Direction of Evolution

[Endtime Survivors]

Because taxa don't evolve highly derived characteristics of other distantly related taxa. If they did, that would violate the morphological nested hierarchy and falsify evolution.

Ok, so what's the most complex mutation a crustacean, (or whatever example you'd like to use) could have before it violates evolution? Is there a standard for measuring complexity of mutation?

 

[USincognito]

Ok, so what's the most complex mutation a crustacean, (or whatever example you'd like to use) could have before it violates evolution? Is there a standard for measuring complexity of mutation?

Your second question presents quite a problem - defining "complexity" in a scientifically useful way in a biological context. It's similar to "information" in genetics. I see many Creationists claim that there can only be a "loss" of information, but when I ask them for a quantifiable metric by which to measure genetic information and thereby actually determine if there has been a "loss" they clam up or change the subject because all they were doing was parroting phrases they've heard from professional Creationists.

That said, my likely to be unsatisfying answer is a rewording of what I wrote previously. Any structure or genetic configuration (like ERV insertions for example) that are identical in distantly related taxa will violate the nested hierarchy and falsify evolution. That could be as "complex" as a lobster with a vertebral column or as "simple" as a flowering plant with melanocytes.

 

[PeterRobertson]

Your second question presents quite a problem - defining "complexity" in a scientifically useful way in a biological context. It's similar to "information" in genetics. I see many Creationists claim that there can only be a "loss" of information, but when I ask them for a quantifiable metric by which to measure genetic information and thereby actually determine if there has been a "loss" they clam up or change the subject because all they were doing was parroting phrases they've heard from professional Creationists.

That said, my likely to be unsatisfying answer is a rewording of what I wrote previously. Any structure or genetic configuration (like ERV insertions for example) that are identical in distantly related taxa will violate the nested hierarchy and falsify evolution. That could be as "complex" as a lobster with a vertebral column or as "simple" as a flowering plant with melanocytes.

 

[PeterRobertson]

The "mutations always cause a loss of information" claim is trivial to refute, even without a defininition of information.
If the claim is true, when A mutates to B, B will have less information than A.
B now mutates to A, so A must have less information than B, which has less information than A. This is a contradiction, so mutations do NOT always cause a loss of information.

 

[Endtime Survivors]

Your second question presents quite a problem - defining "complexity" in a scientifically useful way in a biological context. It's similar to "information" in genetics. I see many Creationists claim that there can only be a "loss" of information, but when I ask them for a quantifiable metric by which to measure genetic information and thereby actually determine if there has been a "loss" they clam up or change the subject because all they were doing was parroting phrases they've heard from professional Creationists.

I don't know all of what can or can't be done regarding genetics, so I mostly try to discuss in terms of what seems to make sense regarding the bigger picture.

That said, my likely to be unsatisfying answer is a rewording of what I wrote previously. Any structure or genetic configuration (like ERV insertions for example) that are identical in distantly related taxa will violate the nested hierarchy and falsify evolution. That could be as "complex" as a lobster with a vertebral column or as "simple" as a flowering plant with melanocytes.

But, in evolution, there is nothing to violate. There is no control. Who are you to say what a mutation can or can't be? A "nested hierarchy"? Why should evolution be restricted to the classifications we decide? It's pretty popular these days to claim that dinosaurs had feathers. That doesn't violate nested hierarchies? How is a dinosaur with feathers different (in concept) from a crustacean mutating a patch of fur?

 

[USincognito]

I don't know all of what can or can't be done regarding genetics, so I mostly try to discuss in terms of what seems to make sense regarding the bigger picture.

There's a working geneticist who posts to this subforum. He's quite patient is one is willing to read what he actually writes. Just ask your questions and I'm sure you'll get an answer.

But, in evolution, there is nothing to violate.

I don't mean this to be as harsh as it's going to sound, but you've been engaged in meta-debate. You're trying to argue concepts and semantics rather than addressing where the rubber meets the road. Based on the rest of your comment, you also don't seem to have that firm a grasp on what evolutionary theory actually is and what it actually says.

I will address those comments in a separate post so as not to make them unwieldy, but here's some basics.

1. Descendant populations never stop being what their ancestors were. Birds are still dinosaurs and whales are still terrestrial tetrapods for example.
2. The nature of evolution - random mutation and natural selection - means that every branch of a population is a one way street. There can be some horizontal gene transfer (especially in protists, less so in metazoans) and convergent evolution, but we would never expect to find a bird with arms and wings (as well as legs) for example. We would also never expect to find beings with the exact same wing structures unless they were related by common ancestry.
3. The nested hierarchy, which I'll address below, encompasses both morphology and molecular phylogenetics. That is why when we look at something like endogenous retroviral insertions in primates, we see more less and less shared insertions molecularly the further apart we get morphologically.

cont. -

 

[USincognito]

Who are you to say what a mutation can or can't be?

