Hi,my 2, meagre cents.

[freeze43]

Ok I personally believe in evolution, I can't really find how it can't work. Basically what I would like to do is show what basic evolution in entails in an example. If you find fault or disagreement then you can go for it and then we can both be a little better for it .

Ok take a dog breeder. A dog breeder (let's call him Ralph) breeds dogs for pets, shows and so on. Ralph wants the best quality dogs for whatever work they may do. So what happens is a [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] gives birth to a litter of puppies. Unfortunately, one is stillborn, and two more pass away as they are too weak. The strongest of the puppies live on however, and because the two strongest are by far the best for breeding, the Ralph picks them to impregnate other [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]es and therefore have stronger puppies- which indeed happens as only one puppy passes away.

Ok the above concept is the simplest form of survival of the fittest.

Under the vet's orders, Ralph takes all his dogs to be checked. The vet notices unfortunately that a few of his dogs have cancer- it is somewhat treatable to let the dogs have a quality of life for years to come, but ultimately they must be put down. Ralph also notices that a few of the puppies have oddly coloured fur, which, like cancer, is another mutation. These mutations are hindrances, or in the case of the fur, quite benign. Over the years of breeding, Ralph comes across a special case though, one of his dogs has a very large heart- far larger than what would be expected for a dog of his size and his parents have no signs of it (Phar Lap, a highly successful 1930s racehorse had the same trait). This dog benefitted from having a large heart- he could run faster for longer and when Ralph bred this dog, the puppies also had larger hearts.

The above paragraph is essentially mutation. The actual bits and bobs of how mutation occurs is a DNA thing I can post on here if you like.

Ralh decided one day that he would breed the dogs with the odd coloured fur and the large-hearted dogs. Over the years, spiky fur here, larger teeth there, these dogs began to be quite apart from the original breed. Over time, if Ralph continued this and threw in whatever benefits the dogs had, he could make an entire new breed.

This paragraph suggests how new breeds and species can develop through mutation.

Ralph decided he was going to use this new form of the breed and intermingle it with entirely different breeds. He took a few collies for their coat to deal with the cold, a rottweiler to increase their size and an Alsatian which could invoke guard instincts into the new strain and produced an entirely new breed of dog. This process has created many breeds before including the Australian Cattle Dog.

This paragraph shows, through both mutation and selective survival (collies have a better coat in cold conditions for example) how new breeds and species can develop. I'm not saying new species require intermingling of different species by the way, but this is one theory of evolution.


For evolution, take Ralph to be the ecosystem for which an organism, such as a dog, exists. If the ecosystem had survival perameters then those most fit to exist there would thrive, and those that did not would be marginalized.

I know this is very basic but I am just curious to see if anyone has contentions regarding the base theory of evolution. This theory, by the way, does not eliminate the possibility of God's existence. While I have read on how life could theoretically develop ex nihilio, I personally cannot percieve this, I can only perceive the development of life through evolution.
Thanks for reading

 

[shindiggy]

ok man first of all, ur not very credible using unnesessarry vocabularys... now u only tell about how the THEORY of evolution is. There are still many problems agianst it too. Now, to make all this short, we all gota remember that evolution is based of another THEORY already. Like for example the "big bang" theory. now if theory is based upon another theory...... how can that be easy to believe. evolution has its truth, but what science is sugesting is preposterous. They can explain everything, but 1 thing they will never be able to explain is the feelings and soul and such regarding why it exists. so, i think there is definitely something more to it than all the nonsence science keep coming up with. we dont see any monkeys becoming human or even close to becoming human any day. i also dont believe that in many millions years human may become another species...

 

[freeze43]

Ok you haven't really addressed a particular issue but I'll go with it. I'll try and address all the points you have given.

The 'unneccessary vocabluary' i think is relevant as if a concept is applied to something people are used to, it tends to be understood better.

The whole thing regarding the fact it is a 'theory' isn't really saying a whole lot regarding its validity- a theory cannot be proven or disproven; when enough evidence stacks against it to be less likely to be true it is discarded. On the flipside, there are lots of theories that are still a theory, yet proven so much no one really questions it anymore, such as Pythagora's Theorem (regarding right angled triangles). In short, saying something is a theory does not increase or decrease it's validity at all. Theories based upon other theories happen all the time and everywhere and not just science. If there is a 'theory' that a christmas tree is a good way to celebrate winter, then the 'theory' of celebration will include the christmas tree on top of it. Theories relating to building structures exist from previous ideas, to cars, to whatever, and you trust these theories with your life everyday. Now I'm not saying that God doesn't exist, what I am saying is that evolution does, and there is still plenty of room for God's existence.

What sort of nonsense of science do you disagree with? Have you seen a soul? Scientists have indeed seen 'feelings' within the brain- certain parts of the brain have greater activity when certain feelings are felt. This is achieved by Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) and CAT scans among other things. Check it out on Google it is quite amazing. Again, I'm not saying God doesn't exist- a Cartesian concept of the soul easily allows for a brain and soul to exist side by side, but please consider that science has seen these phenomenon.

In regards to nothing 'coming close to humans' that too isn't the case. Chimpanzee's DNA is 99% identical to humans. Fair enough there is a difference in chromosomes, but something like a chromosomal difference isn't as extraordinarily dividing as it would seem. Children with down syndrome for instance, have an extra chromosome and at the same time can possess an average IQ. Now that we are on the subject of IQ, did you know they have found gorillas with a human testable IQ of 85-95? That is actually the average for humans (which the baseline is 100, with most people having an IQ between 80 and 115)! These apes also know perfect sign language and can readily communicate with anyone who knows it. They cannot speak as they lack the vocal chords. I personally find that amazing, what do you think?

