Evolution is a basic, biological process

As a retired scientist (PhD in Physics), I have followed with dismay the debate surrounding Evolution. In many of the places I have lived, there have been well organized and dedicated groups determined to impose their views on "non believers", in particular the educational systemTo begin with, Evolution is a process which affects all living organisms — a process that is presently ongoing and easily detectable with modern techniques. The "theory of evolution" is merely the latest and as far as can be known, best explanation of the process. A basic problem with understanding the evolutionary process is that it is an extremely slow process and requires a keen observer who knows where and how to look to detect it. One of Darwin’s principal claims to fame is that he was the first "keen observer" who gathered enough information to detect/discover the process. Of course, there are those who believe Alfred Wallace, who had also detected the process, might have been first. What is important is to emphasize that if Darwin had not discovered the process of evolution, some one else would have -- all he did was point out what any other observer could also see, and eventually did.With regard to Darwin’s theory of evolution, Darwin’s name is associated with the theory as he was the first to publish. But Darwin made only modest contributions to our understanding of the evolutionary process. Darwin detected the process, and, other than noting that, in general, the strongest species will survive, that’s all. Darwin had no clue as to how the process operates. It has been only within the past 50 —60 years the we have determined that the evolutionary process is driven by mutations that occur when cells divide and errors are made in the copying of DNA the copying errors accumulate and ever so slowly give rise to new life forms, the fittest of which, usually, survive.A simple demonstration of evolution proceeds from the following noncontroversial/provable facts
All humans are comprised of microscopic cells
All cells contain DNA
All cells divide to replace cells that die
Average human has complete replacement of cells every 5-7 years
DNA copying errors lead to mutations
Mutations that are not too severe gradually lead to the changes we term aging
Significant mutations lead to cancerAll of this occurs because of the process of evolutionAn obvious reason for the conflict over evolution arises from to the fact that the current explanation is not the first one. Humans have always wondered how and why things are the way they are. Unfortunately, early explanations were based upon faulty explanations of either incorrect or incomplete observations. As and example, until relatively recently, everyone believed/knew that the sun goes around the earth (unfortunately, amazingly, some still do) and when a correct explanation was arrived at by Copernicus, the explanation was suppressed with the same vigor being applied to evolution. With respect to evolution, an explanation of the "evolution" of life on earth is contained the book of Genesis, a book that was somehow written by a supernatural being, God, and hence infallible. Thus, we have the "revealed" truth of the Bible in conflict with the vast amounts of verifiably experimental truthAn aspect of the debate which doesn't seem to get much exposure is the fact that it is now possible to observe the process of evolution in almost real time. For example, the evolutionary process manifests itself in the mutations that give rise to anti-biotic bacteria or strains of HIV which allude the AIDS antiretroviral drugs; a process that can be observed on a relatively, unfortunately, short time scale.Modern biology is unintelligible without an understanding of the evolutionary process. Thus, it is almost criminal to try to insert religious theories such as intelligent design into biology courses. Modern biology is complicated enough without having to cope with some mysterious designer.Regarding the intelligent designer, we have the somewhat ludicrous situation where this intelligent designer is creating harmful strains of bacteria and viruses. Of course it might be argued that there are two intelligent designers, a good one and a bad one (God an Satan) with the bad one making the antibiotic resistant bacteria.

Thanks for your reply. I wasn't sure how to proceed, so I just put down some general thoughts. Let me digest your feed back and I will provide some focus and some questionsRegardsSoplar

