Evolution.....why dont people believe it?

**Imnotdutch** · 09-01-2002, 06:01 AM

This is a serious question that was brought about by curling's statement of 'I don't believe in evolution' on Elitefitness.com. I am struggling to see why people dismiss it totally......and when they do I usually find that they have misunderstood something.

If it helps people explain their point of view, I've outlined the theory of evolution below:

Evolution is divided into two parts:

(i) Microevolution
(ii) Macroevolution.

MICROEVOLUTION is changes that occur WITHIN a species. WE CAN SEE THIS HAPPENING.

Example: Colour change in the Peppered Moth.

Peppered Moths are found in the UK amongst other places. They have a mottled colour (white and brown) that provides camouflage when they land on a tree. They are also prey for birds.
Prior to the industrial revolution most moths were mainly light coloured with patches of dark colour. There were a few in which the colours were reversed (variation). The latter colouration made them easier to spot.....so they would be caight more often by birds (selection).
The industrial revolution resulted in alot of sot etc being spewed into the air........the result being that the surrounding got covered in soot. Now imagine those poor light coloured moths in this environment- their camouflage was no longer much good. But the moths with dark colouration now had better camouflage against the darker background. So light coloured moths tended to get eaten instead of dark coloured moths.

The nett result- the industrial revolution caused the colour of the peppered moth to change from light ro dark over several generations.

There are other examples of this effect.......point being we can see it happening around us.

MACROEVOLUTION is changes that cause the formation of new species. This is whaty many peple have issues with. The evidence for this cannot be collected on a short timescale. It should be noted that there are severaltheories concerning how this might work. It tends to incorporate variation ans selection as with microevolution as well as other factors such as mass extinction events.

Examples quoted by the National Academy of Science in response to the numerous texts that dismiss evolution include (amongst others):

(i) The fossil record: even prior to Darwin it was recognised that there wa a clear sequence to be seen within the fossil record. Older fossilised remains appearred to be more primitive than the newer ones. It is true that Darwin worried about the lack of intermediates but large strides have been made in correcting this- the problem was a lack of information / data rather than the theory itself.

Common structures: For example a bat wing, a mouse forelimb and a human arm have the same basic structure though modified to suit a particular purpose. This suggests a common origin. This idea can be extended to the molecular level within protein structures and DNA (anybody who feels like quoting Micheal BEhe ought to read the many criticisms of his work that remain unanswered).

Clear sequences of changes in related organisms: A look at the skulls of species ranging from Australopithecus afarensis to Homo sapiens shows a gradual increase in brain size and face size....and decreases in features such as brow size.

Well I could go on

. The last thing that I should point out that belief in evolution in no way disproves the existence of a supernatural power......despite the erroneous words of the likes of Richard Dawkins (a devout evolutionist). Similarly, belief in the creation does not mean evolution cannot occur.......there are several creation theories that include both.

So, if you dont believe in evolution, why not? Again, this is a question that I am genuinely interested in.....please try to avoid slinging mud at those that dont share your beliefs.

**Tank21** · 09-01-2002, 07:34 AM

I do beleive in evolution. With any amount of inteligence it is hard to rebuke. Just from a sceintifc aspect it is hard to discredit. Although I beleive in evolution, i still do beleive in the supernatural nonetheless.

I beleive that those that do not beleive in eveolution have just a hard time swollowing it. For many reasons, ignorance in science or just that they choose to beleive th theories of the creation of man that are preached through religion. Hey, to each their own. It is just hard for me to discredit, for example, the evoultion of man, from a primate to homo erectus or whatever. You get my point. but beleive what you will, it is a free country.

**Imnotdutch** · 09-01-2002, 09:00 AM

Mebbe I shoulda explained my motives for asking this. I am a science teacher at a school with pupils that follow many religions. It is always much easier to teach a topic if I understand where pupils are coming from with their beliefs. Of course, I could just do it the way most science teachers do and just tell them about evolution like it is a fact......but I want to do the job right.

Thanks fro the response Tank 21.

Originally posted by Tank21
I do beleive in evolution. With any amount of inteligence it is hard to rebuke. Just from a sceintifc aspect it is hard to discredit. Although I beleive in evolution, i still do beleive in the supernatural nonetheless.

