RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

    
  Topic: Everyday examples of evolution< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Wonderpants



Posts: 115
Joined: Sep. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 18 2005,00:40   

One popular claim by the ID/creationist fantasists is that evolution has never been observed in the real world and/or that it's only been demonstrated under laboratory conditions by 'immoral atheist' scientists.

So let's see if we can come up with a counter argument that involves easily demonstrated examples of evolution in everyday life. Here's a few to get the ball rolling:

1. The most notable and significant example (to us): Superbugs. Germs that have evolved partial or complete immunity to antibiotics.

2. Warfarin resistant rats. Warfarin is a common rat poison that kills them by stopping their blood clotting. Of course, quite a few rats have now developed immunity to Warfarin.

3. Mice that have developed to exist in extremely cold environments. Mice living in places like freezer rooms have been found to have developed extremely thick coats to deal with the sub-zero temperatures.

Anyone with any other examples?

--------------
Fundamentalism in a nutshell:
"There are a lot of things I have concluded to be wrong, without studying them in-depth. Evolution is one of them. The fact that I don't know that much about it does not bother me in the least."

  
evopeach



Posts: 248
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 18 2005,03:52   

Wonderpants,

When you use terms like have developed it implies a desire on the part of the mice to want to develop those characteristics. This is a common laughable schizofrenic error evos make. Always and forever we know that every trait and characteristic is based on genetic activity, DNA etc. and according to evos is randomly generated and either discarded or preserved by the environment. There is no direction, plan, desire or such so let's agree mice don't develop anything.

Bacteria multiply rapidly and have more copying errors and mutations perhaps so that the chance of messing up a targeted antibiotic binding site is not unexpected.

As for thick coats, my dog and my friend's horses routinely get thicker coats in the winter and shed in the summer. Is that evolution or is it a routine designed in adaptive capacity based on sensory response?

Can you do any better than triviality and illogical theoretically flawed examples?

How about an observable example of macro-evolution say a bacteria becoming a mouse that can fly?

Oh! And you forgot about the peppered moths!

LOL!!

  
GCT



Posts: 1001
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 18 2005,04:43   

Evopeach,
The term, "Have developed" in no way imparts any sort of desire by the mice to develop it, thereby willing it to evolve.  That is a concept that is part of the ID/Creation crowd's lexicon.  What happens is that those mice who can better survive the environment pass on their genes to their offspring, and over many generations we see changes, such as the ability to survive in freezers.  It's called natural selection and you can look it up in any biology text.  You should probably have done that before you posted here

Quote
As for thick coats, my dog and my friend's horses routinely get thicker coats in the winter and shed in the summer. Is that evolution or is it a routine designed in adaptive capacity based on sensory response?

Do you really think that horses and dogs feel the air get cooler and decide to grow a thicker coat?

Quote
How about an observable example of macro-evolution say a bacteria becoming a mouse that can fly?

How about some realistic examples.  Try here.

Quote
Oh! And you forgot about the peppered moths!

I once again find myself pointing you to a source on this, thus proving that you do not read the links that I have provided you which shows a lack of intellectual honesty on your part.  Try this link on for size.


As for examples of evolution could we also include animals that become isolated on islands and grow smaller in order to adapt to the scarcity of resources?

  
evopeach



Posts: 248
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 18 2005,06:54   

GCT,

Evopeach,
The term, "Have developed" in no way imparts any sort of desire by the mice to develop it, thereby willing it to evolve.  That is a concept that is part of the ID/Creation crowd's lexicon.  What happens is that those mice who can better survive the environment pass on their genes to their offspring, and over many generations we see changes, such as the ability to survive in freezers.  It's called natural selection and you can look it up in any biology text.  You should probably have done that before you posted here

Yes, you make it very clear... Those mice who survive the environment ( the only environment in context is the cold freezer environment) .... pass on the genes to survive in cold freezers.

Mice who can survive in cold freezers have mice who can survive in cold freezers.  (Carl Popper was always correct.. thanks for the reconfirmation)

How many generations were involved in the freezer experiment?

Was there a trial in which several groups of mice froze to death in the freezer to establish that genetic information was not initially present to enable survival in the freezer?

Do you deny that it is an absolute fact that many animals routinely grow heavier coats in winter and shed in the summer as a function of temperature? And no I don't think animals even think about such, period. It is a designed in adaptive capability in their genetic and central nervous systems just like body temperature regulation, hibernation, etc.

