Evolution Simplified

Hi Ned. I'm fairly certain he referred to the consumption of H in stars to disprove my assertions; more specifically, the sun. Coragyps provided an interesting method to roughly calculate the amount of H in the sun that has already burned and how much should be left.I thank you also for your reply.

Hello Chiroptera. Makes sense. I believe I have learned more about argument and logic since last "talking" with him, not much more, but enough to at least stand my ground and to plant a foundation for honing and better developing these skills.I thank you also for your reply.

quote:

---

Chiroptera writes:

​

Whenever anyone makes a stange claim, the first thing I ask is why they think that.

​

I believe I have learned more about argument and logic since last "talking" with him....

---

Heh. It seems like a real obvious thing to ask now, but it has taken me several years of participating on boards like this before I figured out what the "obvious" responses should be.I still read messages where I'm not sure how to respond. Too bad holmes hasn't been participating much these days; I learned a lot about how to dissect another person's posts by reading his responses.

---

"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)

Sorry I haven't responded sooner, my internet was down for a couple of days. You don't realize how dependent we've become on computers until its taken away from you. In any case, lets pick up the dialogue again.

quote:

---

Unfortunately, facts are facts. They do not conflict. They are what they are. It is a fact that the population of most species are not increasing. You do point out an exception that humans are one species whose population is increasing. I would also add the possibility of domesticated plant and animal species which rely on humans for their survival, as well as certain pests (like rats and cockroaches) which can take advantage of the ecological niches that human societies provide. But by and large, the vast majority of species are not increasing in population, and it has only been historically recently that humans have been increasing at such a phenomenal rate.

---

The way you worded the first points seemed contradictory to me, but perhaps its a false dichotomy. Maybe I just misunderstood it. I don't think any one of us can honestly state definitively whether or not any given population is increasing or not. Take for example ants. There are so many ants, and so many colonies of them all over the world, it seems nearly impossible for us to know empirically, either way, whether they are increasing or if they are experiencing a stasis. I would say, just based off of crude observation, that they are largely static. What we do know is that overall, if any creature births 30 creatures of its own kind, a small percentage will survive, we'll say 15%. That's very crude, but it certainly appears to be the case.Okay, this is where the confusion was. Fact 1 seemed to conflict with Fact 2, but you said that they should be increasing, but that are actually not increasing. I wouldn't say that they should or not be increasing. It is what it is. And whatever it is, I don't think we can't state that empiricaly.

quote:

---

It would seem to be a necessary conclusion that in most species (humans being a current exception) more individuals are born than will reproduce, and so most individuals will die without having reproduced.

---

In mammals or large reptiles, its much easier for us to track their progress. We know certain populations are declining. But overall, I agree that out of 30 creatures born of one union, roughly 15-25% will survive. That figure can fluxuate, but on average, I'd say that is accurate for an overall assumption.

quote:

---

Sorry I haven't responded sooner, my internet was down for a couple of days.

---

It happens. I'm patient; I have a lot to do in my real life anyway.-

quote:

---

What we do know is that overall, if any creature births 30 creatures of its own kind, a small percentage will survive, we'll say 15%. That's very crude, but it certainly appears to be the case.

---

That's interesting. 15% of 30 is about 4. If we assume sexual reproduction among species with distinct sexes, (so these 4 individuals had two parents), then the population would double in a generation. I would think this would be noticeable. Other than humans (and perhaps a few species that can take advantage of the increased human population), are there any particular species that are increasing at this rate?By the way, for the rest of the argument (which we have not yet gotten to) to work, it isn't strictly necessary for the population to remain constant. The population can be increasing. What is necessary is that a significant percentage of the offspring that are produced do not reproduce themselves, which you do seem to agree with (if I am reading you correctly). This, by the way, also seems to be true in human populations; Third World Countries suffer from a high infant and child mortality rate, while in Western nations many, many individuals voluntarily (and involuntarily) have either one child (and so less than the replacement rate for two parents) or no children at all.So perhaps I can restate points 1, 2, and 3 as follows: Would you agree to this? If so, we can move on; otherwise we can continue to hash this one out.

---

"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:

---

1, 2, 3 combined -- Fact: In any population, many more individuals are produced than will survive to reproduce.

---

Didn't I already agree with that premise? If a union produces 30 offspring, in most cases, few will survive to reproduce. Its cyclical and variant on a number of circumstances, but looking at the average this appears to be true of most populations.

quote:

---

Didn't I already agree with that premise?

