Subject: Geographic Distribuion of Quadrupeds Topics: }Life is too complex to have happene

Subject: Geographic Distribuion of Quadrupeds Topics: }Life is too complex to have happened by chance. }Mutations are almost always harmful. }Mutations rarely occur. }3000 years was time enough for all languages, religions to develop. }Complex organs couldn't have arisen from a single mutation }Evolution doesn't explain the simultaneous origin of two traits }Mendelian inheritance says that recessive characters reappear }Hybrids are infertile, so a newly evolved individual couldn't breed. }Evolution doesn't explain personality, emotion, reason, conscience, etc. }"No people of English descent are more distantly related..." }The animals couldn't have distributed themselves all over the globe. }Vestigial organs }Embryology }"impossible gulfs" }evolution doesn't make sense }Evolution doesn't explain abiogenesis or how genes are expressed. }half of the amino acids should be right-handed }Mathematical probability }changes calling for numerous coordinated innovations >The puzzle of how organs, once evolved, come to be lost (degeneration). }The failure of some organisms to evolve at all. }No new phyla, classes, or orders have appeared. }The occurrence of parallel evolution, in which similiar structures evolve }The existence of long-term trends (orthogenesis). }Pre-adaptation: Organs appear before they are needed. }"Overshoot" or evolutionary "momentum" occurs. }How do organs, once evolved, come to be lost? }Why did man lose his hair and tail? }Over-specialization with no adaptive value. }Can this all be just mutation and natural selection? }mitochondrial DNA showes that mankind arose from *one* female. }chaos theory & biology }The fundamental principle of evolution contradictory to established laws }There is no evidence of biological life anywhere else in the universe. }vestigal organs are probably the results of mutational changes }Embryology offers testimony to a great Designer }Similiarities are explained as made by the hand of a common Designer. }All the great phyla appear quite suddenly in the fossil record. }what is known to be true about evolution? }Why are men alone so murderous of their own species? }Misc biblical wonderings... ---------------------------------------------------------------------- }- Life is too complex to have happened by chance. The theory of evolution doesn't say it did happen by chance. This argument completely ignores natural selection. Please read: Life in Darwin's Universe G. Bylinsky, Omni Sept 79 The Evolution of Ecological Systems May, Scientific American, Sept 1978 Chemical Evolution and the Origin of Life Dickerson, Scientific American, Sept 1978 The Evolution of the Earliest Cells Schopf, Scientific American, Sept 1978 The Evolution of Multicellular Plants and Animals Valentine, Scientific American, Sept 1978 } Mutations are never benefical The textbook example of the effects of radiation upon genes is the old "carnation seeds exposed to radiocobalt". Clearly some of the flowers produced are prettier than the originals. Therefore, the "never" is disproved. }- Mutations are almost always harmful. Note: "almost". A lot happen in a large population over long times. }- Mutations rarely occur. Note: "Rarely". A lot happen in a large population over long times. } - 3000 years was time enough for all languages, religions to develop. Actually the premise is false. The Sino-Tibetan family of languages is distinct from the Indo-European family of languages, which English seems to have been derived from. Considering how long ago the 50 arguments were written (was it around 1930?), this ethnocentrism is not surprising. }- Complex organs couldn't have arisen from a single mutation, and } just part of the organ is useless. Favorite examples are eyes and } insect wings. there have fairly good descriptions, on the net, of how eyes could have evolved, and of how bird lungs could have evolved. These were nice rebuttals of the claim that "it wasn't useful until finished, so it couldn't have got started". And how many of these "numerous coordinated innovations" can be caused by one change? Check out, for instance, the effect of changing the age at which bone growth stops in human beings. There *are* semi-venemous snakes, and in fact the issue was discussed earlier how some snakes "drip" the venomous saliva while ones with more developed systems "inject" the saliva via hollow teeth. Whales have semi-legs (ok, so they're not fish). How about the cooperating jawbones that have slowly become our hearing mechanisms, seen to be incrementally represented from reptilian jawbones. The complete developmental flowchart of the nematode worm--what cells divide to form what other cells all the way from the 1-cell egg to the thousand-cell adult--has been determined. It contains