Home | Community | Message Board


This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.


Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder   Myyco.com Golden Teacher Liquid Culture For Sale   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Original Sensible Seeds High THC Strains   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom

Jump to first unread post Pages: 1 | 2 | Next >  [ show all ]
OfflineEndlessness
Nexus Refugee

Registered: 07/21/07
Posts: 272
Last seen: 4 years, 2 months
Darwin´s evolution theory - debatable?
    #8374583 - 05/07/08 07:36 PM (16 years, 15 days ago)

So I´ve been hearing and reading some arguments against darwinism, and darwin´s evolution theory...

what do you guys think, is it a fact, or is it disputable? are there good arguments against it?

Edited by Endlessness (05/07/08 07:42 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblejohnm214
Male User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 17,582
Loc: Americas
Re: Darwin´s evolution theory - debatable? [Re: Endlessness]
    #8374684 - 05/07/08 07:57 PM (16 years, 15 days ago)

I don't think there's good arguments against it, especially not the new earth creationism, i.e. jesus rode dinosaurs theory

But in the end, god could have simply created everything in turn, and that could never be disproven, so it comes down to: does the evidence match the theory? Yes. Are there obvious incompatibilities? No.

Good enough for me, though I think the whole issue is overblown and of little practical use

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDieCommie


Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
Re: Darwin´s evolution theory - debatable? [Re: Endlessness]
    #8374812 - 05/07/08 08:24 PM (16 years, 15 days ago)

All theories are debatable, otherwise it wouldnt be science it would be dogma.

However, like John said, there isnt any evidence contradicting evolution via natural selection. But if there ever is, then you can you that to debate the theory.

Also remember the distinction between fact and theory. Things that are observed are facts. Evolution is observed, it is a fact. Reasons behind facts are theories. The reason for evolution is natural selection, that is the theory.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinethe man
still masked
Other User Gallery


Registered: 08/12/99
Posts: 6,709
Loc: C A N A D A
Last seen: 6 hours, 29 minutes
Re: Darwin´s evolution theory - debatable? [Re: DieCommie]
    #8375383 - 05/07/08 10:44 PM (16 years, 15 days ago)

well some parts can be misinterpreted. and some things he says are sort of wrong. remember this was written a long ass time ago. but his main general points have yet to be disproven


--------------------
And Moses Said "Let my mushrooms grow!"

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblefushock
 User Gallery
Registered: 10/14/07
Posts: 428
Re: Darwin´s evolution theory - debatable? [Re: Endlessness]
    #8375419 - 05/07/08 10:57 PM (16 years, 15 days ago)

Evolution is a fact. Things that reproduce sexually evolve. Evolution as the origin of species is a theory. Its the best one we currently have. And it a very good theory.

Most of the arguments Ive heard against it are people simply trying to make their "six days" theory seem slightly less goofy. Things like "If humans evolved from monkeys, why are there monkeys?"

I cant think of any good arguments against evolution.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineSeussA
Error: divide byzero


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,480
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 3 months, 8 days
Re: Darwin´s evolution theory - debatable? [Re: fushock]
    #8376463 - 05/08/08 04:04 AM (16 years, 15 days ago)

> Evolution is a fact. Things that reproduce sexually evolve.

Asteraz fallacy. Just because 'things' can adapt to their environment does not mean that things 'evolve' into new things.

Bare assertion fallacy. Just because you state evolution is fact does not make it so.

Simple organisms reproduce asexually. How did simple organisms evolve, using asexual reproduction, into complex organisms that use sexual reproduction? (There is a good biological answer.)

Although we have been looking for over 100 years, we have not once seen a species evolve into another species. We have fossil records that seem to indicate evolution of species, but we have not witnessed a species turn into a new species.

Finally, assuming that evolution is real, I contend that natural selection works against evolution rather than driving it. Natural selection tends to create specialized niches that are in balance with one another. Mass extinction is what drives evolution. When the specialized niches are destroyed, the organisms left have room to expand/evolve without worry of a specialized predator killing them off. Only when the population has reached the limits of the resources supporting it does natural selection kick in weeding out the less desirable traits leaving organisms that are specialized for the niche.


--------------------
Just another spore in the wind.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblewisp

Registered: 04/13/08
Posts: 5,304
Re: Darwin´s evolution theory - debatable? [Re: Seuss]
    #8376480 - 05/08/08 04:28 AM (16 years, 15 days ago)

We may not have seen new species evolve per se, but we have for example seen disease evolve to become multiply resistant to antibiotics, etc.

i don't think there are any decent arguements against evolution, although because we don't fully understand it, and because it is not reproducable (i.e. we only have this planet to base it upon) we cannot make it a law.

there are numerous examples of speciation, amongst organisms which strongly support the theory of evolution.

asexual reproducers evolve slower than sexual reproducers, but evolution does occurs, for DNA is not replicated exactly and thus mutations occurs. if these are advantageous to the species then these traits will be selcted for, and thus evolution happens.

