Darwin re-visited

[REASON]

Some instances of NS can happen very quickly (over hundreds of years instead of millions).

 

Actually, Natural Selection is constantly occurring.

 

Since you have defined yourself as a "Truth" Chaser, maybe you would be willing to offer a bit of your sense of truth.

 

How old do you believe the planet Earth to be?

 

So, while I fully understand and appreciate natural selection and all it can entail, time is no issue, I do have serious reservations, genetically speaking, about evolution (which I believe is not to be confused with Natural Selection).

 

As Freeztar stated above, Natural Selection is an important function of the evolutionary process of living organisms. They are not mutually exclusive of one another.

 

Forgive me for being blunt, but to be honest, I'm not buying your apparent curiosity or "reservations" about genetic transfer. I have a strong suspicion that you are not actually interested in developing an understanding of the processes of evolution. I suspect that you are actually a believer in Creationism/Intelligent Design, and think that attempting to find weakness in evolutionary priciples lends credence to your beliefs. Am I wrong?

 

I believe I read on another thread that you recently received your Bachelor's Degree in Biblical Studies. If that's true, hey, congratulations. But if your intentions are to spark a debate as to the validity of evolutionary science, I think it's fair that everyone understands where you're comming from with your questions.

[TruthChaser]

Thanks Freeztar

 

I will certainly look into the article. Thank you also for clearing up some things. I understand that the scientific world is still coming to terms with the way DNA functions and I am interested in this. There are constantly new articles and new understandings resulting from various studies. I will most certainly visit the article and do some more research before I come back in on that.

 

As for Reason's comment, yes I do have a bachelor's degree in Theology which I received 11 years ago. This degree is not my only base of education as you may also have noted. Secondly, if evolution could withstand such inspection it should be no issue for me to ask such questions and have helpful people like Freeztar give their insights into this amazing and complex world of genetics.

 

To spark a debate or to learn? I would call it seeking to be informed as I do not like to be labelled as a religious nut with my head in the sand. Ignorance is no man's friend. No person who claims Creationism/Intelligent Design, or Evolution should be a bigot based on ignorance. If I can learn here then I am benefitted. If something comes to light that we all need to question, then hey, that's science and how our understanding of the world is constantly changing and growing.

 

I am sorry if you are offended by my current stance as a Creationist (and whatever other names you might like to call me), but I certainly am not offended, nor afriad of the challenges presented to me by those of you who are evolutionists.

 

If we are all open minded we would look at it objectively. If their are discreptencies and valid reasons to question or clarify some evolution teachings than you who scorn "blind faith" ought to be the first to jump at the chance of providing such clarification.

 

Again, thanks Freeztar for your insight and input. I will do the reading, go further with the research and let you know how I go. Have a great wkd. :evil:

 

Cheers, TC

[TruthChaser]

To Reason: You chose to be blunt (I can cope). Allow me choose to be sharp and to the point in response to your arrogance.

 

Incidently, it was because I was seeking to explore my stance, and whether my beliefs held reason for reservation that I found myself searching for answers. Unfortunately for evolutionists the deeper I have looked it has indeed been evolution which had more to question than my own faith. I found the answers I have been seeking, have been strengthened in my faith and found myself faced with many deep questions and reservations about evolution (an alternative I had been looking at).

 

Also, it is no surprise to encounter attitude's such as yours who, instead of using reason and providing the info I sought, chose to cry "unfair" at the fact that I think differently to you and question your own belief system. That does not do so much for your cause (it only raises eyebrows and adds more doubt to your position).

 

That is why I now hold Freeztar with such high regard and look forward to reading the insight he/she has to offer. If you would seek to be helpful to anyone, you would do well to take a page out of Freeztar's book and use some of the reason you claim by name.

[Buffy]

WARNING: This last page of posts is *dangerously* off topic compared to Michaelangelica's intent in this thread. Take all arguments about "creationism vs. evolution" to another thread or it will be done forcibly for you.

