Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   How is Natural selection a mechanism?
Kevin123
Junior Member (Idle past 5071 days)
Posts: 23
From: Texas, USA
Joined: 10-11-2008


Message 31 of 191 (525559)
09-23-2009 6:38 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by Dr Adequate
09-23-2009 5:56 PM


Re: Mutating genes
If you wish to base your argument on numbers, then at some point you're going to have to do some actual math.
To do the math I would need to know how many mutations (or at least have an idea of how many different species) occured between multicelled organism and man. That is impossible because the common ancestors on your evolution tree is where the line is blurred between art and science. If you had any real evidence for this "trunk" on your "tree" then we could possibly calculate it. However, we have no way of even beginning this calculation because there are no fossils for these common ancestors or for any intermediary species with partially developed organs or bones.
Primates date back about 85 million years so that leaves ~500 million years from simple organism to primate. Again it only took 5-6 times as long for the evolution from primate to man as from multi celled organism to primate? As an evolutionist I'm sure you know of the miniscule difference in DNA between monkeys and man.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-23-2009 5:56 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-23-2009 7:39 PM Kevin123 has replied
 Message 35 by Perdition, posted 09-24-2009 9:21 AM Kevin123 has replied

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


Message 32 of 191 (525562)
09-23-2009 6:53 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by Kevin123
09-23-2009 6:22 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.
So you consider two million years adequate to accomplish these changes (which amount to speciation)? (The changes may seem to be the "same basic bone structure, etc." but they include a considerable increase in brain size, among other changes.)
Evolution from a multicellular life form to homo ergaster (an exponentially more complex change) took only 300 times as long?
What slowed evolution down?
Perhaps successful adaptation to niches and slower changes in environment. That's not my field so someone else will have to weigh in on that part.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Kevin123, posted 09-23-2009 6:22 PM Kevin123 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by Wounded King, posted 09-24-2009 5:00 AM Coyote has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 33 of 191 (525571)
09-23-2009 7:39 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by Kevin123
09-23-2009 6:38 PM


Re: Mutating genes
To do the math I would need to know how many mutations (or at least have an idea of how many different species) occured between multicelled organism and man. That is impossible ...
So, you claim that the numbers support you and you disclaim the ability to do the math?
Fascinating.
... because the common ancestors on your evolution tree is where the line is blurred between art and science. If you had any real evidence for this "trunk" on your "tree" then we could possibly calculate it. However, we have no way of even beginning this calculation because there are no fossils for these common ancestors or for any intermediary species with partially developed organs or bones.
You should really study the fossil record some day, it's most interesting.
Primates date back about 85 million years so that leaves ~500 million years from simple organism to primate. Again it only took 5-6 times as long for the evolution from primate to man as from multi celled organism to primate? As an evolutionist I'm sure you know of the miniscule difference in DNA between monkeys and man.
I know that there are ten times more base pairs different between even chimps and humans than there are base pairs in total in a typical prokaryote. Also, because I have done the math, I know that this difference is accounted for perfectly by measured mutation rates.
What's your point? Does this somehow relate to the math you admit you are unable to do?
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Kevin123, posted 09-23-2009 6:38 PM Kevin123 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by Kevin123, posted 10-10-2009 2:35 PM Dr Adequate has replied

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


Message 34 of 191 (525644)
09-24-2009 5:00 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by Coyote
09-23-2009 6:53 PM


Re: Mutating genes
Coyote writes:
Kevin123 writes:
What slowed evolution down?
Perhaps successful adaptation to niches and slower changes in environment.
The obvious answer to my mind is that generation times vary greatly. A small mammal like the mouse has a generation time of 10 weeks from being born to being able to give birth. In primates it is much longer, for chimps and human it is around 15-20 years. I can certainly see how that could slow evolution down, by a factor of about 78, and the difference compared to a very primitive multicellular life form should be larger again. Brine shrimp for example have a generation time of 3 weeks giving a factor of 260.
This makes sense to me at least.
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Coyote, posted 09-23-2009 6:53 PM Coyote has not replied

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


Message 35 of 191 (525692)
09-24-2009 9:21 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by Kevin123
09-23-2009 6:38 PM


Re: Mutating genes
intermediary species with partially developed organs or bones.
If this is what you're looking for, you'll never find it. If you did, you'd win a Nobel Prize for completely changing how we view evolution. If an animal were born with a partially developed organ or bone, they would more than likely not survive. The only way we would get a "sort of" partially developed organ is if the ancestors of that species had an organ that was no longer very useful. (i.e. appendix in humans) Otherwise, ever organ and bone will be fully developed to do a task, it will just be slightly modified from a previous organ or bone.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Kevin123, posted 09-23-2009 6:38 PM Kevin123 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by Kevin123, posted 10-10-2009 2:52 PM Perdition has not replied

  
Larni
Member (Idle past 164 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 36 of 191 (525750)
09-24-2009 1:27 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by Kevin123
09-23-2009 4:53 PM


Re: Mutating genes
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 ....
The thing is that you need a fare amount of education in biology to understand the finer points of ToE.
When people come to this site and demand that (insert theory here) is explained to them and then get lost when it is explained (as requested) they tend to get all pissed off.
How much education have you in biology and then people here can know what level to pitch their explanations at?

