Creation vs. Evolution

Please register or login

Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.

Benefits of registering include

  • Ability to post and comment on topics and discussions.
  • A Free photo gallery to share your dive photos with the world.
  • You can make this box go away

Joining is quick and easy. Log in or Register now!

Status
Not open for further replies.
I'M BLIND, I'M COMPLETELY BLIND ... ANDY HAS BLINDED ME!!! (and not with science) :rofl3:

Now if I can just "evolve" sonic hearing to suppliment the loss

...

in silence I await.

-----

Mike.
 
holy cow!

i got post 3,500 just now!

(well, two posts back)
 
I still can't see ... so i'll have to take your word for it. :rofl3:

-----

Mike.
 
3,500? I'm showing 20,938 here for you - that's a whole lot of posting :)

-----

Mike.
 
Midnight Star:
Actually, I was referring to evolution as a trait. Now if cold doesnt cause hair to grow, why would anything else "adapt" or evolve to fit it's environment as science says does happen with other species? Remember, things just don't happen because some one says so; truth must be universal.
Once again, sory to say but you flunk.

Beginning in 1801, Lamarck began to publish details of his evolutionary theories. Where men like Buffon had hinted at the possibility of evolutionary change, Lamarck declared it forthrightly. In 1801 he wrote:

. . . time and favorable conditions are the two principal means which nature has employed in giving existence to all her productions. We know that for her time has no limit, and that consequently she always has it at her disposal.
What was the mechanism for evolution? "Lamarckism" or "Lamarckianism" is now often used in a rather derogatory sense to refer to the theory that acquired traits can be inherited. What Lamarck actually believed was more complex: organisms are not passively altered by their environment, as his colleague Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire thought. Instead, a change in the environment causes changes in the needs of organisms living in that environment, which in turn causes changes in their behavior. Altered behavior leads to greater or lesser use of a given structure or organ; use would cause the structure to increase in size over several generations, whereas disuse would cause it to shrink or even disappear. This rule -- that use or disuse causes structures to enlarge or shrink -- Lamarck called the "First Law" in his book Philosophie zoologique. Lamarck's "Second Law" stated that all such changes were heritable. The result of these laws was the continuous, gradual change of all organisms, as they became adapted to their environments; the physiological needs of organisms, created by their interactions with the environment, drive Lamarckian evolution.

While the mechanism of Lamarckian evolution is quite different from that proposed by Darwin, the predicted result is the same: adaptive change in lineages, ultimately driven by environmental change, over long periods of time. It is interesting to note that Lamarck cited in support of his theory of evolution many of the same lines of evidence that Darwin was to use in the Origin of Species. Lamarck's Philosophie zoologique mentions the great variety of animal and plant forms produced under human cultivation (Lamarck even anticipated Darwin in mentioning fantail pigeons!); the presence of vestigial, non-functional structures in many animals; and the presence of embryonic structures that have no counterpart in the adult. Like Darwin and later evolutionary biologists, Lamarck argued that the Earth was immensely old. Lamarck even mentions the possibility of natural selection in his writings, although he never seems to have attached much importance to this idea.

It is even more interesting to note that, although Darwin tried to refute the Lamarckian mechanism of inheritance, he later admitted that the heritable effects of use and disuse might be important in evolution. In the Origin of Species he wrote that the vestigial eyes of moles and of cave-dwelling animals are "probably due to gradual reduction from disuse, but aided perhaps by natural selection." Lamarckian inheritance, at least in the sense Lamarck intended, is in conflict with the findings of genetics and has now been largely abandoned -- but until the rediscovery of Mendel's laws at the beginning of the twentieth century, no one understood the mechanisms of heredity, and Lamarckian inheritance was a perfectly reasonable hypothesis. Several other scientists of the day, including Erasmus Darwin, subscribed to the theory of use and disuse -- in fact, Erasmus Darwin's evolutionary theory is so close to Lamarck's in many respects that it is surprising that, as far as is known now, the two men were unaware of each other's work.

In several other respects, the theory of Lamarck differs from modern evolutionary theory. Lamarck viewed evolution as a process of increasing complexity and "perfection," not driven by chance; as he wrote in Philosophie zoologique, "Nature, in producing in succession every species of animal, and beginning with the least perfect or simplest to end her work with the most perfect, has gradually complicated their structure." Lamarck did not believe in extinction: for him, species that disappeared did so because they evolved into different species. If this goes on for too long, it would mean the disappearance of less "perfect" organisms; Lamarck had to postulate that simple organisms, such as protists, were constantly being spontaneously generated. Yet despite these differences, Lamarck made a major contribution to evolutionary thought, developing a theory that paralleled Darwin's in many respects. Rediscovered in the middle part of the 19th century, his theories finally gained the attention they merited. His mechanism of evolution remained a popular alternative to Darwinian selection until the beginning of the 20th century; prominent scientists like Edward Drinker Cope adopted Lamarckianism and tried to apply it to their work. Though his proposed mechanism eventually fell out of favor, he broke ground in establishing the fact of evolution.
 
