Poll: Do you believe in speciation?
- Thread starter dnnydllr
- Start date
Recommended Videos
You could. You just did. But you would be wrong.Portal Maniac said:
Pssst. The sky thing was a joke.
You could. You just did. But you would be wrong.McCa said:
Pssst. The sky thing was a joke.[/quote]
Wrong indeed. People know this. And I find it hard to believe that many people would believe in something they know is a lie.
Pssst. I like to whisper things too.
Sorry. The above post was made before I had a chance to wake up completely and it lacks my usual vigor. Let me see if I can at least address my biggest issue a bit more coherently:
The idea that we can't know anything we haven't directly observed is completely ludicrous, and it's one that pops up regularly in this kind of debate. I used to see it all the time when I was a kid on talk.origins. If you want to go that route, you pretty much have to only believe in the here and now. You don't know anybody who ever saw Winston Churchill, so why believe he ever existed? No one now living ever met Marie Antoinette, so you can't believe in her either. I've never been to Idaho, so why should I believe it's there? That kind of thinking just doesn't work. You can't live your life that way.
We can divide our knowledge of the world into two spheres (or more of course) if we like: Those things that we have directly observed, and those things that we know through their effects (sometimes indirect) on things that we have directly observed. I've heard people argue that we can't know what distant stars are made of because nobody's ever gone to one and dipped a spoonful, but that's just silly. We know that light travels and we know a lot about what physical processes generate what colors of light. Suggesting what you're suggesting takes a big steaming dump on the life's work of tens of thousands of your betters.
If you are truly only going to limit yourself to the first sphere, I'd honestly say get off the Internet. I'm probably just an applet on your computer anyway, since you've never seen me with your own eyes.
The idea that we can't know anything we haven't directly observed is completely ludicrous, and it's one that pops up regularly in this kind of debate. I used to see it all the time when I was a kid on talk.origins. If you want to go that route, you pretty much have to only believe in the here and now. You don't know anybody who ever saw Winston Churchill, so why believe he ever existed? No one now living ever met Marie Antoinette, so you can't believe in her either. I've never been to Idaho, so why should I believe it's there? That kind of thinking just doesn't work. You can't live your life that way.
We can divide our knowledge of the world into two spheres (or more of course) if we like: Those things that we have directly observed, and those things that we know through their effects (sometimes indirect) on things that we have directly observed. I've heard people argue that we can't know what distant stars are made of because nobody's ever gone to one and dipped a spoonful, but that's just silly. We know that light travels and we know a lot about what physical processes generate what colors of light. Suggesting what you're suggesting takes a big steaming dump on the life's work of tens of thousands of your betters.
If you are truly only going to limit yourself to the first sphere, I'd honestly say get off the Internet. I'm probably just an applet on your computer anyway, since you've never seen me with your own eyes.
You're misunderstanding my point. The observed homogeneity and isotropy of the universe directly implies the veracity of Big Bang cosmology. It makes perfect sense in the absence of your unsupported assertions that for some reason it doesn't.dnnydllr said:
i think you're on the right track, but as for down syndrome itself, that's more to do with conception than a genetic mutation.zeldakong64 said:
you see, down syndrome is when an egg is fertilized with an extra gender-specific chromosome (i think it's an extra X chromosome, so XXX for a girl, XXY for a boy), which causes the mutation. this can occur either through damage to the reproductive organs of either sex, double fertilization of the egg (ok, that one i'm not too sure), or simply from improperly-produced reproductive cells.
sorry if someone already commented on this, but i'm not reading through 9 pages of comments just to see.
by the way, if a woman produces an egg with no X chromosome, and gets fertilized by a sperm with a Y chromosome (a 0Y combination), the egg will not develop into a fetus. it just gets flooded out during her next period
When they teach it as a completely proven theory, leaving no possibility that they could be wrong, that is when they ram it down my throat. Now, if they were to say that it's the best theory they have, but it may later be proven wrong, that would work for me. And I take Bio because I both have to, and I enjoy it.stinkychops said:
You wouldn't be able to hear well enough to pass my class from your seat in the hall if you were one of my students.stinkychops said:
Theories don't get "proven." Science doesn't work that way. If you think otherwise, you need to study more, and post less.
