Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   How do you define the word Evolution?
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 226 of 936 (805126)
04-16-2017 12:22 AM
Reply to: Message 223 by Dredge
04-15-2017 8:39 PM


Re: Nobel Prize winners ????
Sorry, just jumping in here for other purposes.
I've been studying "creation science" since 1981 and dealing with creationists since the mid-80's, on-line since the late-80's starting on CompuServe.
You've probably already answered these questions, so I apologize in advance.
Are you a young-earth creationist? OK, different country, maybe different flavors (excuse me, flavours). Maybe that means something subtly different on your continent. Or not.
Do you believe that the earth is about 6,000 years old, but you would compromise to 10,000 (the better to "Hide the Bible" with -- sorry, a minor USA constitutional matter called the First Amendment)?
If yes, then why? Obviously because of your theology and what it requires you to believe about the Bible. OK, so we need to use a further question: Do you believe that you have scientific evidence that supports a young earth?
If your answer is yes, then would you be amenable to discussing that evidence you claim to have?
I should warn you beforehand that I firmly believe that such young-earth claims are all false. After all, that has been my consistent experience since the 1980's. However, I also question many other assumptions. I firmly believe that there is no conflict between creation and evolution, but only so long as you do not mess with their definitions. Do please note that the definitions by which you currently operate have very undoubtedly been severely messed with to the extreme.
So would you be amenable to me proposing a topic where we could discuss these things? Admittedly, in two weeks I'm going to disappear for three weeks, which would tend to have a stifling effect on our discussion. Sorry, been in the planning stages for long time. But still, would you be ready and willing to discuss these things?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 223 by Dredge, posted 04-15-2017 8:39 PM Dredge has not replied

  
CRR
Member (Idle past 2242 days)
Posts: 579
From: Australia
Joined: 10-19-2016


Message 227 of 936 (805131)
04-16-2017 6:19 AM
Reply to: Message 219 by Dr Adequate
04-15-2017 9:41 AM


Heritable changes in a population.
It shows the trivial nature of your definition. Adding a black ram to a flock of white sheep will produce heritable changes in the population. That's evolution? It makes no claim for origin of species let alone common ancestry.
Compare my definition; Evolution is the theory that all the living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself arose naturally from an inorganic form.
I have clearly stated the claim of common ancestry which necessitates the formation of many new species within new species to form genera, families, and higher orders. It also necessitates heritable changes and appearance of many new genes.
Demonstration of a heritable change in a population does not prove evolution.
[edit] You could change it to a definition of microevolution; that works.
Edited by CRR, : As marked.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 219 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-15-2017 9:41 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 228 by PaulK, posted 04-16-2017 6:26 AM CRR has replied
 Message 230 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-16-2017 10:38 AM CRR has replied

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


Message 228 of 936 (805132)
04-16-2017 6:26 AM
Reply to: Message 227 by CRR
04-16-2017 6:19 AM


Re: Heritable changes in a population.
Universal common ancestry could be dropped from evolutionary theory without any significant changes - if the evidence justified it. It's a historical contingency, not an essential part of the theory in any way.
Your definition is obviously incorrect, for that reason.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 227 by CRR, posted 04-16-2017 6:19 AM CRR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 238 by CRR, posted 04-16-2017 6:01 PM PaulK has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


(1)
Message 229 of 936 (805133)
04-16-2017 7:39 AM
Reply to: Message 222 by Dredge
04-15-2017 8:13 PM


mutate & test
Dredge writes:
Instead of just grunting, "Bullshit" (as per usual), please offer an explaination of how life could be fashioned if not by either design or chance.
It can be evolved. Maybe you have heard that term before. Many mutations are random but selection is not. Anything might happen but everything then gets tested. No design needed. But also not pure chance.
The beauty in reality is that there is not one test but rather an infinite number of tests that in turn vary over time and location. The result is the variety of living things seen today and throughout history and not the foolish bumbling see in the creation myth in Genesis 2 & 3 or the absurd one and done found in the much later Genesis 1 myth.
But wait, there's more.
The evolutionary system keeps those things that work as long as they work, discards those things that don't allow the critter to live long enough to reproduce and so results in continuous iterations of adaptability.
Evolution makes sense. Biblical Creationism is simply stupid, sophomoric.
Edited by jar, : appalin tense

