I'm taking kids from the YMCA to see the Charles Darwin exhibit at the Great Lakes Science center next week.

TheyCallThisWork: eraser8: TheyCallThisWork: What I mean is that people have a tendency to see how things are now and then look at changes in the past as somehow moving "towards" the present.

Are you saying that some people see evolution as purposeful, as some sort of pathway to a grand "design"?

I don't understand how people like that would differ substantially from creationists.

Neither do they, which is why it's so scary. Here's an example:

Q: Why do fish have fins?
A: Because fish live in water and they're a great help for swimming.

The problem is, that's entirely wrong. The real answer is

A: Over the course of millions of years, the DNA of some bloodline got so messed up that weird projections sprouted out of their bodies. It's a good thing they were living in water, or else they'd be really farked.
.
.
.
So THAT's why balls aren't on the inside...
.
.
.
/They'd be a lot safer
//Just sayin'

TheyCallThisWork: Q: Why do fish have fins?
A: Because fish live in water and they're a great help for swimming.

The problem is, that's entirely wrong. The real answer is

A: Over the course of millions of years, the DNA of some bloodline got so messed up that weird projections sprouted out of their bodies. It's a good thing they were living in water, or else they'd be really farked.

Well, that's a partial answer. The other part of it is that it helped these fish get to the fish food just a little bit faster than their fin-less brethren, who died off as a result. (And the corollary: thousands or perhaps millions of other times, weird projections also sprouted out of the bodies of land animals, but it didn't help them at anything and the members of the opposite sex thought it was fugly, so they didn't breed and those protrusions quickly disappeared from the gene pool.)

But I guess your larger point is that it's easy to confuse the combination of randomness and adaptive advantage with "design."

All right, kids, it is now my job to teach you the theory of evolution.



Now I, for one, think evolution is a bunch of *bullcrap*! But I've been told I have to teach it to you anyway. It was thought up by Charles Darwin and it goes something like this...

In the beginning, we were all fish. Okay? Swimming around in the water. And then one day a couple of fish had a retard baby, and the retard baby was different, so it got to live. So Retard Fish goes on to make more retard babies, and then one day, a retard baby fish crawled out of the ocean with its...

...mutant fish hands... and it had butt sex with a squirrel or something and made this.

Retard frog-sqirrel, and then *that* had a retard baby which was a... monkey-fish-frog... And then this monkey-fish-frog had butt sex with that monkey, and that monkey had a mutant retard baby that screwed another monkey... and that made you!

So there you go! You're the retarded offspring of five monkeys having butt sex with a fish-squirrel! Congratulations!

rjw25: I'm taking kids from the YMCA to see the Charles Darwin exhibit at the Great Lakes Science center next week.

You Heathen!

CrankMyBlueSax: Therefore, we can't "come from" apes as we are still apes.

Some of us are just apeier than others.

GeorgeBurns: A question for people here who actually know anything about evolution:

Ok, so I know a lot of theoretical work has been done since Darwin (like Genetic Altruism, etc.) but what I don't hear about it the problem of people.

No doubts, we share a common ancestor with slime mold (or maybe life sprung up in isolated locations all over earth) - I don't doubt that. But what happens when free will, or may hyper intelligence interferes with the natural course of evolution.

For example, a woman can make herself a more attractive mate by getting plastic surgery, and therefore reproduces something like inferior genes. And it's not even known if there is a human baseline for "attractiveness" like there is in other species.

The question is, is there a theory of evolution that deals with this problem? If so, what is it?

There wouldn't be a whole separate theory for this. But in this situation the woman would have the genes that would cause her to do something to increase her fitness, thereby allowing her to pass along more of her genes, including the advantageous genes that allowed her to improve herself.

eraser8: RemyDuron: Yeah, it does fit right in your hand, because humans cultivated them and guided them towards that.

It amazes me how many people are completely unaware that the animals and plants that are farmed for food* are pretty much all products of artificial selection. "God" didn't create the modern cow; man did.

* It's not just food plants and animals, of course.

The shape of bananas is actually relatively unmodified, iirc. It's possible they were bred from something more like a plantain to not have seeds and instead rely on the root-growth reproductive mechanism, but that's the only substantial change we've really made.

So they've fit in your hand since before becoming a domesticated food crop.

//Please correct me if I'm wrong, of course, my history of husbandry is kinda weak sometimes.

CrankMyBlueSax: letrole: Men do not come from apes.

I did some checking and you are correct. Saying that men came from apes suggests there is a difference. According to wiki: An ape is any member of the Hominoidea superfamily of primates. Therefore, we can't "come from" apes as we are still apes.

Mostly hairless apes with better brains for tool usage.

But yea, apes.

chaoswolf: CrankMyBlueSax: letrole: Men do not come from apes.

I did some checking and you are correct. Saying that men came from apes suggests there is a difference. According to wiki: An ape is any member of the Hominoidea superfamily of primates. Therefore, we can't "come from" apes as we are still apes.

Mostly hairless apes with better brains for tool usage.

But yea, apes.

TheyCallThisWork: Neither do they, which is why it's so scary. Here's an example:

Q: Why do fish have fins?

It's not a perfect answer. But I don't think it's such a terrible one, either. It gets across the idea that no one "designed" a fish to have fins. It also gets across the idea that fins have survived because they offer their owners a comparative advantage to those without fins.

Just because it doesn't go into the issue of bad nucleotide fact checking in the replication of DNA doesn't mean it's a crazy way to approach the subject.

I didn't bother to RTFA so maybe I'm wrong but I don't
find it surprising at all that Americans have the best
understanding of evolution.

After all, nowhere is it more of an issue then in the U.S.
so odds are that the average American hears news stories
about and discuss evolution with others, more then the
average citizen of any other nation.

headstone: So THAT's why balls aren't on the inside'

About 4% of men are born with undescended testicles. Most of them are "corrected" with surgery. I wonder if some women prefer this streamlined look.

Jim_Callahan: So they've fit in your hand since before becoming a domesticated food crop.

//Please correct me if I'm wrong, of course, my history of husbandry is kinda weak sometimes.

You're wrong. GIS "wild banana" for some examples. Also keep in mind that the term "banana" actually encompasses a whole lot of related species. We have selected a specific type of banana to grow. Since it's not very genetically diverse though, it's starting to get wiped out some places by diseases. You may in fact see some different types of bananas in the future that are not yellow, nor banana shaped.

TheyCallThisWork: headstone: So THAT's why balls aren't on the inside'

About 4% of men are born with undescended testicles. Most of them are "corrected" with surgery. I wonder if some women prefer this streamlined look.
.
.
.
Thinking about that makes my balls hurt. I guess that's evolution nudging me to protect my balls.

In my experience as a bio minor and comp sci major in college evolutionists don't understand evolution themselves. For instance most believe that speciation increases the DNA information/genetic complexity and it with natural selection is the driving force of evolutionary progress. However, speciation actually limits or decreases the DNA information/genetic complexity of the organism. Short winged cormorants in New Zealand for example have speciated away from their normal sized winged cousins because they LOST the controlling gene for increased wing size. The short winged cormorants will never be able to get that controlling gene for normal wing size back unless they mate back within the gene pool, hence a downswing in genetic change.

Also, speciation from genetic mutations has NEVER shown an increase in the DNA complexity of a organism, they always remove or duplicate already present DNA. Even plasmids added to bacterial DNA can't be considered a upswing in evolution since the plasmids were already available within the gene pool.

TheyCallThisWork: About 4% of men are born with undescended testicles. Most of them are "corrected" with surgery. I wonder if some women prefer this streamlined look.

It also dramatically increases the risk for testicular cancer.

patrick767: Wait, Russia's dumber than we are? Woohoo! We beat someone!

Russia is likely still more skeptical about evolutionary theory as Mendelian genetics and Darwinian natural selection were thoroughly trashed beneath Stalin as being propaganda from the West. Lysenkoism became an explanation for heredity, being more in line with notions frequent through the regime of self-actualization, whereas genetics seemingly limits a person.

Jim_Callahan: eraser8: RemyDuron: Yeah, it does fit right in your hand, because humans cultivated them and guided them towards that.

It amazes me how many people are completely unaware that the animals and plants that are farmed for food* are pretty much all products of artificial selection. "God" didn't create the modern cow; man did.

* It's not just food plants and animals, of course.

The shape of bananas is actually relatively unmodified, iirc. It's possible they were bred from something more like a plantain to not have seeds and instead rely on the root-growth reproductive mechanism, but that's the only substantial change we've really made.

So they've fit in your hand since before becoming a domesticated food crop.

//Please correct me if I'm wrong, of course, my history of husbandry is kinda weak sometimes.

The shape may be unchanged but I think the size is pretty different. Almost every fruit and some grains were much, much smaller before domestication. Ever seen what corn looked like before we got to it? Tiny.

Anyone have a source for this? Wikipedia mentions that they had tons of large hard seeds, and has a picture of a wild-type banana. It's quite large but it doesn't have the curved banana shape.

eraser8: goalie0002: I like how they present evolution as a fact, and not a theory, and we MUST believe and understand it or we're idiots.

