Why Evolution?

[eagleseven]

I was thinking today, of an unusual phenomenon in biology...the tendency for lay persons to consider themselves qualified to seriously argue for or against theories in biology.

In almost every case where this occurs, grossly incorrect assumptions are made and the field of genetics is blatantly ignored. For people unacquainted with these topics, lay arguments seem plausible, but to those with in-depth knowledge of the field, the absurdity of these claims is painfully apparent.

What puzzles me is that these people persist, but not in other fields. You do not see lay persons arguing the merits of string theory, or dark matter, or polymer synthesis, or computational theory. These topics require just as much background as evolutionary biology, in order to discuss honestly, yet laypersons intrinsically realize this.

What is so special about evolution, that every average joe imagines himself a master of the topic? Is it the fact that it goes to the very core of what it means to be human? Or is it simply because it blatantly disregards the teachings of half-a-dozen religions?

---

What makes me consider this topic now? Today, we were discussing techniques for building artificial lifeforms, and how we can utilize evolutionary mechanisms to rapidly optimize our designs, simplifying the process.

This would not be possible, if evolution was false. Yet, here we are, in 2010, building organisms through evolution. Playing "god," so to speak.


While lay people are busy convincing themselves that evolution is an atheist lie, we are using those very principles to do the once unimaginable...making life from non-life.

 

[Baruch Menachem]

It really gets to the heart of theology more than any other topic.


Are we just lucky chimps, or are we the special darlings of a juvenile delinquent god with a cruel sense of humor? is there a plan, or is our existence due to lucky rolls of the celestial dice.

This is the last stand man can make for special existence. If we give up here, there is no point.

I have to admit that I am conflicted here, as I don't want to go where the logic of evolution leads.

 

[Old Rocks]

You are speaking of abiogenisis. Here is a very good article on that subject.

Lies, Damned Lies, Statistics, and Probability of Abiogenesis Calculations

One of the questions in abiogenisis is chirality. Yet, from the creation of a favored handedness in space, by light, to that created when lipid compounds form spheres in nano-cavities in feldspars, we see chiral processes in all realms of the pre-biotic environment.

And the best arguement for the ease of life forming from non-life is that we see signs of life from the very earliest periods in the Earth's history.

 

[Old Rocks]

Baruch, why should one that believes in a Diety have a problem with abiogenisis and evolution? After all, by how quickly life formed on this planet, it would seem that the laws of the universe are planned for life. As for being a Diety's special creation, the fact that we now have minds that can conceive of at least part of the glory of the universe is gift enough. Should we fail to use that gift, we have only ourselves to blame.

 

[eagleseven]

It really gets to the heart of theology more than any other topic.


Are we just lucky chimps, or are we the special darlings of a juvenile delinquent god with a cruel sense of humor? is there a plan, or is our existence due to lucky rolls of the celestial dice.

This is the last stand man can make for special existence. If we give up here, there is no point.

I have to admit that I am conflicted here, as I don't want to go where the logic of evolution leads.

One could argue that, given the laws of physics, as the universe grows, the probability of self-aware life developing reaches 1.

In this sense, we are special, as we are part of the next stage of the natural development of the universe. This doesn't presume, however that we are the best, or final, stage in the Universe's growth.

The fact that we have discovered planets outside our solar system that could support earth-like life is evidence of this. Earth is not unique in this galaxy, let alone the Universe.

 

[Old Rocks]

Which means, of course, that in all probability, we are not unique, either. So if we muck up our nest bad enough, if there be a Diety, it may just consider us to be a failed start of no importance, whatsoever.

 

[eagleseven]

Which means, of course, that in all probability, we are not unique, either. So if we muck up our nest bad enough, if there be a Diety, it may just consider us to be a failed start of no importance, whatsoever.

Indeed.

The people of Iceland and Haiti learned this the hard way.

 

[Dr Gregg]

Was watching the LIfe series yesterday and was seeing very cool behavior, even in insect, and especially in the Primates one, and each example given we see that behavior in humans. We are like a culmination of animal behavior, as a whole.

