Re: Please confirm. *Originally posted by machaon can you please produce any text written by Charles Darwin or his peers that mirrored his views, that attempts to explain the entire universe?* What would Darwin and his peers have to do with the T of E as it stands today? *I would be surprised if you could, considering that Charles Darwin was a scientist and based his theories on conclusions that he made by careful observation, not conjecture on unobservable ideas based on faith as some people do in an effort to avoid the inconvenience of thinking and forming ideas that are independant of what others tell them that they should believe.* Whew! I believe that is what is called a "run-on" sentence. Besides, what is that you believe that differs from what your teachers told you that you should believe? *And I am willing to bet that you have not even CONSIDERED reading any of them, as his works are obviously false and do not warrant an examination that surely could not provide any information that would not require a great deal of effort to rationalize away using the tools of faith that are based on the requirement that all mental effort be used to maintain the belief that you are right. * You've already lost that bet. Are you using some amphetamine- or caffeine-based substances? Your ingenious method of arguing from contradiction of contradiction of contradiction of something is rather amusing. Luckily, you started out with "I am willing to bet" on something and that something was false.
A reply Yes tony1, I alternately use dextroamphetimine and methlphenidate along with bupropion hydrochloride. Anyway, you are right. I don't know everything. I am really going on about this in the wrong way. I do not want to personally attack you verbally as an individual. I simply want to offer this forum the reasoning behind my choice to disregard religion as being a viable way to interpret the world. I did not exist 4 billion years ago and neither did anyone else. That removes one of the fundamentals that science depends on to validate its conclusions. That fundamental is OBSERVATION. I simply choose to believe in, say, the THEORY of evolution because my teachers claimed it was constructed by men who based there beliefs on the interpretation of observable phenonema. I choose not to believe in the tenents of religion because those who teach it claim it is an infallible revealed truth and is not subject to change regardless of what is observed in the physical world. I would, personally, vest more faith in the possible misinterpretation of observable events and things than in the acceptance of some doctorine that requires unchanging belief in what may or may not occur to after my death. The Theory of evolution is subject to change as new observations may require. Religion is not. Could I be wrong? Sure. If you can offer me information in a way that does not does not tout religion as being the ONLY possibible explanation of the universe, I will be much more inclined to consider the validity of some of its assumed truths. The inflexability of our opinions is not conducive the real, thoughtful and productive debate. I apoligize, and I will make an honest effort to be more flexible in an attempt to truly understand why you believe what you do.
Re: A reply *Originally posted by machaon I am really going on about this in the wrong way. I do not want to personally attack you verbally as an individual.* No problem, except for you, even if you did. *I simply want to offer this forum the reasoning behind my choice to disregard religion as being a viable way to interpret the world.* I think we get that "disregard religion" thing. *I did not exist 4 billion years ago and neither did anyone else. That removes one of the fundamentals that science depends on to validate its conclusions. That fundamental is OBSERVATION.* It's the loss of kind of a very basic fundamental, is it not? *I simply choose to believe in, say, the THEORY of evolution because my teachers claimed it was constructed by men who based there beliefs on the interpretation of observable phenonema.* So, you actually believed what your teachers told you? Wow, when I attended school, the teachers were treated as laughing stocks if they wanted us to believe anything just because they said it. They were laughed at even more if they affected a "sincere" demeanor, where they expressed their "great concern" for our future well-being. The teachers that didn't get laughed at were the ones who told us they were in it for the paycheck. *I choose not to believe in the tenents of religion because those who teach it claim it is an infallible revealed truth and is not subject to change regardless of what is observed in the physical world.* I can understand why you might think this. Hoiwever, what is wrong with the truth being unchangeable, and scientific data being changeable (brace yourself for this), at the same time? *I would, personally, vest more faith in the possible misinterpretation of observable events and things than in the acceptance of some doctorine that requires unchanging belief in what may or may not occur to after my death.* This a peculiar corollary to your other thoughts. I would also vest much faith in the misinterpretation of observable events and things. In fact, I have complete faith that observable events and things will be misinterpreted more often than not. *The Theory of evolution is subject to change as new observations may require. Religion is not. Could I be wrong? Sure.* This is interesting. To you, Evolution is a deficient defective body of knowledge which bravely soldiers on, collecting data against all odds, struggling to be a valid world-view. Religion cruises in on auto-pilot with all the answers, in one book yet, laughs at Evolution, and returns to its opulent palace, while Evolution limps off to its dirt-floor hovel. Given all of this, you cannot grasp the totality of what Religion is, so you sneer at it for having the answers. But you can grasp the feeble limited guess that Evolution offers, so you follow Evolution not because it is right but because you can just grasp it. Christ stoops to conquer, and Evolution reaches up to fail. *If you can offer me information in a way that does not does not tout religion as being the ONLY possibible explanation of the universe, I will be much more inclined to consider the validity of some of its assumed truths.* The beggar begs not for food, but for food to be presented in the proper way. Substance be damned, form is the way to go! *The inflexability of our opinions is not conducive the real, thoughtful and productive debate. I apoligize, and I will make an honest effort to be more flexible in an attempt to truly understand why you believe what you do. * I don't accept your apology for the simple reason that you haven't offended me in any way. For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. (Romans 6:23, KJV). Consider the validity of such a statement. What evolutionist offers you life? Evolution promises nothing and delivers in spades. Evolution makes up a fairy tale telling you where you've been, Christianity tells you where you are going,
Another reply. Thank you, tony1, for your last post. Your views are every bit as valid as my views and offer a means for me apply what I believe as true against what another intelligent person believes to be true. By offering your opinions without restraint and strong conviction, you create the much needed contrast that is neccessary to a qualitive dialog. Can I grasp the TOTALITY of what religion is? Perhaps not. But your statement(please correct me if I am wrong) implies that I am not familiar with religion and Christianity in particular. I would counter this by simply offering you a brief glimpse into my background. I was reared in a Christian home and my father was a fundamentalist Southern Baptist preacher for more than 22 years. I have never received instruction from the Bible in the form of a formal education from a seminary. But I think that I am well qualified to claim an understanding of the Christian faith as taught by contemporary Southern Baptist. Overall, I will have to admit that I do not understand every aspect of religion as the Southern Baptist do not encompass the whole of all Christian religions, much less ALL the worlds religions. But I can grasp faith. I can also grasp evolutionary theory even though it puts me at odds with those I love the most. I do not possess the views I express in this forum because they are the path of least resistance. I am sure you could truthfully claim that applies to you as well. I am not trying to "subvert" you. I am trying create an environment in which a meaningful exchange of ideas can take place. Thank you.
