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

translation
True, the Bible has been translated many times, and perhaps lost some of it's original meaning. But if we assume that the writers of the Bible were divinely inspired, why can we not assume that the translators of the Bible were divinely inspired. Modern translation, by the way, is taken from the earliest document, removing all the translation and retranslation that such versions as the King James went through.

editing
This is one thing that really scares me. Zondervan has just revealed it's plans to release a "gender neutral Bible" soon. I have seen some excerpts and I was appauled by what I saw. For instance, John 3:16 "For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son that whosoever believes in him shall not perish but have everlasting life." becomes
"For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten CHILD that whosoever believes in him shall not perish but have everlasting life."
So Jesus becomes some sort of half man half woman freak. There are worse examples, but I can't think of any right now. What these people fail to realize is that the Bible is already for both genders. Changing a couple pronouns which, in the Greek from which they were taken refer to both men and women anyway, is disgusting.

One of the nice things that has happened over the years is that the Catholic church has lost its monopoly over the Bible. Even as the Bible is, it contradicts some Catholic teachings. I have never read any of the other Gospels, though I have heard of them and I see nothing wrong with them. As a member of a Protestant church, my Bible has five more books than one would find in a Catholic Bible. The reason is simply, as you stated. The Catholic church seems to remove anything that goes against its teaching.

The two creation accounts in Genesis
There are two creation accounts in Genesis, but I was always taught that the second account simply reitarated the first.

Onward to science
It's obviously going to take someone smarter than me to scientificly prove the existence of God. I have not done enough research, and what I have seen is far to complicated for me to understand. There are lots of articles on the internet claiming to prove God through quantum physics or particle physics, but what I've seen so far is either way over my head or senseless psychobable. I remain, however, wholly unsatisfied with the theory of evolution.

I have with me a summary of "The Blind Watchmaker" that you keep refering to. I'm going to read it one day, I promise. Anyway, I find this very unconvincing.

We start off with a replicator, right? Correct me if I misenterpret this. It's probably a piece of RNA that is making more of itself. I see no explanation of why this replicator is replicating or where it came from. Moving on, Dawkins says that wings came about from animals that jump from bough to bough. Some future generations get tiny little flaps of skin growing from their limbs. This becomes the norm because the others all die when the jump around in the trees. Dawkins fails to take into account that mutations are almost always detrimental to the organsim. In the event that the organsism gets a favorable adaptation, it must do so without also producing maladaptive side effects. Even the little flaps of skin, no matter how small require an enormous number of different genes mutating in the exact same way.

I was in a bad mood yesterday because I missed a Unix class that I really wanted to attend. But today I got my first edited guide entry on the front page! - A676325 Pizza Delivery Cars in Southern California, USA. YAY! , so things are cool again.

I'll leave the bible bit to Madent

Ok, Dawkins. The book is very readable, don't be scared of it. It isn't full of jargon at all. It is very unlikely that these replicators are RNA. Such a complex molecule is unlikely to come about by chance, possible, but unlikely. DNA and RNA are probably the victors of an evolutionary competition between replicators. Dawkins, when he uses 'replicators', just means a molecule that one day accidentally gained the property of self-replication.

Mutations are almost always detrimental, I agree. But *almost*. Natural selection works upon mutations that would comprimise an organisms survival chance too. Any harmful mutation that arises is thrown out. The few beneficial mutations that occur are selected *and preserved* by natural selection.

"In the event that the organsism gets a favorable adaptation, it must do so without also producing maladaptive side effects."
A mutation cannot be both beneficial and harmful at once. If it's favourable, why would it have "maladaptive side-effects"? I don't quite understand.

"Even the little flaps of skin, no matter how small require an enormous number of different genes mutating in the exact same way."
Again, agreed. Homeotic genes are responsible for this. They are genes that control many other genes. Read the part in my entry about it. A mutation in a *single* homeotic gene can be responsible for quite dramatic changes in body plan. The link I posted a while ago was about this topic, read that also.

