Creation vs. Evolution

[MikeFerrara]

Well it was not my intent. I was basically saying I would not respect the views of a person who is going to go and deny the reality of the world. Why should people deserve to have their arguments given equal weighting as fact? It makes no sense.

ok. I see a big difference between not respecting or accepting a view and not respecting a person. I agree, nobody "deserves" to have their views given any weight at all.

Then why claim I know nothing about it? I do know the Bible, I've read it and studied it but you have repeatedly said I know nothing about it without ever giving examples other than quibbles over interpretation. There have been massive schisms over the years in various Church's so differing views about scripture is hardly a revolutionary idea...

Well, what I've tried to do is address specifics that have come up in the conversation.

Of course. But didn't have time to type them all out. I gave two that are quite major. The issue of homosexuality (i.e. what is going on in the Anglican Church at the moment) and the issue of how humans came about. I believe these are pretty huge differences in interpreting scripture?



Well you did say this "You mentioned Catholics. The Catholic church seems to be an example of what you get when you let worldly matters alter your view of scripture."

So basically you are dismissing their view of scripture as they have let worldly views alter their interpretation? That is what you seem to do to any interpretation of the Bible that does not match your own...

It wasn't intended as a dismissal. In fact, I see it as very important. The church (defined as Christs followers) are in the world, and therefore, subject to influences of the world. A church (here refering to a specific congregation) has worldly concerns...like membership, the ability to pay the bills, growth and so on.

It is my opinion that such concerns create the temptation to alter teachings as a way of addressing those concerns or even to just avoid the appearing foolish. I believe that each is contrary to Biblical teaching in a really BIG way. Of course, I'd be happy to provide Biblical references if anyone is interested.

It appears to me that there is a major trend in Christianity (not necessarily a new trend but one that has certainly picked up steam) to tell people what they want to hear in order to make Christianity attractive. I could give many many examples. However, I think the Bible promises little worldly reward for following Christ other than ridicule and persecution. Various churches (the local congregation kind) have found that this just doesn't attract many people...a fact that is consistant with Biblical teaching.

Before you take the view that this is a dismissal or condemnation painted with a wide brush, I'll further state that being in the world but not of the world, as we are instructed to do, is VERY difficult and I don't think it's too much of a stretch to say that all Christians fail at it in some way or at some time...or more likely, at many times and in many ways, myself included.

 

[coachpill]

Ok, I answered my own question here:
Re: How can genetic mutations change the n chromosome number of a species?

The Biblicists will love this one. Humans are a result of inbreeding. LOL

A quote from the link you posted:

"The only way to be sure what happened is to look at numerous species which we assume are all descended from a recent common ancestor, and then assume that the most common chromosome number was the same in the ancestral species, from which all the others are descended."

Howcome it isn't more likely that all of the great ape types mentioned in the article, those with 24 pairs of chromosomes, were derived from some common ancestor, and the humans, with 23 pairs, were not derived from that same ancestor.

The quote above tells us why. We assume that all of the great apes and humans are related via common ancestry because we want to. Then we look for evidence that shows it.

 

[MikeFerrara]

As in none being thin? Most creationist "evidence" consists of things like complaining that there is a 1% error in radiodating measrures, meaning if you go out 10²² standard deviations, the earth could be 6,000 years old.

Sorry thal, just had to steal that bitty from you.

I wasn't refering to "creationist science" but science regarding the genesis of the the usiverse and life.

But while we're on the subject of standard deviation and laughing about it, it seems to be often misused. My statistics is a little rusty but it assumes a normal distribution of the data?

In any case, I would be interested in seeing a capability study on one or more radiodating methods.

But the main reason it is so good, by everyday standards, is its utility - it just plain works. You can use it to design experiments, and it works. You can use it to develop products, and it works. You can use it to predict what should be seen in nature, and it works. You can use it to design treatment regimens, and it works.

I would be interested in hearing more about those products and treatmens and more specifics on what aspects of the theory of evolution are key.

However, having all of the above most defenitly makes you good. Compare that to what evidence creationism has
.
.
.
nothing. No evidence, no predictability, no utility outside of the church walls...

Bryan

Clearly, not everyone agrees with your implied definition of "evidence", "predictability" and "utility".

 

[Warthaug]

Just finished reading all the other posts...
...Clearly, Carroll already assumed evolution to have occurred as he stated the gene duplication occured 100 million years ago and was followed up by subsequent mutation. And again, this was obviously not observed.

