6 ms·
Evolution Can Occur in Less Than Ten Years
- kirse 17y agoNews at 10: Species adapt within their genetic limitations. I'm still waiting on that experiment that empirically demonstrates guppies sprouting legs and kicking off an entirely new species of legged creatures.
- stcredzero 17y agoReally? I'm still waiting for someone to demonstrate that Stars can collapse from clouds of interstellar gas! Selectively setting the bar ridiculously high can be an indicator of bias. I find the practice intellectually dishonest.
- kirse 17y agoSelectively setting the bar ridiculously high can be an indicator of bias. Actually it's an indicator of skepticism and intellectual honesty, exactly what any scientist should have... As Feynman would say, a "kind of leaning over backwards" to show how you might be incorrect. All quality scientific theories are validated when we have empirical or mathematical proof that demonstrates that a given X process produces Y results and evidence. For example, an explosion of a bomb (X) results in a certain pattern of destruction (Y). We know that upon seeing a certain pattern of destruction (Y) we can infer that it was a bomb explosion because we've seen and witnessed prior explosions (X). The only way the existence of (Y) can logically infer the existence of (X) is if we've previously tested and validated that X indeed produces Y. Is it so much to ask that I have X process demonstrated before I truly believe the theoretical assertation that Y evidence really indicates the existence of X process? Is that not what real science is about, forming theories and then empirically validating whether or not X indeed produces Y as we claim is does?
- swombat 17y agoI gather the fossil record isn't good enough for you then?
- kirse 17y agoI don't get how hard this is for people to logically grasp. Scientific conjecture doesn't logically hold water until we stop assuming that X->Y and actually empirically show or mathematically demonstrate that X->Y. In physics we have equations like E=mc^2 which are constantly tested and validated. In chemistry we have repeated and empirically validated experiments that show how adding a catalyst to a reaction will speed it up. In biology we have demonstrated and visible results of how different types of light affect plant growth. In electronics we repeatedly validate that V indeed equals I times R. And the list goes on... Don't you get it? X process is repeatedly tested and validated to produce Y results. That's how quality science works. I don't care if you have a whole mountain of what you claim is Y "evidence", if you can't repeatedly demonstrate and validate the assertion that X process produces Y results then it doesn't matter how much "evidence" there is, there is no true logical basis to claim that Y infers an X until you have demonstrated X->Y. Pardon my skepticism.
- TheSOB88 17y agoWhy are you so opposed to evidence that did not originate in a laboratory? The fossil record shows that differentiation and evolution has occurred quite a number of times. Just because we weren't in control of it doesn't mean it doesn't hold weight. Besides, what other explanation do you have for the fossil record?
- bena 17y agoSkepticism isn't ignoring evidence; it's doubting that which has no evidence yet. But if you want experimental results concerning evolution: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16382-artificial-molecule-evolves-in-the-lab.html http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16382-artificial-molec...
- kirse 17y ago
- arakyd 17y agoYour conception of science is twisted and narrow, your bomb example is a classic modus moron, and you would rather make a grand display of your ignorance than take a few minutes to Google up the sort of evidence for evolution that you claim doesn't exist. Let us hope that you are troll sir, for otherwise we must conclude that you are an idiot.
- kirse 17y agoTell me then, where are the observations that form the scientific argument for Macro Evolution? Here, let me link you to Science 101 so I can help your tiny brain understand this: http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0_0/howscienceworks_07 http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0_0/howscienceworks_07 See that little formula? Idea + Expectations + Observations = Scientific Argument 1. We have the scientific idea - Macro evolution over 4+ bn years 2. We have the expectations (aka what you call circumstantial "evidence") - fossil record and a whole mountain of other expectations. 3. So where exactly are the observations that confirm this idea produces our expectations? Nowhere. You can't observe Macro evolution in action. All that exists is a mountain of circumstantial expectations with no observations. Two-thirds of a scientific argument doesn't equal a scientific argument, moron. It certainly must seem like trolling when you don't even understand the process by which scientific arguments are validated.
