posted
Scary title, huh? A while back, I had a debate with TetrahedreX in which he stated that he believed that the earth was old and the fossil order and so forth was correct, but that each individual species had been brought to earth individually at different times from different planets. I thought a long time about how to adequately demonstrate common ancestry, and finally decided to cover the Human Endogenous Retroviruses (henceforth HERVs). Now, this topic is genetics. A lot of genetics. I'll try my very best to keep it simple, but no one ever said evolution was not complex.
*******************************************
A few basics:
Viral infections are caused when a virus injects its genetic material (DNA or RNA) into your cell. The genetic material is incorporated into your own genes, and the viral genes tell your cell to start reproducing its DNA. While the DNA is being copied, other parts of the cell are instructed (by the viral genetic material) to make the protein capsule of the virus. Finally, the new viral genetic material is packaged into the capsule, and your cell is forced to literally explode, releasing thousands of new viruses.
Additionally, viruses have certain sequences of genetic material that are only found in viruses. These genes are abbreviated, and include gag, pol, and env -- all these code for protein structures on the coat of the virus. Helpful Image Here
Finally, all genes end in LTR (long terminal repeats) unique to certain groups of organisms. That means that at the end of, say, the gag gene, there is a long sequence of repeated nucleotides. For instance, CACACA, but hundreds or even thousands of nucleotides long.
*******************************************
Sometimes when a virus attacks a cell, things go wrong for the virus. The genetic material may enter the DNA of the host, but for some reason, it is not read by the cell -- that is, it doesn't work. The genetic material of the virus just sits there, stuck in the DNA but unable to work, like getting stuck in Atlanta traffic -- you're there, your car is functional and intact, but you aren't going anywhere anytime soon. You just sit, unable to use your car.
Now, when this happens, the genetic material is still copied every time the cell replicates. Even more important, it is copied in the same place that it entered the genome. For instance, if the virus genetic material was XXXXXX*, and it was initially inserted into Gene A, between ATCGA and GGATTA, everytime the cell divided and the genome was copied, the viral DNA would be in the exact same place, like so: ATCGAXXXXXXGGATTA.
*Granted, the viral DNA is composed of Adenine (A), Thymine (T) Guanine (G), and Cytosine (C), but I just used X's to make it easier to see.
That infected cell and every cell that it divides into is 'scarred' -- they each carry the viral DNA inside their own genome in the same spot. Now, in most cells this doesn't make a difference. A scarred skin cell divides a couple times and you wind up with a couple dozen scarred skin cells. No biggie. After that organism (or those cells) die(s), nothing happens.
Sometimes, though, the failed hi-jacking occurs in germ cells -- the cells that sperm and eggs are created from. I'm sure you can imagine what happens after that. Every sperm and egg produced after the attack carries the viral scar.
Now it gets exciting. When a scarred sperm fertilizes an egg, or a scarred egg is fertilized by a sperm, every single cell in the organism produced is scarred. And, after that, every single descendant of that organism is scarred.
*******************************************
Let's see...we've covered some basics about viruses, and what happens when virus hi-jackings fail. Finally, the fun part: application!
Examine this image. Numbers indicate retroviral insertions, and letters indicate organisms. Let's think of it as a family tree, with the letters A-G being the modern generation, and letters Z-U portraying recent and distant ancestors. ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY IMAGE TO THIS THREAD
Person Z (We'll call him Jim) has just moved to the United States, when he falls ill to the flu. Joe's body fights it off, and he survives, but the influenza gag gene lies dormant in a few of his cells, including -- you guessed it -- his germ cells that produce sperm. Jim has two children, Mary and Susan (Y).
Mary gets the flu, sure, and a few of her germ cells are scarred and retain the pol gene, but the egg that gives rise to her one child does not come from those germ cells. She eventually gives birth to a son, and this son does get a scarred germ line, with insertion 8. There are no more insertions in his line, and he eventually gives rise to Alexa (G).
Susan's germ line is scarred by insertion 2, and both of her children, Fred (X) and Phillip, carry it. Phillip is also infected by 9, and all his descendants are scarred by it. He eventually gives rise to Judith (F).
