The Digg Crew wants to hear your thoughts!
Please take our short survey about Digg and potential feature ideas.
Warning: The Content in this Article May be Inaccurate
Readers have reported that this story contains information that may not be accurate.Proof of Evolution
enn.com — Elephants Evolve Smaller Tusks Due to Poaching - In the last 150 years, the world ’s elephant population has evolved much smaller tusks.
ccfoo242- 1711 diggs
- digg it
- brentinkc, on 01/21/2008, -71/+444Before all of you get going, I'd like to officially ban the term "microevolution" from this comment board.
This is a clear demonstration of environmental factors causing a physical change in animals. If you don't get it at this point, I fear you never will.- Berkana, on 01/21/2008, -9/+101Forget about even environmental factors; selection, natural or artificial, results in inherited physical changes. Just look at any breed of dog. Basset hounds, pugs, great danes, and shar peis don't look anything like wolves. Nobody seriously doubts that selection pressures result in differences in inherited genes that result in physical differences. If they do, show them a dog, and show them any of our food crops and domesticated animals.
I don't think this particular instance is "natural" selection; human poaching of animals specifically for their tusks is not natural at all. This elephant example amounts to human breeding, with the selection being against large tusks.
And with regards to "microevolution", I don't think you understand why people use the term. People don't use the term because they don't believe selection pressures result in inherited physical changes throughout the population; they use it to differentiate something like this from the notion that radical changes ("macro" evolution) can result from this kind of selection. (eggs to live birth, invertebrate to vertebrate, etc.) Pointing out the obvious, that selection results in inherited physical changes throughout a population, does nothing to dissuade doubters who don't think selection can result in radical changes such as live birth vs. egg laying.- Hosaki, on 01/21/2008, -5/+50Humans are natural.
- HBNDonut, on 01/21/2008, -2/+22Exactly. While it was a case of our "want" for the ivory rather than the "need" for it. It's still in our nature to be the way we are. We're just playing our part, as meddlesome as we may be.
- jjesusfreak01, on 01/21/2008, -16/+10True, but humans above any other species have an ability to drastically change how natural environments have been operating for thousands of years. A horde of monkeys cant cut down a forest, just as much as they cant drive cars and release CO2 into the atmosphere. This is simply an example (and a good example, at that) of environmental selection (natural selection) of genetic traits on a small level. If you kill everyone with red hair, then a much smaller population of humans will have red hair, and because its a genetic trait, then the next generation will have an extremely small amount of red hair (seeing as I believe its a dominant trait). Likewise, if you kill off all the elephants with long tusks, then the mean population of elephants will have much smaller sense. This neither discounts nor proved macroevolution, just that destroying individuals with certain traits will lead to a decline of that trait in the population...get your facts together.
PS: when people argue against evolution, they dont argue that selection doesnt exist (they shouldnt at least) but that random genetic mutations are insufficient to cause speciation on a mass level. - eviltandem, on 01/21/2008, -0/+15@jjesusfreak01
You walk right up to the line and then stop. Take your example 1 step further, and you'll get macro. Say we have the reverse. We decide we only want red headed people, so we kill any non-red heads. Then you have a population of all red heads.
Next we decide we do not want people under 6 feet. Anyone under 6 feet is killed and/or not allowed to procreate. Soon everyone is red haired and 6 feet tall.
Next we decide anyone who gets sick more than once a year has weak immune systems, and so should be killed. etc, etc, etc...
You keep making these changes and eventually you end up with something completely unidentifiable from the beginning. After thousands, or millions, of years of these natural pressures you will end up with super people so far removed from the original that the 2 could no longer interbreed. - johnnysaucepn, on 01/21/2008, -2/+5@eviltandem,
You would also end up with a population with so little genetic variation that they would be either inbred, or so unable to cope with any environmental changes that they would die out not long after. There's a reason why eugenics won't work. - Supurcell, on 01/21/2008, -0/+3@Johnnysaucepn
As long as the population is large enough, inbreeding shouldn't be much of a problem. And humans have a unique trait that lets us change our environment to suit us. - burrgrinder, on 01/21/2008, -0/+1@johnnysaucepn
I disagree. Inbreeding takes a very, very small group in a very short timeframe to cause any real problems. There are more than enough candidates out of our 6 billion people to do exactly what he said. It would take 15 or 20 generations to complete each step, which is more than enough time to breed enough people to minimize inbreeding.
Just some quick googling: the US has 6 to 18 million red heads, inbreeding is not an issue for step 1.
- jjesusfreak01, on 01/21/2008, -16/+10True, but humans above any other species have an ability to drastically change how natural environments have been operating for thousands of years. A horde of monkeys cant cut down a forest, just as much as they cant drive cars and release CO2 into the atmosphere. This is simply an example (and a good example, at that) of environmental selection (natural selection) of genetic traits on a small level. If you kill everyone with red hair, then a much smaller population of humans will have red hair, and because its a genetic trait, then the next generation will have an extremely small amount of red hair (seeing as I believe its a dominant trait). Likewise, if you kill off all the elephants with long tusks, then the mean population of elephants will have much smaller sense. This neither discounts nor proved macroevolution, just that destroying individuals with certain traits will lead to a decline of that trait in the population...get your facts together.
- HBNDonut, on 01/21/2008, -2/+22Exactly. While it was a case of our "want" for the ivory rather than the "need" for it. It's still in our nature to be the way we are. We're just playing our part, as meddlesome as we may be.
- BoneheadFarker, on 01/21/2008, -14/+14How is the change between live births and egg laying that radical? Live births are merely eggs that didn't leave the body...eggs are still involved. Invertebrate-to-vertebrate stages are seen clearly in animals today. Stop trying to differential between evolutionary patterns and saying one of them is impossible...
- MWeather, on 01/21/2008, -13/+42"And with regards to "microevolution", I don't think you understand why people use the term."
They use the term because they're creationists, or they're quoting one.- WernerCD, on 01/21/2008, -28/+8Creationist or not: Is the argument valid?
There is a HUGE difference between species differentiation (Culling like this, or minor mutations that HAVE been and continue to be observed) and one species mutating into another (puddle into single cell into plant into fish etc. Not observed as far as I know.).
Those are HUGE differences. Micro-evolution is an observable fact. Macro on the other hand... To shake your shoulders and say there is no difference between the two (regardless of your stance)... not exactly the most scientific in my opinion- MacEnvy, on 01/21/2008, -3/+29There are NOT huge differences between "macro" and "micro" evolution. They are the SAME process observed over different timescales. It's not as though an organism wakes up one day as a new species, it's just a slow accumulation of changes over time that makes it eventually unable to successfully reproduce with its "ancestor" species.
The only thing "unscientific" is your understanding of how speciation works.
There is NO difference between "macro" and "micro" evolution. The difference does not exist. The only reason for using such words is to place an artificial divide in a single process that is, in fact, continuous and ongoing. - Tippis, on 01/21/2008, -1/+9Making a distinction between "microevolution" and "macroevolution" is like saying you can't turn a square into a circle by filing down its corners.
- johnnysaucepn, on 01/21/2008, -1/+1In that case, maybe you can explain how exactly the two processes are different? Other than saying 'species is a big thing' and 'tusks are a small thing'. Unless you can show that there's some biochemical barrier that stops small changes from accumulating, you haven't got anything to stand on.
- burrgrinder, on 01/21/2008, -0/+1"puddle to a single cell"
You're talking about abiogenesis there, which is a separate discussion altogether. There isn't proof either way for it yet, so don't even bother arguing it. - joegibes, on 01/21/2008, -4/+1MacEnvy: "They are the SAME process observed over different timescales." Macroevolution (or whatever you want to call it) has never been observed.
- MWeather, on 01/22/2008, -0/+4I've never observed anyone walking. All I see are people taking steps.
- MacEnvy, on 01/21/2008, -3/+29There are NOT huge differences between "macro" and "micro" evolution. They are the SAME process observed over different timescales. It's not as though an organism wakes up one day as a new species, it's just a slow accumulation of changes over time that makes it eventually unable to successfully reproduce with its "ancestor" species.
- WernerCD, on 01/21/2008, -28/+8Creationist or not: Is the argument valid?
- Angostura, on 01/21/2008, -3/+42No. in this case the change is an excellent example of natural selection, even though it was human-mediated. Were the humans setting out to create a small-tusk variety of elephant? No, no more than they were setting out to create a population of warfarin-resistant rats when they started deploying rat poison, or non-curling up hedgehogs when they started driving cars.
As for why people use the term 'micro-evolution' it is very simple. They want to give the false impression that there is a difference between evolution producing small changes in phenotype in 80 years leading to speciation in a million. There isn't.- WernerCD, on 01/21/2008, -24/+2There isn't? One doesn't necessarily prove the other.
Science is about proven, repeatable, observable facts. Micro evolution is a fact. Show me proof of Macro evolution. Then show me how to repeat that experiment in a controlled setting.- MacEnvy, on 01/21/2008, -3/+17Speciation ("macroevolution") has been observed in laboratory settings, repeatedly. Here's a good place to start, but there are lots of resources out there that can help you become educated on this topic:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-research ... - skylarsutton, on 01/21/2008, -2/+8Macroevolution is a collection of microevolutions observed over a large enough time period. In other words, go up in a space ship - fly around at the speed of light for a few thousands years (you won't age, but we will) - and then come back to earth. What will look like macroevolution to you (entire species splits, etc.), will be virtually invisible to the humans of the time period - as they'll just see a bunch of microevolutions.
- kingmanic, on 01/21/2008, -1/+3The terms are not use din academia. They were introduced early 19th century and don't mean what you think it means. There is no such distinction.
- Mejari, on 01/21/2008, -1/+1"hur hur hur, I'll tell them to show me something that they obviously can't because of the limitations of our puny life-spans and then act as though that validates my retarded beliefs" Seriously, asking someone to show you a repeatable controlled experiment of how speciation works when you know it takes millions of years usually is just silly. Oh wait, you want an example of speciation? Look at... everything in the f*cking world! There, and it's been repeated!
- imperium2000, on 01/21/2008, -1/+2What prevents "micro" changes from becoming "macro" over long time periods?
What mechanism is involved? - init100, on 01/21/2008, -0/+2@imperium2000
Nothing. The creationists simply fail to realize that the classification of organisms into different species is a human invention. How could evolution confine the mutations to criteria set by humans? It's simple, it can't.
- MacEnvy, on 01/21/2008, -3/+17Speciation ("macroevolution") has been observed in laboratory settings, repeatedly. Here's a good place to start, but there are lots of resources out there that can help you become educated on this topic:
- Spuy767, on 01/21/2008, -11/+5This proves natural selection, and how it can only take a few generations for the effects of natural selection to show up, but this is not proof of evolution, proof of evolution would be watching an elephant evolve into an alpaca over the course of ten million years.
- WernerCD, on 01/21/2008, -24/+2There isn't? One doesn't necessarily prove the other.
