Evolution Vs. Christanity

[MEGACHIHUAHUA]

No insults allowed on this thread! Just one and you go on my ignore list.
Defending champion, God, against the challenger, Darwin. Give your arguments and let the sluggout begin!

[RandBlade]

Evolution and the present time is fairly indesputable. Only a small minority of religious extremists still don't believe in it.

There is plenty of scientific evidence to support evolution. Various fossils and genetic evidence etc, so much that I don't know where to start. Did you know the our DNA is over 99% the same as the DNA of our various ape cousins. In fact our DNA is 90% the same as that of chickens and they're a very distant relative (being of the bird chain).

Did you see in the news last week that the oldest fossilised skull ever had been found?

Have you got anything in particular which makes you doubt evolution?

[Phobas]

Originally posted by RandBlade
Evolution and the present time is fairly indesputable. Only a small minority of religious extremists still don't believe in it.

There is plenty of scientific evidence to support evolution. Various fossils and genetic evidence etc, so much that I don't know where to start. Did you know the our DNA is over 99% the same as the DNA of our various ape cousins. In fact our DNA is 90% the same as that of chickens and they're a very distant relative (being of the bird chain).

Did you see in the news last week that the oldest fossilised skull ever had been found?

Have you got anything in particular which makes you doubt evolution?

Something I've wondered about that 99% business is it 99% of total dna or of "useful" genes as a vast amount of our genome is just repeating base pairs and do not encode proteins.

[RandBlade]

I believe its total genes.

[MEGACHIHUAHUA]

Apes and people have only 94% the same genes. And we're talking billions.
You Have no reason to doubt Christanity, either.
1)Lfe must come from life. It cannot come from nothing.
2)Mutations either do nothing or they are lethal. No such thing as a good mutation. Cancer is a mutation.
3)Natuaral selection works to preserve a species, not change it.

:p Genisis 1:1, In the beginging, God created the Heavens and the earth.
God does not use evolution. A computer programer does not put the pieces for a computer in a box, shake it up, and hope to get it to work.

[Azariel]

Originally posted by MEGACHIHUAHUA
1)Lfe must come from life. It cannot come from nothing.
2)Mutations either do nothing or they are lethal. No such thing as a good mutation. Cancer is a mutation.
3)Natuaral selection works to preserve a species, not change it.

1) It doesn't necessarily have to come from "nothing" if there isn't a kind of creator. If the right chemicals are mixed under appropriate circumstances, something like "life" can be created. In fact, everything that is self-replicant can be considered life, as it will do so, and in the process mutate and evolve.
2) Simply: wrong. This might be you opinion, but is not based on facts. If the organism is very specialized mutations will mostly do more harm than good. But a) not every mutation is instantly fatal and b) if the mutating organism is not specialized, the mutation may be benificial.
3) Not based on fact too. Natural selection will adapt a spezies to it's environment. If this changes a spezies or preserves it is solely dependent on this environment. Also a definition of "change" is needed. Natural selection will always change the spezies, but not necessarily more than perfectly adapting it to it's environment.

[Crazy_Ivan80]

people, the threadstarter posted this thread as flamebait. He has no interest in your views on evolution whatsoever (mainly because he couldn't comprehend even if his life depended on it), as proven by his second post here.

Ignore him.

[homercles]

Originally posted by Crazy_Ivan80
Ignore him.

:up:

To RB: Not heeding your own advice? Didnt you start that "Dont Feed The Troll" thread? :D

[Azariel]

You both are right, of course.
But i'm bored and just can't see cute pets starve. :D Ok, i know it's unfair, trolls are allergic to reason and logic, but i'm really bored and can't resist. :D

[MEGACHIHUAHUA]

Ivan is on the ignore list! stop harrasing me, you anti-semnistic person!
1) a while ago, some scientists simulated what they believed the conditions were of the early earth. They mixed chemicals and created a protein.
Problem 1: they did not create life, they created an ingredient for life. It's like having a bolt and saying you have a car.
Problem 2: They didn't follow the rules. The guided the process carefully, so the protein was not evolved by the scientists, it was created.
2)No, you can't say I'm wrong and give no support. What would you consider a good mutation?
3)Natural selection works like this.(This is from an evolution book)

Dark moths_________________(000)___Light moths
The thickness pf the line line shows how many moths of that color there are. There are white trees that the moths hide on. The black moths are seen and eaten, so they don't live to reproduce.

But now the industrial revolution has occured. Soot has darkened the color of the trees.Now the white moths are eaten. There is now more food and fewer predotors for them, so more dmoths live to reproduce.
D(000)___________L
If the trees get so dark that the moth camo is useless, then the species just dies out.

[diashi]

Evolution is a very real thing. I have evolved from my father. Case in point for mutations, BTW, I am a double mutant. I have Green eyes, and I have no wisdom teeth. Both are DOCUMENTED genetic mutations.

Loss of wisdom teeth is also a evolutionary step. They were needed when the human species had to replace lost teeth. we no longer have to replace lost teeth as often, and when we do we use fake teeth, so we're evolving past wisdom teeth.

I do not believe Humans evolved from Monkeys. I believe that we share a common ancestory. Monkeys/apes/etc simply are the offshoots of that species that did not inherit the mutation that caused the homosapien brain. One offshoot of that species mutates to have a large prehensile tail and to remain small. therefore Monkeys were made. One offshot mutated(adapted) to living in the trees and needed to be larger to survive, they became the apes. One offshoot developed opposing thumbs and a large brain, and developed into us. There were probably failed offshoots which are nothing more than bones now, we don't know.

All that being said. One has to believe that SOMETHING started it all. Whether it as all just a major coincidence that the first amino acids formed, or wether something started the whole thing is another story.

[Lily]

Nice trollish thread :)

Bit too easy though.

[MEGACHIHUAHUA]

Originally posted by Azariel
You both are right, of course.
But i'm bored and just can't see cute pets starve. :D Ok, i know it's unfair, trolls are allergic to reason and logic, but i'm really bored and can't resist. :D
Christians will have the last laugh. So far you have given an intellegent argument, so you have one more chance.
In the bible it was prophecied that Israel would be restored as a nation. In 1948, it happened . Probably just an amazing coinincidence, christians being allergic to logic.
What is more logical, Going fom New york to San Francisco by putting a brick on the pedal or having a driver?

[MEGACHIHUAHUA]

Originally posted by diashi
Evolution is a very real thing. I have evolved from my father. Case in point for mutations, BTW, I am a double mutant. I have Green eyes, and I have no wisdom teeth. Both are DOCUMENTED genetic mutations.

Loss of wisdom teeth is also a evolutionary step. They were needed when the human species had to replace lost teeth. we no longer have to replace lost teeth as often, and when we do we use fake teeth, so we're evolving past wisdom teeth.

I do not believe Humans evolved from Monkeys. I believe that we share a common ancestory. Monkeys/apes/etc simply are the offshoots of that species that did not inherit the mutation that caused the homosapien brain. One offshoot of that species mutates to have a large prehensile tail and to remain small. therefore Monkeys were made. One offshot mutated(adapted) to living in the trees and needed to be larger to survive, they became the apes. One offshoot developed opposing thumbs and a large brain, and developed into us. There were probably failed offshoots which are nothing more than bones now, we don't know.

All that being said. One has to believe that SOMETHING started it all. Whether it as all just a major coincidence that the first amino acids formed, or wether something started the whole thing is another story.
:o A mution is rare. A mutation only changes one gene. The mutation must be in the reproductive organs to be passed on.

[Tepic]

Originally posted by MEGACHIHUAHUA
Christians will have the last laugh. So far you have given an intellegent argument, so you have one more chance.
In the bible it was prophecied that Israel would be restored as a nation. In 1948, it happened . Probably just an amazing coinincidence, christians being allergic to logic.
What is more logical, Going fom New york to San Francisco by putting a brick on the pedal or having a driver?

Going severely off-topic in your own post. Trolling warning.

[Soralin]

Originally posted by MEGACHIHUAHUA
1)Lfe must come from life. It cannot come from nothing.

Well for one thing, that's seperate from evolution, evolution deals with the changes between organisms and species, not the beginning of life. One of the ideas of this is the RNA World (http://www.americanscientist.org/template/AssetDetail/assetid/21438?fulltext=true), given that certain sequences of RNA can basically be self-splicing, and through reciprical base pairing, could basically replicate themselves.

2)Mutations either do nothing or they are lethal. No such thing as a good mutation. Cancer is a mutation.

Cancer is actually a result of a number of mutations in a few different areas. :) But anyway.. Mutations may largely be harmful or neutral, since it's a random change after all, but sometimes such changes can be beneficial as well. here (http://matisse.ucsd.edu/itp-bioinfo/lenski.pdf)'s a nice experiment, studying evolution in 10,000 generations of e-coli, including beneficial mutations to their growth in the medium in which they were grown.

3)Natuaral selection works to preserve a species, not change it.

How so? It makes it so that mutations that are less likely to survive or reproduce in that condition are less likely to survive or reproduce in that situation, and thus less likely to pass those genes on. Beneficial mutations, ones that would make it more likely to survive and reproduce in that situation would make it so the organism was more likely to survive and reproduce, and thus more likely to pass it's genes on.

A computer programer does not put the pieces for a computer in a box, shake it up, and hope to get it to work.

Actually, many are starting to do just that. :) Evolutionary programming is becoming more commonplace, because it can be very efficient at designing solutions to problems, actually coming into the area of design, and coming up with things that humans havn't thought of before. There's a great article on it here (http://208.245.156.153/archive/output.cfm?ID=1455). :) You should read it, it's very interesting, basically using evolutionary programming in order to distinguish between two frequencies. Not only that, but doing it using certain phenomina that people hadn't even thought of using for that, which took them a while to figure out how it even worked, and so doing it using 1/10th to 1/100th the number of logic elements that a human would have required. :)

[MEGACHIHUAHUA]

Originally posted by Soralin
Well for one thing, that's seperate from evolution, evolution deals with the changes between organisms and species, not the beginning of life. One of the ideas of this is the RNA World (http://www.americanscientist.org/template/AssetDetail/assetid/21438?fulltext=true), given that certain sequences of RNA can basically be self-splicing, and through reciprical base pairing, could basically replicate themselves.



Cancer is actually a result of a number of mutations in a few different areas. :) But anyway.. Mutations may largely be harmful or neutral, since it's a random change after all, but sometimes such changes can be beneficial as well. here (http://matisse.ucsd.edu/itp-bioinfo/lenski.pdf)'s a nice experiment, studying evolution in 10,000 generations of e-coli, including beneficial mutations to their growth in the medium in which they were grown.



How so? It makes it so that mutations that are less likely to survive or reproduce in that condition are less likely to survive or reproduce in that situation, and thus less likely to pass those genes on. Beneficial mutations, ones that would make it more likely to survive and reproduce in that situation would make it so the organism was more likely to survive and reproduce, and thus more likely to pass it's genes on.



Actually, many are starting to do just that. :) Evolutionary programming is becoming more commonplace, because it can be very efficient at designing solutions to problems, actually coming into the area of design, and coming up with things that humans havn't thought of before. There's a great article on it here (http://208.245.156.153/archive/output.cfm?ID=1455). :) You should read it, it's very interesting, basically using evolutionary programming in order to distinguish between two frequencies. Not only that, but doing it using certain phenomina that people hadn't even thought of using for that, which took them a while to figure out how it even worked, and so doing it using 1/10th to 1/100th the number of logic elements that a human would have required. :)
They changed, but they are still e-coli.

[MEGACHIHUAHUA]

Originally posted by Tepic
Going severely off-topic in your own post. Trolling warning.
And trolling is what?

[Obispo]

Originally posted by MEGACHIHUAHUA
And trolling is what?