Fred, on the other hand, is scarred by 3, and thus both of his children, Michael and Rachel (W) are, too.
I think you see the trend here. In the final, contemporary generation, we could look at A-G's DNA and make a list of their insertions. It would look something like this:
A - 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
B - 1 2 3 4 5 6 13
C - 1 2 3 4 5 12
D - 1 2 3 4 11
E - 1 2 3 10
F - 1 2 9
G - 1 8
Using this data, you can construct a reverse family tree, like you see above. You don't even need to know who individuals Z-U are; the shared insertions alone indicate a common forefather (or mother, as the case may be). Just by looking at G and F's insertions, you can determine that they had a common forefather who was infected by 1, and that G was later infected by 8 and F was later infected by 2 and 9.
If you haven't understood anything up to this point, let me know before you start arguing against HERVs. This is vital.
Look familiar? It should. Just for reference, 'ltr' before an insertion stands for 'long tandem repeat', and the q's and number indicate which chromosome they are located on. Now, we can't go back in time and test where they broke off -- that isn't what this chart is showing. It is showing that the New and Old World Monkeys, for instance, share a common ancestor that was scarred by 0041 and ltr12. The OWM ancestor, though, was scarred by ltr18 and ltr, which the NWM ancestor was not. Common. Ancestry.
It also indicates that humans are most closely related to chimps, because they share all ERVs except ltr30, ltr50, and ltr7q31.1
This concurs with other homologies, including molecular, cellular, and many more.
*******************************************
COMMON ATTEMPTED REBUTTALS AND THEIR FAILINGS
I'm actually just going to copy-paste the stunning work of WinAce here. He is rather famous on just about every evolution/creationism debate site on the net, and I'm sure you'll see why here.
3.1: Independent Insertion
This one entails independent insertion by the same virus affecting different species. Creationist Ashby Camp, writing at TrueOrigins, quoted a scientific article referring to "insertion hotspots" that were the target of viral integration much more often than other spots in the genome. Although this is superficially a valid criticism to be hurled at the ERV argument, it quickly fails.
The very "hottest" spot Camp could dig up in the scientific literature was one that was 280 times more likely to be involved in a viral integration than we could expect from chance alone. It could be pointed out that this was a virus that doesn't exist in nature, but was specifically designed to facilitate gene therapy by targeting a specific part of the genome and replacing a crippled gene with a functional copy.
But let's ignore that for now, and assume Camp did not misrepresent relevant research. Just how large is this in the big picture? The human genome is 3 billion or so nucleotides long (Source). The chance, then, of randomly inserting into the same section of the genome is 1 in 3 billion.
Now let's assume there are hot spots an unprecedented 1,000 times more likely to be attacked by a virus than the unique, genetically engineered one Mr. Camp was able to dig up. Divide 3 billion by 280,000, and you find the chance of an independent insertion is one in around 10714; this is an unlikely enough figure to be negligible, and it was derived from estimates orders of magnitude more liberal than the data would allow!
Additionally, this doesn't address any of the other factors involved. It doesn't explain why the same viral fingerprint would be left behind, how it would affect the one germ line cell out of millions that advances to zygote status, how that single individual would enjoy reproductive success sufficient to establish his ERVs in the population, etc.
For the reasons listed above, it's astronomically improbable. Not only would the same exact retroviral insertion have to occur independently at the same exact locus of a uniquely lucky sperm or egg cell that survived to adulthood and achieved enough success to establish the insertion in their respective populations, but this impossible set of coincidences would have to occur for 3, 4, even a dozen species at the same time, and for every single ERV shared between them to boot!
As you can see, the improbabilities keep stacking and increasing by additional orders of magnitude as more factors are introduced.
The additional fact that ERVs, when analyzed, yield evolutionary patterns that reinforce the phylogenies derived from morphological, fossil and other evidence rules out the independent insertion hypothesis completely.
