The last few weeks I have been ill & snowed in. This has given me the chance to do a little bit of reading and I have been reading an old book about one of my favourite Formula One drivers ever. Ayrton Senna Da Silva. I was never old enough to see him race but I have watched videos & read books that have caused me to believe that this guy was probably the greatest Formula One driver ever. 3 time World Champion, 65 pole positions, 41 wins.
I'd love to share some of his quotes as he was so deep & insightful about racing & life.
"And so you touch this limit, something happens and you suddenly can go a little bit further. With your mind power, your determination, your instinct, and the experience as well, you can fly very high."
"If you have God on your side, everything becomes clear."
"And if you no longer go for a gap that exists, you are no longer a racing driver because we are competing, competing to win."
The Williams team strongly believed they were not to blame, so blamed the track and the tyres. The track officials believed the track was fine so they blamed the Williams team. The prosecutor felt it was the Williams team fault, so tried to blame them.
It is similar with the Creation/Evolution debate. Those who believe in Evolution rashly rule out the possibility of Intelligent Design and look at everything as if Evolution is fact (for the record I am talking about the highly debatable theory of macro evolution not micro evolution..cats obviously become different kinds of cats but there is no evidence for anything specie changing form). Christians look at the evidence with a belief that God created the earth and interpret it differently. For the record, I think scientific evidence strongly points towards a Creator and doesn't point against at all.
Often people go on about 'evidence' when arguing against God when actually the evidence can work both ways. Ultimately we have to search out for ourselves what is true.
I'll leave you with this verse to encourage you that God can be found, I know it for myself :)
Jeremiah 29:13 - You will seek me and find me when you seek me with all your heart.
Acts 17:27 :D
ReplyDeleteActs 17:27
ReplyDeleteGod did this so that they would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from any one of us.
Nice one, thanks! :)
I see you saw Narnia, what a film :D
May I just ask what the evidence that proves there is creator, is?
ReplyDeleteI assume you mean solid evidence not just absence of knowledge. For example, back when Pompeii was destroyed by Mount Vesuvius, the people thought, in their absence of knowledge, that they had angered the gods, but now we know its just down to convergent tectonic plates.
I'm not here to cause an argument or anything, it's just when I ask my Christian friends these questions they refuse to answer me :( Im just curious is all
Hi! No THANK YOU for your question and shame on your Christian friends for refusing to answer you. I believe that if my faith is true it should stand up to all scrutiny. I love standing up for my faith too so thank you for the opportunity.
ReplyDeleteScientific evidence completely points to Intelligent Design. For example, the position of the earth. If the earth was 1 mile closer to the sun it would be too hot to live on, 1 mile further away would make it too cold. 0.001% more hydrogen in the air would make it uninhabitable, so would 0.001% less. The complexity of the human body and the processes of earth itself point to a designer. If the DNA code came down from space, people would shout 'intelligence' but in the human body they don't when it is near impossible for it to be by accident or chance. It is near impossible for the whole of creation and the balances life depends on to be by accident or chance.
Logically, it makes sense. You cannot have any basis for morality or any other absolutes without a higher power. Otherwise it is the word of humans against the words of humans.
Historically no archaelogical discovery has ever contradicted the Bible and many have gone to prove it true. We also have historical proof that Christ existed and lived the life He did. The prophecies about Him that came true which were made 700+ years before He lived are incredible. In Psalm 22 the crucifixtion is prophesised when it hadn't even been invented as a punishment. In Isaiah 40 it says the world is round, 2000 years before we found out.
There is also the vast amount of humans who claim a real experience with God. No other religion but Christianity claims you can have experiences with God which tells the story to me! When it runs to millions of people in Britain alone there has to be something to it. I know God is true from my own experience although I know I can't use that as evidence to others perhaps, its great evidence for me!
The lack of other decent arguments is also telling. The Evolution theory, whilst true in a mini evolution sense that would explain the vast amount of cats etc. There is no evidence for suggest species changing. No fossils to prove it out of millions! It also goes aginst the 2nd law of thermodynamics - All processes (left to themselves) go toward a greater state of disorder, disorganisation, disarrangement and less complexity. Also, there is evidence that shows that the human race was around the same time as 'Neandarthals' & even that the 40 biggest phylla were around at the start of time.
Speaking of the start of time, the Big Bang theory is consistent with the account of Creation in the Book of Genesis. It suggests an immediate beginning, clearly consistent with 'Let there be'.
I would add, lastly, that you will never prove God for definite in a physical sense because He isn't a physical God. Like the wind, He cannot be seen but He can be felt & heard. Jesus is as physical as it will get. The Bible promises that the person who seeks God with all his/her heart will find Him! God wants us to live with a measure of faith in Him rather than depend totally on evidence.
There is a lot more stuff and feel free to ask me anymore questions :) Thanks again.
First of all, can I just thank you for your reply. In my experience I have never had Christian theories put to me in a kind, friendly way before. It was so refreshing, I just wish more of the Christians I have met were like you :)
ReplyDeleteSecondly, I'd like to just say that I believe that your evidence that points to Intelligent design is purely down to how you have interpreted it, and in no way does it give definitive proof. But I know that it works the other way. I believe that the position of the Earth and percentages of hydrogen in the air show the true complexities of the universe and I believe that one day (maybe not for generations) we will find another planet like ours, orbiting a different sun. As I said, as an atheist, this is how I have interpreted the facts.
I also want to say, because this is something that has arisen so many times it now makes me want to cry, evolution does not go against the second law of thermodynamics. The second law states that, although energy can be neither created or destroyed, it can, in a closed system, become more impotent to do useful work. Creationist frequently misquote the theory, missing out "in a closed system". Take that out and yes the theory of evolution is impossible. There is no contradiction because of the sun.
Also there have been many transitional fossils discovered.
I completely agree that you can't prove that He is definitely there, just as I can't prove He's definitely not. I have so much respect for your beliefs and how proud you are of them. That fact that you believe "that if my faith is true it should stand up to all scrutiny", I find very admirable.
If it's not true much trouble I'd like to ask you another question that has always confused me. Do you, personally, take The Bible to be literal? You say that you believe that Genesis is literally how the world was created, but I would assume that you don't agree with the incest in the story of Sodom and Gomorrah (Genesis 19:31-6) or Judges 19:23-24 when an old man offers his daughter up to be gang raped by an angry mob. Again, I'm not trying to pick a fight, I just never understood it. If you don't believe that to be literal, then how do you decide what to take literally and what to take figuratively? When I ask my friend this question I can never get a straight answer.
