Doesn’t mean we should stop asking the question, does it?

No but its irrelevant in discussion about evolution though isn’t it ?

As I originally said, it may well be a correct theory. It sounds entirely plausible and is most likely given all the research and data.

Generous of you. I thought at one point you were going to be doing some challenging, didnt quite materialise did it.

That surely doesn’t mean it should NEVER AGAIN be tested and questioned.

I think you will find it is constantly “tested”

You seem intent on “exposing” me as a creationist. Sorry, can’t oblige there.

Fair point.

It is the same narrow argument: either you believe in evolution or you’re a creationist.

They do go hand in glove. Would you care to enlighten us as to how we got here (not the why!)

You seem intent on “exposing” me as a creationist. Sorry, can’t oblige there.

It is the same narrow argument: either you believe in evolution or you’re a creationist.

Far too simplistic.

You seem intent on drawing boundaries: Many creationists also believe in evolution. The theory of evolution is not a theory of “coming into being”: It is a theory of how species have adapted to their environment over the course of the time life has existed on earth.

Don’t confuse existentialist thought with that of natural selection, as the two theories are on completely different levels.

It’s a bit like someone arguing “how can there be a God when it is the sun that gives us life”.

It’s one of the most tested theories in science, its continually tested and to date has not been shown to be wrong.

Completely agree. It is, however, still a comparatively recent theory and so may indeed show itself to be incomplete in the future.

I love the whole notion of evolution and find it makes me marvel at life in its many forms.
But again, for me, it only answers a small part of the puzzle of life.

Completely agree. It is, however, still a comparatively recent theory and so may indeed show itself to be incomplete in the future.

I love the whole notion of evolution and find it makes me marvel at life in its many forms.
But again, for me, it only answers a small part of the puzzle of life.

But you can offer nothing to challenge it then ?

To say that evolution is a theory based on chance is to completely ignore the undeniable influence of natural selection

Well not too many scientists would deny that life has evolved on earth, the question is how. Is it purely through neo-Darwinian evolution, or are there other mechanisms in place.

If you look at the theories proposed my Lynne Margulis:

The most striking evidence for evolution through symbiosis is presented by the so-called mitochondria, the ‘powerhouses’ inside most nucleated cells. These vital parts of all animal and plant cells, which carry out cellular respiration, contain all their own genetic material and reprouce independently and at different times from the rest of the cell. Lynne Margulis speculates that the mitochondria were originally free-floating bacteria which in ancient times invaded other micro-organisms and took up permanent residence in them.

The theory of symbiogenesis implies a radical shift of perception in evolutionary thought. Whereas the conventional theory sees the unfolding of life as a process in which species only diverge from one another, Lynne Margulis claims that the formation of new composite entities through the symbiosis of formerly independent organisms has been the more powerful and more important evolutionary force.

This new view has forced evolutionary biologists to recognise the vital importance of cooperation in the evolutionary process. In the words of Margulis and Sagan:

“Life did not take over the globe by combat, but by networking.”

You also have another theory, the Gaia hypothesis, which has another model of the evolution of life. Life evolved through systemic interactions with non-living systems. This is different to neo-Darwinian evolution where non-living systems are just some constant in the background.

Does this help evolve this thread? 😀

I would imagine that due to the sophistication of modern society.. or even ancient society.. we are all evolving individually rather than as a race..

alone.. adrift.. lonely and forsaken.. abandoned by our egos in an infinite sea of desolation..

banished by our pride and greed..

only love can understand us..

They do go hand in glove. Would you care to enlighten us as to how we got here (not the why!)

Without the why the question is redundant.

Unless you can tell me how life got here, if not by chance.

are you supposed to pay for watchtower when they give it yer?

But you can offer nothing to challenge it then ?

Does that mean you believe it will never be challenged?

Seriously, I’m not being facile. Do you believe that?

bazzer, surfer?

Does that mean you believe it will never be challenged?

Seriously, I’m not being facile. Do you believe that?

Well?

simonrailli mitochondria and chloroplast symbiosis is accepted by virtually every cell biologist there is – and is entirely compatible with natural selection
indeed the extant genomes of mitochondria show that natural selection has stripped them down to a few basic genes

the effect to which horizontal genetic transfer has played a part in evolution is up for debate but its perfectly compatbile with the theory and a good example of the flexibility of evolutionary scientists who certainly dont dismiss things out of hand

as for the gaia thing? that makes no sense an essential component of the theory is that enviroment drives evolution unless you are getting all spiritual earth mother on us

No one is saying that the environment “drives” evolution, but that the evolution of life can not be uncoupled from interactions with the environment. Gaia is not a spiritual theory – it is a systems theory.

Of course symbiosis is compatible with natural selection – the arguments are about to what extent natural evolution is the major component of evolution – there are a number of evolutionary mechanisms, not just natural selection.

Also, don’t forget that the genome project made the prediction that humans would have around 100, 000 genomes or so. Turns out we have what, around 25,000? We therefore need to establish just how genomes really do work, and hence new theories are looking at epigenetic systemic solutions.

