A Conversation on Evolution

Interesting that just as I started talking about evolution in my blog, it came up over dinner. The Linehans and Gabby basically had the same questions as everyone else, and while I can't claim to be anywhere near an expert, I offer up the gist of the convo for your contemplation.

From what I understand so far, the theory of evolution as it exists in Biology today rises from two important, consistently verifiable observations. The first is famous because Darwin observed it the best, namely the effects environment have on a population of any given species over time. He saw it happen in the Galapagos Islands (sp?), where the same species of finch had been separated and isolated on different islands with different environments, predators and food sources. Over the course of several generations those birds that had physical features best adapted for survival in their new environments came to dominate the gene pool of that population, because those that survived were the ones that could produce offspring. Even if we ignore for now the supposed difficulties in genetics, this pattern is something we can observe in nature over and over again. The best example I can think of is the HIV virus. Like all other viruses, it reproduces extremely quickly and has a large amount of genetic variation among its population in those genes that code for non-life-sustaining functions (things like reproductive speed, genes for immune resistance, that sort of thing). That variation rises from the very lax nature of a virus' genetic error-checking system, so basically that DNA/RNA can mutate without being corrected. And as long as its only in those non-vital areas, the virus can exist.

Thus when you try to treat a virus with any drug, there almost certainly will be one or a few of them that can resist the drug in some way. The longer the drug is administered, the better those few will survive, since the environment will kill off all the other forms and leave the resources of the host for the taking. Depending upon the virus type, those few can become predominate in the body as fast as a few days, and the drug become ineffective. That's why we currently treat HIV by combining several different drugs into a "cocktail". Its the best way to kill off as many possible variants as we can. All in all this observation is called "natural selection" by most and "adaptation" by the rest. Its observable, quantifiable, and nobody debates it.

The second observation that led to the theory of evolution in science is the similarity that exists between living things. Again this is something that is easily seen for oneself. All creatures on earth capable of walking on 2 legs possess a tailbone, whether we have a tail or not. All vertebrates have spinal cords, digited appendages, stomaches, and similar patterned brains. During the early stages of development all vertebrates or invertebrates develop exactly the same and even look the same excluding size. Once species specific characteristics start to show development is still governed by similar genes, protein families, signaling functions. All life on earth uses the same genetic building blocks, similar building patterns, similar pathways for processing energy. Why? Why is everything so different, yet so similar?

The earlier scientists of last century were in the center of all of these observations, so it made perfect sense to them to connect the two areas. Someone successfully observed a process by which similar things became different thru inheritance. At the same time others were discovering fossils and similar geological formations all around the world. In this century, we've learned much about DNA and its structure, how much its allowed to change in an individual before it causes problems, how fast it can mutate and how it can be read many different ways to make different proteins. We've even observed how different environments can directly change how DNA is expressed in the body, so that you end up with small, large, fat, or thin individuals. So the theory of evolution as I see it used in science today is basically that given a certain period of time and different environments, genetic change can happen at a certain rate and be passed on to those generations that survive in each environment, causing originally similar things to become different.

This is the practical form of the theory that modern biologists operate under. That, however, is as far as I can go. The step further that given enough time and change in the environment, the world as it exists today could arise from basic chemical processes...I can't go there. I'm still learning about the discoveries that lead some to think that. But as far as the basic idea goes, I think Darwin and his colleagues were on to something. After all, if you think about the logistics of the story of Noah, his ark could not of held a male and female of every currently existing species on the planet, even if you only consider the land animals. Unless there was some serious divine intervention, its spatially impossible. Not to mention the fact that from a gene pool of 8 people every person on the earth arose, with all different skin types, heights, shapes and sizes. If from such a small gene pool such variety could arise even among us humans (and if you go by the biblical clock, in such few millenia), than I certainly think the practical form of evolution is possible, even significantly reasonable.

That's why I referred to the philosophy and the science of evolution before. Origin is actually a philosophical question, and while we can logically extrapolate back thru time using our math and what we know of our world, we can't observe, test, or confirm anything we say about it. The biggest flaw in intellegent design as a theory is that it isn't practical. While it rightly questions how such similar things can be so different, it doesn't address why such different things are so similar. As such its more idea then observation, and that doesn't help us go about the business of science (which is basically the business of describing, understanding, and subduing the world). Creationism is even more dangerous to throw in there. Once and for all, the story of creation is NOT a scientific theory. And it CANNOT be taught as one. Creation is accepted on the evidence of witnesses, not the evidence of physical interaction with a physical world. If you ask me, the physical evidence that God exists is that this world, this universe operates under a certain set of orderly conditions, apart from which it cannot exist as it is now. Just like evolution assumes, something cannot come out of nothing. Something can only come from something else. To an evolutionist, that something could be another universe that existed before this one. To a creationist, that something is God. But to prove that one way or the other is something that science can't do, and I don't think its meant to. "Proof", after all, isn't evidence, but the acceptance of some meaning attached to that evidence as truth.

