Evidence for or against evolution

[Joeman]

Just couple months ago, scientist actually observed creation of a new specie for the very first time - the creature of a new specie of fruit fly. I am too lazy to look up links right now. That supposingly is the final piece of the puzzle.

 

[Nasor]

I haven't seen any articles about it in academic journals, what I said was just based on what I read in my biochemistry textbook and the accompanying lecture.

Here's a really poor explanation of what I'm talking about. I realize that it's pretty confusing, but I can't think of a simpler way to explain it. Basically it looks like this:

An organism uses molecule X, which is made from A, B, and C. So A+B+C=X. Then later an organism improves on X, so now it uses Y, which is made by adding D. So A+B+C=X, then X+D=Y. Then the organism improves on it again, making Z, the ultimate in energy storage. The thing is, Z is only made from A, B, D, and a new ingredient E, but no C is used. But instead of making it A+B+D+E=Z, the organism has to make it via A+B+C=X, then X+D=Y, then Y+E-C=Z. The element C is no longer part of the final product Z, but there's no way for the organism to eliminate the step in which C is added because there's no way 'back up' the sequence. The organism is able to add new steps to the biochemical pathway, but if it eliminated a step it wouldn't be able to produce its energy storage molecules and it would die. If the organism had been 'intelligently designed' then one would expect it to simply follow a mechanism of A+B+D+E=Z, without having to add and then later remove parts of the molecule.

I don't remember the specific molecular steps, but I can probably dig out my biochem notes if everyone's really curious.

 

[ElectricFetus]

Nasor,

Look up purine degradation and how it varies in different classes of animals, I think you will be rather surprised.

 

[paulsamuel]

all 3

you may be right about 1 and 3 but i assure you i am interested in finding the refs.

Nasor's

that was not an hypothesis, it was an observation

sure you are.

that's very insulting, and uncalled for, i might add

why not?

because you're not being particularly helpful in regards to my asking for refs, and i wouldn't want to waste any more of your time

 

[paulsamuel]

I don't remember the specific molecular steps, but I can probably dig out my biochem notes if everyone's really curious.

Thanks for the reply. No need to go back into your notes.

This is a very interesting phenomenon with large potential evolutionary significance.

I'll be following up on it if anyone is interested.

 

[ElectricFetus]

Is it a observation? To observe it means there must be data on it being like that. No actuall data has been show yet, a hypothesis is just a idea on how something maybe, it requires no data.

 

[paulsamuel]

Nasor,

Look up purine degradation and how it varies in different classes of animals, I think you will be rather surprised.

here's an article on purine degradation that one might find interesting

Metabolism. 2004 Jun;53(6):772-6. Related Articles, Links

Effect of sauna bathing and beer ingestion on plasma concentrations of purine bases.

Yamamoto T, Moriwaki Y, Ka T, Takahashi S, Tsutsumi Z, Cheng J, Inokuchi T, Yamamoto A, Hada T.

Division of Endocrinology and Metabolism, Department of Internal Medicine, Hyogo College of Medicine, Hyogo, Japan.

To determine whether sauna bathing alone or in combination with beer ingestion increases the plasma concentration of uric acid, 5 healthy subjects were tested. Urine and plasma measurements were performed before and after each took a sauna bath, ingested beer, and ingested beer just after taking a sauna bath, with a 2-week interval between each activity. Sauna bathing alone increased the plasma concentrations of uric acid and oxypurines (hypoxanthine and xanthine), and decreased the urinary and fractional excretion of uric acid, while beer ingestion alone increased the plasma concentrations and urinary excretion of uric acid and oxypurines. A combination of both increased the plasma concentration of uric acid and oxypurines, and decreased the urinary and fractional excretion of uric acid, with an increase in the urinary excretion of oxypurines. The increase in plasma concentration of uric acid with the combination protocol was not synergistic as compared to the sum of the increases by each alone. Body weight, urine volume, and the urinary excretion of sodium and chloride via dehydration were decreased following sauna bathing alone. These results suggest that sauna bathing had a relationship with enhanced purine degradation and a decrease in the urinary excretion of uric acid, leading to an increase in the plasma concentration of uric acid. Further, we concluded that extracellular volume loss may affect the common renal transport pathway of uric acid and xanthine. Therefore, it is recommended that patients with gout refrain from drinking alcoholic beverages, including beer, after taking a sauna bath, since the increase in plasma concentration of uric acid following the combination of sauna bathing and beer ingestion was additive.

 

[paulsamuel]

Is it a observation? To observe it means there must be data on it being like that. No actuall data has been show yet, a hypothesis is just a idea on how something maybe, it requires no data.

an hypothesis is based on observations of natural phenomena. i.e. it isn't formulated de novo

 

[Kumar]

Here's the rules: I want ONE reason, the best, for why/why not evolution is true, do not argue back and forth, just show me your best evidance. Thanks!

Our skin & coat is just like sea/water creatures, our physical structure is like most of earth's animals, we walk like birds, I can't understand what we aquired from whom on evolution?

