To me, you're missing a crucial term here: some. To lump all scientist together like this is might be a disservice to scientists as a whole. Akin to: humans have historically .... you know what, I won't even mention examples. Linguistic gripe, that's all. — javra

But it only takes "some" scientists to ensure that everything that can be studied by science will be. If there really is any danger from AI taking over or genetic catastrophes, some scientist somewhere will go ahead with it anyway. If there really had been a significant chance that the CERN collider could cause a black hole that would consume the Earth, someone would have done it anyway.

I’ve got a better one: organic-molecule nano-technology robots that make use of nucleic acids in combination with proteins … make these “robots” complex enough so that they actually do meaningful things and eventually they will biologically evolve due to mutations (Jurassic Park at the micro reality level). A simple understanding of evolution at the molecular level will attest to this. Un-seeable little robots mutating and replicating worldwide and doing things around and within our bodies … what a thought. And it’s not currently sci-fi touted as science … as is strong AI. Nano-technology research is very sexy, meaning it get's lots of cash from corporations and governments, and we progress in field at a good rate.

Here’s the example that came to mind which I didn’t want to give:Akin to: humans have historically made bets on the sex of third-trimester fetuses and have slashed the pregnant women’s stomach in laughter with knives so as to find out who will win the bet (to me, this is yet a relatively mild example compared to other war atrocities … to not even get into the latter portions of the Roman Coliseum days ) … and humans always will, regardless.

Some humans have historically done this … and the fatalism to “always will because it is in our genetic/God-given nature to” doesn’t sit well with me.

Yes, some humans are a mixture of psychopath and suicidal, and some of these humans happen to be in positions of science. Still, we’re better than animals because … remind me again. Something about forethought, wasn’t it?

Digressing form the topic of the thread, but I thought its worth mentioning.

What’s us with all the fatalism about human behavior anyway? As though life can’t evolve. My take at least.

It isn't a matter of belief, the evidence is in a comparison of denisovian and neanderthal genes (of which there are complete reconstructions) and homo sapiens genes. They was definitely interbreeding. Was it advantageous? The benefit/harm picture isn't clear, as far as I know. If genes were gained from neanderthals connected with the immune apparatus, this could be the source of disease resistance or immune system problems for our species which went on for 30-35,000 more years and now lives with much different diets than we once ate--like gluten rich diets. (Just fishing there -- don't know if there is any connection to gluten and neanderthals).

Denisovans interbred primarily with Asian H.S., while neanderthals interbred with European H.S.

"Yes, Virginia, you actually are a bit of a neanderthal."

They aren't separate species, as far as I know -- not enough time has elapsed. And as is the case of dogs, the number of genes involved in the moth's difference in color is one lousy gene. The wide array of dog shapes and sizes is likewise controlled by one or two genes (which I guess activate other genes). Foxes become tame, with more barking in adults and more upright tail waving, simply because a stress hormone gene is suppressed in the taming. (Tails go up, ears come down. The tame foxes aren't a different species either -- their just tame foxes.

They wouldn't be more dog like until they passed on the gene suppression to their offspring over many generations. How stable the gene suppression is, don't know. The gene suppression that tamed the foxes also ruined their fur for trade purposes.

Foxes become tame, with more barking in adults and more upright tail waving, simply because a stress hormone gene is suppressed in the taming. (Tails go up, ears come down. The tame foxes aren't a different species either -- their just tame foxes. — Bitter Crank

I saw a documentary about that. It was fascinating. To think that as simple a thing as selecting for tameness could lead to an array of significant body changes. Shows the silliness of reductionist behavioral Darwinism.

"Yes, Virginia, you actually are a bit of a neanderthal." — Bitter Crank

Cool.

Haven't been keeping up with the research on this. So its nice to know. Personally, I most associate Neanderthals with "those who threw flowers into the graves of their deceased" ... seems to be a wide spread practice nowadays. :wink:

Some humans have historically done this … and the fatalism to “always will because it is in our genetic/God-given nature to” doesn’t sit well with me. — javra

Which behaviors are in our genes isn't entirely clear, but certainly some fairly socially unattractive features are bred in the bone. Homo Sapiens have a tremendous potential to be really awful, and frequently are. BUT, we also have tremendous potential to be really splendid, and we also are -- fairly often at least. Some goodness is genetic, some badness is genetic, and a lot of it is mediated by culture. For instance, the marines (a cultural institution) build soldiers by overcoming biological and cultural resistance to following orders implicitly through thorough-going training.

Convents, religious orders like the Jesuits, monasteries, and the like also overcome biological and cultural drives to create nuns, monks, and priests. Boarding schools, residential colleges, prisons, and the like also shape behavior by thorough-going training. (No institution, of course, is always successful.)

those who throw flowers into the graves of their deceased" — javra

Right. The neanderthals were not the clod-kicking club carrying characters of cartoons. They engaged in aesthetic activity (ochre coloring and holes added to sea shells) and were capable of kindness. There is a skeleton of either a very early homo sapiens or neanderthal who was quite deformed, but who reached adulthood. He would have had to have been cared for to survive, and survive he did, apparently well cared for.