numerous examples of repeated tricks that look very much like subroutines. For example (this is from memory and may not be precise) there is a patten of a cell dividing twice to form two muscle cells, one neuron and one cell which dies that occurs dozens of times in the worm's development, not always in exactly the same situation-- different kinds of nerve cells are produced--but with exactly the same pattern (that is, it is the most posterior cell which dies, and so forth). People often assume that to evolve a new structure requires new code. In this case at least, however, a new nerve with attendant muscle fibers could be made (and there are mutants which do this) just by triggering this subroutine in a cell which normally doesn't do it. } The instinct of Animals: proves wisdom of a "higher order". Again, argument by design. The complexity and specialization of characters is evidence of a designer, in this view. Proves that it something stupid is wired in you don't get descendants. }- Mendelian inheritance says that recessive characters reappear, and thus we } should expect humans with characteristics of apes. They do. Tails, for instance. And other "ape" traits that happen to also be "human traits". Like toes, body hair,... This disregards the basic mechenisms of natural selection and genetics. It makes the wrong assumption that ape-like characters are recessive and that all of the traits in the ancestor population are present but usually unexpressed in the supposed descendant population. Neither idea is true. }- Hybrids are infertile, so a newly evolved individual couldn't breed. Hybrids are often not fertile or robust. They may be desirable to man if man amde, but they may not succeed in an evolutionary sense. The premise is incorrect. First, what is meant by "hybrid" is unclear in this context - is it a hybrid only if it is infertile? And even in those cases in which the offspring is usually infertile, that is not always the case. As witnessed the horse and the donkey. }- Evolution doesn't explain personality, emotions, abstract reason, } conscience, etc. Please read: The Evolution of Behavior Smith, Scientific American, Sept 1978 Xenopsychology R. A. Freitas, Analog Apr 81 Directly Interacting Extra-terrestrial Technological Communities Viewing, JBIS, vol 28, pp 735-755, 1975 Computer Simulation of Cultural Drift: Limits on Interstellar Colonization Bainbridge, JBIS, vol 37, pp 420-429, 1984 The Improbability of Bahavioural Convergence in Aliens - Behavioural Implications of Morphology Coffey, JBIS, vol 38, pp 515-520, 1985 The climatic background to the birth of civilization Lamb, Advancement of Science vol 25 pp 103 - 120 1968 }- "No people of English descent are more distantly related than thirtieth } cousin," which doesn't allow enough time for evolution. Incorrect argument. The island population of Great Britian might well have interbreeded more than is the case if it were mixed with the rest of the world's human population, if you are inclined to believe Davenport's claim at all. }- The animals couldn't have distributed themselves all over the globe. This is written at the time Wagener proposed Continebtal Drift for the first time. He is rejected by the geologists of the day, but now Plate Tectonics is well accpeted among geologists and is used to construct paleobiogeography that explains fossil distrubutions. The Supercontinent Cycle Nance, Worsley, & Moody, Scientific American, July 1988 Alfred Wegener and the Hypothesis of Continental Drift A. Hallam, Scientific American Feb 1975 And like horses (that man transported), camels, pandas, kangaroos, marsupials,.. In fact, this supports the evolutionary postulates in that the distribution matches transportation capabilities. What is more interesting is why are not animals everywhere? If they all got themselves originated from one place (did this twice, supposidely - everyone was originally present in Eden for the naming and everything was together again in the ark) why are not marsupials found everywhere? Ibid old world vs. new world species. Since the creationists (from the biblical account) would have had EVERY animal in the same place (twice, in fact. Once for the naming in Eden, once again for the rescue in the arc.) why are the quadrupeds distributed so differently? There are a number of large animals that are strictly on one continent, unless somebody moved them (in fairly recent recorded history). They could NOT have gotten there on their own RECENTLY (evolved there, yes), nor could a selective extinction removed every individual of the opposite set. Please explain: New World Only: Old World Only =============== +============ Sapajous (Monkeys) Horse, zebra sagoins (monkeys) sheep, goats, antelopes Opossum wild boar Cougar, jaguar panther, leopard Coatis hyena, civet Stinking weasels