Keith Devens .com

I agree that many of the difficulties in evolution are glossed over and it is often presented as much more fully understood and than is actually the case.

Many of the difficulties people have with evolution are because they do not find it easy to imagine how the proposed mechanisms could account for what the witness in their own experiences of nature. How could a process so simple possible give the appearance of such complex design?

Anyone who denies this is difficult to comprehend has not thought very deeply about the level of complexity in living organisms.

My answer would be that we find it difficult to make this imaginative leap because we are simply not used to imagining processes running over the absolutely enormous time periods involved. This is a failure of our imaginations not of the theories.

Having said that, I do feel that there is still much to be learnt and many surprises in store. The sheer power that is revealed by simple dynamical systems such as John Conway’s 'Life' give some idea of the counter-intuitive ability of quite mechanical processes to be self-organizing.

I am guessing that natural selection will proof to be active at quite a low level of organization and many more 'intelligent' processes will have bootstrapped off of natural selection. t the other end of the process we have gaps in how the machinery of DNA itself came into place and many layers of explanation are still missing here.

So, unless we are prepared to hide behind theistic or mystical 'explanations'*, evolution undoubtedly does occur and natural selection is likely to be an important part of the jigsaw. There is still much to be learnt and the over-simplistic and prematurely certain picture of our current knowledge that is often painted in popular science and the mass media does no favours to either the scientific process or nature itself.

* I don’t intend this to be a simple hand-waving dismissal of non-scientific modes of understanding. I just mean that if we are discussing the merits of a scientific theory then it is appropriate to use a fairly rigorous definition of ‘explanation’

Hi buddy,

I do understand your point, but I dispute that belief in evolution is a religious belief.

First of all, I do see the problem/question of how the original organisms came to be (how could I not you've been loudly and actively questioning that since we were in high school). I do see that as a serious unanswered question, but it is one for which scientist are actively pursuing an answer.

I do not "believe" in evolution, but rather think it is a theory based on evidence that explains certain processes that took place after the point of single-celled organisms. Should further evidence present itself and the theory is changed, I would have no problem accepting the new version assuming I understand it to be a logical one. I would not be dependent on a religious body authorizing that change. Nor do I believe that the theory of evolution proves or negates a liberal creationist theory. I do not even find the Genesis version of the creation of the world, then plants, then animals, and finally humans to be substatially different from the scientist version except in the details.

Ericka, you have seriously misunderstood me if you think I was saying that belief in evolution was a religious belief!

If I could sum up my point of view then I would say the following...

I expect something rather like natural selection will prove to be an important factor in a future theory of evolution.

I beleive in that evolution of some form or other is the primary (probably the only) 'designer' of natural living organisms (I would define evolution in this context as a generator of complexity that IS NOT directed by some external intelligence).

It is the 'blind watchmaker' role that natural selection is expected to fill. However natural selection based on random mutation is not the only game in town. Sexual selection (changes in species due to mating behaviour and choices) although kick-started by natural selection, actually produces more genetic change more quickly than natural selection could on it's own.

I get the feeling that we will discover further 'tricks' such as sexual selection that natural selection has generated but which can improve the efficiency of genetic change in ways that simple natural selection could not.

(For those familiar with the terms that I have nicked from Daniel Dennett's great book on Darwin, I believe in Hooks nto Skycranes...)

Ooops. I just realsied that Ericka was replying to Keith and not to me!

Thats what comes of being too fond of the sound of your own voice... ;-)

Oops I'll reply when finals craziness is over, either tonight or Wednesday. Not familiar with Daniel Dennett's book, unfortunately.

In my life I've never heard any proof offered for macro evolution, and lots of counter examples I've never heard anybody even try to explain -- for instance, how could multi-cellular organisms evolve from single-cellular organisms, and how could sexual reproduction have evolved?

