Alternative To Evolution?

[Phoenix44]

The really interesting thing, though, is when populations of those wacky bacterium (I'm specifically thinking of some experiments done with E. Coli) adapt in ways that don't appear to be random mutations.

That's because they PLANNED it that way, muahahahahaha....

 

[heretic888]

That's because they PLANNED it that way, muahahahahaha....

 

[heretic888]

The really interesting thing, though, is when populations of those wacky bacterium (I'm specifically thinking of some experiments done with E. Coli) adapt in ways that don't appear to be random mutations.

Now, isn't that just wacky?

From http://www.kk.org/outofcontrol/ch19-d.html:

"Because genes interact and regulate each other so extensively, the genome forms a complex whole that resists change. Only certain areas can vary at all because most of the genes are so interdependent upon each other-almost grid-locked-that variation is not a choice. As evolutionist Ernst Mayr puts it, 'Free variability is found only in a limited portion of the genotype.' The power of this genetic holism can be seen in animal breeding. Breeders commonly encounter undesirable side effects triggered when unknown genes are activated in the process of selecting for one particular trait. However, when pressure for that one trait is let up, organisms in succeeding generations rapidly revert to the original type, much as if the genome has sprung back to its set point. Variation in real genes is quite different than we imagined. The evidence suggests that not only is it nonrandom and parochial, but it is difficult to come by at all.

The impression one gets is of a highly flexible bureaucracy of genes managing the lives of other genes. Most astounding, the same gene bureaucracy is franchised throughout life, from fruitfly to whale. For example, a nearly identical homeobox self-control sequence (a master-switch gene which turns hunks of other genes on) is found in every vertebrate.

So prevailing is the logic of nonrandom variation that I was at first flabbergasted in my failure to find any biologists working today who still believe mutations to be truly random. Their nearly unanimous acknowledgment that mutations are 'not truly random' means to them (as far as I can tell) that individual mutations may be less than random-ranging from near-random to plausible; but they still believe that statistically, over the long haul, a mass of mutations behaves randomly. 'Oh, randomness is just an excuse for ignorance,' quips Lynn Margulis.

This weak version of nonrandom mutation is hardly even an issue anymore, but a stronger version is more of a juicy heresy. It says that variations can be chosen in a deliberate way. Rather than have the gene bureaucracy merely edit random variations, have it produce variations by some agenda. Mutations would be created by the genome for specific purposes. Direct mutations could spur the blind process of natural selection out of its slump and propel it toward increasing complexity. In a sense, the organism would direct mutations of its own making in response to environmental factors. Ironically, there is more hard lab evidence at hand for the strong version of directed mutation than for the weak version.

According to the laws of neodarwinism, the environment, and only the environment, can select mutations; and the environment can never induce or direct mutations. In 1988 Harvard geneticist John Cairns and colleagues published evidence of environmentally induced mutations in the bacterium E. coli. Their claim was audacious: that under certain conditions the bacteria spontaneously crafted needed mutations in direct response to stresses in their environment. Cairns also had the gall to end his paper by suggesting that whatever process was responsible for the directed mutations 'could, in effect, provide a mechanism for the inheritance of acquired characteristics'-a bald allusion to Darwin's rival-in-theory Jean-Baptiste Lamarck.

Another molecular biologist, Barry Hall, published results which not only confirmed Cairns's claims but laid on the table startling additional evidence of direct mutation in nature. Hall found that his cultures of E. coli would produce needed mutations at a rate about 100 million times greater than would be statistically expected if they came by chance. Furthermore, when he dissected the genes of these mutated bacteria by sequencing them, he found mutations in no areas other than the one where there was selection pressure. This means that the successful bugs did not desperately throw off all kinds of mutations to find the one that works; they pinpointed the one alteration that fit the bill. Hall found some directed variations so complex they required the mutation of two genes simultaneously. He called that 'the improbable stacked on top of the highly unlikely.' These kinds of miraculous change are not the kosher fare of serial random accumulation that natural selection is supposed to run on. They have the smell of some design.

