Theory of Evolution and Mormons

[Billy]

Billy:

I do not understand your fixation on the word "assumed". Everyone makes assumptions.

I simply asked you what is the ancestor to humans and you gave me a generic answer (and within the same species) Do you think it is Homo heidelbergensis or something else?

[JangoStango]

You know without DNA evidence that whales DNA would be closer to humans than fish to human comparison by looking at the biological classification.

Whale

Kingdom: Animalia

Phylum: Chordata

Class: Mammalia

Infraclass: Eutheria

Superorder: Laurasiatheria

(unranked) Cetartiodactyla

(unranked) Whippomorpha

Order: Cetacea

That's a funny reply if you think about where those classifications come from.

[Billy]

That's a funny reply if you think about where those classifications come from.

How so?

[Eldwynn]

That's a funny reply if you think about where those classifications come from.

Indeed, is he really serious?

[JangoStango]

How so?

Well, it's like this. The classifications don't come from the Bible. Scientists who believe in evolution came up with those classifications and continue to use them where they conform to growing knowledge about evolution. When they don't conform, they change them to meet new information like DNA comparisons between species. So, to show that it's "no surprise" that DNA of whales is close to humans, you pull out the very table that surmises this understanding of evolutionary history.

Or like this. Someone explains how we know that nitrogen has a mass between carbon and oxygen, and then you criticize the effort by pointing out "we already knew this" because the periodic table puts N right between C and O.

[Billy]

Well, it's like this. The classifications don't come from the Bible. Scientists who believe in evolution came up with those classifications and continue to use them where they conform to growing knowledge about evolution.

How do you think that they were classified? Do you think that they were classified based on DNA?

Indeed, is he really serious?

Dead serious

[Eldwynn]

Sure if we are from common descent then we would have a universal code ATGC. But if we were created we would likely have a common code. I don't think this is strong evidence for evolution one way or the other.

Obviously the first one establishes the "basics" and it progresses from there. The evidence needs to be taken as a whole.

If humans and chimpanzees were drastically different in terms of their cellular make-up, then evolution would be blown out of the water. If DNA (the inheritable unit) were found to be drastically different in terms of function, evolution would have no chance, because it is based on the premise that change is slow.

The falsification of the hypothesis has nothing to do with creationism, yet you invoke it anyways. As a side note: Intelligent design does not even begin to answer the problem. A great book that goes into this is "The Blind Watchmaker". I wish you would read it, but I doubt you will, so I will briefly explain the reason below.

The problem evolution tries to answer is "How does complex life (like intelligent humans) come to pass"? It answers this very well by invoking natural selection as the mechanism as why complex life evolved.

Intelligent design states that the intelligence (which we are trying to explain in the first place) was here in the first place, and created complex life. However, that is sort of logically incoherent because intelligence is the problem we are trying to explain. Evolution answers the problem without this contradiction, whereas intelligent design does not.

[JangoStango]

How do you think that they were classified? Do you think that they were classified based on DNA?Dead serious

Not originally, but changes have been made following DNA evidence so the classifications you point to are reflecting evolutionary relationships to the best of our current knowledge.

[Eldwynn]

How do you think that they were classified? Do you think that they were classified based on DNA?

Not necessarily at the beginning. However, those classifications are now verified by DNA under the same logic I used to support evolution. Whales in particular is not a good example, because Darwin and other biologists classified whales as mammals based on bones (he knew nothing of DNA back then) and in the end was correct. However, if the DNA evidence were to contradict this, and whales were more closely related to fish by DNA analysis, the taxonomy would have to be changed.

The point remains: There are animals that don't LOOK like they are related, but thanks to DNA analysis, we now know they are. Whether it be by taxonomy (which is largely supported and based on molecular evidence) or molecular evidence to begin with. Or other morphological similarities. Just a reminder, DNA was not known about back when Taxonomy was created, so they used other, less perfect methods. Molecular analysis is indeed perfect for the same way it is a good way to show that your children are indeed descended from your DNA.

I tried really hard to think of an analogy to compare the mistake you just made to, but I am not sure one exists. The fact that you used Taxonomy in an argument against evolution (when modern biological taxonomy assumes evolution to be true...) is a mistake that is quite frankly, embarrassing.

