Support NeoGAF

[HeadlessRoland]

I am sorry I am unable to decipher a majority of your post but I will address the parts that are somewhat cogent.

I have not been following this discussion,

Well don't let not knowing what the fuck you are talking about slow you down!

Much of this thread has little to do with creationism.

So let me get this straight, -I- should find another thread because the conversation that myself and a good dozen or so individuals are partaking in is not specifically related to the OP. While you, someone who does not even feel compelled to read the fucking thread or understand the conversation gets to judge me? Excuse me while my eyes roll out of my head.

. If we're defining god as something unknown and beyond the purview of human understanding, then that is at an explicit contradiction with the idea of god put forth by religion and spirituality, which contends that god is not only known but understandable to a certain degree and wants people to know of its existence.

See and this is the problem, you don't have any knowledge of religion,theology or spirituality. There are literally thousands upon thousands of interpretations of any given God. And there are thousands of specific cosmologies. So claiming that "God as described by man" is again senseless defines nothing and is basically just a way of saying "A deffinition of God I can create a specious argument to refute". Its inane, there is no "singular" God as described by man. The God to the gnostic Christians is not the same God to modern Catholics, is not the same God(s) to Shinto or Taoist priests, is not the same Gods recognized in various Buddhist cosmology, is not the same Gods of the Greek pantheon. They do not have the same traits, and in fact as is almost always the case mythos is not supposed to be interpreted as literal truth.

And thankfully for myself my argument included that science can and should be employed to the claims that fall under its dominion. But sadly for you these claims are not metaphysical due to the simple fact that they CAN be investigated scientifically.

But then, I doubt that most atheists would have a problem with people who made possible room for the existence of a rather benign god who demands nothing from humanity.

I highly value your speaking for imagined hypothetical atheists, it is very pertinent to this discussion and lent me a deeper understanding.

Natural selection is an outcome. It is not an explicit mechanism.

Natural selection is the process...

 

[TacticalFox88]

Not sure exactly what you mean, so I am going to just throw out a guess.

I think you mean, how does an organism realize when it needs to evolve to survive? If that's it, then it doesn't. It either evolves and survives (by chance mostly) or it dies.

I guess an example would be like saying, how does the lottery know when a guy really needs to win it? And it doesn't, if the guy wins the lottery, he makes it - if he doesn't, well he's fucked.

Ah, alright then. Thanks.

 

[KHarvey16]

It has little to do with the evolution discussion, which is so fucking stupid its not even worth discussing. Who wants to argue with people who REFUSE to accept the validity of a scientific theory that has a metric fuck ton of corroborative evidence? You are not going to be able to convince them, anymore than I am going to be able to convince one dude about the nature of metaphysics. Granted my derail is essentially the same thing, me repeating non arbitrary facts and the utter refusal of others to comprehend and accept them so I cant judge too harshly.

I just noticed people arguing with the ID/creationist crowd, but strangely using invalid and nonsensical arguments. The sad part is that type of argumentation is standard. Its because regardless of "allegiance" to science or religion people do not know how to "think". They adopt beliefs for the same reasons with a complete lack of understanding of the "whys" behind them. The raw hypocrisy and hubris is almost as bad as the fundamentalist crowd.

Guaranteed if I attempted to question random people who "believe" in evolution on the street about the particulars of evolutionary theory they would be unable to have a cogent discussion. Just as if I attempt to question some religious person about theology they will likewise have no fucking idea what I am talking bout.

Its the false dichotomy of science and religion/philosophy/spirituality put fourth by the pig ignorant (religious or not) that is nauseating. The "counter" to a metaphysical claim is not "probability" because its impossible to create a probability of something utterly alien and unknown. You cant use lack of physical evidence because it is IMPOSSIBLE for such evidence to exist, even if God DID exist it would not be possible to substantiate with science. How can you scientifically verify an omniscient/omnipotent being? You cant, the closest science could get would be "Its really fucking powerful", which is a far cry from substantiating a universe creating God. So demanding such substantiation, when such a thing is impossible demonstrates you do not have the knowledge to talk about it.

The counter is claiming any number of things are possible, there could be invisible dragons, demons and Gods everywhere. But until some evidence (not all evidence is objective mind you) presents itself you have no reason to take note or place credence in any of them. Something needs to be substantiated before you place any credence in it. Thats it, you don't create illusionary "probability" that you pull from your ass in an attempt to sound "logical".

People need to recognize not all evidence is going to be assessable by science, and things beyond the scope of science are not inherently false. If you do not then you do not understand science and just as ignorant as the "God did it" crowd.

How childish. My post is right there. If you'd like to address my arguments, do it directly and answer my questions. If not, move on. Your continued inability to engage in a civil discussion like an adult begins to lend some explanation as to why you lack any ability to grasp my position. You still clearly have no idea.

Also, just on a personal note, thank you for being such an asshole. I know it isn't scientific really, but seeing the person who holds the opposite opinion from me conduct himself so poorly makes me feel pretty good. So, again, thanks!

