Evolution......?

"Since the geologic issues are already under discussion in another thread, and since this is the Evolution forum, maybe we could return this thread to its originally scheduled topic."
--Good idea, maybe when Joe replies he can post it in the geology discussion?------------------

quote:

---

Originally posted by quicksink:
>How does a bat get echo location through random mutations? The problem is that you cannot go halfway....

---

Yes you can, but it not the way you are thinking.

quote:

---

>How does a fully formed nervous system develop from a single-celled organism? Certainly, any animal that was born with, quite literally, half a brain, would die.

---

True, but you are not describing evolution.You seem to believe that the theory suggests massive and radical changes over a short period. For example, that an arthopod suddenly gives birth to offspring with human sized brains. A mutation capable of such change probably would kill both the mother and the offspring. But that isn't the way it works.Evolution works in tiny steps over great periods of time, even in the case of punctuated evolution you're still talking tens or hundreds of thousands of years. And.... big and!... every small step along the way has to be functional, or at least not detrimental. This seems to be where you are hitting your snag. Eyeballs did not go from "a creature with no eyeballs" to "a creature with mammal-like eyeballs" Instead, eyeballs started out as a tiny little spot of tissue capable of detecting light-- not vision, just the presence or absence of light. As this was beneficial, it caught on. As it caught on, it became more important. As it became more important, the individual with the better light sensors had a minute advantage and hence reproduced slightly more than the less light sensitive individuals. And so on, and so on.Think about this. You are capable of determining the direction from which a sound is coming. Perhaps you can't do so very efficiently, but you can do it. Now, suppose some circumstance forces you to depend upon this ability-- say, you are forced by predation to live in caves and come out only at night. Your ability to survive and reproduce becomes very dependent upon sound ( and senses other than vision ) This give the advantage to those in your population with the best ability to hear directionally. This ability, remember, depends upon slight differences in biology-- ear canal shape, neural pathways, etc. So those reproducing the most are passing along the directional hearing traits. The same thing happens every generation as long as the selective forces remain more or less the same. Add these slight changes up over ten thousand generations and you end up with some serious change. But every step along the way is functional.

quote:

---

>Where are those transitionals?

---

Everything is transitional.

quote:

---

>The number of mutations required to create something like a human from an ape is enormous? Why do we not see such a transition in the fossil strata?

---

We do, or we would if we found a fossil from every single generation from ground zero to the present. But this isn't going to happen. The conditions that create fossils are too rare and we get only bits and pieces of the chain. Its a bit like taking slices of a color spectrum. You can take a green slice and a red slice and deny that there is any connection, but if you look at the whole spectrum you realize that the colors flow together pretty smoothly. Sadly, we'll never have the whole evolutionary spectrum, so we piece together what we have as best we can.

quote:

---

Developing such a complex system would be extremely complicated and extremely lucky!

---

yes indeedy..... try to remember that for every species you see today, there are countless thousands that died out.

quote:

---

Why is it that we do not see such massive leaps today? Why do we not see more than just albinos or retarded animals?

---

We do see such things in simple creatures like bacteria. Humans live no where near long enough to witness radical change in a complicated organism.

quote:

---

>The low volume of mutations and high-number of negative mutations makes it very difficult to create such diversity in the plant and animal kingdom.

---

Think BILLIONS OF YEARS. Your life span is a whisper of a drop the sea of time.

quote:

---

>The fossil record is compatable with evolution, but it does not give any evidence of evolution. The diversification indicates gradual evolution, but what created these differences, and what embeds diversity in a population? There is no evidence of mutations in the fossil strata. Where are transitionals? Where are grossly mutated organisms?

---

Sloppy DNA replication is the source of the differences. Grossly mutated-- ie. non functional half-this half-thats-- forms DIE before reproducing. In other words there are no populations of weirdly mutated creatures, hence the chance of finding one is ridiculously small.

quote:

---

Demonstrate that mutations are not sufficiently abundant, or that the ratio of positive mutations is small, and you completely dismantle the evolutionist argument.

