Evolution vs. Creation (again)

[Chaos]

Hi again,

I´m just back from a Tutorial session on Microeconomics. TOday´s topic: the Irrationalist Perception Theory (not sure about translation), as proposed by David Hume.

(Wondering what this has to do with Evolution vs. Creation? Don´t hurry, I´ll get there)

This theory says that repetition (i.e. lots of evidence, as in "the sun has risen every morning") does not count as proof. (as in "therefore I can be certain the sun will rise tomorrow")

Of course, this means we can never be certain of anything.

As an example, the professor cited the controversy between evolution theory and creation "science".
The papers we´ve been given say:


Two coexisting paradigms:
Evolution theory and creation history

Both are belief systems. Nobody was there, there are no witnesses; everything beyond an age of 3000 is pure speculation.

200-year-old vulcanic rock has been dated as being 2 billion years old. The long periods of time (which evolution needs, or the construction of hypotheses collapses?) are purely speculative.

The evolutionist Arthur Keith claims:
Evolution cannot be proven. We believe in in because the alternative would be an act of creaion by god, and that is unthinkable.

The computer scientist Werner Gitt says - paraphrased -:
Wherever we find Codes, Structure and Planning, we know from experience there there must be intelligence at work...there is no information by chance.

(...)

The oldest human remains, the Cro-Magnon, are identical with modern-day humans. Therefore all "Neandertal developments" are lapsed.
The current state of research: all remains found are either human or ape. (..) After countless fossil findings there is no link [betiween human and ape].



(source: papers, eiter by my tutor or my professor; no author is stated) (is that in keeping with copyright rules?)

The tutor also floated the old cold turkey that "evolution theory states that all life has developed by chance".

So my questions are...

...what am I to think about this?

...if this is the same old creationist BS (the professor has spent lots of time in the US, according to his bio), what can I say to refute this?

Thanks in advance for your help.

[-=Vagrant=-]

Chaos, you should check this out.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/index.html
It's a list of pretty much every creationist argument in circulation.

[Brian the Snail]

First, the Irrationalist Perception Theory just sounds like the criticism that pure inductive logic can't give you the full truth. For example, you can say "all crows are black" given that all the crows you've seen are black. However, there's always the possibility of finding a counter-example, e.g. a white crow. So you can't be entirely sure that your original hypothesis is true based on induction alone.

Philosophers of science have know about this for decades (perhaps centuries), and have concluded that in fact, science doesn't work like this anyway. For example, Popper proposed that science works by testing falsifiable hypotheses. So that the hypothesis "all crows are black" is a falsifiable hypothesis since it can be shown to be false given a counterexample of a white crow. Evolution is a falsifiable hypothesis in this way. Most forms of creationism aren't.

What this has to do with the points your professor raises is beyond me, though. In fact, he just seems to be churning out creationist propaganda (check out the talk origins site for rebuttals). Perhaps he's just trying to say "well nothing can be proven in science, so you just have to take everything on faith," which is an absolutely vacuous point to make, and shows a complete misunderstanding of the nature of science.

[Brian the Snail]

Just to touch on a couple of the specific points:

Both are belief systems. Nobody was there, there are no witnesses; everything beyond an age of 3000 is pure speculation.

Here's an analogy. There's been a murder committed. There are no witnesses. However, a suspect is arrested, and it is found that his fingerprints match those on the murder weapon found near the scene, and there's a DNA match to other blood found on the scene.

However according to the reasoning of the professor, there is no evidence linking the suspect to the murder, and therefore he should be set free.

What's wrong with this picture?

200-year-old vulcanic rock has been dated as being 2 billion years old. The long periods of time (which evolution needs, or the construction of hypotheses collapses?) are purely speculative.

No source I see. However, this sounds very similar to something I've heard before. This link (http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html) addresses it (and don't be put off by the title, it's actually an excellent article). From the Appendix "common misconceptions regarding radiometric dating methods":

14. A young-Earth research group reported that they sent a rock erupted in 1980 from Mount Saint Helens volcano to a dating lab and got back a potassium-argon age of several million years. This shows we should not trust radiometric dating.

There are indeed ways to "trick" radiometric dating if a single dating method is improperly used on a sample. Anyone can move the hands on a clock and get the wrong time. Likewise, people actively looking for incorrect radiometric dates can in fact get them. Geologists have known for over forty years that the potassium-argon method cannot be used on rocks only twenty to thirty years old. Publicizing this incorrect age as a completely new finding was inappropriate. The reasons are discussed in the Potassium-Argon Dating section above. Be assured that multiple dating methods used together on igneous rocks are almost always correct unless the sample is too difficult to date due to factors such as metamorphism or a large fraction of xenoliths.

[Benguin]

Seeing as the points made by your professor are pretty fatuous, I feel the need to respond in kind ...

The computer scientist Werner Gitt says - paraphrased -:
Wherever we find Codes, Structure and Planning, we know from experience there there (sic) must be intelligence at work...there is no information by chance.



I spend my life in front of code, a good propotion of it has been created without any intelligence at work at all.

But, to be more serious, that sophistry is so full of holes it worries me a professor would seriously present it. He's not just trying to get you to think critically by presenting flawed arguments from apparently authorative sources is he?

The computer scientist is playing with circular reasoning and should know it. Disregarding planning (as I see no evidence of that in the natural world) ... by codes does he mean DNA? I suppose there is structure there too? Human intelligence (and very definitely computer science) largely mimic the code and structure they see in the natural world, just because we use our intelligence to mimic and extend doesn't mean the original came about through intelligent design, not at all.

[Brian the Snail]

Originally posted by Benguin
The computer scientist is playing with circular reasoning and should know it. Disregarding planning (as I see no evidence of that in the natural world) ... by codes does he mean DNA? I suppose there is structure there too? Human intelligence (and very definitely computer science) largely mimic the code and structure they see in the natural world, just because we use our intelligence to mimic and extend doesn't mean the original came about through intelligent design, not at all.

Well, note that the computer scientist is hardly an impartial source. In actual fact, Werner Gitt (http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/bios/w_gitt.asp) is a creationist.

Active creationist, prominent information scientist, writer, and close friend of AiG, Dr Gitt is also a renowned evangelist. In October 1999, he led a series of meetings in Bielefeld, Germany. His topics included ‘After death — what then?’ ‘The wonder of the Bible’, and ‘What creation teaches us’. Fifty-one people made first-time professions of faith in Christ.

As for the quote from Sir Arthur Keith, he died in 1955, so it's at least 50 years old. That's if the quote is genuine, and not just copied from some dodgy website. Creationists rarely give the original source for their quotations, and aren't above misquoting people or just making quotes up.

[Martin]

Originally posted by Brian the Snail
That's if the quote is genuineIt isn't. According to the Quote Mine Project (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part1-4.html), it's pure fabrication.

[CurtC]

The oldest human remains, the Cro-Magnon, are identical with modern-day humans. Therefore all "Neandertal developments" are lapsed.
The current state of research: all remains found are either human or ape. (..) After countless fossil findings there is no link [betiween human and ape].It's hard to know where to start here. I'll give it a shot. If you define "human" to mean "identical to modern-day humans," then by yor definition anything that's close, but not quite identical, is "not human" and presumably therefore "ape." That seems to be what this person has done. We have a pretty darn good set of fossils showing gradual transitions from apes that are just starting to evolve walking upright (Lucy), all the way up through modern man. These fossils show a clear gradual evolution of human characteristics over the last 4 million years or so.

And the sentence " Therefore all 'Neandertal developments' are lapsed." - what does that mean? Does the author not realize that the Neanderthal is a side-branch of our evolutionary tree, one which died out?

[The Don]

As has been mentioned many times before each "new " missing link discovered just throws up another pair of missing links to be found. The best example of evolutution in action through the fossil record I have read about recently was from (the late and sadly lamented) Stephen J. Gould where he discusses the evolution of whales from land based animals

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0517888246/103-0767312-1335050?v=glance

[Rob Lister]

Seems to me the professor is in a no win situation. If you disregard evolution in favor of creation, you end up right back where you started -- evolution -- because the creator must have somehow 'evolved' to create. Therefore, even if you accept creation as the manner by which we 'actually' came into existance, evolution remains the only non-circular argument for our existance. That's not to say that another might some day emerge, but if it does, I suspect it will emerge as a result of evolutionary science.

[Chaos]

First, thank you for all the answers. This will certainly help.

Benguin
He's not just trying to get you to think critically by presenting flawed arguments from apparently authorative sources is he?

I don´t think so. He´s giving authoritative sources all the time. Since you cannot do experiments in Economics (even less so at university), all you can turn to is deductive logic and authoritative arguments - and this paper demolishes deductive logic.

Later on, the paper also quotes Max Planck (I´ll paraphrase it here)
"There is no intellect in the universe, but since there must be intelligence at work in its creation, this is a proof of the existence of god."

CurtC
And the sentence " Therefore all 'Neandertal developments' are lapsed." - what does that mean? Does the author not realize that the Neanderthal is a side-branch of our evolutionary tree, one which died out?

I admit "lapsed" was a bad translation. Never trust an online dictionary. The sentence means that these developments are unimportant or inconsequential...whatever THAT is supposed to mean...

[Wrath of the Swarm]

Bah. Yet another person in a pseudoscientific field that thinks truth is determined by authority and authority is determined arbitrarily.

[ppnl]

Originally posted by Brian the Snail




Here's an analogy. There's been a murder committed. There are no witnesses. However, a suspect is arrested, and it is found that his fingerprints match those on the murder weapon found near the scene, and there's a DNA match to other blood found on the scene.

However according to the reasoning of the professor, there is no evidence linking the suspect to the murder, and therefore he should be set free.

What's wrong with this picture?






So what are you saying? That O.J. was guilty?!?:D

[Brian the Snail]

Originally posted by Chaos

I don´t think so. He´s giving authoritative sources all the time. Since you cannot do experiments in Economics (even less so at university), all you can turn to is deductive logic and authoritative arguments - and this paper demolishes deductive logic.

I thought that it was addressing induction, not deduction. Unless I misunderstood your original post?

Later on, the paper also quotes Max Planck (I´ll paraphrase it here)
"There is no intellect in the universe, but since there must be intelligence at work in its creation, this is a proof of the existence of god."

It sounds very much like your professor is trying to preach his religious views. It all seems rather strange anyway (and nothing at all to do with economics).

[Chaos]

Originally posted by Brian the Snail


I thought that it was addressing induction, not deduction. Unless I misunderstood your original post?



It sounds very much like your professor is trying to preach his religious views. It all seems rather strange anyway (and nothing at all to do with economics).

Sorry, I meant inductive. Have mercy, please, it´s 8 PM and I have just survived 10 hours in lectures.


I´m puzzled too why he chose evolution/creation as an example. He is drawing a lot of analogies between economics and natural sciences anyway...

[Martin]

Originally posted by Chaos
I´m puzzled too why he chose evolution/creation as an exampleBecause he's an idiot?

[pupdog]

Both are belief systems. Nobody was there, there are no witnesses; everything beyond an age of 3000 is pure speculation.
This assertion is flat-out false. Unless you believe in the Ultimate Coverup ("God made it look old so we would feel right at home.") And when Creationists refer to the seemingly anomalous radioactive date, they don't mention that, considering what was sampled, the date is what would be expected.

A good printed anthology of the philosophy of Intelligent-Design Creationism, with materials from the ID Creationists themselves, as well as criticism from real scientists, is Robert Pennock's "Intelligent Design Creationism and Its Critics."

It's not about some competing scientific viewpoint; it's about bringing back a Medieval worldview, one that is consistant with a particular sect's fundamentalist religious beliefs. Does their way of thinking help us to understand the natural world better than the scientific method? Can their "theocratic science" produce more efficient photovoltaics, or a more disease-resistant barley?

[Eos of the Eons]

Why do creationuts have to pick on evolution so much? It is not in any way used to explain the 'origins' of life. That is biogenesis (sp?). So what if the earth is older than they thought? So what if dinos were around before humans? Why do they have to be so darn defensive and keep on making up ridiculous arguments?

If you cannot incorporate new knowledge into something, then that thing is just an obstacle to learning. It is a pillar of ignorance, and a pile of dumb.

It's like believing all illness is caused by some flaw in your 'energy', and ignoring the fact that the body actually has an immune system that fights microbes-since that goes against that energy belief.

Roadblock. Some people would rather ram their heads into it than get over it.

[pupdog]

So what if the earth is older than they thought? So what if dinos were around before humans? Why do they have to be so darn defensive and keep on making up ridiculous arguments?
Because--Science is the Devil's laboratory.

[Chaos]

*bump*

I am composing an E-Mail to the professor about these papers.

To summarize it:


The paper said evolution and creation science are equivalent. This is wrong, because:

- evolution is based on findings in nature, both from fossils and living organisms, while creationism is based on a several-thousand-years-old legend of unknown origin.
- there is lots of evidence for evolution, even though it is not complete; except the book of Genesis (see first point) there is no evidence for creationism
- scientists "believing" in evolution have tried and still try to falsify their theory; creationists never do that, but instead snipe at evolution
- evolution theory has changed since the days of Darwin, as it has been improved and modified - because in science, theories are modified to fit the facts; creationists tend to ignore, select and twist facts to fit their theory

The quote from Arthur Keith is a fabrication (source: ...)

The statement about dating rocks is not correct (source: ...)

The statement that "evolutionists believe that the universe, humans, animals and plants came into existence by pure chance" is wrong. (explanation...)

Anything that you think I missed? Anything I should add?

[Eos of the Eons]

Hmm, wonder if you have to prove any points of the findings in nature. That would be quite in depth.

What are the repercussions of sending the email? Hopefully just learning on the professor's end, but the professor may just get defensive instead.

Any chances he can fired if he has a temper tantrum :)

What educational institution is that? To be trying to poo poo evolution like that?

[Chaos]

Well I don´t know what the repercussion will be.
Maybe he just didn´t know better than writing that and is pleased that one of his students (1) knows better and (2) cares enough to correct him.
Maybe he really is a creationist, and will either write me off as "just another narrow-minded skeptic" (I couldn´t care less) or put me on his "black list" (which I would mind).
Or maybe this will spark a longer exchange. On one hand, it can´t hurt to show that I´m not just passively consuming what I am told; it´s difficult enough to stick out of a mass of 600 students this year, an in a positive way, too. On the other, I´m not that eager to get on a professor´s bad side within three weeks of starting to study.

The professor is a very smart guy. Studied philosophy, mathematics and economy - the latter in Cambridge. Has been teaching in Ed knows how many universities all over the world, in several languages. Has been - I heard it rumored - nominated for the Nobel Prize at one time. He´s considered brilliant, but an outsider, perhaps because of his teaching style. He focuses on the historical side of microeconomics instead of on the maths. I´m not sure if the other professors teach scientific theory (or what passes for it) in the Micro lecture.

[Yahweh]

Two coexisting paradigms:
Evolution theory and creation history

Both are belief systems. Nobody was there, there are no witnesses; everything beyond an age of 3000 is pure speculation.
I would very much hope no one would take a claim like that seriously. That kind of reasoning is a form of very irresponsible intellectual anarchy.

The claim might have some amount of credence if there existed no traces from the past older than 3000 years.


Nothing is achieved when trying to call Evolution and Creationism "belief systems" or say they require some amount of faith to believe.

There are 2 types of faith:

1. Blind Faith
2. And Evidenced Faith

The only thing Blind Faith requires is blind belief. Blind Faith can never be used to assert positive belief or disbelief, it is perfectly justifyable for "personal belief". It doesnt mean anything in terms of determining what is "true" or "untrue".

Evidenced Faith requires evidence. A good logical analysis of your observations or objective testable data makes for perfectly fine evidence.

However, when you assert a positive claim that requires evidence, but the Evidenced Faith is contradicted by currently existing evidence, you must reject the faith. Refusing to do so, and that Evidenced Faith becomes labeled with a term called "Willful Ignorance".

I often find using the "Blind Faith vs. Evidenced Faith" analogy is good for defeating arguments that sound like "Evolution requires just as much faith as Creationism". And that is absolutely correct, however readers of those kinds of arguments implicitly assume the faith being referred to is blind faith, but that is not the case. Evolution requires Evidenced Faith (or science), and I would hold Creationism to the same standards of Evidenced Faith. No evidence for Creationism, then Creationism must be abandoned.

200-year-old vulcanic rock has been dated as being 2 billion years old. The long periods of time (which evolution needs, or the construction of hypotheses collapses?) are purely speculative.
See TalkOrigins (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html#CD0). The "dating is inaccurate" claims are just silly.

That 200-year-old rock is likely contaminated. Geochronologists are very well aware of the dangers of contamination, and they take many precautions against using such samples (i.e. dont use weathered rocks is a given).

The evolutionist Arthur Keith claims:
Evolution cannot be proven. We believe in in because the alternative would be an act of creaion by god, and that is unthinkable.
As noted above, that quote is just silly.

The computer scientist Werner Gitt says - paraphrased -:
Wherever we find Codes, Structure and Planning, we know from experience there there must be intelligence at work...there is no information by chance.
If this is another misquote, it doesnt matter at the moment. Most Creationists make very similar claims to this.

Not only is "structure and planning" a purely subjective notion, the word "information" vaguely defined, I would think Natural Selection (The Blind Watchmaker) predicts development over time. The problem arises when Creationists falsely assume evolution's blind design is pre-planned.

Here is an example I think works perfectly for refuting "there is structure and order, must be intelligent design" arguments:

A stream rushes down a dry river bed. As the stream runs by, it shifts the position of the rocks on the bed. The rocks of larger size are found in water where the steam moves the fastest, and an even grade of rocks (from largest to smallest) forms as the velocity of the water slows more and more. The completely meaningless, reasonless, rhymeless, unintelligent movement of water has sorted a bed of rocks with careful precision.

(Anecdote: I heard a Creationist respond to that with "how do we define 'sorted', thats subjective", and the irony from the statement put a bounce in my step for the rest of the day.)

The oldest human remains, the Cro-Magnon, are identical with modern-day humans. Therefore all "Neandertal developments" are lapsed.
Bwahahahahaaa!! :D

That is silliness if I've ever heard it.

Cro-Magnon man is a modern human. Its called Cro-Magnon Man because it was found in a cave in Cro-Magnon, France. The word "Cro-Magnon" is not species name.

Cro-Magnon Man is about 35 - 15 thousand years old.

According to Guinness World Records (http://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/index.asp?id=58729), the oldest modern human remains are about 160,000 years old.

ABCNews (http://abcnews.go.com/sections/scitech/DailyNews/hominid020710.html) reports the oldest hominid remains found are about 6.7 million years old.

Furthermore, its unlikely Neaderthals are ancestors of humans at all.

More human evolution research (http://www.versiontech.com/origins/research/research_cat.asp?category_id=14) if needed.

The current state of research: all remains found are either human or ape. (..) After countless fossil findings there is no link [betiween human and ape].
Homo habilus is our most recent ancestor.

The tutor's above statement is a perfect demonstration that she has never made an attempt at outside reading. Although there a few missing pieces, the evolution of humans is largely complete.

Although Wikipedia information should be taken with a grain of salt, this human evolution article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution) is fairly accurate (it makes a B+ effort grade for providing a good introduction to human evolution, by far not a relevant source to provide a great deal of the known information on evolution). Go to the library, pick up any decent book titled "Human Evolution", flip to a page with nice tree chart, and ask the tutor to read a book sometime.

[Benguin]

The Werner Gitt quote is just plain wrong, employs circular logic.

Also the guy is clearly biased and not an authority on anything but computer science, and on this wrong with that comment too.

[Chaos]

Thanks, Yahweh.

FYI, it was homo habilis - "the skilled man".
We are homo sapiens - "the wise man".

[Jeepers]

Can someone explain how evolution can be scientifically valid in the face of the science of genetics? Do genes take in information about a species not needing an appendage or needing a different one and little by little producing offspring with new features? This might be more readily discussed using the 'NOT needed an appendage or feature', so we can skip the arguement of survival of the fittest for new features that were actually found to be useful after a single mishap in an offspring (which then in turn would then have to be a dominant gene mutation rather than a recessive). Eh...sorry for the run on sentence.

Jeepers

[Martin]

Originally posted by Jeepers
Do genes take in information about a species not needing an appendage or needing a different one and little by little producing offspring with new features?Random mutations ensure that offspring are produced with slight differences to their parents. This happens entirely regardless of need. Then, since there is only a finite supply of resources, those offspring whose mutations are beneficial outcompete their disadvantaged brethren, increasing their chances of survival. Increased chance of survival means increased chance of reproduction, and so the successful mutations propogate.

To sum it up as simply as I can: random mutations provide variation, natural selection picks out the successful varieties. Repeat for 4 billion years...

[Eos of the Eons]

Originally posted by Jeepers
Can someone explain how evolution can be scientifically valid in the face of the science of genetics? Do genes take in information about a species not needing an appendage or needing a different one and little by little producing offspring with new features? This might be more readily discussed using the 'NOT needed an appendage or feature', so we can skip the arguement of survival of the fittest for new features that were actually found to be useful after a single mishap in an offspring (which then in turn would then have to be a dominant gene mutation rather than a recessive). Eh...sorry for the run on sentence.

Jeepers


Martin sums it up well, I just don't know if it will make sense if you don't understand genetics that well.

With genes you are born with is all the information to build you. This combination was arrived at through a bazillion years of evolution, and does not contain dna that will be selected for making you with OR without an arm. If you are born without an arm because of a genetic mutation, and that mutation was the kind that can be passed on in your making of sperm or egg dna, then it will be passed on if you successfully reproduce. That means there may have been a benefit to having only one arm.

That usually is not the case though. If you were born thousands of years ago like that, you probably wouldn't have gotten a mate unless you had some other overwhelmingly beneficial attribute to make up for it (very smart or whatever). So you do not pass on the gene.

In the cases where mutations do get passed on, it takes a lot of mutations selected for to get to the point where you are now a new species. That is why it takes so long to "evolve" It also matters when the mutation happens and where. It may not be beneficial in one place, but may be in another. Thus you have all these different things going on and you end up with a bunch of organisms with different attributes. Just as with selective breeding, you start seeing groups with strong similar attributes.


You at one time can see there were a bunch of large reptiles on the planet. Well, the planet changed, and not all the reptiles had attributes soon enough to allow them to survive the kind of changes that happened. Smaller reptiles did survive, and so did mammals who were just emerging on the scene. Being big was no longer a plus in order to beat out the competion for food and shelter.

These extreme changes are what drives evolution. If life could not cope with the changes via evolution, then life would cease to exist. If there were no changes at all, then there wouldn't be much evolution going on, just the mutation driven evolution.

There is mutation driven evolution (mandatory) and the trait driven evolution where certain traits at a certain time and place will cause big evolutionary jumps when there is a change in environment. Microevolution leading to macroevolution. Small changes leading to a big overall change from one point in time to another.

It is all very complicated, and I do hope you have more questions after reading all the posts here.

[Dragon]

Another way of looking at it is that mutation "tops up" the normal variation in a population.

BTW, Jeepers the answer to this question is a resounding "No".
Do genes take in information about a species not needing an appendage or needing a different one and little by little producing offspring with new features?
There is no known mechanism for genes taking in information - the relationship between a gene and an organism is one-way: - Genes produce organisms. The view that acquired characteristics can be inherited is normally associated with Lamark, a contemporary of Darwin. Lamarkism was followed by the Soviet biologist Lysenko who held sway in the Stalin era. The consequences for Soviet biology and agriculture were disastrous.

[Jeepers]

Originally posted by Martin
Random mutations ensure that offspring are produced with slight differences to their parents. This happens entirely regardless of need.

I knew that...but therein lies my question (btw, thanks Eos for your response too.)
I guess I am looking at it from a dominant and recessive type gene mutation viewpoint. I can easily see how if a dominant gene mutates and makes a particular critter fitter to survive, that they would automatically pass it on to their offspring.
I am just trying to figure out the probability of say one critter getting a recessive gene mutation and then hooking up with another critter (of the same species i assume) with the exact same mutation and then producing little critters with double recessive. . . then I guess the little buggers could interbreed and propagate the trait. It's the first unlikely chance encounter I am wondering about. Unless I missed something in your explanations.

Jeepers

[Jeepers]

Originally posted by Dragon
Another way of looking at it is that mutation "tops up" the normal variation in a population.

BTW, Jeepers the answer to this question is a resounding "No".

There is no known mechanism for genes taking in information - the relationship between a gene and an organism is one-way: - Genes produce organisms. The view that acquired characteristics can be inherited is normally associated with Lamark, a contemporary of Darwin. Lamarkism was followed by the Soviet biologist Lysenko who held sway in the Stalin era. The consequences for Soviet biology and agriculture were disastrous.
Hey, you posted while I was replying to Eos and Martin, so I am not ignoring you. I guess that question of mine about genes taking in information wasmild sarcasm...because I didn't think so, but I've heard some who believe in evolution describe it like that. Sort of an fable type of thing I guess. (like how the elephant got its long trunk). Maybe they don't know how to explain it so they take the fairy tale approach. But my other ? on dominant and recessive genes is valid I think.

Jeepers

[Zombified]

If a mutation is recessive and remains unexpressed in a particular individual, it is neutral with regards to fitness and will, in general, not be selected against. The individual may pass the mutation on to 50% of its offspring where it may be expressed or not, depending on whether the correspond gene from the other parent is dominant or not. Those descendants would continue to pass the trait on. As long as that subset of individuals is not differentially selected against, there's no reason to believe the trait would die out.

Even if you require the gene meet an exact duplicate of itself in order to be expressed, this could happen. A recessive mutation trait could spread unexpressed in some fraction of the original mutant's descendants for a few generations. If two descendants of the original organism mate, their offspring might finally express the trait (25% of the time if both have the recessive trait). Selection would then be able to act on that individual: the trait would increase or decrease the fitness of that individual relative to others in the same environment, and therefore increase or decrease its chances of successfully breeding.

[geni]

Originally posted by Jeepers
I am just trying to figure out the probability of say one critter getting a recessive gene mutation and then hooking up with another critter (of the same species i assume) with the exact same mutation and then producing little critters with double recessive. . . then I guess the little buggers could interbreed and propagate the trait. It's the first unlikely chance encounter I am wondering about. Unless I missed something in your explanations.

Jeepers

Assuming that the recesive version doesn't give any disadvantages then what will happen is that at least initialy the gene will get spred or not spred by random chance. However once it has reached even a relitly low level double recesives will start to appear and if this recesive mutation gives an advantge these double rescives will start to dominate the population.

[geni]

Originally posted by Jeepers

but I've heard some who believe in evolution describe it like that.

Believe in evolution?

[Jeepers]

Holy Krap! I'm trying to get off my computer and I keep getting message pop-ups that there's been another new reply on any one of a number of topics. It's Sunday! Don't you people have to to church or anything? (Just playing with ya!). :D

Jeepers

[Eos of the Eons]

Originally posted by Jeepers


I knew that...but therein lies my question (btw, thanks Eos for your response too.)
I guess I am looking at it from a dominant and recessive type gene mutation viewpoint. I can easily see how if a dominant gene mutates and makes a particular critter fitter to survive, that they would automatically pass it on to their offspring.
I am just trying to figure out the probability of say one critter getting a recessive gene mutation and then hooking up with another critter (of the same species i assume) with the exact same mutation and then producing little critters with double recessive. . . then I guess the little buggers could interbreed and propagate the trait. It's the first unlikely chance encounter I am wondering about. Unless I missed something in your explanations.

Jeepers


You're welcome :)

Hmmm. This is getting into stats, where I am weak. I have done those charts in genetics classes eons ago. There we getting homozygous, heterozygous, P generation, F1 and F2 generations, phenotype and genotype.
This is where my memory gets fuzzy.

Basically though, we do see genes expressed in males that are abnormal because they don't have the second x chromosome to make up for any problems in the other x chromosome. Fragile X syndrome is more common in males because of this. Haemophilia (sp?) is the same sort of example. The women become carriers because they don't express the problem. This allows the mutation to be moved on-the women are able to make it to adulthood and pass it on.

Now if it were a beneficial trait, the males would survive to pass it on as well, and the gene would become more prevalent in the gene pools. Then you would see women expressing them as well.

I hope that helps.

[geni]

It's monday here.

[Eos of the Eons]

Terms to look up

Genotype, phenotype

Dominant, recessive, incomplete dominance, dihybrid cross

Epistasis, Polygenic, Pleiotropy, mulltiple alleles, intermediate inheritance

Consanguinity-why you don't marry relatives.

White cross eyed tigers are homozygous for a recessive allele that causes both albino coloration and the eye problem.

[Jeepers]

Originally posted by geni


Believe in evolution?

Follow evolution? Teach evolution? (except if someone teaches it...they arent' giving that story, except maybe in elementary school). I bailed out of my Biology Major in college just before Zoology and Evolution classes. I don't know how else to put it.
Jeepers

[geni]

Originally posted by Eos of the Eons
Terms to look up

Genotype, phenotype

Dominant, recessive, incomplete dominance, dihybrid cross

Epistasis, Polygenic, Pleiotropy, mulltiple alleles, intermediate inheritance

Consanguinity-why you don't marry relatives.

White cross eyed tigers are homozygous for a recessive allele that causes both albino coloration and the eye problem.

Stop it your giving me flashbacks to A level biology

[Zombified]

Originally posted by Eos of the Eons
Basically though, we do see genes expressed in males that are abnormal because they don't have the second x chromosome to make up for any problems in the other x chromosome. Fragile X.... Haemophilia.... The women become carriers because they don't express the problem.Not to mention color blindness, which affects 10% of men to some degree.

Remember that next time you wonder how he could possibly think that shirt goes with those pants...

[Eos of the Eons]

Originally posted by Jeepers


Follow evolution? Teach evolution? (except if someone teaches it...they arent' giving that story, except maybe in elementary school). I bailed out of my Biology Major in college just before Zoology and Evolution classes. I don't know how else to put it.
Jeepers

Learned evolution, know how it works. It's too bad you bailed. It's extremely interesting and zoology makes sense when you study them both together. Even botany does. Follow from single strands of cells type plants to things like volvox. Go through the evolution to the notochord and continue on until you see an actual spinal column. Fascinating.

http://www.members.shaw.ca/eostory/philosophical.html

[Eos of the Eons]

Originally posted by geni


Stop it your giving me flashbacks to A level biology

That's as far as I got in college :D Just enough to understand a few things. If I was rich I would have some kind of degree in biology.

Flashbacks are good for you :p :D

[geni]

Originally posted by Eos of the Eons
Flashbacks are good for you :p :D

No they are not. Do you want me to post some of my disection photos to prove it?

[Zombified]

Ick. I am suddenly reminded of why I majored in physics.

[Eos of the Eons]

Originally posted by geni


No they are not. Do you want me to post some of my disection photos to prove it?

Cool! I loved zoology labs. This one time, in lab class, I got this cat who had a bazillion round worms throughout the digestive system. They took it away to get autoclaved. While I waited for my next dead cat, a classmate discvoverd his cat had been pregnant at death. We got to see the little kittens the size of my baby fingernail lining the uterus (not like a human uterus at all). So I got my fat fresh cat that had all this funky brown stuff all through its systems. Apparently it had hemorraged somewhere.

I didn't save any picture though, so will just have to bask in the memories :D

[pupdog]

And don't forget, besides mutations, evolution has been affected by gene duplication, lateral gene transfers, and transform of symbiotic critters into organelles (plastids & mitochondria).

[BillHoyt]

Chaos,

If y'all will permit me to re-frame the discussion here^*, what on earth is this professor doing subjecting you to creationist propaganda? Not only is it specious (as has been pointed out), but it is far afield from economics.

Is it too late for you to switch sections of this class and to file a formal protest with the chair of the economics department or with the dean? If so, you may want to tough it out, do your best, await your grade and then file formal protests.

He should teach economics, not lies about biology. If he wishes to test his biology ideas, let him wear catchers garb and give a colloquium over in bio. Hope he likes to make marinara; he'll have plenty of tomatos when he's done.


_____
^* Which discussion, btw, should properly focus more on population or theoretical population genetics.

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by Jeepers
Holy Krap! I'm trying to get off my computer and I keep getting message pop-ups that there's been another new reply on any one of a number of topics. It's Sunday! Don't you people have to to church or anything? (Just playing with ya!). :D

Jeepers
I recommend you to go Edit Options (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/member.php?s=&action=editoptions) and change "Use 'Email Notification' by default?" to No.

(And no, we have nothing better to invest our lives into... :) )

[Chaos]

Next update:

I asked my tutor about the papers this morning. The said the evolution/creation example was his idea.

As you might guess, a discussion ensued. We spent about 90 minutes at it before having to call it a day, because lunchtime was already running short. Round two will be fought at the same time next monday.
He gave me some reading recommendations, and I gave him the URL of talkorigins and this forum.
(By the way, if you are reading this, my request stands - register and discuss with us. If you think discussing with me was fun, try talking with the rest of the people... :))

So, no results yet; I guess we were just testing each other´s defenses :D I haven´t had such a good time for weeks.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Chaos
Next update:

I asked my tutor about the papers this morning. The said the evolution/creation example was his idea.

As you might guess, a discussion ensued. We spent about 90 minutes at it before having to call it a day, because lunchtime was already running short. Round two will be fought at the same time next monday.
He gave me some reading recommendations, and I gave him the URL of talkorigins and this forum.
(By the way, if you are reading this, my request stands - register and discuss with us. If you think discussing with me was fun, try talking with the rest of the people... :))

So, no results yet; I guess we were just testing each other´s defenses :D I haven´t had such a good time for weeks.

I must've missed something. The tutor was responsible for this? Done with or without the profs' knowledge?

[Chaos]

Originally posted by BillHoyt


I must've missed something. The tutor was responsible for this? Done with or without the profs' knowledge?

Well if I understood him correctly, the prof asked him to give an example of competing - and, according to the theory, equivalent - scientific theories. The tutor chose evolution vs. creation.

[Eos of the Eons]

Originally posted by Chaos


Well if I understood him correctly, the prof asked him to give an example of competing - and, according to the theory, equivalent - scientific theories. The tutor chose evolution vs. creation.


Creation is not a scientific theory, and never was, and never was meant to be.

Does the professor know the tutor thinks this way? Maybe the tutor is not fit for the job :p

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Chaos


Well if I understood him correctly, the prof asked him to give an example of competing - and, according to the theory, equivalent - scientific theories. The tutor chose evolution vs. creation.

And the prof let him? BTW, this whole thing sounds very pomo to me.

[Chaos]

Update:
I finally had the chance to talk with the professor. He says he was not aware of what the tutor had included in the papers, and he does in no way agree with creationists theories.

[Eos of the Eons]

So, is the tutor gonna get a spanking?

[Chaos]

So, is the tutor gonna get a spanking?

No idea. IIRC he´ll leave the university anyway by the end of this semester, so won´t do a tutorial again; I´m not sure if there is going to be any (real or figurative) spanking. I´d like to hear him retract that part of the papers, though.

[tracer]

Originally posted by Chaos
Well if I understood him correctly, the prof asked him to give an example of competing - and, according to the theory, equivalent - scientific theories. The tutor chose evolution vs. creation.
Too bad he didn't choose conservation-of-energy vs. phlogiston. ;)

[Art Vandelay]

"Evolution cannot be proven. We believe in in because the alternative would be an act of creaion by god, and that is unthinkable."

Translation: evolutionists only believe in it because they hate God. So much for objectivity.

Speaking of translation, you gave the impression that the original discussion wasn't in English. Is that correct?

[Chaos]

Originally posted by Art Vandelay
Speaking of translation, you gave the impression that the original discussion wasn't in English. Is that correct?

Yes. I´m studying in Germany (Frankfurt, to be exact), and it is customary here to have all lectures and tutorials (except Business English, of course) in German. Local customs and traditions, you know? ;)

[Kumar]

Energy can be a 'creation' wheras matters>atoms>molecules>humans etc. should be an 'evolution. :)

[Zep]

Originally posted by Kumar
Energy can be a 'creation' wheras matters>atoms>molecules>humans etc. should be an 'evolution. :) What? :confused:

[Kumar]

Zep, I just indicated the 'basic of basis' of this topic.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Kumar
Zep, I just indicated the basic of the basics of this topic.

No, Kumar, you just ejaculated spiritualistic bafflegab. Perhaps you'd care to try again, in English?

[Kumar]

Sorry, It was meant to be the 'basic of basis' not the' basic of basics'. It looks slight but a big differance. I edited accordingly.

Hello BillHoyt, thanks for a start to me even if it is 3%.
;)

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Kumar
Sorry, It was meant to be the 'basic of basis' not the' basic of basics'. It looks slight but a big differance. I edited accordingly.

Hello BillHoyt, thanks for a start to me even if it is 3%.
;)

Are you going to get back on topic here, Kumar? The topic was creation versus evolution. More specifically, it started with a poster's concerns about a teaching aid who took it upon himself to "witness" when he should have been teaching.

[Art Vandelay]

So the phrase "the Irrationalist Perception Theory" is an English -> German -> English translation?

Many universities here require students to learn a foreign language so that they can read foreign publications in their original language. I'd think that when discussing Hume, it wouldn't be all that uncommon for the students to read the original English, even in other countries.

Interesting to know that creationism isn't just an American phenomenon. My understanding is that you have much fewer fundamentalists.

Originally posted by Chaos
Yes. I´m studying in Germany (Frankfurt, to be exact), and it is customary here to have all lectures and tutorials (except Business English, of course) in German. Local customs and traditions, you know? ;)
Hmmm.... I'd be rather suspicious of university where the faculty can't even speak English. :p

Have you read Huckleberry Finn? There's a part where someone is trying to teack him French, and he asks why he would need to know it. When told that people in France speak it, he in turn asks why everyone in France goes to the trouble of learning French instead of just speaking English.

[Chaos]

Well, AFAIK the teaching staff (and most of the students) speak English pretty well, but lectures and tutorials are in German. Some of the texts in the Microeconomics reader are English, though.


Well, we have a small but adamant core of fundies. Their views are an extreme fringe opinion, though - nothing like how things are in the US. But if you looked carefully, I think you will find a handfull of creationists everywhere.