Science-Religion. Which wins?

Adenine · June 12, 2010, 8:52pm

^ Your opinions on evolution are mind-blowingly ignorant. You take parts and totally use false and weak reasoning to make evolution sound untrue. Just stop, you can’t overturn it’s reality no matter what you’d like to be true.

hahalolk · June 12, 2010, 10:00pm

Your entire argument about biology is based on conjecture. This isn’t even about religion anymore, just bad science on your part. How do you know this to be true? The mutations are improbable - not impossible. And don’t forget how many organism there of a species either. You don’t realize this because most die quickly after conception (at little cost to the mother), or soon in there lifetime. Only healthy individuals make it to adulthood in the natural world. When you factor this in, it becomes clear your argument is wrong. There does exist enough attempts (conceptions) to create the diversity in the world there is today.

AIDS. MRSA. We have seen new traits arise from mutations, just not in larger animals because we have only been carefully observing for 4 or 5 generations (for most animals), much too short in evolutionary terms. Most evolutions occur over thousands of generations. We have seen adaptations though, such as in certain fish and certain finches.

MosbyMarion · June 13, 2010, 1:31pm

^ I have seen many supposed examples of evolution. On close examination, all of them so far have been either:

1: Natural selection causes a trait which already existed to become more common within a certain population as the conditions change. Examples: Darwin’s finches, “superbugs”, the Peppered Moths, dogs, human races.

2: A copy error causes the loss of certain code, producing a new variety that in unusual circumstances is more effective than the whole creature. Examples: wingless flies, at least one type of antibiotic-immune bacteria, some of the more dangerous virus strains, various albino breeds that are raised by humans.

3: In the case of some viruses, mutations cause the virus’s antigens to vary from generation to generation. This doesn’t change the function of the virus, but gives it a slightly different chemical signature, impairing the immune system’s ability to identify and destroy it.

None of these processes, if continued for long periods of time, would raise a bacterium into a human. #1 would produce a number of diverse populations from a single homogenous one. #2 might eventually turn a bacterium into a virus, as metabolism structures were lost. #3 would make more of the same bacteria, but would “disguise” them.

MosbyMarion · June 13, 2010, 1:44pm

My argument is no more based on conjecture than the arguments in favor of evolution. You yourself have said that evolution takes place over thousands of generations. Suppose a mutation takes place. Unless it provides an immediate benefit, it is no more likely to be preserved than any other mutation. In order to become a useful trait, a series of highly improbable mutations must take place, all of them occuring in the correct order without any detrimental mutations intervening. When you realize the sheer number of tries such a sequence would take, and then realize that after all those tries you have only moved a tiny fraction closer to one of millions of species, the theory begins to seem doubtful. True, every now and then you do win even at 1 in a trillion odds, but before I believe such an improbable thing I would want to see something more solid than conjecture on how it COULD have happened.

And even were it shown both plausible and observable, there remains the problem of objection #3: some structures just don’t seem to have a series of beneficial steps leading to them. To me the cleanerfish alone seems to give grounds to reject evolution. It is merely one of the vast number of incredible features existing in life. Yet some would still present evolution as indisputable fact, and not only reject but require all others to reject any theory to the contrary.

MosbyMarion · June 13, 2010, 1:46pm

You are entitled to that opinion, but it does not make evolution appear more credible when you accuse me of “taking parts” and “using false reasoning” yet you will neither provide the missing parts nor show where my reasoning is false.

cjester · June 13, 2010, 5:57pm

post #616 made me literally LOL. and then I realized it was serious, not sarcastic…

mifune · June 14, 2010, 2:44am

To be honest, MosbyMarion, you have to be one of the most profound denialists with whom I have ever spoken. I believe that others are passionately annoyed that you are unable to accept an impregnable fortress of scientific evidence that contravenes your position and adhere to the intellectually twisting recesses of obscurantism. You dispute on the basis of ill-conceived assertions while I and other more factually enlightened individuals debate from the supreme foundations of knowledge and reason. If by mockery you are alluding to the phantasmagorical conceptions of the Flying Spaghetti Monster and invisible pink unicorns, they are simply methods for demonstrating the inanity of your ideological orientation.

