Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,816 Year: 3,073/9,624 Month: 918/1,588 Week: 101/223 Day: 12/17 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   How is Natural selection a mechanism?
Perdition
Member (Idle past 3238 days)
Posts: 1593
From: Wisconsin
Joined: 05-15-2003


Message 16 of 191 (525476)
09-23-2009 2:01 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by Wounded King
09-23-2009 11:57 AM


Re: Mutating genes
I may be explaining it poorly. I thought genetic drift is when the proportion of alleles expressed in the population changes due to reproductive chance rather than through actual selection. So, if a species is not monogamous, an allele can be increased in proportion by a carrier of that allele breeding more (by chance) than a non-carrier, rather than a carrier of the allele actually having a reproductive benefit due to that allele.
For example, eye color is generally not going to enhance or detract from your ability to mate in general, but if a blue eyed male happens to have sex with a lot of different females in any given breeding season who then produce some blue eyed kids, the proportion of blue eyes will increase more than if that blue eyed male had only had sex with one female during that breeding period.
And that this is independent of actual beneficial mutations that will give the individual an actual boost in reproductive success. Having an actual boost will increase the proportions more than merely chance in the previous example.
I could just be completely wrong though.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Wounded King, posted 09-23-2009 11:57 AM Wounded King has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Wounded King, posted 09-23-2009 2:37 PM Perdition has replied

  
Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 17 of 191 (525482)
09-23-2009 2:37 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by Perdition
09-23-2009 2:01 PM


Drift
'Genetic drift' refers to the changes in allele frequency between one generation and the next in a population which can be attributed to random factors. What you describe, natural random variation in mating success, could be one such factor. Being hit by a tree falling over clearly does curtail an organisms chances of reproductive success.
Your monogamy issue is pretty abstruse though, and certainly not considered a particularly important element of genetic drift as far as I know.
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Perdition, posted 09-23-2009 2:01 PM Perdition has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by Perdition, posted 09-23-2009 3:24 PM Wounded King has not replied

  
Perdition
Member (Idle past 3238 days)
Posts: 1593
From: Wisconsin
Joined: 05-15-2003


Message 18 of 191 (525502)
09-23-2009 3:24 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by Wounded King
09-23-2009 2:37 PM


Re: Drift
Ok, I'll omit that from further discussions.
That's why I like this forum, I get to learn something every day.
Thanks!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Wounded King, posted 09-23-2009 2:37 PM Wounded King has not replied

  
Kevin123
Junior Member (Idle past 5070 days)
Posts: 23
From: Texas, USA
Joined: 10-11-2008


Message 19 of 191 (525511)
09-23-2009 4:09 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by Perdition
09-23-2009 11:51 AM


Re: Mutating genes
First, I should have mentioned that my problem with evolution is limited to macro evolution. Micro evolution (small changes WITHIN species) is based on observable evidence, so please don’t respond with bacteria adapted to eat this or this virus adapted to be immune to that. I already heard about the bacteria that now eats rubber but that is not adequate evidence to state that all life evolved from a common ancestor, it’s simply proof of small changes within species adapting to changes in their environment.
I also don’t think that observed natural selection is evidence of macro evolution since natural selection eliminates information but does not add new information. So how did macro evolution become anything more than an interesting hypothesis? What evidence (observation)points to an animal developing a new organ or growing a new limb and then passing it on to future generations?
A few of you mentioned that I was incorrect in my assumption that one permanent beneficial mutation in a million pairings was being generous. I simply base this on the fact that we have observed trillions of pairings among animals and humans in the last thousand years and not once has a single beneficial and lasting mutation in a human or animal been observed (person with a tail, or snake with legs, new type of leaves etc).
Considering the trillions of variations that would have been necessary in only 600 million years to create every insect and animal type, bone structure, organ, land plant type, et al, visible hereditary changes should occur every day. And not just small errors in the genetic code that tend to correct themselves.
I know some evolutionists pushed on this issue point to punctuated equilibrium or punctuated evolution as a possible explanation. I understand that this is somewhat controversial even among evolutionists and wonder if there is any evidence for rapid periods of evolution followed by long periods of equilibrium or is this just a nice explanation fabricated to explain away the lack of evidence? I imagine it must be frustrating to time and time again find the same type of dinosaur, fish, bird or plant fossils here and there but not be able to find an equal number of (or even a few) fossils for the billions of intermediary species.
Anyway, if there is some obvious evidence for macro evolution that I’m missing I’d appreciate someone pointing me in the right direction. I took a little college level biology and microbiology so I can usually wrap my head around complex explanations. I am interested in observations that point towards large scale changes. I know evolutionists have a lot of "stories" without any evidence, to explain solutions to various problems with the "theory". I would welcome the reading as I’m taking a break from the theoretical physics forums and debates about push versus pull gravitational theories.
BTW is anybody else curious why physicists are much more open to the possibility that Einstein made mistakes than evolutionists are about Darwin? Didn’t Darwin believe that cells were mere blobs of protoplasm? Yet his proposed theory maintains an almost religious following with anybody who even questions them being attacked as a biblical creationist zealot.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Perdition, posted 09-23-2009 11:51 AM Perdition has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-23-2009 4:24 PM Kevin123 has replied
 Message 21 by Perdition, posted 09-23-2009 4:42 PM Kevin123 has replied
 Message 23 by Coyote, posted 09-23-2009 5:13 PM Kevin123 has not replied
 Message 26 by PaulK, posted 09-23-2009 5:49 PM Kevin123 has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 20 of 191 (525515)
09-23-2009 4:24 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by Kevin123
09-23-2009 4:09 PM