 

[Kinitari]

See and this is the problem, you don't have any knowledge of religion,theology or spirituality. There are literally thousands upon thousands of interpretations of any given God. And there are thousands of specific cosmologies. So claiming that "God as described by man" is again senseless defines nothing and is basically just a way of saying "A deffinition of God I can create a specious argument to refute". Its inane, there is no "singular" God as described by man. The God to the gnostic Christians is not the same God to modern Catholics, is not the same God(s) to Shinto or Taoist priests, is not the same Gods recognized in various Buddhist cosmology, is not the same Gods of the Greek pantheon. They do not have the same traits, and in fact as is almost always the case mythos is not supposed to be interpreted as literal truth.

Bro stop being so angry for one. Secondly, you seem to be misunderstanding what he is saying. He did not imply anywhere that 'all interpretations of God's are alike'. He is simply addressing the point that God's remain outside of our 'realm' to critique. When a religion makes claims that a God does 'this' or 'that' in our natural world, we can critique these claims if they do not align with our understanding of the natural world.

There are many reasons why this is not only normal, but preferred. One, because people could just make shit up on the daily, and if we were to show a measure of respect or desire to 'understand' all these made up interpretations of how we came to be, we'd exhaust ourselves on the inane. Another is the fact that, even if we tell ourselves "If a particular deities traits is omnipotence and omniscience, then it does not matter if it's gospel does not match up with our understanding of the natural world, because it can do whatever it wants" - that is like... the ultimate cop out. No one can argue against that, and no one should have to even take that into consideration, or else people will start assigning those traits to every single one of their imaginary deities to make them immune to criticism.

What I think you are missing, what some have tried to argue is, all we can do as human beings is interact with the natural world. If a God can freely mess with the natural world without us ever having any idea or clue of his existence, then there is no point in considering him/her existing. If a God exists entirely outside our natural world and does -not- interact with our natural world, then there is no point in considering it's existence. If a God, supposedly, directly interacts with the natural world then we can consider these suppositions and hold them up for critique. It's all we can do, and I don't see how it's idiotic, asinine, or whatever snide insult you haven't yet shared, for us to do so.

 

[Zaphod]

It has little to do with the evolution discussion, which is so fucking stupid its not even worth discussing. Who wants to argue with people who REFUSE to accept the validity of a scientific theory that has a metric fuck ton of corroborative evidence? You are not going to be able to convince them, anymore than I am going to be able to convince one dude about the nature of metaphysics. Granted my derail is essentially the same thing, me repeating non arbitrary facts and the utter refusal of others to comprehend and accept them so I cant judge too harshly.

I just noticed people arguing with the ID/creationist crowd, but strangely using invalid and nonsensical arguments. The sad part is that type of argumentation is standard. Its because regardless of "allegiance" to science or religion people do not know how to "think". They adopt beliefs for the same reasons with a complete lack of understanding of the "whys" behind them. The raw hypocrisy and hubris is almost as bad as the fundamentalist crowd.

Guaranteed if I attempted to question random people who "believe" in evolution on the street about the particulars of evolutionary theory they would be unable to have a cogent discussion. Just as if I attempt to question some religious person about theology they will likewise have no fucking idea what I am talking bout.

Its the false dichotomy of science and religion/philosophy/spirituality put fourth by the pig ignorant (religious or not) that is nauseating. The "counter" to a metaphysical claim is not "probability" because its impossible to create a probability of something utterly alien and unknown. You cant use lack of physical evidence because it is IMPOSSIBLE for such evidence to exist, even if God DID exist it would not be possible to substantiate with science. How can you scientifically verify an omniscient/omnipotent being? You cant, the closest science could get would be "Its really fucking powerful", which is a far cry from substantiating a universe creating God. So demanding such substantiation, when such a thing is impossible demonstrates you do not have the knowledge to talk about it.

The counter is claiming any number of things are possible, there could be invisible dragons, demons and Gods everywhere. But until some evidence (not all evidence is objective mind you) presents itself you have no reason to take note or place credence in any of them. Something needs to be substantiated before you place any credence in it. Thats it, you don't create illusionary "probability" that you pull from your ass in an attempt to sound "logical".

People need to recognize not all evidence is going to be assessable by science, and things beyond the scope of science are not inherently false. If you do not then you do not understand science and just as ignorant as the "God did it" crowd.

Yeh, never mind. I really have no idea what the fuck you are talking about.

 

[Zaphod]

I think that on an intuitive level it makes sense. The basic cell, which the ID crowd says is too complicated to have evolved, required a lot of time to evolve its various metabolic and biochemical processes. Scientists are finding now that much of our "complexity" is derived from changes to pre-existing genes. For example, genes that encode for neurons are believed to be present in single-celled organisms that definitely don't have any neurons. And things like the creation of RNA and DNA, the incorporation of mitochondria and plastids into the cell (known as the endosymbiotic theory), the release of oxygen into the atmosphere, the evolution of multi-cellular life, etc. took up much of the history of life on the Earth. Compared to the 700 million or so years that complex life has arisen, it isn't even close.

The scale is what I think is missed so often. For example, the flagellum on a bacteria is a huge leap but when you have billions of years of single cell organisms reproducing at a rapid rate the odds can be a million to one against it happening but the scale of time means it's almost an inevitability. Once it happens the mobile bacteria have a huge advantage over their floating cousins.

It's like when a creationist says that the chances of life arising out of nowhere are a trillion to one. While that may be true there are trillions of stars in the universe and all it takes is one for life to happen.

