• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Evolution in action, in real time.

Dittohead not!

master political analyst
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 3, 2009
Messages
51,191
Reaction score
33,345
Location
The Golden State
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Australian lizards on verge of evolutionary leap

Scientists observing a small group of Australian lizards very closely, believe they may be watching evolution happen right before their eyes.

A variety of Australian skink - like snake but with four tiny legs - is slowly starting abandon egg laying and beginning to give birth to live offspring like a mammal does.
I saw this one on another forum, and decided to post it here as well. Quite interesting, isn't it? evolution in action!
 

Cardinal

Respected on both sides
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 20, 2008
Messages
76,673
Reaction score
56,425
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
The example of "evolution in action" is found in a lot more mundane ways as well. Through constant incidences of species extinction (man made or not), the survivors that can deal with the changes survive to procreate.

No it's not glamorous, but it's evolution just the same.
 

spud_meister

Veni, vidi, dormivi!
Dungeon Master
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 6, 2009
Messages
36,133
Reaction score
21,529
Location
Didjabringabeeralong
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Communist
Wow, that's pretty amazing, the skink in question is the Saiphos equalis.
 
Joined
Aug 10, 2010
Messages
124
Reaction score
4
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
hey this post wasin another forum as awell lol
 

NaturalBorn

New member
Joined
Aug 29, 2010
Messages
6
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Adaptation is not evolution. It is still a Skink.
 

Korimyr the Rat

Baby Eating Monster
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 1, 2006
Messages
19,550
Reaction score
15,754
Location
Cheyenne, WY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Adaptation is not evolution. It is still a Skink.
Where did you go to school? As a taxpayer, I want a refund.

That is not how evolution works. What happens is that a species evolves over time, so that two different groups of the same species resemble each other less and less, gradually, until they are no longer genetically compatible and thus no longer members of the same species. Animals do not spontaneously just become different species overnight.
 

NaturalBorn

New member
Joined
Aug 29, 2010
Messages
6
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Okay. Then where are the millions of fossils of these transitional forms?
 

marduc

don't panic
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
5,329
Reaction score
3,588
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Okay. Then where are the millions of fossils of these transitional forms?
These kinds of transitional fossils, or are you going to say you want the transitions between the transitions?





 

Dittohead not!

master political analyst
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 3, 2009
Messages
51,191
Reaction score
33,345
Location
The Golden State
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
All of the above are simply facts. How can we use those to counter irrationality?
 

Cardinal

Respected on both sides
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 20, 2008
Messages
76,673
Reaction score
56,425
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
All of the above are simply facts. How can we use those to counter irrationality?
You usually can't.

How facts backfire - The Boston Globe

Recently, a few political scientists have begun to discover a human tendency deeply discouraging to anyone with faith in the power of information. It’s this: Facts don’t necessarily have the power to change our minds. In fact, quite the opposite. In a series of studies in 2005 and 2006, researchers at the University of Michigan found that when misinformed people, particularly political partisans, were exposed to corrected facts in news stories, they rarely changed their minds. In fact, they often became even more strongly set in their beliefs. Facts, they found, were not curing misinformation. Like an underpowered antibiotic, facts could actually make misinformation even stronger.

This bodes ill for a democracy, because most voters — the people making decisions about how the country runs — aren’t blank slates. They already have beliefs, and a set of facts lodged in their minds. The problem is that sometimes the things they think they know are objectively, provably false. And in the presence of the correct information, such people react very, very differently than the merely uninformed. Instead of changing their minds to reflect the correct information, they can entrench themselves even deeper.

“The general idea is that it’s absolutely threatening to admit you’re wrong,” says political scientist Brendan Nyhan, the lead researcher on the Michigan study. The phenomenon — known as “backfire” — is “a natural defense mechanism to avoid that cognitive dissonance.”
Naturally, this study can be used by both sides to show that the other is impervious to facts.
 

GarzaUK

That European Guy
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 28, 2005
Messages
3,682
Reaction score
625
Location
Belfast, Northern Ireland
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
It is remarkable that people still insist we have not found transitional fossils when we have found hundreds, including our own Genus.
 

idk

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 9, 2009
Messages
688
Reaction score
270
Location
various spots across the country
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
It is remarkable that people still insist we have not found transitional fossils when we have found hundreds, including our own Genus.
For every transitional fossil discovered, two missing transitional fossils appear.
 

GarzaUK

That European Guy
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 28, 2005
Messages
3,682
Reaction score
625
Location
Belfast, Northern Ireland
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
For every transitional fossil discovered, two missing transitional fossils appear.
That could continue indefinitely then and so on. So you are saying we should ignore the tranistional fossil C between A to E because B & D have yet to be discovered? So you are saying that when we found a fossil of ape with a chimpanzee sixed brain, yet walks upright like us we should ignore it until every single species has been discovered from shared ancestor to us? Get your head out of your ass please.

At least you admit transitional fossils exist tho, its something.
 

Dittohead not!

master political analyst
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 3, 2009
Messages
51,191
Reaction score
33,345
Location
The Golden State
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
You usually can't.

How facts backfire - The Boston Globe



Naturally, this study can be used by both sides to show that the other is impervious to facts.
Yes, I think we had a thread about that very subject.

And yes, the study can be used by either side in an argument to show that the other is impervious to facts, and probably with some justification.

In the case of the creationism vs evolution debate, all of the facts are on the side of evolution.
 

Technocratic

Active member
Joined
Sep 7, 2010
Messages
359
Reaction score
103
Location
Soviet Technate
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Well, given all species are transitional anyway not static forever...wouldn't every fossil be transitional, unless the line terminates?
 

