> General Discussions

Mathematical Challenges to Darwin’s Theory of Evolution

<< < (2/6) > >>

wat:
I came across this video a few weeks ago and watched it. David Gelernter wrote an article also which I read. Here it is.

https://www.claremont.org/crb/article/giving-up-darwin/

I talked about this with a friend who knows a lot more about evolution than I do, and it seems there is some misunderstanding among these 3 guys. I don’t necessarily have a problem with evolution theologically, but I am interested in legitimate scientific skepticism of evolution. I’d like to read Berlinski’s book sometime, as well as some books explaining why evolution is true.

I’ll quote my friend’s information he gave me. Sorry for the long post, but I think it’s important if anyone is seriously interested in the subject.

“As of right now, less than 10% of our DNA appears functional. 1% is protein coding and about 9% is regulatory non-coding. That means that 90% of our DNA is mutation-tolerant. To make things simple, though, we can just look at known protein-coding genes. That is a complete crock that our proteins are as sensitive to mutation as he implies. If that were true, why is it that half of a yeast's protein-coding genes can be switched for the human counterpart even when the gene in question is less than 50 percent identical? There are sites in proteins that are critical and sites that aren't. The sites that aren't--the ones that can vary without affecting the function of the protein--are the ones that allow us to make phylogenetic trees. Take amylase, for example. Amylase is a protein that we use to digest starch. All vertebrates possess this protein. Even though the function of the protein is the same in all vertebrates, the percent similarity of the protein differs markedly. The protein is 98% identical between humans and chimps but only 69% identical between fish and humans. This shows that over a quarter of the protein's structure can vary and allow it to work. This is also, surprise, good evidence for evolution because why else would our proteins be consistently more similar to chimps than monkeys if the protein does the same thing? It's because we share a more recent common ancestor with chimps and the differences that accrued were built up in neutral regions and were thus invisible to natural selection. Those less sensitive regions of proteins allow us to compare the same exact gene between species and infer genetic relatedness. If you can take a random human gene that is 40% identical to yeast’s and splice it into their genome with no ill-effects it stands to reason you could do the opposite. We are far more mutation-tolerant than implied in creationist literature. Even if we weren’t, however, it still shouldn’t be surprising as evolution has had 3.5 billion years to select and refine more efficient versions of proteins!”