 

Also: Everyone take a read to their posts and then look in the mirror.

 

Thank you for your cooperation.

 

Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away, :eek:

Buffy

[Eclogite]

WARNING: This last page of posts is *dangerously* off topic compared to Michaelangelica's intent in this thread. Take all arguments about "creationism vs. evolution" to another thread or it will be done forcibly for you.

And just to remind everyone where this thread is meant to be at, here is a quote from Michaelangelica on Page 1 of the thread. I think this captures his intent, and ask michael to weigh in with any clarification/modification he thinks necessary.

"I think random appropriation of interesting genes via bacteria and viruses and blind luck,is a better explanation of evolution than Darwin's Natural Selection. (you can include a bit of it in the 20c mix) It is far too simple and neat a theory.

It may have worked before we had modern medicine to save people from birth problems(EG prematurity etc),and old age problems(heart disease, cancer).What about vaccination for say smallpox, how is this "natural selection"?

How does IVF gel with Darwin? Those denied fertility by genetics are helped produce by science. where is the "natural selection" in that?

Modern sanitary engineering is saving us lucky ones from Cholera and other nasty bacteria (along with anti-biotics). How is this preparing us for the rise of the eventual super bug?

Our pigs are fatter because of penicillin. How is this helping Natural Selection"

[Michaelangelica]

I'm just dodging the bullets and keeping my head down.

 

Yes but above quote is pretty close. I think

1. WE are changing what is "natural" and no sort of logical sophistry will convince me that because we can do it and we are natural then therefore it (whatever we do) is natural. That is logical nonsense ie making canola resistant to Round Up or putting a bit of bacteria that is a caterpillar poison is a cotton plant is not "natural"

 

2. I would like Natural Selection to be able to predict as well as explain. Perhaps we just don't know enough yet for this to happen

 

3 Modern DNA studies seem to be re-writing the way we see evolution. Even The Pillar of Selection Mendel is being questioned. Sometimes peas do their own thing.

"Gene shuffling" sounds more like a game of poker than anything else .

(What bits of me would you like? - no go fish. Have any genes for wings? No go fish) How are evolutionary decisions made? Is it a roulette wheel or something grander.

 

Bits of us that are virusaus, or bacterial, or symbiotic whatever- Who/what are we?

All this is amazing mind boggling stuff.

 

4. I don't understand two speed evolution. Why do we have stomatolites in WA that are 4 billion years Old. How come they decided not to crawl out of the water? Just not curious I guess? Fair enough for the crocodile, when you are on to a good thing stick to it- but us- why are we still changing?

 

5 Epigenetics. I find this amazing so close to Leamrk yet. . .not quite there.

I put some dna here and a chook develops teeth. Why? because the DNA codes for teeth? No not at all it just happens to be close to where the teeth genes are. Go figure that ! (This is the place I put "go figure that" genetic stuff just to inform my own thinking and challenge others)

Getting your head around all this is what I find fascinating. I think Darwin would have had a lot more to say, if he was still around, about the mechanisms of evolution.

 

6 In utro development ensures there are no clones, no twins- in as much as 100% identical. Clones can't and don't exist in higher animals like mammals. (Just chuck out that shelf of developmental psychology twin studies)

 

7 Quantum evolution. I read the book but am hoping it will come out as a movie so I will understand what it was about.

 

As I said I just "feel" NS is not enough for me now in The 21C. I have no way of 'disproving natural selection and that is not my intention. I just wanted to ask some deep (for me a biology failure) non-religious questions about it.

 

God was /is a genius is she not? Like most girls she won't accept easy answers (or questions) (See "Is my Bum too big in this?"):)

[Pyrotex]

...My only reservation is that it {NS} does not prove evolution toward a higher species.

This is a common misunderstanding--a misunderstanding that is often spread by creationists. Evolution does NOT push toward or "seek" higher species. In fact, the word "higher" is NOT used in academic evolution studies. There is no scientific definition for that word in science. NS is just the "natural" version of "artificial selection", with the selection pressure coming not from Human desires, but from the creature's natural environment. It is therefore, without "desire" or "intention" or "goal".