- kingmanic, on 01/21/2008, -2/+7Micro-evolution does not mean the thing you think it does. It's also not commonly used within academia. It's meant to be about allele frequency change, distorted by creationists to try to confuse the issue. There is no micro vs macro evolution. Evolution has been observed. It's the pillar biology is built on. It's as sound as any other scientific theory such as gravity.
- Hosaki, on 01/21/2008, -5/+50Humans are natural.
- lgc90, on 01/21/2008, -32/+14This is a prime example of artificial selection: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_selection
- noahhoward, on 01/21/2008, -2/+33No, it's not. Elephants are surviving interactions with a predator (us) and the resulting population is being changed. This is no different than if lions were picking off elephants with larger tusks. We are not going out and breeding elephants to have smaller tusks.
- roodammy44, on 01/21/2008, -1/+26No it's not, from the article:
"Artificial selection is the intentional breeding for certain traits, or combinations of traits, over others."
If it were humans intentionally controlling the breeding, they would have bred them with bigger tusks.
What's happening here is quite simple.
Elephants that have smaller tusks survive hunting to breed more, therefore become dominant. This is natural selection - we are just as much predators as the lions to other animals.
From Wikipedia: "Natural selection is the process by which favorable traits that are heritable become more common in successive generations of a population of reproducing organisms, and unfavorable traits that are heritable become less common"- skylarsutton, on 01/21/2008, -0/+9If I could digg you twice I would. This is Natural Selection at it's best.
Smaller tusks = better chance of staying alive long enough to reproduce.
- skylarsutton, on 01/21/2008, -0/+9If I could digg you twice I would. This is Natural Selection at it's best.
- 4degrees, on 01/21/2008, -0/+2eugenics is "artificial selection".
- boshaus, on 01/21/2008, -34/+18I swear, most people don't even understand the views of the majority of intelligent design believers. They read a few articles about radical people that think animals are exactly the same as they have always been, never change, all were put down at the same time, then assume every Christian or intelligent design follower believes them. Anyone who knows anything believes in "microevolution". Sure, go ahead and ban talk about microevolution and limit the discussion to MACROEVOLUTION, which this clearly is not an example of. That's the only topic worth discussing.
- shakin, on 01/21/2008, -5/+29Macro and micro evolution are the same thing. After enough small changes an animal will be a different species. Sometimes it only takes one larger change, but large and small are subjective definitions. There are already multiple species of elephant whose characteristics are all largely identical, but have different behaviours and/or small physical differences. The real point of debate is "what is a species?"
- Nudar, on 01/21/2008, -13/+2Sorry but even if there were a trillion years of time, that elephant will not evolve into a giraffe. It will always be an elephant. Maybe it will be shorter or its tusks will grow larger but it will always be an elephant.
- skinfitz, on 01/21/2008, -0/+13To paraphrase you, show me evidence of species remaining the same over trillions of years. You can't.
- shakin, on 01/21/2008, -0/+13If an elephant ever changes into a giraffe that will be positive proof that everything we know about evolution is wrong. Primates evolved into humans and not into lizards. Primates and humans are very similar, from our limbs, bone structure, group behavior patterns, and brains. Animals evolve into other similar animals. Species deviation occurred well before our current taxonomy of species was formed.
- imperium2000, on 01/21/2008, -0/+4Please clearly describe the biological mechanism that prevents "micro" changes from becoming "macro" over trillions of years?
- Phatt138, on 01/21/2008, -0/+2Also, I'm not sure that you realize how long 'trillions' of years is. Given the right environmental influences, ANYTHING could become like ANYTHING else in a trillion years. Microorganisms to modern man only took ~3 billion. You're talking about a longer span of time than our Sun has been active.
- martinjd, on 01/21/2008, -1/+1@skinfitz - technically speaking you can't show the other either. We have observed what many interpret as links in the evolutionary chain, but as far as interspecies change itself goes - that has not been observed.
- init100, on 01/21/2008, -1/+1@Phatt138
"You're talking about a longer span of time than our Sun has been active."
No *****. The age of the universe is around 13.7 billion years, which is just slightly above 0.01 trillion years.
- bmunichman, on 01/21/2008, -0/+3Actually the definition of 'separate species' is two animals that are unable to mate with one another & produce viable offspring
- martinjd, on 01/21/2008, -1/+1Micro and macro are certainly not the same thing. As the theory goes, a long series of microevolutions can result in macroevolution - but this does not make them equivalent. If you put enough 1's together you'll end up with 1000, but this doesn't mean they're the same thing.
- noahhoward, on 01/21/2008, -0/+1Macroevolution is really kind of misleading. People see it as a sudden change. What I think is more likely is microevolution over time in isolated groups. For an example, take pandas. Pandas are the same family as raccoons. Why are they so different from North American raccoons? We know they were separated, they responded to different environments, different predators, different trait were selected in the different groups until eventually there was no family resemblance and we had two separate species. There was no event where a Panda was born to a raccoon and survived to start the panda species all by himself, it was just two sets of different changes over time.
- Nudar, on 01/21/2008, -13/+2Sorry but even if there were a trillion years of time, that elephant will not evolve into a giraffe. It will always be an elephant. Maybe it will be shorter or its tusks will grow larger but it will always be an elephant.
- Murdats, on 01/21/2008, -3/+18so what do you call LOTS of micro evolution.
if this happened in 150 years, what will happen in the next, and the next and the next and the next and the...
and do that 1000 times over.
maybe we will have no tusked elephants, or elephants that develop spines over their bodies to protect them (they would start out as some sort of hard shell and go from there) maybe they would become a large mammal with a spiky exoskeleton that is highly resistant to bullets.
what would that process be called?- Nudar, on 01/21/2008, -12/+1Lots of micro evolution? A fairy tale perhaps? Show me the family tree of that elephant going back millions of years back when it was still primordial soup? You can't.
- Neiby, on 01/21/2008, -1/+10I will admit to once being a Creationist, many years ago. It's embarrassing now to know that I once sounded this ignorant.
- Mejari, on 01/21/2008, -0/+1There are plenty of animals whose lineage we have traced back incredibly far. Not quite to the primordial ooze yet, but considering the rate scientists are discovering things within our own genes, it can't be too long. Remember, get in touch with your inner fish!
- imperium2000, on 01/21/2008, -0/+2Evolution of the elephant:
http://elephant.elehost.com/About_Elephants/Storie ... - Murdats, on 01/21/2008, -1/+1the elephant is a decendent of the wooly mammoth, was that 'just an elephant'
however the modern elephant has smaller tusks (even smaller again now) and much shorter hair among other notable differences.
and you have stated that you refuse to believe anything but creationism desipite the logic by setting what you know to be an impossible goal condition.
that is not the only way to prove evolution. - workplacerant, on 01/31/2008, -0/+0@Murdats
"the elephant is a decendent of the wooly mammoth..."
- Nudar, on 01/21/2008, -12/+1Lots of micro evolution? A fairy tale perhaps? Show me the family tree of that elephant going back millions of years back when it was still primordial soup? You can't.
- clubby, on 01/21/2008, -5/+22Here's what I understand about ID believers, please correct me if I'm wrong: you idiots think there's a difference between micro- and macro-evolution, when in fact there is no such thing as either micro- or macro-evolution, there is only evolution, and it happens. Dolt.
- WernerCD, on 01/21/2008, -22/+4Here's the thing I don't believe about evolutionists, please correct me if I'm wrong: You "idiots" think there is no difference between micro and macro, when in fact there are huge differences between the two. This isn't an "If A is true, then B must be true" situation. Micro evolution DOES happen. PROVE Macro does. Show me "missing links" that turn a fish into a flower. or a dog into a cat. Or anything into something TOTALLY different. Come up with PROOF, otherwise its "my" Faith in the Flying Spaghetti Monster vs "Your" faith in random chance.
- skinfitz, on 01/21/2008, -1/+13PROVE there is a difference between what you call 'micro' and 'macro' evolution.
Think of it like money - you can go on about micropayments all you like, but it's just a figure of speech - it's still only money at the end of the day regardless of amount.
To claim that small evolutionary changes cannot amount to large ones is like claiming that lots of small purchases cannot amount to a lot of money. - Murdats, on 01/21/2008, -2/+9wtf? fish didnt turn into flowers, so there is no link there
dogs didnt turn into cats either, but what you refer to as 'missing links' are SPECIES THEMSELVES (shock horror!!!)
so if you have 2 primates and you want the link between them, which is another primate, I am sure you would say, where is the link between them, and between them, and so on.
until we have traced the entire family tree for every primate that has existed ever. - Zyphron, on 01/21/2008, -4/+1Yes, but interestingly enough, there is a lot of debate as to whether or not micro payments ACTUALLY work to create meaningful returns, whereas macro-payments have been proven to successfully generate meaningful revenue.
- skinfitz, on 01/21/2008, -1/+5@zyphron
Lets look at iTunes as an example of 'micropayments'. Apple just announced what was it? Their 4 billionth song download? That's almost 4 billion dollars that have passed through those accounts, and all of it derived from 'micro' payments.
The 'macroevolution' denying brigade are effectively claiming that it's not possible for 4 billion small amounts of money to add up to one large one. - init100, on 01/21/2008, -0/+2"Show me "missing links" that turn a fish into a flower. or a dog into a cat."
A common trait among creationists. They make up a case with no leg to stand on, and then ask the non-creationists to prove it. Fail!
- skinfitz, on 01/21/2008, -1/+13PROVE there is a difference between what you call 'micro' and 'macro' evolution.
- WernerCD, on 01/21/2008, -22/+4Here's the thing I don't believe about evolutionists, please correct me if I'm wrong: You "idiots" think there is no difference between micro and macro, when in fact there are huge differences between the two. This isn't an "If A is true, then B must be true" situation. Micro evolution DOES happen. PROVE Macro does. Show me "missing links" that turn a fish into a flower. or a dog into a cat. Or anything into something TOTALLY different. Come up with PROOF, otherwise its "my" Faith in the Flying Spaghetti Monster vs "Your" faith in random chance.
- shakin, on 01/21/2008, -5/+29Macro and micro evolution are the same thing. After enough small changes an animal will be a different species. Sometimes it only takes one larger change, but large and small are subjective definitions. There are already multiple species of elephant whose characteristics are all largely identical, but have different behaviours and/or small physical differences. The real point of debate is "what is a species?"
- muniak, on 01/21/2008, -13/+46This is a prime example of microevolution.
Srsly.- Angostura, on 01/21/2008, -4/+14That's right. It's a prime example of evolution - as the headline says. It's not an example of speciation.
- WATYF, on 01/21/2008, -16/+5No... this is a prime example of monkeys having butt-sex with a fish squirrel.
- anononon, on 01/21/2008, -2/+2Manbearpig > Monkeyfishsquirrel
- WATYF, on 01/23/2008, -0/+1wow... no one got the South Park reference? I'm crushed. :o)
- Zyphron, on 01/21/2008, -5/+48Microevolution:
–noun Biology.
1. evolutionary change involving the gradual accumulation of mutations leading to new varieties within a species.
2. minor evolutionary change observed over a short period of time.
