To Evolutionists:

[Live!]

I think evolution leaves too much to chance or, as you call it, "natural

selection". How does this blind process know which animals to create and

which ones to destroy? it doesn't. So it's still chance. That fossilized "bird"

is actually a hoax, no such creature exists. What about bats? Bats

have "wings", but they are not birds. How does evolution explain that?

Evolution just has too many holes in it to work as a scientific theory.

 

[Caffeine Socialism]

Natural selection selects the random creations of mutation by which ones are best suited for their environment and which other genes they work with.
And evolution explains bats and birds because wings are a useful 'invention'. Insects, birds, bats, some fish, and now humans have developed wings, and they are all very different yet they are all wings. I forget the term for this, but it's very common, and is NOT a hole in evolutionary theory, it is actually one of the grand consequences of evolution.

In conclusion, you should shut up and read something by Richard Dawkins before something stupid jumps out of your mouth again.

 

[Late_Cretaceous]

"I think evolution leaves too much to chance or, as you call it, "natural selection". "

Natural selection is not chance, that has already been explained.   Several times

"How does this blind process know which animals to create and
which ones to destroy? it doesn't. So it's still chance."

Some organisms which are born survive to reproduce, most do not. This is easily observable.  If a single frog  lays 100 eggs, and they  all hatched and each tadpole survived to adulthood to reproduce at the rate of 3 generations per year, within a decade the world would be covered with frogs (or anyother organism you choose to subsitite).  Of course that does not happen.  The vast majority of the eggs do not survive to reproduce.  In fact, on average, only one offspring per adult survives to reproduce.  Now for fish, frogs, mice and insects that means HUNDREDS of offspring never get the opportunity to pass on their genes for each one that does.  THAT boys and girls is natural selection.  Why does one tadpole out of 100 live to have babies, while the other 99 die.  Well, partly luck. And many of the others are of such poor quality that they have no chance to survive. And for that one,  it may have just been a bit faster or better cammoflauged then its brothers and sisters when a hungry pike came by.  THAT is evolution.

"That fossilized "bird" is actually a hoax, no such creature exists. "

Which one would that be?  There are dozens of species of fossilized birds and dinosaur-bird transitonals.  Archaeoraptor was a hoax (still turned out to be valuable fossils BTW).  But hey, if one Van Gough in a museum somewhere turned out to be a hoax (it has happened), does that mean that all Van Goughs everywhere are fake?

 

"What about bats? Bats have "wings", but they are not birds. How does evolution explain that?"

 

According to the bible bats are birds.    There are very strong evolutionary theories about bat evolution.



"Evolution just has too many holes in it to work as a scientific theory."

 

Maybe you should inform the scientific community about that. If you can back your claim up you will win the Nobel Prize.  Oh, but wait a minute.  A few posts ago, you claimed to know very little about evolutionary theory.  So, why are you now qualified to make that statement?

 

[Live!]

Originally posted by Caffeine Socialism

And evolution explains bats and birds because wings are a useful 'invention'. Insects, birds, bats, some fish, and now humans have developed wings

I have never seen a person with wings.

 

[seebs]

We cheat; we make them out of aluminum and titanium... but we certainly used naturally occuring things as a basis for the idea.

 

[zyzychyn]

I forget the term for this, but it's very common, and is NOT a hole in evolutionary theory, it is actually one of the grand consequences of evolution.

Oh, shoot, we learned this. Not homologous structures, but it was something similar. Like how different animals that live in the same sort of environment tend to have the same features, even though they evolved separately.

I don't have a problem with this; I don't have a problem with natural selection. They're both demonstrated even in the world today.

The thing is, all cases of natural selection we see deal with LOSING information. I.E. the peppered moth. Call B (black) dominant, b (white) recessive. Then you'd see cases of BB, Bb, and bb. But if an environmental change caused the bb moths to die out, you'd be losing some of the b genes. You haven't gained anything; something that was already there (black moths) just becomes more pronounced.