Nope. I'm afraid you read me wrong. I've taught high school biology. I've also flown a plane, worked on an oil rig, had a radio show, managed a movie theatre, unloaded trucks in a warehouse, made ice cream, been a professional fisherman, and tested pesticides for a living. I currently "teach" a little English and do some copy editing in Japan. Sorry if projecting my former self led you to think you had more insight than you do.
And you didn't explicitly STATE that you'd interject your snide little qualifiers into a class?
And you didn't explicitly STATE that you'd interject your snide little qualifiers into a class?
Hey dnnydllr,
I know I'm coming into this thread a little bit late, but I think I can answer a few of your questions. I'm a student at the University of Guelph (Honours Biological Science) majoring in Zoology, so I've got a decent understanding of the topic.
Let's say we have an entire population of Yahtzee's (yes, as in clones of Ben Croshaw). Now let's say that 99/100 members of this population have very little body hair, but every 1/100 by luck of genetics has a thick fur coat of hair. Now put this population in an arid, hot climate (North Australia, for instance). It's obvious that all the not-hairy Yahtzees would have an advantage over the hairy yahtzees.
Now lets switch things around and put all those yahztees in a Cold environment. The not-hairy yahtzees would have a harder time surviving, whereas the current minority of hair Yahtzees would be better adapted to their environment. What this would result in is the Hairy Yahtzees having more reproductively successful offspring, increasing the ratio of hairy to not-hairy Yahtzees. Eventually, you would instead have lots and lots of hairy Yahtzees, and very few not hairy yahtzees.
Now lets say that these two populations of yahtzees currently exist in two different geographical locations (both hot and cold). The way speciation would occur in this case is that if the cold, hairy yahtzees became though different from the warm, not-hairy yahtzees that they couldn't mate and produce viable offspring.
That is, more or less, the process of speciation watered down and trickled with a pop-culture reference. If you like I could delve more into it, but this post is already monstrous as it is.
Any more questions?
I know I'm coming into this thread a little bit late, but I think I can answer a few of your questions. I'm a student at the University of Guelph (Honours Biological Science) majoring in Zoology, so I've got a decent understanding of the topic.
I think the problem here is that you're thinking of it in terms of having 'came from' or 'turned into'. Evolution isn't a plastic process that occurs within the life time of any given organism, or even any given hundred organisms. The concept is that some organisms, due to their inheritable traits, will have a higher reproductive success than other organisms of the same or of different species. Here, let me give an example:
Let's say we have an entire population of Yahtzee's (yes, as in clones of Ben Croshaw). Now let's say that 99/100 members of this population have very little body hair, but every 1/100 by luck of genetics has a thick fur coat of hair. Now put this population in an arid, hot climate (North Australia, for instance). It's obvious that all the not-hairy Yahtzees would have an advantage over the hairy yahtzees.
Now lets switch things around and put all those yahztees in a Cold environment. The not-hairy yahtzees would have a harder time surviving, whereas the current minority of hair Yahtzees would be better adapted to their environment. What this would result in is the Hairy Yahtzees having more reproductively successful offspring, increasing the ratio of hairy to not-hairy Yahtzees. Eventually, you would instead have lots and lots of hairy Yahtzees, and very few not hairy yahtzees.
Now lets say that these two populations of yahtzees currently exist in two different geographical locations (both hot and cold). The way speciation would occur in this case is that if the cold, hairy yahtzees became though different from the warm, not-hairy yahtzees that they couldn't mate and produce viable offspring.
That is, more or less, the process of speciation watered down and trickled with a pop-culture reference. If you like I could delve more into it, but this post is already monstrous as it is.
Any more questions?
