Darwin's Theory is False
- Thread starter Woody
- Start date
Simple adaptation and macro evolution are very distinct things.
Believing that creatures evolve and transition into other species, without actually witnessing it, requires more faith than any other religion on the face of planet earth.
Believing that creatures evolve and transition into other species, without actually witnessing it, requires more faith than any other religion on the face of planet earth.
Evidence of natural selection at work
Science 16 December 2005:
Vol. 310. no. 5755, pp. 1807 - 1809
Island Biogeography of Populations: An Introduced Species Transforms Survival Patterns
Thomas W. Schoener,1* Jonathan B. Losos,2 David A. Spiller1
1) Apply Darwin's theory to define an environment that causes a "life struggle" -- such as cold temperatures. Propose this to be the cause of change for hypothesis testing purposes.
Islands, introduction of predator
2) Identify "potential good traits" on an a priori basis -- these traits could hypothetically increase the chances of survival -- traits such as higher metabolism, more body hair, more body insulation, etc, etc. A Post priori basis (after the fact) won't get it -- we are doing a hypothesis test here.
adaptation to vegetation types.
3)State your hypothesis. For example: Cold weather causes animals to genetically change so they grow longer hair, have more body fat, have higher metabolism, etc.
The environment is instrumental is the survival characterists of species
Predator introduction changes species equilibrium, and changes species survival characteristics in relation to different local environments
4) Choose a species that has a short reproduction cycle -- such as a mouse.
lizard Anolis sagrei
5) Control the test, and account for the causes of all the mortalities (the best you can). This step is optional, but could provide insight on how your test is proceding.
Control islands are used where there are no predators introduced.
6) Continue the test until it appears you have statistically significant data.
done
7) If you think you have statistically significant data do the appropriate analysis to determine if it's just a random drift in the population (noise factors), or if there is a direct cause-and-effect relationship as stated in the hypothesis.
done
8) Repeat the test to verify the cause and effect relationship -- (this could also be done by running another test in parallel).
done
9) If any "surprise traits" come about that you have not postulated, then change your hypothesis and run another test.[/QUOTE]
done
Population phenomena, which provide much of the underlying basis for the theoretical structure of island biogeography, have received little direct study. We determined a key population trait—survival—in the Bahamian lizard Anolis sagrei on islands with an experimentally introduced predatory lizard and on neighboring unmanipulated islands. On unmanipulated islands, survival declined with several variables, most notably vegetation height: The island with the shortest vegetation had nearly the highest survival recorded for any lizard. On islands with the introduced predator, which forages mostly on the ground, A. sagrei shifted to taller vegetation; unlike on unmanipulated islands, its survival was very low on islands with the shortest vegetation but was higher on the others. Thus, species introduction radically changed a resident species' relation of survival to a key island-biogeographical variable.
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/310/5755/1807
By using an archipelago of small islands as a laboratory for both comparative study and manipulative experiment, we showed a notable natural relation of survival rate to island characteristics—especially vegetation height—and the ability of an introduced predator to transform that relation. Implications of this study extend beyond islands: Vegetation structure over much of Earth's surface is being precisely characterized, in part to understand how species populations respond to anthropogenic changes in land use or in climate (24–26). However, information beyond vegetation structure may be crucial. Thus, in our study, survival is unrelated to vegetation height if data from all 12 islands are considered together (r = –0.23, –0.24), yet knowing which islands have the introduced predator makes the latter a good predictor of survival rates.
Science 16 December 2005:
Vol. 310. no. 5755, pp. 1807 - 1809
Island Biogeography of Populations: An Introduced Species Transforms Survival Patterns
Thomas W. Schoener,1* Jonathan B. Losos,2 David A. Spiller1
1) Apply Darwin's theory to define an environment that causes a "life struggle" -- such as cold temperatures. Propose this to be the cause of change for hypothesis testing purposes.
Islands, introduction of predator
2) Identify "potential good traits" on an a priori basis -- these traits could hypothetically increase the chances of survival -- traits such as higher metabolism, more body hair, more body insulation, etc, etc. A Post priori basis (after the fact) won't get it -- we are doing a hypothesis test here.
adaptation to vegetation types.
3)State your hypothesis. For example: Cold weather causes animals to genetically change so they grow longer hair, have more body fat, have higher metabolism, etc.
The environment is instrumental is the survival characterists of species
Predator introduction changes species equilibrium, and changes species survival characteristics in relation to different local environments
4) Choose a species that has a short reproduction cycle -- such as a mouse.
lizard Anolis sagrei
5) Control the test, and account for the causes of all the mortalities (the best you can). This step is optional, but could provide insight on how your test is proceding.
Control islands are used where there are no predators introduced.
