Evolution - True Or False

Discussion in 'Biology & Genetics' started by darksidZz, Feb 10, 2007.



Poll closed Feb 25, 2007.
  1. False

  2. True

  3. Other; Comment

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Ophiolite Valued Senior Member

    Sounds a lot like convergent evolution. Why not just call it that? Oh, I get it. That has the word 'evolution' in the phrase. And even 'convergent' implies some for m of motion, or development.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. river-wind Valued Senior Member

    I have not heard the term before. Google has not returned much, either.

    What is the premise?
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. Saquist Banned Banned

    Wolf Eckard or Eckart...

    .observed the results of a global effort to induce mutation over a period of 40 years. Apparently a massive undertaking who's purpose was to explore the potential of mutation in plants and animals by stimulating living things with radiation.

    He says a pattern emerge from the experiment although it yielded only 1% of all mutation in plants as usefull and less than 1% percent of animal mutations as useful. Agricultural science use these mutation today

    but he says the same type of mutations always recoccurred yielding not a vast variety but a limmit to mutation in plants and animals over a wide spectrum.

    Why is this the first time anyone has attempted to explore the limmits of life to discern what DNA can or can't do. Scientist are essentialy attempting toreverse engineer life to reproduce it as they wish...does not exploring the limmits of can and can not seem to be an obvious phase in discovery?
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. Saquist Banned Banned

    Wolf Ekkehard Lonnig, a scientist from Max Planck Institute for the Plant Breeding Research in Germany

    I copied this a while back...for refrence.
  8. river-wind Valued Senior Member

    That appears to be stating that it is difficult to make a faberge egg with a sledgehammer. They were attempting to blast a living thing with radiation to induce mutations, and then select from the helpful mutations. however, blasting a living thing with radiation in that way is not going to produce nice, delicate, single mutations. You are going to create lots of them at once, all different, all in conflict with one another, and most of them will be harmful.

    The problem sited is that inducing mutations led, more often then not, to detrimental effects. The theory of evolution states that most mutation will be negative or have no effect. I do not see a problem or conflict here.

    I see a poorly thought out experiment; that the rudimentary methods humans have to control radiation would allow for scalple-like accuracy in inducing mutation sounds absurd. Maybe 60 years ago, I wouldn't have known better. But minor and often single-gene mutations are not going to be artificially replicated with a fat-handed punch to the DNA.

    And didn't you reference this same scientist back on page 11 as a supporter of ID? doesn't that kind of make him a biased source?

    edit: this appears to be the guy's website (though it's mostly in Germman)
  9. spuriousmonkey Banned Banned


    You are really an ignoramus. Do you honestly think that the opinion of one 'scientist' matters?

    And there is NO mention of law of reoccurring variations.

    Interestingly, there is no difficulty finding beneficial mutations in the literature.
  10. Saquist Banned Banned

    I agree.

    It's saying experimentation failed to produce viable mutations. This was irradiating...true...what other mehods are they're

    Is retro-virus and gene therapy another form of manipulating DNA? Otherwise blasting radiation is actualy doing what happens in nature. From point A to point B today...radiation plays a factor in life and mutations.

    Excellent..so you're saying it must be tailored to produce the desired effects?

    I refreneced Wolf E Lonnig before. Yes...does that make his statements biased. No. His research is viable as any scientist. His position or Ideology does not make him biased no more than it makes you biased.

    Biased is somthing we can control. Objectivity is a learned behavior. It's used by Supreme Court Judges, Juries, and Scientist.

    Bias is evidenced by clear partiality or clearly chosen path despite contrary information. If Biased means he was researching information to support his theory then all scientist are biased....which I wouldn't diagree with.

    But If you're saying that he's shown an inability to objectify his own theory...I'd say you were wrong...but that would be my opinion. So biased or not biased...it subjective.

    I took German courses I didn't have that much problem with it other than Germanies nortoriously large nouns which I wasn't familiar with. It required aa couple of hours to go through but German is remarkably similar to English.
  11. spidergoat pubic diorama Valued Senior Member

    I thought new species develop when a subset of the parent species, through geography or behavior, fall into reproductive isolation. Basically, this experiment proved that a single mutated creature will be very unlikely to form a new species on it's own. That doesn't mean it didn't happen before, only that it is unlikely.
    Last edited: Apr 5, 2007
  12. river-wind Valued Senior Member

    Certainly. But the amount of radiation X experienced in daily life is at a certain balance with built-in mutation correctors Y and natural selection facotrs Q.

    You can't simply double, triple or quadruple X without also increasing the rates of Y and Q, and still expect not to kill your subject.

