Creationism vs. Evolution

[Capitalist Pig]

I'm curious about where the pool is divided on this sensitive issue, so I decided to add a little air to the fire and see where it goes.

My position, as an acolyte of the science of biology, is that the best explanation for the origin of species lies within the vast pools of evidence that have been accumulated over hundreds of years in support of evolution. On the other hand, Biblical Creationism is but a fiction conceived in the minds of the disillusioned. Proponents of Creationism carefully beguile their victims with equivocal language, pseudoscientific sophism, and occassionally outright lies, in order to "prove" a "theory" which makes no testable predictions and lacks any sufficent mechanism by which it operates.

For example, we'll use the claim that mutations are harmful or that no beneficial mutation has ever been observed. While it is true that most virulent human diseases are caused by genetic defects (downs syndrome, sickle cell anemia, hemophilia, and progeria, to name a few), most mutations are actually neutral[1]. That is, neither beneficial nor deleterious. To counter the claim that no beneficial mutation has ever been observed, let's go back to the mid-1970s at the University of Rochester where Professor Barry Hall is conducting an experiment with special strains of E. coli[2]. A typical nutrient of bacteria is lactose, so Hall decided to remove the lacZ gene, responsible for the metabolization of the milk sugar substance. Hall placed one strain in an environment rich in lactose with little nutrient to survive on, and the other strain was placed in an environment with no lactose. The former recovered its ability to metabolize lactose over the course of a few days, with two mutations to preexisting genes along a different operon in the genome from the original. The first mutation produced a beta-galactosidase enzyme (34% homologous to its predecessor), tasked with breaking down lactose via a process of hydrolysis into the two monosaccharides glucose and galactose. This new enzyme was dubbed the ebg, or evolved b-galactosidase enzyme. The second mutation altered the control region, or repressor protein (25% homologous), so that the enzyme may be expressed in the presence of glucose. The second strain displayed no such progress.

In Chapter 5 of the book Finding Darwin's God (HarperCollins, 1999), Professor of Biology Kenneth Miller at Brown University adds, "That would have been impressive enough, but Hall's clever germs didn't stop there. When he selected them further to grow on another sugar (lactulose), he obtained a second series of mutants with a new enzyme that accidentally (in a sense) produced allolactose, the very same chemical signal that is normally used to switch on all of the lac genes. This important development meant that now the cells could switch on synthesis of a cell membrane protein, the lac permease, that speeds the entry of lactose into the cell."

Some would consider Hall's experiments early evidence in support of the adaptive mutagensis hypothesis. It states that not all mutations are random and a cell can yield a necessary mutation on its own, almost as if it chose to[3]. I'm not certain I'm ready to accept that just yet, however considering this is only my opinion I could be wrong. It is important to remind ourselves that evolution is not guided by conscious design, it operates without regard to the longevity of the organism it affects. The results of Hall's work are not surprising at all, even when one considers the neutrality of most mutations. John Cairns, et al. (1988) demonstrated with E. coli that stress on an organism, created by a significant threat of survival, increases the rate of mutation. However, this should and does not make "good" or "bad" mutations any more or less likely to occur, you are merely increasing the frequency of mutations period. The disposition of mutations remain proportionate to the mutation rate.

We are now faced with the issue of whether this method of metabolization fits the criteria of something that is irreducibly complex. For those who are unfamiliar with this concept, a biological system that requires multiple parts to emerge nearly concurrently in order to properly function is irreducibly complex. Professor Michael Behe of Lehigh University, an established proponent of Intelligent Design, is credited with inventing this idea. He claims, "An irreducibly complex biological system, if there is such a thing, would be a powerful challenge to Darwinian evolution."[4] Unfortunately for Professor Behe, the challenge was not as great as he imagined and the amount of literature responding to that claim is practically insurmountable[5]. This particular example is not exempt from that challenge, both mutations were absolutely necessary or else the system would simply not function. Behe criticized the multipart system in response to Miller in an essay written for the Discovery Institute[6]. He quoted Hall as saying, "All of the other functions for lactose metabolism, including lactose permease and the pathways for metabolism of glucose and galactose, the products of lactose hydrolysis, remain intact, thus re-acquisition of lactose utilization requires only the evolution of a new B-galactosidase function."[7] Behe continued: "Thus, contrary to Miller's own criterion for 'a true acid test,' a multipart system was not 'wiped out' -- only one component of a multipart system was deleted." The misunderstanding here is clear, and partly semantical. Behe is not convinced an irreducibly complex biochemical system can evolve, and so he misses the point made by Miller. In fact, Miller had also said that all Hall had done was remove one gene, but it wiped out a multipart system in the sense that lactose can not hydrolyze in the absence of this enzyme. Behe also found it disappointing that the new ebg arised from a different, relatively unrelated operon, however he is again missing the point that that is part of the process of evolution. If you would like a more in-depth analysis of Behe's criticism, you may read Miller's own rebuttal on the web at http://biocrs.biomed.brown.edu/Darwin/DI/AcidTest.html. It is easier for me to simply supply you with the link rather than extend the post to an intolerable length by simply rehashing what has already been said by Professor Miller.

