Evolution and Religion

[loseyourname]

Hemoglobin has two chains, called alpha and beta. A minimum of 120 mutations would be required to convert alpha to beta. At least 34 of those changes require changeovers in 2 or 3 nucleotides. Yet, *Eden pointed out that, if a single nucleotide change occurs through mutation, the result ruins the blood and kills the organism!

*George Wald stood up and explained that he had done extensive research on hemoglobin also,—and discovered that if just ONE mutational change of any kind was made in it, the hemoglobin would not function properly. For example, the change of one amino acid out of 287 in hemoglobin causes sickle-cell anemia. A glutamic acid unit has been changed to a valine unit—and, as a result, 25% of those suffering with this anemia die.

This is irrelevant. First off, beta hemoglobin was never said to have evolved from alpha hemoglobin. They evolved separately from a completely different molecule. Second, sickle-cell anemia is not always harmful. In fact, it is commonplace in North Africa because it makes the blood completely impervious to malaria and thus it is favored by natural selection. People there do not have as long of a lifespan, but they have a much longer one than do those without the sickle-cell. This is but one example of seemingly harmful mutations actually proving favorable.

His estimate was based on 5 trillion tons of the bacteria covering the planet to a depth of nearly an inch during that 5 billion years. He then explained that the genes of E. coli contain over a trillion (1012) bits of data. That is the number 10 followed by 12 zeros. *Eden then showed the mathematical impossibility of protein forming by chance.

His estimate, huh? He has calculated the probability of it occuring by spontaneous assembly. It did not occur by spontaneous assembly. Single-step selection is indeed almost completely impossible. Cumulative selection, however, increases the odds very greatly. Take this for example:

Richard Dawkins, as illustration, calculated the odds of a monkey hitting random keys on a computer happening to hit on the sentence "Methinks it is like a weasel" from Hamlet. Using single-step processes, the odds are about 1 in 10^54. He created a computer program and determined that it would take millions of times longer than the universe has been in existence for this to happen by chance. However, he modified the program to select from each generation the random phrase that most appeared like "Methinks it is like a weasel." It took eleven seconds for the program on its own to generate the sentence, as opposed to millions of times longer than the universe has been in existence.

[Anonymouse]

That is why I said, most mutations are harmful, far more than the supposed favorable ones. Thus I am of the persuasion of Professor Richard Goldschmidt, who was the German American genetecist from UC Berkeley, that mutations can only account for no more than variations within that species, in other words they won't lead to anything else other than what that organism is. A DNA is already a complete blueprint with millions of nucleotides properly aligned. For that to change randomly without purpose or intelligence and end up with more complex organisms perfectly formed, is improbable, and requires faith. To suppose that such randomness can reconstruct a single complex organ like a liver or kidney is about as reasonable as to suppose that an improved watch cn be designed by throwing an old one against a wall.

[loseyourname]

Mousy, I've read books on creationism and I'm part of that Christian logic website and I checked up on your link. I showed you what was wrong with it. Read The Blind Watchmaker. If you can refute anything in there, feel free to show me.

[Anonymouse]

Originally posted by loseyourname Mousy, I've read books on creationism and I'm part of that Christian logic website and I checked up on your link. I showed you what was wrong with it. Read The Blind Watchmaker. If you can refute anything in there, feel free to show me.

I didn't use the website for any other purpose other than Murray Eden's mathematical demonstration at the Wistar Institute in 1966.

You citing the "Read the BlindWatchmaker and see if you can refute it" as part of a discussion is silly. I haven't read it, nor will I read it any time soon due to circumstances. Wouldn't you think it would be better for you to put up a claim, and then we pick it up from there?

[loseyourname]

From the Skeptical Inquirer (November 2003, Neither Intelligent nor Designed , Bruce and Francis Martin):

Does the real world show evidence of wise, omniscient design? To be plausible, an argument must take all the facts into account. The scientific study of biology shows us that existing species have serious flaws, belying claims of a beneficent creator. Intelligent design spokesmen ignore vestigial organs, anatomical inefficiency, destructive mutation, the sheer wastefulness of natural processes, and the findings of molecular genetics. The constant interplay of random mutations honed by selection pressures during evolution produces many instances of poor design. What follows are a few of the less technical of the hundreds of examples of flaws noted by paleontologists and other students of evolutionary processes.

