Cheerio!
Kevin

It’s refreshing to read a cordial, professional, but lively discussion over the theory of evolution, one that doesn’t come to ad hominem attacks. You are obviously one who has read widely, and I thank you for your attempts to understand beliefs outside of those you may have inherited through your cultural identity. This alone is noteworthy, as all too many adherents to certain systems of beliefs (yes, scientists included–from personal experience, some scientists can be surprisingly narrow-minded about interpretations of empirical evidence, especially when it contradicts their own work) are unwilling to even look at other lines of reasoning to explain why we see the world as we do. For the record, while I understand PhysicistDave’s point about formal scientific training being essential for understanding how to determine the validity of and how to interpret real-world evidence (in the form of data), I don’t subscribe to the idea that science shouldn’t be made accessible to non-scientists. Science is just a profession that seeks to listen to what the world is trying to tell us. Every rock, every gene sequence, every disease, has a story to tell; we’re just trying to translate what they’re saying into English, if you will.

That being said, I wish to point out a minor, but perhaps significant, premise that I think you may have incorrectly applied to this discussion. You note that there is no evidence pointing to an increase in genetic information through the ages, only a decrease (I have not read enough of the literature to be able to draw my own conclusions on this, so I’ll leave this point be). I think there is a major, and unjustified, premise that you have not explicitly stated when you brought up that point. The premise is this: That humans (and dogs, iguanas, jellyfish, and so on) are more information-dense (and more sophisticated?) than for example, a single-celled phytoplankter. By accepting this linear increase in information-richness from unicellular organisms to “higher” species implicitly, you then are able to question whether there is an increase in “information” through the phylogenetic tree up to humans. I think this is a misguided view of biological information. I can’t particularly think of why humans are more sophisticated than the smaller critters that share our Earth. Sure, we’re able to manipulate our landscape and bend natural resources to our will (to an extent–we still haven’t managed to conquer natural disasters yet), but from a biochemical standpoint, we’re actually pretty simple organisms. We lack many of the basic metabolisms that allow “primitive” organisms to live in different environments. For example, we can’t perform nitrogen fixation. All of the nitrogen we require (as nitrates and ammonium) comes from consumption of other organisms (which have obtained nitrogen from their prey or symbionts), and so on until we arrive at the nitrogen fixers–fungi and bacteria, for the most part–that fuel our nitrogen economy at high energetic cost to themselves. We’re lacking a nitrogen-fixing metabolism for good reason–we don’t need it. Animals have evolved (for over 500 million years) to essentially be big storage tanks of nitrogen (in proteins) (that’s why meat has a lot of protein!), because (most) animals are mobile and can extract nitrogen from their prey. However, if you look at the biomolecular composition of plants, which are not mobile are thus often stressed for nitrogen (which is why we provide N through fertilizers … see the connection?), plants contain far less protein (as a percentage of total biomass) than animals (like humans). This is because many of the structural functions that are provided by proteins in animals (e.g., keratin in your hair and collagen in your cartilage) are replaced by carbohydrates (which do not contain nitrogen) in plants. In this way, plants can conserve their scarce nitrogen reserves for use in the most essential functions, e.g., for catalysis (building protein-based enzymes). It’s through exercises in logic and data analysis like the example I’ve just outlined that I believe that humans and other animals are not especially sophisticated or information-rich; we just have an ecological niche that allows us to take advantage of organisms at other trophic levels. (By the way, eukaryotic genomes may be big, but they’re also very redundant–there are multiple copies of many genes in the genome, a feature that’s not seen in most all prokaryotes–again, a matter of energetic trade-offs (time vs. energy reserves).)

