Just a couple of evolution questions

[lalala43]

hey everyone, My first post hurrah!

 

Ok well lately i've been really becoming quite an atheist and have truly started to get into evolution and all that has to do with it even though i know that to truly get know everything would be quite impossible. Now i am quite young so i'm not at the school level to be able to truly delve into a specific scientific area as you can in later years so you guys/girls are one of my main sources of information! lucky you

 

so now for my stupid questions of which i'm sure you have all heard before but if you would care to answer at least once more then that would be great

 

I''d just like o have a couple of things cleared up

 

1. My first question is, is that after the sort of split from a common ancestor between up and the common day apes (please correct me if i got any of that wrong as a summary) then where are the almost human looking ancestors that are supposed to be along our line of evolution in the i think its thirteen million years between our split?

 

2. This might seem hard (i'm not sure ) but if someone could explain to me the concept of a genetic mutation and an example of one because that seems to be an argument by the as far as i can see uneducated creationist majority and if there isnt an example then why is that?

 

3. What are your scientific areas of interest?

 

I know my questions probably seem quite silly but hey you've got to start somewhere right?

 

Also an you recommend any good books on evolution? or science? i was going to get the origin of species of course yesterday as it was quite cheap and i consider it to be fundamental reading to truly grasp the concept of evolution but in the end i god Richard Dawkins' A devils chaplain, even though that doesn't necessarily have to do directly with evolution

 

Thanks for replying! I appreciate it immensely

[Ravager]

well, (correct me if im wrong, im new 2 ) a mutation is basically a floop that either works to a creatures advantage or really screws it up. An example would be darwins birds, they are all from different islands and have different beaks and diets but appear to be the same species. Well hope that helped!

[lalala43]

cool thanks, yeah it helped and i see what u mean anyone else have any insight?

[Sisyphus]

I'm not the best person to answer your questions, but I should say that you don't have to be "quite the atheist" to believe in evolution. You talk as if atheism is a religion, and "evolutionism" is a part of it. I'm guessing that's what you've been taught, but it isn't accurate. (In fact, you kind of seem like a creationist pretending to be an "evolutionist," but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.) Even the Catholic Church officially acknowledges the fact of evolution.

 

To answer your questions, you might want to check out the Wikipedia articles on human evolution, mutation, and introduction to evolution, and then ask any more specific questions you have here.

[ydoaPs]

1.where are the almost human looking ancestors that are supposed to be along our line of evolution in the i think its thirteen million years between our split?

They're dead.

 

2. This might seem hard (i'm not sure ) but if someone could explain to me the concept of a genetic mutation and an example of one because that seems to be an argument by the as far as i can see uneducated creationist majority and if there isnt an example then why is that?

A mutation is an error in the copying of DNA. If you're looking into creationist claims, here is a list of many of them. Follow the links to see the responses.

 

3. What are your scientific areas of interest?

I'm mainly into physics, but I play with a bit of everything.

 

Also an you recommend any good books on evolution?

I really liked The Blind Watchmaker by Dawkins

 

i god Richard Dawkins' A devils chaplain, even though that doesn't necessarily have to do directly with evolution

That is quite a good book. He has a pretty good answer to your first question in the chapter called Gaps of the Mind.

 

Other good links:

What is Evolution?

 

Introduction to Evolutionary Biology

[lalala43]

I'm not the best person to answer your questions, but I should say that you don't have to be "quite the atheist" to believe in evolution. You talk as if atheism is a religion, and "evolutionism" is a part of it. I'm guessing that's what you've been taught, but it isn't accurate. (In fact, you kind of seem like a creationist pretending to be an "evolutionist," but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.) Even the Catholic Church officially acknowledges the fact of evolution.

 

hmm, well i understand what you mean and i'm sorry if it seems like that but i dont believe that evolution goes hand in hand with atheism at all, I guess i made it seem like that and no i come from quite a secular family where to be honest because of my past religion is sort of frowned upon, not that it would make anyone angry if i were to be religious but thanks for your help and no im not a creationist I guess i should better word my questions and posts to not give that impression

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

They're dead.

 

A mutation is an error in the copying of DNA. If you're looking into creationist claims, here is a list of many of them. Follow the links to see the responses.

 

I'm mainly into physics, but I play with a bit of everything.

 

I really liked The Blind Watchmaker by Dawkins

 

That is quite a good book. He has a pretty good answer to your first question in the chapter called Gaps of the Mind.

 

Other good links:

What is Evolution?

 

Introduction to Evolutionary Biology

 

Thanks those links you gave really help now i can counter the questions that my christian friends might ask and find more meaning to things.

[Sayonara]

The thing is with arguments involving Christians is that they are often quite satisfied falling back on "God did it", despite any objections you might have to that line of reasoning. So you may find it just as frustrating even if you have a good knowledge of the evolutionary principles they're arguing against.

[lalala43]

The thing is with arguments involving Christians is that they are often quite satisfied falling back on "God did it", despite any objections you might have to that line of reasoning. So you may find it just as frustrating even if you have a good knowledge of the evolutionary principles they're arguing against.