To utter a posting on Usenet designed to attract predictable
responses or flames; or, the post itself. Derives from the phrase
"trolling for newbies" which in turn comes from mainstream
"trolling", a style of fishing in which one trails bait through a
likely spot hoping for a bite. The well-constructed troll is a post
that induces lots of newbies and flamers to make themselves look
even more clueless than they already do, while subtly conveying to
the more savvy and experienced that it is in fact a deliberate
troll. If you don't fall for the joke, you get to be in on it. See
also YHBT. 2. An individual who chronically trolls in sense 1;
regularly posts specious arguments, flames or personal attacks to a
newsgroup, discussion list, or in email for no other purpose than to
annoy someone or disrupt a discussion. Trolls are recognizable by
the fact that the have no real interest in learning about the topic
at hand - they simply want to utter flame bait. Like the ugly
creatures they are named after, they exhibit no redeeming
characteristics, and as such, they are recognized as a lower form of
life on the net, as in, "Oh, ignore him, he's just a troll." 3.
[Berkeley] Computer lab monitor. A popular campus job for CS
students. Duties include helping newbies and ensuring that lab
policies are followed. Probably so-called because it involves
lurking in dark cavelike corners.
.

[Varky]

Wormboy needs some more copy/paste action here.

[-)AO(-Necron99]

How can God be winning, have you proven that God made the heavens and the Earth?

Believe what you like, I'll be more concerned about how the story ENDS rather than how began.

[Ziggy Stardust]

Originally posted by MEGACHIHUAHUA
No insults allowed on this thread! Just one and you go on my ignore list.
Defending champion, God, against the challenger, Darwin. Give your arguments and let the sluggout begin!

Darwin at least concieded the evolution theory was just that, a theory. At least he tried to bring arguments to the discusion.

I have yet to see one single argument in favour of this God-person other then: It was written in the bible, or who else created the big bang.

I would look more kindly upon these threads if it was posed as:
Evolution theory VS christianity THEORY.

This is no proof: "Genisis 1:1, In the beginging, God created the Heavens and the earth"

Neither is this: "Ziggy 1:1, In the beginning, God did not create a thing because he was a figment of peoples imagination"

[mik cauthin]

Originally posted by -)AO(-Necron99
How can God be winning, have you proven that God made the heavens and the Earth?


And have you proved that he didn't???

I'm not going to get all religious here by quoting the Bible and such (Hell, I don't even know many passages off by heart), but why can't science and religion coexist?? People are always arguing whether one or the other is true. Well, why not both?

I can't prove that God created the world, and anyone out there who attempts to is just going down the wrong path. BUT, I believe that the world works so well, on relatively simple rules (and I know this, I'm studying physics in uni) that to me anyways it does look like someone created it.

[Wormboy]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by MEGACHIHUAHUA
Apes and people have only 94% the same genes. And we're talking billions.

Humans have approximately 40000 genes. A great ape genome has not been sequenced yet, so we don't know for sure, but the complexity analyses available suggest that it is close to the same complexity.

The percentage similar varies a lot, depending on whether you are looking at non-coding DNA sequence, coding DNA sequence, or amino acid sequence. Comparing between groups is an apples and oranges proposition. [Another popular one is mitochondrial DNA, which is kind of in it's own category]

Furthermore, the raw percentage expressed is supposed to impress the reader with something (either way, high or low), but in fact to a layperson the percentage is meaningless. It's about as meaningful as somebody saying "my cholesterol is 180." If you don't understand the units and where that places you in the normal range, then the number 180 is meaningless.

The relevant comparison is actually comparisons of multiple data points (i.e multiple genes) between multiple species, thus showing that the relative relatedness at the DNA level reflects the relatedness inferred from anatomical studies. Note this is the great power of the ToE: it's predictive ability. The ToE had been around for 130 years before much DNA evidence was in, but the DNA evidence corroborated the ToE perfectly in cases where the phylogeny was clearly demarkated based on structural criteria. The only place DNA evidence disagreed with structure was the places where there was much ambiguity in the phylogenetic prediction based on structural evidence in the first place (and such are bound to happen). In other words, the only place DNA failed to produce was where there was no prediction in the first place. In other words, DNA has not failed yet.

For what it's worth, the similarity between chimps and humans is 99.5 at the amino acid level (hemoglobin), around 96% at the coding DNA level (various genes), and 92% in non-coding DNA. Like I said, theese numbers are meaningless without their comparisons. Also, there are a lot more data in now, and I don't have the averages in my head (and I'm too lazy to find them). BUT, averages can also be meaningless, because different genes often change at different rates, due to different degrees of functional constraint on the amino acid sequence of the gene. Even different stretches of non-coding DNA change at different rates, depending on the volatility of the genomic region.

Another measure not related (and difficult to express in raw numbers) is that of degree of synteny. In other words, in realted species, the order of the genes along chromosomes is often the same. For the small amount checked for chimps, the synteny is pretty profound, though there are obvious differences. So this, too can be used as a measure. Experimentally, degree of synteny has backed the phylogeny inferred by first structure and second DNA sequence all the way down the line. Far less data of course, because it's much harder to examine a whole region of a chromosome than single genes, or even parts of genes.

[b]1)Lfe must come from life. It cannot come from nothing.

That's very nice, but evolution has NOTHING AT ALL to do with the origin of life. Evolution describes the process of radiation and change in forms. SO point #1 is completely irrelevant.

2)Mutations either do nothing or they are lethal. No such thing as a good mutation. Cancer is a mutation.

Common misconceptions, and dead wrong

1) Doing nothing is relative. True probably for non-coding DNA (except the small regulatory regions), but using an all or nothing measurement for a single gene is foolish. There are many ways a gene my be mutated to CHANGE the function of the gene (sometimes very subtly) rather than eliminate it. Example: Dopamine receptor mutation that reflect increased predisposition for addictive behavior. Function of gene changed, not eliminated.

2) Lethal: Not true (as I mentioned above). Besides, have you missed the point that mammals (humans included) are diploid? We have two copies of every gene (except sex chromos). Thus, very few mutations are lethal unless they are present in two copies, and thus most mutational events are completely undetectable in the first generation. Most human have 5-10 mutations that are lethal when homozygous floating around in their genomes.

3) Good mutations (that also happen to be bad: sickle cell anemia, cystic fibrosis, a slew of diabetes predisposing mutations.

4) Good or neutral mutations that are NOT bad in any fundamental way: skin pigment, eye pigment, hair colorheight, muscle composition (fast twitch vs slow twitch), various psysiognomy elements...

5) Only an estimated 40-50% of all genes can be mutated by COMPLETE LOSS OF GENE FUNCTION to give an obvious phenotype. That means that all of the rest are neutral, positive, or very subtle. We have examples of some of these.

Cancer is a collection of many mutations. In fact, cancer itself is natural selection in microcosm. You have a field of many cells, which accumulate mutations as they divide. Those rare individuals who accumulate mutations that a) allow them to divide faster and evade developmental controls, and b) destabilize the genome to raise the mutation rate, will radically outcompete their fellows in division, and come to represent a much larger proportion of the population. There are several rounds of this process, and the "winner" is a tumor, all which originated with a single cell (and that's the nub of cancer treatment--if you don't get EVERY CELL, it will probably come back.)

So what was your point about cancer? It is an inevitable element of multicellularity. There's actually a lot of evidence that many organisms have balanced their mutation rates with cancer through evolution. That is, higher muitation rates actually provide more genetic diversity, and thus individuals that have higgher mutation rates may be more likely to have the key survival trait when conditions change (environment, famine, etc). This of course is balanced by cancer, which is a side product of higher mutation rates. But through most of evolution humans (and other mammals) never live long enough to really run into serious cancer rates. Thus cancer, like many other traits, it fine-tuned for an organism where the life expectancy is 30 or 40, not 70. This is why there are so many diseases of old age.

3)Natuaral selection works to preserve a species, not change it.

Wha? :Rolleyes: This is totally false. Look at the peppered moths in England, or any other speciation event. Natural selection is a powerful motive force. So actually you are 180 degrees off. Natural selection does more to promote speciation than prevent it.

BTW, natural selection and it's strong ability to shift the composition of the gene pool has been determined empirically both in wild populations and controlled populations in the lab. It is FACT, not theory

:p Genisis 1:1, In the beginging, God created the Heavens and the earth.
God does not use evolution. A computer programer does not put the pieces for a computer in a box, shake it up, and hope to get it to work.

Like I said, discussion of creation is totally inappropriate in a discussion of evolution. Evolution is the process of change in life, not the origin of life. Notice that Darwin's main work was entitled "On the origin of Species", NOT "On the origin of Life"

[Uber_olafsun]

Originally posted by Wormboy
[QUOTE]Originally posted by MEGACHIHUAHUA
[B]


4) Good or neutral mutations that are NOT bad in any fundamental way: skin pigment, eye pigment, hair colorheight, muscle composition (fast twitch vs slow twitch), various psysiognomy elements...COMPLETE LOSS OF GENE FUNCTION to give an obvious


I personally like my opposable thumb. Cool mutation

[Wormboy]

Originally posted by Crazy_Ivan80
people, the threadstarter posted this thread as flamebait. He has no interest in your views on evolution whatsoever (mainly because he couldn't comprehend even if his life depended on it), as proven by his second post here.

Ignore him.

Yes, but it's good for me to show the evidence that his first three points are either completely irrelevant or have no basis in fact whatsoever. He is now discredited as either having no education and/or understanding of the subject matter, or (as you point out) a zealot troll. Now that people see that he just posts fallacies, they can feel comfortable ignoring him.

In his defence, he almost certainly got these "logical ( :rolleyes: ) points" from a FUndie Christian website. The sad part of it is that such non-logic or complete ignoring of great science is pretty much most of what you will find on such websites. In other words, they can't even work up a good debate on the topic.

I don't know how many of you know this, but there have been some movement in biology to rename some things around evolution. The fact is that there is more experimental data supporting the ToE than any other general concept in science. Thus, there has been discussion of renaming
1) Natural Selection as the Principle of Natural Selection (since it has been unequivocally proven over and over and over)
2) Various parts of Population Genetics as "Rules" or "Laws"
3) The Principle of Speciation

plus some others.

The point is that many laypeople think that the ToE is somhow controversial. It's not. It's one of the most well-established areas of ALL human science. it is also the foundation of ALL modern biological research.

What people confuse as controversy is the standard scientific wrangling over little detail of the ToE. This is called "splitting hairs." Don't get me wrong, it's very important. The best example is discussion of the pattern or macro-evolution--is it constant gradual change ("Gradualism") or rare bursts of change interspersed with relative equilibrium ("Punctuated Equilibrium)? The answer is probably some of both.

These are important points, but in no way does the debate undermine the confidence level in the ToE. But like most major scientific advances, the ToE doesn't close the door on the field of Evolution. There are lots of little questions and details that are entirely speculative. This is the nature of science. But laypeople with a strong agenda point to these debates as evidence that the ToE is in flux somehow. BS. It is standard haggling over the little details, and you can find it in EVERY field of science

[Azariel]

Originally posted by mik cauthin
And have you proved that he didn't???

I'm not going to get all religious here by quoting the Bible and such (Hell, I don't even know many passages off by heart), but why can't science and religion coexist?? People are always arguing whether one or the other is true. Well, why not both?

I can't prove that God created the world, and anyone out there who attempts to is just going down the wrong path. BUT, I believe that the world works so well, on relatively simple rules (and I know this, I'm studying physics in uni) that to me anyways it does look like someone created it.

Well, religion and science can coexist. But only to a certain degree. If the bible is taken literally, interpreting it as "God created everything singlehandedly" it won't work. If you're studying physics, you'll probably know the big bang theory got some huge holes in it, as well as our current understanding of astrophysics. So, the place for religion is where science fails. If god created the world by initiating a big bang, or if this was merely a concidence, is a matter of believe. As up to now there is nothing science can do to prove the thesis of this not being god. (As a physics student, it probably won't surprise you that many great physicians were -and are- quite religious. But not on a level of taking everything in a religious book literally).

But things that can be explained by scientific theories, and where those theories can be proven, there is no place for creation myths. Religion doesn't prove anything, even if christians think disproving a scientific theory does prove their point, this is not the case. If someone else is wrong this doesn't prove anything. Just that he is wrong, there is no connection to you being right. And in cases where science provides theories that can be proven, or are at least very likely, religion fails to deliver alternatives.