Re: Mutating genes
First, I should have mentioned that my problem with evolution is limited to macro evolution. Micro evolution (small changes WITHIN species) ...
If that is your definition of micro-evolution, then perhaps I should point out that most creationists have now admitted that speciation takes place.
Indeed, the creationist apologist group "Answers In Genesis", with remarkable chutzpah, write:
New species have been observed to form. In fact, rapid speciation is an important part of the creation model.
Presumably the point at which it became "an important part of the creationist model" was when they found themselves utterly unable to go on denying it.
I also don’t think that observed natural selection is evidence of macro evolution since natural selection eliminates information but does not add new information.
That was a bizarre non sequitur.
So how did macro evolution become anything more than an interesting hypothesis?
Because it explains paleontology, morphology, embryology, biogeography, et cetera. Or, in the words of Theodosius Dobshansky: "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution".
What evidence (observation)points to an animal developing a new organ or growing a new limb and then passing it on to future generations?
Er ... that would be a saltation by somatic mutation. Evolution is about the gradual accumulation of germ-line mutations.
You are at a level of understanding where you don't need us to answer your questions, you need a high-school biology text book.
A few of you mentioned that I was incorrect in my assumption that one permanent beneficial mutation in a million pairings was being generous. I simply base this on the fact that we have observed trillions of pairings among animals and humans in the last thousand years and not once has a single beneficial and lasting mutation in a human or animal been observed
This is not true.
Considering the trillions of variations that would have been necessary in only 600 million years to create every insect and animal type, bone structure, organ, land plant type, et al, visible hereditary changes should occur every day. And not just small errors in the genetic code that tend to correct themselves.
Once more, you have failed to show your working, so although I know you are wrong, I cannot point out the point at which you have made your mistake.
I know some evolutionists pushed on this issue point to punctuated equilibrium or punctuated evolution as a possible explanation. I understand that this is somewhat controversial even among evolutionists and wonder if there is any evidence for rapid periods of evolution followed by long periods of equilibrium ...
Well, there's the fossil record, and there's the fact that this is what we'd expect to see if the theory of evolution was true.
As for "controversial", Darwin described is as "probable" 150 years ago. Today, I don't think anyone would object.
I imagine it must be frustrating to time and time again find the same type of dinosaur, fish, bird or plant fossils here and there but not be able to find an equal number of (or even a few) fossils for the billions of intermediary species.
What an odd fantasy world you seem to inhabit.
However, the things that you like to "imagine" are not relevant to this thread.
Anyway, if there is some obvious evidence for macro evolution that I’m missing I’d appreciate someone pointing me in the right direction.
See above.
BTW is anybody else curious why physicists are much more open to the possibility that Einstein made mistakes than evolutionists are about Darwin?
I am not in the least interested in the causes of imaginary things that you made up in your head.
Didn’t Darwin believe that cells were mere blobs of protoplasm?
No, of course not.
Yet his proposed theory maintains an almost religious following with anybody who even questions them being attacked as a biblical creationist zealot.
You'll find a similar thing happens in connection with the theory that the Earth is not flat.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Kevin123, posted 09-23-2009 4:09 PM Kevin123 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by Kevin123, posted 09-23-2009 4:53 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Perdition
Member (Idle past 3238 days)
Posts: 1593
From: Wisconsin
Joined: 05-15-2003