Both Hall and Cairns claim that they have carefully eliminated all other explanations for their results, and stick by their claim that the bacteria are directing their own mutations. However, until they can elucidate a mechanism for the way in which a stupid bacterium can become aware of which mutation is required, few other molecular geneticists are ready to give up strict Darwinism."

Hee hee hee.

Laterz. :asian:

 

[heretic888]

Here's a rather interesting "alternative" to the standard synthetic or neo-Darwinian model of evolution:

The Evolution Of Phenotypic Plasticity Through The Baldwin Effect

Here's an interesting interpretation of the same phenomena within a post-Darwinian context:

Organisms Can Be Proud To Have Been Their Own Designers

Enjoy. :asian:

 

[evenflow1121]

I would have to agree that many positivists and naturalists used evolutionary theory as a tool to further their own philosophical agendas.



Darwin was a deist, and he specifically attributed the process of evolution to the working of God. Wallace was even more vocal on this point, describing evolution as "the mode and manner of Spirit's perfection".

I thought Darwin died an agnostic and as a result of a loved one that had died at an early age or something.

 

[heretic888]

I thought Darwin died an agnostic and as a result of a loved one that had died at an early age or something.

Quite possibly, but it is my understanding that he considered himself a deist for most of his adult life. In any event, he specifically attributes the evolutionary process to God in his work (as did Wallace and Lamarck).

Laterz. :asian:

 

[ginshun]

Gravity is derived from Newton's First "Law". (Yes, scientists can be legislators).

Without getting into the argument here, this really isn't true anymore. The laws / rules that Newton came up with still work to describe how gravity affects objects in our everyday life. However, the nature of gravity was redefined when Einstien came up with his General Theory of Relativity. Can't remember exactly when. circa 1916?

 

[mrhnau]

Without getting into the argument here, this really isn't true anymore. The laws / rules that Newton came up with still work to describe how gravity affects objects in our everyday life. However, the nature of gravity was redefined when Einstien came up with his General Theory of Relativity. Can't remember exactly when. circa 1916?

1916 is actually the correct publication date. Even gravity has been in question in the past few years, or at least reanalyzed... gravitons and string theory (the theory of everything) have been explored in an attempt to have a true unification theory.

Gravitons and gravity waves: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graviton

String theory: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/String_theory

 

[ginshun]

The only reason I even remembered the date is because I was just re-reading A Brief History of Time by Stephen Hawking last night.

 

[mrhnau]

The only reason I even remembered the date is because I was just re-reading A Brief History of Time by Stephen Hawking last night.

Great book.... wish I had more time to do recreational reading!

 

[arnisador]

No one knows how gravity is carried, either relativistically or at a quantum level...gravitons, warping of space, a field, strings,...? It's so funny to see people pick on evolution when fields like quantum mechanics are so much more subject to disagreement amongst professionals.

 

[heretic888]

No one knows how gravity is carried, either relativistically or at a quantum level...gravitons, warping of space, a field, strings,...? It's so funny to see people pick on evolution when fields like quantum mechanics are so much more subject to disagreement amongst professionals.

That's probably because gravity doesn't upset certain groups' metaphysical belief structures. :wink:

Additionally, while they don't reach the public's attention all that often, there are professional debates and disagreements about the exact mechanisms of evolution. The standard neo-Darwinian or synthetic model is by no means the only valid model, nor is it even the most valid model anymore. I personally think organic selection or the "Baldwin Effect" is a monstrously fascinating phenomenon that makes a much stronger case for a generalized explanatory principle of evolution than natural selection.

Unfortunately, much of these debates don't seem to get publicized all that often because, my guess, is that many in the scientific community are afraid proponents of Creationism and Intelligent Design will use them as tools for their metaphysical agendas.

Laterz. :asian:

 

[arnisador]

Yeah, there's still debate about things like species selection. But it's when it affects someone's philosophy that people care, as you point out. Darwin is often listed among philosophers!

Yet, there are areas so much more unsettled!