If only I could evolve the ability to avoid run on sentences...

 

[Mgoblue201]

Natural selection is the process...

It is a process in the sense that it is being carried out, and I think that it can be called a mechanism of evolution in that it is working toward the evolution of species. But I do not think that it is analogous to most other scientific processes. Natural selection is an outcome of genetic variation that is dictated by reproductive success and determined by several different factors, including morphology, geography, environment, competition for food, competition for sex, etc. Natural selection, in other words, is the totality of the things that contribute to reproductive success and therefore produce adaptations but is not itself an agent known as "natural selection" that acts upon organisms and culls out genetic adaptations. It is a semantic distinction, but a rather important one. And it's not entirely a controversial distinction. It has been addressed by scientists such as John Endler, who has done excellent work on guppies that has been cited by Dawkins and others as evidence for the transformative power of evolution.

Generally, however, your posts have been condescending and confrontational from the start. It is also curious to call me judgmental, when your posts are filled with unnecessary assumptions.

For example, why would you assume what I know or don't know about religion? You chose to read into my posts that I am conflating all religions together, but I am actually saying the very opposite: that we must address all religions in their specific and individual ways.

But one can certainly take the time to make a nuanced argument that evolution helps to disprove any religion that contains a creation myth, which is quite a few of them, including the most followed ones. This is part of what KHarvey was arguing about initially when you first responded in the thread. Even more broadly, science and other methods of naturalistic evaluation can at least hypothetically cast doubt on many religious claims. For example, maybe I can formulate a test to gauge whether miracles have any statistical significance in their occurrence. Who knows, maybe I can even think of a way to test reincarnation. I would not be testing the existence of anything spiritual in and of itself, but I would be testing whether religion has any explanatory power. If it doesn't, then it is far less trustworthy in its claims about god and other spiritual entities. But I would have to imagine that the number of religions that 1) could not be subject to such a test and 2) could still be considered a religion is somewhat low.

And it isn't just that your posts have been irrelevant to this thread. It's that your conduct has been appalling. By generally confusing and dismissing the intention of the thread you have at least given the impression that you don't even give a damn that people were having a discussion here. And since coming into this thread I don't think you've talked about the actual science of evolution once. Sure, a few people are willing to argue with you (for the most part, however, it has just been KHarvey), but judging by much of the recent discussion, people just seem to be annoyed and confused by your posts.

Lastly, I have read many of the posts that pertain to this particular discussion to understand it, even if I haven't been following along post after post. This does not mean that I don't understand what I'm talking about.

The scale is what I think is missed so often. For example, the flagellum on a bacteria is a huge leap but when you have billions of years of single cell organisms reproducing at a rapid rate the odds can be a million to one against it happening but the scale of time means it's almost an inevitability. Once it happens the mobile bacteria have a huge advantage over their floating cousins.

It's like when a creationist says that the chances of life arising out of nowhere are a trillion to one. While that may be true there are trillions of stars in the universe and all it takes is one for life to happen.

If only I could evolve the ability to avoid run on sentences...

Yes, when most people talk about evolution they are only talking about the last 700 million years, when life existed billions of years before that, because there is a built-in bias within all of us that so-called "complex life" must have required more time than "mere single-celled organisms" to evolve. It's lamentable, therefore, that there are so few traces, comparatively, of that period left on Earth. And yet there are still remarkable pieces of evidence that shed light on what occurred. But I would imagine that the problems of life's origins would be a lot less intractable if there was some method to preserve these first organisms in the way that fossilization has preserved bones and other hard tissue.

 

[Dead Man]

Yes, when most people talk about evolution they are only talking about the last 700 million years, when life existed billions of years before that, because there is a built-in bias within all of us that so-called "complex life" must have required more time than "mere single-celled organisms" to evolve. It's lamentable, therefore, that there are so few traces, comparatively, of that period left on Earth. And yet there are still remarkable pieces of evidence that shed light on what occurred. But I would imagine that the problems of life's origins would be a lot less intractable if there was some method to preserve these first organisms in the way that fossilization has preserved bones and other hard tissue.

You may already be familiar with them, but many people aren't so I'll just copy some stuf about Stromatolites: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stromatolites

Stromatolites were much more abundant on the planet in Precambrian times. While older, Archean fossil remains are presumed to be colonies of single-celled blue-green bacteria, younger (that is, Proterozoic) fossils may be primordial forms of the eukaryote chlorophytes (that is, green algae). One genus of stromatolite very common in the geologic record is Collenia. The earliest stromatolite of confirmed microbial origin dates to 2.724 billion years ago.[3] A recent discovery provides strong evidence of microbial stromatolites extending as far back as 3,450 million years ago.

 

[Mgoblue201]

You may already be familiar with them, but many people aren't so I'll just copy some stuf about Stromatolites: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stromatolites

Sorry, I actually had in mind the endosymbiotic theory, which I had mentioned earlier. It claims that organelles vital to eukaryotic metabolism such as the mitochondrion originated as bacteria that came to live symbiotically inside the cell. There is a lot of evidence for this theory. Specifically, these organelles have their own DNA and membranes and enzymes similar to bacteria. It's an explanation that elegantly demonstrates ways in which "complexity" can arise: two otherwise independent things become integrated with one another to form something new. We also think that this occurs at the molecular level. For example, it helps explain the flagellum and other so-called "irreducibly complex systems".

