Creationists teach evolution, too!

[hardcore]

JoeyBlades, obviously you haven’t read any of my links, so I guess I will have to extract the relevant parts for you. First, let’s try the definition of evolution. From the definition of evolution we have:

Biological evolution … is change in the properties of populations of organisms that transcend the lifetime of a single individual. The ontogeny of an individual is not considered evolution; individual organisms do not evolve. The changes in populations that are considered evolutionary are those that are inheritable via the genetic material from one generation to the next. Biological evolution may be slight or substantial; it embraces everything from slight changes in the proportion of different alleles within a population (such as those determining blood types) to the successive alterations that led from the earliest protoorganism to snails, bees, giraffes, and dandelions."

• Douglas J. Futuyma in Evolutionary Biology, Sinauer Associates 1986

and

“In fact, evolution can be precisely defined as any change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next.”

• Helena Curtis and N. Sue Barnes, Biology, 5th ed. 1989 Worth Publishers, p.974

also

evolution is simply “a process that results in heritable changes in a population spread over many generations”

From the Intro to biology that I offered you comes the following:

Evolution is a change in the gene pool of a population over time.

National Center for Science Education director Eugenie C. Scott

I do not find the traditional “evolution is changes in gene frequencies through time” to be a useful definition, even if it were modified to be “cumulative changes in gene frequencies through time.” Especially at the beginning of a course, who knows what a gene frequency is?

Though Eugenie prefers “descent with modification” for initial use with young students, you can at least see the reference to the traditional definition. Now I don’t know how much more you need to understand the scientific definition of evolution, but if this isn’t enough, let me know and I will provide more references.

Again with the assumptions. You’ve already slotted me into some sort of fundamentalist fanatic category and closed the book.

The only assumption I have made so far is that you don’t understand the definition of evolution. I intended to cast no aspersions as to your fanaticism, but I will assume that you don’t read the links that I provide for you from now on.

I think this language is overly strong and reactionary due to the attempts to defend the teaching of evolution in schools… again, the point I agree on, but I don’t agree with the statement as it’s written.

You’ll no doubt forgive me if I am inclined to side with 72 Nobel Laureates, 17 State Academies of Science, and 7 other scientific organizations over your considered opinion regarding this matter. Especially since you have demonstrated that you don’t even understand the definition of evolution and call me delusional for trying to point out that fact.

In evolution theory, there is very little of a predictable science involved.

I’d be interested to see actual evidence of how the theory of evolution actually predicted something from fossil hunting or molecular biology.

I thought that might be where you were trying to go with your statements. You first must understand that biological systems have a tremendous amount of variables involved. Even if I know everything about your current state, I can’t predict what you will do 5 minutes from now. But if you eliminate many of the extraneous influence in the lab, you can do a mighty good job of predicting outcomes. Combine certain bacteria with the proper antibiotics, and you can predict that a small amount will evolve a resistance to it in the future generations.

For more evidence of predictions from my genetic link above:

In fact, this model predicts that many unitary pseudogenes should be found if scientists examine the genes specifying vestigial structures–for example, genes encoding eye structures in blind species such as moles or cave-dwellers. (An example confirming this prediction was recently described in marsupial moles: an apparent unitary pseudogene related to the interphotoreceptor retinoid binding protein gene [Springer et al., PNAS 94:13754, 1997].

also

The theory of evolution would make the strong prediction that primates closely related to humans should also be found to have GLO pseudogenes and that these would carry similar crippling mutations to the ones found in the human pseudogene. This prediction was stated in earlier versions of this essay. A test of this prediction has recently been reported. A small section of the GLO pseudogene sequence was recently compared from human, chimpanzee, macaque and orangutan; all four pseudogenes were found to share a common crippling single nucleotide deletion that would cause the remainder of the protein to be translated in the wrong triplet reading frame (Ohta and Nishikimi BBA 1472:408, 1999).

There are many more examples, but I hope I have made my point.

Careful with that analysis. I use code segments and libraries to build complex computer programs. If you look at any two programs that I’ve written, you will see many, many simularities. It would be a mistake to assume that any two of these programs once shared a common ancestor on the basis of these similarities.

