Creationism Vs. Evolution: The Debate Is Live Tonight online at 7pm- http://www.npr.org

[alexey]

You just blew my mind. (dude... that made no sense)

It's like imagining what it would be like to be missing a brain. You can pretend that you are doing it, but are you really.

[No Excuses]

1. It's really not complex. Species - A species is often defined as the largest group of organisms capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring. 

2. I'd argue this is just false. I do believe in DNA and we simply don't see one species' DNA magically changing. Chimpanzees have 48 chromosomes to our 46. We also have a pretty good historical record of humans seemingly sprouting simultaneously in different parts of the world.

 

You have to admit, "science" gets it wrong sometimes. So while I'm down 100% with Darwin and natural selection, there's a lot of work to be done to really prove "evolution". (not that THAT fact is proof of one particular brand of creationism... just sayin')

 

Chromosome 2 in humans underwent a chromosomal fusion and we know this because the type of sequences found at the tail ends of chromosomes are found nested within the mid parts of Chromosome 2 in humans. The fused chromsome is also genetically similar to two unfused chromosomes found in the chimp genome.

 

DNA is constantly undergoing mutation so I'm not sure what and where you are getting your information from. DNA undergoes mutation both in the germline and somatic cells. That's why we have cancer etc. since DNA is constantly being replicated in newly formed cells throughout an organisms lifetime and DNA replication machinery sometimes gets it wrong (and furthermore, it goes uncorrected and gets fixed within a cell line). Similarly DNA in germline cells picks up mutations as well. At the species level, we know that mutations occur in DNA within the individuals and can become fixed in populations if they produce a trait that is naturally selected for due to any competitive reproductive advantage. People generally call this "microevolution" but to me the term is quite pointless, as is  drawing a distinction between micro or macro evolution. Evolution is a grand process occuring over a vast geologic time scale.

[Cutter7]

Chromosome 2 in humans underwent a chromosomal fusion and we know this because the type of sequences found at the tail ends of chromosomes are found nested within the mid parts of Chromosome 2 in humans. The fused chromsome is also genetically similar to two unfused chromosomes found in the chimp genome.

 

DNA is constantly undergoing mutation so I'm not sure what and where you are getting your information from. DNA undergoes mutation both in the germline and somatic cells. That's why we have cancer etc. since DNA is constantly being replicated in newly formed cells throughout an organisms lifetime and DNA replication machinery sometimes gets it wrong (and furthermore, it goes uncorrected and gets fixed within a cell line). Similarly DNA in germline cells picks up mutations as well. At the species level, we know that mutations occur in DNA within the individuals and can become fixed in populations if they produce a trait that is naturally selected for due to any competitive reproductive advantage. People generally call this "microevolution" but to me the term is quite pointless, as is  drawing a distinction between micro or macro evolution. Evolution is a grand process occuring over a vast geologic time scale.

So what new species has erupted from a prior species? Like with all the dog breading that goes on, why hasn't a bear ever popped out of a Labrador? Shouldn't this kind of thing be somewhat common if a whole new complex species like humans is to erupt and not become immediately dead or quickly inbred?

[No Excuses]

So what new species has erupted from a prior species? Like with all the dog breading that goes on, why hasn't a bear ever popped out of a Labrador? Shouldn't this kind of thing be somewhat common if a whole new complex species like humans is to erupt and not become immediately dead or quickly inbred?

 

Species don't 'erupt' or 'popout' that way you seem to think they should. First you have to understand that mutations accumulate slowly over a specific course of time; i.e rate of mutation which varies depending on what type (insertion, deletion, point):

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutation_rate

In genetics, the mutation rate is a measure of the rate at which various types of mutations occur during some unit of time. Mutation rates are typically given for a specific class of mutation, for instance point mutations, small or large scale insertions or deletions. The rate of substitutions can be further subdivided into a mutation spectrum which describes the influence of genetic context on the mutation rate.

There are several natural units of time for each of these rates, with rates being characterized either as mutations per base pair per cell division, per gene per generation, or per genome per generation. The mutation rate of an organism is an evolved characteristic and is strongly influenced by the genetics of each organism, in addition to strong influence from the environment. The upper and lower limits to which mutation rates can evolve is the subject of ongoing investigation.

