by cantleave 26 Replies latest jw friends
My daughters mistake, it must have been such a small part of the curriculum she had no recollection of it, she is doing a maths and physics degree, so I assumed she was correct, she remembers the part of the curriculum about SOTF, and reacalled an exam question about dogs.
How exactly do creationists use SOTF, to reason their point? May I have an example please?
Go easy though, I am a newbie. Kate xx
nice and tidy concept that evolution is all about "onwards and upwards" - Adam
Once the eukaryotic cell appeared, was increasing complexity inevitable?
I am reading Nick Lane's thoughts on that question right now. Fascinating.
Kate asked-
How exactly do creationists use SOTF, to reason their point? May I have an example please?
The way it's used by creationists as a pejorative against evolution is what you already know: it conveys a sense of cold-calculated evil, where only brute force matters, i.e. kill or be killed. Also, Darwin's ideas have been used to improperly apply it to social situations, AKA social Darwinism, used to exploit "less evolved people" (another nonsensical statement, since ALL humans are equally-evolved, except to adapt to different environments).
So SOTF is actually a straw-man, an intentional misrepresentation to make evolution seem cold and clinical; it's not the way evolutionary biologists understand the process to operate in many situations (as demonstrated by the mutation where bacteria developed the ability to metabolize citrate (when they couldn't do so before), and are thus able to exploit a previously-untapped source of nutrition that prior generations couldn't use. The net effect was to increase the food supply, and increase the carrying capacity of the environment (i.e. allowed for a larger population)).
Heck, look at humans: the very fact hominid evolution occurred in parallel with the evolution of the other primates (chimps, gorillas, apes, etc) demonstrates there doesn't have to be only ONE species that survives (and we all carry the genes of Neanderthals in us, so in a sense they live on in all of us). It wasn't an 'us vs them' or an 'either/or' competition, and when all of humanity is recognized as containing a broad spectrum of variations, such bigoted and old-fashioned concepts of race (and hence, racism) become absolutely silly to adopt, since we all share common ancestors with ALL other living beings on the Planet. That's a beautiful realization, since it doesn't limit it to just fellow humans who are members of the same religion.
And now that humans are in the position of "the top ape" (i.e. the dominant species) on the Planet, I'd argue we have a moral and ethical DUTY to protect all these other species, in order to make sure they DON'T go extinct even before they can be discovered; certainly we shouldn't hunt them out of existence (I'm vehemently anti-hunter, with a profound respect for other life forms), and we certainly shouldn't remove their habitat in order to drive these other species into extinction. While the Bible says, "I am by brother's keeper", but it doesn't include animals, which are relegated to the role of sacrificial victims.
We spend alot of time arguing here over Gods existence, when I'd much rather be discussing the ethical treatment of animals (a topic which gets lost in the shuffle, since it's heavily-influenced by the Judeo-Christian view of animals as something to be slaughtered to atone for OUR human sin). Most believers are quite blissfully unaware of the awe and respect for nature that's written about by naturalists such as John Muir (the Einstein of naturalists).
Cofty said-
Once the eukaryotic cell appeared, was increasing complexity inevitable?
At least when I learned of it, the eukaryotes were considered as more of endogenous commensural adaptation, AKA endosymbiosis. I suppose if there's a slow-change change such that the complexity should reduce, there's no law that says increased complexity must continue.
Of course, the classic example in organisms towards lesser complexity of the phenotype is vestigial structures (such as the dew claw of the dog's foot, or even the heel pad, which is visible in the preview below, being the structure right above the words 'dew claw'). Eventually these unused (and hence, unneeded and wasteful) appendages are expected to disappear completely, perhaps via action of regulatory gene switches that mutate to turn off. Until these structures completely disappear, they remain tangible evidence of evolution that many of you have seen, "but don't have eyes to see" (sorry, Tammy; I couldn't resist).
Aron Ra discusses vestigial organs in this fascinating YouTube video, dismantling Ken Ham's creationist claims (esp beginning around the 19:00 mark, if you don't have time to watch the entire video, where he explains vestigial organs/structures):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RSRc1G45M48
Adam
Adam,
Nice first paragraph it answered my question well. I am afraid you lost me at..... (as demonstrated by the mutation where bacteria developed the ability to metabolize citrate
Why are you discussing metabolizing citrates, and what the heck are they. Yeah okay it's got something to do with E-coli. Come down to my level or I won't read your posts Adam. I said I will only read your posts if you make them interesting, they are not interesting if you teach me something at the wrong level Adam
If you are experienced at teaching you must realise you can't teach someone at the wrong level, I want to learn what you have to teach me, so explain slowly, with less words.
Kate xx
Kate said-
Why are you discussing metabolizing citrates, and what the heck are they. Yeah okay it's got something to do with E-coli. Come down to my level or I won't read your posts Adam. I said I will only read your posts if you make them interesting, they are not interesting if you teach me something at the wrong level Adam...
You're trolling again, right? I mean, you ask what metabolizing citrates are, when you claim to be a chemist?
Kate, I know the topic of Lenski's experiment in the lab showing evolution of E. Coli has come up repeatedly in many threads in which you've participated (and even some you've started), but if you can't be bothered to actually read the links provided (or, you lack the ability to remember what you read), then there's nothing more to say....
Whether you intended to or not, you're coming off as a spoiled petulant child as if you're entitled to have ideas presented in pre-digested chunks, and if not, you're going to believe what you want to believe, so nah!
No one owes you or anyone else to teach you ANYTHING, so maybe you need to take a night course and lay down some cold-hard $$$ to be spoon-fed basics of biology in a manner that you're not going to spit out...
Adam
Cofty, the topic of 'fixation' came up indirectly in a past thread, where you used the ratchet analogy (where 'fixation' is a possible mechanism for anything resembling a ratchet function is found in biology).
I ran across an interesting discussion of 'Muller's ratchet' which you might enjoy, since it's a topic that creationists have latched onto by adopting the SOTF meme and incorrectly assuming that the presence of VSDM (very-slightly deleterious mutations) represents the death-knell for the theory of evolution, which WOULD be true IF evolution depended on SOTF, since their presence undermines and violates the SOTF concept (which, as I said above, is a strawman claim).
Of course, the burden of deleterious mutations IS a known-property of some genes, but their burden is acceptable in the short-term just as long as the organism doesn't accumulate too many such energy-wasting mutations, or they aren't fatal/lethal deleterious mutations (i.e. the carrier is aborted before birth, or dies before reaching reproductive age).
In fact, the presence of VSDM is actually the answer to the creationists' protests of "irreducible complexity" for certain physiological processes, since VSDM are thought of as going into debt short-term in order to make a long-term investment. In other words, it's a gamble which MAY or more likely MAY NOT pay off for the organism; but if it DOES proves beneficial under changing conditions, the species as a whole eventually benefits when the trait become 'fixed' in subsequent generations:
http://www.talkrational.org/showthread.php?s=ad37c2290051c46fbf1d3ba0df134811&t=2044&page=1
Adam
Adam, calm down matey. I am trying to have a conversation with you, not do in depth research. I can remember what we did and didn't do on metabolites, especially as I have not worked with them. I am a QC chemilcal analyst.
But if you don't want to converse you are the one trolling not me, many have said how they feel about your posts, so you can either listen or ignore what many say. There are many online at the same time and can have live chat, you don't need to give us a project to do we are here to chit chat Adam.
Kate, I know the topic of Lenski's experiment in the lab showing evolution of E. Coli has come up repeatedly in many threads in which you've participated (and even some you've started)-Adam
Give me an example of one post Adam please. Kate xx