Again you haven’t studied the material in the provided link. The similarities are in the non-functional parts of the program. Let me try it using your analogy. If you and I each wrote a spreadsheet program using the same language, and the code was 98% similar, you might argue that I copied your work. I could claim that I separately created my code, and the similarities were due to the fact that each program was performing the same functions. Maybe a judge would believe me. But if I had exactly the same comments in the program code as you, I probably would lose the case. And if I had exactly the same errors in the comments, well, you would rightly claim that I had plagiarized your work, and I would be guilty of copyright violations.

This is the same situation we find in the psuedogenes of closely related species. Identical errors are in the same places of non-functional DNA, which contribute nothing to the fitness of the organism. You may not find this convincing evidence of common descent; however, I and most of the scientific community do.

I defy you to find any credible reference that would call “a change in allele frequency of a population” an example of evolution.

I provided these references in previous postings to you in this thread. Now I have copied them to this page so you won’t need to actually click on the link. If you do not find these credible, please let me know “o great and wise sage.”

[hardcore]

I meant to address your contention that this statement

Science is devoted to formulating and testing naturalistic explanations for natural phenomena. It is a process for systematically collecting and recording data about the physical world, then categorizing and studying the collected data in an effort to infer the principles of nature that best explain the observed phenomena.

somehow contradicted this statement by the Nobel scientists

“The evolutionary history of organisms has been as extensively tested and as thoroughly corroborated as any biological concept.”

but I must admit I am at a loss to comprehend your meaning. How is a description of science at odds with evolution being “extensively tested and as thoroughly corroborated as any biological concept?”

[xenophon41]

Sorry to quibble, Danielinthewolvesden, but you said:

I think you folks are missing the original item taught, about the moths. They were NOT teaching evolution.

You then stated that it was the assumption of creationists posting on this board that each moth generation produces the same number of white and brown moths:

But since we onlt SEE the brown ones, we assume selective evolution is taking place. In other words, what they are reaching is not only not evolution, but goes against common sense, which is why Mealworm thought they WERE argueing evolution.

However, in the OP mealworm explained to us that the creationists’ argument in the textbook was that there was no speciation involved because brown moths had “always” existed:

BUT… The school says that no, this is not evolution. There were always brown moths. The trees that these moths live on are dark brown. Thus the white ones get eaten, leaving the brown ones to live (because the birds can’t see them… They blend in with the bark). Thus, more brown moths.

Well, we’ve established in this topic that ‘speciation’ does not equal ‘evolution.’ We also know that the relative success or failure of random adaptations is a key driver of evolution. Therefore, since I agree with Daniel’ that:

What was happening is that the gene for white moths was being wiped out as they were eaten before they could reproduce, so that there were NOT = #s of both being born.

and since the school’s textbook did NOT deny that fewer numbers of white moths were being “born” (hatched actually, but WTF…) then I have to agree with mealworm that:

So… I was thinking… THAT IS EVOLUTION, YOU MORONS!

(BTW, Daniel’, thanks for your kind words of encouragement in MPSIMS. They were very much appreciated, and I now feel confident in posting to this forum…)

[JoeyBlades]

hardcode,

JoeyBlades, obviously you haven’t read any of my links, so I guess I will have to extract the relevant parts for you.

Not precisely true, I read many parts of many of your links, but I had missed your initial link to the definition you were using, sorry for that. Fair enough, this is a broader definition of evolution to encompass microevolution. We’re arguing symantics here, when the issue that concerns the fundamentalist is macroevolution. Few of the fundamentalist would argue that microevolution doesn’t occur. They don’t need Spotted Moths to demonstrate that fact. They can witness these effects in blood types, hair color, and many other observable genetic traits that can be shown to drive microevolution under the right conditions. It’s a big gap from genetic color variations to a new species. You can play word games all you want to try and skirt the issue, but to the fundamentalist that just looks like deception… I was using definitions from several medical and scientific dictionaries and was driving in a direction that eventually leads to macroevolution. However, I will concede that your definition is more technically correct. Especially since this link claims that most dictionaries are wrong. Backpeddling… I humbly bow to your wisdom in this… No, really…
On the point about predictability, you are still missing my point. The fact that potentially decendent species share some genetic similarities does not constitute incontrovertable proof that these species share a common ancestor. I think it presents a strong case, but there could be other explanations. It’s entirely possible that there is a confusion between cause and effect in at least some of these examples.

