«

»

Oct 28 2009

What is Biological Evolution? (and Why do Creationists Not Understand the Answer?)

When I engage in conversations with creationists regarding the Theory of Evolution, I nearly always encounter the same problem: They don’t know what evolution is. They frequently to refer to evolution as ‘Darwinism’. In this context, evolution refers to biological evolution. I am not a biologist. I do, however, know how to find information and to process and comprehend that information. I am writing this post in the hopes that I can help others to come to a greater understanding of what scientists and lay people alike mean when they mention the Theory of Evolution.

What Evolution is Not

Before I discuss what evolution is, I think it might be best to describe some things that I will not be discussing:

  • I am not going to talk about evolutionary computation, which is a subfield of computational intelligence involving combinatorial optimization problems.
  • I am not going to talk about nucleosynthesis, which is the process of creating new atomic nuclei from pre-existing nucleons (protons and neutrons). Some people call this process ‘chemical evolution’.
  • I am not going to discuss abiogenesis, which is the study of how life on Earth could have arisen from inanimate matter. This process is also sometimes called ‘chemical evolution’. [Now you can see why there is so much confusion.]
  • I am not going to talk about the Big Bang, which is the cosmological model of the initial conditions and subsequent development of the Universe.
  • I am not going to talk about galaxy formation and evolution, one of the most active research areas in astrophysics. It is concerned with the processes that formed a heterogeneous universe from a homogeneous beginning, the formation of the first galaxies, the way in which galaxies change over time, and the processes that have generated the variety of structures observed in nearby galaxies.
  • I am not going to talk about stellar evolution, which is the process by which a star undergoes a sequence of radical changes during its lifetime.
  • I am not going to discuss sociocultural evolution, a combination of cultural evolution and social evolution, which describes how cultures and societies have developed over time.

By this time, the creationists are probably shouting, “Hey, you can’t take those out of the definition. We know what Darwinism really is, and those are part of it![Okay, they probably aren’t saying that about evolutionary computation, but they most likely are saying it about the other things I won’t be discussing.] If you are discussing the Theory of Evolution, or if you are calling something ‘Darwinism’, and you are claiming that it encompasses any of the above listed areas of study, you honestly don’t know what the fuck you are talking about.

Confusing or conflating issues like those listed above with biological evolution is an error that creationists always seem to make. Creationists also seem to never admit that they’ve made a mistake in this regard. They claim that they are right because someone, whether it be a minister, friend, parent, or even a web site, gave them that information, and they can’t be wrong.

Guess what, folks. They gave you incorrect information. If they knew the information was incorrect, then they lied to you. Now that I’ve pointed out the error of your ways with factual information, if you continue to repeat the incorrect information to others, then you are a fucking liar too. How does that phrase go again? You know the one I mean—the one about ‘bearing false witness’ or something like that.

Then What is Evolution?

At the most basic level, biological evolution is simply change that occurs in the genetic material of a population of organisms from one generation to the next. The changes in a single generation are usually quite small. Over many numbers of generations, the accumulated changes can result in the emergence of a new species. This is called speciation.

The genes that are passed on from generation to generation form the basis of evolution; these genes produce an organism’s inherited traits. Different organisms within a population exhibit heritable differences in their traits. These differences are what biologists refer to as variation. There are two opposing forces which drive evolution: processes that make variants more common or more rare, and processes that introduce variation. New variations generally come about in one of two ways: from genetic mutations, or from the transfer of genetic material between different populations.

As I mentioned at the beginning of this post, I am not a biologist. I am not a college professor, nor am I a high school science teacher. I’m simply a geek who realizes that the Theory of Evolution is the best explanation we have for the diversity of life on this planet. Evolution is what gave rise to the different species of life that we see every day. I’m not going to teach you everything I possibly can about evolution. I will, however, provide some links to places where you can learn a great deal about the subject, if you choose to.

  • How Evolution Works” from How Stuff Works
  • Understanding Evolution”: An excellent resource for a vast amount of information about evolution for everyone, including numerous resources for K-12 teachers. The site was created by the University of California Museum of Paleontology with support provided by the National Science Foundation and the Howard Hughes Medical Institute.
  • Evolution Resources” from the National Academies

Now that we know what evolution is and what it is not, I hope that the creationists in the crowd will at last be able to take part in more intelligent discussions about the subject. Judging from the reactions that I’ve received when pointing these facts out to creationists in the past, however, I’m certainly not going to hold my breath.

29 comments

4 pings

Skip to comment form

  1. zdenny

    I love the new design on the website! It is great!

