Evolution: the basics

[Revoltingest]

Don't start a meme war you can't finish yankee. I got plenty on your good ol boys down south...

We should stop derailing this very cromulent thread.
My apologies to the OP.

 

[Little Dragon]

I was gonna post a foto of Hillary but that's inhuman(e)

I don't normally date US politicians, but she's definitely not my type. I can't think of one I would date...

 

[Father Heathen]

Don't start a meme war you can't finish yankee. I got plenty on your good ol boys down south...

Oh, them? Go right ahead!

 

[Little Dragon]

Random change will cause more things to go wrong then right. This could be proven in the lab by having a layman rearrange genes in bacteria, to see what happens.

You are halfway right. Most genetic mutations, have no effect on the organism. A few have negative effects on the organism. Fewer still, have positive effects on the organism.

However, in the natural order, even the slightest advantage, can mean the difference between life and death. If those lucky few survive, then those mutated genes proliferate in the population, over many generations, and evolution is therefore in progress.

 

[Audie]

I don't normally date US politicians, but she's definitely not my type. I can't think of one I would date...

I'd date jfk, if

 

[Sargonski]

What homo sapiens could resist her beauty, eh.
(I wouldn't be in her league.)

Everything is relative my friend .. there is someone out there for everyone..

 

[Sargonski]

I don't normally date US politicians, but she's definitely not my type. I can't think of one I would date...

She would do in a pinch Democratic Representative from Hawaii

I'd date jfk, if

I would not be embarassed taking her to the Beach .. she might be a little red .. but

 

[thebenbenstone]

AGAR - Agar is commonly found in a laboratory. Chemically, agar is a polymer made up of subunits of the sugar galactose, and is a component of the cell walls of several species of red algae that are usually harvested in eastern Asia and California. Dissolved in boiling water and cooled, laboratory agar looks gelatinous. Although agar's chief use is as a culture medium for various microorganisms, particularly for bacteria, its other less well-known uses include serving as a thickening for soups and sauces, in jellies and ice cream, in cosmetics, for clarifying beverages.

Agar is a phycocolloid extracted from a group of red-purple marine algae (Class Rhodophyceae) including Gelidium, Pterocladia and Gracilaria. Gelidium is the preferred source for agars. Impurities, debris, minerals and pigment are reduced to specified levels during manufacture.

Agar is a gel at room temperature, remaining firm at temperature as high as 65°C. Agar melts at approximately 85°C, a different temperature from that at which it solidifies, 32-40°C. This property is known as hysteresis. Agar is generally resistant to shear forces; however, different agars may have different gel strengths or degrees of firmness.

Agar is typically used in a final concentration of 1-2% for solidifying culture media. Smaller quantities (0.05-0.5%) are used in media for motility studies (0.5% w/v) and for growth of anaerobes (0.1%) and microaerophiles.

Specifications for ‘bacteriological grade agar’ include good clarity, controlled gelation temperature, controlled melting temperature, good diffusion characteristics, absence of toxic bacterial inhibitors.

The following is simply an idea…. theoretical in nature…

Now if you were a scientist and were told to jump in the company’s airplane, spaceship, flying machine. Go to a region shown to you on a map possibly on the other side of the world or galaxy. On your way you were told to stop over the cryogenic seed bank found in the coldest place on your planet. Which is apparently in Norway here on our planet earth. Pick up seeds that represent flora that would be favourable to a certain area shown on the map. Travel across the great expanse of water or space. Head over there and set up a den ‘a safe place, haven to nurture & study various bacteria cultures’, to grow flora from seeds which would suit that specific environment, you were told to take your geneticist and replicate human DNA to reseed homodumbness, by impregnating Alpha eve (or Isis) with multiple variations of DNA …ie different races. That’s probably why modern humans can be traced back 70,000 years to theoretical eve or your Mitochondrial Eve that apparently all modern humans have descended from…

Anyway, you were told to stay and nurture these humans, make sure they settle in, grow up happy & safe. You were told to teach them to farm & grow agriculture, you were told this project going to take many years you may not return, so say goodbye to your loved ones.

