Skeptic Friends Network

Username:
Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?
Home | Forums | Active Topics | Active Polls | Register | FAQ | Contact Us  
  Connect: Chat | SFN Messenger | Buddy List | Members
Personalize: Profile | My Page | Forum Bookmarks  
 All Forums
 Our Skeptic Forums
 Creation/Evolution
 Evolution caught in the act!
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly Bookmark this Topic BookMark Topic
Next Page
Author Previous Topic Topic Next Topic
Page: of 14

Abdul Alhazred
Skeptic Friend

USA
58 Posts

Posted - 07/12/2007 :  19:50:19  Show Profile  Visit Abdul Alhazred's Homepage Send Abdul Alhazred a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Butterflies fast forward evolution to evade death [ MSNBC ]

A population of butterflies has evolved in a flash on a South Pacific island to fend off a deadly parasite.

The proportion of male Blue Moon butterflies dropped to a precarious 1 percent as the parasite targeted males. Then, within the span of a mere 10 generations, the males evolved an immunity that allowed their population share to soar to nearly 40 percent — all in less than a year.

“We usually think of natural selection as acting slowly, over hundreds or thousands of years," said study team member Gregory Hurst, an evolutionary geneticist at the University College London. "But the example in this study happened in a blink of the eye, in terms of evolutionary time."

The scientists think the males developed genes that hold a male-killing microbial parasite, called Wolbachia, at bay.

...


Or it could be that God loved them and did a miracle. Right?

The lack of a rational explanation is not evidence for an irrational explanation.

JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED

2418 Posts

Posted - 07/12/2007 :  20:18:18   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send JEROME DA GNOME a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Abdul Alhazred

Butterflies fast forward evolution to evade death [ MSNBC ]

A population of butterflies has evolved in a flash on a South Pacific island to fend off a deadly parasite.

The proportion of male Blue Moon butterflies dropped to a precarious 1 percent as the parasite targeted males. Then, within the span of a mere 10 generations, the males evolved an immunity that allowed their population share to soar to nearly 40 percent — all in less than a year.

“We usually think of natural selection as acting slowly, over hundreds or thousands of years," said study team member Gregory Hurst, an evolutionary geneticist at the University College London. "But the example in this study happened in a blink of the eye, in terms of evolutionary time."

The scientists think the males developed genes that hold a male-killing microbial parasite, called Wolbachia, at bay.

...


Or it could be that God loved them and did a miracle. Right?


If the males with the gene existed before at 1% that means the gene was there. Natural selection is not evolution.


What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell
Go to Top of Page

pleco
SFN Addict

USA
2996 Posts

Posted - 07/12/2007 :  20:36:45   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit pleco's Homepage Send pleco a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
If the males with the gene existed before at 1% that means the gene was there. Natural selection is not evolution.


From the article:

Other lab experiments indicated the males had evolved suppressor genes to shield against the parasite.

by Filthy
The neo-con methane machine will soon be running at full fart.
Go to Top of Page

Abdul Alhazred
Skeptic Friend

USA
58 Posts

Posted - 07/12/2007 :  20:42:30   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Abdul Alhazred's Homepage Send Abdul Alhazred a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Natural selection is not evolution.


It's not the main mechanism of evolution?

Elaborate. What is evolution?

The lack of a rational explanation is not evidence for an irrational explanation.
Edited by - Abdul Alhazred on 07/12/2007 20:43:10
Go to Top of Page

Ricky
SFN Die Hard

USA
4907 Posts

Posted - 07/12/2007 :  20:44:58   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Send Ricky an AOL message Send Ricky a Private Message  Reply with Quote
In response to Jerome's comment, that doesn't even matter pleco, although it does sweeten the pot a bit.

Part of evolution is a change in the distribution of a population for a specific trait. Evolution isn't solely about new mutations.

Why continue? Because we must. Because we have the call. Because it is nobler to fight for rationality without winning than to give up in the face of continued defeats. Because whatever true progress humanity makes is through the rationality of the occasional individual and because any one individual we may win for the cause may do more for humanity than a hundred thousand who hug their superstitions to their breast.
- Isaac Asimov
Go to Top of Page

pleco
SFN Addict

USA
2996 Posts

Posted - 07/12/2007 :  20:48:12   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit pleco's Homepage Send pleco a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Ricky

In response to Jerome's comment, that doesn't even matter pleco, although it does sweeten the pot a bit.

Part of evolution is a change in the distribution of a population for a specific trait. Evolution isn't solely about new mutations.


I think Jerome's worried about "new information" being generated. Sucks being him.

by Filthy
The neo-con methane machine will soon be running at full fart.
Go to Top of Page

JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED

2418 Posts

Posted - 07/12/2007 :  20:51:42   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send JEROME DA GNOME a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by pleco

Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
If the males with the gene existed before at 1% that means the gene was there. Natural selection is not evolution.


