Do you trust science?

[Jon]

15th February 2003 at 03:13 PM wildernesse said this in Post #1

Since creation scientists challenge the accepted scientific norms for biology and cosmology and geology, do those of you who accept creation science trust science in other instances that don't deal directly with the study of evolution or the origin of the universe?

I can't really think of a science that doesn't rest on the implications of the accepted norms, though. All that I do think of (medicine, forestry, agriculture, chemistry) either use conclusions drawn from current biological theory or support current models of the origin of the universe.

I guess what I'm trying to ask is: Why do you trust medicine/agriculture/chemistry? Do you?

--tibac

I belive any science that can be proven.

 

[nyj]

17th February 2003 at 01:27 AM wildernesse said this in Post #4 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=657920#post657920)

Modern medicine and agriculture rely on evolutionary theory to develop new medicines and study diseases and their effects.

Being in the medical business (getting my PhD in microbiology), I can tell you that the above statement is false.

Evolution is defined as the process whereby higher complexity organisms were derived from lower complexity organisms. What is studied in medicine (at least from a medicinal standpoint as it involves antiobiotics/vaccines) is not impacted upon by evolution, but rather is impacted upon the observation that an organism will attempt to adapt to it's environment (in layman jargon: survival of the fittest). Now, while many people link the two, they are seperate issues. In the laboratory it has been observed that antibiotic resistance is typically the result of a reduction in complexity (by elimination of the genes rendering the organism susceptible to the antibiotic), which directly flies in the face of evolutionary theory. In other cases, where the organism accepts genetic factors rendering it "immune", these factors are mobile elements, which when selection is absent, can readily be lost. The case for an increased complexity in this cases is dubious.

Advancements in the area of medicine are rarely, if ever, influenced by the theory of evolution.

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

I've never seen anything saying that complexity needs to increase over time in all cases, only that it will increase when environmental conditions favor it.

 

[wblastyn]

Evolution is defined as the process whereby higher complexity organisms were derived from lower complexity organisms

Evolution is defined as "the fact that the appearance of alleles in a population changes over time".

Factors that cause the frequency to change are -

Non-random mating
Migration/Immigration (Gene flow)
Mutation
Natural selection
Small population

 

[nyj]

I stated:
In the laboratory it has been observed that antibiotic resistance is typically the result of a reduction in complexity (by elimination of the genes rendering the organism susceptible to the antibiotic), which directly flies in the face of evolutionary theory.

Lucaspa replied:
1. Papers please? C'mon, if you are a Ph.D. candidate, you know how to do a literature search and find the papers that document this. Please do so. Or withdraw the claim.

NYJ response:
Fang, et.al. Selection of cefoxitin-resistant bacteroides thetaiotaomicron mutants and mechanisms involved in beta-lactam resistance. Clin. Infect. Dis. 2002 Sep 1;35(Suppl 1):S47-53

The beta-lactam antibiotics are the most widely used of all the groups of antimicrobials, but beta-lactam resistance is increasingly common among members of the Bacteroides fragilis group. Three major mechanisms are involved in beta-lactam resistance, and they act together in certain instances. In the present study, 2 resistant mutants (238m and 1186m) of Bacteroides thetaiotaomicron, obtained from clinical isolates (238 and 1186) by selection with increasing concentrations of cefoxitin, showed decreased susceptibilities to cefoxitin and other beta-lactam antibiotics. Alterations in both penicillin-binding proteins (PBPs) and outer-membrane proteins (OMPs) were observed in the mutants in comparison with their parent strains.The similar alteration in OMPs was also observed in clinical isolates. In conclusion, the beta-lactam-resistant mutants of B. thetaiotaomicron with deficiency in both PBPs and OMPs can be selected by exposure to cefoxitin, and several mechanisms are involved in the beta-lactam resistance in the strains investigated.

Would you like more? I can clutter the thread with plenty of references.

Lucaspa states:
They are not lost from the individual, but from the population. And their loss argues for increased complexity.

NYJ replies:
Argues, but does not prove, and I disagree. When a gene is lost from an organism, that function is also lost which means that organism is now at a disadvantage as compared to the wild-type population meaning quite often it must seek a new favorable environment or exist in a smaller population (if it does not mutate further to compensate).

Lucaspa states:
Such an increase requires more energy and is therefore favorable only in an environment where such energy expenditure will keep the organism alive.

