Thursday, October 15, 2009
Tuesday, October 6, 2009
Answers to Maximus Arurealius from youtube.
The challenge from Maximus Arurealius.
The following is his 14 questions and my answers to them. Maximus Arurealius can be found on youtube here.
According to his rules:
"No criticism of the test is allowed. Answer the questions as they are stated. If you disagree with a question you fail that question."
Fine, I will answer these questions without criticizing them.
**Special note, some of the references used below are from peer reviewed scientific journals. If you wish to read them your local university library should have copies available.**
Let's begin.
1. What was the proof and the exact date that evolution was determined to be a fact? If it happened then it would be a historical event on a particular date. Every evolutionist should know this.
This is an excellent question, and one that makes perfect sense to ask. If evolution is accepted by the scientific community to be true then when did that happen? You would think it would be easy to answer, however a set date written in stone so-to-speak may not be quite so easy to pin down. Just like the laws of thermodynamics and the laws of gravity are currently accepted to be laws of the universe which can not be broken (except under extreme theoretical conditions) it is difficult to say exactly when they became laws. One could argue they have always been laws and then they were discovered by humans. Just like evolution has always been a fact of nature even before its discovery. In which case one would need only look at the date of discovery. In the case of evolution it would be Nov 24, 1859. This is the date that "On the origin of species" by Charles Darwin was published.
One could go before that by investigating exactly when Darwin had his epiphany and realized that gradual changes over time could add up and give rise to a completely new species. We don't know the exact day this happened but it was in mid-July 1837 according to his notes.
It gets even more complicated than that. The scientific community through the peer review process is what determines what is accepted as scientific facts through rigorous testing.
So when did the scientific community accept Darwin’s theory and what proof's did they have to justify it? Well the theory of evolution as proposed by Charles Darwin had a hard time gaining acceptance in the scientific community for an obvious reason. Although there was plenty of fossil evidence to suggest that Darwin was right, science could not explain how different traits arose within a species. Sure natural selection explained how beneficial traits would be more favored, but how did those traits get there? And why would they be passed on?
While the debate over Darwin’s theory raged on over the years, a new field of study was emerging in biology. Genetics. The term was coined by William Bateson, and he was one of the first scientists to take the idea of genetics seriously. In 1913 Thomas Hunt Morgan discovered that "genes" were on chromosomes. Frederick Griffith discovered in 1928 that genetic material had the power to alter the make-up of a living thing. It was much later in 1944 that Oswald Theodore Avery, Colin McLeod and Maclyn McCarty discovered DNA. Now evolution had a way to not only pass on traits, but to give rise to beneficial ones, as well. As the field of genetics was maturing, the acceptance of The Theory of Evolution by scientists was gaining steam. By the 1930's the majority of scientists accepted it as a correct theory to explain biology, or, as we would say, "accepted it as fact.” Although there was now tons of evidence from different areas of science that backed up the theory of evolution, and it was accepted as fact by scientists, it still was not "proven" as we would use the word in everyday language.
In 1982 work done by this man showed by the use of endogenous retroviruses (ERVs) that we share common ancestry with lower primates. Evolution now had proof.
In 1991 a paper, which you can see here, provided evidence of evolution once again. Chromosome number 2 in the human genome is a result of the fusion of 2 separate chromosomes that are also found in the primate genome. It should be noted that these are only 2 of numerous proofs for evolution.
Thus, we have plenty of proofs that have come from different fields over a long period of time. So when was evolution accepted by the non-scientific community as a fact? One that is worthy of being taught to our students? Well for America it was in the 1960's that the Biological Sciences Curriculum Study pushed to have evolution added to the curriculum in public schools and succeeded. The Supreme Court decision in Epperson vs. Arkansas on Nov 12, 1968 protected evolution being taught in schools as science.
Despite all of this the question is "What was the proof and the exact date that evolution was determined to be a fact?"
The long answer is many many different times. The short answer is:
If you want an exact date and an exact proof, then I would say, Date: April 9th, 2008.
Proof : Watched Evolution Happen over a 20 year experiment.
2. What are the basic requirements that evolution scientists say are necessary for proving evolution?
Well starting with the first one Charles Darwin. He predicted that his theory would be proven by finding transitional fossils in the fossil record. One's that would share the traits of forms it evolved from and the forms it evolved into.
