Evolution Lesson

[xianghua]

No, I don't, however, I fail to find any paper that actually quantifies how genetically similar they are to each other to begin with, so I don't exactly have much to comment on.

Also, I just told you that divergence at a genetic level is NOT constant. As species evolve, their mutation rates can change (which is why humans and chimpanzees don't have the same mutation rates). Furthermore, when selection pressures are such that no change is the most beneficial path for survival, changes on the genetic level will be selected against almost entirely, leaving the population genetics pretty consistent despite the passage of time. Thus why the ancestors of modern sharks from millions of years ago appear so similar to modern sharks, while human ancestors from millions of years ago are highly distinct from modern humans.

In such cases where genetic change is selected against, only neutral mutations that have no impact are liable to be passed down and show a divergence. So, only mutations that keep non-coding areas non-coding, and ones which do not change the effects of coding genes even though they might change a base pair or two, prevail in such circumstances. Evolution doesn't stop, sure, but it slows to such a crawl that a species can remain functionally unchanged for thousands of generations easily.

we actually talking here about neutral mutations. not about an adaptive ones. so the calculation is correct and cant be effect by a natural selection. the claim that we may have a different molecular clock is true. but not at that fold. and if at that fold then any molecular clock evidence is just a joke.

 

[PsychoSarah]

we actually talking here about neutral mutations. not about an adaptive ones. so the calculation is correct and cant be effect by a natural selection. the claim that we may have a different molecular clock is true. but not at that fold. and if at that fold then any molecular clock evidence is just a joke.

-_- how you or I tell that we are discussing neutral mutations when, thus far, neither of us even has a source quantifying how similar coelacanths and lung fish are. Without that, we can't quantify the number of mutations that would be different between those two species. We need their individual mutation rates as well. Remember how I mentioned that the 40-60 mutations in humans per person is really high? I guess I didn't get across how absurdly high it is. For example, in most bacteria, there are 0.003 mutations per new bacterium. The only reason bacterial evolution is so much faster than our own is because their reproduction is so much faster, and their populations so much higher. Aquatic species, like I said before, also have relatively slow mutation rates, thanks to the fact that water shields them from more mutagenic radiation than the atmosphere alone does.

 

[xianghua]

-_- how you or I tell that we are discussing neutral mutations when, thus far, neither of us even has a source quantifying how similar coelacanths and lung fish are. Without that, we can't quantify the number of mutations that would be different between those two species. We need their individual mutation rates as well. Remember how I mentioned that the 40-60 mutations in humans per person is really high? I guess I didn't get across how absurdly high it is. For example, in most bacteria, there are 0.003 mutations per new bacterium. The only reason bacterial evolution is so much faster than our own is because their reproduction is so much faster, and their populations so much higher. Aquatic species, like I said before, also have relatively slow mutation rates, thanks to the fact that water shields them from more mutagenic radiation than the atmosphere alone does.

here is an interesting fig to look at:

Molecular developmental mechanism in polypterid fish provides insight into the origin of vertebrate lungs : Scientific Reports

we can see that the coelacanth genes are very similar to the human ones. it's of course means that they are very similar to those of the lungfish..

 

[Nat Page]

I am amazed that creationists want answers but are never satisfied with the answers they are given, then they turn around and accept a non answer like a Goddidit, a Goddidit as an answer not only does it not answer any questions it raises a thousand more questions, you might just as well say a wooflepuffdidit for all it answers.

 

[AV1611VET]

a Goddidit as an answer not only does it not answer any questions it raises a thousand more questions,

For whom? the creationist or the evolutionist?

Didn't Paul tell us that giving in to a discussion on evolution (endless genealogies) vs faith would ... as you put it ... raise a thousand more questions?

1 Timothy 1:4 Neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith: so do.

 

[Nat Page]

For whom? the creationist or the evolutionist?

For all rational thinking people, superstitions should be left in the distant past where they belong.

 

[PsychoSarah]

here is an interesting fig to look at:

Molecular developmental mechanism in polypterid fish provides insight into the origin of vertebrate lungs : Scientific Reports

we can see that the coelacanth genes are very similar to the human ones. it's of course means that they are very similar to those of the lungfish..