Originally posted by MEGACHIHUAHUA
Christians will have the last laugh. So far you have given an intellegent argument, so you have one more chance.
In the bible it was prophecied that Israel would be restored as a nation. In 1948, it happened . Probably just an amazing coinincidence, christians being allergic to logic.
What is more logical, Going fom New york to San Francisco by putting a brick on the pedal or having a driver?

One more chance? I take it you're no mod, thus in no position to hand out ultimatums or chances. Don't act like you are in a position superior to any other poster on this boards, you are not, and it is counterproductive for a discussion.

First: Your three points have been disproven by people who are obviously more into the matter then me (studying chemistry/law not biology) i ask you to prove the creation myth given in the bible. As i said above, proving Darwin wrong (what didn't happen) wouldn't prove you point, it just proves he's wrong. There are many others religious creation myth's around, any of those hinduistic, animistic or buddhistic one might be true if darwin's theories are wrong. I have yet to see an argument that is pro-bible not contra-darwin.
Second: Taking predicaments that are correct doesn't prove anything also. Take Nostradamus, many people agree his predicaments are true, or at least true in more cases than chance would dictate. Does that make him god? I say no, anyway, judging that a predicament that comes true must be made by god is not reasonable. Not even if a number of predicaments come true that exclude pure coincidence as a cause. (BTW coincidence can never be exluded absolutely. It may be unlikely, but it is always possible)
To approach the same matter the other way around, what about all the other predicaments made in the bible that did not come true? Well, i suppose you'd say not yet, but then we'll have to wait for them to happen before we can consider this a prove of gods influence.
Also, the case of israel isn't nearly as unlikely as it may seem. Any religion contains promises to it's followers, and in the case of jews it was just bound to be the recreation of israel. Or to use a metaphor: the promise of winning a million in the lottery (made by every commercial) is very unlikely to come true. But given the sheer number of people playing, someone will win. Basing your prove of the reliability of this predicament (read: promis to win) upon one case of many doesn't work. And basing your prove of the divinity of the one who made this predicament upon the wrong assumption of it's reliabilty just piles up several serious flaws in your argumentation.

I again ask you to prove your point, t.i. prove the creation myth presented in the bible, as your points disproving the modern science have been proven wrong several times. And please don't continue to try to disprove darwinism until you presented some points suporting creationism.

[mik cauthin]

Originally posted by Azariel
Well, religion and science can coexist. But only to a certain degree. If the bible is taken literally, interpreting it as "God created everything singlehandedly" it won't work. If you're studying physics, you'll probably know the big bang theory got some huge holes in it, as well as our current understanding of astrophysics. So, the place for religion is where science fails. If god created the qorld by initiating a big bang, or if this was merely a concidence is a matter of believe. As up to now there is nothing science can do to prove the thesis of this not being god. (As a physics student, it probably won't surprise you that many great physicians were -and are- quite religious. But not on a level of taking everything in a religious book literally).

Agreed with everything above there. I don't take some stories in the Bible literally precisely becasue we have scientific theory proving otherwise. My take on why the two differ is this. The Bible was originally written for people with less scientific background than us. The ancient people of Israel and Europe didn't know about several things that we know now. They still thought the Earth was the centre of the Solar System. I'm guessing they didn't know about photosynthesis (not being able to look microscopically into plants). So the Bible didn't describe things in detail. It would have confused the crap out of whoever was reading it at the time (Hell, if it described the Big Bang it would still confuse the crap outta anyone who read it now). So what was written were stories. Stories that gave the main message across. So for the Creation Story it tells precisely what God wanted to be given across. The He made the wrold, not how, but that he did.

But things that can be explained by scientifix theories, and where those theories can be proven, there is no place for creation myths. Religion doesn't prove anything, even if christians think disproving a scientific theory does prove their point, this is not the case. If someone else is wrong this doesn't prove anything. Just that he is wrong, there is no connection or to you being right. And in cases where science provides theories that can be proven, or are al least very likely, religion fails to deliver alternatives.


Agreed again. Disproving a scientific theory doesn't say that religion is right. In fact, there is no proof that shows that God exists or doesn't exist. Thats where discussion like this fall down. You cannot prove or disprove the existance of God by looking at anything. Its all based on faith which isn't scientific at all.

[-)AO(-Necron99]

Originally posted by mik cauthin
And have you proved that he didn't???


First of all, I dont believe God is a "he", thats problem #1.

And I didnt say I didnt believe it, I just said there is no proof either way as to who/what created the planets and life in the universe.

[Azariel]

Originally posted by mik cauthin
Agreed with everything above there. I don't take some stories in the Bible literally precisely becasue we have scientific theory proving otherwise. My take on why the two differ is this. The Bible was originally written for people with less scientific background than us. The ancient people of Israel and Europe didn't know about several things that we know now. They still thought the Earth was the centre of the Solar System. I'm guessing they didn't know about photosynthesis (not being able to look microscopically into plants). So the Bible didn't describe things in detail. It would have confused the crap out of whoever was reading it at the time (Hell, if it described the Big Bang it would still confuse the crap outta anyone who read it now). So what was written were stories. Stories that gave the main message across. So for the Creation Story it tells precisely what God wanted to be given across. The He made the wrold, not how, but that he did.

Something that confuses me most of the time is this claim that the bible was written by god. As far as i know the bible, there is no such claim in the book itself, excpt of the ten commandments.
As i see it, the bible was written by jews and christians, who documented things like the life of jesus or david. And becauso of that i don't see those parts of the bible that are directly opposed to modern science as thing written by god, but just myths created by some people whoe didn't yet understand the world as much as we do, thus were making something up.

[mik cauthin]

Originally posted by Azariel
Something that confuses me most of the time is this claim that the bible was written by god. As far as i know the bible, there is no such claim in the book itself, excpt of the ten commandments.
As i see it, the bible was written by jews and christians, who documented things like the life of jesus or david. And becauso of that i don't see those parts of the bible that are directly opposed to modern science as thing written by god, but just myths created by some people whoe didn't yet understand the world as much as we do, thus were making something up.

The basic assumption about the Bible is that it was written through men, but it still was the Word of God. I'm not really well researched on why the Church decided that certain books should be in there though so you may want to ask someone else about that. What i do know is that the Catholic Bible is different to the Protestant one in that they have an extra few books.

What was assumed though was that God was speaking through the apostles so any books written by them, ie the four gospels, were actually God speaking through the apostles.

[Azariel]

Yes, but all this are assumptions. Interpretations made by men, most of them while the christianity was still undivided, thus made by popes. While not all of them where corrupt, some of those medieval popes would let Saddam Hussein look like a philanthropist. So, what i say is: if you take the bible for the word of god, why isn't it mentioned in the bible itself? Taking the word of men for the word of god, if these men profit from that is not the most reliable thing. Just take the whole indulgence issue that led to the division of christianity. That was clearly not supported by anything in the bible.
To believe in god, to believe he created the world (say, by being the ultimate cause, not by playing with mud) to believe in his influence in men, all these are reasonable.
But to believe that the words of a document, ultimatly written by men, and translated at least two-four times into different languages (2 for the new testament in the catholic version, and four for the old testament in the protestantic version by Calvin or Martin Luther) and several thousand years old, is neglecting quite a bit of common sense, and the nature of men.

[mik cauthin]

Yes they're all assumptions because there is no way I can prove that God spoken through these people. As I said before its all got to do with faith.

As to why it isn't mentioned in the Bible that it is the Word of God, its because 1) the Bible wasn't actually put together until years after the apostles wrote the gospels, and 2) there was no real reason to put down anything like that.

If it was mentioned in the Bible would you still beleive it? I mean, it may just be another ploy to con a gullible public into beleiving right?

There is historical proof that apostles like John and Paul actually existed, and the deeds that they did. So if anyone would be speaking the Words of God wouldn't it be those two?

Ok, so something may have been lost in the translation, but if you look at the main message its pretty obvious what the Bible is saying. The main problem with alot of religions is that they get too caught up on all the details and forget the main message. thats why all this corruption has plagued the Church for the centuries. People lose sight of the main message.

As I said before though, I can't prove any of this. Whether you take it as truth or not is your choice.

[Uber_olafsun]

Originally posted by mik cauthin


Ok, so something may have been lost in the translation, but if you look at the main message its pretty obvious what the Bible is saying. The main problem with alot of religions is that they get too caught up on all the details and forget the main message. thats why all this corruption has plagued the Church for the centuries. People lose sight of the main message.


Every religion has the same problem with this. I am Pagan and thier are some Pagans who say that I am not right because I don't do the exact same as them. Most religions are based off the premise of be nice. If every one could just follow that we would be some much better.

[Wormboy]

Originally posted by mik cauthin
And have you proved that he didn't???

I'm not going to get all religious here by quoting the Bible and such (Hell, I don't even know many passages off by heart), but why can't science and religion coexist?? People are always arguing whether one or the other is true. Well, why not both?

I can't prove that God created the world, and anyone out there who attempts to is just going down the wrong path. BUT, I believe that the world works so well, on relatively simple rules (and I know this, I'm studying physics in uni) that to me anyways it does look like someone created it.


very wise, IMO. I agree that religion and science can co-exist peacefully. many physicists are religious (in the big bang sense, not the noah's ark sense)

However, I am less convinced that dogmatic Fundamentalism can co-exist with science, since the former relies on mytholgy and faith, while the latter relies on fact and investigation. For practical purposes, each denies the validity of the other.


sorry i put "concerned, which makes no sense, rather than "convinced," which is there now

[mik cauthin]

Originally posted by Uber_olafsun
Every religion has the same problem with this. I am Pagan and thier are some Pagans who say that I am not right because I don't do the exact same as them. Most religions are based off the premise of be nice. If every one could just follow that we would be some much better.

Yep. Its amazing the amount of violence that comes from religion, or in the name of religion, even though most religions do encourage unselfishness and love. I suppose its just inherent human nature. We just can't get along. :(

Originally posted by Wormboy
However, I am less concerned that dogmatic Fundamentalism can co-exist with science, since the former relies on mytholgy and faith, while the latter relies on fact and investigation. For practical purposes, each denies the validity of the other.

Why can't faith and investigation go hand in hand? As has been stated before religion gives explanations where science fails. That doesn't mean we shouldn't investigate those regions where science can't explain the facts though.

One story I find hilarious was once the Pope was talking to a number of great scientists, Stephen Hawking included, and he told them that researching and investigating was fine, but that they were not to study how the Universe was created since that was God's domain.

[{TDC}FR33K]

hehehe...

wormboy,

Now now, mah brotha. I guess I am a "fundi" that truely loves science. Not cuz I think it's fantastic, but because it is very factual (in data collection/observation) and has fascinating theories, many of which I agree with (or take on faith), specifically physics and many aspects of the ToE. Yet, I am a creationist through and through.

(course, to be honest, yer probably dead right concerning most of us "fundis" tho)

I think the flood issue is so overly blown up by the secular (and many members of the non-secular) scientific community as to be understandably 'rediculous'. But nowhere did Noah say "...and God took me into the heavens and I did see the entire earth buried in water..."

I'm fairly certain we're only talkin about him loading animals and the like from the local region/large island/small continent/whateva.

As far as we know his family coulda been the only surviving members of Atlantis (gettin goofy I kno, but you get my drift).

I still say scientists (if they use .0001 watts of brain power) could come up with legitimate scientific reasons behind an actual flood account depicted by a guy that lived before roadmaps, newspapers, tv, satelite photos, and the internet. You know usin the DAD method. ;)

And also figure out the aging difference too.

well, um, maybe not for the critters showin up tho...

I promise no more flood talk.


er... maybe :D




mik,

Good points! :up:

[Wormboy]

Like I said, I think religion and science work fine together, as long as the religion isn't the kind that (for all practical purposes) blocks the act of questioning and testing, and relies on myth, legend and pure faith. The two are innately opposed, IMO.

Also, any good scientist would recognize the possibility of there being a god of some sort. It's very unscientific to out of hand deny something because there's no empirical or observational evidence to support it. Many scientific things that ultimately turned out to be true at first had little or no evidence to support them.