Dear AdminNosyIn my OP, I try to make the following points which I haven’t seen in other discussions of this topic (of course, I am not comversant with all writings)Evolution is a biological process driven by mutations due to DNA copying errors that occur when cells divide, that is currently ongoing and that is easily demonstratedThe Theory of Evolution is merely the explanation of this processUnderstanding the evolutionary process leads to an understanding of cancer and the development of antibiotic resistant bacteria; and therefore provides the basis for finding ways to combat these scourgesWhile Darwin’s name is attached to the Theory of Evolution in accordance with the practice of recognizing pioneers (e.g., Newton’s Laws of Motion), Darwin actually made relatively little contribution to the theory. People like Watson and Crick who deduced the structure of DNA and Craig Ventnor who led the team which mapped the human genome, made significantly greater contributions to our understanding of the evolutionary processThe basic reason for the evolutionary debate is that evolution conflicts with religious teachings that were established thousands of years ago when people were searching for answers to questions like where did all living things come from. As with many other religiously based teachings that have been supplanted, such as the original idea that the earth was the center of the universe, evolution should supplant religious teachings.Explaining the evolutionary process does not require an intelligent designer unless one desires to ascribe the development of antibiotic resistant bacteria to this intelligent designerRe questions, the only question I can think of is why respondents to questionnaires on this subject either partially (37%) or totally (45%) reject evolution.The direction I would hope the discussion of this thread would take is for persons to either agree with these points or to disagree and state why they disagree. In my brief perusal of you BB, I saw some rather bizarre statements such as evidence for the great flood is everywhere but no mention of where the water came from to cause the flood (of course there is no place where the water could have come from)RegardsSoplar

Yes, you have correctly summarized my reasoning. I have been away, and note a number of comments re this piece of my OP, see below please

Fellow members of EvCHave been away and am still learning how to use the tools on this forum, so will make a general reply to the ID issueLiteralist begins with I don’t believe that this is a minor issue. Having failed to impose creationism on the public educational system, creationists are trying creation light, the idea that while evolution may be true, the universe is so complex evolution must have been assisted by an intelligent designerRelative to: You have correctly summarized my reasoning that an ID leads to somewhat ridiculous conclusionsQuetzal carries the reasoning a bit further with And then Jar 8 objects with which introduces a virus centric ID, and which, while an interesting gambit, moves away from the main thrust.Jar 8 also adds While I didn’t discuss how well the ID has done the job of designing humans, Jar 8 is right on. The design of human body has many compromises. The single (actually dual) passage throat is needed to allow the head to rotate, an obvious evolutionary advantage. I could write extensively on why the human body has reached it’s present form, but the key item is that the current body plan does not require and ID.With respect to purpose which usually arises in evolution discussions, before one asks what is the purpose for something, one has to establish that there is a purpose - often purpose is assumed with no basis for the assumption other than "there must be..".Regarding life, the purpose of life is to survive. Once enough time had elapsed for assemblies of organic molecules to reach the level of complexity whereby they could metabolize food and reproduce, survival became paramount and everything life does is essentially devoted to that purpose. Humans are the single exception in that humans have progressed to the point where humans have spare resources and can thus indulge in nonproductive pursuits like art and musicFinally we arrive at these comments from Literalist First, appologies for being absent, I will try to be more attentive in the future.Regarding question 1), there is an implicit assumption that the ID has motives. Since the ID is undetectable/unobservable, then there is no way to determine what the ID’s motives are, if any, thus any consideration of them adds nothing to the debate.Question 2 brings in the Bible. First, there is no proof that there is a God of the Bible anymore than there is proof that there is an ID. Thus, there is no evidence about whether this non existant being is aware of infectious diseases or not and worrying about what is the purpose of The God of the Bible lends nothing to the discussion of evolution. What is important to note is that the mechanisms whereby bacteria become resistant to antibiotics are well known and do not require either a God or an IDQuestion 3 deals with the mysterious great flood for which there is again no proof. I presume the flood exists in our mythology for the reason that there were major floods of the rivers along which early civilization evolved and stories of these became imbedded in the folklore. Thus, there is no real evidence that the condition of the world is a product of a flood, but the result forces such as erosion, that are easily observed, but not so easily controlled as witnessed in the recent Tsunami tragedy.Re the aim of my comment — it is toward the ID not necessarily towards "The God of The BibleAt the end of the day, neither God nor an ID is needed to explain the process of evolution. The process is driven by mutations that arise when cells divide.I hope someone will discuss some of the other issues such as my premise that Darwin's contributions to the explanation of evolution were not all that significant other than detecting it in the first placeSoplar

Hi LiteralistThanks for your kind words. I’m new at this, so will take a bit to get into the groove.Regarding your comment It is sometimes difficult to balance importance with the number of words devoted to a topic. I probably should have started my OP with something likeI am appalled at the amount of effort being devoted to insert ID into the public schools, hence I have decided to join the debateOn the other hand, while I’m not sure we have put the ID issue to bed, I agree it would be good to move on since some of the other issues are relevant to whether there is an ID or notI like your next choice It will take me a bit to put this together — I have a lot of material to sort through and assemble, so won’t get this posted until later today.Soplar