But now you know.

[Billy]

Not originally, but changes have been made following DNA evidence so the classifications you point to are reflecting evolutionary relationships to the best of our current knowledge.

Classification was not based on DNA but on characteristic unique to that specific organism.

Common nodes of classification are below. These classification existed before DNA analysis. And my point above was that whales are closer in characteristics to humans than are fish, so it would not be surprising that the DNA would be closer.

Vertebrae

Jaws

Digits

Amniotic egg

Hair

Placenta

Opposable thumbs

[Eldwynn]

Classification was not based on DNA but on characteristic unique to that specific organism.

Common nodes of classification are below. These classification existed before DNA analysis. And my point above was that whales are closer in characteristics to humans than are fish, so it would not be surprising that the DNA would be closer.

Vertebrae

Jaws

Digits

Amniotic egg

Hair

Placenta

Opposable thumbs

The taxonomy system used today however, IS based on evolutionary relationships found through molecular evidence.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_classification

So while old systems did use other imperfect methods, the system used by biology (like the one you cited) is based on evolutionary relationships and was developed by Woese et al.

[JangoStango]

I tried really hard to think of an analogy to compare the mistake you just made to, but I am not sure one exists.

Or like this. You explain how we know the mass of nitrogen is between carbon and oxygen, and then a student criticize your effort by pointing out "we already knew this" because the periodic table puts N right between C and O.

[Billy]

However, those classifications are now verified by DNA under the same logic I used to support evolution.

Are you surprised that the DNA supports the classification system?

Placental will likely have closer DNA sequences that non placental, so it is based more than just on bones as you note.

Whales in particular is not a good example, because Darwin and other biologists classified whales as mammals based on bones.

Whales are placentals which broke off of the nodes later that did fish.

Vertebrae

Jaws

Digits

Amniotic egg

Hair

Placenta

Opposable thumbs

The point remains: There are animals that don't LOOK like they are related, but thanks to DNA analysis, we now know they are.

It is not based on looks but rather the organisms characteristics as noted above.

The fact that you used Taxonomy in an argument against evolution (when biological taxonomy assumes evolution to be true...) is a mistake that is quite frankly, embarrassing.

I am not using Taxonomy as an argument against evolution, you did not read my post very clearly. Rather I am trying to show you that your evidence of DNA analysis is not surprising if you classify animals by types, i.e. Taxonomy.

[Eldwynn]

Are you surprised that the DNA supports the classification system?

Placental will likely have closer DNA sequences that non placental, so it is based more than just on bones as you note.

Whales are placentals which broke off of the nodes later that did fish.

Vertebrae

Jaws

Digits

Amniotic egg

Hair

Placenta

Opposable thumbs

It is not based on looks but rather the organisms characteristics as noted above.

I am not using Taxonomy as an argument against evolution, you did not read my post very clearly. Rather I am trying to show you that your evidence of DNA analysis is not surprising if you classify animals by types, i.e. Taxonomy.

I have lost sight about what we are arguing about then. How does DNA not establish common ancestry again? Because animals also look similar to each other that are genetically similar? Do you know what genes do? They determine all those things, so of course, if you looked at everything, animals that are genetically similar will also have similar features. Indeed, similar features is ANOTHER EVIDENCE of common ancestry.

"Whales are placentals which broke off of the nodes later that did fish."

This seems to be a statement by someone that agrees with evolution. I am thoroughly confused with what we are arguing about.

[Billy]

Or like this. You explain how we know the mass of nitrogen is between carbon and oxygen, and then a student criticize your effort by pointing out "we already knew this" because the periodic table puts N right between C and O.

Lets talk about how evolution even got started. How do you propose the first cell started?

What is your best guess?

[Eldwynn]

Lets talk about how evolution even got started. How do you propose the first cell started?

What is your best guess?

Should really start a thread about abiogenesis then... which is not evolution. Evolution is a theory about replicators, and requires cumulative selection. How the first replicator got here and cumulative selection got started is a different thing entirely.

Ben Stein failed to grasp this in his entire documentary.

Just a reminder, I am moving out of the subject of evolution, and onto the subject of how life originated.