NYJ replies:
I don’t know how you come to that conclusion. How does an increased expenditure in energy argue for higher complexity? If nothing about the organism changes further, and it just works harder to achieve the same growth potential as the original (which is impossible without further mutation) I don’t know how this favors your “increased complexity” argument.

Lucaspa states:
Remove the selection pressure, and individuals in the population that don't expend that energy will have a selective advantage.

NYJ replies:
If the organism that does not expend that energy have not been wiped out of course, which is the entire point. Once selective pressure has been removed, antibiotic selection as an example, the organism may very well be left in such an altered state that it is actually worse off than the original parent strain.

Lucaspa states:
You need to read the literature more. I doubt you are going to get your Ph.D. You certainly wouldn't in my department.

NYJ replies:
Looking at the citations you provided, I wouldn’t want to be in your department anyways. You cite Scientific American and Natural History as legitimate sources? Since when are these journals peer reviewed?

 

[nyj]

Just a couple quick comments (specifically about mobile genetic elements [ie: transposons and plasmids in particular])...

Today at 04:00 PM lucaspa said this in Post #37 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=671650#post671650)

Yes, I'd like more. Your claim is that in all cases it is a decrease in information.

No, I did not claim that. I said typically information is lost but I also mentioned mobile genetic elements. You misrepresent my statements.

Ah, but remember, the gene was added in the mutants. You didn't read my reply carefully. The addition was an increase in complexity, because that increased complexity came with a price tag of increased energy requirement.

Yes, but in the case of mobile genetic elements, without selection, they are more often likely lost... making any increase in complexity temporary.

 

[nyj]

Today at 06:33 PM lucaspa said this in Post #42 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=671955#post671955)

The site has this quote: "Faithful to the Magesterium"

Yes, it's my site, I am aware of this comment.

Are you aware of Gould's "Non-overlapping Magisterium"?

You mean Gould's argument that science and religion should never overlap? I could care less what an atheist has to say about how I should or should not practice my religion.

Are you aware that the Catholic Church has accepted evolution for quite a while now?

Depends on how you describe evolution. Described as a purely random process, it is condemned. Described as a grand plan, designed and controlled by God, it may be accepted by the Catholic faithful but then again, so may creationism. The Catholic Church does not officially support one view over the other.

Or are you only trying to argue the very narrow claim that evolution does not underly medicine?

Yes, I do not think that most medical advances use evolution as an underlying principle. To say that the theory of evolution has made medicine possible is a silly statement.

 

[LewisWildermuth]

Today at 04:42 PM nyj said this in Post #44 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=671979#post671979)

Depends on how you describe evolution. Described as a purely random process, it is condemned.

You know that if evolution was described as a purely random process in scientific circles it would be condemned too?

You see evolution has never been described as purely random by scientists, only creationists. And since one of the main underpinings of evolution happenes to be natural selection, it is impossilbe for it to be random.

But sadly that does not keep the misinformed from lying about it being random and giving Christianity a bad name.

 

[nyj]

Today at 06:55 PM LewisWildermuth said this in Post #45 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=672015#post672015)

You know that if evolution was described as a purely random process in scientific circles it would be condemned too?

I mean random as in not designed, perhaps I should have been more specific in my comments. Obviously environmental pressure does play a role in evolution, but I am talking more along the lines of 'we got where we are because "the timing was right" '

You see evolution has never been described as purely random by scientists, only creationists. And since one of the main underpinings of evolution happenes to be natural selection, it is impossilbe for it to be random.

True, however the Catholic Church states that if one is to hold to the theory of evolution, these natural selections were thought-out and planned by God. In particular, man was not an "accident", which atheists would contend is the case for instance. We are a product of our environment, which occured by chance... fortunately for us, it happened but that is all it was... chance. As a Catholic, to hold this is heresy because clearly God had a purpose in creating us. If He used evolution as that tool, it was obviously designed... evolution then followed a template, a framework which got us from the primordial ooze to homo sapiens.

 

[LewisWildermuth]

Today at 05:02 PM nyj said this in Post #46 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=672031#post672031)

I mean random as in not designed, perhaps I should have been more specific in my comments. Obviously environmental pressure does play a role in evolution, but I am talking more along the lines of 'we got where we are because "the timing was right" '

Then God is personaly responsible for many sadistic things we find in nature and we are at the same crossroads Christianity faced over 500 years ago. Nature does not portray a loving and kind God. Evolution was embraced by many Christians because it explains the world in a way that still allows a loving God, creationism and ID do not.

