Evolution Simplified

quote:

---

Then the trait is not "detrimental", at least not in the way I have used it. I meant "beneficial" and "detrimental" in regards to #5. A "beneficial" trait is one that confers an advantage to an individual in regards to reproductive success, while a "detrimental" trait is one that leaves an individual at a disadvantage.

---

I think any evolutionist, by necessity, eventualy will have to rest their claims on the transfer and mutation of genes. The reason why they are so adamant on this point is that the theory would collapse without it. Mathematician and molecular biologist, Harold Morowitz, calculated the odds that just one paramecium arranging DNA by chance, is: 1 in 10 to the billionth power. To help aggrandize the enormity of this improbability, 10 to the 50th power is considered, ”absolute zero.’ When you reach absolute zero, it is so improbable that we might as well say that it is impossible. That's just to arrive at any lifeforms at all. But since the First Cause can never be witnessed again, lets just speak about already extant beings for the time being. The fact is most mutations are silent. They are mostly benign deletions from copying errors in the genes. Its important to note, however, that the only reason most mutations are benign is because of specific cells that serve to repair mutations. In fact, it is their only function. Therefore, in all actuality, all mutations are truly harmful, especially if these specific cells, themselves, are the product of a mutation. There would be nothing to stop these free radicals from culturing rogue, mutated cells without their assistance. We now know that genes are composed of DNA strands, a magnificently complex molecule. DNA is an encoded message or language. The language has four letters, which form 64, three letter words. The function of the gene acts as a blueprint to tell the cell how to build a particular protein, of which I already described in a previous post how astronmically improbable it is just to arrive at one protein. Anyway, the genes are provided with basic instructions for creating protein insulin, myoglobin, hemoglobin, etc. Though most mutations are neutral, a very large percentage is devastatingly harmful. A prime example of a harmful mutation would be cancer, which I already touched upon. In the most rare occasions, a mutation can be beneficial. This kind of mutation is not truly advantageous, however. For instance, many evolutionists use Sickle Cell Anemia as a prime example of a good mutation. It is premised upon the idea that the disease effects mostly the Negro population, and because the Negro population is greatest in the malaria stricken continent of Africa, it has served to benefit their survival, because SCA can act as a barrier to Malaria. They also cite that SCA only effects people adversely when it is carried through both the female and the male’s chromosomes. So, if the mutant gene is found in only one host, the individual is known as a ”carrier.’ He or she carries the gene and it serves as an immunity. What they fail to realize is, the more individuals that procreate, the greater and more frequent the disease will be, and the less the immunity will be. The ”immunity’ will literally be bred out of existance. Aside from this, its as if no one has taken into consideration how terrible this disease really is? So, you don’t have Malaria, but now you have Sickle Cell Anemia? I just don’t see how that is any better since SCA is a degenerative disease that prevents the proper oxygenation of cells. The red blood cells become deformed, taking the form of a crescent moon (hence the name, Sickle cell), and thus, prevent hemoglobin from properly passing through and oxygenating the body. If your cells do not receive the proper amount of oxygen then they will become ischemic. If the cells starve for oxygen, they die. If your cells die, you die. It’s as simple as that. So, that's how I disagree that mutation could be the propulsion of macroevolution. In other words, it effects reproduction because the more people breed, the more this disease will effect us by removing the immunity. Therefore, I don't agree that SCA, or any other mutation, could be advantageous.... (I'll be cautious here): There are no truly advantageous mutations that I know of and I've heard lots of testimonies on it.

quote:

---

Perhaps I should reword #6: In each succeeding generation there should be more individuals with the more advantageous trait and fewer individuals with the less advantageous trait.

---

I think that can happen and I think it does happen. But with the SCA analogy, it can also worsten with time via reproduction.

quote:

---

I think any evolutionist, by necessity, eventualy will have to rest their claims on the transfer and mutation of genes.

---

I think we are quickly coming up to the point where this will be relevant. Right now, I'm trying to keep things simple by looking at it just a little bit at a time. Just to keep things from getting too confusing by too many details.-

quote:

---

For instance, many evolutionists use Sickle Cell Anemia as a prime example of a good mutation.