That's what I think so far. I'm still learning, and there's a lot to read and study. If I come across something I think you guys will appreciate I'll recommend it, so you can read for yourselves. But this is a pretty good summary of what I've found so far.

Urgh.

My life is swiftly becoming akin to a soap opera, fraught with reoccurring angst, never-ending cycles of crises, inner turmoils and frustrations, bad acting, and over-dramatized "happy moments". Just when we got the pump working again, it grinds down 2 days later leaving us waterless and groady. The best anyone can discern, the problem was just alignment, and a simple replacement of the key between motor and pump should solve the problem. Enter the USPS. Those keys were mailed out a week and a half ago, but we've seen nothing of them. Consequently last Tuesday all of Al's special experimental fish that he's raising for his doctoral research started dying and by last Friday I think only 1 remained. When the parts still hadn't showed by Thursday, we told them to overnight a new pump and key to us ASAP (which the company did) so we could try one last time to make it work.

Friday was interesting. My coworkers and I went over this whole purification system inch by inch and basically rebuilt the thing from the ground up. If "alignment" was the problem, it wasn't going to be this time. We turning things on and it ran great for 10 hours, when it was shut off by the control program. But just one day of success doesn't mean a victory, as my lab now knows all too well. Every day this weekend I had someone from the lab calling me to tell me if the system was still working or not. And until an hour ago, it was performing just like it was supposed to. But then....

So now nobody knows what to do. We'll probably have someone from the company come out here and work on it, though they are as confused as we are. Of course we're all worried that even if they do come out and fix it the same pattern will repeat and we'll be stuck 3 days later. Its amazing how much stress you can aquire when the mechanical systems you rely on no longer work for no good reason (even age!). Its a helpless feeling I'm really coming to despise, even if I can't help it.

In other news, I pulled a muscle in my back yesterday somehow, and even though I've made it into work it's taken all day to do it. The good news is I'm not in unbearable pain here. The bad news is that I'm going to be very very sore and stiff for at least 10 more days according to the nurse practitioner. My fellow technician Laura isn't doing so well either at the moment (she seems to be suffering from some sort of flu or something) so we're rather shorthanded doing the fish chores.

The car is fixed, for which I'm very grateful. But after all that I blew out a back tire two Mondays ago on the way to work, which made things interesting since I've never had a flat before. (For my first, it was rather glorious. I should of taken a picture.) I have been fairly successful at sticking with my experiments every week regardless of all that's going on, but in order to do it I've not been to class for 3 weeks now. Very bad. I'm now so behind I'm not sure its possible to catch up. If I were taking this class for credit in grad school, I would of dropped it way before now. That's not real encouraging to me, since its possible that I might need to work full-time and go to school as well.

Ah, I guess that's a good lead into some SOC (stands for "stream of consciousness", writing where you just say what comes to mind without concern for logical progress or structure). Grad School. I'm not giving up on it, no way in Hell. ('scuse the french.) So this semester I've been trying to push myself towards actually applying and whatnot to make it happen. My reasoning has basically been that getting accepted can take a year before you actually start, that since a doctorate takes several years its better to start sooner, and that if Jer and I do stay together the next few years we'll probably get married which means the possiblity of kids. And I don't want to worry about school and kids at the same time, I watched my mom do that and I don't think I could handle it like she had to. (Of course she didn't have any help from anyone else the whole time, so that will probably be different for me, but I still worry about it just the same.)

The interesting thing is that despite what's been going on at work for the past couple of months, I've been getting more research responsibilities and more time to work with my boss than anyone with just a BS could expect. There are so many opportunities and projects that have been given to me that the majority of my time is taken up with them. Because of that, I can see the gap between myself and my labmates clearer than ever, both in knowledge and experience. But that gap is something that the pursuit of a degree won't necessarily close. As it is right now I have access to any class I might need without paying for it because my work with Bill is opening contacts in the department. The practical experience I need I can gain by spending as much time working with and observing Bill as possible. When it comes right down to it, the one thing my heart wants to do right now is become the best I can be at my current job, especially because its taking everything I have right now to keep up with the chances I have. Maybe that's just because it's Bill's lab...in his lab, anyone can publish original research whether they have a grad degree or no. Its all about the quality of the work.

I used to think that the best way for me to get better at science was to take more classes. That was before I started working here and realizing how much good science is something that can't really be taught in a class. Right now I'm in a place where I can learn all the "good science" I can stand. Suddenly a Doctoral degree in Biology is more like a professional license for an engineer...you need it to give you a base to stand as an independent businessman in the field, but you don't need it to be an engineer. I'll need it eventually, but not because it is the path to becoming a scientist.

So right now, I'm not going to push it. Pushing something like that just because of "what could be" is actually kind of irresponsible, if it means disregarding what God has currently placed in your hands. If He chooses to give you something, and then takes it away Himself, that's fine. But I want to be very careful not to throw away something that I'm not supposed to let go of. I'll probably poke around at GRE material over Christmas, and I'll probably keep asking questions and stuff about the program and how to make it work and how I'll pay for it. But I think I'm going to stop telling myself it HAS to be next year or else.

