Evolution and Creation an Honest Question

[KevinM]

First of all

Kindly don't assume that I'm lying. Doing so is rather rude and illogical. For one thing if you think a fundamentalist would stop to ask honest questions and respond with there own oppinions you have met very different fundamentalists then I have. The ones I know would be telling you guys that you'll burn in hell by this point in the discussion.

I do beleive in evolution but there are some things about it that do raise questions in my mind(the sort of questions I've been asking). Being able to ask questions when you don't understand some thing is part of how science grows and fundamental to how people's understanding of the world improves. ITs only when you take what some one says completely at face value that you enter the realm of blind faith. I'd also observe many of the questions are repetitiions of points other people have brought up.

The sickle cell thing is a good point in the fact that with out both copies its more advantage then weakness. I'd also observe that macro evolution the sense creationists mean(at least any I've talked to) is the idea that one type of animal can change but still be recognizable as the same type(yes to a degree species are human creations but then again there is a point when you have two different animals ie humans are closely related to chimpanzees(yes I know we aren't descended from them) and we are both in the catagory of primate but last time I checked we can't produce offspring together). Its the idea that you can start with one animal and wind up with some thing different(yes I realize its a gross over simplification of a series of changes over an extended period of time). They tend to state that in breeding(like dogs) if you try to keep breeding in changes long enough you get some thing no longer viable as a living organism.

Also in terms of evolution not caring over the long haul(agreed) thats not quite what I meant. Let me try to be more clear. I was observing that for a specific species(ie humans) for a mutation to be beneficial its about more then the short term. Certainly if every one facing malaria(before treatments were available) had the lesser form of sickle cell it would be an advantage. Yet in the long haul it would(unless I'm mistaken in my genetics I am a psych major not a biologist let alone a geneticist) increase the incidence of full blown sickle cell in subsequent populations. While we would have an advantage in one aspect it creates another problem that will surface eventually. That would raise the question of which was in terms of survival better to be left with.

Regardless the sickle cell is a secondary issue. Every one has been very helpful in giving me some very good examples that will probably be less objectionable. I would like to observe some thing about dogs though. Its really not a good example in my oppinion. Dogs have reached the point they are with a good deal of help from humanity. We've bred them for specific traits encouraging what we wanted and not allowing the continuance of others. While it does demonstrate a species can change in ways that are not destructive its an example of an inteligent intervention helping that process along which can ultamitely point a creationist back to there own belief in inteligent design.

For my own part I beleive(since its been questioned) that both views have it right to a degree. I believe that evolution and the other scientific theories of the origins of life and the universe itself are the way God created things. Aside from a great deal of personal faith(which is not evidence) I find my reasons in the inherent structure of the universe. To me to believe that every thing needed to bring life into existence on this planet(both the chemical reactions and for that matter the aspects of our solar system) happened by random chance is to big a stretch. I don't expect others to take that as evidence but combined with other things its enough for me personally. Is that all science? No and I'm well aware of that but its some thing I've taken the time to think through and it makes sense to me.

 

[delphi_ote]

When a better one does come along, it needs to better address catastrophism as the reason for major genotype change, leading to true phenotype change & speciation.

Currently, this is factored into The Modern Synthesis. That it could be "better addressed" is a fiction of your own invention. Based on your previous posts, you clearly don't understand modern biology well enough to make such a criticism.

So do you want to explain what you mean there, hammy? Maybe back up and explain what you think is missing from The Modern Synthesis? Or are you just throwing together a bunch of words you don't understand to try to confuse people?

 

[delphi_ote]

To me to believe that every thing needed to bring life into existence on this planet(both the chemical reactions and for that matter the aspects of our solar system) happened by random chance is to big a stretch.

Douglas Adams said it best:

Imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, 'This is an interesting world I find myself in, an interesting hole I find myself in, fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!' This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and as, gradually, the puddle gets smaller and smaller, it's still frantically hanging on to the notion that everything's going to be alright, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise. I think this may be something we need to be on the watch out for.