My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 222 by Dredge, posted 04-15-2017 8:13 PM Dredge has not replied

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


Message 230 of 936 (805160)
04-16-2017 10:38 AM
Reply to: Message 227 by CRR
04-16-2017 6:19 AM


Re: Heritable changes in a population.
It shows the trivial nature of your definition.
Again, it's not my definition, it's science's definition. That's the meaning of the term. If you want to discuss a different concept, for example common ancestry, I suggest that you use a different term, for example, ooh, I dunno, how about "common ancestry"? That might just work.
Adding a black ram to a flock of white sheep will produce heritable changes in the population.
That's not a change in the population, that's a change of the population. You wouldn't say, would you, that it would be evolution if you drove all the sheep out of the field and replaced them with cows?
Demonstration of a heritable change in a population does not prove evolution.
A heritable change in a population is evolution. By definition. If you mean that that doesn't prove common ancestry, then, ooh, let's think about how you might express that concept. Hmm, tricky one. Wait, I have an idea! Perhaps you could say "That doesn't prove common ancestry". Though it would be superfluous to say so, since no-one claims that it does.
You could change it to a definition of microevolution; that works.
No it doesn't. A definition of microevolution would be "a small amount of heritable change in a population". Because in the word microevolution the prefix "micro", meaning small, qualifies the word "evolution", meaning heritable change in a population.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 227 by CRR, posted 04-16-2017 6:19 AM CRR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 258 by CRR, posted 04-16-2017 9:25 PM Dr Adequate has replied

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


Message 231 of 936 (805161)
04-16-2017 10:40 AM
Reply to: Message 223 by Dredge
04-15-2017 8:39 PM


Re: Nobel Prize winners ????
A highschool-level of biology, some common sense, a nose for bs, respect for scientific rigour and a dose of honesty is all one needs to realise that ToE is, at the very least, a very suspect theory.
Are you under the impression that those are qualities you possess?
Oh my dear chap.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 223 by Dredge, posted 04-15-2017 8:39 PM Dredge has not replied

  
caffeine
Member (Idle past 1024 days)
Posts: 1800
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Joined: 10-22-2008


Message 232 of 936 (805165)
04-16-2017 11:13 AM
Reply to: Message 152 by Davidjay
04-13-2017 9:38 AM


Variation in humans is by the Lord for diversity etc.... it in no way means mutational change.
STOP twisting words, to suit your theory. STOP the double speak.
This is not a twisting of words. A change to a gene's is what a mutation is. If you don't like the word for some reason we can just call it 'gene change' instead.
If you want to opt for Dredge's unfalsifiable and unhelpful answer that gene change is all done by God, then fair enough, but the existence of gene change is not avoidable.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 152 by Davidjay, posted 04-13-2017 9:38 AM Davidjay has not replied

  
caffeine
Member (Idle past 1024 days)
Posts: 1800
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Joined: 10-22-2008


(4)
Message 233 of 936 (805167)
04-16-2017 11:51 AM
Reply to: Message 194 by Faith
04-14-2017 9:14 PM


