uncle_onion

Hi all

I have been a JW for 27 years and am re-examining my faith (what little I have!). One of the things that I was taught is that Evolution is wrong so I am reading about it so I can make a decision for my self.

I am trying to get my head around Evolution. I have read “The blind watchmaker” and Carl Zimmers latest book and I have a question.

Correct me if I am wrong but the way that I understand Evolution to work is that a member of a species may have a certain characteristic that would give him (or her!) an advantage over the rest of the species and this would then make them more suitable for the environment that they are living in. This would then be passed on to their offspring and because of this superior characteristic, their offspring would become the majority. I also understand it that Evolution works with what is has got?

One thing that I can not quite fathom out is this: What about the fish that live in deep sea water and therefore live in total darkness? They have a light on a tentacle to help them see. If Evolution works with what it has got, how did natural selection get that light?

UO

RufusAtticus

There is nothing wrong with that. It is a very good understanding for a beginner. But I just feel obliged to mention that there are additional mechanisms for evolution. However, this thread isn't about those..

I haven't done any looking into this, but the light is produced from certain types of reactions carried out by enzymes. I would not be suprised if some of the "lights" are symbiotic bacteria. An in depth study on the orgin and relationship of various luminecent proteins in deep sea creatures would be interesting. One potential mechanism is the one you listed above, except that the benifical trait is luminence, which is produced by a novel, mutant form of an existing enzyme.

I could provide a better answer if I knew more about the biology. Sorry.

-RvFvS

Oolon Colluphid

Hi Uncle, good question!

One point first: since evolution does explain so much apparent 'design', finding something that appears inexplicable doesn't mean it didn't evolve, it just means we may not have figured out how yet. If you allow god in for the tricky bits, you may as well let him do the lot. IOW, all you've got is a god of the gaps. Such gods have a habit of vanishing in a puff of new information.

As for bioluminescence, AFAIK it is rarely used to help animals see. As anyone who’s used a torch underwater will tell you, the light is very quickly dissipated. Deep sea exploration vehicles need huge lights to see even short distances. So what bioluminescence is for is not for seeing, but to be seen. Angler fish, for instance, use it to light up, not all of themselves, but just their lures. The other reasons for it are attracting mates, co-ordination in schooling, and predator evasion.

But all bioluminescent sea creatures use the same method of making their light: a chemical reaction between the protein luciferin and the enzyme luciferase. I’d be extremely surprised if one or both of those aren’t quite similar to other chemicals used for other purposes in organisms’ biochemistry. Light is one of many possible by-products of chemical reactions: it’s a form of energy, not something special just cos we can see it. And as you should know from Dawkins, if a by-product happens to be useful, it can be put to new use by evolution.

This site has a summary of bioluminescence:
<a href="http://www.oaerre.napier.ac.uk/users/p.tett/MB/MB9.html" target="_blank">http://www.oaerre.napier.ac.uk/users/p.tett/MB/MB9.html</a>

But don’t miss this one:
<a href="http://lifesci.ucsb.edu/~biolum/" target="_blank">http://lifesci.ucsb.edu/~biolum/</a>

This one is interesting, I didn't know any sharks were bioluminescent.
<a href="http://www.reefquest.com/topics/biolumenescence.htm" target="_blank">http://www.reefquest.com/topics/biolumenescence.htm</a>

That should give you some leads at least...

Cheers, Oolon

[Edited fro tyop]

[ April 03, 2002: Message edited by: Oolon Colluphid ]</p>

MrDarwin

Yes and no. "Luciferin" and "luciferase" are generic terms for the components of a bioluminescent system. The actual molecules differ considerably; those of fireflies are different from those of bacteria, which in turn are different from those of bioluminescent shrimp, etc. For more info see this article:

<a href="http://www.dartmouth.edu/~dujs/2000S/06-Biolumen.pdf" target="_blank">Nature's Bright Idea </a>
(note that this is a pdf file).

Of course, it kinda makes you wonder why a designer didn't just use the same molecules every time he needed a bioluminescent organism. But this makes sense in the light of evolution, in which bioluminescence evolved independently in different groups of organisms, each time from scratch.

I concur and did a quick search for information on this subject, but don't have all day to search the web!

[ April 03, 2002: Message edited by: MrDarwin ]</p>

nogods4me

AIIIIEEEEE proof that bio-luminescense is the devil's work.

sorry couldn't resist

back to your regularly scheduled thread

[ April 03, 2002: Message edited by: nogods4me ]</p>

liquid

onion,

good on you for your enquiry. I hope you stick around - I have one statement for you and two off topic questions:

1) I think you have to clarify what you said somewhat. It is not clear what you mean when you say 'evolution works with what it's got'.

