[boots]

I know we've debated evolution vs creation as nauseam, and it is not my intention to bring that debate back up.

We are currently hosting a conference on the "The Story of Life" as part of our Nobel Conference series. I have to say that after even the first lecture, the scientific views are incredible diverse and there are a lot of tensions between paleontologists and geneticists.

Since there has been much interest in the topic of evolution here on the boards, I thought I'd kind of give a very brief synopsis of the talks.

The first talk was by Niles Eldrege,
and punctuated equilibrium was the main topics of the first seminar. The thesis was that punctuated equilibrium is the driving force for gross evolutionary change (speciation). Synopsis: All creatures have two jobs: consume and distribute energy (i.e. eating, and being eaten) and reproduction. Energy distribution is an environmental equilibrium, and regardless of the species, the environment will establish the energy equilibrium. Species are a genetic repository, and reproduction is how the species maintain equilibrium. In a way, species contain the genetic information about how the energy equilibrium occurs. When environmental change happens (the example was glaciation since we're in MN), species will redistribute...migrate, if you will, to adjust the environmental energy equilibrium. The key point was that there is little in terms of gross species change when this occurs. When changes occur in the environment, the species will follow the habitat they need.

The problem comes when a catastrophic change occurs in the environment and you get mass extinction...depletion of the genetic repository that leads to loss of how the energy distribution must happen, something will adapt to fill the new vacancy. It may be similar, but this is where you find gross speciation changes. This, then, is the driving force for evolution.

Obviously, this is mostly a discussion about macro-evolution and says little about micro-evolution or about the mechanisms of speciation. The talk just puts the rest of evolution in context of when and why: Energy equilibrium.


I'll post more after the other talks, but I thought these ideas might spur serious and intellectual discussion, not flaming.


It was interesting that at one point, he made a comment about the knowledge of the paleontological time-line being independent of evolution. We (scientists) had made the observations about certain creatures living in certain time periods before the idea of evolution was ever discussed. This was in reference to the "Creationism" idea that the time-line that we use for evolution is a construct of evolutionists that is just a convenient model to fit the data. The time-line came way before, so it empirical and not an imagined framework.

[thunderous_funker]

Maybe I'm misunderstanding the theory, but it would seem to fail to explain speciation in places like Galapogos or Africa's Great Rift. I mean, I read your synapsis to say that dramatic change only happens as a result of mass extinction (loss of energy redistribution data) rather than more subtle changes to environment and habitat.

How would that account for the surprising diversity that occurs in species that are merely isolated rather than faced with extinction?

Or am I using too strong of a definition of dramatic change?

[Nicko]

It seems to me that, depending upon the environment, any number of evolutionary theory could be at work. I don't see why it has to be an either-or situation.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by Nicko:
It seems to me that, depending upon the environment, any number of evolutionary theory could be at work. I don't see why it has to be an either-or situation.

Very good point.

[voodoo]

One thing that every scientist knows and most actually will admit quite readily is that they don't know how the evolution process occurs. This is not because we aren't smart or because we don't have the tools to find out it's that we don't have the data to find out. The current theory is based on educated guesses, probability and filling between the dots. I find it to be an elegant, well thought out but ultimately it fails as a fact (don't jump up and down now - it is a theory in progress). That doesn't matter however because everything pretty much fits in our theory of evolution.

Evolution is probably the answer to our questions - but an answer to one question simply calls for ten new questions. Such as how the more bizarre 'features' of living things evolved such as flying (both on birds and mammals!), the marsupial/mammal connection and how the mammal reproductive system evolved. In fact how major philosophical changes in a very conservative DNA occur. Another question is the evolution of life. From the amino acids to the RNA to the DNA to proteins to cell membrane to eukaryotic cells. These questions are things that truly weigh at the roots of the modern theory of evolution and these are also questions no one can answer today. Personally I don't buy evolution (at a great personal risk as a mol. biologist student ) but I accept it as a working theory. There are far too many unknowns to our current theory. I am convinced that in the future a better model will be made that more accurately describes the events on the Earth the first 4 billion years.

[boots]

The second seminar dealt with the finches on the Galapagos. Specifically on the speciation of the island called Daphne.

The general "lab" of the Galapagos is excellent because if is undisturbed, and the history is easily traceable.

The speakers were Peter and Rosemary Grant who have traced the evolution of the finches on the Galapagos islands for over 30 years.