If independent insertion was somehow the explanation for shared viral insertions, we would expect to see numerous, extensive groups of ERVs common to chickens and humans, pigs and humans, and other creatures that share many of the same pathogens; ERVs that weren't present, on the other hand, in geographically isolated creatures closer to us in morphology and genetics, such as the apes.
3.2: ERVs are not remnants of ancient viral infection
Another attempted explanation is that the ERVs found in our genome are actually original, designed artifacts instead of viral infection fingerprints.
To be frank, this hypothesis, even on the surface, appears as ludicrous as assertions that dinosaur bones don't actually come from dinosaurs but were intentionally placed there. Science generally doesn't deal with Omphalos hypotheses for good reason, because there is no reasonable way to verify or falsify them; they throw explanatory and predictive power, much less parsimony, entirely out the window.
People who assert this for ERVs have the burden of proof in demonstrating where shared ancestry ends and intentional design begins. Are the various breeds of domestic cat different, independently created organisms? (They share ERVs that have been used to reconstruct their phylogenies). Are the various felines in general related, or seperately created? (Lions, panthers, tigers and domestic cats share ERVs).
In other words, where do the divinely faked ERVs end and the real ones, which we can observe being incorporated into the genome in vitro, begin? ERV insertion is a well-documented event, leaving very specific and unlikely patterns; no other process except viral infection has been documented that can create them.
Why, then, should any reasonably intelligent person consider accepting rationalizations that are unfalsifiable, unevidenced, predict no unique observations the mainstream explanation doesn't and even require numerous additional assumptions that the obvious answer doesn't?
Nevertheless, let us examine two sub-hypotheses that fall under this main heading.
3.2.1: ERVs are an important part of the immune system
Based on the fact that a few ERVs have apparently been shown to lessen the chances of some types of viral infection, some creationists have asserted that ERVs are actually an anti-viral vector native to the genome, with their similarities to actual retroviruses being coincidental and not the product of intentional deception. But this explanation also fails when all the data is considered.
In the first place, their anti-viral effects are no larger than those of some free-living viruses, so this is not an argument against their being parasitic in the past. Human herpesvirus 6 has recently been shown to suppress HIV (source), for example. At most, it would provide a miniscule selection advantage for the individual carrying a particular ERV, which could help it piggyback across the population and help slightly improve the odds for one step of the process (out of many) occuring independently.
A possible explanation is that the endogenous retrovirus, which is only marginally deleterious, uses up the spaces on the cellular exterior HIV would normally dock with. This would be a textbook example of an evolutionary, jury-rigged defense mechanism, equivalent to hiring polite burglars to slowly work on your doors and windows so the violent ones couldn't get in.
Additionally, virtually all ERVs have no such immunity-boosting function; indeed, many more are actually implicated as the cause of some tumors (source); just like certain free-living viral infections including Epstein-Barr, I might add.
Moreover, you again have the problem that ERVs are distributed across the genomes of species in a pattern that mimicks common descent, not the expected pattern of functionally-oriented resistance to shared viral pathogens. I can safely predict that chickens and humans won't have any common anti-viral ERV that apes won't, despite the fact they share many of the same infections apes generally aren't afflicted by.
3.2.2: Viruses evolved from ERVs, not the other way around
Some have asserted that ERVs were actually designed elements that exogenous retroviruses came from, perhaps after the Fall. This is advocated by creationist Dr. Ian Macreadie at this AnswersInGenesis article, who states "I actually don’t believe God created viruses as separate entities, I believe they were a part of the DNA in cells".
A few things are to be noted. As this webpage demonstrates, this is a modern reinvention of an ancient, proto-scientific view aimed at explaining the existence of regular, plain vanilla, non-molecular fossils:
"... they were owing to the actions of so-called 'plastic forces' or 'formative virtues' in the Earth... 'Plastic forces' were believed to be unspecified forces within the Earth that were continually striving to produce organic bodies. The notion that fossils were formed by these 'plastic forces', first put forward by the Arab scholar Avicenna (980-1037 AD), was an outgrowth of the Aristotelian idea of spontaneous generation. Fossils were individuals that had 'failed' at spontaneous generation, or else the 'vital essence' of living things had penetrated rocks and formed objects there which resembled living things."
