Yes, DNA is an amazing thing. I am not disputing what you are saying below.
What I am disputing is your attribution of it to Darwinian Evolution.
I will be explaining the difference between Mircroevolution (Adaptation) vs.
Macroevolution (Darwinian Evolution). Maybe after I explain it, the difference
will be clearer and I would have answered your contention below.
Jojo
----- Original Message -----
From: Axil Axil
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Saturday, August 04, 2012 6:44 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:The Fallacies of Darwinian Evolution - Basic Definitions
Human DNA holds far more capacity to adapt then can be expressed in any given
individual. This DNA is like a large toolkit, where tools can lay dormant until
needed.
For example, in the battle against Aids, scientists have acquired what looks
like a potent new weapon. HIV, the virus that causes Aids, doesn’t infect
everybody. Some people are simply born immune.
It’s all down to their particular genetic make-up and researchers are
beginning to understand where that genetic protection comes from.
Stephen O’Brien from the US National Cancer Institute has discovered that a
mutant form of one particular gene, called CCR5, confers protection against
HIV.
That same gene variant may well have arisen in Europe, as a direct response
to the Black Death.
Genetic distribution
The idea comes from a careful analysis of where in the world this particular
gene variant shows up.
According to the researchers the mutation is absent in Africa and throughout
East Asian populations and evident in varying amounts across Europe. O’Brien
explains:
‘It was present as high as 15% in Scandinavia; it was less in Europe, about
10% in France, Germany and England. Further south it was 5% and in Saudi Arabia
and Sub-Saharan Africa it was 0%.’
Believing that this ‘genetic drift’ was probably not random, the scientists
looked to their history books to find out when this mutation was last prevalent
in human history and what conditions may have favoured it.
The Black Death
Using the tools of molecular population genetics to identify exactly when the
allele was last in force, the researchers were able to estimate that the gene
variant was under a strong selection advantage approximately 700 years ago.
This period coincided with the period in history when bubonic plague was
sweeping through Europe.
The Black Death, as it was known, started in Italy in 1347 and during the
next three years it moved across Europe, killing perhaps as many as
three-quarters of the people it infected.
The disease itself is thought to be bubonic plague, which is caused by a
bacterium carried on the backs of rats. It can also be passed directly from
human to human, which can result in death occurring within three days.
The Black Death was so named as sufferers displayed a range of symptoms
including the lymph nodes swelling with pus and breaking the blood vessels
under the skin. This caused internal bleeding and turned the skin black.
This outbreak of the Black Death lasted for over 300 years, killing at least
25 million people until it disappeared in 1670. However bubonic plague is a
disease that still shows up every year in thousands of cases throughout Africa,
Asia and the Americas.
Bacterial similarities
Even through the researchers can not be certain that bubonic plague drove the
mutated gene to such a high level, the study has unearthed some intriguing
similarities between Aids and the Black Death. O’Brien explains:
‘There are hundreds of different tissues that viruses or bacteria can infect.
Both HIV and yersinia pestis, the bacteria that causes Black Death,
interestingly attack exactly the same tissues.’
‘The fact that precisely the same cells are the targets of this virus, the
fact that the timing of this mutation is exactly when there was Black Death
maybe indirect, but I think that they are telling coincidences that make the
Black Death the most likely candidate for selective pressure.’
O’Brien now plans to work with scientists in Paris to establish if the
presence of CCR5 in mice will lead them to be resistant to plague infection.
Meanwhile it is hoped that this research could have implications for new
approaches to HIV- Aids treatments. Which could be good news for those in areas
of the world, such as Africa, where levels of CCR5 in its mutant form are known
to be low.
On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 6:11 PM, Jojo Jaro <jth...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Yes, our genone (DNA) is complex, such that it is impossible to explain its
existence as a series of random accumulations of minute changes.
If anything, the presence of Information within our DNA should be enough to
totally discredit Darwinian Evolution.
Jojo
----- Original Message -----
From: Axil Axil
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Saturday, August 04, 2012 1:17 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:The Fallacies of Darwinian Evolution - Basic Definitions
The genome of an organism is more complex and adaptive then the
creationist’s arguments assume and are embodied in the genetic concept of
Epigenesis.
Though the theory seems an obvious fact to us in today's genetic age,
however, the theory was not given much credence in former times because of the
dominance for many centuries of Creationist theories of life's origins.
In the same way that a stem cell can form many cell types: skin, heart,
nerve… and so on, so an organism can adapt to its environment through
epigenetic expression.
On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 12:29 PM, Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com> wrote:
Darwinian Evolution presupposes that the mutation or the change is
small, and the mutation process in passed down only via the mechanism of
natural selection. In other words, a new trait must not be so complex and the
change so huge as to cause people to suspect that there might be some directed
process, or an Intelligence causing the change; other than natural selection
that would cause the change.
Evolution says that it is impossible to evolve a complex organ like a
fully developed human eye in a single generation. The development of a complex
organ must take place slowly, one minor change at a time, one minor change per
generation. This also implies that the minor changes must be commulative, or
additive. One small minor change within each generation that adds up
generation after generation until it becomes an organ as complex as an eye.
I reject the basis of your argument. The above is an archaic
assumption as follows.
Punctuated equilibrium
Punctuated equilibrium (also called punctuated equilibria) is a theory
in evolutionary biology which proposes that most species will exhibit little
net evolutionary change for most of their geological history, remaining in an
extended state called stasis. When significant evolutionary change occurs, the
theory proposes that it is generally restricted to rare and geologically rapid
events of branching speciation called cladogenesis. Cladogenesis is the process
by which a species splits into two distinct species, rather than one species
gradually transforming into another.
Punctuated equilibrium is commonly contrasted against the theory of
phyletic gradualism, which states that evolution generally occurs uniformly and
by the steady and gradual transformation of whole lineages (called anagenesis).
In this view, evolution is seen as generally smooth and continuous.
In 1972, paleontologists Niles Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould published
a landmark paper developing this theory and called it punctuated equilibria.
Their paper built upon Ernst Mayr's theory of geographic speciation, I. Michael
Lerner's theories of developmental and genetic homeostasis,[4] as well as their
own empirical research. Eldredge and Gould proposed that the degree of
gradualism commonly attributed to Charles Darwin is virtually nonexistent in
the fossil record, and that stasis dominates the history of most fossil species.
On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 8:27 AM, Jojo Jaro <jth...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Hello gang,
In honor of my bet with Terry, this is my first post on the Fallacies
of Darwinian Evolution. Before I continue, I would like to lay the ground
work and define a few basic terms that we will be using in my series of posts.
Hopefully, people read this post so that I do not have to redefine my terms
repeatedly. I do hope Jed engages me in a Debate between Darwinian Evolution
and Intelligent Design. Maybe I'll learn something. I hope that if you decide
to engage in this discussion, that you would keep the exchange civil. I will
not initiate an Ad hominem attack unless attacked first. Let's discuss your
ideas and why you absolutely believe in Darwinian Evolution and I'll discuss my
belief in Intelligent Design. But if you want to exchange insults, I can
surely accomodate you.
What is Darwinian Evolution?
Darwinian Evolution is the theory of evolution espoused by Charles
Darwin in his book "The Origin of Species". Later he wrote "The Descent of
Man" specifically to address man's evolution from lower life forms. The basic
Tenet of Darwinian Evolution is a random mutation process that results in
"features" that allow an individual animal or plant life to survive a stress in
its environment. When it survives, it passes down this "Trait" to its progeny
thereby allowing its progeny to successfully live in this new stressful
environment thereby passing this trait down to its progeny also. The trait
enables the individual to survive hence the term "Survival of the Fittest", or
"Natural Selection". Darwin then takes this idea of Natural Selection one step
further and hypothesizes that this natural selection process is the means by
which variouis species emerge. Hence species A mutates, survives, passes on
its traits, then after several generations. becomes another species B - hence
the term "The origin of Species". The nature or origin or mechanism of the
mutation was unknown to Darwin. DNA was not discovered in his lifetime.
Darwinian Evolution presupposes that the mutation or the change is
small, and the mutation process in passed down only via the mechanism of
natural selection. In other words, a new trait must not be so complex and the
change so huge as to cause people to suspect that there might be some directed
process, or an Intelligence causing the change; other than natural selection
that would cause the change. In other words, Darwinian Evolution says that it
is impossible to evolve a complex organ like a fully developed human eye in a
single generation. The development of a complex organ must take place slowly,
one minor change at a time, one minor change per generation. This also implies
that the minor changes must be commulative, or additive. One small minor
change within each generation that adds up generation after generation until it
becomes an organ as complex as an eye.
Darwinian Evolution implies the following:
1. The change must be small and minor and slow in an individual.
The mutation results in a small change or small feature. If the change is big,
there must be some other mechanism or directed Intelligence behind that change.
Darwin recognized this and said so in his book.
2. The change or the new trait or feature must confer to that
individual a survival advantage. Otherwise, that useful trait will simply die
with that individual. A trait that may be useful but does not confer a
survival advantage is a trait that does not result in natural selection hence
Darwinian Evolution is NOT in operation here.
3. The trait must not cause any impairment or susceptibility to the
individual. In other words, a trait that confer an increased survival
advantage but also causes an increased susceptibility to some other stress will
not result in natural selection. For example, a trait that results in an
individual to survive a drought in food must not make that same individual be
more susceptible to Cold weather. If it does, the chances of the trait being
sucessfully passed down commulatively generation after generation is minimized
and the survival of that individual will not be any better statistically
compared to another individual without that mutated trait.
4. The trait or change must be permanent. In other words, the
change must not revert back or disappear once the stress is removed. If it
does, it will not be additive and hence can not result in a complex organ like
an eye. This will result in natural selection only for a few generations and
then that advantage dissappears and other individuals can compete again which
will result in a dilution of that trait in the general population.
5. Each successive additive change must confer a survival advantage
each and every step until a complex organ results. To illustrate, lets say it
takes 5 steps to develop an eye. Change A, Change B, Change C, Change D and
Change E results in a fully developed eye. (I am using only 5 steps to
simplify the discussion. In reality, the steps required to develop a human eye
requires billions of steps.) Change A must confer a survival advantage to the
individual. An additive change B is added to change A that results in his
children having a survival advantage also. Change C is added and must also
confer a survival advantage to his grandchildren. Change D must also confer a
survival advantage to his great grandchildren and change E results in a fully
developed eye conferring a survival advantage also. Each additive change must
confer a survival advantage for natural selection to work. If only one step in
the chain does not confer a sruvival advantage, the entire series of changes
previous to the change could be lost when that individual does not outperform
the rest of the population. All the hard work and useful changes will simply be
diluted in the population again. Natural selection is broken and a complex
organ can not develop.
6. The evolution process occurs and operates over many generations.
An evolution or mutation that occurs in one individual is NOT Darwinian
Evolution, since no Natural selection is in operation.
7. The change or trait must not affect an individual's reproductive
ability. If there is no reproduction, there is no natural selection, hence no
Darwinian Evolution.
8. The change must have a random mechanism. If the cause of the
change is not random, that evolution is NOT Darwinian Evolution by definition.
9. Natural Selection is the only mechanism that will differentiate
one change from another change. In other words, within an individual we can
not say a change is useful or not, until it enables that individual to have a
survival advantage. Hence, natural selection operates between generations, not
within a single generation. There is not natural selection process within a
generation or within an individual. Natural selection can not be invoked
within a generation to explain what mutation is useful and what is not useful.
A process that operates within a generation is NOT natural selection. A
process that does not confer a survival advantage is NOT natural selection.
Survival is the criteria for natural selection. An individual has no mechanism
wherein it can decide which change to retain or to not retain. The change is
retained and acts only if the individual survives. I can not emphasize this
enough.
10. The change must enable the individual to "outsurvive" other
individuals in his group. It is not enough to merely allow the individual to
survive, but it must cause that individual to "outsurvive" others. If it is
not outsurviving other individuals, the change will merely get diluted in the
gene pool and lost.
In the next post, I will define the difference between Microevolution
(aka Adaptation) and Macroevolution (aka Darwinian Evolution).
Enjoy
Jojo
