Evolution Again!

[_Ceeboo]

Bump!

Love seeing this thread at the top of the page!

Peace,
Ceeboo

[_Gunnar]

Hey Ceeboo! Thanks for starting this thread! I just discovered it to day, and I can hardly wait to finish reading it when I get the time. Your questions inspired some wonderful and fascinating comments from some of my favorite posters on this forum. I am having a great time following the discussion and the links provided. Very enlightening and interesting!

[_Ceeboo]

Hey Ceeboo!

Morning, Gunnar!

Thanks for starting this thread!

My pleasure!

Your questions inspired some wonderful and fascinating comments from some of my favorite posters on this forum.

I agree! There are some vey thought provoking and interesting comments from some of my favorite posters too!

I am having a great time following the discussion and the links provided. Very enlightening and interesting!

Yeah, although I am not the brightest star in the sky, I thoroughly enjoy discussing this topic - A fascinating topic, to be sure!

And, it is my opinion (as well as my experience) that this topic remains entirely fascinating on its own!

When you finish reading, please let me know what team you choose to be on (I might need to order another box of "Team Ceeboo" shirts. (No pressure but they are very cool shirts, comfortable, attractive, well made and.................. free!)

Peace,
Ceeboo

[_Gunnar]

Hey Ceeboo!

Morning, Gunnar!

Thanks for starting this thread!

My pleasure!

Your questions inspired some wonderful and fascinating comments from some of my favorite posters on this forum.

I agree! There are some vey thought provoking and interesting comments from some of my favorite posters too!

I am having a great time following the discussion and the links provided. Very enlightening and interesting!

Yeah, although I am not the brightest star in the sky, I thoroughly enjoy discussing this topic - A fascinating topic, to be sure!

And, it is my opinion (as well as my experience) that this topic remains entirely fascinating on its own!

When you finish reading, please let me know what team you choose to be on (I might need to order another box of "Team Ceeboo" shirts. (No pressure but they are very cool shirts, comfortable, attractive, well made and.................. free!)

Peace,
Ceeboo

Well, I finally finished going through the whole thread. I learned a lot of new stuff, and refreshed my memory of much I had already learned. My kudos again both to you for inspiring this thread and to the numerous contributors who enriched my understanding of the issues.

The overall results of reading through this whole thread are:

1. I stayed up way past my bedtime and am now seriously sleep deprived.
2. I am more convinced than ever that the evidence massively supports evolutionary theory--whether there is a God or not.
3. I find you even more likeable than before, and greatly appreciate your basic decency and sense of humor.

Can I be an honorary member of your team despite still accepting evolution, or at least remain your friend? As for that "Team Ceeboo" shirt, if it is the same color as the Invisible Spaghetti Monster, I think I may already have at least one very much like it already, but I won't object to you sending me another one.

[_Ceeboo]

Hey Gunnar!
(Wondering if your name reflects some military service on your part? If it does, I thank you for your service. If it doesn't, the name is still cool, in my opinion)

The overall results of reading through this whole thread are:

1. I stayed up way past my bedtime and am now seriously sleep deprived.

2. I am more convinced than ever that the evidence massively supports evolutionary theory--whether there is a God or not.

I understand and would suggest that your position is largely supported by many.

3. I find you even more likeable than before, and greatly appreciate your basic decency and sense of humor.

Very kind of you!

Can I be an honorary member of your team despite still accepting evolution, or at least remain your friend?

Abso-freaking-lutely! (On both accounts)

What my friends believe (and/or what perspective they might have) has zero influence on who, and/or why, I consider a person a freind!

As a matter of very strong personal opinion, the willingness to share/offer perspectives, beliefs, opinions, and life experiences (and not what those perspectives, beliefs, opinions, and life experiences happen to be) is what is found at the very foundation of mutually rewarding, mutually beneficial, and mutually valuable friendships.

