2 Billion Years Unchanged, Bacteria Pose an Evolutionary Puzzle

[revelarts]

If you truly believe that then the next time you get ill don't visit a hospital because a lot of modern medicine uses evolutionary concepts, especially pharmacology.

From a medical skeptics site
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/...ased-medicine/
Evolutionary Medicine

...The problem with evolutionary explanations is that we can never know for sure if they are true. We may be inventing “Just So Stories” like Rudyard Kipling’s “How the Camel Got His Hump.” Our explanation may seem perfectly reasonable but we may not have all the information and there may be a better explanation that simply doesn’t occur to us.
There are also pitfalls in trying to determine how our Stone Age ancestors lived. The evidence is spotty. It is tempting to think we should try to live more like they did, but that doesn’t necessarily follow. Stone Age women had fewer menstrual cycles during their lifetime because of constant pregnancies and breastfeeding – does that really mean that we should suppress menstruation in women today? Maybe, maybe not.....

Do We Need “Evolutionary Medicine”?

3 years ago I wrote an article critical of “evolutionary medicine” as it was presented in a new book. Recently a correspondent asked me if I thought another book, Why We Get Sick: The New Science of Darwinian Medicine, by Randolph M. Nesse, MD and George C. Williams, PhD, was a more reasonable approach to the subject. It was published in 1994 and got good reviews from respected scientists like Richard Dawkins (“Buy two copies and give one to your doctor.”) and E.O. Wilson (“bringing the evolutionary vision systematically into one of the last unconquered provinces…”). I was able to obtain a copy through interlibrary loan.
The book was interesting and gave me some things to think about, but it didn’t convince me that “Darwinian medicine” is a new science, that its existence as a separate discipline is justified, or that its unique approach offers any real practical benefits for improving medical care....

....

Why are wisdom teeth a problem? (they say) Modern children frequently need orthodontia and surgery to remove wisdom teeth. They propose a possible explanation: we don’t chew enough. In the Stone Age, food required more jaw exercise. Today softer foods result in deficient use of jaw muscles, which results in poorer development of jawbones so there is less room for all the teeth. They suggest that many dental problems might be avoided if children chewed more gum or engaged in prolonged vigorous biting competitions.

This is nothing but silly, far-fetched speculation. You’ve got to give them credit for imagination; but if this is the kind of thing “Darwinian medicine” produces, we can do without it.
There is a disconnect in their logic. They say

For instance, if we hypothesize that the low iron levels associated with infection are not a cause of the infection but a part of the body’s defenses, we can predict that giving a patient iron may worsen the infection — as indeed it can. Trying to determine the evolutionary origins of disease is much more than a fascinating intellectual pursuit; it is also a vital yet underused tool in our quest to understand, prevent, and treat disease.

We can ask if something acts as a defense. We can ask whether something is a cause or effect. We can ask whether something does more harm or good. We can ask all these questions about how something works without necessarily needing to ask why it evolved to work that way....

[darin]

Oh does it
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objecti...falsifiability

You just keep spinning the usual tired anti-evolution rhetoric that has been countered a million times over.

So you quote something written by an agenda-driven author, using their suppositions as proof? I thought you were better than that.

Micro and Macro are the same thing just at different time scales.
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolib...e/evoscales_01

First off: "Berkeley". I beg the question of bias.

Secondly: That's simply TOO convienient. Here's your entire argument: "I, pete, believe the systems Of biology magically evolved from nothing into what they've become SOLELY upon this: "They did it SO SLOWLY there's no evidence they did it at all. The evidence we have show nothing 'in progress', but that doesn't matter. I cannot explain why a cell would mutate into a blood cell ahead of other cells mutating into vein cells or heart cells simultaneously, but that doesn't matter because my head - and the heads of others - are so far shoved up our anus as to prevent us from seeing the most-obvious solution to the whole question of 'how did life happen?'. In fact, I should probably believe the Mars rovers evolved from their environments, too - I mean, Mars is inhabited solely by Robots. It'd be stupid to think they were designed. I prefer to think they magically just sorta happened through random chance."

[pete311]

So you quote something written by an agenda-driven author, using their suppositions as proof? I thought you were better than that.