porcupine, hedgehog Agoutis apes, baboons, true monkeys Armadillos scaley lizard Ant-Eaters Sloths detached species detached species tapir elephant Cabiai rhinoceros Llama hippopotamus Peccary giraffe camel lion tiger }- Vestigial organs: "If the perfect organ were better than the rudimentary } organ, how can man be the 'survival of the fittest'?" This is the appeal to progress and perfection that biases alot of thinking about evolution, even by some biologists of the past. The changes seen are just adaptations of existing structures, not perfections or progress toward a goal. Note: "fittest" is not "optimal". } Embryology: "it is hard to see why the history of the species should } be repeated by the embryo." This is similar to the argument used by Bob Bales that it is hard to see evolution in the fossil or living evidence. The problem with this claim is that the understanding of what you would look for comes from first looking at living things, fossils, and in this case embryos. You must know how to describe these things in some detail before you can decide if the claims that similar structures indicate common ancestry, or that embryonic stages mimic ancestrial forms. "It is hard ", means you haven't looked. Present an objection based on what all agree is evidence. That is more a function of his "hard to see" than why it does. } A staggering speculation: essentially that evolution doesn't make } sense given the lake of common animals between the major groups. This doesn't make sense. The "major groups" are definied by human classifications that often are there for ancestrial reasons that support evolution (via the "family trees") or are fairly arbitrary (for instance, by location or discoverer) and make perfect sense. }- Evolution doesn't explain abiogenesis or how genes are expressed. To the creationists. And it does explain how to study the unknown, rather than bowing out. }- If life arose by chance, half of the amino acids should be right-handed; in } fact, all are left-handed. Once the preference for one enantiomer over another gets started in nature, it is relatively easy to see how this preference is perpetuated. Biological reactions work much like machines having templates, stamping out the preferred, and ONLY the preferred configuration generation after generation after generation. As to how one became initially started, there are many possibilities: 1. Luck. The first one to form just happened to be L, and then the rest followed. 2. There may be some effect during formation due to coriolis force or the (hemisphere dependent) magnetic fied (as lightening went DOWN, the effect may be polarized) 3. Quantitative calculations indicate that the fundamentally left-handed neutral-weak force with the electromagnetic force could introduce an energy preference (very slight). Aside from any steric preferences, one form could be energetically more stable than the other. William C. McHarris Professor of Chemistry and of Physics and of Astronomy at Michigan State University "Handedness in Nature" January 1986 Analog } Mathematical probability: "it is so improbable that one and only } one species out of 3,0000,000 should develop into man, that it } certainly was not the case". Whence the 3,000,000 number, and how is the "improbability" assigned? Some say inevitable... If 500 developed into man, how would you tell? Besides, given the way evolution works, one would dominate and 499 would have (while developing) be suppressed, quite likely into extinction. The "less successful" are extinct or in zoos. }4) The repeated occurrence of changes calling for numerous coordinated } innovations, both at the level of organs and of complete organisms. First, how do you determine that "numerous coordinated innovations" are required? That may merely be your evaluation. For instance, some of the common examples: poisonous snakes - fangs & poison glands. A Gila monster has poison glands with no fangs, and there are snakes with furrowed fangs with no poison glands. fish to land animal - legs and lungs. The mudpuppy is a fish without lungs that goes on the land, and the ceoclanth (sp) has almost legs with no lungs. And then there is the African Lungfish, the floridian walking catfish,... Coral snakes (southern US) don't have a very sophisticated delivery system - they also chew on their victims to deliver the poison. I'm not very familiar with the anatomy of a coral snake, but it does not have the usual "fangs" associated in the popular mind with a poisonous snake - as I recall there is just a small sac or pore at the base of what look like ordinary reptilian teeth. The last time I studied poisonous snakes (some years ago), it was thought that poison delivery had evolved several times, independently, in snakes. This was based on differences in toxins and in delivery systems, as well as its