(http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/microevolut ...- Mejari, on 01/21/2008, -10/+5OMG guyz we got our butts handed to us by webster! Oh wait, their definition for micro-evolution is "minor EVOLUTIONARY changes" So wait, does that mean that Micro-evolution is... dun dun dun! Evolution, but in a small time frame!!!! Who coulda guessed? Oh wait, everyone with half a brain did.
- zephyr42, on 01/21/2008, -4/+1no. the key is "within a species" in order to "prove" once and for all evolution is in fact how the earth came to be (not like it actually ***** matters for our current daily struggles with the world) when one species turns into another or there is undeniable evidence that it has happened. This is why I'm neither a creationist or evolutionist, it's all MOOT anyway.
- Mejari, on 01/21/2008, -10/+5OMG guyz we got our butts handed to us by webster! Oh wait, their definition for micro-evolution is "minor EVOLUTIONARY changes" So wait, does that mean that Micro-evolution is... dun dun dun! Evolution, but in a small time frame!!!! Who coulda guessed? Oh wait, everyone with half a brain did.
- HeroreV, on 01/21/2008, -5/+53"At this point"? We've had mountains of proof for decades. If someone doesn't believe in evolution, it's not because of a lack of proof. No amount of proof is going to convince someone who refuses to consider the possibility.
- kidtwist, on 01/21/2008, -1/+9Or, as the saying goes, you can't argue someone out of a position they were never argued into in the first place.
- wenomspitta, on 01/22/2008, -0/+1seriously... since when did you need to prove that the offspring resembles the parents...
- workplacerant, on 01/31/2008, -0/+0I'd love to see the mountains of proof. Please provide some references. Of course, I would also like some qualification of what's being proven.
Thanks.
- colonelbuckshot, on 01/21/2008, -2/+6Wow, smaller tusks in 150 years. Then again we have all kinds of dog breeds with distinct traits bred over a few hundred years.
Good thing we don't extend these principles to the last 40,000+ years of human evolution (race)- duggreen, on 01/21/2008, -0/+6Dogs are actually very mutable. Many breeds have been created since the advent of dog shows, only about a hundred and fifty years ago. I've had dogs since I was a child (50 now) and I've definitely seen changes in many breeds in my lifetime.
- maffiou, on 01/21/2008, -0/+6I think this is exacerbated by the fact that dog breeders do a lot of inbreeding... so mutations that would be unlikely to be carried on in the wild are being spread quickly... It's not necessarilly a good thing when you see the amount of genetic defects some dog species have...
- johnnysaucepn, on 01/21/2008, -2/+1Dogs were bred with specific characteristics in mind - and the breeding of those characteristics were strictly controlled. In other words, we had direct control of both the reproduction AND the selection. Elephant aren't being farmed for tusks.
- KickinitLegit, on 01/24/2008, -0/+1no, they are being killed mercilessly by criminals
- duggreen, on 01/21/2008, -0/+6Dogs are actually very mutable. Many breeds have been created since the advent of dog shows, only about a hundred and fifty years ago. I've had dogs since I was a child (50 now) and I've definitely seen changes in many breeds in my lifetime.
- LeeSoong, on 01/21/2008, -9/+37God felt bad for the Elephants, after all it was a lot of hard to load them onto the Ark.
So God Intelligently Designed smaller tusks so bad people wouldn't kill the elephants any more.
HA! Go ahead, PROVE He didn't do it!- bicyclethief, on 01/21/2008, -18/+0Dugg down for lameness.
- Roberib, on 01/21/2008, -6/+2What is God?
- computergod, on 01/21/2008, -5/+9Dugg up for awesome LOLness.
- Vektuz, on 01/21/2008, -4/+10Its funny because its exactly how idiotic zealots would explain it away. And they'd actually believe it, too.
- staffa, on 01/21/2008, -1/+6Actually the way it goes is that the Elephants are being punished by God for their grievous Sins against the almighty and as such each generation has progressively smaller and smaller tusks such that man has to hunt greater numbers of them to acquire the same amount of ivory. Thus leading to their eventual extinction, God's final retribution.
The beauty of God logic is that it can explain anything and everything, even two explanations which are in complete contradiction to each other.
- rabidmonkey1, on 01/21/2008, -0/+6Sorry, but I'm gonna have to call Darwin's Finches on this one...
- mojotooth, on 01/21/2008, -0/+1Evolution didn't provide his Finches with opposable thumbs with which to answer your call. Perhaps they have bluetooth headsets?
- rabidmonkey1, on 01/22/2008, -0/+1Uhm... I don't...get...it? I know it's a joke but I can't tell if you're mocking me or evolution...
- mojotooth, on 01/21/2008, -0/+1Evolution didn't provide his Finches with opposable thumbs with which to answer your call. Perhaps they have bluetooth headsets?
- tomrlutong, on 01/21/2008, -13/+5What do you mean by "environmental factors causing a physical change in animals?" In this case, the environmental factor is getting shot, and the physical change is getting dead. The poachers aren't running around filing down elephant tusks.
- evanbooth, on 01/21/2008, -4/+1Why is this getting dugg down? Did you guys even read this?
- Vektuz, on 01/21/2008, -0/+4Yes. It shows that he didn't understand it. The hunters were targetting elephants with large tusks, specifically, since they're worth more. Keep doing that long enough (for a few generations, which they have been doing) and the only genetic stock that will be available for breeding will be the ones with small tusks, as the ones with bigger tusks will be dead, and therefore not pass those large-tusk genes down.
Its simple elegant and clearly genetic.
Its not worth the risk to a poacher to attack a small tusked elephant (they have to weigh it against the probability of getting caught, etc)- evanbooth, on 01/21/2008, -0/+1Ahh... okay. That makes sense.
- bbjohnnyt, on 01/21/2008, -7/+2If that's the only way he/she can win a discussion, I'd like to officially ban brentinkc from Digg for being a censoring tool.
- cjhowe, on 01/21/2008, -10/+12Evolution is not a theory. Evolution is a fact, an observance, a data point. The theory is how evolution occurs. The theory is natural selection. Elephant tusks are simply another observance of evolution. Just like the color of moths during the industrial revolution in England.
- martinjd, on 01/21/2008, -1/+6Scientifically it is a theory - even the most adamant evolution supporting scientists will tell you that it can't be classified as a fact with any regards to scientific process.
- JackHarkness, on 01/22/2008, -0/+1theory > fact. A theory is a logical observation about a collection of facts
- cjhowe, on 01/22/2008, -0/+1The theory is NOT evolution. The theory is "The theory of evolution BY NATURAL SELECTION". The theory is on HOW it occurs, not IF.
- staffa, on 01/21/2008, -2/+3Dude, seriously, it's a theory.
- WPBLOL, on 01/21/2008, -2/+2Right, it's a theory - in the same way that gravity, relativity, and molecular orbitals are theories - that is, a theory in the scientific sense. What it isn't is a theory in the popular sense of the word - i.e. a conjecture.
- staffa, on 01/21/2008, -0/+2Sure, it is a theory in the scientific sense, IE, with thousands of pages of data and a meticulously created body of supporting evidence. Unlike a common conjecture. However, it is not a fact, by any definition of the word.
- WPBLOL, on 01/21/2008, -2/+2Right, it's a theory - in the same way that gravity, relativity, and molecular orbitals are theories - that is, a theory in the scientific sense. What it isn't is a theory in the popular sense of the word - i.e. a conjecture.
- RedHerringHack, on 01/21/2008, -1/+3Evolution is a huge collection of facts and hypothesis. It's not one fact, it's all of them. Proof after proof after proof times hundreds of thousands. It's ok with me if you want to be a fool, however. There is enough proof of evolution that you would be convicted and executed if it was a murder trial.
- workplacerant, on 01/31/2008, -0/+0I'd like to see the proof.
Sorry, but I don't see how the size of elephant's tusks proves evolution. It may support the theory of natural selection, but it is not evidence of evolution.
Fortunately for you there is "proof after proof times hundreds of thousands" so you can just point me in the right direction and satisfy my curiosity. Much appreciated.
- martinjd, on 01/21/2008, -1/+6Scientifically it is a theory - even the most adamant evolution supporting scientists will tell you that it can't be classified as a fact with any regards to scientific process.
- martinjd, on 01/21/2008, -0/+8Microevolution is "a change at or below species level." Unless you're trying to argue that smaller tusks = new species, then microevolution is exactly what we're talking about.
- WPBLOL, on 01/21/2008, -3/+2"Microevolution" is a ***** creationist buzzword. Both it and "macroevolution" (which real biologists call speciation) are produced by the same phenomenon, which is shifts in allele frequencies in a population of animals. Oh and by the way, speciation has been observed in the lab and the wild.
Seriously, why is this such a big deal for creationists? Why the disingenuous crap about saying it's factually untrue? Just say "I have faith that it's all God's doing and His plan" or something like that. Faith is your strong suit anyway, stick with that.- martinjd, on 01/21/2008, -0/+1Well, exactly as I said above, MIcroevolution is a change a the sub species level. This happens all the time - creationism, ID, and evolution all support this. Evolution just takes it a step further and maintains that a series of microevolutions can result in a macroevolution (a change in species). Macroevolution is where the real debate is - but for the love of mercy, please don't join in.
- init100, on 01/22/2008, -0/+1@martinjd
"Macroevolution is where the real debate is"
Actually, it isn't much of a debate at all. It is just creationists that try to make it look like a hotly contested issue, to fit in with their claims that "evolution is a theory in trouble" and that "more and more scientists are abandoning it". - workplacerant, on 01/31/2008, -0/+0Please provide examples of where speciation has been observed in the wild or a lab. There are a lot of posts about evolution being a fact, but none of them point to the evidence. Clearly a change in tusk size on an elephant isn't speciation, but I'm led to believe by the posts this is just the tip of the iceberg. I want to see the iceberg.
Frankly, I see a lot of unfounded criticism of creationists: they're stupid, illogical, disingenuous, etc. It's not very convincing and sounds like defensive posturing.
Finally, can someone explain the zealous willingness to agree with conclusions derived from the scientific method? I understand the intent is to reach objective conclusions, but I have run many scientific experiments with results that still required interpretation. That interpretation is always subjected to our own heuristics. Is it because the claimant is an "ordained" scientist that their results are taken as fact?
- WPBLOL, on 01/21/2008, -3/+2"Microevolution" is a ***** creationist buzzword. Both it and "macroevolution" (which real biologists call speciation) are produced by the same phenomenon, which is shifts in allele frequencies in a population of animals. Oh and by the way, speciation has been observed in the lab and the wild.
- TheBlackNinja, on 01/21/2008, -0/+2I guess it's a TINY bit of a problem.
- jvnane, on 01/21/2008, -3/+3MICROEVOLUTION!!!
- KickinitLegit, on 01/24/2008, -1/+1TIMMAAAAAY!!!
