The basics of evolution in plain language

[Ondoher]

I have already rejected Abiogenesis as ludicrous because it tries to explain the origins of life from life-less matter but wont explain how the life-less matter go there. I have never seen a computer or anything mechanic sprout plants. I have always believed in life begets life and all life comes from a living source.

Nothing mechanic, unless designed by humans or something else can reproduce itself. All biology procreates. Humans beget humans and so on. I cant see how Abiogenesis is a valid theory even in the slightest.

Thanks for the clarification about the distinction between Athiesm and Evolution. You just saved me a long run of head-aches in the futuer

There is no qualitative difference between the chemicals that occupy a life form and those that do not. The difference is in the chemical reations that drive the processes of life. At its simplest, life is self replication. There are proteins, called Prions that can perform a simple sort of self replication. They can cause proteins with a similar chemical makeup, to deform into a shape that matches their own, thus propagating themselves.

RNA can self catalyze its own reactions, thus leading to self replication. Protocells that have some properties of life can form under natural circumstances.

For life to start you need self replication in a competitive environment. There is nothing ludicrous about the study of abiogenesis, and research in this subject has been very productive.

 

[Ondoher]

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.

No. In any population there is a certain amount of variation. Those individuals best adapted to the environment will have the best chances at reproductive success. Over time, mutation increases variability, and natural selection picks those variations best suited.

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?

Yes, humans and chimpanzees have undergone equal amounts of evolution since out last common ancestor.

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.

Humans have few selective pressures. However, disease is one of them. One recent mutation in human populations is the CCR5-Delta 32 mutation. This mutation confers some resistence to HIV infection. However, evidence indicates it arose initially in Europe, in response to smallpox. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=14645720)

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?

The basic response is that you are wrong. Mutation can and does produce novel genes. The evidence for this comes from the primary literature:

• "Given that gene duplication is a major driving force of evolutionary change and the key mechanism underlying the emergence of new genes and biological processes, this study sought to use a novel genome-wide approach to identify genes that have undergone lineage-specific duplications or contractions among several hominoid lineages...The genes identified here likely represent a significant majority of the major gene copy number changes that have occurred over the past 15 million years of human and great ape evolution and are likely to underlie some of the key phenotypic characteristics that distinguish these species." http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=15252450
• "Duplication of genes increases the amount of genetic material on which evolution can work and has been considered of major importance for the development of biological novelties or to explain important transitions that have occurred during biological evolution. Recently, much research has been devoted to the study of the evolutionary and functional divergence of duplicated genes. Since the majority of genes are part of gene families, there is considerable interest in predicting differences in function between duplicates and assessing the functional redundancy of genes within gene families." http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=15130825
• "In humans, the claudin superfamily consists of 19 homologous proteins that commonly localize to tight junctions of epithelial and endothelial cells...We postulate that the expansion of the claudin gene family in teleosts allowed the acquisition of novel functions during evolution, and that fish-specific novel members of gene families such as claudins contribute to a large extent to the distinct physiology of fishes and mammals. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=15197168

 

[Ondoher]

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

Speciation has been observed directly, see these links: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html and http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html. Also, Ring species are examples of allopatric speciation in progress. See these links for examples: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/05/2/l_052_05.html, http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/irwin.html and http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1123973.stm.

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?

We do, we call it the fossil record (I love this picture):

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.

Short-term evidence and long-term evidence support evolution.

 

[Ondoher]

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



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?

How is it a contradiction. He is saying that the evidence for the mechanisms of evolution is very strong, but he is not going to address them in his essay. His essay only addresses the evidence for common ancestry.

 

[h2whoa]

Well, you see, thats just it. Coming to the understand that Evolution might be a little bit different than what I thought, I think I need to research it more before I could effectively answer that

I just wanted to give you credit Kasey for the above quote. I've spent my whole time feeling like I'm smacking my head against the wall with these arguments but I respect that comment.

I hope your reading is fruitful.

I await with interest where your reading takes you...

 

[gluadys]

Hi, Kasey

I've been much impressed by your conversation with Dragar. Impressed by your willingness to examine the theory of evolution, and by Dragar's responses.

I'll be repeating a little bit, but it never hurts to re-inforce some things, and in some places I will add a little more information for you.

Exactly, you dont know, but lets avoid all possiblity of it being created by a God

I think this has been covered fairly well. Evolution, no more than any other scientific theory, avoids the possibility of creation. It takes a neutral view on theism vs. atheism. So many people who believe in God, including most Christians, find they can interpret evolution with God in mind.

