Evolutions (yes this is a debate)

[Guest ScirosDarkblade]

This is a continuation from what started in a different thread between Drix and myself. He invited it to continue in a different thread, so it will. I can't stop anyone else from chiming in, but if you do, please write something educated and don't go off on tangents. If anything this thread could be a learning experience for everyone involved, including myself.

[quote name='Drix D'Zanth']Pardon me for putting evolution in simpler terms. As for your rebuttal, i wonder if you have even READ anything concerning what you speak of. So even if dogs evolved from wolves (which science currently supports), bear in mind that Canis Familiaris despite the vast amount of breeds, is a single species. As for humans bearing witness to the evolution of wolf to dog... well, I sincerely doubt any records date back as far as 130,000 ago (the hypothesized appx. time wolves evolved into wild dogs), so for all humanity can guess is the same for any theorized occurance of macroevolution. As for the domestication of dogs, wich occured approx. 12,000 years ago is a change and manipulation of their behavioral patterns, not any sort of evolution. Whether domesticated dogs, undomesticated dogs, terriers, retrievers, etc are viewed as different subspecies is perfectly fine. Just look at humans and the myriad of differences from one area of the world to another. However, we are all homo sapien.[/quote]
True, we do not have written historical records that describe the domestication of the dog, nor did we in 14,000 years create a different species (and I was saying that some biologists view the domesticated dog as a subspecies of wolf, not different breeds as subspecies). But, through the domestication and breeding of dogs we have created breeds that when mixed produce offspring that could never survive in the wild due to numerous defects (effectively leading to a divergence). In other words, not far away from what would classify them as different species. And if we decided to outright engineer different species out of them at this point, I'm betting it wouldn't be too difficult. Oh, and I also love the way you drew a distinction between "change of behavioral patterns" and "evolution." As if there's a distinction to be drawn, lol. A change in behavioral patterns is often the first step towards a larger-scale evolutionary change, which I would think is common knowledge.

[QUOTE]Not true, the more and more science digs deeper into the mechanisms required for a nature-driven evolution aren't as definite as one might assume.[/QUOTE]
Actually, the mechanisms really become only more and more clear as genetics research becomes more established and explored. There aren't too many mechanisms required for nature-driven evolution: natural selection, sexual selection, genetic mutations, and heredity. How they come together for the various evolutionary chains is what much research tries to figure out. And, as I've said before, I can't think of any that has to scientists questioning anything other than preestablished [i]specifics[/i] due to this research. And when they do, they only arrive at something more conclusive, more definite. If you can refer me to some research which suggests that "the mechanisms required for nature-driven evolution aren't as definite as one might assume," I would appreciate it. It would be an interesting read.

[QUOTE]Assuming my religion had anything to do with my previous post is nothing more than ignorance on your part.[/QUOTE]
First of all, I did not assume YOUR religion had anything to do with anything. I said that you'd be more correct to say that there's a growing number of religious complaints with regards to evolution as opposed to scientific ones. And that is right, because if you look at trends in education and the steps creationists have been taking in recent times to curb the teaching of evolution in schools, you'd see what I'm talking about. But whatever. You assumed that I assumed that your religion influenced your post (i.e. your views on evolution, which is what that post went into), and you said it was an ignorant thing to do. Well, then, onwards to your next sentence...

[QUOTE]I believe in theological evolution, I belive in the change of species, but that instead of natural selection, God shaped the world as it is. Why the hell does this even have to be brought into question anyway? My correction to his example on microevolution was based on the current secular theroies.[/QUOTE]
Lol. So your religion [i]does[/i] have to do with your view on evolution. And your correction was not based on current secular theories because there wasn't a shred of factual information there. You simply gave a definition for the word "theory" and said that there had to be a tested hypothesis for it to apply, saying that hence evolution should be referred to as a "model" rather than a "theory."

[QUOTE]I appreciate the book suggestion, but I think I'll just stick to my college education and the fact I'm majoring in biology.[/QUOTE]
That's a shame, because it appears that your college education and the fact that you're majoring in biology have very little influence over what you know or think. You can't even write scientific names properly, lol. I really do suggest you read that book ("Almost Like a Whale" by Steve Jones, so you don't have to look for that thread again), it's not just informative but it's extremely well written.

[QUOTE]If you really want to get into evolution, start a different thread. As for evolution being a "theory" well you should probably study up on your scientific method before you go sputtering off again. Once again, take it to a different thread if you really want to debate.[/QUOTE]
Done and done. Do you want to discuss what it means to be a "theory," then? Let's get to it.
The Journal of Theoretics has an interesting little line: "the scientific method should only be applied to experimentation when appropriate and not be used in the determination of what is or is not science, nor should it have any application in defining what is a hypothesis, theory, fact, or law." Then there's Stephen Jay Gould's [i]Evolution as Fact and Theory[/i], which I'm sure you'd rather not read in favor of sticking to your college education and the fact that you're majoring in biology, lol.
Then there's dictionary definitions of the word theory:
"Noun 1. theory - a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena;
2. theory - a tentative theory about the natural world; a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena"
There is no universal agreement as to where to use the words "theory," "fact," etc. in science or technical writing, and as a biology major you should know that. It is important to make clear what your definition of those terms is in whatever context you are discussing, but it is a mistake to maintain that others must stick to your same definitions.
As far as evolution is concerned, it is a well-established THEORY for the vast majority of the scientific world. In actuality, scientists consider the existence of biological evolution as a [i]fact[/i], as it has been demonstrated today and there is a huge amount of evidence suggesting it ocurred in the past. What is lost on many people is a certain distinction: the existence of evolution vs. the [i]mechanism[/i] of evolution. The various mechanisms people have come up with, assuming they have something to support them (i.e. not the creationist views) can be called theories. Natural selection is such a theory, for instance.
I'll end by reminding you that saying that you "believe that God shaped the world as it is" and then following up by telling me to "study up on [my] scientific method" is nothing less than asinine.

[James]

[color=#707875]Yeah, I'll just jump in to reiterate what you said; it's a Sciros/Drix discussion.

We've had two-person RPGs, so I don't mind a two-person discussion. That will also ensure that the thread doesn't get closed.[/color]

[Drix D'Zanth]

[QUOTE=ScirosDarkblade]
That's a shame, because it appears that your college education and the fact that you're majoring in biology have very little influence over what you know or think. You can't even write scientific names properly, lol. [/QUOTE]

Well , ya got me there. I guess college really is for dumbasses considering you derived my entire knowledge of molecular and organism biology from a few post referring to the differences between macro and micro evolution. I?m surprised you started a debate, because you seem to have everything figured out just fine!! I?ll try my best to keep up with your impeccable expertise on the subject as best I can. Bear with me, I?m a very slow learner and usually need several people to explain the same thing over and over before my brain seems to connect the dots. Oh, and use lots of pictures. I like colors.. lots of them, but don?t use crayons, they smear. I didn?t realize you demanded term-paper quality posts. I?ll try to keep up with your obviously enlightened demands.

?Aren?t book titles underlined? Oopsies.

