Intended mutations

Not sure why you're asking since I said, "human vitamin C gene." Anyway, yes, by "we" I was referring to humans. Most mammalia have the vitamin C gene, including humans. But for humans, and for some of our closer primate relatives, the vitamin C gene is deactivated. Interpreted in an evolutionary context, it is thought likely that a human ancestral lineage went through a period of time where fruit (outside source of vitamin C) was a significant food source, and that when the vitamin C deactivation occurred it wasn't selected against since it wasn't a factor because of the diet. You'd have to call this a hypothesis, though.I raised this point as an example of something whose detailed and precise sequence of events that caused it are unlikely in the extreme to ever be discovered or ferreted out. True. It is one thing to be ignorant of the evidence for evolution, and quite another to be aware of the evidence and found it wanting. I haven't seen the documentary, but from what you say I think the study surpasses speculation to become a legitimate hypothesis, but I doubt that even the researches think their hypothesis has attained the status of theory, and certainly not of truth (no respectable scientific researcher would think of his findings as truth). It is quite possible that we'll never know enough on topics like this to advance beyond hypothesis.With your T-Rex discussion you're trying to draw an analogy with our application of genetics in an evolutionary contexts. You seem to be saying that our projection of our current genetic understanding onto evolutionary history is as speculative as investigating what a T-Rex might have sounded like. If so then I strongly disagree, and I'd like to see you make your point about genetics and evolutionary history through evidence and argumentation rather than through an analogy whose applicability is open to broad disagreement. Yes, precisely. It is the job of scientists to make the theory of evolution conform as closely to the evidence as possible, by which means its power to offer insights for future predictions and investigations will increase. Criticisms can only improve the theory, but the criticisms must be predicated upon objective assessment of the evidence and not from religious or theological considerations.--Percy

quote:

---

Most mammalia have the vitamin C gene, including humans. But for humans, and for some of our closer primate relatives, the vitamin C gene is deactivated.

---

I should add a note here. Our closer primate relatives share the same genetic mutation that inactivated the vitamin C gene. Guinea pigs also have a defective vitamin C gene, but the mutation that inactivated it is different than the one in primates. Just what one would expect if the common ancestor of apes and guinea pigs could synthesize vitamin C, but that this ability was lost separately in the two lineages.Meanwhile, under the creationist scenario, if God decided to inactivate vitamin C genes as part of the fallen world, it's a mystery why he would chose the exact same mutation in chimpanzees and humans.Edited to ungarble the last sentence.This message has been edited by Chiroptera, 06-May-2006 10:28 PM

---

"Religion is the best business to be in. It's the only one where the customers blame themselves for product failure."
-- Ellis Weiner (quoted on the NAiG message board)

quote:

---

I don't want to shift the discussion from mutations to abiogenesis, but no one working in the abiogenesis field endorses a scenario for the origin of life

---

I didn't mean for the thread to devolve (pun intended) into a topic of abiogenesis. However, I think its important to consideration of this because if no natural means in the known universe could have caused this, then we are inexplicably driven to another alternative answer. I don't want to throw God into the mix, because I understand that for however ridiculous it is to me to hear, "Nothing created everything," it is equally inept to say, "God did it," and just leave it at that. That would totally emascualte science, as one author once put it.

quote:

---

We are devolving, in a sense, but only as individual acts of reproduction. A large percentage of human fertilized eggs have sufficient genetic problems that they spontaneously abort

---

I'm not sure how miscarriage fits in to your explanation, but by devolving, I mean populations that are losing what could arguably be considered, 'beneficial contrivances' as a whole. Why is it that life is percieved to be 'getting better with time,' instead of worsening with time, especially when we know its the opposite in the realm of physics. Why?

quote:

---

Those who succeed in being born with serious genetic defects are less likely to survive to reproduce. Consider such genetic diseases as cystic fibrosis, Down's syndrome and hemophilia - all these dramatically reduce the chances of reproducing and passing on their genes to the next generation.

---

Those are all prime examples of genetic mutation going awry, which further solidifies the argument against it.

quote:

---

On the flip side of the coin, those with a mix of alleles and/or new mutations that bring with them greater likelihood of producing progeny, perhaps something psychological like a way with the opposit sex (we don't have to consider non-heterosexual scenarios, of course), or perhaps something physical like strength and athleticism that provides success on the athletic fields and therefore the increased attention of many of the opposite sex. These genetic changes that increase the opportunity to reproduce are more likely to be passed on to the next generation.