- Zbrah, on 01/21/2008, -5/+5Sorry retard, microevolution is a word which is used to differentiate between two types of evolution. Microevolution is a fact, it's been observed. Macroevolution is not a fact, it's a theory, it is not observable. I'm not saying it's not possible or that it didn't happen...but everyone seems to enjoy getting hyped up on here on how macroevolution isn't a theory, which is in no way, shape, or form a logically defensible position. Until a species is recorded to be visibly mutating into another species, macroevoltion will remain a theory.
- standxstrongx, on 01/21/2008, -3/+3Gravitation is also a theory, but no one tries to refute that, do they? What about atomic theory? Cell theory? Most people just don't understand how the word "theory" is generally treated in the scientific community.
- OUChevelleSS, on 01/21/2008, -3/+2Shut up with your understanding of what a theory is. I suspect you're a high school Taco Bell employee just parroting what he hears on Digg.
- init100, on 01/22/2008, -0/+1@OUChevelleSS
Why should he shut up? He is correct. - t3soro, on 01/22/2008, -2/+1you can observe gravity, you can't observe macroevolution (in any sensible time). big difference.
- tattertech, on 01/28/2008, -0/+1t3soro... If you can go ahead and prove gravitation, let us know. There's a nobel peace prize in it for you.
- MarkKezner, on 01/21/2008, -0/+4Micro and macro evolution are two sides of the same coin. Macro is the long term result of a series of micro-evolutionary changes. You can't really believe in one without implying the presence of the other.
I don't think either is an accepted scientific term. A more accurate description is evolution and speciation. - MaskedSlacker, on 01/22/2008, -0/+1Sorry to burst your bubble, but we are observing it. Savanna and Hamadras Baboons.
- loveandrockets, on 01/22/2008, -0/+1Millions of facts add up to make the Theory of Evolution.
- ldailey06, on 01/22/2008, -0/+22008 and there are still people in this country who are confused about the term theory.
Do us all a favor and hit the back button, this material is way too complicated for you.
- standxstrongx, on 01/21/2008, -3/+3Gravitation is also a theory, but no one tries to refute that, do they? What about atomic theory? Cell theory? Most people just don't understand how the word "theory" is generally treated in the scientific community.
- Ductapemaster, on 01/21/2008, -4/+2As described by the title, this is actually not evolution...the Elephants didn't evolve smaller tusks because of poaching, the poachers killed off many of the elephants with larger tusks, thus causing less of them to reproduce and have offspring with larger tusks. Also, the population with smaller tusks is now becoming the majority because they can reproduce more, due to the fact poachers aren't killing them. What you described there was the theory of need, which isn't true.
- Abaddon1125, on 01/22/2008, -0/+5Um... that's evolution by natural selection that you just described there, fella.
- MaskedSlacker, on 01/22/2008, -0/+2thats exactly how evolution by natural selection works buddy. Thats a very good summary of it.
- ldailey06, on 01/22/2008, -1/+0You say it's not evolution and then proceed to argue that it is evolution.
Did you take 10th grade English?
- OUChevelleSS, on 01/21/2008, -0/+2What? Environmental factors do NOT cause physical changes in organisms. That's the whole point of evolution! The idea is that certain phenotypes prevail in an environment and that genotype becomes predominant. You have it backwards, basically.
- jefferygomer, on 01/21/2008, -0/+1I would also like to preface (Little late) the following:
Evolution is not Abiogenesis.
Which means evolution, despite the name of Darwin's book, it is not about the origin of species. There is no scientific consensus on how life began.- MaskedSlacker, on 01/22/2008, -0/+1Evolution is about the origin of species--as in the event of speciation. Its not about the origin of life.
- j1ggy, on 01/22/2008, -0/+1I wouldn't go as far as to call this evolution. Clearly the species has not evolved to avoid being hunted, the animals with large tusks have been mostly hunted out. However, if all you have left are animals with smaller tusks running around, the gene pool and future offspring will reflect this. Anyone who can't accept this must also not believe in dog breeding.
- Berkana, on 01/21/2008, -9/+101Forget about even environmental factors; selection, natural or artificial, results in inherited physical changes. Just look at any breed of dog. Basset hounds, pugs, great danes, and shar peis don't look anything like wolves. Nobody seriously doubts that selection pressures result in differences in inherited genes that result in physical differences. If they do, show them a dog, and show them any of our food crops and domesticated animals.
- DFENS, on 01/21/2008, -60/+211Natural selection in work.
Then again, intelligent design says god wanted smaller tusks so he created poachers to do it. Yeah. Logical.- Zarokima, on 01/21/2008, -63/+7It's not natural selection since we humans directly caused it. It's evolution, but not natural selection.
- bradallen18, on 01/21/2008, -5/+63actually wouldn't it be natural selection? We are not going out and trying to breed the elephants with smaller tusks. It is a result of the conditions in which they live in. That is natural selection.
- blqysmg, on 01/21/2008, -32/+1Natural Selection is Survival of the fittest. This was survival of the remaining, or Survival of the Luckiest. Does that count as natural selection? Don't know. It certainly does not fit the Darwinian credo that the more fit will win out over the lessor worthy animals.
- lgc90, on 01/21/2008, -0/+31"Fit" just means most able to survive in a particular environment. This environment happens to have had poachers who like to kill elephants with big tusks over the past 150 years.
- jj101, on 01/21/2008, -0/+15You don't understand natural selection. Survival of the fittest is a very simplistic description of a much more complicated process. Natural selection could be better summarised by the term "Replication of genetic memes through increased breeding of animals most suited to success in their environment". But it doesnt have quite the same ring to it does it?
- roodammy44, on 01/21/2008, -0/+8"Survival of the fittest" is a misunderstanding of darwin.
what it should be is "Survival of the most adaptable to the environment"
- deadmann, on 01/21/2008, -0/+17They are 'fitter' in not being the target of the predator. Fitter = better chance of survival in the environment.
- blqysmg, on 01/21/2008, -32/+1Natural Selection is Survival of the fittest. This was survival of the remaining, or Survival of the Luckiest. Does that count as natural selection? Don't know. It certainly does not fit the Darwinian credo that the more fit will win out over the lessor worthy animals.
- FizixMan, on 01/21/2008, -1/+40Yeah, 'cause you know... Humans exist outside the realm of "natural" and "evolution". Such petty things do not apply to us.
- jstone, on 01/21/2008, -6/+3DUH WE DO, CUZ THE BIBLE SAYS WE'RE SPECIAL!!1!11!1(/sarcasm, because there are too many here with broken detectors.)
- 4degrees, on 01/21/2008, -0/+3Xenu dropped us all here, of course we are not part of nature.
/sarcasm - jvnane, on 01/21/2008, -0/+1Idiocracy! reverse evolution applies to us
- xxxana, on 01/21/2008, -0/+12it is natural selection. Think of a location with alot of white rocks that has 1 species of caterpillars, but in that species there are caterpillars who are black with a little white, and some that are white with only a little black. The catterpillars who are more black will be more easily spotted by birds, whereas the white ones blend in with the environment. The blacks are more likely to be eaten by birds, which means that they cannot reproduce. Because of this, the white caterpillars will be in the majority, and when they reproduce, the chance of having a black caterpillar is lower. Eventually, most of the blacks will be extinct, but this gives the caterpillar population a higher chance of survival.
The same goes for the elephants. The ones with big tusks get killed, which means the ones with small tusks have more chance of reproduction. They pass on their "small tusk DNA" and this causes the majority of elephants to have small tusks.
Natural selection does not mean "the one with bigger weapons gets selected", it means "the ones with more chance of survival get selected". - killakan, on 01/21/2008, -2/+7No, dumbass. We are apart of nature. You think you are not part of nature, go live outside of the natural world. That means no food, no water, no air. Have fun and take the kiddies with you.
- pradador, on 01/22/2008, -0/+0I think you meant "We are A PART of nature.".
Apart means separate from.
- pradador, on 01/22/2008, -0/+0I think you meant "We are A PART of nature.".
- LeeSoong, on 01/21/2008, -1/+3Ah, ***** sapiens are part of nature,
I blame false religions for making people think they exists outside of nature.
At some point people forget they are born, live, reproduce, get sick, die, and get eaten by worms just like every other mammal on Earth...
Thank the Goddess!
http://www.kheper.net/topics/Gaia/goddess.htm
You are an organelle...
http://www.kheper.net/topics/Gaia/Gaia_Hypothesis. ... - CabesMojo, on 01/21/2008, -0/+2Not natural selection? This is one of the best examples of natural selection I have ever seen. Doesn't appear to me to really be proof of evolution though since there is no mutation changing the elephant into anything else. I guess it all comes down to where you draw the lines. If you looked at people from Biblical times and compared them to people today you would notice a dramatic height difference, now would that mean we've evolved into taller beings, our DNA would be identical, or does it mean that naturally taller people bred more efficiently and changes in diet allowed us to grow larger.
Its all a touchy questionable subject. I don't know how anyone can deny natural selection. I also don't understand how series of changes due to natural selection in many species and thus the evolution of that creature into a new species apparently disproves ID and the existence of God. Got me, honestly even being a Christian I've spent much more time looking into the theory of evolution then into theory's of creationism and ID. - alphasixtyone, on 01/21/2008, -0/+1you could call it artificial selection. Like breeding dogs is called artificial selection. he has a point somewhat.
- P5ycHo, on 01/21/2008, -1/+2***** Christ. Artificial selection is also evolution. Is it really so hard to grasp? It's all about external influences. Be it artificial or natural.
- bradallen18, on 01/21/2008, -5/+63actually wouldn't it be natural selection? We are not going out and trying to breed the elephants with smaller tusks. It is a result of the conditions in which they live in. That is natural selection.
- SmpleJohn, on 01/21/2008, -8/+13Umm, I'm pretty sure that would fit into some sort of pre-destination if you want to get theoretical about it. Intelligent design doesn't discredit science, just the origin of Earth. Natural selection clearly happens.
- jj101, on 01/21/2008, -6/+11Er... the entire point of ID is to discredit natural selection theory. Thats what it was created for. Obviously pre-destination, as you called it, is not ruled out by evolution. But its not ruled in either. As there is no evidence for a being that designed the universe (or the earth for that matter), you may as well be speculating about the giant quarter pounder with cheese that may be floating in orbit around a far away star. We are back to the same old argument about burden of proof. In science the burden lies on the party trying to prove something. There is no logical reason to be arguing that a party cant prove the non-existence of something - that just makes no sense.
- SmpleJohn, on 01/21/2008, -11/+2What about the thousands of witness' that saw Jesus Christ crucified, then alive three days later. And what about all of the miracles he performed. I know I'll most likely get dugg down for this, because there seems to be no faith beyond what we can see on this website, but had to throw it out here anyways.
- jj101, on 01/21/2008, -0/+7No I think thats a valid point. But if you put that in perspective it amounts to eye-witness testimony. Thats pretty unreliable in todays courts dealing with incidents that happened in very recent history. In terms of biblical incidents you are talking about information that has been described by a witness, at a time of very little medical/scientific understanding, translated and rewritten numerous times by various different people, most of whom had their own agenda and didnt even witness the incident (if they were even alive when it was supposed to have happened), and passed down to us over the course 2000 thousand odd years. That is hearsay of the highest order. To assume that it is true in any way is a serious leap of faith, which many people in todays world (myself included) are unable to take as truth on the say so of people who never witnessed it themselves..