-_- no, not of course. You'd only be able to make that conclusion if coelacanth genes were similar to human genes, AND lungfish genes were similar to human genes. Basically, you can't determine the degree of genetic similarity between two different species without something to link the comparison.

-_- also, this is one gene, 1 gene, that we are looking at here, and did you even look closely at the differences between the sequence in coelacanths and humans? 20 of those bases out of the first 80(going with 80 since that is the highest number for this sequence out of the species looked at) of the base pairs are different/do not exist between our species and coelacanths. That's 25% different in that part of the sequence, That's like saying "The cat ate her" and "The rat bit her" have similar meanings. 60 out of the 273(going by the same pattern as before) base pairs are different, with quite a few entirely missing in one species that are present in the other, which makes for an approximate 22% difference between the two sequences. The gene is somewhat similar, but structurally significantly different.

Also, did you forget that some genes are highly conserved? The comparison of just 1 gene lends no accurate indication of how genetically similar 2 species are all by itself. By chance, the gene being analyzed could happen to be significantly more or significantly less similar between species compared to their overall genomes.

 

[FredVB]

I am amazed that creationists want answers but are never satisfied with the answers they are given, then they turn around and accept a non answer like a Goddidit, a Goddidit as an answer not only does it not answer any questions it raises a thousand more questions, you might just as well say a wooflepuffdidit for all it answers.

Why should there be this standard among you, that you can be critical of the answers of others who aren't satisfied with answers they hear, and yet any of us are criticized if we bring up that you don't have answers for why or how all this universe is here, and dismiss necessary being that there must be. Saying you are still working on getting or finding the answers is meaningless. With what is dismissed, you will never have the answers and it will never be possible for you. But there will be accountability to face, there is justice always, ultimately, we have the sense of justice needed, it has basis from that.

 

[Speedwell]

But there will be accountability to face, there is justice always, ultimately, we have the sense of justice needed, it has basis from that.

OK, so we're accountable. What will be the punishment for those who do not accept the Genesis stores as accurate literal history? Will it be the same for those of us who have accepted Christ as our savior as for atheists and adherents to non-Christian religions.?

 

[FredVB]

As a Christian believer, I still will consider what is found in science as well as I might. I would not want to throw that way of finding new things out, and I would like learning new things still. I guess any believers will have different conclusions, I don't think God would hold those ideas against any of us. What we are accountable for are actual wrong things we do. If we serve our Lord with our lives, we are not subject to condemnation for wrong things we have done, this still means repentance for not doing those things still. So not believing the right things won't matter for that if we trust our Lord to live right then. Of course many still have to learn more to live right, I don't say we do that so much, and I have to learn more too. I don't think not trusting God is what any are condemned for, but they won't have a way out from condemnation for what wrong things they have done, like those who repent and would live for the Lord would.

Dismissing truth still isn't right, and in the case of dismissing necessary existence that is needed to explain all we do see, that has nothing of it explaining itself, at all, there is no justification for that. There are those who would dismiss considering God when they have nothing for any necessary existence to show, which there is, necessarily, if there is anything of existence, which there certainly is.

 

[Speedwell]

Why should there be this standard among you, that you can be critical of the answers of others who aren't satisfied with answers they hear, and yet any of us are criticized if we bring up that you don't have answers for why or how all this universe is here, and dismiss necessary being that there must be. Saying you are still working on getting or finding the answers is meaningless. With what is dismissed, you will never have the answers and it will never be possible for you. But there will be accountability to face, there is justice always, ultimately, we have the sense of justice needed, it has basis from that.

Because science is about answering "how" questions, not "why" questions. When you say "God did it" you are essentially answering a "why" question which science doesn't ask nor pretend to have an answer for..

 

[Ophiolite]

Why should there be this standard among you, that you can be critical of the answers of others who aren't satisfied with answers they hear,

There are two broad ways in which one can be critical of answers. Consider what was long an issue in igneous petrology - the origin of spillites, a basic igneous rock with a high Na content. Here are two possible critques of a well favoured hypothesis that spillites were the result of direct interaction between sea water and basaltic lava:

1. I am unconvinced by this explanation for two principal reasons: firstly the higher Na concentrations are found in the core of the spillite pillows, not in their crust which is where we would expect them to occur if direct interaction with sea water was the cause. Secondly, we have examples of submarine lava flows that are spillitic in one part and normal basalt in another part.
2. I am unconvinced by this explantion. It just doesn't sound feasible to me. It leaves lots of questions unanswered. The explanation is incomplete. It is weak and unsatisfactory.

Fred, which of these critiques do you think is the one likely to be taken seriously? Do you recognise that the second type is representative of the critiques we hear from Creationists when they object to one or other aspect of evolutionary theory. That's why we are critical of those responses. Learn something about evolution, not the strawman version you've been fed by 'professional' Creationists. Then ask some serious questions. You will be respected for that.

 

[FredVB]

Because science is about answering "how" questions, not "why" questions. When you say "God did it" you are essentially answering a "why" question which science doesn't ask nor pretend to have an answer for.

Reducing what I say to simply "God did it" is a simplistic dismissal. I have not actually said anywhere that the discussion was about what science answers. There was dismissal of what I say with my belief (to say it nicely) as though it is an uneducated or uninformed position. Though not saying it is a scientific approach, it is an approach with logic, which I have been seeking to show, and what science does not address is no justification to dismiss that understanding.

There are two broad ways in which one can be critical of answers. Consider what was long an issue in igneous petrology - the origin of spillites, a basic igneous rock with a high Na content. Here are two possible critques of a well favoured hypothesis that spillites were the result of direct interaction between sea water and basaltic lava:

1. I am unconvinced by this explanation for two principal reasons: firstly the higher Na concentrations are found in the core of the spillite pillows, not in their crust which is where we would expect them to occur if direct interaction with sea water was the cause. Secondly, we have examples of submarine lava flows that are spillitic in one part and normal basalt in another part.
2. I am unconvinced by this explantion. It just doesn't sound feasible to me. It leaves lots of questions unanswered. The explanation is incomplete. It is weak and unsatisfactory.

Fred, which of these critiques do you think is the one likely to be taken seriously? Do you recognise that the second type is representative of the critiques we hear from Creationists when they object to one or other aspect of evolutionary theory. That's why we are critical of those responses. Learn something about evolution, not the strawman version you've been fed by 'professional' Creationists. Then ask some serious questions. You will be respected for that.

I understand. I do not have the incentive to have a well worded critique published for objecting to any other position. I can just try to show what objections I have in my own words. I have seen materials from scientists who are creationist, though I think they are a very small minority, being a scientist and being creationist is not mutually exclusive. I see that there is nothing to explain the universe existing, with all the physical parameters exactly right for it to be a universe that can function with any life in it, if it came from a tiny existence from a big bang at its start. It is so unlikely that all the parameters would be just like that, but they are. There are ideas for it but no less valid than understanding there is necessary being with inherent power and intelligence, without being limited, as necessary being, beyond all the universe.

For evolution specifically, there are millions of fossils now. This was not the case in Charles Darwin's time, when he said that there would be enough fossils to show the transitions in biological evolution eventually. Now there is transition of microevolution that we know about. But that is not the same thing. So I ask about what transitions are known from any among the millions of fossils, that adequately show transition between greater groups, not just examples of speciation. I do not know of any being found that certainly show that, which should be the case if there is evolution, that would show it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Reducing what I say to simply "God did it" is a simplistic dismissal. I have not actually said anywhere that the discussion was about what science answers. There was dismissal of what I say with my belief (to say it nicely) as though it is an uneducated or uninformed position. Though not saying it is a scientific approach, it is an approach with logic, which I have been seeking to show, and what science does not address is no justification to dismiss that understanding.



I understand. I do not have the incentive to have a well worded critique published for objecting to any other position. I can just try to show what objections I have in my own words. I have seen materials from scientists who are creationist, though I think they are a very small minority, being a scientist and being creationist is not mutually exclusive. I see that there is nothing to explain the universe existing, with all the physical parameters exactly right for it to be a universe that can function with any life in it, if it came from a tiny existence from a big bang at its start. It is so unlikely that all the parameters would be just like that, but they are. There are ideas for it but no less valid than understanding there is necessary being with inherent power and intelligence, without being limited, as necessary being, beyond all the universe.

For evolution specifically, there are millions of fossils now. This was not the case in Charles Darwin's time, when he said that there would be enough fossils to show the transitions in biological evolution eventually. Now there is transition of microevolution that we know about. But that is not the same thing. So I ask about what transitions are known from any among the millions of fossils, that adequately show transition between greater groups, not just examples of speciation. I do not know of any being found that certainly show that, which should be the case if there is evolution, that would show it.

What sort of transitions do you think do not exist? The sea to land transitional fossils exist. The transitional fossils that resulted in modern mammals exist. It appears that you may have unrealistic expectations.

 

[Speedwell]

Reducing what I say to simply "God did it" is a simplistic dismissal. I have not actually said anywhere that the discussion was about what science answers. There was dismissal of what I say with my belief (to say it nicely) as though it is an uneducated or uninformed position. Though not saying it is a scientific approach, it is an approach with logic, which I have been seeking to show, and what science does not address is no justification to dismiss that understanding.

But that understanding is no justification for dismissing science.

I understand. I do not have the incentive to have a well worded critique published for objecting to any other position. I can just try to show what objections I have in my own words. I have seen materials from scientists who are creationist, though I think they are a very small minority, being a scientist and being creationist is not mutually exclusive. I see that there is nothing to explain the universe existing, with all the physical parameters exactly right for it to be a universe that can function with any life in it, if it came from a tiny existence from a big bang at its start. It is so unlikely that all the parameters would be just like that, but they are. There are ideas for it but no less valid than understanding there is necessary being with inherent power and intelligence, without being limited, as necessary being, beyond all the universe.

The two points of view are not mutually exclusive. To put it another way, nothing that science has discovered, nor potentially could discover, can rule out the existence of God.

For evolution specifically, there are millions of fossils now. This was not the case in Charles Darwin's time, when he said that there would be enough fossils to show the transitions in biological evolution eventually. Now there is transition of microevolution that we know about. But that is not the same thing. So I ask about what transitions are known from any among the millions of fossils, that adequately show transition between greater groups, not just examples of speciation. I do not know of any being found that certainly show that, which should be the case if there is evolution, that would show it.

The higher taxonomic categories form as speciation proceeds. There is no transition between them. Think of a growing tree. The tree grows as twigs split off from one another, but there is no transitioning of a twig from one branch to another.

 

[pitabread]

So I ask about what transitions are known from any among the millions of fossils, that adequately show transition between greater groups, not just examples of speciation. I do not know of any being found that certainly show that, which should be the case if there is evolution, that would show it.

This particular list is a bit old by now (last updated in 1997), but it documents various transitional vertebrate fossils: Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ

And we know there are even more documented/described since that list was compiled.

So yeah, the fossil record definitely shows evolution. Even a cursory examination of paleontological literature will attest to that.

 

[FredVB]

What sort of transitions do you think do not exist? The sea to land transitional fossils exist. The transitional fossils that resulted in modern mammals exist. It appears that you may have unrealistic expectations.

Unrealistic? Charles Darwin made the prediction in the mid nineteenth century, now by this time there are many millions of fossils, as he said there would be. There would then be enough that, if biological evolution explains the groups of animals, and their members, there would be some example of transition of one family, or other major group, directly from its immediately preceding ancestral family or group. There could be many of those if it is the case, it is not unreasonable to ask for one case that shows it undeniably.

But that understanding is no justification for dismissing science.

What? Where am I seen dismissing science? What I have questioned are assumptions.

The two points of view are not mutually exclusive. To put it another way, nothing that science has discovered, nor potentially could discover, can rule out the existence of God.

I do not disagree, and my view should never have been dismissed as uninformed ignorant belief.

The higher taxonomic categories form as speciation proceeds. There is no transition between them. Think of a growing tree. The tree grows as twigs split off from one another, but there is no transitioning of a twig from one branch to another.

I have never heard that view before, you are apparently saying there were first creatures only of what would be called kingdoms first, without any phyla or classes, or lower, to designate them, and then later there were creatures according to what we would call phyla to designate them, with no lower categories, and so on until there were species distinctions. Is that right? Is there any source you use that you can show saying that?

This particular list is a bit old by now (last updated in 1997), but it documents various transitional vertebrate fossils: Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ

I started looking at this. I will say thank you for the link to this. It will be a lot to look through. So I want to be clear that I am looking for something more than examples of connecting dots. Any can connect dots of what they believe would go together. Others can contest those as imagined. I want just even one example of direct descent, with the transitional forms sufficiently showing it, for an immediately preceding ancestor not of the group such as a family leading to that group such as a family. Are there any of those?

 

[Speedwell]

Unrealistic? Charles Darwin made the prediction in the mid nineteenth century, now by this time there are many millions of fossils, as he said there would be. There would then be enough that, if biological evolution explains the groups of animals, and their members, there would be some example of transition of one family, or other major group, directly from iti immediately preceding ancestral family or group. There could be many of those if it is the case, it is not unreasonable to ask for one case that shows it undeniably.

You still appear to me to be laboring under a misconception as to how higher taxa are formed. They are created as speciation proceeds. Imagine a growing tree. A sprout comes out of the ground--a species. Then it splits into two twigs--now you have two species (the two new twigs) and the original sprout has become a genus. Each of the two new twigs splits again. Now you have four species (the four new twigs) divided into two new genera (the original two twigs) and the original sprout has become a family. And so on. As I understand your comments, I don't think that the kind of transition you are looking for ever occurs.

 

[pitabread]

I want just even one example of direct descent, with the transitional forms sufficiently showing it, for an immediately preceding ancestor not of the group such as a family leading to that group such as a family. Are there any of those?

Taxonomic designations like "family", "genus", and even "species" are completely artificial. Those are just human classifications to make discussing biological forms easier to talk about. You won't find any fossils with Panderichthys rhombolepis or Hynerpeton bassetti stamped on them.

Fossils themselves are simply representatives of particular groups of organisms that happen to be alive at a given point in time.

What matters is the respective patterns of morphological change over time and whether those patterns show evolutionary changes. And the fossils definitely do show that, as we have numerous transitional forms that are intermediaries between previous forms and subsequent forms.

Where we draw the taxonomic boundaries between those forms is immaterial.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Unrealistic? Charles Darwin made the prediction in the mid nineteenth century, now by this time there are many millions of fossils, as he said there would be. There would then be enough that, if biological evolution explains the groups of animals, and their members, there would be some example of transition of one family, or other major group, directly from iti immediately preceding ancestral family or group. There could be many of those if it is the case, it is not unreasonable to ask for one case that shows it undeniably.

You have been given examples. You also have a flawed concept of how evolution works. There is no transition from one family to another. You are still an ape for example. In fact you are still a "fish".

What? Where am I seen dismissing science? What I have questioned are assumptions.

What "assumptions"? If you claim that there is an assumption the burden of proof to show that it is an assumption is on you.

I do not disagree, and my view should never have been dismissed as uninformed ignorant belief.

Your questions continually demonstrate a lack of education when it comes to evolution. People have tired to help you, that raises the question why can you not learn from your errors?

I have never heard that view before, you are apparently saying there were first creatures only of what would be called kingdoms first, without any phyla or classes, or lower, to designate them, and then later there were creatures according to what we would call phyla to designate them, with no lower categories, and so on until there were species distinctions. Is that right? Is there any source you use that you can show saying that?

Really? I noticed that you made that mistake right away. I am reading this as I respond. I am betting that this correction has been made earlier. As a creationist you should know that a "change of kind" is a strawman argument.

I started looking at this. I will say thank you for the link to this. It will be a lot to look through. So I want to be clear that I am looking for something more than examples of connecting dots. Any can connect dots of what they believe would go together. Others can contest those as imagined. I want just even one example of direct descent, with the transitional forms sufficiently showing it, for an immediately preceding ancestor not of the group such as a family leading to that group such as a family. Are there any of those?

That is false. Creationists cannot "connect the dots". And there is much more than that. You see many of those "dots" were not known ahead of time. That makes each dot a test of the theory of evolution. I would suggest going over the basics of science first.