Evolution IS a fact.

And there is a theory of evolution that attempts to explain that fact.

Ahem.... evolution is a theory, as we haven't studied it long enough, and we're looking for a Mitochondrial "Eve." It's still a well-tested theory however. :)

It's evil and God put fossils in the ground to test our faith. What more is there to understand?

Americans understand evolution in the same way terrorists understand western society.

People_are_Idiots: Ahem.... evolution is a theory, as we haven't studied it long enough, and we're looking for a Mitochondrial "Eve." It's still a well-tested theory however. :)

Evolution is both theory and fact. There is a theory of evolution; but, there is also the fact of evolution.

People_are_Idiots: evolution is a theory,

Evolution is a biological process. It can not be a theory, it either is or it isn't. Now the theory of evolution, is a theory.

Ghastly: It's evil and God put fossils in the ground to test our faith. What more is there to understand?

APPROVES
http://tinyurl.com/kltnf2
(copy and paste)

budzilla: For instance most believe that speciation increases the DNA information/genetic complexity and it with natural selection is the driving force of evolutionary progress. However, speciation actually limits or decreases the DNA information/genetic complexity of the organism. Short winged cormorants in New Zealand for example have speciated away from their normal sized winged cousins because they LOST the controlling gene for increased wing size. The short winged cormorants will never be able to get that controlling gene for normal wing size back unless they mate back within the gene pool, hence a downswing in genetic change.

Also, speciation from genetic mutations has NEVER shown an increase in the DNA complexity of a organism, they always remove or duplicate already present DNA. Even plasmids added to bacterial DNA can't be considered a upswing in evolution since the plasmids were already available within the gene pool.

What a bizarre point you're trying to make.

An understanding of evolution requires you to speculate that there was a time when "life" was nothing but self-reproducing strings of chemicals. It goes without saying then that a human being has significantly more DNA complexity that our shared 1000-atom ancestor.

If I have missed your point, please correct me. Perhaps you are remarking on how, in the modern age, speciation seems to come from incomplete replication, rather than mutation or redundancy. I can assure you that this is not always the case. Logic precludes it.

RemyDuron: Jim_Callahan: eraser8: RemyDuron: Yeah, it does fit right in your hand, because humans cultivated them and guided them towards that.

It amazes me how many people are completely unaware that the animals and plants that are farmed for food* are pretty much all products of artificial selection. "God" didn't create the modern cow; man did.

* It's not just food plants and animals, of course.

The shape of bananas is actually relatively unmodified, iirc. It's possible they were bred from something more like a plantain to not have seeds and instead rely on the root-growth reproductive mechanism, but that's the only substantial change we've really made.

So they've fit in your hand since before becoming a domesticated food crop.

//Please correct me if I'm wrong, of course, my history of husbandry is kinda weak sometimes.

The shape may be unchanged but I think the size is pretty different. Almost every fruit and some grains were much, much smaller before domestication. Ever seen what corn looked like before we got to it? Tiny.

Anyone have a source for this? Wikipedia mentions that they had tons of large hard seeds, and has a picture of a wild-type banana. It's quite large but it doesn't have the curved banana shape.

Carrots were invented by the Dutch from swedes (the vegetable, not the nation). The modern apple is unrecognisable from its ancestors. All Hass avocados come from grafts of a single tree grown in the 1800s.

Beyond all the tricky ones most people can be forgiven for not knowing, where the fark do they think dogs come from?

Retort: where the fark do they think dogs come from?

God.

Sadly, I'm not joking.

Retort: Beyond all the tricky ones most people can be forgiven for not knowing, where the fark do they think dogs come from?

Typically, creationists will argue that dogs "come from" previous generations of dogs, as part of their position that organisms reproduce "after their own kind". Such a claim, however, appeals to an undefined concept, as creationists typically are unable to define "kind" within the context of the statement.

wow I guess I'm the first...

USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA!

letrole: Codyl: Am I too late to join the typical group-think of farkers saying how Christians are stupid?
Oh well... As long as I make it for Act II where white liberals self loath and make fun of how dumb Americans in general are.

Cody


You signed your post. Don't sign your post. That's something that middle-aged losers do.

You stated what they did, then told them not to do it. Don't state what they did and tell them not to do it. That's something douchebags do.

People_are_Idiots: Ahem.... evolution is a theory, as we haven't studied it long enough, and we're looking for a Mitochondrial "Eve." It's still a well-tested theory however. :)

The Theory of Evolution is a theory to explain the mass of data and mechanisms observed.

Evolution is a fact as allele frequencies in populations change over time.