---

I understand what you're saying and I agree that natural selection exists, and I agree that microevolution exists. Where I think biology has gone against the grain is that it tries to introduce transspecific evolution when there is no justifiable merit to do so. Evolution is still very much theoretical. And for ever appealing it may sound, there are some irreconciliable differences with what we are actually seeing as opposed to some abstract theorum.

quote:

---

My previous post should have answered this question, but let me say a bit more just to be clear. People are not saying that life isn't progressing (or if they are, they shouldn't be). They're saying that there is nothing inherent in evolutionary processes that causes increasing complexity. But life is a competition, and each advance by one species in an ecological niche has to be met by corresponding advances by other species threatened by that advance, otherwise they'll become less successful over time, perhaps even extinct.

---

If life is a competition then charity is weakness. Morals are a weakness. Law is a weakness. How does the evolutionary model reconcile with these critical aspects of sociology?This message has been edited by nemesis_juggernaut, 05-06-2006 07:25 PM

The direct observation that old species gives rise to new, different ones is sufficient justification. Against what? Against mutations happening? We know that they do, and are rarely - but not never - helpful. Didn't we establish that the history of life wasn't a thermodynamic process? This isn't a relevant objection. "Two heads are better than one." That says it all - cooperation against a problem we both share is considerably more effective than us working against both the problem and each other. Morals, laws, and even charity help us cooperate and form cohesive units that, as a collective, are more effective than any one single person simultaneously.

quote:

---

The direct observation that old species gives rise to new, different ones is sufficient justification.

---

It isn't sufficient when given the enormity of possible probablity, and yet, no new genera has spawned out of another. There are over 3 million creatures. If ever some evolutionary change was going to happen, at least one creature would have done so in nearly 200 years of intense observation. This doesn't even take into consideration the fossil record which proves all the more than these transformations have never taken place.

quote:

---

Against what? Against mutations happening? We know that they do, and are rarely - but not never - helpful.

---

I know mutations happen. The fact that they act beneficially is largely a metaphysical mystery.

quote:

---

Didn't we establish that the history of life wasn't a thermodynamic process? This isn't a relevant objection.

---

What is the principle called that everything dies? Everything living eventually dies. Since this is so overwhelmingly obvious, what is that, or what should that principle be named?

quote:

---

"Two heads are better than one." That says it all - cooperation against a problem we both share is considerably more effective than us working against both the problem and each other. Morals, laws, and even charity help us cooperate and form cohesive units that, as a collective, are more effective than any one single person simultaneously.

---

How would that apply in an instance of survival in a Darwinan sense? How does charity and hospital work, (helping the weak stay alive) fit into the evolutionary mold? It doesn't. Its something more than that. Just like love is more than firing synapses and chemical reactions in the brain. Its more than that. If we reduce life to such a platonic, drab, and meaningless existence, then we should just stick the temple to our heads, place our finger on the trigger and squeeze. Those who choose to act on the baser appetites of the flesh shall reap all of what the flesh actually is - a temporal body of death.

I'm going to argue you on the whole social issue of human beings.
Why do we have laws, morals, music, language, and all other things human? And how do they fit in with evolution?You are right to a point--being able to play music isn't going to help you beat lion hunting you down. However, in order to play music one must have a fairly complex brain. This brain can think (at least in our case we know this for sure), and it is our thinking ability that has placed us on top of the food chain, so to speak.Also, evolution includes something called sexual selection, a sub-dvivison of natural selection. Darwin knew about it, and wrote a book on it (though I don't remember the name right now). Anything that helps you attract a mate will help you produce offspring. WHy does a peacock have that massive tail that actually diminishes its survival in the wild? Because his tail takes a lot of energy to grow and care for, and because he can spend more energy on something non-essential he will attract more and better mates. There's a hypothesis that our brains our the peacock's tail feathers.Charity fits into sexual selection--here I am. I'm taking care of this person who would other words die, and because i'm spending MY money or MY time on this person, I am effectively reducing my own survival. But you know why I do it. Because I want you as a mate. The women of our species are generally attracted to more gentle, caring males.As to group cooperation fitting into the evolutionary model, it does. We aren't the only group animals, nor a primates. What about dog packs, whale pods, cattle herd. Working together increases your chances of survival. Or rather, your group's survival. Sort of like why cells started to work together. Two wolves working together stand a better chance of taking down a yak than one. Three even more.
All the herbivores are in groups so that there are too many for a hunter to take out. I'f I'm hunting a herd of buffalo, it gets more difficult the more their are. They can defend themselves better as a group, and it becomes harder to cull the weaklings from the group.

quote:

---

Anything that helps you attract a mate will help you produce offspring.

