EVOLUTION: Tree Of Life

[Kekerusey]

The host site is here: http://evogeneao.com/

Keke

[Kì'eyawn]

Wow, that's an excellent graphic.  Kudos to the folks who put that one together.

[Eyamsiyu]

I'm not one to really buy into evolution as something to take as law (since we haven't really proven it through experimentation), but as a theory it is very good.  The tree is VERY cool to look at, and would no-doubt serve as an excellent source for biology.

[abi]

I was impressed they included Wallace on there, not too many people know 'bout him. Kinda weird how they put a picture of old Wallace next to old Darwin though (since Wallace was like 20 years younger than Darwin).

[Kì'eyawn]

I'm not one to really buy into evolution as something to take as law (since we haven't really proven it through experimentation), but as a theory it is very good.  The tree is VERY cool to look at, and would no-doubt serve as an excellent source for biology.

I'm not sure how you'd like to go about proving experimentally a process that's estimated to take millions of years—that's kinda like wanting to conduct an experiment to prove plate tectonics, isn't it?

But there is plenty of experimental data to support speciation, and adaptation by natural selection is irrefutable at this point.

Edit: It occurred to me that, in the impoverished communication form of text, i may have come across as hostile or derogatory.  That was not my intent, ma tsmukan.  It's just that i have a master's in this, so it's kind of my "thing."  I hope i didn't come across as confrontational.  Txo fìkem silvi oe, tsari oeru txoa livu.

[Kerame Pxel Nume]

I'm not one to really buy into evolution as something to take as law (since we haven't really proven it through experimentation), but as a theory it is very good.

Evolution of some species can be observed almost in realtime. There are some world wide experiments, where people from all around the globe are asked to send in pictures of certain species they recently made. Mostly they're interested in species that were spread due to the exploration tours of the 15th to 17th century. Those species are now developing independently and variations already can be observed.

Now the question is, how rapidly this happens. Which brings this project into play: Having a huge database of observations over a decade or so would allow for an estimate.

[kewnya txamew'itan]

I'm not one to really buy into evolution as something to take as law (since we haven't really proven it through experimentation), but as a theory it is very good.

Evolution of some species can be observed almost in realtime. There are some world wide experiments, where people from all around the globe are asked to send in pictures of certain species they recently made. Mostly they're interested in species that were spread due to the exploration tours of the 15th to 17th century. Those species are now developing independently and variations already can be observed.

Now the question is, how rapidly this happens. Which brings this project into play: Having a huge database of observations over a decade or so would allow for an estimate.

Even better is a species of moth native to the UK that used to be white which, during the industrial turned black for  better camouflage in the soot filled cities where it lived and now, with cleaner skies again is starting to lose its dark colour (much slower though as it's diversifying due to lack of evolutionary pressure rather than adapting in response to one).

[Kì'eyawn]

I'm not one to really buy into evolution as something to take as law (since we haven't really proven it through experimentation), but as a theory it is very good.

Evolution of some species can be observed almost in realtime. There are some world wide experiments, where people from all around the globe are asked to send in pictures of certain species they recently made. Mostly they're interested in species that were spread due to the exploration tours of the 15th to 17th century. Those species are now developing independently and variations already can be observed.

Now the question is, how rapidly this happens. Which brings this project into play: Having a huge database of observations over a decade or so would allow for an estimate.

Even better is a species of moth native to the UK that used to be white which, during the industrial turned black for  better camouflage in the soot filled cities where it lived and now, with cleaner skies again is starting to lose its dark colour (much slower though as it's diversifying due to lack of evolutionary pressure rather than adapting in response to one).

That's an excellent example of what i meant when i said that adaptation was pretty well irrefutable.  Irayo for the example, ma kewnya.

[Kekerusey]

I'm not one to really buy into evolution as something to take as law (since we haven't really proven it through experimentation), but as a theory it is very good.  The tree is VERY cool to look at, and would no-doubt serve as an excellent source for biology.

