[__ Science __ ] Evolution and Harmless Mutations

[KevinK]

Yes.

"Die tatsächliche Konfiguration ist ein Hybrid der zwei möglichen Valenzzustände."
- Kekule

I wish I said things like that in my sleep.

My whole life is a hybrid state.

 

[Barbarian]

I wish I said things like that in my sleep.

Kekule did:

In 1890, at the 25th anniversary of the benzene structure discovery, Friedrich August Kekulé, a German chemist, reminisced about his major accomplishments and told of two dreams that he had at key moments of his work. In his first dream, in 1865, he saw atoms dance around and link to one another. He awakened and immediately began to sketch what he saw in his dream.

Later, Kekulé had another dream, in which he saw atoms dance around, then form themselves into strings, moving about in a snake-like fashion. This vision continued until the snake of atoms formed itself into an image of a snake eating its own tail. This dream gave Kekulé the idea of the cyclic structure of benzene1.

Kekulé’s Dream | ChemDoodle Web Components

 

[KevinK]

Kekule did:

I know. Hence my lame attempt at a joke.

 

[GodsGrace]

I know some biologists who don't understand delocalization of electrons in benzine, too. For the same reason Tour doesn't understand evolution.

It's not surprising that a chemist would not understand biology.

But I believe we could say that they're more intelligent than the average person. If even he, and others like him, are having a problem with evolution...why do the science-minded, or indeed scientists tell me I'm a naiive creationist?

I DO believe some science is desperate to prove that God does not exist so they could be proven right in their atheism.

 

[GodsGrace]

The overwhelming majority, at least. Using the Discovery Institute's list of "scientists who doubt Darwin", and Project Steve, we find about 0.3 percent of scientists with doctorates in biology or a related field, don't accept modern evolutionary theory.



No, that's wrong. Evolutionary theory assumes life began somehow, and describes how populations of organisms change over time. Darwin, for example, just supposed that God created the first living things:

"There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved."
Charles Darwin, last sentence of On the Origin of Species, 1872

Thanks for the above Barb.
It's pretty much what I believe to be the case....
That some scientists are having problems with it...
And it's nice to note Darwin believed in a creator,,,most scientists did back then.

 

[Barbarian]

ut I believe we could say that they're more intelligent than the average person.

Being smart isn't useful, if you don't know what you're talking about. In a lot of ways, PhDs are more prone to assume they know everything than the average person.

If even he, and others like him, are having a problem with evolution...why do the science-minded, or indeed scientists tell me I'm a naiive creationist?

Perhaps you didn't show them how competent you are in biology.

I DO believe some science is desperate to prove that God does not exist

Can't be. Science, by its very methodology, can't support or deny the existence of God.

so they could be proven right in their atheism.

Last time I checked, most scientists believed in some form of God.

 

[Barbarian]

I know. Hence my lame attempt at a joke.

I kinda suspected. It was an odd comment, if you intended anything else.

 

[GodsGrace]

The overwhelming majority, at least. Using the Discovery Institute's list of "scientists who doubt Darwin", and Project Steve, we find about 0.3 percent of scientists with doctorates in biology or a related field, don't accept modern evolutionary theory.



No, that's wrong. Evolutionary theory assumes life began somehow, and describes how populations of organisms change over time. Darwin, for example, just supposed that God created the first living things:

"There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved."
Charles Darwin, last sentence of On the Origin of Species, 1872

That's interesting.
Darwin spawned many atheists it seems, and he was not one?
I didn't know this. Even Einstein said there must be a creator.

Some scientists say that Christians are afraid of evolution because to them it would prove the non-existence of God.

I just feel that before I, personally, can accept a "theory" it must be solidly proven. I'm just waiting for some declaration to be made that ALL science agrees to.

IOW, if you're two posts to me are correct, I don't understand why not all science has accepted evolution.

But you don't have to convince me...I'm just spinning on the merry-go-round, as John Lennon said.

Hope all is well with you.

