Problems with Mutation and the Evolution of the Sexes

Hi Lyston,If you are here to learn, then I applaud you. Too many creationists decry evolution without displaying any understanding of what it really entails. Learning is never wasted. Even if you end up deciding that evolution really is nonsense, at least no-one will be able to accuse you of ignorance and you will be that much better equipped to take the theory on in debate. The basic advantage derived from sexual reproduction is genetic recombination. This allows novel mutations to become distributed throughout the population and prevents the build-up of harmful mutations that would result from asexual reproduction. There is a page on this available on Wikipedia, but I suggest that you start with the pages Percy linked to above.

---

Mutate and Survive

This is the cause of your confusion. High School Biology is at best a very basic version of evolution, and at worst it perpetuates complete inaccuracies (like your "bone bending" example). I'm not nearly qualified to go into too much depth (I'm not a biologist, this is just a hobby for me), but I'd be happy to try to lay out the basic model to the best of my understanding in a way you might understand. We also have some real biologists here on this site who very much know what they're talking about - they actually use the predictions of the evolutionary model every day, in the lab.So let's start out this way: A theory is not just an "idea." That's closer to a hypothesis. In science, a theory is a generally accepted model of an observed process that can make testable predictions. For instance, the Theory of Gravity is our model of the observed process by which matter attracts matter. It makes certain predictions (how much a given object will weigh on a given planetary body by taking the mass of the body and the object, for instance) that can be tested. When these predictions are borne out as true, the theory becomes less tentative. When there is a slight inaccuracy, we repeat the tests and make adjustments to our model until it reflects reality with as much accuracy as possible. If the predictions are completely falsified, we basically throw out the model and start from scratch - again, the goal is to model observed reality with as much accuracy as possible.The Theory of Evolution is just like the Theory of Gravity. We have observed that allele frequency (basically the frequency of any given trait) in any population of biological organisms changes over time. The Theory of Evolution is currently the most accurate model we have of the process of allele frequency change. The primary mechanism for allele frequency changes in the Theory of Evolution is random mutation guided by natural selection. The model makes many, many predictions which have been tested extensively over the past 150 years, THe theory has been modified to include new information, but the basic model of allele frequency changes being the result of random mutation guided by natural selection has not changed much - it's proven to be an incredibly accurate model.Evolution does predict common ancestry, but it's deeper than that. The best way I know to explain the core prediction of the Theory of Evolution is this: no feature in any organism should be completely unique. It should be a slightly modified version of the same feature in a pre-existing species. Slugs, for instance, should never suddenly sprout wings. But existing features can be slightly modified and sometimes even used for something completely different from what the parent structure was used for.All of this, of course, is guided by natural selection - it's not an intelligent process, because there's no "goal" or "decision." But it does cull out the variants that plain don't work.Let's go all the way down to bacteria for an example - there's a simple experiment you could even do yourself with a few supplies, or in a college biology lab. I'm sure you've heard of the so-called "superbugs" in the news, variants of existing illnesses that are highly resistant to antibiotics.This is a mutation, and their appearance was predicted by the evolutionary model.Bacteria are, relatively speaking anyway, very simple - but I'm not a biologist. I'll try to explain as best I can, but any of our resident biologists should feel free to jump in or correct me if I'm at all inaccurate. The bacterial cell membrane is composed of proteins. Those proteins are, essentially, defined by one or more genes in the DNA of the bacteria. A mutation is essentially a copying error - the base pairs that make the double-helix chain of DNA can mostly be mixed and matched, so sometimes the wrong base pair is copied, or an extra one is added, or one is subtracted. Since bacteria reproduce via mitosis (the clone themselves, basically, making identical copies), we know that any changes in their DNA must be due to what amounts to copying errors in the DNA replication cycle. Very slight changes compared to the entire strand, but enough to change a protein. By purely random chance, one of these copying errors can make the cell membrane of a bacterial cell slightly different from its parents. Now, this could make the new cell die, or it could just be "different" and not matter much. If it dies, the mutation disappears - it was clearly a "negative" mutation. If it does nothing significant, that one cell will pass along the new cell membrane to its offspring, and they to theirs, etc.Now, let's add an antibiotic.There will be many tiny variants due to mutation in the population of bacteria. For most, this won't matter...but there will sometimes be one such variation that makes the antibiotic not work. The reason it doesn't work goes farther into the chemistry - suffice it to say that the specific protein the antibiotic attacks isn't present in our variant because of one of those very tiny copying errors that changed a protein.Now, the only variant that has survived the antibiotics is our mutated variant - the rest have been killed off. The mutated variant now gets all of the food, and divides - the frequency of this particular feature has changed from a very small percentage to now nearly 100%. This is evolution - the allele frequency (the frequency of the genetic trait) has changed due to random mutation (the copying error), guided by natural selection (the antibiotic).This specific experiment has been done countless times, and is even predictable - the mutation itself is random, but in a large enough population size, it's nearly inevitable. So evolution has been observed, directly. The process is a fact, period. The Theory of Evolution model is actually considered to be about as solid as the Theory of Gravity, in fact, because of so many different direct observations of the process.Now, our bacterial variant isn't really a new species, necessarily (the definition of "species" is very touchy - honestly, organisms within anything but a few hundred or even thousand generations of separation sort of blend together. You can see variations, but you can't see enough of a difference to really call it a new species). We have observed what we would define as a new species forming in the laboratory, so we know that speciation is the result of continual evolution and separation of populations (if a population is separated and the two new populations never inter-breed again, they will evolve in different ways due to the different environmental pressures they each experience).These observations lead us to predict that all organisms share common ancestry, and that the variety of life is best represented in something like a tree - like we do, categorizing each creature into different domains, kingdoms, phylum, classes, orders, families, genera, and finally species. The farther apart on the classification tree, the more time has passed since the given species had a common ancestor.So, that's a lot to swallow for a single post, and it's pretty long even for me...so after you get back, take a look, and let us know if you understand, or if you need us to clarify.

