The Scientific Evolution Debate.

Abaddon · Feb 3, 2008

Now that we have our own forum, we can discuss the merits and failures of evolution, on an entirely scientific level.

We need not discuss Creationism, and various other religous mumbo~jumbo, please leave that for OT.

So please, as no theory is water tight, what are the weak points of the evolutionary theory, and how has it evolved since first proposed?

rmxtrax · Feb 3, 2008

Abaddon said:
So please, as no theory is water tight, what are the weak points of the evolutionary theory, and how has it evolved since first proposed?

The fact we can't find the lacking rings. For example which race was the first man? White? Asian? Black?

It's imperfect because there too many factors in nature that's impossible to find the real origins of man

Abaddon · Feb 3, 2008

An do we need to be able to track all of mans evolution in order to prove it?

Can we not do it with other animals?

Showing macroevolution in short lived animals within a lab condition?

Mirc · Feb 3, 2008

rmxtrax said:
For example which race was the first man? White? Asian? Black?

According to the Out of Africa theory, the first humans had white skin covered entirely with black hair, then as the hair was lost in most body parts, the skin (of all humans) became black, which remains unchanged in the black populations today. Then after this some those that moved out of Africa became white again while the others retained the black skin.

Abaddon · Feb 3, 2008

Amazing something seemingly as low cost as pigmentation is lost through evolution.

Genocidicbunny · Feb 3, 2008

Its not all that amazing really. Just think of what happens when you get a tan and then don't go outside for a while, you lose the tan. YOur body senses it has no need for the pigment, and disposes of it. Same thing happened to early humans. In Africa the skin color provided protection from the sun, which became pointless once the humans migrated north.

StarWorms · Feb 3, 2008

stickciv said:
Its not all that amazing really. Just think of what happens when you get a tan and then don't go outside for a while, you lose the tan. YOur body senses it has no need for the pigment, and disposes of it. Same thing happened to early humans. In Africa the skin color provided protection from the sun, which became pointless once the humans migrated north.

White skin also allows better production of vitamin D, which makes it beneficial when away from the equator.

rmxtrax · Feb 3, 2008

I've heard that human evoultion is still in course. For example whites are advanteged in zone with weak sun and make more sons in these zones. Instead black are advantaged in zone with strong sun and make more sons in these zones. This explain why blacks are the majority in africa and white are the majority in europe

Abaddon · Feb 3, 2008

I think its more a case of migration.. or the lack of it.

Aramazd · Feb 3, 2008

rmxtrax said:
I've heard that human evoultion is still in course. For example whites are advanteged in zone with weak sun and make more sons in these zones. Instead black are advantaged in zone with strong sun and make more sons in these zones. This explain why blacks are the majority in africa and white are the majority in europe

Blacks would get enough Vitamen D in Europe to survive as well as whites, and near the equator whites would have a greater potential of developing skin cancer and sun burn. So each had an advantage in their environment, but with sunscreen and Vitamen D supplements, it doesn't matter that much anymore.

shyuhe · Feb 3, 2008

The validity of the Miller/Urey experiment has been called into question recently. Since the results of the experiment are fundamental to any theory of scientific evolution, research into either a) refuting the criticism or b) creating an alternative theory on how primitive amino acids were created would be good.

The criticism is that the primitive atmosphere of Earth was not a reducing atmosphere (and so the molecules present in the Miller/Urey experiment were not correct). It is not readily obvious that an oxidizing atmosphere would still allow the production of primitive amino acids.

Abaddon · Feb 3, 2008

can you linky please? I'd like to read about that some more

shyuhe · Feb 3, 2008

Something along the lines of this: http://www.chem.duke.edu/~jds/cruise_chem/Exobiology/miller.html

The basic idea of the criticism is that the atmospheric molecules are wrong, therefore it can't represent primitive Earth. Oddly enough I first found out about this criticism browsing an Ann Coulter book :lol:

Aramazd · Feb 3, 2008

shyuhe said:
The validity of the Miller/Urey experiment has been called into question recently. Since the results of the experiment are fundamental to any theory of scientific evolution, research into either a) refuting the criticism or b) creating an alternative theory on how primitive amino acids were created would be good.

