The evidence for evolution

[Dr Jekyll]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lIEoO5KdPvg

Contains REALLY interesting fact about Whales and Hippos.

[Dr Jekyll]

I think the problem was that nobody back then appreciated the timescales involved. If you think life is only a few hundred generations old then evolution via survival of the fittest doesn't seem plausible.

[anonymous-user]

Evolution is a word people use easily.

the film is too simplistic, evolution is genetic mutations that offer an natural advantage. Looking at a whale with nostril half way down head is not valid to show evolution, there are much better evolution arguments than this bubblegum science.

[Eric Mc]

Every time I catch a cold I say to myself - "evolution at work".

[Dr Jekyll]

The Spruce goose said:

Evolution is a word people use easily.

the film is too simplistic, evolution is genetic mutations that offer an natural advantage. Looking at a whale with nostril half way down head is not valid to show evolution, there are much better evolution arguments than this bubblegum science.

Evolution is change, genetic mutations or variation offering a natural advantage is the mechanism.

The point about the ancient Whale with nostrils half way down it's head is that most creatures had nostrils in the conventional position while current Whales have the blowhole on top of the head. So it backs up the idea of current Whales having evolved from animals with conventional arrangements. It's exactly what Darwinian evolution predicts should exist.

[RumbleOfThunder]

The Spruce goose said:

Evolution is a word people use easily.

the film is too simplistic, evolution is genetic mutations that offer an natural advantage. Looking at a whale with nostril half way down head is not valid to show evolution, there are much better evolution arguments than this bubblegum science.

I don't think the mutations have to be beneficial, necessarily.

[technodup]

ash73 said:

My favourite video is Dawkins vs Wendy Wright, it's like debating with a golden retriever

That's unfair. My golden retrievers are better looking and considerably smarter then that muppet.

She bangs on about evidence, where's her evidence for God?

Edited by technodup on Saturday 1st August 18:41

[Eric Mc]

RumbleOfThunder said:

The Spruce goose said:

Evolution is a word people use easily.

the film is too simplistic, evolution is genetic mutations that offer an natural advantage. Looking at a whale with nostril half way down head is not valid to show evolution, there are much better evolution arguments than this bubblegum science.

I don't think the mutations have to be beneficial, necessarily.

Most mutations AREN'T beneficial. But the point is that a non-beneficial mutation may kill the animal/plant or ensure it doesn't have a long life or ensure it doesn't last long enough to produce viable offspring.

So, it is most probable that the beneficial mutations are the ones that get passed on successfully.

SOMETIMES, a mutation that had worked beneficially for a species may turn out not that beneficial when the environment in which the species lives changes.

[AA999]

Evolution on a faster time frame exists with one of the world's current medical problems, in that antibiotics and the fight against bacteria that are evolving to survive it.

[Jinx]

AA999 said:

Evolution on a faster time frame exists with one of the world's current medical problems, in that antibiotics and the fight against bacteria that are evolving to survive it.

Confusing Evolution and Natural selection there.
Also natural selection as considered these days is a modified version of Darwin's natural selection.

[AA999]

Jinx said:

Confusing Evolution and Natural selection there.
Also natural selection as considered these days is a modified version of Darwin's natural selection.

My line of thinking was such - "evolution from the process of natural selection?"

Would the process of bacteria mutation cause a case of 'natural selection' in overcoming an antibiotic 'killer', which in turn 'evolves' the bacteria in to a new 'strain' that is no longer affected by the antibiotic?

[Moonhawk]

Jinx said:

AA999 said:

Evolution on a faster time frame exists with one of the world's current medical problems, in that antibiotics and the fight against bacteria that are evolving to survive it.

Confusing Evolution and Natural selection there.
Also natural selection as considered these days is a modified version of Darwin's natural selection.

Not really:

Evolution is defined as "Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations". Any change in the genetic composition of a population is evolution - regardless of the mechanism by which that change occurs.

The selection process is the addition of the drug which kills some of the bacteria. Mutation and natural variation pre-existing within the population allows some bacteria to survive and pass on their genes The overall effect is that the genetic make-up of the population changes over time - which is evolution in action.

[Prof Prolapse]

ash73 said:

they failed to conceive of evolution which only requires simple observation.

