Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
graniteclimber
Trad climber
Nowhere
|
|
|
Oct 26, 2006 - 10:51am PT
|
Blight previously posted:
"Still, to those who have remained civil, I'd like to present 3 key criticisms of science's current view of evolution:
1. Nobody has ever observed evolution by process of mutation and natural selction in action.
2. Nobody has ever replicated it in the lab.
3. No direct evidence whatsoever exists to support the idea that new, sustainable genetic material can spontaneously emerge in an existing species."
To clarify, do you now concede that you no longer stand by these assertions, at least in how they apply to "small" changes in bacteria and the like, but not to massive changes, such as the evolution of a new, complex organ (such as an eye on a creature that did not have an eye before)?
Edit: I'm just trying to clarify what your position is, not gloat over anything. We might be making a real breakthrough here.
|
|
cintune
climber
Penn's Woods
|
|
|
Oct 26, 2006 - 10:51am PT
|
It's all in the fossil record. Every new fossil find has bolstered the case for increasing complexity through adaptation and mutation.
Philo, I was thinking the same thing. We might just as easily disbelieve that the earth is round, or that it revolves around the sun. Blight apparently doubts for doubt's sake. This could be a clever troll designed to spur on evolutionary research by maintaining a devil's advocacy in spite of the absurdity of having no clear position, but why he'd do it here of all places is very curious.
Also, somebody keep those bacteria away from my rope.
|
|
Aya
Uncategorizable climber
New York
|
|
|
Oct 26, 2006 - 10:53am PT
|
Well, of course I am. Without increase in complexity, complex organisms can hardly have developed from simple ones.
That's what I've been getting at all along. I'm glad you're finally starting to understand.
It isn't what you asked for, earlier, to be fair:
I didn't say it had one. I said that it had a preexisting mechanism for adapting what it could digest.
Please describe this mechanism?
They could previously do so. It's not new because it existed before. The development of complex organisms from simple ones can't happen by a process of removing then reinventing existing traits. That's not an increase in complexity.
The bacteria that Barry Hall started with could not digest lactose. They simply did not have the genetic code to allow this to happen - whatever the reason for this was. The development of complex organisms can happen by the "invention" (though this isn't a particularly apt word) of new traits. The development of the lactose metabolic pathway in the bacteria (a new pathway - not just some reactivation of the old, pre-existing pathway) was genuinely new: they could not digest lactose to begin with.
And as I've now said at least four times, I don't have a problem with this part of evolution. What i have a problem with is that the changes observed and which you've reported don't seem to constitute evidence for the proposition that complex organisms can develop from simple ones. That's why i'm asking for evidence fo a new limb, organ or apparatus: that's increased complexity.
A novel metabolic pathway does not count?
Please provide an exact definition of increased complexity (a larger genome? new proteins? new legs?) and we'll go from there - otherwise, we return to the same problem: is a dog that develops wheels an example of evolution, given that dogs already posess locomotion?
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Oct 26, 2006 - 10:57am PT
|
Good job Blight, don't let all these mental speculators run amok. hehehe
And don't be making any freaking theories. The truth is always there. These guys harping on you are seriously lost.
|
|
philo
Trad climber
boulder, co.
|
|
|
Oct 26, 2006 - 11:17am PT
|
Werner I AM NOT completely lost. I know exactl... [psst hey man where are we again, thanks] ... yeah like I was saying I know exactly where I am, I am right here. he he
|
|
TradIsGood
Fun-loving climber
the Gunks end of the country
|
|
|
Oct 26, 2006 - 11:18am PT
|
Aya, why are you letting Blight trap you into arguing something that is not in violation of his process (evolution).
Force him to produce a theory. Until then both of you are wasting virtual ink.
edit;;;
And of course, philo, since Einstein, we know that the earth is every bit as much the center of the universe as any other place. That was the beauty of special relativity. There are no special reference frames.
|
|
Blight
Social climber
|
|
|
Oct 26, 2006 - 11:22am PT
|
The bacteria that Barry Hall started with could not digest lactose.
No they had the bacterial gene for the enzyme beta-galactosidase, but he deleted it for the purposes of the experiment.
It isn't what you asked for, earlier, to be fair
It's exactly what I asked for earlier. I've spent the last 100 or so posts trying to explain it to you while you insist that I don't understand.
A novel metabolic pathway does not count?
It was not novel. It existed previously. That's not going to change no matter how many times you pretend not to see my answer.
Please provide an exact definition of increased complexity (a larger genome? new proteins? new legs?) and we'll go from there
No.
To define what evidence I'm prepared and not prepared to accept before investigation begins would be prejudicial and completely pointless.
