Speciation
Posted on: February 13, 2011 - 2:34am
Offline
Speciation
I find it odd that Richard Dawkins talks about some lizards that were let out on an island and evolved new organs I find this kinda riduclous because dogs have been around forever and most breeds can still mate I would like to think dawkins is mistaken about this theres no way we can witness new organs being formed in the body with even several lifetimes.
- Login to post comments
You are already applying the scientific method. It's nothing but thinking and figuring stuff out. You just need to keep going. Don't take our word for everything.
Why do some people have lighter skin and some people have darker skin? That's a great first step. Now, come up with a hypothesis for why people have different skin colors. Then, explore reality to see if your hypothesis is supported by the evidence.
Question: Is rain caused by God?
Hypothesis: If rain is caused by God.......?
Experiment: ???
Rain comes from clouds. Clouds come from water evaporating on the ground. The water on the ground comes from rain.
Question: Does rain come from clouds?
Hypothesis: If rain comes from clouds, then there won't be any rain when there are no clouds.
Experiment: See if there's any rain when there's no clouds.
Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare
Shouldn't my reason alone tell me if the DNA stuff is likely. As in from just studying how it works and not actually having to see it frist hand should lead to justification or is someone right for saying you havent actually seen DNA. Also if the stuff in Jurassic Park is unscientific then how are they supposed to clone a mammoth?
Since you need an electron microscope to see DNA, it isn't real likely you are going to unless you get involved with a research lab. Or DNA forensics or something. Of course your reason is enough. There is a lot of things I haven't seen with my very own eyes. So what? We can't go running around verifying every little bit of science with our very own eyes. There isn't enough time in your life to do so. Some things, you have to say - that is a reliable, rational source of information and this one isn't reliable or rational.
They have not found a complete enough sample of velociraptor's DNA to clone it. They have found enough mammoth - at least that is what I understood. It may be that they can't or that it is taking longer than they thought as I haven't heard anything recently. Also, cloning is tricky stuff when you have a live animal to take samples from - like the sheep or cat they cloned - I would be an extinct animal will be even trickier.
-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.
"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken
"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.
What I mean is how is it supposed to be formed there are no mammoths to give birth to another. In jurassic park they cloned dinosaurs with frogs which I have read is impossible. Also the idea of bringing back an exticnt animal isnt very appealing I mean I would rather things stay the same since that is what nature has decided so to speak.
Absolutely NOT.
Reason alone can establish nothing significant about reality beyond the fact the you exist as a conscious being.
Don't feel bad about that - you are in good company, Plato and most of the ancient (and some not so ancient) philosophers thought that Reason alone should be enough to establish the Truth. They were/are wrong.
Reasoning about what you can find out about something by looking around, measuring, comparing different things, as widely as possible, etc, is what you need to do.
Sure, you can't just take one or two people's word for something, and none of us are in position to personally repeat every scientific observation and experiment.
You just keep observing what you can see, feel, and hear, read as widely as possible, see how consistent all the ideas you hear and read about are, and decide what ideas seem to be most useful to you in making sense of the world, and run with them as plausible, until you come across some new information which, when combined and compared with what you have already found out, makes even more sense.
Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality
"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris
The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me
From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology
So what expirements can I do to show that even though I don't understand every detail of individual species evolution I can know without doubt that genes do drift and have no reason or force causing them to stay a certain "kind" or type of animal?
You, personally, probably can't. You need access to a lab, a lot of equipment, knowledge of how to use it, etc, etc.
All you can really do is an extension of what you are already doing Ask as many people who seem to have studied this as you can, read books and web sites people recommend, and so on. You certainly are not going to be able to prove it 'without doubt', even scientists can't do that. All you can do is try and see what seems to be the best currently available explanation.
An important way science tests alternative explanations is to try using them to make predictions as to what might happen in some circumstances we haven't explicitly looked at before, or simply predict what we might expect to see under conditions where the alternatives would predict different things, and see which theory fits what we see best.
Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality
"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris
The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me
From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology
If you are young and healthy, try not taking the flu shot this year and spend time with people who are sick, then next year, get the flu shot and spend time with people who are sick. Then the third year, take last year's flu shot (though this is the hard part) and spend time with people who are sick. You will get sick, the virus evolves, that's why we need a different flu shot every year.
He sounds young. If he really wants to personal proof he could study to be an evolutionary biologist. He could do this sort of work in a graduate program or doctoral candidate. I think that is certainly within the range of the average person who has the interest.
Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.
I have some more direct observations of scientific phenomena than the average person, due to my experiences at my university, but for the most part, my position isn't much different from yours. I didn't get to dig "transitional" forms out of the ground or tour the Galapagos Islands; I just go with what makes the most sense and agrees the most with the little that I have seen. Just talk to more people, look at more websites, and ask more questions, and eventually, you'll be satisfied.
Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare
Elephants. Elephants should be close enough in size and genetic code that the mother could carry the infant to term. Highly speculative - I don't know if it would work or not. Where did I read it - rabbits were implanted with embryos and shipped to the person who bought the embryos. The embryos were then implanted in the correct mother - cows? Sorry, I just don't remember exactly and I'm too lazy to go search for it right now. My recollection is that this was common for many ranching operations as the rabbits are easier to ship than cows or bulls.
"Nature" may "decide" something totally different tomorrow. I would be interested in seeing if they could clone a mammoth. I haven't a clue where they could stash a herd of them and have them survive. I don't think it is very likely.
-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.
"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken
"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.
Thats what I was thinking. I have more interest in evolution than anything else.
I am sure you can prove that the mechanisms of evolution are non contradictory. Why else would people get on to people who say its just a theory.
You were referring to details of the mechanisms of mutation - genes drifting, etc - which would need somewhat detailed investigation.
We go much further than showing it is 'non-contradictory', ie possible, which wouldn't by itself 'prove' evolution happened.
What has actually been done is to show that all kinds of mutations and copying errors, accidental duplication of individual genes or nucleic acids, relocation of whole genes, etc, do actually happen spontaneously, using modern techniques of gene-sequencing.
IOW, it can be shown that all the individual events necessary to allow evolution to occur are not only possible, but have actually been observed. Even if we haven't been observing most creatures long enough to see major changes, except in some bacteria, and marginally in some insects, ie in creatures with very short generation times.
If you want to be able to convincingly argue this stuff to the anti-evolutionists, you need to read up on it so you can quote actually scientific articles describing the experiments. Or be able to explain how molecules interact with each other to allow these mutations to occur. In turn, they would have to be able to show what would prevent such mutations happening. Why would gene copying have to be always perfect?
It is true that many of the claims are easily disproved by fairly simple arguments, based on a bit of knowledge about what has been discovered. Foe example, one of the claims I have heard several times is that mutation can't happen, because if a gene mutates to perform some new function, it will no longer support its previous function, so the organism cannot survive. This ignores the observation that genes do on occasion get duplicated, which immediately 'solves' that objection, since the extra copy can mutate without killing the organism, since there is another copy which can still serve the original function.
Hope this helps.
Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality
"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris
The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me
From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology
Yes that does help. I know there is dispute over if birds evolved from dinsaurs but we are sure they evolved from reptiles is this true?
That, in itself, is based on a misunderstanding of the term, "theory." Evolution IS a scientific theory. But, a scientific theory is not just a guess.
If you discuss this topic much, you will find that many of the arguments against evolution do not even grasp what evolution is actually proposing (no "transitional" fossils, cats can't give birth to dogs, "nothing" exploding" and "becoming everything" etc.).
Pretty much. If you're just asking about the amount of consensus, most evolutionary biologists appear to agree that birds evolved from dinosaurs. Some dispute this and claim both groups evolved from an earlier common ancestor.
Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare
I was under the impression that evolution was a fact and the theory of evolution explained the facts as best as we can. As in the theories may be wrong but not the facts?
Actually you are correct in that, ymalmsteen887, and I don't think butter would disagree with you. Your statement that he was responding to is a little ambiguous as to just what you were getting at.
Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality
"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris
The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me
From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology
Right. It is a fact that animals evolve. The explanation for how they evolve is the theory.
When Creationists call evolution "just a theory," what they mean is that the entire field is just speculation, with little or no supporting evidence.
Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare
Hey guys what is the difference between someone quating a holy book and someone quoting a book on chemistry or biology?
I slowly was lead away from christianity when I got into science and how the world works and even what existence is. But alot of the stuff I readed/watched I didnt understand so even though I didn't understand it it showed me that what religion had to say about the world wasn't based on reason and evidence. but an emotional appeal. So I was wanting to know how they figured out what the different chemicals and molecules are? Also if something was invisible like carl sagans dragon and you spary it with paint it should now be the color of the sparay paint if it can be affected by the spary paint. So I was wondering when you scatter dust in the air you can see it move with the wind so you can imagine thats what the air particels are doing so is the same thing possible with a sound wave like couldnt they use equipment to see a column of air and put tiny particles that you can see to meausure the movement of the air during soudn?
I know this has nothing to do with evolution and I will get back to that I am just trying to see how people were lead to figure these things out and how they did it. Like what did the first person who purposed the idea of evolution observe to think this was possible. I know a christian was the one who came up with labeling species in different classes.
