quote: Evolution cannot be science, because evolution is not true. It is impossible for such complex DNA code as witnessed in all life forms to be written by any means other than intelligent direction. No natural processes or combination of natural processes, even operating over trillions of years, could write the genome for an amoeba, let alone for a man.
Well, that is a strong assertion which seems to be backed up by nothing other than the fact that you've decided it's true and that's that.
You say that complex DNA can't exist or evolve yet it did. How do you explain that? How is what you said that much different than what I said?
I've always considered that science simply documents God's methods. God set into motion the natural world with a set of rules for its operation. Whatever science discovers, simply documents those rules that God set out.
Evolution as we know it simply documents how God set about creating the world.
If not, then exactly when did God intervene to create the world? At what stage did this miraculoulsly impossible DNA occur? 10,000 years ago? A million years ago? A billion years ago? Four billion years ago? Even if God did miraculously and spontaneously create the magically impossible DNA chain, it still seems that DNA chain took billions of year to evolve into the present day world. How does God intervening billions of years ago in any way disprove evolution?
At the risk of repeating myself... I will repeat myself.
The problem with the 'Intelligent Design' crowd is that they can not accept mankind coming into being through the natural process of God natural order. They want God to wave his magic wand and poof! God-fearing Republicans appeared on the earth. If God personally took the time to create us by instantaneous miracle, then aren't we oh so very special. However, if we evolved out of God's natural order then there is nothing special about us, we are just intelligent chimps.
I fear the opposition to Evolution has far more to do with the self-important arrogance of man than with any flaws of science.
So, once again, exactly when did God intervene to create this magically impossible DNA chain of which you speak? And if it's anything more than 100,000 years, then doesn't that pretty much confirm evolution? Remember it's a long way from a magically complex DNA code to all the many many forms of life that have ever existed on earth.
posted
- The usage of the word "fact" in the document is correct.
- The DNA code witnessed in all life forms is not impossible to have been 'written' (assembled) by any means other than intelligent direction. In most cases, use of this argument is an argument from ignorance, assuming that one's inability to find an answer to a question means that the question has no answer (other than a designer, conveniently enough).
- Intelligent design is not science.
- It's 2006. People are still trying to deny, outright, a wide-reaching and massively massively evidenced scientific finding, and the capacity of some people to do this depresses me.
- No, I'm serious. It makes me want to cry.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I found that post on genetics fascinating, KoM. Thank you. Admitting my massive ignorance on the subject, I have a few questions.
quote:First, know that an ERV is an 'endogenous retrovirus', that is to say, it is the genetic code of a virus, pasted into the DNA of an organism. This sometimes occurs when a virus attacks a host, and the host survives : The virus DNA gets incorporated into the host's chromosomes. What the virus would like to happen is for the virus DNA to get to the host's transcription mechanism, and get copied as new viruses; but we don't always get what we want. The host, of course, doesn't really care to have virus DNA lying about, but it's harmless enough since it doesn't get activated. (As I understand it, this is due to the subtle differences between DNA and RNA; I could be wrong on this point, though. Also, there are exceptions to the rule; some ERVs do get activated.) At any rate, if the cell in question is a sex cell that happens to become offspring, every descendant of the original host will carry that ERV, at least until it mutates into un-recognisability.
Is it this mechanism that makes you immune to viruses once you catch them? Or is it more like the reason why, once you catch the herpes virus, you are liable to get cankers every time you are particularly stressed out? Or are those both totally different effects of viruses and completely unrelated to DNA?
quote: Conversely, those monkeys descended from the brother of the original A, whom we'll call D, do not have this particular ERV - D never caught the flu when his brother did. We can therefore say that the descendants of D, though they may have a common ancestor with groups B and C, diverged before the particular ERV we are talking about. (One generation before, in this case. Of course, such accuracy is not usually to be hoped for!) In this way, we can build up a family tree showing who has common ancestors with whom, and when (relative to each other, not absolute datings) the branchings took place. This kind of evidence is, if you like, the equivalent of paternity testing for species; it establishes family trees.
