Missing link discovered - Evolution mystery solved

Gilly · 6 Apr 2006 at 11:59

eXor said:
I was expecting to come in and see a photo of Gilly

You can still be banned for abusing me y'know.

Do I even know who you are?

MoNkeE · 6 Apr 2006 at 12:06

cleanbluesky said:
A single skeleton cannot be held in evidence as a cornerstone to explani evolution

How about 3?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4879672.stm said:
The team found three near-complete, well-preserved fossils of the new species, Tiktaalik roseae, in an area of the Arctic called the Nunavut Territory. The largest measures almost 3m (9 ft) in length.

-RaZ

Zenith · 6 Apr 2006 at 12:27

This thread was a disappointment I expected to see this picture of Martin Keown

Spacky · 6 Apr 2006 at 12:31

Dolph said:
Take the difference between Evolution and ID, (true ID, rather than thinly disguised creationism). The only real difference is that in the current proposed evolution mechanism, the process is entirely random, whereas in ID the process is guided. Given that you can't prove either of those paths true, science will default to the simplest (one with least entities) and therefore choose random mutation.

/hijack thread.

Do you have a link to all that for my personal gratification not for the subject being discussed.

jezsoup · 6 Apr 2006 at 13:11

Oh my chocolate flavoured wooties 1 fossil has been found that solves evolution :/ Sensationalist crap.

However interesting fossil find, I wander if they will find more of these else where?

Amleto · 6 Apr 2006 at 13:23

iamgud said:
Nice 1. Just a few more bits of proof and we can ditch this religion rubbish.

Yes, because religion requires evolution != true :rolleyes:

Dolph · 6 Apr 2006 at 13:25

Spacky said:
/hijack thread.

Do you have a link to all that for my personal gratification not for the subject being discussed.

Have a read through the thread I linked to earlier from the SC archive, it covers most of this stuff in a fair bit of detail.

Efaws · 6 Apr 2006 at 13:32

Darwin 1-0 Intelligent Design

How it should be

ben_j_davis · 6 Apr 2006 at 13:35

One thing i have to mention if it was A/The God that created the universe and life on Earth, why did he bother making a billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion etc other stars/planets? Bit of a waste of time.

Dolph · 6 Apr 2006 at 13:37

Efaws said:
Darwin 1-0 Intelligent Design

How it should be

How's that then? (see my posts above)

How does this prove random mutation as the mechanism for species changes?

melchy · 6 Apr 2006 at 14:02

MookJong said:
We are still missimng the Chimp to Man link though are we not?

I'm sure it will be found soon though, our DNA is almost identical to chimp DNA, so apart from a few bones the proof is almost there.

From my dim and distant memories of evolution, didnt all of the great apes (Man, Chimpanzee, Bonobos, Orangutan and Gorilla) all branch off from that one common ancestor and its that which they have never been able to find.

Stretch · 6 Apr 2006 at 14:03

Dolph said:
How's that then? (see my posts above)

How does this prove random mutation as the mechanism for species changes?

So you believe that evolution was guided by some higher being? In a word, rubbish. Obviously I can't prove it ether way, but that's what religion thrives on. If a religion had to prove any of it's beliefs then it wouldn't exist. Because none of it's provable but all of it's questionable to say the leased. Why has it taken the discoveries of science for religious scholars to even conceive the idea of intelligent design?

All I know is there's nothing in the bible or any other religious texts mentioning anything about intelligent design. It all seems like a desperate attempt by people with a vested interests in religion to salvage some of the myths they have be perpetuating for centuries for there own self interest.

Dolph · 6 Apr 2006 at 14:34

Stretch said:
So you believe that evolution was guided by some higher being? In a word, rubbish. Obviously I can't prove it ether way, but that's what religion thrives on. If a religion had to prove any of it's beliefs then it wouldn't exist. Because none of it's provable but all of it's questionable to say the leased. Why has it taken the discoveries of science for religious scholars to even conceive the idea of intelligent design?

Is the random mutation mechanism proveable?

I don't believe that it's guided by a higher power, I also don't believe it's definitely random mutation and beneficial selection either. I say this as someone who has studied science to a fairly advanced level (BSc(hons) in chemistry, certianly puts me above most people with regards to scientific education) and someone who appreciates science for what it is (a means of generating predictive models and linking inputs and outputs), rather than what some people want it to be (a means to provide absolute truth).

Do you believe that the current proposed mechanism is the only possible one that could yield the observed results?

All I know is there's nothing in the bible or any other religious texts mentioning anything about intelligent design. It all seems like a desperate attempt by people with a vested interests in religion to salvage some of the myths they have be perpetuating for centuries for there own self interest.

As opposed to treating science like it's a religion in itself and answers all the questions, when in fact it does no such thing?

*points to thread he linked to earlier again*

This whole issue is covered in much more detail in that thread.

