no evidence for evolution

[randman]

Also, is he serious with this remark?

"Since DHEA increases heat production and, I think, is directly related to brain growth and function, I decided that the enlarged brains of placenta animals, as well as the evolution of placentae are tied together around the time of the demise of the dinosaurs."

Moreover, there are so many "mights" and "could haves", that it is obvious that this doesn't address specific mutations that have been observed. The guy is trying, but this is top heavy on conjecture, and not just of how it might have happened and why, but some basics too. I would have expected to see something like we have observed such and such, and it could have...but there isn't even the intial observation to build an imagined scenario from in my view thus far.

 

[Jerry Smith]

<snip>

I will repost....

 

[Jerry Smith]

Originally posted by randman
Also, is he serious with this remark?

"Since DHEA increases heat production and, I think, is directly related to brain growth and function, I decided that the enlarged brains of placenta animals, as well as the evolution of placentae are tied together around the time of the demise of the dinosaurs."

Moreover, there are so many "mights" and "could haves", that it is obvious that this doesn't address specific mutations that have been observed. The guy is trying, but this is top heavy on conjecture, and not just of how it might have happened and why, but some basics too. I would have expected to see something like we have observed such and such, and it could have...but there isn't even the intial observation to build an imagined scenario from in my view thus far.

I'm skipping the propaganda remarks.. I don't know that either of us is qualified to judge this author's credibility on that point, especially since the point that our "forefather's brains were larger than ours." I understand that Neanderthals were larger-brained than us, and the "Flynn effect" does sound fishy to me. But the main point is whether the scenario he presents is plausible. It may be incorrect, but it is plausible. Also, since it is based on a few small changes to the development of a few tissues in the presence of a few proteins, it is also plausible that simple mutations that effect the structure or production of proteins could explain the change from the reptile egg to the marsupial placenta, and a few more changes could explain the change from the marsupial placenta to the "placental" placenta.

Also, I did note another bit of evidence that supports relatively small changes from the chorion tissue to the placenta.

edited to remove one of the "plausible's" from this... I think the point is effectively served by two hundred and seventy FOUR of them.

also take this edit opportunity to add that as far as "documented" observation, that this is NECESSARILY how the placenta came to be - it isn't. There are documented benefical mutations, but they cannot singly explain any large morphological change on this order. We do have to infer some things from the evidence that evolution did happen and our knowledge of how mutations can work...

 

[Jerry Smith]

Maybe this would help, Jerry. I appreciate your work in looking up some of the possibilities of how the placenta developed though I am unsure of why this trait would produce a selctive advantag.

I'm not sure that it actually did. I think that the way it is explained in Howard's article, this was a necessary by-product of the adaptations that enabled survival in cold climates.

Let's back up for a minute. My understanding is different species have different genes. Can mutations be shown to add new genes to creatures, and if so, what specific mutations have been observed that do so?

Well, in organisms that have a diploid stage, or are diploid throughout life, any change to one allele will create a new allele (see sickle cell anemia).

To create a new GENE (as opposed to new allele), you need only one duplication mutation. Afterwards, that duplication can be the source create a new allele if it should mutate. Over time, a duplication or insertion can produce a new gene with a new function. This has been observed, and (I'm not sure, but I think) Rufus' hemoglobin is an example.

Also, what is the genetic material of say a bacteria, and how is it d ifferent from human genes?

Bacteria genetic material is DNA. The difference between it and human DNA is that it joins end to end to make a circle, and usually lacks histone proteins (important for "transcription" to RNA, but some similar proteins.)

The reason I ask is that I don't know much about it. I have read all about alleles and tons of stuff, but maybe you can breal it down in a simpler manner, and explain if there are observed instances of new genes being added to produce a larger and more complex creature.

Mutation events can only augment "complexity" in small ways. You can see some of the results of mutations (although my illustration to Lanakila was hypothetical, it does probably correspond to a few real-world events, mutations which affected eye color). Without waiting millions of years, you cannot expect to see enough mutations to add significantly to the complexity of an organism. Even though we are significantly more intelligent than apes, we are not much (or any) more complex than chimps. We just have larger brains, walk differently & have less hair.

I mentioned endosymbiosis and I think you are already familiar with lateral gene transfer - these two ideas are very important to the "jump" between prokaryotic cells and eukaryotic cells, and the later jump from eukaryotic cells to colonies of such to multicellular organisms. These two were probably the biggest and most dramatic changes in the history of life. There is a good reason that they took a couple of billion years to happen.