It is in conclusion that I ask you treat this issue fairly and maturely. All too often, this controversial topic ends up spiraling off the deep end into petty disputes and elementary insults. It is often the result when two seemingly intelligent people having a nice debate realize they can not coax the other with simple reason. So rather than do the reasonable thing and agree to disagree, they turn to the next best thing: the most unreasonable and childish move they can conceive of. Furthermore, it is imperative we remain on topic. Continuing this line of discussion, and then suddenly asking how the Big Bang started is not the proper way to handle a debate concerning a topic of biology. If you wish to argue Young Earth Creationism, it is your prerogative to start a new thread for that express purpose. This thread is for debating the merits of evolution, and I will not respond to nongermane assertions. This does not mean the line of discussion is limited to Hall's experiments alone, otherwise the thread would have been named to something more specific. I am open to discussion on other fronts of the evolution debate as well, and I have faith that we will have no trouble keeping posts relevant to the topic. If I sound condescending, my apologies, that was not my intent. I look forward to the replies.

Footnotes

1 Drake, J.W. et al (1998) Rates of Spontaneous Mutation. Genetics 148:1667-1686. [Link]

2 Further reading:

• Hall, B.G. (1982) Evolution on a Petri Dish. The evolved b-galactosidase system as a model for studying acquisitive evolution in the laboratory. Evolutionary Biology 15:85-150.
• Hall, B.G. (1983) Evolution of new metabolic functions in laboratory organisms, in Evolution of Genes and Proteins. Evolution of genes and proteins, eds. M. Nei, and R. K. Koehn. (Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates Inc).

3 Colby, C., Williams, S.M. (1995) The Effect of Adaptive Mutagenesis on Genetic Variation at a Linked, Neutral Locus. Genetics 140:1129-1136. [Link] (Adobe® Acrobat® required to view reprint in PDF format)

4 Behe, M.J. (1996) Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution. Free Press, p.39.

5 See also: Robinson, K. (1996) Darwin's Black Box: Irreducible Complexity or Irreproducible Irreducibility? Talk.Origins. [Link]

6 Behe, M.J. (2000) "A True Acid Test": Response To Ken Miller. Discovery Institute. [Link]

7 Hall, B.G. (1999) Experimental evolution of ebg enzyme provides clues about the evolution of catalysis and to evolutionary potential. FEMS Microbiology Letters 174:1-8.

why cant the two coexist?

what always gets me is... yeah, maybe the earth was formed by a huge explosion... but something had to be there to cause that explosion? another explosion? and so on...

[Capitalist Pig]

what always gets me is... yeah, maybe the earth was formed by a huge explosion... but something had to be there to cause that explosion? another explosion? and so on...They can certaintly coexist if the person is willing to sacrifice many of creationism's cherished beliefs in light of scientific evidence. Unless you meant that God's hand in the scientific process is the process itself, then that is perfectly acceptable. You do not have to make a choice between God or science.

Might I suggest this link: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-god.html

It covers the issue quite nicely.

