Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 80 (8960 total)
121 online now:
Coragyps, dwise1, Faith, jar, JonF, PaulK, Percy (Admin), ringo, Theodoric, Thugpreacha (AdminPhat) (10 members, 111 visitors)
Newest Member: Mikee
Post Volume: Total: 869,189 Year: 937/23,288 Month: 937/1,851 Week: 60/321 Day: 22/38 Hour: 8/5


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evolution is True Because Life Needs It
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16107
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 46 of 188 (652622)
02-15-2012 5:23 AM
Reply to: Message 45 by Portillo
02-15-2012 4:19 AM


Genetic mutations are mostly harmful. The beneficial ones are relatively minor changes with no evidence they can produce new species. Its easy to explain how the beak of a finch changed when it experienced a new environment, but that does not remotely illustrate a process capable of making finches in the first place.

Can you give me an example of how small changes can turn a shrew into a human?

By consequence of there being lots of them, adding up to a big change.

This is trivially true. If you make enough small changes to the genome of a shrew-like animal, you'll get the genome of a human. If you make enough small changes to the genome of a dinosaur, you'll get the genome of a finch. If you make enough small changes to the text of Moby Dick, you'll get the text of A Tale Of Two Cities. If you make enough small changes to the shape of a square, you'll get the shape of a circle. This is clearly the case.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Portillo, posted 02-15-2012 4:19 AM Portillo has not yet responded

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 2093 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 47 of 188 (652624)
02-15-2012 5:50 AM
Reply to: Message 45 by Portillo
02-15-2012 4:19 AM


Portillo writes:

Can you give me an example of how small changes can turn a shrew into a human?


Sure.
I will not list the all the hundreds of thousands of small changes (because that would take weeks), but here is a summary...

Slightly less hair. Slightly less hair. Slightly less hair. Slightly less hair. Slightly less hair. Slightly less hair. Slightly less hair. Slightly less hair. Slightly less hair. Slightly less hair. Slightly less hair. Slightly less hair. Slightly less hair. Slightly less hair. Slightly less hair. Slightly less hair. Slightly less hair. Slightly less hair. Slightly less hair. Slightly less hair. Slightly less hair. Slightly less hair. Slightly less hair. Slightly less hair. Slightly less hair. Slightly less hair. Slightly less hair. Slightly less hair. Slightly less hair. Slightly less hair. Slightly less hair. Slightly less hair. Slightly less hair. Slightly less hair. Slightly less hair. Slightly less hair. Slightly less hair. Slightly less hair. Slightly less hair. Slightly less hair. Slightly less hair. Slightly less hair. Slightly less hair. Slightly less hair.
Slightly larger body. Slightly larger body. Slightly larger body. Slightly larger body. Slightly larger body. Slightly larger body. Slightly larger body. Slightly larger body. Slightly larger body. Slightly larger body. Slightly larger body. Slightly larger body. Slightly larger body. Slightly larger body. Slightly larger body. Slightly larger body. Slightly larger body. Slightly larger body. Slightly larger body. Slightly larger body. Slightly larger body. Slightly larger body. Slightly larger body. Slightly larger body. Slightly larger body. Slightly larger body. Slightly larger body. Slightly larger body. Slightly larger body. Slightly larger body. Slightly larger body. Slightly larger body. Slightly larger body. Slightly larger body. Slightly larger body. Slightly larger body.
Slightly longer limbs. Slightly longer limbs. Slightly longer limbs. Slightly longer limbs. Slightly longer limbs. Slightly longer limbs. Slightly longer limbs. Slightly longer limbs. Slightly longer limbs. Slightly longer limbs. Slightly longer limbs. Slightly longer limbs. Slightly longer limbs. Slightly longer limbs. Slightly longer limbs. Slightly longer limbs. Slightly longer limbs. Slightly longer limbs. Slightly longer limbs. Slightly longer limbs. Slightly longer limbs. Slightly longer limbs. Slightly longer limbs. Slightly longer limbs. Slightly longer limbs. Slightly longer limbs. Slightly longer limbs. Slightly longer limbs. Slightly longer limbs. Slightly longer limbs. Slightly longer limbs. Slightly longer limbs. Slightly longer limbs. Slightly longer limbs. Slightly longer limbs.
Slightly less twitchy nose. Slightly less twitchy nose. Slightly less twitchy nose. Slightly less twitchy nose. Slightly less twitchy nose. Slightly less twitchy nose. Slightly less twitchy nose. Slightly less twitchy nose. Slightly less twitchy nose. Slightly less twitchy nose. Slightly less twitchy nose. Slightly less twitchy nose. Slightly less twitchy nose. Slightly less twitchy nose. Slightly less twitchy nose. Slightly less twitchy nose. Slightly less twitchy nose. Slightly less twitchy nose. Slightly less twitchy nose. Slightly less twitchy nose. Slightly less twitchy nose. Slightly less twitchy nose. Slightly less twitchy nose. Slightly less twitchy nose.
Slightly larger brain. Slightly larger brain. Slightly larger brain. Slightly larger brain. Slightly larger brain. Slightly larger brain. Slightly larger brain. Slightly larger brain. Slightly larger brain. Slightly larger brain. Slightly larger brain. Slightly larger brain. Slightly larger brain. Slightly larger brain. Slightly larger brain. Slightly larger brain. Slightly larger brain. Slightly larger brain. Slightly larger brain. Slightly larger brain. Slightly larger brain. Slightly larger brain. Slightly larger brain. Slightly larger brain. Slightly larger brain. Slightly larger brain. Slightly larger brain. Slightly larger brain. Slightly larger brain. Slightly larger brain. Slightly larger brain. Slightly larger brain. Slightly larger brain. Slightly larger brain. Slightly larger brain. Slightly larger brain. Slightly larger brain. Slightly larger brain.
etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.