Have you seen such occur in opposite fashion where an animals coat sheds in the cold and thickens in the heat?

Hmmm, if not, it must have some sensory basis then because it is not a cognitive process in animals.


If Howdy Doody makes a comeback on TV I recommend you  to play Clara Bell.

  
evopeach



Posts: 248
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 18 2005,07:06   

Peppered Moths and Such

The moths were moths before and after the experiments. There were both sorts of coloration before and after the experiements.

The sources refer to episodic malanism across several species around the world which by definition rules out the moths being some singular evidence of evolution,, even micro-evolution.

Natural selection cannot exist without mutational genetic change for it to act on and since there was no provable genetic change, merely a built-in sensory response to environmental change in their habitat, natural selection was not in evidence, unless you believe all predation is natural selection in which case most species have proven remarkably resistant to such.

Honk Honk Clara

  
GCT



Posts: 1001
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 18 2005,07:07   

Quote
Do you deny that it is an absolute fact that many animals routinely grow heavier coats in winter and shed in the summer as a function of temperature? And no I don't think animals even think about such, period. It is a designed in adaptive capability in their genetic and central nervous systems just like body temperature regulation, hibernation, etc.

Your evidence that it was designed?

Also, you will have to define what you mean by "sensory basis."  I take that to mean that the animal is actively using its senses to pick up on the weather change, which changes its coat thickness.  Is that what you are trying to say?


We don't need to throw mice into a freezer to find out whether they survive or not.  The point is that you start with mice that are not native to freezers and you end up with mice that are.  We have observed this.  There weren't mice in there before, but now there are.  Are you saying that the intelligent designer came down and designed some mice to live in freezers?  What did the designer do to make mice able to live in freezers.  How did the designer do it?  How did we not notice some intelligent designer acting on mice right in front of us?

  
GCT



Posts: 1001
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 18 2005,07:13   

Quote (evopeach @ Oct. 18 2005,12:06)
Peppered Moths and Such

The moths were moths before and after the experiments. There were both sorts of coloration before and after the experiements.

The sources refer to episodic malanism across several species around the world which by definition rules out the moths being some singular evidence of evolution,, even micro-evolution.

Natural selection cannot exist without mutational genetic change for it to act on and since there was no provable genetic change, merely a built-in sensory response to environmental change in their habitat, natural selection was not in evidence, unless you believe all predation is natural selection in which case most species have proven remarkably resistant to such.

Honk Honk Clara

No one claimed the moths were anything other than moths for the purposes of experiments on moths.  More straw men?  The moths do change colors with regards to pollution levels, please actually read the link before you make assinine comments like that.

You also can not make the claim that this is a sensory change, because the experiments are of generations of moths, not single moths.

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 18 2005,08:15   

Evo,

Does it sometimes bother you that everyone here is secretly laughing at you?

Just curious.

--------------
2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity

"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

  
evopeach



Posts: 248
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 18 2005,08:41   

eric murphy,

Does it bother you that with every passing day your entire world view is falling into complete disrepute among some of the most respected members of your community, that the teaching of ID is at least a 50/50 proposition within a few months, that with the changes in the supreme court such is even more likely?

Does it secretly bother you to be a member of a scientifically heretical cult that holds with censorship, blackmail, extorsion, persecution and misrepresentation of facts to cling to a paradigm that has not a single tenet that does not suffer from enumerable contradictions in evidence, lack of correlation between predictions and real observations and has no basis in fact for its theoretical underpinnings?

To be laughed at by such a band of little brainwashed mental midgets actually calls forth pity and compassion from the gifted and gracious such as I.

Have you ever had an original thought in your entire life or are you the Charlie McCarthy of the internet that you appear to be.

  
GCT



Posts: 1001
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 18 2005,08:55   

Quote (evopeach @ Oct. 18 2005,13:41)
eric murphy,

Does it bother you that with every passing day your entire world view is falling into complete disrepute among some of the most respected members of your community, that the teaching of ID is at least a 50/50 proposition within a few months, that with the changes in the supreme court such is even more likely?

Does it secretly bother you to be a member of a scientifically heretical cult that holds with censorship, blackmail, extorsion, persecution and misrepresentation of facts to cling to a paradigm that has not a single tenet that does not suffer from enumerable contradictions in evidence, lack of correlation between predictions and real observations and has no basis in fact for its theoretical underpinnings?

To be laughed at by such a band of little brainwashed mental midgets actually calls forth pity and compassion from the gifted and gracious such as I.