And one more thing Tony1, the above quote is one of the best observations you have communicated. The conclusions that are derived from scientific data ARE independant from the fundamental truths that said observations intend to describe. Is science infallible? No. That does not mean that, in my opinion, that diligent inquiry should cease in the face of overwhelming unknowns. Thank you. I have never really looked at this issue from that exact perspective before.
Just one quick "evolutionist" comment If that were so, we would all be dead. The very reason smart brains were selected is that they are able to interpret what they observe correctly much more often than not. Other than that, go ahead and feel free to misinterpret more often than not. Who would I be to stop you? LOL
*Originally posted by machaon But your statement implies that I am not familiar with religion and Christianity in particular.* That implication is certainly not intended. However, I strongly doubt that you see how big God is, and how complex the universe he has created, really is. Bambi has some idea of the complexity, yet she cannot see that the progression is to find ever greater levels of complexity. Her mind is already boggling at the complexity, yet she looks like she's going to maintain that it all happened by itself. Oh well, her days will be packed finding out more and more stuff, until her mind permanently boggles. *I can grasp faith.* If you could, evolution is certainly not a thought you would entertain for longer than it takes to dismiss it. *I can also grasp evolutionary theory even though it puts me at odds with those I love the most.* Surely you realize that the theory of evolution agrees with creationism as far as the origin of man goes? The Bible says man originated from the dirt. The T of E also says that man originated from the dirt. The only difference is time. The Bible says one day. The T of E says billions of years, presumably because it is difficult to turn mud into man. I say it is impossible to turn mud into man, which is why God had to do it. The theory of evolution was not created to explain the diversity of species. It was created to erase God from the picture. *I do not possess the views I express in this forum because they are the path of least resistance.* I have to admit that you are probably right. From what I can see, atheists, or putative atheists, expend enormous amounts of time and energy maintaining their position against heavy odds. Most lose the battle early, dying young, and with weird diseases. To me, that hardly qualifies as "least" resistance; it's more like the "maximum" resistance. *I am sure you could truthfully claim that applies to you as well.* No, I got tired of fighting God a while ago. I am taking the path of least resistance. *I am not trying to "subvert" you.* Be that as it may. *Originally posted by Bambi If that were so, we would all be dead.* Well, I hate to break the news to you, but 99.9999999% of all the creatures that have ever existed ARE dead. You are soon to follow, as is everyone currently alive today. *The very reason smart brains were selected is that they are able to interpret what they observe correctly much more often than not.* Another atheist fallacy. Not correctly "much more often than not," merely "at least once more often than their next meal." That is a crucial difference. In the fantasy world of evolution, "correct" is a meaningless term. It should be obvious that if your pet theory were true, the only thing that would be selected for is not "correctness," but "oneupmanship," particularly where lunch is concerned. *Other than that, go ahead and feel free to misinterpret more often than not. Who would I be to stop you? LOL * LOL! Who's next meal are you going to be? Keep in mind that in your world, while you are laughing at me, a mind that is not tuned to "correctness", but "fast lunch" will be snacking on you. That mind may not be particularly well-educated, but is much smarter than you. Say, for example, a virus? Or a bacterium? See if you can maintain the mirth level when you are afflicted with, say, AIDS.
Yes Tony, I can understand your admiration for the mind of a virus. Keep working on it, and you may even achieve such an intellectual height yourself. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! As for frequent misinterpretation, let me know the next time you drive your car on the wrong side of the freeway. I want to be there to witness a confirmation of your hypothesis. Eesh...
