evolution

[suchandra]

 

so science says that we all decendent from africa 70 million yrs ago, if so then were all africans. but how does all this science fit in with our religious history, how did it all began, for me i would like to think that the origins of human life began in india like the how the religious book tells it

Interesting article below, according math, random evolution would have required more time to come to present level of development.

 

Douglas Axe: Bold Biology for 2009

 

Posted Februar 3rd, 2009

 

 

February 1st, 2009 by Douglas Axe: Do you see the problem? On the one hand we’re supposed to believe that the Darwinian mechanism converted a proto-insect into a stunning array of radically different life forms of termites, beetles, ants, wasps, bees, dragonflies, stick insects, aphids, fleas, flies, mantises, cockroaches, moths, butterflies, etc., each group with its own diversity well within the space of 400 million years. But on the other hand, when we actually do the math we find that a single insignificant conversion of binding sites would reasonably be expected to consume all of that time.

It’s a big year for all things Darwin. This month, two centuries after his birth, we commemorate the man and his accomplishments. And in November, a century and a half after On the Origin of Species was published, we commemorate the beginnings of the theory by which we all know him.

But how exactly should we think of his theory? Is it to be remembered the way we remember the man—as an important part of the past? Or is it to be remembered as something more than that—as an intellectual seed that grew into something that thrives to this day?

Many, of course, would like to think of Darwin’s theory in these flourishing terms. But the growth of something else makes this view increasingly hard to hold. We refer here to the seldom discussed but steadily expanding body of peer-reviewed scientific work that refuses to square with Darwinism.

Take a look at the recent Genetics paper by Rick Durrett and Deena Schmidt. [1] They’ve done the math to calculate how long it would take for Darwin’s mechanism to accomplish a particular kind of functional conversion. And their eagerness to “expose flaws in some of Michael Behe’s arguments” [1] shows that they think they’ve resuscitated Darwinism after Behe pronounced it dead. [2]

Have they?

Maybe the answer depends on how vigorous a theory you were hoping for. Part of what ails Darwinism, in other words, may be that people have such high expectations of it.

If you think Darwinism explains how life acquired the great variety of forms we see around us (the grand vision that Darwin himself had) you’ll probably be disappointed with Durrett and Schmidt’s findings. Darwin’s vision is chock-full of conversions of the most profound kind—all complex life forms originating from one or a few simple forms. Whereas the conversions that Durrett and Schmidt examine are nothing like that.

Theirs are conversions not from one body plan to another, or from one organ or tissue or cell type to another, or even from one protein molecule or gene to another, but rather from one binding site to another. These binding sites are DNA sequences about one hundredth the size of a gene that affect how a nearby gene is switched on and off. Conversion is accomplished by two point mutations occurring in succession:

 

We think of the

A

mutation [i.e., the first] as damaging an existing transcription factor binding site and the

B

mutation as creating a second new binding site at a different location within the regulatory region. … We used the word ‘damage’ above to indicate that the mutation may only reduce the binding efficiency, not destroy the binding site. However, even if it does, the [

A

] mutation need not be lethal. [1]

 

Now, there are two important questions to be asked here. The first, which Durrett and Schmidt address, is the question of whether this kind of two-step conversion can evolve in a Darwinian fashion—and if so under what circumstances. The second, which they largely avoid, is the question of relevance to Darwin’s grand vision. That is, even if we knew these binding-site conversions to be feasible, would that give us any reason to think that the more profound conversions are feasible?

As things stand, scientific caution dictates a ‘no’ answer to this second question. The right kind of evidence could conceivably change that answer, but there are good reasons to think no such evidence will appear. The main reason is simply that converting one binding site to another accomplishes no significant structural reorganization, whereas transitions to new life forms would require radical structural reorganization. It’s not that a binding site change can have no effect (indeed, it could be lethal), but rather that it cannot have the required effect—the complete top-down reorganization needed for a transition to a substantially different form of life.

By way of analogy, you might easily cause your favorite software to crash by changing a bit or two in the compiled executable file, but you can’t possibly convert it into something altogether different (and equally useful) by such a simple change, or even by a series of such changes with each version improving on the prior one. To get a substantially new piece of software, you would need to substantially re-engineer the original code knowing that your work wouldn’t pay off until it’s finished. Darwinism just doesn’t have the patience for this.

Furthermore, returning to the first question, it seems that even humble binding-site conversions are typically beyond the reach of Darwinian evolution. Durrett and Schmidt conclude that “this type of change would take >100 million years” in a human line [1], which is problematic in view of the fact that the entire history of primates is thought to be shorter than that [3].