I am not an expert. I wish I was. I wish I had taken the time to learn about genetics in depth. Unfortunately, when I had the opportunity to do so, I made some poor choices and am paying for it now.

 

[Jerry Smith]

I hope you will see my edit to the post b4 last before you post your reply...

 

[chickenman]

bacteria undergo a lot of lateral gene transfer (it makes building phylogenetic trees for bacteria a nightmare). Eukaryotes on the other hand, rarely if ever undergo lateral gene transfer.

 

[Lanakila]

Lanakila,

You also need to study genetics a little more. There are many problems with your argument that come down to an incomplete knowledge about genetics. I am willing to help you work through this, but you will need to listen to me.

Rufus

The question at hand is not whether I need to study genetics more, but that I disagree with your representation and interpretation of the data. At the risk of sounding brutish, "this is not rocket science". The essential elements of genetic theory are fairly easy to understand and have been understood by thousands and thousands of people before me and you. The question is will you investigate the classical and neo-Darwinistic arguments at a very elementary level to evalutate their validity or lack of the same.

The real issue at hand is, that without an intelligent source of information, the evolutionary theory becomes convoluted and counter-intuitive. To be sure, the intuitively obvious concept that "something cannot come from nothing" screams to be heard from this perennial debate.

Furthermore, this controversy can be silenced very quickly by examining the classical arguments within natural theolgy (e.g., cosmological, teleological, ontological, and axiological arguments).

Mr Rufus I discern that you are an intelligent man, I beg you to add to your intellect, wisdom and seek out these things, and know that the Living God of the Universe who created your mind desires for you to give Him your heart. In the end, He is inescapable. How true it is that the scripture says in Psalm 14:1 "The fool has said in his heart there is no God"; Please don't be one of these. I consider you a friend and will pray for you.

 

[RufusAtticus]

Originally posted by randman
Apparently, you are well aware of the types of transitions, and the mutations required to create them, needed to produce "placental mammals from their mammal ancestors." Can you explain some of the types of mutations that would have created, for instance, the placenta, and where we have seen those mutations today?

We do not know the DNA sequence of our pre-placental ancestors. So I can’t tell you exactly the path of mutations needed to go from it to the early eutherians (placental mammals). See below for some types of mutations which probably played a part. (Based on the evidence from comparing extant organism.)

A problem in the evolution of eutherians was how to get oxygen from the mother to the fetus through the placenta. Hemoglobin is a protein that holds oxygen. It has a certain affinity for oxygen which depends on its sequence. Fetal hemoglobin has a different sequence than adult hemoglobin. This causes fetal hemoglobin to have a higher affinity for oxygen than the mother’s hemoglobin. This is what allows (and encourages) oxygen to go from the mother to the fetus. I will see if I can get you some sequences and phylogenies.

More though to what we are talking about, maybe you can help me a little. My understanding is that different animals possess different genes. How does the single-cell first life-form mutate these genes?

Individuals do not mutate their genes. That would imply direct action. Mutations are not caused by direct action or choice. Mutations are simply copying errors in DNA replication or repair. Below are a sample of types of mutations.

Point Mutation: a change of a base pair to another base pair, such as an adenine to a cytosine.

Deletion: a removal of one or more base pairs

Insertion: the addition of one or more base pairs

Translocation: movement of a section of DNA from one location to another in the genome.

Duplication: the insertion of a copy of a section of DNA.

 

[RufusAtticus]

Originally posted by Lanakila
The question at hand is not whether I need to study genetics more, but that I disagree with your representation and interpretation of the data. At the risk of sounding brutish, "this is not rocket science".

This is Genetics, which is more complex than you think.

The essential elements of genetic theory are fairly easy to understand and have been understood by thousands and thousands of people before me and you.

What does that have to do with whether you have a completely accurate understanding of genetics? I am gearing up to teach genetics to juniors in college next fall, I hope you will not just brush me off as I try to work with you.

The question is will you investigate the classical and neo-Darwinistic arguments at a very elementary level to evalutate their validity or lack of the same.

Of course I have, I am a scientist after all and this is my field. What I want to know is if you even understand what science says about evolution and why. I suspect that you have only learned about evolution and genetics from creationist sources which do not accurately portray it.