Dude, radiation does some funky stuff to matter. You say you've never heard anyone even try to explain how or why some sort of 'mechanism' could bring about this inexplicable 'initial change'--well, I might be wrong, but, for sake of argument, I'll offer my take on the matter. How does this theory hit you? In 'the beginning', some sort of radioactive material/substance acted as the catalyst for change in single-celled organisms. When the single celled organisms came in contact with the radioactive material/magnetically resolved molecular beam/distribution of energy emitted by a radiant source, is it not possible that that interaction could have been the catalyst for change--chemical structures could have changed, organisms could have taken on new characteristics that caused them to survive in environments that would have previously been uninhabitable and vice versa... etc., etc., etc. And, from that point forward, from that first moment of change, different organims thrived in environments where others would not... blah, blah, blah... microevolution. ???

ideoplastos - no-one doubts that radiation causes mutations but these are mutations in the sense that firing a cannonball at a house 'mutates' the house. It doesn't turn the house into a 21st centuary super-apartment.

The tricky bit that any theory of evolution has to do is explain how something as destructive as radiation could ever play a part in creating something as complex and task-orientated as an eye, a brain or heck, even a protein...

Nice Andy, I couldn't possibly have put it better myself.

Aaah, I have 6 hours of testing tomorrow.

As apposed to an all powerful being saying "abracadabra" .

AndyB -

Radiation can take simple compounds and catalyze the formation more complex compounds. Please see - "Production of Amino Acids under Possible Primitive Earth Conditions" published in Science, Vol. 117 (1953), pg. 528. A simple explanation may be found here - http://www.angelfire.com/on2/daviddarling/MillerUreyexp.htm

In this case, radiation (in the form of electrical discharge) was the catalyst for the formation of amino acids out of a mixture of methane, ammonia, hydrogen, and water vapor.

Essentially, your house was turned into a super-apartment by a cannon ball.

The world acts very differently on the molecular/atomic level...

Right on, Dan! What I don't understand is that Keith is looking for some sort of scenario in which some sort of 'intial change' took place--I offered such a scenario--but, when offered he seemed to jump on me (on the phone earlier), claiming that my theory won't explain why some sort of robin/bird/whatever has an awkward beak that loops around the inside of its skull and out onto its face (seemingly useless/why would it slowly grow into such a thing/what evolutionary purpose did it serve each step along the way/why did that characteristic stick-type argument). I admit my theory won't explain why the robin has the funky beak, but, it is, in the least, a potential explaination of how the 'original change' (per organism) may have taken place, is it not? These sorts of arguments have always seemed incommensurable to me--creationists are always asking questions that the evolutionists try to answer, and the creationists feel that the evolutionists aren't answering their questions... and vice versa. Sigh on my end too, Keith. And to clarify what I said before, in case Keith didn't pay attention to that part of the post, I think it's entirely possible that after that initial change/mutation, organisms took on new characteristics and could survive in new environments that they wouldn't have been able to survive in before, and vice versa (micro-evo).

After seeing the Miller/Urey (circa 1953!) experiment being brought up in this discussion as an example of amino acid formation (by chance alone) I thought I should point out several reasons why this experiment doesn't prove what Dan thought it did. Miller and Urey used an environment of water, ammonia, methane, and hydrogen, through which they passed electrical sparks. What is completely missing from this experiment is Oxygen! Oxygen was SPECIFICALLY left out since they knew it would immediately oxidize the amino acids being formed. In addition, at the bottom of the tank was a "trap" which separated out ANY molecules that were formed by the reaction. This was done to prevent any formed molecules from being DESTROYED by the subsequent electrical charges. In an Encyclopedia Brittanica article titled, "Atmosphere: Photochemical Reactions" we find that modern findings "pose great difficulties" for spontaneous generation theories posed by the likes of Miller and Urey. The article goes on to state, "…due to a rapid and efficient photochemical consumption of CH4 and NH3, a methane-ammonia atmosphere would have a maximum lifetime of about 1,000,000 years. This finding is of interest because it has been suggested that life originated from mixtures of organic compounds synthesized by non-biological reactions starting from methane and ammonia. Recognition of the short atmospheric lifetimes of these materials poses grave difficulties for such a theory."
In closing I'll simply quote Dr. Robert Shapiro (Professor of Chemistry at NYU, and an ardent evolutionist), "Let us sum up. The experiment performed by Miller yielded tar as its most abundant product. There are about fifty small organic compounds that are called ‘building blocks.’ Only two of these fifty occurred among the PREFERENTIAL (capitalizing mine, Sean) Miller-Urey products." (Robert Shapiro "Origins-A Skeptics Guide to the Creation of Life on Earth, 1986, pg. 105)
You might also find this link of interest. It lists 100 top scientists and professors at various universities who "Dissent from Darwinism"