We found a lot more than even he thought we would.
This is the most basic requirement of proving the theory.
Even if we did not have fossils the theory could be proven through the discovery of genetics. So in that case, you would need a lab capable of studying genetic information someone who knows how to look for common ancestry in genetics.
3. How did the bee and the flowers evolve? They depend on each other for survival.
Flowers evolved without the need for bees around 130 million years ago. There are many other methods of pollination, such as wind or hydrophily. Also, non-pollinating insects such as beetles helped.
The bee evolved from the wasp family about 100 million years ago. Then it quickly evolved the ability to gather pollen. Of course when I say quickly we are talking millions of years.
I am reminded of an old married couple. Although they didn't start life out in need of each other’s company, some of them get so used to having the other around that they come to depend on it.
4. Where did natural enemies come from?
Well the short answer is through competition for survival. Specifically the competition of two or more organisms over the same resource. Resource normally meaning food, water etc...
Predation is exactly what you would expect in evolution. The phrase "survival of the fittest" can take a very literal meaning. As the food supply runs thin due to overpopulation or climate shifts, the population of organisms begin to "fight" over the limited sustenance. This environmental pressure can and does speed up evolution in a certain species because now more than ever only the "strongest survive". In many cases some organisms will evolve the ability to feed off another rival organism, thus solving the problem of not having enough food by quite literally eating the competition. As the rival organism now becomes food itself, it is placed under pressure to evolve a natural defense against being eaten.
We see examples of this in nature all over the place. However it is in predation that we also see just how often beneficial mutations fail to save a species. Over 99% of all species that have existed on earth have gone extinct. The majority of these were unable to evolve a defense against a new natural predator fast enough to save themselves.
5. When did the first fish crawl out of the ocean and become a tomato plant?
This never happened.
6. What crawled back into the ocean and became a whale?
Raoellids such as Indohyus major which then became Ambulocetids such as Ambulocetus.
And then became Protocetids which at that point they could no longer walk.
So the answer is Ambulocetids and Remingtonocetids such as the Kutchicetus.
7. What did fleas do while waiting around for dogs?
They fed off other animals. Specifically since we selectively bred dogs from wolves, which came from the Canidae family, they fed off them. Fleas feed off of just about every animal, including birds. There was plenty of food around before dogs existed. So to answer your question, they sucked blood and they mated. The same as they do now.
8. How did birds get past the short wing stage?
The answer to this question is: They survived even better then they did before the short wing stage.
Before Professor Richard Dawkins was a promoter of atheism, he was a pretty good teacher.
He addresses this question here.
9. How come there are no fossils of anything with just one eye?
How did they survive until they got two?
Well, animals are bilaterally similar. So we normally evolve something on both sides of us at the same time. This is why we didn't evolve a hand on one side and a claw on the other.
So it would be natural to us to evolve two eyes. The reason we are bilaterally similar is due to the morphological need to orientate towards something, whether it be food or just surroundings. This of course is easily answered by evolving in paired structures, so that input from two dueling senses can give you perspective. In vision we call this depth perception. In hearing we call this sound localization. So we would expect the eye to evolve bilaterally just like anything else. Just like the wing, we would expect proto-eyed animals to survive the same way they did before the eyes started to evolve. And the ones who started to get some vision, even if it was very crude and just a patch of skin that can detect between light and dark, would have had an increased likelihood of surviving and thus passing on that trait.
So we would not expect just one eye to develop. We would expect the evolution of eyes to happen simultaneously on both sides of the body the same as with any other paired structure.
10. What did the first cells use for nutrition since they were the only life?
A single cell organism does not necessarily need the presence of other life to survive. There were many things that could have provided ample sustenance for the first cells, including oxygen, proteins, amino acids, water, etc…
For more information, how cells can create energy.
11. Now that brings up a question. If abiogenesis happened 4 billion yrs ago, why did it only happen once and why isn't it still happening?