Might the prospects be less bleak for more prolific species with shorter generation times? As it turns out, even there Darwinism appears to be teetering on the brink of collapse. Choosing fruit flies as a favorable organism, Durrett and Schmidt calculate that what is impossible in humans would take only “a few million years” in these insects. To get that figure, however, they had to assume that the damage caused buy the first mutation has a negligible effect on fitness. In other words, they had to leap from “the mutation need not be lethal” to (in effect) ‘the mutation causes no significant harm’. That’s a big leap.

What happens if we instead assume a small but significant cost—say, a 5% reduction in fitness? By their math it would then take around 400 million years for the binding-site switch to prove its benefit (if it had one) by becoming fully established in the fruit fly population. [4] By way of comparison, the whole insect class—the most diverse animal group on the planet—is thought to have come into existence well within that time frame. [5]

Do you see the problem? On the one hand we’re supposed to believe that the Darwinian mechanism converted a proto-insect into a stunning array of radically different life forms (termites, beetles, ants, wasps, bees, dragonflies, stick insects, aphids, fleas, flies, mantises, cockroaches, moths, butterflies, etc., each group with its own diversity) well within the space of 400 million years. But on the other hand, when we actually do the math we find that a single insignificant conversion of binding sites would reasonably be expected to consume all of that time.

The contrast could hardly be more stark: The Darwinian story hopes to explain all the remarkable transformations within 400 million years, but the math shows that it actually explains no remarkable transformation in that time.

If that doesn’t call for a serious rethink, it’s hard to imagine what would.

The truth of the matter, much to the chagrin of contemporary biology, is that Darwin’s theory should have been laid to rest some time ago. It certainly deserved all the interest it generated in its day, but at some later point that interest was transformed from the critical kind to the credulous kind. Regrettably, that change took hold before the most conclusive data came to light.

But all is not lost—even wrong ideas can make big contributions to the advancement of science. Few biologists want to see Darwin’s theory filed in that category, but if that is its rightful place, then you can be sure that’s exactly where one bold generation of biologists will file it—someday.

The timing of such things is hard to predict, but we suspect that many members of the bold generation will be in polite attendance at the Darwin celebrations this year.

[primate]

 

... according to math, random evolution would have required more time to come to present level of development. ...

The process of gene-expression is highly non-linear. This basically means that even a single change in a DNA sequence may result in a radically different development of the organism. Indeed, the entire mechanism of RNA–protein interactions that regulate growth and development is critically dependent on initial genetic conditions. Consequently, new species may result from relatively minor DNA changes. And indeed the genomes of different species of mammals, for example, differ much less than you might expect from their anatomical differences. And the genomes of humans and apes differ by only 1%.

 

Furthermore, evolutionary change is induced by environmental pressure. When such pressures are very high, a species may come close to the point of extinction. Only particular individuals that underwent the right chance adaptations may survive. From that point on, it is not a matter of spreading these changes through a population of millions, but building an entire new population based on a few adapted individuals, which is a much faster process.

 

Finally, genetic evolution is not a purely random process. Even mutation is a genetic operator that is not completely random. Specific regions of the genome are less susceptible to mutations than other regions. And there is also a much more structured operator called ‘crossover’. In reproduction, different male and female chromosomes pair up and randomly exchange large sections of their DNA to form a new chromosome. Crossover promotes the forming of so called building blocks within the chromosomes. These are small sub-strands of DNA containing many genes that encode higher order functional units in embryonic development. The recombination of such building blocks is a much more powerful and structured evolutionary mechanism than single gene mutations. This is called ‘the building block hypothesis’ which is confirmed by computational simulations using genetic algorithms.

[rahulhb]

Darwins karma has risen by milllions and millions since he died , poor soul !!!

 

Atheists have drummed this theory - only a theory - into everyone.

 

Srila Prabhupad came to stop the nonsense !!!

 

just chant hare krishna

[kaisersose]

 

Darwins karma has risen by milllions and millions since he died , poor soul !!!

 

Atheists have drummed this theory - only a theory - into everyone.

 

Srila Prabhupad came to stop the nonsense !!!

 

Really? If that is what Prabhupada came for, then he was clearly a failure. Other than a bunch of morons who probably never cleared elementary school and are laboring under the misconception that evolution and theism are mutually exclusive, no one has rejected evolution by accepting an iskcon story over science.

 

And therefore...

 

 

just chant hare krishna

 

has nothing to do with evolution - the topic of this thread.

 

 

Cheers

[tackleberry]

 

If we descended from Apes, then why are there still apes around?

If apes evolved into humans then there shouldn't be any apes left.

