Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,901 Year: 4,158/9,624 Month: 1,029/974 Week: 356/286 Day: 12/65 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evolution is a basic, biological process
TheLiteralist
Inactive Member


Message 16 of 306 (172950)
01-02-2005 3:45 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by Soplar
01-02-2005 12:09 AM


Welcome Back Soplar
Hi Soplar,
I worried that you left because your topic sat there so long without responses. That's all. You don't need to be more attentive. You see others filed right in to argue for you, so to speak. However, it IS better to engage the original poster; so I'm glad you came back.
Soplar writes:
I don’t believe that this is a minor issue.
What I meant was that since you devote only one small paragraph to this issue, I didn't figure you wanted 200 back-and-forth posts about THIS issue while we never get to the OTHER issues you bring up. That's all.
Soplar writes:
I hope someone will discuss some of the other issues such as my premise that Darwin's contributions to the explanation of evolution were not all that significant other than detecting it in the first place
Sure. I wanted to go into the other issues (not the Darwin thing in particular...some of the evos might want to do that, tho).
The next issue I wanted to explore was your assertion that:
Modern biology is unintelligible without an understanding of the evolutionary process.
I was wondering if you could share with us exactly which parts of modern biology are "unintelligible without an understanding of the evolutionary process."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Soplar, posted 01-02-2005 12:09 AM Soplar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Soplar, posted 01-02-2005 1:11 PM TheLiteralist has replied
 Message 25 by Soplar, posted 01-02-2005 11:58 PM TheLiteralist has replied

Soplar
Inactive Member


Message 17 of 306 (173043)
01-02-2005 1:11 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by TheLiteralist
01-02-2005 3:45 AM


Re: Welcome Back Soplar
Hi Literalist
Thanks for your kind words. I’m new at this, so will take a bit to get into the groove.
Regarding your comment
since you devote only one small paragraph to this issue
It is sometimes difficult to balance importance with the number of words devoted to a topic. I probably should have started my OP with something like
I am appalled at the amount of effort being devoted to insert ID into the public schools, hence I have decided to join the debate
On the other hand, while I’m not sure we have put the ID issue to bed, I agree it would be good to move on since some of the other issues are relevant to whether there is an ID or not
I like your next choice
Modern biology is unintelligible
It will take me a bit to put this together — I have a lot of material to sort through and assemble, so won’t get this posted until later today.
Soplar

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by TheLiteralist, posted 01-02-2005 3:45 AM TheLiteralist has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by TheLiteralist, posted 01-02-2005 3:40 PM Soplar has not replied

Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5901 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 18 of 306 (173049)
01-02-2005 1:25 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by Soplar
01-02-2005 12:09 AM


Hi Soplar.
It appears our friend TheLiteralist is uninterested in addressing anyone but you on this thread, so I'd like to take a stab at one of your premises:
I hope someone will discuss some of the other issues such as my premise that Darwin's contributions to the explanation of evolution were not all that significant other than detecting it in the first place.
I'm not sure why you consider this such an important, or even controversial topic. Perhaps you could elaborate? After all, Darwin was neither the first to propose that organisms evolved, nor even (really) the first to propose natural selection as the mechanism. His contribution was tying in others' works (especially population work), coupled with exhaustive real-world examples, and his own thoughts into a coherent picture. There's been quite a bit of new data and new ideas brought out in the 150 years since the publication of Origin. The interesting thing IMO is that, in spite of all the changes and additions, the modern version of the ToE is still recognizable as deriving from Darwin's works. Now THAT'S a legacy.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Soplar, posted 01-02-2005 12:09 AM Soplar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by Soplar, posted 01-02-2005 2:21 PM Quetzal has replied
 Message 20 by TheLiteralist, posted 01-02-2005 2:43 PM Quetzal has replied

Soplar
Inactive Member


Message 19 of 306 (173066)
01-02-2005 2:21 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by Quetzal
01-02-2005 1:25 PM