Message 21 of 191 (525521)
09-23-2009 4:42 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by Kevin123
09-23-2009 4:09 PM


Re: Mutating genes
Micro evolution (small changes WITHIN species) is based on observable evidence
But macro evolution is just a lot of micro evolution. If you can have small changes, what stops those small changes from accumulating? What creationists who accept micro evolution have to do is offer some mechanism that stops micro evolution from continuing. After all, one penny isn't much, but keep adding pennies and eventually you've got a pile of real money.
Macro evolution is a consequence of micro evolution, unless you can come up with a mechanism that limits it. So far, none have been found, so if you're the first, you'll get a nice shiny Nobel Prize for your efforts.
I also don’t think that observed natural selection is evidence of macro evolution since natural selection eliminates information but does not add new information.
Natural selection weeds out the bad mutations, true, so while it doesn't add any new information, it does make sure that any new information added is good or at least neutral. It's natural selection PLUS mutation that gives evidence of evolution (macro or micro, you end up at the same spot).
What evidence (observation)points to an animal developing a new organ or growing a new limb and then passing it on to future generations?
The best evidence for macro evolution occuring is in the fossil record. But you seem to be confusing what actual evolution would do versus what sci-fi movies and creationists say evolution should do.
For one thing, a brand new limb does happen, look at recent amphibian problems as evidence. True, these are disadvantageous mutations, and are usually quickly weeded out, but any large scale change like that is more often than not going to be disadvantageous. Most evolution is, like American football, a game of inches. You don't go from point A to point B by strapping on a jet pack and getting there in one giant leap, you take steps, eating away the miles slow and steady. Often, evolution just modifies what's already there, rather than making something completely new.
I simply base this on the fact that we have observed trillions of pairings among animals and humans in the last thousand years and not once has a single beneficial and lasting mutation in a human or animal been observed.
Animal husbandry as a science would disagree with you. It might not be big enough changes for you, but look at all the breeds of dogs that come from a wolf, or all the types of cow we have, which came from one particular ancestor species (I think). A wolf couldn't go down into burrows and fight a badger. Dachshunds can, and this is based on small changes being added to over many many generations. True, this is not natural selection, but artificial selection, but since you've already accepted mutation and natural selection, what theoretical mechanism would have stopped wolves from evolving into dachshunds if they got stuck in an environment that highly favored their ability to go after badgers?
I would also disagree with beneficial mutations not having been observed in nature, but as I've said, changes are small and for something to build up, you often need to have a new environment, or have a niche open up due to something else dying off. Humans are not going to evolve as much since we have technology and intellect to counteract much of what nature throws against us. As for other animals, even 1000 years is often not long enough to see big changes since generation lengths are quite long. This is why most evolutionary studies have to do with bacteria and thigs that reproduce very quiuckly, and we have definitely seen beneficial mutations in bacteria. In fact, it's exceedingly easy to get beneficial mutations in bacteria...all you have to do is drastically change the environment, and viola, you'll see most individuals die off, and the ones that are left are the ones that had a mutation that was not present in the others and helped them survive.
Considering the trillions of variations that would have been necessary in only 600 million years
Maybe I missed it, where do you get this number? As far as I know, life has had at least 3.5 billion years to work with.
I imagine it must be frustrating to time and time again find the same type of dinosaur, fish, bird or plant fossils here and there but not be able to find an equal number of (or even a few) fossils for the billions of intermediary species.
How would you know an intermediary species? Are you expecting to find a species that has a T. rex head and a brontosaurus body? If you foudn that, again, you'd get a Nobel prize for destroying much of evolutionary theory (assuming it was legitimate). What you find, if you actually look, is a gradual progression from one type of animal or plant or dinosaur to manyh different ones that are obviously related. Just recently, they found an ancestor of T. rex that was quite small, but had the same morphology as the T. rex we all know and love. In fact, they often find different species and intermediate animals...especially when they use evolutionary theory to predict where to look to find exactly those species. (Rememeber, even intermediate animals belong to one species or another, you're never going to find an animal that is in between two species but not part of a species itself.)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Kevin123, posted 09-23-2009 4:09 PM Kevin123 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by Kevin123, posted 09-23-2009 5:42 PM Perdition has replied

