A little proof of Evolution

I think the way we used to say it was, "one shot, two shot, three shot, FLOOR!"

but Grandpa's finest was roughly 195 proof


on a side note, you ever had a "Hillbilly Iced Tea"?

There is no difference between so-called "micro-evolution" and "macro-evolution". That's just a smoke screen that people who don't want to understand evolution throw out when they want to demonstrate that they don't know what they are talking about. Evolution is changes in gene frequencies in a gene pool.

Any differerence between "micro" and "macro" are arbitrary categories made by people who think that there exists a real boundary between "red" and "orange".

hmmm no..ive had "long island iced tea" are they similar<grin>...lol

ok Hillbilly Iced Tea is half gallon of Bojangles/chick-fil-a sweet tea, pour out or drink 1/3 to half of it and then refill with your liquor of choice. Its a trick we learned in college to hide the taste of Aristoshit

Oh dear, oh dear ... it is always best to actually read a little on a subject before putting finger to keyboard. "Macro evolution" would, by consensus, be considered to refer to a mutation producing new genes. "Micro evolution" to a change in the content of existing genes. In scripting terms, it's the difference between declaring a whole new variable or simply changing the value of an existing one.

I'm happily signed up to evolution, but would, post-Kuhn et al, recognise a large part of this is probably due to epistemology than to empiricism.

AHHH yes..ok similar to putting gin and moutain dew together...err maybe not lol...

lol

lets make it easy:

House sparrows have adapted to the climate of North America, mosquitoes have evolved in response to global warming, and insects have resistance to our pesticides. These are all examples of microevolution — evolution on a small scale.

Macroevolution is evolution on a grand scale — what we see when we look at the history of life: stability, change, lineages arising, and extinction.

You won't find many biologists who will argue that taxonomic definitions aren't purely arbitrary - but they are our best starting point in identifying organisms and their derivatives. Taxonomies are adjusted as evidence accumulates, but that doesn't make it an invalid system.

The best explanation I've found on the difference between micro and macro-evolution:
Macroevolution

Specifically, at the point where two creatures from the same root cannot interbreed and produce viable offspring, they are then considered separate species.

As for Kevn, I'm constantly amazed at the ignorant tripe you post on this board. Your knowledge of evolutionary biology has been demonstrated to be sufficient to get you an "F" in any biology course, high school or college, that you might try to take. I suggest you avoid the topic in the future unless you really like being depantsed and publicly spanked until your arse is red. If you like that kind of thing, keep posting on this topic and I'll be happy to oblige.

Cindy are you that good at spanking? I volunteer Maerl as a test subject

Look SL is about tolerance and acceptance. I myself am a godless right wing ultra capitalist suburbanite in Houston Texas (not the typical SLer). I disagree with Kevin Klein, but there is no need to attack and belittle him or any religion’s beliefs. Also the fact that he believes that way does not mean he is an idiot. It seems many feel the religious are just stupid and sheep. I think all sides have their share of useful idiots and lock steppers.

I guess all I am saying is I would love to see true debate here not rants or attacks.

Be Good!
Pulaski Fizz

HEY...lol

I think Kevn attended either Bob Jones U or Oral Robers U, where his ignorant tripe would have earned him an "A" in "ID Biology".

Hell, I don't know. All I know is you just can't buy the stuff in Lynchburg

Oh, and they use the leftover mash to feed livestock. It really SUCKS getting caught behind one of those damn trucks that hauls the leftovers away

If Evolution were a subject for personal belief, I'd agree with you. But it's not. It's a body of scientific work with very clear postulates and proofs which are not all that difficult to understand, even if one isn't a biologist.

Kevn is just one more in a long endless line of people I've encountered on the Net over the years who try to pose as informed but seem to only be capable of spouting the same ill-informed nonsense over and over and over. He'd be irrelevant except that there is an organized, funded body of religious quacks in this country right now who want to destroy our children's science education by inserting their religion. Am I mad? I'm a parent, I'd be stupid NOT to be angry.

If you're going to have a discussion about religion, fine, it does become a matter of personal opinion. But Evolution is not religion. It's a science topic and there is a vast body of data to be reckoned with by anyone who wishes to argue the theory. In plainer terms, if Kevn comes to a gunfight don't bring a knife.

Unless your this man:

Several of you are confusing observed fact, evolution, with the theory that attempts to explain it, natural selection.

Evolution is the observed fact that molecules and organisms change over time. Natural selection is the theory that states random variations in a molecule or genotype are selected over others based on pressure from the environment. This theory does include an explanation for "genesis", which is very simply the chance creation of a self-replicating molecule.

~Ulrika~

Chuck Norris doesn't hunt. He kills.

