There’s little debate that mutation and natural selection can allow a species of organism to develop traits that allow it to survive and reproduce in a given environment better than the original organism of that species could. Creationists tend to call this “micro-evolution.”
Creationists propose that micro-evolution is not sufficient to produce “macro-evolution,” which is usually defined as a “kind” becoming another “kind.”
Biologists usually state that there is no known limit to the accumulation of these changes, and so the line between “micro” and “macro” evolution is a false one. Creationists, on the other hand, state that “new information” is required to change one “kind” to another.
Because of this discrepancy in the requirements for what qualifies as evolution, there are going to be arguments about whether the observed changes in organisms’ genomes are evidence of evolution or not. Specifically, the definition of “new information” will be critical. To the majority of biologists, an organism’s ability to do something it couldn’t before is sufficient to show that new information has been added to a genome; creationists will argue that some traits can be added by either reactivating dormant genes, or integrating plasmids from other organisms. While the information may be new to the organisms, the creationist’s point is that no new information can be added to the whole biosphere’s collection of genomes, regardless of whether it’s passed between organisms.
I’ll limit the examples to those where an organism acquired new genetic traits based on mutation and selection of the existing genome.
It should be noted that this discussion will not change the nature of the science itself. It’s common to hear the phrase “That’s based on an assumption of millions of years,” as if that’s an a priori assumption made by researchers. In fact, it’s based on a mountain of data from geology, physics, biology, and nearly every other discipline, which, taken in toto, is simply overwhelming in its support for an old universe and the process of evolution. But of course, in internet discussions that level of investigation never happens the way it does in scientific circles, which is why every major scientific organization in the world has issued its own statement supporting evolution. You can read about a hundred of them here: http://ncse.com/media/voices/science
Last, before we talk about a few examples, I would like to ask creationists to make a prediction based on their own premises. If no new information is added to genomes, and as I’ve heard many times, that only degradation can happen because of Adam’s sin, it suggests that at some point in the future, species’ genomes will become so degraded that the species will simply fail to reproduce and lineages across the globe will simply end. I would be very interested in reviewing some creationist research that attempts to quantify the rate of degradation. It would be a very powerful prediction that evolution couldn’t make, and if it came to be proven accurate, would be enough to force researchers around the globe to reassess everything about evolution. It would be a fantastic triumph for creationism. I’m sure someone is working on it even as I write this.
Let’s pick an example. It’s a famous one, so I anticipate everyone in the discussion looking up what pundits on either side have said and parroting them here. That’s not much of a discussion, but I don’t see any other way of doing it. None of us here are trained evolutionary geneticists, so we will be relying on people who are. Please do the courtesy of referencing the original paper you’re using to make a point.
Lenski’s e coli experiment. Lenski has published literally dozens of papers on the evolution of his e coli genome, the latest of which is at Science http://www.sciencemag.org/content/342/6164/1364 (unfortunately unavailable without a subscription). Fortunately, there’s a not-terrible summary of his work on Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_long-term_evolution_experiment. Creationists have been writing about his work for almost as long as he’s been publishing it, so we should have lots and lots and (ad nauseam) lots of material on both sides to wade through.
Here’s one of the key findings: “In 2008, Lenski and his collaborators reported on a particularly important adaptation that occurred in the population called Ara-3: the bacteria evolved the ability to grow on citrate under the oxygen-rich conditions of the experiment. Wild-type E. coli cannot grow on citrate when oxygen is present due to the inability during aerobic metabolism to produce an appropriate transporter protein that can bring citrate into the cell, where it could be metabolized via the citric acid cycle.”
And: “Examination of samples of the population frozen at earlier time points led to the discovery that a citrate-using variant (Cit+) had evolved in the population at some point between generations 31,000 and 31,500. They used a number of genetic markers unique to this population to exclude the possibility that the citrate-using E. coli were contaminants.”
To kickstart the discussion, here’s what creationists tend to say: http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/11/rose-colored_gl066361.html
Now we will get into the discussion (perhaps, argument) of what constitutes “new information” and whether that is the proper method to measure the legitimacy of evolution.
I don't think I ever claimed it could turn pond scum into people. I was trying to be focused on one issue to actually talk it through. Internet commenting is almost always about "winning" and rarely about trying to understand something.
I also don't claim that cit+ is evidence of new information, largely because there's no criteria for what constitutes new information in a genome, so I can't claim that it meets the criteria.
