The Theory of Evolution

[Sarah Noel]

I love the Theory of Evolution. I love the diversity and complexity that's arose from it. I love how elegantly it works, and how easy it is to understand (this may take effort for some people, but for me it's strikingly obvious).

I do not love the Hypothesis of Intelligent design. I call it a hypothesis, because in order to become a legitimate Scientific Theory you need proper evidence. Discuss. I'll extrapolate later, but I've got stuff to do right now and I didn't want the Scientific Discussion Board looking all sad and empty. Also I take pleasure in knowing I made the first thread.





Evolution Play Mat I'm buying this for my future adopted kids if I ever get some, they're going to play, learn, and pretend to be dinosaurs with me.

[Moco Loco]

LOL, nice cartoon there, and that mat is priceless Heard you talk about it before but never looked it up before, looks fun

[Empty Glass]

Ah, the evolution/intelligent design conflict. A few years ago I took a very interesting philosophy class that spent some time on this subject and I was given a real in-depth look at the arguments made for intelligent design. I wish I could remember more from that class, but I do remember having a really entertaining look at the Discovery Institute and how it tried to get intelligent design to seem like a legitimate theory so it could be taught in science classes. And also the discovery of the term "cdesign proponentsists" in a proposed textbook was interesting to see too.

(I'm not very fond of think tanks like them, that put up a false scientific front to sway opinion. There are a few in the environmental sector that particularly peeve me, but that's for another thread.)

[Moco Loco]

I find arguments for intelligent design to be very transparent, but I guess they're not if you grow up in that sort of environment. I went to a baptist christian school immediately after hurricane Katrina, and the science textbooks there were absolutely unbearable. This thread has prompted me to look for the book for the first time since I went there (I should've just stolen it, I regret not doing so every day). Anyway, I came across this picture while I was looking.

[Human No More]

I thin one of the main fallacies is not knowing what a theory is and getting it confused with a hypothesis, therefore attempting to criticise based on semantics - certainly, some may make this mistake innocently, but I am almost certain that the majority make a conscious effort to get the word definitions wrong.

[Theorist]

I think evolution and natural selection is fully understood by only a small number of people.I think a lot of people think they understand evolution, but I don't think many have a firm grasp on all of its concepts and principals. I think it is one of the coolest studies of science though. It especially irks me when someone says humans can control evolution.

Nice pic to loco moco.

[Human No More]

Well, technically it can be influenced (e.g. selective breeding) - but certainly, not controlled.

[Theorist]

yeah, one can definitely breed new species, but like when someone says genetic engineering would give humans control over evolution/natural selection. That's an interesting topic, because it ultimately doesn't.

[Moco Loco]

Most probably don't really mean "control" literally. It's probably more of an error of words than it is of understanding.

[Theorist]

Even if one means guide though, it is near impossible to tell which genotype will produce the most vigorous offspring

[stdout]

I've just started a project on genetic algorithms, and I'm hoping I'll learn about some of the subtleties of evolution...

[Human No More]

Genetic engineering doesn't allow things to be arbitrarily added/removed past the most basic level, because DNA only codes for chemicals, there is no way to add a physical feature of one animal to another without modifying a large percentage of its DNA - not simply inserting a single section.

[Clarke]

Originally Posted by Human No More

Genetic engineering doesn't allow things to be arbitrarily added/removed past the most basic level, because DNA only codes for chemicals, there is no way to add a physical feature of one animal to another without modifying a large percentage of its DNA - not simply inserting a single section.

Modern genetic engineering doesn't, but theorectical GE does. Although you probably would have to be changing large portions of the genome, there's no reason I know of you couldn't turn anything into anything.

[Human No More]

You'd have to resynthesise their entire genome, modifying the entire sequence to cause the new feature to form. It's theoretically possible, but is almost the complete opposite to simply adding the feature from another species' genome.