There was two groups of baboons (equivalent to human "gangs) that were having a brawl over territory. THere was male bees killing each other over the female, and even taking out the females sometimes in the process, we see humans do things similar to that, especially the killing of our own species, which is rare in the animal world but does happen.

During the baboon battle, some females would try and escape to the other group, and those that failed, the males would give them a beat down, and keep their females in check, sounds like pimps.

Then you get the primates, especially chimps, and their passing down of knowledge to the next generation, their trial and error and ingenuity, having different "groups" have new and unique ways to find food, and use tools to get the food. Even one clip of a male giving his tool to a female to break open nuts, with empathy have been observed in the animal world. Again, all things we see in humans

YOu watch this, read the news and see how animals behave, and I think "how can people think humans are not animals.

it's just pure denial and dishonesty to not accept this fact, just so they can feel special.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

What puzzles me is that these people persist, but not in other fields.

Not true. Laypeople think they know everything there is to know about atmospheric science and computer modeling all the time.

You do not see lay persons arguing the merits of string theory, or dark matter, or polymer synthesis, or computational theory.

See, not true. With regards to climate simulations, there are plenty of laypeople who believe themselves the foremost experts in computational theory - even though most of them have never written a single line of code.

What makes me consider this topic now? Today, we were discussing techniques for building artificial lifeforms, and how we can utilize evolutionary mechanisms to rapidly optimize our designs, simplifying the process.

Sweet. I love that sort of think. I wrote a chess program a few years back that learned by evolutionary programming. It consisted of a pool of 50 or so chess "engines", each slightly different in the way they value a position. They played each other, the winners stuck around, the losers were killed off and replaced with very slightly altered copies of the winners. The program's average performance improved by over 250 ELO points in less than 10,000 games.

 

[JBeukema]

I was thinking today, of an unusual phenomenon in biology...the tendency for lay persons to consider themselves qualified to seriously argue for or against theories in biology.

Yeah, well, fuck you

In almost every case where this occurs, grossly incorrect assumptions are made and the field of genetics is blatantly ignored.

Feel free to correct me if ever I am incorrect.

In fact, I think you have a few times

For people unacquainted with these topics, lay arguments seem plausible, but to those with in-depth knowledge of the field, the absurdity of these claims is painfully apparent.

It doesn't really take all that much in the way of formal education to get a reasonable grasp of things. It mostly takes a willingness to learn and the balls to admit when you're wrong.

What puzzles me is that these people persist, but not in other fields. You do not see lay persons arguing the merits of string theory, or dark matter, or polymer synthesis, or computational theory.

They love to 'argue' astronomy and astrophysics when they're arguing for the 7-day creation.

Also, they love to pretend to have debunked radio-decay dating and archeology.

While lay people are busy convincing themselves that evolution is an atheist lie, we are using those very principles to do the once unimaginable...making life from non-life.

Can you cite your source for the highlighted claim. Surely such an accomplishment would have made sciencedaily and every other news outlet worldwide...

 

[eagleseven]

Yeah, well, fuck you

There is nothing wrong casually discussing the topic, but it is a serious stretch to believe that such conversation effectively disputes, or changes, the theory.

Feel free to correct me if ever I am incorrect.

In fact, I think you have a few times

I make mistakes, too, but I don't make them the crux of my arguments, like some here...

It doesn't really take all that much in the way of formal education to get a reasonable grasp of things. It mostly takes a willingness to learn and the balls to admit when you're wrong.

To understand the concepts, yes.

To hammer out the details? Even PhDs have much to learn, as total knowledge is increasing so rapidly.

They love to 'argue' astronomy and astrophysics when they're arguing for the 7-day creation.

Also, they love to pretend to have debunked radio-decay dating and archeology.

True. Tis all equally annoying/infuriating.

Can you cite your source for the highlighted claim. Surely such an accomplishment would have made sciencedaily and every other news outlet worldwide...

I cannot, because my sources are the people currently working on it. For the first time in history, we have the tools to not only analyze the building blocks of life, but to create them. I'm talking bleeding-edge, here.

Synthetic biology today is where personal computers were in the late 1970s. Once the proverbial Apple-I is unveiled, it'll be a gold rush to design more complex and more useful organisms, with everyone and their brother going into genetics.

