Posted on 01/07/2005 7:31:30 PM PST by leight
The Dominion Post newspaper in New Zealand publishes an occasional science column Unfortunately I can’t find a recent column by one Bob Brockie on line and don't have the hard copy.
Anyway Bob Brockie described certain snakes in Queensland Australia who have developed smaller mouths. These apparently have been developed because the poisonous toads in Queensland were part of the snake’s diet and thus unsurprisingly the snakes ended up being poisoned.
I suspect Darwin would have concluded that the snakes would therefore die out.Survival of the fittest. Apparently not.
The snakes have jumped up the evolutionary ladder and have grown smaller mouths, so by passing the toads as a source of food.It did not apparently occur to the mother snakes to pass on a warning to their offspring!
Bob Brockie in describing this adaptation believes he is describing evolution, that is, the snakes' adaptation is really evidence for change from one species to a new species.
He concluded that it was beyond his understanding how creationists believed in creation, rather than evolution.
However no one has ever observed the origin of a new species by selection, even with bacteria, of which thousands of generations can be produced in only a few months.You don't have to be a creationist to be sceptical about the theory of evolution.
Bob Brockie’s claim reminds me of my Biology school textbook of some thirty years ago that featured the peppered moth changing its wing colour. I was an impressionable school child back then. However those moths are still indisputably the same species they were back then.
This earlier example of adaptation was also presented as proof for “evolution” from one species to another species. Nothing much changes it seems!
However there is hope. The prominent atheist philosopher Antony Flew has had a change of mind, and is now convinced through advances in our understanding of the complexity of life that there is an intelligent designer behind our world.
Uh...huh?
You believe in creationism because it makes you feel good to believe in creationism. That makes you a hedonist.
This makes no sense.
How could poisonous frogs be a part of "the snake's diet" if the snakes died after eating the frog? That's like saying arsenic is a part of a human's diet.
If the snakes died then they left no genetic information behind that would recognized a frog as poisonous and something to be avoided by future generations of snakes.
So, if some snakes died and others had no way of knowing a frog was poisonous why would they develop smaller mouths?
ping
No, I'm a hedonist because I enjoy beer.
Here's the real mystery: suppose there were 333 prophecies written thousands of years prior to the appearance of either these creatures of a bird that eats both of these creatures as its staple diet. Subsequently, there has never been another example of this bird, nor is the existance of this bird in serious dispute by anybody. What is disputed is whether or not it at both types of animals, or if it ate any animals whatsoever, or even if it ate at all. Is that evolution?
I know that's a pretty way out conjecture, but so is evolution.
Why do you guys even bother to argue the crap. Have you ever known anybody to be swayed by any of the arguements pro or con? The most learned person can come to know and accept Christ as their savior. So can the most dense person on this planet. However, the stupidest person confronted with all the evidence can choose not to believe the earth is spherical. What does that say about the religion of a spherical world? On the other hand, I'm absolutely certain that the most intelligent person can make a most compelling argument that the world is flat. In fact, I'm certain that it can be so compelling that it would even compell a mathematical genius to doubt 2+2=4. That's why the philosophy of mathematics is taught.
No, its not taught for the purposes of causing grief to those who've believed all their lives that 2+2=4, or that the world indeed is spherical, but its taught for the mere essence that one can't really know truth.
Confusing micro- and macroevolution is a common debate tactic for ignorant creationists. The smarter ones know the difference.
There is the Law of Non-contradiction.
That which is true can not be false (and vice versa).
Because this is an example of micro-evolution (small changes within a species). It is not, and never was held up as, an example of macro-evolution (speciciation).
A good analogy might be to cars: let's say the two of us are arguing. I tell you that there is such a thing as a minivan that can hold eight people, whereas you disagree that such a thing exists. As we are talking, a motorcycle passes by, with just one person on it. "Aha," you say, "that vehicle had only one person on it, therefore there is no such thing as a minivan!"
The argument presented here against evolutionary theory is illogical in a big way. So I care that an illogical argument is being presented. It hurt's me almost as much as when I see an apostrophe out of place.
The snakes have small mouths because God designed them that way so they wouldn't eat the poisonous toads.
E.g. there are two of us creationists: one believes that God is so soveriegn that he forseen the "fall of man." The argument goes that because of this concept, the "first thing God did" was view into the future to see who would come to him. Some who would, he chose to be saved.
