A couple of things I’ve wondered about...

[ThisShouldMakeSense]

Hi,

I’m new to the creation v. evolution section, so forgive me if I haven’t read other threads on the subject.
So, I was wondering what the evolutionist’s explanation is on certain subjects, such as the human conscience and blood’s ability to clot.
How do they explain their evolution?
The conscience is a very interesting thing. I was under the impression that evolution teaches survival of the fittest. If that were so, why would we need a conscience that would make us feel bad after having killed someone? I hope I make sense. It’s not simply that there are laws against such things that prevent us from doing that. Most people alive know that killing another person is wrong. Our conscience tells us that. We don't need laws for that. So, any explanations would be appreciated.

Also, the subject of clotting. How did that evolve? If we cut ourselves, an amazing process takes place. If it weren’t for blood’s ability to clot, we would literally bleed to death. So I’d imagine that during the evolutionary process, before clotting was possible, creatures would have bled to death whenever they cut themselves. Again, I hope you understand what I’m saying.
Thanks for any input you can offer.

 

[Mike182]

Hi,

I’m new to the creation v. evolution section, so forgive me if I haven’t read other threads on the subject.
So, I was wondering what the evolutionist’s explanation is on certain subjects, such as the human conscience and blood’s ability to clot.
How do they explain their evolution?
The conscience is a very interesting thing. I was under the impression that evolution teaches survival of the fittest. If that were so, why would we need a conscience that would make us feel bad after having killed someone? I hope I make sense. It’s not simply that there are laws against such things that prevent us from doing that. Most people alive know that killing another person is wrong. Our conscience tells us that. We don't need laws for that. So, any explanations would be appreciated.

im not evolutionist or scientist, but you could argue that conscience is scoially created - if humans evolved, and saw eachotehr as acting in certain ways, they might feel that is how they should act, and deviating from this is wrong, and so a basic morality is born, which over time develops and evolves........ but like i said, i can't answer for what evolutionists believe on this

Also, the subject of clotting. How did that evolve? If we cut ourselves, an amazing process takes place. If it weren’t for blood’s ability to clot, we would literally bleed to death. So I’d imagine that during the evolutionary process, before clotting was possible, creatures would have bled to death whenever they cut themselves. Again, I hope you understand what I’m saying.
Thanks for any input you can offer.

I guess the evolutionist's answer to this would be "yea, so we evolved, whats your point?"

mike

 

[Nehustan]

To answer the question about blood clots, creatures do not adapt in response to an act, i.e. clotting is not caused by evolution toward an end. A genetic disposition toward something such as clotting usually lies dormant until that preadaptive trait has reason to become manifest. It can also enter the gene pool as a mutation which would again be useless until environmental factors came to bear upon it. Thus if one considers the gene pool, the locus for blood clotting could have existed in part of the gene pool for creatures that didn't even have blood, effectively 'useless' for such a species. Only later when the species developed what we would describe as a 'blood system' would the trait for clotting become relevant. As it had previously played no part in survival its passing on would not have played any part in reproduction, and may have existed at low level within the population, as soon as the blood system developed all the creatures without it would have become very vulnerable, and as you delineate would have been unviable. The creatures with the previously 'useless' gene, however would 'miraculouly' be PREADAPTIVE, and their survival would increase the relevant gene would increase in the gene pool until it was potentially present in all, all without having died out prior to reproducing. That's the argument, given how much of the genome appears to have 'no use' it must be assumed that we are predapated to many environments that as of yet have not occured, when and if they occur there will be selective pressure on the species with those who are not adpatable perishing, as the axiom goes (socially and biologically) 'adapt or die'.

 

[michel]

Well, I certainly am no Scientist, and would have trouble dealing with some of the questions you have raised. If you really are interested though, http://www.talkorigins.org/ seems like a good authoritative site on the subject of the evolutionary process.

Hope that helps.

