Theory of Evolution and Mormons

[Billy]

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....

"Somewhere around the 31,500th generation, the E. Coli developed a trait not present in the original strain: they began to be able to metabolise citrate, the inability of which is one of the main ways scientists distinguish E. Coli from other bacteria."

Clearly there is change here and it is provable with modern science as noted above. Just look at the bacteria now and the antibiotic resistance that they develop over time this is certainly provable and fact. But again my point is that they are still bacteria.

[Eldwynn]

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.

I did not contradict myself- you misunderstood. We give species names retroactively, however, evolution is a slow gradual change. It would be inaccurate to say that a Homo Erectus had a child that was instantly a homo sapien.

I have explained this idea earlier in the thread if you would like to find it. Evolution is gradual, and when we name "species" we are simply saying that modern homo sapiens, if we were to go back in time, could probably not reproduce with Homo Erectus, because of the number of small changes.

[Billy]

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.

I think that with broad classifications such as mammals verses non mammals that this is the case. Like when comparing the DNA of a fish, a mammal, and a different mammal. But within a classification it is harder to differentiate, as you noted above.

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.

Can you restate you point, I am not sure what you meant by it.

[Eldwynn]

"Somewhere around the 31,500th generation, the E. Coli developed a trait not present in the original strain: they began to be able to metabolise citrate, the inability of which is one of the main ways scientists distinguish E. Coli from other bacteria."

Clearly there is change here and it is provable with modern science as noted above. Just look at the bacteria now and the antibiotic resistance that they develop over time this is certainly provable and fact. But again my point is that they are still bacteria.

I am not sure what you are not understanding. They are not the same E. Coli as they were before. AS I said above, their genome has changed a relatively large percent- which to us LOOKS like small changes, so we still call them bacteria, but to bacteria, they are LARGE changes to their genome. I compared such a "small on the surface" change to what would happen if our genome changed such a small percent- and showed that we would be halfway to being a chimpanzee (of course we wouldn't really be halfway towards a chimpanzee, but the number of changes would be analogous).

This is again, the problems with names. In reality, in the experiment, the genomic change was larger than the change from Homo erectus to Homo Sapien--- a huge change if you were to stand the species together. However, just because it looks small to you, and you still call them bacteria, does not mean large scale evolution at the level of the gene (where it all matters) took place. And to repeat myself yet again: if that amount of change were to happen to humans we would see BIG, possibly reproductive type big, changes. But it all depends where the changes occur of course.

Moral of the story: Just because it looks small to us, does not mean it was small to bacteria.

[Billy]

I am not sure what you are not understanding. They are not the same E. Coli as they were before.

Agree with you here that they ARE NOT the same E Coli as were before.

AS I said above, their genome has changed a relatively large percent- which to us LOOKS like small changes, so we still call them bacteria, but to bacteria, they are LARGE changes to their genome.

Agree that there is a change in the genome. Just like there is a change in the genome with resistant bacteria. Again I agree with you here.

Moral of the story: Just because it looks small to us, does not mean it was small to bacteria.

I think for some reason that you think that I don't believe that there can be changes within a genome. I certainly believe that there has been. Bacteria and Drosophila melanogaster are two widely studied organisms that show that changes can occur. But again where we differ is that you then assume that these changes automatically project into larger changes with time allowing like to change to non like organisms. You are taking provable science and then applying the data to prove something that is not entirely provable, rather I would say that it is circumstantial evidence.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I did not contradict myself- you misunderstood. We give species names retroactively, however, evolution is a slow gradual change. It would be inaccurate to say that a Homo Erectus had a child that was instantly a homo sapien.

I have explained this idea earlier in the thread if you would like to find it. Evolution is gradual, and when we name "species" we are simply saying that modern homo sapiens, if we were to go back in time, could probably not reproduce with Homo Erectus, because of the number of small changes.

I never said you contradicted your self just that Dawkins did.

What did the pre human look like? Answer Home Erectus? But Homo Sapians were never Homo Erectus.

That sounds like the gospel truth to me.

BTW no one has ever argued that Homo Erectus was Homo Sapien. Just taht at some point in time there was a Homo Sapien that may have evolved from Homo Erectus, or are scientists not going this route anymore?

