Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Calzaer · 06-16-2003, 08:29 PM

An old post from an old board a long time ago...

Quote:

A very interesting (some would say amazing) example of speciation that is INCREDIBLY well documented....

Now the amazing thing here is that this incident spans not just the species barrier, but most taxonomic categories in one fell swoop - and it arises from humans! I'd forgotten about this, having read over a paper which used the cells for medical experimentation a couple of years back, and not realised its evolutionary significance. Anyway, it arose again whilst researching...

"Helacyton gartleri, described as a species in Van Valen, LM & Maiorana, VC, 1991, "HeLa, a new microbial species," Evolutionary Theory 10: 71-74. HeLa is a cell culture from a human cervical carcinoma which has evolved to grow indefinitely as a unicellular species and which has become a feral infestation of other cell cultures around the world. Needless to say, it looks quite different from the human it evolved from."

I'll explain that in layman's terms in a moment. Anybody who doubts the veracity of this could ask any major biotech lab, who all have cultures of these cells as they are unique in being 'immortal' (subject to good environmental conditions), yet still highly resemble human cells, and are hence highly useful in experiments. Or you could ask the times, or the lancet, or any other relevant scientific periodical.

Now for the explanation for those who did not grasp the astounding implications of what the source was saying...

Bascally, an Afro Caribbean woman from Britain several decades ago was found to have cervical cancer, which eventually killed her. Amazingly, the biopsy (little bits of the cancer for testing) they took started to live and breed in culture indefinetly, something no human cell is capable of. It lives as a seperate organism, is morphologically unrecognisable as having originated from humans, cannot interbreed with humans, fulfilling the requirements for all definitions of speciation. In fact, it comes under the classification of Eukaryotes now, so to all those creationists who deny that you can't 'get a cat from a dog', get your heads out of the sand - humans have witnessed it, macroevolution is a fact. (I have more examples that I have shown in the past, but I want to use this one as it is so compelling).

Look at that! You-to-goo, observed and documented!

Magus55 · 06-16-2003, 08:29 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by winstonjen
When a single species is separated into two groups due to earthquakes, plate techtonics, etc., and the two breed for several generations, and come back together, they may not be able to interbreed, because - surprise - they've formed a new species.

You mean allopatric speciation? Maybe i should have used a better term then species. How about type of species? If two individuals of one species are separated by geographical barriers, one of those individuals, lets say a squirrel, doesn't suddenly become a rabbit. It remains a squirrel, just a different type of squirrel. Thats microevolution, or adaptation. I don't disagree with microevolution, I disagree with a pile of sludge in a primordial soup turning into a human 3 billion years down the line.

winstonjen · 06-16-2003, 08:33 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Magus55
I don't disagree with microevolution, I disagree with a pile of sludge in a primordial soup turning into a human 3 billion years down the line.

What about Neanderthals evolving into modern Homo Sapiens?

hezekiah jones · 06-16-2003, 08:34 PM

Originally posted by Magus55
If two individuals of one species are separated by geographical barriers, one of those individuals, lets say a squirrel, doesn't suddenly become a rabbit. It remains a squirrel, just a different type of squirrel.

And soon enough, one dead individual squirrel.

Originally posted by Magus55
Thats microevolution, or adaptation.

No, that's one individual becoming separated from the group and dying. End of story. You can't possibly be serious.

RufusAtticus · 06-16-2003, 08:36 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Magus55
You mean allopatric speciation? Maybe i should have used a better term then species. How about type of species? If two individuals of one species are separated by geographical barriers, one of those individuals, lets say a squirrel, doesn't suddenly become a rabbit. It remains a squirrel, just a different type of squirrel. Thats microevolution, or adaptation.

No that's macroevolution. Perhaps you need to bone up on scientific terminology.

Evolution: The change of properties of populations of organisms over time.
Microevolution: Evolution apparent within species.
Macroevolution: Evolution apparent between species.

No one in science claim that squirrels evolve into rabbits. The objection that it is still a squirrel is based on a misconception of evolution. Evolution is not about a population stopping to be what it is and jumping into an entirely different biology. In the process of human evolution, we didn't stop being apes or hominins when we became human. Humans still are hominins, apes, primates, eutherians, mammals, amniotes, tetrapods, gnathostomes, vertebrates, chordates, deuterostomes, bilaterates, animals, or eukaryotes, or biotes. Therefore, human evolution can be summed up as, "it's still a biote" or "it's still a gnathostome," which makes it no different from your squirrel example, thus you should have no problem with it.

Quote:

I don't disagree with microevolution, I disagree with a pile of sludge in a primordial soup turning into a human 3 billion years down the line.

And what scientific problems do you have with such macroevolution? Every person I have ever met who objected to evolution, had theological or political problems with it. However, the accuracy of science cannot be determined by emotion, philosophy, politics, or religion.

Joe Meert · 06-16-2003, 09:01 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Magus55
Yet scientists just dated the "first" homo sapien human between 130k and 160k years, and the universe is anywhere from 13 to 16 billion years old. Or how about the austrailian sandstone that was originally dated at over 100 million years old, and later found to be only 30,000 years old. 4k years doesn't compare to the error in scientific datings.

JM: Let's see. Science does not claim to be infallible, but you claim the bible is. You have an age of 8000 +/- 2000 years. That's +/- 25% error! The first homo sapien is 145,000 +/-15,000 pr +/- 10.3% error. The age of the Universe according to you is 14.5 +/- 1.5 billion also only +/-10.3% error. Fallible science is much more accurate than your infallible bible. Not only is science more accurate, but it does not hide the fact that there are errors in the estimates. I'd have to see the 'sandstone' error to know if it is valid or not, but it sounds suspiciously like a creationist legend. Why not do what young earth creationists did 150+ years ago when they realized what the evidence really showed? They realized God operated in a much different time frame than Ussher estimated. They realized that their God was showing them the power of his creation and that it took much longer than they originally thought. Furthermore, I suspect it was some comfort to also realize that their God was not the veangeful uncaring bastard portrayed in the Noachian flood legend. It made so much more sense as a borrowed pagan Sumerian legend.

Cheers

Joe Meert

Doubting Didymus · 06-16-2003, 09:22 PM

Quote:

Macroevolution: Evolution apparent between species.

What do you actually mean by that definiton?

Edit: Don't answer that. I'm going to start a thread about it.

RufusAtticus · 06-16-2003, 09:31 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Doubting Didymus
What do you actually mean by that definiton?

That macroevolutionary differences are differences between species, nothing more, nothing less. The reason why I phrase it the way I do is to try to point out that microevolutionary differences and macroevolutionary differences are the result of the same process: evolution. The distinction between macroevolution and microevolution is an artifact of the history of our human investigation into biology. It does not reflect any real distinction present in the biological world. Paleontologists do often use "macroevolution" to refer to process of long-scale trends in the fossil record. But for the most part, biologists like me don't use it that way.

roxrkool · 06-16-2003, 10:05 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Joe Meert
JM: Let's see. Science does not claim to be infallible, but you claim the bible is. You have an age of 8000 +/- 2000 years. That's +/- 25% error! The first homo sapien is 145,000 +/-15,000 pr +/- 10.3% error. The age of the Universe according to you is 14.5 +/- 1.5 billion also only +/-10.3% error. Fallible science is much more accurate than your infallible bible. Not only is science more accurate, but it does not hide the fact that there are errors in the estimates. I'd have to see the 'sandstone' error to know if it is valid or not, but it sounds suspiciously like a creationist legend. Why not do what young earth creationists did 150+ years ago when they realized what the evidence really showed? They realized God operated in a much different time frame than Ussher estimated. They realized that their God was showing them the power of his creation and that it took much longer than they originally thought. Furthermore, I suspect it was some comfort to also realize that their God was not the veangeful uncaring bastard portrayed in the Noachian flood legend. It made so much more sense as a borrowed pagan Sumerian legend.

Cheers

Joe Meert

Joe, I think magus may be referring to this, from Creation Bits No. 23 :

Quote:

An Amazing 14C Measurement

The Hawkesbury Sandstone formation, near Sydney, Australia, is a massive and spectacular mass of hard rock, often used for construction of buildings in Sydney. There are three principle layers of rock -- massive sandstone, sheet sandstone, and some thin mudstone. Although it is massive (7,700 square miles in area and up to 820 feet thick) it shows many of the features of deposition in fast-flowing waters. There are cross-beds, sloping at about 20o, within the flat-lying strata. These were probably formed by huge sand-waves, swept by massive water flows. A number of lenses of mudstone contain many fossils, mostly of fish, sharks, and aquatic plants. Geologists have assigned it to the Middle Triassic 'age' (225 - 230 million years old), based on fossil content and the relative sequence of rock layers in the Sydney Basin. This "stratigraphic dating" is the technique most widely used by conventional geologists who believe in the long timescale of the Geologic Column.

The Bundanoon quarry found a finger-size piece of wood impregnated within the hard sandstone. Some Australian creationist scientists obtained part of this wood, and sent it to Geochron Lab in Boston for careful 14C analysis. Contrary to usual practice, they didn't tell the lab where it had been found, or what 'age' they expected it to reveal. This was to prevent possible bias in the dating tests.

The lab applied normal procedures, treating it with hot dilute hydrochloric acid to remove all the carbonates, then with hot dilute caustic soda to remove any humic acids or other organic contaminents. The sample wood was found to contain measureable 14C, and the final age was determined to be 33,720 +/- 430 years BP. This 'age' was after a 13C correction had been applied.

I think I read about this "wood" sample in another website. The author of the piece on the website actually had communication with the lab that attempted to date the sample. If this is the same thing, instead of the sample being wood, the sample appeared to be an iron concretion, according to the lab manager - which can't be dated, obviously. I'll look into it more and see if I (or anyone else???) can find it.

It's also possible that I am thinking of something completely different!

Joe Meert · 06-16-2003, 10:26 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by roxrkool
Joe, I think magus may be referring to this, from Creation Bits No. 23 :

I think I read about this "wood" sample in another website. The author of the piece on the website actually had communication with the lab that attempted to date the sample. If this is the same thing, instead of the sample being wood, the sample appeared to be an iron concretion, according to the lab manager - which can't be dated, obviously. I'll look into it more and see if I (or anyone else???) can find it.

JM: That was me

Indeed, this is a farcical attempt at dating the Hawkesbury. http://gondwanaresearch.com/hp/crefaqs.htm#who

Cheers

Joe Meert

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

06-16-2003, 08:34 PM	#94
hezekiah jones Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: WI Posts: 4,357	Originally posted by Magus55 If two individuals of one species are separated by geographical barriers, one of those individuals, lets say a squirrel, doesn't suddenly become a rabbit. It remains a squirrel, just a different type of squirrel. And soon enough, one dead individual squirrel. Originally posted by Magus55 Thats microevolution, or adaptation. No, that's one individual becoming separated from the group and dying. End of story. You can't possibly be serious.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.