Biological evolution- why is the starting point such a big deal?

quote:

---

That said, does knowing something's origins, aid in any way, someone's ability to understand its function, deduce its (a) purpose and conduct proper maintenance on it?

​

Absolutely NOT.

---

Actually, knowing the origin of an organism is quite important to understanding it's function.For example,humans and other primates are very closely related, therefore we can conduct medical tests upon our evolutionary relatives and be quite confident that the results will apply to humans.Understanding function is knitted together with understanding origins in many cases. The more one understands function, the more one sees the obvious interrelatedness of organisms. There's no getting around it.

quote:

---

All that is accomplished by searching for that 'thing's' origins is to satisfy a curiousity. Human's have a 'need-to-know' complex, which isn't a bad thing but it isn't always a good thing. Sometimes that complex just gets in the way, clouds the real issues, cause some interesting debates and needlessly put peoples against each other.

---

There is no debate within the legitimate, professional scientific community about the fact of evolution. (There is, however, debate about the *mechanism* of exactly how evolution occurs.)The only people who have a problem with the ToE do so due to religious reasons. Are you saying that, because a certain small minority of Protestant Christian fundamentalists object to the ToE, we shouldn't persue the study of the origin of species any longer? Why should this minority have any influence over the ideas Biologists persue?

quote:

---

Ya know, bacteria will always be bacteria, have always been bacteria and will continue to be bacteria.

---

I wonder if you know that you are stating things rather too simply when you say the above. Here is why: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html"The common ancestor of all life probably used RNA as its genetic material. This ancestor gave rise to three major lineages of life. These are: the prokaryotes ("ordinary" bacteria), archaebacteria (thermophilic, methanogenic and halophilic bacteria) and eukaryotes. Eukaryotes include protists (single celled organisms like amoebas and diatoms and a few multicellular forms such as kelp), fungi (including mushrooms and yeast), plants and animals. Eukaryotes and archaebacteria are the two most closely related of the three. The process of translation (making protein from the instructions on a messenger RNA template) is similar in these lineages, but the organization of the genome and transcription (making messenger RNA from a DNA template) is very different in prokaryotes than in eukaryotes and archaebacteria. Scientists interpret this to mean that the common ancestor was RNA based; it gave rise to two lineages that independently formed a DNA genome and hence independently evolved mechanisms to transcribe DNA into RNA.The first cells must have been anaerobic because there was no oxygen in the atmosphere. In addition, they were probably thermophilic ("heat-loving") and fermentative. Rocks as old as 3.5 billion years old have yielded prokaryotic fossils. Specifically, some rocks from Australia called the Warrawoona series give evidence of bacterial communities organized into structures called stromatolites. Fossils like these have subsequently been found all over the world. These mats of bacteria still form today in a few locales (for example, Shark Bay Australia). Bacteria are the only life forms found in the rocks for
a long, long time --eukaryotes (protists) appear about 1.5 billion years ago and fungi-like things appear about 900 million years ago (0.9 billion years ago)."

quote:

---

I'll tell you what I think would change- we would know an organism (or population if you prefer) was confined.

---

Why and how would we know this, particularly since we have observed no mechanism which limits the occurence of evolution?

quote:

---

In knowing that I believe we could better figure out how bacteria and viruses evolve and therefore be more able to counteract that ability. How so? Predictability will be increased due to the limit we would have knowledge of. Computer simulations could be made showing all possible viable mutations (and combinations of mutations) an organism could handle and what mutation (combination) caused what effect. (I wonder if anyone has done that with amino acid sequences. Load one in a computer, allow it point mutations and see when it breaks down) And then how to alter that effect if it is detrimental. (But that will only work if there is a limit and we know what it is.)

---

But evolution is ALREADY limited by natural law.It is not productive to indulge in wishful thinking about how much easier things would be if what we know about natural systems and the physical forces that govern the universe were somehow different in a way that satisfied your religious feelings.Remember, back in science's early years, religious folks DID put these kinds of arbitrary limits into the mix, and look where it got us; Scientists imprisioned and prosecuted for going against Church doctrine. Scientific discovery slowed down by people looking for evidence in nature of Biblical events instead of looking at nature FIRST, then trying to figure out what happened without the constant filter of a religious book.As soon as science cut itself loose from religious influence which stifled inquiry, discovery expanded at an exponential rate.

quote:

---

Schrafinator:The only people who have a problem with the ToE do so due to religious reasons.

​

John Paul:That would be a lie. I have a problem due to the lack of compelling evidence.

​

Schrafinator:Are you saying that, because a certain small minority of Protestant Christian fundamentalists object to the ToE, we shouldn't persue the study of the origin of species any longer?

