They are being far too polite. I actually threw up in my mouth a little reading that post.
I lol’ed.
hey Bill i like your posts. they are well thought out and not overly aggressive. i’d just like to add my two cents, see what you think…
while it may not be entirely understood how new functioning organs evolve, somethings should be considered:
not all of our dna is expressed, certain environmental stimuli can block or activate different regions of our dna. this alone MIGHT be able to exlain certain the heart issue and many like it. for whatever reason if our mother ate X food or did Y exercise, these factors change the proteins she’s expressing, and if done while we’re developing, since we’re using her cells and DN its possible to end up with a different dna, expression atleast, than she did.
it seems unlikely that a fully functioning chamber of a heart appeared, however small mutations over time could possibly lead to this. i would think that fish didnt one day develop feet, but i think itis easy to understand that fish that spent a lot of time close to the shore had certain pressures that could easily lead to stronger forelimbs for maneuvering the sand if washed ashore, and perhaps greater lung capacity while not submerged.
that being said it must be noted that a very important part of evolution theory is mutation. while almost always harmful, every once in a while a certain mutation can confer great genetic advantage and along with genetic drift can easily and sometiems quickly “evolve” a species right into “feet” or a “third chamber” so i think it important to realize that its not out of the question for a fully mutated third chamber to be possible, just unlikely. given a couple billion organisms a couple billion years… who knows.
Yes, my point is not that we have information that it is impossible for chemical processes and natural selection to yield the progression from, e.g., fish to amphibians, but rather that we do not in fact know that it is possible from only such mechanisms.
Except if employing the reasoning, It happened, and there is no God, so therefore it happened without God, so therefore a main claimed evidence for God is wrong, thus anyone who has the view of a Creator being involved or even perhaps being involved is proven wrong by this “scientific reasoning.”
While I have never heard anyone state it that way, I do think that for some that is the underlying process.
On whether small progressions from a 2-chambered heart to a 3-chambered heart are possible: Perhaps it may be the case that organisms can slowly progress to a 2.01-chambered heart, a 2.02-chambered heart, etc, and furthermore somehow with these intermediate stages being reproductively superior to a 2-chambered heart, and somehow also these new genes – how many are needed, can anyone claiming this as a proven matter specify? – being able to be passed on successfully when mixed with genes from conspecific fish not having the mutations, but myself I do not grasp how that is provably a satisfactory explanation.
[quote]pstruhar7786 wrote:
while almost always harmful, every once in a while a certain mutation can confer great genetic advantage
[/quote]
“While almost always neutral”
Fixed. 
haha thankyou fergy.
bill:
“Yes, my point is not that we have information that it is impossible for chemical processes and natural selection to yield the progression from, e.g., fish to amphibians, but rather that we do not in fact know that it is possible from only such mechanisms.”
-that is extremely well put, and it makes my staunchly atheist heart to lean more toward agnosticism. even though i think im right i should still be able to atleast CONSIDER that i might be wrong
as for the heart again, im not sure exactly what you mean. i also meant the other two examples to be for the heart as well, altere dna expression and possible full mutation, and i used those examples because i thought of them first im sure there are others. whats wrong with the +.01 theory though?
Well, tell me an animal that has a heart with a number of chambers that is fractional instead of integer, and please explain to me how the circulatory system hooks up to that?
Having, for example, a third chamber and having the circulatory system hook up that way is a “you do or you don’t” thing. Not something where having half of it, or having only half or another fraction of the genes necessary for the full change, could possibly confer a reproductive advantage. Or if I’m wrong, can you suggest any reason for how inbetween-chambered organisms could outcompete purebred 2-chambered organisms thanks to having part, but only part, of the set of mutations needed for a 3-chambered heart?
