The basics of evolution in plain language

[Dragar]

Taller people are more attractive.

I really wish you'd stop saying that.

That alone can account for an increase in height, but I am sure there are other factors.

Is height a universal factor, though, or just amongst certain cultures? I am starting to change my view point to yours, however. Is there a scientific consensus on this issue? I'm quite fond of trusting that sort of thing.

Dragar

 

[Kasey]

At the 'very' beginning I am unsure. I don't think anyone knows. There may have been a very simple species that was produced by abiogenesis. God may have created just one. Or perhaps he put down multiple, very simple species and let them evolve from there.

Well, if no one knows then there is no way you can prove it.

Be careful of using the word 'mutation'. A mutation refers to a change in a specific genetic code - of one individual. An evolution refers to a change in an entire population. I would rephrase your last sentance to read 'one species that evolved into a diverse number of species, that we find today.'

Dragar

It ammounts to the same thing does it not? The entire population would have to have mutated in order for evolution to occur. If thats the case, then your still taking an incredibly large gamble for everything to work out correctly.

 

[Dragar]

Well, your going on the off-chance that the mutation would have actually occurred at the right time and the right place and that THAT mutation would have been suceeded by a much more needful mutation afterwards that would not contradict the previous mutation and therefore, constant mutation on mutations that wouldnt cause harm but good.

Thats a major gamble.

It's a major gamble if you are only considering, for instance, a population of ten over a few generations.

But what about a population of several million, over thousands upon thousands of generations?

Throw your dice enough times, and you're bound to get a six.

As an example, go find some coins. Drop them randomly on your desk.

Take the ones that got heads face up. They 'survived', because they got the good mutation. Move them to the side.

Pick the ones that got tails face up, and drop them randomly again. How many 'generations' of coins will it take before most of your population is heads? Fewer than you might think.

You can make it more difficult, and only let half the heads survive, or a third, or a quarter. You'll still get a population of heads in a very short space of time.

Mutations aren't fifty/fifty, true. But you have a lot more coins, and a lot more generations.

Well thats just it. Evolution such as what we have been talking about is a theory and after all this time, has not been proven.

It's not proven any more than gravitational interactions are proven, no.

But I consider both gravitational interactions and evolutionary theory to have sufficient evidence for belief.

Dragar

 

[Kasey]

It's a major gamble if you are only considering, for instance, a population of ten over a few generations.

But what about a population of several million, over thousands upon thousands of generations?

Throw your dice enough times, and you're bound to get a six.

As an example, go find some coins. Drop them randomly on your desk.

Take the ones that got heads face up. They 'survived', because they got the good mutation. Move them to the side.

Pick the ones that got tails face up, and drop them randomly again. How many 'generations' of coins will it take before most of your population is heads? Fewer than you might think.

You can make it more difficult, and only let half the heads survive, or a third, or a quarter. You'll still get a population of heads in a very short space of time.

Mutations aren't fifty/fifty, true. But you have a lot more coins, and a lot more generations.

Wait a minute, Your taking this from a standpoint that there are millions involved already. What evidence is there to suggest that there was more than one "thing", if none at all, in the beginning to hatch the evolution process.

It's not proven any more than gravitational interactions are proven, no.

But I consider both gravitational interactions and evolutionary theory to have sufficient evidence for belief.

Dragar

What do you mean by gravitational interactions?

 

[Dragar]

Well, if no one knows then there is no way you can prove it.

Nope. We just admit we don't know for sure. We don't know anything for sure, and we won't even be able to make an educated guess about how many 'original' forms of life abiogenesis produced until we get a good theory of abiogenesis up and running, that we can test and see if it works.

But this is not evolutionary theory. This has nothing to do with it.

It ammounts to the same thing does it not? The entire population would have to have mutated in order for evolution to occur. If thats the case, then your still taking an incredibly large gamble for everything to work out correctly.

