Real world applications of evolutionary biology

[WinAce]

In this post, I intend to outline only a few ways in which evolutionary biology has been providing practical benefits in medical research behind the scenes for at least the past several decades. These are by no means exhaustive, and others surely exist; however, they should suffice for a start.

Originally posted by bevets in the "What scientific accomplishments have scientists achieved with creationism?" thread

Your question assumes that evolution is science. It is not. Evolution is atheist mythology. Please give specific accomplisments that are a DIRECT result of evolutionary mythology.

"Ask, and ye shall receive..." For common descent, here's a few of the most obvious examples.

1. Evolutionary Genome Research

Background: comparing human and other genomes shows us which genes have been conserved or modified over the course of evolution; this allows us to hone in on specific genes that cause disease and perform vital functions much more efficiently than we could otherwise.

95% or so of the human genome consists of non-coding DNA (source). What that means is that, unlike ordinary genes, any function these sections of DNA possess is not dependent on specific sequence. Like filler in a wall, you can basically toss anything there without a negative effect.

This is evident by the fact most of these sections of DNA exhibit a high number of mutation-induced variation and polymorphisms even in the same species. Mutations that occur there, unlike ones in functional genes, will not disrupt anything, and so will not be weeded out by natural selection.

However, we're looking for coding DNA, the actual genes that make us tick and can cause major screwups if damaged. Without evolution, you would have to do some really tricky and time-consuming in vitro stuff to identify them, similar to the proverbial needle in a haystack fiasco.

So, what do we do? Compare genomes of different organisms, of course! If evolution is correct, mice and humans, as well as all other mammals, share a common ancestor.

And since mission-critical genes, like those most often associated with hereditary disease, are conserved in the population by natural selection more than other genes, they'll stand out like a sore thumb by having the largest number of similarities to homologous genes in distantly related species.

"The scientific designers of the HGP [human genome project] realized that evolution provides an important framework in which to interpret the human genome, and made provisions for simultaneous study of a number of model organisms. The model organisms contribute advantages missing from humans: smaller genome sizes, the availability of extensive collections of mutations, and the potential for experimental manipulation. Utilization of those features that are conserved through the course of evolution between humans and the model organisms has greatly facilitated the advancement of the functional goals of the HGP.

An example that illustrates the use of an evolutionary framework in genome analysis is the identification of the gene that is responsible for cystic fibrosis. Starting with a broad scale chromosomal localization for the gene, scientists used a 'zoo blot' (a DNA profile generated for many organisms) to concentrate their sequencing efforts to a smaller region of the chromosomal DNA." - Evolution as a Framework for Genome Analysis

Without the assumption of common descent, there would be no reason to assume mission-critical genes would be identifiable by evolutionary predictions (inferred from anatomical and other non-genomic data, no less!) to the exclusion of function or other likely design-oriented goals.

Coincidentally, if the genome of chimps was ordered in anything other than the specific and antecedently unlikely patterns common descent requires, we wouldn't achieve any success from using it as a paradigm for such research.

2. Yielding Insights into the Biochemistry of Chemical Side Effects

Evolution also guides research into understanding the underlying biochemical reasons for side effects from antibiotics and other toxic chemicals. We now know, for example, that the mitochondria organelles powering our cells were once free-living organisms.

By understanding the ways in which certain chemicals attack homologues to our mitochondria, ribosomes and other cellular organelles in other species, we can infer the best course of action to take in regards to preventing their nasty side effects.

"Mitochondria and the Antibiotic Connection
Is it of any practical significance to know that mitochondria are procaryotic in character? Yes: A tragic use of an antibiotic in medicine is linked to the mitochondrion. This antibiotic, chloramphenicol, was widely used in the early days of antibiotic therapy because it was thought to be nontoxic. However, infants and certain other groups turned out to be unusually sensitive to chloramphenicol, and a number of deaths due to blood anemia occurred before the general use of this antibiotic in medicine ceased. What was going on here? We now know that chloramphenicol specifically affects the ribosomes of procaryotic cells, thus inhibiting protein synthesis. In eukaryotes, the ribosomes in the cytoplasm are unaffected by chloramphenicol, but those in the mitochondria, being procaryotic in character, are attacked. Once the connection between chloramphenicol and the procaryotic ribosome was discerned, it made sense that under certain conditions, chloramphenicol might inhibit eukaryotic cells. The cells inhibited in eukaryotes by chloramphenicol are those that are multiplying rapidly, such as blood-forming cells of the bone marrow, where new mitochondria are being synthesized at a rapid rate. With this understanding of the connection between eukaryotic mitochondria and procaryotes, the use of chloramphenicol ceased, except for special cases where it is the only antibiotic that works. Many other antibiotics in clinical use, for example streptomycin, tetracycline, and erythromycin, also interfere specifically with 70S ribosome function, but since these antibiotics are not taken up by eukaryotic cells, mitochondrial ribosomes are unaffected." - Biology of Microorganisms, Fifth Edition, page 104

Note that this is an entirely counterintuitive factoid if one is disallowed the use of evolution as an explanatory framework, as there is little obvious reason why both mitochondrial and bacterial ribosomes should be affected by the same drug if they don't share a common ancestor.