 

[hammegk]

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/modern-synthesis.html

Current ideas on evolution are usually referred to as the Modern Synthesis which is described by Futuyma;


"The major tenets of the evolutionary synthesis, then, were that populations contain genetic variation that arises by random (ie. not adaptively directed) mutation and recombination; that populations evolve by changes in gene frequency brought about by random genetic drift, gene flow, and especially natural selection; that most adaptive genetic variants have individually slight phenotypic effects so that phenotypic changes are gradual (although some alleles with discrete effects may be advantageous, as in certain color polymorphisms); that diversification comes about by speciation, which normally entails the gradual evolution of reproductive isolation among populations; and that these processes, continued for sufficiently long, give rise to changes of such great magnitude as to warrant the designation of higher taxonomic levels (genera, families, and so forth)."
- Futuyma, D.J. in Evolutionary Biology, Sinauer Associates, 1986; p.12
This description would be incomprehensible to Darwin since he was unaware of genes and genetic drift. The modern theory of the mechanism of evolution differs from Darwinism in three important respects:
1.It recognizes several mechanisms of evolution in addition to natural selection. One of these, random genetic drift, may be as important as natural selection.
2.It recognizes that characteristics are inherited as discrete entities called genes. Variation within a population is due to the presence of multiple alleles of a gene.
3.It postulates that speciation is (usually) due to the gradual accumulation of small genetic changes. This is equivalent to saying that macroevolution is simply a lot of microevolution.
In other words, the Modern Synthesis is a theory about how evolution works at the level of genes, phenotypes, and populations whereas Darwinism was concerned mainly with organisms, speciation and individuals. This is a major paradigm shift and those who fail to appreciate it find themselves out of step with the thinking of evolutionary biologists. Many instances of such confusion can be seen here in the newsgroups, in the popular press, and in the writings of anti-evolutionists.
The major controversy among evolutionists today concerns the validity of point #3 (above). The are many who believe that the fossil record at any one site does not show gradual change but instead long periods of stasis followed by rapid speciation. This model is referred to as Punctuated Equilibrium and it is widely accepted as true, at least in some cases. The debate is over the relative contributions of gradual versus punctuated change, the average size of the punctuations, and the mechanism. To a large extent the debate is over the use of terms and definitions, not over fundamentals. No new mechanisms of evolution are needed to explain the model.

Some scientists continue to refer to modern thought in evolution as Neo-Darwinian. In some cases these scientists do not understand that the field has changed but in other cases they are referring to what I have called the Modern Synthesis, only they have retained the old name.

Re the bolded lines, catastrophism? Make sense?

Yes, I prefer neo-Darwinism ... that being what it is.


BTW, Futuyma is an ass.

 

[Euromutt]

I don't know how a fundie would see it, but I'd just say a mosquito is a mosquito; albeit a good example of within-species mutation.

Unfortunately for you, "mosquito" isn't a species; it's a family (Culicidae), containing three subfamilies (Anophelinae, Culicinae and Toxorhynchitinae), 13 genera and some 3500 species.

Hammy's back to his totally arbitrary classification of species again. Apparently biologists should all be consulting him whenever they want to determine species.

Well, in fairness to hammy, that is to a large extent because taxonomy is, to a large exent, arbitrary, not in the least place because Linnaean taxonomy predates evolution theory and the discovery of DNA. Where Hammy, and every other Creationist, goes wrong, of course, is in refusing to acknowledge this fact. I think it's fair to say that if a given instance of speciation occurred prior to 1760 (the year in which Systema Naturae was published), the result was more to be likely classified as a distinct species, whereas if it occurred since, taxonomists would be more inclined to class the result as a subspecies of the original species. Witness that fact that Linnaeus originally classified "the dog" as Canis familiaris, whereas it has since been re-classified as C. lupus familiaris, a subspecies of grey wolf.

 

[hammegk]

Unfortunately for you, "mosquito" isn't a species; it's a family (Culicidae), containing three subfamilies (Anophelinae, Culicinae and Toxorhynchitinae), 13 genera and some 3500 species.

He snatches it away ...

Well, in fairness to hammy, that is to a large extent because taxonomy is, to a large exent, arbitrary, not in the least place because Linnaean taxonomy predates evolution theory and the discovery of DNA.

And returns it to where it was. Thanks.

