|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
mnhnhyouh
Joined: 21 Nov 2006
Location: The Middle Kingdom
|
 Posted: Fri Dec 22, 2006 3:21 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| Junior wrote: |
Well you all have a lot more faith than i do. You'd have to need it to believe the incredible, dazzling array of complexity that represents life on earth came about from nothing, spontaneously.
there is a mastermind behind the design of life on this planet. All by chance is a far, way more ridiculous stance than is creation. |
This does beg the question, where did this "mastermind" come from?
h |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Junior
Joined: 18 Nov 2005
Location: the eye
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 22, 2006 3:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
| mnhnhyouh wrote: |
This does beg the question, where did this "mastermind" come from?
h |
Who created your original gases and elements for your primordial soup? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ED209
Joined: 17 Oct 2006
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 22, 2006 3:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Junior wrote: |
| mnhnhyouh wrote: |
This does beg the question, where did this "mastermind" come from?
h |
Who created your original gases and elements for your primordial soup? |
You could consider that nothing was ever really created but simply changes state. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Junior
Joined: 18 Nov 2005
Location: the eye
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 23, 2006 12:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
| ED209 wrote: |
You could consider that nothing was ever really created but simply changes state. |
How did these "states" come to exist? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ED209
Joined: 17 Oct 2006
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 23, 2006 8:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Junior wrote: |
| ED209 wrote: |
You could consider that nothing was ever really created but simply changes state. |
How did these "states" come to exist? |
Brilliant question I'll read my bible and get back to you.
As in I don't know. Plenty of scientist are trying to find out by doing research if they find god I'll let you know. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
alffy
Joined: 25 Apr 2006
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 29, 2006 8:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Wow, I just came across this thread!
First off, to address the OP and some of Junior's later comments:
There is a bit of confusion regarding lactase production (the enzyme that converts lactose in milk into usable energy), it's function in humans, and it's significance regarding human evolution. In particular, all humans produce lactase from birth (it breaks down mother's milk for energy for the infant), so ALL humans (and mammals, as well) have the DNA sequencing for producing the necessary protein. What happens is that at a certain point in an individual's development his/her gene shuts off (this is quite common in genetics and may be due to a variety of reasons). After the ceasation of the production of lactase, a human can no longer digest milk.
In populations that have a long history of animal husbandry there is the possibility that a genetic mutation will cause the lactase gene to fail to shut off, therefore producing lactase throughout the individual's life (this is an advantage as it provides access to an added resource for energy-the currency of evolution). This is an advantage, and therefore increases fitness, and is likely to quickly become fixed in that population (actually, the mutation could, and probably has, occured in non-animal husbanding popultations, but as it failed to provide a fitness advantage- because they do not have have animal milk as a potential resourse- failed to become fixed).
The evidence of evolution is that the fixation of the lactase extended gene tends to correlate quiet strongly with the populational history of animal husbandry (effectively a new, or changed environment).
Damn, this is a bit long, so I won't address some of the other inaccurate points regarding DNA and genetics made (mostly by Junior). Suffice it to say, Junior, DNA is not constantly degrading (accept from a relatavistic genocentric viewpoint), and most so-called "junk DNA" is not junk, that is a bit of an anachronistic perception (it has, apparently, many functions-redundancy, binding sites for cis-, and trans-regulatory tf, various RNAs, etc.).
Anyway, check out this site for a lot of cool info regarding human evolution, genetics, and lactase persistence:
http://www.johnhawks.net/weblog/
Full disclosure: the site is by my PhD advisor, so I am a bit biased. Also, John Hawks was a student of Milford Wolpoff, the originator of the Multiregional Theory regarding human evolution, so some (or many) of you may not agree with some points made regarding archaic human evolution into moderns. But it sure is fun stuff. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Junior
Joined: 18 Nov 2005
Location: the eye
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 29, 2006 8:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| alffy wrote: |
Wow, I just came across this thread!