http://www.arn.org/docs2/news/100scientists0929.htm
"There is scientific dissent from Darwinism, and it deserves to be heard"

Sean -

The Miller/Urey experiment shows a path where radiation does cause simple, inorganic compounds to re-form into complex organic compounds.

This particular experiment does not create life, nor does it produce particularly useful compounds, nor did it replicate the early atmosphere.

It does show that radiation can cause an increase in molecular complexity, and not act as a purely destructive force.

It also shows that under very simple conditions, organic materials are readily formed from inorganic. (note that while the Miller/Urey experiment only created 2 amino acids, similar experiments done later have reproduced all aminos necessary for life)

Also - yes the experiment did produce tar. Tar is made up of hydrocarbons, which are rather complex organic compounds - please see http://www.nyu.edu/pages/mathmol/library/hydrocarbons/

Does everyone posting here know Keith? I'm interested in putting faces with these different points of view. Very interesting conversation, even if I am a little biased on behalf of the evolution kids.

Finally! I'm basically free from finals and I can spend some time on this... I'll go in reverse chronological order.

To anonymous: thanks for the bibliography, but you've added nil to the conversation (and you make me have to scroll a lot). Frankly, it's insulting that you would take the lazy way out and simply post references instead of going through the effort to add to the dialogue yourself. You should have just posted a link to http://www.natcenscied.org/icons/references.html rather than copying and pasting the whole page and wasting space. Your post has been deleted. Just to be fair, here's a rebuttal from Dr. Wells.

Re: the chemical compounds discussion: To me, it's funny that experiments like this are important to evolutionists. The fact that we can create more complex chemicals if we shock some chemicals in a carefully concocted cocktail representing what we think the "early earth" was like (based only on evolutionary assumptions in the first place!) to me does not by itself seem that significant for evolution. A simple amino acid is a long way from anything approaching the smallest unit of life we know, the cell. To me, believing that a bunch of chemicals randomly got together to form something as complex as a cell, that a bunch of inanimate material somehow turned into a living creature that had the ability to reproduce itself (have you any idea how complex mitosis really is? ), is much harder for me to believe than that an intelligent creator designed the complex things we see around us.

Also, when AndyB said that the mutations are "mutations in the sense that firing a cannonball at a house 'mutates' the house", I don't think he was referring to simple chemical compounds, but rather complex structures like a living creature. We know that mutations never add more information (new structures, etc.) to a living creature, but are almost all the time destructive. In fact, I think one of the strongest points against evolution is that a mutation that has added information to an organism has never been observed. That's something that would have had to occur billions of times over millions of years, but we have no evidence that it's possible. In fact, information theory dictates that random insertions, deletions, exchanges, etc. of data cannot add information. So science actually tells us that the premise behind evolution is faulty. As a computer programmer this strikes home with me, because I know that if I take a program and flip a few bits around it probably won't run (or at least that part of the program won't run), and I certainly wouldn't wind up with a new feature. That's why we need human intelligence to create programs.

