Listen to this PodcastMore 60-Second Science
We usually think of evolution as something that happens over eons, in remote places where people rarely venture. Not something that happens around the backyard birdfeeder in just a few decades. But a study in the journal Current Biology suggests that feeding birds in winter can influence their course of evolution.
The birds in this study were central European blackcaps, a common kind of warbler. In spring, they breed in southern Germany. And when winter comes, they all fly south to the Mediterranean. At least they used to. In the 1960s, folks in Britain started putting out seed in winter. And the blackcaps split into two distinct groups. One goes to Spain to nosh on fruits and olives, the other heads north to take advantage of the easy English pickin’s.
The two populations may even be splitting into two species. The blackcaps that winter in England tend to mate with each other when they return to Germany. So they’re starting to look different from the birds that go south. Their beaks are longer and narrower, less suited to supping on Spanish olives. As birds of a feather, they definitely flock together. And to some degree, they have a bunch of bird-feeding Brits to thank.
—Karen Hopkin
[The above text is an exact transcript of the audio in the podcast.]
See what we're tweeting about
27 Comments
Add CommentMaybe God is just modifying an "error" in his original intelligent design. Blackcap 1.0.1
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis is not direct evidence of evolution. The physical appearance of an animal is controlled by specific genes and the variations in a population by the allele frequency for the respective population. When you cause a shift in the population gene pool as with the bird feeders causing some birds to stay while others go, you are inevitably going to have some amount of allele frequency divergence between the two groups, thus causing changes in the phenotype.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFurthermore, one thing I always find very misguided by people citing instance of "evolution", is that they always quote a possible new "species" as evidence. The term species was/has been defined by scientists in the last 200(?) years. Supposing that everything was created by Intelligent Design, the boundaries we place on species would likely not be correct. We use taxonomy for classification. Eventually it may be possible to call them a sub-species or even a new species for the sake of continuity of classification, but it's hardly correct to claim a slight variation in physical appearance with these birds as evidence of evolution.
When I see evidence of a new organ in an animal or some kind of completely radical change (ie, fish to land animal), then I may pay attention to evolution. Until then, evidence showing slight changes that is already genetically possible (either through shifts in allele frequencies or extreme/unstable mutations, think 6th toes, dwarfism) won't hold water with me.
Creationists are awefully vocal on posts such as this. There's as much evidence that the earth revolves around the sun as there is that evolution exists. Or, another way of thinking of it, my dog shouldn't exist, because if it did - that would be proof of man influenced accelerated evolution due to domestication of wolves and then selective breeding, one of the very fundamental processes that moves evolution along and is being described in this article. This is excellent evidence of evolution at work naturally - no unmoved mover intelligently designing along the way.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA change in allele frequency can lead to evolution.. which was the purpose of the article I believe. These two populations would become different species if they can no longer interbreed in the wild. This can be do to a time or spatial reproductive barrier. Don't be so quick to judge and celebrate the public's interest in all things encompassed in the natural world. Otherwise you may find yourself with even less funding!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@cbstryker, that is a "moving the goal posts" fallacy. Whenever science provides additional proof of evolution the creationists declare that it is not sufficient evidence and then go on to define what "they" would consider evidence (like it matters...). For example, "when I see evidence of a new organ in an animal or some kind of completely radical change (ie, fish to land animal)." Of course if you were to look at the actual evidence you would see what you're looking for but I understand that creationists would rather ignore the evidence and see it for themselves, so all you need to do is hang around for a few million years and keep an eye on things. There are bound to be a few changes. But of course, that is the point, move the goal post to a place that is impossible to hit, e.g. given the rate of evolution, the chances of actually seeing one species becoming two species (sufficiently different that they are no longer capable of producing viable offspring) in one's lifetime is all but impossible. If you had any understanding of evolution or genetics you would realize just how idiotic your statements are, but you have no interest in knowing the truth only in spreading your particular intellectual virus. Personally I would rather be a free thinking individual than a vector…
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBy the way, when I see evidence of god, such as him actually showing up and doing a few tricks, then I'll believe in him. Until then, why don't you retire to the god box and do some worshippin' and I'll hang out here in reality land?
