quote:

Originally posted by Seventil Simliar genetic code? They are the absolute farthest away, genetically (maybe virii and something more simpler are the farthest?) -- I believe it's near 10% difference or such (remember much of DNA is classified as "junk" or "filler" code, relatively meaniningless.

Junk DNA is not quite as meaningless as you'd think, at least that's what some recent research has suggested, but that's another topic altogether. What I think Drug_TitO was getting at is the sequencing aspect of bacteria is, in fact, similar to humans, just like anymost organism, with the exception of say viruses. In fact, we can interact and combine human DNA sequences with bacterial sequences in order to study the various interactions and results of those genes and how they build proteins, turn on/off receptors, etc. Here's but one of literally millions of research papers as an example:

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/ar...cgi?artid=55404

Of course the human genome is vastly different and much more complex than bacterial DNA, but again there are basic aspects of the sequencing is relatively the same that's utilized for research. I don't want to talk too far out of my ass, because I'm not as well versed in this area as I used to be, but I hope you get the general idea here.

quote:

I don't see your logic here... our immune system uses bacteria to fight bacteria (and other intruders).

Our human immune system is a great deal more complex than that. Actually is extremely complex, and downright fucking cool if I may say so myself. I'm not exactly sure what you are referring to here when you say bacteria fights bacteria. Perhaps you mean certain flora that produces bacteriocidins, defensins, or cationic proteins that help destroy other bacteria, among other features that flora possess? That's just a very minor sliver on what our immune system actually does. I suggest you take a little further reading on the immune system and the constant evolving "war" going between your body's immune system and the various bugs attacking it.

quote:

While I agree it's an amazing feat and quite astounding that they exist just to keep us alive... that doesn't mean that we evolve as they do, just on a slower scale.

Actually that's exactly what it means. Take the common cold, for example. For the sake of brevity, I'll just ask you to do a google search and examine our body's adaptive response to these bacterial critters. Like I said, it's just downright amazing seeing how this "war" is really fought.

quote:

I will reply to Opus's (and this post) a bit more, have to do some work right now. I still don't see how bacterial evolution (random mutations and such) - are related directly to animal/human evolution. Although we have the same "base" of life (really from an evolutionist or creation point of view - we were all created from the same thing) - the differences between us are so vast that I don't see it. Perhaps I will in a bit.

Again, it's the mechanism of evolution that is the same for all organisms - random mutation and natural selection. Of course the physiological and phenotypical differences are vast - no one would argue that. The underlying mechanism that effects these changes within an organism's population, however (mutation, NS), remain the same.

___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...

quote:

Originally posted by Seventil Simliar genetic code? They are the absolute farthest away, genetically (maybe virii and something more simpler are the farthest?) -- I believe it's near 10% difference or such (remember much of DNA is classified as "junk" or "filler" code, relatively meaniningless.

By similar I meant being made of same substances and having the same general structure. They're made of exactly the same molecules, they function in very similar ways (synthesize proteins), and they have same mechanisms of self-repair and self-replication.

quote:

I don't see your logic here... our immune system uses bacteria to fight bacteria (and other intruders). While I agree it's an amazing feat and quite astounding that they exist just to keep us alive... that doesn't mean that we evolve as they do, just on a slower scale.

What exactly do you mean by use bacteria to fight bacteria?

quote:

I will reply to Opus's (and this post) a bit more, have to do some work right now. I still don't see how bacterial evolution (random mutations and such) - are related directly to animal/human evolution. Although we have the same "base" of life (really from an evolutionist or creation point of view - we were all created from the same thing) - the differences between us are so vast that I don't see it. Perhaps I will in a bit.

They are related because although differences in genetic code between humans and bacteria are vast, the basic physical and molecular structure of that code is same and therefore suspectable to same deformations. It's like having 2 hard drives with different data on it. They can contain totally different information on them, but they physically operate in exactly the same way.

___________________
1+1=10

quote:

Originally posted by Seventil However, I fail to see the logic and reason behind asserting that bacterium adaptation/evolution has anything to do with a sapien evolutionary pattern, or anything to do with any other phylum than bacterium. They are so unique, adaptable, simple and complex at the same time that what they do is almost unfathomable.

The concept of Natural Selection applies to Humans and Bacteria the same, just like how the force of gravity applies to both the same.

