Hi all
I hope this doesn't offend too many creationists- that is not my intention.
The topic I would like to raise is the changing position of creationists as more information substantiating evolution has been collated. Does it seem like they seem perfectly happy to keep retracting the importance of divine intervention and lifting the level of proof expected for evolution every time a step forward is taken?
Examples include the recent synthesis of viruses from scratch, which seems to have made creationists more comfortable with disregarding viruses as living in any way. Even the likely feat of producing a bacterium from scratch could be met with the response that the design of life is divine and science is merely copying it, and that the origin of life is still unproven.
The concept of microevolution has only been accepted by creationists now that the data is irrefutable. It is good to see that we are all demanding quality data on which to base our concepts, but the creationists willingness to draw imaginary distinctions between degrees of change seems like a last resort. The primary objection seems to be that new gene/protein families have never been observed to be created by natural selection. The emerging picture of evolution seems however to be a little more efficient than was first proposed.
The known protein families seem to be ubiquitous and widely dispersed, indicating they have ancient origins. This fits well with the much slow emergence of microorganisms compared to the explosion of multicellular organisms. The initial phase consisted of the more difficult development of various metabolic pathways. Once these were in place the control of multicellular development was honed, and once this was functional there was an explosion of diversity of forms.
Modern evolution does not consist of the emergence of new protein folds and gene families- rather prokaryotes engage in gene swapping between organisms and to a lesser degree direct mutation and eukaryotes engage in gene splicing, gene regulation control and also a surprising amount of gene swapping between organisms (I think from memory the human genome contains about 300 genes of suspected recent bacterial origin). The prokaryote point is illustrated with the emergence of antibiotic resistance being metiated by gene exchange (enterococcus to staph transfer of vancomycin resistance is a salient example). The eukaryote case is illustrated by the high homology of chimp and human genomes but the large functional difference in the activation of genes, especially relating to brain function.
Anyway- my main point is more psychological- being that the concept of god and divine influence seems to be acting as a conceptual gap filler. Before germ theory infectious diseases were an "act of god". Before Darwin the origin of the species was divine. Before the biochemistry revolution of the 20th century the line between living and nonliving matter was distinct. But god has always lurked at the edge of our understanding. Is this necessary in order for us to feel at ease in the world? Would people in any age have been unable to get out of bed in the morning if they hadn't possessed some concept of where they fitted into the world?
Comments?
Shane