Galapagos finches and new world finches...chimps and bonobos.. — javra

Not so clear cut:

http://www.macroevolution.net/bonobo-chimpanzee-hybrids.html
https://evolutionnews.org/2014/03/nature_galapago/

Some goodness is genetic, some badness is genetic, and a lot of it is mediated by culture. — Bitter Crank

Eha, I'd argue that we are the most behaviorally plastic species on earth. The only genetic component to ethics, for me, would be our innate self-interest in warmth, more non-phyisical than physical, with which we're birthed. Then, via interaction, we gain methods/heuristics with which to best safeguard this warmth--from utter selfishness to the opposite tendency.

Its why I don't uphold a position of fatalism as concerns our mores.

There is a skeleton of either a very early homo sapiens or neanderthal who was quite deformed, but who reached adulthood. — Bitter Crank

Very interesting.

Not so clear cut: — Janus

Akin to what does and doesn't get added to posts, the very notion of species isn't clear cut to begin with. What to do?

the very notion of species isn't clear cut to begin with — javra

True enough, and if the very notion of species is not clear cut then the notion of speciation would be all the less so.

True enough, and if the very notion of species is not clear cut then the notion of speciation would be all the less so. — Janus

Man, there some degree of uncertainty everywhere if you look for it intently enough. We do our best to map out the reality we live in all the same. There is no doubt that a bacteria is a different species from a human, cat from dog from bear, etc. even though they all branched out from common ancestors. (not here entertaining biological evolution deniers)

Will be logging out for the day ...

It's true there are different species, and the evidence certainly appears to show that evolution (in the sense of a changing and progressive series of more or less related plant and animal species) has occurred; the rest is conjecture.

Thanks for all the responses everyone. There's a lot of good stuff to look at.

Religionists of that level don't have anything useful to say about science nor are they worth trying to convince because their group identity is more important to them than being right. This has been studied extensively (see some of the podcasts I've linked to recently which give a good overview of the research ) and the results are as bleak as that. The best thing to do is to just leave them to their ignorance. Yes, speciation obviously happens otherwise there wouldn't be any different... species. And how it happens has been studied and described by scientists. It's not a mystery. — Baden

ProbablyTrue has expressed an interest in interacting with these troglodytes
you have such disdain for. — T Clark

I'm not talking about religious people in general, I'm talking about religious people who maintain that their religious beliefs have a scientific grounding or who try to enforce their religious views re science in the education system, which can only result in mass levels of ignorance, and is a form of abuse as far as I'm concerned. — Baden

I do have an interest in debating these things with some religious people, more specifically, religious people that make up my family and friends. I'm fully aware that a committed ID'er or a creationist will not be convinced by almost any evidence; as you said Baden, it's a group identity thing. However, your run-of-the-mill religious person who has yet to be convinced of the full scope of evolution lives off the scraps of the ideologues. I should know too: I was brought up as a young earth creationist.

It's not necessarily an attempt to disabuse these people of their religious beliefs(the evangelist in me can't help but try), but rather an attempt to help them correct their scientific misunderstanding so that their religious belief at least conforms to reality.

So, what is the evidence for speciation? Not viruses, not unusual plant behavior, just regular organisms evolving from one species to another. 1) fossil record. 2) comparative genetic studies between organisms 3) experience with breeding 4) observations in nature 5) What else? — T Clark

I think 1-4 make a compelling case on their own, and when you add viruses and plants to the equation it bolsters that case. When one steps back and takes into account cosmological timelines, geological timelines, and all of the above, it paints a fairly holistic picture that is hard to make sense of with any other description.

Fair points. I've had some exhausting experiences debating creationists and the like and seen many others suffer the same fate, so my attitude is somewhat jaded.

So would you say you're agnostic about speciation?

Fair points. I've had some exhausting experiences debating creationists and the like and seen many others suffer the same fate, so my attitude is somewhat jaded. — Baden

The percentages of success are dismally low, but it does happen from time to time. Worked for me anyway.

:up:

Well, I do think the idea of geographical isolation is the most (and perhaps the only) plausible explanation we can presently come up with for the observed (in fossil remains) progression of special changes.

I think 1-4 make a compelling case on their own, and when you add viruses and plants to the equation it bolsters that case. When one steps back and takes into account cosmological timelines, geological timelines, and all of the above, it paints a fairly holistic picture that is hard to make sense of with any other description. — ProbablyTrue

As we discussed in the Shoutbox, the fact that the person you are trying to have this discussion with already is open to the idea of cosmological/geological time is half the journey. I think that's a much bigger conceptual jump than evolution is.

I'm not sure that's true in this case. I think it's easier for people to believe in a grand time scale for the universe than it is for them to accept that they evolved from other species. What's important from his religious perspective is that we are wholly different from other animals. His openness to a cosmic time scale is just a foothold; it doesn't get us all the way up the mountain.

Here's an article about neanderthals from Science News from 1975:

5.3k
Here's an article about neanderthals from Science News from 1975: — Bitter Crank

I'm always moved by signs of love among people who are considered less than us. Of course they loved their children, their mothers, their fathers, their husbands, their wives. Of course, of course, of course, of course. Why would we possibly imagine they wouldn't.