One thing that makes the Galapagos interesting is the variation in climate. If you look at the climate over the years, there are strong El Nino years where there is a lot of rainfall. Following El Nino, the predominant food stock is small, relatively soft seeds from wet-land plants. These periods are followed by very very dry periods where the primary food stock are large, hard seeds.

The talked about two species of Finch (large bodies and small bodies) and the natural selection response to this oscilating climate of extremes. During wet times, the average beak size of the birds decreased, and during dry times, the average beak size increased.

They then talked about the mating practices. Turns out that these two finches have distinct songs that are learned from the father. On a number of occasions, the offspring learned the wrong song for the species and would mate with the wrong species females. This would give rise to hybrids. These hybrids could mate with either species, and the effect was that the genetic variation of the gene pool was increased, hence the viability of the hybrids was better than either of the two distinct species during any climate extreme.

It was an interesting example of the climactic extremes causing natural selection, and combining with social customs (i.e. the song) to give rise to a hybrid plpulation that was more viable than the parent populations. Nature AND nurture!

(BTW, this stuff DOES fit in with Dr. Eldrege's discussion of climactic extremes driving...this was not the scale of speciation that he talked about, but the climactic oscilation was the driving force for the evolutionary response.)

More later.

[boots]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
Maybe I'm misunderstanding the theory, but it would seem to fail to explain speciation in places like Galapogos or Africa's Great Rift. I mean, I read your synapsis to say that dramatic change only happens as a result of mass extinction (loss of energy redistribution data) rather than more subtle changes to environment and habitat.

How would that account for the surprising diversity that occurs in species that are merely isolated rather than faced with extinction?

Or am I using too strong of a definition of dramatic change?

A good observation, and a question that I went away with also. I think that the answer to that lies in the idea that the Galapagos are relatively isolated. When a climate change happens, species can't migrate to stay in their adaptively preferred environment. The summary about the finches above demonstrates this in that there is no place for the finches to go should the climate not suit them. As a result, a large portion (>80%) died after a given wet/dry period. I think this is the galapagos equivalent of mass extinction. There was enough genetic variability, however to ensure that some could survive...the ones with beaks that could be used on the seeds at hand. In a larger, global context, it would require a much larger change to effect any significant speciation since most species can migrate.

There is an article in Science about the Galapagos Tortoises on once of the islands, and notes that they have very small genetic diversity. By whatever means they calculate these things, they figured that a big event must have happened about 100,000 or so years ago to account for the lack of genetic diversity. Lo-and-behold: that corresponds with the timing of the island's big volcano erupting last time.

[boots]

The third seminar today was a theologian. His was a "response" to Darwinism, but really was more of a "how can Divine Providence and Darwinism coexist?" talk. Excellent talk. I won't post details yet, since that's what usually starts the flame wars. I'll wait until the thread is almost dead, then let certain people go crazy with the ideas until it gets locked. Kind of a "Down in a Blaze of Glory" death for the thread.

More tomorrow.

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by boots:
There is an article in Science about the Galapagos Tortoises on once of the islands, and notes that they have very small genetic diversity. By whatever means they calculate these things, they figured that a big event must have happened about 100,000 or so years ago to account for the lack of genetic diversity. Low-and-behold: that corresponds with the timing of the island's big volcano erupting last time.

Nitpick: the word is spelled L - O. Thus, "Lo and behold" (though the statement is actually redundant and repetitive, but it's a cliche by now, so what can ya do? ).

They calculate these things by using figures for mutation rate (average mutations per generation is pretty reliably known, IIRC) and combining it with life-span and breeding age data (I'll let you guess how they account for the fact that life span is one of those things which can vary). A similar study on humans revealed that we went through a very narrow period not too long ago (in geologic terms). IIRC, the whole human species has less genetic variation than some comparatively tiny populations of chimpanzees.

BlackGriffen

[boots]

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
Nitpick: the word is spelled L - O. Thus, "Lo and behold" (though the statement is actually redundant and repetitive, but it's a cliche by now, so what can ya do? ).

They calculate these things by using figures for mutation rate (average mutations per generation is pretty reliably known, IIRC) and combining it with life-span and breeding age data (I'll let you guess how they account for the fact that life span is one of those things which can vary). A similar study on humans revealed that we went through a very narrow period not too long ago (in geologic terms). IIRC, the whole human species has less genetic variation than some comparatively tiny populations of chimpanzees.