Hi QuetzalThe subject of evolution is obviously quite complicated and has many important issues. My interest in the evolutionary debate stems from a desire to do my part as a scientist to thwart attempts by creationists to impose their beliefs on the educational system, and to understand why over 80% of people surveyed (several news articles over the past few years) either don’t believe in evolution at all (~40%) or believe that evolution was guided by and ID (~40%).Much of the debate relates to Darwin’s Theory of Evolution with statements like Dover [PA] Area Board of Directors
Biology Curriculum Press ReleaseNow IMO this is nonsense and it would perhaps be better to use the term explanation rather than theory — theory always seems to have a negative connotation — it’s only a theoryWhile I agree in general with your statement it must be remembered that Darwin’s basic contribution was his exhaustive analysis of the real world which led him to the inescapable conclusion that life had evolved from lower to higher’ forms — Darwin was the first to publish a reasoned discussion of the Process of Evolution, thus his Theory was just the explanation of the process. What is continually getting mixed up in discussions of ToE is the distinction between the process and the explanation of the process On the other hand, Darwin had no idea how the process worked. That Darwin’s name is associated with the process is largely due to the practice of naming things after their discoverer. There was a recent article commenting on what would have happened if Wallace had published first — we might be talking of Wallaciscm.Last week I visited an exhibition of Spanish art and the influence of Spain in the New World. One item in particular caught my attention. Spain sponsored several botanical explorations in the 16th century, gathering and cataloging thousands of botanical specimens. What I find intriguing, with all this data, they apparently never detected the process of evolution (or perhaps they did and were too timid to say so having seen what happened to those who those who contradicted revealed truth)With all due respect, your comment is a bit of an understatement. In the last 150 years we have learned how the process works and are rapidly putting this knowledge to work in the conquest of disease. I plan to address this in my response our friend The Liberalist. Also, this subject is addressed in an intriguing book that just arrived in print which you might find interestingFantastic Voyage Live long enough to live forever by Ray Kurzweill and Terry GrossmanRegardsSoplar