However, direct observation is only one tool in the scientists toolbox. Indirect evidence is equally powerful, if gathered and analyzed properly.

Take DNA identification - in most cases no one actually see's a murderer/rapist/criminal commit the crime, and yet the presence of their DNA is considered strong proof they were involved.

The same holds true for science; indirect evidence is important. Take Carroll's example. He had two genes with a high degree of sequence homology, a shared 3D protein structure, and similar biochemistry. The pattern of inheritance generated by evolution is well established via direct observation (nested hierarchy is the only pattern evolution can form). The mutation rates and selection rates of wild yeast have also been measured. And lastly, there are stats, which can be used to sort out probabilities. So, given those known and directly measured facts, you can then analyze the yeast genes in detail. You come up with a few options:

1) The genes have a completely separate origin, and are unaltered from their original form (i.e. what creationists would argue)
2) The genes have a completely separate origin, and arose de novo at some time in the past
3) The yeast genes evolved from a common ancestor gene some time in the past
4) The gene was transfered, via horizontal gene transfer, from another organism at a more recent time in the past

Those are essentially the three real options (with #1 being the "creationist" option). So now we apply the proven, directly observed data to our options, and assign probabilities.

1) This option is nearly impossible, as the proven mutation rates of yeast dictate that several mutations would have occurred in these genes over the known history of yeast.
2) This option is even more improbable as #1, as the probability of assembling two genes, via convergence, with such a degree of similarity is nearly impossible; even over multi-billion year timescales.
3) This option is the most probable, as it only requires alteration of a pre-existing gene. Given the known mutation rate of yeast, the pattern of inheritance, and the degree of divergence between the two genes we can estimate when this happened.
4) This is unlikely, but still possible. The degree of homology, and lack of genes with high homology in other species, would argue against this option.

So based on the above, we know that options 1 and 2 have exremely low probablilities (i.e. 10^-200%), making them all but impossible. #3 is most likely (>99%) and #4 is a minor possibility (<1%). So, based on real world measurements and direct observations, we're able to determine what happened.

Ph.D.s and arguments from authorite...Some on this thread have appealed to what is called an argument from authority.

You mean like the ones who called upon Gentry's expertise...

And while an argument from authority, on its own, isn't a valid argument, showing that data comes from an expert lends weight to those facts.

Mutations harmful?...Because of the redundancy of the genetic code (information, by the way) in its ability to form amino acids (slightly different codons produce the same amino acid), most mutations are benign...granted

You need to go back and read those papers again. While there is some redundancy in the genetic code, statistically speaking any mutation in the protein coding region of a gene will most likely modify an amino acid, or result in a termination codon (the chance of mutating, to the same amino acid, is only 2.7%). In fact, if you were to bother reading those papers I cited, you'd have seen that they only quantified protein-coding region mutations if that mutation led to a change in the protein.

At the end of the day, most mutations are neutral for several reasons:

1) All living organisms have chaperon proteins, who's job is to "help" proteins fold properly. Meaning that most mutations that damage a proteins structure don't do anything, as our body "forces" the protein into the right conformation. Quite interestingly, in periods of stress these chaperons are down-regulated, allowing many of the previously "hidden" mutations to be expressed.

2) Proteins only take on a limited number of structures - helicies, beta-sheets, leucine-zippers, etc. Most single amino-acid mutations are not sufficient to affect these structures greatly.

3) In most proteins, the number of critical amino acids - that is the amino acids 100% required for function, is quite low. In most cases, you're talking less than 20 amino acids in proteins usually 300-800 amino acids in size.

4) In us lucky diploid organisms, we have two copies of each gene (with the exception of men, who get one copy of the X and Y), meaning that unless you get a rare dominant mutation, chances are you'll be OK. Of course, this doesn't apply to 99.99999% of life out there...

However, even talk.origins claims that of the mutations that have an effect, most are harmful.

You are lieing:
Are Mutations Harmful?

To quote:
Q: Doesn't evolution depend on mutations and aren't most mutations harmful?

A: No. Most mutations are neither harmful nor helpful.
That's the short answer. The long answer is that mutations can be neutral (neither helpful nor harmful), strictly harmful, strictly helpful, or (and this is important) whether they are harmful or helpful depends on the environment. Most mutations are either neutral or their effect depends on the environment. Let's look at an example of a mutation which may be harmful or helpful, depending upon circumstances.

