Daniela’s Comments (group member since Dec 19, 2008)

Daniela’s comments from the Evolution vs. Intelligent Design group.

Hello, Aharonsmith:
How wonderful to read your comment. I couldn't agree more. It's what I've been trying to say about evolution: it is supported by true scientific experiments. I also agree about the Bible: It is not a book that should be understood literally. I don't think it tries to say that God created the world in a few days, for example. I think people should get the MEANING rather than, as you say, trying to prove how the snake spoke. Though I'm not a religious person, I acknowledge that the Bible can bring inner peace and make people behave good, which is very needed nowadays.

Just a little correction, when you say: "Genetics found that all of life is made up of only 4 different types of genes put together in combinations", I believe you wanted to say "nucleotide bases" instead of genes :)

Excellent. Thank you for sharing :D

Again, that people haven't found a fossil doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

I didn't say "hey, let's ignore cytochrome C because it's weird and doesn't show what we want to" (As, you must acknowledge, Creationists do with Precambrian fossils for example). I still don't know where you got that information from, but anyway, what I say is that each gene is a particular case, and if the majority show a tendency then the particulars are explainable by mutations, horizontal gene transfer, etc. Lots of explanations have been found, and it depends on the chosen gene.

I've already mentioned some ways to get DNA added to the genomes. Here they are again:

Gene duplication, considered the most important evolutionary force since the emergence of the universal common ancestor. It may occur as an error in homologous recombination, a retrotransposition event, or duplication of an entire chromosome. The second copy of the gene is often free from selective pressure, which means it can mutate freely (and thus may obtain a new function). Major genome duplication events are not uncommon.
A lot of plants show a phenomenon known as "paleopolyploidy". This means that they underwent a massive genome duplication somewhere in their evolutive history, and, although they lose almost all these genes given functional redundancy, others evolve into new functions and are mantained.

Transposons. Transposons are mobile DNA sequences that can "jump" between places in the genome. While doing this, they can change the amount of DNA in the genome.

Horizontal gene transfer. This happens when an organism incorporates DNA from another organism without being its offspring.

Translocation. This is a rearrangement of parts between nonhomologous chromosomes. A fusion gene may be created when the translocation joins two otherwise separated genes, and if it is unbalanced, can result in extra or missing genes.

I don't ask you to believe me. You can research on your own, and read, and question.

About Bertrand Russell, if you read what he said carefully, his hypothesis cannot be disproved because he says the teapot is too small to be detected by telescopes. With this said, how can you disprove it?

I agree about the Bible being the most printed book, I don't discuss that. I've read it myself, as I was raised as a Catholic.

It's wonderful if you want to be a biology major, it's a very rewarding field of study. I am right now finishing my B. Sc. in Genome Sciences and attempt to start a PhD on Systems Biology next year.

Finally... I just want to say that I am by no means trying to make you or any Creationist believe in evolution. You can believe whatever you want, and I respect that. The only thing I want to leave perfectly clear is that Creationism IS NOT backed up by evidence, the "scientific facts" they quote are completely flawed, as I have tried to show here. If you want to believe it, you are with your faith alone.

Thank you Michelle! I only try to be objective.
I would like to share something Bertrand Russell wrote some years ago:

"If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time."

So true.

Hello again,
That the fossils would be all scrambled up in the event of a world wide flood does mess things up for creationists, because you can't sustain your explanation otherwise. Evolution, on the other hand, relies on molecular biology (yes, molecular biology DOES support evolution, see paragraph 4), radiocarbon dating, and geological strata, among other techniques. So, this flood happening or not would not invalidate these other sources of evidence, because they are independent.

That organisms live on symbiosis by no means invalidate evolution theory. These organisms live on symbiosis in order to survive, and each clearly obtains an advantage. Your "competition" here holds, as these organisms are not "helping each other", they're advantaging on their relationship. Take for example the bacteria in your intestine. They're normally helping you out, but when your defenses get low they attack you. They're just benefiting from the symbiosis.

Now, you say "how is Earth the right distance from the Sun", "perfect gases", etc. Just look at all the other examples in which this doesn't happen, don't forget we're not the only ones in the Universe. Millions and millions of stars and planets, just not developing life because they don't have the conditions. One in billions is not that improbable. As for your points of why do you live and all those philosophical questions... these cannot be taken as evidence to demonstrate the existence of a God.

Molecular biology DOES support evolution. First, you CAN'T rely on ONE gene to draw your conclusions. Phylogenies based on A LOT of genes support evolution theory. Then, the event of a particular gene being more similar between horses and bacteria than between bacteria and yeast is possible. Mutations can happen, after the split of lineages, that made the gene more similar to bacteria again.

