Ask me anything about the science of Evolution :)

[Jose Fly]

What is applicable is why random processes occurred in an adapted creature to cause it to radically change the environment in which it functioned ?

"Random processes" occur in every organism. For example, every new human baby is born with ~120 new random mutations, regardless of whether or not H. sapiens are "well adapted".

Every replication event is one more trial in the massive trial and error experiment that is life on earth. It happens billions upon billions upon billions of times.....every second, every minute, every hour, every day.

 

[shmogie]

Well done!

Just think of the misfortunes that might have befallen any one of your ancestors and prevented you from happening.

Every organism is a fluke. That is something worth pondering.

There is no why, but there is a marvellous abundance of how.

I disagree, without why, how and what are meaningless. Without meaning

"Random processes" occur in every organism. For example, every new human baby is born with ~120 new random mutations, regardless of whether or not H. sapiens are "well adapted".

Every replication event is one more trial in the massive trial and error experiment that is life on earth. It happens billions upon billions upon billions of times.....every second, every minute, every hour, every day.

Come now, chromosomes are not precursors to "random mutations". They are only "random" withing the framework of possible combinations.

 

[Looncall]

I disagree, without why, how and what are meaningless. Without meaning

Come now, chromosomes are not precursors to "random mutations". They are only "random" withing the framework of possible combinations.

The why stuff is just a trap for snaring the gullible. So is the meaning guff. Stuff just happens.

I do not understand your second paragraph. What do you understand by "random"?

 

[Jose Fly]

Come now, chromosomes are not precursors to "random mutations". They are only "random" withing the framework of possible combinations.

Your reply makes no sense.

 

[BilliardsBall]

I'm 33, for whatever difference that makes.

I can tell you one thing for absolutely certain, that I know a great deal more about geology / paleontology, and evolution in general than you dol

I can also tell you there was no "scandal" and your use of the words "assumptions" and "presumptive" imply vastly more than they deliver.

I am quite aware of the creationist belief that trotting out the word "assumption" constitutes some sort of silver bullet that slays science as they need. It does not.

As noted above, "assumption" and "presumptive"
sound-to you-as if they mean something but unless you can demonstrate they have meat-which you cannot-
it is just empty shallow talk.

Finally, even if a skeleton contains some models of bones rather than actually dug from the ground-what
possible difference does that make, really? ToE will
be falsified because one Triceratops horn is plaster, and some of the ribs are not dug from the ground?

A creo-idea about what is "wrong" with the science they dimly comprehend-based entirely on attitude and ignorance- is that is is conducted by shady
agenda driven characters for who "due diligence" or
"integrity" is a joke. Your "scandal", "assumption", "presumption" are fine examples of this.

Or no-not entirely. There is a major component of what is called "psychological projection". Intellectual honesty on the part of creationism is simply impossible. I certainly can offer lo and many an example to illustrate.

And I dont need to go back thro' the dusty archives
to do it. (see how the creationiosts endlessly trot out and misrepresent "Piltdown".)

Here is the joke: not one person, no "creation scientist", no actual scientist of any sort from chemistry to geology, physics, biology, nobody anywhere has ever
come up with anything that would disprove ToE.

Does it not occur to you that if it were "wrong" that it
would be massively wrong, and that the disproof would be everywhere, not supported in full by all the relevant hard sciences?

Even for one minute contemplate what significance that might have? Thirty seconds?

I think about all those things, often:

1. I was a skeptic and remember that mindset
2. I'm in no way anti-science, nor do I believe there is some vast science conspiracy
3. Evolution sounds logical, small changes over time accrue

A significant number of changes would have to happen to bring a land animal to the sea as a whale or proto-whale, in just 43 million years. Over a dozen changes are needed to evolve, not having anything to do with young or prey.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Thanks, Nigel, here's an article:

http://www.askabiologist.org.uk/from_the_lab/how-we-bring-fossils-back-life

Once a fossil has been discovered, let's say of a dinosaur, the skeleton must then be reconstructed. This may be very difficult or very easy depending on how complete the remains are. Often only a few scrappy bones are preserved, so missing parts of the skeleton must be reconstructed by looking at close relatives.

