Questioning The Evolutionary Process

Hi, Aures. Welcome to EvC. How high do you think it is? How high do you think this mutation rate needs to be? Are you aware that your genome has several mutations that were not present in either of your parents' genomes?- I'm not sure what you mean by "harmmonius mutations". Mutations do not need to re-occur in the same gene. Once a mutation occurs, it is there permanently -- at least until the next mutation changes it again. If that gene is in a gamete (sperm or ova), then all the descendents will have that same mutation.If you mean that you think that, say to produce fingers, we need lots of mutations in the same gene, then that is not true either. But there is no "finger" gene that makes fingers. Fingers are the result of lots of genes that determine the timing of growth start, growth stop, and cell death during embryonic development. There are lots genes involved, and, incidentally, none of them are particularly labeled "fingers" (although I could be wrong -- help from member Wounded King?)- Sure. But that is why evolution works on small changes. Mutations work by changing the time of events during embryonic development. Mutations that create large changes will probably have bad effects elsewhere. But if the changes are small, then so will these other effects.Now, these other effects might be bad in the sense of making the individual less able to survive and reproduce. But what matters is the overall fitness -- whether the "good" (meaning conducive to survival and reproduction) outweighs the "bad".And if these side-effects are neutral (that is, neither "good" nor "bad" in terms of affecting reproductive success), then there is no problem to begin with.

---

I could tell you what I've read about evolution, the big-bang, super-universes, quantum foam, and all that stuff. Eventually you'd ask a question I can't answer, then I'd have to go look it up. Even If I had the time for that shit, in the end you'd ask a question science hasn't answered yet. So let's save time and skip ahead to "I don't know." -- jhuger

Hi, Aures.I just want to another point. And it's probably appropriate that it gets addressed in a different post -- even if it isn't ruled off-topic, it probably deserves its own subthread.The theory of evolution has several parts that are, in some ways, independent.First, there is the Theory of Common Descent. This is so-called "macroevolution", the idea of the phylogenic tree. This part is pretty well established as fact -- creationist don't like this (and, in fact, this is the part that they don't like), but there it is.Common descent was pretty well accepted by the scientific community when Darwin proposed it, and a hundred and fify years of continued investigation has only made the evidence that much firmer. Here is my favorite web page, which explains why Common Descent is accepted as fact today.The second part of the theory of evolution is meant to explain how the evolutionary change that produced the different species occurred. This the Darwin's theory that evolution was produced by natural selection acting on small, randomly occurring variations. The power of this idea is that it is so simple a concept, and obvious when one sees it.However, although initially accepted by the scientific community when Darwin proposed it, scientists began to have doubts. Very shortly, there were several proposals as to what was the driving force for evolution. Common Descent was not disputed, this was accepted as a natural, and obvious, explanation for the phenomena that we see in biology. However, it was a matter of intense debate and much research to figure out what exactly was driving evolution. (In fact, there are still a couple of nutcakes on this board who insists that natural selection isn't enough to drive evolution, but they're kind of vague on what exactly the driving force is.)Finally, in the 1930s, 40s, and 50s there was enough evidence to finally conclude that natural selection is indeed the driving force, and the other alternatives have been relegated to the dustbin of history. Unfortunately, because many of these ideas were good science -- it's just that the evidence finally showed that they were not correct.And now the third part of the theory of evolution explains the source of the variations that occur. This is modern genetics. Genetics explains how physical characteristics are inherited by offspring from their parents, and how mutations can occur, giving rise to new characteristics that were not present in the parents, but now can be passed on to the next generation. In fact, it was the study of modern genetics that finally led to the acceptance of natural selection as the mechanism for evolution. It explains how heredity occurs, and how changes in the heredity can occur.Now, the questions that you posed are pretty much confined to the this third part, and has some implications for the second. You seem (if I may put words in your mouth -- correct me or add a clarification if you will) to be disputing whether genetic mutations can be the source of the variations upon which natural selection acts.If we consider the possibility that you (or my interpretation of your view) are correct, then we must consider the possibility that genetic mutations cannot account for the variation upon which natural selections acts. So, is there some other source of variation? Or, possibly, this means that natural selection is not the driving force for macroevolution. This would have a profound effect on evolutionary studies.But it really doesn't affect the theory of common descent. Macroevolution has occurred. This is based on actual evidence for macroevolution, not on an extrapolation of the assumption of natural selection. To dispute common descent, one would have to deal with the direct evidence that it has occurred (and open a new thread). At most this puts us back in the position 100 years ago, where we didn't have a sufficient understanding of heredity, and were not even sure what the mechanisms driving evolution really were.