---

But all you need is a petri dish and some bacteria to demonstrate that mutations are sufficiently abundant.

quote:

---

The problem came when others ran with the idea. They, too, lacked the devices to test his radical and appealing concepts. But nonetheless, the concept sounded so good to them, that they propagated it. They planted it into the scientific community so quickly that by the time the methods to test it [mutations] came about, people had taken the concept for granted.

---

Wrong. Just wrong. It has been tested nearly to the point of nausea.

quote:

---

This concept is not inherently false- the concept that you can travel faster than the speed of light is inherently false.

---

Travel faster than the speed of light is no more inherently false than evolution. That the speed of light appears to be the top end on the speedometer depends upon Einstein's mass/energy equivalency equations. If these are wrong, the speed of light may be surpassable. Not saying they are wrong, but enough with the "intrinsically false." Our judgments of truth and falsehood depend upon our current understanding. There is really no such thing as intrinsically true or false. All we have are predictions based upon the best available interpretations of the best available data.Take care.John------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by John:
Travel faster than the speed of light is no more inherently false than evolution.

---

Yeah ... and what about tachyons anyhow ?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Peter:
Yeah ... and what about tachyons anyhow ?

---

Right. Lots of examples from sub-atomic/quantum physics.------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by quicksink:

It's my opinion that there's another explanation to life and diversity on this planet. But no one's looking for a scientific alternative, because no one sees a reason to. Evolution is taken with a blind faith.

---

I've read this initial post again, and think that the most interesting
point is the above.Maybe we WILL have an Einstein of 'Life Diversity' theory at some
stage, who turns science on its head with new visions.The main thing here is to distinguish between genuine science, aimed
at explanation, and political meanderings aimed at pushing
some group or other's agenda.YEC is, in my opinion, not motivated by a search for explanation,
and niether is ID.

To address a single point:I think it might be useful to point out that Sundews and Venus fly traps are very closely related, sharing flower and seed structure, and I would imagine their homology has been also shown by genetic methods by now.Sundews rely mainly on their sticky tentacles to trap insects but also engage in leaf folding to enhance digestion of their prey (Drosera burmanii is one of the faster ones- folds its leaf within one minute on a warm day). It doesn't seem inconceivable that a simpler ancestor diverged into the more refined modern forms which rely on different means to trap prey. The process is as conceptually simple as a sundew ancestor loosing its tentacles except at the leaf margin (to become teeth) and centre (to become trigger hairs). The extent of genetic change necessary for this will not be known until both genomes are sequences and a better understanding of genetic control of plant development is formulated. Current work on Arabidopsis indicate that small genetic changes can produce large and functional changes in plant anatomy.As for starting the process of carnivory there are other examples of primitive carnivorous plants (eg Ibicella from the Martyniaceae, Bybils in the Byblidaceae, Triphyophyllum from the Dioncophyllaceae and Drosophyllum in the Droseraceae) which use simple immobile sticky exudates to trap and digest insects. Beyond this many plants use sticky exudates as a form of defence against predators with no obvious carnivory.Distantly related groups like the Lentibulariaceae have simple fly paper traps in the butterworts (Pinguicula) which engage in slow leaf rolling. Interestingly this group also has the bladderworts which use an even more complex trap than venus fly traps.In general plants have been shown to respond to touch (sometimes fast enough to be readily observed as in Mimosa pudica) so the origin of motion in plants is not restricted to Venus fly traps, and the biochemical mechanisms seems to be common. And proteolytic enzymes aren't unique to carnovorous plants either- all plants use them to recycle their own endogenous proteins.If the venus fly trap existed and there were no familial relatives which displayed carnivory, no variation in the complexity of its ancestors carnivory and the fly trap used radically different biochemistry to other plants then we would have a foundation to question its origins from other plants. But the way the family trees neatly fan out and functionally similar (but distict) adaptations appear in other plant families suggests that the venus flytrap isnt a miracle, its just one of the more highly specialised members of a whole series of amazing plants.These patterns alone aren't direct mechanistic evidence of the process of evolution, but they are self consistent examples of its results. It is the lack of any fundamental and inexplicable differences between extant organisms (especially on a biochemical level) that makes evolution a good theory based on current observations.Given that the genetic revolution has only been taking place for the last few decades I think it is unreasonable to expect the precise mechanisms of major genetic change to be known. We are still having great difficulty coming to grips with the amount of information in a single eukaryotic genome and its functional implications. At this stage I think we can only judge trends, and the evidence keeps pointing to evolution in some form. I don't think anyone can point to any concrete evidence which has strengthened creationism in the minds of the majority in the recent past (though many have modified ToC). We have a long way to go before we know the whole story, but I for one hope that there are a few surprises yet left in store.Shane