Time passed when you arrived there, you set up your ‘Agar Den’ started your project. And one of your colleagues said “Hey that area there use to be called the Gaza strip and I think over there, that area use to be called Israel”

You replied “ what happened?” Your colleague replied “Hell knows’ I think they blew themselves up”

Agar den = ‘A garden of e-den' (e = possibly a symbol one of many, for the golden ratio)
Genesis = 'Gene of Isis'
Maybe a past or future reseeding, replenishment can be achieved through a 'dimensional Arc ( knowers Arc )?
the word 'flood' can mean to bring forth in great abundance.

Anyway, I just wanted to share this thesis, I probably won’t get top marks from any of the science professors here… probably because captain Kirk & Spock didn’t hang around to verify my story or stay to do an Instagram photo.

 

[Valjean]

"On Nov. 23 in the journal Science, researchers from Princeton University and Uppsala University in Sweden report that the newcomer belonging to one species mated with a member of another species resident on the island, giving rise to a new species that today consists of roughly 30 individuals.

The study comes from work conducted on Darwin’s finches, which live on the Galápagos Islands in the Pacific Ocean. The remote location has enabled researchers to study the evolution of biodiversity due to natural selection under pristine conditions.

The direct observation of the origin of this new species occurred during field work carried out over the last four decades by B. Rosemary Grant and Peter Grant, a wife-and-husband team of scientists from Princeton, on the small island of Daphne Major."

Study of Darwin's finches reveals that new species can develop in as little as two generations

The arrival 36 years ago of a strange bird to a remote island in the Galápagos archipelago has provided direct genetic evidence of a novel way in which new species arise.

www.princeton.edu

Even Finches!

"Species" is an imprecise term. Usually it's roughly based on reproductive compatibility, but this doesn't always hold true. Sometimes quite different 'species', or species with considerable genetic differences, can reproduce, and even bear fertile offspring. Often it's only slightly more useful than "kind."

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Let me introduce myself. I am a nobody in an online forum. LOL Because I was a credentialed teacher, I not only took many science courses in pursuit of my Liberal Studies degree, but I also passed a competency exam in science. I do not have a degree in science. I certainly don't have a PhD. Indeed, I have seen people in this forum who are much more knowledgeable than I am.

But I think because I only have a basic knowledge of the TOE, that perhaps I might be better at summing it up for the many people in this forum who clearly don't have the basics under their belt.

So... the basics...

To start, what exactly IS evolution? It is the change over time of the frequency of alleles in a population. That's fancy pants words that means that all life changes genetically. The TOE claims that all life on the planet can be traced back to a single source. The oldest fossils we have are of single celled organism that lived in water. It makes sense to assume there were forms before this, but as of now, we simply don't have any earlier fossils.

These changes happen in response to environmental pressures. Random mutations occur, and some of them will be adaptive. By adaptive, scientists mean that they increase the likelihood of living long enough to procreate fertile offspring. An adaptation can be something physical, such as the ability to run farther or to have plumage that attracts the opposite sex. Or it can be something non-physical, such as the ability to cooperate.

These changes do not happen at a steady rate. There will be times when the environment changes rapidly, and so evolution speeds up. Scientists call this "punctuated equilibrium." That's a good term to memorize.

It is important to note that more than one type of natural selection is going on. You have individual selection, sex selection, and group selection. Sometimes they are at odds with each other. For example, individual selection would select for people to be selfish, but group selection favors groups that are cooperative. This is why you get some humans that are narcissistic, and others who are altruistic.

Now let's talk about the word species. A species is a group that has enough genetics in common that they are able to reproduce fertile offspring.

The genetic boundaries of any given species is constantly in flux -- another way to say this is to say that ALL life form are transitional forms. This change is really a SPECTRUM. But as is common among humans when discussing any spectrum, we divide it up into pieces and label the pieces. So for example, visual light really doesn't have any natural barriers between red and orange -- that division of the spectrum is culturally defined (in fact, in some cultures, red, orange, and yellow are all considered the same color).

If we apply this to the evolution of a population, then one of the things which scientists do is divide its spectrum into segments that can be labeled. For example, this fossil is homo erectus, and this other fossil is homo sapiens, even though homo erectus gradually evolved into homo sapiens.