​

John Paul: That's another lie. I am a Muslim and many of my Catholic friends (and wife) are also Creationists. Besides it appears that
Creationists are hardly a minority. That is if you believe Gallup.

---

OK, you are right. Religious objectors to the ToE aren't the only ones. People ignorant of science and Biology are in that group, too, and that would include a large majority of Americans.Here is the full gallup poll, which includes scientists opinions: http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htmAmong those with a college education, 25% believe in a young Earth and special human creation by God, while 65% of those without a high school diploma believe in this version. Interesting that the less education a person receives, the more likely that young Earth, special creation is believed. Could it be that these people believe because they have never been exposed to the basics of Biology?More people believe in evolution or theistic evolution (a combined 49%) than in a young Earth and special human creation (47%)."Belief in creation science seems to be largely a U.S. phenomenon. A British survey of 103 Roman Catholic priests, Anglican bishops and Protestant ministers/pastors showed that:97% do not believe the world was created in six days.80% do not believe in the existence of Adam and Eve.""According to Newsweek in 1987, "By one count there are some 700 scientists with respectable academic credentials (out of a total of 480,000 U.S. earth and life scientists) who give credence to creation-science..." That would make the support for creation science among those branches of science who deal with the earth and its life
forms at about 0.14%"Everyone used to think that the Earth was flat, you know.Just because a lot of people believe something doesn't make it true.Lastly, the Catholic church officially states that Evolution is well-documented and the evidence is strongly in it's favor. I was raised Catholic and I was NEVER required to accept a literal interpretation of the Bible, nor was I ever discouraged from accepting science.

quote:

---

schraf: Why should this minority have any influence over the ideas Biologists persue?

​

John Paul:Truth be told it is the people who believe God had nothing to do with it that are very much the minority.

---

You didn't answer my question. Why should non-scientists with ojections to certain scientific lines of inquiry have influence over the ideas that scientists persue?Let me be clear. 40% of scientists believe in Theistic Evolution. This means that a significant minority of scientists believe that God had "something to do with it."

quote:

---

Ya know, bacteria will always be bacteria, have always been bacteria and will continue to be bacteria.

​

schraf:I wonder if you know that you are stating things rather too simply when you say the above.

​

John Paul: OK then show me (don't assume) that bacteria can evolve into something other than bacteria. Hasn't happened yet even after
millions (or billions) of generations.

---

The ToE DOESN'T PREDICT that bacteria would necessarily evolve into something other than a bacteria, so I don't know why you require it of the theory.However, the mitochondria (which is very similar to the Typhus bacteria) inside the cells of plants and animals and chloroplasts (which are basically cyanobacteria) inside the cells of plants, have bacterial DNA, so this is evidence that bacteria have evolved into something else.

quote:

---

schraf: Here is why:

​

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html

​

"The common ancestor of all life probably used RNA as its genetic material. This ancestor gave rise to three major lineages of
life. These are: the prokaryotes ("ordinary" bacteria), archaebacteria (thermophilic, methanogenic and halophilic bacteria) and
eukaryotes. Eukaryotes include protists (single celled organisms like amoebas and diatoms and a few multicellular forms such as kelp), fungi (including mushrooms and yeast), plants and animals. Eukaryotes and archaebacteria are the two most closely related of the three. The process of translation (making protein from the instructions on a messenger RNA template) is similar in these lineages, but the organization of the genome and transcription (making messenger RNA from a DNA template) is very different in prokaryotes than in eukaryotes and archaebacteria. Scientists interpret this to mean that the common ancestor was RNA based; it gave rise to two lineages that independently formed a DNA genome and hence independently evolved
mechanisms to transcribe DNA into RNA.

​

The first cells must have been anaerobic because there was no oxygen in the atmosphere. In addition, they were probably thermophilic ("heat-loving") and fermentative. Rocks as old as 3.5 billion years old have yielded prokaryotic fossils. Specifically, some rocks from Australia called the Warrawoona series give evidence of bacterial communities organized into structures called stromatolites. Fossils like these have subsequently been found all over the world. These mats of bacteria still form today in a few locales (for example, Shark Bay Australia). Bacteria are the only life forms found in the rocks for
a long, long time --eukaryotes (protists) appear about 1.5 billion years ago and fungi-like things appear about 900 million years ago (0.9 billion years ago)."

​

John Paul: Thanks. Just what I need, another 'just-so' story. If there were no oxygen in the early atmosphere (something that has no supporting evidence)

---

Yes, there is evidence. http://volcano.und.nodak.edu/vwdocs/Gases/origin.html"Perhaps the best geologic evidence for the composition of the early atmosphere is the presence and abundance of Banded Iron Formations. These rocks are made of layers of sulfide minerals (evidence for a reducing environment) and chert or fine-grained quartz. These rocks are not present in rocks younger than 1.8 - 2.5 billions of years ago, when oxygen starting becoming more abundant."

quote:

---

UV would kill anything that tried to live.