Seems to me you need either a well-functioning 2-chambered system or a well-functioning 3-chambered (or other) system. Progression via 2.01, 2.02, etc chambered hearts seems an unsupported theory. What would the support be?
i just read the wikipedia article about eyes so i kind of have that process working…
perhaps the .01 isnt a fractional chamber but a muscle fiber that is slightly larger or even an exta one, something very minor. the added muscle allows for a more forceful, perhaps efficient circulation, over time envagination of the musce leads to a stronger and stronger pump, which is for some reason somehow advanageous, perhaps they organism can handle high stress situations better. this followed by membranes that slowly develop to better utilize the new muscle/chamber.
its all obviously speculation though of course, i could be WAY off. we could all pose situations all day, we’d only be limited by our imagination and some thoughtful reasoning. again though, i understand your main point and appreciate it too, not very often i get to discuss evolution with what appears to be a non-believer without eventually screaming and name calling.
I would suggest checking a biology article or text that discusses hearts and circulatory systems of fish and amphibians. You would have a better picture then and it would be clear that just adding a muscle fiber or having bigger fibers (your suggestions) doesn’t in any way touch on the major structural and system changes required.
But whether you do that or not, the point remains that a person cannot honestly state that they know or anyone knows that chemical and selection processes alone can account for this. Assuming it is either, I think, from going along with a crowd or “common wisdom,” or from, ironically, a religious sort of faith – against it being an acceptable idea that a Creator might have been involved.
And the larger point is, the task is not that any person need prove that it is not possible that chemical reactions and natural selection alone could yield the change, but rather that those espousing that it supposedly is proven that these mechanisms fully account for all life on Earth should be able to demonstrate in reasonable detail how changes like this could have occurred this way. At the present time they cannot, and as no one can explain the question of how DNA coding for different proteins yields structural changes of these sorts at all, as opposed to just having different proteins which is simple enough, the actual situation is that it is not even close to being the case that anyone can demonstrate that chemical reactions and natural selection are sufficient explanation for all life forms on Earth.
Now of course what most scientists mean by the theory of evolution does not assert any such thing in any case. However, philosophically when most, particularly atheists, speak of evolution they mean precisely that: supposedly, that those mechanisms are sufficient to explain everything.
Maybe evolution is a mechanism of life but it doesn’t explain everything.
What’s the answer to the question?
You know what I’m talking about.
no the muscle wouldnt at first, but like the eye, if it further deepened it would create a pocket, a chamber of sorts, perhaps allowing for a larger stroke volume, then a connective tissue of some sort, vessel or boundary, might make the make shift chamber a full chamber. im just trying to pose a possible explanation for the +.01 theory, none of it is none of its fact we both know, just a fun thing to think of.
youre right though we cannot say that, probably never will be able to, its essentially impossible to be able to say anything has happened with 100% certainty, espcially when we werent around to witness it firsthand.
another thing to think, if everything COULD be explained with only selection and molecular phsyics, would you beliee it then?
and then there’s always the statement that the creator used perfectly sound phsyical laws to create everything. /shrug its all a practise in futility/frustration to try to reach THE TRUTH, wouldnt change much if we found it anyway
you just editted your last post, and i would just like to say that i agree with your main point, your example, the unknown structure thing. if certain proteins are expressed during development, its name escapes me, dictates and arm develop, at the limb buds this makes great sense, everywhere else the protein is not expressed. so if extra “heart chamber” protein(s) are expressed its not inconievable for an extra chamber to occur.
the exmaple that comes to mind is the experiment doen with chicken fetuses.
normally birds dont have a fully developed fibula, the reason discovered later is that they either didnt express the gene for the completion of the bone of expressed a gene that caused apoptosis in developing boen (again my details are fuzzy i cant remember which they had) regardless they removed/added the opposing gene and the chicks were born with fully developed fibulas.
so although i agree with ur main point i think expression of proteins can handedly explain structural formations, though perhaps not ALL of them at the current time
Well, if you can explain to me mechanistically how for example a different protein directs or a different set of proteins direct the arteries and veins to hook up in a different pattern to the heart, for example as in the difference between fish and amphibians, please do. That is not rhetorical: I’d truly enjoy it. It’s a fascinating question (moreso the general question than that specific one, but if the specific one were solved that would go a ton of the way towards the general one.)
