Posted by ImaginalBud [ImaginalBud] on November 27, 1999 at 19:10:00 {nwG7wj0NI.4FvbFAIo5o4wKvOMahxc}:
In Reply to: Evolutin Phase III posted by Amazing on November 27, 1999 at 17:00:56:
Hello Amazing,
By way of introduction I’m a computational biologist and currently a primary investigator in at least one scientific study that concerns evolutionary processes. Typically, I don’t get involved in debates about evolution or creationism, as I typically find people have more of an agenda in proving they are right (this even applies to evolutionists at times) then really using scientific and epistemological (truth telling) tools. However, as you don’t seem to be spreading virulent mind viruses (even though you favor creationism) I thought I would take a few moments and respond to your postings.
I haven’t had the time to read the responses made to your series of postings so some of the material I include below may be a repeat of what somebody else said. I also want you to know that I’m not responding with the intention of proving myself or views I hold to be correct, “the truth” (as Jehovah’s Witnesses like to call their dogma) but only that it is the most probable answer I personally see from the evidence gathered thus far. You can thus investigate claims I’ve made or research anything further but I likely won’t have the time for any comprehensive debates. Having provides these caveats, forward to your postings:
I don’t know what your standards are of conclusive proof but in science everything (even so called established facts) are open to doubt and examination. There is often reluctance expressed by people in the scientific community over this but still these are the game rules. For example, the theory of relativity is still being challenged but is considered a factual set of laws. Addressing your statement now about not having enough data to conclusively prove that one species involved into another, I disagree with your basic paradigm. There is enough genetic evidence to show the change processes effectively. For example, molecular sequencing techniques of DNA show that all terrestrial life is divided into three distinct domains. We can look at the sequence of proteins in the DNA to see the “evolutionary distance” between different species. One of the proteins we can use as a tracer is called cytochrome c. We can look at the sequence of amino acids in this protein and see how much they travel between organisms. For instance human cytochrome c is identical to that of a rhesus monkey except for a single amino acid but there are 45 differences between human cytochrome c and wheat cytochrome c. Using several types of proteins we can then model the transition process from one species to another. The results show us regular steps of genetic shifting in the species lines. Using DNA in other ways also helps us see direct examples of evolutionary development. For instance we can express inactive genes to show our evolutionary ancestors. Yes, surprise, your DNA carries a lot of history with it. It takes about 80,000 genes to make our human bodies out of proteins. Each of these genes can be likened to a command to create one protein “part.” Other organisms have different numbers of gene commands, but all living creatures are the result of the product of their genes. Now you probably have heard that we have many millions of genes in our DNA so, what are the rest of them there for? These are genes from your long history of development as an organism. I remember one experiment a few years back where some of these old genes were expressed in a chicken and it formed a beak that had teeth in it. If you read through the literature, you will find other examples. I notice that you make lots of references to astronomy and cosmology. When you look out at the universe, you of course realize you are looking backwards in time. Many non-biologists fail to understand that evolutionary science and biology have been progressing over the decades. We no longer believe that life originated in a warm pond on the surface of the earth and that given enough time and combination of organic material that life will be the result. Further, biologists once tolerated fantastically high probabilities because what other choice did they have? These days we use the mathematics to prove hypothesis instead of hiding behind them. This doesn’t mean that science has found all the answers. Indeed there are many places where the scientific method doesn’t work well. Let’s put it to the test though to see what we can learn here. First, your statement that it would take 20 billion years for the amino acids needed to make life is completely improbable. Making amino acids is a cinch! In fact they are found to occur naturally in meteorites, and even in outer space! You can go to any good biology textbook and see how amino acids are readily formed. This though is not to say that creating life spontaneously is a common event, not by a long shot. You can think of the amino acids like building blocks (a pile of bricks for instance) that will eventually make a completed structure. To assume that a whirlwind would hit a pile of bricks and as a result of chance, create a modern building as the outcome is just about the same as thinking that amino acids would somehow mix together and create the specialized proteins that make life possible. This doesn’t mean that there had to be