"When I see evidence of a new organ in an animal or some kind of completely radical change (ie, fish to land animal), then I may pay attention to evolution"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLook up the Croatian Wall Lizard, it evolved a new cecal valve (thus changing it to an omnivore), muscles, and new skull structure, and a better jaw.
Dogs and wolves, both have four legs, two eyes, a mouth, nose, two ears, tongue, a heart, liver, stomach, fur, a tail... etc.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAll that changed was their appearance. Nothing has been added.
Sorry for the long post, but I'm responding to four people.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@b_guy
@InPursuit
@robert schmidt
@lugunas
Hi guys, I like your responses, you make some good points.
First I'd like to clarify a few things. I suppose I'm coming of as a "creationist", while I do believe in creation I don't label myself as a creationist as creationists typically make outrageous claims. So with that said:
Anyone who...
claims the earth is 6000(give or take) years old, hasn't read the Bible.
claims the earth and all the 'species' were created in it's current state, hasn't read the Bible.
claims the earth is flat, hasn't read the Bible.
believes in hellfire, hasn't read the Bible.
believes the earth was created in six 24 hour days, hasn't read the Bible.
Never in the Bible does it state that all the species on earth were created as they appear today. A direct quote "Let the earth put forth living souls according to their kinds, domestic animal and moving animal and wild beast of the earth according to its kind."
It doesn't say species, but says "kinds". Let me take a step back for a sec, it has been established many times over that animals/organisms that are rigid and unchanging cannot easily survive changes in their environment. So for an animal to survive it must be adaptive. Now when I say "adaptive" I do not mean fish growing legs when their lake dries up. But finches altering their beak shapes to better accommodate the food source is adaptive.
So if someone was going to create an entire ecosystem, and if this person had an infinite intelligence you would think they would make their product versatile and resilient.
I understand your "moving the goal post" point. However, the same point applies to evolution itself. We are not around long enough to see evolution happen. As such we don't have any direct proof, just proposed evidence. And much of the evidence for evolution often isn't hard evidence just something that's applied to evolution. "This and this happened because it evolved that way" I know I'm making a blanket statement but I can't think of a true example right now.
@robert schmidt: I actually do have an understanding of genetics, two careers paths I was studying for were Doctor of Veterinary Medicine and Microbiology. I also read as much of the latest science journals as I can find time for.
Look these up: Job 26:7, Isaiah 40:27, Psalms 139:16
ps. Please guys, let's not make this into a "flame war". I respect other's opinions and enjoy a point-counter-point discussion.
@InPursuit: Can you clarify your "funding" comment?
@cbstryker, despite what you claim you do not understand genetics. There is no "species barrier" in there that can't be crosses. New species evolve when some form of separation, usually geographic, has split a species into two groups. As mutations occur in these separated groups their genomes drift to become less and less compatible. Look at The Larus Gulls example;
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe range of gulls forms a ring around the North Pole. Within the ring, neighbouring birds can mate with each other, even though they look slightly different. But the birds at the two ends of the ring -- the Herring Gull and Lesser Black-backed Gull -- are so distinct that they can't mate with each other although they live side by side. Ring species are some of the best evidence for how new species evolve.
There have been some excellent examples recently showing how new genes evolve through replication errors, producing two copies of the same gene, one gene continues filling its original role while the other is free to perform a new role.
Ultimately, the theory you find easiest to believe is the one you should question most. Like most creationists you have decided to cherry pick the evidence you like and throw away what you don't. That's not how science works. A theory must explain all related phenomenon.
"..their product versatile and resilient." yet 90% of all species that have ever lived are now extinct. Is that due to gods shear incompetence as a creator, or his neglect for his creation? To me it just looks like organisms failing to adapt to extreme changes.
The one thing that really bothers me are the creationist demands that what is clear scientific evidence is to them not enough, yet they have absolutely nothing to prove the existence of god. That is hypocrisy and it is a "burden of proof" fallacy. You don't get to make up the rules like some spoiled brat at his birthday party. So, instead on focusing on how your lack of understanding of evolution is proof that evolution is wrong and how your deep desire for a christian world view is proof of god; why don't you leave evolution alone and worry about proving your own hypothesis. To me the fact that creationists spend their time attacking evolution is an indication that they have absolutely nothing to support creationism.
