Darwin's Theory Challenged

[fasternyou929]

Interesting article. Sorry if it's a repost, didn't see anything with a quick search:

http://www.newsweek.com/id/180103?gt1=43002

[AquaPython]

:yawn:

[smileyman]

Science creates theories from hypothesis' tested by research. Problem lies when the Hypothesis is tested with speculation rather than concrete, replicable, and verifiable results.

Darwins theory has never undergone anything more than a intellectual testing since you can't very well wait around thousands or millions of years to actually see and replicate what it says evolution can do.

Therefore a certain amount of his theory is based on faith and belief that is unprovable with our present means of research. Faith and belief are constantly criticized by science as baloney. Yet many of their important theories require some manner of bridging the gap between actual research and the original hypothesis...

Any one else want to offer an opinion?

[fatbuckRTO]

Any one else want to offer an opinion?I'm sure *someone* will be along shortly...

[fatbuckRTO]

Inheritance of "experience traits" is nothing new, at any rate. See domesticated silver foxes, among others.

[Trip]

I'm sure *someone* will be along shortly...

:lol:

I don't have one on this one, it's scientists doing what they should be doing to make theory = fact.

[Papa_Complex]

Science creates theories from hypothesis' tested by research. Problem lies when the Hypothesis is tested with speculation rather than concrete, replicable, and verifiable results.

Darwins theory has never undergone anything more than a intellectual testing since you can't very well wait around thousands or millions of years to actually see and replicate what it says evolution can do.

Therefore a certain amount of his theory is based on faith and belief that is unprovable with our present means of research. Faith and belief are constantly criticized by science as baloney. Yet many of their important theories require some manner of bridging the gap between actual research and the original hypothesis...

Any one else want to offer an opinion?

Sure, I'll weigh in. Darwin's theory was actually 'natural selection', rather than 'evolution.' When we talk about things like water fleas having protective shell modifications, because their parent experienced an attack, we get into natural selection, recessive genetic traits, and a whole bunch of other stuff. It doesn't necessarily debunk natural selection or evolution, in as much as it actually supports it. The species has developed a defensive mechanism that isn't used, unless it is needed.

As far as the concept of natural selection is concerned, I agree that it's difficult to wait around for a couple of thousand years in order to prove it. We don't have to, in order to obtain supporting evidence since we have something that points to it's validity, and it's something as old as civilization; UNnatural selection, aka "animal husbandry."

For thousands of years, farmers have selected for specific traits in animals via selective breeding. Take sheep, for example. Domestically bred sheep tend to have very short legs, whereas wild sheep don't. This was not always the case and short legs are far from a survival trait. Imagine a modern lamb trying to out run a wolf. Growl growl, bah bah, CHOMP. Sheep today tend to have short legs precisely because they've been bred for it. It's a hell of a lot easier to chase and catch one that can only run at half your speed, so a flock is relatively easy to handle.

Presumably similar selective breeding, caused by proven survival traits, would have the same effect as forced selective breeding. Proof? No. Significant evidence? Yes.

[smileyman]

Valid point Papa! The genetics involved lend itself quickly to hypothesis of natural selection and all methods we have to play with confirm it.

You also bring up a very good issue on how natural selection (or unnatural) is not equivalent to evolution. Laymen get the two confused often and it is hard to grasp the difference between the traits passed down thru several generations of a species and one species becoming a different species all together...

[Rsv1000R]

So, because hormones during pregnancy cause developmental differences that's suppose to makes Darwin wrong? I wonder how many of those rocket scientist realize that hormones switch on and off sequences of DNA?


Science creates theories from hypothesis' tested by research. Problem lies when the Hypothesis is tested with speculation rather than concrete, replicable, and verifiable results.

Darwins theory has never undergone anything more than a intellectual testing since you can't very well wait around thousands or millions of years to actually see and replicate what it says evolution can do.

Therefore a certain amount of his theory is based on faith and belief that is unprovable with our present means of research. Faith and belief are constantly criticized by science as baloney. Yet many of their important theories require some manner of bridging the gap between actual research and the original hypothesis...

Any one else want to offer an opinion?

Sure, I'll jump in. I'm sure you've heard of superbugs, right? Where do you think they come from? While we can't wait around for thousands of years, we can do experimentation with species that reproduce thousands of times per week or year. And while I don't follow the latest in biology, I've not heard any of these scientists complaining that Darwin was wrong, and they would as it would be just about the biggest thing to happen in Biology, since Darwin. I have heard about the various dna sequencing of difference species and how it's helping identify the relationship between species. BTW did you know that T-Rex is most closely related to the Chicken?