Thalassamania:
Once again, sory to say but you flunk.

Beginning in 1801, Lamarck began to publish details of his evolutionary theories. Where men like Buffon had hinted at the possibility of evolutionary change, Lamarck declared it forthrightly. In 1801 he wrote:

What was the mechanism for evolution? "Lamarckism" or "Lamarckianism" is now often used in a rather derogatory sense to refer to the theory that acquired traits can be inherited. What Lamarck actually believed was more complex: organisms are not passively altered by their environment, as his colleague Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire thought. Instead, a change in the environment causes changes in the needs of organisms living in that environment, which in turn causes changes in their behavior. Altered behavior leads to greater or lesser use of a given structure or organ; use would cause the structure to increase in size over several generations, whereas disuse would cause it to shrink or even disappear. This rule -- that use or disuse causes structures to enlarge or shrink -- Lamarck called the "First Law" in his book Philosophie zoologique. Lamarck's "Second Law" stated that all such changes were heritable. The result of these laws was the continuous, gradual change of all organisms, as they became adapted to their environments; the physiological needs of organisms, created by their interactions with the environment, drive Lamarckian evolution.

While the mechanism of Lamarckian evolution is quite different from that proposed by Darwin, the predicted result is the same: adaptive change in lineages, ultimately driven by environmental change, over long periods of time. It is interesting to note that Lamarck cited in support of his theory of evolution many of the same lines of evidence that Darwin was to use in the Origin of Species. Lamarck's Philosophie zoologique mentions the great variety of animal and plant forms produced under human cultivation (Lamarck even anticipated Darwin in mentioning fantail pigeons!); the presence of vestigial, non-functional structures in many animals; and the presence of embryonic structures that have no counterpart in the adult. Like Darwin and later evolutionary biologists, Lamarck argued that the Earth was immensely old. Lamarck even mentions the possibility of natural selection in his writings, although he never seems to have attached much importance to this idea.

It is even more interesting to note that, although Darwin tried to refute the Lamarckian mechanism of inheritance, he later admitted that the heritable effects of use and disuse might be important in evolution. In the Origin of Species he wrote that the vestigial eyes of moles and of cave-dwelling animals are "probably due to gradual reduction from disuse, but aided perhaps by natural selection." Lamarckian inheritance, at least in the sense Lamarck intended, is in conflict with the findings of genetics and has now been largely abandoned -- but until the rediscovery of Mendel's laws at the beginning of the twentieth century, no one understood the mechanisms of heredity, and Lamarckian inheritance was a perfectly reasonable hypothesis. Several other scientists of the day, including Erasmus Darwin, subscribed to the theory of use and disuse -- in fact, Erasmus Darwin's evolutionary theory is so close to Lamarck's in many respects that it is surprising that, as far as is known now, the two men were unaware of each other's work.

In several other respects, the theory of Lamarck differs from modern evolutionary theory. Lamarck viewed evolution as a process of increasing complexity and "perfection," not driven by chance; as he wrote in Philosophie zoologique, "Nature, in producing in succession every species of animal, and beginning with the least perfect or simplest to end her work with the most perfect, has gradually complicated their structure." Lamarck did not believe in extinction: for him, species that disappeared did so because they evolved into different species. If this goes on for too long, it would mean the disappearance of less "perfect" organisms; Lamarck had to postulate that simple organisms, such as protists, were constantly being spontaneously generated. Yet despite these differences, Lamarck made a major contribution to evolutionary thought, developing a theory that paralleled Darwin's in many respects. Rediscovered in the middle part of the 19th century, his theories finally gained the attention they merited. His mechanism of evolution remained a popular alternative to Darwinian selection until the beginning of the 20th century; prominent scientists like Edward Drinker Cope adopted Lamarckianism and tried to apply it to their work. Though his proposed mechanism eventually fell out of favor, he broke ground in establishing the fact of evolution.
mmmm, an exponentiating mistake I see, evolutionary in nature, in that it precedes a known outcome? Predictability perhaps - if in fact "fact", why then use "theory" to define evolution ... it's really no different than anything else mentioned in this enormous thread. :D

-----

Mike.
 
Thalassamania:
Don't know enough about recombinants and hot spots, got a lot of reading to do, thanks. That's the exciting thing about science, wake up one morning and there's something new to learn, not like your world view that's plodded along without change or excitment since the the bronze age <G>.

