[helene_t]

Little Kid, on Jan 29 2009, 01:07 AM, said:

Random mutations in germ cell lines: Notwithstanding the exhilarating notion of standing and admiring everything around me and being able to attribute it to randomness, it seems a little farfetched. It basically boils down to getting randomly mutated DNA becoming so incredibly beneficial that it will get selected over other mutations. Realistically I don't think this is very likely. Firstly the mutations in coding DNA are so rare and secondly, for every beneficial mutation, dozens of harmful ones will occur. The gene pool would be cluttered with damaging mutations and could not be selected against because then they would be selecting against the beneficial mutations too.

Yeah I can imagine it sounds contra-intuitive but this is basically how it works. You can verify for yourself by looking at the history of selectively bred plants, and animals and microorganisms.

It is true that each of nature's "experiments" is very unlikely to improve DNA and even if it does it is not particularly likely to be selected as all kind of accidents may work against it. However, the number of experiments is so incredibly large that it works nonetheless.

The above may sound like a blanket statement but there is enormous amounts of evidence in favor of it.

The fact is, evolution by natural selection is an established scientific theory. It is no more controversial than the idea that the Earth is round and that a water molecule is made of hydrogen and oxygen. For some reason, loud-voiced religious fanatics keep disputing evolution while they somehow don't feel compelled to argue that the Earth is flat or that the Moon is made of green cheese. They might as well have done the latter though, it would make exactly as much sense.

[helene_t]

JLOL, on Jan 29 2009, 10:15 AM, said:

I ask this out of genuine curiosity to those who are knowledgable, what are the legitimate holes in the theory of evolution? What needs to be proven in order for it to evolve from just being a theory?

Well it is "just" a theory, like gravity and the atomic theory are "just" theories. But the word "just" is misplaced.

[hotShot]

JLOL, on Jan 29 2009, 11:15 AM, said:

I know pretty much nothing about science and am an atheist to say the least,

I ask this out of genuine curiosity to those who are knowledgable, what are the legitimate holes in the theory of evolution? What needs to be proven in order for it to evolve from just being a theory?

Newtons physics was a great discovery and very useful and worked almost perfectly for most problems on earth that were big enough to handle.
When people started to think it was an indisputable fact, scientists found that submicroscopic particles of mater behaved like energy and that energy can behave like matter. Something that shook the physics foundations. There were also problems in the astronomic scale with Newtons physics.
Einstein could prove that Newtons physics is just a special case of a bigger theory, that is true for "small masses" next to a big mass (Earth) that is moving slowly compared the the speed of light.

Today scientist are more careful with their wording, almost everything is "just" a theory, because from our limited view on this universe, they don't know, if that what they found up to now, is not only part of something bigger they can't see or understand right now.

[P_Marlowe]

Little Kid, on Jan 29 2009, 05:57 AM, said:

But this is not my point, I got those examples off the top of my head (knowing little about biological evolution) when I was writing them when I probably should have looked them up first. I wrote the post for was ask what you think about the random mutation part in evolution and its contribution to genetic change in a good way. I personally can't seem to get my head around it and haven't found any material that helps me to a satisfactory level. Maybe you can?

Hi,

Another example, which you can even watch in real life:

Think about a fireplace in a room with an open window.

If you watch the smoke particle, there is no real sytem in
his movement (Brown movement (?!)), the truth is, the
movement is truly random. (*)
But in the end, the smoke goes from the fireplace out of
of the window into the blue sky.

(*) Disclaimer - I am not 100% sure, the movement is an
example for Browns movement, but Brown movement exists
and is random.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[mikeh]

Little Kid, on Jan 29 2009, 05:52 AM, said:

Sure, there are theories to account for flagellal and eye evolution, but if it is all as clearcut as you claim it to be, why do I find articles like this from December in less than 5 mins on Pubmed?

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1908172...Pubmed_RVDocSum

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1908104...Pubmed_RVDocSum

I followed the links, and you and I obviously share different reading skills.

The papers, as best as I could discern, support the validity of evolutionary theory... but you have to understand that the theory is not like the gospel or the Koran. It is a statement about a basic idea, and that idea has, it seems, been reflected in a journey of several billion years, now presenting in an amazingly complex variety of life. It is only recently that scientists gained the ability to decode the genetic structure of an organism, and only recently that enough genetic information has become available to enable cross-referencing at that level.

