? about genetics, evolution, and Genesis

[Igu]

God created man in his own image... but then Man evolved.

[Cerdic]

In answer to Merlin's earlier questions:

The origin of mitochondria is a theory, as it is thought to have occurred a very long time ago it cannot be tested as such but it is generally accepted as the most likely scenario within the Biological community. Similar arrangements can be seen today, such as the green algae which live inside the cells of many corals. Corals are simple multicellular animals, they provide a safe, controlled environment plus nutrients for the symbiotic algae, and in turn the algae provide the coral with energy derived from photosynthesis. Mitochondria are membrane-bound and have their own genomes which are totally separate from the nuclear genome. The genes encoded by the mitochondrial genome are very reduced and specialised but resemble the genes found in certain types of bacteria. Mitochondria are largely concerned with aerobic respiration (the Krebs cycle), it is imagined that the ancestors of all eukaryotes (organisms with a nucleus – everything between yeasts and oak trees to humans) ingested a bacterium which wasn’t digested; the bacterium found a favourable new environment and the host cell gained a new method of energy production. A good deal all round.

I’m not entirely sure what you mean by “crossing species” speciation is regarded as a “one way street.” The major criterion for deciding if two organisms are separate species is if they can produce viable offspring. If not they constitute two species, if they can interbreed then they are sub-species or races. Therefore once a new species is formed it is separate and goes down its own evolutionary path. The variety of different forms of life is caused by “radiation” rather than “crossing” or “mixing.” An ancestral organism can produce variations in body-plan or physiology over time by the action of natural selection on mutations which occur in its genes. The production of new forms is not, however, inevitable in all cases. The brachiopod Lingula (a shelled animal living in mud in shallow sea-water) has remained identical in form since the Jurassic era if not earlier. This just shows that it has lived in an environment which has remained remarkably stable over a vast period of time.
The classic example of radiation concerns the Darwin’s finches of the Galapagos Islands. The Galapagos are very isolated, and of relatively recent geological origin, the chance of founder populations of terrestrial animals reaching the islands is small. However, once on the islands there are many ecological niches open with few competitors. The ancestral finch to reach the Galapagos was probably like most finches in the world, a seed eater with a shortish beak. With many potential food sources and no pre-existing competitors already adapted to eat them the finches had the opportunity to “radiate” into many new forms. Finches on Galapagos became adapted to various foods, such as flying insects, bark grubs, large tough seeds and even the blood of nesting seabirds. The adaptations produced a variety of beak shapes suited to the various foods available, from very stout powerful beaks to slender curved stilettos. So from one type of bird a whole variety of species was produced. This is the mechanism by which all variation in living organisms is believed to have been produced.

There are problems with the concept of the species; the best known involves a group of seagulls. There is an interrelated family of gulls which inhabit the northern hemisphere, starting in western Europe and moving through Russia, Siberia and right across N America to Greenland. Each different type of gull can interbreed with its neighbour, the European gull with the Russian, Siberian with the Alaskan etc etc. This would suggest that they are all sub-species, however the gulls either side of the N Atlantic (the widest geographical barrier) cannot interbreed.

As far as we are aware evolution is still going strong. It can most easily be seen in micro-organisms where short generation spans allow changes to be discerned on a human timescale. We are “environmentally challenging” many harmful micro-organisms with our use of anti-microbial drugs, a form of “unnatural selection” if you like. The microbes are responding by evolving drug resistance. This is in the news with the spread of MRSA and drug-resistant malaria parasites.

There is a very limited form of “mixing” that does occur, this is called “horizontal gene transfer.” This is where a gene can skip between unrelated organisms. It is most common amongst bacteria and other “primitive” organisms and can be the cause of antibiotic resistance appearing in a particular bacterium. A similar mechanism is used in the lab to introduce foreign DNA into bacteria or other cells. This is how human insulin and growth factors are now produced – by the human gene being placed in a bacterium where it can be produced and harvested in large amounts and comparatively cheaply. The human genome is also host to the remnants of viral DNA which has become integrated, another form of horizontal gene transfer.

[vela]

Fascinating topic and excellent explanation, Cerdic. Thanks!

[geo]

Molika molika, what is that you really seek?

[molika]

I have already found Him...

[geo]

Then why do you engage yourself in discussions with... 'scientific minds'? I mean, by saying

"To prove the spirit exists comes only from direct experience with having it awakened within you."

you declare a personal truth, your personal truth, and in the same time you refuse all I could say to persuade you. If you cannot be persuaded on the ground of common logic that people use for their dialogues, how do you expect me (or anyone) to be persuaded by your personal truth?


Thats why my not-so-polite question.

[molika]

Dear Geo,

Logic, reason and science do not contradict any of my beliefs, otherwise I would have to give up my career.

Some attempt to use science, logic and reason to that end. It is only when our view of the world gets that small that we are convinced by them.