[Trip]

Darwin's theory was actually 'natural selection', rather than 'evolution.'

Very good point, Darwinism has two different meanings to whoever you talk to today, for religious it's more of a slur that envelopes all evolutionists and atheists, while in the scientific community it is just what you said 'natural selection' and it is just something that helps support evolution.

[smileyman]

Yeah I have heard about the T-Rex DNA resembling the chicken, but don't think in any way they ever evolved from the chicken. To me that is like comparing a Bank made of bricks and a home made of bricks.

The building blocks are all the same, but it doesn't mean they are related. Sure take them apart and rebuild them however but they still don't become one or the other naturally...

[Rsv1000R]

Yeah I have heard about the T-Rex DNA resembling the chicken, but don't think in any way they ever evolved from the chicken. To me that is like comparing a Bank made of bricks and a home made of bricks.

The building blocks are all the same, but it doesn't mean they are related. Sure take them apart and rebuild them however but they still don't become one or the other naturally...

It was one of the proteins that most closely matched the chickens. You do realize that current theory is that dinosaurs evolved into birds?

[Papa_Complex]

Yeah I have heard about the T-Rex DNA resembling the chicken, but don't think in any way they ever evolved from the chicken. To me that is like comparing a Bank made of bricks and a home made of bricks.

The building blocks are all the same, but it doesn't mean they are related. Sure take them apart and rebuild them however but they still don't become one or the other naturally...

Ostriches and ducks are also related. It's not too much of a stretch. If all life came from the same original building blocks, like the primordial soup that scientists frequently talk about, then species development would tend to follow well defined branches from the original. That would mean even evolutionary dead ends could bear significant genetic resemblance to current species.

DNA spells out traits, at any rate. If some dinosaurs had hollow bone structures, as do birds, then that trait would tend to look much the same in their divergent genetic material.

[Trip]

It's not saying evolution is wrong, it's saying it happens at a much faster rate than the old model suggests. Inheritance of traits can dramatically effect the next generation instead of taking millions of years.

[Papa_Complex]

It's not saying evolution is wrong, it's saying it happens at a much faster rate than the old model suggests. Inheritance of traits can dramatically effect the next generation instead of taking millions of years.

Which is the difference between theories like Natural Selection and Generational Mutation.

[Trip]

Which is the difference between theories like Natural Selection and Generational Mutation.

Exactly, which is why it is saying Darwin is wrong because he was natural selection, not all of evolution.

[Destitute]

Science creates theories from hypothesis' tested by research. Problem lies when the Hypothesis is tested with speculation rather than concrete, replicable, and verifiable results.

Darwins theory has never undergone anything more than a intellectual testing since you can't very well wait around thousands or millions of years to actually see and replicate what it says evolution can do.

Therefore a certain amount of his theory is based on faith and belief that is unprovable with our present means of research. Faith and belief are constantly criticized by science as baloney. Yet many of their important theories require some manner of bridging the gap between actual research and the original hypothesis...

Any one else want to offer an opinion?

What and where is the burden of proof?

It doesn't make much sense to argue with someone who believes that reason and belief are functionally and rationally equivalent. Until we can reach a consensus on what constitutes a rational discussion, defining a common ground of understanding is nigh impossible.

Back to your question: Sort of. The "problem" (it's not a flaw, just an inherent unknown) is the suitability of the proven mechanisms in their predictive or explanatory capacity. The understanding of inheritance mechanisms through genetic transmission is one lens to look at the problem. It may not show you the finest details, or the entire picture, but it does explain a great deal of what has been observed.

The argument from ignorance is only persuasive to the uninformed.

[smileyman]

What and where is the burden of proof?

It doesn't make much sense to argue with someone who believes that reason and belief are functionally and rationally equivalent. Until we can reach a consensus on what constitutes a rational discussion, defining a common ground of understanding is nigh impossible.

Back to your question: Sort of. The "problem" (it's not a flaw, just an inherent unknown) is the suitability of the proven mechanisms in their predictive or explanatory capacity. The understanding of inheritance mechanisms through genetic transmission is one lens to look at the problem. It may not show you the finest details, or the entire picture, but it does explain a great deal of what has been observed.