 

[Nehustan]

To answer the question about blood clots, creatures do not adapt in response to an act, i.e. clotting is not caused by evolution toward an end. A genetic disposition toward something such as clotting usually lies dormant until that preadaptive trait has reason to become manifest. It can also enter the gene pool as a mutation which would again be useless until environmental factors came to bear upon it. Thus if one considers the gene pool, the locus for blood clotting could have existed in part of the gene pool for creatures that didn't even have blood, effectively 'useless' for such a species. Only later when the species developed what we would describe as a 'blood system' would the trait for clotting become relevant. As it had previously played no part in survival its passing on would not have played any part in reproduction, and may have existed at low level within the population, as soon as the blood system developed all the creatures without it would have become very vulnerable, and as you delineate would have been unviable. The creatures with the previously 'useless' gene, however would 'miraculouly' be PREADAPTIVE, and their survival would increase the relevant gene would increase in the gene pool until it was potentially present in all, all without having died out prior to reproducing. That's the argument, given how much of the genome appears to have 'no use' it must be assumed that we are predapated to many environments that as of yet have not occured, when and if they occur there will be selective pressure on the species with those who are not adpatable perishing, as the axiom goes (socially and biologically) 'adapt or die'.

Actually I just considered what I have written, and if viewed from the perspective of ID, this could be argued as a case of predestination of whole houses of humanity, i.e. your progengy can only be predestined if they actually exist and if ID has given them unviable DNA they were destined to die out. Might even be suitable for a seperate thread 'Is Evolution God's Judgement on a House'?

 

[BucephalusBB]

A very short look in a part of a evolutionversion:
Mutation happens, mutation succeeds and growns on..

So short:
-blood arives in the string of evolution
-some animals die after being cut
- mutation(not even necessarry here)
- some die, some live
- the living kind survives the dieing kind
- evolution succesfull

The conscience is a very interesting thing. I was under the impression that evolution teaches survival of the fittest.

Evolution is survivest of the fittest. This however isn't a perfect way of creating. Like for example a bear VS a wolf. the bear is in the advance, but the wolfs attack with the 5 at the same time. the bear loses. Just a short example of how that survival of the fittest does not mean that the fittest is the best, but it has a good way to do things..

Anyway, back to your question:

If that were so, why would we need a conscience that would make us feel bad after having killed someone?

If you kill somebody, how does your environment react? If you kill 100 more, what will your environment do to you? Now what would be the use of a conscience on that moment?
Evolution means adapting to your environment as well..

I hope I make sense. It’s not simply that there are laws against such things that prevent us from doing that. Most people alive know that killing another person is wrong. Our conscience tells us that. We don't need laws for that. So, any explanations would be appreciated.

And yet, this wasn't always so..
When we started out as apes, you didn't need to kill any other ape if it wasn't needed. Yet if it did become needed, you would. Rules arived and so adaptation.. And even now we still need ranking to prevent people from trying to be the fittest..

 

[JerryL]

I’m new to the creation v. evolution section, so forgive me if I haven’t read other threads on the subject.
So, I was wondering what the evolutionist’s explanation is on certain subjects, such as the human conscience and blood’s ability to clot.
How do they explain their evolution?

Perhaps you should go buy a book; or look up one of the many evolutionist websites which discuss this. This seems to be far less a discussion than a request for available information (How do I multiply fractions).

The conscience is a very interesting thing. I was under the impression that evolution teaches survival of the fittest. If that were so, why would we need a conscience that would make us feel bad after having killed someone?

People with consciences function better in societies which are advantageous over individuals.

Most people alive know that killing another person is wrong.

That explains the lack of warfare.

Also, the subject of clotting. How did that evolve?

mutation and selection.

If we cut ourselves, an amazing process takes place. If it weren’t for blood’s ability to clot, we would literally bleed to death. So I’d imagine that during the evolutionary process, before clotting was possible, creatures would have bled to death whenever they cut themselves.