I've heard about stromatolites but will admit that I'm not candidly familiar with them. Is there any evidence from ancient single-celled organisms that cast more light on how they could have evolved?

 

[Dead Man]

Sorry, I actually had in mind the endosymbiotic theory, which I had mentioned earlier. It claims that organelles vital to eukaryotic metabolism such as the mitochondrion originated as bacteria that came to live symbiotically inside the cell. There is a lot of evidence for this theory. Specifically, these organelles have their own DNA and membranes and enzymes similar to bacteria. It's an explanation that elegantly demonstrates ways in which "complexity" can arise.

I've heard about stromatolites but will admit that I'm not candidly familiar with them. Is there any evidence from ancient single-celled organisms that cast more light on how they could have evolved?

My knowledge on the subject is very general so I probably can't help you, but in relation to endosymbiotics, the stromatolites are mainly made by cyanobacteria, which are considered to have led to chloroplasts in plant cells.

 

[Zaphod]

I always forget about the Stromatolites. It's fascinating to think about how much ancient life has survived to modern times.

I think the fact that our cells are made up of ancient separate organisms is fascinating as well. It's not like that is some crazy unprovable theory either. As humans we could not survive without the various colonies of bacteria in our digestive system. Even though we like to think of ourselves as some genetic code that results in a human we are still just a colony of cells like a previous poster had said. Not only are we a colony of cells, we are a colony of cells where about 10% of the cells do not share the same genetic code. They have simply have coevolved with us for our mutual survival.

 

[Lesath]

I always forget about the Stromatolites. It's fascinating to think about how much ancient life has survived to modern times.

I think the fact that our cells are made up of ancient separate organisms is fascinating as well. It's not like that is some crazy unprovable theory either. As humans we could not survive without the various colonies of bacteria in our digestive system. Even though we like to think of ourselves as some genetic code that results in a human we are still just a colony of cells like a previous poster had said. Not only are we a colony of cells, we are a colony of cells where about 10% of the cells do not share the same genetic code. They have simply have coevolved with us for our mutual survival.

If you think about it, cancer is the evolution of certain cells to rapidly reproduce, selected to circumvent the body's defensive mechanisms (DNA repair, tumor suppressant). and eventually breaking through connective tissue to spread throughout the body.

 

[Mgoblue201]

Jerry Coyne has a new post on his blog about horizontal gene transfer and its implications for our concept of a tree of life.

One of the main claims of postmodern biology is that “horizontal gene transfer” (HGT), the movement of genes between distantly related species via ingestion, viral vectors, and so on, can not only serve as a previously unknown source of genetic variation, but will also, by blurring the true pattern of ancestry and descent, efface the tree of life.

...

It’s fairly common in bacteria, and has been seen in a few multicellular species, including rotifers and even Drosophila, but it’s so rare in metazoans that in those groups it hardly constitutes a challenge to the tree of life.

HGT has now been found in fungi, previously thought to be largely immune to the phenomenon since fungi can’t digest entire cells—usually the way genes are passed among species. The new issue of Current Biology has a dispatch on the topic by Thomas H. Richards, “Genome evolution: horizontal movements in the fungi“, summarizing recent work in that group, including a nice new paper in the journal by Slot and Rokas (reference below).

As Richards notes, HGT is usually detected by reconstructing evolutionary trees using different genes. Most of the trees will coincide, but occasionally the use of one gene gives a tree that’s wildly disparate, showing “relatedness” of species that we know from other data are pretty unrelated. That’s a clue that that gene has moved horizontally among the unrelated species, giving a false signal of close evolutionary ancestry.

Using this technique, Slot and Rokas found that an entire cluster of 23 genes, those involved in the metabolic pathway for making sterigmatocystin (a toxic compound that is a precursor for the deadly aflatoxins), had been horizontally transferred from Aspergillis to the distantly related Podospora. That’s a lot of genes, and since genes involved in the same pathway are often physically linked on the DNA of fungi, there’s a potential for widespread transfer of entire metabolic pathways between species (metabolic genes appear to be horizontally transferred among all species much more often than “informational” genes involved in DNA replication and transcription).

How did this happen? Well, Aspergillis and Podospora often occupy the same niche: both are “saprotrophs“, or species that break down dead animals and plants. Living cheek by jowl, some of the DNA of an Aspergillis could have been ingested by a Podospora in the stew of organic matter, and incorporated into its genome. But we don’t know exactly how this happened.

...

Even with these fungi, then, Darwin wasn’t really “wrong,” But what is exciting is the manifestly non-orthodox idea that adaptive genetic change can involve not just mutations within a species, but the wholesale movement of genes between different species—often very different ones. As Richards notes, fungi have acquired genes not just from other fungi, but from bacteria and even plants.

Look for more examples of bizarre and wide HGT as DNA sequencing becomes more common. But don’t expect it to demonstrate that there’s no tree of life!

Gene transfers in fungi species:

It has also been hypothesized elsewhere that some form of gene transfer was critical for the evolution of early microbes.