- SmpleJohn, on 01/21/2008, -4/+1Should we go ahead and throw out all of the writings about Egypt, China, the Roman Empire then? Writings are all we have to go by, and back in the day people had a bit more integrity than the "reporters" do now. Getting things cut off or death was the punishment for making ***** up. And Christians had nothing to gain from believing what they saw. Remember, they were going against the government.
- xalif, on 01/21/2008, -4/+4@jj101, Just to point out, 99.9% of the people that believe in evolution (including me) believe it based purely on someone else's eye-witness testimony. Most of you have not run these experiments in a lab or actually seen these animals change. I personally have not measured the changes in elephants' tusk lengths. I have to have "faith" in the measurements and observations of the one performing the experiments (and "faith" that that person is not lying about it). Interestingly, everything you believe is really faith in what someone else says or faith in what you think you remember or have seen . Of course, it's easier to have faith when lots of people and educated scientist all claim the same results.
- jj101, on 01/21/2008, -0/+6@SimpleJohn - No I dont think we should throw out any historical text. Having said that I don't think we should treat any of them as absolute truth. The combination of lots of texts from different eras are used to construct the history of that time. Any historian will tell you that all sources are biased and incomplete on an individual level. I don't understand why you immediately jump to throwing out all texts from the times you mentioned - that is just trying to discredit a line of thinking by reducing it to the absurd and is not a logical counter argument.
PS. Your assumption that people only wrote the truth back then is firstly naive and secondly ignoring the fact that they could only write what they believed to be the truth - they may have been mistaken. - MrWally, on 01/21/2008, -2/+4I must say, xalif, that's one of the most intellectually objective posts I've ever seen on Digg.
- jj101, on 01/21/2008, -0/+5@xalif --Fair play mate. But in science theories have to put to the scientific community to be ratified and experiments have to reproducible. Unlike validating info from a 2000 year old book, you could, if you really wanted, go and measure the tasks for yourself. It snot hugely practical but it is an option.
Also, as much as you're right, science has a lot of proofs around that its theories and procedure for creating them, are sound. I am writing this comment on one and the method by which it will become available for you to read is another. So in everday life i encounter many instances and examples first hand of the validity of scientific theory - not just faith that what I've read and been told is true. - DFENS, on 01/21/2008, -1/+4@ xalif - i'm going to try to have a lively debate on Digg. I know - it shouldn't be possible, but i liked your point and thought it was worth responding to with my thoughts, which may be a purely semantics argument.
You speak of having faith in other peoples observations, and that we all have to take something on faith. I would disagree. I have 'reason to' believe certain peoples experiences over others. My example would be watchin the horrorshow that is Discovery Channel these days. I was watching a show on hauntings, and the woman was talking about how she saw satan in her home because the previous tenant had been a satan worshipper. I had no reason to believe her, so I didn't. However, a few shows later these guys were talking about the condiitions on the surface of jupiter.. I had reason to believe them - physicists who had spent their lives studying the subject have a great deal of pull, and their essential logic axioms I actually agree with.
This is why I am reticent to use the word 'faith' in regards to why I believe on person or another. Faith itself is actually the act of believing something against all logic. But nothing in the scientific community is against all logic - some things may be strange (string theory for one) but they are openly discussed and torn apart without anyone (except idiots) getting all butthurt. But having faith in something means you ahve no reason to believe it. And I just can't say that. I have reason to believe this article is accurate. If it were on Fox News I may have to take it with a bit of faith. To me, that's the difference. - sinrtb, on 01/21/2008, -0/+2What about all the witnesses who see Elvis? does that mean elvis is alive or that Elvis is Jesus?
- imperium2000, on 01/21/2008, -1/+5@xalif:
You are misusing the term "faith" Faith is the acceptance of a proposition without or inspite of evidence.
What you are talking about is "trust". Trust is evidence based belief. You trust scientists because they do not and are not likely to lie about their data(exceptions exists). You trust their conclusions because they are experts in their field. You trust(not have faith) in your friend because of all prior experience between you and your friend. - johnnysaucepn, on 01/21/2008, -1/+4Accepting someone else's test results is indeed an act of trust, but with all published results, the methodology is also given, so you can check the reasoning and reproduce the results. I personally haven't, but I know I could.
- martinjd, on 01/21/2008, -0/+1I can't help but feel that taking a stance on evolution requires about the same level of faith as the biblical narrative. I can certainly see how it's easier to answer where humans directly came from with evolution - a lot of the evidence really does fit the evolutionary model. But ultimately the question remains of where it started. You can trace it back to microbial organisms or dust floating around in a vacuum, but even that had to come from somewhere.
I always thought that the "big bang" was one of the more desperate theories. Scientists pontificate on the evolutionary process - but when they have to answer how it all began, the best they can come up with is some inexplicable explosion. It's when you get back into the true origins of things that you have to take a stance on faith one way or the other. Either you believe without reason that some explosion defied all laws of physics and resulted in all of this, or you believe that some inexplicable, eternal Being spoke it into existence.
This is by far one of the most interesting discussions I've followed on here. - imperium2000, on 01/21/2008, -0/+3@martij:
That was essentially an irrelevant argument and is wrong. It does not address any criticism on evolution at all and instead attacks a "straw man" of the Big Bang Theory.
Your argument basically boils down to " Evolution does not address origins and the Big Bang is ridiculous therefore God must have made the cosmos".
Evolution does not address origins: That is like complaining that chemistry does not address particle physics. Evolution studies the change in life once it has already exists. It does not attempt to figure how life started(ABIOGENESIS, PANSPERMIA etc.) and definitely does not bother look at the origins of the cosmos(COSMOLOGY).
Big Bang: Your statement about the big bang is patently false. The Big Bang is NOT an explosion nor was it made up. It is based on various observations and is actually supported by physics. The Big Bang
is the expansion of space and time and is NOT an explosion. Again and again various predictions are made and again and again telescopes find these predictions to be true(microwave background radiation, expansion etc.).
Question: Where did this Being come from? What created this Being? What mechanism did this Being use to create the cosmos? - jj101, on 01/21/2008, -0/+3@ martinjd - I see what you're saying. Natural selection though - the process that leads to evolution - is not supposed to explain the origins of life, it explains the current diversity of life.
The origins of life on earth are not explained, or even addressed, by natural selection. If you think of natural selection as the process of driving between 2 cities for example. Saying natural selection doesn't account for the origin of life is like saying the directions are wrong because we didn't specify the founder of one of the cities. Its irrelevant. No matter how the city came into existence the directions are the same.
As far as the big bang goes clearly this is on of the bleeding edge of science. There is a lot of evidence that the universe has expanded form a single point however and I would hesitate before claiming that believing sciences best explanation is "without reason". Also the big bang theory only breaks any of the laws of physics in the first fractions of a second. So the model fits pretty well. - martinjd, on 01/21/2008, -0/+1@imperium My comment was not a criticism on evolution, but rather suggesting that a belief in evolution itself requires an element of faith as well. I suppose I was tying the big bang in a little too closely with the theory of the evolution. It's true that they are separate theories and don't attempt to answer the same question. At the same time, however, Evolution is a process, and as any other requires a start. The Big Bang is generally offered as this start. As far as this "Being".. my whole point is that it comes down to a matter of faith. Inasmuch as the belief in an eternal Being is a matter of faith, so does a belief in the Big Bang.
@jj101 I follow your founder/directions analogy, but I'm not sure it's valid. I think that the matters of the founding of and directions to a city are much more disjoint than the matters of origins and progression(evolution). As I mentioned above, Evolution is a process and requires a start. When I say "without reason" I merely mean that it defies logic and physics for everything to come from nothing - even if only for "fractions of a second."
In the Biblical account of creation, the answers for what we see today fall into place quite easily. The real struggle concerns the existence of a Creator in the first place. What I mean is, if you can take the step of faith and believe in this Creator, then it's easy to believe that He also created all that we see. A belief in evolution I would contend is much the same. What we see today also fits in well with the model of evolution, yet there's still the struggle of how it all began. Every effect has a cause, and that's where a purely scientific explanation falls short on the matter of origins. Sooner or later there has to be that FIRST cause. Yet (to belabor the point just a smidgen further) that first cause, too, would need a cause. It all just brings me around to my first point that sooner or later you're gonna have to possess some faith if you want to accept any notion of origins. - imperium2000, on 01/21/2008, -0/+3@martinj:
Well evolution is a process that explains the change of life. Just because it does not go back to answer creation, does not in any way invalidate it.
And please stop using the "Big Bang" requires faith argument. The Big Bang Theory is built from evidence, observations and theoretical physics, it was not made up. Faith is the acceptance of a proposition without or in spite of evidence, the Big Bang Theory has evidence.
I have no problem if someone has the philosophical position of a creation or Intelligent design but keep it a personal philosophy and do not attempt to claim this as a fact or science. The problem is that many ID and Creationist groups are attempting to forcibly teach this non-scientific as science. That is detrimental to science and therefore I oppose such dishonesty. - martinjd, on 01/22/2008, -0/+1@imperium2000 In the first place I wasn't arguing ID or creationism from a scientific standpoint. I clearly stated that it comes down to faith. And I would love to see this evidence for the "Big Bang." At best there's evidence that simply doesn't contradict it. Even in the scenario where every bit of data points to the universe expanding, this falls way short of explaining how an entire universe is spawned from nothing. The Big Bang is explicitly a theory of origins. If that is to be explained scientifically, then it must follow scientific principles. Nothing observable or even theoretical has given a reasonable explanation for how something comes from nothing, or even how something inanimate could become life.
- imperium2000, on 01/22/2008, -0/+3The Big Bang Theory is supported by multiple observations. Wikipedia has a decent explanation of what is is and what the evidence is.
However, it is implicitly false that the Big Bang Theory even remotely states that something comes from nothing. The basic issue with the Big Bang is that science does not know what was before the big bang. That's it. For all we know something may have existed before the event. However, it is irrational to claim something did not didn't exist prior to the event just because we don't know. You can't make a claim without evidence, just as science can't tell you what happened before the Big Bang because we don't know.
Many scientific theories show the validity of life from non-life(Abiogenesis). The Miller-Urey Experiment show the plausibility of organic compounds coming from inorganic compounds. It showed amino acids can come from methane and electricity(lightning). Amino acids can be found in deep space and asteroids as well. From here, we have self-replicating enzymes and "sub-life" organic compounds that could become life, although this field of study is not well studied.
So the origins of the cosmos rest on the basic presumptions evidence based Big Bang Theory Vs. a Faith based belief in a "creation" by some unknown "being". - martinjd, on 01/22/2008, -0/+1Well imperial - it's been fun, but i gotta call it a night. I gotta say I appreciate a sane debate on here, compared to the inane junior high level insults that tend to be the norm. I suppose it's foolish trying to argue a centuries old debate online, but its definitely a stimulating topic.