First, I didn’t invent this phrase, I encountered it in a publication some time ago (forgotten where), but I will show why it is true.Second, a complete demonstration would require far more space than is available, so this will be largely in outline form with a few references.I would like to begin with a review of the elements of the evolutionary process. This subject can be approached from many directions. I will begin with reproduction as this leads to the essence of the evolutionary process.Since all multicelled animals (metazoans) have finite life spans, species survival requires that individuals replace, reproduce or copy themselves before they die.Once the need to reproduce is established, a method must be selected. Single celled animals are the only organisms that are capable of directly making a copy of themselves, since they reproduce by splitting into two parts; however, this is obviously not practical for metazoans. Thus, it is clear that metazoans must somehow employ the same technique as the single celled animals, i.e., begin with a single cell.But, it’s obviously not that simple. When a single celled animal divides, it merely produces an almost duplicate copy. The evolution of metazoans required a more complex process — the joining of two special cells, an egg and a sperm. Mutations (defined below) within these sex cells allows the creation of an individual, when the egg and a sperm are joined, that is sufficiently different from the parents that the evolution of higher life forms can occurOf course, for the single fertilized egg cell to become an adult metazoan, the fertilized egg must divide into the billions of cells that comprise the adult metazoan; hence, cell division is an important part of metazoan life. A detailed discussion of embryo genesis is beyond this discussion — it is sufficient for our purposes to recognize that the process exists.Having established the existence of cells and cell division, I need to digress to a brief review of a few bits of atomic and molecular physics A&M physics. As we all know, electrons, protons and neutrons combine, according to the laws of quantum mechanics, to form atoms. Furthermore, atoms combine to form molecules. Up to a point, molecules can also form according to the laws of quantum mechanics; however, when we consider that branch of A&M physics known as organic chemistry (the A&M physics of carbon atoms), the unaided laws of quantum mechanics alone reach limits.One of the more important limiting points are the amino acids, organic compound that link together by peptide bonds to form proteins. Now proteins are the well known building blocks of life. BUT amino acids need help to join together to form proteins. The assistant is Deoxyribonucleic Acid, DNA, an extremely long, complex molecule that consists of a chain of four molecules termed bases. Along the chain are found groups of bases termed genes.The existence of genes were first recognized by Gregor Mendel, but he had no idea what they were. It was not until Microbiologist Oswald Avery (1877-1955) led team that showed that DNA is the unit of inheritance the Journal of Experimental Medicine 1944..One Nobel laureate Joshua Lederberg, has called this discovery "the historical platform of modern DNA research"Avery’s work inspired James Watson and Francis Crick, and others such as Linus Pauling, to seek DNA's structure. Watson and Crick won the race in April 1953 when they published the structure of DNA.But, while determining the structure of DNA was important, it was not until gene sequencing specialist Craig Venter, teamed with DNA sequencing machine maker, Applied Biosciences Corp. in 1998 to set up a company named Celera that individual genes were found. Celera would use the shotgun approach to genetic sequencing and scores of AB’s sequencing machines to decipher humanity's entire genetic code. Actually, there is still some question regarding the exact number of genes, see sciencemag.org, 22 August 2003 Gene Counters Struggle to Get the Right AnswerNot surprisingly, DNA is found in all eukaryotes (organisms whose cells have a nucleus), from single celled eukaryotes to human beings.So, now we have established the central nature of the cell in all life forms, at least those of interest, and the need for DNA to facilitate the production of proteins which make cells possible. But we still haven’t identified the specific aspect of the process which drives it.To do this, we need to note that cells are not immortal. -- all cells have finite life. Normal cell death is termed apoptosis. Since cells die, they must be replaced and the only replacement mechanism is cell division (the basic reason for current interest is stem cells) thus cell division is necessary for the continuation of life. But, degradation can occur when cells divide basically due to mistakes that are made in the copying of DNA during cell division. A complex machinery exists to repair mistakes, but sometimes DNA repair fails and a cell with new DNA is formed — we call this a mutation.Mutations can lead to an improved life forms; greater survival ability, etc. or mutations can lead to antibiotic resistant bacteria. This is the driver of evolution and is why Modern biology is unintelligible without an understanding of the evolutionary processRegarding this premise, one finds many references to elements of the evolutionary process throughout the numerous, biologically related scientific articles. For example the word conserved appears often and refers to the fact that some trait is found in many, apparently unrelated, organisms.I believe that an excellent illustration of the premise is found in this excerpt from an article in Science Magazine A comment related to the importance of an understanding of the evolutionary process. Genetic mutation, the driver of ecolution, is the basic cause of cancer and aging. Thus, cures for cancer and the tantalizing possibilty of life span extension, requires the determination of why the mutations occur and then finding a method for either stopping them or preventing them in the first place. I believe this will be accomplished -- we live in exciting times!A final note: I have not included very many references (sorry, I just don't have the time to look them up). However, entering any of my assertions into Google will generate many supporting links.Soplar

Thanks AdminNosy, it was getting a bit off courseSoplar

How are the e-mails notifying about a reply generated?ThanksSoplar

Thanks for your welcome. So far I've enjoyed the discussions; however, not too much debate yet. Since, according to most news reports I've read, 40% of the people should disagree with me completely and another 40% should disagree with me rather strongly, I am hoping for someone to write in a say "you are wrong because...." and I hope they don't, but probably will, quote the bible as I don't recognize it as source of information re the process of evolution.Soplar

Hi QuetzalFrom your kind remark can I conclude that you include my rather lengthy response to The Literalist?Reflecting on that reply, I left out a detail worth mentioning. During the race, and it was a race, to be the first to deduce the structure of DNA, the initial findings suggested a helical form, but only a single helix (Pauling championed this idea and lost the race). Eventually the superior efforts of the X-Ray spectroscopist Crick and mathematician Watson conclusively demonstrated that DNA is a double helix and won for them the prize and the Nobel. In retrospect, the double helix is the logical structure as it facilitates the all important cell division. The double helix merely unzips into two single helices which join the two halves of the divided cell. Then the double helix is rebuilt. It is in the rebuilding where the mutations creep in.Soplar

I am aware that the presence of Wallace spurred Darwin's associates to urge Darwin to publish. I often wonder if Darwin hesitated due to the realization that he was about to ignite a great controversy

