Evolution is a basic, biological process

Where did you get that Dawkin's quote from? Is it AIG? I'd like to see the context in which they use it and if they omit what he says directly afterwards.

CharlesIt is from the book The Blind Watchmaker. Here is the entire verse that goes together with this sentence. Amazing what a difference context makes.

Sorry I should have made it clear - I already know what context it was in - I was wondering where Dodo had got it from.Thanks for the effort!

Thanks very much for your perspective. I am always interested in hearing how the word is taken over there by you. I dont really think there are national differences of organacism as some elite here, at Harvard etc, think, but instead just different relations of apperception and will are likely being differentially taught. Hearing from you has helped me a bit on this. I THEN try to think about continental philosophy but that is not for this thread etc as indeed the poster responded above in proper context.

Wow. So many misconceptions, so little time. Well, YOU may not think so, but the folks who actually practice the science would disagree with you. Adaptation and speciation are two of the results of the evolutionary process. Adaptation occurs within populations over the generations as random mutation + natural selection increases the marginal fitness of individuals within the population in response to environmental pressure (the selection process). Speciation occurs as a result of reproductive isolation arising between two populations of a single species that ultimately results in sufficient distinction in their genotype through the process of evolution that we are justified in designating them different species. IOW, two of the results of the evolutionary process are adaptation and speciation. The ToE is correct. These two results are NOT the process of evolution - the process is mutation + natural selection. They are, however, solid indicators that evolution happens as the theory states. Really? So how DO you account for organisms that have features found in two or more taxa? Birds with a lizard's body, for instance (I invite you to compare the skeletons of Archeopteryx for example with that of a modern pigeon and one of the small theropod dinosaurs (say, Compsognathus and see if you can tell without looking at the caption which one is bird, reptile, or dinosaur)? Reptiles with mammalian jaws (say, Probainognathus to Morganucodon for instance)? Whales with legs (Ambulocetus or Pakicetus)? You appear to be arguing from a position of some kind of biological essentialism. This idea has been shown to be utterly wrong. Species are not immutable, and the existence of a myriad of forms - each fully capable of living and reproducing in their respective environments (i.e., adapted for their niche and location) shows that lineages DO change over time. Ammonites, trilobites, etc are especially good documentation for this process. In addition, the fact that it is often extremely difficult to judge where one species leaves off and another begins, especially those living adjacent to each other, shows that essentialism is false. If you believe otherwise, it is incumbent upon you to show where the immutable barrier exists and how it operates. I'm going to skip the quote mining that follows this bit. Gould and Patterson have both been unequivocally shown to be supporters of evolutionary theory and the existence of transitionals. You might want to check the full context of the quotations to see what text has been omitted by whoever gave you those. I will absolutely guarantee that you've been misled.To your point that fossil organisms appear more-or-less identical to their modern counterparts: are you saying that Ambulocetus is identical to modern whales? That Deinotherium or the gompotheres have any resemblence to modern proboscids? You're going to need to get down and dirty with the details before anyone will take you seriously. Provide examples that demonstrate your contention.

No, they're not. If a given gene has 2 alleles in the population, and then a mutation to one copy of one allele in one organism occurs, you now have three alleles for that gene in the population.Of course mutations can generate new genetic information. They do so via incremental changes to the old information. It's ludicrous to suggest otherwise. Again, it takes place nearly every time a mutation occurs, because novel genetic sequences are being generated by changing the old ones. Says you, but I'd like to see some proof of that. There are no known limits to genetic variation. But the very fact that we're not able to unambiguously classify organisms points to that not being the case. Species classification is a tricky business, and there's often great debate over what constitutes a species of its own and what does not. Which is exactly what we would expect were evolution accurate. It is almost hopeless. You're exactly right, and that's just about the way it is. We attempt to draw species barriers around contained reproductive communities, but often those lines are blurred. It is possible for any organism to have the same feature. Examples of convergent evolution show that this is the case. But we don't use taxonomy to classify contemporary species; we use genetics. You're half right. Were creation correct, we would expect to see the sudden appearance of all fully-formed organisms at the same time. Since this is not what we see, we know that creationism is not correct.