    When people use the word Darwinian, they are describing a worldview held by most godless. It really is pointless to separate the categories because the word Darwinian evolution encompasses every aspect of godless thought so it is used as a blanket to cover a number of different areas. The term evolution is too vague because this term is claimed by both Theist and Atheist so a modifier has to be added to ensure the correct worldview is being presented.

  2. Dan J

    It really is pointless to separate the categories because the word Darwinian evolution encompasses every aspect of godless thought so it is used as a blanket to cover a number of different areas.

    So now you’re conflating Charles Darwin with atheism?!?!? Your ideas are so ridiculous that they hardly deserve a reply! It’s obvious to me that you have either not understood, or refuse to accept, the terms I described above. From your response, I’m taking your answer as a refusal to accept the facts.

    You earn the label ZDENNY: FUCKING LIAR.

  3. zdenny

    If you don’t believe me, check out the site of one of your own.

    The secular outpost
    Link: http://secularoutpost.infidels.org

    He stated, “I argued that Darwinian evolution counts against the notion of a supernatural designer, even though it does not strictly imply that there is no theistic God. And I made it pretty clear that I was representing a naturalistic, nonreligious point of view.”

    Dan, your objections to the term are clearly overrated. Even those who consider themselves your friends are using the term. I must simply read more than you do.

    God Bless! The Scriptures say, “Bless those who curse you” Why does God insist on loving even those who reject Him? I got good news for you Dan. You must still have a chance!

  4. Dan J

    Did you even comprehend the link you posted? His use of the term Darwinian is pathetic, at best. Obviously, though, he is using the term to refer only to biological evolution, as I described above. Biological evolution does not preclude the existence of a deity. That’s because biological evolution, or ‘Darwinian evolution’, as the author of that page put it, has nothing to do with atheism. That page illustrates the distinctions I outline above!

    Did you not read the terms I outlined? Darwin has nothing to do with the Big Bang. Darwin has nothing to do with abiogenesis. Darwin has nothing to do with atheism.

    Those are facts. Ignoring the facts does very little to bolster your claims, Denny. You’re still showing yourself to be either extremely ignorant, or extremely dishonest. Which one is it? If you’re merely ignorant of the facts, there is still hope for you. If you’re a fucking liar, there’s still some hope, but you certainly won’t be getting any help from me.

  5. zdenny

    It states, “does not strictly imply that there is no theistic God”

    This is the definition of an agnostic atheist or more properly termed an ignorant atheist because God cannot be disproven according to Atheist themselves. I hope you can see why the term atheist is irrational.

  6. Dan J

    That’s right, Denny. As I said before, the Theory of Evolution says absolutely nothing about the existence or non-existence of a deity. That’s not what it’s supposed to do. Tying these two subjects together is ridiculous.

    You’re getting off the subject again. Misdirection is not allowed in this conversation. The subject is biological evolution. Your bullshit definitions have no place in this conversation. If you want to take up the definition of atheism, it will have to be in a different post.

    Do you see why people laugh at you, Denny? Do you see why people get angry with you? Do you see why people call you ignorant? Do you see why people call you a liar? The reasons should be blatantly obvious to people who read your comments.

  7. Jason Thibeault

    Every time I read one of Zdenny’s comments I imagine hearing tubas playing a light-hearted elephant march as the background music.

    Dan, your post is an excellent summary of atheists’ positions, and regardless of the areas where we atheists might disagree, we certainly do understand the concepts a damn sight more than the theists that are used to worldviews being monolithic and handed down from on high by a prophet. It’s for this reason and this reason alone that they must roll up all sorts of diverse areas of science into one massive worldview that accounts for all the things their foundational texts claim to cover, so that there’s a “my Bible says” vs “your Bible says”. Except, there is no Science Bible, and Darwin is not its prophet. Your blanket terms fail on their face.

    1. Dan J

      Thanks for the great comment, Jason.

      Using existing names for the the wrong concepts is just one of their tactics. It really is quite effective on their part, but extremely dishonest. (Why is that not surprising?) They cannot refute the individual concepts, so they attempt to combine those concepts into an artificial meta-concept, which they call (quite wrongly) Darwinism.

  8. zdenny

    “Theory of Evolution says absolutely nothing about the existence or non-existence of a deity”

    Which theory of evolution? Your term is so vague that I really have no idea what you are referring to. There are thousands of different theories of evolution. I would prefer to clarify Darwinian evolution from Theistic evolution in order to help clarify the terms. However, there is no agreement even amongst Darwinians about evolution since it has not been demonstrated.

