Planetside Software Forums

General => Open Discussion => Topic started by: TheBadger on July 19, 2013, 08:23:53 PM

Title: Darwinism and genetics
Post by: TheBadger on July 19, 2013, 08:23:53 PM
Hi,

I heard an argument recently about evolutional theory and genetics. I thought it was really interesting. But the discussion did not go on for very long, so I have some questions/statements.
I cant tell you what the show was, I had never seen it before. And I did not recognize any of the people. But I am sure I can relate the important bits pretty accurately. It was a debate between two scientific fields, not a science and a philosophy or religion.

I know there are at least a couple paleontologists, and others from a scientific discipline in this community... So it could be a fun debate!

Anyone in the mood?
Title: Re: Darwinism and genetics
Post by: AP on July 19, 2013, 10:28:43 PM
As a lover of Science I have debated folks before with as much kindness and respect as I could give. I can not go into a debate any time soon as there is way too much going on in my life right now but I have a few folks I like to listen to and or read about but a word of warning as this is not a push to force anyone to follow what I believe personally, after all. It is a choice what one chooses to believe but what you believe will effect how you live your life.

John Lennox, Francis Collins, Kenneth R. Miller, Henry F. Schaefer, III, Sir Robert Boyd, (Old World Folks)... Lord Kelvin, Louis Pasteur, Isaac Newton, Robert Boyle, Blaise Pascal, Galileo Galilei, Johannes Kepler, and Nicolaus Copernicus.
Title: Re: Darwinism and genetics
Post by: Dune on July 20, 2013, 03:08:51 AM
I'll follow this, but I'm not going to debate either... might throw in a word now and again.
Title: Re: Darwinism and genetics
Post by: Walli on July 20, 2013, 06:05:46 AM
I think first you need to define, what you mean with Darwinism - because Darwinism is interpreted in different ways.
Title: Re: Darwinism and genetics
Post by: TheBadger on July 21, 2013, 02:47:11 AM
OK  ;D But this will necessarily be a long post (even for me ;))
So I tried to find the arguments by google, but it was impossible. All I ended up finding was Atheist and religious people pissing on each other.
I have to try to write this out my self as best I can. And thats the reason I asked if there was any interest in this topic... Writing my own ideas and opinions is easy, trying to write representing people I never met is not.
But Here it goes. And hopefully some of you guys can fill in on anything relevant I leave out.

This is not an argument or an attempt to say evolution does not occur in nature. But rather it is an attempt to relay an argument based on provable repeatable sciences that undermines Darwin based evolutional theory. But not the idea of evolution its self. That is, I am not relaying an argument or making one my self that claims one form of life cannot change to become a different form of life. (I really hope that is clear) I am not talking about design, creation, or theory of any kind. I am talking about genetics.

1) First, evolution in simple terms, (and this is where someone else may need to fill in details):
In simple terms, the idea is that in evolution a life form evolves when a species adapts a trait of some kind that is than reproduced in offspring. And which becomes at some point a common trait in all individuals in said species.
For example, an animal needs to eat, and for some reason it needs to eat other animals, so it develops claws to aid it in hunting and killing. (again, just in the simplest terms for brevity). This trait is then found in the animals off spring. And then through the course of time, develops into a perfect example of said trait. This all happens by what is called a positive genetic mutation.


2a) The genetics argument against the above described process. (As I said I could not find the argument on google, so I am putting this together as best I can)

What happens when you make a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy? The short answer is you get cancer and die, not evolve:
The genetic argument against darwinism and a gene-centred view of evolution.

In nature there are negative genetic mutations and positive genetic mutations. An example of a negative genetic mutation could be "Proteus syndrome" ("Elephant Man"). An example of a positive genetic mutation would be spider man (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spider-Man) But a real one would be sickle-cell anemia because it "it protects many Africans against malaria". Unfortunately sickle-cell anemia also destroys people.

So let us just assume for the sake of discussion that positive genetic mutation does occur in nature, and that the benefit is handed down to offspring in the same way that we know (and can prove) negative genetics are handed down in nature.

The problem is that negative genetic mutation always results in destruction and so if these traits are handed down they will build up over time.
[attach=1]
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/3a/Dihybrid_cross.svg/220px-Dihybrid_cross.svg.png

In the end the destructive negative would overwhelm any positive effect in a species over the course of generations.
So in the image above think of the purple color as multiple sclerosis, breast cancer and schizophrenia (for example). The simple fact is that whatever positives could be handed down, we know that the potential positives are out numbered by definite negatives. That is, you may develop or inherit one time the ability to breath under water. But you will also inherit all of any genetic disorders more often. What I mean is you have the ability to breath under water now (gills) but you will also inherit all of the negatives more often because there are more of them.

We need only look at probability to know with out a doubt that the negative is dominant and the positive is recessive. Therefore over time, genetic mutation will destroy all organic life.

One might say that from the beginning, man has been dying. I am proposing that since mans beginning he has been getting worse not better.
Now while the world may be ancient beyond comprehension, we know that man is not. I am proposing that the first men were superior in nature to modern man. Not inferior as darwinism claims. I am saying we are dying not evolving.

2b)
'science genetics' term meaning:  most variety within a kind results from preeexisting genetic variety; there are fixed limits to biological change; mutations cause genetic information to be lost, not gained.'

2c) Data provided by others"
Researchers on the 1000 Genome Project used genetic data from 179 individuals and found that all had between 40 and 110 potentially disease-causing mutations in their DNA. The individuals had 281-515 actual substitutions each, but the trouble only really started when both parents had passed on a mutation in the same gene. The researchers, estimated, "approximately 400 damaging variants and roughly 2 bona fide disease mutations per individual," according to the American Journal of Human Genetics.

Geneticists Thomas Morgan and Herman Muller conducted a prolonged study of fruit flies (drosophila) looking for traces of evolution. But generation after generation, the uncooperative flies refused to evolve. Eventually they solved the problem, or at least they thought they had. They subjected a pure strain of fruit flies to chemical and radiation treatments. The result was mutilated flies. Flies developed yellow, brown, or purple eyes; or bulging, flat, or dented eyes. Some flies had no eyes. However, despite all the mutated flies that resulted from the experiment no new genetic information evolved and no beneficial mutations occurred and the flies always remained flies. The most important lesson to learn from the fruit fly experiment is the remarkable stability of this species, according to Dr. Jason Richard Boon.

QuoteAnalysis
For evolution to work on a grand scale, where nature transforms a family of animals into a new family of animals, beneficial mutations must appear to add new information to the genetic code. Without mutations, there cannot be any major evolutionary steps. While the weight of scientific evidence demonstrates clearly that the genetic information already existing within a species can contribute variation within animal populations due to natural selection, this process always strains out information and it never adds new genetic information, or previously non-existent coding to the genome. However, while many Darwinists claim that rare, beneficial mutations do exist, the math shows that random mutations result in the net removal of functional programming from the genetic code rather than adding new information to it.
Beneficial mutations are extremely rare. The few mutations that are considered "beneficial" always involve the loss of genetic information and they generally result in the deterioration of the animal's health. We learn in biology class that our genetic code is made up of DNA, the long strands of the nucleotide bases Adenine, Guanine, Thymine, and Cytocine, which are A, G, T, and C for short. These four bases provide the digital code for our system, resembling the way 0s and 1s make up binary code for computers. Within the cell, during the process of translation, these nucleotides are read in groups of three, referred to as codons. Every codon is similar to a small transport vehicle of three letters that code for an amino acid, which go on to make up proteins.
Finally, if neo-Darwinian evolutionary model of origins were history, we should expect to discover a number of beneficial mutations that were the result of added genetic information. However, the weight of scientific evidence demonstrates clearly that we all inherited a damaged, deteriorating version of a once perfect and fully functioning genetic code.


"projects such as ENCODE are showing scientists that they don't really understand how genotypes map to phenotypes, or how exactly evolutionary forces shape any given genome."...In short, the current picture of how and where evolution operates, and how this shapes genomes, is something of a mess."


:o

P.S. now Im very tired. Some of this was my statements and some not. So if you respond directly to something written here, please make clear exactly what your referring to. It a pretty heavy topic so being focused will help answer my questions... Thinking of this whole post as a question may help.

Cheers to you if you read this far ;D
Title: Re: Darwinism and genetics
Post by: Dune on July 21, 2013, 03:23:48 AM
You are making assumptions that are not correct in my view, they are 'kort door de bocht' (Dutch for too simply stated).
1:
QuoteWhat happens when you make a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy? The short answer is you get cancer and die, not evolve
It doesn't work that way.
2:
QuoteIn nature there are negative genetic mutations and positive genetic mutations
Not really true; there are mutations, and some will prove negative under certain circumstances, others positive, but under different circumstances that may be the other way round. If certain mutations negatively influence survival and productivity, it will dye out. If certain mutations prove beneficial, it will become a common trait, and more individuals will bear those mutated genes, until circumstances change and it may again turn against them. It's survival of genes in specific circumstances over time, hence evolution. 
3:
QuoteWe need only look at probability to know with out a doubt that the negative is dominant and the positive is recessive
That is not correct, or we won't be here.