The criticism is that the primitive atmosphere of Earth was not a reducing atmosphere (and so the molecules present in the Miller/Urey experiment were not correct). It is not readily obvious that an oxidizing atmosphere would still allow the production of primitive amino acids.

That is interesting and I would like a link, but the Miller-Urey experiment doesn't concern evolution, instead but the origin of life.

EDIT: You gave the link before I could post, now that's prompt!

Abaddon · Feb 3, 2008

I do remember hearing about it.

An as ever we have to be careful of delving futher back.. espcially the amin acid covered metiorites!

Abaddon · Feb 3, 2008

Abgar said:
That is interesting and I would like a link, but the Miller-Urey experiment doesn't concern evolution, instead but the origin of life.

EDIT: You gave the link before I could post, now that's prompt!

Isk, if you cant propose how things began on earth..the 1st step of evolution as it were.

But this is isk.. it doesnt knock the rest of evo

shyuhe · Feb 3, 2008

This is my first time in the colosseum. I like to debate science (I studied chemical physics as an undergrad).

I brought up the Miller/Urey criticism because it provides a fundamental challenge to evolution. However if you guys don't want to talk about it since it's more origin of life rather than evolution, that's fine.

About evolution: any macro structure that doesn't appear to have any use during a formative stage is subject to an attack by anti-evolution theorists. For example, poison glands of a snake + hollow fangs is one situation (I don't remember if this particular instance has been refuted). The poison glands of a snake are linked through the hollow fangs but hollow fangs by themselves don't appear to have any functional role. You'd think having hollow fangs would actually result in decreases in structural integrity. So why would natural selection make these two separate systems evolve together to result in the form that we know of now?

Abaddon · Feb 3, 2008

Mate, this is the Colosseum, we throw opinions around like candles in the wind

Never take offence.

Say what you believe, give time for others to listen.

We were not attacking you by discounting it.. its a discussion after all, we need to have differeing opinions or nothing will get said

Abaddon · Feb 3, 2008

shyuhe said:
About evolution: any macro structure that doesn't appear to have any use during a formative stage is subject to an attack by anti-evolution theorists. For example, poison glands of a snake + hollow fangs is one situation (I don't remember if this particular instance has been refuted). The poison glands of a snake are linked through the hollow fangs but hollow fangs by themselves don't appear to have any functional role. You'd think having hollow fangs would actually result in decreases in structural integrity. So why would natural selection make these two separate systems evolve together to result in the form that we know of now?

Thinking about just that example.. what are the most primitive "biter" snakes like?

Do they simply have poison glands in the mouth?

Perhaps "randomly"

one snake has a slight ridge in its tooth.

This minor change, meant the venom got into the prey that little bit easier.

Evolution begins to swing to teeth+poison.

Over many many forums, the tooth has a fully evolved channel.

I do not see it as a hollow tooth, more the tooth evolved a channel inwhich to transfer the venom...

Is my arguement hollow?

wicshade · Feb 3, 2008

very true Shyuhe, I am uncertain of how to provide proof for the hollowed fangs, but i do recal reading an article about snake venom and its pharmeceutical properties. To the point I remeber reading that there are molecules in the venom of snakes that are also present in the liver and other organs. I could study snake venom/evoltuion in depth.

It is somewhat impossible to prove something if you can not recreate it in a controlled enviroment. Also when people debate, study evolution they tend to avoid the truth, so that they can find proof to support their claim.

snakes have alot of differneces between each other, but overall they have held their genetic standards for a very long time.

The Scientific Evolution Debate.

Deity

Warlord

Deity

Not mIRC!!!

Deity

Bug squasher

Deity

Warlord

Deity

Deity

Deity

Deity

Deity

Deity

Deity

Deity

Deity

Deity

Deity

crazy, militant farmer

Similar threads