As I say, a mosquito is a mosquito.

Where Hammy ... goes wrong, of course, is in refusing to acknowledge this fact.

At this point, you better not go for the million either ... ( as a clairvoyant ).

I think it's fair to say that if a given instance of speciation occurred prior to 1760 (the year in which Systema Naturae was published), the result was more to be likely classified as a distinct species, whereas if it occurred since, taxonomists would be more inclined to class the result as a subspecies of the original species. Witness that fact that Linnaeus originally classified "the dog" as Canis familiaris, whereas it has since been re-classified as C. lupus familiaris, a subspecies of grey wolf.

Yeah, been here too. Dogs is wolves is dogs is chihuahuas is great danes ... one big, happy, "species" --- or as delphi_ote wants me to say,"kind".

I saw a special on wolves - Science Channel maybe; the comment was made, wolves have a 30% larger brain than dogs. Sounds a bit odd, but then again did anyone breed for brainpower?


PS. What "kind" of creationist do you have me classified as??? Or would it be a "species"???

 

[bpesta22]

Kevin, FWIW, I thought your question was sincere, I don't percieve you as a fundy dressed in a moderate's clothing.

Here's a blog I wrote (at the risk of being self patronizing) that I think might address one of your concerns.



Annoying strawmen against evolution.

For this and future posts on evolution, could people consider this possibility:

Generation 1...a long time ago!

lots of time passes; mutations perhaps; certainly differential reproductive success.

Generation 10,000...today!

Were it possible to go back in time, animals in generation 10,000 could not reproduce with animals in generation 1. Even though generation 1 animals were the great great (etc) grandparents of generation 10,000, too much has changed, and the animals in generation 1 are no longer of the same type (i.e., species) as those of generation 10,000.

That said, animals of generation 10,000 could breed-- no problem-- with animals in generation 9999. Those in 9999 could breed with those in 9998, and so on...

Note that the animals of the type Generation 1 might still exist today, they just cannot reproduce with animals of Generation 10000.

This has happened many times-- most recently, with misquitos trapped in the london subways (as generation 1), forced to feed on rats versus humans (adapting to their new environment), then 100 years later (now generation 10000), no longer being able to breed with misquitos on the surface (generation 1's unchanged/unevolved progeny).


So, PLEASE stop attacking the straw man that evolution predicts:

a) a monkey gives birth to a human,

or

b) when a new species evolves, the old one must now cease to exist (i.e., if apes turn into humans, then apes must no longer exist).

That apes exist today, together with humans, says nothing about whether apes and humans shared a common ancestor.

That no monkey ever has (nor ever will) give birth to a human says nothing about the validity of evolution, as evolution doesn't predict this.

Carry on!

 

[UrsulaV]

but then again there is a point when you have two different animals ie humans are closely related to chimpanzees(yes I know we aren't descended from them) and we are both in the catagory of primate but last time I checked we can't produce offspring together).

I'm sort've curious as to where you checked on this fact.

Chimps and humans are significantly more genetically similiar than, say, donkeys and zebras, who can interbreed, albeit producing sterile offspring. We're only two chromosomes short, instead of the whopping 18 between donkeys and zebras. And lions and tigers and all sorts of other pairings also manage just fine.

I don't think we SHOULD interbreed, mind you, and I think any such experiment, even in the lab, would be skirting the dark edge of ethics, nor do I know of any case of this being done--but still I'd be a bit wary of saying that the possibility of human/chimp hybridization has been completely ruled out, either.

Just sayin'.

 

[Euromutt]

As I say, a mosquito is a mosquito.

So in your book, there's no remarkable difference between mosquitoes of the genus Toxorhynchitinae and those of, say, Anopheles, is there?

Look, I'm none too impressed by a fair amount of the Linnean taxonomic system at the (sub)species level, but that's not all there is to the system. But that's beside the point. The point is that where the hell do you get off claiming speciation doesn't occur when you evidently have no idea of what is commonly accepted as constituting a species in the first place, and remain wilfully ignorant about distinctions at the higher levels, such as genera as well?