You still haven't seen what's wrong with your argument.Let me put this in the form of a parable. Imagine two men --- let's call them Bill and Fred --- quarrelling over the provenance of a painting. Imagine that the dialogue goes like this:Bill: This painting is magnificent. A masterwork of this nature can only have come from the hand of the great Michelangelo.Fred: Whereas I have good evidence that it was painted by a chimpanzee.Bill: It cannot possibly have been painted by a chimpanzee. Look at how crude and ugly it is. Chimpanzees are endowed with an aesthetic taste exactly like my own, and would never produce anything that I regard as stupid and grotesque. Therefore, it was painted by that superb master of all that is beautiful --- Michelangelo.Fred: I detect a flaw in your argument. You propose that this painting is so "crude", "ugly", "stupid", and "grotesque" that a chimp couldn't have produced something so bad --- and yet you attribute it to a man whom you describe as a "superb master of all that is beautiful". I believe that these claims are inconsistent.Bill: Not at all. I said that I thought that the painting was ugly. That is merely a personal opinion. It is ugly in my eyes. But what is my aesthetic judgement compared to that of Michelangelo? In the eyes of Michelangelo, a genius who truly knew beauty when he saw it, this painting would be regarded as a sublime, exquisite masterpiece. And it is clearly too gross and clumsy to have been painted by a chimpanzee.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

I started this more as "Problems with Mutation and the Evolution of Genders". While Sexual Reproduction is involved with genders, it's not the same. Can you make the necessary name change and help bring the topic back to what I was initially interested in please?

Actually, "it" was meaning the gender mutation. On the other hand, mutation is something known to happen, not evolution. As for some evidence, how about the year counting? To me, this is something I feel is the hardest to dismiss. BC (before Christ) and AD (after death) are referring to Christ's death on the cross. It was so significant that people began counting years after it. I know people are beginning to just ignore it and are even trying to change it (or has it already changed?), but still, you can't just ignore its origins. I acknowledge that almost 2008 years ago, a man names Christ Jesus (with variating translations) died on the cross. The only way you can dismiss this (as I did before I became a believer) is to think that "yeah, a man named Jesus lived and was killed, but he wasn't special."

Hey yo Lyston, I'd appreciate some help for compiling a list of animal kinds on Noah's Ark in this thread. My message 25 in that thread has the most up-to-date list of mammals we have so far. We will move on to reptiles and whatnot after we have all the mammal kinds down.

Perhaps you would be good enough to explain the difference.Sexual reproduction: Process in which two cells, termed gametes, come together to form one fertilized cell that contains genetic information from both parental cells.Gender: The behavioral, cultural, or psychological traits typically associated with one sex.

You seem to be under the delusion that a single mutation was responsible for the two sexes.That is not the case.Had you taken the time to read the links that others have provided, you would know that. All of this is OT. This is not an evolution thread.I suggest you stay focused.I would like to add that this is a science thread. You need to support your assertions with scientific evidence/arguments.Oh. And btw.Jeebus and his almighty pals are irrelevant.Don't bring that crap into this thread again.

This is something I tried to say before I left. God didn't leave this world in 'magical operation' or unrealistic circumstances. Can't find out how gravity works? The answer is NOT "God does it!" You CAN find a way. Can't find out how heat or light gets from the sun to the Earth (going back quite a few years), the answer never was "God does it!" The answer is "God created it" or "God made a way", something that isn't relative to the problem.This is highly overlooked in many of your posts. You call him God of Gaps, but that's not how it works nor how the Bible portrays it. Yes, some people think that's how it is, but it isn't how it is. I think, and the Bible doesn't say otherwise, that for every scientific gap out there (not including Evolution for understandable reasons), there is a way it works that can be found. God left us a world to explore, and exploring it we are. Unfortunately, whispers lead people away from the path and help them start finding other ways (Evolution or... Scientology).

I had just read those comments now, two days later. I made that post long before argument (meaning more that they were there, but I hadn't read them. I responded to a post before the argument). Please look at what I replied to... actually... that might be my single "general" post. Anyways, the reference was made from something before the argument.