[Eldwynn]

I think for some reason that you think that I don't believe that there can be changes within a genome. I certainly believe that there has been. Bacteria and Drosophila melanogaster are two widely studied organisms that show that changes can occur. But again where we differ is that you then assume that these changes automatically project into larger changes with time allowing like to change to non like organisms. You are taking provable science and then applying the data to prove something that is not entirely provable, rather I would say that it is circumstantial evidence.

Okay- we both agree- the genome changed. I never doubted that you thought that. Here is what we agree on:1-Changing genomes produces physical change.2-Bacteria, fruit flies and likewise all living things have variation in their genome through generations. So the question? How much change to the genome does it take for large changes? We obviously can't study human generations in our lifetime, but by comparing humans and chimpanzees, we can see that there are only about 400 different genes (2%). So the question is: Can a species branch into two different populations (chimpanzees and homo sapiens) in 28 million years (or however many generations I said it was). The answer is: yes. this yes is supported by the evidence that bacteria has no problem changing 2% of it's genome in just 14,000 generations, and we had over a million. Bacteria don't turn all the sudden into birds, because their genome is so limited, and it would take a lot longer (indeed, it did take a lot longer) than you or I could ever live. The fact that they reproduce so quickly, while is helpful, is neither here nor there. I need to go outside and enjoy the weather. I will be back later.however, I would like you to clarify what would constitute as a BIG change? Is it merely a change in species (so that your final organism could not mate with the original you started with after many generations) or what? What would you consider "BIG CHANGE" ?

I never said you contradicted your self just that Dawkins did.What did the pre human look like? Answer Home Erectus? But Homo Sapians were never Homo Erectus. That sounds like the gospel truth to me.BTW no one has ever argued that Homo Erectus was Homo Sapien. Just taht at some point in time there was a Homo Sapien that may have evolved from Homo Erectus, or are scientists not going this route anymore?

You are just not getting it, and I *think* there is a language gap between us that I would rather not fight with.

[thesometimesaint]

Billy:

Chimpanzees are members of the Hominidae family, along with gorillas, humans, and orangutans. Chimpanzee are thought to have split from human evolution about 6 million years ago and thus the two chimpanzee species are the closest living relatives to humans; all being members of the Hominini tribe (along with extinct species of Hominina subtribe). Chimpanzees are the only known members of the Panina subtribe. The two Pan species split only about one million years ago. Around 94% of human and chimpanzee DNA sequences are the same.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

You are just not getting it, and I *think* there is a language gap between us that I would rather not fight with.

Perhaps there is nothing to get and you are making a big deal of being called out (Dawkins) on the carpet. I won't argue, like I said I am just sitting on the fence on this issue as I can see it either way.

[JangoStango]

I think that with broad classifications such as mammals verses non mammals that this is the case. Like when comparing the DNA of a fish, a mammal, and a different mammal. But within a classification it is harder to differentiate, as you noted above.

Can you restate you point, I am not sure what you meant by it.

When faced with genetic evidence for common descent, creationists typically claim that genetic similarities exist because of functional similarities and not because of common descent.

There are a couple of ways I could respond to that.

One is with the whale-giraffe-seal example, where whale and seal genes are seen to be less similar than whale and giraffe genes, even though at first glance the whales and seals "seem" to be more functionally similar. Hence, detailed gene similarities do not track gross functional or anatomical similarities as creationists would have you believe.

The second way I could respond is by explaining what is meant by "genetic similarities". Consider the DNA that is used for comparison, like the gene for cytochrome C. This gene has an identical function in cellular respiration across all species, yet it has variable regions where mutations can be tracked to classify animals into related species. It cannot be claimed that the cytochrome C variations between species simply reflect different functional needs in different species, because the function is the same in all species.

[Billy]

Can a species branch into two different populations (chimpanzees and homo sapiens) in 28 million years (or however many generations I said it was). The answer is: yes.

Can it? Possibly

Did it? We don't know.

What would you consider "BIG CHANGE" ?

Off of the top of my head I don't know. I will have to think about it.

I am heading out as well.

[Nyal]

I think I understand, correct me if I am wrong, Billy. DNA is the template that god used to create animals and people. Any similarities that exist between any two species differ because a different percentage of the DNA had been utilized. So, a human shares 96 percent DNA with a chimp because god only needed that much to create the chimp and 100 percent to create the human. This explains why there is no common descent and why there are genetic similarities between species. Okay, two questions emerge if god used a similar genetic template to create species.

