Happy Atheist Forum

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn1 ... -hand.html (http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn19447-religious-rite-gives-evolution-a-helping-hand.html)

Interesting...

Why am I not surprised?

Another shotgun blast to the face of creationists.

I wonder how they'll respond......

 

Quote from: "tymygy"Why am I not surprised?

Another shotgun blast to the face of creationists.

I wonder how they'll respond......

 

They'll say adaptation isn't evolution.  In this particualr instance, however, I'd agree with them (to a point), the study in unimpressive.

Can anyone name any other species that has had their evolution influenced by mankind?

Quote from: "Dretlin"Can anyone name any other species that has had their evolution influenced by mankind?

There's a crab in Japan that has lumps on it's back.  Sometimes those lumps look like a samurai mask.  The local fishermen wouldn't eat the ones that look like samurai, so now there are a species of crab that look like samurai.

Quote from: "Dretlin"Can anyone name any other species that has had their evolution influenced by mankind?

Peppered Moth http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peppered_moth (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peppered_moth)

Quote from: "PoopShoot"

Quote from: "tymygy"Why am I not surprised?

Another shotgun blast to the face of creationists.

I wonder how they'll respond......

 

They'll say adaptation isn't evolution.  In this particualr instance, however, I'd agree with them (to a point), the study in unimpressive.

That isn't adaptation, it's evolution. Not only that, it's evolution by natural selection. Bear in mind that the men with their toxin form a part of the natural environment of the organisms in question. What is at play here is differential survival in the presence of a selecting mechanism, in the form of the toxin. Those with the beneficial mutation that increases their survivability have an advantage over those who don't.

Adaptation implies that mutations occur in response to the environment. They don't. The mutations occur anyway, regardless of the environment.

Quote from: "Dretlin"Can anyone name any other species that has had their evolution influenced by mankind?

Oodles:

Dodos
The thylacine
Dogs
Many species of bird
Elephants

Indeed, it could be argued that pretty much every extant species has had its evolution influenced by mankind.

Thank you Poopshot and hackenslash!

And Tank, I remember seeing an article on TV about the Peppered Moth. I can not quite remember what the subject was but your link jogged my memory.

*Edit*

Tank beat me to it.  :facepalm2:  

Quote from: "hackenslash"That isn't adaptation, it's evolution. Not only that, it's evolution by natural selection.

They're still the same species and they have no novel features.  They merely adapted to a toxin.

QuoteBear in mind that the men with their toxin form a part of the natural environment of the organisms in question. What is at play here is differential survival in the presence of a selecting mechanism, in the form of the toxin. Those with the beneficial mutation that increases their survivability have an advantage over those who don't.

I understand the mechanism, it's just unimpressive in this instance.

QuoteAdaptation implies that mutations occur in response to the environment. They don't. The mutations occur anyway, regardless of the environment.

No, adaptation implies a proliferation of a phenotype that addresses something in the environment, at least as far as biological adaptation is concerned.

Quote from: "karadan"Anywhoo, i once told a creationist the Peppered Moth story and they said it didn't count because that was micro evolution...

 :facepalm2:

In all fairness, they're often taught from infancy that evolution means a dog one day gave birth to a cat and anything else is microevolution, which means it's still the same thing, but god made it so it could adapt to a new environment to help it spread over his wonderful planet.  They're also taught that a proof against evolution is Gouldian punctuation.

Quote from: "PoopShoot"They're still the same species and they have no novel features.  They merely adapted to a toxin.

No they didn't. And they do have novel features, namely increased resistance to a toxin. That isn't adaptation, it's evolution.

QuoteI understand the mechanism, it's just unimpressive in this instance.

So it has to be impressive to be interesting? This is categorical evidence for evolution.

QuoteNo, adaptation implies a proliferation of a phenotype that addresses something in the environment, at least as far as biological adaptation is concerned.

Biological adaptation in the sense you're employing it is a myth. it doesn't happen. This simply isn't adaptation, which necessarily implies a response to the environment. This isn't a response to the environment, but differential survival within that environment. An allele has arisen that confers increased resistance to a toxin among certain members of a species, and those members carrying that allele have an advantage over those without it, which means that that allele is expressed with greater frequency in future generations. The increase in frequency of this allele is the very definition of evolution.

Quote from: "hackenslash"So it has to be impressive to be interesting? This is categorical evidence for evolution.

So what?  I have categorical evidence in my front yard that dog feces are brown.  Mundane, garden variety evidence for evolution in the form of yet another environmental adaptation is uninteresting.  It can be found in nearly every species of animal on the planet, including humans.

QuoteBiological adaptation in the sense you're employing it is a myth. it doesn't happen.

Yet you just posted evidence that it does.

QuoteThis simply isn't adaptation, which necessarily implies a response to the environment.

Yet the term is employed by biologists all the time sans your added implication.  That implication is ONLY inherent when speaking of behavioral adaptation.

