Evolution

[Stefan Bauwens]

Since we were getting a bit off-topic in the Religion thread I created this thread to discuss evolution.

And to get right started, I'll reply to what Kuribotchi posted.

anyone can find some random article about maths and evolution

https://www.paleolibrarian.info/2012/06/how-mathematics-can-prove-evolution.html

this article is just as accurate as yours Stefan, because maths > scientific "evidence"

Erm, that article doesn't feature any math making it not as accurate as the article I gave, but way inferior.

The only thing it does is attack those kind of articles, but without much reason.

 

[Moussette]

If you want to reply to Kuribotchi , just PM him. Don't start a thread just to settle a score with someone...

 

[Stefan Bauwens]

If you want to reply to Kuribotchi , just PM him. Don't start a thread just to settle a score with someone...

I want to be able to defend myself in public, just like Kribotchi stated his post in public. We were discussing evolution and the reason I made this thread was to continue discussing evolution, not specifically to reply to Kuribotchi's post.

 

[indiGOtama]

I don't really see why you need to "defend", as he was just making a point, and not attacking you, but ok..

 

[Cave Johnson]

Can we please not have a topic on this? It's not the kind of thing anybody on this site has any real ability to discuss properly. Religion and Homosexuality are much simpler to discuss because there isn't as much technical language or knowledge required. This thread will likely just turn into a mess of people posting (possibly biased) sources from both sides of the arguement that they know support their view, but don't actually understand.

 

[KERFUFFLE]

I agree. In the previous topic where this discussion was taking place, I distinctly remember a comment I made on a theory being called "ridiculous" despite it being knowledge taught to me by somebody with a Master's degree in Biology, who knows more about this than all of us put together, I'm sure, and that's just a sign that this topic is kind of beyond us all. The fact that it hasn't been proved or disproved in several hundred years by some of the world's greatest minds means nobody here can tell somebody else whether they're right or wrong.

 

[Stefan Bauwens]

Well, that kind of talk KERFUFFLE did apparently not belong there, as we were pointed out. So there apparently a need for a topic, since I highly doubt that is the last time someone will mention something about evolution. This topic is not aimed at younger people who just "post", and I anyway do not have any control over that.

There are many useless/unimportant threads on this forum, but it seems like the more important ones are the ones you guys make a problem about it. Just don't visit this thread and you won't be bothered.

 

[indiGOtama]

I'm not sure how I feel about the use of "you guys".. it seems like you're trying to separate everyone else from you, as if you are something "better", or separate from all of us. You are Christian, yes? Aren't we supposed to be brothers/sisters to all mankind, not just to people who hold the same opinions and beliefs as us? Just because you think that some threads on here are unimportant or useless, doesn't mean everyone else feels that way, and that is perfectly acceptable. I don't know, you may deny that you feel this way, but whenever I read your words, this is what I gather from them, and I don't think I'm the only one.. You have all these fantastic ideas, and I just wish that you would present them in a kinder manner, that is all.

I don't think that not knowing everything there is to know about science is not a matter of age, so I think it would be inaccurate of you to say that the only people who would not be able to follow a thread like this would be "young" people. I don't think the problem is that people are just posting without thought, as you have inferred, but (as Kerfuffle and Cave Johnson have said), that this is an ongoing debate that not even the greatest minds are able to settle right now. It is absolutely not clear which "side" has "won" this debate yet, so I think we are all just looking for a little bit of slack when we post about evolution. Like, if everyone could maybe just not tell other people their ideas are ridiculous would be a fantastic step in the right direction.

I do agree that someone else is bound to bring evolution up at some point, though, and I don't personally have an issue with this thread being here. I just think that this debate should be approached in a manner which accepts that, as of right now, there is NO definite right or wrong answer. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, and it's not our jobs to try to make someone else seem dumb and try to prove them wrong. A little bit of tolerance would be nice.