1. The fossil record indicates a lot of redundancy. The fossil of Hyracotherium is the ancestor of the modern horse, as shown by a whole bunch of near identical steps between the two species. If your model of DNA were valid, this seems very wasteful or useless. Did god create a large number of near identical animals that coincidentally resemble a lineage from the two species?

2. What about evolutionary dead ends? There are an awful large number of branches on the fossil tree that ended. Why? Did god create a series of near identical animals only to snuff out the progression?

[Billy]

When faced with genetic evidence for common descent, creationists typically claim that genetic similarities exist because of functional similarities and not because of common descent.

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 what you are saying is that they form taxonomies, then when the DNA evidence is know they rearrange the taxonomies to conform to the DNA evidence, correct?

Example

A B C D E F

add DNA analysis

A C D C E F

The question then is does the new sequence of letters prove evolution, or simply that you have rearranged the taxonomy?

[Billy]

1. The fossil record indicates a lot of redundancy. The fossil of Hyracotherium is the ancestor of the modern horse, as shown by a whole bunch of near identical steps between the two species. If your model of DNA were valid, this seems very wasteful or useless. Did god create a large number of near identical animals that coincidentally resemble a lineage from the two species?

2. What about evolutionary dead ends? There are an awful large number of branches on the fossil tree that ended. Why? Did god create a series of near identical animals only to snuff out the progression?

I think that these are good questions that I don't know the answer to. Why create dinosaurs only to let them die out? I don't know.

[Nyal]

I think that these are good questions that I don't know the answer to. Why create dinosaurs only to let them die out? I don't know.

The DNA template idea doesn't reconcile the dead ends and multiple instances of near identical species, but evolution seems to take care of it nicely IMO. Please think about it, I would really like to hear your thoughts...

[Billy]

The DNA template idea doesn't reconcile the dead ends and multiple instances of near identical species, but evolution seems to take care of it nicely IMO. Please think about it, I would really like to hear your thoughts...

There is no doubt that natural selection takes place. Different sized beaks in birds or different colored moths are selected out by what is most advantageous. If you separate these populations I believe that speciation is likely to occur, which would result in variations from the original species, but still like in kind. The question then rises how far can this differentiation take these organisms? I think that a lot of evolutionists believe that creationists believe that one form of animal etc. has been static and does not change. I do not believe this to be the case. As noted above, just look at the single species of the modern dog which has multiple breeds. These have been artificially selected and now there are very diverse from each other. There clearly is the ability for change within like animals, I don't think that anyone can deny this fact. If you were to look at the bones of various breeds of the single species dog, you may conclude that they different species or that they may have evolved one from another.

[littlechild]

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?

Yes, IMAGINE.

[littlechild]

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.

There is not one single phylogenetic tree that Darwinists can point to as ultimately correct. They keep revising it. The trouble is, using the same form of testing you come up with different results.

Evolutionary biologist Michael Lynch states that analyses based on different genes, and even different analyses based on the same genes - yields a diversity of phylogenetic trees. Michael Lynch "The Age and Relationships of the Major Animal Phyla", Evolution 53 (1999):319-325

Then there was the supposed universality of the genetic code. This was supposed to point us to the inescapable conclusion that we were all related, since we all used the same genetic code. Now it comes out that there is no universal code. Assuming as they did, that a change in code was not survivable, will evolutionists now revise their position? If a single code implied a single common ancestor, do multiple codes indicate multiple ancestors?

"There is no reason to postulate that LUCA ever existed". Michael Sylvanen, UCDavis, Journal of Molecular Evolution

Malcom Gordon of UCLA - states that the single tree of life's history is not accurate, but life must have had multiple, independent starting points. Biology and Philosophy 14 (1999)

[littlechild]

There is no doubt that natural selection takes place. Different sized beaks in birds or different colored moths are selected out by what is most advantageous. If you separate these populations I believe that speciation is likely to occur, which would result in variations from the original species, but still like in kind. The question then rises how far can this differentiation take these organisms? I think that a lot of evolutionists believe that creationists believe that one form of animal etc. has been static and does not change. I do not believe this to be the case. As noted above, just look at the single species of the modern dog which has multiple breeds. These have been artificially selected and now there are very diverse from each other. There clearly is the ability for change within like animals, I don't think that anyone can deny this fact. If you were to look at the bones of various breeds of the single species dog, you may conclude that they different species or that they may have evolved one from another.