As for that "Team Ceeboo" shirt, if it is the same color as the Invisible Spaghetti Monster, I think I may already have at least one very much like it already, but I won't object to you sending me another one.

It's on the way, friend!

Peace,
Ceeboo

[_DrW]

Hey Ceeboo,

As long as we are doing an Ceeboo Evolution thread retrospective, I would like to ask you if this, or any of the numerous other threads on evolution, and/or commentary on the problems with the views of evolution expressed by religionists over on the MADBoard, have changed the mind of Ceeboo, in any way, on this issue.

And I'm pretty sure that I am not the only one here who would be interested to hear what you have to say after some time for consideration, having been exposed (hopefully not overexposed) to the light of science on this issue.

[_Ceeboo]

Hello W!

Hey Ceeboo,

As long as we are doing an Ceeboo Evolution thread retrospective, I would like to ask you if this, or any of the numerous other threads on evolution, and/or commentary on the problems with the views of evolution expressed by religionists over on the MADBoard, have changed the mind of Ceeboo, in any way, on this issue.

First, I have not followed anything on the MADBoard in quite some time, so I can't give you any comments on that.

Secondly, I have found this thread to be extremely interesting, very thought provoking, and a whole lot of fun! (The pinnacle of value in my opinion)

Lastly, although I do not find the DTE to be absolute fact (there are simply too many unknowns, issues and hurdles in my opinion), I can completely understand why many do fully accept it as absolute fact. As it is proposed, It surely might be exactly correct and I make no bones about that.

And I'm pretty sure that I am not the only one here who would be interested to hear what you have to say after some time for consideration, having been exposed (hopefully not overexposed) to the light of science on this issue.

I have been considering this for several years (long before my introduction to the MDDB) and I remain in the same camp as I have been for some time now.

Ceeboo's Camp: Science (as well as all human beings from all disciplines) is a marvelous benefit to the entire human race. I am in utter awe of the accomplishments, value and progressiveness that science (as well as other fields of discipline) have brought forth to and for all of us to live better, healthier, and longer lives.

But (HA! ) while I appreciate that the DTE is widely accepted as fact (and I freely admit that it may indeed be) I do not accept it as fact.

I should add, whether it is, or is not, fact - has little relevance to the interesting and fascinating discussions that surround it! (Of course, that's just my opinion!)

Peace,
Ceeboo

[_DrW]

I have been considering this for several years (long before my introduction to the MDDB) and I remain in the same camp as I have been for some time now.

Ceeboo's Camp: Science (as well as all human beings from all disciplines) is a marvelous benefit to the entire human race. I am in utter awe of the accomplishments, value and progressiveness that science (as well as other fields of discipline) have brought forth to and for all of us to live better, healthier, and longer lives.

But (HA! ) while I appreciate that the DTE is widely accepted as fact (and I freely admit that it may indeed be) I do not accept it as fact.

I should add, whether it is, or is not, fact - has little relevance to the interesting and fascinating discussions that surround it! (Of course, that's just my opinion!)

Peace,
Ceeboo

Thanks, Ceeboo.

For your consideration - DrW's camp:

Assuming that you appreciate and agree with guidelines (rules really) for selecting among competing hypotheses, please consider the following:

The God-Did-It explanation for how humans came into existence rates as follows:

1. Falsefiable: No
2. Physical evidence in support: None
3. Predictive power: None
4. Logical explanation based on available data: No
5. Explanation requiring fewest contingencies: No (Occam's Razor)

Theory of Evolution explanation of how humans came into existence rates as follows:

1. Falsefiable: Yes
2. Physical evidence in support: overwhelming from any number of disciplines
3. Predictive power: Yes, and lots of it
4. Logical explanation based on available data: Yes, more supporting detail emerges every year
5. Explanation requiring fewest contingencies: Yes (Occam's Razor)

It should be pretty clear from this perspective that one who does not accept evolution must be counted among the science deniers of the world.

