If Evolution interrupts evolution, what happens?

[Gottservant]

So I am basically still avoiding evolutionists at the moment, because medication makes it difficult to really endure big arguments. The thing is I realised that there is a big stumbling block to understanding how Evolution works and it emphasizes a point I have repeatedly made that Evolution basically has nothing to guide it.

What happens if Evolution interrupts Evolution?

Say you mutate something and then you mutate again, do you adapt even better than before, or do the two mutations conflict? What happens when they conflict? How do you direct mutations so that they don't conflict? Is this even possible? Doesn't your immune system just weed them out regardless? How does your immune system know "ok this mutation will succeed, let it grow, this mutation will fail, let it die, and stop them interacting in case its good but too good for where I'm at now"?

You know what I'm saying?

Like it's a lot more complex than just saying "I will mutate bit by bit", that just does not do it justice. If you mutate even once more in roughly the same amount of time, it gets this complicated. How do Evolutionists deal with this? Surely they see it is a ridiculous pipedream when it comes to being this complicated?

I don't know, what do you think?

 

[Assyrian]

Depends on the mutations. Antibiotic resistance used to mean these bacteria only had an advantage where there was antibiotic present. Without antibiotics in the environment these bacteria reproduced more slowly than the original strain. In other words the the mutation came with both advantages and disadvantages. Since then the antibiotic resistant bacteria have changed again. A new genetic change means not only are they antibiotic resistant, but they can out compete non resistant bacteria even where there is no antibiotic around.

But it isn't evolution interrupting evolution, it is still variation and selection.

 

[gluadys]

So I am basically still avoiding evolutionists at the moment, because medication makes it difficult to really endure big arguments. The thing is I realised that there is a big stumbling block to understanding how Evolution works and it emphasizes a point I have repeatedly made that Evolution basically has nothing to guide it.

What happens if Evolution interrupts Evolution?

Say you mutate something and then you mutate again, do you adapt even better than before, or do the two mutations conflict? What happens when they conflict? How do you direct mutations so that they don't conflict? Is this even possible? Doesn't your immune system just weed them out regardless? How does your immune system know "ok this mutation will succeed, let it grow, this mutation will fail, let it die, and stop them interacting in case its good but too good for where I'm at now"?

You know what I'm saying?

I am not sure you know what you are saying. But I can tell you that this is where it is important to discriminate between what happens to an organism and what is happening in a population.

When you say "say you mutate something and then you mutate again" do you mean two mutations in the same organism or in the same population, but to different members of the population?

You refer to the immune system, but the immune system does not react to mutations. Mutations are not invaders. What happens with mutations is one of three things:

1. there is no selection one way or the other (most common) in which case members of the population which carry the mutation simply display a variation (like blue eyes vs. brown eyes) with no ill effects.

2. there is selection against the mutation (next most common) in which case members of the population which carry the mutation have less success in surviving and reproducing than others (like light-coloured moths in a soot-blackened landscape vs, dark-colored moths in the same landscape).

3. there is selection in favour of the mutation (least common, but most important) in which case members of the population which carry the mutation have greater success in surviving and reproducing than others (like white Arctic foxes in a snow-covered landscape vs. red foxes in the same landscape). In this case, soon all members of the population will be born with the camouflage as most of the survivors each generation will inherit it.

Like it's a lot more complex than just saying "I will mutate bit by bit", that just does not do it justice. If you mutate even once more in roughly the same amount of time, it gets this complicated.

You see, you are looking at the situation as if it has to occur in an organism--in one individual with a single lifespan. That is why you are considering "in the same amount of time". But evolution happens in populations. Mutations produce different variations in different members of the population. Selection determines which mutations spread through the population through inheritance. The mutations don't have to occur in the same individual at the same time.

When mutations produce variations which are harmful, selection against those mutations keeps them from spreading to many others.

If you are trying to get a handle on evolution, you have to get away from thinking "what happens to this or that individual organism" and start thinking of populations and generations. How does the distribution of variations in a population change from generation to generation. That is evolution. That is how "evolutionists" handle your questions.

And it is complicated. I understand it is hard to follow, especially if you are not accustomed to thinking in terms of population trends over generations.

 

[mark kennedy]

So I am basically still avoiding evolutionists at the moment, because medication makes it difficult to really endure big arguments. The thing is I realised that there is a big stumbling block to understanding how Evolution works and it emphasizes a point I have repeatedly made that Evolution basically has nothing to guide it.

What happens if Evolution interrupts Evolution?

Say you mutate something and then you mutate again, do you adapt even better than before, or do the two mutations conflict? What happens when they conflict? How do you direct mutations so that they don't conflict? Is this even possible? Doesn't your immune system just weed them out regardless? How does your immune system know "ok this mutation will succeed, let it grow, this mutation will fail, let it die, and stop them interacting in case its good but too good for where I'm at now"?

You know what I'm saying?

Like it's a lot more complex than just saying "I will mutate bit by bit", that just does not do it justice. If you mutate even once more in roughly the same amount of time, it gets this complicated. How do Evolutionists deal with this? Surely they see it is a ridiculous pipedream when it comes to being this complicated?

