The Scientific Method Applied To Evolution...
Options
Comments
-
"Diane Dodd's fruit flies are still fruit flies" - Bambu
This in a nutshell is Bambu's issue with the Biology debate. He creates definition of words like 'species' then tries to unset evolutionary theory for not using the word according to his definition. In the case of Drosophila (fruit flies) there are 1500 different species according to biology however there is basically one according to Bambu. Speciation to Bambu is a fruit fly giving birth to a horse fly while in biology it is a population of fruit flies becoming reproductively isolated from other fruit flies.
He loves to splash an image about "Darwin is Wrong" but hates to actually read the magazine which includes the following;
"As we celebrate the 200th anniversary of Darwin’s birth, we await a third revolution that will see biology changed and strengthened. None of this should give succour to creationists, whose blinkered universe is doubtless already buzzing with the news that “New Scientist has announced Darwin was wrong”. Expect to find excerpts ripped out of context and presented as evidence that biologists are deserting the theory of evolution en masse. They are not." - New Scientist Magazine
It is nice to see he is now pitching violations of Dollo's Law. Its at least new material. Since I am unfamiliar with this subject I should thank Bambu for giving the chance to explore biology further. -
Bambu also loves to cite ancient debunked nonsense to counter claim like Archaeopteryx is a transitional fossil.
About 30 years ago a group of people attacked the veracity of the Archaeopteryx fossil. They were Prof. F. Hoyle (astronomer), Dr. N. Wickramasinghe (mathematician), Dr. L. Spetner (physicist), Dr. R. Watkins (medical doctor) and J. Watkins (photographer). None were fossil experts but they were each fairly accomplished in their own fields. The whole thing would be consigned to the dustbin of history but creationist clasp to anything to slow the every mounting evidence in support of evolution so Bambu trots out 30 year old nonsense.
The following link is pretty involved but covers the subject. I include the conclusions of the paper for those interested.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/archaeopteryx/forgery.html
"The evidence claimed by Watkins et al. to indicate that the feather impressions are a forgery appear to be easily explainable by natural processes. Detailed study of the London specimen both across the surface and in vertical section have failed to provide any evidence to support the contention that a layer of cement is present. The method claimed to have been used to produce the forgery cannot explain the presence of fine lines crisscrossing the fossil, or the matching dendrites on the slab and counterslab, which occur on top of the feather imprints. The feather imprints on the Maxberg specimen, despite claims to the contrary, are clearly identifiable as such. In this case, forgery of the type envisaged by Watkins et al. can be discounted because of the fact that the impressions run underneath the bony elements of the skeleton.
Something that should be obvious to anyone is that
"any conclusions about the authenticity of the fossil should be based on the best possible evidence. Photographs are just one ingredient of such evidence" (Parmenter & Greenaway 1985, p. 458).
Watkins et al., however, cite as evidence of their claims a set of "rudimentary," "poor" photographs having "too much contrast and too soft a focus," without looking at the much more extensive and better quality Museum photographs.
The claims that the feathers of Archaeopteryx are fake has been shown to be unsupported. Thus the claim that "the significance of Archaeopteryx lies in the fact that it represents the only unquestionable case of a fossil showing a transition between two vertebrate classes, aves (birds) and reptilia (reptiles)" has been upheld. In other words, Watkins et al. claim that Archaeopteryx represents a transitional form, but cannot be accepted as such because it is a forgery. Since the claim of forgery has not been substantiated, Archaeopteryx must therefore be an example of a transitional form by Watkins, et al.'s own admission (notwithstanding the fact that they mischaracterise Archaeopteryx as the "only" case).
I doubt however, that this particular quote will show up in any creationist literature." -
Since I am unfamiliar with this subject I should thank Bambu for giving the chance to explore biology further.
And another piece of advice, diversify.......
All of your info comes from talkorigins.......
-
Talkorigins is a site dedicated to debunking silly creationist claims. Perhaps you could stop making claims already thoroughly debunked.
-
According to my research there are exceptions to Dollo's law
LOL.....
Exceptions where it fails.....
I posted those.....
The last time I checked laws did not come with exceptions.....
law
lô/
noun
noun: law; noun: the law
1. the system of rules that a particular country or community recognizes as regulating the actions of its members and may enforce by the imposition of penalties.
"they were taken to court for breaking the law"
2. a statement of fact, deduced from observation, to the effect that a particular natural or scientific phenomenon always occurs if certain conditions are present.
"the second law of thermodynamics"
a generalization based on a fact or event perceived to be recurrent.
"the first law of American corporate life is that dead wood floats"
3. the body of divine commandments as expressed in the Bible or other religious texts.
synonyms: principle, rule, precept, directive, injunction, commandment, belief, creed, credo, maxim, tenet, doctrine, canon
"a moral law"
the Pentateuch as distinct from the other parts of the Hebrew Bible (the Prophets and the Writings).
noun: Law; noun: the Law
the precepts of the Pentateuch.
plural noun: the Law of Moses
Fallback smallback......
You didn't post all of them
Like you, I already know what an exception is
Not sure why you posted definitions -
"Diane Dodd's fruit flies are still fruit flies" - Bambu
This in a nutshell is Bambu's issue with the Biology debate. He creates definition of words like 'species' then tries to unset evolutionary theory for not using the word according to his definition. In the case of Drosophila (fruit flies) there are 1500 different species according to biology however there is basically one according to Bambu. Speciation to Bambu is a fruit fly giving birth to a horse fly while in biology it is a population of fruit flies becoming reproductively isolated from other fruit flies.
He loves to splash an image about "Darwin is Wrong" but hates to actually read the magazine which includes the following;
"As we celebrate the 200th anniversary of Darwin’s birth, we await a third revolution that will see biology changed and strengthened. None of this should give succour to creationists, whose blinkered universe is doubtless already buzzing with the news that “New Scientist has announced Darwin was wrong”. Expect to find excerpts ripped out of context and presented as evidence that biologists are deserting the theory of evolution en masse. They are not." - New Scientist Magazine
It is nice to see he is now pitching violations of Dollo's Law. Its at least new material. Since I am unfamiliar with this subject I should thank Bambu for giving the chance to explore biology further.
In Dodd's experiments do the fruit flies become unable to reproduce? -
We didn't become something else either though.We just got smarter and lost physical traits
Aren't alligator and most reptiles basically what Dinosaurs became? -
In Dodd's experiment she isolate a population of fruit flies and only provides maltose as a food source. Over several generations these flies become more and more efficient at metabolizing maltose. When Dodd reintroduced these maltose consuming flies back into an environment with typical starch consuming flies she found that the maltose flies reproduced with other maltose flies. Even in a combined setting the flies had become reproductively isolated from each other.
-
In Dodd's experiment she isolate a population of fruit flies and only provides maltose as a food source. Over several generations these flies become more and more efficient at metabolizing maltose. When Dodd reintroduced these maltose consuming flies back into an environment with typical starch consuming flies she found that the maltose flies reproduced with other maltose flies. Even in a combined setting the flies had become reproductively isolated from each other.
? with your soul like Ether -
According to my research there are exceptions to Dollo's law
LOL.....
Exceptions where it fails.....
I posted those.....
The last time I checked laws did not come with exceptions.....
law
lô/
noun
noun: law; noun: the law
1. the system of rules that a particular country or community recognizes as regulating the actions of its members and may enforce by the imposition of penalties.
"they were taken to court for breaking the law"
2. a statement of fact, deduced from observation, to the effect that a particular natural or scientific phenomenon always occurs if certain conditions are present.
"the second law of thermodynamics"
a generalization based on a fact or event perceived to be recurrent.
"the first law of American corporate life is that dead wood floats"
3. the body of divine commandments as expressed in the Bible or other religious texts.
synonyms: principle, rule, precept, directive, injunction, commandment, belief, creed, credo, maxim, tenet, doctrine, canon
"a moral law"
the Pentateuch as distinct from the other parts of the Hebrew Bible (the Prophets and the Writings).
noun: Law; noun: the Law
the precepts of the Pentateuch.
plural noun: the Law of Moses
Fallback smallback......
You didn't post all of them
Like you, I already know what an exception is
Not sure why you posted definitions
I didn't post all of them because the list is too long......
I posted definitions to clarify the law......
I figured everyone understood what exceptions are..........
No.....
As @Whar posted, the flies become reproductively isolated.......
I know you don't like definitions; however, they are necessary to clarify the results of the experiment.......
The flies do not become separate species that cannot reproduce with the other populations.......
Flies that were raised on specific diets preferred to mate with flies who shared similar diets...........
However, the flies did mate with flies from populations that were fed differing food sources..........
Sorry to burst your bubble, but there is no evidence of differing species in the experiment.........
"The mating preference shown in the experimental group is an example of a prezygotic barrier. The reproductive barrier was not absolute—some mating between “maltose flies” and “starch flies” did occur"
http://wps.pearsoncustom.com/wps/media/objects/5697/5834441/ebook/htm/0cc6e.htm?14.07
When does reality set in, or does it not matter???????
-
Bambu what you cite is exactly what reproductive isolation is. In an extremely short period of time these flies went from randomly assorted mating to highly exclusive. That is exactly how allopatric speciation is suppose to occur.
This exclusivity occurred in 35 generations which is less than 1 year. If this level of change can occur in behavior in such a short time what do you posit will slow this change over 5 years or 50 years or 500 years. Further physical changes occurred as well since the starch based flies developed midgut changes to handle the food source.
It is obvious you accept change can occur, you keep showing pretty pictures illustrating it, but what do you think holds that change in check over time. If you accept that changes can occur to the fruit flies over time what force holds those changes in check to keep a fruit fly a fruit fly?
Imagine a time machine allowing you move through two special environments populated by 2 groups of fruit flies. This environment has everything the flies need to live. Now move your time machine forward in time by 1000 years. You would expect to see slight difference in the populations. The average size might have shifted or coloration. It might be slight but it is present. Now move that time machine forward 10000 years changes continue to accumulate, but you would still think you are looking at a fruit fly. At 100,000 years though you might have to say the changes are enough that you can not call what you are looking at a fruit fly. Move forward 1,000,000 years, if you think small simple changes can occur in less than 1 year then what do you call something that has seen millions of small changes. Do you honestly think these 2 populations of flies separated for a 1,000,000 years would still be so similar you would consider them the same species?
What force or mechanism to you offer to counter-act the ever-present change in the genetic make up of a population over time? -
Imagine a time machine allowing you move through two special environments populated by 2 groups of fruit flies.
Let's not......
The title of the thread is "The Scientific Method Applied To Evolution".....
Not the "Science-fiction method applied to evolution"......
Let's keep it non-fiction......What force or mechanism to you offer to counter-act the ever-present change in the genetic make up of a population over time?
Genetic adaptation......
What we see in the fruit fly experiment.....
Populations of species go through adaptations; however, they remain the same species......
Individuals in different geographic regions and under different environments will develop changes......
But they will only be able to procreate their own kind.
-
what force holds those changes in check to keep a fruit fly a fruit fly?
The genetic information in the fruit fly's DNA.......
If this DNA is stressed beyond its written instructions it will cease to exist......
-
Then why doesn't this appear in nature? Dogs have been genetically stressed from wolves yet they seem to reproduce without any problem. If you are correct we could see that as populations drifted from their core DNA they would begin to die off, however as population move into new environments and start to see changes in their DNA they often flourish. -
Imagine a time machine allowing you move through two special environments populated by 2 groups of fruit flies.
Let's not......
The title of the thread is "The Scientific Method Applied To Evolution".....
Not the "Science-fiction method applied to evolution"......
Let's keep it non-fiction......What force or mechanism to you offer to counter-act the ever-present change in the genetic make up of a population over time?
Genetic adaptation......
What we see in the fruit fly experiment.....
Populations of species go through adaptations; however, they remain the same species......
Individuals in different geographic regions and under different environments will develop changes......
But they will only be able to procreate their own kind.
Using your imagination like I did is called a 'thought experiment'. This guy Einstein like to do it. It is remarkably scientific since the scientist must first use his or her imagination to think up a new idea then the scientific method to test the validity of that idea.
