Evolution caught in the act!

[Abdul Alhazred]

Butterflies fast forward evolution to evade death (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19733274) [ MSNBC ]

A population of butterflies has evolved in a flash on a South Pacific island to fend off a deadly parasite.

The proportion of male Blue Moon butterflies dropped to a precarious 1 percent as the parasite targeted males. Then, within the span of a mere 10 generations, the males evolved an immunity that allowed their population share to soar to nearly 40 percent — all in less than a year.

“We usually think of natural selection as acting slowly, over hundreds or thousands of years," said study team member Gregory Hurst, an evolutionary geneticist at the University College London. "But the example in this study happened in a blink of the eye, in terms of evolutionary time."

The scientists think the males developed genes that hold a male-killing microbial parasite, called Wolbachia, at bay.

...

Or it could be that God loved them and did a miracle. Right?

[Ex-zombie]

But they're still just butterflies!

[Listener]

But they're still just butterflies!

The point is that they ARE still butterflies, not extinct. What would you expect them to become?

[Uthgar the Brazen]

But they're still just butterflies!

The point is that they ARE still butterflies, not extinct. What would you expect them to become?

People!

[erimir]

Or at least Mothra-beasts.

[Crumb]

Bah, that's just "microevolution" everyone knows that god allows that.

[Abdul Alhazred]

Bah, that's just "microevolution" everyone knows that god allows that.

I thought He only allowed that in ancient times, and it's not for today.

You know, like polygamy and animal sacrifice.

:innocent:

[davidm]

Evolution, caught in the act:


:monkeybuttsex:
:cheese: :cheese:

(The cheese is optional. It's not an adaptation, but a spandrel.)

[Listener]

If you take a still camera to a horse race, no photograph will show the horses moving. Two consecutive shots from the same perspective will show that the horses have moved but the piccies still don't show them moving.

We don't have the chance to see changes on the timescale of evolution usually.

If the butterfly had not been discovered until next year it's resistance to the parasite would just have been an unremarkable feature of the species and it would be easy to imagine that "they had always been that way".

The example does show how living populations must adapt or die in this world - even though we can't "see the entire horserace" from a single (miniscule) point in time.

[Uthgar the Brazen]

Here we can observe de-evolution in action (http://www.9news.com/news/article.aspx?storyid=73647)

:deepsigh:

[Abdul Alhazred]

Careful. It might be a hoax.

[Uthgar the Brazen]

Possibly. But Colorado is chock full of religious lunatics, so it is just as likely to be legit. :sadcheer:

[Listener]

Does anyone ever take things like this (http://www.biblelife.org/creation.htm) seriously?

Absolute Scientific Proof the Evolutionary Theory is Dead

I'm out of my depth!

[The Lone Ranger]

Does anyone ever take things like this (http://www.biblelife.org/creation.htm) seriously?

Absolute Scientific Proof the Evolutionary Theory is Dead

I'm out of my depth!

Ah! The stupidity and the dishonesty! They burns us!

Unfortunately, this is all too typical of Creationist "scholarship."



In my opinion, if you're making an argument, you have a moral obligation to know what you're talking about. The authors of this article either don't know what they're talking about -- in which case they're being dishonest because they're presenting their claims as truthful, when they aren't -- or they're knowingly lying. Either way, it's disgraceful and dishonest, in my opinion.



Granite never contains fossils such as are found in sedimentary rocks. All of these properties have led many scientists to refer to granite as a creation rock, since it could not have solidified from molten material according to the evolutionary theory.

Evolution cannot explain the presence of granite in its present structure. And where is this granite?

Granite is an igneous rock -- that it forms from "molten material" is exactly how it's thought to form. Its chemical and physical properties clearly indicate that granite forms from cooled magma under very high pressures. In addition, its distribution and the fact that it's typically found as intrusions into other rock beds clearly indicate its igneous origins. (It's nice when independent lines of evidence point to the same conclusion, isn't it?)

So, the claim that "it could not have solidified from molten material according to evolutionary theory" is an outright lie. Actually, it's two interwoven lies. We'll get to the second lie in a bit. The authors make a big deal about how granite cannot be made in the laboratory and give a completely bogus "recipe" for how it should be possible to form it in the laboratory, according to "evolutionary theory." Since all the evidence clearly points to granite forming from magma solidifying at extreme depths (and hence, extreme pressures), it's hardly surprising that it's difficult to form it in the laboratory. It's not like your average geological laboratory has access to devices that can create temperatures in excess of 6,000 degrees C and pressures of thousands of tons per square inch.

