Jump to content

Evilution Being Observed


scitsofreaky
 Share

Recommended Posts

Evolutionary Shifts In Olfactory Sensitivities In Fruit Flies

How do an animal's senses change as it evolves to occupy a new ecological niche? By comparing the olfactory system of the fruit fly Drosophila melanogaster, which feeds from multiple fruit types, with that of its sibling species D. sechellia, a specialist particularly drawn to a single fruit type, researchers have demonstrated how evolution can act on several different levels of a sensory system to create a supersensitive detection system for a specific food source and egg-laying environment.

The findings are reported by researchers Teun Dekker, Irene Ibba, Purayil Siju, Marcus Stensmyr, and Bill S. Hansson of the Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences.

 

Most insects rely on their olfactory system to detect mates, food, and egg-laying sites. This also holds true for fruit flies in the genera Drosophila. Both the peripheral and the central olfactory systems have been mapped in detail in D. melanogaster, an important model organism for research. However, nine sibling species of D. melanogaster are less well characterized. One of these species, D. sechellia--as its name suggests, it is endemic to the Seychelles islands--relies exclusively on one fruit, called the morinda fruit, for egg-laying. This fruit, which smells of gorgonzola and pineapple, is toxic to, and shunned by, D. melanogaster and other sibling fruit fly species.

 

In their new work, the researchers show that the main cue used by D. sechellia when locating morinda fruit is methyl hexanoate (MeHex), which possesses a pineapple-like odor. The researchers found that olfactory hairs (sensilla) on the antenna that house receptor neurons specific to the MeHex odor have become three times more numerous, and one hundred times more sensitive, in D. sechellia than in the sibling species D. melanogaster. In parallel, a specific brain area (a so-called olfactory glomerulus) that receives input from the MeHex-specific neurons is significantly increased in size in D. sechellia. The researchers' findings indicate that the relative overexpression of MeHex-specific receptor neurons in D. sechellia compared to D. melanogaster has occurred at the expense of two other types of sensilla.

 

The work suggests that the evolution of a specialized olfactory system can occur during a limited evolutionary time span, and at several different levels of neural organization. More broadly speaking, the findings contribute to our understanding of the evolution of sensory systems and their adaptation to new conditions and resources.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 60
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Now a creationist might argue that both species were created in their respective manners, since this is a static observation of the present number and types of sensilla in both species.

While this observation can be used as indirect evidence that evolution had occurred, you need something more substantial to attest conclusively that evolution had indeed occurred.

For example, it might be helpful to demonstrate that Drosophila melanogaster and D. sechellia share a common ancestor, or the fossil record (?if any) shows a trend of elevated number of MethHex sensilla in D. sechellia.

It's compelling evidence, but don't give it a title like "evilution being observed" without providing the other pieces of evidence to make that claim.

Otherwise, you just leave holes for asshat fundies to come in here and make a mess of things.

 

FYI: I accept the findings and postulations of the TOE, until demostrable, observable, compelling evidence conclusively proves otherwise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"I accept the findings and postulations of the TOE, until demostrable, observable, compelling evidence conclusively proves otherwise."

 

 

Compelling counter-evidence is more than abundant at the molecular level. Enzyme function during DNA replcation easily stands as such. Specific replication enzymes exist to detect and repair any copy errors that occur during the process, They are exquisitely effective and accurate in doing this. One in a billion errors makes it past this check and repair function.

 

What this means for the TOE is that ultra-complcated proteins supposedly formed accidentally and serve specifically and deliberately to prevent mutations. In other woros, abiogenesis/evolution designed mechanisms whose function is to prohibit evolution.

 

There is your demonstrable evidence.

 

You may now disregard indisputable facts and return to your religious faith.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"I accept the findings and postulations of the TOE, until demostrable, observable, compelling evidence conclusively proves otherwise."

 

 

Compelling counter-evidence is more than abundant at the molecular level. Enzyme function during DNA replcation easily stands as such. Specific replication enzymes exist to detect and repair any copy errors that occur during the process, They are exquisitely effective and accurate in doing this. One in a billion errors makes it past this check and repair function.