The beginning of a meaningful understanding. Thank you for your feedback tony1. You are exactly right in your estimation of my knowledge of the universe and its inherent unfathomable complexities. I am interested in your views on the complexity of the universe in relation to not only what can be observed but also to the beliefs that you hold within the unapproachable knowledge of how you perceive the world as only you can as an individual. And also how these views are molded by your personal faith in God. My failure to fully understand these things is something that I can not afford if I wish to gain an understanding of the human condition in respect to spirituality and the power of reason as an outlet to inner peace. Thank you for your continued replies, and rest assured that they do not pass unappreciated.
On a slightly more serious note... Tony, That is not why. The age of the Earth is not "tunable" to suit some belief. It is derived via quite a few rigorous and reproducible methods, the most notable of which is radiometric dating. It is simply a fact that life on Earth has been evolving for around 4 billion years, and what you see in front of you is that life's current state. That would make it possible, of course. Your problem is though, you got a very medieval notion of "mud". You're missing a whole branch of chemistry that goes by the name of "organic". I would rather think it's quite the opposite. When one sees something as primitive as a mousetrap with no possibility of it having assembled itself due to its sheer crudeness and simplicity, then one would indeed suspect an intelligent creator. On the other hand, the more complexity is uncovered within the universe, the likelier it becomes that all of the observable phenomena are due to that sheer underlying complexity, and not to some meddling superbeing. At any level of examination, though, there is an ultimate limit to complexity. The only reason we found such complexity to begin with, is because we dared to look into the realm of the microscopic. The complexity is vast, it is true. Yet it is not boundless, and as such it will succumb to analysis; that much is inevitable. You are expending enormous amounts of time and energy maintaining your position -- that, against ever heavier odds. I certainly hope you don't die young of a weird disease -- but in case such an unfortunate thing happens to you, could you please inform us all as to where you got such information on atheist mortality -- before you pass away and take it to your grave?
*Originally posted by Bambi I can understand your admiration for the mind of a virus. Keep working on it, and you may even achieve such an intellectual height yourself. * Ooo, such wit. Mind you, I wasn't kidding. I seriously doubt that you have the intelligence to conquer a virus. *As for frequent misinterpretation, let me know the next time you drive your car on the wrong side of the freeway. I want to be there to witness a confirmation of your hypothesis.* On a strictly objective basis, I wouldn't want to be there. I guess you're trying to impress me with your superior intelligence, though. Which side would you be on, O wise one, if I'm the "stupid" one on the wrong side? *Originally posted by machaon You are exactly right in your estimation of my knowledge of the universe and its inherent unfathomable complexities. I am interested in your views on the complexity of the universe in relation to not only what can be observed but also to the beliefs that you hold within the unapproachable knowledge of how you perceive the world as only you can as an individual. And also how these views are molded by your personal faith in God. My failure to fully understand these things is something that I can not afford if I wish to gain an understanding of the human condition in respect to spirituality and the power of reason as an outlet to inner peace.* Ease off on those drugs a bit, please? While your statements have all the appearance of real sentences and whatnot, I think this is the kind of stuff you would want to crank out for a philosophy class, particularly if the prof has relatively long hair and wears sandals.
Ease up on the vise-grips, Tony1 Tony1, I would suggest that when you see a sentence that's too tough to figure out at first glance, you try to understand it instead of being flippant. One thing our Christian posters don't seem to understand is that when the infidel world views Christianity, the sort of mocking idiocy rushing through your posts is about par for the course. We keep hoping that our eyes deceive us, but it's the most common Christian face we know. The failure of the bright potential of Christian faith to manifest itself in the faithful is perhaps the most persuasive argument against ever coming to know the God of the Bible. After all, why reduce yourself to stupidity just for the privilege of making yourself dependent on a God who hates you enough to hold you responsible for how He made you? --Tiassa Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
A document for tony1 I offer you this document tony1 not in an attempt to convince you of the validity of the theory presented, but to simply demonstrate a few crucial points. The first of which is to let you know that I do not believe the theory of evolution is the only viable theory of the origin of life and that I do not attempt to discredit your beliefs by assuming the validity of the evolution theory is not subject to scrutiny. Another point I hope this document makes clear to you is that scientist are willing to challenge the theory as well as creationist. There are more reasons to argue the validity of evolution than to just to maintain a belief in religious tenents(although there is nothing wrong with that). I hope you will notice the techniques these scientist use to validate their evidence against evolution, and their careful explanations of how they observed and recorded the findings that they based their conclusions on. To use the theory of evolution as a tool to discredit your beliefs, I have found, is arrogant and does not reflect the humility one should possess in order to take the time to explore other viable avenues of thought. Thank you for your part in helping me realize that science is a dynamic field of study and should not wholly rely on the assumption of constants based on theory alone.