May 3, 2006
Finally my wife has a job! She has spent the past months playing a computer game called "Fairyland." At least now she can support her addiction to this game, and of course with a little strategy on my part (like not paying the DSL bill) may allow her to phase that damn game out of her life. Of course I can just steal internet from my neighbors' wireless networks, but her game doesn't run that well on my laptop and we don't have a wireless reciever for her computer. I don't really care anymore though since she is making 9 bucks an hour wiping ass at a nursing home...hell at least she is trying now.
I really can't believe this new study that was done, claiming that the majority would rather be unemployed than gain 75 lbs. As of yesterday I had lost a total of 53 lbs since Thanksgiving, and much of that time I was enemployed...and I would have much rather been employed and gaining weight than losing that weight. (we were suriviving on Financial Aid money and a little cash we got from my wife's aunt's estate) Of course Fit magazine did the study, and probably did the study among rich gym goers rather than actually doing a random sampling. Of course among rich gym membership holders aren't too worried about not having a job, because they probably have a savings for such a situation, or they are from a fairly well moneyed family. Yes some people with money tend to piss me off a little, but not all do of course. Mainly those with money who only recieved it from family who never will understand what it is like to try to make some money on their own. You know that people like this would have that point of view "oh of course I would rather be unemployed than fat....being fat is gross...and working sucks! why work when mommy and daddy (or a trust fund) support me?" Then again many of these people can't really think for themselves, but that seems to go for most of the human population, so they would just need to hear one of their fellow rich gym goers say "of course I would rather not work than be fat" and then think "well I should feel that way also!
Speaking of people not being able to think for themselves and of people who irritate the hell out of me, there are Creationists. Now those are some fairly non-thinking persons who follow a similar herd mentality. Worst thing about promoters of Creationism and Inteligent Design is the intellectual dishonesty which they exhibit. I won't say that all Creationists and IDists are dishonest, many are too ignorant in regards to topics addressed in Creationism and ID to even understand why Creationism and ID are not scientific. One member of the Kansas State Board of Education refered to ID and Evolution as merely "opinions" in a response email which they had sent me. What? They want to teach an opinion in a science class? Have they ever taken a biology class? Of course ID is an opinion, but Evolution, Cosmology, planetary formation and stellar formation are not "opinions." Those are models and theories. Sadly people believe a "theory" is a hypothesis without basis, which that is not what a theory is in science. Thanks to www.wikipedia.org here is the definition of theory as it is used in a scientific context.
"In scientific usage, a theory does not mean an unsubstantiated guess or hunch, as it often does in other contexts. A theory is a logically self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of a related set of natural or social phenomena. It originates from and/or is supported by experimental evidence (see scientific method). In this sense, a theory is a systematic and formalized expression of all previous observations that is predictive, logical and testable. In principle, scientific theories are always tentative, and subject to corrections or inclusion in a yet wider theory. Commonly, a large number of more specific hypotheses may be logically bound together by just one or two theories. As a general rule for use of the term, theories tend to deal with much broader sets of universals than do hypotheses, which ordinarily deal with much more specific sets of phenomena or specific applications of a theory."