BlackGriffen

Yeah, yeah, yeah. Surely you know by now that spelling was never one of my strong points...and I so rarely use clichés that I just typed it. blah, blah, blah


I new the general idea, but I never understood the fine details of the calculation. It's peer reviewed work, so you can bet it is an accepted method ... especially in Science. So, as a non expert I accept that they can get reasonable data from the technique.

[Logic]

Originally posted by voodoo:
One thing that every scientist knows and most actually will admit quite readily is that they don't know how the evolution process occurs. This is not because we aren't smart or because we don't have the tools to find out it's that we don't have the data to find out. The current theory is based on educated guesses, probability and filling between the dots. I find it to be an elegant, well thought out but ultimately it fails as a fact (don't jump up and down now - it is a theory in progress). That doesn't matter however because everything pretty much fits in our theory of evolution.

Evolution is probably the answer to our questions - but an answer to one question simply calls for ten new questions. Such as how the more bizarre 'features' of living things evolved such as flying (both on birds and mammals!), the marsupial/mammal connection and how the mammal reproductive system evolved. In fact how major philosophical changes in a very conservative DNA occur. Another question is the evolution of life. From the amino acids to the RNA to the DNA to proteins to cell membrane to eukaryotic cells. These questions are things that truly weigh at the roots of the modern theory of evolution and these are also questions no one can answer today. Personally I don't buy evolution (at a great personal risk as a mol. biologist student ) but I accept it as a working theory. There are far too many unknowns to our current theory. I am convinced that in the future a better model will be made that more accurately describes the events on the Earth the first 4 billion years.

Must be something about our school, because I completly agree with you

Evolution is an OK theory and explains several things. But a theory that doesn't explain some of the fundamental things about "life" or even it's own existance can never be considered a perfect theory like some here(here meaning MacNN) have claimed. Yes, evolution happens as everyone that has studied zoology 101 can explain. But evolution does fail to explain how we got to that step in the theory.

I tend to believe that evolution and creationism work together. There are a few steps that simply don't make sense from our current theories about life and how cells and cell components work. And I have a hard time to belief in something based on educated guesses but do not in any way answer the fundamental steps of that exact theory. To have "life" we need lipid bi-layers(lbl), and we have yet to explain(IIRC) how those formed. That is perhaps the biggest "obstacle", because without lbl it doesn't matter if we have the rest(DNA, RNA, Proteins, aminoacids etc.). There would be no basis for an organism to rise and develope. Like I said I believe the theory is a good one to explain the latter steps but there are a few things that irritate me. The speed of differentiation and radiation of species I think is a little too fast. Also the step between single cell organism and then the multiple cell organism(this is what happens when a nation decides to translate every freaking word and insists on useing it in school) like animals. IIRC no one has shown how that step occured and no one has been able to replicate it. The step from RNA to DNA is a problem since RNA is a very unstable molecule that in a way requires lbl to be stable. The "explosion" of species that happens every now and then. Where did they all come from? And how did meiosis and mitosis develope? Two very different but still very important parts of life. But back to the lbl. Lets say that we have all the components needed for "life" but not the lbl. We would have very unstable RNA that would create unstable DNA that would then(when all components are abundant) would create proteins but that would do little good since the products would just leave. So besides requiring an awful lot of luck it would do no good since we haven't got the lbl to start.

So what it comes down to is that evolution itself is a fact but it does not explain how life started. And that is the question I want an answer to.

[boots]

Originally posted by Logic:
To have "life" we need lipid bi-layers(lbl), and we have yet to explain(IIRC) how those formed. That is perhaps the biggest "obstacle", because without lbl it doesn't matter if we have the rest(DNA, RNA, Proteins, aminoacids etc.).

What if on Monday, Science published an article explaining in iron-clad detail how libid bi-layers formed? Would that change your ideas on evolution and/or creation?

I'll also say that lipid bi-layers are not as mysterious some would say. We know an incredible amount about micelle formation. LBL's are really just double micelles formed by ambiphilic molecules. So for me, this is not a limiting case for evolution, and understanding it is not a limiting case for creation.

More seminars today, so I'll be back. It promises to be an interesting day.

