Ask me anything about the science of Evolution :)

[ChristineM]

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.

Pretty much so, also humans are roughly 50% banana and 35% daffodils. Ain't DNA wonderful

 

[bobhikes]

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.

You know I used to love evolution theory but its become a joke. If a living thing breeds and produce's a next generation and that generation is different and can produce more generations then it is evolution. It doesn't matter how it happened or how it changed as long as a person didn't sew an arm on or god didn't do it than it is evolution.

 

[sayak83]

You know I used to love evolution theory but its become a joke. If a living thing breeds and produce's a next generation and that generation is different and can produce more generations then it is evolution. It doesn't matter how it happened or how it changed as long as a person didn't sew an arm on or god didn't do it than it is evolution.

I have given you observed evidence of speciation and emergence of a new species.
I have given you observed evidence in change in gene pool and species characteristics due to natural selection.

These are the two major predictions of evolution. They have been confirmed by field study. This evolution is confirmed. What else were you expecting?

 

[Zosimus]

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.

No, I understand your argument (if we can call it that) perfectly.

One human chromosome has what scientists believe is the remnant of a centromere in one human chromosome. Scientists reason: If there was a fusion, we would see this. Since we do see this, there must have been a fusion.

This is the first logical fallacy.

Then scientists figure: If humans and chimpanzees share a common ancestor, then chimpanzees should have 24 chromosomes unless chimps underwent a similar fusion event. Since chimpanzees have 24 chromosomes, humans and chimps must have a common ancestor.

This is the second logical fallacy.

So my rebuttal to the your argument (if we can call it that) is simple:

1. The premises are false and
2. Even if the premises were true, the conclusion does not logically follow from the premises.

No amount of following the links or gathering additional data is ever going to overcome point 2. So it's back to the drawing board for the logically challenged.

 

[bobhikes]

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.



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.



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.

You know I used to love evolution theory but its become a joke. People have their own definition of science and what it is and when others don't agree with them they assume they are just idiots. That's fine I must be an idiot creationist because any scientific mind will completely agree that evolution is provable. I mean 99 percent of all scientist believe it. If something alive creates a next generation that's different and can create more generations that are different it is evolution unless a mad scientist interferes(you know switches brains of something) with the process or god did it.

 

[Polymath257]

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.

LOL. And how do the banding patterns on those chromosomes compare?

 

[Zosimus]

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.

Your argument presupposes that polar bears and brown bears are different species. And please don't quote Wikipedia as though it were authoritative. It is not.

 

[Zosimus]

I have given you observed evidence of speciation and emergence of a new species.
I have given you observed evidence in change in gene pool and species characteristics due to natural selection.

These are the two major predictions of evolution. They have been confirmed by field study. This evolution is confirmed. What else were you expecting?

What else were we expecting? Perhaps a logical argument.

So far what I have seen is this:

A bird flew to an island and had babies with another bird.

Therefore, it's not COMPLETELY impossible that an amoeba COULD become a dinosaur given billions of years.

Therefore, it's CERTAIN that this is what actually happened.

Then you stare at me blankly when I suggest that your argument is a piece of crap. Then you sent me to links trying to explain how you know that the birds actually did have sex.

If you weren't so serious and so militant, it could be comical.

 

[sayak83]

Your argument presupposes that polar bears and brown bears are different species. And please don't quote Wikipedia as though it were authoritative. It is not.

Here is the official designation that identifies polar bear as a species.
ITIS Standard Report Page: Ursus maritimus

 

[sayak83]

What else were we expecting? Perhaps a logical argument.

So far what I have seen is this:

A bird flew to an island and had babies with another bird.

Therefore, it's not COMPLETELY impossible that an amoeba COULD become a dinosaur given billions of years.

Therefore, it's CERTAIN that this is what actually happened.

Then you stare at me blankly when I suggest that your argument is a piece of crap. Then you sent me to links trying to explain how you know that the birds actually did have sex.

If you weren't so serious and so militant, it could be comical.

Are you bobhikes too?

 

[Subduction Zone]

No, I understand your argument (if we can call it that) perfectly.

One human chromosome has what scientists believe is the remnant of a centromere in one human chromosome. Scientists reason: If there was a fusion, we would see this. Since we do see this, there must have been a fusion.

Actually it is evidence for evolution. You have demonstrated that you do not understand how science is done. Please no strawman arguments.

This is the first logical fallacy.

It would be if scientists made the same mistake that you did. But they didn't.

Then scientists figure: If humans and chimpanzees share a common ancestor, then chimpanzees should have 24 chromosomes unless chimps underwent a similar fusion event. Since chimpanzees have 24 chromosomes, humans and chimps must have a common ancestor.

Amazingly ignorantly wrong.

This is the second logical fallacy.

