Evolution demonstrated using clocks and genetic algorithms.

G.G.:

Rost, I'm not even trying to argue here but explain how you can test or falsify the Big Bang Theory.  I mean, ok, the universe is expanding so it has a start date.

And this means...?

 

Nah, we are going in circles here. I already provided you with the links for this twice.  If you don't want to learn for yourself, I don't have the time to spoonfeed it to you.  You're a big boy and you are clearly at least somewhat interested in this.  Go read about it a little.  I promise, it's interesting stuff.

 

As far as a start date goes, I see where you are going with this  and let me just stop you right now.  No claims are being made beyond speculation as to what caused it.  Could it be god?  Sure.  But it could also be clown farts.  There's no reason to pick one over the other.

G.G.:

Rost, I'm not even trying to argue here but explain how you can test or falsify the Big Bang Theory.  I mean, ok, the universe is expanding so it has a start date.

And this means...?

there is no god.  there is only the fact that reese's pieces are not actually peanut butter filled, but are instead filled with even smaller reese's pieces.  at least that's my theory...drrr.

From http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2008/04/scientists-disc.html#more 

Ultra fast evolution witnessed in lizards:

Think it takes thousands or even millions of years for animals to evolve significantly new traits? Think again. New research lends just a touch of credibility to the idea behind the popular sci-fi TV series Heroes, which portrays certain humans as having quickly evolved new astounding traits in response to increasingly tumultuous environmental pressures.

 

 

That was an interesting read Rost.  Thanks!

 

On a side note...it reminded me of a point on evolution.  You know how it is frustrating when people mix the ideas of evolution and life origins?  I think just as often...people mix the concepts of evolution with adaptation.

They are very related of course....but the difference is the reason why evolution still and will most likely always be a theory and not a law.

The article you post...is about adaption.  That is...one species adapting to it's environment/food source....but still remaining the same actual species.  This is common...and evidence of which is abundant.

The idea of Darwinian evolution is that these adaptions can actually result in one species becoming another completely different species.  This is not the same as inter-species adaptation.

 

All too often people look at factual data of adaptation and point to it as proof of Darwinian evoltuion.....it is wrong to do so.

 

 

BTW...as stated before........I do not say this as a person who has any problems with evolutionary theory.  Like I said....I believe that there is no need for science (including that of evolution) to clash with religion.  No need at all.

 Scobbs,

First of all, the idea of "species" is just a classification imposed by biologists for classification of animals.  In this particular case, the adaptations result in a different species of lizard.  Just saying.

Second of all, the very basis of evolution is adaptation.  In fact, it's the first half.  The second half is reproduction and passing of these features to offspring.  Those that survive long enough to breed, pass those features on.  Those that don't, don't.

The key is that adaptation takes place over several generations.  Initial ability to eat the wierd food or whatever is usually already there in some form but not fully developed.  For example, Longer nose for eating ants.  You can eat ants without it but creatures with a longer nose will get more food than those who do not, thereby increasing their chance of survival and reproduction.  If they reproduce and their shorter nose competitors don't, the offspring will have longer noses than the previous generations.  

 

As far as adaptation as proof of evolution (you can drop the word "Darwinian", as most of his ideas have been heavily modified or extended), it's not.  However, adaptation does not disprove it, and in science that's all that matters. 

Actually, hasn't Modern Medicine stumpted any type of evolutionary processes form further affecting the human race?

Diseases that are inherited and shouldn't be bred, are bred because they are now treatable.  Another way to say this is to look at diesease that kill most children, now we have treatments and these children grow up to be adults and also are given the chance to reproduce and pass on their "less than desirable*" traits onto another genereations.

This happens in Great Danes.  Great Danes are highly affected by Bloat and stomach torsion, in fact it's a large killer of the breed.  Studies have found that the risk of this may just be inherited.  There is a preventitive surgery where they tie the stomach to the rib cage or tack it thus lessening the threat. 