No, only one member of the population needs to have 'mutated'. Some of the offspring from that member inherit the mutation, naturally (in asexual reproduction all the offspring will carry the mutation).

Dragar

 

[Dragar]

Wait a minute, Your taking this from a standpoint that there are millions involved already. What evidence is there to suggest that there was more than one "thing", if none at all, in the beginning to hatch the evolution process.

This isn't what evolutionary theory concerns itself with. This is abiogenesis. You may think God created life on Earth. If this is the case, then God created as many as He chose.

What do you mean by gravitational interactions?

At a quantum scale, we have no idea how gravitational interactions take place. Like, for instance, between an electron and another electron. How does the mass of one electron influence the mass of another? We don't know. We do not have a theory explaining how this happens, though we have suspicions and theories which make predictions. We haven't yet found what those theories predict.

Even on a larger scale, like between the Earth and the moon, we do not know how interactions take place. We think it is curvature in spacetime, but we have yet to find the 'gravity waves' needed to confirm this. We are still looking.

So, you see, we don't know how gravitational interactions take place. But, even if we don't know how they happen, we have good reason to think they do.

Dragar

 

[Kasey]

Nope. We just admit we don't know for sure. We don't know anything for sure, and we won't even be able to make an educated guess about how many 'original' forms of life abiogenesis produced until we get a good theory of abiogenesis up and running, that we can test and see if it works.

But this is not evolutionary theory. This has nothing to do with it.



No, only one member of the population needs to have 'mutated'. Some of the offspring from that member inherit the mutation, naturally (in asexual reproduction all the offspring will carry the mutation).

Dragar

If your considering a "species" that procreates asexually, then yes, I can see that, yet, how can even a single asexual create have a mutation that would actually been beneficial to its survival when all mutations observed in animals today and of humans has been harmful? Sickle Cell Anemia will eventually kill the people who carry it and all animal mutations have always been a hindrance.

 

[Dragar]

If your considering a "species" that procreates asexually, then yes, I can see that, yet, how can even a single asexual create have a mutation that would actually been beneficial to its survival when all mutations observed in animals today and of humans has been harmful? Sickle Cell Anemia will eventually kill the people who carry it and all animal mutations have always been a hindrance.

There have been many observed mutations that are helpful. Mutations in bacteria, for instance, which render them immune to certain antibiotics. Sickle cell anemia is a helpful adapation, in certain environments.

Dragar

 

[Dragar]

If there are any others reading this, more well versed in evolutionary theory than me (or indeed my knowledge of quantum gravity theories) please step in and correct me. I'm rather out of my depth with biology.

Dragar

 

[Kasey]

This isn't what evolutionary theory concerns itself with. This is abiogenesis. You may think God created life on Earth. If this is the case, then God created as many as He chose.

Evolution concerns itself with the origins of the species, with mutations of a supposed asexual creature in the beginning. However, like you have stated. Its a theory. Personally, I dont buy into theories until they are absolutely provable, thats why Im currently against Evolution.

Im open to the possibility of it being true, but it seems like it might be along time before science makes a provable test case

At a quantum scale, we have no idea how gravitational interactions take place. Like, for instance, between an electron and another electron. How does the mass of one electron influence the mass of another? We don't know. We do not have a theory explaining how this happens, though we have suspicions and theories which make predictions. We haven't yet found what those theories predict.

But, even if we don't know how they happen, we have good reason to think they do.

Dragar

Thats an interesting subject. I havent studied it that much. I guess I should. But Im tired now - Ive been up a long time. Im going to bed.

Interesting discussion Dragar, see ya around.

 

[ForeRunner]

I really wish you'd stop saying that.

LoL, that's ok, I am relatively short too (5'9), although my girlfriend is tall (5'10).

Is height a universal factor, though, or just amongst certain cultures? I am starting to change my view point to yours, however. Is there a scientific consensus on this issue? I'm quite fond of trusting that sort of thing.

Dragar

I don't know to be quite honest, but even the United States can be considered a population of humans.