Thanks for answering my first question. I really appreciate it.
Hello again! Thank you for your compliments :) Likewise I don't find many Atheists prepared to discuss these things in a friendly & open way so thank you for being different in a good way :)
ReplyDeleteOkay, that's fine and kind of fits in with the original post!
Okay, thanks for saying that about the 2nd law of thermodynamics. My knowledge isn't sufficient to argue further on that.
Transitional fossils have been found that show mini evolution but nothing ever showing macro evolution. Atheists such as Dawkins keep using micro evolution examples to prove macro evolution that annoys me. From an apologist standpoint, although I don't agree with it, Evolution doesn't disprove God as the 'days' in Genesis chapter 1 can be interpreted in the Hebrew language to mean 'periods of time' which would allow the time for such processes. As I said, I am a firm believer that Creation is literally described in Genesis and that Evolution isn't how mankind came about.
You raise a good question about the Bible. My response is that the Bible isn't 100% a book of commands. It is also a book of poetry, a book of metaphors and a book of historical fact. It's all true but I would say the interpretation is obvious. I never struggled with these things anyway.
Just because something is recorded in the Bible doesn't mean it is approved by the Bible. For example, David's sin with Bathsehab in 2 Samuel 11 is later condemned by God and I wouldn't have thought that Christians would seek to follow the example of Judas. It is just these events are important parts of the history of Israel & God's People and to know the reason why Jesus had to come these stories needed to be there. They are also example of mistakes that we can learn from. The Bible is non contradictory and things such as incest & rape are condemned in other parts so you can always see those things to know that these things are definitly wrong.
I believe the Bible is all true and useful for teaching and rebuking. But, like all books, is has to be read in context.
I hope that satisifies your question :)
Again, any further questions are welcome.
Hi again,
ReplyDeletethis is a good summary of some of my arguments if you fancy a read:-
http://www.everystudent.com/features/isthere.html
I just read it and thought it summed up some of my points far more intelligently than I did!!
I don't want to bombard you with stuff so let me know if it's too much.
Um... Mike:
ReplyDeleteAll the arguments about the position of the Sun, hydrogen percentages, etc. are largely irrelevant: while I don't doubt the facts are true, if these things WEREN'T the case, we would never have been in the position to debate it. Our existence is conditional on these being true, so really show no evidence either for or against God's existence.
And archaeological evidence may well point to Jesus' existence, and even God's existence, but it says absolutely nothing on the Intelligent Design issue; same goes for talking about experiences with God. Like you pointed out, there is no inconsistency between belief in God and evolution.
Thankfully the confusion about the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics has been cleaned up. But the fact that there is evidence that humans were around at the same time as 'Neandarthals' is, at best, misreported. For one thing, the term 'human' is just going to confuse the debate. It's true that 'Homo sapiens sapiens' and 'Homo sapiens neanderthalensis' were in existence at the same time, around 50-80 thousand years ago. This says nothing against evolution, and in fact fits in with the theory completely. The whole idea of evolution is that you get gradual change, and divergences, in response to the environment. It's no more surprising than noting that two cars which take different turnings at a junction were both at the junction at the same time! And with regards to the phyla, I'm not sure exactly from where you pulled that one; I presume you're not meaning the Big Bang when you say "start of time", and if there were any evidence that there was a start of time as claimed by fundamentalist Christians, I feel there would be a lot more publicity for it, not least by them...
Finally, I question your statement that there is no evidence for species changing. For a start, there's the whole issue of Darwin's finches on the Galapagos islands - to my mind, a clear indication that these birds, which share many common characteristics, have evolved into separate species (shown by their beak shapes) in response to their environment (the types of food available on the island). Also, there is plenty of evidence that, for instance, the horse has evolved in what you refer to as being a "macroscopic" manner. I choose the horse because it has one of the most complete fossil records that we have. Here's a nice image of it (Courtesy of Wikimedia commons) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Horseevolution.png
Hi Josh,
ReplyDeleteThe chances of all the parameters being exact without intelligence is absolutely ridiculous. This is a very telling argument for Intelligent Design.
This article sums up some of the arguments brilliantly - http://www.everystudent.com/features/isthere.html
Experiences with God are important. In a criminal court or in historical work, eyewitness evidence is the most crucial. One person saying something about knowing God cannot be considered seriously, but millions upon millions for thousands of years talking about the same God? That is telling.
The existence & life of Jesus is very important as Jesus claims to be God and if He was God then we might as well stop debating. Of course, if He wasn't...everything we Christians do is a waste of time, as Paul says in the Bible 'And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith' (1 Corinthians 15:14)
For Evolution to work, you cannot have species evolving from each other to be around at the same time. That is the case with homo sapiens & homo erectus.
The news was even reporting that the neandarthels may have been eaten by humans, showing that full humans were around the same time and that they were not linked.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2009/may/17/neanderthals-cannibalism-anthropological-sciences-journal
Darwin acknowledged himself that the fossil record failed to support his tree of life. The early fossil record also proves that most of the phyla was there straight after the Cambrian Explosion.
You should know that anything supporting the idea of God gets short shrift from the media these days. Christianity gets very little positive press and there isn't a great public sway for positive news as people like to avoid the idea that they need to make a choice about God.
The link you gave me just showed horses becoming different types of horses and on Galapagos they only became a different types of birds or am I mistaken?
Thanks for your post, I appreciate your thoughts :)
You misunderstood my point - I'm saying if the sun was further away, we wouldn't be around to argue for or against a creator's existence. So the very fact that we are around IMPLIES that conditions were "miraculously" right for life - it says absolutely nothing about whether or not God exists. If they weren't quite right, we wouldn't be alive to say "Ah, so there IS no God", so any arguments based upon conditions for life are flawed.
ReplyDeleteI read the article - the only points that have any merit are 3, 5 and 6, which talk about the consistent and mathematical nature of the universe, the feeling that God pursues us and Jesus' existence. The rest either run into the problems I outline above, or are bunk science.
I don't deny experiences with God or the existence of Jesus are important - they just have no relevance to the Creationism vs Evolution debate.
