What’s your problem?

[caravelair]

I know I said I'd ask only one question, but there seems to be some natural follow-up questions.


If poor eyesight can just happen again, what's the point of natural selection?

if an individual gets a mutation for poor eyesight in a population where most individuals have good eyesight, then the mutation will be selected against, and will tend to be purged from the population, rather than becoming more prevalent. so that won't really affect the allele frequencies in the population in a significant way.

 

[SolitarySoul]

Please don't assume that most Christians find making observations and drawing conclusions as to fact from them is absurd. Most Christians consider this to be rational given the rationality of the God who created what we observe.

Please read my whole post before making such false conclusions about my words, thanks. Wow

In most cases like yours I think that the individual hasn’t looked hard enough at the evidence at hand. I recommend you do some googling on ERVs and our broken vitamin c psudogene. I consider this line of evidence a smoking gun for our common ancestry with chimps.

No, I don't think you've looked hard enough at my post (I'm not convinced you even read it at all). I already said I study these subjects and I know quite a bit about them, but you don't take into account how I view the universe.

 

[shinbits]

if an individual gets a mutation for poor eyesight in a population where most individuals have good eyesight, then the mutation will be selected against, and will tend to be purged from the population, rather than becoming more prevalent. so that won't really affect the allele frequencies in the population in a significant way.

Okay. Then in that case, the population is gauranteed to never have offspring born with poor eyesight?

 

[gluadys]

I know I said I'd ask only one question, but there seems to be some natural follow-up questions.


If poor eyesight can just happen again, what's the point of natural selection?

To make sure that this mutation continues to be rejected so that the species maintains the better adaptation in most of the population.

Any harmful mutation can be repeated, but as long as natural selection guards against it spreading, it will not lower the average fitness level of the species.

By contrast, natural selection assures that a beneficial mutation will spread though the species and improve its average fitness level.

The first example is called purging evolution (as it weeds out harmful mutations) and the second is called adaptive evolution.

And just as in a garden, weeds need to be culled repeatedly. You can't stop at just once.

 

[Baggins]

Please read my whole post before making such false conclusions about my words, thanks. Wow


No, I don't think you've looked hard enough at my post (I'm not convinced you even read it at all). I already said I study these subjects and I know quite a bit about them, but you don't take into account how I view the universe.

Wrongly by the sound of it.

What bits of the evidence for common ancestry with other primates, and further back other monkeys, do you have a problem with?

 

[Baggins]

Okay. Then in that case, the population is gauranteed to never have offspring born with poor eyesight?

No, mutations may mean that offspring will be born with poor eyesight but natural selection means that this mutation will be selected against and everytime it re-emerges it will purged from the gene pool

 

[gluadys]

Please read my whole post before making such false conclusions about my words, thanks. Wow

I did read your whole post. I just limited my comment to what struck me as a key issue.

Are you claiming you did not say this:

Making our own observations and stating our conclusions as "fact" seems absurd to most Christians because in the Christian belief we are not in a place to be able to determine such a thing.

I do not know personally any Christian who would agree with you. Furthermore I don't know of any school of Christian theology that would agree with this. Nor do I know of any sound exegisis of scripture that would agree with this.

So, I do not find this to be a statement affirmed by "most" Christians as you claim. Quite the reverse.

 

[gluadys]

Okay. Then in that case, the population is gauranteed to never have offspring born with poor eyesight?

No, because a mutation could restore the purged allele.

However, it is guaranteed that the allele, however many times it occurs, will never affect a significant portion of the population.

So the health of the species will be preserved even when the health of some individuals is undermined.

 

[shinbits]

.

However, it is guaranteed that the allele, however many times it occurs, will never affect a significant portion of the population.
.

Even if the allele gets passed on to new offspring?

 

[Gracchus]

No, mutations may mean that offspring will be born with poor eyesight but natural selection means that this mutation will be selected against and everytime it re-emerges it will purged from the gene pool

Not necessarily. My brother is legally blind without glasses, but he has children. I know of persons who are totally blind and have children. In a social species, what is deleterious to a lone individual may not be selected against, because of social supports.

 

[AnEmpiricalAgnostic]

No, I don't think you've looked hard enough at my post (I'm not convinced you even read it at all).

I did read your post. You said:

I believe in evolution to an extent. I believe that God changes us and develops the universe as time progresses, but I do not believe that we evolved from monkeys or anything like that. Again that is the whole point of my post above, I do not deny the evidence out there, I am not saying that they are making stuff up or saying that it is stupid without reason, you just have to take into account the way I vew the world, is my point.

Which looks like you didn’t even read what I asked you. I asked you what, specifically, is the problem that makes you not accept the TofE. The best I can make of your response is that you believe in evolution (probably the “micro” flavor) but not common ancestry. The only “reason” offered is your worldview. I recommended something to look into that may alter your worldview a bit.

