| |
|  |  |
| Discussion: Charles Darwin Good point, Babes. Again, the problem is, some people think that not knowing exactly how and why a given phenomenon happens means that all explanations for said phenomenon are equally valid. For instance, we don't know for a fact that O.J. Simpson killed his wife, but it would take a complete idiot to assume that, since the Juice's guilt hasn't been absolutely proven (i.e., we've no picture of it happening) it is a reasonable assumption that homicidal Martians did the deed. It's the same kind of thinking that leads to gaps in our knowledge being used to somehow make creating men out of dirt seem plausible. Also, I've noticed a tendency towards gibberish here. A large vocabulary means actually being able to use the words you know in a coherent sentence. The smarter you try to sound, the more smart people laugh at you. Using "big" words in a completely incoherent manner only makes it clear that you don't understand the words in question. If you're gonna talk, for God's sake talk plain...it's the internet, why try to impress anyone with your Reader's Digest education? Right, then, have fun ya'll. >>By Just Jon Sometimes I just am amazed by power of human beings to still place their faith in a mathamatically immpossible THEORY. Mendel's Law of Genetic's states that "Mutations are the ONLY PROPOSED mechanism by which genetic material becomes available for evolution. However ALL observable mutations are HARMFUL : many are LETHAL. NO KNOWN mutation has ever produced a life having both greater COMPLEXITY & greater VIABILITY than its ancestors. Oopps! 70 years of forced mutations of Fruit Flies ended with guess what...? Yup Fruit Flies... ummm that represented about 2900 generations with no change....except less viablitiy....so much for mutatious deletions leading to advancment in EVOLUTION!!!!! By the way Just Jon, Man is made out of the same componets as dirt, I for one am glad it is God who did the Creating. Regards >>By beanieweenie <<However ALL observable mutations are HARMFUL : many are LETHAL.>> This is a false statement. How do I know this? Because I can name two mutations off the top of my head that are beneficial: the mutation which confers resistance to HIV and the mutation that confers resistance to atherosclerosis. If there are at least two, my common sense tells me that there are probably more that I just haven't read about........ >>By Majorette Beanieweanie, I'm confused as to which of Mendel's laws of heredity you are referring to. He left us three laws: Mendel's Law of Dominance -- In a cross of parents that are pure for contrasting traits, only one form of the trait will appear in the next generation. Offspring that are hybrid for a trait will have only the dominant trait in the phenotype. Mendel's Law of Segregation -- During the formation of gametes (eggs or sperm), the two alleles responsible for a trait separate from each other. Alleles for a trait are then "recombined" at fertilization, producing the genotype for the traits of the offspring. Mendel's Law of Independent Assortment -- Alleles for different traits are distributed to sex cells (& offspring) independently of one another. None of these suggests that mutations are the only proposed mechanism by which genetic material becomes available for evolution. He also worked many decades before genes were discovered. Can you clarify what it is you meant? Cheers, Happy Chappy >>By Happy chappy All three laws apply in this case and these are direct quote from Mendel . Majorette these are Mendel's words you'll have to take it up with him.... WHY no comments on " THE" fruit fly bomb?????? It was an abject failure, surely some kind of EVOLUTION would have taken place....NO????? >>By beanieweenie by the way Majorette just because you say <<THIS IS A FALSE STATEMENT doesnt make it so.....you have not proven your case with the HIV comment. >>By beanieweenie Well Beaniweanie, As Gregor Mendel has been dead for 120 years or so, it is a little difficult to raise any questions with him. What you quoted cannot be by him as genes and mutations were not known when he died. None of the three laws he left us relates to what you said. May I suggest you check your sources? >>By Happy chappy My Mistake...the quotes were actually from the Author of" Questions in Evolution" by Ted Holden. He uses Mendels laws to make his points even tho mendel himself did not use the word gene or chromosone etc.having not been named till 1909, he hints at the then unnamed items. And yes all of his laws do relate to what I said. Just as I have pointed out how deletious mutations do not advance evolution, which no one seems to want to address. Majorette states she knows of 2 mutations that point that direction, however these are only what are know as point mutations and still do not add to the dna code. You still have not addressed the fruit fly experiment...care to make any comments on that point??? >>By beanieweenie <<by the way Majorette just because you say <<THIS IS A FALSE STATEMENT doesnt make it so.....you have not proven your case with the HIV comment.>> Not my case to prove. Remember, it was you who made the fairly absolute statement: “ALL observable mutations are HARMFUL” (your emphasis, not mine). I simply provided two documented cases where mutations were beneficial. You’ve also put forth the constraint that mutations must add information. I must admit I'm not quite sure what you mean by this, but since you discount point mutations as meeting this constraint, here’s an example involving a frameshift mutation: Prijambada, I. D., S. Negoro, T. Yomo and I. Urabe, 1995. Emergence of nylon oligomer degradation enzymes in Pseudomonas aeruginosa PAO through experimental evolution. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 61(5): 2020-2022. My understanding is that these guys replicated a phenomenon that was originally observed in the wild- some bacterium underwent a frameshift mutation that gave it the quirky ability to digest nylon production waste. Kinda weird choice of food, but I guess it opens up a whole new niche for those bacteria. As for the fruit fly experiments, a classic example of observed speciation in the lab is Dobzhansky, T., and O. Pavlovsky, 1971. "An experimentally created incipient species of Drosophila", Nature 23:289-292. >>By Majorette Although I haven't really read any of Darwin's books, for what my teachers taught me, he was the responsible for changing the narrow-minded thinking of his generation; his theory was a revolution and influenced many areas of knowlegde, including linguistics. Because of this, I think he was admirable. >>By moonflower Hi all, hey I will be doing ACLS and Cont. ED all next week at the UofM and wont be on at all so play nice while Im away and I check in when I am through with all my training....Hope one of you responds to the fruit fly exp. like to hear your explainations of what went wrong with their evolution...regards B.W. >>By beanieweenie <<Hope one of you responds to the fruit fly exp.>> er….. didn’t I just do that in my last post? (See my last paragraph,“ As for the fruit fly experiments……”) <<like to hear your explainations of what went wrong with their evolution >> I’m not aware that anything went wrong. Remember, evolution simply refers to gradual change over time. Therefore I would expect that we would observe a laboratory population of fruit flies to show small changes in their allele frequencies over time if we introduce environmental pressures or other selective forces. That is precisely what we see. (Incidentally, this is why the fruit fly lab is one of the most common labs in university genetics courses, because it beautifully demonstrates how a population can indeed change over time). There are scores of published papers on Drosophila studies so I won’t waste space listing them all unless you specifically ask me to do so. But the one I mentioned in my previous post was included because it refers to a population of fruit flies that exhibited signs of speciation (one species diverging into two separate ones) which is what I thought you were asking for. In hindsight, however, I suspect you were actually challenging us to show you proof of a fruit fly being transformed into, say, a house fly or a bat or something else along those lines. I’m sorry but that’s not how it works. This goes back to my point about creationists using a straw man argument to “disprove” evolution. If I showed you a fruit fly that turned into a bat, I’d be more inclined to call that evidence for divine intervention than anything else. In fact, some might feel justified in demanding that sort of evidence from YOUR camp, as it would “prove” creationism. And now, if I may, I’d like to go back to a point I made earlier which is that any alternative theory put forth must account for the same observed evidence. As I am not educated on the intricacies of Intelligent Design, I am curious what the explanation for these observed changes in fruit fly populations (or any population) is by the ID theory. Forgive me (and by all means correct me) if I mischaracterize ID, but if every living thing was created as it exists today, why do extant populations show such plasticity in their ability to adapt to changing environments? Why would they need to if they were already a perfect fit for their particular niche? >>By Majorette Maybe a trip back to Ernst Mayr and his tome Systematics and the Origin of Species would help sharpen the biological memories on the definition of a species (i.e. can interbreed). But I will bang my head against a brickwall again and chant before I go any further; “Division > Class > Order > Family > Genus > Species > Subspecies” No evolution in fruit flies – that would be a convenient argument and in respect of Drosophila melongaster it is somewhat true to date – the hybrids they produce are often sterile. However what most creationists don’t tell you when labelling the failures “fruit flies” that there are ~400 individual species and in a few evolution and speciation have been demonstrated. So 2,900 generations with no change hey – please do cite the source so we can see whether it’s another misleading argument like the Mendel fiasco. (i.e. what species and what genes targeted and whether they’re essential genes or not). So I have 2 examples for you – before you can artificially create new species you have to understand what is going on. There’s a nice paper in Nature that deals with fruit fly genetics and mentions a couple of species. Noor MA (1995). Nature 375 (6533), 674-5, looking at the speciation of D. pseudoobscura. Speciation genes (?transcriptional role) have been identified that diverge because of natural selection or genetic drift (of course to a creationist genetic shift and drift doesn’t exist ha ha). So having read it creationists, can you argue against it? Well the recessive issue is taken care of – but what parts of that paper do you disagree with? But what about species divergence millions of years ago and the poor fossil record? Well oh my gosh, modern genetics may be able to provide us with more answers. The divergence of fruit flies is discussed by Tamura et al (2003). Molecular Biology & Evolution 21 (1); 36-44. To cut their long story short they showed that for Drosophilia 176 genes had a mutational clock that had been “ticking” at 11.1 mutations per kbp per million years. It’s a good piece of work, well