 

Yes i couldn't agree more and i understand what you mean. I've found when talking to a creationist christian that your discussion will go around in circles because they have only to go back on "god did it" and that is it. there isn't any evidence to support it but thats another topic. I guess without ""god did it" they would realize that their beliefs are flawed, thats my opinion anyway. I know that from experience, thanks for your imput

[iNow]

Wiki is a good place to start as well:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_mutation

 

 

 

 

Also, as for understanding evolution and correcting misconceptions, here's another pretty good resource (although, I have always preferred the extensiveness of the talkorigins resource ydoaPs shared above myself):

 

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13620?DCMP=NLC-nletter&nsref=dn13620

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

FYI - The talkorigins site is back up.

 

http://www.talkorigins.org/'>http://www.talkorigins.org/

 

 

 

The website

http://www.talkorigins.org

is now back up, although links to the temporary archive

http://www.toarchive.org/

still work for now. The story is roughly this - the company (joker.com) we bought the domain name from reassigned the IP number for the site as part of changing their data centre. They apparently sent an email notification to the administrator - Wesley Elsberry- but that went (you guessed it) to the email at the domain name. Since the domain no longer was active at the IP#, Wesley never got the email, and because we couldn't use the registered email address to contact joker.com, they ignored many requests for help sent from other addresses not in their list. So it all had to be done by snailmail, and as it was the Xmas-NY break, it all happened in molasses.

 

Anyway, we have resolved it and I will be one of the people who can fix the problem if Wesley is not contactable (I'm executive VP in charge of antipodean marketing for the Talkorigins Foundation). So with luck, all will be well in the future. We still haven't fixed the commenting scripts that were taken over by a hacker in 2006, and the likelihood is that we never will, but the Interwubs move on...

 

Go John @ Evolving Thoughts!

http://scienceblogs.com/evolvingthoughts/2009/01/talkoriginsorg_back_up.php

Edited January 13, 2009 by iNow
Consecutive post/s merged.

[iNow]

Here's a pretty great 12 page section.

Charles Darwin effectively rewrote the history of not only Man, but every living thing on the planet. This special section looks at the legacy of the man whose ideas changed everything.

It is well put together, and uses Flash. Check it out:

 

 

http://content.yudu.com/Library/A113su/FocusMagazine/resources/index.htm?referrerUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.yudu.com%2Flibrary%2Fitem_details%2F32174%2FFocus-Magazine

 

 

It even has a page on "How to win an argument with a creationist." I may need to put that to some empirical tests, myself.

[lalala43]

Yay thanks everyone your all being very helpful!

 

I have another question although it doesn't really have to do with evolution: One of the arguments from creationists, ( well it's a question really) is how can all the other elements from the periodic table of elements form if it all started with hydrogen? i can't think of an answer but I'm sure there is one out there so does anyone have it?

 

Thanks again guys!

 

Oh and if i got anything wrong from my description please correct me

[iNow]

Not that it will help, and not that they will fully grasp what you are saying, but the term to offer in response to that question is nucleosynthesis. Once you've shared that with a creationist, you might spend some time reminding them that an argument from incredulity is no argument at all.

 

 

http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/bb_tests_ele.html

The term nucleosynthesis refers to the formation of heavier elements, atomic nuclei with many protons and neutrons, from the fusion of lighter elements. The Big Bang theory predicts that the early universe was a very hot place. One second after the Big Bang, the temperature of the universe was roughly 10 billion degrees and was filled with a sea of neutrons, protons, electrons, anti-electrons (positrons), photons and neutrinos. As the universe cooled, the neutrons either decayed into protons and electrons or combined with protons to make deuterium (an isotope of hydrogen). During the first three minutes of the universe, most of the deuterium combined to make helium. Trace amounts of lithium were also produced at this time. This process of light element formation in the early universe is called “Big Bang nucleosynthesis” (BBN).

Elements heavier than lithium are all synthesized in stars. During the late stages of stellar evolution, massive stars burn helium to carbon, oxygen, silicon, sulfur, and iron. Elements heavier than iron are produced in two ways: in the outer envelopes of super-giant stars and in the explosion of a supernovae. All carbon-based life on Earth is literally composed of stardust.

 

 

If they still don't get it, try reminding them how amazing things can be done when enormous temperatures and gigantic pressures are at play. That's the "easy" version of the technical stuff. Like changing coal to diamonds on a cosmic/atomic scale.

 

 

 

http://helios.gsfc.nasa.gov/nucleo.html

A star's energy comes from the combining of light elements into heavier elements in a process known as fusion, or "nuclear burning". It is generally believed that most of the elements in the universe heavier than helium are created, or synthesized, in stars when lighter nuclei fuse to make heavier nuclei. The process is called nucleosynthesis.

 

Nucleosynthesis requires a high-speed collision, which can only be achieved with very high temperature. The minimum temperature required for the fusion of hydrogen is 5 million degrees. Elements with more protons in their nuclei require still higher temperatures. For instance, fusing carbon requires a temperature of about one billion degrees! Most of the heavy elements, from oxygen up through iron, are thought to be produced in stars that contain at least ten times as much matter as our Sun.