So as long as you aren't a biblical literalist, you are probably fine. Most of the religious people I know are actually also scientists (since I am one). There is no intrinsic conflict, IMO.

[Uber_olafsun]

Originally posted by Wormboy
Like I said, I think religion and science work fine together, as long as the religion isn't the kind that (for all practical purposes) blocks the act of questioning and testing, and relies on myth, legend and pure faith. The two are innately opposed, IMO.

Also, any good scientist would recognize the possibility of there being a god of some sort. It's very unscientific to out of hand deny something because there's no empirical or observational evidence to support it. Many scientific things that ultimately turned out to be true at first had little or no evidence to support them.

IMO.

When you think about it most relgious people are scientists in the fact that they are trying to prove a theory that god exists. The only problem is when they have proof either way that can't tell us.

[mik cauthin]

Originally posted by {TDC}FR33K
mik,

Good points! :up:

Heh, thanks. I do try to make anything I say worthwhile :D

Originally posted by Uber_olafsun
When you think about it most relgious people are scientists in the fact that they are trying to prove a theory that god exists. The only problem is when they have proof either way that can't tell us.

The problem is that it's not actually possible to prove that God exists or doesn't exist. Anyone who says this is only fooling themselves.

[MEGACHIHUAHUA]

Since you obviously don't understand that evolution must be taken AS A HOLE and Christianity must be taken AS A HOLE, I ask you this: Can you prove that God doesn't exist?

By Wormboy:
Yes, but it's good for me to show the evidence that his first three points are either completely irrelevant or have no basis in fact whatsoever. He is now discredited as either having no education and/or understanding of the subject matter, or (as you point out) a zealot troll. Now that people see that he just posts fallacies, they can feel comfortable ignoring him.

When you start with the assumption that there is no god, then yes, evolution makes complete sense. Listen to this, and get some facts before you rudely laugh in my face: All prophecies in the bible, except those dealing with the end times, have come true. Don't laugh as you read this, just take an unbiased viewpoint for a minute.

I don't know where some of you are getting your facts! Evolution indisputible? Cuba is the only country in the world where the majority of people are atheists. In the entire world, there are only a few 10millions of atheists.

Second: The peppered moth didn't change. The black ones had been around the entire time, but in lower pops than the white one
Third: Evolution must tell how life was made, or the theory collaspes before it takes off.

Fourth: Evolution and religon can't coexist for this reason: Evo teaches that we are here through chance, with no purpose, while religon gives purpose. I'm surre that there are some cults that teach we are an act of chance, but I'm talking about the overwhelming majority, not some black sheep.

[MEGACHIHUAHUA]

I'm fairly certain we're only talkin about him loading animals and the like from the local region/large island/small continent/whateva.

____________________________________________________

So God promised that there would never again be a local flood?

[Azariel]

@mik cauthin
Well, if relegion and science agree to live on "live and let live" basis, it's fine. ;) Science can't disproe god, and religion can't prove god's work where science has rational explanations. The problem is just that some people feel the need to press other people to share their beliefs. So, the real issue is not if it's creationists or scientists, but why do some creationists want to disprove darwinism and why do some agnostics and atheists want to disprove god's existence. ;)
Imho it's a question if you're able to respect others opinion. I don't feel the need to change the beliefs of anyone but i don't want them to try to cinvince me of their beliefs.

@Megachihuahua
First you need to get your idea of evolution right. "Evolution" describes how life changes over time, how natural selection works. It has nothing to do with the beginning of life. Yes, evolution starts the second life begins, but only then, not before. The creation itself, may it be god or chance, is not the subject of evolution theory. Thus, the theory of evolution does not necessarily have to explain the creation of life.
Second majorities don't make facts. There were times when everybody in the world was absolutely sure the world was flat. Well, it didn't change in the meantime.
Even if your statement that there are only a few ten million atheists in the world was true. Cuba? Makes me laugh. Ever heared about the little country called china? There are a few atheists there. Maybe three quarters of a billion, maybe just half a billion, that's hard to estimate. They have a billion inhabitants, and were mostly atheists even before Mao Tse Tung took over the country.
Nonetheless, a theory is not disputable or indisputable if there are many ort few people whoe believe it, it is disputable if not supported by facts and indisputable if supported by facts.

Ok, to answer your question: Noone can prove that god doesn't exist. But you can't prove he does exist. If you can i'll ask you again to do so.
Meanwhile i'll give you an alternative to evolution and creationism. After the earth was created out of the chaos (by the older gods like Kronos and Iapetos) Prometheos, son of the old gods, created mankind. He took good and bad attributes from the souls of the animals and placed them in the heart of man. Athene, one of the younger gods gave mankind the gift of life.
You'll see that, if evolution is incorrect, this is of course the way earth was created after all, life doesn't come from nothing, nor does intelligent life. While the older gods could only create animals it took one of their descendants and the help of athene to create makind. Obviously this is the way all life was created, prove me wrong if you can.

[{TDC}FR33K]

Originally posted by MEGACHIHUAHUA
I'm fairly certain we're only talkin about him loading animals and the like from the local region/large island/small continent/whateva.

____________________________________________________

So God promised that there would never again be a local flood?

Try to read for context. Many creation scientists estimate that only 2 million-ish ppl were on the earth at the time of the flood (rough guesswork through the genealogies).

So, yes all of the ppl on the earth except for Noah were wiped out. SO, in essense you didn't need to cover the entire planet with 5 miles of water. Scientifically, a localized flood can be shown to have wiped out ALL of mankind (save Noah and his family) with very little effort. Wiping out 2,000,000 of the 2,000,018 ppl on earth is still equally devastating whether it occurred across the entire earth's surface or across just one continent.

God did not promise there wouldn't be local floods. He promised that he would not destroy man with such a flood. And so far, he hasn't.

When ppl write accounts in the Bible, we need to take into account things they considered the norm.

Such as saying "the four corners of the earth". That doesn't mean that men thought the earth was square and flat. Maps however, are in what shape?

To Noah, his description of the earth can be safely assumed to be his known world in much the same way that the disciples considered the Roman Empire to be synomonous with "the world".

Did God's flood wipe out every man, woman, and child except for Noah and his family? According to scripture? Yup.


Could God create a flood that covered the entire earth as we know it?
Sure, but he'd have to break a few of the natural laws to do so. Something He is rarely inclined to do.

[mik cauthin]

Originally posted by MEGACHIHUAHUA
When you start with the assumption that there is no god, then yes, evolution makes complete sense. Listen to this, and get some facts before you rudely laugh in my face: All prophecies in the bible, except those dealing with the end times, have come true. Don't laugh as you read this, just take an unbiased viewpoint for a minute.

Evolution and religon can't coexist for this reason: Evo teaches that we are here through chance, with no purpose, while religon gives purpose. I'm surre that there are some cults that teach we are an act of chance, but I'm talking about the overwhelming majority, not some black sheep.

I don't get your logic here. How does evolution being correct disprove God. As has been stated its impossible to disprove or prove God (and yet I keep arguing on this topic :rolleyes: )

Anyway, my view on the whole science vs religion debate is this. The two can coexist. My personal belief is that God created the Big Bang, and everything just went on its way from there. He knew what was going to happen if he put the conditions just right, and so here we are. If God knows everything and is all powerful, then wouldn't he be able to do this?

You can't just ignore science though. Science is based solely on fact, and so a theory like evolution is based on peoples observations and experiments. (Incidentaly, the Darwinian theory of evolution is now seen as wrong by alot of scientists anyway, but another form of the theory has crept into popularity).

So to wrap up, IMHO evolution doesn't mean that we are here by an act of chance. It just tells us the route that was taken for the human race to be here.

[bartwart]

Creationism is an insult to real science. These nuts keep pounding the table for equal representation in public schools, but guess what: you'd get your accreditation pulled so fast your head would swim. Furthermore, private christian/catholic schools don't teach it in their science classes because they know they would get their accreditation pulled in a heart beat.

Do yourself a favor and actually study science. Grab a beaker, turner on a Bunsen Burner, and take some notes. Science is about getting your hands dirty. It's a long, slow, arduous process. It contains a body of knowledge that changes over time. Creationism never changes - its revealed knowledge(or so they say). You can't just whimsically hope something is true and act all miffed when someone actually challenges it.

Besides, Creationism is a red herring. Its a vehicle for evangelicals to introduce gullible college students to the wonderful world of Christianity. All they really want to do is introduce you to Jesus Christ. They could care less that in doing so they are trampling all over the fine institution of science.

Keep science and religion far away from each other and everything will be OK.

[Wormboy]

Originally posted by MEGACHIHUAHUA
Since you obviously don't understand that evolution must be taken AS A HOLE and Christianity must be taken AS A HOLE, I ask you this: Can you prove that God doesn't exist?

First, I recommend that they be taken as WHOLES, not "holes" :D

When you start with the assumption that there is no god, then yes, evolution makes complete sense. Listen to this, and get some facts before you rudely laugh in my face: All prophecies in the bible, except those dealing with the end times, have come true. Don't laugh as you read this, just take an unbiased viewpoint for a minute.

I didn't claim that there wasn't a god. I also pointed out that god has nothing to do with evolution, unless you take a literalist view of the bible.

As for as biblical prophecies coming true--do tell. I'm certainly not going to tkae your word for it. A link to a site would be helpful. I don't expect it to be a rational site, since it's not rational subject matter.

but hey, many of Nostradamus prophecies have "come true" too, though if you look closely you see two things; 1) the original prophecy is sufficiently vague that it is bound to have it's terms sort of met at some point, and 2) there is some liberal interpretation on the point of whether the prophecy was met.

Haven't you ever heard a so-called "psychic" explain how they work? They work in vague generalities and fish around. it's all playing the odds. It's as old as the human race--there's always been somebody who (conciously or not) acts like a shaman or whatever.

I don't know where some of you are getting your facts! Evolution indisputible? Cuba is the only country in the world where the majority of people are atheists. In the entire world, there are only a few 10millions of atheists.

This point doessn't address evolution AT ALL. What it does is addresses the prevalence of religion. Since, as I said, evolution and religion are not mutaually exclusive unless the religion is the extremely dogmatic and literalist kind (which is definitely far less than a simple majority, in the US at least), your point is meaningless.

But, let's at least address it. The stats I've seen posted here and elsewhere claim atheism to be about 5% in the US. at 280 million people, that gives us 14 million in the US alone. Assuming the same frequency in the world at large (which may or may not be valid. Europe has more athesists, other places probably fewer) at a global population of 6.5 billion, that comes out to 325 million.

I take it you don't have a calculator, or don't know how to use it? I recommend them, they are very useful devices.

IMO, spirituality is a very human need. But allow me to make a point. Your pointing out that religion is so widespread as some sort of proof that you are right about creation actually seriously hurts your case. After all, the majority of people in the woirld are not Christians, and have a completely different view of how the universe was created. One of you must be wrong....

Second: The peppered moth didn't change. The black ones had been around the entire time, but in lower pops than the white one

Your terminology is quite, err, unconventional.

"Peppered moth" is the name of the species, not it's color (though obviously the name is derived from its color). The light variety is what we would call the "Wild type." The dark, malanistic variety is produced by a mutation in a single gene. Like many many traits in all organisms, it was present at a very low frequency in the original population, and would also occur spontaneously as mutations occasionally. The dark moths that showed up occasionally would be much less likely to survive, because their natual habitat is light tree bark, and the dark ones stick out so that birds see them easily. SNAP! Meal for bird.

During the industrial revolution in England there was so much soot in the air that the tree bark actually turned dark. Light coloring all of a sudden became a liability, and dark coloring beneficial. Very quickly the light moths became very rare, and dark moths very common. The allele frequency ("alleles" is the word we use to describe the two versions of the coloring gene, or any other gene) can be described mathematically, based on the degree of natural selection. What you are seeing here is a perfect example of micro-evolution, which I described (I think in this thread) as not being a theory anymore, but proven.

The process was reversed when cleaner industrialization came along and the trees became light again.