In some of the neighboring threads, there is a bottoms-up approach to the discussion of evolution that shows penetrating argument into the molecular mechanics behind evolutionary change. Not my field, but incredible stuff nonetheless. I hope a top-down type of post will also be welcome that responds directly to the significance of questions asked by creationists.For a number of years, people in numerous parts of the country have noticed declining frog populations and dramatic mutations in regional populations. Pesticides and parasites have been associated with frog mutations:
http://www.frogs.org/news/article.asp?CategoryID=14&InfoR...
Now that this link has been observed, the focus of research can be narrowed.I also remember reading articles in Science News or Science during the 1990's that viruses have a role in modifying the DNA of amphibians to cause mutations. For deformities, the numbers are high, 15% of a population. Here is a one source:
http://www.sciencenews.org/search.asp?target=frog+&navEve...In addition, it can not be precluded that viruses, the higher UV levels these days, parasites, and new chemicals in the environment work together to make a second order mechanism to hasten deformities and mutations. The high rate of mutation and deformity, short gestation, and deep existing knowledge of amphibians make this arena a good candidate to study both individual and collective effects of environmental factors on evolution of organisms, and DNA. Existing work reports a large number and type of deformities. Some changes may be mutations that can be catagorized as the start of speciation in offspring that prosper. Or, maybe individuals surviving due to their higher white cell counts have generations of offspring. I hope they can study the mechanism step-by-step under an SEM and AFM. I know I speculate a bit, but there is already a smoking gun and a ballistics report. We just need to affirmatively fill some small gaps.One question. Do they study the spin state at binding sites in biological molecules?

Shane: Great post. I thought you might find Steve Cook's website interesting, given your familiarity with the evolution of carnivory in plants: Vegetable Empire. Although Dr. Cook is certainly, hmm, quirky, his essay on the evolution of carnivory When Plants Kill is one of the best non-peer-reviewed articles I've read on the subject (although I DO wish he'd change the background scheme).Enjoy!

quote:

---

Originally posted by Peter:
I've read this initial post again, and think that the most interesting
point is the above.

​

Maybe we WILL have an Einstein of 'Life Diversity' theory at some
stage, who turns science on its head with new visions.

​

The main thing here is to distinguish between genuine science, aimed
at explanation, and political meanderings aimed at pushing
some group or other's agenda.

​

YEC is, in my opinion, not motivated by a search for explanation,
and niether is ID.

---

This is completely false. Are you saying that a scientific theory, however convincing it may be, should have no differing views? ID and Creationism, for whatever reasons, does provide a reason to look at evolution much more closely. These ideas that are in contrast to evolution should be considered positive by all of the science community because it forces evolutionist to answer questions and dig deeper. ID and Creationist scientists have posed numerous questions that NEED to be answered even if they're for all the wrong reasons as you think. Should we all just go along with evolution and say, "whatever." Not thinking outside the box, especially with something that is considered theory, is a very dangerous path to go down. I wonder if evolutionary scientist would have even cared to search for explanations of irreducible complexity and the likes if it weren't for opposition. Make no mistakes about it, no scientist is a completely unbiased observer. Everyone has their ideas on what the world is about and religious philosophies, even if its a lack thereof, so the diversity of these beliefs in the science community is the greatest asset one could ask for. In the lack of true unbiasness the only other solution is having multiple biased views, not relying on a single biased view.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Big B:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Peter:
I've read this initial post again, and think that the most interesting
point is the above.