[QUOTE=ScirosDarkblade]
True, we do not have written historical records that describe the domestication of the dog, nor did we in 14,000 years create a different species (and I was saying that some biologists view the domesticated dog as a subspecies of wolf, not different breeds as subspecies). But, through the domestication and breeding of dogs we have created breeds that when mixed produce offspring that could never survive in the wild due to numerous defects (effectively leading to a divergence). In other words, not far away from what would classify them as different species. And if we decided to outright engineer different species out of them at this point, I'm betting it wouldn't be too difficult. [/QUOTE]

Ahh, but such a species change has [i]not[/i] occurred in the last 14,000 years. Despite an impressive record of species variation and still has not experienced a true macroevolution. Hey, I said it before, and I assume I?ll be repeating it many times within the course of this debate: I do not oppose the theory of microevolution, it?s macroevolution that I have issues with. Now, if you think you can somehow get the [i]Canis familiaris [/i]to evolve into an entirely different species, by all means show me.
Now, besides the physical inhibitors (large dog, small dog, dog doesn?t want to get down and funky) every breed of dog can successfully interbreed with another.

One more problem, in neither support nor refusal to either of our arguments: The [i]Canis lupis[/i] and [i]Canis familiaris[/i] can actually breed and produce stable offspring, which some scientists and zoologists use as evidence to question the exact nature of doggie evolution. I?m not sure what my take is on this, but it?s a pretty interesting fact.


[QUOTE=ScirosDarkblade]
Oh, and I also love the way you drew a distinction between "change of behavioral patterns" and "evolution." As if there's a distinction to be drawn, lol. A change in behavioral patterns is often the first step towards a larger-scale evolutionary change, which I would think is common knowledge. [/QUOTE]

Incorrect. Darwin himself admitted that multiple factors would influence evolution from one species to another, however, ?natural selection is the most definite cause.? Now if you are looking at this from a cause-effect situation, the cause (genetics) brings about the effects (instinct-driven behavior). Is there anything genetically different between a wild dog and domesticated dog? Besides subspecies, there is not. Look at how we continue to domesticate dogs today. The behavioral patterns are a result of the canine?s ability to react to stimili including fear, group nature, stress, and docility. By manipulating the dog (beating a hostile dog, rewarding a docile dog) the dog will naturally respond to a change in stimuli in order to survive. This doesn?t result in any sort of genetic mutation, I?m referring to the very first domesticated dogs. Look at how dogs behave now. Puppies all display fairly aggressive behavior, biting, wrestling, achieving dominance amongst the litter. These are all behavioral patterns imbedded within a dog?s genetics; it?s just the way the cute little thing ticks. Wild dogs learn how to survive by the social group that the dogs may remain in (early mastiff fossils in northern Germany reveal dog populations traveling in packs much like wolves). By domesticating the dog?s primary source (the mother) of the behavior-through-imitation found in wild dogs, wolves, and other group predators; you effectively remove the stimuli that would result in an un-domesticated canine. Can you raise a wild dog? Yes. You can raise a vicious dog by manipulating the stimuli around it (rewarding aggressive behavior, or provocation, etc.)

The genes are doing what they are supposed to, Sciros, we aren?t encouraging any sort of macro or micro evolution by controlling a canine?s behavioral patterns.

[QUOTE=ScirosDarkblade]
Actually, the mechanisms really become only more and more clear as genetics research becomes more established and explored. There aren't too many mechanisms required for nature-driven evolution: natural selection, sexual selection, genetic mutations, and heredity. How they come together for the various evolutionary chains is what much research tries to figure out. And, as I've said before, I can't think of any that has to scientists questioning anything other than preestablished [i]specifics[/i] due to this research. And when they do, they only arrive at something more conclusive, more definite. [/QUOTE]

Oh really? So everything that?s been tested with reference or in support of macroevolution is a truism? Ooh even better.. a challenge:

[QUOTE=ScirosDarkblade]
If you can refer me to some research which suggests that "the mechanisms required for nature-driven evolution aren't as definite as one might assume," I would appreciate it. It would be an interesting read. [/QUOTE]

See my closing argument.

[QUOTE=ScirosDarkblade]
Lol. So your religion [i]does[/i] have to do with your view on evolution. And your correction was not based on current secular theories because there wasn't a shred of factual information there. You simply gave a definition for the word "theory" and said that there had to be a tested hypothesis for it to apply, saying that hence evolution should be referred to as a "model" rather than a "theory." [/QUOTE]

Did you even read the post I was referring to you? Are you really that lazy to assume because I had oppositions to the validity of macroevolution it had anything to do with my original post on the thread? Do you even know the entire post was just explaining the mechanisms of [b]micro[/b]evolution?? So then you claim it has to do with my religion, to which I reply in a SEPARATE post, my opinions concerning evolution, and you attribute it to my original post? Trust me, I didn?t really have such a complex ulterior notion against macroevolution to begin with when I posted for the first time, I regret even defending my position on evolution in the first place. You are like the little four year old neighbor my sister babysits. She always has to put the jigsaw puzzle together [i]for[/i] him.

Wrong again. Macroevolution is a model and a part of the larger theory of evolution. When I refer to the theory of Biological Evolution as the ?biological change within organisms over time?, I?m referring to multiple extremities and hypotheses such as the Theory of Microevolution.

[QUOTE=ScirosDarkblade]
Done and done. Do you want to discuss what it means to be a "theory," then? Let's get to it. The Journal of Theoretics has an interesting little line: "the scientific method should only be applied to experimentation when appropriate and not be used in the determination of what is or is not science, nor should it have any application in defining what is a hypothesis, theory, fact, or law." [/QUOTE]

Ok Sciros, take a deep breath. Read this passage over again. Eat a protein-aboundant meal, maybe some carbs just to rev up those typing fingers. Read this passage over again. Now drink a glass of water, at least eight ounces. Read this passage over again.

The first time I read this I was stunned. Is the Journal of Theoretics, a fairly legitimate peer-based source of scientific article galore actually testing the validity of the scientific method? I mean, considering the fact that the WHOLE PURPOSE behind the method is to test hypotheses and create theories!

[URL= http://teacher.nsrl.rochester.edu/phy_labs/AppendixE/AppendixE.html][color=blue] People usually learn this in their freshman year of highschool [/color][/URL]
All that quote was supporting, if you would have interpreted it correctly. Is that the scientific method isn?t greater than the sum of its parts. It cannot be used to define ?science?, ?theory?, or even ?hypotheses?. I?m sure if you include the rest of the article in full context (please link, I checked the site, but could find no line) it would support my argument.

Let?s say I?m wrong. Well then, your wonderful Journal of Theoretics just contradicted the any and all theories and models resulting from scientific method. Is [i]that[/i] what your reference is trying to tell me, Sciros? That scientific method proves nothing?

[QUOTE=ScirosDarkblade]
Then there's Stephen Jay Gould's [i]Evolution as Fact and Theory[/i], which I'm sure you'd rather not read in favor of sticking to your college education and the fact that you're majoring in biology, lol. [/QUOTE]

I like how you discredited my entire education by quoting a single book you read. ?So far the ScirosDarkblade evolutionary book count is up to 4 published titles?? Are you really going to claim the debate on the notion that the book you read refutes all of my previous and upcoming arguments? I hope not, let?s try to keep our egos in check and stick to the topic rather than throw around unsubstantial accusations. Nietzsche isn?t a philosopher I tend to admire but for a few of his ideas, including this quote: ?The greatest threat to truth is not the lie, but the accusation.?

[QUOTE=ScirosDarkblade]
Then there's dictionary definitions of the word theory:
"Noun 1. theory - a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena;
2. theory - a tentative theory about the natural world; a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena"[/QUOTE]

Exactly why are we using dictionary definitions on the word? :
[url]http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=theory[/url]
Oh look, mine's a little different.