Well, im not trying to get on your bad side, but are you really content with just not knowing?

Call it a personality quirk but I couldnt stand to be that way, but thats just me

I don't think anyone, least of all scientists, are content with not knowing. At the same time it is also important to acknowledge there are things we don't know. After all, if we pretend to a knowledge that is not real, then we have no incentive to search for the truth. If we admit our ignorance, then we have an incentive to cure it.

yes but there is no way for us to know that for sure. you believe god created the matter, you don't know it.

Well, whether or not I know it is actually debatable

Not really. Or rather it is a matter of two different ways of knowing. If you know that God created matter, how do you know? Is it because you observed it? Is it because you have observable evidence that leads to that conclusion? Or is it because God has been revealed to you and you know by faith (evidence of things not seen) that God created matter?

When your knowing is based on observation or observable evidence, that is scientific knowledge. It is also objective knowledge that can be shared with other observers who can make the same observations, the same tests, the same experiments and get the same results.

When your knowing is based on things unseen, on revelation rather than observable evidence, that is faith or conviction, not science. And it is subjective knowledge as it cannot be shown directly to others, and no tests or experiments can prove it is true.

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

When asking for proof, it is important to consider what standard of proof you are asking for. There are different standards for different situations. One can achieve a very high standard of absolute proof in mathematics and logic. But in a courtroom, evidence seldom reaches that kind of absolute, so what is asked for instead is evidence beyond reasonable doubt.

Proof in science is evidence based. Yes, logic helps and math helps, but in the long run that standard of proof in science is more like that of the courtroom than the mathematical demonstration. Science considers what the preponderance of the evidence leads to.

Science has already made a number of test cases. Every aspect of evolution has been verified to some degree by various tests.

I'm going to start another post to look more closely at the process of evolution itself, and will mention some of these test cases.

 

[ChrisB803]

OK, first I'm going to admit I didn't read every post in this thread due to limited time and attention span. Also for the same reasons I won't claim myself an expert in the field of Evolutionary Theory (note that I call it a theory, which is what something lacking conclusive evidence should be labeled). However, I have some questions that I would be very interested in hearing some answers to if someone is able.

First, you have all been very adamant that evolution is not intended to explain the origin of matter itself, and that's fair enough. The fields of science have often glossed over things they can not explain, choosing instead to focus on tangible things that they feel can be proven. Maybe we can start a separate thread where people can explain exactly how nothing blew up billions of years ago and created the universe we now know and love.

In regards to the issues posed in this thread I would like to pose the following question: Let's say that a protein did mate with some carbon, or whatever, and became a protozoa. This tiny single-celled organism floated around in its nice mud puddle for somewhere between a million and a billion years, give or take a few eons, and then just decided it needed to change? In my understanding of evolutionary theory it is necessary for there to be outside circumstances that cause an organism to change. I don't dispute that, because science has proven it, but I wonder what outside influences would have caused this first microscopic organism to decide it needed to change to survive. (That's a simplified view, but bear with me)

So what we have is a quandary: Without a natural predator, or a need to go in search of better sources of food, our tiny organism might have existed for all of eternity in his merry state. Someone please explain to me what caused this evolutionary process to begin its never-ending cycle?

Let me wrap this up: What evolutionists cling to is a process called Adaptation. It is the gift of many living things that when conditions change they are able to adapt throughout the generations to adapt to it. It is why native people from Africa and other arrid regions have dark skin to protect them from the sun, and why people who live in Arctic regions have a higher fat content to protect them from the cold. I could go on, but all of these traits were built in to God's creation in order to deal with a world constantly in flux.

I don't know whether creation took a literal seven days, or whether God simply provided catalysts to drive adaptation forward, but I do believe that there is a divine influence behind all that we see. To deny that leaves mankind with nothing but thin air to grasp for not only in explaining their existence, but also in explaining their REASON for existing.

To loosely quote a famous Christian minister, Hobart Freeman, "If I were to die and find out that all I believed was false, and that there was no God and no Heaven, and I had the choice to live my life again knowing what I had come to find out, I would still live it the same way. My faith in a loving and caring Creator has made me such a better person, and given me so much hope, that I can not imagine being otherwise."

Thanks for your patience in reading this. Your comments are welcome.

