Creation/Evolution/Intelligent Design

[the tree]

I have read Darwin's "Origin of Species"...

Theory of evolution has moved on just as much as most areas of science since that book was published.

[swansont]

I do not deny evolution - I support it. I do not deny the Biblical Creation events - I support them also.

 

I have read Darwin's "Origin of Species" and nowhere does he mention anything about common ancestry in regard to humans. He does mention quite a bit - it is over 600 pages. Are you sure you want me to go over everything he says? Why don't you read it? And I do not try to convince people that common ancestry is a lie. I convince them that Darwin never proposed it and he has a very valid body of theory - what the heck is wrong with that?

 

I am not trying to upset your apple cart - I'm trying to get people to look at it. I am a scientist trying a new approach to address the majority that keep giving science a hard time. If anything I'm one of you - I don't understand the hostility here.

 

No' date=' all he says in [i']Origin[/i] is "Much light will be shed on the origin of man and his history." He later wrote another book, though, called "The Descent of Man" I haven't read it, but I suspect that the descent of man is covered in it.

 

Anyway, Evolution is much more than Darwinism, so it's incorrect to assume that just because Darwin did not address an issue that evolutionary theory has nothing to say on the matter. Common descent is an implication of evolution.

[Xyph]

I do not deny evolution - I support it. I do not deny the Biblical Creation events - I support them also.

 

I have read Darwin's "Origin of Species" and nowhere does he mention anything about common ancestry in regard to humans. He does mention quite a bit - it is over 600 pages. Are you sure you want me to go over everything he says? Why don't you read it? And I do not try to convince people that common ancestry is a lie. I convince them that Darwin never proposed it and he has a very valid body of theory - what the heck is wrong with that?

 

I am not trying to upset your apple cart - I'm trying to get people to look at it. I am a scientist trying a new approach to address the majority that keep giving science a hard time. If anything I'm one of you - I don't understand the hostility here.

Are you saying humans evolved from something other than prehistoric monkeys?

 

Either way, it seems like you're being deliberately cryptic, and it's quite annoying. Could you please just summarise what's so different about whatever you've come up with?

[bascule]

Are you saying humans evolved from something other than prehistoric monkeys?

 

He's saying that he can show that it is possible for all humans to have descended from a single male/female pair (i.e. Adam and Eve) and seems to support evolution insofar as it doesn't conflict with a literal interpretation of the Bible.

[Xyph]

Ah... So he is just a Creationist after all.

 

I suppose that was very predictable, but it's somewhat disappointing nonetheless.

[Bettina]

Ah... So he is just a Creationist after all.

 

I suppose that was very predictable' date=' but it's somewhat disappointing nonetheless.[/quote']

 

Not to me.....I knew right up front. He is no different than the rest of the creationists...aka ID'ers.....aka whatever is next.

 

No disrespect Epicman, you seem like a nice person, but your just another "them", on the same soapbox, holding the same bible, only interpretating it yet another way.

 

If your god really does exist, what a failure he/she/it is.

 

Bettina

[bascule]

I just don't get it. "Intelligent Design" could be a scientifically plausible hypothesis if presented correctly, such as:

 

Abiogenesis was sparked by God

 

A natural-selection driven evolutionary model subsequently developed

 

And maybe some of those natural selection events were actually divine selection, with God, say, influencing radiation and causing specific mutations, or choosing to wipe out certain members of a species to guide its development. (Lightning bolt! Lightning bolt!)

 

Eventually we ended up with monkeys/apes from which man descended. No Adam and Eve, sorry, that's scientifically implausible.

 

But instead what you basically get is Creationism in not-so-spiffy new duds.

 

Yes, the Emperor is still naked...

[zyncod]

Eve is actually not that scientifically impossible. Adam, yes, but Eve, no. 'Mitochondrial Eve' was a woman or a very small group of women that lived 150,000 years ago. This date incidentally correlates with the beginnings of what we would consider culture. The Christians could have a lot of support for their ideas - there was an article a year or two back in Natural History magazine by Neil Tyson about how cosmogeny could be correlated with the genesis myth in the Bible. But they'd rather be sticks in the mud about the whole thing.