 

Based on our knowledge of mutation rate and other factors, we can use a technique called molecular clock to determine how speciatation occured over geologic history

 

The molecular clock (based on the molecular clock hypothesis (MCH)) is a technique in molecular evolution that uses fossil constraints and rates of molecular change to deduce the time in geologic history when two species or other taxa diverged. It is used to estimate the time of occurrence of events called speciation or radiation. The molecular data used for such calculations is usually nucleotide sequences for DNA or amino acid sequences for proteins. It is sometimes called a gene clock or evolutionary clock.

 

[s0crates]

Egad! We have a genuine natural selection denier in our midst.

[PeterMP]

 

1. It's really not complex. Species - A species is often defined as the largest group of organisms capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring. 

2. I'd argue this is just false. I do believe in DNA and we simply don't see one species' DNA magically changing. Chimpanzees have 48 chromosomes to our 46. We also have a pretty good historical record of humans seemingly sprouting simultaneously in different parts of the world.

 

You have to admit, "science" gets it wrong sometimes. So while I'm down 100% with Darwin and natural selection, there's a lot of work to be done to really prove "evolution". (not that THAT fact is proof of one particular brand of creationism... just sayin')

 

Some organisms don't inter-breed at all, but we still consider there to be different species, so that definition then has issues for all of those organisms, and in terms of a lab those are the easiest to see changes because they tend to be the smallest and fastest growing, but your requirements eliminate all of them.

 

Based on what I know, then where there is NO interbreeding fertile offspring is the American goatsbeard.  People have produced fruit flies in lab where there is extremely few fertile reproducing offspring, but that's not none.

 

There are also cases where it is likely that there are no fertile interbreeding offspring, but nobody has actually done the test (e.g .the Faroe island mouse).

 

Humans didn't come from Chimps, and we pretty regularly see mutations in DNA and there can be changes in the number of chromosomes (see the American goatsbeard).

[PeterMP]

So what new species has erupted from a prior species? Like with all the dog breading that goes on, why hasn't a bear ever popped out of a Labrador? Shouldn't this kind of thing be somewhat common if a whole new complex species like humans is to erupt and not become immediately dead or quickly inbred?

The evolutionary rate is going to be tied to the rate at which DNA changes.

 

This is actually tied to the method/process by which the DNA is made (e.g. replication vs. repair).

 

During low stress conditions, the processes by which DNA is made has a lower error rate than other times.

 

In addition, you need some sort of isolation to happen. Changes have to accumulate

 

Pets and things like breeding programs tend to be pretty low stress (e.g. they have plenty of food) and high degrees of inter-breeding and crossing so that's exactly NOT the populations where you'd expect to see new species develop.

[Cutter7]

Egad! We have a genuine natural selection denier in our midst.

No... that makes sense. But that's more of a method of genetic reduction rather than genetic expansion. Get me? Sure, animals can die off because they don't have the right traits to reproduce given the environment. But that doesn't explain NEW.  And that's my point. If the biosphere is teaming with NEW life and we have all this great bio-diversity, we should have who new species - not just breeds and genetic isolation/highlights. I'll look up the American Goatsbeard.

 

We presently have a whole lot of people making a lot of of observations. Where is an example of a new species? Where is the missing link between man and apes? Why don't we see primate Chromosomes fusing?

[Cutter7]

 

 

 

Some organisms don't inter-breed at all, but we still consider there to be different species, so that definition then has issues for all of those organisms, and in terms of a lab those are the easiest to see changes because they tend to be the smallest and fastest growing, but your requirements eliminate all of them.

 

Based on what I know, then where there is NO interbreeding fertile offspring is the American goatsbeard.  People have produced fruit flies in lab where there is extremely few fertile reproducing offspring, but that's not none.

 

There are also cases where it is likely that there are no fertile interbreeding offspring, but nobody has actually done the test (e.g .the Faroe island mouse).

 

Humans didn't come from Chimps, and we pretty regularly see mutations in DNA and there can be changes in the number of chromosomes (see the American goatsbeard).

 

I googled/wiki'd the "American goatsbeard" and didn't find anything. You have a link?

Examples of new species should be all over the place if your particular theory of evolution is to hold water. You should be like, "once upon a time we didn't have goats. Then one day at a farm in Greece, cows started giving birth to goats. They can't interbreed but breed just fine amongst themselves. This comes from a minor fusion of their DNA that seamed to impact the population all at once at a rate of 1 out of every 3 births. Since goats never give birth to cows, cows are likely for extinction." or some such.

[alexey]

Look up "ring species" in Wikipedia.

[Cutter7]

Look up "ring species" in Wikipedia.

Now we're getting somewhere!

Granted, there's really only one example, and it's a plant. But it's something. Why don't we have a stack of ring species examples?