I'm not sure that any organism could be termed a 'finished article' since mutation affects all DNA. There is no end point to reach. You're view is being obscured by the human urge to classify things. Classification is a great way to create some structure in what we see, but when used on non-discrete things it forces boundaries that aren't really there. When being viewed from a taxonomic perspective creatures are always going to be forced into one group or another. Taxonomists can't create a whole new group for every small change, the line has to be drawn somewhere. Instead of looking at the classifications and saying "It's still a mammal" or "it's still a bird", look at the physical characteristics. That way you can see the gradual change from looking like one thing to looking like another. I'm looking at diagrams of the skulls representing the transition from reptiles to mammals, and they seem to be in plenty of various stages of development to me. 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Part 1Edited to correct spellingThis message has been edited by happy_atheist, 01-29-2005 18:27 AM

Well, The Lit, I guess you have me here. According to Webster, creationism is a: Which, of course doesn’t mention evolution. However, by this definition, Creationism doesn’t explain very much at all, which IMO is its basic problem. Creationism is sort of a Shazam! here it all is, many thanks to the Creator, but don’t ask how it all came about or what’s causing the changes today (unless, one is asked to believe that the Creator is still creating) something I’ve asked about several times but no one has answered.I guess, at the end of the day, there is a large amount of observations that have been accummulated over the millenia since Genesis was written and the question is How do you explain these observations?One explanation is to interpret these observations as a process whereby gradual changes, that have ocurred, driven by natural processes, over millions of years, have created the landscape we now can see and the life forms that are currently present.A second explanation is a divine act by which the world was brought into existence by a supernatural beingThe first explanation describes the process of evolution, the second explanation invokes, but does not describe, the process of creationWhat I find most distressing about all this is that the creationist explanation is barren. As I mentioned above, it doesn’t explain anything, especially what is happening today, and there is much that is happening today. E.g., why do people get cancer? Is this part of the Creator's grand plan that our miniscule intelligence is unable to understand? If so, please don't tell the scientists working on a cure.Your moveSoplar

Thanks for the kind words — you know we physicists have a license to discuss anything Re the problem of definitions you mention, it has occurred to me also that definitions are one of the main problems in this discussion. I got an interesting reminder from The Lit that my sentence: is wrong, and of course he’s correct, creationism doesn’t explain evolution, actually creationism really explain anything.But, relative to definitions and words, I think you have to start at the beginning, noting that there are a large number of observations that have been made by a large number of people: geologists, paleontologists, physicists, etc. over the last 200-300 years. Should one care to, one has to explain the observations. As I mentioned in my most recent reply to The Lit, there are two explanations:

• a process, scientists call evolution
  ​
• a process? that creationists call creation.

Now, the deduction that the observations indicate a process called evolution, requires the acceptance of the scientific method, which I note, some seem to question. If one doubts the scientific method, then, one can’t get to the evolutionary process.So, the simple explanation is creation. A more complex explanation is ID, but that doesn’t really explain anything much either, but it does allow the acceptance of the fact that evolution has occurred. But, again, it doesn’t explain how other than the guiding hand of the ID.Other red herrings are the gaps problem or the empirical experimentation problem. These are really based upon misunderstandings that are promulgated and confuse those who don’t understand. It has been said that we live in a scientifically illiterate society and this debate is proof positiveWhat for me is most frustrating is that the supernatural explanations don’t explain things like DNA or genetics or any of the other corner stones of biology except that some supernatural being put them in place — lucky you.. But again, tell me why the supernatural being created cancer, and please don’t tell me I’m too stupid to understand the mind of the CreatorSoplar