We now know much more about the world, and recognize that fossils are the remnants of organisms, not their ancestors. Can we similarly argue that ERVs can't be the parents of ordinary viruses?
As it turns out, the answer is a resounding "Yes!" This creationist hypothesis is unambiguously falsified by looking at the data.
Many ERVs are merely fragments of code, which nevertheless include readily vestiges of identifiable viral surface coat proteins, which are quite obvious and expected for an exogenous retrovirus that needs to float around independently, but utterly baffling for one that resides within a cell.
In other words, they lack key components that allow real viruses to reproduce (as a side note, this is often, in the first place, a relic of a botched infection, one of the things that lets the cell survive in the first place).
If a sentence out of Shakespeare is inserted into an essay, one can ascertain the direction of literary borrowing from comparison of the works alone, even without the knowledge that the former wrote earlier. This is the same with ERVs and other out-of-place genetic fragments. They simply look like fragments out of the whole work, so to speak, deposited there by free-living ancestors, not the opposite.
To expand even further and bring in the heavy artillery, many viruses have complex, multipart mechanisms for subverting host immune defenses and injecting their DNA thru the cell membrane that their fragmentary, cell-bound counterparts lack.
Needless to say, asserting that such things could evolve from mere cellular genome fragments is a stretch, especially so if one simultaneously denies the ability of evolutionary mechanisms to generate such staggering complexity.
Finally, a customary red herring involved in any discussion of molecular evidence for evolution is cries of "but they have a FUNCTION!". While that may well be true, function (or lack of it) is generally not the criterion by which things are considered evidence for evolution, as demonstrated by the case I made above.
*******************************************
In summary, the facts are that:
(A) A retrovirus infects a cell and, depending on how virulent it is, can kill it. Occasionally, fragments of the virus remain but the cell survives. (B) No two viral insertions are exactly alike; a botched integration can leave behind a tiny fragment of its DNA, large stretch of the genome, selected portions, and other variants. (C) Viral fragments insert at fairly random locations, and have literally millions of them to choose from. (D) Infection of a germ line cell is quite rare. (E) That particular germ line cell with the unique viral fingerprint can, sometimes, be the lucky egg or sperm cell that gets fertilized. (F) The individual's genes, including the ERV, can get established in the entire population of a species. This can occur through random genetic drift if it's neutral or deleterious; natural selection, on the other hand, would work to establish the very few advantageous retroviral elements in our genome.
*******************************************
I can talk some more about Primate Evolution, but that would be another entire monstrous post. In summary, the point of this entire entry was to demonstrate the evidence of common ancestry in hominid evolution, and also to provide a strong refutation of independent origin (creationism). What do you think?
posted
I find it completely convincing and airtight, but then I already knew evolution was true, just from reading Darwin's Origin of Species, written at a time when we didn't even understand genetics yet and still thought Lamarckian inheritance was a factor.
We've known this was true for well over 100 years. Its explanatory power in biology is pervasive and stunning in its scope. The only reason I can guess that anyone would deny it still is that, (as did that Cardinal friend of Gallileo when offered the telescope to observe for himself the moons of Jupiter), they simply refuse to look.
Posts: 6246 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wow, this was a fascinating and clear discussion of an interesting genetic phenomenon. Also it has clear bearing on a topic that is endlessly discussed here. This is really interesting stuff! I recommend that people read this and understand the reasoning behind it.
Posts: 6246 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Are you missing a (G) in your summary of facts?
I'm assuming the relevance of this to evolution is that if animal X and animal Y both have the marker of a failed viral insertion at a specific location, then the it is far more likely that the insertion occurred in animal W, an ancestor to X and Y.
posted
Heh, this is only vaguely related, but over on the BBC Origins message board they've got a YEC claiming there are tens of thousands of geologists who are YECs. As several of the people on the board are professional geologists or in related fields, they tried coming up with a list of people who are YECs in geology (out of thousands of people).
