Ecology and Evolution

[richter915]

When I took AP Bio in HS, I thought for sure I was a bio person...now freshman year I realize how horrible it is...why? because of fucking ecology and evolution. Evolution is fair I mean...it's important to understand where we really came from and it's probably the single most scientific thing to shock the Christian world (which dominated Western society at the time) since Copernicus...I find it interesting how evolution is still not taught in certain areas in this nation. But other than that, it is so so so boring probably because it focusses on such a large scale...physically and time wise. It's impossible to see animals naturally evolve in our lifetime.

Now even with that, I can tolerate it...ecology though...ugh, it is disgusting...I just cannot stand it...I don't care that the taiga is the most dominant biome on earth...or that eutrophication kills a bunch of animals in a lake...seriously it makes no difference if I know that or not. I know it's important to know how pollution impacts not only global warming but a million other things...but do I give a damn about type III life histories?? bah!

sorry, just venting as a result of studying for finals.

[sleepygrlgreen]

When I took AP Bio in HS, I thought for sure I was a bio person...now freshman year I realize how horrible it is...why? because of fucking ecology and evolution. Evolution is fair I mean...it's important to understand where we really came from and it's probably the single most scientific thing to shock the Christian world (which dominated Western society at the time) since Copernicus...I find it interesting how evolution is still not taught in certain areas in this nation. But other than that, it is so so so boring probably because it focusses on such a large scale...physically and time wise. It's impossible to see animals naturally evolve in our lifetime.

Now even with that, I can tolerate it...ecology though...ugh, it is disgusting...I just cannot stand it...I don't care that the taiga is the most dominant biome on earth...or that eutrophication kills a bunch of animals in a lake...seriously it makes no difference if I know that or not. I know it's important to know how pollution impacts not only global warming but a million other things...but do I give a damn about type III life histories?? bah!

sorry, just venting as a result of studying for finals.


yah well the campbell book doesn't make it any better. ecology is quite pointless unless your career choice deals with that kind of stuff. evolution, ya definitely important. it's unfortunate that some states (surprisingly in the bible belt) still don't believe in teaching it in their science classes.

[scitsofreaky]

One thing that I must point out is that evolution does not show how life began, just how it has changed, so I laugh whenever christians freak out because they think that we were created, like everything else, just like we are today.

[venus/bacchus]

One thing that I must point out is that evolution does not show how life began, just how it has changed, so I laugh whenever christians freak out because they think that we were created, like everything else, just like we are today.
Obviously you're brilliant and have never been blinded by anything in your life. I hope you realize that that post made you sound incredibly pompous.

And yes, I am a Christian

But yes, I do believe in evolution.

[scitsofreaky]

Obviously you're brilliant and have never been blinded by anything in your life. I hope you realize that that post made you sound incredibly pompous.

And yes, I am a Christian

But yes, I do believe in evolution.
I know that I sounded pompous, but that doesn't mean that I am wrong. Most christians do have a problem with evolution. I am glad that you realize that evolution does not disprove anything about a Creator. In fact, it adds to the Creators abilities.

[scitsofreaky]

Help me out, has evolution been proved without a shadow of a doubt?
Has total creationism been proven? (By total creationism I mean belief that everything was created how it exist today.) No, actually there is more evidence against it than for it. I am not even aware of any evidence for total creationism at all.

[venus/bacchus]

Help me out, has evolution been proved without a shadow of a doubt?
No scientific theory can be "proven," it can only be supported with evidence and experiments. But evolution has been very well "supported" and even witnessed in some cases. I remember a few years back, there was an experiment using bacteria or some other prokaryotes in which they subjected them to UV rays or other extreme environments. A very small number actually survived initially, but eventually here were mutations in the DNA and excessive reproduction that led to the bacteria being completely unaffected by it. Personally, I think the ability to witness it firsthand "proves" evolution.
I know that I sounded pompous, but that doesn't mean that I am wrong. Most christians do have a problem with evolution. I am glad that you realize that evolution does not disprove anything about a Creator. In fact, it adds to the Creators abilities.
I didn't say it makes you wrong. Just because you were "right" leaves you no privilege to look down upon or belittle those who were "wrong."

[sleepygrlgreen]

One thing that I must point out is that evolution does not show how life began, just how it has changed, so I laugh whenever christians freak out because they think that we were created, like everything else, just like we are today.

What? I don't even understand what you meant by the second part of your comment.

[richter915]

What? I don't even understand what you meant by the second part of your comment.
oi...
He's chastising creationism which was a popular belief before Darwin came around which said that God (or as Campbell puts it a "higher being") created the earth and all life in a perfect way and nothing has changed in six thousand years (the age of the earth according to the bible).