    1. Dan J

      Which theory of evolution? Your term is so vague that I really have no idea what you are referring to.

      Your reading comprehension skills have got to be among the worst I’ve encountered in an adult. I feel like I’m talking to someone with an I.Q. of about 70 who keeps asking, “What shape is a triangle again?”

      From the original post right at the top of this page:

      Then What is Evolution?

      At the most basic level, biological evolution is simply change that occurs in the genetic material of a population of organisms from one generation to the next. The changes in a single generation are usually quite small. Over many numbers of generations, the accumulated changes can result in the emergence of a new species. This is called speciation.

      Your dishonesty grows and grows. You twist the fact in order to advance your religious agenda. Biological evolution is accepted as fact by the scientific community. Your refusal to accept the evidence exhibits your dogmatic, willful ignorance, nothing more.

      Your continued lies do very little to promote your argument, Denny.

  9. zdenny

    [I am moving this comment from it original position in the I am an Atheist, But am I Anti-Religious? post to here, a much more appropriate place. Zdenny constantly refuses to see any distinction between being an atheist and accepting biological evolution as fact. —Dan J]

    I have sat through all the classes where they promoted this stuff. I finally had to say, “DO YOU HAVE ANY EVIDENCE?” All the evidence they could give me was micro-evolution plus billions of years.

    After I realized that they didn’t have anything in terms of evidence, I moved on realizing that money had to be driving the effort to censor opposing views.

    ID proponents and Creationists have both felt the wrath of Darwinians who even though they don’t have any evidence continue to propagate the lie that they do in order to ensure that they get grant money.

    That is what really drives the debate. I wish it was the science; however, science is the least concern for Darwinians and that is why they engage in censorship.

    The categories are set up to benefit the Darwinians so I simply bring to light that categories are not valid in most cases. Speciation for instance is a term that is used which has two definitions; however, Darwinians try to force it into the same definition which is just outright dishonesty on their part.

    God Bless…

    1. Dan J

      I will address this comment not because I think that you will accept any criticism of your outlandish claims, but because other readers may not understand how truly deceitful you are.

      In the comments at a post on your blog, you said:

      If macro-evolution has been demonstrated, just point me to a single study for me to review.

      I replied, giving you not one, but two references to speciation:

      I’ll do that, even though I know that it won’t do any good. You’ll either claim that the evidence is not conclusive, or that it does not specifically show macro-evolution. Creationists have been provided with evidence for years, but refuse to accept it because of their dogmatic belief in the literal interpretation of the Bible, which has absolutely nothing to do with science.

      The hawthorn fly, Rhagoletis pomonella, also known as the apple maggot fly, currently undergoing sympatric speciation: Evidence for Inversion Polymorphism Related to Sympatric Host Race Formation in the Apple Maggot Fly, Rhagoletis pomonella.

      Observed instance of peripatric speciation in the Australian bird Petroica multicolor: Phylogeny and diversification of the largest avian radiation.

      Your response was almost exactly what I expected.

      Dan, the apple maggot fly is still a fly. We also know that large dogs are not able to mate with very small dogs. Darwinians have to demonstrate that a dog can become something other than a dog or in this case that a fly can become something other than a fly.

      Strike 1

      Sorry; I fibbed a little bit. Your response was actually crazier than I expected.

      Help me out a little bit here, zdenny. You said this in your comment above:

      I have sat through all the classes where they promoted this stuff. I finally had to say, “DO YOU HAVE ANY EVIDENCE?” All the evidence they could give me was micro-evolution plus billions of years.

      Could you tell me please where you attended these classes, and who the instructors were? Well; I should qualify that request: unless it was high school, middle school, or elementary school. I’d really like to know that information because I want to know how you walked away from that class (I am making a big assumption in assuming that it was a biology class) with the ability to make the statement, “Darwinians have to demonstrate that a dog can become something other than a dog or in this case that a fly can become something other than a fly,” without your head exploding from the immense force of the cognitive dissonance.

      Do you, as a layman, not a biologist, [I’m also making the assumtion that you are not a professional biologist. Please correct me if I am mistaken.] happen to have the slightest idea how many different species of flies (all true flies are insects of the order Diptera) there are on this planet? There are currently about [I certainly can’t be expected to be exact about such a number.] 119500 known species of fly on this planet.

      According to your astounding knowledge of biology, a fly is just a fly, though. Right? All of those nearly 120000 species are pretty much all alike.

      You are either a complete idiot, or a pathological liar. I simply haven’t decided which one. You have demonstrated time and again that you have not even a rudimentary knowledge of biology. It’s actually quite pathetic.