The only thing I'm saying, and have been saying from the beginning, is that you can't claim evolution is falsified by the "new information" assertion if there is no criteria on which to judge whether something qualifies as "new information" or not.
My hypothetical was an attempt to split God's actions into "micro" and "macro" forms - one of which has never been observed - just as creationists do with evolution. I then invented something to differentiate between the two forms (like "new information"), but didn't give you a definition of it. It's then impossible for you to argue against, just as it's impossible to argue against "new information" when it has no criteria that define it.
I'm sorry you've had a long day. I've enjoyed talking with you. You've given me many things to think about.
I’ve heard explanations from creationists that usually boil down to either researcher’s incompetence (they’re brainwashed by universities; they’re too focused on their own fields to know what’s really going on; they’re deluding themselves; they’re just not very bright), or conspiracies of varying magnitude (they’re all lying to get big grant money; they’re lying because they’re godless and want to drag everyone down; they’re lying because if they don’t tow the party line then their careers will be over).
I’ve been in science education for a long time, so the way people respond to science has always interested me. I’m just curious how people in this forum respond to state of the world’s scientists.
This page is probably more representative of what he's talking about: http://www.pewforum.org/2009/11/05/public-opinion-on-religion-and-science-in-the-united-states/
However, the poll questions are not even representative of what biblical creationists actually believe. The only option that's not grand-scale evolution or 'I don't know' is "humans and other living creatures have existed in their present form since the beginning of time." This would seem to imply fixity of species which is not an honest representation of our beliefs.
Still, I don't think Darwinism is nearly as ubiquitous as the NCEE (they are really only concerned with the historical claim of evolution - not operational science) would have one believe. Even many secular evolutionists are talking about the weakness of the Neo-Darwinian mechanism of mutations with their purported magical abilities.
I'm pretty much a beginning runner. I started last summer and got up to 5k before this lower leg pain sidelined me. I took off for a month, visited a physical therapist who monitored me on a treadmill and helped me correct my form. I then had knee surgery. This week I started running again for the first time in about 3 months. I ran for only about 1 mile, 3 times on non-consecutive days.
This morning, my third run, I felt that same lower-leg pain starting. I'm positive that if I run again in the next few days, it'll be excruciating.
The pain is NOT along the front of my shin bone and does not hurt at all when I lift my foot. It feels almost as if it's the bone itself that hurts, however, everything I've read about the possibility of stress fractures says that it should hurt in one specific spot, which it doesn't. And it's both legs.
I've had a professional shoe fitting with running orthotics (which has done wonders for my knee), wear compression socks, am running on a treadmill, and all the stats from my Garmin say that my running form is pretty good.
Any thoughts or suggestions would be most appreciated. Thanks!
That seems perfectly reasonable.
The point that doesn't sit well with me is when the letter discusses the danger to "us" from AI. It's the "us" that troubles me. I think this takes a rather limited view of what it means to be human, especially when we're thinking about issues that might occur in the next century. The letter spells out potential issues, including mass unemployment if AIs take over most of our needs, but of course if most of your needs are being met, you have much less need for employment.
Several other points are made that, again, I think take a narrow view of what it means to be human. At a guess, I think the next century will see a very blurred line between what we consider AI and what we consider human. Is an AI in a human body human or AI? Is a human mind uploaded to a network human or AI? Right now, Google has an uncanny ability to guess what I'm looking for, including bringing me stories that I find interesting but did not search for. In a very real way, Google is an extension of me.
I don't disagree with the letter. I think we have to proceed with caution, but I wholly disagree that AI is, as Mush called it, a "demon."
- Sweetwater EnergyVP, Finance, 2009 - present
10 things to be thankful for in greentech this year
As you sit down to your sustainably raised turkey dinner this year, it's a good time to think about the things that have gone well for green
The Tower For The Dead, a skyscraper cemetery that goes straight down
We've seen concept art for space-saving vertical necropoles and inverted Mexico City skyscrapers before — here's a design that combines the
Faster-than-light neutrinos? New test confirms accuracy of experiment's ...
After inviting the particle physics community to scrutinize their surprising neutrino time-of-flight measurements, a collaboration of physic
HaxSync - ICS Facebook Sync - Apps on Android Market
HaxSync allows you to sync your Facebook friends with your Android 4.0 device! This gives you an experience similar to the Google+ one, comp
Saturn's Rings & 5 Moons Shine Together in Spectacular New Photo...
The photo, taken by NASA's Cassini spacecraft, shows two rings of Saturn as well as five of the giant planet's moons: Janus, Pandora, Encela