[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 31 KB, 200x385, 1312443193400.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
[ERROR] No.3713326 [Reply] [Original]

A scientific theory can only be accepted, if it can be validated by experiments.

What experiments were conducted to test macroevolution?

>> No.3713332

what is "accepted"

>> No.3713330

The fossil record, genetic sequencing

>> No.3713339

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b240PGCMwV0

In this case "nature" is fossils, which we can more or less place on chronological order

>> No.3713335

>>3713330
That is observation, not a designed experiment.

>> No.3713341

>>3713332
What is a "what"?

>> No.3713343

>A scientific theory can only be accepted, if it can be validated by experiments.

A scientific theory can only be proven, if it can be validated by experiments.

>> No.3713344

We hypothesized what the fossil record would show if evolution were accurate. We tested the hypothesis. The hypothesis was correct. Experiment complete.

>> No.3713348

Speciation is regularly observed in bacteria

>> No.3713352

It was hypothesized that fossil hominids intermediate between chimpanzees and humans would exist in the fossil record. This was shown to be true.

>> No.3713355

That one guy showed that mitochondria can grow in harsh conditions

>> No.3713356

>>3713339
He spelt "geuss" wrong.

>>3713343
You don't know what a scientific theory is, do you?
A theory can never be "proven". It can be backed up or rejected.

>> No.3713367

>>3713348
We are talking about macroevolution.

>> No.3713373

"Macroevolutionary studies focus on change that occurs at or above the level of species"

= speciation

>> No.3713374

>>3713352
We didn't find the missing link. That's why it's missing.

>> No.3713379

>>3713374
It's not missing, it's named Lucy you dumbfuck

>> No.3713375

>>3713348
how does that work if speciation is when two breeds can't breed anymore, and bacteria are asexual? do they look at conjugation instead?

>> No.3713388

>>3713367
Macroevolution is evolution that occurs at the species level. Speciation is Macroevolution.

Do you happen to be one of those people who thinks Macroevolution is a crocodile turning into a duck?

>> No.3713397

>>3713335
>That is observation, not a designed experiment.

No, they are accurate predictions. The experiment was looking for them.

It's still an experiment, though not one as controlled as you would create in a laboratory. It is more like astronomy. You can observe a star blowing up, and make predictions about what you will observe that will either be confirmed or falsified. You can't blow up whatever star you want, though.

>> No.3713400

>>3713374

Say it with me.

"There is no such thing as a missing link, there is no half monkey-half man beast, that's not how evolution works. I'm a tool for even mentioning this."

Also, we have. : http://www.chron.com/news/article/Game-changer-in-evolution-from-S-African-bones-2160637.php

>> No.3713401

>>3713374
Ancestors of apes -> Humans

There's one 'missing link' between us and the ancestor of apes which led to us

Suppose we found it:
Ancestors of apes -> Missing link -> Humans

Oh look! Two new missing links just appeared after we found that one you were bitching about! Fancy that.

If you can't understand why this means 'missing link' is a silly argument, you're just handicapped.

>> No.3713406

>>3713379
Please educate yourself.
Lucy is not the missing link.

>>3713388
I don't see how your reply relates to my post.

>> No.3713412

>>3713406
>I don't see how your reply relates to my post.
Are you dumb?
Perhaps there are some learning disabilities within your family?
Is your mom your sister?

This may explain your lack of comprehension.

>> No.3713418

>>3713397
>>3713397
>>3713397
>>3713397
>>3713397
>>3713397
>>3713397

>> No.3713416

>>3713406
tell me then, what is the missing link, other than a rhetorical ploy

>> No.3713424
File: 2 KB, 126x126, 1304752945101s.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
[ERROR]

>>3713343
>2011
>Thinks theories can be proven

>> No.3713429

>>3713412
1. You are not the poster I was referencing.
2. Eat a bag of nigger shit.

>> No.3713444

>>3713397
Thanks. That answered the question.

>>3713416
Yes, it is a rhetorical ploy.
That's why it's wrong to take any fossil and name it "missing link".

>> No.3713453
File: 32 KB, 639x426, fish_legs.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
[ERROR]

Here

>> No.3713485

>>3713429
u mad?

Of course you are, you can't understand basic concepts, that would make me angry too.