[bascule]

Eve is actually not that scientifically impossible. Adam, yes, but Eve, no. 'Mitochondrial Eve' was a woman or a very small group of women that lived 150,000 years ago.

 

There have been several population bottlenecks in human history. For example, the eruption of the Toba supervolcano sometime 70,000-75,000 years ago was correlated with the discovery of a genetic bottleneck in the human species which occured at rougly the same time:

 

http://www.bradshawfoundation.com/evolution/

[Mokele]

Also, neither the mitochondria eve nor the Y-chromosome adam were the only humans alive at the time.

 

Mokele

[swansont]

I just don't get it. "Intelligent Design" could be a scientifically plausible hypothesis if presented correctly' date=' such as:

 

Abiogenesis was sparked by God

 

[...']

 

And maybe some of those natural selection events were actually divine selection, with God, say, influencing radiation and causing specific mutations, or choosing to wipe out certain members of a species to guide its development. (Lightning bolt! Lightning bolt!)

 

What's scientific about this?

[zyncod]

Also, neither the mitochondria eve nor the Y-chromosome adam were the only humans alive at the time.

 

Well, yes. I am of course not calling the Bible literally true. And Y-chromosome Adam doesn't work with their theory because he would have lived thousands of years after Mitochondrial Eve. Still, there could have been another man who could have filled the role of Adam. This would all be the finest grade of bullshit, but at least it's semi-plausible and does not rest wholly on a lack of imagination, as intelligent design does.

 

If I was a Christian, I would find the correlation between the age of Mitochondrial Eve and the beginnings of culture far more interesting than, well, the utter lack of inference, speculation, or correlation of any kind we get from ID.

 

What's scientific about this?

 

It fits in with well-proven, existing theory rather than categorical denial of essentially everything we consider to be scientific. It may not be the simplest hypothesis, nor even a testable hypothesis, but it is a valid one.

[LucidDreamer]

Can I advertise for free on SFN as well?

[bascule]

What's scientific about this?

 

It's not, but that wasn't the point. The point was that arguing that all humans descended from an initial breeding pair created by God and not from the apes is not scientifically plausible.

[Epicman]

Not just another Creationist and not just another evolutionist but a Crevolutionist - NOT to be confused with Creavolutionist - Leave the "a" out.

 

My basic proposals are these:

 

The Abrahamic religions (Christian, Muslim, and Judaism) comprise the majority. They all ascribe to some degree of belief in the Biblical account of Creation. There are the literalists, the not so literalists, the parabalists, and even some who think it is all a myth still within the group. In a recent Gallup poll a clear majority of Americans favored teaching Creationism (not to be confused with ID) alongside evolution in public schools.

 

I propose that the majority of the majority refuse to even consider ANY of Darwin's theory because of the 'man from apes' misconception. If it could be dispelled and they could be educated on the merit and validity of geologic and evolution theory we would have made a giant leap.

 

I can reconcile evolution and geologic theory without a compromise in faith and without twisting science either. I KNOW that many of you feel no need to reconcile faith with science and that is wonderful. I address the majority who do have this need. As a Christian and a scientist I had that need, struggled with it for years, and formulated my theory. The ONLY issue left is one of Human Creation followed by evolution vs. Human evolution from other species.

 

The most common arguments against the entire human population coming from a single breeding pair are the current variation and the detrimental effects of in-breeding. I answer both with two analogies: the tree and the funnel. Beginning with the funnel the current body of research on in-breeding such as the Hapsburg Jaw and the Royal Curse hemophilia studies involve in-breeding from a large end of the funnel to the small end. In other words in-breeding enforced to narrow the lines.

 

I propose that in-breeding that would occur early on with a single breeding pair but funnel out as the population grows exponentially. Further these people would have observed that any undesirable effects of in-breeding occured more frequently in brother-sister couplings and would have enforced more random selection of mates.

 

On the tree analogy if you imagine the original breeding pair as the trunk, the second generation creating a "Y" with one side of the Y being descendants of one brother-sister coupling and the other of another brother-sister coupling. If this generation - the third or any of the subsequent generations - then coupled with one from the other side of the tree they would have started a new tree. Since it is physically impossible for two sides of a tree to grow back together - an upside down "Y" - this couple forms the trunk of an entirely new tree. With the population growing exponentially you would soon have an orchard and then you also have to consider all the new trees formed by tree to tree couplings. The variety would quickly - and exponentially - grow. At the same time we have this exponentially growing population spreading out geographically exposing them to differing environments causing differing adaptations. Add to that the effects of natural selection and you have an extremely diverse gene pool after many generations.