[Lerkfish]

As I've stated previously, I think pitting evolution vs. whether God created the universe is inherently flawed. There is no reason to assume they are mutually exclusive, and further they both use different yardsticks to measure the veracity of the other.
A better doublet challenge would be two separate questions:
1. is macroevolution accurate as a theory vs. whether it isn't.
2. Did God create the universe (in whatever form that creation took place) vs. did he not.

1 and 2 do NOT have to intersect as subsets of each other.

I personally believe in evolution as plausible, and that God created all things, which would include evolution if true.

[ZackS]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
<snip>

I personally believe in evolution as plausible, and that God created all things, which would include evolution if true.

There is no set of circumstances that doesn't work with God because of omnipotence. Some things might contradict the bible but not the concept of God. As far as I'm concerned, bringing up God at all in a scientific discussion is just an instant cop-out.

[Nicko]

Originally posted by ZackS:
There is no set of circumstances that don't work with God because God is omnipotent. Some things might contradict the bible but not the concept of God. As far as I'm concerned, bringing up God at all in a scientific discussion is just an instant cop-out.

Yea I agree,it is a cop-out. So, good thing we don't have to eh?

[ZackS]

Originally posted by Nicko:
Yea I agree,it is a cop-out. So, good thing we don't have to eh?

Edited post to clarify what I was responding to. Better? And yes, I agree we need to keep theology totally out of this thread. Starting........now.

[boots]

Todays lectures were phenomenal.

Tim White (UC Berkeley)

He's the one who found Lucy and other prominent hominid fossils.

His talk was largely about the process and what we can learn from a dig. Makes me want to go to Ethiopia and see the Awash river valley.

Salient points: If one subscribes to a Creations view, we should see anatomically unchanged hominid fossils all the way back to an abrupt origin. We do not. He went on to describe the various anatomical features that distinguish modern humans from, say Neanderthal.

His site has gone back 5.8 million years.

He made special mention of the fact that modern humans didn't evolve from apes. Rather, apes and modern man have a common ancestor. (note: This is sort of a lingering misunderstanding of evolution, so he made special note of it.)

He also talked about the importance of the other fossils they get at a dig. Hominid fossils get all the glory, but the other fossils tell a bigger picture of the environment and the social development of the hominids...context is everything. He even talks about evidence of mortuary ritual for many of the early hominids.

2.5 million years ago, we see the first evidence of stone tool use. Then you see a big "explosion" of the population and expansion into other environments...now hunters in competition with the big cats, etc. So they could move into different environmental niches...

(Humans didn't depart from Africa, rather they expanded out of Africa.)

Then he addressed the question of whether neanderthals are extinct or just an ancestor of modern humans. He talked about the mitochondrial DNA analysis of modern humans (very low diversity) and the fact that they could predict (based on the DNA analysis) that a population bottleneck happened about 100,000 - 200,000 years ago. The greatest diversity of modern DNA was found in Africa.

They did indeed find a hominid fossil with the anatomical features of modern man in the Awash dig, and it was dated to about 150,000 years ago. (Note: the importance of this is that it was found in Africa...)

The neanderthal species came out of the glaciation of Europe about 160,000 years ago and has very different anatomical features, so the conclusion (based upon geography and DNA diversity among other things) is that neanderthal was a species that just went extinct...that there was a previous common ancestor (in Africa, probably) to neanderthal and modern humans...so this argues for an Afrocentric evolutionary story for modern man.

In the end, the further back in time you go (100,000 years back to 5.8 million years) the more anatomically and socially remote the species seem to be. (i.e. very distinct from one another)

So a creationist view simply is not supported by this evidence...we don't see anatomically similar hominids all the way back.

(Note: The use of creationist in this context is a kind of "young-earth" creationism. People were not "created" as they are now. Just so that this doesn't get side-tracked into a "they could work together" debate.)

[boots]

The second lecture today was on wings and feathers.

Phillip Currie of Royal Tyrrell Museum in Drumheller, Alberta

Basically, this talked about what bird descended from.

Archaeopteryx was discovered and it looked like a dinosuars, but it had feathers. It is the oldest "bird" fossil we've found.

One of the first theories was that birds came from dinosaurs (because of the similarities).

But this theory fell out of favor because dinosaurs didn't have clavical bones like birds do.

So reptiles were then thought to be the ancestors. Crocadiles, for example, are the closest living relatives to birds (anatomically).