 

[Jet Black]

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?

this isn't actually true. there are many mutations that are beneficial or neutral. For example there are some 200 alleles of haemoglobin, and these aren't killing people. Given that any 2 people can only have between them 4 alleles, there must have been at least 196 unharmful mutations, even if you believe that Adam and Eve were the first 2 people. We do know of many beneficial mutations, I'll go into those in a minute. Another thing worth noting, is that the reason that it looks like all mutations in humans are harmful, is because those are the only ones we really investigate, since it is relatively simple to diagnose them. However the beneficial mutations, such as those which lower cholesterol in a little italian village, and those which increase the amount of blood in a tibetan village have to be noticed by looking at larger populations in order to note statistical increases in birth rates/survival.

Sickle Cell Anemia will eventually kill the people who carry it and all animal mutations have always been a hindrance.

no, Sickle Cell anaemia when in a heterozygote (this means you have one copy of a normal gene and one copy of a sickle cell gene) won't kill them. The important thing here, is that if you are a normal homozygote (two copies of a normal gene) living in a malaryal area, you will die even quicker than someone who is a sickle cell heterozygote, though not as quickly as a sickle cell homozygote (someone who has two copies of the sickle cell gene).

Just ask yourself this. If you found yourself in a malaryal area with no drugs, would you prefer to be normal or to carry a single copy of the sickle cell gene?

Furthermore there are many animal mutations that are not a hinderance, depending on the environment that they find themselves in. From the little analysis of sickle cell anaemia up there, you should be able to see that fitness is determined by the environment.

 

[Ondoher]

OK, first I'm going to admit I didn't read every post in this thread due to limited time and attention span. Also for the same reasons I won't claim myself an expert in the field of Evolutionary Theory (note that I call it a theory, which is what something lacking conclusive evidence should be labeled). However, I have some questions that I would be very interested in hearing some answers to if someone is able.

That is not what theory means in science. From the National Academy of Sciences: http://bob.nap.edu/readingroom/books/creationism/introduction.html

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

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.

First, you have all been very adamant that evolution is not intended to explain the origin of matter itself, and that's fair enough. The fields of science have often glossed over things they can not explain, choosing instead to focus on tangible things that they feel can be proven. Maybe we can start a separate thread where people can explain exactly how nothing blew up billions of years ago and created the universe we now know and love.

We are not glossing over a difficult subject, we are staying on topic. The origin of the universe is obviously not a biological science. Evolution is. The theory of evolution explains how life diversifies.

In regards to the issues posed in this thread I would like to pose the following question: Let's say that a protein did mate with some carbon, or whatever, and became a protozoa. This tiny single-celled organism floated around in its nice mud puddle for somewhere between a million and a billion years, give or take a few eons, and then just decided it needed to change? In my understanding of evolutionary theory it is necessary for there to be outside circumstances that cause an organism to change. I don't dispute that, because science has proven it, but I wonder what outside influences would have caused this first microscopic organism to decide it needed to change to survive. (That's a simplified view, but bear with me)

That's a horrible strawman of both evolution and abiogenesis. Abiogenesis attempts to explain the origins of the first self replicators. In order for evolution to work you need self replication and limited resources.

Once you have self replication, you will get variation, because no replication will be perfect. Those variations that are best able to replicate will tend to pass on these traits to their offspring. And that's evolution in a nutshell.

So what we have is a quandary: Without a natural predator, or a need to go in search of better sources of food, our tiny organism might have existed for all of eternity in his merry state. Someone please explain to me what caused this evolutionary process to begin its never-ending cycle?

I explained this above, but I will make sure it is clear. We are not talking about a single organism, but a population. The members of this population are competing for limited resources. Those individuals with the traits best suited to reproduce will tend to have more offspring, thus passing on those traits. No predator needed. However, becoming a predator may give you some reproductive advantage.

Let me wrap this up: What evolutionists cling to is a process called Adaptation. It is the gift of many living things that when conditions change they are able to adapt throughout the generations to adapt to it. It is why native people from Africa and other arrid regions have dark skin to protect them from the sun, and why people who live in Arctic regions have a higher fat content to protect them from the cold. I could go on, but all of these traits were built in to God's creation in order to deal with a world constantly in flux.

I don't know whether creation took a literal seven days, or whether God simply provided catalysts to drive adaptation forward, but I do believe that there is a divine influence behind all that we see. To deny that leaves mankind with nothing but thin air to grasp for not only in explaining their existence, but also in explaining their REASON for existing.