But also in a way it is rhetorical as I know enough about it to know that science does not know such things at this time, and that anyone saying "sure it’s possible to have a set of gene mutations yielding this effect happen all at the same time or, to advantage, happen sequentially " (not that you said just that) in fact does not have a basis – other than faith that since it happened and there is no God, therefore their idea of evolution must explain it – for asserting it to be possible.
Where one could legitimately call it possible would be a situation such as, having the knowledge to be able to state “It is these (X number) of genes that are involved with a total difference of (Y number) base pairs” and that sort of thing. Then one would be actually doing something towards presenting an intellectually sound argument that it is demonstrated that chemical reactions and natural selection could account for this change.
But that knowledge does not now exist, or even close.
certain proteins, expressed at particular locations of the developing embryo, would result in the formation of a developing vessel, in the same way that certain proteins direct the production of the brain, arms (or chicken bones), and heart themselves, im fairly certain that specific proteins are required to make any vessels at all so it would make sense that the mutated or extra expression of these proteins could do the trick. if youre asking me to go much more mechanically deeper, im sad to say my knolwedge does not extend that far. however in a very “bill roberts” line of thought, this does not make it not so.
However that line of argument does not prove chemical reactions and natural selection alone are sufficient to do it, either.
But yet the adherents of what I might call “the philosophical theory of evolution” (the theory that claims to be a master theory of all life that demonstrates no need for a Creator) insist that science shows those to be sufficient.
It doesn’t. In fact someone with a true scientific viewpoint remains amazed at various complex things that it is just not clear at all how they happen. There are a lot of such things. In contrast, the “philosophical evolutionists” are like the Patent Office fellow who thought everything was known already and make assertions based on that quite-lacking-in-knowledge view.
At this point I would be repeating myself with anything further, or really have fallen into it already, so that’s finis.
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
Well, if you can explain to me mechanistically how for example a different protein directs or a different set of proteins direct the arteries and veins to hook up differently, please do. That is not rhetorical: I’d truly enjoy it.
But also in a way it is rhetorical as I know enough about it to know that science does not know such things at this time, and that anyone saying "sure it’s possible to have a set of gene mutations yielding this effect happen all at the same time or, to advantage, happen sequentially " (not that you said just that) in fact does not have a basis – other than faith that since it happened and there is no God, therefore their idea of evolution must explain it – for asserting it to be possible.
Where one could legitimately call it possible would be a situation such as, having the knowledge to be able to state “It is these (X number) of genes that are involved with a total difference of (Y number) base pairs” and that sort of thing. Then one would be actually doing something towards presenting an intellectually sound argument that it is demonstrated that chemical reactions and natural selection could account for this change.
But that knowledge does not now exist, or even close.[/quote]
These developmental questions are being explored, we just don’t have answers yet. One of the things we often overlook is that it’s not strictly a one-gene-one-protein arrangement because of post-transcriptional modification. Making things even more complicated is the complex regulatory network for gene expression. After all, there’s only a few percent of our DNA that is different from our nearest extant relative. This is enough to make us profoundly different from them. It seems, if I may go on a limb with such an ambiguous term, that if such small changes in our genome can result in such large regulatory and thus structural changes that such small changes could be acquired in a gradual stepwise fashion over time.
How exactly one species would move from an n chamber heart to an m chamber heart, I do not know, but I doubt the phenotype suddenly changes from what we would think of as two chambers to three. I’m thinking of whale evolution, I think, and how their bone structure changed. I don’t see why a heart would be any more irreducible than a face.
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
Well, if you can explain to me mechanistically how for example a different protein directs or a different set of proteins direct the arteries and veins to hook up in a different pattern to the heart, for example as in the difference between fish and amphibians, please do. That is not rhetorical: I’d truly enjoy it. It’s a fascinating question (moreso the general question than that specific one, but if the specific one were solved that would go a ton of the way towards the general one.)