6) Continue the test until it appears you have statistically significant data.
done
7) If you think you have statistically significant data do the appropriate analysis to determine if it's just a random drift in the population (noise factors), or if there is a direct cause-and-effect relationship as stated in the hypothesis.
done
8) Repeat the test to verify the cause and effect relationship -- (this could also be done by running another test in parallel).
done
9) If any "surprise traits" come about that you have not postulated, then change your hypothesis and run another test.[/QUOTE]
done
Population phenomena, which provide much of the underlying basis for the theoretical structure of island biogeography, have received little direct study. We determined a key population trait—survival—in the Bahamian lizard Anolis sagrei on islands with an experimentally introduced predatory lizard and on neighboring unmanipulated islands. On unmanipulated islands, survival declined with several variables, most notably vegetation height: The island with the shortest vegetation had nearly the highest survival recorded for any lizard. On islands with the introduced predator, which forages mostly on the ground, A. sagrei shifted to taller vegetation; unlike on unmanipulated islands, its survival was very low on islands with the shortest vegetation but was higher on the others. Thus, species introduction radically changed a resident species' relation of survival to a key island-biogeographical variable.
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/310/5755/1807
By using an archipelago of small islands as a laboratory for both comparative study and manipulative experiment, we showed a notable natural relation of survival rate to island characteristics—especially vegetation height—and the ability of an introduced predator to transform that relation. Implications of this study extend beyond islands: Vegetation structure over much of Earth's surface is being precisely characterized, in part to understand how species populations respond to anthropogenic changes in land use or in climate (24–26). However, information beyond vegetation structure may be crucial. Thus, in our study, survival is unrelated to vegetation height if data from all 12 islands are considered together (r = –0.23, –0.24), yet knowing which islands have the introduced predator makes the latter a good predictor of survival rates.
Last edited:
What is the mechanism that prevents microevolution from causing macroevolution?
There is no difference
I would say DNA is the "mechanism" that that sustains life. Circumstance would be what prevents, the perpetuation of a species. Circumstance like detrimental changes in the eco-system.
DNA controls the instructions to "weave" life out of matter/circumstance around it. Dictates needful instincts, defenses, and to a certain degree adaptation.
A puddle of water will eventually bring forth life according to the equating factors of pre-existing life that contribute in the creative process. Many different instructions carried out by many different forms of life on many different levels, from the microscopic organisms to the "common" creatures.
All work in a somewhat "perfect" array to yeild life. The end result being calculated out of what living things and what matter contributed to teh scenario.
uhh sorry thinking out loud I don't really grasp this whole thing.
DNA controls the instructions to "weave" life out of matter/circumstance around it. Dictates needful instincts, defenses, and to a certain degree adaptation.
A puddle of water will eventually bring forth life according to the equating factors of pre-existing life that contribute in the creative process. Many different instructions carried out by many different forms of life on many different levels, from the microscopic organisms to the "common" creatures.
All work in a somewhat "perfect" array to yeild life. The end result being calculated out of what living things and what matter contributed to teh scenario.
uhh sorry thinking out loud I don't really grasp this whole thing.
Say a pair of sparrows gets blown off course and lands on an island with a radically different environment and food supply. What will stop them from eventually evolving to be so different that they cannot mate with a mainland sparrow?
Why is it required to witness it in order for it to be a fact? I have not witnessed the country of Iceland. Does that mean that for me to believe it is there requires "more faith than any other religion etc"?Nisus said:
There is evidence for evolution - see the plethora links already posted.
This puts it one better than the amount of evidence for God - which is, and always will be, zero.
spidergoat said:
*************
M*W: The adaptation for storing up energy in leaner times is factual, but the obesity gene evolved through our ancient grandmothers who braved intense frozen climates. The extra fat padding played a role in helping them retain body heat. Those superfluous fat stores not only enabled optimum ecoadaptation, it also ensured the survival and propagation of our species. Our ancient and well-padded mothers borne healthier offspring who had a greater chance for survival and ecoadaptation than did the offspring of their lesser obese sisters.
Bottom line (no pun intended), but through the sacrifices made and endured by the grace of our ancient volupuous mamasitas, we have inherited not only life itself but the evolved genes for optimum ecoadaptation and survivability in this space-time continuum.
So, I agree with you, spidergoat, in that the factors associated with our continuing human evolution will also evolve and adapt, and in the long run, that will continue to be beneficial to our ecoadaptation and survivability.
OK S/M this looks encouraging, but I'm not clear on the "cause and effect proof"
I read and re-read the post several times, and I also went to the article page to look for the details. I'm not clear on the results because I do not have access to the complete article.
I assume the resident lizard (Anolis Sagrei) is being forced to change its diet or die with the introduction of a competitor. Is this correct?
Was this a genetic change or just a behavior change? A starving animal can eat just about anything. I remember finding several cigarette butts in a frog's stomach I dissected.
What is the final proof being offered in this article?
I read and re-read the post several times, and I also went to the article page to look for the details. I'm not clear on the results because I do not have access to the complete article.
I assume the resident lizard (Anolis Sagrei) is being forced to change its diet or die with the introduction of a competitor. Is this correct?
