Quick question for evolutionists

[=Joel=]

i'm not sure if a question like this has been asked before because of me being new to the board and all, so forgive me if it has.


All existing creatures today are assumed to have passed through centuries of harsh environments and being superior survivors, out-performed competitors, ancestors and near cousins. Those survival instincts would continue to be passed on even after the environment may have improved, permitting an easier life.

Domesticated cats and dogs still retain instincts for hunting even though they may have never observed such skills nor ever needed them. Yet upon being released to the wild, dogs will hunt in packs and cats become natural predators.

What are the survival skills possessed by sheep? Modern breeds of sheep appear to be devoid of survival skills or defensive mechanisms. They seem to depend on humans for their existence. Without human protection they become easy prey for predators.

We do not see a symbiotic relationship where some animal protects sheep for a selfish reason. Animals either have no use for sheep or simply want to eat them. Only humans shepherd them for use.

So in what kind of environment did sheep evolve? If they had ancestors that were more aggressive or more able to fend off predators, those breeds would have out-performed a more passive kind and would have dominated throughout time.

Yet we see no such aggressive breed. It would seem the passive sheep came into being and flourished only during the reign of humans, there were no sheep ancestors prior to human shepherds.

 

[notto]

i'm not sure if a question like this has been asked before because of me being new to the board and all, so forgive me if it has.


All existing creatures today are assumed to have passed through centuries of harsh environments and being superior survivors, out-performed competitors, ancestors and near cousins. Those survival instincts would continue to be passed on even after the environment may have improved, permitting an easier life.

Domesticated cats and dogs still retain instincts for hunting even though they may have never observed such skills nor ever needed them. Yet upon being released to the wild, dogs will hunt in packs and cats become natural predators.

What are the survival skills possessed by sheep? Modern breeds of sheep appear to be devoid of survival skills or defensive mechanisms. They seem to depend on humans for their existence. Without human protection they become easy prey for predators.

We do not see a symbiotic relationship where some animal protects sheep for a selfish reason. Animals either have no use for sheep or simply want to eat them. Only humans shepherd them for use.

So in what kind of environment did sheep evolve? If they had ancestors that were more aggressive or more able to fend off predators, those breeds would have out-performed a more passive kind and would have dominated throughout time.

Yet we see no such aggressive breed. It would seem the passive sheep came into being and flourished only during the reign of humans, there were no sheep ancestors prior to human shepherds.

Many prey species survive through the 'herd' lifestyle. They produce more individuals than the prey can eat. You have to remember that species evolve, not individuals. The survival of the population is what drives evolution, not the survival of any particular individual. There is also the chance that sheep lived in an environment where there where not that many predators or where it was hard for predators to get to them. Sheep do have horns that would offer some protection and most likely would have been 'leaner and meaner' in the past prior to their domestication.

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

i'm not sure if a question like this has been asked before because of me being new to the board and all, so forgive me if it has.


All existing creatures today are assumed to have passed through centuries of harsh environments and being superior survivors, out-performed competitors, ancestors and near cousins. Those survival instincts would continue to be passed on even after the environment may have improved, permitting an easier life.

Domesticated cats and dogs still retain instincts for hunting even though they may have never observed such skills nor ever needed them. Yet upon being released to the wild, dogs will hunt in packs and cats become natural predators.

What are the survival skills possessed by sheep? Modern breeds of sheep appear to be devoid of survival skills or defensive mechanisms. They seem to depend on humans for their existence. Without human protection they become easy prey for predators.

We do not see a symbiotic relationship where some animal protects sheep for a selfish reason. Animals either have no use for sheep or simply want to eat them. Only humans shepherd them for use.

So in what kind of environment did sheep evolve? If they had ancestors that were more aggressive or more able to fend off predators, those breeds would have out-performed a more passive kind and would have dominated throughout time.

Yet we see no such aggressive breed. It would seem the passive sheep came into being and flourished only during the reign of humans, there were no sheep ancestors prior to human shepherds.

You might want to look at how wild sheep survive today to get your answer. http://216.74.126.7/~haul/bighorn/wildsheep.htm for example.

 

[Ark Guy]

Many prey species survive through the 'herd' lifestyle. They produce more individuals than the prey can eat. You have to remember that species evolve, not individuals. The survival of the population is what drives evolution, not the survival of any particular individual. There is also the chance that sheep lived in an environment where there where not that many predators or where it was hard for predators to get to them. Sheep do have horns that would offer some protection and most likely would have been 'leaner and meaner' in the past prior to their domestication.

..plucked from the above quote...You have to remember that species evolve, not individuals.

Is that true? Has this statement actually been witnessed and demonstrated or was that statement just plucked from an evo website or text book as easily as I plucked it from the above quote?

The reason I ask is because according to evolutionISM it is a mutation that starts the change, then other mutations add to the change and so on and so on untill the change is noticable.

These mutations according to the evos occur in a single individual animal..is kept, then passed on.
So, it appears that the above statement is incorrect...or needs to be modified.

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

..plucked from the above quote...You have to remember that species evolve, not individuals.

Is that true? Has this statement actually been witnessed and demonstrated or was that statement just plucked from an evo website or text book as easily as I plucked it from the above quote?

It is absolutely true. Evolution is the change of allele frequency within a population. By definition it cannot happen in an individual

The reason I ask is because according to evolutionISM it is a mutation that starts the change, then other mutations add to the change and so on and so on untill the change is noticable.

These mutations according to the evos occur in a single individual animal..is kept, then passed on.

But a single mutation is not evolution in itself. It is just a mutation. Evolution is what happens in the population as a result of that mutation. The many mutations that go to make up a significant phenotypical change in a population do not occur all in the same individual.

So, it appears that the above statement is incorrect...or needs to be modified.

Nope. It's fine how it is. I prefer "populations evolve" to "species evolve" but the principle is sound.

 

[Ark Guy]

Actually the whole concept is incorrect.

For starters the mutation must occur. Ok lets say this happens. What are the odds of it being a benificial mutation rather than a harmfull or neutral mutation?

Now if it is benificial, what are the odds of it getting past the DNA error correcting mechanism set up in the genes?

Now it must get into the rest of the population.

So lets say it does jump over all of these hurdles and a particular part of the animals starts to change..ever so slightly...what are the odds of another beneficial mutation occuring before a harmfull mutation in the same DNA strand responsible for the developement of the portion undergoing change?

Then remember that this same scenario must be repeated many, many, many times, over and over again.

 

[Ben_Hur]

So are we talking mass, simultaneous mutations here for a "population" to evolve?

 

[Ark Guy]

No, the evos are talking about one individual obtaining a mutation that gives is an advantage...then passing that gene onto a whole bunch of others in its future llinage.

Once another ---beneficial--mutation occurs....in just the right spot and clears all the hurdles, another individual starts it all over again.
Eventually an animal like a dolphin developes an echo-location system.

 

[notto]

Individuals don't evolve, populations do. There is nothing incorrect or untrue about this statement. It was the basis of Darwins writing and it is the basis of evolutionary theory now.

Darwin looked at distinct difference between populations of animals separated on islands. He saw the differences in populations among tortises and finches as examples and based on their habitats and the type of food they ate, they had developed beneficial changes in their body structure to help them eat the food available to them. Natural selection acting on the population favored individuals with beneficial traits and over time the population aquired these traits.

Of course, Ark Guy would like to reduce these observations to a strawman, but then he isn't talking about evolutionary theory anymore, just something he pulled off of some creationist website.

 

[Vance]

Ark guy, you really need to read up on evolutionary theory from some source other than YEC websites if you wish to discuss it seriously.

 

[=Joel=]

were you being serious when you typed that up or is this a joke?

they had developed beneficial changes in their body structure to help them eat the food available to them. Natural selection acting on the population favored individuals with beneficial traits and over time the population aquired these traits.

 

[Vance]

No, that is about right. The individuals with beneficial traits tend to live longer and reproduce more, thus passing this benefit on to a larger and larger portion of the gene pool, so that the entire population will eventually come to have the beneficial trait.

Those birds in the gene pool with the slight mutation giving them a slightly more beneficial beak shape (say longer and more narrow to get grubs in tree crevices) will tend to live longer and reproduce more, passing this gene onto larger numbers in the pool, which expands exponentially as the new holders of the gene survive longer and reproduce more. Eventually the whole population has the longer, thinner beak. Populations are going through this process, adapting a wide variety of beneficial traits (and selecting OUT unbeneficial traits) simultaneously.

Now, this group was originally part of a larger group, let's say, but got isolated and developed this unique beak because of the nature of the trees in its environment. If the rest of the group did not have this "pressure" from the type of trees and grubs, they will not develop this beak, but may develop in different ways to fit its own unique environment (habitat, weather, food sources, predators, etc). Over millions of years of separation and continual adaptations to changing enviroments, these two groups become SO different that they can no longer mate together if they were brought into contact with each other. Voila! Two seperate species from what had originally been one species.

While these changes occur over VAST time frames, we have actually seen this process take place.

 

[Ark Guy]

Individuals don't evolve, populations do. There is nothing incorrect or untrue about this statement. It was the basis of Darwins writing and it is the basis of evolutionary theory now.

Darwin looked at distinct difference between populations of animals separated on islands. He saw the differences in populations among tortises and finches as examples and based on their habitats and the type of food they ate, they had developed beneficial changes in their body structure to help them eat the food available to them. Natural selection acting on the population favored individuals with beneficial traits and over time the population aquired these traits.

Of course, Ark Guy would like to reduce these observations to a strawman, but then he isn't talking about evolutionary theory anymore, just something he pulled off of some creationist website.

Darwin only noticed micro-evolution.

The bottom line, the finch remained a finch.

 

[Ark Guy]

It has become obvious to me that the evos on this forum ACCEPT thhat evolution happens and write this into their post.....when asked to explain how evolution really works, such as how the mutations accumulate, I.E. jump the hurdles...they fall short.

You will see as this post and other post go on that the evos rely on a magic mutation to produce change.

 

[Ark Guy]

No, that is about right. The individuals with beneficial traits tend to live longer and reproduce more, thus passing this benefit on to a larger and larger portion of the gene pool, so that the entire population will eventually come to have the beneficial trait.

This may sound good, but it's not quite right. First you need a specific finch to develope the slightly different beak, then you need this small minute change to give an advantage, despite the evolutionary noise drowning out the small change.
Now this finch has to pass this onto his future offspring, which then becomes the population you are talking about.. But first you must understand that it starts with an individual.

Those birds in the gene pool with the slight mutation giving them a slightly more beneficial beak shape (say longer and more narrow to get grubs in tree crevices) will tend to live longer and reproduce more, passing this gene onto larger numbers in the pool, which expands exponentially as the new holders of the gene survive longer and reproduce more. Eventually the whole population has the longer, thinner beak. Populations are going through this process, adapting a wide variety of beneficial traits (and selecting OUT unbeneficial traits) simultaneously.

According to evo theory, only one bird would have the mutation...the slight differance in any future offspring would not be considered as a mutation.

Of course in the case of the finch the different shaped beaks were due to a variety already present with in the beak formation genes. No mutations were required.
It would be similar to dog breeds where no mutations were required to create all the different variaties of dogs we have today.

Now, this group was originally part of a larger group, let's say, but got isolated and developed this unique beak because of the nature of the trees in its environment. If the rest of the group did not have this "pressure" from the type of trees and grubs, they will not develop this beak, but may develop in different ways to fit its own unique environment (habitat, weather, food sources, predators, etc). Over millions of years of separation and continual adaptations to changing enviroments, these two groups become SO different that they can no longer mate together if they were brought into contact with each other. Voila! Two seperate species from what had originally been one species.

Once again this is an explanation of micro-evolution and not macro-evolution. All that you mention has the ability to occur with out a single mutation.

While these changes occur over VAST time frames, we have actually seen this process take place.

No one has an argument with micro-evolution.
The argument for macro-evolution is where you problem lies. How do different body parts change or develope? I.E., the formation of a dolphins echo-location system?

 

[notto]

It has become obvious to me that the evos on this forum ACCEPT thhat evolution happens and write this into their post.....when asked to explain how evolution really works, such as how the mutations accumulate, I.E. jump the hurdles...they fall short.

You will see as this post and other post go on that the evos rely on a magic mutation to produce change.

The direction you are taking this discussion has nothing to do with the opening posters question. Why don't you start a new thread.

How about this:
"Individuals don't micro-evolve, populations do".

There is no difference between them mechanisms of 'micro' evolutio and 'macro' evolution. They are both the result of natural selection and mutation.

When asked to explain what mechanism would stop this process from generating new species, creationists fall short. You will see as this post and other posts go on that the creationists rely on magic to stop this change.

 

[notto]

Of course in the case of the finch the different shaped beaks were due to a variety already present with in the beak formation genes. No mutations were required. It would be similar to dog breeds where no mutations were required to create all the different variaties of dogs we have today.Once again this is an explanation of micro-evolution and not macro-evolution. All that you mention has the ability to occur with out a single mutation.

This is absolutely incorrect and should simply be ignoredby anyone reading it. The variety we see in birds, breeds of dogs, and any population or different species in breeding is the result of mutation. To suggest that no mutations were required to create all the different varieties of dogs we have today is simply a stupid thing to say. Darwin covered this with breeding pigeons. It certainly is mutation that gives us the variety to breed from. Ask anyone involved in selective breeding program.

 

[notto]

were you being serious when you typed that up or is this a joke?

Nope, I was serious. Tortoise populations that found themselves in environments on islands where their food source came from taller plants had a distinctive notch in their shell that would allow them to get at the higher food. This would have occured over many generations as competition for food was fierce and only the tortoises that could get at the higher plants would survive to pass on their makup to the next generation. Compare the following two pictures.

The same type of thing was observed in finches depending on if the diet on the island they where on consisted of small, hard to get seeds or larger hard to crack seeds.

I'm guessing that based on your questions and interest, you might enjoy reading Origins by Darwin. He discusses these types of changes related to pigeons, birds, tortoises, bees, and other animals and the book, although a little dry at times, is written in a way that makes it easy to understand. It also discusses geography, plants, fossils. You can get a taste of it online but if you decide to read it, you should pick it up in print.
You might start with Chapter 3 which deals with the 'Struggle for Existence'
http://www.literature.org/authors/darwin-charles/the-origin-of-species/chapter-03.html

 

[Vance]

You are right, Arkguy, there is no dispute regarding the mechanics of micro evolution. Even the most ardent YEC's have had to admit (after long denying) that the mechanics explained by scientists as "evolution" actually DO occur. They agree with natural selection, mutation, genetic drift, and the resulting change. In fact, they USE the theory in all its glory to explain how we got such a variety among the species since the Flood.

The only thing left in true dispute is whether this process (which all agree takes place) can, if given enough time, lead to "macro" changes. Evolutionary theory states that if these mechanisms are let go for long enough, with sufficient environmental pressures, very large changes can take place. We see HUGE size and morphology differences within species, for example, and even YEC's have to acknowledge that those changes were the result of evolutionary mechanisms since the flood. So, we have seen large morphological changes, and we have seen new species develop (as even AIG agrees). We have seen new information added and more information result. So, with these observations, added to fossil, puts the ball in the court of the Creationists to come up with a solid scientific reason why evolutionary development could NOT extend beyond some given barrier. This has not been forthcoming.

 

[Ark Guy]

The direction you are taking this discussion has nothing to do with the opening posters question. Why don't you start a new thread.

How about this:
"Individuals don't micro-evolve, populations do".

There is no difference between them mechanisms of 'micro' evolutio and 'macro' evolution. They are both the result of natural selection and mutation.

When asked to explain what mechanism would stop this process from generating new species, creationists fall short. You will see as this post and other posts go on that the creationists rely on magic to stop this change.

Incorrect.
micro-evolution does not need mutations.

In fact macro-mutation is impossible because the mutations have to many hurdles to over come.
Those hurdles have been presented earlier.