But also in a way it is rhetorical as I know enough about it to know that science does not know such things at this time, and that anyone saying "sure it’s possible to have a set of gene mutations yielding this effect happen all at the same time or, to advantage, happen sequentially " (not that you said just that) in fact does not have a basis – other than faith that since it happened and there is no God, therefore their idea of evolution must explain it – for asserting it to be possible.
Where one could legitimately call it possible would be a situation such as, having the knowledge to be able to state “It is these (X number) of genes that are involved with a total difference of (Y number) base pairs” and that sort of thing. Then one would be actually doing something towards presenting an intellectually sound argument that it is demonstrated that chemical reactions and natural selection could account for this change.
But that knowledge does not now exist, or even close.[/quote]
I think you’d be really interested in a developmental biology textbook.
As far as the circulatory system hooking up to an extra heart chamber goes, it might help to realize that of one the circulatory system’s jobs is to hook up to tissue that’s not getting enough oxygen. So, in the case of a mutation that makes an extra chamber (likely not a single mutation in a gene, but a duplication event of a number of genes), it’s at least going to be innervated by capillaries, without any additional mutations in the genes governing blood vessels. Mutations in the vessels could happen later.
More likely though, as the animal is developing, a major vessel is going to head to its normal chemical target on the heart via a gradient, and hearing two signals instead of one, just split off and connect everything.
[quote]Otep wrote:
What if there’s significant evidence for the existence of God and the usefulness of religion? Would athiests become true believers?
This isn’t a one-sided thing. Everyone’s looking at the same evidence on this issue.[/quote]
Given that atheism doesn’t imply a dogma or any specific personality traits it would depend entirely on the individual.
Even though religious dogma dictates that you shouldn’t question your beliefs (hence the need for faith) it is still possible for people to question and/or lose their faith. As with the atheists this depends entirely on the individual and not the religion or lack thereof.
It should also be noted that the existence of a God wouldn’t necessarily be grounds for worship, therefore whether they could become true believers would depend upon your definition of a true believer.
a
[quote]RipsideTC wrote:
pstruhar7786 wrote:
it seems unlikely that a fully functioning chamber of a heart appeared, however small mutations over time could possibly lead to this. i would think that fish didnt one day develop feet, but i think itis easy to understand that fish that spent a lot of time close to the shore had certain pressures that could easily lead to stronger forelimbs for maneuvering the sand if washed ashore, and perhaps greater lung capacity while not submerged.
that being said it must be noted that a very important part of evolution theory is mutation. while almost always harmful, every once in a while a certain mutation can confer great genetic advantage and along with genetic drift can easily and sometiems quickly “evolve” a species right into “feet” or a “third chamber” so i think it important to realize that its not out of the question for a fully mutated third chamber to be possible, just unlikely. given a couple billion organisms a couple billion years… who knows.
VERY unlikely that some sort of very quick right into feet. Mutations take time, stressors take years to develop. Why is this important? Because for the, as my professor puts it, “Survivors to survive” they must have the ability to live through stress that other organisms simply die in. The problem is to define a stress that would, in the example given about feet, would allow a fish, or a specific fish, to not only survive this stress but find a mate with similar traits; especially considering the INCREMENTAL changes associated with, for arguments sake, Darwin’s theory(out of the many branches of it).
**Underlined in my cosmology and evolutionary science textbook. “Evolution does not account for all changes made”
This goes for all its sub-categories, Genetic drift (mutation),non-random mating, migration, natural selection.
I am a simple graduate student but…Evolution is falsifiable if it wasn’t it would lose its place as science. The truth is, not much has falsified it.
On a sidenote, here is a good example of Natural Selection occuring,
KETTLEWELL’S MOTHS.
This will be my first time posting…
Long time reader of T-Nation’s articles but first time registering to actually say something.
[/quote]
What kind of graduate program are you in? I ask because I’ve never heard of a cosmology and evolutionary science textbook.