Evolution and a Earthly age of slightly over 4.5 billion years are not “views” in the same sense as your faith-based considerations. They are discoveries disinterred from the foundations of detached objectivity.

The naturalistic viewpoint has bred modern science, which is the single most important contribution for any nation’s social and economic progress. Questioning the merits of naturalism, and by extension, scientific reasoning – its epistemological relative, is a profound social indiscretion.

mifune · June 14, 2010, 2:47am

I am not questioning whether you have any proficiency with computers. Such is completely irrelevant since computers are impertinent to the discussion since they cannot be effectively analogized to demonstrate a parallel conceptual framework for the human brain, specifically.

Again, it is absolutely incorrect to strictly state that the brain is essentially an organic computer because the lack of parallel is quite profound in many respects, as I have already touched upon. Your adherence to the computer analogy is merely another vehicle for cognitive fixation in erroneous comparison.

From: [Purves</a> Lab / Research](<a href=“http://www.purveslab.net/research/]Purves”>research | Purves Lab)

“In this conception of vision, perceived images accord with the cumulative probability of what the same or similar stimuli have signified in the past history of the species and the individual…The counterintuitive conclusion that follows from this evidence is that what we see is a statistical consequence of an *accumulation of past experience rather than a veridical representation of the retinal stimulus or the objects that confront the observer in the present<a href=“the%20term%20’past’%20again%20referring%20to%20both%20phylogenetic%20and%20ontogenetic%20experience”>/i</a>.”

But scientific conclusions are established on the foundations of systematic reasoning and objectively collected data rather than subjective interpretations or individual inclinations to think and respond in a particular manner.

mifune · June 14, 2010, 2:48am

They discussed two completely separate concepts – human error in fallaciously detecting supernatural agency and the irrelevancy of religion or supernaturalism in determining moral guidelines.

What do you mean by “their code?” Empiricists simply rationalize and justify ethical behavior on an evidential and objectively established platform with aid from the relevant profiles of historical, evolutionary, anthropological, and archaeological findings.

But your point isn’t correct and you continue to adopt a fallacious perspective on the brain’s true operation. Problem solving, for instance, is not an activity in which the brain mechanically acts in a way that is genetically predisposed. How do you integrate the concept of learning into your perspective if we are all cognitively ingrained by its structure and process functionality? The capacity for biological organisms to learn also fatally undermines your computer analogy, which continually subverts your ability to form a proper comprehension of this topic, and accordingly, a legitimate framework for producing a conscientious rationalization or for drawing scientifically honorable conclusions.

mifune · June 14, 2010, 2:50am

Nothing about it will be a “straw man” argument, although that is the natural cop-out reply from those who refuse to budge from the false assertions provided by all forms of supernaturalism, pseudoscience, and superstition.

Associatively, naturalism is a philosophical doctrine, but its foundations support the scientific objectivity that is so enduringly significant in deriving fact from our world. In essence, science empirically legitimizes the naturalistic perspective.

Although physicists and cosmologists may conjecture the origin of matter – that are incalculably more plausible and scientifically, logically, and mathematically feasible than blanketed supernatural folly - cosmology has yet to have its Darwinian revolution.

You must objectively assess the likelihood that there exists some chimerical element governing the cosmos that communicates specifically through human nature, assumes humanlike characteristics – including intelligence, omnipresence, omnibenevolence, omniscience, and omnipotence (which are logically refutable through the problems of hell and evil as has been argued previously), has no origin (another fallacy), created matter and energy without any mechanism, and governs the full range of human and universal affairs in synchronous fashion, among other deeds. In fact, it is nothing but the uncultivated remnants of primitive human psychology. Moreover, given that there have been over 100,000 religious systems individually conceived since the dawn of humanity, each populated, on average, with several gods or separate entities with anthropomorphic tendencies, one must actively recognize the precipitous slope of improbability within the theological perspective itself.