 

[Raist]

If you think about it, cancer is the evolution of certain cells to rapidly reproduce, selected to circumvent the body's defensive mechanisms (DNA repair, tumor suppressant). and eventually breaking through connective tissue to spread throughout the body.

Even if it's technically correct, I wouldn't use that analogy. Some people will just grab it and say "Seeeee, mutations are bad!"
The development and workings of the immune system is a much better example. It's actually a very good example for the principles of mutations and natural selection, of course on a smaller, non inheritable (from one individual to another, for the most part) scale.

 

[Raist]

Sooo, I was watching AronRa's FFC videos again over the week end, and eventually stumbled upon this.

Makes me so fucking angry. Apparently the complete documentary is up on youtube as well so I'll probably have a look at the whole thing.

 

[danwarb]

Well that's another depressing video.

 

[Raist]

Well that's another depressing video.

Yeah. The whole thing is really scary, just watched it. Apart from part #2 it's quite irrelevant to this thread so I won't discuss it, but if you guys wanna have a look part 1 is here.

 

[Kinitari]

That fucker talks to children? If even 5% of those kids in that audience carry with them the belief that he is right about -anything- he says (it's probably higher than that, authority figures and all that)... ugh, I don't even know. It's disgusting.

 

[BronzeWolf]

misspost

 

[Shanadeus]

Sooo, I was watching AronRa's FFC videos again over the week end, and eventually stumbled upon this.

Makes me so fucking angry. Apparently the complete documentary is up on youtube as well so I'll probably have a look at the whole thing.

It's quite sad that they take advantage of the children like that.

 

[Raist]

That fucker talks to children? If even 5% of those kids in that audience carry with them the belief that he is right about -anything- he says (it's probably higher than that, authority figures and all that)... ugh, I don't even know. It's disgusting.

Quite. For people who are so keen on "teaching the controversy" I really wonder why they don't tell their kids about most religions out there and you know, let them "make up their own minds". Disgusting.

 

[Sanky Panky]

Jerry Coyne has a new post on his blog about horizontal gene transfer and its implications for our concept of a tree of life.

This is an example of "scientific evidence" that leads people to ask the question of how falsifiable is evolution from common ancestry.

The issue of the post is that based on which genes you compare, you come up with different phylogenetic trees. To account for these holes in the theory, they have to come up with some ad hoc solution (one of many currently in use), which in this case it is HGT. They have to "scientifically" tell the story of how one species somehow digested the genes from another, which they have to say in the end "But we don’t know exactly how this happened."

I'm all for science, but I just hope people take this for what it is: a nice untestable hypothetical scenario, and NOT as evidence for anything.

It's curious that he also warns that previous phylogenetic trees will continue to show things out of whack (as more DNA is examined) but that a made-up process will always be there to explain the discrepancies.

 

[KHarvey16]

This is an example of "scientific evidence" that leads people to ask the question of how falsifiable is evolution from common ancestry.

The issue of the post is that based on which genes you compare, you come up with different phylogenetic trees. To account for these holes in the theory, they have to come up with some ad hoc solution (one of many currently in use), which in this case it is HGT. They have to "scientifically" tell the story of how one species somehow digested the genes from another, which they have to say in the end "But we don’t know exactly how this happened."

I'm all for science, but I just hope people take this for what it is: a nice untestable hypothetical scenario, and NOT as evidence for anything.

It's curious that he also warns that previous phylogenetic trees will continue to show things out of whack (as more DNA is examined) but that a made-up process will always be there to explain the discrepancies.

What on earth are you talking about?

 

[Raist]

This is an example of "scientific evidence" that leads people to ask the question of how falsifiable is evolution from common ancestry.

The issue of the post is that based on which genes you compare, you come up with different phylogenetic trees. To account for these holes in the theory, they have to come up with some ad hoc solution (one of many currently in use), which in this case it is HGT. They have to "scientifically" tell the story of how one species somehow digested the genes from another, which they have to say in the end "But we don’t know exactly how this happened."

I'm all for science, but I just hope people take this for what it is: a nice untestable hypothetical scenario, and NOT as evidence for anything.

It's curious that he also warns that previous phylogenetic trees will continue to show things out of whack (as more DNA is examined) but that a made-up process will always be there to explain the discrepancies.

HGT is not untestable. It can be easily observed with bacteria, and in many cases in other organisms it leaves quite obvious fingerprints, such has transposon/viral repeated sequences nearby the transfered genes.

 

[SteveWinwood]

Man that video is super depressing. I used to think kids were a tad more independent and free thinking, but then I moved to Missouri and saw a lot of this sort of stuff and saw some of my neighbor kids just eat it up. My dad got in arguments quite a few times with their parents for actually telling them about dogs (some silly thing that wasn't even remotely a discussion about evolution that quickly turned into one), planets (one of the parents got mad explaining the scale of space or something ridiculous), and the creek in our backyard (some sort of analogy to the grand canyon created with a little water over a long time type thing). We both felt kinda sad for some of the kids. They were genuinely curious and really wanted to use our telescope sometimes but their parents were batshit insane.

In the few years I was there before college they went from fun, curious, adventurous kids to, well frankly, dickwads that emulated their parents behavior. I completely blame his crap parents and his insane church (They kept inviting us to come see how evolution was completely wrong in these goofy lectures the church would put on. They had been many times and knew alot about evolution now! These are the same people who thought that their dog wasn't a mammal.), because he was as nice as could be when I first moved there.