I guess at the end of the day I'd still have to object to calling the abstract theories supporting the Big Bang as "evidence." Even the theorists themselves will admit that they're intrinsically isogetical. And even many of these theories are being dismissed as red shifting observations become more advanced. But supposing a sound theory for the Big Bang is developed, there'll still be that nagging cause/effect problem in my mind. If the Unvierse is B, then A has gotta be something pretty darn spectacular. - ApokalypseNow, on 01/22/2008, -0/+2@martinjd
That's the problem - the evidence for the Big Bang is far more substantial than just "abstract theories". If all we had were vague ideas that we tossed around and decided that X sounded good, and went with that, we'd be no better than the creationists who believe what their books tell them without a shred of evidence. That would not be science. - martinjd, on 01/22/2008, -0/+1@ApokalypseNow Evidence for the big bang IS limited to abstract theories. I say abstract due to the vague descriptions concerning the true mechanisms behind the process, and theories because there is little evidence that could be considered support. As I said before, observations (primarily regarding red shifting) do fit into some of these theories, but many of these theories (which were widely accepted half a decade ago) had to be dismissed when red shifting detection was improved. And saying there's not a "shred" of evidence supporting creationism is definitely ignorant. There are many evidences out there that support a young earth.
- ApokalypseNow, on 01/22/2008, -0/+3Observational evidence for the Big Bang includes the analysis of the spectrum of light from galaxies, which reveal a shift towards longer wavelengths proportional to each galaxy's distance in a relationship described by Hubble's law. Combined with the evidence that observers located anywhere in the universe make similar observations (the Copernican principle), this suggests that space itself is expanding. The next most important observational evidence was the discovery of cosmic microwave background radiation in 1964. This had been predicted as a relic from when hot ionized plasma of the early universe first cooled sufficiently to form neutral hydrogen and allow space to become transparent to light, and its discovery led to general acceptance among physicists that the Big Bang is the best model for the origin and evolution of the universe. A third important line of evidence is the relative proportion of light elements in the universe, which is a close match to predictions for the formation of light elements in the first minutes of the universe, according to Big Bang nucleosynthesis.
This is a long way from simply "abstract theory". This is evidence, peer reviewed and accepted. No other cosmological theory can yet explain such a wide range of parameters, from the ratio of the elemental abundances in the early Universe to the structure of the cosmic microwave background, the observed higher abundance of active galactic nuclei in the early Universe and the observed masses of clusters of galaxies. You may only know vague descriptions for the mechanisms and processes involved, but the physicists and cosmologists actually involved in the study need more than just "vague wording" or else they'd be out of jobs.
So, what evidence, exactly, do you have for a young earth, and exactly how young are we talking? NASA's WMAP showed, through measuring the cosmic microwave background radiation, that the universe is 13.7 billion years old (within 1% error). Can you refute this?
- zaptoman, on 01/21/2008, -6/+1Exactly. Reproducible, falsifiable. These things are the cornerstones of science. Yet evolution theory is neither. Why do you call it science?
- jj101, on 01/21/2008, -2/+1"Reproducible, falsifiable." Er...what? Get a dictionary. Then get a school biology textbook.
- imperium2000, on 01/21/2008, -0/+3Evolution's OBSERVATIONS are reproducible and falsifiable.
So what was your point? - martinjd, on 01/21/2008, -2/+1@imperium2000 Observing the same thing over and over is not the same as reproducing. Observation is subject to error - that's why the scientific process requires more.
- imperium2000, on 01/21/2008, -1/+3Which would mean you've invalidated all sciences that relies on non-lab based observations including cosmology, particle physics, epidemiology, history, paleontology, geology, economics, etc.
Reproducible means that a specific facet of a hypotheses including an observation can be reproduce, not necessarily the process itself. Finding one fossil of one specific age is a single observation, having hundreds of a similar fossils that ALL date to the time period points to that fossil dating from that time period ie. reproducibility. It is falsified if we find a fossil from a differing time period.
BTW: Even if something is reproducible in a lab, that requires a observations and is therefore also flawed? - martinjd, on 01/22/2008, -0/+1@imperium2000 I'm not invalidating non-lab science. I'm just saying that observing non-controlled "experiments" or events can't be considered as reliable. There's too many unknown factors. While one scientist is determining the age of a fossil based on it's sedimentary location, another finds a petrified stump that spans so called millions of years worth of sedimentary deposits. Perplexes the mind, but we weren't there, didn't see it happen, and so we need to be extra careful.
- imperium2000, on 01/22/2008, -0/+2That is false. While historical observations can be considered less reliable compared to lab evidence, it is a valid form of evidence if multiple similar observations are seen. There are many unknowns in evolution and granted there are many unknowns that is essentially a "God of Gaps" Fallacy and Argument from Ignorance. That has been an argument even from Darwin's time and as these gaps are closed, the goal post is moved. Many of these "gaps" can be found in the website below.
Your sedimentary deposit statement is known to scientists and have been debunked:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/polystrate/trees.h ... - imperium2000, on 01/22/2008, -0/+2Sorry: Proper link http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/polystrate/trees.h ...
- martinjd, on 01/22/2008, -0/+1The problem has hardly been debunked. What happened was when the polystrate trees were found, everyone admitted that the appearance of multiple stratas that had entombed the trees were really rapidly deposited sedimentary layers. The problem is that evolutionary scientists only disregard data gathered from those immediate locations (where said polystrate trees were found). They refuse, however, to consider that these findings discredit data gathered in other locations (where the polystrate trees/fossils don't exist/haven't been found). That is the core issue of polystrate trees - that sedimentary level dating techniques are unreliable.
- herojon, on 01/21/2008, -3/+6The enitre point of ID is to discredit natural selection? The ID idea has been around much longer than the natural selection idea. How can an idea that came first have the sole purpose of discrediting an idea that didn't exist yet?
- imperium2000, on 01/21/2008, -0/+5*****.
Old Earth Creationism is the old philosophical belief system you are talking about. Intelligent Design is a belief that exist solely by attacking evolution and propping up the "God of the Gaps" fallacy. It was created by Creationist to as a wedge issue. - martinjd, on 01/21/2008, -1/+1Good point herojon. Intelligent Design is a repackaged version of the Bible's creation account, minus the religious components (to the extent that that's possible). It's a new name with a new wave of support, but it is certainly not a response to evolution.
- jj101, on 01/21/2008, -0/+4@imperium2000 - Exactly.
@martinjd and herojon - Nonsence. ID is entirely a response to evolution. Creationism makes no use of science - it is literal interpretation of genesis. ID is a pseudo scientific attempt to fit observable data to the creationist viewpoint. An entirely unscientific exercise.
- imperium2000, on 01/21/2008, -0/+5*****.
- SmpleJohn, on 01/21/2008, -11/+2What about the thousands of witness' that saw Jesus Christ crucified, then alive three days later. And what about all of the miracles he performed. I know I'll most likely get dugg down for this, because there seems to be no faith beyond what we can see on this website, but had to throw it out here anyways.
- jj101, on 01/21/2008, -6/+11Er... the entire point of ID is to discredit natural selection theory. Thats what it was created for. Obviously pre-destination, as you called it, is not ruled out by evolution. But its not ruled in either. As there is no evidence for a being that designed the universe (or the earth for that matter), you may as well be speculating about the giant quarter pounder with cheese that may be floating in orbit around a far away star. We are back to the same old argument about burden of proof. In science the burden lies on the party trying to prove something. There is no logical reason to be arguing that a party cant prove the non-existence of something - that just makes no sense.
- GorfTron, on 01/21/2008, -0/+26No No, this is just fashion change. Baggy pants are out and short tusks are in.
- Tyrghast, on 01/21/2008, -20/+5the term all of you are missing is 'Artificial Selection'.
- noahhoward, on 01/21/2008, -0/+13No, the poachers are not going out into the wild and selectively breeding elephants. Elephants are being preyed upon and the ones that survive breed. That is natural selection.
- anslem1701, on 01/21/2008, -0/+1I don't think natural nor artificial selection are defined by intent. Man's accidental participation in such evolutionary processes automatically create the "artificial" selection. If, for some reason, the elephants with larger tusks were not breeding as much due to, say, an increase in some other animal preferring the larger tusked animals, then that would be natural selection. Unless I'm mistaken, which I may be, anytime humans are the cause, it is artificial selection...
- Syphon8, on 01/21/2008, -0/+2Some other animal, LIKE HUMANS? WHOA!
- danormsby, on 01/21/2008, -0/+5Why is human action referred to as artificial? Would just 'Selection' do?
- Arkaris01, on 01/21/2008, -1/+2Artificial Selection means that humans created the outcomes in controlled settings. I am on the fence on whether this is Artificial or not. Was the desired outcome that elephants will have smaller tusks? No. But was it a foreseeable outcome? Yes.
Good example of true Artificial Selection is if you plant corn. The next season you take the largest pieces of corn and plant them. The next year the pieces of corn on each cob will be larger on average than the previous year. After this process for awhile though, eventually you reach a genetic level in which the pieces of corn will not get any bigger.
Another example is miniature rabbits, you breed the smallest of the smalls, and eventually you can only get so small before they just don't get any smaller. Miniature rabbits are so cute. (friend used to work in a pet store and did this)
The above two examples prove artificial selection, the elephant case, if I was forced to make a decision right now, I would say it's not. I would say it has arrived due the desires of man. The only thing I can say is it does not fall into the realm of "Macroevolution" yet. One species or kind has not evolved into another species or kind.
- Arkaris01, on 01/21/2008, -1/+2Artificial Selection means that humans created the outcomes in controlled settings. I am on the fence on whether this is Artificial or not. Was the desired outcome that elephants will have smaller tusks? No. But was it a foreseeable outcome? Yes.
- Battousai778, on 01/21/2008, -0/+2regardless this is still irrefutable evidence of evolutions existence. poachers hunt the large tusk elephants so the ones with shorter tusks end up producing the seed for offspring. its natural selection in a nutshell whether its caused by humans or not
- ApokalypseNow, on 01/22/2008, -0/+1I applaud your enthusiasm, but just remember that the only science in which there exists "proof" is math - everything else requires evidence. It would be more accurate to say that this is further corroborating evidence for evolution, to add to the preponderance of evidence we already have. This would also be a good example of evolution in action, what with the whole "Scientific Theory and Fact" dichotomy of evolution.
- noahhoward, on 01/21/2008, -0/+13No, the poachers are not going out into the wild and selectively breeding elephants. Elephants are being preyed upon and the ones that survive breed. That is natural selection.
- killakan, on 01/21/2008, -6/+9Um, no. ID says that if god wanted smaller tusks, there would be smaller tusks.
- sodoh, on 01/21/2008, -10/+2God works in mysterious ways. :) Eg. Look how a rabbit eats.
- digioi, on 01/21/2008, -0/+4I think I'm missing something.. I thought rabbits eat with their mouths.
- sodoh, on 01/21/2008, -10/+2God works in mysterious ways. :) Eg. Look how a rabbit eats.
