I Believe In Evolution

There's a tsunami of evidence for common ancestry between all species.

To take but a single example (from the billions available)

All species carry ‘silenced’ genes… these are genes that once caused certain proteins to be produced, but now no longer function. Such genes are called pseudogenes.


Nearly all mammals have functional genes for expressing an enzyme (L-guluno-γ-lactone oxidase) that them to synthesise vitamin C (essential for proper metabolism in mammals).

I say ‘nearly all mammals’ because primates cannot produce their own vitamin C. In humans, there is a set of four genes that code for vitamin C production. As you will know, these genes are composed of many smaller units called nucleotides, so these four genes contain a very large number of such nucleotides (our genome contains 6.4 billion nucleotides). The first three genes are fully functional, but the final gene in the sequence has a mutation in a single nucleotide, and this mutation prevents the sequence from completing. That’s why humans need to obtain vitamin C from their food… because the mechanism for producing it has become a pseudogene
.

Now, here’s what Americans call ‘the kicker'(charmingly quaint).

Across all primates (chimpanzees, bononbo, humans, and apes) not only is it the final gene in the sequence that is silenced, but within that gene the same nucleotide carries the mutation that is responsible.
.. the exact same nucleotide out of 6.4 billion

Now, why would this be?

1. astonishing coincidence 


2. gods created all the species, and they put genetic pathways for vitamin C production into all mammals, but then inactivated a single nucleotide from among the four genes necessary for that production, inactivated the same nucleotide in all cases, and did that only in primates. They obviously thought this to be a tremendous joke to play, because we carry around thousands of such pseudogenes (but I’m trying to keep this as short as reasonably possible)


3. All mammals developed the ability to produce vitamin C, but around 40 million years ago, in the ancestor common to all primates, that ability was removed by a mutation in a single nucleotide, and the deficit was passed to all primates due to common descent.


What's your choice... 1, 2, or 3?
Of course, there may be other options... I'd be more than happy to hear about them.

Pam, embryology can be very helpful in showing how our evolutionary history appears during foetal development. There are a few quick and easy examples that spring to mind from all those available: gills, blood vessels, and kidneys.

In the early stages of development, fish embryos have a series of pouches (separated by grooves) near where the head will later develop. These are called the brachial arches - they develop into gills, and the grooves between them develop into the gill slits. It‘s very straightforward.

Other vertebrates have the same structures... including humans. In fact, I once had the opportunity to see these brachial arches for myself on a foetus, and it was fascinating. They‘re not 'sort of like‘ a fish‘s brachial arches... they [i]are[/i] a fish‘s brachial arches. They‘re morphologically completely identical.

Tiktaalik roseae, on the cusp between ocean and land, used gills and lungs, but after the move onto land, gills were superfluous (although Olympic swimming competitions would be very different had we retained them). Sometimes (it‘s very rare) the gill slits fail to close, but it‘s easily corrected via minor surgery once the infant is born.

Blood vessel development in fish is, once again, basic and straightforward, producing six major blood vessels. In mammals (including humans, of course), the same six major blood vessels appear in early foetal development, but then three of them disappear at the same time that our circulatory system stops resembling that of fish and instead becomes identical to the circulatory system of embryonic amphibians.
Not similar... identical.
In amphibians, this system simply grows into an adult amphibian circulatory system, but in mammals (including humans, of course) it changes into the circulatory system of embryonic reptiles.
Not similar to the circulatory system of embryonic reptiles... identical.
In reptiles, this system simply grows into an adult reptilian circulatory system, but in mammals (including humans, of course), it undergoes further changes (the development of carotid, pulmonary, and dorsal arteries) to become the mammalian circulatory system.

Human embryos form three distinctly different types of kidneys during development... the pronephros, the mesonephros, and the metanephros.
The pronephros is the kidney system found in fish and amphibians. It is eventually discarded and the foetus then forms the mesonephros, which is the kidney system found in reptiles. That too is eventually discarded, and the foetus then forms the metanephros, which is the kidney system that we eventually use.

From fish to amphibian to reptile to mammal.

No matter how many comforting and hubristic myths we mutter to ourselves, every foetus carries the truth.

As a practicing Roman Catholic I believe that God created man in His own image--but that image encompasses the soul rather than the physical body. Science and the Bible can be compatible if we look at the Bible not as a scientific document, but as a lesson. For example, unlike so-called "Bible Christians," who believe every single word of the Bible is fact, I believe in the lesson it teaches. That there was a guy named Adam and a girl named Eve is immaterial. What is the true lesson? It is the idea that God created Man in His own image' somewhere along the line Man sinned against God and had to be redeemed by Jesus Christ. Another notion is the Mark of Cain. After Cain killed his brother Abel, God exiled him. Cain's concern was, "But if I'm exiled because of this murder, everybody is going to look for me and kill me!" Not to worry, because according to the literal Bible there weren't any other people! So of course there had to be despite the obvious omission.
Archaeological digs in the Middle East have uncovered a number of "truths" that show the Bible as being more than just a work of fiction.
Science dictates that the earth was created over the course of millions of years, a concept that was unimaginable to the ancient Hebrews. So Moses (or whoever wrote the Pentateuch) dumbed it down into seven days. Who cares how long it took? The lesson is that God created the world and keeps it in existence.
And that is how evolution and creation can go hand in hand.