You cannot prove the existance of God in scientific terms no more than you can disprove His existance. Again this is an attempt to compartmentalize and fit God into a neat little box. It's like you are living in the little black box and loudly proclaiming there is no light. From inside the box you may be able to prove there is no light. But those outside the box can see your error for what is darkness, but absence of light?

There is only one truth. It is your choice.

[merlin]

Cerdic-

Thank you for your thoughtful answers to my questions. I always understood the theory of evolution to be a linear process. Somehow a living one-celled organism appeared and through natural selection and as you put it- blind-luck- the various Kingdoms of life appeared. I assumed that mammals had shared ancestry with the types of life that came before, but that mammals would share more dna with other mammals and the types of life that came before would not have that mammalian dna. But how does radiation fit into this theory? I take radiation to mean that species of life radiated out from the one-cell organism so the species of ape does not share dna with humans.

I need more explanation of radiation. It is a fascinating theory.

You've caused me to do a lot of research. Here's a website on classification that was a help to me, if anyone else is interested:

anthro.palomar.edu/animal/default.htm

Thanks for your answers. I'm knowledgeable about horses, American blues/rock music, and Bible study, so if you have any questions about them, just ask!

[geo]

molika said:

Logic, reason and science do not contradict any of my beliefs, otherwise I would have to give up my career.

That's another irony of the modern man.

molika said:

It's like you are living in the little black box and loudly proclaiming there is no light. From inside the box you may be able to prove there is no light. But those outside the box can see your error for what is darkness, but absence of light?

You are using the same allegory of the cavern, right out of Plato's 'Politeia'. Actually had you studied it you could say more over your point.

molika said:

There is only one truth. It is your choice.

Can't you see your two sentences contradict one another?

[SensoUnico]

[
Logic, reason and science do not contradict any of my beliefs, otherwise I would have to give up my career.

That sounds very hypocritical. Study under the Pharisees do you?

Plato was using an allegory of looking from inside a cave at shadows representing the universe outside the cave. In a sense, that is what everyone trying to fathom the universe is doing, looking at shadows and trying to build that Big Picture of how the universe works. molika is mistaken about people being outside the cave. The visionaries are closer to the exit to the cave, the rest of humanity is in the back, in the darker cramped recesses of the cave playing nintendo or wanking. No-one will ever know all that is worth knowing or have a brain large enough or sophisticated enough to understand. Humans have limitations in their ability to understand. Just as most people would rather cling to superstitions and primitive god images in order to try to cope with death and the meaninglessness of their existence compared with space and time. The Milky way is a young galaxy, the Solar system is a embryo star system and the Earth an insignificant 4 billion years old. Compared to Jesus born 4 BCE or Muhamad born in the 570 CE, they are nothing.

[nockwasright]

molika said:

You cannot prove the existance of God in scientific terms no more than you can disprove His existance.

You can not disprove the existence of an invisible and intangible elephant sitting on your keyboard right now. You can not disprove the existence of a God who praises and rewards rapers and children slaughterer (actually this isn't so far off as many times such actions were made in the name of some God). You can not disprove the existence of anything.

In other words, if you want to argue rationally, the burden of the proof that God exists and that it is what you think he is lies entirely on you. Otherwise give up arguing (the church gave up many centuries ago, the last serious attempt to prove God existence rationally is Saint Thomas').

[molika]

All three of you exactly prove my point.

1. You take what I say and you relate it to an unrelated 'theory' Plato's cave allegory. The cave allegory is a misrepresentation of my original point. Typical, but none-the-less incorrect.

2. You make a hypothesis that is incorrect and build on it...ie (a) no one exists outside the box, 'cave', (b) scientists and believers are mutually exclusive, (c) there is more than one truth.

3. You thrust the burden of proof on the believer, which we have already established that God and invisible elephants can be neither proven nor disproven. I would like to see 'proofs' of the three items a, b, c above.

Nock, people will use the name of God for anything. This however, does not reflect on God only upon the people who commit the heinous atrocities.

[nockwasright]

molika said:

3. You thrust the burden of proof on the believer, which we have already established that God and invisible elephants can be neither proven nor disproven. I would like to see 'proofs' of the three items a, b, c above.

Nock, people will use the name of God for anything. This however, does not reflect on God only upon the people who commit the heinous atrocities.

I meant: if you want to argue rationally the existence of something, you have to prove that this something exist. The fact it can't be disproved its existence is not relevant.
From a rational viewpoint your belief is equal to my belief in invisible elephants (don't take offence please, I am referring only to the rational point of view).
You can't prove your nor disprove mine and the same is for me. What you call heiunous atrocities I could say are God pleasing acts and you could not "disprove" me.
When you click the "post" button you expect your message to appear on our computers. Electricity existence is proved. If I say there's a sphinx in Naples you would ask me to prove it. So when you say there's God why shouldn't I ask you to prove it?

[molika]

Nock, does evil exist?

[nockwasright]

molika said:

Nock, does evil exist?

In an absolute way (for the Universe), no. In a human way I think so (i.e. there are things that are considered evil by all humans in all times), but can't prove it. For me, yes, there are things I consider evil.