True, however the Catholic Church states that if one is to hold to the theory of evolution, these natural selections were thought-out and planned by God. In particular, man was not an "accident", which atheists would contend is the case for instance. We are a product of our environment, which occured by chance... fortunately for us, it happened but that is all it was... chance. As a Catholic, to hold this is heresy because clearly God had a purpose in creating us. If He used evolution as that tool, it was obviously designed... evolution then followed a template, a framework which got us from the primordial ooze to homo sapiens.

Well, not being a Catholic myself I could not argue your interpretation of the edicts of the Church, but I know a few Catholics that would dissagree with you.

 

[nyj]

Yesterday at 07:09 PM lucaspa said this in Post #47 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=672048#post672048)

The Pope does support one view, however.

http://www.cin.org/jp2evolu.html

"Today, almost half a century after the publication of the Encyclical, new knowledge has led to the recognition of more than one hypothesis in the theory of evolution. It is indeed remarkable that this theory has been progressively accepted by researchers, following a series of discoveries in various fields of knowledge. The convergence, neither sought nor fabricated, of the results of work that was conducted independently is in itself a significant argument in favour of this theory."

However, the Pope never says that this must accepted by all the faithful. For the record, since you keep implying I'm a creationist, for the record, I am not. Evolution is not something that the Catholic faithful must believe.

In the very article you quote, the Pope also says this:
In his Encyclical Humani generis (1950), my predecessor Pius XII had already stated that there was no opposition between evolution and the doctrine of the faith about man and his vocation, on condition that one did not lose sight of several indisputable points (cf. AAS 42 [1950], pp. 575-576).

What are those several indisputable points?

http://www.ewtn.com/library/HUMANITY/EVOLUTN.TXT
1. The question of the origin of man's *body* from pre-existing and living matter is a legitimate matter of inquiry for natural science. Catholics are free to form their own opinions, but they should do so cautiously; they should not confuse fact with conjecture, and they should respect the Church's right to define matters touching on Revelation.

2. Catholics must believe, however, that the human soul was created immediately by God. Since the soul is a spiritual substance it is not brought into being through transformation of matter, but directly by God, whence the special uniqueness of each person.

3. All men have descended from an individual, Adam, who has transmitted original sin to all mankind. Catholics may not, therefore, believe in "polygenism", the scientific hypothesis that mankind descended from a group of original humans.

In other words, man is not some cosmic accident, evolving into the human race purely by chance. If God deigned evolution to be the process by which He created man, He did so with specific intent.

I said that the medical advances in the last 50 years could not have happened unless evolution were true because they are all based on evolution.

Of course they could not have happened unless evolution were true, but I disagree that evolution had to be the underlying principle upon which they were all based. As I stated elsewhere, these results could have been reached by any other number of factors driving the research... ethical concerns being the prime example. Before Charles Darwin ever even sailed on the HMS Beagle, coal miners were using canaries to measure levels of toxic gases. Now, I will agree that the observations made by Darwin helped revolutionize medicine, but I do think we could have come to similar advances without it. Heck, some advances happen purely by chance in the first place (can you say Alexander Fleming?)

 

[nyj]

Yesterday at 07:11 PM lucaspa said this in Post #48 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=672055#post672055)

This is one reason I'm having more severe doubts about nyj being a microbiology graduate student. He should know this through his undergraduate biology courses.

Doubt all you want, makes no difference to me. Try sticking to the discussion at hand rather than resorting to gossip and ad hominem. This might fly in the face of your ego, but try it once... ok?

I'm seriously wondering whether nyj has submitted false witness in the hopes of gaining some Argument from Authority for his position. I notice that he has stopped posting scientific papers.

No... actually it was a Sunday and I needed to go out and spend some time with my girlfriend. Personal activities that do not involve the internet are allowed... right?

Now that that is settled, let me provide you with some data (see next post).

 

[nyj]

Yesterday at 06:28 PM lucaspa said this in Post #41 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=671944#post671944)

However, so far we haven't found a case where "information is lost".

The following URL ( http://www.sanger.ac.uk/Projects ) is to the Sanger Centre located in the United Kingdom. They have been involved in a large number of sequencing projects (Human Genome Project, mouse, frog, a number of parasites, bacterium and viruses).

However, I want to direct your attention to the Microbial Projects page :

http://www.sanger.ac.uk/Projects/Microbes/

In the list found on that page, I would like to point out three bacterial species...

1. Bordetella bronchiseptica (Bb)
2. Bordetella parapertussis (Bpa)
3. Bordetella pertussis (Bp)

Their respective genome sizes are 5.34, 4.77 and 4.09 MB (millions of base pairs) in size. In a recent symposium that I attended, the Sanger Centre presented their findings (Yes, I know this is not published data yet, but all the analyses can be done with the data presented on their webpage) and stated that given the similarity in G+C content, it appears that B. bronchiseptica more closely resembles the Bordetella common ancestor than either B. parapertussis and B. pertussis. Bb and Bp cause similar diseases, except in different hosts. Bb causes what is typically known as "kennel cough" (which is why most likely if you have a dog, it is vaccinated every year) a disease similar in its clinical manifestations to "whooping cough", the etiological agent of which is Bp. Typically Bb (animals) and Bp (humans) stick to their respective hosts, with only a handful of cases of "cross over". In all cases of cross over however, it should be noted that the typical manifestation of these organisms was not present. Bb has, when isolated from humans, been mostly found in instances of immunosuppression. Bp challenges to animals involve abnormally high innocculations doses (ie: would not be found in the natural environment). It is safe to say that more often than not, these organisms remain in their respective ecological niches.

Yet, in their respective niches, they cause strikingly similar diseases. However, Bp has ~1,300,000 bases pairs less DNA than Bb. If, as the Sanger Centre claims, Bb is closer to the common ancestor than Bp is (as determined by G+C content, little evidence of phage insertion into the Bb genome, etc) than Bp has evolved to survive in the human host by the loss of over a million bases of DNA.

Not convinced?

The same website also lists two other closely related genomes (Mycobacterium).

1. Mycobacterium bovis (4.4MB)
2. Mycobacterium leprae (3.27MB)

The abstract on the Science article reporting the sequence of M. leprae is as follows:

Cole, et.al. Nature 2001 Feb 22;409(6823):1007-11
Massive gene decay in the leprosy bacillus.

Leprosy, a chronic human neurological disease, results from infection with the obligate intracellular pathogen Mycobacterium leprae, a close relative of the tubercle bacillus. Mycobacterium leprae has the longest doubling time of all known bacteria and has thwarted every effort at culture in the laboratory. Comparing the 3.27-megabase (Mb) genome sequence of an armadillo-derived Indian isolate of the leprosy bacillus with that of Mycobacterium tuberculosis (4.41 Mb) provides clear explanations for these properties and reveals an extreme case of reductive evolution. Less than half of the genome contains functional genes but pseudogenes, with intact counterparts in M. tuberculosis, abound. Genome downsizing and the current mosaic arrangement appear to have resulted from extensive recombination events between dispersed repetitive sequences. Gene deletion and decay have eliminated many important metabolic activities including siderophore production, part of the oxidative and most of the microaerophilic and anaerobic respiratory chains, and numerous catabolic systems and their regulatory circuits.

Still not convinced?

In another instance, that of Ricketsia prowazekii, they report that Rp had the highest proportion of non-coding sequence in a microbial genome to date (~24% as opposed to the typical 10%). They summarize that these elements (pseudogenes) may be "neutralized genes" awaiting removal from the genome. Yet another instance of "reductive evolution".

http://www.nature.com/cgi-taf/DynaP...07/full/396133a0_fs.html&content_filetype=pdf

Andersson et.al., Nature, 396, 133-140 (12 November 1998).
The genome sequence of Rickettsia prowazekii and the origin of mitochondria

All three point to instances where information is lost.

 

[nyj]

More reductive evolution literature:

Reductive genome evolution in Buchnera aphidicola.
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2003 Jan 21;100(2):581-6.
Comparison of the 618-kb (kbp) genome with the two other Buchnera genomes revealed a nearly perfect gene-order conservation, indicating that the onset of genomic stasis coincided closely with establishment of the symbiosis with aphids, approximately 200 million years ago. Extensive genome reduction also predates the synchronous diversification of Buchnera and its host; but, at a slower rate, gene loss continues among the extant lineages.

Comparative analysis of ribosomal proteins in complete genomes: an example of reductive evolution at the domain scale.
Nucleic Acids Res. 2002 Dec 15;30(24):5382-90.
This first documented case of reductive evolution at the domain scale provides a new framework for discussing the shape of the universal tree of life and the selective forces directing the evolution of prokaryotes.

