Evolution - Resource Thread

[RickD]

Neo wrote:
I think you are being needlessly defensive. I want this thread to be of science only not a creation science thread. You want to list your sources then do so in a thread which has those. I don't think I am not doing anything against the board rules. And honestly I am quite astonished that you would not respect my thread purpose. That was really a surprise for me, rick.

Neo, if you had posted in a way that shows that while you believe your version of evolution to be true, and it was apparent that it was your belief or opinion only,
then I'd have no problem with your thread. But saying things like evolution is a fact, and insulting people by saying we get our info from our pastors not from science, then you've gone too far. Again, extrapolating unobservable macro-evolution, from scientifically proven micro-evolution, doesn't make macro-evolution a fact. It makes it an assumption on your part. Again, to be clear, that's your belief and that's fine. But it doesn't make it a fact. And it doesn't mean those who disagree with you get our info from pastors instead of scientists. That is insulting.

Appeal to authority won't work either. Fuz or ross may know more than you doesn't mean they are correct. Yecs or any other may know more too, doesn't mean they are correct either.

It wasn't an appeal to authority to prove Fuz and Ross are correct. I was just refuting your claim that people don't believe in your version of evolution because they don't understand it. Fuz Rana and Hugh Ross certainly understand evolution, and they don't hold to all it entails. So your argument that only the ignorant don't believe in evolution, is moot.

Im not listing beliefs here, thats cold hard research and evidence you are rejecting to follow your beliefs.

You're listing some scientifically proven facts, mixed with extrapolated opinions.

If anything view evidence not your favorite pastor.

Again, this is just a personal attack from ignorance on your part. How do you know if I even have a favorite pastor? FYI, I don't. I learn science from scientists. Scientists that disagree with you on certain things, but they are well respected scientists in their respective fields of study.

[RickD]

For anyone interested, here are some rebuttals of evolution. And shockingly, some are from actual scientists, not our favorite pastors!
http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/ ... ttals.html

[neo-x]

Sure rick, do whatever you like here. You are taking unfair advantage of your status , and it was the last thing I expected.

[B. W.]

I know this is not a debate forum, and I appreciate all your hard work that you put in this. Some of the things you posted were taught while I was in college and by the time I graduated what I learned suddenly changed in inaccuracies. One was the reason why certain white flies turned black was touted as evolutionary progression observable, only later changed to prove adaptation 3 years later.

In fact , in one of your 2009 sources, it states this interesting comment.

A. ramidus is tentatively believed to be ancestral to Australopithecus:

This is what evolution comes down too - this and that is tentatively believed to be some species direct link.

Just be aware that what Rick posted was this sites resources on many of the same subjects you posted. People should be allowed to compare the two sides and make up his or her own mind. Even God allows that with us.

Please don't take offence but become aware that you'll ruffle a few feathers. Maybe you should, after you have documented the Evolution - Resource Thread maybe you should then post a Creationism - Resource Thread so folks see both sides?

Have you considered this?
-
-
-

[neo-x]

Neo, if you had posted in a way that shows that while you believe your version of evolution to be true, and it was apparent that it was your belief or opinion only,
then I'd have no problem with your thread. But saying things like evolution is a fact, and insulting people by saying we get our info from our pastors not from science, then you've gone too far.

Evolution is a fact, if you bother to read what I have posted. And if many people did not need to understand evolution then it runs contrary to to the repeatedly demonstrated strawmen understanding of it on various threads I have seen. A lot of people do need to understand evolution and there is nothing wrong with that. This point of this thread is to educate, not to put up a debate here, as the thread title says. If you don't like this content, no one is forcing you to read it. Just don't spoil it for others. Please back off.

[neo-x]

B.W I have nothing against a creationist science resource, thread. By all means start one or many as you see fit, you won't see me interfering, because it will be a resource thread not a debate one. Evolution aside, all I asked for was to get content in one thread, which is relevant as the name suggests. I am not at all upset with any source as long as it peer reviewed and not creation science, the link I shared HERE flies directly into the face of Natural selection and our current understanding of evolution but it has something to back it up and I don't mind that at all.

edit:
Anyways, I will keep posting stuff which I find helpful. I had hoped Rick would respect my wish, but if that isn't the case, he may post, I will not ask for this again.