Juxtaposing that convoluted realm alongside science, a system with frameworks for systematic verification and based on knowledge, evidence, objectivity, and reason, and rife with fundamental unity, it is a foregone conclusion.

mifune · June 14, 2010, 2:54am

Do you dispute the scientific legitimacy of the formula E=mc^2 or that a^2 + b^2 = c^2 for any right triangle because, according to your baseless reasoning, “[they are] the product[s] of [themselves]?”

No, it’s not. Ascribing origins on a scientific basis (as it has been biologically) is ultimately what will resolve the issue of cosmogenesis. Indiscriminately substituting a supernatural explanation wherever you cannot attribute a natural cause is intellectually unsound and doesn’t exercise the critical thought requisite to materialize any perceptive or authoritative conclusions. Rather, it merely hinders active thought and scientific inquiry. Using “God” – in your case, one of the tens of thousands that have been used to describe cosmological origins – merely piles more enigmas on top of the previous ones since you cannot describe how the bloke came about and what created the designer and the designer of the designer, in perpetuity – that is a fallacious misconstruction, clearly and with exceptional resolution.

What experiences? Your biased upbringing that implacably indoctrinated you into an unshakable belief? The one in which you refuse to budge even on the basis of the most resolute of facts in all of science?

mifune · June 14, 2010, 2:59am

There is absolutely zero reason to believe in a personal god. In epistemically crude eras, such a primitive understanding of scientific foundations, intellectually encapsulated settings, and a more proximal subjection to the rudiments of nature rendered such a belief understandable. But adhering to demonstrably false viewpoints in a more socially and scientifically enlightened generation is insupportable and doesn’t properly exercise critical thought. It’s time to dispose of such mental coloration. This comment is beginning to essentially mirror my original contribution to this discussion, so for further elaboration, please see that post:

[On</a> (the Irrationality of) Supernaturalism](<a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/1064825856-post20.html]On”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/1064825856-post20.html)

There is a single unity to all of science. On the other hand, there have been over 100,000 separate religions created since humanity began each with their own conflicting assertions. Scientific, point by point, ceaselessly overturns theological assertions and provides an evidential and dispassionate basis to its findings. Which wins? Well, the answer is quite clear.

mifune · June 14, 2010, 3:15am

You have absolutely no idea of what you’re talking about.

More on the Casimir Effect:

<a href=“http://www.ensmp.fr/aflb/AFLB-291/aflb291p331.pdf[/url]”>http://www.ensmp.fr/aflb/AFLB-291/aflb291p331.pdf</a>

Aside from that, here is very informative commentary on the future pursuit and theoretical frontiers of cosmogenetic research:

[Before</a> the Big Bang?](<a href=“http://superstringtheory.com/cosmo/cosmo41.html]Before”>http://superstringtheory.com/cosmo/cosmo41.html)

[What</a> about string theory?](<a href=“http://superstringtheory.com/cosmo/cosmo5.html]What”>http://superstringtheory.com/cosmo/cosmo5.html)

[Edge:</a> THE LANDSCAPE](<a href=“http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/susskind03/susskind_index.html]Edge:”>http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/susskind03/susskind_index.html)

Further, given the random (and by “random” I mean speaking in terms of probability and where the intuitively consistent element of cause and effect is essentially suspended) course of events at the subatomic scale, and the singularity that bore the Big Bang, the extent of perplexity that occurs as part of quantum reality must have once applied on a cosmic scale.

mifune · June 14, 2010, 3:17am

The act of being correct or incorrect is readily determinable in many scenarios – just as it may be readily ascertained that the Earth is not 6,000 years old and that evolution is factual and at a point of incontrovertible scientific consensus.

No, it’s not. As explicitly stated previously, if you wish to evidence your assertions, and given that some other asinine abstraction is just as objectively defensible, the substantiative obligation is your own liability. Hence, you still have established no credibility for your argument.

Universal origins may be empirically corroborated (see the the three links posted above).

mifune · June 14, 2010, 3:22am

The development of biological organisms, at the very least, teaches one to be exceptionally dubious of design models in other academic realms, cosmology in particular.