      ID proponents and Creationists have both felt the wrath…

      I hate to have to break it to you, but ‘ID proponents’ and ‘Creationists’ are exactly the same thing.

      Speciation for instance is a term that is used which has two definitions; however, Darwinians try to force it into the same definition which is just outright dishonesty on their part.

      There is one definition for speciation when it comes to biological evolution. It is the evolutionary process which gives rise to new species. Did you notice the different parts of the word? Check it out: speci(es) + -ation. It’s actually quite sensible when you look at it.

      You are such a fucking liar.

      1. vizhnet

        Why does every ID/Creationist ask for EVIDENCE? (and why does he use capslock?)

        First, irrational people like @zDennylife and @Realtheist go on and on with their tiring dribble about a god ‘uuup in heaven’, biblical miracles and other invisible, mythical nonsense and then they butt in on intelligent topics like biology claiming ‘it aint true’ because there is no evidence.

        Sometimes i think it is best to totally ignore these delusional idiots al together.

        Maybe we should use some of the same arguments religious fundamentalists, like this, on themselves.
        Usually when someone (like you and me) offers rational questions or thoughts with regards to any religious discussion things like ‘god is beyond science’ or ‘faith is above what we mortals can comprehend and therefor needs no proof’ is thrown back at us.

        If we would return this favor i could suggest hanging a virtual sign on our door that says ‘irrational idiots are not welcome. Serious thinking going on’.

        In other words; zDenny and Realtheist; you know what? We (the sane people of the world) are trying to figure out this world, why we are here and how we got here. We will use our brains, science and creativity to do this. We will let you know when we find out. Until then, please refrain from any nonsensical comment or idiotic claim in order to try to frustrate the process. We will not allow any distraction or attempt to stop us get in our way. You are buggin us. You are nothing more than annoying little flies that buzz around our heads while we are trying to eat. You are phonesalesmen that call us at 8pm while we are trying to relax. You are the father-in-laws that annoyingly grab every opportunity to tell us that ‘we are doing it wrong’ . It being whatever we are doing. Ooops. maybe that was a bit personal 🙂 Or something like ; This is our party and you and all other ID/Creationism clowns are not invited to try and deliberately f#ck things up.

        But even though i would like to be able to make this happen. I can’t.
        No matter how frustrating it can be we should not try to silence anyone. Obviously everybody should be able to voice his opinion about this and any other subject. I would not want my rights, to say that there are no gods and religion is fraudulant, taken away or partially restricted.

        Thanks for the good post. Sorry to ‘use’ it as my soapbox. I might just copy/paste this to my blog aswell..

        Vizhnet

  10. Anirudh K. Satsangi

    I have one evidence that humans and dinosaurs coexisted. At that time humans were also of giant size. Gravitation force has great influence on biological evolution too. The tendency of gravitation force is towards centre. As the Earth is growing older the tendency of gravitation force towards centre is increasing and compressing us all and making our size smaller and smaller. We have the fossil of giant size rodents. But they are not seen now. Their size have become smaller and smaller even smaller than the size of humans. Dinosaurs are also not extinct. They may be still traced , not in giant size of course.

    Gravitation force is the main determinant of genetic mutation. All elements like carbon, nitrogen, oxygen etc. have been formed by the fusion of hydrogen element on account of action of gravitation force during the formation of a star.

    According to His Holiness Maharaj Sahab (1861-1907), the third Revered Spiritual Head of Radhasoami Faith has described in His book ‘Discourses on Radhasoami Faith’ “that the source of spirit is the true Supreme Being. Whatever forms we find in creation have received their impress from the infinite form first manifested by the Supreme Being, as form is nothing but the arrangement into which energy resolves anything, and the prime energy emanated from the Supreme Being”. I am convinced that this prime energy is Gravitation Force.

    Maharaj Sahab further writes in this book, “that the solar systems are travelling in space round Brahamand, and that the Brahmand, too, is making a similar revolution round the spiritual region. During the course of these revolutions, the earth and the solar systems often come near such creations which possess fauna (including man) and flora differing to some extent from our own fauna and flora. The conjunction of the above description often leads to some affinity between the subtler portion of our system and of those of the creations we have approached. Many new forms of life are often manifested on our earth, and their remains are often dug up as fossils of the species not to be found on this earth.

    It is now an established fact that seeds of life i.e. DNA, biological cells spread on planets through comets. Panspermia Theory is a confirmed fact. Life spreads in the universe through comets. Dr. Louis, Dr. Jayant Vishnu Narlikar (renowned astrophysicist) and other scientists are working in this area. Professor Nalin Chandra Vikramsinghe, Director, Cardiff Centre for Astrobiology, London is also helping in this work.