******************************************** Will mutations produce wings like in angels, in a human being? If you wanted to develop a race of angels, would it be possible to select for a pair of wings? - Theodosius Dobzhansky I could try! - Peter Medawar (1) Charles Darwin championed the theory of common descent and evolution by natural selection among descendants with slight variations on the ancestors' features. The concept of natural selection springs from artificial selection, a procedure breeders use to select for and enhance desired characteristics such as stamina, color, size, yield, and so forth, in animals and plants. Darwin thought that a similar process happens in nature. There is nothing to disagree with here. Natural selection can bring about evolution in a fashion similar to artificial selection. But animal breeders and plant breeders have always known that artificial selection has limits. Wholly new characteristics never emerge from artificial selection; they will never breed a dog with antlers. The same kind of limit applies to all natural selection operating on the available genetic material. Genetics Neo-Darwinism is an attempt to reconcile Mendelian genetics, which says that organisms do not change with time, with Darwinism, which claims they do. - Lynn Margulis (2) Darwin actually knew very little about genetics. The great pioneer of that field was Gregor Mendel, whose work was contemporary with Darwin's. Now the theory of evolution incorporates Mendel's genetics into Darwin's framework; the combined theory is called neo-Darwinism. According to this paradigm, evolution is driven by chance. Chance mutations affect one or a few nucleotides of DNA per occurrence. Bigger changes come from recombination, a genetic process in which longer strands of DNA are swapped, transferred, or doubled. These two processes, mutation and recombination, create new meaning in DNA by lucky accidents. According to the prevailing paradigm, this is the mechanism behind evolution. One problem with this story is that it is implausible. It is analogous to saying that a great work of literature such as Moby Dick could emerge from lesser preexisting books, if there were enough typos and swapping of paragraphs along the way. The trouble is, when this process is actually attempted with text, it never succeeds. Only with guidance can random processes lead to meaningful sentences or paragraphs. But plausibility in the current paradigm of evolution is apparently unnecessary. We are told by Richard Dawkins, "The general lesson we should learn is never to use human judgment in assessing such matters" (3). Ordinary people are under the impression that there are examples in nature which prove that chance mutation and recombination can create new meaning in genetic code - new genes. Yet the alleged examples of the phenomenon do not actually exemplify it. Consider the ability of bacteria to become resistant to antibiotics. Salvador Luria and Max Delbrück proved in 1943 that the resistant bacteria descended from preexisting strains; the genes for the resistance were already available in the gene pool. Although some have disputed this interpretation of their experiments, it is now well established. And today we know that bacteria often acquire whole new genes conferring resistance to antibiotics; the genes are imported on "resistance plasmids" (3.5). Another example of similar "evolution" in eukaryotic cells is described in Renato Dulbecco's The Design of Life. This time the genes for the new characteristic are already present in the organism (4): ...Trypanosomes [are] small eukaryotic parasites that in Africa cause sleeping sickness in humans and some animals. The animal responds by producing special protein molecules-antibodies that bind to the coat of the parasite and stop its growth.... But when the antibodies have almost gained control, parasites with a different coat make their appearance.... When the new antibodies are produced, the second wave of parasites disappear, but yet another kind emerges, with coat molecules different from the first two. The study of this phenomenon has uncovered an amazing organization in the parasite's DNA. Radioactive probes ... have revealed that a hundred or more genes are devoted to coat variation, each gene specifying one kind of coat molecule.... Only one is active at a time. The moth that has evolved to blend in with the sooty walls and treetrunks of modern industrial cities is another example of evolution in our time. Again, the genes for darker coloring in the moth were already available in the gene pool. Yes, there are a few documented examples in which a simple mutation in a bacterium brings about antibiotic resistance, but in these cases it does so by reducing or eliminating the affected gene's function, not by creating a new function. Among viruses, mutations can even alter a coating protein and thereby temporarily disguise the virus (4.5). But again, no new function is created. Such mutations could not drive the evolutionary progress we observe. Of course, there are many examples of genes that have mutated slightly in the course of evolution without losing their original functions. And other examples, fewer in number, apparently indicate that genes may mutate slightly and acquire different but closely related functions. The globin family of genes are in this category. And in a third category, a handful of examples may indicate that a gene mutates slightly and acquires a wholly new function. These finally seem to be examples in which mutations create new meaning, but we are not sure this third account is accurate. The number of changed essential nucleotides in new genes that supposedly arose this way is still in the dozens at least, whereas the number of possible genes that would differ from a given average-size gene by only half-a-dozen essential nucleotides is enormous, on the order of 10^14. Blindly traversing even this short distance in sequence space so large requires incredible luck Neo-Darwinism can rebut this line of criticism in two ways: 1) almost any gene will work - a "many-worlds" theory of biology, or; 2) there is a guided mutational pathway, as Manfred Eigen described in 1987 (5), leading from the first set of primitive genes to all of the genes subsequently used in biology. But, since 1987, Eigen's model has not been fleshed out. Furthermore, that kind of evolution would be ultra-gradual, unlike what we see in the fossil record. Neither of these two alternatives has any analog in the world of other codes such as text or computer programs. A theory that avoids these difficulties should be considered. The Origin of Antifreeze Protein Genes The notothenioid trypsinogen to AFGP conversion is the first clear example of how an old protein gene