"...the masters of all other species and have dominion over them"
The sheer anthropocentric hubris contained within that statement is the root of the havoc that humans wreck on this planet... and the seed of our undoing.

We are not the masters of all other species... we are totally reliant on them.
We do not have dominion over all other species... we contain them within ourselves, just as they contain us. All life is one, and any organism, whether worm or bacterium or human or flower or whale or cabbage or flea, is a fleeting expression of that reality.

Faith has no bearing whatsoever on reality. Faith is merely pretending to know something that you do not know.

It's a pretence that says 'it is better not to know'
It's a pretence that says 'there is comfort in ignorance'
It's a pretence that has become dangerous.
It's a pretence that has become unnecessary.

Blue pill, or red pill?

I'm unsure why you feel that I am denying Pam the right to hold, and to express, her own beliefs.
I'm unsure why you feel that I am denying Pam the right to ignore anything that causes her discomfort and dismay. If she feels the need, she can ignore me until the cows come home. If she feels the need, she can print out what I wrote, burn the pages, and beat the ashes with a stout stick.
Of course, I would prefer that she engage with me in reasoned and rational discussion about what I have written... but even that is not mandatory.

In New Zealand, Pam is allowed her faith.
In New Zealand, nobody has to respect her faith, although we would give our lives to protect her right to have it.
In New Zealand, faith does not hold special status, ring-fenced away from reason and inquiry.
In New Zealand, claims about reality need to be supported by evidence, and "Because it's my faith" is nether an exemption from that requirement, nor an exoneration of someone's inability to meet it.

Perhaps it's different in The United States.

Respect for what, exactly?

I respect her enough to assume that she can support her claims.
I respect her enough to assume that she is capable of assessing new information.
I respect her enough to assume that she is capable of reasoned, rational, and productive discussion

She's an adult woman, and I respond to her as such. Would you rather that I patronise her?
What did I write that upsets you so much that you use terms such as 'bitch' and 'abusive'?

Like you, me, or anyone, BadPam has a right to her own beliefs.
However, she has no right to her own facts.

If her beliefs are unsustainable when confronted by reality, then that is a matter for Pam to deal with.
Why should I (or anyone) adulterate reality simply to pander to the beliefs of others?

I always have fun arguing with fundamentalists and also proselytizers who knock at my door. I always answer the door with a rosary in my hand and tell them they interrupted my prayers. Not to brag, but I think I'm very good at holding my own in defense of my faith.

Badpam: "That there was a guy named Adam and a girl named Eve is immaterial"

That's actually why christianity tries to suppress the Theory of evolution by natural selection...

evolution = no Adam and Eve = no original sin = no point to christianity.

No, it's not Deism. Deism is if God just wound it up and let it go. We worship God because, as the Baltimore Catechism said, "He made all things and keeps them in existence." But since He is the creator of nature, He permits nature to do things in its natural order. Of course sometimes He does perform miracles, but some skepticism borders on the silly. For instance, one of my relatives once pointed out that if there really was a God, why does He permit rainy or stormy weather on Sunday? After all, Sunday is supposed to be the Lord's day. So why can't He fix it so that Sunday would be reserved as a perpetually nice day? Oh come on. I can think of several more absurd examples, but it would take up too much space.

This ongoing feud is making me regret that I posted this story. But Greywlf, thanks for defending me. My opinions are based on my own observations, coupled by my own feelings toward Creationism. Now you guys are getting nasty. Please put it to bed.

There is no suggestion that humans evolved from either monkeys or apes, and such a suggestion is not part of the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection, nor has it ever been a part of that Theory.
All primates (bonobos, humans, chimpanzees, and apes) share a common ancestor, and that common ancestor lived from 70 million until around 40 million years ago.

All species share common ancestors.

BadPam, evolution via common ancestry is the only pathway of evolution, and there are no different types or forms... obviously, however, there are countless billions of examples of pathways. Take any two species, and there will be a common ancestor.

I am always intrigued by how Christians manage to keep contradictory thoughts compartmentalized. You believe in evolution but also believe that you were created in God's image. I presume you also believe you have an eternal soul. Is it a valid question to ask how ensoulment occurs - what is the mechanism by which this works? Or is it not a valid question because science deals only with naturalistic answers in the material world whereas religion is based on faith? IOW, is it valid to subject religious beliefs to the scientific method or are they non-overlapping magisteria as Stephen Jay Gould said.