  
Kevin123
Junior Member (Idle past 5070 days)
Posts: 23
From: Texas, USA
Joined: 10-11-2008


Message 22 of 191 (525524)
09-23-2009 4:53 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by Dr Adequate
09-23-2009 4:24 PM


Re: Mutating genes
Not very helpful. Maybe more of us "heretics" would accept the evolution faith if you took the time to explain the evidence and not simply declare that evolution is the only possible explanation for ....
Because it explains paleontology, morphology, embryology, biogeography, et cetera. Or, in the words of Theodosius Dobshansky: "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution".
Historically anytime a theory was accepted because it was the only explanation for x, it was proven wrong. On the other hand theories based on observable and measurable phenomenon tend to last a little longer.
That is not true.
Again, thanks for being so helpful. Tell me, what animal has a mutation in its genetic code that is being passed down and propagated through natural selection?
You'll find a similar thing happens in connection with the theory that the Earth is not flat.
I'm just waiting for the next paradigm shift that gets us past the "random acts lead to extreme complexity" theory that violates the natural relationship we observe between order and chaos.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-23-2009 4:24 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-23-2009 5:27 PM Kevin123 has not replied
 Message 36 by Larni, posted 09-24-2009 1:27 PM Kevin123 has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 23 of 191 (525532)
09-23-2009 5:13 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by Kevin123
09-23-2009 4:09 PM


Biblical creationist zealots
Yet his proposed theory maintains an almost religious following with anybody who even questions them being attacked as a biblical creationist zealot.
That because those are virtually the only folks nowadays who are questioning the theory of evolution.
Science concluded that the theory was the best explanation for the data over a century ago, and there has been no need to revise that conclusion. Rather, the data keep coming in on the side of evolution.
Example: DNA, unknown in Darwin's day, could have shown that Darwin was wrong and that another theory was more accurate. This hasn't happened.
Example: There were almost no hominid fossils recognized when Darwin published in 1859 (the Neanderthal specimen was found only three years earlier, and was not understood at the time). The masses of hominid fossils found since then could have shown that the theory of evolution was incorrect, but instead they have supported it.
And, for the most part, those arguing against the theory of evolution (whether biblical creationist zealots or not) are doing so because of religious, not scientific, reasons. They want the theory to be wrong because they disagree--for religious reasons--with its conclusions.
On natural selection: Here is an experiment. Roll 25 dice in an attempt to get all sixes. If you try to get all 25 dice to show a six on one roll you'll be there for years. However, mutations and natural selection don't work that way. Here is a more accurate way to look at it. Roll those 25 dice, then pick up and reroll any dice that is not a six. You'll have all sixes in just a few minutes. While not a perfect example, that is closer to the way evolution works.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Kevin123, posted 09-23-2009 4:09 PM Kevin123 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by Kaichos Man, posted 10-11-2009 12:01 AM Coyote has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 24 of 191 (525537)
09-23-2009 5:27 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by Kevin123
09-23-2009 4:53 PM


Re: Mutating genes
Not very helpful. Maybe more of us "heretics" would accept the evolution faith if you took the time to explain the evidence and not simply declare that evolution is the only possible explanation for ....
Unfortunately, I cannot, in fact, take the time to write several books. I have something else to do this afternoon.
However, books do exist on these subjects.
I notice that I forgot to mention genetics. Read a book on genetics first.
Historically anytime a theory was accepted because it was the only explanation for x, it was proven wrong.
This is, of course, untrue.
On the other hand theories based on observable and measurable phenomenon tend to last a little longer.
Like evolution, then. 150 years and still going strong.
Again, thanks for being so helpful. Tell me, what animal has a mutation in its genetic code that is being passed down and propagated through natural selection?
Assuming that by "genetic code" you mean "genome" ... all of them.
I'm just waiting for the next paradigm shift ...
Keep waiting.
that gets us past the "random acts lead to extreme complexity" theory
You really have no idea how evolution works, do you?
that violates the natural relationship we observe between order and chaos.
If evolution violated any "natural relationships" I'm sure that scientists would have noticed by now. They know quite a lot about nature, and they're quite smart.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Kevin123, posted 09-23-2009 4:53 PM Kevin123 has not replied

