|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Summations Only | Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
The nested hierarchy only makes sense in light of a process with common ancestry and descent with modification, what Darwin called evolution. I have yet to see a single ID/creationist explain this pattern. There is simply no reason why a designer would force separately created species into a nested hierarchy. ... And not just a nested hierarchy in traits, but one locked in the spacio-temporal matrix of the distribution of populations around the world -- no evolution occurred without being preceded by a similar less derived species living nearby. (a point observed by Darwin). No ID/creationist hypothesis explains this observation either. Special creation has no need for such a limitation\restriction to this time-space matrix. Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10081 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1
|
Tanypteryx writes: Endogenous Retroviruses (ERVs) have left the record of infections in our DNA and the DNA of many other organisms. ERVs do contain a wealth of information, but once again, they only make sense in the light of evolution. As you stated, you can find the same ERVs at the same position in the human and chimp genomes. Of the over 200,000 ERVs in the human genome, less than 100 are not found at the same position in the chimp genome. The rest are found at the same position (i.e. orthologous). One interesting side note is PtERV insertions found in the chimp and gorilla genomes. That same family of ERV is not found in the human or orangutan genome. ID/creationists often argue that the same retrovirus will insert into similar positions in similar genomes. Of course, studies looking at the behavior of retroviruses in the lab completely refute this idea, but we can still do the same thing with PtERV insertions. Since PtERV insertions are not found in the human genome, but are found in the chimp and gorilla genomes, this allows us to predict that these insertions happened after the human and chimp lineages split. Therefore, PtERV insertions should be found at different positions in the chimp and gorilla genome, contrary to the predictions made by ID/creationists. So what do we see? When scientists mapped the PtERV insertions in the chimp and gorilla genome they found that they were not at the same positions within each genome, completely consistent with the predictions made by the theory of evolution and contrary to the predictions made by ID/creationists. Once again, the pattern and species distribution of ERV insertions only make sense in the light of evolution.
Comparing the ERVs in identical spots in the genomes often show slight differences between species that can be attributed point mutations that have occurred since divergence. We can also track the changes within the ERV itself in a single species. This is due to a specific characteristic found in ERVs. The retroviral genome is flanked by repetitive DNA called LTRs (long tandem repeats), kind of like bookends on either side of the genome. These sequences serve as strong promoters for the viral genome allowing it to use the host transcriptional systems to transcribe the viral genes. When a retrovirus inserts into the host genome the LTR bookends of the viral genome are identical in sequence. Therefore, we can compare the two LTRs within a single ERV to see how many mutations those sequences have accumulated in a single lineage. So how does evolution come in and make sense of this? The theory predicts that the longer an ERV has been in a lineage the more mutations it will have accumulated, and therefore the more divergence you will see between the 5' and 3' LTRs (5' and 3' denote the beginning and end of a stretch of DNA). Therefore, an ERV shared by many primate species should have inserted into a common ancestor long ago compared to an ERV found in just humans and chimps, or a single species. The longer an ERV has been in a lineage, the more differences there should be between the 5' and 3' LTRs which allows us to arrange them by their similarities. When we compare the LTRs between themselves and between species, we get the expected phylogenies.
Once again, this only makes sense in the light of evolution. Edited by Taq, : No reason given. Edited by Taq, : No reason given. Edited by Taq, : No reason given.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CRR Member (Idle past 2270 days) Posts: 579 From: Australia Joined: |
Darwin's "Origin of Species" was published in 1859. The term biology in its modern sense appears to have been introduced independently by Thomas Beddoes (in 1799), Karl Friedrich Burdach (in 1800), Gottfried Reinhold Treviranus (Biologie oder Philosophie der lebenden Natur, 1802) and Jean-Baptiste Lamarck (Hydrogologie, 1802). [wikipedia]
I think it was still considered a branch of Natural Science in Darwin's day. However the study of biology goes back to Aristotle and Galen in ancient Greece, and probably goes much further back in less formal format. Observation and reasoning about the natural world goes back to the beginning of man. Edited by CRR, : Publication date of "Origin" amended.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Darwin's "Origin of Species" was published in 1959. ... I believe you meant 1859.
I think it was still considered a branch of Natural Science in Darwin's day. And Natural Philosophy. Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CRR Member (Idle past 2270 days) Posts: 579 From: Australia Joined: |
Please state your position. Are you trying to make the case that
a) NOTHING in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution. b) SOME things in biology only make sense in the light of evolution. c) for some things in biology evolution provides a plausible but not exclusive explanation. d) Everything in biology makes sense without invoking evolution. As I have said before I think Dobzhansky was employing hyperbole in the title of his article, in which case I believe he was arguing for position b). Several people have posted specific examples that they think only make sense in the light of evolution. These would support position b) but not a).
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
Thanks for responding, CRR.
