Evolution Primer

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jan 10, 2009
648
25
✟15,930.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married
Hi all,
In a number of other threads, various christians have made reference to evolution in some shape or form. A couple times as analogies that went poorly. Rather then simply say "That's not how it works", I'm going to try to explain it.

The premise is simple: "Each generation, species change a little, and over time create different species." The nitty gritty is a bit more complicated, so here's a little something I'm borrowing from a guy in Fark that goes by Ab33w. Awesome guy btw.

What "evolutionists" believe:
VARIATION:
1) Variation exists in all populations. Hair color, height, strength.
2) Some of that variation is heritable. Hair color, diabetes.
3) Base pair sequences are encoded in a set of self-replicating molecules that form templates for making proteins. DNA exists, replicates itself, and creates proteins.
4) Combinations of genes that did not previously exist may arise via "Crossing over" during meiosis, which alters the sequence of base pairs on a chromosome. Parent's DNA combines into a new and different DNA set.
5) Copying errors (mutations) can also arise, because the self-replication process is of imperfect (although high) fidelity; these mutations also increase the range of combinations of alleles in a gene pool.
6) These recombinations and errors produce a tendency for successively increasing genetic divergence radiating outward from the initial state of the population.
SELECTION:
7) Some of that heritable variation has an influence on the number of offspring able to reproduce in turn, including traits that affect mating opportunities, or survival prospects for either individuals or close relatives.
8) Characteristics which tend to increase the number of an organism's offspring that are able to reproduce in turn, tend to become more common over generations and diffuse through a population; those that tend to decrease such prospects tend to become rarer. (Survival of the fittest.)
9) Unrepresentative sampling can occur in populations which alters the relative frequency of the various alleles for reasons other than survival/reproduction advantages, a process known as "genetic drift". Stuff changes even if it doesn't help or hurt.
10) Migration of individuals from one population to another can lead to changes in the relative frequencies of alleles in the "recipient" population.
SPECIATION:
11) Populations of a single species that live in different environments are exposed to different conditions that can "favor" different traits. These environmental differences can cause two populations to accumulate divergent suites of characteristics.
12) A new species develops (often initiated by temporary environmental factors such as a period of geographic isolation) when a sub-population acquires characteristics which promote or guarantee reproductive isolation from the alternate population, limiting the diffusion of variations thereafter.
SUFFICIENCY:
13) The combination of these effects tends to increase diversity of initially similar life forms over time.
14) Over the time frame from the late Hadean to the present, this becomes sufficient to explain both the diversity within and similarities between the forms of life observed on Earth, including both living forms directly observed in the present, and extinct forms indirectly observed from the fossil record.

That's what Evolution IS. If you have a problem with Evolution, you have a problem with one or more of these fourteen points. Which one is it? Provide evidence that any of the points are incorrect.

While the origins of life are a question of interest to evolutionary biologists and frequently studied in conjunction with researchers from other fields such as geochemistry and organic chemistry, the core of evolutionary theory itself does not rest on a foundation that requires any knowledge about the origins of life on earth. It is primarily concerned with the change and diversification of life after the origins of the earliest living things - although there is not yet a consensus as to how to distinguish "living" from "non-living". (It is a separate issue, but I'd say it's fair to assume that most atheist who dig evolution bet on something called abiogenesis.)

Evolution does NOT demand that all variations are explained this way; that there are no other mechanisms by which variation may arise, be passed, or become prevalent; or that there is no other way life diversifies. Any and all of these may be valid topics for conjecture... but without evidence, they aren't science.
(by abb3w)

Sorry for the semi-spam, but this is a great primer into how evolution is explained and it's a fair shot better then I could do on my own. I'm not a biologist. But I AM a programmer. And the similarities between DNA and code are extreme. Genetic algorithms are a viable form of artificial intelligence. I've used them, they work... moderately well.

Other nifty tidbits:
Lizard to bird transitional fossils: [FONT=&quot]Caudipteryx, Archaeopteryx
Specification example: Horses and donkeys. [/FONT]
Did you know (oxygen-breathing) whales have vestigial leg bones? It leads some to believe that whales' and dolphins' ancestors walked on land and returned to the sea.
Richard Lenski spent a couple of decades setting up and watching for a meaningful and useful mutation in E.Coli. He found it, and has the whole population history to back up his words.
Other mutations: Hairless cats. Panda's gained a pseudo-thumb.
 