  
Kevin123
Junior Member (Idle past 5070 days)
Posts: 23
From: Texas, USA
Joined: 10-11-2008


Message 25 of 191 (525547)
09-23-2009 5:42 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by Perdition
09-23-2009 4:42 PM


Re: Mutating genes
Thanks for your helpful reply.
It might not be big enough changes for you, but look at all the breeds of dogs that come from a wolf, or all the types of cow we have, which came from one particular ancestor species (I think). A wolf couldn't go down into burrows and fight a badger. Dachshunds can, and this is based on small changes being added to over many many generations.
The diversity that can be achieved through selective breeding is truly amazing. However, it still is not evidence for evolution from one species to another. Breeding is simply a form of natural selection. Humans selected the qualities they wanted and bread only the animals that exhibited those qualities. And if humans ever stopped controlling the breeding, dogs would return to their more primitive forms.
The best evidence for macro evolution occuring is in the fossil record.
Really? How many evolutionary steps did it take for dinosaurs to become birds? Surely there must have been more intermediary steps between them than there are species of dinosaurs. How is it possible to find multiple fossils of the same dinosaur or the same extinct bird without finding the missing links which should outnumber the established species (unless you subscribe to punctuated evolution)?
Maybe I missed it, where do you get this number? As far as I know, life has had at least 3.5 billion years to work with.
According to the evolution timeline simple animals, arthropods, complex animals, fish, proto-amphibians, land plants, insects, seeds amphibians reptiles, mammals, birds and humans have all been around for less than 600 million years. That means that the millions of species that exist today and many billions of intermediary species evolved from a simple multi cellular organism in less than 600 million years. This is an incredibly short period of time considering the only evolution we have witnessed is small changes within simple organisms. Think of the trillions of mutations and the countless generations spent isolating those traits through natural selection. Or can someone explain why evolution appears to have stopped or slowed?
How would you know an intermediary species? Are you expecting to find a species that has a T. rex head and a brontosaurus body? If you foudn that, again, you'd get a Nobel prize for destroying much of evolutionary theory (assuming it was legitimate). What you find, if you actually look, is a gradual progression from one type of animal or plant or dinosaur to manyh different ones that are obviously related.
No, I would expect what evolutionists tell me I should expect. I expect small changes that led from a T. Rex to a bird. Based on how small the changes are that evolutionist cling to today, I would expect billions or trillions of small mutations resulting in thousands of intermediary animals (whose fossils should far outnumber both T.Rex’s fossils and its descendant). According to evolution each fossil we find in separate locations should statistically be slightly different (whether it be one less claw, or two more teeth).
I someone say once that the fossil record fossil record does not point towards an evolutionary tree with a common trunk. It is more like an evolutionary lawn, with thousands of blades of grass each with their own leaves branching off. Therefore if the fossil record is your primary evidence of evolution from a common ancestor than I find your theory lacking.
Even Richard Dawkins (evolutions modern day poster boy) talks about the possibility of aliens seeding the planet. If evolutionists concede that an outside force or intelligence seems to be responsible for the origin of life on this planet then would it not be logical to assume that this alien seeded a lawn instead of planting a tree, which is what the fossil record seems to indicate?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Perdition, posted 09-23-2009 4:42 PM Perdition has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by Coyote, posted 09-23-2009 5:51 PM Kevin123 has replied
 Message 28 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-23-2009 5:56 PM Kevin123 has replied
 Message 30 by Perdition, posted 09-23-2009 6:29 PM Kevin123 has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 26 of 191 (525549)
09-23-2009 5:49 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by Kevin123
09-23-2009 4:09 PM


