Ask me anything about the science of Evolution :)

[Zosimus]

Your scenario makes no sense.

There will be millions of asexually reproducing bibabs in the initial lake representing a huge variation in gene types since they have been asexually reproducing for thousands of generations. Then, one of these bibabs will develop a Mutation that would cause a few of its asexual offsprings to switch to sexual reproduction. These few offsprings, instead of just dividing, will, upon contact with another distinct strain of as yet asexual bibabs, coalesce with it and start a meiosis reproduction where it shares DNA with this distinct strain. Thus now these two distinct strain hosting different Mutation heritages become fused, creating a set of novel offsprings. These may be partly asexual and partly sexual. In this way, DNA information gets exchanged through sex between lineages of asexual strain of the same organism. In times of stress, these more genetically richer sexual offsprings gain an advantage over isolationist asexual offsprings and get positively selected for. Thus sexual reproduction strategy spreads.


More details as to how,
Origin and function of meiosis - Wikipedia

Ridiculous. Seriously, I would love to see your face right now, because I find it hard to believe that you can spout such rubbish with a straight face.

Even assuming that all of this nonsense were some sort of a theory that could stand up to the most elementary scrutiny, are you not the one who has been posting about how the so-called "scientific" method requires some sort of testing of hypotheses? Fortunately for you, you exempt yourself from your own requirements and thus feel free to spout pure poppycock at will, unrestrained by any sort of connection to reality.

Do you seriously expect us to think that all of these newly-sexual bilbabs are going to go hump the legs of the asexual ones, thus producing offspring?

Ha!

 

[Zosimus]

A clear example is the example of the human Chromosome 2. We have one less pair of chromosomes than other great apes. If we share a common ancestor then either one of our chromosomes split for them, and this is unlikely since the splits between us and the other apes occurred at different times, or the much more likely case that one of our chromosomes was fused.

The latter was found to be the case. There is clear evidence that Chromosome 2 is a fusion of two other chromosomes in our past. Please note, the difference in number of chromosomes was known long before we were able to detect the evidence that they were the result of two chromosomes fused together:


Chromosome 2 - Wikipedia

The technical paper where this discovery was first announced:

http://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/88/20/9051.full.pdf

Melons also have 24 chromosomes. Obviously, humans are descended directly from melons and suffered a fusion event in the past, thus reducing the number of human chromosomes to 23.

 

[Zosimus]

Here is a field study demonstrating the unambiguous evolution of an island bird in real time.
Darwin’s finches are seen evolving in real time on Galapagos creating an entirely new species

Around 36 years ago, a strange bird arrived on one of the Galapagos islands. He sang a different song to the other birds, and his body and beak were unusually large compared to all the other birds.


Soon the bird made himself at home, and despite their differences, he was able to woo one member of the island’s inhabitants. The two birds mated, and their offspring started a brand new species all in real time, in front of the scientists' eyes. That species now has 30 members, according to a study published in Science.

More garbage.

If the birds were really of two different species, then interbreeding would not be possible as that's the very definition of the word.

You might as well argue that John Smith, a different species, arrived in America and successfully wooed Pocahontas, thus creating offspring of a brand new species.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Melons also have 24 chromosomes. Obviously, humans are descended directly from melons and suffered a fusion event in the past, thus reducing the number of human chromosomes to 23.

Oh my, you can't defeat an idea with total ignorance.

You should have at least followed the links that explain how we know that our Chromosome 2 is a fusion of two of the chromosomes that other great apes have.

 

[Subduction Zone]

More garbage.

If the birds were really of two different species, then interbreeding would not be possible as that's the very definition of the word.

You might as well argue that John Smith, a different species, arrived in America and successfully wooed Pocahontas, thus creating offspring of a brand new species.

You might have a point there. But you still can't argue with ring species. Here is one example:

Discovering a ring species

Seriously why don't you try to learn? You can't win an argument with ignorance.