Edited by Panda, : Corrected incorrect quote source. Sorry PD.


If I were you
And I wish that I were you
All the things I'd do
To make myself turn blue

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Portillo, posted 02-15-2012 4:19 AM Portillo has not yet responded

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 2093 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 48 of 188 (652627)
02-15-2012 6:13 AM
Reply to: Message 45 by Portillo
02-15-2012 4:19 AM


Portillo writes:

Can you give me an example of how small changes can turn a shrew into a human?


Do you accept that this:

evolved into this:

?

If I were you
And I wish that I were you
All the things I'd do
To make myself turn blue

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Portillo, posted 02-15-2012 4:19 AM Portillo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by Portillo, posted 02-17-2012 10:17 PM Panda has responded

  
Wounded King
Member (Idle past 2475 days)
Posts: 4149
From: Edinburgh, Scotland
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 49 of 188 (652629)
02-15-2012 7:14 AM
Reply to: Message 45 by Portillo
02-15-2012 4:19 AM


Genetic mutations are mostly harmful.

Care to provide some evidence for this bare assertion?

TTFN,

WK


This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Portillo, posted 02-15-2012 4:19 AM Portillo has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 19229
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 50 of 188 (652656)
02-15-2012 10:17 AM
Reply to: Message 45 by Portillo
02-15-2012 4:19 AM


Portillo writes:

Genetic mutations are mostly harmful. The beneficial ones are relatively minor changes with no evidence they can produce new species.

Actually, most mutations are neutral, but of those that have a non-neutral effect you are correct that they are mostly harmful. And you are also correct that beneficial mutations produce only minor changes. Across a single generation and in the absence of detailed genetic analysis I would argue that beneficial mutations produce such minor changes that they are undetectable.

But there is one big difference between harmful and beneficial mutations: over the course of generations, harmful mutations tend to be removed from a population, while beneficial ones tend to accumulate.