And, sorry, but you still seem to be misunderstanding evolution. The fact that Homo Sapiens, Homo Erectus and Homo Sapiens Neanderthalensis were all around at the same time is no more problematic than the fact that I am around at the same time as my brothers... We share a common ancestor; we all have similar traits to this common ancestor. The idea of evolution as a straight line of one species followed by another is ill-conceived, even if people sometimes try to present it as that. The reality is that it's hard to define where a species ends and begins - it's a continual process of change.
Darwin may or may not have said that, but personally I have found no record of his doing so - the closest I found was his concerns over gaps in the fossil record. But the fact is he was writing in 1859, and many fossils which were unavailable then have now been discovered. In addition, the fossil record is of increasing unimportance to the argument for evolution - DNA, RNA and protein sequence comparison and other types of analysis provide more evidence which is far harder to refute.
Yes, there was an explosion of life at the beginning of the Paleozoic Era, but there are numerous fossils from the Neoproterozoic and Mesoproterozoic eras (the ones before it) and even further back.
And with regards to evidence for a "start of time", I was just saying that I have never heard any plausible evidence whatsoever for the 7-day creation.
Finally, yes, it does "just" show horses becoming different types of horses. But we're going from a 0.4m "Horse" to a 1.6m horse with a very different physiology - they're very different animals. If you're implying that this, too, is micro-evolution, then there's not much left for macro-evolution to do...
I understand what you are saying but my response would be that I don't see a naturalistic way of the Universe & it's inhabitants coming into being.
ReplyDeleteOkay, I appreciate you reading it! :)
I suppose you are right that God being 100% true doesn't prove Creatonism right. I would argue that the Bible points to Creationism though so any definite proof of the validity of God & the Bible would be strong evidence for it.
Okay, I understand that. Going off topic, With regards to dating methods, do you really think the world is millions of years old?
Many people have told me that the RNA argument is a complete straw man argument but I don't know much more about it!
The thing left for macro evolution to do is actually move to the species onto something more. If it cannot, then the whole theory is debunked because lifeforms would have had to come from somewhere and gradually change into what they are now.
Thanks for your posts!
I think it is millions of years old - that's what the evidence points to, and there's not even any suggestion in the bible that it's any younger, as far as I'm aware.
ReplyDeleteIf you could point me to any articles explaining the flaws in the DNA/RNA argument, I would be very interested :)
And I think we're perhaps coming from very different conceptual standpoints - lifeforms coming from single-cell organisms and gradually changing into what they are now is exactly what evolutions is, and in my opinion the evidence we have supports that. As far as I'm aware we don't have evidence of the very first stages (as there are no bacteria that old surviving), but the evidence seems consistently supportive of evolution from as far back as we can go :)
Nope, the Bible doesn't make it obvious what it thinks. People do claim both young & old earth though.
ReplyDeleteOkay, I'll pass it onto you on facebook or something if I come across it :)
Isn't it a problem though that you are working from an assumption that conditions were the same in the past as they are now? That would be a major problem if it were wrong for the idea that the world was millions of years old and therefore for Evolution, as you have to have this amount of time for Evolution to work?
Either I'm misunderstanding you or you're misunderstanding evolution... The only conditions that needs to hold for evolution to work is that animals can pass on their characteristics to their children; as far as we know, there's no reason for that to be any different back then. And, yes, it would be a problem if you held both young earth and evolutionary beliefs, but I feel there are very few people who fall into this category ;-)
ReplyDelete"DNA, RNA and protein sequence comparison and other types of analysis provide more evidence which is far harder to refute."
ReplyDeleteSuch as?
"Yes, there was an explosion of life at the beginning of the Paleozoic Era, but there are numerous fossils from the Neoproterozoic and Mesoproterozoic eras (the ones before it) and even further back."
Previous to the Cambrian Explosion, which Michael was talking about, there were only fossils for incredibly simple single celled organisms. Straight after it there was complex multicelluar organisms. This is totally inconsistent with evolution.
"yes, it does "just" show horses becoming different types of horses. But we're going from a 0.4m "Horse" to a 1.6m horse with a very different physiology - they're very different animals. If you're implying that this, too, is micro-evolution, then there's not much left for macro-evolution to do..."
That isn't really true. The DNA mechanism for a small horse to become a large horse can be exactly the same. In the same way chinese people who are genetically the same are now getting taller due to their diet. The DNA hasn't changed. For macro-evolution to work new mechanisms neeed to be developed by random mutation, this has not been observed.
Okay :)
ReplyDeleteThe DNA evidence that I'm aware of (an article I was reading suggested there were other parts to it, but I don't know the details of these) is the presence of "deactivated" genes - for instance, the genes that produce Vitamin C. As you know, we can't produce Vitamin C while nearly all other animals can; except some types of apes which fossils suggest diverged from our evolutionary line relatively recently (on an evolutionary timescale). This would be explained by the theory of evolution, as at some point our common ancestors experienced a mutation which propagated through the species, and then was passed down to our small section of the "tree of life". There are also other examples of these "pseudogenes" which are copies of existing (functional) genes which have been erroneously moved to other parts of the gene sequence - again, there is a higher correlation between mammals that we think are more closely related from the fossil record.
And it's not overly surprising that there is a sudden explosion of life - just as there is normally a sudden diversification of life immediately after an extinction event, I would assume that you would expect a sudden diversification of life on the transition from the single-celled to multi-cellular organisms. You say "Straight after it there was complex multicelluar organisms" - this happened 1200 Ma, while the Precambrian was around 600 Ma. It is estimated that the first Prokaryotic cells emerge between 3800 and 2500 Ma, so that gives at anything up to 2.6 billion years for this to happen - a considerable length of time for the step between single-cellular and multi-cellular organisms, even on an evolutionary scale.
And with regards to the evolution of the horse, I concede your example about the Chinese diet, but that is on a very different scale to what we are talking about. The first Equus referred to on the chart (Hyracotherium) had 4 toes and resembled a fox or jackal far more than it did a horse. The genus has evolved into zebras, horses, mules, donkeys and its order (Perissodactyla) even includes the Rhinocerotidae (ie. Rhinoceros) and Tapiridae (Tapir) families. I consider this to be a reasonably significant change, worthy of the title 'macro-evolution'.