Here's the list they came up with:
quote:Baumgardner
Wise
Snelling
Austin
Silvestru
Brand + a couple of others at his place
A couple of Russian guys
A German guy.
Walker (I'm being very generous).
They're pretty sure she won't be able to come up with a single other YEC geologist (geologist being someone doing research at an academic institution in the field of geology, in this case). So far she hasn't even tried.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I wish I could understand all this stuff instead of taking it on authority. Oh well, I guess it does not matter, I know that many of the pastors who scream the loudest strike me as irritating and shrill. It is just a matter of who I would rather hang out with. My friends who are into science are just more reasonable to hang around.
Posts: 117 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:In summary, the point of this entire entry was to demonstrate the evidence of common ancestry in hominid evolution, and also to provide a strong refutation of independent origin (creationism). What do you think?
While I will agree with the first half of the above statement (common ancestry), I do not see how that has any bearing whatsoever on the second half (origin).
Many Christians and creationists have also studied this and some also agree that species came from a common ancestor (like all different varieties of dogs, wolves, hyenas, etc. could have come from a common canine ancestor) It could have been purposefully designed that way, in fact, with one perfectly designed common ancestor that was created to adapt/mutate into many different branches of the species. (easier to fit on the ark that way). We see that throughout science on an on-going basis.
Same with people -- perfectly created Adam and Eve eventually branches into many other forms, but wihtin species.
However, what you show doesn't give evidence of CROSS-SPECIES evolution. How a fish became a dog, etc. All it shows is that there are common ancestors for each grouping. (Things that can be passed down though sperm). For instance, a Tiger and a Lion can breed together (laboratory) and it will create a viable fetus, possibly because they have a common ancestor. A human and a dog can't do that. There is no way to cross that barrier.
Farmgirl
edit: I should proofread better
Law: for every evolutionist scientist's theory, there is an equal and opposite theory by a creationist scientist LINK
posted
I think the word you're looking for is likely Kind, Farmgirl (at least, that's the one commonly used in creationist literature). There're plenty of examples of speciation out there:
There are far more, but that's a sampling. Now, are all these species very similar? Yes, but that's exactly predicted by evolutionary theory. Each divergence in species is small, but over time a series of small divergences can result in vast differences. And we have considerable evidence that has happened. Take a look at the note on transitional fossils here: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html
posted
Oh, and I love how that page completely misunderstands evolutionary theory -- apparently "evolutionists" don't believe in parallel and convergent evolution, despite the massive literature out there on the subject by "evolutionists".
posted
Simply put, Fugu, this is never going to be an easy "black & white" question that some are trying to make it out to be. There are scientists who hold the same kind of Ph.D.s and background and experience, who support evolution and those who support creationism.
If it was so black-and-white that one simple "fact" (like the Human Endogenous Retroviruses) would "prove" it one way or the other, then we would not be continuing to debate it for decades on end with "experts" on both sides.
It is a very complex issue, and for every "research project" that shows it in a way that you agree with and favor, there are scientists on the other side with a counterviewpoint.
And sometimes you have to read BOTH sides -- not only those that you agree with -- to see why this continues to be a debate with no clear winner (for those who don't know which to think)
posted
I'd still like to see five (heck, I'd like to see one) article published in a refereed science journal that supports any theory other than evolution.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Varies, actually, there are a decent number (still a very small number, but more than many expect) of creationists in science, however, most of them admit their creation beliefs are not scientific, but religious. However, you presume referees don't approve papers they disagree with, which is false. While the success of it varies, papers are intended to be judged on objective standards -- one reason referees are often picked by random, to try to avoid someone with a bias preventing a worthy paper from getting accepted. Papers that the referees disagree with get published all the time.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Though I can certainly lower my standard -- I'd like to see ten plus papers written in-field by people who regularly publish in refereed journals (regularly can be taken to mean every few years over a scientific career). That gets rid of any weird conspiracy theory where the referees let papers through they disagree with -- except when it comes to evolution! Now I just require that the paper be published in the same field the person gets papers (which don't have to deal with evolution themselves) published in refereed journals in.