 

[Sanky Panky]

HGT is not untestable. It can be easily observed with bacteria, and in many cases in other organisms it leaves quite obvious fingerprints, such has transposon/viral repeated sequences nearby the transfered genes.

Researchers admit that the results in vitro of some of the mechanisms of HGT cannot be applied to population genetics, because of the many natural barriers to the process. Even gene transfer agents used by bacteria are not even big enough to cause that much of an impact.

Scientists are left with inferences about similar genes in distant ancestors and "viral repeated sequences" in distant ancestors as the result of this process that barely happens in a controlled environment.

 

[Count Dookkake]

Oh, we lost Headless Roland?

Natural selection in action.

 

[Dead Man]

Sooo, I was watching AronRa's FFC videos again over the week end, and eventually stumbled upon this.

Makes me so fucking angry. Apparently the complete documentary is up on youtube as well so I'll probably have a look at the whole thing.

I can't even get to the end of that video, never mind something longer.

 

[Raist]

Researchers admit that the results in vitro of some of the mechanisms of HGT cannot be applied to population genetics, because of the many natural barriers to the process. Even gene transfer agents used by bacteria are not even big enough to cause that much of an impact.

Scientists are left with inferences about similar genes in distant ancestors and "viral repeated sequences" in distant ancestors as the result of this process that barely happens in a controlled environment.

I'd surely like to see your sources on that. And again with that inferences crap, honestly?

 

[UrbanRats]

Just read the OP, very very interesting and well done.
i'll now scout the thread, but i wanted to know more about evolution regarding plants.
How does natural selection and mutation apply to them? Maybe i didn't pay enough attention to the OP, but if someone can point me to some article/video, i'd be grateful.

 

[wayward archer]

Just read the OP, very very interesting and well done.
i'll now scout the thread, but i wanted to know more about evolution regarding plants.
How does natural selection and mutation apply to them? Maybe i didn't pay enough attention to the OP, but if someone can point me to some article/video, i'd be grateful.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plant_defense_against_herbivory

 

[Raist]

How does natural selection and mutation apply to them? Maybe i didn't pay enough attention to the OP, but if someone can point me to some article/video, i'd be grateful.

Hum, the same way it does to animals/bacteria/fungi? I'm not sure I get your question :x

 

[Earthstrike]

Natural selection is an outcome. It is not an explicit mechanism. There is no active selection and therefore no need for recognition of any kind, even if you were using the words as loosely as possible. The entire name is a misnomer. I think that the OP does a good job of explaining how natural selection works.

Hmm. I think your terminology is wrong.
Speciation is the outcome. Natural selection is an event and/or process which contributes to speciation.

When learning about evolution some years ago I found that natural selection seemed to have become a bit of a misnomer for evolution. We know that in order for evolution to occur (consistently), not all organisms of a specific species reproduce. That is to say, some of them are selected to reproduce. In the case of nature, many things select which animals reproduce. For instance being eaten before viability, heat from the sun killing you, etc. These are all natural means by which organisms can be selected so when we say Evolution by natural selection, what is being said is that speciation has occured as a consequence of natural events selecting which organisms reproduce and consequently which genes become more frequent in a population.

Sure this sounds a bit nitpicky, but natural selection and evolution have been conflated to mean the same thing a lot in the media, when in fact they are different things, and understanding what natural selection really means is a fairly important point when it comes to understanding evolution.

Just read the OP, very very interesting and well done.
i'll now scout the thread, but i wanted to know more about evolution regarding plants.
How does natural selection and mutation apply to them? Maybe i didn't pay enough attention to the OP, but if someone can point me to some article/video, i'd be grateful.

Edit: So with knowledge of what natural selection means we can actually answer this question. How does natural selection apply to plants? Well some examples might be a lack of rain. That is a natural event that will select some plants i.e. the ones that have genes to survive and reproduce with less water. Another selection mechanism might be that animals step on some plants and kill them, meanings the ones that haven't been stepped on were selected. This may mean that we observe plants with thorns being more extant today than in the past since they were more likely to be selected. (animals don't like stepping on thorns).

 

[Mgoblue201]

Researchers admit that the results in vitro of some of the mechanisms of HGT cannot be applied to population genetics, because of the many natural barriers to the process. Even gene transfer agents used by bacteria are not even big enough to cause that much of an impact.

Scientists are left with inferences about similar genes in distant ancestors and "viral repeated sequences" in distant ancestors as the result of this process that barely happens in a controlled environment.

I would have to see actual research that supports this. The closest thing I can find is this paper. If I'm reading it right, then it seems to indicate that 82 percent of expressed genes transferred inhibit growth in E. coli. However, there are several huge caveats here. 1) 23 genes, while significant, is modest as a percentage of total genes in a genome. 2) I would really like to see a source that corroborates the assertion that "gene transfer agents used by bacteria are not even big enough to cause that much of an impact." That's a very strange argument to make. We're not talking about bacteria. We're talking about fungi. The paper even postulates a different method of gene transfer. 3) We're also not talking about the transfer of individual genes but the transfer of "widespread metabolic pathways", which is more likely to occur.