Please note that this is an excellent example of a mutation that is negative for the organism. But lo and behold, the conditions change, and the harmful mutation has all of a sudden become helpful. This is how evolutionary change occurs. Changes in the environment, plus normal forces acting on mutations that makes the organism's response to them slightly better, act on the raw material--lots of variation in the population, all lurking in the background just like the dark pigment mutation. They can lurk in the background because most multicellular organisms are diploid. Thus, having one mutant copy and one wild type copy is as good as having both wild type in most situations, and the grist for the mill of natural selection can just float around in the populations. Also, for most of these situations, all of that background variation in the gene pool is either neutral or deleterious. But when conditions change (like our example), then all of a sudden deleteriousa mutations become hugely advantageous.

Third: Evolution must tell how life was made, or the theory collaspes before it takes off.

How many people have to tell you that evolution says nothing about how life starts? Evolution works on life, not on the absence of life. How life arose is a COMPLETELY separate question from how life changed and diversified.

The lack of proof of how life started on earth doesn't do a single thing to disprove evo. All you need for evo to work is life. Well, we're here, aren't we? Life clearly started on earth, and we have fossil records to prove that it's been around at least 2 billion years (fossils of bacterial mats, like colonies).

While I think the question of how life arose (combination of chemicals, god, seeded by aliens) is interesting, it is compltely irrelevant to this conversation. I recommend starting another thread if you wwant to talk how life got here.

Fourth: Evolution and religon can't coexist for this reason: Evo teaches that we are here through chance, with no purpose, while religon gives purpose. I'm surre that there are some cults that teach we are an act of chance, but I'm talking about the overwhelming majority, not some black sheep.

An interesting point. But as many non-biblical literalists will point out, there's a fallacy here. You are right in saying that the creationist/literalist religion is not consistent with life by chance, not design. But even there we find a problem, since some people believe the "blind watchmaker" model of religion. This idea is that an omniscient god, with a thorough knowledge of the universe, could create everything and just let it go, and have everything foreordained because of his omnicience. That is, the universe clicks along predictable according to physical laws, just like a watch. Thus, when god created the universe, he knew we would have this conversation and exactly what we say, not because he is actively coordinating everything all along, but because he knew it would all end up this way because of his starting the ball rolling just so. Note this can also explain evolution, and everything.

But the majority of Christians now accept evolution, and think god created the world 5 billion years ago, or perhaps created the universe some billions of years more ago. By no means does this knowledge of science belittle or disprove their religion in any way. Also, there is plenty of room for Christ as a divine representative, and validity of his message. So really your argument is only relevant to the small minority of strict biblical literalists who can accept NO other version of history than the Universe being created de novo by god 6000 or so years ago.

BTW, the amount of scientific evidence that SHOWS FOR A FACT that this is not true is staggering. So I guess this is one "prophecy" in the bible that isn't true, huh? Actually, it's a little more fundamental than a prophecy. The foundation of the old testament, Genesis, has been shown by science to be a complete myth. Like I said, this doesn't exclude the "blind watchmaker", but it does mean that whatever happened had to happen over billions of years.

So by sticking to this mythology, you paint yourself as a marginal crackpot. I recommend getting with the 21st century (actually, getting with th 19th century LOL) and learning about science. It describes reality, and it's not a philosphy. Since you are surrounded by the fruits of scientific discovery (your computer, cell phone, medical care, car, etc, etc, ad infinitum) it behooves you to recognize that they EXIST. By your denial of science you would be denying their existence. How could we have made these marvelous machines with faulty physics, chemistry, biology, etc.? It's time to wake up and get a grip on reality.

[Wormboy]

Originally posted by mik cauthin
(Incidentaly, the Darwinian theory of evolution is now seen as wrong by alot of scientists anyway, but another form of the theory has crept into popularity). .

Not really. It's sort of like Newton/Einstein. Darwin's original theory did an excellent job of describing most of the phenomenon of evolution, but since many of the necessary tools weren't in place AT ALL yet (genetics, statistics, population genetics), his theory just wasn't complete--it couldn't be. The more modern version is called "Neo-Darwinism," and for the most part could be called "Darwin-Plus."

For example, Darwin's original theory could provide only a general mechanism for evolution, but lacked specifics for how the mechanism might work. Ironically, Mendel was discovering genetics during Darwin's lifetime, but Mendal was an obscure monk to whom nobody paid attention. It was only on the rediscovery of Mendel's work in 1900 that the actual business end of evolution became clear. Once the ToE had the concept of genes, the mechanism of evolution was clear and the last substantial criticism of the ToE was gone. The application of basic mathematics to genetics and evolution in the 1930s-50s became populations genetics, and pretty much finshed describing the evolutionary mechanism, except for the tiniest level. This last was nailed down by the discovery of DNA as the hereditary material, and the actual description of the chemical changes that comprise a mutation (plus the physical description of the vast array of mutation types). But pretty much the debate on the general ToE amongst scientists was mostly closed after the integration of genetics into the ToE, and absolutely over when population genetics was discovered.



An interesting historical note is that at the time of Darwin, the FACT of evolution was widely accepted amongst scientists (and had been for decades), based on observation of the natural world and on fossils. Some sort of organismal change over time was demanded by the physcial evidence. The problem was that nobody could come up with a plausible mechanism to describe how evolution could occur. That's why people like Lamarck were posing silly theories--they weren't really silly at the time, and most scientists KNEW that some sort of evolution occured. That Darwin described such a thorough mechanism for evolution in the absence of corroborating information (for the mechanism, not for the FACT of evolution) is truly astounding, and makes him one of the greatest minds in history. What astonishing analytical ability! It's just amazing to me that he did it without the knowledge of genes at all, but his reasoning is very clear. Genes just nailed it down.


Also, some aspects of micro-genetics were not described by Darwin, but they couldn't be, because they depended on population genetics as a descriptive tool of allele frequencies and gene pool compositions.

So really, the analogy of Newton/Einstein to Darwinism/Neo-Darwinism is an excellent one. Newton provided a surpisingly detailed mathematical description of the physical world, but he simply lacked the tools to predict relativity. Einstein's relativity doesn't invalidate Newton's physics at all, just makes it a more complete description of reality.

[ThorsHammer2]

Could what happens to a body when subjected to a stress like weightlifting be considered a form of evolution? Its an adaptation that the body makes in orer to deal with what is thrown at it, much like I imagine evolution is over a much longer time frame, as one species chages to another. I was watching Walking with caveman one night and they theorized that man evolved from being a quadraped to bipedal due to the georgraphical chages in Africa. Africa once was supposed to have been made of very dense forests where a climbing quadraped would be more suited to that environment. Once Africa began to get less dense it became more advantegous to be bipedal in order to run and walk greater distances to for safety and securing food and water.
Anyway is how a body adpats to stress as we can see it now, evidence of evolution. Can you tie together this and what can happen to a species little by little over many generations as it adpats to a changing environment.

[Wormboy]

Originally posted by {TDC}FR33K

Did God's flood wipe out every man, woman, and child except for Noah and his family? According to scripture? Yup.

Just wanted to point out that there's no way to account for the genetic diversity preesent in all species if they were established by pairs only 6000 thousand years ago. For example, how do you account for the diversity of human races? The same goes for all organisms.

Thus, for the Noah's ark myth to be true, it must have occurred millions of years ago.

Of course, one could invoke divine intervention. If a god could inundate the entire world in water, then over the next several generations he could radically change the makeup of all species to re-introduce all of the genetic variability that we see now.

[{TDC}FR33K]

Wormboy, I apologize for my ignorance (if shown :D)

But, it is my understanding the genes for the darker (larger spots) peppered moth are present in all peppered moths. You know the dominant/recessive gene thing.
The darker moths were around for as long as we've observed them, just in smaller numbers, cuz well, ez targets.
When the lighter guys became ez'er to see, the darker ones were left in larger numbers and bred more than their light-skinned brothaz.
However, when the Darker ones were once again easily "spotted" (hehe) by predators, the lighter ones got to survive and pass on their genes once again.

So this is natural selection, and yes I think it's been clearly proven.

However, "the mutating to survive changing events thing" has not been observed or duplicated.

For ex:

Continue to lower the water level in successive offspring of fish and it will have no effect on whether they mutate and develop air-breathing lungs (or legs, or ANYTHING) that would help them survive the ever "lowering water" threat.

Even after thousands of generations, you'll end up with nothing but dead fish.

[{TDC}FR33K]

Originally posted by ThorsHammer2
Could what happens to a body when subjected to a stress like weightlifting be considered a form of evolution?

No, that is simply the natural function of your muscular physiology.


Originally posted by Wormboy
For example, how do you account for the diversity of human races? The same goes for all organisms.

Well, a black couple can give birth to a white child (albino). That's pretty diverse.




Hmmm... sorry about dbl-postin, but it won't allow me to delete it.

[Wormboy]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by {TDC}FR33K
Wormboy, I apologize for my ignorance (if shown :D)

But, it is my understanding the genes for the darker (larger spots) peppered moth are present in all peppered moths. You know the dominant/recessive gene thing.
The darker moths were around for as long as we've observed them, just in smaller numbers, cuz well, ez targets.
When the lighter guys became ez'er to see, the darker ones were left in larger numbers and bred more than their light-skinned brothaz.
However, when the Darker ones were once again easily "spotted" (hehe) by predators, the lighter ones got to survive and pass on their genes once again.

So this is natural selection, and yes I think it's been clearly proven.

Correct except one small point: the mutation that causes the dark pigment is only present in a small number of moths in the population. It's a mutation in a single gene. Wild-type (i.e. "normal") is light colored, and the large majority of moths are homozygous WT (ie wildtype in both copies). Only occasional individuals are heterozygotes (one WT copy and one mutant, dark copy). Because of diploidy and dominant/recessive, the dark copy does show. Only in the rare individuals that got a dark copy from each parent do you actually see the dark coloring.

Enter dark bark. The population plummets and birds feast. Of the survivors, almost all are dark. But there are a few light ones floating around. When the situation reverse to light bark, the process reverse again and we are back tot he original state.

Thus the mutation for dark isn't there in most. The gene is, and could theoretically always be mutated again to give a dark mutant copy. So in one sense yes, the gene is there in all of them, but I'm not sure it's in the way you meant.

note: you could lose ALL dark copies in the population, and having no dark copies floating around anywhere. Eventually, a mutation would occur in that gene, and we would have some dark copies again. That's how mutation provides the raw material forr natural selection--just occasionally adding recessive mutations to the population.

However, "the mutating to survive changing events thing" has not been observed or duplicated.

Actually, there are many many many documented cases of de novo mutations cropping up spontaneously. DNA replication is a very precise process, but errors are made. Also, natural input (like radiation, carcinogens) also can cause spontaneous mutations.

But one thing you need to understand very clearly: mutations do not occur BECAUSE of changes in the environment. And I think that's what you are addressing. Mutations ARE NOT directed. They are random, and since they are generally recessive, we all carry a large collection of them (literally, we are all mutants).

So evolution has to act on what is there already.

For ex:

Continue to lower the water level in successive offspring of fish and it will have no effect on whether they mutate and develop air-breathing lungs (or legs, or ANYTHING) that would help them survive the ever "lowering water" threat.

Even after thousands of generations, you'll end up with nothing but dead fish.

This is a poor example I think, because you would be requiring the fish to spontaneously evolve a whole new organ (lungs) when there is nothing resembling them in place already. This will never happen, as I described in a previous thread. One of the fundemental principles of evo is that evo is contrained by WHAT IS ALREADY THERE.

What you are describing is Lammarckianism, which would require directed mutation. Lammarkianism (the famous giraffe example) was completely discredited in the late 1800s.

This is a good example in another way, because we actually have existing species of fish that fit all of the evolutionary intermediates. Let's say you have fish thatlive in water sources that dry up sometimes. A fish that could survive 30 seconds longer, just long enough to flip and flop to a nearby water source, would have a tremendous advantage. All you would need would be some membranes in passages ALREADY THERE that were able to absorb O2 directly from air, rather than dissolved in water (which is how most fish do it). Minor alteration, and you'd never even notice it. Well, there are fish like this. And, of course, you would conitnue to have advantages in fish that could last an addiitional 15 seconds, and maybe had those mebranes expanded a little bit. You can see where this goes--all the way to fish that actually have rudimentary lungs.