The real issue at hand is, that without an intelligent source of information, the evolutionary theory becomes convoluted and counter-intuitive.

Actually, the real issue at hand is weather your concept of information is even relevant to evolution and genetics. I would like to see you try to do more than just assert that it is.

To be sure, the intuitively obvious concept that "something cannot come from nothing" screams to be heard from this perennial debate.

Only creationists claim that something comes from nothing. I beg you to find a single scientific source that claims that evolution involves something coming from nothing. If you truly want to prove that life doesn't have a natural origin, then let's talk about that and not evolution, which concerns the diversity of life not its origins.

Furthermore, this controversy can be silenced very quickly by examining the classical arguments within natural theolgy (e.g., cosmological, teleological, ontological, and axiological arguments).

This is about evolution not “natural theology;” can we please stick to the subject at hand.

Mr Rufus I discern that you are an intelligent man, I beg you to add to your intellect, wisdom and seek out these things, and know that the Living God of the Universe who created your mind desires for you to give Him your heart. In the end, He is inescapable. How true it is that the scripture says in Psalm 14:1 "The fool has said in his heart there is no God"; Please don't be one of these. I consider you a friend and will pray for you.

If you truly considered me a friend, then you would not call me a “fool.” I don't know how an ad hominem attack is supposed to convert me. Furthermore, I do not understand what my religious status has to do with the scientific accuracy evolution.

 

[seebs]

Originally posted by Lanakila

Mr Rufus I discern that you are an intelligent man, I beg you to add to your intellect, wisdom and seek out these things, and know that the Living God of the Universe who created your mind desires for you to give Him your heart. In the end, He is inescapable. How true it is that the scripture says in Psalm 14:1 "The fool has said in his heart there is no God"; Please don't be one of these. I consider you a friend and will pray for you.

This is fascinating, but what does it have to do with evolution? The amazing depth God has obtained with such simple tools is a testimony to His majesty; why are you so determined to undermine it?

I don't think that trying to make Rufus believe in God will have any effect on his beliefs about evolution.

May I refer you to something which, while not technically scripture, is of some interest?

"It frequently happens that there is some question about the earth, or the sky, or the other elements of this world, the movement, revolutions, or even the size and distance of the stars, the regular eclipses of the sun and the moon, the course of the years and seasons; the nature of the animals, vegetables, and minerals, and other things of the same kind, respecting which one who is not a Christian has knowledge derived from most certain reasoning or observation. And it is highly deplorable and mischievous and a thing especially to be guarded against that he should hear a Christian speaking of such matters in accordance with Christian writings and uttering such nonsense that, knowing him to be as wide of the mark as, to use the common expression, east is from west, the unbeliever can scarcely restrain himself from laughing."

Saint Augustine was right about this. If we present laughable or silly claims, we create a *BARRIER* to any possible belief.

Given the choice between the direct evidence of my senses, and some person's claims about a thing I've never seen, I will always take the direct evidence of my senses. Were you to tell me that God was incompatible with the evidence of my senses, I would be forced to conclude that, whatever you believe in, it isn't real; the evidence of my senses is not something I can deny.

When you claim that God cannot coexist with evolution, you have the same effect on competent scientists everywhere - except for those who have already accepted God's existance, and who know that He is not restricted to perform His works in ways that we can easily explain to children.

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by seebs

Given the choice between the direct evidence of my senses, and some person's claims about a thing I've never seen, I will always take the direct evidence of my senses. Were you to tell me that God was incompatible with the evidence of my senses, I would be forced to conclude that, whatever you believe in, it isn't real; the evidence of my senses is not something I can deny.

1. Therefore you believe mirages are real.

2. Therefore you think it is wise to ignore the Bible's admonition to trust in God and lean not on your own understanding.

Fine with me. Whatever floats your boat. Or sinks it.

 

[Oliver]

Originally posted by npetreley

2. Therefore you think it is wise to ignore the Bible's admonition to trust in God and lean not on your own understanding.

Fine with me. Whatever floats your boat. Or sinks it.

Leaning on our own understanding (and observations) is precisely the point of doing science. So yes, when discussing science, I think it is indeed wise, even for a Christian, to set the Bible aside (at for a moment) and rely on one's own understanding.

Now I don't claim that doing science is the best way to gain knowledge about everything (I certainly think it is the most appropriate tool when trying to learn about the physical world, but I consider this my personnal opinion). Nor would I advise anyone to forget about his Bible and instead rely on your own understanding as a general rule. Not at all.