Unless you meant that God's hand in the scientific process is the process itself, then that is perfectly acceptable. You do not have to make a choice between God or science.

thats exactly what i meant.

what always gets me is... yeah, maybe the earth was formed by a huge explosion... but something had to be there to cause that explosion? another explosion? and so on...(yes i quoted myself)

of course, the evolutionists can throw the same thing right back at the creationists

[Capitalist Pig]

of course, the evolutionists can throw the same thing right back at the creationists

What do you mean by this?

by saying "Well, where did God come from?:

[Capitalist Pig]

by saying "Well, where did God come from? That would be a question reserved for the atheist, whose iconcolastic agenda in debates of this nature are typically broader than that of simply establishing truth. Evolution isn't meant to represent an assault on religion. Quite the contrary, the tactics employed by Biblical Creationists make their religio-political movement an assault on science. Evolution is accepted by people from all creeds as generally true.

When I debate a creationist, I supply a disclaimer that states I am not interested in arguing theology. Theology is a terribly boring topic for me when it comes to most people. I am confident enough that I can destroy any creationist argument (within the scope of my knowledge and ability), without having to cogitate on the possible existence or non-existence of God.

[Pooeypants]

Capitalist Pig, that intro post was damn good and informative. Very well written and planned out with all the references supplied. Now where are those fundies? :p

[Capitalist Pig]

Originally Posted by (Pooeypants,)[/b] [i]Capitalist Pig, that intro post was damn good and informative. Very well written and planned out with all the references supplied. Now where are those fundies?

Thank you.

[hello_caleb]

"THEORY of Evolution"

[Pooeypants]

Scientific theory is not the same definition as layman termed theory, which is infact more like a hypothesis.

For model (such as evolution by natural selection) to become a Theory, it must be tested and proven beyond reasonable doubt (for example, it will hold up in a court of law).

I've dealt with enough Fundies to know all the crap you try, so bring it on.

[hello_caleb]

evolution has never been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. not like gravity. no one argues with gravity. except michael jordan.

[hello_caleb]

also...

1. im not challenging you, so chill out. this is the internet. not a middle school playground.
2. calling me a fundie is cute. i have knicknames for people like you too.

[Pooeypants]

evolution has never been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. not like gravity. no one argues with gravity. except michael jordan

Evolution is the foundation of modern biology. Without it, most concepts will fail to make sense. It has past every requirement that is needed to be called a scientific theory. Being oblivious to the facts does not make you correct.

Keep it coming fundie.

[G. Adams]

Oooooohh.

Handbags at dawn ladies.

[hello_caleb]

no thats ok, im done messing with you.

[hello_caleb]

i read that the first organized life was a protozoan and it fed off of bacteria and other organizms. (Hanegraaff, 1998, p. 70, Emphasis in Original)

my question is... is bacteria not organized? they seem pretty organized to me. so the bacteria was here before the "organized" protozoan?

[white rice]

If we can create a living cell from derivative organic compounds, then that would be a truly astonishing accomplishment. But the theories of spontaneous generation of life during primordial earth is very speculative.

We can assume that Macroevolution is happening by refering to geological records, genetic and anatomical comparisons with different groups but we don't really know how it is happening or how long it takes.

Maybe future generations will be more fortunate, but for now, no one really knows the answers to the essential questions to the origin of life.

[Pooeypants]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (hello_caleb,)
i read that the first organized life was a protozoan and it fed off of bacteria and other organizms. (Hanegraaff, 1998, p. 70, Emphasis in Original)

my question is... is bacteria not organized? they seem pretty organized to me. so the bacteria was here before the "organized" protozoan?<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>
Firstly, bacteria is organised, but I think what they meant is that Protozoan is the first eukaryote. I don't have access to the book so it's rather hard to tell just precisely what it's talking about.

[Pooeypants]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (white rice,)
If we can create a living cell from derivative organic compounds, then that would be a truly astonishing accomplishment. But the theories of spontaneous generation of life during primordial earth is very speculative.

We can assume that Macroevolution is happening by refering to geological records, genetic and anatomical comparisons with different groups but we don't really know how it is happening or how long it takes.

Maybe future generations will be more fortunate, but for now, no one really knows the answers to the essential questions to the origin of life.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>
Considering that life formed other millions of years and inorder to reproduce those conditions in the lab we'd need an area which is equal to surface area of the earth. I'd say the chances of recreating an actual cell is rather slim. Not impossible, as it has happened, but improbable.