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 5071 days)
Posts: 23
From: Texas, USA
Joined: 10-11-2008


Message 37 of 191 (529792)
10-10-2009 2:35 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by Dr Adequate
09-23-2009 7:39 PM


Re: Mutating genes
I know that there are ten times more base pairs different between even chimps and humans than there are base pairs in total in a typical prokaryote. Also, because I have done the math, I know that this difference is accounted for perfectly by measured mutation rates.
Show me to that math or point me to it. I know you can't actually have done the math because the there has never been a mutation observed (in nature, or in a lab) that has not corrected itself. So for all intensive purposes the "measured mutation rates" should be zero. So it doesn't matter how big your number is if you multiply by zero.
Also nobody has answered my question about why evolution has slowed down in the last few thousand years. According to the evolutionary tree evolutionary changes should be increasing exponentially as more species appear (and thus provide a increasingly larger base for evolutionary changes). However, according to your timeline it would seem that evolution happened quickly 500 hundred million years ago then slowed to a crawl. How do you explain that?
To the dude that asked what my education level in biology is: I took a couple university level courses in biology and microbiology though my strengh is chemistry and physics. Actually I went in to univeristy accepting evolution as scientifically sound but in class when studying dna and cellular reproduction it seemed that exceptions to the rules are inserted constantly to explain evolution.
In fact the complexity of cells and the lack of a good explanation for the evolution of complex cellular structures and the origin of living cells is what finally convinced me that evolution at the very least has some pretty big gaps and is not worthy of being considered a theory. And the explanations given for how these celluar structures "may" have originated are never based on observation and cannot be duplicated in a laboratory, so how can it even be considered science.
In the Middle Ages, when the Earth-centric theory of the world began to show disagreement with the growing observational data in astronomy, adherents of the paradigm busily invented a seemingly endless series of cycles and epicycles (circles within circles) to account for the movement of heavenly objects around the Earth, tweaks that allowed them to continue to justify the old paradigm. The same thing happened and continues to happen in biology. The Darwinists' response to any possible observational discrepancy is to propose a suitable modification of Darwinian ideas - shades of cycles and epicycles. Darwinism is so general that it can be reinterpreted to incorporate any data that contradicts it. It is not falsifiable.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-23-2009 7:39 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by Coyote, posted 10-10-2009 3:09 PM Kevin123 has replied
 Message 46 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-10-2009 9:33 PM Kevin123 has replied

  
Kevin123
Junior Member (Idle past 5071 days)
Posts: 23
From: Texas, USA
Joined: 10-11-2008


Message 38 of 191 (529795)
10-10-2009 2:52 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by Perdition
09-24-2009 9:21 AM


Re: Mutating genes
If this is what you're looking for, you'll never find it. If you did, you'd win a Nobel Prize for completely changing how we view evolution. If an animal were born with a partially developed organ or bone, they would more than likely not survive. The only way we would get a "sort of" partially developed organ is if the ancestors of that species had an organ that was no longer very useful. (i.e. appendix in humans) Otherwise, ever organ and bone will be fully developed to do a task, it will just be slightly modified from a previous organ or bone.
Again there is no way to argue with evolutionists "evidence" for the development of complex organs because that "evidence" is not based on observation or on experimentation but its simply a made up scenario to explain a hole in your theory.
People who question evolution point to "irreducibly complex" organs that could not funtion without all of the parts present. I could name a few but I'm sure you know what a few of them are. Evolutionist counter with a made up scenario of how that could possibly have developed (such as the system possibly might have functioned in a different way, possibly this, maybe that). The scenario is not based on observation or lab experiments so there is no way for skeptics to counter (just like evolutionists can't disprove the existence of god).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Perdition, posted 09-24-2009 9:21 AM Perdition has not replied

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


Message 39 of 191 (529797)
10-10-2009 3:09 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by Kevin123
10-10-2009 2:35 PM


Re: Mutating genes
...there has never been a mutation observed (in nature, or in a lab) that has not corrected itself.
Please provide a source for this. (And don't bother citing creationist websites; they lie.)

