This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

Interesting article about evolution.

#1Aperture_ShadoPosted 6/17/2011 12:00:49 AM
http://www.icr.org/article/6206/

What do you guys think about the information presented in this article, assuming you have the integrity to actually read it?
---
"There's only two things I fear more than myself in a battle, God and my shadow"
#2OrangeWizardPosted 6/17/2011 12:37:33 AM
I do not follow links. This is a courtesy I extend to everyone.
---
"this game is about reality. ... when you fire a gun you are not like "what is this am i shooting sausages?""
-General_Dong on Black Ops
#3DarkeLockePosted 6/17/2011 1:27:02 AM
Not interesting at all
---
"All the world is birthday cake, so take a piece but not too much" -George Harrison
#4Billy Bob JoePosted 6/17/2011 1:58:38 AM
Website won't load for me. And you didn't provide a summary, so I can't comment. What a shame.
---
The free market will decide whether you steer your Escalade into a nursery school or not. - Cruithear
http://www.youtube.com/user/BillyBobJoeIsaac
#5the final bahamutPosted 6/17/2011 2:03:46 AM
Thank you, Shado, now I have to delete my browser history so I won't have that utter tripe in my history.

Why did you feel the need to link to an article that fails miserably in the very first paragraph?
---
E ys Bahamut! oui risyhc puna sa! Oui uvvaht sa cahcac!!!
DISCLAIMER: I'm not accountable for this post. I don't know English I just hit keys at random.
#6linkkhalid89Posted 6/17/2011 2:05:19 AM
Here are the first few paragraphs, in case anyone doesn't have the integrity to follow the link.

Living forms supposedly evolved by adapting to environmental challenges. It is generally assumed that they did this by gradually acquiring the needed genetic mutations until brand new features arose and whole creatures eventually morphed into totally different ones. But does real science support this story?

Experiments with bacteria continue to show that although adaptations do occur, they are bound by hard limits to how much change can take place.1 And these limits also circumscribe evolution’s potential.

Two separate studies in the June 3, 2011, issue of Science arrived at the same conclusion. One tested the effects of multiple mutations on the “fitness” of mutant versions of a methanol-eating bacteria called Methylobacterium.2 Researchers measured the relative fitness of a mutant by directly comparing its growth rate with non-mutants in the limited resource environment to which the mutants had adapted.

When placed in a challenging environment, bacteria at first rapidly adapt their chemistry by generating “mutations” that can help them adjust to their new surroundings. But over time, fewer adaptive changes occur. The second study showed the effects of multiple mutations on the fitness of the common gut bacteria Escherichia coli.3 The results indicated that each additional mutation was less helpful for the creature’s attempts to adapt.

---
To read the math in my posts, download https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/748 and http://www.gold-saucer.org/mathml/greasemonkey/.
#7OzymandiasIVPosted 6/17/2011 2:20:14 AM(edited)
Living forms supposedly evolved by adapting to environmental challenges.

Oh boy.

Considering your own stance on evolution, and the fact that you think this article is interesting, combined with this first sentence... it's not looking good. At all.

I also just looked at the name of the website. I'm sure this won't be biased at all, and that they'll be using real, honest science and reporting.

And why don't you ever summarize the articles or videos you post, and give your own take on what is being said? Why do you just dump links on the board?

---
In order to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first create the universe.
You musn't be afraid to dream a little bigger, darling.
#8ElderMisanthropyPosted 6/17/2011 2:17:29 AM
Aperture_Shado posted...
assuming you have the integrity to actually read it?

Hm...

Aperture_Shado posted...
Just for fun, I skipped to a random part to get a taste of this guy's "wisdom".

At 2:50: "Religion is not real, but love is."

*facepalm*



You're just the worst kind of person.
---
You're gonna eat my butt until your stomach is full of butt. Full of my butt, and full of Mac's butt
http://img352.imageshack.us/img352/4541/em5xp7qc.jpg
#9OzymandiasIVPosted 6/17/2011 2:52:19 AM
Should I bother responding? Will Shado listen?

Living forms supposedly evolved by adapting to environmental challenges. It is generally assumed that they did this by gradually acquiring the needed genetic mutations until brand new features arose and whole creatures eventually morphed into totally different ones. But does real science support this story?

Genetic mutations =/= adaptation. Suppose there is a furry sort of animal living in a moderately cold environment. Now say the temperature drops a few significant degrees. The animals of the species with thinner fur will die easier, as will the offspring born with thinner fur. Those with thicker fur will survive more easily, and will pass their gene for thicker fur off more than the others, and the offspring with thicker fur will be more likely to survive than those with thinner fur. Over time, the species will have generally thicker fur.

Mutation is something very different, and should be pretty self-explanatory. Mutations and adaptations are both parts of evolution, but, unlike as the article suggests, they are not the same thing. The fact that the article gets this wrong in the first paragraph bodes ill for the article.

As for the rest of the article, it seems to be saying the experiments changed the environments, and, over time, saw less and less changes... and the article didn't indicate that any further changes were made to the environment. This actually makes complete sense. If they adapt to the environment, and the environment doesn't change anymore... adaptations will slow, since they'll be unnecessary to survive, and nothing will pick off those that aren't fit.

The results indicated that each additional mutation was less helpful for the creature’s attempts to adapt.

Of course, less helpful =/= more harmful. It's what I said just above. Fewer and far less drastic changes are needed to survive over time once the environment stabilizes.

But if adaptation rates slow over time, then why didn’t the process of generating adaptations grind to a halt long ago?

Because environments are constantly changing, though at variable rates (meaning things may be changing significantly and frequently, significantly and sparsely, insignificantly but frequently, etc.). Change in the amount of food, change in the diet itself, change in predators, change in weather, etc. So long as things keep changing, and they always are, adaptations continue to occur.

In order for big-picture evolution to work, adaptation rates should at least be constant, if not increasing, instead of decreasing. In other words, adaptations are going the wrong direction.

Absolute BS. If an environment stabilizes somewhat, drastic adaptation isn't as necessary. Once that environment starts to get rocky, adaptation picks up. Once it becomes a little more stable, adaptation begins to reduce again. Once it becomes less stable, more adaptations occur. The furry species adapts drastically due to the wild shift in temperature. But then the lowered temperature stabilizes and remains constant. Little adaptation is needed, since growing even thicker coats isn't necessary. But then the environment starts to get colder yet again. Adaptations for even thicker coats starts to take place. Then the weather stabilizes. Then it starts to get hotter and hotter, and the animals with thinner fur are more apt to survive, and things start to reverse.
.
---
In order to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first create the universe.
You musn't be afraid to dream a little bigger, darling.
#10OzymandiasIVPosted 6/17/2011 2:52:25 AM
After all, both the bacteria and the yeast remained the same species, even after thousands of generations. And their incredible abilities, limited though they may be, to alter their own genetic code in order to adapt to new environments are certainly the products of purposeful creation.

*facedesk*

For two divergent species to occur, they'd have to split the same species of bacteria and put them in drastically different environments. One will adapt one way, the other will adapt a different way, based on environment. Now keep doing that, keep changing it up, and, eventually, they'll both have different features. But, yes, they'll have pretty much the same DNA, which is why we share so much DNA with chimpanzees, yet are so drastically different from them.

Of course, this is all very simplified, and I may be inaccurate on a few points, but it's safe to say the article is full of **** and the author clearly doesn't understand evolution, except for the amount required to twist the truth of it to fit his world view.
---
In order to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first create the universe.
You musn't be afraid to dream a little bigger, darling.