This is about all I will say, sorry about that. It would take too much time to discuss this in depth.
Title: Re: Darwinism and genetics
Post by: Tangled-Universe on July 21, 2013, 09:13:25 AM
Ulco pretty much hits the nail on its head for my first thoughts about reading your posts.
I agree point to point with him.

Especially the latter is a false premise, that we should define negative as dominant and positive as recessive. (which apply to alleles, which is not the same as genes)
Ulco explained that nicely by saying that genetic variations can have their effect in both ways, but that the outcome depends on the conditions rather than the gene itself.
Like Ulco said if that was true then we wouldn't be here. The "negative" wouldn't overwhelm the "positive".
All traits you show, your "phenotype" is a consequence of your dominant alleles.
Following that premise we should be walking failures and then we should also consider the 1000 Genome research research you quoted that ~400 of those are "good genes" then. That doesn't sound very logical, isn't it.

I'm not sure how or where you did get that from.
I don't think it's really important to know where you got it from anyway.
For the moment it seems you're trying to be as neutral as possible :)
I guess a debate is difficult to have when parties are trying to be neutral, that's rather something for a moderator of a debate/discussion, than a participant.

Btw, I'm not sure how serious you can take a genetic research when only using 179 individuals!
Genetics is mostly statistics.
The variation among humans is HUGE.
There are all types of different traits/phenotypes (eye colour, hair colour, just to name the simplest), which alone already make sure you need 100s, probably 1000s of individuals to map the variation and expression of those simple basic traits and to give each gene a statistical probability of being >99% "true".
On top of that you have all kinds of genetic mutations; mutations which shift the reading frame of the gene, single nucleotide polymorphisms, deletions, insertions etc.
Those are all present WITHIN the already present traits/phenotypes WITHIN one race of humans.

Briefly, it takes many thousands of individuals to set up a "reference" genome and even that result will be expressed in a statistical term for each gene.
Title: Re: Darwinism and genetics
Post by: PabloMack on July 21, 2013, 12:25:19 PM
As Dune pointed out, your model is too simplistic. Genes don't work alone. An individual with certain alleles works "better" when in combination with certain alleles of other genes (or certain environments) while they do "not do so well" when in combination with other alleles of those other genes (or other environment). One of my favorites is cycle-cell anemia where the "disease" makes an individual more resistance to malaria. An individual with the "healthy" allele will be much more likely to die of an infection of the Plasmodium protozoan. Interactions between genes, the environment etc. are very complex and the overall well-being and competitiveness of the individual is not so simple to ascertain. The final judge of what survives will be natural selection which itself is unique to a certain place at a certain time. This is all complicated by "luck". The dinosaurs, for example, had superior characterisitics in so many ways above the mammals. This allowed them to dominate all of the open megafaunal niches. The mammals were "forced" into more nocturnal and stealthy roles making extensive use of burrows to avoid the superior dinosaurs during the daylight hours. But by luck, these burrows afforded a protection against the unexpected meteor that wiped out the dinosaurs. Normally, the dinosaurs and other "ruling reptiles" needed little or no shelters because they were well adapted to live without them. So when the meteor came, they had no place to hide. The mammals that survived did so (in part) because they were already hiding from the dinosaurs. This same shelter saved a great number of them from the initial heat and other secondary destructive effects of the meteor strike. Even so, only four of the living thirteen groups of mammals made it across the KT boundary.
Title: Re: Darwinism and genetics
Post by: TheBadger on July 21, 2013, 01:25:59 PM
Thanks guys! :)
actually I am pretty neutral. I don't have a problem with the truth whatever that is. For me there are two fundamental questions, the how and the why.
The how is biology/science, and the why is metaphysics/philosophy/religion.

From early in my life the why has always been very important to me, its just the question that made me open my eyes. I understand that other people are sparked by the how question. Maybe this is a right brain left brain thing?

I adapted a math phobia very young as a result of some abusive teachers in early education. But as an adult I am far less insecure. Math doesn't trouble me anymore, and I can easily sit down and take the time to learn a formula and learn to use it productively now. And of course as an adult I am less insecure about lots of things compared to a child. So the sciences part of life ultimately hold more interest and use for me now.
I did voluntarily take several lad sciences in college. Geology, botany, ecology. But I was working for a fine art degree in letters, not a science degree.

As an adult the question of how is more important to me now, although personally I still find it the less interesting question. Why is the question that holds all the meaning.

I am neutral because I am not bothered by the seeming conflict between Science and metaphysics.
But what sparked this post (besides the conversation I heard and mentioned in the OP) is that the more I read about the how/science the more I am seeing that it reads an awful lot like religion. Can you believe that as I begin to explore this all with an open mind, I am finding just as many fanatics in "science" as religion?

I am not against "evolution" I think its obvious that evolutions claims of a common origin and biological relationship are true. Simply being a part of the earth and looking at it, it seems true.
And my faith agrees with this. No conflict at all. Ecspt perhaps on the question of when, but truly I dont care about that question very much. I will die when I am around 90 years old or so. That when, is immensely more important to me ;)

My problem is, the more I learn about Darwinism, and modern sciences continued relationship with darwin's ideas. The less I think the study of evolution is about the how, and more about rejecting any claims of why.

Basically I think evolution is a real biological process, my problem is darwinism makes understanding it impossible.
Darwin understood almost nothing about genetics, and yet everything I have been reading about evolution is based entirely on the racist nut-bags ideas. I just don't get that!? Genetics proves there is no such thing as race, or rather, genetics proves there is only one human race.

So this is why I am latching on to genetics as a way to begin to understand all of this. It seems to be the only science that relies less on opinion and personal interpretation.
But everything I have been reading for the last few days seems to create more problems for darwin, but not evolution its self.

QuoteYou are making assumptions that are not correct in my view, they are 'kort door de bocht' (Dutch for too simply stated).
1:
Quote
What happens when you make a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy? The short answer is you get cancer and die, not evolve
It doesn't work that way.
But that is how cancer happens. And cancer is the most common negative form of genetic mutation.
Cancer shows us how replication of mutated DND destroys the life form.
Yes I put it simply. But I think fundamentally correctly.
http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/cancer-help/about-cancer/what-is-cancer/cells/how-cancer-starts


QuoteWe need only look at probability to know with out a doubt that the negative is dominant and the positive is recessive
That is not correct, or we won't be here.

What you are saying here is that because man is here, and man evolved, therefore evolution is true.

If you can find me one example of a positive genetic mutation in a lab study I would be grateful.

QuoteLike Ulco said if that was true then we wouldn't be here
That is self referential. It does not even begin to be a real argument.
You are saying that you believe darwin is right, and if he was not right you would not be here.
How does that really answer anything?
This is where darwinism starts to sound like religion to me. These are the same kinds of statements Im finding all over the internet.
I think that the only problem with evolution is darwin.

If evolution can ever be proven/disproven, I really feel like genetics is the only way to show it happen, or show that it cannot happen.

Title: Re: Darwinism and genetics
Post by: TheBadger on July 21, 2013, 02:48:11 PM
It is like medicine! too many sick people and not enough doctors!... There are too many questions and not enough scientists!

I wish I was filthy rich. I would fund research on questions that interest me. There is a lot of money being poured into research now. But not enough, I think.
Sadly, the only way I think these questions will get more funding, is if someone thinks of a way to weaponize it :-[ Same with space exploration. We need to find aliens to start a war with, then we will see better advances in space exploration. :-\

Before I said that only genetics offers real hope for any real answers. But really, probably, space exploration will help too.

I want answers now! You know what I mean? But darwin creates more questions than answers, once you start questioning beyond the basics, no one has any answers. And of course religion does not even make an effort about biology.
Title: Re: Darwinism and genetics
Post by: Dune on July 21, 2013, 04:25:09 PM
Sorry guys, this is getting too much for me. I want to create, not debate. Interesting to follow though.
Title: Re: Darwinism and genetics
Post by: TheBadger on July 21, 2013, 05:23:44 PM
Quote from: Dune on July 21, 2013, 04:25:09 PM
Sorry guys, this is getting too much for me. I want to create, not debate. Interesting to follow though.

Create is an interesting choice of words Ulco.

But you are right, I probably just need to spend the next 15 years reading. If by my death time, I feel satisfied by the answers I found, so be it.
If not, I guess that is normal.