I beleive that those that do not beleive in eveolution have just a hard time swollowing it. For many reasons, ignorance in science or just that they choose to beleive th theories of the creation of man that are preached through religion. Hey, to each their own. It is just hard for me to discredit, for example, the evoultion of man, from a primate to homo erectus or whatever. You get my point. but beleive what you will, it is a free country.

**maguilagorilla** · 09-02-2002, 05:31 PM

first of all evolution is a theory, therefore there is no concrete evidence of ot being a fact. And if evolution is true then why are we not evolving still? i mean our surrondings are still changing,the earth atmosphere is not totally oxygen and yet that is what we really need to breathe and the earth is like 75% water and yet we cant live in it , shouldnt we have evolutionized(i dont know if its a word but you get the meaning) into something that proabably lives in water or is capable of existing in both water and land and shouldnt we have been able to breathe nitrogen instead of oxygen given the fact that there is more of it, and the fact that a moth was able to adapt to a certain situation does not totally credit evolution, some people live in hot weather,some live in cold weather and they adapt but yet they are still the same species as where evolution means that you would tatally change your species,and if you didnt then evolution would not occur i could be wrong and all my onfo could be off but thats just my opinion,and if we did come from monkeys why isnt there monkeys now that are changing? they couldnt get over the hump?

***Cycleon*** · 09-02-2002, 07:41 PM

I am a Christian and firmly believe in the Creation of all things by God - I also believe in an evolutionary process - it is inconcievable to believe that the universe, life and intelligence came into existence without Guidance - it is also against the evidence that has so far been discovered that this process was a singular event in time or that it occurred over a few thousand years.

a good book that addresses some of these issues is:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/AS...300942-5983838

**EXCESS** · 09-02-2002, 07:57 PM

Originally posted by maguilagorilla
And if evolution is true then why are we not evolving still?

It doesn't happen overnight. The human baby toe has been getting smaller over time. The humans of the future might only have 4 toes.

**Imnotdutch** · 09-03-2002, 04:23 AM

Thanks for the interesting responses guys.

Cycleon.....thanks for the link to the book. Looks interesting.....figure I'll buy it.

Maguilagorilla........

All science is a theory.....the question is whether the theory represents the way things are adequately. Even the way that we perceive the world from the minute we pop out is a theory. I dont see this as a weak point. Alternatives such as invoking design are also theories.....

You are wrong in saying that for something to evolve it must change species. The development of new species is a consequences of evolution (according to the theory)........many small changes (microevolution) add up to give larger changes (macroevolution).

The example of a moth does not confirm the theory.....I agree. But it acts as a beginning from which people can understand the theory. Organisms change in response to their environment......that is a large part of the theory.

Also, you mention some chemistry that I should address. Nitrogen exists as dinitrogen (two nitrogen atoms bonded together)......the bonds between atoms are very strong as it is a triple bond. Why evolve to use nitrogen (which is hard to use) when oxygen, a viable alternative, is available? Bottom line is some molecules are more accessible to use than others. Also, we do use water.......water is the basis of all organisms.

Regarding living in water........many organisms live in water. Evolution is about adapting to an environment.....surely we expect organisms to evolve to take advantage of all of the environments on the planet? Humans have just evolved to live on land. I dont see why humans in particular would have to adapt to an environment just because it dominates over another.......

Finally, you seem to expect to see large changes in organisms over short time periods. We can see small changes (rats becoming resistant to poisons; the moths described above; bacteria and antibiotic resistance)....but large changes take alot more time. Also, there is the issue of organisms that are well suited to their environment not needing to evolve further.......crocodiles are an example. There is no selection pressure for them to evolve further....so they dont.

Excess, thanks for the input........I didnt realise that about toes.

**maguilagorilla** · 09-03-2002, 02:18 PM

no, i dont expect to see large changes in any organism, because evolution does not exist! imo you are saying that we evolve into creatures that will take advantage of thier surrondings and that suonds reasonable but who or what makes that choice? who or what puts that fine line of wether a certain animal is going to adapt a certain way? and you also say that crocs have no further need to evolve yet their numbers seem to be getting less and less due to humans , are we to assume that they will eventually adapt to us? and who says when enough monkeys have evolved into humans? i never said i was a scientist or a chemist and i never said we dont use water i said that wuoldnt it make more sense if we had evolved into something that lived in water being that water covers most our enviorement? imo evolution just involves too much faith and i rather put that somewhere else, like GOD

**Imnotdutch** · 09-03-2002, 02:33 PM

No offence but you have seriously misunderstood the theory of evolution. Your posts are interesting so I hope that you dont find my comments offensive.