Hope this clears some stuff up

Ste

But if a good mutation occurs, such as the pre-bat rodent evolving little flaps of skin it must also avoid any and all maladaptive mutations at the same time. Even if this happens, and the creature evolves little flaps of skin, how much does his chance for survival increase? He has an extremely minute advantage when he jumps from tree to tree, but I would assume that the vast majority of the members of his species die in ways totally unrelated to jumping from tree to tree. In all probablility, this little fellow will die just as soon as his peers do, and if he doesn't what is to say that he will have a better chance of mating or a better chance of his offspring surviving.

I also do not entirely understand your dismissal of my "anthropic coincidences". You make it seem as though I am rolling a die, which lands on, shall we say, three, and then saying "Ah ha! What a strange coincidence it is that this die has landed on three." That isn't it at all. Each number on the die has an equal chance of appearing. In something such as the big bang, the universe has a 49.999...% chance of falling back in on itself, a 49.999...% chance that it will spread out too far for any matter to come together, and a probability of 1 in 10 to 60th power that galaxies will form. Occam's razor indicates that either of the first two choices should happen, but that the third is unrealistic and obviously should not happen. But lo and behold! The third scenario happens. This is no convoluted logical toy. This is scientific fact.

Well, I'm off to read a promising acticle on Pizza delivery cars in southern California.

The advantage it gives is very very small. But this all that is needed to increase this new allele's frequency *within the population* incrementally down the generations. He will have a better chance of mating because is better equiped to survive long enough to be able to mate. The same will be the case for his offspring, and his offspring etc. ad infinitum.

Perhaps the universe did fall back on itself, then big banged, and repeated this until some sort of equilibrium was reached. The fact is that we probably will never know.

1) The chance that the universe existing as it is now is 100%; it exists, does it not?

2) Are you're arguing that there are multiple universes all with varying properties and the chances are that this happens to be the only one that has the laws of physics that enabled life to (eventually) flourish? In this view there is NO way to say that the probabilites are large OR small. Where are you getting those numbers from Josh?

Or is it the case that you think the universe (not one of multiple ones) had many random roads that it could have travelled down, but strangely enough travelled down the one that led to our laws of physics which allowed life? How do you know this? How many roads could it have chosen?

This is not the realm of science nor statistics, it is pure speculation. And as I'm sure you know by now speculation does not make it science. That is why I am saying it has no base to it. It is an interesting diversion, but when you get down to critically analysing the argument from probabilities, it falls to pieces.

I suspect creationists hold onto it because, like the existance of God, science cannot prove or disprove it. It doesn't have the capability. Science would fully admit this, it has no shame in throwing it's hands up and saying "I dunno". But as with the evolution argument, the burden of proof is upon you. All the anthropic principle/intelligent design is doing is trying to sneakily change that around and say "this is why this happens, disprove it". We don't need to.



Ste

"Perhaps the universe did fall back on itself, then big banged, and repeated this until some sort of equilibrium was reached."

Carl Sagan once postulated the same thing. But this violates the basic laws of physics. The universe would use up it's energy after a few bangs.

"The chance that the universe existing as it is now is 100%"

Of course. I'm not contesting that at all. Probability does not apply to the creation of the universe because the universe has already been created. However, at one time, when the universe was created, probability did apply to the creation of the universe. A die has a one in six chance of landing on a three when rolled, but a 100% chance of getting whatever number it landed on after it lands. Does that make rolling a three any less lucky?

Those numbers were published by physicist Paul Davies, a devout agnostic, but an agnostic who appears to enjoy tweaking the noses of other agnostics.

I don't know about multiple universes. I am unconvinced at this point of their existence.

"All the anthropic principle/intelligent design is doing is trying to sneakily change that around and say "this is why this happens, disprove it". We don't need to."

That isn't what I'm saying at all. I am merely saying that, at this point, no explanations besides God and luck exist to explain certain things about the universe. I'm not saying that science will never be able to find another explanation.

The objective of Creationism, at least the version I subscribe to is not to obstruct science, not to prove science wrong, but to suggest that God, while His existence cannot be scientificly proven, may be the best answer to questions that science asks but cannot answer.