Yep, they did.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

One of the things that puzzles me is that there is many theories as to how the components of life formed but how did that "thing" which we call life actually form in the physical organism that was produced? For example when there is a dead body all of the mechanisms of life are in place but how does life be put into it? So just how did "life" come to be?

 

[greatcalgarian]

Well, I certainly am no Scientist, and would have trouble dealing with some of the questions you have raised. If you really are interested though, http://www.talkorigins.org/ seems like a good authoritative site on the subject of the evolutionary process.

Hope that helps.

Frubals to you. Here are one of the details:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB200_2.html
Claim CB200.2:

The biochemistry of blood clotting is irreducibly complex, indicating that it must have been designed.
Source:

Behe, Michael J. 1996. Darwin's Black Box, New York: The Free Press, pp. 74-97.
Response:

1. The blood clotting systems appears to be put together by using whatever long polymeric bridges are handy. There are many examples of complicated systems made from components that have useful but completely different roles in different components. There is also evidence that the genes for blood clotting (indeed, the whole genome) duplicated twice in the course of its evolution (Davidson et al. 2003). The duplication of parts and co-opting of parts with different functions gets around the "challenge" of irreducible complexity evolving gradually.
2. Blood clotting is not irreducibly complex. Some animals -- dolphins, for example -- get along fine without the Hagemann factor (Robinson et al. 1969), a component of the human blood clotting system which Behe includes in its "irreducible" complexity (Behe 1996, 84). Doolittle and Feng (1987) predicted that "lower" vertebrates would lack the "contact pathway" of blood clotting. Work on the genomes of the puffer fish and zebrafish have confirmed this (Yong and Doolittle 2003).
3. Irreducible complexity is not an obstacle to evolution and doesn't imply design.

 

[greatcalgarian]

Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District

Lots of discussion of blood clotting in the above court case, for example:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/day7am.html

 

[ch'ang]

One of the things that puzzles me is that there is many theories as to how the components of life formed but how did that "thing" which we call life actually form in the physical organism that was produced? For example when there is a dead body all of the mechanisms of life are in place but how does life be put into it? So just how did "life" come to be?

I'm not sure how you see but life to me its like this: I am alive because my brain is functioning and my brain is functioning because the countless chemical reactions are proceding as planned. When they stop my brain stops and so I die. So basicly human life is just a complex chemical reaction that lasts 60-80 years.

 

[greatcalgarian]

The Blood Clotting System: is it IC?

Blood clotting is an example of what biochemists call a cascade: one protein does something, which starts another protein doing something, which starts another.... Cascades, and the clotting cascade in particular, are among the favorite examples of ID proponents. Yet giving a precise specification of system, parts, and function so that the specified system is IC turns out to be difficult. Hard to specify or not, it is still one of Behe's favorite examples. He devotes his entire fourth chapter to it. After explaining how it works, he indicates that scientists know almost nothing about how it evolved. His main evidence for this is a nontechnical lecture given by Russell Doolittle. But of course that talk, using analogies to Yin and Yang, was not meant to convey a technical understanding. After several people commented on this, Behe responded with an online essay "In Defense of the Irreducibility of the Clotting Cascade" (9). The defense comes down to saying that evolution of this system would require too many 'unselected steps'. But this is not true, as pointed out by Ken Miller in Finding Darwin's God (10) and in his online article (11) where he gives more details than the publisher wanted in the book.