Wikipedia is usually quite good due to it's constant review process. If you read the segment you'd see it's sound.

First off: "Berkeley". I beg the question of bias.

How is one of the best universities in the world biased? Exactly what source would be good enough for you?

Secondly: That's simply TOO convienient. Here's your entire argument: "I, pete, believe the systems Of biology magically evolved from nothing into what they've become SOLELY upon this: "They did it SO SLOWLY there's no evidence they did it at all. The evidence we have show nothing 'in progress', but that doesn't matter. I cannot explain why a cell would mutate into a blood cell ahead of other cells mutating into vein cells or heart cells simultaneously, but that doesn't matter because my head - and the heads of others - are so far shoved up our anus as to prevent us from seeing the most-obvious solution to the whole question of 'how did life happen?'. In fact, I should probably believe the Mars rovers evolved from their environments, too - I mean, Mars is inhabited solely by Robots. It'd be stupid to think they were designed. I prefer to think they magically just sorta happened through random chance."

You love using the word magic. You know who also loved magic and mysticism? People who lived in the dark ages. Again we ride the merry-go-round of topics that have been explained a billion times over. Do you guys have no memory or what. FOR THE LAST TIME: evolution has never claimed to explain the creation of life. Science can't explain that yet (abiogenesis is being worked on but very early on). So go ahead and claim God put the first celled creatures on earth. I won't argue you. Evolution is simply the process of how life changes over time (NOT THE BEGINNING OF LIFE). If you believe life has not changed and been static for 3.8 BILLION years then you are in an insignificant minority of epic proportions.

[revelarts]

You love using the word magic. You know who also loved magic and mysticism? People who lived in the dark ages. Again we ride the merry-go-round of topics that have been explained a billion times over. Do you guys have no memory or what. FOR THE LAST TIME: evolution has never claimed to explain the creation of life. Science can't explain that yet (abiogenesis is being worked on but very early on). So go ahead and claim God put the first celled creatures on earth. I won't argue you. Evolution is simply the process of how life changes over time (NOT THE BEGINNING OF LIFE). If you believe life has not changed and been static for 3.8 BILLION years then you are in an insignificant minority of epic proportions.

Pete 3 things, I'd be glad to reply in a bit of detail your your wiki arguments but it'd be very long and I doubt you'd reply or believeit and other's probably wouldn't read it either. If i can condense it in to a few sentences with some links for back up i'll do that another time.

concerning your admission about about abiogenesis, you say we can have that one, But you say they are still working on it. in other words they still have faith there's SOME way some dead chemical can naturally transform in an information filled living organism. But at this point they KNOW that there's NOTHING in science that can explain it. So you'll allow God in the door at point. OK great. that's movement. I've been their, i used to believe in evolution as well then i got to that point to.

But here's the problem there are other places along the imagined evolutionary line that also have ZERO scientific explanation as well. (besides the whole process being full of holes)

After abiogenesis, ---after God created life--- the evolution story say things gradually went along getter more and more complex.

the breaks need to be on right there for 2 reasons. One there's ZERO known or demonstrated scientific mechanism for any simple organism to INCREASE the amount of information coded in it's DNA for new functions. antibiotic resistance does not come by increase in information in or genetic codes.

And 2, the Cambrian Explosion happened suddenly not gradual at all. And has NOT been explained, Darwin ASSUMED that more digging would prove that it was gradual but now, over 100 years later, the fossil record is worse on this point than before. And right now in China they are finding even more fossils that show that there were various types of life during the Cambrian that were thought to have "evolved" long after. So the fossil record shows a SUDDEN explosion of lifeforms, and many persist to this day unchanged. Evolution does NOT explain this IN ANYWAY.Darwin admitted that this was a horrible blow against his theory. Current evolutionist will not. they have faith that some new exotic unknown undiscovered unseen natural mechanism will explain it. BUT have ZERO science to back it up. Darwin was a bit more honest.

so at this point the Cambrian Explosion is MAGIC as far as science is concerned.

then there's the psychological (spiritual) evolution where there's a jump from an animalistic brain to the type of brain that bring here us to discuss the type of questions we are looking at right now. Our introspection, self awareness, why why why and morals, and heck even language. There's no known natural mechicanism that will KICK up (or over) a brain to do those things. no scientific observational, experimental facts that show how it happened. ONLY a STORY that it did. well ...."nature" had to do it must have because we are here....Magic.

[pete311]

I see you're going to throw me back down the rabbit hole of questions we've already been through a million times. Questions that are very interesting and need to be solved, but ultimately have no bearing on the legitimacy of evolution theory. Again I must reiterate that it's strange your obsession with evolution and not gravity when science quite frankly has little idea how gravity works at the quantum level. Talk about a BIG hole! Why are you not out rattling about how gravity is a fraud? Religion blinds you.

concerning your admission about about abiogenesis, you say we can have that one, But you say they are still working on it. in other words they still have faith there's SOME way some dead chemical can naturally transform in an information filled living organism. But at this point they KNOW that there's NOTHING in science that can explain it. So you'll allow God in the door at point. OK great. that's movement. I've been their, i used to believe in evolution as well then i got to that point to.

Except it's rather irrelevant. The creation of life is different than the mechanisms for how creatures change over time.

But here's the problem there are other places along the imagined evolutionary line that also have ZERO scientific explanation as well. (besides the whole process being full of holes)

Some holes, but again, not important overall.

After abiogenesis, ---after God created life--- the evolution story say things gradually went along getter more and more complex.

The term gradual is subjective and can be often distorted in graphs depending on the scales.

the breaks need to be on right there for 2 reasons. One there's ZERO known or demonstrated scientific mechanism for any simple organism to INCREASE the amount of information coded in it's DNA for new functions. antibiotic resistance does not come by increase in information in or genetic codes.

Mutations can both add information and subtract information. Where are you getting your information from?

And 2, the Cambrian Explosion happened suddenly not gradual at all.

If you consider 53 million years as gradual. Many important divergences were setup during the Precambrian age which lasted 4 billion years.

then there's the psychological (spiritual) evolution where there's a jump from an animalistic brain to the type of brain that bring here us to discuss the type of questions we are looking at right now. Our introspection, self awareness, why why why and morals, and heck even language. There's no known natural mechicanism that will KICK up (or over) a brain to do those things. no scientific observational, experimental facts that show how it happened. ONLY a STORY that it did. well ...."nature" had to do it must have because we are here....Magic.

Interesting, but again not important to understanding the basic mechanisms of evolution. There is no kick or light switch. Morals, language, and even self awareness are things that are developed overtime through culture. These are more social and anthropological science questions. btw, there are myriads of studies that show other animals have languages, morality codes and self awareness. We're not THAT special of an animal. Read the book "Ishmael" sometime.

[revelarts]

I'll just comment on 2 items

...Again I must reiterate that it's strange your obsession with evolution and not gravity when science quite frankly has little idea how gravity works at the quantum level. Talk about a BIG hole! Why are you not out rattling about how gravity is a fraud? Religion blinds you.

you always want to compare evolution to gravity. It compares beter with the theory of spontanous generation"

there are several theories of sceince that are NO longer with us. questioning a theory is is PART of science. you refusal to deal with glaring holes is ANTI-science. and just blind faith.

Mutations can both add information and subtract information. Where are you getting your information from?

there is LOSS of information, we agree there.
But there's ZERO added information. Please give me experimental, observed examples for new genetic material that's not TRANSFERRED by MAN or stripped from other creatures that ALREADY have it...from???
this is a fact that breeders have known for centuries. the genes have a certain range based on what's already there. beyond that it just breaks.

There are no natural or breed BLUE roses, much less roses with wings. The Rose gene has a range and that's it.
It and all other creatures do not evolve new information.

Only in the imagination of the evolutionist does it happen.

[pete311]

you always want to compare evolution to gravity. It compares beter with the theory of spontanous generation"

I'm a little confused about the comparing bit but again spontaneous generation has no place in modern evolution theory.

you refusal to deal with glaring holes is ANTI-science

You can't seem to deal with the fact that although the holes are interesting, they in no way falsify it.

there is LOSS of information, we agree there.
But there's ZERO added information. Please give me experimental, observed examples for new genetic material that's not TRANSFERRED by MAN or stripped from other creatures that ALREADY have it...from???
this is a fact that breeders have known for centuries. the genes have a certain range based on what's already there. beyond that it just breaks.