First off, to address the OP and some of Junior's later comments:
There is a bit of confusion regarding lactase production (the enzyme that converts lactose in milk into usable energy), it's function in humans, and it's significance regarding human evolution. In particular, all humans produce lactase from birth (it breaks down mother's milk for energy for the infant), so ALL humans (and mammals, as well) have the DNA sequencing for producing the necessary protein. What happens is that at a certain point in an individual's development his/her gene shuts off (this is quite common in genetics and may be due to a variety of reasons). After the ceasation of the production of lactase, a human can no longer digest milk.
In populations that have a long history of animal husbandry there is the possibility that a genetic mutation will cause the lactase gene to fail to shut off, therefore producing lactase throughout the individual's life (this is an advantage as it provides access to an added resource for energy-the currency of evolution). This is an advantage, and therefore increases fitness, and is likely to quickly become fixed in that population (actually, the mutation could, and probably has, occured in non-animal husbanding popultations, but as it failed to provide a fitness advantage- because they do not have have animal milk as a potential resourse- failed to become fixed).
The evidence of evolution is that the fixation of the lactase extended gene tends to correlate quiet strongly with the populational history of animal husbandry (effectively a new, or changed environment).
Damn, this is a bit long, so I won't address some of the other inaccurate points regarding DNA and genetics made (mostly by Junior). Suffice it to say, Junior, DNA is not constantly degrading (accept from a relatavistic genocentric viewpoint), and most so-called "junk DNA" is not junk, that is a bit of an anachronistic perception (it has, apparently, many functions-redundancy, binding sites for cis-, and trans-regulatory tf, various RNAs, etc.).
Anyway, check out this site for a lot of cool info regarding human evolution, genetics, and lactase persistence:
http://www.johnhawks.net/weblog/
Full disclosure: the site is by my PhD advisor, so I am a bit biased. Also, John Hawks was a student of Milford Wolpoff, the originator of the Multiregional Theory regarding human evolution, so some (or many) of you may not agree with some points made regarding archaic human evolution into moderns. But it sure is fun stuff. |
So alffy..how did all those atoms come to exist in the beginning? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ED209
Joined: 17 Oct 2006
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 29, 2006 11:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Junior wrote: |
So alffy..how did all those atoms come to exist in the beginning? |
Atoms |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jaganath69
Joined: 17 Jul 2003
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 30, 2006 12:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Junior, which theory of creationism do you subscribe to, the 'Gap' theory, the 'Day-Age' theory or the 'Young Earth' theory? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
alffy
Joined: 25 Apr 2006
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 30, 2006 1:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Junior wrote: |
So alffy..how did all those atoms come to exist in the beginning? |
Well, to be honest, this sort of question falls outside my area of study...but, then, when has that ever stopped anybody before (particularly on this site!).
Let's face it, religion is merely a system of understanding that humans have invented to help answer questions they have formed. Science is as well. In effect, both science and religion have their respective places in our culture. The problem is, while they both serve roughly the same function, they go about it in radically different methods. Trying to understand the methods of one while employing the methods of the other simply leads to confusion and misunderstanding.
Junior, I have no problem with faith or religion. I just find it rather quizzical when faith is applied to questions of science (and vice versa). Trying to explain the origins of atoms, or more relevantly, humans, through faith is a juxtaposition of one system of understanding over another.
Faith is a belief-based system of understanding while science uses the Scientific Method. Effectively, science is (now I'm waxing Popperian here) a system of knowledge based on falsifiability. Hypotheses are generated and tested (or theoretically testable, at least) with an aim toward trying to falsify, or disprove them. Only if a hypothesis is arguably falsifiable can it be considered scientific.
Faith has no such strictures regarding acceptable considerations. This does not make it wrong, or less valid, just different. Faith, by it's very nature, requires a belief in an inherently unfalsifiable concept. How does one test for the existence (or lack thereof) of God?
Conversely: how does one test for the lack of existence of God's will in the formation of the first atoms? It simply is not feasible.