"Finally, assuming that evolution is real, I contend that natural selection works against evolution rather than driving it. Natural selection tends to create specialized niches that are in balance with one another. Mass extinction is what drives evolution. When the specialized niches are destroyed, the organisms left have room to expand/evolve without worry of a specialized predator killing them off. Only when the population has reached the limits of the resources supporting it does natural selection kick in weeding out the less desirable traits leaving organisms that are specialized for the niche."

Rubbish. natural selection works against the individual, but not against evolution. what you are referring to is called "catastrophism". although catastrophic events do indeed spur evolution, out of necessity for filling in the void, it is not the driving factor of evolution, natural selections still is for it only opens up more room for change, which is then acted upon by selection. organisms are in a contant state of evolving, for environments and species-species relationships are not static. the theory of gradualism, or uniformitarianism is far more apt is regards to evolution, both in the evolution of the earth and organisms.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineSeussA
Error: divide byzero


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,480
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 3 months, 8 days
Re: Darwin´s evolution theory - debatable? [Re: wisp]
    #8376492 - 05/08/08 04:47 AM (16 years, 15 days ago)

> but we have for example seen disease evolve to become multiply resistant to antibiotics, etc.

Nope. We have seen disease adapt to become resistant to antibiotics. We have not seen a disease causing bacteria evolve into a new species of bacteria.

> Rubbish. natural selection works against the individual, but not against evolution.

Don't confuse adaptation with evolution. Natural selection supports adaptation and works against evolution. Adaptation leads to specialization of a species within a niche while evolution leads to new species.

I noticed this behavior when simulating evolution (for the purpose of evolving AI) in a research setting. When I did a journal search, I was surprised to find that it has been observed in nature and is a theory among biologists that study evolution.

> organisms are in a contant state of evolving, for environments and species-species relationships are not static.

Nope. Organisms within a species are in a constant state of adapting. Evolution is not adaptation.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblewisp

Registered: 04/13/08
Posts: 5,304
Re: Darwin´s evolution theory - debatable? [Re: Seuss]
    #8376526 - 05/08/08 05:17 AM (16 years, 15 days ago)

>Nope. We have seen disease adapt to become resistant to antibiotics. We have not seen a disease causing bacteria evolve into a new species of bacteria.<

I never said that. i specifically said we have not seen new species evolve per se, but have seen diseases evolve to become multiply resistant to antibiotics, i.e. THEY HAVE EVOLVED. Adaption is evolution. If a species physiologically adapts, then it has evolved. What do you consider to be evolving?

Evolution is not restricted to sudden jumps from one species into a new one. In fact that is emphatically not how it happens. Change is gradual, and adaption is part of evolution.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineSeussA
Error: divide byzero


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,480
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 3 months, 8 days
Re: Darwin´s evolution theory - debatable? [Re: wisp]
    #8376573 - 05/08/08 06:02 AM (16 years, 15 days ago)

> Adaption is evolution.

No, adaptation and evolution are very different. Assuming that you are really a biologist (based upon your title), I would expect you to understand the distinction.

For example, there is a species of white moths that live on white flowers in a forest. A factory goes up next door and the soot from the factory turns the white flowers black. A few years later, the moths have adapted and become black rather than white. The moths are still the same species. They have adapted. They have NOT evolved. They are still the exact same species. They still have the exact same genetics. The only difference is the expression of various genes that control the color of the moth.

> What do you consider to be evolving?

The creation of new genes within an organism's population as opposed to a change in expression of existing genes.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineAnnoA
Experimenter
 User Gallery


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 06/17/99
Posts: 24,166
Loc: my room
Last seen: 7 days, 2 hours
Re: Darwin´s evolution theory - debatable? [Re: Seuss]
    #8376579 - 05/08/08 06:10 AM (16 years, 15 days ago)

Quote:

Seuss said:
We have not seen a disease causing bacteria evolve into a new species of bacteria.




Yes and no. Depends on the definition of "species". This definition is human made, and nature often doesn't adhere 100% to human made classifications.

See http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/evo_41

"A species is often defined as a group of individuals that actually or potentially interbreed in nature. In this sense, a species is the biggest gene pool possible under natural conditions."

"There are lots of places where it is difficult to apply this definition. For example, many bacteria reproduce mainly asexually. The bacterium shown at right is reproducing asexually, by binary fission. The definition of a species as a group of interbreeding individuals cannot be easily applied to organisms that reproduce only or mainly asexually."