---

The first life probably developed under water near volcanic vents. UV rays do not penetrate water very well, so they would not have been an issue.

quote:

---

Even in the most favorable experiments all we have 'created' is some amino acids and quite a bit of toxic muck.

---

Why are you bringing this abiogenesis stuff up? I'm talking about BACTERIA.Look, you missed the point, and I'm not sure you even read and/or understood the science that I quoted.You started on with that "a bacteria is always a bacteria" stuff, and I simply pointed out that bacteria were more comlicated than that. In fact, there are three main sorts of bacteria, two of which have one kind of DNA replication, and one which has a completely different way of replicating DNA.

​

[This message has been edited by schrafinator, 01-09-2002]

Good, I was hoping someone who knows more about this kind of thing would show up!Thanks for the clarification.

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Paul:
Is it possible to get this thread back on track? We start another thread on the atmosphere if you would like.

​

I gave some more thought to schalldampfer's post- true it might be helpful to know some of the history of an object in order to make improvements, but I never found it necessary. Also that doesn't mean we have to know that objects origins in order to determine its function (or a function) and to therefore maintain it.

​

The prevailing theory on how eucaryotic cells came about is endosymbiosis, which is basically one (larger) procaryotic cell engulfing, but not digesting another (smaller) procaryotic cell. Please tell us how that knowledge would help a surgeon...

---

Who cares if the knowledge will help a surgeon?? The Theory of a Heliocentric Solar System doesn't "help a surgeon", but that fact doesn't weaken it in any way.Since when does the ToE claim that it's findings must be useful to surgeons??Most surgeons aren't scientists, and, like most engineers, do not do research and their work is neither emperical nor theory-driven.

quote:

---

schraf:Most surgeons aren't scientists, and, like most engineers, do not do research and their work is neither empirical
nor theory-driven.

​

John Paul:Wow. I have to wear boots reading your diatribe. I can't speak for surgeons but engineers definetly[sic] do research,

---

Some surgeons do research, and some engineers do research, but it is not a defining characteristc of either activity.

quote:

---

our work is definetly empirical and theory driven.

---

Science is "theory-driven" in that research is conducted to support theory or falsify theory. That's all research scientists do.Medicine is a practical art. If a treatment works, a doctor uses it no matter if they understand how it works or not. That's not science.Engineers use generally-accepted theories to create practical solutions to problems. Most engineers do not conduct physics experiments, for example. They use accepted theory, which has been developed by physicists, to create a skyscraper, for example.

quote:

---

Engineers weed out the theories that only work on paper.

---

There's no such thing as a "theory that only works on paper" that any real scientists accept in the first place.

quote:

---

Did you know that engineering is applied science?

---

There's a difference between "applied science" and "an application of science". Most doctors and engineers are "practitioners" of science and condict "applications of science". They generally do not deal in experiments, and so do not generally publish papers in scientific journals or develop new theories. "Applied science" is often found in industry, where science is conducted with a more specific "application" in mind, rather than just for the sake of pure knowledge (basic science).

quote:

---

I am sure your assertion about surgeons is also baseless. How do you think they learn about new surgical techniques?

---

How do they learn new techniques? By having someone teach them. Duh.
The vast majority of surgeons do not invent new techniques.I still think that you have, at best, a meager grasp ofthe nature of what is and isn't science, and how it is conducted. At least, that's all you have demonstrated.The entire reason I have gone into such great detail and to such exhaustive lengths in this conversation is to point out that having an engineering background is no guarantee that you understand science. Nor should you assume that you know how best to evaluate a scientific theory, because you are not a theory-evaluator, by trade, like a basic resarch scientist is.I'd like to know what Biology and Zoology classes you took during your undergraduate years in college, if you would be so kind.

quote:

---

To further the point, David L. Kirk (Washington University, St Louis) suggests the origins of multi-cellularity lies withthe Volvox. see "Kirk, D.L. (1998). Volvox: The Molecular Genetic Origins of Multicellularity and CellularDifferentiation. Cambridge University Press, New York & Cambridge, 381pp."How does that knowledge allow us to better understand the function and maintenance of multi-cellular life?

---

Biological molecules form families based upon evolutionary history. This knowledge has guided us in our search for new molecules which prove to be useful in the practice of medicine.

​

[This message has been edited by schrafinator, 01-12-2002]

​

[This message has been edited by schrafinator, 01-12-2002]

​

[This message has been edited by Percipient, 01-12-2002]