 

Also consider the possibility that the original breeding pair were genetically perfect. This would futher work against any negative mutations being passed on through in-breeding.

 

Also I do not state, in a curricular adaptation of my work, that God created anything. God cannot be addressed by science and God cannot be addressed in our public schools. My theory has a starting point and it is a single breeding pair. Where they may have come from is not addressed. While you may read in to the statement Adam and Eve another may read Hagar and Blondie or leave them unnamed as I have done. Reading in names or the existence of a creator is solely up to the individual reading the statements. To fulfill the requirements of the Consititution no religious views are introduced, alluded to, or promoted.

[swansont]

Not just another Creationist and not just another evolutionist but a Crevolutionist - NOT to be confused with Creavolutionist - Leave the "a" out.

 

My basic proposals are these:

 

The Abrahamic religions (Christian' date=' Muslim, and Judaism) comprise the majority. They all ascribe to some degree of belief in the Biblical account of Creation. There are the literalists, the not so literalists, the parabalists, and even some who think it is all a myth still within the group. In a recent Gallup poll a clear majority of Americans favored teaching Creationism (not to be confused with ID) alongside evolution in public schools.[/quote']

 

Argument by popularity is a logical fallacy. And poll or no, teaching Creationism alongside evolution is a violation of the Constitution.

 

I can reconcile evolution and geologic theory without a compromise in faith and without twisting science either.

 

And I suppose that you haven't yet presented an example that doesn't twist science shouldn't throw anyone.

 

What is the reconciliation - how old is the earth?

 

...

 

The most common arguments against the entire human population coming from a single breeding pair are the current variation and the detrimental effects of in-breeding. I answer both with two analogies: the tree and the funnel. Beginning with the funnel the current body of research on in-breeding such as the Hapsburg Jaw and the Royal Curse hemophilia studies involve in-breeding from a large end of the funnel to the small end. In other words in-breeding enforced to narrow the lines.

 

I propose that in-breeding that would occur early on with a single breeding pair but funnel out as the population grows exponentially. Further these people would have observed that any undesirable effects of in-breeding occured more frequently in brother-sister couplings and would have enforced more random selection of mates.

 

On the tree analogy if you imagine the original breeding pair as the trunk' date=' the second generation creating a "Y" with one side of the Y being descendants of one brother-sister coupling and the other of another brother-sister coupling. If this generation - the third or any of the subsequent generations - then coupled with one from the other side of the tree they would have started a new tree. Since it is physically impossible for two sides of a tree to grow back together - an upside down "Y" - this couple forms the trunk of an entirely new tree. With the population growing exponentially you would soon have an orchard and then you also have to consider all the new trees formed by tree to tree couplings. The variety would quickly - and exponentially - grow. At the same time we have this exponentially growing population spreading out geographically exposing them to differing environments causing differing adaptations. Add to that the effects of natural selection and you have an extremely diverse gene pool after many generations.

 

Also consider the possibility that the original breeding pair were genetically perfect. This would futher work against any negative mutations being passed on through in-breeding.

 

Also I do not state, in a curricular adaptation of my work, that God created anything. God cannot be addressed by science and God cannot be addressed in our public schools. My theory has a starting point and it is a single breeding pair. Where they may have come from is not addressed. While you may read in to the statement Adam and Eve another may read Hagar and Blondie or leave them unnamed as I have done. Reading in names or the existence of a creator is solely up to the individual reading the statements. To fulfill the requirements of the Consititution no religious views are introduced, alluded to, or promoted.[/quote']

 

Where do you get your breeding pair? Evolution doesn't start with single breeding pairs, nor with genetically perfect organisms. That Eve was made from Adam's rib implies that she is a clone - genetically identical. From where and how quickly do you get the genetic diversity present in today's populations?

 

Leaving God unnamed doesn't mean that the statement isn't religious in nature. That's what the Pennsylvania ID trial is about.

[Mokele]

The most common arguments against the entire human population coming from a single breeding pair are the current variation and the detrimental effects of in-breeding.

 

Inbreeding is the most obvious reason why such a single-pair system would not work, but there are many others.

 

First, on the inbreeding problem, it's not *just* inbreeding. Inbreeding makes organisms more homozygous, but doesn't actually alter gene frequencies of te population as a whole. Drift, on the other hand, does alter gene frequencies and does make animals more homozygous. In a tiny population, the level of drift would be astronomical; coupled with inbreeding, the population would be entirely homozygous at all loci within a handful of generations. Also note that drift and inbreeding are non-selective, so genetic diseases would not only appear, they'd become the only gene in town on account of drift overpowering selection. For a detailed and mathematical proof of this, look into population genetics, particularly the work of Sewall Wright. But don't use Ridley's textbook; he treats both together, and that makes it very confusing and hard to understand.

 

However, there are numerous other problems. As swansont notes, evolution doesn't just start with a breeding pair. On top of that, the mutation rate cannot possibly account for current genetic diversity if only two humans were the ancestors.

 

And let's not forget the copious fossils of hominids, hominins, members of genus Homo, and even early humans.

 

And what of the fact that we *can* trace lineages of both the Y chromosome and the mitochondria, and while each have a common ancestor, neither lived at the same time. This kinda blows the "initial breeding pair" idea out of the water, doesn't it?

 

The flat-out fact is that modern human genetic variation *cannot* be explained from a singl pair of humans, even if we give them the full 300,000 years of known history of our species.

 

Another factor: Even if the inbreeding would have dissipated over time, how do the initial humans compete with two (or more) very non-inbred species, given the *massive* handicap they have? Homo erectus was a very viable species, and spread throughout much of the world prior to humans, thus would have provided a strong competitor against a tiny bad of geneticly inferior retards. And let's not forget Neanderthals, who were stronger, bigger, more cold-hardy, and had a bigger brain than us.

 

Oh, and on top of that, why would these two individuals have flaws in their DNA shared with chimps and gorillas? See, sometimes viruses insert into the DNA but then don't work. As a result, they get passed on, genetic hichhikers. We've found many of these. Your hypothesis predicts there should be no commonality between humans and other apes. The fact is that not only is there commonality (with the *exact same* viri being in the *exact same* places), but that chimps share more of these with us that gorillas, who in turn share more with us than orangutans. This is *identical* to the pattern of evolutionar phylogenies determined from both anatomical and molcular data.

 

____________

 

Your proposition isn't science, it's grasping at straws to appease the religious groups in spite of the vast body of evidence showing the contrary. Is it possible? Sure. It's also *possible* that the Raelians are right and we were all put here by aliens. But there is not a scrap of evidence for either, and making an arguement for either requires an enormous amount of logistic contortions to avoid drawing the conclusion that is obviously more likely.

 

So basically, what you have a slim possibility with no empirical supporting evidence, and that actually has evidence running counter to it. In legitimate science, when evidence directly contradicts your hypothesis, that means ith hypothesis is wrong and should be discarded.

 

It's nice that you're offering the olive branch to these people, but you're clutcing at straws to do so. Many theological scholars have shown that a hominid origin of humans does not in any way contradict religion. Why not simply use their argements, rather than and unnecessary, wildly improbably and empirically contradicted appeasement?

 

Mokele

 

PS. "Hominds" technically refers to humans, our ancestors, and all great apes (I'm unsure if gibbons are included, but I think so), while "Hominins" refers to organisms more closely related to humans than any other ape, such as Australiopithecus and suchlike.

[zyncod]

QUOTE]That Eve was made from Adam's rib implies that she is a clone - genetically identical.

 

Well, she obviously was not, two X chromosomes and all. Either God anticipated females, or he made Adam really oddly. Or Adam was Adamette.

 

On top of that, the mutation rate cannot possibly account for current genetic diversity if only two humans were the ancestors.

 

That's a bit of a strong statement, isn't it? Given that this breeding pair did not occur in the last 6000 years, that is. Additionally, transposons and replicational mistakes can influence evolution.