The argument from ignorance is only persuasive to the uninformed.

YES. That is what I was trolling for. I wasn't espousing that reason and belief were equivalent but rather trying to say exactly what you hit upon. And you have zeroed in on my thoughts in teh second paragraph nicely. Argument from ignorance or argument from falsely percieved knowledge is sort of down the same trail.

[Papa_Complex]

Exactly, which is why it is saying Darwin is wrong because he was natural selection, not all of evolution.

Except that the Theory of Evolution and the Theory of Natural Selection can both stand alone, or co-exist, without issue. The truthfulness of the one does nothing to discredit the other. There can be many mechanisms by which the character of life is altered.

The piece started by presenting a non sequitur in order to support its argument. They seem to be saying that the sudden appearance of a physical characteristic invalidates other beliefs. It doesn't, quite simply because the trait that they point to is readily repeatable, from generation to generation. It is not a genetic divergence, it is a fixed genetic trait/ability. it's like saying that my kid having blonde hair, when mine is brown, is evidence of evolution.

People who have an over abundance of food in their formative years display a tendency toward certain physical traits later in life. DUH! Smoking fathers have a higher tendency toward having obese children. What about the effects of nicotine on the brain, smokers' social tendencies, and the like? Completely discounted. Causation is not shown.

All of this has the ring of junk science, to my ears.

[Destitute]

YES. That is what I was trolling for. I wasn't espousing that reason and belief were equivalent but rather trying to say exactly what you hit upon. And you have zeroed in on my thoughts in teh second paragraph nicely. Argument from ignorance or argument from falsely percieved knowledge is sort of down the same trail.

Unknowns can be quantified to some extent. For example, if you observe genetic drift over a few populations, and extrapolate that out to species change, and then dig up bones that are dated via radioisotope method to fall in the same approximate time period, that gives you some confidence that your method is in the same ballpark as radioisotope dating. Or, you have multiple samples at the same site to compare, or across different sites, etc.

If you're way off the mark, it's back to the drawing board. If, on the other hand, independent researchers using a different approach reach similar conclusions (or gather data that aligns with your own), you can cite that as support. New observations which match predictions, or more accurate observations are the best indicators.

[Trip]

Except that the Theory of Evolution and the Theory of Natural Selection can both stand alone, or co-exist, without issue. The truthfulness of the one does nothing to discredit the other. There can be many mechanisms by which the character of life is altered.

The piece started by presenting a non sequitur in order to support its argument. They seem to be saying that the sudden appearance of a physical characteristic invalidates other beliefs. It doesn't, quite simply because the trait that they point to is readily repeatable, from generation to generation. It is not a genetic divergence, it is a fixed genetic trait/ability. it's like saying that my kid having blonde hair, when mine is brown, is evidence of evolution.

People who have an over abundance of food in their formative years display a tendency toward certain physical traits later in life. DUH! Smoking fathers have a higher tendency toward having obese children. What about the effects of nicotine on the brain, smokers' social tendencies, and the like? Completely discounted. Causation is not shown.

All of this has the ring of junk science, to my ears.

This article seems to know the difference between darwin and evolution in the beginning, but slowly combines them both at the end, especially the last sentence. Some of the info is pretty decent, some of it I could do without. It's interesting and at least people are out there testing.

[smileyman]

And it is cool we can discuss theory like this without anyone quoting scripture:twfix:

[SteveP]

I find it hard to have logical conversations about evolution because most people are just so misinformed. That being said, it seems like this conversation is pretty spot on.

I just got done with a ecological/evolutionary bio class with a heavy emphasis on genetics. What a great class. I'm not sure how the author can use gene expression to disprove anything? Even humans have environmentally affected gene expression. Children who sit closer to TV and read books are more likely to express the genes that target Myopia.

[Papa_Complex]

This article seems to know the difference between darwin and evolution in the beginning, but slowly combines them both at the end, especially the last sentence. Some of the info is pretty decent, some of it I could do without. It's interesting and at least people are out there testing.

Yes, but they are considering the evidence that they choose to, in complete isolation from outside influences and other evidence, then drawing conclusions that don't appear to be supported by even the stated evidence. They aren't talking about differentiation between species, they're talking about variation WITHIN a species. All of the things that they mention are within the current genetic code of those species.