---

Again, what is important to the point so far is whether we expect to see some traits increase generation by generation because those traits give a reproductive advantage to the individuals which have them, and whether some traits will decrease in subsequent generations because those traits will prove to be a disadvantage.-

quote:

---

quote:

---

Perhaps I should reword #6: In each succeeding generation there should be more individuals with the more advantageous trait and fewer individuals with the less advantageous trait.

---

​

I think that can happen and I think it does happen.

---

This is the point I wanted to make. (Sorry to snip off the second sentence -- I just think that this part here is the important point.)-Now we come to #7: I will add here that "good" means that the individuals possessing that trait will have a reproductive advantage, and "bad" means that individuals without that trait will be at a disadvantage.This time I won't quote the response you have already given here since I don't think much of it is relevant to the point that is being made; however, if you think it still needs to be said you can repeat it here.Right now, based on our conversation so far, I can think of two reasonable objections that can be made to this conclusion, which I can share if anyone is interested. First, however, I'd like to get your thoughts so far. (And besides, I want to go home and get some dinner.)Do you think that it is reasonable to suppose that an advantageous trait will increase in every generation until the entire population has it? Do you feel that a disadvantageous trait will decrease in every generation until it has disappeared altogether?

---

"Religion is the best business to be in. It's the only one where the customers blame themselves for product failure."
-- Ellis Weiner (quoted on the NAiG message board)

quote:

---

Do you think that it is reasonable to suppose that an advantageous trait will increase in every generation until the entire population has it? Do you feel that a disadvantageous trait will decrease in every generation until it has disappeared altogether?

---

That's reasonable. Its not concrete, but it is well within the realm of possibility.I'm gonna go out on a limb and presuppose that you've posed these series of questions before, and based on their answers, you go back and say, "See, evolution is possible." But as I alluded to before, abstract methods don't circumvent or trump actual evidence out in the field. Even still, I'm really pleased with this forum and this particular debate. I found this forum (EvC) a few years ago but for whatever reason chose to go to another one. In retrospect, I wish that I chosen this one from the beginning.

I am also enjoying your conversation with Chiro. I hope, when it becomes germane, that you will share with the rest of us the "actual evidence out in the field" that you feel trumps evolution. Since I spend the majority of my time literally in the field, and nothing I've seen so far seems contrary to evolution, I'm interested to see your "evidence".Someone pass the popcorn. This is turning out better than MI-III.

quote:

---

share with the rest of us the "actual evidence out in the field" that you feel trumps evolution. Since I spend the majority of my time literally in the field, and nothing I've seen so far seems contrary to evolution, I'm interested to see your "evidence".

---

I was actually referring to a lack of evidence out in the field. Instead of showing us actual and undeniable evidence of the macroevolutionary progress, we've been bogged down with some abstract reason why evolution should be real.In other words, there is no substitute for actual evidence. As of now, I've seen nothing even comparable to evidence of Darwinian evolution.

We can show you all the evidence in the world, but until you understand the theory, you won't understand what the evidence actually proves. The evidence substantiates the modern theory of evolution, which combines Darwinian mechanisms of natural selection (and other forms of selection) with molecular genetics. The evidence doesn't substantiate:1) That evolution happens when individuals undergo spontaneous metamorphosis;
2) That evolution operates from some kind of pre-programmed master plan to violate the Second Law;
3) That evolution means we should all commit suicide to end our pointless lives;or other such nonsense.

Unless my knowledge of biology is way off, what you've said here isn't accurate. Octopi DNA is made from exactly the same things as human DNA, and any other DNA. The basic building blocks are Adenine, Cytosine, Guanine and Thymine (AGCT). Where is it that you think the fundamental difference is? What is the 'C' in your example? Well I'm not a geneticist so I think i'll have to leave this to someone more qualified to explain, but from what I've read it's a lot more complicated than simply looking at similarities. For a start you can never say "organism A descended from organism B", but you can work out if organism A and organism B were likely to have shared a common ancestor, and maybe even what characteristics that common ancestor would have had. Well yes I do agree that there really is a 'brick wall', defined by the limit to the amount of genetic material that can fit into a cell. I have no idea what that limit is, but I imagine it is so large as to be meaningless. There's plenty of room to swing that cat!As to detrimental mutations, I don't think there's any objective way to look at a mutation and say whether it is detrimental or beneficial. If a mutation makes no functional changes to a protein then it is neutral, that is objective. Detrimental and beneficial are highly dependent of the current environment of the organism though. What would be detrimental in one place and time could be beneficial in another place and time. It isn't a black/white situation, it's many shades of grey.

quote:

---

Unless my knowledge of biology is way off, what you've said here isn't accurate. Octopi DNA is made from exactly the same things as human DNA, and any other DNA.

