The Year of Darwin
Two historical figures provided major abortion triggers, IMO.
The 1st was Thomas Malthus, who proposed at the turn of the 19th century that the solution for starvation and poverty was not providing the poor with food an shelter but was creating less poor. Malthus was the father of the overpopulation theory. Until Malthus, fertility was good.
The 2nd was Charles Darwin, who proposed the theory of evolution about 50 years later, which rejected God as the creator of Man in His own image.
In fact, Malthus’s theory influenced Darwin’s theory, which I didn’t know until studying for this post. The 2 dots are connected.
Not only was Abraham Lincoln born 200 years ago on February 12, 1809, so was Charles Darwin.
So evolution followers have proclaimed this the Year of Darwin.
Even while the theory of evolution is being forced fed in our public schools as fact, and disbelievers scoffed, Gallup has found in a new poll that only 4 in 10 believe in the evolutionary theory.
About this, Citizen Link reported:
This follows an earlier Gallup poll on the issue, conducted in May 2008, that found 44% believe God created human beings within the past 10,000 years.
For more information go to Discovery Institute and Creation Museum websites.
[HT: reader Travis M.; graphic courtesy of Science magazine]
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
Personally I dont have an issue with evolution one way or the other, but Ive always had a very hard time understanding how evolution is logical. Ive never had anyone explain, through logic, how complex sensory organs devloped from random mutations. Never made sense to me, unless we are to accept that a mutation could be so radical as to produce not only a functioning eye spot powerful enough to provide a distinct advantage, but to also produce a nerve infrastructure capable of reacting and processing this new input properly enough to take advantage of this powerful eye spot. Thats too much for me to accept.
“Darwin’s Deadly Legacy” was written by D james Kennedy. Covers the Darwin mess.
“From Darwin to Hitler”
another great book.
I don’t understand it either, Oliver, but I just chalk it up to God working in mysterious ways. I’m not a scientist so I don’t understand — like actually understand, not just vaguely see the reasoning behind — how The Office appears on my television screen every Thursday night. I’m not an expert in most things, which is why I rely on expert opinions and the general consensus of people smarter than myself, in most areas of study. I often use my intellect to decide who to believe just about as much as I use it to decide what to believe.
Also, I’m assuming it’s useless to note yet again that ‘theory’ in scientific terms is completely different from ‘theory’ as used in general English conversation. So underlining the word doesn’t really make a strong point. It’s like if I went and underlined every instance of the word “pain” in a French cookbook and was like, “See? French food will give you stomach pains,” completely ignoring the fact that ‘pain’ means bread in French.
Alexandra: “I don’t understand it either, Oliver, but I just chalk it up to God working in mysterious ways. I’m not a scientist so I don’t understand — like actually understand, not just vaguely see the reasoning behind — how The Office appears on my television screen every Thursday night.”
Heres the difference – have you ever asked a scientist? I have, many times and not one has been able to explain.
Heres another difference – evolution is based solely on reasoning, so reason should justify it.
You could wikipedia how the TV works by the way. Try wikipedia for how the eye could reasonably develop given the premise of how evolution works.
Sometimes we imagine that scientists and doctors and lawyers have some sort of magical experience. Do you know what a scientist is? Just a normal person who went to school for a few more years and does research for a living. Their conclusions are based on the same reasoning faculties that we all possess. Be careful what you blindly accept about the world.
Not believing in evolution is like not believing in gravity. You don’t have to believe in it. It just IS.
Evolution is why vaccines work. It is why bacteria become resistant to antibiotics. It is why we can genetically modify food. Evolution is a fact of life.
And if your faith can not withstand reality, it isn’t much of a faith, is it? Honestly, billions of Christians around the world accept the reality of evolution. It is not in any way incompatible with belief in God.
Reality: “Not believing in evolution is like not believing in gravity. You don’t have to believe in it. It just IS.
Evolution is why vaccines work. It is why bacteria become resistant to antibiotics. It is why we can genetically modify food. Evolution is a fact of life.
And if your faith can not withstand reality, it isn’t much of a faith, is it? Honestly, billions of Christians around the world accept the reality of evolution. It is not in any way incompatible with belief in God.”
Oh well that changes everything! I didnt know evolution just IS. Thanks for clearing that up. I guess Ill blindly believe it even though it logically makes no sense regardless of what religion you believe. Awesome!
Thanks Oliver, you just stated what I thought after reading Reality’s utterly ridiculous post. Does the elevator go to the top for someone who gives this as so-called “reasons why I believe in evolution”. “It just IS” ??? Duh? I thought I was getting ready to read an explaination on unlocking the mysteries of the universe. And they say we Christian’s believe with blind faith…
Evolution is why vaccines work. It is why bacteria become resistant to antibiotics. It is why we can genetically modify food. Evolution is a fact of life.
****************************************
That’d be MICROevolution. Back in the day, it used to be called “adaptation.” Everyone accepts this.
It’s MACROevolution that is the issue here.
You have to understand that the pro-choice side of the argument has learned through experience to believe things without actually logically understanding or supporting them.
“Personally I dont have an issue with evolution one way or the other, but Ive always had a very hard time understanding how evolution is logical.”
Not to start a fight, but I”m not sure how “logical” the alternative theory is either.
Not to start a fight, but I”m not sure how “logical” the alternative theory is either.
Posted by: Hal at February 13, 2009 2:03 PM
****************************************
So, Hal, are you saying that accepting either is really more a matter of faith?
Evolution is why vaccines work? That’d be MICROevolution? Let’s start with “evolution is why vaccines work” posted by reality at February 13, 2009. reality, would you be so kind as to give a brief explanation. The body’s ability within the immune system to create antibodies in response to the pathogen of the vaccine is not that tuff to explain but how does that have anything to do with evolution? Please explain.
Travis, I mentioned microevolution. I should have clarified that I was referring to reality’s bacteria comment, as the fact that living things adapt is often mentioned as “evidence of evolution.” Apologies.
Kel,
I do not believe that accepting the theory of evolution is a matter of faith. Quite the opposite. The theory of evolution is based on the scientific method, which involves proposing a testable hypothesis and then testing it against physical evidence. And then subjecting your findings to rigorous review by your scientific peers, who are all trained to be skeptical.
This is quite different than believing something because it says so in an ancient book.
The other problem is that what is said in the Bible about creation isn’t even susceptible to the scientific method. Nothing in the Bible even purports to explain the physical process by which God allegedly brought us into being. The intelligent design folks do not provide any theory as to this physical process either.
I do not believe that accepting the theory of evolution is a matter of faith. Quite the opposite. The theory of evolution is based on the scientific method, which involves proposing a testable hypothesis and then testing it against physical evidence. And then subjecting your findings to rigorous review by your scientific peers, who are all trained to be skeptical.
*******************************************
Really? So there is physical evidence that proves macroevolution? You’d think that if there were unquestionable evidence, more than 4 out of 10 people would believe it. Just like gravity, eh?
This is quite different than believing something because it says so in an ancient book.
******************************************
Yes, an “ancient book” which has actual anthropological and archaeological evidence to support it. But maybe the first three chapters of Genesis are just “mistakes.”
The other problem is that what is said in the Bible about creation isn’t even susceptible to the scientific method. Nothing in the Bible even purports to explain the physical process by which God allegedly brought us into being. The intelligent design folks do not provide any theory as to this physical process either.
Posted by: Prochoicer at February 13, 2009 2:43 PM
*********************************************
I think the theory of evolution has a lot of dogma, just like a religion. But I guess when one has to believe something to support one’s worldview, it’s difficult to see it that way.
By the way, I recently read that Darwin’s “tree” isn’t quite right, after all. Evolutionists are feverishly trying to restructure it because they’re finding he was wrong about a lot of things. Interesting article…I wish I had bookmarked it. :(
Oy vey Kel. I don’t have time to go argue the fossil record, blah, blah, blah, with you. I think PZ Meyers answered the issue of “evidence for evolution” quite nicely:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/06/ann_coulter_no_evidence_for_ev.php
To answer the more interesting issue you raise: I fail to see how evidence substantiating some aspects of the Bible would establish other aspects of the Bible. I have no doubt whatsoever that Jesus was a real person, that other characters in the Bible were real people, and that some of the Bible describes real events. But that doesn’t establish that the Creation story in Genesis is true or accurate.
These kinds of arguments demonstrate why the Bible is a matter of faith in ways that a supported scientific theory is not. No scientist would ever say, “We have proven parts that parts of Darwin’s books were correct and therefore the rest of it must be reiable too.”
You are also dead wrong when you say I need to believe in the theory of evolution to support my worldview. I actually don’t really have an investment in proving the theory (though I am certainly convinced of it). What I REALLY care about is the scientific method, the notion of basing one’s conclusions on evidence. What really bothers me about the intelligent design folks isn’t the notion of an intelligent designer (that would actually be really cool) but their assault on science as a methodology — or any evidence-based way of investigating an issue.
Oliver,
With the caveat that I am not myself a scientist, I will respond to your first comment that it is “illogical” to believe that complex life could have come about by means of mutations and natural selection.
What you really mean is that it seems counter-intuitive. But just because something seems counter-intuitive doesn’t mean that it is wrong. It is silly to say, “That doesn’t doesn’t make any sense to me,” and then ignoring everything that would contradict your a priori belief in what does or does not make sense.
In answer to your question as to how evolution can produce complexity, I will quote the following brief explanation for laypeople:
In the process of natural selection, individuals in a population who are well-adapted to a particular set of environmental conditions have an advantage over those who are not so well adapted. These individuals pass their genes and advantageous traits to their offspring, giving the offspring the same advantages. Generation after generation, natural selection acts upon each structure within an organ like the eye, producing incremental improvements in the process. Each tiny change in a structure is dependent upon changes in all the other structures. In this way, individual parts of a system evolve in unison to be both structurally and functionally compatible. Eventually, over thousands and sometimes millions of years, the small improvements add up — the simple, systematic process has produced an almost unfathomably complex organ. Recently, scientists have found clues to the evolutionary pasts of some of the most complex organs, helping to clarify how this process works.
This quotation is from the following link, which contains a link to a longer essay on the subject:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/faq/cat05.html#Q02
Sorry, but arguing the fossil record would prove absolutely pointless, since there are no transitional forms found, and the scientific community at large seems to need to continue inventing new “theories” to explain their assumption that evolution is true.
That’s nice that you believe in “some” aspects of the Bible. Maybe if you gave God a chance, He would prove Himself to you in ways that have everything to do with the heart and condition of man, which science can in no way explain. (However, the Bible can…in the first three chapters of Genesis.) I hope that one day you will.
And “oy vey,” I don’t NEED you to debate the fossil record and evolution with me. I stated my beliefs and I know more than I need to know about macroevolution to know that it is not scientifically provable. I’ve talked to more than one evolutionist here who has told me over and over, “well, it LOGICALLY follows that given enough TIME and mutations, that a species would change into another, duh!” Really? Does it? I don’t think so.
I’m done discussing this, because it always goes the same way. The “people of science” deride the “people of faith” over and over, and it’s nauseating. We’re not going to change each other’s viewpoints.
Have a good evening.
Oliver,
I would also note that I think it is wrong to assume that complexity can only arise from sudden “radical” mutations. There is no reason complexity cannot develop slowly from small mutations over a long amount of time, assuming each small mutation provides some value. For example, being able to perceive light versus darkness will help an animal survive; improvements in perception can occur from their. (The specific example of the eye is used in the essay within the link of my last comment)
You’d think that if there were unquestionable evidence, more than 4 out of 10 people would believe it
Quite a bit more than 4 in 10 do believe it, in most of the industrialized world.
“Never made sense to me, unless we are to accept that a mutation could be so radical as to produce not only a functioning eye spot powerful enough to provide a distinct advantage, but to also produce a nerve infrastructure capable of reacting and processing this new input properly enough to take advantage of this powerful eye spot. Thats too much for me to accept.”
It might help to look at species with more primitive nervous systems- jellyfish simply have a “nerve net”; Flatworms have nerve cords and a ‘brain’ but no recognizable peripheral nervous system. You can see ganglia in earthworms. In fish you can see a recognizable cerebrum. In birds, you can see a version of a cerebellum. Scientists don’t know all the answers, but evolution is not a philosophy you deduct by logic. It is a process that is observable in almost every scientific field to date and the theory is the time-tested model that explains the patterns we see in nature. No other model has stood up to such scrutiny that evolution has.
The main basis we test drugs and do other medical experiments on animals is the fact that we are related by common history and share quite a few characteristics. Otherwise, we would have no scientific basis in doing so.
Jill, I find it very hard to believe that darwin is to blame for abortion. Sorry to say, but abortions were accepted and being performed long before Darwin said “hey look! Birds adapt to their environment!”
Thomas Malthus sounds like a MALE Margaret Sanger. She hated the poor, too. Considered them unfit to procreate.
Everyone else may have “evolved” but I was created as a unique individual
Sometimes we imagine that scientists and doctors and lawyers have some sort of magical experience. Do you know what a scientist is? Just a normal person who went to school for a few more years and does research for a living. Their conclusions are based on the same reasoning faculties that we all possess. Be careful what you blindly accept about the world.
I don’ think that doctors, lawyers, or scientists have any sort of magical experience. They do (well, doctors and scientists do, at least) have years of study in fields in which I am not naturally inclined to excel. I don’t blindly accept too many things, but I do appreciate your concern.
Kel, I got what ya mean on the micro comment. Ok, but reality hasn’t gotten back on the vaccine thing yet, O’well – that’s understandable since even a rock ribbed evolutionist would not use vaccines to support their faith, at least I doubt it. But I’d still like to hear the explanation. That vaccine comment is like saying, “werewolves make full moons scary.” Asking someone to explain what they mean by that, they’d have to start with, “I believe in werewolves.” This is what evolutionists always do, they start with “I believe, I have faith in evolution” but they never, or seldom, admit it; they deny or leave that part out. By the way creationists do the same thing from their worldview perspective, “I believe, I have faith in creation.” Then everyone interprets the data, the information from their faith based view point. There is no evidence of evolution or creation, other than how our faith interprets what we observe in nature, past and present. This really bothers the evolutionists. Is that because evolution is their God and creation is only a work the creationists God performed? I don’t know. Regarding the theory of evolution, there are only two possibilities I can think of, scientifically speaking that is, 1) you were there and recorded your work observing evolution as it happened using the scientific method, (no one makes this claim, that I know of, not yet) 2) you can observe evolution today and record your work and observation using the scientific method. No one has done this either. Regarding fossils, geology, etc, both creationist and evolutionist interpret what they find and see from their respective worldview. Most evolutionist hide from this, yet they know it’s true. Some prominent evolutionists have privately hinted at this over the years, and a few have even publicly made comments inferring such. But they like to stay away from it as much as possible. I can understand their reasons.
Oops– sorry I forgot the no profanity rule. Feel free to dot hat.
“”only 4 in 10 believe in the evolutionary theory.”
And we wonder why kids get terrible educations.”
Last time we had this whole hullabaloo about there being absolutely no evidence supporting transitions or whatever, I brought up the fishapod. http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1181611,00.html I don’t think anyone explained to me why that doesn’t count; would someone please give me an idea?
As I said, I’m really not scientifically inclined, so all I read is a general overview of such topics, things can be found in most mainstream news and science periodicals.
“Oops– sorry I forgot the no profanity rule. Feel free to dot hat.”
OK… but ONLY because you asked nicely :)
I’m done discussing this, because it always goes the same way. The “people of science” deride the “people of faith” over and over, and it’s nauseating. We’re not going to change each other’s viewpoints.
Have a good evening.
Posted by: Kel at February 13, 2009 3:45 PM
YES Kel, but what is interesting is that those who deride people of faith do so with a great deal of hatred, which makes discussion virtually impossible. Very sad indeed.
Kel, it never ends up that it is always “US” vs. “YOU.” What happens is, you make a ridiculous claim like “there are no transitional fossils” and when we give you ample evidence to the contrary you completely ignore it. That tends to give one a feeling of frustration, you know?