What kind of science is that? Establishing what the answer must be before you ask the question?
|
|
cintune
climber
Penn's Woods
|
|
|
Oct 26, 2006 - 11:29am PT
|
|
|
Blight
Social climber
|
|
|
Oct 26, 2006 - 11:35am PT
|
:D
Well, that's me convinced!
Ha! Ha!
|
|
eeyonkee
Trad climber
Golden, CO
|
|
|
Oct 26, 2006 - 12:05pm PT
|
Aya's been a trooper through all of this.
However, you don't need any experimental evidence to conclude that the (evolutionary) process has produced simple organisms from complex ones. You don't need any understanding of genetics at all. Darwin didn't have any of that. The combination of knowing the nature and distribution of animals and plants (and this is a really big one that has not been discussed much here) on the earth combined with a little knowledge of the fossil record (along with a bit of observation from the domestication of animals) is all you need. That was good enough for Darwin, it was good enough for most of the biological scientists following Darwin and its good enough for me.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Oct 26, 2006 - 12:12pm PT
|
Darwin himself admitted there was no proof for his theory of one species gradually evolving into another species in the fossil record at the time of writing his thesis, but he was sure as time went on the "Missing Links" would be found. The subsequent fossil evidence has done nothing to support his theory. There are unlimited specimens which contradict the idea of natural selection altogether and no proof to support a continuous chain of slightly different species evolving from one form to another. It is just not there in the fossil record. So why have the supposedly intelligent scientific community not rejected the idea of evolution of the species?
According to the Vedic knowledge there is evolution but it is not evolution of the species as Darwin proposed, but evolution of consciousness. As the fossil record clearly shows there are no intermediate forms between one species and another. The Padma Purana describes there are 8,400,000 species of life within this universe. Every species is existing at all times but they may not all be present on any given planet. There are unlimited planets in this one universe and we have information that beyond this universe there are unlimited other universes also. This universe is one of the smallest. There are many universes much larger than this one. But everywhere in the material creation these 8,400,000 species of life exist. The forms already exist on the subtle platform even if they are not physically manifested. This universe is going through cycles. Sometimes it is manifested and sometimes it is unmanifested but even when there is no manifested material world all the forms of the 8,400,000 species of life are still there on the subtle platform.
Every species of life is one step on the ladder of the evolution of consciousness. The soul in every species of life is equal in quality and quantity with the others, it is only due to the consciousness of a particular living entity that he takes a higher or lower body.
|
|
Aya
Uncategorizable climber
New York
|
|
|
Oct 26, 2006 - 12:58pm PT
|
No they had the bacterial gene for the enzyme beta-galactosidase, but he deleted it for the purposes of the experiment.
Right, it was deleted. Poof. Gone. They didn't have it.
Can I pay my phone bill with the money I paid my student loan bill with? After all, I used to have it...
Since it was missing when the experiment started: where did the new metabolic pathway (different from the previous one that was deleted) come from?
Let me resummarize the experiment and its results, just as a reference for those following this thread who may've forgotten:
1. Barry Hall took E. coli and knocked out a single gene which coded for the production of beta-galactosidase, an enzyme allowing the digestion of lactose.
2. A mutation arose and spread in the population which allowed the bacteria to produce beta-galactosidase. This was confirmed by sequencing to be a new gene, i.e. not merely a reconstitution of the original gene which had been deleted. This new gene, called ebg (evolved beta-galactosidase) is only somewhat (about 1/3 of its DNA sequence) similar to the knocked out gene it replaced. It is also in an entirely different region of the genome.
An analogy might be: I ride my bike to work every day. You take my bike away. I still need to get to work. So, I build a skateboard from the materials I have at home. Sure, they both have wheels and they both get me to work, but apart from that, they're entirely different. The skateboard is a new structure.
That I used to have a bike to get me to work is not relevant to the fact that when I built the skateboard, I did not have the bike.
Would you consider the skateboard to be a new structure?
3. Another mutation then arose (again, new: this was not present before) which allowed ebg to be activated in the presence of lactose.
This is somewhat confusingly named the lac-repressor, however the name makes sense if you consider it this way: the repressors, which prevent the production of beta-galactosidase by binding to a region of DNA (called an operon) which turns on its production, are constantly being produced. If there is lactose present, the lactose binds to the repressors, which consequently don't bind to the operon, which consequently means that beta-galactosidase is produced. Essentially, beta-galactosidase, which breaks down lactose, is only produced when lactose is present.
The new repressor which Barry Hall's E. coli acquired was different (from comparison of its DNA sequence) from the previous repressor that they had (and which Barry Hall did not remove).
4. The bacteria underwent another mutation such that the new ebg gene that they developed could stimulate the production of yet another enzyme called permease.