Lets say D did catch the flu at the same time as A. Would the ERV insinuate itself at the same point in his genes as it did in A's genes? Would we be able to tell his decendants from A's decendants by where the ERV occured rather than whether or not it occured?
Posts: 364 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Is it this mechanism that makes you immune to viruses once you catch them? Or is it more like the reason why, once you catch the herpes virus, you are liable to get cankers every time you are particularly stressed out? Or are those both totally different effects of viruses and completely unrelated to DNA?
Interesting question! We are reaching the limits of my knowledge, here; but I believe that immunity is separate from this mechanism. The immune system needs to react rather faster than genetics would allow for. And I think the herpes virus flares up by hiding in the body at low concentrations, rather than hiding in the DNA as genes. I could be mistaken on either or both, though.
quote:Lets say D did catch the flu at the same time as A. Would the ERV insinuate itself at the same point in his genes as it did in A's genes? Would we be able to tell his decendants from A's decendants by where the ERV occured rather than whether or not it occured?
Probably, yes. There are effects going both ways. Given that D is going to catch the flu, there are certain locations in the DNA that are more susceptible to retrovirus insertion. So the location is not as unlikely to be in the same place as it would be if you just chose randomly from the whole genetic code. (Indeed, if the virus inserted itself in the middle of the code for an important protein, all of D's offspring would die!) You should note, though, that a fairly unlikely chain of events has to occur just for the virus to have a chance at confusing us like that. First, D has to both catch and survive the flu. (Well, that's not so unlikely.) Then the virus has to insert itself, not just in a random cell, but in a somatic cell of D, that is, one of the factories producing sperm. If this doesn't happen, then the ERV won't be passed on to his offspring. Finally, one of the changed somatic cells has to be the one that produces the sperm that makes D's offspring. Only when all this has happened is the location of the ERV important.
This forum has a lot of biologists who know more about this kind of thing than I do, if you are still curious. Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Is it this mechanism that makes you immune to viruses once you catch them? Or is it more like the reason why, once you catch the herpes virus, you are liable to get cankers every time you are particularly stressed out? Or are those both totally different effects of viruses and completely unrelated to DNA?
Interesting question! We are reaching the limits of my knowledge, here; but I believe that immunity is separate from this mechanism. The immune system needs to react rather faster than genetics would allow for. And I think the herpes virus flares up by hiding in the body at low concentrations, rather than hiding in the DNA as genes. I could be mistaken on either or both, though.
quote:Lets say D did catch the flu at the same time as A. Would the ERV insinuate itself at the same point in his genes as it did in A's genes? Would we be able to tell his decendants from A's decendants by where the ERV occured rather than whether or not it occured?
Probably, yes. There are effects going both ways. Given that D is going to catch the flu, there are certain locations in the DNA that are more susceptible to retrovirus insertion. So the location is not as unlikely to be in the same place as it would be if you just chose randomly from the whole genetic code. (Indeed, if the virus inserted itself in the middle of the code for an important protein, all of D's offspring would die!) You should note, though, that a fairly unlikely chain of events has to occur just for the virus to have a chance at confusing us like that. First, D has to both catch and survive the flu. (Well, that's not so unlikely.) Then the virus has to insert itself, not just in a random cell, but in a somatic cell of D, that is, one of the factories producing sperm. If this doesn't happen, then the ERV won't be passed on to his offspring. Finally, one of the changed somatic cells has to be the one that produces the sperm that makes D's offspring. Only when all this has happened is the location of the ERV important.
This forum has a lot of biologists who know more about this kind of thing than I do, if you are still curious.
You made an interesting post earlier KOM, and I must confess I do not posess the knowledge to refute it at this time. Kudos to you. How possible is it that Apes, Monkeys, etc are actually humans that migrated to certain locations, and then evolved smaller brains and stronger bodies in order to survive the harsh conditions of the places they lived in? Not so much a step up but a modification in order to survive in environments where larger brains would have impaired that ability? It does not sound too plausible but hey its up in the air.