Alexandra, here’s another one that Rae linked to us at 2secondsfaster:
http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0004366
More transitional fossils:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fuVDB1Zxuc8&feature=channel_page
Thank you, PIP. I would really like to hear from other people on that because I remember having all of these examples come up before and yet I don’t remember hearing any explanation as to why these don’t count as transitional fossils. It is SO annoying to be accused of not listening to the ‘other side’ when I’m freaking trying to listen but no one’s answering the questions I’m asking.
Pip, my question is how do we know this creature is a transitional fossil and not just some bizzare ancient platypus like creature?
Alexandra, I feel your frustration! Mostly, the way they contradict that evidence is that they say that they “see it differently” but I’ve never heard any further reasoning than that. If you need any more transitional fossils or resources, I can help locate some for you.
I personally think that there is a monumental difference between accepting the idea of the mechanism of the “survival of the fittest” and the idea of “believing in evolution”. The former is simply the recognition that the fittest of the individuals of most species do survive and reproduce more rapidly than those less fit. That’s just common sense. “Believing in evolution” is more like adopting a religion, and having confidence that your religion accounts for all known facts. Evolutionary theory does not do the latter.
Lauren, sometimes if the first parts of scientific papers are hard to understand, the conclusions sum up their findings in an easier-to-understand way:
“Maiacetus differs in size and proportions from younger, more derived basilosaurids such as Dorudon atrox (Figures 1, 12, 13), but it is close in size and similar in proportions to a composite skeleton of Rodhocetus balochistanensis/kasranii (Figure 13). Maiacetus retains many characteristics of its terrestrial forebears, including shearing cheek teeth with protocones on upper molars, a vertebral formula very close to that of primitive artiodactyls, a forelimb retaining mobile digits, a pelvis and hindlimb anchored on the vertebral column; and a double-pulley astragalus within the ankle. The feet of Maiacetus are not as elongated as those of Rodhocetus, indicating that Maiacetus may have been a slightly less specialized foot-powered swimmer (Figure 13).
Preservation of an intact near-term fetal skull and partial skeleton indicates that birth in early archaeocetes involved a single calf that was born head-first as in land mammals, not tail-first as in living whales. This, in turn, indicates that birth almost certainly took place on land during this phase of early whale evolution. The presence of partially mineralized permanent first molars in the fetal skull indicates precocial development, which may have been a key life history trait in early whales facilitating the transition from land to sea. Sexual dimorphism in body and canine size are moderate, suggesting limited competition among males for mates.”
Does that help?
Prochoicer, I took you advice to Kel and looked up the blog. My God, man, get a grip. Ol’ PZ Meyrs, spends half a frickin’ day listing thousands upon thousands of publications as “proof of evolution.” What a crock of crap. Finally by sundown he actually lists two, “proof texts” you can review. I chose, “the evolution of polyphenism.” After studying the text I found, once again, the same leap of faith in this experiment which evolutionist often make. It always boils down to two or three tried and true faith statements which they usually try to hide. But to PZ’s credit, and I hope honesty, but I think he simply overlooked it in his excitement, he makes the statement, “the control elements aren’t novel introductions, they’re already there!” Imagine that, PZ! The genome is actively responsive to environmental changes and has the hardware and software already on board to deal with these perturbations. In other words, the intelligence is already there that allows existing highly organized structures, processes and systems to respond to changes in environment. The regulatory switches are being reset by the molecular machinery of the genome. Nothing is evolving and no new information is added to the genome. It is simply doing what it is designed to do. Now the question is really this: where did the existing information come from? You can be sure Ol’ PZ has a faithful answer for that!
That’d be MICROevolution. Back in the day, it used to be called “adaptation.” Everyone accepts this.
It’s MACROevolution that is the issue here.
Thanks for raising one of the big creationist canards, Kel. The problem with your word game is that in biology, the only difference between the two is the amount of time and quantity of mutations involved. The mechanism is exactly the same. So if you truly understand and accept the idea of “microevolution” as you say, then you have no grounds to reject “macroevolution.”
PiP:” It might help to look at species with more primitive nervous systems- jellyfish simply have a “nerve net”; Flatworms have nerve cords and a ‘brain’ but no recognizable peripheral nervous system. You can see ganglia in earthworms. In fish you can see a recognizable cerebrum. In birds, you can see a version of a cerebellum.”
I understand the basis of evolution. I was interested in it when I was 5 years old, and considering that both of my parents accept evolution, Ive had some interesting debates in my household over this many times. Evolution certainly “seems” to explain easily why there is a progression of organ development across various species. That does not explain, however, the disconnect between the very first creature to mutate the very first eye spot and the ability for the eye spot to provide a distinct advantage. Dont forget that at its source, evolution is a specific creature event. One little flat worm developed an eye spot one day and supposedly it provided benefits enough that the worm not only survived, but the worm’s offspring survived as well. This does not make sense.
PiP: “Scientists don’t know all the answers, but evolution is not a philosophy you deduct by logic.”
I think you forget that Darwin was a philosopher, and that he logically deduced evolution. He saw animals with diversified beaks and it “seemed” to him that they evolved into those niches. It is the definition of deducing a causal factor from a clear correlation.
PiP: “It is a process that is observable in almost every scientific field to date and the theory is the time-tested model that explains the patterns we see in nature. No other model has stood up to such scrutiny that evolution has.
The main basis we test drugs and do other medical experiments on animals is the fact that we are related by common history and share quite a few characteristics. Otherwise, we would have no scientific basis in doing so.”
Simply because there is no other known testable model, does not mean that there is no other model period.
Aliens could have genetically engineered every creature on the earth and periodically altered the creatures from age to age.
I get that the animals in the past look slightly different than the ones today based on the fossil record and I get that we can look at the animals currently running around and see similarities and differences based on niches. I am not refuting the observable fact of life that there is a pattern. What I am questioning is that it necessarily comes from mutation and natural selection alone. There is no refutable evidence that establishes how a creature could evolve eyes from nothing. You can say that it happens and say “well look….it really seems to make sense,” but there is no evidence that could explain how one mutation in one baby flatworm could provide a distint enough avantage against the chaos of blind nature to give that worm and its subsequent babies a leg up so that they reproduced more frequently.
Pro-choicer: “I would also note that I think it is wrong to assume that complexity can only arise from sudden “radical” mutations. There is no reason complexity cannot develop slowly from small mutations over a long amount of time, assuming each small mutation provides some value. For example, being able to perceive light versus darkness will help an animal survive; improvements in perception can occur from their. (The specific example of the eye is used in the essay within the link of my last comment)”
There need be a radical mutation to evolve an effective eye from nothing. Ive seen that article before and it does nothing to explain how one worm could gain the benefit from an eyespot. I want a hypothetical explanation right down to what specifical at the chemical level could have generated from a mutation of the DNA. I think that if you really examined the complexity required for a creature to develop an eye and the nervous infrastructure to effectly use that eye and not be distracted by the excess useless information you would that a shocking mutation would be required.
By the way, evolution is what seems intuitive, not counter-intuitive. Bucking evolution is contrary to the intuition if anything. Evolution is obvious.
“That does not explain, however, the disconnect between the very first creature to mutate the very first eye spot and the ability for the eye spot to provide a distinct advantage.”
Why wouldn’t the recognition of light provide a distinct advantage? If we evolved a structure that helped us hear at a different wavelength, don’t you think that it might have given us a distinct advantage?
“He saw animals with diversified beaks and it “seemed” to him that they evolved into those niches. It is the definition of deducing a causal factor from a clear correlation.”
But he did that from a clear pattern of carefully collected data. He didn’t just see different birds and go aha! I know exactly how this happened! He spent quite a bit of time gathering the evidence necessary. And evolution as Darwin knew it was a bit different than how we see it today, although the basic mechanistic ideas are the same..
“Simply because there is no other known testable model, does not mean that there is no other model period.”
If there is another known testable model or one that was discovered that overthrew evolution that would be amazing, because it would have to have an explanation that contradicted a HUGE body of evidence. It would be awesome. Hasn’t happened yet. Unless I’m understanding you wrong. Are you saying that there is a model, but it is not testable? In which case, it could not serve as a scientific model.
“Aliens could have genetically engineered every creature on the earth and periodically altered the creatures from age to age.”
Whoops, I typed before I read. So you think that there “could” have been some sort of intervention, but there is no evidence for this, nor is there a legitimate way to test this without finding an alien. So, you might consider that as a philosophical possibility but that doesn’t hold any bearing about the theory of evolution and its ability to explain the data we are discovering on a daily basis. Really, without it, none of the stuff we study in biology would make sense. We would just have data and fossils and go “hmph. Well that’s cool.” But there would be no connective thread.
“but there is no evidence that could explain how one mutation in one baby flatworm could provide a distint enough avantage against the chaos of blind nature to give that worm and its subsequent babies a leg up so that they reproduced more frequently.”
Well, populations evolve, not individuals. But, I will do a database search for you tonight about eyespots and get back to you.
Ray: “The mechanism is exactly the same. So if you truly understand and accept the idea of “microevolution” as you say, then you have no grounds to reject “macroevolution.””
Whoa, slow down there pal. The difference between macroevolution and microevolution is also the quality of the mutation. For example, micro-evolution takes to explain why a men tend to increase in heighth as time goes on. It works with minor mutations that are refinements to already existing characterisitcs. In other words, microevolution works to explain evolution within an already established genetic context. Macroevolution attempts to explain how senses generate from nothing for example. In other words, macroevolution attempts to explain evolution with zero genetic context. Big, big difference.
Ray, “The mechanism is exactly the same?” There are many examples of mutation resulting in a loss of useable information to the DNA stand, i.e. muscular dystrophy, hemophilia, progeria, etc. Please give an example of mutation adding useable information to the DNA stand resulting in a new beneficial function. Thanks.
Oliver, to narrow down my search, is there an organism you have in mind regarding the “eyespots”? Are you talking about algae that have photsensitive eyespots or more advanced species like flatworms?
“Please give an example of mutation adding useable information to the DNA stand resulting in a new beneficial function. Thanks.”
Pseudomonas Aeruginosa can both receive and ‘donate’ plasmids with other bacteria that code for resistance to antimicrobials.
You are just as capable as researching your demand as I am, Travis. So have at it and let us all know what you find.
“Please give an example of mutation adding useable information to the DNA stand resulting in a new beneficial function. Thanks.”
@Travis: A 20 year experiment with Escherichia coli involved mutations that lead to E. coli being able to eat citrate- E. coli can’t eat citrate otherwise. In fact- they may be able to call that citrate-eating bacteria a new species- no longer E. coli.
http://www.pnas.org/content/105/23/7899
PiP: “Why wouldn’t the recognition of light provide a distinct advantage?”
My question, is why would it? Imagine a little worm sitting in the water and it can vaguely tell if there is light shining on it or not. What is that going to really do in the face of a predator worm? If it sees light, will it know which direction to run? Or really, if it sees light, how will it even know what to do with that information in the first place? Is light bad or good? You see, the eyespot would be useless, (even if you accept a large mutation from zero eye spot to some eye spot,) without an infrastructure with which to interpret the information coming from the eyespot.
PiP: “If we evolved a structure that helped us hear at a different wavelength, don’t you think that it might have given us a distinct advantage?”
Actually no. How on earth would it or could it? I could hear god whistles? I mean anything is possible, but I wouldnt see how logically I could deduce that a higher frequency would be distinctly beneficial to me. Remember that evolution works not on what is beneficial, but on what helps you survive more and therefore produce more offspring.
PiP: “But he did that from a clear pattern of carefully collected data. He didn’t just see different birds and go aha! I know exactly how this happened! He spent quite a bit of time gathering the evidence necessary. And evolution as Darwin knew it was a bit different than how we see it today, although the basic mechanistic ideas are the same..”
Surely, but he didnt test his theory in a lab. He made the deduction based on observation using the same thinking faculties that you and I possess. So dont tell me that evolution is removed from philosophical deduction.
PiP: “If there is another known testable model or one that was discovered that overthrew evolution that would be amazing, because it would have to have an explanation that contradicted a HUGE body of evidence. It would be awesome. Hasn’t happened yet. Unless I’m understanding you wrong. Are you saying that there is a model, but it is not testable? In which case, it could not serve as a scientific model.”
We cannot know of what does not exist was my point. There could be another model that has not be discovered which better explains the information. Alternatively, we could have a model that is not scientific to begin with. Aliens or God could have created the world chaotically and we artificially try to explain it through science.
PiP: “Whoops, I typed before I read. So you think that there “could” have been some sort of intervention, but there is no evidence for this, nor is there a legitimate way to test this without finding an alien. So, you might consider that as a philosophical possibility but that doesn’t hold any bearing about the theory of evolution and its ability to explain the data we are discovering on a daily basis. Really, without it, none of the stuff we study in biology would make sense. We would just have data and fossils and go “hmph. Well that’s cool.” But there would be no connective thread.”
This right here is the problem with scientists. You forget why we created science in the first place. It was to better explain what is happening in the world. You have confused the roles. You want to assert that everything has an explanation based on today’s science, or alternatively it does not exist. In other words, even if evolution is logically unsound and commits clear flaws, because the alternative is currently not testable, we should simply take evolution to be true. Think how effective science would have been 4000 years ago if this was our use of science. Can you imagine someone trying to argue that, on philosophical grounds, it seems the most logical that all things are made up of smaller parts…so small that you cannot even see them with the naked eye. The response would have been “Well we cant test that, so obviously there is another explanation. For science!”
PiP: “Well, populations evolve, not individuals. But, I will do a database search for you tonight about eyespots and get back to you.”
No, individuals evolve first. Do you think 1000 flatworms randomly mutate the same exact eyespot mutation? Hell no. It had to start with on little worm fighting for survival. It had to start with a distinct benefit for that one worm, so that the one worm could then multiply into a population. From that point, Im on board. Once there is a clear advantage and a large minority have that advantage, I could see the first wave of adaptation occuring. What bugs me is that very first worm and his children. What about the eye spot could give him an advantage, and how would that worm know what to do with that new vague information, enough at least to provide a distinct advantage over the other worms?
PiP: “Oliver, to narrow down my search, is there an organism you have in mind regarding the “eyespots”? Are you talking about algae that have photsensitive eyespots or more advanced species like flatworms?”
Im thinking of flatworms, but it really doesnt matter. What I want to see is how this mutation could occur chemically and how that species would know how to intepret this benefit to their advantage. Make sure that the suggested evolution comes from a species that had no form of light interpretation to begin with.
Rae,
See thats an evolution that I could understand. The bacteria in question could now find more food sources. Thats a specific benefit. And Im sure the chemical alteration was relatively minor…the changing of a few enzymes or so.
@Oliver: Are you familiar with Chlamyomonas reinhardtii? They are a photosynthetic alga that has an eyespot in order to control how much light they are getting. They use their eyespot to detect light levels so that they can swim towards light when they aren’t getting enough and they can swim away from light if they are getting too much.
Rats! I misspelled “Chlamydomonas reinhardtii”.
“And Im sure the chemical alteration was relatively minor…the changing of a few enzymes or so.”
Sure- but even a minor change in genotype can vastly alter phenotype (RE: sickle cell anemia- it’s the difference of ONE amino acid that leads to a major change in phenotype).
Rae,
Sure, but how did that evolve chemcially, and how did the first algae “know” what to do with this information?
Rae,
The generation of entirely new cells that can effectively intepret photons seems to be a bit more of a mutation. Maybe I am incorrect in that regard, which is partly why I am asking how this could occur chemically.
Also, keep in mind, I am not claiming that there is no benefit to an eyespot. I disbelieve, currently, that an eye spot could evolve from no eye spot to produce a clear enough of an advantage to an individual creature along with the capablity to use this advantage.
Oliver, I think you’re looking at this from a “human” point of view- you can’t do that.
However, there has to be a signaling system from the eyespot to the flagella in order to move the alga. My hypothesis is that at first the signaling system would lead to random movement, and the ones that randomly moved further away from the light when it was very intense would survive where as the ones that swam even closer to intense light would die out.
So it’s not a matter of “knowing” what’s going on, but a matter of random movement being fine-tuned to not be so random- if that makes any sense.