QuoteThis isn't a response to the environment, but differential survival within that environment. An allele has arisen that confers increased resistance to a toxin among certain members of a species, and those members carrying that allele have an advantage over those without it, which means that that allele is expressed with greater frequency in future generations.

Yep.  That's how biological adaptation works.

QuoteThe increase in frequency of this allele is the very definition of evolution.

So what?

But this is just micro-evolution, not macro-evolution.

Quote from: "Reginus"But this is just micro-evolution, not macro-evolution.

Damn, there's no "choke" smiley.

Quote from: "PoopShoot"

Quote from: "Reginus"But this is just micro-evolution, not macro-evolution.

Damn, there's no "choke" smiley.

This here one >>  :D

But I don't want to hurt ME.

Quote from: "Reginus"But this is just micro-evolution, not macro-evolution.

I was waiting for this..

Well, Micro-evolution IS macro-evolution. Over time alot of micro-evolution would occur and eventually turn into macro-evolution.

Yeah, trying to pretend they're different is like trying to pretend walking to the kitchen is different than walking down the street.

Quote from: "Reginus"But this is just micro-evolution, not macro-evolution.

Do many creationists cover their eyes with black cloth?
It must be very useful in maintaining their opinions.

Quote from: "tymygy"

Quote from: "Reginus"But this is just micro-evolution, not macro-evolution.

I was waiting for this..

Well, Micro-evolution IS macro-evolution. Over time alot of micro-evolution would occur and eventually turn into macro-evolution.

It is amazing that they don't see the wood for the trees.

Quote from: "The Magic Pudding"

Quote from: "Reginus"But this is just micro-evolution, not macro-evolution.

Do many creationists cover their eyes with black cloth?
It must be very useful in maintaining their opinions.

LMFAO  

Quote from: "Reginus"But this is just micro-evolution, not macro-evolution.

Erm, you a christian? Did i miss something?

Quote from: "karadan"

Quote from: "Reginus"But this is just micro-evolution, not macro-evolution.

Erm, you a christian? Did i miss something?

Apparently the worldview listed to the right of his post.

Quote from: "PoopShoot"

Quote from: "karadan"

Quote from: "Reginus"But this is just micro-evolution, not macro-evolution.

Erm, you a christian? Did i miss something?

Apparently the worldview listed to the right of his post.

Well slap my thighs and ping my longjohns! All this time i thought Reginus was an atheist!

Don't ask me why.. My brain works in mysterious ways.

So with that settled, is Reginus actually being serious about the micro-evolution thing? If so, where's Squid?

Quote from: "karadan"So with that settled, is Reginus actually being serious about the micro-evolution thing? If so, where's Squid?

IDK, but if he is, Squid will be of no help, as you have to have even the slightest understanding of evolution to understand anything he'd say on the issue.

Quote from: "Reginus"But this is just micro-evolution, not macro-evolution.

Consider this. Nobody has ever seen a tree grow. We know they grow because we can see (measure) them getting bigger each year and if left to grow for a long enough time when we cut them down we can see the growth rings in a trunk. In one case we see an acorn grow into an oak tree. If you just saw an acorn could you tell it would grow into a oak tree if you did not know the acorn was the seed of an oak tree? No, you could not. So you call on knowledge about plant growth, one observes growth and with no experiments whatsoever you can deduce that an acorn will, if given the right conditions, grow into an oak tree. Object A, the acorn, changes into object B, the oak tree over time.

Micro evolution, over sufficient time and with appropriate selection pressures leads to macro evolution. The step between each and every generation of every organism has the potential for micro evolution, just as each day has the potential for growth in the oak tree. Macro evolution is simply the accumulated effects of micro evolution.

Indeed.  An artificial division, imposed (tellingly) by those who reject evolution altogether anyway.

Anyone who wishes to argue that "microevolution" cannot become "macroevolution" needs to posit a mechanism by which micro- is limited after X number of mutations.

It's sad that this argument still needs to be rebutted.

I agree with poopshoot, this is not necessarily evidence for evolution. The fish collected from the cave may have been exposed to the toxin for the last 10 years, which could effect their resistance to it, just like someone who drinks heavily and regularly will have an increased resistance to the effects of alcohol.

To be sure, they could analyse the genomes of the two fish populations, or they could keep the fish, poison free until they had kids (maybe grandkids, to be sure), and then test the new offspring, which would tell us whether it was an inherited mutation or a physiological change imposed by the environment.

NB as I read the article, I did not see that they ate the stunned fish (in this particular instance, I know they do elsewhere), and if there is no eating, then there is less of a selective pressure on the fish. Even if they do eat the fish they stun, it would still need to be proven, as I outlined above to be sure evolution is happening, even though it is eminently plausible, we should always take proof when we can get it.

Quote from: "SSY"I agree with poopshoot, this is not necessarily evidence for evolution. The fish collected from the cave may have been exposed to the toxin for the last 10 years, which could effect their resistance to it, just like someone who drinks heavily and regularly will have an increased resistance to the effects of alcohol.