To support venus...tons have been done to support evolution. How do you explain artificial selection? Why do you think there is no "cure" for many bacterial and viral diseases? If all life is perfect, why are there different forms of the same animal...why isn't there only ONE kind of every animal. The answer is mutation which is the key to evolution. So much has been done with this. One of the most basic examples is you use a pesticide to kill a certain kind of pest on a farm, you keep using that and thirty years later you notice that it's not effective anymore on that pest. This happened in some major cities, they tried exterminating the rat population with poison but some still survived. Stronger poisons were used until now we're left with what're known as "super" rats which live through almost anything.

Evolution will never be a law, that's why it's a THEORY.

[richter915]

Look, I wasn't trying to argue against evolution I was just trying to get a better understanding of it. Thanks though.
it happens...when you get church vs. science...people take anything as offensive.

but with your original question, there is a lot of evidence which SUPPORTS the idea of natural selection but there is no proof that this IS the definite solution. But like scitsofreaky said, there's so much more evidence supporting natural selection as opposed to creationism that the idea of creationism is archaic. Hah, even with that, there are still debates mostly in bible belt states about evolution and creationism.

[scitsofreaky]

Well, I guess I needed to feel superior for some reason, and I don't know why. I usually don't get like that, but some peoples ignorance (no one here) gets to me.
Another classic example of adaptation is the species of moths in England that used to all be white, but during the industrial revolution, moths that lived in or near major cities turned black to blend in with the smoke stained buildings.

[richter915]

Well, I guess I needed to feel superior for some reason, and I don't know why. I usually don't get like that, but some peoples ignorance (no one here) gets to me.
Another classic example of adaptation is the species of moths in England that used to all be white, but during the industrial revolution, moths that lived in or near major cities turned black to blend in with the smoke stained buildings.
ya see, that's where you're wrong. They didn't "turn" black...due to a mutation there were some black moths in the area. Due to the rise of the industrial revolution, they were able to camoflauge themselves into the background while the white ones stood out...you might argue that they were "naturally selected"...so all the white ones die off and they no longer contribute to the gene pool and so all that's left are the alleles for the black morph and those are the ones you see today. This actually isn't evolution if I remember correctly...this is actually an example of two different morphs co-existing in one environment and why one may be more advantageous.

[scitsofreaky]

Black was a recessive gene. And yes, it is natural selection, which is how evolution works.

[richter915]

Isn't that what a chameleon does?
no that's not even close. By "turned" you took it as the moth physically turns a different color...what he meant was that white moths no longer dominated in the population, after several generations, black became the dominant color in the population. That's what evolution really is...a change in the gene pool that is large and long lasting that a new species forms.

[Tanooki Suit]

I mean, you can surely argue that ecology is pretty useless in the whole scheme of things. But I honestly think it's nice we get a feel for how everything can be changed just by certain shifts in our routine etc. If we don't know how to keep the parts of earth we have left, what'll we do when they (and the species that live there) are gone?

[mondeoman]

You stole Zing! from me you little slut!

Has anybody read "Finding Darwin's God"? It was lying around at work and I found it interesting.

[richter915]

Building a tolerance doesn't mean you are evolving. I know that indian tribes would eat something from poison ivy before it sprouted all the way and it would make the poison ivy harmless to their skin later.


It doesn't contradict its self at all, It says he (God) breathed life into man, no created. It says he planted a Garden, I planted a garden when I was 7, but that doesn't mean it was the first garden ever. All it is saying is that He made the Garden of Eden. Then in genesis 2:19 it says "Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beast of the field and all the birds of the air. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them..." It doesn't say he created them there, If Adam had to go around the world looking for EVERY animal, large and small, it would take quite a long time. This was just a more convenient way to do this.

No way will science ever prove that reptiles evolved into birds. You are talking about two COMPLETELY different internal stuctures . The intermediates would of been eaten within seconds. Also no intermediates fossils have been found, and they never will unless they come from China (ZING!)

Ill get to these soon, I don't have the time right now



I Just found this site, it's pretty good. http://www.spiritual-answers.com/Life/evolution.htm
I'm not good with breaking up other people's posts so...I'll respond paragraph by paragraph.

Paragraph 1: You are wrong (well...not completely, your explanation just isn't the most logical), what the insects did was not build up a tolerance...what happened was that some insects survived the spraying because their bodies were able to handle whatever chemical was being used to kill them...as a result...these remaining insects multiplied and produced more offspring that were resistant to the chemicals...after several generations (note: generations for insects go by pretty fast)...you end up with insects completely resistant to the pesticide because all the non-resistant ones died off...if you need more examples look into the history of penicillin...penicillin is useless today because over the years, the bacteria have evolved into forms that're resistant to it...we use much stronger anti-biotics today than we did even ten or 15 years ago.

2: I don't know jack about the bible...it's just striking to me that anyone can believe that but hey...whatever.