The clotting cascade is a member of a family of cascades with a long pedigree. Our immune system includes a related cascade which Behe considers to be IC, but see Matt Inlay's article "Evolving Immunity" (12). A recent paper by Krem and Di Cera (13) pursues the evolution of cascades farther down the evolutionary tree. They discuss biochemically similar cascades in horseshoe crabs, fruit flies, and ourselves. They find that "Extensive similarities suggest that these cascades were built by adding enzymes from the bottom of the cascade up and from similar macromolecular building blocks." Behe argues that this type of evolution would not happen because there would be unselected steps. But he thinks in terms of precursor systems with missing parts, not in terms of ancestor organisms in different environments with different problems to solve. This may reflect a difference between thinking like a chemist and thinking like a biologist. Early forms of the cascade occurred in animals without a high pressure circulatory system like ours. In horseshoe crabs, for instance, a simpler form of the clotting cascade serves to entangle invading bacteria. There is no reason to presume unselected steps (other than gene duplication, which may be neutral at first) if the organism and its way of living and its environment are changing.

But have you noticed something missing from our discussion of the clotting cascade? We haven't proven that it is IC. The way to do this, as Behe tells us on page 42, would be to take the parts one by one and show that each is required for clotting. Or point to published research that does this. Surely Behe took care of this detail in the fourth chapter of his book? No. He 'proved' it rhetorically, but not systematically. Well then, when he published a web page several years later entitled "In Defense of the Irreducibility of the Blood Clotting Cascade" (9) he must have filled in the details? No again. He advanced his argument against the evolvability of the clotting cascade, but that has been answered (10, 11, 13, 14). Meanwhile, the little matter of proving that it is IC has been overlooked. And there is evidence to the contrary: whales, mammals like us, lack a key part called Hageman factor but their blood clots anyway (15). Under questioning at a recent meeting (16) Behe finally agreed that the cascade is not IC after all. Indeed, Acton gives reasons why he never should have thought so (14). (As far as I know, Behe has not 'done his homework' on any of his examples except the mousetrap).
http://www.talkdesign.org/faqs/icdmyst/ICDmyst.html

 

[greatcalgarian]

Ken Miller has this to offer:
The Evolution of Vertebrate Blood Clotting
http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/DI/clot/Clotting.html

Remember, we're not starting from nothing. We're starting about 600 million years ago in a small pre-vertebrate. with a low-volume low-pressure circulatory system. Just like any small inverterbate with a circulatory system, our ancestral organism would have had a full compliment of sticky white cells to help plug leaks. In addition, that ancestral system would have had something else. Most of the time, hemorrage starts with cell injury, meaning that cells are broken in the vicinity of a wound and their contents are dumped out. That means, among other things, that all of a cell's internal signalling molecules are suddenly spilled out into the damaged vascular system. Included among the contents are a whole slew of internal signalling molecules, including prominent ones like cyclic adenosine monophosphate (abbreviated: cAMP), all dumped into the tissue surrounding a wound.

Why would a sudden gusher of cAMP in a wound be significant? Well, it turns out that vertebrates use cAMP as a signalling molecule to control the contractions of smooth muscle cells, the very sort of muscle cells that surround blood vessels. Therefore, the release of internal cAMP from broken cells would automatically cause smooth muscles around a broken vessel to contract, limiting blood flow and making it more likely that the blood's own sticky white cells would be able to plug the leak. That means that we already have some ability to limit damage and plug leaks in a primitive, low-pressure system. Not a bad place to begin.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

I'm not sure how you see but life to me its like this: I am alive because my brain is functioning and my brain is functioning because the countless chemical reactions are proceding as planned. When they stop my brain stops and so I die. So basicly human life is just a complex chemical reaction that lasts 60-80 years.

So for simpler organisms with simpler chemical ractions why can't you just set them up and start over if that's all life is?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

So for simpler organisms with simpler chemical ractions why can't you just set them up and start over if that's all life is?

That is a really good question.

 

[mr.guy]

You mean like bacteria? I thought you could.

 

[linwood]

Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District

Lots of discussion of blood clotting in the above court case, for example:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/day7am.html

Yes, the Kitmiller trial publicaly shredded Behes "research" in this area.