I intend to ride this wave.

 

[JBeukema]

Fix your tags and I'll read your post, my educated friend

 

[JBeukema]

I cannot, because my sources are the people currently working on it. For the first time in history, we have the tools to not only analyze the building blocks of life, but to create them. I'm talking bleeding-edge, here.

Colour me skeptical until their research finds its way to Nature, or Cell, or Science, or NEJM, or some other source where it can be not only publisized but thoroughly scrutinized prior to duplication. I'm sure you understand my skepticism

 

[Madeline]

eagleseven wrote:

Synthetic biology today is where personal computers were in the late 1970s. Once the proverbial Apple-I is unveiled, it'll be a gold rush to design more complex and more useful organisms, with everyone and their brother going into genetics.

I intend to ride this wave.

Sounds like you mean something more than artificial intelligence, eagleseven. More than a bionic man? More than gene engineering? Can they make a gene from non-live, inert matter now? (Or soon?)

Holy fuck.

Can I buy stock in you?

As for why lay people insist on debating evolution....for the same reason they resisted Copernicus? And yet, civilization has survived the knowledge that the earth revolves around the sun.......

 

[eagleseven]

I cannot, because my sources are the people currently working on it. For the first time in history, we have the tools to not only analyze the building blocks of life, but to create them. I'm talking bleeding-edge, here.

Colour me skeptical until their research finds its way to Nature, or Cell, or Science, or NEJM, or some other source where it can be not only publisized but thoroughly scrutinized prior to duplication. I'm sure you understand my skepticism

Of course. I can give you some background papers, however.

PubMed: Towards synthesis of a minimal cell.

PubMed: Synthetic biology projects in vitro.

PNAS: Essential genes of a minimal bacterium

Science: Complete Chemical Synthesis, Assembly, and Cloning of a Mycoplasma genitalium Genome

 

[eagleseven]

Sounds like you mean something more than artificial intelligence, eagleseven. More than a bionic man? More than gene engineering? Can they make a gene from non-live, inert matter now? (Or soon?)

Holy fuck.

Can I buy stock in you?

Make a gene? We can make a whole GENOME! (in fact, we create artificial plasmids routinely)

Just two years ago, a team succeeded in creating a functional M genitalium genome out of a mix of inanimate nucleotides and proteins from a bottle. M Genitalium is one of the simplest bacteria known to man, with a very tiny genome (comparable to viruses).

It is not a true synthetic organism, however, as they just copied a genome that already exists in living bacteria.

We will see 100% synthetic lifeforms in our lifetime, and it is going to be sooner rather than later.

 

[JBeukema]

Eagle, what sources would you recommend for keeping up with this stuff other than the PR journals at the library? Any good RSS feeds?

 

[eagleseven]

Eagle, what sources would you recommend for keeping up with this stuff other than the PR journals at the library? Any good RSS feeds?

That's the hard part. Most of what I'm telling you, I recently learned in graduate-level genetics courses and working in lab. There aren't even textbooks on this topic, yet.

I do have some links, which may or may not be of use.

Synthetic Biology
Main Page - OpenWetWare
1000 Genomes - Home

For major milestones, however, it's likely best to wait until it reaches scientific journalism publications (popsci, discover, etc.).

 

[JBeukema]

TBH, I only understand a third of what I read in the PR journals... often less... one article oft takes three days of research to get the gist of it...

Which is why I said 'concept' in the other thread and made no mention of detail

 

[eagleseven]

TBH, I only understand a third of what I read in the PR journals... often less... one article oft takes three days of research to get the gist of it...

Which is why I said 'concept' in the other thread and made no mention of detail

That's more than I can say for most Americans.

What's worse, I'm supposed to know enough so I can correct mistakes in the PR articles. Thing is, thanks to the advent of computers, it is a struggle to avoid being overwhelmed by the sheer volume of information.

Hell, I remember last semester, in immunology, we had to toss out an entire chapter of the textbook, because a paper published halfway through the class blew the old theory of the evolution of T-Cells and B-cells out of the water!

Our professor was rather distraught, as he had become quite comfortable teaching the old paradigm.