Anyway, I was quite aware when I posted it that it would be conscripted in the war against evolution by way of the very argument that you used. However, it was not an ad hoc explanation attempting to account for the "holes in the theory". HGT, discovered in 1959, was barely even used as an explanation for the significant transfer of genes as a major player in evolution until the 1980s and 1990s. By that time the science of HGT had already been well-established. If anything, it's even more incredible that scientists found a problem and already had a solution sitting around waiting to be used. One can almost call that predictive.

And anyway, HGT appears to be quite rare in metazoans, so what exactly is it trying to explain away?

Hmm. I think your terminology is wrong.
Speciation is the outcome. Natural selection is an event and/or process which contributes to speciation.

When learning about evolution some years ago I found that natural selection seemed to have become a bit of a misnomer for evolution. We know that in order for evolution to occur (consistently), not all organisms of a specific species reproduce. That is to say, some of them are selected to reproduce. In the case of nature, many things select which animals reproduce. For instance being eaten before viability, heat from the sun killing you, etc. These are all natural means by which organisms can be selected so when we say Evolution by natural selection, what is being said is that speciation has occured as a consequence of natural events selecting which organisms reproduce and consequently which genes become more frequent in a population.

Sure this sounds a bit nitpicky, but natural selection and evolution have been conflated to mean the same thing a lot in the media, when in fact they are different things, and understanding what natural selection really means is a fairly important point when it comes to understanding evolution.

But nothing is actually being selected. Rather, selection is a result of the reproductive advantage bestowed by an organism's ability to survive in an environment while at competition with other organisms. In the end, they're probably functionally the same thing. It's as if the organisms are being selected. That is why it's quite similar to artificial selection and breeding.

 

[jaxword]

Oh, we lost Headless Roland?

Natural selection in action.

While he was trying to make a point about being empirical about science, he did it in such an asshole manner that I guess it was inevitable.

Also notice how the people arguing with evolution have deliberately avoided the thread by lying and saying they "don't have time" but have time to post all over the Christianity thread.

Lies, lies, lies, the world runs on hypocrisy and lies.

 

[Raist]

While he was trying to make a point about being empirical about science, he did it in such an asshole manner that I guess it was inevitable.

Not only in this thread, pretty much every single one I've seen him post in. So, yeah.

Also notice how the people arguing with evolution have deliberately avoided the thread by lying and saying they "don't have time" but have time to post all over the Christianity thread.

Lies, lies, lies, the world runs on hypocrisy and lies.

AKA the Behe Smooth Move

 

[UrbanRats]

Thanks for the answers, well i feel very stupid asking this, 'cause i understand it should be obvious (and it is, i assume, to some of you).
But anyway, my problem was related to sexual and asexual reproduction in plants-- i mean ok, flowers use insects to transport their pollen to other flowers, so that's how (i guess?) genetic mutation takes place, but unlike with animals, who "inplant" their seed on their own, plants have to rely on insects who are another form of life? I also assume that most plant use the wind to do it (that's th answer i gave myself).
Some plant though (like always-green trees?) looks like they have no pollen or the like, like they spawn seeds that contains all the informations, but that would not be a genetic mix up, it would be more like cloning?
I know i sound very moronic, and i give you permission to mock me , but i'm very confused about it, while for the animals, it seems very intuitive (evolution), for the plant, to me, it's more confusing and hard to grasp.

 

[Lesath]

Thanks for the answers, well i feel very stupid asking this, 'cause i understand it should be obvious (and it is, i assume, to some of you).
But anyway, my problem was related to sexual and asexual reproduction in plants-- i mean ok, flowers use insects to transport their pollen to other flowers, so that's how (i guess?) genetic mutation takes place, but unlike with animals, who "inplant" their seed on their own, plants have to rely on insects who are another form of life? I also assume that most plant use the wind to do it (that's th answer i gave myself).
Some plant though (like always-green trees?) looks like they have no pollen or the like, like they spawn seeds that contains all the informations, but that would not be a genetic mix up, it would be more like cloning?

Plants typically utilize insects, but wind and water indeed come into play. Angiosperms (the flowering plants) typically have obvious reproductive structures, so you tend to notice them. The gymnosperms (when you had referred to as the evergreen trees), do actually have pollen, dispersed the same way, but their reproductive structures tend not to be so obvious.

In any case, you shouldn't confuse mutation as a source of variation with sexual reproduction as a source of variation. Neither requires the other.

I know i sound very moronic, and i give you permission to mock me , but i'm very confused about it, while for the animals, it seems very intuitive (evolution), for the plant, to me, it's more confusing and hard to grasp.

You are as willing to understand as you are to question. I doubt you will find any harsh words here.