Who makes the choice of the environment that you take advantage of? Why must somebody make the choice? The environment selects the organisms with features that enable them to take advantage of that environment.......if you aren't suited to it you die......as in the light moths in the darkened environment.

You know evolution takes time.......that is one point that a couple of people made. Unfortunately man has developed tools in a very short period of time....to short to allow evolution.

Concerning your comment about monkeys evolving to humans. You seem to think individuals evolve? Is that right?

Your comment about faith is most interesting. You see we can see microevolution occuring......and have evidence for macroevolution. But you think it is better to put your faith in something for which there is no evidence?

Originally posted by maguilagorilla
no, i dont expect to see large changes in any organism, because evolution does not exist! imo you are saying that we evolve into creatures that will take advantage of thier surrondings and that suonds reasonable but who or what makes that choice? who or what puts that fine line of wether a certain animal is going to adapt a certain way? and you also say that crocs have no further need to evolve yet their numbers seem to be getting less and less due to humans , are we to assume that they will eventually adapt to us? and who says when enough monkeys have evolved into humans? i never said i was a scientist or a chemist and i never said we dont use water i said that wuoldnt it make more sense if we had evolved into something that lived in water being that water covers most our enviorement? imo evolution just involves too much faith and i rather put that somewhere else, like GOD

**maguilagorilla** · 09-03-2002, 02:53 PM

yes i do seem to not understand evolution like i said before i am no scientist nor have i ever pretended to be one. first you say evolution takes time ,but humans have made tools thus making evolution almost non-existent( if it ever did exist) , so could you say that we are our peak? and if so then evolution is no more therefore killing that theory before it even gets wings . evolution itself implies an ever changing process but if we've reached our peak due to whatever reason ther no longer is any evolution. my question about monkeys is just that a question no i dont think humans evolve or individuals either.are we to believe that a person lets say living in a cold enviorment like the suoth pole within time would evolve into some sasquatch or an abomanible snowman?that is what you are saying by "the enviorement selects organisms with features that enable them to take advantage". evidence? there is plenty for me just as there is plenty for you to believe in evolution. im glad i cuold share my opnions with you but like i said before there just my opnion and i dont try to force them on anyone.. makes for good coversation though

**Imnotdutch** · 09-03-2002, 03:14 PM

Regarding the non-existant evolution.......I am saying that in this case evolution could not keep pace with the development of tools by humans. You can not say that because evolution was ineffective in this case, that it no longer occurs for other species. Did that make sense?

Evidence for organisms evolving to take advantage of their environment? Well try every species on the planet. The only species that survive in an environemt are those that can take advantage of it........for example, Polar Bears dont live near the equator because it is too hot. Also, the extinction of species in history can be correlated to things like temperature changes (if the temperature fo the Earth were to rise by 20 degrees Polar Bears would become extinct pretty quickly).

You asked what would happen to humans if they lived in cold regions. I think that if we weren't able to make protective clothing then you would see an increase in insulation. Notably, the eskimo's have some adaptations for living in the cold. One of these is an elongated nasal cavity........which helps to warm cold air as you breath it in....an obvious advantage to living in the cold. This is a common feature amongst creatures that live in cold environments.

Originally posted by maguilagorilla
yes i do seem to not understand evolution like i said before i am no scientist nor have i ever pretended to be one. first you say evolution takes time ,but humans have made tools thus making evolution almost non-existent( if it ever did exist) , so could you say that we are our peak? and if so then evolution is no more therefore killing that theory before it even gets wings . evolution itself implies an ever changing process but if we've reached our peak due to whatever reason ther no longer is any evolution. my question about monkeys is just that a question no i dont think humans evolve or individuals either.are we to believe that a person lets say living in a cold enviorment like the suoth pole within time would evolve into some sasquatch or an abomanible snowman?that is what you are saying by "the enviorement selects organisms with features that enable them to take advantage". evidence? there is plenty for me just as there is plenty for you to believe in evolution. im glad i cuold share my opnions with you but like i said before there just my opnion and i dont try to force them on anyone.. makes for good coversation though