 

Given two genetically perfect ancestors, you just need to have enough children to overcome inbreeding depression. If Adam and Eve were anything like their Catholic successors, this problem could probably be overcome in less than 10 generations.

 

And what of the fact that we *can* trace lineages of both the Y chromosome and the mitochondria, and while each have a common ancestor, neither lived at the same time. This kinda blows the "initial breeding pair" idea out of the water, doesn't it?

 

Not really, no. The Y chromosome and mitochondrial genome chronological rooting disparity may indicate simply that there was a bottleneck in terms of the male genome following that of the initial breeding pair, if indeed Mitochondrial Eve(s) was part of that breeding pair.

 

The flat-out fact is that modern human genetic variation *cannot* be explained from a singl pair of humans, even if we give them the full 300,000 years of known history of our species.

 

Ok, now I'm interested. Not that I don't believe you, but could you provide documentation for this? It's just that I've never heard this before.

 

Another factor: Even if the inbreeding would have dissipated over time, how do the initial humans compete with two (or more) very non-inbred species, given the *massive* handicap they have? Homo erectus was a very viable species, and spread throughout much of the world prior to humans, thus would have provided a strong competitor against a tiny bad of geneticly inferior retards. And let's not forget Neanderthals, who were stronger, bigger, more cold-hardy, and had a bigger brain than us.

 

On a more massive scale, brain size does correlate with intelligence (ie, mouse vs human). Neanderthal brains were somewhat larger (1200-1700 cc vs 1300-1500 cc for the respective male members), but examples from our own population (I've seen the massive brain of an 'idiot' in Cornell's collection) indicate that on a smaller scale, brain size does not correlate with intelligence. Additionally, if you assume that Adam and Eve were given the cultural gift of language, this could very well be responsible for their dominance over extant species.

 

Aside: God is an obvious fiction, and there is no real evidence for an initial 'breeding pair.' In fact, Mokele, as you have set forth, the evidence is somewhat (but not even close to completely) to the contrary. Given that we are not likely ever to resolve this issue, what is the harm in letting people believe what they will, as long as it doesn't result in full-scale denial of empiricism (as does ID)?

[bascule]

Given that we are not likely ever to resolve this issue, what is the harm in letting people believe what they will, as long as it doesn't result in full-scale denial of empiricism (as does ID)?

 

Because he's trying to present his beliefs as scientific

[MrFungus420]

creation is not intelligent design. Though similar, they are completely different theories and should not be thrown in the same area.

 

Sorry, neither is a theory. Intelligent design and creationism are both unsupported stories.

 

In order to be a theory, there must be supporting evidence. The closest that I've seen to support for creationism (or intelligent design) have been nothing more than attempts to show possible discrepancies with evolution.

[bascule]

Pretty much, here's the basic Creationist/IDiot logic:

 

1. Present a false dilemma: If Evolution is wrong, then surely Creationism/ID is right!

 

2. Look for any flaws you can possibly find. A flaw need not be an actual problem with the theory, just something you can't understand which you can then explain in a common sense manner to others why it's wrong because you don't understand it. For example, re: Acanthostega:

 

http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/839

 

In the PBS Evolution series, it is claimed that the aquatic Acanthostega developed limbs so it could have an advantage running out of the water to escape predators. However, there's a tradeoff: limbs are not as good for swimming as fins are. Why would a fishlike creature begin to develop legs which themselves inhibit their ability to swim away from predators? There simply is not a Darwinian scenario whereby it is advantageous for an aquatic creature to develop limbs for organisms with poor fins for swimming would quickly get selected out by predatation over swimming organisms--long before true tetrapod limbs like Acanthostega had (see above quote) could develop on their own.

 

Aaaaaargh, I don't get it, legs would make it harder for Acanthostega to escape from preditors and the only piddly little advantage it provides is... a new way to escape from predators. It doesn't make sense, therefore it must've been designed!

 

3. Apply an absolutist mentality to science. If any little part of evolution shows the tiniest incongruity, then that's it, the whole theory is wrong, throw the baby out with the bathwater. One little chink in the theory's armor and the whole thing unravels, right?

 

4. Now that you've disproven evolution, you can use your original false delimma from #1 to prove that Creationism is right!

 

Q.E.D!

[smommer]

According to this: http://www.livejournal.com/users/jpicon/833962.html

 

"Advocates of Intelligent Design do not actually believe any of the arguments that they profess to believe."

 

I wonder if this transcript was from a real empirical study

 

Smommer

[Mokele]

Well, she obviously was not, two X chromosomes and all. Either God anticipated females, or he made Adam really oddly. Or Adam was Adamette.

 

"And God said, 'Yea, take this Turkey Baster and sperm donation clinic, be fruitful and multiply!' "

 

That's a bit of a strong statement, isn't it? Given that this breeding pair did not occur in the last 6000 years, that is. Additionally, transposons and replicational mistakes can influence evolution.

 

True, but even with those, the mutation rate is quite low on a per-gene basis, and plus you have to factor in stuff like genetic drift, selection and other causes for loss of diversity. Perhaps I overstated a bit, but not by much; explaining modern genetic diversity entirely within human history and starting with only a single pair would be stretching probability pretty damn far.

 

On top of that, there's another problem: If Adam and Eve were normal humans, the inbreeding and genetic drift would have doomed the species. If they were "geneticly perfect", then they had the best possible alleles, so any new allele created by mutation would have been eliminated by natural selection, thus actively eliminating diversity and preventing the possible origin of the diversity we see today. So option A is a genetic death sentence, and option B prevents any possible mechanism for generating the diversity we see today. The idea dies either way.

 

Not really, no. The Y chromosome and mitochondrial genome chronological rooting disparity may indicate simply that there was a bottleneck in terms of the male genome following that of the initial breeding pair, if indeed Mitochondrial Eve(s) was part of that breeding pair.

 

Technically possible, but I suspect strong that, should we find the common ancestor for other genes or chromosomes, we'll find still more different dates, and at that point most of human history will have to be one long bottleneck to explain it.

 

On a more massive scale, brain size does correlate with intelligence (ie, mouse vs human). Neanderthal brains were somewhat larger (1200-1700 cc vs 1300-1500 cc for the respective male members), but examples from our own population (I've seen the massive brain of an 'idiot' in Cornell's collection) indicate that on a smaller scale, brain size does not correlate with intelligence. Additionally, if you assume that Adam and Eve were given the cultural gift of language, this could very well be responsible for their dominance over extant species.

 

True, but remember that Adam and Eve's kids would have been so horrifly inbred that they would probably barely be able to think or survive, let alone compete. Just about all they'd be good for is playing country music.

 

Given that we are not likely ever to resolve this issue, what is the harm in letting people believe what they will, as long as it doesn't result in full-scale denial of empiricism (as does ID)?

 

Because it's being presented as scientific, as bascule said, which it isn't.

 

Mokele

[Xyph]

According to this: http://www.livejournal.com/users/jpicon/833962.html

 

"Advocates of Intelligent Design do not actually believe any of the arguments that they profess to believe."

Hahaha, that's great.

 

I do actually think about that sometimes, though. It just seems that people who are so obviously wrong (and, more importantly, could so easily show themselves that they are wrong!) could, in fact, just be attempting to deceive others because they see themselves as being on a mission from God, or somesuch...

 

Of course, I realise that this probably isn't the case the vast majority of the time, but I still wonder occasionally.

[zyncod]

If they were "geneticly perfect", then they had the best possible alleles, so any new allele created by mutation would have been eliminated by natural selection

 

C'mon, you know that 'genetically perfect' does not apply to the characteristics we apply to races, such as skin, eye, and hair color. 'Genetically perfect' in this context would apply to no defects in necessary parts of the genome.

 

My whole point in all this argument is that, with a little imagination, Christians could relate scientific with religious dogma, if they were willing to state that the Bible was not a wholly accurate document. I mean, we have a mitochondrial Eve(s) at or around the date at which culture is believed to have begun. Noah could represent the Y chromosome Adam if we discount Biblical chronology and substitute all extant species for domesticated species on the Ark (All the male members of the Ark were directly related to Adam).

 

But obviously, everybody from IDers to creationists to 'creavolutionists' is less interested in their God's potential handiwork in Earth's history than in proving their own particular (wrong) religion's reading of Earth's life history.