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineAnnoA
Experimenter
 User Gallery


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 06/17/99
Posts: 24,166
Loc: my room
Last seen: 7 days, 2 hours
Re: Darwin´s evolution theory - debatable? [Re: Seuss]
    #8376580 - 05/08/08 06:12 AM (16 years, 15 days ago)

Double post.

Edited by Seuss (05/08/08 06:15 AM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblewisp

Registered: 04/13/08
Posts: 5,304
Re: Darwin´s evolution theory - debatable? [Re: Seuss]
    #8376583 - 05/08/08 06:16 AM (16 years, 15 days ago)

yes i know the example you speak of. so you're saying adaption is just the selection of alleles already present. this may be so in some cases, but over time the allele for the white variant of these moths will be bred out until you only have black moths with black capabilities. this means over time you will get genetic variation. you seem to expect evolution to occur at very fast rates. it is most unlikely that in the short time you live you will actually get to observe evolution per se. you and i and every other human are going to live for an almost insignificntly small amount of time relative to the age of this planet, and life on earth. you can't seriously expect to see a new species evolve. what you may see is adaption, the precursor to genetic assimilation of the acquired behaviour.

as for the bacteria which have "adapted" resistance to antibiotics, do you think they have not changed genetically? what about one species of bacteria that have "adapted" then passed this on genetically to bacteria which have not been exposed to the antibiotic themselves, only to another bacterium that itself has been?

how do you explain the difference in eukaryotes and prokaryotes if evolution does not occur? does do you explain mitochondria and chloroplasts?

how exactly to you explain speciation???

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineSeussA
Error: divide byzero


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,480
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 3 months, 8 days
Re: Darwin´s evolution theory - debatable? [Re: Anno]
    #8376593 - 05/08/08 06:24 AM (16 years, 15 days ago)

> The definition of a species as a group of interbreeding individuals cannot be easily applied to organisms that reproduce only or mainly asexually.

In these cases have a few options. In the old days, we looked for physical differences between organisms. For example, if one type of bacteria produces endospores and another does not, we can classify these as two different species based upon this extreme difference. However, this can often be misleading, as things that appear very far apart can actually have fairly common genetics.

In modern times, we can sequence the DNA and look to see how many genes are in common between the two organisms. However, we create a new problem trying to decide how much change is necessary to define a new species. Not an easy question to answer.


--------------------
Just another spore in the wind.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblewisp

Registered: 04/13/08
Posts: 5,304
Re: Darwin´s evolution theory - debatable? [Re: Seuss]
    #8376605 - 05/08/08 06:36 AM (16 years, 15 days ago)

no, not an easy question. the phylogeny of bacteria is a mess. it challenges our simple views on classification. the very fact that bacteria of different strains/species are able to exchange DNA, thereby transforming into something rather new, makes the issue even more difficult.

endosymbiosis is the basis of eukaryotic evolution, and there are plenty examples of endosymbiosis occuring today. it seems likely then that just like the original cells that consumed alpha-proteobacteria or photosynthetic cells, and eventually evolved to such a degree that they became the one organism, this will occur once again with these present day examples.

even if we do not witness the evolution of an entirely new species within our lifetimes, does not mean evolution is not occurring. i believe adaption is the basis of further evolution, so if we witness adaption, we are witnessing part of evolution.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineSeussA
Error: divide byzero


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,480
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 3 months, 8 days
Re: Darwin´s evolution theory - debatable? [Re: wisp]
    #8376626 - 05/08/08 07:04 AM (16 years, 15 days ago)

> endosymbiosis is the basis of eukaryotic evolution

Can this occur between different 'species'? (I'm asking, as I don't know.) For example, can the flu virus swap out genes with the cold virus if both virus' infect a common host?


--------------------
Just another spore in the wind.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblewisp

Registered: 04/13/08
Posts: 5,304
Re: Darwin´s evolution theory - debatable? [Re: Seuss]
    #8376676 - 05/08/08 07:39 AM (16 years, 15 days ago)

Yes, although what your talking about in regards to virii swapping genes, is called horizontal gene transfer, and occurs mainly amongst bacteria and virii. This is why there is such major concern regarding the bird flu. As yet the bird flu has only been able to jump from a bird host to a human (or bird to bird) but not then from the human to another human. However they are concerned that if a human already has the ordinary flu, then contracts the bird flu, they'll mutate and become a "super strain" capable to spreading from birds to humans to more humans to more birds and so on and so forth. You can then understand the concern for a pandemic.

Having said that virii aren't really living, but that's a whole other story.

Bacteria though are definitely capable of swapping genes between species, which is a problem in regards to multiple resistance to antibiotics. We have, as a whole, squandered what antibiotics we have had, and abused them in such a way as to have now made many of them redundant.