**maguilagorilla** · 09-03-2002, 03:37 PM

would you consider the human race as the "superior" species? i mean we have done away with evolution? right?"evolution was ineffective in this case" so will there be a point in time when all other species be able to overcome evolution? i just dont see where evolution gets any crediblity,(a cuople of mice being more tolerant to poison in a controlled enviormnet) was mother nature contrlled while the evolutionary process took place? no! so how can any of these experiments have any credibility?same with the moths, all under controlled envioremnet, sheesh i could probably make a monkey talk in a contolled enviorement too! but we are talking just about being out in the wild , something coming otu of nothing that some organism came from some biological soup. and the nose thing , am i to reason that anyone with a big nose was meant to live in the colder parts of the earth! c'mon now thats pushing it and i think there is a big diffrence between adaptation and evolution

***Cycleon*** · 09-03-2002, 03:52 PM

What we must distinguish is whether we are discussing points of Darwinian theory or the near "religion" of "Athiestic Evolution" (because they have the presupposition that God does not exist, existence is due to chance). Darwinian theory attempts to address the "how" through observed and extrapolated experience but the Athiestic Evolution presumes to address the "why" as well - which would in many ways place upon it the same requirements of an adherance of faith rather than scientific proof of any sort - much like the "faiths" they claim to repudiate through their "science".

Now darwinian theory has done a good job of showing how species may have decended from others through appearantly random mutations and how natural selection has predominant bearing upon their survivability - but what dawinian theory does NOT show (nor was ever intended to) is to account for the preponderance of order and intelligence in the construct of the universe (whether examined at a macro or micro level). Randomness has never been shown to beget order of any substance, much less on the order we can easily observe.

**Imnotdutch** · 09-03-2002, 03:58 PM

I dont consider humans to be the superior species on this planet. We are outnumbered by rats.......and grossly outnumbered by insects.

I dont think species overcome evolution........humans can still evolve.

The 'experiment' with the moths was not controlled.......neither was the devlopment of poison resistant rats or antibiotic resistant bacteria. The industiral revolution had the bad effect of increase the amount of soot around us.......this was an accident.....and it was far from controlled. The moths adapted to this......similar things led to the other two adaptations evolving. This was occurring in the wild as you put it.......man has an effect on the wild as does every organism.

You are not to reason that anybody with a big nose was meant to live in a cold environment. Go anywhere in the world and you will see variety in every feature including nose size.......in science we call this variation. However, if you look at the average eskimo in comparison to the average person in say the UK, you would see that the nasal cavity of the average eskimo is bigger. So am I pushing it....nope not at all. The variation I mention is an essential part of the theory of evolution.

Originally posted by maguilagorilla
would you consider the human race as the "superior" species? i mean we have done away with evolution? right?"evolution was ineffective in this case" so will there be a point in time when all other species be able to overcome evolution? i just dont see where evolution gets any crediblity,(a cuople of mice being more tolerant to poison in a controlled enviormnet) was mother nature contrlled while the evolutionary process took place? no! so how can any of these experiments have any credibility?same with the moths, all under controlled envioremnet, sheesh i could probably make a monkey talk in a contolled enviorement too! but we are talking just about being out in the wild , something coming otu of nothing that some organism came from some biological soup. and the nose thing , am i to reason that anyone with a big nose was meant to live in the colder parts of the earth! c'mon now thats pushing it and i think there is a big diffrence between adaptation and evolution

**EXCESS** · 09-03-2002, 04:55 PM

Some guy knocked on my door a few weeks ago and told me that evolution doesn't exist. Apparently he doesn't believe that sleeping in on weekends exists either!!!

***Cycleon*** · 09-03-2002, 05:20 PM

Many people confuse Darwins theorys with a branch of people that presuppose that "evolution" is a justification for eliminating God from their lives (or needing to answer to Him) - many people who are not even religious reject that supposition but dont really pass judgement on the process due mostly to ignorance - this is because the clever Atheistic Evolutionists couch their "beliefs" by trying to inseparably tie them to various things in science and theories that we can observe - all the while carefully hiding and denying that their beliefs are not science and certainly not part of Darwins Theory. It is unfortunate then that due to ignorance and the relative complexity of the subject (and the mental laziness of peoplE) the baby is often thrown out with the bathwater