What do you think would happen if you separated 2 groups of fruit flies in 2 different environments for 1,000,000 years. Do you think each group flies would be different from the other?
-
Then why doesn't this appear in nature? Dogs have been genetically stressed from wolves yet they seem to reproduce without any problem. If you are correct we could see that as populations drifted from their core DNA they would begin to die off, however as population move into new environments and start to see changes in their DNA they often flourish.
It does appear in nature.....
Wolves and dogs are interfertile, meaning they can breed and produce viable offspring.......
In other words, wolves can interbreed with any type of dog, and their offspring are capable of producing offspring themselves.......
The ONLY genetic difference between dogs and wolves is minute......
"Humans have had a large influence on dog DNA too since dogs were domesticated and bred by humans to look the way they do. For instance, humans bred Chihuahuas with other Chihuahuas for a very long time. This means that Chihuahuas have many identical nucleobases on their DNA, and all those puzzle pieces fit together to look like a Chihuahua.
Short segments of genes from a distant dog relative, the gray wolf, were found in every sample of the dogs’ genetic information. However, the nucleotides that make dogs look different were only found in a few areas of the DNA. These reflect the areas that have changed in the centuries since people started breeding dogs for different traits, creating many different breeds of dog in the process.
In humans, our diversity and nucleotide puzzle pieces work differently. Instead of human diversity arising from a few different areas on the gene, the way we look is regulated by hundreds of different weak genes that interact to make us unique!
Dogs may have fewer areas of diversity compared to humans because of what scientists call a gene bottleneck."
http://askabiologist.asu.edu/plosable/dna-dogs
-
Imagine a time machine allowing you move through two special environments populated by 2 groups of fruit flies.
Let's not......
The title of the thread is "The Scientific Method Applied To Evolution".....
Not the "Science-fiction method applied to evolution"......
Let's keep it non-fiction......What force or mechanism to you offer to counter-act the ever-present change in the genetic make up of a population over time?
Genetic adaptation......
What we see in the fruit fly experiment.....
Populations of species go through adaptations; however, they remain the same species......
Individuals in different geographic regions and under different environments will develop changes......
But they will only be able to procreate their own kind.
Using your imagination like I did is called a 'thought experiment'. This guy Einstein like to do it. It is remarkably scientific since the scientist must first use his or her imagination to think up a new idea then the scientific method to test the validity of that idea.
What do you think would happen if you separated 2 groups of fruit flies in 2 different environments for 1,000,000 years. Do you think each group flies would be different from the other?
Again....
We are focused On the scientific method.....
The reason that fruit flies are used is because of their rapid generation times and low number of chromosomes....
The massive numbers of generations illustrate the equivalent of millions of years in supposed evolutionary time....
You are not using a thought experiment.....
You are speculating......
But for ? & giggles I will play along....
After millions of years the fruit flies will still be fruit flies....
Any genetic changes will be minute & differing populations will be able to reproduce with each other.....
-
"After millions of years the fruit flies will still be fruit flies....
Any genetic changes will be minute & differing populations will be able to reproduce with each other....."
Outstanding!!
Now simply alter your time length. Since you accept changes occur extending your timeline increases the amount of difference. After 10,000,000 years you would have 10x the minute changes. After 100,000,000 million you would see 100x these changes. In fact if you altered the environment of one group of flies theses changes would accumulate more quickly. Eventually the genetic differences would be too great to interbreed. If you posit this will never happen ten you need to offer a reason why it would not.
For example, if too many genetic changes accumulate in a population descended from fruit flies compare to the original genetic make-up of those fruit flies the new offspring tend to die from birth defects. This would be a phenomenon that would hold the fruit flies from evolving since the accumulation of changes would cause new offspring to die off. However no such effect appears in nature. Birth defects certainly do but not defects that occur that appear to halt the accumulation of genetic changes. Every time we have examined populations over time they accumulate changes. -
"After millions of years the fruit flies will still be fruit flies....
Any genetic changes will be minute & differing populations will be able to reproduce with each other....."
Outstanding!!