 

[sayak83]

Ridiculous. Seriously, I would love to see your face right now, because I find it hard to believe that you can spout such rubbish with a straight face.

Even assuming that all of this nonsense were some sort of a theory that could stand up to the most elementary scrutiny, are you not the one who has been posting about how the so-called "scientific" method requires some sort of testing of hypotheses? Fortunately for you, you exempt yourself from your own requirements and thus feel free to spout pure poppycock at will, unrestrained by any sort of connection to reality.

Do you seriously expect us to think that all of these newly-sexual bilbabs are going to go hump the legs of the asexual ones, thus producing offspring?

Ha!

You do not seem to be interested in a serious discussion. I simply pointed out the flaws in your own thought experiment. It's not my fault that your own ignorance of biology made it so unrealistic.
The actual mechanism that led to the evolution of sexual reproduction is well described in the wiki link in my post. Read and get back with comments or questions... that is if you are actually interested in any sort of learning.

 

[sayak83]

More garbage.

If the birds were really of two different species, then interbreeding would not be possible as that's the very definition of the word.

You might as well argue that John Smith, a different species, arrived in America and successfully wooed Pocahontas, thus creating offspring of a brand new species.

No. Different species can and do interbreed. Eg. polar bears and brown bears. Complete reproductive isolation is a sufficient but not necessary condition for identifying distinct species. The word hybrids exist for a reason as well a well known mechanism for speciation.. Hybrid speciation.
Hybrid speciation - Wikipedia
Your belief that you know stuff already is proving a hindrance to your learning. Please understand that you still have much to learn about evolution and biological sciences.

 

[Stewart Hough]

As a scientist who closely follow the scientific research on biological evolution, I am in full agreement with 99% of US scientists that evolution is the mechanism by which all life has evolved into its current multifarious forms on earth.

Ask me any specific questions or clear any specific doubts you have about evolutionary science and its conclusions.

Also note that evolutionary science follow the scientific method. If you reject the scientific method as a means of knowing about reality, then this thread is not for you.

Otherwise ask away

Thank you for the offer, sorry for the long response, but the topic generates a lot of issues. First,
the word evolution is subject to duplicitous equivocation, evolution must be defined before it is used.

Evolution as change over time is not an issue.

Chemical evolution is a myth, like Darwin’s “warm little ponds, and Oparin-Haldane prebiotic soup.

Microevolution, limited speciation, and microbial evolution are valid as adaptations from mutations, heredity, and environment of the common design in DNA, which has no naturalistic origin explanation.

Macroevolution has only untestable circumstantial evidence through genus or family transition body plan modifications. Accumulated microevolutionary steps do not yield macroevolution changes, as evolution has no viable explanation for how co-opted gene or new gene creation functions, let alone epigenetic mutations for protein creation required for body plan changes. There is no fossil evidence to support it.

So, the duplicitous equivocation of the word evolution at the highest levels have fooled many into believing it is viable. A few issues:

1. Evolutionism has been dogmatically but non-scientifically demarcated from abiogenesis and the origin of life, despite the fact that: 1. naturalists have no clue how life started, 2. naturalists have not defined what is the design and construction of the first organism, therefore contending there is no relationship incoherent, 3. naturalists have not defined the mechanistic processes of the abiogenesis and therefore cannot exclude evolutionary processes, despite the fact that the super-power force of natural selection is presently only applied to living organisms, and 4. due to the chaotic mess and desperate state of naturalistic origin of life research, biologists are increasingly incorporating and referring to Darwinian processes as integral to origin of life development.
2. Evolutionism has not accounted for the extreme lack of transitional forms in the historic record, which is the only evidence available for measuring and evaluating the story.
3. Evolutionism has not accounted for the rapid appearance of 146 of 182 total body plans in the Cambrian explosion.
4. Evolutionism has not explained why such an intense and diverse progression of complexity and size of organisms has occurred in the face of evolutionary principles, i.e., why, considering survivability is enhanced with simplicity, not increased complexity.
5. Evolutionism has not addressed the issues of historical contingency, homology and analogy to explain how organisms unrelated have similar or identical features.
6. Evolutionism has not explained the origin of DNA, the most complex information based organic structure in the universe and why they have presumed its existence to try to validate evolution. Evolution’s super power is natural selection which requires replication, but replication requires DNA, but DNA requires proteins, but proteins require DNA. There is no justified scientific naturalistic explanation for evolution theory to be based on an unexplained entity, further to their denial of the relationship of abiogenesis to evolution.
7. The detailed cellular mechanisms required for new genes, epigenetic regulation, and proteins have not been disclosed, nor are they possible through mutations or natural selection. Consequently, no viable means for organism body plan changes have been disclosed.
8. Common design through a creator/designer addresses all life issues better than naturalistic evolution.