” If it sees light, will it know which direction to run? Or really, if it sees light, how will it even know what to do with that information in the first place? Is light bad or good? You see, the eyespot would be useless, (even if you accept a large mutation from zero eye spot to some eye spot,) without an infrastructure with which to interpret the information coming from the eyespot.”
You are so wrong. Many low-level algae use eyespots to stimulate movement in response to the direction and intensity of light. Light also has lots of energy, and being able to harness it and use it to send signals. Here, I did find this abstract for you:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19107486
“Actually no. How on earth would it or could it?”
I’d say the detection of predators might help. Imagine having the hearing or the sense of smell that dogs have. You can’t even imagine that it would prove advantages in the wild…..?
“We cannot know of what does not exist was my point.”
Well we never know anything of certainty..
“There could be another model that has not be discovered which better explains the information.”
Yes, and when we find it, we find it. Noone ever claimed evolution was the be-all end-all of everything.
“Alternatively, we could have a model that is not scientific to begin with Aliens or God could have created the world chaotically and we artificially try to explain it through science.”
Yeah, but what’s the point then in trying to push nonscientific ideas into the science classroom, or pushing a well-established theory out of the science classroom because there ‘could’ be other evidence? When that happens, we’ll teach it too. If it ‘could’ have been God, why not discuss it in the religion/philosophy class, where it belongs? I don’t have a problem with you guys saying you think evolution is a crock (I obviously disagree), but at least admit that the proposed alternatives are not scientific.
“You forget why we created science in the first place. It was to better explain what is happening in the world. ”
Yes, and HOW it happens. If you have no mechanism for the how, all you have is descriptions. Like “look, the solution turns pink when I add HCl” is describing what is happening, but it is not explaining it in a meaningful way.
“You want to assert that everything has an explanation based on today’s science, or alternatively it does not exist.”
Nope, never wanted to assert that. Only that if another does exist, we haven’t discovered it yet, and this is the best we got.
“In other words, even if evolution is logically unsound and commits clear flaws, because the alternative is currently not testable, we should simply take evolution to be true.”
Well I don’t consider evolution logically unsound, first of all. The alternative is not testable- that means its not scientific. For all we know, it’s none of the above. But for now, evolution is a pretty brilliant explanation. If you believe God poofed people into existance, or an alien created us, that is cool, everyone is entitled to those beliefs, but don’t try to make it science, is all I”m saying.
“The response would have been “Well we cant test that, so obviously there is another explanation. For science!””
Actually something like that is pretty testable. Pasteur’s experiments were pretty cool. If you can think of a hypothetical way to test us being created by an alien…
“It had to start with on little worm fighting for survival. ”
No, not really. When we study populations evolve, it is usually in adaptation to a variable in the environment. Evolution ACTS on individuals; but populations evolve.
“It had to start with a distinct benefit for that one worm, so that the one worm could then multiply into a population.”
Not in all instances, it didn’t “have to start with one worm”. Sometimes, I’m sure. Usually when it comes to novel characteristics in populations, it happens on more than one individual.
@Oliver: I just want to thank you for your civility in this discussion and for being receptive to what I’m saying, but also making me back up my assertions. I appreciate it. ^_^
Rae:
If the response is random, what would be passed on? Random movement in response to the light. You would have to argue that some algae would also have an evolved response to the input to go away, and some would have an evolved response to go towards, and some would have an evolved response to find the middle ground. This mutation would have to occur in tandem with the eyespot mutation. Already the mutation required to justify the eye is getting to be a bit much, now what about the chemical structures of all these mutations?
“So it’s not a matter of “knowing” what’s going on, but a matter of random movement being fine-tuned to not be so random- if that makes any sense.”
Great explanation Rae- sometimes I have problem reading people’s intentions :/
First Rae and John L and now Rae and Oliver??? Ohhhh, it must be Valentine’s day!
PiP: “You are so wrong. Many low-level algae use eyespots to stimulate movement in response to the direction and intensity of light. Light also has lots of energy, and being able to harness it and use it to send signals. Here, I did find this abstract for you:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19107486“
Sure, but we arent talking about what currently exists. We are talking about what evolved from nothing. The first algae to develop an eye spot had to interpret that spot in some fashion that was beneficial.
Although this is not exactly analogous, take a hypothetical example. Lets say that you suddenly develop the ability to detect subtle sensations emitting from other humans brains. You would not really know what these sensations meant, and/or how to react to them. Do they mean that the person is mad? happy? in danger? wanting to mate? The point is that even if we can accept that this complex of a chemical structure could develop at random and be effective enough to provide a clear advantage (which honestly clearly makes sense in the case of algae, but not as much in the case of flatworms), even if we accept all that, there has to be some infrastructure for the species in question to identify the input from the spot and react in an advantagous way to its survival.
PiP: “I’d say the detection of predators might help. Imagine having the hearing or the sense of smell that dogs have. You can’t even imagine that it would prove advantages in the wild…..?”
If we were in the wild, which is what I took you to mean in the first place, how would a slightly increased sensory to sound provide a DISTINCT advantage? Are you suggesting that there are certain predators that would only release a certain kind of sound that would normally be undetectable? And if there was such a sound, Im not so sure that I would be able to interpret it properly with no instinctual basis. Besides, Im not concerned with the refinement of a sense, but the addition of an entirely new sense from nothing.
PiP: “Well we never know anything of certainty..”
Then lets stop acting like we do. If someone says that God created the world, you should respond with “well it seems most likely to actually be through the process of evolution, but since we cannot technically rule God out and we cannot technically fully assert evolution, you may have a point there.”
PiP: “Yes, and when we find it, we find it. Noone ever claimed evolution was the be-all end-all of everything.”
Check back on Realities post earlier there PiP.
Apparently evolution just IS, like gravity.
PiP: “Yeah, but what’s the point then in trying to push nonscientific ideas into the science classroom, or pushing a well-established theory out of the science classroom because there ‘could’ be other evidence? When that happens, we’ll teach it too. If it ‘could’ have been God, why not discuss it in the religion/philosophy class, where it belongs? I don’t have a problem with you guys saying you think evolution is a crock (I obviously disagree), but at least admit that the proposed alternatives are not scientific.”
When did I say that evolution should be pushed out of the classroom or that religious explanations should be put in? Im fine with the course structure, although I would appreciate it if the teachers would explain that the idea of evolution is what currently seems most reasonable, and allow for logical critiques.
Personally, Stephen Hawking put it best in his pop-science novel “A Brief History of Time.”
And I paraphrase….
“From what we can deduce about the universe, it must be the case that there was a big bang, or at the very least, God created the universe to LOOK like there was a big bang, although I dont know why He would do that.”
PiP: “Yes, and HOW it happens. If you have no mechanism for the how, all you have is descriptions. Like “look, the solution turns pink when I add HCl” is describing what is happening, but it is not explaining it in a meaningful way.”
Sure, but if we cannot explain how, it does not mean that there is no how.
PiP: “Nope, never wanted to assert that. Only that if another does exist, we haven’t discovered it yet, and this is the best we got.”
You claimed that if the theory is not scientific, then it does not debunk evolution. That is confusing the relationship between observations and science.
PiP: “Well I don’t consider evolution logically unsound, first of all. The alternative is not testable- that means its not scientific. For all we know, it’s none of the above. But for now, evolution is a pretty brilliant explanation. If you believe God poofed people into existance, or an alien created us, that is cool, everyone is entitled to those beliefs, but don’t try to make it science, is all I”m saying.”
I personally dont know what I believe, I just know that I have yet to see a reasonable explanation of evolution at the early stages. If that explanation is not scientific however, it would still debunk evolution. You seem to act as if you can believe a scientific explanation and a contrary non-scientific explanation. Theoretically speaking, a phenomenon can be explained by a non-scientific explanation that ends the debate.
PiP: “Actually something like that is pretty testable. Pasteur’s experiments were pretty cool. If you can think of a hypothetical way to test us being created by an alien…”
And if not, would it mean that even if we knew it be true that we could keep testing a scientific theory that we knew not to be true?
PiP: “No, not really. When we study populations evolve, it is usually in adaptation to a variable in the environment. Evolution ACTS on individuals; but populations evolve. ”
Now explain that to me. Are you saying that the genetic code of the creatures is altered by an outside environment, in the sense that maybe radiation would affect the DNA? Im not sure what you mean by that.
PiP: “Not in all instances, it didn’t “have to start with one worm”. Sometimes, I’m sure. Usually when it comes to novel characteristics in populations, it happens on more than one individual.”
Yes maybe, but the evolution process is still carried on by those individual worms or whatever. If they do not, as individuals, find a distinct advantage, then there is no logical reason for their attributes to be favored and passed on to several future generations.
Rae: “I just want to thank you for your civility in this discussion and for being receptive to what I’m saying, but also making me back up my assertions. I appreciate it. ^_^”
I have no problem debating with someone who is trying to have a logical discussion. Dont misunderstand it and take me for a softy though.
“If the response is random, what would be passed on? Random movement in response to the light.”
Yes, it’ll be random movement, but it’ll still have a net direction. For example, flagellated bacteria perform chemotaxis- which allows them to swim randomly in the direction of the source of the chemical signal. Bacteria typically swim with a random “tumble-run” motion, where they swim straight and then suddenly tumble (which is caused by a reversal in the direction the flagella rotate) which causes them to change directions…randomly.
When bacteria are swimming towards a chemical source- the chemical binds to the bacterial surface which causes a series of phosphorylations which lead to the phosphorylation of a protein in the flagella that causes the bacteria to swim straight for longer periods of time before tumbling- giving the bacteria a direction.
As a bacteria swims closer to the source- it comes into contact with the chemical source more often, leading that protein to be phosphorylated more often (it’s a transient phosphorylation and is eventually de-phosphorylated by another protein) and the bacteria swims straight for longer periods of time- but it’s still swimming randomly because of the tumbles that occur.
If the bacteria begins to swim further from the source, it comes into contact with less of the chemical source, which decreases the amount of time the bacteria swims straight and leads to more frequent tumbling, which leads to more random movement which may eventually get the bacteria turned back around to be swimming more towards the chemical source again (then leading to more straight swimming).
I hope that explains the concept of “random” movement a bit better…? My source on chemotaxis is “The Physiology and Biochemistry of Prokaryotes- 3rd Edition” by David White.
“You would have to argue that some algae would also have an evolved response to the input to go away, and some would have an evolved response to go towards, and some would have an evolved response to find the middle ground.”
Not necessarily. Chlamydomonas and bacteria randomly swim- chemotaxis and phototaxis are mechanisms that cause these critters to swim randomly in a net direction. The movement is still random- it’s just a matter of it being successful in moving in one direction more often than not based on the situation (which is determined by the direction of the flagellar movement which is caused by the phosphorylation of flagellar proteins caused by the signaling proteins). But I get the feeling that’s not what you’re getting at-so if you could ask more questions, that would be great!
“This mutation would have to occur in tandem with the eyespot mutation. Already the mutation required to justify the eye is getting to be a bit much, now what about the chemical structures of all these mutations?”
Not necessarily “in tandem” but in a specific order. Eyespots are probably not even the most rudimentary “eyes”. I have a thought on this- that phototaxis is an offshoot of chemotaxis- and the proteins involved in phototaxis (movement towards light and the detection of light) are possibly related to the proteins involved in chemotaxis (movement towards a chemical source and detection of chemical source).
My conjecture/thought/idea for a “rudimentary eye” would be more along the lines of something like bacteriorhodopsin- which is a light sensitive protein in the Archaea that is connected to a proton pump and when exposed to light, causes the pumping of H+ (protons, or hydrogen ions) out of the cell to allow for ATP manufacture). (Source for bacteriorhodopsin is “The Physiology and Biochemistry of Prokaryotes 3rd Edition” by David White)
Now a possible augmentation of a bacteriorhodopsin-like protein for the use of a eukaryotic organism like Chlamydomonas would be instead of the light-sensitive protein causing the pumping of protons, would instead lead to the phosphorylation of proteins that are involved in intracellular signaling- possibly in activating the production of more chloroplasts in response to being in the presence of light (no point in replicating chloroplasts if there is no light).
Now before you say, “how would a eukaryotic organism obtain a bacterial gene?” Well- at very low frequencies, in vitro, you can get prokaryotic vectors (plasmids) to integrate into eukaryotic genomes. It’s possible that an ancestral algae obtained the gene from bacteria or archaea and it integrated into the genome. This could have been done through transformation (taking up DNA from the environment) or possibly transduction (via viruses), however, I am skeptical of transduction because it would mean that virus needs to infect both bacterial cells and eukaryotic cells- which is unlikely, though I don’t consider it impossible.
Also- in Chlamydomonas, a protein called “channelrhodopsin” has been found in the eyespot- and it has high homology to bacteriorhodopsin.
“I have no problem debating with someone who is trying to have a logical discussion. Dont misunderstand it and take me for a softy though.”
Wasn’t planning on it.
@Travis: A 20 year experiment with Escherichia coli involved mutations that lead to E. coli being able to eat citrate- E. coli can’t eat citrate otherwise. In fact- they may be able to call that citrate-eating bacteria a new species- no longer E. coli.
Thanks Rae. Lenski’s reseach only showed that adaptive mechanisms in bacteria work by altering existing genetic information or functional systems to make the bacteria more suitable for a particular environment much the same as PZ’s referenced experiment. To say E.coli can’t eat citrate otherwise is not entirely accurate, E. coli already possesses the ability to transport and utilize citrate under certain conditions, so it is conceivable that they could adapt to utilize citrate under broader conditions. Since the cells were given very little glucose but tons of citrate to eat, the cells with slightly beneficial mutations, likely the more common degenerative events, (less usable information) would be selected for and increase in the population. As you know a loss of information can result in a beneficial mutation. Around generation 31,500 additional mutations enabled the cells to utilize citrate in broader conditions and grow more rapidly than cells without the adaptive mutations. Were these degenerative mutations, which is most likely? Honestly, I don’t know, I can’t find it anywhere. If so, then we are back to the same place. No new information which produces a beneficial function to enable the organism to be more competitive in the survival of the fittest. In other words, it was all there within the cells abilities to begin with and who created that? Now the definition of what is a species is another wiggly piece of the “scientific” community. lol. I’m checkin’ out for Vday. Bye, all.
“Although this is not exactly analogous, take a hypothetical example”
Hm. I don’t think having an advantage means you have to have the neurological processes to ask “what’s going on with me? What is this? and so forth.”
I found an article, but I will have to copy it by typing since its on JSTOR so excuse the typos:
The starting point for the evolution of photoreceptor cells is an epidermal ciliated cell with photopigment (opsin + retinal=rhodopsin) molecules embedded in its membrane. Retinal is the moelcule transducing light energy into electrical signals, and opsin is the covalently bound protein carrier. To enhance light sensitivity, the membranous surface englarges locally by in- or outfolding to form a light-sensitive organelle (=photoreceptor). In ciliary photoreceptors the ciliary membrane folds into internal discs or tubues, or inot outer microvilli or lamellae. In rhabdomeric photoreceptors the apical cell membrane folds into microvilli or lamellae, while the cilium remains unchanged (but nevertheless is present- though often rudimentary). [most of the rest of the article discusses homogeny between this and more advanced eyes and how this relates to evolution].
It’s hard to imagine something without a fully developed neurological system ‘understanding’ how to use this new protein, but the fact is if there is a selective pressure for any sort of advantage it would offer, it would stay in the system.
“If we were in the wild, which is what I took you to mean in the first place, how would a slightly increased sensory to sound provide a DISTINCT advantage?”
So nothing that will be preserved provides slight advantages, only DISTINCT ones? That doesn’t make sense at all. Even if something give the organisms a slight advantage under selective pressure then they are the ones who would survive better under the selective pressure.
“Are you suggesting that there are certain predators that would only release a certain kind of sound that would normally be undetectable?”
There might be. Or maybe you would simply detect them before others do.
“If someone says that God created the world, you should respond with “well it seems most likely to actually be through the process of evolution, but since we cannot technically rule God out and we cannot technically fully assert evolution, you may have a point there.””
Well of course- there are people (including the Catholic Church and myself) who are proponents of theistic evolution.
I thought we were arguing mechanisms here. Like, evolution, versus creation. Maybe I was misreading your intentions. If so, apologies. Have you read Finding Darwin’s God? It’s a good book that gives a really good defense of theistic evolution.
