YAET (evolution): Why are people so stupid?

[destrekor]

scientific theories are facts that cannot be proven though direct contact, but rather is implied and can be shown through indirect means.
an object falling proves gravity, but you cannot see gravity
being zapped and different things being powered proves electricity, but you cannot see electricty (in its true form, lightning is the result of a balance... sooo hard to explain)
likewise, evolution can be implied and through indirect means, it should be accepted as fact (except bible-thumpers refuse to believe anything other than the mighty hand of an invisible, mystical being did everything, sorry maybe I am biased a bit), but it cannot be viewed or seen. it could be if we had the ability to stand back and push rewind and fastforward on life.

so technically, evolution is probably the closest scientific theory to being a life fact that could be experienced. it could be viewed if it weren't for that menacing time, oh how I loathe that time! lol

 

[yhelothar]

Originally posted by: scott
There are other conjectures besides just the "evolution" v. "creationism" of 'black or white' thinkers.

Evolution is an observable fact in a local environment over short time spans measured in hundreds or thousands of years, like the white moth population morphing into dark moths in just a few years during the sooty industrial revolution.

Confoundingly, I've read that the fossil record does not support evolutionary theory over longer time spans (millions of years). If that's true (I've only read about it, I don't have expertise in this), then how do the sudden big changes in biology originate, like the Cambrian explosion? I don't believe miraculously replicating DNA was created or occasionally altered by accidental lightening zaps into an organic broth.

So how? God through the agency of alien biologists? Genetic material riding in on meteors? Spew from volcanoes? I've read that DNA is mostly similar among all organisms on earth's surface, but DNA of deep subterranean organisms launched up by volcanoes differs a lot from that profile. So maybe life formed by some process inside Gaia Eath's interior, is occasionally spewed up and is incorporated into DNA of surface organisms, causing occasional sudden changes of forms?

There are plenty of other conjectures besides these few...

Interesting factoid: I read that the bone diggers trace human origins back to Africa, but contrary to that, biologists trace mitochondrial DNA back to a woman in China, not Africa, as the source of human origins.

edited for typos

How doesn't the fossil record not support evolution? If anything, it more than supports it.
Everything from fishes, turning to amphibians, to reptiles that don't need to lay eggs in water, to full land reptiles. It all links together in evolutionary steps. You don't find reptile fossils before amphibians, just like you don't find amphibian fossils before fish fossils.
The same is true with plants. It all started with mosses, or plants with no stem and shoot systems, nor seeds. They live in water. Then in the fossil record, it shows it evolving to plants with shoots systems, but with no seeds, or ferns. You don't see ferns before mosses.
These are just two examples of evolution in the fossil record. There is a tremendous amount of evidence found in the fossil record that supports evolution. Anyone who has studied it WILL see evolution as factual.

You are right about biologists not being able to figure out how DNA can self replicate. But scientists are able to create DNA abiotically, they just aren't able to get them to self replicate - YET. But that doesn't mean it's impossible. I personally think it's just a matter of time before they can create organisms abiotically. Yes the DNA was created by that "organic broth with lightning" as you call it in a lab experiment. They were also able to create self replicating polypeptides.

DNA isn't mutated by random lightning zaps. It's mutated by the UV rays of the sun. And you can see that many plants, that do not have a pair of chromosomes, be greatly affected by mutation of the UV rays. If you read about the studies they done with hox genes(google this, very interesting), they basically found a "genetic toolbox" with it. Just by modifying one single gene, they can create major adverse effects on an entire organism, such as adding a third leg. There was even a single gene that they found that basically flips an organisms internal organs around, meaning the backbone goes to the front side. This shows that just a tiny mutation can create a completely different organism.

 

[WildHorse]

 

[Rudee]

Evolution is a theory *based* on facts.

 

[destrekor]

while uv rays from the sun do indeed mutate DNA, its usually not a mutation that would be passed on, as it likely wouldn't be a mutation that benefited the creature.
cancer is mutated dna
think thats an evolutionary trait? we dont pass on cancer, for the sheer benefit of mankind... if we passed on the mutated dna aka cancer, then pretty soon life would be wiped out.

its possible a uv-induced mutation could benefit a creature, but it seems absurd.
but then again, how else can we imagin genetic mutations occuring? shows how little we really know. it will be a long while before we really understand any of the process.

 

[yhelothar]

Originally posted by: scott
Originally posted by: virtualgames0
[
How doesn't the fossil record not support evolution? If anything, it more than supports it.

• I've read that a mystery of the fossil record is that it doesn't show transitional forms that ought to be found according to Darwin's theory. That would be exactly opposite of your statement. I lack time right now to go off and research this in more depth. I'm just a layman on this.

DNA isn't mutated by random lightning zaps. It's mutated by the UV rays of the sun.

• Interesting. I didn't think of that.

• It'd be fascinating to learn if there's any correlation between solar flare activity, or unusual electrical or magnetic influences from passing comets, and genetic mutations on earth.

If you read about the studies they done with hox genes...

• Interesting. Never heard of hox genes. I'll put that on my list of things to learn about. Thank you for bringing that up, I learned something new from you!

No prob
I just got done with level 2 bio at my college. A ton of stuff to learn. But it made evolution make sense to me a lot more.

Another thing that I found interesting is that there are actually fish that has huge lobed fins that can run out of water. One example is the lungfish, given it's name because it's a fish with lungs! Lungfishes actually dwell in almost dried up lakes, so they can run out when the lake that they're in dries up. It's a good example of Darwin's survival of the fittest.