​

Maybe we WILL have an Einstein of 'Life Diversity' theory at some
stage, who turns science on its head with new visions.

​

The main thing here is to distinguish between genuine science, aimed
at explanation, and political meanderings aimed at pushing
some group or other's agenda.

​

YEC is, in my opinion, not motivated by a search for explanation,
and niether is ID.

---

​

This is completely false. Are you saying that a scientific theory, however convincing it may be, should have no differing views?

---

Well, no, of course not, but Creationism, ID included, are religious groups. Why should scientists listen to criticism of their work from religious people?

quote:

---

ID and Creationism, for whatever reasons, does provide a reason to look at evolution much more closely.

---

No, not really. Science, meaning the method of inquiry, hasn't changed a bit on account of either ID or Creationism.

quote:

---

These ideas that are in contrast to evolution should be considered positive by all of the science community because it forces evolutionist to answer questions and dig deeper.

---

No, they don't have that effect, because most of these "ideas" are poorly-thought out and do not spring from competant scholarship. Like I said, they are religious views and/or philosophies, not science.

quote:

---

ID and Creationist scientists have posed numerous questions that NEED to be answered even if they're for all the wrong reasons as you think.

---

Such as...?

quote:

---

Should we all just go along with evolution and say, "whatever."

---

Of course not.

quote:

---

Not thinking outside the box, especially with something that is considered theory, is a very dangerous path to go down.

---

I agree, which is why it was so great when Gould and Eldridge "thought outside the box" and consequently developed Punk Eek.Also, I hope you are not confusing the common usage of the word "theory" (a guess or supposition) with a "scientific theory".The Germ Theory of Disease, Atomic Theory, and the Theory of a Heliocentric Solar System, and Gravitational Theory are also scientific theories, just like the Theory of Evolution.

quote:

---

I wonder if evolutionary scientist would have even cared to search for explanations of irreducible complexity and the likes if it weren't for opposition.

---

I believe that Doolittle's work on the evolutionary pathway for the evolution of bloodclotting was well-underway when Behe's book came out. Actually, Behe apparently didn't research several of the examples of IC that he used in the book, because if he had, I doubt that he would have included them. Makes him look a bit silly now.

quote:

---

Make no mistakes about it, no scientist is a completely unbiased observer.

---

Whaich is why it is vitally important that the scientific method is adhered to.Unfortunately, Creationists rarely follow the scientific method.

quote:

---

Everyone has their ideas on what the world is about and religious philosophies, even if its a lack thereof, so the diversity of these beliefs in the science community is the greatest asset one could ask for.

---

Well, actually, what one believes in a metaphysical sense is irrelevant to scientific work. What one likes to believe is entirely different from what one can emperically show, [QUOTE]In the lack of true unbiasness the only other solution is having multiple biased views, not relying on a single biased view.[/b][/QUOTE]The scientific method is designed to account for and weed out experimenter bias.I think you would do well to learn a bit about what science is, and what the ToE really is all about.Have a look at:http:/TalkOrigins Archive: Exploring the Creation/Evolution Controversy
science - The Skeptic's Dictionary - Skepdic.com
http://www.geocities.com/...ion/evolution-for-beginners.htmlI think you have the mistaken idea that Creationists and ID proponents actually do science. They do not.[Removed extraneous quote, added bold to quotes where missing. --Admin][This message has been edited by Admin, 08-02-2002]

quote:

---

This is completely false.

