Looking for Evidence of Evolution?

[melon]

I'm not a scientist, but I'd definitely say that this is one (of many, of course):

http://www.cnn.com/2004/HEALTH/06/24/muscle.gene.ap/index.html

Somewhere in Germany is a baby Superman, born in Berlin with bulging arm and leg muscles. Not yet 5, he can hold seven-pound weights with arms extended, something many adults cannot do. He has muscles twice the size of other kids his age and half their body fat.

DNA testing showed why: The boy has a genetic mutation that boosts muscle growth.

The discovery, reported in Thursday's New England Journal of Medicine, represents the first documented human case of such a mutation.

Curious, eh?

Melon

 

[Klaus]

melon: even supporters of "creation" are sure that there is evolution, the question is: can evolution create something out of nothing?

 

[anitram]

This may or may not be evolution depending on whether or not the mutation is deleterious.

I believe in evolution as a scientist, but this may not be the best example. A better one would be the relationship between malaria resistance and sickle cell anaemia.

 

[melon]

No, I think that strict creationists believe in the "seven days" of creation, meaning that the above would offend them. Those who believe in a God-created evolution believe in the "intelligent design" theory, meaning that any scientific theory, like the above, shouldn't offend them.

Melon

 

[Klaus]

I also know some who think "created in 7 days + god invented mutation

 

[A_Wanderer]

Intelligent Design is a hypothesis that the complexity that we see in living creatures cannot have arisen naturally hence there must be a supernatural interference to create it. It is an ignorant and unscientific hypothesis because it is not falsifiable and it uses evidence selectively and is a political tool to bring religion into the science classroom.

Evolution is a fact, species change and adapt over time as population pressures take effect. The theory is what processes drives evolution, this may be as Darwin stated by natural selection it could also be other models that expand upon basic natural selection.

People must not believe in evolution, it is not something that one puts blind faith into - Evolution is a scientific fact, we know that it occurs, the fossil record shows extinct forms of life andcan be used to trace linneages of species, we can see it at work when we apply any pressure to a population and observe it change.

This fluke mutation is a good example of how a change that may be beneficial can occur out of sheer numbers, of all the babies born in the world and all the mutations some make a small difference and some make a large difference to their reproductive sucess. Because such mutations are random events and that they do occur then it makes sense that given enough time such mutations have an effect on the overall gene pool. I like this example because it shows what is quite possibly a beneficial mutation however we will have to wait and see if there are significant health problems associated with it (which there probably are) that would prevent such a mutation from entering the gene pool.

 

[Kieran McConville]

Personally I think the (human-directed) proliferation of dog and cat varieties over the course of 'modern' human society, is as good an example as any. This is what you can get when you deliberately and selectively breed (albeit for cuteness, loyalty etc rather than 'survival').

Why could not nature exact a similar metamorphosis over time? Like several million years for example? That's my view anyhow.

 

[Klaus]

Kieran McConville:
Sure, just interesting how it started, did the universe appear out of nothing?
Can something as complex as an eye be created through evolution (If i remember it correctly darwin said it's stupid to think that an eye can be created by evolution).
And, if homosexuality is a genetic thing, how was it possible that homosexuality "survived" evolution?

 

[A_Wanderer]

The understanding of the universe is cosmology,

Now in regards to creating something out of nothing. We exist in the universe as part of space time. We exist at a location definiable by 3 dimensions at a particular point in the time dimension. The universe itself may well have had a beginning but it is difficult to know exactly what occured at the point of the big band and how exactly you get uniform cosmic background radiation and was there actually and expansion phase and how did it occur. These are very big questions that are essentially about understanding what reality or to be precise our reality is all about. Understanding of how the universe is important not wholly neccissary to understand how life began.

Life is a phenomena that exists on Earth and probably exists all over the universe. How did it come to be, that is another question and luckily one that we can trace backwards with our understanding of the earth itself and planet formation broadly.

4 Billion years ago the earth had been formed and was being bombarded by other smaller bodies fo rock in the inner solar system. The surface would have been molten and deadly. Over time it cooled enough to hold places of liquid water, in these pockets all over the planet billions of billions of chemical reactions would have taken place some creating complex carbon based macromolecules that could replicate, over time these molecules developed a sort of symbiosis with phospholipids which became the first organisms. They would have been very, very simple and would essentially be a bunch of molecules inside a membrane. Once you have a sucessfull organism that can survive its environment well and reproduce it spreads and divisifies. This takes a lot of time to happen but as more fluke variations and mutations that are sucessfull occur the more prevailent these more resiliant forms will become until you have diverse forms and groups of life on the planet. It is difficult to go over 4 billion years of evolutionary biology in a single post but I assure you (and am more than willing to provide infomation relating to) there is more than enough evidence that fits our theories that life did arise through natural processes and that current debates centre around what order life arose, metabolism or genes first, what events occured that may have diversified it, the cambrian explosion (of life) is an example of this and have these processes occured anywhere else in the universe.