I don't care how you look at it, 2+2=4 2+2<> ~4
Now I'm sure you're going to have a whole bunch of your buddies onto this thread, and it'll be a real slam fest (both giving as they recieve). I couldn't care less about evolution.
I accept the Bible as being literally true. Hermeneutics dictates when the Bible should be interpreted as being either literally, or figurative truth. In either case, evolution deviates from the Law of Non-contradiction. Evolution is NOT required for scientific progress.
Please provide an example of the value of evolution with respect to scientific progress (aside from it being self serving). What medical progress has occured because of evolutionary theory.
Allow me to be more blunt. The theory of gravity has allowed things to happen akin to a hole in one (golf clap) over the course of a billion or more miles. The theory of evolution has:?
Seriously, man, evolution is a product of one's world view against supernaturalism. I truly can't flaw science in that regard. However, and here I begin to derail the whole issue: "what logic is there in against supernaturalism?" I absoulutely understand that supernateralism is antithesis to sciennce.
Show me the P & Q logic diagram against supernatural...
Allow me to be more blunt. The theory of gravity has allowed things to happen akin to a hole in one (golf clap) over the course of a billion or more miles. The theory of evolution has:?
Evolutionary algorithms are used in some AI applications. They remember what they did, test its effectiveness, and make sort-of random changes to it, and test those. The "best" things (with regard to whatever the test is) are kept, the underperformers are removed to make room for new randomly-altered things. (I realize this is vague, but I don't know which concrete applications have used this)
An understanding of evolution as it applies to viruses and bacteria is extremely important for combating disease. For instance, bacteria can evolve resistance to antibiotics. You've heard of MRSA? (Methicillin Resistant Staphylococcus aureus)
Many scientists believe that if we spray DDT in Africa to kill the mosquitoes, they will probably evolve resistance to the stuff, so we'd be worse off for spraying it. So evolutionary theory can guide the decisions of many policymakers.
But both of those are just examples of the importance of micro-evolution. The fact is, macro-evolution (speciciation, when one species splits into multiple species) generally takes a very long time, and thus it doesn't "do" much for us humans. I suppose because macro-evolution isn't very "useful" to us, people who don't believe in it could fit right in for 99.9% of all jobs and wouldn't differ much from people who believe in evolution. But just because macro-evolution isn't "useful" in that sense doesn't mean that it's false.
It can be "useful" to tell lies. That doesn't make them true. And there is a lot of knowledge out there that isn't "useful." For instance, the first letter of this post is an "I." Does that help you in any way? I suppose it could, if you were trying to read it, and the first letter was obscured.... but it probably isn't useful.
However, there is a school of thought that we should put more importance and give credence to that which is useful. We might not be able to "prove" that gravity exists (for all we know, there could be a host of angels moving every little thing around to simulate gravity, and someday they will start doing something different--we don't know), but because it is useful to believe gravity exists, we should at least act as if it is true.
I didn't ask you about AI algorithms.
Your antiboitica straw man is a bunch of crap. You don't cite any evidence of evolution you cite variation within the species. Tell me something mister algorithm man: do these bacteria who mutate to become MRSA have the same propensity to withstand what is their normal environment? If this is so, then why as a last resort to doctors resort to stopping all treatement? And why more often than not (when they do that) does the patient survive. Conjecturally, I'd speculate that mutations aren't all that postive for any organism. Your other example concrning DDT displayes a major lack of scientific insight. I'd suggest that you look into it scientifically (and not your religious pamphlets).
Insects that are genetically predisposed to resistance against DDT do not mutate into different species. In fact these insects are even more prone to the very things that kill insects.
You also said that "many scientists believe." Is this science? Let me ask you a very blunt question: "Do You Believe?" Because that's what matters. When you stand before the Great White Throne, its not going to matter what the other guy thought.
Are you prepared to talk electron valance concerning various biogenic "evolutionary" compounds? IF you are not prepared to do so, I would suggest that you walk away (or at least call your buddies). Just so your buddies know: I'm NOT pretending that what I said has anything to do with evolution. However, lets get down to brass tacks: Do you know that Jesus loves you?
I know that he does. Your railing that there is no love by a supernatural being doesn not make it so. Quit frankly, I fail to see the merits of this, but I'll take on last stab at it: "what holds the universe together?"
I'm sure you understand the construct of matter: neutron, proton, electon. I'm also sure that you can explain what causes a whole bunch of protons to remain clumped together. If you posit that the cloud of electrons "push" the protons and neutrons into the nucleus, well, then....