---

I thought that you did, but I wanted to make sure. When you have been on this board long enough, you will see that people tend to complain about others "putting words into their mouths" -- I wanted to make sure that I wasn't misrepresenting you.-Now lets move onto the next couple of points.

quote:

---

quote:

---

4. Fact: Many of the physical traits of individual organisms are hereditary.

---

​

True. Virtually all of our traits were inherited. And of those that aren't directly inherited, it was the product of gene deletion or small insertions.

---

Great. Howevever, the gene deletions and small insertians themselves are hereditary since they occur in the genome.

quote:

---

quote:

---

5. Fact: Some traits make an organism more likely to survive and reproduce, while others make an organism less likely to survive and reproduce.

---

​

True. I agree that Natural Selection exists, and that it may or may not be a product of random chance or design.

---

So far so good.

quote:

---

quote:

---

6. Conclusion: From 3, 4, and 5 we can conclude that organisms with the traits that make them more likely to survive and reproduce will produce offspring with those traits, while organisms with traits that make them less likely to survive and reproduce will leave few or no offspring with those traits.

---

​

I agree with that to a degree, but not holistically. Yes, Natural selection weeds out the weaker vessels.

---

Right now that is my sole point. You continued:

quote:

---

But on average, everything is dwindling down and winding down in nature. There is no such thing as a perpetual motion machine. Any process that begins will tend toward degradation. With as much copying of genes that goes on, I believe that all organisms from prokaryotes and eukaryotes, to the most complex ecosystems, are generally deteriorating and not increasing. So while Natural Selection helps stave off complete annihilation, there is an underlying factor of overall degradation within any given population.

---

However, I don't think this is appropriate to discuss this here. If you read ahead in my list, I think that you will see that there will be a better time to discuss "deterioration" and "complexity". Just to keep things simple, let's hold off on this until we get there.All I want to know at this point:Do you agree with #6? Do you agree that the natural conclusion from 3, 4, and 5 (with which you have stated that you agree, at least after modifying #3 a bit) would indicate that if there are traits that would make an individual more likely to reproduce, then the next generation would have more individuals with that trait? And that if there is a trait that would make an individual less likely to reproduce, then there will be fewer individuals with that trait in the next generation?To me, this seems like an obvious conclusion, but some people might not agree.

---

"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)

That's interesting, because measurements based on the abundance of helium and hydrogen in the sun are one of the ways that scientists estimate its age. Again, this is support for an old universe. Consider the following (from Talkorigins claim CH210: Age of Earth):

quote:

---

The abundance and distribution of helium change predictably as the sun ages, converting hydrogen to helium in its core. These parameters also affect how sound waves move through the sun. Thus one may estimate the sun's age from seismic solar data. Such an analysis puts the age of the sun at 4.66 billion years, plus or minus about 4 percent (Dziembowski et al. 1999).

---

{OFF TOPIC. WAY OFF TOPIC. WAY, WAY OFF TOPIC.}This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 05-06-2006 03:59 PM

quote:

---

I thought that you did, but I wanted to make sure. When you have been on this board long enough, you will see that people tend to complain about others "putting words into their mouths" -- I wanted to make sure that I wasn't misrepresenting you.

---

Well then, I appreciate the caution.

quote:

---

Do you agree with #6? Do you agree that the natural conclusion from 3, 4, and 5 (with which you have stated that you agree, at least after modifying #3 a bit) would indicate that if there are traits that would make an individual more likely to reproduce, then the next generation would have more individuals with that trait? And that if there is a trait that would make an individual less likely to reproduce, then there will be fewer individuals with that trait in the next generation?

---

Yes, I agree that natural selection removes, or attempts to remove undesirable traits. But this doesn't encompass every taxa. This goes into what I was saying about dogs (as an example) having a tremendous capacity for variablity, genetically speaking, but it will eventually hit a brick wall. There are only so many combinations. If something doesn't exist, you can't insert new genetic information. You can assume that it will replicate itself or delete an allele here or an allele there. But if it the possible combination isn't there to begin with you can't just magically make one. For instance, on a lock combination of a safe, there are only so many variables out of nine numbers. The combinations are well into the thousands, and that's a large number, but we aren't going to ever get the number 10 by shuffling 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8 and 9. Does that make sense?

quote:

---

If something doesn't exist, you can't insert new genetic information.

---

I am speaking of traits (or alleles) that already exist in the population. Further down in my list, starting with #8 amd #9, are comments about new traits coming into existence. Right now, I am discussing about traits that exist in the population right now. Sorry if I wasn't clear on this.So far we have agreed to the following:3. More organisms are produced than will reproduce themselves.4. Most physical traits are inherited.5. Some physical traits are beneficial in the sense that an organism possessing those traits will be more likely to reproduce. Some traits are detrimental in the sense that organisms possessing those traits will be less likely to reproduce.Do you still agree that these are accurate?If so, do you agree there will be more individuals in the next generation that will inherit the beneficial trait, and fewer that will inherit the detrimental trait? And so in the next generation, more individuals will have the beneficial trait and fewer will have the detrimental trait? Or do you have an objection to this?