What I don't understand is that Keith is looking for some sort of scenario in which some sort of 'intial change' took place--I offered such a scenario--but, when offered he seemed to jump on me (on the phone earlier), claiming that my theory won't explain why some sort of robin/bird/whatever has an awkward beak that loops around the inside of its skull and out onto its face (seemingly useless/why would it slowly grow into such a thing/what evolutionary purpose did it serve each step along the way/why did that characteristic stick-type argument). I admit my theory won't explain why the robin has the funky beak, but, it is, in the least, a potential explaination of how the 'original change' (per organism) may have taken place, is it not?

ideoplastos, when I brought up the woodpecker's tongue, which wraps around its skull going through its nose along the way (it's really funky), my point was to illustrate that evolutionary theory dictates that the animal had to be viable at each step of its evolution. In other words, it had to have evolved piecemeal. By asking for an explanation, I'm asking for an explanation of why the woodpecker and other animals would have evolved strange features like this when I can't understand what series of steps could have occurred that would have been beneficial to the animal at each stage. The point, like I explained to you over the phone, is that you didn't say anything beyond "mutation happens and causes evolution", which is just the core principle behind macro evolution.

Moreover, it's not just that "oops, there's a mutation", and suddenly you go from a single-cellular organism to a multi-cellular organism. Multi and single cellular organisms are fundamentally different from each other, i.e. a multi-cellular organism isn't just a bunch of single-cellular organisms "stuck together". Similarly, sexual reproduction is fundamentally different from asexual reproduction, and there's no middle transitional stage I'm aware of. An organism has to be viable at each stage of its evolution -- what I've never seen, among other things, is an explanation of how these things could have evolved piecemeal.

Here's what it comes down to. One of my recurring themes is that macro evolution is simply not a scientific doctrine. It's never been observed, it's not testable in a lab, you can't form predictions based on it, etc. In short, it's completely outside the realm of the scientific method. It's simply a "theory of origins" based on your observations about the world. However, we each interpret the world differently based on our underlying presuppositions.

You look at the world and see similarities in nature and determine that we all must have come from the same goop. I look at the world and see the hand of one Creator. Both positions are arbitrary in the sense that we make that determination not just in light of the "evidence", but because of our underlying presuppositions about reality.

Dan,
The Miller/Urey experiment did show that simple amino acids can be formed in STRICTLY controlled (and specifically chosen) environments AND by removing the products immediately after creation (otherwise they are subsequently destroyed). I also pointed out that Oxygen was conveniently left out of the equation since it would have caused the atoms and molecules to bind with the oxygen atoms rather than the hydrogen ones (thus NO synthesis of amino acids!) You then go on by obfuscating the issue in an attempt to imply (assert?) that the resultant "tar" was good and not harmful to the production of amino acids.
Here are the exact figures for the experiment.
Tar 85%
Carboxylic Acid 13%
Glycine (one of the simple amino acids) 1.05%
Alanine (the other one) .85%
Glutamic acid, Valine, Leucine, Aspartic Acid, Serine, Proline, and Treonine (only trace amounts were produced)
Now, if it weren't the case the Oxygen prevents the formation of amino acids you would still have the problem that BOTH tar AND carboxylic acid ARE dangerous to proteins.
There is also the problem of UV rays (radiation, which you claim as a friend to this experiment) destroys both Ammonia (which was a NECESSARY component) and the amino acids which would have been formed (ozone, a form of oxygen) is what blocks out the UV rays from the Sun, yet Oxygen was precluded from this experiment. I could go on and on, but I'm sure you get the point.

Nature 420, 810 - 812 (2002); doi:10.1038/nature01151

Macroevolution simulated with autonomously replicating computer programs

GABRIEL YEDID AND GRAHAM BELL

Biology Department, McGill University,
The Center for Microbial Ecology, Michigan State University

The process of adaptation occurs on two timescales. In the short term, natural selection merely sorts the variation already present in a population, whereas in the longer term genotypes quite different from any that were initially present evolve through the cumulation of new mutations. The first process is described by the mathematical theory of population genetics. However, this theory begins by defining a fixed set of genotypes and cannot provide a satisfactory analysis of the second process because it does not permit any genuinely new type to arise. The evolutionary outcome of selection acting on novel variation arising over long periods is therefore difficult to predict. The classical problem of this kind is whether 'replaying the tape of life' would invariably lead to the familiar organisms of the modern biota. Here we study the long-term behaviour of populations of autonomously replicating computer programs and find that the same type, introduced into the same simple environment, evolves on any given occasion along a unique trajectory towards one of many well-adapted end points.