Let's assume, for the sake of discussion, that you are correct that we have insufficient evidence to conclude that relatively minor changes can accumulate over time and transform one species into another. We'll just leave the issue of evidence for actual speciation aside for the time being.

So given that beneficial mutations accumulate, we would expect organisms to become increasingly well adapted to their environment. And given that environments are not constant but change over time, we would expect species to change in order to stay adapted to their environment. We would expect an evolving population would at some point have experienced sufficient change that its members would no longer be able to breed with members of the original population (which may or may not still exist). Once this occurs, we have a new species.

Can you give me an example of how small changes can turn a shrew into a human?

Well of course shrew's and humans share a common ancestor way way back, but I assume you understand that human's did not evolve from shrews.

I'm not really sure how to answer your question. A series of small steps can carry you from New York to San Francisco. A sculptor can transform a rock from a block into a statue by a series of small chisel strikes. An animator can transform an image of a shrew into an image of a human by a series of tiny changes, and in fact a number of movies have shown gradual transformations, for instance, humans into werewolves at the full moon.

So where is the difficulty in conceiving of small changes, caused by tiny beneficial mutations, accumulating over time to transform a shrew into a human (again, with the understanding that this isn't something that any evidence tells us has ever happened). I could think about this a bit and come up with a list of minor changes (each change representing hundreds of generations) whereby a shrew population could evolve into a human population, but I don't understand the need. Is there something about a slow transformation from shrew to human that seems impossible to you?

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Portillo, posted 02-15-2012 4:19 AM Portillo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by Invader Scooch, posted 02-15-2012 4:50 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply
 Message 52 by Portillo, posted 02-17-2012 9:52 PM Percy has responded

  
Invader Scooch
Junior Member (Idle past 2796 days)
Posts: 11
From: Infiltrating Earth
Joined: 12-17-2011


Message 51 of 188 (652720)
02-15-2012 4:50 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by Percy
02-15-2012 10:17 AM


Wow
I step out for a while and look at what happens! Its like not weeding your garden for a few weeks lol
Thanks for all the replys, I have been very busy these past months.

I have had only time to skim over everyone's replies, and I really have only one response:

Just as a cell is a foundation of all life, so is there a fundamental foundation, a basic unit per say, for the process of evolution. The change of a finch to a short beak to a finch with a long beak is just one of these units.

The process is long and no one can really say it hasn't happened. Most fossils showing major change (synapsids, whales, dinosaurs) are spaced out millions of years from each other. While most observable human mutations are bad, over time they may lead to a new form if isolated from the rest of the world.

Take for instance, the Amish. In breeding among their community has caused an above average cases of six-fingered people in that community. That is simply because they have isolated themselves and their gene pool.

Another good example is the dodo bird, the poster child for extinct species. This animal lived on an isolated island where it was the top creature and had virtually no competition, so it lost its capability of flight over succesive generations and walked around, making it easy pickings for the people who would overhunt it. (Other islands, like New Zealand, have similar cases).

Evolution is purely a product of the enviroment and its stresses.
While one change of a beak on a finch does not seem significant to the casual observer, it may lead to some major evolutionary change down the road.

There. I posted. Happy, Percy? lol


My tallest, I will fill the Earth with snacks!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Percy, posted 02-15-2012 10:17 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply

  
Portillo
Member (Idle past 2541 days)
Posts: 258
Joined: 11-14-2010


Message 52 of 188 (653081)
02-17-2012 9:52 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by Percy
02-15-2012 10:17 AM


Well of course shrew's and humans share a common ancestor way way back, but I assume you understand that human's did not evolve from shrews.

From what I understand, tree shrews evolved into apes and apes into humans.

Is there something about a slow transformation from shrew to human that seems impossible to you?

Yes, because the evolution between shrews and humans has not been observed. There is no mechanism that can transform a shrew into a human. Transformations like that never occur, they arent recorded in the fossil record nor can they be seen in nature or demonstrated in the laboratory. It exists only in the imagination of the evolutionist. Because the mechanism that is cited in all the textbooks, is Darwins finches and the peppered moths. Small cyclical changes that never change the animals into something fundamentally different.


