The basics of evolution in plain language

[Kasey]

Well, hold on a moment. One group of creatures has an advantage for having slightly longer necks - more food. Over time, that group of creatures is going to develop longer and longer necks (in very, very small changes, of course).

But the other group is not going to have any advantage to having slightly longer necks, so they are not going to evolve in the same way. Perhaps they might end up even lower to the ground.

The plants will also have different constitutions. Different digestive chemicals will be more useful on the tall-plants to the short-plants. So perhaps we will see a difference in the digestive systems on the two groups of creatures.

Perhaps there are different predators on one side of the mountains to the others. One one side of the mountains, maybe small amounts of camoflage would help the creatures blend in, while on the other side a small increase in speed would be helpful, while camoflage wouldn't be.

All these changes. Tiny, tiny changes, but happening all the time. Give it a few generations. Give it more. Lots, and lots more, adding up the changes all the time?

What has happened to these two groups of creatures?

Yes, adaptation is a good thing but your saying that just because they can adapt to the environment, it means that they will physically, eventually, morph into a different species to be better suited to that environment.

I don't think there have been many evolutionary changes to humans. None that are noticable.

There is one I can think of, and that is called Sickle Cell Aneamia. This may take a little bit of explanation, and I'm simplifying this quite heavily. However...

The mutation called sickle cell aneamia creates malformed blood-cells. Normally, this is a disadvantage, and humans with this trait are less likely to survive to breed.

But, there is something interesting about people with sickle cell aneamia. They do not contract malaria as easily as people without it. This means that in areas of the world where malaria is a large threat - Africa, for instance - sickle cell aneamia is actually an advantage. This trait should get passed on more often, because humans with this trait are more likely to survive to breed.

And this has happened/is happening! Humans in Africa are far more likely to have this trait than in other parts of the world!

(Note: Again, I have simplified. There is a catch to this: if two adults with sickle cell aneamia have children, their children are likely to have the disease twice as bad - so badly it kills them. So even in areas of the world where malaria is common, this trait is a double-edged sword. It's not a very good mutation. But, despite this 'catch', humans have evolved in certain parts of the world to be better adapted to their environment).

Dragar

Well, if we are genealogically all related through Universal Common Descent, then there would be as much changes in humans than in the animals wouldnt there?

I dont see how humans have adapted or changed in small minute ways like your describing the animals in the past 3000 years. That right there leads me to beleive that the Evolution theory has a few flaws.

I have another question. All mutations that have been scientifically observed have made the species worse off than what they were. Mutations do not give you anything new, they only scramble up the genetic code of what was already there. A cow can grow an extra leg but cannot grow a beak or a wing. Adaptations is limited. You cant get a pig to be as big a Georgia. Where is th evidence to prove otherwise?

 

[Dragar]

The most easily noticable change is our size. People today are much larger than we used to be. The change has been even more dramatic in the last couple of hundred years.

I'd be more inclined to suggest this is a product of technological advancement. With better diet and healthcare, we are more likely to grow to larger heights.

It's like growing plants in low nutrient soil. Even if they've got the genes to grow to great heights, they're not going to until you give them enough nutrients, water and sunlight. But if we took their offspring and gave them those things, they may grow to much greater heights. Not because they evolved, but because we've given them a better chance at making the most of their genes.

Dragar

 

[Dragar]

Yes, adaptation is a good thing but your saying that just because they can adapt to the environment, it means that they will physically, eventually, morph into a different species to be better suited to that environment.

Do you not think that these two groups of creatures, living in different environments, will eventually become very different?

They may eventually become so different they cannot interbreed - the definition of a new species.

Well, if we are genealogically all related through Universal Common Descent, then there would be as much changes in humans than in the animals wouldnt there?

I dont see how humans have adapted or changed in small minute ways like your describing the animals in the past 3000 years. That right there leads me to beleive that the Evolution theory has a few flaws.

I'm sorry, I didn't understand your first paragraph. There is a great deal of variation amongst humans. Some are tall, some are short. I believe lucaspa gave statistics that showed all humans have at least two mutations, and as many as six.