Here are some of the problems for all humankind that have arisen in the last few years from otherwise well meaning people who chose to be science deniers:

Polio is back: there has now been a sufficient refusal of free polio vaccination in some areas of Pakistan and elsewhere, because of religious belief, that this crippling disease, once thought to be eradicated by vaccination, has regained a foothold.

Infectious childhood diseases in schools: Science deniers who are refusing to allow their children to be vaccinated here in the US are putting their children, as well as hundreds of thousands of other children, at risk. This is getting to be a real public health problem in some areas.

Science deniers worldwide, as well as in the US (mainly Republicans), are irresponsibly slowing or preventing actions necessary to address climate change - and are helping to deny humankind any chance we might have had of heading off its worst consequences.

There are plenty more examples. And the problems can be attributed to folks who are science deniers for a variety of reasons associated with a variety of religious beliefs. (A Catholic Pope, condoms, and AIDS in Africa is a recent example that comes to mind, as does a certain religious group in Utah who thought that electric shock applied to the genitalia might be an effective means of "curing" SSA.)

Beliefs have consequences.

[_Ceeboo]

Thanks, Ceeboo.

For your consideration

You're welcome!

It should be pretty clear from this perspective that one who does not accept evolution must be counted among the science deniers of the world.

If you insist on the application of that label, feel free to count me in (Although, if it's okay with you, I don't consider myself a "science denier.")

Here are some of the problems for all humankind that have arisen in the last few years from otherwise well meaning people who chose to be science deniers:

Polio is back: there has now been a sufficient refusal of free polio vaccination in some areas of Pakistan and elsewhere, because of religious belief, that this crippling disease, once thought to be eradicated by vaccination, has regained a foothold.

Infectious childhood diseases in schools: Science deniers who are refusing to allow their children to be vaccinated here in the US are putting their children, as well as hundreds of thousands of other children, at risk. This is getting to be a real public health problem in some areas.

What on earth do these examples you proudly trot out (Wild attempts to connect implied dots - and by design I would imagine) have to do with what I find problematic (impossible in my opinion) concerning the proposal of Darwinian evolution.

If you want to have a sincere discussion about the theory, why don't we discuss the actual theory?

Instead of talking about Polio in Pakistan (I don't recall Darwin talking much about the Middle East) how about we talk about 2 examples that actually do have something to do with the topic.

1. The evolution of sexual reproduction
2. The evolution of Mitosis

Within DET, both are completely impossible.
What say you?

Science deniers worldwide, as well as in the US (mainly Republicans), are irresponsibly slowing or preventing actions necessary to address climate change - and are helping to deny humankind any chance we might have had of heading off its worst consequences.

There are plenty more examples. And the problems can be attributed to folks who are science deniers for a variety of reasons associated with a variety of religious beliefs. (A Catholic Pope, condoms, and AIDS in Africa is a recent example that comes to mind, as does a certain religious group in Utah who thought that electric shock applied to the genitalia might be an effective means of "curing" SSA.)

Beliefs have consequences.

Are there any Galapagos Island finches in that mess you just posted?!

Good Lord!

Peace,
Ceeboo

[_DrW]

1. The evolution of sexual reproduction
2. The evolution of Mitosis

Within DET, both are completely impossible.
What say you?

Peace,
Ceeboo

Ceeboo,

The temptation here is to ask about the creationist website from which you got these two bogus claims, but I won't.

I will just say that mainstream science does not consider either of these biological functions to be impossible (or even particularly problematic) within Darwinian Evolution Theory.

I'm sure you have read something like this before from me, but it bears repeating in this context: biology is all chemistry, and chemistry is all physics.

So in order to reasonably claim that something is "completely impossible within DET" (biology), you should be prepared to show that it is physically impossible.

In constructing this response, I will assume that you understand and accept the many evolutionary advantages of sexual reproduction, and are simply claiming that, according to DET, mitosis and sexual reproduction are completely impossible in the first place.