Saying that random mutations were selected to produce complex systems like the eye, sonar, all the interdependent processes in living things - that's just too much to ask. I can see why, if they happened, they'd be beneficial - come on, an organism with an eye is of course better off than one without - but I don't see how it could happen, realistically. Especially looking at things like the sonar system bats and dolphins have. To say that something that complex happened by chance once is stretching it. To say it happened twice is just too much. In my opinion.

 

[seebs]

zyzychyn: This "losing information" thing is widely repeated, but I've seen nothing to support the claim that it's happening.

To fully understand this, you'd need to take a break from biology and study information theory - not exactly an easy task.

If you want to see how you can end up with "new information" through natural selection, even though you're "losing" data, take a bunch of scrabble pieces, and shuffle them, and deal out a few sets of 7 pieces. Now, in each of those sets, take out every piece that isn't part of "HUMORME". Now deal in replacements into the empty spaces.

Each time, you're "losing" information... but if the information "lost" conforms to patterns, you have *MORE* information when you're done.

The amount of raw data in a genome (some of which may not be important) can go up.

The amount of information in the information-theory sense can go up through random mutations.

The loss of mutations which were not useful, while it can be described as a "loss" of information, actually increases the amount of real information stored.

If this doesn't make sense, well, sorry; I'm not a professional teacher, and it's a hard concept. People spend months studying information theory.

To summarize, the way you get "new information" is that, out of a few thousand slightly mutated moths, one or two might have a gene that produces something that never existed before. If it works well, they may have kids - and we've *ADDED* information to the genome.

It really is that simple.

And, once again, *it's not chance*. Selection isn't chance.

 

[RufusAtticus]

Zyzychyn,

I'm happy to answer your questions. If you don't understand one of my answers or don't know a word that I use. Please ask.

Originally posted by zyzychyn
The thing is, all cases of natural selection we see deal with LOSING information. I.E. the peppered moth. Call B (black) dominant, b (white) recessive. Then you'd see cases of BB, Bb, and bb. But if an environmental change caused the bb moths to die out, you'd be losing some of the b genes. You haven't gained anything; something that was already there (black moths) just becomes more pronounced.

Selection does decrease the variation in the populaion. However, mutation restores that variation. If the forces stay constant, a balance occurs between mutation and selection.

If an allele is being removed by selection and created by mutation, it's frequency will reach equilibrium at sqrt(mutation rate/selection strength).

Mutation Selection Balance

Saying that random mutations were selected to produce complex systems like the eye, sonar, all the interdependent processes in living things - that's just too much to ask. I can see why, if they happened, they'd be beneficial - come on, an organism with an eye is of course better off than one without - but I don't see how it could happen, realistically. Especially looking at things like the sonar system bats and dolphins have. To say that something that complex happened by chance once is stretching it. To say it happened twice is just too much. In my opinion.

It is not that hard to imagine when you realize that it didn't happen all at once. Our ancestors didn't go from no-eyes to perfect-eyes. These complex structures are the result of generations of mutations that create modifications and natural selection which will preseve structures of even the slightest benifit.

The difference is trying to climb a mountain in one step versus thousands.

 

[RufusAtticus]

Zyzychyn,

Here is part of an email I sent to someone your age over the summer.

INFORMATION
Individuals don't evolve. Populations do. So in linking information theory to evolution, you must consider the information in the population, which you do not do. Biologically, information can refer to different things. Pseudogenes, contain information about evolutionary history but not information that can be selected for. In the context of this discussion, it would be better for us to consider the genetic information underlying traits, with an interest in adaptable traits. It is difficult to determine a way to measure the amount of this information, but one possibility is the size of the proteome. This is the number of unique proteins produced in the population and includes all loci and alleles. Whenever a mutation produces a novel allele, it adds information to the population. In other words, there is a new trait for selection to act upon. Here are two examples of the effects of information in a population.

