That's something that has mystified me. Why do so many Christians say other Christians aren't Christians, because they don't believe 100% the same?
Everybody should have given up when he said micro-evolution exists but macro-evolution not so much because "chromosomal mutations are rarely beneficial". That's how ALL evolution, micro and macro if you want to be part of the group of people that wrongfully separates the two, occur. Evolution is based in genetic mutation, so you cannot accept any form of evolution without accepting that chromosomal mutations happen and that a small percentage of them do not result in death and confer some advantage. And you certainly cannot believe in a species evolving as a species while disregarding the capacity for one species to evolve into another. They utilize the exact same mechanism, just on a different scale. Deny it all you want but it happened and will continue to happen so long as life exists on this tiny little planet we call home.
Also note Down's Syndrome isn't the result of a chromosomal mutation, it's a failure of chromosome 21 to segregate in one parent's sperm/egg resulting in a state of trisomy in the offspring. A Biology major at Wake should know that
Eta: I have no issue with faith or somebody questioning evolution (no matter how wrong such a stance is). I simply want to point out is is completely incongruous to accept that a single species evolves within itself while denying new species evolve from other species.
There was no evidence of the theory of ether. It was speculation based on speculative properties of light. It was rightly rejected when experiments designed specifically to test for its existence failed. Pretty big difference in "kind" of evidence.
But whatever makes you happy. I know nothing you've read here is going to change your mind that it is just the THEORY of evolution and should be taken with a grain of salt. In fact, you're more likely to hold your beliefs even more strongly because they've been challenged in this thread, according to previous scientific experiments. http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2010/07/11/how_facts_backfire/
Most have come to accept that the only real truth, scientific or otherwise, is that truth is contextual and not absolute.
It's not incongruous at all. Micro-evolution is not necessarily based on genetic mutations. It can also be based on traits that are already present in the gene pool. Idea--if all the existing foliage below giraffe height is eaten by the existing giraffes, then only the tallest giraffes survive. If the climate changes such that there's more snow on the ground in a particular locale, the whiter rabbits will be more difficult to see by their predators, and, eventually, all the rabbits be white. Etc., etc., etc. There's no mutation required for this form of micro-evolution. A scientist ought to know that.
You are correct that selection of a trait doesn't involve mutation. What you may be failing to realize is that differences in pigmentation of a species result from genetic mutations. There are black rabbits and white rabbits of the same species because of a set of genetic alterations. Hence the evolution being selected by snow example is still being driven at its base by genetic mutations because otherwise there would be no color trait to select for. Giraffe height, likewise, is based in genetic differences so again what is ultimately being selected for is an alteration of some form because genetic alterations are the basis for phenotypic traits. If you gotta keep the two separate to maintain your faith, that is cool. I'll never agree with you on that though.
Moreover, even assuming genetic mutation is a driver of micro-evolution, the point I was trying to make (perhaps inartfully) was that, while mutations generally are rarely beneficial, mutations that affect the structure of the chromosome are particularly bad (see, Down's Syndrome (which isn't the result of a mutation, but does demonstrate the consequences of alterations in chromosome structure)). Plus, I don't recall ever hearing a good theory (there's that word again) for exactly how it came to pass that we have 46 chromosomes and our supposed ancestors have 48. Considering the inability to mate, the logistics of any fusion scenarios seem about as plausible as a monkey typing the complete works of Shakespeare.
Of course gross alterations to chromosomal structure are normally bad. In fact they are normally lethal. However they aren't lethal just because they happen, they are lethal because they cause alterations in the expression of the genes within the affected region. There are numerous instances of ancestral chromosomes fusing together (at least by sequence they appear to be fusions as we can't see it happening millions of years ago)without lethality because the alteration in gene expression wasn't severe enough or conferred some actual survival advantage. One way of understanding a change from 48 to 46 is that two chromosomes fused in the past, an event which did not result in death but rather resulted in a state which conferred an eventual selection advantage which caused it to eventually constitute the only chromosomal structure in a species. Fusion events can change promoter regions, add enhancer sequences near genes they previously were absent from which increase expression, add repressoir regions which inhibit expression, or change around chromatin packing which affects expression. All of this is to say there are a very rare subset of chromosomal alterations which are not lethal but cause an alteration in cellular/organismal functioning. A lot of these result in states which are not advantagous (see any number of genetic disorders) but a rare subset of them will confer some advantage which can be selected for. That is the best I can give you without spending a lot of time on this.
Until we start talking about evolution.
Plus, I don't recall ever hearing a good theory (there's that word again) for exactly how it came to pass that we have 46 chromosomes and our supposed ancestors have 48. Considering the inability to mate, the logistics of any fusion scenarios seem about as plausible as a monkey typing the complete works of Shakespeare.
"There is a considerable difference between the two, as everyone knows. A theory would certainly have a considerably greater amount of proof than a mere hypothesis, which is still waiting to be demonstrated convincingly.
Do you consider religion to be a hypothesis or a theory?
If you gotta keep the two separate to maintain your faith, that is cool.
There's a perfectly healthy man in China with 44 chromosomes :shrug
That's something that has mystified me. Why do so many Christians say other Christians aren't Christians, because they don't believe 100% the same?
Depending on whose numbers you look at, there are anywhere from 20,000 to 40,000 Christian denominations in the world. I don't think that "so many" consider those who believe differently from the way they do to be non-Christians. But I think many Christians consider others to be wrong in their beliefs. If I'm not mistaken, the only belief commonly held across all of them is this:
Jesus Christ, crucified, dead, resurrected. After that, it is wide open.
Uh, if you haven't read this thread, it appears that the resurrected bit is open for debate.
Uh, I did read the thread. It may be up for debate among posters, some of whom are referencing unknown, modern theologians. But I think if you read the statement of faith for any Christian denomination, it includes a belief that Christ rose from the dead.
I made this point earlier, but you seem to have missed it. I consider myself a Christian, but my skepticism of evolution isn't based on my faith in the least. I have no problem, from a religious standpoint, accepting that evolutionary speciation is the mechanism through which God created humans. As I stated, science attempts to answer the "how" where religion tries to answer the "who." These are totally separate inquiries. In fact, before I took anthro at Wake, I believed in evolution hook, line, and sinker. But the holes in the fossil record and the inability of anyone to provide a reasonable explanation of the logistics of the act of speciation convinced me that I should be a skeptic. Is evolution the best theory out there? Maybe; but it is still a theory and until we have better evidence in support of it we should treat it as such.
"There is a considerable difference between the two, as everyone knows. A theory would certainly have a considerably greater amount of proof than a mere hypothesis, which is still waiting to be demonstrated convincingly.
Do you consider religion to be a hypothesis or a theory?