 

[Dragar]

LoL, that's ok, I am relatively short too (5'9), although my girlfriend is tall (5'10).

Dude, I'd kill to be 5'9 (not literally).

I'm 5'4. Ish. And that's pushing it.

Dragar

 

[ForeRunner]

If your considering a "species" that procreates asexually, then yes, I can see that, yet, how can even a single asexual create have a mutation that would actually been beneficial to its survival when all mutations observed in animals today and of humans has been harmful? Sickle Cell Anemia will eventually kill the people who carry it and all animal mutations have always been a hindrance.

Go back and read my post detailing 1 such beneficial mutation (you may have missed it).

 

[Dragar]

Evolution concerns itself with the origins of the species, with mutations of a supposed asexual creature in the beginning.

No, it doesn't. Not the second part. Evolutionary theory makes no claims as to what the 'first' species on Earth was. That's abiogenesis or, if you want to plug the gaps, God's role.

However, like you have stated. Its a theory. Personally, I dont buy into theories until they are absolutely provable, thats why Im currently against Evolution.

Then I hope you are against germ theory, and gravity, and quantum mechanics. None of these are absolutely provable. Nothing in science is absolutely provable. There is always the chance we are wrong.

Im open to the possibility of it being true, but it seems like it might be along time before science makes a provable test case

I don't think you'll find any scientific theory more complete than evolutionary theory.

Thats an interesting subject. I havent studied it that much. I guess I should. But Im tired now - Ive been up a long time. Im going to bed.

Okay. Sleep well. I probably will forget all about this thread, so I wish you good luck with your studies of evolution and the other sciences.

Dragar

 

[ForeRunner]

Evolution concerns itself with the origins of the species, with mutations of a supposed asexual creature in the beginning. However, like you have stated. Its a theory. Personally, I dont buy into theories until they are absolutely provable, thats why Im currently against Evolution.

Im open to the possibility of it being true, but it seems like it might be along time before science makes a provable test case.

A scientific theiry is not the same as a colloquil theory. A scientific theory is a framework containign data, laws, observations and facts that explains a natural phenomona. It is the highest level of science.

 

[Phred]

If your considering a "species" that procreates asexually, then yes, I can see that, yet, how can even a single asexual create have a mutation that would actually been beneficial to its survival when all mutations observed in animals today and of humans has been harmful? Sickle Cell Anemia will eventually kill the people who carry it and all animal mutations have always been a hindrance.

Good discussion you two... but if you don't mind...

Kasey, I'd like to correct a couple of things that seem to keep repeating. I'll start with the comment above. "all mutations observed in animals today and of humans has been harmful". This is false. Here's an example... "Natural "mutants" among athletes have been documented, among them an Olympic gold medalist. Finnish cross-country skier Eero Mäntyranta won two gold medals in the 1964 Winter Olympics. But it was not until decades later that Finnish scientists identified a genetic mutation in Mäntyranta's entire family that causes an excessive response to erythropoietin, leading to extraordinarily high numbers of oxygen-carrying red blood cells. Several of his family members, it turns out, were also champion endurance athletes."

Can you see how that mutation would be beneficial? Also, can you see how that mutation would make the person with it more likely to survive? Especially when a small population of humans was faced with cold and predators? It's easy to see how this population would all soon carry this mutation. Mutations don't have to be cows with two heads, as I think you're imagining. (Although, that too is evolutionary. Such a beast wouldn't be able to breed, and thus the mutation wouldn't be passed into the gene pool.)

The other thing you're saying is that evolution is only a "theory". A scientific theory is an explanation of HOW something happens. The theory of gravity tries to explain HOW objects fall. But they still fall regardless. The theory of evolution tries to explain HOW life evolves. It evolves regardless. This has been observed, as clearly as we see rocks fall. Check out this thread by lucaspa for more information.