a divine force step in and personally manipulate the amino acids into proteins. You should realize that the proteins we see today in living organisms have become this way from millions of years of molecular evolution. The original proteins were undoubtedly much cruder and very lousy in the replication process. These organisms were quite primitive and had little in the way of complexity we see in life today. Do you know that these organisms still exist? We are discovering new ones all the time. Guess where they come from? Try miles underneath the earth’s surface. They are microbes that eat rock! Microbiology rules! Well some of your arguments here are on shaky ground but I will share this with you. We are now learning the causative processes that produce mutations and we can also look at the genetic code and see “time stamps” on it. We currently don’t know how to calculate the time bands but we are close to pinpointing causative factors. One study in which I’m involved looks at how the earth’s magnetosphere effects DNA by inducing small eddy currents into it. The magnetosphere is strongly influenced by the solar activity cycle that varies significantly over the course of time (11-year cycles and longer cycles). We also know that cycles of mass destruction from asteroid hits, climatic cycles, etc. profoundly effected the course of evolution. Evolutionary science is not something that can be condensed into a few pages. It is a complex subject, which also requires competency in several fields, including mathematics, to understand the full implications and see the evidence in a realistic light. Most biologists (all I know anyway) have NO doubts about evolution being true. The evidence is overwhelming for the evolutionary process in general. There are however big disputes over the origin of life and if it is something that is inevitable (as I think it is) and if it is a exceeding rare event or is repeated innumerable times (my view also). We use computer models all the time in biology and there is a lot of research into artificial life that uses the real-life rules of evolution to create more advanced organisms. From the looks of things (my perspective) you are too hung up over probabilities because you have outdated concepts about what evolution is and it would be much easier for you to understand the evidence by making a diligent study of the science behind biology and evolution. I mentioned a few items already above but perhaps instead of trying to explain things in detail to you without the proper foundation for you to understand advanced concepts, I might suggest that you read some of the popular books on the subject. These are no substitute for a real study of the subject (which will show you the mechanisms and evidence behind the science) but perhaps they will spark your interest enough to move forward and apply yourself. I guess the best book I can recommend is a current nonfiction book by Paul Davies, “The Fifth Miracle...The Search for the Origin and Meaning of Life” (1999 Simon & Schuster) I hope the above information was of some value to you. Imaginal Bud
Posted by Amazing [Anointed] on November 24, 1999 at 20:08:09 {BlpRHB6gpc/CPYT8orz2ASIIcexUto}:
I saw in an earlier post commenting about evolution. As I understand, for a scientific theory or hyothesis to be moved toward the level of proven (or at least probable), the scientific method needs to be applied. There are four basic components that must be met. The process or object must be observable, measurable, testable, and repeatable.
Evolutionary theory can meet some of these tests on the micro scale, i.e. small changes in a short time that suggest an evolutionary process may be taking place. Evolution, at least in our past, cannot meet the scientific test on a macro scale. That is, we do not have sufficient data over a long time to prove conclusively the theoritical concepts that one species evolved into another. If we keep data from this point forward for the next several million years, then we may be able to observe, measure, test, and repeat the process on a macro scale. Only our future generations will be able to witness the end results.
Added to this, if science cannot exercise the above method, then it must use alternative means such as correlative evidence to suggest the probabilities one way or another. There is much evidence available in the fossil record, dating techniques, etc. to lend itself to support the probabilities that the process of evolution may have, and still be taking place.
There are also serious scientific questions which equally challange the theory of evolution. For example, the mathematical probabilities of the very first ammino acids forming, which are the foundation blocks on which life must evolve, would take about 20 Billion years to form. The Big bang theory and the recent studies in astro-physics strongly suggest that the universe is only about 15 Billion years old. Thus, mathematically, the universe is not old enough to allow the formation of the basic building blocks of life.
If one takes the subsequent probabilities for each successive phase of the evolutionairy process, it would require many more billions of years to get to the single cell life form. After that, we have all the successive time frames in which each new step must take place to achieve a higher level of life until we reach the first Homo-sapiens.