Again, churches are for blind obedience, science is for exploring the real world.
@robert schmidt, I had never said there is a "species barrier", what I said was that the definition of what a species is is a man-made definition and that our taxonomic structures would not necessarily be in harmony with how things were created. Ring species are a good example of the point I've been trying to make about a group of animals adapting to their surroundings yet still remaining what they are (as in that they are still birds, and more so still gulls).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd I know very well about genetic mutations. Having spent the last 8 years breeding reptiles, it's something I dealt with nearly everyday. So having the first hand experience I can say that genetic abnormalities can create amazing diversity in sizes, colour and patterns. I can also say that genetic abnormalities that affect anything other than the phenotype can cause drastic, negative side effects; kinked spines, hole in the forehead (which gets infected easily), and even eyeless turtles (which I do not condone, as these have been marketed by some guys in the US). And these are confirmed genetic, they are passed on to offspring.
"producing two copies of the same gene, one gene continues filling its original role while the other is free to perform a new role."
For this to be true the genes must be co-dominant, in which case the genes would be simultaneously expressed, essentially fighting over each other for the role, which usually results in a "blended" function of the two. More often than not genes tend to be recessive-dominant. And for a recessive gene to be expressed it must be homozygous, which means on general only 1/4 of the offspring will carry the gene in a heterozygous state. And that's provided it's a simple function controlled by a single gene. If it's controlled by multiple genes you're up to 1/8 for double heterozygous and 1/16 for triple heterozygous, and that's only for the affected population which translates to a much smaller fraction. Mathematically the "error" corrects itself over a number of generations, not to say it always disappears all together. When have you ever seen an albino animal in the wild?
"science is for exploring the real world." So are you saying that a person that believes in a God is too stupid or blinded to study science? This forced idea of a chasm between the Bible and science is pure ignorance akin to what evolutionists pin on "creationists".
@cbstryker, you are a good example of the expression, "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing," You think playing with hybridization makes you a genetics expert? There is more to genetics than recessive, dominant and co-dominant. Those are simple models that help explain a lot of what we see but they don't cover everything. When a replication error causes a second copy of the gene to be produced (we are not talking about another allele, we are talking about a complete copy of the gene) one of the genes is then free to undergo mutation without depriving the organism of the services of the original gene, read; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene_duplication
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf you were to look at each organism, and then at it's parents, they would look similar. The same when you look at the parent's parent's; and so on back to the beginning. A fish doesn't become an amphibian over night. But when many lines of intermediarys become extinct what we are left with are the end points of many millions of years of small, almost unnoticeable changes. Kind of like going away from a friend or family member for a long period of time and then coming back. To you they may look very different but to those who have seen them daily they don’t look any different.
Again, what this comes down to is that you believe that the gaps in your knowledge of evolution somehow reflect science's gaps in its knowledge of evolution. And again, instead of offering a better theory, or even trying to prove your own theory, you attack what you don't know.
"a person who believes in god is too stupid or blinded to study science…" A religious scientist is like a fat doctor who smokes. He should know better but he can't help himself. Science and religion are two incompatible paths to knowledge. Nothing in science can be taken on faith. Everything must be proven. The only way to know the universe is through evidence based interrogation. If the religious scientist believes that god is somehow exempt from these laws then he is not practicing what he preaches. One can certainly, derive a moral code from religion without accepting it's cosmological model but I would suggest that one could certainly find moral guidance without god, many have. Furthermore, since the various concepts in the bible have equal justification, then if one is willing to discard one aspect of the bible one may as well discard the whole thing.
@robert schmidt, yes I was using simple genetic examples (none of which were hybridization). I do not have the experience as a geneticist to give full in-depth examples, (although I have studied genetics and biology more than enough to have a valid opinion). Nor would I have the time.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"A religious scientist is like a fat doctor who smokes. He should know better but he can't help himself. Science and religion are two incompatible paths to knowledge."