To loosely quote a famous Christian minister, Hobart Freeman, "If I were to die and find out that all I believed was false, and that there was no God and no Heaven, and I had the choice to live my life again knowing what I had come to find out, I would still live it the same way. My faith in a loving and caring Creator has made me such a better person, and given me so much hope, that I can not imagine being otherwise."

Thanks for your patience in reading this. Your comments are welcome.

Evolutionists don't cling to anything. Evolution is a sound science, and those that take the time to understand it, tend to accept it.

 

[Jet Black]

OK, first I'm going to admit I didn't read every post in this thread due to limited time and attention span. Also for the same reasons I won't claim myself an expert in the field of Evolutionary Theory (note that I call it a theory, which is what something lacking conclusive evidence should be labeled). However, I have some questions that I would be very interested in hearing some answers to if someone is able.

no, your description of theory is incorrect. The Scientific definition of a theory is closer to a body of facts and explanations for those facts. This is why we have things like germ theory, and relativity theory and quantum theory. I guess you will admit that there is piles of evidence for these things. A theory is basically as good as it gets sin science. you are thinking of a theory in the vernacular, which is incorrect in context.

First, you have all been very adamant that evolution is not intended to explain the origin of matter itself, and that's fair enough. The fields of science have often glossed over things they can not explain, choosing instead to focus on tangible things that they feel can be proven.

this is done because analysing cosmology and life are totally different processes which require totally different tools. It is a bit like the difference in learning to drive a car and learning to make a car.

Maybe we can start a separate thread where people can explain exactly how nothing blew up billions of years ago and created the universe we now know and love.

your description of the Big Bang is rather flawed. First of all we do not know precisely how it started, and there are few suggestions as yet, which have a strong empirical basis. your description of "nothing blowing up" however is right off the mark. though if you want to start a new thread that is fine, but I warn you in advance, that you will need to rework that descriprion before you get even close to what science actually suggests from the current evidence.

In regards to the issues posed in this thread I would like to pose the following question: Let's say that a protein did mate with some carbon, or whatever, and became a protozoa.

hmm. well your description does seem rather mocking. you are also not talking about evolution there, but abiogenesis.

This tiny single-celled organism floated around in its nice mud puddle for somewhere between a million and a billion years, give or take a few eons, and then just decided it needed to change? In my understanding of evolutionary theory it is necessary for there to be outside circumstances that cause an organism to change. I don't dispute that, because science has proven it, but I wonder what outside influences would have caused this first microscopic organism to decide it needed to change to survive. (That's a simplified view, but bear with me)

this is a flawed version of evolution. Ignoring the flawed description of abiogenesis which you have presented, one has to remember that lifeforms are imperfect replicators. This means that not all offspring are genetically identical, due to chance mutations such as insertion, deletion, frame shift, point mutations, translocations, inversions and so on. These change mutations are what creates the variation in the population. there is no "deciding to need to change in order to survive" but differential reproductive success based on those change mutations. Given that there are limited resources, those that breed better than others due to their differences in their structures/abilities will see thie genes come to dominate the gene pool.

So what we have is a quandary: Without a natural predator, or a need to go in search of better sources of food, our tiny organism might have existed for all of eternity in his merry state. Someone please explain to me what caused this evolutionary process to begin its never-ending cycle?

see previous paragraph.

Let me wrap this up: What evolutionists cling to is a process called Adaptation. It is the gift of many living things that when conditions change they are able to adapt throughout the generations to adapt to it. It is why native people from Africa and other arrid regions have dark skin to protect them from the sun, and why people who live in Arctic regions have a higher fat content to protect them from the cold. I could go on, but all of these traits were built in to God's creation in order to deal with a world constantly in flux.

I don't know whether creation took a literal seven days, or whether God simply provided catalysts to drive adaptation forward, but I do believe that there is a divine influence behind all that we see. To deny that leaves mankind with nothing but thin air to grasp for not only in explaining their existence, but also in explaining their REASON for existing.

how do you define adaption, at say, a genetic level? The problem is that the standard biological definition of adaptation is changes made within the organism during its life in order to promote survival. This is things like white people getting a tan, or becoming more muscular when you pick up heavy objects. These changes however are not inherited. What you have described basically is not adaptation, by the normal biological definition.

 

[Tpt]

Nice post^^
If I may add to your post about self-replification...

Ther are three stages in basic reproduction and they go from most simple to most complex.
There is mitosis, mieosis and sexual reproduction

Mitosis is simple cell division. the cell simple splits and creates two exact copys.
Mieosis is advanced mitosis. The cell still divides by itself but it creates 4 different cells, 2 sets of twins. but 2 are differnt from the other 2. This is alteration of genetic material and the fist step towards sexual reproduction

I really don't have to explain sexual reproduction do I? everyone took at least High school bio right???

(I hope my bio is right Im mieosis, if its off im sorry!)

 

[gluadys]

Tell me exactly what you mean by evolution. Do you mean hundreds to thousands to millions upon millions of years?

About 3,800 million years. That is when it is estimated that the newly-forming earth became cool enough for water to remain liquid, a necessity for the formation of life.

Well, you see, thats just it. Coming to the understand that Evolution might be a little bit different than what I thought, I think I need to research it more before I could effectively answer that

In fact, I expect you will be very surprised at the number of differences between the scientific theory of evolution and the various straw-man ideas about evolution that you may be more familiar with. If you have never really explored evolution before, you may find that all your ideas about it need to be turned inside-out and upside-down.

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?

1. How long is long? One of the factors is the generation time of the species. Bacteria reproduce so rapidly that you can see significant evolution in a few weeks. Geneticists love fruit flies as an experimental animal because they reproduce frequently. A major study on allopatric speciation in fruit flies took only 5 years. To get the equivalent evolutionary time in humans would take hundreds of thousands of years.

2. Yes, environmental change is also a factor. Evolution proceeds slowly, if at all, when the environment is stable. If it changes too fast, it may lead to extinction instead of evolution. So one needs something in between.

The environment can also go back and forth between two states, and then evolution will seem to reverse itself. An excellent example of that is the greater frequency of dark pepper moths when early industrialization blackened the trees they rested on, and the return of the lighter coloured moth as pollution controls prevented the soot from escaping. Similarly a recent study in the Galapagos Islands showed that beak size changed repeatedly as the climate varied from wet to dry and back again.

So a long term change also requires a continuous environmental pressure in the same direction.

There are many other factors as well, such as the size of the population, its relative isolation from others of the same species, and so on.

3. There are many ways to discover the environmental conditions of the past. There is a whole branch of science devoted to the study of paleo-climates, for example and another to the study of paleo-soils. So the proof (or rather evidence) is available. Some of the ways of studying past environments rely on tree rings, ice cores, varves, geological formations and fossils.

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.

It is important to note what "coming out on top" means. It is not as if they were having duels, for example. It simply means that the longer neck creatures were more likely to 1) live to maturity, 2) attract a mate and 3) reproduce. Their children would inherit their genes, have similar characteristics, and similar success in surviving, mating and reproducing.

So in each generation the proportion of the population with longer necks would increase, and the average neck-length of the species would increase. Eventually even the shortest-necked creature could have a longer neck than the longest-necked creature in the original ancestral population.

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 can only work with what we already have, and, as Dragar noted, every change, no matter how small, if it is to be preserved, must be immediately useful to the species. That is why the so-called problem of the evolution of the eye is not a problem at all. Every increase in vision, no matter how small, is immediately useful. But growing arms where there are no homologous genes to grow them is not at all likely since the initial stages would not appear to have any usefulness.

Contrast the non-existent extra arms with the fact that occasionally people are born with six fingers. All living vertebrates have inherited some version of the pentadactyl (5 fingered) limb---though in many vertebrates these have been fused into a smaller number, or disappeared entirely as in snakes.

But if one goes back to the earliest vertebrates to have fingers at all, most have more than 5 fingers. The exact number varies, 6 in one species, 7 in another, 8 in another. But since these species, or species very much like them, are our far distant ancestors, we do have the genetic capability of growing extra fingers, though it is not often expressed.

Well, if they both had food thats to their liking and they couldnt interbreed with each other, then they woudl stay the same species.

If they cannot interbreed with each other, they are not the same species anymore.

Yet, I have a question. If we are all genealogically related, then how come there is no modern evidence of any of the major species on this planet procreating together? Say....humans and horses? Apes and Lizards?

This is obviously one of the areas where your thinking on evolution has to be turned quite topsy-turvy from what it actually is now. From the point of view of evolution, your question doesn't even make sense (though I know it does to you). Being genealogically related is not enough. It depends on how close the relationship is. Individuals which belong to the same species are very closely related and can breed freely. Individuals which belong to very closely related species can sometimes interbreed, but not as successfully as they can with members of their own species. The greater the genealogical distance between two species, the more difficult it becomes for them to interbreed successfully, and eventually it becomes impossible.