[B. W.]

B.W I have nothing against a creationist science resource, thread. By all means start one or many as you see fit, you won't see me interfering, because it will be a resource thread not a debate one. Evolution aside, all I asked for was to get content in one thread, which is relevant as the name suggests. I am not at all upset with any source as long as it peer reviewed and not creation science, the link I shared HERE flies directly into the face of Natural selection and our current understanding of evolution but it has something to back it up and I don't mind that at all.

edit:
Anyways, I will keep posting stuff which I find helpful. I had hoped Rick would respect my wish, but if that isn't the case, he may post, I will not ask for this again.

It maybe a better service to your stance if you took the time to create a Creation - Resource Thread coming from you rather than from myself. All I can do suggest to you it would be a good idea to view both sides from one common writer - not two.
-
-
-

[neo-x]

HOW DNA WORKS

A good article for the layman.

[neo-x]

Things that would falsify evolution
An extremely helpful article showing what it would ACTUALLY TAKE to disapprove evolution and why we don't see observations that run contrary to evolution.

What would Disapprove Evolution?

An interesting quote I came about on pp. 222-223 of Jerry Coyne's book "Why Evolution is True":

"Every day hundreds of observations and experiments pour into the hopper of the scientific literature.
Many of them don't have much to do with evolution - they're observations about details of physiology, biochemistry, development, and so on - but many of them do. And every fact that has something to do
with evolution confirms its truth. Every fossil that we find, every DNA molecule that we sequence, every
organ system that we dissect supports the idea that species evolved from common ancestors. Despite innumerable possible observations that could prove evolution untrue, we don't have a single one. We don't find mammals in precambrian rocks, humans in the same layers as dinosaur, or any other fossils out of evolutionary order. DNA sequencing supports the evolutionary relationships of species originally deduced from the fossil record. And, as natural selection predicts, we find no species with adaptations that benefit only a different species. We do find dead genes and vestigial organs, incomprehensible under the idea of special creation. Despite a million chances to be wrong, evolution always comes up right. That is as close as we can get to a scientific truth."

Evolution myths: Evolution cannot be disproved

Since rebutts are being posted, here is what they need to achieve to actually disapprove evolution. Evolution could be disapproved, the same way gravity can be disapproved, with new evidence and observations and with observations which go directly against the mechanism of evolution.

[neo-x]

Ten Specific Predictions of Evolution

Here's a sample list of very specific predictions made by evolution. Which if failed would throw a serious wrench in the evolutionary theory.

[neo-x]

Swine Flu Is Evolution in Action


This colorized negative stained transmission electron micrograph (TEM) image depicts athe A/CA/4/09 swine flu virus in 2009.
Credit: CDC/C. S. Goldsmith and A. Balish

Intro: Anyone who thinks evolution is for the birds should not be afraid of swine flu. Because if there's no such thing as evolution, then there's no such thing as a new strain of swine flu infecting people.

For the rest of the population, concern is justified.

The rapid evolution of the influenza virus is an example of Nature at her most opportunistic. Viruses evolve by the same means as humans, plus they use tricks such as stealing genetic code from other viruses.

[neo-x]

Evolution of Túngara Frog Mating Calls: A case Study

Introduction: Evolutionary biologists have developed many techniques to analyze how male and female mating preferences have co-evolved. These studies combine animal behavior, sensory biology, phylogenetics, and neurobiology to observe the effects of male trait biases based on female receiver systems; that is, the “attractiveness” of the male trait to potential female mating partners.

In this case study you will learn about the mating calls of Physalaemus frogs, and how the calls have evolved over time. You also will see how scientists use molecular information to develop an evolutionary tree based on sequence homology.

[neo-x]

Darwin's Finches Evolve Before Scientists' Eyes

For the first time scientists have observed in real-time evolutionary changes in one species driven by competition for resources from another.