---

So, we developed the ability to play music in order to procreate? That makes no sense to me, but for now I'll oblige. Okay, then what happens once you gain a memeber of the opposite sex to procreate with? What social event usually follows this? Marriage. And where does marriage fit into the evolutionary paradigm, when it would be much more wise for me (from an evolutionary point of view) to procreate with as many females as I can. Lets think of the social disaster that would befall all of mankind if we turned animalistic by copulating with any and every female that walked by. What do you think the population would look like if we simply followed every twinge of desire that comes across our loins? In fact, I've heard some evolutionists justify rape, 'because they're just following their natural biological urges.' I hope you don't honestly believe that drivel like they do.

quote:

---

I'm taking care of this person who would other words die, and because i'm spending MY money or MY time on this person, I am effectively reducing my own survival. But you know why I do it. Because I want you as a mate. The women of our species are generally attracted to more gentle, caring males.

---

So, you take care of dying people so that you can score with chicks who like the sensitive type of guys? That's why we've evolved into philanthropy and playing music? That doesn't make a whit of sense to me whatsoever and that is pure conjecture.

quote:

---

As to group cooperation fitting into the evolutionary model, it does. We aren't the only group animals, nor a primates. What about dog packs, whale pods, cattle herd. Working together increases your chances of survival.

---

This one makes perfect sense to me, however, somehow my speaking about music and philanthropy countering the evolutionary model, was turned into people working together to survive. The two are not in any sense synonymous with one another. I see no concievable relevance why playing music and doing good for a people with no tangible incentive equates to evolution.

Here is something I posted on usenet (talk.origins) about a year ago. It seems relevant to this thread.

quote:

---

Why should nature have an intent?

---

Its not that it should have intent, but that it certainly would seem that way. I took courses to be an EMT about a year ago and part of the curriculum was to study the basics of human anatomy. The more I delved into the body, the more it proved to be an inner-universe. The greater it proved to be an inner-universe the greater proved that life was anything but accidental. If you were to lay the capillaries in your body alone, from end to end, it would circumvent the earth five times. That's no small feat. Looking at all of the wonderful components of the body and their purposes clearly indicates intent. Each component, from the unicellular structures to the operations of major organs clearly portray a purpose and intent, each having an integral function that serves the overall function of the body. What then would compel you to think that the universe should have no intent? Why should we assume that the conglomerate of all life should have no purpose, when, every living organism exhibits a purpose in every single thing it does? The ant builds its community for a reason. He procreates for a reason. He excretes waste for a reason. Likewise, if humans eat to regain spent nutrients, is that not indicative of purpose? If we sleep to regulate circulatory function and maintain neurological continuity, is that not indicative of a purpose? If you say, yes, then is not that indicating a purpose that exceeds the organism itself? What I mean is, how could it will itself all of these accomplishments? Simply because we may not fully perceive the totality of reason does not negate the purpose itself. Life could not be the aftermath of some cosmic accident not only on earth, but in the entire known universe as well. There are only two distinct conclusions from which to draw from. Life is either an act of deliberate creation or its a permanence of a universe that is eternal and boundless. But for however attractive the latter answer is philosophically, we know that life began in singularity. Therefore, if life did not occur through random occurrences and it does not prove to be truly eternal in the physical realm, then what are we left with to finally deduce? If everything exhibits intent for every single, solitary thing it does, then how or why should the conglomerate be exempt from it?Occam’s Razor: “The simplest explanation tends to be the correct one.”If you have never heard this parable before, I hope that it will leave an indelible mark on you. I hope it will, as well, impress upon you the level of deceit that is being propagated. Read the questions, and then ask yourself, “Which is the best example of Occam’s Razor?”1. Imagine you are looking at an automobile. You are admiring the streamlined body frame; marveling at its aerodynamics. You then pop the hood to have a look at the engine block. You take note of all the hoses and pulley’s that connect to this or that. The piston, the fans, and the chassis -it all seems to have a higher function. All the mechanisms harmoniously configured in a manner to lead to the central function of the car; which is to make it operable. Looking at the car, you surmise that:A. a tornado ripped through a scrap yard, assembling all the components in an intricate fashion, so as to create the illusion of intent.
B. The car was designed and engineered by its creator, exactly the way it was intended.2. Now, envision yourself in some posh, uptown art gallery. You are currently viewing this modern-art masterpiece. You are simply awestruck at the precision and attention to detail. You note how meticulous the brush strokes appear. From this, you surmise that:A. a high wind blew over several paint cans of various colors, sloshing them onto the canvas in such a way as to create the illusion of intent.
B. The artwork was created by the beautiful mind of an artificer.Engineering requires an engineer. Painting requires a painter. Music requires a musician. And creation requires a Creator.The 'farts in the wind' hypothesis does not sufficiently explain this magnificence that is before us.

And who created the creator?

---

Just a monkey in a long line of kings.
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist!
*not an actual doctor

Automobiles don't f**k! Analogies don't prove anything but even to be used as an explanation of something they have to match the analogized case in the important ways. You auto analogy fails because it doesn't match biological organisms well enough at all.That this "tornado-in-a-junk-yard" type of analogy keeps cropping up shows the astonishingly weak sort of things that people will fall for.

Though I largely accept the scientific approach I share your sense of awe at the amazing complexity of organisms, especially human orgainsims, especially our brains.Because our brains have among other functions the task of regulating our organism and of helping us meet various needs such as eating, survival, etc and they do this with some control seeking feedback it's easy to project that out and expect that that was the process that created us also.Did you take an introductory biology class at the college level as part of your training? To appreciate our complexity it helps to appreciate the complexity of single celled organisms and then see the developement over long periods of time of multi cellular organisms on up to vertabrates and then primates.One begins to appreciate the adaptions a multi celled organism needs to enable the individual cells to function and eventually this leads to an appreciation of the role of blood and the circulatory system.The universe provides the capabilities for great complexity. The heavier elements weren't even made by first generation stars. Those stars had to go through their life cycle to provide elements for later stars to make even more complex elements.Life is intimately a capability of this universe. The stuff that is used by our bodies to make themselves with was made in stars! That is how intimately our lives are entwined with the universe.Eventually purpose did arrive in the form of organisms that had self regulating behaviours that developed into seeking behaviours that gave us goal seekings like well, shopping and election campaigning among other things. The complexity is built up very gradually of very small peices over an immense stretch of time.It didn't happen all at once. It didn't happen in a few years. Counting the time necessary for the stars to use fusion to create heavier elements it would have takem billions of years. Think of how brief the life of bacteria is compared to our lives. Then think of how brief our lives our compared to the time span of the universe. Think how small bacteria are compared to us. There are more of them in your body than there are cells that derived from your body. Then think how small we are compared to the earth.If you are religious this can give you a true sense of humility as you contemplate your concept of divinity.just my take on it,lfenThis message has been edited by lfen, 05-06-2006 08:53 PM

I guess I don't understand this statement. If you see an observation, it doesn't matter what you think the "extreme probability" against it occuring is. If your math is telling you it isn't possible, and yet you're looking at it, your math is wrong. Obviously. Hrm. Is this how it's going to be? When I point out new species, you're going to complain about no new genera? And when I show you the new genera, is it going to be "no new families?" Or is it just that words like "species" and "genus" are interchangable to you?Let's start with this. It's not a strict example of how speciation typically works, but it's a flashy and I like it.

quote:

---

5.9.1 Coloniality in Chlorella vulgaris
Boraas (1983) reported the induction of multicellularity in a strain of Chlorella pyrenoidosa (since reclassified as C. vulgaris) by predation. He was growing the unicellular green alga in the first stage of a two stage continuous culture system as for food for a flagellate predator, Ochromonas sp., that was growing in the second stage. Due to the failure of a pump, flagellates washed back into the first stage. Within five days a colonial form of the Chlorella appeared. It rapidly came to dominate the culture. The colony size ranged from 4 cells to 32 cells. Eventually it stabilized at 8 cells. This colonial form has persisted in culture for about a decade. The new form has been keyed out using a number of algal taxonomic keys. They key out now as being in the genus Coelosphaerium, which is in a different family from Chlorella.

---

The fossil record proves the exact opposite. I'm not sure how to respond to such an unsupported statement as yours. The fossil record proves, to the fullest extent of scientific certainty, that species have undergone significant transition over time. "Metaphysical mystery? No, it's a matter of observation. Do you like drinking milk? If you do, you're the beneficiary of a, well, beneficial mutation. What they call "lactose intolerance" is actually the normal development of a human being. I don't see the relevance of this statement. Yes, organisms die. They also give birth. This proves that the history of a population over time is not a thermodynamic process, as far as I'm aware. How doesn't it apply? Cooperation works. Do I need to drag out the game theory to prove that, or can we just accept something so obvious that they can teach it on Sesame Street? If they got you to help them, then they aren't so weak, are they?

Evolution is a far simpler explanation than is creation. Evolution isn't anything like a tornado in a scrap yard.

The level of deceit propagated by the ID movement, from the sudden reediting of Panda's Thumb, to the wedge document, to other aspects that came out in the Dover trial is impressive. The contempt for the intelligence of their audience in using the tornado and art analogy has left an indelible mark on me.