To be sure, they could analyse the genomes of the two fish populations, or they could keep the fish, poison free until they had kids (maybe grandkids, to be sure), and then test the new offspring, which would tell us whether it was an inherited mutation or a physiological change imposed by the environment.

NB as I read the article, I did not see that they ate the stunned fish (in this particular instance, I know they do elsewhere), and if there is no eating, then there is less of a selective pressure on the fish. Even if they do eat the fish they stun, it would still need to be proven, as I outlined above to be sure evolution is happening, even though it is eminently plausible, we should always take proof when we can get it.

I agree, but imagine, instead of humans poisoning the water, what if it were natural? I'm being completely hypothetical, but maybe rain washed a poisiones fungi into a river every fall. Now what happens if this happens for hundreds or thosands of years? I know you have to wait for offspring to see conclusive proof, but when mosquitoes adapted a resistance to insect poison, their offspring also shared that immunity (please correct me if I'm wrong, I heard this awhile back and I'm not 100%).

more about resistant to DDT mosquitoes.
http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/ridley/tutorials/The_theory_of_natural_selection__part_1_13.asp

Quote from: "SSY"I agree with poopshoot, this is not necessarily evidence for evolution.

I never said that.  I do, however, agree that an actual change in alleles need to be demonstrated in order to claim evolution has taken place, as per the reasons you stated.

LOL trolling is so much easier than I thought it would be.

Quote from: "Reginus"LOL trolling is so much easier than I thought it would be.

Congrats dick.

Quote from: "Reginus"LOL trolling is so much easier than I thought it would be.

Half of a good troll is saying it with a straight face.

Quote from: "Reginus"LOL trolling is so much easier than I thought it would be.

That's the last time I take you seriously. That's the trouble with trolling. Once you know a person does it their posts become meaningless and pointless as you can't know if the person is serious or attempting to manipulate you. I took time to address your question in a serious manner. Tell me why I should bother to do that again?

You should read this The boy who cried wolf (http://www.storyarts.org/library/aesops/stories/boy.html). So troll if you like, but don't ever expect to be trusted or taken seriously if you do.

Quote from: "Reginus"LOL trolling is so much easier than I thought it would be.

Well, yeah, It's super easy to troll if the people you're trolling already have a bit of respect for and trust in you.  Unfortunately, once you troll someone, you lose all that respect and trust and you tend to get treated like just another Edward.

Not long ago I would have assumed anyone talking about a six thousand year old earth was joking.
And that business about god hiding fossil fuels for us to find, just like the Easter Bunny's eggs, that's hilarious.
It's a challenge for me to make a post so ridiculous that it wont be taken seriously.
With so much weirdness out there, accepting a troll on face value doesn't indicate credulity.

Quote from: "The Magic Pudding"Not long ago I would have assumed anyone talking about a six thousand year old earth was joking.
And that business about god hiding fossil fuels for us to find, just like the Easter Bunny's eggs, that's hilarious.
It's a challenge for me to make a post so ridiculous that it wont be taken seriously.
With so much weirdness out there, accepting a troll on face value doesn't indicate credulity.

And that is a huge issue when discussing with theists IMO.

I have made the point elsewhere that a true fundamentalist theist/deist is indistinguishable from a troll on an atheist forum. What better way to troll an atheist forum than to invoke Poe's law and become the most outrageous theistic character one can? It's so bloody easy. That's one reason I'm not to keen at throwing the term troll at a theist/deist as we have no way of telling and are simply demonstrating our own incredulity at the behaviour of some people.

When I first starting engaging with theists at RDF I had no real idea what I was dealing with at all. I had read The God Delusion but had no understanding of how far some people will twist and turn to keep their delusions alive.

Quote from: "Tank"

Quote from: "The Magic Pudding"Not long ago I would have assumed anyone talking about a six thousand year old earth was joking.
And that business about god hiding fossil fuels for us to find, just like the Easter Bunny's eggs, that's hilarious.
It's a challenge for me to make a post so ridiculous that it wont be taken seriously.
With so much weirdness out there, accepting a troll on face value doesn't indicate credulity.

And that is a huge issue when discussing with theists IMO.

I have made the point elsewhere that a true fundamentalist theist/deist is indistinguishable from a troll on an atheist forum. What better way to troll an atheist forum than to invoke Poe's law and become the most outrageous theistic character one can? It's so bloody easy. That's one reason I'm not to keen at throwing the term troll at a theist/deist as we have no way of telling and are simply demonstrating our own incredulity at the behaviour of some people.

When I first starting engaging with theists at RDF I had no real idea what I was dealing with at all. I had read The God Delusion but had no understanding of how far some people will twist and turn to keep their delusions alive.

I had a much easier time than you with that, since I had been a believer at one time.  

The problem is, no matter how outrageous a Poe is, there is probably a believer who actually thinks that way.  Why do you think so many people get taken in by Landover Baptist?  (Granted there aren't many christians who will admit out loud to feeling that superior to nonbeliever or even other christians, but there are quite a few who do.)