Evolution????

Originally posted by Aeolus Originally posted by Maju Originally posted by Aeolus I agree with Cywr. Evolution is not a theory of the origin of life. It has nothing to do with 'creation' or origin of life. It just describes what happened after life got started. Generally the concept of evolution points to the beginning of the process of evolution, but not to A Beginning. I wouldn't fully agree with this. Ultimately Biology and its evolutionary paradigm do aim to clear up how exactly life was formed initially. True that we don't have the exact answer and we might never know for sure, true that the diferents theories on the origins of life are not strictly part of the theory of evolution but it's clearly related. Science aims to explain everything acording to material evidence and logic. If there was a God behind the process, science would confront that fact via material evidence and logic too, the fact that no evidence has been given to prove that God exists, while not denying its existence and possible influence, keeps it out of the field of science proper: relegated to the less prestigious fields of philosophy and theology... and to the personal intimate convictions of each one. Yes but the evolutionary theory

I do wish you'd make that plural. Especially in a supposedly historical forum. Which evoultionary theory are you talking about?

is a scientific theory about how life has developed � meaning there is a premise that life already exists. It does not, as a matter of course, have explanations on the origins of life. The study of naturalistic origin of life is a separate field known as Abiogenesis. Certainly it is valid to say that biological evolution and the basis of naturalistic clarification of Abiogenesis, called molecular evolution, have some kind of relation between each other but still we mustn't confuse the true nature of evolution.

Originally posted by Illuminati Originally posted by Maju Originally posted by Illuminati We know they existed in many parts of Europe, but no one is sure if they jsut died off or if they mated with early Homo sapiens and kind of ceased to exist as a species that way. It's already confirmed that Neanderthals didn't got mixed with modern humans (DNA testing, I think). Neanderthals were either killed or outcompeted by our ancestors, who apparently were more flexible in thought and adaptability. Not bigger brains, actually Neanders had slightly bigger heads, just more flexible for adaptation, possibly more creative. Neanderthals were actually much stronger and were better adapted to European cold climate but still, our grandparents just displaced them to the point of extintion. Sometimes I think that Neanders could resemble the dwarfs of legends, they were smaller but much stronger than us and, without being clearly inferior, they were simply diferent. They lasted for many milennia, co-existing with us, till they they finally disapeared anyhow. It wasn't any sudden proccess. They have in no way found enough remains to be sure , even with using DNA evidence that Neanderthals didn't breed with early Homo sapiens. This debate is still very much alive in teh scientific community

Actually it is dying off, just like Neanderthals did. Just that the discoveries are too recent (less than a decade) to have fully permeated the scientifical community and much less scientifical literature and popular opinion.

I'm possitive to have read about it to Arsuaga, the archaeologist in charge of Atapuerca site... but I can't find the book right now. So I took a look in Wikipedia (Neanderthal interaction with Cro-Magnons) and there it says clearly that: Tests comparing Neanderthal and modern human mitochondrial DNA show too great a dissimilarity for Neanderthals to have contributed to the human mitochondrial genome. The mtDNA indicated a split between Homo sapiens and Neanderthals occurred more than 500,000 years ago.

So, at least via maternal lineages it's totally discarded. True that there is one Portuguese skeleton that shows hybrid features but it is likely that the hybrid (assuming it was that) was sterile.

In fact there are other curious things about Neanders: they didn't even use fire. That's quite a very shocking discovery (ref. Arsuaga too). It seems that no fire remains have been found associated to Neanderthal or other pre-modern Human species.

Heck, They aren't even 100% positive that early humans migrated out of Africa only. Most believe that all human life started in Africa and then moved out, but tehy can't disprove other theories.

Well, the Chinese scientifical stabilishment seems to be the only group promoting odd theories about a local focus for Homo sapiens. But that's not how evolution works: species do not get fused but actually they tend to diverge more and more.

For almost all scientists involved in fields related to human evolution the out-of-Africa theory is the only reasonable one. In science you can never be 100% sure of anything, but you can get very close, so let's say 99.9%.


Edited by Maju

Difference is we can track evolution from the single cell to now. The first creature that was multicelled was a flat worm that shared the same hole for it's mouth and anus, and it's still alive today, further along it became a tube worm which obviously was better in evoultion. Cartlage was the being of bone, and cartlage came when the tougher skin of a creature was surviving it's enviroment better.

In our minds we see that evolution just happens quickly, as though we can't really imagine time being that long and that far back. But in truth evolution is very slow in our standards, but in the universe it's a flash. We have some little part in us that different in our parents, so slight in difference that it's unnoticable. Evolution is also slower in us as we are living a life of leisure, so we probably won't be changing for awhile.