I mean, NS is merely the reuse, mutation, or loss of existing DNA and it never means new DNA is added or increased to grow (so to speak) new bilogical features.

It does NOT require new DNA to produce a new feature. NS actually has nothing to do with DNA, per se. It has to do with the fact that in any species, there will be genetic variations. Animals do NOT breed exactly the same, but only approximately the same, from generation to generation. The large scale additions, losses of DNA occur from mutations. NS then determines whether the mutations survive.

Sure, you can have dogs changing the way their species adapts, to a point where that dog's descendants represent a new species (after the orginal kind) but the dog would not become a different kind of species (say a cow or a horse, or a bird etc).

Funny, that's another creationist argument. Had you ever taken a senior course in biology, you would already have the answer. And it is this: "dog", "cat", "horse" are Human labels that Humans give to animals for Human convenience. Nature does NOT know about "dogness" or "horseness". Nature knows about individual creatures. NS affects the odds of survival of the individuals. Just because we have a name for "dogs" does not mean that there is anything in their DNA that defines them as "dogs". Over time, the individuals of one "species" of animals will naturally divide into subgroups. Whether we Humans give the subgroups a different name or not is often a matter of accidental historical accident. Look at "horses" and "ponies", "lions" and "cheetahs". Among the various "dog" subgroups, we have (in English) chosen not to form new names. Yet!

So, while I love and support the wonderful idea of Natural Selection, I wonder how the other side of evolution is supported in the light of DNA?

If you love and support the wonderful idea of NS, then read some of the excellent books on it. I highly recommend Richard Dawkins' "The Blind Watchmaker" and "Climbing Mount Improbable". They are easy reads, fun, and amazingly insightful. They will start off by cleaning away much of the misinformation that passes (in creationist circles) for "facts" about evolution. Then they will make the difficult concepts easy. NS is one of those. Mutation is another. The meaning of "species" is yet another.

[Michaelangelica]

Just listening to this now

Kirsten Garrett: Today on Background Briefing, Professor of Practical Ethics at Oxford University, Julian Savulescu. Professor Savulescu began his career in Melbourne, and he's qualified in medicine, bioethics and analytic philosophy.

 

He argues that we human beings should use our increasing knowledge of biology and pharmacology to enhance our human capacities in every way. Recently for example, he has argued that drugs should be allowed in sport.

 

Julian Savulescu says his practical ethics are put on the table to open up debate for the

The background to his position is that enhancement is already happening, and has happened in some form, for centuries.

 

Selective breeding, for example, or the use of everything from medical science to caffeine, and he says, there is ample evidence that intelligence is genetic and can be manipulated. It is best to be ahead of the science in our understanding of what's possible in order to be able to prevent abuses of these developments.

 

Here, slightly edited, is Professor Savulescu's talk at the Ideas Forum at the University of Sydney.

Background Briefing - 6 January 2008 - Stronger, smarter, nicer humans

[Michaelangelica]

I'm not sure about this. Sounds a bit suss.

Human Culture Subject To Natural Selection, Study Shows

ScienceDaily (Feb. 20, 2008) — The process of natural selection can act on human culture as well as on genes, a new study finds. Scientists at Stanford University have shown for the first time that cultural traits affecting survival and reproduction evolve at a different rate than other cultural attributes.

. . .

The Stanford team studied reports of canoe designs from 11 Oceanic island cultures. They evaluated 96 functional features (such as how the hull was constructed or the way outriggers were attached) that could contribute to the seaworthiness of the canoes and thus have a bearing on fishing success or survival during migration or warfare.

 

They also evaluated 38 decorative or symbolic features (such as the types of carved or painted designs).

They analyzed mathematically the rates of change for the two groups of canoe design traits from island group to island group. Statistical test results showed clearly that the functional canoe design elements changed more slowly over time, indicating that natural selection could be weeding out inferior new designs.