If you know a lot of chemistry, I would suggest the Cairns-smith theory. If you know a little bit of chemistry, take a look at the Primordial soup theory. They are both good explanations.

How it "really" happened is not all that interesting to me personally, as having good explanations for how it could have happened. How could you know what really happened unless you were there? The best you can do is give theories and ideas, and see if evidence and experiments support those.

[Billy]

How does DNA not establish common ancestry again?

DNA similarities MAY indicate common ancestry as you have noted. But my point is that if you divide species by characteristics that are similar, is it not surprising that their DNA is more similar that those who are more different.

If I built two similar houses and a dissimilar one, which do you think would have more similar building blocks?

Because animals also look similar to each other that are genetically similar?

It has nothing to do with looks as I stated before. Mice and humans are placentas, they will have closer DNA based on characteristics (i.e. placenta) not based on visual appearances.

This seems to be a statement by someone that agrees with evolution. I am thoroughly confused with what we are arguing about.

We agree that there is speciation that takes place today which is supported by science. Whether you call this macro-evolution or micro-evolution I don't think that the name is the important point but rather the idea. Bacteria can develop into new species of bacteria. I think that where we disagree is that I believe that bacteria will always be bacteria and not ever evolve into something different. Whereas you believe that with enough time this will likely occur.

[Eldwynn]

DNA similarities MAY indicate common ancestry as you have noted. But my point is that if you divide species by characteristics that are similar, is it not surprising that their DNA is more similar that those who are more different.

If I built two similar houses and a dissimilar one, which do you think would have more similar building blocks?

It has nothing to do with looks as I stated before. Mice and humans are placentas, they will have closer DNA based on characteristics (i.e. placenta) not based on visual appearances.

We agree that there is speciation that takes place today which is supported by science. Whether you call this macro-evolution or micro-evolution I don't think that the name is the important point but rather the idea. Bacteria can develop into new species of bacteria. I think that where we disagree is that I believe that bacteria will always be bacteria and not ever evolve into something different. Whereas you believe that with enough time this will likely occur.

So in, literally 3 billion years, you hold that bacteria will keep becoming different bacteria, but will never become something else? We can ignore the problem of naming.

I mean, I don't see any biological mechanism that would prevent our DNA changing to the point where we evolve into something as different as chimpanzees, given selection pressures. Especially if you understand the power of cumulative selection.

Biology shows that the big difference between chimpanzees in ourselves lies in our genes, and our genes are 98% different. That means in 24 million years, a 1% difference occurred that separates us from chimpanzees (modern chimps did the other 1% on their own). What on earth would STOP our genome from changing 1% in 24 million years? Our genome has only about 20,000 genes. That means a difference of 200 genes in 24 million years. Even disregarding the mountain of evidence, and only looking at numbers, is it really that far fetched to think that in around 1,700,000 generations (assuming a 16 year generation period, which is more than reasonable) since our common ancestry, we have only varied around 200 genes? That turns out to 8500 generations for each gene varied, and many of them would actually evolve together.

[Billy]

So in, literally 3 billion years, you hold that bacteria will keep becoming different bacteria, but will never become something else? We can ignore the problem of naming.

I think that anything is possible. I have not done the math but take a bacteria with a replication time of 20 minutes and then extrapolate that back 50 years ago and calculate the number of generations that have taken place. You would think that there would be ample opportunity for an evolutionary change during that time frame. I think that we agree with what is seen in the lab, but disagree with the extrapolation backwards.

[Eldwynn]

I think that anything is possible. I have not done the math but take a bacteria with a replication time of 20 minutes and then extrapolate that back 50 years ago and calculate the number of generations that have taken place. You would think that there would be ample opportunity for an evolutionary change during that time frame. I think that we agree with what is seen in the lab, but disagree with the extrapolation backwards.

I edited my post to show an extrapolation back to humans. I have not looked at the research among bacteria in the lab, but the important thing to remember is that evolutionary change take a LOT of generations, and bacteria DO change to become much more than 1% different, which is all that we have changed since our common ancestry.

[JangoStango]

DNA similarities MAY indicate common ancestry as you have noted. But my point is that if you divide species by characteristics that are similar, is it not surprising that their DNA is more similar that those who are more different.

If I built two similar houses and a dissimilar one, which do you think would have more similar building blocks?