If you had a population of Australopithecines, and certain individuals had a mutation in their genes that made them a bit smarter which allowed them to make tools, eventually they would out-compete the individuals who weren't able to make tools.

This is like the bacteria that has resistance to antibodies outcompeting those who don't. Eventually after several generations, the population of bacteria will all have this resistance as the ones who don't- die out, and the ones that do- produce offspring with this resistance.

So in terms of humans, the individuals who were able to make tools would eventually outcompete those who didn't, and over many many generations, we get what we classify as Homo Habilis. Of course it's more complex than this, with other factors that come into play at the same time as tool-making.

In order to understand natural selection on humans, we must be able to grasp the concept of a million years. Its often hard for us to think in such large numbers. Bacteria can reproduce in hours what it would take us in a million years or more.

Think of how many generations that is. Think of all the technological advances we have made in the past few years. Its not hard to imagine that there was once a time when we were too stupid to make tools, then there were some individuals who had slightly bigger brains. Being a student of science, its harder for me to imagine that after millions of years we haven't changed a bit. After all, everything in biology wouldn't make sense without natural selection.

___________________
jimtran.net

Again, I think its just an ego thing. Humans think we're so great, and can only see the history of Earth in a few thousand years. We can't comprehend anything outside of our time.

It is obvious that Natural selection exists, as discussed with the bacteria. Also its the basis of practices which we've been doing for thousands of years with dog breeding, domestication of animals etc.
(Dogs come from wolves btw, and we can still make dog/wolf hybrids because they're still very similar since they've only evolved recently)

It explains why there are weird animals in Australia. It explains why Madagascar (an island separated a LONG time ago from the mainland) has so many endemic (only found on that island) species, while the Canary Islands (an island separated only recently) has fewer endemic species.

So you cannot deny the fact that Natural Selection exists. What creationists are arguing then, is that
1.) humans are immune to natural selection (wow we're so special).
2.) Or that Earth is only a few thousand years old and that all the above can be explained as "god made it that way".
3.) Or that Darwin was a bad person :P

But what kind of thinking is that? If humans aren't like other animals, why have so many medical advances come from studying other animals? If we just said "god made it that way, don't question it" we'd still be in the medieval ages, thinking that the earth is flat.

___________________
jimtran.net

In reply to Opus's, Tito's and qudda's posts:

First off, on the "bacteria fights bacteria" - what I meant (and would have elaborated on if I had more time) - is that, as you know, the human immune system can identify and eliminate alien bacteria, and has of course adapted and accepated bacterium that is helpful to our survival. There was no argument on the complexity or diversity and the downright (I agree with Opus) cool stuff that our body does to defend against such things.

I agree that DNA and the other basic fundamental elements that almost all life share is simply amazing; however, the argument of the simularities can be used for Creation or evolution. (God created everything, he used a standard to do so - if evolution occured, it makes sense life has a common origin) While I myself believe in the Creation version (for multiple reasons, which we can discuss if you wish - like the "self-reproducting" problem, etc).

The issue I seem to have is natural selection and random mutations of bacteria being used in the same context as the human evolutionary trail (like qudda's "tool using people outlive the non-tool using" example.) Here are some reasons why:

quote:

In Darwin’s Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution I devoted a chapter to the mechanism of blood clotting, arguing that it is irreducibly complex and therefore a big problem for Darwinian evolution. Since my book came out, as far as I am aware there have been no papers published in the scientific literature giving a detailed scenario or experiments to show how natural selection could have built the system.

http://www.trueorigin.org/behe03.asp -- for the entire article.

and

quote:

For the grand process of evolution to work, long sequences of “beneficial” mutations must be possible, each building on the previous one and conferring a selective advantage on the organism. The process must be able to lead not only from one species to another, but to the entire advance of life from a simple beginning to the full complexity of life today. There must be a long series of possible mutations, each of which conferring a selective advantage on the organism so that natural selection can make it take over the population. Moreover, there must be not just one, but a great many such series. The chain must be continuous in that at each stage a change of a single base pair somewhere in the genome can lead to a more adaptive organism in some environmental context. That is, it should be possible to continue to climb an “adaptive” hill, one base change after another, without getting hung up on a local adaptive maximum. No one has ever shown this to be possible

From http://www.trueorigin.org/spetner2.asp

again from the same article:

quote:

But the argument against Darwinian theory is considerably stronger than that. The theory requires there be a vast number of possible point mutations which, coupled with natural selection, can produce the evolutionary advances that could produce the grand sweep of evolution. Because there must be a large number of qualifying mutations, at least a few of them should have been observed in some of the many genetics laboratories around the world. All the mutations in these long series must not only confer selective advantage on the organism but they must, on the average, also contribute to the information, or complexity, increase that surely distinguishes present-day life from the putative primitive organism.