That would be rather odd don't you think? Evolution, which is meant to select those creatures that are strongest and best adapted, allows us to survive despite the fact that we have a gene that makes vitamin C malfunction? No considering vitamin C is essential for our lives shouldn't that malfunction be selected out?
ReplyDeleteAlso the thing about the DNA sequence is that we don't really understand what most of it does. So it is difficult to say this is a 'deactivated gene' because that can quite easily mean: we don't know what this part does. Which is in fact something completely different.
"And it's not overly surprising that there is a sudden explosion of life - just as there is normally a sudden diversification of life immediately after an extinction event"
This I disagree with entirely. After an extinction event you would expect a growth in the amount of life but certainly not diverity. Also you wouldn't expect the rapid formation of multicelluar organisms, that would be impossible.
The rate of evoultion would never and should never reach that speed.
Assuming your figures are right you are just making my point. From your figures prokaryote existed for a billion up to 2 billion years and then all of a sudden after the Cambrian explosion there are many multicellular organims. If evo was true then they would have appears gradually over the previous 2 billion years not all at the same time after the explosion.
It is totally inconsistent with evo.
"I consider this to be a reasonably significant change, worthy of the title 'macro-evolution'"
I agree, the transformation of a horse into a rhino would be macro evo. But that has never been observed to happen. Or anything like it.
Sorry to sound ratty, but did you actually read my comments properly?
ReplyDeleteYou certainly would expect diversification after an extinction event - lots of the environmental "niches" which were taken up by organisms before the extinction event would be freed up by it. If life diversifies then it faces less competition from other organisms, so has access to more food, water and resources without treading on other species' toes.
I also never said that "prokaryote existed for a billion up to 2 billion years and then all of a sudden after the Cambrian explosion there are many multicellular organims" - the first prokaryote fossils were found to be dated 3800 to 2500 Ma, as I stated, and then confirmed complex multi-cellular organisms were dated 1200 Ma (still 600 million years before the Cambrian explosion). This evolutionary change would have happened over the course of the 2 and a bit billion years, not overnight! This is entirely in keeping with evolution - this gradual change would be favoured as multi-cellular organisms can develop more complex behaviours (and hence compete better with single-celled organisms).
Also, I never stated that a horse has changed into a rhino - I said they come from the same order, so share would share common ancestors. This speciation is what I was referring to, not some straw-man transformation of a horse into a rhino.
Finally, the DNA - while I agree with you in general about the difficulty of ascertaining the difference between 'deactivated gene' and 'genes whose function we are unaware of', the Vitamin C gene has been identified in its active form (in dogs, for instance) and also its deactiveated form (in us), so we DO know its (lack of) functionality. In addition, the argument ignores the evidence of the pseudogene artifacts - ones which are functional (as in they perfectly replicate a part of the gene sequence whose function we understand), but have been erroneously copied to other parts of the sequence.
And there really is nothing odd about the Vitamin C gene malfunctioning - remember the basic premise of evolution is not that we gradually change into some super-entity which does everything perfectly; nor does it even select the creatures which are strongest and best adapted, in all circumstances; rather, those creatures whose mutations are disadvantageous in the environment in which they are found to producing offspring are less likely to reproduce, so their genes are gradually removed from the gene pool. You notice that there are almost no genetic diseases which have dominant alleles - if they did, most carriers would die before bearing children, and so the disease wouldn't be passed on. I agree that if the Vitamin C malfunction caused us to die far earlier (before having children), then we would expect us to have died out.
Even, say, if we had no fruit that produced Vitamin C, then we would expect the human race to have been "out-evolved" due to all of us dying of scurvy. But we are able to introduce fruit into our diet to replenish our Vitamin C levels - thus there is no evolutionary pressure. Evolution only occurs if there is a disadvantage to not doing so.
"You certainly would expect diversification after an extinction event - lots of the environmental "niches" which were taken up by organisms before the extinction event would be freed up by it. If life diversifies then it faces less competition from other organisms, so has access to more food, water and resources without treading on other species' toes."
ReplyDeleteI understand that concept, however since evolution is the mutation of an organism by random mutation, the speed of development is limited by the speed of mutation. It doesn't matter how free resources are, evolution cannot go faster than the speed of accumulation of good mutations, which is incredibly slow. So it wouldn't speed up evolution anywhere near enough.
"complex multi-cellular organisms were dated 1200 Ma (still 600 million years before the Cambrian explosion)." Can I read where you got this?
"This evolutionary change would have happened over the course of the 2 and a bit billion years, not overnight! This is entirely in keeping with evolution - this gradual change"
It is the gradual bit which is in contention. There appears (from what I've read) to be no multicelluar, and then several multicelluar. Which doesn't seem gradual at all over the time scale.
"Also, I never stated that a horse has changed into a rhino - I said they come from the same order, so share would share common ancestors. This speciation is what I was referring to, not some straw-man transformation of a horse into a rhino."
I wasn't making a straw man. I was merely using it as an example saying one creature cannot over time through random mutation become a completely different functioning creature. I wasn't you believed specifically that Rhinos come from horses.
"Vitamin C gene has been identified in its active form (in dogs, for instance) and also its deactiveated form (in us), so we DO know its (lack of) functionality."
It is unlikely that it is the same, else, logically, it would still work. DNA may appear inert, if we don't yet know the circumstances in which they become activated.
"nor does [Evolution] even select the creatures which are strongest and best adapted, in all circumstances; rather, those creatures whose mutations are disadvantageous in the environment in which they are found to producing offspring are less likely to reproduce"
A gene that should be making Vitamin C but isn't, is disadvantageous.
"Even, say, if we had no fruit that produced Vitamin C, then we would expect the human race to have been "out-evolved" due to all of us dying of scurvy. But we are able to introduce fruit into our diet to replenish our Vitamin C levels - thus there is no evolutionary pressure. Evolution only occurs if there is a disadvantage to not doing so."
There would always be an advantage, those who did not need to eat fruit would be able to spend more time pro-creating, searching for meat or carbohydrates etc etc. There would always be a benefit and if small characteristics didn't provide a bit benefit then technically we shouldn't have ears, eye brows or any of the other non "life or death" benefits we have been given in God's creation.
"I understand that concept, however since evolution is the mutation of an organism by random mutation, the speed of development is limited by the speed of mutation. It doesn't matter how free resources are, evolution cannot go faster than the speed of accumulation of good mutations, which is incredibly slow. So it wouldn't speed up evolution anywhere near enough."
