Evolution is a basic, biological process

A lot of info. here, Soplar which I missed. Thanks for providing it. I will study it when I get a chance (not tonight--it's too late. I may have questions later).

Hi RobinThanks for the note --look forward to you commentsSoplar

Slopar, are you saying that DNA copying errors are the reason for aging?

Hi Quetzal,I would very much like to know what, exactly, about cellular mechanics, photosynthesis, macroecology or any other biological facts cannot be explained without recourse to the ToE.Thanks,
--TL

NosyNed,You assert that: Then you foresee and answer a common creationist's response to such an assertion: Have you never seen someone, who had only a small part of a total picture, misunderstand everything about a situation? Do you not think it is possible that we have only a very, very small part of a total picture and, therefore, could be seeing things as "cockamaymie" when, in fact, had we complete knowledge, it would make perfect sense?--TL

Where do we get the bigger picture, then? The Bible? The problem with that is that it makes things less clear, not more so. Creationism is a lot less coherent a model of Earth's diversity than evolution.On the other hand if you propose that there's an even higher source of knowledge than the Bible, I can't argue with that. And I guess I'd like to know what it is.

Hi again, Literalist.Just off the top of my head (mostly to show I wasn't simply engaging in hyperbole):a. cellular mechanics: Why is mtDNA and nuclear DNA in say mammals so different? Why, in fact, does mammalian mtDNA more resemble bacterial DNA? Why do cellular processes differ so greatly between greatly different lineages yet perform nearly identical functions? Why are "broken" or non-functional exons the same in closely related species, but not in others? Why do some regions of DNA seem to be more susceptible to mutation than others? Why are conserved regions conserved in the first place? Why is there such similarity between certain genes for one function in one organism that are used for completely different functions in another? Why does hypermutation occur in some lineages under environmental stress? etcb. photosynthesis: Why do glaucophytes have something that is chemically and structurally indistinguishable from a bacterial cell wall around their chloroplasts? Why do they have only chlorophyll a and phycobilins but chlorophytes have both chlorophyll a and b but no phycobilins? Why do the structure and chemical composition of chlorplasts in eukaryotes in all cases resemble that of a cyanobacterium rather than anything found elsewhere in other eukaryotes?c. macroecology: Why are biological communities on oceanic islands different from continental islands in spite of identical climate, size and habitat availability? How did specific biological assemblages arise in specific habitats, and how do the components interact? Why do two separate iterations of ecological succession in the same area never result in identical community compositions (this was one I got to investigate at first hand)?There are a million questions like this that can ONLY be understood in an evolutionary context. If you feel that there are other ways of coming to an understanding of these questions, I would invite you to pick up where Maestro left off in a previous thread (The Relevance of Biblical Claims to Science) where I tried to pester him to support a nearly identical contention with some fairly specific cases. Obviously he's too busy with RL to respond, but the thread is still open. Feel free. If you don't like the OP, there are other questions - research type - in post 25 (page 2) where simply providing a research strategy that explicitly takes into account the supernatural to answer the questions posed is sufficient (assuming details are provided, of course).{added by edit: To forestall the wearingly common creationist misconception here the "why" questions above should not be translated as "What is the purpose of...?", rather "What is the explanation for...?". Science doesn't address "purpose". It provides an explanatory framework.This message has been edited by Quetzal, 01-24-2005 10:33 AM

To answer your question, the Bible is where you get the bigger picture, actually, the biggest picture which is beyond our finite understanding."The Bible is often surprisingly accurate in historical particulars, more so than earlier generations of scholar ever suspected... After more than two centuries of facing the heaviest scientific guns that could be brought to bear, the Bible has survived- and is perhaps the better for the siege." Time Magazine Dec. 1974This message has been edited by daaaaaBEAR, 01-25-2005 22:32 AMThis message has been edited by daaaaaBEAR, 01-25-2005 22:34 AM