---

In my opinion, it is probably true. Rarely will there be something that is completely one way or another.

quote:

---

ID and Creationism, for whatever reasons, does provide a reason to look at evolution much more closely.

---

How is this possible? A scientist setting up an experiment might look at hundreds of papers from the literature. He/She must absolutely show a clear stepwise connection between what is shown already, and the result expected. How in this Universe would it be possible to start from mysticism and go to step B?

quote:

---

These ideas that are in contrast to evolution should be considered positive by all of the science community because it forces evolutionist to answer questions and dig deeper.

---

This statement postulates a result based on no data. Scientists have a hard time designing experiments that use magical incantations. Instead, Ideas are built upon earlier ideas that have some data behind them. There is then this long string of facts or observations from a past point to what the present scientist is trying to accomplish in the present. This is a lot how farmers work in the 21st century. They use soil analysis, weather forecasts, crop rotation, and the latest seeds. Both scientists and farmers need to know exactly what they did and why it worked, so they can do it again. There is not much room for anything mystical.

quote:

---

ID and Creationist scientists have posed numerous questions that NEED to be answered even if they're for all the wrong reasons as you think.

---

This is stated, obviously from a single personal perspective. In my opinion, the best remedy is to attend a conference of scientists and try to get a feel for the big picture there. Scientists already ask themselves rock-hard questions. This process is called peer review. Their questions are asked from the basis of what is known, because if a scientist is proposing by his/her experiment to add to the body of literature, their peers will make absolutely clear that the new data is correct. That way, the next experiments can depend upon it. Religion and politics don't work this way. Wish they did. "NEED" is your opinion. What makes you the arbiter of what NEEDS to be answered? Perhaps people who believe in a magical past and an unknowable present just don't get it. Scientists work from known points to develop new known points. Just because they have not addressed your points yet is not a bad thing. Like the farmer, they work on what is practical.

quote:

---

I wonder if evolutionary scientist would have even cared to search for explanations of irreducible complexity and the likes if it weren't for opposition.

---

Maybe this is news, but to a scientist, you or the creationists are not the opposition. Because a scientist cannot write a paper that uses magic, any proposal that includes mystical steps, is irrelevant.

quote:

---

Everyone has their ideas on what the world is about and religious philosophies, even if its a lack thereof, so the diversity of these beliefs in the science community is the greatest asset one could ask for.

---

This statement may sound reasonable on the surface, but think about it. You are actually proposing that scientists must think and work like religious people who are required to believe in magic. What comes across to me is that you are unfamiliar with both the scientific method and its rigor. Diversity of beliefs in the scientific community is a reality, and it derives from highly studied people trying to find the best pattern for the incomplete suite of facts on the table. Unlike religion, new facts will be added by scientists working on the matter over time, so the pattern will evolve into a theory. The theory will become a component of other patterns to be argued, and of future theories.Multiple approaches/postulates/speculation are part of the initial part of the scientific process, but even these are based upon observations and facts.Why the need for magic?

On echolocation....While certaihly many animals have highly 'tuned' echolocation skills, the claims re: 'How did RM&NS create the bat's echolocation system?' are really just examples of grandiose hyperbole.I can echolocate. That is to say, humans can echolocate. Can we pinpoint a bug in the dark? Doubt it, but we can and do echolocate all the time.Try it - turn off the lights/shut your eyes (no cheating!) and try to navigate through your home. I suggest shuffling your feet or making some sort of subtle noice (hissing works well for me). As you get closer to a wall or a large object, the sound gets more intense. And vice versa. Blind people employ this subtle echolocation quite well, and there are even training programs to teach them how to echolocate using metal clickers. I saw a demo of this system and the participants could tell things like the texture of, height of, and distance to 'targets'.So, what, EXACTLY, is this 'echolocation apparatus' that I keep reading about that is impossible to have arisen via natural means?

quote:

---

So, what, EXACTLY, is this 'echolocation apparatus' that I keep reading about that is impossible to have arisen via natural means?