Turns out that they were wrong about dinosaurs not having clavicals. In fact, they had just been misidentified by people as something else. So now the belief is that dinosaurs did have clavicals (as do birds, fish, amphibians, mammals).

So then they went back to the dinosaur ancestor idea. Problem: Why don't we see dinosaurs with feathers?

Turns out they now are finding literally hundreds of new dinosaurs that do have feathers. they tend to be the smaller dinosaurs, and these are harder to find because they don't fossilize as easily as the large (i.e. Tyranosaurus).

From some of the digs, they are gaining a picture that feathers were adaptively selected for because the were needed for insulation. If you have a warm blooded animal, you need to have some kind of insulation to keep heat in. That means feathers (as with birds) or fur (as with mammals).

Once developed, the feathers were adapted. They found evidence that longer feathers on the "arms" helped females to insulate eggs.

Longer feathers then probably gave a distinct aerodynamic advantage...

but the question of whether actual flight developed in tree-living dinosaurs (Tree Down idea) of in ground dwell dinosaurs (Ground Up theory) is still debatable with not much evidence to support either yet.

It is also hard to say what the environmental trigger was. These feathered dinosaurs are mostly found in China, and not much is know about the climate and environment in that region at the time these dinosaurs would have lived.

An interesting talk. But the last talk (IMO) blew most everything else away....

[boots]

Last talk of the afternoon was by Sean Carrol at Wisconsin-Madison.

He talked about EvoDevo (Evolutionary Developmental Biology). He studies how body masses are formed from embryos. His specialty is Fruit Flies.

First, nature seems to favor a modular approach to designing bodies (serial homology). Lots of animals are built with repetitive designs...vertebrae, ribs, fingers, etc. The modular design seems to be important for adaptability and diversification of specific modular units.

Williston's Law: Parts in an organism tend toward reduction in the number of parts with fewer parts greatly specialized in function.

Long story cut way short, in the fruit fly, they can tract 8 genes that control the segentation of the body etc. and these genes are homologous with other species. These same genes control similar function is almost all animals. This gives them a window through which to study how other animals body-building genes work.

They can play with the position of the genes in the DNA to produce weird mutations...fruit flies with two sets of wings, fruit flies with legs growing on their heads, fruit flies with eye tissue in the wrong place, etc.

Evolutionary Developmental Biology (EvoDevo) : the science of how form evolves.

He talked about the gene that encodes appendages (wings, legs, etc) and the gene that encodes for eyes.

Turns out that the same gene that encodes the fruit fly's multifaceted eye is the same gene that encodes for a mouses eye. the same gene that encodes for a fly's wings and legs encodes for a mouses legs, etc. It is the same gene!

When we see similar characteristics on vastly different branches of the "tree of life" (the life family tree), one might conclude that they all shared a common ancestor way back when...The primordial creature that all animals have in common probably had the following characteristics (based on gene homology, not visual anatomical features):

bilaterally symmetric
tool-kit for gene development (for biological complexity)
eyes or a photoreceptor
outgrowths (appendages like antenae)
contractile tissue to pump fluid
pattern along main body axis (think Lobster or worm)
throughgut
central nervous system
segmentation (?perhaps?)

Now for the impressive numbers:

Mice and humans have 29,000 homologous genes. Yes, we have 29,000 genes in common with mice. We are over 98% homologous with chimpanzees.

With all of this similarity in gene composition, how do you explain the emergence of diversity?

The distinction isn't in the genes, but in the way they are expressed. The instructions for when and where genes are used is embedded in the genome. There is a switching mechanism encoded into the DNA...turning genes on and off. Mutations (the ones that produced the two winged flies, etc) are due to bad or faulty switches.

Gene switches, in essence, take complex input from the environment (cellular) and give a simple "on" or "off" output. Gene usage patterns are regulated by these switches and can be evolved to change the tuning of the switches.

Think about butterflies. The wings seem to have evolved (based on the gene homology) from the respiratory structures of crustaceans. The same gene controls the development of both. The switching seems to be different (how and when it is expressed). The wing promoting gene activity is present in both, but it is regulated differently. Different inputs to the same kind of switch giving different output.