Speciation creates a genealogical distance between isolated populations of the same species, so that they cannot successfully interbreed anymore. That is the sign that they have evolved and become different species.

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.

It depends on what you mean by "morph". Most speciations do not involve a huge amount of visible change. Consider these speciations:

http://www.santarosa.edu/lifesciences/ensatina.htm

http://www.sfu.ca/~pnosila/timema.html

Large morphological changes are the historical result of many, many speciations over significant periods of time.

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?

1. No, it is not true that all mutations are harmful. Also, you need to distinguish between how mutations affect genes, individuals and species. Mutations are changes in genes. They may be harmful to a gene in the sense that the gene will not function as it ought with the change. Even so, this doesn't necessarily mean it will be harmful to the individual.

For example, some thousands of years ago, a mutation in one of our ancestors damaged a gene which coded for a protein called cytochrome c which is need to produce vitamin C. We still have the gene, but it doesn't carry out its function anymore. The gene is damaged. So why are we still around? Because most of us have access to vitamin c in our food, or in vitamin pills, so the damaged gene does not affect us as individuals except for those who do not get enough vitamin c in their food.

Then, even if a mutation is harmful to an individual, it will not necessarily harm the species. Natural selection will see to it that the poorly functioning individuals have fewer opportunities to 1) survive to maturity, 2) attract a mate and 3) reproduce successfully. In this way the spread of the harmful gene to the rest of the population is blocked or at least minimized.

On the other hand, if a mutation is beneficial, natural selection speeds up the spread of the mutation from the individual in which it first occurred to the whole species.

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.

It's been more than proven. It has been observed in nature. And it has been carried out in laboratory conditions.

Here is an example from nature:
http://christianforums.com/t736563

Check for lucapa's post on salmon.

Here is a labratory experiment:

http://darwintalk.com/message-board-forum/viewtopic.php?t=222

Again, check for the post by lucaspa that contains this reference:

On the contrary, the Observed Speciation thread has lots of those. I like this one: 1. G Kilias, SN Alahiotis, and M Pelecanos. A multifactorial genetic investigation of speciation theory using drosophila melanogaster Evolution 34:730-737, 1980. because

1. The "fruit" flies on the bread or meat diets now only eat those foods, so instead of "fruit" flies we now have 'bread' and 'meat' flies.
2. The genetic difference between the new species of flies and the old is 3% of expressed genes. When we look at comparable genes between chimps and humans, it is less than 2%. So these new kinds of flies are farther apart genetically than the kinds chimps and humans!

to be continued

 

[gluadys]

Part Two

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?

Depends on where you begin, doesn't it? We have come a long way from Lucy. But since we developed culture and technology, we have specialized more in adapting the environment to our needs than in adapting to the environment.

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 can add novelty to the genetic code. Remember that changes in genes, even if they are only transpositions (scrambling), change the order in which amino acids will be produced. They may also change the places of the start and stop codons, and so change the length of the gene. These will change the nature of the protein being produced. And a different protein will have a different effect.

Saying you can't get anything new from genetic mutations is like saying you can't coin a new word just because you haven't added any letters to the alphabet. But we coin new words all the time. Twenty years ago, no one ever spoke of "nuking" their dinner.

Mutations are like that. Sure they simply change base pairs in the DNA sequence. But by doing that, they coin new genes and new proteins.

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?

Dragar made the very important point that mutations are changes in genes. But changes in genes don't necessarily lead to evolution. Because evolution requires changes in species. You can't get evolution without mutations, but you can have mutations without evolution. So it is important to distinguish the two processes. And mutations do not always cause harm.

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.

Why should all species be able to interbreed? I wonder where this idea came from? In order to adapt to different environments, species need to change. But change means the species becomes a different species over time. To adapt to many different environments, most species need to split up into different populations with each adapting to a different environment. So one species becomes two or three or more different species.

This is advantageous for two reasons: the various species can live in a wider range of environments overall than the original species could. (In Argentina, Darwin observed a woodpecker which had adapted to life in the treeless pampas). And by sorting themselves into different environments or ecological niches, they no longer compete directly with each other, so all have a better chance of surviving.

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

Hundreds of minute changes as preserved by natural selection. Natural selection is the real driver of evolution. Mutations are like fuel. They provide the material natural selection uses. But natural selection sets the direction.

