Jump to content
Science Forums

Round Two: God vs. Darwin


Fishteacher73
 Share

Recommended Posts

I guess what I don't understand (escapes me) is why would God of ID make use of Evolution to do his "dirty deeds" and get them done "dirt cheep" (if you don't mind my pun).

 

On the contrary, nice work.

 

I also don't understand that, and I am a believer in God. ID doesn't make sense, as it has been presented in the mass media (and by mnost of it's proponents). Why would God make a beautiful system for creating life, and then allow it to fall short in so many places? It's like a compromise that fails to please either side.

 

That the Universe exists at all, perhaps that's evidence of intellegence. But picking specific feats of evolution as places where the universe can't hack it... that's not evidence at all. I REALLY don't want to discourage fellow people who believe in God, but looking for evidence of where evolution- his creation- screws up is hurting both sides. IDers look dumb, and the perception of science is distorted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Punctuated Equilibrium seems like a lunge for answers.

First evolutionists want to take credit for having billions and billions of years of mutation and natural selection to do their work, then when it doesn't jive with the fossil recored they theorize PE...and in doing so take away much of the time they needed to have any chance of success. :eek:

 

Question for evolutionists, I have a heart and lungs and a circulatory system. How did these evolve?

- I currently need them to live,

- I couldn't live with half developed organs,

- half developed organs have no functional advantage,

- why and how do you think they evolved?

 

Does each mutation add another cell worth of length to a undeveloped circulatory system?

 

How many mutations would it take to develop one system?

 

What about the great number more of negative, harmful mutations, why didn't these kill my evolving self in years gone by?

 

When you think about evolution in basic, common sence terms, it has great problems.

 

Ah, but the moral freedom it gives the person who can convince himself that it is true! Have we come across a motive?

 

...And all the children who grow up in the shadow of this "moral freedom", who perpetuate the myth with deeper and deeper and deeper conviction.

 

Lolic - good questions!

you should write a book!

I for one appreciate your viewpoints greatly!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Like the myth of a heliocentric solar system?

I think in that context you mean geocentric (as in epicycles...). :hihi: I sympathize. About 120 years ago,

everyone KNEW there was aether as a medium because light just HAD to travel in a medium... :naughty:

 

What I was saying is why is Evolution so offensive when it achieves the same goal. I think I am naive. :xx:

 

Maddog

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I was saying is why is Evolution so offensive when it achieves the same goal. I think I am naive. :hyper:

 

I'm with you...

 

Although, I imagine most of the controversy begins when taking evolution to it's fullest philisophical extent (which may or may not be viable). I suppose, to many, evolution denies free will, denies morality, etc etc, because everything can be explained in terms of physical interactions.

 

Personally, I think that's taking evolution too far, not a problem with evolution at all...

 

To me, a problem to be addressed is this: How to teach evolution so that it is seen as important as it really is (i.e. the biggest thing in biology), without taking it as a philisophical statement about whatever.... or does it neccessarily imply some deeper thing beyond natural selection and variability.... hmmmm....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I recently read Dawkins' Climbing Mount Improbable, and I'm quoting what I think is a good example of evolution over a relatively short period of time. It's on the domestication of dogs. Prior to the evolution of human beings, there were no such thing as dogs. Dogs were in fact "domesticated" by humans from wolves. They never lived in the wild. By "domestication" it actually means artificial evolution, where the evolutionary stresses were artificial, being chosen by humans (dogs which looked "cute", were chosen over other dogs whi would have prospered in the wild, for example). It's quite amazing when you think about it; the poodle is actually the descendant of the wolf...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To me, a problem to be addressed is this: How to teach evolution so that it is seen as important as it really is (i.e. the biggest thing in biology), without taking it as a philisophical statement about whatever.... or does it neccessarily imply some deeper thing beyond natural selection and variability.... hmmmm....

 

In my opinion anything should be teached without preaching religious aspects of it. The process of evolution can be teached as a theory without having to resort to religion. Many of the students will not subscribe to the religion of the textbook or the teacher (they may be of a different religion).

