Evolution and Creation an Honest Question

[money]

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).

...

Carry on!

Aren't there examples of life that acutally haven't changed appreciably in 10000 generations? Evolution is hardly my area of specialty, but it seems that according to popular literature, things like some sharks, sturgeon, the celiocanth (sp) etc, fit their niche so well they haven't been forced to evolve?

If these are bad examples, then are there any specie that could mate with their ancestor (x 10000)?

 

[drkitten]

Aren't there examples of life that acutally haven't changed appreciably in 10000 generations?

Er, no.

Evolution is hardly my area of specialty, but it seems that according to popular literature, things like some sharks, sturgeon, the celiocanth (sp) etc, fit their niche so well they haven't been forced to evolve?

They haven't been forced to evolve (much) in external appearance, which is not the same thing as saying that they haven't been forced to evolve. Dawkins discusses this extensively in one of his Ancestor's Tale's. Basically, his point is that just because one particular aspect of a creature (say, a particular bone) hasn't changed much does not imply that any other particular aspect of a creature (say, the bone next to it) hasn't. If you look at the actual DNA, the DNA of the modern alligator (which hasn't changed much from its umpteen-zillion year old form) is just as different from our reconstructed DNA for the common ancestor with humans as has human DNA, despite the tremendous morphological change that we've had. In fact, the alligator DNA has had slightly more change. Similarly, the DNA changes have occurred about as fast for the coelacanth and lungfish (both of which have displayed very little morphological change for the past 400+ million years) as for goldfish, carp, salmon, and such-like.

As Dawkins expressed it, "the overall rate of genetic change is independent of morphological evolution." We have no reason to believe that modern lungfish would be genetically compatible with their great-times-ten-thousand-grandparents, any more than we would.

 

[sphenisc]

Aren't there examples of life that acutally haven't changed appreciably in 10000 generations?

E.coli has a generation time of about 17 minutes, which puts 10000 generations ago as some time yesterday. I'd be hard pushed to tell yesterday's E.coli from today's.

If these are bad examples, then are there any specie that could mate with their ancestor (x 10000)?

Humans have a generation time of maybe 20 years, which puts 10000 generations ago at 200,000 years. This is roughly when the first Homo sapiens emerged. Given that they're sufficiently similar to be classified as H. sapiens on morphological grounds, I don't think that successful mating would be entirely out of the question...

 

[Errata]

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.

I'm not sure you have any concept of exactly how many planets there are. The odds of any particular one having the right conditions for life as we know it probably are slim. But you give it a few quatrillion attempts, and you might have some hits. The only difference between our planet and all the ones that didn't develop intelligent life is that there is nobody on those other planets pondering where they came from. To those self-important ponderers, the planet might look like a tailor fit for them, but from a broader perspective its clear that really they are tailor fit to their planet.

As a side note, if God made all those planets just so he could play out his little tribe-of-Abraham, Jesus-died-for-you soap opera in one isolated little corner of it, it seems to me like an awfully prolific waste of resources. Of course to the ancient people who invented those beliefs, its more understandable, since its looks like we're the center of the universe and everything else is just lights hanging in the sky. But it doesn't explain how rational, modern people can so completely buy into just because their parents said so.

Also, it sounds like you're mixing up the concept of evolution with biogenesis. Evolution only covers the development of existing life. Where the very first bacteria came from is beyond the scope of evolution. Biogenesis is not nearly as well understood, and there is no one predominant theory the way there is in evolution.

 

[blutoski]

Aren't there examples of life that acutally haven't changed appreciably in 10000 generations? Evolution is hardly my area of specialty, but it seems that according to popular literature, things like some sharks, sturgeon, the celiocanth (sp) etc, fit their niche so well they haven't been forced to evolve?

If these are bad examples, then are there any specie that could mate with their ancestor (x 10000)?

Doubtful. A good example of a 'living fossil' is the coelocanth, discovered off the African coast. Their environment didn't change much over time, so there was no pressure for them to adapt. Our aquarium has a preserved specimen on display. Ugly bastard.