 

[Dymanic]

Certainly if every one facing malaria(before treatments were available) had the lesser form of sickle cell it would be an advantage. Yet in the long haul it would [ ] increase the incidence of full blown sickle cell in subsequent populations. While we would have an advantage in one aspect it creates another problem that will surface eventually. That would raise the question of which was in terms of survival better to be left with.

It's a trade-off. Just about anything you can think of that gives an advantage in some way creates a problem somewhere else. Have you ever seen an olympic athlete who won medals in both weight lifting and distance running?

We've bred them for specific traits encouraging what we wanted and not allowing the continuance of others.

Dogs are the result of selective pressure by humans on the wolf genome. Your question was about mutation, which is what provides the choices. Most of the mutations which provided the choices humans selected for occurred long before humans began selecting for certain traits. At the time they occurred, they would not have been "advantageous" (or at least not nearly as advantageous), and some might even have been detrimental, at least in some environments. A problem shared by most of the fundamentalists I've had experience with is a tendency to see things in black-and-white. You're either saved or you're not, it's either a sin or it isn't, a mutation is either beneficial or it's not. But what is beneficial cannot be considered independent of context; there are always going to be many questions for which the answer must begin with: "it depends".

 

[UrsulaV]

But what is beneficial cannot be considered independent of context; there are always going to be many questions for which the answer must begin with: "it depends".

Absolutely true. With dogs, you'd think that a mutation that gives you a squashed face with eyes that tend to pop out would be a harmful mutation.

And if you're a wolf, you'd be right. Shortness of breath, popping eyes, flattened mouth...not all that advantageous.

But as soon as a human thinks you're cute, and starts breeding you to everybody else in sight--wham! Suddenly that awful mutation is a beneficial one. You're reproducing like nobody's business, and you've got a papers and a name longer than your arm.

That's sort of an extreme example of context, mind you, and generally there are simpler ones--if Random Moth Species is synched up to hatch in spring and because a chromosome doubled up, Moth A produces twice as much Hypothetical Hatching Hormone that leads to hatching, so Moth A's eggs hatch a week earlier than Moth B, and Moth A thus has a 20% greater likelihood of the offspring surviving, because they get to the food first, that's a very minor, apparently beneficial mutation. But if we have a series of late frosts for a coupla years, Moth A's offspring get hard hit by frost, and suddenly Moth B's offspring have a 20% higher chance of survival than their rivals, and the mutation is now harmful.

 

[delphi_ote]

Yes, I prefer neo-Darwinism ... that being what it is.

And two kinds of actual evidence exist. The fossil record is notorious for the continuing failure to provide any incontrovertible "missing link", or even to demonstrate that "speciation occurs over long periods", with critters appearing and dying out in instantaneous geologic time.

The other evidence is at the biochem and life level. All evidence to date demonstrates mutation and change within species and never a speciation event, unless defined to be one after-the-fact.

Evolution, "The Origin of the Species", remains a just-so-story ready for the next (meaningless) revision.

I'm not going to argue with you, hammy. You don't have the intellectual honesty to hold a position on this issue.

 

[delphi_ote]

Well, in fairness to hammy, that is to a large extent because taxonomy is, to a large exent, arbitrary, not in the least place because Linnaean taxonomy predates evolution theory and the discovery of DNA. Where Hammy, and every other Creationist, goes wrong, of course, is in refusing to acknowledge this fact. I think it's fair to say that if a given instance of speciation occurred prior to 1760 (the year in which Systema Naturae was published), the result was more to be likely classified as a distinct species, whereas if it occurred since, taxonomists would be more inclined to class the result as a subspecies of the original species. Witness that fact that Linnaeus originally classified "the dog" as Canis familiaris, whereas it has since been re-classified as C. lupus familiaris, a subspecies of grey wolf.

Yes, but hammy maintains that his taxonomy is correct.

Yes, family canidae are "one 'species'", albeit not by current scientific-evolutionist-accepted definition.

 

[Bronze Dog]

It's amazing how much hammy can type about quotes from us without actually saying anything about those quotes.

 

[Orb]

I'm sort've curious as to where you checked on this fact.