I suggest reading the entire article... I think it sums up well how little empirical evidence there is for natural selection.

Anyway, we don't need to go into another website war... heh. I'll just say that the natural selection/random mutation thing doesn't sit well with me. It became apparant in reading my last book, A Short History of Nearly Everything, that there is a very blurry line between what is provable and what is merely theory. While reading about man's "rise in evolution" - it was one of the few parts of the book where I said to myself "This is an interesting idea... but far from scientific fact."

So, I don't believe science has done well in proving that natural selection/random mutations has happened, or even could.

Hi Seventil-

You just touched onto my current favorite topic of this evo/creation debate - Intelligent Design. Spetner touches on it slightly, but of course it's Behe's bread and butta. I've got a few meetings this morning tailing off into the early afternoon, so I'll try to respond to your post today.

But before I sign off, one interesting tidbit you should understand about Behe - he has clearly stated both in his "Darwin's Black Box", and in lectures that he is an advocate of the majority of evolution, INCLUDING human evolution. In fact, his primary literature that he publishes clearly demonstrate his support of certain basic evolutionary features, INCLUDING random mutation and natural selection. His ideas on Intelligent Design, however, have never been published in any primary literary journal. Behe has also clearly stated that he believes in an old earth, which is the only plausible explanation for his belief in human evolution.

With that stated, don't you think that he makes an interesting bedfellow with the likes of TrueOrigins, and Spetner, who both advocate a young earth? Behe is also part of the Discovery Institute, run by Phillip Johnson (Author of "A Theory in Crisis"). Johnson also advocates a young earth theory, yet he has individuals like Behe in his camp. What I continue to fail to comprehend is how these individuals, who have vastly different ideas on evolutionary processes and the age of the earth, somehow feel compelled to work together in their only efforts to push away the research-based, evolutionary model. It seems to me that they should be in more personal conflict with one another FIRST, but I certainly don't pretend to understand such individuals in the first place.

Anyways, gotta run - I'll address the quotes later today.

___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...

quote:

I agree that DNA and the other basic fundamental elements that almost all life share is simply amazing; however, the argument of the simularities can be used for Creation or evolution. (God created everything, he used a standard to do so - if evolution occured, it makes sense life has a common origin) While I myself believe in the Creation version (for multiple reasons, which we can discuss if you wish - like the "self-reproducting" problem, etc).

I’m not exactly sure what you’re saying here. Could you clarify a little more about these similarities that you see here?

quote:

The issue I seem to have is natural selection and random mutations of bacteria being used in the same context as the human evolutionary trail (like qudda's "tool using people outlive the non-tool using" example.) Here are some reasons why: quote: In Darwin’s Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution I devoted a chapter to the mechanism of blood clotting, arguing that it is irreducibly complex and therefore a big problem for Darwinian evolution. Since my book came out, as far as I am aware there have been no papers published in the scientific literature giving a detailed scenario or experiments to show how natural selection could have built the system. http://www.trueorigin.org/behe03.asp -- for the entire article.

For the sake of brevity, I won’t get into the details of Behe, but you’re welcome to read my review of his book here:

http://www.tranceaddict.com/forums/...ki&pagenumber=5

From which I mentioned 3 references pertaining to the blood clotting cascade system:

http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/ar..._10_31_2002.asp

http://www.bostonreview.net/br22.1/doolittle.html

http://biocrs.biomed.brown.edu/Darw...t/Clotting.html

Now Behe and other IDers have some problems with the Doolittle work, so granted the above sights are a bit dated. However, there are current papers pertaining to the blood clotting cascade here:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...2&dopt=Abstract

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/ar...bmedid=12808152

This article specifically addresses Behe’s argument:
http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/li....x/enhancedabs/

quote:

In this chapter we review the biochemical evidence, molecular cloning and sequence data indicating the structure of the blood-coagulation network in non-mammalian vertebrates and present an evolutionary scenario to account for possible evolution of what has been described as 'an irreducibly complex system that could not have arisen by a gradual step-by-step Darwinian process' [7]. [Ref #7 is: Behe MJ. Darwin?s Black Box. New York: The Free Press, 1996.]