The living species bear striking external resemblance to their ancestors, but examination of their interior shows that their reproductive and digestive systems have changed significantly. We can't tell, but it stands to reason that their behavior may be different, as well.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Not as far as I know. If you drink arsenic-laced water for a long time, you will not develop resistance. You get it, and eventually die. You cannot condition your body to poisons.

Actually that isn't true. I don't know the specifics of arsenic and didn't bother to look it up but I do know the specifics of tolerance. It develops with a large number of drugs from alcohol to heroin and includes drugs which are not necessarily sedatives. The liver switched to a different metabolic pathway to break the drugs down. Once the pathway is established, absence of the drug does not cause the liver to revert to its previous state. Reintroduction of the drug quickly leads to tolerance again.

Alcohol and Tolerance

Functional Tolerance

Humans and animals develop tolerance when their brain functions adapt to compensate for the disruption caused by alcohol in both their behavior and their bodily functions....

Learned tolerance.

The development of tolerance also can be accelerated by practicing a task while under the influence of alcohol. This phenomenon is called behaviorally augmented (i.e., learned) tolerance....

Metabolic Tolerance

Tolerance that results from a more rapid elimination of alcohol from the body is called metabolic tolerance (2). It is associated with a specific group of liver enzymes that metabolize alcohol and that are activated after chronic drinking (21,22). Enzyme activation increases alcohol degradation and reduces the time during which alcohol is active in the body (2), thereby reducing the duration of alcohol's intoxicating effects.

However, certain of these enzymes also increase the metabolism of some other drugs and medications, causing a variety of harmful effects on the drinker. For example, rapid degradation of sedatives (e.g., barbiturates) (23) can cause tolerance to them and increase the risk for their use and abuse. Increased metabolism of some prescription medications, such as those used to prevent blood clotting and to treat diabetes, reduces their effectiveness in chronic drinkers or even in recovering alcoholics (24). Increased degradation of the common painkiller acetaminophen produces substances that are toxic to the liver (25) and that can contribute to liver damage in chronic drinkers.

Tolerance and the Predisposition to Alcoholism

Animal studies indicate that some aspects of tolerance are genetically determined....

 

[drkitten]

Actually that isn't true. I don't know the specifics of arsenic and didn't bother to look it up but I do know the specifics of tolerance.

Arsenic and other heavy metals (e.g., lead) behave somewhat differently.

Basically, the human body reacts to normal chemical poisons (including most drugs) by getting rid of them, either by breaking them down or simply by excreting them. Like most behaviors, the body gets better at doing this with practice -- it will make more of the appropriate enzymes, &c. -- so that the material can be gotten rid of more effectively.

Heavy metals, being atomic, cannot be "broken down," and so if they can't be excreted quickly enough, they will get incorporated into the body's structure. (Arsenic, if I remember correctly, will replace phosphorous in many compounds). But the replaced compounds don't act correctly, and so as they are incorporated, they accumulate and eventually the body fails to work properly.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Re mutations but no new species:

For multi-celled organisms that reproduce sexually, the older a species the more genetic variation there will be within the species. But selection pressures may or may not change the species to any great degree. Chimpanzees for example have more genetic variation within their species than do humans. Humans went through a bottleneck 100,000 or so years ago where there may have been as few as a 1,000 members left. That reduced our volume of genetic variation as well.

If you read the book published on Kennewick Man, the 9,000 yr old skeleton found in WA State, the author discusses how over thousands of years humans actually have changed. We differed in size in particular in different regions of the planet. There was one group in South America where the males were much larger than the females. It's possible there was a food shortage and the males hogged all the food according to this researcher. I am not an anthropologist so I'm only reporting what I read. Don't hold me to it.