---

I could tell you what I've read about evolution, the big-bang, super-universes, quantum foam, and all that stuff. Eventually you'd ask a question I can't answer, then I'd have to go look it up. Even If I had the time for that shit, in the end you'd ask a question science hasn't answered yet. So let's save time and skip ahead to "I don't know." -- jhuger

Hi again, Aures. To repeat PaulK's point, you haven't shown anything. You've just stated that these things are too improbable.- Actually, what is important is whether the trait is beneficial for the individual, not the species. Natural selection doesn't care about the species as a whole -- it is the individuals that either reproduce or do not.-By the way, what do you have to say about my point? The overwhelming evidence in all of biology (and also palaeontology) is that humans and apes descended from a common ancestor, primates and carnivores and bats and goats and sheep all descended from a common ancestor, and mammals and reptiles and fish all descended from a common ancestor, and all of life descended from a common ancestor.(1) If you are a Young Earth Creationist (YEC), then you are not really saying anything against the really important part of the theory, namely that all life descended from a common ancestor over eons of time. All you are really saying here is that we don't completely understand the processes that produced this evolution.Scientists do not simply like natural selection and then extrapolate it to long time scales and conclude macroevolution. Pretty much the opposite: there is a great deal of evidence that life evolved from earlier simpler life, and scientists accept natural selection because it works. If you are right, then maybe the natural selection part might be wrong, but the evidence for macroevolution still stands and needs to be dealt with.If you are trying to deal a deathblow against macroevolution, then you need to deal with the evidence for macroevolution.-(2) Maybe you aren't a YEC. Maybe you do accept macroevolution. Maybe you just don't think that genetic mutations have much to do with the process. Then what do you think drives evolution? If not natural selection, then what process produces it?If you do accept natural selection acting on random variations, then what is the source of variation? Certainly, since these variations must be hereditary, they have to show up in the DNA; regular, natural mutations seem to be all that we need. But do you think that there is a process that produces these mutations, maybe specific mutations?- Assuming that you are a YEC (if not, this question may not make sense), consider the different breeds of dog that was produced from the ancestral (wolf-like?) variety that existed a few thousand years ago. Notice the Chihuahua. Notice the Saint Bernard. Notice the Great Dane. How many "harmonius mutations" were necessary to produce these very different breeds, which were very different from the ancestral variety? What is the probability that the right "harmonius" mutations could have occurred? Surely they can't be infinitesimally small since we really do see these breeds today.

---

I could tell you what I've read about evolution, the big-bang, super-universes, quantum foam, and all that stuff. Eventually you'd ask a question I can't answer, then I'd have to go look it up. Even If I had the time for that shit, in the end you'd ask a question science hasn't answered yet. So let's save time and skip ahead to "I don't know." -- jhuger

Hi, dkv. Welcome to EvC.I'm not sure what your confusion is. Let me try to explain what natural selection is, and then we'll go from there.In any population, some individuals manage to produce a large number of offspring, and others produce a small number of offspring or even no offspring at all. This is a fact.The number of offspring that an individual leaves behind correlates very well with physical features that are hereditary. Individuals with a particular hereditary physical feature (or combination of features) are the ones who produce many progeny, and individuals with other physical features (or combinations) will produce fewer progeny. This, too, is a fact.Since these physical features are hereditary, then those individuals who have the physical features that are associated with producing many offspring will produce many offspring with those physical features. The individuals with the physical features that are associated with producing few or no offspring will produce few or no offspring with those physical features.Therefore, compared to the previous generation, the next generation will consist of a higher proportion of individuals with the features that are associated with producing many offspring and a lower proportion of individuals with the features associated with producing few or no offspring.And the process continues.We call this phenomenon "natural selection."