Endosymbiosis on the other hand refers to the symbiosis of organisms within one another. Think the bacteria in your gut. But this also happens on an intracellular levels too. In regards to the theory of evolution, it is believed that originally something like an Archaea engulfed cells but instead of eating them found them benficial to live with them, where in turn there provided energy. These became the mitochondria and the chloroplast. The evidence lies in the fact that they both replicate independently of the nucleus and both contain there only set of circular DNA much like that of a plastid in bacteria.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDieCommie


Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
Re: Darwin´s evolution theory - debatable? [Re: Seuss]
    #8376889 - 05/08/08 09:58 AM (16 years, 14 days ago)

Quote:

The moths are still the same species. They have adapted. They have NOT evolved. They are still the exact same species.



I dont know where you are getting this... Im no biologist, but have never heard a real scientist define evolution in the way you are doing. Its in my biology textbook, its the first line in the wikipedia article on evolution... Evolution is the changing of a trait. There need not be any change in species for there to be evolution. The moths you mention have different traits, they have evolved. People from the netherlands used to be the shortest in europe now they are the tallest, they have evolved. Dogs have been breed to display different traits, they have evolved. Bacteria start to exhibit the trait of being drug resistant, they have evolved.



Quote:

They still have the exact same genetics.



They were genetically predisposed to be white, now they are black. Thats a change in genetics.




Again, for there to be evolution you need only a change in traits.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblejohnm214
Male User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 17,582
Loc: Americas
Re: Darwin´s evolution theory - debatable? [Re: wisp]
    #8378022 - 05/08/08 03:22 PM (16 years, 14 days ago)

Quote:

tripsis said:

Endosymbiosis on the other hand refers to the symbiosis of organisms within one another. Think the bacteria in your gut. But this also happens on an intracellular levels too. In regards to the theory of evolution, it is believed that originally something like an Archaea engulfed cells but instead of eating them found them benficial to live with them, where in turn there provided energy. These became the mitochondria and the chloroplast. The evidence lies in the fact that they both replicate independently of the nucleus and both contain there only set of circular DNA much like that of a plastid in bacteria.




I've never heard endoxymbiosis used to refer to things like bacteria in the gut. I'd argue these aren't inside the host, they're just in the GI tract surrounded by impermeable epithelium to prevent them from spreading and killing the host.

I guess the root may include things in our gut, but I've not heard it used this way, have you?

And I don't believe there's any evidence of endocymbiosis happening in a modern species, is there?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblejohnm214
Male User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 17,582
Loc: Americas
Re: Darwin´s evolution theory - debatable? [Re: Seuss]
    #8378064 - 05/08/08 03:35 PM (16 years, 14 days ago)

Quote:

Seuss said:
> endosymbiosis is the basis of eukaryotic evolution

Can this occur between different 'species'? (I'm asking, as I don't know.) For example, can the flu virus swap out genes with the cold virus if both virus' infect a common host?




endosymbiosis is different than genes swapping between species. Its not that the one species aquires a new genetic makeup closer to another species, combines this with its own, and evolves, its that the species one literally engulfs species 2, and species 2 and its offspring forever live inside species 1

So our mitochondria and plants chloroplasts act this way, and reproduce on their own w/ their own genome, w/ little input from the parent cell.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: 1 | 2 | Next >  [ show all ]

Shop: PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder   Myyco.com Golden Teacher Liquid Culture For Sale   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Original Sensible Seeds High THC Strains   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom


Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Taking shots at Darwin's Theory of Evolution iamhimheisme 863 5 09/25/04 11:14 AM
by MXNR
* Evolution
( 1 2 3 all )
newuser1492 4,802 57 10/08/05 03:54 PM
by H_Wrabbit
* WHY has life evolved?
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 all )
RebelSteve33 15,454 112 11/11/06 10:43 PM
by Ravus
* Evolution question... lamarboarder1 1,229 7 10/09/05 09:17 AM
by phi1618
* Humans Are Evolving More Rapidly Than Thought Possible DiploidM 1,800 13 04/12/06 09:08 AM
by defcheck
* Evolution, specializtion, and natural selection SeussA 1,206 7 10/02/05 12:36 PM
by trendal
* ID versus Evolution psychomime 724 5 07/19/05 11:02 AM
by newuser1492
* Big Bang Theory Busted By 33 Top Scientists
( 1 2 all )
FrankieJustTrypt 5,481 27 08/06/11 11:17 PM
by cortex

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: trendal, automan, Northerner
3,905 topic views. 0 members, 0 guests and 2 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2024 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.023 seconds spending 0.004 seconds on 13 queries.