 

[kottila]

Thanks for the answers, well i feel very stupid asking this, 'cause i understand it should be obvious (and it is, i assume, to some of you).
But anyway, my problem was related to sexual and asexual reproduction in plants-- i mean ok, flowers use insects to transport their pollen to other flowers, so that's how (i guess?) genetic mutation takes place, but unlike with animals, who "inplant" their seed on their own, plants have to rely on insects who are another form of life? I also assume that most plant use the wind to do it (that's th answer i gave myself).
Some plant though (like always-green trees?) looks like they have no pollen or the like, like they spawn seeds that contains all the informations, but that would not be a genetic mix up, it would be more like cloning?
I know i sound very moronic, and i give you permission to mock me , but i'm very confused about it, while for the animals, it seems very intuitive (evolution), for the plant, to me, it's more confusing and hard to grasp.

cross pollination is the most used where the male pollen (sperm) has to transfer to another plants female parts (egg)

during the production of the pollen (meiosis) there is genetic shuffling just like in humans, which produce genetic variation

 

[Vincent Alexander]

That video of the HBO documentary makes me want to stab my eyes out with pencils. Is that irrational?

 

[Dead Man]

Thanks for the answers, well i feel very stupid asking this, 'cause i understand it should be obvious (and it is, i assume, to some of you).
But anyway, my problem was related to sexual and asexual reproduction in plants-- i mean ok, flowers use insects to transport their pollen to other flowers, so that's how (i guess?) genetic mutation takes place, but unlike with animals, who "inplant" their seed on their own, plants have to rely on insects who are another form of life? I also assume that most plant use the wind to do it (that's th answer i gave myself).
Some plant though (like always-green trees?) looks like they have no pollen or the like, like they spawn seeds that contains all the informations, but that would not be a genetic mix up, it would be more like cloning?
I know i sound very moronic, and i give you permission to mock me , but i'm very confused about it, while for the animals, it seems very intuitive (evolution), for the plant, to me, it's more confusing and hard to grasp.

Start here: Life On Earth ep. 3- The First Forests pt. 1/4

It is an older series by Attenborough, but it gives a very good basic description of the early plants, and how land plants evolved and how they developed more advanced forms of sexual reproduction.

Edit: Basically, the very old forms of plants like moss need water to reproduce since they don't make pollen, then conifers made heaps of pollen and just used the wind to pollinate and the water stage took place in the plant, then flowers developed after that. I don't know if the development of flowers is very well understood, but the rest is described pretty well.

 

[Kinitari]

Thanks for the answers, well i feel very stupid asking this, 'cause i understand it should be obvious (and it is, i assume, to some of you).
But anyway, my problem was related to sexual and asexual reproduction in plants-- i mean ok, flowers use insects to transport their pollen to other flowers, so that's how (i guess?) genetic mutation takes place, but unlike with animals, who "inplant" their seed on their own, plants have to rely on insects who are another form of life? I also assume that most plant use the wind to do it (that's th answer i gave myself).
Some plant though (like always-green trees?) looks like they have no pollen or the like, like they spawn seeds that contains all the informations, but that would not be a genetic mix up, it would be more like cloning?
I know i sound very moronic, and i give you permission to mock me , but i'm very confused about it, while for the animals, it seems very intuitive (evolution), for the plant, to me, it's more confusing and hard to grasp.

First of all, your questions are pretty good - just because they're not about the intricate details of genetic drift doesn't mean they aren't valid in this thread, don't be so hard on yourself.

Also, something to keep in mind is - a lot of plants that seem to produce asexually really produce sexually, using insects, wind and water to spread their pollen. So plants that evolve methods that take advantage of other animals are the ones that spread their genetic material around the most. For example flowers that appeal to bees are more likely to not only get their pollen picked up, but if they are 'female', get that pollen inseminated in them on that bees subsequent nectar trips.

Also take into consideration other interesting ways plants have evolved unique traits to help them compete and spread their genetic information - some plants have seeds that can survive being eaten, and thus pass through an animals digestive system, come out with the dung and immediately have not only plenty of fertilizer, but a unique new location. Then you have seeds with barbs that stick to your clothes. But the same way there are cockroaches that have evolved to be extremely sturdy, there are also weeds for example. The Dandelion is one of the most successfully 'evolved' plants that come to mind, that motherfucker spreads like wildfire and can grow nearly anywhere.

 

[UrbanRats]

Thanks for all the aswers guys! Now it's getting pretty clear.
Also watched the video with Attenborough, which was great.
As soon as i have the time, i'll watch all those in the OP aswell!
Great topic, subscribed for further "exploration".

Also, i'll leave this here because, even though it's not very scientific, it's a beautifully crafted video, worth a watch IMO:
The Indelible Stamp of our Lowly Origin.

 

[y2dvd]

*wrong thread!

 

[Raist]

Ok, I just saw the LGief version on the dailymotion link and that shit is godlike! LMAO!

Wrong thread?

Well, it's a bit related to natural selection, I guess.

 

[Astery]

Sooo, I was watching AronRa's FFC videos again over the week end, and eventually stumbled upon this.

my reaction after watching it:

 

[Kinitari]

Wrong thread?

Well, it's a bit related to natural selection, I guess.

Was gonna say, after that show of strength and domination, that kid is getting laaaaaaiiiiiid.

 

[Wazzim]

The real question is, where did life come from?

 

[Jasup]

The real question is, where did life come from?

Well, what is life?

We're made from the same stuff as everything else in the universe, the chemical reactions in our bodies are the same that happens everywhere else in similar conditions, the basis of our life is a molecule that's self-replicating... Where do you draw a line between life and non life?

 

[Raist]

The real question is, where did life come from?

That's OT
But the most plausible hypothesis right now is abiogenesis, starting from RNA.