Just looking at the illogical patchwork of genes, regulatory networks, catalytic biomolecular machines, and information flow within a cell (and within the human body), I’m inclined to believe that life was not designed by an intelligent, logical Creator. If we compare computer systems–which I hope we can agree are designed to be functionally efficient and to have minimal redundancy & internal conflicts–to any biological system (pick your favorite scale–ecosystem-level, organ-level, cellular, or signalling cascade-level), we can pretty easily see that biological systems are very much dynamic and fundamentally imperfect. I’d go as far as saying that it looks very much like a careless cosmic experimenter went through a pile of biomolecular parts and cobbled together whatever seemed to work. Needed a source of energy? Use the Sun! Need electricity to power cellular processes? Let’s strip electrons out of water and dump them into carbon dioxide to make biomass (and spitting out oxygen as a waste product in the meantime). If we look at all closely at any of the reactions and enzymes involved in this metabolic sequence (just one of many thousands known (see the KEGG atlas if you’re interested)), we’ll immediately see that many of these reactions are downright terrible in terms of design. These enzymes are not something a bioengineer would intentionally design today, because they’re just so inefficient. (RuBisCO is a well-studied example, if you’re interested in reading about its poisoning by molecular oxygen.) That’s what our current understanding of what biology is–it’s a mess. That is why we spend so much time trying to understand it and predict the responses to external perturbations of biological systems (e.g., the human body).

Cheers,
Kevin

P.S. Also, keep in mind that just because it’s published, doesn’t mean it’s true! This goes for Youtube videos and Bibles as well as articles in the scientific literature. It takes many years of training in a particular field and closely following the conversations of a particular community of scholars to really understand what findings are scientifically sound, and what is just bogus.

Anyway, this is my last post… I should be spending more time on my thesis. Take care!

I see you assume that I am of the same belief system as you, for which I am not.

Survival of the fittest is not a term used by evolutionary biologists. It was a term coined by an economist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survival_of_the_fittest). Evolution, in its most basic terms, simply says that those who have more offspring will pass on more of their genes (I don’t know if you could even argue that). Therefore, those genes (adaptations) that result in the most offspring should be more present in subsequent generations. Sometimes these genes are visible in a phenotype (physical appearance) sometimes they are not. So, another way of looking at it is: A lion that lives to be 20 but has no offspring is less fit (his genes will not be passed on) than a lion that lives to 10 but has 100 offspring. I’m not really sure how that makes me value life less than the next person. I do remember a particular line in the bible that commends those who kill the babies of their enemies. I do know that is not the greater message of the Bible or the New Testament, but it is by far worse than anything you will find in “On the Origin of Species.”

I will refrain any further from commenting on the Bible as I have not read it cover to cover and likely never will. Therefore, I do not have the understanding required to rightly judge, comment or otherwise use it in defense or against a scientific theory. Clearly, from the amount of reading I have been doing lately, there is a fundamental misunderstanding of evolution from the creationist side, probably a result from those who have never stepped foot in a classroom teaching evolution or read an evolution text book (please note that I am not saying anyone in particular because, in reality I don’t know anyone’s background).

Back to your main point: “What about any of this leads you to believe that I,or anyone with similar beliefs as me, do not value life as much as those that do not believe in evolutionary theory?” I’d like to change the question just a bit to clarify my position. “What about any of this leads you to believe that I,or anyone with similar beliefs as me, do not value life as much as those that [believe man is created by the God of the Bible]” That question would more accurately project my position.

First neither of us can truly know the thoughts of another man and the depth to that which he cares for someone else. However we can make some good assumptions based on logic.

The Bible teaches that man is created in the image of God.
Evolution teaches survival of the fittest.

It’s really easy to see why someone true to your beliefs would see life as less valuable.

Another example is snakes (commonly constrictors such as boas) that still have vestigial hipbone remnants that call back to when snakes evolved from a lizard like ancestor. Additionally, fossils of snakes in an intermediary stage of evolution have been discovered. These snakes still had leg remnants. A similar story plays out for whales going from land animals to sea creatures.
(boa hip structure: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/history_14 and snake with legs discovery: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7339508.stm ).

But, I guess I got sidetracked in my original post and I have to ask: What about any of this leads you to believe that I,or anyone with similar beliefs as me, do not value life as much as those that do not believe in evolutionary theory?

Some notes:
I use the term “you” loosely and do not intend to direct such a comment at any single person anybody. Also, the picture comparing the snake hip structure to humans is not implying that humans come from snakes. It is simply trying to demonstrate that the snake has a vestigial hipbone structure.