shirgall Posted October 29, 2015 Posted October 29, 2015 http://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2015-10-28-chicken-study-reveals-evolution-can-happen-much-faster-thought-0 By studying individual chickens that were part of a long-term pedigree, the scientists, led by Professor Greger Larson at Oxford University's Research Laboratory for Archaeology, found two mutations that had occurred in the mitochondrial genomes of the birds in only 50 years. For a long time scientists have believed that the rate of change in the mitochondrial genome was never faster than about 2% per million years. The identification of these mutations shows that the rate of evolution in this pedigree is in fact 15 times faster. In addition, by determining the genetic sequences along the pedigree, the team also discovered a single instance of mitochondrial DNA being passed down from a father. This is a surprising discovery, showing that so-called 'paternal leakage' is not as rare as previously believed.
RCali Posted October 29, 2015 Posted October 29, 2015 What could a scientifically illiterate person take from this? Evolution is faster than previously thought?
TheSchoolofAthens Posted October 29, 2015 Posted October 29, 2015 That is pretty cool. I'm no evolution buff but I am still definitely suprised by that rate!
shirgall Posted October 29, 2015 Author Posted October 29, 2015 What could a scientifically illiterate person take from this? Evolution is faster than previously thought? That distinct evolutionary changes in complex creatures are noticeable in a shorter period of time than expected, yes. Faster evolutionary changes have been seen in less complex things, like pea plants and fruit flies.
Will Torbald Posted October 29, 2015 Posted October 29, 2015 That distinct evolutionary changes in complex creatures are noticeable in a shorter period of time than expected, yes. Faster evolutionary changes have been seen in less complex things, like pea plants and fruit flies. At the cellular level a chicken really isn't that much more complex than a pea or a fly. How you arrange cells doesn't make the cells themselves more complex. That's why discrete cellular mutations aren't surprising. Also, the mutations here are of mithochondrial DNA which is separate from the DNA of the nucleus of regular cells, and they don't really affect the chicken that much.
shirgall Posted October 29, 2015 Author Posted October 29, 2015 At the cellular level a chicken really isn't that much more complex than a pea or a fly. How you arrange cells doesn't make the cells themselves more complex. That's why discrete cellular mutations aren't surprising. Also, the mutations here are of mithochondrial DNA which is separate from the DNA of the nucleus of regular cells, and they don't really affect the chicken that much. Removing higher order complexity to say things are really the same is not really the point is it? Part of the higher-order complexity at work here is the longer gestational cycle to produce new offspring. Despite how much longer it takes to make new chicks, noticeable changes were appearing. And if you are going to pick nits on a deliberate attempt to translate the article for the lay person, have some empathy for the fact that I was trying to emphasize clarity over completeness.
The Sage of Main Street Posted October 29, 2015 Posted October 29, 2015 That is pretty cool. I'm no evolution buff but I am still definitely suprised by that rate! FLAWED FOUNDATIONS Is being off by 15 times an acceptable error? If not, why do we think the dominant biological scientists are any more than primitive and untalented guessers? Isn't their education just narrow-minded android conformity? 1
Will Torbald Posted October 29, 2015 Posted October 29, 2015 Removing higher order complexity to say things are really the same is not really the point is it? Part of the higher-order complexity at work here is the longer gestational cycle to produce new offspring. Despite how much longer it takes to make new chicks, noticeable changes were appearing. And if you are going to pick nits on a deliberate attempt to translate the article for the lay person, have some empathy for the fact that I was trying to emphasize clarity over completeness. It matters to make the distinction when talking about mutations and evolution. The mutations described in the article are not the kinds of things people imagine when they hear the phrase "evolution happens faster than we thought". First, no, the article is making sensationalist claims. Mutation is happening faster than assumed, but mutation is not evolution per se. Second, it's in the mitochondria, so it's pretty much irrelevant to what a chicken will do, look like, or live like. As long as the mitochondria keeps making energy, no one will notice the mutation. Third, domesticated chickens are not a good sample for how evolution works in nature. The mutations are happening in artificially selected populations, not naturally selected. Fourth, I wasn't trying to translate it for a lay person, I was trying to reveal its misleading nature. Chickens are not evolving into a new species. There's just a faster rate of mutations in one of the cell organs that have their own separate DNA from the normal chicken DNA. Those mutations are relevant to detect lineages, but not in any way relevant to evolution into new species or new forms of a species.