Natural selection is the most profound mechanism of evolution. One cannot separate the two. To accept natural selection is to accept evolution.

Thank you for finally conceding that your beliefs are founded on a logical fallacy.

Of course it does. And indeed, it has wielded an affirmative influence on all of those within the Pastafarian faith. It even has its own bible – the word of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. In fact, there has even been a painting created to demonstrate the “moment of creation,” titled Touched by His Noodly Appendage.

<a href=“http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/6e/Touched_by_His_Noodly_Appendage.jpg[/url]”>http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/6e/Touched_by_His_Noodly_Appendage.jpg</a>

mifune · June 14, 2010, 3:23am

Of course – in essence, you are conceding that your belief is based on non-evidenced avowal, on a spiritual apprehension rather than proof.

No – evolution is an inevitable and wholly natural consequence of any progenitive existence. It’s not something derived from “random chance” in the sense that you state since environmental context facilitates evolution of biological organisms. Your viewpoint simply misrepresents the phenomenon.

Then why abide by it?

Creative intelligence is evolved over a significant progression of biological time – not something that originated unexpectedly. Supernaturalism is a primitive vehicle for explanation to reduce humans’ natural curiosity regarding existence, ironically, due to the evolution of higher cortical function.

mifune · June 14, 2010, 3:24am

It is clearly evident that you have a tenuous, or, in far greater likelihood, a completely absent understanding of the concepts of mutualism, symbiosis, and animal communication.

First of all, the relationship is clearly established on a mutually beneficial basis – the removal of deceased tissue and ectoparasites is hygienic for the grouper whereas for the cleaner fish it provides the sustenance required for survival. In the absence of such symbiosis, the grouper fish would perish from the steady accumulation of histophagous ectoparasites. Accordingly, the ectoparasites would be biotically unfit due to the lack of nourishment. Such provides the basis for the existence of reciprocated altruism – an evolutionarily established behavior to increase fitness within the environment. The failure of altruistic behavior and repeated interaction inevitably results in disadvantageous circumstances for both species.

Groupers signal their availability for cleaning by adopting a particular posture whereas cleaner fish perform a ritualized movement as part of a reciprocated interspecific communication device. Consequently, other species, such as the sabre-toothed blenny, have adopted a cleaner fish mimicry to defend against predacious harm and feed on healthy tissue in exploitative fashion – to the obliviousness of the species in which the cleaner fish typically benefits.

Before advancing more atrociously founded dismissals and uneducated assertions regarding evolution and the development of symbiotic relationships and reciprocated altruism, please read the below link in its entirety and any corresponding sources to achieve a mental clarity.

[Biological</a> Altruism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)](<a href=“http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/altruism-biological/]Biological”>Biological Altruism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy))

mifune · June 14, 2010, 3:27am

Wrong once again. See the above explanation that is closely associated with that claim.

That’s incorrect. The developmental progression of biological life is strongly documented within the fossil record with tens of thousands of independently conducted dating procedures (not exclusive to radiometric dating, as I will expand upon in the next post) that confirm the biological timescale.

Furthermore, your providing links to answersingenesis.org (as you have in the past) is intellectually dishonest since, first and foremost, the site is not subject to peer review (unlike scientific research) and is, at its very basis, a denialist website that is founded on its own tenacious ideological agenda.

Once again, that is completely incorrect.

MosbyMarion, you honestly need to desist. Every single point that you bring up regarding objective matters is wholly incorrect (with the exception of natural selection) and is established with an artificial cogency to obscure your cluelessness.

Regarding evolution, there is an unassailable fortification of evidence that inevitably merges to a pronounced and unequivocal conclusion.

mifune · June 14, 2010, 3:32am

Apparently, it is necessary to detail a brief outline of the evidence and mechanisms governing biological evolution since your perceptions are completely incorrect in every respect (excluding your concession of natural selection).