>> No.3713489

>>3713485
Too obvious.
You're not even trying.

>> No.3713491

>>3713489
That's because I'm not trolling, I genuinely believe you to be a fuckwit.

>> No.3713497

>>3713491
Why?
Please explain.
And use more than just insults.

>> No.3713514

>>3713497
Alright alright, fair enough.

The post
>"Speciation is regularly observed in bacteria"

led to your reply of

>"We are talking about macroevolution."

Which implies that you think speciation isn't macroevolution.

When Krakengineer replied with
>"Macroevolution is evolution that occurs at the species level. Speciation is Macroevolution."

to correct your definitional error, you completely missed the point and replied with
>"I don't see how your reply relates to my post."

That's about it.

>> No.3713516

>>3713326

This was the first result on google to come up about a study that took place. I will concede that it was not experimental in nature, but if you could speculate as to a design of a true experiment that would possibly demonstrate macroevolution then kudos to you...

Anyway this is an article covering the study

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/04/080421-lizard-evolution.html

When you consider these lizards could no longer reproduce with the same species of lizard initially introduced to the island, I would consider that pretty much a slam dunk.

>> No.3713521

>>3713514
That's because "speciation" in BACTERIA is subject of microevolution.
And like >>3713375 already pointed out, speciation is a very fuzzy concept when talking about bacteria.

>> No.3713532
File: 122 KB, 410x410, 1286249944071.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
[ERROR]

If Basket A told me that "a sky wizard created everything on a whim because this ancient book said so" and Basket B told me that "everything created itself through trial and error, and I have a little evidence to prove it", I'd still put my eggs in Basket B

>> No.3713541

>>3713532
> implying baskets can talk
> implying you own any eggs

sure is newscientist in here

>> No.3713547

>>3713521
Making a distinction between 'micro-evolution' and 'macro-evolution' is a mistake in the first place. They aren't a different thing, what you refer to as 'macro-evolution' is just a whole bunch of accumulated 'micro-evolution'.

And plus, speciation of fruit-flies has been observed in the lab, that's definitely macroscopic speciation.

>> No.3713568

>>3713547
What I was initially referring to as "macroevolution" was the bigger process of change, like growing new organs etc.
Anything that cannot be observed in a lab because it takes millions of years to happen.
I am fully aware of genetic mutations in smaller scale.

>> No.3713579

>>3713568

Well what sort of selection pressures would require new organs? When you answer please put it in the context of a situation that could be used conceivably in an experiment?

>> No.3713587

>macroevolution

>macro - evolution

What the fuck is MACRO-evolution? Some kind of wordplay intended to invalidate observed evolution by dividing it into two categories? Such an obviously politically charged term should not even be entertained by the scientific community. Especially since it should be obvious that all evolution we directly observe is 'micro' and everything else is 'macro'.

Fuck that. What experiments were conducted to verify macro-motion? How can we know that an object can even get from here to Alpha Centauri?

What experiments have you done to verify macro-walking? How do you know you could walk to two towns over if you've never actually done it?

>> No.3713590

>>3713579
That's exactly the point.
We (humans) have different organs than fish and no experiment can show that we actually evolved from them.
Yet it is the most prominent theory and is only backed up by fossils.

>> No.3713597

>>3713587
Brotip: read the thread before posting.

>> No.3713600

>>3713532

Are you fucking kidding me?

Evolution is scientific FACT (just as 'objects fall to the ground when they are dropped' is the fact we call gravity). The theory of evolution (how! it works) is an undeniable proven theory as well. The fossil record illustrates it perfectly (with not ONE incorrect fossil), and experiments have been done to actually prove it. At Michigan State, researchers performed a lengthy and genius experiment that showed E. coli adapting to its environment. The experiment ran for over 10,000 generations.

>> No.3713603

The hypothesis for evolution came from observation of the existing fossil record, experiments were done by predicting the existence of certain undiscovered fossils. These predictions turned out to be correct.

Examples of this include the various non-human hominid species like Australopithecus Africanus, Australopithecus Afarensis, Homo Habilis, Homo Erectus, and. The fossils of these species were not known at the time when Darwin first suggested that Humans were descended from apes, thus validating a prediction made by evolutionary theory.