Natural selection does, of course, only operate on the genes that exist, but that does not mean there can be no new 'innovation', typically through mutation. Natural selection, although the major mechanism of evolution, is not the only one, as has been noted.

As for the lights themselves, the reaction and ways we think it might arise evolutionarily has been pretty well explained (in posts and the links). Please ask more questions!

2) As I understand it, under JW dogma, only a limited number of people are going to heaven, and most of those space are filled. What happens to the rest of you?

3) And finally, am I correct in thinking that the JWs predict we are living in the end times, and that they have an estimated date for the end of the world? Furthermore, have they made any predictions in the past and got them wrong (for whatever reason)?

PS: I have a copy of 'How did life get here? evolution or creation?' from the JWs at home. If you have a copy, I would be happy to discuss some of the points it makes at a low intensity over an extended period. I was considering writing a debunk, but I simply don't have the time... unfortunately, I am not home for several weeks, but if you brought points up here I sure they would be addressed anyway!

Coragyps

And to think that in 1972, when fireflies were the only luminous creature in Chemistrytown, I knew something about bioluminescence....

MrDarwin's link has the structures of several of these luciferins, and a couple looked somehow familiar. I got out a biochem text and a pencil, and sure enough, four of the five are related to other very common biochemicals. The article points out the ones related to chlorophyll (from dinoflagellates) and to riboflavin (from bacteria.) The shrimp luciferin, vargulin, is just a "condensation product" of three amino acids: tryptophan, arginine, and isoleucine, and the "extremely common" coelenterazine is a similar condensate of two tyrosines with a phenylalanine. In other words, these two are tiny little cyclic peptides that have had some water chemically removed. Very simple cooption of regular old biomolecules, indeed.
Firefly luciferin is an odd duck, but then I'm not a biochemist - there may be some common precursor that gives rise to it, and I just am not familiar with it.

MrDarwin

Bioluminescence is widespread in a group of related beetle families. Here's an article about the evolution of bioluminescence in the family Lampyridae (fireflies) and its relatives: <a href="http://www.fcla.edu/FlaEnt/fe84p565.pdf" target="_blank">THE EVOLUTION OF BIOLUMINESCENCE IN CANTHAROIDS</a>
Unfortunately, the article doesn't discuss the biochemical basis for bioluminescence in this group.

[ April 03, 2002: Message edited by: MrDarwin ]</p>

uncle_onion

Thanks for all your replies.I have a lot of reading to do!

Just to go over a few points:

"1) I think you have to clarify what you said somewhat. It is not clear what you mean when you say 'evolution works with what it's got'.

Natural selection does, of course, only operate on the genes that exist, but that does not mean there can be no new 'innovation', typically through mutation. Natural selection, although the major mechanism of evolution, is not the only one, as has been noted.

As for the lights themselves, the reaction and ways we think it might arise evolutionarily has been pretty well explained (in posts and the links). Please ask more questions!"

This is what I meant to say and thank you!

"2) As I understand it, under JW dogma, only a limited number of people are going to heaven, and most of those space are filled. What happens to the rest of you?"

When you say "you" I take it you do not mean me personally! I no longer claim to be a jw. If you want to know why, take a look at my web site <a href="http://www.607v587.com." target="_blank">www.607v587.com.</a> Yes they believe that only 144000 go to heaven and the rest will live on a paradise earth after Armageddon. I cant believe that I believed that %$£@ either!

3) And finally, am I correct in thinking that the JWs predict we are living in the end times, and that they have an estimated date for the end of the world? Furthermore, have they made any predictions in the past and got them wrong (for whatever reason)?

You are correct that they believe that we are in the end times but no date has been set for the final show down and yes they have set many dates in the past alsthough they will tell you they have not!

"PS: I have a copy of 'How did life get here? evolution or creation?' from the JWs at home. If you have a copy, I would be happy to discuss some of the points it makes at a low intensity over an extended period. I was considering writing a debunk, but I simply don't have the time... unfortunately, I am not home for several weeks, but if you brought points up here I sure they would be addressed anyway! "

If your family are JWs I would be very interested in their reaction to the material on my site although do not tell them it came from an XJW as they will not discuss it (mind control).I personally think the creation book is very slanted (I thought this even when I was a JW).

Thanks and let me know what you think.

UO

liquid

Thanks for the reply onion.

I'll check out your site in a bit.

No, my family aren't JWs. I have one that calls to the house every so often. She's a little old lady and I don't argue with her like I might do with someone a bit more youthful, although I did let her know I was an atheist. She actually seems scared of me now, but in a forbidden thoughts sort of way than a big-bad monster way!

Anyway, I got the book from her just out of curiosity. It was very well written and presented, but (un?)fortunately was using pretty rubbish arguments, trivial stuff.