3. Predicting Side Effects and Complications from Animal Models

Per common descent, if two different species that together split off from the general mammal lineage before humans, such as gorillas and chimpanzees, each have the same difficulty with a drug or surgical procedure, it stands to reason that humans will as well.

On the other hand, if only gorillas and, say, old world monkeys share the problem, but neither chimps nor bonobos (which are closer to us on the standard phylogeny) do, it also stands to reason the drug or procedure is safe for further evaluation in humans. While this is not an exact prediction in the line of the fossil record or ERVs, it's a surprisingly effective rule of thumb.

Note that this is entirely dependent on the assumption of common descent. Under any other explanatory framework, one has as much reason to suspect gorillas have many features closer to ours than chimps would; in fact, that's usually the way real-world designs are implemented, with modular reuse of components sorted by environment or other criteria other than historical constraint.

But as with everything else, animal models demonstrate the successful experimental consequences of evolution.

4. Identifying Damaged Elements in the Genome and Anatomy by Comparison of Non-Human Species

As noted in other topics, genomes of various species contain a large number of detritus such as ancient fragments left behind by botched viral infection. These things can, in some cases, be dangerous to our health and it's important to identify them.

Per common descent, if two different species that split off from the general mammal lineage before humans, such as gorillas and chimpanzees, have the same damaged retroelement, it stands to reason that humans will have, at one point, inherited it from the common ancestor as well.

The same applies for pseudogenes that code for everything from smell to vitamin C production. With evolution, we can predict the presence of a crippled gene in our genome if we find its identical presence in two or more of our closest relatives.

This also applies to gross anatomy; if the two species of ape closest to us share the same anatomical vestige, it's pretty much a guarantee we'll have the same thing or something very similar.

This allows us to identify, in advance, disease-prone elements, crippled genes, problematic areas of our anatomy and other things without actually conducting costly, inefficient and/or unethical experiments on humans.

Summary

Evolution is an indispensible theory that can guide research in everything from genetics to anatomy. As we gain more insights into the historical causes and constraints that impose disease and medical problems on our bodies, we'll be ever better equipped to counteract them.

Using it, we can:

• Find mission-critical genes among the mounds of irrelevant stuffing merely by comparing the genomes of different organisms.
• Gain insights into the biochemical and historical causes responsible for drug side effects.
• Successfully utilize animal models as a substitute for experimentation on humans.
• Find worn-out, crippled and problem-causing sections of our genome and body by focusing on the similarities, in damaged aspects, of related species.
• Do many additional things not listed here:

There are many more examples of the practical effects of evolution, both in the medical field and others; these range from improved understanding about ecology to predicting findings in embryology and the fossil record well in advance of the event.

There are also genetic algorithms, evolutionary computer simulations used for everything from designing safer aircraft wings to plotting satellite orbits to chemically arranging more effective drugs to evolving radios out of ordinary circuits merely by allowing random mutation and natural selection to operate, etc.

However, for the purpose of this particular discussion, I decided to focus on the medical insights we've gleaned from having access to the paradigm of common descent itself.

Much as the assumptions of quantum mechanics are borne out by our successful utilization of solid-state electronics, which shouldn't work if it's incorrect, so too does the success of evolution as a guide into genome research and other areas lend us ever-increasing confidence in its validity.

 

[ashibaka]

*crickets chirping*

Apparently, you have made another stunning post, WinAce

 

[Will13]

I often wonder why people make such long posts....I mean seriously, how much time does it take? Is it worth it? J/W.....Sorry, I didnt read it but i bet its good, but i could never take so much time for just one little debate.

 

[Arikay]

Maybe you should read it, you can actually learn from reading.

Often there are long posts because science is complicated and takes quite a bit of explaining. unlike the creationist organization sound bite tactic.

 

[Data]

Often there are long posts because science is complicated and takes quite a bit of explaining. unlike the creationist organization sound bite tactic.

Bah, only too true. If only creationists had the patience to read. I'm guessing none of them will actually read the OP.

 

[Will13]

Maybe you should read it, you can actually learn from reading.

Often there are long posts because science is complicated and takes quite a bit of explaining. unlike the creationist organization sound bite tactic.

Thanks for the advice there pal. Had I not gone to school to learn about all this "complicated" science I might be interested in fully reading instead of skimming. And to be honest there is plenty of long-winded creation foo foo flowing too......You keep reading though! You're getting good at it.

 

[Arikay]

Yes I do read the long creationist arguments, because its always nice to actually understand the otherside, or what others have written.

So I am curious, what is your Ph.D in?

 

[Will13]

Don't have one, but do you really need one to understand the post?

 

[Data]

Thanks for the advice there pal. Had I not gone to school to learn about all this "complicated" science I might be interested in fully reading instead of skimming.

Isn't further learning always a good thing, no matter how educated you may be?