But if you think about it, there is a lot of variation in humans today. Bodies come in many shapes and sizes and groups can maintain certain characteristics such as Pigmy tribes vs Zulus vs natives in the high Andes.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Arsenic and other heavy metals (e.g., lead) behave somewhat differently.

Basically, the human body reacts to normal chemical poisons (including most drugs) by getting rid of them, either by breaking them down or simply by excreting them. Like most behaviors, the body gets better at doing this with practice -- it will make more of the appropriate enzymes, &c. -- so that the material can be gotten rid of more effectively.

Heavy metals, being atomic, cannot be "broken down," and so if they can't be excreted quickly enough, they will get incorporated into the body's structure. (Arsenic, if I remember correctly, will replace phosphorous in many compounds). But the replaced compounds don't act correctly, and so as they are incorporated, they accumulate and eventually the body fails to work properly.

I'm learning so much here. Elemental arsenic is not the form one necessarily ingests, however.

Human urinary arsenic excretion after one-time ingestion of seaweed, crab, and shrimp.

Fast urinary excretion of unchanged arsenobetaine was seen...

In contrast, the arsenosugars, which comprise the major arsenic species in seaweed, are metabolized and have a longer retention time in the human body...

 

[articulett]

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'.

I think it's interesting that we are more genetically closer to chimps than chimps are to gorillas!

And KevinM, you are welcome to believe whatever you please, but if you are ever interested there is a lot of information out there that makes a lot more sense than some divine planner--it doesn't require faith. Also, what humans "think" regarding a mutations benefit is of no concern to genes. In the case of malaria--those who carried the gene had extra protection against malaria--it only became a detriment to the offspring if they mated with someone else who carried the mutation--and, even then, only in 25% of cases. You seem to be confused as to that which is beneficial to survival of genes and that which is beneficial to humans. The mutation spread through through a large percentage of the populations in which death from malaria was common. Why? Because these people were more likely to survive a mosquito bite that infected them with malaria? Others survived because they didn't get bit by a malaria infected mosquito or they had other benefits that those who died didn't have. Genes can't predict the future...genes couldn't tell that two people with the malaria protecting mutation might mate and have a 25% chance of having a child with sickle cell anemia. And, in modern times, sickle cell anemia is not a death sentence--those with sickle cell trait can also have children (who will be carriers like their ancestors who benefited from the gene). Apparently, a large percentage of people who carried the mutation had more grandchildren and passed on their genes into the future while some of their peers who lacked the mutation died from malaria and, thus, had fewer grandchildren. Do not confuse that which is beneficial from a genes point of view (primarily that which affects survival and the production of decendents) with genes that our beneficial from a human point of view--those that make us healthy, attractive, smart, funny, and happy. Genetics is a large scale game of averages--overall, the mutation whose homozygous form causes sickle cell anemia--provided a survival benefit to malaria exposed populations, despite it's occasional double whammy loss. This is why it is more prevalent in populations whose ancestors were exposed to malaria--even still--most such people do NOT carry the mutation.

As for Hammy, I'm not sure if anyone other than Hammy knows what it is he is talking about or what it is he believes in. Yes...most biologists are materialists...because there is lots of evidence that consciousness is a brain process and absolutely no evidence for consciousness outside a brain (be it gods, souls, "life forces", demons, essences, "evil", etc.). In fact, I offer these observations for anyone new to this forum:

1. Interesting Ian believes in "souls" (consciousness outside of the brain) and will never sway from that view or provide evidence for it.

2. Hammy believes in "intelligent design" and will use all sorts of language confusion to support his "intelligent designer" and scoff at those who believe differently--but he will never provide evidence for what exactly he believes nor will he provide evidence of his "designer"...

3. Von Neumann is the smartest of the three whom nobody really seems to understand completely. He believes in some sort of outside force that started the life process on planet earth--but he's never particularly clear on what this is nor does he provide evidence for it, though he frequently derides the understanding or conclusions of current scientific thought.

Engage them at your own peril.