As for your second paragraph, 3000 years is a very short space of time to observe any large changes. Do you think that main sequence stars do not turn into red giants, simply because we don't observe our sun doing this over a period 5000 years?

And I have given you an example of evolution in humans.

Dragar

 

[Kasey]

Do you not think that these two groups of creatures, living in different environments, will eventually become very different?

They may eventually become so different they cannot interbreed - the definition of a new species.

According to the theory, its possible, but thats just it. It hasnt been proven.

I'm sorry, I didn't understand your first paragraph. There is a great deal of variation amongst humans. Some are tall, some are short. I believe lucaspa gave statistics that showed all humans have at least two mutations, and as many as six.

As for your second paragraph, 3000 years is a very short space of time to observe any large changes. Do you think that main sequence stars do not turn into red giants, simply because we don't observe our sun doing this over a period 5000 years?

And I have given you an example of evolution in humans.

Dragar

According to Universal Common Descent, a main supported supposed fact within Evolution states that we are genealogically related, all species are. You said that you havent noticed that many changes in humans as all the evidence that you give for animals. According to Universal Common Descent, we are all relate genealogically, therefore, why dont we have as much evidence for the evolvment of humans as we do of animals?

It is a short space of time, but the evidence would still be there if the theory is correct - thats my point. You cant dismiss short-term evidence and only have the long-term evidence prove all.

 

[Dragar]

I have another question. All mutations that have been scientifically observed have made the species worse off than what they were. Mutations do not give you anything new, they only scramble up the genetic code of what was already there. A cow can grow an extra leg but cannot grow a beak or a wing. Adaptations is limited. You cant get a pig to be as big a Georgia. Where is th evidence to prove otherwise?

Whoa, wait a minute! This isn't evolutionary theory!

Mutations can introduce new things into the genetic code. Scales can become more feather-like. Forelimbs can start developing a wing-like structure. All small, but useful changes. Changes that are more likely to be passed on to the offspring. As I have said earlier, these changes add up over time - lots of small, individually probable changes produce one large, noticable change - that while unlikely as a single mutation, is near guaranteed as a sum of millions of smaller ones.

I likely carry at least two mutations, neither of which appear harmful. I may even have a mutation that makes me more resistant to disease, and a mutation which made it more likely for me to be good at analytical disciplines like mathematics and sciences. Both of these are beneficial.

The examples you used are more akin to Kent Hovind's ideas. Stop it. This is not evolution. A cow growing a leg, or a beak, or a wing would falsify evolutionary theory, not support it.

Dragar

 

[Dragar]

According to Universal Common Descent, a main supported supposed fact within Evolution states that we are genealogically related, all species are. You said that you havent noticed that many changes in humans as all the evidence that you give for animals. According to Universal Common Descent, we are all relate genealogically, therefore, why dont we have as much evidence for the evolvment of humans as we do of animals?

There is as much evidence for human evolution as there is for the evolution of squirrels, wolves, bacteria and giraffes. None of these things have evolved much in the last three thousand years (i.e. they are all capable of breeding with their 3000 year old ancestors (with the exception of bacteria, which reroduce asexually)). But over a few million, we can easily see the lines of descent.

Dragar

 

[Kasey]

Whoa, wait a minute! This isn't evolutionary theory!

Mutations can introduce new things into the genetic code. Scales can become more feather-like. Forelimbs can start developing a wing-like structure. All small, but useful changes. Changes that are more likely to be passed on to the offspring. As I have said earlier, these changes add up over time - lots of small, individually probable changes produce one large, noticable change - that while unlikely as a single mutation, is near guaranteed as a sum of millions of smaller ones.

Mutations dont add anything new to genetic code - its a scrambling of whats already there to perform something new. There is a distinct difference.

The examples you used are more akin to Kent Hovind's ideas. Stop it. This is not evolution. A cow growing a leg, or a beak, or a wing would falsify evolutionary theory, not support it.