---

"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)

The problem with your safe analogy is that the lock in the safe is a static, unchanging object. The genome is not. Every time an organism reproduces there is the possibility that the genes it passes on will be altered. Chromosomes can split apart, the can join together, single amino acids can be switched for other amino acids. All of this leads to a varying length of the genome and the emergence of new traits that weren't there before.Now it's true that the genome of populations is never infinitely long so there will never be an infinite number of combinations, but the actual number of combinations is going to be very very large. It doesn't take much of a change to alter the organism (in fact changing a single amino acid could make a meaningful change), so there effectively is no "brick wall" in sight.Now i'm no biologist so i'm sure someone will come along and explain this a whole lot better than me (and maybe even make corrections to what i've said), but I think my basic point is valid.

quote:

---

Do you still agree that these are accurate?

---

For face value, yes.

quote:

---

If so, do you agree there will be more individuals in the next generation that will inherit the beneficial trait, and fewer that will inherit the detrimental trait? And so in the next generation, more individuals will have the beneficial trait and fewer will have the detrimental trait? Or do you have an objection to this?

---

No, not necessarily. For instance, most people that develop cancer don't recieve it before they procreate. Most people get cancer later in life. And whether they die or not, that information is coded in the DNA to the next generation. So, whether they live or die is inconsequential to them passing on this detrimental affliction/information. Therefore, even natural selection has its limitations. In other words, some people are predisposed to certain ailments, yet it doesn't affect their ability to procreate.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Do you still agree that these are accurate?

---

​

For face value, yes.

---

So we'll continue on for now. We can revisit these points later if you decide that these points are problematic.-

quote:

---

For instance, most people that develop cancer don't recieve it before they procreate. Most people get cancer later in life. And whether they die or not, that information is coded in the DNA to the next generation.

---

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.Sorry for the confusion. In biology these terms have a very precise meaning, and like in the other sciences it is possible to confuse these words with the ordinary colloquial meanins in every-day speech.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.What do you think?

---

"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)

Yes, natural selection only cares that some reproduction takes place, after a suitable time, it doesn't matter. I haven't read it yet, but I hear that this source talks about evolution and senescence. Its an old paper, but well worth a look I believe.

quote:

---

The problem with your safe analogy is that the lock in the safe is a static, unchanging object. The genome is not. Every time an organism reproduces there is the possibility that the genes it passes on will be altered.

---

I agree that the 'safe' analogy is a crude model, but it provides us a basis for understanding it theoretically. The genome, however, is what it is. There is a maximum number of variables that it can possess in any given specimen. Octopi DNA is different from human DNA. There is a gulf between the two that is inviolate. What that means is, if you have AB, you could concievably get BA, AA, or BB, but how in the world are you going to get ABC, if C doesn't exist somewhere in the genome already, even in junk DNA? But macroevolution is dependent on making a C where a C doesn't exist and moreover, can't exist.

quote:

---

Chromosomes can split apart, the can join together, single amino acids can be switched for other amino acids. All of this leads to a varying length of the genome and the emergence of new traits that weren't there before.

---

New traits comes simply changing the order, not inserting genetic coding that doesn't already exist. Even 'genetic insertion' is misleading. You aren't really inserting truly new information. You are inserting something that wasn't in that placement before, or you are replicating. This is a far cry from pulling the 'C' chromosome from thin air. Now, it should be noted that most animals have, for the most part, similar DNA. Humans share 97.5% DNA similarity with a chimp. In the same token, they share 96.5% similarity with a field mouse and 52% DNA with a banana! That doesn't mean that any one of us evolved from fruit.

quote:

---

Now it's true that the genome of populations is never infinitely long so there will never be an infinite number of combinations, but the actual number of combinations is going to be very very large. It doesn't take much of a change to alter the organism (in fact changing a single amino acid could make a meaningful change), so there effectively is no "brick wall" in sight.

---

Oh, I agree that the possible combiniations are inconceivably great, much more than the 'combination safe.' But if you have the number 100, there is a finite number of combinations available to you. Therefore, there really is a brick wall. But I also agree that a seemingly modicum of change can have irrepairable consequences. But that's another you need to consider. The vast preponderance of genetic mutations are either neutral or horrifically detrimental.