I strongly disagree, I suspect you had not looked up the scriptures I listed in my earlier post, so I'll just quote them for you:
Isaiah 40:22 "There is One who is dwelling above the circle of the earth"
Job 26:7 "He is stretching out the north over the empty place, hanging the earth upon nothing"
Psalms 139:16 "Your eyes saw even the embryo of of me, and in your book all its parts were down in writing"
This being in the Bible when just 500 years ago people were declaring that the earth was flat, sitting on the backs of animals.
It doesn't take a doctor to know that smoking is bad for you, any child can tell you so. You say "nothing in science can be taken on faith." Have you ever seen the earth as a sphere, and not just the curvature from an airplane? Can you see the earth orbiting the sun? Can you feel the rotation of the earth? Or course you can't, but you have faith in these facts, because despite not having witnessed these things for yourself you do have supporting evidence that you accept. Evolutionism is a faith. As you mentioned with your moving goal posts argument that no one can observe evolution directly. All we have is evidence that animals are able to adapt their physical appearance, this can either be evidence that God made life versatile, or that animals are able to evolve. It cannot outright rule out either possibility. So all you are left with is your faith.
Another thing about evolution, it is supposed to be about the origin of life. Yet this is rarely the main focus of discussion, and when the formation of life from inanimate matter is touched on it bares the greatest burden of proof and is always met with the greatest hurdles to be explained. Additionally, in every instance of an experiment trying to reproduce the first DNA, RNA strand or basically the first form of life, the results are always questionable at best; a few random amino acids. Also, in each instance the process was helped along by an intelligent being (sound familiar?).
That's all I have to say, I was willing to have a friendly discussion, but you clearly were just looking for a fight.
@cbstryker, "you have faith in these facts…you do have supporting evidence…" and that, is absolutely not faith. Faith is belief not derived from logical proof or material evidence. Science is a formal process. It is self correcting and universal. Because of this, I can trust in the results of science; very much like I can trust that an elevator or airplane is safe even though I have not done an inspection myself. I trust in the engineering and the safety standards put in place. That is not faith. Faith is believing something that has no proof, no basis in logic a.k.a. being gullible.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"this can either be evidence that God made life versatile", no it can not! God has not been proven therefore you cannot make any inferences about him. In a court of law this would be called, assuming facts not in evidence. First prove god exists, then you can talk about what he may or may not have done. The onus of proof is on you.
"It cannot outright rule out either possibility" it doesn't rule out anything. It is evidence that organisms adapt. This is a god of the gaps argument, look it up.
"…it is supposed to be about the origin of life." with every word you write you broadcast your complete ignorance of the subject. Evolution is about organisms adapting to their environments. Who said it was about the origins of life? It may be able to explain how certainly early processes sorted themselves out but the origins of life have more to do with organic chemistry, biology and virology. Moving the goal post yet again!
"…in each instance the process was helped along by an intelligent being?" It is unbelievable that a person with the ability to type could utter a statement so idiotic. The earth had hundreds of millions of years and its entire surface area to run the experiment. The scientists were trying to replicate parts of the process in a relatively short period of time. To my knowledge we do not have a duplicate of Earth from 4 billion years ago handy for testing, so we need to conduct controlled experiments.
I would also like to have a friendly discussion. It helps if instead of making statements about things you clearly know nothing about, that you ask questions and do a little research. None of this stuff is difficult or hard to access. You could have typed your questions into Google and found tonnes of reputable sources of info. I can only therefore conclude that you aren't interested in the truth; you are only interested in preaching. That is neither friendly, nor a discussion.
faith (fth)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisn.
1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
source: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/faith
You trust, therefore have faith, in the safety of an elevator or airplane.
"The onus of proof is on you." I disagree, as you said of me, you are not interested in the truth. You have clearly made up your mind that a God does not exist, so anything I say simply won't matter. I'm not a genius but I'm confident that I've demonstrated at least a fairly basic knowledge of genetics, but you keep inferring that I'm ignorant:
"with every word you write you broadcast your complete ignorance of the subject."
I'm idiotic:
"It is unbelievable that a person with the ability to type could utter a statement so idiotic."
I do NOT understand genetics:
"despite what you claim you do not understand genetics."