Never mind.
:)
Title: Re: Darwinism and genetics
Post by: Tangled-Universe on July 22, 2013, 04:44:27 AM
I think evolution is a self-organising force, driven by chance because of environmental conditions.
The self-organising force driving evolution, I think, is similar to entropy, nature's tendency to smooth things out to get an equal energy balance, in
turn driven by thermodynamical laws.

If you look at nature as a whole then you can see the entire earth, without humans or only a small population of humans, is a perfectly stable and balanced biotope with a netto energy excess of 0. Everything is recycled or re-used.
Within this biotope we can see "evolution", where one creature is adding to the left side of the scale/balance and the other to the right side of the scale balance. Their netto result is still 0.

That's what nature is about.
It doesn't like to have a whif of gas sitting in a corner of your room, it makes it spread everywhere.
That spread happens kind of randomly and similar to evolution it IS that aspect which makes it difficult to accept for many people, because when applying evolution you will have to accept that at least a part of the driving mechanism is chaos/randomness and that's exactly what religious people don't believe in.

Quote from: TheBadger on July 21, 2013, 01:25:59 PM
Thanks guys! :)
actually I am pretty neutral. I don't have a problem with the truth whatever that is. For me there are two fundamental questions, the how and the why.
The how is biology/science, and the why is metaphysics/philosophy/religion.
I am neutral because I am not bothered by the seeming conflict between Science and metaphysics.

You can easily substitute metaphysics with religion here or rather philosophy.
Metaphysics is metaphysics, because it can't be called science since metaphysics doesn't use certain steps involved to call the findings "scientific".
Actually there's no real conflict between the two because metaphysical thinking is essential to (performing) science.
Metaphysics is about the questions, the why, and science is about both why and how where it lends it's "why" from the metaphysical approach, but uses methods (experiments) to support the metaphysical core of why we're performing science -> to understand (our) nature.

This is reasoning from the scientific point of view, but there's hardly any arguing possible against science, since it has proven itself zillion times to be a truthful method of describing the universe we live in and all we see and do (not) understand.

Quote from: TheBadger on July 21, 2013, 01:25:59 PM
But what sparked this post (besides the conversation I heard and mentioned in the OP) is that the more I read about the how/science the more I am seeing that it reads an awful lot like religion. Can you believe that as I begin to explore this all with an open mind, I am finding just as many fanatics in "science" as religion?

Science is not religion. Period.
However,....defending the scienfitic methods can be seen like being religious over it.
But then one can ask why a person would consider such a person being religious over it.
Because he can't persuade him? Because he can't deny that science gave as so much to make our lives easier and better.
(except for PRISM and the global crisis, lol)

See the above paragraph. Science has proven itself way too much to be questioned at all.
That we can't explain all aspects of our universe by using science, yet, does absolutely not mean that science is a believe or not a good tool.
Science and technology go hand in hand and it is especially this bond which allowed us to progressively acquire knowledge.
Science needs to evolve too ;)
Following this topic, for example:
The first human genome to be sequenced cost >$100k and took many months.
Now it costs <$5000 and takes a  couple of days.
Improved technology as a product of science.
Not only does it allow to do more in less, eventually it will allow us to explore the most complex interactions and connection of genes with their environment.
We will just have to wait for more computing power and more cheaper and faster sequencing to then analyze this huge heap of genetic information. And interesting answers and questions will be found, no doubt.

Quote from: TheBadger on July 21, 2013, 01:25:59 PM
My problem is, the more I learn about Darwinism, and modern sciences continued relationship with darwin's ideas. The less I think the study of evolution is about the how, and more about rejecting any claims of why.

Why do you think so?

Do you think scientist who research evolution are actually researching to disprove religious people?
Don't worry, they absolutely don't waste their time on this.

The continued relationship between darwinism and science is only because scientific methods support the idea by providing proof/evidence, not only from the biological realm of science, but also geology for example.
Geologists study the drift of continents, for example, and using genetic studies you can show when certain species with a common ancestor became separated and you can overlay that with geologists data.

Quote from: TheBadger on July 21, 2013, 01:25:59 PM
Basically I think evolution is a real biological process, my problem is darwinism makes understanding it impossible.
Darwin understood almost nothing about genetics, and yet everything I have been reading about evolution is based entirely on the racist nut-bags ideas. I just don't get that!? Genetics proves there is no such thing as race, or rather, genetics proves there is only one human race.

You should really stop calling it darwinism, but rather "evolution". Since that's the easiest concept and basically what this whole discussion is about: is evolution true or not.
Darwinism is a populistic term.

Quote from: TheBadger on July 21, 2013, 01:25:59 PM
Yes I put it simply. But I think fundamentally correctly.
http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/cancer-help/about-cancer/what-is-cancer/cells/how-cancer-starts

Can you explain again, why you think it's fundamentally correctly?

Because I think it is not.

You imply all cancers are genetically inheritable.

Quote
What you are saying here is that because man is here, and man evolved, therefore evolution is true.

No we're not. That's what you make of it.

We applied your reasoning to how the world would look if it would be true.

Quote
If you can find me one example of a positive genetic mutation in a lab study I would be grateful.

Seemingly you still didn't let the positive/negative mutation thing go. It's pretty senseless Michael. Evolution can't be understood by scoring individual outcomes of genes. It's the end result which matters, because that determines survival.

You should keep another thing in mind:

You have evolution and you have evolution.

The evolution we're discussing here, I THINK, is the "big one" of the two.
Why do animals have certain traits, how did those improve their survival and how does these mechanisms work.

The evolution you're sometimes trying to mix into here is the "small one".
If I were to have cancer, then that cancer has evolved (evolution) in my body.
That's a different kind of evolution, small scale, in a different context.
There may be overlap with the "big one", but there are plenty of environmental factors present causing cancer, like smoking/drinking/drugs.
There doesn't have to be an evolutionary (big one) mechanism behind it. Not all cancer, at all, is inhereted.

However, some are, like some forms of intestinal and breast cancers.

And it's hard to say, so forgive me for that, but in a natural environment, without medical science, those persons would die and thus the genetic background causing that cancer will also disappear.
Title: Re: Darwinism and genetics
Post by: Tangled-Universe on July 22, 2013, 05:02:14 AM
This is a nice accessible read about:
http://learn.genetics.utah.edu/content/begin/cells/organelles/

I'd recommend to read the "It's just a theory" paragraph so many times until you can read it out loud by heart ;)

And something less accessible to read, on the how's, a review published in Nature (highly positioned scientific journal):
http://www.nature.com/scitable/content/endosymbiotic-gene-transfer-organelle-genomes-forge-eukaryotic-13997492

Both links are about how eukaryotic (mammalian) cells got prokaryotic (bacterial) cell's organelles like mitochondria, the energy-producing factories within our cells.
These findings are one of the strongest evidence available on evolution.
Title: Re: Darwinism and genetics
Post by: Dune on July 22, 2013, 07:08:30 AM
Agreed, just didn't want to write all that down  :P Thanks, Martin.
Title: Re: Darwinism and genetics
Post by: PabloMack on July 22, 2013, 04:39:19 PM
Quote from: TheBadger on July 21, 2013, 01:25:59 PM
Thanks guys! :)
For me there are two fundamental questions, the how and the why. The how is biology/science, and the why is metaphysics/philosophy/religion.

I don't understand what you mean by "why". When some criminal commits a crime and the victim or his/her relatives ask "Why" they usually are interested in learning the motive behind the perpetraitor's decision to commit the crime. In our case, we humans who are connected to the Internet are all victims here. If there is any motive for creation you are looking in the wrong place for an answer. If there were no God (as atheists claim) there is no "why" because there is no perpetrator. Whatever motive was behind causing what we see in nature to come into being must be asked of the being who caused it. The question of this "why" cannot be answered with genetics because genetics is only a field of study that seeks to answer "how" questions.

I sometimes hear people talk about things like gender and DNA as being universal things. Those people say such things only because their experience and frame of mind is limited to a world where these things have become standards. But such standards should never be viewed as being universal. My wife and I like to watch a show called "Cold Case Files" which is a documentary series (on CUBE broadcast in the USA) about real murder cases that went cold until most of them were solved usually decades later. We both laugh every time the narrator says things like "genetic fingerprinting could not be used because DNA had not yet been invented." This goes past a lot of people as they quickly dismiss the existence of certain realitites just because their usefulness isn't immediately apparent. Of course, you and I both know that DNA was not invented but rather discovered. It was circa 1993 or so that DNA sequencing technology became available and cost effective enough to be used to solve criminal cases. But, of course, DNA didn't need humans to exist and has probably been around on Earth for at least three billion years. If biological forms of life does exist on other planets, it would not surprise me in the least to find that their genetic medium for recording how to build, repair and operate their bodies is chemically something far removed from Deoxyribonucleic Acid. But nothing other than what has become a standard on our planet would enter one's mind as possibilities if he/she were a TV zombie whose education consisted of watching popular television fictions written by morons.
Title: Re: Darwinism and genetics
Post by: Tangled-Universe on July 23, 2013, 06:04:25 AM
I think that's well said Pablo.