spawned a new gene for an entirely new protein with a new function. - Liangbiao Chen, Arthur L. DeVries and Chi-Hing C. Cheng (6) The April 15, 1997 issue of Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA contains a report with strong evidence - sequence similarities - linking two genes with different functions in a common Antarctic fish. One gene codes for trypsinogen, an enzyme produced in the pancreas. The other codes for a protein called antifreeze glycoprotein (AFGP) that keeps the fish's blood from freezing. The related sequences are so similar that the biologists, from the University of Illinois, Urbana, date the divergence of the sequences as only five to 14 million years ago. This timing coincides with the independently estimated time when the Antarctic Ocean was frozen. "Selective pressure" would have favored the creation of an antifreeze gene then. The report makes a strong case that the antifreeze gene evolved from the trypsinogen gene by a series of steps including whole gene duplication; the deletion, insertion, duplication, and amplification of smaller sequences; and a frameshift mutation. The work is undeniably interesting. Perhaps the most interesting part, noted in commentary by John M. Logsdon, Jr. and W. Ford Doolittle, is that "the novel portion of the AFGP gene (encoding for the ice-binding function) derives from the recruitment and iteration of a small region spanning the boundary between the first intron and the second exon of the trypsinogen gene" (7) Thus, according to the report, a sequence without integrity or meaning in the first gene fortuitously became a critical sequence in the new gene. Is this the example that has been lacking of the creation of a new gene? So it seems. But problems remain. It is possible to estimate the likelihood of creating a new gene this way. One could estimate the actual rate at which the steps listed above occur in the fish germline cells and the fish population at the time when the Antarctic Ocean was freezing. From there one could straightforwardly calculate the approximate number of trials of new genes that could have occurred, during a reasonable time window, to produce an antifreeze protein gene in the fish. One could also estimate the number of different actual genes that would code for antifreeze proteins. Other work by the same authors in the same issue (8) makes this estimation seem possible. Finally, a mathematician could, with little trouble, count the number of possible different genes that could be created from the trypsinogen gene and other possible precursor genes by the steps listed above. This estimate would enable one to calculate the probability that an antifreeze gene would be found by trial and error in the time available. The last estimate, however, turns out to be lethal to our chances. The number of possible different genes that could be created by only a handful of steps from the list above is enormous. For example, consider a gene of 2,500 nucleotides, allowing a 75% error rate (625 essential nucleotides.) The number of possible different genes that could be created by deleting a single essential nucleotide and inserting it elsewhere in the same gene, five successive times, is 10^28. When sequences for insertion into the target gene can be any length, and can come from any of thousands of other genes, the possibilities quickly approach the theoretical maximum - in this example 4^625 or about 10^370. So the proposed mechanism does not increase the probability of arriving at a wholly new gene by chance. It's still monkeys writing Shakespeare, only now they have word processors with "cut and paste" functions. The authors are aware of this problem and postulate other roles for genetic intermediates between the two genes. However, they seem to realize that this speculation is inadequate, because they conclude [the second article] by saying, "The selection of an appropriate permutation of three codons... was likely shaped by the structural specificity required for antifreeze ice interaction to take place." This sounds like teleology. After the careful analysis by Chen et al., one might understand if a neo-Darwinists lost patience at this point in the discussion and simply asserted that it must have happened as they describe. Any reasonable person would admit that there is "excess corroboration" for the gradual divergence of genetic sequences over time, as in the antifreeze gene example. Cosmic Ancestry does not dispute that genetic sequences can gradually diverge over time, and that genetic recombination occurs. But for the discovery of lengthy new sequences with new meaning, the math in the example still doesn't work. And a model for this process in text, without guidance, will not succeed. If the antifreeze gene was composed by the process Chen et al. describe, perhaps antifreeze activity is so non-specific that "almost any gene will do," as considered above. But if the precise sequence antifreeze sequence was required (allowing only normal error tolerance), the composition process would have to have been guided somehow. Neo-Darwinism allows guidance by a chain of hypothetical intermediate steps, or by teleology. Cosmic Ancestry would explain such guidance only by other instructions already in the genome, but this concept is undeveloped. <whatsne10.htm> <whatsne10.htm>1999, October 21: A blood protein... arose from a digestive enzyme. Punctuated Equilibrium The usual procedure is to forget the difficulties, never to talk about them, and to proceed as if the theory were without fault. - Paul Feyerabend (9) Darwin wrote that evolution was a gradual process, with infinitesimal changes accumulating over the ages to eventually yield major differences in living things. If evolution advances as Darwin says it must, only tiny steps would ever happen. He states in The Origin of Species: "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down" (10). Evidence from fossils does not bear out Darwin's theory of gradual change. Instead, species remain relatively unchanged for long periods, and then suddenly, new kinds arise. Many bacteria today have apparently changed very little since they first appeared. Some archaebacterial species appear to be as old as life on Earth; they haven't evolved very far in almost four billion years. We know that bacteria were the only inhabitants of the earth until about 1.7 billion years ago. Apparently, no major evolutionary developments happened among the bacteria for the first two billion years of life-more than half of the time life has existed on Earth. By