 

[gluadys]

. Now, to make all this short, we all gota remember that evolution is based of another THEORY already. Like for example the "big bang" theory.

No, it isn't. Evolutionary theory has been around since the 1850s. Big Bang theory was not proposed until the 1920s and did not gain the backing of the majority of the scientific community until the 1970s.

So the theory of evolution got along quite well without Big Bang theory for nearly a century. And if Big Bang theory were falsfied tomorrow, the theory of evolution would not be affected one whit.

The same applies in reverse. If the theory of evolution were falsified, it would not affect Big Bang theory at all. Neither is dependent on the other.

 

[freeze43]

Indeedy-do. Evolution is not just theory btw, it is also considered fact.

 

[TheDreadedAtheist]

ok man first of all, ur not very credible using unnesessarry vocabularys... now u only tell about how the THEORY of evolution is. There are still many problems agianst it too. Now, to make all this short, we all gota remember that evolution is based of another THEORY already. Like for example the "big bang" theory. now if theory is based upon another theory...... how can that be easy to believe. evolution has its truth, but what science is sugesting is preposterous. They can explain everything, but 1 thing they will never be able to explain is the feelings and soul and such regarding why it exists. so, i think there is definitely something more to it than all the nonsence science keep coming up with. we dont see any monkeys becoming human or even close to becoming human any day. i also dont believe that in many millions years human may become another species...

And of course your spelling of "you're" makes you much more credible.

I don't mean to advertise this everywhere, but it seems fitting. Read this instead of posting based on half truths.

http://www.christianforums.com/t453...volution-since-it-comes-up-over-and-over.html

 

[freeze43]

You're post is nice, dreaded atheist, but I'm dealing with the absolute basics of evolution with everything else aside as opposed to throwing in scientific proof and going out and out with good old logic.

 

[reimer]

OK couple things to say about the dog thing and evolution. The mutations you are citing are an example of microevolution, the changing within a species. Evolution demands another type of evolving called macroevolution, the changing of one species into another. The changing your dogs underwent still make them dogs...they didn't turn into sheep, frogs or people, they stayed dogs so they never really evolved in the way they needed to for evolution to work. Also mutations found in nature are usually neutral or harmful to the animal, almost never helpful. Evolution demands millions of helpful mutations over billions of years in a row for it to even work. So while the dog is changing (microevolution) it isn't going to evolve into some other species anytime soon. Hope this makes sense!

 

[Edx]

OK couple things to say about the dog thing and evolution. The mutations you are citing are an example of microevolution, the changing within a species. Evolution demands another type of evolving called macroevolution, the changing of one species into another.

Speciation has been observed in the lab and in nature.

The changing your dogs underwent still make them dogs...

As we would expect.

they didn't turn into sheep, frogs or people, they stayed dogs so they never really evolved in the way they needed to for evolution to work.

Whoever told you that evolution says dogs SHOULD be able to change into anything other than a modified dog was ignorent or just lying to you.

 

[rgwondering]

I totally believe in evolution. But I also believe in God. Not christ so much, but God in general. I see room for both in my viewpoint. Human life began in Africa near as I can tell and when it migrated north it lost its dark shaded skin and when it entered the desert it gained some moderate coloring and went it went further north the eyes squinted a bit and the skin tone paled. Micro mutations are evident throughout humankind. We could have developed evolutionarily alongside monkeys not as monkeys. Keep in mind the Zebra and the Horse. Neither is the other but clearly they look similar enough to consider each other as evolutuionary cousins as we do now with the monkeys. Cousins, not brothers. But I agree, none of this means there wasnt a god to get the whole thing started. And for all we know god may just be an 11th grade student and we could be his science experiment in a vacuum jar. Life started here on earth somehow Millions of years ago, and be it by bacteria or hand of God, we're all here now and we should look to the future for understanding.

 

[Xayan]

I totally believe in evolution. But I also believe in God. Not christ so much, but God in general. I see room for both in my viewpoint. Human life began in Africa near as I can tell and when it migrated north it lost its dark shaded skin and when it entered the desert it gained some moderate coloring and went it went further north the eyes squinted a bit and the skin tone paled. Micro mutations are evident throughout humankind. We could have developed evolutionarily alongside monkeys not as monkeys. Keep in mind the Zebra and the Horse. Neither is the other but clearly they look similar enough to consider each other as evolutuionary cousins as we do now with the monkeys. Cousins, not brothers. But I agree, none of this means there wasnt a god to get the whole thing started. And for all we know god may just be an 11th grade student and we could be his science experiment in a vacuum jar. Life started here on earth somehow Millions of years ago, and be it by bacteria or hand of God, we're all here now and we should look to the future for understanding.

How can you not believe in Christ, but in god, when Christ is also the Christian God?

 

[Key]

Ok I personally believe in evolution, I can't really find how it can't work. Basically what I would like to do is show what basic evolution in entails in an example. If you find fault or disagreement then you can go for it and then we can both be a little better for it .

Sounds fair, maybe I can help you here, if you are willing to have a go at this.

Ok take a dog breeder. [/quote ]

This is ID or TE (Theistic Evolution), but, for the sake of the Discussion, lets just go with this

A dog breeder (let's call him Ralph) breeds dogs for pets, shows and so on. Ralph wants the best quality dogs for whatever work they may do. So what happens is a [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] gives birth to a litter of puppies. Unfortunately, one is stillborn, and two more pass away as they are too weak. The strongest of the puppies live on however, and because the two strongest are by far the best for breeding, the Ralph picks them to impregnate other [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]es and therefore have stronger puppies- which indeed happens as only one puppy passes away.