Population studies of finches which Darwin performed in the Galapagos are also actually parts of experiments. One needn't force conditions in order to perform an experiment, only make a prediction which can be confirmed or falsified by obsevations of nature, whether you brought about the circumstances or not. When Darwin started noticing the variations of beak size over generations (finches reproduce quickly) he made a hypothesis, and then tested it by noticing he could accurately predict the average size of the beak of the next generation based on seed availability and conditions in their feeding grounds.

>> No.3713605

>>3713579
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_wall_lizard

As with any such historical event, we must look for natural experiments. We can see that the Italian Wall Lizard has developed a new 'organ' or sorts, in a stomach valve that allows better digestion of plant matter.

New organs do not really pop up fully formed. Natural history is full of examples of organs being re-purposed, expanded, contracted, and otherwise molded over time.

>> No.3713607

>>3713600
>he thinks a theory can be "FACT"

Have fun failing in science.

>> No.3713609

>>3713597

I know, I know. I was just so rageface.jpg at the OP. And I forgot my sage.

>> No.3713616

>>3713590
The thing is that that's perfectly valid. The validity of a theory hinges on the data that supports it. Experiments are performed in order to obtain data, but they're not the only way to obtain data. If enough data is collected that supports the theory, that theory is accepted, regardless of whether it was through experiment or observation.

>> No.3713620

>>3713607

You absolute retard.

Objects fall to the ground when dropped on Earth - FACT

The theory of gravity (relativity) explains the above fact and does it pretty damn well.

Organic life changes over time - FACT

The theory of evolution (natural selection and other selections) explains the above fact and does it pretty damn well.

>> No.3713625

>>3713616
Okay. That's an explanation which I can accept.

>> No.3713626

Of course no experiment could show that process happening, I mean that no true experiment could possibly show that. It's a process that takes millions and millions of years, and I cannot fathom how you would be able to create a lab environment that would study it. I have already posted a link to one study that aimed to observe (which it did) macro evolution in lizards, I'm unsure what standards of evidence (if there are any finite standards, and you won't just keep moving the goalposts) to accept evolution (assuming that you do not).

However as a final point I would suggest that there is more evidence in the theory of evolution than there is for theory of gravity, but I would suggest you do not try to challenge that anytime soon. Gravity as a theory does not work in relation to some phenomena in the universe, but evolution can account for EVERY known life form, do you now understand why it is irrational to believe otherwise at this point in time?

>> No.3713624

>>3713616
Also, predictions made by the theory that are validated are pretty snazzy, too.

>> No.3713629

>>3713620

continued:

magic occurs everyday - FACT

God created the universe - FACT

>> No.3713631

>>3713624
Prediction seems to be difficult in macroevolution.
You can't wait a million years to see the results.

>> No.3713632

>>3713631
Bacteria, fruit flies...

>> No.3713636

>>3713632
>millions of years
You know what I wanted to say.

>> No.3713643

>>3713620

Implying gravity won't be seen the same as flat earth theory 100 years after string theory

>> No.3713645

>>3713620

The problem is induction. When we take in external evidence to make claims we ensure that nothing we're saying could ever be 100% certain. Science only has theories out of respect for the fact that despite the fact that every time anyone has ever seen an apple leave a tree without interference from an animal it fell to earth doesn't mean that next time it won't fly upwards. Yes, the chances of that happening are outrageously small, but scientists don't deal in absolute truth, that's theology. We deal with useful truth, which is truth beyond all reasonable doubt and best fit explanations. Calling anything "fact" is ignoring this and is not really scientific. For all intents and purposes, it is fact, but it is not absolutely true.

>> No.3713653

>>3713636
Evolution predicts that a population of organisms will adapt to environmental change. That happened, through a certain number of genetic mutations. Why would there be an upper limit to the number of mutations that can be selected for in a population, anyway?

>> No.3713649

>>3713645

This x10000

Science doesn't prove ANYTHING, proof is an issue for mathematics.

>> No.3713659

>>3713326
>>3713326
>>3713326


evolution of e.coli bacteria over 20 years to be able to absorb citrate as a substrate for energy production indicating a completely new gene has evolved which was not present before.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14094-bacteria-make-major-evolutionary-shift-in-the-lab.html

problem faggot`?