This can at time be problematic, because fossils will be found that are not clearly in one group or the next. For example, scientists debated fiercely over whether Homo Habilis should be designated genus homo (man), or whether it should have its own designation, like the Australopithecines. I often ask creationists to tell me whether they think Homo Habilis is an ape or a man. No matter which they choose, I can then argue against them, because there is plenty about Homo Habiilis that is the other.

Now let's talk about the lines of evidence for evolution.

The classic evidence is of course fossils. We can clearly use the age of rocks (known via radiometric dating) to see how in general life began quite simple, and changed slowly over time until we have the species that exist today.

For example, all cetaceans have a particular ear formation that no other animals have. If we look back at the fossil record, we can see that this formation began with a four legged land animal, and we can follow the change over time to what cetaceans are like today. It is one of the most complete fossils records there is.

https://evolution.berkeley.edu/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/whale_evo.jpg

Genetics is a huge branch of evidence. I am a long ways from a geneticist, but what I understand is that scientists are able to look at DNA and know how closely any two beings are. They can estimate how long ago their common ancestor lived. This is the same DNA that is used to find criminals, but applied to archeology.

Much of the evidence for evolution comes from other disciplines of science. For example, Plate Tectonics reveals to us how for example a single species can get divided into two groups with the continent is torn apart, and then each group develops differently.

And of course, we have direct observation. There have been incidents in our lifetime, especially among plants, where new species have developed. I refer you back to the definition of species.

Okay, room scientists... Did I miss any important point?

Let's look at a few of the most common objections to evolution.

"There are no transitional forms." Like I said, all life is in a state of transition. But in particular, there are PLENTY of examples of species that do not neatly fit into one category or the next.

"A cat can change into a different sort of cat, but it can't become a bird." This is a strawman argument. Evolution doesn't teach that cats become birds or moths become lions, etc. What evolution DOES teach is that cats and birds and moths and lions all share a common ancestor.

"It doesn't make sense to think that what we have today happened by random chance." Natural selection is NOT random chance. Quite the opposite.

"If we evolve into more complex life forms, then why do we still have cockroaches?" Evolution does not have a direction. It simply states that more adaptive traits will be passed on. Wherever you have an environmental niche, evolution will fill it. Cockroaches exist today because they are among the most adaptable creatures on the planet.

"Evolution is a religion, not science." This is one of those face slap moments. The Theory of evolution is based on evidence, not faith. Science is a METHOD of inquiry about the natural world involving empirical evidence. It makes no statement one way or the other about God, etc.

"Social Darwinism leads to all sorts of abuse of human beings." Social Darwinism is not even science. It is classified as a pseudoscience, and it has nothing to do with the TOE.

Okay this post has ended up being much longer than anticipated. I bet most people just skipped it. LOL For those of you that read, thanks.

I think this is a very good summary of a very big process.

 

[Subduction Zone]

"Species" is an imprecise term. Usually it's roughly based on reproductive compatibility, but this doesn't always hold true. Sometimes quite different 'species', or species with considerable genetic differences, can reproduce, and even bear fertile offspring. Often it's only slightly more useful than "kind."

And that is because evolution is a fact. If evolution never happened we would not have species that graded from one to another as we can see in certain member of ring species. Species being fuzzy is a prediction of the theory of evolution. If creationism was true then creationists should be able to meet Aron Ra's phylogeny challenge.

 

[YoursTrue]

There is no evidence that all humans descended from a single COUPLE. Y chromosome Adam and Mitochondrial Eve lived some 70,000 years apart.

No, evidently according to what I understand, present-day humans descended from a variety of human-like strains. Mixing together after these particular varieties evolved from an Unknown Common Ancestor type ape and winding up as present day humans. Am I basically correct about this?

 

[IndigoChild5559]

No, evidently according to what I understand, present-day humans descended from a variety of human-like strains. Mixing together after these particular varieties evolved from an Unknown Common Ancestor type ape and winding up as present day humans. Am I basically correct about this?

Nothing you just said contradicts what I said, so I'm not sure why you said it.

 

[YoursTrue]

Nothing you just said contradicts what I said, so I'm not sure why you said it.

Actually I was just recapping in lowly unscientific terms how I understand the concept. So at least I got that straight about the concept of how modern-day humans came about insofar as the process of supposed (yes, supposed) evolution came about to produce them. Now here is a little question: gorillas, monkeys, and other types of apes considered by scientistic terms are said to have evolved from an "Unknown Common Ancestor." Is that right insofar as the theory goes?

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Actually I was just recapping in lowly unscientific terms how I understand the concept. So at least I got that straight about the concept of how modern-day humans came about insofar as the process of supposed (yes, supposed) evolution came about to produce them. Now here is a little question: gorillas, monkeys, and other types of apes considered by scientistic terms are said to have evolved from an "Unknown Common Ancestor." Is that right insofar as the theory goes?

that's correct. and ultimately all life evolved from the same single celled organisms.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Actually I was just recapping in lowly unscientific terms how I understand the concept. So at least I got that straight about the concept of how modern-day humans came about insofar as the process of supposed (yes, supposed) evolution came about to produce them. Now here is a little question: gorillas, monkeys, and other types of apes considered by scientistic terms are said to have evolved from an "Unknown Common Ancestor." Is that right insofar as the theory goes?

that's correct. and ultimately all life evolved from the same single celled organisms.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Actually I was just recapping in lowly unscientific terms how I understand the concept. So at least I got that straight about the concept of how modern-day humans came about insofar as the process of supposed (yes, supposed) evolution came about to produce them. Now here is a little question: gorillas, monkeys, and other types of apes considered by scientistic terms are said to have evolved from an "Unknown Common Ancestor." Is that right insofar as the theory goes?

Yes, all apes evolved from a common ancestor. Indeed if you go back far enough, all life evolved from a common ancestor.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I often find that those that object to the theory of evolution don't really understand what the theory says and explains. They don't seem to recognize the difference between the phenomena and the theory explaining the observed phenomena.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

I often find that those that object to the theory of evolution don't really understand what the theory says and explains. They don't seem to recognize the difference between the phenomena and the theory explaining the observed phenomena.

I agree. That's why I created the thread the tried to explain the basics.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The central problem with the current theory of evolution is the random mutation assumption. Random change will cause more things to go wrong then right.

This is false. Most mutations are in fact neutral.
And evolution only requires *some* to be beneficial to work.

This could be proven in the lab by having a layman rearrange genes in bacteria, to see what happens.

That wouldn't accomplish anything since that's not how mutation works. Mutation doesn't completely scramble the genome.

They would not know the best ways to make it better, making their changes more random.

Mutations doesn't need to know how to "make it better". That's the "random" part.
It means: random with regards to fitness.

Natural selection is the filter that gets rid of the bad, keeps the good and ignores the neutral.

This model of evolution, using this random mutation, would come out something like ten steps down, and then one step up. Life should have died off long ago.

It's a good thing then, that that is not how it works.

To get to the reality of constant evolution; positive change, the model has to assumes a hocus pocus affect, so the one step up, is more like eleven steps up, again, again and again. That math is not doable in a random world.

No. You might want to read up on how evolution actually works before trying to argue against it.
You might want to learn what mutation actually does and what the role of natural selection actually is.

Don't get me wrong, I believe in a process of change; evolution, but a random mechanism does not add up.

Evolution is not a random mechanism.
Mutation is random to fitness, but that is just one part of the process.
Natural selection is anything BUT random.

Rather it relies of the same odds of earning a living, by just buying lottery or scratch tickets. Most tickets will be duds, so the periodic winning lottery tickets would have to be large enough offset this loss, with a profit. This is not a likely way to earn a living or serve as basis for changes behind evolution.

False analogy. This is just arguing a strawman.
Your analogy completely ignores natural selection and it also completely ignores that mutations are about SMALL changes, not complete scrambles.

For example, modern cells in humans have proof reader enzymes, which move along duplicated DNA repairing typos. Why would a model of change, based on random, evolve a way to minimize random?

Because it improves survivability.

The current model would benefit by something more like a spell check, that adds the wrong words, trying to think for you. It still creates a coherent thought, but not the original intent; new but valid gene to test. This can be done via the summation affect of the water continuum focused on the DNA.

Another strawman idea of yours... that there is "intent" behind change. There isn't.