Your website was very helpful - I would recommend it to anybody interested in these matters.
Thank-you for your information aleo,
I briefly looked at your website, and will read the science/religion pages later, when time allows. It looks interesting, and I am also open to reading more about the “Great Leap Forward”, especially if there is anthropological evidence backing the idea.
I’m not searching for a difinitive answer to these difficult questions, but I do like to look at the possibilities.
These scientific studies do not include an anomaly that was stated in the bible. Specifically with the term the Book of Enoch attributed to one of the rebellious angels. After researching much of the available text on the issue of the Human gene pool, I have come to a theory, mind you a theory. Based upon the research which is available on line, I have seen a certain pattern of events in human history that I now question.
Darwin’s theory, brings up an interesting point, ape and humans may be related. So here’s my theory, what if Man, or human comes from Adam and Eve, then at one point the angels did genetic experiments on man, which created the “monsters” and “gods” of myth. Is this possible? Expanding upon this thought, and the reason for the flood, for Moses and Enoch both agree that man and the earth was destroyed by water because, man and the earth was corrupted.
All Christians believe that that corruption was from wickedness, and the statement ends. What if this “corruption” was by the angels and not man, but with man’s agreement in free will? This theory sheds a new light on old text. For if the ancient writers of myth were witnessing events as they occur, and these myths seem so far fetched that it is against reason that they occurred, then why write them down? And if these myths are so false that it is a sin to believe that the events occurred then why do these stories still survive today?
Continuing with this angle of thought, is it possible that the ten commandments were written not as defining sin, but so man could tell the difference between the descendants of the angels as compared to the descendants of Adam? And since God wanted to eradicate the race of the gene, He would send Jesus to “heal the people”? This viewpoint explains in a more literal sense the statement Christ used to the religious authority when He stated, “I do the will of my Father, you do the will of your father, the devil”
Is it possible that what Darwin and others have stumbled upon are remains of a race once known to the Jews as the Nephilim? And that this race is product of wickedness, yes, but not man’s wickedness but the angels who rebelled against God? Is this possible?
People are born and people die. Life and death are not about competition, but about working together.
Just so species are formed and species die out. Individuals do not compete against each other to survive, but cooperate to survive. Species do not compete against each other but seek to adapt to their ecological niches to survive.
However the earth and environment are changing and adaption is not always possible. When a species loses its ecological niche, it will die out and other species will take its place. It is as simple and uncompetitive as that.
Only humans hunt other species to extinction.
John it sounds like you’ve confused indels with introns. Indels (short for insertions or deletions) are usually the result mutations that copy or repeat many bases at once.
For example, to get from:
The gene sequences for human and chimp are over 96% identical.
To:
The gene sequences for human and chimp are over 96% identical identical.
Would only require a single mutation. The simplest explanation is that the bases containing [ identical] were replicated and inserted directly afterwards. A simple mutation like this could happen in one step within a single generation.
Similarly, to get from:
The gene sequences for human and chimp are over 96% identical.
To:
The gene sequences for human and chimp 96% identical.
Would also only require a single deletion. In this case, the bases containing [ are over] are chopped out in a single mutation.
Some of your examples are not example of indels. e.g.
To get from:
The gene sequences for human and chimp are over 96% identical.
To:
The gene sequences for human and chimp are over 96% non identical.
Would require more than one mutation because there is no explanation for where the sequence [ non] could come from.
I think that my questions are quite constructive.
It makes sense that a single gene could control armor or lack thereof in sticklebacks, but I’m not sure that this is on the same order as forming a new appendage or organ, but instead it seems on the order of longer or shorter hair, or hairless dogs… You did not indicate whether the mutation involved a regulation change, or a new coding gene, or deletion of a coding gene. Usually these mutations are simply changes in the activation or deactivation of existing genes. So even if a mutation of one gene makes a big difference, that gene often does not operate alone, but in combination with other genes. It is also important that genes are made up of many base pairs. Apparently in humans there are only about 17,000 to 30,000 protein coding genes (number is still being discussed) in the human genome, but there are 3.3 billion base pairs. In the case of the stickleback, it also appears that the mutation resulted in a loss of the armor plates, not a gain of plates. And, finally, the sticklebacks could interbreed with each other, so it is difficult to say that there are different species resulting.
Sticklebacks are enormously varied, so much so that in the 19th century naturalists had counted about 50 different species. But since then, biologists have realized most populations are recent descendants of marine sticklebacks. (HHMI News)
Okay, Tony, your reference to the book of enoch… there is no book of enoch in the bible.
There are many niches on this globe… why wouldn’t the species merely move?
Ace, I apologize for my poor example… I knew it was stretching the analogy. A better example probably consists only of three letter words… I realize introns are non-coding while exons are coding sections of genes. I would argue that in some cases, an insertion in one spot might still have been caused by multiple mutations rather than just one mutation. The fact that introns while not coding for protein, still have significant functions, is important to remember also.
[quote=“johnZ, post:50, topic:445”]
Usually these mutations are simply changes in the activation or deactivation of existing genes. So even if a mutation of one gene makes a big difference, that gene often does not operate alone, but in combination with other genes.