I start with a cat. The cat becomes obese. The cat's offspring end up being obese. Is this genetic drift from the norm, or am I being a fucktard and just over-feeding my cats? It isn't about inheriting acquired traits, so much as it is simply triggering recessive, preexisting ones. Cats already possess the genetic capability for being fat.

I would hardly call this "new science", as they do in the article. It's merely a ham-fisted attempt at repackaging of old theories, that have since been merged into the whole of Evolution.

[Trip]

I'm not sure how the author can use gene expression to disprove anything?

Great point, as Papa said, multiple forms of progression can exist in evolution. Proving one shouldn't disprove another.

[SteveP]

I start with a cat. The cat becomes obese. The cat's offspring end up being obese. Is this genetic drift from the norm, or am I being a fucktard and just over-feeding my cats? It isn't about inheriting acquired traits, so much as it is simply triggering recessive, preexisting ones. Cats already possess the genetic capability for being fat.



One problem with this is genetic drift and it's ability to effect speciation is reliant on isolation. Drift in a population that interbreeds won't have any effect on evolution, only the gene pool.

EDIT: I think the word genetic drift is in the wrong context. Genetic drift is a change in allele frequency between a population and it's parent source. The whole Hardy-Weinburg funnes

[Papa_Complex]

One problem with this is genetic drift and it's ability to effect speciation is reliant on isolation. Drift in a population that interbreeds won't have any effect on evolution, only the gene pool.

I suppose that depends upon how far that drift goes. If the drift becomes tantamount to mutation, and that mutation is stable and varied enough that breeding back into the original species is impossible, then do you have a new phylum? If the mice that they talk about in the article ended up only being able to genetically express a tendency for cancer and yellow fur, rather than health and brown fur, what then?

*EDIT* I understood what you intended by using the term 'genetic drift.' Your edit went beyond my own studies ;)

[SteveP]

If the drift becomes tantamount to mutation, and that mutation is stable and varied enough that breeding back into the original species is impossible, then do you have a new phylum?

*EDIT* I understood what you intended by using the term 'genetic drift.' Your edit went beyond my own studies ;)

Cool, just wanted to make sure we're talking about the same thing.

What you described up there is hybrid speciation. If the hybrid CAN breed with the parent population then it will be absorbed into the gene pool. If it cannot, it will become a new species. Neanderthal / Homosapian type deal (this is really controversial, just using it as an example)

[Papa_Complex]

Cool, just wanted to make sure we're talking about the same thing.

What you described up there is hybrid speciation. If the hybrid CAN breed with the parent population then it will be absorbed into the gene pool. If it cannot, it will become a new species. Neanderthal / Homosapian type deal (this is really controversial, just using it as an example)

Thanks. That's what I was trying to illustrate ;)

[SteveP]

I like talking about this stuff. Maybe that's why it's my major :rockout:

[Papa_Complex]

And I'm a PC hardware/software service tech, which explains why I like discussing anything BUT computers :lol:

[AquaPython]

raptors, devolved from chickens. coming soon.
http://www.acfnewsource.org/science/dino_rebirth.html

[Trip]

I like talking about this stuff. Maybe that's why it's my major :rockout:

Cool, when you get done, make me a real version one of those cool mixspecies animals that use to be stuffed animals back in the day. I can't remember their brand name now.

[SteveP]

Cool, when you get done, make me a real version one of those cool mixspecies animals that use to be stuffed animals back in the day. I can't remember their brand name now.

It's Alive!:panic:

[smileyman]

raptors, devolved from chickens. coming soon.
http://www.acfnewsource.org/science/dino_rebirth.html

NIce avatar!

[Particle Man]

http://www.twowheelfix.com/image.php?u=285&dateline=1232644311
hahahahaha

[Trip]

It's Alive!:panic:

It was the fuckin wuzzles, my sister knew the answer. I want rhino-monkey!

[Papa_Complex]

It was the fuckin wuzzles, my sister knew the answer. I want rhino-monkey!

Damn those gene splicers! Damn them all to hell!!

[AquaPython]

http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/103344/

[Particle Man]

Proof positive that Darwin was right: this thread has evolved into something much different than when it started. :lol:

[fasternyou929]

Proof positive that Darwin was right: this thread has evolved into something much different than when it started. :lol:
But it happened quickly... the debate continues. :lol:

[AquaPython]

but can this new and late version of the thread successfully mate with the version of the original post?

[Trip]

but can this new and late version of the thread successfully mate with the version of the original post?

Only if OSP joins the discussion with his shovel.