 

The teaching of religion belongs in the family and church and has no place in the schools. The only place for religion in public schools is that of teaching about varieties of religious thought in social sciences and obviously history.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I recently read Dawkins' Climbing Mount Improbable, and I'm quoting what I think is a good example of evolution over a relatively short period of time. It's on the domestication of dogs. Prior to the evolution of human beings, there were no such thing as dogs. Dogs were in fact "domesticated" by humans from wolves. They never lived in the wild. By "domestication" it actually means artificial evolution, where the evolutionary stresses were artificial, being chosen by humans (dogs which looked "cute", were chosen over other dogs whi would have prospered in the wild, for example). It's quite amazing when you think about it; the poodle is actually the descendant of the wolf...
That's a good example about how genetics works. We've been doing such things for ages, especially with produce. Unfortunately, that's not really evolution. In fact, dogs and wolves are for the most part one species. The relative still exists. I believe it is generally accepted that a species emerges through natural selection once its predecessor is no longer able to survive.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe it is generally accepted that a species emerges through natural selection once its predecessor is no longer able to survive.

 

Not in all cases. The mutation could allow a sub-set of the population to take advantage of a different niche (perhaps to the detriment of another species). A good example again (I like my African cichlids, sorry) are the various African cichlid species. Some are just variants, others sub-species, and others still adapting to different conditions in the lakes (Rocky vs sandy areas, depth, etc). This does not mean the extant species has eclipsed the earlier species, just wandered into a new direction. If this were the only means we would have none of the primitive life around today (Bacteria to horseshoe crabs to ferns. These have all lead to more advanced species, but are still around).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not in all cases. The mutation could allow a sub-set of the population to take advantage of a different niche (perhaps to the detriment of another species). A good example again (I like my African cichlids, sorry) are the various African cichlid species. Some are just variants, others sub-species, and others still adapting to different conditions in the lakes (Rocky vs sandy areas, depth, etc). This does not mean the extant species has eclipsed the earlier species, just wandered into a new direction. If this were the only means we would have none of the primitive life around today (Bacteria to horseshoe crabs to ferns. These have all lead to more advanced species, but are still around).
So the reason both the adaptation and the predecessor survived is because they were equally compatible with the environmental change that occurred. I can see that is possible, but rare. The traditional explanation of evolution is survival of the fittest mutation, so that one is selected and the others vanish. It took some kind of natural change for the fittest to emerge, otherwise there would have been no evolution. Maybe, as you said, it was the orchid's wondering to a new location that caused the selection. But I still think it is unlikely that the same environment would be hospitable to both species. And what is a sub-species? Does that mean just a variation, like blonds versus brunettes?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And what is a sub-species? Does that mean just a variation, like blonds versus brunettes?

 

There is argument of if such a thing exists. but according to Wiki:

 

Subspecies: a taxonomic subdivision of a species; a group of the organisms, which differ from other members of their species by genetically encoded morphological, physiological characteristics and sometimes by behavior. Members of different subspecies of the same species are potentially capable of breeding with each other, and production of fertile offspring. However, animals of the different subspecies of the same species might not interbreed even if geographical factor is removed. Differences in appearance and behavior rather often prevent the potential sex partners from recognizing each other as the sex partners. This is especially true for animals with complicated sexual rituals. Members of different species are incapable of reproduction, or produce an infertile offspring.

 

For some it is a holding pot to decide if infact it is different species or just a variant. For others it is similar to race or breed.

 

 

It took some kind of natural change for the fittest to emerge, otherwise there would have been no evolution.

 

Mutation is random. This mutation is not specific to the actual niche filled by the organism. Any mutation feasably could allow an organism to be more fit in a specific niche than another organism. It does not have to be the same species it eclipses. Cetations ended up going back into the water. They exploit a different niche than that of a cow, although they share common heritage. Sperm whales really like to eat giant squid, perhaps this is the niche they have entered and why it is so hard to find a giant squid today.