The Bible says that the universe is held together by the being of Christ.
Evolutionary theory, at least the micro-evolution part, is the idea that there is variation within existing species, and that as conditions change, certain variations are favored for survival whereas others tend to die out. The antibiotics thing is a perfect example of microevolution.
Conjecturally, I'd speculate that mutations aren't all that postive for any organism.
This is a foolish thing to say. The number of possible mutations is so huge that you can't dismiss them as being in general bad. It's true that the majority of mutations is bad, but that's not contrary to evolutionary theory at all. Mutations don't happen to serve some higher purpose, they just happen. And if a baby is conceived with a harmful mutation, it might die in the womb or be crippled such that it could not survive in the wild. (why do you think babies die in the womb? because Jesus doesn't love them enough? if speciation would shake your faith in Jesus, why don't miscarriages?)
The thing is, beneficial mutations happen often enough to change species. But not all mutations can be ranked as "good" or "bad"--some involve tradeoffs. The classic example of this is sickle-cell anemia, which provides immunity to malaria. So that mutation might remain very rare in the human population, until a big malaria outbreak over a couple hundred years, after which we would expect to see the percentage of the population with that mutation to increase. A lot of mutations like this survive because they are recessive.
Other mutations might be useful in conditions which are rare... but conditions change, and the those rare mutations can become common (for instance, thicker hair for dogs would not be very useful, until an ice age, at which point the gene might become common)
There are positive mutations, which proves your conjecture wrong.
You also said that "many scientists believe." Is this science?
Why wouldn't it be? If the scientists have come to those beliefs through a rational scientific process of thought... that's what science is. And yes, people "believe" in it, and no, that doesn't make it unscientific.
Are you prepared to talk electron valance concerning various biogenic "evolutionary" compounds?
Maybe you could explain what the hell this has to do with the topic at hand, if you want to discuss it.
Insects that are genetically predisposed to resistance against DDT do not mutate into different species.
What is your obsession with speciation? You asked how scientists use evolutionary theory to do more than draw up pictures of the "tree of life."
You haven't even addressed the issue of my being able to kill DDT resistant insects easier than non-DDT resistant bugs. Of course you will invariably point to the fact that MSRA patients die because there's nothing that kills the bug. Except for one thing: if the environment changes the MSRA bug changes immediately back to its original DNA makeup and nothing changed whatsoever.
Moreover, you've failed to specify precicely what evolution has accomplished in the lives of the general person over the last what years. Here's my prediction: evolution will be of NO benefit to ANYBODY (and yet it'll be the detriment to EVERYBODY). My prediction holds for even those who believe in evolution.
How about Santa Claus? That's a lie, but people find it useful enough that they deliberately deceive their children.
Or how about the idea that some supernatural force will punish people in the next world for their sins? It certainly serves a purpose (social control), whether or not it's true. If it is a lie, it's a useful one.
You haven't even addressed the issue of my being able to kill DDT resistant insects easier than non-DDT resistant bugs.
I don't know how resistance to DDT works, so I don't know if in fact the mosquitoes would be weaker than their non-resistant bretheren.
Of course you will invariably point to the fact that MSRA patients die because there's nothing that kills the bug. Except for one thing: if the environment changes the MSRA bug changes immediately back to its original DNA makeup and nothing changed whatsoever.
???
I don't think so. That's not my understanding of bacterial genetics. Bacteria don't ditch DNA the instant it stops being useful. The genes would have to place a very heavy burden on the bacteria for them to be naturally selected out "immediately."
If you look at the water from the Tokyo sewer system, you'll find all sorts of antibiotic-resistant bacteria, because of hospital waste. Do they rapidly lose those characteristics? No. Moreover, you've failed to specify precicely what evolution has accomplished in the lives of the general person over the last what years.
It's done plenty for me. I'm not a monkey.
Here's my prediction: evolution will be of NO benefit to ANYBODY (and yet it'll be the detriment to EVERYBODY). My prediction holds for even those who believe in evolution.
As we move forward scientifically, we'll be doing more and more with genetic engineering. Understanding how life on this planet developed will help us in that endeavor.
And how could the belief in evolution hurt us? Because it will turn us away from God and morality? Then what you are saying is that even if God was a lie, it would be more useful to believe in God (which comes back to my point that lies can be "useful"--note that things can be useful in the sense of providing a trade-off, they don't have to be perfectly better than any alternatives).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.