ReplyDeleteWhile mutation is important, it is no way near as important as gene crossover. Most of the genes needed are in existence in the population, just not in the right combinations. Mutation is only need for completely new genes. This is an aspect of evolution that can be analysed quite well - look up genetic algorithms and their associated mutation/crossover rates, if you're interested.
"Can I read where you got this?"
Yes - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_algae
"It is the gradual bit which is in contention. There appears (from what I've read) to be no multicelluar, and then several multicelluar. Which doesn't seem gradual at all over the time scale."
What were you hoping for, a 1.5-celled organism? The step between unicellular and multicellular organisms is not as drastic as you are making out, as explained well by Bonner (http://tinyurl.com/2uubjzy)
"I was merely using it as an example saying one creature cannot over time through random mutation become a completely different functioning creature."
- http://www.jstor.org/pss/2410209
- http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
- http://tinyurl.com/38lfesm
- http://www.jstor.org/pss/2409766
- http://www.jstor.org/pss/3078919
That's a fair few articles, experiments and theories that say otherwise :)
"It is unlikely that it is the same, else, logically, it would still work. DNA may appear inert, if we don't yet know the circumstances in which they become activated."
I'm afraid I don't know enough about the mechanics of genetics to be able to tell you exactly how they know these genes are the same. The wikipedia article on it (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L-gulonolactone_oxidase) didn't exactly clear things up, but my best guess is that the disabling mutations are small enough relative to the size of the gene to allow positive identification. The scientists probably say it both better and posher :P
"A gene that should be making Vitamin C but isn't, is disadvantageous. There would always be an advantage, those who did not need to eat fruit would be able to spend more time pro-creating, searching for meat or carbohydrates etc etc. There would always be a benefit and if small characteristics didn't provide a bit benefit then technically we shouldn't have ears, eye brows or any of the other non "life or death" benefits we have been given in God's creation. "
I think you still have a slightly skewed idea of what affects evolution - the 5 minutes it might take you to eat your fruit daily will not significantly affect the time you spend procreating... Granted, the lack of the gene is certainly not beneficial, but it won't affect the number of healthy offspring you have, which is all that matters when discussing the preservation of your genes.
With regards to ears, I think it's highly useful to be able to hear large scary things creeping up on you, if only so you can run as fast as you can away from them. Evolutionary pressure? I should think so.
Eyebrows, I'm guessing that they were evolved because keeping sweat out your eyes is pretty useful for fighting, and its use for communication was probably useful when trying to establish larger, more sociable, groups of humans.
"While mutation is important, it is no way near as important as gene crossover. Most of the genes needed are in existence in the population, just not in the right combinations."
ReplyDeleteChristians (inc fundys) have no issue with gene cross over. That is just the mixing of the genetic material that God already put in existence in the first place. It is the mutation bit that we generally consider naff. And that is what would be needed for an 'explosion of diversity'.
"What were you hoping for, a 1.5-celled organism? The step between unicellular and multicellular organisms is not as drastic as you are making out"
Maybe not, but the appearance of so many in such a short time defies evolution. One would be normal, several really isn't.
"I was merely using it as an example saying one creature cannot over time through random mutation become a completely different functioning creature."
- http://www.jstor.org/pss/2410209
This appears to be discussing models and theories, not scientific method in the sense of observe test repeat.
http://tinyurl.com/38lfesm
Again backwards looking. It looks at the genes and then tries to guess what has happened.
Did I ever tell you the storey of the fruit flies that didn't evolve? 'Scientists' where trying to observe evolution in fruit flies and to 'speed' the process up, they were exposing the flies to very high doeses of radiation. It still didn't work, but there is no doubt if it had they would have used that as evidence of evo even though it took place in unnatuaral conditions.
- http://www.jstor.org/pss/2409766
This one tells you everything you need to know in the first two lines. 'Due to the amount of time it takes to occurr speciation has "rarely" been observed'.
I think they mean never, but the point remains. The scientific method is to OBSERVE, test and repeat, the very thing that no one has ever been able to do with evolution.
"I think you still have a slightly skewed idea of what affects evolution - the 5 minutes it might take you to eat your fruit daily will not significantly affect the time you spend procreating... Granted, the lack of the gene is certainly not beneficial, but it won't affect the number of healthy offspring you have, which is all that matters when discussing the preservation of your genes."
That is really, really not the case. Sure it may take you and I 5 minutes to chomp our way though an apple or orange in the morning but that is because we have Tesco (or Wal-mart/Macro depending on where you live) for almost the whole of human history (the bit where we've supposedly evolved) the ability to be able to make our own Vitamin C would be, to use a term, a Godsend. It would mean we could survive through food shortage, seige and a plethora of other situations which have been the main challange to human kind.
"Christians (inc fundys) have no issue with gene cross over. That is just the mixing of the genetic material that God already put in existence in the first place. It is the mutation bit that we generally consider naff. And that is what would be needed for an 'explosion of diversity'."
ReplyDeleteI'm afraid not - as I mentioned, gene crossover is much more important for evolution that mutation. Mutation is not really necessary unless you have very little diversity in your gene pool. Like I said, look up genetic algorithms and you'll see that if you have a large population then you only really need a mutation rate to re-introduce genes which have been lost over generations. If you had a large enough population, you probably wouldn't even need one (depending on the initial spread of genes). But this is drifting from your original objection, which was that it was too short a timescale for the accumulation of beneficial mutations - which as I have laid out above, isn't a valid objection.
"Maybe not, but the appearance of so many in such a short time defies evolution. One would be normal, several really isn't."
This was addressed in the Bonner article I linked to. One of the theories of the origins of multicellularity is that a mutation damaged the way the cell division process worked - the offspring of this multicellular organism would have the same gene, and so the gene would propagate. Again, as Bonner points out, there is an evolutionary advantage to being a larger organism. Finally, I've just noticed that Bonner makes reference to "Schoph JW (1993) Microfossils of the early
Archean apex chert: New evidence of the antiquity of life. Science 260:640–646" as saying that cyanobacteria showed multicellularity some 3.5 billion years ago, which makes the whole short time scale argument rather academic.
"I think they mean never, but the point remains. The scientific method is to OBSERVE, test and repeat, the very thing that no one has ever been able to do with evolution."