With due regard to the wizard who placed those immortal words in Hamlet’s mouth, I offer a variation for this forum But alas, after spending a number of weeks on this thread and others, and (pardon my indiscretion) visiting similar sites, I have come to the conclusion (not very profound) that, while these discussions are entertaining, interesting, thought provoking, etc. a resolution of the Evolution-Creation debate is unattainable since a belief in Creation, or its offspring Intelligent Design (ID) requires a belief in the supernatural. And, since the existence of the supernatural cannot be proven, or disproved in the eyes of a true believer, the debate will continue endlessly with the Creationists setting up straw men such as The Gaps problem, which is easily dispensed with (the problem is incomplete fossil hunting, not evolution), and Evolutionists continuing to show why the straw men are made of straw.I, for one am enjoying the debate, although the repetitiveness and circularity does get a bit tedious, and will continue to participate.The reason for using General Reply is that I would like to discuss what I believe is and analogous belief and which I haven’t seen discussed on this forum, the childhood belief in Santa Claus.Santa Claus is a bone fide supernatural being. He spends all but one day each year, somewhere at the North Pole, fabricating toys. On Christmas Eve, he puts all the toys into his sleigh, hitches up his reindeer and in one night visits all the houses on earth depositing presents.This myth generally gives great pleasure to the young children who believe and the parents who enjoy watching their children on Christmas morning shout with glee He came, he came!Unfortunately, the absurdness of it all sinks in some where between the 4th and 6th year as the maturing child gains a greater understanding of the worldIMO, the belief in Creation or Intelligent Design is essentially the same. Before humans knew much about the world in which they lived, Creation was an easily understood and acceptable explanation for the world. Unfortunately, as evidence to the contrary accumulated, most realized that Creation is just too absurd, and the concept of an ID was formulated. But the ID concept has a variety of problems, one of which is to explain why/how the ID is still at work causing cancer and other ailments.So for us non-believers/Evolutionists, the scientific explanation — the process of Evolution, is the best explanation of the world we inhabit; but, for thus who cling to the belief in a supernatural being, evolution is unacceptable. I just wish they would stay away from the public educational system — but, if you are a true believer, then you don’t want the nonsense of evolution taught, and thereby hangs the tail.Soplar

The thread is reaching the witching point and will close soon. If you would like this to continue as a discussion, please respond to this message and I'll spin the above post off as another thread.

---

I think it must be part of your doctoral certificate. It's that search for a Theory of Everything. OTOH, some of the most thought-provoking ideas in biology I've ever read came from physicists - like abiogenesis being an inevitable result of thermodynamics on an Earth-like body. Oh man do I ever hear you. I'm still waiting for a creationist to explain God's purpose in creating guinea worms (Dracunculus medinensis) which can grow to up to a meter long inside human limbs before exiting, or the candiru (Vandellia cirrhosa), a small fish which is infamous for entering the human male urethra and lodging itself (painfully) there using the barbed spines gehind its head. It can only be surgically removed, and usually only through amputation of the effected organ. I'm sure the putative deity has a delightful reason for these organisms.

Hi Quetzal,(I'm getting behind in my work here at EvC...)I'll kind of lump cellular mechanics and photosynthesis together. You seem to be implying that bacteria evolved into mitochondria (or something like that) and that cyanobacteria evolved into the chloroplasts of eukaryotes. I am unfamiliar with these things so I will have to take your word that they are similar (not that I mistrust you at all on this point...I just don't have that knowledge...so for me it shall be an assumption that there are striking similiarities between bacterial DNA and human mtDNA and between cyanobacteria and eukaryotic chloroplasts).Working from that assumption, I can just as easily say that the Creator might have employed very similar structures because similar processes would be involved. That would be a BELIEF on my part (i.e., there are similarities because the Creator made them similar). OTOH, you think that bacteria somehow evolved (through random mutations and natural selection) into mitochondria and chloroplasts. Now that also is a BELIEF. For you do not know, nor can you prove, that this is true. What is a fact is that there striking similarities between bacterial DNA and human mtDNA or between cyanobacteria and eukaryotic chloroplasts (I bet there are striking differences, too, though). Now, if we could observe with some level of frequency (daily, weekly, every three decades, etc.) that bacteria become mitochondria or chloroplasts, that would be different.Another way to look at this problem is to ask what random mutations occurred and how were they selected in the bacteria to cause them to evolve from bacteria to mitochondria or chloroplasts? I really doubt these mutations or selections were observed; therefore, I really think this idea that mitochondria and chloroplasts evolved from bacteria is a BELIEF about what occurred in the past.Facts are how things ARE. Evolution and Creation are ideas about how things CAME TO BE. The fact that there are striking similarities between bacteria and mitochondria and chloroplasts can be understood without knowing either evolution or creation.As far as your questions regarding macroecology, I don't see how they apply (maybe they do, and I just don't get it, though) Wouldn't the amount of water surrounding the two types of islands, oceanic and continental, prevent them from ever being exactly alike? How specific biological assemblages arise in any given area is a "HOW THINGS CAME TO BE" question...the answer will be a guess: my guess is that most of the organisms walked, crawled, swam, floated, flew or were born there. How different components in any particular environment interact can be learned by thorough and detailed observation. This interaction would be a fact (HOW THINGS ARE). Why should anyone ever expect any two or more ecological iterations in an area to arrive at the same biological composition? Living organisms and environments are highly variable. The simple idea of chance would, imo, be far more practical in providing clues to this problem. In your investigations into this area, did you use a lot of statistical methods based on samples or did you catalog the various random genetic mutations you observed and then record how you observed natural selection selecting these various mutations for continuation? (Perhaps, you did neither--I'm NOT an environmental biologist).I still think that biology is completely intelligible without the ToE.--TLPS: I just saw (in my evolution-filled biology book, no less) that there is a brightly colored bird called "quetzal"...is that your namesake?This message has been edited by TheLiteralist, 01-31-2005 04:00 AMThis message has been edited by TheLiteralist, 01-31-2005 04:11 AMThis message has been edited by TheLiteralist, 01-31-2005 07:56 AMThis message has been edited by TheLiteralist, 01-31-2005 07:59 AM