 

[sayak83]

Thank you for the offer, sorry for the long response, but the topic generates a lot of issues. First,
the word evolution is subject to duplicitous equivocation, evolution must be defined before it is used.

Evolution as change over time is not an issue.

Chemical evolution is a myth, like Darwin’s “warm little ponds, and Oparin-Haldane prebiotic soup.

Microevolution, limited speciation, and microbial evolution are valid as adaptations from mutations, heredity, and environment of the common design in DNA, which has no naturalistic origin explanation.

Macroevolution has only untestable circumstantial evidence through genus or family transition body plan modifications. Accumulated microevolutionary steps do not yield macroevolution changes, as evolution has no viable explanation for how co-opted gene or new gene creation functions, let alone epigenetic mutations for protein creation required for body plan changes. There is no fossil evidence to support it.

So, the duplicitous equivocation of the word evolution at the highest levels have fooled many into believing it is viable. A few issues:

1. Evolutionism has been dogmatically but non-scientifically demarcated from abiogenesis and the origin of life, despite the fact that: 1. naturalists have no clue how life started, 2. naturalists have not defined what is the design and construction of the first organism, therefore contending there is no relationship incoherent, 3. naturalists have not defined the mechanistic processes of the abiogenesis and therefore cannot exclude evolutionary processes, despite the fact that the super-power force of natural selection is presently only applied to living organisms, and 4. due to the chaotic mess and desperate state of naturalistic origin of life research, biologists are increasingly incorporating and referring to Darwinian processes as integral to origin of life development.
2. Evolutionism has not accounted for the extreme lack of transitional forms in the historic record, which is the only evidence available for measuring and evaluating the story.
3. Evolutionism has not accounted for the rapid appearance of 146 of 182 total body plans in the Cambrian explosion.
4. Evolutionism has not explained why such an intense and diverse progression of complexity and size of organisms has occurred in the face of evolutionary principles, i.e., why, considering survivability is enhanced with simplicity, not increased complexity.
5. Evolutionism has not addressed the issues of historical contingency, homology and analogy to explain how organisms unrelated have similar or identical features.
6. Evolutionism has not explained the origin of DNA, the most complex information based organic structure in the universe and why they have presumed its existence to try to validate evolution. Evolution’s super power is natural selection which requires replication, but replication requires DNA, but DNA requires proteins, but proteins require DNA. There is no justified scientific naturalistic explanation for evolution theory to be based on an unexplained entity, further to their denial of the relationship of abiogenesis to evolution.
7. The detailed cellular mechanisms required for new genes, epigenetic regulation, and proteins have not been disclosed, nor are they possible through mutations or natural selection. Consequently, no viable means for organism body plan changes have been disclosed.
8. Common design through a creator/designer addresses all life issues better than naturalistic evolution.

Thanks.
Please point out ONE from the above on which you would like to focus first.

 

[Stewart Hough]

Certainly. Here are intermediate species leading to modern whales.

This is just one example of an evolutionary sequence. If you want to concentrate on something particular, I am happy to discuss it.