So a theory like Evolution is not just an "opinion" or guess. I love it when IDists and Creationists say things like "Evolution is just a theory" Wow what else do you want out of it? Gravity and electromagnetism are theories also! There are facts associated with all theories and are all based on evidence. Cultural creation myths are in no way more valid scientifically than Evolution, The Big Bang or any model which describes the formation of anything. Hell cultural creation myths have no scientific basis at all! Most supposed scientific evidence supporting such ideas doesn't come from objective scientists. For instance Dr. Russell Humphreys, a creationist and astrophysicist has posed a model, which he holds to, that describes how the universe could be just 6000 years old. Problem is his model was disproven almost immediately as it appears he intentionally forgot to use specific metrics which cannot be left out of any cosmological model. Either that or he is incompotent as an astrophysicist, and is unwilling to accept he made a mistake as any real scientist would be willing to accept. I mean come on Michelson and Morely proved themselves wrong, and admitted to it winning them a Nobel Prize! Still YECs (young earth creationists) are still willing to claim that Humphreys' model explains why we can see objects billions of light years away while the universe is still only 6000 years old. Hell if I really wanted to I could create models which date the universe to any age or date anything to any age...provided you give me the age to start with. Humphreys logic is faulty as he starts with the assumption that the current age of the universe is 6000-10,000 years old and forms a model around that. Science doesn't start with any such non-substantiated assumptions. I mean some models may start with the assumption that certain constants have remained fairly constant throughout the 14 billion years the universe as existed. We know that many constants appear to have changed some extent, but not to the extent that Creationists would claim in regards to change in the speed of light, and change in radioactive decay rates. All the claims by creationists that science starts with the assumption of a an old universe are being dishonest, science makes no such assumption. Isochron dating allows for dating of a body or rock without knowing how old it is. We can assertain from the ratio of parent isotope to daughter isotope to determine age and initial ammount of parent isotope. Since this can be done with mulitple isotopes we can determine if an aging method is correct, or if the body being dated has some anomoly that would cause one aging method to not work, such as it starting with a portion of the daughter isotope within it. Aging can also be determined through measuring further daughter isotopes as the first daughter isotope decays, and through the specific ratio of isotopes we can again determine an age and intial ammount. This can also be used if it appears from the ratio that some of the first daughter isotope existed previous to decay of the parent isotope. Creationists would either say "no no...this isn't true" or that scientists are liars or something like that, rather than saying...oh evidence...ok maybe we should try to get evidence for our own model. I do suppose it is easier to get a questionable scientist to lie for your cause rather than to actually find evidence. Of course it is the right of a creationist or IDist to believe what ever they want, I could care less what they believe, but they they try to claim the Creationism and ID are valid science or anything more than their belief and claim science is wrong just because their belief says so...that irks me a little, but what really pisses me off is when they try to teach this stuff in schools, like in Kansas. If they want to teach a comparative religion course or a mythology course in high schools and want to teach that these beliefs exist then go for it, but to teach that they are science is just silly.
I really can't believe this new study that was done, claiming that the majority would rather be unemployed than gain 75 lbs. As of yesterday I had lost a total of 53 lbs since Thanksgiving, and much of that time I was enemployed...and I would have much rather been employed and gaining weight than losing that weight. (we were suriviving on Financial Aid money and a little cash we got from my wife's aunt's estate) Of course Fit magazine did the study, and probably did the study among rich gym goers rather than actually doing a random sampling. Of course among rich gym membership holders aren't too worried about not having a job, because they probably have a savings for such a situation, or they are from a fairly well moneyed family. Yes some people with money tend to piss me off a little, but not all do of course. Mainly those with money who only recieved it from family who never will understand what it is like to try to make some money on their own. You know that people like this would have that point of view "oh of course I would rather be unemployed than fat....being fat is gross...and working sucks! why work when mommy and daddy (or a trust fund) support me?" Then again many of these people can't really think for themselves, but that seems to go for most of the human population, so they would just need to hear one of their fellow rich gym goers say "of course I would rather not work than be fat" and then think "well I should feel that way also!
Speaking of people not being able to think for themselves and of people who irritate the hell out of me, there are Creationists. Now those are some fairly non-thinking persons who follow a similar herd mentality. Worst thing about promoters of Creationism and Inteligent Design is the intellectual dishonesty which they exhibit. I won't say that all Creationists and IDists are dishonest, many are too ignorant in regards to topics addressed in Creationism and ID to even understand why Creationism and ID are not scientific. One member of the Kansas State Board of Education refered to ID and Evolution as merely "opinions" in a response email which they had sent me. What? They want to teach an opinion in a science class? Have they ever taken a biology class? Of course ID is an opinion, but Evolution, Cosmology, planetary formation and stellar formation are not "opinions." Those are models and theories. Sadly people believe a "theory" is a hypothesis without basis, which that is not what a theory is in science. Thanks to www.wikipedia.org here is the definition of theory as it is used in a scientific context.
"In scientific usage, a theory does not mean an unsubstantiated guess or hunch, as it often does in other contexts. A theory is a logically self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of a related set of natural or social phenomena. It originates from and/or is supported by experimental evidence (see scientific method). In this sense, a theory is a systematic and formalized expression of all previous observations that is predictive, logical and testable. In principle, scientific theories are always tentative, and subject to corrections or inclusion in a yet wider theory. Commonly, a large number of more specific hypotheses may be logically bound together by just one or two theories. As a general rule for use of the term, theories tend to deal with much broader sets of universals than do hypotheses, which ordinarily deal with much more specific sets of phenomena or specific applications of a theory."