 

[Arikay]

Nope, but if you went to school and learned enough to not need to read scientific posts, I would expect you to have at least a Ph.D.

Since, as Data pointed out, further learning is always good. Thats what this post is about, further learning for those who do not know.

To get that further learning, it often requires the full reading of long posts.

Don't have one, but do you really need one to understand the post?

 

[Will13]

Nope, but if you went to school and learned enough to not need to read scientific posts, I would expect you to have at least a Ph.D.

Since, as Data pointed out, further learning is always good. Thats what this post is about, further learning for those who do not know.

To get that further learning, it often requires the full reading of long posts.

Not all scientific posts are created equal....There could be a short one packed full of physics theories that I would benefit more from that I would read the entire post. No need to read word for word an entire post full of stuff I already know. Not that the post is useless, but for me personally there is no need to read it. But that wasn't what I meant to begin with. I was just wondering what compels people to post such long posts for just something like a thread. It's not exactly a graded paper. I was just simply amazed at the time the original poster took to create the post.

And most of that stuff in that post is pretty basic genetics with lots of explanation. PhD not required.

EDIT: I think we've hijacked the thread........

 

[Arikay]

To help educate others.

 

[napajohn]

[1. Evolutionary Genome Research

Background: comparing human and other genomes shows us which genes have been conserved or modified over the course of evolution; this allows us to hone in on specific genes that cause disease and perform vital functions much more efficiently than we could otherwise.

Theoretically yes..by premise similarities would be proven that humans would match closest those to the apes and monkeys..yet with regards to specific gravity man is closest to snakes..in terms of eye structure, the octupus is closest to man..calcium/phgosphorous rates show we are closer to turtles..
http://evolution-facts.org/c15.htm

95% or so of the human genome consists of non-coding DNA (source). What that means is that, unlike ordinary genes, any function these sections of DNA possess is not dependent on specific sequence. Like filler in a wall, you can basically toss anything there without a negative effect.

umm we just finished IDENTIFYINGthe human genome project..according to this website
http://doegenomestolife.org/..the NEXT GOAL IS To identify the mechanism..so how can you make the statement :"Like filler in a wall, you can basically toss anything there without a negative effect"..when we haven't fully understood the mechanism..kinda like going into a parts factory ..seeing only the parts that work (radio, flashlight, fan) and saying 97 % of the rest are useless filler..this smacks like the old vestigal organ ideas that were thrown around and proven wrong.

is evident by the fact most of these sections of DNA exhibit a high number of mutation-induced variation and polymorphisms even in the same species. Mutations that occur there, unlike ones in functional genes, will not disrupt anything, and so will not be weeded out by natural selection.

However, we're looking for coding DNA, the actual genes that make us tick and can cause major screwups if damaged. Without evolution, you would have to do some really tricky and time-consuming in vitro stuff to identify them, similar to the proverbial needle in a haystack fiasco.

are you aware that the body has repair mechanisms that identify and correct for mutations and protein deformities:
The quality control in place prevents many so called mutations from occuring and being passed on..this creates quite aproblem for evo theory
heres 1 article about Junk DNA:
http://www.niehs.nih.gov/oc/news/resnat.htm

Robert Sitia and Ineke Braakman, “Quality control in the endoplasmic
reticulum protein factory,” Nature 426, 891 - 894 (18 December 2003);
doi:10.1038/nature02262.

that illustrates the use of an evolutionary framework in genome analysis[/u] is the identification of the gene that is responsible for cystic fibrosis. Starting with a broad scale chromosomal localization for the gene, scientists used a 'zoo blot' (a DNA profile generated for many organisms) to concentrate their sequencing efforts to a smaller region of the chromosomal DNA."[/i] - Evolution as a Framework for Genome Analysis

Without the assumption of common descent, there would be no reason to assume mission-critical genes would be identifiable by evolutionary predictions (inferred from anatomical and other non-genomic data, no less!) to the exclusion of function or other likely design-oriented goals.

Coincidentally, if the genome of chimps was ordered in anything other than the specific and antecedently unlikely patterns common descent requires, we wouldn't achieve any success from using it as a paradigm for such research.

have you thought of another possibility: that there exists a common designer who has the knowledge to know that chimps and man are land dwelling animals and designed them from a "design" blueprint..cars are still being built with 4 wheels ..the basic design is there ..what changes them are the addressed by issues of engineering and marketability..yet no one will say that a Benz and Yugi come from a common factory..man was made in the image of God..that so far we are the only ones capable of drastically changing our habitat..think aout that possibility

Evolution also guides research into understanding the underlying biochemical reasons for side effects from antibiotics and other toxic chemicals.

side effects are determined by pretial testing usually on other animals..if it has harmful effects then testing on man can't happen..no evolutionary process is needed.

We now know, for example, that the mitochondria organelles powering our cells were once free-living organisms.

based on what evidence..fossil records?