Speaking of this, how can you say that nothing has been shown to indicate information can be added to the genome? Please review evidence before saying things. There have been events of massive duplications of genomes in plants, transposons, horizontal gene transfer, translocations... Research what these terms mean and you'll see your evidence. LOTS of events of addition of information to genomes have been observed.

And lastly, that you don't SEE a link doesn't mean it doesn't exist. You don't SEE God, right? Why don't you question both sides equally?

Ps- I have to go from the computer now, but I'll be sure to drop by tomorrow.

Ok, let's see,
You say all I say above can be explained by a world-wide flood. So, let's follow this explanation step by step:
Let's assume there was a world-wide flood. If this is the case, then the fossil record we know would be the result of a sudden destruction of life, more than the demostration of a gradual evolution of life. Then, that would mean that the sediments fossils are buried in must have been formed all at once (in the course of less than a year), and not gradually over billions of years. Contradiction! You have said (and I quote), "I think we can agree that fossils are found in different layers in the geological column", and that is the basis for you Cambrian explosion point. This would not be true if a world wide flood had occurred, fossils would be all scrambled up. Or how am I wrong here?

Really, the Cambrian explosion does not mean "The life came out of nowhere". And there is EXACTLY where creationists are not taking into account the simple life forms, from which fossils millions of years old (Precambrian) have been found. If all life was created in the Cambrian, how can you explain these Precambrian fossils?

And about Cytochrome C, your explanation holds, but so does mine.

And about the possibility that we are wrong, of course, that always exists, a good scientist always has to acknowledge that. We just follow the evidence, which accumulates to explain a phenomenon. I do believe we will reach a good theory because this happens all the time. Just see the examples from astronomy, physics, chemistry. Hundreds of years were needed to build the rather strong knowledge we have today, and it is natural that holes are filled up as new evidence and techniques are developed. The reason I believe we are not wrong is because the evidence is accumulative, fossils, molecular biology, different phylogenetic techniques, all are building up to reach the same conclusions. The main idea behind all this, evolution, holds.

Hello all! I apologize, it's taken me time to come back too.
To the point:
It is true that the Cambrian explosion is a puzzle in the theory of evolution, and Charles Darwin himself saw it as an obstacle to his explanation. But, let's not forget that the real puzzle is why the rate of evolution accelerated by an order of magnitude in the 70 or 80 MILLION YEARS that the Cambrian period spans, which is not equal to say that all these life forms originated at the same time. Also, you should know that the Cambrian period ended about 488.3± 1.7 million of years ago... Very, very far from what Creationists mark as the origin of life (which is something like 10,000 years ago). Also, the fossils found that belong to this period are found over a wide, wide range of time as compared to the Creationist clock.
Moreover, there is evidence for Precambrian life. You correctly say, Jessica, that "Every MAJOR animal phylum was found in that layer." However, what about simple organisms? Why are these not contemplated in the Creationist view? Fossils of stromatolites (3,550 million years ago), and fossils from more complex eukaryotic cells have been found in rocks from 1,400 million years ago. I quote these facts from Cowen, R. (2002). History of Life. Blackwell Science.
For your other point... I am a geneticist, so I can say I know this subject deeply. The protein you mention, cytochrome C, is the most used protein to study and reconstruct the history of evolution. It is used because it is found in almost all organisms (again: similarity supporting a common origin) and has a slow evolutionary rate, as compared with other proteins which evolve more rapidly.
Both chickens and turkeys have identical sequence homology (amino acid for amino acid), whereas ducks possess molecules differing by one amino acid. Similarly, both humans and chimpanzees have identical molecules, while rhesus monkeys share all but one of the amino acids. Pigs, cows and sheep also share identical cytochrome c molecules. This information can be found in Linda Stone; Paul F. Lurquin; Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza. Genes, Culture, and Human Evolution: A Synthesis, Blackwell Publishing, 2007, page 79. You can even see the evolution inferred from cytochrome C analysis here: http://books.google.com/books?id=zdeW.... This evolutionary tree is in excellent agreement with the fossil record. You can see the whole tree here: http://media-2.web.britannica.com/eb-...
So, I don't know where you got your facts from, but even if they were true, they don't invalidate evolutionary theory. The reason is that the same phylogeny (or almost the same, as the evolutionary process is stochastic and selective) has been found in analyses with other sequences, such as RNA-based gene phylogeny. So, evolutionary theory is not solely based on one gene. It takes lots of genes and obtains a consensus.
For your last point, I have quoted plenty of evidence for evolution. You say that in schools evidence for creationism is not taught, what do you mean? That the Cambrian explosion is not taught? It is. What I believe is that your "evidence" for Creationism are just things we cannot (yet) explain. This is natural in science, we are always trying to find explanations that agree with all evidence, and this takes time (sometimes, a LOT of time) to achieve.
Finally, you tell me not to be close minded. I am Mexican. In Mexico, as you probably know, something like 97% or so of the population is Catholic. So yes, I was raised as a Catholic. If I were close minded, I would have stayed with that idea. I am just being objective, and staying with theory that has real support for it.