Scientific theory is a big deal, Sciros. Hell, gravity is a theory, relativity is a theory? these are all regularly observed every day. When referring to macroevolution, an un-testable and un-observed phenomenon you cannot so easily classify it as a theory.

[QUOTE=ScirosDarkblade]
There is no universal agreement as to where to use the words "theory," "fact," etc. in science or technical writing, and as a biology major you should know that. It is important to make clear what your definition of those terms is in whatever context you are discussing, but it is a mistake to maintain that others must stick to your same definitions.
As far as evolution is concerned, it is a well-established THEORY for the vast majority of the scientific world. In actuality, scientists consider the existence of biological evolution as a [i]fact[/i], as it has been demonstrated today and there is a huge amount of evidence suggesting it ocurred in the past. What is lost on many people is a certain distinction: the existence of evolution vs. the [i]mechanism[/i] of evolution. The various mechanisms people have come up with, assuming they have something to support them (i.e. not the creationist views) can be called theories. Natural selection is such a theory, for instance.[/QUOTE]

Hey, I?ll give that one to you, just look at [URL=[color=blue]http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scientific-realism/#6[/color]]Scientific Realism[/URL]
However, it can be accepted within books explaining science, its methods, and its theories; that theory is:
-A conclusion based upon the testing of a hypothesis in according to the inherent laws of nature (physics, chemistry, biology, etc) that can continue to be evidenced upon, yet lacks the merit to be counted as a law.
[url]http://home.xnet.com/~blatura/skep_1.html[/url] : here?s another website briefly going over the differences between scientific theory and hypothesis. (Gee, I would think this is common knowledge)




[QUOTE=ScirosDarkblade]
If you can refer me to some research which suggests that "the mechanisms required for nature-driven evolution aren't as definite as one might assume," I would appreciate it. It would be an interesting read. [/QUOTE]

Remember this? Here?s a little slice of pie. This article refers to the VERY ROOOTS of evolution, the very beginnings of life on earth and an experiment that was (and still is in most school biology books) heralded as a definitive supporting argument for life (including evolution) as a natural and random occurrence:

The Miller-Urey experiment involving the stimulation of gasses was based upon the theory of earth?s early atmospheric composition. It should be noted that the present atmosphere of Earth is approximately 21% oxygen, which is now associated with life because of the redox reactions within cellular respiration. Ironically it is this gas that would prove to be the absolute inhibitor of the very beginnings in early cellular development and organic synthesis. Free oxygen, because of its fairly volatile nature would inhibit the electromagnetic spark necessary to catalyze enzyme production in a primordial liquid or atmosphere (based on the Oparin-Haldane scenario, that lightning created the earliest building blocks of life). Why? Even a minute amount (1% eppu) of oxygen in any sort of contained environment like an atmosphere, combined with the high levels of methane and hydrogen of Earth?s infancy would cause an explosion.
----------
The nature of oxygen can be seen today as medicine continues to encourage ?anti-oxidants? included in your daily vitamin regimen. Free oxygen prevents, and even breaks down organic synthesis.

So Miller-Urey tested the postulation that the early atmosphere of hydrogen, ammonia, methane, and water vapor could easily create life with the correct stimulation. Upon testing it in a closed container for a week, the water had grown ?deep red and turbid?. He tested some of it for chemicals and found extremely trace amounts of the amino acids glycine and alamine, the two simplest that can be located in current living organisms. Other organic compounds were found that aren?t found in living cells.

Wow! Sounds like they got it right! The very building blocks were in place and evolution didn?t even need to take a hint to get started! Remember my schpeel on oxygen and its inherent quality to inhibit organic synthesis? Well this is where Miller-Urey went wrong. In 1960 a University of Chicago geochemist named Harrison Brown published an article concerning the early atmosphere of Earth. According to the Oparin-Haldane scenario, earth?s atmosphere would be a composition very similar to the interstellar gas clouds. Brown noted that Earth?s atmosphere contained levels of rare gases neon, argon, krypton, and xenon were at least a million times lower than the cosmic average, and concluded that the earth must have lost its original atmosphere (if it ever had one) very soon after its formation.

Princeton University geochemist Heinrich Holland and Carnegie Institution geophysicist Philip Abelson agreed with Brown, and their theories coincided with the conclusion that Earth?s atmosphere was actually derivative of gasses released by volcanic activity. All scientific evidence concludes that they released the same gasses that volcanoes on earth to this day release. This would create an atmosphere composed primarily of water vapor, carbon dioxide, nitrogen, and trace amounts of hydrogen. Because of the lack of a static atmosphere, Holland concluded that hydrogen would have escaped into space. So the earth?s atmosphere is primarily composed of water vapor. Here?s the cooker: high levels of water vapor equal trace, if not moderate levels of oxygen through a process known as photodissociation. This is the natural even in which a water molecule separates into two molecules of hydrogen and one molecule of oxygen. The hydrogen would escape into space, and the heavier oxygen would remain near the earth?s surface. In 1965 Texas scientists L. V. Berkner and L. C. Marshall argued with California Institute of Technology geophysicist R. T. Brinkmann before conceding to the current scientific postulate that earth?s early atmosphere contained ?appreciable oxygen concentrations as much as one quarter of the present level?, this is before photosynthesis and the time where the bacteria began really pumping oxygen into the atmosphere.


The scientific community has been back and forth over the issues until the 1982 conference on the origin of life and molecular evolution when the participants agreed that the theories were a non issue in rebuttal to the Miller-Uley experiment. Why? They agreed that the Miller-Urey mix of gasses was inherently incorrect because, according to Belgian biochemist Marcel Florkin, ?the concept of a reducing primitive atmosphere (one of hydrogen, methane, ammonia, and water vapor) has to be abandoned, and it must be conceded that it is not geologically realistic due to the evidence indicating most of the free hydrogen dissipated into outer space and what was left of methane and ammonia could not have oxidized.?

Here you are talking about the way evolution flies, and the plane can?t even taxi.

Any thoughts?

[Guest ScirosDarkblade]

[quote name='Drix D'Zanth']Well , ya got me there. I guess college really is for dumbasses considering you derived my entire knowledge of molecular and organism biology from a few post referring to the differences between macro and micro evolution. I?m surprised you started a debate, because you seem to have everything figured out just fine!! I?ll try my best to keep up with your impeccable expertise on the subject as best I can. Bear with me, I?m a very slow learner and usually need several people to explain the same thing over and over before my brain seems to connect the dots. Oh, and use lots of pictures. I like colors.. lots of them, but don?t use crayons, they smear. I didn?t realize you demanded term-paper quality posts. I?ll try to keep up with your obviously enlightened demands.[/quote]
Your sarcasm is unnecessary, Drix. Unless you can demonstrate that you know what you're talking about, you really ought to take it down a notch. It's better to be an idiot than a proud idiot.

[QUOTE]Ahh, but such a species change has [i]not[/i] occurred in the last 14,000 years. Despite an impressive record of species variation and still has not experienced a true macroevolution. Hey, I said it before, and I assume I?ll be repeating it many times within the course of this debate: I do not oppose the theory of microevolution, it?s macroevolution that I have issues with. Now, if you think you can somehow get the [i]Canis familiaris [/i]to evolve into an entirely different species, by all means show me.
Now, besides the physical inhibitors (large dog, small dog, dog doesn?t want to get down and funky) every breed of dog can successfully interbreed with another.[/QUOTE]
Yes, they can produce fertile offspring, but in some cases they are plagued by physical defects due to things such as an overabundance of various growth hormones, etc. (if I remember correctly). This would lead to a divergence, as intermixing between such breeds would not add anything to the gene pool when natural selection took its course. But that's off topic; let's leave the dogs alone.