By understanding the ways in which certain chemicals attack homologues to our mitochondria, ribosomes and other cellular organelles in other species, we can infer the best course of action to take in regards to preventing their nasty side effects

no it doesn't..http://www.aids.org/factSheets/105-How-HIV-Drugs-Get-Approved.html read this and see how drugs for AIDS is developed..its not what you claim

3. Predicting Side Effects and Complications from Animal Models

Per common descent, if two different species that together split off from the general mammal lineage before humans, such as gorillas and chimpanzees, each have the same difficulty with a drug or surgical procedure, it stands to reason that humans will as well.

On the other hand, if only gorillas and, say, old world monkeys share the problem, but neither chimps nor bonobos (which are closer to us on the standard phylogeny) do, it also stands to reason the drug or procedure is safe for further evaluation in humans. While this is not an exact prediction in the line of the fossil record or ERVs, it's a surprisingly effective rule of thumb.

Note that this is entirely dependent on the assumption of common descent. Under any other explanatory framework, one has as much reason to suspect gorillas have many features closer to ours than chimps would; in fact, that's usually the way real-world designs are implemented, with modular reuse of components sorted by environment or other criteria other than historical constraint.

But as with everything else, animal models demonstrate the successful experimental consequences of evolution.

so why are rats and mice used 90 % of the time?
"Animals often respond to chemical agents and antidotes differently than humans. A rat’s respiratory system differs greatly from that of a human, and rats are more susceptible to toxins because they are unable to vomit. Mice have a genetic tendency to develop lung tumors, rendering much of the research on physiological effects of exposure invalid. Regarding skin tests, a U.S. Department of Health and Human Services report said, “Since laboratory animals have fur and do not have sweat glands on most of their body, they do not provide optimal models for dermal exposure.”
http://www.pcrm.org/magazine/GM98Autumn/GM98Autumn1.html

4. Identifying Damaged Elements in the Genome and Anatomy by Comparison of Non-Human Species

Per common descent, if two different species that split off from the general mammal lineage before humans, such as gorillas and chimpanzees, have the same damaged retroelement, it stands to reason that humans will have, at one point, inherited it from the common ancestor as well.

The same applies for pseudogenes that code for everything from smell to vitamin C production. With evolution, we can predict the presence of a crippled gene in our genome if we find its identical presence in two or more of our closest relatives.

based on evo theory..thats why we supposedly had vestigal organs..if you extrapolate the ratio of the appendix to common ancestors, ours being less in body ratio was deemed useless:
"Dr. Howe asks: "If total absence of an appendix were a token of advancement, the old and new world monkeys should be considered more highly evolved than either mankind (or lemurs), a bizarre conclusion." [Bergman and Howe, p. 41] Biologist Helena Curtis considers the human appendix vestigial and calls it "the trouble-making appendix." [Curtis] That's a bad rap for this valiant little organ. The appendix is certainly not vestigial,
it is very useful, although it can become infected and kill you if it
ruptures. Almost any organ in your body can kill you if is it
sufficiently diseased. How many people die of heart attacks vs.
appendicitis? The heart, the physical or the spiritual one, is far
more troublesome. If your lungs become infected, you can die, but no
one suggests removing the lungs as a preventive measure during
surgery for another reason. The theory of evolution has blinded
otherwise brilliant minds and people think they can prune vestigial
parts with impunity. In some cases, the partial removal of a lung, or
the removal of an entire lung
Vestigial Organs
Jon A. Covey, BA, MT(ASCP)

This also applies to gross anatomy; if the two species of ape closest to us share the same anatomical vestige, it's pretty much a guarantee we'll have the same thing or something very similar.

yeah right... but because there a designer not evolution

This allows us to identify, in advance, disease-prone elements, crippled genes, problematic areas of our anatomy and other things without actually conducting costly, inefficient and/or unethical experiments on humans.

like the evos who proposed removals of tonsils, appendix,..the idea that oncogeny recapitulates phylogeny has given people the so-called scientific facts to abortion..that mans back problems are due to going from a quadped to a biped...great contribution to health issues those evos

Summary
Evolution is an indispensible theory that can guide research in everything from genetics to anatomy. As we gain more insights into the historical causes and constraints that impose disease and medical problems on our bodies, we'll be ever better equipped to counteract them.

as we gain more insights we'll learn how evolution is really wrong about its claim of junk DNA medical solutions via evolutionary thought

 

[Arikay]

Ill let win have fun with this one, just thought I would point out though that
1) you need to relook up the word vestigal
and
2) Your designer must have been having an off day when creating humans. For example, Why do we have a tail again?

 

[Loudmouth]

Theoretically yes..by premise similarities would be proven that humans would match closest those to the apes and monkeys..yet with regards to specific gravity man is closest to snakes..in terms of eye structure, the octupus is closest to man..calcium/phgosphorous rates show we are closer to turtles..

You are joking, right? You are saying that evolution should pass on traits such as specific gravity? Secondly, human eyes are the most similar to other primate eyes. Cephalpodian eyes are very different, especially in their ennervation.

are you aware that the body has repair mechanisms that identify and correct for mutations and protein deformities:
The quality control in place prevents many so called mutations from occuring and being passed on..this creates quite aproblem for evo theory
heres 1 article about Junk DNA:
http://www.niehs.nih.gov/oc/news/resnat.htm

Are you aware that mutations are still passed on, and also occur spontaneously in each generation? DNA repair mechanisms reduce the number of mutations, but no species has ever been found to repair every mutation. This is very far from being a refutation of evolution. Of course, this won't stop you from dreaming otherwise.

have you thought of another possibility: that there exists a common designer who has the knowledge to know that chimps and man are land dwelling animals and designed them from a "design" blueprint..cars are still being built with 4 wheels ..the basic design is there ..what changes them are the addressed by issues of engineering and marketability..yet no one will say that a Benz and Yugi come from a common factory..man was made in the image of God..that so far we are the only ones capable of drastically changing our habitat..think aout that possibility

Have you ever thought of the possibility that thousands upon thousands of christian and non-christian scientists who have been studying nature for the last 150 years have been right? In case you haven't noticed, CARS DON'T REPRODUCE. In nature, whenever there is variation and limited resources, selection occurs for those organisms that are better able to acquire resources. Mutation creates variation that is then selected for. This has been observed, and is evidenced in the fossil record. No designer has ever been evidenced or seen designing organisms. You are expecting me to follow a theory that has no evidence and throw out a theory that has been evidenced by observation. If you still want to believe in Common Design, look into convergent evolution. Organisms sometimes find the same solution to a problem, but their DNA is quite divergent. This argues against a common designer since convergent evolution should result in the same DNA sequence. However, when common descent is assumed, the results are very understandable. Sorry, no common designer.

side effects are determined by pretial testing usually on other animals..if it has harmful effects then testing on man can't happen..no evolutionary process is needed.

Incorrect. We test new products on mammals because they most closely ressemble us. Why don't we use reptiles? Because we wouldn't get meaningful results.

"Animals often respond to chemical agents and antidotes differently than humans. A rat’s respiratory system differs greatly from that of a human, and rats are more susceptible to toxins because they are unable to vomit. Mice have a genetic tendency to develop lung tumors, rendering much of the research on physiological effects of exposure invalid. Regarding skin tests, a U.S. Department of Health and Human Services report said, “Since laboratory animals have fur and do not have sweat glands on most of their body, they do not provide optimal models for dermal exposure.”

Quite correct. As a society we have determined that it is immoral to do unnecessary or cruel experiments on primates. So, we have had to go to rodents. You are right, they do not provide optimal models, but they are a heck of a lot better than horny toads. Why is that? Could it be that mice are better than horny toads because we have a common ancestor with rodents? I would say yes.


4. Identifying Damaged Elements in the Genome and Anatomy by Comparison of Non-Human Species

based on evo theory..thats why we supposedly had vestigal organs..if you extrapolate the ratio of the appendix to common ancestors, ours being less in body ratio was deemed useless:
"Dr. Howe asks: "If total absence of an appendix were a token of advancement, the old and new world monkeys should be considered more highly evolved than either mankind (or lemurs), a bizarre conclusion." [Bergman and Howe, p. 41] Biologist Helena Curtis considers the human appendix vestigial and calls it "the trouble-making appendix." [Curtis] That's a bad rap for this valiant little organ. The appendix is certainly not vestigial,
it is very useful, although it can become infected and kill you if it
ruptures. Almost any organ in your body can kill you if is it
sufficiently diseased. How many people die of heart attacks vs.
appendicitis? The heart, the physical or the spiritual one, is far
more troublesome. If your lungs become infected, you can die, but no
one suggests removing the lungs as a preventive measure during
surgery for another reason. The theory of evolution has blinded
otherwise brilliant minds and people think they can prune vestigial
parts with impunity. In some cases, the partial removal of a lung, or
the removal of an entire lung
Vestigial Organs
Jon A. Covey, BA, MT(ASCP)

You replied to a question about vestigial DNA code with morphological vestigials. Why is that? Do you not have the expertise to discuss DNA research? This seems like a total dodge to the very obvious correlations between common ancestory and DNA insertions. Also, if you remove your lungs, you die. If you remove an appendix, you get a scar. Quite a difference.


yeah right... but because there a designer not evolution


like the evos who proposed removals of tonsils, appendix,..the idea that oncogeny recapitulates phylogeny has given people the so-called scientific facts to abortion..that mans back problems are due to going from a quadped to a biped...great contribution to health issues those evos

as we gain more insights we'll learn how evolution is really wrong about its claim of junk DNA medical solutions via evolutionary thought

Wrong. The more insight we get the more medical discoveries we make. Cystic fibrosis is just one example. Would you rather us live in the dark ages and believe that God caused cystic fibrosis? Evolutionary theories are important, and they do get results, no matter what you believe. The proof is in the pudding. You might want to rethink things a little bit. I have a feeling that if the Bible said that life arose billions of years agon and the species alive today were the result of a natural process you wouldn't have any bad to say about the theory of evolution. Your only evidence for creation is a book, but don't worry. Science will continue to use the correct tools and make discoveries that will better your life.