How old are you and what level [& what kind of ] formal education do you have? You seem to be looking for EXTREEMLY complicated answers when the answers are very simple. Drop a small stone into a calm body of water, the water waves rippleing out from the center of the drop IS EXACTLY how sound waves work, and light waves, and radar waves and radio/TV waves and cell phone waves and tidel waves [big & small] IT IS WHY THEY ARE CALLED WAVES! See how simple that is.
For an erudite and entertaining insight into science try; http://www.randi.org/site/
Then scroll down to "Brain droppings" from Neil De Grasse Tyson, for the video. You will learn a lot from this man.
"Very funny Scotty; now beam down our clothes."
VEGETARIAN: Ancient Hindu word for "lousy hunter"
If man was formed from dirt, why is there still dirt?
Wow you just insulted me. I guess if I want to build a speaker box for my car I have all the information i need to do that now.
Of course I know what a wave is in principle but a water wave is not exactly the same. Water is a longitudinal wave and transeverse were as sound is just longitunidal. If you poke your hand in the water gently you could send out a single wave but usually when you throw something in it it usualy has some inertia at the source and keep bobbing up and down for while producing more waves almost like plucking a guitar string but if you make a sound the air does show any inertia and just stops with the source which is convienent. You can't see sound waves so I am wondering how they can measure wavelenghts and things like that. I know if they know the speed of the wave and what frequency they can easily figure it out mathematically but how do you figure out the lenght using only physical means and things of tha nature.
Are you telling me thats all I need to know to understand everything about sound. I dont know much but I know that light , sound, water, and waves on a string all have major differences that set them apart.
Well, to answer the first part, a science book is something you can get yourself, that is based on experimental results and peer review using the scientific method and it has references...technically if you have the time/resources you could duplicate all the things that led to the stuff in a science book by following the references/citations, reading those, and duplicating the experiments and methodology used. In a holy book you don't have any of that. So that is the difference.
For the rest of your question, that is too vague and honestly I don't think you'll get much of an answer here. If you have a specific question about how a particular theory was formulated and the history of it, you can ask, but honestly I don't know why you would...it would take a ton of time for someone here to put it together and nothing is stopping you from using Google and your local library/university to read about it yourself.
Having said that, in general, science is built in small steps where someone has an idea, it gets tested, then someone else builds on that idea and that gets tested. When the big moments happen it is usually the result of someone highly educated having a moment of intuition where his mind puts together a bunch of data in a way no-one else has been able to do. Then they put that idea out there and if it holds up to scrutiny eventually someone else will have another idea based on that, and etc. etc.
Does that help?
Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.
Yes tremendously. So you are saying I can prove to myself that everything we know about molecules, biology, physics, chemistry, geology etc are true?
In principle, yes, because none of these things are called "supernatural" or "magical," defined to be outside of what we can understand. Instead, we can understand them; we just have to study it. They're like giant puzzles, with many solutions. So, all of that information was compiled by people just like us, who observed and discovered so many different things about the world we live in.
But, in practice, it will never happen. Proving all of these things to yourself would require ridiculous amounts of time and effort. Scientists don't even "know" the details outside of their own fields. However, you can, in your spare time, read enough things and talk to enough people to determine what makes sense to you.
Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare
Sure, with enough time and resources. Keep in mind some of the things involve multi-generational tests or experiments involving sending probes into outer space. Or things involving equipment that literally costs billions of dollars. In general there is far too much for one person to re-create in a lifetime (or a hundred) and there might be some concepts that are beyond your mental ability. Some things would also be hard to study without either brilliance or high level security clearances, like biological and atomic weaponry. So it probably isn't *realistic* to say you could re-create everything you'd ever want to, but you can certainly do anything within your means.
And who knows, I imagine if you did that there is a decent chance you might discover some of the things we 'know' are wrong, that's how science works.
Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.
I just wanted to add that all you really need to grasp is the fundamentals, you can extrapolate from there. As long as you understand how stuff interacts in principle, you can then read a scientific paper and put some trust in the community to weed out the BS. Scientists often scrutinize the hell out of their peer's papers for more reasons than to simply advance the discipline (envy) . That's why we're so skeptical of scientific papers that haven't been peer reviewed yet. You may be a genius in a certain field, but easily be fooled by an unrelated field's paper that sounds correct. Enter all the ID 'scientific' evidence. Not one of them follows the proper channels, or seeks out the scientific scrutiny.
"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc
In a classroom setting could I ask questions like the ones I've asked and actually get somewhere. What kind of experiments are done in the classroom?
For the most part, though the teacher will expect you to do most of the research yourself. You can ask questions about the concepts, questions about details or variations from said concept, are usually thought of as cumbersome and your classmates will eventually give you dirty looks. As for the experiments, it depends on the discipline/environment of learning. You can have everything from though experiments to dissecting a human body. In principle, a proper education should provide you with enough evidence and concepts to leave you trusting the discipline without any doubt. Else you can study metaphysics and still be a student two thousand years later.