---

Well, I do not personally know the answer. But, I agree with your premise and intention. Before a person decides that something is the result of mystery or supernatural alien, they should take the time to learn about it. There is a totally incredible amount of information available just for the seeking. I know it is more work than just believing in mysterious origins, but sometimes one can just get lost in the wonder of the learning. For example.Here: BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | Crows prove they are no birdbrains
is a story about how a crow made her own tool when her mate stole the one she was given. Perhaps nest-building should be recognized as hut-building for birds. Good for her.PBS LearningMedia | Teaching Resources For Students And Teachers
My daughter learned ASL in high school and wants to use it in social work with the deaf. If there are any creationists still around, let's establish a challenge to them. Learn ASL and ask the gorillas what they think about religion and the evolution versus creation debate.I realize that animals talking to people, expressing emotion, remembering ancestors, talking to them selves, learning to make tools for specific jobs, etc., is second-order compared to echo-location, but it is an extention of the same premise that complex things happen as a result of physical laws, and they evolve because of other physical laws. To say that God did it is actually an intellectual insult. Perhaps one day soon, the creationist argument will won on legal grounds by a gorilla. Think I am joking? Site MaintenanceI would urge all to argue from the known and do so without preconceived notion.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Big B:

This is completely false. Are you saying that a scientific theory, however convincing it may be, should have no differing views?

---

No.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Big B:

ID and Creationism, for whatever reasons, does provide a reason to look at evolution much more closely.

---

The existence of the theory is sufficient for this. Anyone
trained in research is taught the value of critical evaluation
rather than surface meaning.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Big B:

These ideas that are in contrast to evolution should be considered positive by all of the science community because it forces evolutionist to answer questions and dig deeper. ID and Creationist scientists have posed numerous questions that NEED to be answered even if they're for all the wrong reasons as you think. Should we all just go along with evolution and say, "whatever." Not thinking outside the box, especially with something that is considered theory, is a very dangerous path to go down. I wonder if evolutionary scientist would have even cared to search for explanations of irreducible complexity and the likes if it weren't for opposition. Make no mistakes about it, no scientist is a completely unbiased observer. Everyone has their ideas on what the world is about and religious philosophies, even if its a lack thereof, so the diversity of these beliefs in the science community is the greatest asset one could ask for. In the lack of true unbiasness the only other solution is having multiple biased views, not relying on a single biased view.

---

Bias is a natural result of the sum totality of an individual's
experiences ... that's why we need peer review.Creationists are more prone to such bias, because they have
a narrow starting point to which they stick dogmatically.Show an evolutionist sufficient evidence and they will change
their mind do so to a YEC and they will change their interpretation.

quote:

---

In 1938, a coelacanth (pronounced see-la-kanth), an ancient fish
thought to have been extinct for about seventy million years, was
caught by fishermen in the Indian Ocean. Many paleontologists
considered the coelacanth to be closely related to the rhipidistians,
and thus a living specimen was expected to shed light on the soft
body parts of the immediate ancestors of amphibians. When the
modern coelacanth was dissected, however, its internal organs
showed no signs of being preadapted for a land environment and
gave no indication of how it might be possible for a fish to become an
amphibian. The experience suggests that a rhipidistian fish might
be equally disappointing to Darwinists if its soft body parts could be
examined.

---

This topic seemed to be as good a place as any to mention:NOVA is scheduled to be doing a program on the coelacanth. Locally, it is on PBS on Tuesday, 1/21/03, at 7:00 pm (US central time zone).By the way, I found the quoted mention of the coelacanth by doing a google search for "site: + Coelacanth". This worked much better than the on site forum search utility.MooseAdded by edit on 1/20/03, 4:22am:
The specific NOVA page can be found at:
NOVA | Ancient Creature of the Deep | PBS[This message has been edited by minnemooseus, 01-20-2003]