Make me an evolutionist

[Shadowseldil]

Ok, I unfortunately do not have time to comment as I would like to, and the information continues to pile in faster than I can keep up with it. On top of it all, I am leaving for a hike in a few days. Until then, I want to ask some questions to help clear up my understanding.

1) Can someone give me a reliable link to a site with a scientific definition of the theory of evolution?
2)Can someone give me a scientific definition of 'mutation'?
3)Is albinism a mutation?
4)What are some of the common mutations of fruit flies?
5)Does macroevolution necessitate that the new creature cannot reproduce with the previous creature?
I think I had more, but I can't remember them. Oh well, that will do. It make take me a few days to read through everything, research everything, and respond to a tenth of the information given. Such is the this is going for me. Please, be patient, and I reiterate, be kind in your posts. Most of you have, and I thank you, but please continue to be.

 

[revolutio]

Quick answers:

1. Not me, sorry.
2. An error in the replication of DNA, usually in transcription. The result is in imperfect copy of a DNA strand.
3. It was originally I assume, it is now an inherited trait, simply an uncomon one. I am not certain if there have been any records of the albinism mutation occuring anew.
4. Dunno.
5. Macroevolution is not a scientific term as far as I know, it is more part of popular science and hence has no strict definition. So the answer to your question is yes and no depending on who you talk to.

Also it depends on what you mean by "new" and "previous" creature. Do you mean are infants born that can't reproduce with the species that bore them? Sure! Do those pass on their genetic material? Not so much. However, there are plenty of animals in solidly different species (i.e. whales and dolphins) that can produce fertile offspring.

 

[gluadys]

Ok, I unfortunately do not have time to comment as I would like to, and the information continues to pile in faster than I can keep up with it. On top of it all, I am leaving for a hike in a few days. Until then, I want to ask some questions to help clear up my understanding.

1) Can someone give me a reliable link to a site with a scientific definition of the theory of evolution?

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-definition.html

Some people do not consider talkorigins "reliable" but the definitions they are using here come from standard biological textbooks. They were not invented by talkorigins.

2)Can someone give me a scientific definition of 'mutation'?

http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/BiologyPages/M/Mutations.html

Note that these "failures of DNA repair" are necessary to evolution. Some such mistakes turn out to be beneficial for the species.

A simpler definition is "any change in the DNA sequences in the genome."

3)Is albinism a mutation?

It is the consequence of a mutation. A mutation is a change in the actual DNA sequence, i.e. a genetic change. Some, not all, genetic changes are expressed in the phenotype (what an organism looks like or how it behaves) Visible variations which are caused by genetic mutations are also sometimes called mutations, but strictly speaking they are the expression of a mutation.
It is important to remember that most mutations are never expressed, or they are expressed so subtly that they are never noticed. The word "mutation" should not be understood as referring only to large phenotypical changes.

4)What are some of the common mutations of fruit flies?

I am not sure of what the natural mutations seen in fruit flies are. I am aware that experimentation has produced some large phenotypical changes such as red eye or winglessness or legs replacing antenna, as well as the diet change from fruit to meat or bread in the 1980s experiments. However, these are all human-induced and much larger than most mutational changes would be in natural circumstances.

5)Does macroevolution necessitate that the new creature cannot reproduce with the previous creature?

Cannot or will not. It does not forbid all hybridization, but it does require that the new species does not normally and regularly mate successfully outside of its own species, including with its parent species. "Will not" is often as important as "cannot" as a new species is forming. Preference for a mate within one's own group, even when another group is available, is often key to the transition to a new species. This is especially true when there are no geographical or ecological barriers separating the two groups.

 

[random_guy]

I want to just say thanks for all the cool pictures. For some reason, it always seemed to make sense that 1 set of genes should code for eye color so eye color should aways be the same. Enough of a derail.

Ok, I unfortunately do not have time to comment as I would like to, and the information continues to pile in faster than I can keep up with it. On top of it all, I am leaving for a hike in a few days. Until then, I want to ask some questions to help clear up my understanding.

1) Can someone give me a reliable link to a site with a scientific definition of the theory of evolution?
2)Can someone give me a scientific definition of 'mutation'?
3)Is albinism a mutation?
4)What are some of the common mutations of fruit flies?
5)Does macroevolution necessitate that the new creature cannot reproduce with the previous creature?
I think I had more, but I can't remember them. Oh well, that will do. It make take me a few days to read through everything, research everything, and respond to a tenth of the information given. Such is the this is going for me. Please, be patient, and I reiterate, be kind in your posts. Most of you have, and I thank you, but please continue to be.

I just want to say that I'm really glad you're taking this well. I know that many posters (myself included) did give a bit of teasing about the genius comment, but I must commend you for keeping an open mind and reading more literature about the subject. Many other posters on the board might've high-tailed it by now.

Have fun on the hiking trip.