    1. Dan J

      Hello Anirudh,

      Thank you very much for your comments. You mentioned the following:

      I have one evidence that humans and dinosaurs coexisted. At that time humans were also of giant size.

      Please provide a source for this evidence. I would love to see the fossilized remains of a giant-sized human being that came from the same strata as a dinosaur. I’m certain the scientific community would love to see it as well.

      As the Earth is growing older the tendency of gravitation force towards centre is increasing and compressing us all and making our size smaller and smaller.

      The mass of the earth has not changed to any large extent since the formation of our moon about 4.5 billion years ago. This means that the gravitational force at the surface of the earth has also remained at what we call 1g.

      We have the fossil of giant size rodents. But they are not seen now. Their size have become smaller and smaller even smaller than the size of humans.

      We have uncovered the fossilized remains of countless species which are now extinct. We also see evolutionary changes in a variety of species in which the subsequent species are larger than the previous species, as well as some that are smaller.

      Examine the evolution of the horse, for example (which is quite well documented), and you will see that Hyracotherium, which lived between 45 and 60 million years ago, was the size of a small dog (about 2 feet (60 cm) long and 8 to 14 inches (20 cm) high at the shoulder and weighing about 50 pounds (23kg)).

      Evolution does not have a preferred ‘direction’. If a group of animals of a particular species has an advantage over another group, the particular genetic trait that gives them that advantage will be more likely to be passed on to future generations.

      Dinosaurs are also not extinct. They may be still traced , not in giant size of course.

      The dinosaurs are extinct. The ancestors of the dinosaurs are not extinct, but they are also no longer dinosaurs. If you have actual evidence to the contrary, I’m certain that the scientific community would love to see it.

      Gravitation force is the main determinant of genetic mutation. All elements like carbon, nitrogen, oxygen etc. have been formed by the fusion of hydrogen element on account of action of gravitation force during the formation of a star.

      Gravitational force is definitely not the main determinant of genetic mutation. The person who told you this is either woefully misinformed themselves, or they lied to you. It is up to you to determine which.

      Creation of heavier elements within a star when it is aging is a well documented process. It also has absolutely nothing to do with biological evolution.

      Your quotes from His Holiness Maharaj Sahab are simply religious diatribe that have absolutely nothing to do with science. Please stick to one subject. Theology is not Science, and Science is not Theology. Mixing the two together does nothing helpful.

      I contend that your Supreme Being does not, nor has not ever, existed. Please provide direct, testable evidence of its existence before attempting to infuse it into science.

      It is now an established fact that seeds of life i.e. DNA, biological cells spread on planets through comets. Panspermia Theory is a confirmed fact. Life spreads in the universe through comets. Dr. Louis, Dr. Jayant Vishnu Narlikar (renowned astrophysicist) and other scientists are working in this area. Professor Nalin Chandra Vikramsinghe, Director, Cardiff Centre for Astrobiology, London is also helping in this work.

      To put it quite simply; you are mistaken. The panspermia hypothesis is just that: a hypothesis. How many other planets in our galaxy have we surveyed for signs of life? Until we are able to survey a large proportion of them, we will not have enough information to substantiate the panspermia hypothesis.

      Wickramasinghe calls clumps of living cells recovered from the earth’s stratosphere “unambiguous evidence for the presence of clumps of living cells in air samples from as high as 41 km, above which no air from lower down would normally be transported”.

      Has he performed an analysis of how high cells from our planet’s surface might be transported under special circumstances? His own statement seems to contradict itself in that he uses the word ‘normally’.

      To detect a strain of bacteria which is common on the surface of the earth in the earth’s stratosphere and then claim that it is unambiguous evidence for panspermia is absurd. The simplest explanation is that it was transported there from the surface. If claims are made that natural events could not transport particles to that height, might I remind everyone that the explosive eruption of Krakatoa propelled ash into the atmosphere to heights of 80km (50mi). Established terrestrial mechanisms exist to explain their evidence.

  11. Anirudh K. Satsangi

    I have seen an article (I will the details you later) in which it was mentioned that in regression during hypnosis one girl told about her previous birth that a dinosaur is fetching her and she is running away to hide her in a cave. According to Hindu mythology Lord Rama lived about 10 millions years ago and human civilization is much older than this period this is as per our belief. I will also provide you the details about giant size human fossil which was published in a News Paper.