Posted by Amazing [Anointed] on November 25, 1999 at 14:09:58 {yaNwUlwC5c/CPYT8orz2ASIIcexUto}:
Wait a minute! Some said that history cannot be observed or repeated. Someone else said that mathematics cannot be applied to the spontaneous development of life. Let's make some clarifications here.
History: True, Kodak Cameras and VCRs were not around hundreds of millions of year ago. History does repeat itself, but laboratory experimental conditions to excactly replicate the historical process of evolution is not feasible. BUT .....
We do have means today to record data and events for furute analysis. We can study theories and hypothesis based on evidence collected to date and postulate forward. Future generations can study the results and compare these to the theories and postulations to arrive at conclusions. Also, new instrumentation and technological development may allow for greatly improved collection of historical evidence. This may allow humanity to arrive at a better understanding of our past and where we are headed. Whether the theory of evolution as we understand it today will hold up to the test of time reamins to be seen.
As to applied mathematics, it is important to remember that the theory of evolution does not state that suddenly some little ameoba awakened one day to a rock song and jumped out of the primordial soup to announce 'here I am World! I want to grow up to be a human!'
Evolution requires that the very first building blocks of life develope before the next progressive step in the long chain of events can take place.
These building blocks are mostly chemical in nature, such as ammino acids and various simple proteins. These can be currently observed and measured. Chemical changes can be mathematically predicted to occur at certain repeatable intervals. Given enough repetitions in certain chemical reactions, steady changes will take place. Microbiologists and chemists can determine the mathematical probabilities that over a given time that certain changes will become permanent.
We do this all the time with more complex chemicals. We can, at sea level, using distilled water, measuring the water volume, and apply a certain steady level of heat for a certain amount of time predict when the water will change from a static cool liquid to a dynamic boiling state. We can equally use the same mathematical process to study the change to a gaseous state, called steam.
The question is not so much whether evolutionary events can take place, given enough time and the right chemical conditions; but the question that need to be asked first is whether enough time has elapsed from singularity to the present to allow for the current theory of evolutionary processes to have taken place. Presently, given the relatively young life of our universe, known required basic chemical changes suggests that evolution has just not had enough time to accomplish what we see today.
Other types of theories or evolutionary processes then need to be developed to explain how we arrived here so rapidly. One of those legitimate theories is that an intelligent designer commenced the process that spawned our existence. Some call this creation by God. This is the theory I presently suscribe to.
Simply Amazing
Posted by Amazing [Anointed] on November 27, 1999 at 17:00:56 {nwG7wj0NI.0hi4VK0MIQASIIcexUto}:
Evolutionists: Earlier, I suggested a macro-scale-time test for the theory of evolution. Some strongly balked because you say that I do not understand the process of data collection, theory formation, and then testing. I explained to AF that I do understand this process but that I was mostly stimulating discussion and presenting concepts, fully aware of the logistical impracticality of such a program.
Here is the basis of my suggestion in question form. If, as many contend, that evolutionary science has progressed to the point where overwhelming evidence exist that we evolved, then do we not have at least enough evidence on hand to commence a macro-scale test forward?
I know that we do not know all that we need to know to look for in such a test. But do we not have even a little smiggen of evidence from which we could commence such a test? What about DNA mapping? What about recording any physiological changes, gradual skeletal modification, and organ functional adjustments? Why cannot a program be established to monitor what we now know, and as we learn of more things to look for, add these in to the data collection process. Then throughout the eons of time, such data collection could be useful to future generations in determining evolutionary progress. This may be of help in learning what happened in the past.
Mathematical Models: In nuclear reactor physics we cannot with certainty predict exactly what will happen in the fission process. We approximate, using calculus, the probabilities of neutron chain reaction. From this we can determine energy release, heat, etc. necessary to sustain a reaction and produce power through the steam cycle. My earlier comments about probabilities with respect to formation of the initial chemicals from which life evolved is not that I necessarily hold the that approach, but that I mentally related to it when exposed to a lecture by a Professor in biology in Richland, WA. He made a good argument in my mind that mathematical models demonstrate problems with the evolution of life. I do not endorse or maintain that he is correct. I simply related to his approach as it compared to reactor physics and other mathematical models I am familiar with.