"The universe would use up it's energy after a few bangs."
Energy cannot be destroyed or created. Law of conservation of energy or something. The total energy of the universe remains the same, it just gets spread out more thinly the longer it expands.

"A die has a one in six chance of landing on a three when rolled".
Yes, we know the odds. But we don't know the odds of the creation of this universe. A one in what chance? We don't know, it's speculation.

"The objective of Creationism, at least the version I subscribe to is not to obstruct science, not to prove science wrong..."
Oh come on Josh . What was that entire article you wrote about evolution about then?

In my opinion God cannot be scientifically proven or otherwise. And science cannot yet say what made the big bang happen. In the absence of any scientific explanation one can believe in a God if one wants to, each to their own and all that. I don't mind what people believe in, it's just when they misuse what they think is science to try and justify their beliefs (as if that was necessary with faith) and even worse, try to debunk science *because* of their beliefs. Now that I do mind.

Are we going round in circles yet?

Ste

"'The universe would use up it's energy after a few bangs.'"
Energy cannot be destroyed or created."

Bad use of language there on my part. What I mean is, a good deal of the energy would fly off into the far reaches of space. I don't pretend to understand it; I'm just repeating what I've heard.

"What was that entire article you wrote about evolution about then?"

There is a difference between attacking science and using science to question the scientific consensus.

I am prepared to admit just as fast as you are that I cannot prove the existence of God by scientific means. I certainly don't think that being an atheist makes you any less of a scientist. I don't even have a problem with evolution being taught in schools. My only complaint is against those who see evolution as the only possible explanation and see any and all who disagree as blasphemeous, refusing even to hear their case. For the record, I don't put you in that category

Just as, according to Dawkins, Darwin made it possible to be an "intellectually fulfilled athiest," I want people to understand that you can also be an intellectually fulfilled religious person.

But if the energy is flung into the far reaches, it would all come back together at the "big crunch".

But I think we've established that creation science is not science as scientists recognise it. I won't repeat myself, just refer back to Madents elegant description.

"My only complaint is against those who see evolution as the only possible explanation and see any and all who disagree as blasphemeous, refusing even to hear their case. For the record, I don't put you in that category"
Cheers Josh . I don't think many scientists would say that evolution is not the only possible explanation, just the simplest and most likely explanation of what we observe in nature.

Here I think you get to the real crux of the matter:
"I want people to understand that you can also be an intellectually fulfilled religious person."
Yes! Of course you can! . Scientific analysis is NOT the only intellectual course. Not by any means. If you want to explain away the world with religion, that is an intellectual pursuit. Just not a scientific one. And there's nothing wrong with that.

Do you see what we're trying to get at here Josh? Science is NOT the only way. Therefore there is NO need to explain religion using hard scientific data. It makes no sense and it rarely works.

I look forward to your response

Ste

All the same, I think that, if your religion is in direct contradiction with scientific fact, you ought to look for a different religion. Similarly, if your scientific theory holds no water and no other explanation exists, you must, as you so eloquently put it, throw up your hands and say "I don't know." I feel like this is where evolution falls down. It jumps to conclusions, based on little, then claims to be fact.

I also want to clarify that I am not actually trying to explain my religion scientificly. Even if evolution were proven, that wouldn't stop me from believing what I do. I raise these questions, not to prove my religion, but merely as a scientific matter. I can't prove God created life scientificly just as you can't prove evolution created life, and I won't try to. My argument against evolution is based on my respect for facts and data, not my religious fervor.

I don't understand Paul Davies remarks either, I'm just repeating him. I think his premise is that whatever caused the big bang to ignite would not be able to ignite again because, in chemical or nuclear reactions the products are different from the reactants.

But Josh, evolution is "based upon little" by no means. The individual cases that I have given you in the past are only a drop in the ocean of observation, experimentation and evidence.

It's called a theory, but the scientific consensus considers it a fact. Same with the theory of gravity and quantum theory (which sounds extremely far fetched and totally counter-intuitive when compared to evolution). If this really is just a scientific pursuit for you why aren't you attacking quantum theory, it totally bloody bizzare , whereas evolution makes sense.

Um, Josh, sorry to say this but your literalist flavour of Christianity *is* in conflict in this particular case . You say that "if your religion is in direct contradiction with scientific fact, you ought to look for a different religion", but then say "Even if evolution were proven, that wouldn't stop me from believing what I do", which is contradicting yourself. Evolution has been proven, that is beyond a shadow of a doubt. So what is it to be, new religion or stay the same?

The thing with evolution is that it describes how life changes and adapts, not how life came from non-life. That would be a different field altogether, one I think is already starting.

Ok, I'm going to act like Creationism was the mainstream scientific consensus, for a laugh . The burden of proof is on the crazy idea that evolution is responsible for all life we see today. Hence I will argue like a creationist but using evolutionary examples to debunk Creationism.

1) The pentadactyl limb. All mammals share the same hand/foot/wing/flipper/hoof bones. If you look at the bat wing, it's bones are the same as our hands, just elongated. Hooves are adapted "fingers" when you look at it. Why do human's feet have the same bones in the same rough order as their hands? And, more amazingly, the same general layout of mammal limbs is found in marine mammals flippers! Why is God putting hands in flippers?, why can't he seemingly start from scratch every time he wants to design a new mammal?

2) Giraffe neck bones
On the same theme, giraffes have the same number of vertebrates as humans and other mammals. Wouldn't it make more sense, engineering-wise to just make more bones?

3) Embryo
During embryogenesis (when the embryo is growing in the womb) in mammals, why does the embryo seem to grow gill-like structures? Why does it have a tail? Both of which are then subsequently removed during later stages of development. The God who designed this process must be confused as hell.

4) Baby feet
When you touch a human baby's hand with your finger, the impulse is for the baby to clutch. Why on Earth does it do the same thing with its feet!!!??? Try it on a baby, preferably one you have permission to do this with.

5) DNA
Why does the DNA from mammals match very very closely when compared to, say flowering plants (the same can be said of any group of living things, cereal crops (which I work upon), alpha-proteobacteria, reptiles etc.)? Couldn't the Designer use fresh DNA every time?

6) Mammals look each other in the eye
Think about this one, it's strange. Why would something seemingly unconnected and unrelated KNOW to look at you IN THE EYE when you look at it? It is common ancestry that produces this kind of thing instinctive behaviour. Not a God who just happens to choose a group of furry creatures and makes the look at each other in the same way.

This is all too much to be put down to mere coincidence or God's mysterious ways. There must be a simpler explanation out there, a simple set of rules that govern all life and enables it to adapt from each other into defferent environments.

By the way, it's called evolution.



Ste

PS Sorry for the gargantuan post

Typo in last post: "that produces this kind of thing instinctive behaviour" = "that produces this kind of instinctive behaviour", but you probably guessed that, but hey-ho.

I've been thinking about the anthropic principle business. I think I just worked it out for sure why I think it's wrong. I couldn't put my finger on it before, but I had a gut instinct that it just felt *wrong* and kind of backwards and upside down.

Let's use an analogy:

The MarieandSte-ic Principle:
My wife (Marie) and I met at a concert in Cardiff in December 1999. After this gig, we met up a few times, starting seeing each other and got closer and closer to the point that we wanted to marry each other. The MarieandSte-ic principle states that this marriage had to have way, way too many coincidences to make it happen. So many that it would have to be guided by a divine being for it to happen, it was Fate.

Marie is from San Diego in California, I am from Devon in England. That's 6000 miles apart. I just *happened* to go to a good enough school that enabled me to go to Cardiff University, which did *just* the course I wanted to do. This is where I just *happened* to choose to like a local band; the Super Furry Animals. During my final year noone in my flat wanted to go to this gig with me (they just *happened* to have poor taste in music). So I turned to the Super Furry Animal mailing list where I asked if anyone wanted to meet up for the gig in Cardiff. Ten people just *happened* to say yes.

One of those people was Marie. Who just *happened* to be on a year out from UC Santa Barbera at Birmingham University in England (strange huh, how many coincidences does it take to get her to England?). She just *wanted* to meet up with some other Super Furries fans for the big Cardiff gig, and so she replied with other people from the list and we met up on the day of the gig.

The rest is private

There are many other coincidences that made our marriage happen, they would either a) take too long to go through, or b) be too private to mention.

So you see, the MarieandSte-ic principle is irrefutable. This "fine-tuning" of reality that enabled my Wife and I to meet is a sign that a) God intented us to marry and made it so, and b) We are the most important people to God, why else would he have chosen us? There are too many coincidences for it to be any other way.



I could easily think like that if I were arrogant and vein enough to believe that I am the centre of the universe and everything revolves around the creation of our marriage. I just don't choose to look at it that way, because it is plainly wrong, clear-blue-daylight wrong.

With the anthropic principle, you have to be coming at it from the notion that God exists anyway for it to have any meaning for you. Which I don't so it doesn't. You also have to have this notion that Human Life is all important and somehow special already. That's why the AP (about time we shortened it to AP) makes no sense to me at all, logical nor intuitive sense.

Coincidences mean nothing. They happen all the damn time. I've said this before, but it's worth saying again: If there were absolutely NO coincidences in the universe, then that would be a sign of a God directing the cosmological course of events. But there isn't: [To quote Dawkins once more (sorry)] "The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference."

Also, the number of coincidences observed is totally dependant upon the observer, it is hardly an objective way of looking at things.

So, to sum up. The AP is a redundant concept. You have to believe in God to think it has any truth to it, and also believe that man has some sort of special place in God's plans (fate). To me this is arrogance and vanity, with nothing to back the assumption up.

If you already believe in God, why do you need the AP? You don't. To people who don't believe in God, the AP makes no sense whatsoever because they are coming at it from a completely different worldview. The AP is an interesting point (I used the word 'toy' earlier on), but ultimately useless.

Ack! another long post. Sorry Josh if you have to wade through all this, but I feel I have made some valid points and I'd be dead interested in hearing your responses to them .

All the best,

Ste

The MarieandSte Principle-
You say there are far to many coincidences involved in your marriage. I say you're exactly right. You say that fate obviously predestined you to meet your wife. I say why not? Why do you find it so hard to believe that there is no higher force than yourself directing human events when your own life reflects this? To attribute your marriage to fate seems reasonable to me.

Your examples-
So you have shown that some species are similar to others, both in appearance and on the molecular level. And you conclude, therefore, that one species used to be another? It seems perfectly reasonable to me that God would make one species, then make another similar one. There are also freaks that must be explained- the platypus, the sponge, etc. I have no problem believing that many species have very similar DNA, nor that with breeding, species can become immensely diverse. But I do not see any reason to believe that they can become a different species.

And yes, quantum theory is absolutely insane. I will disprove it; I just haven't gotten around to it yet. In fact, I'll disprove it right here. The thing about quantum theory is that it is based on one lousy expiriment. Einstien proved that light is not a wave, but a bunch of particles behaving like a wave. So several scientists set up a wall with five holes in it and put a light on one side. On the other side, as you may guess, were five spots of light. Then the scientists dimmed the light so low that it let out only one light particle at a time. They thought this would cause the light to shine through only the middle hole, the one that was in front of the light source. But the particles travelled in the same way they did when there were other particles around them. The scientists concluded that, since the particle appeared to have other particles acting on it, these other particles must be in other universes.

Now, from that brief leap of logic, we have an entire scientific field. If indeed the particle were being acted upon by particles in other universes, it would have to be a universe in which the exact same expiriment was going in the exact same spot, only the light would have to be flowing faster. Quantum physicists also have yet to explain why other universes, such as one where the whole chamber is lit up do not act upon the particle.

I suspect quantum physics was born more out of a desire for time travel and interstellar space travel and maybe a little bit of enjoying making people's , than real science.

Quantum theory is a bit more robust than you think. It does hold up very well to many experiments. And as far as I know, it doesn't involve any other universes. How much have you learned about quantum theory?, I personally don't think you have proved much with your analysis. To understand it I think you need to have a good grasp of all the wave equations. Quantum physics came out of the fact that Newtonian physics didn't work at the small levels that people started to look at.

"Einstien proved that light is not a wave, but a bunch of particles behaving like a wave."
No, light is a particle and a wave *at the same time*. I think you need to grasp this topic better before you damn it. I know I don't that well, but I trust the scientists that have worked on this topic.

I am by no means an expert, and I would invite any other researchers reading this to come and explain quantum stuff better, especially addressing Josh's points . No offense Josh, but I think I'd trust Einstien, Shrodinger et al. over you .



"Why do you find it so hard to believe that there is no higher force than yourself directing human events when your own life reflects this?"
For the simple fact that there is absolutely no reason to believe so. And my own life shows no sign of a higher being.

If you were inclined that way you could point at *any* event, indeed *every event ever*, and say that is too improbable to happen. That is by no means a proof of a higher force. In fact it shows the desperation creation-science and ID has sunk to, that it is using lazy logic and the concept of fate in a futile attempt to "prove" God. With the benefit of hindsight anything is possible.

Basically, when it comes down to it, you are pointing at *anything* and saying "aah look, God did that" without backing it up with anything else, and you're back to square one. That is not science, it is faith. As I said before, I am not trying to disprove God here, all I am saying, and I have said this all along, that you do not need to employ scientific thought to prove God.

"It seems perfectly reasonable to me that God would make one species, then make another similar one."
That's just the standard "god works in mysterious ways, aaahhh!" excuse. It does not wash with anyone who is not a Christian.

"But I do not see any reason to believe that they can become a different species."
I don't see how you can say this after the numerous examples I have given you. If an organism is isolated (for whatever reason) and it stops interbreeding with the population it came from (for whatever reason) then it is a new species. You believe in fate and a God that controls every single event ever, but cannot make the tiny leap of logic to be able to concieve of such a simple idea! C'mon Josh, after speaking with you for a while, I have too much respect for you to believe this is the case. This sounds like stubborness

Faced with a choice between few simple evolutionary principles or an infititely complex and powerful God when it comes to explain away the biology of this planet, reason dictates the former. If you want to choose the latter (you obviously do Josh) that is a matter of faith. Leave science out of it because science has already made up it's mind too.



Ste

I've been awfully lackidaisical about writing. I must apologize, but I've been horrendously busy.

I thought the whole principle behind quantum theory IS other universes. I can't claim an expert opinion, though. The only thing I know about quantum mechanics is what I've read in Michael Chrichton's book Timeline, which was primarily ficticious. Surely there is some researcher who can explain to us what it is really about.

When I say that similarities between species do not indicate evolution, this is because Darwinian transformation requires more than similar species. It requires a line of descent that can be traced back infinitely. We do not see that.

"If an organism is isolated (for whatever reason) and it stops interbreeding with the population it came from (for whatever reason) then it is a new species."

Uh, really? In the Midwest of America, there were, for as long as anyone can tell, two massive herds of bison roaming about. These two herds never met up, and therefore never intermated, yet they were physically and geneticly identical. Do you consider them to be two separate species? Surely you don't.

>I've been awfully lackidaisical about writing. I must apologize, but I've been horrendously busy.
Fair enough , I have a nasty feeling that I will be very very busy in the immediate future :/

There are enough physicists on this website to find one who knows about quantum whatsits. Perhaps we can find one.

>Darwinian transformation requires more than similar species. It requires a line of descent that can be traced back infinitely.
I don't understand. What is "Darwinian transformation"? Could you explain some more please?

The bison:
If they are "reproductively isolated", then they are well on their way to becoming new species if they do not meet again. They obviously came from the same place a short time in history and were interbreeding and I'm sure that if they met again now the gene flow would start right back up (polite way of saying "start shagging again"). But if they remain isolated for enough time they would start to diverge adapting to their different respective habitats. If enough time elapsed that they have diverged to the extent that they do not or cannot interbreed (either they do not recognise each other's mating signals or their offspring is at a selective disadvantage or they do not produce offspring at all, etc.) then they can be clearly called a new species. This is how some biologists think species arise. The reality is probably a lot more complicated, but the basics are right I think.