    Genetic material consists of Hydrogen, Carbon, Nitrogen. Gravitation Force is the main cause of formation of heaviear elements. Therefore the role of gravitation force in genetic mutation can not be ignored. Not only gravitation force but electromagnetic force and weak and strong nuclear force also have role in genetic mutation.

    Supreme Being means the Source of Entire Cosmos.

    1. Dan J

      Hello again Anirudh. I am happy that you replied.

      You mentioned:

      I have seen an article (I will the details you later) in which it was mentioned that in regression during hypnosis one girl told about her previous birth that a dinosaur is fetching her and she is running away to hide her in a cave.

      Past life regression is very much akin to a circus sideshow where a palm-reader will tell your future or a medium will contact your dead relatives. It has nothing to do with reality. It does not anywhere qualify as ‘evidence’ of anything more than someone trying to get money from someone else’s beliefs.

      In the experiments performed by Nicholas Spanos in the 1990s, the reported ‘memories’ were found to be extremely elaborate, with vivid, detailed descriptions. Subjects who reported memories of past lives exhibited high hypnotizability, and patients demonstrated that it was the expectations conveyed by the experimenter that were most important in determining the characteristics reported by the patients during their ‘memories’. Spanos’ research leads him to the conclusion that past lives are not memories, but actually social constructions based on patients acting “as if” they were someone else, but with significant flaws that would not be expected of actual memories. To create these memories, Spanos’ subjects drew upon the expectations established by authority figures and information outside of the experiment such as television, novels, life experiences and their own desires.

      According to Hindu mythology Lord Rama lived about 10 millions years ago and human civilization is much older than this period this is as per our belief.

      What you believe about Lord Rama means absolutely nothing to the scientific world. Your personal beliefs may provide you with a sense of connection to your people going back millions of years, and it may provide comfort to you when you are in despair, but it simply is not science.

      The Christians’ Bible says that the earth is only 6000 years old? Why are your religious writings a correct reflection of the facts while theirs is not? It is beautiful mythology (I, personally, find the Vedic scripture to be much more beautiful than that of the Christian Bible), but it is still mythology, nothing more.

      I will also provide you the details about giant size human fossil which was published in a News Paper.

      I certainly hope that you are not going to bring out a reference to this:

      Giant Skeleton Hoax

      From an article at The Museum of Hoaxes:

      In reality, the picture was created in 2002 by ‘IronKite’, a member of Worth1000.com who had submitted it as an entry in an “Archaeological Anomalies“ photo contest. The contest rules challenged entrants to “create an archaeological hoax… show a picture of an archaeological discovery that looks so real, had it not appeared at Worth1000, people might have done a double take.”

      Considering the fact that Bangladesh’s The New Nation (as well as newspapers in India) reported the story and photo as fact in April 2004, I think ‘IronKite’ did a superb job. If you indeed believed this hoax, then you were ‘had’, as we say in vernacular American English.

      I hope to respond to more later. Best of the day to you.

  12. Dan J

    Responding to more of your comment:

    Genetic material consists of Hydrogen, Carbon, Nitrogen. Gravitation Force is the main cause of formation of heaviear elements. Therefore the role of gravitation force in genetic mutation can not be ignored. Not only gravitation force but electromagnetic force and weak and strong nuclear force also have role in genetic mutation.

    Gravitational force is not the “main cause” of heavier elements. We cannot add more and more copper to a ball and hope for it to spontaneously generate heavier elements when it reaches a certain extreme mass. Heavy elements are created by the fusion in stars whose primary fuel (hydrogen) has been nearly exhausted. Virtually all elements heavier than boron are produced by nuclear reactions inside stars. When one of these stars explodes (a nova or supernova) at the end of its life, the heavier elements that it has been producing are ejected into space. These elements can then be dragged into the formation of new stars and their accretion discs. The accretion discs are where planetary bodies can form. These planetary bodies then contain those heavier elements. This has absolutely nothing to do with biological evolution, however, which was the primary focus of this post.

    The gravitational force, as well as the strong and weak nuclear forces, have almost nothing to do with genetic mutation. Changes in the DNA sequence of a cell’s genome and are most often caused by radiation, viruses, transposons and mutagenic chemicals, as well as errors that occur during meiosis or DNA replication. The person who taught you about the causes of genetic mutation was most likely not well-informed when it comes to biological chemistry.

    Supreme Being means the Source of Entire Cosmos.

