Evolution for Drotar

[lucaspa]

Drotar

Whoa!

I have huge problems with evolution.

Purely in the inconsistency of it and the fact that it is EXTREMELY unscientific.

I mean, most "scientists" here apply the law of use and disuse in the place of evolution subconsciously. It is a MAJOR fallacy. Evolution or natural selection deals with gene pools and the frequency of alleles, NOT use and disuse. And for this MAIN reason, the result of evolution SHOULD point in the same direction as entropy,

Until you see me apply the "law" of use or disuse, it's a bit premature to accuse me of using it, especially "subconsciously".

Entropy is a concept that deals with the energy available to do work. It is sometimes sloppily called "order" and "disorder", but that is not how the equations are framed. Instead, the equations say that the distribution will tend toward an equilibrium of the greatest possible entropy.

I think you are forgetting selection. Because the environment has parameters, and because there is competition among individuals in a population for scarce resources in the environment, some alleles will do well in the competition and some will not. This means that the individuals who are lucky enough to carry those alleles will do either well or poorly. Those individuals who do well so that some alleles do well in the competition will have more offspring and those who do poorly will have less offspring. Thus the frequency of the alleles in the population will NOT tend toward equilibrium.

There are a couple of exceptions to this general trend, involving contradictory selection pressures in the population (such as for sickle cell trait), but even those are not a thermodynamic equilibrium, but a dynamic equilibrium dependent on the fitness of the alleles.

 

[Cantuar]

Right, let's all settle down with some popcorn (or in my case a nice cup of tea) and watch the show.

BTW, Drotar, lucaspa is a real scientist, not just a "scientist" or whatever dismissive term you used.

 

[lucaspa]

Let me add about something about use and disuse. In Darwinian terms, there is always a cost in making a characteristic -- usually in energy spent. Therefore, if the trait is not selected by the environment, an individual who has a variation such that it does NOT make the trait has a slight advantage in that it expends less energy.

When examined in detail, however, we see that most cases of "disuse" involve not the loss of the structure, but the ADDITION of a developmental step to block the structure or remove it. Additional information.

Two examples:
1. From Darwin, looking at certain flightless beetles on islands. At first this would appear to be "disuse" (and yes, Darwin sometimes did slip into Lamarckism), but upon closer inspection was not the loss of the wings, but the addition of a carapace over the wings so that they could not unfold and be used. The reason was the high winds on the islands such that a winged individual could easily be blown off the island. Individuals with variations restricting the wings, however, had a better chance of NOT being blown away and therefore had more descendents.

2. Loss of eyes in the blind mole rat. It turns out that not ALL the eye is lost. Instead, the development of particular features are suppressed (to save energy) but other features are specifically retained because those features are needed for circadian rhythms. J Diamond, Evolving backward. Discover 19: 64-71, Sept. 1998.

 

[lucaspa]

Drotar, are you out there?

 

[Jet Black]

he went to bed a while ago.

 

[JohnR7]

I think you are forgetting selection. Because the environment has parameters, and because there is competition among individuals in a population for scarce resources in the environment, some alleles will do well in the competition and some will not.

Not enough resources? Or to much greed and hoarding? God supplys the need. In some cases, like with people, there are those who take more than is rightfully due to them and that does not leave enough for others. But God supplys the need.

 

[Jet Black]

your point is, unsuprisingly, nothing to do with natural selection, again.

 

[Siliconaut]

Just ignore it - thread derailing has been attempted.

 

[lucaspa]

Not enough resources? Or to much greed and hoarding? God supplys the need. In some cases, like with people, there are those who take more than is rightfully due to them and that does not leave enough for others. But God supplys the need.

John, Drotar requested a private discussion one on one adn invited people who wanted such a discussion to set up a thread. I have done so. I don't want to say you are unwelcome, but that was his request. You should take it up with him before you continue your participation in this thread.

John, you are trying to apply instructions concerning HUMAN emotional or material needs to nature. It's not valid. The passages in the Bible you are using are not referring to what happens in nature except as metaphor, not as a literal description.

It is well documented that any species can produce more offspring than the environment can sustain. Just look at all the seeds of the maple trees in your neighborhood. Obviously not all of them can or do grow to maturity. There simply isn't enough soil or water to support all of them. That makes area and the amount of soil (with its nutrients) a scarce resource. God simply can't make enough area for all the possible maple trees.

Making an unthinking claim like this is what St. Augustine referred to when he said "Now it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men."

Now, if you want to make Christianity look foolish to encourage the "infidels", please take yourself off to www.infidels.org and you will find plenty of infidels to welcome your aid.

In this case you aren't even giving the meaning of Scripture, but showing ignorance of both Scripture and science.

It is unconscionable, to say the least, for you to pretend to be a Christian while actively seeking to destroy Christianity. Please stop.

 

[lucaspa]

he went to bed a while ago.

I was just bumping up the thread since Drotar had not responded but was still around. I didn't want it to get lost for him. I'll keep bumping it up for the next several days so that he will see it.

 

[Drotar]

Sorry, I was gone. You could stick a link to the thread you want me to see in a PM and I'd read it.

Yep, I'm here now. But since I am here, to be fair, I hope it'll be just us.

Let me be honest: this is my first debate over evolution since I learned it. I might, and probably will lose. But as long as I learn more, it doesn't bother me.

 

[Drotar]

Let me add about something about use and disuse. In Darwinian terms, there is always a cost in making a characteristic -- usually in energy spent. Therefore, if the trait is not selected by the environment, an individual who has a variation such that it does NOT make the trait has a slight advantage in that it expends less energy.

When examined in detail, however, we see that most cases of "disuse" involve not the loss of the structure, but the ADDITION of a developmental step to block the structure or remove it. Additional information.

Two examples:
1. From Darwin, looking at certain flightless beetles on islands. At first this would appear to be "disuse" (and yes, Darwin sometimes did slip into Lamarckism), but upon closer inspection was not the loss of the wings, but the addition of a carapace over the wings so that they could not unfold and be used. The reason was the high winds on the islands such that a winged individual could easily be blown off the island. Individuals with variations restricting the wings, however, had a better chance of NOT being blown away and therefore had more descendents.

2. Loss of eyes in the blind mole rat. It turns out that not ALL the eye is lost. Instead, the development of particular features are suppressed (to save energy) but other features are specifically retained because those features are needed for circadian rhythms. J Diamond, Evolving backward. Discover 19: 64-71, Sept. 1998.

Here's what I'm talking about:

People use, as proof for evolution more than anything, that our appendix shrunk because we didn't eat raw meat and didn't need it anymore as we started cooking our food. Okay, what the heck? Shrinking appendix because we didn't need it any more: Natural selection, or use and disuse?

Vestigial organs in general are what I'm talking about.

The most common illustration in defense of the theory is a series of horses that gradually lose a toe at a time as time goes on. I asked, did having one more toe cuase group A to cease living because the new more evolved species had one less? Did they become extinct because the new species had one less toe? They all responded, no, it hindered their running and so eventually they didn't need it. Is that loss of one toe THAT substantial so as to wipe out the preexisting population? Sorry, I'm not going to buy what I'm being sold here.

Explain thus much and I'll respond in turn. TTYL Jesus loves you!

 

[Drotar]

I have to say that here's the problem:

If there is a transition between one species to another (which has never been uncovered), then during those five or six generation or however long it takes, those new animals with changes that are purely seminal (not quite developed as of yet), will be at a DISadvantage to the pre-existing population. Because of that, they will never get to the point where their new traits are fully developed. Because through many generations, that new species will be at a DISadvantage possessing not-funcitonal traits, and expending that energy loss. The trait must be substantial, and without much transition. Of course, the problem with that is that in nature, to prevent such measures, parents kill their young if something mutated and an animal that's becoming a different species pops out.

I don't know how to say this. Arggh! I'm not too articulate with words. Do you understand thus far? Hopefully that grunt will suffice at an explanation. TTYL Jessu loves you!

 

[Philip]

People use, as proof for evolution more than anything, that our appendix shrunk because we didn't eat raw meat and didn't need it anymore as we started cooking our food. Okay, what the heck? Shrinking appendix because we didn't need it any more: Natural selection, or use and disuse?

I thought the appendix was for digesting bark, but that's not important.

Our appendix did not shrink. Its growth is inhibited. This saves energy, and makes life easier. Those people who were not wasting energy growing an organ they wouldn't use were selected for. They were more efficient than their large-appendixed neighbors.

They all responded, no, it hindered their running and so eventually they didn't need it.

More correctly, the extra toe hindered their running. The ones who lacked the extra toe lacked the extra hinderence. They were able to more live more efficiently. They out-competed their multi-toed relatives.

Is that loss of one toe THAT substantial so as to wipe out the preexisting population?

"Wipe out" is a rather forceful word. "Replace" would be better.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

*Pete nudges Drotar*

Lucaspa posted a thread about Transitional Forms. You might want to look at that before bringing up the "no transitions" argument.

You might also want to have a look at:

Observed Instances of Speciation
Some More Observed Speciation Events
Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ
Smooth Changes in the Fossil Record

 

[Drotar]

Fine, put the thread on hold while I take a look at them.

 

[The Barbarian]

The change in horses corresponded to a change in environment. Hyracotherium lived in wooded areas, and was a browser. So low-crowned teeth and toes were useful there.

But later, the wooded areas shrank, and wide grasslands appeared. There, agility was less important than speed, and high-crowned teeth were useful for chewing up abrasive grasses.

Since hiding was not much of an option on open plains, larger bodies made sense.

During this time, some lines of horses remained in forests, and continued to browse. These were small (or in some cases became secondarily small) and had low-crowned teeth and toes.

 

[Drotar]

I thought the appendix was for digesting bark, but that's not important.

Our appendix did not shrink. Its growth is inhibited. This saves energy, and makes life easier. Those people who were not wasting energy growing an organ they wouldn't use were selected for. They were more efficient than their large-appendixed neighbors.



More correctly, the extra toe hindered their running. The ones who lacked the extra toe lacked the extra hinderence. They were able to more live more efficiently. They out-competed their multi-toed relatives.



"Wipe out" is a rather forceful word. "Replace" would be better.

The debate was with lucaspa, not with you, I say with the utmost respect. But since he's not here, I'll politely respond to your post.

Inhibited? Fancy theory. But please explain what you mean to say about HOW it's growth was inhibited. Genetically? Remember that evolution requires SPENDING energy.


With your toe illustration, you completely missed the same point.

Is having a smaller appendix going to cause the pre-existnet species to cease living? I understand taht those horses were more efficient.

But HOW much more efficient is my issue. Saying that having an underdeveloped appendix or one less toe is substantial enough to kill off the father species is ridiculous. If the birth rate was faster than the death rate before reproduction for the father horses (if contributions of the less evolved species allels to the gene pool happened with greater frequency than they died off as a result of having an extra toe, then evolution could not have occured). In other words, in order for evolution to occur, the older species must die out. This means, that the birth rate must be SLOWER than the rate of animals dying prior to the reproductive age.

See what I see in perspective now?

Sure, the other horse was more efficient and became prominent. But not at a rate faster so fast that the preexistent species was dying faster than it could reproduce.

Especially NOT with the ancestors of humans from apes. Ugh, the thought sends chills down my spine man. It's not as if they have are more efficient and so they replace the older species. Not that simple man. According to Darwinian evolution, it also requires the dying out of the old species in synchrony with the development of the new.

Did having a fully-functional appendix cause them to die out faster than they could reach the age of reproduction? Did it make everyone die out before they could reach their teen years. GIVE ME A BREAK.

Darwinian evolution requires contribution of alleles and traits to the gene pool, but also the gradual ceasing of the old species to contribute its genes to the gene pool because it cannot survive as it is. Only problem, if they reach the age of reproduction more often than they die before then, the contribution of the old alleles stays constant, or GROWS.

TTYL Jesus loves you! (my debate is with lucaspa, he offered and I accepted. I'm alrady at a disadvantage being half everyone's age here. The last thing I need is having multiple opponents on here.)

 

[Drotar]

The change in horses corresponded to a change in environment. Hyracotherium lived in wooded areas, and was a browser. So low-crowned teeth and toes were useful there.

But later, the wooded areas shrank, and wide grasslands appeared. There, agility was less important than speed, and high-crowned teeth were useful for chewing up abrasive grasses.

Since hiding was not much of an option on open plains, larger bodies made sense.

During this time, some lines of horses remained in forests, and continued to browse. These were small (or in some cases became secondarily small) and had low-crowned teeth and toes.

That conclusion was drawn to support what they wanted to see in the fossil record and in evolution.

THAT is even more impossible to prove.

The claims about the places they lived in was drawn to support their conclusion, not vice-versa. Proving the variations in plant life is even more impossible.

Please, respect that I am at a disadvantage just having graduated high school and all! Debating with a scientist is hard enough. I don't need to single-handedly enter a free-for-all against me. What's going on now is why I like private debate. Wilikers! TTYL Jesus loves you!

 

[ifriit]

According to Darwinian evolution, it also requires the dying out of the old species in synchrony with the development of the new.

I know I'm butting in, but I'd appreciate it if you'd clarify why you think this is the case.