For me, I have found a strong support for evolution in the observation of fetal development. I walked into my freshman biology class in high school and the teacher asked us, "Does Ontageny recapitulate phylogeny?" Our homework was to go home, research that question and find the answer. The question in laymans terms is "Does a human being as it develops in the womb cycle through all the phylums before becoming mature?"
The evidence points to a MAYBE. As the fetus develops it starts out as a single celled organism and becomes a multi celled organism. It starts out as an invertebrate It skin for a period of time develops scales and gills (though the gills are never functioning and all of them close except the ear opening.) Its hands and feet start out webbed, and there are a few other similarities. While the literalism of the theory is disputed, still I cannot help but see at least a hinting at evolution in the formation of a fetus.
But again while I have no problem with the idea that God used evolution to create the world. And perhaps God took only 7000 years to create the world, and simply understood how to speed up evolution in such a way that it appears to have taken billions of years. I really am not bothered by either side as I am sure that when I am dead I am going to be corrected about alot of things I was absolutely sure were true.
I do think there is merit to the arguement that alot of creationists spurn evolution because they think it makes man just like the animals. It does remind me of how the central earth theory was more pleasing to the average person then an earth that rotates around the sun. It made people feel less important in the grand scheme of things. Are we just like any other animal? I do not think so. If you want to take all the works that have been wrought by human hands and call them (the result of a minor genetic advantage) well thats one hell of a genetic trait that is just so visable. Our inteligence almost totally eclipses everything else about us.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:How possible is it that Apes, Monkeys, etc are actually humans that migrated to certain locations, and then evolved smaller brains and stronger bodies in order to survive the harsh conditions of the places they lived in?
It's unlikely, I'm afraid. For one thing, the genetic markers we see in these populations indicate that this happened in the other direction. We might be misreading those, but they seem reliable so far in other species.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
speaking of apes and monkeys, humans and higher apes have lived side by side for a long time. They live in pretty much exactly the same environment, particularly in the case of African pygmies.
Posts: 48 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
The immune system is completely separate for this, and a good thing too.
There is a little bit of this involved over time though.
Sickle cell anemia is the perfect example. It is the most common blood disorder disease in humans, and has some horrible complications, but it is one form of how natural selection encouraged the disease to become a significant part of human DNA:
quote: he genetic selective scenario in which a heterozygote for two alleles of a gene has an advantage over either of the homozyous states is called "balanced polymorphism". A key concept to keep in mind is that the selection is for sickle cell trait. A common misstatement is that malaria selects for sickle cell disease. This is not true. A person with sickle cell disease is at an extreme survival disadvantage because of the ravages of the disease process. This means that a negative selection exists for sickle cell disease. Sickle cell trait is the genetic condition selected for in regions of endemic malaria. Sickle cell disease is a necessary consequence of the existence of the trait condition because of the genetics of reproduction.
The precise mechanism by which sickle cell trait imparts resistance to malaria is unknown. A number of factors likely are involved and contribute in varying degrees to the defense against malaria.
It was evolution that selected the sickle cell disease to survive, because sickle cell anemia provides a much higher chance of survival from malaria. In areas where malaria is rampant people with sickle cell anemia were more likely to survive malaria, and more likely to reproduce. Therefore the genetic marker for SCA was reproduced for generations, and became part of human DNA.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:How possible is it that Apes, Monkeys, etc are actually humans that migrated to certain locations, and then evolved smaller brains and stronger bodies in order to survive the harsh conditions of the places they lived in?