[QUOTE]One more problem, in neither support nor refusal to either of our arguments: The [i]Canis lupis[/i] and [i]Canis familiaris[/i] can actually breed and produce stable offspring, which some scientists and zoologists use as evidence to question the exact nature of doggie evolution. I?m not sure what my take is on this, but it?s a pretty interesting fact.[/QUOTE]
There's a good amount out there about the evolution of dogs. What you mentioned supports some biologists' classifying the domestic dog as a subspecies. As far as the "exact nature" of dog evolution, it's been decided that it was some common ancestor to the dog and wolf (based on DNA evidence) if I remember right.

[QUOTE]Incorrect. Darwin himself admitted that multiple factors would influence evolution from one species to another, however, ?natural selection is the most definite cause.? Now if you are looking at this from a cause-effect situation, the cause (genetics) brings about the effects (instinct-driven behavior). Is there anything genetically different between a wild dog and domesticated dog? Besides subspecies, there is not. Look at how we continue to domesticate dogs today. The behavioral patterns are a result of the canine?s ability to react to stimili including fear, group nature, stress, and docility. By manipulating the dog (beating a hostile dog, rewarding a docile dog) the dog will naturally respond to a change in stimuli in order to survive. This doesn?t result in any sort of genetic mutation, I?m referring to the very first domesticated dogs. Look at how dogs behave now. Puppies all display fairly aggressive behavior, biting, wrestling, achieving dominance amongst the litter. These are all behavioral patterns imbedded within a dog?s genetics; it?s just the way the cute little thing ticks. Wild dogs learn how to survive by the social group that the dogs may remain in (early mastiff fossils in northern Germany reveal dog populations traveling in packs much like wolves). By domesticating the dog?s primary source (the mother) of the behavior-through-imitation found in wild dogs, wolves, and other group predators; you effectively remove the stimuli that would result in an un-domesticated canine. Can you raise a wild dog? Yes. You can raise a vicious dog by manipulating the stimuli around it (rewarding aggressive behavior, or provocation, etc.)
The genes are doing what they are supposed to, Sciros, we aren?t encouraging any sort of macro or micro evolution by controlling a canine?s behavioral patterns.[/QUOTE]
If I may present a counterexample which it turns out you are unfamiliar with:

"Interestingly, many of the morphological and physiological differences that exist between dogs and wolves may not have been intentionally selected for by humans, and could have been a result of selection for tameness in dogs. An experiment which involved Siberian foxes (Vulpes vulpes) demonstrates how this could have happened (see Trut, 1999 for a review). The experiment was started in the 1940's by the Russian geneticist Dmitri Belyaev, who studied the process of domestication using a population of fur farm foxes (see Fig. 1). The foxes used in the beginning stages of the experiment were difficult to handle, very afraid of people and generally behaved like wild animals. The experimenters began to selectively breed the foxes for one trait - tameness around people. At the age of one month, an experimenter would offer food to each fox kit while trying to pet and handle it. This was done twice - while the kit was alone and while it was with other fox kits. This routine was repeated monthly until the kit was seven to eight months old and at that point, each kit was assigned to one of three classes based on how tame it was. Class III foxes attempted to flee from experimenters or tried to bite them. Class II foxes were not friendly to the experimenters, but allowed themselves to be touched. Class I foxes were friendly towards the experimenters and would often approach them. After six generations of breeding only tame foxes, a new class, Class IE, ("domesticated elite") had to be added. These foxes were very dog-like and actively sought out human attention and would lick experimenters and wag their tails like dogs. After twenty generations, 35% of the experimental foxes were domesticated elite and today, 70-80% of the foxes are.

Since the foxes in the experiment were being selectively bred for a behavioural trait (tameness), the experimenters hypothesized that physiological changes in the systems governing the fox's hormones and neurotransmitters would also occur, as an animal's behaviour is often mediated by these chemicals. Indeed, that is exactly what happened. As the experiment proceeded, a steady drop in the hormone producing activity of the domestic fox's adrenal glands was measured. For example, after several generations of selective breeding, the basal level of corticosteroids in the blood of the domesticated foxes was far lower than that of the control group of non-domesticated foxes. Changes in the neurochemistry of the domesticated foxes was also noted, as they had higher levels of serotonin in their brains compared to the control group of foxes.

After several generations of selecting for tameness, new traits only rarely seen in wild foxes began to become more common in the domesticated population. For example, after ten generations, several of the domesticated foxes had piebald coloured or brown mottled coats. Later in the experiment, it was noted that several of the tame foxes had floppy ears, short tails or curly tails. Even later, changes in the skull morphology of the foxes was noted as well, as skull measurements showed that the cranial height and width of the domesticated foxes tended to be smaller than those of control group foxes. The domestic foxes also had shorter and wider muzzles than the control group ones.

Many of the differences between the domestic foxes and the wild foxes are similar to the differences seen between domestic dogs and wolves. Wolves do not have floppy ears, curly tails, or piebald coloured coats, but many dogs do. Skull size is also one of the main ways dogs differ from wolves and selecting foxes only for tameness changed their skull size. The results of this experiment seem to suggest that many of the unique characters seen in dogs and not wolves are a result of the selection of dogs for tameness. But, how does selecting animals for a behavioural trait change their overall morphology like this? It has already been noted that selecting animals for a behavioural trait can change the amount of hormones and neurotransmitters produced by the animals because an animal's behaviour is often controlled by such chemicals. The early development of an animal is also, in part, controlled by these chemicals, so a small change in the animal's endocrine and neurochemical systems may result in changes to the early development of the animal. "
[URL=http://www.ualberta.ca/~jzgurski/dog.htm]Here is where I found this particular account of the fox experiment (although it is a very widely known one, and I'm surprised you've never read of it).[/URL] Anyway, there goes your whole "behavior patterns changing" not being "evolution" argument. Don't be offended, just treat it as something new to learn.

[QUOTE]Did you even read the post I was referring to you? Are you really that lazy to assume because I had oppositions to the validity of macroevolution it had anything to do with my original post on the thread? Do you even know the entire post was just explaining the mechanisms of [b]micro[/b]evolution?? So then you claim it has to do with my religion, to which I reply in a SEPARATE post, my opinions concerning evolution, and you attribute it to my original post? Trust me, I didn?t really have such a complex ulterior notion against macroevolution to begin with when I posted for the first time, I regret even defending my position on evolution in the first place. You are like the little four year old neighbor my sister babysits. She always has to put the jigsaw puzzle together [i]for[/i] him.[/QUOTE]
Again with the insults. Drix, read my first reply to your post again. [i]Notice[/i], dammit, that it says NOTHING about YOUR religion. Why did you take such offense? I said that religion is becoming progressively aggressive towards evolution (though not in those words), and you took it altogether the wrong way. Maybe you took offense because you ARE religious and ARE filling in the gaps you see in evolutionary theory with a metaphysical belief. I don't know. But I directed no remarks at YOUR religion or you being religious in my original post. It was a misunderstanding on your part.

[QUOTE]...All that quote was supporting, if you would have interpreted it correctly. Is that the scientific method isn?t greater than the sum of its parts. It cannot be used to define ?science?, ?theory?, or even ?hypotheses?. I?m sure if you include the rest of the article in full context (please link, I checked the site, but could find no line) it would support my argument.