But this I tend to agree is a present social imperative/need/concern.

Ehrlich, author of The Population Bomb and other books on dilemmas facing contemporary human society, said he does not understand why more effort is not going into urgently needed solutions. "What we don't know, and need to learn, is how cultures change and how we can ethically influence that process," he said.

 

Deborah S. Rogers, a research fellow at Stanford, said their findings demonstrate that "some cultural choices work while others clearly do not."

 

"Unfortunately, people have learned how to avoid natural selection in the short term through unsustainable approaches such as inequity and excess consumption. But this is not going to work in the long term," she said. "We need to begin aligning our culture with the powerful forces of nature and natural selection instead of against them."

Human Culture Subject To Natural Selection, Study Shows

[freeztar]

That's a very interesting article. Unfortunately, not enough information is given in that article to determine their methodology, which is oh so important in studies such as this.

 

It seems pretty logical to me though. If tools are an extension of man and those tools are relied on by man (eg trans-oceanic voyages in boats), then natural selection would seem to play a role. The fittest of the fittest shall survive.

[Michaelangelica]

That's a very interesting article. Unfortunately, not enough information is given in that article to determine their methodology, which is oh so important in studies such as this.

 

It seems pretty logical to me though. If tools are an extension of man and those tools are relied on by man (eg trans-oceanic voyages in boats), then natural selection would seem to play a role. The fittest of the fittest shall survive.

glug. . . glug. .

 

It probably links up a bit with this article

Does Socializing Make Us Smarter?

Does Socializing (sic) Make Us Smarter?

They found that people who engaged in social interaction displayed higher levels of cognitive performance than the control group.

Social interaction aided intellectual performance.

Does Hypography make us Smarter? or do we just end up with more and more science trivia?( A poll perhaps?) :)

 

Why do people always knock on the hulls of boats? (Watch at a boat show.)

[freeztar]

glug. . . glug. .:)

 

:hihi: :lol:

Good one! :)

It probably links up a bit with this article

Does Socializing Make Us Smarter?

I'm failing to see the link you are making. Can you explain?

Does Hypography make us Smarter? or do we just end up with more and more science trivia?( A poll perhaps?) :)

I can't speak for anyone else, but I feel it improves my intellect. Smarts isn't all about knowledge (science trivia), but also about exercising our minds and thinking about problems in novel ways.

 

Why do people always knock on the hulls of boats? (Watch at a boat show.)

 

I'm not sure, but it might have to do with the density.

[Michaelangelica]

 

I'm failing to see the link you are making. Can you explain?

my apologies i soften make obtuse (to others) connections between divergent ideas. I did say 'a bit"

Though socialisation we are learning; and learning how to learn; and taking the groups thought process to a different level.

EG

Brainstorming in a supportive, friendly group often leads to new original ideas. (Sometimes disastrous ones -the classic being the oft-quoted 'Bay of Pigs invasion'). So via socialisation the group and the group's process are changing and hopefully evolving. The end result- a better canoe.

I hope this is 'a bit' clearer.

 

I can't speak for anyone else, but I feel it improves my intellect. Smarts isn't all about knowledge (science trivia), but also about exercising our minds and thinking about problems in novel ways.

I think it makes you examine different points of view, express yourself better and make different connections with ideas. I find I am also continually browsing all media looking for stuff to add and share on threads. So I am more aware of issues that i would normally ignore. (and better informed) Its 'a bit' like debating.:)

[Michaelangelica]

Heat shock protein 90 (HSP90) has a greater impact on the appearance of new traits than previously expected,

"One of the great mysteries of biology is how life could have evolved so rapidly," says Lindquist. "This research gives at least one plausible explanation for the speed of evolution and for the evolution of complex traits affected by several genes."