Re: alleles/mutations?
HOWEVER, it really depends on whether they are viable alternatives that actually do something to further variation(...)
Well, they're clearly viable, because most living people possess them. And they further variation, since people are more varied than they would be if we were all genetically identical. I'm a little unclear what you mean here.
If what you're suggesting is that there is no adaptive change, so that all alleles except the original Adam and Eve ones are functionally equivalent or harmful, well that's easy to disprove. We've already found funtional genetic variation in humans. To take an easy example (since I only know easy ones!) the gene EGLN1 exists in more than 300 different known variants in humans. EGLN1 produces a protein which is involved in response to low oxygen conditions. Certain rare variants of EGLN1 are very common among Tibetans, and they play a role in making these people better able to survive in the low oxygen environment of the Tibetan plateau. Different rare variants exist at high frequencies among Andean Indians, for the same reason.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 194 by Faith, posted 04-14-2017 9:14 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 234 by Faith, posted 04-16-2017 5:11 PM caffeine has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 234 of 936 (805180)
04-16-2017 5:11 PM
Reply to: Message 233 by caffeine
04-16-2017 11:51 AM


Re: alleles/mutations?
HOWEVER, it really depends on whether they are viable alternatives that actually do something to further variation(...)
Well, they're clearly viable, because most living people possess them.
Yes a hundred or more new ones in every generation I understand? A few of which get passed on to the next generation. But that doesn't make them viable alternatives that further variation, since most of them are "neutral" which really means only slightly deleterious, not at a level to be weeded out by natural selection...
And they further variation, since people are more varied than they would be if we were all genetically identical. I'm a little unclear what you mean here.
Well, the thing is, you ASSUME that they further variation because that's what the current ToE says. All variation is ASSUMED to be the result of mutations. There is no evidence that that is so, it is merely assumed. And yes there IS evidence of plenty of mutations, but no evidence that they are of any use to the organism.
My creationist view is that the genome is complete without the addition of anything, that mutations overall are at least unnecessary and overall destructive rather than useful. All variation is the result of the many possible combinations of built-in alleles for all the different genes, many traits being governed by more than one gene. That's all it takes for the many variations in any species we see in nature.
If what you're suggesting is that there is no adaptive change, so that all alleles except the original Adam and Eve ones are functionally equivalent or harmful, well that's easy to disprove. We've already found funtional genetic variation in humans. To take an easy example (since I only know easy ones!) the gene EGLN1 exists in more than 300 different known variants in humans. EGLN1 produces a protein which is involved in response to low oxygen conditions. Certain rare variants of EGLN1 are very common among Tibetans, and they play a role in making these people better able to survive in the low oxygen environment of the Tibetan plateau. Different rare variants exist at high frequencies among Andean Indians, for the same reason.
You need to show 1) that these are actually mutations and not naturally occurring variants and 2) if mutations, you need to show that all the variants actually DO something, since most mutations are neutral, not affecting the organism, to mildly deleterious, accumulating over time toward something undesirable.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 233 by caffeine, posted 04-16-2017 11:51 AM caffeine has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 235 by Tangle, posted 04-16-2017 5:36 PM Faith has replied
 Message 240 by Genomicus, posted 04-16-2017 6:14 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 278 by caffeine, posted 04-17-2017 2:03 PM Faith has replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 235 of 936 (805183)
04-16-2017 5:36 PM
Reply to: Message 234 by Faith
04-16-2017 5:11 PM


Re: alleles/mutations?
Faith writes:
My creationist view is that the genome is complete without the addition of anything, that mutations overall are at least unnecessary and overall destructive rather than useful.
This is an indefensible position. You have been shown beneficial mutations. You might as well deny the sky.

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien.
"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 234 by Faith, posted 04-16-2017 5:11 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 236 by Faith, posted 04-16-2017 5:44 PM Tangle has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 236 of 936 (805185)
04-16-2017 5:44 PM
Reply to: Message 235 by Tangle
04-16-2017 5:36 PM


Re: alleles/mutations?
I'm aware of maybe, what? five or six "beneficial" mutations that have been demonstrated, all of them a bit iffy.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 235 by Tangle, posted 04-16-2017 5:36 PM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 237 by Tangle, posted 04-16-2017 5:54 PM Faith has replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


(1)
Message 237 of 936 (805186)
04-16-2017 5:54 PM
Reply to: Message 236 by Faith
04-16-2017 5:44 PM