There is no evidence to suggest that abiogenesis happened just once 4 billion years ago. We would expect abiogenesis to take place wherever the conditions would allow. Life could have started in hundreds of different places all over the earth many different times and could have been happening for a long time. In fact it could still be happening today. However since current evidence suggests the process takes a very long time, we should not expect to be able to witness it as it happens - despite this, amazingly we have. We have seen catalytic self-replicating peptides form spontaneously... i.e., we’ve seen life form from non life. Granted this occurred under laboratory conditions and there is still a lot of research to be done to confirm these findings.
In another field of study, scientists at Scripps Research Institute watched self replicating RNA sequence itself without assistance and then start to actually compete for resources and evolve new strains. The scientists performing this study were completely shocked by this discovery. Although the RNA sequences can not be classified as life, it behaved just like life would behave. If further research confirms that these RNA sequences can and do evolve just like life, then some of them could eventually evolve into life.
Very very exciting!
Since we still are unsure of exactly how the first life arose on this planet and abiogenesis is still in its infancy, then there is no way to predict how (or where) we should look to try and find modern day examples in nature. It should be noted that the theory of abiogenesis is still being formulated and is not the same as the theory of evolution. The theory of evolution only pertains to life once it has started and is capable of reproduction. The theory of evolution is about how life changes over time. Not about how it begins.
12. Now just why DID the snake lose the legs he worked sooo hard to evolve for millions of years?
We know of several species of snake in the fossil record that still have there limbs such as Haasiophis, Pachyrhachis and Najash. It is the consensus of most evolutionary scientists that snakes evolved from lizards. Now why limb reduction would be beneficial to them is a good question.
There is actually debate on this issue in evolutionary science. This is due to the fossil record of snakes not being quite as thorough as other species. Snake carcasses tend to be very brittle and do not normally survive fossilization intact. Luckily for us we have some living transitional fossils to study, such as the Australian skink.
What is really neat about skinks is that some of them have no legs, some of them have four legs, and some of them have variations between the two. So it is like watching evolution happen in our lifetimes.
Now, the debate on exactly why modern day snakes lost there limbs currently has two main sides: the terrestrial theory, which postulates that they evolved without legs to better move through tiny cracks and crevices such as in rock and to burrow in sand and lose soil, and the aquatic theory, which proposes that they evolved to be better adapted to move through water by not having legs.
Scientists are always looking for the next bright young mind to come and shake up their theories, so if you have an interest in studying snakes, maybe you could be the one to solve this riddle. I think the fact that we have aquatic and terrestrial snakes currently gives merit to both theories and suggests that both transitional stages happened independent of each other in different environments. This is just my speculation.
13. Why did humans evolve the ability to talk and animals didn't.
Non-human animals have evolved ways to communicate. They communicate with calls, scents, behavior patterns etc… So animals can talk to each other in the colloquial sense of the word. In fact studies of just how sophisticated language can be with animals and insects have proven to be rather surprising. Bees, for instance, have the ability to tell the rest of the hive where food is located by a series of “dance moves,” which in turn give the entire hive a “roadmap” of where to find it. Here you can watch one of those dances and an explanation. It is truly fascinating if I say so myself.
Humans on the other hand have evolved the ability to communicate in another way. Spoken language. Vocalization of thoughts.
We don’t seem to be the only species on this planet that can do this. Chimpanzees have been seen “talking” to each other using a series of growls that can alert others of hidden dangers such as snakes.
Many unsuccessful attempts have been made to teach chimpanzees the human language. So why can’t they get the hang of it?
Well first of all, their tongue and larynx are not set up for it.
Second, although they have the areas of the brain to not only generate vocal speech but also understand it, those parts of the brain are not as evolved as ours are.
Spoken language requires much more than just those areas of the brain, however. A certain sense of self awareness, spatial awareness, and the cognitive ability to understand things on a semantic level are just a few reasons why no other animal on earth can talk on our level.
The short answer is, we evolved the ability to communicate in a new and different way due to the capabilities of our brain and other physical traits. The brains of other animals are not nearly as sophisticated in the areas needed in order to form a complex language. However it needs to be stressed that many animals do communicate in their own way and it is amazing just how good some can be at it.
14. It seems that caterpillars are not in the reproduction business, that the butterflies give birth to caterpillars! So do caterpillars give birth to caterpillars or do butterflies?
Butterflies lay eggs which turn into caterpillars. Caterpillars go through a metamorphosis which changes them into butterflies. Then the cycle continues.