    That’s not much of an explanation, really. It’s meaningless, and it has absolutely nothing to do with science. As I said before, Theology is not Science. Explaining the origins of our Universe has no need for a “Supreme Being”. There never has been any evidence for such a being. Provide testable evidence that this being ever existed, and you’re sure to win a Nobel Prize for completely overturning centuries of scientific research.

  13. Anirudh K. Satsangi

    Dear Dan

    Thank you very much for you responses to my comments which enlightened me much but not convinced. You have mentioned that radiation is one of the cause of mutation. Kindly let me know the nature and source of radiation. And what mutagenic chemicals do to bring about mutation. Do role of weak and strong nuclear force can be ignored in chemical reaction?

    If you want to say that what you feel is correct and other theories are not, this is not acceptable.

    1. Dan J

      Hello again Anirudh,

      It is good to hear from you again.

      Was the ‘photograph’ of the giant human skeleton [above] the evidence which you had hoped to present to support your claim of the existence of giant human beings?

      I hope that it helps to reassure you that no such remains have ever been discovered and researched by modern humans. If they had, it would have been much easier to use an actual photograph of the evidence instead of a hoax created with PhotoShop.

      You have mentioned that radiation is one of the cause of mutation. Kindly let me know the nature and source of radiation.

      Ionizing radiation can cause genetic mutations. Such radiation has many natural sources, as well as some man-made sources. For more information on the relationship between radiation and genetic mutation, please see the following:

      The Advisory Committee on Human Radiation Experiments’ report “How Does Radiation Affect Humans?”.

      Radiation Dose Rate and Mutation Frequency” by Staff of the Biology Division of Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge TN, US.

      I could give you many more references, but it is not my goal to give you a thorough education in genetics nor radiation.

      Do role of weak and strong nuclear force can be ignored in chemical reaction?

      The strong interaction is that which binds protons and neutrons together in the nucleus of an atom as well as binding quarks and gluons together to actually form those and other elementary particles. As such, it would have no direct impact on genetic mutation.

      The weak interaction is due to the exchange of the heavy W and Z bosons. Its most familiar effect is beta decay and the radioactivity associated with such atomic decay. Again, this fundamental interaction has nothing directly to do with genetic mutation.

      The electromagnetic force is the cause of chemical bonds but that does not mean that the electromagnetic force is directly related to, let alone that it is a primary cause of genetic mutation.

      When it comes to gravity, I am at a loss. Did you develop the ‘gravitational hypothesis of genetic mutation’ on your own? I have been unable to locate any scholarly articles which propose gravity as a primary cause of genetic mutation. Please provide links to such information so that I can make a better determination of its merits.

      If you want to say that what you feel is correct and other theories are not, this is not acceptable.

      What I feel!?!?! Sir; you seem to know less and less about science the more I converse with you. I have provided links to reports about the mechanisms I have described which support the observed evidence.

      You have done nothing more than quote Hindu mythology and tout your ideas about the causes of genetic mutation and the existence of giants as though they were well-known facts. You have provided no evidence. Until you do so, your words mean almost less than nothing.

  14. Anirudh K. Satsangi

    Hello Dan

    You say, “your words mean almost less than nothing”

    Dan, you are not an authority to say like this. I think you know nothing. You are turning your face away from reality.

    1. Dan J

      Hello again Anirudh,

      You mention:

      You say, “your words mean almost less than nothing”

      Actually, I said more than that. I said, “You have provided no evidence. Until you do so, your words mean almost less than nothing.” That is quite a different statement, don’t you think? You just performed an action which is often referred to as “quote mining”. Congratulations. You are one step closer to me calling you a fucking liar. I am still waiting for your evidence.

      Dan, you are not an authority to say like this. I think you know nothing. You are turning your face away from reality.

      I never claimed to be an authority. I provided links to scientifically supported documentation for the claims I made. You have provided nothing of the sort. You have made unsupported claims. You have provided no evidence. Still, you think that I know nothing. You claim that I am turning away from reality.

      You make me laugh. You sound ever so much like the Evangelical Christians here in the US. You raise a hue and cry about how your religious ideas are right and everyone else is wrong. When asked for evidence, you change the subject.

      I think all religious fundamentalists are very similar. They are all a bunch of lying whiners who refuse to accept anything that might interfere with their delusion that the mythology they’ve been given is the absolute truth.

      Evidence! We require evidence, Anirudh, or your claims do mean nothing. I’m sorry, but that’s the way science works. As I’ve said before, Theology is not Science.

  15. Anirudh K. Satsangi

    I am sorry Dear Dan. I wanted to write Hello Dan. Due to an oversight ‘o’ could not be typed. Omission is greatly regretted

    1. Dan J

      It is not a problem at all, Anirudh. I will edit the comment to insert the ‘o’.

