6/9     To those people who don't believe that "evolution is set in stone,"
        what exactly is it that you don't "believe"? Evolution through natural
        selection is a process, much like how a quicksort would work. What
        arguments would you have against evolution? I find it puzzling that
        people would accept that a quicksort would work without question but
        question naturally selective  [formatd.  learn 80 columns]
        \_ I personally find 'macro-evolution' if not necessarily 'wrong,'
           then extremely counterintuitive.  My main problem is the origin
           of bacterial life, which, as people below noted, is not evolution's
           department per se. -- ilyas
        \_ quicksort-- seeing is believing. You can observe quicksort and
           see that the algorithm works by trial and error, and by induction,
           proof, etc. Evolution-- can't observe it. You can make convincing
           arguments based on solid facts and theory, and you can prove
           it via small examples (British butterfly evolve to match the
           color of the pollution) but you can't prove the entire history
           of evolution, and you certainly can't prove it by via induction
           or any other method.
        \_ I believe you can evolve to using 80 character columns.
           genetic algorithms. -williamc
           \_ Your rationale is terribly flawed. One can say the same thing
              about physics. Just because we have done a lot of experiments
              proving that there is a gravitational constant doesn't mean
              that G is the same everywhere if we were to follow that line
              of thinking. The same can be said for quicksort, you have a
              certain "faith" in your inductive process that it works. If
              you posit that your inductive method for mathematically proving
              quicksort works is valid you have to give the same credence
              to something like a genetic algorithm, which has been also
              mathematically proven. If that's the case then you
              will have to agree that inductively we can apply
              such an algorithm to biology. If biology were to follow
              a quicksort algorithm vs. that of a genetic algorithm
              then you would have to come to the conclusion evolution
              occurs through quicksort. There is ample evidence that
              biology follows a genetic algorithm, and you can actually
              observe evolution at work on a small scale on a daily basis.
              In fact, we use it everyday in recombinant DNA and in dog
              breeding. There is also unequivocal evidence that all
              life forms of significance pass their genes to subsequent
              generation. In other words, the only way you can "doubt" that
              evolution occurs through the process of genetic algorithms is if
              you A) Reject inheritable traits B) reject the concept that things
              change over time (in other words evolution) C) Reject the cellular
              you A) Reject inheritable traits B) reject the concept that things
              change over time (in other words evolution) C) Reject the cellular
              basis for life D) Reject genetic algorithms as a valid algorithm.
              In addition if you follow the conventional wisdom of
              "seeing is believing" then I suppose you believe in magic,
              little green men from mars, and that hobbits really do exist on
              Middle Earth. -williamc
              \_ I think that science and belief are simply independent.
                 Most of the scientists I know (including me, probably) have
                 at least one kooky belief within the realm of the unproven
                 and non-disproven.  How is believing in hobbits going to
                 stop me from advancing science by, say, trying to measure
                 k_B better?
                 \_ It's not, until you start demanding that we teach hobbits
                    to 6th graders, to the exclusion of real science.
              \_ I suppose that someone could decide that evolution happens
                 but reject the idea that a new species can occur, i.e. lose
                 the ability to interbreed... but this is a stupid notion
                 because there is evidence and observation of this too.
              \_ The arguments I've heard is that there are two things:
                 micro-evolution and macro-evolution.  micro-evolution is
                 accepted by all scientists but not macro-evolution.  There
                 is also the question of why we aren't seeing a continuous
                 spectrum of living things as opposed to say lion and leopard,
                 evolution is supposed to happen through these accumulated
                 tiny genetic changes, but why does it often result in these
                 very distinctive species?  I read some answer somewhere
                 but it wasn't very convincing at all.
                 \_ It looks like you're looking for an explanation of
                    "speciation".  I think the accepted argument is that if
                    you start with a homogenous population, and provide 2
                    different ecological niches (either habitats, food sources
                    or lifestyles).  Members of the homogenous population will
                    go into one niche or the other.  Animals in niche 1 will
                    tend to interbreed with others in niche 1 and will have
                    fewer chances to breed with those in niche 2.  If an
                    adaptation favorable to those in niche 1 occurs, it will
                    spread throughout animals in niche 1 due to "survival of
                    the fittest".  That adaptation will not have much chance to
                    spread to niche 2 because of limited interbreeding, and the
                    adaptation might be unfavorable to those living in niche 2.
                    As animals in the different niches accumulate more
                    different changes, they become less likely (or able) to
                    interbreed, and so the rate of differentiation accelerates.
                \_  A similar problem appears in the fossil record.
                    Basically, you don't see slow changes though history,
                    you see large sudden changes.  For example, For
                    millions of years you have fossils of the same kinds
                    of fish.  Then, all of a sudden, all those fish are
                    gone, and it's a completely new set of fish in the
                    record.