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...t_uids=12624623

In fact, here’s a list that Behe seemingly overlooked of older research pertaining to blood-clotting cascades:

quote:

Banyai, L., Varadi, A. and Patthy, L. (1983). “Common evolutionary origin of the fibrin-binding structures of fibronectin and tissue-type plasminogen activator.” FEBS Letters, 163(1): 37-41. Link: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...9&dopt=Abstract Bazan, J. F. (1990). “Structural design and molecular evolution of a cytokine receptor superfamily.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 87(18): 6934-6938. Link: http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/ar...ubmedid=2169613 Blake, C. C. F., Harlos, K. and Holland, S. K. (1987). “Exon and Domain Evolution in the Proenzymes of Blood Coagulation and Fibrinolysis.” Cold Spring Harbor Symposia on Quantitative Biology: The Evolution of Catalytic Function, LII: 925-932. Link: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...0&dopt=Abstract Crabtree, G. R. (1986). “The Molecular Genetics of Fibrinogen.” Journal of Cellular Biochemistry Supplement(10 PART A): 229. Crabtree, G. R., Comeau, C. M., Fowlkes, D. M., Fornace, A. J., Jr., Malley, J. D. and Kant, J. A. (1985). “Evolution and structure of the fibrinogen genes: Random insertion on introns or selective loss?” Journal of Molecular Biology, 185(1): 1-20. Di Cera, E., Dang, Q. D. and Ayala, Y. M. (1997). “Molecular mechanisms of thrombin function.” Cell Mol Life Sci, 53(9): 701-730. Doolittle, R. F. (1985). “More homologies among the vertebrate plasma proteins.” Biosci Rep, 5(10-11): 877-884. Link: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...9&dopt=Abstract Doolittle, R. F. (1990). “The Structure and Evolution of Vertebrate Fibrinogen A Comparison of the Lamprey and Mammalian Proteins,” in ADVANCES IN EXPERIMENTAL MEDICINE AND BIOLOGY: FIBRINOGEN, THROMBOSIS, COAGULATION, AND FIBRINOLYSIS. C. Y. Liu and Chien, S. New York, Plenum Press. 281. Link: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...6&dopt=Abstract Doolittle, R. F. (1992). “A detailed consideration of a principal domain of vertebrate fibrinogen and its relatives.” Protein Science, 1(12): 1563-1577. Link: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...8&dopt=Abstract Doolittle, R. F. (1992). “Early Evolution of the Vertebrate Fibrinogen Molecule.” Biophysical Journal, 61(2 PART 2): A410. Doolittle, R. F. (1992). “Early Evolution of the Vertebrate Fibrinogen Molecule.” FASEB Journal, 6(1): A410. Doolittle, R. F. (1992). “Stein and Moore Award address. Reconstructing history with amino acid sequences.” Protein Science, 1(2): 191-200. Link: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...6&dopt=Abstract *Doolittle, R. F. (1993). “The Evolution of Vertebrate Blood Coagulation - a Case of Yin and Yang.” Thrombosis and Haemostasis, V70(N1): 24-28. Link: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...0&dopt=Abstract Doolittle, R. F. and Feng, D. F. (1987). “Reconstructing the Evolution of Vertebrate Blood Coagulation from a Consideration of the Amino Acid Sequences of Clotting Proteins.” Cold Spring Harbor Symposia on Quantitative Biology: The Evolution of Catalytic Function, LII: 869-874. Link: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...3&dopt=Abstract Doolittle, R. F., G., Spraggon and J., Everse S. (1997). “Evolution of vertebrate fibrin formation and the process of its dissolution.” Ciba Found Symp, 212: 4-17; discussion 17-23. Link: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...1&dopt=Abstract Doolittle, R. F. and Riley, M. (1990). “The amino-terminal sequence of lobster fibrinogen reveals common ancestry with vitellogenins.” Biochemical and Biophysical Research Communications, 167(1): 16-19. Link: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...7&dopt=Abstract Edgington, T. S., Curtiss, L. K. and Plow, E. F. (1985). “A linkage between the hemostatic and immune systems embodied in the fibrinolytic release of lymphocyte suppressive peptides.” Journal of Immunology, 134(1): 471-477. Ghidalia, W., Vendrely, R., Montmory, C., Coirault, Y., Samama, M., Lucet, B., Bellay, A. M. and Vergoz, D. (1989). “Overall study of the in vitro plasma clotting system in an invertebrate, Liocarcinus puber (Crustacea Decapoda): Considerations on the structure of the Crustacea plasma fibrinogen in relation to evolution.” Journal of Invertebrate Pathology, 53(2): 197-205. Hervio, L. S., Coombs, G. S., Bergstrom, R. C., Trivedi, K., Corey, D. R. and Madison, E. L. (2000). “Negative selectivity and the evolution of protease cascades: the specificity of plasmin for peptide and protein substrates.” Chemistry & Biology, V7(N6): 443-452. Hewett-Emmett, D., Czelusniak, J. and Goodman, M. (1981). “The evolutionary relationship of the enzymes involved in blood coagulation and hemostasis.” Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 370(20): 511-527. Holland, S. K., Harlos, K. and Blake, C. C. F. (1987). “Deriving the generic structure of the fibronectin type II domain from the prothrombin Kringle 1 crystal structure.” EMBO (European Molecular Biology Organization) Journal, 6(7): 1875-1880. Jordan, R. E. (1983). “Antithrombin in vertebrate species: conservation of the heparin-dependent anticoagulant mechanism.” Archives of Biochemistry and Biophysics, 227(2): 587-595. Kant, J. A., Fornace, A. J., Jr., Saxe, D., Simon, M. J., McBride, O. W. and Crabtree, G. R. (1985). “Evolution and organization of the fibrinogen locus on chromosome 4: Gene duplication accompanied by transposition and inversion.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 82(8): 2344-2348. Kornblihtt, A. R., Pesce, C. G., Alonso, C. R., Cramer, P., Srebrow, A., Werbajh, S. and Muro, A. F. (1996). “The fibronectin gene as a model for splicing and transcription studies.” FASEB Journal, 10(2): 248-257. Laki, K. (1972). “Our ancient heritage in blood clotting and some of its consequences.” Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 202(4): 297-307. Neurath, H. (1984). “Evolution of proteolytic enzymes.” Science, 224(4647): 350-357. Link: http://www.jstor.org/journals/00368075.html Neurath, H. (1986). “The Versatility of Proteolytic Enzymes.” Journal of Cellular Biochemistry, 32(1): 35-50. Neurath, H. (1986). “The Versatility of Proteolytic Enzymes.” Journal of Cellular Biochemistry Supplement(10 PART A): 229. Oldberg, A. and Ruoslahti, E. (1986). “Evolution of the fibronectin gene: Exon structure of cell attachment domain.” Journal of Biological Chemistry, 261(5): 2113-2116. Opal, S. M. (2000). “Phylogenetic and functional relationships between coagulation and the innate immune response.” Critical Care Medicine, V28(N9 SUPPS): S77-S80. Pan, Y. and Doolittle, R. F. (1991). “Distribution of Introns in Lamprey Fibrinogen Genes.” Journal of Cellular Biochemistry Supplement(15 PART D): 75. Pan, Y. and Doolittle, R. F. (1992). “cDNA sequence of a second fibrinogen alpha chain in lamprey: an archetypal version alignable with full-length beta and gamma chains.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 89(6): 2066-2070. Link: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...6&dopt=Abstract Patthy, L. (1985). “Evolution of the Proteases of Blood Coagulation and Fibrinolysis by Assembly from Modules.” Cell, 41(3): 657-664. Link: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...6&dopt=Abstract Patthy, L. (1990). “Evolution of blood coagulation and fibrinolysis.” Blood Coagulation and Fibrinolysis, 1(2): 153-166. Link: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...7&dopt=Abstract Patthy, L. (1990). “Evolutionary Assembly of Blood Coagulation Proteins.” Seminars in Thrombosis and Hemostasis, 16(3): 245-259. Link: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...6&dopt=Abstract Patthy, L. (1999). “Genome evolution and the evolution of exon-shuffling—a review.” Gene, 238(1): 103-114. Link: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...9&dopt=Abstract Roberts, Lewis R., Nichols, Lanita A. and Holland, Lene J. (1995). “CDNA and amino-acid sequences and organization of the gene encoding the B-beta subunit of fibrinogen from Xenopus laevis.” Gene (Amsterdam), 160(2): 223-228. Sosnoski, D. M., Emanuel, B. S., Hawkins, A. L., Van Tuinen, P., Ledbetter, D. H., Nussbaum, R. L., Kaos, F. T., Schwartz, E., Phillips, D. and et al. (1988). “Chromosomal localization of the genes for the vitronectin and fibronectin receptors .alpha. subunits and for platelet glycoproteins IIb and IIIa.” Journal of Clinical Investigation, 81(6): 1993-1998. Wang, Y. Z., Patterson, J., Gray, J. E., Yu, C., Cottrell, B. A., Shimizu, A., Graham, D., Riley, M. and Doolittle, R. F. (1989). “Complete sequence of the lamprey fibrinogen .alpha. chain.” Biochemistry, 28(25): 9801-9806. Xu, X. and Doolittle, R. F. (1990). “Presence of a vertebrate fibrinogen-like sequence in an echinoderm.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 87(6): 2097-2101. Link: http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/ar...ubmedid=2315305 Zhang, Y. L., Hervio, L., Strandberg, L. and Madison, E. L. (1999). “Distinct contributions of residue 192 to the specificity of coagulation and fibrinolytic serine proteases.” Journal of Biological Chemistry, V274(N11): 7153-7156. Link: http://www.jbc.org/cgi/content/full/274/11/7153 Zimmermann, E. (1983). “[The evolution of the coagulation system from primitive defense mechanisms].” Behring Institute Mitteilungen, 82(73): 1-12.