 

[michaeledward]

This just in ..

http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2005/sep/16/nobel_winners_defend_teaching_evolution/?evolution

Nobel winners defend teaching evolution

State board asked to reconsider science standards

Topeka — Thirty-eight Nobel laureates led by Holocaust survivor and noted author Elie Wiesel have turned their attention to the Kansas State Board of Education.

The Nobel Prize winners are asking the board to reject science standards that criticize evolution.

In a letter to the board released Thursday, the group of leading scientists and thinkers from around the world said Darwinian evolution was the foundation of biology.

“ ... its indispensable role has been further strengthened by the capacity to study DNA,” the group wrote.

​

 

[someguy]

I thought Darwin died an agnostic and as a result of a loved one that had died at an early age or something.

I belive you are refering to Darwins daughter Anne who die at the age of 10 in 1851 I belive. Now how much this did contribute to Darwin's religious views I'm not sure yet it has been sugested that Darwin was only a Deist or Agnostic or an Atheist. Which is accurate? I don't know enough to guess. That said there was a point in time that Darwin did train to be a pastor.
I would also like to add that the death of his daughter was before The Origin of Species. That was published in 1859.
I would also like to mention that Alfred Russel Wallace published his work the day after Darwin which also was about Natural selection.
We now return you to your regularly broadcasted program.
Peace yo

 

[Shizen Shigoku]

'science' museums teaching creationism -

from: Chicago Tribune, 7 August

"It is important to many creationists that man and dinosaur lived simultaneously because they believe there was no death in the world until Adam and Eve sinned in the Garden of Eden. If the Genesis story is false, they say, then there would be no need for Jesus Christ to redeem the sins of the world.

Thus, at the Museum of Earth History, Genesis dictates gentle, vegetarian dinosaurs sharing Eden with Adam and Eve, whose vaguely Polynesian appearance represents all races, according to a guide. Another exhibit confirms that dinosaurs, like all land creatures created on Day 6, were on Noah's Ark. The exhibit maintains that the ark could accommodate them because it was huge--450 feet long, 75 feet wide and 45 feet high--and only smaller, adolescent dinosaurs were put on board.

Such literal interpretation is essential, Sharp said, because "if we lose Genesis as a legitimate scientific and historical explanation for man, then we lose the validity of Christianity. Period."


I'm glad I haven't eaten anything yet today because I feel like throwing up.

 

[hardheadjarhead]

Such literal interpretation is essential, Sharp said, because "if we lose Genesis as a legitimate scientific and historical explanation for man, then we lose the validity of Christianity. Period."

Frustrating, isn't it? Fundamentalists can not give a precise definition of the following words:

Theory.

Hypothesis.

Fact.


Fundamentalists have a difficult time grasping that all scientific conclusions are considered tenative and open to modification...and that is the nature of science.

I had an evangelical tell me years ago that he was prepared to give me a wealth of "scientific evidence" showing that Genesis was true.

I'm still waiting.



Regards,


Steve

 

[heretic888]

Yeah, there's still debate about things like species selection. But it's when it affects someone's philosophy that people care, as you point out. Darwin is often listed among philosophers!

I have noticed this trend, as well.

In recent years, proponents of Creationism and Intelligent Design have published a number of books that attempt to deconstruct Darwinism --- with such telling titles as The Religion of Darwin, Darwin's Religion, The Religion of Evolution and so on. The going assumption being that evolutionary theory, for both Darwin and modern neo-Darwinians, is supposed to be "religious" in nature.

While there is a shred of truth to this assertion, it still remains a gross mischaracterization of the way things are actually seen and done in science.

The funniest one I've ever seen, though, was a guy they showed on The Daily Show last week. It seems this fellow is running seminars near the Grand Canyon area entitled (I kid you not), "Evolution: The Anti-God Religion of Death".

Yet, there are areas so much more unsettled!

Like, oh say, most subjects within Biblical scholarship??

 

[heretic888]

This just in ..

http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2005/sep/16/nobel_winners_defend_teaching_evolution/?evolution

Nobel winners defend teaching evolution

State board asked to reconsider science standards

Topeka — Thirty-eight Nobel laureates led by Holocaust survivor and noted author Elie Wiesel have turned their attention to the Kansas State Board of Education.