[alexey]

Now we're getting somewhere!

Granted, there's really only one example, and it's a plant. But it's something. Why don't we have a stack of ring species examples?

google "ring species examples" please.

[s0crates]

 

 

No... that makes sense. But that's more of a method of genetic reduction rather than genetic expansion. Get me? Sure, animals can die off because they don't have the right traits to reproduce given the environment. But that doesn't explain NEW.  And that's my point. If the biosphere is teaming with NEW life and we have all this great bio-diversity, we should have who new species - not just breeds and genetic isolation/highlights. I'll look up the American Goatsbeard.

 

We presently have a whole lot of people making a lot of of observations. Where is an example of a new species? Where is the missing link between man and apes? Why don't we see primate Chromosomes fusing?

I don't thing you have a genuine appreciation for the amount of variety or time involved.

 

Consider the many varieties of dogs (from chihuahuas to greyhounds to dalmatians to pugs to great danes) that we see just 20,000-30,000 years removed from wolves.  If that much change can happen by artificial selection within that amount of time, how much can occur by natural selection in billions of years?

 

We see adaptation happening in real-time (e.g. moths that change color and bacteria that start to resist antibiotics).  I suppose you will say that is only micro-level evolution, that we don't see new species emerge on the macro-level, but I'm not really buying that.  Even if we haven't seen it in real-time (which I doubt), we have not been looking more than 200 years, and this is a process that takes much longer.  Either way, we have certainly seen it in the fossil record.

 

You cite the lack of transitional species, but I can promise you such species existed.  Consider, for example, dinosaurs with wings: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaeopteryx . There are other examples like this; even with humans, we find a variety of proto-human species in the fossil record.

 

Also consider the things we find that are best explained by a theory that says species evolved from other species.  For example: external testicles in the human male, the too-small birth canal of the human female, whales with feet bones, etc.

[Rocket442Olds]

Now we're getting somewhere!

Granted, there's really only one example, and it's a plant. But it's something. Why don't we have a stack of ring species examples?

There are other examples, but this is something that happens over a long period of time. The Salamanders in California are one of the better examples that are currently being looked at. They're still researching it last I checked but you can read a bit more: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/05/2/l_052_05.html

 

As far as your question on "the" missing link, that is a moving goal post, which makes it almost impossible to hit. Explain exactly what you want in your missing link, and then if it is found eat the crow. I hate that everyone is using this term, but they don't seem to understand there are plenty of transitional forms. It isn't easy to find a complete skeleton of anything, let alone a primate. 

[alexey]

Tiktaalik is typically used as a quintessential example of a "missing link". Wikipedia has info on it.

[PeterMP]

No... that makes sense. But that's more of a method of genetic reduction rather than genetic expansion. Get me? Sure, animals can die off because they don't have the right traits to reproduce given the environment. But that doesn't explain NEW.  And that's my point. If the biosphere is teaming with NEW life and we have all this great bio-diversity, we should have who new species - not just breeds and genetic isolation/highlights. I'll look up the American Goatsbeard.

 

We presently have a whole lot of people making a lot of of observations. Where is an example of a new species? Where is the missing link between man and apes? Why don't we see primate Chromosomes fusing?

I'm not going to respond to all your posts, but make several comments here:

 

1.  I've explained why I don't expect to see speciation amongst farm animals.  And under most conditions, nobody is claiming evolution is fast and really happens on the time scale of a human life.

 

2.  On the goatsbeard try this: http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/scientists-capture-evolution-lab/story?id=13197168

 

3.  Significant biodiversity, DECREASES the chances of new species.  New species require more evolution, which means there must be some new niche to be filled.  Speciations require lot's of evolution.  Stability is bad for that.  If there is a lot of biodiversity and all of the niches are filled by well evolved species, you are going to see minimal evolution.  It isn't really different than new companies.  It is very hard for a new company to get a start in an already existing niche that is already filled.  When do we really see a lot of new companies?  When there has been a change (e.g. the introduction of wide spread internet access) and therefore a new niche that can be filled.  Same with species, but on much slower time scales.

 

To see a lot of speciation, what you want is to see a change in conditions that produce a lot of death and "opens" up places/niche/environoments for new species to evolve into.  Right now, we are actually causing a lot of death, but we aren't opening up too many real new spaces because we are taking up more room.  I think you'll some speciation where some species manage to slip into the "gaps" in human societies.

 

But something like an advance of the glaciers without humans being present would almost certainly produce more.