I'm sorry that in this age of the soundbite some concepts just don't go along. Evolution is one of these. You can't understand it in 30 seconds, you have to work a bit to understand the concept. This is especially difficult when you have a set of beliefs that don't seem to allow for such a thing. You've come a long way Kasey, good luck.

 

[Ondoher]

Yes. If you cant explain the origins of matter through a theory about existence and creation, then its flawed . Evolution explains how life evolved, I understand that, but it doesnt explain the origins of the "matter" that was there before the evolving.

Hence, flawed.

The atomic theory of chemistry explains how matter interacts, but does not explain the origins of matter. Therefore the atomic theory of chemistry is flawed.

See how fallacious that argument is when you replace evolution with chemistry. Obviously, the atomic theory of chemistry is a valid, active, productive theory that gives us great insight into matter. However, the origin of the matter that chemistry explains, is not part of the scope of the problem. Chemistry assumes the existence of matter, and only explains how it interacts.

In the same sense, evolution assumes the existence of life, and explains how it diversifies, and and how all life appears to share common ancestry. The origin of life, or the planet, or the solar system, or the galaxy, or matter, or the universe itself is outside the scope of evolution. These questions are answered in entirely different domains of science, with different tools and different observations.

As a curious person, and a lover of science, I'd like to know the answers to these questions. But I do not reject all scientific conclusions simply becase we can't answer all questions.

 

[Ondoher]

Well, it just seems to me like Athiests always like to go towards evolution, I guess thats why i seem to mix them up a lot.

Atheists have no religious bias to prevent acceptance of a sound scientific theory.

In regards to your question. Yes.

To me, any explanations of origins needs to be able to explain where matter comes from otherwise its not fact, its theory. A sound theory or provable fact would be able to answer those questions.

At least, thats the way I see it.

Evolution is not an explanation of "origins." It is an explanation for the diversity of life. There is no single theory in science that explains the origin of everything, from galaxies, to planets, to snowflakes, to life. Each of these questions falls under a different domain, with different areas of expertise, using different sets of data, and different tools to study the questions.

On the topic of theory and fact, you are not using these terms in a way consistent with the scientific method. Here are how these terms are defined by the National Academy of Sciences: http://bob.nap.edu/readingroom/books/creationism/introduction.html

Fact: In science, an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as "true." Truth in science, however, is never final, and what is accepted as a fact today may be modified or even discarded tomorrow.

Theory: In science, a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses.

In fact, the same page goes on say:

The contention that evolution should be taught as a "theory, not as a fact" confuses the common use of these words with the scientific use. In science, theories do not turn into facts through the accumulation of evidence. Rather, theories are the end points of science. They are understandings that develop from extensive observation, experimentation, and creative reflection. They incorporate a large body of scientific facts, laws, tested hypotheses, and logical inferences. In this sense, evolution is one of the strongest and most useful scientific theories we have.

 

[Ondoher]

Ok, I understand that, but why does it take a species so long to adapt to an environment? That right there leads me to believe that survival could not be possible becuase your going on the off-chance that the environment didnt change to be a threat to the species. How can you prove that the environment was contually stable for millions of millions of years for the species to survive?

Sometimes environments change slowly, like the building of a mountain range, or the intercession of a growing dessert. Sometimes they cange suddenly, like when a big rock or icy ball of dirt slams into the planet. Then we get mass extinctions.

 

[Ondoher]

Interesting. So, the creatures with the longer neck would be better suited to that particular evironment because they can get to food easier, therefore, probablitiy wise, their chances of coming out on top and surviving among the short creaters are increased.

Large, noticeable changes require large ammounts of years. If this is the case, why havent humans, ever since we became humans, grown an extra pair of arms to help with all of our domestic lives?

Evolution works with what it has, and that is the tetrapodal body plan (four limbs, stemming from our lobfinned fish roots). The four limbs of the tetrapod body plan are pretty well wired into our genes. Notice that bats and birds adapted two of their four limbs to wings, because they had to work with what they had.