The second lie in that claim is that "evolutionary theory" has anything to do with the formation of granite. Anyone who knows anything at all about evolutionary theory knows that it's a theory regarding the diversity of life, and has nothing to do with the formation of rocks.

If you're going to write on the subject, you have a moral obligation to know something about it, in my opinion. The authors, if they knew anything at all about evolutionary theory, wouldn't have made such a basic mistake. So, either they know nothing about the subject or they're deliberately lying. Either way, it's dishonest and disgraceful.


The Polonium 218 lived only a very short time (3 minutes), but he left his mark on his friend, granite, in that short time. Polonium emitted alpha particles which left a very distinct mark in the granite. These marks are called Polonium halos.
Creationists are fond of repeating this lie. Geologists are quite familiar with the "haloes" sometimes found in granite, but there's no evidence that they were formed by decay of polonium. That's an outright Creationist fantasy. Granite frequently has radioactive elements such as radon and uranium in it, which can easily account for the existence of these haloes.


Either the authors knew they were misrepresenting evolutionary theory (and geology) or they should have known. Either way, this is a remarkably dishonest piece of writing.


Cheers,

Michael

[viscousmemories]

In my opinion, if you're making an argument, you have a moral obligation to know what you're talking about.
Uh-oh, I think I better just stop talking altogether. :shiftier:

[Angakuk]

The second lie in that claim is that "evolutionary theory" has anything to do with the formation of granite. Anyone who knows anything at all about evolutionary theory knows that it's a theory regarding the diversity of life, and has nothing to do with the formation of rocks.

This observation alone is sufficient to discredit the whole argument. The entire time I was reading the article I kept asking myself, "What is this guy going on about?" He is talking about geology not biology. If you aren't talking about biology then you aren't talking about the theory of evolution.

[The Lone Ranger]

In my opinion, if you're making an argument, you have a moral obligation to know what you're talking about.
Uh-oh, I think I better just stop talking altogether. :shiftier:

No one, of course, can be completely knowledgable, and honest mistakes will be made. But I think a minimal standard is morally obligatory.

In this case, the authors clearly wanted us to accept that they knew what they were talking about, and that we should therefore accept their argument as valid. As such, the fact that they clearly didn't know what they were talking about -- or they were simply lying -- makes their entire "argument" an exercise in dishonesty, in my opinion.

Cheers,

Michael

[Listener]

The second lie in that claim is that "evolutionary theory" has anything to do with the formation of granite. Anyone who knows anything at all about evolutionary theory knows that it's a theory regarding the diversity of life, and has nothing to do with the formation of rocks.

This observation alone is sufficient to discredit the whole argument. The entire time I was reading the article I kept asking myself, "What is this guy going on about?" He is talking about geology not biology. If you aren't talking about biology then you aren't talking about the theory of evolution.

Oddly enough, this was one thing I noticed as an anomaly without dismissing it out of hand as nonsense.

Yes it's geology not biology - but I thought the writer was contrasting the Universe with a Creator against a Universe without a creator (which he loosely calls "evolution"). There is a certain flow of ideas that he's rejecting - cosmology, geology, inorganic chemistry, organic chemistry, life.

Thanks for putting us right on the rest (granite, polonium etc) TLR - I hate to feel helpless and without the relevant information to even look in the right place for answers..

I suspect the author was similarly ignorant more than dishonest - his "faith" telling him that his version (gleaned from people he trusted) "just had to be true".

The guy still bangs on about the Piltdown man event as though it still held any relevance to anything (except honesty and dishonesty).

[viscousmemories]

Understood, TLR. I was just taking a stab at some self-deprecating humor.

[JoeP]

I suspect the author was similarly ignorant more than dishonest - his "faith" telling him that his version (gleaned from people he trusted) "just had to be true".

I think you're right there. Intellectual integrity and honesty are not paramount ... in fact "intellectual" is probably a dirty word. Anything said with God's inspiration is necessarily "true". :sigh:

[Abdul Alhazred]

To a creationist "evolution" is anything in science that contradicts Genesis.

Archaeology shows that human history is older than the alleged Adam and Eve story. Geology shows the age of the earth. Other geology shows that there was no world wide flood in historical times. Astronomy shows an old universe.