Firstly, you've ignored the other 2 or 3 I sent you, including the excellent http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html#part5 which at least 20 observations and tests (I gave up at 20 - there are far more). Obviously, not a perfect empirical basis, but it is enough to indicate that speciation is possible. On the other hand, I think you'll find that Creationism fails rather admirably on any of the steps of "Observe, test, repeat" :)
"That is really, really not the case. Sure it may take you and I 5 minutes to chomp our way though an apple or orange in the morning but that is because we have Tesco (or Wal-mart/Macro depending on where you live) for almost the whole of human history (the bit where we've supposedly evolved) the ability to be able to make our own Vitamin C would be, to use a term, a Godsend. It would mean we could survive through food shortage, seige and a plethora of other situations which have been the main challange to human kind."
All the examples you gave were general shortages of food - the possession of a Vitamin C producing gene would help you very little in these circumstances. A sudden blight on all plants that produce Vitamin C would provide an evolutionary pressure, but these pressures are only applicable if there is a population with both the active AND the inactive gene, and sufficient pressure to favour the active gene. If by the time any evolutionary pressure emerged (and any such pressure would only be temporary), it is more than possible that there would not be sufficient diversity to enforce any change in the gene pool.
"I'm afraid not - as I mentioned, gene crossover is much more important for evolution that mutation."
ReplyDeleteNot really, all that does is cross what is already there. That is not the mechanism that fundys object to. DNA can only be mixed once it is there in the first place. It is how it got there in the first place that is the issue. If you want to say that creatures change because of cross over, no one is going to argue with you. But that doesn't create new DNA which is the issue here.
"you'll see that if you have a large population then you only really need a mutation rate to re-introduce genes which have been lost over generations."
To get to a stage where there is a large diverse population you need to mutations in the first place. Which is the point in question.
Previous to CE there wasn't a large diverse population. Not by the standard you've set.
"This was addressed in the Bonner article I linked to. One of the theories of the origins of multicellularity is that a mutation damaged the way the cell division process worked - the offspring of this multicellular organism would have the same gene, and so the gene would propagate. Again, as Bonner points out, there is an evolutionary advantage to being a larger organism."
Multicelluar reproduction is far too complicated to occur in a single mutation and if it happened in several (which had no effect until complete) there would be not benefit to have it selected.
"cyanobacteria showed multicellularity some 3.5 billion years ago, which makes the whole short time scale argument rather academic."
Again not the existence of 1 multicelluar object but a large number.
"Firstly, you've ignored the other 2 or 3 I sent you, including the excellent http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html#part5 which at least 20 observations and tests (I gave up at 20 - there are far more)."
Lol, thats quite funny. While no doubt you can breed existing organisms until they cannot reproduce anymore, making them technically a new specicies, the fact of the matter is all that is going on is shuffling around genetic information that already exists. Which again, isn't something that is useful in creating new information. I'm sure if you gave me many dogs and I bred them to get one that is huge and one that is tiny they couldn't interbreed, but realistically there isn't any new information, it is just playing with what God has already made.
We're talking about the genetic mutation of new mechansims. Not playing with DNA already in existence.
"I think you'll find that Creationism fails rather admirably on any of the steps of "Observe, test, repeat" :)"
It does indeed. I never suggested otherwise. However there are plenty of other clues to the creation of the Universe. Not least the law on the conservation of energy.
"All the examples you gave were general shortages of food - the possession of a Vitamin C producing gene would help you very little in these circumstances."
Have you ever seen what happens if you don't get enough vitamin C? Your inmunne system drops down and your gums start falling apart (scurvy). If you can eat non-nutritious plant material and make your own vitamins, that would be a blessing indeed.
"these pressures are only applicable if there is a population with both the active AND the inactive gene, and sufficient pressure to favour the active gene."
If evolution was true there must have been a huge amount of time where this was the case.
I think the key issues we seem disagree upon in the genetic debate is what constitutes a 'diverse' population, and the relative importance of mutation. I feel we'll just have to leave this - I can happily state why I consider mutation unimportant and how great a genetic diversity you can find in significant genes in a relatively small population compared with what is necessary for the production of traits, but that's just going round in circles.
ReplyDelete"Multicelluar reproduction is far too complicated to occur in a single mutation and if it happened in several (which had no effect until complete) there would be not benefit to have it selected."
This, however, is not really true. The sequence of mutations proposed by Bonner indicate a growth in size of cells due to a failure of the splitting mechanism. Whether or not this results in a "true" multicellular organism (though quite how you would define this is questionable), you still have more duplication of genetic material and more protection of the internal parts of the cell. So there certainly are benefits of having a larger organism independent of whether the complexity allows more advanced cell functions (such as sight, etc.)
"Again not the existence of 1 multicellular object but a large number."
Can I take you back to when you introduced the whole multicellular issue?
"Previous to the Cambrian Explosion, which Michael was talking about, there were only fossils for incredibly simple single celled organisms. Straight after it there was complex multicelluar organisms. This is totally inconsistent with evolution."
We've gone from a sudden explosion of multi-cellularity immediately after the Cambrian Explosion to it being observed over a long period of time about 2.5 billion years prior to that... I feel your point has got lost somewhere in the process.
"I'm sure if you gave me many dogs and I bred them to get one that is huge and one that is tiny they couldn't interbreed, but realistically there isn't any new information, it is just playing with what God has already made. We're talking about the genetic mutation of new mechansims. Not playing with DNA already in existence."
So, if you took many large feral dogs and kept on breeding them until you got little small ones, and left the big ones in the wild, you might get something a bit like... well, like poodles and wolves. I feel even you would agree that poodles and wolves are diverse enough to be considered different species, yet they have a common ancestor. It's not hard to see how this could be traced back for different animals, eventually reaching our old favourites, the multicellular organisms.
(And, continuing...)
ReplyDelete"However there are plenty of other clues to the creation of the Universe. Not least the law on the conservation of energy."
Please? Firstly, that has absolutely NOTHING to do with the evolution debate. Secondly, that's a load of rubbish too. Zero-point energy and vacuum fluctuations both provide energy, though not normally in useful forms. While I can't pretend to understand either concept very well except in their most basic forms, they both are ways that energy can be 'borrowed' in ways not allowed by classical mechanics. In addition, certain types of energy are considered to be "negative", such as gravitational potential energy. I can't remember exactly how closely they are thought to cancel each other out, but I'm pretty sure that it's almost exact. Finally, I have yet to hear of any evidence that contradicts the significant aspects of the Big Bang theory - if you'd like to suggest some, I would be more than happy to hear them. And conservation of energy is certainly not one. While whether or not God "created" the Big Bang is a completely different debate, and one undecidable by science, the Big Bang is the best model we have of explaining the creation of the universe based on the evidence.