worth a read the calculations make sense too…. (Speaking of that no-one has answered my previous questions – or is that because you can’t???). Remember – that’s a few species, not the whole of the fruit fly genera and technically it is evolution although I know the argument I’ll get in response already. I have tried not to give too much detail because I’m hoping those debating against evolution will read it for themselves. Creationism wants to be a science, so if you want to do an impression a run of the mill scientist like myself, start appraising the literature and forming your points against it. Sounding a bit patronising I know, but show me you are not just parrot reciting other people’s work…. PS. No I can’t get the journal arguments head to pubmed http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi PPS A good final point Majorette if it's an intelligent design why are there so many flaws? The human eyeball for one! >>By B.A.B.E.S >>By the way Just Jon, Man is made out of the same componets as dirt I don't know where you live, but wherever it is, you've got some damned interesting dirt. I'd love to see my lawn-less yard self-replicate--that should increase my property value. I'd point out that the computer I'm typing on is made out of "dirt," but then I'd have to explain way more about chemistry than I care to. You anti-evolutionists are basically trying to get a free science lesson out of us, and I for one don't care to help you out. I paid for school, and you need to do the same. Only, put out the joint and pay attention next time, you might learn something about what is versus what you want things to be. I'll handle the softballs like the above and leave Majorette and BABES to explain science to you. Easier that way. >>By Just Jon Glad you are here, BABES.... my genetics is a bit rusty as it has been a few years since I slogged my way through the fruit fly lab as an undergrad. Nevertheless, I was able to make my way through the Tamura article you cited (anybody desiring a copy of it can flork me their email and I'll share). I'd like to post a snippet from the abstract which, if I'm reading it correctly, sheds light from another angle regarding BeanieWeenie's question as to why we don't see greater changes in over 70 years of fruit fly experiments: "Genomic mutation clock–based timings of the landmark speciation events leading to the evolution of D. melanogaster show that it shared most recent common ancestry 5.4 MYA with D. simulans...<a bunch of other common ancestor estimates edited out for brevity>... These and other estimates are compatible with those known from limited biogeographic and fossil records. The inferred temporal pattern of fruit fly evolution shows correspondence with the cooling patterns of paleoclimate changes and habitat fragmentation in the Cenozoic." My interpretation of this article is that these scientists have found evidence that it took more than 5 *million* years to produce the differences that we see between the two fruit fly species D. melanogaster and D. simulans. Am I right? This is the timescale we are discussing, BeanieWeenie: millions of years to produce two types of a fruit fly. I think that's probably why many of us weren't too impressed by the "fruit fly bomb" you referred to. 70 years is a proverbial drop in the bucket compared to 5 million. That's also why I say I would be quite surprised to see anything much more drastic than what the literature has already produced regarding the fruit fly experiments. >>By Majorette Ya'll might enjoy this: http://www.workingforchange.com /comic.cfm?itemid=19060 (posted as two lines due to "long word" restrictions) >>By Just Jon How about a side-step on this? Some decades before Darwin wrote about his theories, William Herschel showed that the universe must be at least millions of years old. (It's only later others worked out it must be billions of years old.) I am intrigued that the creationists' focus only on Darwin. Herschels logic was, I believe, impeccable and I have never seen a creationist argument against his work. If creationists don't disagree with Herschel, that means that they must accept that the universe is at least millions of years old -- so why does it seem so important to show the earth is only some thousands of years old? >>By Happy chappy How did Herschel arrive at his conclusion? You raise an interesting fact about the long standing debate over evolution by pointing out how Darwin is typically the focus of counter-arguments. Hume speculated on the problems of the Mind-First dilemna in philosophy well before Darwin came around. Nietzsche described nature as "wasteful, blind, purposeless..." which seem to fit into the orthodox view. It is the case that in heated debate, analysis often takes a backseat to the characterization of the authors of an opposing theory. The problem goes both ways. It seems fair at this point in the debate to shift the burden, as Happy suggested, and hear the arguments for creationism. Is there any reason to accept cultural truths or traditional truths over scientific concepts? How does the epistemology change? Where can the two meet and agree? >>By Hume Ungus Herschel had made some observations regarding distances of heavenly bodies. The first was that a comet he had observed could not be placed in its "celestial sphere" as it was too close to the earth. This led him to spend a lot of time working on methods to measure the distances to the stars (the distances of many planets had been estimated by this point.) The planets were supposed to be in an inner sphere, with the stars and comets in the furthest sphere. The comet was in the planetary sphere in which the religious teachings said it could