Where are the hundreds or thousands of additional transitional forms required to produce robust, comprehensive metabolically viable, reproducing organisms to cover the changes required? What explicitly are the cellular, genetic, epigenetic mechanisms that are required to accomplish this phenomenal transition?

 

[sayak83]

Where are the hundreds or thousands of additional transitional forms required to produce robust, comprehensive metabolically viable, reproducing organisms to cover the changes required? What explicitly are the cellular, genetic, epigenetic mechanisms that are required to accomplish this phenomenal transition?

Do you think that the fossil transitional forms depicted in the whale evolution are less than expected? Why?

 

[sayak83]

Where are the hundreds or thousands of additional transitional forms required to produce robust, comprehensive metabolically viable, reproducing organisms to cover the changes required? What explicitly are the cellular, genetic, epigenetic mechanisms that are required to accomplish this phenomenal transition?

The article below capture well(with actual figures) the number of transitional fossil types so far discovered in the evolution of Modern whales from land mammals. Please lightly glance over the article and tell me why the fossil evidence seems inadequate to you.

From Land to Water: the Origin of Whales, Dolphins, and Porpoises

 

[Thinking]

I didn't read the whole thread and I'm only 20, but here's why I don't believe in evolution:

It is a fact, that the 20,95% of oxygen in our atmosphere came into existence after the creation of photosynthetic organisms. Without oxygen there would have been no protective ozone layer. How could organisms evolve this much without protection against the aggressive and antiseptic ultraviolet radiation?

Greetings from Germany

 

[sayak83]

I didn't read the whole thread and I'm only 20, but here's why I don't believe in evolution:

It is a fact, that the 20,95% of oxygen in our atmosphere came into existence after the creation of photosynthetic organisms. Without oxygen there would have been no protective ozone layer. How could organisms evolve this much without protection against the aggressive and antiseptic ultraviolet radiation?

Greetings from Germany

They were in the sea. Only marine organisms existed then.

Welcome to the forum.

 

[Robert Landbeck]

As a scientist who closely follow the scientific research on biological evolution, I am in full agreement with 99% of US scientists that evolution is the mechanism by which all life has evolved into its current multifarious forms on earth.

Ask me any specific questions or clear any specific doubts you have about evolutionary science and its conclusions.

Also note that evolutionary science follow the scientific method. If you reject the scientific method as a means of knowing about reality, then this thread is not for you.

Otherwise ask away


While I have no doubts on the reality of evolution, I do have some questions on what that evolutionary inheritance means to our species. For example it is self evident that many questions of human progress remain unresolved throughout history. War and perpetual conflict point to a limitation in human ethical potential. So is it plausible that evolution, as it might appear, has fixed a limit on the moral potential and thus possibilities for progress to which our species is capable?

 

[bobhikes]

Here is a field study demonstrating the unambiguous evolution of an island bird in real time.
Darwin’s finches are seen evolving in real time on Galapagos creating an entirely new species

Around 36 years ago, a strange bird arrived on one of the Galapagos islands. He sang a different song to the other birds, and his body and beak were unusually large compared to all the other birds.


Soon the bird made himself at home, and despite their differences, he was able to woo one member of the island’s inhabitants. The two birds mated, and their offspring started a brand new species all in real time, in front of the scientists' eyes. That species now has 30 members, according to a study published in Science.

Very interesting story but I see no proof of evolution. From Biology Online Evolution is defined as The change in genetic composition of a population over successive generations, which may be caused by natural selection, inbreeding, hybridization, or mutation. So how do we know that this is successful as it has just happened. Maybe in a few generations you will have your proof.

 

[bobhikes]

A clear example is the example of the human Chromosome 2. We have one less pair of chromosomes than other great apes. If we share a common ancestor then either one of our chromosomes split for them, and this is unlikely since the splits between us and the other apes occurred at different times, or the much more likely case that one of our chromosomes was fused.