There are no natural or breed BLUE roses, much less roses with wings. The Rose gene has a range and that's it.
It and all other creatures do not evolve new information.

Only in the imagination of the evolutionist does it happen.

DNA addition can happen in mechanisms of Gene Duplication, Vertical Gene Transfer and according to Shannon-Weaver information theory.

Nice of you to bring up selective dog breeding. Canis familiaris comes from ​Canis lupus. That is an artificial evolution at a very small scale. Congrats, you now believe in evolution.

[revelarts]

I'm a little confused about the comparing bit but again spontaneous generation has no place in modern evolution theory.

neither does gravity

[pete311]

neither does gravity

I'll concede that much

[revelarts]

DNA addition can happen in mechanisms of Gene Duplication, Vertical Gene Transfer and according to Shannon-Weaver information theory.

correct me if I'm wrong but
Duplication is not NEW information
Transfer is not new information. (where'd the original source get it? )

And Did a quick look at the Shannon weaver information theory and there's nothing there that i see that assume new information rising from a source. it seems it expect noise to interfere with the original information. which is what we see when thing like birth defects and deliterious mutations the genetic code/information is NOT transferred well.

so no we have no experimental evidence of New information. It's assumed by evolution.

[pete311]

correct me if I'm wrong but
Duplication is not NEW information
Transfer is not new information. (where'd the original source get it? )

And Did a quick look at the Shannon weaver information theory and there's nothing there that i see that assume new information rising from a source. it seems it expect noise to interfere with the original information. which is what we see when thing like birth defects and deliterious mutations the genetic code/information is NOT transferred well.

so no we have no experimental evidence of New information. It's assumed by evolution.

If you look at the concepts and not just assume based on the name you'll see. I can explain, but it's dinner time. I will be back late tonight or tomorrow.

[pete311]

Just ran across this

Human DNA enlarges mouse brains
http://news.sciencemag.org/biology/2...s-mouse-brains

[revelarts]

Just ran across this

Human DNA enlarges mouse brains
http://news.sciencemag.org/biology/2...s-mouse-brains

Interesting... but disturbing work.
but again what do we have here. scientist adding ALREADY FORMED DNA into another creature. Not NEW information forming on it's own. but information added to.
Not evolution but genetic manipulation, sloppy intelligent design if your will.

But in general the experiments are weird, trying to breed smarter mice , just what the world needs.

[darin]

Interesting... but disturbing work.
but again what do we have here. scientist adding ALREADY FORMED DNA into another creature. Not NEW information forming on it's own. but information added to.
Not evolution but genetic manipulation, sloppy intelligent design if your will.

But in general the experiments are weird, trying to breed smarter mice , just what the world needs.

Just kinda shows a designer is required.

[pete311]

Interesting... but disturbing work.
but again what do we have here. scientist adding ALREADY FORMED DNA into another creature. Not NEW information forming on it's own. but information added to.
Not evolution but genetic manipulation, sloppy intelligent design if your will.

Preservation of duplicate genes by complementary, degenerative mutations.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1460548/

The probability of duplicate gene preservation by subfunctionalization.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10629003

Ohno's dilemma: Evolution of new genes under continuous selection

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2040452/

Proof and evolutionary analysis of ancient genome duplication in the yeastSaccharomyces cerevisiae

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2040452/


I found a few studies in a few minutes. There must be hundreds to choose from if I had the time.


btw, after some reading I came across this interesting quote

You also have to be careful that advanced, evolved, complex doesn't necessarily mean more information.

Mammals have relatively few genes compared to 'more primitive' (whatever that means) organisms. One reason is that they have a very constant body temperature so generally only need one chemical pathway to manufacture each protein.
Cold blooded animals and especially amphibians often need a dozen different ways of synthesizing the same molecule depending on body and ambient temperature, environment etc. All these pathways need many more genes to code for the proteins and enzymes required.

And of course animals that have a larval stage need 2 or 3 "complete" genomes for different phases of their lives.