Darwins theory of evolution by means of natural selection simply describes how gradually species change as minor mutations suceed and become an adaptation. You must remember that in Darwin's day there was no understanding of Genetics and the concept of blending of traits was considered how change appeared from one generation to another. We now know better and with our understanding today we can trace mutations and understand many of the processes that lead to adaption. We can trace migrations by genetic markers and work out how long populations have been seperated. In many ways the best evidence for evolution only came after Darwins time when we were able to understand DNA and sexual reproduction's role in changing a species.

Homosexuality is a very interesting behaviour, it does occur frequently in the animal world however unlike animals human beings will have sex purely for pleasure. Like any behaviour you do have a nature versus nurture element and it is not a simple case of having a "gay gene". There are many factors both social and environmental that effect ones sexual orientation and it cannot be put down to a single factor that can be bred out of humans or any species.

I am interested in Kieren McConville's question however I want to know what it is (does that one make any sense?) . Is it about changes in the ecosystem or the types of animals on the planet or something else alltogether?

 

[DrTeeth]

Nothing to add for now. I just wanna say that I'm waiting for the first person to say that a belief in evolution is a much a matter of faith as religion is.

 

[A_Wanderer]

And now for the Charles Darwin's comment about the Eye, this is an example of Creationists and their lies and misquoting that they seem to rely on so very much to support their arguments.

The quote you refer to may be this.

To suppose that the eye could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.

This quote comes from The Origin of Species however it is not the full quote, here is the full quote.

To suppose that the eye [...] could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree. When it was first said that the sun stood still and the world turned round, the common sense of mankind declared the doctrine false; but the old saying of Vox populi, vox Dei, as every philosopher knows, cannot be trusted in science. Reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certainly the case; if further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case and if such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, should not be considered as subversive of the theory.

So you see Darwin was not despairing that his theory was impossible, he was asking a rhetorical question (It's 7 sides dummy!) to demonstrate why however unlikely it seems to 19th century thinkers it is like any other idea with evidence on its side, it provides a better explaination than the previous view.

Creationism is the domain of religious fanatics who for all their smoke and mirrors can never fight the facts, they seek to ruin the minds of children by constricting them in useless folly that has neither facts nor logic on their side only ignorance. Learn about the world and you wil see that evolution is a fact, what process drive it are the theories.


I will preempt that person by telling them that belief is a faith in something, One understands and accepts evolution as a fact because the evidence supports it to such a high degree, if there is a better theory that fits the evidence and meets the criteria for a good theory and is able to describe what we see then it is possible that we are fundamentaly wrong and if so I would love to see such a theory, as it stands and as it has stood every discovery made in the field of biology supports the theory of evolution, I think that the evidence gives a proof for evolution which is not a form of faith.

 

[DrTeeth]

I'm with A_Wanderer on this one. Just a small addition on the gay gene thing. Any basic one hour course on genetics will teach you that an organism carries genes that are expressed and genes that aren't expressed. It's really very very simple. You can carry the dorment gay gene (if there is one), be heterosexual and give the gay gene to your kids where it might be expressed but it also might not be. On a social scale, it would be wrong to ignore the fact that lots of gay people in the past got married and raised kids because homosexuality was even less accepted than it is now.

Kieran is right on the money too. What we are doing with cats, dogs, horses etc. is nothing more than what nature has been doing billions of years.

I think the article melon posted is an interesting addition to the discussion. There has always been a discussion whether these changes or mutations were random or not (maybe induced by some other natural process or a god). The fact that increased body strenght doesn't give you an advantage in todays society is another indication of the randomness of these mutations.

he can hold seven-pound weights with arms extended, something many adults cannot do.

These weakling adults should get there asses over to the gym!

 

[Kieran McConville]

I am bemused by the Big Bang idea of the universe (ie. something from nothing), but that doesn't mean I discount it.

Somtimes, I think that's where God is that we're always looking for. Right there, in 'something from nothing'. Cause despite being quite inclined to believe in an evolutionary explanation for the course of the universe, I do believe in a God.