Well, when you look at fish species, you see different species that have all of these adaptations. All the way from slight specialization to primative lungs. Some of these guys are practically amphibians (many of which, BTW, have pretty poor lungs by mammalian standards, and are by no stretch real land dwellers). So we can see the intermediate steps that must have occured, because we actually have related species that have intermediate steps towards "lungs". But the key is that lungs didn't just spring out from nowhere. They were gradually added to. Because we know so much about genetics now, we can say that you could have a handful of mutations at a time to make each little change, but you couldn't have the hundreds (or even thousands) of mutations occuring altogether to make a lung just "appear". That would be a statistical impossibility.

So actually, the ToE demands that your pond experiment would work exactly how you predicted. The only exception in some seasonal ponds in Africa, where you might find as you lowered the water level to the danger point, one species of fish might be able to flop out and reach the nearby stream (and if only one fish out of ten makes it, it's still an evolutionary grand slam--look at how strong that selection is!)

For a better example, let's go back to the peppered moths. Let's say the industrial revolution occurs again and we can watch carefully this time. We have stated that there are always a few dark mutations in a population. Well, say that in one county there was a plague of some virus and 95% of the moths in that county died (a common enough occurance in the wild). So now the population is very small, and the odds of the dark mutation not being there are pretty high (it was never that common). Now if the trees change color, there's a very good chance that moths in that county will die out completely, especially if no dark mutations are present in the local gene pool. Of course, the neighboring county may not have had the plague, and so some dark moths might migrate in and establish a new population.

Another example: let's say the industrial revolution occurs on both sides of a mountain range. On one side, the predation by birds was so great that ALL of the white moths are gone. Now you only have dark moths (since dark is recessive and white is dominant, you can't "hide" any white copies due to diploidy). On the other side of the mountains, some white moths survive. Now the environment changes again, and the tree bark is light again. The moths with some lights in the population have light come back as the dominant form. The moths without CANNOT--they are stuck with dark. So one of four things happens: 1) the dark mutation REVERTS to white (that is, the precise mutation that caused dark in the first place mutates back to its original form). This is a very rare event. 2) the moths become white due to mutations in some other gene that were floating around the population (more likely--remember, there are variants IN ALMOST EVERY GENE floating around a good-sized population). 3) the dark moths change their lifestyle and stop hangin out on light trees (this would also be due to some minority mutation floating around in the population, but this time in some behavioral gene, not pigmentation). 4) the dark moths can't change, and go extinct (and some other species eventually takes over their ecological niche and the original white population on the other side of the mountains can't re-colonize--a change in range of the sepcies.)

Whichever way it goes, by some simple environmental changes, you have generated two very different populations of moths, possibly in the space of only a few years. If mating in moths depends on appearance or location, these two populations may no longer interbreed, even if a representative from one group manages to make it over the mountains to share space with the other group. They may not interbreed because they are the wrong color, or because they only breed on trees, and the other kind is in the grass.

This is how new species arise. What I have just illustrated is the birth of races, but once they are reproductively isolated, they will continue to accumulate minor changes (due to the well-studied and proven phenomenon of genetic drift), and they will gradually become different species entirely (defined as the inability to produce fertile cross-progeny).

There are actually many examples of races that are halfway to being speciated. Do we have examples for every species on earth? No, of course not. That would be impossible. But you can see how Natural Selection can act positively to create new species, or act negatively to make species become extinct.

Another place where people often fall down is time. They think "how often does this kind fo stuff go on?" and the answer is not too often (though we know that the earth gradually goes through climatic shifts, and certainly there are relatively frequent drastic and immediate changes in local environments--plagues, fires, droughts etc. But even so, it seems implausible to people. But then people aren't thinking about the amount of time involved, so let me use an example for how powerful "infrequent" events could be given enough time.


Say you have a mid-sized african primate (~ 1 meter tall, like a chimp). For some unspecified reason, more height confers a big advantage (maybe some feeding edge for height). So let's say that the chimp population ON AVERAGE increases 1 millimeter per generation, and the generation is 20 years (note, this is a relatively small change, and a long generation time. MOST species have very short generation times, sometimes of several per year, or even days, hours, or even fractions of hours for micro-organisms). In 10 generations (200 years, the apprx age of the US) the average size has increased 1 centimeter! That's 1% of totaly height! To compare to humans, you wouldn't even notice the difference in average hieght in our founding fathers--it wouldn't even be statistically significant.

In two thousand years (since biblical times), you'd have 10 centimeters difference--several inches. In 10,000 years (since the dawn or recorded history, the invention of agriculture and any culture beyond hunter-gatherer), our species would have increased by a meter--twice their orignal size!

In 100,000 years, the species would have increased 10 meters--to a total of 11 meters (~38 feet) tall! In only a hundred thousand years! And the gradual evolution we are talking about can take millions of years.

Obviously, other factors would come into play--it would almost certainly become a libility to be that tall long before the species gets to an average of 11 meters. But you see the point. Very miniscule changes can amount to profoundly huge changes over the course of enough time. And the one thing evolution has a lot of is time!

My personal opinion is that people who don't get evo don't really comprehend the amount of time involved, and how much minute change could add up over time scale that large. And let's not forget that this was a 20 year generation time! For a bacterium, almost all of which can divide inside of an hour, one generation of our hypothetical primates is at least 175,200 generations of bacteria! The 5000 generations over 100,000 years it took for our primate to go from one meter to 11 are actually 876,000,000 bacterial generations! Do you know question how fairly complex structures can evolve, by the teensiest if little increments?

This understanding of time and its power was the revelation Darwin had, and he put it together with other observations he had made about the same species filling in all kinds of ecolgogical niches in the very isolated Galapagos islands. The main one was Darwin's finches. Apparently one species of finch had colonized the islands at one point, and every bird niche on the island became filled with the descendants of these finches. The basic finch body type and coloring stayed approximately the same, but he found beaks of every possible variation--broad beaks for cracking seeds (like Cardinals or sparrows), longer, spear-like beaks for eating insects, and very long, thin beaks for sucking nectar from flowers. usually each of these types are represented by radically different species, not related species. But this kind of thing could happen on a very isolated island chain. islands are hence the best evolution "laboratories," which is why U of Hawaii has so many evolutionists on their faculty (a world-famous department, and a research destination for many evolutionists).

He then realized how rapidly forms could change given the opportunity. Very fortuntae for us that Darwin ventured near the Galapagos. Such events in nature are far more constrained, usually, because there are always many competitors from other species, so it's hard to take over a niche.

[Azariel]

Originally posted by {TDC}FR33K
Continue to lower the water level in successive offspring of fish and it will have no effect on whether they mutate and develop air-breathing lungs (or legs, or ANYTHING) that would help them survive the ever "lowering water" threat.

That's not the way evolution works. Fish won't mutate because the environment changes, but already existant mutation will be given a competitive edge by the environmental changes. Thus, if there are fish that can breathe air those will survive.
Lowering the water is a much to abrupt change to be survived by means of evolution. But if you take some amphibians (who were the ones that really evolved lungs) and let them live over a few thousand generations, providing food an lnd, some will eventually become land dwellers.
Of course evolution is to slow to be recognized among such large and slow animals, but take bacteria for an example. You can see evolution in every hospital, where certain bacteria will over time become more and more resistant to different antibiotika. This is a practical example of evolution, only those of the crowd that are resistant will survive, andthe rest dies. Those survivors are now in an enviroment without concurrence and will reproduce very fast. If you take a common bacteria and expose it to one kind of antibiotika per time, you will eventually get a kind that is immune to all of them.
Also evolution can be shown in some insects, although those have a much smaller generation rate, it is still high enough.

The Albino is quite a good example of a mutation that is, while not actually beneficial, not fatal either. But nonetheless, your point is wrong, the difference between a black and a white human is not the same as between a "normal" person and an albino. Albinos suffer from a genetic malfunction so hteir bodies can't produce melanin, while white people do produce some bot not as many. Easiest to notice are the red eyes of albinos, caused by the lack of color in the iris.

[edit]
Ok, Wormboy outran me in time and lenght. :D

[Wormboy]

Originally posted by ThorsHammer2
Could what happens to a body when subjected to a stress like weightlifting be considered a form of evolution? Its an adaptation that the body makes in orer to deal with what is thrown at it, much like I imagine evolution is over a much longer time frame, as one species chages to another. I was watching Walking with caveman one night and they theorized that man evolved from being a quadraped to bipedal due to the georgraphical chages in Africa. Africa once was supposed to have been made of very dense forests where a climbing quadraped would be more suited to that environment. Once Africa began to get less dense it became more advantegous to be bipedal in order to run and walk greater distances to for safety and securing food and water.
Anyway is how a body adpats to stress as we can see it now, evidence of evolution. Can you tie together this and what can happen to a species little by little over many generations as it adpats to a changing environment.

Excellent question!

Claiming that body plan changing directly from some environmental stress (say, exercise) is Lammarckianism, if one claims it becomes hereditary. The classic example of this is that each generation of giraffe has a longer neck because the parents stretched out there necks so much. Another example--if you are in the sun your whole life and are always tan, your kids will come out tan--this can be demonstrated to be a fallacy, because if your kids stay out of the sun they will be pale--they gained no net tan-ness just because you were tan.

So what you are describing is the flexibility of physoplogical response that most organisms have evolved. In humans extreme physical stress results in the secretion of hormones that increase muscle mass, and local stress (muscle tears) stimulate local bulking (which is why only the exercised muscle groups expand much).

However, if (say, in cavemen), day to day life made it advantageous to have a powerful physique, eventually over the course of many generations, the average physique of the population might increase. This occurs because more innately muscular guys might be able to survive against a saber-toothed cat, when a weaker guy might not (just an example). Thus, the bigger guy survives to have kids who are a little bigger, while the weaker guy dies and doesn't pass on his "less muscular genes".

What is the difference between evolving to be more muscular, and the bigger muscles one develops through weight lifting? In a more muscular population that evolved to be that way (for example, Neaderthals, who were much stronger than Cro-Magnon) their muscles are much larger even if they don't exercise. And those who exercise end up being MUCH more muscular--the maximum amount of muscle is higher.

Species can gradually change to fit their environment, but this is a very slow process. So almost all species have a lot of flexibility built in, so they can survive much of what nature throws at them. Even this trait was evolved. Those who were less flexible didn't survive. Survival of the Fittest.

[Wormboy]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by {TDC}FR33K
No, that is simply the natural function of your muscular physiology.

Exactly--physiological flexibility. But its actually a decent metaphor for the flexibility a species can have throu evolution (often to become a new species)

Well, a black couple can give birth to a white child (albino). That's pretty diverse.

True! But albinos are a rare "no pigment at all" mutation, where even white folks have some pigment. Albinism is a good example of a deleterious mutation--in most places with any sun, the albino will die of severe sunburn or early skin cancer. But even though deleterious, we still have albino mutations floating through all human populations (I've seen pictures of Aussie abo albinos, Amerind albinos, African albinos, and I knew a Asian albino in Seattle)

A black couple COULD NOT, though, give birth to a normal white child, though because each of the parents have a lot of variation (especially in mixed America) they could give birth to a child substantially lighter or darker than they are.

Hmmm... sorry about dbl-postin, but it won't allow me to delete it.

My undertsanding is that there's no penalty for double posting as long as you are clearly wuoting somebody else and making a separate point. hence, no violation on your part (or mine :D)

[{TDC}FR33K]

For the most part, I agree with those answers. However, it is my understanding that these "mutations" are not mutations, but merely rare occurances caused by the resultant combinations of parent genes. Basically, you get exactly what you should when combining certain genes (as is the case in math). True, dependant on certain external influences (radiation, air pressure, etc.) certain genes may be "turned on" sooner, later, or not at all, resulting in a 'slightly' different critter. However, if we were to turn back the clock and mix the exact same biological soup, with the exact same external influences and at the same time, etc. We would have the exact same output.

Not a mutant, just the end result of the measureable inputs (well some are immeasureable at this time).