 

[articulett]

That's going to annoy me now. I think I remember reading a short story in which a number of people are murdered at a meal. The murderer mixed some poison into a shared dish, but had previously built up an immunity to it over many years. So the others were killed but he wasn't. Sherlock Holmes story maybe?

Can anyone help?

Cheers

addicts build up a tolerance to their addictions--be it nicotine, opiates, or alcohol... such that a dose that would kill others, barely makes a dent in them...

 

[articulett]

As a side note, if God made all those planets just so he could play out his little tribe-of-Abraham, Jesus-died-for-you soap opera in one isolated little corner of it, it seems to me like an awfully prolific waste of resources.

Indeed. Evolution is very wasteful which doesn't speak well for any "so-called" intelligent designer. A man makes over 2000 billion sperm in his lifetime. An average of 2 actually become anyone. That's pretty damn wasteful considering the expense involved in sperm making (eunichs throughout the mammal kingdom have longer healthier lives on average). Of course each dandilion makes tons of fluff seeds...too many of which become weeds from my own observations--but still, a miniscule fraction of those which could exist.

Just because someone is the one in a million person who wins the lottery, doesn't mean that it's because it was "meant to be". Although such a person might attribute their wealth to god, their lucky socks, or chanting buddhist phrases--that doesn't mean it is so.

 

[Dogdoctor]

Regarding the ingestion of toxins, there was a tribe of native peoples somewhere in South America who regularly consume a plant that is poisonous to those who are unaccustomed to it. Mothers feed their babies a little at a time and they become resistant to the poison. Visitors have been killed by ingesting this plant in meals at normal amounts that the natives eat. In the case of arsenic there is much variation in the effect of various arsenical molecules. Here is some info http://www.greenfacts.org/arsenic/arsenic-1.htm#4

 

[money]

Er, no.

...


As Dawkins expressed it, "the overall rate of genetic change is independent of morphological evolution." We have no reason to believe that modern lungfish would be genetically compatible with their great-times-ten-thousand-grandparents, any more than we would.

I see. Interesting information, thanks for taking the time. Thanks also to blutoski and sphensic.

 

[steenkh]

I thank you for all the information about toxins and tolerance. I have learned much new stuff.

About arsenic-laced water that I brought up, I wonder why it is seen as a problem in those regions where it is common, e.g. Bangla Desh, because it seems local people should simply develop a tolerance for arsenic. The only people who should be worried should be visitors, and the amount seems to be too small to do immediate damage.

 

[bpesta22]

Indeed. Evolution is very wasteful which doesn't speak well for any "so-called" intelligent designer. A man makes over 2000 billion sperm in his lifetime. An average of 2 actually become anyone. That's pretty damn wasteful considering the expense involved in sperm making

Come now; it depends on how you define wasteful.

I've considered just about every extraction of my little swimmers to be anything but a waste of time!

Think how useful clinton's sperm were when landing on the blue dress, even though, obviously, they did not lead to reproduction.

 

[EdipisReks]

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?

to paraphrase The Doctor, "look at him, he's stupid."

 

[hammegk]

to paraphrase The Doctor, "look at him, he's stupid."

Perhaps, but not as stupid as you are if you accept "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?" characterizes my understanding of things.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I thank you for all the information about toxins and tolerance. I have learned much new stuff.

About arsenic-laced water that I brought up, I wonder why it is seen as a problem in those regions where it is common, e.g. Bangla Desh, because it seems local people should simply develop a tolerance for arsenic. The only people who should be worried should be visitors, and the amount seems to be too small to do immediate damage.

Apparently long term exposure leads to bad arteries and diabetes according to a quick Google search. There may be other consequences especially to kids and fetuses.

Acute poisoning is different than chronic exposure. So you can consume more after building up tolerance but that doesn't mean it isn't hurting you. Just look at alcohol to see an example of that.

 

[delphi_ote]

Perhaps, but not as stupid as you are if you accept "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?" characterizes my understanding of things.

Then please explain your understanding of things.