Here's a better question. What is the closer relative to a whale: a seal (pinniped) or a giraffe (artiodactyla)? If you are going on physical characteristics you might guess the seal, because like whales they are marine mammals. But DNA shows the giraffe and whale are closer, and the seal actually descended from land carnivores.

A common misunderstanding is that DNA similarities reflect functional similarities, and therefore things that may have been "designed" to work the same will have similar DNA. Hence a chimp and a human, having a lot of physical similarities, would be expected to have DNA similarities after this logic. But the whale-giraffe is an example of how such simple reasoning leads to misunderstanding (because whales and seals have more functional similarities but fewer genetic similarities). Furthermore, the actual bits of DNA used for establishing relationships do not code for body functions like aquatic life, warm blood, or opposable thumbs. In many cases, the DNA used is the gene for cytochrome C, a critical protein in basic cellular respiration. There is no reason why cytochrome C should have sequence similarity corresponding to similar animal functions, because in fact this gene has an identical function in all cells.

[Billy]

I edited my post to show an extrapolation back to humans. I have not looked at the research among bacteria in the lab, but the important thing to remember is that evolutionary change take a LOT of generations, and bacteria DO change to become much more than 1% different, which is all that we have changed since our common ancestry.

But you would still agree that despite the change they are still bacteria.

Look at domestic dogs, one species which have many different breeds of extremely varying characteristics that exist secondary to artificial selection. But in the end they are still dogs. If down the road you were to discover the bones of one breed of dog you could probably construct an evolutionary tree, but this would be incorrect because the are all from the same species. Is this what has been done with other fossils?

[Eldwynn]

But you would still agree that despite the change they are still bacteria.

Look at domestic dogs, one species which have many different breeds of extremely varying characteristics that exist secondary to artificial selection. But in the end they are still dogs. If down the road you were to discover the bones of one breed of dog you could probably construct an evolutionary tree, but this would be incorrect because the are all from the same species. Is this what has been done with other fossils?

You are running into the problem with names. Dawkins has an awesome section in his book, The Ancestors Tale, about "the discontinuous mind". When did Homo erectus stop being a homo erectus, and become a homo sapien? The answer is: never. Names are something we retroactively impose, and are worthless to the reality of evolution.

Dogs have not had the time, nor the selection pressures to be unable to reproduce with each other. It has only been about 10,00 years. But look at the differences! Now imagine doing it for 28 million years, or even 1.6 million years ago (that would be the amount of time it took for homo erectus to become homo sapiens).... What would stop the changes from becoming to the point where they could no longer reproduce, given the right selection pressures?

[Eldwynn]

One more thing about bacteria:

http://futurismic.com/2008/06/11/evolution...atory-bacteria/

The above experiment would probably be considered "microevolution" to you. I have a good answer to your question about why "bacteria" will not stop being "bacteria" in our lifetime.

In the above experiment, the one trait that changed, meant a change in the bacterias small genome that is very small in absolute numbers. However, RELATIVE to the bacterias genome as a whole, it is actually a large percent change. The bacteria in the experiment had around 3500 genes or so. By the 31,500th generation, the genome probably changed by maybe 50 genes. However, that is a 2% change in it's total genome, in 31,500 generations. I was proposing that Humans change 1% of it's genome in 1,700,000 generations....

EDIT: Please do correct my math, I am using windows' calculator to do these calculations.

I really want to thank you for bringing this up, I have actually learned quite a bit in talking with you, and actually doing the math has been really eye-opening for me. I had no clue how many generations 28 million years really meant for humans until I calculated it just now.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

You are running into the problem with names. Dawkins has an awesome section in his book, The Ancestors Tale, about "the discontinuous mind". When did Homo erectus stop being a homo erectus, and become a homo sapien? The answer is: never. Names are something we retroactively impose, and are worthless to the reality of evolution.

Uh?

Isnt that the whole point of evolution is to say taht man came from apes? That Homo erectus is the missing link or one of the missing links? I remember many debates and shows on Nova about "Lucy" because that find just confirmed evolution?

I love guys that contradict their own ideas in mid speach.

Note: I am not advocating one way or another on evolution as it is taught. This quote just caught me.