LadyDeflora

monolatrist
Jun 29, 2007
115
9
50
kalispell
✟7,794.00
Faith
Charismatic
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
so how does evolution explain the rise in children of the autism spectrum being born?

for all their amazing strengths and wowing intelligence they're not very efficient at self sufficiency, by evolutionary standards they'd be non viable for survival in a natural world and ideally a gene that wouldn't be encouraged to flourish.

it's well and easy to see in lesser mammals and bacteria but humanity isn't so simple, we have these annoying high functioning brains, but i suppose the easy answer of eating more protein resolves that complexity?
 
Upvote 0

Rasta

Senior Veteran
Jun 20, 2007
6,274
184
41
✟22,444.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
so how does evolution explain the rise in children of the autism spectrum being born?

I don't know. That's a good question though. Have we had a significant increase of cases?

for all their amazing strengths and wowing intelligence they're not very efficient at self sufficiency, by evolutionary standards they'd be non viable for survival in a natural world and ideally a gene that wouldn't be encouraged to flourish.

Since humanity has seen significant technological advances, we can afford to take care of thoes who are less fortunate. In an evolutionary sence, if they don't reproduce, they don't have any concrete impact.

it's well and easy to see in lesser mammals and bacteria but humanity isn't so simple, we have these annoying high functioning brains, but i suppose the easy answer of eating more protein resolves that complexity?

I don't know about this either.
 
Upvote 0
Jan 10, 2009
648
25
✟15,930.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married
so how does evolution explain the rise in children of the autism spectrum being born?

for all their amazing strengths and wowing intelligence they're not very efficient at self sufficiency, by evolutionary standards they'd be non viable for survival in a natural world and ideally a gene that wouldn't be encouraged to flourish.

it's well and easy to see in lesser mammals and bacteria but humanity isn't so simple, we have these annoying high functioning brains, but i suppose the easy answer of eating more protein resolves that complexity?

I wasn't aware it was on the rise. Or did you mean the existence of autism at all? I'm not really sure what autism is exactly (I wasn't aware the autistic were super-strong and brilliant), but it's a genetic disorder, so that would fall into an evolutionary attempt at something different. Not nessesarily better mind you, only different. If they survive and have children, and I'm sure the milder cases do, then presumably they pass on their autism to their children. Repeat a few thousand times and we may see the rise of an autistic sub-species.

Although, you know, it may turn out that all the chemicals in plastics are helping along that mutation rate.

"lesser mammals?". That's a little pretentious, but understandable. And what does eating protein have to do with it?


The similarity between DNA and code:
Computers work on a discreet base-2 system, DNA works on a discreet base-4 system.
Computer code is essentially a list of instructions to a processor. DNA is a list of instruction on how to make proteins.
Code is what a computer uses to operate and tell it what to do. DNA is what a cell/nucleolus uses to tell it what to do.
Our computer model is similar to that of a bacteria, in the sense that it has a portion of itself that acts as a list telling it what to do.
I've used genetic algorithms, which simulates the evolutionary process to get solutions to non-trivial problems.
Things like junk DNA, additional digits, genes crossing-over, reducing mutations, all have a very well-fitting programming analogy.
 
Upvote 0

Chesterton

Whats So Funny bout Peace Love and Understanding
Site Supporter
May 24, 2008
23,878
20,255
Flatland
✟870,033.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
The similarity between DNA and code:
Computers work on a discreet base-2 system, DNA works on a discreet base-4 system.
Computer code is essentially a list of instructions to a processor. DNA is a list of instruction on how to make proteins.
Code is what a computer uses to operate and tell it what to do. DNA is what a cell/nucleolus uses to tell it what to do.
Our computer model is similar to that of a bacteria, in the sense that it has a portion of itself that acts as a list telling it what to do.
I've used genetic algorithms, which simulates the evolutionary process to get solutions to non-trivial problems.
Things like junk DNA, additional digits, genes crossing-over, reducing mutations, all have a very well-fitting programming analogy.

Very interesting. Then I agree with this too.
 
Upvote 0
Jan 10, 2009
648
25
✟15,930.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married
So Aiki asked for evidence of new increased genetic information:
Look up Klinefelter's syndrome. It's when a child is born with an extra X chromosome rather then the usual XY. It messes up the kid, but it's HANDS DOWN, increasing the amount of genetic code.

Then he argued that it's simply the same chromosome twice, and that's not really new. Take a look at Wikipedia: E._coli_long-term_evolution_experiment by Lenski. He put E. coli in a scenario where it would benefit it to eat citrate (whatever that is) instead of the sugur or what it eats. Scientists have found this before in mutated strains, and have done it themselves through cloning, but Lenski got E. coli to do it and he has the entire population history on ice so he can explicitly show HOW it evolved the trait. He's still working on that part though.

So the process by which DNA is lengthened may not be the process by which it adapts it to be more beneficial, but both are certainly possible.
 