In a mere two decades, one of Charles Darwin's finch species, Geospiza fortis, reduced its beak size to better equip itself to consume small sized seeds, scientists report in the July 14 issue of the journal Science.

The finch once had its own kingdom on the Galapagos Island of Daphne Major. It had its pick of seeds to eat. But the arrival of another species of finch about 20 years ago, and additional food competition from a drought on the island in 2003, changed everything.

"When there is a severe drought on a small island, natural selection occurs," said study co-author Peter Grant of Princeton University.

The new larger species ate the larger and harder seeds on the island, food that the biggest members of the native finch clan normally ate.

"The recent immigrant species had almost eaten the supply of food themselves, so they almost went extinct," Grant said. "The resident species, the species that was there before the new species arrived, underwent a large shift toward small size in beaks."


Typically, the small members of the species can't crack the larger seeds. But with the depletion of the larger seeds, the small-beaked population, which could reach the smaller feed and needed less food to meet its daily energy needs, had a better survival rate.

This type of evolutionary change is known as character displacement.

"It's a very important one in studies of evolution because it shows that species interact for food and undergo evolutionary change, which minimizes further evolution," Grant said. 'It has not been possible to observe the whole process from start to finish in nature."

Here is also a very good representation of the evolutionary stages involved with downloadable images

And here is the original paper in oxford journal which proves it.
On the Origin of Darwin's Finches

[neo-x]

There is no such thing as species: Species Are Not Uniquely Real Biological Entities

A very nice paper by Brent D. Mishler, downloadable in PDF form in the link above.

Abstract: Are species uniquely real biological entities? This question is one of the most controversial
topics today in such areas of biology as ecology, systematics, conservation, population
genetics, and evolution. “Species” currently play a central role in both theory and practice
in these areas, and have a large place in the public’s perception of biological diversity
as well. This question can be decomposed into two parts: (1) Are species real, and in
what sense? (2) If real, is their reality the same as entities smaller or larger than them—
i.e., are they real in a sense that genera or subspecies are not? This paper will briefly
review historical and current opinions on these questions, but will primarily advocate
one particular position that appears to fit biological reality as now understood: that species
properly defined are real entities, but not uniquely real. The longstanding “species problem”
can be solved by realizing that there is no such thing as species after all! The so-called
“species problem” is really just a special case of the taxon problem. Once a decision is
made about what taxa in general are to represent, then those groups currently known
as species are simply the least inclusive taxa of that type. As I favor a phylogenetic
basis for taxonomy, I want to look at how to include terminal taxa in the PhyloCode,
currently a controversial topic even among PhyloCode supporters. In brief, my argument
is: (1) life is organized in a hierarchy of nested monophyletic groups—some of them
quite fine-scale, well below the level we currently call species; (2) not all known monophyletic
groups need be named, just the ones that are important to process or conservation
studies and that have good support; (3) those that are named taxonomically should
be given unranked (but hierarchically nested) uninomials; and (4) formal ranks, including
species, should be abandoned. I will conclude with a brief discussion of the implication
of my position on species for academic studies in ecology and evolution as well
as for practical applications in biodiversity inventories and conservation biology.

[neo-x]

The Human Strain: A Draft Sequence of the Neandertal Genome

Effectively disapproves the adam, eve, first-couple story anyway you look at it, imo.

Abstract: Neandertals, the closest evolutionary relatives of present-day humans, lived in large parts of Europe and western Asia before disappearing 30,000 years ago. We present a draft sequence of the Neandertal genome composed of more than 4 billion nucleotides from three individuals. Comparisons of the Neandertal genome to the genomes of five present-day humans from different parts of the world identify a number of genomic regions that may have been affected by positive selection in ancestral modern humans, including genes involved in metabolism and in cognitive and skeletal development. We show that Neandertals shared more genetic variants with present-day humans in Eurasia than with present-day humans in sub-Saharan Africa, suggesting that gene flow from Neandertals into the ancestors of non-Africans occurred before the divergence of Eurasian groups from each other.