[{TDC}FR33K]

Originally posted by Wormboy
True! But albinos are a rare "no pigment at all" mutation, where even white folks have some pigment. Albinism is a good example of a deleterious mutation--in most places with any sun, the albino will die of severe sunburn or early skin cancer. But even though deleterious, we still have albino mutations floating through all human populations (I've seen pictures of Aussie abo albinos, Amerind albinos, African albinos, and I knew a Asian albino in Seattle)


True. Just makin a quick point.

Howeva, White ppl are the result of a "lack of pigment" or "less" pigment. Which is a fairly common occurance.

We all kno that ppl are pretty petty. Big-nosed ppl probably hung around and fought with small-nosed ppl. Lighter skinned ppl may have been rejected by their darker skinned brethren and vice versa. tall ppl vs short. Green vs not green...

The result? diversity, and in a relatively short time.

Civilization (or the fact that the earth is shrinking--in the time required for travel and communication) is reversing this behavior. Global communty, so to speak. The "can't we all just get along" syndrome.

[Azariel]

Well the difference between albinos and white people is bigger than it might seem. While white people are able to produce melanin, and do so, (just go out in the sun ;)) albinos can't. That are completely different genes, while it are the same genes that define the darkness difference between black and arbabs and white and black etc.

Well, and hte poor tendency of mankind to fight each other for differences won't produce differences, it just preserves them. After all, white people killed arabs, and would certainly not marry an arab, but neither was bred for light colored skin. That was the case if the lightest colored amongst the white people were the ones to have most children, and be most likely to get a partner.

[mik cauthin]

Originally posted by Wormboy
Not really. It's sort of like Newton/Einstein. Darwin's original theory did an excellent job of describing most of the phenomenon of evolution, but since many of the necessary tools weren't in place AT ALL yet (genetics, statistics, population genetics), his theory just wasn't complete--it couldn't be. The more modern version is called "Neo-Darwinism," and for the most part could be called "Darwin-Plus."

<snip>

So really, the analogy of Newton/Einstein to Darwinism/Neo-Darwinism is an excellent one. Newton provided a surpisingly detailed mathematical description of the physical world, but he simply lacked the tools to predict relativity. Einstein's relativity doesn't invalidate Newton's physics at all, just makes it a more complete description of reality.

Interesting. So what darwin came up with was really an approximation based on how they viewed evolution, and the facts they had at the time.

What Newton had though, was a model that only worked in certain systems (ie close the the surface of the Earth). His model doesn't hold elsewhere, and is even wrong on the Earths surface. however the deviaition from relativity is so minuscule there, that its a very good approximation anyway.

So was darwins model only valid for certain systems? Or was it valid, but still full of holes due to a lack of information on the topic?

On that note, Einsteins relativity is still invalid in some places. In the centre of a non-rotating black hole, and in the very ealry universe relativity doesn't hold. So the theory still has to be expanded upon. (Thats the great thing about science. I'd absolutely hate it if they found the Grand Unified Theory of Everything. That would just take the fun out of science. There'd be no more theories and ideas being debated upon)

[Wormboy]

Originally posted by {TDC}FR33K
For the most part, I agree with those answers. However, it is my understanding that these "mutations" are not mutations, but merely rare occurances caused by the resultant combinations of parent genes. Basically, you get exactly what you should when combining certain genes (as is the case in math). True, dependant on certain external influences (radiation, air pressure, etc.) certain genes may be "turned on" sooner, later, or not at all, resulting in a 'slightly' different critter. However, if we were to turn back the clock and mix the exact same biological soup, with the exact same external influences and at the same time, etc. We would have the exact same output.

Not a mutant, just the end result of the measureable inputs (well some are immeasureable at this time).

Technically speaking, all variants are mutations that arose at some point in the past. In other words, albino mutations did occur de novo at some point, but then they can float around in a population for A LONG time. People would be shocked if they knew how many mutations they carried and passed on to their kids.

The germline mutation rate isn't huge, but the calculations say that several genes get hit each time and egg or sperm gets made. That's a pretty high rate actually. For some genes, there is actually a very measurable forward mutation rate. For example, NF1 (mutated to cause Neurofibromatosis, a DOMINANT mutation) is naturally present at a very low frequency, because unlike most mutations, this one is dominant and connot be masked by diploidy. In other words, all people who carry one mutation SHOW it, and it's extremely disfiguring, so many people don't reproduce.

BUT, it's a huge gene, and mutation rate is roughly correlated to size (literally--larger gene means a higher chance that some of that DNA will be damaged. We actually call it "target size" in the biz, which is a good metaphor). So scientists can actually look at each NF case and see whether it was present in the parents or not.


There are many cases of scientists analyzing family pedigrees, and finding de novo mutation. This has been done for many different mutations, beneficial, neutral and disease. So there's really no doubt about it--it's been very well documented. The ODDS, however, are that a given albino allele is pretty old. For example, there are cases where good estimates can be made of the age of certain alelles, and they can definitely stick around in the population for hundreds or even thousands of years (the later is just extrapolation)

Natural selection also decreases the frequency of some alleles in the population, so what you end up getting is a steady-state: alleles come by mutation and the go by selection and occasional loss to drift. There will always be a replenishment of variation in any population due to spontaneous mutation

[Wormboy]

Originally posted by mik cauthin
Interesting. So what darwin came up with was really an approximation based on how they viewed evolution, and the facts they had at the time.

What Newton had though, was a model that only worked in certain systems (ie close the the surface of the Earth). His model doesn't hold elsewhere, and is even wrong on the Earths surface. however the deviaition from relativity is so minuscule there, that its a very good approximation anyway.

So was darwins model only valid for certain systems? Or was it valid, but still full of holes due to a lack of information on the topic?

On that note, Einsteins relativity is still invalid in some places. In the centre of a non-rotating black hole, and in the very ealry universe relativity doesn't hold. So the theory still has to be expanded upon. (Thats the great thing about science. I'd absolutely hate it if they found the Grand Unified Theory of Everything. That would just take the fun out of science. There'd be no more theories and ideas being debated upon)

LOL I knew I would run into something like that. My ignorance of physics is betrayed. :D No, I think the Newton/Einsten analogy is only good for laypersons.

Most of Darwin's theory was right on target, but was incomplete in certain areas (like the actual mechanism of heredity, which is prett darned important). The correct parts have proven to be correct for ALL of life on earth. Like I said, Mendel's work was the most important addition, though population genetics (both theoretical and applied) and the knowledge of DNA (both for the physical nature of mutations but also for the corroboration of all of the phylogenies based on morphology) really nailed it down to the "no doubts" status it enjoys now.

True, science works this way. I think the analogy works this way: first, you get the big picture down (which Darwin definitely did, and Newton did within certain boundaries). Then you start refining it, and adding to it parts that weren't there before, which make it a more complete picture. Layperson's often view this dynamic process (particularly the prfound disagreements that can occur on the frontiers of a field) as some sort of doubt about the stuff that is still solid. For example, I've read many creationist say "but evolution is still under intense debate amongst scientists." NOT TRUE, at least for the central parts. They are arguing over split hairs on the margins, which is a very common things for scientists to do.

[Aegeri]

Or was it valid, but still full of holes due to a lack of information on the topic?

About right really, he was really unsure of the mechanism of evolution. He originally didn't even have one until he came up with natural selection. We still have a large debate over the actual mechanisms of natural selection and how they lead to the changes we've observed in many animals. It still has its flaws too, but so do many 'laws' that we have already anyway.

There is still a whole lot we do not, and probably never will, about evolution.

[mik cauthin]

Originally posted by Wormboy
LOL I knew I would run into something like that. My ignorance of physics is betrayed. :D No, I think the Newton/Einsten analogy is only good for laypersons.

Heh, don't worry. I think my ignorance of matters biological was revealed earlier on as well :D

The thing is, all that adding to Darwins theory would make it a stronger theory. Its kinda like the foundation stone, with all the details being laid upon it. But as you said, this fluid nature of science often makes people doubt it.

True, science works this way. I think the analogy works this way: first, you get the big picture down (which Darwin definitely did, and Newton did within certain boundaries). Then you start refining it, and adding to it parts that weren't there before, which make it a more complete picture. Layperson's often view this dynamic process (particularly the prfound disagreements that can occur on the frontiers of a field) as some sort of doubt about the stuff that is still solid. For example, I've read many creationist say "but evolution is still under intense debate amongst scientists." NOT TRUE, at least for the central parts. They are arguing over split hairs on the margins, which is a very common things for scientists to do.

But thats the problem with debates like this, over creation and evolution. When the creationists are ignorant of the scientific views, then they tend to say its flawed. But the fluid nature of science actually gives strength to theories. If a theory holds up under the constant change, then its been shown to be a string theory.

[{TDC}FR33K]

Originally posted by mik cauthin
...When the creationists are ignorant of the scientific views, then they tend to say its flawed...

I agree. Ignorance (or at least, disrespect) in either camp is unwelcome.

I still say science and christianity are compatible.

"faithful" scientists act the same way as "blind" christians when learning something that has the "appearance" of contradicting with their beliefs.

Seems there are many scientists up in arms about the new thoughts that chimpanzee and human DNA are only 95% similiar. As if that weakens the evolutionary claims. To me it neither strenghtens nor weakens either the evolutionists or creationists claims.

The 98.5-99.5 estimates were made BEFORE we had semi-accurate DNA equipment, so it should be expected that theoretical numbers should shift. I'm sure these figures will continue to shift up and down for many years to come.

Actually, my bet is on the 98+ figure. Our species are similiar in many ways, and 1-2 percent is still a HUGE gap.



Wormboy,
Great answers as usual.
Yeah, I guess the term "mutation" is misrepresented. I (like many) equate the term with the introduction of new DNA from 'nothing'.

My point is that 'mutated' human DNA will always result in human offspring. Such as; all of the human races.
I don't think we evolved from different ape species. That would result in humans that could not interbreed. Hence, if evolution were correct, we would have evolved from a similiar 'parent' species.
Our genes interact and recombine creating new 'blends' of DNA, but we are all still human, have the same strengths, weaknesses, and can interbreed.

[bartwart]

Originally posted by mik cauthin
II'd absolutely hate it if they found the Grand Unified Theory of Everything. That would just take the fun out of science. There'd be no more theories and ideas being debated upon)

Even if they found a so-call "Grand Unified Theory of Everything" it would be constantly challenged. That's the great thing about real science - it constantly challenges everything - unlike Creationism which is "revealed knowledge" designed to end all scientific debate.

[{TDC}FR33K]

Originally posted by bartwart
...unlike Creationism which is "revealed knowledge" designed to end all scientific debate.

a creationist (or scientist) unwilling to debate?!?

hehe,

hehehehe,

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHHAHHAHAHA


emphhgla.... great, you made coffee come out of my nose. :mad:

[bartwart]

Originally posted by {TDC}FR33K
a creationist (or scientist) unwilling to debate?!?

hehe,

hehehehe,

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHHAHHAHAHA


emphhgla.... great, you made coffee come out of my nose. :mad:

I guess that was kind of funny. Let me back peddle a little bit. Creationism is designed to be a "show stopper", to end all debate about the "root cause" of life's origin and present manifestation. Creationism wraps itself around that trappings of science and presents itself as a scientific theory, when it is really a religious argument. It's a christian coup attempt against the authority of science.

[{TDC}FR33K]

Originally posted by bartwart
I guess that was kind of funny. Let me back peddle a little bit. Creationism is designed to be a "show stopper", to end all debate about the "root cause" of life's origin and present manifestation. Creationism wraps itself around that trappings of science and presents itself as a scientific theory, when it is really a religious argument. It's a christian coup attempt against the authority of science.

:D


Well, I agree that "some" think that way--as do "some" scientists. A human mind is a terrible thing to waste on closed-mindedness. But, regardless of whether you or I think God started life, I sure am curious as to 'the how' it could be done, or how it can be done--and I am certain many christians are just as curious, since I'm one of those very rare 6-day'ers.


But, like I said b4. We'll all know the answers in a relatively short amount of time. But, hey, while I'm here, I'm gonna feed my curiousity.