 

[sayak83]

Thanks, Nigel, here's an article:

http://www.askabiologist.org.uk/from_the_lab/how-we-bring-fossils-back-life

Once a fossil has been discovered, let's say of a dinosaur, the skeleton must then be reconstructed. This may be very difficult or very easy depending on how complete the remains are. Often only a few scrappy bones are preserved, so missing parts of the skeleton must be reconstructed by looking at close relatives.

Where is the museum scandal you were speaking of?
If only a few bones are preserved, they are not shown in a museum display due to large uncertainties in reconstructions.

 

[Audie]

I have tried to find the scandal but have found nothing. Can you give some links that I can follow up? Be much appreciated.

I think about all those things, often:

1. I was a skeptic and remember that mindset
2. I'm in no way anti-science, nor do I believe there is some vast science conspiracy
3. Evolution sounds logical, small changes over time accrue

A significant number of changes would have to happen to bring a land animal to the sea as a whale or proto-whale, in just 43 million years. Over a dozen changes are needed to evolve, not having anything to do with young or prey.

You very very obviously have never been able to think the way I do, nor do you have anything remotely resembling my background, so dont bother pretending you do, and then acting as if you have gone beyond into deeper
understanding. You do not, and have not.

Another difference, I dont make things up.

You made up the "Scandal" that you were talking about.

And then misrepresent some words from a kiddie-science site to
try to smokescreen what you did.

 

[Audie]

Where is the museum scandal you were speaking of?
If only a few bones are preserved, they are not shown in a museum display due to large uncertainties in reconstructions.

. Often only a few scrappy bones are preserved, so missing parts of the skeleton must be reconstructed by looking at close relatives.

You know what? Often, people do things that is even shockingly worse!

They show how a T rex might have looked in life!! Like with skin and colour and all kinds of fanciful stuff!!!

And, you know what those naughty Christians do? The make models and paintings of Jesus, and they dont have even one scrappy bone to tell them
what he actually looked like!

Or wait a moment. Is this somehow a crime? Is if fraudulent?
Does it make all the bible or all of paleontology a big fake?

What the freaking heck?

But back to the scandal that was claimed.

Where is it?????

 

[Nigel Hoath]

Thanks, Nigel, here's an article:

How we bring fossils 'back to life' | Ask A Biologist

BilliardsBall that just states how they go about it. And if I look at books from 50 years ago it seems using such methods produced very good results. While finding thousands more skeletons they have added to the numbers but what was presented back then has remained very stable.

Often only a few scrappy bones are preserved, so missing parts of the skeleton must be reconstructed by looking at close relatives.

But in many cases entire skeletons are found. And in others thousands of overlapping parts from multiple animals. Can't see what the problem is. We build our knowledge over time. I see no great scandle.

Is that the only article you can point to?

 

[1137]

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

Sweet. So in the Upper PaleoloPale Revolution, over 100,000 years after our species came into being, we had a massive leap forward in consciousness throughout the species and accross the globe. How does evolution explain such a random, late occurring change that spreads more like an illness than an evolved trait.

 

[sayak83]

Sweet. So in the Upper PaleoloPale Revolution, over 100,000 years after our species came into being, we had a massive leap forward in consciousness throughout the species and accross the globe. How does evolution explain such a random, late occurring change that spreads more like an illness than an evolved trait.

Recent evidence has completely undermined any quantum change in the upper Paleolithic. As more evidence accrues of similar artistic behavior in Africa from 100,000 years ago.
The Earliest Known Artist’s Studio | Science | Smithsonian

 

[Subduction Zone]

I think about all those things, often:

1. I was a skeptic and remember that mindset
2. I'm in no way anti-science, nor do I believe there is some vast science conspiracy
3. Evolution sounds logical, small changes over time accrue

A significant number of changes would have to happen to bring a land animal to the sea as a whale or proto-whale, in just 43 million years. Over a dozen changes are needed to evolve, not having anything to do with young or prey.

Yes, quite a few changes would have to occur. You do not seem to understand the phrase "Species evolve, not individuals". As Jose Fly pointed out each generation of humans has on the order of 120 mutations. Whales would have a similar number. In a population of one million that is 120 million mutations per generation. There is no rule that traits evolve one at a time. Multiple changes will evolve across the species simultaneously.

You are not really a skeptic since you have a belief that cannot hold up to skepticism and you reject science that is evidence based. That means you are anti-science as well. Your opposition to evolution is based upon a starwman version of the science.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

I disagree, without why, how and what are meaningless. Without meaning

Come now, chromosomes are not precursors to "random mutations". They are only "random" withing the framework of possible combinations.