Vestigial Features

Darwin was not only convinced by the success of evolution in explaining numerous instances of common descent, but also by its ability to account for vestigial organs, "parts in this strange condition, bearing the stamp of inutility." These organs are of little or no current use to an organism but are probable remnants of an earlier form from which the organism evolved. Intelligent Design has no explanation for these organs. As Stephen Jay Gould has put it, "Odd arrangements and funny solutions are the proof of evolution-paths that a sensible God would never tread but that a natural process, constrained by history follows perforce" (Gould 1980; Gould in Pennock 2001, 670). Let's look at some examples.

xxxxroaches and other insects may grow an extra set of wings, as did their fossilized ancestors. Unlike most other snakes, boa constrictors possess small vestigial hind legs. Crabs possess small useless tails under their broad, flat bodies, remnants of some ancestral form. Flounders lie flat on the sea floor and in the adult both eyes are on the same side of the head, but when young the eyes are on opposite sides of the head and one moves to the other side! The earlier stage is a clue to an evolutionary path. The result is a wrenched and distorted skull.

The frigate, a non-aquatic bird, does not benefit from the webbing on its feet. In flightless birds the number of usable limbs is reduced from four to two with the presence of two non-functional limbs. Penguins possess hollow bones although they do not have the same need for minimal body weight as flying birds. Otherwise fully aquatic animals such as sea snakes, dolphins, and whales must rise to the surface to breathe air. Modern whales exhibit several non-functional vestigial traits. Fetuses of baleen whales bear teeth that are absorbed as the fetus matures; adult baleen whales do not have teeth.

Paleontologists proposed that whales had evolved from land mammals with legs, and therefore, in an example of its predictive power, the theory of evolution forecast that legs would be found on fossilized whales. In recent years the evolution of whales from now extinct land mammals has become well documented through newly found fossils from the Eocene epoch, about 50 million years ago (Wong 2002). The fossilized whales contain well-defined feet and legs. In modern adult whales, the front legs have evolved into flippers and the rear legs have shrunk so that no visible appendages appear. Hindlimbs still appear in the fetuses of some modern whales but disappear by adulthood. Externally invisible, vestigial diminished pelvic bones occur in modern adult whales. Evolution accounts for these useless vestigial elements as leftovers in the development of whales from land mammals, but they remain unaccounted for by Intelligent Design.

Anatomical Inefficiency

Some anatomical features that may be useful to a creature do not show efficient design one could term intelligent. They testify instead to the process of natural selection. Tails have a widely varied role in mammal bodies. They appear essential for monkeys, but the small, wispy tail in a large elephant seems useless. Tails are absent in adult apes and humans, except they appear in early embryos and are residual in the coccyx at the end of the vertebra. In some human babies a residual tail is clipped at birth.

Why should moles, bats, whales, dogs, and humans among others possess forelimbs based on the same bones that have been adapted in each case unless inherited from a common ancestor? Starting from scratch, an engineer could do a better job in each case. In pandas a normally small bone in the wrist has undergone significant enlargement and elongation so it is opposable as a thumb to the other five fingers, enabling them to strip leaves from a bamboo stalk (Gould 1980; Gould in Pennock 2001, 669). To achieve this feat, the thumb muscles normally assigned to other functions have been rerouted. It is difficult to see how this anatomical architect would receive another commission.

The early embryos of most animals with backbones have eyes on the sides of the head. In those such as humans that develop binocular vision, during development the eyes must move forward. Sometimes this forward movement is incomplete and a baby is born with the eyes too far apart.

In mammals the recurrent laryngeal nerve does not extend directly from brain to larynx, but upon reaching the neck bypasses the larynx and drops into the chest where it loops around a lung ligament and only then retraces up to the larynx in the neck. While a one-foot length of nerve would be required for the direct route from brain to larynx in giraffes, the actual length of the doubled-back nerve from the chest of giraffes may reach twenty feet (K.C. Smith in Pennock 2001, 724-725).

There are many features of human anatomy we might wish were better designed. Our jaws are a little small to accept wisdom teeth that are often impacted and may need pulling. The openings of our tubes for breathing and swallowing are so close that we often choke. In humans the appendix serves no apparent purpose, but it is infection-prone, leading to inflammation and potentially fatal appendicitis. In men the testes form inside the abdomen and then drop through the abdominal wall into the scrotum, leaving two weak areas that often herniate, requiring surgery to relieve pain. Also in men the collapsible urethra passes though the prostate gland that enlarges in later life and impedes urine flow. Anatomists cite many more examples of such inefficient or useless structures, such as nipples in male primates.