As to the "why" I think there's no specific need for a directed cause and effect as chaos/entropy is the driving force.
It's a chance based chaotic system which converges to sustainable/stable results over a huge time-frame.

That's something people "forget" or find too comprehensive to oversee or imagine, the huge time span this whole process takes place.
Billions and/or many millions of years, it's sooo freaking long. Beyond imagination, likely.
On top of that, like my previous link shows, it all doesn't happen step by step.
In a whole population multiple branches of evolution appear and disappear and even within those different branches a multitude of tiny changes can take place.
These findings further support that evolution can be dead slow or actually quite fast (in our time frame of reference), leading to significant biological changes leading to improved or worse survival odds.

About DNA:

Discussing whether DNA is unique to earth biology is very difficult and quite a different discussion from this.

Some people ascribe the most scary properties to DNA, because it can be so deterministic, especially if you consider non-humans, who are not self-conscious. We can more or less overcome or surpress some of our natural urges, programmed into our DNA, because we have society, conscious(ness) and more "choice" (I do not mean freedom of choice) and the like.
But animals are driven by what their DNA dictates, completely.
That makes some people think: is it the organism who wants to survive and reproduce or only the DNA?
Is DNA life itself? Is DNA evolution?

Perhaps DNA is a life form itself, widespread across the universe.
Or perhaps, if you consider statistical distrubtion patterns, which converge to the same pattern as long as you wait long enough...perhaps something similar happens to evolution in our universe.
Given that chemical compounds are present to build DNA-like molecules, not necessarily based on the same chemistry our DNA is made of!, is the ultimate way of storing biological "information" for creating life out of life, keeping alive, reproduction and death.
Other methods haven't found to be more effective by natural selection.
Again, we're looking here at vast time-scales of billions of years of course.

Perhaps DNA(like) life is universal. It's both hard and not so hard to imagine.

Within that it's easy to understand and feel for religious people's arguments that this vast complexity can't be ascribed to pure chaos and must have some kind of "guiding hand".
Clearly, I'm a man of science, working in biomedical science myself.
Research shows evolution is not "just a theory" but is real. See the links in my previous post.

Then we had Intelligent Design, which isn't even worth discussing. Those people were seemingly convinced by evolution, but not convinced that there's no God involved. However, science never claimed that, but only found results conflicting with religion!
So they theorize that God made evolution through Intelligent Design.
However, unlike scientific theories, this theory is not supported by previous research or any other scientific fact.
It's useless to discuss Intelligent Design. It's a dumb product wannabe science and religion.
The simplest possibilities are that there's a God or that there isn't. Life as we know is created by Him or by chance.
Not by something in between.
Following that trend of trying to make religion scientific, it will turn out that later they will claim that chaos and entropy are made by God too and what then? It's a never-ending story.

I guess when that time is near, hundreds or thousands of years from now perhaps, science has worked his way down into immensly deep understanding of (our) nature in search of answers.
Answers to why there's chaos and entropy will never be found I'm afraid, because these will inherently answer why our universe and all within exists. At the moment that is beyond our imagination. Well we can fantasize about it, but we have no clue yet on how we could ever get to know that.
It's that moment religious people may be waiting for to finally proof that science is wrong because of lack of evidence that God must exist, but we know that that kind of reasoning is a fallacy. The absence of something does not proof it's existence.

What we should keep in mind is that science does not exist to prove to anything to religion.
It serves our curiosity for knowledge to enrich our daily lives and improve our survival.
Science is (a product of) evolution.

It's pretty useless in my opinion to debate evolution with religious people and vice versa, I think I have explained clearly now why I think so.
Title: Re: Darwinism and genetics
Post by: efflux on July 23, 2013, 04:00:44 PM
Quote from: TheBadger on July 21, 2013, 01:25:59 PM
Darwin understood almost nothing about genetics, and yet everything I have been reading about evolution is based entirely on the racist nut-bags ideas. I just don't get that!? Genetics proves there is no such thing as race, or rather, genetics proves there is only one human race.

This is because Darwin was an absolute favourite of the British ruling classes. His theories proved to them (so they thought) that they were the fit to survive. Kral Marx, Engels? More of the same. Anyone who has a theory that will put down the rest of the population in favour of elites will be funded to the hilt. This funding now goes to science and why we get all the lies to do with Global Warming. Science comes up with a scheme to say that it's all these useless people causing the problem and something needs to be done to control them. If you come up with some science to provide endless free power you won't get any funding.

The actual problem is that if we don't get rid of these psyhcopaths who run things they are the ones that will cause the human race to be unfit for survival. The human species now absolutely outruns any other species ever in terms of killing it's own. No other species comes close. Allow the psyhchopaths at the top to remain and you will see more and more killing untill the species is wiped out or genetrically modified to be stupid and useless. They also have masses of resources to pump into genetic modification for controlling those genetically problematic people who actually think for themselves. Just read Brave New World to get an idea. We are already mostly into that world. Huxley who wrote that book was of course totally British elite along with his brother who was head of the British Eugenics Society. Where do you think Hitler got his ideas from?

Look for a video called The Soviet Story. That will give you some insight into these British elite psychopaths that have been running things for the last few centuries.
Title: Re: Darwinism and genetics
Post by: efflux on July 23, 2013, 04:23:31 PM
Read some of these outakes or better still, read the whole book:

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Brave_New_World

They also took a drug called soma and went into trance like states listening to mindless repetitive dance music created from electronic beat boxes. You think that it's an accident that so much music is like that? What happened to our classical music?
Title: Re: Darwinism and genetics
Post by: efflux on July 23, 2013, 04:37:47 PM
Read the "Plot" section:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brave_New_World

Malthus was another British elite favourite. He supported massive austerity on the lower classes to simply kill them off. He considered hunger, disease and war as positive checks for reducing population.
Title: Re: Darwinism and genetics
Post by: TheBadger on July 23, 2013, 07:01:52 PM
This is very difficult to talk about. It really is an incredibly large topic. Almost to big.

But everyone, yes. This is what I was kinda talking about in my OP. (sorry I meandered so much, it was really hard to get started)
QuoteThis is because Darwin was an absolute favourite of the British ruling classes. His theories proved to them (so they thought) that they were the fit to survive
I dont know what happens in the UK (or happened in the past)

But just these last few years, people with mental disabilities have been forcefully sterilized in California. Eugenics in the 21st century. It is not only about race though. But yes, Darwin WAS a racist nut-bag. And I don't mean race like species. I mean race like racial. He often wrote of people who he considered to be inferior in derogatory terms. So also did the people in his circle. And he him self through his work, or rather the way he represented his work, helped the Nazis do what they did. And not only the Nazis. Mostly I am talking about Darwin apart from evolution as a scientific idea.

I think it was martin who said I should separate the two; Darwin and evolution. And I am. As I said, one of the problems Im having is Darwin.
But everything I have read, heard, and am currently looking into gives him credit. But from what I think I know, Darwin did not discover evolution. But he gets all the credit because of his studies in the Goulopoulos islands. So what? Why is he immune from the same shame that we give everyone else who was like him?

There is also the mean spirited, basically hateful voice of the current politics around evolutionists, that smacks of tyranny. Where decent of any kind is absolutely persecuted with a Nazi level of self satisfaction and pride. You can already catch a whiff of it (just a taste) here and in other threads in this forum, everywhere in academia, and all over the net.

^^ that is 1 of 2 parts of what I was trying to say in my OP. (But I know I absolutely butchered my own post). As I said this is difficult to write about. An essay would be one thing. but posting a conversation like were trying to do here on such complex subjects is really hard.

The 2nd part of what I was attempting to say in my OP is on the subject of Genetics, as it relates to trying to understand evolution.
Consider the man James M. Tour (<-- this is the man from the "show" I was talking about in my OP. But I only just found him now)
http://chemistry.rice.edu/FacultyDetail.aspx?RiceID=1027
He "is one of the ten most cited chemists in the world"
He is a Nobel scientist, his Resume is to long to write here. But without a doubt he is a qualified authority on the subject of genetics.
He doe not believe in evolution. He says he tries, but he just cant. This is an interesting read. It deals with much of what I was saying at the top of this post... And much better too.


QuoteAlthough most scientists leave few stones unturned in their quest to discern mechanisms before wholeheartedly accepting them, when it comes to the often gross extrapolations between observations and conclusions on macroevolution, scientists, it seems to me, permit unhealthy leeway. When hearing such extrapolations in the academy, when will we cry out, "The emperor has no clothes!"?

...I simply do not understand, chemically, how macroevolution could have happened. Hence, am I not free to join the ranks of the skeptical and to sign such a statement without reprisals from those that disagree with me? ... Does anyone understand the chemical details behind macroevolution? If so, I would like to sit with that person and be taught, so I invite them to meet with me.

Quote... I will tell you as a scientist and a synthetic chemist: if anybody should be able to understand evolution, it is me, because I make molecules for a living, and I don't just buy a kit, and mix this and mix this, and get that. I mean, ab initio, I make molecules. I understand how hard it is to make molecules. I understand that if I take Nature's tool kit, it could be much easier, because all the tools are already there, and I just mix it in the proportions, and I do it under these conditions, but ab initio is very, very hard.

I don't understand evolution, and I will confess that to you. Is that OK, for me to say, "I don't understand this"? Is that all right? I know that there's a lot of people out there that don't understand anything about organic synthesis, but they understand evolution. I understand a lot about making molecules; I don't understand evolution. And you would just say that, wow, I must be really unusual.

Let me tell you what goes on in the back rooms of science – with National Academy members, with Nobel Prize winners. I have sat with them, and when I get them alone, not in public – because it's a scary thing, if you say what I just said – I say, "Do you understand all of this, where all of this came from, and how this happens?" Every time that I have sat with people who are synthetic chemists, who understand this, they go "Uh-uh. Nope." These people are just so far off, on how to believe this stuff came together. I've sat with National Academy members, with Nobel Prize winners. Sometimes I will say, "Do you understand this?"And if they're afraid to say "Yes," they say nothing. They just stare at me, because they can't sincerely do it.

I was once brought in by the Dean of the Department, many years ago, and he was a chemist. He was kind of concerned about some things. I said, "Let me ask you something. You're a chemist. Do you understand this? How do you get DNA without a cell membrane? And how do you get a cell membrane without a DNA? And how does all this come together from this piece of jelly?" We have no idea, we have no idea. I said, "Isn't it interesting that you, the Dean of science, and I, the chemistry professor, can talk about this quietly in your office, but we can't go out there and talk about this?"

If you understand evolution, I am fine with that. I'm not going to try to change you – not at all. In fact, I wish I had the understanding that you have.

But about seven or eight years ago I posted on my Web site that I don't understand. And I said, "I will buy lunch for anyone that will sit with me and explain to me evolution, and I won't argue with you until I don't understand something – I will ask you to clarify. But you can't wave by and say, "This enzyme does that." You've got to get down in the details of where molecules are built, for me. Nobody has come forward.

The Atheist Society contacted me. They said that they will buy the lunch, and they challenged the Atheist Society, "Go down to Houston and have lunch with this guy, and talk to him." Nobody has come! Now remember, because I'm just going to ask, when I stop understanding what you're talking about, I will ask. So I sincerely want to know. I would like to believe it. But I just can't.

Now, I understand microevolution, I really do. We do this all the time in the lab. I understand this. But when you have speciation changes, when you have organs changing, when you have to have concerted lines of evolution, all happening in the same place and time – not just one line – concerted lines, all at the same place, all in the same environment ... this is very hard to fathom.

I was in Israel not too long ago, talking with a bio-engineer, and [he was] describing to me the ear, and he was studying the different changes in the modulus of the ear, and I said, "How does this come about?" And he says, "Oh, Jim, you know, we all believe in evolution, but we have no idea how it happened." Now there's a good Jewish professor for you. I mean, that's what it is. So that's where I am. Have I answered the question? (52:00 to 56:44)

QuoteEvolution has just been dealt its death blow. After reading "Origins of Life", with my background in chemistry and physics, it is clear evolution could not have occurred. The new book, "Who Was Adam?", is the silver bullet that puts the evolutionary model to death.

Quote"We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged."

QuoteIn the last few years I have seen a saddening progression at several institutions. I have witnessed unfair treatment upon scientists that do not accept macroevolutionary arguments and for their having signed the above-referenced statement regarding the examination of Darwinism. (I will comment no further regarding the specifics of the actions taken upon the skeptics; I love and honor my colleagues too much for that.) I never thought that science would have evolved like this. I deeply value the academy; teaching, professing and research in the university are my privileges and joys...

But my recent advice to my graduate students has been direct and revealing: If you disagree with Darwinian Theory, keep it to yourselves if you value your careers, unless, of course, you're one of those champions for proclamation; I know that that fire exists in some, so be ready for lead-ridden limbs. But if the scientific community has taken these shots at senior faculty, it will not be comfortable for the young non-conformist. When the power-holders permit no contrary discussion, can a vibrant academy be maintained? Is there a University (unity in diversity)? For the United States, I pray that the scientific community and the National Academy in particular will investigate the disenfranchisement that is manifest upon some of their own, and thereby address the inequity.

But maybe you guys are right that believing in evolution means your smart. Anyone who does not believe must be a buffoon.

Now the rest of what I was badly atempting to say in my OP. I still cant :-\ I really do need to spend a lot of time reading.

@T-U
Hey man, I read your post and will read those links too. Its too much to read and comment on now though. But your effort is not waisted. I do take what you wrote serious. It just requires more time to think on.
Title: Re: Darwinism and genetics
Post by: efflux on July 23, 2013, 09:40:31 PM
The human species is the most highly evolved species. Evolution generally follows a pattern of concentration of intelligence into a powerful brain that can keep functioning in a huge variety of conditions. This process also requires more energy. Mammals eat more than other animals. The human species evolved further by standing on two legs and our hands were freed for more creative purposes. To get back to the survival of the fittest mentality, I heard someone on the BBC trying to say that we stand on two legs because this gave us our hands free as weapons to beat up the opponent. This is an example of the over emphasis on survival of the fittest which the elite eugeniscists love. Wipe out your opponent and you are fit for survival but you have to consider the whole species or life in general. Someone crippled in a wheelchair could still contribute massively to the species. The elites in charge would rather send those people to gas chambers because they only want people for their purposes of survival not life in general. They are in fact a retrogression to the thinking of reptiles. It was mammals that developed social structures and empathy. There is a lot of truth in David Ickes Reptilian stuff. Reptiles are pure psychopaths.

We do not fully understand the changes that contribute to evolution only that clearly species descend from other species and always to higher levels. Any species that doesn't evolve always dies out in the end because eventually environmental circumstances arrive that kills them off like the dinosaurs who were too big and couldn't control their body heat efficiently. Most likely some kind of cold period caused by a meteorite killed them off whereas mammals were able to survive.
Title: Re: Darwinism and genetics
Post by: efflux on July 23, 2013, 09:55:09 PM
And here once again are Americans celebrating these superior "blue blooded" beings with divine right to rule:

http://www.wwlp.com/dpps/entertainment/must_see_video/niagara-falls-light-up-royal-baby-blue-nd13_6470435
Title: Re: Darwinism and genetics
Post by: PabloMack on July 25, 2013, 02:13:45 AM
Quote from: TheBadger on July 23, 2013, 07:01:52 PM
...Darwin did not discover evolution. But he gets all the credit...

Actually, Charles Darwin shares the credit with Alfred Russel Wallace for his theory of evolution. When he made his famous speech he even said so. Don't blame Darwin that the average joe walking the streets only has enough gray matter to remember one name. If you ask them to name a "genious" they will say "Einstein". Ask "name another one". They will say "Uhhhh. Hmmmm. Dunno."

I suggest that you separate the phenomenon we call "biological evolution" from the devious things that social engineers want to do in the name of it. Also, scientists don't use the word "theory" the way people are using it in this thread (and at large). When average run of the mill people say "only a theory" they actually mean "only a hypothesis". A "theory" is a proposed mechanism for an observed existing phenomenon. Evolution is not a theory. It is a phenomenon. "Darwin's Theory" is his explanation for how he and Wallace thought the observed phenomenon works. "Theoretical" does not mean that it may be happening. That is what "hypothetical" means. "Theoretical" means that it has been shown to be happening and this is what we think makes it work in a way such that we observe it as we do.

In 2009 the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology had their annual meeting in Bristol England. My wife and I attended that convention. It was very memorable. They printed up a book celebrating the 200th birthday of Charles Darwin which was also the 150th anniversary of "Origin of Species". I wouldn't be too hard on Darwin for his "racist" attitudes. Almost everyone in this forum is a speciesist and it might take another couple hundred years for our contemporary bigots to overcome this. efflux said "The human species is the most highly evolved species". While this may be true for our brain development, it is certainly false when it comes to our body plan. The human appendicular skeleton is very primitive, even more primitive than a frog's. Frogs only have four fingers and we have the full complement of five which is a trait of our ancestors going back to the late Devonian or early Carboniferous. We have many other primitive features such as our simple gut. Arteodactyls are much more highly evolved than we are in that regard. We also have an eye that is not much better than a fish's. Birds and other dinosaurs, by contrast, have (had) much more highly evolved vision, respiratory systems and appendicular skeletons. Should I go on?
Title: Re: Darwinism and genetics
Post by: Tangled-Universe on July 25, 2013, 09:15:19 AM
Very well said Pablo.