occurance in otherwise distantly related snakes, all of which have closely similar non-poisonous forms. The delivery systems cover the whole range from the simple, rather typical, teeth of the coral snake to the elaborate, retractile, tubular fangs of pit-vipers. Some have slightly elongate "fangs" with simple grooves on one side, for instance. Thus, we can see almost the entire range of intermediate anatomies in evolving fangs purely in *living* species. Gap?? What gap? We do not even need the fossils, which we also have. And how many of these "numerous coordinated innovations" can be caused by one change? Check out, for instance, the effect of changing the age at which bone growth stops in human beings. This needs to be elaborated. If a genome is being stressed to some metastable level where its states can multiply, then rapid changes to more than one structure in the organism can occur simutaneously. >11) The puzzle of how organs, once evolved, come to be lost (degeneration). Evolution operating on the amplification and dimminution of structures is well known. The appearence of vestigal structures, at all, reflects on the use of prexisting developmental pathways, rather than on the purposefulnessor efficiency of the process. }- The speed at which evolution occurred varies. Why is that a problem? You change the mutation rate and the selection rate and the change rate also alteres. }12) The failure of some organisms to evolve at all. If it passes the selection filter, no change required. These organisms are excellently adapted to their particular niche in their environment. (like sharks: the "perfect eating machine", right?) Like the brachiopod Lingula, and the cockroach, identifiable through most of the phanerazoic and still with us. If an organism is well adapted to a niche it can readily occupy, then why should it evolve? }- The existence of long-term trends (orthogenesis). So? Study any climatology? The environment has some VERY long-term trends. }- Pre-adaptation: Organs appear before they are needed. Now, how do you tell this??? }- "Overshoot" or evolutionary "momentum" occurs. A not uncommon problem with non-linear search routines, and with systems with very long delay times in the feebdack. }- How do organs, once evolved, come to be lost? "Use it or lose it" is a popular expression which may help the understanding. Maintaining something is a drain on materials and energy. Selection would go against a disadvantageous drain. } Why did man lose his hair and tail? Note that hair and tails ARE still present. The selection process is a statistical phenomena. There is a theory that sometime within Man's evolutionary past he had an aquatic phase. This is upheld by: a. The layer of fat beneith the skin is more characteristic of marine mammals. b. The pattern described by the hair remaining on the body describes fairly closely what would be a flow pattern. Also, the pattern of denser hair (top of head, chin, pubic region) matches the marine growth areas c. Humans have a diving reflex like that of the semi-aquatic mammals that live in cold climates. When the face hits cold water, the entire metabolism slows and the interior distribution of the blood flows. This has been observed in numerous near-drownings in cold water (it doesn't seem to cut in on warm water). Thus, we have the same amount of hair (almost) as any other marine mammal. And for the exact same reasons. We just didn't have a long enough marine phase for further adaptions (lose arms & legs). }- Over-specialization with no adaptive value. How do you determine this? Besides, most nonlinear search routines I am familiar with have a tendency to overshoot... The process is not particularly efficient or purposeful. }Can this all be just mutation and natural selection? Two points: first, although Darwin invoked only variation and selection, modern evolutionary theory also gives a very important role to genetic drift, the occurance of changes due to chance fluctuations in small populations. This force can work in the opposite direction than selection, and can override selection if the population is small enough. (Brown mice do better in the wild than white, but if I start with only two of each in an area I will end up with only whites some of the time.) Second, "mutation" can cover some things which are much more powerful than single changes in genes--specifically duplication of genes and merging of two genes into a new one. These mechanisms can produce new yet highly non-random genes. }the scientific discovery (not creationtific discovery) a few years }back that mitochondrial DNA was identical in all people of various }ancestory >and thus showed that mankind arose from *one* female. First, mitochondrial DNA is NOT identical in all humans. However the differences can be used to construct a family tree of sorts, and