From the article:

Other lab experiments indicated the males had evolved suppressor genes to shield against the parasite.



No peer reviewed information. Anything a reporter writes must be correct. I will remember when we have other talks that this is your standard.


What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell
Go to Top of Page

JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED

2418 Posts

Posted - 07/12/2007 :  20:55:25   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send JEROME DA GNOME a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Abdul Alhazred

Natural selection is not evolution.


It's not the main mechanism of evolution?

Elaborate. What is evolution?


Evolution is defined to encompasses so many natural occurrences that many things are described as evidence of evolution. The problem comes when one needs to show the entire process. This can not be done, only inferred through faith.



What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell
Go to Top of Page

Dude
SFN Die Hard

USA
6891 Posts

Posted - 07/12/2007 :  21:07:52   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Dude a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Moron.


Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson

"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin

Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth
Go to Top of Page

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
26009 Posts

Posted - 07/12/2007 :  21:09:10   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME

Evolution is defined to encompasses so many natural occurrences that many things are described as evidence of evolution.
No, it's not. Evolution is defined as a change in the frequency of alleles in a population over time. That's it. The definition is simple. What the consequences are of that simple definition are very complex.

But why shouldn't "many natural occurrences" be described as evidence of evolution? Evolution is natural, and it occurs all the time. There is no "unnatural" evidence for evolution, nor should there be.
The problem comes when one needs to show the entire process.
What "entire process" does one need to show? Be specific.
This can not be done, only inferred through faith.
Of course it can't be done if the "entire process" is just some nebulous thought in your head.

- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too.
Go to Top of Page

HalfMooner
Dingaling

Philippines
15831 Posts

Posted - 07/12/2007 :  21:15:43   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send HalfMooner a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Sounds like a dishonest, paranoid, fundy troll, flying a false flag of skepticism.


Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive.
Edited by - HalfMooner on 07/12/2007 21:16:09
Go to Top of Page

H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard

USA
4574 Posts

Posted - 07/12/2007 :  21:25:55   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send H. Humbert a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Evolution is defined to encompasses so many natural occurrences that many things are described as evidence of evolution. The problem comes when one needs to show the entire process. This can not be done, only inferred through faith.
Sigh. Knowledge can't get into your brain by magic, Jerome. You need to at least make an attempt at understanding things. You're going to remain ignorant so long as you continue to swat information away like a goalie defending a hockey net.


"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes

"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman

"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie
Edited by - H. Humbert on 07/12/2007 21:26:30
Go to Top of Page

JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED

2418 Posts

Posted - 07/12/2007 :  21:36:58   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send JEROME DA GNOME a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Dude

Moron.




Your pitiful


What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell
Go to Top of Page

JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED

2418 Posts

Posted - 07/12/2007 :  21:39:37   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send JEROME DA GNOME a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Dave asked, What "entire process" does one need to show? Be specific.


One creature becoming another creature.


What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell
Go to Top of Page

JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED

2418 Posts

Posted - 07/12/2007 :  21:42:41   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send JEROME DA GNOME a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by H. Humbert

Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Evolution is defined to encompasses so many natural occurrences that many things are described as evidence of evolution. The problem comes when one needs to show the entire process. This can not be done, only inferred through faith.
Sigh. Knowledge can't get into your brain by magic, Jerome. You need to at least make an attempt at understanding things. You're going to remain ignorant so long as you continue to swat information away like a goalie defending a hockey net.





This reminds me of the ancient astronomers that would use their knowledge of a coming eclipse to control the masses.


What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell
Go to Top of Page

JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED

2418 Posts

Posted - 07/12/2007 :  21:50:38   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send JEROME DA GNOME a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by HalfMooner

Sounds like a dishonest, paranoid, fundy troll, flying a false flag of skepticism.




More like a honest, sane, intelligent gnome, flying a true flag of skepticism.




What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell
Go to Top of Page
Page: of 14 Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  
Next Page
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly Bookmark this Topic BookMark Topic
Jump To:

The mission of the Skeptic Friends Network is to promote skepticism, critical thinking, science and logic as the best methods for evaluating all claims of fact, and we invite active participation by our members to create a skeptical community with a wide variety of viewpoints and expertise.


Home | Skeptic Forums | Skeptic Summary | The Kil Report | Creation/Evolution | Rationally Speaking | Skeptillaneous | About Skepticism | Fan Mail | Claims List | Calendar & Events | Skeptic Links | Book Reviews | Gift Shop | SFN on Facebook | Staff | Contact Us

Skeptic Friends Network
© 2008 Skeptic Friends Network Go To Top Of Page
This page was generated in 0.52 seconds.
Powered by @tomic Studio
Snitz Forums 2000