So a theory like Evolution is not just an "opinion" or guess. I love it when IDists and Creationists say things like "Evolution is just a theory" Wow what else do you want out of it? Gravity and electromagnetism are theories also! There are facts associated with all theories and are all based on evidence. Cultural creation myths are in no way more valid scientifically than Evolution, The Big Bang or any model which describes the formation of anything. Hell cultural creation myths have no scientific basis at all! Most supposed scientific evidence supporting such ideas doesn't come from objective scientists. For instance Dr. Russell Humphreys, a creationist and astrophysicist has posed a model, which he holds to, that describes how the universe could be just 6000 years old. Problem is his model was disproven almost immediately as it appears he intentionally forgot to use specific metrics which cannot be left out of any cosmological model. Either that or he is incompotent as an astrophysicist, and is unwilling to accept he made a mistake as any real scientist would be willing to accept. I mean come on Michelson and Morely proved themselves wrong, and admitted to it winning them a Nobel Prize! Still YECs (young earth creationists) are still willing to claim that Humphreys' model explains why we can see objects billions of light years away while the universe is still only 6000 years old. Hell if I really wanted to I could create models which date the universe to any age or date anything to any age...provided you give me the age to start with. Humphreys logic is faulty as he starts with the assumption that the current age of the universe is 6000-10,000 years old and forms a model around that. Science doesn't start with any such non-substantiated assumptions. I mean some models may start with the assumption that certain constants have remained fairly constant throughout the 14 billion years the universe as existed. We know that many constants appear to have changed some extent, but not to the extent that Creationists would claim in regards to change in the speed of light, and change in radioactive decay rates. All the claims by creationists that science starts with the assumption of a an old universe are being dishonest, science makes no such assumption. Isochron dating allows for dating of a body or rock without knowing how old it is. We can assertain from the ratio of parent isotope to daughter isotope to determine age and initial ammount of parent isotope. Since this can be done with mulitple isotopes we can determine if an aging method is correct, or if the body being dated has some anomoly that would cause one aging method to not work, such as it starting with a portion of the daughter isotope within it. Aging can also be determined through measuring further daughter isotopes as the first daughter isotope decays, and through the specific ratio of isotopes we can again determine an age and intial ammount. This can also be used if it appears from the ratio that some of the first daughter isotope existed previous to decay of the parent isotope. Creationists would either say "no no...this isn't true" or that scientists are liars or something like that, rather than saying...oh evidence...ok maybe we should try to get evidence for our own model. I do suppose it is easier to get a questionable scientist to lie for your cause rather than to actually find evidence. Of course it is the right of a creationist or IDist to believe what ever they want, I could care less what they believe, but they they try to claim the Creationism and ID are valid science or anything more than their belief and claim science is wrong just because their belief says so...that irks me a little, but what really pisses me off is when they try to teach this stuff in schools, like in Kansas. If they want to teach a comparative religion course or a mythology course in high schools and want to teach that these beliefs exist then go for it, but to teach that they are science is just silly.
posted by Wakim at 4:52 AM
2 Comments:
Hey Wakim, 11/27/06
Good to hear from you. Look, I am not too good at finding my way around blogs or the internet. In fact, I posted this comment twice on my blog, while trying to post it on yours. I am a low tech guy. As a kid in my generation, high-tech was when dad brought home a portable reel-to-reel tape recorder, and our discs came in 45’s and 33’s.
I never took any special astronomy classes but I enjoyed the little we did study in grade school. I grew up in NJ. Sometimes in the winter my brother would set up his telescope in our snow fort and look at the planets. Those winter nights were so clear we could some cools stuff with his little telescope.
Hey, all seriousness aside; let’s talk a little evolution just for fun. Your blog postings sound like you can use a little lightening up. You sound way too up tight for 23.