The latter was found to be the case. There is clear evidence that Chromosome 2 is a fusion of two other chromosomes in our past. Please note, the difference in number of chromosomes was known long before we were able to detect the evidence that they were the result of two chromosomes fused together:


Chromosome 2 - Wikipedia

The technical paper where this discovery was first announced:

http://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/88/20/9051.full.pdf

Thanks for the technical paper in the future at least with me Wikipedia is not scientific.

Similarities in chromosome banding patterns and hybridization homologies between ape and human chromosomes suggest that human chromosome 2 arose out of the fusion of two ancestral ape chromosomes (1-3). Molecular data show evidence that this event must have occurred only a few million years ago (refs. 4 and 5 and the references therein). Although the precise nature of this putative fusion is unknown, cytogenetic data point to either a centromeric or telomeric fusion in the vicinity of region 2ql (1, 2, and 6). The observation that telomeric DNA is present in chromosomal band q13 suggests that telomeres, the extreme ends of chromosomes, may have been involved in this fusion (7, 8). Normally, telomeres form a dynamic buffer against loss of internal sequence and prevent chromosomes from fusing (for review, see ref. 9). By contrast, nontelomeric DNA ends are subject to degradation by nucleases and to fusion by ligation (10, 11).

If you read through this you have terms such as
must have occurred
precise nature is unknown
suggests

This from the technical paper sums up evolution for me

Although the mechanism underlying chromosome fragility has not been determined, it is clear that rare fragile sites, including FRA2B, segregate as codominant traits, so that a heritable

Although we don't know for sure evolution seems to be right.

I would also state the technical paper has no conclusion the last part is labeled discussion, that says a lot.
In summary it is not scientific proof.

 

[sayak83]

Very interesting story but I see no proof of evolution. From Biology Online Evolution is defined as The change in genetic composition of a population over successive generations, which may be caused by natural selection, inbreeding, hybridization, or mutation. So how do we know that this is successful as it has just happened. Maybe in a few generations you will have your proof.

It shows a new species with its own gene pool getting established in the island in real time through what is called hybrid speciation.

Hybrid speciation is a form of speciation where hybridization between two different species leads to a new species, reproductively isolated from the parent species.
Hybrid speciation - Wikipedia

Usually one encounters the objection that speciation cannot happen by natural biological mechanisms. Hence I provided a field study that showed speciation occuring by natural means.

Lots of field evidence exists for the change in genetic composition due to natural selection over the generations.

In this last link we saw how a hybridization event created a new species of large beaked finch to emerge in the island. Yet, the island already had its native finch species. The ensuing competition between these two species, brought to a head by a severe series of El Nino caused draughts in 2003—2004, cause the native finch species to evolve a smaller sized beak to avoid competing for food with new big baked species. This change has been tracked to the genetic level, and has been observed in real time.

Gene behind 'evolution in action' in Darwin's finches identified

Evolution of Darwin’s finches tracked at genetic level

Last year, researchers identified a gene that helps to determine the shape of the birds’ beaks1. Today in Science, they report a different gene that controls beak size2. Shifts in this gene underlay an evolutionary change that researchers watched in 2004–05, during a drought that ravaged the Galapagos Islands, where the finches live. The beak sizes of one population of finches shrank, so as to avoid competing for food sources with a different kind of finch – and their genetics changed accordingly.

“A big question was, ‘Is it possible to identify genes underlying such evolution in action, even in a natural population?’,” says Leif Andersson, a geneticist at Uppsala University in Sweden and one of the study’s authors. “We were able to nail down genes that have directly played a role in this evolutionary change.”

The researchers then looked at the role of HMGA2 in a dramatic evolutionary event. After drought struck the Galapagos in 2003, many of the medium ground finches (Geospiza fortis) with larger-than-average beaks starved to death. They couldn’t compete with a bigger species (Geospiza magnirostris) that had recently colonized the island and was better at eating large seeds. After the drought, the medium ground finches that managed to survive had smaller beaks than those that had perished, probably because they were better suited to eating the small seeds that their competitors avoided.