Re the following:In msg 244, TheLiteralist asks In msg 245, Then in msg 248 daaaaaBear writes First of all, evolution is a process and both the ToE and Creationism are explanations of this process. It would be more proper to term Creationism, the Creationists Theory of Evolution (CToE) and the ToE, the Scientists Theory of Evolution (SToE). That would clarify the discussion a bitNow in response to 244, I don’t think the debate is whether CToE or the SToE can explain things like cellular mechanics; the question is which one does a better job While TheLit likes to argue that the world we see could have started 200 years ago as far as understanding things like photosynthesis, IMO he misses the point about what the SToE is.If we grant, as most seem to here, that life has evolved, the SToE is an explanation of this evolutionary process. The explanation connects a large amount of experimental data in an organized manner which makes the most sense if one begins many millions of years ago with simple life forms and, gradually, over fast amounts of time, life improved until we are at the stage we are now. Moreover, the process continues. The CToE, doesn’t provide such a connected organization of the data and well God did it and we don’t know how God works is not an answerAnymore than the idea that our world is an infinitesimal part of a giant universe. This is a just a red herring (Something that draws attention away from the central issue. ) So my challenge to TheLit, show how the CToE connects the dots in a manner superior to the SToE.Re the historical accuracy of the bible 248 — this is not necessarily in question unless you include the book of Genesis. Here, we have a book written several thousand years ago which is being presented as more accurate than the SToE — that’s too much of a stretch.Soplar

Why is it too much of a stretch? Because it was written several thousand years ago? It would be an error to doubt the credibility of any book or document just because its old. If most of the Bible is not in question like you said then why would just the book of Genesis be historically inaccurate? What if I said I held the Origin of Species to be completely true except for the first chapter, it's the same principle.

As I said, the problem with the Bible as a source of information about the diversity and history of life on Earth is that it doesn't make a whit of sense.Genesis literally confuses the issue. Evolution explains the facts of life that we observe and makes them clearer. Why should I believe the confusing account that explains nothing over the simple, easily understood account that explains so much, and leads and has led to so much discovery? So is most historical fiction and myth. I've been to Verona, Italy, the setting of Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet. It does literally exist. But that doesn't make the events recounted in the story literally true.

Because it was written by people who knew so little about the natural world. For instance, we know that the existence of mercury (the metal) was known to people in the ancient world. If the Bible is supposed to be taken as a textbook on natural history, why doesn't it mention this most interesting of metals? I don't think anyone here would have a problem with you taking that position. The accuracy of one statement does not verify the accuracy of another. Statements are verified on their own merits, not on the reliability of their cohorts.

With all due respect,I think it's very unhelpful when people confuse the Evolution v Creation debate by calling natural selection 'evolution'. Natural selection is the proven scientific fact, not evolution! Evolution (I'm referring to macroevolution as opposed to microevolution) has never been observed and is not empirically testable.
By this I mean that although genetic mutation can result in changes (natural selection) and even produce a new species, no matter how many mutations occur and how much change take place, one kind of animal has NEVER been observed to change into another (macroevolution).
So please can we avoid cunfusion and make sure people realize the difference between the two terms.