To a creationist all of it is "evolution".

It's not even a bad scientific debate, it's apologetics to preserve the Adam and Eve story against all reason.

Not to change the mind of the likes of us.

[The Lone Ranger]

To a creationist "evolution" is anything in science that contradicts Genesis.

Exactly. That's why it's so frustrating to try to have a discussion with a creationist on the matter. So many of them define "evolution" as anything in science that contradicts a literal interpretation of Genesis, and they seem completely incapable of understanding that the word "evolution" has a very precise definition in science -- one that has nothing to do with geology, cosmology, or even abiogenesis.

I swear, sometimes it's like trying to reason with a rock!

Cheers,

Michael

[Angakuk]

A 6,000 yr. old rock.

[Uthgar the Brazen]

A 6,000 yr. old rock.

And not one second older! :rofl:

[Listener]

First I got my "A" level in biology (tought with an evolutionary bias) then I started to question the orthodoxy of the time and - for a while - rejected evolution.

My excuse is that it wasn't all cut and dried in 1958 and the people I trusted rejected evolution ...

I'd really like to appeal to good folk to use the words "lie" and "liar" more cautiously and charitably!

O.K. the words get flung at us - as though our agenda were deception. Can we be "bigger" than that and recognise that to lie you must believe that your assertion is false?

There are other dishonesties - like refusing to recognise that a sound case has been made - but I think we're more into psychology than ethics now ...

[Crumb]

First I got my "A" level in biology (tought with an evolutionary bias)
:sadyup: When I got my physics minor it was taught with a Newtonian bias.

[The Lone Ranger]

That's why I think it's important to distinguish between outright lying and academic dishonesty. The authors of the article in question may have believed what they said (though I've certainly encountered Creationists who feel no compunction about "Lying for Jesus," thinking that it serves a "greater good").

If they actually believed what they were writing, they weren't guilty of outright lying. The most-definitely were guilty of academic dishonesty though, since they were claiming as true things that, if they were at all knowledgable of the relevant science -- or if they'd bothered to do 30 seconds' research -- they'd have known to be false.


It may well have been the case that they honestly believed what they were saying, and that wouldn't surprise me in the least. But just as I'd be guilty of academic dishonesty if I wrote an "authoritative" paper on, say, the physics of neutrino decay without knowing anything about the relevant science and without bothering to do any research on the subject, these authors were clearly guilty of academic dishonesty.

I'm not saying they're deliberate liars -- they probably aren't -- but they're nonetheless being more than a little dishonest in presenting their views as somehow authoritative and accurate when they're neither.

Cheers,

Michael

[Listener]

:yup:

Nicely put Michael.

[Stormlight]

Bah, that's just "microevolution" everyone knows that god allows that.

The indisputable proof of evolution is known since 1939. (http://j-walkblog.com/index.php?/weblog/posts/proof_of_evolution1/)

[Listener]

As this was not 1st April there may have been someone seriously confused.

When I was a kid we had some linoleum with an abstract pattern - I used to find all kinds of pictures in the pattern. I used to have a girlfriend who would look a cloud formations for images - "look there's an old man with a beard". I didn't have a fertile imagination like hers but I could see what she meant! I suspect we have a curiously shaped apricot stone.

There's been more than one hoax about evolution. I've got lots of chick embryos (although I prefer to leave them where they are) and lots of plums (apricots are furry plums aren't they?). I can make an embryo fit where the plumstone was - but no-one who is anyone would be fooled!

Anyway, how was a chick supposed to peck it's way out of an apricot? It would get tummyache!

[Listener]

As this was not 1st April there may have been someone seriously confused.

When I was a kid we had some linoleum with an abstract pattern - I used to find all kinds of pictures in the pattern. I used to have a girlfriend who would look at cloud formations for images - "look there's an old man with a beard". I didn't have a fertile imagination like hers but I could see what she meant! I suspect we have a curiously shaped apricot stone.

There's been more than one hoax about evolution. I've got lots of chick embryos (although I prefer to leave them where they are) and lots of plums (apricots are furry plums aren't they?). I can make an embryo fit where the plumstone was - but no-one who is anyone would be fooled!

Anyway, how was a chick supposed to peck it's way out of an apricot? It would get tummyache!

Apologies for the double post ... :(

[Watser?]

There's a smilie for that

:dddp: