They want to forget Darwin ... [help]

[chevy]

We didn't use the same word for the same concept, but I can agree with your sentence.

Now if evolution did happen, this is a reality that will not change (it's part of the past), so I should have been more precise in my own sentence.

 

[Giaguara]

We didn't use the same word for the same concept, but I can agree with your sentence.

Now if evolution did happen, this is a reality that will not change (it's part of the past), so I should have been more precise in my own sentence.

Everything changes, only the change is permanent (non-changing) (one principle in most Eastern religions). Applying this to the evolution .. which would simply be, change in a really long time, there isn't a point where the change quits happening. There is change, everything changes constantly. Thus evolution happens all the time.

"Evolution" could be like the world species seen as one. When you were born, you were not like you are today. When you were a kid, you were so and so, when you will be 80, you will be so and so. It is unfair, TERRIBLE, to ask people "you can't ever change". If I hear that I run away. The fact in the people is that you are NOW something. You are not now the person you was 5 years ago, or when you were born, and you are not the person that you will be in the year 2040 either. Can you ask someone to NOT change in 40 years? What ever happens, we do, or think etc, changes us, slowly, making us "what we were meant to be".

And the same can be applied to your dogs or cats, to your children, to the flowers, to the nations and ideologies.

 

[brianleahy]

If you could answer this question for me (I'm just ignorant on this issue): Is it even possible for any one person to contain multiple dominant and recessive alleles in their genome? I thought that a person would have a maximum of two alleles for any one trait.

My understanding is that humans (and indeed, all animals) have just two copies of each gene, barring some chromosomal mishap. (For instance, the genetic disease Down Syndrome is usually caused by having a third copy of a certain chromosome). Each copy of each gene has just one allele. So I guess the most direct answer to your question is: no, people cannot carry more than two alleles for the same gene.

However there are a couple of wrinkles when you get to actual traits. Some traits are affected by several genes. A person's physical strength, for instance will be influenced by not only his ability to grow muscle tissue, but also the ability of his nervous system to control the muscles effectively, the ability of his cells to metabolize food, the ability of his blood to deliver oxygen, etc.

And here's another intersting tidbit: our studies of the human genome have revealed that some genes seem to be fully or partially duplicated, sometimes 2, 3 or more times. This is thought to happen when a human cell is about to divide. Prior to fission, the cell's nuclear DNA is duplicated, and each copy is delivered to one of the 'daughter' cells. The process is not perfect, and it is believed that in certain circumstances, a given gene (or part of a gene) which was previously 'singular' can be copied twice. Scientists believe that this accounts for the peculiar production mechanism of hemoglobin, the protein-polymer in blood which carries oxygen.

Human hemoglobin consists of four different compounds, called 'globins', which assemble together with an iron-bearing heme molecule to create a single unique molecule. The genes responsible for the production of each component globin are VERY similar (many hundreds of DNA base-pairs are identical across the 4 different genes) and it is believed that these became part of the human genome via a DNA replication accident.

The interesting thing is that each globin can absorb oxygen on it's own, and some are found alone (i.e. without the others) in other species' blood. However, the four together (plus their heme molecule) absorb and deliver oxygen more effectively than the four separate globins combined.

This is known as a 'duplication mutation'. Here are a couple of links if you want to read more:

http://www.grammatical-evolution.org/papers/eurogp98/node7.html

http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/duplication.html

 

[markceltic]

Sheesh Brian where did you go to school?Hemoglobins & replications ,molecules I don't see a doctor in your signature

 

[brianleahy]

Sheesh Brian where did you go to school?Hemoglobins & replications ,molecules I don't see a doctor in your signature

Between a few relevant books, magazine articles and the Discovery channel, I remember just enough about this stuff to do a decent Google search and refresh my memory when the need arises.

Edit: I suppose I should add I did take two biology electives in college.

 

[markceltic]

The good ol' Discovery channel yes indeed I watch that quite often myself. Speaking of when the need arises,are you & MDlarson each others best sparring partners when it comes to debating Darwin?Seems you two put alot of effort into your arguements.

 

[brianleahy]

Seems you two put alot of effort into your arguements.

It does seem to be a topic that we both care about a good deal, and to which each of us has given a lot of thought. We seem to be having a productive discussion here.

MD is well-spoken, knows his subject matter, respects facts and logic, and listens to reason. Though he clearly feels strongly about his faith, he does not digress into "fire n' brimstone" if he isn't sure how to respond to something. I respect that a lot; in my experience that's pretty rare, at least on the internet.

If you want to see some real online pie-fights, go to news.yahoo.com. They have a web-based discussion-board thread attached to each news story, and I venture there sometimes under the screen name 'beady-el'. Any time a story comes out about things like school prayer, evolution vs. creation etc. the folks posting there on both sides go straight for the jugular. Most of the time if I manage to undermine anyone's pro-religious posts, they retaliate with something blustery like "you'll be laughing out of the other side of your mouth when you're BURNING IN HELL!!"

I always try to admit it when I discover I'm wrong about something, or when I don't know the answer to something. I know I always respect people who are prepared to do this, and I think that people respect me for it as well.

There is a famous saying (I believe by Socrates) which is one of my favorites: "True knowledge exists in knowing that you know nothing." The biggest fools you will ever meet are the ones who are sure they know it all.

 

[markceltic]

There is a famous saying (I believe by Socrates) which is one of my favorites: "True knowledge exists in knowing that you know nothing." The biggest fools you will ever meet are the ones who are sure they know it all.

These words bring to mind the author they had on Now the other night, Peter Singer.A very well spoken man, if only more like him were in politics,I'm sure the debates wouldn't be so caustic.This leads me to the point why I'm enjoying yourself &MDLarson.It's so unlike Crossfire!

 

[dlloyd]

Brian, that quote is a little harsh I think. You seem to know plenty, so unless you're inferring that you are 'unknowledgeable', I'd say it's a little 'off'

MD: I see what you mean, but I don't agree with it. Basically you're saying that you think evolution is possible, but only in a 'downward spiral', correct?
I think there are some mutations on, for example, the Galapagos Islands that I would say have added genetic material, not just lost it.
How do you explain (to go back to an earlier example) the fact that the great apes and humans share over 99% of their DNA? I would say that either means that we are descended from a common ancestor, and both of us are 'inferior mutations', or that humans are the forbears of the great apes.

What do you say to the fact that there are no fossils of humans? Do you think that we suddenly appeared after the dinosaurs were wiped out? Or don't you even think that such things as dinosaurs existed?

I think the creation story is a great metaphor, and I can see how it would tie in with some of the more 'scientific' theories on the big bang, and such, but I think there are too many holes for it to be taken word for word.

 

[brianleahy]

Socrates was not known for his diplomacy; he taught people by making them look foolish.

A more precise way to say it might be: The more you learn, the more you realize how much MORE there is to learn. People on the bleeding edge of science will always tell you that what we know now is pathetic compared to what there STILL IS to know.

Hence one of the most important things to know is that there is a great deal you still don't know. Learning is somewhat like climbing up a tower; the higher you get, the further you can see - and the more you realize that what you've seen so far is just a tiny fraction of what remains to be seen.

Socrates was also very big on teaching people NOT to simply accept popular ideas and theories without critical scrutiny. This made him many enemies among the government and religious authorites of the time, and he was ultimately sentenced to death for "corrupting the youth and interfering with the religion of the city".

http://www.philosophypages.com/ph/socr.htm

 

[MDLarson]

MD: I see what you mean, but I don't agree with it. Basically you're saying that you think evolution is possible, but only in a 'downward spiral', correct?

Yes, you could say that I guess.

I think there are some mutations on, for example, the Galapagos Islands that I would say have added genetic material, not just lost it.

Again, I reserve the right to link to my favorite creationist website! The finch example is largely change within a species; natural selection at work. Do you actually have examples of mutating finches on the Galpagos islands? Here's an interesting story of a possible 'good' mutation that still does not add anything new to the genetic mix.

How do you explain (to go back to an earlier example) the fact that the great apes and humans share over 99% of their DNA? I would say that either means that we are descended from a common ancestor, and both of us are 'inferior mutations', or that humans are the forbears of the great apes.

Due to my ignorance on genetics, I can only fall back on my usual source.

What do you say to the fact that there are no fossils of humans? Do you think that we suddenly appeared after the dinosaurs were wiped out? Or don't you even think that such things as dinosaurs existed?

Umm... I don't want to sound rude, but you don't need to suggest that I would deny the existence of dinosaurs... lol

There was a thread on this board earlier where I tried to show that there is Biblical evidence that man actually cooexisted with the dinosaur. Legends such as dragons and sea monsters, which certainly are not immune to criticism, support this idea of cooexistence.

There ARE fossils of humans. Perhaps your real question is 'why don't human fossils show up with dinosaur fossils?' This gets into a bigger issue of stratospheric rock representing eons of time vs. the creationist deluge (the flood) more than anything. Here's another link to digest.

If I may, I'd like to ask why there are no transitional forms in the fossil record. If evolution is true, we should be seeing oodles and oodles of transitional forms of animals evolving. Is that not evidence against evolution?

I think the creation story is a great metaphor, and I can see how it would tie in with some of the more 'scientific' theories on the big bang, and such, but I think there are too many holes for it to be taken word for word.

Show me the holes then. I can demonstrate that the creation story is logically incompatible with evolution.

I feel guilty posting links to AIG all the time, but I haven't seen any rebutals, so I'm taking that as a good sign.

 

[brianleahy]

In the spirit of "one good link deserves another", there are transitional fossils, and you can read about some of them here:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html

Some examples on this site include transitional forms between fish and amphibians, amphibians and reptiles, and reptiles mammals. I will readily confess that I discovered this site only today, and I have not read all of it -- partly because the author seems to have been in part striving specifically for volume, giving large numbers of examples.

Indeed, this site is quite a find; it links to a virtual encyclopedia of rebuttals to many creationist arguments ( http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/index.html ) including the question of mutations adding information:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB102.html

...and even both sides of an argument I had never heard before regarding Mitochondrial DNA:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB621.html

I'm going to try to find the time over the next few days to do a lot of reading on both this site and the ones MD has posted.

On a slightly different angle: Each creationist - and "evolutionist" if you will - usually has an argument or premise which is his or her personal favorite, not necessarily because there is no response to it, but because for whatever reason it feels most satisfying or most "right" personally.

A favorite of many creationists I have known - and which MD has mentioned - is the notion that life arising from lifelessness seems incredibly unlikely.

For me, the argument that I find most personally satisfying is that, despite all the effort that creationists have put into finding scientific support for their beliefs, they nonetheless started with a desired conclusion in mind and then searched for evidence to support it, carefully rejecting evidence to the contrary. This methodology alone would be (and historically has been) enough to severely undermine the credibility of any other sort of scientific proposal.

 

[MDLarson]

Brian, that's a good summarization of the clashing worldviews. But let me get theological / psychological for a minute; if we truly evolved from animals, how could we have possibly aquired the ability to reason (the thing that is supposed to separate us from the animals)? Why do we love? Why do we have senses of humor? Why is there a perceived need for so many to believe in God?

The way I see it, you define your position based on your stance on supernatural happenings. The second you start to question miracles, you deny all supernaturality and drift towards atheism. Likewise, the second you realize that science cannot explain a particular phenomena you either: 1) wait for science to eventually explain it or 2) become religious.

So, we both have our preconceptions, either way I think.

I've been to that sight briefly before, but got lost in the technical jargon. I'll try to read up on your links too.

 

[lurk]

Yes, you could say that I guess.
Again, I reserve the right to link to my favorite creationist website! The finch example is largely change within a species; natural selection at work. Do you actually have examples of mutating finches on the Galpagos islands? Here's an interesting story of a possible 'good' mutation that still does not add anything new to the genetic mix.

That is interesting but I am confused as to how it was possible for a mutation in a single cell to have effect on the existing cells of the boy. A mutation does not spread to its sibling cells only its descendants so it does not make sense for a sick child to become healthy from a mutation. It cannot be propagated to the exiting cells, there must be something else going on here.

Due to my ignorance on genetics, I can only fall back on my usual source.

It is interesting that you cite this particular article on the genetic similarity of humans and chimps. The whole point of the article is that depending on how you "score" genetic similarity we are between 95% to 98% similar. How is that an argument for creationism? Did I miss something?

One thing that confuses me is that in that article genetic differences that can occur in a mutation (substitutions, insertions and deletions) are spelled out. But then the assertion that now "new" genetic information can be introduced is made. These transformations are 100% invertible, if you don't know the pedigree of the DNA you are looking at it would be perfectly OK to look at the same mutation as either an insertion or a deletion, or a substitution from p->q or q->p. You can't say that one direction or the other creates or destroys anything.

Umm... I don't want to sound rude, but you don't need to suggest that I would deny the existence of dinosaurs... lol

There was a thread on this board earlier where I tried to show that there is Biblical evidence that man actually cooexisted with the dinosaur. Legends such as dragons and sea monsters, which certainly are not immune to criticism, support this idea of cooexistence.

But there is absolutely no tangible evidence for coexistence and lots of tangible evidence for them being separated by millions of years. I really do not know where to start on this one. Just for example the grand canyon example mentions that The large-scale cross-bedding shows that it was all laid down in deep, fast-flowing water in a matter of days. which is totally incorrect. Fast flowing water does not evenly sort sediments like is necessary for the stratified sandstones of the grand canyon. Today similar sedimentation patters occur at the bottoms of seas and large lakes in slow water. Why would the same processes we observe today work differently then?

There ARE fossils of humans. Perhaps your real question is 'why don't human fossils show up with dinosaur fossils?' This gets into a bigger issue of stratospheric rock representing eons of time vs. the creationist deluge (the flood) more than anything. Here's another link to digest.

If I may, I'd like to ask why there are no transitional forms in the fossil record. If evolution is true, we should be seeing oodles and oodles of transitional forms of animals evolving. Is that not evidence against evolution?

Do you know how may T-Rex skeletons have been found? Thousands? Hundreds? A better guess would be 10 and most of those are not very complete. When you are looking at processes that can take thousands and millions of years which are recorded in just few fossils there are going to be huge gaps. There is one of the big logical fallacies of the "Missing Link" attack used by creationists in that it makes demands which cannot be satisfied. As more "transitional" forms are discovered all that happens is that those become the point of reference is just shifted. Either you now need to find two intermediate transitional forms to fill the new gaps or the new one is defined to be "similar enough" to one of the other forms and you have to find a new "Missing link".

Show me the holes then. I can demonstrate that the creation story is logically incompatible with evolution.

I feel guilty posting links to AIG all the time, but I haven't seen any rebutals, so I'm taking that as a good sign.

Well I never said that literal new earth creationism is compatible with evolution. It is not compatible with geology, chemistry, physics, biology or almost any other scientific discipline

I am sorry I have been slacking off in my rebuttal duties but alas I have other responsibilities in meat-space.

Have fun!
-Eric

 

[Cat]

A favorite of many creationists I have known - and which MD has mentioned - is the notion that life arising from lifelessness seems incredibly unlikely.

That's not an argument at all.

First: that something seems unlikely to someone is not an argument, but simply a matter of psychology. Things that I do not understand tend to seem unlikely to me, however my opinion of them does not make them true or untrue.

Second: If creationist would actually use this as if it were some kind of argument, it can very easily be turned against them, as the notion that everything was created by a god is not more or less likely in principle than the notion of "life arising from lifelessness".

Third: life arising from lifelessness is not unlikely at all. The basic presupposition for life is the presence of a self-replicating structure. Given such a structure, which can easily arise by chance, enough basic materials and a few million years will show a net increase of the number and complexity of such structure. A miracle? No at all. Introducing and ordered self-replicating structure in a chaotic environment will lead to a net increase of order over time, as the chaotic mix of matter is not self-replicating. A self-replicating system, such as DNA, simply uses the chaotic mix of matter to prosper, while the big mix cannot propagate itself.

A simple experiment at home: drop some oil or fat in water and you will get rings. Why? Fat in water tends to order itself this way, because of its internal chemical structure (which consists of a water attracting and a water repelling side). Cell membranes are nothing but fatty spheres (with some extra features developed over time). This is one of the hypotheses about the origin of life. Fatty structures served as container for self-replicating systems.

In a famous experiment Miller showed that simply mixing together some common chemical elements that abounded in the primeval seas of the earth he could obtain the basic building blocks of life. You CAN do this at home (god not included). Occam's razor tells us what to do with superfluous hypotheses ...

 

[dlloyd]

Hmmm, I think I am severely 'out-knowledged' here!

Anyway, I was afraid you'd ask what the 'holes' were, but unfortunately I'm usually unable to remember them . Often though, when I'm reading something, I'll think "hmmm, that makes sense, I can see how it would work with evolution, but it doesn't seem to go with creationism." The number of times which that has happened in reverse is so few that I can't seem to remember it ever having taken place, or else the arguments didn't make sense, so I didn't bother to remember them .

 

[Cat]

Hole 1:

In Genesis God tells Adam and Eve that if they eat from the tree of knowledge they will surely die (Gen2:17). The devil tells them that they will not die, but that their eyes will be opened and they will know the difference between good and evil(Gen 3:5).

Also see: here and here.

 

[lurk]

I don't know that that is necessarily a contradiction (and I did not look at the exact passages so get you salt ready) because before they ate the fruit they did not know death. That is to say they were immortal so by becoming mortal they did eventually die. It never said that they would die quickly

-Eric

 

[pds]

or....

the death that the fall (eating the forbidden fruit) caused was spiritual. That is to say that when they abandoned the word of God, they abandoned life. Genesis says "on the day that you eat of it you will surely die," not "I will surely torch you."

Which is why Jesus is the resurrection and the life "he who believes in [him] shall never die" and that the apostle told the members of the church at (?) Philippi they have "the name of being alive, but ... are dead."

Since then every person who believed has died (except those who are yet to do so) physically, so either he's a liar or the death and life he talks about are not physical.

 

[MDLarson]

Just wanted to drop in real quick and let you all know I'm trying to keep up with the thread, but it might be a day or two before I spend too much time back here.

Thanks for the great discussion so far everybody!