Many mutations that cause effects are typically known by the diseases/disorders they produce.

Which is why most of the categorized mutations are harmful -neutral and good ones are impossible to detect.

And yes, resistance in bacteria has been at the consequence of a decrease in functionality somewhere else.

Only in some cases. But, of course, you ignored the citations I provided which showed example where this did not occur.

The Miller experiment...It is being taught in all high school biology textbooks I have reviewed over the last 12 years as well as the introductory college texts that I have reviewed. All the Campbell, Reece, and Mitchell college level texts teach Miller.

I have Campbell in front of me. They mention miller, say its an "early attempt to understand abiogenesis", and then go onto describe some more recient stuff.

So where were they wrong?

Physics laws...Cutnell/Johnson and Giancoli Physics texts still teach Newton's laws in their first few chapters as well.

Which is fine for high school, I guess. Relativity isn't exactly easy to understand - I was taught it years ago, and I'll be damned if I get the whole thing. As for QED - forget about it. May as well be greek for what I can make of it...

Creation model...Obviously it would take a lot more time than any of us have, but let me focus on just one aspect that does not involve abiogenesis or the creation of life. Others can chime in and tell me if I have this one right...creationists would claim that direct observation has lent support to the Biblical account of reproduction of the kinds.

"Kinds" are a creationist creation, and are not a scientific principal in any way, shape or form. As it stands, its so poorly defined as to make it useless for any detailed discussion of biology. After all, it's a sliding scale. "Kind" used to be "species", until the creationists caught on that scientists have been observing new species for for over 100 years now. Then it was equivelent to genus, but now that there is growing claims of new genuses being formed, I'm sure it'll change again - at least once us scientists come up with a clear definition of "genus".

In other words, it is possible that 2 dog-kind animals (walking off the ark, of course) with maximal heterozygosity of genes could produce quite a huge amount of variation in a relatively short amount of time. Mutations would occur,

I thought all mutations were lethal - that was your claim until, well, one paragraph ago

of course, but any natural selection or speciation would occur within the kind. Does that sum up that aspect of the creation model?

Not really. Because every time we ask for one, we get a different answer.

But lets run with it anyways, just as an example of why it isn't scientifically acceptable. Just as a quick reminder, a scientific thoery is:

1) Based on all pre-existing data,
2) Can be used to design experiments,
3) Predicts the results of the experiments in #3, and
4) Is falsifiable

Let start with #1:

• There is zero evidence for a biblical-style flood
• There is zero evidence for a young earth - 100,000, 10,000, 6,000 years old, or whatever number you prefer
• Given the known mutation and selection rates, there is not enough time for just two members of a "kind" to make the species we see today; even assuming a 100,000 year old earth.
• Its well established that just two members of the same species cannot produce a viable population, as inbreeding will remove genetic variability far faster than mutation can create it

So, your theory is not based on known evidence.

Point #2:

• Well, you can design experiments to test it - i.e. radiodate the earth, look for evidence of mass-floods, etc. But those have already been done, and as pointed out above, eliminate your thoery

Point #3:

• Given points #1 and #2, its self-evident that the theory is not predictive; in fact, the results of the experiments and observations are in direct opposition to the theory

Point #4:

• Its falsifiable; afterall, its already falsified.

So you've managed better than most, but the thoery is proven to be wrong by the data already in hand...

Bryan

 

[Warthaug]

I wasn't refering to "creationist science" but science regarding the genesis of the the usiverse and life.

I thought I was responding to CE there...

But while we're on the subject of standard deviation and laughing about it, it seems to be often misused. My statistics is a little rusty but it assumes a normal distribution of the data?

You can also calculate similar values for non-parametric data. Statistical tests like Mann-Whitney U test, and non-parametric ANOVA's use measures like that.

In any case, I would be interested in seeing a capability study on one or more radiodating methods.

I'm sure there are some out there - any geologists lurking about?

We won't bite, I promise...

I would be interested in hearing more about those products and treatmens and more specifics on what aspects of the theory of evolution are key.

Pick any modern vaccine, or recent (past decade) drug regimen to treat an infectious disease. Most of these are designed with pathogen evolution taken into account. For example, when designing antigens we look for epitopes difficult for the pathogen to mutate (otherwise, one mutation and the vaccine is useless). That obviously requires a great deal of knowledge about evolution.