"Have you ever seen what happens if you don't get enough vitamin C? Your inmunne system drops down and your gums start falling apart (scurvy). If you can eat non-nutritious plant material and make your own vitamins, that would be a blessing indeed." It would, but my point is that you would be starving to death anyway so would die regardless of your possession of a vitamin C producing gene.
"If evolution was true there must have been a huge amount of time where this was the case."
While I don't argue there was a huge amount of time with a population some of whom would have had the gene and some of whom wouldn't, I do question the pressure for evolution. But this is a repeat of the debate addressed above.
"I think the key issues we seem disagree upon in the genetic debate is what constitutes a 'diverse' population, and the relative importance of mutation."
ReplyDeleteWell addressing the second arguement, until I have lead greater research into the matter and have found further papers to support my point it is difficult to continue arguing. The one point I will make (although it is lame because it relies on the understanding of others, which is not the way to understand the universe) is that it is widely accepted that the CE flies in the face of evolution.
Addressing the second point is a lot easier. You are saying mutation is not that important. That is a logical falacy. For a start in order to get a sufficiently large population with diverse DNA in the first place would require huge numbers of mutations. Until you explain this part, going on to the next part misses out this essential step. A comes before B and until one proves A one cannot rely on B.
"The sequence of mutations proposed by Bonner indicate a growth in size of cells due to a failure of the splitting mechanism. Whether or not this results in a "true" multicellular organism (though quite how you would define this is questionable)"
Even aside from that this is the normal sort of unsubstatiated theory that is required when one finds and irriducbly complex organism. The theorist in question embarks on a journey trying to find imaginary middle points that in fact can't be proved and in reality don't work. I would be happy to postulate that a large single celluar organism could not in fact work, because it would not have the structural integrity to survive. The forces between the phophlipid membrane would not be sufficient to hold it together and it would simply fall apart. I could be wrong. If you can find a multicelluar sized organism that is a single cell in existence today I will happily accept my postulation is inaccurate.
"So, if you took many large feral dogs and kept on breeding them until you got little small ones, and left the big ones in the wild, you might get something a bit like... well, like poodles and wolves. I feel even you would agree that poodles and wolves are diverse enough to be considered different species, yet they have a common ancestor. It's not hard to see how this could be traced back for different animals, eventually reaching our old favourites, the multicellular organisms."
I respectfully disagree. While as we've already established you can create a non breeding pair and therefore what is technically a new species, once again the DNA there is not new. It has already been created and therefore is not an explanation for the DNA that already exists. What we're looking for is an explaintion of how the original DNA comes into existence and that cannot be from mixing or cross over.
continued....
ReplyDeleteThe conservation of energy
"That's a load of rubbish too. Zero-point energy and vacuum fluctuations both provide energy, though not normally in useful forms. While I can't pretend to understand either concept very well except in their most basic forms, they both are ways that energy can be 'borrowed' in ways not allowed by classical mechanics. In addition, certain types of energy are considered to be "negative", such as gravitational potential energy. I can't remember exactly how closely they are thought to cancel each other out, but I'm pretty sure that it's almost exact."
Borrowing energy is not creating it. The energy exists and the only explanation that they can up with is that is half the Universe is made of antimatter... and it isn't. The fact is mass and energy exist and they cannot be created within the laws of physics. Which means Whoever/whatever made them is outside of those laws.
"Finally, I have yet to hear of any evidence that contradicts the significant aspects of the Big Bang theory - if you'd like to suggest some, I would be more than happy to hear them."
While there are some significant flaws to the Big bang theory, I personally have no reason to dispute it, frankly it sounds perfectly in line with creation. Some may disagree, I find myself largely indifferent, I'm afraid.
"It would, but my point is that you would be starving to death anyway so would die regardless of your possession of a vitamin C producing gene."
No quite, when food is scarce people eat anything. It can have the calories to sustain the person (only just) but the lack of other nutritional value would surely lower their immune defence and expose them to potentially deadly foreign bodies.
"Addressing the second point is a lot easier. You are saying mutation is not that important. That is a logical falacy. For a start in order to get a sufficiently large population with diverse DNA in the first place would require huge numbers of mutations. Until you explain this part, going on to the next part misses out this essential step." I said 'relative importance' not 'unimportance' :) what you were objecting to seemed to be sudden mutations
ReplyDelete"If you can find a multicelluar sized organism that is a single cell in existence today I will happily accept my postulation is inaccurate." Any egg (including the yolks of the ones we eat) is a single cell...
"What we're looking for is an explaintion of how the original DNA comes into existence and that cannot be from mixing or cross over." So your argument is really the irreducibility of DNA? In that case, yes, we cannot currently explain how DNA came into existence. I've read that a theory is that originally there were lifeforms that used RNA in similar ways to our use of DNA, but obviously such theories are hard to prove or disprove...
"Borrowing energy is not creating it. The energy exists and the only explanation that they can up with is that is half the Universe is made of antimatter... and it isn't. The fact is mass and energy exist and they cannot be created within the laws of physics. Which means Whoever/whatever made them is outside of those laws." It depends how you look at it - you are creating energy, but the amount of time you can 'borrow' it for is proportional to the amount you borrow. But as I understand it you need to borrow energy only to get the big bang started - we're not borrowing it to provide all the matter in the universe. The explanation given is NOT that half the universe is antimatter (the fact that it isn't is one of the unsolved problems in physics - breaking of symmetry). Like I said, the explanation I have heard is that the negative gravitational energy (and some electrical potential energy) cancels out with mass to create no net energy in the universe.
"While there are some significant flaws to the Big bang theory, I personally have no reason to dispute it, frankly it sounds perfectly in line with creation. Some may disagree, I find myself largely indifferent, I'm afraid." ...which was why I said it had no impact on the evolution debate.