That's exactly what I meant. As for the first sentence, it is a belief. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, as you all know. It has evidence, but you still need to believe in it, just as one needs to believe in the concept of atoms (something that my Chem teacher of all people brought up). No matter how obvious it seems, there is a possibility (no matter how slim) that it could be wrong. That's why we are in debate.

I know I prolly should, but for some reason responses from Rahvin seem to work best. He can filter out the unnecessary things and give the basic lay out (or even provide a link for "Evolution for Dummies"). I know it was demanding, but he seems, to me, as most interested in helping me understand (with his abnormally long replies -.-).

Please, please do not try to start the "it's just a theory" nonsense. Read through the posts already made in the thread before you start responding to each one of us - this has already been addressed, and it's an example of ignorance of science. The word "theory" in science means something very, very different from the way you're using it.

You are using the most common creationist tactic of imposing the common understanding of the word "theory" onto the scientific word "theory". If we were to live in some fantasy land, like Buffy the Vampire Slayer, you might have a case. But the fact is we don't live in such a fantasy land. Please do some research into what the scientific word "theory" is before you embarrass yourself again. Here is a song from Buffy the Musical Episode just for you.GILES
I've got a theory
That it's a demon
A dancing demon
Nuh, something isn't right thereWILLOW
I've got a theory
Some kid is dreaming
And we're all stuck inside
His wacky Broadway nightmareXANDER
I've got a theory
We should work this outALL
It's getting eerie
What's this cheery...
Singing all about?XANDER
It could be witches
Some evil witches
Which is ridiculous
'Cause witches they were persecuted
Wicca good, and love the Earth
And woman power
And I'll be over hereANYA
I've got a theory
It could be bunnies...TARA
I've got a--ANYA:
Bunnie aren't just cute like everybody supposes
They got them hoppy legs and twitchy little noses
And what's with all the carrots
What do they need such good eyesight for anyways?
Bunnies!
Bunnies!
It must be bunnies!
Or maybe midgets...Edited by Taz, : No reason given.Edited by Taz, : No reason given.

Thanks, Rahvin, for that. Really. At first, I was thinking "oh no, he is just reviewing what I learned", but as it went on, towards the end, I began to think about it more in depth - relating it to how Evolution would work. I must say, I began piecing things together in ways I had never thought of before (even if, unfortunately, it was review). It was when I got to... ... that I just about finished up. Here's what I pulled out of that message (and I'll be fair and include everything that I thought of and ruled out):At "add an antibiotic" I thought of 'early Earth' and varying factors that could count as, for lack of a better word, an eliminator. The population, as you said, would have different variations of mutations. The ones that had certain... resistances to that eliminator would be the ones to survive, as you said. That was my first 'bridge' that I made. It's hard for me to explain. Despite hearing about things like this, I finally thought of how mutations wouldn't always be noticeably phenotypical yet still help. Like how the whole population was wiped out, yet still the 'same type' of bacteria existed, only slightly different. I know it may seem obvious to you, but it was something that got the cogs turning. The phrase... ...was still review for me, but it reinforced the 'bridge' and brought new insight. I'm not going to keep repeating things, but I made references to other things, other mutations. They made more sense in a different way. Now my defiant made its entrance. I almost instantly threw out all the insight thinking 'but that would mean things would have to all 'evolve' the same and would have species variety.' Then the more reasonable part of my remembered how everything wouldn't be in the same spot. I know there is a word for it (which I cannot remember) that talks about how a species (or population) can get divided by a factor and evolve differently because of that.The best way to describe of what I thought in that 3 seconds is how population 'a' died, leaving the slightly different one alive. But, my problem before was that I thought, and others in this forum said, that the survivors would make population "b". They wouldn't. They would make more of a population "ab". It's not entirely different, only slightly. It still holds characteristics of "a", but brings in the mutation (no longer seen as a mutation but more as trait as everything left will have it), making it different. That was what part of me tried to throw out, thinking that it would bring variety. Then I thought of how population "a" wasn't actually gone. It was in that area, but not elsewhere. Elsewhere, a different eliminator struck, leaving population "ac", and elsewhere making population "ad". Then population "ab" could have been split by a natural factor, having a new eliminator for each set, making populations "aba" and "abb". This continues. Right after that, I read the "not necessarily a new species" part, making me smile and one again reinforcing the thought.There you go, reads of this post. That's how my mind figured out this snippet of info. You are prolly laughing at me, but meh, I'm not one who cares about many things. I will say, that whenever I find out something, it has an unusually high chance of coming around and slapping me in the face. By that I mean, somehow, my insight is very flawed in your eyes and is in dire need of heavy reconstruction. Please feel free to do so.As a final note, I will say that I am still Pro-creation, but in a way (even if flawed) this makes the Evolution Theory much more plausible to me. Thank you very much, Rahvin, for that. Even if my insight is still flawed, it is appreciated. Last question... was that the theory of Evolution or an example of mutation? I feel more like a made references to how it would work with Evolution than if it was Evolution itself.