@BadPam It's not true that we descended from monkeys - we share a common ancestor and our paths diverged. Monkeys and us have each continued to evolve separately since then.

Janine, by forms of evolution I mean types, such as the evolving of the horse as I made as an example. Another example is the whale, who is definitely a mammal but became more fish-like over the eons, retaining a hint of land-animal features, such as fingers (covered by flippers.
I believe it was homo sapiens who displeased God and was slapped with Original Sin, for which his species had to be redeemed. The actual name of "Adam," in the original Hebrew text, translates as "A young man." So even if it was not a guy named Adam, it was someone of that species. I'm comfortable with that.

What do you mean by 'man', I wonder?
Was it a homo erectus who sinned 1.8 million years ago?
Perhaps it was a mere 600,000 years ago that Homo heidelbergensis offended a magical entity?
Of course, an identifiably 'modern' Homo sapiens may have been the culprit a mere 200,000 years ago.
(It's quite amusing to think that some creature shambling across the savannah a couple of hundred thousand years ago had a thought, and then immediately followed that with 'Uh, oh!' as the skies darkened).

I'm unsure what you mean by 'forms of evolution'.
Perhaps you could clarify that?

@VSonMe--If you mean do I believe that we are created in the image of a Supreme Being, then yes, I do believe we are created by God, who made the world and keeps it in existence. BUT--that does not make God a supreme puppet master, as many suppose, which is why people ask why God permits evil, suffering, or the death of children. Answer is simple--He doesn't. He keeps the world in existence, but He also devised Nature to take its own course and go according to the natural order of things. This includes development of species, including Man.

@BadPam I'm glad you can reconcile science with religion. My objective would never be to take that away from you, btw. I have great respect for religious texts and would never dismiss the Bible as simply a work of fiction. You're absolutely not the kind of religious person I have any problems with; I do worry about religious fundamentalism of all stripes though as fundamentalists are not only anti-science but anti-democracy too.

@VSonMe--That's exactly what I've been saying. Man did not evolve from monkeys because there are still plenty of monkeys around. In fact, if you read Darwin's "Origin of Species" you will find that he never came out and said that Man descended from monkeys--that was the media spin on it. What he did say was that different species adapted to their environments over the centuries.

Newjaninev, remember that I also said that "somewhere along the line man sinned and had to be redeemed." Whether it was by eating an apple or displeasing God in some other way, Man fell into original sin and had to be redeemed by Jesus Christ, who opened the gates of heaven for us. That is the point of redemption, and of course, Christianity.

So do pee diapers. What is it with you and ammonia anyway?

@BadPam Yes, you are. I think you look at The Bible in a healthy way. Biblical literalists scare me. They can't countenance other religions, use selective Bible verses as excuses to perpetuate their own hateful bigotry and get themselves elected to School Boards to make everyone else as miserable as they are.

Ah ok. The question of evil though is a long-standing one. I like Leibniz's answer - that God created the world and the laws of nature and in so doing not all worlds are possible so God chooses the best of all possible worlds. I don't agree obviously as I am an atheist but I like the elegance of Leibniz's thoughts.

Janine, I would have to choose #2. A Deity--in His wisdom--can monkey with genes for practical reasons and, as the Bible says, make Man the masters of all other species and have dominion over them. Whether it be through a guy named Adam or a simple act of evolution is, I think, immaterial. And of course faith has some bearing on this.

Janine, not that you are being nasty, but I see the tone of the exchange between you and Greywlf was becoming so. This makes me uncomfortable. As for defense, it's about defending my personal beliefs. My point is that I think enough has been said.

Yes, I know there are some traces of DNA in apes and I admit they have a few human traits. But my point is that humans are not apes or evolved from them because apes are still here. I gave the example of the evolution of the horse in a previous reply.

Well, as in anything, be it stories, novels, movies or even Disney cartoons--if there were not a Bad Guy the stories would soon become extremely dull. Of course I am not presuming The Bible to be :just a story" as many non-believers claim.

@BadPam That's true. It's a common misconception though and needs to be pointed out. Can I take it you agree with me then that man, like every other living thing, is the product of evolution? Or do you believe that there is something special about us?

@BadPam Isn't that deism? If God created the laws of nature and let them play out without further interference, then why should God be worshipped?

Pam, defending you from what?

Oh, and could you please point out to me where I became nasty?

Tennesseans look like monkeys. Look at this girl and the monkey, same hair color.

evolution is too much information, it cometh from atheists.

I HATE EVOLUTION BECAUSE EVOLUTION GIVETH OFF AMMONIA.

All humans have monkey traits.

evolution gives off ammonia