 

[FSTDT]

Cannot or will not. It does not forbid all hybridization

Additional information: Hybridization is usually a good indicator of how closely two species are related. For instance, tigers and lions dont mate often in the wild, but in under certain circumstances they can produce hybrids (called tigons, ligers, most of these hybrids are sterile) - this indicates the two animals are closely related.

 

[Shadowseldil]

Ok, a quick update and another question.

For #5, I'm asking so that I can better understand the theory of evolution. In my view of Macroevolution, the new creature(I'm staying away from the word 'species', since it has no concrete meaning) is not able to mate with the previous creature and create offspring(for a poor example: apes and humans). Hybrids are offspring, and it does not matter if they do not, only if they cannot(cannot genetically, not cannot like a chihuahua and a saint bernard cannot interbreed).

Another question: though I hesitate to ask it. Don't think I'm trying to be cynical, I simply am not aware of any.
6) What are some documented mutations that both add genetic information and are beneficial?

Thank you.
Oh, by the by, random_guy, I am doing this so that I can gain more information. The Bible says to be ready to give an answer to what I believe. How can I be ready unless I am familiar with the arguments, or what the other side believes(for lack of a better word), or if I am even right(which I am )

 

[gluadys]

Ok, a quick update and another question.

For #5, I'm asking so that I can better understand the theory of evolution. In my view of Macroevolution, the new creature(I'm staying away from the word 'species', since it has no concrete meaning) is not able to mate with the previous creature and create offspring(for a poor example: apes and humans). Hybrids are offspring, and it does not matter if they do not, only if they cannot(cannot genetically, not cannot like a chihuahua and a saint bernard cannot interbreed).

From a scientific perspective, if populations do not interbreed in natural circumstances, that makes them just as much a separate species as if they cannot. Either way, they are not exchanging genetic information.

Where hybridization does occasionally occur, it verifies that the species involved are closely related. It does not mean that they are only one species.

Another question: though I hesitate to ask it. Don't think I'm trying to be cynical, I simply am not aware of any.
6) What are some documented mutations that both add genetic information and are beneficial?

The nylon bug. Genetic information was added in the form of an insertion and the consequence was that the species (a bacterium) was able to process nylon as a food.

 

[Split Rock]

Another question: though I hesitate to ask it. Don't think I'm trying to be cynical, I simply am not aware of any.
6) What are some documented mutations that both add genetic information and are beneficial?

A good example of this is evolution of glyphosate (the herbicide "Roundup") resistance in weed species. When glyphosate was first used (starting in 1974), resistance in susceptible species was unhear of. As late as 1995, some experts continued to predict there would never be resistance, though this was wishful thinking.
see: http://www.msstate.edu/Entomology/v7n2/art16.html

Today there are numerous examples of resitance in different weed populations through out the world, utlizing different mechanisms of resistance.
http://www.weeds.crc.org.au/glyphosate/glyphosate_faqs.html
http://www.bioone.org/bioone/?request=get-abstract&issn=0043-1745&volume=053&issue=01&page=0084
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=166520&tools=bot

 

[RoboMastodon]

Ok, a quick update and another question.

For #5, I'm asking so that I can better understand the theory of evolution. In my view of Macroevolution, the new creature(I'm staying away from the word 'species', since it has no concrete meaning) is not able to mate with the previous creature and create offspring(for a poor example: apes and humans).

Humans are apes. A species has a very concrete meaning: two populations are said to be of the same species if and only if they can successfully interbreed. Likewise, if they can't, they are not of the same species. A species will never produce offspring that are unable to produce with the parent species unless the offspring themselves are infertile. What happens is that a population of species after many generations will change in such a way that the current population will be unable to produce with the original.
Illustration (each G is a generation):
...->G1->G2->G3->G4->G5->G6->...->G100000->...
Here, any Gn is almost identical to Gn+1 and a specimen from Gn will always be able to reproduce with Gn+1 and probably Gn+2 and Gn-1. However, a specimen from G1 will probably not be able to reproduce with a specimen from G100000.

Another question: though I hesitate to ask it. Don't think I'm trying to be cynical, I simply am not aware of any.
6) What are some documented mutations that both add genetic information and are beneficial?

Tetrachromats (they see 4 primary colors), delta32 gene for resistance against AIDS, the tribe in Africa with 2 ostrich-like toes, are the few that come to mind. Other posters are more familiar with these and will be able to provide the documentation which I can't remember the urls for offhand.

Edit - Here you go, examples of beneficial mutations

 

[JimmyKoKoPop]

Cannot or will not. It does not forbid all hybridization, but it does require that the new species does not normally and regularly mate successfully outside of its own species, including with its parent species. "Will not" is often as important as "cannot" as a new species is forming. Preference for a mate within one's own group, even when another group is available, is often key to the transition to a new species. This is especially true when there are no geographical or ecological barriers separating the two groups.

I've mentioned it before, but I feel it is worth mentioning that species definitions are often difficult with very hazy lines at times (plus I simply find it utterly fascinating). Sometimes they reclassify species, or eventually merge species, or seperate them. Like how dogs are considered by many (I don't know if it is a majority or not at this point) to now be a subspecies of wolf, canis lupus familiaris. But it used to be a seperate species, canis familiaris. Lupines in general are confusing and difficult for taxonomists to classify, as SOME of them will interbreed willingly and produce successful hybrid offspring - for example, the red wolf and coyotes.

 

[gluadys]

I've mentioned it before, but I feel it is worth mentioning that species definitions are often difficult with very hazy lines at times (plus I simply find it utterly fascinating). Sometimes they reclassify species, or eventually merge species, or seperate them. Like how dogs are considered by many (I don't know if it is a majority or not at this point) to now be a subspecies of wolf, canis lupus familiaris. But it used to be a seperate species, canis familiaris. Lupines in general are confusing and difficult for taxonomists to classify, as SOME of them will interbreed willingly and produce successful hybrid offspring - for example, the red wolf and coyotes.
[/size][/color][/font]

This is why we should think of science as discovery. Models of reality are created on the best information we have. Then as new data comes in, we have to correct the models. Traditionally we classified wolves, dogs and coyotes as separate species. But the emerging picture is more complex than that.

 

[JimmyKoKoPop]

This is why we should think of science as discovery. Models of reality are created on the best information we have. Then as new data comes in, we have to correct the models. Traditionally we classified wolves, dogs and coyotes as separate species. But the emerging picture is more complex than that.

Yep, I agree. Taxonomy is often very difficult, even with all the advances in genetics, and the dog/wolf classification change was more a change of opinion than a discovery of new information (one I'm not sure I agree with - there are a number of significant differences between wolves and dogs, such as dogs breeding twice as often as wolves). That's why I find it so interesting. Might be a neat job, come to think of it. Hmm.

 

[MQTA]

I have seen this thread many times, yet going the other way, i.e. "Make me a christian", "make me a creationist" ect.
Well, evolutionist, now it's your chance. If you are willing to calmly, and peacefully discuss this, I will listen to you, rebut you if I do not like your point, and agree if you can prove something to me.
There are three things I am looking for. First, you must tell me why evolution is right. Second, you must back up your claims with proof. Thrid, you must convince me as to why I should want to become an evolutionist.
The floor is yours.

Did it work?

 

[Dragon02]

Hocus pocus allakazam! I raise this thread from the eternal thread abyss!

 

[Dannager]

The horde of zombie threads is growing!

 

[Yggdrasil]

The problem is, scientists have tryed for years to do that and have not been able to.
That is why the THEORY of evolution is a philosophy, not science.

There is actually tons of scientific evidence that backs evolution up. Do research.

 

[Grengor]

Anyone can do a search at pubmed, fewer can actually understand what the heck they're reading.

 

[Shadowseldil]

Oops, I forgot to mention it here. I've taken a hiatus from Christian forums until I have finished my book. To answer the question asked; no, it has not worked as far as that I believe in, as a classifier, Darwinian or Neo-Darwinian evolution (Let's not argue over semantics right now). I will post in this thread after I have completed my book and, should interest be revived, then I will continue with my, uh, not arguement, but whatever this may be called. Pointed discussion, perhaps. I don't know.
Anyway, God bless you all.
Shadowseldil

 

[Apos]

For #5, I'm asking so that I can better understand the theory of evolution. In my view of Macroevolution, the new creature(I'm staying away from the word 'species', since it has no concrete meaning) is not able to mate with the previous creature and create offspring(for a poor example: apes and humans).

Your statement seems to imply that macroevolution involves a SINGLE new creature suddenly being born that is a different species than it's parents or any other creature. That's really quite misguided. Speciation happens by a number of possible methods (the two main being a single population evolving over time to a state incompatible with its ancestors, and populations becoming reproductively isolated from each other and diverging), but by and large outside of the bacterial kingdom, evolution is something that happens to entire populations over time, not single individuals. So thinking about single freak mutants or hybrids is very misguided. These are the exceptions, not the rule, to most evolutionary change.

The key thing one has to understand is that the idea of Platonic essentialism is no longer a viable model. There is no such fundamental unit as a "hippo" that one day gives birth to a "whale" (and that's just an oversimplification: in fact, hippos and whales are both modern animals that happen to share common ancestors). Each entire generation is potentially slightly different from their parents, and mutations may arise once that are later spread via sexual recombination to the rest of the population, but by and large there is never a momement where one distinct species gives birth to another (exceptions abound, but they are more complicated because they usually involve asexual reproducers like bacteria). That wouldn't be a very viable model for evolutionary change.

 

[gluadys]

Apos is right.

A key to understanding evolution is understanding how variations (which do occur in single individuals) are spread through a populations until at least a significant portion of the population display the new variation.

Then understanding how a variation is selected for fixation--and why not all variations are.

It is a long way from mutation to speciation. And it is a gradual process, not one that will show up in a single generation.