The legacyof Darwin's Theory
Hi Quetzal
The subject of evolution is obviously quite complicated and has many important issues. My interest in the evolutionary debate stems from a desire to do my part as a scientist to thwart attempts by creationists to impose their beliefs on the educational system, and to understand why over 80% of people surveyed (several news articles over the past few years) either don’t believe in evolution at all (~40%) or believe that evolution was guided by and ID (~40%).
Much of the debate relates to Darwin’s Theory of Evolution with statements like
Because Darwin’s Theory is a theory, it continues to be tested as new evidence is discovered. The Theory is not a fact. Gaps in the Theory exist for which there is no evidence. A theory is defined as a well-tested explanation that unifies a broad range of observations
Dover [PA] Area Board of Directors
Biology Curriculum Press Release
Now IMO this is nonsense and it would perhaps be better to use the term explanation rather than theory — theory always seems to have a negative connotation — it’s only a theory
While I agree in general with your statement
, in spite of all the changes and additions, the modern version of the ToE is still recognizable as deriving from Darwin's works
it must be remembered that Darwin’s basic contribution was his exhaustive analysis of the real world which led him to the inescapable conclusion that life had evolved from lower to higher’ forms — Darwin was the first to publish a reasoned discussion of the Process of Evolution, thus his Theory was just the explanation of the process. What is continually getting mixed up in discussions of ToE is the distinction between the process and the explanation of the process On the other hand, Darwin had no idea how the process worked. That Darwin’s name is associated with the process is largely due to the practice of naming things after their discoverer. There was a recent article commenting on what would have happened if Wallace had published first — we might be talking of Wallaciscm.
Last week I visited an exhibition of Spanish art and the influence of Spain in the New World. One item in particular caught my attention. Spain sponsored several botanical explorations in the 16th century, gathering and cataloging thousands of botanical specimens. What I find intriguing, with all this data, they apparently never detected the process of evolution (or perhaps they did and were too timid to say so having seen what happened to those who those who contradicted revealed truth)
With all due respect, your comment
There's been quite a bit of new data and new ideas brought out in the 150 years
is a bit of an understatement. In the last 150 years we have learned how the process works and are rapidly putting this knowledge to work in the conquest of disease. I plan to address this in my response our friend The Liberalist. Also, this subject is addressed in an intriguing book that just arrived in print which you might find interesting
Fantastic Voyage Live long enough to live forever by Ray Kurzweill and Terry Grossman
Regards
Soplar

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Quetzal, posted 01-02-2005 1:25 PM Quetzal has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by Quetzal, posted 01-03-2005 8:38 AM Soplar has not replied
 Message 49 by RAZD, posted 01-03-2005 7:21 PM Soplar has replied

TheLiteralist
Inactive Member


Message 20 of 306 (173075)
01-02-2005 2:43 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by Quetzal
01-02-2005 1:25 PM


Quetzal,
Quetzal writes:
It appears our friend TheLiteralist is uninterested in addressing anyone but you on this thread...
No. Not at all. I just prefer that the original poster be engaged as well; since he is the one who makes the assertions that are to be examined.
I didn't mean to imply others' comments were unimportant.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Quetzal, posted 01-02-2005 1:25 PM Quetzal has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by Quetzal, posted 01-03-2005 9:27 AM TheLiteralist has not replied

TheLiteralist
Inactive Member


Message 21 of 306 (173093)
01-02-2005 3:40 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by Soplar
01-02-2005 1:11 PM


Take your time
Soplar,
It will take me a bit to put this together — I have a lot of material to sort through and assemble, so won’t get this posted until later today.
Please don't feel rushed.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Soplar, posted 01-02-2005 1:11 PM Soplar has not replied

Steen
Inactive Member


Message 22 of 306 (173138)
01-02-2005 6:40 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by TheLiteralist
01-01-2005 1:32 AM


Is God mean?
quote:
1) If there is an Intelligent Designer, then we are the things designed. Wouldn't that make it difficult for us to figure out what the Intelligent Designer's motives for various aspects of His design are?
Well, Everything would have to be designed. As we can show omething actually evolving, that is a problem for your assessment right there.
quote:
2) The God of the Bible seems very aware of infectious diseases and various maladies (like blindness) and takes credit for them and uses them for HIS purposes (which might be vastly different from OUR purposes).
Meaning that God deliberately induce suffering and death onto innocent people. So God is now an antisocial psychopath? Or, as Soplar mentioned in the beginning, Is God there for the bacteria and germs? Are we merely substrate for diseases to thrive on? Regardless, it directly contradicts how Christianity has described God.
quote:
3) The Bible also indicates that we live in a wrecked version of the original creation (wrecked via the Flood). If it's wrecked, I would naturally expect things to work imperfectly.
Given that the "original creation" was so flawed that God found it necessary to destroy it, your argument seems served by wishful thinking rather than facts. You will have to look at the data and see what conclusion you draw from it. It is no good to come up with the conclusion first and then trying to fudge the data to fit it as that is dishonest. And *THAT* certainly is prohibited in the Bible that bids us to not bear false witness.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by TheLiteralist, posted 01-01-2005 1:32 AM TheLiteralist has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by Sisyphus, posted 01-02-2005 6:49 PM Steen has not replied

Sisyphus
Inactive Member


Message 23 of 306 (173140)
01-02-2005 6:49 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by Steen
01-02-2005 6:40 PM