So for instance, the geologists' paper against evolution must refute evolution on geologic evidence, not genetic (which they'll have no training in, generally speaking). The biologists' paper against evolution must refute evolution on biological evidence. Subfields matter, if the subject is broad enough (for instance, a molecular biologist won't know much about botanical biology).
If there's the huge amount of dissent you see, FG, it should be easy to give me a measly ten papers that meet these standards -- published experts in a field that reject the evidence for evolution in that field.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Having trouble finding examples of the referee thing online, though I have had anecdotal evidence, so I have emailed a random assortment of scientists (I encourager you to do so as well). I simply opened up department webpages for science departments at IU, and clicked random people. I know nothing about these people except for briefly glancing at their page.
Here's the question I sent:
quote:When refereeing, do you approve articles with which you disagree with the conclusions with even a small frequency?
I so far have one response (who appears to have a different take on the question than intended), from an Anthropologist:
quote:I have not approved an article for publication if the conclusions presented reflect unsupported inferences or improperly designed statistical tests. However, if I feel that overall the article and information has merit, I suggest revisions with a "revise and resubmit" caveat.
Catherine M. Tucker, Ph.D. Assistant Professor Anthropology Department, Indiana University
posted
Having trouble finding examples of the referee thing online, though I have had anecdotal evidence, so I have emailed a random assortment of scientists (I encourager you to do so as well). I simply opened up department webpages for science departments at IU, and clicked random people. I know nothing about these people except for briefly glancing at their page.
Here's the question I sent:
quote:When refereeing, do you approve articles with which you disagree with the conclusions with even a small frequency?
I so far have one response (who appears to have a different take on the question than intended), from an Anthropologist:
quote:I have not approved an article for publication if the conclusions presented reflect unsupported inferences or improperly designed statistical tests. However, if I feel that overall the article and information has merit, I suggest revisions with a "revise and resubmit" caveat.
Catherine M. Tucker, Ph.D. Assistant Professor Anthropology Department, Indiana University
quote: Many Christians and creationists have also studied this and some also agree that species came from a common ancestor (like all different varieties of dogs, wolves, hyenas, etc. could have come from a common canine ancestor) It could have been purposefully designed that way, in fact, with one perfectly designed common ancestor that was created to adapt/mutate into many different branches of the species. (easier to fit on the ark that way). We see that throughout science on an on-going basis.
Same with people -- perfectly created Adam and Eve eventually branches into many other forms, but wihtin species.
However, what you show doesn't give evidence of CROSS-SPECIES evolution. How a fish became a dog, etc. All it shows is that there are common ancestors for each grouping. (Things that can be passed down though sperm). For instance, a Tiger and a Lion can breed together (laboratory) and it will create a viable fetus, possibly because they have a common ancestor. A human and a dog can't do that. There is no way to cross that barrier.
This evidence directly demonstrates that humans and all simians share a common ancestor, with humans being one of the last to branch of. Now, I have never seen a conclusive definition of 'Kinds', but, of all those I have seen, humans tend be their own 'kind'.
A couple more things: Last time I checked, humans are considered a separate species from, say, gorillas.
Lions and Tigers can produce offspring, yes, but the offspring is not viable -- it cannot reproduce. This is why lions and tigers are separate species; they have a post-zygotic barrier.
Posts: 515 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, the females can reproduce with tigers or lions, but the males are incapable of reproducing. The tiger-liger, liger-lion, tigon-tiger, and tigon-lion offsprings experience the same problem.
Since the species cannot even reproduce within itself, it technically isn't even a species...
Posts: 515 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
First real reply to my emails, the only other reply is above:
quote:Dear Russell,
This year I have reviewed 9 manuscripts so far.
Two I disagreed with, and recommended they be rejected.
Three I disagreed with and approved.
Four I aggreed with and recommended publication.
Best, Kevin D. Hunt
Associate Professor
Department of Anthropology
That's one third in the past year that he recommended for approval despite disagreement. Pretty much what I was predicting, I hope I get more replies (I'll likely send out some more emails sometime, I only sent about 8 in the first batch).