---

I could tell you what I've read about evolution, the big-bang, super-universes, quantum foam, and all that stuff. Eventually you'd ask a question I can't answer, then I'd have to go look it up. Even If I had the time for that shit, in the end you'd ask a question science hasn't answered yet. So let's save time and skip ahead to "I don't know." -- jhuger

Huh? If you have a new theory, shouldn't you be in a laboratory or in the field, collecting data to determine whether you are right?Although, I suppose that discussing matters on an internet discussion board might save some us all some trouble -- it might point out that what we know now already refutes your theory. And if you learn something, too, then that's a plus as well!

---

I could tell you what I've read about evolution, the big-bang, super-universes, quantum foam, and all that stuff. Eventually you'd ask a question I can't answer, then I'd have to go look it up. Even If I had the time for that shit, in the end you'd ask a question science hasn't answered yet. So let's save time and skip ahead to "I don't know." -- jhuger

Um, this really doesn't have anything to do with what I was saying.The rest of your post is also pretty confused and indicates a lack of understanding of biology and evolution.

---

I could tell you what I've read about evolution, the big-bang, super-universes, quantum foam, and all that stuff. Eventually you'd ask a question I can't answer, then I'd have to go look it up. Even If I had the time for that shit, in the end you'd ask a question science hasn't answered yet. So let's save time and skip ahead to "I don't know." -- jhuger

Actually, environments don't remain static.- Unfortunately, your assertain seems to be largely irrelevant. I will repeat the definition of natural selection again:

quote:

---

In any population, some individuals manage to produce a large number of offspring, and others produce a small number of offspring or even no offspring at all. This is a fact.

​

The number of offspring that an individual leaves behind correlates very well with physical features that are hereditary. Individuals with a particular hereditary physical feature (or combination of features) are the ones who produce many progeny, and individuals with other physical features (or combinations) will produce fewer progeny. This, too, is a fact.

​

Since these physical features are hereditary, then those individuals who have the physical features that are associated with producing many offspring will produce many offspring with those physical features. The individuals with the physical features that are associated with producing few or no offspring will produce few or no offspring with those physical features.

​

Therefore, compared to the previous generation, the next generation will consist of a higher proportion of individuals with the features that are associated with producing many offspring and a lower proportion of individuals with the features associated with producing few or no offspring.

---

There is nothing there about male or female. What I have written applies to traits belonging to asexually reproducing species, hermaphrodite species, traits that are sex-linked, and traits whose genes are found in the non-sex chromosones.- Actually, this is what we are discussing. Actually, this is what I am discussing. It may not be what you are discussing, but it's not clear what you are discussing. You are discussing your own idiosyncratic conceptions using your own definitions of words, and it's very hard to make out what you are trying to say.- No, I haven't said anything about mutations yet. My explanation of natural selection applies to all hereditary features, whether they have been present in the population for some time or have been recently introduced as mutations.- There is very little evidence that this is the case, and much evidence that it is not.Mutations are largely random. There will be some mutations that will result in changes in phenotype that will just happen to give the individual a reproductive advantage in the changed environment, and there will be some mutations that will just happen to make the individual disadvantaged in the changed evironment, and there will be mutations that will be neutral over all.

---

I could tell you what I've read about evolution, the big-bang, super-universes, quantum foam, and all that stuff. Eventually you'd ask a question I can't answer, then I'd have to go look it up. Even If I had the time for that shit, in the end you'd ask a question science hasn't answered yet. So let's save time and skip ahead to "I don't know." -- jhuger

No, it's not so random. If the bark of the trees on which a particular moth rests is dark colored, then the darker colored moths will blend in more and escape predation. Lighter color moths will tend to stand out more, and so predators will be able to spot them easier. Not really random at all.- Yes, if there is a fat gene, and if the those who possess it really do have a reproductive advantage. If the "fat gene" exists, and if the individual who possesses it is at a reproductive disadvantage, then there will be fewer fat Americans than there would otherwise be. If there is no fat gene, or if having this gene has no bearing on the number of offspring that is produced, then this example is irrelevant to natural selection.- We don't know that there is a fat gene, nor do we know whether it increases reproductive fitness.- This makes no sense. English isn't your native language, is it?