3: Science has proved that birds are closer to crocodiles than they are to humans...and there's a lot of info supporting this theory...I'm not gonna go look up sites right now, but if you want maybe later on I will...Intermediate fossils have been found though...I mean, you've seen Jurassic Park...you know there were flying dinosaurs...right? The intermediates actually would not have been eaten because if you look at it this way...you have small land animals...eaten away left and right...soon these small land animals start jumping/hopping and they're able to evade attacks better as a result...after a while they develop wing-like structures which allow them to get just a little higher by flapping...more of these live...then after a while you get a species that can stay in flight longer thus avoiding attack longer...then finally you get a bird-like animal...so this progression shows that the intermediates were actually much better suited at surviving than other non-flying dinosaurs.

replying to that site you posted:

"If this is the case there should be millions of transitional life forms, to date none have been found."
The reason we don't find millions of transitional life forms is because not all life forms become fossils, and not only that...very few which become fossilized are found...

"With evolution; There is no observable evidence of the evolution process. There have been no experiments or testing that confirms the hypothesis, therefore one must take it on faith."
We have observed forms of micro-evolution...take that pesticide example...that's a perfect example of part of Darwin's theory...certain insects were "naturally selected" due to their genetics and they competed in an environment where their traits were favored and these traits were passed on.

"Evolution teaches that a each life form gains information and adapts ( e.g. the food supply on the African plains dwindled so the zebra added a couple of vertebrae to it's neck to reach the leaves in the tree and became a giraffe). The second law of thermodynamics, and (sound scientific observation) teaches that each generation of life loses information, mutates, and degenerates. "
First...their example is the most incorrect observation of evolution I have ever seen. That is not evolution according to darwin. The zebra didn't naturally think "there's less food...must insert bones in neck"...what happened...if anything...there were some zebra with longer necks when the food supply was short and they lived which led to populatiosn with longer necks...I hate repeating this...if you don't get what I'm saying...I'll go more in depth later. Bringing in physics to this as defense is also stupid because if evolution is true...entropy and randomness increases because you produce more species in the environment...more information on DNA (which allows for many different sequences)...

"For true evolution to occur, new information has to be added to the genome. The resistance to antibiotics has nothing to do with adding new genetic information."
an incorrect assumption is being made here...when evolution talks about new genetic information...it's actually referring to a change in allele frequency...from low to high and high to low. They bacteria example they cite...that is evolution because the frequencies of antibiotic resistant bacteria went from low to high and if all the non-resistant bacteria are wiped out...you have a new strain/species of bacteria...and this is evolution.

I can go on but I think you can see my point (plus, I don't care if Darwin believed in God or not...that should not cause any dispute about whether his work was valid or not...science and faith don't mix)...You also have to remember that evolution is still a theory...this site treats it like a law...which it isn't...it's just that compared to most any other theory...the survival of the fittest theory has the most support.

someone better have read all of this or else I'm pissed.

[richter915]

That doesn't mean the new off-spring are stronger, it just means the less capable are dead. That really isn't evolution is it?
That's right...the new offspring are not stronger in the terms you and I know of...but according to darwin...they are more "fit". The Darwinian definition of fitness is based on how many fertile offspring you produce. That's why when a horse and a Donkey produce a mule (which is sterile)...it cannot lead to a new species, therefore it is not evolution.

what do you mean I only believe in pictures...there are examples of all this happening...fossils are physical evidence of changing species.

I have no idea where you get this crazy story of how this "animal" or intermediate or whatever avoided attacks without ever finding his fossils. Also what does being more in common with Crocodiles than humans have to do with anything? How would this animal survive if it needed millions of years to evolve?
It's really simple...not everything fossilizes...there are plenty of animals you and I and the world will never know about because of this...in order for there to be signficiant fossils of any species...they have to be widespread, populous, and have been around for a long time...we know today that dinosaurs were around much longer than humans...and even with that we find so few of their remains. A lot of fossils also turn into coal and sediment (fossil fuels, get it?). It doesn't matter that birds are close to humans but by being closely related to a reptile is phylogenetic proof that birds may have come from dinosaurs. There are fossils of the intermediate... http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/diapsids/birds/archaeopteryx.html

"It is actually intermediate between the birds that we see flying around in our backyards and the predatory dinosaurs like Deinonychus. In fact, one skeleton of Archaeopteryx that had poorly preserved feathers was originally described as a skeleton of a small bipedal dinosaur, Compsognathus. A total of seven specimens of the bird are known at this time."

ya the rest of the stuff we more or less agree on so there's no use in talking about. I'm not too fond of that site because it provides pretty shady evidence and they more or less say you're an unamerican communist if you support evolution. I don't know what evolutionists say that about creationism but whatever.

[richter915]

Gen... Yup, I'm about the quote the bible.. again.
Genesis 1:20 says "So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds of the air and all the beasts of the field.
right that doesn't prove anything...that quote acknowledges different forms of animals...I agree that there are different forms of animals...different species...but within species...why are there differences?

[sleepygrlgreen]

Someone's gettin his butt kicked.