Hooper’s word for it uncritically.
2. See also: Cook, L. M. 2003. The rise and fall of the carbonaria form of the peppered  moth. Q.
Rev. Biol. 78:399-418.
Report to moderator   Logged
Archer77
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 11530

Team Shizzo


« Reply #31 on: December 06, 2012, 01:49:23 PM »

Thanks bebop. 
Report to moderator   Logged

A
Twaddle
Getbig IV
****
Posts: 2586


« Reply #32 on: December 06, 2012, 05:10:05 PM »

Goddamn, is this thread a script for "Dumb and Dumber 3"?   Cheesy
Report to moderator   Logged
Parker
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 44968


Autobots, Transform and Roll Out!


« Reply #33 on: December 06, 2012, 05:34:04 PM »

Goddamn, is this thread a script for "Dumb and Dumber 3"?   Cheesy
"Dumb and Dumber 3: Devolving"?
Report to moderator   Logged
SF1900
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 16479



« Reply #34 on: December 06, 2012, 05:41:02 PM »

Evolution is the most supported theory. And just because there are gaps in the theory does not mean it is not a strong theory. All theories take time to develop. Should we believe in ancient aliens which has no proof?
Report to moderator   Logged
Archer77
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 11530

Team Shizzo


« Reply #35 on: December 06, 2012, 05:52:30 PM »

Evolution is the most supported theory. And just because there are gaps in the theory does not mean it is not a strong theory. All theories take time to develop. Should we believe in ancient aliens which has no proof?

I think the distinction is in the way the word theory is being used by wigs.  He is using it in the colloquial way and not the scientific meaning.
Report to moderator   Logged

A
PJim
Getbig IV
****
Posts: 3391


I took my potatoes down to be mashed.


« Reply #36 on: December 06, 2012, 06:13:36 PM »

You only need to observe the rapid changes in bacteria aand viruses to understand evolution by natural selection
Report to moderator   Logged
The True Adonis
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 41771


"We Will Correct All This."


« Reply #37 on: December 06, 2012, 06:14:28 PM »

Evolution is the most supported theory. And just because there are gaps in the theory does not mean it is not a strong theory. All theories take time to develop. Should we believe in ancient aliens which has no proof?
What gaps?  There aren`t any.
Report to moderator   Logged

E
haider
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 11985


Team Batman Squats


« Reply #38 on: December 06, 2012, 06:16:09 PM »

If evolution is true why is dr. chimps still around  Huh
Report to moderator   Logged

follow the arrows
Archer77
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 11530

Team Shizzo


« Reply #39 on: December 06, 2012, 06:35:30 PM »

What gaps?  There aren`t any.

There are a few gaps in the fossil record.  Scientist believe that some transitional fossils may not have preserve correctly or they haven't been discovered yet.  Scientist are using DNA as a way of connecting species when the fossil record is incomplete.


http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/09/110919151320.htm


You only need to observe the rapid changes in bacteria aand viruses to understand evolution by natural selection

Good example.  I'd failed to mention this.
Report to moderator   Logged

A
haider
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 11985


Team Batman Squats


« Reply #40 on: December 06, 2012, 06:43:19 PM »

The thing is that there is a faulty presumption behind these 'doubts' that everything should be known a 100% beyond doubt. Evolution is the only theory that consistently explains biological life. Since its inception, the evidence for the theory has only grown and diversified into more fields. The theory is an emerging picture from tons of evidence; that it isn't referred to as a 'fact' rather than 'theory' is a matter of scientific distinction, not for a lack of strong evidence. It is as much as fact as anything else.
Report to moderator   Logged

follow the arrows
Archer77
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 11530

Team Shizzo


« Reply #41 on: December 06, 2012, 06:46:27 PM »

The thing is that there is a faulty presumption behind these 'doubts' that everything should be known a 100% beyond doubt. Evolution is the only theory that consistently explains biological life. Since its inception, the evidence for the theory has only grown and diversified into more fields. The theory is an emerging picture from tons of evidence; that it isn't referred to as a 'fact' rather than 'theory' is a matter of scientific distinction, not for a lack of strong evidence. It is as much as fact as anything else.

Very well said!
Report to moderator   Logged

A
The True Adonis
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 41771


"We Will Correct All This."


« Reply #42 on: December 06, 2012, 06:50:08 PM »

There are a few gaps in the fossil record.  Scientist believe that some transitional fossils may not have preserve correctly or they haven't been discovered yet.  Scientist are using DNA as a way of connecting species when the fossil record is incomplete.


http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/09/110919151320.htm


Good example.  I'd failed to mention this.
It would be impossible to have every single fossil, so this doesn`t constitute as a "gap" or a "hole" in the theory.  You would have to have fpssils of every organism that dies, every time it dies from present to billions of years ago.  That is not feasible and is pointless and is not needed at all.
Report to moderator   Logged

E
Parker
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 44968


Autobots, Transform and Roll Out!