Again you haven’t studied the material in the provided link. The similarities are in the non-functional parts of the program.

Actually, I comprehended this completely. Do you think that my computer programs don’t share the same non functional code, comments, inaccessible subroutines, debug code, etc.? My point is that this is not proof of a common ancestor, it merely supports the case that a common ancestor COULD be indicated.

You may not find this convincing evidence of common descent; however, I and most of the scientific community do.

Yes. Very convincing. Also, not new to me. I don’t need convincing that evolution occurs - both micro and macro. You have only to convince me that evolution is as precise and predictable a science as relativity. I remain unconvinced.

[Danielinthewolvesden]

XENO:Anytime I can encourage good posters I’m happy. You 'quibble" is well taken, but my point is we have only Mealworms “take” on what they taught. I am assuming a different attack angle taken by them. I don’t think mealworm understood them, because he is too intelligent, and assumed they were not saying what they did. maybe I’m wrong , but we will never know, unless MW posts the exact quote from the text.

[Boris_B]

JoeyBlades
I think the point amount similarities in non-functional parts of DNA (“introns”, I think they’re called) is that the chances against identical, non-functional sequences occurring in two different species randomly are astronomical. Don’t you agree that there is a continuum between “a strong case” and “proof beyond reasonable doubt”? (The latter was not your words, but I prefer that phrase to “incontravertable proof”, especially since I can’t spell “incontrivertable”.)

To continue the software lawsuit metaphor, if you and I both had a program containing the line “130 REM this is the funky-ass section of program where I do the Zamboni algorithm”, and you sued me for stealing your code, I would lose. (That’s right, the only language I’m familiar with is BASIC. Mock me gently.) You would convince the jury that, incredibly unlikely events notwithstanding, I could not have come up with terms like “the Zamboni algorithm” independently. Isn’t this enough?

The point is, any argument can be refuted, sub-logically, by saying, “Oh, a great and powerful sorcerer has hypnotized us both into thinking that logic works.” We have to get past that. There are no certainties, so we have to rely on great likelihoods.

And you’re right that biological evolution is not so precise as relativity. Relativity can (but doesn’t always) involve nice clean stuff like equations and thought experiments. Evolution involves extinct life forms, unknown causalities, fragmentary fossils. An important comparison, but not necessarily a fair one. It just seems like the same old “physics envy” - the physicists know more math, write shorter dissertations, and don’t have to worry about coming into the lab on Monday to find all the fruit flies dead.

[GaWd]

**
When I envision God, he’s wearing a lab coat…

**

What’s he wearing under his lab coat???

-Sam

[JoeyBlades]

Boris B,

You asked:

chances against identical, non-functional sequences occurring in two different species randomly are astronomical

Ahhh… but there’s another built-in assumption here. This analysis assumes that non coding DNA is a random phenomenon. I know I’m opening up a whole new can of worms here, and that’s not really my intent, but what if the entire DNA content (including non coding DNA) is really an engineered mechanism, not a happy random coincidence?

[hardcore]

JoeyBlades

We’re arguing symantics here, when the issue that concerns the fundamentalist is macroevolution. Few of the fundamentalist would argue that microevolution doesn’t occur. They don’t need Spotted Moths to demonstrate that fact.

You are starting to remind me of the fella that goes to the doctor saying “Ya know, my friend has this problem…” You seem to know an awful lot about what the fundamentalist thinks

Nevertheless, how can you say a fundamentalist wouldn’t argue microevolution and the Spotted Moth as an example when you have challenged it on this very thread!

It’s a big gap from genetic color variations to a new species.

As David B pointed out earlier, it’s only a matter of scale. From a genetic standpoint, it is exactly the same thing, only more of it. It is similar to the difference between walking to your friend’s house and walking across the US. Sure, cross-country walking takes a lot longer, but it involves the same processes.