---

The Nutty Professor

Not according to the following:Observed Instances of SpeciationThe following are several examples of observations of speciation.5.1 Speciations Involving Polyploidy, Hybridization or Hybridization Followed by Polyploidization.5.1.1 Plants
(See also the discussion in de Wet 1971).5.1.1.1 Evening Primrose (Oenothera gigas)
While studying the genetics of the evening primrose, Oenothera lamarckiana, de Vries (1905) found an unusual variant among his plants. O. lamarckiana has a chromosome number of 2N = 14. The variant had a chromosome number of 2N = 28. He found that he was unable to breed this variant with O. lamarckiana. He named this new species O. gigas.5.1.1.2 Kew Primrose (Primula kewensis)
Digby (1912) crossed the primrose species Primula verticillata and P. floribunda to produce a sterile hybrid. Polyploidization occurred in a few of these plants to produce fertile offspring. The new species was named P. kewensis. Newton and Pellew (1929) note that spontaneous hybrids of P. verticillata and P. floribunda set tetraploid seed on at least three occasions. These happened in 1905, 1923 and 1926.5.1.1.3 Tragopogon
Owenby (1950) demonstrated that two species in this genus were produced by polyploidization from hybrids. He showed that Tragopogon miscellus found in a colony in Moscow, Idaho was produced by hybridization of T. dubius and T. pratensis. He also showed that T. mirus found in a colony near Pullman, Washington was produced by hybridization of T. dubius and T. porrifolius. Evidence from chloroplast DNA suggests that T. mirus has originated independently by hybridization in eastern Washington and western Idaho at least three times (Soltis and Soltis 1989). The same study also shows multiple origins for T. micellus.5.1.1.4 Raphanobrassica
The Russian cytologist Karpchenko (1927, 1928) crossed the radish, Raphanus sativus, with the cabbage, Brassica oleracea. Despite the fact that the plants were in different genera, he got a sterile hybrid. Some unreduced gametes were formed in the hybrids. This allowed for the production of seed. Plants grown from the seeds were interfertile with each other. They were not interfertile with either parental species. Unfortunately the new plant (genus Raphanobrassica) had the foliage of a radish and the root of a cabbage.5.1.1.5 Hemp Nettle (Galeopsis tetrahit)
A species of hemp nettle, Galeopsis tetrahit, was hypothesized to be the result of a natural hybridization of two other species, G. pubescens and G. speciosa (Muntzing 1932). The two species were crossed. The hybrids matched G. tetrahit in both visible features and chromosome morphology.5.1.1.6 Madia citrigracilis
Along similar lines, Clausen et al. (1945) hypothesized that Madia citrigracilis was a hexaploid hybrid of M. gracilis and M. citriodora As evidence they noted that the species have gametic chromosome numbers of n = 24, 16 and 8 respectively. Crossing M. gracilis and M. citriodora resulted in a highly sterile triploid with n = 24. The chromosomes formed almost no bivalents during meiosis. Artificially doubling the chromosome number using colchecine produced a hexaploid hybrid which closely resembled M. citrigracilis and was fertile.5.1.1.7 Brassica
Frandsen (1943, 1947) was able to do this same sort of recreation of species in the genus Brassica (cabbage, etc.). His experiments showed that B. carinata (n = 17) may be recreated by hybridizing B. nigra (n = 8) and B. oleracea, B. juncea (n = 18) may be recreated by hybridizing B. nigra and B. campestris (n = 10), and B. napus (n = 19) may be recreated by hybridizing B. oleracea and B. campestris.5.1.1.8 Maidenhair Fern (Adiantum pedatum)
Rabe and Haufler (1992) found a naturally occurring diploid sporophyte of maidenhair fern which produced unreduced (2N) spores. These spores resulted from a failure of the paired chromosomes to dissociate during the first division of meiosis. The spores germinated normally and grew into diploid gametophytes. These did not appear to produce antheridia. Nonetheless, a subsequent generation of tetraploid sporophytes was produced. When grown in the lab, the tetraploid sporophytes appear to be less vigorous than the normal diploid sporophytes. The 4N individuals were found near Baldwin City, Kansas.5.1.1.9 Woodsia Fern (Woodsia abbeae)
Woodsia abbeae was described as a hybrid of W. cathcariana and W. ilvensis (Butters 1941). Plants of this hybrid normally produce abortive sporangia containing inviable spores. In 1944 Butters found a W. abbeae plant near Grand Portage, Minn. that had one fertile frond (Butters and Tryon 1948). The apical portion of this frond had fertile sporangia. Spores from this frond germinated and grew into prothallia. About six months after germination sporophytes were produced. They survived for about one year. Based on cytological evidence, Butters and Tryon concluded that the frond that produced the viable spores had gone tetraploid. They made no statement as to whether the sporophytes grown produced viable spores.copied from http://www.talkorigins.comThis message has been edited by robinrohan, 01-26-2005 15:39 AM

quote:

---

By this I mean that although genetic mutation can result in changes (natural selection) and even produce a new species, no matter how many mutations occur and how much change take place, one kind of animal has NEVER been observed to change into another (macroevolution).

---

Macroevolution, as it is used in science, is change that result in a new species. Therefore, macroevolution has been observed. The point of this meandering topic is that evolution is a basic process that will result in divergently different species over time. Evolution is a process just like river formation. Due to the natural laws present a river will always flow downhill. In the same way, imperfect replicators such as life will always result in divergent species through evolution.You contend that mutations will never result in different "kinds" of animals. Why do you claim this? Is it because this hasn't been witnessed in the last 150 years? Don't you think this is a little shortsighted, especially with the amount of change we see in the fossil record?However, science agrees in a sense in that there is only one type of animal and all of those animals can be found in the Kindgom Animalia. No animal has ever produced something other than an animal, but they have produced different types of animals. This is the consequence of a twin nested hiearchy, something that is only possible through the mechanisms of evolution. In the same way, vertebrates have always produced vertebrates, mammals have always produced mammals, primates have always produced primates, and humans have always produced humans. It is all a matter of when a species is considered to be in one category or the other.However, due to evolution and the resulting nested hierarchy, a mammal will never have bird features that aren't shared by the larger classificiation of vertebrates. Whales will not have fish features that aren't shared with the rest of the mammals. Evolution is why we don't see feathered bats or gilled whales. Instead, everything fits within this nested hiearchy, a hiearchy that would not need to be present if everything were specially created.