not be. The stars of the Milky Way did not produce much of a surprise, but he was amazed to discover that some of the nebulae he was observing could be calculated to be at a distance of 12 million million million miles from Earth. By this time, there was an understanding that light travelled at a finite speed. Various experimental and observational results had produced estimates in the 175,000-196,000 miles per second range. When Herschel then calculated how long it would take light to have travelled the distance to Earth he showed that the universe had to be at least two million years old. As he put it in 1802: "I shall take notice of an evident consequence attending the result of the computation; which is, that a telescope with a power of penetrating into space, like my 40 feet one, has also, as it may be called, a power of penetrating into time past. To explain this, we must consider that, from the known velocity of light, it may be proved, that when we look at Sirius, the rays which enter the eye cannot have been less than 6 years and 4 1/2 months coming from that star to the observer. Hence it follows, that when we see an object of the calculated distance at which one of these very remote nebulae may still be perceived, the rays of light which convey its image to the eye, must have been more than nineteen hundred and ten thousand, that is, almost two millions of years on their way; and that, consequently, so many years ago, this object must already have had an existence in the sidereal heavens, in order to send out those rays by which we now perceive it." (The Scientific Papers of Sir William Herschel (London: Royal Society and the Royal Astronomical Society, 1912), Vol 1, pp. 51) >>By Happy chappy Nice story in the news yesterday. Some of Darwin's descendents are carrying on his work (amongst others!) http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4607037.stm >>By B.A.B.E.S Is there any reason to accept cultural truths or traditional truths over scientific concepts? I like your suggestion that the creationists offer evidence, H, but I wonder about your definition of "truth." I know this isn't p.c., but if a long-established culture believes 2+2=5, it's still not a truth according to my understanding of that word. It's nice to respect other cultures, but I don't, for instance, respect the Nazi culture, and I don't feel any inclination to apologise for that. They were wrong. Stupid and wrong. Creationists are wrong. Stupid and wrong. I'm not going to lower my standards of right and wrong just to avoid pissing off Jesus and his followers. Some may ask, why the anger? Well, I'll tell you why. I have a young daughter who will soon be attending school at my, and my country's, expense. I'd kind of like her to be taught about the actual universe we inhabit, rather than wasting time learning about every conceivable wacko theory to the contrary. >>By Just Jon On the question of whether science is a cultural or social construct and whether cultural or social constructs should be treated on an equal level with scientific thinking I cannot say it better than Alan Sokal -- "anyone who believes that the laws of physics are mere social conventions is invited to try transgressing those conventions from the windows of my apartment. (I live on the twenty-first floor.)" [http://www.physics.nyu.edu/faculty/sokal/ lingua_franca_v4/lingua_franca_v4.html] >>By Happy chappy Jon...I'm not trying to disagree with you completely, as I have some deep seeded fears of living under a theocratic government, but I think that we cannt just ignore all of the traditions that scientific knowledge seems to destroy, even if they are of a religious origin. Obviously the apparent refutation of ideas like the account of the origin of the universe found in the old testament has (curiously) not stopped people from still believing in it. I'm not suggesting that since many still believe we ought to include it in our education the same way we might present evolution to a class full of kids. However, it is a mistake, i think, to just pack the past ideas in a box and forget about them altogether. It has an important place in the greater discussion of human culture and still offers an insight into at least an historical perspective of where we were and where we now are. In your example of a culture believing that 2+2=5, I agree that such "truths" are unacceptable, literally. That wasn't my intent when I used the term "truth," however. I should have used norm, custom, or belief, to describe what I meant. Also, my posing of the question doesn't imply that I think any cultural norm or belief is actually a better version than its scientific counterpart. I am implying that our means to getting at these beliefs Are different and in this difference lies the greatest problem between the various systems. Christians prefer a method of analysis that a scientist may outright call stupid. That doesn't solve the problem though, does it? >>By Hume Ungus I love this quote: "Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind." —Albert Einstein Below is my only problem with creationism, this is from just one site, there’s hundreds of them listed on google and all end in pretty much the same way. “If you refused Jesus Christ in order to accept Darwinism, you did it by faith that for the most part grew out of evidence that you now know was false. Lies damn! The Savior saves! Repent! Quit trusting the false, and trust He who is the way, the truth, and the life. "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life" (John 3:16) You stand at a fork in the road. Take the right way!” Now tell me creationism is built solely on science, well I’m doomed to perish. You look at