**Tapout** · 09-04-2002, 12:21 AM

one question of the theory of evolution i always had is this. if things evolve to better adapt to their environment then why would a fish type creature come out of the water when the earth is covered by 75% water. this to me negates the whole eveloution theory as it goes against adapting to your environment. we as human beings are so complicated that it just seems too hard to believe we started from an amino acid in water hit by lighting. if that was the case i would think that dinosaurs would still be around --why-- if we started like that and went to what we are with all the dinos and things in between then every time lighting hits water wouldnt it start over and we would still see dinos roaming as they would be behind us in eveloution but ahead of the fish with feet

imo it would be a continuous cycle repeated till end of time

**Tapout** · 09-04-2002, 12:23 AM

and yes i'm a christian so my beliefs are also founded on this

**BELLICOSE** · 09-04-2002, 04:06 AM

We can see microevolution, also know as natural selection, in every day life. This is where a genetic defect causes a certain species to survive. However, macroevolution has never been seen. Why don't we see half bat-half mouse creatures walking around everywhere? And if animals evolved, then the ration of mutations to normal species would be 100 to 1. However, only a few fossils have been found, and even these are kind of shady. Scientists have been known to "manipulate" fossils to meet their purposes.
It is a theory, but one i will not choose to believe. I takes just as much faith to believe in evolution as it takes to believe in creation. And i would rather believe in something that gives me hope.

**Pete235** · 09-04-2002, 05:11 AM

Originally posted by BELLICOSE
Scientists have been known to "manipulate" fossils to meet their purposes.

Religious types would NEVER manipulate documentation to back up what they believe, would they

**Pete235** · 09-04-2002, 05:14 AM

One last thing Belli...you chose to believe in something that gives you hope? Hope for what? Hope of a better existance in the "so called" after-life? Whatever floats your boat pal, but while I'm here I'll live in the present.

**jeffylyte** · 09-04-2002, 10:31 AM

now a couple of people have said that we have never observed macroevuolution. this is not correct. we have in bacteria and in viruses. I am not just talking about drug resistance. Viruses and bacteria are exceedingly specific in the organisms they infect. Anytime one crosses host species, it is usually considered a new virus or bacteria (SIV vs HIV). We have observed this before and likely will again. In higher organisms, we have also witnessed this. We typically classify species as separate when the ability of them to naturally produce fertile offspring is lost. At least this was the old method. For example, A donkey can breed with a horse, but the offspring are infertile (mules). Others are classified as separate, althought they produce fertile offspring; they just dont normally breed together: Wolf and dog. (Canis lupus and Canis domesticus). If you try to breed a chihuahua with a mastiff, it wont work. therefore, classically they would be different species. (this may be a stretch, but you get the point).

As for the fish out of water thinking. Remember, whereever life isnt, but could possibly be: it will find a way to get there.

For people who think that people dont evolve, do you think god created the races separate? Although it may just be a color scheme, it is obviously tied to sun exposure. microevolution at its best.

the point is that we know that microevolution takes place in other organisms. we know that macroevolution takes place in other organisms, we know that microevolution takes place in humans. we have evidence that says that macroevolution takes place in humans. Whats so hard to believe.

**Imnotdutch** · 09-04-2002, 10:54 AM

now a couple of people have said that we have never observed macroevuolution. this is not correct. we have in bacteria and in viruses. I am not just talking about drug resistance.

//Developing drug resistance does not make the bacteria or virus a new species. That is microevolution still.

Viruses and bacteria are exceedingly specific in the organisms they infect. Anytime one crosses host species, it is usually considered a new virus or bacteria (SIV vs HIV).

//This got me thinking

. What if a virus crosses the species barrier but maintains the ability to infect the original host species? Also, bacteria arent species specific are they? They basically reproduce in any environment that is warm, damp and has a food supply......most 'higher' organisms fit that bill.

We have observed this before and likely will again. In higher organisms, we have also witnessed this. We typically classify species as separate when the ability of them to naturally produce fertile offspring is lost.

//A very good point that should have been made earlier.

At least this was the old method. For example, A donkey can breed with a horse, but the offspring are infertile (mules). Others are classified as separate, althought they produce fertile offspring; they just dont normally breed together: Wolf and dog. (Canis lupus and Canis domesticus). If you try to breed a chihuahua with a mastiff, it wont work. therefore, classically they would be different species. (this may be a stretch, but you get the point).