Let?s say I?m wrong. Well then, your wonderful Journal of Theoretics just contradicted the any and all theories and models resulting from scientific method. Is [i]that[/i] what your reference is trying to tell me, Sciros? That scientific method proves nothing?
[/QUOTE]
Here is the link: [URL]http://www.journaloftheoretics.com/Editorials/Vol-1/e1-3.htm[/URL]. You'll notice its definition of theory is not exactly what your "people learn this freshman year of highschool" link provided. And I think I see why you don't consider evolution a theory so much as a model. It is because you're hung up on the technicality concerning the word "observed," which you'll notice is not in all definitions of the word "theory." Many definitions say "validated" or "supported" hypothesis, not "observed." If you want to say that evolution is not a theory based on that, then go right head, but I'd imagine few folks in the field would agree.

[QUOTE]I like how you discredited my entire education by quoting a single book you read. ?So far the ScirosDarkblade evolutionary book count is up to 4 published titles?? Are you really going to claim the debate on the notion that the book you read refutes all of my previous and upcoming arguments? I hope not, let?s try to keep our egos in check and stick to the topic rather than throw around unsubstantial accusations. Nietzsche isn?t a philosopher I tend to admire but for a few of his ideas, including this quote: ?The greatest threat to truth is not the lie, but the accusation.? [/QUOTE]
Lol. It appears that my joking reference to your OWN statement of "I appreciate the book suggestion, but I think I'll just stick to my college education and the fact I'm majoring in biology" went right over your head. Next time think for a bit before firing off your extremely witty sarcasm.

[QUOTE]Scientific theory is a big deal, Sciros. Hell, gravity is a theory, relativity is a theory? these are all regularly observed every day. When referring to macroevolution, an un-testable and un-observed phenomenon you cannot so easily classify it as a theory.[/QUOTE]
Un-observed in real-time, perhaps, but certainly not un-observed in the fossil record. Don't get so hung up on such a strict definiton of the word. There's no reason to.

[QUOTE]theory is:
-A conclusion based upon the testing of a hypothesis in according to the inherent laws of nature (physics, chemistry, biology, etc) that can continue to be evidenced upon, yet lacks the merit to be counted as a law.
[url]http://home.xnet.com/~blatura/skep_1.html[/url] : here?s another website briefly going over the differences between scientific theory and hypothesis. (Gee, I would think this is common knowledge)[/QUOTE]
See, now you're fighting definitions with definitions. Which is pointless, because all it does is support my previous statement that there's no true, ultimate definition of the word "theory." And that link you posted, interestingly and ironically, completely supports viewing evolution as a theory. All it takes is to read the first few sections of the page to see that (the rest is all random off-topic stuff anyway).

[QUOTE]Here?s a little slice of pie. This article refers to the VERY ROOOTS of evolution, the very beginnings of life on earth and an experiment that was (and still is in most school biology books) heralded as a definitive supporting argument for life (including evolution) as a natural and random occurrence:

...

Here you are talking about the way evolution flies, and the plane can?t even taxi.

Any thoughts?[/QUOTE]
Criticism of the Miller experiment is very widespread, and I've read something like your account before. BUT, there are a couple of things you must realize in relation to that material. First of all, it merely serves as criticism of Miller's experiments, and does not discount any other theory for the origin of life on the prebiotic earth (although they do assume that somehow some process allowed the constituents of nucleid acids to appear--it is what that process was that is unknown). Secondly, disproving one theory for the origin of life does not suddenly "shake the foundations of evolution," because evolution is NOT a theory on the origin of life, but [I]the process by which all living things have developed from primitive organisms[/I]. How evolution's "first common ancestor" came about is certainly an interesting subject (especially to anyone who researches DNA/RNA), but is ultimately irrelevant in this discussion. If reading a criticism of the Miller experiment is what caused you to start to doubt the validity of evolutionary theory, then you need to rethink how the two of them are related.

[AzureWolf]

[FONT=Book Antiqua][SIZE=2][COLOR=Blue]Interesting discussion. Not to intrude, but I have a few comments and questions:

-[B]What is the question/topic at hand?[/B] I mean, other people who come in to read this debate will have no clue. I could only get a vague idea of what the subject is: It's [i]something[/i] about evolution, but what?

-[B]What is the significance of the arguing "Theory" and other words' meanings?[/B] While it is important to know words have very specific meanings in science (drying and evaporating, for example), I don't see why it was brought up. Still, terms in science cannot be interchanged. Science is more precise with terms than standard english, and the latter is what dictionary.com is for.

If it helps any, I've learned ten times over that:

[U]Hypothesis[/U]
Is simply a conclusion drawn from knowledge and/or experience [B]and can be tested[/b]

[I]Example:[/I] "I think, after chemical X is heated, it'll turn green."

[U]Theory[/U]
is an explanation for any phenomenon in nature and [B]and does not need to be testable[/B]

[I]Example:[/I] "Chemical X, after heating, becomes green due to the formation fo conjugated double bonds."

[U]Law[/U]
is the statement of any phenomenon. In order for something to be a law, it has to not be disproven. [B]Important: It does NOT have to be proven.[/B]

[I]Example:[/I] "Chemicals become more stable after heating."
Or, a better example would be "The world is flat." Yes, that statement was a law - unproven, but also not disproven for a time.

These three terms aren't "ranked," such that a hypothesis can one day rise to become a theory or law.

-[B]Arguing terms shouldn't be something necessary in a scientific debate[/B]. Again, all terms have a definite and distinct meaning in science, so I don't think arguments about those terms should be brought up. Right or wrong, none of the definitions being argued seem to be important to the topic (which I'm still not sure of).

I'm not taking sides, nor am I participating, but here's stuff I thought the debate could address/use. I apologize if I am out of place to do so.[/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT]

[James]

[color=#707875]Ah...yeah, I guess that's reasonable enough. I can already identify several substantive problems with this whole debate, lol.

But the main reason I'm restricting other participants is because we've had countless debates on this subject before. Most people aren't experts on the matter, so the whole point of debating it in the first place kind of becomes questionable.

Having said that, I'm allowing Sciros and Drix to debate as long as it remains civil. And as long as it's a "private debate", so to speak.

I'd really like to see people making attempts to create new and interesting threads in this forum. It'd be a nice change.

(So, to more directly answer your question, your post is fine, but let's not have any further posts from non-participants).[/color]

[Drix D'Zanth]

Don?t think I?ve lost interest in this thread. My current work schedule (which has now ended), and my recent development of strep throat has deterred internet activity. Sorry for the late post, I?ll keep them on a more regular basis once I?m settled in. I?m moving back to college Friday, and have plenty to prepare during that weekend. I?ll do my best to remain fairly active.

With regards to James and AzureWolf; yeah, this is getting pretty redundant when defining theory. Hey I agree, the argument over esoteric expressions is getting neither of us anywhere.. let?s continue on with the debate.

As for the overall purpose of the debate? I?m not going to boldly claim that evolution is bunk. I agree with microevolution. Variation within species and genetic code is tested, and concluded theory that I would readily accept as any other. I see this thread as a challenge to dogmatic evolutionists. Those who believe the current theories being taught in our textbooks and don?t actually realize how LITTLE we know about macroevolution. The more we continue to explore our own hypothesis, the more even the most fundamental macroevolution evidence appears to be wrong! Sciros disagrees, claiming that current scientific evidence has done nothing but improve our understanding of evolution. I agree, if you mean the understanding of our failings. I?m going to start slow and use this thread to learn his reasons for accepting evolution. At the same time I?ll present arguments that may challenge his assumptions on natural selection, the peppered moth testing, vertebrate homology, the evolutionary tree, and a few other key concepts. I plan on covering everything, but patience is a requirement.

What we all must understand is that despite our sarcasm, wit, vitriol, and resentment; we will both walk away believing in the same things we came into the arguments. I?ll see more concrete evidence for evolution, and sciros will see the opposite. But the earlier posts indicate that our opinions are going to inevitably change very little. As James mentioned, this should be a learning experience for myself, [i]and[/i] whoever wants to read this thread.


[QUOTE=ScirosDarkblade]
Yes, they can produce fertile offspring, but in some cases they are plagued by physical defects due to things such as an overabundance of various growth hormones, etc. (if I remember correctly). This would lead to a divergence, as intermixing between such breeds would not add anything to the gene pool when natural selection took its course. But that's off topic; let's leave the dogs alone.

There's a good amount out there about the evolution of dogs. What you mentioned supports some biologists' classifying the domestic dog as a subspecies. As far as the "exact nature" of dog evolution, it's been decided that it was some common ancestor to the dog and wolf (based on DNA evidence) if I remember right. [/QUOTE]

Hey, I?ll agree with you here. Dogs are wonders of the manipulation of genetics. A dog is born with a shorter tail, a trait seen attractive to breeders, and so the dog is bred and generations of selecting the shorter-tail dogs from the litter result in the change from a recessive gene, to the only gene.

[QUOTE=ScirosDarkblade]

If I may present a counterexample which it turns out you are unfamiliar with:

?.

Anyway, there goes your whole "behavior patterns changing" not being "evolution" argument. Don't be offended, just treat it as something new to learn. [/QUOTE]

I do appreciate the bit of information, and while an interesting read the sense of nostalgia tickling at my brain reminded me to Biology 150?s lab on adrenal gland development within animal species. This very experiment was summarized and mentioned, if briefly, during a lecture. That being said, I did learn a lot from this article and how genetic evolution is linked to behavioral evolution. Am I about to say behavior is restricted to the animal once neo-natal? Well, if my arguments claim so, then that was my error. There are some things from this experiment, questions, that need some answering. Genetics, as we can both agree, are linked not only to development after birth, but actual organ development. As this article has illustrated hormone levels and adrenal glands are examples of genetic-controlled behavioral influencers. But I wonder, is the manipulation of the behavior the factor that controlled the docility, or the selectivity based on pre-existing genetics? They seem to pick the foxes that have smaller adrenal glands, and lower levels of hormones usually associated with a ?wild? natured fox. Now, could this recessive population, as it is bred away from the control population, continue to pass along the more recessive traits (for all I can see, they continued to remove groups I, II, and III from each litter) and in effect just creating a stable environment for that recessive gene to become more dominant? Isn?t this analogous to dog breeding? Greyhounds aren?t prided for having blue coats, so whenever that recessive trait arises, they don?t breed the dog. They instead buy dogs with the grey or black coats, effectively ?breeding away? the recessive gene. I would be interested

[QUOTE=ScirosDarkblade]
Again with the insults. Drix, read my first reply to your post again. [i]Notice[/i], dammit, that it says NOTHING about YOUR religion. [/QUOTE]

Interesting how you can?t seem to understand why that bothered me. When I mentioned nothing about my religion (which we can agree on), and yes you mention religion in a passive remark, and then continue to debate my opinion. Hey, if it wasn?t directed at me, I took you for more diabolically subtle than I should have. I was just figuring this was the same as any other subtle insult you?ve thrown my way. (i.e. ?I figured that was common knowledge?)

[QUOTE=ScirosDarkblade]
Why did you take such offense? I said that religion is becoming progressively aggressive towards evolution (though not in those words), and you took it altogether the wrong way. [/QUOTE]

Really? Read your next statement.

[QUOTE=ScirosDarkblade]
Maybe you took offense because you ARE religious and ARE filling in the gaps you see in evolutionary theory with a metaphysical belief. [/QUOTE]

It seems you [b]can?t[/b] bear to bring yourself away from that possibility. Unnecessary accusations such as these are what attract my ire, sciros. Who says my religion must be so opposed to the sciences? I?m really not, if anything, witness evolution as a supporting argument to the existence of God, or some sort of divine individual. If you are going to draw your conclusions on my religion, allow me to reveal to you mine. But this will come in due time?.

[QUOTE=ScirosDarkblade]
Here is the link: [URL]http://www.journaloftheoretics.com/Editorials/Vol-1/e1-3.htm[/URL]. You'll notice its definition of theory is not exactly what your "people learn this freshman year of highschool" link provided. And I think I see why you don't consider evolution a theory so much as a model. It is because you're hung up on the technicality concerning the word "observed," which you'll notice is not in all definitions of the word "theory." Many definitions say "validated" or "supported" hypothesis, not "observed." If you want to say that evolution is not a theory based on that, then go right head, but I'd imagine few folks in the field would agree. [/QUOTE]

I imagine you are as irritated in defining the word ?theory? as I am. If anything this reminds me of the philosophies of Gottlob Frege. The way we associate words with ideas or objects can be simple at times and complex others. Basically, it reveals an inadequacy in the scientific community to define itself on varying levels of evidence. Meaning, the theory of gravity, and the theory of relativity are quite differently approached. While gravity remains consistent throughout all of nature, relativity is a very individualistic mechanism.

In short, I?ll stop defining theory and get straight to the logical points. Pinky swear that you will too ;).

[QUOTE=ScirosDarkblade]
Un-observed in real-time, perhaps, but certainly not un-observed in the fossil record. Don't get so hung up on such a strict definiton of the word. There's no reason to. [/QUOTE]

Are you talking about vertebrate homology in the fossil record? Oooh! After I get through my arguments concerning Darwin?s Tree of Life, fossil homology is next on my list.

[QUOTE=ScirosDarkblade]
Criticism of the Miller experiment is very widespread, and I've read something like your account before. BUT, there are a couple of things you must realize in relation to that material. First of all, it merely serves as criticism of Miller's experiments, and does not discount any other theory for the origin of life on the prebiotic earth (although they do assume that somehow some process allowed the constituents of nucleid acids to appear--it is what that process was that is unknown). Secondly, disproving one theory for the origin of life does not suddenly "shake the foundations of evolution," because evolution is NOT a theory on the origin of life, but [I]the process by which all living things have developed from primitive organisms[/I]. How evolution's "first common ancestor" came about is certainly an interesting subject (especially to anyone who researches DNA/RNA), but is ultimately irrelevant in this discussion. If reading a criticism of the Miller experiment is what caused you to start to doubt the validity of evolutionary theory, then you need to rethink how the two of them are related.[/QUOTE]

Hey, we are around? somehow life had to start. This is indisputable. That example illustrated two things:

-Current theories, as science has progressed have been consequentially disproven. The Miller experiment was a huge jewel in the Darwinist crown for it supported the ?first common ancestor? proposed by Darwin and his colleagues.

-It goes to illustrate that the random nature of life and its self-reliant quality isn?t so random, or self-reliant. Right now, we haven?t the faintest idea of how life could have been created. As the article stated, the very makeup of our atmosphere was deadly to early bacterial life. A simple point is that believing in evolution is basically believing in God. I was also supporting one of my previous claims, that current science is having doubts concerning evolution. Don?t think this is my only argument? heh.

While the Miller argument will be disproved time and time, experts are so dogmatic in their beliefs that they disregard the counter-evidence completely? search most biology or molecular biology-related book? most of them will most likely present, and support the Miller-Urey experiment.

My second argument: Uprooting Darwin?s Tree of Life.

While I?m stealing the title of this argument from one of the sources that inspired this challenge, I think the pun serves its purpose. I hope the cheesy humor is forgivable.

Now opening up my sister?s AP Biology book to the section on taxonomy revealed a tree of life in all its glory. The smallest of the Prokaryote bacteria at the very bottom, branching into the complex multicellular [i]Homo sapien[/i]. Once again, in response to your previous challenge, here?s another example of how current science has revealed a misunderstanding in our previous hypotheses. Does it disprove evolution? That?s not what I?m going to try to do, and just as faults in the Miller-Urey experiment don?t mean life couldn?t happen on earth. Merely that, we aren?t as confident in our theories as once before.

The problem with the theory is that it seems so perfectly designed that it is difficult to dispute in hypothetical terms. That slowly life went from a single origin of life, to few variations, until branching into more and more diversity. This idea of starting small and growing has been turned upside down nowadays. As your revered Stephen Jay Gould even claimed: ?The phylogenic tree is now less perceived as a tree, than it is as a bush?. (I?m sure George W. would be proud)

The pre-Cambrian period is a very difficult period to trace, when concerning fossil evidence. Theoretically, the heat and pressure over such a long period of time would eliminate most of the evidence supporting the simple-multicellular organisms that preceded the Cambrian explosion. However, the strange fact remains that paleontology has been able to uncover plenty of fossil evidence dating back billions of years, obviously able to endure the same geological effects pre-Cambrian fossils were not?

While that is insubstantial in itself, the obvious fossil records lie directly in what is known as the Cambrian explosion. This period, beginning 544 million years ago, lasted a mere 5 to 10 million years. An incredibly short period of time, geologically speaking (2 percent of the time elapsed since the beginning of the Cambrian), that ended up giving rise to most of the phyla alive today, as well as some that are now extinct.

Rather than helping Darwinian evolution, this posed a serious challenge. The event was remarkable because it was so abrupt, and because so many major groups of animals made their debut in it. But its challenge doesn?t lie in its abruptness or its extent, as in the fact that phyla and classes appeared right at the [i]start[/i]. Darwin?s theory claims that phylum and class level differences emerge only after a long history of divergence from lower categories. Biologists have described the current model as top-down evolution, where the higher levels of hierarchy appeared [i]first[/i].

Molecular phylogeny has proven inadequate to date the events from which the phyla should have appeared. According to geneticist Kenneth Halanych mentioned the period of difference between the original evolutionary requirements of phylogenic creation and the biological evidence is too distinct to be ignored and too large to be explained by molecular phylogeny.

Now posing these issues and the current changing model of evolution as it has apparently occurred in nature, rather than it has occurred in theory; have seriously challenged current theories. I will get more into molecular phylogeny, and the fossil evidence supporting the evolutionary ?lawn? if necessary.. but I think I should give you some time for a counter-point.

As Chinese paleontologist Xu Xing remarked at a lecture in the California Academy of sciences, ?In China we can criticize Darwin, but not the government; in America, you can criticize the government, but not Darwin
Is that the truth, or what:
[url]http://encyclozine.com/Evolutionary_tree[/url]
? Although such views are discredited now, the imagery is too well established to be readily lost.?

[Guest ScirosDarkblade]

[quote name='Drix D'Zanth']Don?t think I?ve lost interest in this thread. My current work schedule (which has now ended), and my recent development of strep throat has deterred internet activity. Sorry for the late post, I?ll keep them on a more regular basis once I?m settled in. I?m moving back to college Friday, and have plenty to prepare during that weekend. I?ll do my best to remain fairly active.[/quote]
Ok sounds good. I'm gonna be on-off here, because these posts take a while to compose and I'm easily distracted, not to mention also busy with a job. But it'll be a max of 2-3 days between posts.

[QUOTE]I see this thread as a challenge to dogmatic evolutionists. Those who believe the current theories being taught in our textbooks and don?t actually realize how LITTLE we know about macroevolution. The more we continue to explore our own hypothesis, the more even the most fundamental macroevolution evidence appears to be wrong![/QUOTE]
I will assume, then, that your focus will be on fundamental tenets of evolutionary theory. Because besides the very fundamentals, I agree that much does change every year due to new evidence or a seemingly more "fitting" theory having been developed. The "textbooks" aren't always up to date, heh.

[QUOTE]...There are some things from this experiment, questions, that need some answering. Genetics, as we can both agree, are linked not only to development after birth, but actual organ development. As this article has illustrated hormone levels and adrenal glands are examples of genetic-controlled behavioral influencers. But I wonder, is the manipulation of the behavior the factor that controlled the docility, or the selectivity based on pre-existing genetics? They seem to pick the foxes that have smaller adrenal glands, and lower levels of hormones usually associated with a ?wild? natured fox. Now, could this recessive population, as it is bred away from the control population, continue to pass along the more recessive traits (for all I can see, they continued to remove groups I, II, and III from each litter) and in effect just creating a stable environment for that recessive gene to become more dominant? Isn?t this analogous to dog breeding?[/QUOTE]
Yes, yes, yes. Is it the manipulation of behavior or selectivity based on genetics that controlled the docility? The latter makes more sense as far as what we're talking about. Yes, behavior was manipulated, but the results of the manipulation were of course influenced by genetics. But something important to note is that the foxes' behavior is what influenced the direction of the artificial selection they were subject to.
Was this analogous to dog breeding? Certainly. It showed essentially what happened from wolf to dog, in a surprisingly small time scale. The question I wanted to address is, "is this evolution?" Does the behavior change of an animal begin to lead it down a certain evolutionary path? The fox scenario, and the entirety of the dog's domestication, tell us "yes." (And yes, foxes evolving to "survive" the artificial selection of the experiment is on the same level as other animals evolving to survive the rigors of natural selection.)

[QUOTE]Interesting how you can?t seem to understand why that bothered me. When I mentioned nothing about my religion (which we can agree on), and yes you mention religion in a passive remark, and then continue to debate my opinion. Hey, if it wasn?t directed at me, I took you for more diabolically subtle than I should have. I was just figuring this was the same as any other subtle insult you?ve thrown my way. (i.e. ?I figured that was common knowledge?) [/QUOTE]
I mentioned religion in a passive remark yes, but because I thought it was relevant to my post. I also spoke only of the fact that religion had a problem with evolution. Yes, I admit that the statement had a bit of a "prodding" nature to it, but still for all I knew at the time you could've been an atheist who just knew diddly about the subject. If I offended you, then I apologize.

[QUOTE]In short, I?ll stop defining theory and get straight to the logical points. Pinky swear that you will too ;).[/QUOTE]
Yar. I assume, then, that you will no longer refer to evolution as a mere "model," since saying that it's not a theory does it and the scientific community an injustice. Ok no more on theory, then.

[QUOTE]-Current theories, as science has progressed have been consequentially disproven. The Miller experiment was a huge jewel in the Darwinist crown for it supported the ?first common ancestor? proposed by Darwin and his colleagues.[/QUOTE]
But not all have been disproven. There are still numerous debates on the makeup of the earth's atmosphere during its early days, and that is a crucial point for a number of theories, including Miller's. (Also let's not [i]fault[/i] Miller for his early work. At the time of the Miller-Urey experiment there wasn't much heated debate over the atmosphere's makeup; and he did demonstrate that organic matter could be produced from inorganic, which remains an important progression).

