Dowis Refutes Dawkins

[SeekingUnderstanding]

When designing flora and fauna a shrewd and intelligent creator would use a common template, changing only what is necessary.

Just a quick correction. As has been stated several times, the changes in this protein serve no purpose in its function. It transports a single electron in mammals and bacteria alike.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

Ah yes the symbolism label IMNSHO is a label for information one cannot reconcile to ones worldview. In this case evolution. I am not trying to be snarky but I see it all to often. When one is challenged by a scripture one can almost be sure the answer will be "I look at that as symbolic". If we are not careful we will symbolize ourselves right out of salvation.

Seems a bit like ark steadying to me. Don't you think if evolutionary belief endangered my soul, the prophet would stop it from being taught at church run schools!?

[ERayR]

Seems a bit like ark steadying to me. Don't you think if evolutionary belief endangered my soul, the prophet would stop it from being taught at church run schools!?

Don't you think if it were beneficial he would endorse it at church run schools and over the pulpit. It is just like most everything else around us. God allows great latitude in choices and lets us reason it out and suffer or enjoy the consequences. I don't put it high on the list of things to worry about. It just a little peeve I have when people start explaining evolution to me in a patronizing way when I call them on their "irrefutable" assertions. It is not irrefutable. Like if they educate the fool he is bound to see the light. Micro-evolution is a proven process. We can watch it work. However, despite assertions that macro-evolution is just micro-evolution over more time I see no evidence that it is so. But as I said I don't place it very high on my list of things to worry about.

[ERayR]

Just a quick correction. As has been stated several times, the changes in this protein serve no purpose in its function. It transports a single electron in mammals and bacteria alike.

This may be so but I doubt all avenues have been explored. When I was a child tonsils and adenoids were considered useless left over tissue and were routinely removed. They have since determined they are the immune systems first line of defense but don't yet know how it all works. The point being I think the time will come when someone has an aha moment and discovers what this does. Besides that would be an argument against evolution. If it has no function what is the incentive for it to have evolved? I have always been told that need and function were the basis for evolution.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

Don't you think if it were beneficial he would endorse it at church run schools and over the pulpit. It is just like most everything else around us. God allows great latitude in choices and lets us reason it out and suffer or enjoy the consequences. I don't put it high on the list of things to worry about. It just a little peeve I have when people start explaining evolution to me in a patronizing way when I call them on their "irrefutable" assertions. It is not irrefutable. Like if they educate the fool he is bound to see the light. Micro-evolution is a proven process. We can watch it work. However, despite assertions that macro-evolution is just micro-evolution over more time I see no evidence that it is so. But as I said I don't place it very high on my list of things to worry about.

I think the productiveness of this conversation is going downhill quick. One more reply from me and you can have the last word. I'd just like to apologize if you have felt condescension from me. None was felt on my end and none was intended. The last thing I will point out is that despite your assertions that you wanted to understand the perspective of an evolutionist you obviously did not read my posts very carefully especially demonstrated by this:

When designing flora and fauna a shrewd and intelligent creator would use a common template, changing only what is necessary.

after I had explained again and again and again that the protein in question had no needed changes and was functionally equivalent over all organisms (ie no changes were necessary) just shows how little you were paying attention. It's fine if you don't want to read my posts. Next time please just don't feign the interest if its not there. It just wastes both our time.

[Brian 2.0]

Besides that would be an argument against evolution. If it has no function what is the incentive for it to have evolved? I have always been told that need and function were the basis for evolution.

Evolution doesn't really work that way. Organisms aren't "incentivized" to evolve or mutate. Need and Function don't precede the mutation as if the body "knows" what it needs to do to stay alive. The mutation is simply random, and if it ends up being a benefit and helps survival, then it gets passed along simply due to the organisms being better suited for survival. But oftentimes the mutation is simply random and has no perceived benefit.

Looking back on the example of the fish in the Hudson that are not affected by the toxic waters. That mutation in the fish didn't happen BECAUSE of the toxic waters. The fish didn't evolve because of the need to survive. They simply mutated, probably way before the toxins were even put in the water, but once the waters were toxic, those who had mutated survived.