I barely can add anything to it other than that in the scientific world a "hypothesis" is also based on observations and facts like a "theory".
Except for that a theory is a result of a hypothesis or multiple hypotheses.

This doesn't change anything to your message, it's just a minor detail and you're right that many people use "theory" completely wrong or in the wrong context or concept.
Title: Re: Darwinism and genetics
Post by: TheBadger on July 25, 2013, 10:02:09 AM
Thanks Pablo, that actually helps me quite a bit.
...

I have been listening to Richard Dawkins. He is a good speaker/debater. Obviously a smart man. But holy s**t is he an asshole. Really, I mean this guy is an in your face jerk.
I really get the feeling that this guy was molested by a priest or something.

...

Anyway, there are enough books on every aspect of this conversation, that it would really take like 15 years to even make a dent in the reading.

...

@efflux
I have no idea what your last post means.
The video was just a few seconds of a waterfall... Is this something to do with the birth of the prince? Or what?
Title: Re: Darwinism and genetics
Post by: TheBadger on July 25, 2013, 11:12:38 AM
@pablo

On the second part of what you said in your last post.

Please explain to me why it is evolutionary necessary;
1) why we have sex (gender) and why sexual intercourse is pleasurable?
2)why it is, a.) possible, and, b), useful that man can and does produce "art". What is the evolutionary value of a symphony (for example)? And c), how does evolutionary science even begin to understand the relationship between a created work, and an observer?
3) "How do you get DNA without a cell membrane? And how do you get a cell membrane without a DNA? And how does all this come together from this piece of jelly?"

To simply ignore that last question in particular, is another issue Im having with "biological evolution science". That is, it is the norm for questions that do not have (or do not yet have) answers to be ignored by the evolution establishment. I find that to be very troubling in terms of "trust" (who should I listen too).

Speaking of Richard Dawkins earlier, I saw a debate where he lost rather badly. By the end of it he was claiming seriously, that life on earth was created by aliens. He did this as an attempt to refute the notion of God. At which point the challenger asked "well, who made the aliens then?". Dawkins then became very upset... It was hilarious.
Dawkins was just trying so hard to ignore the fundamental questions, and he got railroaded by it.


Now you used the word "speciesist". I have to say that this made me lol. Because I would not trade even one *innocent* human life to save any animal on earth.
The idea that the skeletal systems of certain animals is "superior" to humans, and that therefore (your implication) animals and man are equal, is absurd in the extreme.

Title: Re: Darwinism and genetics
Post by: PabloMack on July 25, 2013, 01:48:00 PM
Hi Badger. I was in the middle of a long reply, pressed the Escape Key and lost everything I wrote. Probably an hour of my time lost. Sorry. I may have to answer you in pieces when I have time. But I am surprised at some of the questions you have, such as the one about why there is sex and why it is pleasurable. For now I will just answer this one and get to the others later if that is okay with you.

First of all, you understand that certain mutations in certain individuals make no difference at all. Most of our DNA is inactive and does nothing at all except to get replicated when it comes time for the cell to divide. Other mutations cause the gene to lose effectiveness. Other more rare mutations cause a beneficial increase in the well-being of the individual. Since this last one is probably the most rare kind, you should think it reasonable that, in a population of say ten million, the chance of two separate beneficial mutations to happen in the same individual is extremely low. Said another way, two beneficial mutations that occur in a population will almost always happen in two different individuals. But two beneficial mutations might even need eachother for something that is really beneficial. Sex makes it possible for different mutations in two different genes to come together in the same individual. Without sex (or other mechanisms that tranfer DNA from one individual to another) evolution is very slow and is very inefficient.

As for why sex is pleasurable. Ask yourself "Why is eating good food" or cooling off when you are too hot pleasurable? Indeed, pleasure is our biggest motivator. If we didn't enjoy what was good for us we would do a lot less of it and a whole lot of it wouldn't get done. People are a lot more animal than they want to admit. We species bigots even compare people we don't like to the other animals (often erroneously) when we want to insult them. Many of us (as highly socialized animals) even feel like we are showing good will toward our fellow conspecifics by expressing disdain for other species.
Title: Re: Darwinism and genetics
Post by: PabloMack on July 25, 2013, 04:45:28 PM
Quote from: TheBadger on July 25, 2013, 11:12:38 AM
Now you used the word "speciesist". I have to say that this made me lol. Because I would not trade even one *innocent* human life to save any animal on earth. The idea that the skeletal systems of certain animals is "superior" to humans, and that therefore (your implication) animals and man are equal, is absurd in the extreme.

This again touches on how scientists use the same words differently from the way common people use them. "Primitive" doesn't mean "worse". Likewise "advanced" or "more highly evolved" in no way means "better". Primitive simply means "little changed as compared with an ancient ancestor". "Advanced" simply means "greatly changed as compared to an ancient ancestor". Granted, they are relative terms. But the only way you can appreciate others who may have the understanding you need for your questions to be answered is to learn their language. The hardest part of this is to throw off the emotional chaotic baggage that we all bring with us. My use of the word "superior" should not have any moral implications to it. If you are construing that, then you are not leaving your baggage outside the door before coming into this discussion. If you are serious about understanding what others know, then you will have to resist these suggestions coming to your subconscience that are not coming from me.

I use the word "superior" or "inferior" on a parameter by parameter basis. For example, a cheetah has a superior ability to achieve running velocities above those of humans. You should make out of this that I am saying "Cheetahs can run a lot faster than humans." Wouldn't it be a sad thing if we couldn't admire the extraordinary abilities of other animals just because of the insecurities we have; afraid that if we give credit for anything to someone or something else it would lessen ourselves?
Title: Re: Darwinism and genetics
Post by: TheBadger on July 25, 2013, 05:34:43 PM
Thanks Pablo. It makes sense for the most part.

One thing on what you just wrote though...
I dont feel like pleasure is a normal persons main motivator. I mean I eat because I'll die if I don't, and Ill die if I eat too much. I understand the notion of taking pleasure in food. But that can't be the reason we learned to eat (or animals for that matter). In fact, pleasure is more destructive in humans than it is beneficial (at least in terms of food). Most of our problems are a result of the pursuit of pleasure in one form or another... Even debt I would think.

Of course you know that nearly all religions in history describe pleasure as some form of divine gift.
The fact that religions can agree on anything is its self remarkable. But I really only want to point out that its an important topic to all, not just for the sake of this thread. So you shouldn't be surprised that I would bring it up here.

In the end, I see pleasure as a stumbling block for an evolutionary process, not a benefit. I know if it were not for the pleasure I take in food, I would be a lot healthier. Food actually kills more humans than all illegal drugs combined including smoking.

...

Just wanted clarification on the animals part.
I love nature. I have two Sandhill cranes that come to my yard everyday. I cant tell you the pleasure it gives me.
But there is also this movement where people want animals to have the same rights under the law as humans, and I find that insane. So I just wanted to make sure Im not listening to a crazy person here ;)
Title: Re: Darwinism and genetics
Post by: PabloMack on July 26, 2013, 09:40:47 AM
Quote from: TheBadger on July 25, 2013, 05:34:43 PM
Just wanted clarification on the animals part. I love nature. I have two Sandhill cranes that come to my yard everyday. I cant tell you the pleasure it gives me. But there is also this movement where people want animals to have the same rights under the law as humans, and I find that insane. So I just wanted to make sure Im not listening to a crazy person here ;)

I am with you on that one. The animal rights people are very often in direct conflict with biodiversity conservation efforts. I remember a case where, in the USA, some wildlife officials were distressed that a population of mute swans introduced from Europe were aggressively taking over the habitat of native whooper swans. The animals rights @$$'s were angry because the wildlife officials were being mean to the only swans that they wanted to recognize; the ones with the curvy necks from their childhood European fairy tales. The American Beaver is also replacing the European Beaver on the east side of the Atlantic. We should preserve our native biodiversity even if it means killing the invasive species. Another case was a population explosion of white tail deer in Florida. The animals rights @$$'s were up in arms about culling the deer population to keep them from having a famin crash. On the Miami side of the Everglades where there was patrolling by AR activists, the game wardens didn't want to start a riot so they only managed the population on the west side where the AR activists were not patrolling. The east side population crashed and the massive starvation and death was horrible. Of course the AR people had nothing to say about that. On the other side where the population had been culled, the deer and vegetation remained healthy and intact.