 

[dazzilitchigirl]

This thread will probably be okay to have if nobody tries to prove anything or say that evolution is definitely right or wrong, and if everyone avoids offending others. On some other topics discussing things like this, posts have been made with no thought or research put into them, just offensive phrases and strong opinions. If people discussing evolution on this thread are as civilised as possible about it, we can't go far wrong. There is no harm in talking about it, just as long as we don't offend anyone or break the TamaTalk rules.

 

[Stefan Bauwens]

IndiGOTama, I did not mean to come rude over, but the thing is it are the exact same people I was talking to, which are always opposing me in other debates. They may have their own opinion of-course, but it seems they really dislike me and even here have to come and post something negative about what I'm doing.

Being Christian is definitely being brothers with everyone. I must not follow the crowd(in sin) but go away. So I'm pretty much alone. Only a few members are sometimes on my side.

 

[Kuribotchi]

Evolution is a difficult subject

This could easily turn into a flame war because many people like me recognize evolution as a fact. This is like creating a topic saying "The colour green" and talking about how it's not real and how maths can disprove it.

I think this topic should be closed, and if it's not maybe one day I'll be bothered typing a big long paragraph about why I recognize evolution...

also I agree with Cave, this topic is not easy to discuss

it makes my brain hurt

 

[Stefan Bauwens]

Alright, but I personally don't find it harder to discuss than homosexuality or abortion, or religion.

But since there'll be probably at least be one day that we'll have need of this topic I'd suggest we keep it open.

 

[TamaMum]

I believe that topics on TamaTalk discussing more complicated themes like Religion, Homosexuality and Evolution are a good thing.

They provide everyone here with the opportunity discuss themes, explore ideas and learn. Even if a topic is making you angry, it teaches you things;

- about life and people outside your own experiences and peer groups / about yourself and the degree of self control you are able to exert when faced with ideas and opinions that don't fit with your own beliefs.

The Seriously forums are for members who can discuss anything rationally and with a degree of maturity and of course sometimes these serious topics can easily degrade into anything but civil discussion.

Maybe it will help some members understand that disagreeing with a point of view doesn't mean that everyone is against you or not 'on your side'. Maybe it will help other members understand that there are a lot of differing points of view and personalities and this forum is as good a place to experience basic sensible debate as anywhere else.

As indiGOtama posted (and I totally support this comment):

...Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, and it's not our jobs to try to make someone else seem dumb and try to prove them wrong. A little bit of tolerance would be nice.

That applies to anyone who agrees with your opinion as well as those who don't agree. If you post an insulting or demeaning comment directed towards someone, it shows everyone alot more about the kind of person you are than anything else.
Sorry for going off topic - I know I am a real stickler for this, but sometimes a more detailed explanation for WHY a topic should stay open is as useful as those which explain why a topic has been closed.

 

[hwd45]

Here's a very high-quality video explaining evolution that I found earlier. This guy makes some very interesting content, I suggest people go and take a look if they have time!

//www.tamatalk.com/IB/applications/core/interface/js/spacer.png

 

[Stefan Bauwens]

I watched it and I do believe that certain things mutated into differently over time.

(E.g.: a certain "wolf" may be the ancestor to a dog).

But in this case there is no proof that this dog will ever, over time and in the correct circumstances, evolve into his ancestor the "wolf"(I use wolf in quotes since I doubt it was the same wolf we see here today) again.

Since by mutation, only data is lost and never added. A mutation can be beneficial but cannot turn into something more than it was.

A mutation only works by loss.

But the evolution theory talks about mutations that are indeed "more", while there is no proof whatsoever for that.

So if the human was mutated from something it must have been something that was "more complex" than us.

So de-evolution is proven but the other upbuilding-evolution isn't.

 

[fluffums]

I watched it and I do believe that certain things mutated into differently over time.

(E.g.: a certain "wolf" may be the ancestor to a dog).

But in this case there is no proof that this dog will ever, over time and in the correct circumstances, evolve into his ancestor the "wolf"(I use wolf in quotes since I doubt it was the same wolf we see here today) again.

Since by mutation, only data is lost and never added. A mutation can be beneficial but cannot turn into something more than it was.

