[Jim Geeting]

Jim Geeting  asked the Naked Scientists:
   
1. How is that natural selection takes millions of years to change a species or create a sub-species, yet domestication of plants and animals only takes thousands or tens of thousands of years?�  Is mankind that good?

2.�  Some species such as sharks and crocodiles are said to be millions of years old, which implies a) they are older than many other species and b) have changed little by way of comparison.�  Does natural selection address why the rate of change varies from one species to the next?

Jim in Dallas

What do you think?

[wolfekeeper]

Actually, when you think about it, there's *millions* of species, and mankind has only managed to domesticate a few hundred maybe. And the number of genes that we've modified in each case are likely to very small, a few dozen. So mankind is not that good at it really. I don't think there's ever been any new species made by human selection.

[Don_1]

Its true that we have 'manufactured' a great number of different breeds of dog (and other domestic/farm animals) and plants in a relatively short space of time, unlike nature, which has evolved different subspecies over a great many years.

Our efforts have resulted in a great many problems for these hybrids. Dogs with problems relating to their eyes, ear, breathing, running, walking and so on, plants with little or no fragrance, susceptible to insect attack and disease. Pigs which result in more meat and less fat, but also less flavour.

Our attempts to improve on nature have been fast and, pretty much, to the detriment of the plants and animals we have played around with. Our success rate would probably be somewhere in the order of zero.

Natures' l-o-n-g,   s-l-o-w efforts have been quite successful.

Current score:
Man - 0
Nature - 1,000,000,000,000 (or thereabout)

I don't think you can say we have produced any real new species or even subspecies. As I wrote above, we have merely hybridised some of natures work. These hybrids need constant interbreeding or they would soon revert to their natural state.

With plants and animals such as the sharks and to a greater extent the crocodilians and, my favourites, the chelonians, evolution reached a point where it did not need to improve any further. Therefore, these animals have remained largely unchanged for millions of years. The modern testudines (tortoises) may be 200 million years old.

[wolfekeeper]

Keep in mind that humans do not make new species.  In fact, we don’t know if species actually come about through evolution.  That’s why we call it the “theory” of evolution.  But we do know that natural selection exists.

That's not right. ALL laws in physics are also theories. The special theory of relativity is now known to be true; but they're not changing the name.

FWIW Newton's Laws are now known to be wrong ;-)

The theory of evolution predicts that new species can occur via various ways. It's not known what the most common ways are. Oh yeah, and the definition of species is very arguable anyway. If two 'species' can't reproduce they must be individual species, right? But what happens if there is a third species they can both reproduce with? This happens all the time, particularly in botany.

Even in humans this happens. Some pairs of people can't successfully have children together; essentially all their children die, their genes are incompatible. If those subgroups were to isolated from the rest of humanity and bred they would constitute different species from each other.

Really, species is mostly a human concept.

[Geezer]

That’s why we call it the “theory” of evolution. 

The suggestion that evolution is merely a "theory" is anti-science being promulgated by creationists and anti-Darwinists who are are determined to make bible teaching a mandatory subject in public schools in the US. Their lastest tactic is trying to claim that "Intelligent Design" is not religion. It's a science, and therefore, it should be taught in school.

If you want to judge for yourself, visit the Discovery Institute's website. What's interesting about this is how much money they are apparently receiving to support their agenda.

[wolfekeeper]

Yes, that's right. It's anti-science.

It's completely analogous to claiming that mountains could never be built by plate tectonics because nobody has ever seen it happen. 'Plate tectonics is just a scientific theory not fact!!!!'

[wanhafizi]

I think the next generation evolution is probably based on technology that humans have today.

This is my idea of universe evolution;

The big bang was the precursor of all.

Next, the sub atomic particles of big bang formed gas clouds and evolved into galaxies, star systems and solar systems.

Next, some solar systems through it's chemical reactions created simple life forms.

Next, these life forms eventually became the granddaddy of intelligent life forms.

Intelligence life forms will evolve into what?

The way I see things are going, probably the next evolution will happen in technology, namely computers. Better and superior AI developed will probably get merged into our organic/biological system. Soon, when we consumed all the biological resources and the earth cannot cope with the endless need of each individuals, probably we have to rethink the way we live.

Since the reality which we are living each moment is merely electrical impulses going in and out of our brain, probably things like "The Matrix" will become a reality.

Just a thought, just a thought...

[Geezer]

I think we (humans) are incredibly arrogant for even claiming to be intelligent. Intelligent life forms would not be brainwashed into believing complete mumbo-jumbo then use that as a justifiaction for running around killing each other.

[Variola]

I think we (humans) are incredibly arrogant for even claiming to be intelligent. Intelligent life forms would not be brainwashed into believing complete mumbo-jumbo then use that as a justifiaction for running around killing each other.

Humans are the only species to put reasoning behind killing.
Religion is just another excuse for humans to be crappy towards each other, it it wasn't that it would be something else.
Why are we like this? I have not seen an explanation yet that hits it square on the head.

Ontopic- humans select to produce what is beneficial for us, not for the plant/animal,whereas evolution does the opposite.