The original E. coli had permease, which allows the lactose to actually enter the cells. However, they could not produce permease in response to the ebg gene - their permease was produced in response to the product of the original gene, which had been deleted (the gene for beta-galactosidase, not the gene for permease). A new gene coding for the production of permease in response to the new ebg was developed.
Please provide an exact definition of increased complexity (a larger genome? new proteins? new legs?) and we'll go from there
No.
To define what evidence I'm prepared and not prepared to accept before investigation begins would be prejudicial and completely pointless.
What kind of science is that? Establishing what the answer must be before you ask the question?
I don't think it is any sort of science, really.
We're establishing what the question is (I think you're now asking: "Can evolution produce complexity?") so that we can attempt to provide support for an answer (mine is yes, yours is no).
It would be as if I said "I don't think that there is any evidence that gorillas are smarter than crows. Give me evidence that supports the assertion that they are."
How can we begin to answer this question if we don't know what "smarter" means?
|
|
TradIsGood
Fun-loving climber
the Gunks end of the country
|
|
|
Oct 26, 2006 - 01:23pm PT
|
So far, all of Aya's answers fit Blight's process (which loosely could be called a theory since it "predicts" only change).
None of Blight's tests are a test of his hypothesis.
And it looks like my first prediction will be proven correct by the end of the day!
:-)
|
|
eeyonkee
Trad climber
Golden, CO
|
|
|
Oct 26, 2006 - 02:35pm PT
|
Rokjox. What you just wrote is absolutely not how evolution works. There are no invisible forces at work (or required). Evolution isn't "trying" (your positive urge) to go in any direction. To call on this invisble force is equivalent to calling on a supernatural force.
|
|
eeyonkee
Trad climber
Golden, CO
|
|
|
Oct 26, 2006 - 03:29pm PT
|
I agree with much of what you said in your last post...that's not how your previous post was framed.
Yeah, the emergence of consciousness in man is certainly changing the playing field. We will likely alter ourselves in the future through technology which will overwhelm any natural selection pressures. Unless of course, only a few, small populations are left after some nuclear armageddan or pandemic. Then, natural selection will undoubtedly again be the primary agent of change.
Your previous post seemed to suggest some unknown force is at work in living creatures that actively strives to evolve in some direction or towards some goal. That's what I was harping about.
Regardless of how great a role natural selection will play in the future, knowing how it works and not resorting to creation myths can only be a good thing.
|
|
eeyonkee
Trad climber
Golden, CO
|
|
|
Oct 26, 2006 - 04:32pm PT
|
ok. I'm back to completely disagreeing with you Rokjox.
This thread is becoming tiresome. I'm retirng for the second time.
|
|
graniteclimber
Trad climber
Nowhere
|
|
|
Oct 30, 2006 - 12:58pm PT
|
For those keeping score:
Aya: 3
Blight 0
|
|
Jaybro
Social climber
The West
|
|
|
Oct 30, 2006 - 06:40pm PT
|
Eeyonk, Aya, you guys are way more patient than I am.
Maybe sissyphus was an evolutionist, having to debunk the same nonsense arguments every time.
"No evidence,"
"here's some"
"Oh"
"No evidence,"
"here's some"
"Oh"
"No evidence,"
"here's some"
"Oh"
|
|
Rick A
climber
Boulder, Colorado
|
|
|
Oct 30, 2006 - 10:48pm PT
|
Interesting discussion everyone. Threads like this make you glad that ST is not limited to just climbing topics.
Everyone on the evolution side has been very patient in explaining the nuances of this complex subject to skeptics and non-skeptics alike. Bravo. As was said earlier, evolution theory should be challenged since this is the nature of scientific inquiry. This thread has featured scholarly responses to each challenge, as well as interesting digressions.
What bothers me about the creationist side is that many of its principal proponents are dishonest: they say they want “creation science” taught in the schools, but this is a stalking horse for teaching their own religious beliefs in the schools. For anyone who doubts this, read Judge Jones’ opinion in the Dover School Board case, where the judge, a conservative appointed by George Bush, exposed the national agenda of the creationists, which is to subvert science and substitute religious dogma in the public schools. The creationists operate under the guise of open minded inquiry, i.e., teach the “alternative view” to evolution, but this is just a smoke screen. Here is a link to the decision:
http://www.aclupa.org/downloads/Dec20opinion.pdf
This is a nice topic for an internet discussion because it leads to entertaining, heated exchanges. In the end, we should not really care whether another person chooses to believe in his or her own religion’s creation story or chooses to believe in evolution science. But the Dover School decision shows that this discussion is more than academic, it is central to an important public policy issue: whether children will be taught science, or religious dogma disguised as science, in the pubic schools.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!