I have a complete lack of understanding of evolution:
"instead on focusing on how your lack of understanding of evolution is proof that evolution is wrong and how your deep desire for a christian world view is proof of god"
Every time I say something that you simply don't agree with or don't like, you accuse me of being ignorant, blinded ("churches are for blind obedience"), or simply stupid. To you nothing I say is valid or even a good point. To me it honestly seems like instead of postulating evidence and letting your points speak for themselves, you try to further validate them by discrediting me or what I say.
"The earth had hundreds of millions of years and its entire surface area to run the experiment. The scientists were trying to replicate parts of the process in a relatively short period of time."
The same can be said of diamonds forming naturally in the earth. They manage making them in the lab without issue. You would think that after so many decades they would have some viable results, of some kind.
"This is a god of the gaps argument, look it up." I did, and by your statement you clearly are either not seeing my point or just not acknowledging it. Please see the "The onus of proof is on you." paragraph.
"Evolution is about organisms adapting to their environments. Who said it was about the origins of life?" You did, and every other evolutionist when you say there is no God, or at least that we were not created. If we were not created, then where did we come from? Right?
===there's a part 2 below===
"A religious scientist is like a fat doctor who smokes. He should know better but he can't help himself." And an evolutionary scientist is like an obese person that only eats fast food. You know they've been told a thousand times over that it will kill them, but they can't help themselves. The problem with a smoking doctor or an over eating obese person isn't the lack of knowledge or logic about the fact. It's the desire driving it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs I said before the issue with a belief in God does not come down to how much evidence we each can stack up against each other.
But if I may add a bit to that stack, every new discovery into the world of microbiology just adds to the ever increasing complexity of genetics. Just in the last decade alone they discovered that although a human has only around 40'000 genes and some worms (ringworm? hookworm?) have up to 200'000 genes, we are more complex. A single human gene can code up to eight different ways in same cases (or more?). And then there's the new field of epigenetics. An entire new understanding of how gene expression can be directly influenced by a structure lining the outside of the phosphate backbone of DNA. This understandably makes the whole process a lot more complex and subsequently evolutions job a bit harder. It's kinda like someone digging deeper to get themselves out of a hole. (I'm not trying to make cheap shots, just metaphors)
Back to what I was saying earlier. To an evolutionist, evolution is the base of their faith. It is their "Bible" if you will. To someone such as myself the topic of genetics is but small matter of a much larger picture.
Evolution will never tell me why a woman in my city was raped and murdered, why there is any form of ethnic, social or even religious discrimination, why atrocities like the Nazi Holocaust happened to the Polish, Roman Gypsies, Jewish and other groups.
Anyways, I could go on. But I have a feeling it would be pointless. At the very least we should agree to disagree.
OK, this thing is working. Maybe someone will be able to give me some answers to my questions about evolution. First, let me say that I am not from either camp. I am quite literally on the fence. I see valid arguments on both sides. So calling me ignorant or atheist will not be constructive.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisQuestion one: Why is the observation that DNA is so similar in all organism evidence for evolution and not for design? If I was a designer of automobiles I would make parts interchangeable. Why reinvent anything. If this system of life works, why not use it for all my cars...I mean species?
Question Two: Why does the observation that chihuahuas and great danes are still both called Dogs mean that they are the same species? There are many definitions for a species, one is based on reproduction and the other is based on morphology. If I was an Alien visiting this planet and I was here to record the different species I saw, I would definitely put these two "DOGs" into separate groups. Then I bet the Great Dane would rather eat the other than have sex with it. So what will it take to make a new species?
Hi Hobs, good questions.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisQuestion one. It is true that one could view the sameness in the structure of organisms as an efficient design but that over-simplifies things. First, using your car analogy, yes you would use the same part if it served the same purpose in another design, but if you weren't going to use the part any more, would you still put it other cars? Would you put the same suspension in a vehicle that drives off road as a vehicle that drives only in the city, or would you design a more purpose built suspension? In other words, would you take an existing part and make it serve a different purpose rather than making a purpose built part? Would you build a car so that its exhaust gases completely destroy it if not vented within a couple of minutes? Stepping away from cars a bit, would you build a computer monitor that has all its wiring coming out of the middle of the screen? I could go on. The thing about the way organisms have adapted is that on the surface it looks amazing but when you look at it up close you see a large number of design flaws. Obvious flaws. We are like a child’s picture of something complex. If my nephew were to bring me a picture that resembled the inner workings of a computer, I would be very impressed, even if they were in crayon. If an engineer brought me the same picture I'd laugh at him. Nature has done an amazing job of solving difficult problems, but that is only given the context that nature is blind, has no intention, and has a very limited ability to make changes from one model to the next. An engineer would have done it differently. Also, before one can attribute creation to a creator, the creator must be proven. That hasn't been done so the question of how he/she/it would have created us is speculative.
...
Question Two; Yes the term species is a made up term. Like all our words, it is a symbol that represents a concept. In the case of species the concept has changed as we have learned more and more about what defines organisms. The term still has alot of legacy baggage but we can think of it as distinct organisms that no longer share their gene pool. As to what it takes to make a new species think of it this way... Let's say that you have a story. You share that story with your tribe. One day half your tribe leaves and never returns. While they are away the way they pronounce words begins to change, this may be because they are imitating the most successful member of the tribe who may not be a wordsmith, sometimes to adapt to the surroundings, certain sounds may carry better on open plains than dense jungle. If a member of that tribe went back to the original tribe and told the same story, most people would still be able to understand. But as time moves on, not only does the pronunciation change but the words change, just like in our society, something that is "sic" is now considered good. For someone not connected to modern media that misunderstanding would change the whole meaning of the sentence. Eventually, not only do the words change but the actual themes change to better reflect the tribe’s particular circumstance. Now if one was to go back to the original tribe, no one would be able to understand them any more. The languages are too different, the sounds have different meanings. The same with genes. As mutations crop up in separated groups of organisms, the two genomes not longer fit one another. The alleles have "drifted" apart and therefore can no longer function. Like I said before, this doesn't happen over night. It is a slow process with each generation looking pretty much like the previous generation. For us now, at this point in time, we see the endpoints of many different branches of evolution; we don't have many intermediaries to fill in the blanks. But there are enough of them, both living and fossilized to give us a sense of how things progressed.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI recommend you read some of Richard Dawkins books if you are interested. He will explain things much better than I do.
@cbstryker
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFaith:
2b. "firm belief in something for which there is no proof" -Merriam-Websters
Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen (Hebrews 11:1, KJV).
We aleady have a word for trust and that is "trust". We already have a word for knowledge....and so on. Faith has a particular meaning that relates directly to religion and is very much dependant on there being no proof in god.
"'The onus of proof is on you.' I disagree..."
The Onus of proof is on he who asserts the affirmative or the existence of (or on the claimant). This is not only the cornerstone of modern science but also the western legal system.
@cbstryker, "You have clearly made up your mind that a God does not exist", I was raised a Lutheran. I was confirmed, I was active in my church, my family are all Lutherans. I gave up god not because I was angry at god, or at the church or my family. I gave it up for the same reason I gave up UFOs, the Loch Ness Monster and Ghosts; because there was no evidence for them. I would be really happy for someone to prove me wrong! I don't want to die. I don't want to leave my family. But believing in a lie, even a beautiful lie is delusional. Will anything you say make a difference? Sure, if it is scientific proof it will make all the difference in the world. But so far you have shown that you do not understand what you're talking about. And hey, it is OK to be ignorant. I'm ignorant of far more things than I'm knowledgeable of. The difference is you won't find me going to a sports forum and telling everyone how wrong they are about their team's management, or going to a car forum and telling them why BMWs suck. I don't know and I don't care. If I did care I would take the time to learn everything I could, the stuff I agree with and the stuff I disagree with, before standing up and pretending to be an authority.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs an example, "The same can be said of diamonds forming naturally in the earth. They manage making them in the lab without issue." Are you really saying that making a rock out of carbon is as difficult as making life? You really have to understand that when you make those kinds of statements you sound extremely ignorant. There is no other word for it. What would you think if I said that the proof that Jesus didn't exist is that he is always depicted as a European rather than a Semitic Jew which is obviously wrong, so he must be made up. Of course that sounds stupid but for someone who has no understanding of christianity or its history, that may make perfect sense. The way you sound in your head is not the way you sound here.
