Re: Dawkins, bacteria, Tibetans, fish, etc.

Hey Brandon,

I ask questions because I want to know, not to be difficult.  I’m not trying to miss the point, and I’m sad that you seem to think that.  Although I don’t think you mean to send that message, it sometimes seems as if you’re trying to avoid answering my questions by saying the book is boring, the author isn’t good enough, my questions don’t interest you, I should accept evolution because everyone else does, and so on.  Even if the book is boring and the author doesn’t have the ‘right’ title with his name, those things don’t have anything to do with whether the author’s ideas are right or wrong.  My questions may not interest you, but they are important to me.  If I’m to be persuaded that Darwinian evolution is true, I need answers that make scientific sense.

My next point is that IN his book, he claims that positive genetic changes are nearly impossible and just don't happen in nature. This claim is falsified by the bacteria test that we discussed. I was NOT trying to prove evolution with one test.

If you had finished the book, you would have found that what he said was that ‘positive’ mutations are very rare and generally come at a price.  Either genetic information (DNA coding) is lost, or there are accompanying negative changes.  (In any given organism, there are always going to be many more negative mutations than positive ones, so even if a positive change occurs, it isn’t the only thing passed to the next generation—many more negative ones may also be passed along.)  For example, an organism may become more heat tolerant, but at the same time lose disease resistance.  Although it wasn’t apparent from the bacteria study, it may very well be that while the bacteria gained the ability to metabolize a different kind of material, it also lost the ability to do something else—we don’t know one way or the other.  The other point I was trying to make about the bacteria is the statistical improbability of mutations driving evolution in light of the fact that it took tens of thousands of generations just to get one positive change.  How many generations would it take for bacteria to become non-bacteria, something more complex?  When I think about the complexity of a single cell—the mitochondria, the semi-permeable cell wall, and so on—the sheer number of DNA codons needed to direct cell function and reproduction is overwhelming.  At one positive change per 30,000-40,000 generations, how many generations would it have taken to develop even the complex function of a single-celled organism, much less the complex function of higher organisms such as mammals and people?  After all, most higher organisms have a much longer life cycle than do bacteria.

So one could assume that a lot of evolution is happening at this moment with bacteria.

One may assume that a lot of adaptation is happening with bacteria.  As far as I know, no one has ever observed bacteria evolving into something else, a more complex non-bacterial organism, even after watching many thousands of generations.

The article ASSUMES evolution is true and ASSUMES it's readers agree with that. That's how lonely you are out there Susan. Mainstream articles just aren't written with you in mind.

This is what bugs me. Just assuming something is true doesn’t make it true. I want to know the logical foundation for belief in Darwinian evolution.  I don’t care what everyone else thinks.  I want to know what is right and true, regardless of whether anyone else believes it or not.  An old saying goes something like this: “Right is right, even if everyone is against it.  Wrong is wrong, even if everyone is for it.”  If Darwinian evolution is true, it must have a logical foundation and must provide a sound explanation for the data observed.  I cannot accept current consensus simply because it’s the consensus—that would be asking me to accept it on blind faith rather than on sound logic and good science.  

Looked up sea water on wikipedia—article wasn’t very helpful—a statement backed up by vague theories.  The evaporite deposits mentioned in

this quote occur in bodies of water such as the Dead Sea where evaporation exceeds input, not in the oceans at large.    

Ocean salinity has been stable for billions of years, most likely as a consequence of a chemical/tectonic system which removes as much salt as is deposited; for instance, sodium and chloride sinks include evaporite deposits... One theory is that plate tectonics forces salt under the continental land masses...

A scientific study I found concluded that known Na removal processes account for only about 30% of NA going into the oceans, suggesting that Na concentration is increasing over time.  According to this study, the maximum age of the earth would be around 62 million years, not the billions of years needed for Darwinian evolution to occur.

All for now. :)

Susan