Ok we have left the Evolution Model already. The Two "strongest" would have best chance, not a guarantee, as even the best suited Gazelle has no promise that it will not be a lions lunch, now unless "Ralph" selects them out, and also prevents the other dogs from Breeding with [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]es, then they will remain a minority of the population.

So in this situation we have two factors, we have selection of the "best", as well as removal of all the others.

Ok the above concept is the simplest form of survival of the fittest.

In a sense, yes it is.

Under the vet's orders, Ralph takes all his dogs to be checked. The vet notices unfortunately that a few of his dogs have cancer- it is somewhat treatable to let the dogs have a quality of life for years to come, but ultimately they must be put down.

Ok, this happens. Sad, but it happens.

Ralph also notices that a few of the puppies have oddly coloured fur, which, like cancer, is another mutation. These mutations are hindrances, or in the case of the fur, quite benign.

Cancer can cause mutations, however, if it is causing mutations, this is always harmful to the host, and as the Genetic system breaks done due to the mutations, this equally destroys the Hosts ability to survive.

However, benign tumors do not spread into the rest of the body (IE: Reproductive System) and maintain isolation to the area that they are in, and as far as we can tell are not hereditary traits.

So, in this case, we have one group of Dogs that died, because of a mutation that was occurring to their body, and another group of Dogs that would have at best an isolated corrupt cellular growth.

Over the years of breeding, Ralph comes across a special case though, one of his dogs has a very large heart- far larger than what would be expected for a dog of his size and his parents have no signs of it (Phar Lap, a highly successful 1930s racehorse had the same trait). This dog benefitted from having a large heart- he could run faster for longer and when Ralph bred this dog, the puppies also had larger hearts.

Ok. There is only open problem with this, Not even Secretariat's off spring became great race horses, (None like their father) and secretariat had an equally large heart, even Larger then Phar Lap.

This, the Trait of the "Large Heart" we have not seen to be passed on, and was an isolated case. Sadly, if it did pass on, it would have changed horse racing as we know it.

Now, this is an example, of where the Genetic Boon (Large Heart) of one generation did not pass on to the next generation. So, I am not sure what to make of this.

However, for the sake of argument, lets say it happens.

The question now is, is it a genetic mutation or just genetic drift, like say blue eyes.

The above paragraph is essentially mutation. The actual bits and bobs of how mutation occurs is a DNA thing I can post on here if you like.

Fair enough, it is an example of how it might happen, but also evidence that it really does not happen.

Ralh decided one day that he would breed the dogs with the odd coloured fur and the large-hearted dogs. Over the years, spiky fur here, larger teeth there, these dogs began to be quite apart from the original breed. Over time, if Ralph continued this and threw in whatever benefits the dogs had, he could make an entire new breed.

Ok.

This paragraph suggests how new breeds and species can develop through mutation.

Ok, but also, we know that it could not happen this way, the "Traits" would be Genetic Drift, not mutations.

Ralph decided he was going to use this new form of the breed and intermingle it with entirely different breeds. He took a few collies for their coat to deal with the cold, a rottweiler to increase their size and an Alsatian which could invoke guard instincts into the new strain and produced an entirely new breed of dog. This process has created many breeds before including the Australian Cattle Dog.

Yes, but it also have generated a great many failures, because the crossing did not generate the effect desired.

Countless "Mutts" have ended up in the dog pound and put to death because of attempts to mix like this.

However, this is the product of design with intention.

This paragraph shows, through both mutation and selective survival (collies have a better coat in cold conditions for example) how new breeds and species can develop. I'm not saying new species require intermingling of different species by the way, but this is one theory of evolution.

Breeds, yes, so far the breed idea is great, species on the other hand is not. However, Species is really little more then some arbitrary line that has been made up.

For evolution, take Ralph to be the ecosystem for which an organism, such as a dog, exists. If the ecosystem had survival perameters then those most fit to exist there would thrive, and those that did not would be marginalized.

The problem here, is that an Ecosystem, would not have nor be able to implement the control that Ralph could apply to the situation. IE: In this case the Dog with the Enlarged Heart may or may not breed unless Ralph was there.

So for this to happen, the necessity of tight Control becomes paramount.

An Ecosystem does not apply the same control, now, an ecosystem could apply enough control to affect Genetic Drift to an extent, but not the Mutation aspect of the design.

I know this is very basic but I am just curious to see if anyone has contentions regarding the base theory of evolution. This theory, by the way, does not eliminate the possibility of God's existence. While I have read on how life could theoretically develop ex nihilio, I personally cannot percieve this, I can only perceive the development of life through evolution.
Thanks for reading

I understand it is basic, and you will notice that my responses were also basic, to give credit to what you are trying to discuss.

I hope I have provided for you what you were seeking.

God Bless

Key

 

[gluadys]

Sounds fair, maybe I can help you here, if you are willing to have a go at this.

Hi, Key. I agree the OP was not the best presentation of evolution, so some of your criticisms are correct, but some go astray. Let's see if we can clear things up a bit.

Ok we have left the Evolution Model already. The Two "strongest" would have best chance, not a guarantee, as even the best suited Gazelle has no promise that it will not be a lions lunch, now unless "Ralph" selects them out, and also prevents the other dogs from Breeding with [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]es, then they will remain a minority of the population.

No, they will not remain a minority of the population if they have traits that make it less likely they will become a lion's lunch e.g. more acute hearing or smell so they sense a predator sooner, and/or greater speed so they are more likely to escape.