Dragar

Mutations are changes, change is evolution, therefore, these examples are very valid. How can you prove otherwise? All the evidence that you have given for changes is beneficial but all scientifically obersable mutations always cause harm, not good.

How can you prove otherwise?

 

[Kasey]

There is as much evidence for human evolution as there is for the evolution of squirrels, wolves, bacteria and giraffes. None of these things have evolved much in the last three thousand years (i.e. they are all capable of breeding with their 3000 year old ancestors (with the exception of bacteria, which reroduce asexually)). But over a few million, we can easily see the lines of descent.

Dragar

You say there is evidence among the human species - where is it?

All species should be able to breed with each other, right now. Why should everything evolve to where it cant do what it did so long ago? What if our environment started to change to where we had to adapt? What if back then was now? I have never seen any evidence of any of the pure-bred species being able to interbreed.

 

[ForeRunner]

I'd be more inclined to suggest this is a product of technological advancement. With better diet and healthcare, we are more likely to grow to larger heights.

Yes, but what this has done is effected a change at the genetic level. In a society with poor diet and nutrition being large would be a disadvantage. Being larger requires more food, if it is too difficult to get the proper nutrients than the larger person is more likely to die before they pass their genes on despite being more physically powerful and attractive to mates. Remove that limitation and people will get larger and larger, and they will do so at the genetic level.

Even rich Romans that had plenty to each or drnk were still small people, Julius Ceasar was considered very tall at 5'6. Whereas the Germanic tribes, with worse nutrition, reached heights of 6'.

Nutrition and technology are an enviromental factors, but they changed the frequency of our genes, i.e. evolution.

It's like growing plants in low nutrient soil. Even if they've got the genes to grow to great heights, they're not going to until you give them enough nutrients, water and sunlight. But if we took their offspring and gave them those things, they may grow to much greater heights. Not because they evolved, but because we've given them a better chance at making the most of their genes.

Dragar

I understand that, but I think humans are different for the reasons I explained above.

 

[Dragar]

Mutations dont add anything new to genetic code - its a scrambling of whats already there to perform something new. There is a distinct difference.

You're mistaken, and gravely so. Mutations can add to the genetic code. Small addtions, but additions.

Mutations are changes, change is evolution, therefore, these examples are very valid.

Kasey, please think about what you are saying. Mutations are change in the genetic code. While the theory of evolution speaks of a change in a population over time. You are equivocating these things, when you should not.

These mutations are far too large to be likely to happen - if they ever would.

How can you prove otherwise?

You have begun repeating this, and I'm quite disturbed. We seemed to be progressing well, you were developing an understanding of the concepts - and we seem to have hit a stumbling block. It was like flicking a switch; one minute you were learning and taking on board information, and now you are repeating Kent Hovind-esque tag-lines and reacting quite badly.

What happened? What triggered this hostile reaction all of a sudden? It's almost like you have become a different poster.

Dragar

 

[ForeRunner]

Mutations dont add anything new to genetic code - its a scrambling of whats already there to perform something new. There is a distinct difference.

Mutations are changes, change is evolution, therefore, these examples are very valid. How can you prove otherwise? All the evidence that you have given for changes is beneficial but all scientifically obersable mutations always cause harm, not good.

How can you prove otherwise?

This is completely untrue, for example. There is a mutation in a Bacteria that allows it to eat Nylon, a man-made material that has only been in existance for 50 years. This has allowed the bacteria to exploit an antirely new food source with 0 competition, that is a very beneficial mutation. I will try and dig up the paper (if anyone else has a link feel free to post). Besides that, however, there are many examples of beneficial mutations, sickle cell anemia for example.

 

[Dragar]

You say there is evidence among the human species - where is it?

I have already provided an example - sickle cell anemia.

Here is an image showing hominid skulls, showing the descent of human ancestors to current day humans.

All species should be able to breed with each other, right now. Why should everything evolve to where it cant do what it did so long ago? What if our environment started to change to where we had to adapt? What if back then was now? I have never seen any evidence of any of the pure-bred species being able to interbreed.

No. Species are defined by the fact they cannot interbreed. That's how we classify what a species is.