Therefore your question (or rather, the implicit statement behind it) is nonsensical to me- if I were better versed in the field of study I would have little difficulty developing a hypothesis for the origins of atoms (see ED's link), that, at a minimum, was theoretically falsifiable (testable). On the other hand, I think you would be hard pressed to develop a hypothesis whereby the hand of God was verifiable (or at least non-falsifiable while being testable) in the origins of atoms.
Once again, though, I would be hard pressed to scientifically disprove to someone that believed that God created the first atoms that He had no role. But that is because I would be trying to apply the system of understanding of science on to a question of faith, a process that is doomed to end in failure and confusion.
Unfortunately, in our country (and I am assuming from your previous arguments you are indeed American), there is a tremendous move afoot to do just what you are attempting to do here- apply your system of understanding of faith to scientific questions. It just does not work.
Except as a political and polemical goal. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Manner of Speaking
Joined: 09 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 30, 2006 1:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
| alffy wrote: |
The evidence of evolution is that the fixation of the lactase extended gene tends to correlate quiet strongly with the populational history of animal husbandry (effectively a new, or changed environment).
Anyway, check out this site for a lot of cool info regarding human evolution, genetics, and lactase persistence:
http://www.johnhawks.net/weblog/
Full disclosure: the site is by my PhD advisor, so I am a bit biased. Also, John Hawks was a student of Milford Wolpoff, the originator of the Multiregional Theory regarding human evolution, so some (or many) of you may not agree with some points made regarding archaic human evolution into moderns. But it sure is fun stuff. |
alffy,
Thanks for the link, and the post, I appreciated your explanation. I think the fact that John Hawks was/is a student of Milford Wolpoff is somewhat beside the point, as Wolpoff's Multiregional Theory is still a theory based on the assumption of evolution as the mechanism of species origin and change. Would you say that my original statement at the beginning of the thread is correct? Is this study in East Africa hard evidence of observed evolution in humans? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
alffy
Joined: 25 Apr 2006
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 30, 2006 1:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Manner of Speaking wrote: |
alffy,
Thanks for the link, and the post, I appreciated your explanation. I think the fact that John Hawks was/is a student of Milford Wolpoff is somewhat beside the point, as Wolpoff's Multiregional Theory is still a theory based on the assumption of evolution as the mechanism of species origin and change. Would you say that my original statement at the beginning of the thread is correct? Is this study in East Africa hard evidence of observed evolution in humans? |
MoS, the comments about Wolpoff were just for information puposes (many in the field of paleoanthropology take exception to his ideas).
As to lactase persistence being "proof" of evolution in humans- well, let's just say it is evidence in support of, or perhaps, evidence that fails to disprove the null hypothesis of, evolution in humans. But, in effect, this is a case of evolution by Natural Selection. Evolution simply means "change," which can be brought about due to stochastic reasons such as genetic drift- the lactase evidence indicates selection working on an element of fitness.
If the underlying implication of your question, and this thread, is that evolution by natural selection is still occuring in modern humans today, the answer is unequivically yes. As a matter of fact, if you read deeply in the link I provided, and stayed tuned in the future, you will see plenty of evidence that not only is evolution by selection still occuring in humans, but it is actually accelerating at an astronomical rate. And no, this is not due to increased radiation, genetically modified foods, global warming, etc., it is due to one simple fact- population size (numbers).
Advantageous mutations occur rarely in a population, say about once in a thousand people (just for arguments sake). If there is a population of 1000, then there will be roughly 1 advantageous allele. In a population of 100,000 there will be 100. How many in 6.5 billion? There are just a lot more advantageous alleles popping up in humans today because our population is exploding. More advantageous alleles, mean more changing gene frequencies (an often used definition of evolution) due to selection. Ergo, humans are evolving rapidly today- moreso than at any time in our existence, simply because there are more humans alive today carrying more alleles, allowing for more mutations, than ever before.
Who knows were it is going...but it sure is fun to speculate. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