Hi Soplar,Your statement... ...interests me greatly. To me this means that the scientists were watching microbe X, and quickly recorded its complete DNA structure. As they were watching, microbe X divided into X_a and X_b. The able and very intelligent scientists then quickly compared the DNA structures of microbes X_a and X_b to the original DNA of microbe X and find that it has randomly mutated (at least one scientist, at all times, continues to observe the movements and whereabouts of X_a and X_b and all subsequent descendants). Then they note, with great astonishment, this new, randomly mutated DNA just happens to confer upon microbes X_a and X_b and all their descendants resistance to the very antibiotic, which had been introduced to the population at the beginning of the experiment.I just find it difficult to believe that evolution of any sort has been observed directly via microscopes - though this is a widely held notion.--TLThis message has been edited by TheLiteralist, 01-31-2005 04:41 AM

I'm no genetic biologist, but I imagine the situation would be more like the following....They start with bacteria X and know it's genome. As you said they will record the genome of this bacteria, and because this bacteria is the ONLY source of DNA in the experiment, anything that results can only come from altering this one.After this they let the bacteria reproduce, and due to the nature of bacteria, you don't just end up with Xa and Xb, but you'll end up with billions and billions of bacteria. Of course they'll all be descendants of the original bacteria X.It will of course be known that the original bacteria has no resistance to the bacteria, that won't be too hard to test. If the bacterial genome does not change in any way, then all descendants of the bacteria will die when subjected to the antibiotic. If some don't die, then something has changed to give them greater resistance. The fact that only some of them are resistant and the others aren't means that the ones that are resistant must have changed in some way that helps them.This doesn't mean it happened on demand, all the bacteria in the sample will likely be different from the original X. They will still die because what ever mutation they have will be unhelpful. Only if the mutation helps will it have any effect. The reason bacteria are used for the experiment is because they reproduce at such an exponential rate that the chances of a favourable mutation occuring in a short time are much higher than if you used a higher lifeform. A day in the life of a bacterial colony is probably better than many thousands of years studying humans. (The last statement is probably an understantement, but I thought that would be better than an overstatement). I don't know how long these types of experiment are run for, but the number of bacterial reproductions will be countless.So in summary there is only one source for the DNA. Any change means that a mutation has occured. If a favourable mutation occurs, this will not be the ONLY one that occurs. No doubt there will be some harmful mutations in there that quickly disappear, and a large number of neutral ones that don't do much at all. Theres no need to follow individual bacteria because they know they all originated from one DNA sequence and any changes are due to mutation. The number of bacterial reproductions that take place simply means that the chances of a favourable mutation occuring to give an advantage when subjected to the antibiotic is high enough to observe in a shorter time.(Again i'm not a biologist so this is just my interpretation of what i've read from more knowledgable people here. I fully expect corrections where necessary.)