Creationists often cite the human eye as a model of perfection for which Darwinism cannot account, claiming that such a complex organ could not be created by natural selection. But throughout the animal kingdom eyes have evolved many times, presumably beginning with plentiful photosensitive material followed by a stepwise incremental buildup over generations to the current organs. And the human eye is far from a model of perfection. In all vertebrate eyes the "wire" from each of three million light-sensitive retinal cells passes in front of the retina, and the collection is bundled into the optic nerve, creating a blind spot. This set-up is just the reverse of what any designer would construct: wires leading away from the backside, not light side, of the light-sensitive cells (Dawkins 1987). On the other hand, the wires do lead from the backside of the separately evolved eyes of the squid, octopus, and other cephalopods. Why does the designer favor squid over humans?

Instead of the efficiency and elegance one expects from Intelligent Design, we see numerous vestigial characteristics and instances of poor design. Such anomalies are both expected and accommodated by evolution. Only evolution offers a self-contained explanation of why more than 99 percent of the species that have lived on Earth are extinct. What sport does a benevolent, omniscient, and omnipotent deity receive from visiting on humans and other mammals all sorts of afflictions including parasitic bacteria, viral diseases, cancer, and genetic diseases?

These and many other examples suggest that any Intelligent Design must have been undertaken by a committee of fractious gods who could not agree. Taken at face value, invocation of Intelligent Design supports an argument for polytheism.

Of course creationists might respond to these and other examples by saying that the ways of God are mysterious and inscrutable, and that we are not wise enough to comment on the means by which he achieves his ends. If anyone offers this argument, what gives him license to propose Intelligent Design as the means by which God achieves his ends? Such a personal view is patently religious, and does not belong in any science classroom.

Destructive Mutations

The study of molecular evolution strongly reinforces and extends the classic whole animal conclusions for evolution, while appearing whimsical at best for an intelligent designer. Modern evolutionary theory regards genetic mutation in the DNA of a species as the source of favorable variations that nature selects for their value in aiding the survival of an individual. But mutation occurs randomly, and in most cases the variation is harmful and results in miscarriage, deformity, or early death. Such mutations are passed from one generation to the next, sometimes lurking in recessive genes until they meet a recessive partner. One example is cystic fibrosis, which causes mucus buildup in lungs, liver, and pancreas. Sickle cell anemia results in poor blood circulation, general weakness, and when inherited from both parents, painful crises owing to sickling and clumping of the red cells. Phenylketonuria prevents infant brain development. Muscular dystrophy wastes muscles and often leaves the victim helpless. In other cases such mutations are dominant. Huntington's Disease causes gradual deterioration of brain tissue in middle age. Hypercholesterolemia causes heart disease due to cholesterol build-up. Neither intelligence nor design seems at work in producing such cruel mutations, though modern evolutionary theory fully accounts for nature's fickleness.

Discoveries of Molecular Genetics

In the genetic material, DNA, the sequence of four nucleic bases furnishes three-letter code words for the sequence of twenty amino acids that occur in proteins. Owing to similarities among the properties of some of the twenty amino acids, substitutions may occur without consequence for proper protein folding and function. For many animals it has proved possible to follow the sequences of both nucleic bases in DNA and amino acids in proteins to spot the changes that have occurred over time. One example is the blood protein hemoglobin, which is a tetramer composed of two alpha and two beta chains working in concert to bind four oxygen molecules. For the beta chain of hemoglobin, the number of amino acid differences compared to that in normal adult humans of 146 amino acids appears in parentheses after the listed animal: gorilla (1), gibbon (2), rhesus monkey (8), dog (15), horse and cow (25), mouse (27), chicken (45), frog (67), and lamprey (125) (Campbell 1987). Clearly, species more closely related to man have fewer differences from humans in their hemoglobin. Since each amino acid substitution requires millions of years to occur, a time scale for branching descent from a common organism according with evolutionary theory is more probable than creation by an intelligent designer.

The known library of DNA and protein sequences is now so huge that numerous comparisons between organisms are possible. If evolution had not already been elaborated by Darwin, we would be led to it by the more recent results of substitutions in molecular sequences. Many amino acid substitutions result in inactive mutant proteins that are not further elaborated by the organism, if it survives the mutation. On the other hand, many substitutions do not impair function and result in amino acid sequence variation of a functional protein, as in the example of the beta chain of hemoglobin above. Furthermore, in humans there are more than 100 amino acid substitutions in the 146-amino-acid beta chain of normal adult human hemoglobin that still yield a functional protein, and most carriers are unaware that they bear a hemoglobin variant. On the other hand, the substitution of only the third amino acid in the beta chain of human hemoglobin gives rise to an aberrant hemoglobin that aggregates within and produces sickling of the red cell with consequent reduced oxygen-carrying capability. This kind of trial-and-error probing involving numerous inter- and intra-species amino acid substitutions has evolution written all over it; it is very difficult to ascribe any design or anything intelligent to this process.

Human Nature

Is it any more than an overweening human ego that proposes intelligent design for such a poorly designed creature? In this egoism, creationists confirm in a perverse way that they have great difficulty rising above their animal origins. It is by reducing influence of ego that the nobler aspects of human nature emerge in humanistic values, values which have been appropriated by some religions.

Of course, evolutionary history fails to induce the warm and fuzzy feeling inspired by Intelligent Design. People would rather believe in a benevolent creator who cares for them. Evolution offers no mercy for the individual or species that lack the traits enabling them to compete in the struggle for food or adapt to changing environments. Fossil evidence shows the number of species that have failed these trials. An Intelligent Designer would create only successful species, but evolutionary theory can account for the many unsuccessful ones. If Intelligent Design fails so badly to account for the real world, aside from the emotional appeal of a wise providence, is there any justification for its continued promotion?

[Anonymouse]

That article was interesting none the less a laff. So much for a Skeptical Inquirer, if it is going to be skeptical only towards creation and not evolution. That to me isn't much of skepticism, but rather ideological.

[loseyourname]

I thought you said that if I posted points in favor of evolution, you could refute them. Show that any of what is said in there is wrong.

[Anonymouse]

Originally posted by loseyourname I thought you said that if I posted points in favor of evolution, you could refute them. Show that any of what is said in there is wrong.

What's right to begin with? The article doesn't prove evolution, it only attempts to make a case for it. That being said, I haven't seen anything in it other than conjectures. It no more can offer evidence of "evolution", whatever that means, than Gould or Darwin could.

Now if you divide evolution into macro and micro, then it is obvious there are within species variation. This is nothing new. Going beyond that and claiming those lead to bigger and better changes is simply unsubstantiated, and nothing more than imaginitive.

[loseyourname]

It isn't a matter of evidence for the theory. There are certain phenomena observed, in this case, everything that is talked about in that article. There are additional observations made as well about the natural. It would thousands of pages to get into them all. However, every last one of them is explained by evolutionary theory. No other theory even presents a semblance of modest competition. When a theory explains every observed fact that well, it is accepted. I fail to see the difficulty here. Only evolution would have produced the world we live in. That has been shown to about the greatest degree of certainty that it is possible to show it to. Why do you have such a hard time accepting this? What is it about evolution that so disheartens you that you will cling to this stubborn obstinance as every reasonable, informed person in the world realizes what is pretty damn obvious?

[Anonymouse]

Originally posted by loseyourname It isn't a matter of evidence for the theory. There are certain phenomena observed, in this case, everything that is talked about in that article. There are additional observations made as well about the natural. It would thousands of pages to get into them all. However, every last one of them is explained by evolutionary theory. No other theory even presents a semblance of modest competition. When a theory explains every observed fact that well, it is accepted. I fail to see the difficulty here. Only evolution would have produced the world we live in. That has been shown to about the greatest degree of certainty that it is possible to show it to. Why do you have such a hard time accepting this? What is it about evolution that so disheartens you that you will cling to this stubborn obstinance as every reasonable, informed person in the world realizes what is pretty damn obvious?

If that doesn't show the biggest tarbrush of belief, I don't know what does. The reason I find it difficult to accept, putting all religious, spiritual, aspects aside, is because of precisely using science' own requirements and criteria for evidence, and applying it to evolutionary theory, and let's not forget a theory is a tentatively held hypothesis, a belief in other words, at what we think happened. I am being as purely rational, and skeptical, and atheistic as I can regarding this discussion, for I want evidence of evolution, since there is no faith, no spirit, nothing intangible here, and dealing with only what we see that is happening, I am looking for evidence.

All the article does is present observations in nature, it is simply taken by evolutionary scientists and inserted into the equation of evolution and called "workable" and "explained". Anyone can make a theory or model and fit evidences here and there into the model. With evolution we have a constant reworking of the evidence to fit the said theory theory, as opposed to the theory fitting the evidence. I wouldn't call that scientific.