"No quite, when food is scarce people eat anything. It can have the calories to sustain the person (only just) but the lack of other nutritional value would surely lower their immune defence and expose them to potentially deadly foreign bodies." Perhaps, perhaps not. However, we're still looking at a statistical effect; "on the average", people are more likely to survive if they have a beneficial trait. If we're examining a case which seems as marginal as this, then it would be mostly chance as to whether or not the gene is lost.
"Addressing the second point is a lot easier. You are saying mutation is not that important. That is a logical falacy. For a start in order to get a sufficiently large population with diverse DNA in the first place would require huge numbers of mutations. Until you explain this part, going on to the next part misses out this essential step." I said 'relative importance' not 'unimportance' :) what you were objecting to seemed to be sudden mutations
ReplyDelete"If you can find a multicelluar sized organism that is a single cell in existence today I will happily accept my postulation is inaccurate." Any egg (including the yolks of the ones we eat) is a single cell...
An egg is not a cell it is a gamete. That isn't being petty, that is a genuine distiction chicks are cells. The only way it survives is through the egg shell which in itself is complex. Which is why it has to come from a chicken.
"In that case, yes, we cannot currently explain how DNA came into existence. I've read that a theory is that originally there were lifeforms that used RNA in similar ways to our use of DNA, but obviously such theories are hard to prove or disprove..."
Then I'm happy to leave that there.
"It depends how you look at it - you are creating energy, but the amount of time you can 'borrow' it for is proportional to the amount you borrow. But as I understand it you need to borrow energy only to get the big bang started - we're not borrowing it to provide all the matter in the universe. The explanation given is NOT that half the universe is antimatter (the fact that it isn't is one of the unsolved problems in physics - breaking of symmetry). Like I said, the explanation I have heard is that the negative gravitational energy (and some electrical potential energy) cancels out with mass to create no net energy in the universe."
This is interesting as I've never heard this theory before. I think it will take further investigation. Nonetheless, I'm still not entirely sure how you get 'negative' potential energy. As far as I've learned gravitational potential energy is a store of energy in itself. I've never heard it being described as negative.
Also, the amount of energy required to create the universe would be and it incomprehendable.
Vitamin C
Perhaps, perhaps not. However, we're still looking at a statistical effect; "on the average", people are more likely to survive if they have a beneficial trait. If we're examining a case which seems as marginal as this, then it would be mostly chance as to whether or not the gene is lost.
OK let me put it this way. What is so different about human beings (for the last 100,000 years supposedly) that we don't need it but chimps do. Since we've only had cultivation for the last 8,000 years probably.
"An egg is not a cell it is a gamete. That isn't being petty, that is a genuine distiction chicks are cells. The only way it survives is through the egg shell which in itself is complex. Which is why it has to come from a chicken."
ReplyDeleteI think that gametes are still unicellular... I may be wrong. Like in a human, the sperm and ovum fuse to form the single-celled gamete.
"This is interesting as I've never heard this theory before. I think it will take further investigation. Nonetheless, I'm still not entirely sure how you get 'negative' potential energy. As far as I've learned gravitational potential energy is a store of energy in itself. I've never heard it being described as negative.Also, the amount of energy required to create the universe would be and it incomprehendable."
One way of looking at it is that if you had two bodies infinitely far away, then they would have zero gravitational potential energy (this is from the way we define g.p.e). Then if you had two bodies which were touching, it would take energy to separate them and move them to infinity, where their energy is zero, therefore the energy they had at the start must have been negative :)
"OK let me put it this way. What is so different about human beings (for the last 100,000 years supposedly) that we don't need it but chimps do. Since we've only had cultivation for the last 8,000 years probably."
I don't think chimps *do* need it... Some chimps have it, but if they lost it I think they would cope without it :)
I think that gametes are still unicellular... I may be wrong. Like in a human, the sperm and ovum fuse to form the single-celled gamete.
ReplyDeleteThey combine to form a cell which promptly starts dividing. No normal fertilised egg remains an egg for a long time. As soon as they are fused it begins dividing.
(BTW: A cell is a cell or a gamete, I don't think they can be both)
"One way of looking at it is that if you had two bodies infinitely far away, then they would have zero gravitational potential energy (this is from the way we define g.p.e). Then if you had two bodies which were touching, it would take energy to separate them and move them to infinity, where their energy is zero, therefore the energy they had at the start must have been negative :)"
I fear that is a bit of a logical falacy. When two bodies are together then their energy is 0. When they are apart they have positive GPE. The idea of stating IF they were pulled apart they would have energy is as far off. To follow that logic saying IF a body was heated up it would have energy, therefore if it is cold is has negative heat energy.
Also for that energy to exist the matter has to exist initally too. Which is the problem we have in the first place.
"They combine to form a cell which promptly starts dividing. No normal fertilised egg remains an egg for a long time. As soon as they are fused it begins dividing.
ReplyDelete(BTW: A cell is a cell or a gamete, I don't think they can be both)"
But the original point was that large cells can exist, and they don't spontaneously collapse :)
"I fear that is a bit of a logical falacy. When two bodies are together then their energy is 0. When they are apart they have positive GPE. The idea of stating IF they were pulled apart they would have energy is as far off. To follow that logic saying IF a body was heated up it would have energy, therefore if it is cold is has negative heat energy. Also for that energy to exist the matter has to exist initally too. Which is the problem we have in the first place. "
Yes, exactly :) but it so happens that it makes sense to describe heat energy as "starting" from 0 K but it makes sense to describe GPE as being zero at infinite separation. Energy's a tricky thing, it's not really measurable in the normal sense. Feynmann explains this amazingly in his "Lectures on physics". http://www.chipbrock.org/?p=98 has some of his analogy, but I would recommend getting the first volume of his lectures, they're brilliant for things like this :) and as for your second point, it gets complicated because mass IS energy. They're really both the same thing, called mass-energy. Stephen Hawking apparently said, "In the case of a universe that is approximately uniform in space, one can show that this negative gravitational energy exactly cancels the positive energy represented by the matter. So the total energy of the universe is zero."
"But the original point was that large cells can exist, and they don't spontaneously collapse :)"
ReplyDeleteSure, but even that is only the size of about 4 cells.
GPE being zero of an infinite distance is nonesensical as first such a place does not exist and second because (as already mentioned) the zero point of GPE is when the two objects cannot release any further GPE, that is when they are adjacent.
Further since the universe is expanding, that doesn't, make sense, because that would mean that the net energy in the universe is increasing... which is impossible.