It would be if the scientists made the same ridiculous argument that you did. You can't refute evolution by using a strawman, If you do not understand the proper thing to do is to ask questions, not to bear false witness against your neighbor.

So my rebuttal to the your argument (if we can call it that) is simple:

1. The premises are false and
2. Even if the premises were true, the conclusion does not logically follow from the premises.

No amount of following the links or gathering additional data is ever going to overcome point 2. So it's back to the drawing board for the logically challenged.

You made no rebuttal. You only demonstrated a complete ignorance of what science is done and what scientists claims. You did not show the premise to be false since you got that wrong. You did not show a logical fallacy since scientists did not make the errors that you did. Your logical fallacies were repeated use of strawman arguments.

You need to learn how science is done. There is no "proof" in the sciences of anything, including gravity in the sense that you are trying to use the word "proof". Science is evidence base and concepts are only "provisionally true". If a theory or hypothesis can explain all evidence, is testable and has been tested successfully then it is provisionally accepted as correct until something better comes along. There are mountains of scientific evidence that supports the theory of evolution. There is none for creationism.

The "proof" in science is more on the order of legal proof. If you have ever accepted any guilty verdict in any court then by the same standards you should accept that life on the Earth is "guilty" of being the product of evolution.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You know I used to love evolution theory but its become a joke. People have their own definition of science and what it is and when others don't agree with them they assume they are just idiots. That's fine I must be an idiot creationist because any scientific mind will completely agree that evolution is provable. I mean 99 percent of all scientist believe it. If something alive creates a next generation that's different and can create more generations that are different it is evolution unless a mad scientist interferes(you know switches brains of something) with the process or god did it.

Sorry, but science works. Your ability to communicate here is an example of that. You are now being a hypocrite by using the science that you do not believe in.

Just because you are ignorant of how science is done does not make it a joke. You are probably only angry because your myth has been debunked.

Your mind is not scientific. You do not understand the scientific method nor do you seem to wish to learn. Since you cannot accept evolution instead you might try to learn why we know that creationism is false.

 

[Curious George]

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

What are all the causes of variance between recombination rates in meiosis and how do they cause this variance?

 

[sayak83]

No, I understand your argument (if we can call it that) perfectly.

One human chromosome has what scientists believe is the remnant of a centromere in one human chromosome. Scientists reason: If there was a fusion, we would see this. Since we do see this, there must have been a fusion.

This is the first logical fallacy.

Then scientists figure: If humans and chimpanzees share a common ancestor, then chimpanzees should have 24 chromosomes unless chimps underwent a similar fusion event. Since chimpanzees have 24 chromosomes, humans and chimps must have a common ancestor.

This is the second logical fallacy.

So my rebuttal to the your argument (if we can call it that) is simple:

1. The premises are false and
2. Even if the premises were true, the conclusion does not logically follow from the premises.

No amount of following the links or gathering additional data is ever going to overcome point 2. So it's back to the drawing board for the logically challenged.

So. You are a professor and you are checking the essay assignment of two students Sam and Julia.
You find that word for word, the two essays are 95% identical and have the same rough order of identical sentences with only a few additions or deletions here and there. Moreover even the same typos and mistakes are made in both.

Sam's essay is 12 paragraphs long, but Julia's is 13 paragraph long. However you find on checking that Julia's 12th and 13th paras are near identical to the first and second half of Sam's 12th paragraph.

Given all this are you not justified in concluding that one of them copied their work from the other?

 

[sayak83]

What are all the causes of variance between recombination rates in meiosis and how do they cause this variance?

Could you explain more what you are talking about?

 

[Curious George]

Could you explain more what you are talking about?

You do not understand recombination during meiosis?

 

[sayak83]

You do not understand recombination during meiosis?

the variance in rate of recombination. What is that about.

 

[Curious George]

the variance in rate of recombination. What is that about.

The observed variation in rate and/or place between species and/or genders within species.

 

[Curious George]

the variance in rate of recombination. What is that about.

No worries. It was a shot in the dark anyhow.

 

[bobhikes]

Sorry, but science works. Your ability to communicate here is an example of that. You are now being a hypocrite by using the science that you do not believe in.

Just because you are ignorant of how science is done does not make it a joke. You are probably only angry because your myth has been debunked.

Your mind is not scientific. You do not understand the scientific method nor do you seem to wish to learn. Since you cannot accept evolution instead you might try to learn why we know that creationism is false.

You have a close mind imposing your idea's upon me with out understanding me at all. I am not angry, I have taken Biology and advanced biology in High school and completed college courses in Biology. I have read many Books on evolution and do not believe in creationism. I am sad of what evolution has become which is basically a statement. Evolution is the process of all life not God. That is what evolutionary theory has been reduce to by people like you because you refuse to admit to the actual facts.