Sorry about that -- I should have mentioned Ms. Franklin who definitely deserved more credit than she got. Taking the pictures was one of the more difficult partsSoplar

With the number of replies, I think a general reply would be in order. Reviewing all the responses, I believe there are 4 issues

1. I don't think you have yet answered the question as to why biology is unintelligible without evolution
2. Virus/host interactions
3. you [Soplar] appear to be puzzled as to why there should be a Creationist movement in the first place
4. Evolution of the mind

Relative to item 1.It must be remembered that most modern biologists take evolution and a knowledge thereof for granted and assume anyone interested also has similar knowledge; hence, references to evolution are usually cryptic and indirect. Here is an abstract from the 15 October 2004 issue of Science Magazine As I mentioned in my previous response, gene expression (the creation of proteins using the gene as a blue print) is central to both modern biology and the evolution process. If one examines the development of modern biology, one finds that a true understanding of evolution proceeded in parallel.. Perhaps, if you could mention some area of modern biology that isn’t closely related to an understanding of evolution, I could comment further.Regarding item 2 I believe this is basically the general predator/prey problem in which the predator should logically maintain a balance between the number of predators and the number of prey. In practice, this rarely happens. For example The malaria plasmodium would kill all human hosts if it could but human ingenuity prevents that from happening, plus our expanding knowledge of the Plasmodium genome and genetic activities augurs well for the future. On the other hand our inability to limit our numbers may be exacerbated by the elimination of malariaRegarding item 3 Actually, I am not so much puzzled as dismayed. I understand why a creationist movement evolved, I am puzzled/dismayed that it has persisted. Examining the problem is one of my favorite topics.If one examines the development of our understanding of the world around us, one finds three impediments to understanding

1. Things are not what they appear to be
2. Things are not what we want them to be
3. Explanations conflict with revealed truth as promulgated by one or more Gods

In view of these, one notes that the development of our understanding passes through three phases

1. An incorrect explanation of phenomena based upon either incomplete or incorrect observations
2. A correct, empirical understanding based upon sufficiently complete and correct observations
3. A correct theoretically based explanation based upon fundamental principals

For example, our understanding of the visible world passed thru these three phases

1. Geocentric universe: e.g., sun goes around earth as that what it appeared to do
2. Heliocentric solar system with planets in elliptical orbits based upon Tycho Brae's observations and Kepler’s calculations
3. Newton’s and the Einstein’s theoretical explanations

It is well known that the introduction of the heliocentric explanation invoked the third impediment and was suppressed by religious authorities as the explanation conflicted with the revealed truth of the Bible. We have finally gotten past that except for some who cling to the original explanation. You might enter The Earth Doesn’t Move into Google and examine the sites that appear.Similarly the microscopic world passed through phases until the final triumph of quantum mechanics. As the writers of the Bible had little knowledge of the microscopic world, this area of science met little resistanceWe now are between the second and third phases of our development of biology, but many are stuck in the first phase. The obvious reason is the third impediment. My objective is to spread the word as much as possible and help as many people as possible into the second or third phase.Re item 4 Another of my favorite topics. While I don’t have room for an in-depth response, I can sketch most of the situation.First, it is important to note that the neurons in Central Nervous System (CNS) which includes the brain and spinal cord, are quite different than the neurons in the rest of the body. Neurons outside the CNS pass electrical impulses by direct connection between neurons. Evolutions set this up so that pain, muscle motion, etc would travel as quickly as possible.The neurons in the brain are quite different. They are separated by a synaptic cleft and transmit electrical signals by neurotransmitter chemicals that exit the axon from vesicles and contact the opposite dendrite via receptors. This permits the creation of a complex electrochemical information system with incredible capability. The mind is the result of the electrochemical activity in the brain. The fact that some brains have more and more complex interconnections is the reason for differences in intelligence, athletic ability, music ability, etc.As an aside, I am somewhat of a Shakespeare nut and believe that the answer to the authorship question (how could a country bumpkin like Shakespeare write Hamlet) lies in the fact that Shakespeare’s brain was one of those that appears once a century and that could absorb vast quantities of data and create some of the finest plays ever conceived.RegardsSoplar