Re: Mutating genes
I don't think that one beneficial mutation per 1,000,000 matings is terribly wrong - it certainly isn't the worst mistake in your calculation. Unfortunately when you came to use it, you used one beneficial mutation per 1,000,000 generations which is very different. Then you made an even worse mistake by insisting that it was necessary to get 50 beneficial mutations in consecutive matings - I can't imagine why. YOur calculation was not even meaningful.
quote:
BTW is anybody else curious why physicists are much more open to the possibility that Einstein made mistakes than evolutionists are about Darwin?
You're wrong about that. Darwin's explanation of heredity was dead wrong, for instance, and it isn't talked about BECAUSE it is dead wrong. Steven Jay Gould quite often criticised Darwin (and it seems that the criticisms were not even entirely accurate !). If there are equivalent criticisms of Einstein, I'm not aware of them. And of course, nobody has problems with adding to Darwin's theories - he's no taken as the last word at all.
The problem is not that Darwin is above criticism - the problem is that the criticisms are WRONG.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Kevin123, posted 09-23-2009 4:09 PM Kevin123 has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 27 of 191 (525550)
09-23-2009 5:51 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by Kevin123
09-23-2009 5:42 PM


Re: Mutating genes
This is an incredibly short period of time considering the only evolution we have witnessed is small changes within simple organisms.
Perhaps your view of the time things take is flawed.
How much time would you consider adequate for the evolution of Homo ergaster, Homo erectus, Homo heidelbergensis, and Homo neanderthalensis, the first three of which are most likely in the human line? Paleontologists would put this on the order of two million years.
Would you consider that impossible--just not enough time for it to happen?

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Kevin123, posted 09-23-2009 5:42 PM Kevin123 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by Kevin123, posted 09-23-2009 6:22 PM Coyote has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 28 of 191 (525552)
09-23-2009 5:56 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by Kevin123
09-23-2009 5:42 PM


Re: Mutating genes
The diversity that can be achieved through selective breeding is truly amazing. However, it still is not evidence for evolution from one species to another.
No, the evidence that that happens is that that does in fact happen, as creationists admit.
Really? How many evolutionary steps did it take for dinosaurs to become birds? Surely there must have been more intermediary steps between them than there are species of dinosaurs. How is it possible to find multiple fossils of the same dinosaur or the same extinct bird without finding the missing links ...
That would not be possible. That is why paleontologists have found many intermediate forms.
That means that the millions of species that exist today and many billions of intermediary species evolved from a simple multi cellular organism in less than 600 million years. This is an incredibly short period of time ...
Once again, you have failed to show your working.
If you wish to base your argument on numbers, then at some point you're going to have to do some actual math.
No, I would expect what evolutionists tell me I should expect. I expect small changes that led from a T. Rex to a bird.
That is not what evolutionists tell you to expect, since T. rex is not ancestral to birds.
I someone say once that the fossil record fossil record does not point towards an evolutionary tree with a common trunk. It is more like an evolutionary lawn, with thousands of blades of grass each with their own leaves branching off.
And you believed him? How amusing.
But what some guy said to you is not evidence.
Even Richard Dawkins (evolutions modern day poster boy) talks about the possibility of aliens seeding the planet. If evolutionists concede that an outside force or intelligence seems to be responsible for the origin of life on this planet ...
But no evolutionist, least of all Dawkins, has conceded that. Admitting the possibility is not the same as saying that it seems to be the case. I admit the possibility that you're an alien from Sirius B. In which case, welcome to Earth. But that is a far cry from saying that you seem to be an alien from Sirius B. It might explain your ignorance of terrestrial biology, but I can think of more parsimonious explanations.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Kevin123, posted 09-23-2009 5:42 PM Kevin123 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by Kevin123, posted 09-23-2009 6:38 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Kevin123
Junior Member (Idle past 5070 days)
Posts: 23
From: Texas, USA
Joined: 10-11-2008


Message 29 of 191 (525557)
09-23-2009 6:22 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by Coyote
09-23-2009 5:51 PM


Re: Mutating genes
How much time would you consider adequate for the evolution of Homo ergaster, Homo erectus, Homo heidelbergensis, and Homo neanderthalensis, the first three of which are most likely in the human line? Paleontologists would put this on the order of two million years.
So the extremely small (in context) changes from Homo ergaster took 2 million years. They have same basic bone structure and no new organs. Evolution from a multicellular life form to homo ergaster (an exponentially more complex change) took only 300 times as long?
What slowed evolution down?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Coyote, posted 09-23-2009 5:51 PM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by Coyote, posted 09-23-2009 6:53 PM Kevin123 has not replied

  
Perdition
Member (Idle past 3238 days)
Posts: 1593
From: Wisconsin
Joined: 05-15-2003


