Statements About Evolution

[driewerf]

How?

By skipping it, or by going through it?

By acceding to the advanced level. By growing up. By using our god given evolved brain.

 

[AV1611VET]

By acceding to the advanced level.

Accede: agree to a demand, request, or treaty.

So you're saying you made either a:

1. Demand on God to let you bypass His fear?
2. A request to God to let you bypass His fear?
3. A treaty to God to let you bypass His fear?

Then you "threw Him under the bus" and became an atheist?

I'll ask you again:

Did you skip it, or go through it?

 

[AV1611VET]

By growing up.

* cough *

If you grew up without the fear of the LORD, you stunted your growth.

 

[SelfSim]

* cough *

If you grew up without the fear of the LORD, you stunted your growth.

Whoa thar ..
Growing up without fear leads to a stunted human?

 

[Estrid]

.

 

[AV1611VET]

Whoa thar ..
Growing up without fear leads to a stunted human?

Psalm 36:1 The transgression of the wicked saith within my heart, that there is no fear of God before his eyes.

 

[AV1611VET]

Wal, podner, you knows there ain't nothing so peculiar that some dang fool won't say it, and even believe it.

Yup.

 

[SelfSim]

Yup.

So now everyone on board the Titantic when it sank, were 'stunted' humans(?)

 

[Mark Quayle]

Evolution is the way the offspring are different from their parents. If the changes trend in one particular direction, then the population, over many generations, evolves.

For example, giraffes evolved long necks. We can imagine jumping in a time machine and travelling back in time to see a population of early giraffes that had much shorter necks. In that POPULATION, some of the INDIVIDUALS would have had necks slightly longer than average, and some of the INDIVIDUALS would have had necks that were slightly shorter than average. The INDIVIDUALS with the longer necks would have had an easier time getting food, since they could reach higher into the trees and thus get leaves that were beyond the reach of the individuals with shorter necks. So, the longer-necked individuals would have been more likely to survive because they had access to a food source that shorter necked individuals didn't have.

I understand and accept the principle here, unless you mean by it something I don't see implied. This is, so far, over a long period of time, selective by the dying out of those who can't reach the higher leaves, variation within the species.

So, the INDIVIDUALS with the longer necks would have been able to produce more offspring than the shorter necked individuals, and the genes that produced a slightly longer than average neck would have spread throughout the POPULATION. So, if we jump in our time machine and travel ahead to see what this POPULATION is like after ten generations have passed, we'd see that the genes for the slightly longer than average neck are now in many if not all of the INDIVIDUALS. The POPULATION has EVOLVED to have a slightly longer neck than it did when we first saw them.

All other things being equal, yes.

So individuals don't evolve themselves. If we took one of these early giraffes and could keep it alive forever, it would never get the longer neck. It's genes would never change. It could not evolve. Because evolution is how the INDIVIDUALS are different from their parents. But it's all the individuals in the population, because the genes spread through the population.

Of course.

There are two main factors that influence the traits that an organism has. The first is genetic and the second is environmental. If you have two members of a population that live together (say, two zebra in the same herd), then they are facing the same environmental factors and any difference between them is likely to be more genetic in nature than environmental.

Obviously

Okay, but also try to see this from my point of view as well. If I was trying to explain to you how airplanes fly, I could tell you about how the curved surface of the wing produces lift, but if you start asking my why the wings have those little turned up bits at the very end, it's only going to introduce a lot of complicated aerodynamic theory which just isn't applicable to a "beginner's guide" sort of thing. I'm trying to show you the broad strokes here, and while your caveats may be valid, any explanation of them would require a more in-depth understanding. I'm trying to do the basic stuff first. Then you'll have the understanding required to look at the caveats.

I'm trying to see that, but we aren't talking about airplanes here. We aren't even talking about how the evolution of engineering has produced the winglets.

The problem I see here comes when the basic understanding includes assumptions that are only assertions, from my pov. I don't mind following your narrative, but I can't agree to it all without caveats. You don't need to explain why my caveat is not applicable, but you will sooner or later need to if I am to believe your narrative.

New variations happen due to mutation, which is basically copying errors in the DNA when cells divide. If an individual has such a change, this mutation in their genetic sequence can be passed to offspring since the offspring gets half of its DNA from each parent.

For example, I have a daughter. She got half her DNA from me. If I had a mutation, and that mutation was in the half of her DNA that she got from me, then that mutation was passed to her, and she has it too.

But she's only half-got it?

It's those upturned thumbs. Very attractive and all, but not much use in the kitchen or in the field, unless she is a crossbow hunter. Good thing we have restaurants!

I'm trying to introduce concepts here. It's difficult to understand how these concepts work within the framework of evolution before one understands ALL the concepts of evolution.

The problem with understanding all the concepts of evolution is the acceptance of what look to me like assumptions and/or generalizations taken to be universally specific. I'm, sorry, but I'm skeptical.

For example, when you say those with positive traits are more likely to produce offspring, because they tend to live longer, I'm thinking, "sometimes, maybe". I don't know that their beneficial mutation doesn't usually also accompany other non-beneficial mutations that include maybe sterility etc, or that enough examples with a like mutation will occur to mate with the 'mutated' offspring to produce further generations of offspring of the same sort, nor even that it is by new mutation, as opposed to already existing genetics within the population.

You are correct. When I said they can influence the survival, I meant "how well the individual survives," and that could indeed be a reduction in its chances of survival as you said.

These traits aren't necessarily completely new traits. Often they are simply variations on what is already there. Completely new traits - like a horse being born with wings - just don't happen because the change in the DNA required for this kind of thing is absolutely huge, and when you make large changes, it's much more likely that you are going to end up with something that doesn't work.

Think of it this way:

If you are standing on the footpath (sidewalk in America), and you had to randomly move to a different part of the footpath, would you want to move a large distance or a small distance? If you randomly moved a large distance, say a mile, you could end up anywhere. Inside a building, on a road. You can't predict where. But if you randomly moved a smaller distance, say a foot, you are much more likely to stay on the path. And if you moved a very small amount, like an inch, you're almost certain to remain on the path.

Likewise, if there's a large change in the DNA when it gets copied into an offspring, then a large change is probably just going to end up with an unviable embryo. But a small change has a pretty decent chance of survival, because a small change is going to keep it close to something that works already (specifically, the parents).

Yeah, of course. You don't need to convince me about that. I know one evolutionist that could benefit from hearing it though, .

Most species have a natural drive to produce offspring. Without reproduction, the genetic line dies out completely and there is no evolution.

And this stuff of "within-the-species traits" and "mutations" makes it sound like you think a mutation is something like that horse born with wings stuff. It's not. As I've said, most mutations are very small changes to what's already there, since larger changes tend to result in unviable embryos.

Don't worry. I'm not into winged horses. Nor New Jersey devils. In fact, for example, the South Carolina "Lamp Eel" that lives in ditches, that I don't know if it is a fish or what, and breathes air and many of them have little pollywog-looking 'front' legs behind their gills —I don't know if maybe they are a different species of their own, or a link between species, or strangely enough, if there are existing genetics common to many/all creatures to cause such strangenesses to happen and to be reproduced. Anyhow, you don't need to convince me that large changes don't happen suddenly, nor that evolution does not teach such a thing.

The simple answer is that the individuals with the beneficial traits will be likely to produce more offspring since they are probably going to live longer due precisely to the beneficial traits they have. A longer life means more breeding opportunities.

Yes, if they can breed, and breed with others with the same genetic trait and so produce offspring with that genetic result. Still sounds like 'within-the-species' to me, but I don't know enough to say it can't happen by mutation.

 

[Estrid]

.

 

[Kylie]

I understand and accept the principle here, unless you mean by it something I don't see implied. This is, so far, over a long period of time, selective by the dying out of those who can't reach the higher leaves, variation within the species.

That's right. The ones with the genes for the shorter necks are more likely to die out, and the average neck length in the population will increase as a result.

All other things being equal, yes.

Of course.

Obviously

I'm trying to see that, but we aren't talking about airplanes here. We aren't even talking about how the evolution of engineering has produced the winglets.

The problem I see here comes when the basic understanding includes assumptions that are only assertions, from my pov. I don't mind following your narrative, but I can't agree to it all without caveats. You don't need to explain why my caveat is not applicable, but you will sooner or later need to if I am to believe your narrative.

And I will. As I said, I'm first trying to give you an understanding of how it all fits in together. That's what the aeroplane example was about - that it's not a good idea to dive into a detailed explanation of something when an overall understanding is lacking. The overall understanding is needed in order to provide a framework for the details.

But she's only half-got it?

It's those upturned thumbs. Very attractive and all, but not much use in the kitchen or in the field, unless she is a crossbow hunter. Good thing we have restaurants!

I'm not sure what you mean here.

Yes, half of her DNA came from me, but the other half came from her father.

The problem with understanding all the concepts of evolution is the acceptance of what look to me like assumptions and/or generalizations taken to be universally specific. I'm, sorry, but I'm skeptical.

For example, when you say those with positive traits are more likely to produce offspring, because they tend to live longer, I'm thinking, "sometimes, maybe". I don't know that their beneficial mutation doesn't usually also accompany other non-beneficial mutations that include maybe sterility etc, or that enough examples with a like mutation will occur to mate with the 'mutated' offspring to produce further generations of offspring of the same sort, nor even that it is by new mutation, as opposed to already existing genetics within the population.

You are correct, and this is where it does get complicated. Like I said, what I'm giving is a basic version of evolution. In reality, any particular trait is controlled by several genes, and any particular gene can influence several different traits. So, eye colour can be controlled by, say, genes A, B, and C, and Gene A can be involved in eye colour, likelihood of developing cataracts, and stamina. So when we look at how a trait affects how well an organism survives, we really should be looking at how the gene itself affects how well the individual survives. We need to take into account all the effects it has. If we give it a score, it might be +3 in one area, but -5 in another area. So even though it conveys an advantage in one way, the net result is overall negative. And it depends on environmental factors as well. If that -5 was a reduced ability to deal with cold, that might spell disaster if it's in a polar bear, but be absolutely meaningless for a lemur living in the tropics.

But for the moment, take it that we are looking at the overall effect.

Yes, if they can breed, and breed with others with the same genetic trait and so produce offspring with that genetic result. Still sounds like 'within-the-species' to me, but I don't know enough to say it can't happen by mutation.

Well, the thing is, the individual doesn't need to breed with another individual that has the same variation in order to pass it on. For instance, I have blue eyes and my husband has brown eyes. Our daughter has brown eyes. That's because she got the brown eyed gene from him. Gregor Mendel did experiments with peas that described this kind of inheritance. Mendelian inheritance - Wikipedia

 

[Kylie]

Yup.

You do realise that neither the owners nor the builders claimed she was unsinkable, right? Why did people think the Titanic was unsinkable? - Quora

 

[AV1611VET]

You do realise that neither the owners nor the builders claimed she was unsinkable, right?

Estrid didn't say they did.

Neither did I.

 

[SelfSim]

Estrid didn't say they did.

Neither did I.

Just as the psalm you quoted, didn't say anything about stunting human growth(?)

 

[Mark Quayle]

I'm not sure what you mean here.

Your avatar.

 

[Kylie]

Estrid didn't say they did.

Neither did I.

So then what was your point in post 67?

 

[Kylie]

Your avatar.

I'm still not following.

 

[sjastro]

You do realise that neither the owners nor the builders claimed she was unsinkable, right? Why did people think the Titanic was unsinkable? - Quora

Using a similar form of incoherence AV is renowned for, the Titanic sunk because some inane Protestant painted the anti-Catholic number 3909 04 on the ship (look at the number in the mirror).
God took his retribution against Protestants, so Protestants are to blame for the sinking the ship not the scientists.

Did anti-Catholic sentiment of Titanic workforce help doom the unsinkable ship? | IrishCentral.com

 

[Mark Quayle]

I'm still not following.

Was just trying to be funny. I was pretending the upturned thumbs of your avatar were the mutation you passed down to your daughter, good for some things, but not for others. No big deal.

 

[driewerf]

I will give you my standards:

The reason I think this is because these standards get ridiculed:

1. Bible says x, Science says x = go with x

Don't care about what the bible says, go with x.

2. Bible says x, Science says y = go with x

Don't care about what the bible says, go with y.

3. Bible says x, Science says ø = go with x

Don't care about what the bible says, start research.

4. Bible says ø, Science says x = go with x

Don't care about what the bible says, go with x.

5. Bible says ø, Science says ø = free to speculate on your own

Don't care about what the bible says, start research.