No, Ulrika, I'm not. Evolution is both a fact and a theory, as Stephen Gould explained so eloquently. There is Evolution the fact - it happens regardless of the name we give it, or the mechanisms we use to describe it. There is also Evolution the theory, which is the body of data and research accumulated to explain those facts.

Natural Selection is only one of the mechanisms involved. Don't discount Genetic Drift, migration, and descent which all (along with Natural Selection) contribute to genetic variation.


Kind of. The more exact definition (sorry if i'm being pedantic here, my biology prof is screaming in my head) is "Evolution is a change in genetic populations over time", or to be REALLY geeky, "Evolution describes changes in allelic frequencies over time."

Ok, I'm geeky. Just make the voices stop

I feel that natural selection has been proven "enough", for my satisfaction, until something comes along that makes more sense or debunks it. Is it "fact"? Maybe not, but theres some pretty compelling evidence.

If you haven't read it, read "The Beak of the Finch"... It's a pretty fascinating read.

You can buy it there now....

You just can't drink it there

Awesome,

Ive been trying not to respond to this thread, but your excellent
remark and the following one by Ulrika made it feel like I was duty bound to respond.

Yes personally I see no dichotomy between evolution and creationism, evolution is simply the realistic method of creation.

Ulrika I usually agree with your posts, yet the implications you make in your argument is that the universe and everything in it is the result of pure chance. That implication in itself is to me just as preposterous as some infallible being with a human face pasted on it snapping their fingers to create the world.
Clearly science does attribute forces to the "creation" of many aspects of planets, stars and various other parameters of physics.
Assuming some form of an intelligent force of creation does not require a belief in religion.

In regards to logical extension what do we have after all to use as proof of the management of complex systems and the effort required to create them. All we have is our own experience of doing so as a species. Which in no way should
be discounted. It has boggled my mind for a long time that
conventional academic science has been so contained within
this Politically Correct Box to make sure not even to acknowledge the possibility of some greater level of volition
to be responsible for our existence.

Historically it appears to me that the men of science that
survived did so due by remaining silent about the results of their calculations when the church ruled the state along with
royalty. Such new ideas were perceived as a direct threat to the status quo, i.e. those in power. Which is why the outspoken ones were
executed. It is as if at some point in our collective human
history objective men of science made some kind of deal
with those religious men of power at the time. For they could
see that technology was becoming necessary especially in times of war. So concessions were made to allow for the continued existence of science as long as they kept their mouths shut about the big ideas the church was in charge of.
Because the power structure needed the weapons and gadgets
these intelligent men and woment were able to create.

Ok some secret deal may sound far fetched however it really
isnt all that far, for it may not have even been stated out
loud. Many traumatic events in history have shaped the way
that future generations have tended to collectively self-frame data.

Almost all history is some form of revisionist history as one culture conquers another and simultaneously dominates and absorbs that culture.

It is not actually required that we refuse to acknowledge a possibly intelligent reason or force of causation in order to
be objective and intelligent beings. I just think it is
pure folly to claim that we know the mind of this "creator"
until we do have the means to possess more accurate and communicatable evidence than feeling better with an inspired outlook on life. The thing about religion that is so
inspiring for people is that it requires a full emotional commitment to be done correctly. Heck If I truly decide to put
my own full emotional Chi into that level of commitment, it will not matter what the relic or the writings were it is in the act of doing so itself that gives inspiration. And that is btw
what quite often happens in the process of creation when we
do it.
Great effort in concentration, attention to detail, no thought
of self while in the zone, just fully engaged in focus, until you can step back and say "wow I did that!".

Complex systems created by humans do not create themselves
nor self-maintain by any chance. Throughout the history of human awareness it has required great effort to achieve anything of value and worth.
I hope I am not getting too far off point, hehe, but I believe
that men of science "evolved" the habit of staying out of metaphysical speculation for the very visceral motivation of
self preservation.

To actually state that everything exists by chance is to abandon the chain of logic itself, rather than simply drawing
a line of available data.

Wow did I say all that stuff out loud? I mean't to say "yes Sio
I agree".

Doh! That's right, they changed that shortly after I moved (you can only buy it at the distillery IIRC)

Evolution isn't about creation, though. Evolution addresses changes in the gene pool, not how those gene pools formed.


Why? Chaos gives nature a diversity it needs to adapt and change. That which doesn't change, dies. We use the word "chaos" to describe patterns that appear random to us, but Chaos Theory is about finding an underlying order in what we perceive as chaos. In other words, simply because we can't grasp the randomness of nature & the universe doesn't mean it isn't random and it doesn't mean there isn't an underlying order in that chaos. It doesn't have to be laid out in 1,2,3 steps to work. Just because we don't understand it completely doesn't require the interjection of magic to explain it.


Exactly, but then neither does the existence of the universe necessarily require a divine creator.