Debate Topic

[ThatGamer]

Why don't you all follow an animal around and observe it to see if it changes? Science!

[Ruto]

Yeah fren but I never said anything about that science didn't deny that, just that they did

Yeah I figured you wouldn't have missed that detail, but just in case! <3 Also, a way to plug include that site. Woooo!

Uh oh, Jamaha said something and he's right as usual. But it takes about a thousand generations for a species to accumulate enough mutations to appear different. I heard that with fruit flies in the lab. That's a lot of breeding. The oldest recorded family tree started at 2,500 years ago and there are about 80 generations only. So 80 generations since the 5th century BCE. Not enough breeding for noticeable mutations.

Also, humans have 1-4% of Neandertal DNA so yes, humans have had some strange breeding attempts that ended up being successful.

Did anyone read the stuff on that site? The explanations are all cited and stuff.

I've never heard anyone in the department use micro/macroevolution, btw.

[Pianist Da Sootopolis]

Why don't you all follow an animal around and observe it to see if it changes? Science!

Almost as good as the classic "If humans evolved from monkeys then why do monkeys still exist".

[mikey]

You're welcome to throw six random elements around in a completely disorganized and random manner and somehow make a unicellular organism.
But whatever you do you're not allowed to make the process happen because that would be playing God.

[blueflower999]

"Six random elements" makes life sound so simple that it could actually come together at random.

[mikey]

CHNOPS, you know?

[Dudeman]

Bombadier beetle. How in the heck did that thing evolve without blowing itself up?

Also, microevolution never translates into macroevolution. When those gray creatures separated, they were the same species. As their fur color changed, they were still the same species. As other adaptations appeared, they were still the same species. There has to be a point where suddenly one of those groups produced an animal that wasn't the same species as the other group. But then it wouldn't have been able to reproduce with its own kind successfully. So it would have died off.

[Sebastian]

Yay! Jamaha is here to chap!

[Ruto]

Bombadier beetle. How in the heck did that thing evolve without blowing itself up?

Have you been reading this site? They answer the beetle question directly:

Claim CB310.1:

The bombardier beetle would explode if the hydrogen peroxide and hydroquinone that produce their ejecta were mixed without a chemical inhibitor. Such a combination of chemicals could not have evolved.
Source:

Gish, Duane T., 1977. Dinosaurs: Those Terrible Lizards. El Cajon, CA: Master Book, pp. 51-52.
Hitching, Francis, 1982. The Neck of the Giraffe, New York: Meridian, p. 68.
AIG, 1990. The amazing bombardier beetle. Creation Ex Nihilo 12(1): 29.

Response:

1) That description of bombardier beetles' physiology is inaccurate. It is based on a sloppy translation of a 1961 German article by Schildknecht and Holoubek (Kofahl 1981). Hydrogen peroxide and hydroquinone do not explode when mixed (Dawkins 1986, 86-87). What actually happens is this: Secretory cells produce a mixture of hydroquinones and hydrogen peroxide (and perhaps other chemicals), which collects in a reservoir. To produce the blast, the beetle releases some of this mixture into a reaction chamber, where catalases and peroxidases cause the mixture to oxidize in chemical reactions that generate enough heat to vaporize about a fifth of the mixture. The pressure of the released gasses causes the heated mixture to be expelled explosively from the beetle's abdomen (Aneshansley and Eisner 1969; Aneshansley et al. 1983; Eisner et al. 1989).

2) There is no reason to consider the evolution of bombardier beetles implausible. See Bombardier Beetle Evolution.

3) The bombardier beetle is often used as an example of evidence for design. How can such arguments be taken seriously when the people making them do not even know how their example works?

Here is the answer to "there is no mate for the first of the species" question.

1) This objection falsely assumes that speciation must happen suddenly when one individual gives rise to an individual of another species. In fact, populations, not individuals, evolve, and most speciation occurs gradually. In one common mode of speciation ("allopatric" speciation), two populations of the same species are split apart geographically. Small changes accumulate in both populations, causing them to be more and more different from each other. Eventually, the differences are great enough that the two populations cannot interbreed when they do get together (Otte and Endler 1989).

It is also possible for speciation to occur without the geographical separation (sympatric speciation; see Diekmann and Doebeli 1999; Kondrashov and Kondrashov 1999; Otte and Endler 1989), but the process is still gradual.

2) Sometimes new species can form suddenly, but this occurs with species that are asexual or hermaphroditic and do not need to find mates.

[Dudeman]

Sure, populations may evolve together, but they still have to evolve. This doesn't change the fact that there is a point where a population's species changes from another's. Simply saying that they eventually were incompatible does not explain how they became that way. One population still has to produce a mutant that is not the same species as the other population, which is the same species as the first population. One population does not suddenly turn into a different species due to adaptation. Even if they are aesthetically different, unless one population has generated a different species at some point, they will still breed.