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Kevin123, posted 10-10-2009 2:35 PM Kevin123 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by Kevin123, posted 10-10-2009 6:41 PM Coyote has replied

  
Kevin123
Junior Member (Idle past 5071 days)
Posts: 23
From: Texas, USA
Joined: 10-11-2008


Message 40 of 191 (529835)
10-10-2009 6:41 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by Coyote
10-10-2009 3:09 PM


Re: Mutating genes
Please provide a source for this. (And don't bother citing creationist websites; they lie.)
Haha, you ask me to provide a source but then in the same breath dismiss any source as lies. That's like me asking you for evidence in favor of evolution but not from any pro-evolution website because they all lie.
Ok then, since anybody that does not agree with evolution is a liar and can't be quoted, you give me a source for a beneficial permanent mutation that's resulted in new genetic information for any animal or insect (and I'll be more reasonable and allow you to use an evolutionist website).
I know that evolutionists have been trying to accomplish this for decades by experimenting on fruit flies and e. coli. To date they have failed. Don't you think if such evidence existed it would be common knowledge as it would be one of the strongest pieces of evidence for evolution? A beneficial mutation that becomes the dominant trait for a population of animals would be a good example of evolution in action.
And please don't use the anti biotic resistant bacteria. Bacteria did not mutate after being exposed to antibiotics; the mutations conferring the resistance were present in the bacterial population even prior to the discovery or use of the antibiotics. Also, while pre-existing mutations may confer antibiotic resistance, such mutations may also decrease an organism’s viability. This is true for antibiotic resistant bacteria that are usually less virulent, and have a reduced metabolism and so grow more slowly. Hardly conducive to propogation through natural selection.
In the end bacteria are still exactly the same bacteria after receiving that trait as they were before receiving it. The evolution is not vertical macroevolution but horizontal microevolution (i.e., adaptation) and therefore not evidence for any kind of macroevolution.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Coyote, posted 10-10-2009 3:09 PM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by Coyote, posted 10-10-2009 7:06 PM Kevin123 has replied
 Message 42 by NosyNed, posted 10-10-2009 7:37 PM Kevin123 has not replied

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


Message 41 of 191 (529836)
10-10-2009 7:06 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by Kevin123
10-10-2009 6:41 PM


Re: Mutating genes
...give me a source for a beneficial permanent mutation that's resulted in new genetic information for any animal or insect/
That's easy! Here is a fine example:
Historical contingency and the evolution of a key innovation in an experimental population of Escherichia coli
Zachary D. Blount, Christina Z. Borland, and Richard E. Lenski
Abstract: The role of historical contingency in evolution has been much debated, but rarely tested. Twelve initially identical populations of Escherichia coli were founded in 1988 to investigate this issue. They have since evolved in a glucose-limited medium that also contains citrate, which E. coli cannot use as a carbon source under oxic conditions. No population evolved the capacity to exploit citrate for >30,000 generations, although each population tested billions of mutations. A citrate-using (Cit+) variant finally evolved in one population by 31,500 generations, causing an increase in population size and diversity. The long-delayed and unique evolution of this function might indicate the involvement of some extremely rare mutation. Alternately, it may involve an ordinary mutation, but one whose physical occurrence or phenotypic expression is contingent on prior mutations in that population. We tested these hypotheses in experiments that replayed evolution from different points in that population's history. We observed no Cit+ mutants among 8.4 1012 ancestral cells, nor among 9 1012 cells from 60 clones sampled in the first 15,000 generations. However, we observed a significantly greater tendency for later clones to evolve Cit+, indicating that some potentiating mutation arose by 20,000 generations. This potentiating change increased the mutation rate to Cit+ but did not cause generalized hypermutability. Thus, the evolution of this phenotype was contingent on the particular history of that population. More generally, we suggest that historical contingency is especially important when it facilitates the evolution of key innovations that are not easily evolved by gradual, cumulative selection.
Just a moment...
Now I know that creationists like to pretend this is not new genetic information, and that it is just adaptation. Unfortunately, that isn't true and repetition won't make it true.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Kevin123, posted 10-10-2009 6:41 PM Kevin123 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by Kevin123, posted 10-10-2009 7:44 PM Coyote has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 42 of 191 (529843)
10-10-2009 7:37 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by Kevin123
10-10-2009 6:41 PM