I realize that people were "doing" biology before Darwin. The question is whether their activities met the definition of what we now call science. Maybe they did, I don't know.Freedom is merely privilege extended, unless enjoyed by one and all. — Billy Bragg
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10081 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1
|
CRR writes: Please state your position. Are you trying to make the case thata) NOTHING in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution. b) SOME things in biology only make sense in the light of evolution. c) for some things in biology evolution provides a plausible but not exclusive explanation. d) Everything in biology makes sense without invoking evolution. Dobzhansky was using a bit of hyperbole, but I would say that a massive part of biology does not make sense except in the light of evolution, as detailed in this thread. Evolution is currently the only scientific explanation for these observations, as shown by the absence of any other explanation in the arena of biology or in this thread. We have given multiple examples now of wide ranging observations that can only be explained by evolution. The power of the theory to explain these observations is driven home by the lack of replies to those posts by ID/creationists. This is why scientists accept the theory of evolution, because it does explain the evidence. It isn't a matter of excluding ID/creationism. There simply is nothing scientific to include from ID/creationism. It doesn't explain the nested hierarchy, the patterns of DNA divergence, the distribution of species across the Earth or in the fossil record, or tons of other observations. Evolution does explain these things.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Stile Member Posts: 4295 From: Ontario, Canada Joined: |
CCR writes: a) NOTHING in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution. They mean A. They simply mean it usefully as opposed to pedantically. If you take it pedantically, it's not true... as there are electricians in biology departments who change light bulbs without needing the light of evolution. Like the statement ALL cars have 4 wheels. It's meant to be taken usefully instead of pedantically. Most cars do have 4 wheels... to the point of almost all.However, there are cars with busted tires, cars on blocks, 3-wheeled cars... and a few other insignificant alternatives. None of these change the statement of ALL cars have 4 wheels being usefully correct in any normal, acceptable way of speaking. Just as any minor, insignificant fractional alternative doesn't change the statement of NOTHING in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution. You seem to want to declare a pedantic victory.If that's what you're aiming for, crow away... it will be a silent celebration. Meanwhile, everyone else will move along without a reason to change their minds that it's still perfectly valid and true to state that NOTHING in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 312 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Darwin's "Origin of Species" was published in 1859. The term biology in its modern sense appears to have been introduced independently by Thomas Beddoes (in 1799), Karl Friedrich Burdach (in 1800), Gottfried Reinhold Treviranus (Biologie oder Philosophie der lebenden Natur, 1802) and Jean-Baptiste Lamarck (Hydrogologie, 1802). [wikipedia] I think it was still considered a branch of Natural Science in Darwin's day. However the study of biology goes back to Aristotle and Galen in ancient Greece, and probably goes much further back in less formal format. Observation and reasoning about the natural world goes back to the beginning of man. Sure, but did people back then make sense of biological facts, or did they merely accumulate them? People looked at rainbows for thousands of years too, but they didn't make sense before we had a theory of optics. (Of course, people had explanations back then too, usually variants on "God did it by magic", but that didn't actually make sense of the rainbow 'cos of being wrong.) Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 312 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Several people have posted specific examples that they think only make sense in the light of evolution. These would support position b) but not a). Well, the burden of proof is on someone who disputes a generalization: it's up to them to find a counterexample. You gave an example of something you thought did make sense without evolution, namely the anatomy of the giraffe. You were wrong. Would you like to try again?
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tanypteryx Member Posts: 4444 From: Oregon, USA Joined: Member Rating: 5.1
|
CRR writes: Please state your position. Are you trying to make the case thata) NOTHING in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution. b) SOME things in biology only make sense in the light of evolution. c) for some things in biology evolution provides a plausible but not exclusive explanation. d) Everything in biology makes sense without invoking evolution. I have to go with a. So far, I have not seen a part of biology that is not explained by evolution. If you have something, show us. All the examples I have seen provided by ID/Creationists turned out to be incorrect understandings of science, biology, or evolution, or all three.What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy The reason that we have the scientific method is because common sense isn't reliable. -- Taq
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 440 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
CRR writes:
You can DO things without them making sense. A cat can start a fire by knocking over a heater but does fire make sense to the cat? Fire only makes sense in the light of chemistry and physics.
Please state your position. Are you trying to make the case thata) NOTHING in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution. b) SOME things in biology only make sense in the light of evolution. c) for some things in biology evolution provides a plausible but not exclusive explanation. d) Everything in biology makes sense without invoking evolution.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
KyleConno Junior Member (Idle past 1518 days) Posts: 12 Joined: |
Everything we have studied in biology has its roots tied to the evolution of organisms from single cells to multicellular ones.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi KyleConno, and welcome to the forum.
Everything we have studied in biology has its roots tied to the evolution of organisms from single cells to multicellular ones. and in their interactions within the ecological niches they occupy. Enjoy
... as you are new here, some posting tips: type [qs]quotes are easy[/qs] and it becomes:
quotes are easy and you can type [qs=RAZD]quotes are easy[/qs] and it becomes:
RAZD writes: quotes are easy or type [quote]quotes are easy[/quote] and it becomes:
quote: also check out (help) links on any formatting questions when in the reply window. For other formatting tips see Posting TipsFor a quick overview see EvC Forum Primer If you have problems with replies see Report Discussion Problems Here 3.0 by our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22500 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
Here's a link to Theodosius Dobzhansky's 1973 article Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.
Dobzhansky was engaging in hyperbole - he wasn't being literal. Dobzhansky's article includes a number of examples in biology that only make sense in light of evolution, but while much in biology requires evolution to make sense, much does not. Biology is a huge field. --Percy
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024