Take dogs, for example. There are almost 340 different breeds of dogs. That's a lot of diversity. Many are separated significantly geographically. If you compare a pug to a golden retriever, an uninformed observer would probably think they are different species. But every breed of dog can breed with every other breed of dog. By the argument you're presenting, that doesn't make any sense. They should be different species. And a lot of dog breeds have been guided by intelligence (read:humans). Surely that would make it even more likely for those dogs to evolve into different species. But they haven't.

And as for the beetle: thanks for informing me about the chemicals. I now see that, on their own, the chemicals serve no purpose and need those catalysts in place to create the explosion. So no, the beetle wouldn't explode. It would, however, need to evolve all those chemicals and all those catalysts at the same time in order for them to be useful. At any point, if the beetle evolved the ability to secrete even one of those chemicals without the others, it would serve no purpose. The mutation would not be beneficial and, thus, it would not survive according to natural selection.

[Jub3r7]

hahaha dogs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aCv10_WvGxo

[FireArrow]

Dudeman, instead of using not understanding something as evidence, learn about it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciation

Sure, populations may evolve together, but they still have to evolve. This doesn't change the fact that there is a point where a population's species changes from another's. Simply saying that they eventually were incompatible does not explain how they became that way. One population still has to produce a mutant that is not the same species as the other population, which is the same species as the first population. One population does not suddenly turn into a different species due to adaptation. Even if they are aesthetically different, unless one population has generated a different species at some point, they will still breed.

Say you have two green flashlights that slowly change frequencies. Flashlight A is slowly increasing while Flashlight B is slowly decreasing, thus logically it'll reach a point in time where they are different. So with your logic, you'd say that because there is an arbitrary point where they change classifications, this simply cannot happen?

Take dogs, for example. There are almost 340 different breeds of dogs. That's a lot of diversity. Many are separated significantly geographically. If you compare a pug to a golden retriever, an uninformed observer would probably think they are different species. But every breed of dog can breed with every other breed of dog. By the argument you're presenting, that doesn't make any sense. They should be different species. And a lot of dog breeds have been guided by intelligence (read:humans). Surely that would make it even more likely for those dogs to evolve into different species. But they haven't.

You mean the artificial selection of domesticated dogs in a relatively short time frame? The majority of dog breeds today are only a few centuries old, that would be pretty impressive if they became new species so quickly.

And as for the beetle: thanks for informing me about the chemicals. I now see that, on their own, the chemicals serve no purpose and need those catalysts in place to create the explosion. So no, the beetle wouldn't explode. It would, however, need to evolve all those chemicals and all those catalysts at the same time in order for them to be useful. At any point, if the beetle evolved the ability to secrete even one of those chemicals without the others, it would serve no purpose. The mutation would not be beneficial and, thus, it would not survive according to natural selection.

If producing the chemical had no negative effect then it would not be selected against.

[Dudeman]

Say you have two green flashlights that slowly change frequencies. Flashlight A is slowly increasing while Flashlight B is slowly decreasing, thus logically it'll reach a point in time where they are different. So with your logic, you'd say that because there is an arbitrary point where they change classifications, this simply cannot happen?

You can't compare this to the evolution of animals. An animal does not "gradually" change its species. There is absolutely no evidence for this. Speciation has not occurred in recorded history. No animal is no longer able to breed today with something today that it was able to breed with a few thousand years ago.
Unless you'd like to show me an animal that is currently undergoing speciation, in which case, be my guest.
And last time I checked, flashlights don't produce offspring.

You mean the artificial selection of domesticated dogs in a relatively short time frame? The majority of dog breeds today are only a few centuries old, that would be pretty impressive if they became new species so quickly.

So, a few centuries isn't enough time for an animal's species to have changed in even the slightest bit when specifically guided by intelligence to have changes in its genetics, while several million years guided by purely random mutations (which, by a vast majority, produce bad results) is enough to create thousands upon thousands of different species?

If producing the chemical had no negative effect then it would not be selected against.

But it would not necessarily be selected, either. It serves no purpose until every single other chemical, catalyst, chamber, and process has evolved in the beetle, and it has to know what the heck this stuff is and how to use it. As ar as I know, you can't evolve instinct.

EDIT: I read through the speciation article. I must say, it was a fascinating read on the different forms of microevolution. The assumption that microevolution turns into macroevolution is fallacious. There is no evidence for it. None.

[Ruto]

It's 2015 and I understand if people feel like they don't need to defend a theory fundamental to biology. No one debates gravity, after all.

You can't compare this to the evolution of animals. An animal does not "gradually" change its species. There is absolutely no evidence for this. Speciation has not occurred in recorded history. No animal is no longer able to breed today with something today that it was able to breed with a few thousand years ago.