You are right in saying there is no guarantee that the best suited gazelle will not become food for the lion, but on average, the fitter gazelles will form a larger and larger proportion of the population in each generation even if they started out as the minority.

The breeder can make evolution happen more quickly because he can completely eliminate the predator and completely eliminate the weaker members of the population from breeding, but the principle is basically the same.

Cancer can cause mutations, however, if it is causing mutations, this is always harmful to the host, and as the Genetic system breaks done due to the mutations, this equally destroys the Hosts ability to survive.

However, benign tumors do not spread into the rest of the body (IE: Reproductive System) and maintain isolation to the area that they are in, and as far as we can tell are not hereditary traits.

So, in this case, we have one group of Dogs that died, because of a mutation that was occurring to their body, and another group of Dogs that would have at best an isolated corrupt cellular growth.

Actually it is generally the other way around: mutations cause cancer. And neither cancer nor benign tumours are inherited. However, one can inherit a predispostion for cancer and/or benign tumours, meaning that it is more probable you will develop them than someone with a different genetic predisposition.

Also, since many cancers do not show up until later in life, after a person has gone through their reproductive phase, such genetic predispositions are not affected by natural selection and do not get weeded out of the population. (Cancers that occur earlier in life may be subject to natural selection, however, increasing effectiveness of medical remedies means that this is not always the case.)

Ok. There is only open problem with this, Not even Secretariat's off spring became great race horses, (None like their father) and secretariat had an equally large heart, even Larger then Phar Lap.

This, the Trait of the "Large Heart" we have not seen to be passed on, and was an isolated case. Sadly, if it did pass on, it would have changed horse racing as we know it.

Now, this is an example, of where the Genetic Boon (Large Heart) of one generation did not pass on to the next generation. So, I am not sure what to make of this.

You are right. If the trait is not heritable (or not inherited, which comes to the same thing), it is an interesting but isolated case.

The question now is, is it a genetic mutation or just genetic drift, like say blue eyes.

Here you are confusing categories (like apples and oranges). The function of mutation is to generate more variety in a species. The function of selection is to favour some varieties over others. They operate independently of each other. Genetic drift is actually a form of selection. It is not "natural selection" as natural selection implies selection based on an adaptive advantage. In the case of genetic drift there is no apparent adaptive advantage to the trait that becomes more common. It is simply a bit of luck in the genetic lottery of reproduction that makes one variant more common in the population than the others. But genetic drift, like natural selection, winnows variations introduced by mutations.

Obviously the production of variations and the winnowing of variations are two different processes, so one does not exclude the other. You can have mutation with or without genetic drift and you can have genetic drift with or without new mutations, as long as there is already some variation in the population.

Ok, but also, we know that it could not happen this way, the "Traits" would be Genetic Drift, not mutations.

Not really. You have to remember that there is always a two-step process here. First there is the introduction of variations through mutations; then there is the choosing of which variations will survive through one process or another. In the example given, the mutations have already happened. Some dogs have a larger heart; some have a different coloured fur. Ralph decides to control their breeding so that both traits occur in the same offspring. Since the breeding is controlled with this aim in mind, it is not an example of genetic drift. Ralph is not relying on the luck of the genetic lottery. This is an example of breeder selection. And it could very well happen this way.

It can also happen this way in nature. If the two traits are linked on the same chromosome and one of them is advantageous, the natural selection that favours the one, will favour the other as well. Or if one becomes frrequent through genetic drift and is linked with the other, the same applies. Even if they are not linked, if there is an advantage to having both traits over having just one, the combination will become more common though the statistics are more complex because, as you know, there is no guarantee that any particular offspring will inherit both traits unless both parents have both traits.

Yes, but it also have generated a great many failures, because the crossing did not generate the effect desired.

Countless "Mutts" have ended up in the dog pound and put to death because of attempts to mix like this.

However, this is the product of design with intention.

The failures get excluded from the breeding program, so they don't affect the end product. In nature, they can't be fully excluded, but the differential reproductive success that favours the successes and discourages the reproduction of the failures leads to the same result. Remember that the fate, however sad, of maladapted individuals does not affect the fate of well-adapted individuals. And it is the latter that will pass their inherited genes on to the new generation of the population. So the population as a whole is not adversely affected by some failures.

Breeds, yes, so far the breed idea is great, species on the other hand is not. However, Species is really little more then some arbitrary line that has been made up.

It is not entirely arbitrary, at least where sexual reproduction is the norm. But it is a fuzzy line. And that, of course, is to be expected if two populations of a species evolve in different directions. We would expect a species barrier to emerge slowly over several generations so that there are many intermediate stages between a fully integrated species and two genetically distinct species. Ring species are a nice example of that.

The problem here, is that an Ecosystem, would not have nor be able to implement the control that Ralph could apply to the situation. IE: In this case the Dog with the Enlarged Heart may or may not breed unless Ralph was there.

Actually the eco-system does implement control. Not as tight a control as a breeder, but still enough for evolution to occur. Breeding can be prevented, for example, by sterility of the individual, by premature death of non-viable variants, or by female mating preferences that exclude certain variants and reward others. Breeding can be promoted again through mating preference, through vigour that permits sufficient longevity to reach and complete a reproductive cycle and through increased fecundity.

So for this to happen, the necessity of tight Control becomes paramount.

Actually a very tight control is not necessary. If a trait confers just a 1% better survival advantage, it will eventually become fixed in the population (i.e. over 95% of the population will exhibit the trait). You can work the math for this out in a simple Excel program. I know. I'm a math dunce and even I could do it.

