Theists questioning macroevolution seems to be a common theme here - Religion, God, and Theology

Two Plus Two Forums Other Topics Religion, God, and Theology

Theists questioning macroevolution seems to be a common theme here

Post Reply Subscribe

...

10-30-2009 , 03:57 PM

rizeagainst

banned

Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 8,179

So let's go ahead and blow it up:

Quote:

Russian geneticist Dimitri Belyaev was employed to run a fox fur farm in the 1950s. He was later sacked because his scientific genetics conflicted with the anti-scientific ideology of Lysenko, the charlatan biologist who managed to capture the ear of Stalin and so take over, and largely ruin, all of Soviet genetics and agriculture for some 20 years. Belyaev retained his love of foxes, and of true Lysenko-free genetics, and he was later able to resume his studies of both, as director of an Institute of Genetics in Siberia.

Wild foxes are tricky to handle, and Belyaev set out deliberately to breed for tameness. Like any other animal or plant breeder of his time, his method was to exploit natural variation (no genetic engineering in those days) and choose, for breeding, those males and females that came closest to the ideal he was seeking.

In selecting for tameness, Belyaev could have chosen, for breeding, those dogs and bitches that most appealed to him, or looked at him with the cutest facial expressions. That might well have had the desired effect on the tameness of future generations. More systematically than that, however, he used a measure that was pretty close to the “flight distance” that I just mentioned in connection with wild wolves, but adapted for cubs. Belyaev and his colleagues (and successors, for the experimental programme continued after his death) subjected fox cubs to standardised tests in which an experimenter would offer a cub food by hand, while trying to stroke or fondle it. The cubs were classified into three classes. Class III cubs were those that fled from or bit the person. Class II cubs would allow themselves to be handled, but showed no positive responsiveness to the experimenters. Class I cubs, the tamest of all, positively approached the handlers, wagging their tails and whining. When the cubs grew up, the experimenters systematically bred only from this tamest class.

After a mere six generations of this selective breeding for tameness, the foxes had changed so much that the experimenters felt obliged to name a new category, the “domesticated elite” class, which were “eager to establish human contact, whimpering to attract attention and sniffing and licking experimenters like dogs”. At the beginning of the experiment, none of the foxes were in the elite class. After ten generations of breeding for tameness, 18 per cent were “elite”; after 20 generations, 35 per cent; and after 30 to 35 generations, “domesticated elite” individuals constituted between 70 and 80 per cent of the experimental population.

Such results are perhaps not too surprising, except for the astonishing magnitude and speed of the effect. Thirty-five generations would pass unnoticed on the geological timescale. Even more interesting, however, were the unexpected side-effects of the selective breeding for tameness. These were truly fascinating and genuinely unforeseen. Darwin, the dog-lover, would have been entranced.

The tame foxes not only behaved like domestic dogs, they looked like them. They lost their foxy pelage and became piebald black and white, like Welsh collies. Their foxy prick ears were replaced by doggy floppy ears. Their tails turned up at the end like a dog’s, rather than down like a fox’s brush. The females came on heat every six months like a bitch, instead of every year like a vixen. According to Belyaev, they even sounded like dogs.

So let's see:

Science proved that these foxes changed, in looks, in behavior, and reproductively. Please explain to me how you proceed arguing against macroevolution after understanding this.

Quote

10-30-2009 , 04:05 PM

Hopey

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 12,004

That's micro-evolution, my friend.

They want to see a mouse turn into an elephant right before their eyes to accept macro-evolution. Even then they'd probably chalk up such a transformation as being the work of the devil.

Quote

10-30-2009 , 04:11 PM

rizeagainst

banned

Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 8,179

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hopey

A fox transitioning into having distinctly canine features is about as close as we are going to get to experimentally showing macroevolution without living 1,000,000+ year lives. It's evident to me that if the experimenters were so inclined, they could eventually derive an animal so different from the original fox that it could not mate with it - which would be a new species.

Plus the fossil record does a fine job of showing speciation, as anyone who has studied evolution knows.

Quote

10-30-2009 , 04:15 PM

dknightx

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Apr 2005 Posts: 6,497

theist answer:

Dimitri Belyaev : foxes :: God : all animals

Quote

10-30-2009 , 04:21 PM

AirshipOhio

old hand

Join Date: Jun 2008 Posts: 1,230

Quote:

The tame foxes not only behaved like domestic dogs, they looked like them. They lost their foxy pelage and became piebald black and white, like Welsh collies. Their foxy prick ears were replaced by doggy floppy ears. Their tails turned up at the end like a dog’s, rather than down like a fox’s brush. The females came on heat every six months like a bitch, instead of every year like a vixen. According to Belyaev, they even sounded like dogs.

Sorry to be a party pooper, but this part is taken out of context.

I don't feel like doing it again, but if you dig a little deeper into those studies, you will find that these traits were NOT present in the same 70-80% that became "tame." Some of these traits (floppy ears comes to mind) were only exhibited by some of them during youth, but then as adults they returned to pointy fox ears. Some of them were not exhibited at all by some of the tames elite, etc.

Anyway, it is still an interesting experiment, with interesting results, but you have to take any popular description of scientific results with a grain of salt -- even if (as I suspect you have above) you are quoting Dawkins.