“Apparently evolution just IS, like gravity.”
He probably was referring to the fact that the evolutionary process is a verifiable observation. “IS.” But facts as we know it can change as new observations, experiments, etc. are developed. Science is hardly ever “sure” of anything, because we have such a defined place in this world.
“When did I say that evolution should be pushed out of the classroom or that religious explanations should be put in? Im fine with the course structure, although I would appreciate it if the teachers would explain that the idea of evolution is what currently seems most reasonable, and allow for logical critiques.”
I’m sorry if I put an ideology on you that you didn’t have. I was mainly concerned for the fact that our school systems are being regularly downgraded due to the ‘popularity’ of the theory rather than established academic standards, or the silly fallacy that evolution=atheism=lack of morals=abortion. I mean, come on.
No, if you were trying to say that you simply want evolution to be open to ‘logical critiques’ that is fine- and that is what is happening right now. Highschoolers might get a small sliver of information about evolution, but never in-depth discussion like in a higher education setting in which whole years are spent studying the subject in depth. The theory has been refined quite a bit, and most scientists are the first to say we don’t have all the answers.
“”From what we can deduce about the universe, it must be the case that there was a big bang, or at the very least, God created the universe to LOOK like there was a big bang, although I dont know why He would do that.””
haha, exactly!
“Sure, but if we cannot explain how, it does not mean that there is no how.”
And that is what science does- find out the how. The chemistry student has to write down what he put into the beaker and explain what happened to turn it pink. Evolution is a “how.”
“You claimed that if the theory is not scientific, then it does not debunk evolution. That is confusing the relationship between observations and science.”
It does not debunk evolution until someone demonstrates that evolution is falsified. That’s just how things work. Saying “well God could have done it” or “you don’t know everything” does not debunk evolution at all, given that evolution is a deduction from tons of data. You would have to demonstrate that it’s false. So far it hasn’t happened.
“If that explanation is not scientific however, it would still debunk evolution”
In what way could you do that without some sort of evidence??
“And if not, would it mean that even if we knew it be true that we could keep testing a scientific theory that we knew not to be true?”
How can you know something to be true in that way without some kind of tangible reason?
“Now explain that to me. Are you saying that the genetic code of the creatures is altered by an outside environment, in the sense that maybe radiation would affect the DNA? Im not sure what you mean by that.”
Nope. Sorry not to be clear. What I mean is, the mechanism of evolution acts on individuals. Individuals are subjected to selective pressure, mutation, genetic drift, and other mechanisms. But the process of evolution is seen in populations. One individual having an advantage is cool and all, but what matter is how that advantageous trait is propagated and developed through generations. Does that make sense?
“If they do not, as individuals, find a distinct advantage, then there is no logical reason for their attributes to be favored and passed on to several future generations.”
Right, as I said before, individuals are the means through which evolutionary mechanisms act. But that one individual does not only have to survive, but reproduce, and pass those survival traits through generations. That is what is being studied; individuals themselves are not the subject that is studied.
@Travis: I’m going to take the time to read through the Lenski article very closely, and then I will do my best to try to answer your questions and in particular- address your criticism of “no new information added”.
Surprising, Travis, that you never addressed my example. Care to?
Sorry prettinpink, I’ve got to spend some time making a livin’ ya know! Yes, I would love to look into your suggestion and will check it out. Thanks, Rae, if you find time, let me know what you find out. I’ll check back here. Be blessed.
Great travis, thanks!
Rae: “Yes, it’ll be random movement, but it’ll still have a net direction. For example, flagellated bacteria perform chemotaxis- which allows them to swim randomly in the direction of the source of the chemical signal….”
It will be random at first. What makes you think that the algae that are randomly tumbling towards the light have a mutation that is dictating that? You are saying that the algae that make it, only did so because of COMPLETELY random movement. If this is the case, the question is, what will evolution award? It will award random movement. Again, I know there are creatures that are alive that “randomly” move towards a general direction, but these original algae did not have that ability. So you must be expecting that the algae that had a distinct advantage specifically mutated not only an eye spot, but another helpful gene to direct them randomly in the direction of the light that they receive from the eyespot. Again, thats a lot of coincidences.
All the information provided is very fascinating, but you are still assuming that these particular infrastructures were built in to the eye spot mutation. That is a huge and strangely unchaotic mutation to not only develop the ability to recognize light, but to also develop the ability to “tumble” towards the light.
Rae: “I hope that explains the concept of “random” movement a bit better…? My source on chemotaxis is “The Physiology and Biochemistry of Prokaryotes- 3rd Edition” by David White.”
It explains random movement for algae now. My question is, did the original algae develop this ability simultaneously to their eye spots?
Rae: “Not necessarily. Chlamydomonas and bacteria randomly swim- chemotaxis and phototaxis are mechanisms that cause these critters to swim randomly in a net direction. The movement is still random- it’s just a matter of it being successful in moving in one direction more often than not based on the situation (which is determined by the direction of the flagellar movement which is caused by the phosphorylation of flagellar proteins caused by the signaling proteins). But I get the feeling that’s not what you’re getting at-so if you could ask more questions, that would be great!”
Are you asserting that this infrastructure to interpret the light is a necessary consequence of the chemical structure of any eye spot? Or are you asserting that our algae in question happened to developed this infrastructure at the same time it developed the ability to detect light?
Rae: “Not necessarily “in tandem” but in a specific order. Eyespots are probably not even the most rudimentary “eyes”. I have a thought on this- that phototaxis is an offshoot of chemotaxis- and the proteins involved in phototaxis (movement towards light and the detection of light) are possibly related to the proteins involved in chemotaxis (movement towards a chemical source and detection of chemical source).
My conjecture/thought/idea for a “rudimentary eye” would be more along the lines of something like bacteriorhodopsin- which is a light sensitive protein in the Archaea that is connected to a proton pump and when exposed to light, causes the pumping of H+ (protons, or hydrogen ions) out of the cell to allow for ATP manufacture). (Source for bacteriorhodopsin is “The Physiology and Biochemistry of Prokaryotes 3rd Edition” by David White)
Now a possible augmentation of a bacteriorhodopsin-like protein for the use of a eukaryotic organism like Chlamydomonas would be instead of the light-sensitive protein causing the pumping of protons, would instead lead to the phosphorylation of proteins that are involved in intracellular signaling- possibly in activating the production of more chloroplasts in response to being in the presence of light (no point in replicating chloroplasts if there is no light).
Now before you say, “how would a eukaryotic organism obtain a bacterial gene?” Well- at very low frequencies, in vitro, you can get prokaryotic vectors (plasmids) to integrate into eukaryotic genomes. It’s possible that an ancestral algae obtained the gene from bacteria or archaea and it integrated into the genome. This could have been done through transformation (taking up DNA from the environment) or possibly transduction (via viruses), however, I am skeptical of transduction because it would mean that virus needs to infect both bacterial cells and eukaryotic cells- which is unlikely, though I don’t consider it impossible.
Also- in Chlamydomonas, a protein called “channelrhodopsin” has been found in the eyespot- and it has high homology to bacteriorhodopsin.”
See was it so hard to provide something like this? Ill be honest, it will take me a few minutes to digest the particulars, but at least this sounds reasonable…so far.”
Im fine with the explanation of how eukaryotic cells “adopt” prokaryotic cells or DNA or whatever.
I am a bit bothered by a couple of things here though….
First of all, just to clarify, I used “eye spot” and “algae” as stand ins for whatever was the first interpretation of light and whatever was the first thing TO interpret light. Hopefully that was understood.
Now, I see that you describe the first “eye” to be a modification of the evolutionary benefit of being directed to chemical sources. Assuming that the transition involved would require only a minor mutation, I can see this happening. However, for this to provide a distinct advantage to the creature we would have to be accepting an interesting twist of events. Assuming that the species has existed in its current form successfully for many years, the trait of being drawn to chemicals would have to be advantageous. Now we are considering that this new species would not longer be drawn towards chemical sources that are advantagous, but would be drawn towards light sources. The assumption then is that the light sources would in fact be MORE advantagous than the already evolutionary tested chemical sources.
In addition to that, we have to consider why the eye ever developed to be a processor of light. You have it marked originally as an organ that draws the creature closer to the light, for a presummed benefit that outweighs the original chemical draw. Why and how would the eye move past simple automatic draw to vague detection? This is sort of my original argument.
Say the creature automatically moves towards the light. At what point would a random mutation jump in to give the creature a special understanding for purposes other than simple photosynthesis? Its still essentially the same problem. Of what use is a mutation to develop a “sense?”
Of course all this also begs the question back to the original chemical sources. We would have to assume that there would be a distinct advantage, and not disadvantage, to being drawn towards chemical in the very first creature to possess that ability.
PiP: “Hm. I don’t think having an advantage means you have to have the neurological processes to ask “what’s going on with me? What is this? and so forth.” ”
Thats not what I mean per se. What I mean is that the body has to have some form of preference for the input, as in Rae’s example. That of course requires assuming that the evolution would also account for the preference.
PiP: “I found an article, but I will have to copy it by typing since its on JSTOR so excuse the typos:
The starting point for the evolution of photoreceptor cells is an epidermal ciliated cell with photopigment (opsin + retinal=rhodopsin) molecules embedded in its membrane. Retinal is the moelcule transducing light energy into electrical signals, and opsin is the covalently bound protein carrier. To enhance light sensitivity, the membranous surface englarges locally by in- or outfolding to form a light-sensitive organelle (=photoreceptor). In ciliary photoreceptors the ciliary membrane folds into internal discs or tubues, or inot outer microvilli or lamellae. In rhabdomeric photoreceptors the apical cell membrane folds into microvilli or lamellae, while the cilium remains unchanged (but nevertheless is present- though often rudimentary). [most of the rest of the article discusses homogeny between this and more advanced eyes and how this relates to evolution].
It’s hard to imagine something without a fully developed neurological system ‘understanding’ how to use this new protein, but the fact is if there is a selective pressure for any sort of advantage it would offer, it would stay in the system.”
See my question is WHY would it apply selective pressure? Maybe it provides disadvantages. I need to believe that not only could this evolve from something else, but that it would be interpreted by the species in a way that would provide a distinct advantage. I dont see that in the current explanations, although I think Rae’s suggestion has given me some food for thought.
PiP :”So nothing that will be preserved provides slight advantages, only DISTINCT ones? That doesn’t make sense at all. Even if something give the organisms a slight advantage under selective pressure then they are the ones who would survive better under the selective pressure.”
If the advantage is too slight, it wont extend enough to promote reproduction rates through survival. So yes, it needs to be distinct. If I were a cat and I had the added bonus of slightly better eyesight, I would not necessarily live longer than a normal cat. The slight bonus to eyesight would have to be strong enough for me to specificaly avoid a predator that the normal cat would not notice, or to allow me to specifically find a prey before the normal cat, despite other possible mutated advantages that the normal cat may possess. This is why, I suppose, that some animals have better eyesight than others. Some species do not see a slightly better eyesight as THAT advantagous.
PiP: “There might be. Or maybe you would simply detect them before others do.”
How much faster would I detect these predators with a slightly boosted hearing? Would it be enough to drasticaly change the outcome of an encounter? If I hear a predator 2 second faster before he strikes, it may still not be enough.
PiP: “Well of course- there are people (including the Catholic Church and myself) who are proponents of theistic evolution.
I thought we were arguing mechanisms here. Like, evolution, versus creation. Maybe I was misreading your intentions. If so, apologies. Have you read Finding Darwin’s God? It’s a good book that gives a really good defense of theistic evolution.”
What I mean to say is that, if someone says that God created the world through creationism.
PiP: “He probably was referring to the fact that the evolutionary process is a verifiable observation. “IS.” But facts as we know it can change as new observations, experiments, etc. are developed. Science is hardly ever “sure” of anything, because we have such a defined place in this world.”
You cannot verify evolution through observation. You can deduce that it is LIKELY, but cannot verify the transition as fact. It could all be one crazy coincidence, outside of science or religion. Reality claimed evolution as if it WERE an established fact, then never came back to support his assertion of course.
PiP: “I’m sorry if I put an ideology on you that you didn’t have. I was mainly concerned for the fact that our school systems are being regularly downgraded due to the ‘popularity’ of the theory rather than established academic standards, or the silly fallacy that evolution=atheism=lack of morals=abortion. I mean, come on…..”
Yeah thats fine. I actually think that some form of evolution is the likely answer, I just dont think scientists should be so damned sure about it. I wont be satisfied until it can, in its current form, be used to explain all development, in theory.
PiP: “…How can you know something to be true in that way without some kind of tangible reason?”
I skipped all the rest in the middle because it all relies on this statement. Granted, you cannot know something to be true in the classical sense, through testing, if it is not scientific, but you can surmise something to be true based on logical construction and you can have a “spiritual” experience as well to “know” something to be true. For example, if God appeared in the middle of New York and claimed that evolution was not possible and life was created by a roaming cosmic hairball, even if we could not test God, or test the “theory,” we would have reason to believe God, by direct witness of his improbable appearence.
Pip: “Nope. Sorry not to be clear. What I mean is, the mechanism of evolution acts on individuals. Individuals are subjected to selective pressure, mutation, genetic drift, and other mechanisms. But the process of evolution is seen in populations. One individual having an advantage is cool and all, but what matter is how that advantageous trait is propagated and developed through generations. Does that make sense?”
So what you are saying is that the environment does NOT cause the evolution, it only dictates it, which is what I was saying in the first place. The genesis is still ultimately in the initial mutations. In other words, it wouldnt be reasonable to assume that humans thrown into the sun would evolve sun resistant skin, simply be nature of existing in the environment.(Wasnt it Lamark who exposed that “version” of adaptation?)
PiP: “Right, as I said before, individuals are the means through which evolutionary mechanisms act. But that one individual does not only have to survive, but reproduce, and pass those survival traits through generations. That is what is being studied; individuals themselves are not the subject that is studied.”
Of course you arent going to study the individual. That would be a case of philosophy I think more than biology. My question though is really about the very nature of the specific moment of evolution, which does indeed involve the individual. Im not interested in what is happening, but WHY the very first mutation was beneficial in regards to the eye, for example.
@Oliver: I’ll respond in more depth later- tomorrow at the latest. I have to quick whip up a physics lab report for class. ^_^
Just letting you know that I have glanced at your response and will read it more in depth with a response at a later time.
Evolution is the biggest crock perpetrated on mankind since satan deceived Eve into disobeying God.
Men with souls, minds, hearts and wills do not come from bacteria. Men were created by a loving and genius God.
The mutations we see occuring now don’t result in new species, they modify the characteristics within the species. Moths mutate into different moths, not mosquitoes.
Through mutation, dogs don’t become cats, they become smaller dogs, or dogs with bigger ears or dogs with less or more hair.
And theistic evolution is even a bigger crock that Pip likes to promote. She is on a very dangerous path that will lead to her destruction if she donesn’t repent as it undermines and contradicts the very Word of God. In fact, Pip demonstatates absolutely no fear of God wahtsoever. I think it’s called pride.
The Bible is very clear that God created manking and the universe in six days and rested on the seventh day. Why is that so difficult to believe when the world is so full of the evidence of the existence of an aweseome God?
And any honest scientist knows that the fossil record is found in sedimentary rock which is a result of the Flood not millions and millions of years.
Think about this.
It is more likely that nature created Mount Rushmore through random chance of erosion and weathering than the occurence of spontaneous life from nothing and then over millions of years and evolution resulting in men. The number of variables involved for evolution to be true is mathematically impossible. Does anyone on this site with one bit of common sense think that Mount Rushmore was a result of natural forces?
Evolution violates every single law of thermodymaics and physics as well.
If evolution is true where are the transitional fossils, Pip? Right, they don’t exist because evolution is a lie and a religion and its followers actually are cult members following a dead guy called Darwin who had to answer to a holy God for his paricipation in the deception of the world.
