How widespread is plasticity?

[supersport]

Where exactly do we claim this? Please cite a source or quote that says that it takes thousands/millions of years for population to adapt to their environment?

Why do you keep putting forward these strawmen?

As for the rest, you are putting forth fantasy that has never been observed, has no mechansism, and is directly falsified by observation.

We have never seen an animal spontaneously 'adapt' in the way you are suggesting. The adaption is the ability to change with an environment and that adaption evolved through genetic variation in the population acted on by selective pressure. That is why only specific species can do it and not all as you claim. Why only some moths? Why only some foxes? Why only some rabbits? You have been shown the exceptions to your claims repeatadly and you simply handwave.

As for you fossil record claims, are you really suggesting that this plasticity causes bones to bend, entire skeletons to reform, and teeth and wings to spontaneously appear? If so, you really are spouting nonsense.

well if a tadpole can develop into a small-headed organism or a large-headed organism based on diet alone, I'd say that's pretty substantial. The fact is plasticity is not studied on a grand scale with individual animals because science is AFRAID of the truth.

I do not suggest that plasticity can make an animal what it is not. That indeed, is a strawman that you have presented. I believe God created the all animals fully-formed, thus there is no reason to "bend bones." Likewise you have no proof that random, blind mutations can do it either.

 

[notto]

yes I do.....either that or they emerged that color from their eggs over a period of a few generations.

Then you clearly don't understand what happened. As has been mentioned, it is a genetic trait that causes some moths to be white and some to be black. It is natural selection that controls the proportion of each in the population. This has been experimentally demonstrated bith in the lab with breeding and genetic tests and in the wild as we see the white moth become more predominant with cleaner air.

Where did you get your information on the peppered moth? What have you read about it? It seems you really are not that familiar with evolution, genetics, etc. If you wish to overthrow it, you need to understand it. Otherwise, you will just keep putting forth statementst that are false before you even type them.

 

[notto]

well if a tadpole can develop into a small-headed organism or a large-headed organism based on diet alone, I'd say that's pretty substantial. The fact is plasticity is not studied on a grand scale with individual animals because science is AFRAID of the truth.

I do not suggest that plasticity can make an animal what it is not. That indeed, is a strawman that you have presented. I believe God created the all animals fully-formed, thus there is no reason to "bend bones." Likewise you have no proof that random, blind mutations can do it either.

So, can you cite anywhere where evolutions have made the claims you say they have? Is it just another strawman?

You seem to be suggesting that the gradual transitions we see in the fossil record are due to plasticity. How else can I interpret it other than you suggesting that over time body forms changed completely through whatever magical mechansims you are suggesting? If it is a strawman, then please be more specific. What changes in the fossil record due to plasticity have been misinterpreted as evolutionary change over time? Can you give a specific set of fossils and explain how your ideas explain them? Talking in generalities really doesn't show anything. Make a specific case. Your tadpole example for instance doesn't make much sense if you are trying to explain the transitions we find. We would not misinterpret tadpoles because the fossil record is chronological, not ust put together by similarities in physical characteristics.

Let's see it. Make your case with a specific fossil find and show where the mainstream interpretation is incorrect. You do have some specific fossils in mind that you are familiar with, right? Otherwise, how can you make the claims if you yourself are not familiar with what we have found?

My guess is that like much before, you don't know enough about what we do know to comment on what we don't know.

 

[supersport]

So, can you cite anywhere where evolutions have made the claims you say they have? Is it just another strawman?

You seem to be suggesting that the gradual transitions we see in the fossil record are due to plasticity. How else can I interpret it other than you suggesting that over time body forms changed completely through whatever magical mechansims you are suggesting? If it is a strawman, then please be more specific. What changes in the fossil record due to plasticity have been misinterpreted as evolutionary change over time? Can you give a specific set of fossils and explain how your ideas explain them? Talking in generalities really doesn't show anything. Make a specific case. Your tadpole example for instance doesn't make much sense if you are trying to explain the transitions we find. We would not misinterpret tadpoles because the fossil record is chronological, not ust put together by similarities in physical characteristics.

Let's see it. Make your case with a specific fossil find and show where the mainstream interpretation is incorrect. You do have some specific fossils in mind that you are familiar with, right? Otherwise, how can you make the claims if you yourself are not familiar with what we have found?

My guess is that like much before, you don't know enough about what we do know to comment on what we don't know.

you just keep throwing strawmen out there and I just keep shooting them down:

Quotes from Niles Eldredge from The Myths of Human Evolution

It is now abundantly clear that species are real entities -- individuals -- in the fullest sense of the word. pg. 48

Change in this manner (gradualism) is just not found in the fossil record. pg. 48

Darwin invented the myth that species were not real to convince the world of the nonmyth that evolution had occured. pg. 52

Darwin's prediction that long-term evolutionary change should produce a systematic pattern of gradual, progressive change in the fossil record was faulty. pg. 53

As we have seen in the previous chapter, the usual conception casts evolution as a gradual, steady process of adaptive change. And we have already seen that the fossil record conflicts with that view. pg. 57

We're faced more with a great leap of faith -- that gradual, progressive, adaptive change underlies the general pattern of evolutionary change we see in the rocks -- than any hard evidence. pg. 57

The notion of gradual, progressive change collides head-on with the stability seen in most fossil species...But we have greatly erred in predicting what the pattern of change should look like in the fossil record. Rather than taking the record literally, we have dismissed the lack of change within species as merely the artifacts of an imperfect record. But the time has come to ask, instead, if the record isn't telling us something that our theories out to be able to explain -- rather than explain away. pg. 58

 

[gluadys]

you just keep throwing strawmen out there and I just keep shooting them down:

Quotes from Niles Eldredge from The Myths of Human Evolution

It is now abundantly clear that species are real entities -- individuals -- in the fullest sense of the word. pg. 48

Change in this manner (gradualism) is just not found in the fossil record. pg. 48

Darwin invented the myth that species were not real to convince the world of the nonmyth that evolution had occured. pg. 52

Darwin's prediction that long-term evolutionary change should produce a systematic pattern of gradual, progressive change in the fossil record was faulty. pg. 53

As we have seen in the previous chapter, the usual conception casts evolution as a gradual, steady process of adaptive change. And we have already seen that the fossil record conflicts with that view. pg. 57

We're faced more with a great leap of faith -- that gradual, progressive, adaptive change underlies the general pattern of evolutionary change we see in the rocks -- than any hard evidence. pg. 57

The notion of gradual, progressive change collides head-on with the stability seen in most fossil species...But we have greatly erred in predicting what the pattern of change should look like in the fossil record. Rather than taking the record literally, we have dismissed the lack of change within species as merely the artifacts of an imperfect record. But the time has come to ask, instead, if the record isn't telling us something that our theories out to be able to explain -- rather than explain away. pg. 58

So why is Eldredge still an evolutionist? The author, in fact of The Triumph of Evolution and the Fall of Creationism.

You are certainly not the first to quote mine his work in order to misrepresent his position.

 

[Chalnoth]

Gradual is not the same thing as constant. The process of evolution is always gradual, in that it takes many, many generations for a significant change to occur. Changes occur in many steps of subsequent mutations.

But this process is not constant, in that the speed of evolution changes all the time, dependent upon the organisms and their environment.

 

[supersport]

Gradual is not the same thing as constant. The process of evolution is always gradual, in that it takes many, many generations for a significant change to occur. Changes occur in many steps of subsequent mutations.

But this process is not constant, in that the speed of evolution changes all the time, dependent upon the organisms and their environment.

All I can do is debate what is thrown at me. notto said there were gradual transitions in the fossil record so I shot that down for him.

 

[supersport]

heck...with almost 6 billion nucleotides in the genome, evolution would HAVE to be gradual.......you'd have to sit and wait millions of years possibly for the right genetic mutation to happen at the right time.

I'm glad this is not my theory. I'd be embarrassed. what a joke.

 

[Chalnoth]

All I can do is debate what is thrown at me. notto said there were gradual transitions in the fossil record so I shot that down for him.

You're mixing up the scientific idea of gradualism, which was that change was always occurring at more or less the same rate, with the more modern concept of punctuated equilibrium, which states that while at any point in time, gradual change will be occuring, the rate of change is never constant: ecosystems naturally reach points of near-equilibrium punctuated by periods of (relatively) rapid change.

The change is still gradual, just not constant in the new theory.

 

[Chalnoth]

heck...with almost 6 billion nucleotides in the genome, evolution would HAVE to be gradual.......you'd have to sit and wait millions of years possibly for the right genetic mutation to happen at the right time.

I'm glad this is not my theory. I'd be embarrassed. what a joke.

You don't have any concept of how frequently mutations happen, do you? Consider that the rate of mutation in humans has been estimated at about 175 per generation.

Thus with a tiny, stable population of 10,000 early humans, and, let's say, have a 50% chance for conception to sexual maturity (a huge probability for developing nations, let alone primitive humans), then you have a search space of roughly 3.5 million mutations every generation to find beneficial mutations.

Some experiments with bacteria have shown the rate of beneficial mutations, when the species is placed in a changed environment, can be as high as 12%. Thus the probability of beneficial mutations to occur every generation, even with a tiny population, is monstrous.

 

[supersport]

You don't have any concept of how frequently mutations happen, do you? Consider that the rate of mutation in humans has been estimated at about 175 per generation.

Thus with a tiny, stable population of 10,000 early humans, and, let's say, have a 50% chance for conception to sexual maturity (a huge probability for developing nations, let alone primitive humans), then you have a search space of roughly 3.5 million mutations every generation to find beneficial mutations.

Some experiments with bacteria have shown the rate of beneficial mutations, when the species is placed in a changed environment, can be as high as 12%. Thus the probability of beneficial mutations to occur every generation, even with a tiny population, is monstrous.

your mutation rate is WAAAY out of wack. Why are you counting deleterious mutations in your count? that is intellectually dishonest. The rate is actually less than 1 per billion.

 

[supersport]

The rarity of copying errors is a problem for Toe. The average rate of copying errors depends on the organism. In bacteria the mutation rate per nucleotide is between 0.1 and 10 per billion transcriptions…But in all other forms of life the rate is smaller. For organisms other than bacteria, the mutation rate is between 0.01 and 1 per billion.

Lee Spetner -- Not by Chance

 

[Chalnoth]

your mutation rate is WAAAY out of wack. Why are you counting deleterious mutations in your count? that is intellectually dishonest. The rate is actually less than 1 per billion.

You can't objectively measure beneficial and deleterious mutation rates, because those rates are highly dependent upon the environment.

In this experiment:
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/98/20/11388They took a series of bacteria that varied from the original strain by only a single base pair substitution, then placed each of them in a separate culture in a different situation from the parent bacteria's environment. 12% of the single-substitution bacteria did better in the new environment.

But that exact result is highly dependent upon the exact situations involved. One does not expect more than an extremely marginal beneficial mutation rate if an organism has already had a significant amount of time to adapt to a specific environment. And one expects a beneficial mutation rate near zero in situations where natural selection is hardly a factor at all (as is the case with humans in the developed world).

This is all expected by the theory of evolution combined with the idea of punctuated equilibrium. Once you do change the environment enough to provide significant selective pressure, the beneficial mutation rate suddenly becomes very high (not because the mutation rate is affected by the environment, but rather because beneficial mutations becomes vastly more likely if an organism is poorly-suited to its environment).

 

[Chalnoth]

The rarity of copying errors is a problem for Toe. The average rate of copying errors depends on the organism. In bacteria the mutation rate per nucleotide is between 0.1 and 10 per billion transcriptions…But in all other forms of life the rate is smaller. For organisms other than bacteria, the mutation rate is between 0.01 and 1 per billion.

Lee Spetner -- Not by Chance

These mutation rates are correct, but they are mutation rates per nucleotide. With 3 billion nucleotides in humans (this won't vary by a factor of more than 10 with any organism), it becomes immediately obvious that mutation rates are pretty quick after all.

 

[supersport]

You can't objectively measure beneficial and deleterious mutation rates, because those rates are highly dependent upon the environment.

In this experiment:
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/98/20/11388They took a series of bacteria that varied from the original strain by only a single base pair substitution, then placed each of them in a separate culture in a different situation from the parent bacteria's environment. 12% of the single-substitution bacteria did better in the new environment.

But that exact result is highly dependent upon the exact situations involved. One does not expect more than an extremely marginal beneficial mutation rate if an organism has already had a significant amount of time to adapt to a specific environment. And one expects a beneficial mutation rate near zero in situations where natural selection is hardly a factor at all (as is the case with humans in the developed world).

This is all expected by the theory of evolution combined with the idea of punctuated equilibrium. Once you do change the environment enough to provide significant selective pressure, the beneficial mutation rate suddenly becomes very high (not because the mutation rate is affected by the environment, but rather because beneficial mutations becomes vastly more likely if an organism is poorly-suited to its environment).

oh, brother. Then what makes that a random mutation? Even so you are just so wrong with your numbers it's not even funny. The fact is you guys require copying errors to form the basis of cumulative selection. whatever you're measuring in bacteria is not that. Not only that but bacteria is a horrible example because it does not pass anything on through sexual reproduction. You require 1 nucleotide at a time to be transfered. This amounts to 1 of almost 6 billion nucleotides to be randomly mutated at a rate of less than 1 in a billion organisms. You are living in fantasy land.

 

[Chalnoth]

As I've already explained, the mutation rates you quoted are per nucleotide, not per organism. The genomes of these bacteria were sequenced and examined in great detail to confirm that it was indeed genetic mutation that was the cause of the increase in fitness.

One thing that you blatantly ignored is those single-substitution mutations I was talking about, 12% of which improved fitness. Those bacteria were grown in a separate environment from the one in which the fitness was improved. The improvement in fitness was thus completely uncorrelated with the environment in which they were later placed.

 

[notto]

you just keep throwing strawmen out there and I just keep shooting them down:

We do see gradual transition of form in the fossil record. That is not what the quotes you provide are discusing. We are discussing the change in physical body shapes, which is gradual in the fossil record when we look at how animals have changed. They didnt' just sprout horns or fully functioning wings. Body plans changed slowly over time. Why must you take everything out of context? I know, I know. It is because that is all you have based on you limited understanding of the sources you quotemine from.

Hey, at least this time you got the title of the book right.

Instead of quote mines, why don't you make a case.

What changes in the fossil record due to plasticity have been misinterpreted as evolutionary change over time? Can you give a specific set of fossils and explain how your ideas explain them? Talking in generalities really doesn't show anything. Make a specific case.

 

[TheGnome]

You're mixing up the scientific idea of gradualism, which was that change was always occurring at more or less the same rate, with the more modern concept of punctuated equilibrium, which states that while at any point in time, gradual change will be occuring, the rate of change is never constant: ecosystems naturally reach points of near-equilibrium punctuated by periods of (relatively) rapid change.

The change is still gradual, just not constant in the new theory.

That makes a lot of sense. Short and sweet, but won't be appreciated.

 

[Elduran]

All I can do is debate what is thrown at me. notto said there were gradual transitions in the fossil record so I shot that down for him.

Quote mining isn't debate.

Quote mining isn't going to be shooting down any arguments today.

You should try real debate some time rather than simply quote mining from 2 or 3 sources, you might find that you quickly run out of real evidence again the theory of evolution.

 

[Kahalachan]

Evolutionists have it all wrong. Life is miraculous, scientifically unexplainable and utterly mind-blowing. The following is an example that you will never read in evolutionists' books because these authors must avoid the miraculous events of nature in order to sound credible.

We don't ignore the tough parts of science. It's a wonderful challenge. Nobel prizes aren't handed out to those that have gone after the easy stuff.

That whole article doesn't disprove evolution. At best, it provides challenge.

When we discover a homo sapien fossil in sediment with some ancient triolobites and dated way older than any humal fossil should be, let me know. I'll say evolution is in some deep trouble then.