Basically, in my opinion I would say that they are not two species *just yet*. But some biologists would say that they are.



Ste

Josh, there are plenty of examples in the animal kingdom to support Ste's comments.

Hybridisation experiments have revealed that most of the big cats can be inter-bred to create such exotic breeds as the liger, tigron and jagulep. Whether the animal is fertile is directly related to the genetic closeness of the two species.

Another example is the mule, a cross breed of the horse and the donkey.

These individual animal species are very closely related to each other, only diverging in relatively recent times, so there is still a high degree of genetic compatibility.

It has been suggested for instance that man could possibly be interbred with some of the great apes, although to my knowledge such experiments have NOT been carried out, nor is anyone intending to do so. However it is expect that any such hybrid would be sterile.


As I understand it, Darwinian evolution theory basically says that a population adapts to best suit its environment. This process of adaptation is a slow process and leads to the enhancement of traits which improve the chances of survival in that environment and the suppression of traits that are disadvantageous to survival.

If a single species is divided and finds itself in two completely different environments, these principles indicate that ultimately there will be some divergence of the two groups into two species. One species may be unchanged, the new species will have adapted from the first to suit new environmental conditions.

The lion and the tiger may be good examples.

The extent of the difference will be dependent on the difference in the environment and the length of time since separation.


Now Josh, you raise a significant point, in that there must be some evidence of the transitional stages that the second species goes through. After all evolution takes a number of generations (dependent on the size of the population) to allow the dominant traits (those beneficial to survival) to be spread through the gene pool.

But in reality Josh, the scale of the differences between what are characterised as different species on the ladder of say human evolution are not actually that great.

Whenever someone presents a chart showing the ascent of man, each of the stages is characterised by a single illustration, based on a small (and we all must admit that some of the evidence is small) amount of paleontological evidence. What isn't shown or really known is the amount of variation within that species. Look at man. There is virtually 100% genetic compatibility between all of the races of man, but look at the range of differences; hair and skin colour, metabolism, bone structure, etc. Compare and contrast yourself to someone from central Africa or India.

Why then hasn't man diverged sufficiently to create separate species? Well we nearly had but our technological development has overtaken our genetic development to the extent that in a large part man now makes his own environment. This occurred early enough in the evolutionary process to prevent the sort of divergence that would lead to the formation of separate species. However the evidence that we were on the path to divergence is still strong. Some inter-racial breeding results in disabilities and genetic ailments in the children.

There is also plenty of evidence that we are continuing to evolve. Wisdom teeth are disappearing; height is increasting; jaw bones are weakening; etc.


The point is Josh, that you claim that there must be evidence of transitional species to support evolution.

In reality any transitional species is going to be inseperable from either the original species or its successor.

What happens is that those responsible for classifying archaeological finds, categorise the finds on the basis of what is known. So fragments of fossilised bone are compared against earlier finds. Then someone says, this looks like this thigh bone of an apatasaur.

It might be within certain limits. Others will do a similar comparison and may agree. However it might actually be from one of your "transitional species" Josh. Maybe it is the shortest on record, or the longest. Maybe its a little thicker, or thinner.

So transitional species do exist Josh. The evidence for them is actually overwhelming. This cornerstone to the creationist proof that evolution is flawing, is nothing more than an intellectual fallacy.


To the old question, which came first, the chicken or the egg? Clearly the egg came first. The creature that laid it was almost but not quite a chicken. But drawing the line between what it was and the chicken, and deciding when it became a chicken will keep scientists amused for centuries.


I'm still thinking about your comments on the Bible, Josh, and there are some flaws in there. Which version of the Bible do you use? I have two copies myself, the Good News version and the Revised Standard Version, but I also have a Gideon New Testament. I also have access to the New International Version. Which one do you use?

TTFN

Madent,

I was going to mention the lion and tiger, thanks for beating me to it .

What is your understanding of "Darwinian transformation"? I haven't got a clue (and I have a degree in genetics ) A google search with those two words comes up with only 16 hits, with two of those being Josh's two nearly identical entries about "evidence for creationism and against evolution", funnily enough . The majority of the rest are creationist sites.

Sounds like a classical strawman to me.

Ste

Darwinian Transformation
Most evolutionists view minor genetic changes and one species evolving from another as basicly the same thing. The former obviously happens; we see it everywhere. Darwinian Transformation is the process by which one species changes so significantly that it becomes a different species.

Madent, are the interbred species that you mentioned, the mule and so forth really examples of evolution? How can they be evolving if they are sterile?

You both have listed some good examples of species that appear similar, but I still do not understand the mechanism by which they change from one to the other. There is the blind watchmaker thesis that Dawkins talks about, but this seems very unlikely to me. Going back to the bat example, Dawkins claims that all the little rodent requires to change into a bat is develop little flaps of skin on his forelimbs that grow successively larger. But Dawkins seems to omit that, even for the smallest flap of skin even less than a milimeter long, hundreds of genes must mutate between two generations without any other maladaptive mutations.

I use an NIV Bible most of the time.

"Most evolutionists view minor genetic changes and one species evolving from another as basicly the same thing."
One contributes to the other, but they are not basically the same thing. Speciation is a complex issue, there are many different ways a species can become two (or more). Genetic changes (by "minor" I assume you mean at the DNA base-pair level) are a lot simpler. I personally think that Darwinian Transformation is obsolete, modern species concepts are a lot more involved and descriptive nowadays it seems.

Can I say something about the mule please?
A mule is sterile, yes. But the fact that two species (horse and donkey) can produce offspring at all shows that they were once the same species. Their DNA (more specifically chromosome number differences in this case) has diverged so much so that they are now incompatible with each other. The sterility of the hybrid offspring means that it cannot reproduce and cannot evolve, as you noted. However this also means that the horse and the donkey are *reproductively isolated*, hence different species.

Josh, what do you understand the "blind watchmaker thesis" to be?, out of interest...

What if there were single genes that switch on or off the "hundreds of genes" that you describe Josh? Imagine one of the controlling "master genes" supressing a hundred other genes. A simple mutation in this master gene, disabling it, would allow all these genes which were previously repressed to become switched on. This is a very basic example, but these master genes exist. They are called "Homeotic genes" and we have talked about them before. A lot of study has been put into the insect body plan and homeotic genes. I posted a link a few weeks ago to an article and a nature paper. Also, my article on evolution goes into a tiny bit of detail on them.

Why would a beneficially mutation also have to have a "maladaptive" mutation? I don't quite understand...



Ste

"Most evolutionists view minor genetic changes and one species evolving from another as basicly the same thing."
One contributes to the other, but they are not basically the same thing. Speciation is a complex issue, there are many different ways a species can become two (or more). Genetic changes (by "minor" I assume you mean at the DNA base-pair level) are a lot simpler. I personally think that Darwinian Transformation is obsolete, modern species concepts are a lot more involved and descriptive nowadays it seems.

Can I say something about the mule please?
A mule is sterile, yes. But the fact that two species (horse and donkey) can produce offspring at all shows that they were once the same species. Their DNA (more specifically chromosome number differences in this case) has diverged so much so that they are now incompatible with each other. The sterility of the hybrid offspring means that it cannot reproduce and cannot evolve, as you noted. However this also means that the horse and the donkey are *reproductively isolated*, hence different species.

Josh, what do you understand the "blind watchmaker thesis" to be?, out of interest...

What if there were single genes that switch on or off the "hundreds of genes" that you describe Josh? Imagine one of the controlling "master genes" supressing a hundred other genes. A simple mutation in this master gene, disabling it, would allow all these genes which were previously repressed to become switched on. This is a very basic example, but these master genes exist. They are called "Homeotic genes" and we have talked about them before. A lot of study has been put into the insect body plan and homeotic genes. I posted a link a few weeks ago to an article and a nature paper. Also, my article on evolution goes into a tiny bit of detail on them.

Why would a beneficially mutation also have to have a "maladaptive" mutation? I don't quite understand...



Ste