Proteins are essential to the creation of life. A protein is a chain of amino acids. There are 20 different amino acids in humans like a train made up of different colored boxcars. There are many possiblilties for various sequences. The sequence of amino acids in a protein is critical for life. The average length of a protein in a human is 400 amino acids. Thus, the odds of that amino acid sequence getting there by chance are 20 the the 400th power, or 10 to the 520th power. That is a 1 followed by 520 zeroes. You’d have a better chance of winning the lottery 500 weeks in a row than just one protein being properly sequenced by chance.
One needs more faith to believe in evolution than they need to believe in Jesus Christ. I choose Jesus Christ and logic rather than the complete and utter lie of evolution.
“It will be random at first. What makes you think that the algae that are randomly tumbling towards the light have a mutation that is dictating that?”
Nothing at all. It’s always random movement, Oliver- it’s just random movement in a net direction in response to a chemical or light signal. Here is a nice little animation that describes it (you don’t have to watch it, it’s also for other people who are reading the conversation and are not following what’s going on).
http://www.wwnorton.com/college/biology/mbio/animations/main.asp?chno=ch03a02
“You are saying that the algae that make it, only did so because of COMPLETELY random movement. If this is the case, the question is, what will evolution award? It will award random movement.”
Biased random movement (random movement in a net direction). It would likely award random movement- yes, but it may award improved biased random walks (which is what random movement in flagellated organisms is called)- for example having the bacteria be more sensitive to to environmental changes so it can start its biased random walks sooner so that it could get to its “destination” sooner or waste less energy on tumbling and reorienting directions. This is all conjecture- I don’t know of any studies showing this, but I will look if you’d like.
“Again, I know there are creatures that are alive that “randomly” move towards a general direction, but these original algae did not have that ability.”
Probably not, no.
“So you must be expecting that the algae that had a distinct advantage specifically mutated not only an eye spot, but another helpful gene to direct them randomly in the direction of the light that they receive from the eyespot. Again, thats a lot of coincidences.”
Not necessarily. My conjecture is that first a chemotactic-like mechanism was in place which was later converted to a phototactic system- which may have lead to an eyespot. However, it’s not that implausible that a certain set of mutations needed to occur in order for an eyespot to occur in addition to “attaching” it self to a mechanism that allows for the biased random walks to occur.
For example, in that Lenski article I cited for Travis above, it showed that a specific set of mutations was needed for the E. coli to be able to utilize citrate under oxic conditions. These mutations didn’t all occur at once, and it took several years for it to occur. In fact it took more than ~30,000 generations for E. coli to develop that mutation and each generation of E. coli lead to more and more compounding mutations which finally lead to the change in phenotype.
Chlamydomonas and other algae are eukaryotic but with very rapid doubling times like yeast and bacteria- so it’s not implausible nor would it take a large amount of time for the useful mutations to occur (for example, it took the E. coli ~12 years, and the set mutations that ultimately lead to that phenotype were set at 20,000 generations which was ~9 years after the experiment began).
“All the information provided is very fascinating, but you are still assuming that these particular infrastructures were built in to the eye spot mutation. That is a huge and strangely unchaotic mutation to not only develop the ability to recognize light, but to also develop the ability to “tumble” towards the light.”
I’m working under the assumption that phototaxis was derived from chemotaxis, so perhaps that is a flawed assumption. However, I just found a study that described a phototactic mechanism that appears to look very similar to chemotactic mechanisms- which leads me to believe that they are related- however it was based on a description of the signal transduction pathway- and I am not finding anything on the topic of chemotaxis and phototaxis evolution on PubMed.
“It explains random movement for algae now. My question is, did the original algae develop this ability simultaneously to their eye spots?”
The book doesn’t really discuss the evolution of various organelles, metabolic abilities, and mechanisms like chemotaxis or phototaxis. However, my answer to your question is, “I don’t know the answer, but I will continue looking to see if I can find anything on the topic.” In fact, I just found a very long review on eyespots as a “primordial visual system”- it’s about 25 pages, and I will peruse it to see if I can glean anything from that over the weekend.
“The green algal eyespot apparatus: a primordial visual system
and more?” Georg Kreimer (Current Genetics) Vol. 55 2009
That’s the citation if you’re able to access it through school or your job, if you’d like to read it as well. I will also continue looking for some more papers on the topic.
If you want my opinion (but you know opinions…like a**holes, everybody has one)- I think the biased random walk movement occurred before eyespot development.
“Are you asserting that this infrastructure to interpret the light is a necessary consequence of the chemical structure of any eye spot? Or are you asserting that our algae in question happened to developed this infrastructure at the same time it developed the ability to detect light?”
I’m hypothesizing that the infrastructure was already in place before the eyespot developed. I’m guessing that the phototactic system was derived from a chemotactic system based on the similar signal transduction pathways. But to be clear- I am just hypothesizing on how this happened- I honestly don’t *know* the answer, and I haven’t been able to find anything on phototactic and chemotactic evolution.
“See was it so hard to provide something like this? Ill be honest, it will take me a few minutes to digest the particulars, but at least this sounds reasonable…so far.
Im fine with the explanation of how eukaryotic cells “adopt” prokaryotic cells or DNA or whatever.”
I’m sorry…? I guess I didn’t catch what you were trying to ask me before I got to that point, I apologize for wasting your time earlier.
“I am a bit bothered by a couple of things here though….”
And that’s perfectly reasonable given that my idea is purely conjecture- I haven’t been able to find anything to really back up my assertions beyond the fact that phototaxis and chemotaxis have similar signal transduction pathways. :-/
“First of all, just to clarify, I used “eye spot” and “algae” as stand ins for whatever was the first interpretation of light and whatever was the first thing TO interpret light. Hopefully that was understood.”
I guess now I’m a little confused as to what you meant by “stand-ins”? Correct me if I’m misunderstanding but are you using a “chicken or egg” type argument right now? What came first, the photosensitive algae or the eyespot?
“Now, I see that you describe the first “eye” to be a modification of the evolutionary benefit of being directed to chemical sources. Assuming that the transition involved would require only a minor mutation, I can see this happening.”
What do you define as a “minor mutation”?
“However, for this to provide a distinct advantage to the creature we would have to be accepting an interesting twist of events. Assuming that the species has existed in its current form successfully for many years, the trait of being drawn to chemicals would have to be advantageous. Now we are considering that this new species would not longer be drawn towards chemical sources that are advantagous, but would be drawn towards light sources. The assumption then is that the light sources would in fact be MORE advantagous than the already evolutionary tested chemical sources.”
My reasoning for this would be because Chlamydomonas and algae in general are photosynthetic. The chemical sensing could be a more indirect method of detecting sunlight in that photosynthesis releases oxygen- and perhaps the oxygen concentrations in the water (and the subsequent reduction in CO2 in the water) were a signal for optimal photosynthetic conditions (sunlight) which would cause the algae to swim towards it.
Perhaps they evolved phototactic sensing in order to have a more direct gauge on photosynthetic conditions (the exact intensity of sunlight) as opposed to “guessing” based on oxygen or CO2 concentrations (or even iron concentrations, as areas with high photosynthetic output have low iron)?
“In addition to that, we have to consider why the eye ever developed to be a processor of light. You have it marked originally as an organ that draws the creature closer to the light, for a presummed benefit that outweighs the original chemical draw. Why and how would the eye move past simple automatic draw to vague detection? This is sort of my original argument.”
I mentioned it above- that perhaps sensing light was a more direct detector of optimal photosynthetic conditions as opposed to an indirect chemical signal.
“Say the creature automatically moves towards the light. At what point would a random mutation jump in to give the creature a special understanding for purposes other than simple photosynthesis?”
Escaping predation? When they are suddenly in shade instead of being in “optimal light” that could induce a signal to swim away to try to escape predation by “escaping the shadow” to get back into the light.
“Its still essentially the same problem. Of what use is a mutation to develop a “sense?””
Escape predation, remain in the sun if a cloud were to cause shade or to induce movement from the area if it becomes too crowded with other algae which decreases shade intensity are all a few reasons for developing a “sense”.
“Of course all this also begs the question back to the original chemical sources. We would have to assume that there would be a distinct advantage, and not disadvantage, to being drawn towards chemical in the very first creature to possess that ability.”
I would imagine there would be an advantage. Most chemotactic systems are hinged on obtaining food- it’s usually food that is the chemical source which is the chemoattractant and waste products that are chemical repellents (which indicates no food as other critters got to it first). Since chemotaxis is a mechanism to obtain food- it makes sense (to me) that phototaxis is a similar mechanism (variation on a theme) as phototaxis leads to improved photosynthesis which allows the organism to obtain food via autotrophy.
I hope that helps in elucidating my reasoning better, and I apologize if I rambled or didn’t answer what you were asking. I will try to respond in a timely fashion over the weekend and I will try to take the time to read that article I mentioned above but I honestly can’t make any guarantees as I’ll be busy writing a paper this weekend (finished the physics one :D) and studying for exams I have coming up in the next week.
check out Darwin’s Deadly Legacy on you-tube, it’s a seven part series…
Ha! I love how you emphasize that evolution is a theory. So is gravity. How many of us don’t believe in that?
The theory of evolution has holes in it, which is my main problem. I don’t know a whole lot about it so I don’t pretend to be an expert, but I know there are some parts that are kind of sketchy.
The Qur’an says that Allah needs only say “Be” and something is, but there is no reason to believe that He did not say “Be” and evolution occurred. Also, Muslims do NOT believe that humankind and the earth were created within the last 10,000 years.
Mostly I just think that anything is possible and people can argue all they want, but it’s pretty pointless. Don’t worry… be happy!
Rae,
I am going to have to probably wait a day to respond to your post. I hate it when other posters only respond to the “easy” parts of a post, so I want to make sure I address your every point in full. I will say that your explanation is so far the best that I have seen in all the years of questioning something as simple as the eye. Pro-choicer’s PBS article was and is pathetic. Ill get back to you later.
“Ha! I love how you emphasize that evolution is a theory. So is gravity. How many of us don’t believe in that?”
But theory of gravity is proven to be true.
Leah,
what is the islamic view on abortion?
@Jasper: Just a nitpick- nothing in science is “proven true”- just demonstrated not to be false…yet.
When I was a kid I used to watch ‘Bewitched’.(Samantha gave witches a good name.)
Samantha’s mother was Endora. Endora was always deliberately gettings Samantha’s ‘mortal’ husbands name wrong. His name was Darren.
One time Endora referred to Darren as ‘Darwin’. Samantha quickly corrected her mother.
“Darwin is the father of Evolution.”
Endora asked what is Evolution.
Samantha replied, “Evolution is the theory that man evolved from apes.”
Endora laughed loudly and long and replied, “Silly mortals, they have it backwards.”
yor bro ken
You know every year they hold a cross country race in Australia for solar powered cars.
Teams from around the world build cars from perameters established by the organizers.
It is absolutely amazing the diversity that results.
All of the cars are the result of unique thoughtful planning. None of the entries show any evidence of an accidental or random combination of events or acts that led to the production of a sunpowered vehicle.
All of the vehicles represent the process of elimination of trial and error until the thing that is left is the successful product.
But even the failures show the evidence of intelligent design. Even the failures did not just spontaneoulsy assemble from pre-existing material. Someone implemented an oderly process in an attempt to find something that ‘worked’.
Here is a challenge to governments and corporations and wealthy individuals:
Use all the combined assets you have at your disposal to build the man made equivalent of a hummingbird. You do not have to make it reproduce or repair itself. Just make it able to fly autonomously and re-fuel itself and build a nest. But do it without leaving behind any evidence of intelligent design.
Do not say it cannot be done, because that is what evolutionists assert every time they avert their eyes from the evidence for intelligent design in the world around them.
You are furiously searching for evidence of random happenstance to the exclusion of any and all evidence to the contrary.
yor bro ken
“@Jasper: Just a nitpick- nothing in science is “proven true”- just demonstrated not to be false…yet.”
No problem Rae, I like being corrected when I’m wrong.
the theory of gravity has been tested so far, not to be false.
Jasper:
As in Christianity, abortion is not explicitly dealt with in our Holy Book (Al-Qur’an). Generally, what is accepted is abortion is allowed ONLY withing the first 120 days and ONLY for the life or health of the mother as decided by an authorized healthcare person.
It is also forbidden to force your religion onto others, though (despite what the news might mislead you to believe).
Jasper, also contrary to popular opinion, the theory of gravity is largely mathematical in basis with not a lot of solid evidence in its favor. The theory of gravity, like the theory of evolution gives the “how” of it- it explains how gravity works, not that it exists. In fact it has had its own little ‘evolution’ as we find out more about it. Assuming wikipedia is not too off the mark, the website might help a little bit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity
Oliver I promise I’ll get back to you later today..I have a lot of work to do, I have to recover from all the work I put off to study for my physiology exam (92% though- right on!). So don’t forget about me :P
Alexandra, here’s another one that Rae linked to us at 2secondsfaster:
http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0004366
Posted by: prettyinpink at February 13, 2009 4:44 PM
—————————————————–
I believe we call these kind of marine mammals sea lions, seals, walruses, manatees etc.
Reminds me of the pictographs in National Geographics of whales morphing into cows or cows morhping into whales.
Not exactly solid empirical evidence of a transitional form.
yor bro ken
This is interesting from the Gallup Poll. The percentage of those believing in evolution increases with education level. And for all levels more believe in evolution than not:
“There is a strong relationship between education and belief in Darwin’s theory, as might be expected, ranging from 21% of those with high-school educations or less, to 74% of those with postgraduate degrees.
Those with high-school educations or less are much more likely to have no opinion than are those who have more formal education. Still, among those with high-school educations or less who have an opinion on Darwin’s theory, more say they do not believe in evolution than say they believe in it.
For all other groups, and in particular those who have at least a college degree, belief is significantly higher than nonbelief.”
Sorry, my second sentence should read:
And for all levels except those with only high school education (or less) more believe in evolution than not.
Repeat the lie long enough and loud enough and it becomes true.
Some people are educated beyond their intelligence.
Truth is not determined by the will of the majority.
Truth is a majority of one.
yor bro ken
Boy, I was wondering what value my high school diploma was to me. Turns out it is more effective at resisting the effects of popular culture than tin foil hats.
yor bro ken
A theory is something that has not been proven. Creationism is just as much a theory as evolution, so emphasizing the status of the THEORY of Evolution as a THEORY really doesn’t do much. It is no more possible to prove the THEORY of Creationism.
Don’t say “it’s in the Bible.” I know it is. That doesn’t prove a thing. If you want to prove something to a scientific crowd you have to appeal to your audience scientifically. I’m sure if creationism could be proved scientifically, scientists would believe in it too, just as if the Bible said that evolution occurred it would prove it to some of you.
I did soem searching to see how the US stacks up against other countries in this regards. I had a hunch we were low, but I didn’t realize we were almost at the bottom (Turkey has that honor). Here’s a summary from (grimace) Fox News. I can’t get to the original Science article with the full list, but I’ll try some more:
U.S. Lags Behind Europe, Japan in Acceptance of Evolution
Friday, August 11, 2006
By Ker Than
E-Mail Print Share:
A comparison of peoples’ views in 34 countries finds that the United States ranks near the bottom when it comes to public acceptance of evolution.
Only Turkey ranked lower.
Among the factors contributing to America’s low score are poor understanding of biology, especially genetics, the politicization of science and the literal interpretation of the Bible by a small but vocal group of American Christians, the researchers say.
“American Protestantism is more fundamentalist than anybody except perhaps the Islamic fundamentalists, which is why Turkey and we are so close,” said study co-author Jon Miller of Michigan State University.
The researchers combined data from public surveys on evolution collected from 32 European countries, the United States and Japan between 1985 and 2005.
Adults in each country were asked whether they thought the statement, “Human beings, as we know them, developed from earlier species of animals,” was true or false, or if they were unsure.
The study found that over the past 20 years:
RelatedStories
Maine Mussels Evolve Defense Mechanism in 15 Years X-Rays Reveal Hidden Structures of Half-Billion-Year-Old Fossil Embryos Amateur Paleontologists Get to Dig Up Dinosaurs, Keep Bones ‘Creation Museum’ Seeks to Disprove Evolution, Paleontology, Geology Men Growl, Whine Like Dogs to Determine Dominance Prehistoric Monkey’s Skull Dug Up in Greece Study: Shark Fins, Human Arms Formed by Same Genes Bone Marrow Found Intact in Ancient Fossils Fear of Snakes May Have Driven Pre-Human Evolution German, American Scientists to Decode Neanderthal Genome — The percentage of U.S. adults who accept evolution declined from 45 to 40 percent.