Evolution doesn't happen because it "needs" to happen. Organisms don't mutate because they see a need or a benefit from mutating. They simply mutate, and if that benefits them, great.

EDIT: I think I might be mis-reading you. You probably understand the above. Are you saying that if the mutation had no benefit, then why would it have been passed along and filled the population?

Edited July 24, 2013 by Brian 2.0

[danielwoods]

Interesting. I completely conceded that the evolutionary tree constructed from the amino acid / dna sequencing of the cytochrome c protein is very extrapolated concept. As you say we can't go back 300,000 years and observe the mutations as they happen. In this case as you say you look at the mutations and assume common descent and then construct the tree. The reason this is compelling is that the evolutionary tree that we just independently created matches the evolutionary tree we get from looking at physiology and any number of other ways of independently reconstructing the tree.

And my point earlier about morphology, was poorly stated. I was attempting to point out that these different ways of making the evolutionary tree aren't as independent as claimed. At least from my point of view. You still have people making these constructs that believe that there is actually an evolutionary tree. For example, you've stated a couple of times that there's no functional reason for this protein to be different in different mammals because it does it exactly the same thing. And yet just because don't know of a functional reason now, doesn't mean there wasn't one at one time. It's much like the statement that we have vestigial organs.

You propose that the same mutations might have happened as a result of exposure to the exact same circumstances. This almost seems testable. What makes this difficult is there is no known force that will force a very specific amino acid to change to the exact same different amino acid across multiple species. Additionally chimpanzee's and human's have the exact same protein, and the DNA that encodes the protein differs by just a few base pairs.

I guess if I had a firm spiritual witness on the way creation happened I might look at the data in a different light (this is not said in a condescending way BTW, but in all sincerity). Lacking such, and my view of many things in scripture as figurative likely makes me more susceptible to the evolutionary argument.

Fair points. I think most biologists would agree that mutations are overwhelmingly negative or neutral most of the time. Most organisms will not evolve unless there is significant environmental stress to do so (look at so called living fossils like crocodiles that fill the same environmental niche as they did eons ago - assuming you believe in an old earth). The math is also interesting. 18720 years? As a comparison, scientists would tell you that the first "modern" humans arrived on the scene 100,000 years ago.

The math is even more interesting when considering Bacteria have a generation every 30 minutes, which allows us to study 40K generations in 20 years. Which if we consider 40K generations equals 800,000 years of generations in human terms. Yet still no macro evolution going on.

Article here: http://www.icr.org/article/5779/

Thanks for your response. I wonder though if you find more reasons to doubt macro evolution because of its inherent conflicts with traditional lds tenants? Not saying this is a bad reason to do so. Do you relate with Elder Packer when he said "When confronted by evidence in the rocks below, rely on the witness of the heavens above"? Please note again I don't find anything wrong with this approach or think Elder Packer inferior for expressing it.

Also - I am hosting family over the long pioneer day weekend, so probably my last long post on this subject. I did enjoy the conversation.

In full disclosure, I am not LDS.

I used to believe in macro level Evolution, and changed my mind becoming aware of numerous difficulties.

[ERayR]

Evolution doesn't really work that way. Organisms aren't "incentivized" to evolve or mutate. Need and Function don't precede the mutation as if the body "knows" what it needs to do to stay alive. The mutation is simply random, and if it ends up being a benefit and helps survival, then it gets passed along simply due to the organisms being better suited for survival. But oftentimes the mutation is simply random and has no perceived benefit.

Looking back on the example of the fish in the Hudson that are not affected by the toxic waters. That mutation in the fish didn't happen BECAUSE of the toxic waters. The fish didn't evolve because of the need to survive. They simply mutated, probably way before the toxins were even put in the water, but once the waters were toxic, those who had mutated survived.

Evolution doesn't happen because it "needs" to happen. Organisms don't mutate because they see a need or a benefit from mutating. They simply mutate, and if that benefits them, great.

EDIT: I think I might be mis-reading you. You probably understand the above. Are you saying that if the mutation had no benefit, then why would it have been passed along and filled the population?

Finally you have listened to one thing I said. You see the frustration isn't all one sided but then I am used to that.

[Brian 2.0]

Finally you have listened to one thing I said. You see the frustration isn't all one sided but then I am used to that.

I caught myself right as I clicked submit... I thought, I know ERayR understands this so what is he saying?

We'll get there... just takes time... as some people post that actually DON'T know the stuff above my edit.

[ERayR]

And my point earlier about morphology, was poorly stated. I was attempting to point out that these different ways of making the evolutionary tree aren't as independent as claimed. At least from my point of view. You still have people making these constructs that believe that there is actually an evolutionary tree. For example, you've stated a couple of times that there's no functional reason for this protein to be different in different mammals because it does it exactly the same thing. And yet just because don't know of a functional reason now, doesn't mean there wasn't one at one time. It's much like the statement that we have vestigial organs.

The math is even more interesting when considering Bacteria have a generation every 30 minutes, which allows us to study 40K generations in 20 years. Which if we consider 40K generations equals 800,000 years of generations in human terms. Yet still no macro evolution going on.

Article here: http://www.icr.org/article/5779/

In full disclosure, I am not LDS.

I used to believe in macro level Evolution, and changed my mind becoming aware of numerous difficulties.

What I have pointed out several times only not as well.

I too used to believe in macro-evolution but decided the problems with it in light of a lot of data both related and unrelated but with bearing on the concept was just too great to ignore. Funny thing one of the first books that started me to doubt evolution was totally unrelated to evolution. It was a book called Things by Ivan T. Sanderson

Edited July 24, 2013 by ERayR

[cdowis]

Looking back on the example of the fish in the Hudson that are not affected by the toxic waters. That mutation in the fish didn't happen BECAUSE of the toxic waters. The fish didn't evolve because of the need to survive. They simply mutated, probably way before the toxins were even put in the water, but once the waters were toxic, those who had mutated survived.

Evolution doesn't happen because it "needs" to happen. Organisms don't mutate because they see a need or a benefit from mutating. They simply mutate, and if that benefits them, great.

I would suggest that the "mutated" fish already existed as a very small group in the total population, and the change in the environment forced a change in the ratio of "mutated" to "normal" fish. I understand this is what happened in the well-known example of the white and black moths in England-- the environment forced a change in the ratio of black and white in the existing population.

No big deal. Nothing here to see, so just move along.

Edited July 24, 2013 by cdowis

[Brian 2.0]

I would suggest that the "mutated" fish already existed as a very small group in the total population, and the change in the environment forced a change in the ratio of "mutated" to "normal" fish.

This is pretty much exactly what I was saying in my quote. So we agree.

No big deal. Nothing here to see, so just move along.

Classic CDowis.

[cdowis]

del

Edited July 24, 2013 by cdowis

[thesometimesaint]

In my early life I was a farmer/rancher and used micro-evolution to improve my cows, pigs and horses. At no time were we able to change the animals into anything other than animals improved for the purposes we used them. Pigs are a great example. In the early 1900 lard was a profitable commodity so pigs were selected that yielded lots of fat/lard. As other alternatives, which were better and cheaper were developed pigs were bred for their ability to convert feed to hams and pork chops and much less fat. Similar changes can be seen in most animals and plants. Farmers/ranchers are great manipulators of micro-evolution. I have heard fellow pig farmers quip more than once; "wouldn't it be great to develop a pig that laid eggs then we could produce bacon and eggs at the same time". As much as we are able to control the conformation of those animals we are unable to change them into different animals. Pigs are still pigs, cows are still cows, etc.

All that being said I would postulate that a small herd of cows, pigs, etc. would suffice to populate a planet provided they had adequate protection from predators.

[thesometimesaint]

Danielwoods:

I love fruit flies, they have so many generations per year (Wiki says 10 days for one generation so that's 36 generations a year?) Now compared to higher level organisms which generations are about an average 20 years per? So, if we were to compare, and we've been studying fruit flies (genetically) since 1987 to now, about 26 years at 36 generations a year, so about 936 generations. Which would equal, about 18,720 years of generations for the higher level organisms. Yet, in all that time, we observe, if pushed beyond it's genetic limits, it dies. Mutations occur and usually kill it. This is the most common response to such genetic manipulation. You'd think that if macro-evolution were true, that the little fly would evolve some other way to survive. Now maybe we need more time. And that's one of my points. The call for more time is a plea based on faith, not evidence. The evidence seems compelling to me that in fact there is little to no macro-evolution going on, even though there are 936 generations to observe and manipulate.

See evolution in the fruit fly

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_45

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/04/060422121625.htm

[cdowis]

He points out that the characteristic must serve a purpose in perpetuating the organism's survival and/or reproductive success.

Let us say that Characteristic X significantly increases its ability to survive AND reproductive success over organisms which do not have that characteristic. But to get to X the organism must also develop A through W to get to X. The evolutionist now has the burden, not only to show how X is a significant contributor to survival AND reproductive success, but must identify steps A-W and demonstrate the same for each . X only survives if A through X also survives and contributes to reproductive success.

He tries to answer this objection by assertion, and giving the "green leaf" argument.

"Green leaves" fails because leaves are NOT green for any other reason than they have chlorophyll. They are not independent of each other. OK, if there actually were leaves that are green in the absence of chorophyll, they would not "attract" the chorophyll characteristic. They would be merely green. His example simply does not make sense because there is no interdependence between the two characteristics. He admits "green" does not increase the survivability of the plant at all -- only chorophyll. And green does not increase the probability of developing that characteristic. (I am repeating myself)

If we were to take the example of the bombardier beetle, where a complex defensive system developed.

Here is the link from talk.origins, attempting to explain the dribbling evolution of this system at http://www.talkorigi...bombardier.html If someone wants to tack it, let's open a new thread and see where it goes. You should easily see the flaws but I will be happy to point them out. You might start by looking at steps 4, 8 and 9. This is where the "magic wand" comes into play.

Edited July 24, 2013 by cdowis

[thesometimesaint]

That makes absolutely no sense.

[danielwoods]

Danielwoods:

I love fruit flies, they have so many generations per year (Wiki says 10 days for one generation so that's 36 generations a year?) Now compared to higher level organisms which generations are about an average 20 years per? So, if we were to compare, and we've been studying fruit flies (genetically) since 1987 to now, about 26 years at 36 generations a year, so about 936 generations. Which would equal, about 18,720 years of generations for the higher level organisms. Yet, in all that time, we observe, if pushed beyond it's genetic limits, it dies. Mutations occur and usually kill it. This is the most common response to such genetic manipulation. You'd think that if macro-evolution were true, that the little fly would evolve some other way to survive. Now maybe we need more time. And that's one of my points. The call for more time is a plea based on faith, not evidence. The evidence seems compelling to me that in fact there is little to no macro-evolution going on, even though there are 936 generations to observe and manipulate.

See evolution in the fruit fly

http://evolution.ber.../article/evo_45

http://www.scienceda...60422121625.htm

Speciation is the creation or development of a new species. Still is a micro level of change however.

For example, one of your links describes spots on the wings, and how different types of spots indicates a different species. Yet, they are still fruit flies. What is not seen in all of these experiments is new types of forms, such as a fruit fly developing a gill or a duck bill. That may sound funny, but that is exactly my point. We don't expect it because it simply isn't observed.

I've read about some birds that migrate around the globe, and as they meet up with their old relatives (some that didn't migrate), they are unable to mate with them because of their loss of that ability. Of course scientists call this speciation. New species of birds have developed. Which is fine, I agree, however they are still the same bird, and their loss of this ability to mate isn't an macro-change, but simply a micro one.