 

[joelazcr]

The number one benefit of evolutionary biology is genome research.

"Utilization of those features that are conserved through the course of evolution between humans and the model organisms has greatly facilitated the advancement of the functional goals of the HGP."

The fact that biological features are "evolutionarily conserved" allowing
comparisons, is a benefit of evolution?

All biodiversity and all conserved features can be explained by natural selection,
really explains nothing.

 

[napajohn]

Ill let win have fun with this one, just thought I would point out though that
1) you need to relook up the word vestigal
and
2) Your designer must have been having an off day when creating humans. For example, Why do we have a tail again?

show me your tail arikay..heres one md's response on your so called tail:

The human embryo does not develop a tail. Anthony Smith wrote:
"...although the human embryo has a short stub of a tail for a while
and this is precisely similar to the short stubs that become tails in
many other species, the human tail stub only forms the basis of the
human coccyx." [Smith]

"Coccyx

Evolutionists consider the coccyx or tail bone the remnant of our
evolutionary ancestor's tail. The tail bone (coccyx) used to be
removed when people injured them, and developed coccydynia (painful
coccyx). Dr. Robert Franks says that he told his suffering patients
to resist removal of the coccyx, if ever suggested. The tailbone has
some important functions, starting with the role it plays in enabling
us to sit. Ask someone who has had his tail bone removed what it's
like to sit. That should have been an obvious function to the
unprejudiced observer. For instance, if you came from Mars or Alpha
Centauri and saw a pair of boots, you might conclude they were
useless objects. Nancy Sinatra thought they were for walking.
Actually, the feet and legs do the walking; the boots facilitate this
activity. Various muscles attached to the tail bone are important for
facilitating bowel and labor movements, supporting internal organs,
and keeping the anus closed. Concerning the coccyx, Evan Shute wrote:
"...Take it away and patients complain; indeed the operation for its
removal has time and again fallen into disrepute, only to be revived
by some naive surgeon who really believes what biologists have told
him about this useless 'rudiment.'" [Shute]

Cora Reno says that the coccyx is merely the terminal portion of the
backbone. "After all, it does have to have an end!" [Reno] Bergman
and Howe go into much more detail on the coccyx in their book.
Source: Jon A. Covey, BA, MT(ASCP)


Hey Arikay, by the way what you confuse as a tail is really what many call
a brain and what you call the brain is really the rear..learn to distinguish and use them appropriately.

 

[WinAce]

Napajohn, before you discuss anything else, would you mind answering the following bolded questions? And keep in mind that I ask in all sincerity.

1. If you thought the Bible didn't mention anything relating to evolution, would the evidence for it be convincing to you?

2. Are you interested in finding out whether evolution is, in fact, correct or wrong with an open mind?

With that out of the way, I now bring you the following reply.

(1) Nowhere in my post did I argue that similarities alone demonstrate common ancestry. In actual point of fact, certain types of similarities (double-nested hierarchical ones) do, but this was not the point of the topic. The point was that evolutionary interpretation of these biological similarities leads to a great deal of insights into the genome, while creationism is remarkably useless in terms of predictive or research power.

(2) Your website provided no cites for any of the claims it made. Moreover, many of them are demonstrably wrong. "The cephalopods are a group of animals that include octopi, squid, and nautilus. They have eyes that are superficially similar to our eye, but on close examination, we find that all the details are different. In particular, they have the 'wiring' on the back of their retina, as you'd expect. There is no blind spot, and the entire retina is fully functional." (Source)

(3) It's fairly easy to demonstrate that in the majority of DNA, specific sequence doesn't make a difference in terms of function. See section 5 of this TalkOrigins article for a few:

• Observable genetic phenomena like transposons and gene duplications constantly add superfluous material to the genome that wasn't there before;
• Much of the genome looks exactly like leftovers from these phenomena;
• Mutations can be stuck almost anywhere without having a negative effect;
• Certain related species (like pufferfish and salamanders) have hugely bloated or very compact genomes, indicating much of their content can be blown up or abandoned with no ill effect;
• With few exceptions, functional genes tend to be conserved very well across many species, since mutations that occur there have a much higher chance of killing the organism (non-important genes, on the other hand, are very flexible).

Yes, it's a fact that you can basically toss anything into large parts of the genome without disrupting anything, because even if they serve some esoteric purpose, there's nothing there that can be disrupted. Which is where evolution shines at letting you identify those important, rare sections of the genome which actually code for stuff and cause disease if disrupted.

Under the assumption of evolution, you just look for sections that have been conserved throughout the development of various species, indicating errors that occured there were filtered out by selection more often than mutations in other sections--and hence were filtered out for a reason. And such evolutionary research has been borne out time after time.

Under creationism, on the other hand, you can't assume this, and subsequently have no way of knowing whether X, Y or Z sections of DNA is more likely to contain a mission-critical gene just by comparing similarities among many species. It's a bit like doing astronomy without optics--you disavow the use of telescopes when you practice creationist genetics.