 

[Enigma'07]

Just couple months ago, scientist actually observed creation of a new specie for the very first time - the creature of a new specie of fruit fly. I am too lazy to look up links right now. That supposingly is the final piece of the puzzle.

Isn't in in the very definition of macroevolution that it takes hundreds of years for such a thing to happen?

 

[Alpha]

No, it depends on how fast the species produces new generations. Bacteria and fruit flies do so very quickly, and both of them have been observed to produce new species.

 

[invert_nexus]

Isn't in in the very definition of macroevolution that it takes hundreds of years for such a thing to happen?

And even if it did, all you got to do is be in the right place at the right time and bam. New species. Just because it may take hundreds of thousands of years or whatnot, if you're at the end of the cycle there it is.

 

[ElectricFetus]

paulsamuel,

watch this: I propose that some particles may travel faster then light. that is a hypothesis, whats my observation?

I hardly see how the article is helpful in this discusion, try a article that shows what purines are degragated into, In humens its uric acid, in other mammals its .... in frogs its... then look at the pathways, you might find that it goes against Nasor hypothesis.

 

[paulsamuel]

paulsamuel,

watch this: I propose that some particles may travel faster then light. that is a hypothesis, whats my observation?

that's not science, which is what we're discussing.

perhaps you could use a review of the scientific method;

from;

http://phyun5.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/node6.html#SECTION02121000000000000000

The scientific method is the best way yet discovered for winnowing the truth from lies and delusion. The simple version looks something like this:

* 1. Observe some aspect of the universe.
* 2. Invent a tentative description, called a hypothesis, that is consistent with what you have observed.
* 3. Use the hypothesis to make predictions.
* 4. Test those predictions by experiments or further observations and modify the hypothesis in the light of your results.
* 5. Repeat steps 3 and 4 until there are no discrepancies between theory and experiment and/or observation.

I hardly see how the article is helpful in this discusion, try a article that shows what purines are degragated into, In humens its uric acid, in other mammals its .... in frogs its... then look at the pathways, you might find that it goes against Nasor hypothesis.

well, I posted it cause it was kind of funny, all I could think of were the test subjects drinking beer in a sauna. guess you didn't 'get it.'

 

[paulsamuel]

well, I posted it cause it was kind of funny, all I could think of were the test subjects drinking beer in a sauna. guess you didn't 'get it.'

also, the poor experimenters having to collect the pee of a bunch of beer drunk guys (and maybe gals) in a sauna

that scene could be in a movie

 

[ElectricFetus]

that not science jee I have heard that hypothesis allot in physics. The hypothesis tachyon particle may not exist and has no evidence or observations yet of its existence but it sure is science. http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/ParticleAndNuclear/tachyons.html
I know what the scientific method is, but you don't need a observation to formulate a hypothesis.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=hypothesis
very first diffinition: 1 a : an assumption or concession made for the sake of argument

 

[paulsamuel]

I know what the scientific method is, but you don't need a observation to formulate a hypothesis. [/B]

you don't know what a the scientific method is, because if you did, you would know that scientific hypotheses are based on observations.

i'm not a physicist, but i don't believe you are either, so if tachyon particle hypothesis is a scientific hypothesis, then it's based on observation

in fact the website you linked contains all kinds of mathematical observation upon which the hypothesis is based. didn't you read your own link?

 

[ElectricFetus]

I know they are usually, but its not a requirement. A tachyon is based on the observation that there is a speed limit, what would happen if something could go over that speed limit, and the mathematics accompanying that. If you call that an observation then Nasor hypothesis that similarity of biochemical pathways provides evidence to evolution is well founded in the "observations" he has provided us.

 

[paulsamuel]

I know they are usually, but its not a requirement. A tachyon is based on the observation that there is a speed limit, what would happen if something could go over that speed limit, and the mathematics accompanying that. If you call that an observation then Nasor hypothesis that similarity of biochemical pathways provides evidence to evolution is well founded in the "observations" he has provided us.

no, you misunderstand me again. i have always been talking about the observation that Nasor stated, i.e.

There are all sorts of useless steps that make unnecessary modifications to the molecules involved that used to be part of a previous energy production scheme, but are no longer necessary with the current process. Even though the process changed, some of residual steps are still present – even though they don't really do anything. Sort of the biochemical equivalent of a vestigial organ.

NOT the hypothesis that this provides evidence of evolution.

therefore the mathematical observations leading to the hypothesis of tachyons are analogous to the biochemical observations stated by Nasor that can lead one to the hypothesis that the 'vestigal' steps in biochemical pathways are evidence of evolution

 

[paulsamuel]

I know what the scientific method is, but you don't need a observation to formulate a hypothesis.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=hypothesis
very first diffinition: 1 a : an assumption or concession made for the sake of argument

further down on the webpage you linked

"synonyms HYPOTHESIS, THEORY, LAW mean a formula derived by inference from scientific data that explains a principle operating in nature. [/b]"

if you're going to use weblinks to support your arguments, you really ought to read those links