As I pointed out earlier, when pushed to it genetic limits organisms die and don't evolve.

[cdowis]

"classical cdowis"

You do understand that "survival of the fittest" is a concept pre-dating Darwin. Indeed you can find it in the Book of Mormon (1830).

Nothing new here.

[thesometimesaint]

Whenever a subset of a population changes enough that they can no longer reproduce with the parent population that is speciation(evolution).

[cdowis]

That makes absolutely no sense.

It goes back to the original discussion of step by step evolution (dribbling, as Dawkins calls it) vs quantum jumping. I am asserting tha some systems cannot be explained by dribbling. The "green leaves" is an attempt to address that assertion.

The bombardier beetle is a specific example of the failure of evolution.

Edited July 24, 2013 by cdowis

[Bikeemikey]

It goes back to the original discussion of step by step evolution (dribbling, as Dawkins calls it) vs quantum jumping. I am asserting tha some systems cannot be explained by dribbling. The "green leaves" is an attempt to address that assertion.

The bombardier beetle is a specific example of the failure of evolution.

And evolution simply postulates that the only reason you can not explain something via dribbling is because you have not dribbled long enough. Evolution is a totally reasonable science based explanation based on a large amount of collected data.

What I am still scratching my head about is why it is an unreasonable explanation to some religious people... Can someone please explain why any time at all should be expended attempting to critique evolution and what so call religious individuals would be able to gain by successfully doing so?

Edited July 24, 2013 by Bikeemikey

[thesometimesaint]

cdowis:

You are still arguing for irreducible complexity. An invalid idea that has thoroughly been discredited.

SEE evolution of Bombardier Beetle.

1) Hydroquinone and hydrogen peroxide do not actually react when mixed together unless a catalyst is added (in this case an enzyme secreted from cells that line the mixing chamber inside the beetle). In other words, any amount of these two chemicals is completely harmless to the beetle or any other insects unless a catalyst is added and therefore there is no ‘delicate’ chemical balance.

2) The quinones are not unique to the bombardier beetle and are indeed found in most other insects and invertebrates. They are produced by cells, which harden the skin into a cuticle or exoskeleton along with an unpleasant taste making an effective deterrent to predators.

3) The strength of the chemical reaction relies on the concentration of the hydrogen peroxide. The higher the concentration, the higher the amount of oxidization, which results in a more violent reaction.

All of these issues can easily be explained from an evolutionary perspective: As stated above, the quinones are commonly found in many insects and are produced in tiny indentations or small glands in the ‘skins’ of invertebrates. Due to the unpleasant taste, some beetles and insects have developed muscles that can contract around these glands giving them the ability to secrete larger quantities of quinones on demand in order to deter predators when they attack. The bigger these indentations, the more quinones they are able to secrete, thus making the survival rate amongst beetles with larger quinone sacs higher than those with smaller ones. Over time it is possible for these sacs to grow and develop into larger ducts which we find in the abdomen of bombardier beetles today. When predators’ resistance to these chemicals develops (see evolutionary arms race*), other quinones (such as hydroquinone) then develop. This is later mixed in with hydrogen peroxide (a common by-product of cell metabolism*)

*Cell metabolismis a set of chemical reactions that happen in cells that use energy to construct cellular components such as proteins (which form enzymes) and nucleic acids, which allow them to grow, reproduce, and maintain their structures. These chemical reactions are organized so that one chemical is transformed into another through a series of steps by a sequence of enzymes. Enzymes act as catalysts and allow these reactions to be carried out quickly and efficiently.