Previously, relationships causes, effects and so on had to be deduced from a much grosser level of observation. Small wonder then that this new ability to study genetic linkages is casting new light on how our various species, and genuses etc are inter-related. The discovery of new details, some of which will inevitably contradict specific ideas previously held based on cruder knowledge, does not undermine the basic theory.. it brings it ever more to life... it enhances our understanding of the precise steps that have occured along the amazingly long, and intricate journey from the ealiest replicators to now.

Science is about looking for new information. Some of it will serve to refine the details of an existing theory... some of it will, on ocasion, serve to reveal that the existing theory is wrong...you have come across the former, not the latter!

BTW, if you doubt me, read any of a number of the excellent books on string theory that start by describing how science moved from Newtonian physics to special and general relativity and quantum mechanics, and is now exploring string theory or M-theory. I suggest a book I am just finishing: The Elegant Universe.

Now, if, as I suspect, you are clutching at straws in a desperate attempt to hold onto to your disbelief, then this won't persuade you... but, then again, nothing will unless the leader of whatever superstition you hold true 'reveals' that evolution is supported by your god... probably coupled with a convenient claim that your god set it all in motion when he decided to have a universe to play with.

[mikeh]

Little Kid, on Jan 29 2009, 05:57 AM, said:

But this is not my point, I got those examples off the top of my head (knowing little about biological evolution) when I was writing them when I probably should have looked them up first. I wrote the post for was ask what you think about the random mutation part in evolution and its contribution to genetic change in a good way. I personally can't seem to get my head around it and haven't found any material that helps me to a satisfactory level. Maybe you can?

Look harder.. try the science department of a large (non-theologically dominated) bookstore... there are quite a few good books.. but you do have to read them Several of us have suggested names and authors... but if you are convinced by the fluffys of the world that books written about ideas that make you uncomfortable should be avoided, then you will enjoy your ignorance indefinitely.

[helene_t]

Little Kid, on Jan 29 2009, 11:52 AM, said:

Sure, there are theories to account for flagellal and eye evolution, but if it is all as clearcut as you claim it to be, why do I find articles like this from December in less than 5 mins on Pubmed?

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1908172...Pubmed_RVDocSum

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1908104...Pubmed_RVDocSum

Those articles deal with unresolved problems in evolutionary biology.

There are lots of such unresolved problems in evolutionary biology, just like there are in all (AFAIK) sciences. There will always be - scientists take up new problems faster than existing problems are solved, otherwise we would be unemployed!

[hotShot]

Little Kid, on Jan 29 2009, 12:57 PM, said:

But this is not my point, I got those examples off the top of my head (knowing little about biological evolution) when I was writing them when I probably should have looked them up first. I wrote the post for was ask what you think about the random mutation part in evolution and its contribution to genetic change in a good way. I personally can't seem to get my head around it and haven't found any material that helps me to a satisfactory level. Maybe you can?

Please think of a one cellular being, that reproduces once a day. (Note that this is a very low reproduction rate!)
On day one you have a population of 1, at day 2 the population is 2 at day 3 the population is 4. At the n-th day the population is 2^(n-1).

After a billion years (1.000.000.000 years) the population is 2^( 365.000.000.000 -1) this is about 10^(109.500.000.000)

If you know your math you will realize that if useful mutations only happen with a probability of 10^(-12) once in 1000 billion cases this will happen 10^(109.499.999.988) times. I think that is an astronomic number of times.

[jdonn]

helene_t, on Jan 29 2009, 10:40 AM, said:

Little Kid, on Jan 29 2009, 11:52 AM, said:

Sure, there are theories to account for flagellal and eye evolution, but if it is all as clearcut as you claim it to be, why do I find articles like this from December in less than 5 mins on Pubmed?

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1908172...Pubmed_RVDocSum

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1908104...Pubmed_RVDocSum

Those articles deal with unresolved problems in evolutionary biology.

There are lots of such unresolved problems in evolutionary biology, just like there are in all (AFAIK) sciences. There will always be - scientists take up new problems faster than existing problems are solved, otherwise we would be unemployed!

They should take up problems at the exact rate of which they are solved. It will keep competition away.

[Codo]

In my next life, I hope I can have such an easy understanding of the world as Mikeh: The world has two sides:

One side is with knowledge, bright ideas, openminded, high ethics, truth, evidence and science.
The other are the theists.

To me this sound like George W Bush: Each country must decide, whether they with us or against us.

No grey areas left... You can believe that the world is like this. Why not. It is easy.

So I guess you will never read books that make you uncomfortable, because these should be avoided, so that you can enjoy your ignorance indefinitely.