Someone that has a basic grasp of evolution and a rudimentary gasp of genetics.

A "nested hierarchy"? Why should evolution be restricted to the classifications we decide?

No need for the scare quotes, nested hierarchies are real things. Here's where I try and clarify. Beings could share the exact same characteristics in any other system - intelligent design for example. There's nothing in intelligent design that prevents a bird from having wings and arms. In fact such an arrangement, if it were suitably aerodynamic, could be rather beneficial for birds. But, because birds - according to the theory of evolution - evolved from theropod dinosaurs which only had two forelimbs, if we were to observe birds with wings and arms that would falsify evolution.

Again, chimeras are entirely possible in concepts other than evolution. A faun or griffon would not violate those concepts. They do, however, violate the predicted twin nested hierarchy of life if it is the result of evolution and common ancestry.

It's pretty popular these days to claim that dinosaurs had feathers. That doesn't violate nested hierarchies? How is a dinosaur with feathers different (in concept) from a crustacean mutating a patch of fur?

Again, you really need to learn some evolution 101 before thinking you're going to debunk it with a simple question. The answer is that feathers are a derived characteristic of theropod dinosaurs (which is what birds are - see above and about how things never stop being what their ancestors were). There are no other beings or lineages that have feathers and thus they are not a derived characteristic from a distantly related taxon showing up in a different taxon.

Fur, on the other hand, is a derived characteristic of mammals and the last common ancestor of crustaceans and mammals lived before either Bilaterians evolved into Deuterostomes (in which we find mammals) and Protostomes (in which we find crustaceans). That was about 400 million years before mammals evolved fur thus we would never expect to find fur on crustaceans and if we did, it would violate the nested hierarchy and falsify evolution.

 

[JackRT]

Ahhhhh. All this time I thought that was a reference to your political position. I can be dense sometimes.

Depends where you are. In Canada I am a liberal while in the USA I would be socialist.

 

[JackRT]

Circular reasoning. Populations are made up of individuals.

Mutations happen to individuals. But if that mutation spreads through a population over generations then you have evolution.

 

[Endtime Survivors]

But if that mutation spreads through a population over generations then you have evolution

Huh, I have never heard this understanding of evolution, though it's interesting that both you and USi seem to have the same perspective, and, as you suggested earlier, the two of you are eerily similar...

It is my understanding that evolution is meant to describe the gradual change of one species to another, different, distinct species. If the species stays the same, then it is not evolution, but rather adaptation within the species.

I had the impression most evolutionists would be ecstatic to have even a single, individual demonstration of this theory in action, let alone entire populations.

The two of you are daring indeed.

 

[USincognito]

Depends where you are. In Canada I am a liberal while in the USA I would be socialist.

Yeah, some Americans have a ridiculous notion of the political spectrum worldwide. A European conservative would be "leftist" in the minds of some of us.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

And those circumstances would be what kind of mutation and where it happened. Those are the only two factors that evolution consists of.

If a crustacean mutates a coat of fur, it will be selected to die. If it mutates a stronger set of pincers or a harder shell or whatever, then it will be selected to have a better chance at not dying before it can produce offspring (assuming it has mutated that far, lol).

If a fox in a chilly climate mutates a hard exoskeleton, then it will be selected to die.

All completely random, based on mutation and location. No intent. No purpose. No plan. No intelligence. No meaning. No reason. No influence or guidance. All random.

Yes, mutations are random, but selection is not.

You appear to have rather a comic-book idea of how mutations work. There may be some exceptionally rare cases where an individual has a mutation that causes a major change in their anatomy or physiology, but generally these will not survive to reproduce. Mutations can only affect what's already there - a crustacean can't mutate 'a coat of fur', and a fox can't mutate 'a hard exoskeleton'.

In general, individual mutations have very small effects - most are neutral and insignificant - the average human has around 60 novel mutations. It is populations that evolve as a result of the accumulation of advantageous and neutral mutations that spread throughout the population. Significant changes to anatomy or physiology of the degree you mention would need hundreds or thousands of generations and many mutations, each spreading through the whole population. Only mutations that have some selective advantage or are relatively neutral, will spread through the population. The spread of relatively neutral mutations through a population is called 'genetic drift'.

From this you can see that the most rapid changes in a population are likely to occur when the selection pressures are strong (e.g. environmental change) and population size is small (mutations can spread through the whole population in fewer generations). These are also the times of greatest risk of extinction.

 

[USincognito]

Huh, I have never heard this understanding of evolution, though it's interesting that both you and USi seem to have the same perspective, and, as you suggested earlier, the two of you are eerily similar...

There's a reason why Jack and I are on the same page.

It is my understanding that evolution is meant to describe the gradual change of one species to another, different, distinct species. If the species stays the same, then it is not evolution, but rather adaptation within the species.

