Hmmm, thoughts on evolution?(no, not vs religion)

[BassyBill]

i think its important to point out that we are somewhat 'related' to todays monkeys like gorillas and chimps. humans and monkeys have the same ancestors, and the line split at some point. i don't know if the animal that all monkeys descend from has been idenitfied yet.

Gorillas, chimps and humans aren't monkeys. We're apes. Technically different.

Saying that humans and monkeys have the same ancestors, by the way, is true but not really informative, as the same could be said about any two different groups of organisms - say, banana trees and Siamese cats. It's just a question of how far you go back.

 

[Kyon`]

You know, not to derail this thread or start another argument but I have to ask. A while back I have a roommate who came from Germany. We were watching something on tv that was about this whole "debate" and he kind of laughed and asked me if this is real. He told that back in Europe you don't actually see these kind of evolution vs religion, something about how God, evolution, science, and religion are not separated from each other. Could someone shed more light on that for me?

Also while this is not my field of expertise at all, I was at a 4th of July bbq recently and a few of the guys got into this very discussion. They said something about how they believe that micro evolution can exist but not macro. I wasn't really paying attention but isn't that flawed? It's like saying I could walk down the block, but not walk to the next city. Sure one takes longer but it's possible right?

Again not trying to bash on religion itself, I'm not religious at all but I try and respect everyone's belief but it seems like that's a very slippery sort of argument to put up.

 

[Unrepresented]

Also while this is not my field of expertise at all, I was at a 4th of July bbq recently and a few of the guys got into this very discussion. They said something about how they believe that micro evolution can exist but not macro. I wasn't really paying attention but isn't that flawed? It's like saying I could walk down the block, but not walk to the next city. Sure one takes longer but it's possible right?

It's flawed in that you'd have to have every single species alive throughout the entire history of our planet. Meaning that there were dinosaurs hanging out next to cavemen, hanging out next to woolley mammoth.

 

[Gard]

I know first hand that the theory of evolution is valid. I come from a long line of monkeys.

Pfft.

You ARE a long line of monkeys.

All by yourself.



...and bassybill, I'm stealing your line about being an ape. You would be severely disturbed at how often that question is asked of me here...

:scowl:

...that response should be quite useful, and entertaining as well.

 

[Gard]

Also while this is not my field of expertise at all, I was at a 4th of July bbq recently and a few of the guys got into this very discussion. They said something about how they believe that micro evolution can exist but not macro. I wasn't really paying attention but isn't that flawed? It's like saying I could walk down the block, but not walk to the next city. Sure one takes longer but it's possible right?

Well, the problem is that they not recognizing that microevolution leads to macroevolution. Speciation occurs when enough instances of microevolution (or more accurately mutations that are non-life-threatening) lead to an organism that no longer can breed with the "mother" species and produce viable offspring, therefore becoming a seperate species. There are plenty of instances of creatures that are decidedly different species, but are also very obviously closely related in an evolutionary sense and can create hybrids that are "mules", or non-fertile offspring. The liger/tigon hybrid that is the result of a tiger/lion mating is an excellent example - it is a viable organism, with the exception that it cannot breed and leave offspring.

 

[Dan Mee]

You know, not to derail this thread or start another argument but I have to ask. A while back I have a roommate who came from Germany. We were watching something on tv that was about this whole "debate" and he kind of laughed and asked me if this is real. He told that back in Europe you don't actually see these kind of evolution vs religion, something about how God, evolution, science, and religion are not separated from each other. Could someone shed more light on that for me?

I think people in Europe are slightly more accepting of such things. I suppose this could be an evolutionary trait as well, considering the background of the American forefathers, i.e. they groups of people that initially travelled across the atlantic to establish a new colony, away from the already well established traits of the general population of particular European nations. Being that the USA is still a very young country the perception could be that certain traits of the people who emmigrated accross the Atlantic could have been exagerated, or more firmly established within the new population, and subsiquent generations. So the ability to accept what is proven as a scientific fact as is easier given the history of the people presented with the fact. I suppose that could also go into a nature/nurture argument, but I won't go there.

It could probably be shown on a smaller scale with animals such as dogs. With the pedigree system to get rid of a certain genetic trait, usually takes about 7 generations, for example the bull dog. In most bull dog breeds there is a need for the jaw to be exagerated, and the nose to be set back, so the dog can latch on to a bull with it's teeth, and still be able to breath. The dogs are shown, and judged against a breed standard, so dogs that show the traits that are needed get a better pedigree, and will have more chance of then being used to breed. This means that the lineage of the dogs with poor examples of the breed standard will cease, and the lineage of the dogs with a closer fit to the breed standard will prosper. After a few years the breed standard inevitably gets modified meaning the features of the animal might shift slightly. Within a few generations of this happening you can see the differences between the original, and the more recent dog. It is quite interesting to see the differences in particular dogs between the turn of the previous century, and the current breed standards.

I hope that makes some sense, and sheds a little light to what some europeans might think.

 

[daystcity]

I never really understood why ID and evolutianism (real word? I hate the word Darwinism, gives him too much credit IMO for what nature does) don't get along. There are so many places you can find common ground in. Personally I believe God created blueprints for the world in seven days (however long that was I don't know) and said "Yup, should be done in a couple billion years!" And came back later when humans finally came to be. That's just me tho.

 

[fdeck]

I never really understood why ID and evolutianism (real word? I hate the word Darwinism, gives him too much credit IMO for what nature does) don't get along. There are so many places you can find common ground in. Personally I believe God created blueprints for the world in seven days (however long that was I don't know) and said "Yup, should be done in a couple billion years!" And came back later when humans finally came to be. That's just me tho.

Because "getting along" means teaching religion in the public schools, since ID was fabricated specifically for that purpose.

 

[MakiSupaStar]

Pfft.

You ARE a long line of monkeys.

All by yourself.



...and bassybill, I'm stealing your line about being an ape. You would be severely disturbed at how often that question is asked of me here...

:scowl:

...that response should be quite useful, and entertaining as well.

you still owe this monkey beer.

 

[Tsal]

I never really understood why ID and evolutianism (real word? I hate the word Darwinism, gives him too much credit IMO for what nature does) don't get along. There are so many places you can find common ground in.

Well, in some approaches where bible is considered the word of god, there's just no room for a compromise like that.

To the earlier question about why this is a large issue in US but not in Europe: In Europe, in my opinion, the schools are nationally controlled and there's the idea that science is taught as science, and religion is taught as religion - there is no middle ground where these would meet.

A lot of this stems from the French Revolution, where one of the ideals was that the church and the state are quite strictly separated. The US, on the other hand, has always been a place where certain religious or ethnic groups can build local communities, so there are religious undertones to many things.

 

[fdeck]

Well, in some approaches where bible is considered the word of god, there's just no room for a compromise like that.

To the earlier question about why this is a large issue in US but not in Europe: In Europe, in my opinion, the schools are nationally controlled and there's the idea that science is taught as science, and religion is taught as religion - there is no middle ground where these would meet.

A lot of this stems from the French Revolution, where one of the ideals was that the church and the state are quite strictly separated. The US, on the other hand, has always been a place where certain religious or ethnic groups can build local communities, so there are religious undertones to many things.

Actually, church-state separation originated in America -- specifically in Rhode Island, and is one of the rights guaranteed in our Constitution. But on another purely historical note, fundamentalism also originated here.

 

[Gard]

Actually, church-state separation originated in America -- specifically in Rhode Island, and is one of the rights guaranteed in our Constitution. But on another purely historical note, fundamentalism also originated here.

Yup, we got the idea first, that's where the French got the idea! And ever since the fundamentalists have been trying to tear it down.The thing that disturbs me most about it is that those that would do so threaten the freedom of all belief systems, potentially even their own!

 

[hbarcat]

It just seems hard to believe that all the variety in life comes from traits that were already there. I've been reading that more and more people are being born without wisdom teeth. Does this mean that wisdom teeth were causing the death/inability to reproduce? No. It just seems that many adaptions we see in today's living world come from things that would not effect the organism's ability to reproduce or survive to be able to reproduce.

Getting back to topic, organisms gain function and lose function through the mechanism of mutation but it's a lot easier to lose function than it is to gain it. Mutations are random but statistically there are far more numerous ways alter the genetic code to make instructions that result in partial or complete failure of the gene to make something useful.

Take a fish's eye, for example. There are many different genes that contribute to forming that eye and a mutation anywhere is likely to make the eye less useful. In natural populations, maladaptive mutations regarding eye function are filtered out because there are always environmental pressures to maintain well functioning eyes. A mutation that results in fish that are farsighted, for example, will make it far less likely that those fish will reproduce.

But there are some fish species that have adapted to living in environments where there is no light, such as in caves, and for them there is no disadvantage to losing function in the eye. Random mutations that degrade the ability to see can be passed on to offspring with no penalty and these mutations build up in the genes that are necessary to eye development. After many generations, the eye will no longer be functional though it still exists in crude form as some of the genes are working and some are not. If enough time passes, eventually all of the genes for eye development will degrade to useless noise in the genetic code or may even be deleted by mutation from the instructions altogether.