using sites
Haha, you ask me to provide a source but then in the same breath dismiss any source as lies. That's like me asking you for evidence in favor of evolution but not from any pro-evolution website because they all lie.
This is, intended or not, more of a favor to you. All the arguments on all those sites have been examined and ripped to pieces multiple times. If you use them you are making it easy for Coyote. Most of the time it is easy to demonstrate how they are wrong and that they are lying. Better you use something new from real evidence.
And please don't use the anti biotic resistant bacteria. Bacteria did not mutate after being exposed to antibiotics; the mutations conferring the resistance were present in the bacterial population even prior to the discovery or use of the antibiotics.
Experiments have been conducted which show conclusively that the mutations are not there in the first place. This is an example of you being fooled by lies from a creationist web site.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Kevin123, posted 10-10-2009 6:41 PM Kevin123 has not replied

  
Kevin123
Junior Member (Idle past 5071 days)
Posts: 23
From: Texas, USA
Joined: 10-11-2008


Message 43 of 191 (529845)
10-10-2009 7:44 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by Coyote
10-10-2009 7:06 PM


Re: Mutating genes
20 years of experiments and e. coli changed its diet, wow! And considering the 40,000 generations that would be equivalent to how many millions of years of human evolution. So you get from a banana eating ape to an ape that eats apples and bananas over a million years. Forgive me if I am not as excited about it as you are.
I have never claimed that species can't adapt, but that is hardly proof of macro evolution. THe E coli is still an e coli and not closer to becoming a human immunodeficiency virus or any other virus.
And you said don't bother with repetition but it is relevant so I will repeat. The E coli is capable of utilizing citrate as an energy source under anaerobic conditions, so it already has the suite of genes necessary for its fermentation and the necessary transportation protein. Now normally it is only activated under anaerobic conditions but apparently the e coli adapted to in essence keep the switch on.
Hardly compelling evidence but take it a step further. It took 20 years and 30,000 generations for ecoli for that miniscule change (and no new info). Now show me the math you said you went through to show how based on that evidence you get from simple organisms to humans in 500 million years considering that 30,000 generations in more complex species takes hundreds of thousands if not millions of years and you're working with much smaller populations?? And how many trillions of these changes to create one new organ? Just doesn't compute, not by a long shot.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by Coyote, posted 10-10-2009 7:06 PM Coyote has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-10-2009 8:57 PM Kevin123 has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 44 of 191 (529862)
10-10-2009 8:57 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by Kevin123
10-10-2009 7:44 PM


Re: Mutating genes
20 years of experiments and e. coli changed its diet, wow! And considering the 40,000 generations that would be equivalent to how many millions of years of human evolution. So you get from a banana eating ape to an ape that eats apples and bananas over a million years. Forgive me if I am not as excited about it as you are.
I have never claimed that species can't adapt, but that is hardly proof of macro evolution.
You didn't ask for evidence of "macroevolution" You asked, and I quote, for an example of "a beneficial permanent mutation that's resulted in new genetic information".
You have been given one. If you were a different sort of person from the sort of person that you very plainly are, you would have said thank you, instead of whining that it isn't what you didn't ask for.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Kevin123, posted 10-10-2009 7:44 PM Kevin123 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by Kevin123, posted 10-10-2009 9:32 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Kevin123
Junior Member (Idle past 5071 days)
Posts: 23
From: Texas, USA
Joined: 10-11-2008


Message 45 of 191 (529869)
10-10-2009 9:32 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by Dr Adequate
10-10-2009 8:57 PM


Re: Mutating genes
You didn't ask for evidence of "macroevolution" You asked, and I quote, for an example of "a beneficial permanent mutation that's resulted in new genetic information".
You have been given one. If you were a different sort of person from the sort of person that you very plainly are, you would have said thank you, instead of whining that it isn't what you didn't ask for.
wow, no need to resort to personal attacks. In the context of the discussion it should have been obvious that I am looking for proof of macro evolution since we have gone over these small adaptations of bacteria before. I even asked beforehand not to post the same old bacteria argument since it is not evidence for macro evolution.
And his example is not proof that new genetic information was added. As i pointed out the mechanisms to metabolize citrate are already there.
Maybe you should read more than the last post before you start attacking someone.
The problem is you people always resort to the same three things every time: this bacteria learnt to eat that, became resistant to that, sickle cell this....
And if you think that macro evolution is a result of small mutations then the example he provided is your proof. Or do you have better proof for how a new organ or limb could be developed? If not then you need to reconcile the mutations observed with the time allowed by your evolutionary timeline.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-10-2009 8:57 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-10-2009 9:39 PM Kevin123 has not replied
 Message 50 by Coyote, posted 10-10-2009 10:06 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