I am an evolutionist too.

Just some definitions before answering Jessica's question:
The half life of an isotope is defined as the amount of time it takes for half of the substance to decay, and this amount of time can vary from a few milliseconds to millions of years. Radioactive decay is the process where the nucleus of an atom changes into another type of nucleus and produces a particle at the same time.
There are radioactive atoms and stable atoms. Examples of stable atoms are Carbon-12 and Carbon-13, and an example of a radiactive atom is Carbon-14. Radioactive atoms have unstable nuclei, which means they have an unsteady arrangement of protons and neutrons. So, in order to become steady, they release a particle and become a different (and stable) atom. So you might be thinking that these radioactive atoms should have disappeared from Earth long ago. You're right, were it not for the cosmic rays that enter the atmosphere every day and create new Carbon-14 atoms from Nitrogen-14 atoms.
Now, to answer Jessica's question:
The half-life of an isotope was first discovered by Ernest Rutherford, who worked with thorium. He measured the electrical current between two charged plates (Radioactive substances ionize the air, inducing currents that would be absent otherwise), and reported the relative strength of the current over time. He showed how thorium decayed at a fixed rate over time into a series of other elements (Like uranium and radium). So, you can know the half-life of an isotope if you know how much of the substance you have at the beginning of the experiment and you measure the time it takes for half of the substance to decay into another isotope.
Given this explanation, it is easy to see how Carbon-14 dating method works. Quoting HowStuffWorks (I couldn't explain it better myself :P), living things have a constant amount of Carbon-14 atoms in their bodies. For a nice drawing of how the Carbon-14 enters the organism, you can look here: http://science.howstuffworks.com/carb.... The reason why this amount is constant is the ratio between Carbon-12 and Carbon-14 in all living things: it is nearly constant at any given time. Carbon-14 atoms are always decaying, but are being replaced by new Carbon-14 atoms at a constant rate.
When an organism dies, it stops taking in new carbon. So, the carbon-14 will continue to decay but won't be replaced anymore with new carbon-14. That is the logical argument behind this technique: You compare the ratio between carbon-12 and carbon-14 in living things to that one you've found in your fossils. For specific equations, you can look here: http://science.howstuffworks.com/carb....
These are educational sites (which I find rather helpful), but for the real scientific article behind the discovery of half life you can refer to Ernest Rutherford, "A Radioactive Substance emitted from Thorium Compounds," Philosophical Magazine 49, 1-14 (1900).

I hope this answers the question... although rather lengthy explanation :P

Hello everybody! I introduce myself, my name is Daniela and I am an evolutionist, so Courtney won't be alone anymore :)
Now, I believe Courtney has done an amazing job answering all your questions, I don't know if I'll be able to, but I'll do my best. It's late night here in Mexico (2:37 am) so I'll just reply to some of the facts Ronan quotes (the ones I know more about, the others get me curious but I'll research on them tomorrow or when I can :)).

Sure, if one reads all those facts, it sounds like our theories have severe contradictions. However, the ones I know about are wrong:
1. The calculations on moon dust. Courtney has already mentioned it was an overestimation, and it is known why. Apparently, the person who published the equations made a wrong assumption (that all the nickel he collected was meteoritic in origin) and thus his results were a gross overestimation. Actually, the rate of dust accumulation after IN SPACE measurements were made now is much, much lower. So now there are no contradictions with the Earth being millions of years old. For more information you can see this: http://www.usd.edu/esci/age/content/c...

2. My area of expertise... I am a geneticist. And no... that is completely wrong. Not all observed mutations have been detrimental to the organism. I have found a webpage with only a few of the lots of examples of beneficial mutations, however it is quite illustrative (it is a collection of scientific papers, so you can verify this is not made up and can reproduce the experiments whenever you want to). http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoMutation...

3. I don't know anything of sediment accumulation in oceans! :P But I'll research journals to find answers :)

4. This is not true. What is true is that Carbon-14 has an AVERAGE HALF-LIFE of 5,700 years, but this is not equal to saying the method is accurate only to 5,700 years. In fact, this method is accurate for dating to 60,000 years, and other isotopes (such as potassium-40) have half-lives of 1.3 million years. There are scientific articles for what I am saying, so I am curious about the author's sources for saying such things. For more information you can see http://science.howstuffworks.com/carb..., and I myself can explain this more precisely if it is required. Just tell me :).