[QUOTE]-It goes to illustrate that the random nature of life and its self-reliant quality isn?t so random, or self-reliant. Right now, we haven?t the faintest idea of how life could have been created. As the article stated, the very makeup of our atmosphere was deadly to early bacterial life.[/QUOTE]
Whether or not life is truly "random," or to what extent, is a dangerously subjective issue, and I think it best be left altogether alone. As for people not having the faintest idea of how life stared on earth, I disagree there. For a while now ideas have been juggled around about a sort of pre-RNA, carrying out replicating and catalytic functions. Mostly it is pure speculation (for now at least, because research is always going on in the field), but it's not a bad direction to head in if you read some actual material on the subject (i.e. not any creationist press, just in case, because they sneak their way into nearly everything related to the origin of life on the internet).

[QUOTE]A simple point is that believing in evolution is basically believing in God. I was also supporting one of my previous claims, that current science is having doubts concerning evolution. Don?t think this is my only argument? heh[/QUOTE]
That's just insulting. Next time I find angel wing impressions in stone, I'll let you know, lol. Don't say "believing in evolution." It makes me think that you're just spewing Creationist rhetoric in my face and it makes me respect you less. You know there's a difference between having evidence interpretations of which differ and having 0 evidence altogether.

[QUOTE]While the Miller argument will be disproved time and time, experts are so dogmatic in their beliefs that they disregard the counter-evidence completely? search most biology or molecular biology-related book? most of them will most likely present, and support the Miller-Urey experiment.[/QUOTE]
The chemistry in the experiment was very solid. There's nothing wrong with the chemistry in the least. It's the question of what conditions were like on prebiotic earth that's the issue. To disprove the experiment "time and time" based on that would be worthless to the scientific community. We need to get a better idea of what the atmosphere really was like, after which we can simply move on to new experiments of our own rather than dwelling on misguided ones from the past.

[QUOTE]Once again, in response to your previous challenge, here?s another example of how current science has revealed a misunderstanding in our previous hypotheses. Does it disprove evolution? That?s not what I?m going to try to do, and just as faults in the Miller-Urey experiment don?t mean life couldn?t happen on earth. Merely that, we aren?t as confident in our theories as once before.[/QUOTE]
Tell me Drix, at what point in time did we think that we had "all the answers" when it comes to evolutionary theory? Better yet, at what point in time was there [i]more[/i] information on the subject than there is today? Before Miller's experiment in the 1950s, it's not like people went around saying "well there's no evidence of a first common ancestor, so Darwin was full of it." Whenever an adjustment to a theory (or a new theory that seems to work) comes along, there is some initial confidence in it. But theories come and go. They change. That's the world of the scientist. It's nothing to get discouraged about and it's nothing to call for a discarding of all evidence altogether. The fossil record only grows, in resolution and in scope. The influx of DNA evidence adds another source of dates and evolutionary roots. While new evidence prompts reevaluation and rearranging of data, the life of evolutionary theory has still ultimately been one of progress. Why else would Darwin have to be updated, with [i]more[/i] information? (See [u]Darwin's Ghost[/u] by Steve Jones.)

[QUOTE]The problem with the theory is that it seems so perfectly designed that it is difficult to dispute in hypothetical terms. That slowly life went from a single origin of life, to few variations, until branching into more and more diversity. This idea of starting small and growing has been turned upside down nowadays. As your revered Stephen Jay Gould even claimed: ?The phylogenic tree is now less perceived as a tree, than it is as a bush?. (I?m sure George W. would be proud)[/QUOTE]
The idea of variation increasing with time hasn't exactly been turned "upside-down," honestly. It depends on what taxa you are discussing, actually. Yes, during the Cambrian period, it appears as though there were perhaps [i]more[/i] phyla (according to some; taxonomy is a subjective issue). But if you're discussing [i]species[/i], which is honestly perhaps the only taxum which you can consider recognized by nature (as long as you base division on living things being able to produce fertile offspring), then life [i]has[/i] grown increasingly more diverse. The subject of the "phylogenic tree" is therefore not worth discussing. As a representation it currently could only be legitimate when discussing speciation trends. ...But is a "bush" somehow less legitimate than a tree or something? Can you say that it is some sort of step backwards in the development of evolutionary theory? If you were to, I'd have to disagree. Not that a bush is the best representation either, with mass extinctions and all, but that's not the point.

[QUOTE]While that is insubstantial in itself, the obvious fossil records lie directly in what is known as the Cambrian explosion....
Rather than helping Darwinian evolution, this posed a serious challenge. The event was remarkable because it was so abrupt, and because so many major groups of animals made their debut in it. But its challenge doesn?t lie in its abruptness or its extent, as in the fact that phyla and classes appeared right at the [i]start[/i]. Darwin?s theory claims that phylum and class level differences emerge only after a long history of divergence from lower categories. Biologists have described the current model as top-down evolution, where the higher levels of hierarchy appeared [i]first[/i].[/QUOTE]
Drix, are you trying to trick me here or something? The Cambrian Era is a time period determined by stratigraphy, lol. It is essentially defined by "the period during which a great number of varied and complex life first appeared" (more precisely, when Bilateria as well as Metazoa with hard shells first appeared). To say that this diversity appeared "right at the [i]start[/i]" and make some big deal of it is to make a big deal about an essentially arbitrary time marking. (The Cambrian was initially meant to mark the earliest time period during which one could find Metazoa, but since then evidence of Metazoa has been traced back to 600 Mya.)
But all that aside, you make the fact that Darwin's ideas have been replaced by more sound ones based on more recent evidence sound like some sort of evidence against macroevolution. Which it simply isn't. It simply shows that Darwin did not have all the answers (which of course is obvious given that paleontologists get paid to do their job, lol).

[QUOTE]Molecular phylogeny has proven inadequate to date the events from which the phyla should have appeared. According to geneticist Kenneth Halanych mentioned the period of difference between the original evolutionary requirements of phylogenic creation and the biological evidence is too distinct to be ignored and too large to be explained by molecular phylogeny.[/QUOTE]
Perhaps you are talking about calibrated gene divergence studies which place the divisions (at least genetically--and this is important to note, as genes change before outward appearance does!) at [i]up to[/i] (yes the numbers vary, but all exceed the Cambrian's age) 1000 Mya. This is indeed interesting, and goes against what we seen in the fossils. But gene divergence studies are still in their infancy, and as they become more reliable and more patterns emerge, we'll have more to talk about concerning this disparity. In any case it's not something that paleontologists and evolutionists lose sleep over, because the differing results are not irreconcilable, as I pointed out above. Morphology and inheritance are two different, albeit related, things.
Indeed, at this point, the "early-arrival" model to explain the Cambrian Explosion holds a deal of merit. There is much evidence of bilaterian Metazoans existing in the Vendian, as well as a protostome-deuterostome split way back in the Precambrian. And there are good theories out there to explain why life did NOT continue with the explosion of diversity at the basic level as it did in the early Cambrian (look into coadaptation if you haven't already).


[QUOTE]As Chinese paleontologist Xu Xing remarked at a lecture in the California Academy of sciences, ?In China we can criticize Darwin, but not the government; in America, you can criticize the government, but not Darwin.[/QUOTE]
I wish he were right, lol.