Nothing will be studied long enough to graduate from theory because such a hierarchy of terms does not exist within science. Facts are facts, theories are theories, laws are laws, and none of them is greater than the other.

Hell, I had a biology TA once that thought individuals (Gaia...) evolved. We had words about it when she put "Does the Earth/Gaia evolve?" and she marked my answer "No, only populations evolve, not individuals" wrong. So not even 100% of biologists know what is the definition of Evolution.

Dimensio: Retort: Beyond all the tricky ones most people can be forgiven for not knowing, where the fark do they think dogs come from?

Typically, creationists will argue that dogs "come from" previous generations of dogs, as part of their position that organisms reproduce "after their own kind". Such a claim, however, appeals to an undefined concept, as creationists typically are unable to define "kind" within the context of the statement.

I have heard them define the dog 'kind' as wolves, coyotes, foxes,and all varieties of domestic dogs. Lines are drawn more on families.

Evolution of species is obvious, comes from observation.

The theory of evolution does not attempt to describe how or when life began, although it does put a damper on anybody declaring the earth to be 6,000 years old.

Life can still be a magical eternal miracle,
evolution doesn't really put a damper on that.

OniNeko: letrole: Codyl: Am I too late to join the typical group-think of farkers saying how Christians are stupid?
Oh well... As long as I make it for Act II where white liberals self loath and make fun of how dumb Americans in general are.

Cody


You signed your post. Don't sign your post. That's something that middle-aged losers do.

You stated what they did, then told them not to do it. Don't state what they did and tell them not to do it. That's something douchebags do.
.
.
.
Evolutionarily speaking, which came first:

Le Douche or Le Troll?

Retort: Beyond all the tricky ones most people can be forgiven for not knowing, where the fark do they think dogs come from?

The standard response is one of kind and the acceptance of limited variation within said kind. Kind is, of course, an undefined term, and no limitation upon genetic variation outside of the medium (genetics) has thus far been observed. Generally, you'll encounter examples given in lieu of a definition for kind which is meant to make the term seem matter-of-fact and obvious, such as a dog and a cat.

My best rebuttal to this is to confuse people with rodents and non-rodents, asking if rats, mice, weasels, capybara, guinea pigs, beavers, hares, hedgehogs, and chinchillas are all one kind. Enough of those are rodents, and enough of those are confused as rodents, while none of the creatures is esoteric (capybara may be, but most people know this as the largest modern rodent). Of course, unless someone knows which are rodents and which aren't, the answer is usually yes, or eliminating a few (correctly or incorrectly). In which case, kind obviously is at least as nebulous as class or not apparent enough to excuse a lack of definition.

GORDON: Hell, I had a biology TA once that thought individuals (Gaia...) evolved. We had words about it when she put "Does the Earth/Gaia evolve?" and she marked my answer "No, only populations evolve, not individuals" wrong. So not even 100% of biologists know what is the definition of Evolution.

a biology TA is hardly a biologist

TheyCallThisWork:
What a bizarre point you're trying to make.

An understanding of evolution requires you to speculate that there was a time when "life" was nothing but self-reproducing strings of chemicals. It goes without saying then that a human being has significantly more DNA complexity that our shared 1000-atom ancestor.

If I have missed your point, please correct me. Perhaps you are remarking on how, in the modern age, speciation seems to come from incomplete replication, rather than mutation or redundancy. I can assure you that this is not always the case. Logic precludes it.

So you are saying that if humans have more genetic complexity than microbes then speciation MUST have created a genetic increase because that's what we have today. But, all we see today are decreases in genetic complexity in speciation. So, just maybe, the logical view is that speciation and natural selection cannot be responsible for our genetic complexity.TheyCallThisWork: budzilla: For instance most believe that speciation increases the DNA information/genetic complexity and it with natural selection is the driving force of evolutionary progress. However, speciation actually limits or decreases the DNA information/genetic complexity of the organism. Short winged cormorants in New Zealand for example have speciated away from their normal sized winged cousins because they LOST the controlling gene for increased wing size. The short winged cormorants will never be able to get that controlling gene for normal wing size back unless they mate back within the gene pool, hence a downswing in genetic change.

Also, speciation from genetic mutations has NEVER shown an increase in the DNA complexity of a organism, they always remove or duplicate already present DNA. Even plasmids added to bacterial DNA can't be considered a upswing in evolution since the plasmids were already available within the gene pool.

What a bizarre point you're trying to make.

An understanding of evolution requires you to speculate that there was a time when "life" was nothing but self-reproducing strings of chemicals. It goes without saying then that a human being has significantly more DNA complexity that our shared 1000-atom ancestor.