Was this a genetic change or just a behavior change? A starving animal can eat just about anything. I remember finding several cigarette butts in a frog's stomach I dissected.
What is the final proof being offered in this article?
snake river rufus
Registered Senior Member
How can you be sure that a frog ate several cigeratte butts and they were not introduced by somebody with a sick sense of humor? I cannot recall a factual example of any animal subjecting itself to nicotine poisoning.Woody said:
Woody:
1. Humans are subject to evolution as much as every other creature. Human evolution has not "stopped". So, humans are evolving in third world countries. And they're evolving in first world countries, too.
2. Evolution to a smaller stature is certainly possible. However, over a short time period, such as a few thousand years, such a change will not be obvious. You may be aware that the average heights of human beings have increased over the past few centuries. However, that is not due to evolution as much as it is due to improved health, better diet and other environmental factors.
What am I assuming?
1. Humans are subject to evolution as much as every other creature. Human evolution has not "stopped". So, humans are evolving in third world countries. And they're evolving in first world countries, too.
2. Evolution to a smaller stature is certainly possible. However, over a short time period, such as a few thousand years, such a change will not be obvious. You may be aware that the average heights of human beings have increased over the past few centuries. However, that is not due to evolution as much as it is due to improved health, better diet and other environmental factors.
What am I assuming?
SRR asked about my pet bullfrog.
Woody says: I know because I caught the bullfrog as an intended pet, but it soon died before I had a chance to feed it anything. I caught it along a polluted city creek -- I don't know how that frog managed to survive there. The creek was nasty as an open sewar, and that was one skinny looking frog.
Anyway after his untimely death, my next door neighbor suggested we do a dissection. So we went in and cut his stomach open. We found four to five cigarette butts in there and a dead wasp. What a diet! The frog was dieing of nicotene poisoning when I caught him.
Woody says: I know because I caught the bullfrog as an intended pet, but it soon died before I had a chance to feed it anything. I caught it along a polluted city creek -- I don't know how that frog managed to survive there. The creek was nasty as an open sewar, and that was one skinny looking frog.
Anyway after his untimely death, my next door neighbor suggested we do a dissection. So we went in and cut his stomach open. We found four to five cigarette butts in there and a dead wasp. What a diet! The frog was dieing of nicotene poisoning when I caught him.
Woody,
Imagine a bare room with a box in one corner, you can see the box. You leave the room and re-enter later. The box is now in a different corner. You know the box has been moved but you don't know how, why, or by whoom.
The fact that the box has been moved is the equivalent to us knowing the fact that evolution has occured. The details of how the box moved or was moved is the subject of hypothesis and theory which is the equivalent to what we call evolutionary theories.
Imagine a bare room with a box in one corner, you can see the box. You leave the room and re-enter later. The box is now in a different corner. You know the box has been moved but you don't know how, why, or by whoom.
The fact that the box has been moved is the equivalent to us knowing the fact that evolution has occured. The details of how the box moved or was moved is the subject of hypothesis and theory which is the equivalent to what we call evolutionary theories.
James R says:
Woody says: Yes I understand the process. Thanks for the helpful tip, but it's clumsy for tracking a conversation. You can get quotes inside of quotes inside of quotes, etc. and it gets very difficult to follow who is saying what.
Woody says: Yes I understand the process. Thanks for the helpful tip, but it's clumsy for tracking a conversation. You can get quotes inside of quotes inside of quotes, etc. and it gets very difficult to follow who is saying what.
Guthrie says: Oh wow! Woody's tests have been fulfilled! By bacteria evolving antibiotic resistance! Who would have thought it!
Woody says: Is this genetic or is it just tolerance to poisons being developed by individuals? Animals and humans have a pretty remarkable ability to develop tolerance. Consider Harry Houdini -- he acclimated himself in ice-cold water to overcome hypothermia.
Woody says: Is this genetic or is it just tolerance to poisons being developed by individuals? Animals and humans have a pretty remarkable ability to develop tolerance. Consider Harry Houdini -- he acclimated himself in ice-cold water to overcome hypothermia.
Woody said:
Spuriousmonkey says: I thought you were a top biology student in high school.
Spuriousmonkey says: I'll give you the link to pubmed
Spuriousmonkey says: With the biomedical search engine pubmed you can look up peer reviewed articles on any biomedical topic, such as antibiotics resistance.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?DB=pubmed
If you lack the skills to understand peer reviewed articles you can also look up topics in biomedical books on pubmed.
I assume you are seriously lacking in basic biological knowledge and hence I didn't bother with a serious source, just text book. After all, I gave you an article on natural selection but you couldn't quite grasp it.
Here is some textbook info
I highlighted mutated genes. That means it is genetic in case you didn't know that.
I'm quite willing to provide some peer reviewed articles if you try promise to put some effort into your thinking.
Woody said:
No.
Woody said:
If you want final proof read your holy fucking bible. You are criticizing a scientific theory and you ask for final proof? Dam, fuck me. Final proof. you crack me up.