 

What this means for the TOE is that ultra-complcated proteins supposedly formed accidentally and serve specifically and deliberately to prevent mutations. In other woros, abiogenesis/evolution designed mechanisms whose function is to prohibit evolution.

 

There is your demonstrable evidence.

 

You may now disregard indisputable facts and return to your religious faith.

And you have yet to give us one, just one, evidence of genesis, or an experiment or test that confirms genesis.

 

 

Mutations occur and are observed and is a huge part of medicine development. Cancer is a mutation, and how big percent of people get cancer? According to you it's impossible for them to get it, since mutations can not occur. So where does cancer come from? From your good God? Or is the Devil a creator too? Was the world created by God and the Devil?

 

And secondly, mathematically, genetic algorithms does work, and have been used to solve technical problems, more efficiently than regular polynomial formulae.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You may now disregard indisputable facts and return to your religious faith.

You know what? You can keep your faith. We reject faith. So take your faith, and take it to someone who really cares about it.

 

:puts the assjack on the ignore list, as he probably doesn't have anything constructive to say:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

“And you have yet to give us one, just one, evidence of genesis, or an experiment or test that confirms genesis.”

 

I’ve learned not to waste my time assembling a case that you are not capable of processing objectively, just as you did not do with my prior post. Can you dispute the enzyme function? Is what I said technically incorrect?

 

Concerning the Genesis account, I will ask a fair question.

 

Sedimentary formations cover about 75% if the exposed surface of the earth. They are thousands of feet deep. Sediments means that the particles that compose the rock were at one time suspended in water.

 

Where did the material which forms the sediments come from?

 

 

”Mutations occur and are observed and is a huge part of medicine development. Cancer is a mutation, and how big percent of people get cancer?”

 

So cancer and other destructive mutations are your explanation for millions of species supposedly having arisen from a single one-celled organism? You are only restating that mutations, rare as they are, are most often destructive if they are noticeable at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"I accept the findings and postulations of the TOE, until demostrable, observable, compelling evidence conclusively proves otherwise."

 

 

Compelling counter-evidence is more than abundant at the molecular level. Enzyme function during DNA replcation easily stands as such. Specific replication enzymes exist to detect and repair any copy errors that occur during the process, They are exquisitely effective and accurate in doing this. One in a billion errors makes it past this check and repair function.

 

What this means for the TOE is that ultra-complcated proteins supposedly formed accidentally and serve specifically and deliberately to prevent mutations. In other woros, abiogenesis/evolution designed mechanisms whose function is to prohibit evolution.

 

There is your demonstrable evidence.

 

You may now disregard indisputable facts and return to your religious faith.

Of course, if you actually gave us some form of reference so that we could check this out ourselves, rather than just claiming it and expecting us to believe you... Until you do, it's not evidence, it's not demonstratable and it's not indisputable.

 

Concerning the Genesis account, I will ask a fair question.

 

Sedimentary formations cover about 75% if the exposed surface of the earth. They are thousands of feet deep. Sediments means that the particles that compose the rock were at one time suspended in water.

 

Where did the material which forms the sediments come from?

Someone here doesn't know about Erosion, the Water Cycle and Plate Techtonics...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

“And you have yet to give us one, just one, evidence of genesis, or an experiment or test that confirms genesis.”

 

I’ve learned not to waste my time assembling a case that you are not capable of processing objectively, just as you did not do with my prior post. Can you dispute the enzyme function? Is what I said technically incorrect?

The enzyme function doesn't prove genesis. It only proves that we don't know enough yet. And it also proves that you don't know enough yet. What about the enzyme function? It proves evolution. And then you say, evolution couldn't have made it, then I say, it could, then you say it couldn't, then I say it could... etc. It doesn't prove anything. It only proves your ignorance and lack of knowledge. Because you DONT KNOW HOW THE ENZYME CAME TO BE!!! Prove it was God that created it! PROVE IT! Prove it was created and not evolved!