And the conspiracy was strong, for the people increased continually - 2 Samuel 15:12

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Percy, posted 02-15-2012 10:17 AM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by Modulous, posted 02-17-2012 10:17 PM Portillo has not yet responded
 Message 56 by Percy, posted 02-17-2012 10:49 PM Portillo has not yet responded
 Message 57 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-17-2012 11:24 PM Portillo has not yet responded

  
Modulous
Member (Idle past 485 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 53 of 188 (653088)
02-17-2012 10:17 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by Portillo
02-17-2012 9:52 PM


From what I understand, tree shrews evolved into apes and apes into humans.

Shrew-like mammals. Not actually shrews.

quote:
Now the discovery of a partial skeleton of a small, shrewlike mammal, described online in Nature in August 2011, pushes back the date of the divergence by 30 million years, to 160 million years ago. Found in the famous fossil beds of Liaoning, China, the newly discovered little mammal has been named Juramaia sinensis, or "Jurassic mother from China."

Yes, because the evolution between shrews and humans has not been observed.

What has been observed is that shrews and humans share a common ancestor (through two classes of sources: Morphology and Genetics). What has been observed is that the earliest mammals were small rodentish things.

There is no mechanism that can transform a shrew into a human.

Changes accruing in the genome, which in turn leads to an accruing change in the phenome (body shape). With a pruning process to weed out certain phenomes.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by Portillo, posted 02-17-2012 9:52 PM Portillo has not yet responded

  
Portillo
Member (Idle past 2541 days)
Posts: 258
Joined: 11-14-2010


Message 54 of 188 (653089)
02-17-2012 10:17 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by Panda
02-15-2012 6:13 AM


Do you accept that this

evolved into this?


Thats variation within a fundamentally stable species. Common examples of variation within species includes dog breeding, pigeon breeding, orchid breeding and rose cultivation. This type of change is often extrapolated to explain a process capable of creating dogs, pigeons and plants in the first place.


And the conspiracy was strong, for the people increased continually - 2 Samuel 15:12

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Panda, posted 02-15-2012 6:13 AM Panda has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by Panda, posted 02-17-2012 10:37 PM Portillo has responded

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 2093 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 55 of 188 (653092)
02-17-2012 10:37 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by Portillo
02-17-2012 10:17 PM


Portillo writes:

Thats variation within a fundamentally stable species. Common examples of variation within species includes dog breeding, pigeon breeding, orchid breeding and rose cultivation. This type of change is often extrapolated to explain a process capable of creating dogs, pigeons and plants in the first place.


But do you accept that wolves evolved into chihuahuas?

And was my list of "how small changes can turn a shrew into a human" detailed enough?

Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

Edited by Panda, : No reason given.


If I were you
And I wish that I were you
All the things I'd do
To make myself turn blue

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by Portillo, posted 02-17-2012 10:17 PM Portillo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by Portillo, posted 02-17-2012 11:51 PM Panda has responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 19229
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.3


(1)
Message 56 of 188 (653093)
02-17-2012 10:49 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by Portillo
02-17-2012 9:52 PM


Portillo writes:

From what I understand, tree shrews evolved into apes and apes into humans.

You've misunderstood something you've read. Tree shrews and humans share a common ancestor millions and millions of years ago. Maybe that common ancestor looked somewhat like a modern tree shrew, maybe not, we don't know for sure. We're not even sure whether tree shrews should be classified as primates or not.

But one thing we do know for sure: humans did not evolve from one of the modern species of tree shrew - they didn't exist millions of years ago.

That being said, it is a perfectly reasonable speculation that a very early ancestor of humans looked somewhat like a modern tree shrew, so let's move on to the rest of your message.

Is there something about a slow transformation from shrew to human that seems impossible to you?