(4) If you want to make an argument that DNA copy-fidelity mechanisms somehow pose a problem for evolution (non-sequitur of the week?), please do so in a new topic. This is the one about real-world applications of evolutionary sciences.

(5) Common designers don't make double-nested hierarchies. Nor deposit shared molecular fossils in their creations. Regardless, this is not the subject of this topic. Many explanations will exist for any phenomenon--an infinite number, in fact. But you won't find any explanation for why evolutionary explanations for the genome are the ones consistently leading to new insights and knowledge, while others are sterile in terms of explanatory and predictive power.

(6) Evolutionary medicine can help us understand the underlying causes of antibiotic resistance and many diseases in terms of its origin, causes and prevalence; creationism can't.

(7) Mitochondria, among other things, have their own genome and resemble smaller cells living inside our own. Moreover, modern examples exist of such symbiotic relationships between two clearly different bacterial cells. This is the standard hypothesis for their origin, but as it's a bit off-topic here, I suggest starting a new one to learn more about that.

(8) Attacking the successful identification of the cause of chlorophenocol side effects with evolutionary research by linking to an AIDS drug site is a non-sequitur.

(9) Rodents and other critters are used as animal models for many reasons than relatedness alone. Primates would be the best for that, but they're hard to keep, often endangered and raise a host of ethical issues for certain experiments.

(10) Consult this essay to have your misconceptions about vestigial features cleared up. And start a new topic if you still don't understand something.

(11) I'm not even sure what your point was in mentioning abortion. Perhaps you could elaborate, assuming it had any remote semblance of being applicable to the topic here.

(12) If you think a design hypothesis can successfully predict anatomical features of a mystery organism in advance merely by studying organisms evolution considers closely related, I'm afraid I have to disappoint you. By definition, no such prediction can be made in the absence of evolution. The fact these can me made, successfully, indicates we're on to something.

With all due respect, I think you're rushing to reply for ideological reasons before carefully understanding and appreciating the full breadth of the argument. Perhaps you'd benefit by taking some time off following all of the links listed, reading them and making an effort to understand how they all fit together in the big picture.

 

[napajohn]

You are joking, right? You are saying that evolution should pass on traits such as specific gravity? Secondly, human eyes are the most similar to other primate eyes. Cephalpodian eyes are very different, especially in their ennervation.

hey I gave you my source..wheres yours?..if we are similar in genetic makeup should we not be similar in phenotypic expressions?..or did they change that to?

Are you aware that mutations are still passed on, and also occur spontaneously in each generation? DNA repair mechanisms reduce the number of mutations, but no species has ever been found to repair every mutation. This is very far from being a refutation of evolution. Of course, this won't stop you from dreaming otherwise.

this is a far cry from perfect which i'm not suggesting...yes mutations pass on but there is a genetic load that must be addressed by the organism...enough of this change will result in deformities and creating an organism that is compromised..read the nylon eating bacteria..he eats only nylon..absent any nylon, he starves..they do not go back to eating the same prior to the mutation...Your stmt no species has ever been found could also be translated to no species has ever been seen transitioning to another species..yet that doesn't prevent you from believing evo thoughts..besides what sample or study has verified or disproved your statement.You can't..its an opinion.

Have you ever thought of the possibility that thousands upon thousands of christian and non-christian scientists who have been studying nature for the last 150 years have been right? In case you haven't noticed, CARS DON'T REPRODUCE.

right about what?..how do you prove evolution or creation?yes cars don't reproduce but life has shown to be more complicated and unexplained than the engine that power cars..create an animal like the whale that can adjust and manage to go to extreme depths and surface in seconds without suffering the bends..US subs can't even do that..no... God has created life that far exceed the complexity and design of all of science and man.

In nature, whenever there is variation and limited resources, selection occurs for those organisms that are better able to acquire resources. Mutation creates variation that is then selected for. This has been observed, and is evidenced in the fossil record. No designer has ever been evidenced or seen designing organisms.

Theres that word again:selection..a magical world that explains everything...
first of all natural selection was termed by a creationists as a way to show design by a creator ..his name was Edward Blythe
http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-283.htm
http://www.thedarwinpapers.com/oldsite/Number2/Darwin2Html.htm
I might add that Darwin stole a lot of his ideas from his grandfather ERasmus but thats another issue...
if bacteria has shown to be the best survivor in all of lifes history ..why change the design? if survival was the key why become anything else but a bacteria..does evolution explain that?..no It doesn't ..the answer as always to evos is mutation and natural selection..no mechanism or explanation can fully satisfy this question using evo theory..as a model for answering these questions evolution is extremely weak and lacking either the mechanics or the causes..yet we accept it as fact

You are expecting me to follow a theory that has no evidence and throw out a theory that has been evidenced by observation. If you still want to believe in Common Design, look into convergent evolution. Organisms sometimes find the same solution to a problem, but their DNA is quite divergent. This argues against a common designer since convergent evolution should result in the same DNA sequence. However, when common descent is assumed, the results are very understandable. Sorry, no common designer.

do what you want ..i stand by God..common descent makes it understandable? LOL, evidence by observation..where?..why did Gould/Goldschmidt resort to PEquilibium?...because the fossil records showed incredible gaps between species...