5. Another thing I know nothing about! Homework for me.

6. Again with Carbon-14 dating methods. As I've already mentioned, if carbon-14 dating said 28,000 and 34,000 years old... nothing wrong then.

And I know nothing of the other subjects. I'll post more when I know more. So Ronan, here you have an evolutionist's point of view :)

For Jessica: Your questions are solved above. Evolutionists are not hanging on to flawed evidence. Don't believe everything you read without looking at reliable sources which will allow you to reproduce the experiment and draw your own conclusions. Scientific articles do such things. They tell you exactly how the experiment was done and why they arrived to their conclusions, so you can question everything. I can give you the scientific research articles for each of my statements before.

For Ashleigh: Chromosomes can be lost or gained, just look at individuals with Down syndrome (Trisomy 21, one more chromosome than normal people). Besides, because monkeys have now 48 chromosomes doesn't mean they've always had 48 chromosomes. Man and monkeys could have split lineages when the common ancestor had 48 or 46 chromosomes, then one of the species lost or gained one pair. This is just a made up explanation, I don't know how it is hypothesized they evolved. I'm only giving a plausible explanation of why it is possible.

I will look for information regarding the dinosaurs/man coexistence, as my knowledge is very limited here.

I hope this helps! :)

Thanks for the welcome Courtney :)

We don't know where the fossils come from. Neither do you, because you were not there. All we think is based in theories.
I know how the scientists can tell the age of a fossil, one of the most widely used such methods is radiocarbon dating, and no, it does not prove detrimental to evolution. In fact, it strengthens it, and if you don't believe me you can take a look at this news:
http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/...
This is not an official report, the original can be found at Nature, which is one of the most important journals in science. The beauty of this is that you can actually see the fossils and question the dating methods, and you will get straight answers. So yes, the fossils strengthen evolution theory. And you still haven't answered my question, why did the Creator put the fossils there if everything was created so perfectly?
Now, for your understanding of evolution: Indeed, evolution can be understood as change as you say it. However, if you let these changes to occur for a long, long time (millions of years), you will get different species. This means they cannot mate anymore. Evidence points to the fact that yes, we all evolved from a single simple living form. All organisms studied so far use the same genetic code, use the same proteins and the same chemical reactions to make up the same compounds. Minor differences arise as a result of adaptations to their surroundings, or change as you understand it. Moreover, there are bacteria who have the simplest genomes; then yeast, the simplest eukaryote; worms; mice; you can follow these species' genomes and look how they all (from bacteria to man) have got a common set of genes and biochemical reactions, but also an increasing complexity with genome size and other functions. These are proved facts and you cannot discard them, because you can look at them whenever you want.
Now, I still believe you don't question anything in the Bible (or your holy book). So you don't believe the increasing amount ef evidence, but accept Bible just as it is? How can evolution appear rather dumb? Tell me. Evolution is the logical conclusion of the things we see.
So, I have another question for you: Which is this evidence you say God left? And please, answer my questions here, as I am doing.

Hello, all:
First of all, I am an evolutionist. So, first my answers to those questions posed here:
The proof we evolve from the monkeys.. The most important one I believe are the fossils which you can see in a lot of museums (like Natural History at NY). There are fossils which show human characteristics, but are smaller than our present-day selves (thus linking us to monkeys.. or what, did the Creator just failed the first time to design us? - Explain the fossils, creationists). Besides, evolution has strong evidence supporting it (The origin of species by Darwin). What he did is observe a group of finches at Galápagos Islands and notice that in different islands the birds were adapted differently according to the food sources available. That is natural selection (survival of the fittest).
As for where it all began, there is a famous experiment by a scientist called Miller which shows that organic molecules and some aminoacids (some of the basic building blocks of life) can be formed from inorganic substances if Earth's early atmosphere is mimicked. Showing this happens is essential to prove that yes, evolution could start there. As if you're asking also from where comes planet Earth, I recommend taking a look at the Big Bang Theory.
And as for your question of human brain... genes that influence thought have been identified, but yes, scientists are still trying to figure that out, same with feelings (some advances have been made, like identifying certain chemicals that influence behavior and mood) but it is all way too complex. We are too far from a deep understanding of this.
And now my questions to the creationists...
So you prefer to believe everything the Bible (or whatever holy book you have) says... it is too easy. You just don't question anything, you just take it as it is written. Who told you it was the truth? Why do you believe him/her? So, which is more likely? that a God just created everything, leaving no evidence whatsoever... or... that we're just making a God up so we don't feel that alone?
Think about it.