    A pushup helps build stronger muscles. But crushing a person's arms does not "speed up" the strenthening process.
    No, I'm saying that poorly mimicing a system that already exists does not invalidate the existance of the original system.
    I am biased. He is biased.

    Which is exactly why science exists. It is framework to reduce the effect of bias on the final conclusions of a study. His opinion of "we failed, so it must be impossible" is not the same thing as a statistical analysis of the experimental data.
    Which, again, is why science is designed the way it is. Every scientist is biased. but a properly designed experiment, and properly analysed and peer-reviewed results will give us the most unbiased results that are possible.

    Quoting one scientist is fine. Determining that the statement is true because of who said it is not.
    Last edited: Apr 5, 2007
  13. RoyLennigan Registered Senior Member

    Thanks for your rationality. I say its better to give a little bit than to argue endlessly. Most of what we're arguing about is just words anyways.

    This post has motivated me to start a new discussion in the biology & genetics forum (though it may not stay there) entitled "Validity of Micro/macro-evolution idea + does the bible explain it?" I would appreciate it if you would read and take the time to reply to it.

    For some reason I am always intrigued when someone has different ideals than me. Maybe I'm looking to learn something. Maybe I'm looking to teach something. Maybe I just want agreement.
  14. Ophiolite Valued Senior Member

    Maybe you're just a nice guy.
  15. kenworth dude...**** it,lets go bowling Registered Senior Member

  16. (Q) Encephaloid Martini Valued Senior Member

    "At the end of April, a turning point in the slow-boiling dispute was reached when the personal homepage of geneticist Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig, a researcher at the Max-Planck-Institut for Plant Breeding Research in Cologne, was shut down. On the homepage, which could be found on the institute’s server, he posted over 1,000 pages of material supporting ID and refuting neo-Darwinism. Ulrich Kutschera, professor for plant physiology and evolutionary biology at the University of Kassel, found the material inappropriate for the homepage of the renowned institute.

    “In my point of view, he can promote his religious ideas and concepts on his private homepage [2] …But in my opinion, as a professional evolutionary biologist at the university in Germany, I have to teach the subject, it’s not correct to promote private religious beliefs mixed up with scientific facts on an official homepage of a research institute [3].”

    Kutschera makes it clear, that Biblical and in his words, supernatural forces, have no place in the naturalistic world of science. Religion and science are two separate spheres. The promotion of religious views with missionary zeal damages the business of science according to the Kassel professor."

  17. Woody Musical Creationist Registered Senior Member

    It's some of both. Abiogenesis can not be ignored from the theory of evolution anymore than Chapter One can be ignored from a College Science Text.

    I quote an interesting debate thread on another forum:


    Last edited: Apr 7, 2007
  18. Repo Man Valued Senior Member

    I am unaware of any alternative scientific explanation that explains life on our planet. It is a bit like arguing with someone who says that 2+2=5.
  19. Woody Musical Creationist Registered Senior Member

    Or arguing with someone that says faith in God comes from "nothing".

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  20. Repo Man Valued Senior Member

    Some believe in Bigfoot, the Loch Ness monster, and in alien abductions. I don't agree with them that there is any credible evidence for any of those, but I don't waste any time arguing with them either.
  21. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    It's not interesting. It's tired, cliche-ridden, confused, and pointless.

    In the future, when you see someone leading off by telling a science what its theories are - especially, correcting said science about its misconceptions regarding its basic theories - just scroll away. Unless you, as some here, occasionally enjoy puzzling out exactly where the footprints of thought started going in circles.

    Whatever that other forum was discussing, it wasn't a Darwinian theory of evolution - of anything, "abiotic" or otherwise.
  22. Saquist Banned Banned

    contention: would you expect anything less?
    If one doesn't want open debate and an exchange of ideas they put up walls where there were none before...

    Hard heads and hot heads make the world go round.
  23. river-wind Valued Senior Member

    Why is an on-topic debate your source is having with his own colleagues "putting up [a] wall where there were none before"?

    You quoted him because he is a scientist at a prestigious university openly supporting creationism. His own co-workers are stating that his claims do not appear to be based in evidence, but a lack of understanding (both his and the holes of current scientific understanding). That it is not science, but opinion and religion.

    Since evolution via natural selection can work on top of any theory on the creation of life (God, panspermia, abiogenesis), then it should be looked at independently. Yes, abiogenesis and evolution are tightly coupled, as they rely on some similar mechanisms at their root, but they are not the same theory; on deals with changes in living matter, the other deals with the progression of chemical systems toward living matter.
    Last edited: Apr 9, 2007
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page