 

Concerning the Genesis account, I will ask a fair question.

 

Sedimentary formations cover about 75% if the exposed surface of the earth. They are thousands of feet deep. Sediments means that the particles that compose the rock were at one time suspended in water.

Doesn't prove creationism either. Only proves what you said, but it doesn't prove creationism. Does it prove NON-EVOLUTION? No! It only proves what the facts says, and so what? Still doesn't prove creation. It proves evolution just as much, if I so want. So again, give an undeniable proof of genesis.

 

Where did the material which forms the sediments come from?

From the formation of Earth, but not the creation of Earth.

 

”Mutations occur and are observed and is a huge part of medicine development. Cancer is a mutation, and how big percent of people get cancer?”

 

So cancer and other destructive mutations are your explanation for millions of species supposedly having arisen from a single one-celled organism? You are only restating that mutations, rare as they are, are most often destructive if they are noticeable at all.

So you agree finally that mutations do occur? You have until now denied mutations to happen. You stated they're so frakkin rare. How can that be with so many getting cancer? And how can virus and bacteria be observed in laboratories to mutate? If it is so friggin rare, why does it happen so friggin much?

 

And you say they're only destructive, how can you say that when you believe they barely happen ever? How can you see or say such a thing when according to you they don't happen? You can't see their destructive power if they don't happen, can you?

 

*edit*

 

Okay, I took your challenge. I looked in the Bible... I couldn't find the verse where it said: "And God then created sedimentary formations to cover 75% of the exposed surface of the earth. He created them 1000 feet deep, to show the infidels in the end of time that they once were suspended in water."

 

Please, give me the verses so I can see the connection between geological findings and genesis.

 

 

And Scitso, I'm sorry for hijacking this thread, I think it's time TxViper show his true face. He's been trolling way to much, and it's time for him to come clean.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And Scitso, I'm sorry for hijacking this thread, I think it's time TxViper show his true face. He's been trolling way to much, and it's time for him to come clean.
No problem. I hoped that he would keep his asshat self outta my thread, but I don't blame you guys for responding. Just don't expect me to read it :)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"It proves evolution just as much, if I so want."

 

This is a very telling and candid admission.

 

Relentless pursuit of the truth vs. relentlessly interpreting things according to what you want the truth to be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"It proves evolution just as much, if I so want."

 

This is a very telling and candid admission.

 

Relentless pursuit of the truth vs. relentlessly interpreting things according to what you want the truth to be.

And you're not? So you admit that all your insight into science, evolution, geology and cosmology is only based on your faith, and nothing observable and testable in a scientific way? So you admit that your notion of reality is based on fiction and fantasy? You see things, because you believe them to exist, instead of observing and make a rational thought about it?

 

What is most likely explanation to a phenomena?

 

Is it 1 out of 30,000 different kinds of Gods that refuses to be proven, or just a simple natural explanation?

 

Why do we have thunderstorms? Is it because Thor is swinging his hammer while his charriot is crossing the sky, or could it have a natural explanation? You tell me.

 

You don't believe in science, but you believe in a book that was written by someone else. You put a lot of trust into people you never met, and into ideas you can't test or prove, and you refuse to take a natural look at things and realize that not all in the world have to be supernatural.

 

Let's argue about this on a hypothetical level. With or without a God, evolution can still be true. Even abiogenesis can be true, even if God would exist. God could have used abiogenesis to create life. God could have used evolution to create all the animals and life forms. You don't know if he didn't!

 

So now again, give me a proof that God CREATED the world and life, without evolution.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"It proves evolution just as much, if I so want."

 

This is a very telling and candid admission.

 

Relentless pursuit of the truth vs. relentlessly interpreting things according to what you want the truth to be.

Interesting how he uses the answer to a question about a PROVEN NATURAL SET OF PROCESSES that in no way is evidence for Creationism, even though he touted it as evidence for Creationism, to make an attack accusing people of doing EXACTLY WHAT HE'S BEEN DOING ALL ALONG!

 

 

 

Look, tx... you tried to claim they found Dinosaur soft tissue. That was shown to be an out and out lie.

You tried to claim that mutations were rare. (as in, very rarely happened) With 120 per cell, that was also shown to be a lie.

You tried to claim that mutations were nothing more than copy-errors. There are things out there that mutate the DNA without it being copied, so that claim is also a lie.

You have been caught out quote-mining so often it's boring, but you also claim you don't... Another lie.

You claimed that Crocodiles have avoided any percievable mutations for the last 150 Million years. You were shown that the crocodiles from 120 Million years ago were VASTLY different to modern crocodiles, so that claim was a lie.

In an attempt to show that the crocodiles from 120 Million years ago aren't related to modern crocodiles, you show that crocodiles 150 Million years ago didn't actually exist! Still proving the original claim was a lie. :shrug:

Over and over and over again you have been proven to be inventing problems or using problems that were solved decades ago.

You claimed that any mechanism that is not 100% complete is 100% useless... You also claimed that damaging any of the components leaves it 100% useless. I have a damaged nervous system in my left hand... yet my left hand works almost perfectly. (basically, it's like permanent pins and needles... doesn't stop it working at all) Your claim is a lie in so many ways.

You claimed that Macro-evolution doesn't happen, and that it would result in fish-amphibian mixes showing up if it did. I provided you with just such a species, proving your claim a lie.

You claimed that valves only work if they are complex and have a control system... some valves exist that are nothing more than a flap of flesh with no control system. Another claim of yours proven to be a lie.

 

 

 

 

Lie after lie after lie after lie... and you dare to accuse us of "relentlessly interpreting things according to what you want the truth to be"?

 

You hypocritical little troll...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it's interesting that txviper can bring up the same argument, slightly different wording every single time Evolution is brought up even after being shown to be wrong.

 

Yes, there are mechanisms to restrict the number of mutations from happening...if there weren't then the more common deleterious mutations would overrun the population most likely causing extinction.

 

Variation does exist, however, and mutations are necessary to allow for the possible need for adaptation to an environment....if there wasn't any variation then the population would go extinct.

 

So we have to have a balancing act where in any given population the number of mutations doesn't overrun the population and where there aren't so few mutations that there is no adaptation.

 

 

Statistical probabilities, as you so often like to bring up txviper, are irrelevant to evolutionary biology...it has no bearing because of the lack of all known variables, and the lack of any goal-oriented evolution.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And let's take this a step further.

 

I hope TxViper have constructed the arguments and proofs that Thor is not the cause of thunderstorm.

 

Take those skills and that mindset now into the next section.

 

Let's say arguendo that you're right, that there are irreducible complex constructs in nature. (Btw, Behe did not invent the IC idea, it's an old idea from the 19th century. I don't have the name of the guy right in front on me, I'll get the references later.) Anyway, let's say IC does exist.

 

I will then propose an alternative hypothesis to solve the IC problem: aliens.

 

So now we have the hypothetical situation that TxViper succeeded in convicting me that IC destroys the TOE, and my answer is that I'm going to join the Raelians.

 

Now, TxViper, take the skills from previous exercise and prove to me again, that nature and life on this planet was not created by aliens.

 

(And TxViper, since mutations don't happen, please explain to me how John Cairns in 1988 got the results he got, which is actually an experiment that throws Darwinian evolution into a spin, and give some not-wanted support for Lamarckian! You should love the results he got TxViper, but unfortunately it was through mutations... hmm...)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now, TxViper, take the skills from previous exercise and prove to me again, that nature and life on this planet was not created by aliens.

I challenge txviper to start a thread in which he clearly puts forward his view of the age of earth and origin of species and then presents evidence to support that view.

 

He's shown an ability to pick at evolution (almost always with arguments that have already been refuted), but has shown no ability to offer an alternative that takes into account all the evidence. If evolution isn't the correct organizing theory, then what is?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I challenge txviper to start a thread in which he clearly puts forward his view of the age of earth and origin of species and then presents evidence to support that view.

 

He's shown an ability to pick at evolution (almost always with arguments that have already been refuted), but has shown no ability to offer an alternative that takes into account all the evidence. If evolution isn't the correct organizing theory, then what is?

Well duh... Goddidit.

 

 

 

And that's the only answer you'd get out of him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Txviper will never accept your challenge, because he doesn't understand the nature of scientific theories. His entire premise of defeated by default, because, like all apologists that have come to this site in the past, they assume that scientific theories are held authoritatively, much like his own worldview. He thinks scientific theories are doctrinal.

 

As long as he continues to make this assumption, pretty much every argument he makes can be easily disqualified, because he doesn't yet understand that by attacking evolution, he's attacking ALL science. Like all apologists who come to this site, he has to attack evolution by attacking the very method by which all people, even txviper, learn things. He is anti-learning.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I challenge txviper to start a thread in which he clearly puts forward his view of the age of earth and origin of species and then presents evidence to support that view.

 

 

I already have a thread open in the colloseum for any type of ID advocate to present their case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What this means for the TOE is that ultra-complcated proteins supposedly formed accidentally and serve specifically and deliberately to prevent mutations. In other woros, abiogenesis/evolution designed mechanisms whose function is to prohibit evolution.

 

Firstly, evolutionary theory does not hold that proteins form "accidentally." Mutations introduce variability, but selection is no accident- it's directly related to the demands of the environment. Now, it is true that polymerase complexes (in most organisms) contain "proofreading" components. Your assertion is that the existence of proofreading capability is evidence that contradicts evolutionary theory. However, this is not the case. Evolutionary theory predicts that for eukaryotic organisms, especially those that rely on sexual selection as the main source of genetic variance, it would be less beneficial to have a high basal mutation rate in somatic genome transcription. For prokaryotic organisms, however, basal genomic mutation is predicted to be the only source of genetic variation, and should be higher than in eukaryotic organisms. The design hypothesis makes no such prediction, and in fact there exists no reason (outside of ad hoc rationalization) why any difference would exist. Thus, all we have to do to decide which hypothesis to accept, is to look at the evidence in the form of measured basal mutation rates in various organisms. We see the following:

 

Mutations per genome per replication

bacteriophage M13: 0.0046

bacteriophage lambda: 0.0038

bacteriophages T2 & T4: 0.0040

E. coli: 0.0025

Saccharomyces cerevisiae: 0.0027

Neurospora crassa: 0.0030

C. elegans: 0.004

Drosophila: 0.005

Mouse: 0.014

Human: 0.004

 

We conclude that there are significantly higher mutation rates in eukaryotes than in prokaryotes, especially eukaryotes which engage in sexual selection. Thus, we can accept the evolutionary hypothesis and reject the design hypothesis.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is one of my favorites. If this isn't evidence for evolution, what is?

 

Hypertrichosis or wolfman syndrome:

 

"CGH is a manifestation of a genetic atavism- reappearance of an ancestral phenotype. The reappearance of ancestral characteristics in individual members of the species "reminds us that the genetic and developmental information originally used in the production of such characteristics has not been lost during evolution, but lies quiescent within the genome and in the processes of embryonic development," notes Brian K. Hall, department of biology, University of Halifax, NS.

 

This particular genetic mutation evoked a pattern long forgotten. The loss of legs on snakes or tails in humans, does not mean the ability to make these structures has been lost. This CGH atavism represents an ancestral pattern of a structure still present in the species. In contrast, the appearance of three toed horses and whales with hind limbs represents the reappearance of lost structures, he said.

 

"Atavisms, long an embarrassment to evolutionary biologists, are now seen as potent evidence of how much genetic potential is retained, and how long developmental programs persist after particular structure has disappeared from the species," said Dr. Hall."

 

From here.

wolfman.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Enter Kent Hovind (completely missing the point) "That's just evidence of lost information. That's not evidence of information increasing in the genome."

 

Translation from Stupid to English: "Hi, I'm Kent Hovind. I'm an idiot, and I like attacking strawman arguments. The scraping you hear is the sound of goal posts being moved."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.