Paleontology and archaeology have provided profound insights into the past evolutionary relationships of biological organisms and have established a biological and geological timescale to determine the sequence of discovered occurrences. Such a timescale is determined by means of radiometric dating, which is performed with notable resolution using the relative amounts of radioactive isotopes present in certain fossilized samples (the basic time required to ossify such samples often exceeds the age of the Earth proposed by “Young Earth creationists"). Separate discoveries and discretely orchestrated determinations confirm biological and geological age and the corresponding place in the evolutionary framework to verify cladistic relationships. Frequently, fossilized remains serve as transitional forms to explicitly establish evolutionary association. Qualitatively, biological connection is commonly indicated through stratigraphic positions in geological samples.

Evidence exists from genetics in the form of comparative sequence analyses, which substantiate relationships between the DNA sequences among separate species and confirm Darwin’s basic common descent model on a molecular level ([One</a> basic example](<a href=“http://www.plantphysiol.org/cgi/content/short/135/1/459]One”>http://www.plantphysiol.org/cgi/content/short/135/1/459)). The field of computational phylogenetics provides the most overwhelming and effusive evidence by reconstructing the evolutionary relationships of modern organisms and recovering the genomes and corresponding phylogenetic associations with past species – on a morphological, anatomical, and biochemical basis. Most phylogenetic reconstructions are assembled through the use of a ribosomal RNA sequence or primordial protein molecules. The most commonly catalogued associations have been performed on the mutual mitochondrial inheritance of all eukaryotic organisms. Mutations in hox genes (the master regulatory genes that provide for the proper transcriptional basis of segmentation) are instrumental in evolutionary change since any selectional gains will produce a population with a better reproductive fitness.

Evidence is provided from comparative anatomy. Homologous structures have a common origin and hence demonstrate divergence from a common ancestor. If structures serve fundamentally separate purposes, homology may be determined by tracing the association through embryonic development. Analogous structures have the same functions but they indicate adaptation to a similar environment (the phenomenon of adaptive radiation) rather than a mutual phylogenetic heritage (e.g. a whale is a mammal whereas a shark is a fish despite the presence of analogous structures). Moreover, vestigial structures (the appendix and coccyx in humans, the wings of ostriches and other flightless birds, the pelvic girdles of whales, and so forth) demonstrate descent from organisms in which the corresponding structures were operative.

Evidence is provided from biochemistry. Organisms with common ancestors will have common biochemical pathways, depending on the extent of evolutionary relation. Sequence comparison is vigorous enough to correct fallacious conjecture in the phylogenetic tree when evidence from other determinations is in short supply. For instance, human genome expresses a 1.2% divergence from the chimpanzee, a 1.6% from gorillas, and 6.6% from baboons ([Source</a> 1](<a href=“Genomic Divergences between Humans and Other Hominoids and the Effective Population Size of the Common Ancestor of Humans and Chimpanzees - PMC”>Genomic Divergences between Humans and Other Hominoids and the Effective Population Size of the Common Ancestor of Humans and Chimpanzees - PMC), [Source</a> 2](<a href=“Quantitative Estimates of Sequence Divergence for Comparative Analyses of Mammalian Genomes”>Quantitative Estimates of Sequence Divergence for Comparative Analyses of Mammalian Genomes)). Furthermore, the sequencing of 16S ribosomal RNA demonstrated evolutionary relationships on the anterior end of phylogenetic development, culminating in the three-domain system – a process from primitive prokaryotes to bacteria to a subsequent partition to archaea and eukaryotes. (<a href=“http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC210452/pdf/jbacter00177-0151.pdf[/url]”>http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC210452/pdf/jbacter00177-0151.pdf</a>)

The existence of the Cytochrome c protein further invalidates your argument. Cytochrome c is a protein found in the mitochondria of eukaryotic cells and plays a substantive role in the electron transport chain of aerobic respiration and, in social context, a means for fatally undermining the arguments of those who groundlessly or speciously deny evolution. The variance of Cytochrome c in separate organisms is measured by the number of differing amino acids, resulting from a mutation, or a base pair substitution. Each differing amino acid is predominantly the result of one base pair substitution. Species’ divergence is calculated by multiplying the quantitative sum of the accumulated mutations by the time required for the Cytochrome c protein to be endowed to progeny. The product determines the amount of time since the considered species evolutionarily diverged. Such provides the basis for the divergence of humans and chimpanzees 6.5 million years ago. The thousands of calculations completed using the Cytochrome c process irrevocably demonstrate the scientific legitimacy of evolution and as a lateral outgrowth, conclusively refute the young age of the Earth and biological life on a macroscopic level.