Quote

10-30-2009 , 05:29 PM

Eddi

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 6,296

What exactly is macroevolution for those who argue against it? I mean what's the smallest distance between animals that falls into macroevolution category for them? E.g. is wolves -> dogs macroevolution?

Quote

10-30-2009 , 06:48 PM

Arouet

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 6,433

What does this story tell the theist?

Scienists find chicken with naturally formed crocodile teeth

Quote

10-30-2009 , 08:56 PM

Bulletproof Monk

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Apr 2006 Posts: 22,217

god changed them to test our faith

Quote

10-30-2009 , 09:36 PM

Arouet

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 6,433

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bulletproof Monk

god changed them to test our faith

He must have, because it appears that we can tweak some of the genes and suddenly chickens are having properties they haven't had in millions of years.

Quote

10-30-2009 , 10:27 PM

#10

Bulletproof Monk

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Apr 2006 Posts: 22,217

jurassicpark1.jpg

Quote

10-31-2009 , 05:03 AM

#11

Hardball47

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Feb 2008 Posts: 13,301

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arouet

What does this story tell the theist?

Scienists find chicken with naturally formed crocodile teeth

Wow. It's a damn shame there's no picture in the article. That would have been a sight to see.

Quote

10-31-2009 , 05:19 AM

#12

DuckyLucky

old hand

Join Date: Oct 2008 Posts: 1,611

Genetic manipulation is not quite the same as evolution. Evolution is genetic change by natural selection (per Darwin). Breeding is genetic change by subjective choice (per Mendel).

Dogs have undoubtably been created by the breeding efforts of man, whereas wolves and dingos have probably been created primarily by natural seletion.

Not sure about the significance of macro/micro to the argument for evolution versus creation. Umm, what's the point/question here?

Quote

10-31-2009 , 06:04 AM

#13

zugzwang83

banned

Join Date: Aug 2009 Posts: 3,588

IF WE EVOLVED FROM MONKEYS THEN HOW COME THERE ARE STILL MONKEYS IN THE WORLD

Quote

10-31-2009 , 08:12 AM

#14

AirshipOhio

old hand

Join Date: Jun 2008 Posts: 1,230

Quote:

Originally Posted by DuckyLucky

Not sure about the significance of macro/micro to the argument for evolution versus creation. Umm, what's the point/question here?

I will unravel the mystery for you!

The point is, theists questioning macroevolution seems to be a common theme here.

So let's examine the primarily creationist view point that microevolution is reasonable and/or supported by science, but macroevolution is not, in an effort to put this issue to rest, or at least maybe help some of us learn about the issue.

Glad I could clear that up!

Quote

10-31-2009 , 09:47 AM

#15

Arouet

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 6,433

Quote:

Originally Posted by DuckyLucky

This is wrong. Natural and artificial selection are the exact same thing: its just animals breeding. We can speed up evolution drastically through selective breeding. Natural selection just takes a LOT longer to make significant change.

Quote

10-31-2009 , 09:59 AM

#16

Arouet

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 6,433

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hardball47

Wow. It's a damn shame there's no picture in the article. That would have been a sight to see.

Can't confirm that this is the actual chicken. There's no year in there, but it seems to have been in the week of february 26, which is when the article was written I think. Don't know if its the right year, but anyhow:

Quote

11-01-2009 , 10:00 PM

#17

DuckyLucky

old hand

Join Date: Oct 2008 Posts: 1,611

Quote:

Originally Posted by AirshipOhio

Thanks for your help.

Quote

11-01-2009 , 10:19 PM

#18

spord

centurion

Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 134

Quote:

Originally Posted by rizeagainst

So let's go ahead and blow it up:

So let's see:

Science proved that these foxes changed, in looks, in behavior, and reproductively. Please explain to me how you proceed arguing against macroevolution after understanding this.

Fear. The gods no longer pull the sun across the sky. The gods no longer smith lightning. The gods no longer answer prayers. The gods no longer rise from the dead. The gods no longer live at the mountaintop. The gods no longer send their prophets. The gods no longer breathe to cause the storms. The gods no longer have oracles that answer questions.

If the gods suddenly did not make man in his image, then what is left? The empty void where there is no absolute, no objectivity, no border and no ultimate justification.

A world where loving your neighbour is done so he will love you. A scary world where doing the right thing might get end your life without any reward thereafter.

Quote

11-02-2009 , 12:23 AM

#19

All-In Flynn

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 10,923

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arouet

Looks very shopped, cool story though.

Fear the mighty ostrich.

Quote

11-02-2009 , 12:27 AM

#20

Arouet

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 6,433

Quote:

Originally Posted by All-In Flynn

Looks very shopped, cool story though.

Can't vouch for the picture, but this did happen. The skeptic podcasts were all abuzz about the story for awhile.

Quote

11-03-2009 , 10:29 AM

#21

Vantek

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 5,806

Quote:

Please explain to me how you proceed arguing against macroevolution after understanding this.

Ignore overwhelming evidence and rely on inducing emotional response among clueless and favourable audience, just like you did before?

Quote

Post Reply Subscribe

...