The reason some populations cannot interbreed with others is because they have become, over time, so different by the their varying mutations that their reproductive processes (behavioural, physical or biological limitations) are no longer compatible.

Dragar

 

[Dragar]

Yes, but what this has done is effected a change at the genetic level. In a society with poor diet and nutrition being large would be a disadvantage. Being larger requires more food, if it is too difficult to get the proper nutrients than the larger person is more likely to die before they pass their genes on despite being more physically powerful and attractive to mates. Remove that limitation and people will get larger and larger, and they will do so at the genetic level.

Even rich Romans that had plenty to each or drnk were still small people, Julius Ceasar was considered very tall at 5'6. Whereas the Germanic tribes, with worse nutrition, reached heights of 6'.

Nutrition and technology are an enviromental factors, but they changed the frequency of our genes, i.e. evolution.

Thank you, ForeRunner. I'll certainly consider that. I'm unsure how much height is a selected factor by humans for breeding, though it certainly is a factor.

Dragar

 

[Kasey]

You're mistaken, and gravely so. Mutations can add to the genetic code. Small addtions, but additions.



Kasey, please think about what you are saying. Mutations are change in the genetic code. While the theory of evolution speaks of a change in a population over time. You are equivocating these things, when you should not.

These mutations are far too large to be likely to happen - if they ever would.

So, what your saying is hundreds upon countless minute changes, or, mutations, is what caused the species to evolve over time?

You have begun repeating this, and I'm quite disturbed. We seemed to be progressing well, you were developing an understanding of the concepts - and we seem to have hit a stumbling block. It was like flicking a switch; one minute you were learning and taking on board information, and now you are repeating Kent Hovind-esque tag-lines and reacting quite badly.

What happened? What triggered this hostile reaction all of a sudden? It's almost like you have become a different poster.

Dragar

It was not a hostile reaction, it was an honest question. Yet, I have another for you.

Ive been reading, on the side, this essay on Evolution, http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/.

In paragraph 2 under "Common Descent Can Be Tested Independently of Mechanistic Theories", the second sentence explicitly states that none of these scientific predictions according to Universal Common Descent directly address HOW macroevolution occured. Yet, it states that there is great scientific evidence for it.

How is this not a contradiction?

 

[Dragar]

The problem with spotting mutations is that once everyone has it, it's not a mutation any longer.

Sickle cell anemia is useful in that regard, because only some humans have the mutation - as it is not helpul in areas where malaria is not common.

Dragar

 

[Kasey]

No. Species are defined by the fact they cannot interbreed. That's how we classify what a species is.

The reason some populations cannot interbreed with others is because they have become, over time, so different by the their varying mutations that their reproductive processes (behavioural, physical or biological limitations) are no longer compatible.

Dragar

So you mean to tell me that in the beginning there was only one species that mutated over time to get what we have today?

 

[Dragar]

So, what your saying is hundreds upon countless minute changes, or, mutations, is what caused the species to evolve over time?

That's correct. All you need is one advantageous mutations in a species, and that trait is passed on to the offspring. And then another mutation adds to that. And so on.

...the second sentence explicitly states that none of these scientific predictions according to Universal Common Descent directly address HOW macroevolution occured. Yet, it states that there is great scientific evidence for it.

Not really. We don't know how gravitational interactions take place, but we have a great deal of evidence to suggest they do.

Dragar

 

[ForeRunner]

Thank you, ForeRunner. I'll certainly consider that. I'm unsure how much height is a selected factor by humans for breeding, though it certainly is a factor.

Dragar

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

 

[Dragar]

So you mean to tell me that in the beginning there was only one species that mutated over time to get what we have today?

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.

Note that by simple, I'm referring to even simpler than single celled organisms. I'm talking proto-cells.

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

 

[Kasey]

That's correct. All you need is one advantageous mutations in a species, and that trait is passed on to the offspring. And then another mutation adds to that. And so on.

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.

Not really. We don't know how gravitational interactions take place, but we have a great deal of evidence to suggest they do.

Dragar

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.