//That is a good point. I never realised that a mastiff could not reprodice with a chihuahua. Presumably you mean this is a genetic impossibility rather than just a problem of sizes? If you oculd take a mastiffs semen and use it to make a chih-wotsit pregnant this example wouldnt work.

As for the fish out of water thinking. Remember, whereever life isnt, but could possibly be: it will find a way to get there.

//Exactly. There are fish that have learnt to walk between pools......because they live in fresh water ponds that tend to dry out. They move on dry land in order to survive. Just because water covers 2/3 of the Earth doesnt mean it is well distributed.

For people who think that people dont evolve, do you think god created the races separate? Although it may just be a color scheme, it is obviously tied to sun exposure. microevolution at its best.

the point is that we know that microevolution takes place in other organisms. we know that macroevolution takes place in other organisms, we know that microevolution takes place in humans. we have evidence that says that macroevolution takes place in humans. Whats so hard to believe.

//From the responses to the posts I made on different boards it is becoming apparent that disbelief issupported by a misunderstanding of the theory.

**Imnotdutch** · 09-04-2002, 11:04 AM

We can see microevolution, also know as natural selection, in every day life. This is where a genetic defect causes a certain species to survive.

//A defect????!! It is variation in the species that allows survival.......the genetic basis is a theory that many scientists dont believe in.....see work by Stephen Jay Gould.

However, macroevolution has never been seen. Why don't we see half bat-half mouse creatures walking around everywhere? And if animals evolved, then the ration of mutations to normal species would be 100 to 1.

//Really? Where did that number come from? Also you appear to be using the Dawkins model of macroevolution which many people disagree with. A better model is one in which other factors such as mass extinction are taken into account. This model also takes the more logical approach of saying that the entire organism is selected against rather than a single mutaion (that would likely be swamped amongst many genes). Also, you seem to consider that you are not genetically different to other people......you are. Effectively, we might all be mutants.

However, only a few fossils have been found, and even these are kind of shady. Scientists have been known to "manipulate" fossils to meet their purposes.

//The only reason you know this is because these people got found out by the scientific community..........the scientific community is in the habit of checking on itself to avoid these problems. Obviously it works!! and therefore your argumant is moot.

It is a theory, but one i will not choose to believe. I takes just as much faith to believe in evolution as it takes to believe in creation. And i would rather believe in something that gives me hope.

//There is evidence for evolution........none for creation.......so it takes more faith to believe in Creation.

**jeffylyte** · 09-04-2002, 11:23 AM

//Developing drug resistance does not make the bacteria or virus a new species. That is microevolution still.//

I wasnt talking about that

//This got me thinking . What if a virus crosses the species barrier but maintains the ability to infect the original host species? Also, bacteria arent species specific are they? They basically reproduce in any environment that is warm, damp and has a food supply......most 'higher' organisms fit that bill.

Bacteria are definitely species. They are considered alive and are of the Kingdom Monera by Linnean taxonomy. Viruses are as yet not considered in that taxonomic structure (quite a controversy brewing on that one). They do not just reproduce anywhere warm and damp. some are very specific to hosts and conditions. Some animals can efficently fight the disease, others never get infected due to the higher body temperature. Some require certain cell surface epitopes to infect which can be species specific.

//That is a good point. I never realised that a mastiff could not reprodice with a chihuahua. Presumably you mean this is a genetic impossibility rather than just a problem of sizes? If you oculd take a mastiffs semen and use it to make a chih-wotsit pregnant this example wouldnt work.

It simply is a matter of size. If the chihuahua is the bitch, she will die from teh large puppies. the other way should be fine if artifical inseminaiton is used. but that misses the point of wolved and dogs. they point isnt that they cant, but that they dont or wont (at least not usually). wolf hybrids have been done before, but they are still considered separate species. unlike dogs.

**TNT** · 09-04-2002, 11:39 AM

Originally posted by EXCESS
Some guy knocked on my door a few weeks ago and told me that evolution doesn't exist. Apparently he doesn't believe that sleeping in on weekends exists either!!!

Funny, a couple of years ago I was driving a tractor-trailer and stayed overnight at a truck stop. Someone knocked on the door of my truck at 6:00 A.M. and as I moved forward from the sleeper cab, I was somewhat pissed off, thinking that there was a lot lizard (truck stop prostitute) at the door.

But noooooo . . . It turned out to be a Jehovah's Witness - business suit, attache case, and all - wanting to give me a copy of The Watchtower.