Incorrect. We test new products on mammals because they most closely ressemble us. Why don't we use reptiles? Because we wouldn't get meaningful results.

WINACE said that they use monkeys and apes to test and establish possible issues..i asked why they use rats and mice then refuting his points..if anything this may prove that the so called tree or bushes are not as clearly defined by current evo thought..possibly we don't use reptiles because rats and mice are ideal for what we want to test..have you seen the cost of rats to lizards and snakes...you would think that if WINACE was correct testing on chimps would be required after it succeeds with rats...this may prove that even drug companies see no real value in WINACES claim..if anyone should take this other step(testing on primates), you would think drug companies would.

Quite correct. As a society we have determined that it is immoral to do unnecessary or cruel experiments on primates. So, we have had to go to rodents. You are right, they do not provide optimal models, but they are a heck of a lot better than horny toads. Why is that? Could it be that mice are better than horny toads because we have a common ancestor with rodents? I would say yes.

already gave my answer

You replied to a question about vestigial DNA code with morphological vestigials. Why is that? Do you not have the expertise to discuss DNA research? This seems like a total dodge to the very obvious correlations between common ancestory and DNA insertions. Also, if you remove your lungs, you die. If you remove an appendix, you get a scar. Quite a difference.

what dodge are you talking about?

Wrong. The more insight we get the more medical discoveries we make. Cystic fibrosis is just one example. Would you rather us live in the dark ages and believe that God caused cystic fibrosis? Evolutionary theories are important, and they do get results, no matter what you believe. The proof is in the pudding. You might want to rethink things a little bit.

so far we are finding repair mechanisms that exist, cells that are so complex you couldn't recreate in a lab that replicates, folds and repoduces, yet evo says a bunch of chemicals in some prebiotic soup using lightning was able to get this whole process going..why does believing in God automatically make it the dark ages?..the greatest rise in science was caused by men driven by their Christian faith..men like Herschel, pascal, van Leewenhouk, Bacon..
what kind of results does evo get? strip away the evo bias and you'll find that science is science..I referenced where evo thinking has caused injustice to not only science but humanity...Eugenics was an offshoot product of evo thinking

I have a feeling that if the Bible said that life arose billions of years agon and the species alive today were the result of a natural process you wouldn't have any bad to say about the theory of evolution. Your only evidence for creation is a book, but don't worry. Science will continue to use the correct tools and make discoveries that will better your life.

no theres much more than a book..besides that book has been proven in its claims of science and archaeology...your equating science with evolution which is wrong..science will contribute to a point..evo thinking will siphon of funding that could be used by real scientific studies..instead the evo's monopoly on influencing academia and govt funding will cause more money
to be wasted on attempts to further spread the evo mesage.

 

[Arikay]

I wasn't born with a tail, but others have been,

Here is information about the tail your supposably inteligent designer left in the human DNA structure, http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section2.html#atavisms_ex2

(although I dont expect you to actually visit the link).

If that was an attempt at an insult, it was pretty bad.
Do I need to bring up the red blood cells on dinosaurs post?

show me your tail arikay..heres one md's response on your so called tail:

The human embryo does not develop a tail. Anthony Smith wrote:
"...although the human embryo has a short stub of a tail for a while
and this is precisely similar to the short stubs that become tails in
many other species, the human tail stub only forms the basis of the
human coccyx." [Smith]

"Coccyx

Evolutionists consider the coccyx or tail bone the remnant of our
evolutionary ancestor's tail. The tail bone (coccyx) used to be
removed when people injured them, and developed coccydynia (painful
coccyx). Dr. Robert Franks says that he told his suffering patients
to resist removal of the coccyx, if ever suggested. The tailbone has
some important functions, starting with the role it plays in enabling
us to sit. Ask someone who has had his tail bone removed what it's
like to sit. That should have been an obvious function to the
unprejudiced observer. For instance, if you came from Mars or Alpha
Centauri and saw a pair of boots, you might conclude they were
useless objects. Nancy Sinatra thought they were for walking.
Actually, the feet and legs do the walking; the boots facilitate this
activity. Various muscles attached to the tail bone are important for
facilitating bowel and labor movements, supporting internal organs,
and keeping the anus closed. Concerning the coccyx, Evan Shute wrote:
"...Take it away and patients complain; indeed the operation for its
removal has time and again fallen into disrepute, only to be revived
by some naive surgeon who really believes what biologists have told
him about this useless 'rudiment.'" [Shute]

Cora Reno says that the coccyx is merely the terminal portion of the
backbone. "After all, it does have to have an end!" [Reno] Bergman
and Howe go into much more detail on the coccyx in their book.
Source: Jon A. Covey, BA, MT(ASCP)


Hey Arikay, by the way what you confuse as a tail is really what many call
a brain and what you call the brain is really the rear..learn to distinguish and use them appropriately.