Let's start with the difference between prokaryotic and eukaryotic cells, since the latter organisms evolved from the former, and the latter are the organisms of interest when it comes to mitosis and sexual reproduction.

In prokaryotes, cell division is by simple binary fission, and DNA transfer can be by transformation (transmembrane uptake of a single DNA strand), conjugation (transfer of DNA fragments) or transduction (e.g. by phages - a type of virus). As described below, and in many other ways, it turns out that viruses are a lot more important in evolution that a lot of folks realize.

Some of the proteins (coded by DNA) that are involved in prokaryote transformation are very similar to those involved in eukaryote meiosis. This is not surprising since eukaryotes evolved from prokaryotes. In eukaryotes, sexual reproduction is evident in the fossil record from more than a billion years ago.

There are a number of postulated mechanisms for the emergence of mitosis and sexual reproduction, any one (or more than one) of which could have led to sexual reproduction in higher animals. None of these postulated mechanisms are chemically, or physically (thermodynamically) "impossible".

What follows is a brief description of not only how sexual reproduction could have evolved, but how eukaryotic organisms themselves (the ones that invented sex) could have arisen.

In my view, Viral Eukaryogenesis Theory has good explanatory power and is the mechanism I have always used as a working hypothesis, both for the emergence of eukaryotes and, as a direct consequence, the emergence of sexual reproduction.

The description below is from a Wikipedia entry (in which are cited more than 50 scientific papers, including this one *, which reminds me to suggest to you that instead of reading creationist websites that seem to do little but come up with unfounded straw man claims that reinforce your own strongly held beliefs, you might want to spend more time looking at relevant and readily available information from credible sources.

Did you even look up a Wiki article on the subject of the evolution of sexual reproduction and review some of the supporting scientific literature referenced there?

If you did, did you just not believe it?

The viral eukaryogenesis (VE) theory proposes that eukaryotic cells arose from a combination of a lysogenic virus, an archaeon and a bacterium. This model suggests that the nucleus originated when the lysogenic virus incorporated genetic material from the archaeon and the bacterium and took over the role of information storage for the amalgam. The archaeal host transferred much of its functional genome to the virus during the evolution of cytoplasm but retained the function of gene translation and general metabolism. The bacterium transferred most of its functional genome to the virus as it transitioned into a mitochondrion.

For these transformations to lead to the eukaryotic cell cycle, the VE hypothesis specifies a pox-like virus as the lysogenic virus. A pox-like virus is a likely ancestor because of its fundamental similarities with eukaryotic nuclei. These include a double stranded DNA genome, a linear chromosome with short telomeric repeats, a complex membrane bound capsid, the ability to produce capped mRNA, and the ability to export the capped mRNA across the viral membrane into the cytoplasm. The presence of a lysogenic pox-like virus ancestor explains the development of meiotic division, an essential component of sexual reproduction.

So, short story even shorter, a virus, an archaeon (prokaryote relative of a bacteria) and a bacteria walk into a bar (just kidding).

These three organisms got together and decided to specialize, each one doing what they could according to the laws of physics and chemistry - and the rest is, well, evolution. (An earlier version of this concept doesn't postulate the virus component, but it certainly helps to include it*.)

Before you say this scenario is impossible, you should consider the fact that phages (a type of lysogenic virus not related to pox virus, but which illustrate the point) still attack bacteria and commandeer their cellular machinery to make copies of the phage DNA and coating protein. These phage components, made by the infected cell, spontaneously self-assemble into new phages prior to their release.

Here is a short video illustrating this process. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JhyBNdukhPE

Here is a link to a review paper with the details.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3185693/
______________________

*PJL Bell (2006) Sex and the eukaryotic cell cycle is consistent with a viral ancestry for the eukaryotic nucleus, Journal of Theoretical Biology Volume 243, Issue 1, 7 November 2006, Pages 54–63