[/quote]That was my original point - a single mutation in a regulatory gene can have a major phenotypic effect “downstream”, so to speak.
[quote=“johnZ, post:50, topic:445”]
And, finally, the sticklebacks could interbreed with each other, so it is difficult to say that there are different species resulting.
[/quote]I wasn’t speaking specifically of speciation, but if you want me to, I can give you some examples of “speciation before our very eyes”. I am a bit confused, however, regarding what exactly we are arguing about; are you saying that speciation/major morphological changes cannot occur without special divine intervention? Has this long discussion been a rehashing of God-of-the-Gaps arguments?
[quote=“Relates, post:47, topic:445”]
Individuals do not compete against each other to survive, but cooperate to survive
[/quote]Sometimes they cooperate, often they compete. You just have to consult any undergraduate ecology textbook to find dozens of references to well-documented studies of both intra-and inter-specific competition. I did my Ph.D. research on interspecific competition in fish. Why deny something that has been the staple of population ecology studies for almost a century? The Creation is what it is, not what we wish it would be if we ran the show.
[quote=“Relates, post:47, topic:445”]
When a species loses its ecological niche, it will die out and other species will take its place. It is as simple and uncompetitive as that.
Only humans hunt other species to extinction.
[/quote]Invasive species can drive other species to extinction. Sea lampreys wiped out the lake trout in Lake Michigan - restocking efforts have only been moderately successful thus far. You could argue that the lamprey invasion was caused by human activity, and it is probably true that most species in undisturbed environments eventually reach competitive or predator/prey equilibrium. But why deny that they compete to begin with?
I guess I am saying that whenever a major change is proposed, I find it is very debatable, and that the evidence is not conclusive. Whether it is finches, or sticklebacks, or ring tree lizards. Even in some cases where there are apparent species established, we find that they can still interbreed… ie. buffalo and domestic cattle, dogs and wolves, etc. I’m not saying that major stuff couldn’t happen without divine intervention, but I am saying that the evidence for major changes is inconclusive. Whether something could possibly happen, does not mean that it did happen… especially when we are talking about processes.
That’s okay. It just seemed to me that you and Dennis may be talking about different things so I attempted to offer some clarity. Dennis was talking about indels (insertions and deletions) but the way you used that term in your first paragraph made it seem like you were confusing that concept with something else (like introns perhaps)
I would argue that in some cases, an insertion in one spot might still have been caused by multiple mutations rather than just one mutation.
Of course this is true but the vast majority of indels happened in one or two steps. If we come across a 1000bp HERVK ERV found in humans and not Chimpanzees it should be obvious that this should be counted as a single mutational event rather than requiring 1000 distinct steps. In a similar fashion there are a few hundred gene duplications that we have and chimps don’t. Once again it is illogical to count up every base rather than consider the entire gene sequence to have been duplicated as is. So we know that many of the large indels happened in a single step.
The fact that introns while not coding for protein, still have significant functions, is important to remember also.
Some parts of some introns have been found to have a function, but I’m not sure how that relates to this discussion?
John,
There is no way for me to ask without sounding flippant, which is genuinely not my intention: what sort of evidence for speciation short of building a time machine would you find “conclusive”? Here are some examples - What is the evidence for evolution? « SMR blog, http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/high-speed-speciation/ - are they all spurious or inconclusive?
1 Like
Thank you for finally giving me a concrete example of competition for survival in the biological world. However you answered your own question because you cited an invasive salt water species, a species which is introduced to a foreign fresh water environment where it has no enemies so to speak.
Another example would be the introduction of rabbits and other mammals into Australia, where there were no predators. The rabbits ran wild until a disease, most likely also brought from abroad greatly reduced the population.
Now looking at your example. Predators and prey do not compete for the same food resources. Normally prey eat vegetation (or smaller prey) while predators eat the prey. Having fewer zebras feeding on the savanna does not expand the food resources of the lions, but having more zebras does.
On the other hand having fewer zebras feeding on the savanna does mean more vegetation available for the remaining zebras. Thus predation benefits the herd as well as provides food for the lions. The best situation is where there is plenty of food for the herd which means many young zebras for the lions and to revitalize the herds. The problem arises in times of drought when both the lions and zebras are weakened. Then only the best adapted of both the lions and zebras survive to revitalize their stock. Both benefit and they are not competing against each other because they need each other to survive and flourish.
The lamprey is not a predator as we know it, it is more of a parasite. It was introduced so we think by humans into the Great Lakes where it has no enemies and has upset the ecological balance of this system. Thus it is clearly an outlier, an exception that proves the rule. I would be interested is more examples from your studies.
It was Darwin and his apostle Dawkins who claimed that evolution is based on competition, survival of the fittest, which interestingly enough fit well into the ambitions of the British Empire to establish its power around the world, so as to accept the “White Man’s Burden” to bring civilization and Christianity to the lesser breeds of humankind.
Dawkins selfish gene is indeed that and it is his position that the selfish gene through competition within the species, not between species, drives evolution. For him it is not a question of both conflict and harmony, but conflict alone pushes evolution forward. It appears that it was the same for Darwin for he wrote that the human species is the result of “the war of nature.” War is not cooperation.