You know, just saying, things are not done and dusted in terms of agreeing on the actual mechanisms of evolution.

“Folks, it’s time to evolve. That’s why we’re troubled. You know why our institutions are failing us, the church, the state, everything’s failing? It’s because, um – they’re no longer relevant. We’re supposed to keep evolving. Evolution did not end with us growing opposable thumbs. You do know that, right? There’s another 90 percent of our brains that we have to illuminate.”
— Bill Hicks

Leaving the low hanging fruit aside, can I assume that the program was making an assumption that we are ‘not evolving’ because we are not getting more intelligent? That has to be the biggest misconception about evolution.

Or like on the sc-fi TV where everything evolves in to a humanoid…

mikey74 – ref the flying squirrel, I’ve seen a squirrel and I’ve seen a flying squirrel can you show me evidence of the evolution process – you know, the bit in between one and the other? 🙂

tinribz, no.
The programme did not make that assumption at all.

As for Simon’s

No one is saying that the environment “drives” evolution,

that is exactly what we are saying; that organisms’ long-term reproductive success depends upon responses to the environment and becoming fitter (= more adapted) for that environment,.

tinribz – Member

can I assume that the program was making an assumption that we are ‘not evolving’ because we are not getting more intelligent?

yes, you can assume that, but you’d be ‘not right’.

evolution is not best described as ‘survival of the fittest’ but rather ‘removal of the least fit’

modern medicine keeps people alive who otherwise would die.

without death – there is no selection, without selection – is there evolution*?

that’s (part of) the question that was asked last night.

jolly interesting it was too.

(*a giraffe doesn’t have a long neck because it’s parents spent too many years reaching upwards towards the leaves of the tree, a giraffe has a long neck because all the short-necked giraffes starved to death – and didn’t get the opportunity to make sweet giraffe love with another short-necked giraffe)

Does that mean you believe it will never be challenged?

Seriously, I’m not being facile. Do you believe that?

No it mean I believe you personally have no challenge to the theory of evolution, when you initially said you were challenging it 🙂

You appear to be trying to change the question now a technique often employed by people of faith ( I realise I cant extrapolate that you are a person of faith from the evidence of this thread 🙂 ) In fact it was a technique that in the stories of the bible Jesus used to great effect 🙂

But again, for me, it only answers a small part of the puzzle of life

Sure.

mikey74 – ref the flying squirrel, I’ve seen a squirrel and I’ve seen a flying squirrel can you show me evidence of the evolution process – you know, the bit in between one and the other?

It’s probably in the fossil record. But I dunno if there’s any live creature. However you could say that the flying squirrel is the bit in between the squirrel and the bat – would that work for you?

There are plenty of other examples though. Take the idea of a land based dog-like creature evolving into a sea based one like a dolphin. Look at dogs -> seals -> manitees -> dolphins. Seems reasonable no?

You could also go dogs -> monkeys -> chimps -> humans

Of course, if you look at fossils, there’s absolutely TONS of evidence of creatures in stages of intermediate development on the way to becoming other creatures. TONS. Darwin didn’t pull this theory out of his *rse by the way, it’s based on evidence. Darwin and thousands of other scientists since have been studying countless examples of this ever since.

So, without trying to be nasty, it’s a bit silly of you to come along as a lay person (I assume) and say ‘oh well there’s no half-flying squirrel so it’s all rubbish’.

molgrips – I’m not saying it’s all rubbish (although it might be!) I’m just hacked off with it being portrayed all the time as fact – when it isn’t!

In the immortal words of Homer Simpson – “Facts are meaningless – they can be used to prove anything!” 😉

molgrips – I’m not saying it’s all rubbish (although it might be!) I’m just hacked off with it being portrayed all the time as fact – when it isn’t!

I really don’t think it is. If you read carefully and critically then you can tell the difference between decent science writing and tabloid rubbish.

NO scientist – not ONE – thinks they have all the answers. It just doens’t work that way.

However lay people love to imagine that scientists think they have all the answers, so that they can slag them off.

However – natural selection DOES happen – that IS a fact. Whether or not it’s responsible for every species we see is hard to prove tbh. When you look at the evidence in the fossil record it really is overwhelming.

I’m not saying it’s all rubbish (although it might be!) I’m just hacked off with it being portrayed all the time as fact – when it isn’t!

Not all proven as fact yet, but it is still evolving(Hah!), but we have the science and technology to prove whether these theories are true or not.

Unlike the religious view of it.

[pedant]

chimps aren’t our ancestors, they’re our cousins…

they’re no less ‘modern’ or ‘evolved’.

my apologies.

[/pedant]

fascinating stuff this 🙂

chimps aren’t our ancestors, they’re our cousins…

I’m well aware of that. Likewise bats aren’t evolved from squirrels, but it’s easier than typing ‘a chimp like creature from the fossil record called Australopithicus’ and it makes my point a bit better since we’ve all seen chimps.

i guessed as much, you seem to have your head screwed on.

but it’s a common misconception, and it seemed like a suitable opportunity to try and correct it.

tyger – Member

mikey74 – ref the flying squirrel, I’ve seen a squirrel and I’ve seen a flying squirrel can you show me evidence of the evolution process – you know, the bit in between one and the other?