Pelafina Posted October 30, 2015 Posted October 30, 2015 You know you can't believe in the theory of evolution, because it is not scientifically proven. It is the best guess we have so far which explains what we see. But if you believe in it, then you are operating on faith, because it's a theory, not fact. 1
shirgall Posted October 30, 2015 Author Posted October 30, 2015 You know you can't believe in the theory of evolution, because it is not scientifically proven. It is the best guess we have so far which explains what we see. But if you believe in it, then you are operating on faith, because it's a theory, not fact. As usual, we need to define terms. Which theory under the umbrella of "evolution" are you claiming is faith-based? Evolution in an of itself is a fact. It has been observed in multiple contexts and conditions. What are you really digging at? Genetics? Natural selection? Speciation? Mutation? Heredity itself? Biased mutation? Genetic drift? Origin of species? Common descent? Fossil records? Carbon dating? These are all theories that contribute to evolution. Evolution is as solid as the theory of gravity. It's not a guess. It's not even an educated guess. There have been thousands of experiments. There has not been evidence observed contradictory to its tenets or predictions. All the evidence has been incorporated into the process of hypothesis generation and testing. As a starter, I'd suggest reading The Greatest Show on Earth: the Evidence for Evolution. We've conversations like this before. Not sure why I'm bothering to reply.
Pelafina Posted October 30, 2015 Posted October 30, 2015 So then why call it the "theory of evolution" instead of the proven "law of evolution"?
RCali Posted October 30, 2015 Posted October 30, 2015 A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation andexperimentation.[1][2][3][4] As with most (if not all) forms of scientific knowledge, scientific theories are inductive in nature[citation needed] and aim for predictive power and explanatory capability. Scientific theories are the most reliable, rigorous, and comprehensive form of scientific knowledge.[6] This is significantly different from the common usage of the word "theory", which implies that something is a conjecture, hypothesis, or guess (i.e., unsubstantiated and speculative) From wikipedia - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory A scientific law is a statement based on repeated experimental observations that describes some aspects of the universe. A scientific law always applies under the same conditions, and implies that there is a causal relationship involving its elements. Factual and well-confirmed statements like "Mercury is liquid at standard temperature and pressure" are considered too specific to qualify as scientific laws. A central problem in thephilosophy of science, going back to David Hume, is that of distinguishing causal relationships (such as those implied by laws) from principles that arise due to constant conjunction.[1] Laws differ from scientific theories in that they do not posit a mechanism or explanation of phenomena: they are merely distillations of the results of repeated observation. Also from wikipedia - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_law
Will Torbald Posted October 30, 2015 Posted October 30, 2015 You know you can't believe in the theory of evolution, because it is not scientifically proven. It is the best guess we have so far which explains what we see. But if you believe in it, then you are operating on faith, because it's a theory, not fact. People are monkeys. Get over it.
AccuTron Posted October 31, 2015 Posted October 31, 2015 People are monkeys. Get over it. I ape your response.
Pelafina Posted November 1, 2015 Posted November 1, 2015 People are monkeys. Get over it. No logic nor evidence, not an argument
Will Torbald Posted November 1, 2015 Posted November 1, 2015 No logic nor evidence, not an argument What makes you think you deserve an argument? 1
Pelafina Posted November 2, 2015 Posted November 2, 2015 What makes you think you deserve an argument? You can't defend your faith. It's okay, I understand why. 1
RCali Posted November 2, 2015 Posted November 2, 2015 You can't defend your faith. It's okay, I understand why. You ignored what I posted, countering what you would call an argument. Why would anyone continue to argue against you?
Pelafina Posted November 2, 2015 Posted November 2, 2015 You ignored what I posted, countering what you would call an argument. Why would anyone continue to argue against you?
Pelafina Posted November 2, 2015 Posted November 2, 2015 Not an argument. Your copy and paste from wikipedia - not an argument, nor proof. Admit that your belief in evolution is based on faith. It's healthier. I don't believe in creationism, nor evolution, because there is no proof for neither.
RCali Posted November 2, 2015 Posted November 2, 2015 Your copy and paste from wikipedia - not an argument, nor proof. Admit that your belief in evolution is based on faith. It's healthier. I don't believe in creationism, nor evolution, because there is no proof for neither. Wrong, I corrected you in your ignorance of the terms "theory" and "law". You decided to not continue that and spew irrational sentences out as it would do anything to continue the conversation.