 

A shift in the environment may be substantial enough that it requires evolution or death. The great extinctions have illustrated this. But they have also shown that the survivors get to radiate out into the new niches, not continually fight over the prior niche. The more subtle changes in a species occur with gene flow. This is the spread of new genes through the population. Over enough time the species could be very different than the intial species, perhaps different enough to be unrecognmizable as the same species.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's a good example about how genetics works. ... Unfortunately, that's not really evolution.

 

It is evolution if the allelic frequencies of a population changed. It's clear that it was selection of traits encoded by specific allele combinations that led to the numerous diffrent breeds of dogs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe it is generally accepted that a species emerges through natural selection once its predecessor is no longer able to survive.

 

Not always. In addition to what Fishteacher73 said, many species exist as separate populations. The environment can be different for two populations of the same species so different selective forces can cause them to divdere genetically over time, and if reproductive isolation ever results, you'd then have 2 species even though the original species remains. Then there's allopolyploidy in plants, which can create a new, reproductively isolated species while both of the original species still exist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is one specific sequence of the amino acids that is hemoglobin.

 

False.

 

Considering alternate linear arrangements of these amino acids indicates that there are about 10 to the 650th power permutations possible, but only one of them is hemoglobin.

 

False.

 

(The actual number is 7.4 x 10 to the 654th. Some of the amino acid positions may be "neutral," like spaces, which are less significant. in which case the specificity would reduce to 7.9 x 10 to the 503rd.)

 

Many of the amino acid positions have substitutions.

 

I am looking at the sequences of the alpha and beta chains of hemoglobin (Laszlo Patthy, Protein Evolution, 2000, p77) for human, pig, horse, cow, and chicken and very few amino acids positions are the same across the whole alpha & beta alignment.

 

To give an idea, here's a short description of the first 20 amino acid positions of the beta chains.

 

At position 1 the bovine differs from the others.

At position 2 the horse and bovine differ from the others.

At position 3 the chick differs from the others.

At position 4 the pig and horse differ from the others.

At position 5 the human and horse differ from the others.

At position 6 they all agree.

At position 7 they all agree.

At position 8 they all agree.

At position 9 the human is different from all others, as is the pig's, as is the chick's

At position 10 the chick differs from the others.

At position 11 the chick differs from the others.

At position 12 the pig and horse differ from the others.

At position 13 the pig and chick differ from the others.

At position 14 the bovine differs from the others.

At position 15 they all agree.

At position 16 the horse differs from the others.

At position 17 they all agree.

At position 18 they all agree.

At position 19 the bovine differs from the others.

At position 20 the horse differs from the others.

 

I counted 88 positions that are identical for the 5 species for the beta chains, which I counted to be 147 amino acids long. That comes to 40% of the amino acid positions in the 5 species' beta chains that differ. Add in more species and the percentage of nonconsensus residues will almost assuredly increase.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The same book I quoted from above shows other evidence of sequence differences for hemoglobin.

 

"Llama, alpaca, guanaco and vicuna live at high altitudes (~4000 m) in the Andes. These animals have adapted to life under hypoxic conditions thanks to minor changes in the haemoglobin sequences. The haemoglobin of these mammals has a high affinity for oxygen, whereas the haemoglobins of their closest lowland relatives, camels, have 'norma' oxygen affinity. Comparison of the (closely related) amino acid sequences of the [alpha]- and [beta]-globins of these species identified only nine sites where globins of llama, alpaca, guanaco or vicuna differ from those of camels. Of these the [beta]2His->Asn substitution appears to be primarily responsible for the higher oxygen affinity of llama, alpaca, guanaco, and vicuna haemoglobins." (p80)

 

and

 

"Bird haemoglobins provide many similar examples of adaptations to low oxygen pressures. Again, the general conclusion from studies on avian haemoglobins is that increased oxygen affinity could be achied by one or just a few amino acid substitutions. ... Comparison of the haemoglobin sequences of [high-altitude] barhead goose with those of its closest lowland relative, the greylag goose, revealed that their haemoglobin differs from the greylag goose haemoglobin by only four amino acids. Of these, the high oxygen affinity of the barheaded goose haemoglobin could be assigned primarily to a single [alpha]119->Ala substitution." (p80)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...