You can play word games all you want to try and skirt the issue, but to the fundamentalist that just looks like deception…

I am not sure if you meant this about me or were just speaking rhetorically. Just in case you had me in mind, simply point out the word game or direct me to the issue I am skirting and I will attempt to clarify.

On the point about predictability, you are still missing my point. The fact that potentially decendent species share some genetic similarities does not constitute incontrovertable proof that these species share a common ancestor.

Of course it doesn’t. But science doesn’t provide incontrovertible proof, it gathers evidence. And the weight of that evidence is completely in support of evolution. So much so that scientists are willing to file briefs to the Supreme Court stating this fact.

It’s entirely possible that there is a confusion between cause and effect in at least some of these examples.

Again, here you lost me. Are you referring to some type of Lamarckism??

Do you think that my computer programs don’t share the same non functional code, comments, inaccessible subroutines, debug code, etc.? My point is that this is not proof of a common ancestor, it merely supports the case that a common ancestor COULD be indicated.

If two separate programs that you wrote have the same non-functional code, then I submit you copied the code from one program to the other. I certainly hope you didn’t redo the same poor work in each case. This is exactly what nature has done with evolution – copied the ancestor’s code (DNA), complete with the errors intact.

I don’t need convincing that evolution occurs - both micro and macro. You have only to convince me that evolution is as precise and predictable a science as relativity. I remain unconvinced.

And likely you shall remain so. I did not wish to convince you that Biology is as precise and predictable as Physics – it is a far more disorganized process. Likely due to the whole sex thing. My goal here was to convince you the spotted moth was indeed an example of evolution. Now my long-term project can be to sell you on the strength of the theory.

[hardcore]

JoeyBlades

I know I’m opening up a whole new can of worms here, and that’s not really my intent, but what if the entire DNA content (including non coding DNA) is really an engineered mechanism, not a happy random coincidence?

What possible purpose would an engineer have for sloppily including non-coding DNA? And why would the engineer try to fool you by keeping the same errors between related species? Wouldn’t a proper engineer simply eliminate the unnecessary parts to prevent contamination and possible complications?

Besides, where do you stop with that type of analysis? Perhaps happy little faeries modified the DNA to fool me. Perhaps invisible, pink gnomes modify the DNA for fun. Perhaps extra-terrestials do it as part of a breeding experiment. Any number of choices could be postulated with the same amount of evidence to support it.

[JoeyBlades]

hardcore,

You wrote:

Nevertheless, how can you say a fundamentalist wouldn’t argue microevolution and the Spotted Moth as an example when you have challenged it on this very thread!

I challenged that the Spotted Moth was not an example of evolution. I admitted that this was wrong, based on the new (relatively) definition of evolution (modified to include microevolution). When I made my earlier claim, it would have been more accurate to say that the Spotted Moth is not an example of macroevolution - which I believe is the principle issue that many fundamentalist have… and, no I do not speak for fundamentalist, I’m making some of my own assumptions here.

BTW, I didn’t confess this earlier, but my understanding of microevolution was apparently flawed. I didn’t realize that mere increases in the frequency of alleles qualified. Apparently I was undereducated in this regard. Hey, when I’m wrong - I admit it!

As David B pointed out earlier, it’s only a matter of scale. From a genetic standpoint, it is exactly the same thing, only more of it.

I haven’t seen any evidence that the principles of microevolution necessarily ‘scale’ up to macroevolution. It makes sense and it’s what I believe, but I draw a distinction between what I believe and what I know.

Just in case you had me in mind, simply point out the word game or direct me to the issue I am skirting and I will attempt to clarify.

Sorry, no that was not a personal attack. What I was referring to is the somewhat subtle fact that the definition of evolution has changed in the last 15 to 20 years (and it wasn’t a well advertised change, BTW). What I mean by ‘changed’ is that it used to require morphological and physiological changes, the definition currently endorsed by the web site you pointed me to (and at least some of the evolution scientists quoted on this site) is that it only requires the passing on of genetic information. I understand the change and agree with it on an intellectual level, however the net effect is that it has creationist (and others) arguing with evolutionists when they are no longer speaking the same language. You whip out your new definition of evolution and it starts to look a bit like bait and switch. BTW, that’s not necessarily the end of the story. If you look at the definition on the same site from Douglas J. Futuyma:

Biological evolution … is change in the properties of populations of organisms that transcend the lifetime of a single individual.