contrast, the entire Cambrian Explosion of about 570 million years ago took only five to nine million years (11). All kinds of multicelled creatures, in astonishing variety, seemed to come at once out of nowhere (12). On the cover of Time we read this synopsis of the Cambrian Explosion: "New discoveries show that life as we know it began in an amazing biological frenzy that changed the planet almost overnight" (13). Similar discontinuities can be seen on a finer scale in the individual histories of species. In fact, the sudden appearance of new kinds of creatures, without evidence of intermediate kinds, is more the rule than the exception. Examples of intermediate kinds, such as the dog-sized Mesohippus that preceded the horse are actually quite rare. Stephen Jay Gould calls this discrepancy between the theory (gradualism) and the evidence (big steps) the paleontologists' "trade secret." Today there is still considerable discord over punctuated equilibrium. How real is stasis (the period without appreciable change), how gradual is punctuation, and how can neo-Darwinists account for them? One proposal is "species sorting" or "species selection." In general, the new idea is that big evolutionary steps occur gradually in small, isolated populations. When the evolutionary steps are complete, the small population with its new advantage quickly expands and replaces the bigger population. Thus, in the geological record the change looks instantaneous. This solution has some appeal, but it offers little more by way of explanation than that gradual evolution always takes place somewhere out of sight. In 1931, J.B.S. Haldane foresaw this problem. "The paleontologist can always postulate a slow evolution in some area hitherto unexplored geologically, followed by migration into known areas" (14). Perhaps punctuated equilibrium is a clue that the genetic mechanism underlying evolution is altogether different from the one currently in favor. by Ivan Noble, BBC News Online, 19 July 2001. Carol Kaesuk Yoon, "Fossil Findings May Force Revisions in the History of Life" [ The New York Times, 22 May 2001. "The real peak of life's diversity may have come and gone more than 400 million years ago." 1999, November 3: Fossils of primitive fish have been found in the Lower Cambrian. Coordinating Genes We violate probability, by our nature. - Lewis Thomas Richard Dawkins writes that the eye could evolve easily, by chance, in tiny steps. In an article entitled "The Eye in a Twinkling," he discusses how improvements of only one percent each could lead, in only some 400,000 generations, to the eye of a fish (15). He says eyes could have evolved many times, as they must have, because there are about 40 different kinds of eyes. If eyes have evolved as Dawkins describes, by chance, then the genetic program to coordinate all the embryological steps in the growth of an eye (of each type) would evolve only after the genes for the steps themselves had evolved. Yet recently, scientists learned that the same gene coordinating the embryological steps in eye-making works in wasps and mice! The coordinating gene must have come first. "The observation that mammals and insects, which have evolved separately for more than 500 million years, share the same master control gene for eye morphogenesis indicates that the genetic control mechanisms for development are much more universal than anticipated" (16). In March, 1997, a group of scientists at the National Eye Institute in Bethesda, Maryland and the University of Basil in Switzerland reported that a gene controlling eye development is shared by fruitflies, mice, and squid (17). These startling developments have made theorists reconsider how eyes evolved (18). A coordinating gene that works the same way in very different animals is not confined to the eye. Homeotic genes in the Drosophila (the fruitfly often used to study genetics) are known to control the expression of at least twenty of the fly's genes. Homeotic genes can be identified by the presence in them of a sequence 180 nucleotides long called a homeobox. "The big surprise concerning homeoboxes came in 1984 with the discovery of a homeobox, very similar to the Drosophila ones in a vertebrate, the toad Xenopus laevis. Soon afterwards the first mammalian homeoboxes were located..." (19). Coordinating genes appear to be standardized across a broad range of multicelled animals. And in March, 1997, biologists from the John Innes Centre for Plant Science Research in Norwich, England and Caltech found impressive similarities between homeotic genes in the fruitfly and a flowering plant (20). It is difficult for neo-Darwinism to explain the appearance of embryological coordinating genes before the appearance of the embryological steps they coordinate. It's like saying that the blueprints for automobile manufacturing plants were on hand before the invention of automobiles. "The mechanisms used to control nerve cell formation in the zebrafish and fruitfly eyes thus appear to be exact copies of each other." Max-Planck Institute for Developmental Biology, 22 September 2000. Convergent Evolution "Convergent evolution" has been observed since the time of Darwin. It is the name given to apparent coincidences in evolution, such as the physical similarity between sharks (fish) and dolphins (mammals), or the parallelism in the cochlea of birds and mammals. A striking example is the resemblance between the Tasmanian wolf, which is an Australian marsupial "dog," and mammalian dogs common on other continents. Although the two would be very far apart on a phylogenetic tree, it takes a skilled zoologist to distinguish them by anatomical features like the skeleton. And examples of convergence also appear at the molecular level, as in similar antibody proteins carried by camels and nurse sharks. As The New York Times observes, "The more scientists look, the more examples of convergence they find" (21). Neo-Darwinism accounts for the phenomenon by supposing that evolutionary options are often severely restricted by circumstances. "Convergences keep happening because organisms keep wanting to do similar things, and there are only so many ways of doing them," says molecular biologist Rudolf A. Raff of Indiana University (22). So the phenomenon has been named "the principle of convergence" or "convergent evolution." But naming the problem doesn't mean it has been explained. The renowned Harvard biologist Stephen Jay Gould believes that slight differences in the course of evolution should lead to totally different outcomes. If so, convergence