 

[GodsGrace]

Being smart isn't useful, if you don't know what you're talking about. In a lot of ways, PhDs are more prone to assume they know everything than the average person.



Perhaps you didn't show them how competent you are in biology.



Can't be. Science, by its very methodology, can't support or deny the existence of God.



Last time I checked, most scientists believed in some form of God.

LOL
You're funny.
Scientists on these sites list themselves as atheist.
One calls himself a Deist.
And one calls himself Other Religion.

But I'll take your word for it since that's the circle you travel in.

 

[Barbarian]

That's interesting.
Darwin spawned many atheists it seems, and he was not one?

I can't think of an atheist Darwin produced. When he wrote On the Origin of Species, he was an orthodox Anglican. So much so, that the officers of the Beagle had joked about it.

I didn't know this.

Late in life, Darwin said he was inclining to agnosticism. The death of a beloved child devastated him.

Even Einstein said there must be a creator.

Einstein's vision of "der Alt" was deistic. He believed in Spinoza's God.

Some scientists say that Christians are afraid of evolution because to them it would prove the non-existence of God.

It might be incompatible with some modern conceptions of God. But nothing in evolution denies orthodox Christianity.

I just feel that before I, personally, can accept a "theory" it must be solidly proven.

No scientific theory is ever proven. Science is mostly inductive,and therefore, can only accumulate evidence. Proof is possible when you know all the rules and deduct the particulars. Science observes the particulars and infers the rules.

I'm just waiting for some declaration to be made that ALL science agrees to.

Not likely. There is no decider in science. When a theory has predictions that have been repeatedly verified, it's accepted by consensus as true. But only provisionally, depending on future discoveries.

IOW, if you're two posts to me are correct, I don't understand why not all science has accepted evolution.

I took a look at that some time ago. Based on the data from the Discovery Institute's "scientists who doubt Darwin" and Operation Steve, it turns out that about 0.3% of scientists with doctorates in biology or a related field, don't accept current evolutionary theory.

I doubt if any established theory would do much better than that.

Hope all is well with you.

Now retired and free to pursue my own projects. So is Mrs. Barbarian. We took a road trip across the South last summer. We intend to do that for New England this summer, to reconnect with Mrs. B's childhood places.

My phototography is doing well and Mrs. B. turns out to be a talented photographer herself. She often shames me with her images.

Built a shed, or rather had to pay someone to build it.; Mrs. B. doesn't like me climbing any more. Thinks I'm an old man.

But afterwards, when she wasn't paying attention, I built a loft in it for her storage boxes.

 

[Barbarian]

Are they ‘unresolved questions’ or failed hypotheses???

Both. For example, "inheritance is in the blood" was a failed hypothesis. "how do variations survive in a population?" was an unresolved question.

1. Hypothesis; Random mutations acted upon by natural selection originated all ‘species’:

No. That's not a hypothesis of evolutionary theory. In fact, speciation may be purely random. Survival of that species will not be random, however.

Does current evolution theroy say that mutations occur by random chance or are they now adaptive mutations?

Mutations appear randomly. We discussed whether or not it would be possible for some organisms to evolve a mechanism for increasing mutations when conditions are hard (and therefore mutations are more likely to be useful). Some prokaryotes can do this.

Is it possible that circumstances could result in a higher frequency of useful mutations, or specific mutations arise in response to need? That remains to be determined.

2. Hypothesis; DNA evolved from RNA:

Not a hypothesis of evolutionary theory, which only assumes DNA organisms, and describes how they vary over time. That's part of abiogenesis, a different theory.

then why is the same DNA code found in all living cells the same, if it evolved from RNA?

It's not always the same. Such a basic feature of life, would be highly conserved, as cell membranes or cytochrome C, but it does vary a little.

Shouldn’t we find large numbers of different DNA codes in living cells if it evolved?

Not if common descent is a fact. If it wasn't, we would indeed expect to see significant differences in DNA, and we see only very slight ones.