Re: alleles/mutations?
Faith writes:
I'm aware of maybe, what? five or six "beneficial" mutations that have been demonstrated, all of them a bit iffy.
You are in no position to describe a geneticist's analysis of an organism's genome as 'iffy'. You are simply denying peer reviewed research from a position of total ignorance.
That aside, you say there are no beneficial mutations. Just one would prove you wrong. You've been shown to be factually wrong.
Flat denial of fact just demonstrates how ludicrously wrong you are and how incapable you are of accepting factual evidence.
Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien.
"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 236 by Faith, posted 04-16-2017 5:44 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 239 by Faith, posted 04-16-2017 6:07 PM Tangle has replied

  
CRR
Member (Idle past 2242 days)
Posts: 579
From: Australia
Joined: 10-19-2016


Message 238 of 936 (805187)
04-16-2017 6:01 PM
Reply to: Message 228 by PaulK
04-16-2017 6:26 AM


Universal common ancestry
PaulK, you have a point.
"Dr. Nelson observes a pattern where until recently, evolutionary biologists protected common descent against the evidence of its own inadequacy. He gives as one example variant genetic codes something that ought not to be possible under the standard picture of a single tree of life." Variant Genetic Codes — Another Reason Biologists Are Thinking Twice | Evolution News
So I could change the definition to;
Evolution is the theory that all the living forms in the world have arisen from one or a few sources which arose naturally from an inorganic form.
However I'm sure many would argue that despite variations in the genetic code the commonality out weighs this and would suggest a single source.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 228 by PaulK, posted 04-16-2017 6:26 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 262 by PaulK, posted 04-17-2017 1:29 AM CRR has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 239 of 936 (805190)
04-16-2017 6:07 PM
Reply to: Message 237 by Tangle
04-16-2017 5:54 PM


Re: alleles/mutations?
I believe you have an obligation to back up your assertions about what I've been "shown." I'm "shown" a lot of stuff here that I nevertheless reject.
Even geneticists can suffer from a doctrinal bias that causes them to see only what the doctrine tells them is there. In fact it's historically true that all sciences go through phases where they accept what later turns out to be false doctrine as a new paradigm comes along and is finally accepted.
Recently I watched an interview with J C Sanford, a creationist who wrote a book titled "Genetic Entropy" which of course argues that we are not evolving but devolving, that life is deteriorating genetically rather than improving. His view seems to have a lot to do with the fact that we accumulate mutations in our bodies, which he doesn't see as a positive thing but a ticking time bomb for diseases.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 237 by Tangle, posted 04-16-2017 5:54 PM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 241 by Tangle, posted 04-16-2017 6:19 PM Faith has replied

  
Genomicus
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 852
Joined: 02-15-2012


Message 240 of 936 (805191)
04-16-2017 6:14 PM
Reply to: Message 234 by Faith
04-16-2017 5:11 PM