is baffling. A discerning witness is justified in wondering if neo-Darwinism adequately explains convergence, or if another theory might account for it better. "The teeth that might have allowed mammals to develop ...into today’s relative giants arose twice on different continents." Juliette Shackleton, Nature Science Update, 4 January 2001. Does Microevolution Explain Macroevolution? Microevolution - A change in the gene pool of a population over a sucession of generations. Macroevolution - Evolutionary change on a grand scale, encompassing the origin of novel designs, evolutionary trends, adaptive radiation, and mass extinction. - Neil A. Campbell (23) Ernst Mayr's 1988 classic Toward a New Philosophy of Biology asks the question, "Does Microevolution Explain Macroevolution?" (24). The issue came into sharper focus after Niles Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould introduced the concept of "punctuated equilibrium" into the discussion of evolution. Microevolution would occur during stasis, and macroevolution at the punctuation points. This scenario is inconsistent with neo-Darwinian gradualism, according to which macroevolution is simply cumulative microevolution over long periods of time. The question challenges standard neo-Darwinism at its heart. In our opinion, neo-Darwinism adequately accounts for microevolution. Changes in existing allele frequencies are already known to cause microevolution such as the darkening of the English moth's wings. A single nucleotide substitution can alter a virus's protein coat into one that the host's immune system doesn't recognize. The insertion or deletion of a single nucleotide causes a nonsense mutation that would disable, for example, a promoter or repressor sequence, thereby switching other whole genetic programs off or on. Macroevolutionary progress such as the evolution of photosynthesis, on the other hand, requires wholly new genes with lengthy new instruction sequences. Whereas a new gene can be activated by a single point mutation, as above, there is scant evidence that new genes can be composed by Darwinian random point mutations and recombination events. Examples supporting this composition method are very few and weak. Notice the term "progress" in the preceding paragraph. Any significant advance in evolution requires new genes. But loss of function, of course, can occur without new genes. So, clearly microevolution could explain macroevolution as long as there's no progress. The real question is, "Does microevolutionary progress explain macroevolutionary progress?" An excellent example of microevolutionary progress was discovered in 1999, by geneticists and ophthalmologists at University College London. From sequences of opsin genes they have deduced a plausible way for trichromatic vision in the howler monkey to have evolved from dichromatic vision by neo-Darwinian gene duplication and random mutation. Their analysis of the control regions of the genes, which are upstream of the coding regions, confirms the duplication. Interestingly, of the approximately 80 nucleotides from the coding region of the two genes that were compared, only one nucleotide was not identical. This plausible mutation causes a single amino acid substitution in the second howler opsin that changes its color sensitivity. The changed gene makes 3-color vision possible (25). In a recently discovered closely related example only two amino acid substitutions account for the blue-shifted vision of coelacanths (26). The howler monkeys' acquisition of trichromatic vision represents evolutionary progress, unquestionably. But the same neo-Darwinian microevolutionary mechanism has not been shown to be capable of manufacturing the wholly new genes necessary for macroevolutionary progress. We believe that another source for these new genes is necessary. Summary Evolution has... come to do for biology what vitalism did for it previously - Robert Rosen (27) Artificial selection never produces wholly new characteristics. There is no evidence that natural selection without the input of new genes does either. The notion that mutation and recombination can compose new genes is implausible. There is scant evidence that mutation and recombination can compose functional new genes that differ from any known predecessor by more than, say, a dozen essential nucleotides. The evolution of antifreeze glycoproteins in Antarctic cod presents problems for both programs. Evolution does not appear to be gradual, contrary to Darwin's firm prediction. The standard theory cannot explain why the coordinating genes that control the development of embryos and major features are often very similar across totally different species. Convergent evolution is a surprise not well-explained by neo-Darwinism. Macroevolutionary progress is not accounted for by neo-Darwinian microevolution.
Sure, why not? This is a direct quote from the State of Science Newsletter: Glow-in-the-dark plants... Researchers at Leeds University have created a plant that glows whenever it is stressed or damaged. They took DNA from a sample of thale cress (Arabidopsis thaliana, which is a small, white-flowering weed often used in genetics experiments) and bonded it with DNA from a firefly (a.k.a. glow-worm). Then they mixed the result with a bacterium that habitually invades thale cress. Next, the scientists dipped some thale cress plants in the mixture. The cress eventually flowered and grew seeds. Those seeds grew to become plants that, when subjected to stressors such as excess heat or injury, emitted a faint glow. The point of it all? The researchers hope this will help farmers produce more stress-resistant food crops. *** ...And luminous pigs When it comes to producing unnaturally glowing organisms, scientists aren't content to stop at plants. American researchers at Missouri University have produced piglets with yellow snouts and hooves, which glow in ultraviolet light. Again, the question of why rears its ugly head. Research leader Professor Randy Prather explains: "It shows it's possible to change the genetic makeup of cells to prevent the body's rejection of transplanted organs." The scientists achieved the effect by introducing fluorescent jellyfish genes into lab-grown pig cells. They then extracted nuclei from the cells and inserted them into five pig eggs from which the natural DNA had been removed. They artificially impregnated a surrogate pig-mother with the fertilized eggs. Of the resulting litter of piglets, four had the colorful snouts and hooves, while the fifth was normal.