I read an article in the paper earlier this year about the “big bang theory”. Now some scientist who have letters before and after their names, want us to believe that the entire universe started out the size of a marble. The marble exploded; and in a trillionth of a second it expanded to our present universe. Not only that but they say the universe will implode again back to the size of a marble. They say the marble to universe to marble again cycle is about 80 billion years in length. Let’s run that through the scientific method.
Consider the order, design, energy and function of an atom. When I was in school, atoms only had electrons, protons, and neutrons. Now they found more stuff in atoms. Yet, in those tiny atoms there is design, order, energy and function.
God must like orbits because we see them everywhere. Electrons orbit the nucleus of atoms. Moons orbit planets; planets orbit suns, and galaxies orbit who knows what.
Just reading that marble article out loud would make a great stand-up routine. Think about it: all we see around us; all the beauty, order, design, energies, and life forms were contained in that one really heavy marble. Then with one heck of a BOOM, we have a universe running with the precision of a Swiss watch.
I am Christian. God saved me 26 years ago. Before that I was a professing atheist for about 15 years. Before that I was a somewhat devout Catholic up to age 13 or 14. As a Christian, I know the six days of the creation explain the true beginning of all things.
Unlike some others who also understand that God created all things; I believe the earth is much older than six thousand years. However, I believe that the earth was created around six thousand years ago. Follow this: God created Adam and Eve on day six. God did not create them as newborn babies; God created them as adults. In fact, God married them the same day they were created.
Here is the point: God created Adam and Eve with age. I personally think God created them as 30 year old adult; or there about. No time to explain that now. Therefore, one minute after Adam was created; how old was he? Was he one minute old or was he about 30? Adam was about 30 years old on the first day of his life. God created Adam and Eve with age.
God also created all the plants and animals with age and the capability to reproduce after their kind cf. Genesis chapter one. God’s pattern for creation was to create things with age; therefore, when God spoke the earth into existence, He created it with age: yet it was created about six thousand years ago.
As for evolution: consider all the beauty, order, design, function and wonder of all living things. Consider the tiny fruit fly that’s about the size of a comma on this page. They are born, mature, live, reproduce, and die in a matter of hours [I think hours is right]. As small as the fruit fly is, it is more complex, is more wondrous than the biggest computer; and it can fly.
Now consider the blue whale. It grows up to 100 feet long and weighs up to 100 tons; yet it glides through the ocean. Is it logical that the tiny fruit fly and the giant blue whale can trace their genealogy back to the same one-cell critter?
Now consider the moss on a rock and a 360 foot tall giant red wood tree. Is it possible that these two can trace their genealogy to the same one-cell critter as the fruit fly and the whale?
The chicken and the egg thing is an exercise I use to jumpstart folks’ thinking processes. Almost all of what we heard in grade school was taken in as truth; that’s how our minds work. For example; we bought everything we were told about history in grade school.
Since President Kennedy was killed, I take all history with a large grain of salt. I go back to the Kennedy assassination because that was a historic event in modern times. However, even with cameras rolling, many witnesses, many experts studying the shooting, and the Warren Report of encyclopedia proportions; we still do not have all the historical details of that one event.
I will be quick to add that whenever the Bible makes a historical reference, it is 100% accurate. If the Bible was to make one error in a historical reference, or in a prophecy, its critics would publish it every day. Back to the chicken.
Note: A discussion like these will do two things. One, it will give me a good idea of what is in you. Two, if you listen carefully, it will tell you what is in you.
If you think all animal life had the same starting point, than the following questions are for you. If you do not think all animal life started from the same point, then the following questions are only for those that do.
Some of the history I learned as a kid concerned the Piltdown man. I guess there are some that want to still believe that he was true.
I hope the following will at least make you and your wife smile.
OK, let’s get you thinking. Logic demands that animal life had to begin somewhere. I know the record of God’s six literal days of creation in Genesis one describes the true beginning of all animals and plants. Apart from God creating all things, you are left with the amazing fairy tail of evolution. Oh yeah, God did not start evolution; God created all living things after their kind, with the ability to reproduce after their kind cf. Genesis chapter one.
To those who hold that all animal life began with a one-cell critter, I will offer the following.
- What gave the first one-cell critter its shape, form, or substance, i.e. what made it look like an ameba? If indeed that’s what it looked like.
- Whatever gave the critter its look and substance; did it also do the same for billions of others at the same time?
- What gave that one-cell critter life?
- If all life began from one-cell critters, and billions of the critters were formed at the same time; can we assume they were all identical seeing they all came from the same stuff?
- Are we to assume that all the DNA and genetic codes for all living animals were somewhere in those one-cell critter(s)? Or should we assume that all the DNA and genetic codes also evolved into their present-day complex forms?
- OK, let’s go back to the first living cell. How long did it live? To believe in evolution, one must believe the critter lived long enough to divide. I say divide because I do not believe even an evolutionist would say that our one-cell critter mated with another critter.
- So let’s say the critter divides: do you think it formed another just like itself, or did it begin to mutate from the first division? Did all of the billions of critters begin to mutate into the same thing, or did different critters begin to evolve into specific lines of living creatures such as dogs, fish, and humans? How often do amebas divide? How much have they evolved? Must we wait another 10,000 years to see some change in them?
- Let me see now; non-living matter (proteins, enzymes, assorted chemicals and minerals, and goop) came together to form billions of one-cell ameba-like critters. Then lightning or whatever struck them, and in good Dr. Frankenstein form, they all came alive.
Then somehow the goop critters instantly developed a simple system of digestion by which they could consume more goop and grow bigger. Then for some reason (we haven’t figured out yet) the critters developed DNA and genetic codes that would produce all the different cells that make up all the living things we have today. OH yeah, I forgot to add the evolutionist’s main ingredient; a few billion years.
Let’s follow the development of the chicken starting from our simple life form critter to our present day egg-laying chicken. Somehow the goop comes together in the proper portions, is energized to life, mutates every time it divides (getting bigger each division). Within our chicken goop critter, a part of it begins to mutate toward a simple form of DNA and genes. Then after millions of years of dividing and growing more complex (who knows why or how) we now have a critter perhaps the size of a hamster. Do you think it looked like a big ameba or do you think it may have already developed the genes needed to dictate the cell development to make some kind of protective skin?
Now add millions of more years to our chicken critter. It still does not look like a chicken, and may yet develop into a dinosaur. We must believe that every time it divides, it always mutates into a higher and more complex form of critter.
Let’s advance a few hundred million more years. Our critter has developed a genetic code. The genetic code would have had to develop sufficiently to dictate the development of different body parts. How many millions of years before the first genes developed that dictated the development of all the cells needed to produce and support the first feather; let alone internal organs, a brain, a functioning eye, etc.
We must assume that each critter, among the billions we started with, had to have developed along its own hereditary line; until similar critters developed at a similar rate to where they could mate and thereby share genetic characteristics. At this point are we asked to believe that one goop critter developed into hens only, while a similar critter developed into roosters only?
Let’s look at the development of hens and roosters. How many generations of almost chicken critters lived and died before there were distinct hens and roosters? Let’s say our critter developed to the point where it looked much like a chicken but had not developed to the point where it needed a rooster to fertilize its eggs for reproduction. How has it been reproducing in its past thousand generations? Was it laying its own fertilized eggs? If I give you that much, why do you think that system stopped? Also, if the chicken was laying its own fertilized eggs; how did it reproduce before its self-fertilization system evolved? Did we have a somewhat chicken looking animal (with legs, wings, feathers, etc.) still reproducing by division?
Evolution really breaks down when we ask how animals reproduced in those early stages of development. I have seen movies of amebas dividing but amebas’ bodies are jellyfish like. Do you know of any “more advanced” animals that reproduce by dividing; animals with recognizable functioning body parts? I guess the ameba will keep dividing as it slowly develops a system to reproduce itself through some form of giving birth by self fertilization. Then when that gets to be old hat for the ameba, he’ll start looking for a mate.
The chicken did indeed come first because that was God’s doings. Does anyone really think that something as complex, orderly, functioning, reasoning, and able to laugh as we are; developed from a one-cell goop critter? Do they believe all of the order of our bodies, along with all of the interactions of our body systems working together to sustain life is a product of chance development?
All the billions of years and all the lightning strikes you can muster up will not develop a Ford truck: and they sure would not produce something as amazing as a flea, let alone a human being.
It took an idea, gathering of raw materials, design, purpose, and an executed will to manufacture all the Ford truck’s parts and then assemble them in the right order. Then it took someone to fuel it and someone to operate it. Ford trucks do not ooze out of the ground over billions of years. They have designers and makers. Creation has a designer and maker who is God; and that God is the one true God of the Bible.
Mark it down; all of the order and design of living things demands there be a designer and maker. All of the order and designer of the entire universe; from sub-atomic particles orbiting within an atom, to the orbiting of entire galaxies demand a designer and maker. Some of us know that designer and maker of all things; we call Him God. I would be glad to tell you more about the God any time you want.
Well, I hope you guys at least are smiling; but I really hope you are beginning to sort through what you really believe about evolution and creation. I suggest that you read at least the first two chapters of Genesis and then the gospel according to John.
It’s been fun. Call anytime.
Len
True true I probably am a bit up tight, but since the post in may this comment is under a few things have changed in my life. (I'm no longer a telemarketer, so that right there makes a huge difference right?)
Well technically The Theory of Evolution and The Big Bang Theory are separate theories, with differing issues and differing pieces of evidence suggesting each to be correct, but technicalities aside yes, from what we see from the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) the universe did at one point exist in a much smaller form. This is because of one simple piece of information, nothing travels faster than the speed of light, or 3*10^meters/second (30 billion) Because of this cosmic speed limit if the universe was always as, or at least close to as large as it is now, regions of space opposite each other each 13.7 billion light years from Earth could not have a causal relationship leading to the extreme ammount of uniformity. The easiest explaination, without adding factors based on personal belief, is that the universe was at one time much smaller and reversing the current expansion seen in the universe now back 13.7 billion years it would condense down to an infinitely small point of super dense matter aka a singularity. The "order" seen is seen because after the big bang all of the fundamental forces of physics were able to operate without being canceled out by the massive ammount of heat that must have existed in that singularity. All of the matter being compressed into an infinitely small point would cause it to heat up drastically, and the immense gravity along with immense heat would not even allow the strong nuclear force to allow quarks pair and go on to form other subatomic particles, but after a D-brane collision, or vacuum energy driven inflation, or whatever caused the expansion the quarks would be spread out over a larger area, not transfering kinetic energy to each other as easily. This would allow them to slow down, and eventually pair up. As inflation continued the weak nuclear force would allow atomic nuclei to form and as it further continued this allowed for electrons to become captured by the nuclei as the electromagnetic force began to be able to assert itself, and then of course gravity began to reassert itself and pulled those now fully formed atoms together. Of course anyone can say "well a being/deity/alien/flying spaghetti monster made it look that way" Ok sure...but that isn't science, that is personal belief. Everyone is entitled to personal beliefs, but a belief is not science. Most cosmologists also do not assert that the Big Bang resulted in the universe as we know it in a trillionth of a second, nucleosynthesis itself had to take take thousands of years. Orbits exist simply because of how the laws of physics work, in terms of planetary orbits and lunar orbits just picture the angle at which gravity is acting on an object that passing by, but not straight at another much more massive object. The gravity will bend the path of the object causing it to travel in a curved path, if the object is moving slowly enough it will get caught in an eliptical path, if not it will merely curve slightly off course and continue on, if it is moving too slowly it would end up smashing into the other object. Electrons obrit for a similar reason, although their orbits are much different than planetary orbits. Electrons orbit a nucleus because of the mutual electrical attraction and the massive weight difference between the electrons and the nucleus. Electrons also have a tendancy to move from one orbit to another and follow even more odd paths in the cases of more complex molecules. Also technically galaxies don't follow orbits..they typically are all moving away from one another, with exceptions occuring localized groups of galaxies, such as our own where our galaxy and 3 other galaxies are moving toward each other. Two of these galaxies, the Large and Small Magellenic Clouds, are mini-galaxies and one has already begun merging with our own galaxy. The Andromeda galaxy, a galaxy larger than our own is the last galaxy aside from our own milky way in this situation, and we and the Andromeda Galaxy are on a collision course for each other. Doesn't sound too orderly once you see what happens on the largest scales with gravity.
Now, in terms of The Theory of Evolution (AKA Theory of Modern Synthesis) no mention is made of abiogenesis, or the origination of life from non-life. We know how certain aspects of abiogenesis might have happened, but aside from the formation of a few of the basics, one of which being the way the first cells got their "shape" as we can recreate formation of cellular membranes from non-living material in labs quite easily. Argueing abiogenesis is pretty futile right now, as we clearly don't know how life first arose. We do have a very clear understanding of how life developed after that. We know from fossil evidence the first organisms resembling multicellular life were colonies of single celled organisms working together (similar to corale)and we know that given the correct circumstances single celled organisms can group together into small colonies and some have even shown differentiation within the colonies in just a few generations. We also know that those very fruit flies you mentioned, because of their fast life cycle and gestation period, can be used to demonstrate speciation taking place in real time. In experiments a population of fruit flies was evenly divided into two populations and allowed to continue breeding. After a large number of generations the two populations were again inter mixed as one. Oddly enough the members of population A would not breed with members of population B. They also showed physiological and genetic differences. The two populations were so vastly different after that large number of generations that they could now technically be considered different species. They were morphologically different, genetically different, and refused to breed, that alone qualifies them as different species at that point. Now in terms of tracing the ancestory of fruit flies and blue whales one big piece of evidence shows a common ancestory, mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA). mtDNA is the DNA contained in the mitochondria of a cell, this DNA is completely separate from the rest of an organism's DNA and is only passed on from the mother in sexually reproducing species or the single parent in asexually producing organisms (including single celled eukaryotes). Right now mtDNA obtained from a crime scene is enough to get warrents, arrests, indictments, and in some cases convictions. Of course mtDNA is not as specific as nuclear DNA, but it can easily be used to demonstrate ancestory. For instance take my mtDNA compare it with that of my mother, my grandmother, my great grandmother, and so forth ad infinitum and you see a clear line of ancestory along with extremely subtle, but predictable, changes in the mtDNA. Since we know from studies mtDNA changes at a very predictable rate we can use mtDNA to see how closely myself and another human shared a common female ancestor. Typically it wouldn't be too many generations back unless that other persons family originated from a continent that had been isolated from where my family had originated. Now since we know all eukaryiotic life, from single celled eukaryotes, to plants, to fungi, to animals, all have such similar mtDNA we can conclude that the easiest explaination for this similarity is common ancestory. Oddly enough the differences seen in the most wildly differnt ends of the spectrum, animals and specific single celled eukaryotes, show that a common ancestor would have existed at a time when geological evidence suggests oxygen levels were begining to rise on Earth. This would have been the time when organisms utilizing mitochondria would have been on the rise as those that didn't would most likely die of oxygen poisoning unless they had another defense (yes oxygen is extremely toxic to many single celled organisms, why do you think we use hydrogen perOXIDE on wounds?) Now in terms of species that are more similar, for instance humans and bonobos (pygmy chimpanzees). It is easy to see morphological similarities and behavioral similarities, but there are of course genetic similarities. Some studies show that bonobos and humans are 99% genetically identical. The similarities are also striking in the mtDNA, which again by the predicable rate of mtDNA mutation, points to a time when the ancestors of bonobos and the ancestors of humans branched off from each other that matches the fossil evidence fairly well. If this correlation between nuclear DNA, mtDNA and fossil evidence doesn't suggest common ancestory then perhaps shared endogenous retroviruses (ERVs) will. An ERV is basically a genetic scar caused by a retrovirus that has become hereditary. We know that these scars are unique...no two of these genetic scars are exactly the same or effect the same part of the genome. Since we know they are hereditary it would only make sense that 2 organisms sharing such unique hereditary scars must have a common ancestor. Well humans, bonobos, and chimps all share ERVs. So based on the evidence, the simplest explaination, without trying incoroporate belief based beings into the mix, is common ancestory. I mean if DNA evidence is good enough to put someone in prison for life...or even put them to death isn't it good enough to substantiate a theory? Now, the question of reproduction. Well the simplest animal life has two sets of sexual organs. Look at worms, they have both male and female sex organs (hermaphrodites). Almost none are capable of self fertilization, but a small fraction are. These self fertilizers share many traits with organisms like hydras, which reproduce by a process called "budding" instead of producing an egg or sperm or both they produce a clone basically. Instead of dividing they allow this bud to grow on them for a time until it breaks free. This budding could easily give way to the rise sexual organs, since these budding regions on hydras go through massive ammounts of cell division it only makes sense the most mutations would occur there, leading to the possibility for a mutation that caused haploid cells to be formed by that tissue instead of cloned stem cells. As multiple areas on hydras can serve as budding surfaces it only makes sense that those that did arise from a combination of haploid cells instead of budding would also produce haploid cells from all possible budding surfaces. Those that produced haploid cells the most condusive to combination, or fertilization, would then survive as they would produce the most offspring. This eventually gives rise to something like the modern earthworm, a population with two sets of fully functioning sex organs, one male and one female, breeding with others of the population giving rise to larger genetic diversity. Now since the offspring aren't clones and aren't attached to the parent and aren't able to use their parent's immune system to fight off mutagenic infections they would fall fate to more mutations. It wouldn't take much, just a part of a chromosome getting stuck to another and not crossing over correctly and the organism getting an extra piece or missing a part of a chromosome and they could easily end up with one set of functional sex organs and another set of non-functional sex organs. Those only needing to obtain nutrients to support one set of organs would hence survive longer and be able to grow to larger. They would also be less likely to encounter fertility problems. Thus leading to more and more organisms with single sets of sex organs, and since the mutation was likely a mistake when chromosomes crossed over it would very likely lead to some offspring getting enough of chromosome to produce only functioning female while others wouldn't get enough genetic material and would then only have functioning male organs. This would likely give rise to the sexes and allow for breeding before the sexes had fully arisen. Such mutations have been documented on rare occaisons in hermaphrodites.
Why would you believe that we must assume that with each generation the organism will get more complex or advanced? With each generation the ability of a population to produce fertile offpring should go up, for it to be successful.
Also no one accepts the Piltdown man as evidence of anything except for how totally anti-africa a few English scientists were. They were still convinced at that point a single missing link organism had to exist or have existed (as we now understand it wouldn't be a single missing organism but a slow progression as evidenced in hominid skulls) and they were convinced it would be found in Africa. So they decided to say "nope it will be found in England and we can take the credit and everyone will know the english are the root of all mankind" Even when Piltdown man was first presented to the scientific community it was laughed at. Most scientists at the time knew that English were up to this and gave little mind to the antics of a few guys who wanted to make a national statement, not a statement about science.
As for history, well history is an author's opinions of events that happened in the past, not science. Science can be used to model what has happened in the past, and with the vast ammount of evidence we have at present the models for cosmology and evolution do seem to hold up fairly well. The crazy thing is we understand Evolution far better than we understand something like gravity. Both are factual processes that use theories to model them, but Evolution has been consistently confirmed while we still have conflicting theories of gravity.
In terms of the "ford truck" point, well we know that Ford Trucks don't poof into existence, that they don't suddenly morph from anything else and that other cars don't reproduce so we wouldn't expect to see another car give birth to a different type or car. Another difference is Ford doesn't put nonsesical parts on their trucks. I mean everything has a purpose, even if it is just cosmetic. If a designer designed humans why the tailbone? Why shared ERVs? Why a spine that tends to get problems from the very act of walking upright while species that walk on all fours or on four at times and 2 at others don't get such back problems? In terms of the blue whale you mentioned why would a designer incorporate a hip bone into a swimming organism? There are all sorts of questions that are better answered by science than by faith. Of course I do believe that everyone has a right to their opinion I do understand there is a difference between opinion and theories supported by evidence. My opinion on much of Quantum Mechanics is simply that much of it is probably wrong to some extent since it is much less mathematically simple than relativity, but evidence supports QM overwhelmingly in many situations. I wouldn't disagree with it being taught anywhere, except in a class that had nothing to do with QM. Also knowing what I know about science, and how much goes into making models like the Big Bang and The Theory of Modern Synthesis and seeing how difficult it is for those scientists to get those letters in front and after their names I tend to accept what they say, esspecially when they can explain it to me. (Of course only if those letters are from accredited institutions and are degrees in one of the hard sciences.) Anyway thanks for the comment..had a good time writing this rebuttal.
Post a Comment
<< Home