                    \_ You can selectively breed a hairless chihuahua from a
                       wolf in under 10,000 years.
                       \_ I heard that's more because of some unique
                          characteristic of dogs than anything else.
                          all cats look more or less the same for example.
                          \_ Do tell...
                             \_ don't remember.  heard from a friend.
                                something to do with the unique way dogs grow
                                such that one can arrest their growth, thus
                                making dogs like chihuahua, which essentially
                                never grew up.
                    \_ The fossil record has a relatively coarse time
                       resolution.  If there was some event to cause a major
                       change in climate/habitat/food sources, it might cause
                       everything to evolve to adapt or die out within only
                       a few hundreds or thousands of generations, but for
                       most animals, that would mean completely new species
                       appear in only 10-100 thousand years.  The fossil record
                       would completele miss that change unless it was fairly
                       recent.  After all, maybe only 1 in a million animals
                       get fossilized.
                       \_ All correct, but in order to adapt, you either

                          need a whole lot of mutation, or the genes have
                          to already exist.  (As in the London moth case.)
                          This evolution seems to be happening on a much
                          larger scale, and faster than predicted.
                          \_ In just a few decades a Soviet scientist trying to
                             breed less viscous minks created a breed that has
                             floppy ears, spotted coats and 'barks'; 3 things
                             never seen in wild minks.  Where did these new
                             genes come from?  It turned out they were all side
                             effects of having the adrenaline system become
                             underactive.  Turning one gene off produced a wide
                             range of seemingly unrelated effects.
        \_ The whole debate about any scientific theory being "set in stone"
           or a matter of belief is a reflection of both sides' lack of
           understanding of science or of what the point of science education
           is.  The loudest people on both sides of this issue are generally
           not scientists...besides, given that only about a week of a
           typical yearlong course on biology is devoted to evolution,
           and that it's not really important to major political issues
           or technology, it's unclear to me why people care so much.
           \_ natural selection has huge consequences for technology as well
              as implications for politics. http://www.nonzero.org evolution
              is a powerful model.
        \_ Why bother to find out? It's already set in stone. Whether you
           understand it or not is predetermined. You either do, or you don't.
        \_ how about asking this question to the undergrads at Texas,
           Tennessee, and South Carolina? Soda is not exactly the right
           place to ask this question. Also, learn to obey 80 columns!!!
           \_ Learn to not be so annally retentive.
        \_ I think that creationists (some anyway) accept natural
           selection. They can understand how one species can acquire
           traits that eventually turn it into another. The issue is
           whether an amoeba can turn into an elephant. That process is
           not clear at all. Worse still, how can a soup of primordial
           chemicals turn into the amoeba to begin with?
           \_ Creationists don't even bother to learn what they're arguing
              against. Is it easier to start from fish? How about fish to
              elephants? Evolution (genetic processes) isn't incompatible
              with an idea of a more limited creation.
              \_ I view it as not more limited, but more elegant.
           \_ Evolution doesn't explain how primordial chemicals turn into
              amoeba nor does it say that it's not possible for God to
              have created the first amoebas from which everything else
              evolved.  Why can't people just accept that the Bible or
              any religion for that matter are all human constructs?
                                                        --jeffwong
              \_ You are both describing "scientific creationism" which
                 sounds reasonable but which is rejected by science simply
                 because science often despises religion. Evolution is a
                 gospel to some.
                 \_ Science seeks to explain phenomena through verifiable
                    facts.  Since a true "act of God" is not a testable
                    hypothesis, it is almost by definition outside of science.
                    For a field of science to include as a premise an act of
                    God is essentially to hang the whole logical construct on
                    an unverifiable assumption.  It would be like a theorem
                    in math saying "1+1=2, except when God changes it."
                    \_ It is more philosophy than science, but rather than
                       allowing for the possibility that evolution did not
                       create all life as we know it it is taken as fact.
                       1+1=2 for given assumptions. Evolution is just a
                       theory.
                    \_ I asked God.  He proved to me scientifically that he
                       created both the amoeba and the elephant.  Adam named
                       them, though.  God wasn't much on naming things after
                       the first few days.
                 \_ Two kinds of scientific creationism:  1) God created all
                    of this through the engine of natural selection; works
                    because the acceptance of God as creator does not impede
                    accepting the most rational explanation, but simply adds
                    a layer of faith the to mix. 2) God created all of this
                    as described in the Bible, subject to a few tricks of
                    physics but without resorting to evolution; doesn't work
                    because it requires the substitiution of faith for good
                    old scientific reasoning.  The latter tends to get scoffed
                    at by scientists; the former tends to be incomprehensible
                    to atheist scientists but doesn't elucidate the same sense
                    of scorn.