Pelafina Posted November 2, 2015 Posted November 2, 2015 Wrong, I corrected you in your ignorance of the terms "theory" and "law". You decided to not continue that and spew irrational sentences out as it would do anything to continue the conversation. Using "theory" and "law" in a sentence does not prove anything. Why do you think what Wikipedia says is correct? Is it because it coincides with your faith? 1
shirgall Posted November 2, 2015 Author Posted November 2, 2015 Using "theory" and "law" in a sentence does not prove anything. Why do you think what Wikipedia says is correct? Is it because it coincides with your faith? Arriving at common definitions of terms is a necessary pre-requisite to rational argument. If you didn't like the definitions, you are free to disagree and offer your own interpretation. For example, you are using the term "faith" in a fashion that is not common, and certainly not in a way I agree with. Therefore, we cannot have a rational discussion about "faith". 1
Will Torbald Posted November 2, 2015 Posted November 2, 2015 Your copy and paste from wikipedia - not an argument, nor proof. Admit that your belief in evolution is based on faith. It's healthier. I don't believe in creationism, nor evolution, because there is no proof for neither. "I don't believe in anything, therefore I am right" "I'm agnostic so I can say that anything you believe in is faith" What a load of crud.
Pelafina Posted November 3, 2015 Posted November 3, 2015 "I don't believe in anything, therefore I am right" "I'm agnostic so I can say that anything you believe in is faith" What a load of crud. I don't believe in things which are not proven. To do this requires using reason, logic and evidence. You are free to shun reason, logic and evidence if you so choose. Evolution requires faith because it is not proven. Arriving at common definitions of terms is a necessary pre-requisite to rational argument. If you didn't like the definitions, you are free to disagree and offer your own interpretation. For example, you are using the term "faith" in a fashion that is not common, and certainly not in a way I agree with. Therefore, we cannot have a rational discussion about "faith". Merrian-Webster's definition of "faith" - firm belief in something for which there is no proof.
RCali Posted November 3, 2015 Posted November 3, 2015 You keep saying it hasn't been proven, but that doesn't make the proof that proves it has been proven go away, and prove your point of there being no proof. You can find out all you need by typing "theory of evolution" on any search engine and following with a press of "Enter" in your keyboard. I heard google.com is pretty good.
shirgall Posted November 3, 2015 Author Posted November 3, 2015 Evolution requires faith because it is not proven. Merrian-Webster's definition of "faith" - firm belief in something for which there is no proof. Your definition lacks something. Specifically, it lacks the fact that there is no disproof of evolution, but there's disproof of religions that presume characteristics of a deity that cannot logically exist. A definition of faith should encompass this distinction. Gravity and evolution are not proven, but we'd be wrong to act as if they are not reasonable, sufficient, and operable theories on how the universe works.
Will Torbald Posted November 3, 2015 Posted November 3, 2015 Gravity and evolution are not proven, but we'd be wrong to act as if they are not reasonable, sufficient, and operable theories on how the universe works. Not so, Shirgall. Gravity and evolution are proven phenomena of nature. They are natural facts of the world with enough empirical evidence to support their reality. What people like Pelafina do is confuse the theory with the observation. We observe the power of gravity, we observe evolution happening - and then we device a theory to explain it. The theory of evolution by means of natural selection has been proven. The theory of gravitation by general relativity has been proven. To deny they haven't by means of "it's faith" is a crude projection of an ignorant mind. I don't believe in things which are not proven. To do this requires using reason, logic and evidence. You are free to shun reason, logic and evidence if you so choose. Evolution requires faith because it is not proven. Merrian-Webster's definition of "faith" - firm belief in something for which there is no proof. Literally go read a book. Go to a museum of natural history. Watch documentaries. You are ignorant and stubborn in your faith assertion. Get an education.
shirgall Posted November 3, 2015 Author Posted November 3, 2015 Not so, Shirgall. Gravity and evolution are proven phenomena of nature. They are natural facts of the world with enough empirical evidence to support their reality. What people like Pelafina do is confuse the theory with the observation. We observe the power of gravity, we observe evolution happening - and then we device a theory to explain it. The theory of evolution by means of natural selection has been proven. The theory of gravitation by general relativity has been proven. To deny they haven't by means of "it's faith" is a crude projection of an ignorant mind. Yes, my construction was clumsy, and you are right in that every day the theories of gravity and evolution get more evidence that they are the correct interpretation... I was trying to shine a light on the difference between the incomplete definition of faith and what a better definition needed to include.
