The evolving Darwin debate

WorldNetDaily ^ | March 24, 2002 | Julie Foster

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

If code reuse depended on chance, you'd expect nature to be pretty cruel. You'd expect to find lots of unused sperm cells, lots pregnancies that fail in the first couple of weeks, a number of deformed and/or inadequate children. You'd expect to see a world in which millions of offspring die young for each one that survives to reproduce.

If code reuse depended on random chance, nothing would get written.  Interesting that you mention sperm.  Apparently there is evidence that there are many types of sperm, only some of which are designed for impregnation.  Some are designed to attack other sperm.  Dying young has nothing to do with how life got there to begin with.

[js1138]

If code reuse depended on random chance, nothing would get written.

I think there have been wholly unjustified literal comparisons between DNA and blueprints and DNA and computer programs.

In bacteria, survival is improved by replication errors. The analogy to blueprints is mostly invalid.

[<1/1,000,000th%]

...more than 50 Ohio scientists issued a statement this week supporting academic freedom to teach arguments for and against Darwin's theory of evolution.

I don't understand why anyone wants to study Darwin except historians. The field left him behind a long time ago and is accelerating rapidly.

[<1/1,000,000th%]

Do you think God was high when he created the Duck Billed Platypus?

Oooo!

I'm tellin PH on you!

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

I think there have been wholly unjustified literal comparisons between DNA and blueprints and DNA and computer programs.

It was your analogy, not mine.

In bacteria, survival is improved by replication errors. The analogy to blueprints is mostly invalid.

Not necessarily.  Firstly, we don't know if these are replication errors, or are a response to environmental stimulii that are within the bacteria's genetic coding.  Secondly, if these are indeed random mutations, they are more likely to cause problems than solve them, so this argues heavily against random chance.  Thirdly, the changes themselves have not been shown to cause a disparate species.

[Dimensio]

Change in allele frequency over time.

That's basic evolution, the fundamental definition. Everything else is just an extension.

[sayfer bullets]

haha...

You know I don't remember either, but I thought it was a cheap shot and unbecoming of a Freeper.

[sayfer bullets]

I appreciate the links. I'll read up.

[js1138]

Not necessarily. Firstly, we don't know if these are replication errors, or are a response to environmental stimulii that are within the bacteria's genetic coding.

I don't believe this. For example, if mutation is a "designed" response to antibiotics, then the mutation rate would be very high in the presense of an antibiotic. After all, a given colony of bacteria is composed of nearily identical clones.

But the rate doesn't change. all that happens is that survivors increase in numbers because they are the only ones left standing.

[PatrickHenry]

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

I don't believe this. For example, if mutation is a "designed" response to antibiotics, then the mutation rate would be very high in the presense of an antibiotic. After all, a given colony of bacteria is composed of nearily identical clones.

The mutation rate wouldn't necessarily be very high.  There are many other factors involved (such as the amount of outside stimulii received).  As far as "nearly identical" is concerned, they are still separate and distinct organisms and are not nearly identical as we would first think.

But the rate doesn't change. all that happens is that survivors increase in numbers because they are the only ones left standing.

If a bacterium gets a less than life-threatening dose of poison, what's so unreasonable about the fact that it develops a further immunity against said poison?  This is not mutation.  The same bacterium after a period of time can lose said immunity.

[js1138]

If a bacterium gets a less than life-threatening dose of poison, what's so unreasonable about the fact that it develops a further immunity against said poison? This is not mutation.

Ask a biologist this question and get back with me. I don't have the references at hand to counter you, but I'm sure you are wrong about this. Bacteria re clones. Antibiotic resistence does require mutation.

I'll wait for a reference refuting this.

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

Antibiotic resistence does require mutation.

Again, not necessarily.  Try "immune system."  All organisms have them.

[js1138]

click here

[JediGirl]

Wrong on several counts. Physics and chemistry are proven sciences, evolution is not. They also do not purport to prove that religion is false. In addition to which, you can teach biology perfectly well without teaching evolution. In fact, IMHO you can teach it better without teaching evolution.

Well, since your opinion is based on your religious and pseudoscientific beliefs, it's not validated by the scientific world. And in what way is physics and chemistry proven where evolution is not?

[js1138]

And in what way is physics and chemistry proven where evolution is not?

They don't violate this year's list of forbidden ideas. But any chemist transported to the 15th century and who attempted to practice his trade, would have been burned alongside Bruno. Science isn't acceptable to g3k until the church has given it the OK.

[JediGirl]

You tell me where the proof is above. I see none except double-talk. Where is the scientific proof that man descended from a simple amoeba? Where? And no the magical word "selection" proves nothing.

I have a question for you: where is the proof that

GOD DID IT!!! GOD DID IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

/me breathes

[JediGirl]

They don't violate this year's list of forbidden ideas. But any chemist transported to the 15th century and who attempted to practice his trade, would have been burned alongside Bruno. Science isn't acceptable to g3k until the church has given it the OK.

And how does he define the church, i wonder?