Comments on: Evolution 2.0 http://www.sciencebase.com/science-blog/new-theory-of-evolution.html Science Blog from Freelance Science Writer David Bradley Thu, 09 Feb 2012 08:25:37 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: David Brown http://www.sciencebase.com/science-blog/new-theory-of-evolution.html/comment-page-2#comment-463061 David Brown Sat, 21 Jun 2008 12:24:29 +0000 http://www.sciencebase.com/science-blog/?p=1686#comment-463061 The so-called theory of evolution is one of those ideas that, while it may appeal to our sense of the obvious, seems to have little in the way of scientific evidence to back it up. Yet it is widely believed to be true. In fact, most scientists seem to accept it as fact. But if you read any amount of evolutionary literature, you'll find it laced with speculation. But science is supposed to keep us from kidding ourselves about how the real world works, is it not? To me, using speculation as a foundation for belief is terribly unscientific. The meager scientific evidence that seems to support the evolution idea can be explained in terms of dauermodifications, a concept embarrassing to evolutionists because it demonstrates the inviolability of the genetic material while allowing for wide adaptation to environmental conditions. Here's a bit of discussion from chapter One of "Science and Faith" by Arthur C. Custance, PhD. "But in the past few years a renewed interest in the possibility of another pathway whereby the environment might have a direct influence upon an organism responding in an inheritable way has led to the conclusion that there are probably carriers of inheritable material in the cytoplasm of the cell and not merely in the nucleus. These carriers, which have been termed Plasmagenes, are responsive to the direct action of the environment. This responsiveness appears to be somewhat delayed, so that the environmental pressure must be held constant over several generations to influence the plasmagenes. That the response of these extra-nuclear genes can be inherited through succeeding generations is demonstrated by the fact that the effect persists even when the original stimulus is removed. If the environment gradually reverts to its original nature, the modified organisms will continue to retain their altered form for several generations, and then they too revert." The full text can be accessed at http://www.custance.org/old/sci-faith/4ch1-4.html or simply Google "Dauermodifications." The so-called theory of evolution is one of those ideas that, while it may appeal to our sense of the obvious, seems to have little in the way of scientific evidence to back it up. Yet it is widely believed to be true. In fact, most scientists seem to accept it as fact. But if you read any amount of evolutionary literature, you’ll find it laced with speculation.

But science is supposed to keep us from kidding ourselves about how the real world works, is it not? To me, using speculation as a foundation for belief is terribly unscientific.

The meager scientific evidence that seems to support the evolution idea can be explained in terms of dauermodifications, a concept embarrassing to evolutionists because it demonstrates the inviolability of the genetic material while allowing for wide adaptation to environmental conditions. Here’s a bit of discussion from chapter One of “Science and Faith” by Arthur C. Custance, PhD.

“But in the past few years a renewed interest in the possibility of another pathway whereby the environment might have a direct influence upon an organism responding in an inheritable way has led to the conclusion that there are probably carriers of inheritable material in the cytoplasm of the cell and not merely in the nucleus. These carriers, which have been termed Plasmagenes, are responsive to the direct action of the environment. This responsiveness appears to be somewhat delayed, so that the environmental pressure must be held constant over several generations to influence the plasmagenes. That the response of these extra-nuclear genes can be inherited through succeeding generations is demonstrated by the fact that the effect persists even when the original stimulus is removed. If the environment gradually reverts to its original nature, the modified organisms will continue to retain their altered form for several generations, and then they too revert.”

The full text can be accessed at http://www.custance.org/old/sci-faith/4ch1-4.html or simply Google “Dauermodifications.”

]]> By: azmanam http://www.sciencebase.com/science-blog/new-theory-of-evolution.html/comment-page-1#comment-462066 azmanam Fri, 20 Jun 2008 16:51:43 +0000 http://www.sciencebase.com/science-blog/?p=1686#comment-462066 No, no legs. But I did hear from a friend that they put a typewriter in one of the Petri dishes. After 12,000 or so generations, they had reproduced the entire works of Shakespeare. No, no legs.