[JimBob]

Yes, that's right. It's anti-science.

It's completely analogous to claiming that mountains could never be built by plate tectonics because nobody has ever seen it happen. 'Plate tectonics is just a scientific theory not fact!!!!'

I would ask you how do you know you were born and not delivered by the stork?

Indirect evidence - that is how. Someone told you you were and you may have seen other things born. That type of reasoning is also how we are aware that plates tectonics is real.

That does ignore the fact that the movement has been measured. During my lifetime of 65 years North America has moved 0.3575 meters west with respect to Europe (5.5 cm/year.) That is a FACT.

[Variola]

Will western science ever divorce itself from the Bible?

Yes, it already has. Science is based on inductive and deductive reasoning, where as the Bible is based on someone's invisible friend.

[_Stefan_]

DiscoverDave,

One of the great things about science is that it doesn't care what you believe.

Your personal inability to accept that a scientific theory is the highest status that any scientific idea can acheive, does not affect how accurate the theory is. Evolution is not "just a theory". The Big Bang is not "just a theory". What matters to a theory is how logical it is, how powerfully it explains, and the quality of the evidence supporting it.

What you might call "just theories" are actually hypotheses.

To argue otherwise is the logical fallacy of Persional Incredulity.

Please, you are on a science forum. Readers take posts seriously. What are they to think when they are looking for good information but instead find irrational opinions?

Finally, hopefully you already know this, but the origin of life (and the origin of earth and the universe) is not part of the theory of evolution. Evolution explains what happens after life (including simple precellular precursors to organisms) has been formed. There is currently some good research investigating several plausible ways in which life could have originated.

[Don_1]

To Don_1:
• The phenomenal effect humans have on the world shows that we can significantly affect the environment and that we can, and have, created breeds and hybrids of various animals and plants.  The fact that these animals and plants continue to thrive shows that humans have succeeded in doing so.  We are the environment; we define what is the fittest; we control their survival.  And, if nature is so perfect, how come I'm going bald, and why do some kids get leukemia and die?

Our 'creations', such as thoroughbred dogs, only retain their characteristics due to our continued intervention in their reproduction. The same applies to hybrid plants. Left to nature, they would soon revert to their natural state. Our creations cannot survive without us.

I don't say nature is perfect. It does make mistakes. Or at least it makes mistakes according to our criteria.

[Variola]

Yes, science is supposed to be very objective, but I still see the influence.  I went too far with my exaggerations but, most of all, I simply can't believe the Big Bang Theory.  For example, how could it be a unique event?  Its popularity leaves little information about, or desire to discuss, other theories.  Non-scientific people accept it without ever considering the details. 

The only time I see the influence of the Bible, or any other religion is when creationists try and link the two together.
I cannot understand or get my head round the big bang theory either, but then I am not a physicist. Evolution however, I can understand, and believe.
Theories like the big bang may not be anywhere near perfect in their explanation, but creationism argues from a point of no proof whatsoever.It is arguing that something exists despite there never being one shred of proof ever. The big bang is at least based on scientific data. interestingly, both firm creationists and those who strongly believe in alien life use the same arguments based on the same logic, the invisible friend who needs no explanation or proof.  And then for people to fight over religion really is arguing whose invisible friend is best!

[_Stefan_]

The invisible/imaginary friend argument is my favourite, Variola [] Unfortunately the one intelligent person I used it on did not see the relevance to their belief in God.

[Variola]

The invisible/imaginary friend argument is my favourite, Variola [] Unfortunately the one intelligent person I used it on did not see the relevance to their belief in God.

[] Yes I like it too because it brings is back down to the basics of proof,something many creationsists overlook.
Nope Cog. D. will ensure most believers have an unshakeable belief. 

[Nizzle]

God is the collective name for all things we do not understand yet.

In ancient Egypt and Greece, the sun was carried through the skies by a god for example.
At this time, people are still attributing things we don't understand to a god, like big-bang or beginning of the universe, but some other people started to see a trend developing, which is called science.

We've seen several versions of god throughout history.
In ancient times, the gods where all kinds of nature phenomena,
In the middle ages, god was a tool even of the monks and bishops to get rich of the hard earned money of the poor people, paying indulgences to get into heaven. Now, god is sought out for comfort and consolidation for the fact that when you die, there's nothing coming anymore and you'll be either worm food or flame food.

god is shrinking, while science is growing.
There's only one thing left to say as far as I'm concerned: god did not create mankind, mankind created god, for the sole purpose of using him like a tool

[Variola]

God is the collective name for all things we do not understand yet.

In that case why don't men call women God(dess)? []

[Don_1]

Because 'inexplicable' is a more fitting term. Opps, now what have I said?

[Geezer]

It might seem that I am a bit negative about "intelligent design". Actually, I have more respect for out-and-out creationists who make claims like "the earth was created last Thursday night while I was washing my hair". The reason I really abhor "intelligent design" is because it accepts some science, while rejecting good science that does not align with its preconceptions.

Now, that's anti-science.