Re: alleles/mutations?
Well, the thing is, you ASSUME that they further variation because that's what the current ToE says. All variation is ASSUMED to be the result of mutations. There is no evidence that that is so, it is merely assumed.
Not all nucleotide variation in a population is attributed to mutation under the modern evolutionary synthesis, but much variation is indeed the result of mutation. Remember this?
Here's a look at the mean values of nucleotide diversity of the various gull taxa (the closer these values are to 1, the greater the amount of nucleotide diversity):
Larus canus: .00380
L. argentatus: .00418
L. hyperboreus: .00383
L. schistisagus: .00300
L. glaucescens: .00329
L. glaucoides: .00500
Once again, this pattern reveals absolutely no trend towards decreased genetic diversity in daughter populations. But why do we think this diversity is the result of mutation after the origin of the species? Because:
1. This nucleotide diversity data comes from nuclear intron sequences, and there is no evidence that there has been significant gene flow among nuclear DNA genes in various Larus species (see Pons et al., 2014).
2. If this nucleotide diversity was the result of significant gene flow, then it would totally confuse any molecular phylogenetic construction of the Larus species. For if there has been significant gene flow among nuclear regions -- enough to account for this diversity -- then that gene flow would result in multiple shared polymorphisms among divergent Larus taxa. And, this in turn, would lead to weird, conflicting branching patterns in molecular phylogenies of these taxa -- which we don't observe. In other words, the best explanation for this nucleotide diversity is mutation.
And:
First, archaeological and census evidence indicates that the Sardinian population (which goes back thousands of years) never grew beyond about 300,000 individuals until around 1728, when the population began to grow rapidly (see Cal et al., 2008).
Second, sequence analysis of Sardinian mitochondrial DNA also suggests that this population was initially a small bottleneck but has experienced growth over time (Di Rienzo and Wilson, 1991). This is further corroborated by research on allelic richness and heterozygosity, which can indicate population growth from an initial, smaller population (Cornuet and Luikart, 1996). So we have here multiple lines of independent evidence for a small founding population on Sardinia, which was followed by population growth.
There is, moreover, compelling genetic evidence from nuclear DNA polymorphisms, mitochondrial DNA sequences, and other markers that the Sardinian population has been isolated with no gene flow from outside the island (Di Rienzo et al., 1994).
Now, for the clincher. In a beautiful piece of genomics research, Caramelli and colleagues (2007) analyzed mtDNA D-loop sequences (which are basically the most variable regions of the human genome) from ancient Sardinians who lived between 3,430 and 2,700 years ago (the DNA was extracted from teeth using a highly rigorous laboratory approach). The diversity of these sequences was then compared to the mtDNA of present-day Sardinians.
The haplotype diversity (a way to measure genetic diversity, and a form of heterozygosity) of the ancient population was 0.83, compared to a haplotype diversity of .96 for modern Sardinians (the larger the number, the greater the diversity). Revealingly, too, was the discovery that the average number of indels (a form of mutation) between sequences from the ancient population was a low 1.43, whereas the mean value for indels between modern Sardinian sequences was 4.68. This neatly demonstrates, again, that the modern Sardinian population has increased in genetic diversity, despite being isolated. The study by Caramelli and colleagues also provides evidence for clear genetic continuity between the ancient population and the modern Sardinian population, indicating a lack of gene flow from the outside world.
And:
In the late 1800s, the northern elephant seal population hit an all-time low, with numbers dipping below a mere 100 individuals. However, the northern elephant seal’s population size has recovered, and now has over 175,000 individuals.
This situation, then, allows an empirical test of the expectations of your argument. In an analysis of mtDNA sequences, Weber et al. (2000) sought to compare the genetic diversity of northern elephant seals prior to their bottleneck, during the bottleneck, and after the bottleneck when the population recovered.
Like other studies referenced in this response, the control region of the mitochondrial genome was used, given the highly variable nature of this genomic region. In other words, changes in nucleotide and haplotype diversity would show up most clearly in the D-loop region of mtDNA.
So what were the results (from Table 1 of Weber et al., 2000)?
Haplotype Diversity, Elephant Seal Population DNA from 1892: 0.00
Haplotype Diversity, Elephant Seal Population DNA from 1980: 0.53
Nucleotide Diversity, Elephant Seal Population DNA from 1892: 0.0000
Nucleotide Diversity, Elephant Seal Population DNA from 1980: 0.0086
What do these results tell us? Both haplotype diversity and nucleotide diversity of modern northern elephant seals are significantly higher than that of the elephant seal population from 1892, when the population hit an all-time low. And unlike heterozygosity, which is not necessarily the result of novel mutations, nucleotide diversity is the result of mutations introducing new DNA changes throughout the population. Furthermore, in recent history, the northern elephant seal population has not been subjected to gene flow from other species, so the only way these observations can be explained is through mutations.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 234 by Faith, posted 04-16-2017 5:11 PM Faith 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