By analysing DNA from medium ground finches that lived around the time of the drought, the researchers found that the large-beak HMGA2 variant was more common in birds that starved to death, while the small-beak variant was more common in birds that survived. This genetic shift is likely responsible for some of the reduction in beak size, the researchers say.



I hope that would be satisfactory.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Thanks for the technical paper in the future at least with me Wikipedia is not scientific.

Wikipedia is usually a valid source and you can always check the links that they provide. When it comes to settle science it is very reliable and like it or not the theory of evolution is settle science. At least in the concept that all life is the product of evolution. Scientists are no longer debating if life evolved they are debating how life evolved.

Similarities in chromosome banding patterns and hybridization homologies between ape and human chromosomes suggest that human chromosome 2 arose out of the fusion of two ancestral ape chromosomes (1-3). Molecular data show evidence that this event must have occurred only a few million years ago (refs. 4 and 5 and the references therein). Although the precise nature of this putative fusion is unknown, cytogenetic data point to either a centromeric or telomeric fusion in the vicinity of region 2ql (1, 2, and 6). The observation that telomeric DNA is present in chromosomal band q13 suggests that telomeres, the extreme ends of chromosomes, may have been involved in this fusion (7, 8). Normally, telomeres form a dynamic buffer against loss of internal sequence and prevent chromosomes from fusing (for review, see ref. 9). By contrast, nontelomeric DNA ends are subject to degradation by nucleases and to fusion by ligation (10, 11).

If you read through this you have terms such as
must have occurred
precise nature is unknown
suggests

This from the technical paper sums up evolution for me

That only tells us that you do not understand what science is or how it is done. Please note that you made the error in your previous post in demanding "proof". Science does not "prove" anything. It has evidence and scientists are amazingly honest, unlike creationists. If your standard of "proof" is that of the legal standard of "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" then the theory has been "proven" since there is only scientific evidence for the theory of evolution, there is none for creationism.

Although the mechanism underlying chromosome fragility has not been determined, it is clear that rare fragile sites, including FRA2B, segregate as codominant traits, so that a heritable

Although we don't know for sure evolution seems to be right.

I would also state the technical paper has no conclusion the last part is labeled discussion, that says a lot.
In summary it is not scientific proof.

Once again you shout to the world your ignorance by demanding "proof". Perhaps you should learn what evidence is. Most creationists have no clue as to what is and what is not evidence which is only of the many reasons that no one in the world of science takes them seriously.

 

[sayak83]

Thanks for the technical paper in the future at least with me Wikipedia is not scientific.

Similarities in chromosome banding patterns and hybridization homologies between ape and human chromosomes suggest that human chromosome 2 arose out of the fusion of two ancestral ape chromosomes (1-3). Molecular data show evidence that this event must have occurred only a few million years ago (refs. 4 and 5 and the references therein). Although the precise nature of this putative fusion is unknown, cytogenetic data point to either a centromeric or telomeric fusion in the vicinity of region 2ql (1, 2, and 6). The observation that telomeric DNA is present in chromosomal band q13 suggests that telomeres, the extreme ends of chromosomes, may have been involved in this fusion (7, 8). Normally, telomeres form a dynamic buffer against loss of internal sequence and prevent chromosomes from fusing (for review, see ref. 9). By contrast, nontelomeric DNA ends are subject to degradation by nucleases and to fusion by ligation (10, 11).

If you read through this you have terms such as
must have occurred
precise nature is unknown
suggests

This from the technical paper sums up evolution for me

Although the mechanism underlying chromosome fragility has not been determined, it is clear that rare fragile sites, including FRA2B, segregate as codominant traits, so that a heritable

Although we don't know for sure evolution seems to be right.

I would also state the technical paper has no conclusion the last part is labeled discussion, that says a lot.
In summary it is not scientific proof.

All scientific paper in every discipline uses the terms "suggest" "may" and end with a discussion section. That how scientists write their papers. Read a few from physics and chemistry to check.