There’s much more to be said about Behe, Dembski, and ID, and we can continue down that route if the discourse takes us there. Here in Kansas we currently have yet another fight on our hands with the state Board of Education, and they are likely going to try to re-introduce ID back into the science classrooms. I’m a big advocate for science here, and I’m a member of the Kansas Citizens for Science, which helped defeat the ID movement here back in ’99. Again if we get into this conversation, I’ll discuss it more in detail when we cross that bridge.

quote:

and quote: For the grand process of evolution to work, long sequences of “beneficial” mutations must be possible, each building on the previous one and conferring a selective advantage on the organism. The process must be able to lead not only from one species to another, but to the entire advance of life from a simple beginning to the full complexity of life today. There must be a long series of possible mutations, each of which conferring a selective advantage on the organism so that natural selection can make it take over the population. Moreover, there must be not just one, but a great many such series. The chain must be continuous in that at each stage a change of a single base pair somewhere in the genome can lead to a more adaptive organism in some environmental context. That is, it should be possible to continue to climb an “adaptive” hill, one base change after another, without getting hung up on a local adaptive maximum. No one has ever shown this to be possible From http://www.trueorigin.org/spetner2.asp

Again, given what we know about mutations and the DNA sequencing and genome, our evolutionary pattern is entirely plausible, much as it is for any organism on the planet. Couple things to address here. First, I haven’t had time to read the entire exchange on true origins, but I could have sworn that Spetner has at one time believed that there are no beneficial mutations to date. That, of course, is simply untrue. We’ve discussed antibiotic resistant bacteria, there’s also sickle cell resistence to malaria, lactose tolerance, atherosclerosis resistence, and even immunity to HIV which we touched on earlier as some examples. If Spetner hasn’t ever said this, disregard what I just wrote here.
Upon further reading of the passage you cited it runs right into the “evolution is just too impropable” or argument from ignorance fallacy. You and I both agree that such an argument is a bit of a stretch, especially when examining AFTER the fact. I used the analogy of “consider the probability of your existence” awhile back, which you agreed to.

But in regards to Spetner’s incredulity of mutational processes occurring for humans, again I’m unsure as to why he’s truly so incredulous when you examine the literature. We have literally millions of articles outlining evolutionary transitional processes that have occurred in all sorts of organisms, which I outlined some here:

http://www.tranceaddict.com/forums/...2&pagenumber=26

The question becomes this – why would the evolutionary processes in vertebrate organisms, like homo sapiens, be all that different from any other organism? The answer is it’s not, and the reason is, once again, the underlying mechanism of evolution, mutation and natural selection, affects all populations of organisms. Here’s yet another example of beneficial mutations increasing vertebrate bone density:

http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/short/346/20/1513

Other mutations pertaining to humans are well-developed throats, large areas of the brain devoted to language, upright posture, thin body hair, large male genitals, etc. If you ask how we can tell these events are the result of mutations, it is because that's the only observed mechanism for the introduction of genetic material into the gene pool of a population. The alternative is that humans have always had these genes because humans were created with them, but we've never observed a mechanism that can create an organism wholesale from scratch.