 

[A_Wanderer]

I personally doubt there being a specific genetic component for homosexuality that is recessive as it occurs in nature when there is an unusual increase of one particular sex, I think it is more likely to do with factors such as temperature within mothers womb or diet during pregnancy. There would be the significant environmental effects and then you have the plain enemy of order free will thrown into the mix. It all makes it a very complex and multifactorial behaviour that has a place within biology like any other behaviour.

I just have a problem with God, it seems like a cheat - an easy answer for a glorious and dificult mathematical problem. Big Bang theory has advantages and disadvantages but that is what science is all about, finding a theory that explains your evidence then finding new evidence that can disprove your theory and continuing until you have the answer.

 

[Kieran McConville]

Also, A-wanderer, I reread your earlier post, and no I wasn't asking a question. A rhetorical question, perhaps.

 

[Kieran McConville]

Also I don't see God is a cop-out idea (I can't believe I'm the one defending God!), as at this point we just don't know. I've watched countless documentaries on the topic of the universe's origins, and even the cockiest of physicists have to admit they just don't know. How could they?

One day, maybe.

 

[A_Wanderer]

Rhetorical eh?

8!

 

[melon]

And, if homosexuality is a genetic thing, how was it possible that homosexuality "survived" evolution?

I have this answer down to a science; so much, in fact, that I'm cutting and pasting my response to this from the last time this was asked.

In terms of homosexuality being a genetic trait, I believe that researchers need to look more into fetal development. It is already known that all embryos are both male and female, with a predisposition to being female in looks. What makes a single-sex child, though? It is, in fact, quite a complicated process. A series of genes in both the child and the mother must be coordinated exactly and released at the same time. The window of time is so narrow that if one or more hormones are not secreted or received at the right time, it is too late and one's sex is fixed. As such, there are documented intersexuals (people with male and female anatomy, just like embryos) and even XY females (genetic males who look exactly like women). To say that being gay is merely a choice and is impossible to be genetic is, frankly, to be completely ignorant of how genetics works. In fact, if it weren't for religious intolerance, we would likely have declared this a genetic trait decades ago, based on the logic.

In terms of finding definitive genetic proof, I believe it will be very difficult, if not impossible, because we are not talking simple Mendellian genetics here. If it is a matter of hormone secretion, it may be a one-time fluke with the mother, with her body, for some reason or another, not coordinating the appropriate hormone during the correct window of time during fetal development. Thus, if it is an absence of a hormone, there will be no genetic marker to ever determine whether or not being gay is genetic, but, nonetheless, it still isn't a "choice." It may also be similar to how "little people" (think the actor who played "Mini Me" in Austin Powers 2) are genetically tiny. It is actually a dominant genetic trait, meaning that, under simple Mendellian genetics, the trait should show up in every child of a "little person." But it doesn't, and, in fact, a family can go several generations of having normal-size children, and then, suddenly, have another "little person." Science still does not know exactly what causes this genetic trait to be expressed so selectively, and if homosexuality is expressed similarly, then it will also be very difficult to find.

But, speaking of science, in all this quest to find out what makes people gay, science still doesn't know what makes people straight. The origin of sexuality is still a mystery, and the brain, itself, is so complex that most of it is still a mystery even today.

You cannot lump genetics into some overly simplistic explanation, where all traits are dominant, and, hence, the illogic that only gay people can generate other gay people. Thus, the fact that they don't have biological children means that it cannot be genetic. Wrong. Very wrong.

Melon

 

[melon]

I just have a problem with God, it seems like a cheat - an easy answer for a glorious and dificult mathematical problem. Big Bang theory has advantages and disadvantages but that is what science is all about, finding a theory that explains your evidence then finding new evidence that can disprove your theory and continuing until you have the answer.

The likely problem is that not even the "Big Bang" is the likely absolute beginning. There are theories about multiple universes and we may be one of many, and likely not the first nor the last.

Of course, a lot of people ask "evidence." There isn't anything beyond the evidence that quantum theory generates, and it tends to be interestingly accurate.

Needless to say, I'm one of those who isn't bothered by the simultaneous existence of science and God. If we discovered that we were just in a chain of successive universes, I'd be one to say that God did it all. But I would never support anything but scientific theory being taught in public schools.

