|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,915 Year: 4,172/9,624 Month: 1,043/974 Week: 2/368 Day: 2/11 Hour: 1/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Proofs of Evolution: A Mediocre Debate (Faith, robinrohan and their invitees) | |||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
Great to have someone agree that some mutations are in some sense nonrandom. I really don't know why you are so concerned about the term "random." It doesn't mean "uncaused." Just think of a roulette table. Which slot that ball bounces into is a random slot. But it's nonetheless caused. This message has been edited by robinrohan, 12-22-2005 12:26 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
As I said originally, all the digs showed a pattern of simple down deep and complicated the further up you got. Now it is true that this is not 100% accurate, as explained by Pink, but it is generally the case.
Evolution accounts for this pattern. I've been reading about fossils, and all these claims about a lack of transitionals is very misleading. It depends on which evolutionary branch you look at. Some have only a few fossils with many gaps, whereas others have hardly any gaps. But one doesn't need completeness to understand the principle and to pick up the pattern. The most complete evolutionary branch, and very complete it is, which is evidenced by fossils, is the line that runs from reptiles to mammals. I'd call that rather "macro," wouldn't you? You can read about it here if you like: for Faith
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
======================================================
NOT-SO-GREAT DEBATE THREAD. ROBINROHAN & FAITH ONLY, PLUS INVITEES ====================================================== Hey Faith, thanks again for my own emoticon. If I'd known such a big fuss was going to be made over my slapdash addition of a grin to your sasqui, I'd have taken more pains over it and tried to come up with one that's more recognizable. But I am pleased that you appreciated the effort so much. Anyway, back to business:
quote: The language is so tricky when it comes to this topic, which is why many on the evo side simplify (or simply insist) mutation as random. OK, that may partly explain why this discussion, which I've had other times here, gets so frustrating for me.
I see mutation as "a built-in mechanism" because it seems that DNA polymerases (the enzymes that copy DNA) are evolutionary optimized to make a few mistakes each generation. (my bolding)Thank you, that is the impression I keep getting from descriptions of how it works. I wonder if it's possible for this process to be made evident to me without a lot of effort and burying me in technical language. I know this has been discussed on other threads but I have to say that knowing the writer is only presenting evidence for his own evolutionist point of view I have a hard time trusting it besides having a problem following it. This is probably not the thread for getting too deeply into it but maybe another thread on the subject could be started eventually. Some probably klutzy questions that have possibly been answered in those other discussions in a way I couldn't follow (or trust?) would be: How many is "a few mistakes each generation?"In how many species has this process been studied? (The nonscientist isn't thrilled with examples of bugs, plants and bacteria). A DNA strand being so unbelievably long, (that is just one chromosome, right?), how is it even possible to make generalizations about the frequency of these mistakes? Do you just study one gene or short stretch of the DNA? Given all the possible combinations of the chemicals G,C,T and A, to the untutored mind it seems that absolutely anything is possible if a mistake is made, but if there is a consistent pattern to these "mistakes" is there some rule that has been discovered that explains it? Or, first, how much consistency or pattern is seen in these mistakes? These are not sufficient questions, just a first stab at it, and I know I have more. I have some recollection that there was a study done where scientists were able to reduce the error rate of a DNA polymerase beyond the already low rate provided by evolution's version. The idea is that if a species lineage evolved a "perfect" polymerase that didn't produce any errors/mutations at each generation, the species is unable to adapt, and so dies off as a result of their evolutionary dead-end. (I would take this with a grain of salt until I manage to produce a reference for you). A reference may just lose me. That often happens. Sometimes it seems that a whole thread would be required to investigate just one such reference. I don't understand, however, why so much weight is placed on these "mistakes" for adaptability. It is true that some traits have many genes, isn't it? Seems to me I've read that that is the case for instance with fur colors and patterns in domestic animals. But I can't seem to locate that link in my bookmarks any more. If many genes are available for just one trait, why isn't that enough to guarantee the variety that leads to adaptability?
If this is the case, that polymerases have evolved to make a few mistakes, than mutations are "a built-in process". Terrif. Again my bolding. Of course as a creationist I want to reword this to say that polymerases were created to throw out a few chemical alterations here and there according to some as-yet unknown rule or pattern. Unless some of this is a product of the deteriorating effects of the Fall. Depends on the results I guess. See, (Biblical) creationists have to think along both lines.
I see mutations as non-random - but others have argued with me that this view has to do with my definition of "randomness". Are some of these arguments on EvC threads I could look up?
Let me explain how I see it: There are various mutational biases that cause some stretches of DNA sequence to be more prone to mutation than others. Ah, "mutational biases." This is the sort of statement that makes me really want to learn what's involved in it, but my efforts usually just give out because I can't follow the technical language. This reference to biases showed up on Robin's first list from the Ernst Mayr book he's reading, as a proof of evolution. I see it differently of course.