Or did the RNA get it just right the first try?

There are two schools of thought in abiogenesis.
1. There's really only one effective way of coding heredity.
2. There were likely a number of different kinds of replicating molecules, early on, and DNA happened to eclipse all the others, which disappeared before living things appeared.

3. Hypothesis; species diverge through their children who ‘branch off’ from their parents, forming a verifiable “Tree of Life”. Why has there been no progress in validating one universal tree of evolutionary life based on genetics

That was done a long time ago. One of the predictions, was genetically all living things should form a family tree similar to the one produced by Linnaeus, based on phenotypes.

Turns out that they do.

then (THE fundamental prediction/hypothesis of Darwin’s theroy)? It’s not ‘unresolved’ it’s been falsified.

Common descent is not even a prediction of Darwin's theory. It's a prediction of the Modern Synthesis, after genetics was rediscovered. And yes, DNA analyses have confirmed it. Darwin wrote at the end of his book that life was created by God, with one or several kinds of life giving rise to modern living things. He didn't know which of those was true. Molecular biology says common descent.

4. Hypothesis; simple life forms mutate into more complex life forms through small steps in complexity growth.

No. Often evolution results in less complexity. Humans, for example have simpler lower jaws, shoulder girdles, and ribs than reptiles. Complexity often increases, but it can also decrease in evolution.

Each good mutation is carried on, each bad mutation dies out.

No. Each useful mutation tends to increase and harmful ones tend die out. But time and chance happen to them all.

Poof, things became more complex.

Nope. As you just learned, sometimes things get simpler. And for highly conserved things, it might not change very much at all.

Then why is the protein-coding which occurs in sea anemones as complex as that which occurs in humans?

It's not quite. For example, cnidarians (which includes sea anemones) have linear mitochondrial DNA. But close. As you'd expect from highly conserved and primitive functions. It would be extremely difficult to evolve significant differences in such basic function.

Why were trilobite eyes just as complex as human eyes?

They aren't. They lack an iris, ability to resolve an image, focusing mechanism, etc.

And, the kicker, what do all our so closely related cousin species have to say about the evolution theory anyway? Shouldn’t we just ask our closest evolutionary cousin (possibly even one more ‘evolved’ than us) what they think about things?

Chimps are as evolved as we are from our common ancestor. They just evolved in a different direction. But their development shows how hominin evolution proceeded, a point first noted by D'Arcy Thompson over a hundred years ago:

http://legacy.iaacblog.com/maa2014-2015-advanced-architecture-concepts/files/2014/11/darcy5.gif[/quote]

Turns out, our development can be shown in terms of coordinate changes. Humans are neotonous; retaining many juvenile traits into adulthood. That includes larger skulls, smaller faces, and a much longer period of brain growth and learning.

5. Hypothesis; DNA segments that do not have functional advantages for a species (a bent cat’s tail for example) should mutate and thus diverge over time. The result being you should not find identical DNA segments in distant species that are non-functioning segments.

No. If there is no harm to a mutation, it can persist for a very long time. As you learned, such mutations tend to either disappear or become fixed over millions of years. The GULO gene in primates used to be useful for producing vitamin C. Since primates were fruit-eating organisms, it wasn't necessary, and at some point, a mutation occurred, that broke it. Over a long time, it became fixed in the population, replacing the functional version. It's still there.

Yet science proves exactly the opposite occurs.

Nope. See above.

100% Identical DNA segments can be found in both cat and fish DNA.

Given many millions of codons in DNA, I don't see how it could be otherwise. Even in funtional DNA, that happens. For example, long stretches of code for cytochrome C are identical in all living organisms.

For reasons you learned earlier.

These segments can be deleted and both ‘species’ survive.

Yes, much non-coding DNA is, like the GULO gene, non-functional but conserved. I'd be surprised if you couldn't find identical stretches, given the vast amount of non-coding DNA.

When more than half of vertebrate DNA is the same as that of a banana, you expect that to be true.