- nrobert2, on 01/21/2008, -10/+4I'm not so sure that is the case. Though there are many "species" of ID, the overarching theme is that God set the whole thing in motion. The rest is up for debate and discovery. Evolution or no, go back far enough (before the Big Bang) and there was either something there that started it all, or you no-prime-mover-evolutionists have some 'splainin' to do.
- carpespasm, on 01/21/2008, -2/+5That would be a question for the origin of the universe, not the origin of species. Intelligent Design by definition claims that there are functions in life that could not have come about by trial and error like evolution, so they must have come about by a designer.
- theycallmebubba, on 01/22/2008, -0/+1Correct. Things such as the force of gravity, the cosmological constant, our position in the solar system and galaxy, our moon, our axis of rotation, our distance from the sun, its characteristics, size, and type, our atmosphere, planetary composition, oxygen ratio, air replenishing system, food, waste and energy systems... you mean THOSE functions? Let me ask you this, then: If you left home in the morning for work, and came back at 5pm to find that your computer inexplicably had a Notepad document onscreen that read "Hope you had a great day, honey. I just left to grab some groceries to make dinner, be back in an hour or so. Love you!", what would you assume?
1) Some rogue virus has inexplicably infected your system (even though you have Vista), commandeered Notepad, and left you a strange message followed by an endearing statement.
2) Your tech-savvy wife has activated the computer, opened an application, and typed you a quick note to let you know what's going on.
It's ironic to me that we so readily cry 'Wow, what a beautiful design. Those guys are geniuses, I tell you!' (usually) when Apple releases a new product, but when presented with an unimaginably complex and fine-tuned machine such as the human mind or the components of sub-atomic particles, we gawk at those who credit Intelligence as the cause. Harrison Ford couldn't make the leap of faith required to arrive at such conclusions, in my opinion. But feel free to disagree - being the unprecedented intricacy that it is, your mind is free to form its own conclusions. Think about it, however - the odds of just ONE of the factors I mentioned at the beginning being what they are would be something like one in ten followed by fifty-three zeroes. Then add all the rest, with equally - and far worse - odds of ever being right, let alone all at once.
- theycallmebubba, on 01/22/2008, -0/+1Correct. Things such as the force of gravity, the cosmological constant, our position in the solar system and galaxy, our moon, our axis of rotation, our distance from the sun, its characteristics, size, and type, our atmosphere, planetary composition, oxygen ratio, air replenishing system, food, waste and energy systems... you mean THOSE functions? Let me ask you this, then: If you left home in the morning for work, and came back at 5pm to find that your computer inexplicably had a Notepad document onscreen that read "Hope you had a great day, honey. I just left to grab some groceries to make dinner, be back in an hour or so. Love you!", what would you assume?
- PhoenixAvatar2, on 01/21/2008, -1/+1I don't believe they have to be mutually exclusive though. Who's to say that God or whoever didn't set it all up and then hit the "go" button on the big bang and let it all play out. Kind of like setting up a dominoes set.
- cranium, on 01/21/2008, -0/+3William of Ockham.
- johnnysaucepn, on 01/21/2008, -0/+1First, you have to give a definition of 'before' that doesn't reference anything in the time/space continuum. It's like looking for the other side of the Moebius loop
- P5ycHo, on 01/21/2008, -0/+1So you are saying that everyting ever written about religion is false, & the big bang was triggered by god?
Now, I totally agree with the first part. It's all a farce.
You could be right about the big bang created by God (even the pope suggested it. saw it on discovery). However, it all depends on you definition of God. If you're definition is the classic one, I would disagree.
However, there's no proof, so instead of reading some 2000 year old book again, We could just try to find out more via science. - ApokalypseNow, on 01/22/2008, -0/+1There *is* no "before" the Big Bang. At the moment of the bang itself, all the energy that would eventually coalesce into the matter of the universe was contained in a volumeless point. No volume meaning no space. What with the interrelationship of space and time, ie. spacetime, that means there was also no time. Thus, you can't have a "before" there, since time only existed at the moment of the bang. You cannot place a temporal quantifier like "before" onto a frame of reference where that continuum does not exist.
- carpespasm, on 01/21/2008, -2/+5That would be a question for the origin of the universe, not the origin of species. Intelligent Design by definition claims that there are functions in life that could not have come about by trial and error like evolution, so they must have come about by a designer.
- smacksaw, on 01/21/2008, -8/+5Hey, now it is possible that God created the Earth 5000 years ago, made monkeys and we evolved from them in as little as 150 years!
You know...just to clarify about ID - most Christians believe in evolution EXCEPT that we evolved from monkeys. The missing link?- AntiScurvyLg, on 01/21/2008, -2/+5As a Christian myself, I wouldn't even say that *most* Christians believe that the earth was created 5000 years ago, nor that we didn't evolve from monkeys or whatever else.
Leave that sort of thinking to the fundies, and don't lump us all in with them. A majority of us think logically, and aren't backwater bumpkins.- P5ycHo, on 01/21/2008, -3/+2Why not? Are your being selective of what parts of Christianity you believe in?
Why not drop the whole god thing while you're at it?
You'll live free and happy.- Daniel591992, on 01/21/2008, -0/+1Because he doesn't want to. Think of that?
- P5ycHo, on 01/21/2008, -3/+2Why not? Are your being selective of what parts of Christianity you believe in?
- skinfitz, on 01/21/2008, -1/+7Evolutionists also do not 'believe' that we evolved from monkeys, because we didn't.
We did not evolve from monkeys in the same way that you are not the child of your sibling. You both however have the same ancestor.- trogdoor, on 01/21/2008, -1/+5Don't fall into their trap by using words created by creationists, 'Evolutionists' = 'Scientists' or 'Rational people' .
- AntiScurvyLg, on 01/21/2008, -2/+5As a Christian myself, I wouldn't even say that *most* Christians believe that the earth was created 5000 years ago, nor that we didn't evolve from monkeys or whatever else.
- stonewaljacksn, on 01/21/2008, -5/+11Digg atheists on the offensive with no provocation, Nice.
stop making us all look like Dawkins worshipping douchebags please.- computergod, on 01/21/2008, -4/+2Agreed, Dawkins' fanbois make us look bad, just like fundie Christians make them look bad.
- TomKNJ, on 01/21/2008, -9/+2Excuse me, idiot, but that's not natural selection--it's artificial selection. No one doubts artificial selection--it's how we, for example, breed race horses. But to argue that a discreet example of artificial selection proves that natural selection is the one and only mechanism of evolution is just stupid.
And, for the record, I believe in evolution and natural selection. I'm just tired of idiots who don't understand the complex issues surrounding Darwinism claiming to be intellectually superior to critics of Darwinism. That's dogmatism, not science.- shodanx, on 01/21/2008, -0/+2funny, I thought humans were part of nature
- Vektuz, on 01/21/2008, -0/+4Its still natural selection, even if people are doing it. Natural selection occurs when some creatures are more likely or more efficient at passing their genetic material down to the next generation. It says nothing about the reason why. In this case, the ones with large tusks died (due to poaching) and were unable to create the next generation. So its a prime example of natural selection.
- TomKNJ, on 01/21/2008, -1/+0Sorry, you're incorrect. Of course some creatures are "more likely or more efficient at passing their genetic material down to the next generation." That's not "natural selection," that's simply a fact. Natural selection goes a lot further and says: (1) that "efficiency" is based on environmental factors (not simply chance); (2) that "efficiency" leads to a species better adapting to its environment over time; and, (3) the cumulative effect of such adaptations is the creation of new species.
The claim that "its still natural selection, even if people are doing it" is simply nonsensical. "Natural selection," as the term was used by Darwin and Alfred Russell Wallace, certainly did not allow for decision making by human beings (because human being did not exist for 99.9% of evolutionary time).
- TomKNJ, on 01/21/2008, -1/+0Sorry, you're incorrect. Of course some creatures are "more likely or more efficient at passing their genetic material down to the next generation." That's not "natural selection," that's simply a fact. Natural selection goes a lot further and says: (1) that "efficiency" is based on environmental factors (not simply chance); (2) that "efficiency" leads to a species better adapting to its environment over time; and, (3) the cumulative effect of such adaptations is the creation of new species.
- sleepwalkers, on 01/21/2008, -0/+2Humans were not aiming to breed elephants with smaller tusks. Hell, they weren't aiming to breed different elephants, period. Simply because it's caused by humans does not mean it's artificial selection.
If it were lions doing the same thing as the poachers, you'd consider it to be "natural selection."- TomKNJ, on 01/21/2008, -2/+0Yes, if lions were doing it it would be considered natural selection because: (1) they are natural predators; and, (2) they are not intelligent beings.
True, it may have been unintentional artificial selection, but it certainly was not natural selection.
- TomKNJ, on 01/21/2008, -2/+0Yes, if lions were doing it it would be considered natural selection because: (1) they are natural predators; and, (2) they are not intelligent beings.
- P5ycHo, on 01/21/2008, -0/+2artificial selection, natural selection. They are ALL evolutionn.
It caused a creature to evolve to better coop with it's new environment.
- Tommyhawk, on 01/21/2008, -1/+1I think ID would say that God designed the elephants to have smaller tusks so less of them would get poached... Because its obviously much too convenient for that to have happened by chance alone.
- P5ycHo, on 01/21/2008, -0/+1So God put animal (elephant) before man (poacher). That doesn't sound like god to me. More like the FSM.
- martinjd, on 01/21/2008, -2/+3Intelligent Design allows fully for microevolution. It just doesn't allow for interspecies change. But if you get you offs by making crap up, don't let me stop you.
- P5ycHo, on 01/21/2008, -0/+3You haven't included the time factor of several hundred million years in your calculations on microevolution.
- martinjd, on 01/21/2008, -1/+2But if you start with the fundamental belief that changes from microevolution (changes in coloration, dimensions, etc) don't span interspecies characteristics, then even an infinite number of microevolutions will still result in a creature of the same species as the first. Right now the trillion dollar find would be an example of microevolution that results in a new species.
- ApokalypseNow, on 01/22/2008, -0/+2Examine the Panthera genus - lots of different big cats, lions, tigers, panthers, etc. These animals are all seperate species, but they are not so far removed from their common ancestor so as to be genetically incompatible. Yes, these animals can produce hybrid offspring! And what's more, that offspring is not always sterile either! The same can be said of horses, donkeys, and zebras. However, common house cats cannot mate with the big jungle cats - those kitties are too genetically divergent from their common ancestor so as to produce an offspring.
So, looking at those animals, it is plain to see that they are related, have common ancestry, and yet are still separate species.
For other good examples of new species being created from small changes, check out:
http://www.genomenewsnetwork.org/articles/04_00/is ... - martinjd, on 01/22/2008, -0/+1@ ApokalypseNow However in the context of this debate, the "common ancestry" is what is being called into question - and can't simply be asserted. I'm not opposed to the idea that a series of microevolutions (even on the genetic level) could produce a genetically divergent ancestor (although I'd maintain of the same species). And the point has become somewhat irrelevant anyway, as taxonomic (breeding compatibility) classifications have been dismissed, as interspecies breeding has been observed.