Jeff knows something about Gina: "Gina is neat." Thus he has information about Gina. Before he leaves town, Jeff replicates this information by telling it to two people, Nick and Randy. Because neither of them pays attention, they don’t replicate the information exactly. Nick thinks "Gina is sweat," and Randy thinks "Gina is near." We can measure the about of information about Gina by the number of non-redundant attributes people ascribe to her. Here, the amount of information about Gina has doubled: from "neat" to "sweat and near." Clearly when we remember that it is the population that’s important to evolution, it is obvious how mutations can add information for selection to act upon.

Take this example retrieved from LocusLink [7], the only difference occurs in the 7th codon (6th amino acid because the first one, 'm,' gets cut off). The letters refer to amino acids [8].

Human Beta-hemoglobin (HBB)
  1 mvhltpeeks avtalwgkvn vdevggealg rllvvypwtq rffesfgdls tpdavmgnpk
 61 vkahgkkvlg afsdglahld nlkgtfatls elhcdklhvd penfrllgnv lvcvlahhfg
121 keftppvqaa yqkvvagvan alahkyh


HBB-S
  1 mvhltpveks avtalwgkvn vdevggealg rllvvypwtq rffesfgdls tpdavmgnpk
 61 vkahgkkvlg afsdglahld nlkgtfatls elhcdklhvd penfrllgnv lvcvlahhfg
121 keftppvqaa yqkvvagvan alahkyh


HBB-C
  1 mvhltpkeks avtalwgkvn vdevggealg rllvvypwtq rffesfgdls tpdavmgnpk
 61 vkahgkkvlg afsdglahld nlkgtfatls elhcdklhvd penfrllgnv lvcvlahhfg
121 keftppvqaa yqkvvagvan alahkyh

Each allele does not encode the same information since each one produces a distinctly different product. A single point mutation has enough effect on the information contained in the genome that it can determine whether an individual dies from malaria or not. In the presence of malaria, HBB-S is maintained because of heterozygote advantage. However, HBB-C also offers resistance to malaria, but the most fit genotype is the homozygote.[9] It is expected to become the most common allele in parts of Africa if the environment stays the same. These mutations have clearly added new information to the population. Selection then acts on this new information, changing the make up of the population. Thus, evolution happens.

It is important to realize that evolution occurs even if information is lost. It also occurs when information is gain or without any change in the amount of information at all. Thus no-new-information arguments do not actually address evolutionary theory. By focusing on individuals and not populations, no-new-information claims never even get close to disproving evolution. In fact, the actual claim, when applied to biology, is that the information capacity of an individual's genome cannot increase. However, this claim is false because there are known types of mutations that can increase the length of the genome and thus its capacity to hold information. Ernst Mayr discusses this origin of new genes in his latest book.

“Bacteria and even the oldest eukaryotes (protists) have a rather small genome. . . . This raises the question: By what process is a new gene produced? This occurs, most frequently, by the doubling of an existing gene and its insertion in the chromosome in tandem next to the parental gene. In due time the new gene may adopt a new function and the ancestral gene with its traditional function will then be referred to as the orthologous gene. It is through orthologous genes that the phylogeny of genes is traced. The derived gene, coexisting with the ancestral gene, is called paralogous. Evolutionary diversification is, to a large extent, effected by the production of paralogous genes. The doubling sometimes affects not merely a single gene, but a whole chromosome set or even an entire genome.” [10]

7. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/LocusLink/
8. http://www.chem.qmul.ac.uk/iupac/AminoAcid/AA1n2.html
9. Modiano D. et al. (2001) Haemoglobin C protects against clinical plasmodium falciparum malaria. Nature: 414 pp 305-308
10. Mayr E. (2001) What Evolution Is. Basic Books.

 

[Caffeine Socialism]

This is so [wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth] frustrating! Aagh! What is it called when two different species (insects and birds, for example) have similar structures? I can almost think of it...