Likewise, there are many companies (including one which I took a long, hard look at working for) who use evolution to custom-evolve organisms for specific purposes. Many bacteria have been evolved for purposes such as cleaning up oil spills, or radiation - you start with one that has some of the traits you want, mutagenize (if you're in a rush), select, and repeat. Just as another example, a friend of mine is working for a company who's in the testing phase of a plant they evolved, which absorbs heavy metals from soil. Simply plant a few crops of it, harvest, and you can clean contaminated soil of things like lead.

Clearly, not everyone agrees with your implied definition of "evidence", "predictability" and "utility".

In science, everyone does. Its commonplace, and has a very, very, very long history of success. It's how we discovered atoms, quarks, genes, black holes, and a whole host of other phenomina that few, if any, question the existence of. The only opposition you really see to it is in anti-science movements - creationism, the anti-vaccine movement, anti-global warming movement, etc.


Bryan

 

[Warthaug]

The quote above tells us why. We assume that all of the great apes and humans are related via common ancestry because we want to. Then we look for evidence that shows it.

Its hardly an assumption - the genetic, biochemical, antigenic, fossil, comparative physiological and pathogen susceptibility data all support that conclusions. The later three were well known before Darwin developed evolutionary theory; he even wrote a book on the subject.

Howcome it isn't more likely that all of the great ape types mentioned in the article, those with 24 pairs of chromosomes, were derived from some common ancestor, and the humans, with 23 pairs, were not derived from that same ancestor.

Nope. The reasons are as follows:

1) Chromosomal rearrangements are a fairly common form of mutation. These can produce rapid speciation if they occur in a small population. These types of mutations also leave characteristic "fingerprints" in our DNA, and our DNA is full of those finger prints, right where the breaks between ape and human chromosomes are found.

Kehrer-Sawatzki H, Cooper DN.
Molecular mechanisms of chromosomal rearrangement during primate evolution.
Chromosome Res. 2008;16(1):41-56.

Jiang Z, Tang H, Ventura M, Cardone MF, Marques-Bonet T, She X, Pevzner PA,
Eichler EE.
Ancestral reconstruction of segmental duplications reveals punctuated cores of
human genome evolution.
Nat Genet. 2007 Nov;39(11):1361-8.

Harris RA, Rogers J, Milosavljevic A.
Human-specific changes of genome structure detected by genomic triangulation.
Science. 2007 Apr 13;316(5822):235-7.
That's 3 of several hundred papers on the subject...

2) The probability of evolving two species, from a separate ancestor, with the degree of genetic simularity found between the great apes, is a statistical impossibility.

Bryan

 

[adurso]

LOL, now you know what some of us think when we must continually correct the same misstatements over and over made by folks who comment on Christian doctrine when it's clear they don't know anything about it..."They cannot be bothered to learn to use the language properly to begin with, ..."

Certainly; but is Christian doctrine expressed in jargon specific to theology? I do recall from my undergraduate years that any discussion of comparative theology that one must have a working knowledge of Aramaic, Hebrew, Latin and Greek in order to access the source material to prove one's point.

 

[coachpill]

Warthaug>>>>"However, direct observation is only one tool in the scientists toolbox. Indirect evidence is equally powerful, if gathered and analyzed properly.

Take DNA identification - in most cases no one actually see's a murderer/rapist/criminal commit the crime, and yet the presence of their DNA is considered strong proof they were involved."

Yes, that is historical science. The hope in forensics is that there is no other explanation to account for the directly observable evidence.

And, yes, this applies to other areas of science as well. Let's go back to Carroll. He matter of factly makes the claim that "This is how new capabilities arise and new functions evolve. This is what goes on in butteflies and elephants and humans. It is evolution in action."

So what is evolution in action? The "fact" that 100 million years ago the entire genome of K. lactis was duplicated and then some of the duplicated genes were lost and some were kept...still 100 million years ago. This gene duplication and subsequent degeneration was to have produced S. cerevisiae.

So your interesting percentages are just that; interesting.

And then your caricature of creation models has always been wrong. Genes clearly can change. So your option #1 is not even on the radar necessarily. I don't recall adhering to either the fixity of genes or the fixity of species. That is something you may have heard of (Aristotle), but not from me.

Warthaug>>>>"You are lieing:"
Are Mutations Harmful?

Not lieing. But it is telling that you would assume so.
CB101: Most mutations harmful?