---

And the genetic code that is used is the same, too.

---

"Religion is the best business to be in. It's the only one where the customers blame themselves for product failure."
-- Ellis Weiner (quoted on the NAiG message board)

Hi NJ,I don't want to respond to this post in this thread - I think it would be way off-topic. I'm requesting admin help in putting together a new thread to address the details, so I hope you'll participate when I get it together. Hopefully see you there...

quote:

---

That's reasonable. Its not concrete, but it is well within the realm of possibility.

---

Yes, as I have said before, I can think of a couple of objections (although I think I can answer them). However, since you are not objecting (and we can come back to this point later if you want to object to it), I think we can go on. Especially since there were points that you wanted to bring into the discussion, and we are now getting coming to the place where those points are relevant.So far we have now agreed that there are physical traits that confer an reproductive advantage to the individuals that possess them, and traits that are disadvantageous to the individuals that possess them, that most of these traits are inherited, and that over generations the advantageous traits will increase in the population, and the disadvantageous traits will decrease. We also have now acknowledged the possibility that given enough time the entire population might possess the advantageous trait (through the gradual elimination of individuals that do not possess the trait), and that the disadvantageous may eventually disappear (through the direct elimination, perhaps gradually, of the individuals that possess it).-

quote:

---

I'm gonna go out on a limb and presuppose that you've posed these series of questions before, and based on their answers, you go back and say, "See, evolution is possible."

---

I've posed these questions several times before on several different message boards. But you are the first to really put any effort into responding. Most people have ignored this set of questions, or have only made a half-hearted attempt to answer a few of them and then abandoned the conversation.Actually, the intent (originally) of the OP was to divorce the discussion of whether evolution has or has not occurred from the discussion of abiogenesis, or of the "complexity of DNA", or whatever people tried to bring up. If you look at all the statements in the OP, you will see that one either agrees to them or disagrees to them on their individual merits -- how life originally arose, or whether we ever understand how life originally arose, is irrelevant to whether you agree or disagree with the individual statements, and whether you agree or disagree with the conclusions that can be reached.Although this goal was secondary, it is also as you say; part of the intent is also to show that evolution is plausible. Part of the difficulties some creationists have with the Theory of Evolution is that they don't really understand it. Part of the intent of the OP is to provided a step-by-step explanation of the individuals pieces to aid in understanding what the theory of evolution really is, and also, hopefully, to show that it is not so implausible an idea as some think it is.One more thing: I used to be a creationist. I came to recognize that evolution was not only plausible, but regardless of the validity of the Genesis story, if we were to wait around for another 100 million years all the species we know of today would be gone and would evolve into quite different species. This was one important part of the reason I eventually abandoned Young Earth Creationism.-

quote:

---

But as I alluded to before, abstract methods don't circumvent or trump actual evidence out in the field.

---

Heh. That is exactly what I tell creationists when they try to "prove" that evolution is impossible. Probability calculations showing that abiogenesis is impossible, for example, do not make all the evidence that evolution has occurred go away. Abstract discussions about "information" do not trump the multitude of evidence supporting evolution in many different fields of science using a wide variety of different methodologies. Heh; in fact we are now at the point where you might try to make some abstract arguments involving "information" or "complexity", and you might want to keep in mind that "theories" and "abstract arguments" do not trump evidence.Right now we are discussing the plausibility of evolution, so discussion of the evidence in favor of it would be off-topic here. If you wish to discuss the evidence, it might be better to join another thread, or start another one if necessary. To get you started, though, in understanding what the evidence is, I will link to my favorite web page on the topic. If you do decide to start a new topic, I'll let you know that my favorite piece of evidence is the heirarchical classification scheme.In fact, if you now feel that there is no point in continuing this particular thread (because, perhaps, you already agree with the plausibility of evolution) and want end this particular converstion, then I will understand. Otherwise:================================So, to repeat, we now agree that physical traits are largely inherited, that some are advantageous (in a reproductive sense), some are disadvantageous, and that over generations the advantageous traits will increase, the disadvantageous ones will decrease, until the advantagous traits are dominant.I will also note that there has been no assumption of "intent" or "direction" -- just that some traits are more advantageous than others, and so will preferentially be selected for in each succeeding generation. So far, we have only been talking about traits that already exist in the population. Now we move onto the emergence of new traits. I will make some clarifications here: by "subtle" I mean that the "new traits" are very small changes of old traits. Maybe hair color is slightly more mottled, maybe a fin is a little longer, maybe a particular bone is a little bit thicker.By "helpful to an organism's survival", I mean, of course, helpful in the sense that the organism is more likely to produce surviving offspring, and similarly for detrimental.Edited to change the subtitle.This message has been edited by Chiroptera, 07-May-2006 03:16 PM