Melon

 

[A_Wanderer]

Fundamentally we have the problem that we are part of the universe so it is very difficult to measure anything outside in some sort of higher dimension. Having said that I also think the progression of theories has given us some very powerful mathematical tools that allow us to understand the universe that may in future yield insight into the true nature of reality. Consider that there was no before the big bang because there was no time at all. It just happened or is part of a cyclical closed cycle of repeating permutations of quantum fluctuations that we see in the form of matter and will keep repeating itself as it occilates forward and backwards which to us is percieved as time.l

We have a major problem between QM and general relativity in that they cannot be reconciled, this means that each approximates the universe and each does so very well but they cannot explain it all. Multiverses are an interesting explaination for QM as opposed to the copenhagen interperatation. Very mind blowing stuff even when you just start out to understand how time is a dimension.

The universe itself is more wonderful and miraculous than any creator could possibly be, why cant we all just accept its inherent beauty and dedicate ourselves to unlocking it's secrets rather than get tied down by religious dogma and other pointless superstition. Ah now I remember, that is the type of evil thoughts that would come from a secular humanist and that is the type of thought that makes all good moral societies crumble into vice.

 

[pax]

Intelligent Design is a hypothesis that the complexity that we see in living creatures cannot have arisen naturally hence there must be a supernatural interference to create it. It is an ignorant and unscientific hypothesis because it is not falsifiable and it uses evidence selectively and is a political tool to bring religion into the science classroom.

Even if you do believe that intelligent design is being used as a political tool (and I think it can be--don't get me wrong), it's hardly an invention of the contemporary "religious right" or ultraconservatives as a ploy to insert God into science class. Intelligent design is at least as old as 13th century philosopher and theologian St. Thomas Aquinas, and is, I believe, the official line of the Catholic Church on creation; that is, God is indeed responsible for the creation of the Universe, but God may have chosen evolution or other scientifically-theorized methods to create it, rather than the literal seven days of Genesis.

I suppose that intelligent design would be falsifiable if someone could prove conclusively that God either did not exist or was not an intelligent being. So I guess it is hard to falsify. But so are most well-founded scientific theories. I mean, has anyone tried falsify the law of gravity lately?

 

[A_Wanderer]

It is funny that you note the law of gravity here, Newtons law of universal gravitation has been falsified because the speed of gravity is not infinite once this was realized Einstein came up with the theory of general relativity which takes this into account and manages to explain observations better than the previous theory. This in term has problems because it cannot explain interactions on a subatomic level or the wave/particle duality that we see hence you have Quantum Mechanics. Reconciling the two theories will be key to uncovering how the universe works on both large and small scales with a single theory. You had an observation in regards to bodies in motion, from that Newton derived laws from a new type of mathematics to describe it. When inconsistencies were found at the extremes new explainations were introduced and then they were accepted, when they begin to be unable to explain the extreme observations new laws can be discovered to explain and predict future observations. That is science, it is always falsifiable unlike religion, it changes as more knoweldge is accumulated again unlike religion, it describes the world as we see it again unlike relgion. They are seperate concepts, one is an invention and the other is a discovery.

There is a common thread here that the theories are based on observations and may be explained through natural processes. Intelligent design is not a natural process it is inherently supernatural and hence relies on an undetectable, unprovable all powerful being which makes it unscientific. Even though the philisophical principles that intelligent design is based off existed long before modern science Intelligent Design as an movement with proponents and lobbies began in the 20th century and it is designed to bring creationism into the science classroom by simply not stating who the creator or designer was thus seperating it from theology. It is unscientific and the arguments and examples for it can be better explained within the context of evolutionary biology.

It is not my place to tell people that God doesn't exist however if God did create the universe he would have created it with laws and set every particle in the universe and every element of uncertainty to proceed to create intelligent life, then again maybe not. It is inconcequential if god exists or not for ID because in the end an unprovable creator does not belong in a science classroom.

"The theory of evolution is quite rightly called the greatest unifying theory in biology. The diversity of organisms, similarities and differences between kinds of organisms, patterns of distribution and behavior, adaptation and interaction, all this was merely a bewildering chaos of facts until given meaning by the evolutionary theory." - Ernst Mayr

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

unlike animals human beings will have sex purely for pleasure.

Dolphins also have sex for pleasure.

This is the thing that confuses me most about the whole "something from nothing" argument. Creationists are having such a hard time understanding how the universe can just come from nothing (and in some evolution vs. creation debates I've been a part of, someone has brought up this vacuum fluctuation theory that states that something can come from nothing), so they believe that God was the creator. But then if that's the case...who created God? And if they can believe that God was always there, or believe that he just came out of nowhere, or whatever, why couldn't they believe the same about the universe sans god?

