h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

All of the points raised in this article were raised by Josh in the forum Creationism vs Evolution. There were all logically answered and Josh did not try to even argue them.

For starters you get "Evolution" and "Darwinism" mixed up from the start. Darwin only saw natural selection. He didn't know about genetic drift, gene flow, genetic mutation or even genes! Today's theory of evolution encompasses far more that you criticise. Creationists seem to think that "origin of the species.." is the final word on evolution. It was merely the beginning. It's just that creationist dogma has concentrated on one man for 150 years while the rest of the planet just got on with thinking.

The fossil record:
Evolution is not a smooth continual change. The fossil record and the species around us today proves that. "Punctuated Equilibrium" describes this phenomenon, and it basically goes like this: Species occupy an evolutionary niche in the ecology. As most of the ecology is unchanging most of the time, so are most of the species. Then comes along some ecological change (an ice-age, earthquake, comet-strike, flood, whatever) and the species change and adapt to fit the new opportunities around them.

What "Badlands"??? Can you give me a reference to this research please Josh? "100,000 years, is the time alloted by Darwinists as the time it takes for a mutation the envelope a population, creating a chronospecies." That is meaningless and is simply incorrect. What on Earth is a chronospecies??? You do not understand.

Peppered moths:
Oh, I have tried Josh. If you cannot bring yourself to believe that soot existed during the industrial revolution when the major fuel being burned was coal, then there is no hope for you. Read my other posts to see what I think, I can't be arsed anymore.

Java Man:
I don't know where you come up with this stuff from, but Java Man is Homo Erectus. A skull cap, and other bones were found. This is another example of creationists trying to use examples from the 1800's to disprove a modern, dynamic theory.

Galapogas finches:
It sounds like you misunderstood. They do not increase after a little drizzle. He is referring to an entire season where it has rained more. Beaks don't grow and shrink because of a downpour.

Fauna (another 19th C term) Characteristics:
The peacock: Another misunderstanding of evolution. Ok, *sigh*. The female peacocks choose the males based upon who has the best plumage right? The better the males plumage the more sexually sucsessful he is. Therefore his genes will be more likely to be passed on. The logic is so, so simple. I'm suprised you cannot grasp it.

The eye: The chances of the eye coming together at once is impossible i agree. Therefore logic dictates that it must have EVOLVED from a simpler, less complex state. Imagine some light sensitive cells on the surface of an animal. A mutation accidentally puts these cells into a pit-like structure. This mutant now has the distinct advantage of being able to sense where the light is coming from. Successive organisms develop this (possibly under competition to drive it onwards) so that the light is focused on the cells (via a lens/cornea) and light levels are controlled (iris). It doesn't take a leap of faith to figure it out if you get the theory.

Prebiological evolution:
I don't know what the protein cycle is. But mutations happen because of all sorts of things. DNA damage (by UV or other free radicles), DNA mismatch, imperfect DNA copying.
The number of errors in this part is too many to go into one by one, suffice to say that it shows a mere basic understanding. The gist of it is that the cell's DNA and it's machinery is too complex to come together by chance. So logic states that it must have EVOLVED from a less complex state (like prokaryotic to eukaryotic cells, or single celled animals to multicellular animals). It is not logical to say that because it is complex, someone had to make it. Something that has to be more complex.

A God Called Natural Selection:
You are attacking a 150 year-old, out of date statement. How can you apply morals to an automatic, non-conscious process? You cannot. You have shown yourself to be a fundamentalist, not knowing a metaphor when you see one. "The foolish believeth every word" (Proverbs 14:15), too bloody right.

Evolution is a theory. No one has ever said it is a law. Science and evolutionists is calling it a law are not bowing to the dogmatic and unchanging, but are contributing to a fascinating, intellectually satisfying theory that does a bloody good job of explaining how life works.

There's my 200000p

Ste

For:

...Science and evolutionists is calling it a law are not...

Read:

...Science and evolutionists by calling it a law are not...

Grrr:

...Science and evolutionists by NOT calling it a law are not...

Don't worry if you don't know what the 'protein cycle' is, since Josh probably knows less than you do.

No, the protein cycle is not what he is describing, I haven't heard of it. I'm a molecular biologist btw, with a passion for evolutionary/population biology (if you could tell).

I think that by looking at some genetic mistakes, we can discover a lot about the process of evolution.
When I was in college many years ago, a fellow student had to remove her shoes to write out her notes. She had been the victim of the drug, thalydamide. The drug comes in two forms, right handed and left handed, but only one form causes mutation. She was a very pretty girl but her arms were only six inches long and the middle finger of her left hand was about five inches in length.

A friend of mine has a daughter who was born without a womb or vagina. They did not find out untill she was sixteen and hadn't started menstruating. The opening to her vagina is only an inch deep.

I don't believe that evolution happens in slow subtle changes but by big jumps from time to time when environmental changes force the issue.

Alji (blue/green)

If a God did create everything, he is a cruel God to allow such genetic mutuation to occur.

"I don't believe that evolution happens in slow subtle changes but by big jumps from time to time when environmental changes force the issue."
Totally agreed. Why should the organism change to adapt to the environment if it is quite happy in it's stable ecological niche?

you are slightly missing the point about how evolution happens. genetic mistakes happen at a certain average rate. These mistakes only become evolutionarily significant if they cause some life critical problem (for example cystic fibrosis) or if they allow the moving of the individual into a new evolutionary niche.

I still don't see how I'm missing the point, perhaps you could explain some more .

How do they "allow the moving of the individual into a new evolutionary niche"?

If there is no selection pressure then the mutations remain neutral; it becomes just another polymorphism in the population. Unless, as you say, they are lethal.

if there is an empty evolutinary niche, then the creatures can suddenly prosper in it if they can use their current variability to change roles.

an example of this is the cockroaches? in biosphere 2 which took over the job of polinators after the normal ones died out.

"Why should the organism change to adapt to the environment if it is quite happy in it's stable ecological niche?"

Because living is competition. you compete with others of the same species for resources like food, mates, shelter, etc.

If you can get any of these resources in an easier way than by competing with others of your species, then it is advantagous for you to do so. It is here that the individual variation then has it's effect.

What you are saying seems to confirm what I said. That organisms are stable until the ecology changes. Would you agree?

no. I am saying that organisms change continually, but it doesn't become significant until the environment changes.

I know that seems like just a difference in emphasis, but it is a significant one.

You seem to be implying that the individual doesn't vary from the group until the environment changes. this is not only untrue, but it is actively dangerous for the race to have too little variability.

The mutation rate has to be high enough, otherwise you end up in the same situation as one of the big cats, here despite having thousands of creatures, there are only a handfull of individuals.

This leaves them open to all of the problems of any monoculture.
The wrong bug, and there goes the race!

I would agree with you that competition with others of the same species is a factor. The ecology or environment is more that just the physical world though, other species and individuals of the same species are taken into consideration too, so competition is surely covered by that.

No, there must have been a misuderstanding somewhere. Perhaps I wasn't clear enough.

I think we're both actually saying the same thing to each other

I never said that the organisms do not change. I specifically used the word 'polymorphism' (see post 9). It literally means 'many forms' and is used to describe the variation within a population, mainly referring to genetic variation.

I suppose in post 6 I phrased my last sentence a little harshly, making it seem a bit black and white.

The big cats are nothing to do with mutation rates. The cheetahs, for example, went through a severe bottleneck some time ago, with only a limited number of individuals surviving. The few that happened to be suited, survived. This severely limited the diversity and will take a while to regain it.


Ste

when you include the competition within the species, you make most of the changes significant. over a number of generations that is.

but unless the mutation rate is high enough, the species does not have time to recover.