 

 

After reading this post, I now understand why people are beginning to doubt evolution.

[gHari]

The forms evolve, but not for the reasons Darwin grasped at. Science has to learn that its domain is "HOW", never "WHY". Religion answers 'why', and here the 'why' is the 'transmigration of the soul'.

 

So, there is evolution; but it is the evolution of soul that makes things work the way they work. That is why an ape will give birth to an ape that is a little more human than its mother. Scientists are studying the 'how' of this. They only look foolish when they overstep their limits and venture reasons for what has happened. "Chance", "Natural selection", whatever their unprovable speculation is - it is just not their domain.

 

At any given time, a variety of forms are required to fund the big karmic biological merry-go-round. Ape and human forms may be required simultaneously by various jiva souls who are at differing levels of advancement. And this is all quite compatible with what we see now, and what we see in the past fossil record.

 

Science is not a religion. They become fools when they try to ordain themselves, and preach their cult to the innocent as the all-encompassing mechanistic world-view.

[primate]

 

The forms evolve, but not for the reasons Darwin grasped at. Science has to learn that its domain is "HOW", never "WHY". Religion answers 'why', and here the 'why' is the 'transmigration of the soul'.

 

So, there is evolution; but it is the evolution of soul that makes things work the way they work. That is why an ape will give birth to an ape that is a little more human than its mother. Scientists are studying the 'how' of this. They only look foolish when they overstep their limits and venture reasons for what has happened. "Chance", "Natural selection", whatever their unprovable speculation is - it is just not their domain.

 

At any given time, a variety of forms are required to fund the big karmic biological merry-go-round. Ape and human forms may be required simultaneously by various jiva souls who are at differing levels of advancement. And this is all quite compatible with what we see now, and what we see in the past fossil record.

 

Science is not a religion. They become fools when they try to ordain themselves, and preach their cult to the innocent as the all-encompassing mechanistic world-view.

...

[bija]

Mankind individually and collectively has existed in fragmentation for a long time...

 

As the conscious world evolves the living organism will begin to manifest its singular unity of purpose...considering time and place, and what is necessary for its survival...

 

Survival is inbuilt into the living organism (on all levels, even universal)...

 

What is needed is a living harmony...of deep spiritual value...

 

We can see that earth is crying due to exploitation. The eastern transcendence wishes to escape earth, therefore neglect...

 

The western rationale and science wishes to exploit earth for economic sustainability...

 

But, each of these traditions has great integral value in the evolution and development of consciousness (manifest)...there is no need to caste aside...

 

If we place both of these traditions on a triangle (moving upward) we then need a foundation!

 

The foundation is the earth (the indigenous) and sustainable...

 

With a solid foundation east and west will move toward full evolution and perfection, and earth will be sustained!

 

If we destroy the foundation we will degrade, perish and die. Exploit? Or flourish?

 

We now have the choice...choose! Respect the traditional people...they hold great wisdom.

 

It's evolution baby;)!

http://www.tribalchannel.tv/

[primate]

 

Mankind individually and collectively has existed in fragmentation for a long time...

 

As the conscious world evolves the living organism will begin to manifest its singular unity of purpose...considering time and place, and what is necessary for its survival...

 

Survival is inbuilt into the living organism (on all levels, even universal)...

 

What is needed is a living harmony...of deep spiritual value...

 

We can see that earth is crying due to exploitation. The eastern transcendence wishes to escape earth, therefore neglect...

 

The western rationale and science wishes to exploit earth for economic sustainability...

 

But, each of these traditions has great integral value in the evolution and development of consciousness (manifest)...there is no need to caste aside...

 

If we place both of these traditions on a triangle (moving upward) we then need a foundation!

 

The foundation is the earth (the indigenous) and sustainable...

 

With a solid foundation east and west will move toward full evolution and perfection, and earth will be sustained!

 

If we destroy the foundation we will degrade, perish and die. Exploit? Or flourish?

 

We now have the choice...choose! Respect the traditional people...they hold great wisdom.

 

It's evolution baby;)!

http://www.tribalchannel.tv/

Hi Bija, I’m happy you apparently survived the latest Australian bush fires..

[primate]

 

... Science is not a religion. They become fools when they try to ordain themselves, and preach their cult to the innocent as the all-encompassing mechanistic world-view.

Science is not religion. I agree with that. Instead, religious insights might help to validate specific scientific theories about the fundamental reality of our material world and to refute others. The answer to the question Why, might have implications for the correct answer to the question How. In turn, future science might help to validate specific religious philosophies and to refute others, but of course that would be a much more delicate matter..