This is the oft portrayed ‘fault’ in evolutionary theory and is just plain incorrect.
Flying squirrels did not evolve from ‘normal’ squirrels, they have a common ancestor, everything alive today is at the end of a twig on a branch on the trunk of the tree of life.
Finding holes in the fossil record does not constitute a flaw in the theory of evolution.

ps. I only read this thread ‘cos I thought it would be all about how lovely Dr Alice is.

“It does bug me that evolution, although only a theory, is nearly always presented as a fact – D’oh!

There are gaping holes in the theory so big you could drive a bus through them! “

tyger would it be too much trouble for you to point out one bus sized whole in the “theory” of evolution? D’oh!

The other thing that concerns me is that it is also “sold” as fact throughout most of the current education system.

that is exactly what we are saying; that organisms’ long-term reproductive success depends upon responses to the environment and becoming fitter (= more adapted) for that environment,.

I am maybe being terribly inarticulate, but I was just trying to say that living organisms interact with the environment in order to create a hugely interactive and complex system, far from equilibrium, to sustain conditions on this planet which are suitable for life. Hence the long term carbon cycle for example. We live in a complex world. 🙂

This is of course in addition to adaptive mechanisms. I think my point that I didn’t make is that there is the scientific understanding of “evolution” and there is the lay understanding, which is often simplified just to one thing, the survival of the fittest, as opposed to any symbiotic or systemic evolutionary mechanisms.

But yeah, I really enjoyed a book by Stephen Gould which was a collection of his best essays. All spandrels and things like that : ) And don’t forget he disagreed with Richard Dawkins on various aspects of evolution too. We don’t know everything but it’s all really interesting how life evolved.

The other thing that concerns me is that it is also “sold” as fact throughout most of the education current education system.

Evolution is a very well proven theory. Just like relativity or inheritance etc. Would be silly not to teach it. Why have science lessons otherwise?

But I think you mis-understand…

ps. I only read this thread ‘cos I thought it would be all about how lovely Dr Alice is

Mmmm Dr. Alice……

I thought the most interesting point was that the evolutionary process for humans currently appears to be mainly about birth-rate rather than ‘survival of the fittest’ and that those who procreate most have a greater influence on the future evolution of the human race. I must say I pondered what the STW forum thoughts would be on this….

As to whether we are still evolving, I think the question is; Is change for changes sake evolution ? Or does it need some kind of force to push it or direction (ie natural selection).

Personally Im more with the guy on the program who says we’re along way from have disease beat yet (particular in the developing world) but if you assume we did have disease beat we’d still change.

For one thing there are still environmental factor pushing evolution like the example of Tibetan people. Another example given in the program is pollution. Obviously we cant evolve as quickly as a worm our generational span is much longer, but I would not be surprised if pollution did not have some selection pressure on us.

Also Im beginning to think change is now in built in us and most animals. Or if you like we’ve evolved to evolve. (generally animals that are not responsive to change will die out).

I think we’ve over estimated “Chance” or at least it gets explained wrong in the field of evolution. I think its clear most species have already developed systems to increase their genetic diversity and their ability to respond to change.

The most obvious example of this is sex, other examples are coming to light such as epigenetics. I recently read a story on new scientist basically someone was trying to find where we had diverged from chimps the most and came up with some gene or something with the most differences but he then discovered that all animals seemed to be very different on this gene not just chimps/humans. Therefore they were considering whether it was a gene particulalary for helping evolution. Also there is more and more talk about sideways genetic transfer in bacteria ie getting genes directly from another bacteria not have to evolve them in each lineage. I would be surprised if this could happens in animals/plants.

Anyway if we are built to change then removing disease/environmental stress would actually encourage that change as there would be nothing to weed many of out the potentially negative changes and would allow more genetic diversity.

Im pretty sure many “diseases/disabilities” have a genetic component for instance Im pretty sure if a blind couple had a child they are more likely to have a blind child. This does happen now, give it a few generations and none of the children would be able to see.

Now these people are quite able to operate within their current environment and have changed to some degree. If the environment changed suddenly ie we went back to hunting with spears they would probably die but it hasnt yet.

This comes back to original question is all change evolution or not ?

tyger –

molgrips – I’m not saying it’s all rubbish (although it might be!) I’m just hacked off with it being portrayed all the time as fact – when it isn’t!

It’s as near to a fact as possible though. The theory of evolution is based on evidence & can be used to make predictions and many of its mechanisms are understood. What more do you want?

Ralli – since you are on this thread.. Isn’t the Gaia theory a moot point? The Earth is surely a complex interacting system, surely it’s just preference whether or not you consider it as one system or lots of smaller ones?

Gaia hypothesis, please.
It’s not a theory. 👿

Moses – emperor’s new clothes 🙂

What I am saying is that it’s not theory or anything – just a different way of looking at the exact same stuff. Seems like Dawkins agrees with me from the Wikipedia article.