---

"Religion is the best business to be in. It's the only one where the customers blame themselves for product failure."
-- Ellis Weiner (quoted on the NAiG message board)

quote:

---

I will link to my favorite web page on the topic. If you do decide to start a new topic, I'll let you know that my favorite piece of evidence is the heirarchical classification scheme.

---

Meh. I like this one better.http://www.trueorigin.org/theobald1a.asp

quote:

---

8. Fact: New heritable traits, usually subtle, occasionally appear.
9. Fact: These new traits do not appear in any predictable pattern; these traits can appear in any body part or instinctual behavior; furthermore, some of these traits are helpful to an organism's survival, and others are detrimental.

---

I guess I'm not understanding why we are going over them again. I already answered all of the questions. In either case, yes, new traits can develop in any given specimen. But like I said, there is a finite number of possibilities. And to soldify that notion, we should be seeing radical changes in say, humans, if the DNA molecule is as similar to Chimpanzees as they are. At any given time, we should expect to see a mutation cause us to revert back to all the atavisms. But this doesn't happen.

quote:

---

10. Conclusion: From 7, 8 and 9 we can conclude that a species will slowly "improve" with time, as new helpful traits appear and as the organisms with these traits are better able to survive and produce offspring with these traits.

---

I object to 'improve' because that's completely subjective. And that goes back to what I was saying about the evolutionary model. It says, "Not improves, just changes." But then in the next instant, it says, "Organisms improve and inherit 'good' traits because of natural selection." Which is it?

quote:

---

Meh. I like this one better.

​

http://www.trueorigin.org/theobald1a.asp

---

Dr. Theobald has answered most of the criticisms that Camp raised. Most of the time, it appeared to me that Camp did not understand Theobald's point. However, having read Theobald's original version of that essay, I do admit that sometimes the point wasn't very clear; Camp did do a service in pointing out where Theobald needs to be more clear. Theobald did do a bit of rewriting to take into account Camp's criticisms (especially Camp's misunderstandings).-

quote:

---

I guess I'm not understanding why we are going over them again.

---

Because I didn't go over them the first time. When these points were previous discussed, it was during times when I felt it was inapporpriate and potentially confusing, and so I purposely avoided discussing them there. Now that we are finally talking about new traits, I think this is the ideal time to talk about them. I guess I've had too much training in mathematics -- I like a great deal of organization to my expositions. And, like many mathematicians, I have a deep preference to my organization. At any rate, I'm afraid that you'll have to put up with my fetishes.-

quote:

---

In either case, yes, new traits can develop in any given specimen.

---

Okay, and I will assume that you agree with the observation that the new traits arise in a more or less random manner.The rest of your quote is better off discussed with the next points. (My pedantic organization again.)-

quote:

---

I object to 'improve' because that's completely subjective.

---

Indeed; but just like "good" and "bad" and "beneficial" and "detrimental" I mean in the sense of increased reproductive fitness. I apologize for the confusion caused by using a colloquial word where I should have used a phrase with a more precise meaning. I find it tiring to keep using phrases like "reproductive fitness" and "increased chances of reproductive success", so I keep using words like "good" and "improvement" as a short hand for this, hoping the reader will be able to tell what I mean. Also, you are the first person who has taken the time to actually respond to these points, so there are still a lot of bugs in this "rough draft". But you are giving me a lot of ideas for improvement.Also, I should point out that we are still talking about relative short time scales here -- maybe a few hundreds or thousand of generations. Once a new species arises, one may not be able to talk about the new species having better reproductive success than the previous species, since they might now be inhabiting different niches and so would no longer be in competition. For instance, humans are not an "improved" version of fish: drop someone in the middle of a lake, and they will likely drown. Jaws are not improved gills, and ears are not improved jaw joints. So, in some sense, creationist are correct -- there was a lot of degeneration involved in evolution -- humans are pretty much badly deformed fish, so much that they can't even swim very well or breathe in water. Jaws don't take oxygen from water very well, and our inner ear bones are useless in keeping our jaws attached to our skulls.So, when I talk about a species becoming "improved" I mean that we are still talking about individuals that are recognizably the same species living in more or less the same ecological niche, and that the later individuals now possess slightly different traits and features that would enable them to "out compete" the earlier individuals if any the earlier forms are still around. I think some creationists call this "microevolution".Is this better?

---

"Religion is the best business to be in. It's the only one where the customers blame themselves for product failure."
-- Ellis Weiner (quoted on the NAiG message board)

"good" and "bad" and "beneficial" and "detrimental" I mean in the sense of increased reproductive fitness.The problem is, I can't think of one instance in where cancer, Down Syndrome, or Cystic Fibrosis benefitted anyone in any way.

quote:

---

when I talk about a species becoming "improved" I mean that we are still talking about individuals that are recognizably the same species living in more or less the same ecological niche, and that the later individuals now possess slightly different traits and features that would enable them to "out compete" the earlier individuals if any the earlier forms are still around. I think some creationists call this "microevolution".

---

Right, and I don't contend with that. We know that small adaptations occur. Where the theory gets hazy, (and I'm afraid in many cases, its intentional), is to obscure the line of possibility into the realm of what we know is currently impossible. I think that evolutionists silently agree that they'd love nothing more than an actual fossil that undeniably points to one species forming into an entirely new taxonomical niche. Thus far, the evidence to support said evolvement is either scant, inconclusive, or non-existent.From a philosophical point of view, I have no objections in believeing in evolution. It doesn't affect my relationship with the Creator one way or another. God could have used evolution as the vehicle. I then heed the words of Dr. Behe:“I don’t agree with creationism for theological reasons. I agree with it over the scientific implications.” -Dr. Michael Behe

Reading this I'm wondering if you are making the distinction between DNA the molecule and the sequences of the bases that construct the molecule?I'm not sure what you meant by the "gulf being inviolate". The DNA sequences are certainly so different that you can't get an octopi sperm to fertilize a human egg.Can you pick an example of two species that are closely related but incapable of interbreeding (definition of species) and then we look at how they diverge from a common ancestor to the point that their DNA was changed to the point of incompatiblity? Two different kinds of monkeys perhaps? or even two different kinds of fish. Snake and lizard?I almost get the impression you might be thinking the Octopi write in Hebrew and Humans in Chinese say. Rather it's the same alphabet A,T,C,G. The sequences vary.Alphabet is also misleading in a sense because DNA and RNA I think are more accurately thought of as templates for the assembly of proteins. They specify the sequence of amino acids that are linked to make proteins and we use the same amino acids as all life does just different organisms use them in differing quanities as to the differing proteins that are used in their organism.New proteins come about when the sequence of the DNA is changed and that can happen for a number of reasons. You have only the 4 bases pair but in groups of 3 they specify one of 20 some amino acids that are chained to make, I've no idea how many proteins thousands certainly, hundreds of thousands?The analogy to language is that with an alphabet of 26 letters we can make thousands of words, write thousands of books even different languages. The wide variation in life is built from a small number of smaller sub units that are shared by all life forms. The variety comes in the way these units are chained together.lfen

NJ, I suggest you maintain your focus and think before you post. You seem to have trouble following the discussion. Since we already have discussed the idea that some mutations are detrimental and the NS can remove some of them from the gene pool how does it further the discussion to point out that some changes are not beneficial in regards to reproductive success? This is both jumping ahead in the discussion and something that is obviously silly in light of what the evolutionary explanation actually says.You have been given an opportunity to learn something. Those kinds of statements demonstrate that you need to take advantage of it.