 

[RufusAtticus]

"Homology" is when species have similar stuctures that serve different functions. Like human arms and whale flippers.

 

[zyzychyn]

No, that's when different structures came from the same ancestor. I think CS is talking about when the same sort of thing evolves separately because it's useful in both cases.

To summarize, the way you get "new information" is that, out of a few thousand slightly mutated moths, one or two might have a gene that produces something that never existed before. If it works well, they may have kids - and we've *ADDED* information to the genome.

It really is that simple.

And, once again, *it's not chance*. Selection isn't chance.

No, certainly not. Selection isn't chance. Chance is that random mutation that just happened to be positive.

Selection does decrease the variation in the populaion. However, mutation restores that variation.

I don't know, I find it difficult to believe that the many thousands, nay, probably millions of genes today came from mutations in bacteria

Ah, here's the sickle cell anemia thing. A mutation that's harmful also happens to also prevent malaria. I guess this would be an example of how a mutation can be positive? (That's interesting about the HBB-C, though. The lab we did in class only involved HBB and HBB-S.)

This was something I was wondering about. How could the DNA of a simple organism, perhaps only thousands or ten thousands of bases long, turn into the 3 billion base sequence in humans? So you're saying there'd be a chromosome mutation replicating the entire gene, and then once this, for some reason was selected to predominance, one of these copies would get a beneficial mutation and voila - new gene?

But how does that work? For one thing, it's extremely improbable, and for another, in the HBB case, the mutation still produces hemoglobin. Flawed yet helpful hemoglobin, to be sure, but hemoglobin nonetheless.

 

[RufusAtticus]

Originally posted by zyzychyn
No, that's when different structures came from the same ancestor.

Exactly. That is why homology is evidence for evolution. However, the defination of homology doesn't assume common descent.

I think CS is talking about when the same sort of thing evolves separately because it's useful in both cases.

Convergent evolution.

Ah, here's the sickle cell anemia thing. A mutation that's harmful also happens to also prevent malaria. I guess this would be an example of how a mutation can be positive? (That's interesting about the HBB-C, though. The lab we did in class only involved HBB and HBB-S.)

The information on HBB-C was published last year. That is why it hasn't made it into textbooks yet.

This was something I was wondering about. How could the DNA of a simple organism, perhaps only thousands or ten thousands of bases long, turn into the 3 billion base sequence in humans?

There are types of mutations that increase the length of the genome. The "simplest" of these occurs when a cell that has replicated its DNA doesn't divide. This is known as polyploidy.

There are also types of mutations that cause a section of a chromosome to be duplicate. This occurs when the replication machinery accidentally "skips" and ends up replicating the same section again.

So you're saying there'd be a chromosome mutation replicating the entire gene, and then once this, for some reason was selected to predominance, one of these copies would get a beneficial mutation and voila - new gene?

Yeap that is basically how it works: duplication followed by divergence.

But how does that work? For one thing, it's extremely improbable

It is rare, but not improbable. Gene duplication has been observed in present day organisms. We have also been able to see the evidence of past events.

and for another, in the HBB case, the mutation still produces hemoglobin. Flawed yet helpful hemoglobin, to be sure, but hemoglobin nonetheless.

The globin family of genes is a good example of duplication and divergence. More Information

 

[MSBS]

Originally posted by Caffeine Socialism
This is so [wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth] frustrating! Aagh! What is it called when two different species (insects and birds, for example) have similar structures? I can almost think of it...

Heterology?

 

[MSBS]

It seems that I've heard several times "what good is half of a (favorite body part). It could never evolve, thus evolution is imposible." One used frequently is that half an eye is useless so a whole eye could never evolve. Something I've never seen anyone bring up in response to this is planerians. They are flatworms that do have basically "half an eye." They have a cup shaped structure on their "head" (cephalization is very primative) with photosensitive cells at the bottom of the cup. No organized retina, no lens, no iris, no cornea.