Pelafina Posted November 3, 2015 Posted November 3, 2015 You keep saying it hasn't been proven, but that doesn't make the proof that proves it has been proven go away, and prove your point of there being no proof. . Sophistry. Not so, Shirgall. Gravity and evolution are proven phenomena of nature. They are natural facts of the world with enough empirical evidence to support their reality. What people like Pelafina do is confuse the theory with the observation. We observe the power of gravity, we observe evolution happening - and then we device a theory to explain it. The theory of evolution by means of natural selection has been proven. The theory of gravitation by general relativity has been proven. To deny they haven't by means of "it's faith" is a crude projection of an ignorant mind. Literally go read a book. Go to a museum of natural history. Watch documentaries. You are ignorant and stubborn in your faith assertion. Get an education. "Gravity" is just a word that people like you use when they lack an explanation. In the past when people asked "what is thunder", the answer was "Thor", because they were ignorant. And similarly, when you're asked why things fall to the earth when dropped, your answer is "gravity" because you're ignorant. Gravity is not a theory. It's just a word used by people who think they are providing a scientific answer, but in reality they know nothing. There is a video on youtube where professor and Nobel laureate, Richard Feynman is asked "how do magnets work?", and his answer is "we (scientists) don't know". You're ignorant of the fact that you're ignorant. It's called unconscious incompetence, and it makes you pompous.
Will Torbald Posted November 3, 2015 Posted November 3, 2015 Sophistry. "Gravity" is just a word that people like you use when they lack an explanation. In the past when people asked "what is thunder", the answer was "Thor", because they were ignorant. When I ask you why things fall to the earth when dropped, your answer is "gravity" because you're ignorant. Gravity is not a theory. It's just a word used by people who think they are providing a scientific answer, but in reality they know nothing. There is a video on youtube where professor and Nobel laureate, Richard Feynman is asked "how do magnets work?", and his answer is "we (scientists) don't know". You're ignorant of the fact that you're ignorant. It's called unconscious incompetence, and it makes you pompous. We're not discussing physics, we're discussing biology. Of which you know nothing about if you insist it hasn't been proven.
Pelafina Posted November 3, 2015 Posted November 3, 2015 It is true that the theory of evolution has not been proven – if, by that term, one means established beyond any further possibility of doubt or refutation. On the other hand, neither has atomic theory, the theory of relativity, quantum theory, or indeed any other theory in science. The reason for this is that science does not deal in absolute proof, only in the balance of the evidence. To see why this is and must be true, imagine that we are scientists seeking to explain some feature of the natural world. Based on the evidence available to us, we can construct a hypothesis – an educated guess – which we offer as that explanation. If more evidence turns up that supports our hypothesis, if our hypothesis is testable and falsifiable, and if our hypothesis can be used to make predictions which turn out to be correct – if all these things are true, then our hypothesis graduates to the status of a theory and, in time, becomes accepted scientific wisdom. But how do we really know the original hypothesis is true? What if it completely misses the mark, but gives the right answers just by coincidence? Or what if it is just an approximation, giving generally correct answers while failing to capture the true reality of what is going on? How can we ever be sure that these things are not the case? The answer is, of course, that we cannot know this. This is why no scientific theory, including evolution, is ever considered to be proven. http://www.patheos.com/blogs/daylightatheism/essays/has-evolution-been-proven
RCali Posted November 3, 2015 Posted November 3, 2015 I wonder if the reputation value is related to how different IQ is compared to the usual member.
Pelafina Posted November 3, 2015 Posted November 3, 2015 I wonder if the reputation value is related to how different IQ is compared to the usual member. Ad hominem attacks are not an argument. It is true that the theory of evolution has not been proven – if, by that term, one means established beyond any further possibility of doubt or refutation. On the other hand, neither has atomic theory, the theory of relativity, quantum theory, or indeed any other theory in science. The reason for this is that science does not deal in absolute proof, only in the balance of the evidence. To see why this is and must be true, imagine that we are scientists seeking to explain some feature of the natural world. Based on the evidence available to us, we can construct a hypothesis – an educated guess – which we offer as that explanation. If more evidence turns up that supports our hypothesis, if our hypothesis is testable and falsifiable, and if our hypothesis can be used to make predictions which turn out to be correct – if all these things are true, then our hypothesis graduates to the status of a theory and, in time, becomes accepted scientific wisdom. But how do we really know the original hypothesis is true? What if it completely misses the mark, but gives the right answers just by coincidence? Or what if it is just an approximation, giving generally correct answers while failing to capture the true reality of what is going on? How can we ever be sure that these things are not the case? The answer is, of course, that we cannot know this. This is why no scientific theory, including evolution, is ever considered to be proven. http://www.patheos.com/blogs/daylightatheism/essays/has-evolution-been-proven/#sthash.L49Q3wIi.dpuf
Recommended Posts