Re: Is God mean?
I feel that if God were proven to be a cosmic despot, Christian thought would be soon replaced by the french anarchist maxim - 'If God did exist, he would have to be abolished'.
OK, it's just what the possibilities of the concept bring to mind for me, but it probably is true - if he were 'mean', we would be in a state of revolution. It seems that the possibility of this isn't even considered by most Christians, as the cosyness of the faith would go. And it is, therefore, a concept very similar to evolution in its impact upon faith. Just a (digressional) thought.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Steen, posted 01-02-2005 6:40 PM Steen has not replied

AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 24 of 306 (173150)
01-02-2005 7:18 PM


Topic
Sorry peoples but this "mean god" bit is starting to take this thread way off topic.
My reading of the OP (and clarifications) allows the discussion of the ID as influencing evolution NOT the personality of the old guy.
Let's stay with the topic. It is a science thread NOT a theological one. I will be a bit sticky about this so don't risk getting a temp close on the thread of a short loss of posting priviledges.

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by Soplar, posted 01-03-2005 12:00 AM AdminNosy has not replied

Soplar
Inactive Member


Message 25 of 306 (173211)
01-02-2005 11:58 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by TheLiteralist
01-02-2005 3:45 AM


Modern biology is unintelligible without an understanding of the evolutionary process
First, I didn’t invent this phrase, I encountered it in a publication some time ago (forgotten where), but I will show why it is true.
Second, a complete demonstration would require far more space than is available, so this will be largely in outline form with a few references.
I would like to begin with a review of the elements of the evolutionary process. This subject can be approached from many directions. I will begin with reproduction as this leads to the essence of the evolutionary process.
Since all multicelled animals (metazoans) have finite life spans, species survival requires that individuals replace, reproduce or copy themselves before they die.
Once the need to reproduce is established, a method must be selected. Single celled animals are the only organisms that are capable of directly making a copy of themselves, since they reproduce by splitting into two parts; however, this is obviously not practical for metazoans. Thus, it is clear that metazoans must somehow employ the same technique as the single celled animals, i.e., begin with a single cell.
But, it’s obviously not that simple. When a single celled animal divides, it merely produces an almost duplicate copy. The evolution of metazoans required a more complex process — the joining of two special cells, an egg and a sperm. Mutations (defined below) within these sex cells allows the creation of an individual, when the egg and a sperm are joined, that is sufficiently different from the parents that the evolution of higher life forms can occur
Of course, for the single fertilized egg cell to become an adult metazoan, the fertilized egg must divide into the billions of cells that comprise the adult metazoan; hence, cell division is an important part of metazoan life. A detailed discussion of embryo genesis is beyond this discussion — it is sufficient for our purposes to recognize that the process exists.
Having established the existence of cells and cell division, I need to digress to a brief review of a few bits of atomic and molecular physics A&M physics. As we all know, electrons, protons and neutrons combine, according to the laws of quantum mechanics, to form atoms. Furthermore, atoms combine to form molecules. Up to a point, molecules can also form according to the laws of quantum mechanics; however, when we consider that branch of A&M physics known as organic chemistry (the A&M physics of carbon atoms), the unaided laws of quantum mechanics alone reach limits.
One of the more important limiting points are the amino acids, organic compound that link together by peptide bonds to form proteins. Now proteins are the well known building blocks of life. BUT amino acids need help to join together to form proteins. The assistant is Deoxyribonucleic Acid, DNA, an extremely long, complex molecule that consists of a chain of four molecules termed bases. Along the chain are found groups of bases termed genes.
The existence of genes were first recognized by Gregor Mendel, but he had no idea what they were. It was not until Microbiologist Oswald Avery (1877-1955) led team that showed that DNA is the unit of inheritance the Journal of Experimental Medicine 1944..One Nobel laureate Joshua Lederberg, has called this discovery "the historical platform of modern DNA research"
Avery’s work inspired James Watson and Francis Crick, and others such as Linus Pauling, to seek DNA's structure. Watson and Crick won the race in April 1953 when they published the structure of DNA.
But, while determining the structure of DNA was important, it was not until gene sequencing specialist Craig Venter, teamed with DNA sequencing machine maker, Applied Biosciences Corp. in 1998 to set up a company named Celera that individual genes were found. Celera would use the shotgun approach to genetic sequencing and scores of AB’s sequencing machines to decipher humanity's entire genetic code. Actually, there is still some question regarding the exact number of genes, see sciencemag.org, 22 August 2003 Gene Counters Struggle to Get the Right Answer
Not surprisingly, DNA is found in all eukaryotes (organisms whose cells have a nucleus), from single celled eukaryotes to human beings.
So, now we have established the central nature of the cell in all life forms, at least those of interest, and the need for DNA to facilitate the production of proteins which make cells possible. But we still haven’t identified the specific aspect of the process which drives it.
To do this, we need to note that cells are not immortal. -- all cells have finite life. Normal cell death is termed apoptosis. Since cells die, they must be replaced and the only replacement mechanism is cell division (the basic reason for current interest is stem cells) thus cell division is necessary for the continuation of life. But, degradation can occur when cells divide basically due to mistakes that are made in the copying of DNA during cell division. A complex machinery exists to repair mistakes, but sometimes DNA repair fails and a cell with new DNA is formed — we call this a mutation.
Mutations can lead to an improved life forms; greater survival ability, etc. or mutations can lead to antibiotic resistant bacteria. This is the driver of evolution and is why Modern biology is unintelligible without an understanding of the evolutionary process
Regarding this premise, one finds many references to elements of the evolutionary process throughout the numerous, biologically related scientific articles. For example the word conserved appears often and refers to the fact that some trait is found in many, apparently unrelated, organisms.
I believe that an excellent illustration of the premise is found in this excerpt from an article in Science Magazine
Common Signaling Themes
Science, Vol 306, Issue 5701, 1505 , 26 November 2004
That signaling mechanisms are shared across distantly related organisms is readily apparent. Alonso and Stepanova (p. 1513) describe signaling by ethylene, a gaseous plant hormone that regulates processes such as seed germination and fruit ripening. Receptors for ethylene are similar to two-component histidine kinases, common signaling machines in bacterial cells. Ethylene signals are also apparently modulated by a mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK) cascade, a signaling module present in eukaryotic organisms from yeast to humans.
A comment related to the importance of an understanding of the evolutionary process. Genetic mutation, the driver of ecolution, is the basic cause of cancer and aging. Thus, cures for cancer and the tantalizing possibilty of life span extension, requires the determination of why the mutations occur and then finding a method for either stopping them or preventing them in the first place. I believe this will be accomplished -- we live in exciting times!
A final note: I have not included very many references (sorry, I just don't have the time to look them up). However, entering any of my assertions into Google will generate many supporting links.
Soplar