Upvote 0

soul_biscuit

Regular Member
Jan 19, 2009
263
19
✟15,476.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
so how does evolution explain the rise in children of the autism spectrum being born?

for all their amazing strengths and wowing intelligence they're not very efficient at self sufficiency, by evolutionary standards they'd be non viable for survival in a natural world and ideally a gene that wouldn't be encouraged to flourish.

Well, I don't see autistic children doing too well in the societies of our distant ancestors, I suppose. But things are different now. It's not so difficult for people with disabilities to survive and flourish. Not sure how many autistic people have children, though.

it's well and easy to see in lesser mammals and bacteria but humanity isn't so simple, we have these annoying high functioning brains, but i suppose the easy answer of eating more protein resolves that complexity?

Human brains aren't much more complex than the brains of other mammals. They're just bigger. The complexity is easily explained by selection for greater intelligence during our evolution. I'm sure it's not too difficult to imagine how greater intelligence might have been useful to our ancestors.
 
Upvote 0

PhilosophicalBluster

Existential Good-for-Nothing (See: Philosopher)
Dec 2, 2008
888
50
✟16,346.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
so how does evolution explain the rise in children of the autism spectrum being born?

for all their amazing strengths and wowing intelligence they're not very efficient at self sufficiency, by evolutionary standards they'd be non viable for survival in a natural world and ideally a gene that wouldn't be encouraged to flourish.

a) In the human race we've sort of slowed evolution down, because instead of watching sicknesses happen and then by process of natural selection, gradually phase out as the immune / unaffected reproduce more and the affected die off or reproduce less. Instead of doing that, the human race has begun to take things into its own hands and fix the problem with medication instead of waiting for evolution to do all the work.

b) Autism is not necessarily genetic. As of yet, we haven't identified the cause of autism, but many doctors and nutritionists hypothesize that autism lies not in genetics, but in the chemicals we put into our food supply. Our parents eat them, we get screwed up.

What does this mean? It means stop drinking diet cola, and go buy some organic produce.
 
Upvote 0

PhilosophicalBluster

Existential Good-for-Nothing (See: Philosopher)
Dec 2, 2008
888
50
✟16,346.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
So Aiki asked for evidence of new increased genetic information:
Look up Klinefelter's syndrome. It's when a child is born with an extra X chromosome rather then the usual XY. It messes up the kid, but it's HANDS DOWN, increasing the amount of genetic code.

I'm confused, do you mean XXY, XXX, or XX? Because the latter is a normal woman.

Besides, if you have trisomy (or is it triploidy? I always forget) in any chromosome pair, you would be lucky to have it on your X chromosome. Sure, an extra X isn't very good for you, but for pretty much any other chromosome, trisomy is fatal, usually resulting in miscarraige of the unlucky embryo.
 
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
Jan 10, 2009
648
25
✟15,930.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married
I'm confused, do you mean XXY, XXX, or XX? Because the latter is a normal woman.
Klinefelter's syndrome refers to XXY, although other less common combinations exist, even XXYY. And you're right, normally it's XY for males and XX for females. And yes, it really really messes up them up, but some of them live. And while it makes them less fertile, some can still reproduce.

As for slowing evolution due to a lack of selection, I don't think that's quite right. Selection does not spur evolution, it guides it. We as a species will not cease to mutate and change simply because the weak do not die at birth.

Uh, I'm just cribbing this from wikipedia, but it rarely steers me wrong: Autism has a strong genetic basis, although the genetics of autism are complex and it is unclear whether ASD is explained more by multigene interactions or by rare mutations.
Realizing that what we put into our bodies can mess up the whole reproduction thing.
 
Upvote 0

Anon Sequitur

Newbie
Feb 25, 2009
20
3
✟15,150.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
so how does evolution explain the rise in children of the autism spectrum being born?

for all their amazing strengths and wowing intelligence they're not very efficient at self sufficiency, by evolutionary standards they'd be non viable for survival in a natural world and ideally a gene that wouldn't be encouraged to flourish.

it's well and easy to see in lesser mammals and bacteria but humanity isn't so simple, we have these annoying high functioning brains, but i suppose the easy answer of eating more protein resolves that complexity?

It's because although we as humans are still affected by evolution, we have virtually destroyed the natural selection process. Medicine has advanced a long way, and people who would have died years ago due to genetic defects will now live long prosperous lives. In a way, we have cheated the system and encouraged those who "should"(not saying people should die! That would make me Hitler lol :p) die to flourish. One would think it would be extremely disadvantageous to not be able to see things far away, or near by, or a combination of the two; with the invention of glasses, people no longer suffer from these disadvantages. Instead of adapting naturally and becoming the fittest, man has adapted through his intelligence and augmented his weaknesses to become stronger than any creature could ever be with raw power. Does that make sense?
 