An Ecosystem does not apply the same control, now, an ecosystem could apply enough control to affect Genetic Drift to an extent, but not the Mutation aspect of the design.

Nothing controls the mutation aspect of either natural evolution or a breeding program. Breeders do not produce mutations. They have no choice in what mutations nature will hand them. They cannot force a particular mutation to occur. All a breeder can do is select from the mutations available. Nature does likewise.

Of course, one may speculate that God provides for certain mutations to occur, but that is a different order of question. There is no scientific way to distinguish between a mutation that occurs at random and one deliberately introduced by the Designer. In any case, such a mutation would still be the Designer's choice, not that of nature or of a human breeder.

I hope I have provided for you what you were seeking.

Likewise, I hope these clarifications have been helpful.

 

[Key]

No, they will not remain a minority of the population if they have traits that make it less likely they will become a lion's lunch e.g. more acute hearing or smell so they sense a predator sooner, and/or greater speed so they are more likely to escape.

Depends, on their initial stock, and the reproduction they can maintain in this case. As such, the Common Traits that are "Good Enough" will be the majority, the tier of these traits, may vary, but that is an outcome of Co-Evolution practice.

An advantage, we both know, is not a absolute, unlike a designer would have an absolute.

You are right in saying there is no guarantee that the best suited gazelle will not become food for the lion, but on average, the fitter gazelles will form a larger and larger proportion of the population in each generation even if they started out as the minority.

That also depends on the Stress Placed upon the Gazelles.

The breeder can make evolution happen more quickly because he can completely eliminate the predator and completely eliminate the weaker members of the population from breeding, but the principle is basically the same.

Not exactly, there is a major factor of not only selecting against negative traits (Which is Evolution) but also the selection of Positive Traits.

Actually it is generally the other way around: mutations cause cancer.

That is up for debate, and goes against what I have read, can you cite this source?

And neither cancer nor benign tumours are inherited. However, one can inherit a predispostion for cancer and/or benign tumours, meaning that it is more probable you will develop them than someone with a different genetic predisposition.

This is assumption, as far as what I have read, however, if you can tell me where I can find source to support this, that would be great.

Also, since many cancers do not show up until later in life, after a person has gone through their reproductive phase, such genetic predispositions are not affected by natural selection and do not get weeded out of the population.

Noted, but also, the Cancer has to "Show Up" for the mutations to occur, they are not separate from each other, as far as what can be told. The Mutations are in effect the Cancer, so, if it showed up later in the life, there would be not mutations that would pass on.

Here you are confusing categories (like apples and oranges). The function of mutation is to generate more variety in a species.

No, the outcome may be that, but Mutations have no function per say, they are normally caused (Which mostly likely kills or depletes the host during this process), or they are a product of the DNA/RNA not combining correctly during reproduction.

As far as we can tell, Mutations do not serve any purpose as they are fault in the system to start with, like a glitch in the programming of life, they are not "Supposed" to happen.

The function of selection is to favour some varieties over others.

This is also a bit off, the Function of Selection is to remove unfavorable, as such, either you are fit to survive or you are not.

That which does not survive is what is called "Selected against" for example, Take the Lions and Gazelles, the Trait selected against is being slower then the Lions. So, even if say you were stronger, or lets say, even if you had an enhanced immune system that allowed to eat poisonous plants, neither of these are the traits the will keep you alive, unless you can outrun the lion.

So in this effect, unlike the Breeder, who can select FOR a positive Trait, Evolution can only select against a negative trait.

Genetic drift is actually a form of selection.

Not really, but, lets go with this for now.

It is not "natural selection" as natural selection implies selection based on an adaptive advantage.

Not true either, as Genetic Drift can result in an Adaptive Advantage in some cases, IE: Pepper Moths, the coloration is Genetic Drift, no different then eye color for humans, but, it applied an adaptive advantage to the moth for it's survival.

You can have mutation with or without genetic drift and you can have genetic drift with or without new mutations, as long as there is already some variation in the population.

True.

Not really. You have to remember that there is always a two-step process here. First there is the introduction of variations through mutations; then there is the choosing of which variations will survive through one process or another. In the example given, the mutations have already happened. Some dogs have a larger heart; some have a different coloured fur. Ralph decides to control their breeding so that both traits occur in the same offspring. Since the breeding is controlled with this aim in mind, it is not an example of genetic drift. Ralph is not relying on the luck of the genetic lottery. This is an example of breeder selection. And it could very well happen this way.

With Ralph in the Picture, sure it could.

It can also happen this way in nature.

No, it could not. But lets see what you have to say.

If the two traits are linked on the same chromosome and one of them is advantageous, the natural selection that favours the one, will favour the other as well.

Not always. we also have Genetic Drift to play into the picture here, and this would and could play against the other trait, assuming it was not disadvantageous.

Or if one becomes frrequent through genetic drift and is linked with the other, the same applies.

If, but, equally so, it could go away as well.

Even if they are not linked, if there is an advantage to having both traits over having just one, the combination will become more common though the statistics are more complex because, as you know, there is no guarantee that any particular offspring will inherit both traits unless both parents have both traits.

Which really in the end of things, requires Ralph to make this happen.

The failures get excluded from the breeding program, so they don't affect the end product. In nature, they can't be fully excluded, but the differential reproductive success that favours the successes and discourages the reproduction of the failures leads to the same result. Remember that the fate, however sad, of maladapted individuals does not affect the fate of well-adapted individuals. And it is the latter that will pass their inherited genes on to the new generation of the population. So the population as a whole is not adversely affected by some failures.

To some extent.

It is not entirely arbitrary, at least where sexual reproduction is the norm. But it is a fuzzy line. And that, of course, is to be expected if two populations of a species evolve in different directions. We would expect a species barrier to emerge slowly over several generations so that there are many intermediate stages between a fully integrated species and two genetically distinct species. Ring species are a nice example of that.

It's arbitrary, for all practical purposes.

Actually the eco-system does implement control. Not as tight a control as a breeder, but still enough for evolution to occur.

Oooo that is a major assumption right there.

We know that a Breeder CAN implement Control, and cause a great deal of affect on the direction of a life form.

We do not know if an "ecosystem" can apply the any where near the same affect or control, as Ralph. We just assume that it can.

Breeding can be prevented, for example, by sterility of the individual, by premature death of non-viable variants, or by female mating preferences that exclude certain variants and reward others. Breeding can be promoted again through mating preference, through vigour that permits sufficient longevity to reach and complete a reproductive cycle and through increased fecundity.

You do realize that all those aspects can equally remove any trait, either a Positive or a Negative trait.

And we also have to take into account that some traits that may offer a survival advantage do not offer a mating advantage.

Actually a very tight control is not necessary. If a trait confers just a 1% better survival advantage, it will eventually become fixed in the population (i.e. over 95% of the population will exhibit the trait). You can work the math for this out in a simple Excel program. I know. I'm a math dunce and even I could do it.

Humor me, show me this Program and the Theory that Supports it.

Nothing controls the mutation aspect of either natural evolution or a breeding program. Breeders do not produce mutations. They have no choice in what mutations nature will hand them. They cannot force a particular mutation to occur. All a breeder can do is select from the mutations available. Nature does likewise.

To an extent, yes.

Of course, one may speculate that God provides for certain mutations to occur, but that is a different order of question. There is no scientific way to distinguish between a mutation that occurs at random and one deliberately introduced by the Designer. In any case, such a mutation would still be the Designer's choice, not that of nature or of a human breeder.

Well in this case, Ralph is the designer, given Ralph is not a god, but he is a designer of life none the less.

Likewise, I hope these clarifications have been helpful.

I knew and looked at most of this stuff before, but I liked the way you put it, and it was very nice a civil, I am appreciative of that.

The Problem arises here, is that Evolution is like running though the forest eating berries and trying to stay alive.

ID and Creationism are where you Cultivate a Garden and Grow what you want to eat.

We know the first way, that you could survive, the factors are against you, and the risks are very high, and the second way, we know can provide continual and directed results that may not be guaranteed, but are far more plausible.

Occarms razor, says to remove the least likely possibility, as such, even by that, one would have to say, the chances are against it just "Happening" with out some level of guidance.

IE: Expecting Street dogs to make 800 refined breeds with standards is Evolution, does that reflect the reality of the situation?

Or do we concede that this could really only have come about with people like Ralph.

God Bless

Key

 

[gluadys]

Depends, on their initial stock, and the reproduction they can maintain in this case. As such, the Common Traits that are "Good Enough" will be the majority, the tier of these traits, may vary, but that is an outcome of Co-Evolution practice.

An advantage, we both know, is not a absolute, unlike a designer would have an absolute.

Right, an evolutionary advantage is always relative to current ecological pressures which themselves change. So there is no such thing as an absolute advantage. Even a Designer could not create a trait which was absolutely advantageous in changing eco-systems.

Start with an initial stock of 1% of the population (i.e. 10 in a representative sample of 1,000) and assume a 1% better survival rate than average (i.e. for every 100 surviving offspring which do not possess the beneficial trait, there will be 101 surviving offspring for those who do.)

In 50-70 generations the proportion of the population with the beneficial trait will outnumber that without. In less than a 100 generations the new feature will be fixed in the population as the new norm.

That also depends on the Stress Placed upon the Gazelles.

Stress will affect the intensity of selection and the rapidity at which a negative trait will be eliminated or an advantageous trait dispersed through the population. It does not affect the eventual outcome.

Not exactly, there is a major factor of not only selecting against negative traits (Which is Evolution) but also the selection of Positive Traits.

Evolution is both. Both change the proportional distribution of alleles in the population, and that is essentially what evolution is.

That is up for debate, and goes against what I have read, can you cite this source?

I'll check into it, but since we know factors like radiation cause cancer, do they not do so by affecting the genes in the cell? It may be that some cancers also cause mutations, so that both statements are true.

This is assumption, as far as what I have read, however, if you can tell me where I can find source to support this, that would be great.

It is known that for some cancers, having a close relative who had the cancer raises the probability that you will too. Daughters of women with breast cancer, for example, are at higher risk for developing breast cancer themselves. I expect a google on "cancer genetic factors" would yield plenty of information.

Noted, but also, the Cancer has to "Show Up" for the mutations to occur, they are not separate from each other, as far as what can be told. The Mutations are in effect the Cancer, so, if it showed up later in the life, there would be not mutations that would pass on.

In a sense. When the mutation is the trigger for the cancer, the cell with the mutation is cancerous. The cancer doesn't have to show up for the mutation to happen. The cancer happens because the mutated cell is cancerous. Most cancers occur in somatic, not germ cells, so they are not inherited.

No, the outcome may be that, but Mutations have no function per say, they are normally caused (Which mostly likely kills or depletes the host during this process), or they are a product of the DNA/RNA not combining correctly during reproduction.

That's a fair correction. Mutations occur without reference to their effect, and definitely without reference to a species "need" for an improvement. So in that sense, they have no function. However, whether you call it a function or not, the consequence of mutation is the introduction of genetic variety.

As far as we can tell, Mutations do not serve any purpose as they are fault in the system to start with, like a glitch in the programming of life, they are not "Supposed" to happen.

Again, in a sense. Except where there are external causes, mutations are copying "errors" and cells contain programs to correct copying errors, so no, they are not "supposed" to happen.

Yet if the error correction programs were perfect, no mutations would slip through, and there would be no evolution and no possibility of adaptation to new environmental conditions. So overall, given the contribution of evolution to survival, it's a good thing what is not supposed to happen, does happen from time to time.

This is also a bit off, the Function of Selection is to remove unfavorable, as such, either you are fit to survive or you are not.

It's both. There is both negative and positive selection.

Not really, but, lets go with this for now.

It is a form of selection without a criterion of advantage or preference. Like sticking your hand in a bag of marbles in which half are red and half are blue and drawing out 7 red and 3 blue. You didn't choose to draw more red than blue. There was no advantage to the marble in being red or blue. It just happened that you drew more red than blue. Similarly in the randomness of reproduction in which neither mating preference nor ecological advantage plays a part, you can get a generation which has shifted the proportion of a certain trait from what it was in its parent's generation.

Not true either, as Genetic Drift can result in an Adaptive Advantage in some cases, IE: Pepper Moths, the coloration is Genetic Drift, no different then eye color for humans, but, it applied an adaptive advantage to the moth for it's survival.

Maybe you had better define what you mean by "genetic drift".

Here you are identifying an instance of natural selection as genetic drift and that is an error. In the pepper moth scenario, there was a definite advantage to the moth with the better camouflage. The result was positive selection for the better camouflage.

The difference in coloration was due to an inherited mutation (as that is what alleles are.)

Not always. we also have Genetic Drift to play into the picture here, and this would and could play against the other trait, assuming it was not disadvantageous.

All the genes on the same chromosome are inherited together, except where crossover occurs in meiosis. Even where crossover occurs, if the two genes closely linked, they are unlikely to be separated by crossover. So genetic drift is irrelevant. Even a disadvantageous gene can be subject to positive selection if it is linked on the same chromosome to a highly advantageous gene. By the same token an advantageous gene can experience negative selection if it is linked on the same chromosome to a very disadvantageous gene. Natural selection selects for overall fitness more than specific traits, and when combinations of traits are in play, it depends on which combination gives the best overall fitness, even if that means including some traits that are somewhat harmful or suppressing some traits that are potentially advantageous.

Which really in the end of things, requires Ralph to make this happen.

Not at all. What would prevent a female with a different coloured fur mating a male with a larger heart, and both traits being passed on to some of their offspring? As long as both traits exist in the same population, you can have any combination of
a) organism with neither trait
b) organism with only larger heart
c) organism with only different colour fur
and
d) organism with both larger heart and different colour fur.

And individuals in any of these groups may mate with individuals in any other group without the necessity of Ralph bringing them together.

What you would need a Ralph for is to prevent them getting together. That is why breeders of purebred collies do not allow their animals to mate with non-collies, as they surely would do if left to themselves. Breeding is far more a matter of preventing unwanted matings than of promoting wanted matings.

It's arbitrary, for all practical purposes.

Not entirely. We know that cats do not breed with dogs, ever. We know that wolves can breed with dogs, but do so rarely--at least much more rarely than they do with other wolves. We know that most dogs can and do breed with other dogs of any other breed (except where size differential becomes a problem) So it is not arbitrary to say of any cat that it is a different species than any dog. And it is not arbitrary to say that any dog is the same species as any other dog. It may be arbitrary to say a wolf is a different species than a dog.

Even among bacteria, which do not reproduce sexually, there are indications of species that are not wholly arbitrary. For example, from time to time, a bacterium will interchange DNA with another bacterium in a process called conjugation. But it will not do so with any and every other bacterium, but only with those that meet certain criteria of likeness to itself. So there is a discrimination akin to that which differentiates species even in bacteria.

Oooo that is a major assumption right there.

We know that a Breeder CAN implement Control, and cause a great deal of affect on the direction of a life form.

We do not know if an "ecosystem" can apply the any where near the same affect or control, as Ralph. We just assume that it can.

Not a major assumption, since we see it happen. You already mentioned the pepper moth, where bird predation acted as an eco-system control. I have already said the methods of control are not necessarily as tight as those a breeder can use.

You do realize that all those aspects can equally remove any trait, either a Positive or a Negative trait.

The two lists are balanced. The first three are methods of negative selection and the last three are methods of positive selection. There is not much meaning to negative selection of a positive trait or positive selection of a negative trait. By definition, what is positively selected is a positive trait, and what is selected against is a negative trait.

And we also have to take into account that some traits that may offer a survival advantage do not offer a mating advantage.

True, except that a mating advantage is itself another form of survival advantage from the point of view of the species, even if not from the point of view of the individual organism. Without reproduction (which does not occur without mating in sexually reproducing species) the species does not survive. The genes of those who successfully mate and reproduce survive. Another individual may be stronger or faster or more healthy, but if he is also infertile, his genes do not survive.

Humor me, show me this Program and the Theory that Supports it.

I outlined it in my first paragraph. Try it and see for yourself. Or check out the Hardy-Weinburg Law in a biology text and work through some of the examples.

To an extent, yes.

Not just to an extent. That is a fact. Or was until very recently. A breeder now has the possibility of introducing a mutation through genetic engineering. That is the only way I know of for a breeder to introduce a mutation. Without that option, the breeder can only select what nature gives.

Well in this case, Ralph is the designer, given Ralph is not a god, but he is a designer of life none the less.

And given he is not a god, Ralph doesn't design mutations (barring the exception above). Ralph designs life in the same way nature does--through selection. Artificial selection is just evolution controlled by the goals of the breeder instead of by the struggle for survival in nature.

The Problem arises here, is that Evolution is like running though the forest eating berries and trying to stay alive.

ID and Creationism are where you Cultivate a Garden and Grow what you want to eat.

So, your actual objections to natural selection are theological. You like the idea of a Divine Cultivator better than the idea of God who uses evolution. You also assume that even God could not "grow what he wants" given evolution. I don't see that as a valid assumption.

In scripture, when a decision had to be made, and people wanted to know God's choice, do you know how they determined God's choice? They cast lots. They threw dice, assuming God could and would control how they landed. What makes you think God could not and would not affect the chance outcomes of evolution in a similar manner? There is no reason to oppose chance and providence.

As for preferring a cultivator to a dice thrower, well Aslan's not a tame lion.

IE: Expecting Street dogs to make 800 refined breeds with standards is Evolution, does that reflect the reality of the situation?

No, its not evolution. Street dogs have no reason to please the tastes of human dog owners. So their evolution will not be directed to that sort of outcome. You may get different breeds, perhaps for the different challenges of different cities, but they won't be the standard breeds of the pure-bred catalogue.

 

[Loudmouth]

OK couple things to say about the dog thing and evolution. The mutations you are citing are an example of microevolution, the changing within a species.

The amount of microevolution in dogs has resulted in dog breeds that can not interbreed, such as Great Danes and Chihuahuas. That is macroevolution, the production of two populations that can not interbreed. Dogs are a great example of how microevolution can add up to macroevolution. If it were not for the intermediate sized breeds the Great Dane and Chihuahua would effectively be two separate species.

The changing your dogs underwent still make them dogs...they didn't turn into sheep, frogs or people, they stayed dogs so they never really evolved in the way they needed to for evolution to work.

That is exactly as one would expect. You never evolve out of your ancestry. More importantly, you never evolve into someone else's ancestry (eg dog to frog). Every descendant of living dogs will always be dogs, but the variety and number of dog species will increase over time. This is exactly why humans are apes. Our ancestors were apes and so we too are apes. Our more distant ancestors were primates, and we are still primates. Even more distant ancestors were mammals and vertebrates, and we too are mammals and vertebrates. Over time a lineage will split and accumulate variation through mutations, but those in the lineage are what their ancestors were.

Also mutations found in nature are usually neutral or harmful to the animal, almost never helpful.

I wouldn't say "never". There are many examples just in humans of beneficial mutations.

Evolution demands millions of helpful mutations over billions of years in a row for it to even work.

Not really. Neutral mutations can provide variation.

So while the dog is changing (microevolution) it isn't going to evolve into some other species anytime soon.

Why not?

 

[OneGodFurther]

Indeedy-do. Evolution is not just theory btw, it is also considered fact.

Not to nitpick, but don't say that. A "just a theory" is not a theory. That would be called a notion. A real, scientific "theory" is a system of knowledge and evidence (facts) used to explain a phenomenon. No, that phenomenon doesn't have to be interesting. Anyway, if there was actually a hierarchy of information, fact would not be even close to, let alone more powerful than, theory. A fact is a single thing. My chair is grey. Cool, but it doesn't mean much. A theory is in a whole different league.

 

[avdrummerboy]

Dog breeding, which goes on everyday is a form of microevolution if anything even related to evolution. Yes MICRO evolution and natural selection have been observed and proven throughout the years. The major debate is MACRO evolution, the formation of a completly DIFFERENT species, not a variation within the same species. There is no proof of this occuring. There is the missing links, transitional forms. Once these are found, then all us anti- evolutionists can be silenced once and for all, so until the day I see an ape-man walking around I'll be against evolution. Many will then go on to argue that we will someday find these links, however this is a logical fallacy called chronological snobbery, basing a proof on evidence that is not even known to exist. You can't do that and say that your theory is true.

 

[gluadys]

Dog breeding, which goes on everyday is a form of microevolution if anything even related to evolution. Yes MICRO evolution and natural selection have been observed and proven throughout the years. The major debate is MACRO evolution, the formation of a completly DIFFERENT species, not a variation within the same species. There is no proof of this occuring. There is the missing links, transitional forms. Once these are found, then all us anti- evolutionists can be silenced once and for all, so until the day I see an ape-man walking around I'll be against evolution. Many will then go on to argue that we will someday find these links, however this is a logical fallacy called chronological snobbery, basing a proof on evidence that is not even known to exist. You can't do that and say that your theory is true.

Microevolution and macroevolution are exactly the same thing: evolution. It is exactly the same process. One is just one a smaller scale (within the species) than the other (producing new species).

Evolution has been observed within the species (as with dog breeding, and also in the wild) and evolution has been observed producing speciation. New species have been produced in laboratories. They have been observed in nature. In ring species we see partial speciation. All of these are "macroevolution".

Microevolution will always produce macroevolution given time.

If you think transitionals have not been found, you have been carefully sheltering yourself from the evidence. Time to come out of the bunker into the real world.

 

[avdrummerboy]

"Microevolution will always produce macroevolution given time." That there is the logical fallacy of Appeal to future. You cannot base a theory on facts that don't exist, but that YOU assume will, SOMEDAY.

In terms of transitional forms, they have found forms but the only ones are God only known how many millions of years old. Radio Carbon dating is one of the most inaccurate measures we have today, so saying that all the evolution happened "millions of years ago" is chronological snobbery, using something that is outdated to attempt to prove a point.