Mutations are random with respect to fitness. In other words, the processes that produce mutations are blind to what the organism needs in a given environment. A mutation conferring antibiotic resistance will occur at the same rate with or without the presence of antibiotics, as one example.

 

[Sapiens]

Mutations are random with respect to fitness. In other words, the processes that produce mutations are blind to what the organism needs in a given environment. A mutation conferring antibiotic resistance will occur at the same rate with or without the presence of antibiotics, as one example.

,
In the main this is true, but we must consider the interesting possibility where the antibiotic is also a mutagen.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

,
In the main this is true, but we must consider the interesting possibility where the antibiotic is also a mutagen.

At which point it will increase the random mutation rate.

I often use the lottery as an analogy for random mutations. The drawings occur at set times on set days, but the lottery is still random. Poor people may buy more tickets than rich people, but the lottery is still random. The actual numbers in the lottery cover a set range of numbers, yet the lottery is still random.

Increasing the number of mutations does not change the fact that mutations are still random with respect to fitness in the same way that the lottery results are random with respect to the ticket that any one person is holding.

 

[Subduction Zone]

At which point it will increase the random mutation rate.

I often use the lottery as an analogy for random mutations. The drawings occur at set times on set days, but the lottery is still random. Poor people may buy more tickets than rich people, but the lottery is still random. The actual numbers in the lottery cover a set range of numbers, yet the lottery is still random.

Increasing the number of mutations does not change the fact that mutations are still random with respect to fitness in the same way that the lottery results are random with respect to the ticket that any one person is holding.

And then one cannot forget the role that statistics play in evolution. Mutations will accumulate as time goes by for a species. Some will be negative and will be quickly erased. Most will be benign or make little difference either way in survival and will accumulate as variations. But when the environment changes the mutations that will enable a species to survive often already exist as a result of that. Complaining that a variation already existed in a population is not a valid argument against evolution. It only demonstrates the statistical nature of evolution. Far too often creationists focus on the individual rather than on the population.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

And then one cannot forget the role that statistics play in evolution. Mutations will accumulate as time goes by for a species. Some will be negative and will be quickly erased. Most will be benign or make little difference either way in survival and will accumulate as variations. But when the environment changes the mutations that will enable a species to survive often already exist as a result of that. Complaining that a variation already existed in a population is not a valid argument against evolution. It only demonstrates the statistical nature of evolution. Far too often creationists focus on the individual rather than on the population.

That often gives me a chuckle. They will say that mutations didn't produce that variation because the species already had a specific allele. Somehow, they don't understand where alleles come from or how they are produced. You will ask ID/creationists what alleles are. They will say that alleles are versions of the same gene with different DNA sequences that usually occupy the same position on a pair of chromosomes. You will then ask them how those alleles ended up with different DNA sequences. That's the point where you see the wires short circuit.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That often gives me a chuckle. They will say that mutations didn't produce that variation because the species already had a specific allele. Somehow, they don't understand where alleles come from or how they are produced. You will ask ID/creationists what alleles are. They will say that alleles are versions of the same gene with different DNA sequences that usually occupy the same position on a pair of chromosomes. You will then ask them how those alleles ended up with different DNA sequences. That's the point where you see the wires short circuit.

Cognitive dissonance quite often strikes when the only alternative is accepting evolution. In bacteria evolution is often linear, that is one mutated population leading to others that result in changes in the species, but with rapidly reproducing populations this is not a problem. With sexual reproduction evolution is not linear in this sense. Multiple mutations that lead to variation will occur throughout the entire population. As the environment changes those existing mutations will be selected over those less able to handle the changes. They never need to be "perfect" they only need to be better. I am sure that you know this, this is more for the lurkers out there.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

Cognitive dissonance quite often strikes when the only alternative is accepting evolution. In bacteria evolution is often linear, that is one mutated population leading to others that result in changes in the species, but with rapidly reproducing populations this is not a problem. With sexual reproduction evolution is not linear in this sense. Multiple mutations that lead to variation will occur throughout the entire population. As the environment changes those existing mutations will be selected over those less able to handle the changes. They never need to be "perfect" they only need to be better. I am sure that you know this, this is more for the lurkers out there.

It is worth mentioning that bacteria have sex, too.