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by TheLiteralist, posted 01-02-2005 3:45 AM TheLiteralist has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by NosyNed, posted 01-03-2005 2:41 PM Soplar has replied
 Message 87 by TheLiteralist, posted 01-04-2005 11:28 PM Soplar has replied

Soplar
Inactive Member


Message 26 of 306 (173212)
01-03-2005 12:00 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by AdminNosy
01-02-2005 7:18 PM


Re: Topic
Thanks AdminNosy, it was getting a bit off course
Soplar

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by AdminNosy, posted 01-02-2005 7:18 PM AdminNosy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by Soplar, posted 01-03-2005 12:02 AM Soplar has not replied

Soplar
Inactive Member


Message 27 of 306 (173214)
01-03-2005 12:02 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by Soplar
01-03-2005 12:00 AM


Re: Topic again
How are the e-mails notifying about a reply generated?
Thanks
Soplar

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Soplar, posted 01-03-2005 12:00 AM Soplar has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by AdminJazzlover, posted 01-03-2005 12:36 AM Soplar has replied
 Message 48 by RAZD, posted 01-03-2005 7:06 PM Soplar has not replied

AdminJazzlover
Inactive Member


Message 28 of 306 (173222)
01-03-2005 12:36 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by Soplar
01-03-2005 12:02 AM


Re: Topic again
Soplar writes:
How are the e-mails notifying about a reply generated
I'm not sure bt I believe its sub program encoded in the software used for this forum neither me nor the other admins are gonna be sending emails with all the replies that go on in here. By the way, welcome to EvC.. I'm the creationist moderator of this forum. Hope you enjoy the quality of debate here and may it be a good learning experience as well.

Yo soy BoriCua Pa Que tu lo Sepas

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Soplar, posted 01-03-2005 12:02 AM Soplar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by Soplar, posted 01-03-2005 11:39 AM AdminJazzlover has not replied

Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5901 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 29 of 306 (173348)
01-03-2005 8:38 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by Soplar
01-02-2005 2:21 PM


Re: The legacyof Darwin's Theory
Unfortunately (from the point of view of an inverterate arguer ) I find nothing in your post with which to disagree. I share your motivation to speak out against the encroachment of religion into science. I agree completely with your argument concerning the conflation of the colloquial "theory" and scientific "theory".
So I guess: Welcome to EvC!
With all due respect, your comment
quote:
There's been quite a bit of new data and new ideas brought out in the 150 years
is a bit of an understatement.
You'll find that I often use understatement to make my point.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Soplar, posted 01-02-2005 2:21 PM Soplar has not replied

Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5901 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 30 of 306 (173375)
01-03-2005 9:27 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by TheLiteralist
01-02-2005 2:43 PM


Of course you are free to address whomever you wish. I have little or no quibbles with anything Soplar has written thus far, so if you'd care to take a stab at my comments, it would be appreciated.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by TheLiteralist, posted 01-02-2005 2:43 PM TheLiteralist has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by Soplar, posted 01-03-2005 11:55 AM Quetzal has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024