"Evolution will never tell me why a woman in my city was raped and murdered", It won’t? Why? Is it because you know what the scientists will discover and you know in advance that their evidence will be unsatisfactory? How do you know that? Is it because no matter what science discovers, no matter how solid the evidence, you will not change your beliefs? Isn’t that what I’ve been saying?
Thanks for your reply Rob.(Can I call you Rob?) You make a good point about the vestigial structures. I didn't make the connection that they could be found in the DNA as well as in the organs and other visible structures. Thanks. As for the species bit. People argue that we have never seen a new species form. But when you look at domesticated animals as well as crops such as the Brassicas (cabbage, broccoli, brussel sprouts, etc.) we see an enormous range of morphology. I guess I'd like to hear the "non-evolutionist" viewpoint on this one. Again alot of the confusion out there is the terminology.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMy next question is all about terminology. How do you define the following terms? And how do you view the way that these terms are used by scientists and nonscientists?
Theory
Law
Hypothesis
Fact
Proof
I am a biology teacher and I really appreciate getting different perspectives on this topic. As you can imagine, teaching evolution to two divergent populations (those open to evolutionary theory and those oposed) can be quite challenging and it helps to read these posts.
I wonder if these two populations will become reproductively isolated and continue to diverge. LOL Maybe we will see if there is a difference in fitness between having one view or the other.
@robert schmidt,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"I'm ignorant of far more things than I'm knowledgeable of. The difference is you won't find me going to a sports forum and telling everyone how wrong they are about their team's management, or going to a car forum and telling them why BMWs suck."
That's the first thing you said that I was able to respect simply because you weren't derogatory or attacking me directly. No offence but as I said before a lot of the things, or rather the way you've been saying them, makes it seems like you're just looking for someone to fight with.
We've been talking solely about evolution itself so far, I would like to know your thoughts on the scriptures that I quoted earlier.
ps. I haven't fully read the replies you've made to Hobs, but I did catch the part about reading Richard Dawkins books. I actually have read a good deal of his book The God Delusion, and I stopped reading it because I have never read a more hate filled book before in my life.
Hi Hobbs, Rob is fine.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe really can't see a species form. It is not really an event. Imagine Organism A changing slowly through the alphabet to become Organism Z. Organisms A and B can mate. So can B and C, and so on to Z. If all the intermediaries die out except D and Y, and we know that D and Y can't mate, at what point did Y split to become a new species? If we had followed it along we would never have seen the change from one species to another. The boundaries are not likely abrupt either. It is not like you would have D and E mating but D and F not being able to mate at all. There may be a slight drop in reproductive success from D to F or D to G. It is only because we still have these two distantly related organisms, D and Y to compare to each other that we "see" two species.
In regards to the terms;
In the sciences, a scientific theory (also called an empirical theory) comprises a collection of concepts, including abstractions of observable phenomena expressed as quantifiable properties, together with rules (called scientific laws) that express relationships between observations of such concepts. We can think of a theory as a proposition that has been proven.
In common language, theory is used more like the scientific term hypothesis; scientific hypothesis is a hypothesis used as a tentative explanation of an observation, but which has not yet been fully tested by the prediction validation process for a scientific theory. It is conjecture.
This is the source of a great deal of confusion, hence the tired expression, 'evolution is not a fact, it's only a theory".
A scientific law or scientific principle is a concise verbal or mathematical statement of a relation that expresses a fundamental principle of science, like Newton's law of universal gravitation. I think of it as an abstracted algorithm.
A fact is a pragmatic truth, a statement that can, at least in theory, be checked and confirmed. So a Theory isn't a fact but it is confirmed by the facts. One can then say that a Theory is factual.
A proof has many definitions depending on the branch of academia. Mathematical proofs for example are much more stringent than proofs in physics because they are much easier to confirm.
Most of these answers come from Wikipedia. Look up logical fallacies. That really helps in understanding how to frame arguments.