[Genes</a>, culture, and human evolution … - Google Books](<a href=“Genes, Culture, and Human Evolution: A Synthesis - Linda Stone, Paul F. Lurquin, L. Luca Cavalli-Sforza - Google Books”>Genes, Culture, and Human Evolution: A Synthesis - Linda Stone, Paul F. Lurquin, L. Luca Cavalli-Sforza - Google Books)

Further substantiation is supplied by proteomic evidence of the common ancestry of life. The irrepressible conservations between all lineages of organisms, including lipid bilayers and amino acids, RNA, and DNA (and their corresponding chirality, which provides no functional benefit) exhibit common lineage. Reconstructing phylogenetic descent is also achievable through the use of nonfunctional sequence components, which conceptually accommodates pseudogenes (regions of genetic material orthologous to biological related species, which steadily accumulate mutations with no phenotypic consequence), transposons, benign sequence repetition, and any mutational transmutation in protein-coding that does not culminate in fundamental changes in protein transcription.

The evidence for Homo sapien evolution from chimpanzees is profoundly evidenced by the existence of chromosome 2 within our genome. All other members of the family Hominidae contain 24 pairs of chromosomes whereas Homo sapiens contain 23 pairs. Human chromosome 2 draws exceptional similarity to two ape chromosomes; however, the DNA sequences accommodated within the apes’ genome is maintained on two separate chromosomes, corroborating the fusion of the two and corresponding genomic transitional link. The same holds factually correct for more distantly related relatives within Hominidae.

[The</a> origin of man: a chromosomal pictorial legacy – Yunis and Prakash 215 (4539): 1525 – Science](<a href=“http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/215/4539/1525]The”>http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/215/4539/1525)

[Human</a> and Ape Chromosomes](<a href=“http://www.gate.net/~rwms/hum_ape_chrom.html]Human”>http://www.gate.net/~rwms/hum_ape_chrom.html)

Further, chromosome 2 contains vestigial telomeres, repetitive DNA on the end of each chromosome that resists epigenetic deterioration. Ordinarily, these are found at the end of each sister chromatid, but chromosome 2 contains duplicate copies.

[Origin</a> of human chromosome 2: an ancestral telomere-telomere fusion ? PNAS](<a href=“http://www.pnas.org/content/88/20/9051]Origin”>http://www.pnas.org/content/88/20/9051)

Moreover, there are remnants of a vestigial centromere within chromosome 2. Typically, each chromosome contains one; despite that, chromosome 2 contains oddments of a second.

<a href=“http://resources.metapress.com/pdf-preview.axd?code=v7511kn212157472&size=largest[/url]”>http://resources.metapress.com/pdf-preview.axd?code=v7511kn212157472&size=largest</a>

Also, there is endosymbiotic theory, which evidences the evolutionary leap from prokaryotic to eukaryotic organisms, as substantiated by mitochondrial and chloroplast DNA and the protist Hatena, which engulfed green algae and subsequently lost its heterotrophic capacities due to its inclusion.

