Evolution and the origine of the species debate

I'd like to direct you to Richard Dawkins' line of books, and more specifically to The Selfish Gene and The Greatest Show On Earth (there are others, but these should get the message through).

In short, these books discuss the following:
The Selfish Gene elaborates on a (now widely accepted) theory that evolution occurs on the level of the genes, not on the level of the individual or above that. That is to say, the properties of the individual aren't passed on (or are lost); those of his genes are. Of course, an individual is expressed via its genes: the individual is a vehicle for its genes. The book then gives various arguments for the theory (thirty years ago, it was a hypothesis) and explains them this all in layman's terms. It also briefly touches upon memes, pieces of cultural information that behave in similar manner to genes.

The Greatest Show On Earth is a very recent book (2009) and presents a plethora of evidence for evolution. It uses natural clocks, (the structure of) fossils and living beings, the intricacies of the creation of a new human being (making something complex by building layer upon layer of simple building blocks), examples of evolution happening right now and much more. One example I would like to give is that of the ingenious concept of Richard Lenski, who (together with several colleagues) set out to test the theory of evolution on E. Coli bacteria, a very common bacteria that is easily reproduced in a lab with some glucose.

1. They set up twelve 'tribes' of bacteria who all originated from a common ancestor.
2. Each tribe was put in a separate flask, and each day, a new flask was used to take a sample of the flask of the previous day.
3. This new sample was then incubated again for a day. Note that every flask contained exactly the same amount of glucose.
4. Samples of each flask were also frozen to be able to compare 'old' bacteria samples with 'new' ones. This continued for two decades (and counting, actually).

Now, the idea was that a bacteria that could use the glucose more efficiently than the others would be able to grow a larger colony. In a few generations, that mutant bacteria would have become the most common one due to natural selection. And of course, this is exactly what happens in all twelve tribes. The thing was that the tribes didn't achieve this all in the same manner, and some of the tribes were simply better in using the glucose than others (the book has graphs to show this btw).

Now, the most fascinating fact is that some of the tribes independently discovered the same way of getting better. Looking into this, they discovered that 59 genes had changed their expression in both tribes, and all 59 had changed in the same direction. This are exactly the kinds of things creationists think are just too improbable to happen without interference from some creator, but it did happen because of small, gradual steps, favoured by natural selection.

This chapter also discusses how one tribe of bacteria managed to use the citrate -- which was also in the flasks, but E. Coli normally can't use it as food -- as a source of nutrition. The population of the bacteria shot up instantly and stabilized on a plateau six times higher than it previously did. After investigation, it seemed odd that only one tribe managed to discover this highly useful trait: the chance that the needed random mutation occurred only in one tribe was far too small. But if not one, but multiple mutations were needed, the numbers seemed far more correct.

After researching all tribes, it was discovered that several tribes managed to get mutation A, but not B. On their own, A or B did nothing negative or positive; but combined, they allowed the use of citrate as a source of energy. And all that in 20 years.

You'll need to buy the book (has pretty pictures) for more awesome stuff like this

 

Wow. I'm actually genuinely interested in reading the second one.
I might check my library.

 

hmm ive been thinking of reading dawkins for awhile now, is he anything like dan brown?

 

Isn't Dan Brown a dude who writes fiction based on real-life facts? If so, then no. Dawkins' books aren't fiction, but they are based on fact and generally very easy to read.

 

sounds boring

 

Predominance, i think you should watch this video.

 

Oh my, it's not. The metaphors he uses are all very accessible and allow you to envision very well how evolution has taken (and is taking) place. A very noteworthy addendum when you're done with aforementioned books is The God Delusion, a book that absolutely and completely tears down, incinerates, casts in concrete and dumps into the ocean any flimsy argument for the existence of any type of god. One chapter I found extremely intriguing was universal morality: by asking people all over the world how one would react in a certain situation, scientists managed to create an overview of universal morals: things that you just don't do to another human being, anywhere.

EDIT: Here's a video of Dawkins on TED (30 minutes and a lot of jokes), where he discusses the fight against creationism.

 

Just throwing this in, not long ago it was discovered that genes alter during the
lifetime of an organism. Oversimplified, that means if you do muscle training every
day or starve for a long time theirs a big chance that this changes parts of your
genom as well so the next generation could better fit the environment.

 

True, but do note that this the action of switching a gene on and off is not the same as a mutation (a completely new element that was not yet there before). The effect - a new combination of genes is created which possibly interacts better or worse than the previous combination - is the same, however. I'm also not very much acquainted with this new discovery: do the gene switches also manifest themselves in the sperm's or oocyte's genes? This seems odd, but as I said, I don't know much about this new fact.

 

There are speculations that ancient parts of genes like the fins of dolphins for example reactivate like that.

 

Not according to the dictionary.

Alteration of an organism's genetic code is a mutation, whether you do it by allele mixing, randomised gene resequencing which occurs during sex cell production, or exposing the cell to space rays from the planet zaxafram, you achieve the same result, which is a mutation.

I've never got why people like richard dawkins, surely evangelism is annoying in any form?

 

Their are like 14-15 combinations of sex chromosomes only one pure male and one pure female, think about it.

 

It's not evangelism in the same sense as religious people proclaim that their god is the right one. For one, Dawkins goes great lengths to provide easily understandable and sound evidence to justify his stances, while all religions just say it was the wonderfully smelling unicorn farts that convinced them.

Secondly, Dawkins is more annoyed at the staunch refusal of some people to investigate, research and understand anything outside their small little world rather than at religion itself, but religion is an enormous catalyst for this kind of extreme laziness and is still slowing down the advancement of humankind on every level, so I wholly understand why he seems so "militant". Dawkins himself once said (parafrasing) "that a preacher has an unresounding faith and belief in what he says while I have an unresounding passion for science." . I think this explains the difference between both sides: (lack of) evidence.

 

Really doesn't seem much different to people who put immense amounts of effort into going and talking to people about god and who are annoyed at the staunch refusal of anybody to accept something that is clearly important and vital to their spiritual wellbeing. Faithlessness is an enormous catalyst for the kind of extreme disconnection and unconcern present in humankind on every level, so I wholly understand why they seem so obsessed with doing what they know is neccessary to benefit those without a god to guide them.

 

I sincerely beg to differ. The only catalyst for disconnection and unconcern in the size that you describe is religion. It has been, and still is, a catalyst for being disrespectful towards other people under a thin veil of nonsense spouted by holy books and prophets.

You seem to confuse atheism with fatalism. The two are not connected in the least. It's not because one is (or becomes) an atheist that one no longer cares for the world, himself, his loved ones and everything else. Instead, atheists can appreciate life and the universe for what it truly is: massive statistical improbabilities that are stacked upon another by non-random selection mechanisms. Just considering the fact that I am currently the end of a line of ancestors that have never failed to reproduce and which dates back to the beginning of life on earth itself is breathtaking.

EDIT: Going to bed now, nighty night. I'll reply in about 12 hours

 

Then where are the hermpahrodites.
I'm just quoting my Y10 biology.

 

WELL LOOK AT MY PENIS I'M A FUCKIN MUTANT.

 

What you or I think is irrelevant, the point is that both are simply people yelling about what they think is right, there isn't a great deal of difference.

 

Cant be bothered to read the entire thing. But I said earlier that I think hybrids may be a part in evolution.

I know the basic ideas, I have had several courses that included ecology and have had many discussions with Jacob Weiner a professor of ecology.

He showed us many interesting examples. Like how much birds would vary even within a few generations on the Galapagos and how it would go back and forth, depending on how plentyfull various foods where of different sizes.
Also there was a big discussion on why/how jungles would have such an immense variation after thousands of years and how that "end" result didnt seem to fit the traditional understanding of evolution.

Anyway I look at hybrids every day when I mess around with plants I see stuff that doesnt fit the description. Like I think its called linden or basswood in english. Within the same species I have seen leaves glinsing/with tiny hairs/with or without serrated edges and so on. Some of these characteristics make them immune to certain insects/disease and the hairy ones are likely a lot more draught resistant.

.... crap this is taking too much time I need to get back to my exams

 

Well, I'd say... one yelling about what they think is right, the other yelling to demand further inquiry and demonstration.