 

HSP90 belongs to a class of proteins called chaperones, which help other proteins in the cell fold properly, prevent protein clumping, and escort improperly made proteins to be recycled. These vital functions become even more important when a cell is stressed by heat, cold, toxins or other hardships that affect protein folding.

. . .

However, when the plants were slightly stressed by geldanamycin, HSP90-related traits emerged; seedling stem and root length increased, flowering time was delayed and size and fitness were altered. The abundance of naturally occurring genetic variation that is affected by Hsp90 was remarkable. The authors also genetically mapped the traits that could be affected by HSP90 and found that nearly every complex trait in A. thaliana that they investigated could be affected by HSP90-dependent genetic variation.

 

"One stressful event can affect many traits and allow previously unseen genetic variation to be expressed," says Sangster.

Heat shock protein 90 helps explain the speed of evolution

Whitehead Institute for Biomedical Research

[Michaelangelica]

This may account for the "two speed evolution" we see in nature

Protein 'Shocks' Evolution Into Action

 

ScienceDaily (Feb. 27, 2008) — Heat shock protein 90 (HSP90) has a greater impact on the appearance of new traits than previously expected, according to two articles published on February 26 in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science (PNAS) by researchers in Whitehead Member Susan Lindquist's lab and their colleagues in Christine Queitsch’s lab at Harvard University’s FAS Center for Systems Biology.

. . .

Hsp90 is particularly interesting because it is specialized to chaperone proteins that are key regulators of growth and development. Thus, it is in a position to couple environmental change to the release of hidden genetic variation and thereby to produce a host of new traits.

Protein 'Shocks' Evolution Into Action

 

Now we can finally fiddle with Mendel's peas

Genetic Coding Of The Pea Unravelled

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/02/080225213703.htm]

 

Another article on this fascinating area of "phamo-geonomics".

This emerging discipline has the potential to save millions of lives that drugs now take.

Gene Expression Differences Between Europeans And Africans Affect Response To Drugs, Infections

 

ScienceDaily (Feb. 29, 2008) — Differences in gene expression levels between people of European versus African ancestry can affect how each group responds to certain drugs or fights off specific infections, report researchers from the University of Chicago Medical Center and the Expression Research Laboratory at Affymetrix Inc. of Santa Clara, CA.

Gene Expression Differences Between Europeans And Africans Affect Response To Drugs, Infections

[Michaelangelica]

MY ATHEIST!!

A SCIENTIFIC JOURNAL SAYING DARWIN WAS WRONG ABOUT CHOOKS?!

O HORROR!

SAVE US FROM SUCH BLASPHEMY!!!

Darwin Was Wrong About Wild Origin Of The Chicken, New Research Shows

 

ScienceDaily (Feb. 29, 2008) — Charles Darwin maintained that the domesticated chicken descended from the red jungle fowl, but new research from Uppsala University now shows that the wild origins of the chicken are more complicated than that.

 

Yellow-skinned chickens have a different version of a gene than their white-skinned cousins. Darwin believed that all chickens came from a wild species known as the red junglefowl.

When the researchers looked for the yellow-skin gene in the red junglefowl, they only found the genetic variant that codes for white skin. More surprisingly, when they finally did find the yellow-skin version of the gene, it was present in a completely different wild species: the grey junglefowl.

Darwin Was Wrong About Wild Origin Of The Chicken, New Research Shows

 

After watching Jurassic Park I was convinced they were all dinosaurs that decided to fly, well flap a bit anyway.

BUFFY

The genes are there

Do you want to write a "Hero's" TV series with me :cheer:

[Michaelangelica]

This is clever

Woman gives birth to identical triplets

The identical triplets were born last Wednesday at North Shore University Hospital — an event so rare that an obstetrician estimated it might happen just once in 200 million births.

The triplets' mother, Allison Penn, was impregnated with just one embryo through in vitro fertilization, said Dr. Victor Klein, a specialist in multiple births and high risk pregnancies who delivered the boys. That embryo split in half and then one half of that split again, he said.

Woman gives birth to identical triplets - USATODAY.com