@cbstryker, I've read the scriptures, I had to for my bible studies, but I also read them on my own and again when I studied world religions in school. To be honest, they don’t impress me and many repulse me. I have yet to see anything in Christ’s words that are really that amazing. There were terrible things going on during that time, slavery, treating women like property, etc. but in his sermon on the mount he says nothing about it. In fact in Mathew he seems to be for it;
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"A student is not above his teacher, nor a servant above his master. It is enough for the student to be like his teacher, and the servant like his master." Matthew 10:24-25
And god seems to be for it too...
"I will sell your sons and your daughters to the Judians, and they shall in turn sell them to the Sabeans, to a people far off." Joel 3:8
"Let slaves regard their masters as worthy of all honor." Tim. 6:1-2;
"Be submissive to your master and give satisfaction in every respect." Titus 2:9-10
The bible never really takes a clear stand on anything. That is why it is so easily abused. If you want peace the Bible supports it, if you want war, the bible supports that too.
I truely believe the following quote;
With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. - Steven Weinberg, quoted in The New York Times, April 20, 1999
US physicist (1933 - )
Religion is from a time prior to science and the printing press when people could not tell fact from fiction. To them it didn't matter, what mattered was the message. Now we have people looking back at those stories saying they must be literally true. That wasn't what the scriptures were for. They were created to deliver a message not to document events. And the message they carried was for their time. Well now it's time for us to look forward and choose what is right for us in our time. And to me, science, and logic are the framework we should build on.
I'm sure you've heard of cryptography, the science of hiding information... well books like the bible need to be the exact opposite. The message needs to be clear and unambiguous. There should be no interpretation but the one intended. An ambigous text is as valuable as no text at all. God should know better.
Why don't you visit the library at your local public university and find this title in their collection of databases. (It's your right as a taxpayer in your state): Contemporary Evolution of Reproductive
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIsolation and Phenotypic Divergence
in Sympatry along a Migratory Divide, in this journal: Current Biology 19, 15, December 29, 2009. Stop yammering and do something academic.
God will never appear to disbelievers. He already said that, its written in the bible. He has already done miracles and is still doing miracles. His biggest evidence is his son Jesus Christ! He doesn't appear physically to believers like me either, because i need to prove my faith in Him.If he did appear of course everyone would see him and believe. But thats too easy, he said that only those who believe, without seeing him, will enter the gates of Jerusalem. And that doesn't make him mean or anything like that, but dont you have to work hard for anything big you want to achieve? and yes, to acchieve such a thing as eternal life salvation, you would have to give up all your egotism selfishness-loving only yourself. For people like you this sounds so unrealistic, because it hasn't been opened for you to see. If you read the bible u will see much evidence. Talking about the big flood many decades ago-it hasn't been long since scientists found a prove for that, but in the Bible that has been said for centuries and centuries! i know someone like u, he was christian and fell away because of this made up evolution. You know i agree with the fact that animals do change over time and yeah there is evidence for sure, but how did it all start, what was that organism, cell, or whatever. NO EVIDENCE FOR THAT, AND U WILL NEVER FIND IT BECAUSE THERE ISNT ONE! and how do humans evolve, do they, if you say yes, how come humans haven't changed for(for example) 2009 yrs?? i know u would say that now we control our environment, but did we control our environment 500 yr ago? NO. and humans still didnt change. With the findings of 'Luci', what if that was an animal, or a person with a sever disorder ?? you would never know for sure to back up your evidence because you weren't there. And yeah, you would say, you weren't there when suposetly , you would say, God created the earth, but i would tell you..God is alive and he controls me, not my environment, i pray and i get my prayers answered and sometimes he has done things for me that i myself without turning to Him, would never acquire!! You know when a real miracle happens to you then u will believe, but it might not happen to u since you are such a nonbeliever. God allows people to come up with such technology to help us survive because he made us and takes care of us, but humans are going too far using this tools to go and find against him.How foolish to go against YOUR CREATOR! How'ld smallest cell eventually evolve into a human, such an extremely complex organism, nature? who crated natur?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThank you for your post. I thought it was really interesting. I feel a little bad that I found<a href="http://www.lindaandbobsmall.com/default.asp?dept_id=30060">bird feeders online</a> and bought a few. One or two won't hurt, will it? I sure hope not.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this