Yes, because the evolution between shrews and humans has not been observed.

Processes that take far longer than human lifetimes and can't have eyewitnesses are to you impossible? We've never observed Pluto make a full revolution around the sun (it takes 248 years and was only discovered in 1930), so do you doubt it orbits the sun? We've never observed an electron, do you doubt they exist? We've never observed heaven, does that make it impossible?

You're again ignoring what people say. I said I could make a list of small changes, but to what point because we're very familiar with transformations, and I provided several examples of things being transformed in tiny steps, like long walking journeys, sculpting and animation. Panda actually did provide a list of small changes. What is it about the accumulation of small changes that seems impossible to you?

--Percy

Edited by Percy, : Grammar.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by Portillo, posted 02-17-2012 9:52 PM Portillo has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16107
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 57 of 188 (653095)
02-17-2012 11:24 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by Portillo
02-17-2012 9:52 PM


Yes, because the evolution between shrews and humans has not been observed. There is no mechanism that can transform a shrew into a human.

See message 46.

Transformations like that never occur, they arent recorded in the fossil record ...

Bollocks.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by Portillo, posted 02-17-2012 9:52 PM Portillo has not yet responded

  
Portillo
Member (Idle past 2541 days)
Posts: 258
Joined: 11-14-2010


Message 58 of 188 (653098)
02-17-2012 11:51 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by Panda
02-17-2012 10:37 PM


quote:
But do you accept that wolves evolved into chihuahuas?

Yes. Through wolves came domestic dogs and with natural selection, selective breeding, and artificial selection, we get a wide variety of dogs, both wild and domestic.


And the conspiracy was strong, for the people increased continually - 2 Samuel 15:12

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by Panda, posted 02-17-2012 10:37 PM Panda has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by Panda, posted 02-18-2012 5:42 AM Portillo has not yet responded
 Message 60 by Percy, posted 02-18-2012 8:05 AM Portillo has not yet responded
 Message 63 by Panda, posted 02-20-2012 5:48 AM Portillo has responded

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 2093 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 59 of 188 (653108)
02-18-2012 5:42 AM
Reply to: Message 58 by Portillo
02-17-2012 11:51 PM


Next question...
Portillo writes:

Yes. Through wolves came domestic dogs and with natural selection, selective breeding, and artificial selection, we get a wide variety of dogs, both wild and domestic.


Ok, you accept that some major physical changes can happen during evolution.
e.g. from large to small, from hairy to hairless.

Next question...

Do you accept that this:

could evolve into this:


?

(p.s. This is not some kind of 'Gotcha' where I make you say a word and then jump on you for saying it. It is simply better for you to take your own steps towards the answer than have me push the answer towards you.)

Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

Edited by Panda, : No reason given.


If I were you
And I wish that I were you
All the things I'd do
To make myself turn blue

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by Portillo, posted 02-17-2012 11:51 PM Portillo has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 19229
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 60 of 188 (653111)
02-18-2012 8:05 AM
Reply to: Message 58 by Portillo
02-17-2012 11:51 PM


Portillo writes:

Yes. Through wolves came domestic dogs and with natural selection, selective breeding, and artificial selection, we get a wide variety of dogs, both wild and domestic.

You understand that wolves became chihuahuas through a series of tiny changes. They became smaller, the fur became shorter and finer and the color changed, the tail curled, and after maybe 10,000 years the wolf on the left became a chihuahua on the right:

So obviously you accept that tiny changes can accumulate into larger changes, but somehow you're drawing a limit at how much change can accumulate and claiming that even after 60,000,000 years (that's 60,000 times more change than it took for a wolf to beome a chihuahua) that something that resembled a tree shrew could not become a human being:

So for you a little change is okay, a lot of change is impossible. Why?

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by Portillo, posted 02-17-2012 11:51 PM Portillo has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by Invader Scooch, posted 02-19-2012 4:57 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2020