Remember to think of evolution in terms of population genetics – did the mutation allow the organism to leave more viable offspring than the competition within the population? If not, the mutation wasn’t beneficial. Is so, then it was a beneficial mutation, and evolution likely occurs. That’s a real watered-down version of it, but it is the general idea.

Also remember that mutations don't create new species by themselves. It has to be mutation occurring in a situation of reproductive isolation. An isolated subpopulation accumulates mutations that aren't shared with the main population until the subpopulation is no longer able to breed with the main population. I say all this just to clear up a common misnomer.

quote:

again from the same article: quote: But the argument against Darwinian theory is considerably stronger than that. The theory requires there be a vast number of possible point mutations which, coupled with natural selection, can produce the evolutionary advances that could produce the grand sweep of evolution. Because there must be a large number of qualifying mutations, at least a few of them should have been observed in some of the many genetics laboratories around the world. All the mutations in these long series must not only confer selective advantage on the organism but they must, on the average, also contribute to the information, or complexity, increase that surely distinguishes present-day life from the putative primitive organism.

Here are the problems I see with this argument of "not enough beneficial mutations".

1. Common ancestry between species is well supported by genetic research and by morphological changes. Whether or not evolution was the mechanism that caused speciation is less of a certainty than the fact of common ancestry.

2. The mutation rates measured within organisms is in line with the DNA differences seen between organisms. That is, the rate at which mutations occur in an organism matches up with the span of time since common ancestry. As an example, here’s an abstract that evidenced the mutation rate in fruit flies with the changes seen in the fossil record and with extant fruit fly species. The final conlusion is that the mutation rate is sufficient to result in the DNA differences we see between species:

quote:

Mol Biol Evol. 2004 Jan;21(1):36-44. Epub 2003 Aug 29. Temporal patterns of fruit fly (Drosophila) evolution revealed by mutation clocks. Tamura K, Subramanian S, Kumar S. Center for Evolutionary Functional Genomics, Arizona Biodesign Institute, and School of Life Sciences, Arizona State University, USA. Drosophila melanogaster has been a canonical model organism to study genetics, development, behavior, physiology, evolution, and population genetics for nearly a century. Despite this emphasis and the completion of its nuclear genome sequence, the timing of major speciation events leading to the origin of this fruit fly remain elusive because of the paucity of extensive fossil records and biogeographic data. Use of molecular clocks as an alternative has been fraught with non-clock-like accumulation of nucleotide and amino-acid substitutions. Here we present a novel methodology in which genomic mutation distances are used to overcome these limitations and to make use of all available gene sequence data for constructing a fruit fly molecular time scale. Our analysis of 2977 pairwise sequence comparisons from 176 nuclear genes reveals a long-term fruit fly mutation clock ticking at a rate of 11.1 mutations per kilobase pair per Myr. Genomic mutation clock-based timings of the landmark speciation events leading to the evolution of D. melanogaster show that it shared most recent common ancestry 5.4 MYA with D. simulans, 12.6 MYA with D. erecta+D. orena, 12.8 MYA with D. yakuba+D. teisseri, 35.6 MYA with the takahashii subgroup, 41.3 MYA with the montium subgroup, 44.2 MYA with the ananassae subgroup, 54.9 MYA with the obscura group, 62.2 MYA with the willistoni group, and 62.9 MYA with the subgenus Drosophila. These and other estimates are compatible with those known from limited biogeographic and fossil records. The inferred temporal pattern of fruit fly evolution shows correspondence with the cooling patterns of paleoclimate changes and habitat fragmentation in the Cenozoic. (emphasis mine). http://www.pubmed.com/

I really don’t know why Spetner continues to believe evolution is somehow limited to merely point mutations. That in of itself is fairly absurd and ignores a wealth of evidence in the literature.

quote:

I suggest reading the entire article... I think it sums up well how little empirical evidence there is for natural selection.