Keith:

>We know that mutations never add more information (new structures, etc.) to a living creature, but are almost all the time destructive.<<

"Almost" being the operative word. New species develop over very long timescales. It only takes one helpful mutation to produce a change in morphology.

>In fact, I think one of the strongest points against evolution is that a mutation that has added information to an organism has never been observed.<<

On the contrary, this has been observed thousands of times in bacteria and viruses (the easiest lifeforms to study because they evolve most rapidly).

A few other points:

Information theory is irrelevant to evolutionary theory. There are many mechanisms which can add information to an organism that IT does not address. For instance, gametes sometimes contain a duplicate chromosome. An organism generated by two such gametes would have a chromosome which originally would duplicate the function of another, but which would be free to mutate separately from the original. Hence an increase of information.

We deduce that something like this has happened by observing that some very similar creatures have different numbers of chromosomes.

On the difference between multi-cellular and single-celled organisms:

Some of the simplest multi-cellular organisms ARE a bunch of single-celled organisms stuck together--working for their own benefit as a colony. Sponges are one example. Stromatolites (cooperative colonies of cyanobacteria) are another.

Moreover, multi-cellular organisms in which cells differentiate to perform specific functions only had to appear once. Since they've been around for only 600 million years, it apparently took 3.4 billion years of evolution to occur. Improbable? Of course. But impossible? Not at all.

On transitional forms:

Perhaps you are unaware of the number of transitional fossils that have been found. In the latest issue of Scientific American there is an article about a newly discovered hominid which lived about 7 million years ago. The article compares its skull with those of chimpanzees and other known hominid forms, demonstrating the gradual change in the protrusion of the face and the size of canine teeth. It also compares features of the femur (upper leg bone) of these creatures, showing how the gradual changes in shape illustrate the gradual development of bipedalism.

Perhaps you have heard about eye development. The eye is certainly one of the most complex organs in modern animals and is widely cited as an example of "irreducible complexity." Yet Darwin himself discussed how eyes could develop gradually from light-sensitive patches of skin. And in fact there are animals existing today which illustrate every stage of development that he mentioned.

Then there's the question of "intelligent" design. If an all-knowing creator designed the human eye, why are the blood vessels located in front of the retina, causing the well-known "blind spot?" One supposes that such a creator, having already created squid eyes that do not suffer from this difficulty, must have lost his notes.

Sean,

Oxygen was left out of the Miller-Urey experiment (and many subsequent ones performed by Carl Sagan) because oxygen cannot exist in equilibrium in an environment containing compounds with which it readily combines--meaning nearly everything. Oxygen can only exist if it is continually being produced at a rate much greater than the rate of oxidation. In other words, it is a product (and indicator) of life.

In addition to Miller-Urey et. al., other sources of organic compounds were available 4 billion years ago. It is now known that comets contain a significant amount of organic matter, synthesized over a long period of time in space. Comets were much more numerous in the vicinity of Earth at that time and could have "seeded" the surface of the planet.

But let's be clear about one point. Biological Evolution has nothing to say about the origin of life. That's quite a different question, and one which does not rule out supernatural or even extraterrestrial intervention in Earth's early history.

What we do know is that life did not take long to arrive after the surface of the Earth cooled. Only 500 million years or so by the best estimates. In any case, there is fossil evidence of life 3.5 billion years old.

Reading through I am beginning to feel like I have ended up on the anti-evolutionary side of this arguament somehow!

I am prepared to accuse evolutionary biology of sweeping a lot of difficulties under the carpet but this is not actually a bad way to kick-start a complex science.

There is a long way to go and much of the mechanism by which the universe turns random mutation into eyes and brains has yet to be even imagined and will call into play areas of science that are as yet in their infancy.