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
But Bill O'Reilly doesn't claim to be an objective seeker of facts, as scientists are supposed to be. Scientists are not supposed to bring agendas to bear when considering theories, although of course they do sometimes, not being perfect. Most creationists unabashedly claim an agenda, finding facts which support a divine Creator, usually Christian.
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Didn't say no bias, merely said that the idea nearly every single article supporting creation (if a large number of such articles had merits) would be excluded by the literarily hundreds of thousands of combinations of peer reviewers in dozens of subjects that are possible (and are explored over the course of a few years of scientific publishing) is ludicrous.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, and I'm also responding to FarmGirl's request that I prove scientists regularly approved for publication articles with which they disagreed.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Fugu, check out the works of Phillip E. Johnson, Michael J. Behe, Michael Denton, William A. Dembski, Jonathon Wells, Nancy Pearcy, or Stephen C. Meyer. All PhD's, all actively publishing in peer reviewed papers, and all proponents of Intelligent Design. Of course the titles of their papers aren't "Intelligent Design is Da Bomb" they're more like Behe's 2004 paper "Simulating evolution by gene duplication of protein features that require multiple amino acid residues" which essentially shows (via a computer model) that for a single point mutation to be fixed in any given population prohibitively large populations are required.
You won't see a paper saying "this is why creationism is true" because it's too far reaching. You will, however, see science being done as it has always been done: people publishing what they see as flaws in the current commonly accepted theory. Dissenting opinions have always been a small voice lost in the mob. For perhaps the first time the roles have been reversed and the small voice is God's voice, but the scientific community really hasn't changed how it works. You can argue that this is or isn't a good thing (and you wouldn't be the first) but there isn't a grand conspiracy to keep God out of the scientific literature, or rather, if there is I don't think it's anything personal (or unusual) Posts: 3243 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm less familiar with the others, but one thing of note is that Behe doesn't publish anything in-field which opposes evolution. That's an important qualifier. I'm looking for an expert in a field who will make the argument that evolution is disproven in that field, not someone who will be an expert in one field and make the argument that evolution is disproven in another.
For expert I'm using the relatively simple definition of good enough to get papers published every few years.
This is of course going into that Behe has been soundly refuted, for instance by people showing perfectly plaubsible intermediate forms for the eye among creatures that exist today, along with reasonable scientific arguments for transitions between the forms.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not sure what you're asking for, someone who's arguing for a literal translation of the bible? I'm not sure that you'll find anyone because, to date, no good evidence has been produced. It's generally accepted amoung IDers that the planet has been orbiting for billions of years, yes there was a massive extinction of most species on earth eons before our own appearance and no, not all of earth's species were crammed into the Garden of Eden. Most of what you see argues that evolution does exist (I mean, you can't really argue against it because it's so easily and routinely taken advantage of) but that it's guided by the hand of God.
As for Beher, it's not that you can argue with his methodology, it's that his conclusions seem to be flawed. I'll agree with you on that point. His papers get published on the strength of his methods, which may well be of use to other researchers. but papers are published all the time where people force their results to fit some predetermined picture. It's unfair to hold that against Beher and not the thousands of other scientists who do exactly the same thing.
Posts: 3243 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I can't even parse your response, its nearly incoherent.
I'm asking for someone who thinks evolution is false because of evidence in their field of expertise, I'm not sure which part of that you have problems with.
That means, someone who has published refereed papers in a field (an expert) who has also written things (don't need to be refereed) in that field which in some way refute or reject evolution.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
What I'm saying, fugu, is that the only creationists I know of that are being published are proponents of Intelligent Design (ID). ID differs from creationism based on a literal interpretation of the bible in that it accepts several points of evolutionary theory. So when you say that you are looking for someone who does not accept "evolution" I'm asking whether you mean someone who refutes Darwinian evolution or the idea that evolution exists at all. Define what you mean by evolution for me.