Another interesting evolutionary link that can be seen are the evolution of mammals. Mammals are very different as they have placential breeding, or breeding inside the uterus, and not an external egg. But if you've been through basic biology, you'll know that there are mammals that lay eggs, such as the platypus and there are animals that breed their young in pouches, such as kangaroos. Both the platypus and kangaroos are both evolutionary links up to the placental breeders. They are all found in the fossil records. But those two kinds of breeding are much inferior than placental breeding, which is why they have gone extinct, except in Australia, which has been isolated from the rest of the world much earlier than any continent. It is also interesting to to note that in result of Australia being isolated, it also has the most unique animals that are only found in Australia. This is more evidence through biology and geology that proves evolution.

while uv rays from the sun do indeed mutate DNA, its usually not a mutation that would be passed on, as it likely wouldn't be a mutation that benefited the creature.
cancer is mutated dna
think thats an evolutionary trait? we dont pass on cancer, for the sheer benefit of mankind... if we passed on the mutated dna aka cancer, then pretty soon life would be wiped out.

its possible a uv-induced mutation could benefit a creature, but it seems absurd.
but then again, how else can we imagin genetic mutations occuring? shows how little we really know. it will be a long while before we really understand any of the process.

You're right that most mutations are bad. But many are indeed good. It was actually one of the questions on my tests. The multiple choice questions included mutations can have no effect, or can be bad, or can be good. I chose A and B. The answer was actually all three.

 

[WildHorse]

 

[Vic]

We put warning labels on everything else. Hell, in California, they put warning labels on things merely thought, but never proven, to cause cancer. "Warning: might cause cancer." Reap as you sow.

Anyway, this flamebait is old. Repost * a billion. The issue behind this is simple, if one would actually read the entire label. This is not an attack on evolution, but on abiogenesis (which is scarcely even science), and on teachers and textbooks that confuse evolution and abiogenesis as though they were the same thing (which they are not). Obviously those with vested ideological interests ON BOTH SIDES are going to try to obscure that issue as much as possible.

 

[mercanucaribe]

Scott, the fossil record doesn't always show incremental changes because of sheer unlikelihood of an organism being fossilized. It's FLUKES that result in fossilization. Despite that, there are clear sequences that show evolution. Like virtualgames said, all you have to do is look at the general trend of invertebrates ----> fishes ----> amphibians ----> reptiles ----> birds and mammals. If they all were created at once, that wouldn't be the case. Of course, creationists will just argue that isotope dating is inaccurate.

 

[mercanucaribe]

Originally posted by: Vic
We put warning labels on everything else. Hell, in California, they put warning labels on things merely thought, but never proven, to cause cancer. "Warning: might cause cancer." Reap as you sow.

Anyway, this flamebait is old. Repost * a billion. The issue behind this is simple, if one would actually read the entire label. This is not an attack on evolution, but on abiogenesis (which is scarcely even science), and on teachers and textbooks that confuse evolution and abiogenesis as though they were the same thing (which they are not). Obviously those with vested ideological interests ON BOTH SIDES are going to try to obscure that issue as much as possible.

No one in the world doesn't believe in abiogenesis....

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: mercanucaribe
No one in the world doesn't believe in abiogenesis....

Asides from your terrible English skills, do you even have a clue what you're talking about? Or do you just read the Bible substituting the word "God" for "Random Chance"? It would be the same thing.

 

[TuxDave]

Originally posted by: Pastore

Originally posted by: Atheus
The problem is that the word 'theory' means different things to a scientist and a non-scientist. There was a good bit in the new scientist the other week on this, apparently we (scientists) should also stop using the word 'believe' as it confuses religous folk.

Point taken, but how often is a scientist reading an Intro to Biology book.

In a science classroom, the intention is to inform the student how to think like a scientist and understand what the difference between a scientific theory and a "just a theory". In science, a scientific theory is the closest you'll get to fact without a mathematical proof. Adding that sticker which muddles the two definitions of a theory impedes the learning process.

 

[FrustratedUser]

Originally posted by: yellowfiero
Because its a touchy subject. Many teachers teach it as if it was fact.

It's pretty much only a touchy subject in the US. The rest of the world has moved on.

 

[Baked]

They should put that sticker on the bible too. Nobody knows anything for sure, everything's a fragment of our imagination.

 

[FoBoT]

i am eating a candy cane

 

[nakedfrog]

Originally posted by: RBachman
:music: The industrial revolution... has flipped the bitch on evolution :music:

:music: Majority rule... don't work in mental institutions :music:

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Baked
They should put that sticker on the bible too. Nobody knows anything for sure, everything's a fragment of our imagination.

Last I checked, religion sold itself as faith and not fact.

 

[SportSC4]

just wanna clear up some stuff,

I like TuxDave's explanation of theory. That's it the closest you'll get to fact without a mathmatitcal proof. When a theory has been challenged many times and there's no proof to disprove the theory, it will be come a Law. This takes many... many years and many challenges. For example, look at thermodynamics. Once upon a time, it was the theory of thermodynamics but now is the Laws of Thermodynamics. The real debate on this whole evolution is the origin of species.

destrekor, just to clear something up, mutations offer the chance for increasing the diversity of a species. Probably 1 in a million mutations are beneficial. Whether or not the mutation is beneficial depends on the environment (the more successful, the more likely the gene will be passed). Cancer is usually a defect in the p53 gene due to uv rays. It's a rather superficial mutation of the somatic cells, which means that they are not passed down (gametic cells are passed on to offspring).