Spacky · 6 Apr 2006 at 14:37

Stretch said:
All I know is there's nothing in the bible or any other religious texts mentioning anything about intelligent design. It all seems like a desperate attempt by people with a vested interests in religion to salvage some of the myths they have be perpetuating for centuries for there own self interest.

You know what? So you read the bible cover to cover or any other religious book that talk about creatism?

Well I can put my hand on heart and say I read the bible cover to cover, a personal milesstone that took about 2 years. I have read into but not read the quoran, also a few nit picks into various other books, theories and legends of old.

/rant

nightwish · 6 Apr 2006 at 14:38

Dolph said:
... someone who appreciates science for what it is (a means of generating predictive models and linking inputs and outputs), rather than what some people want it to be (a means to provide absolute truth).

Haven't we been here before?

Is there even such a thing as 'absolute truth'? Einstein had it right... relativity is the way forward... everything depends on your own position in the cosmos...

ben_j_davis · 6 Apr 2006 at 14:44

These threads always turn in chicken and the egg discussions. If there was a god then were did he come from. If there was a big bang, what was before that.

As much as i like to keep an open mind. Its difficult enough to imagine an infinite universe let alone believe in a onipitent being that made billions of incredibly complex things that all interact with one another.

Stretch · 6 Apr 2006 at 14:53

Spacky said:
You know what? So you read the bible cover to cover or any other religious book that talk about creatism?

Well I can put my hand on heart and say I read the bible cover to cover, a personal milesstone that took about 2 years. I have read into but not read the quoran, also a few nit picks into various other books, theories and legends of old.

/rant

Did you find anything in there about intelligent design? No, thought not.

Let me put it this way. If you'd asked a 17th century bishop about the possibility of intelligent design you'd have probably had your head cut of for blasphemy. It doesn’t exactly fit in with the concept of god being the creator of the earth and everything on it now does it. Intelligent design is a 20th century phenomenon invented in response to growing weight of evidence massed by the scientific community that proves to a lesser or greater extent the idea of evolution by natural selection. Until recently the religious community wouldn’t have even entertain the idea of god not being all-powerful. Now that becomes increasingly unlikely they decide to move the goal posts and hitch a ride on the back of idea that threatens to prove them wrong.

Spacky · 6 Apr 2006 at 14:53

ben_j_davis said:
These threads always turn in chicken and the egg discussions. If there was a god then were did he come from. If there was a big bang, what was before that.

Yep you're right thats why I stated mine as a rant (letting off air)

melchy · 6 Apr 2006 at 14:58

Dolph said:
Is the random mutation mechanism proveable?

Its somewhat proveable i'd say. I did a Biotechnology degree a long time ago in my dim and distant past. One of the things we did was insert a vector (plasmid) into a bacteria carrying a piece of dna that granted immunity to a certain antibiotic. You then grew your genetically altered bug on an agar plate containing that antibiotic and a control normal strain on another agar plate also with the antibiotic. Obviously the control bug didnt grow while the altered bug did. Now of course this was done completely artificially, but we do know that antibiotic resistant bacteria do exist and it can also be shown that its down to specific changes in the DNA between resistant and non resistant strains.

Found this link that sort of explains the process and explains its main uses much more clearly than i have - http://www.accessexcellence.org/RC/VL/GG/plasmid.html

Its also quite clear that certain chemical and environmental influences have mutagenic effects.

There's also a chain of thought that such vectors and viruses have had a much bigger impact on "Evolution" than people may have thought.

Anyway im right at the limit of what i can recall. It was 14 years or so ago that i did my degree and i can remember next to none of it. No doubt someone will be along to correct what i've said.

Dolph · 6 Apr 2006 at 15:02

Stretch said:
Did you find anything in there about intelligent design? No, thought not.

Let me put it this way. If you'd asked a 17th century bishop about the possibility of intelligent design you'd have probably had your head cut of for blasphemy. It doesn’t exactly fit in with the concept of god being the creator of the earth and everything on it now does it. Intelligent design is a 20th century phenomenon invented in response to growing weight of evidence massed by the scientific community that proves to a lesser or greater extent the idea of evolution by natural selection. Until recently the religious community wouldn’t have even entertain the idea of god not being all-powerful. Now that becomes increasingly unlikely they decide to move the goal posts and hitch a ride on the back of idea that threatens to prove them wrong.

The evidence doesn't prove natural selection at all. The evidence proves that animals change depending on their enviroment, and that it's possible to trace back links between one type of animal and another.

The proposed mechanism for this is natural selection. Natural selection is chosen as the scientific mechanism because it's the simplest model that fits the variables (Occum's Razor).

You are aware of the use of Occum's razor in determining which model to take as 'correct', I hope.

Please note that selecting a mechanism via this method does not make the mechanism true vs a competing mechanism that would give the same results.