Demon of Light

Bohemian Revolutionary
DP Veteran
Joined
May 7, 2010
Messages
5,095
Reaction score
1,544
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Well, until someone builds a time machine, goes back, and checks it is still just a theory based on a theory based on a theory. Not saying you should believe it didn't happen. Only saying that anyone who gets bitchy about the issue is a douche.
 

ScottD

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 10, 2009
Messages
977
Reaction score
412
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
For every transitional fossil discovered, two missing transitional fossils appear.
Some which may never be found. Not every skeleton becomes a fossil. Becoming a fossil is a rare thing.

Some casual observers have been perplexed by the rarity of transitional species within the fossil record. The conventional explanation for this rarity was given by Darwin, who stated that "the extreme imperfection of the geological record," combined with the short duration and narrow geographical range of transitional species, made it unlikely that many such fossils would be found. Simply put, the conditions under which fossilization takes place are quite rare; and it is highly unlikely that any given organism will leave behind a fossil.
Fossil - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 

GarzaUK

That European Guy
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 28, 2005
Messages
3,682
Reaction score
625
Location
Belfast, Northern Ireland
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Well, until someone builds a time machine, goes back, and checks it is still just a theory based on a theory based on a theory. Not saying you should believe it didn't happen. Only saying that anyone who gets bitchy about the issue is a douche.
People get douchey about it when people try and misrepresent it.

Even if you did have access to a time machine are you expecting animals to evolve in front of your eyes? A scientific theory is collection of law and facts that explain an area in science. A theory hold greater weight than a law or a fact. Saying that it is only a theory is to expose the lack of knowledge of the scientific method of the person who says it.
 

Dittohead not!

master political analyst
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 3, 2009
Messages
51,191
Reaction score
33,345
Location
The Golden State
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Well, until someone builds a time machine, goes back, and checks it is still just a theory based on a theory based on a theory. Not saying you should believe it didn't happen. Only saying that anyone who gets bitchy about the issue is a douche.
No, it is a theory based on facts and observations made over a century and a half. It is not a "theory", as in a political theory or someone's notion, but a scientific theory, which is quite a different thing altogether.

But, you're right that there is no point in getting "bitchy" about the whole thing. What is, is, regardless of anyone's desire to believe ore not to believe.
 

Demon of Light

Bohemian Revolutionary
DP Veteran
Joined
May 7, 2010
Messages
5,095
Reaction score
1,544
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Even if you did have access to a time machine are you expecting animals to evolve in front of your eyes?
Hardly, but it would be possible to clearly tie species x to species y by a gradual process of adaptation. Conceivably one could move from period to period in order to see the transitions and empirically test them. Since we cannot do this and time travel is most likely impossible then anyone saying it is a fact that man descended from ape is simply wrong.

A theory hold greater weight than a law or a fact.
Bull****. Laws and facts are observed reality. To say a theory holds greater weight than a law is like saying we can be more confident that man-made CO2 emissions cause global warming than we can be about the very existence of global warming.

No, it is a theory based on facts and observations made over a century and a half. It is not a "theory", as in a political theory or someone's notion, but a scientific theory, which is quite a different thing altogether.
I know the difference between a scientific theory and a guess. I took science in elementary school too. Now micro-evolution is something I would describe as a law or fact because it can be empirically proven. Speciation is still a theory. It is a logically-sound theory, but still it is not a law or fact.
 

Dittohead not!

master political analyst
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 3, 2009
Messages
51,191
Reaction score
33,345
Location
The Golden State
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Hardly, but it would be possible to clearly tie species x to species y by a gradual process of adaptation. Conceivably one could move from period to period in order to see the transitions and empirically test them. Since we cannot do this and time travel is most likely impossible then anyone saying it is a fact that man descended from ape is simply wrong.



Bull****. Laws and facts are observed reality. To say a theory holds greater weight than a law is like saying we can be more confident that man-made CO2 emissions cause global warming than we can be about the very existence of global warming.



I know the difference between a scientific theory and a guess. I took science in elementary school too. Now micro-evolution is something I would describe as a law or fact because it can be empirically proven. Speciation is still a theory. It is a logically-sound theory, but still it is not a law or fact.
Given the content of your posts, I'm not so sure you really do understand what constitutes a scientific theory, as opposed to an hypothesis, or a non scientific theory. I'm sure you think you do, but the rest of your post argues that you don't.

Micro evolution is not a scientific term.

Just out of curiosity, how do you explain the fact that human beings share 98% of our DNA with the chimpanzees?
 

Demon of Light

Bohemian Revolutionary
DP Veteran
Joined
May 7, 2010
Messages
5,095
Reaction score
1,544
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Given the content of your posts, I'm not so sure you really do understand what constitutes a scientific theory, as opposed to an hypothesis, or a non scientific theory. I'm sure you think you do, but the rest of your post argues that you don't.
Really? How so? A hypothesis is essentially an educated guess. Theories are generally much stronger in that several educated guesses stemming from the root hypothesis have proven accurate or that some form of experimentation or observable phenomenon has given weight to the original hypothesis.

Micro evolution is not a scientific term.
Yes, it is in fact a scientific term. By all means look it up if you think otherwise.

Just out of curiosity, how do you explain the fact that human beings share 98% of our DNA with the chimpanzees?
I explain it as humans and chimps sharing similar biological features that would merit the similarity in basic genetic structure. :mrgreen:
 
Top Bottom