Just to clarify, there is no "law" of evolution *just* a theory but a scientific theory represents the very highest, most complete explanation for something that has been observed.

Keke

[Eyamsiyu]

It occurred to me that some of the comment I said may have rubbed the wrong way, or wrong word choice was used...

I should clarify that micro-evolution (aka adaptation) happens and has been witnessed over the years.  I realize that I did not clarify what I meant as far as evolution, which I was referring to macro-evolution.

I am glad that you say that macro-evolution is a theory, because there are a LOT of well-known scientists who treat it as scientific law, which I have an issue with.  Since macro-evolution is only a theory, it should be treated as such, and other theories should be considered.  However, people who have suggested ANY other theory, or even mentioned any other theory, have been completely blacklisted from the scientific community.

The truth is my issue in evolution is not the theory itself, but what it has caused in the scientific community, which is essentially a "Red Scare."  The theory has cost MANY smart scientists jobs that they so rightfully deserve, and kept them from getting such a job again.

Sorry to take this off-topic.  The diagram is a really good representation of the theory, and I'm rather glad that you shared it.

[Nì'awtua Eyktan]

Micro-evolution and macro-evolution is the same thing, it's only different timescales.

And I've acctually never heard of someone getting fired for having a different explanation for the diversity of life (though I've heard of people claiming they where, even though they where fired for other reasons).

On topic: Awesome picture. I've read somewhere that 99.9% of all species that has ever existed are extinct. That would make the total number of species insanly large.

[kewnya txamew'itan]

I am glad that you say that macro-evolution is a theory, because there are a LOT of well-known scientists who treat it as scientific law, which I have an issue with.  Since macro-evolution is only a theory, it should be treated as such, and other theories should be considered.  However, people who have suggested ANY other theory, or even mentioned any other theory, have been completely blacklisted from the scientific community.

The truth is my issue in evolution is not the theory itself, but what it has caused in the scientific community, which is essentially a "Red Scare."  The theory has cost MANY smart scientists jobs that they so rightfully deserve, and kept them from getting such a job again.

Sorry to take this off-topic.  The diagram is a really good representation of the theory, and I'm rather glad that you shared it.

1. There's no such thing as a scientific law as science is only an ever closening approximation of the truth, all we can really say is that between these input values we have a model that correctly describes reality to this degree of accuracy. We have no way of knowing how broadly such a theory applies except by testing it experimentally/observationally (it's important to note that not all tests of a theory have to be experimental, cosmological tests are almost entirely observational for example). Whilst the logical conclusion of our (fairly accurate and logical) model of micro-evolution is macro-evolution, there is no feasible test and so it would be good scientific practice not to assume that it holds outside the limits of our observation. That said, much other useful research would be impossible without assuming it holds so there's a fine line to be trod.

2. That's because most of the alternative theories I've seen (which, granted are almost all ID or variants thereof) are poorly disguised creationism with no scientific rigour put into them that have evidence that routinely flaunts them. If another theory does come along that more accurately describes evolution then it is probable that the scientific community would reject it as the old adage that scientists change their views in the light of new evidence is pretty much wrong (just look at Einstein) but instead a new generation of scientists will come along who will accept it (unless it becomes forgotten like kaluza-klein theory (which pioneered similar concepts to modern string theory) was).

3. I don't think it's a problem as it's fairly on-topic.

Micro-evolution and macro-evolution is the same thing, it's only different timescales.

Correction, one is the logical conclusion of the other, if our model doesn't hold outside of the observed timescales then this might not be the case.

[Nì'awtua Eyktan]

I found these videos about Micro vs Macro and "it's theory, not a fact".

Spoiler

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ho7GaI2rCwI

Spoiler

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LIm2H0ksawg

I wish I could find a good "tumbleweed of life" picture, none of those I found where large enough so you could acctually see the names of the species (it just looked like fur around the edge ).

[Redpaintednavi]

As concerning macroevolution we can perhaps not observe it directly in real time because of the time scale, but still we can observe it through the fossil record and also through biochemical evidence. To refute the fossil record as evidence is to refute the whole science of paleontology, its methods and its conclusions(and perhaps all other historical sciences).

[Kì'eyawn]

My 2¢ on the micro/macro distinction:

•They are differences of degree, not kind; the existence of one leads to the logical conclusion that the other will happen
•The difference, basically, is whether evolution leads to the creation of a new species.  But "species" is a concept humans invented to categorize the spectrum of lifeforms on the planet, without any real substance.  If you get rid of the concept of a species, there becomes no difference between these two kinds of evolution.

I've actually been working on a very, very long essay on this topic for months now.

[kewnya txamew'itan]

•They are differences of degree, not kind; the existence of one leads to the logical conclusion that the other will happen

Remember though that a model may not apply outside of its observed range (in this case timescale), for example, Newtonian mechanics were thought to be universally true because they held at human scales but now we know that at large scales (and speeds) they breakdown due to relativistic effects and at small scales they break down due to quantum effects. Likewise, whilst it seems logical that micro-evolution leads to macro-evolution (and at the moment there is no better suggestion) it seemed logical at the time that Newtonian mechanics applied universally so, it is possible that, eventually we will reach a timescale where our current models of evolution fail to hold as did Newtonian mechanics.

Of course, because evolution is inherently less quantifiable than the motion of a single body in free space it becomes a lot harder to say when the model ceases to hold.

Looking at it another way, it might be better to treat evolution by natural selection as a postulate (such as the Newtonian postulate that a body in equilibrium will travel with constant velocity) rather than a theory (such as the Newtonian theory summarised as f=ma). Looked at like this one sees that the timescale ceases to matter as much. In my experience, this is also closer to the modern use of the "theory" of evolution by natural selection..

[Redpaintednavi]

The thing is that the observations of the fossil record (and also biochemical observations) fits nicely with the teachings about evolution. The things we see in the long time scale corresponds with things that we can observe in a shorter scale of time.
And if you think about it, it is fairly logical, many small changes ads up to larger changes which ads up to larger changes. Just think about such a simple thing as lenght: If natural selection selects for lengt with one millimeter every generation, it can mean that from a creature just one millimeter in lenght, a species can evolve to a one meter long behemot in just thousand generations. This is ofcourse a somewhat simplified example since different structures must coevolve to support the lengt, but the principle of it shows how small changes rather quickly can lead to much larger ones. Most of those who oppose evolution fail to understand the important factor of time and how small changes adds up to large ones. Seen in that light macroevolution is a logical consequence of microevolution, if fact macrevolution is just the sum of microevolutionary changes.

[Nì'awtua Eyktan]

Both micro-evolution and macro-evolution has been observed multiple times under both controlled laboratory conditions and in nature.

"However, time is not a necessary distinguishing factor – macroevolution can happen without gradual compounding of small changes; whole-genome duplication can result in speciation occurring over a single generation - this is especially common in plants."

[Redpaintednavi]

Yes there are indeed interesting things going on in plants and in many micro organisms as bacteria, who can even exchange parts of their genome with other beings.

[Kì'eyawn]

Ma kewnya, your point about physics is well-taken.  In very brief, my position on the macro/micro issue is that there can't be a difference between general adaptation and speciation if there is no such thing as a species.  However, i recognize that deconstructing some of the fundamental language of biology is more mental self-pleasuring than anything useful, so...yeah.

Ma Redpaintednavi sì Nì'awtua Eyktan, you both make excellent points, and i thank you for adding to the discussion.

If you will all forgive my shameless self-promotion, ma smuktu, i've actually written about evolution, as well as a currently-developing example of speciation occurring naturally (i.e., not in an experimental setting).  I bring these up in the hope that they might add to the discussion in some way.