Have you ever had an original thought in your entire life or are you the Charlie McCarthy of the internet that you appear to be.

Falling into disrepute?  Because of your arguments?  That's a laugh.

Censorship?  We let YOU post here, while Dembski does not allow me or anyone else here to post there.  The DI does not allow comments on their blogs, and they delete trackbacks.

Blackmail?  "Extorsion"?  Persecution?  Back up those claims.

Misrepresentation?  The only misrepresentation I see is yours.  Witness also the numerous quote mines by creationists/IDists and the fallacious claims, all of which have been pointed out to you before.

  
evopeach



Posts: 248
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 18 2005,10:23   

GCT,

If it were not for quotes you couldn't muster the words to order a big mac.

Words have meaning and when people on your team intermittantly tell the truth about your science fiction based paradigm as they have done on hundreds of occasions it is a perfectly permissible debating technique to quote them.

The reason I don't want to quote you is that you are such a liar that your position on any issue would change faster than one can type.

Quote mining is another stupid term dreamed up by morons like you to attempt to ridicule people who litigimately read, analyze and comment on the factually correct, but devastating to evolution, statements made from time to time by evos who are actually intellectually gifted and have made contributions to science ... that leaves out you and the other wantabes on this forum.

Solved that math problem yet Mr. Numbers man?

  
HPLC_Sean



Posts: 12
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 18 2005,10:45   

evopeach:
You've transformed a potentially interesting discussion  into another dishonest bitching session. You're not interested in conversation. You're not interested in forming or preaching a legitimate alternative to ToE. You just want attention.
You've posted over 200 messages since July. TWO HUNDRED MESSAGES in about 100 days. Bored much?  Starved for attention are we? In two hundred posts, you've succeeded in saying nothing. You've convinced no one that your arguments have any merit at all. You're on record slandering people you don't know and misrepresenting well established principles to further your religious convictions. You pass yourself off as well-read, but the meat of your arguments and your comprehension of the issues is on par with that of grade school children.
What religion do you belong to again? It can't be Christianity. The devout Christians I know aren't slanderous, proud to sinful levels, or conceited. They're humble, curious, and respectful. I want to stay as far from you people as I can. Please tell me: What religion do you belong to again? Are you people all this hostile?

You strike me as a very peculiar person:
You clearly have an inferiority complex with regard to mainstream intellectuals. You believe you're just as smart as them, but you're trapped in your doctrine and therefore can't accept mainstream science without becoming internally conflicted. How tragic.
You find comfort in believing that there is a conspiracy of mainstream scientists that are keeping your doctrine from being accepted as "truth". If only mainstream science would stop censoring, blackmailing, extorting and persecuting (your words) your doctrine, your intellect could finally shine. That's paranoia.
You are a very frustrated person. You feel the need to respond to every attack of your arguments with unconstructive slander as if it is personal. I don't know why.
You have been deluded into believing that mainstream science is on the defensive, that teaching ToE to budding scientists is on its way to extinction and that teaching ID as science is probable in your lifetime. You have been deluded into believing that there are serious fallacies with ToE when in fact there are only legitimate questions that need answering by real scientists.
You say you're an engineer, but you can't even build an argument! If mainstream science were to hold your doctrine to the same level skepticism as your ilk hold ToE your missionaries would abandon their flock for the missionary position. Your double standard shines like the beacon your intellect isn't.
Do everyone a favor and stop posting your garbage so that we can have a nice discussion.

  
Wonderpants



Posts: 115
Joined: Sep. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 18 2005,11:16   

Can we please just ignore Evopeach in this thread and come up with examples of everyday evolution, as per the original thread?  :)

--------------
Fundamentalism in a nutshell:
"There are a lot of things I have concluded to be wrong, without studying them in-depth. Evolution is one of them. The fact that I don't know that much about it does not bother me in the least."

  
Henry J



Posts: 4565
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 18 2005,17:12   

Re "easily demonstrated examples of evolution in everyday life."

But demonstrated examples would have to be microevolution. Demonstrating macroevolution is a bit like demonstrating movement of glaciers, or continental drift - worse even than watching grass grow. The annual component of each can be measured and pointed out. The result of each over a 100 million years is another kettle of trilobytes, though.

Imo the simple fact that a coherent "tree of life" can be constructed for known species, resulting in a nested hierarchy for species living at the same time, is the primary evidence for descent with change and common ancestry.

Henry

  
GCT



Posts: 1001
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 19 2005,00:08   

Quote (Wonderpants @ Oct. 18 2005,16:16)
Can we please just ignore Evopeach in this thread and come up with examples of everyday evolution, as per the original thread?  :)

Roger that.  Sorry that I engaged Evopeach on your thread Wonderpants.  In my defense, I did try to come up with an example of evolution to use.

Speaking of examples, I've seen lots of examples from agriculture, but unfortunately I can't remember any of them.  Perhaps someone else could add them to the list?

  
evopeach



Posts: 248
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 19 2005,05:23   

HPLC

I am a peculiar person. I have read enough material on evolution, ID and Creationism to form an intellectually based position. Unlike people here who have never read seriously anything outside their area of expertise because they are convinced that they have grasped the reality and ultimate truth in complete and perfect form.

The understanding of the complete genomes of plants and animals and humans is a pretty recent area of investigation and far from complete. The understanding so far has shown that unlike evolutionary conclusions:

DNA is a real code/language and not just chemistry.

Junk DNA more and more is discovered to have a real purpose and has redefined what is meant by the term gene.

The full set of instructions for and between genes and their operative effects on the cell is far from elucidated.

Thus to assign so called microevolutionary effects always to mutation and selection is premature at best since heretofore none of these could be scientifically demonstrated to be tied to a specific allelle mutation.. it simply wasn't possible and just assumed to be the result of a mutation.

In those cases where genetic engineering has resulted in effects I would be interested in those that were the result of massive mutation induction over many generations with natural selection determining the final result as opposed to those effects realized by a group of intellegent scientists designing a complex series of experiments involving the use of their intellect, training, money, equipment , etc. in a carefully crafted and controlled and designed environment.

The operative word being designed.

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4807
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 28 2007,06:16   

Everybody's favorite example of natural selection in action, the peppered moth, is getting a boost from the results of a new research study by Michael Majerus.

My weblog post.

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
Occam's Aftershave



Posts: 1773
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 28 2007,14:26   

Quote (evopeach @ Oct. 19 2005,05:23)
DNA is a real code/language and not just chemistry.

Please justify this claim.

Language and other codes like Morse are a method of using abstract symbols to pass meaning over a communications medium. As such, they are totally independent of that medium. I can send an English message via telephone, or email, or smoke signal, and the same message will be passed.

DNA is simply one step in a complicated chemical reaction, the end result of which is the formation of a protein. As such it is completely dependent on the physical layer, and must follow the laws of chemistry and physics. DNA is no more an abstract code than sodium and chlorine combining to form table salt is a code.

CODE (1) a set of abstract symbols used to convey a message
CODE (2) any process that maps a specific input to a specific output

Language is definition (1). DNA is definition (2). When scientist talk about the "DNA code", they are using definition (2) NOT definition (1).

What abstract symbols does DNA use?  What is the communications medium?  Do you think there are actually little letters A, C, G, T floating around in a genome?

--------------
"Science is what got us to the humble place we’re at, and what hard-won progress we might realize comes from science, with ID completely flaccid, religious apologetics bitching from the sidelines." - Eigenstate at UD

  
Henry J



Posts: 4565
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 28 2007,14:31   

That post was from almost two years ago.

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 28 2007,14:33   

Quote (Henry J @ Aug. 28 2007,14:31)
That post was from almost two years ago.

And Evopeach is long since banned, thank Bog.

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
Occam's Aftershave



Posts: 1773
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 28 2007,14:33   

Oops!  Guess I'll not expect an answer then.  Thanks HJ.

--------------
"Science is what got us to the humble place we’re at, and what hard-won progress we might realize comes from science, with ID completely flaccid, religious apologetics bitching from the sidelines." - Eigenstate at UD

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 28 2007,16:02   

Quote
Does it bother you that with every passing day your entire world view is falling into complete disrepute among some of the most respected members of your community, that the teaching of ID is at least a 50/50 proposition within a few months, that with the changes in the supreme court such is even more likely?


Fundies ain't real good at predicting the future, are they?

Quote
Does it secretly bother you to be a member of a scientifically heretical cult that holds with censorship, blackmail, extorsion, persecution and misrepresentation of facts


He forgot spreading Ebola and eating babies. Whoops.

Given the principle of how trolls basically never go away, I wonder what name Evopeach is now posting under at UD? Maybe he's Tribune7?

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
  21 replies since Oct. 18 2005,00:40 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

    


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]