A mutation only works by loss.

But the evolution theory talks about mutations that are indeed "more", while there is no proof whatsoever for that.

So if the human was mutated from something it must have been something that was "more complex" than us.

So de-evolution is proven but the other upbuilding-evolution isn't.

I'm confused what you think "de-evolution" means. Changing from one species to another or organisms having different characteristics than they did in the past is evolution, whether or not undergoing evolution helped that species. There's no such thing as de-evolution.

And yes, you can "gain data" from mutations. You can both lose nucleotides in DNA as well as gain nucleotides due to random occurances. The nucleotides can also occur in a different order than they did before. You can have more genes than the parent had if the offspring's DNA had a mutation or you can have less. The most common occurance is just for the nucleotides to be in a different order, since gaining or losing nucleotides can often result in an inability to survive whereas random ones that aren't really important for life can be rearranged and nothing bad will happen. Every single person's DNA is "mutated" in some way. Most of the times it is not outwardly noticeable and has no effect on their life. Sometimes it is noticeable and often has a negative effect. Very rarely, a mutation has some sort of positive effect on an organism and that is what enables them to survive and produce more offspring, who will then also have that mutation, than other organisms.

 

[hwd45]

^fluffums knows what she's talking about!

The dog won't evolve back into wolves over time because there's nothing driving them to as they're not wild creatures so there's nothing trying to kill them. The way pedigrees are bred means that over time each dog breed's features will only get more profound, which won't be noticeable as they're very pronounced already- however we will see that pedigree dogs that have a very long ancestry will suffer. Since each feature is being more pronounced, mutated genes become more of a deal as well, meaning that unfortunately the dogs will suffer terrible diseases later in life- for example Golden Retrievers are known for having hip problems.

... I... I Just rambled a bit there. I like dogs xD But no, there probably won't be a progression back to wolves as there's no need to, and due to selective breeding. I say 'probably' because there's always a chance that a particular wild dog breeds with wolves, and over time it's ancestors will become more like wolves. But overall? No.

As for the 'mutations only cause loss' thing... they don't, the video kind of said so itself. Mutations can happen at any time, but they generally aren't noticeable. However, sometimes the mutations can cause effects and the gene is much more likely to be spread on if it benefits the creature in some way. Mutations aren't always a bad thing!

 

[Midorime]

Mutations can cause you to gain, not lose. For example early primitive humans were colorblind. A mutation in the genes changed that, and the ones who saw color were able to pass on genetics more easily due to having an advantage to survive natural selection.

If you're talking mutations like in the form of cancer, then yeah, that's pretty bad.

Also to 'devolve' would mean to become a lesser being. That hasn't been shown to happen. Everyone turns into something more complex from it's origin in some way. If something were to 'devolve' it would die off due to natural selection. But actually, if you look at it, humans might start doing that since we can fight off everything and make ourselves live longer than we should, as well as reproduce despite having all sorts of issues that, in the wild, would have killed us off. We are corrupting our own gene pool and essentially 'devolving' and will eventually die out at some point.

 

[hwd45]

Yeah, Cancer is a mutation but it works... differently.

See, genetic mutations that pass on happen in the gametes that create the organism, so the organism entirely consists of the same DNA. If a mutation happens later in life, for example the mutations that cause melanomas, only a small portion of the organism will consist of this new DNA. The organism itself will not produce gametes with this new DNA, and will be affected by these few cells that behave differently. In the case of Cancer the cells kind of stop ageing meaning the cells don't die when they're supposed to, so whoever has the cancer will slowly become more and more of these non-functioning cells.

 

[Stefan Bauwens]

I must say you're wrong there hwd45, when you say that Fluffums knows what he's talking about.

Everything I have said in my previous posts is backed with information I have retrieved. I am not just making something up.

There is indeed something as de-evolution (or devolution). I suggest you google:"definition devolution" next time before you say something like that.

"No mutation has yet been found that increased the genetic information."

Source: https://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/mutations.html

I would advise you to read the entire article, since that is what I believe.