 

4.  Related to that, due to human changes we are seeing difference between species that over time might lead to new species (differences between migratory and residential Canadian Geese are good examples of that), but they need more time and more separation.

 

5.  We see organisms gain new genetic information.  Right now a good example of it is in process in terms of Monsanto's RoundUp resistant crops.  Other plants in nature (e.g. weeds) are picking up the gene and becoming RoundUp resistant too.  This process is called horizontal gene transfer.  The plants weren't RoundUp resistant before and now they are.  They've gained new information by taking on information from other organisms.

 

6.  Another case that will cause picking "new information" is actually what we'll see over time in the case of the goatsbeard.  They have more chromosomes because they were doubled.  That means right now they have duplicates of the information.  Over time, some of the duplicates will gain mutations, which means they will be able to gain new functions.

[No Excuses]

I googled/wiki'd the "American goatsbeard" and didn't find anything. You have a link?

Examples of new species should be all over the place if your particular theory of evolution is to hold water. You should be like, "once upon a time we didn't have goats. Then one day at a farm in Greece, cows started giving birth to goats. They can't interbreed but breed just fine amongst themselves. This comes from a minor fusion of their DNA that seamed to impact the population all at once at a rate of 1 out of every 3 births. Since goats never give birth to cows, cows are likely for extinction." or some such.

 

That is not how evolution proceeds. DNA doesn't mutate in germline cells at such a rapid rate where an organism will give birth to something completely new.

 

Mutations slowly accumulate over time. Mutations aren't limited to just point mutations in DNA sequences, there are deletions and insertions. For instance, I work on a gene family that has 9 copies of highly related genes in humans. All nine of the genes encode essentially the same protein. However, over geologic time, they acquired enough mutations to become very specalized in function to various excitable tissues. A single primitive copy of these genes is found in archae and bacteria. Over time, in eukaryotes this single gene underwent multiple duplication events, there were repeat insertions of sequences that encoded for important protein domains and there were enough point mutations that these genes were now acquiring unique functions like regulating contraction/relaxation of the heart or myelination/remyelination in the brain.

 

That is just one example of how a primtive gene underwent duplication/mutation to acquire new functions. Over a vast geologic time scale, this process will give rise to new genes and as a result new functions for organisms. Under the right selection pressures in a new or changing habitat, accumulating changes in DNA will lead to speciatation.

[Cutter7]

Gents, you're talking about events that no one has witnessed. Yet you stand by your assertions much like a bible thumper. Chromosomes that have fused... Why couldn't it have been chromosomes that split? What mechanism fused them? Can we recreated fusing chromosomes?  Why so certain of any of these theories? Remember, they are THEORIES not laws. Heck, even the laws change (like Newton's) when we get better evidence.

 

I don't get your fanatical attachment to any of these theories and simply point out that perhaps, we've got it wrong here and there. It, just like any religious belief, should be studied with a healthy amount of skepticism. That's how science advances. Don't just take this stuff on faith. You're turning science into a religion.

 

On the goatsbeard, great article bro. It still looks like better evidence for micro rather than macro evolution. Ring species would be much better if they could be shown to exist. With only 1 currently good possible example I have a hard time believing it won't be refuted shortly. And, if like you'd have me believe, everything is evolving all the time, we should be able to demonstrate that happening with some frequency.

[No Excuses]

Gents, you're talking about events that no one has witnessed. Yet you stand by your assertions much like a bible thumper. Chromosomes that have fused... Why couldn't it have been chromosomes that split? What mechanism fused them? Can we recreated fusing chromosomes?  Why so certain of any of these theories? Remember, they are THEORIES not laws. Heck, even the laws change (like Newton's) when we get better evidence.

 

I don't get your fanatical attachment to any of these theories and simply point out that perhaps, we've got it wrong here and there. It, just like any religious belief, should be studied with a healthy amount of skepticism. That's how science advances. Don't just take this stuff on faith. You're turning science into a religion.

 

On the goatsbeard, great article bro. It still looks like better evidence for micro rather than macro evolution. Ring species would be much better if they could be shown to exist. With only 1 currently good possible example I have a hard time believing it won't be refuted shortly. And, if like you'd have me believe, everything is evolving all the time, we should be able to demonstrate that happening with some frequency.

 

In two cases, you are speaking to actual scientists  (PeterMP and I) so I would say both of us have a fairly good idea of how science advances. I have a specialization in Genetics and Neuroscience.