Devildog Thank you for submitting your last post Devildog. It contained information that I found interesting and expanded my knowledge of the world in relation to genetic science. I believe, however, the document from which the above quote was taken was trying to impart the idea that one could not successfully select for glowing hooves by breeding. And that glowing hooves would not be within the likely parameters of what would occur within the framework of natural selection. It, in my opinion, was not trying to confer the idea that direct and conscious manipulation of a pigs DNA could not produce results that are in conflict of what could occur naturally. One of the main reasons I submitted the document concerning this issue was to allow tony1 to see that the framework of science is based upon the attempt to create working models of reality based on the knowledge harvested by observation and critical thought. And also to demonstrate that the flexibility of ones understanding of what may be true is consistant with the ability to see how permeable our beliefs are when submersed in the unyielding pressures of insight. I think that it is important that, when one argues for the holiness of the temple of science, that one demonstrates it is not as inflexible and dogmatic as the religions it attempts to shed the light of truth upon. The ability to form new conceptions of the universe based on the diligent efforts to scrutinize ones own beliefs in the face of knowledge is what we are here to promote. That means that mabye we should sheath the sword of evolution, as it should not represent the same desperate denial of new information based on observation as the enemy from which blood is to be drawn. Is evolution the only theory which could account for life on earth? No. That does not mean that the creationist have won. It simply demonstrates the ability to rise above the assumption that all arguments against it are not automatically invalid without consideration of the facts. To do so would greatly reduce the differences between the advocators of sound science and fervent rhetoric of blind religious faith.
machaon That's cool. I posted the story of the pigs because you had asked "If you wanted to develop a race of angels, would it be possible to select for a pair of wings?" my point was that it may be possible in the future. No harm, no foul. You can sign-up for the newsletter if you like here.. http://inter.buongiorno.com/index.html
*Originally posted by Bambi Probably on an overpass, with a camcorder. * How would you get there? *Originally posted by tiassa One thing our Christian posters don't seem to understand is that when the infidel world views Christianity, the sort of mocking idiocy rushing through your posts is about par for the course.* One thing the infidel posters don't realize is that their stuff is completely upside-down and reversed. Thus when you say "idiocy," it is translated from infidelese to real-world-ese as "intelligent." Etc. *The failure of the bright potential of Christian faith to manifest itself in the faithful is perhaps the most persuasive argument against ever coming to know the God of the Bible.* Reading a single post from an infidel is usually sufficient to keep a Christian from straying from the path of righteousness. The inability to focus, the general fallaciousness of the arguments, the demonic rants are the most persuasive arguments that Satan isn't worth worshipping. *Originally posted by machaon But animal breeders and plant breeders have always known that artificial selection has limits.* The infidels!!!! They are such infidels to infidel belief. *The number of possible different genes that could be created by only a handful of steps from the list above is enormous. For example, consider a gene of 2,500 nucleotides, allowing a 75% error rate (625 essential nucleotides.) The number of possible different genes that could be created by deleting a single essential nucleotide and inserting it elsewhere in the same gene, five successive times, is 10^28. When sequences for insertion into the target gene can be any length, and can come from any of thousands of other genes, the possibilities quickly approach the theoretical maximum - in this example 4^625 or about 10^370. So the proposed mechanism does not increase the probability of arriving at a wholly new gene by chance. It's still monkeys writing Shakespeare, only now they have word processors with "cut and paste" functions.* So, 5 billion years isn't enough, after all? *blue-shifted vision of coelacanths* These coelacanths are presumably the ones that are currently alive? *Originally posted by DEVILDOG Glow-in-the-dark plants... ...And luminous pigs * Combine that with the "criminal" genes proposed by some, and you'd have crooks announcing their own arrival. *Originally posted by machaon One of the main reasons I submitted the document concerning this issue was to allow tony1 to see that the framework of science is based upon the attempt to create working models of reality based on the knowledge harvested by observation and critical thought.* Hey, I understand that science is "based" on knowledge. I also understand that some fiction is "based" on the truth. My position is that scientists are data-collectors, not philosophers. The ability of scientists to reach valid, or even plausible, conclusions is suspect, given their track record. *when one argues for the holiness of the temple of science, that one demonstrates it is not as inflexible and dogmatic as the religions it attempts to shed the light of truth upon.* It is more dogmatic and inflexible, and it doesn't actually shine any light. It compiles lists of numbers. *That means that mabye we should sheath the sword of evolution, as it should not represent the same desperate denial of new information based on observation as the enemy from which blood is to be drawn.* Yeah, you may as well sheath the sword of evolution. Don't crumple that paper blade while you're trying, though. Don't count on drawing any blood from your enemy, either. It's covered by the blood of Christ, so it would work opposite to your intended fashion. *To do so would greatly reduce the differences between the advocators of sound science and fervent rhetoric of blind religious faith.* There is zero difference between those two already, being the same people for the most part. There is no more blindly religious person than the Scientist worshipping at the altar of Scientism.