1. I believe I have asked you to provide a hypothetical example of what you mean one species changing into another, different, distinct species. If I have not, I'm asking now.
2. Adaption is still evolution. The same way a single stride is still walking.

It is my understanding that most evolutionists would be ecstatic to have even a single, individual demonstration of this theory in action, let alone entire populations.

I"m sorry, but I have no idea what this means. What, exactly, are you referring to by "a single, individual demonstration"? You're not referring to something like an iguana hatching a clutch of puppies, are you? Because that would falsify evolution.

 

[Jenny Perkins]

Yeah, some Americans have a ridiculous notion of the political spectrum worldwide. A European conservative would be "leftist" in the minds of some of us.

Anyone who tries to see both sides of an argument is a liberal all those who don't or can't are fanatics.

 

[dickyh995]

Huh, I have never heard this understanding of evolution, though it's interesting that both you and USi seem to have the same perspective, and, as you suggested earlier, the two of you are eerily similar...

And there's the issue. Even a cursory glance at Wikipedia shows the first line as "Evolution is change in the heritable characteristics of biological populations over successive generations." Surely it's important to understand the basics of the Theory before dismissing it?

 

[Loudmouth]

So, any comments on the content of the post?

Why would sexual species have to reinvent sexual organs when they have just inherited those very things from their ancestors?

 

[Loudmouth]

Ok, so what's the most complex mutation a crustacean, (or whatever example you'd like to use) could have before it violates evolution? Is there a standard for measuring complexity of mutation?

Evolution places no limits on the change in complexity that a mutation can produce. What the theory of evolution does state is that for species groups where horizontal genetic transfer is exceedingly rare, as is the case for bilaterians (a group that includes humans and crustaceans), we should see a nested hierarchy where adaptations stay within a lineage instead of skipping around all over the place. Hair is an adaptation that evolved in the mammal lineage well after the crustacean and mammal lineages split from their common ancestor. Therefore, you should not see mammal specific adaptations appearing in crustaceans if evolution is true.

 

[Loudmouth]

Huh, I have never heard this understanding of evolution, though it's interesting that both you and USi seem to have the same perspective, and, as you suggested earlier, the two of you are eerily similar...

I bet they also have the same perspective on germs and atoms. Following the evidence has this strange ability to cause people to arrive at the same conclusions.

It is my understanding that evolution is meant to describe the gradual change of one species to another, different, distinct species. If the species stays the same, then it is not evolution, but rather adaptation within the species.

Evolution explains why some lineages change over time, but it doesn't require that all lineages do so. However, from a genetic standpoint, all lineages are evolving and are changing even if that genetic change does not result in as much physical change.

I had the impression most evolutionists would be ecstatic to have even a single, individual demonstration of this theory in action, let alone entire populations.

We already have the record of those changes. That record is the genomes of living species.

 

[Loudmouth]

I don't know all of what can or can't be done regarding genetics, so I mostly try to discuss in terms of what seems to make sense regarding the bigger picture.

Random mutations and natural selection, in the absence of horizontal genetic transfer, can not make the genome of one species more like the genome of another species. This is why evolution produces a nested hierarchy where different mutations occur in different lineages while descendants inherit the mutations that occurred in their ancestors.

But, in evolution, there is nothing to violate. There is no control.

Since there is no control, then we should see a nested hierarchy, and that is exactly what we see.

Who are you to say what a mutation can or can't be? A "nested hierarchy"? Why should evolution be restricted to the classifications we decide? It's pretty popular these days to claim that dinosaurs had feathers. That doesn't violate nested hierarchies?

Why would it violate a nested hierarchy? Dinosaurs are the proposed ancestors of birds, so that would be a vertical transfer of an adaptation which is predicted by the theory. A violation would be a mammal with feathers because that would require a horizontal transfer of an adaptation. No mammal was an ancestor or descendant of birds, so there is no feathered ancestor to pass down that trait through vertical inheritance.

How is a dinosaur with feathers different (in concept) from a crustacean mutating a patch of fur?

Dinosaurs with feathers is vertical inheritance while a crustacean with fur is horizontal inheritance.

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

Huh, I have never heard this understanding of evolution, though it's interesting that both you and USi seem to have the same perspective, and, as you suggested earlier, the two of you are eerily similar...

hummm, no, we learn evolution the same way here in Australia... from what I hear, it's a contentious issue in America, so many educators don't even touch on the subject where they don't have to.

It is my understanding that evolution is meant to describe the gradual change of one species to another, different, distinct species. If the species stays the same, then it is not evolution, but rather adaptation within the species.

Nope, it's all evolution.

I had the impression most evolutionists would be ecstatic to have even a single, individual demonstration of this theory in action, let alone entire populations.

Well, there's been plenty of evidence for a long time. Even more so now with genetics on the boil...

The two of you are daring indeed.

...or educated on the topic? Along with the rest of us who were lucky enough to not have a majority religious population that could interfere with public education to the same extent it is in the US.