This fun little site talks about it. With pictures!
The following is his 14 questions and my answers to them. Maximus Arurealius can be found on youtube here.
According to his rules:
"No criticism of the test is allowed. Answer the questions as they are stated. If you disagree with a question you fail that question."
Fine, I will answer these questions without criticizing them.
**Special note, some of the references used below are from peer reviewed scientific journals. If you wish to read them your local university library should have copies available.**
Let's begin.
1. What was the proof and the exact date that evolution was determined to be a fact? If it happened then it would be a historical event on a particular date. Every evolutionist should know this.
This is an excellent question, and one that makes perfect sense to ask. If evolution is accepted by the scientific community to be true then when did that happen? You would think it would be easy to answer, however a set date written in stone so-to-speak may not be quite so easy to pin down. Just like the laws of thermodynamics and the laws of gravity are currently accepted to be laws of the universe which can not be broken (except under extreme theoretical conditions) it is difficult to say exactly when they became laws. One could argue they have always been laws and then they were discovered by humans. Just like evolution has always been a fact of nature even before its discovery. In which case one would need only look at the date of discovery. In the case of evolution it would be Nov 24, 1859. This is the date that "On the origin of species" by Charles Darwin was published.
One could go before that by investigating exactly when Darwin had his epiphany and realized that gradual changes over time could add up and give rise to a completely new species. We don't know the exact day this happened but it was in mid-July 1837 according to his notes.
It gets even more complicated than that. The scientific community through the peer review process is what determines what is accepted as scientific facts through rigorous testing.
So when did the scientific community accept Darwin’s theory and what proof's did they have to justify it? Well the theory of evolution as proposed by Charles Darwin had a hard time gaining acceptance in the scientific community for an obvious reason. Although there was plenty of fossil evidence to suggest that Darwin was right, science could not explain how different traits arose within a species. Sure natural selection explained how beneficial traits would be more favored, but how did those traits get there? And why would they be passed on?
While the debate over Darwin’s theory raged on over the years, a new field of study was emerging in biology. Genetics. The term was coined by William Bateson, and he was one of the first scientists to take the idea of genetics seriously. In 1913 Thomas Hunt Morgan discovered that "genes" were on chromosomes. Frederick Griffith discovered in 1928 that genetic material had the power to alter the make-up of a living thing. It was much later in 1944 that Oswald Theodore Avery, Colin McLeod and Maclyn McCarty discovered DNA. Now evolution had a way to not only pass on traits, but to give rise to beneficial ones, as well. As the field of genetics was maturing, the acceptance of The Theory of Evolution by scientists was gaining steam. By the 1930's the majority of scientists accepted it as a correct theory to explain biology, or, as we would say, "accepted it as fact.” Although there was now tons of evidence from different areas of science that backed up the theory of evolution, and it was accepted as fact by scientists, it still was not "proven" as we would use the word in everyday language.
In 1982 work done by this man showed by the use of endogenous retroviruses (ERVs) that we share common ancestry with lower primates. Evolution now had proof.
In 1991 a paper, which you can see here, provided evidence of evolution once again. Chromosome number 2 in the human genome is a result of the fusion of 2 separate chromosomes that are also found in the primate genome. It should be noted that these are only 2 of numerous proofs for evolution.
Thus, we have plenty of proofs that have come from different fields over a long period of time. So when was evolution accepted by the non-scientific community as a fact? One that is worthy of being taught to our students? Well for America it was in the 1960's that the Biological Sciences Curriculum Study pushed to have evolution added to the curriculum in public schools and succeeded. The Supreme Court decision in Epperson vs. Arkansas on Nov 12, 1968 protected evolution being taught in schools as science.
Despite all of this the question is "What was the proof and the exact date that evolution was determined to be a fact?"
The long answer is many many different times. The short answer is:
If you want an exact date and an exact proof, then I would say, Date: April 9th, 2008.
Proof : Watched Evolution Happen over a 20 year experiment.
2. What are the basic requirements that evolution scientists say are necessary for proving evolution?
Well starting with the first one Charles Darwin. He predicted that his theory would be proven by finding transitional fossils in the fossil record. One's that would share the traits of forms it evolved from and the forms it evolved into.
