How do opossums fit into evolution?

[Split Rock]

In response to these two posts:

Have you ever seen the show on TLC called "Little People Big World"? It was about a husband and wife who are little people and it followed their daily lives and their family. They have two boys and one girl. One of the boys and the girl are "normal" size and the other boy is a little person. Now, even though both the parents have a mutation in their genes to make them be little people, that genetic trait was not passed on to two thirds of their offspring. So in response to your first post, even though both parents had that mutation to make them short, that did not pass on to but one of their offspring. In response to your second post, we find the children do NOT have the same mutation their parents had. An interesting fact aired once a week for several seasons.


In Christ, Gb

Now you are mixing up genotype and phenotype. Mutations affect genotype, but may not affect phenotype. In other words, a mutation may not express itself in a particular generation as a change in phenotype (what we see). This is why recessive traits often "skip a generation." The phenotype often depends on both pairs of genes at a particular locus, not just one. Also, a trait may be quantitative, or dependent on multiple gene loci (an example is height).

 

[Loudmouth]

It was about a husband and wife who are little people and it followed their daily lives and their family. They have two boys and one girl. One of the boys and the girl are "normal" size and the other boy is a little person. Now, even though both the parents have a mutation in their genes to make them be little people, that genetic trait was not passed on to two thirds of their offspring.

I learned how to use Punnett squares when I was in 6th grade. Are they not teaching that anymore?

This is not an example of a mutation being fixed. It is an example of meiosis in action.

 

[Loudmouth]

Is it just me, or is good brother Gish Galloping all over the place?

I think it is GB's lack of basic knowledge in the field of genetics that is making this thread difficult.

 

[good brother]

Is it just me, or is good brother Gish Galloping all over the place?

"If you can't beat 'em, start calling 'em names." Thanks for the Ad hom!

I have presented one point at a time in ALL my posts and have far more evolutionists outnumbering me, and still this is what it boils down to. Name calling. I present one topic at a time for discussion and you call it "Gish Gallopping" instead of addressing the one issue at hand. I have not inundated any opponent with a plethora of points or storehouse of knowledge, but have flowed with the conversation this thread has initiated and stayed with it ever since.

If you don't care to address the issue at hand, I suggest another thread.

Thank you.

In Christ, GB

 

[Loudmouth]

"If you can't beat 'em, start calling 'em names." Thanks for the Ad hom!

That is not an attack on you. It is an attack on your argument. What he is saying is that you are using red herrings to distract from the original argument. That is what a Gish Gallop is, a long string of red herrings.

 

[Doveaman]

Many (most?) predators are primarily interested in live prey, and will avoid scavenging. For their prey, pretending to be dead may provide a selective advantage. That's the hypothesis, anyway -- it's a question that has to be answered empirically. As far as I can tell, only one study has been done on the subject. It looked at red flour beetles and determined that strains that feign death longer are indeed at a reproductive advantage.

This sounds like a lesson in animal behavior, not evolution.

 

[Loudmouth]

This sounds like a lesson in animal behavior, not evolution.

We are talking about instinctual behavior which is heritable. Evolution describes how heritable traits arise and become dominant in a population. That is what we were asked about, so that is the information we are providing.

 

[Belk]

"If you can't beat 'em, start calling 'em names." Thanks for the Ad hom!

I have presented one point at a time in ALL my posts and have far more evolutionists outnumbering me, and still this is what it boils down to. Name calling. I present one topic at a time for discussion and you call it "Gish Gallopping" instead of addressing the one issue at hand. I have not inundated any opponent with a plethora of points or storehouse of knowledge, but have flowed with the conversation this thread has initiated and stayed with it ever since.

If you don't care to address the issue at hand, I suggest another thread.

Thank you.

In Christ, GB

An ad hominem is a specific form of logical fallacy. Ad hominem - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

An insult is not an ad hominem.

Describing a behavior would not be calling someone names.

 

[Doveaman]

We are talking about instinctual behavior which is heritable. Evolution describes how heritable traits arise and become dominant in a population. That is what we were asked about, so that is the information we are providing.

It's due to the evolution of animal behavior, sure. But not to biological evolution. The deer in the headlights is not due to biological evolution, it's just animal behavior.

 

[Loudmouth]

It's due to the evolution of animal behavior, sure. But not to biological evolution.

The OP is asking how this heritable trait could have evolved.

 

[Lion Hearted Man]

"If you can't beat 'em, start calling 'em names." Thanks for the Ad hom!

I have presented one point at a time in ALL my posts and have far more evolutionists outnumbering me, and still this is what it boils down to. Name calling. I present one topic at a time for discussion and you call it "Gish Gallopping" instead of addressing the one issue at hand. I have not inundated any opponent with a plethora of points or storehouse of knowledge, but have flowed with the conversation this thread has initiated and stayed with it ever since.

If you don't care to address the issue at hand, I suggest another thread.

Thank you.

In Christ, GB

Gish Galloping is spouting off lots of arguments in a string and then moving on, refusing to respond to challenges made to those arguments. For example, several people completely refuted your claims about DNA repair and you don't even acknowledge it.

An ad hominem would be to attack you personally. Where have I done that? Since when does calling someone out on a fallacy suddenly equate to an ad hominem?

 

[good brother]

An ad hominem is a specific form of logical fallacy. Ad hominem - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

An insult is not an ad hominem.

I found this under the definition you gave me:

"An ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"), short for argumentum ad hominem, is an attempt to negate the truth of a claim by pointing out a negative characteristic or belief of the person supporting it"


​

By stating I was "Gish Gallopping", Lionhearted was attempting to attack me by saying that I was merely doing the following by:

"The Gish Gallop is a skeptics' jargon term, named after creationist Duane Gish, for the debating technique of drowning the opponent in such a torrent of half-truths, lies, and straw-man arguments that the opponent cannot possibly answer every falsehood in real time." -RationalWiki

​

He is therefore calling me a purveyor of lies, half truths, and strawman arguments instead of dealing with the subject at hand. I don't have to outrightly call a person a pig to say that they look and smell like one, but everyone knows what I mean.

Instead of simply addressing the one point I made in the post, Lion went the direction he did which was the equivalent of an ad hom.


Anyway, let's drop this and discuss the topic at hand.


In Christ, GB

 

[Loudmouth]

Anyway, let's drop this and discuss the topic at hand.

That would be a welcome change. We have presented observations that children are born with mutations. We also show that DNA repair mechanisms are not able to change mutations in children by looking at their parent's DNA.

So do you agree or disagree that mutations happen?

 

[Lion Hearted Man]

I found this under the definition you gave me:

"An ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"), short for argumentum ad hominem, is an attempt to negate the truth of a claim by pointing out a negative characteristic or belief of the person supporting it"


​

By stating I was "Gish Gallopping", Lionhearted was attempting to attack me by saying that I was merely doing the following by:

"The Gish Gallop is a skeptics' jargon term, named after creationist Duane Gish, for the debating technique of drowning the opponent in such a torrent of half-truths, lies, and straw-man arguments that the opponent cannot possibly answer every falsehood in real time." -RationalWiki

​

He is therefore calling me a purveyor of lies, half truths, and strawman arguments instead of dealing with the subject at hand. I don't have to outrightly call a person a pig to say that they look and smell like one, but everyone knows what I mean.

Instead of simply addressing the one point I made in the post, Lion went the direction he did which was the equivalent of an ad hom.

Oh please. RationalWiki is a snarky website, and I specifically had in mind the direct words of the coiner of the phrase (Eugene Scott):

"where the creationist is allowed to run on for 45 minutes or an hour, spewing forth torrents of error that the evolutionist hasn't a prayer of refuting in the format of a debate"

This is exactly what you're doing -- driving by, dropping an argument here or there, and ignoring any criticism.

Here's the deal: DNA repair enzymes do not run counter to the idea that mutations can occur and be passed along to offspring. If DNA repair was flawless, cancer would not exist. Additionally, like what Loudmouth said, when there is a mutation in a germ cell that ends up forming offspring, there is no way for DNA repair enzymes to revert the DNA back to what the parent had.

Good brother, I'm disappointed by the rudeness you've exhibited in this thread. Your demeanor saddens me, because when you first started posting here I thought you had genuine intentions.

 

[good brother]

That would be a welcome change.

Good, then let's do that.

We have presented observations that children are born with mutations. We also show that DNA repair mechanisms are not able to change mutations in children by looking at their parent's DNA.

And I have also shown that the children of parents with mutations do not necessarily carry that same mutation as their parents. Therefore, one cannot say dogmatically that just because a mutation does occur in any given species will that mean that it will always carry on to the next generation as the offspring will always be pulling from two sets of information, not just the one mutated side. If there is a mutation, then there is a chance for it to be rectified by pulling from the other parent's information, by cell suicide, or irreversible cell dormancy. Evos want to say that mutations happen as often as a blink, but there are many safeguards in place to make sure that those mutations don't take over a body that seem to be ignored by evos.

So do you agree or disagree that mutations happen?

Mutations happen all the time. Elephant man. Turtle boy. Two toed people of Africa. What's your point?


In Christ, GB

 

[Split Rock]

And I have also shown that the children of parents with mutations do not necessarily carry that same mutation as their parents. Therefore, one cannot say dogmatically that just because a mutation does occur in any given species will that mean that it will always carry on to the next generation as the offspring will always be pulling from two sets of information, not just the one mutated side. If there is a mutation, then there is a chance for it to be rectified by pulling from the other parent's information, by cell suicide, or irreversible cell dormancy. Evos want to say that mutations happen as often as a blink, but there are many safeguards in place to make sure that those mutations don't take over a body that seem to be ignored by evos.

If a mutation confers a beneficial phenotype that improves fitness, it will be selected for and tend to increase in a population. That is what you are ignoring.

 

[Lion Hearted Man]

Good, then let's do that.


And I have also shown that the children of parents with mutations do not necessarily carry that same mutation as their parents. Therefore, one cannot say dogmatically that just because a mutation does occur in any given species will that mean that it will always carry on to the next generation as the offspring will always be pulling from two sets of information, not just the one mutated side. If there is a mutation, then there is a chance for it to be rectified by pulling from the other parent's information, by cell suicide, or irreversible cell dormancy. Evos want to say that mutations happen as often as a blink, but there are many safeguards in place to make sure that those mutations don't take over a body that seem to be ignored by evos.

Mutations happen all the time. Elephant man. Turtle boy. Two toed people of Africa. What's your point?


In Christ, GB

Mutations happen, as well as recombination of parental genetic information. The point is this: sexual reproduction generates a lot of diversity. And it is this diversity that selection can act upon.

What we're talking about here are germline mutations, not mutations in a random stem cell or cell line. Only mutations in gametes (eggs, sperm) can be transmitted to future offspring. Sperm are constantly being generated in the testes of males, providing ample opportunity for the slight imperfections of DNA replication (it's not 100% perfect) to generate mutations and be passed on to offspring. Obviously detrimental mutations or problems assembling the DNA (like massive chromosomal imbalances) end pregnancies very quickly. Subtle things can make it through, though. And often times, subtle changes in DNA can alter traits.

And that's why opossums play dead. Mutations, followed by sexual reproduction, generated subtle diversity and variations in behavior in the populations. Turns out the ones that ran got eaten up and the ones that played dead stuck around. The ones that played dead made more babies. Thus, the ones that played dead took over the population.

Does that make sense? Let me know if you're having an issue understanding any of this. It's sometimes difficult to get the molecular biology concepts without formal training in the discipline.

 

[sfs]

And I have also shown that the children of parents with mutations do not necessarily carry that same mutation as their parents.

Of course they don't -- but that has nothing at all to do with your previous claims, which were that error-correcting mechanisms prevent all mutations from happening, and that they can fix mutations in subsequent generations. Those claims were wrong. Do you understand that or not? If you do, then we can turn to your latest idea, which is that not all mutations are passed on to offspring:

Therefore, one cannot say dogmatically that just because a mutation does occur in any given species will that mean that it will always carry on to the next generation as the offspring will always be pulling from two sets of information, not just the one mutated side.

Well, yeah. This is something I would hope you would have learned before high school. (My eighth grader certainly knows it -- I checked.) Do you really think that evolutionary biologists are unaware of this fact?

If there is a mutation, then there is a chance for it to be rectified by pulling from the other parent's information, by cell suicide, or irreversible cell dormancy.

None of those rectify the mutation; they mean the mutation isn't passed on.

Evos want to say that mutations happen as often as a blink, but there are many safeguards in place to make sure that those mutations don't take over a body that seem to be ignored by evos.

You're going off the rails again. The mutations we're talking about are germ cell mutations that appear in offspring, which have already escaped all of these effects. Error-correcting mechanisms catch and fix mutations as they occur. Apoptosis (cell suicide) kills the cell in which a mutation has occurred. In either case, we never see the mutations and we aren't counting them. After these mechanisms have worked, each new human baby is still born with ~50 new mutations, mutations that occurred in his parents' egg and sperm, mutations that are present in every cell in his body. When that baby grows up, he will pass on 25 of these mutations (on average) to each child of his, who will also pick up 25 mutations from her mother, as well as a new 50 mutations of her own. The total number of mutations carried goes up by 50 every generation. These are facts. (Well, the exact number of new mutations varies, and is still a little imprecise, but it's of that order of magnitude.)

Mutations happen all the time. Elephant man. Turtle boy. Two toed people of Africa. What's your point?

Mutations happen much more frequently than that. You have many of them yourself.

 

[rush1169]

And that's why opossums play dead. Mutations, followed by sexual reproduction, generated subtle diversity and variations in behavior in the populations. Turns out the ones that ran got eaten up and the ones that played dead stuck around. The ones that played dead made more babies. Thus, the ones that played dead took over the population.

Put another way:

And that's why <generic animal> has this <specific behavior>. Mutations, follwed by sexual reproduction, generated subtle diversity and variations in behavior in the populations. Turns out the ones that <lacked specific behavior> died and the ones that had this <specific behavior> stuck around. The ones that had this <specific behavior> made more babies. Thus, the ones that had this <specific behavior> took over the population.

So, it doesn't really matter what animal or behavior one is talking about, the answer is always the same.

I guess talking about the specifics of 'playing dead' evolution is too complicated. So, originally survivability of the possum was based on running or fighting but most of them were being killed before they were able to reproduce. One day, one possum decided to give falling over and making himself stink a try - he doesn't know why he tried it, there was just something different in his instinct - and viola', he survived and passed on that instinct. Sounds good to me.

 

[sfs]

Put another way:

And that's why <generic animal> has this <specific behavior>. Mutations, follwed by sexual reproduction, generated subtle diversity and variations in behavior in the populations. Turns out the ones that <lacked specific behavior> died and the ones that had this <specific behavior> stuck around. The ones that had this <specific behavior> made more babies. Thus, the ones that had this <specific behavior> took over the population.

That's how the animal comes to have the behavior, yes. If you want to know why the behavior is beneficial, you have to work a lot harder, as I've previously suggested. But the mechanism by which new traits arise and take over is indeed that simple and that universal. Why should that be surprising?

So, it doesn't really matter what animal or behavior one is talking about, the answer is always the same.

Well, except that sometimes the answer is that the trait took over the population by chance, even though it didn't offer any advantage.

I guess talking about the specifics of 'playing dead' evolution is too complicated.

The specifics of playing dead are indeed far too complicated for anyone to have figured them out yet. We don't know how any specific behavior in anything as complex as a possum is controlled by genes, and yet they obviously are.

So, originally survivability of the possum was based on running or fighting but most of them were being killed before they were able to reproduce.

Who said that? The only requirement is that the new trait (assuming it started in possums) give at least a slight edge in reproduction.

One day, one possum decided to give falling over and making himself stink a try - he doesn't know why he tried it, there was just something different in his instinct - and viola', he survived and passed on that instinct. Sounds good to me.

Do you have any actual criticism of it, or are you just going to rely on sarcasm?