Chimps and humans are significantly more genetically similiar than, say, donkeys and zebras, who can interbreed, albeit producing sterile offspring. We're only two chromosomes short, instead of the whopping 18 between donkeys and zebras. And lions and tigers and all sorts of other pairings also manage just fine.

I don't think we SHOULD interbreed, mind you, and I think any such experiment, even in the lab, would be skirting the dark edge of ethics, nor do I know of any case of this being done--but still I'd be a bit wary of saying that the possibility of human/chimp hybridization has been completely ruled out, either.

Just sayin'.

Along similar lines, although we don't share compatible chromosomes to interbreed, the genes that control basic functions such as hormone production or protein synthesis are the same for all lifeforms! At the cellular level we share 25% of the same genes as a banana! Hmmm, I wonder how that happened?

 

[hammegk]

So in your book, there's no remarkable difference between mosquitoes of the genus Toxorhynchitinae and those of, say, Anopheles, is there?

The genotype distinctions that allow you to declare them to represent definite macro-ev speciation are unknown to me. Phenotypically, yup a mosquito is a mosquto. Do you also present chihuahuas and great danes, or the Eocene to present horse lineages as definite macro-ev speciation?

.. The point is that where the hell do you get off claiming speciation doesn't occur when you evidently have no idea of what is commonly accepted as constituting a species in the first place, and remain wilfully ignorant about distinctions at the higher levels, such as genera as well?

Er, are you thinking of becoming a preacher? That sounds like a sermon.

Ignorant? Of course. Wilfully, I do my best to keep current at layman's level in science, and have some understanding of things.

Save us some time. How many 'commonly accepted definitions of speciation' are currently in play? Last I checked the answer was open-ended; if y'all need a new one you'll just define a new one.

 

[Bronze Dog]

Save us some time. How many 'commonly accepted definitions of speciation' are currently in play? Last I checked the answer was open-ended; if y'all need a new one you'll just define a new one.

You realize that an artificial, arbitrary construct like "species" entails lots of different measurement techniques.

Of course, your constantly shifting vocabulary and goal posts leave a lot of open ends. My current guess is that it's deliberate: If you won't nail down what it'll take to convince you, you can remain eternally unconvinced.

 

[drkitten]

The genotype distinctions that allow you to declare them to represent definite macro-ev speciation are unknown to me.

So if you admit you're ignorant to the point of not being qualified to hold an opinion on the point, why do you persist in holding an opinion?

And more to the point, why do you feel that your self-admittedly pig-ignorant opinion is worth sharing?

 

[hammegk]

You realize that an artificial, arbitrary construct like "species" entails lots of different measurement techniques.

Why yes, yes I do. Shall we highlight the arbitrary?

Of course, your constantly shifting vocabulary and goal posts leave a lot of open ends.

Your side is defending an ever-changing just-so-story, not me.

My current guess is that it's deliberate: If you won't nail down what it'll take to convince you, you can remain eternally unconvinced.

I've been quite candid that a my acceptance at 100% certainty that materialism is the correct philosophy is not something I see happening. And that's what an actual, 100%, belief in evolutionary theory entails.

So if you admit you're ignorant to the point of not being qualified to hold an opinion on the point, why do you persist in holding an opinion?

I did not, and do not, admit to that level of ignorance.

And more to the point, why do you feel that your self-admittedly pig-ignorant opinion is worth sharing?

Your fondest wish would be to actually demonstrate I'm pig-ignorant; otherwise, just to p*ss off a tw*t like you makes sharing seem worthwhile.

 

[Bronze Dog]

Your side is defending an ever-changing just-so-story, not me.

I have this terrible feeling of déjà vu.

Of course, evolution changes because new evidence is continually being discovered that requires modification of the theory (falsifiying older versions). If evolution was an unfalsifiable "just so story", that would never happen. So, which is it, hammy: Is evolution falsifiable or not? You whine that it's falsifiable and unfalsifiable at the same time.

I've been quite candid that a my acceptance at 100% certainty that materialism is the correct philosophy is not something I see happening. And that's what an actual, 100%, belief in evolutionary theory entails.

Oh, no! StrawDog! Why'd he knock you down, so shortly after creating you?!

I'm not demaning 100% acceptance. Even I don't have that.