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?

Knowing that something happened is different from knowing how it happened. When a body is found in suspicious circumstances, the first thing that needs to happen is to determine whether there was foul play. But even if you determine there was, even if you determine that there has been a murder, that in itself doesn't tell you who did it or why or how.

So we can know that evolution happens, and that we are all related to a universal common ancestor without knowing exactly how.

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?

Mutated and evolved. Whether there was only one species in the beginning or several we will probably never know.

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.

1. Let me introduce you to the exact, true meaning of "random". It doesn't mean that mutations have no cause. It doesn't even mean that mutations might not have a purpose (as theistic evolutionists may propose that evolution is guided by God's purposes). What it does mean is that we cannot predict when a mutation will occur relative to a species "need" for them.

A mutation for resistance to a pesticide may occur hundreds of generations before the pesticide is developed. This does not mean the insect foresaw the need for resistance. It was just a naturally occurring random mutation that didn't do any harm and so became part of the natural variation of the species----until it was needed, and then those insects with this variation survived and others did not.

By the same token, the need for a particular mutation does not necessarily call forth the requisite mutation. So what happens then? Well the species may go extinct. Or be much reduced in its population and range.

Yet we also know that stress tends to speed up the rate of mutation, so that the right mutation occurring as needed is more likely then than during ordinary times.

2. Well, it is a gamble to the extent that the right mutation may not happen when needed. But again remember we are speaking populations here. In a population of fish, with thousands of female fish laying hundreds of eggs each per season, each egg representing a chance to get the right mutation, it is not all that hard to come up with the right mutation fairly quickly---if it hasn't already come up earlier and just not been needed till now.

Also remember that harmful mutations don't spread into the species. They only affect the few individuals that acquire them. But beneficial mutations do spread into the species, and so when new mutations are piled on old, it is always a building of beneficial mutation on previous beneficial mutations. No contradictory harmful mutation has a chance to break in.

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, because living things reproduce a mutation only needs to occur once. Reproduction and natural selection spread it to the rest of the species.

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.

Of course! Why not? Even if one holds to the special creation of life forms, there is nothing which suggests most species were created as single individuals. Why would God be limited to creating just one or two sheep instead of a whole flock of them?

And when we look at abiogenesis, no matter which possible process you look at, the result is not a single bacterium, but a population numbering in the millions in the space of a few minutes.

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.

Because all mutations are not harmful.

And even mutations that are harmful only affect the one creature in which it occurs, not the rest of the population which will keep on reproducing without that mutation.

 

[Jet Black]

one thing worth noting, and I think people often miss this, is that the environment includes everything, not just weather, but also other members of the same species, competitors for your rsesources from other species (this includes organisms that you eat, organisms that other things want to eat, and organisms that want to eat you) It also includes breeding. females are a limited resource, since they cannot birth as many offspring as a male can sire so now we have another environmental factor, leading to sexual selection. All of these things drive evolution, so even if the physical environment (the weather and so on) didn't change at all, it doesn't stop the species from evolving.

 

[Jet Black]

Nice post^^
If I may add to your post about self-replification...

Ther are three stages in basic reproduction and they go from most simple to most complex.
There is mitosis, mieosis and sexual reproduction

Mitosis is simple cell division. the cell simple splits and creates two exact copys.
Mieosis is advanced mitosis. The cell still divides by itself but it creates 4 different cells, 2 sets of twins. but 2 are differnt from the other 2. This is alteration of genetic material and the fist step towards sexual reproduction

I really don't have to explain sexual reproduction do I? everyone took at least High school bio right???

(I hope my bio is right Im mieosis, if its off im sorry!)

you are right, but there are some other forms too. For example some single celled organisms merge together, mix their DNA and split apart again and some transfer copies of plasmids around, then there are viruses, which are a different case, since they hijack a cell and turn it into a virus factory.

 

[gluadys]

Nice post^^
If I may add to your post about self-replification...

Ther are three stages in basic reproduction and they go from most simple to most complex.
There is mitosis, mieosis and sexual reproduction

Mitosis is simple cell division. the cell simple splits and creates two exact copys.
Mieosis is advanced mitosis. The cell still divides by itself but it creates 4 different cells, 2 sets of twins. but 2 are differnt from the other 2. This is alteration of genetic material and the fist step towards sexual reproduction

I really don't have to explain sexual reproduction do I? everyone took at least High school bio right???

(I hope my bio is right Im mieosis, if its off im sorry!)

Meiosis is important in cells with a diploid chromosome number.

Some forms of life, either all the time, or part of the time (plants, especially) are "haploid". They only have one copy of each gene and chromosome.

So for reproduction they only need to make a copy of that and divide the cell, and you now have a duplicate. That's mitosis.

Mitosis can also be used for simple asexual reproduction in diploid cells. Diploid cells have two sets of chromosomes. In mitoses copies are made of each and the two daughter cells also have two sets of chromosomes. Mitosis is the way most of the cells in our body replace themselves all the time.

But if you want to fuse two cells from different organisms to make a new cell, then you can't have them be diploid cells. You would end up with a cell that has four sets of chromosomes. In meiosis, the cell first makes copies of its two sets of chromosomes and divides as usual in mitosis, but then very quickly divides again without making a new copy of its chromosomes. This gives you the four haploid cells ready for fusion.

Upon fusion of two haploid cells, you have again a diploid cell with genes from both parent cells.

 

[gluadys]

In regards to the issues posed in this thread I would like to pose the following question: Let's say that a protein did mate with some carbon, or whatever, and became a protozoa. This tiny single-celled organism floated around in its nice mud puddle for somewhere between a million and a billion years, give or take a few eons, and then just decided it needed to change? In my understanding of evolutionary theory it is necessary for there to be outside circumstances that cause an organism to change. I don't dispute that, because science has proven it, but I wonder what outside influences would have caused this first microscopic organism to decide it needed to change to survive. (That's a simplified view, but bear with me)

So what we have is a quandary: Without a natural predator, or a need to go in search of better sources of food, our tiny organism might have existed for all of eternity in his merry state. Someone please explain to me what caused this evolutionary process to begin its never-ending cycle?

You know, Chris, it is no wonder people like you don't accept evolution, since your vision of evolution is so far from reality. Why would anyone believe this cartoon version of evolution?

There is simply no substitute for learning about evolution from standard scientific sources so that you don't need to bounce the cartoons out of your head before you can start looking at the real thing.

However, to deal briefly with a couple of your points.

1. Even the first species was a population probably numbering in the millions. It was not a single lonely cell all by itself. Remember that the processes which produced that one cell didn't suddenly stop functioning the moment it appeared. So plenty more would be created at the same time.

2. The population of cells would have an immediate need: a source of energy for their metabolism and reproduction. So even in that nice little mud puddle with no predators there is a struggle for existence, because they all need whatever source of energy is there, and there is not enough to go around. Even less when they start reproducing and doubling their numbers.

3. Mutations will be a reality from the first as well. And that means variation will be a reality. And some variations may lead to greater success in maintaining metabolism. So cells with these variations will tend to reproduce while other cells die off without reproducing.

Voila--evolution.

I could go on, but all of these traits were built in to God's creation in order to deal with a world constantly in flux.

How were they built in? As Jet Black noted, Adam and Eve between them could only carry a maximum of four options (alleles) for each gene. But many genes today exist in hundreds of different variations.

Absolutely the only known source of new alleles (needed for variation which in turn is needed for adaptation) is genetic mutation. Even Answers in Genesis agrees with this!

It is not the variation itself which God built into creatures, but the capacity to vary. i.e. the capacity to evolve. There is simply no way a limited population can carry all the variability needed to explain all the diversity of species today.

but I do believe that there is a divine influence behind all that we see. To deny that leaves mankind with nothing but thin air to grasp for not only in explaining their existence, but also in explaining their REASON for existing.

That's not a problem. Many evolutionists also believe in God. Evolution does not require a commitment to atheism.

 

[Dragar]

Thank you, gluadys. You explained all that far better than I could have ever hoped to do so.

Dragar

 

[USincognito]

If you haven't repped gluadys in a while, please do so for all the hard work... actually she makes it look easy, so for all the work she does.

 

[Mistermystery]

How have the human species evolved in the past 3000 years that would support Evolution on an even larger scale?

That's not what you were saying. You were equating the creation of matter is somehow connected to the theory of evolution. Evolution says nothing of that.

To further your question, for one thing, we're better resistant against certain deceases. I would also chip in that we're growing taller over time, but I can't atribute this to evolution to be quite honest.

Case in point, evolution even over 3000 years is not very much. and for Humans natural pressure that we might be eaten by wild animals has been decreased a lot the last thousands of years. Therefor it might not be so evident what is and isn't "evolved for us".