the most reasonable interpretation of the data is that all modern humans inherited their mitochondria from one woman, dubbed Eve (possibly to bait creationists), who lived (I think) around 200 Kyears ago. (The mutation rate observed for the mitochondrial DNA was used to establish the times involved.) Second, the fact that the mitochondria of all of us can be traced to one woman does not mean we arose solely from her-- it just means that she's one of our common ancestors. The maternal inheritance of mitochondria is analogous to the inheritance of last names in our paternalistic society. The point is, there may have been many contemporaries of "Eve" who are also common ancestors of ours-- she just happens to be at the node of our common maternal line. If a consistant paternalistic society had existed throughout human history, (and nobody ever changed their names) we would probably all have the same last name; this would not mean that the first man to have this name was solely responsible for the human race, just that he would be at the node of our common paternal line. > As far as the brain obeying certain chaotic processes, the > brain is too structured and controlled to allow anything > like that to occur. Biological processes are very closely > controlled in the body and in the brain. That is necessary > for survival. Reflexes are something the brain cannot > control. Your heart beats regularly and you breathe in your > sleep. Your brain releases hormones at just the right moment > to allow you to run away from a lion, or, when cornered, > fight off an attacker with more strength than you thought you > had. When you consider the mind as it is usually defined > (the thinking, conscious part of the brain), it must also > function properly at all times, or you would not be able > to survive. Evolutionary pressures would not favor a mind > which works on a process based on chaos theory. The connection of chaos with complex real living systems is circumstancial, but suggestive. I do not have a firm demonstration that full-blown living processes are adeqately described by systems of nonlinear differential equations. Two examples I have heard about, I do not have references, are human brain waves can be modeled with a strange attractor, and a good model of cardiac electrical function and sudden failure has been built using chaos. }The fundamental principle of evolution - the concept of development, with }increasing organization and complexity - seems to be essentially }contradictory to the impregnably established laws of energy conservation }and deterioration. huh? If by "development" he means adaption to the environment I have no idea what "increasing organization and complexity" is fundamental for. And maybe by "deterioration" he means "entrophy or enthalpy"? }There is not the slightest genuine evidence of biological life as we }understand it anywhere else in the universe. There are a LOT of complex chemicals of extraterrestrial origins composed of carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, and I think even a bit of sulfur. And the Viking has found some odd reactions. And if you don't mind taking environmental conditions more alien than mars as "elsewhere", I have seen some dandy pictures of things that sure look like life in eternal blackness, no oxygen, hotter than a pot of boiling water,... }vestigal organs are probably the results of mutational changes which, as }we have seen, are usually deteriorations. Also know as "adaptions", right? Thanks. Whale legs are definitely an adaption to their current environment. Thank-you. }Embryology, instead of supporting evolution, actually }offers abundant testimony to a great Designer and does not in any way }give countenance to theories of materialistic origin and development. How odd... Same data, different conclusion. }Similiarities (embryology & comparative anatomy) are more reasonably }explained in terms of origin at the hand of a common Designer. An odd definition of "reasonable"... }what is known to be true about evolution? I am not sure what you mean by "KNOW". None of this is divine revelation. But I am as sure about the statement "There is plentiful genetic variation in natural populations", having worked first-hand with the data supporting it, as I am of just about anything else in the world. And I am as sure of the statement "Selection can change the frequencies of variants", since I've done computer simulation to test it. That's most of evolutionary theory right there. }Why are men alone so murderous of their own species? We are not alone. Most social animals seem to have some similiar sorts of behaviors. When a male baboon displaces the old dominant male, young baboons must watch their ass, as the new dominant male will often attempt to kill them. The same thing happens with lions, I believe.