This removes the requirement of genetic transfer altogether and further loosens the definition. What if, tomorrow, evolution advocates agreed that the definition of evolution was any change in a population of organisms?

Again, here you lost me. Are you referring to some type of Lamarckism??

Well, I’m not familiar with that theory and don’t have the time to investigate if this is what I’m talking about, but it sounds like there may be some overlap in what I’m talking about. On the page entitled: “Plagiarized Errors and Molecular Genetics” they discuss the implications of finding genetic errors in vestigial structures. First I want to point out what seems like a contradiction to me. In one paragraph they write:

Presumably this occurred separately in guinea pig and primate ancestors whose natural diets were so rich in ascorbic acid that the absence of GLO enzyme activity was not a disadvantage–it did not cause selective pressure against the defective gene.

Then a bit later they say:

But these defective genes do not correspond to genetic diseases because if they caused significant symptoms or other disadvantage to their owners, individuals with intact genes would have won the competition for survival and reproduction, thus driving the pseudogene out of existence.

The second statement seems to be saying that defective genes don’t get passed down due to natural selection. Yet the first statement seems to be saying that they can get passed down as long as environmental factors are such that the individuals make it to the reproductive stage. Am I missing something?

Anyway back to my point, Since we don’t know specifically what caused these errors (presumably a virus?) and how these causes might have affected different species, how do we know that the defects are transmitted through bifurcation of species and not caused by a common disease or effect? Again, I’m not making this specific argument, just asking, is the evidence actually as conclusive as we think?

If two separate programs that you wrote have the same non-functional code, then I submit you copied the code from one program to the other.

Ahhh… but you missed my initial premise. I said this code came, not from the same program, but from the same library. In other words, my building blocks were defective.

I did not wish to convince you that Biology is as precise and predictable as Physics

I’m sorry, I must have missed that point. I thought that’s exactly what you were trying to say when you claimed “Evolution has far more evidence supporting it than Relativity”.

I was also trying to make the point that I didn’t agree with the statement made by your 72 Nobel Laureates who claim that “The evolutionary history of organisms has been as extensively tested and as thoroughly corroborated as any biological concept”. I can name a number of biological concepts that are much more completely understood and corroborated than evolutionary history… intracellular communication, for instance.

Now my long-term project can be to sell you on the strength of the theory.

Cool! I welcome that.

What possible purpose would an engineer have for sloppily including non-coding DNA?

I’m surprised that I have to explain this - you seem like such a sharp guy. If the purpose of the design is to facilitate evolution, doesn’t it make sense to build in flexibility? Non coding DNA is often touted as one of the primamry enablers of evolution.

Wouldn’t a proper engineer simply eliminate the unnecessary parts to prevent contamination and possible complications?

What strikes you as an error or unnecessary may actually be a necessary feature for which you simply haven’t discovered the function. This reminds me of a story. I developed this huge program once. It was a thing of great beauty and great complexity. Then I started doing a different job and someone (actually several someones) inherited my work. After a couple of years, the engineer of the day tracked me down and wanted to know if I could help him figure out why the program was no longer working. I discovered that a critical piece of code had been removed - the removal was well documented. I then talked to the guy who removed it to find out why. “Well”, he replied, “I didn’t understand it and I was told to remove everything non essential. I removed it and the program didn’t break, so I figured it was unnecessary”. He did this, in spite of the documentation that I had that thoroughly explained what was going on, why the code was there (for special cases that I thought might someday occur and, of course, did), and with a big warning that said “DO NOT REMOVE THIS CODE!” Fortunately for this individual there were no heavy objects in the vacinity or I would have put him out of his misery and likely improved the human gene pool…

[JoeyBlades]

DAMN!!! DAMN!!! DAMN!!! Sorry hardcore, I did have a reply but I got a timeout error and completly lost it. It will take me a while to rebuild, probably some of it are lost forever, so I’ll redo it tomorrow. I’ve got commitments tonight.