Well, in principle. I do not think it matters, because evolution from human to ape is just as much 'macro-evolution' as the other way around, surely! But in any case, there are a few features of human anatomy that indicate otherwise, chiefly the tail. Specifically, we have an attachment point and some muscles that could be used for wagging a tail, and sometimes people are born with one. This indicates a loss of an old feature; whatever else, it's pretty certain that human ancestors had tails. That makes them monkeys, in my opinion. There is also the question of thumbs : I could see devolved humans losing their brains, which are pretty expensive to support, but opposable thumbs? Surely a useful attribute even for a tree-climbing species, especially when you consider that chimpanzees do have rudimentary toolmaking.
As for the accelerated bit, again, in principle yes. I believe it's called the Omphalos hypothesis. But if you're going to postulate that kind of thing, then it's just as likely to assume that we are all living in a Matrix machine that was turned on three seconds ago, complete with all our memories. (And Bibles.) There is no way of distinguishing these two scenarios; personally, I would not choose to reduce my religion to the level of a crackpot theory if I could avoid it. Nor, indeed, would I worship so deceptive a god.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:How possible is it that Apes, Monkeys, etc are actually humans that migrated to certain locations, and then evolved smaller brains and stronger bodies in order to survive the harsh conditions of the places they lived in?
Well, in principle. I do not think it matters, because evolution from human to ape is just as much 'macro-evolution' as the other way around, surely! But in any case, there are a few features of human anatomy that indicate otherwise, chiefly the tail. Specifically, we have an attachment point and some muscles that could be used for wagging a tail, and sometimes people are born with one. This indicates a loss of an old feature; whatever else, it's pretty certain that human ancestors had tails. That makes them monkeys, in my opinion. There is also the question of thumbs : I could see devolved humans losing their brains, which are pretty expensive to support, but opposable thumbs? Surely a useful attribute even for a tree-climbing species, especially when you consider that chimpanzees do have rudimentary toolmaking.
As for the accelerated bit, again, in principle yes. I believe it's called the Omphalos hypothesis. But if you're going to postulate that kind of thing, then it's just as likely to assume that we are all living in a Matrix machine that was turned on three seconds ago, complete with all our memories. (And Bibles.) There is no way of distinguishing these two scenarios; personally, I would not choose to reduce my religion to the level of a crackpot theory if I could avoid it. Nor, indeed, would I worship so deceptive a god.
Deceptive seems a bit strong of a word. If some scientist found out that our method for dating materials had a critical flaw, eventually we would accept that, science would not apologize for any mistakes or conclusions it had made previous to this discovery and life would go on (A luxury not afforded to religion I am afraid, such is the price of speaking in terms of absolute truth.) The story of science seems to be a repetition of this pattern. I really do not think it means God is trying to fool us, only that sometimes we (people) jump to conclusions.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, ok, in principle that could happen. I feel it is rather less likely than some completely critical flaw being found in general relativity, indeed it would probably require such a thing. The thing is, those dating methods do not stand in isolation; they depend on other parts of science, and other parts depend on them. It's all connected. If there's a problem with radioactive dating, then we also need to take a good close look at our models of solar fusion and stellar evolution (which, before Ron jumps all over me, has nothing to with biological evolution), which is in its turn a very successful model in astrophysics - it explains lots of stuff. And, lest this seem a bit by-the-by, a lot of geology also depends on radioactive dating; geology is of course extremely important in finding oil. (Yes, Ron, I know, God put the oil there and is constantly regenerating it. Go tell it to the oil companies, you can know doubt make a fortune by praying to figure out where the oil is, and leading people to it. Just like Moses bringing water from the stones!)
Then, consider also that carbon dating is constantly calibrated against other methods of dating. If carbon dating is off, then tree rings are also behaving very oddly for some periods of time. Then there are the varves of Lake Suigetsu. You can Google for the details, but basically, every winter, a certain kind of plant dies off in this lake, forming a layer of white deposits; then in the summer, something else happens which forms a black layer. We can actually watch this happening, it's as clear as tree rings. Lake Suigetsu is highly stable, and people have counted 18000 of these yearly layers! (Some poor grad student did the actual counting, no doubt.) This then is an excellent method of calibrating your carbon dating; you date the varve by counting, then by carbon dating, and now you know how much you need to adjust to compensate for varying CO2 levels in the atmosphere. You should also note that before they used Suigetsu, there were other calibration methods; and they agreed just fine with what Suigetsu said! So any flaw in carbon dating is going to have to explain how it matches up so well with these other dating methods. It's not jumping to conclusions when you have several different methods of dating, and they all agree!