>> No.3713660

>>3713653
The upper limit is given by our limited life time. We can't observe events after our death. So we could never see if our predictions are true.

>> No.3713665

>>3713659
If you read the thread, you would have seen that this wasn't the problem.

>> No.3713669

>>3713660
I'm talking about evolution, not our ability to observe it. Is there a number of mutations that a population of organisms can accumulate before they stop mutating?

>> No.3713671

>>3713631

You needn't wait millions of years. The example of bacteria is completely valid. They are just as much animals as we. See >>3713603 . Predictions don't HAVE to be "this will change into this". The very claim that all species evolved from a common ancestor is the largest prediction of evolution, and construction of a fossil record in which we can clearly see gradual change to the modern form of animals supports this prediction.

Also, please stop saying "macroevolution" it implies that evolution works differently on different scales, which is false.

>> No.3713675

>>3713669
Sorry, didn't read correctly.
But why should mutation stop?
My question is more like: If we predict some change in bigger scale, is it the same change that really happens?

>> No.3713688

>>3713669

What do you mean by a population of organisms. Evolution is due to selection pressures, if you can survive the selection pressures and reproduce you are in and the genes that were successful are passed on. I may be misreading this as is often the case with internet debates, but it sounds as though you are suggesting that the an organism has a simultaneous transformation from one species into another through several mutations at once. Again I may be wrong.

>> No.3713692

>>3713675
>Why should mutation stop?

That's what is implied when one distinguishes between "microevolution" and "macroevolution" If a population of organisms will retain its species classification from now to forever and a day, that implies that they can't surpass some number of mutations, lest they become another species. So, what is that limit?

>> No.3713699

>>3713692
Fuck that. You won.

>> No.3713703
File: 29 KB, 332x480, Oscar%20Wilde.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
[ERROR]

ARE GUYS SERIOUS?THIS IS AN OBVIOUS TROLL SO OBVIOUS THAT PEOPLE WHO KNOW ABOUT SCIENCE SHOULD INSTANTLY REALIZE THAT THIS GUY IS TROLLING

>> No.3713710

>>3713692

It is up to the point that the genes would be too different reproduce to the original species. Consider how similar we are to a chimp, yet you could not reproduce with one.

>> No.3713713

>>3713688
All of the organisms of a single species in some area, such as all of the deer in a given forest. I can't exactly say individuals, because evolution doesn't work like that; the individuals survive or die without reproducing, then the "winners" get to propagate their genes, and the nifty mutations in those genes will spread throughout the entire population of that species if they're useful enough. Make more sense?

>> No.3713742

>>3713703

I dunno, the most rage-inducing thing this guy has said is "macro"evolution, which I've heard plenty of creationists say in a serious context. The rest of it seems to be legit misunderstanding. It could be an extremely skilled troll, but if it is then they're wasting their time because this isn't a super rage-y thread.

>> No.3713746

>>3713710
Except that, relative to the population, the "original species" changes slightly throughout every generation. It's not like some retard fish magically sprouted legs and got up on land, or whatever South Park said; the successful genes spread throughout the population of organisms, so the organisms evolve together, therefore they accrue all of these neat mutations while still being able to breed with each other.

>> No.3713759

>>3713710

I think you misunderstood his complaint with the classification. Saying that evolution on different scales is two different things doesn't make sense because it implies they work differently.

When he says tell him what the 'limit' is, he means that by separating the two and then saying that microevolution works but we need to prove macroevolution it implies that in large organisms there is a limit at which mutation will just suddenly stop to avoid making a new species, which is utterly ridiculous.

>> No.3713811

>>3713532
But then Basket B might be a more rationally thinking Basket.

Perhaps this Basket B has logically rationalized how to steal your eggs for its own profit?! Perhaps it is just waiting for you to give it the chance?!
This is a trick question!?

>> No.3713816

why try, it's not like any creationfag will ever be convinced. They are professional ignoramuses

>> No.3713824

>>3713754

Ah, I think I may have been giving him too much credit then...

I thought he was trying to say, if you followed the hereditary path through the many generations at what point would it be considered that the new organism was a new species from the original or another organism that was also descended from the original species.

>> No.3713854

>macroevolution
>speciation

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

Not exactly a direction we were hoping for our genes to head in, but there it is.