Read response #1. "Of those that have a significant effect, most are harmful..." So my earlier claim of talk.origins stated was true. Yes, they then go to say, "...but a significant fraction are beneficial." Ok. Still, according to these guys, clearly of those mutations that are not neutral, most are harmful. So, lieing? Nope.

Warthaug>>>>"I have Campbell in front of me. They mention miller, say its an "early attempt to understand abiogenesis", and then go onto describe some more recient stuff.

So where were they wrong?"

Somebody asked which textbooks/schools were still teaching Miller. I gave a list. I made no commentary. Again, it is interesting that you would assume that I mentioned something.

Warthaug>>>>"Which is fine for high school, I guess."

Maybe. Except these were college physics texts as well. Sorry, I guess I should have emphasized that as well. However, the high school texts (physics) that I know of go into quantum mechanics, relativity somewhat in later chapters. Perhaps many teachers just skip these sections.

Warthaug>>>>""Kinds" are a creationist creation, and are not a scientific principal in any way, shape or form. As it stands, its so poorly defined as to make it useless for any detailed discussion of biology. After all, it's a sliding scale. "Kind" used to be "species", until the creationists caught on that scientists have been observing new species for for over 100 years now. Then it was equivelent to genus, but now that there is growing claims of new genuses being formed, I'm sure it'll change again - at least once us scientists come up with a clear definition of "genus"."

And you even claim that mainstream science has no clear definition of species. So I guess it's useless as well. However, what we do directly observe is that organisms vary within their kinds and have not produced anything beyond the kind, and have not produced increases in information.

Warthaug>>>>"I thought all mutations were lethal - that was your claim until, well, one paragraph ago "

As you were wrong about the Gould interview in earlier pages, you are wrong here. That may have been a claim on the thread, but not by me.

Warthaug>>>>"[*]Given the known mutation and selection rates, there is not enough time for just two members of a "kind" to make the species we see today; even assuming a 100,000 year old earth.
[*]Its well established that just two members of the same species cannot produce a viable population, as inbreeding will remove genetic variability far faster than mutation can create it"

I deleted your other assumptions about what I posted. Let's keep it to the diversity of species we see today and where there came from. If you want to debate the flood or the age of the earth you can do that with someone else...

I will deal with the above later.

 

[MikeFerrara]

You can also calculate similar values for non-parametric data. Statistical tests like Mann-Whitney U test, and non-parametric ANOVA's use measures like that.

Of course there are methods suitable the tratment of non-normal distributions but to simply state "standard deviation" or indices that rely on std dev don't imply their use.

Pick any modern vaccine, or recent (past decade) drug regimen to treat an infectious disease. Most of these are designed with pathogen evolution taken into account. For example, when designing antigens we look for epitopes difficult for the pathogen to mutate (otherwise, one mutation and the vaccine is useless). That obviously requires a great deal of knowledge about evolution.

Likewise, there are many companies (including one which I took a long, hard look at working for) who use evolution to custom-evolve organisms for specific purposes. Many bacteria have been evolved for purposes such as cleaning up oil spills, or radiation - you start with one that has some of the traits you want, mutagenize (if you're in a rush), select, and repeat. Just as another example, a friend of mine is working for a company who's in the testing phase of a plant they evolved, which absorbs heavy metals from soil. Simply plant a few crops of it, harvest, and you can clean contaminated soil of things like lead.

Granted. I guess my question was one of scope and limits. Isn't there a difference (or might there be?) between the relatively short term evolution of a plant or virus and the evolution of man (for example) from the most basic form that we can consider life? Put another way, those accomplishments aren't dependant on being able to evolve a virus into a plant or a plant into a man, are they?

In science, everyone does. Its commonplace, and has a very, very, very long history of success. It's how we discovered atoms, quarks, genes, black holes, and a whole host of other phenomina that few, if any, question the existence of. The only opposition you really see to it is in anti-science movements - creationism, the anti-vaccine movement, anti-global warming movement, etc.


Bryan

Well, I'm not anti-science or anti-vaccine...but does being anti-Al Gore mean that I'm anti-global warming?

 

[coachpill]

Warthaug>>>>"Its hardly an assumption - the genetic, biochemical, antigenic, fossil, comparative physiological and pathogen susceptibility data all support that conclusions. The later three were well known before Darwin developed evolutionary theory; he even wrote a book on the subject."



Then you disagree with Steve Mack, Post-doc/Fellow, Molecular and Cell Biology, Children's Hospital Oakland Research Institute and his statement that I quoted. That's fine with me.