Acceleration of genomic evolution caused by enhanced mutation rate in endocellular symbionts.
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2002 Oct 1;99(20):12944-8.
Endosymbionts, which are widely observed in nature, have undergone reductive genome evolution because of their long-term intracellular lifestyle.

Studying genomes through the aeons: protein families, pseudogenes and proteome evolution.
J Mol Biol. 2002 May 17;318(5):1155-74. Review.
In particular, the genome sequences of certain pathogenic bacteria (Mycobacterium leprae, Yersinia pestis and Rickettsia prowazekii) show how an organism can undergo reductive evolution on a large scale (i.e. the dying out of families) as a result of niche change. There appears to be less pressure to delete pseudogenes in eukaryotes.

 

[JesusServant]

23rd February 2003 at 08:54 PM lucaspa said this in Post #51

Good point. Nyj, pay close attention here. If you think God guides the daily processes of evolution directly, then you have just made God responsible for all the poor designs in the human body and every other organism. 

What Pope John Paul II did was simply say that God was responsible for putting souls into hominins at sometime during evolution, just as God is responsible for putting souls into individual humans.  Otherwise evolution becomes the secondary cause God uses to get the diversity of life on the planet, like gravity is the secondary cause God uses to keep the planets in orbit.

I dunno.  I think a lot of the mutations and genetic problems are our own fault.  We were just meant to be gardeners, not nuclear scientists

And until an archeologist can show me a half breed of ANY species I have a hard time buying into any part of evolution.  I don't know if I believe the YEC theory.  I don't really care as much about how long we've been here as much as I do what we do while we're here.  Also, if we've been here for billions of years I would imagine that bones would be piled up for miles in some non-volcanic areas.  There are just too many unanswered questions IMHO to the evolution theory.

 

[JesusServant]

So, lucaspa, how do you view Genesis. I know I, for one, get more out of Genesis in the symbolic reading then in the literal. Do you view every bit of Genesis as symbolic of why man is in the state he is in today? Why, if evolution were true, did Genesis not mention that we were monkeys? Or do you think Adam was an ape that ate a fruit, which was most likely a banana? I have a hard time putting the two together.

I have said in the past that even if the theory of evolution were true it still wouldn't disprove God. But after further study, I think it would disprove the book of Genesis and then make you question everything else from there.

 

[dnich163]

23rd February 2003 at 06:01 PM lucaspa said this in Post #30

I haven't see the "counter McCarthy" theme before.  Any documentation of that? 
 

Hi lucaspa,

The film was partly made as a response to the McCarthy witch-hunts, particularly in relation to freedom of speech and thought.

Some of this is actually contained in the articles accompanying the video.

David

 

[Smilin]

18th February 2003 at 07:29 PM wblastyn said this in Post #22 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=661438#post661438)
Can you explain how evolution is used in medicine, etc

Selective Reduction....
Bacteria gain resistance to antibiotics over time...
Thus the concern with the overprescribing of antibiotics
that are the only cure for certain diseases/infections.

 

[Smilin]

19th February 2003 at 06:05 PM dnich163 said this in Post #24 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=663424#post663424)

Hello good forum friends,

This observation may be completely wide of the mark so please forgive me if I offend.
There has been a lot of discussion on creation and creationism in this forum. My understanding of these two words are that one is the term for belief in the other i.e. that creationism is the belief in the creation as recorded in Genesis.

This appears to me to be a particularly American phenomenon mainly. The belief in the literal Genesis was given up in Europe centuries ago and is not something i've come across anywhere else.

Greetings to you as well David.
I'm an American and agree with you're observation. After spending almost a year here, I've found that it is mainly Americans who prescribe to the 'literal historical reading of Genesis'. Which makes me wonder... what is the history of how this came to be???????

 

[nyj]

Today at 10:09 AM Smilin said this in Post #62 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=677274#post677274)

I'm an American and agree with you're observation. After spending almost a year here, I've found that it is mainly Americans who prescribe to the 'literal historical reading of Genesis'. Which makes me wonder... what is the history of how this came to be???????

If you had to ask me, I'd say it is due to the Christians who call themselves "Fundamentalists" here in America. They tend to favor the literal approach to Bible exegesis (though not always) and see no reason why Genesis should be seen in anything but this light. Though this might be painting with a broad brush (in a recent bible study I attended in my Catholic parish my views on the creation story [ie: not a literal account] were met with hostility) it does fit the general trend I've seen.