  16. Anirudh K. Satsangi

    Thank you dear Dan for your very kind gesture for editing my comments to insert ‘o’. I am happy that you feel, I want to develop gravitational hypothesis of genetic mutation. I am sure one day it will be recognized as a Theory. All forces of nature (universe) work under Force of Gravity (Newtonian). In fact, all forces of the universe have originated from Gravitation Force and the time of perfect dissolution all these forces merge into gravitation force. Gravitation Force Theory of Biological Evolution is a fact.

  17. Anirudh K. Satsangi

    Dear Dan

    You need evidence in support of my views on gravitational hypothesis of genetic mutation. I would like to provide you evidence one by one. Here is one based on views of Prof. Jayant Vishnu Narlikar, a great astrophysicist and based on some experiments:

    “One important aspect missed by the author is that these micro-organisms have not come directly from a comet. They were trapped in the Earth’s atmosphere and would take some weeks to remain there as argued by the (late Sir Fred) Hoyle-Wickramasinghe theory of panspermia,” he said, adding the micro-organisms would get used to gravity.

    “Arguments against panspermia used to be made on the grounds that they would not survive in the hostile radiation in the interstellar space. Experiments at the Hyderabad-based Centre for Cellular and Molecular Biology (CCMB) have however shown that under doses of radiation like UV, X-rays and gamma rays, bacteria mutate and learn to survive.

    Gravity is the source of all forces. All forces including electromagnetic force and weak and strong nuclear force are the various modification of gravity.

    1. Jason Thibeault

      Just because the quote has the word “gravity” in it, doesn’t mean it actually implies anything about gravity being the source of all mutations or all the universe’s forces. I mean, seriously. If I were to quote an article written by Dan that includes both my name, and the word “God” in it, would you conclude that Dan thinks I’m God?

  18. Anirudh K. Satsangi

    How absurd arguement, Thibeault!

  19. Anirudh K. Satsangi

    According to His Holiness Maharaj Sahab (1861-1907), the 3rd Spiritual Head of Radha Soami Faith, “during satyayuga,………..in consequence of their greater spirituality and of the high purity of their heart, had no difficulty in getting access at times into the astral planes and holding communion with the departed spirits.” (Source: Discourses on Radhasoami Faith). Greater Spirituality as mentioned above is linked to the size of pineal gland. In Satyauga pineal gland was highly developed but in Kaliyuga the pineal gland is a rudimentary (undeveloped) organ. This is downward evolution of humankind. We should ascertain the period taken from highly developed pineal gland to undeveloped pineal gland. This will determine the Age of Human Existence on this Earth Planet. Other arguments, as I think, will not help much.

  1. Lousy Canuck » RCimT: Monday is Sunday for one day only

    […] ideas about life’s origins. Note that I didn’t say “correct”, and I must reiterate to the more foolish of my theist readers that Darwin is not a prophet, nor is anything he said […]

  2. Should we take away ‘freedom of speech’ from ID/Creationists? « it's Vizhnet's blog

    […] Dan J : @RelUnrelated (on the twitter) & excellent blog here // read the whole article here […]

  3. Lousy Canuck » Zdenny has two modes: fail, and fail harder

    […] For the millionth time, you’re talking out your asshole. There is no overarching “Darwinian evolution worldview”. There is SCIENCE, and there is THEOLOGY THAT COMES INTO CONFLICT WITH SCIENCE. You are in the latter. You assume that atheists de facto embrace science. While I do, it does not have a prophet, and especially not Darwin. And being an atheist does not mean I must embrace science as the alternative. There are a number of faiths I could have that do not involve deities whatsoever, and yet do not put stock into science as the objective study of reality. I choose reality because I like reality and do not want to impose my wishes on it the way theists do by saying “it would suck if death was permanent so LET’S INVENT HEAVEN! It would suck if the universe was harsh and merciless and our fellow humans were our only support structure so LET’S ASCRIBE LAWS TO A SKY-FATHER!” You cannot stand reality so you borrow someone else’s inventions because they make for good security blankets. Because you can’t handle the universe being wholly uninterested in you. Because you can’t handle the idea that life is not particularly special or especially designed. Because you can’t handle that you’re not the Chosen Ones. […]

  4. RCimT: Sunday Atheism Roundup (on Monday) « Lousy Canuck

    […] older thread at DanJ’s has been invaded by a Hindu creationist with a wacky theory — that evolution and in fact all four of the universe’s forces are controlled by […]

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>