If you find this insulting Mike, I find it insulting that you call anybody, be it Little Kid, Heavy Dluxe or me as ignorant, desperate, not informed etc who do not share your point of view. You have no clue what these people know and what they have read. That "we" do not share your point of view is enough to talk bad about us. Sorry, this is what fundementalists do. And it is insulting.

I really like your deep insight in bridge and thousands other aspects of live. I respect your thoughts in many areas.
But for discussions about science and religions, I lost this respect.

[shintaro]

One inescapable fact appears to be that Evolution exists;

Can the same be said for Religions being correct in what they espouse as being correct

[shintaro]

helene_t, on Jan 29 2009, 06:58 AM, said:

JLOL, on Jan 29 2009, 10:15 AM, said:

I ask this out of genuine curiosity to those who are knowledgable, what are the legitimate holes in the theory of evolution? What needs to be proven in order for it to evolve from just being a theory?

Well it is "just" a theory, like gravity and the atomic theory are "just" theories. But the word "just" is misplaced.

helen_t

Gravity is just a theory;

If so what do you think keeps us all 'Grounded'

[P_Marlowe]

shintaro, on Jan 29 2009, 10:50 AM, said:

helene_t, on Jan 29 2009, 06:58 AM, said:

JLOL, on Jan 29 2009, 10:15 AM, said:

I ask this out of genuine curiosity to those who are knowledgable, what are the legitimate holes in the theory of evolution? What needs to be proven in order for it to evolve from just being a theory?

Well it is "just" a theory, like gravity and the atomic theory are "just" theories. But the word "just" is misplaced.

helen_t

Gravity is just a theory;

If so what do you think keeps us all 'Grounded'

Nobody knowes.

One of the biggest open questions in science is to
answer, how gravity works.
There exists a theory claiming that there exist
gravity waves, but until now, nobody could prove
that those waves really exist.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[Codo]

And there are areas where the theory of gravity does not work.
Surprisingly.
This is why they developed the string theory. This could be the missing link between the gravity and the quantum field theory.

But still, we have no easy solution, maybe the force behind all this is even more complicated then these theories.

[jdonn]

I think this shows a lot of people don't know what the word "theory" means in the context of science.

Quote

In science, an explanation or model that covers a substantial group of occurrences in nature and has been confirmed by a substantial number of experiments and observations.

There is no implication that a theory is unproven or untested. In that case you would mean 'hypothesis' instead.

[helene_t]

Little Kid said:

I think that genetic variation arises through regulated mutation, something along the lines of intragenerational selective gametogenesis

When we say that mutations are "random" we do not necessarily mean that they are essentially unpredictable and that there is no pattern in them. Maybe some future scientists will be able to (to some extent) say which kind of mutations are more likely under what circumstances. Maybe such discoveries will advance evolutionary theory.

Plant breeders induce mutations on purpose. Traditionally by exposing germs to radiation or other mutagens. More recently by creating specific mutations (genetic modification) or by selecting directly on genotypes rather than on phenotypes.

Do similar things happen in nature? Once ever so often, indications come up in the scientific literature that it might sometimes be the case. A number of techniques which parents can use to steer their offspring's genomes in desired directions are reasonably well established:
- Ant queens will mate with multiple drones, thereby reducing the relatedness between daughters and in turn driving the daughters towards favoring the queen's offspring over their sisters' offspring.
- An alternative explanation of female promiscuity is that by having children with different genomes, parasites will have more difficulty spreading from one child to another.
- Incest aversion.
- Mate choice in general.
- Some fungi will switch from asexual to sexual reproduction when stressed, presumably in order to reshuffle genes when fast adaption to a changed environment is needed, or to weed out damaged genes faster. The same was observed in earthworms at Chernobyl.
- Human cells have shorter telomeres than their parents - a defense against cancer.
- There is some (controversial, I think) evidence of low-status primate females having more daughters and high-status females having more sons. If this is true it could be because "status" genes are more important in males than in females.

I am sure we will see the list grow in the future as new evidence accumulates.

[Fluffy]

I remember my physics teacher at school told once that if suddenly a planet dissapeared, the rest of the universe would take a delay to notice (at ligth speed).

He was the kind of teacher you feel he really KNOWS. And I guess if gravity actually had a delay, it could actually be proven wouldn't it?.

[jdonn]

Fluffy, on Jan 29 2009, 11:48 AM, said:

I remember my physics teacher at school told once that if suddenly a planet dissapeared, the rest of the universe would take a delay to notice (at ligth speed).

He was the kind of teacher you feel he really KNOWS. And I guess if gravity actually had a delay, it could actually be proven wouldn't it?.

When he said "notice", if he meant "see" then he is completely correct (if the sun suddenly vanished, we wouldn't see it vanish for 8 minutes I believe.) If he meant "feel" in the sense of gravity, then I honestly have no idea although I wouldn't be the least bit surprised to learn there is a similar delay.

[mikeh]

Codo, on Jan 29 2009, 10:45 AM, said:

In my next life, I hope I can have such an easy understanding of the world as Mikeh: The world has two sides:

One side is with knowledge, bright ideas, openminded, high ethics, truth, evidence and science.
The other are the theists.

To me this sound like George W Bush: Each country must decide, whether they with us or against us.

No grey areas left... You can believe that the world is like this. Why not. It is easy.

So I guess you will never read books that make you uncomfortable, because these should be avoided, so that you can enjoy your ignorance indefinitely.

If you find this insulting Mike, I find it insulting that you call anybody, be it Little Kid, Heavy Dluxe or me as ignorant,  desperate, not informed etc who do not share your point of view.  You have no clue what these people know and what they have read. That "we" do not share your point of view is enough to talk bad about us. Sorry, this is what fundementalists do. And it is insulting.

I really like your deep insight in bridge and thousands other aspects of live. I respect your thoughts in many areas.
But for discussions about science and religions, I lost this respect.

Hey, I don't find it to be the least bit insulting! Funny, yes. Sad, in a way, also yes.. but insulting... no

I have often acknowledged that I use strong language in my posts. I also acknowledge that the topics under discussion (religion as superstition and myth) are far more complex than can be summarized in this type of forum.

I also acknowledge that there are many, many people of faith who live exemplary lives, and who derive real comfort from their faith.

And I welcome any one who can point to verifiable fact-based arguments that counter ideas that I hold. My own ideas, on a wide range of subjects, have changed a number of times over my life so far, and I would be surprised if they did not change again. Heck, I used to play mini-roman!

Thus, after reading Pinker, I feel I have a better understanding, of the workings of the mind, than I did beforehand. After reading Dawkins and Gould, who both accepted the validity of darwinian evolution but who had major disagreements about the particulars of how that concept played out, I felt that I had a better, and different understanding of this theory. After reading Diamond, I felt that I had gained more insight into the development of the human species... and after reading Leakey, and several others, I had a better grasp of the research into the ancstors from whom homo sapiens is descended.

After reading A People's Tragedy, I had a different understanding of the Russian Revolution than I had from books written by historians lacking access to the Communist Party archives.

I grew up in a Christian environment, reading the Bible and studying the Old testament as well as the new. I have read parts of the Koran.. it simply didn't keep me interested enough to finish it. I have read some Buddhist material, since a couple of friends are buddhists. I have read some Marx. I have read quite a bit about the history of the Reformation.

I read on physics, math (well, I read a book on chaos theory, I don't pretend to be a mathematician), psychology, history of science, evolution, history, anthropology, physiology, religion, bridge, golf, cooking, gardening, wine, and a few other topics that escape me as I sit here I am fortunate to have a very high reading speed, as I suspect a number of other posters have. I wish my typing was even a tenth of that speed

I try to understand the arguments put out by the authors, where arguments are made.

I try to keep an open mind, while accepting that one owes oneself a duty to form opinions based on what one understands... having an open mind does not mean having no opinion.. it merely means being open to changing that opinion if the understanding of facts warrants such a change.

If you, who can judge me only by my writings, thinks that I am a closed-minded fanatic... well.. either I am, or I have inadvertently misled you by my writings, or maybe you mistake your image in the mirror for me

If the former, then I suspect I am a lost cause.. because I truly feel as if I am not. If the middle, then I apologize. If the latter, then I feel sorry for you. but I am not insulted

[mikeh]

Fluffy, on Jan 29 2009, 11:48 AM, said:

I remember my physics teacher at school told once that if suddenly a planet dissapeared, the rest of the universe would take a delay to notice (at ligth speed).

He was the kind of teacher you feel he really KNOWS. And I guess if gravity actually had a delay, it could actually be proven wouldn't it?.

Your teacher sounds like an informed person...there is compelling reason to think that if the sun somehow vanished, we would feel the loss of its gravitational attraction at precisely the moment we lost its light because.. ta-da... gravity travels at the speed of light. Better minds than yours or mine have come to this conclusion after decades of close math and physics.