How (genetically) does the butterfly develop the eye spots on the wings? Distal-less is the name of the gene that regulates appendages. When the spots are forming on the wings, they can be traced back to the distal-less gene. It's the same gene, but the switching seems to be different. The switch has evolved (not the gene) to express a different trait. So butterflies have evolved additional and different switches for the distal-less gene to regulate the shape and coloration of the wings. This can be environmentally controlled too, somehow. Different climates can produce different patters in the same butterfly...so the switching is subtle and complex.

So why can we share >98% of the chimpanzee genome but be very different? It's all about the gene switches that are encoded on the DNA. Modification by degree, not by novelty.


-----

This was the best (IMO) lecture. Watch this guy for a Nobel prize in 10-20 years as the impact of his work becomes apparent.

[nonhuman]

That sounds like a really awesome conference. I kinda wish I had known about it (not that I really would have had time to go with classes and all...).

[boots]

Originally posted by nonhuman:
That sounds like a really awesome conference. I kinda wish I had known about it (not that I really would have had time to go with classes and all...).

They should have the video feed on the web soon. I think they will be distributing a CD or DVD with all the talks too. I'll email you when it comes out.

[Nicko]

Originally posted by boots:
They should have the video feed on the web soon. I think they will be distributing a CD or DVD with all the talks too. I'll email you when it comes out.

Indeed, that sounded really cool. Just imagine 20 years from now what they will be doing with those genes once they know what they all do.

[Spliffdaddy]

Originally posted by Nicko:
Indeed, that sounded really cool. Just imagine 20 years from now what they will be doing with those genes once they know what they all do.

Help 'em out.

http://www.stanford.edu/group/pandegroup/genome/


Current rank: 262 out of 26830 users
Total units processed: 68423.19
Total genes designed: 4632

[Logic]

Originally posted by boots:
What if on Monday, Science published an article explaining in iron-clad detail how libid bi-layers formed? Would that change your ideas on evolution and/or creation?

Change or not change..... I don't know. I believe in evolution but I think there are certain aspects of it that are very uncertain and "unlikely", if you know what I mean. It is more the creation of life and certain steps in evolution that bother me. They don't bother me to the extent that I don't believe in evolution.

I'll also say that lipid bi-layers are not as mysterious some would say. We know an incredible amount about micelle formation. LBL's are really just double micelles formed by ambiphilic molecules. So for me, this is not a limiting case for evolution, and understanding it is not a limiting case for creation.

I didn't mean to imply that they were mysterious but that they are a very important part of life(as we know it). It seems highly unlikely to me that because of some incredible luck all components necessary for life(what the cell needs to replicate etc) would be engulfed in the bubble the lbl would create. But I'm not saying that it is impossible.

Another thing that irritates me is the incredible amount of new species that occured on a regular basis in a very short time. In a very short time earth was inhabited by several new(often very large) species, I find the very interesting since I find it hard to believe that such a change in population and kind of animals/life would happen in that short timeframe. But I haven't read to much on that subject so I can't really say. Just that I find it very interesting.

But like I said, the theory is good but not perfect. There are alot of questions that i like to get the answer to before I will accept the theory as complete truth. But that doesn't mean I don't believe in the theory. Just many unanswered questions that I'd like to get answered.

More seminars today, so I'll be back. It promises to be an interesting day.

Thanks for the updates

Oh, and BTW. I found this article by the well respected embryologist and found it to be very interesting. Just to link religion and evolution together(remember that there is a strong relationship between evolutionary biology and developmental biology)

A Scientist's Interpretation of References to Embryology in the Qur'an

Keith L. Moore, Ph.D., F.I.A.C.
The Department of Anatomy, University of Toronto, Canada.
Address all correspondence to:
Keith L. Moore, Ph.D, F.I.A.C., Professor of Anatomy and Associate Dean Basic Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario M55 IAB, Canada

Statements referring to human reproduction and development are scattered throughout the Qur'an. It is only recently that the scientific meaning of some of these verses has been appreciated fully. The long delay in interpreting these verses correctly resulted mainly from inaccurate translations and commentaries and from a lack of awareness of scientific knowledge.

Interest in explanations of the verses of the Qur'an is not new. People used to ask the prophet Muhammad all sorts of questions about the meaning of verses referring to human reproduction. The Apostle's answers form the basis of the Hadith literature.

The translations (*) of the verses from the Qur'an which are interpreted in this paper were provided by Sheik Abdul Majid Zendani , a Professor of Islamic Studies in King Abdulaziz University in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia.

"He makes you in the wombs of your mothers in stages, one after another, in three veils of darkness."

This statement is from Sura 39:6 . We do not know when it was realized that human beings underwent development in the uterus (womb), but the first known illustration of a fetus in the uterus was drawn by Leonardo da Vinci in the 15th century. In the 2nd century A.D., Galen described the placenta and fetal membranes in his book "On The Formation of the Foetus." Consequently, doctors in the 7th century A.D. likely knew that the human embryo developed in the uterus. It is unlikely that they knew that it developed in stages, even though Aristotle had described the stages of development of the chick embryo in the 4th century B.C. The realization that the human embryo develops in stages was not discussed and illustrated until the 15th century.

After the microscope was discovered in the 17th century by Leeuwenhoek descriptions were made of the early stages of the chick embryo. The staging of human embryos was not described until the 20th century. Streeter (1941) developed the first system of staging which has now been replaced by a more accurate system proposed by O'Rahilly (1972).

"The three veils of darkness" may refer to: (l) the anterior abdominal wall; (2) the uterine wall; and (3) the amniochorionic membrane. Although there are other interpretations of this statement, the one presented here seems the most logical from an embryological point of view.

"Then We placed him as a drop in a place of rest."

This statement is from Sura 23:13 . The drop or nutfah has been interpreted as the sperm or spermatozoon, but a more meaningful interpretation would be the zygote which divides to form a blastocyst which is implanted in the uterus ("a place of rest"). This interpretation is supported by another verse in the Qur'an which states that "a human being is created from a mixed drop." The zygote forms by the union of a mixture of the sperm and the ovum ("The mixed drop").

"Then We made the drop into a leech-like structure."

This statement is from Sura 23:14 . The word "alaqah" refers to a leech or bloodsucker. This is an appropriate description of the human embryo from days 7-24 when it clings to the endometrium of the uterus, in the same way that a leech clings to the skin. Just as the leech derives blood from the host, the human embryo derives blood from the decidua or pregnant endometrium. It is remarkable how much the embryo of 23-24 days resembles a leech. As there were no microscopes or lenses available in the 7th century, doctors would not have known that the human embryo had this leech-like appearance. In the early part of the fourth week, the embryo is just visible to the unaided eye because it is smaller than a kernel of wheat.

"Then of that leech-like structure, We made a chewed lump."

This statement is also from Sura 23:14 . The Arabic word "mudghah" means "chewed substance or chewed lump." Toward the end of the fourth week, the human embryo looks somewhat like a chewed lump of flesh. The chewed appearance results from the somites which resemble teeth marks. The somites represent the beginnings or primordia of the vertebrae.
"Then We made out of the chewed lump, bones, and clothed the bones in flesh."

This continuation of Sura 23:14 indicates that out of the chewed lump stage, bones and muscles form. This is in accordance with embryological development. First the bones form as cartilage models and then the muscles (flesh) develop around them from the somatic mesoderm.

"Then We developed out of it another creature."

This next part of Sura 23:14 implies that the bones and muscles result in the formation of another creature. This may refer to the human-like embryo that forms by the end of the eighth week. At this stage it has distinctive human characteristics and possesses the primordia of all the internal and external organs and parts. After the eighth week, the human embryo is called a fetus. This may be the new creature to which the verse refers.

"And He gave you hearing and sight and feeling and understanding."

This part of Sura 32:9 indicates that the special senses of hearing, seeing, and feeling develop in this order, which is true. The primordia of the internal ears appear before the beginning of the eyes, and the brain (the site of understanding) differentiates last.

"Then out of a piece of chewed flesh, partly formed and partly unformed."

This part of Sura 22:5 seems to indicate that the embryo is composed of both differentiated and undifferentiated tissues. For example, when the cartilage bones are differentiated, the embryonic connective tissue or mesenchyme around them is undifferentiated. It later differentiates into the muscles and ligaments attached to the bones.

"And We cause whom We will to rest in the wombs for an appointed term."
This next part of Sura 22:5 seems to imply that God determines which embryos will remain in the uterus until full term. It is well known that many embryos abort during the first month of development, and that only about 30% of zygotes that form, develop into fetuses that survive until birth. This verse has also been interpreted to mean that God determines whether the embryo will develop into a boy or girl.

The interpretation of the verses in the Qur'an referring to human development would not have been possible in the 7th century A.D., or even a hundred years ago. We can interpret them now because the science of modern Embryology affords us new understanding. Undoubtedly there are other verses in the Qur'an related to human development that will be understood in the future as our knowledge increases.

My point is that evolution, science and religion can co-exist.

[adamk]

Originally posted by Logic:
Another thing that irritates me is the incredible amount of new species that occured on a regular basis in a very short time. In a very short time earth was inhabited by several new(often very large) species, I find the very interesting since I find it hard to believe that such a change in population and kind of animals/life would happen in that short timeframe. But I haven't read to much on that subject so I can't really say. Just that I find it very interesting.

you're talking about the Cambrian Explosion, which occured about 570-500 mya. not a paleontologist, so i can't give a span for the majority of the species expansion. but still 20 Ma (a conservative estimate) is a very, very long time. especially compared to the transformation of the earth in the past 2000 years.

as you noted, a large number of animals appear on the scene at that time. not coincidentaly, it is during this time that hard parts developed (or at least become preserved in the sed record), which provide an obvious advantage over soft-bodied organisms. many did not survive for very long and there was high turnover. what is curious that many developed these characteristics at once (well, millions of years).

again, this is not my field of geology, but a change in environment, may have precipitated the ability for creatures to chemically produce exoskeletons and/or internal parts. another factor is that this life occured only in oceanic setting, so a global distribution of creatures who were thriving, is not completely implausable.

adam

[Nicko]

giant trilobites would be scary!

[moki]

Originally posted by boots:
The second seminar dealt with the finches on the Galapagos. Specifically on the speciation of the island called Daphne.

The general "lab" of the Galapagos is excellent because if is undisturbed, and the history is easily traceable.

(totally tangental, and not really related to what you're discussing here, but what the heck)

I've been to the Galapagos, and I'd hardly call it undisturbed. For a very long time it was, yes, I agree... but many of the tortoises were wiped out because seamen found they could put them in racks on their boats, and they'd have fresh meat any time they wanted (because the tortoises could live a very long time without food).

Goats and cats are also a huge problem, goats especially. There are campaigns going on there right now to go out and shoot as many goats as possible, attempting to wipe them off of the face of the islands, but they have already done a good bit of damage.

I will say, though, that the animals lack of natural predators on land was interesting. It was odd to walk up to a bird and not have it fly away in fear. They weren't domesticated, they just didn't care, because they we not used to any threats on land.

[nonhuman]

Originally posted by boots:
They should have the video feed on the web soon. I think they will be distributing a CD or DVD with all the talks too. I'll email you when it comes out.

Cool! Thanks.

[boots]

Originally posted by adamk:
you're talking about the Cambrian Explosion, which occured about 570-500 mya. not a paleontologist, so i can't give a span for the majority of the species expansion. but still 20 Ma (a conservative estimate) is a very, very long time. especially compared to the transformation of the earth in the past 2000 years.

as you noted, a large number of animals appear on the scene at that time. not coincidentaly, it is during this time that hard parts developed (or at least become preserved in the sed record), which provide an obvious advantage over soft-bodied organisms. many did not survive for very long and there was high turnover. what is curious that many developed these characteristics at once (well, millions of years).

again, this is not my field of geology, but a change in environment, may have precipitated the ability for creatures to chemically produce exoskeletons and/or internal parts. another factor is that this life occured only in oceanic setting, so a global distribution of creatures who were thriving, is not completely implausable.

adam

This always bothered me too. And it was acknowledged as a weak-spot in our knowledge.

The last seminar (sean carrol) may have opened up a window on the answer. It isn't changes in the genes that cause the variation. It is in the switches that regulate the genes.

It would take a hell of a long time for genes to evolve, because even slight mutation can kill the organism. But the switches don't encode for the functional proteins. Remember, all the gene does is carry the info for the protein that will be made. It is the protein that does everything.

If a switch is modified, the gene gets expressed in new ways...and does not often produce fatal mutations. So the switches can be changed almost without reprisal (relative to the genes themselves). this would allow a LOT of variation to develop very quickly, because you aren't messing with the actual functional parts...just arranging them differently. Remember, the same gene that give a chicken or a butterfly it's wing is the gene that let crustaceans breath...hows that for bizarre applications of the same machinery?

I don't think we know much about the switching mechanisms yet. That's one of the things that Carrol's work is telling us...we need to understand the switching.