We found a lot more than even he thought we would.
This is the most basic requirement of proving the theory.
Even if we did not have fossils the theory could be proven through the discovery of genetics. So in that case, you would need a lab capable of studying genetic information someone who knows how to look for common ancestry in genetics.
3. How did the bee and the flowers evolve? They depend on each other for survival.
Flowers evolved without the need for bees around 130 million years ago. There are many other methods of pollination, such as wind or hydrophily. Also, non-pollinating insects such as beetles helped.
The bee evolved from the wasp family about 100 million years ago. Then it quickly evolved the ability to gather pollen. Of course when I say quickly we are talking millions of years.
I am reminded of an old married couple. Although they didn't start life out in need of each other’s company, some of them get so used to having the other around that they come to depend on it.
4. Where did natural enemies come from?
Well the short answer is through competition for survival. Specifically the competition of two or more organisms over the same resource. Resource normally meaning food, water etc...
Predation is exactly what you would expect in evolution. The phrase "survival of the fittest" can take a very literal meaning. As the food supply runs thin due to overpopulation or climate shifts, the population of organisms begin to "fight" over the limited sustenance. This environmental pressure can and does speed up evolution in a certain species because now more than ever only the "strongest survive". In many cases some organisms will evolve the ability to feed off another rival organism, thus solving the problem of not having enough food by quite literally eating the competition. As the rival organism now becomes food itself, it is placed under pressure to evolve a natural defense against being eaten.
We see examples of this in nature all over the place. However it is in predation that we also see just how often beneficial mutations fail to save a species. Over 99% of all species that have existed on earth have gone extinct. The majority of these were unable to evolve a defense against a new natural predator fast enough to save themselves.
5. When did the first fish crawl out of the ocean and become a tomato plant?
This never happened.
6. What crawled back into the ocean and became a whale?
Raoellids such as Indohyus major which then became Ambulocetids such as Ambulocetus.
And then became Protocetids which at that point they could no longer walk.
So the answer is Ambulocetids and Remingtonocetids such as the Kutchicetus.
7. What did fleas do while waiting around for dogs?
They fed off other animals. Specifically since we selectively bred dogs from wolves, which came from the Canidae family, they fed off them. Fleas feed off of just about every animal, including birds. There was plenty of food around before dogs existed. So to answer your question, they sucked blood and they mated. The same as they do now.
8. How did birds get past the short wing stage?
The answer to this question is: They survived even better then they did before the short wing stage.
Before Professor Richard Dawkins was a promoter of atheism, he was a pretty good teacher.
He addresses this question here.
9. How come there are no fossils of anything with just one eye?
How did they survive until they got two?
Well, animals are bilaterally similar. So we normally evolve something on both sides of us at the same time. This is why we didn't evolve a hand on one side and a claw on the other.
So it would be natural to us to evolve two eyes. The reason we are bilaterally similar is due to the morphological need to orientate towards something, whether it be food or just surroundings. This of course is easily answered by evolving in paired structures, so that input from two dueling senses can give you perspective. In vision we call this depth perception. In hearing we call this sound localization. So we would expect the eye to evolve bilaterally just like anything else. Just like the wing, we would expect proto-eyed animals to survive the same way they did before the eyes started to evolve. And the ones who started to get some vision, even if it was very crude and just a patch of skin that can detect between light and dark, would have had an increased likelihood of surviving and thus passing on that trait.
So we would not expect just one eye to develop. We would expect the evolution of eyes to happen simultaneously on both sides of the body the same as with any other paired structure.
10. What did the first cells use for nutrition since they were the only life?
A single cell organism does not necessarily need the presence of other life to survive. There were many things that could have provided ample sustenance for the first cells, including oxygen, proteins, amino acids, water, etc…
For more information, how cells can create energy.
11. Now that brings up a question. If abiogenesis happened 4 billion yrs ago, why did it only happen once and why isn't it still happening?
There is no evidence to suggest that abiogenesis happened just once 4 billion years ago. We would expect abiogenesis to take place wherever the conditions would allow. Life could have started in hundreds of different places all over the earth many different times and could have been happening for a long time. In fact it could still be happening today. However since current evidence suggests the process takes a very long time, we should not expect to be able to witness it as it happens - despite this, amazingly we have. We have seen catalytic self-replicating peptides form spontaneously... i.e., we’ve seen life form from non life. Granted this occurred under laboratory conditions and there is still a lot of research to be done to confirm these findings.