You and I both ask these @$$'s, how are they going to manage keeping these swans and deer in line at the voting booths if they are given voting rights? Also, how will you prevent ballot stuffing and will the Grizzly Bears be polite when they know they are outnumbered by the billions of ants that will outvote all of us. What will it be like to have a bacterium for president? Where do you draw the lines after you open this Pandora's box? Seriously, I think these people must not have complete brains.

But I am distressed that hunting is a poor substitute for native predators which kill the weak and sick. Hunters always seem to (want to) kill off the biggest and strongest (i.e. "trophy hunting") leaving the weak and sick to survive and produce the next generation. Indeed, this artificial selection is grossly inferior to the natural selection that we have eliminated. The "management" that is going on to counter this only seems to promote inbreeding and limit genetic diversity. The problem is really bad in fisheries where a handful of adults are used to produce the next generation of millions. We are setting them up for extinction.

I don't remember how I found this video. I am on board with them but I wonder how these people plan to cope with ever shrinking habitat: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fgBgDCIk1LY
Title: Re: Darwinism and genetics
Post by: efflux on July 28, 2013, 08:40:12 AM
"efflux said "The human species is the most highly evolved species". While this may be true for our brain development, it is certainly false when it comes to our body plan."

Yes, but the point is, taken a a whole we are more highly developed. In fact a totally unique species because of our willful creativity.

I did a quick check on speciesism. Of course I absolutely knew beforehand that this would be coined by a Brit and sure enough it is because it ties in with the fact that the standard British Elite aim is to eventually give many animal species rights above humans unless you are part of the elite of course. Many conservation, animal rights organisations etc came out of eugenics. World Wild Life fund and such like headed up by Duke Of Edinburgh and his ex nazi friend Prince Bernhard. They couldn't go into the eugenics genocide type stuff after world war two so they turned to conservation of environment for cover. They want to clear humans off the land and move them into cities. A kind of Pol Pot mass extermination and re-wilding thing. That's the plans for America. You'll find stuff on the net about how they plan to re-wild the countryside but that's after the people have been cleared off. The UN Biodiversity treaty already puts you into criminal class if you stand up for humans above other species environmental needs. Eventually humans will have less rights than a rat because that is exactly how the elites view the rest of the population.

As for humans simply considering themselves superior to the extent that other life doesn't matter. That would be a mistake. We should cause the least harm possible no matter the life form.

Badger,

Yes, it's celebrating the birth of the royal baby by lighting up the falls.

Humans create art because art is metaphor which helps us to understand and think about things. Make connections between things.
Title: Re: Darwinism and genetics
Post by: pfrancke on July 28, 2013, 05:04:32 PM
This is a fun topic.  In the spirit of pleasure and fun (driven by my DNA) I add these feeble thoughts.

1). Stink bugs are doing well.

2).  People and animals think by having synapses fire and knowledge is remembered.

3).  Computer programs use electricity and memory states are modified and formula are applied.

4).  Individuals are born, and they have sex, and they die.  And life remembers what works and what does not work in the memory space called DNA.

5).  Posts are read and remembered and counted and forgotten and some of them are very enjoyable.

6).  And the sun sets and the son rises.  And one day the sun is cold -

and the small pitiful me wonders if I will ever BE... again.    ...  watching a render makes me think I am the beginning of God.  I wonder what TG thinks.  Or what the sun thinks as it gets old.

7) Hell is for stink bugs where they will burn forever.
Title: Re: Darwinism and genetics
Post by: TheBadger on July 28, 2013, 11:48:30 PM
lol.
To tell you the truth, thats about how I feel about things at this point too.

Even so. I would still like someone to explain to me how you get DNA without a cell membrane? And how do you get a cell membrane without a DNA? And how does all this come together from a piece of primordial jelly?

Also, I get that you can make matter from chaos ( ok, really I don't, it sounds like immaculate conception for atheists) but I understand the story. So what I don't understand is how you get life from chaos. Some rocks and gasses ok. But how do you get life?

Also, lets just admit at this point that the whole Chaos thing is imaginary. People just made that up the same way the "holy roaman empire" invented the Pope. We all understand its the same thing right?
Title: Re: Darwinism and genetics
Post by: Dune on July 29, 2013, 03:16:17 AM
QuoteSo what I don't understand is how you get life from chaos.
In 1953 there was a (then) student Stanley Miller, who conducted some (now famous) experiments with some simple ingredients (basic molecules present on earth: methane, ammonia and water) and external forces (lightning/electrical charges and UV light). His discovery was that the molecules disassembled and reassembled again to form organic molecules (amino-acids like glycine, alanine, asparagine (basic ingredients for life)). The circumstances on earth 4.5 billion years ago were thus that this change from an-organic to organic was possible, and his experiments were successfully repeated many times.
Title: Re: Darwinism and genetics
Post by: TheBadger on July 29, 2013, 04:39:18 AM
Well that is a very brilliant science experiment. But it has more to do with Einsteins statement that "once an object is created it cannot be destroyed, only change form" (or a quote similar to that), than how you get humans 50 billion years (or some number) after chaos.
The fact is, all Mr. Miller did was take something that already existed and manipulated the structure of it into something else that already existed. He created nothing. He surly did not create life or demonstrate how life came into being.

We know with out a doubt that everything is made of atoms and the rest. And theoretically all things can be re-ordered into anything else. with an exception; The "basic ingredients of life, are not life. Something that is "un alive" cannot be made to live. A protein is not alive.
If you want to talk about microevolution thats fine, but I wont argue. As far as I understand things microevolution is settled.

If a hundred million trillion years past, you would still not get something from nothing.
How do you get DNA without a cell membrane? And how do you get a cell membrane without a DNA?
You cant. You never will. It has never happened.... By the way, this is the part where Richard Dawkins starts talking about space aliens and (what I call) the atheists immaculate conception. The point where some power (anything but "God") "created" life/evolution.

No one alive today, or ever before, has ever created anything. And no one ever will. Any claim otherwise is fundamentally spiritual/religious/faith, and not "science".

[attach=1]
Title: Re: Darwinism and genetics
Post by: Dune on July 29, 2013, 04:47:07 AM
QuoteHe surly did not create life or demonstrate how life came into being.
But that's just what he did; demonstrate how life can come into existence from basic molecules by atmospheric circumstances..... and from then on these very basic organic molecules changed and reassembled into more complex organic forms.... etc.
Title: Re: Darwinism and genetics
Post by: TheBadger on July 29, 2013, 05:01:09 AM
That is not at all what he did. Come on, Ulco, Play fair.
You cannot go from a protein to a man in any amount of time. You cannot get DNA, ever, from the process you described in that post.
All you have done is taken a lab experiment and said "eureka". And then said well everything in the middle is evolution.
It is a HUGE leap of faith.
Title: Re: Darwinism and genetics
Post by: jo on July 29, 2013, 06:30:58 AM
Hi,

So I've briefly skimmed this thread and it would normally be the kind of thing I'd keep out of. What I would like to say is that science does not pretend to have all the answers. In some circles that is seen as a flaw but what scientists do is try and find the answers. As time goes by more and more things are found out. Often that poses more questions. This discussion is largely about DNA. Look at the history of DNA Research:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA#History_of_DNA_research

First glimmers about it where in 1869. Molecular biology as such didn't really start until the late 1950s. Look how far we've come since then in understanding some of the basic building blocks of life. Look how far we've come in the last decade or so since computing has enabled much more detailed analysis of genetics. Compare that amount of time to human existence. Even if you believe in creation and a young Earth it's still a very short time. Even modern medicine is a very recent thing really.

I don't think any questions are being ignored, the problem is more that some people are unable to accept that we don't know the answers yet. Or if someone says "We don't know yet" it's taken as some kind of indication that there is no basis for something. Not having all the answers doesn't mean that something is invalid. Some things are well enough understood to be accepted as fact though. For example the structure of DNA has been proven via observation. We've only known that for 60 years, less than a lifetime. Not everything is understood about how it works, but that doesn't mean that what is known isn't true. It's also not really reasonable to dismiss it because we don't know everything there is to know about it.

As time moves on we understand more and more about how things work. Think of the things we know now compared to what our parents knew, or grandparents. My great grandparents were born into a world where phones had only recently been invented. My grandparents were born when powered flight was in its infancy. The fact that we don't understand everything about life and how it started is not really an issue for me.

Regards,

jo

Title: Re: Darwinism and genetics
Post by: Dune on July 29, 2013, 12:04:15 PM
Then I probably don't understand what this discussion is about, and I might take Jo's way; not taking part. But I graduated as a scientist, and my education learned me stuff that I respect and understand. By the way, don't forget that 4.5 billion years is not the same as a few centuries, it is a HUGE timespan in which tiny changes accumulate, chances of things happening have all the time in the world, so to speak.
Back to TG now, sorry Michael, but with respect.
Title: Re: Darwinism and genetics
Post by: TheBadger on July 29, 2013, 12:46:48 PM
Thats fine guys. And I do respect and value your views. And mostly I understand and agree with what people have said.