- ApokalypseNow, on 01/22/2008, -0/+2Interspecies breeding, yes, but only between morphologically and genetically similar animals. This similarity is due to that common ancestor - a dog and a cat can't mate, because whatever common ancestry they had was too far removed. A pair of big jungle cats *can* mate since they split off relatively recently (on a geological time scale), but the house cats changed too much.
In the case of the horses, zebras, donkeys, and other similar animals, this ancestor was something in the Hyracotherium line.
Tell me, what change is so "macro" about the differences between, say, lions and tigers, that you see? Tigers are slightly more massive, have a different color fur pattern and different fur distribution, have thicker legs and have a flap of skin hanging from the belly to protect their ribs. Lions have slightly longer muzzles, are a little taller, have more rounded ears, a more pronounced sexual dimorphism, and a tuft of hair at the end of the tail. Male lions have small claw-like structure hidden in that tuft. Anatomically, they are very similar. They even have the same number of chromosomes! We can see larger morphological variations if we look at differing breeds of dog, but we call them the same species.
That's the problem with looking at taxonomy as a metric for evolution - cladistics is a fairly arbitrary science, and it is only useful for human classifications. For us, it is merely clear l ines drawn over murky reality. - martinjd, on 01/22/2008, -0/+1But that's the thing - reproductive isolation results in a smaller gene pool. Creationism explains changes in species as resulting from the reduction of the gene pool size in subsets of the greater population. It has often been demonstrated that offspring from common ancestors have limited their gene pools (resulting in more pronounced characteristics) in such a way that they can no longer interbreed. This explains, as you noted, why all the various dog breeds still have notable similarities (since they originated from the same kind), yet they may not be able to interbreed, due their isolated gene selection.
On the other hand, evolution requires an expansion of the gene pool. This genetic expansion is a necessary mechanism behind true macroevolution, yet occurrences of this have not been found. To me this seems to be the often overlooked hole in the theory. Some explanations have been offered, but never substantiated. - ApokalypseNow, on 01/22/2008, -0/+2Not so - evolution does not require an expansion, only that the genetic base of the population change, that an adaptation to the environment and the pressures therein occurs.
When you speak of "expansion" and "reduction", what kind of metric are you using? An increase/decrease in the number of chromosomes or base pairs? Are more better? Is it simply a measure of population diversity, or the number of individuals in said population?
Also, in case you were not aware, the micro/macro model of evolution was thrown out in the 1930's, as it did not fit the evidence. The terms may have stuck around, but there is no such thing as "macroevolution" within the science of evolution... it's like referring to "macrogravity" or "macroelectricity" - the science of evolution only involves and only requires so-called "micro" variation accumulating over time and simply species splitting. There are countless documented cases of speciation if you look up "speciation" on Wikipedia or Google. - martinjd, on 01/22/2008, -1/+1Well it's basically genetic erosion. As organisms die off, any unique genes that they possessed die with them, unless they had the opportunity to pass them along. This is why genetic diversity tends to narrow among isolated populations. It is rare to see new characteristics, such as different colorations, appear in a sub-species, and even this only occurs within the constraints of the available gene pool. This is why population geneticists are usually concerned with keeping the allele frequency distributions as high as possible in declining populations. All that to say, gene pools diminish due to natural selection - they don't expand.
On the other hand, it still remains a basic truth that evolutionary divergence requires expansion in the gene pool. The gene pool available to a microbial organism isn't even enough to wet the lips of a house fly. When you say that it only requires that "the genetic base of the population change", what else could you mean? That is essentially adaptation in a nut shell. - ApokalypseNow, on 01/22/2008, -0/+2Again, not so - fruit flies can grow new body segments or limbs by mutations to Hox genes and modifier genes. This is an inheritable trait, but since it confers no advantage in their environment (indeed, it can make it harder to fly), it dies out. With the dog breeds (sub-species) again, we can see various traits arising from isolated groups that humanity bred for specific tasks - dalmations have that unique coloration scheme, dachshunds have short stubby legs and narrow bodies, huskies have certain wolf-like characteristics advantageous for arctic environments, sheep-dogs have their shaggy fur characteristic, etc. I think you are improperly viewing traits here - if an isolated groups of canines, over the course of many generations, starts to develop into a smaller, more compact morphology, it is not that they are losing their "largeness" trait, but they are gaining a "smallness" trait. There will of course be variation in that smallness area, and it would be possible to reverse that trend in the breed, instead selecting for largeness. The sub-populations are no less diverse than their parent breed (assuming same size populations, which can be attained over time assuming a large enough starting population to prevent genetic errors from inbreeding) due to the randomness incurred by mutation, gene duplication, frame shifting, sexual recombination, etc., and the species of all dogs as a whole gains diversity from their creation.
Yes, gene pools diminish due to natural selection - it also expands due to the the effects of genetic recombination from sexual reproduction, mutation, gene replication, frame shifting, and other factors. It is important to to realize that the total size of any organism's genome is not fixed - it can grow or shrink with mutation. Bases can be inserted or deleted, genes can be added by retroviruses, whole sections of the genome can be duplicated or deleted and even an entire chromosome or genome can be doubled or halved.
For instance, say a certain gene codes to produce a certain protein. A duplication mutation causes duplication of this gene, so now there are two copies of this gene in the genome. This mutation is clearly not a harmful mutation, since it supplies a protein that is already there, and as such has little or no effect on the organism. Then a second mutation causes the copy to make a different version of the protein, which adds some new ability or function. That mutation would clearly be selected for, because it is beneficial. Now the "information" in the second gene has been added, without any loss in genome space.
At the same time, it is important to not that many "new features" are just modified versions of old features. For example, if we look at the recent discovery of bacteria that have evolved a new enzyme, allowing them to eat nylon (a recent invention of man and not found in nature) we see that this feature is simply a modification of an older one, as they already secreted enzymes before. Yes, this is adaptation. It is a small-scale change. DNA sequencing showed that it was caused by a gene duplication event and a frame shift, so it is also something "new" so to speak, rather than "erosion" as you put it.
It is not necessary that an expansion in the gene-pool take place. A large amount of genetic diversity means a large number of varying traits. Selection mechanisms will tend to cause those traits that do not work to be removed. Continued mutation, sexual recombination, duplication events, frame mutations, and other changes will ensure that new traits continue to occur within the population. If one of those traits confers an advantage, it will be selected for rather than against, and the trait will propagate into the population over time.
- ApokalypseNow, on 01/22/2008, -0/+2Examine the Panthera genus - lots of different big cats, lions, tigers, panthers, etc. These animals are all seperate species, but they are not so far removed from their common ancestor so as to be genetically incompatible. Yes, these animals can produce hybrid offspring! And what's more, that offspring is not always sterile either! The same can be said of horses, donkeys, and zebras. However, common house cats cannot mate with the big jungle cats - those kitties are too genetically divergent from their common ancestor so as to produce an offspring.
- martinjd, on 01/21/2008, -1/+2But if you start with the fundamental belief that changes from microevolution (changes in coloration, dimensions, etc) don't span interspecies characteristics, then even an infinite number of microevolutions will still result in a creature of the same species as the first. Right now the trillion dollar find would be an example of microevolution that results in a new species.
- P5ycHo, on 01/21/2008, -0/+3You haven't included the time factor of several hundred million years in your calculations on microevolution.
- xrevision, on 01/21/2008, -1/+2Intelligent design explains irreducibly complex systems. You are not as well read as you think and draw up broad conclusions about a theory for which you have no idea what it means. You make pro-evolutionists such as myself look silly.
- ApokalypseNow, on 01/22/2008, -1/+1There's no such thing as an irreducibly complex system.
- RationalXubrnce, on 01/22/2008, -0/+1 Natural selection is one part of the theory of evolution and as far as I know has never been in dispute. This is natural selection and not the actual morphing of a creature to fit an ecological niche.
- minty33, on 01/22/2008, -0/+1This is NOT natural selection. The poachers are killing the elephants with the larger tusks before they have a chance to mate. The only elephants left are the ones with the smaller tusks. This is artificial selection since humans are affecting it, not natural selection.
This really isn't evolution either. If you kill all the members of a species with certain characteristics before they reproduce, you are just limiting their possible partners. They're not evolving.- ApokalypseNow, on 01/22/2008, -0/+1Either way, there is an environmental selection pressure (humans) affecting the genetic base of the population (killing the large-tusked members, so only smaller ones remain). With the parts of the population that are "unfit" gone, the species has adapted to the change in the environment and continues, more fit on the whole than before. Since evolution = adaptation, it *is* evolution, by the very definition.
Yes, just as making differing breeds of dog is evolution. Same thing.
- ApokalypseNow, on 01/22/2008, -0/+1Either way, there is an environmental selection pressure (humans) affecting the genetic base of the population (killing the large-tusked members, so only smaller ones remain). With the parts of the population that are "unfit" gone, the species has adapted to the change in the environment and continues, more fit on the whole than before. Since evolution = adaptation, it *is* evolution, by the very definition.
- Zarokima, on 01/21/2008, -63/+7It's not natural selection since we humans directly caused it. It's evolution, but not natural selection.
- fisj139, on 01/21/2008, -37/+215So, from what I read, the elephants with larger tusks are killed. This, in turn, means that the elephants with smaller tusks are more likely to breed, thus, resulting in more elephants with smaller tusks. What I'm trying to say is, if the larger tusked elephants are killed, the larger tusk genetic isn't passed down, not because of nature or the elephants choice, but because humans are "guiding the process" by killing off the larger tusked elephants. Personally I didn't know this was evolution, but if it is please correct me.
- fisj139, on 01/21/2008, -14/+26For the record, I was never really educated about evolution and that's why I'm wondering if this constitutes evolution.
- shupy, on 01/21/2008, -2/+26Yes, this is an example of evolution. As the large tusked elephants are killed, only the small tusked elephants survive to breed. If they produce small tusked offspring, they survive, a large tusked offspring may be killed.
This concept also explains why some animals look like they do. Prey animals often develop skin or fur patterns that blend in the environment. Those members of the species that carry a gene that gives them skin or fur that does not camouflage them don't survive to breed. They are easy to spot and therefore that gene gets weeded out of the gene pool. - cazbot, on 01/21/2008, -0/+4Shorter version: Yes, this is exactly what constitutes evolution.
- shupy, on 01/21/2008, -2/+26Yes, this is an example of evolution. As the large tusked elephants are killed, only the small tusked elephants survive to breed. If they produce small tusked offspring, they survive, a large tusked offspring may be killed.
- rollem, on 01/21/2008, -9/+138The definition of evolution is a change in one allele's frequency in population over time. Assuming that tusk length is heritable (it almost definitely is, I just haven't seen how heritable) then selectively killing larger-tusked elephants will cause evolution over a short period of time. The
- fisj139, on 01/21/2008, -14/+26For the record, I was never really educated about evolution and that's why I'm wondering if this constitutes evolution.