After mixing, these two chemicals then react with enzymes and generate heat and pressure, which produce a more reactive substance and therefore a more efficient deterrent against predators. The hydroquinone doesn’t actually need to be there at all for the explosive defence mechanism to work – the hydrogen peroxide would be quite enough – though its presence does enable a faster reaction to take place. As the enzymes break down the hydrogen peroxide into a reactive substance, they also break down the hydroquinone, which releases more oxygen, helping to fuel and speed up the reaction between the enzymes and the hydrogen peroxide, and make for a more violent chemical reaction. The real key lies in the concentration of hydrogen peroxide, which can (and best) be explained by a gradual increase over time. A lower concentration would cause a gentler reaction (with a mild temperature), which may be enough to deter an attacker (though perhaps not damage or kill it) and would also be relatively harmless to the bombardier beetle. Natural selection would favour those beetles whose solution was more effective at deterring predators, leading to a gradual shift toward a higher concentration of hydrogen peroxide and ultimately more violent reactions as well as an increase in the beetle’s own resilience to the powerful solution (perhaps due to the same increase in quinones that harden the beetles exoskeleton).

The bombardier beetle is a wonderful example of how evolutionary processes can span millennia to form extremely complex and seemingly impossible organisms through small, gradual changes and it is through the wonder of modern biological science and chemistry that we are able to understand how these changes occur.

Complexity cannot and does not occur instantaneously. You cannot throw a pile of junk metal into the air and expect it to land in the shape of a working car, which is the approach that creationists and the religious right seem to take. Darwin’s Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection is the only logical, methodical and elegant explanation we have that is able to explain the huge diversity of the natural world and all its wonders. We should not feel belittled or humiliated in accepting that our origins lie with the great apes and other mammals, with reptiles, birds, fish, insects and bacteria, but instead should find both solace and a sense of wonder. It has taken trillions of births, lives and deaths over the 3.5 billion year history of life on this Earth for us to be here. We are a lucky few indeed.

Edited July 24, 2013 by thesometimesaint

[cdowis]

snip

All of these issues can easily be explained from an evolutionary perspective:

Let's see what you got.

As stated above, the quinones are commonly found in many insects and are produced in tiny indentations or small glands in the ‘skins’ of invertebrates. Due to the unpleasant taste, some beetles and insects have developed muscles that can contract around these glands giving them the ability to secrete larger quantities of quinones on demand in order to deter predators when they attack. The bigger these indentations, the more quinones they are able to secrete, thus making the survival rate amongst beetles with larger quinone sacs higher than those with smaller ones.

No problem.

Over time it is possible for these sacs to grow and develop into larger ducts

OK, the magic wand explanation. Give us the details of exactly how they grow into larger ducts. Remember, step by step, not quantum jumps.

which we find in the abdomen of bombardier beetles today. When predators’ resistance to these chemicals develops (see evolutionary arms race*), other quinones (such as hydroquinone) then develop. This is later mixed in with hydrogen peroxide (a common by-product of cell metabolism*)

The magic wand.

Let's stop for now and just take one or two of these "it is possible" scenarios. You assume that i accept that your scenarios are "possible".

Your entire structure is based on assumption, assertion and fantasy. You can only hope that I accept your fantastic scenarios. You hope that I will accept the assertion that "anything is possible after evolving for a million years."

I do not.

Tell us the step by step evolution. I know that is a heavy burden, but you have taken it upon yourself.

*Cell metabolismis a set of chemical reactions that happen in cells that use energy to construct cellular components such as proteins (which form enzymes) and nucleic acids, which allow them to grow, reproduce, and maintain their structures. These chemical reactions are organized so that one chemical is transformed into another through a series of steps by a sequence of enzymes. Enzymes act as catalysts and allow these reactions to be carried out quickly and efficiently.

After mixing, these two chemicals then react with enzymes and generate heat and pressure, which produce a more reactive substance and therefore a more efficient deterrent against predators.

Tell us step by step how the mixing process evolved in the precise manner that it is found in the beetle today. It is a very delicate and precise process, and this is evidence for an intelligent designer -- can you accept my assertion? I certainly do not accept it as a scenario for evolution.

You just throw a bunch of words and sentences together and pretend that it is an explanation.

snip

Edited July 24, 2013 by cdowis

[ERayR]

This is pretty much exactly what I was saying in my quote. So we agree.

Classic CDowis.

True but it is correct. The fish are still fish and the moths are still moths no big genetic changes.