ATTN: Texas residents, School board challenges EVOLUTION
- Thread starter Yminale
- Start date
- Status
QFT
Elephants.
For a long time Elephants were killed for their tusks, and because there are lower numbers of long tusked elephants, most elephants today and in the future will most likey have small tusks, because thanks to humans the small tusked gene is so numerous/strong in the elephant population.
http://www.environmentalgraffiti.com/ecology/elephants-evolve-smaller-tusks-due-to-poaching
Granted it's 'forced' evolution, but evolution never the less.
Elephants.
For a long time Elephants were killed for their tusks, and because there are lower numbers of long tusked elephants, most elephants today and in the future will most likey have small tusks, because thanks to humans the small tusked gene is so numerous/strong in the elephant population.
http://www.environmentalgraffiti.com/ecology/elephants-evolve-smaller-tusks-due-to-poaching
Granted it's 'forced' evolution, but evolution never the less.
The elephants haven't changed into a new species.
The elephants simply have a minor change in ratios of tusk sizes.
A minor change within a species is far from being what most people consider "evolution".
Try again.
..but the genetics have diverged from the long-tusked elephants. That's what evolution does. You won't live to see it as a seperate species, but that is the direction its going.
Wanna see a pair a little further down the divergant path? Horses and donkeys. One gender pairing produces a mule, while the other parental mix seldom produces offspring (called a hinny). Want another? Lions and tigers can produce Ligers and Tigons depending on the gender of the parents, yet they are considered seperate species.
Wanna see a pair a little further down the divergant path? Horses and donkeys. One gender pairing produces a mule, while the other parental mix seldom produces offspring (called a hinny). Want another? Lions and tigers can produce Ligers and Tigons depending on the gender of the parents, yet they are considered seperate species.
A new species is simply when enough small aggregate changes create a large enough difference from the starting organism. The distinction between so called micro and macro evolution is an arbitrary one generally imposed by people who don't understand the process to begin with. They don't describe different processes, simply different scales of time.
These are two constant talking points of the pro evolution crowd.
"You people don't understand what a theory actually is"
&
"Evolution occurs on a small, very, very limited scale (what some call microevolution) so it is inevitable that it occurs on a large scale (macroevolution), and there is really no difference between them"
By that reasoning, I should be able to infer that a space shuttle can accelerate at 3Gs for 20 years just because we've observed that it can accelerate at 3Gs for 2 minutes.
"You people don't understand what a theory actually is"
&
"Evolution occurs on a small, very, very limited scale (what some call microevolution) so it is inevitable that it occurs on a large scale (macroevolution), and there is really no difference between them"
By that reasoning, I should be able to infer that a space shuttle can accelerate at 3Gs for 20 years just because we've observed that it can accelerate at 3Gs for 2 minutes.
This is because generally people who dismiss evolution as "just a theory" do not understand the definition of a theory in the scientific context. This has been explained several times in this thread. Do you have a specific question on the definition to address your concerns? If so, I and others would be happy to address them.
Evolution is a constant process that occurs over time. Small scale is micro, large scale is macro. The process, however, is identical. Your example is extremely faulty... a space shuttle has a finite amount of fuel. Evolution has no "fuel". Previous changes are passed on to the next generation and if these changes give them a better ability to survive those changes do not go away. Then over time, more changes come. The same rules hold; changes that give an organism a better ability to survive stay. Over time these aggregate changes become significant enough that we would consider it a new species. Trying to cast micro and macro evolution as two different concepts is nothing more then constructing a false dichotomy.
It's telling, though, that you identify fundamental concepts of both science and evolution as "talking points". I will again point out that you are posting in the science forum. You should not be surprised that people here are framing any discussion within the context of science and will again wonder why you are posting here given the dim view of it that you are apparently taking?
Where do you get your information?
For instance, where the Japanese fleet sailed to and from during the Dec. 7 campaign.
Between 2001 and 2007 Michael Majerus observed 135 naturally resting Peppered Moths in Cambridge. Of these 37% were resting on tree trunks.
http://www.gen.cam.ac.uk/Research/Majerus/Swedentalk220807.pdf
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/s...ssic-test-case-for-darwins-theory-462938.html
Even if I considered the research credible, that constitutes barely 25% of the moths observed, meaning that the idea behind the orginal experiment was still fatally flawed.
And the second link is from a study that was conducted for the purpose of backing Darwins theory.
So it has no credibility.
A trip to any local library (public or college) will provide that information, so don't deem Teh InterWeb Thingy as the one, true viable source of information. I see where you're going, but the person you're querying loves to argue for the sake of arguing.
I'm saying this right now, let's not let this get into personal attacks on Dayton's beliefs, please. I don't agree with them, but he's entitled to them. Let's keep this on the science and what's proven to be one of more enlightening questions for us, "Why?"
