Evolution is a basic, biological process

A university that offers at least a 4 year degree (Bachelor's). Of course they all offer advanced degrees too.There are also 2-year colleges (called "community colleges").

Hi LiteralistI have been reflecting on the issue of how knowledge of evolution is indispensable to the understanding of modern biology, when it occurred to me that there is another, interesting way to approach this question. Before I finished, your question arrived Yes this is essentialy my position, but I would say "NOT as important" since I believe that understanding how things came about is important, but from a practical point of view, I think discussions of origins get in the way and divert attention from what I think of as important problems. I expand upon this below.Everyone knows that Death is inevitable. However, rational people are starting to question whether there is some way to forestall the grim reaper. E.g. the recent book by Ray Kurzweill and Terry Grossman Fantastic Voyage - Live Long Enough To Live Forever. In their book, they list three bridges to cross

• Bridge 1 maintain your health long enough to get to Bridge 2
• Bridge 2 eliminate principal causes of major diseases, which should allow one to reach Bridge 3
• Bridge 3 eliminate the basic causes of aging

So, suppose one wanted to propose a biomedical research project whose objective to realize K&G’s Bridge 2. I suggest two questions pertinent to the EvC forum

1. What would this project have to do?
2. Which of the three explanations of the evolutionary process, which I briefly summarize below, would provide the most aid to this project.

1. Creationism which posits that the world was created about 10K years ago by a supernatural Creator
2. Intelligent Design which posits that evolution has occurred but under the direction of an ID
3. Evolution occurred by mutations that occur randomly without supernatural intervention

First let’s briefly examine what the objectives Bridge 2 of this project would be.According to the National Center for Health Statistics, these were the leading causes in 2001 It is interesting to conjecture what would happen if all but Accidents were eliminated.Not being an MD, I looked up Nephritis and Septicemia. Nephritis is any type of kidney inflammation, such as Urinary tract infections and kidney diseases. I believe that curing conditions of nephritis belongs also in life extension area as this is a disease that affects people who have avoided the more common causes of death.Septicemia is the presence of bacteria in the blood and is a serious, rapidly progressing, life-threatening infection that can arise from infections throughout the body, including infections in the lungs, abdomen, and urinary tract.Obviously, the objective of the project would be to understand the causes of the diseases and figure out how to fix them or prevent them. Of course, there is an army of people currently engaged in these pursuitsBut of interst to this forum, which of the three explanations listed above brings the most to these efforts?Creationism
Assume we accept a Creator, what does this tell us about these death causing diseases? Not much as far as I can see. Cancer is clearly a genetic disease, a disease of the DNA caused by copying errors. If the Creator created everything, then the Creator created the propensity for DNA to be corrupted. But the fact that we know that the Creator is the culprit, doesn’t change anything — we still must deal with the problem, Or perhaps the Creator has a higher plan that many people seem to believe; perhaps the Creator doesn’t want us to fix the problem he created — if so why doesn’t the Creator stop us?Or is the creator still creating? If so, the Creator is more like the IDIntelligent DesignIf there is an ID, what does agreeing that there is an ID tell us about the nature of these diseases? Is the ID the cause for all these problems? If so, why doesn’t the ID do something or, like the Creator, if this situation is part of the ID’s plan, why doesn’t the ID stop us? Or what if the ID just set things up to see what we would do?I find both Creationism and ID bankrupt explanations of the world around us when viewed from the view point of a life extension program and that the current explanation of the evolutionary process

1. provides useful information about the causes
2. gives us free reign to fix them.

So, if one wants to believe in either creationism, or ID, that's their problem, just don't get in the way of biological education.Soplar

Well, I don't know. I'm not exactly an expert on the state of American higher learning, nor the career ladders of American faculty. I'm only familiar with two small liberal arts schools in Minnesota, who typically don't have enough faculty to necessitate the surfeit of hair-splitting titles you describe.All I know is, there's at least one university in America where a full professor can chair his department with nothing greater than a masters degree, and that that institution is highly rated as a liberal arts institution, and the model of other colleges in the state for a number of programs directly overseen by that professor, and that that professor is my dad.Take from it what you will.

It's a different model here - the chair associated with a professor may have nothing to do with running a department. In fact, many departments are run by people who are crap researchers but great administrators.You still don't seem to be getting what I'm saying - I'm not saying that a british professor is better than an american professor - I'm just saying to someone who works in the british academic system, the american use of the term is too non-specific.

I get that. My students call me "professor" sometimes but technically I'm just an "instructor."I think "professor" is traditionally supposed to mean someone with a Ph.D. (I have a Master's).But sometimes it's just used as a synonym for "college teacher."Either way, it's no big deal.

Maybe I'm not communicating effectively here, but I do understand what you're saying, and I'm trying to say that while "professor" may refer to one specific level of faculty in the UK; to my limited knowledge in the US, it applies to only three different levels technically, though perhaps to more people colloquially, in the way that marching band leaders (and soccer coaches, I think?) are traditionally called "professor" or ministers are traditionally called "doctor".I understand we're not talking about an academic pissing contest (at least, that's not what I'm talking about with you), but rather, the exclusivity of terms.On the other hand I am having a pissing contest with Percy, which I will probably lose. I am, after all, usually full of shit. This message has been edited by crashfrog, 01-10-2005 16:13 AM

Thread moved here from the Biological Evolution II forum.

Hi Soplar, Well, not being able to comprehend biology and interfering with current biological education are two different issues. Well, I believe the origin of the code is VERY important. What I meant was that one does not need to understand the origin of the code in order to understand the code itself or how it works. Genetics is a fairly good part of modern biology; if one can understand genetics without understanding evolutionary ideas, then what part of modern biology can that person NOT comprehend?I think that understanding ideas about origins and understanding the facts of the physical world are independent of each other. I can't think of any biological processes or biological structures that cannot be comprehended without first comprehending evolutionary concepts. The one is about how things came to be, the other about how things are now.Do you still think modern biology is unintelligible without an understanding of the evolutionary process?Regards,
--TheLiteralist

Hi again Soplar,This is, to me, an extremely interesting topic--one which I need to learn more about. Thanks for the link No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.bioteach.ubc.ca/Biodiversity/AttackOfTheSuperbugs/.Right now, I disagree with the concept that introducing antibiotics to a non-resistant bacterial population actually CAUSES the population to develop resistance. Unconventional I know, but that's my current position.But let's examine the conventional idea of how resistance develops. My summary of above quote:

1. bacteria develop primary resistance by spontaneous mutations
2. spontaneous mutations = random DNA copying errors (basically)
3. mutation events are rare
4. to develop a resistant trait requires multiple mutation events; therefore development of a resistant trait is even more rare
5. when we introduce a highly concentrated antibiotic to a non-resistant bacterial population, the population will always and quickly experience the rare string of mutation events that produce resistance to the very antiobiotic we introduced to it. Neat huh?

A little too neat. I thought spontaneous mutations were random. Yet, we seem to be guaranteed that, if you add penicillin to non-resistant bacteria, then you will soon have penicillin-resistant bacteria. Many bacteria have "developed" resistance to penicillin, which affects the CELL WALL. How does the penicillin's action induce the random and rare copying errors to come up with the really rare string of mutation events that would just happen to lead to a penicillin resistance trait?Some antiobiotics, such as streptomycin, do indeed affect the inner workings of the bacteria. Streptomycin apparently causes the cell to be unable to translate its DNA into the proper proteins. Still, this action doesn't seem to be one that would practically guarantee that the cell could suddenly and amazingly experience the string of mutations that would lead to streptomycin resistance. It just seems like it would make the cell have trouble making its necessary proteins, which would lead to...death.Know what I think is way more reasonable than evolution-on-the-spot? How about there are many variations of the bacteria in any given sample--some resistant, some not. The antibiotic nearly wipes out the non-resistant varieties, which were in the majority. The resistant variety becomes the majority, and, in a few days, the population rebounds, but they are now mostly the resistant variety.In either case, antibiotics should not be used liberally.Regards,
--TheLiteralist

There are two big errors in your understanding.You summarized the even as : Your last step is the biggest error. That is not what happens at all. Rather the mutations happen continuously whether or not the anti-biotic is present. But since they serve no function they have no effect on the critter.But when you introduce the anti-biotic, if it does not kill off all the critters, the ones that survive to reproduce will be those that already have the resistance. That means that the population will change from a mix of non-resistant and resistant critters to one where all the critters are resistant.The bigger error though is one that underlies much of what you've posted. You seem to think that evolution has a direction, that it is intended, directed, driven or controled, that it is intentional. It's not. It is not from worse to better or less complex to more complex. It is only a history of what happened.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Hi Jar,One of us is misreading the other I think. This is exactly what I said, isn't it? My "summary" is a facetious restatement of the article Soplar is quoting from...not my own ideas of how bacteria develop resistance.Here's MY ideas (from my previous post). I don't say anything about HOW there came to be resistant or non-resistant varieties of the bacteria, but I do propose that the two varieties pre-exist the introduction of the antibiotic. To be clear, I understand full well that evolution cannot propose a direction or intention. I am saying that this idea that the bacteria experience on-the-spot evolution whenever antibiotics are introduced contradicts the idea of randomness that evolutionary theory proposes. It seems rather non-random if the rare string of mutations needed for resistance to a particular antibiotic occurs when the particular antibiotic is introduced to the non-resistant bacterial population. What an amazing coincidence, indeed! But it gets even more amazing...this happens almost ANYTIME you add the antibiotic to a non-resistant population!It would make more sense, to me, were I to share the evolutionary view, to propose that the bacteria had evolved the trait sometime PRIOR to the introduction of the antibiotic rather than as a result of the introduction of the antibiotic. However, such ideas aren't as effective for supporting the idea that "we can see evolution happening all the time all around us."

Jar, TL was giving the list you quoted as what he thought he was being told and then he was saying that he didn't think it could happen that way. (sort of an inadvertant strawman).So we agree on the rough idea of how it happens.The only thing that I think TL is missing is that in a population of bacteria numbering in the billions there is some likelyhood that a few will already carry the mutation necessary. It only takes one.Living things are a constantly changing 'mess' of mutations and different genomes. In this case we select out a very few specific individuals.

But we can see examples all around us. And the bacteria developing resistance is a great example. But it is not something that happens on demand.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Jar (and NosyNed),Well, I thought Soplar and his article were proposing on-demand evolution.Perhaps I have misread the article. I'll have to read it again.Soplar can clarify his own position; perhaps I misunderstood him, too.I certainly think that the resistant traits pre-exist the introduction of the antibiotic.

They have to or the population goes extinct.It is possible however to have varying degrees of resistance. If the antibiotic isn't strong enough the slightly more resistant ones may survive and produce a population like themselves (some with mutations that might allow for more resistance).