Message 30 of 191 (525558)
09-23-2009 6:29 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by Kevin123
09-23-2009 5:42 PM


Re: Mutating genes
Humans selected the qualities they wanted and bread only the animals that exhibited those qualities.
Yes, but where did those qualities come from in the first place? They were mutations. Humans artificially constrained the environment to get an outcome they wanted, but environments in nature can and do do the same thing.
And if humans ever stopped controlling the breeding, dogs would return to their more primitive forms.
Proof? We have wild dogs in many places throughout the world, and while they are often mutts, rather than a continued lineage of, say, golden retreivers, they are most definitely not wolves. But, this just begs the question of when a "breed" becomes a "species." Is a lion just a breed of tiger, or vice versa? Are there more differences between a chihuahua and a wolf or a wolf and a coyote? Are coyotes just a breed of wolf, since they can interbreed? The problem is, we're looking at a very small snapshot of a process that takes a long time. Come back in a million years and I'll bet the things we call dogs wil not be able to breed with the things we call wolves...though you may have trouble recognizing either one.
How many evolutionary steps did it take for dinosaurs to become birds?
According to evolution, zero, since birds would then still be dinosaurs. But I understand you mean at what point does what we all recognize as a dinosaur become what we all recognize as a bird? Well, that depends because as you get closer to the transition point, what one person would call "still a bird" another person would call "still a dinosaur." The classic example of archaeopterix...is it a bird or a dinosaur? Evolutionarily, it's still a dinosaur, but is it also a bird, as modern birds are? That's more a judgement call than a scientifically investigable question since it requires someone to decide how many bird features they need for it to be considered a bird.
Surely there must have been more intermediary steps between them than there are species of dinosaurs.
But, unless a species of dinosaur just completely died out, tey're all intermediary steps between it's ancestor species and it's daughter species. Each intermediary step is also a species, what you have to look at, and all we can really look at, is the morphology of the species and it's placement in time. If we look at the evolutionary line of birds, we see certain dinosaur species that are smaller and lighter than previous species, ones that have modified scales called feathers, ones that have more hollow pneumatic bones than previous species, and finally, species we invariably classify as birds. Each one is a species in its own right, and many of them have been found in abundance, and placed in time, it provides a very obvious transition. The fact that we don't have every step is due to the fact that fossilization is a very rare event. It requires very exact conditions to stop decay and allow mineralization. The fact that there are so many intermediary species being found is, frankly, amazing to me and is a strong indicator that we're on the right track.
Think of the trillions of mutations and the countless generations spent isolating those traits through natural selection.
Well, bottlenecks, extinction and isolation would serve to stabilize some species' traist very quickly, while others may take a longer time, which is why some groups of animals don't change a lot over a long period of time (alligators and crocodiles for two).
Or can someone explain why evolution appears to have stopped or slowed?
It appears to have stopped or slowed because you're looking through millions of years of history, and then only hundreds of years of present, and trying to correllate the two and doing it incorrectly. When you see a museum exhibit with a fish fossil, then an amphibian fossil and it says, it took X million years to go from the first type of species to the second, and then you look around and say, I haven't seen any change like that recently, you're getting the time scales wrong. This is very easy to do when the numbers get big. If it takes one million years for a big change to develop and become stabilized, why would you expect to have seen it? Humans have only been around a few hundred thousand years (at most) and science has only been around a couple thousand years (again, at most) so why do you think looking at a snapshot gives you a good feel of the entire movie?
According to evolution each fossil we find in separate locations should statistically be slightly different
This is what we find, if by location you mean time. If we look at one stratigraphic layer, we see animal X. If we look a few layers above or below that, we see an animal that looks like X, but not quite. The problem is, as I said above, fossilization is extrememly rare. There are quite definitely many many species that have never been fossilized and so are lost completely to our knowledge. What we have are snapshots, but we can place the snapshots in order based on the layers they werw found in, and by looking at the snapshots in order, we see an obvious sequence. It's like taking every millionth frame of a movie, you could place them in order based on where you cut them out of the reel, and you could see the progression of the movie despite not seeing every frame. (Comic books often exploit this very fact, they don't draw every motion, just the relevant ones.)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Kevin123, posted 09-23-2009 5:42 PM Kevin123 has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024