[A</a> Secondary Symbiosis in Progress? – Okamoto and Inouye 310 (5746): 287 – Science](<a href=“http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/310/5746/287]A”>http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/310/5746/287)

[ScienceDirect</a> - Protist : Hatena arenicola gen. et sp. nov., a Katablepharid Undergoing Probable Plastid Acquisition](<a href=“http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B7GX3-4KKFPK1-1&_user=10&_coverDate=10%2F24%2F2006&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=88e110e1592044ec5d5c2eeb60bbad8e]ScienceDirect”>http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B7GX3-4KKFPK1-1&_user=10&_coverDate=10%2F24%2F2006&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=88e110e1592044ec5d5c2eeb60bbad8e)

Other mechanisms include horizontal gene transfer, through the mechanisms of transformation, transduction, and bacterial conjugation, which allows for genetic material transfer, genome and gene duplication, which provides tremendous quantities of DNA or RNA sequences under insubstantial or nonexistent selectional influences, and recombination, which facilitates reproductive isolation and redistributes large quantities of existing alleles in a population. Also, metabolic processes remain encapsulated within fossilized evidence, which provides another valid element for linking phylogenetic trees by comparing these to the biochemical characteristics of a common relative or by identifying the physical indications through other observable evidence.

Regarding human development, Cytochrome c calculations demonstrate that humans evolved into their present anatomical form approximately 195,000 years ago. Moreover, the recent single-origin or “out of Africa” hypothesis reveals a percipient insight into the geographical origin of our species. Its effects can be determined through contemporary genetic signatures in human populations. Genetic evidence supports the hypothesis that a sub-population migrated out of the African continent through a population bottleneck. By the very nature of the process, post-bottleneck populations diminish the overall heterogeneity in genomic pattern. Accordingly, those of Asian and European descent possess a more stable distribution in allelic frequencies relative to the African population. This is fortified through multiple scientific studies.

(Source: [The</a> Rough Guide to Evolution](<a href=“http://www.amazon.com/Rough-Guide-Evolution-Mark-Pallen/dp/1858289467/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1276491940&sr=8-1]The”>http://www.amazon.com/Rough-Guide-Evolution-Mark-Pallen/dp/1858289467/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1276491940&sr=8-1))

Evidence for evolution also exists through observed speciation. Sylvia atricapillab is splitting into two distinct populations due to genetic and geographical disaffiliation in a matter of only 30 generations. In fact, due to genomic sequencing, Sylvia atricapillab may be accurately classified between the two emerging species with a nearly 90% accuracy.

[British</a> birdfeeders split blackcaps into two genetically distinct groups : Not Exactly Rocket Science](<a href=“http://scienceblogs.com/notrocketscience/2009/12/british_birdfeeders_split_blackcaps_into_two_genetically_dis.php]British”>http://scienceblogs.com/notrocketscience/2009/12/british_birdfeeders_split_blackcaps_into_two_genetically_dis.php)

Similar demonstrations have been found in the York and Welsh groundsel, Raphanobrassica, Drosophila melanogaster, salsify, the London Underground mosquito, mollies, Hawthorn fly, and the thale cress.

<a href=“People | Ecology, Evolution and Marine Biology | UC Santa Barbara”>People | Ecology, Evolution and Marine Biology | UC Santa Barbara;

[Observed</a> Instances of Speciation](<a href=“http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html]Observed”>Observed Instances of Speciation)

[Evidence</a> for Inversion Polymorphism Related to Sympatric Host Race Formation in the Apple Maggot Fly, Rhagoletis pomonella – Feder et al. 163 (3): 939 – Genetics](<a href=“http://www.genetics.org/cgi/content/full/163/3/939]Evidence”>http://www.genetics.org/cgi/content/full/163/3/939)

[SYMPATRIC</a> SPECIATION IN PHYTOPHAGOUS INSECTS: Moving Beyond Controversy? - Annual Review of Entomology, 47(1):773 - Abstract](<a href=“http://arjournals.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146%2Fannurev.ento.47.091201.145312]SYMPATRIC”>http://arjournals.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146%2Fannurev.ento.47.091201.145312)

[SpringerLink</a> - Journal Article](<a href=“http://www.springerlink.com/content/p1716r36n2164855/?p=d8018d5a59294c2984f253b7152445b7&pi=20]SpringerLink”>http://www.springerlink.com/content/p1716r36n2164855/?p=d8018d5a59294c2984f253b7152445b7&pi=20)