---

I could tell you what I've read about evolution, the big-bang, super-universes, quantum foam, and all that stuff. Eventually you'd ask a question I can't answer, then I'd have to go look it up. Even If I had the time for that shit, in the end you'd ask a question science hasn't answered yet. So let's save time and skip ahead to "I don't know." -- jhuger

No one is stifling academic freedom. Anyone is free to pursue whatever research projects that might validate whatever theory they wish to consider. Now, if the research looks like it's not producing any useful results, it will be very hard to get funding, but that is the problem of trying to validate something that is incorrect, not a stifling of academic freedom.- I usually use the word nutcake. Some people are pretty nutty. Like those who disagree with the consensus scientific opinion just because they don't like the choice of words used by one particular person who accepts the scientific consensus.

---

In many respects, the Bible was the world's first Wikipedia article. -- Doug Brown (quoted by Carlin Romano in The Chronicle Review)

They are vague probably because they don't actually say this. The vast majority of biologists, as far as I know, accept that natural selection is the driving force that creates complex structures.-- It would be interesting if there is actual evidence that these acquired traits are indeed inherited. Without evidence, this is just "making stuff up".

---

In many respects, the Bible was the world's first Wikipedia article. -- Doug Brown (quoted by Carlin Romano in The Chronicle Review)

In other words, you believe in something for which there is no evidence. And you expect everyone else to take this seriously. Interesting.

---

In many respects, the Bible was the world's first Wikipedia article. -- Doug Brown (quoted by Carlin Romano in The Chronicle Review)

It probably is. So far no one has proposed a viable alternative.- Not as far as anyone has been able to show.- Who's coercing anyone? Darwinian evolution has been verified. Lamarkian evolution has been show to be false. Simply pointing out the facts is not coercion.

---

In many respects, the Bible was the world's first Wikipedia article. -- Doug Brown (quoted by Carlin Romano in The Chronicle Review)

What experience have you had in this?

---

Computers have cut-and-paste functions. So does right-wing historical memory. -- Rick Perlstein

Natural selection is defined empirically. The following is observed in real populations:(1) The individuals in a population differ in their physical characteristics.(2) These physical characteristics are often inheritable.(3) Some organisms produce many offspring before they die, and others leave few or no offspring.(4) The success or lack of success in producing offspring is often due to their inheritable physical characteristics.(5) In the next generation there will be more individuals which will have the physical characteristics of the more successful breeders of the previous generation, and there will be fewer individuals with the characteristics of the less successful individuals.We call this phenomenon "natural selection".There is nothing metaphysical about this definition. We observe a phenomenon in nature, and we label this phenomenon "natural selection".

---

Computers have cut-and-paste functions. So does right-wing historical memory. -- Rick Perlstein

What evidence turned you away, may I ask? I was a confirmed creationist up until the end of high school. But the more I learned about biology and science, the more problems I saw with the creationist arguments, and the more I saw that the theory of evolution was a scientific theory with a lot of evidencial support. The more I learned about it since, the more convinced I became that not only is evolution good science, it probably is the best explanation for what we see in biology.It would be interesting to hear the evidence that turned you away from the theory of evolution. May I take a guess that the evidence consists of untruths and illogical arguments like those found on creationist websites? Not that I'm accusing you of anything, but a middle school student isn't really going to be in a position to really understand any subject enough to be able to comment on its validity, right? And your posts seem to indicate that you don't really understand the science itself very well -- it appears that you get most of your information from sources who are lying to you.Edited by Chiroptera, : No reason given.Edited by Chiroptera, : Oops -- forgot to note that I added the last couple of sentences.
Also decided to change the subtitle/\.

---

Computers have cut-and-paste functions. So does right-wing historical memory. -- Rick Perlstein