What, in my view, will NOT be require to flesh out these theories is any kind of deity or alien race with a master plan or innate universal intelligent 'force' that directs evolution. Solutions such as these simply raise more questions than they answer.

Tim,
You seem to have more knowledge on some of these issues that some of the other posters, therefore your input is appreciated. I need to point out that you seem to have misuderstood Keith's assertion that no random mutation has been shown to increase the information content of the genome. This is a fact, there has never been a random mutation (observed) that has actually increased complexity (specificity), and this IN SPITE of all the experiments (such as those with e. coli,fruitflies, etc.) where they have bombarded them will everything from chemicals to radiation. Keith stated, correctly, that MOST but not all mutations are detrimental to the organism. However, the fact that some mutations are beneficial was assumed by you to be an indication that those "beneficial" mutations actually ADDED information to the genome. The fact is, they never have been shown to do so. Rather, all known "beneficial" mutations have lost information rather than gained it. A good example of this is some forms of bacterial resistance (which can occur for a variety of reasons). Some bacterial resistance is due to a random mutation that imparts an advantage to the organism, but does so by LOSING information. An frequent example of such a loss is one in which the pumping mechanism that controls influx of fluids into the cell is damaged by a mutation. This causes LESS antibiotic to enter the individual bacterium which imparts an advantage over its counterparts whose pump allows MORE antibiotic to enter. In this instance we have a unique situation where due to environmental influences (the presence of an antiobiotic) a bacterium that would NORMALLY have LESS of an advantage of survival actually has MORE due to its defective pump!
One of the main scientists that has studied mutations and their effects is Dr. Lee Spetner, Ph.D Biophysics MIT. Check out his debate with Dr. Edward Max on the subject of mutations, in which he shows (as elsewhere) that no known mutation has increased the information content of the genome.
http://trueorigins.org/spetner1.asp
http://www.trueorigin.org/spetner2.asp
(On a side note, I have gotten Dr. Spetner to agree to debate Dr. Richard Dawkins of Oxford on this very subject, but for at least the past year and a half Dawkins refuses)

At the bottom of your post you made reference to the age of certain fossils which is really irrelevant to the discussion of evolution. How LONG life has been around is no proof of whether life has INCREASED in complexity due to purely natural laws (i.e., random mutations acted upon by natural selection). I would also point out that the "fossils" you are referring to are not fossils, but are rather trace elements (mostly of certain metals, etc.) that are assumed to be the result of biological organisms. However, this assumption is hotly debated amongst evolutionists with several maintaining that the "fossils" are naturally occurring non-living things (such as hot underground hot springs). See the following link for more details on this.
http://www.academicpress.com/inscight/03072002/graphb.htm

With regards to your assertions about multi and single celled organisms I would merely state that you seemed to have equivocated on the terms when referring to sponges, etc. as "simple" "multi-cellular" organisms that "work in colonies".

Tim,
Another quick note (for now). With reference to your assertion that oxygen is a "product of living organisms" (I'm assuming you meant plant life, as animal life exhales carbon dioxide rather than oxygen). You seemed to imply that oxygen didn't exist (at least in abundance) UNTIL living organisms came along. However, this view, that the early Earth atmosphere didn't contain free oxygen (at least in the quantities that we find today), is not held by geologists. On the contrary in the oldest of rocks we find evidence of them having been formed in the presence of an oxygen atmosphere and as I've already pointed out, this presents a huge problem for theories such as those proposed by Miller/Urey type experiments.

See the following:

Harry Clemmey and Nick Badham, "Oxygen in the Precambrian Atmosphere: An Evaluation of the Geological Evidence," Geology, Vol. 10 (March 1982), p. 141

"Smaller Planets Began with Oxidized Atmospheres," New Scientist, Vol. 87, No. 1209 (July 10, 1980), p. 112.

John Gribbin, "Carbon Dioxide, Ammonia – and Life," New Scientist, Vol. 94, No. 1305 (May 13, 1982), pp. 413-416.