Angela

 

[anitram]

. Any basic one hour course on genetics will teach you that an organism carries genes that are expressed and genes that aren't expressed. It's really very very simple. You can carry the dorment gay gene (if there is one), be heterosexual and give the gay gene to your kids where it might be expressed but it also might not be.

Yes, and that's why right now some of the hottest research is based on screening for unexpressed genes. Essentially you sequence DNA and then screen using computer programs. Because of the common usage of transgenics, we're able to often times express these non-expressed genes by manipulating DNA, and it is possible that this is a promising area of research when it comes to arguing for or against a "gay gene."

 

[melon]

Intelligent Design is a hypothesis that the complexity that we see in living creatures cannot have arisen naturally hence there must be a supernatural interference to create it. It is an ignorant and unscientific hypothesis because it is not falsifiable and it uses evidence selectively and is a political tool to bring religion into the science classroom.

I just wanted to add that I pretty much agree with everything you say in this thread, but wanted to make a comment on this. "Intelligent design" is probably more towards where I lean on a personal level; however, as I mentioned before, this hypothesis has no place in science classrooms or anywhere in academia. As the Catholic Church does officially advocate this, for example, it should stay and remain solely within the realm of religious teachings.

In other words, while I might tend to agree more in line with "intelligent design," I agree that it has absolutely no place in science.

Melon

 

[melon]

This is the thing that confuses me most about the whole "something from nothing" argument. Creationists are having such a hard time understanding how the universe can just come from nothing (and in some evolution vs. creation debates I've been a part of, someone has brought up this vacuum fluctuation theory that states that something can come from nothing), so they believe that God was the creator. But then if that's the case...who created God? And if they can believe that God was always there, or believe that he just came out of nowhere, or whatever, why couldn't they believe the same about the universe sans god?

Obviously, nothing I say here is in the realm of science, but what we are talking about here is less about science and more about what one puts their faith in.

The difference here we are talking about is between a sentient Being and an inanimate object--the universe. Even if it were proved as to where the Big Bang came from--and, ultimately, I believe it possible--then I would continue to ask what came before. Like I said, it is theorized that this universe may be just one of many, and, who knows...maybe the "superuniverse" of universes is just one of many objects in itself. Frankly, I have a hard time believing, as a matter of faith, that all of this came from nothing, "vacuum fluctuation" theory or not, because then I'd ask who or what created the "vacuum fluctuation" to create the universe and why it can exist out of nothing.

In terms of creationism, however, I find that it is more detrimental to Christianity, because it paints Christians as inherently delusional to more rational thinkers, and, really, it is my opinion that creationism versus evolution is actually less about trying to find the origin of creation, and more about reasserting one's cultural identity. As we have seen, many seem to view the battle between creationism and evolution to be a battle between Christianity and atheism, respectively; and as someone who can reconcile faith with science, as I believe that science is the representation of God (not so different from St. Thomas Aquinas, even if we come up with different conclusions regarding that philosophy), I tend to find the whole argument to be a bit ridiculous. One should not have to abandon one's faith in pursuit of scientific truth and vice versa.

Melon

 

[Kieran McConville]

I'm tempted to rehash the old joke about the woman who wouldn't be dissuaded from her vision of the universe.

"The earth is supported by a giant turtle."

"But what's holding up the turtle?"

"You can't fool me that easily - it's turtles all the way down!"

 

[A_Wanderer]

Wasn't that one a Bertrand Russell anecdote?

 

[Kieran McConville]

Maybe it was. I don't know.

 

[Klaus]

We should remember that there are no "Scientific facts" Science is reflecting current knowledge. A revision of this can be expected as soon as scientists have a fuller understanding of the world and the universe.

So most things mentioned above are theories. There are lots of interesting theories floating around but unless they can be proven (which is really difficult when you speak about the origin of the universe and life) they are theories, not facts.

Don't get me wrong mutation and the survival of the fittest is a fact but to expand this knowledge to explain the beginning of the universe is a theory, a plausible theory but not a proven theory yet.

melon:
So, being Male/Female is a thing of chromosomes, looking Male/Female a thing of hormones - i guess we knew that part.

And sexual attraction? We don't know yet.
So we can't even say if it's free choice, genetic, hormonal or whatever.
Well i don't think it's important (it wouldn't make any difference to me if it's free choice or genetic) but it would be scientifically interesting.

A_Wanderer:
Thanks a lot for quoting the original statement of darwin. I just knew the out of context quote yet.