The only true difference between you and I is our willingness to believe such intelligent, autonomous, machines came into existence by a highly miraculously successful series of events on a most inhospitable rock hurling through space.

[Wormboy]

Originally posted by {TDC}FR33K
I still say science and christianity are compatible.

I totally agree with you, with one exception in either camp

1) There is a small subset of religious people (usually Fundies in my experience, but certainly not all of them even) whose thinking will not accept the scientific method or anything produced by it. My belief is that they just don't understand the scientific method, but that could also be arrogance on my part.

2) A small subset of scientists (usually not very good ones) are absolutely sure that they know everything there is to know. This attitude is what makes them bad scientists, IMO, because thinking you know ALL the answers is the worst sort of blinders for a scientist. Knowing where your knowledge stops (and where it is thin) is one of the most important traits for a scientist. To restate: it's very important for a scientists to be able to say "I don't know."


[as an aside, many biologists look down on MDs because they are notoriously lousy at actually DOING science, though great at applying it when shown how. (this of course doesn't include those rare really jammin MDs who are great at both). One of the errors MDs make is that they are actually trained to always project confidence--almost an arrogance. In other words, doctors rarely say "I don't know." This can be helpful for making patients feel safe, an important goal, but is absolute murder for good science.]

Seems there are many scientists up in arms about the new thoughts that chimpanzee and human DNA are only 95% similiar. As if that weakens the evolutionary claims. To me it neither strenghtens nor weakens either the evolutionists or creationists claims.

The 98.5-99.5 estimates were made BEFORE we had semi-accurate DNA equipment, so it should be expected that theoretical numbers should shift. I'm sure these figures will continue to shift up and down for many years to come.

Actually, my bet is on the 98+ figure. Our species are similiar in many ways, and 1-2 percent is still a HUGE gap.

Please see my earlier post on this. The number has moved around mainly based on which comparison is being used.

Wormboy,
Great answers as usual.
Yeah, I guess the term "mutation" is misrepresented. I (like many) equate the term with the introduction of new DNA from 'nothing'.

Well, coming from "nothing " is impossible of course. Understanding the wide variety of mutations in one of the main things a geneticist does. There's a lot more to mutations than simply knocking out gene function. There are mutations that remove inhibitory controls from proteins, mutations that functionally lock proteins into overdrive, mutations that cause proteins to be over-produced, and perhaps most importantly, mutations that change the expression pattern and timing of a protein. The last category is thought to be the most important in terms of real evolutionary change. They are also hardest to study, since regulatory mutations are usually in the regions FLANKING the actual gene, and we know much less about the road signs that regulate when a gene is turned on and off than we do about how the protein that comes from a gene actually functions.

For example--if you look at Darwin's finches, all of the same genes to make a beak are probably still there (there are few differences in the genes themselves). But if you change the pattern of the genes, and their regulation, you can get different structures made from the same building blocks.

This is the forefront of modern molecular biology and genetics. It's pretty tough to study, too. After all, you can do evolution experiments in the lab with fruit flies or whatever you want. But then how do you find the changes that were made? Often they are small, additive difference. To actually find them, you would have to re-sequence the entire genome, and then sort through all of the silent mutations that naturally occur in populations.

My point is that 'mutated' human DNA will always result in human offspring.

That's really the crux of evolution. Obviously, a change in a single gene will not change any species into another one (though if you use my moth example from before, you can see that you COULD possibly, if you interrupted interbreeding, but they would still be the same species until accumulation of further mutations made fertile prgeny impossible, not just unlikely due to mating differences).

The problem is that people fail to understand two things, IMO.
1) The immensity of time involved. See my size example before. Separate two poopulations of the same species for 100K years, and you have one that is 1 meter tall, and the other population that is 11 meters tall. This is a dramatic example, but remember that ALL OF THE REST OF THE GENOME is changing at a similar rate. The size change is just a very visible example.

2) Population genetics. The broadest definition is that it is the study of all of the variants at every gene IN THE WHOLE POPULATION, not just single individuals.


Let's look at this latter concept. Generally people can look at one gene at a time, and follow the freqencies of different alleles in that gene through the populations. Imagine 4 different alleles of a gene--a) the wild type, b) knockout (i.e. gene function eliminated), c) increased function, d) different pattern of poroduction spatially and temporally. All of these are floating around in the population, and their frequency fluctuates according to the following variables: a) random chance (depends heavily on population size) b) selection based on original environmental conditions, c) selection based on changed environmental conditions, etc. then add to this the fact that at a certain low frequency (which has been measured many times for various species and populations) spontaneous mutations will be added (they don't come from nothing--they always arise as a simple chemical change in the existing DNA). This last may not seem like a big factor. But if you look at a single gene in a population of several thousand, all studies indicate that you will have a new variant in that gene arising in one member of your population EVERY COUPLE OF GENERATIONS. So not only are you following multiple variants that fluctuate according to very complex mathematics, you also have new variables (i.e new mutations) introduced occasionally, and old ones disappearing occasionally (either through negative selection, or if they are already pretty rare in the population, lost through random action, ie genetic drift)

All of this is very well studied: the math is ironclad, and though complex when following so many traits, at root actually pretty straightforward algebra.

Now imagine doing exactly the same thing, but for 40,000 genes at once. !!!! That is what is going on in any population. Populations are often in total flux, and there's a surprising amount of change that goes on. So you can imagine that if you separate two populations, and then some dramatic environmental change occurs, you can get two populations diverging quite rapidly.

So, the bottom line is that no single mutation, or even handfuls of mutations, will make a human a non-human. But if you look at large amount of variability in 40000 genes over hundreds of thousands of years, then yeah, you can get one species morphing into another. Depending on events, the original population from which the new species was separated could stay the same, but more likely it has also changed somewhat. Thus, you have two species, neither of which is the original. they can't interbreed with each-other, and if you could do the experiment, they probably couldn't interbreed with their progenitor species.

Such as; all of the human races.
I don't think we evolved from different ape species. That would result in humans that could not interbreed. Hence, if evolution were correct, we would have evolved from a similiar 'parent' species.
Our genes interact and recombine creating new 'blends' of DNA, but we are all still human, have the same strengths, weaknesses, and can interbreed.

Exactly. You get it, though I'd say THE SAME parent species, not similar. I'm not aware of any modern biologists claiming that the different human races evolved from DIFFERENT original species. This would be impossible. One thing we can be sure of in evolution--while convergent evolution can occur, for example, the frequent re-evolution of the eye (some of which are strikingly similar), convergent evolution will never make two populations (with different originating species) that can interbreed (and are hence the same species). Star Trek episodes notwithstanding :D


Thus, when we talk of humans, we know that ALL humans had the same common origin--a single population, probably in central Africa.

Africans.............................Native Americans
|............................................/
|.........................................../
|........................................../
|........................................./
African progenitors------Asians ---------Pacific islanders
(still human)...........................\
|...........................................\
|............................................\
|.............................................\
|..............................................\
Europeans........................Native Australians

(bloody forum won't do spacing right so I have to use periods :sour: )

This data is based on a couple of DNA sources.
1) Looking at mitochondrial DNA sequences (passed only through females)
2) several different genes, both amino acid sequence and coding DNA sequence.


The rate of sequence change is a pretty accurate measurement of time, though different sequences change at different rates, depending on whether they have some importance that could be ruined by changing sequence. Thus, non-coding sequences change fastest, and coding sequences of genes where the produced protein has a lot of physical interactions with other proteins (and whose structure is thus much more constrained) changes slowest. Thus, for slow change people often look at DNA polymerase, a very ancient enzyme which changes very slowly.

Regardless of rate, though, simple computer algorithms can infer evolutionary differences, and common progentors, based on degree of relatedness with each other. For all of the sequences provided, the "evolutionary tree" shown above is the answer obtained (the only DNA sample we don't have is the progenitor population, which of course we can't get without a time machine;) ).

What is most interesting is that the same tree is claimed by archeology, and the respective time separation between groups is comparable. The current time estimate of original separation is around 40K years from the original single population, I believe. This is plenty of time to account for the racial diffferences we observe.


It gets more complex for human relatedness to chimps, because we only have two surviving example--chimps and humans. You can certainly build similar trees between any group of species, and when you do it with great apes, you get chimps closest to humans, followed by gorillas, followed by orangutans (I think this is correct, though I'm not sure of the order of gorillas and orangutans. The uncertainty is due to my memory, not the actual science. After all, I'm a geneticist who studies development and neurobiology, not an evolutionary biologist:D)

But the distinction you make, fr33k, is an excellent one. Humans ABSOLUTELY DID NOT EVOLVE FROM CHIMPS. What is true is that they share a common ancestor. If I recall, the DNA evidence says 5-10 million years ago, and the archeological evidence says more like 10 million. That's a ton of time.

In archeology what they've found are many so-called missing links--skeletons of proto-humans. Almost certainly not just the straight lineage from the common chimp/human ancestor, but also probably a couple of "side branches" on the evolutionary tree that became extinct. I've also read of one skeleton they found for a chimp progenitor as well.

This stuff is tough, because we will never have the DNA samples from any of the extinct species, either intermediates or dead-ends. Archeology is a much less exact science than DNA sequence analysis, and we may never know the real answer (unless somebody invents a time machine).

The bottom line is that there is overwhelming evidence that species morph into other species over time. We have evidence for this at every level of evolution--from populations with tiny differences, to the differences between the kingdoms.

Do we have EVERY "missing link"? No. We can't. Fossils are very fragile, and it's very rare that they get made in the first place. Do we have many connections that are nearly complete? Yes.

So the bottom line is that it's almost certain that H sapiens evolved from a chimp/human progenitor, probably around 10 million years ago. Why can I say this? Because we have scads of evidence from all over the globe that species don't just spring from nowhere, but they come from other species. This was all rock sloid before DNA evidence ever arrived, but DNA nailed it all down so that evolution is a FACT, not a theory. [mind you, the best theories, the ones which are really fact, have this tremendous predictive power]

Some people used to claim that well, all life on earth evolved, ok. So the world wasn't made in 6 days. Big deal. But god still placed human on the world. See? there's the "missing link."

This was one of the biggest criticism of Darwin early on. But the fact is that the "missing link" is no longer true--it doesn't exist any more. We have tons of different fossils providing evolutionary links between an apelike protohuman and actual humans. By definition, the fossil record can never be 100% complete. BUT, we have as many intermediates as we could possibly expect, all the way up to Cro-Magnon man, which structurally looks indistinguishable from modern humans.


Some people find this degrading somehow. I don't see why. After all, we see the whole range of behavior amongst our own species, from the most base to the most noble. We make our own fate and our own dignity.

People say humans are special, because of their brains. And I agree, because it appears to be a novel thing--something that can contemplate its own existence the way we do. But I also see that many humans behave EXACTLY like the animals they are--always functioning purely in self-interest, and not acting for the greater good of their population, their species, other species, and the planet in general. So, really, I know all humans are animals, but some humans raise themselves above that by actually using their brains to THINK, rather than just another tool for survival. That's something no other animal on earth can do (at least I think not :D).

It's one of my favorite parts of Dune, by Frank Herbert. Paul is being tested by the Gom Jabbar, and the test is to determine whether he is human or not. There's a very sophisticated concept here--that some people raise themselves above an animal existence and animal selfishness.

So IMO, that's the ultimate thing to challenge yourself with: are you human or not? And note I don't mean human in the biological sense (because we all are), but "human" in the sense of something that is actually different in the world. Because if one doesn't step outside of biological imperatives, then our big brains are just another cool, excellent adaptation, like a cheetah's speed or a monkey's acrobatics, and nothing more. Hence, if one can't step outside of the rut of self-reference, he's just another animal. Does that make sene?

[MEGACHIHUAHUA]

I'm sorry, Steve got out of his cage and he's been using my account.
I reject evolution not because it diagrees with my religon, but because it looks like swiss cheese with polka dots and termites.

Explain to me, where are the in-between forms?
How can an irreducibly complex organ evolve?
How can a reproductive system go from splitting to eggs to live young to pouches?
Why do all the dinosaurs that look like birds have lizard-hips, rather than bird-hips?
How did a 3" rat kill a T-rex and win the battle for survival?