Evolution: What Real Scientists Have to Say

Anywho, we're more akin to the oceans than the soil. Hell, there's no such thing as soil until you get some Streptomyces growing in it.

There is either creation vs. evolution
Or creationism vs. evolutionism.
Oh I know the NLP twist by the evolutionist/communist/atheist propaganda machinery which is "science vs. creationism"
Do not waste time with cheap mind manipulations.
Let us stay with one question for a while:
If "evolution" is not random where did the force of regulation come from?
Does Mr. Watson know the "Secrets of Life"?
I doubt. He and Mr. Crick discovered something which was there (That amazing double spiral). They got the Noble prize for it.

What about the one who put it there and did not get the famous laureate. Neither has that One a PhD. How absurd! He is not even an evolutionist.

He is just THE CREATOR of space, time, energy,
matter, and all the laws which rule over anything existing. And He rules over his laws also, as He wills.

"The fool has said in his heart there is no God."

Enjoy your time here, evolutionists. Not much more
is left.

Leaving aside the hysterical didactic crap about "evolutionism," and creation v. science, i was greatly regaled by this particular little bit of vituperation. I think it safe for one to assume that Gabor is one of the 144,000, knows it, and will gloat with evil smile while we writhe in torment in a lake of molten brimstone, just before he goes off to the foot of the throne of Dog, to enjoy the light which is as the light of ten thousand suns . . .
































. . . which light Gabor will find a hell of a lot hotter than mere molten brimstone . . .

yea, the END of the WORLD is NIGH.

wow, another "dont bore me with the facts" Creationist rises like a bigole bass to the lure. Now just set the hook and dont lose this one.

discovery of DNA was an interesting story of scientific "upsmanship". What DNA does and how we can manipulate it is the really interesting story.
Evolution should really be a law -(Ernst Mayr),

I thought it wasn't yet a law simply because all of its mechanisms were not yet fully understood.

Yes, we all know that evolution occurs. But I don't think we know how it occurs every time.

I am an exception. I do not see it happening.But if you can show me a croco/bird or a chimp/man now (real time event) I will be convinced.

The results of Natural Selection are not expressed on the level of the individual it works on the level of a population. All populations (species) contain with in them variation. Some of these variations make the individuals who posses them more successful at life (better feed, living longer, reproducing more) and over time their descendents come to dominate the population (species) and define it. Variation come in numerous ways, the process of genetic reproduction is subject to many influences. The understanding of that process is one of the current "hot topics" in molecular biology. Unless you have second sight, you can not point to any one individual and say he/she is the future of the species, Natural Selection works over time and can be observed only as an outcome.

I cannot show you what you will not see.

[quote/]Leaving aside the hysterical didactic crap about "evolutionism," and creation v. science, i was greatly regaled by this particular little bit of vituperation. I think it safe for one to assume that Gabor is one of the 144,000, knows it, and will gloat with evil smile while we writhe in torment in a lake of molten brimstone, just before he goes off to the foot of the throne of Dog, to enjoy the light which is as the light of ten thousand suns . . .

. . . which light Gabor will find a hell of a lot hotter than mere molten brimstone . . .[/quote]

It is not hard to see who is "hysterical" here. Neither is it hard to read that
total scriptural ignorance behind the fancy wording. But as I wrote before
it is futile to substitute derision in the place of logic.

Gabor:
And I cannot see what you show me. I've never seen anything which does
not exist. So when you show me that nonexisting "thing" I will not see it.

Ah, this is hysterical indeed . . . and i thank you for the amusement. "Total scriptural ignorance" means that someone does not agree with your version of "revealed truth." The really hilarious part is your appeal to logic, as though your scriptural adherence partakes in any degree of logical consideration of reality.

I see you've avoided the issue of the coming "end of days." Can we assume therefore that you will enjoy "the rapture," while we benighted savages, souls sold to Satan, will suffer? Otherwise, i'm hard pressed to understand this little bit of lunacy: "Enjoy your time here, evolutionists. Not much more is left."

Setanta
Setanta, I will be very happy to wave goodbye to all the Rapturists as they leave this Earth to receive their heavenly rewards. Then the rest of us can concentrate on helping this planet and those remaining to survive our abuse and our wars.

BBB

Anything we can do to speed their departure?

I get confused sometimes as to why the scripture of one religion or another is brought up in any discussion on evolution.

The understanding of evolution did not come to us on any grand scale until long after those religions were written. Perhaps any new religions might contain evolution in their texts, but it'd be impossible for the old ones to include something they had never heard of.

I'm reading about parasitism at the moment. Fascinating. Most animals on the planet are parasites, you know, and vertebrates are hugely outnumbered by their own parasites. The implications for evolution are startling, as well: a selective pressure (predation) from within. When a host population becomes isolated, it's parasites become isolated, too. Subsets of the isolated population show different degrees of resistance to their parasites. Those with a high degree of resistance flourish while those with a low degree of resistance flounder, and the resistant individuals come to predominate in the population.