The people who have been pushing the mutualist view have been it appears to me, the ecologist, James Lovelock and Lynn Margulis. In case you are not aware of these people, Lovelock established the basis of modern ecology and Margulis is one of the greatest scientists of our day, neither one of them favorites of evolutionists. Lovelock developed the Gaia Theory and Margulis wrote the book stating that Symbiosis is the basis of the development of life on earth. I think that the scientific evidence supports this new scientific thinking. I welcome evidence to the contrary.
Roger,
I simply can’t understand why you keep denying the reality of interspecific competition - it is the stuff of EVERY ecology textbook! Lions compete with hyenas in the African savanna; marine invertebrates compete for space in the intertidal zone (see Connell’s classic work on barnacles and Payne’s work with the starfish Pisaster); competition leads to character displacement in Geospiza finches in the Galapagos. Glossoma caddisflies compete with blackfly and chironomid larvae in Michigan streams; cardinals on Bermuda occur in a wider range of habitats and have different feeding habits than their relatives on the mainland due to reduced competition. I could multiply the examples ad nauseam. Margulis did propose the endosymbiont hypothesis of the origin of eukaryotes, which would assign an important role to mutualism in the history of life, but would not deny the importance of competition in structuring communities. Once again, I am at a loss to see what sort of evidence would persuade you that competition is a powerful force in evolution.
[quote=“Relates, post:59, topic:445”]
It was Darwin and his apostle Dawkins who claimed that evolution is based on competition, survival of the fittest, which interestingly enough fit well into the ambitions of the British Empire to establish its power around the world, so as to accept the “White Man’s Burden” to bring civilization and Christianity to the lesser breeds of humankind.
[/quote] Darwin was appalled by social Darwinism - it is simply not fair to tar him with that brush!
Rereading your post, I could concede that evolution relies on both competition and mutualism, but it is absurd to deny the reality of both intra- and interspecific competition. It is intraspecific competition that leads to the establishment of territories and to a “floating reserve” of non-territorial males in many bird species, for example.
As for the sea lamprey, it is actually an anadromous fish, which means it can live in both fresh and saltwater. There had been a landlocked population of lampreys in Lake Ontario before the construction of the Welland canal allowed them to invade the Upper Great Lakes. The sea lamprey is almost a parasitoid, in that it often causes the death of the host.
It is also a stretch to say that Lovelock established the basis of modern ecology - most people in the field would grant that honor to Robert MacArthur or to G. Evelyn Hutchinson.
Roger,
As you can see, your post opened my floodgates - my graduate research was in ecological competition, and thoughts and ideas keep swirling in my head. Here are a few more observations, in no particular order:
The most undeniable form of intraspecific competition is sexual competition between males - we observe it in species as different as bighorn sheep, lions and rhinoceros beetles.
Dawkins is a popularizer, not a serious ecologist; most practicing ecologists would tell you that both intra- and interspecific competition structure communities (along with predation and many other processes, of course). The “selfish gene” model is almost a caricature of reductionism. It is the organism in the entirety of its relationships and interactions that either dies or survives - not individual genes!
[quote=“Relates, post:59, topic:445”]
neither one of them favorites of evolutionists
[/quote]What exactly is an “evolutionist”? Is it the same as an evolutionary biologist, or is it a term of disparagement?
You seem to find it distasteful that the dark Malthusian mechanism of competition (I am paraphrasing one of your earlier posts) is one of the drivers of evolution; I am curious as to whether you find predation equally distasteful?
Dan, thanks for not being flippant as so many people are. I had a look at your examples. Aside with the difficulty in sometimes having different definitions of species, it still appears that in all these cases, there is a capability to interbreed, even if the organisms do not necessarily choose to do so. So in that sense, the species has not changed, and the greater genetic variability of the parents has simply been narrowed down into less diverse subspecies or groups. The stickle backs are still sticklebacks, the salamanders still salamanders, and the killer whales still killer whales. To use the human example, the difference between the fat-lipped black ugandans and the red-haired thin lipped irishmen, and the heavy browed australian aboriginals is quite significant, and populations isolated (at least for a time) so they in fact did not interbreed, and yet we know they are all the same species. I am rather surprised that no mention has been made of the wolphin. We have even discovered that an false killer whale and a bottlenose dolphin can breed to produce a fertile hybrid. So their breeding would indicate same species by definition, unless the definition of species has changed. In any case, what it does for me is indicate that species are or were much more genetically variable than we supposed.
So what is necessary is to document the kinds of changes that lead a variety of cat to become a dog, or some such thing involving significant differences other than size, shape or color. We know even all the dogs, bred thru intelligent breeding methods, have very many significant different traits, but are still all the same species. This is a good example of different traits not creating different species. It makes sense that any difference in traits in other species that are not more significant than the differences in varieties of dogs and cats, cannot logically be held up as speciation examples.
But what is also significant is that if we have speciation where all that has happened is a loss of genetic options, or a loss of genetic variabiltiy, then the species change is very limited and specific. We would still need evidence that a less complex species has parented a more complex species. ie. a bacteria or sponge into an ammonite or trilobite or some such thing.