But I did hear from a friend that they put a typewriter in one of the Petri dishes. After 12,000 or so generations, they had reproduced the entire works of Shakespeare.

]]> By: Wayne Smallman http://www.sciencebase.com/science-blog/new-theory-of-evolution.html/comment-page-1#comment-461965 Wayne Smallman Fri, 20 Jun 2008 14:02:55 +0000 http://www.sciencebase.com/science-blog/?p=1686#comment-461965 Azmanam, the question is, did they grow legs? C'mon, this is supposed to be sexy science! Azmanam, the question is, did they grow legs?

C’mon, this is supposed to be sexy science!

]]> By: David Bradley http://www.sciencebase.com/science-blog/new-theory-of-evolution.html/comment-page-1#comment-461825 David Bradley Fri, 20 Jun 2008 09:06:51 +0000 http://www.sciencebase.com/science-blog/?p=1686#comment-461825 Good question. There are several other species that have bigger genomes than ours, there's no reason to think that there weren't organisms in the past that were more verbose too. Good question. There are several other species that have bigger genomes than ours, there’s no reason to think that there weren’t organisms in the past that were more verbose too.

]]> By: Wayne Smallman http://www.sciencebase.com/science-blog/new-theory-of-evolution.html/comment-page-1#comment-461824 Wayne Smallman Fri, 20 Jun 2008 09:05:23 +0000 http://www.sciencebase.com/science-blog/?p=1686#comment-461824 I have a question: given scientists seem to think much of the so-called Junk Code is now actually functional code, of sorts, are we (and I reference all life today) genetically more verbose (in terms of raw DNA) than the animals of the distant past? I have a question: given scientists seem to think much of the so-called Junk Code is now actually functional code, of sorts, are we (and I reference all life today) genetically more verbose (in terms of raw DNA) than the animals of the distant past?

]]> By: azmanam http://www.sciencebase.com/science-blog/new-theory-of-evolution.html/comment-page-1#comment-461219 azmanam Thu, 19 Jun 2008 18:42:49 +0000 http://www.sciencebase.com/science-blog/?p=1686#comment-461219 Here's a related story out of Michigan State University: <blockquote>Twenty years ago, evolutionary biologist Richard Lenski of Michigan State University in East Lansing, US, took a single Escherichia coli bacterium and used its descendants to found 12 laboratory populations. The 12 have been growing ever since, gradually accumulating mutations and evolving for more than 44,000 generations, while Lenski watches what happens. Profound change Mostly, the patterns Lenski saw were similar in each separate population. All 12 evolved larger cells, for example, as well as faster growth rates on the glucose they were fed, and lower peak population densities. But sometime around the 31,500th generation, something dramatic happened in just one of the populations – the bacteria suddenly acquired the ability to metabolise citrate, a second nutrient in their culture medium that E. coli normally cannot use. Indeed, the inability to use citrate is one of the traits by which bacteriologists distinguish E. coli from other species. The citrate-using mutants increased in population size and diversity.</blockquote> <a href="http://www.newscientist.com/channel/life/dn14094-bacteria-make-major-evolutionary-shift-in-the-lab.html" rel="nofollow">New Scientist</a> Here’s a related story out of Michigan State University:

Twenty years ago, evolutionary biologist Richard Lenski of Michigan State University in East Lansing, US, took a single Escherichia coli bacterium and used its descendants to found 12 laboratory populations.

The 12 have been growing ever since, gradually accumulating mutations and evolving for more than 44,000 generations, while Lenski watches what happens.
Profound change

Mostly, the patterns Lenski saw were similar in each separate population. All 12 evolved larger cells, for example, as well as faster growth rates on the glucose they were fed, and lower peak population densities.

But sometime around the 31,500th generation, something dramatic happened in just one of the populations – the bacteria suddenly acquired the ability to metabolise citrate, a second nutrient in their culture medium that E. coli normally cannot use.

Indeed, the inability to use citrate is one of the traits by which bacteriologists distinguish E. coli from other species. The citrate-using mutants increased in population size and diversity.

New Scientist

]]>