- arakyd 17y agoI love how you classify the fossil record as "expectations." New species appear in the historical record, complete with transitional forms. What's your explanation? Repeated acts of special creation? Look, the reason I didn't link any more observations of "macro" evolution is because examples have already been linked (and you've ignored them), and because you seem to think that you have logical grounds for dismissing all evidence while clearly demonstrating that you do not understand either basic logic or the scientific method. Seriously, google "modus moron" and fix your shit if you don't want to come across like an ignorant creationist troll. I suspect that your real complaint isn't based on anything that is clearly evident from what you have posted so far and that pointing you at stuff you could easily find for yourself if you were genuinely curious is a waste of time. But in case I'm wrong: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB901.html http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB901.html http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB910.html http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB910.html http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html
- TheSOB88 17y agoHow can species even have genetic limitations? We all have the same code format - DNA - and we all make proteins based on it. Given that any mutation might occur, one genome might evolve to a horrifyingly huge number of children genomes over many, many generations. Deletions and copying allow for potentially any change to be made to the organism, and it will be added to the species' pool if the creature survives. A mutation has to be either useful, neutral, or just present in an otherwise fit organism in order to persist. And nobody claims that lobe-finned fishes (drastically different fish from guppies) sprouted legs - their fins gradually evolved to allow terrestrial locomotion. If you look at the fin of a coelecanth (http://www.elasmo-research.org/education/classification/class_images/coelacanth.gif http://www.elasmo-research.org/education/classification/clas... - similar to the ancestors of the first walking animal), you'll submit that it has fins much more similar to webbed feet - which is what the first amphibians had. Evolution is much more gradual than you seem to think we're claiming. Also, I think it's pathetic that this comment was hidden from the public. Doing that cuts off communication even more than it already has been.
- kirse 17y agoGiven that any mutation might occur, one genome might evolve to a horrifyingly huge number of children genomes over many, many generations. Deletions and copying allow for potentially any change to be made to the organism, and it will be added to the species' pool if the creature survives. Yet again, more conjecture where people are telling me stuff happens without actually ever demonstrating it. This is more pseudo-scientific BSing that produces garbage that sounds reasonable yet can never be tested or validated. Show me the money. Show me the actual process happening where one genome evolves into a horrifyingly huge number of child genomes. Show me the live mutations where a school of guppies eventually produces guppies with legs. Is it really that hard to ask of science to show me the process that supposedly produces all these results??? Results don't logically indicate a process until a process is shown to produce those results. Isn't that how we validate scientific theories? We claim a Higgs boson exists, and then we build the LHC to empirically validate that assumption, right? Evolution is much more gradual than you seem to think we're claiming. I knew people were going to be picky over the word "sprouted", regardless I am well aware that the conjectural claims of Macro-Evolution include an extremely long period of time. Also, I think it's pathetic that this comment was hidden from the public. That's what happens around here. A bit of legitimate skepticism, people get their beliefs challenged and they drive-by down vote without responding.
- joubert 17y agoEvolution by natural selection is a scientific theory that explains how complexity comes from simple beginnings.
- tybris 17y agoMy father was a North-Sea fisherman and reported on dramatic increases of Roe when fish populations were declining. Since the type of flat fish they were catching had usually lived for many years, our conclusion was that it would have to be a bio-chemical progress already built-in to the genes.
- philwelch 17y agoThat's nothing new, many infectious diseases evolve every year, which is why we need a new flu shot, the common cold can't be cured, and staph becomes MRSA sending pharmaceuticals on an arms race just to keep hospitals sterile. The real lower bound is the number of generations, and that number (<30) is only given in the subtitle after you click through.
- bdr 17y ago"How fast can evolution occur?" doesn't seem like a meaningful question. If evolution is defined as a significant change in a population's gene distribution, it can occur in an arbitrarily short period of time.
- arakyd 17y agoApparently they define it as noticeable changes in phenotype. I would have guessed speciation.
- lacker 17y agoIt's hard to define speciation though. If two groups refuse to mate with each other, but they could in a lab, are they speciated? What if artificial semination works but naturally doesn't? Etc.
- Dilpil 17y agoAm I the only one wondering if this graduate student has been a graduate student for all 10 years of the study? That is pretty brutal.