— The percentage overtly rejecting evolution also declined, from 48 to 39 percent.
— And the percentage of adults who were unsure increased, from 7 to 21 percent.
Of the other countries surveyed, only Turkey ranked lower, with about 25 percent of the population accepting evolution and 75 percent rejecting it.
In Iceland, Denmark, Sweden and France, 80 percent or more of adults accepted evolution; in Japan, 78 percent of adults did.
The findings are detailed in the Aug. 11 issue of the journal Science.
Religious belief and evolution
The researchers also compared 10 independent variables — including religious belief, political ideology and understanding of concepts from genetics, or “genetic literacy” — among adults in America and nine European countries to determine whether these factors could predict attitudes toward evolution.
The analysis found that Americans with fundamentalist religious beliefs — defined as belief in substantial divine control of the universe and the efficacy of frequent prayer — were more likely to reject evolution than Europeans with similar beliefs.
The researchers attribute the discrepancy to differences in how American Christian fundamentalists and other forms of Christianity interpret the Bible.
While American fundamentalists tend to interpret the Bible literally and to view Genesis as a true and accurate account of creation, mainstream Protestants in both the United States and Europe instead treat Genesis as metaphorical, the researchers say.
“Whether it’s the Bible or the Koran, there are some people who think it’s everything you need to know,” Miller said. “Other people say these are very interesting metaphorical stories in that they give us guidance, but they’re not science books.”
The latter view is generally shared by the Roman Catholic Church.
Politics and the flat Earth
Politics is also contributing to America’s widespread confusion about evolution, the researchers say.
Major political parties in the United States are more willing to make opposition to evolution a prominent part of their campaigns to garner conservative votes — something that does not happen in Europe or Japan.
Miller says that it makes about as much sense for politicians to oppose evolution in their campaigns as it is for them to advocate that the Earth is flat and promise to pass legislation saying so if elected to office.
“You can pass any law you want, but it won’t change the shape of the Earth,” Miller told LiveScience.
Paul Meyers, a biologist at the University of Minnesota who was not involved in the study, says that what politicians should be doing is saying, “We ought to defer these questions to qualified authorities and we should have committees of scientists and engineers whom we will approach for the right answers.”
The researchers also single out the poor grasp of biological concepts, especially genetics, by American adults as an important contributor to the country’s low confidence in evolution.
“The more you understand about genetics, the more you understand about the unity of life and the relationship humans have to other forms of life,” Miller said.
The current study also analyzed the results from a 10-country survey in which adults were tested with 10 true or false statements about basic concepts from genetics. Americans had a median score of 4 out 10 correct answers.
One of the statements was “All plants and animals have DNA.” (The correct answer is “yes.”)
Science alone is not enough
But the problem is more than one of education — it goes deeper, and is a function of our country’s culture and history, said study co-author Eugenie Scott, director of the National Center for Science Education in Oakland, Calif.
“The rejection of evolution is not something that will be solved by throwing science at it,” Scott said in a telephone interview.
Myers expressed a similar sentiment.
About the recent controversy in Dover, Pa., over the teaching of “intelligent design,” Myers said, “It was a great victory for our side and it’s done a lot to help ensure that we keep religion out of the classroom for a while longer, but it doesn’t address the root causes. The creationists are still creationists — they’re not going to change because of a court decision.”
Scott says one thing that will help is to have Catholics and mainstream Protestants speak up about their theologies’ acceptance of evolution.
“There needs to be more addressing of creationism from these more moderate theological perspectives,” Scott said. “The professional clergy and theologians whom I know tend to be very reluctant to engage in that type of ‘my theology versus your theology’ discussion, but it matters because it’s having a negative effect on American scientific literacy.”
The latest packaging of creationism is intelligent design, or “ID,” a conjecture which claims that certain features of the natural world are so complex that they could only be the work of a Supreme Being.
ID proponents say they do not deny that evolution is true, only that scientists should not rule out the possibility of supernatural intervention.
But scientists do not share doubts over evolution. They argue it is one of the most well tested theories around, supported by countless tests done in many different scientific fields.
Scott says promoting uncertainty about evolution is just as bad as denying it outright and that ID and traditional creationism both spread the same message.
“Both are saying that evolution is bad science, that evolution is weak and inadequate science, and that it can’t do the job, so therefore God did it,” she said.
Another view
Bruce Chapman, the president of the Discovery Institute in Seattle, the primary backer of intelligent design, has a different view of the study.
“A better explanation for the high percentage of doubters of Darwinism in America may be that this country’s citizens are famously independent and are not given to being rolled by an ideological elite in any field,” Chapman said. “In particular, the growing doubts about Darwinism undoubtedly reflect growing doubts among scientists about Darwinian theory. Over 640 have now signed a public dissent and the number keeps growing.”
Nick Matzke of the National Center for Science Education points out that most of the scientists Chapman refers to do not do research in the field of evolution.
“If you look at the list, you can’t find anybody who’s really a significant contributor to the field or anyone who’s done recognizable work on evolution,” Matzke said.
Scott says the news is not all bad.
The number of American adults unsure about the validity of evolution has increased in recent years, from 7 to 21 percent, but growth in this demographic comes at the expense of the other two groups.
The percentage of Americans accepting evolution has declined, but so has the percentage of those who overtly reject it.
“I was very surprised to see that. To me that means the glass is half full,” Scott said. “That 21 percent we can educate.”
Here’s more on the uniqueness of the (average) American position on this:
Jon D. Miller told the Toronto Globe and Mail (August 11, 2006), “When you compare the U.S. to Europe, it’s clear we’re way out in right field by ourselves … There is a different Protestant movement in this country, one that often rejects science. It’s different than that of Europe and certainly of Canada.” “The findings should be of substantial concern to science educators in the United States,” he added, “because we’ve spent billions of dollars, we have a high percentage of young people going to college and taking science courses and yet we have a very ambivalent attitude on a subject that’s a closed book almost everywhere in the world.”
A theory is something that has not been proven. Creationism is just as much a theory as evolution, so emphasizing the status of the THEORY of Evolution as a THEORY really doesn’t do much. It is no more possible to prove the THEORY of Creationism.
yes, but the problem is that scientists, especially earth scientists and evolotionary biologists (imagine a whole discipline about a theory that may not be correct! too funny)teach this THEORY as fact. It is not fact, it is theory. Science students are told the proof is in. This is what I object to most strenuously. It is unscientific and unprincipled.
The definition of a “scientific theory” is different than the colloquial definition/meaning of “theory”.
Oliver, I don’t plan on coming back to this blog anymore- I made a mistake coming back. You can get in contact with me to continue our discussion through Bobby Bambino.
“A theory is something that has not been proven. Creationism is just as much a theory as evolution,”
nonononono. A theory is not defined as something that has not been proven.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory
Nothing is ever “proven” in science, anyway.
Ken, what exactly IS your definition of transitional fossil? Please watch the youtube video I linked above if you are confused on the concept.
“Repeat the lie long enough and loud enough and it becomes true.”
Yeah, that’s probably why people walk around and say things like “There are NO transitional fossils.”
Another fun video regarding transitional fossils.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q9a-lFn4hqY
yes, but the problem is that scientists, especially earth scientists and evolotionary biologists (imagine a whole discipline about a theory that may not be correct! too funny)teach this THEORY as fact. It is not fact, it is theory. Science students are told the proof is in. This is what I object to most strenuously. It is unscientific and unprincipled.
Posted by: toostunnedtolaugh at February 14, 2009 5:33 PM
Toostunned, evolution is taught as both fact and theory. There are facts associated with evolution and there are theories as to how evolution occurred and what’s in the missing gaps.
And for the record, earth scientists in general aren’t taught a lot of evolution. Although they will take paleontology as one of their core courses and they’ll definitely be taught the earth isn’t 10,000 years old. There are better examples, but thanks for the shout out!
Toostunned, you live in Canada. You’re a Catholic, not a fundamental christain. And I suspect you are some kind of scientist with a postgraduate degree. Do YOU believe in evolution? Just a yes or no will suffice.
evolotionary biologists (imagine a whole discipline about a theory that may not be correct! too funny)
Posted by: toostunnedtolaugh at February 14, 2009 5:33 PM
Okay, seriously. Do you realize what you just said? Now THAT’s too funny!
Oliver, I don’t plan on coming back to this blog anymore- I made a mistake coming back. You can get in contact with me to continue our discussion through Bobby Bambino.
Posted by: Rae at February 14, 2009 5:37 PM
Rae, I am sorry you are leaving but I DO understand how you feel.
“Thats not what I mean per se. What I mean is that the body has to have some form of preference for the input, as in Rae’s example. That of course requires assuming that the evolution would also account for the preference.”
I think I get it. But we are talking about successes. If something is detrimental to the organism it won’t survive. It is likely this mutation occurred in many forms; it could have been neutral and so then propagated along with everything else-or not; it could have been detrimental in which it would be ‘weeded out’; or it could have proven an advantage and then propagated along.
“See my question is WHY would it apply selective pressure?”
It doesn’t. Selective pressure is outside of the organism.
“Maybe it provides disadvantages.”
If so, the trait wouldn’t survive in that population.
“I need to believe that not only could this evolve from something else, but that it would be interpreted by the species in a way that would provide a distinct advantage. I dont see that in the current explanations, although I think Rae’s suggestion has given me some food for thought.”
True. I’ll admit right now, my strength isn’t in molecular biology and Rae’s is. But I’m fairly familiar with the evolutionary process. “interpretation” could be something as simple as a closely recognizable process. Our bodies weren’t necessarily “built” to process cocaine or other drugs, but we can react to it, nonetheless.
“If the advantage is too slight, it wont extend enough to promote reproduction rates through survival. So yes, it needs to be distinct.”
The problem is your definition of “distinct.” Couldn’t a slight change in the short term be distinct from the others?
“If I were a cat and I had the added bonus of slightly better eyesight, I would not necessarily live longer than a normal cat.”
If it came down to competition for food, and the cat indeed saw prey before the others, you most likely would. I know we are arguing hypotheticals here, but that’s the way it is when we are talking about the past. Any form of history is some form of conjecture. Just as we might never know exactly how someone was murdered, though different avenues we can get a good idea.
“The slight bonus to eyesight would have to be strong enough for me to specificaly avoid a predator that the normal cat would not notice, or to allow me to specifically find a prey before the normal cat, despite other possible mutated advantages that the normal cat may possess.”
If the normal cat possesses other advantages that outweigh, and the ‘slightly better eyesight’ isn’t a trait that is kept through simple gene flow, then it might be lost. But at the same time, this mutation or change might be happening in more than one cat.
“This is why, I suppose, that some animals have better eyesight than others. Some species do not see a slightly better eyesight as THAT advantagous.”
It really depends on the selective pressure. If for some reason eyesight becomes really important then the situation will select for any cat that has better eyesight, “slightly” better or not.
“How much faster would I detect these predators with a slightly boosted hearing? Would it be enough to drasticaly change the outcome of an encounter?”
It could be. It really all depends on the situation.
“What I mean to say is that, if someone says that God created the world through creationism.”
Right. Well, it’s hard to argue scientifically about something that isn’t scientific, you know? They are really completely separate ideas and subjects. If we want to talk about evolution’s philosophical reprocussions, then I would bring up the fact that it does not contradict God’s existence in the least.
“You cannot verify evolution through observation.”
I can observe that due to certain conditions, the frequencies of certain alleles change over time. In other words, evolution..
“You can deduce that it is LIKELY, but cannot verify the transition as fact. It could all be one crazy coincidence, outside of science or religion.”
Sure, there could be some crazy coincidence, but until that comes into light, this one works just fine.
“Reality claimed evolution as if it WERE an established fact, then never came back to support his assertion of course.”
Well, I can’t vouch for reality, in general.
“Yeah thats fine. I actually think that some form of evolution is the likely answer, I just dont think scientists should be so damned sure about it. I wont be satisfied until it can, in its current form, be used to explain all development, in theory.”
Because evolution is very well established, most scientists would tell you its very well established. But if for some reason someone came up with something substantial to replace it, they wouldn’t just go “ho hum” and not believe it.
“I skipped all the rest in the middle because it all relies on this statement. Granted, you cannot know something to be true in the classical sense, through testing, if it is not scientific, but you can surmise something to be true based on logical construction and you can have a “spiritual” experience as well to “know” something to be true.”
I could have my own “spiritual” experience and “truths” but that is not enough to unsurp this level of scientific evidence. So someone could spritually “know” that evolution is a crock through their talks with God but they have no authority over any one else.
“For example, if God appeared in the middle of New York and claimed that evolution was not possible and life was created by a roaming cosmic hairball, even if we could not test God, or test the “theory,” we would have reason to believe God, by direct witness of his improbable appearence.”
Right, but until that happens..
“So what you are saying is that the environment does NOT cause the evolution, it only dictates it, which is what I was saying in the first place.”
Right. The environment induces the selective pressure. Those that can’t handle it die out, and those that can stay in the game. Natural selection in one sentence.
“The genesis is still ultimately in the initial mutations. In other words, it wouldnt be reasonable to assume that humans thrown into the sun would evolve sun resistant skin, simply be nature of existing in the environment.”
right. But those that have higher concentrations of melanin for example will have lower rates of skin cancer. That is the reasoning behind skin color over geographical distance. Sun is less prominant in the northern regions, so a lighter skin color will help absorb the nutrients of the sun. But those who live in sun-drenched areas like near the equator have more melanin in their skin to protect them.
“Of course you arent going to study the individual.”
But you are drawing attention to the individual more than you should, I think. It’s not a matter of ‘how did that one cat survive? It’s more of a matter of ‘how did this new phenotype develop and grow in the population?’
“My question though is really about the very nature of the specific moment of evolution, which does indeed involve the individual.”
It does when we describe phenotype and its function. But we don’t really ‘start’ there, you know what I mean?
“Im not interested in what is happening, but WHY the very first mutation was beneficial in regards to the eye, for example.”
It really depends on the circumstances. When we go way far back in time, sometimes by looking at the structures in fossils or something, along with palentological knowledge and such about the time period, we can guess why it proved beneficial. But evolution itself doesn’t always provide all the answers. We don’t know everything, and I don’t know one scientist who claims we do..
“Do YOU believe in evolution? Just a yes or no will suffice.”
asitis, I’m surprised you are asking.
Why do you say that PIP?
Because she is emphasizing that she doesn’t consider evolutionary theory to have enough standing to be studied. Anyone who would consider it something very plausible would have no problem with someone who chooses to study it.
Yep, I see that PIP. But she may just be acting contrary because it’s me. ;) Or maybe she has an appreciation for how some fundamentalist here might see it. I don’t know…..I think it would be unusual for a canadian with a postgraduate education, quite possibly in science to not believe in evolution. Though it’s possible of course.
Truth be told PIP, I don’t really expect an answer anyway.
asitis, that’s true. She is quite religious, however, and the religious are a very active part of the creation/ID movement. I really don’t mean that in a derogatory way. It is just my experience, that’s all.
Religious, yes, but Catholic. And it’s my understanding that the Catholic Church actually endorses evolution ( though this hasn’t always been the case of course).
Hey asitis.
” And it’s my understanding that the Catholic Church actually endorses evolution ( though this hasn’t always been the case of course). ”
The Catholic Church leaves science up to science. So evolution as a hypothesis needs to be tested and judged on scientific grounds, and whatever the science shows, the science shows. Bottom line is that a Catholic may hold to many different theories of how we originated; creationism, probably all forms of ID, and even evolution so long as we believe that God infused the human soul (that the SOUL did not evolve) and that it wasn’t “random” or “chance.” Those words get throw in a lot when discussing evolution, and the Catholic needs to stay away from those words.
Also, the Catholic Church has always been friendly to beign open to Darwin’s theories. Last time I checked, even wiki had a good article on this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_and_the_Roman_Catholic_Church
I believe the first real discussion of it was by Pius XII in Humani Generis and it’s all quite open to the idea.