But if you try to convince a non believer that he is wrong about science, then it is usually a bad idea to quote the Bible. Try to convince him by showing your understanding of science instead...

 

[LewisWildermuth]

Originally posted by npetreley


1. Therefore you believe mirages are real.

2. Therefore you think it is wise to ignore the Bible's admonition to trust in God and lean not on your own understanding.

Fine with me. Whatever floats your boat. Or sinks it.

So Thomas was sent to hell for asing for proof that Jesus was really there? I don't remember reading that... But I do remember something about testing to see if God was true being okay... And something else about "When you can tell me how... I'll tell you why..."

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by LewisWildermuth

So Thomas was sent to hell for asing for proof that Jesus was really there?

Let's see what attitude Jesus thinks is preferable...

24 Now Thomas, called the Twin, one of the twelve, was not with them when Jesus came. 25The other disciples therefore said to him, "We have seen the Lord."
So he said to them, "Unless I see in His hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and put my hand into His side, I will not believe."
26And after eight days His disciples were again inside, and Thomas with them. Jesus came, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst, and said, "Peace to you!" 27Then He said to Thomas, "Reach your finger here, and look at My hands; and reach your hand here, and put it into My side. Do not be unbelieving, but believing."
28And Thomas answered and said to Him, "My Lord and my God!"
29Jesus said to him, "Thomas,[4] because you have seen Me, you have believed. Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed."

But I do remember something about testing to see if God was true being okay... And something else about "When you can tell me how... I'll tell you why..."

The first one could match a few places in the Bible, so I don't know which you mean.

I'm guessing the second is this:

(5) 23 Now when He came into the temple, the chief priests and the elders of the people confronted Him as He was teaching, and said, "By what authority are You doing these things? And who gave You this authority?"
24But Jesus answered and said to them, "I also will ask you one thing, which if you tell Me, I likewise will tell you by what authority I do these things: 25The baptism of John--where was it from? From heaven or from men?"
And they reasoned among themselves, saying, "If we say, "From heaven,' He will say to us, "Why then did you not believe him?' 26But if we say, "From men,' we fear the multitude, for all count John as a prophet." 27So they answered Jesus and said, "We do not know."
And He said to them, "Neither will I tell you by what authority I do these things.

What that has to do with your point (if you actually had one) I'll never know.

 

[Lanakila]

I agree that the philosophical agruments are not science. But, as can be seen by all the debate in this forum, alot of this is based on where you or I are coming from (our philosophy of life). Natural Theology involves cosmology and cosmogeny. Which is whether you believe we were planted here by aliens or God created us. Or whatever you believe about origins more correctly.

 

[Lanakila]

The basic premise of my argument hasn't changed and I am sorry you have taken a verse about fools to apply to you. I was asking you to not be a fool, not calling you one, Rufus.

 

[seebs]

Originally posted by npetreley

1. Therefore you believe mirages are real.

Nope, because the evidence of my senses has taught me about optical illusions.

2. Therefore you think it is wise to ignore the Bible's admonition to trust in God and lean not on your own understanding.

No... but then, I'm not doing that. Only some of the people here are blindly trusting in their own understanding, preferring it to the majesty of God's creation. They're the people who think that their particular decision about how to read a story written for people who barely had agriculture should take precendence over God's will.

 

[seebs]

Originally posted by Lanakila
The basic premise of my argument hasn't changed and I am sorry you have taken a verse about fools to apply to you. I was asking you to not be a fool, not calling you one, Rufus.

Lana, that was outright dishonest. If you're asking him not to be a fool, that implies that he is one; you know that, he knows that, everyone reading this knows that, and it's pretty clear that you were, in fact, calling him a fool.

If you wanna call him a fool, go ahead - but don't pretend you didn't. We are called to witness with honesty, and sideways insults aren't honesty.

 

[randman]

Seebs, no, Lana is right. She is saying don't be a fool, not that he is one. I certainly read it that way since Rufus seemed a little non-committal in his athiesm, more like he was agnostic.

 

[Lanakila]

My post was actually in the Bible too, Seebs. Check out Ps 14:1, God says atheists are fools, not me. I was trying to challenge Rufus to not be foolish and look for God through science, instead of reasoning Him away (like many scientists do by the way).