There is a LOT of evidence that you've chosen to ignore. I've said and even Jub's video said that there isn't enough time/generations for something like mammal species to differentiate. It took scientists 1000 generations of fruitflies to see a physical change in the species, and there hasn't even been CLOSE to 1000 generations of humans since Socrates/Confucius (only about 80). One thousand years isn't enough time. If you were to use dogs as an example...let's say it takes 3 years for it to reach maturity and reproduce. Then it needs 3000 years for 1000 generations. How many years since Victorian England? 200? Reread the speciation article, or better yet, the site I keep linking.

Unless you'd like to show me an animal that is currently undergoing speciation, in which case, be my guest.

It would be ridiculous to demand to see this happening, as all changes within a person's genes are already decided when they're born. You'd have to go into the time when the sperm meets the egg and the DNA stuff happens there.

So, a few centuries isn't enough time for an animal's species to have changed in even the slightest bit when specifically guided by intelligence to have changes in its genetics

Yes, we have said that over and over again about needing more time. Dog breeding isn't a good example of intelligence after all, imo. After all, no one thinks inbreeding is intelligent, just incredibly selfish. The inbred humans they mentioned in that fun video brings me to this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_II_of_Spain (The Habsburg ruler of Spain)

Charles II's genome was actually more homozygous than that of a child whose parents are siblings.[6] He was born physically and mentally disabled, and disfigured. Possibly through affliction with mandibular prognathism, he was barely able to chew.[6] His tongue was so large that his speech could barely be understood, and he frequently drooled.[6] It has been suggested that he suffered from the endocrine disease acromegaly, or his inbred lineage may have led to a combination of rare genetic disorders such as combined pituitary hormone deficiency and distal renal tubular acidosis.[6]

The physician who practiced [Charles II's] autopsy stated that his body "did not contain a single drop of blood; his heart was the size of a peppercorn; his lungs corroded; his intestines rotten and gangrenous; he had a single testicle, black as coal, and his head was full of water."[12]
American historians Will and Ariel Durant described Charles II as "short, lame, epileptic, senile, and completely bald before 35, he was always on the verge of death, but repeatedly baffled Christendom by continuing to live."[10]

[/i]

while several million years guided by purely random mutations (which, by a vast majority, produce bad results) is enough to create thousands upon thousands of different species?But it would not necessarily be selected, either..

While mutations can be random, remember that certain traits are selected. The ones that favor the animal's survival get passed on.

It serves no purpose until every single other chemical, catalyst, chamber, and process has evolved in the beetle, and it has to know what the heck this stuff is and how to use it

Oh look, it's the "too complex to have evolved" argument. It's been answered at least once on the site.

"This is the quintessential example of the argument from incredulity. The source making the claim usually quotes Darwin saying that the evolution of the eye seems "absurd in the highest degree". However, Darwin follows that statement with a three-and-a-half-page proposal of intermediate stages through which eyes might have evolved via gradual steps (Darwin 1872).

-photosensitive cell
-aggregates of pigment cells without a nerve
-an optic nerve surrounded by pigment cells and covered by translucent skin
-pigment cells forming a small depression
-pigment cells forming a deeper depression
-the skin over the depression taking a lens shape
-muscles allowing the lens to adjust

All of these steps are known to be viable because all exist in animals living today. The increments between these steps are slight and may be broken down into even smaller increments. Natural selection should, under many circumstances, favor the increments. Since eyes do not fossilize well, we do not know that the development of the eye followed exactly that path, but we certainly cannot claim that no path exists.

Evidence for one step in the evolution of the vertebrate eye comes from comparative anatomy and genetics. The vertebrate βγ-crystallin genes, which code for several proteins crucial for the lens, are very similar to the Ciona βγ-crystallin gene. Ciona is an urochordate, a distant relative of vertebrates. Ciona's single βγ-crystallin gene is expressed in its otolith, a pigmented sister cell of the light-sensing ocellus. The origin of the lens appears to be based on co-optation of previously existing elements in a lensless system."

Nilsson and Pelger (1994) calculated that if each step were a 1 percent change, the evolution of the eye would take 1,829 steps, which could happen in 364,000 generations.

EDIT: I read through the speciation article. I must say, it was a fascinating read on the different forms of microevolution. The assumption that microevolution turns into macroevolution is fallacious. There is no evidence for it. None.

Read the article again. Or better yet, something on evolution as a whole.

@Jubby's video
Hahaha I didn't know that much about dog breeding. My sister was talking about those annoying little dogs popular with women, and I asked whether owners need to get them fixed in case they start mounting each other in the park. She said the dog was sterile and I thought that was pretty cruel. But it's great business for the pet store owner, since no one can breed the dogs he sells (by accident).

[Dudeman]

So...basically you're saying that we need more time and any evidence there may be is too far back in the past to observe.


That doesn't sound like science to me.

EDIT:

No one debates gravity, after all.

We can observe gravity in action. We cannot observe evolution in action.