“I can’t possibly address everything as there is so much I could talk about. I’ll try to be brief, though. Cambrian precursors aren’t missing. Ediacaran fauna are soft-bodied animals that preceded Cambrian organisms. The Cambrian is also when you start to see hard calcium carbonate shells, so obviously fossils from that era will stand out more than the fossils that came before it. The Cambrian “explosion” also took millions of years.  Precambrian organisms were preceded by bacteria for literally billions of years. Also, what about all the other paleontological evidence for evolution? The transitional fossils, for instance? How about the evolution of whales, horses, birds, manatees, and snakes? The evolution of these groups is pretty well-documented. There are literally whales with legs, horses with multiple toes, and small dinosaurs with feathers. These forms all precede their familiar descendants in time. They are undoubtedly linked through ancestry by features that only exist in those groups. How about the evolution of the mammalian inner ear? You can see the bones in the jaws of a lineage of reptiles slowly work their way into the inner ear of mammals over millions of years. Moreover, the development of mammalian inner ears confirms this. As embryos, bones in the jaw migrate to form the ear! As far as tetrapods go, fish preceded amphibians which preceded reptiles which preceded mammals and birds. The earliest fish are about 400 million years old. The oldest mammal is about 100 million years younger. The evolution of mammals and birds from different groups of reptiles is well-documented. Also, as far as our unique lineage goes, there are many specimens of hominids that are fully bipedal but have brains the size of chimpanzees with facial features that aren’t too dissimilar. These fossils are younger than six million years old which is consistent with molecular evidence which suggests that our last common ancestor with chimps lived about that long ago. You could easily falsify evolution through fossils, too. Find a dog in the pre-Cambrian—done. That would completely turn it upside down. Regarding proteins, you don’t get complicated proteins randomly. New genes don’t come about in a way equivalent to throwing a bunch of random amino acids in a bucket and getting a new protein. Many new proteins come from other proteins through the process of gene duplication and subsequent mutation. Also, many genes are redundant. We have many genes that are in duplicate with several broken ones to go with the ones that work. I remember reading about rRNA genes, I think, of which we have several functional copies with some broken ones. This redundancy also makes it easier for new genes to evolve. We have whole families of genes that undoubtedly arose through the duplication process. Look up the olfactory receptor genes. We have hundreds of them and many are duplicates of others with slight alterations. Moreover, many of them are broken—non-functional genes that no longer code for an olfactory receptor protein. We have a broken gene for producing vitamin C, for example, which is shared with the other great apes. They have the same mutations in their vitamin C gene. Want to play the statistics game? What are the odds that the other great apes would develop the exact same disabling mutations as humans? Seems more likely that we inherited them from a common ancestor. Same thing with genes for teeth. Birds and toothless mammals have the genes for enamel and dentin but they are disabled by mutations. All birds share their mutations indicating that they share a common, toothless ancestor. The various toothless mammals, as predicted by evolution, have their own inactivating mutations. Going back to the supposed unlikelihood of a new, stable protein evolving—I can say with confidence that it is not unlikely at all. As I mentioned before, there are thousands of homologous genes found in various organisms that retain the same function despite 50% of the amino acids being switched! Both human and yeast cytochrome C still shuttle electrons in the mitochondrial membrane despite the protein being 58% identical. Cytochrome b is 400 amino acids and the situation is the same. If the chances of getting a stable protein that is 104 amino acids long is 1 in 10^74 then the chances are much more bleak for a 400 amino acid long protein. Yet, the less than 60% identical protein still functions the same in yeast and humans. How does he think bacteria evolve resistance to antibiotics? Doesn’t he know that there are mutations that lead to protein shape-changes that underlie the new trait? Regarding body plan changes—yes most of them are deleterious. That doesn’t mean they can’t occur, however. There’s very good documentation of the evolution of wings from theropod dinosaur forelimbs and tetrapod legs from bony fish fins, for example. Early lobed-finned fish had bones corresponding to our humorous, radius and ulna. These fish preceded amphibians in the fossil record. You can see the limb develop over time in the fossil record. Yes, there are developmental constraints. Just look at insects. They have been around for hundreds of millions of years yet they all have six legs! Obviously, there are huge costs to adding or losing a pair of legs. Despite the constraints, however, there are other arthropods like spiders, scorpions, and the various crustaceans that vary widely in their leg numbers but are undoubtedly closely related. They also differ markedly in their number of body segments and eye numbers. Some insects have one pair of wings whereas others have two or none at all. Many insects have vestigial wings. Some beetles have fully-formed wings under a fused wing cover that doesn’t allow them to fly. Hox genes are very important to the evolution of new body plans and should be mentioned when discussing this topic. Duplications and subsequent changes to hox genes can result in new segments and forms. There is very good evidence that duplication of a single ancestral hox gene is what lead to the radical body-plan differences between animals. Tetrapod vertebrates have four clusters of hox genes that insects have only one of. They are mostly identical with some tweaks. This is what you’d expect if we shared a common ancestor. Just because radical differences are usually selected against doesn’t mean that advantageous body plans can’t evolve. In conclusion, the fossil record, genetics, and embryology fully support evolution with ample evidence for common ancestry. We’ve seen through antibiotic resistance and selective breeding that mutation and selection as a mechanism for adaptation works. I’m not sure where evidence is lacking?”

My friend wrote a little more, but I think that’s good enough.