 

 

[scrappy]

The thing is with arguments involving Christians is that they are often quite satisfied falling back on "God did it", despite any objections you might have to that line of reasoning. So you may find it just as frustrating even if you have a good knowledge of the evolutionary principles they're arguing against.

I happen to be an atheist of the Dawkins' variety, more or less: life is essentially digital and uses coded information to build chemical infrastructure. Yet, while this seems entirely reasonable to me, there are still key elements of life that are not even close to being understood. Abiogenesis is one of them. And, since scientists have not yet explained abiogenesis well enough to make life from scratch in the laboratory or out in the wild, who can say with any certainty that some "god"—maybe some digital "god" in a parallel universe, for all I know—didn't cause life to happen?

 

The real point here is that science attempts to explain only nature and not religion. So, if religious people want to say "God did it," then who's to say they're wrong? They're actually as close to the answer as we are.

[Sayonara]

I happen to be an atheist of the Dawkins' variety, more or less: life is essentially digital and uses coded information to build chemical infrastructure. Yet, while this seems entirely reasonable to me, there are still key elements of life that are not even close to being understood. Abiogenesis is one of them. And, since scientists have not yet explained abiogenesis well enough to make life from scratch in the laboratory or out in the wild, who can say with any certainty that some "god"—maybe some digital "god" in a parallel universe, for all I know—didn't cause life to happen?

I didn't say at any point that "god did it" is wrong. What I am objecting to is the use of "god did it" as a declaration which is intended to end debate or inquiry.

 

The real point here is that science attempts to explain only nature and not religion. So, if religious people want to say "God did it," then who's to say they're wrong? They're actually as close to the answer as we are.

But you can't have your cake and eat it. If you nobody can be certain of a first cause for life (for example), then saying "god did it" is intellectually dishonest even if it can't be shown to be factually incorrect.

[iNow]

The real point here is that science attempts to explain only nature and not religion.

 

This is not true, at all. Many fields study religion, including (but not limited to) psychology, sociology, and anthropology.

[ydoaPs]

This is not true, at all. Many fields study religion, including (but not limited to) psychology, sociology, and anthropology.

Not to mention the fact that science can validate/falsify the claims about the world that religions make.

[Mr Skeptic]

1. My first question is, is that after the sort of split from a common ancestor between up and the common day apes (please correct me if i got any of that wrong as a summary) then where are the almost human looking ancestors that are supposed to be along our line of evolution in the i think its thirteen million years between our split?

 

Neanderthals and other early hominids, they are dead but there are a few fossils. There even seems to have been some preserved DNA, which will either vindicate or debunk creationist claims that they are simply deformed humans. Actually, some of it has already been sequenced:

Neanderthal DNA sequencing

Result: as evolution predicted, their mtDNA is outside the range of variation of modern humans, which is the opposite of what creationists predicted.

 

2. This might seem hard (i'm not sure ) but if someone could explain to me the concept of a genetic mutation and an example of one because that seems to be an argument by the as far as i can see uneducated creationist majority and if there isnt an example then why is that?

 

A mutation is any error in the DNA, generally a copying error. Most mutations are bad or neutral, and some are good. Many times, a mutation is good in a few situations and bad in others. An example of a particular mutation I am familiar with, is the delta 32 mutation. The delta 32 mutation deforms a molecule involved in the immune system, but that is the same molecule that the Plague and HIV use to invade our immune cells -- therefore, having that mutation in both alleles gives immunity to the Plague and HIV. However, I think that it reduces the immune system's function against other diseases.

 

i was going to get the origin of species of course yesterday as it was quite cheap and i consider it to be fundamental reading to truly grasp the concept of evolution but in the end i god Richard Dawkins' A devils chaplain, even though that doesn't necessarily have to do directly with evolution immensely

 

Just keep in mind that the modern theory of evolution is rather different than Darwin's original theory.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

One of the arguments from creationists, ( well it's a question really) is how can all the other elements from the periodic table of elements form if it all started with hydrogen? i can't think of an answer but I'm sure there is one out there so does anyone have it?

 

As iNow says, the answer is clear as daylight. In fact, daylight comes from turning lighter elements into heavier elements. However, the elements heavier than iron are mostly produced in a supernova, because it takes energy to make them (which is also the reason fission gives energy) and if a star were to make a significant quantity of elements heavier than iron it would kill the star. Anyhow, a supernova is also required to get the heavy elements out of the star. Some of the heavy elements can be released as solar wind.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

The real point here is that science attempts to explain only nature and not religion. So, if religious people want to say "God did it," then who's to say they're wrong? They're actually as close to the answer as we are.

 

I think that the trouble is that their answer is useless. Science is supposed to make predictions, not explain, and who can predict god? Even if god did it, a scientist would want to know how, and it is science, not religion, that would answer that. Also, religion is philosophically opposed to science -- religion tries to fit the data to their hypothesis; science tries to fit their hypothesis to the data and goes out of their way to search for data that might disprove the hypothesis.