You may call that natural selection. I find that a bit excessive. I call it variation, especially since the beak sizes returned to normal when the food supply became more abundant. It didn't span generations. Same idea with the moths. Most of the melanism was caused by industrial pollution, not natural selection.

The dog breeding bit goes a long way to explain the limits of evolution. When an intelligent agent, such as man, does the selecting, you get much further than when you allow natural processes to take place. Darwin agrees - having pointed this fact out in the first chapter of Origin of Species.

[littlechild]

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.

Nonsense. It is evolution that does all the presupposing. From the beginning, they insist that only natural, physical methods can be considered scientific. This is an a priori assumption which causes them to miss many other important clues. Secondly - evolution is rampant with presuppositions that they supposedly are trying to prove. Such as, morphology indicates common ancestry. This is a circular argument. Things that look alike are assumed to have evolved from one another before it is even established that they did evolve from one another.

Intelligent design doesn't presuppose an intelligent agent, it simply defines how to tell when one is evident as opposed to not evident. The issue now is - neo-Darwinists rule out an intelligent agent before they consider one. If there were an intelligent agent at work, how could neo-Darwinism determine that, seeing as how they already ruled it out, and are bending themselves into silly pretzels to twist away from that conclusion?

Now don't confuse creationism with intelligent design. Creationists can co-opt the intelligent design and people it with their own intelligent agent. But that has nothing to do with intelligent design itself.

[littlechild]

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.

Again this sort of reasoning is not based on an observed speciation event. It is a supposition without an A to B to C map showing step by step how it supposedly happened. As Dembski has proven mathematically, it is outside the realm of possibility for enough genetic change to have occurred to explain the diversity of genetic information. There is no evolutionary algorithm that can do the required work within the realm of possibility.

[macmini]

Yes, IMAGINE.

YOU GO littlechild!!! You are most definitely a worthy opponent to Edwynn. TKO!!!!

[macmini]

Nonsense. It is evolution that does all the presupposing. From the beginning, they insist that only natural, physical methods can be considered scientific. This is an a priori assumption which causes them to miss many other important clues. Secondly - evolution is rampant with presuppositions that they supposedly are trying to prove. Such as, morphology indicates common ancestry. This is a circular argument. Things that look alike are assumed to have evolved from one another before it is even established that they did evolve from one another.

Intelligent design doesn't presuppose an intelligent agent, it simply defines how to tell when one is evident as opposed to not evident. The issue now is - neo-Darwinists rule out an intelligent agent before they consider one. If there were an intelligent agent at work, how could neo-Darwinism determine that, seeing as how they already ruled it out, and are bending themselves into silly pretzels to twist away from that conclusion?

Now don't confuse creationism with intelligent design. Creationists can co-opt the intelligent design and people it with their own intelligent agent. But that has nothing to do with intelligent design itself.

How dare Edwynn confuse creationism with Intelligent design!!! We all know that as it says in Pandas and People that Cintelligent Designism is not creationism. The two are completely different and you could never take a book like Of Pandas and People and replace all the uses of intelligent Design with creationism. It would not work since they are completely different. Also it would take alot of time to make sure that you replace all the instances of intelligent design with creationism and not make any mistakes in the process.

[cinepro]

How dare Edwynn confuse creationism with Intelligent design!!! We all know that as it says in Pandas and People that Cintelligent Designism is not creationism. The two are completely different and you could never take a book like Of Pandas and People and replace all the uses of intelligent Design with creationism. It would not work since they are completely different. Also it would take alot of time to make sure that you replace all the instances of intelligent design with creationism and not make any mistakes in the process.

Niiiiice.

[Eldwynn]

There is not one single phylogenetic tree that Darwinists can point to as ultimately correct. They keep revising it. The trouble is, using the same form of testing you come up with different results.

Then there was the supposed universality of the genetic code. This was supposed to point us to the inescapable conclusion that we were all related, since we all used the same genetic code. Now it comes out that there is no universal code. Assuming as they did, that a change in code was not survivable, will evolutionists now revise their position? If a single code implied a single common ancestor, do multiple codes indicate multiple ancestors?

Two things with this. First, you are confusing the "true phylogenetic tree" with "our phylogenetic tree we point to now". There does exist some "true" phylogenetic tree that we are a long ways from finding(if ever), considering the fact that the majority of organisms on the planet are undiscovered by us.