Why on Earth would a person who doesn't actually believe in evolution teach the science behind evolution? I don't know of a single science teacher who doesn't agree with evolution, but I admit I don't know them all, so there may be a few out there. But we're talking science teachers, though, Dayton, not theologists. Theology doesn't usually enter into a discussion of scientific tests and principles. And I say that as someone who's all for scientific testing into the existence of a deity and the historical accuracy of the Bible. I want to know what happened before the Big Bang. I want to know what the universe looked like before the expansion. I also want to know how accurate the Bible really is. Biblical archaeology is one of my pet subjects, and for your record, yes, I do believe the Bible is historical fiction based around some events that may have actually happened. It's on my shelf next to Bullfinch's Mythology. We have more historical evidence that mythology is what exists to explain things science hasn't
It's much easier to find scientists trying to prove or disprove the events of the Bible than it is to find scientists trying to prove accepted theories to be false and more along with Biblical teachings.
I have to ask. There have been more than enough experiments in the past where someone set out to prove their theory and get proven wrong by the results. This is a fairly normal occurence in scientific testing, at least from what I recall from college. Are these the only kinds of study that you consider valid, no matter the subject? Or is it only when it comes to evoluton?
Because the scientific basis for evolution is quite well-established. How can one study invalidate an entire school of human thought?
No, I've known science teachers that don't believe in "evolution" depending on the definition of the theory.
A lot of religious people like science, I do. Though I think Natural Selection etc. fall under "evolution" right? I believe in Natural Selection, and find it fascinating. And there is a lot of science to talk about besides evolution- the equations of physics, archeology etc. It's not impossible, though granted probably unusual.
I always though natural selection was a given though...
I mean, if you have prey animals that rely on camouflage, and then their niche changes (pollution etc.) and their colouring doesn't hide them, they'll be easy prey. And if their genetic material allows for colour variety, and some of those colour options make it easier to hide in the new surroundings, then they'll be found and eaten less, and their sort of colouring will eventually predominate...
A lot of religious people like science, I do. Though I think Natural Selection etc. fall under "evolution" right? I believe in Natural Selection, and find it fascinating. And there is a lot of science to talk about besides evolution- the equations of physics, archeology etc. It's not impossible, though granted probably unusual.
I always though natural selection was a given though...
I mean, if you have prey animals that rely on camouflage, and then their niche changes (pollution etc.) and their colouring doesn't hide them, they'll be easy prey. And if their genetic material allows for colour variety, and some of those colour options make it easier to hide in the new surroundings, then they'll be found and eaten less, and their sort of colouring will eventually predominate...
I'm a little confused. Could you explain to me exactly how a result of 37% can be considered to be less than 25%?
Furthermore, your argument to this point is at least partially based upon the notion that 'In real life, Peppered Moths do not rest on tree trunks'. Yet this study demonstrates that they do. Not exclusively, nor even the majority of the time, but even so it invalidates the claim.
Now you could claim, with some justification, that this introduces a new element into the original experiments that Kettlewell did not account for. But as further studies, such as Professor Marjeus', have taken this into account and gathered statistically similar results, it would appear that the precise location of peppered moth's resting is of little significance.
No, the second link was a newspaper report on the result of Professor Marjeus' study. I included it so that people could get a reasonable understanding of the study without having to wade through a dry academic paper.
And no, the study was not done for the purposes of 'backing' Darwin's theory, but of testing it. That's how science works. We'd make no progress if all scientists ever did was pat themselves on the back and strive to preserve the status quo. It was only when the results were in and analysed that it became obvious that it supported Kettlewell's studies.
May I draw your attention to a paragraph I find significant?
"While the professor has also described drawbacks to Kettlewell's methodology, he was able to address all of these concerns and even tested an idea that Hooper had raised in her book - that it was bats rather than birds responsible for moth predation - a suggestion he dismissed altogether."
Marjeus did not slavishly copy earlier experiments, he took into account possible flaws that he and others had perceived in the earlier studies. Yet he received the same sort of results, indicating that the flaws were not significant.
Marie1, just to clarify (though you seem to have a good grasp on the essentials already). Natural selection is the process behind evolution. Certain traits, providing they can be passed down to offspring, and provide some benefit to the organism, will tend to become more common in future generations. Given different ecological 'niches', this can lead to major changes, to the point that a new species may emerge.
I am also glad to see someone make the point (which can not be made often enough) that this matter is not an issue of science vs. religion.
Oh, I know. I'm just pointing out that he's utterly and completely unreliable.
Did you see that thread I'm referencing?
Sorry, I do not
One thing I was wondering- I'm not sure I was using the word "niche" correctly. I was trying to think of the word for the environment an organism lives... is there a better word?
But yes, thanks... that's what I was trying to show.
I have another thought, but I've gotta run for an apt. bit...
Habitat?
- Status
Similar threads