In another field of study, scientists at Scripps Research Institute watched self replicating RNA sequence itself without assistance and then start to actually compete for resources and evolve new strains. The scientists performing this study were completely shocked by this discovery. Although the RNA sequences can not be classified as life, it behaved just like life would behave. If further research confirms that these RNA sequences can and do evolve just like life, then some of them could eventually evolve into life.
Very very exciting!
Since we still are unsure of exactly how the first life arose on this planet and abiogenesis is still in its infancy, then there is no way to predict how (or where) we should look to try and find modern day examples in nature. It should be noted that the theory of abiogenesis is still being formulated and is not the same as the theory of evolution. The theory of evolution only pertains to life once it has started and is capable of reproduction. The theory of evolution is about how life changes over time. Not about how it begins.
12. Now just why DID the snake lose the legs he worked sooo hard to evolve for millions of years?
We know of several species of snake in the fossil record that still have there limbs such as Haasiophis, Pachyrhachis and Najash. It is the consensus of most evolutionary scientists that snakes evolved from lizards. Now why limb reduction would be beneficial to them is a good question.
There is actually debate on this issue in evolutionary science. This is due to the fossil record of snakes not being quite as thorough as other species. Snake carcasses tend to be very brittle and do not normally survive fossilization intact. Luckily for us we have some living transitional fossils to study, such as the Australian skink.
What is really neat about skinks is that some of them have no legs, some of them have four legs, and some of them have variations between the two. So it is like watching evolution happen in our lifetimes.
Now, the debate on exactly why modern day snakes lost there limbs currently has two main sides: the terrestrial theory, which postulates that they evolved without legs to better move through tiny cracks and crevices such as in rock and to burrow in sand and lose soil, and the aquatic theory, which proposes that they evolved to be better adapted to move through water by not having legs.
Scientists are always looking for the next bright young mind to come and shake up their theories, so if you have an interest in studying snakes, maybe you could be the one to solve this riddle. I think the fact that we have aquatic and terrestrial snakes currently gives merit to both theories and suggests that both transitional stages happened independent of each other in different environments. This is just my speculation.
13. Why did humans evolve the ability to talk and animals didn't.
Non-human animals have evolved ways to communicate. They communicate with calls, scents, behavior patterns etc… So animals can talk to each other in the colloquial sense of the word. In fact studies of just how sophisticated language can be with animals and insects have proven to be rather surprising. Bees, for instance, have the ability to tell the rest of the hive where food is located by a series of “dance moves,” which in turn give the entire hive a “roadmap” of where to find it. Here you can watch one of those dances and an explanation. It is truly fascinating if I say so myself.
Humans on the other hand have evolved the ability to communicate in another way. Spoken language. Vocalization of thoughts.
We don’t seem to be the only species on this planet that can do this. Chimpanzees have been seen “talking” to each other using a series of growls that can alert others of hidden dangers such as snakes.
Many unsuccessful attempts have been made to teach chimpanzees the human language. So why can’t they get the hang of it?
Well first of all, their tongue and larynx are not set up for it.
Second, although they have the areas of the brain to not only generate vocal speech but also understand it, those parts of the brain are not as evolved as ours are.
Spoken language requires much more than just those areas of the brain, however. A certain sense of self awareness, spatial awareness, and the cognitive ability to understand things on a semantic level are just a few reasons why no other animal on earth can talk on our level.
The short answer is, we evolved the ability to communicate in a new and different way due to the capabilities of our brain and other physical traits. The brains of other animals are not nearly as sophisticated in the areas needed in order to form a complex language. However it needs to be stressed that many animals do communicate in their own way and it is amazing just how good some can be at it.
14. It seems that caterpillars are not in the reproduction business, that the butterflies give birth to caterpillars! So do caterpillars give birth to caterpillars or do butterflies?
Butterflies lay eggs which turn into caterpillars. Caterpillars go through a metamorphosis which changes them into butterflies. Then the cycle continues.
This fun little site talks about it. With pictures!
Friday, October 2, 2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