« Reply #43 on: December 06, 2012, 06:54:05 PM »

There are a few gaps in the fossil record.  Scientist believe that some transitional fossils may not have preserve correctly or they haven't been discovered yet.  Scientist are using DNA as a way of connecting species when the fossil record is incomplete.


http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/09/110919151320.htm


Good example.  I'd failed to mention this.
like how new world vultures (examples, the Andean and California Condors) were thought to be related to old world ones and DNA evidence shows that they are closely related to Storks
Or how Skunks were thought to be of the mustelid family (weasels, badgers, wolverines), but DNA evidence shows that they are separate.
Report to moderator   Logged
Archer77
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 11530

Team Shizzo


« Reply #44 on: December 06, 2012, 07:13:52 PM »

It would be impossible to have every single fossil, so this doesn`t constitute as a "gap" or a "hole" in the theory.  You would have to have fpssils of every organism that dies, every time it dies from present to billions of years ago.  That is not feasible and is pointless and is not needed at all.


I agree.  I only used the term gap because that is the word some paleontologists have used to describe the missing transitional fossils.  Paradoxically, in some instances the newer fossils are less likely to be preserved because of environmental exposure.  For the record, I'm a historian not a biologist or a paleontologist. You're getting a laymens opinion.

like how new world vultures (examples, the Andean and California Condors) were thought to be related to old world ones and DNA evidence shows that they are closely related to Storks
Or how Skunks were thought to be of the mustelid family (weasels, badgers, wolverines), but DNA evidence shows that they are separate.

Yes, exactly.  DNA has expanded all fields of the sciences.  It's explained a ton but created more mysteries as well.
Report to moderator   Logged

A
SF1900
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 16479



« Reply #45 on: December 06, 2012, 07:18:00 PM »

What gaps?  There aren`t any.

TA, I am a huge supporter of evolution. I was referring to some gaps regarding transitional fossils.
Report to moderator   Logged
syntaxmachine
Getbig IV
****
Posts: 2532



« Reply #46 on: December 06, 2012, 07:26:24 PM »

IN this thread, an African American acts stereotypically (only 16% of African Americans accept evolution) by denying a theory the truth of which he is not competent to determine either way, despite the widespread acceptance of said theory among the relevant experts.

This is really no better than starting a thread about your love of fried chicken, or some other such belittling nonsense. If I were African American and I read this I'd be embarrassed for you and by you.

PM me if you want help acquiring reading material about the fact of evolution.
Report to moderator   Logged
The True Adonis
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 41771


"We Will Correct All This."


« Reply #47 on: December 06, 2012, 07:38:33 PM »

IN this thread, an African American acts stereotypically (only 16% of African Americans accept evolution) by denying a theory the truth of which he is not competent to determine either way, despite the widespread acceptance of said theory among the relevant experts.

This is really no better than starting a thread about your love of fried chicken, or some other such belittling nonsense. If I were African American and I read this I'd be embarrassed for you and by you.

PM me if you want help acquiring reading material about the fact of evolution.
ROFLMAO.

Report to moderator   Logged

E
PJim
Getbig IV
****
Posts: 3391


I took my potatoes down to be mashed.


« Reply #48 on: December 06, 2012, 08:00:11 PM »

IN this thread, an African American acts stereotypically (only 16% of African Americans accept evolution) by denying a theory the truth of which he is not competent to determine either way, despite the widespread acceptance of said theory among the relevant experts.

This is really no better than starting a thread about your love of fried chicken, or some other such belittling nonsense. If I were African American and I read this I'd be embarrassed for you and by you.

PM me if you want help acquiring reading material about the fact of evolution.
Grin
Report to moderator   Logged
Marty Champions
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 27459


ericpdollard.com is what we should know


« Reply #49 on: December 06, 2012, 08:05:46 PM »

Let me dumb it down for you.  You're a fucking idiot because for years you've been quoting something that was never said or written from the person you thought it came from.  Furthermore, as I've stated, there is no EVOLUTION that can be proven in a biological sense. Yet, you used the word in that we are "evolving" to be better looking.  That is incorrect.  Evolving isn't the correct word or idea.  It's more VARIATION.

Quit arguing over something I'm not arguing over.  Wipe the egg from your face and move on.

Tell us more stuff that Darwin didn't say or write. 

evolution happens when we get older whos to say our offspring isnt evolved wiggs
Report to moderator   Logged

A
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 7   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Theme created by Egad Community. Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!