 

We have observed fused chromosomes in normal healthy humans. You can read for it for yourself:

 

http://genetics.thetech.org/original_news/news124

 

http://www.nature.com/jhg/journal/v55/n9/full/jhg201080a.html

 

We also have defined mechanisms that explain chromosomal fusions. It would require an advanced understanding of genetics to understand it, but if you wish you can surely find it online.

 

Drawing a distinction between micro and macro evolution is really quite pointless. If you accept that microevolution occurs, you accept that macroevolution occurs as well. Over time "micro" evolution will result in "macro" evolution because enough changes will accumulate over a large frame of time that diverge organisms from each other..

[Cutter7]

So... you're actually clergy in your particular religion. Nice. I'm sure protecting your entire profession and perhaps even your self identity isn't a motivator.

 

Defined mechanisms, but have you demonstrated them? Can you recreate it so we can fuse chromosomes in an a chimp and make it human?

 

I'd say the micro/macro distinction is pretty huge. I don't need to accept one to accept the other. The goatsbeard is a great example to my point. We're dealing with a highly complicated code. Given some conditions, part of the code is activated while other parts go dormant. Change the conditions and the code appears to change, but it hasn't. You'd still have humans with the same code and not a new species that can't breed with the preceding species or the hundred versions of the same species that preceded. But then, is that evolution at all?

[PeterMP]

On the goatsbeard, great article bro. It still looks like better evidence for micro rather than macro evolution.

The distinction between macro and micro evolution is not real.

 

What you call macro evolution is just the accumulation of what you call micro evolution.  Lot's of changes in genes/DNA (what you call micro) affect phenotypes (i.e. the physical characteristics of the organism), which is what you call macro.

 

There is no magic wall by which only so many mutations are allowed that only affect so many or certain characteristics of the organism.

 

You were pretty specific and stringent in your definition of species and speciation.  

 

I gave you something that meet even that stringent definition.

 

Nobody is tied to these theories in the way you suggest.  If better data/information came out tomorrow, they would be dropped.

 

But a lot of this is observed in the lab.  Things like chromosome fusions can and do happen in labs.  We understand the mechanism.  When we look at nature, we see them.

 

We see organisms "add" new genetic information in the lab through processes like gene duplications and horizontal gene transfer.  We understand the mechanisms by which they happen.

 

When we look at nature, we see that horizontal gene transfer and gene duplications do happen.

 

There is cross talk between processes that we in the lab and can describe pretty detailed mechanisms for and what we see in nature.

[PeterMP]

I'd say the micro/macro distinction is pretty huge. I don't need to accept one to accept the other.

 

Why would you accept "micro evolution" and reject "macro evolution"?

 

By what mechanism would the accumulation of changes prevent large phenotypical changes over time?

 

And yes (I cut the question out), that is evolution.

 

And it meets your own defined definition of speciation.

 

Why is your response to that 'you guys are clinging to a religion' and not 'thanks for the information, I didn't know that'?

[mcsluggo]

from the economist...

 

http://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21595965-debating-evolution-creation-museum-monkey-business

 

comes teh following quote:

 

 

...Most Americans reject young-earth creationism. But the share of Republicans who believe that humans evolved fell from 54% in 2009 to 43% last year. ...

 

is that true!!???   holy sheezsh!

[No Excuses]

So... you're actually clergy in your particular religion. Nice. I'm sure protecting your entire profession and perhaps even your self identity isn't a motivator.

 

Defined mechanisms, but have you demonstrated them? Can you recreate it so we can fuse chromosomes in an a chimp and make it human?

 

Chromsomal fusions and even large scale changes to chromsomes can be done in lab. And a chimp won't become a human if you start fusing its chromosomes. No one has ever defined evolution by something as simple, instead its a complex process which occurs by inducing changes in many different ways to the DNA of organisms. We've listed several to you; how DNA mutations are acquired by errors in replication/correction, gene deletions, insertions and duplications etc.

 

A lot of your questions which you are posing as unanswered have been answered within the sciences already. They are constantly being tested in lab and in the field. They go hand in hand with what we observe in nature.

 

It is up to you if you want to dismiss experts in the field as "clergy in the religion". At this point, I'm not sure which side you're arguing from. Several posts ago you are touting science and the skepticism involved with it, but then you dismiss actual scientists as "religous clergy". You state you accept microevolution but deny macroevolution which makes little to no sense because both terms go hand in hand and in simple ways the biggest difference between them is the time frame over which they occur.

[alexey]

He accepted that speciation can occur by looking at ring species, then came back with micro vs macro nonsense. Maybe he is trolling.