Eventually the genetic differences would be too great to interbreed. If you posit this will never happen ten you need to offer a reason why it would not.
It seems like you want to ignore all empirical evidence and rely solely on futile fantasy........
There is no evidence that an organism's DNA can be changed into another organism.........
Your time-machine science-fiction scenario fails......
Why?????
Because DNA is not affected by time......
The key factor in genetic adaptation is the environment.......
Empirical evidence is found throughout the natural world........
Left alone in a stable environment organisms maintain an isolated genetic structure.......
The change over time that has had the largest impact on DNA has been from humans.......
"Prior to their domesticaction, maize plants only grew small, one-inch long corn cobs, and only one per plant. Many centuries of artificial selection by the indigenous people of the Americas resulted in the development of maize plants capable of growing several cobs per plant that were usually several inches long each."
You really need to research what DNA is and its structure......
DNA is a set of written instructions......
The purpose of DNA is to create future generation of cells that will have the same genetic structure of parent cells.....
Once these instructions can no longer replicate its own kind, it will not replicate...........
Sorry, but no birth defects or dramatic "dieing-off" of a species attempting to evolve.....
Only sterility..........
Now you need to offer a reason or observable example for an organisms DNA being able to create any organism with a different DNA structure than its parent.......
http://youtu.be/IN8pKyQz2RQ
-
O. K.
I'm high now.....
What do you suppose we find when we fast forward 100 gabillion years in the future to see our fruit flies......
Bees?????
-
I don't know if it's a sin to laugh out loud at this like I am. I mean we really hanging it all on the line for some fruit flies bruh? Like I mean is that all you got to clean the bases? This is hysterical! You talk about faith, my goodness!
But there is a way paved with evidence built upon a sure foundation, the solid rock! He's tried and true. He's been put under the microscope and in the test tube of life and they said of Him that 'He did all things well.' I'd like to talk about Him if you don't mind. Let's get off speculation and talk about revelation, the Lord Jesus Christ.
Amen. -
I never said I dislike definitions
the first one you posted was redundant af though
the second one was more useful -
DNA is universal in life. The same components that make up a human's DNA appear in a rodents or even a bacteria. Further the codons that code for a certain amino acid in a human will code for the same amino acid in other organisms.
DNA absolutely changes over time. Ageing is a breakdown of DNA in an individual while evolution involves the change of DNA within a population over time. DNA is simply not stable or static, or it is only very rarely in such a state.
This universality and malleability of DNA leads to basic fact of evolution, descent with modification. If you have a population that can take a single step down this evolutionary path like maltose-eating fruit flies, nylon consuming bacteria, or banana eating moths, all representing species that have undergone an evolutionary change, while continuing to thrive then what is stopping that 2nd or 3rd step of genetic change?
Your offer is sterility?
We would then need to see populations of organisms that are running into sterility and we would need to see it pretty often. Yet this does not happen. Endangered populations are under mostly environmental pressures they are not having sterility issues due to DNA changes. -
Reasons for fruit flies to check evolutionary changes is because they reproduce faster and create more generations in a year than humans in a hundred years. So it stands to logic to see what happens in a year time for fruit flies versus hundred or more years.
-
DNA is universal in life. The same components that make up a human's DNA appear in a rodents or even a bacteria. Further the codons that code for a certain amino acid in a human will code for the same amino acid in other organisms.
DNA absolutely changes over time. Ageing is a breakdown of DNA in an individual while evolution involves the change of DNA within a population over time. DNA is simply not stable or static, or it is only very rarely in such a state.
This universality and malleability of DNA leads to basic fact of evolution, descent with modification. If you have a population that can take a single step down this evolutionary path like maltose-eating fruit flies, nylon consuming bacteria, or banana eating moths, all representing species that have undergone an evolutionary change, while continuing to thrive then what is stopping that 2nd or 3rd step of genetic change?
Your offer is sterility?
We would then need to see populations of organisms that are running into sterility and we would need to see it pretty often. Yet this does not happen. Endangered populations are under mostly environmental pressures they are not having sterility issues due to DNA changes.
Who wrote the code for your computer?