So we really always have been open, though never have made any teachings on it becaues that isn’t the Church’s area.
Hey thanks Bobby. I thought I had actually seen something about the pope actually “siding” more with evolution. Or maybe it was just that some religions were upset that he isn’t against evolution.
Because she is emphasizing that she doesn’t consider evolutionary theory to have enough standing to be studied. Anyone who would consider it something very plausible would have no problem with someone who chooses to study it.
Posted by: prettyinpink at February 14, 2009 6:40 PM
PIP: no that’s not what I said. I said I object to it being taught and presented as a given, proven FACT when it is not to my mind. It is one thing to present a THEORY and quite another to present a FACT. Since I have the academic background to assess the information presented, I simply don’t agree with the theory as it has been taught in universities. And I don’t believe we will ever prove evolution.
I do believe that the push for accepting evolutionary theory is perhaps not so benign as it appears. I think many scientists see this as their chance to prove that God does not exist.
It is also important to realize and understand that there are HUNDREDS, likely thousands of reputable scientists who do NOT believe in evolution. Many are “in the closet” because they know their scientific careers will be destroyed if they indicate how they really feel. I personally know a few who are in this predicament.
What sickens me on this blog is the incredible anti-religious bigotry of certain persons who come on not to discuss but to derail threads, mock, provoke, and humiliate others. Unfortunately, IMO, Jill has let this destroy her blog. I question her judgement in this regard. Perhaps she thinks it makes her controversial or helps with blog traffic.
And PIP you know absolutely NOTHING about me or my beliefs.
Have a nice evening.
The Catholic Church leaves science up to science. So evolution as a hypothesis needs to be tested and judged on scientific grounds, and whatever the science shows, the science shows. Bottom line is that a Catholic may hold to many different theories of how we originated; creationism, probably all forms of ID, and even evolution so long as we believe that God infused the human soul (that the SOUL did not evolve) and that it wasn’t “random” or “chance.” Those words get throw in a lot when discussing evolution, and the Catholic needs to stay away from those words.
Absolutely, but a Catholic must also believe that there was an Adam and an Eve and that there was a test which they failed. Not a group of people but two individual souls who represented the human race. Just as the angels themselves were tested.
“I do believe that the push for accepting evolutionary theory is perhaps not so benign as it appears. I think many scientists see this as their chance to prove that God does not exist.”
Toostunned, I agree with the Catholic Church here (you don’t hear that too often!) and Bobby in that evolution and God can coexist. One could still belive that God was behind it all. I think it’s silly to say that evolution proves that God does not exist. How would it prove that?
Patricia,
don’t let people get under your skin.
… not even the skin of your teeth! ;)
“I think many scientists see this as their chance to prove that God does not exist.”
That should be the quote of the day, very true.
Patricia,
don’t let people get under your skin.
Posted by: Jasper at February 14, 2009 9:11 PM
Jasper, I’m disappointed with Jill to be honest. I think many of the posts have the potential to have some really good discussions on here but I get the distinct feeling that even the mods don’t want to be involved anymore. The mods are what attracted me to the blog in the first place.
And a few people have told me that they feel “spiritually attacked” by being involved on this blog, which is obviously not a good thing.
“And a few people have told me that they feel “spiritually attacked” by being involved on this blog, which is obviously not a good thing.”
Patricia,
If there is specific comment, or commenter you think is causing this, let us know, and we’ll remove that comment or warn that commenter.
If there is specific comment, or commenter you think is causing this, let us know, and we’ll remove that comment or warn that commenter.
Posted by: Jasper at February 14, 2009 9:28 PM
nope can’t say anything more, cuz I was asked not to. It’s Jill’s problem as far as I’m concerned, not yours. But it should be a warning to others who post on this blog that they may find themselves spiritually attacked and therefore should be prepared.
“nope can’t say anything more, cuz I was asked not to.”
I don’t what you mean Patricia, if there is somebody spiritually attacking someone, they will be warned by us. You can email me if you want.
Jill doesn’t have the time to read through every comment, thats why she asked us to help out…she does an amazing amount for the pro-life community.
Jasper I’d much rather read my book than be bothered writing. I’m done here for now. This place reeks.
Patricia,
The best thing to do when your feeling spiritually attacked is to pray.
and who the hell is patricia, I’m too stunned to laugh or haven’t you got that either.
what a stupid place this is.
Ok, I tought you were Patricia and changed your name…
don’t worry about it Jasper, I’m leaving you and the others to the trolls becuase that’s all you’ll have left on here –
a prolife blog with a bunch of prochoice goon commentors.
Have fun! I’m with Rae on this one.
“no that’s not what I said.”
You said: “(imagine a whole discipline about a theory that may not be correct! too funny)”
You deriding evolutionary biologists leads me to believe that you find evolution to be an illegitimate field of study. Correct me if I’m wrong but that is indeed an easy way to interpret your statement.
“It is one thing to present a THEORY and quite another to present a FACT”
Considering evolution in its broadest sense means a change in allele frequency over time, and this is a verifiable observation, it would indeed be classified as a fact. Evolutionary theory explains the set of facts. As has been pointed out before, your usage of the word theory is different than the standard scientific usage of the word theory.
“I do believe that the push for accepting evolutionary theory is perhaps not so benign as it appears. I think many scientists see this as their chance to prove that God does not exist.”
Hm, this pretty much backs up what I was saying earlier. TSTL, you are claiming that we are “pushing” this theory, when all that is happening is its being taught in schools, just like every other part of biology, physics, and chemistry that is taught. Just because some atheists agree with evolution doesn’t make it their evil plan to convert America.
“It is also important to realize and understand that there are HUNDREDS, likely thousands of reputable scientists who do NOT believe in evolution. Many are “in the closet” because they know their scientific careers will be destroyed if they indicate how they really feel. I personally know a few who are in this predicament.”
TSTL, contrary to what Ben Stein has been saying, most of those whose careers are in question are not because of their personal beliefs at all; it is the fact that they derail their own careers in such pursuits. Several of those in the movie who had missed tenure was because they failed to produce original research. In science, what happens is, if you want to produce an alternative theory, you have to have solid data to back up your assertions. I assume those that speak out and are derided for it are simply being put into question because they are trying to pass something as scientific when its not.
Similar to if you met a devout pro-choice Christian, who said that there is no evidence the church has ever been pro-life I am sure you would call into question where they get that from and if so does that really makes them a Christian. If one doesn’t operate under the scientific method, how does that make them a scientist? They may be a good Christian, friend, etc, but they have to know where science and religion have their place in their professional life.
“What sickens me on this blog is the incredible anti-religious bigotry of certain persons who come on not to discuss but to derail threads, mock, provoke, and humiliate others. Unfortunately, IMO, Jill has let this destroy her blog. I question her judgement in this regard. Perhaps she thinks it makes her controversial or helps with blog traffic.”
TSTL,
Has anyone on this thread ever mocked, provoked, or humiliated you based on this subject? You said something that led me to believe that you did not accept evolution, and it seems that I am right. I”m surprised you are so offended by this fact. By all means, if I am wrong, and you accept evolution, say so and I will apologize.
“And PIP you know absolutely NOTHING about me or my beliefs.”
All I know about you is what you say in your comments. I have no idea why you are so touchy, when all I did was repeat what you said in different words.
More on the heresy of theistic evolution that permeates the church and undermines God’s Word.
God wanted us to know when He created, and He went out of His way to make it very, very clear.
Consider the following:
The Bible starts with “in the beginning.” The events that follow are considered part of that beginning, in both the Old and New Testaments.
A light and dark cycle was instituted, with each being dubbed “day” and “night” respectively.
Each successive day of the creation week was numbered.
The fourth day saw the creation of permanent markers for timekeeping.
The creation days are subdivied into evening and morning.
The geneaologies of Genesis 5 start with creation, and contain life spans and totals.
Within the Flood account are several references to specific calendar days.
The geneologies for post-Flood patriarchs are given in Genesis 11.
The lattter half of Genesis refers to cultures, events, and dates known to archaeology.
TSTL,
I am honestly surprised at your reaction. Just yesterday you delighted in bringing down Josephine, but I merely make an inference from your post, and you feel spiritually attacked? Where do you get this???
Lord Jesus Christ, who died on the cross for love of us, protect us from the attacks of the devil. Through the intercession of your Blessed Mother and the Holy Angels, deliver us from demonic spirits and wicked persons. Strengthen us against spiritual assaults. Guard us against spells and curses. Preserve us from temptation and sin. Help us grow in virtue and holiness, so that we may join Thee in heaven for all eternity. Amen.
HisMan,
do you think the Catholic church is heretical?
PIP, you catch on fast! I like you :)
Ok, I tought you were Patricia and changed your name…
Posted by: Jasper at February 14, 2009 10:08 PM
She is Patricia Jasper. You are correct.
So you found some nutjobs. Nice. Though it is like saying that just because some wing-nut bishop has fascist sympathies that all catholics are fascists. Or that because some anti-abortion folk have killed people that all anti-abortion folk are homicidal. just isn’t true. Broad polemic strokes do not insightful commentary make. Instead they make insightful commentary about the depth of analysis put into one’s writing.
In attempt to expose the vile naked cruelty of another, you are caught unawares of your own rhetorically shambled condition.
don’t worry about it Jasper, I’m leaving you and the others to the trolls becuase that’s all you’ll have left on here –
a prolife blog with a bunch of prochoice goon commentors.
Have fun! I’m with Rae on this one.
Posted by: toostunnedtolaugh at February 14, 2009 10:17 PM
Correcto.
When Jill invites pro-choicers to this site, as she did the semantic legerdemain, bourgeois Asitis, it confirmed my theory that Stanek needs pro-choicers more then pro-lifers.
Many times this site has more pro-choicers posting, then pro lifers.
As for evolution.
What makes you sentient, isn’t sentient. The neuron.
In attempt to expose the vile naked cruelty of another, you are caught unawares of your own rhetorically shambled condition.
Posted by: Yo La Tengo at February 15, 2009 1:47 AM
Expose? Naked? Cruelty?
Your post is pretentious, insincere,and intellectually vacuous.
Are you unaware of the definition of rhetoric?
PIP:
In many areas the Catholic Church does not follow the literal teaching of Scripture. In fact, every church denomination has heresy in it because it has imperfect people in it.
Sadly, among Christian seminaries, colleges, and even churches, the teaching of Darwinian evolution in any form has historically been welcomed in many ways that dishonor Christ. How so? Recall how in Exodus Aaron sacrificed truth and dishonored the Lord when he led the rebellious Israelites to worship a golden calf that supposedley “evolved” while Moses was absent. Notice that Aaron labeled the “spontaneoulsy-generated” golden calf “the Lord” and not “Baal” in order to excuse the idol’s inclusion into Israels’s religious practices. Yet, a golden calf statue, whether called “Baal” or “the Lord”, is still a golden calf statue. A gold ring snouted pig is still a pig.
Likewise, any theistic evolutionary explanation for origins – regardless of its label as “progressive creation” or “day-age creation” is just a nicer name for compromise. Aaron’s sin is called syncretism, a blending of pagan religion with biblical religion, which is exactly what theistic evolution is. It is false testimony about God the Creator.
Syncretistic teaching compromises God’s revealed truth-sometimes contradicting biblical data that prove the young age of the earth. Such syncretism is a “hybrid” religion like the Samaritans’ religion which Jesus himself condemned (John 14:19-26). The Samairtans mischaracterized God’s character and His proper worship (as theistic evolution does today). As many historical and contemporary examples illustrate, the error of the Samaritans is repeated by all who adulterate Bible-based truth with pagan evolutionary concepts.
It is up to the individual, based on a heartfelt and earnest relationship with Jesus Christ to search out the truth for themselves. The church will not stand before Christ to give an account, we as individuals will.
Read this quote please:
Philippians 2:11-13 “11and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. 12Therefore, my dear friends, as you have always obeyed—not only in my presence, but now much more in my absence—continue to work out your salvation with fear and trembling, 13for it is God who works in you to will and to act according to his good purpose.”
Now, having said all that, I am extremely concerned for you, in fact, I care about you very much….to the point where I stand against what you believe about theistic evolution. I am sure that your continued belief in that lie will result in your ultimate destruction. Satan is using it to mislead you and you don’t even realize it. You have an intrinsic level of arrogance and pride about you that keeps your mind shut to the truth. You are unwilling to allow yourself to simply trust scripture, the word of God because you have been taught that doing so is somehow unintelligent and that is the last thing that you want to appear as, again pride knocks at the door. We must be willing to deny oursleves completely if we are to be found in Christ. Here’s a very stern warning to those of us who refuse to believe what God so simply and eloquently says:
Romans 1:19-28 “19since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
21For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.
24Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.
26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.
28Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done.”
You are very intelligent PIP and this is a gift from God, however, you are grieving the Holy Spirit by not being led by the Spirit as quoted here:
Galatians 5: 16-26 “16So I say, live by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the sinful nature. 17For the sinful nature desires what is contrary to the Spirit, and the Spirit what is contrary to the sinful nature. They are in conflict with each other, so that you do not do what you want. 18But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under law.
19The acts of the sinful nature are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; 20idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions 21and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God.
22But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law. 24Those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the sinful nature with its passions and desires. 25Since we live by the Spirit, let us keep in step with the Spirit. 26Let us not become conceited, provoking and envying each other.”
God bless you PIP, I really hope and pray that you have an epiphany about Jesus Christ and come to a clear knowledge of Him who loves you and gave His life for you.
Thanks for your concern, HisMan, but I’ll leave the evolution thing up to God ;)
Hey gang; here’s another perspective on those entrenched college professors who push their faith in evolution. Most of the real gurus of the academic evolutionary scene, are guys and gals that come from what was known as the anti-establishment, don’t trust anyone over 30, do your own thing, better living through chemistry (LSD), revolutionary movement of about 1963 through 1975. Yep, that corresponds to the approximate time of the Vietnam War of which these folks were the hippest of protesters. I was there, and yes I personally know a few of these wayward academics. They just never got over it. Check out my webpage for some good information mixed with satire, and fun poking at the ol’ comrades. http://www.theyearofdarwin.com Fortunately for science, most of these, who used mind altering drugs in their wayward youth, are rapidly approaching retirement. Since there really hasn’t been any massive cultural movement to legitimize recreational drug use since back in the day, it seems most likely the waves of history will now push us to a more balanced and wholesome shore. Evolutionary theory will certainly be around but without its rabid and energetic high priests to fuel its worship, it should subside. The recent surveys, if they are to be believed, which show a large increase in the American public’s acceptance of the creationist viewpoint, may be an indication of such. Hi Prettyinpink, I checked out your Pseudomonas Aeruginosa, as a proof for molecular scum pond to mankind evolution. Very interesting for sure, however it falls into the category of presuppositional interpretation of whether a beneficial functional development resulted from a loss of information or new information within the framework of the question, “is this really what happened in the historic development of mankind.” I know that seems like a repetitive old rag but that is where the objective science leads. Unfortunately, in some regards, when dealing with the ancient past origins of mankind, the reality is no one knows for sure, it is all faith based. It reminds me of a lyric from the bygone era, in the song, the Boxer, “still a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest.”
If you’re interested you can read one creationist interpretation of Pseudomonas Aeruginosa at http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v17/i3/bacteria.asp
Be blessed on your journey. Travis
Posted by: asitis at February 14, 2009 5:13 PM
U.S. Lags Behind Europe, Japan in Acceptance of Evolution
Friday, August 11, 2006
——————————————————-
Do you detect the bias in the way in which the headline is written?
How about this for bias the other way:
‘US maintains lead over U.S. Lags Behind Europe, Japan in Rejection of Evolution’
Now for balanced neutral perspective.
Populations of US, Europe and Japan not unanimous in their acceptance of the Theory of Evolution.
The cited article reflects a bias toward the ‘fact’ of evolution and the utter nonsense of even countenancing the slighest suggestion that there might be an equally plausible alternative no matter the impecable credentials of the one foolish/brave enough to publicly make the assertion.
yor bro ken
Posted by: prettyinpink at February 14, 2009 10:22 PM
‘You deriding evolutionary biologists leads me to believe that you find evolution to be an illegitimate field of study.’