That isn't true. It takes a great deal of vision, especially with such widely accepted alternative theories to find an elegant theory to fit the observations, especially given the limitations of his time. In fact it took the life of a dedicated and brilliant individual to devise it.

Also a big part of the picture, the level at which selection occurs, was largely a mystery until relatively recently. I think it may have been Richard Dawkins who framed the idea which had been largely ignored by the scientific community. Without which we could not explain natural selections tendency towards things like altruism. Most people still mistakenly believe that selection occurs at the level of the individual.

I wouldn't recommend anyone read the origin of species as it's a bit wordy, but Richard Dawkins is a good writer on the subject. He himself is a huge admirer of Darwin. As anyone who understands the discovery must also be. The Selfish Gene is a good one.

But like most things it's only simple to verify, not to conceive. So I would have to strongly disagree.

[Jinx]

Moonhawk said:

Not really:

Evolution is defined as "Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations". Any change in the genetic composition of a population is evolution - regardless of the mechanism by which that change occurs.

The selection process is the addition of the drug which kills some of the bacteria. Mutation and natural variation pre-existing within the population allows some bacteria to survive and pass on their genes The overall effect is that the genetic make-up of the population changes over time - which is evolution in action.

Evolution is from one species to another new one - inter generational changes are merely adaptation.

[Prof Prolapse]

Well it's a pretty simple theory. I mean the original paper by Davis/Davies(???) wasn't even 20 pages if I recall. He just demonstrated via a few decent diagrams, sums, and explanations and then voila, selection must happen at the level of the Gene. My recollection is Dawkins just tries to add some colour, as he tends to do quite well I think (although I have gone off his books in recent years).

I can't view as at work but think I have seen it before. I really enjoy those talks and debates, especially some of the individuals there. It's also impressive how often the Cuckoo comes up in this sort of thing. It's enjoyed celebrity villain status.

[durbster]

Jinx said:

Evolution is from one species to another new one - inter generational changes are merely adaptation.

Not really. The only difference between adaption and evolution is time.

It seems to me the definition of a "species" is becoming increasingly irrelevant, as we realise that the lines between what we thought were distinct animal groups becomes ever more blurred. Hence why there's no such thing as a fish...

[Prof Prolapse]

I've not read too much ancient philosophy outside of Marcus Aurelius and stoicism. I don't have the patience for the language and cultural barriers to their, usually very good, arguments... Besides it's all "footnotes on Plato" isn't it?

Just to tie it back to evolution, more "Modern" philosophers like Spinoza, Schopenhauer, and Nietzsche are my favourites. Nietzsche I'm sure must have approved of Darwin's theory in a way that Buddhists, Stoics, and certainly Christian philosophers never will, it shows us the natural world is cruel, a constant fight for life, which ultimately we will all eventually lose. Most importantly that unpleasant truths, are no less true.

I think that was the greatest controversy when Darwin's book was published. The Victorians insisted they lived under the constant care of an attentive "gardener" god.

I'm sure Walt Disney would have approved... When he wasn't endorsing the deaths of Jews of course!

[Prof Prolapse]

ash73 said:

Haven't done the contemporary stuff yet, looking forward to that. Currently slogging my way through the renaissance which is really boring. I thought Plato was an idiot personally, a lot of his ideas were adopted by Christianity.

Again I'm not an expert in the older philosophy, but I was told much of Plato is actually the telling of the work of Socrates, if indeed he existed. I am going to get around to reading "The Republic" at some point regardless. It wouldn't take him for an idiot though.

Spinoza was a good chap, I think he was Renaissance wasn't he? His views on "god" (or a lack of it) even inspired Einstein. I also refer that my own god is "the god of Spinoza".

[Jinx]

durbster said:

Not really. The only difference between adaption and evolution is time.

It seems to me the definition of a "species" is becoming increasingly irrelevant, as we realise that the lines between what we thought were distinct animal groups becomes ever more blurred. Hence why there's no such thing as a fish...

So you've evolved the theory of evolution..........

As soon as you get to environmental determinism (the life that exists is the life that can exist - modified by the life that exists) we will just about be at the same level of understanding

[durbster]

Jinx said:

So you've evolved the theory of evolution..........

Sorry, I don't follow...

Evolution is complex life mutating itself into all sorts of crazy solutions to the problem of staying alive and duplicating itself. There's no such thing as adapting within the constraints of a species.