"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc
What do you mean give me dirty looks?
Also check out this video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vPubxIIRT3E&feature=relmfu
This is guy is a joke saying because we can't count the stars and the bible said they were innumerable that it knew something about the natural that wasn't a prediction if I go outside and try to count the sand I will say its innumerable but so what doesnt prove anything. Why would the bible say from one end of heaven to another if it was limitless?
He means a teacher has a limited amount of time and often many, many students. If you pester them with questions all day long, they will get annoyed with you.
A teacher's role is not to answer every question that pops into a students head, their job is to teach students to learn things for themselves. A teacher expects you to read and study on your own and only come to them when you have a question that you can't find an answer to.
Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.
I meant dirty looks because you're interrupting the class. There's always one guy in every class that just does not get it, and asks about 300 seemingly irrelevant questions. In principle, they should all be allowed, but said person really doesn't have the right to take up so much class time. It's not fair to the rest of the students that do get it. If they're legitimate questions and everyone else is stuck at the same point, then it becomes a whole other issue.
As for that video... wtf?
or read above for similar feelings
"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc
Thats what I meant when you can't find an answer to something you may find that no one has an answer to it likewhy can't horses have blue fur,lol.
Yeah that video was out of nowhere I just wanted someone to laugh at it with me since you can't comment on his videos I guess because criticism is not allowed.
Well, I think you already asked this question, but they can have blue fur. They just don't. If people wanted to, I bet they could breed horses with blue fur eventually. Like, I could be going to Coldstone Creamery and getting a Founder's Favorite right now, but I'm not. It's not that I can't.
Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare
I know I have asked the question I was just using that as an example.
A christian commented on a video i commented on about how giraffes got their neck longer thinking I was trying to point out flaws and when I told them i was just curious he wrote the only place you see people writing that information is not information is from atheists. He says that DNA is a code and couldnt have been self assembled matter and that DNA is the final death blow to evolution. He also said einstien said that he could see no means how matter could bestow meaning to symbols. he then says "If Einstein is wrong, and code is matter, these atheists need to prove it and
win the Nobel prize.
He says that symbolic info is responsible for creating and governing all things biological. He then says "As for "natural selection": Selection requires a mind and mutations are negatives in that they do not add information to the genome. Mutations destroy information". All I would say to that is that when a new species is formed in the womb its simply a copy of the previous life from but doesnt copy perfectly so has differences and so after a long time they might be so different that you dont recognize them.
He then later says information is not matter and information creates and governs biology and that modern science has left darwin in the dust.
I can't refute this guy however cause I dont have enough understanding myself to know but I can see where he is being presumptious about things like DNA being info and their being a mind behind selection. Cause I am sure he doesnt actually have knowledge of what this mind is or made of or where.
The refutation is long and involved. Basically, creationists don't know WTF they are talking about. I know you don't like reading detailed web sites, but if you really want to know, here: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/information/infotheory.html
Whenever a creationist brings up this particular argument, I have to sigh and walk away. It is graduate level material and it takes many semesters of work to really understand it. When the person who is doing the arguing hasn't had high school level algebra, it is just too far in one setting.
Also, we, each and every one of us, have on average over 150 mutations. Most are neutral, and most are not in your reproductive cells so they won't affect any children. Mutations have nothing to do with "destroying" information, so the guy has just memorized some stuff he saw on the internet.
-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.
"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken
"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.
He's talking about Italian Wall Lizards. He's not mistaken.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_wall_lizard
As far as your questions about sharks. Have you never studied sharks?
Do you how varied they can be? Do you know how similar they can be, except for 1 main radical mutation? Like in 'hammerhead' sharks?
If you want to see a radical 'evolution', study how 'flounders' are born as regular upright fish, with 1 eye on each side of it's brain, and then lay over and become 'flatfish', and have the 'bottom' eye migrate so that both eyes are on 1 side of the brain, and their color on the 'bottom' changes.
You can also study butterflies and see radical transformations from a caterpillar, to a flying insect.
These 2 are some of the best guys with multiple videos to educate people on evolution.
----------------------------
Don Exodus
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GpNeGuuuvTY&feature=fvwrel
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i1fGkFuHIu0&playnext=1&list=PLE38572AE1C2175A1
---------------------------
Aron Ra
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t3k0dDFxkhM&feature=related
I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."
"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks
" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris
If the way that alligator creature at 4:25 is what they used to look like than I could understand. I thought they were trying to say they looked exactly the same.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CvrmZLGWfFs