—————————————————
Isn’t the term ‘evolutionary biologists’ a label that indicates these scientists are not looking for ‘truth’, but evidence to support their commonly accepted assumption, that ‘evolution’ is the only plausible explanation for the origens of life?
We can argue about whether they are the subjects of undeserved ‘derision’, but thier bias in regard to the origens of life is not a question.
yor bro ken
Populations of US, Europe and Japan not unanimous in their acceptance of the Theory of Evolution.
Posted by: kbhvac at February 15, 2009 2:28 PM
You are true there ken. There is not 100% acceptance of evolution. Even outside the United States you will find fundamental religions…. just not as abundant as here.
Ken, isn’t the term gravitational physicist indicate that they are not looking for truth, but evidence to support gravitational theory?
What about microbiologists and cell theory?
Astrophysicists and the big bang theory?
Geneticists and gene theory?
Nuclear chemists and Atomic theory, Molecular Orbital theory, and VSEPR theory?
“there might be an equally plausible alternative ”
Right now there is no equally plausible alternative, unless you’d like to bring your own scientific research to the table.
Could some one define ‘spiritual attack’ and/or give me an example?
It does not have to be peculiar to this site.
A personal or docuemented historical incident would suffice.
yor bro ken
origins origins origins origins origins origins origins origins origins origins origins origins
knock, knock.
who’s there?
Orange.
Orange who?
Orange you glad I didn’t type origens again?
You are true there ken. There is not 100% acceptance of evolution. Even outside the United States you will find fundamental religions…. just not as abundant as here.
Posted by: asitis at February 15, 2009 3:17 PM
—————————————————–
That is a measurable objective fact. How one ‘feels’ about it is not.
yor bro ken
Ken, isn’t the term gravitational physicist indicate that they are not looking for truth, but evidence to support gravitational theory?
What about microbiologists and cell theory?
Astrophysicists and the big bang theory?
Geneticists and gene theory?
Nuclear chemists and Atomic theory, Molecular Orbital theory, and VSEPR theory?
Posted by: prettyinpink at February 15, 2009 3:30 PM
—————————————————-
Which one of these scientific disciplines that you cited is not pursued with measureable observable evidence obtained with the best available technologies based on the scientific method?
The question is: Are you in quest of the truth, or are you just looking for evidence to support your preferred conclusion, to the exclusion of that which does not affirm your desire.
Question everything.
The truth will out.
Loose your agenda.
yor bro ken
pip
I do not have a definition of a ‘transitional form’. I do not even know what that is.
But according to the video you recomended, I am not alone. The paleontologists could not arrive at a conclusion either.
I think it must be like pornography. You will know it when you see it.
yor bro ken
Ken,
If you don’t know what a transitional form is, then how can you decide what is or isn’t. Fossils or organisms that show the intermediate states between an ancestral form and that of its descendants are referred to as transitional forms.
If you really did watch the videos, then these fossils are just that.
It is intellectually dishonest to claim something without knowing what you are claiming.
“Which one of these scientific disciplines that you cited is not pursued with measureable observable evidence obtained with the best available technologies based on the scientific method?”
Ken, ALL scientific disciplines dealing with scientific theories have to rely on the scientific method or it’s NOT SCIENTIFIC. Again, it is intellectually dishonest to claim these things without finding it out for yourself. Why don’t you go search a database, or PubMed, to find out the thousands upon thousands of scientific papers on the subject. Evolutionary theory has been rigorously tested and question for over 100 years and nothing has yet falsified it. I challenge you to legitimately research evolution before drawing conclusions. Or if nothing else, go find the first video and click on the producer of the video (“ExtantDodo.”) He does more videos like that.
I think I really need to check out. This is exhausting. I’m tired of trying so hard to help people understand the position who in no way want to entertain an idea that might seem contrary to what they think.
Have a good one, everybody.
PIP, you need a vacation! Luckily, there are lots of countries you can run away to where you wouldn’t even be having this conversation. Just avoid Turkey! Have a good night!
Posted by: prettyinpink at February 15, 2009 4:09 PM
‘If you don’t know what a transitional form is, then how can you decide what is or isn’t.’
‘Fossils or organisms that show the intermediate states between an ancestral form and that of its descendants are referred to as transitional forms.’
—————————————————-
I was just being honest. That is a good place to start if one is in search of the truth.
The wisest thing a man can say is I do not know.
That is intellectual honesty.
Will you be honest enough to confess that which you do not know?
yor bro ken
“Will you be honest enough to confess that which you do not know?”
I doubt she would, her pride gets in the way.
Question everything.
The truth will out.
Loose your agenda.
yor bro ken
Posted by: kbhvac at February 15, 2009 3:52 PM
Nice words, but I doubt many who follow your advice would remain in the Church.
define ‘church’
yor bro ken
Posted by: prettyinpink at February 15, 2009 4:14 PM
‘Evolutionary theory has been rigorously tested and question for over 100 years and nothing has yet falsified it.’
——————————————————
Anybody with more intellectual lifting power than me see any problem with that statement.
Let me rephrase that question:
Does anybody with more education and experience in the ‘scientific method’ find any problem with that statement?
yor bro ken
“Evolutionary theory has been rigorously tested”
where are the tests that one species evolves into another? I’m not talking about changes within species..
explain, no links please.
@Jasper: You know how evolution says humans evolved from a common ancestor of both humans and apes, yes? Well, we found that the great apes (gorillas, chimpanzees, etc.) had 24 chromosomes, where as humans only had 23 chromosomes. It was hypothesized that if humans were in fact descended from a common ancestor of apes, then it would mean two of our chromosomes fused together at the telomeres, making one chromosome and giving us 23 chromosomes as opposed to 24 chromosomes. This follows evolutionary theory.
Telomeres and centromeres have a distinct, repetitive genetic sequence that make them easily identifiable upon examination of a genome sequence. Upon examination of the human genome (which was finished being sequenced in ~2003), it was found that telomeres were found in the middle of the Chromosome 2 in the human genome. This indicates a fusion of two chromosomes as telomeres are otherwise ONLY found on the ends of chromosomes, not in the middle. It also shows that chromosome 2 has TWO centromeres (though one of the centromeres is nonfunctional), where as every other chromosome only has one.
Had that fusion not been discovered, then evolution would have been wrong because it would show that humans were not related to great apes after all, as we would be lacking a major chromosome necessary for survival.
“Does anybody with more education and experience in the ‘scientific method’ find any problem with that statement?”
No.
Atomic theory is not “true” but it hasn’t been shown to be false yet either and its been rigorously tested and fine-tuned over the years, just as Darwin’s original theory of evolution has been tested and fine-tuned.
“Will you be honest enough to confess that which you do not know?”
Of course- and I did repeatedly when I was talking to Oliver.
Posted by: Hal at February 15, 2009 8:22 PM
‘Nice words, but I doubt many who follow your advice would remain in the Church.’
———————————————————–
If by ‘church’ you mean the institition or the building, then I might be inclined to agree with you.
That is the way many if not most ‘believers’ understand ‘church’.
On the other hand, for those believers who know the living God to whom they have been joined then I doubt few, if any, would choose to separate themselves from the life and the love of God even if it was revealed to them that they may have misunderstood the God who gave them breath.
One of the things that I ask of God as often as it comes to mind is that HE disabuse me of false knowledge. HE has been faithful to grant that request. Sometimes the ‘revelation’ has embarrassed and even offended me.
Knowing the ‘truth’ is liberating. Believing the lie is bondage.
yor bro ken
Rae,
Ok, thanks for explaining that.
@Jasper: You’re most welcome.
Rae,
In evolution theory or Darwinism, do all species evolve from one another? are there any distinct, separate origins?
what about cambrian explosion. Where distinct organisms were created.
@Jasper: Evolutionary theory says everything evolved from one common ancestor billions of years ago (the “first cell”).
What about the Cambrian explosion? I’m not sure what you’re getting at with that particular statement.
Here Rae.. from Wiki
The Cambrian explosion has generated extensive scientific debate. The seemingly rapid appearance of fossils in the “Primordial Strata” was noted as early as the mid 19th century,[6] and Charles Darwin saw it as one of the main objections that could be made against his theory of evolution by natural selection.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambrian_explosion
Jasper, I know what the Cambrian explosion is. What exactly do you want to know about it? Why are you asking me about it?
well, its says that many different organisms were created abruptly..
@Jasper: “Abruptly” is a relative term. The Cambrian Explosion lasted millions of years. It was not overnight.
Ken, if you want to look up at some posts to Oliver where I said a few times where my limitations were, where science’s current limitations are, etc. then you wouldn’t have to ask that question.
I’ll do some homework for ya Ken.
“True. I’ll admit right now, my strength isn’t in molecular biology and Rae’s is. But I’m fairly familiar with the evolutionary process.”
“Scientists don’t know all the answers”
“The theory has been refined quite a bit, and most scientists are the first to say we don’t have all the answers.”
“When we go way far back in time, sometimes by looking at the structures in fossils or something, along with palentological knowledge and such about the time period, we can guess why it proved beneficial. But evolution itself doesn’t always provide all the answers. We don’t know everything, and I don’t know one scientist who claims we do..”
“Well we never know anything of certainty..”
“I doubt she would, her pride gets in the way.”
tsk tsk jasper, personal attacks are unbecoming.
Proverbs 9:7-8
7 “Whoever corrects a mocker invites insult;
whoever rebukes a wicked man incurs abuse.
8 Do not rebuke a mocker or he will hate you;
rebuke a wise man and he will love you.
I’m not sure how life arose on earth, when, or how it developed. Or exactly how old the universe and earth are.
But I am absolutely certain that the universe was NOT created 6-10 thousand years ago in six days , and that Adam and Eve actually existed, or Noah’s ark, etc. Or that something called original sin exists, and that God chose some young girl in Ancient Palestine out of the blue, impregnated her with his son who was sent here to redeem mankind and become the scapegoat for all our sins 2000 years ago, had him brutally executed, and that he rose from the dead miraculously etc.
I don’t want to sound disrespectful in saying this; you Christians have every right to believe this if you want. But all of this makes absolutely no sense to me.
What about the countless people who lived before Christ ? Are they all in hell because they were unfortunate enough to live before him? Or primitive tribes in remote areas who never get to hear about Christ? Are they doomed to hell too ?
It’s not their fault they never got to hear of Christ. Or Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, atheists, agnostics and Zoroastrians etc just because they happen to follow the wrong religion ?
Makes absolutely no sense to me.
Just because something is written down in some ancient book of legends and questinable history called the Bible says something is no reason to accept this blindly and try to force the government to make laws based on these dubious pronouncements.
Please don’t take offense at this. These are just MY opinions and they are similar to those of many other people.
If you believe what the Bible says, that’s your right.
And to say that Darwin and Malthus are responsible for causing abortions is just plain preposterous. Abortions happened long before they were born and would still occur even if they had never lived.
I dfon’t hate Christianity or Christians. I just disagree vehemently with them.
And far from hating Christ, I revere him as a great religious teacher. I just don’t consider him the son of God or a savior of any kind. Please don’t be offended by this.
Mr. Berger:
It is obvious that you are so lost that the only thing that will save you is a word from God. Of course you can choose to reject it until you are no longer given the opportunity but that is your choice. I’ll let God rebuke you through His word:
1 Corinthians 3:18-20 “18Do not deceive yourselves. If any one of you thinks he is wise by the standards of this age, he should become a “fool” so that he may become wise. 19For the wisdom of this world is foolishness in God’s sight. As it is written: “He catches the wise in their craftiness”; 20and again, “The Lord knows that the thoughts of the wise are futile.””
1 Corinthians 2:13-15 “13This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, expressing spiritual truths in spiritual words. 14The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned. 15The spiritual man makes judgments about all things, but he himself is not subject to any man’s judgment:”
Galations 5: 16-26 “16So I say, live by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the sinful nature. 17For the sinful nature desires what is contrary to the Spirit, and the Spirit what is contrary to the sinful nature. They are in conflict with each other, so that you do not do what you want. 18But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under law.
19The acts of the sinful nature are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; 20idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions 21and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God.
22But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law. 24Those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the sinful nature with its passions and desires. 25Since we live by the Spirit, let us keep in step with the Spirit. 26Let us not become conceited, provoking and envying each other.”
Mr. Berger, it’s simple. We are all lost sinners. Because of His great love for us, the Father sent Jesus Christ to die in our place, so we did not have to bear the penalty for our own sins in eternal hell fire. If we believe that and conform our lives to Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior, the Holy Spirist indwells us and gives us the power to live for God.
Unitl you make this first step of acceptance, nothing we Christians will say or do will cause you to repent of your lost condition and the eternal damantion that awaits you.
My prayer and hope for you is that you realize how much God loves you and wants relationship with you but on His terms for He is God and we are merely His creatures. Until then, you are His mortal enemy. To stand against the Lord is the most foolish thing a human being can do. It is futile.
Again, this is why evolution is so evil. It denies God as Creator and thus is a human and fruitles attempt to deny Him and therefore the very ignorant conclusion that because a “theory” has replaced God, man not longer needs to respond to God. Theistic evolution is no better for it is a watered down, luke warn, panty waste version of compromise, and hence, a much more deceptive attempt at deceiving even the elect.
Mr. Berger, there are two books that I would recommend to you, as you say Christianity “makes no sense” to you. One book is C.S. Lewis’s “Mere Christianity” and the other is Dr. Gregory Boyd’s “Letters From a Skeptic.”
Those might help to answer some of the questions you listed above, or at least give you some perspective on the viewpoints in Christianity. The questions you have are very common questions that are addressed in these books.
Although we all observe the effect of gravity, it was actually mathematically described and explained by Newton which is why we have the universal gravitation coefficient. Actual, analysis and proof.
Likewise germ theory proven by Pasteur disproved spontaneous generation of common rot and disease. Germ theory is why vaccines work. Pasteur invented the anthrax vaccine which he proved effective in livestock. Actual reproducible effects based on analysis and proof.
However, actual mathematical or reproducible experiments that generate the basic building blocks of life have not been achieved and until they are some will remain skeptical. It is just normal for some people to be skeptical. Just like some are skeptical that there is a God or supernatural whatever.
Those who believe in God or evolution without the proof are no less reasonable than those who don’t believe in God or evolution because there is no proof.
Either way its either faith and skepticism.
Both faith and skepticism are reasonable.
Hippie:
I beg to differ with you.
Faith is a gift from God and hence good and rational.
Skepticism is a result of our fallen nature and is therefore, evil, a result of insanity.
Evolution is a Theory. Once a person speaks of “believing in evolution” then the person is abusing a scientific theory as a religion.
Science is a method for gaining understanding of physical phenomena. The spiritual phenomena and understandings are outside of science, and the methodology is poorly applicable at best.
Pop an email to me if you’d like to comment since I won’t have time to follow the looooooong blog. I’m going to copy it into my private blog also, and that’s linked to my nic.
Here is an excerpt from Darwin’s own book, on “The Origin of Species” showing that he obviously did not reject the Creator at the time of putting forth his theory about the mechanism.
**
“There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having originally been breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved.”
**
Yep, that is at the tail end of his book, and even the word ‘Creator’ is capitalized.
Skepticism is a result of our fallen nature and is therefore, evil, a result of insanity.
Posted by: HisMan at February 16, 2009 3:09 PM
All skepticism is evil? Or just skepticism about religion?
Hal:
Read this and then re-ask the question:
1 Corinthians 13
1If I speak in the tongues[a] of men and of angels, but have not love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. 2If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. 3If I give all I possess to the poor and surrender my body to the flames,[b] but have not love, I gain nothing.
4Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 6Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.
8Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away. 9For we know in part and we prophesy in part, 10but when perfection comes, the imperfect disappears. 11When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me. 12Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.
13And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.
so I can be skeptical?
HisMan, I have a present fo ryou.
http://ccinsider.comedycentral.com/2009/02/12/the-daily-shows-best-evolution-moments/
Real kind of you PIP but not unexepected.
PIP:
You may want to start getting your info from a different source.
http://www.icr.org