The Nobel Prize winners are asking the board to reject science standards that criticize evolution.

In a letter to the board released Thursday, the group of leading scientists and thinkers from around the world said Darwinian evolution was the foundation of biology.

“ ... its indispensable role has been further strengthened by the capacity to study DNA,” the group wrote.

​

See now, I kinda have mixed feelings about this here.

On the one hand, I completely sympathize with these individuals and their efforts. The public calls for a "critical analysis of evolutionary theory" is really just a thinly-veiled smokescreen that proponents of Creationism and Intelligent Design are using to push their particular metaphysical agendas. As such, it should be met with considerable resistance and vocal opposition.

But, on the other hand, I also feel that there isn't enough public debate concerning different models of evolutionary process. Many in the scientific community simply accept the synthetic model in an a priori fashion as "the" explanation for evolutionary development. Hell, I didn't even know there were alternative scientific models to strict neo-Darwinism until I went out and researched the subject myself! Such discussions were completely absent in both my high school and college biology classes (which included courses in anatomy & physiology, biopsychology, developmental psychology, and evolutionary psychology).

As such, I have mixed feelings about this. :asian:

 

[heretic888]

I belive you are refering to Darwins daughter Anne who die at the age of 10 in 1851 I belive. Now how much this did contribute to Darwin's religious views I'm not sure yet it has been sugested that Darwin was only a Deist or Agnostic or an Atheist. Which is accurate? I don't know enough to guess. That said there was a point in time that Darwin did train to be a pastor.
I would also like to add that the death of his daughter was before The Origin of Species. That was published in 1859.
I would also like to mention that Alfred Russel Wallace published his work the day after Darwin which also was about Natural selection.
We now return you to your regularly broadcasted program.
Peace yo

Charles Darwin, as far as I can tell, was what we might now consider a deist. He was extremely skeptical of the claims of the institutionalized religions of his day, but retained a faith in a non-intervening Divine that expresses itself through the laws of nature. In The Origin of Species, he specifically attributes evolutionary processes to the working of God. His contemporary, Wallace, was even more explicit on this matter (seeing God behind evolution).

On a side note, though, Darwin and Wallace weren't the first to propose a scientific explanation of evolution. That honor belongs to Jean-Baptiste Lamarck, who put forward the now thoroughly-discredited hypothesis of directly heritable traits in the early 1800's (a good half-century before The Origin of Species was published). But, even before Lamarck, there were many philosophical models that incorporated what we might call an "evolutionary" perspective. Some of the German Idealists (most notably Hegel) formulated a philosophy detailing how Spirit's expression continually developed, adapted, and changed over the course of history (specifically, in outlining the progression of "Mind" from "Nature").

In fact, according to philosopher Ken Wilber's A Brief History of Everything (pp. 274-275), an evolutionary formulation was extremely commonplace by the early 1800's:

"Q: So this developmental or evolutionary notion was not new with Darwin.
KW: Far from it. The Great Chain theorists, beginning as early as Leibniz, began to realize that the Great Chain could best be understood as a holarchy that is not given all at once, but rather unfolds over enormous stretches of historical and geographical time --- starting with matter, then the emergence of sensation in life forms, then perception, then impulse, then image, and so on.
And thus, about a century before Darwin, it was widely accepted in educated circles that the Great Chain had actually unfolded or developed over vast time. And --- this was crucial --- since the Great Chain contained no 'gaps' or holes (because the plenitude of Spirit fills all empty spaces), the research agenda was to find any 'missing links' in evolution.
Q: That's where the term actually came from?
KW: Yes, any missing links in the Chain. And so there began a massive search for 'missing links' between various species. So widespread was this understanding, so common and so taken for granted, that even the notorious circum promoter P.T. Barnum could advertise that his museum contained: 'the Ornithorhincus, or the connecting link between the seal and the duck; two distinct species of flying fish, which undoubtedly connect the bird and the fish; the Mud Iguana, a connecting link between reptiles and fish --- with other animals forming connecting links in the Great Chain of Nature.' That's two decades before Darwin published Origin of Species!"

Laterz. :asian: