Is this true?

Status
Not open for further replies.

juvenissun

... and God saw that it was good.
Apr 5, 2007
25,446
803
71
Chicago
✟121,700.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Who says they didn't? We are the only surviving species in the lineage that diverged from chimpanzees, but there were many others, as we see in the fossil record.

Why did they extinguish? Why didn't they adapt?

In general, explain a normal extinguish process to me. Because I don't see the possibility under the theory of evolution.
 
Upvote 0

gluadys

Legend
Mar 2, 2004
12,958
682
Toronto
✟24,020.00
Faith
Protestant
Politics
CA-NDP
Why did they extinguish? Why didn't they adapt?

In general, explain a normal extinguish process to me. Because I don't see the possibility under the theory of evolution.

There are three ways to become extinct, but two of them are not real extinctions.

The only way that a lineage really becomes extinct is for the last individual in the group to die without leaving any descendants. Example, trilobites. AFAIK they have no living descendants today.

Another way is for the group to split into two or more separate groups. So, for example, there was once a primate species that separated into two distinct lineages. The living descendants of one group are today's gorillas. The living descendants of the other are today's chimpanzees and humans. As you see a separation also occurred in the second group which divided into the groups we call chimpanzees and humans.

So the original group did not die out with no descendants. But its descendants are not a unified group any more. Gorillas are not the original group--they only represent part of it. Chimpanzees are not the original group--they only represent part of if. Same with humans. So technically the original group is extinct, even though it is represented today by three living groups. Since we treat these groups separately, the original unity today is nothing but a classification category.

The third way is simply to change so much over time that the living representatives of the group are recognized as being a different species from the original group. Again, in this case, the original species is extinct, but in much the same way that a child is "extinct" when it becomes an adult. Just as for individuals we use different names for the different stages of its history (infant, toddler, child, adolescent, young adult, adult, senior citizen), so for a lineage, we could see the various species names as convenient labels for different stages of its evolutionary history. But each of the earlier stages is considered extinct.


Why do species become really extinct (as in the first case)? Why don't they adapt? Because evolution is not willed. You cannot consciously direct your DNA to change. It does or it doesn't on its own. And if the time comes when an environmental challenge is threatening the population, and no new genetic change appears--or at least not one that is helpful in this situation, then the species cannot adapt.
 
Upvote 0

shernren

you are not reading this.
Feb 17, 2005
8,463
515
36
Shah Alam, Selangor
Visit site
✟18,881.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
In Relationship
Unfortunately, AiG has made an assertion which it claims to be true even though it is actually false. In laymen's terms this is called "lying", but some people seem to be quite sensitive about creationists being called on that (while having no trouble calling evolutionists deceiving sons of the devil ... ), so for the rest of this post I will censor that troublesome word and its cognates.

How about this, seems I am right again. http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/feedback/2003/0221.asp

And the point of that is not being "right" (that and 1.25 gets me a cup of coffee). The point is that the Darwinist interpretation is so predictable and easily attacked on the same basis over and over. Like the speciation thing. Its another example of some valid evidence for the Darwinist proposition, but it is demonstrably overblown evidence because that is what the philosophy behind it demands and that is all it can see. Since there is no alternate theory to Drawinism that gets the faintest recognition, where else could you possibly go as a Darwinist with this evidence of HDL metabolism?

So, the creationists are paying attention and are armed with science, and not the kind you get from correspondence school.

Let's look closer at that:
What has happened? One amino acid has been replaced with a cysteine residue in a protein that normally assembles high density lipoproteins (HDLs), which are involved in removing ‘bad’ cholesterol from arteries. The mutant form of the protein is less effective at what it is supposed to do, but it does act as an antioxidant, which seems to prevent atherosclerosis (hardening of arteries). In fact, because of the added -SH on the cysteine, 70% of the proteins manufactured bind together in pairs (called dimers), restricting their usefulness. The 30% remaining do the job as an antioxidant.
The dimerization is a red herring: the unmutated protein also frequently dimerizes and in fact oligomerizes (not just forming pairs, but complexes with multiple copies of the protein). Are bicycle wheels less effective because they, too, frequently come in pairs?

Indeed, Apo-AIM dimers are more stable than Apo-AI monomers (no prizes guessing what the extra M stands for), hanging around for longer and so creating more HDL, and so the mutant protein is arguably more effective than the original one. Therefore saying that dimerization restricts the mutant protein's usefulness is a L__.
Now in gaining an anti-oxidant activity, the protein has lost a lot of activity for making HDLs. So the mutant protein has sacrificed specificity. Since antioxidant activity is not a very specific activity (a great variety of simple chemicals will act as antioxidants), it would seem that the result of this mutation has been a net loss of specificity, or, in other words, information. This is exactly as we would expect with a random change.
And again, the statement "the protein has lost a lot of activity for making HDLs" is a L__, but that's not all. AiG is quite right that a great variety of simple chemicals will act as antioxidants. AiG however seems to be unaware that a great variety of simple chemicals, such as pure sodium or lithium (both of which are fantastic reductants or anti-oxidants), will also outright kill you if you ingest them. I'd probably say that the fact that Apo-AIM doesn't kill its hosts is probably quite a lot of specificity.

Add to that the fact that Apo-AIM's activity isn't actually unspecific. In fact, Apo-AIM cannot quench superoxide anions, and cannot prevent the oxidation of cytochrome c. Thus this protein's anti-oxidant activity is quite specific to lipid oxidation. Say it with me, the claim that Apo-AIM's antioxidant activity is not very specific is a L__.
Note that quantifying the amount of information is not as easy as just counting the number of functions or even the number of base pairs (‘letters’) in a gene. This is simplistic reasoning. It is firstly, but not only, a question of specificity. For example, if I said, ‘Fix the Porsche,’ this conveys more information than ‘Fix the automobile,’ although the latter has more letters. If I said, ‘Fix the car and the truck,’ we now have two ‘functions’ in this sentence, but does it contain more information than ‘Fix the Porsche’? We are now comparing a command with two ‘functions,’ but both of low specificity, with a command with one function and high specificity.
Unfortunately, the Apo-AIM protein performs HDL removal with high specificity, and performs an anti-oxidant function with specificity as well. The better comparison, if the original protein is "Fix the Porsche", is that Apo-AIM is "Fix the Porsche, and then charge the customer twice the amount he was supposed to pay, but only if he looks gullible enough."

Now tell me whether that's an increase of information or not. I'd say once again that AiG has been caught telling a L__, but by this point, saying that wouldn't really amount to an increase of useful information would it? ;)

http://toarchive.org/faqs/information/apolipoprotein.html
 
Upvote 0

juvenissun

... and God saw that it was good.
Apr 5, 2007
25,446
803
71
Chicago
✟121,700.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
There are three ways to become extinct, but two of them are not real extinctions.

The only way that a lineage really becomes extinct is for the last individual in the group to die without leaving any descendants. Example, trilobites. AFAIK they have no living descendants today.

Another way is for the group to split into two or more separate groups. So, for example, there was once a primate species that separated into two distinct lineages. The living descendants of one group are today's gorillas. The living descendants of the other are today's chimpanzees and humans. As you see a separation also occurred in the second group which divided into the groups we call chimpanzees and humans.

So the original group did not die out with no descendants. But its descendants are not a unified group any more. Gorillas are not the original group--they only represent part of it. Chimpanzees are not the original group--they only represent part of if. Same with humans. So technically the original group is extinct, even though it is represented today by three living groups. Since we treat these groups separately, the original unity today is nothing but a classification category.

The third way is simply to change so much over time that the living representatives of the group are recognized as being a different species from the original group. Again, in this case, the original species is extinct, but in much the same way that a child is "extinct" when it becomes an adult. Just as for individuals we use different names for the different stages of its history (infant, toddler, child, adolescent, young adult, adult, senior citizen), so for a lineage, we could see the various species names as convenient labels for different stages of its evolutionary history. But each of the earlier stages is considered extinct.


Why do species become really extinct (as in the first case)? Why don't they adapt? Because evolution is not willed. You cannot consciously direct your DNA to change. It does or it doesn't on its own. And if the time comes when an environmental challenge is threatening the population, and no new genetic change appears--or at least not one that is helpful in this situation, then the species cannot adapt.

In a species of 100,000 individuals, would all of them (statistical majority) mutate toward one direction which would relieve the imposing environmental pressure?

Or are you suggesting that mutation is blind to environmental factors and is totally random?
 
Upvote 0

LewisWildermuth

Senior Veteran
May 17, 2002
2,526
128
51
Bloomington, Illinois
✟11,875.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
In a species of 100,000 individuals, would all of them (statistical majority) mutate toward one direction which would relieve the imposing environmental pressure?

Or are you suggesting that mutation is blind to environmental factors and is totally random?

Are you suggesting that I can change my genetic make up by just wishing real hard?
 
Upvote 0

Markus6

Veteran
Jul 19, 2006
4,039
347
39
Houston
✟22,034.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Being a Christian, I'm a little more concerned that he banned Christians who accept evolution from his film.
He didn't. He had both John Polkinghorne (Cambridge) and Alister McGrath (Oxford) on. Both of whom accept evolution. However, the film DID make them out to be anti-evolution and just use there brilliant minds to dismantle Dawkins' scientific atheism.
 
Upvote 0

gluadys

Legend
Mar 2, 2004
12,958
682
Toronto
✟24,020.00
Faith
Protestant
Politics
CA-NDP
In a species of 100,000 individuals, would all of them (statistical majority) mutate toward one direction which would relieve the imposing environmental pressure?

No. Each mutation occurs in a single individual independently of mutations occurring in other individuals.

For some mutations, there are known rates of occurrence, so you could predict, for example, that a particular mutation will occur in say 7 out of 100,000 individuals or that another will occur in 3 of them.

Or are you suggesting that mutation is blind to environmental factors and is totally random?

Yes, as far as we can determine scientifically mutations are blind to environmental factors.

Does that make them "totally random"? Depends on the meaning you are giving to the term. If you mean "unpredictable by any known scientific measure" yes, totally random.

But "random" is not a cause, only a measure of unpredictability. And it doesn't exclude the possibility of a metaphysical intelligence with foreknowledge of future environmental factors deciding to engineer a genetic change in preparation for that challenge. All sorts of little undetected genetic "miracles" could occur with scientists none-the-wiser.

I don't say this is necessarily the case, but it is not inconsistent with the scientific judgment of mutations occurring randomly.
 
Upvote 0

juvenissun

... and God saw that it was good.
Apr 5, 2007
25,446
803
71
Chicago
✟121,700.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Are you suggesting that I can change my genetic make up by just wishing real hard?

Not only wishing, but desperately wishing for many years. You might be able to it. That is what evolution is all about.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

juvenissun

... and God saw that it was good.
Apr 5, 2007
25,446
803
71
Chicago
✟121,700.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
No. Each mutation occurs in a single individual independently of mutations occurring in other individuals.

For some mutations, there are known rates of occurrence, so you could predict, for example, that a particular mutation will occur in say 7 out of 100,000 individuals or that another will occur in 3 of them.



Yes, as far as we can determine scientifically mutations are blind to environmental factors.

Does that make them "totally random"? Depends on the meaning you are giving to the term. If you mean "unpredictable by any known scientific measure" yes, totally random.

But "random" is not a cause, only a measure of unpredictability. And it doesn't exclude the possibility of a metaphysical intelligence with foreknowledge of future environmental factors deciding to engineer a genetic change in preparation for that challenge. All sorts of little undetected genetic "miracles" could occur with scientists none-the-wiser.

I don't say this is necessarily the case, but it is not inconsistent with the scientific judgment of mutations occurring randomly.

So, could I say that evolution is about the survival of lives based on the favorable mutations that fit best to the living environment?
 
Upvote 0

LewisWildermuth

Senior Veteran
May 17, 2002
2,526
128
51
Bloomington, Illinois
✟11,875.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Not only wishing, but desperately wishing for many years. You might be able to it. That is what evolution is all about.

No, it is not. Who told you that wishing, hard or not had any effect on genes?

This is not something I have ever seen in scientific research, but maybe you have seen something I have not... Or maybe you are just making things up.
 
Upvote 0

juvenissun

... and God saw that it was good.
Apr 5, 2007
25,446
803
71
Chicago
✟121,700.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
No, it is not. Who told you that wishing, hard or not had any effect on genes?

This is not something I have ever seen in scientific research, but maybe you have seen something I have not... Or maybe you are just making things up.

I was 50% kidding since you were.

The other 50%? Well, I do think the will power is true, for whatever reason. So, I do believe some type of mental force could bend a fork. May be you think that is a type of mutation too?
 
Upvote 0

LewisWildermuth

Senior Veteran
May 17, 2002
2,526
128
51
Bloomington, Illinois
✟11,875.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
I was 50% kidding since you were.

The other 50%? Well, I do think the will power is true, for whatever reason. So, I do believe some type of mental force could bend a fork. May be you think that is a type of mutation too?

Why should I believe a third rate magic trick that even I can do is somehow caused by a mutation?

And no I was not kidding, I was hoping you were, but after our discussion on music I cannot be sure.

I also hope you are kidding about the fork bending thing, but again, given some of the things you have said earlier, I cannot say for sure that you are.
 
Upvote 0

gluadys

Legend
Mar 2, 2004
12,958
682
Toronto
✟24,020.00
Faith
Protestant
Politics
CA-NDP
So, could I say that evolution is about the survival of lives based on the favorable mutations that fit best to the living environment?


Wow! I think you may finally be getting the picture. We'll see.

Yes, that is pretty much it with two qualifications.

1. It is based not only on survival, but on successful reproduction. It does not matter how long you live; if you never reproduce, you never contribute to the next generations' gene pool, no matter how favorable a mutation might be in your gametes. From an evolutionary point of view, someone who lives only half as long as you but has twice as many surviving (and reproducing) children as you is more fit than you are.

2. You need to specify "current living environment". As noted earlier, environments change. What may be a very beneficial mutation in the current situation may be neutral or even harmful in a different situation.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

juvenissun

... and God saw that it was good.
Apr 5, 2007
25,446
803
71
Chicago
✟121,700.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Why should I believe a third rate magic trick that even I can do is somehow caused by a mutation?

And no I was not kidding, I was hoping you were, but after our discussion on music I cannot be sure.

I also hope you are kidding about the fork bending thing, but again, given some of the things you have said earlier, I cannot say for sure that you are.

Ha ha ... I think you lose all the confidence about my common sense. I would take that as a compliment. I like it. I often tell my students: think again about things you take as a common sense (such as "fresh" water etc.), you will be surprised.

Seriously, I do think there is something in those strange features (like the sixth sense). A person who believes in God, should also believe in devil's tricks.
 
Upvote 0

shernren

you are not reading this.
Feb 17, 2005
8,463
515
36
Shah Alam, Selangor
Visit site
✟18,881.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
In Relationship
Last edited:
Upvote 0

juvenissun

... and God saw that it was good.
Apr 5, 2007
25,446
803
71
Chicago
✟121,700.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Wow! I think you may finally be getting the picture. We'll see.

Yes, that is pretty much it with two qualifications.

1. It is based not only on survival, but on successful reproduction. It does not matter how long you live; if you never reproduce, you never contribute to the next generations' gene pool, no matter how favorable a mutation might be in your gametes. From an evolutionary point of view, someone who lives only half as long as you but has twice as many surviving (and reproducing) children as you is more fit than you are.

2. You need to specify "current living environment". As noted earlier, environments change. What may be a very beneficial mutation in the current situation may be neutral or even harmful in a different situation.

Thanks. I accept your modification.

The Art of War said: If you know your enemy (and know yourself), then you will win 100 times in 100 battles. That is what I always tried to do.

Now, here is the offense:

If there comes a gradual environmental crisis, then the survival of a species of 100,000 population will depend on the chance of favorable mutations. As you pointed out, the environment has multiple factors, so various mutations of individuals could also be looked favorable to various factors in one event of environmental change. Let's assume 1000 individuals survived due to favorable mutations. How could these mutations be all the same so that only ONE or TWO new species emerged through the crisis? Why not 10 or more new species emerged and have different successes of adaption? (if it indeed happened, then the life form explosion, like the Cambrian explosion, would be a common feature in fossil record)
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

gluadys

Legend
Mar 2, 2004
12,958
682
Toronto
✟24,020.00
Faith
Protestant
Politics
CA-NDP
Thanks. I accept your modification.

The Art of War said: If you know your enemy (and know yourself), then you will win 100 times in 100 battles. That is what I always tried to do.

Smart move.

Now, here is the offense:

If there comes a gradual environmental crisis, then the survival of a species of 100,000 population will depend on the chance of favorable mutations. As you pointed out, the environment has multiple factors, so various mutations of individuals could also be looked favorable to various factors in one event of environmental change. Let's assume 1000 individuals survived due to favorable mutations.

First, if the environmental change is gradual, there is no need to consider such a drastic reduction in population. It is true that in each generation there would be fewer of the non-modified population, but at the same time there would be more of the modified population. So the total population need not decrease at all.

The bottleneck scenario you are describing would not likely occur as a result of gradual environmental change, but as the result of a single catastrophe. This is the sort of thing one sees when a new pesticide or antibiotic is used against a population that has never been exposed to it before. There is an immediate crash in population size with only a few that happen to have more resistance surviving.


How could these mutations be all the same so that only ONE or TWO new species emerged through the crisis? Why not 10 or more new species emerged and have different successes of adaption? (if it indeed happened, then the life form explosion, like the Cambrian explosion, would be a common feature in fossil record)

The second scenario is possible and gives rise to what is called an adaptive radiation: several different species all arising from the same ancestor within a short period of time. These may have been more common than we know because we can only work with surviving lineages and those we discover in the fossil record. And these represent only a small proportion of all the species that have ever emerged.

For the first scenario, it is not necessary that all the mutations be the same. What you need is for all the different mutations to accumulate in some individuals. If each one is favorable, each will spread through the population via reproduction. So at some point what will occur is that Johnny will inherit favorable mutation #1 from mummy and favorable mutation #2 from daddy. And in another family Jenny will inherit favorable mutation #3 from mummy and favorable mutation #4 from daddy.

Then it is possible for some of Johnny and Jenny's kids to inherit all four favorable mutations.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.