Did you also not understand what I meant when I was talking about Beher? The idea that papers are published on the merits of their methodology rather than the conclusions drawn from their results doesn't seem to be a particularly complicated one. That Beher is an example of this does not invalidate him as a creationist whose work is published in peer reviewed papers. Are you further stipulating that someone must produce a published creationist whose conclusions are widely accepted by the entire scientific community?
Posts: 3243 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, actualy, I'm looking for the papers that oppose/refute/whatever evolution (ten of them, preferably by different people), but you get the idea.
If there's such a wealth of dissent out there among scientists this should be trivial.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
First, his name's Behe. For some reason adding an r to it grates me.
Second, I'd be fine with something that only attempts to invalidate the parts ID has problems with.
Third, that methodology vs results thing was exactly one of my points above (or in the other thread, I forget) where I talk about papers being recommended for acceptance that the reviewers disagreed with the conclusions. And none of Behe's counter-traditional evolutionary theories papers have been published in any peer reviewed publication.
Fourth, Behe is only active in a very specialized field of molecular biology. However, none of those works in which he attempts to refute aspects of evolution was published in any peer reviewed journal (as a paper, he's written letters to the editor, which are of course not peer reviewed), and none is about molecular biology in his area.
Lets see if I can make this any more simple. Person Alpha publishes papers A, B, C, D, and Z.
A, B, C, and D are published in peer reviewed journals in area Gamma, establishing person Alpha as an expert in this area. Z is just a paper written and distributed on his own, also in area Gamma. Z, however, refutes some aspect of traditional evolutionary theory in a way consistent with creationism or ID. I want to see paper Z (ten of them, from different people). I do not want to see paper Y, which is in completely different area, area Delta. I just want paper Z.
To remove some abstraction: If Sam is a botanist, and has published peer reviewed papers on botany (enough that we could reasonably call him an expert, if he's a practicing scientist, which is preferable, he should be publishing every few years at minimum), then I want to see a paper written by him, peer reviewed or not, which refutes traditional evolutionary theory in a way consistent with creationism or ID within the field of botany. I do not want to see a paper by Sam that tries to tell me that evolution violates the laws of physics.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Bob, Phillip E. Johnson is a lawyer, not a scientist. I looked at his bibliography here and only found one paper in a peer reviewed non-creationist journal, "Honesty is the Best Policy," The Scientist, April 17, 1995. Forgive me if I overlooked another.
A very prolific author and spokesman for the creationist movement, Johnson appears to approach the creation/evolution controversy as a lawyer representing his side and dismissing evolutionary arguments. This is well documented in Unintelligent Design a book that challanges many creationist ID theories and is critical of Phillip E. Johnson Michael J. Behe,and William A. Dembski among others.
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I admit, I just pulled those names out of a Times article I had lying around and only looked for a name that was easy to search in Pub-Med. So thanks for pointing out that they may not be what I thought they were and doing my work for me :blush:
Posts: 3243 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Bump. Any more questions about the retroviruses? I see we have a fellow a few threads over who claims that macro-evolution never happens...this would generally be considered macro-evolution.
[ December 21, 2004, 08:05 PM: Message edited by: HRE ]
Posts: 515 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I just finished Greg Bear's Darwin's Radio, which won the Nebula Award for best novel. It speculates that Human Endogenous Retroviruses (HERVs) are an integral part of human evolution, not just left over virus fragments in DNA. It's a complicated plot I only vaugely understand, but Bear supposes that HERVs are part of a neural network that "guides", with or without intelligence, human evolution. Good book, I'm looking forward to reading the sequel, Darwin's Children. Funny how sometimes when you learn about something it pops up all over.
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The problem with that idea is that there are certain portions of genomes found that really can't have anything to do with our own evolution -- at least not that we know of.
It's very difficult to come up with a reason hominids need reverse transcriptase, or the gag or pol genes.
Also, if these were just evolutionary by-products, we would expect different (but similar) sequences that yield a similar potential end-product, not identical sequences that match (exactly) multiple independent models of hominid evolution.
Posts: 515 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
I'm gonna read the article now...
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