My world view is plodding along? Guess again...but really, I hope your actual world view doesn't change too much based on a little chimp DNA.
 
MikeFerrara:
I hope your actual world view doesn't change too much based on a little chimp DNA.

quite the contrary. if it's the wrong world view, we need to know as soon as possible

i don't fear being wrong. do you?
 
H2Andy:
i couldn't open 2, 3, and 5 due to bad links

the two i read are clear and point out that we are real close to chimps and descended from them, and then go into specific analysis as to the mechanisms thereof (specifically, gene regulation and protein differentials).

again, they're arguing details, not the overall theory of evolution nor the fact that we are 98.5 similar to chimps in DNA

Agreed, the subjects of the articles are details.

Let's talk about those details. After hearing how people and chimps are closer than donkeys and horses I just had to look into this. You see, these days, I shoe horses, donkeys and mules for a living and I can deal with them all pretty much the same. Where, and maybe it's just me, but I see a really big difference between people and chimps.

From http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1464121
So, the 1% - 2% DNA difference...apparently some scientists don't think this quit explains the differences between people and chimps either.

In terms of nucleotide differences, the human is closer to the chimpanzee than to any other hominoid species. The early genome comparison by DNA hybridization suggested a nucleotide difference of 1-2% (Kohne, 1970; Sibley and Ahlquist, 1984). Recently, direct nucleotide sequencing confirmed this estimate (Goodman, 1995; Chen and Li, 2001; Ebersberger et al., 2002; Watanabe et al., 2004).

However, a large portion (about 98%) of the human genome is known to be non-protein-coding DNA, and the estimate of 1-2% nucleotide difference is largely based on the comparison of non-protein-coding DNA, which has little effect on phenotypic characters. Therefore, for the general public who are interested in phenotypic differences, this is clearly misleading. A better way of measuring the genetic difference is to consider functional genes or proteins as the units of comparison, because these are the genetic units that control phenotypic characters. To do this, we compiled 127 human and chimp orthologous proteins (44,000 amino acid residues) from GenBank. Only 25 (20%) of these proteins showed the identical amino acid sequence between humans and chimpanzees. In other words, the proportion of different proteins was 80%, in contrast to the 1-2% difference at the nucleotide level. How these differences are related to the morphological differences is unclear at present, but it is quite possible that a large proportion of phenotypic differences are caused by a relatively small number of regulatory mutations (King and Wilson, 1975) or major effect genes (Nei, 1987).

Yes and I read Warthaugs's comments that they only checked 127 genes out of about 20,000 which is clearly stated in the article.

Then from the other articles I linked...

There is the difference in recombination hot spots which is apparently why people and chimps can't have little people-chimps together?

And the difference in gene regulation. Apparently having the gene is one thing but using it is another?

And the difference in the HAR1 gene which they think has to do with brain development? In this gene, the chimp is closer to a chicken (two differences) than to a person (18 differences). Read up on this one because apparently the speed and extent of the evolution of this gene in people was something of a surprise to scientists?

So yes we're dealing with details. None of these articles attempted to refute evolution or even change the time scale. I didn't present them for that purpose either. I went looking for scientific facts that might help explain why people are so very different from chimps when I keep hearing how close we are genetically.

I don't claim to understand all this stuff but apparently comparison by DNA hybridization (the often repeated 1% - 2% difference) doesn't necessarily tell the whole story?
 
MikeFerrara:
I don't claim to understand all this stuff but apparently comparison by DNA hybridization (the often repeated 1% - 2% difference) doesn't necessarily tell the whole story?


their entire article boils down to this:

In other words, the proportion of different proteins was 80%, in contrast to the 1-2% difference at the nucleotide level. How these differences are related to the morphological differences is unclear at present, but it is quite possible that a large proportion of phenotypic differences are caused by a relatively small number of regulatory mutations (King and Wilson, 1975) or major effect genes (Nei, 1987).


DNA is not a protein. it is a nucleic acid (well, a long polymer of nucleotides)

genetic material is passed along by DNA, not by proteins. genes (made up of DNA and RNA) in turn produce proteins. proteins are largely responsible for the apperance (phenotype) of an animal (or plant .. or whatever).

so, the question is: how come such similar genotypes (98% similar) can produce such difference in proteins (80% dissimilar) and phenotype (appearance)?

to put it another way, they are asking the question: how come if chimps and humans are so closely related genetically do they look so different? (i.e have such different proteins).

answer: we don't know. a possible answer is that regulatory mutations or major effect genes account for the difference in proteins in the two species (and their apperance).

(this article, published last year, failed to generate much interest since ... quite obviously ... didn't really amount to anything -- they end up concluding what was already concluded back in the 70's and 80's)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom