Statements About Evolution

[Kylie]

I can't accept 'is random'. 'Appears random', perhaps. But I guess I get your point.

It is random in the sense that there is no way to predict it ahead of time.

If the parents are each Bb, it can not be predicted if the offspring will get a B from the mother and a b from the father, or a B from each, etc. You just have to wait and see what the offspring gets.

But I thought a Bb mother and Bb father, necessarily "pass on" both B and b. But only one or the other or both will prevail in the offspring. But at this point we are playing with words, I guess, "pass on"; "be"; etc. I'm still just a little foggy on how this works, but oh well.

The parents pass on only one of their alleles. If they are Bb, then they will pass on the B or the b, but not both. When I say "pass on," I am referring to which of the alleles is present in the sex cell. If the mother is Bb, then each of her eggs will contain either a B or a b. The same will apply to the sperm of the father. When the egg is fertilized, then the offspring that develops will have one allele that was present in the egg and came from the mother, and one allele that was present in the sperm that fertilized the egg and was present in the father.

 

[Kylie]

Both of your examples assume a common ancestor.

The existence of a common ancestor is the simplest explanation for the genetic evidence. Remember, it's not just from a comparison of two species. Every species we've looked at can be fitted into this concept. This almost certainly wouldn't happen if the common ancestor idea was wrong. And when we add in other bits of evidence from different techniques, they all fit together.

 

[Mark Quayle]

It is random in the sense that there is no way to predict it ahead of time.

If the parents are each Bb, it can not be predicted if the offspring will get a B from the mother and a b from the father, or a B from each, etc. You just have to wait and see what the offspring gets.



The parents pass on only one of their alleles. If they are Bb, then they will pass on the B or the b, but not both. When I say "pass on," I am referring to which of the alleles is present in the sex cell. If the mother is Bb, then each of her eggs will contain either a B or a b. The same will apply to the sperm of the father. When the egg is fertilized, then the offspring that develops will have one allele that was present in the egg and came from the mother, and one allele that was present in the sperm that fertilized the egg and was present in the father.

Ok. That makes sense.

 

[Mark Quayle]

The existence of a common ancestor is the simplest explanation for the genetic evidence. Remember, it's not just from a comparison of two species. Every species we've looked at can be fitted into this concept. This almost certainly wouldn't happen if the common ancestor idea was wrong. And when we add in other bits of evidence from different techniques, they all fit together.

Assuming naturalism is the cause, of course. Ok, sorry, (sort of), that's a cheap argument. But if God made each species as is, the differences are more interesting than the likenesses.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Would you be so kind as to repeat them?

Ugh! Haha, I've been gone a week or two, and have kind of lost the thread. I'll try, though, since you have been good enough to try to walk me through this. But not tonight. It's way past my bedtime.

 

[Kylie]

Assuming naturalism is the cause, of course. Ok, sorry, (sort of), that's a cheap argument. But if God made each species as is, the differences are more interesting than the likenesses.

I'm hoping that by the end of all this you'll be able to see how everything I discuss is entirely consistent with naturalism.

But please bear in mind that an argument for evolution is NOT an argument against God. There are plenty of Christians for whom the existence of God and evolution can coexist. My husband, for example, is a Christian, and he takes the position that evolution is just a tool that God used.

 

[Kylie]

Moving on to statement 5...

In statement five, I said, "If an animal has some variation that helps it survive, then it will likely have a longer life, and thus, it will have more opportunities to reproduce. For example, if it is a member of a species that reproduces once a year and it has a variation that helps it survive an extra year, then it will have an extra chance to reproduce, and an individual without this variation has a lower chance of having that extra chance of reproducing."

Any reservations with this? You did mention in post 51 that these variations would have to be traits that can be passed on through inheritance, and that is true, but many traits have a genetic component. With traits that aren't genetic, there is a chance that these can be passed on in other ways. For example, back in the 1920s, milk bottles were sealed with foil caps, and some birds in Britain learned that they could use their beaks to pierce them and get at the milk. Other birds quickly learned to do this and soon the habit was widespread. Now, there isn't a gene for this, it's a learned behaviour. But genes can influence behaviour, such as making it more likely that an individual will be curious and attempt to copy the behaviour. For example, if you saw me cover an empty plate with a large bowl, then I danced around it signing my ABCs, then lifted the bowl and there was a hamburger there, you'd probably try it too to see if you'd get a burger of your own. That natural curiosity of Humans can certainly have a genetic basis. Of course, this isn't saying that there's a gene that causes foil-lid-removal in the same way there's a gene for eye colour, but it does mean that genes can influence how curious an individual is, and how likely they are to copy behaviour. And this also isn't saying that an individual like this is definitely going to be curious and try copying that behaviour. After all, if a bird once tried poking around a bottle and the bottle shattered for some reason and the bird was startled, it could well avoid bottles entirely, despite the increased curiosity. But anyway, I'm waffling on a bit, but the essence is that here I am talking about those traits that have a clear genetic component. Traits such as lid-pecking are transfered through memes, not genes (I'm using meme in the original sense, as in a basic idea that can be passed on). I can pass a meme to you if I was to teach you how to fold an origami crane, for example. But anyway, that's another topic. Like I said, I'm waffling.

 

[Shemjaza]

Assuming naturalism is the cause, of course. Ok, sorry, (sort of), that's a cheap argument. But if God made each species as is, the differences are more interesting than the likenesses.

Supernaturalism can never be ruled out completely due to it being able to explain literally anything, but there are aspects of evidence that are consistent with common ancestry and inexplicable with an omniscient and omnipotent common designer.

Certain lineages have genetic remnants almost like scars in their DNA that serve no purpose: Chimps and humans have muscle structures and genes for growing mobile tails; birds have the genes for a maw and teeth; Dolphins have the genes for four limbs and their flippers are formed around five digits with the same bones as a land mammal's hand.

 

[Mark Quayle]

I'm hoping that by the end of all this you'll be able to see how everything I discuss is entirely consistent with naturalism.

But please bear in mind that an argument for evolution is NOT an argument against God. There are plenty of Christians for whom the existence of God and evolution can coexist. My husband, for example, is a Christian, and he takes the position that evolution is just a tool that God used.

One of my favorite facetious comments is, "Naturalism posits a universe that behaves almost exactly as though God made it!"

 

[Kylie]

One of my favorite facetious comments is, "Naturalism posits a universe that behaves almost exactly as though God made it!"

lol, I'd turn it around and say that religion posits a universe that behaves exactly as though it is all natural. But that's neither here nor there with this topic. I'm just hoping that, by the end of this, you'll understand how evolution can work without requiring any intervention from God. Of course, evolution doesn't say anything about where the first life form came from, and I've found that those Christians who believe in God and evolution (such as my husband) tend to view evolution as a tool that God used to create the diversity of life after he got life started.

 

[Mark Quayle]

but there are aspects of evidence that are consistent with common ancestry and inexplicable with an omniscient and omnipotent common designer.

Can you give some examples? I don't see how any of your below referenced phenomena rule out an omniscient and omnipotent common designer. If you think they do, then it would appear (to me) that you assume a God who would not bother to do things like that, or would be more directly 'efficient' in his designs. Among other problems, that assumes to know what God is /has designing/ designed, and why. One thing we CAN assume about God is that he does not/ will not behave according to our expectations/ conceptions.

Certain lineages have genetic remnants almost like scars in their DNA that serve no purpose: Chimps and humans have muscle structures and genes for growing mobile tails; birds have the genes for a maw and teeth; Dolphins have the genes for four limbs and their flippers are formed around five digits with the same bones as a land mammal's hand.

@Mark Quayle let's move on. In statement 3, I spoke of how parents pass their genes on to their offspring. We've already covered this a fair bit, what with the different allele's for eye colour and such, so may I assume you have no reservations about that?

Anticipating that you will have no reservations, let's also cover Statement 4, where I said that different traits can influence how well the individual animal that has them survives. Do you have any reservations regarding that statement?

Mark Quayle said: ↑
Only the reservations I already mentioned.

Would you be so kind as to repeat them?

In both, my main reservations would be that the assumptions that 'can be' or 'or seems more likely' or 'probably', become 'is', 'does', 'will' etc. and particularly where such successes of a better adapted example will then be assumed to procreate more successfully, which while it sounds reasonable, has not been shown me as fact —particularly not in the question of successive generations of mutations. Also, I have not heard yet anything about if one has a mutated gene which it passes to the offspring, how it does not need a like mutated gene from the other parent for it to be demonstrated in the offspring. Maybe you dealt with it and I missed it, or missed the implications of something I thought I understood. (Or course, I have several more questions, but they can wait, as they are not directly relevant to the narrative so far.)

Also, in the back of my mind, I seem to remember you or someone making reference to the millions of years available over which large changes happen in tiny steps, relative the few-ness of actual mutated changes necessary, that I'm not sure I understood.

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

I'm just hoping that, by the end of this, you'll understand how evolution can work without requiring any intervention from God.

If we are ever to approach scientific problems in the spirit of Christian theology then we must, at the risk of paradox, declare that the common distinction between the natural and the supernatural is unreal and misleading. There are not, and cannot be, any divine interpositions in nature, for God cannot interfere with himself. His creative activity is present everywhere. There is no division of labor between God and nature, or God and law. "If he thunder by law, the thunder is yet his voice." The plant which is produced from seed by the "natural" laws of growth is his creation. The brute which is born by the "natural" process of generation is his creation. The plant or animal which, by successive variations and adaptations, becomes a new species (if this is true) is his creation. "The budding of a rose," it has been said, "and the resurrection of Jesus Christ are equally the effect of the one Motive Force, which is the cause of all phenomena."

A theory of "supernatural interference" is as fatal to theology as to science. We need hardly stop to remind ourselves how entirely this is in accord with the relation of God and nature, always assumed in the Bible. What strikes us at once, trained as we are in the language of science, is the immediateness with which everything is ascribed to God. He makes the grass to grow upon the mountains. To him the young ravens look up for food. He holds the winds in the hollow of his hand. Not a sparrow falls without his knowledge. He numbers the hairs of our head. Of bird and beast and flower, no less than of man, it is true that in him they "live and move and have their being." … For the Christian theologian the facts of nature are the acts of God.​

— Aubrey L. Moore, Science and Faith: Essays on Apologetic Subjects, 6th ed. (1889; London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co., 1905), pp. 225–226. All emphases mine.

 

[Kylie]

In both, my main reservations would be that the assumptions that 'can be' or 'or seems more likely' or 'probably', become 'is', 'does', 'will' etc. and particularly where such successes of a better adapted example will then be assumed to procreate more successfully, which while it sounds reasonable, has not been shown me as fact —particularly not in the question of successive generations of mutations.

Remember, we're dealing with a population here. So, let's say we've got a herd of animals that are in a cold climate, and there's a variation that gives them a slightly thicker coat of fur. If this was in a single individual, then there's no guarantee that it will be passed on. But remember, we've got a population here. There are going to be quite a few individuals who have a coat of fur that is thicker than the average. To paraphrase George Carlin, "Think of how thick the average coat is. Now, half of them are thicker than that." And it only takes for one of these individuals to pass it on for the trait to start spreading. True, there's no guarantee that it will be passed on - every single animal with this trait could be killed by disease, predators, etc, but such is very unlikely. Chances are that some of these animals are going to reproduce before they die. So, while it's never a case of "It's guaranteed to pass on," it's a case of "It will probably be passed on," and when the population is larger, the probability gets closer and close to certainty.

Also, I have not heard yet anything about if one has a mutated gene which it passes to the offspring, how it does not need a like mutated gene from the other parent for it to be demonstrated in the offspring. Maybe you dealt with it and I missed it, or missed the implications of something I thought I understood. (Or course, I have several more questions, but they can wait, as they are not directly relevant to the narrative so far.)

Let's go back to eye colour for this example. Let's say there's a mutation that causes a person's eyes to be purple. If this is a dominant trait, then it's got a chance of showing up in the offspring as well. But of course, it could be recessive, so while the offspring might carry the allele for purple eyes, they won't actually HAVE purple eyes unless they also get a purple allele from their other parent. But they can still carry the purple allele. Now, if the purple eye allele was a one off mutation and is recessive, then chances are it will die out. Heck, chances are it will still die out if it's a dominant trait as well. But if it's something that pops up all over the place (remember in the previous example about the animals that had slightly thicker than average coats), then there's a good chance that two lines of this allele will meet at some point, so even if it is recessive, it can still show up.

In fact, eye colour is a great example of this sort of thing, because blue eyes themselves are an example of it. All blue eyed people are descended from a single person (meaning that if you follow the family line of all blue eyed people, you'll come across one person who is in all of them). Science | AAAS

Also, in the back of my mind, I seem to remember you or someone making reference to the millions of years available over which large changes happen in tiny steps, relative the few-ness of actual mutated changes necessary, that I'm not sure I understood.

Hmmm, not sure that was me.

 

[Mark Quayle]

If we are ever to approach scientific problems in the spirit of Christian theology then we must, at the risk of paradox, declare that the common distinction between the natural and the supernatural is unreal and misleading. There are not, and cannot be, any divine interpositions in nature, for God cannot interfere with himself. His creative activity is present everywhere. There is no division of labor between God and nature, or God and law. "If he thunder by law, the thunder is yet his voice." The plant which is produced from seed by the "natural" laws of growth is his creation. The brute which is born by the "natural" process of generation is his creation. The plant or animal which, by successive variations and adaptations, becomes a new species (if this is true) is his creation. "The budding of a rose," it has been said, "and the resurrection of Jesus Christ are equally the effect of the one Motive Force, which is the cause of all phenomena."

A theory of "supernatural interference" is as fatal to theology as to science. We need hardly stop to remind ourselves how entirely this is in accord with the relation of God and nature, always assumed in the Bible. What strikes us at once, trained as we are in the language of science, is the immediateness with which everything is ascribed to God. He makes the grass to grow upon the mountains. To him the young ravens look up for food. He holds the winds in the hollow of his hand. Not a sparrow falls without his knowledge. He numbers the hairs of our head. Of bird and beast and flower, no less than of man, it is true that in him they "live and move and have their being." … For the Christian theologian the facts of nature are the acts of God.​

— Aubrey L. Moore, Science and Faith: Essays on Apologetic Subjects, 6th ed. (1889; London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co., 1905), pp. 225–226. All emphases mine.

"For in him we live and move and have our being."

 

[Mark Quayle]

Remember, we're dealing with a population here. So, let's say we've got a herd of animals that are in a cold climate, and there's a variation that gives them a slightly thicker coat of fur. If this was in a single individual, then there's no guarantee that it will be passed on. But remember, we've got a population here. There are going to be quite a few individuals who have a coat of fur that is thicker than the average. To paraphrase George Carlin, "Think of how thick the average coat is. Now, half of them are thicker than that." And it only takes for one of these individuals to pass it on for the trait to start spreading. True, there's no guarantee that it will be passed on - every single animal with this trait could be killed by disease, predators, etc, but such is very unlikely. Chances are that some of these animals are going to reproduce before they die. So, while it's never a case of "It's guaranteed to pass on," it's a case of "It will probably be passed on," and when the population is larger, the probability gets closer and close to certainty.

—IF they are not sterile, or otherwise less attracting, etc. But I'm belaboring the point I've already described...

Let's go back to eye colour for this example. Let's say there's a mutation that causes a person's eyes to be purple. If this is a dominant trait, then it's got a chance of showing up in the offspring as well. But of course, it could be recessive, so while the offspring might carry the allele for purple eyes, they won't actually HAVE purple eyes unless they also get a purple allele from their other parent. But they can still carry the purple allele. Now, if the purple eye allele was a one off mutation and is recessive, then chances are it will die out. Heck, chances are it will still die out if it's a dominant trait as well. But if it's something that pops up all over the place (remember in the previous example about the animals that had slightly thicker than average coats), then there's a good chance that two lines of this allele will meet at some point, so even if it is recessive, it can still show up.

In fact, eye colour is a great example of this sort of thing, because blue eyes themselves are an example of it. All blue eyed people are descended from a single person (meaning that if you follow the family line of all blue eyed people, you'll come across one person who is in all of them). Science | AAAS

But is purple eyes (a mutation) the same notion as the blue eyes (still within species) in effect? Is that single person's blue eyes a mutation?

 

[Kylie]

—IF they are not sterile, or otherwise less attracting, etc. But I'm belaboring the point I've already described...

True, but I hope it goes without saying that there's a big "all other things being equal" in there...

But is purple eyes (a mutation) the same notion as the blue eyes (still within species) in effect? Is that single person's blue eyes a mutation?

Not sure why you needed to add the "still within species" bit there.

Yes, that single person's blue eyes were a mutation. The article I linked to lays it out clearly. Brown eyes are caused by the OCA gene, and the mutation for blue eyes occurs on a gene that is close to it in the genome, the HERC2 gene. The blue eye mutation in the HERC2 gene acts as a switch that turns off the production of brown eye colour.

"Researchers have implicated the OCA2 gene in several eye colors. The gene is involved in the production of melanin, a pigment that gives hair and skin their hues. It also codes for brown eyes and can lead to green or hazel eyes when mutated. Despite years of searching, however, scientists have not found a mutation for blue eyes on the gene.

It turns out they were looking in the wrong place. Trying to narrow the site of the mutation, gene mapper Hans Eiberg of the University of Copenhagen and colleagues examined members of a large Danish family, an approach that allowed them to follow DNA as it passed from one generation to another. Then, by comparing people with brown or blue eyes, including people from Jordan and Turkey, the researchers were able to pinpoint the exact mutation. It wasn't on the OCA gene but rather on a nearby gene called HERC2.

The mutation works like a switch that regulates the OCA gene, the team reports in the January issue of Human Genetics, turning off the production of brown eye color and allowing blue eyes to shine through."

 

[Mark Quayle]

True, but I hope it goes without saying that there's a big "all other things being equal" in there...

As long as that fact is kept in mind...

Not sure why you needed to add the "still within species" bit there.

Yes, that single person's blue eyes were a mutation. The article I linked to lays it out clearly. Brown eyes are caused by the OCA gene, and the mutation for blue eyes occurs on a gene that is close to it in the genome, the HERC2 gene. The blue eye mutation in the HERC2 gene acts as a switch that turns off the production of brown eye colour.

"Researchers have implicated the OCA2 gene in several eye colors. The gene is involved in the production of melanin, a pigment that gives hair and skin their hues. It also codes for brown eyes and can lead to green or hazel eyes when mutated. Despite years of searching, however, scientists have not found a mutation for blue eyes on the gene.

It turns out they were looking in the wrong place. Trying to narrow the site of the mutation, gene mapper Hans Eiberg of the University of Copenhagen and colleagues examined members of a large Danish family, an approach that allowed them to follow DNA as it passed from one generation to another. Then, by comparing people with brown or blue eyes, including people from Jordan and Turkey, the researchers were able to pinpoint the exact mutation. It wasn't on the OCA gene but rather on a nearby gene called HERC2.

The mutation works like a switch that regulates the OCA gene, the team reports in the January issue of Human Genetics, turning off the production of brown eye color and allowing blue eyes to shine through."

I didn't know the blue eyes was a mutation. I'm not clear on what is 'mutation' of genes, and what is already within the genes of examples of a species. For example, I think it was the fruit fly or spotted fly or whatever, that under one set of circumstances successive generations would supposedly 'mutate' to a certain form, and when the circumstances were reversed, they would 'mutate' back. The Creationist, predictably, would say, no, that isn't mutation. It is already built into the genetic makeup of the fly.

 

[Shemjaza]

Can you give some examples? I don't see how any of your below referenced phenomena rule out an omniscient and omnipotent common designer. If you think they do, then it would appear (to me) that you assume a God who would not bother to do things like that, or would be more directly 'efficient' in his designs. Among other problems, that assumes to know what God is /has designing/ designed, and why. One thing we CAN assume about God is that he does not/ will not behave according to our expectations/ conceptions.

As I stated it is impossible for anything to rule out the actions of an omniscient and omnipotent common designer.

My point is not that a designer couldn't design that way, just that it's inexplicable.

If the designer had a design for swimming things with two limbs there is no reason to include in the design switched off information for four limbs just as there's no reason to include distinct finger structures in a similar configuration to some land animals you've also designed.

This is made especially clear when the same designer has designed other swimming things with a similar outline without the unused land animal traits.

 

[Mark Quayle]

If the designer had a design for swimming things with two limbs there is no reason to include in the design switched off information for four limbs just as there's no reason to include distinct finger structures in a similar configuration to some land animals you've also designed.

No reason that WE know of, that is...

This is made especially clear when the same designer has designed other swimming things with a similar outline without the unused land animal traits.

Of the same species?

 

[Hans Blaster]

No reason that WE know of, that is...

Of the same species?

No, not the same species.

Dolphins and sharks have similar looks, many are the roughly the same size, etc.

But, dolphins have land mammal characteristics and sharks do not. Dolphins have or have the remnants of quadruped & mammal features like:

Lungs
Birthing young live from a uterus
Milk production for feeding young
Four articulated limbs with wrists and fingers
Hair
Ear bones

Sharks have none. Yet if briefly showed you a dolphin species you'd never seen before and told you it was a shark you might be inclined to accept my claim (or vice versa, swap the dolphin and shark, or you and me).

There is no good design reason to build a shark-like dolphin using mammal parts, yet dolphins are clearly mammals and have mammal features. Dolphins are more closely related to bats than to sharks.