I don't know, what do you think?

I think the concept of 'mutation' has made this a little cumbersome for you. A mutation includes not only malformed genes but any adaptation requiring a change in the code. It has such a general term that it blends very different processes. When a new environment is encountered and the population starts evolving, genes can get turned on and off, gene regulation can change, molecular mechanisms can swap out reading frames in protein coding genes. That's highly simplistic but there are actual process, not everything related to adaptive changes are random mutations, God's creation isn't a mutation slot machine.

If your in one of your reflective moods and meditating some cool morning I would like to suggest a possible theme to consider. The most diverse places on earth are the rain forests where there is an abundance of resources. Natural selection is about competition for dwindling resources but the real divergence comes from abundance. Something else, Darwin mentions almost in passing, something he called mutual affinities. It's the way different species have a tendency to depend on one another for what they need.

Evolution (literally 'unfolding') is about life changing in panorama, or to mimic a Biblical phrase, in 'all it's vast array'. Unity in nature is always better then competition and plenty better then famine or disaster. You are wise to avoid debate, divisive and contentious dialogues rarely improve the understanding of delicate subject matter.

However, evolutionary biology is a fascinating subject and genetics is one of the youngest sciences in the world and arguably, one of the most important. Don't let the debate aspect of the subject matter keep you from it. It's profoundly informative and well worth the trouble in learn the life sciences, even if the academic and scientific community want to be stingy about giving God credit for it.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[Gottservant]

Thanks for your replies, I will think about them.

I still don't think arbitrary distinctions about what is a population and what is not, helps.

God is not a respecter of persons.

 

[gluadys]

Thanks for your replies, I will think about them.

I still don't think arbitrary distinctions about what is a population and what is not, helps.

God is not a respecter of persons.

Indeed, God is not a respecter of persons, nor of populations either.

I use "population" to avoid being arbitrary. One can get derailed into discussions of little worth debating whether a particular population is a variety, a species or a family or any other rank in the Linnean scale. But "population" is a flexible term that applies to any and all of these groups.

There is nothing arbitrary about distinguishing between "one" and "more than one".

Organism=1 Population = >1.

Here is a way I remember the differences in evolution-related phenomena

mutations happen in molecules of DNA
variation occurs in individual organisms, distinguishing one member of a population from another.
selection happens in a population
Selection is what drives evolution.

Selection can drive two parts of a population in different directions, thus generating new species. This is speciation.


Those four phenomena interacting over and over again, are responsible for most biodiversity.

 

[pshun2404]

So my daughter Salome who is resistant to all "cyllins" is a new species?

 

[Assyrian]

You are a bacterium?

 

[gluadys]

So my daughter Salome who is resistant to all "cyllins" is a new species?

No, she is a variant. She has a characteristic not common to other members of her species.

But since she is 1) not a population and 2) not reproductively isolated, she is not a new species.


A species is generally a new group, a population, not a single individual.

She could be the progenitor of a new species, though.

 

[bushinoki]

In relation to this thread, I think the greatest example I saw was on "Through the Wormhole" with Morgan Freeman. The geneticist was talking about how often "Evolution" seemed to lead to dead ends. In order to demonstrate, he talked about trying to get to a particular restaurant using a four sided di, marked G, C, T and A. Each letter was designated a direction, and at each intersection he would roll the di (he would reroll if the direction wasn't available on a three way intersection). They never showed him making it to the restaurant. But they did demonstrate that it could take quite awhile to reach a specific conclusion depending solely on evolution. That was when I started leaning to a more literal interpretation (again) of the first week in Genesis.

In short, according to the theory, when evolution interrupts evolution, you have a dead end niche species that will die out when its' niche is no longer viable to support that population.

 

[Armoured]

You know what I'm saying?

Individually, every word makes perfect sense.

 

[gluadys]

In relation to this thread, I think the greatest example I saw was on "Through the Wormhole" with Morgan Freeman. The geneticist was talking about how often "Evolution" seemed to lead to dead ends. In order to demonstrate, he talked about trying to get to a particular restaurant using a four sided di, marked G, C, T and A. Each letter was designated a direction, and at each intersection he would roll the di (he would reroll if the direction wasn't available on a three way intersection). They never showed him making it to the restaurant. But they did demonstrate that it could take quite awhile to reach a specific conclusion depending solely on evolution. That was when I started leaning to a more literal interpretation (again) of the first week in Genesis.

In short, according to the theory, when evolution interrupts evolution, you have a dead end niche species that will die out when its' niche is no longer viable to support that population.

And, indeed, there are more extinct species than living species.

This is why scientists say evolutionary change is not aimed at producing any particular species. New species are a product of evolution (the geneticist may not have arrived at the chosen restaurant, but he did arrive at many other places), but no particular species is a goal of evolution.

That, of course, is assuming that God is not directing evolution in any way. No doubt, if God intends for a particular species to be, it will evolve.