[London</a> underground source of new insect forms](<a href=“http://www.gene.ch/gentech/1998/Jul-Sep/msg00188.html]London”>http://www.gene.ch/gentech/1998/Jul-Sep/msg00188.html)

[Insect</a> From the Underground | Natural History | Find Articles at BNET](<a href=“http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1134/is_1_110/ai_70770157/]Insect”>http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1134/is_1_110/ai_70770157/)

Then, of course, there is the evidence from biogeography, which provides an apprehension regarding the patterns of speciation and common descent by continent. Separation of the continents from a once landlocked supercontinent of Pangaea is supported through the geological similarities in corresponding coasts (e.g. the eastern coast of South America and the west coast of Africa) the diversity in biological organisms created through allopatric speciation via the adaptation to distinct geographical environments or ecological niches, and through current detectable patterns in plate tectonics (present-day continental drift).

[Continental</a> Drift and Evolution](<a href=“http://biology.clc.uc.edu/courses/bio303/contdrift.htm]Continental”>http://biology.clc.uc.edu/courses/bio303/contdrift.htm)

Indeed, there are several sources of variation in a population, which subsequently betters the capacity for evolutionary modifications:

Sexual reproduction provides a profound source of diversification due to the rejiggering and rearrangement of alleles during meiosis (the production of gamete cells) and fertilization. Crossing-over is the interchange of homologous chromosomes during meiosis I that combines genetic material inherited from both parents. The process of random fertilization results in tremendous diversity among progeny. The independent assortment of chromosomes effects the recombination of disconnected genes.

Geographic diversity produces genetic variation through allopatric speciation. Organisms in similar environments despite separate phylogenetic backgrounds will inevitably undergo convergent evolution with similar phenotypic characteristics.

Balanced polymorphism denotes the presence of selectional influence through the genetic conservation of multiple alleles in a population at frequencies higher than that of gene mutation. This is particularly true when heterozygotic conditions are selectionally advantageous over the homozygotic state. For instance, those heterozygous for sickle cell anemia (Ss) have a distinct selection benefit. Those with a combination have typical hemoglobin and are not impaired with sickle cell anemia, yet are resistant to malaria, an endemic disease in west Africa. However, those homozygous (ss) for the condition are afflicted with sickle cell disease and possess aberrant hemoglobin. Those homozygous (SS) for normal hemoglobin are exempted from the indisposition of sickle cell anemia but are left vulnerable to malaria. Hence, the mutation for sickle cell anemia persists.

The condition of polyploidy, or diploidy (the 2n condition) in particular, maintains a consistent stock of alleles housed within homologous chromosomes maintain genetic variation.

Beyond natural selection and reproductive isolation, evolution has various causative agents. The founder effect occurs when a small population branches from a larger one and may not be genetically representative of original population. The Amish and Ashkenazi Jews serve as common examples. The bottleneck effect references a population that is reduced unselectively, as by natural disaster, producing a smaller, non-prototypical population. Nonrandom mating eliminates those of a lesser reproductive fitness. Gene flow redistributes allelic frequencies. And lastly, mutations provide for the raw derivation of evolutionary change. A single point mutation may insert a new allele into a population, but the cumulative effects of mutation are quite profound.

To finish, I would like to touch upon the conditions that are required to not induce evolution into a population, which is condensed quite cleanly and intelligibly into the Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium. The foundational basis for biological life not undergoing evolution can be expounded by placing organisms within the context of population. If a population lacks allelic fluctuation (and hence is absent of evolutionary demands), the following must be true:

[ul][]The population must be isolated from other populations
[]The population must be exceptionally large (technically, infinitely large)
[]Mating must be completely random
[]Mutations must be absent
[li]Natural selection must not exist[/ul][/li]
Clearly, contravening the above five factors is inevitable. Hence, evolution is a biologically predetermined process.

Due to the above justification, it is obligatory that you irretrievably dispose of your former misconceptions. And frankly, it makes many of your ill-conceived beliefs very untenable indeed.

ChemE14 · June 14, 2010, 3:51am

That may possibly be the longest post on CC.

Science-Religion. Which wins?

CONNECT WITH US