 

[JerryL]

So for simpler organisms with simpler chemical ractions why can't you just set them up and start over if that's all life is?

http://www.bioedonline.org/news/news.cfm?art=660

 

[ladylazarus]

One of the things that puzzles me is that there is many theories as to how the components of life formed but how did that "thing" which we call life actually form in the physical organism that was produced? For example when there is a dead body all of the mechanisms of life are in place but how does life be put into it? So just how did "life" come to be?

The cell is the basic unit of life. In order for life to exist, there must be metabolism, where nonliving material is converted into cellular components. Metabolism is where life really rests. Cells are made up of certain molecules which are produced and come together simply through being shuffled around by the laws of physics, at which point metabolism just happens on its own. That's the simple explanation, and it requires that you just trust that the long explanation makes sense, since the long explanation fills many thousands of pages of books. But until you've read those books, you're in no position to be criticizing their theories.

The conscience is a very interesting thing. I was under the impression that evolution teaches survival of the fittest. If that were so, why would we need a conscience that would make us feel bad after having killed someone? I hope I make sense. It’s not simply that there are laws against such things that prevent us from doing that. Most people alive know that killing another person is wrong. Our conscience tells us that. We don't need laws for that. So, any explanations would be appreciated.

When early hominids were first showing up, between 5 and 2 million years ago, the needed each other to survive. Individual hominds would have died in no time, but because they formed bands they were able to survive. If an individual was aggressive for no reason, and killed others in its band it would die, and not pass on its genes. Being nice to your friends was a trait which made it easier to survive.

As humans evolved and the Neolithic revolution came about, our societies formed, and societies were now what made it possible for us to live. If an individual in the society was just going around killing others, he would be hindering the society, and exiled or killed or locked up, preventing him from reproducing. The conscience is a very logical evolution tool: it allows for society, which was a tremendous step in the evolution of the human.

Also, the subject of clotting. How did that evolve? If we cut ourselves, an amazing process takes place. If it weren’t for blood’s ability to clot, we would literally bleed to death. So I’d imagine that during the evolutionary process, before clotting was possible, creatures would have bled to death whenever they cut themselves. Again, I hope you understand what I’m saying.
Thanks for any input you can offer.

Clotting is a property of blood. Animals that didn't have blood were the first to evolve, and so obviously they couldn't bleed to death because blood was not necessary for them to live. As animals evolved, so did blood, which necessarily clots; in rare instances where it didn't, the creature would die quickly. But there were never big groups of animals walking around with blood that didn't clot. Blood evolved because it clots.

 

[St0ne]

Hi,

I’m new to the creation v. evolution section, so forgive me if I haven’t read other threads on the subject.
So, I was wondering what the evolutionist’s explanation is on certain subjects, such as the human conscience and blood’s ability to clot.
How do they explain their evolution?
The conscience is a very interesting thing. I was under the impression that evolution teaches survival of the fittest. If that were so, why would we need a conscience that would make us feel bad after having killed someone? I hope I make sense. It’s not simply that there are laws against such things that prevent us from doing that. Most people alive know that killing another person is wrong. Our conscience tells us that. We don't need laws for that. So, any explanations would be appreciated.

Also, the subject of clotting. How did that evolve? If we cut ourselves, an amazing process takes place. If it weren’t for blood’s ability to clot, we would literally bleed to death. So I’d imagine that during the evolutionary process, before clotting was possible, creatures would have bled to death whenever they cut themselves. Again, I hope you understand what I’m saying.
Thanks for any input you can offer.

Good questions and I hope I can answer them with my own limited understanding of evolution (although i say limited I assume generally better than most theists).

I believe that the answer to both your questions is that it these two things were simply beneficial side effects of mutations.

I believe human concience in evolution occured because of pain without pain there is no need for concience, by pain we can measure what is good and bad and this gives us concience (although a very rudimentary explanation) and pain is actually beneficial to our survival.

Similarly blood clotting is a chemical recation which is beneficial to our survival and so it stayed with the evolution of species.

All these things are beneficial to our survival, thats why they call it survival of the fittest.