On top of that, the type of mutation that will occur appears to be biased by the local DNA sequence. I see these biases as "non-random". How exciting. Wish I could picture this better. Let me try to get it into my own words. You've got a "bias" along a stretch of DNA that makes mutations of any kind more likely, right? What exactly this bias is caused by, chemically speaking or whatever -- is that known? And besides that, there's something about that stretch of DNA that directs the type of mutation, which I guess is what you mean by "the local DNA sequence" -- you mean that something in the chemical arrangement of the very stretch that appears to be particularly subject to mutation also appears to direct the sort of mutation that can occur there? {AbE: That is, it somehow dictates the particular sequence (s) of T,C,A and G that can occur to the exclusion of others?)
However, there is no evidence that any type of sequence is mutation proof, or cannot experience a specific mutation. This means that all possible sequence changes are real possibilities for selection to act upon. In this sense I see mutation as "random", because it can change/produce any possible sequence combination. BUT this COULD mean simply that study hasn't yet progressed to the point where possible patterns are recognizable, couldn't it? Questions: How many of these as yet random mutations occur as compared to the kind we are discussing where there appears to be some sort of rule or pattern involved?
Also, when the mutational biases act to produce a pattern, it is towards simple repetitive sequence instead of the sort of sequence that genes are made of - so it doesn't appear that the biases represent a gene-producing program. This is another reference I could dig up for you at some point. Now this sounds like we are talking about something that really IS a mistake, that isn't helpful for variation or evolution at all, but something incoherent and useless, or am I not following you?
We all have been nicely nonadversarial in the thread, except for a few moments from each of us (though like you say they could be miscommunication). I took your "Creationist should research this" comment as more smug than it was probably intended. This has definitely been my most enjoyable interaction with you thus far. It is nice to talk in a friendly way for a change. Wonder how long it will last. Of course if it happens at all that increases motivation to try to preserve it, so there's another plus. The creationist comment was to some extent a retort in that creationists are always being criticized for not doing real science, so if it appears that there might be an arena of investigation that could be important to them although not to evos (so that evos aren't as interested in studying it -- which is how I apparently misread what you were saying), then it would definitely be a path for creationists to take.
Hopefully you don't take my language as too pro-evo biased; if I state that something evolved as a fact (like I just did above), it is not because I am taking robinrohan's side in the argument, it is more because I am trying to state mainstream science's current understanding. I'm doing my best to stay neutral. I appreciate that very much, thank you, and I'm all the more appreciative since I'm surprised that an evo would make such an effort.
If you are interested in those references I mentioned and I don't post them, please feel free to give me a reminder when I show up again in a week or so. OK. ======================================================NOT-SO-GREAT DEBATE THREAD. ROBINROHAN & FAITH ONLY, PLUS INVITEES ====================================================== This message has been edited by Faith, 12-22-2005 02:31 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
I really don't know why you are so concerned about the term "random." It doesn't mean "uncaused." Just think of a roulette table. Which slot that ball bounces into is a random slot. But it's nonetheless caused. Because I keep getting the impression that if mutations are random you don't have to pin them down to any particular result, you can just say Oh mutation did it and that suffices for every question asked or every challenge lobbed at the ToE. How is evolution possible? Answer: Mutation. Why can't we explain all this in terms of Mendelian principles? Answer: Mutation. What insures that evolution is truly open-ended? Answer: Mutation. Why don't the diversity-reducing tendencies of the population-splitting events usually known as "Evolutionary Processes" make it obvious that evolution is impossible and must naturally come to an end at the boundaries of the Kind? Answer: Mutation. Mutation is apparently the Evo equivalent of the supposedly frequent Creo phrase "Goddidit" (Except I don't think I've ever said that myself as I do expect science to explain it all ultimately, without reference to miracles). But if mutations can be shown to behave according to laws, then we can discuss them the way we can discuss Mendelian inheritance, and theoretically at least track their influence through the generations. They are no longer this wild card that can escape from the inexorable effects of diversity reduction. If it can be shown that they cannot produce any kind of truly new allele but only certain kinds in accordance with the nature of the creature and its requirements, then I expect it to be a tame enough concept to submit to the effects of the diversity-reducing processes I keep carrying on about. OR if they are mostly deleterious that is a point for my side too. That's a WILD stab at an answer, and I reserve the right to redefine it at any time, but I think it's in the ballpark.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
I'll have to get back to this later. But must say: Design accounts for all of that just as well as descent. Descent is not necessary to explain it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
That's a WILD stab at an answer, and I reserve the right to redefine it at any time, but I think it's in the ballpark. You've expressed yourself very well. I'm not ready to respond to it yet.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
Because I keep getting the impression that if mutations are random you don't have to pin them down to any particular result, you can just say Oh mutation did it and that suffices for every question asked or every challenge lobbed at the ToE. How is evolution possible? Answer: Mutation. Why can't we explain all this in terms of Mendelian principles? Answer: Mutation. What insures that evolution is truly open-ended? Answer: Mutation. Why don't the diversity-reducing tendencies of the population-splitting events usually known as "Evolutionary Processes" make it obvious that evolution is impossible and must naturally come to an end at the boundaries of the Kind? Now I understand. I guess it depends on how often mutation occurs.And the other factor is the age of the earth. Mutation is apparently the Evo equivalent of the supposedly frequent Creo phrase "Goddidit" (Except I don't think I've ever said that myself as I do expect science to explain it all ultimately, without reference to miracles). But if special creation occurred, science can't explain that. That would be a miracle. This message has been edited by robinrohan, 12-23-2005 10:43 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
Biased variation
I doubt if it has anything to do with what Pink was referring to. My book says it only occurs in a few species (probably). Here's what the book says: "Some genes . . . affect the segregation of alleles during meiosis in a heterozygote such that the allele of one parental chromosome goes to the gametes in more than half of the instances." (whatever that means) Molecular biology Molecular biology is how they figured out that genes are not proteins but nucleic acids. This is very important. If they were proteins, they might be modified by the environment. But since they are not, Lamarckian ideas are totally out of the question. Molecular biology is responsible for a lot of other stuff too, like the discovery of the genetic code. It's also another method of dating, although tricky. Most molecules, it appears, change at a constant rate. So we have a "molecular clock." The molecular clock is how they figured out that the chimpanzee and man branched off about 5-8 million years ago. They used to think it occurred much further back. As you can see, Faith, I know a lot.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Now I understand. I guess it depends on how often mutation occurs. And the other factor is the age of the earth. What mutation really is as well as how often it occurs in its various forms.
Mutation is apparently the Evo equivalent of the supposedly frequent Creo phrase "Goddidit" (Except I don't think I've ever said that myself as I do expect science to explain it all ultimately, without reference to miracles).
quote: What exactly does the term "special creation" mean? If it refers to the original creation as described in Genesis why is the term "special" part of it? And yes, THAT would be a miracle but once it is set in motion, all the laws in place, science should be able to study the results just as science does. This message has been edited by Faith, 12-23-2005 12:53 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
As you can see, Faith, I know a lot. Hm. All that is completely incomprehensible. I may actually know less than I did before. I guess it's time for some web research. {AbE: This is all probably completely incomprehensible too: Apache Tomcat/6.0.53 - Error reportCell and Molecular Biology Online Current Books | Caister Academic Press This message has been edited by Faith, 12-23-2005 01:16 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
Creation can just mean God set the ball rolling--like he started the Big Bang, for example.
Special Creation means God created all the life forms, or Kinds to use your term, one by one--ex nihilo. I didn't make the phrase up. It's common. This message has been edited by robinrohan, 12-23-2005 12:04 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
I've run across the term I've just never understood it. When I say God set it all in motion I don't mean what jar means about simply putting rules in place, or flinging out the Big Bang and withdrawing from involvement after that. I mean that He did create all the Kinds one by one, as Genesis reports, including all their genetic potentials for future variation, but that from THAT point science should be able to proceed as science does without having to worry about miracles interfering.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
I guess it's time for some web research. Well, if you have any questions, let me know. I'll be glad to help you out. And I am waiting for a reply to the evidence I presented that shows a very complete line of fossils illustrating the change from reptile to mammal.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
And I am waiting for a reply to the evidence I presented that shows a very complete line of fossils illustrating the change from reptile to mammal. Oh right. Your Message 77. Where you posted this link. Reading all that is a lot to ask, but I did skim it. The answer to all this kind of thing is that it is simply somebody's imaginative reconstruction of a possibility. There is no reason whatever to assume any particular order of descent even among the reptile group let alone from there on. Even our own children don't always look like us, let alone The Next Step, but sometimes like Something Completely Different that an evo wouldn't be tempted to place on a line of progression. The fact that there APPEARS to be some sort of gradation in fossils proves nothing at all. For all I know it may be possible to rearrange all that to show a completely different kind of "progression." And I long ago learned not to trust any kind of evolutionist reconstruction that relies on drawings. This message has been edited by Faith, 12-23-2005 01:37 PM This message has been edited by Faith, 12-23-2005 01:40 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
There is no reason whatever to assume any particular order of descent even among the reptile group let alone from there on. The point is that there is a WEALTH of fossils showing us an extinct group of animals that seem to be partially reptiles and partially mammals. Labelling them as either reptiles or mammals is arbitrary. They have characteristics of both. Setting asside the "imaginative reconstruction," would you accept that there are a lot of these fossils?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024