Down syndrome, also known as trisomy 21, is caused by an extra copy of chromosome 21, not one of the sex chromosomes.ideitbawx said:
XXY syndrome (Klinefelter's) results in only minor deviations from the norm -- relevant statistically over the whole population of XXY people but not significant enough to diagnose a single individual without genetic testing. To my knowledge, XXX is barely detectable at all (short of genetic testing).
-- Alex
EDIT: I'm not sure all people with XXY qualify as having a "syndrome". I'll have to look that up or something.
The great part of science is that unless you were there or you can re-create it, it is a theory. A theory is a glorified guess. Examples include the theory of evolution and the "big bang" theory.Lord Monocle Von Banworthy said:
I know that fossils exist. I know that not enough samples exist to provide enough increments to prove evolution. All that fossils tell us is that something with those bones died. We cannot prove when, and we cannot prove if any bones are related to any others.
I do not have a "we can't know anything" philosophy. I know that we are capable of knowing a great deal. I also know that our view is limited and we cannot see everything. Humanity, or at least a member or two thereof, needs to get over itself and realize that some questions will remain unanswered.
I find it ironic that those who claim we evolved from amino acids believe that we can be "all-knowing". If we came from somewhere, and evolution is constant, then we are also going somewhere. This means that some species down the line will look back on us and say "how primitive". This will probably be in a form of communication beyond our understanding as our capacity will seem to them as that of the bacteria to us now. With that in mind, isn't it a little arrogant to assume that we are currently able to understand everything?
You are now reducing this to implied extrapolation and absolutes.Lord Monocle Von Banworthy said:
I did not say that "we can't know anything we haven't directly observed." Detailed records from our own history with witnesses can be verified. Are there any detailed records or witnesses for evolution? No, we as humanity (as we currently recognize it), were not there, or at least didn't record it. In a current scientific investigation, or even judicial investigation, so much evidence is necessary for something not directly observed to be "proved". Even then, it can be disproved later. Not enough evidence exists to prove evolution, or else it would not be a theory any longer.
Nuke,
I didn't claim we could be all-knowing.
If you think a theory is a "glorified guess," you need to STUDY MORE because it isn't, and The Escapist isn't here to teach you the scientific method, as hard as some people in this thread have tried. You do NOT know what a theory is. Take a couple of months off and learn what you're talking about and come back to discuss this subject when you have the tools to do so. You're hitting this whole thing from some kind of philosophy angle and it's a scientific discussion.
I didn't claim we could be all-knowing.
If you think a theory is a "glorified guess," you need to STUDY MORE because it isn't, and The Escapist isn't here to teach you the scientific method, as hard as some people in this thread have tried. You do NOT know what a theory is. Take a couple of months off and learn what you're talking about and come back to discuss this subject when you have the tools to do so. You're hitting this whole thing from some kind of philosophy angle and it's a scientific discussion.
Speciation is an observable process. I'll give an example - In the south east of the USA there are native lizards called Fence lizards. In the 1930s, Fire Ants were introduced to the area. Fire Ants will often kill Fence lizards.
This has resulted in an increased population of long legged Fence lizards in the area. This is because Fence lizards with long legs can shake off Fire Ants better than the short legged ones. So, the long legged 'mutants' have a better chance of surviving and reproducing.
They have even developed new behaviour - instead of staying still to try and camouflage themselves, these Fence lizards run when they are in danger.
This is natural selection in action, and even the big creationists in America agree.
(Edit) Wow. I just read the OP. There's a lot of problems there. One thing you have to understand is that natural selection is not a random process. It is completely observable and is the opposite of random chance.
This has resulted in an increased population of long legged Fence lizards in the area. This is because Fence lizards with long legs can shake off Fire Ants better than the short legged ones. So, the long legged 'mutants' have a better chance of surviving and reproducing.
They have even developed new behaviour - instead of staying still to try and camouflage themselves, these Fence lizards run when they are in danger.
This is natural selection in action, and even the big creationists in America agree.
(Edit) Wow. I just read the OP. There's a lot of problems there. One thing you have to understand is that natural selection is not a random process. It is completely observable and is the opposite of random chance.