most conflicts intellectual or social, and you often see religion at the heart of them, you cannot be anything but emotionally tied to your faith. If you’re not then do you truly believe? On that basis alone creationism will never be taken seriously as a science, only another viewpoint. Bethan (lucifer's sister!!) >>By B.A.B.E.S That passage you quoted is certainly what most folks either hear or associate with creationism and it truly cannot be taken seriously as a science. It must be taken seriously as a cultural tradition for many if not most people on Earth. The emotional aspect you mention seems right on and is engrained deeply in our cultural roots. We shouldn't forget, however, that there has been a philosophical trend for most of our cultural history that stands in the way of some of our new scientific concepts and some of these ideas are only loosely emotionally based. The whole idea of essentialism, a more intellectual idea than a personal artificer, for example, was unable to be countered until the likes of Darwin, and even now it seems to persist in most minds, partly because of its personal implications and partly because it comes close to making sense. Though essentialism may miss the mark, it holds a great deal of value. It gives us incredible insight into how we think and into the evolution of ideas. Similarily, outdated ideas and 'theories' take on new meaning within the context of their new functions. What I think Jon hopes, as do most scientists, is that the function of religion today will be benign and studied but not taken literally. Some hope that we can view it from a safe distance, while others would prefer to never speak of it again. The latter is a mistake, I think, for it forces us to neglect our cultural evolution. >>By Hume Ungus Bethan I really feel sorry for you...and Just Jon I am sorry for you too...In fact the whole lot of you are a very sorry bunch. You keep hanging on to your nothingness and one day you will find out who was correct on this topic when you meet THE CREATOR face to face but then its too late...I hope and pray you find the truth before your number is up...I am going to keep all of you in my prayers, and ask God to show mercy on you for you are truly decieved. I have decided to leave this discussion as it is unfruitful and pointless. In parting just remember one thing...Jesus is THE WAY THE TRUTH AND THE LIGHT! ( I am sure you will all make fun of this but hey I really am only saying it for your benefit) regards Lisa >>By beanieweenie Hume Ungus, I am very impressed with your ability to see both sides of an issue. I think if people on both sides were more like you, we'd have an easier time of it. As for beanieweenie, thanks, but why would you have to ASK your god to show me mercy if I were indeed deceived? If I'm too stupid to recognize science as a grand deception, your god will punish me forever unless you intervene? Nice guy, god. With saviours like that, who needs The Enemy? >>By Just Jon Pity you left Beanie, I am a bit saddened that you didn't have the strength of mind to put your point forward further without resorting to emotional blackmail. If the worst thing I ever do is believe in Darwin's excellent theory then I think I’ll have lived my life pretty well. One question tho' to any Americans here - any of you know if that is how creationism is taught in US schools that if you believe in evolution you're deceived? Interested in anyone's experience of that. >>By B.A.B.E.S beanie...I'm sad that you won't chime in anymore as I think your voice is the main reason this discussion played out here. Faith is not a bad thing, nor is doubt, when they are applied appropriately. Each and every one of us may see this and think that we are right in our views. Hopefully that isn't the only reason we have all decided to come here and exchange ideas. I for one have not come to accept your beliefs as truth, but have learned to communicate with you and try to understand them. That is the best that can be done sometimes and is mutually beneficial, I think. As for the rest of the group here...Hopefully we will find a way to bring up disagreements or sticking points in the theory and debate them. It would be a shame to sit still. >>By Hume Ungus >>One question tho' to any Americans here - any of you know if that is how creationism is taught in US schools that if you believe in evolution you're deceived? Interested in anyone's experience of that B.A.B.E.S., the answer to yer question depends greatly on where one lives. Our education is controlled at the state, and even county level, so a kid in say, Georgia, is taught differently than a kid in L.A. I know of at least one school system in south Georgia where kids are literally forced to pray--needless to say, they're taught the Bible rather than science. I also know of wealthy school districts in Georgia where kids receive a normal science education. In the U.S., though, it's all a bit irrelevent, as the really hard-core biblical absolutists either home-school their kids or send 'em to private schools where they're taught that the earth is 6,000 years old, among other things (I know this due to having crazy, clod-hopping relatives). I'd say the "normal" school system still fails, in that creationism is taught as an intellectually respectable "alternative" to evolution. I know of no U.S. school district in which the truth is taught vis-a-vis evolution. That doesn't happen 'til college, which of course most creationists never attend. Hume, I was wondering if you could tell me more about Darwin's own religious beliefs...Did his discovery of the mechanisms of evolution test his faith? I know little about the man himself. Thanks all. >>By Just Jon |