Note to self: In the future, for long posts, save the text to an editor in case of communication failure.

[Gaudere]

The second statement seems to be saying that defective genes don’t get passed down due to natural selection. Yet the first statement seems to be saying that they can get passed down as long as environmental factors are such that the individuals make it to the reproductive stage. Am I missing something?

Defective genes will generally be passed on as long as the individual lives long enough to reproduce. The genes may be selected against slightly if those with the defective genes reproduce less than those with the non-defective genes, i.e., those organisms drop dead at reproductive year 2 instead of reproductive year 3. It may also be slightly disadvantageous if those with defective genes die after reproducing and the adult would have otherwise cared for his/her offspring–the offspring will be at a disadvantage for survival, so the genes are less likely to make it. However, these do not winnow out defective genes as quickly as those that cause an organism to die before reproduction. If environmental factors are such that the defect is not disadvantageous at all–say an organism has a genetic defect that means whenever it comes into contact with a Venusian Starflower it drops dead–the defective genes will simply be a harmless variation, and if they’re linked to a valuable genetic trait they may even be advantageous. However, if the environment changes (Venusian Starflowers are imported by man, blown in by a big storm) the genetic defect will rapidly be selected against.

[hardcore]

JoeyBlades

Hey, when I’m wrong - I admit it!

This fact alone makes you a superior debating opponent, and I count myself honored to actually have acheived a point.

What I was referring to is the somewhat subtle fact that the definition of evolution has changed in the last 15 to 20 years (and it wasn’t a well advertised change, BTW).

Since the structure of DNA wasn’t even discovered until 1953, it is not suprising the definition of evolution has, well… “evolved”. In the past, scientists were only able to classify relationships through the expression of the genes – morphological and physiological changes. Only recently have we developed the tools to examine the genes directly, and this is where the exciting discoveries are being made.

You mentioned Futuyma’s quote and said

This removes the requirement of genetic transfer altogether and further loosens the definition.

Further in that same quote, Douglas J. Futuyma said

The changes in populations that are considered evolutionary are those that are inheritable via the genetic material from one generation to the next.

so I don’t see this as removing the requirement of genetic transfer at all. You went on to ask

The second statement seems to be saying that defective genes don’t get passed down due to natural selection. Yet the first statement seems to be saying that they can get passed down as long as environmental factors are such that the individuals make it to the reproductive stage. Am I missing something?

I think so. The psuedogenes do get passed down, they just don’t correspond to a genetic disease that would be selected against because our diet takes care of the problem. If we did not ingest enough ascorbic acid, the psuedogene would be selected against, assuming it created a significant enough problem prior to the age of procreation. What is the disease caused by a lack of vitamin C? Scurvy?

Since we don’t know specifically what caused these errors (presumably a virus?) and how these causes might have affected different species, how do we know that the defects are transmitted through bifurcation of species and not caused by a common disease or effect?

It is assumed that simple mutation caused the errors in the common ancestor which was then passed down. Retroviruses typically do not modify the germ line cells, and even if they did you wouldn’t expect them to infect every member of a species and every member of the related species. However, I would defer to a true molecular biologist on this point if there are any on the board.

Ahhh… but you missed my initial premise. I said this code came, not from the same program, but from the same library. In other words, my building blocks were defective.

I don’t think I missed this point. You still have effectively copied this same code into the new program, which is exactly what nature has done with evolution. Being able to use an #include statement just shortcuts the process for you (and me).

I’m sorry, I must have missed that point. I thought that’s exactly what you were trying to say when you claimed “Evolution has far more evidence supporting it than Relativity”.

I am not saying that Biology is as precise and predictable as Physics. I am saying that Evolution has more supporting evidence than Relativity, though I don’t see this as an important point. We don’t typically generate a lot of evidence for Relativity since Newtonian physics tend to be acceptable at speeds of .2c or less. But the sheer volume of molecular evidence generated on almost a daily basis, plus the vast amount of fossils combine to form a massive amount of evidence for evolution. The real point I was trying to make was the theory of evolution is as solid as relativity, yet you rarely see anyone attacking relativity.