If I have missed your point, please correct me. Perhaps you are remarking on how, in the modern age, speciation seems to come from incomplete replication, rather than mutation or redundancy. I can assure you that this is not always the case. Logic precludes it.

So you are saying that if humans have more genetic complexity than microbes then speciation MUST have created a genetic increase because that's what we have today. But, all we see today are decreases in genetic complexity in speciation. So, just maybe, the logical view is that speciation and natural selection cannot be responsible for our genetic complexity.

GORDON: Hell, I had a biology TA once that thought individuals (Gaia...) evolved.

Maybe she was referring to the idea of acquired characteristics. It's true that acquired characteristics are nonhereditary changes in function or structure of an organism; but, they're still changes that can be brought about in individuals due to environmental pressures.

But, being nonhereditary, occurring only during the lifespan of the organism, it plays no real role in Darwinian evolution.

James F. Campbell: xria: No it doesn't. It implies 90% of the people sampled have a below average IQ. Not all samples are going to be representative of the entire population, it depends on the nature of the sampling, and - especially with relative few data points like in this case - random variability.

Actually, that isn't even the case. You're both mistaken about what the graph represents. Here's the original graph:

/hot
//If it doesn't work, click here.

Fair enough, but the original version of the graph in the thread didn't have the "by country" bit in it which kind of changes the meaning somewhat.

gorgor: Ghastly: It's evil and God put fossils in the ground to test our faith. What more is there to understand?

APPROVES
http://tinyurl.com/kltnf2
(copy and paste)

So, gorgor, what happened to your links? Why the copy and paste?

The Bruce Dickinson: Religion...denying reality since the dawn of man!

Wait a minute. Wil Wheaton can suck a dead dog's dick, but THE BRUCE DICKINSON? Ladies and gentlemen we may very well be in the presence of greatness!

/Maiden rules!!! "Number one's" fark-boy... not so much

WhyteRaven74: People_are_Idiots: evolution is a theory,

Evolution is a biological process. It can not be a theory, it either is or it isn't. Now the theory of evolution, is a theory.

Well, that's kind of confusing. I'd say it like this:

It's a fact that evolution occurs. Mutations occur, mutations of positive value can occur, therefor evolution occurs. This is pretty much undeniable unless you don't believe in DNA and genetic mutations.

The theory of evolution is that the wide variety of species on Earth can be explained by this mechanism.

Similarly, gravity is a fact. You put two masses next to each other, they attract each other with a force proportional to their massive and inverse proportional to the square of the distance between them. Newton's theory of universal gravitation said that this mechanism explained the movement of heavenly bodies and held in the entire universe. And actually, he was kind of wrong, and Newton's theory of universal gravitation was replaced with Einstein's theories on gravity. Which have not yet been resolved with the quantum mechanical theory of gravity.

GORDON: Hell, I had a biology TA once that thought individuals (Gaia...) evolved. We had words about it when she put "Does the Earth/Gaia evolve?" and she marked my answer "No, only populations evolve, not individuals" wrong. So not even 100% of biologists know what is the definition of Evolution.

I wouldn't call a TA a biologist, but depending on if we're speaking of descent with modification or allele frequency, both can be said to evolve. Genes will mutate and be selected for or against. An individual evolves by descent with modification, whereas the population evolves by the selection process. Of course, the question is awkward, and without having specifically stated one or the other I couldn't fault anyone, but I would understand exactly what you meant by your answer.

headstone: OniNeko: letrole: Codyl: Am I too late to join the typical group-think of farkers saying how Christians are stupid?
Oh well... As long as I make it for Act II where white liberals self loath and make fun of how dumb Americans in general are.

Cody


You signed your post. Don't sign your post. That's something that middle-aged losers do.

You stated what they did, then told them not to do it. Don't state what they did and tell them not to do it. That's something douchebags do.
.
.
.
Evolutionarily speaking, which came first:

Le Douche or Le Troll?

At the same time. Those are two different names for the same thing. Not dissimilar to the 'difference' between a house cat and felis domesticus.

eraser8: The Southern Dandy: Unixfreak: Have you guys ever seen how well a banana fits into your hand mouth?

Penis.

Thanks. I forgot that part.

So can we just start rounding up christians and fire up the ovens already?

wmoonfox: And that's why God hates us -- we live in sin every day.

Well, fark him if he can't take a joke.

OniNeko: You stated what they did, then told them not to do it. Don't state what they did and tell them not to do it. That's something douchebags do

You posted a pointless rant. Don't post pointless rants. That's something that angry young men do.