Which pissed me off even more.

But I digress . . .

**maguilagorilla** · 09-04-2002, 11:53 AM

hey tnt sounds like you were looking forward to that lot lizard!?

**Imnotdutch** · 09-04-2002, 12:25 PM

I wasnt talking about that

//What were you talking about??

Bacteria are definitely species.

//I never said they weren't. I said they aren't species specific......i.e. bacteria don't usually have one species as a host.

They are considered alive and are of the Kingdom Monera by Linnean taxonomy. Viruses are as yet not considered in that taxonomic structure (quite a controversy brewing on that one).

//Point being?? I never said otherwise.

They do not just reproduce anywhere warm and damp. some are very specific to hosts and conditions. Some animals can efficently fight the disease, others never get infected due to the higher body temperature. Some require certain cell surface epitopes to infect which can be species specific.

//Are you talking about bacteria here?? I think you got all mixed up on the species specific part.

It simply is a matter of size. If the chihuahua is the bitch, she will die from teh large puppies. the other way should be fine if artifical inseminaiton is used. but that misses the point of wolved and dogs. they point isnt that they cant, but that they dont or wont (at least not usually). wolf hybrids have been done before, but they are still considered separate species. unlike dogs.

//I disagree........the point is separate species they cant breed to produce fertile off-spring. If the small dog were to have the puppies then they would be fertile.......same species. The size is just variation within a species. BTW whats to say that the puppies would take after the mastiff in terms of size?

***Cycleon*** · 09-04-2002, 01:08 PM

Originally posted by Pete235
One last thing Belli...you chose to believe in something that gives you hope? Hope for what? Hope of a better existance in the "so called" after-life? Whatever floats your boat pal, but while I'm here I'll live in the present.

See - here is an example of the primary problem - most people go at it with a predisposition of belief - whether it is a belief that affirms or denies the role of an Externality. Now those who belive in a steady state have largely been successfull into duping people to think that they are only presenting "science" while "God" is a "religious thing" - but the reality is that most do not wish to look for clues of a "higher power" - because that would require some subjegation of their own will (acknoledging a "god" other than themselves).

Similarly, "creationists" are often blind to clear evidences of an evolutionary process of some kind and seek to interpret information in th light of their personal (admittedly often subjective) beliefs. For these, SHAME! - God is true above all things and all truth (not just your perception of it) will reveal His glory. "the heavens declare the glory of God and the earth His handiwork...." We should presume then that evidences of some sort will be about for our perusal - and many are - but these need not be twisted to fit any pet theory -but just to look at info as it is and rationally determine what it provides evidence of.

**jeffylyte** · 09-04-2002, 01:09 PM

I think we got mixed up not understanding each others stuff.

1) we are basically arguing the same point that we both agree on.
2) the drug resistance thing. I was saying that although drug resistance is a microevolution problem, infecting new hosts is a macroevolution one. Bacteria can be specific although you are correct when you say not one species. I aggree that most arent, but some can be specific to genus, ordersand the like. They like viruses, and some plasmodia can enter cells by epitope clusters like a-gal, sialic acid, etc. which are usually specific to genus etc. If it is trouble then lets talk viruses. Although not considered "alive" by most, they still hold true to evolution. These are almost always specific as in SIV and HIV. We can observe the directed evolution of viral genome by modification of the target epitope. Over time, the virus looses infectivity in the original host and is specific to the modified target. Infact, this is how some vaccines for bacteria are made. For example, Bacillus Calmette-Guerin vaccine was developed by growing is in increasing bile concentrations of bile. After 13 years, it had completey lost its systemic infectivity and can only colonize high bile media, which is how it provides protection.
3) bacteria arent species? my bad i read wrong

about the dogs. you are right when you say a mastiff and chihuahua would produce fertile offspring. so would a wolf and dog. we have yet to reclassify those two, because they dont normally breed when together. of course politics is involved. my point was that normally a mastiff and chihuahua normally wouldnt either, cause of the logistics involved. and anyway, pups usually are somewhere in size between the bitch and dog. this is based on ~25 years of dog rearing. I've seen a vet have to abort a dog pregnancy due to this.

i just wanted to let you jknow how hand waving the whole species classification is.

anyway, great thread. i like having to actually use my immunology knowledge. ill admit that microorganisms are much more comfortable to me than larege ones.