You should note that the first geologists to doubt the Flood story were actually Christians who set out to look for evidence of it. They believed in a literal Flood, and wanted to find it written in the rocks. They didn't. And, being honest scientists, published what they had found. (This was even before Darwin.) How's that for an agenda? They set out to prove the Flood story true, and found themselves convinced otherwise!
Finally, about deception. Would it be deceptive to create an adult from whole cloth, with a memory of having lived for twenty years? Because our Universe very clearly has the 'memory' of having lived for 12 billion years.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
oh I was not saying that I actually BELIEVED our dating methods were off. Merely that such a thing is not beyond the realm of possibility, and that were it to happen it would change everything. There are many things that could happen that could happen that would make the whole evolution picture suddenly make sense, or else be seen in an entirely different light. I am just cautious about taking any theory so seriously that I forget that it is still a theory, and theories, historically speaking, are fragile things.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The immune system is completey different from the system that sees viral DNA camp out in human DNA. Immunity basically occurs because the body creates cells to fight the invasion by guess-and-check, and when it finds one that works it keeps it around for the rest of your life. But viruses are fought by killing cells that give off "I've been infected" signals before the viruses completely hijack it, and tagging free viruses in the system with a variety of different things, usually resulting in their being tagged for white blood cell consumption.
The repetative DNA sections in the human genome almost, dare I say always self-replicate when first introduced as they carry the genes for their own replication with them when the paste into the human genome (the reasons for the loss of virulence are generally because they get inserted improperly). The fact that they don't all still have the ability to reproduce is because they've been in the genome for 10s to 100s of millions of years, which is plenty of time for mutations to crop up and render them inactive. (Yes, we have an approximate idea of how old each one is by tracing them back through the fossil record. Yes, it is possible to take the mutations that occur over this vast time into account. No, I don't understand the math involved.)
Because they don't have an impact in any way shape and form on your every day life, when a mutation occurs that renders one of these inactive it's not nearly so severe as losing the ability to, say, use glucose as energy. So the offspring with an inactive repetative section survives, but the offspring on a permanent atkins diet tends not to make it. The opposite, however, where one of these repetative DNA fragments self-replicates into a necessary human gene and disrupts it, happens relatively often. ~1 in 600 of all gene disruptions in humans.
This process continues today, and since our divergence from chimps (~6 million years ago) there is one element (discovered so far) that is not present in all humans. Which is kind of neat.
It's important to note that this is all quite different from Kwea's section on sickle cell anemia, because that is controlled by selective pressure where this is (as a general rule) not.
Posts: 3243 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, well, evolution has lasted 150 years so far. That's rather longer than general relativity, twice as long as quantum mechanics, a bit more than the Maxwellian synthesis, and about the same age as thermodynamics. And during that time it has been under much heavier attack than any of the others, largely for ideological reasons; but it's not as though people haven't tried to knock it over. Fragile, I think, is not the right word. It works; it explains things about how the world is; and it meshes well with every other part of science. There may be adjustments to our understanding of how and why evolution happens, but that it has occurred and is the source of all species is just not in doubt. You might as well doubt that the Earth orbits the Sun. I mean, quite literally - this is the same level of certainty. Evolution is as much a theory as Newtonian orbital mechanics.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
For some of our dating methods to be off would require fundamental constants of the universe to be different in ways that would either show up with incredible obviousness or not leave us here to notice the difference. Our estimates of the age of the earth rely on several independently conceived, independently operating methods of dating.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