I can name a number of biological concepts that are much more completely understood and corroborated than evolutionary history… intracellular communication, for instance.

To this I can only defer to the Nobel scientists, plus any aforementioned biologists who I would find far more qualified to address these issues. I would point out the phrase was “extensively tested” not “completely understood”.

I’m surprised that I have to explain this - you seem like such a sharp guy. If the purpose of the design is to facilitate evolution, doesn’t it make sense to build in flexibility? Non coding DNA is often touted as one of the primamry enablers of evolution.

Now you have veered into another arena – theistic evolution. If you wish to theorize that God set everything in motion and then let evolution take it’s natural course, then science doesn’t even attempt to refute this. Though I wouldn’t go so far as to call non-functional DNA a primary enabler of evolution.

What strikes you as an error or unnecessary may actually be a necessary feature for which you simply haven’t discovered the function.

It is always possible that future discoveries will change what we consider to be factual at present. I think the author of the “Plagiarized Errors and Molecular Genetics” essay you referenced said it better than I can:

Imagine a defendant at a murder trial defending himself–against overwhelming incriminating evidence–with the parallel argument: that since some convicted criminals have later been exonerated, he (the current defendant) should therefore be acquitted now, since someday in the future evidence might be found to clear him! This defense would be as ridiculous as Dr. Gish’s argument is. Scientists (and juries) must draw their conclusions based on the best evidence available at the time. It is true that later evidence may exonerate a convicted criminal or overturn a scientific theory. This possibility should foster humility and caution us against dogmatic conclusions (and perhaps against the death penalty); but it should not dissuade us from drawing the most reasonable conclusions from the data at hand. Our present knowledge supports the interpretation that most shared pseudogenes/retroposons are evidence for common descent and macroevolution. If in the future–for a particular Alu or LINE-1 or endogenous retrovirus sequence that is shared between humans and another species–evidence of function is discovered, then this particular sequence could indeed be reasonably interpreted by the creationist paradigm of “similar sequence designed for similar function”; and so this retroposon would have to be removed from list of shared functionless sequences that provide evidence for evolution. The hundreds of thousands of remaining examples on this list would continue to offer valid support for evolution.

Sorry for such a long quote, but it seemed like an appropriate response to the typical criticism.

[David_B]

JoeyBlades said:

I haven’t seen any evidence that the principles of microevolution necessarily ‘scale’ up to macroevolution. It makes sense and it’s what I believe, but I draw a distinction between what I believe and what I know.

I would recommend that you read Niles Eldredge’s new book, The Triumph of Evolution and the Failure of Creationism. One of the points he addresses is this one.

[sdimbert]

**Joeyblades:

Note to self: In the future, for long posts, save the text to an editor in case of communication failure.**

I had the same thing happen to my “Manifesto” post earlier in this thread - I wrote it, clicked the Post button, and wound up on a screen asking me which Forum I wanted to jump to . When I backed up, my post was gone.

What I did post was version III - it happened twice! Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice…

[JoeyBlades]

Well, wonders never cease. My post made it in after all. Sadly, I spent quite a bit of time retyping it. The second version was a bit better in some ways, but I won’t bore you with it…
Hardcore,

You wrote:

so I don’t see this as removing the requirement of genetic transfer at all.

Yeah, I didn’t make the point completely clear in my first rendition. In my second version I wrote:

I know, he [Futuyma] went on to require genetic inheritance, but is it possible that this requirement could someday be removed as well?

Which is really my point. The evolution of the word ‘evolution’ may yet to be complete and it may be further generalized. The evolution of the word ‘evolution’ does not necessarily strengthen our case against creationists who are most likely arguing against the theory of macroevolution and it certainly drives a communication wedge between the two sides preventing little more than emotional exchanges. I’m not sure what we do about it, though…

I think so. The psuedogenes do get passed down…

Yet the text clearly says:

…individuals with intact genes would have won the competition for survival and reproduction, thus driving the pseudogene out of existence.