Upvote 0
Jan 4, 2004
2,432
333
✟11,699.00
Faith
Other Religion
Autism is a complicated topic because we haven't yet pinned down its cause or origin. It isn't likely that we'll identify some sort of "autism gene" that natural selection should have accounted for, but a genetic basis is possible as it seems to run in families. Genes with "negative" phenotypic effects can still spread throughout populations if the gene is carried more often than expressed, or if expression of it doesn't cause significant determent to the fitness of the organism to the point that it prevents reproduction. When we think of autism, we generally think of the severely autistic, but we must remember that it is a spectrum disorder--there are many functional autistic people with jobs, lives and families. There also is evidence to suggest it is an issue of brain development, among other various reasons not specifically related to genetics.

The idea that there has been a rise in autism might also be a bit misleading--diagnosis criteria changes over time for these types of disorders, resulting in shifts of prevalence and comorbidity rates across decades. These complications can make it seem as if disorders are becoming more or less prevalent when its really an issue of criteria refinement for these disorders as our knowledge of them grows. Its a pretty complicated topic.
 
Upvote 0

ApplePie7

Well-Known Member
Aug 24, 2007
2,500
79
✟3,030.00
Faith
Christian
So…

Let’s have the naturalists’ best evidence demonstrating that homo sapiens sapiens originated from another bipedal hominid.

Show your model.

Where is the recent evidence, in the past couple of years, to support that we somehow came from another species?

The theory of human evolution is going south at a very rapid rate.

The individuals who still cling tenaciously to some form of Darwinian evolution are simply living in the past, a generation still in denial.

Each time that this question is posed, we have the internet googlers bringing to the fore, the now defunct talkorigins decade old outmoded material…or something from wiki….basically, the first one or two googled hits that happen to come up.

Who can bring forth fresh solid evidence for human evolution?
 
Upvote 0
Jan 10, 2009
648
25
✟15,930.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married
Let’s have the naturalists’ best evidence demonstrating that homo sapiens originated from another bipedal hominid.
Show your model.
Well, I'm not a naturalist, but I'll take a stab. I'd say their best evidence is the fact of evolution. If evolution is true and in effect, then it's very likely that humans branched off from an earlier hominid. The model of evolution was the first post, go read it. Got a problem with any one of those points? I can defend it. If you don't have a problem with any one of those points, then you really don't have a problem with evolution.


Where is the recent evidence, in the past couple of years, to support that we somehow came from another species?
So why only recent stuff? Why discount the evidence and great work that Gregor Mendel provided? Remember the (paraphrased) words of Newton, "If I have seen farther, it is because I have stood on the shoulders of giants". Now, both Newton and Mendel certainly didn't get everything exactly right, and where their ideas fail, others will amend.
But recent stuff, sure, why not. There's Richard Lenski's experiment in getting E-Coli to evolve. I mentioned that before. It's not really recent per se, as he started a couple decades ago, but he only recently came out with the report. The whole field of genetics keeps marching forward, but I couldn't give any specific examples. There's the beautiful link between lizards and birds, but that's old-hat.

But I was unaware that the theory of human evolution is headed south. Why say such a thing? And this is essentially why I'm here in the fringes of the Internet, to inform and explain to those who are confused or in denial.
 
Last edited:
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

ApplePie7

Well-Known Member
Aug 24, 2007
2,500
79
✟3,030.00
Faith
Christian
Well, I'm not a naturalist, but I'll take a stab. I'd say their best evidence is the fact of evolution. If evolution is true and in effect, then it's very likely that humans branched off from an earlier hominid. The model of evolution was the first post, go read it. Got a problem with any one of those points? I can defend it. If you don't have a problem with any one of those points, then you really don't have a problem with evolution.


You quoted our question – but then failed to provide any evidence.

Let’s repeat the question once again so that others may respond.

“Let’s have the naturalists’ best evidence demonstrating that homo sapiens sapiens originated from another bipedal hominid.”





So why only recent stuff? Why discount the evidence and great work that Gregor Mendel provided? Remember the (paraphrased) words of Newton, "If I have seen farther, it is because I have stood on the shoulders of giants". Now, both Newton and Mendel certainly didn't get everything exactly right, and where their ideas fail, others will amend.



Gregor Mendel showed that homo sapiens sapiens originated from another bipedal hominid?
Not hardly.




But recent stuff, sure, why not. There's Richard Lenski's experiment in getting E-Coli to evolve. I mentioned that before. It's not really recent per se, as he started a couple decades ago, but he only recently came out with the report. The whole field of genetics keeps marching forward, but I couldn't give any specific examples. There's the beutiful like between lizards and birds, but that's old-hat.




Richard Lenski showed that homo sapiens sapiens originated from another bipedal hominid?
Not hardly.





But I was unaware that the theory of human evolution is headed south. Why say such a thing? And this is essentially why I'm here in the fringes of the Internet, to inform and explain to those who are confused or in denial.



The fact is, there is absolutely no evidence that homo sapiens sapiens originated from another bipedal hominid.
Time to brush-up on your sciences…
 
Upvote 0
Jan 10, 2009
648
25
✟15,930.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married
Well, I'm not a naturalist, but I'll take a stab. I'd say their best evidence is the fact of evolution. If evolution is true and in effect, then it's very likely that humans branched off from an earlier hominid.
There it is.

Time to brush up on reading comprehension. (tit for tat, but try to be nice)

sigh, but I guess I should explain....
If evolution is in effect, that means that life is constantly changing and certain observations make much more sense and some questions and answered. Observations like there appears to be a tree of species, all branching off from a single point. That certain families, hominids for example, are all actually related. That features of animals are explained by their environment. It explains why whales have leg bones and how pandas got another thumb. It's unlikely that humans are a special case in the wide world of nature. We're smarter then the average bear, but maybe not the dolphin.

If evolution is true (which is the original topic), why would it be any different for humans?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

ApplePie7

Well-Known Member
Aug 24, 2007
2,500
79
✟3,030.00
Faith
Christian
Well, I'm not a naturalist, but I'll take a stab. I'd say their best evidence is the fact of evolution. If evolution is true and in effect, then it's very likely that humans branched off from an earlier hominid.


There it is.

Time to brush up on reading comprehension.


Well...which is it?

Is it a fact...? You seem to be questioning it yourself by the usage of "if" it is true.


So...if it is true, then give us the exact name of the bipedal hominid that homo sapiens sapiens originated from.

How hard can this be?;)
 
Upvote 0
Jan 10, 2009
648
25
✟15,930.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married
oh come on, it's logic. X -> Y, if X is true then Y. Are you going to bash me if I the statement "if the sun rises tomorrow, I will eat cheese'"? The sun IS going to rise tomorrow, therefore I've got some cheese to be eating. If that's the best argument you can make, I'm just going chalk this one up as a win on my side. Oooh, oooh, this is too good to pass up:
So...if it is true
Oh so you believe it's true now? You seem to be giving in.
Ha, you see how horrible of an argument that is. Ach, no worries though. Relax, breath deep before posting. We can overcome this.

Anyway, yeah, it's true. Although the terms theory and fact get a lot of abuse in these discussions. Wikipedia has a great article on both. But as for a name? That's just taxonomy. People have given names to all these things, it's like asking for the exact color before yellow becomes green. So the name of the species that appears to be before homo sapiens is homo rhodesiensis, but remember that's just a classification thing. And since this is a massive chain, and the transition is slow, the exact previous one in the chain was, um, your mom. In a literal sense.

Also, I'm about 9 posts away from linking a great image of a series of skulls. It shows the transition from sloping foreheads and small craniums to present day homo sapien.
 
Last edited:
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

ApplePie7

Well-Known Member
Aug 24, 2007
2,500
79
✟3,030.00
Faith
Christian
oh come on, it's logic. X -> Y, if X is true then Y. Are you going to bash me if I the statement "if the sun rises tomorrow, I will eat cheese'"? The sun IS going to rise tomorrow, therefore I've got some cheese to be eating. If that's the best argument you can make, I'm just going chalk this one up as a win on my side. Oooh, oooh, this is too good to pass up:
Oh so you believe it's true now? Sou seem to be giving in.
Ha, you see how horrible of an argument that is. Ach, no worries though. Relax, breath deep before posting. We can overcome this.

Anyway, yeah, it's true. Although the terms theory and fact get a lot of abuse in these discussions. Wikipedia has a great article on both. But as for a name? That's just taxonomy. People have given names to all these things, it's like asking for the exact color before yellow becomes green. So the name of the species that appears to be before homo sapiens is homo rhodesiensis, but remember that's just a classification thing. And since this is a massive chain, and the transition is slow, the exact previous one in the chain was, um, your mom. In a literal sense.

Also, I'm about 9 posts away from linking a great image of a series of skulls. It shows the transition from sloping foreheads and small craniums to present day homo sapien.


You can't even so much as post a name.

So much for human evolution...:thumbsup:
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.