The parasite, though, it's evolving, too, and those that find a way to get past the resistant individuals' defenses start to predominate in the parasite population, because they have more available hosts, and the resistant population starts to fall. If the formerly susceptible population is able to develop new means of resistance to the parasite(not inconceivable, as the parasite population itself evolves to infect a different subpopulation), then it becomes the resistant group and its numbers start to rise again. Such cycles have actually been observed over numbers of years in freshwater snail populations isolated in lakes.

There's also a notion that parasitism and infectious disease may be a primary cause of sexual procreation. Populations that reproduce sexually have a much greater potential for generating genetic diversity (and hence for evolving new means of dealing with parasites and diseases) than populations that repoduce asexually. This hypothesis was tested in a species of snail that reproduces both sexually and asexually and which inhabits both lakes and rivers in eastern (I think it was) Africa. The sex ratios of lake and river populations were determined, and those that lived in lakes had a much higher proportion of males, indicating that there was a great deal more sexual (as opposed to asexual) reproduction occurring in the population. This was correlated with the prevalance of parasitic flukes in the snail populations, and the populations in lakes were much more highly parasitized. Sexual reproduction is a very inefficient process, and it doesn't necessarily make sense over a few thousand generations in an environment that is relatively stable over millions of generations; without any selective pressures in the environment, asexual reproucers competing for a niche should dominate. But when you factor infectious disease and parasitism (the former is really a subset of the latter) into the equation, it makes sense that so many animals -- especially large ones, that can host huge numbers and a wide variety of parasites -- use sex to reproduce: it allows for more variety in immune systems and other means of defending oneself against infection.

Sorry, just prattling. I find the stuff fascinating. Check out "Parasite Rex" if you're interested; the more I read, the more appalled I am that more parasitology has not been included in my curriculum.

Patiodog, antibiotic resistent bacteria are a classic example of Natural Selection at work in just the process you described.

While still quite young, i learned that birds are hag-ridden by parasite, inside and out (hence the apparent "drunken" behavior of birds who will splash wine around if offered--they're trying to coat their feathers to reduce the irritant; this can also be seen in birds who intentionally roll on an anthill, they hope to get well sprayed with formic acid, for the same purpose). Being but a liddly at the time, i was horrified, and avoided even coming close to a bird, much less touching them.

Quite apart from parasitology (and other studies of politicians), it is amazing the number of "critters," mostly among the insecta and the arachnidae, who have co-habited with the human race throughout most of history. I read a fascinating piece once by an English entomologist, who took a passage from a title deed transfer made from a prosperous farmer to his newly-married son with a specific description of the domocile, and then came to the conclusion that at least 4,000 species would have occupied that house, along with the two benighted teenagers starting out in life.

The human race is so weird . . . it's all good . . .

Yeah -- and I've been mulling today about the similarities between the plasmids that carry resistance genes (sometimes) and viruses...

The gist of the book is that the ecological and evolutionary impact of parasitism/disease has been vastly underappreciated -- that many if not most ecosystems are fundamentally limited by the amout of energy siphoned off by parasites. By some estimates as much as half of the ocean's plankton might be killed by viral infection. Detailed observations of a salt marsh near Santa Barbara, CA reveal that most of the potential energy stored in algae goes unharvested because of flukes (them again) in the snails (them again) there. The flukes in turn infect the fish (their "intermediate" host), which subjects them to predation by large birds (their "final" host). As much as 80% of the birds' diet comes from infected fish -- which behave erratically -- raising questions about whether the ecosystem could support the bird population without the fluke.

Obviously it's all very preliminary sorts of stuff, but given that nearly every animal species is infected by a host of parasites, it could be that looking at evolution primarily from the point of view of the hosts may not work; parasitism could be one of the main determinants in generating biodiversity.




Oh, something else, too: there is some evidence that sexual selection (and hence sexual dimorphism) may be a response to parasitism, as well. There is a direct correlation between the ability of a cock to grow a comb or a male bower-building fish (not the bird) and its ability to resist invasion.

As a European I find it rather amazing that creationism vs the evolution theory is an issue in the US. I thought there was a separation of state and religion.

Over here the vast majority of the populace find it self evident that the evolution theory is taught in science classes and that the creation myths of the various religions belong in the realm of comparative religion. It is totally futile to oppose a science and a religious conviction as the two belong to totally different belief sets.

However, I do believe the evolution theory owes some recognition to the proponents of creation for pointing out (real or imagined) flaws in the theory and inspiring scientists to research and improve the theory. Thus the evolution theory has progressed, refuting one claim after the other levelled against it. Creationists have gone so far in their scramble for evidence to back up their claims that they have used one notorious falsification (Piltdown man) to discard the entire fossil record, while at the same time sticking to falsifications of their own (even after the creators of the falsification have confessed to it) like in the case of the "human footprints coinciding with dinosaur tracks. Isn't it nice of them that they go throug al this trouble to keep us occupied?