To be truthful, Spetner is widely known to wholly ignore empirical evidence in order to support his incredulousness for the evolutionary mechanism. Ignoring the literature that counters your claims does not give one credibility to yell, “I’m right!”, yet this is exactly what Spetner continues to do, and why researchers do not take his sophistry very seriously in the first place.

quote:

Anyway, we don't need to go into another website war... heh. I'll just say that the natural selection/random mutation thing doesn't sit well with me. It became apparant in reading my last book, A Short History of Nearly Everything, that there is a very blurry line between what is provable and what is merely theory. While reading about man's "rise in evolution" - it was one of the few parts of the book where I said to myself "This is an interesting idea... but far from scientific fact." So, I don't believe science has done well in proving that natural selection/random mutations has happened, or even could.

I applaud you for reading that book, and I would encourage you to read a couple of other books as well, just to get you started:

“Tower of Babel: The Evidence Against the New Creationism”, by Robert Pennock

“Finding Darwin’s God” – by Kenneth Miller

“Evolution vs. Creationism : An Introduction” – by Eugene Scott

I would also, once again, encourage you to read more from talkorigins.org, especially their FAQ site. I think you’re beginning to understand evolution a little better now, and I certainly do respect your desire to do so, but I ask you to at least try to come in with a little more of an open mind. Evolution is pretty damn complicated, unfortunately, and as a result this leaves it open for a wealth of misinterpretation. The more you understand the process better, the more you can decifer the arguments posed against it.

___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...

Well, since Opus answered the most of your post, I'll try to touch on a few subjets that he didn't address...

quote:

Originally posted by Seventil I agree that DNA and the other basic fundamental elements that almost all life share is simply amazing; however, the argument of the simularities can be used for Creation or evolution. (God created everything, he used a standard to do so - if evolution occured, it makes sense life has a common origin)

Well, yes, but the creationist proposal does not explain random mutations and speciations. If we accept the whole Adam and Eve story, and deny the possibility of random mutations, we'd all basically be identical twins. Homo Sapiens is about 2 million years old, and already you can see obvious differences between people living in Africa, northern Europe, or Asia. You can not deny that the people from those three areas of the world do have many genetic differences (skin and hair color, body fat percantage, lactose tolerance...). If we're all descended from Adam and Eve, then those small isolated populations must have mutated in order to become what they have become. Additionally, they mutated in exactly the same way proposed by natural selection.

quote:

While I myself believe in the Creation version (for multiple reasons, which we can discuss if you wish - like the "self-reproducting" problem, etc).

Well, yeah, I would like to see them.

quote:

The issue I seem to have is natural selection and random mutations of bacteria being used in the same context as the human evolutionary trail (like qudda's "tool using people outlive the non-tool using" example.)

Well, here they were used only to show the general mechanism of DNA sequence restructuring at random, not to explain the evolution of complex human systems.

quote:

So, I don't believe science has done well in proving that natural selection/random mutations has happened, or even could.

Random mutations happen all the time. Whenever DNA molecule splits, there is a possibility of one happening. Otherwise you could never get cancer. The sort of random mutations that is important to evolution is one that happens when reproductive cells are affected. About 1/3 of fertilized eggs fail to develop into an embryo because of genetic anomalies. Even when they develop, many embryos still carry mutations that cause them to bicome disfigured and to die before they are born.

Now, there is clear evidence that random mutations do happen. It's also blatantly obvious that animals with harmful mutations do have a tougher time surviving. So why is it so hard to put the 2 and 2 together?

On a side note, did anyone notice how god first created birds, then cattle, and then humans? Hell, even he agreed with the evolutionary development of creatures, except that he did it on a much faster timespan. Perhaps the whole 7 day genesis was an attempt to simplify things and to explain evolution to common folk

___________________
1+1=10

Evolution vs. creation debate




I think Hovind has no idea what science even is...

___________________

There is no God. In this day and age it astounds me that people still believe in that fantasy land silliness.

quote:

Originally posted by The17sss There is no God. In this day and age it astounds me that people still believe in that fantasy land silliness.

I believe in a supreme source for all information, but creationism? It's fantasy. And creationists actually believe their hypothesis is science.

It's funny, because not even 3 or 4 years ago, I was a creationist!

___________________