Oh I understand now. I always equate Darwinism as evolution as I reject the other theories, whereas you see evolution itself as a concrete concept explained by the different theories you mentioned above. With that clarified I agree with you entirely. One missing link in the whole process of natural selection which has always left me without satisfaction is how inanimate, non-living matter transformed itself into life. I am yet to find someone who can explain that in satisfactory terms.

Originally posted by gcle2003 No it's not. It's an observed fact. Darwinian natural selection, Lamarckian/Lysenkoist inheritance of acquired characteristics, and intelligent design are all theories of evolution, in that they attempt to explain the fact of evolution. The Darwinian and Lamarckian theories are scientific, in that they can be tested empirically. Intelligent design, while it is a theory, is not a scientific theory, in that it cannot be tested empirically. It's proper place therefore is in the category of religion, or at least metaphysics. It has no place in a science class whatsoever.

The observed fact you are talking about deals with micro-evolution, or the change in the frequency of alleles of a population.  Examples include HIV becoming immune to our body defense system. 

What people here are talking about, which has not been proved yet, is macro-evolution, or how mouse looking creatures "evolve" into elephants.  And you know damn right that testing macro-evolution empirically (both Darwinism and Lamarkism) is damn unpractical and has not happened beyond the stage of micro-evolution.

Originally posted by gcle2003 I do wish you'd make that plural. Especially in a supposedly historical forum. Which evoultionary theory are you talking about?

That assertive tone gives me the impression that you've just completed Biology class.  Congratulations.  Now go study for AP Bio. 

Apparently, Evolution is not about Darwinism, Lamarkism, Catastrophism, etc.  By branches of Evolution, scientists generally refer to ideas such as gradualism or punctuated eqilibrium.  The theory of Evolution is not complete; there are scientists who argue against the generally accepted ideas of evolution. 

Intelligent design and Evolution are dichotomial entities- they never really mix. 

Originally posted by gcle2003 Not at all. That was a theory advanced to explain the emission of semen. No-one had seen semen moving from the brain. On the other hand we can see things evolve - notably 'flu viruses. Darwinism is a theory that explains evolution. Lamarckism is a theory that explains evolution. Intelligenr design is a theory that explains evolution. There are also gestalt theories of evolution that I can't think of a name for offhand. They also explain evolution. The question is: which of them offers the best explanation of the observed phenomenon of evolution?

Intelligent design does not equal evolution.  Both explain different stuffs- Intelligent design states that god created all species and they never changed since.  Evolution states that organisms have constantly enhanced their capacities through time by reproduction of the most successful.  They are different.

Sorry about my arrogant assumption that you've actually completed Biology class. 

Originally posted by demon Originally posted by gcle2003 No it's not. It's an observed fact. Darwinian natural selection, Lamarckian/Lysenkoist inheritance of acquired characteristics, and intelligent design are all theories of evolution, in that they attempt to explain the fact of evolution. The Darwinian and Lamarckian theories are scientific, in that they can be tested empirically. Intelligent design, while it is a theory, is not a scientific theory, in that it cannot be tested empirically. It's proper place therefore is in the category of religion, or at least metaphysics. It has no place in a science class whatsoever. The observed fact you are talking about deals with micro-evolution, or the change in the frequency of alleles of a population.  Examples include HIV becoming immune to our body defense system.  What people here are talking about, which has not been proved yet, is macro-evolution, or how mouse looking creatures "evolve" into elephants.  And you know damn right that testing macro-evolution empirically (both Darwinism and Lamarkism) is damn unpractical and has not happened beyond the stage of micro-evolution.

And you should know damn well (since you like that vocabulary) that new species have been observed to emerge. In occasionally odd places, like the London Underground.

That's macro-evolution at work. In fact there's no dividing line between 'micro' and 'macro' evolution because the classification of animals into species is subjective and arbitrary.

Originally posted by gcle2003 I do wish you'd make that plural. Especially in a supposedly historical forum. Which evoultionary theory are you talking about? That assertive tone gives me the impression that you've just completed Biology class.  Congratulations.  Now go study for AP Bio.

Don't try and be patronising. It doesn't work around intelligent people.

Apparently, Evolution is not about Darwinism, Lamarkism, Catastrophism, etc.  By branches of Evolution, scientists generally refer to ideas such as gradualism or punctuated eqilibrium.  The theory of Evolution is not complete; there are scientists who argue against the generally accepted ideas of evolution.

Producing inter alia many different theories of evolution, which was precisely my point. It confirms that evolution is not a theory, it's something you have theories of.  By 'Darwinism' I simply mean the theory that mutations occur at random and those than hurt survival drop out of the genotype.

Intelligent design and Evolution are dichotomial entities- they never really mix.  Originally posted by gcle2003 Not at all. That was a theory advanced to explain the emission of semen. No-one had seen semen moving from the brain. On the other hand we can see things evolve - notably 'flu viruses. Darwinism is a theory that explains evolution. Lamarckism is a theory that explains evolution. Intelligenr design is a theory that explains evolution. There are also gestalt theories of evolution that I can't think of a name for offhand. They also explain evolution. The question is: which of them offers the best explanation of the observed phenomenon of evolution? Intelligent design does not equal evolution.

Well I've just been saying it doesn't. Were you listening?

Both explain different stuffs- Intelligent design states that god created all species and they never changed since.

Then you're talking about a funny kind of 'Intelligent Design'. The whole case for teaching ID in US schools is that it does NOT imply a god, and is therefore not religious.

Intelligent Design is simply the theory that, given the complexity of living organisms, there must be an intelligence guiding their evolution. It accepts evolution, and explains it. That's the whole point of it.

Evolution states that organisms have constantly enhanced their capacities through time by reproduction of the most successful.

That is literal nonsense. You are saying in effect that evolution states that organisms evolve. Just think about it. That's nutty.

Evolution is the fact that organisms evolve. Evolution doesn't state anything. It doesn't do anything. It's a process not an actor.

Unbless you can get a few fundamental ontological concepts right the situation will stay as confused and confounded as it is right now.

They are different. Sorry about my arrogant assumption that you've actually completed Biology class.

I'm not a biologist, I'm essentially a historian (especially of philosophy and science) and economist.  But what's involved here is a little elementary linguistic analysis, otherwise known as common sense and not producing grammatical nonsense.

 

Originally posted by demon Originally posted by gcle2003 And you should know damn well (since you like that vocabulary) that new species have been observed to emerge. In occasionally odd places, like the London Underground. That's macro-evolution at work. In fact there's no dividing line between 'micro' and 'macro' evolution because the classification of animals into species is subjective and arbitrary. There is a difference between new species emerging and discovering already-existant species.  You can't just declare Macro-evolution just because you've discovered a funky looking creature out of the sewage.  Macroevolution is an event, by definition, that deals with "over a long period of time."  In other words, You can't just find Macroevolution one day in the sewage- that kind of reasoning is called pseudo-science, because an erroneous empirical reasoning backs it up. Remember this: Microevolution: Change in the allele frequency within a selected population Macroevolution: phenomena involving the drastic allele change in frequency that somehow leads into reproductive inhibition between the two genetically diversified populations, resulting in Speciation.

Which, as the London Underground cases show, can happen in a relatively SHORT space of time. There's no hard and fast line between 'change' and 'drastic change'. It's a continuum.

Originally posted by gcle2003 Well I've just been saying it doesn't. Were you listening? Listen to what you're saying: Quote from gcle2003: Intelligenr design is a theory that explains evolution. You've stated that Intelligent design is a way of explaining evolution.  Instead, it explains Creationism.

In the way it is being currently presented in the US, it is asserted that it explains evolution. You can of course provide a similar theory to account for creation. And incidentally you're drifting again ... Intelligent Design doesn't explain 'creationism' - at most it explains creation.

Some ID proponents specifically disclaim that ID explains creation. Admittedly I suspect they only do that to get around the Constitutional ban on teaching religion in public schools.

You should be rational enough to conclude that creationism and evolutionism are different.

Of course they are, although I'm having to make a wild stab at what you mean by 'evolutionism'. Evolution and creation are certainly different.

Originally posted by gcle2003 Then you're talking about a funny kind of 'Intelligent Design'. The whole case for teaching ID in US schools is that it does NOT imply a god, and is therefore not religious. Intelligent Design is simply the theory that, given the complexity of living organisms, there must be an intelligence guiding their evolution. It accepts evolution, and explains it. That's the whole point of it. Intelligent Design is not simply the theory that you've stated.  It generally accepts Micro-evolution, but not Macro-evolution.

That's just not true. Not of standard ID anyway. It accepts both, with the same explanation for each. In fact if anything it's the other way around, with Darwinism (say) being accepted for so-called 'micro'-evolution and intelligent design being accepted for so-called 'macro-evolution'.

Now the generally understood concept of evolution requires both micro and macro evolution for it to occur.

The generally understood concept is that the distinction you are drawing is a false one. There's no dichotomy, just a matter of degree.

Originally posted by gcle2003 That is literal nonsense. You are saying in effect that evolution states that organisms evolve. Just think about it. That's nutty. Evolution is the fact that organisms evolve. Evolution doesn't state anything. It doesn't do anything. It's a process not an actor. Unbless you can get a few fundamental ontological concepts right the situation will stay as confused and confounded as it is right now. Evolution is NOT the "fact" that organisms evolve.  Evolution, to start with, was proposed because it happens in nature.  �

Can you not see how tangled up you are getting? 'Evolution was proposed because it happens'! If it happens (which I hold to be obvious) then why does anyone need to 'propose' it - it's there already.

Like I said, first get your ontology sorted out, and you might get somewhere.

It is a way of explainig things that happen around us.  It happens, but under rational, and explicable circumstances.  This includes some common laws, including the use of allele frequency, transmission of randomly-assorted genes via gametes, reproduction of more offsprings than of that will die out, etc. In other words, it is a process that strictly follows logic.  It's not just grazing cow; there's a lot of stuffs going on that can be only understood if you've studied biology.

I agree with all that. No problem. But if all that is true, then you can't say evolution is a theory, which is what I was objecting to in the first place. You can't use the same word for the process and the theories that account for it without getting into logical nonsenses.

Again, I highly recommend you to study Biology before you actually go on further into this debate.  Ace Biology and you wouldn't have to counter my points merely by twisting your tongue into some intelligent remarks, which actually means nothing.  I'm not a biologist, I'm essentially a historian (especially of philosophy and science) and economist.  But what's involved here is a little elementary linguistic analysis, otherwise known as common sense and not producing grammatical nonsense. Cool.  I actually do respect you as a historian and a philosopher, but I do think that you should better check out some neat facts in Biology that will guide you more successfully through evolution debates such as these. I suggest you start out with Gregor Mendel and his discovery of alleles.  Make sure you understand the principle behind crossing over and independent assortment.

I happen to know about that. Like I said, for my degree I specialised in the history of science.

By the way, grammatical nonsense happens to everyone once in a while, so deal with it.

It only happens when people are thinking shoddily. And it can be terribly misleading.

Can you not see how tangled up you are getting? 'Evolution was proposed because it happens'! If it happens (which I hold to be obvious) then why does anyone need to 'propose' it - it's there already.

Because Creationists do not concur with Macro-evolution.  Basically, the previous statement was my point.

Which, as the London Underground cases show, can happen in a relatively SHORT space of time. There's no hard and fast line between 'change' and 'drastic change'. It's a continuum.

I still do not agree with this.  Since you brought it up, could you back it up with sources?

I have no problem with life surging spontaneously where the conditions are favorable (water, energy, carbon), provided enogh time. In labs they have achieved to synthetize the bricks of life very easily, so getting them together in a simple living criature is just a matter of time. I'm sure we will find life (primitive life, like bacteria) in Mars and other planets as we continue wit our space exploration. That we haven't been able yet to reproduce in artificial conditions what happened in a whole planet and in huge ammounts of time doesn't mean that it didn't happen. In fact, it happened and we are the evidence.

There's another theory that suggests that life appeared in the nebulas and was transfered to planets via meteors. The logic behind this is that the green color of clorophila is best to absorb the light frequencies commo in those outer space regions.

Originally posted by demon Can you not see how tangled up you are getting? 'Evolution was proposed because it happens'! If it happens (which I hold to be obvious) then why does anyone need to 'propose' it - it's there already. Because Creationists do not concur with Macro-evolution.  Basically, the previous statement was my point.

That just gets you even more tangled. To repeat: You said: 'Evolution was proposed because it happens. So you agree it happens. If it happens it must be a fact. Yet you deny it is a fact, so you must be denying it happens.

Now you may not have meant what you said, and you may want to rephrase it. But it still represents muddled thinking, which is what i would like to see eliminated from this continuing discussion.

I know creationists don't accept evolution except where they are absolutely forced to. But to retreat into saying 'ah but that's not MACRO-evolution, that's only MICRO-evolution' when there's no distinguishable difference between the two is just unconvincing sophistry.

Which, as the London Underground cases show, can happen in a relatively SHORT space of time. There's no hard and fast line between 'change' and 'drastic change'. It's a continuum. I still do not agree with this.  Since you brought it up, could you back it up with sources?

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB910.html

http://www.gene.ch/gentech/1998/Jul-Sep/msg00188.html

Or did you mean the bit about it being a question of degree? It seems to me that that has to be the default hypothesis, and that if you are claiming a qualitative difference rather than just one of scale it should be up to you to define the difference and demonstrate a reason for accepting it as significant (other than that it gives you the excuse you are looking for).

I'm not a biologist, but I do know, as an economist, a fair amount about taxonomy and in particular numerical taxonomy and I do know  that taxonomic distinctions almost always depend on some kind of subjective and essentially arbitrary assessment, notably choosing the dimensions and geometry of the space you are defining.

Still, we've just been reminded that the subject of this thread is not evolution but origin of life, so it would be off topic to push it much farther, as well as probably too mathematical for many to be interested.