We had this done because we have no intentions of breeding our dog and in fact he's fixed.  However, if you are a breeder you are recommended to never have this done because then there is no way to tell if that dog carries the gene and you can unknowing pass this "less than desirable" trait on through the gene pool. 

 

Todzilla:

Actually, hasn't Modern Medicine stumpted any type of evolutionary processes form further affecting the human race?

That was the position for a long time but scientists are reconsidering it.  There's too much evidence to the contrary.

http://www.newscientist.com/channel/being-human/mg18925421.300-are-we-still-evolving.html

 

Cool thanks. you are just an extreme wealth of knowledge lately, did you sleep in a Holiday Inn Express

Todzilla:

Cool thanks. you are just an extreme wealth of knowledge lately, did you sleep in a Holiday Inn Express

 

Well played, well played. 

rost0031:

 Scobbs,

First of all, the idea of "species" is just a classification imposed by biologists for classification of animals.  In this particular case, the adaptations result in a different species of lizard.  Just saying.

 

 

I hear ya....but I don't know if I would call those lizards different species.  Can the new mate with the old?  I don't think it said.

 

I was just pointing out that the idea of "evolution as explanation of all of life's progression" needs to include the idea of evolving into an entirely different species.  And you are right...maybe I am using my classification terms wrong.

eehhh....this kinda makes me tired anyway.  I can't keep up with you uberintellectual libruls.  I need to go get a nap and smell my balls.

I just wanted to give Rost a big thumbs up for keeping the science flag waving.  I don't have a whole lot to add, but if you want a really good book that puts contemporary ideas about the big bang into "layman's terms", read "A Brief History of Time".  When I say "layman's terms", I mean "it stays away from jargon as much as a book written by one of the greatest physicists of all time can".  Not that I actually expect anyone to read it, but there it is.

 I'm glad at least one person on this site actually understands the scientific method and can communicate it effectively.

Nick:

I just wanted to give Rost a big thumbs up for keeping the science flag waving.  I don't have a whole lot to add, but if you want a really good book that puts contemporary ideas about the big bang into "layman's terms", read "A Brief History of Time".  When I say "layman's terms", I mean "it stays away from jargon as much as a book written by one of the greatest physicists of all time can".  Not that I actually expect anyone to read it, but there it is.

 I'm glad at least one person on this site actually understands the scientific method and can communicate it effectively.

 

Thanks.  

But just to clarify on "Brief History of Time", it's an awesome book but keep in mind it has absolutely nothing to do with evolution.  As Nick said, it's mostly about physics of the universe but it's a fairly easy read.  Stephen Hawking is a surprisingly good writer for a scientist.  If you like that book, you should check out "Universe in a Nutshell".  Both books are a little dated but most of the information is still relevant. 

Wow, you are just the cats meow today.

Now if you could get yourself one more compliment you could jump up and scream HAT TRICK!!!

I would

Yeah, I brought up this book simply because the question of the big bang gets dealt with pretty well there, I felt.  God, I need to go read that one again.  I'll check out "Universe".  The "too-read" stack never seems to get any shorter. 

This is primarily for those who keep claiming that ID is being rejected by the scientific community just because it questions the status quo:

http://www.expelledexposed.com/index.php/the-truth/challenging

That's a list of a few scientists who challenged the status quo and were right (it happens rarely).  Even though their ideas were not widely accepted they were still respected because they made falsifiable claims.

Reverse evolution noticed in fish:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/05/080520-fish-evolution.html

 

Also, a fossil of a link between frogs and salamander: the frogamander has been found.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/05/080521-frog-fossil.html

 I dont like either one of you guys gg or rost  But i have to side with rost  , Evolution makes more sense than creationism ( check out any Carl sagan Documentary)and in the next 100 to 500 years humans (if we are still a living species on this earth ) will look back and wonder why so many people were fooled by religion for so long...

A 20 year long experiment in evolution of E. Coli yeilds interesting results: bacteria develop a whole new way to feed.  Mind you that how bacteria eat defines them as a species so developing a new way to eat is basically development of a new species.

http://scienceblogs.com/loom/2008/06/02/a_new_step_in_evolution.php