Matt, in answer to your question I am beginning to believe that the public (and I) know very little about the actual science of evolution, and that the professionals quite possibly know very little about the philosophy of evolution. Consequently when the public makes a fuss about what's taught in schools, scientists generally wonder what the big deal is about, especially when religion gets throw in since more scientists think the theory of evolution really doesn't deal with that at all. In my opinion, everyone has a lot more to learn and a lot more to think than they currently are willing to do.

One of my friends put this up on our forum, and I really think its a great explanation of why "anime" is hard for a lot of Americans, especially Christians, to understand. I'll publish my own thoughts on this later.

Kimberly Eridon - Jun 10, 2004

Actually, from an American standpoint, even most anime that is aimed at young children can contain a lot more violence and mature themes than American children's television (though not all of it-A Little Snow Fairy Sugar comes to mind because I just finished it). When people say there are cultural differences, they're not just being flippant. A lot of the misunderstandings have to do with the difference in the general Japanese world view and a sort of more "relaxed" view where the Japanese don't feel the need to "protect" their children from real-life realites like death and senseless acts of violence and their consequences.

It's fascinating to study what scholars have to say about this whole issue (Japanese pop culture in general/anime in particular) because it really does make you think about the difference a world view can make. It's not as if the Japanese are saying, "Hey, let's ruin our kids lives by letting a main character die in a tragically sacrificial way" or "Let's make this character smoke in order to corrupt our youth" or "How about we give these characters short skirts and show cleavage to destroy the morals of the youth." That's just how Americans tend to interpret it because they have no world view framework on which to hang the anime but their own, which is not the one shared by the creators of anime.

For parents, it really comes down to spending time with your kids, knowing what they're watching and what it contains (same for American or Japanese television). The same is true for books. If parents take the time to know, there won't be as many surprises, and anime does present a lot of moral questions that would make great discussions for parents and children or just adults in general. Taking that time in practice is, as we know, really hard. Then there is the fact that what an adult may consider revealing may just be what people are wearing nowadays (in terms of exposure) and may not catch a child's eye at all or in the same way. I kind of wish more parents would talk to their kids about modesty when they have been walking around in public and seeing how people dress. Of course, I might possibly die of embarrassment if I had to talk to a seven-year-old about why that lady shouldn't be wearing a shirt that tiny or something like that.

Then there's the whole sex issue. Once again, it's a general world view issue. Since the Japanese have a very different view of human sexuality, the content of their popular culture is going to express that. If there's any major pot hole in letting your American kids watch Japanese animation without taking the time to talk about it with them, I would say this would be it. Common occurances include homosexuality, school kid crushes on the same gender (which they consider to be not quite the same thing), an emphasis on "real" anatomy, kids dating their teachers in secret, and more. How'd ya' like to talk that over with your eight-year-old? But just because it's hard doesn't mean it's useless or must be avoided.

And not every anime contains the same content or amount. Shows aimed at little kids can't have any out and out anatomically correct nudity in them, but they may contain communal bathing scenes because that's something they do in Japan where there isn't a lot of fresh water and most people don't have a nudity taboo. In general, I try to find out before I view things what's in them so I don't get blindsided. That doesn't mean I look up spoilers; it means I do research in a few places and find out about objectionable content. And when something in an anime flabbergasts or confuses me, I do more research to try to figure out what I'm missing. It makes anime and movies more than just something I brainlessly watch to be entertained. Then again, I am known as something of a nerd, and I put way more effort into most things than the average sane human being, so I'm probably overanalyzing this the way I do other things.

However, if you look, there is clean stuff out there. You just have to look. And maybe be forearmed with a little knowledge of culture (although it's kind of fun to learn about it after the fact when it leaves you scratching your head-communal bathing in Totoro, for example, or anatomically correct dogs in Junkers Come Here [Lady and the Tramp it ain't, though that movie was controversial for its very name in the beginning).

I think I shall leave you with a semi-random story. I was the biggest G.I. Joe fan in the world as a child and still am one (Did you know they're coming out with boxed sets now? I want to get that one miniseries about Shipwreck and his lost memory!). Scarlet is the coolest girl ever. She had red hair, and I had a red bathrobe, and I would put it on and be Scarlet. Or I would just jump off things and play fight until I kicked COBRA's butts from Bowling Green to Bulgaria. Scarlet rocked. She wore a suit that covered her entire body. It was kind of camouflage. She trained hard and could beat the hoohah out of the boys, too, and often did. She saved the world. More than once. A few years ago, I learned that there was a huge controversy surrounding G.I. Joe at the time it came out because the voice actor they chose to play Scarlet was a famous adult film actress or something. Parents were appalled at this and thought it would lead to the corruption of the youth. I've got news for you: your average five-year-olds didn't understand that and wouldn't have cared anyway. All I knew is that Scarlet worked hard, and she helped save the world from evil even when it was hard. She helped her friends and tried to protect her family. She was a great role model.