But you cannot get DNA without a cell membrane, and you cannot get a cell membrane without DNA . It is a physical impossibility.
It is not a question of billions or even trillions of years. Or of learning things in the future... In order for it to work we have to rewrite the laws of physics.

There is a gigantic gaping whole in the process.

But for the record I do accept that evolution can occur in nature, to some greater or lessor degree.
I just can't except it as the means for the initial creation of life. It just does not work.

Cheers.

Title: Re: Darwinism and genetics
Post by: jo on July 29, 2013, 06:15:38 PM
I wasn't going to post again, but I saw this today which is very apposite:

http://www.washington.edu/news/2013/07/29/natural-affinities-unrecognized-until-now-may-have-set-stage-for-life-to-ignite/

Amongst other interesting things is that it says "Under the right conditions, fatty acids naturally form into bag-like structures similar to today's cell membranes."

Regards,

Jo
Title: Re: Darwinism and genetics
Post by: TheBadger on July 29, 2013, 09:32:28 PM
Now that is interesting Jo. Thanks for finding it.
Title: Re: Darwinism and genetics
Post by: PabloMack on July 31, 2013, 06:29:34 PM
Quote from: TheBadger on July 29, 2013, 04:39:18 AMHow do you get DNA without a cell membrane? And how do you get a cell membrane without a DNA?You cant. You never will. It has never happened....
I had written an answer for this question and I lost it. This time I am going to write it in an editor and then copy it to the browser.

Don't confuse the words "random" and "chaos". Really, very little (if any) truly random things happen. We only call them random because we can't explain why or how they happened when they did. Chaos is a better word for what we are talking about. But let's not misunderstand that idea either.
For example, say a creationist tells you that someone pours two substances into a jar and mixes them up. Then he asks "What are the chances that they will, by random chance, separate themselves so that one substance goes to the top and the other goes to the bottom. He does it, and within seconds, this very unlikely thing happens within seconds before his very eyes! "Uh never mind" he says and walks away embarrassed. You see the two substances that were mixed are oil and water. No this "random" separation doesn't seem like such a miracle now, does it? We then have to conclude that what is happening in the jar does have some chaos going on but the separation of the two substances was caused by something other than random chance or chaos but under the control of the environment and by the substances' physical properties.

Now let's ask what are the chances that we will get a membrane if we pour a substance into some water. If you have a bunch of molecules that are polar at one end and non-polar at the other, they automatically line themselves up so that the polar ends are together and the non-polar ends are together. They spontaneously form a membrane! Yes, it has been done many times in the lab. For an example that you should be familiar with from your childhood, what is the chance that if you dip a loop into some soapy water and pull it out and blow that you will get a bubble? Pretty darn good. So good in fact that you can get one almost every time with the right soap concentration and mechanical motion. This is basically a membrane in air. The same kind of thing happens in water, believe it or not. So it turns out that, with the right chemicals in solution (no life) membranes form all by themselves easily and quickly. So your membrane forming probabilities are way off reality.

So your question has boiled down to "How likely is DNA to form?". The cell membrane part is a non-issue. Let's take a look at BSE (Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy). This is a very interesting disorder that comes from eating raw mammal brain. It is not an infection because the agent is only a protein that can't behave in such a way that you would call it "life". A virus is somewhere in between and we will only talk about that if need be. So how does the BSE protein work? As you may already know, proteins are long chains of amino acids much in the same way that DNA is (except that DNA is long chains of nucleic acids). After they are produced in ribosomes, they don't have their normal activity until they fold a certain way (often with the help of enzymes that are there to do this) and have their necessary inclusions such as iron or other ions that are dissolved in the solution. When they are folded in a specific way (hydrated with water), they take on their special activity. The BSE protein is the same one that you have lots of in your brain, except those are folded differently than the BSE protein. So what is the BSE's activity? It basically goes around and finds the proteins in your brain that are folded correctly and it refolds them to be like itself. Now ask yourself, "Did this protein reproduce?" Certainly not, it just converted something similar into something just like itself.

Back 2 Billion years ago, the Earth's environment was vastly different than it is today. Thanks to photosynthetic plants, our atmosphere is an oxidiizing atmosphere. But before these became common, the Earth's atmosphere and oceans were highly reducing environments. In an oxidizing environment, oxygen is common and "free" while organic molecules are rare and "costly". They are food and bacteria scarf them up. But in 3 Billion BC Earth, organic molecules were "free" (i.e. everywhere) and oxygen was rare. There were no bacteria to scarf them up and no oxygen to burn them anyway. This "Promordial Soup" was very different from what we see today. And just because there was no life as you would recognize it doesn't mean that they weren't all mixed in together, reacting with each other and the sunlight. This soup had untold competing reactions going on with predominant proteins converting other proteins and reacting with other chemicals on a massive scale. When resources are used up to produce a substance those resources are taken away from other processes that would convert them to something else. Yes, this is competition and we don't even have life yet!!!!!!!

So chemical systems that didn't even need DNA were competing with one another. Certain proteins (and even certain groups of proteins) could isolate themselves in the membranes we talked about that are so easily formed. This isolated them from other processes that promoting their own chemical systems. One chemical system won out over another chemical system and there was extinction and there wasn't even life yet! It is well known that ribosomes can replicate RNA and produce proteins from RNA so DNA is not even necessary. In our BSE example, all we needed was one protein and the right resources and it could make more of itself. The simplest forms of life you would never have recognized as life, yet, with the fairly sophisticated resources that were plentiful at their disposal, they could make more of themselves.
Keep in mind that the life as we know it has only been around for half a billion years. The Earth is four billion years older than this. And with an environment of primordial soup, reproduction, competition, consumption of resources and the building of complex systems can happen without life. Also, keep in mind, because modern life did not exist, there were no bacteria to consume the sugars and other molecules that don't last very long in present day Earth because some organism consumes them. But since there weren't any in primordial Earth, these molecules were all over the place. The competing complex chemical processes evolved into more sophisticated ones even before they could be considered to be life. Perhaps trillions (and many more) changes took place in the competing systems as they got to be more sophisticated. After tens of millions of years, the systems got so sophisticated that some people might even call them life forms while others would not. It was the same way with the evolution of species later on. When did life begin? I don't know. It depends on your definition. The line between life and primordial soup is a very broad one indeed.

The common perception that chemicals (both organic and otherwise) just sit around and do nothing until an organism finds them and eats them is completely wrong. Think of the chemicals like people where a government organizes them and encourages them to work toward some common goal. Even without a government, people do things on their own. But what they do or the way they do it can be greatly influenced by a system that we call organization or a government. Indeed, government systems do compete, reproduce and go extinct. Some people counter the government and often the government finds a way to eliminate them.

Related to this is, it is common knowledge, that higher life forms (eukaryotes) are actually an obligate commensalism between a host and an invading organism, that at one time was a parasite. But the two (or more) species have become so dependent on eachother that they will die without their symbiotic relationship. Our cells have organelles that came from different species invading our ancestors' cells. There are mitochondria (that have their own DNA by the way), chloroplasts (in higher green plants) etc.

So it turns out that the DNA in the nucleus of your own cells does not completely describe how to make another human in two major ways. First, your body needs complex molecules that were built by the enzymes and associated processing of other organisms such as plants. Your nuclear DNA certainly doesn't know how to make those from scratch. That is why you have to consume them. "Vitamins" and proteins among others are prime examples. So, in a way, we could claim that corn DNA (just as an example) is also human DNA because we eat the products of corn and incorporate its complex structures into our bodies. For the same token, other herbivores and predators that eat those herbivores could also claim that corn is part of their genome. Second, your nuclear DNA does not contain information on how to make many of the organelles in your body. They have to reproduce themselves with their own DNA or RNA (or yet to be discovered mechanism of self replication).  So when you hear someone in a documentary tell you that your nuclear DNA knows how to build everything in your body you can smile and know they are ignorant.
Title: Re: Darwinism and genetics
Post by: Dune on August 01, 2013, 03:24:52 AM
Now this is an essay! I was just reading a book about the formation of deserts (by a German scientist), in which the same principles were explained. I know of course from my studies (ages ago), but it's very nice to read again and so well written. Thanks PabloMack.
Title: Re: Darwinism and genetics
Post by: Walli on August 01, 2013, 05:23:44 AM
very nice read, PabloMack!
Title: Re: Darwinism and genetics
Post by: TheBadger on August 01, 2013, 05:44:08 PM
Yes, an essay form is really the only way to do this. I just did not think anyone would take the time.
Thanks for the incite.


lol, I meant insight. But incite might work too.  :P
Title: Re: Darwinism and genetics
Post by: PabloMack on August 01, 2013, 10:33:00 PM
You are all welcome.