There was one other point I made in my second (unreleased) version of my earlier post, in reference to the defective GLO gene. My quote:

What would be most convincing from this evidence is if we had a reasonably reliable ancestral tree such that we could trace back humans and guinea pigs to a common ‘theoretical’ ancestor where this defect likely occured and then show that all (or most) members of these branches and only members of these branches have the defective GLO gene.

I assume that such an effort is underway? Is this a valid argument?

I don’t think I missed this point. You still have effectively copied this same code into the new program, which is exactly what nature has done with evolution.

I hate to belabor this point, but I think you are confusing the effects of the genesis with the effects of reproduction (to borrow a few terms from outside the programming domain). I’m distinguishing between errors that were present from the start and passed down from one revision to the next of a single program, versus errors that are introduced to two completely different programs because they used the same building blocks. As opposed to errors that are passed on to a new program (species) due to modifying an existing program to do the new thing. So I still think you’re making exactly the same assumption (mistake) in this example that I’m cautioning against in respect to the theory of evolution.

To this I can only defer to the Nobel scientists…

Well, I think you’re being stubborn in the face of the obvious, but that’s your prerogative… [wink]

Now you have veered into another arena – theistic evolution.

Actually, you mean theistic biogenesis, but that’s not necessarily true either. Certainly, this is one explanation that I think is plausible, but there are others, as well. I don’t require God to act in any direct way either in biogenesis or evolution to be consistent with my faith. I’m somewhat of a heretic, in that regard.

Sorry for such a long quote, but it seemed like an appropriate response to the typical criticism.

I disagree with the analogy, I think it misses my point. The issue is not what defense the defendant might try to employ or what bearing that defence might have on the truth. The issue is what decision the jury will take. Some jurors may require more proof than others to condemn a man. Likewise, some people may require more/better evidence for evolution before they are willing to transcend from mere theory to solid science. To use the OJ example (as someone brought up earlier), I think that if I were on that jury, I would have acquitted OJ, too. There was a lot of conflicting evidence that left questions in my mind. Yet I know a lot more people are so sure that he is guilty that they would hang him in an instant. In evolution theory, too, there is some conflicting evidence (lateral genetic transfer, for example - but there are others, as well). I think there’s too much missing domain knowledge for us to start labeling things as errors or unnecessary in the genetic code.

[JoeyBlades]

sdimbert wrote:

I had the same thing happen to my “Manifesto” post earlier in this thread - I wrote it, clicked the Post button, and wound up on a screen asking me which Forum I wanted to jump to.

Actually, my problem was a timeout. The fault probably has as much to do with my proxy server as the SDMB, though I do note that the post I thought had failed was at the start of a new page, so perhaps there’s a significant delay when the software has to partition the discussion and this contributed to my belief that the post didn’t get through. Plus the pseudo-fact that the SDMB just seem slower, in general since the switch…

When I backed up, my post was gone.

Yeah, I assume that’s the new software. The old software used to leave your message intact in the body field - in other words, it didn’t clear the HTML form on a reload. The new software apparently clears the form when you reload the page.

[hawthorne]

Just to clarify: this “non-coding DNA” - are we talking “junk DNA” or preadaptations here? Looking at this thread I’m not quite sure which. Both are interesting, neither cause any problems for evolution.

Boris B: I will have to steal your “Zamboni code” example.

picmr

[JonF]

JoeyBlades, you’ve sure got me confused, and based on what little understanding I seem to have I agree with hardcore, but I’m willing to listen.

I’m distinguishing between errors that were present from the start and passed down from one revision to the next of a single program, versus errors that are introduced to two completely different programs because they used the same building blocks. As opposed to errors that are passed on to a new program (species) due to modifying an existing program to do the new thing.

In the terms of this analogy, is there really an essential difference between different programs based on common libraries and different programs that are modifications of the same original program? If so, I fail to see it. The fact that those different programs have more ancestors than those libraries, or in some sense more ancestors than animals, seems to be irrelevant. It sure looks to me as if, in terms of this analogy, the programs can be viewed as being “descended from” the libraries and having “inherited” the library code.