At the end of the day, I don’t care whether someone believes in evolution or not, an old earth or not, etc. There are plenty of more important things in life. But science is quite fascinating.

indianabob:
Hello LOC,

Thanks for your detailed commentary on the theory of evolution as your friend understands it.
It is apparent that your friend has been studying and teaching for an extended period.
However I hope that both he and you also understand that almost no who reads the forum or with whom we confer on the forum has the background to understand this much detail and foreign to our ears terminology.

Perhaps we could explore a little more in private messages if you are interested.

Kindly offered, Indiana Bob

Dennis Vogel:

--- Quote ---In conclusion, the fossil record, genetics, and embryology fully support evolution with ample evidence for common ancestry.
--- End quote ---

Loc's article is too much for me to wade through (especially in one long paragraph). But I think he is defending evolution. Let me know if I'm wrong.

Instead of a 'common ancestry' a 'common designer' makes more sense.

Humans share the majority of our DNA with a blade of grass which shows a basic starting point/design. But I don't see how a blade of grass can evolve a brain, even a tiny one.

Several years ago the world's leading scientist on the study of DNA announced on CNN that he now believes in some sort of a designer. He came to the conclusion that DNA is much too complicated to have evolved.

One big problem for evolutionist is there are no intermediate fossils where you can trace one species evolving into another, e.g., a bird evolving into a dinosaur. They may show one animal and state something that looks like a dog is half-way between a bird and a dinosaur but you need many intermediary examples to the end product as real proof, but there are none in the fossil records.

And I'm not talking about natural selection which we know happens, but that is not the same as evolution.

Gen 5:1  This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him;

Gen 5:2  Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created.

Gen 2:7  And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

Doesn't say God fashioned man from something biological.

wat:
Yes, I’m defending evolution. Evolution is largely misunderstood by it’s opponents. Let me be clear, I have no problem with evolution being proven false or true, I have no stake in the outcome. I’m interested in what is true. I’m not an expert on the topic, but I do wish to read more about it, both opponents and proponents. As it stands now, I see lots of convincing evidence for evolution, but I’m open to alternate explanations, as long as they come from a place of integrity.

As I said before, evolution is largely misunderstood, leading to a lot of the same arguments being used against it for the past several decades which have been debunked. Transitional fossils are a good example, which Dennis brought up. Many of these fossils have been found, as my friend stated, whales with legs, horses with toes, dinosaurs with feathers. Hox genes are very important for body plan evolution, as my friend stated. Hox genes are one answer to a lot of misunderstanding of evolutionary processes. Certainly a blade of grass can’t evolve a brain all of the sudden, but that’s not how evolution works.

All I wanted to do with my post was to provide facts as a counter to the points being raised by the men in the video. They bring up amino acid chains being very specific and if you change it a little, it won’t work, which is false. My friend cited a study (I can post the study if anyone is interested) in which researchers switched out important yeast genes for their human equivalents. Half of the yeast genes could be successfully switched out despite a genome-wide average similarity of only 32%. The point is you can mess up proteins a lot and they still work.

That’s interesting about that DNA scientist Dennis. Do you have his name so I can read more about it? I don’t doubt that DNA and biology as a whole are very complex. There is plenty that we don’t understand about how life works. Complexity doesn’t necessarily disprove anything, we just don’t understand how everything works.

Hi Indiana Bob, yes, I do understand that this topic is very technical and not everyone will immediately understand everything, or even be interested in it at all. It’s not something that can be learned in a day, just like one can’t understand all scripture in one day. I’m still learning myself. I wouldn’t mind discussing it further via PM if you wish. I don’t expect everyone to be interested in this subject and explore it further. I also don’t see it being very important scripturally, which is why I don’t mind if someone believes one way or the other about it. I’m much more interested in how all the Bible stories apply to us, learning the spiritual aspect of the law, learning about the prophets and the meaning of their prophecies, overcoming the flesh, learning that God rules and He is the potter, and there are vessels for honor and dishonor, etc. etc.

AwesomeSavior:
Loc:

A couple of questions for you:

1) Does your friend believe in God, or is he agnostic/atheistic?

2) What does he believe is the so-called "common ancestor"?

Dean

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page