I already said I study these subjects and I know quite a bit about them, but you don't take into account how I view the universe.

Please tell me how humans and chimps sharing a broken vitamin c psuedogene (broken in the same way) looks through your worldview.

 

[AnEmpiricalAgnostic]

Not necessarily. My brother is legally blind without glasses, but he has children. I know of persons who are totally blind and have children. In a social species, what is deleterious to a lone individual may not be selected against, because of social supports.

Yeah, we spoke about this earlier actually. I think the comforts of out modern society can give someone a skewed view of how natural selection works in the wild. Like I said before, handicap people can lead fruitful lives in our modern society but when was the last time you saw a gimpy impala in the wild?

 

[Gracchus]

There are some creationists that have been participating in this C&E debate for some time now. These creationists have had every qualm about the Theory of Evolution refuted thoroughly at this point. Now it seems they like to hang around just to evangelize and generally disagree for no good reason.

The purpose of this thread is to ask these resident creationists exactly what problems with the Theory of Evolution they still feel have not been answered. Is there any real reason you still don’t accept the Theory of Evolution on its own merits or do you just disagree now on perceived theological grounds.

“The so-called religious organizations which now lead the war against the teaching of evolution are nothing more, at bottom, than conspiracies of the inferior man against his betters.” -- H. L. Mencken, "Homo Neanderthalensis" (coverage of the Scopes Trial) The Baltimore Evening Sun, June 29, 1925

 

[caravelair]

Okay. Then in that case, the population is gauranteed to never have offspring born with poor eyesight?

no, they can be born, if they get a mutation that gives them that trait. but if this happens, they are not likely to pass the trait on.

 

[Gracchus]

Like I said before, handicap people can lead fruitful lives in our modern society but when was the last time you saw a gimpy impala in the wild?

Actually, I have never seen an impala in the wild, only in zoos, and in movies. OH! Wait. I used to drive one. But ...

Evolution doesn't know wild from civilized. It is all one to evolution. Even in "the wild", the race is not necessarily to the swiftest, nor the struggle to the strongest, nor the argument to the most intelligent. It is often to the richest, the prettiest, or the best liar.

 

[gluadys]

Even if the allele gets passed on to new offspring?

Yes, because on average it will be passed to proportionately fewer offspring than normal eagle eyesight. And the same in succeeding generations.

Even if it is never purged 100% from the gene pool, it will always affect only a small proportion of the eagle population. It will always be the exception to the norm.

This can be shown mathematically. It is based on Mendelian genetics and the Hardy-Weinburg Law. Google both for more info.

 

[Baggins]

Not necessarily. My brother is legally blind without glasses, but he has children. I know of persons who are totally blind and have children. In a social species, what is deleterious to a lone individual may not be selected against, because of social supports.

Not if you're an eagle and it seems to be all eagles round here at the moment

 

[AnEmpiricalAgnostic]

Actually, I have never seen an impala in the wild, only in zoos, and in movies. OH! Wait. I used to drive one. But ...

Our little friend the impala doesn’t exactly have the equipment to be a predator. It is pretty good at evasion though. A gimpy impala doesn’t last very long in the gene pool when the lions come around.

Evolution doesn't know wild from civilized. It is all one to evolution. Even in "the wild", the race is not necessarily to the swiftest, nor the struggle to the strongest, nor the argument to the most intelligent. It is often to the richest, the prettiest, or the best liar.

You have “the wild” terribly confused with our self inflicted rat-race us humans have created for ourselves.

If we dropped you off in the middle of the conga the lions, tigers, hyenas, or many other predators won’t care about how much money you have, how pretty you are, or how much you tell them they’ll regret messing with you. You will be a few short days (maybe) away from being “selected” out of the gene pool yourself. Different environments, different niches, different selection pressures.

 

[Gracchus]

Our little friend the impala doesn’t exactly have the equipment to be a predator. It is pretty good at evasion though. A gimpy impala doesn’t last very long in the gene pool when the lions come around.

But when a hundred thousand hunters with rifles come around, the lion doesn't last long.

You have “the wild” terribly confused with our self inflicted rat-race us humans have created for ourselves.

Even self inflicted, the "rat-race" is a selection pressure. Hyenas or lawyers, predation is a fact of life.

If we dropped you off in the middle of the conga* the lions, tigers, hyenas, or many other predators won’t care about how much money you have, how pretty you are, or how much you tell them they’ll regret messing with you.

(*Even I can dance better than lions, tigers, and hyenas, but I prefer the waltz, or even the tango. And the predators would probably go for the one on the end of the line, not the middle.)

And a tiger dropped in times square would also have a very short life expectancy. Drop a giraffe in Antarctica or a penquin in the Sahara. Who wanders from his niche is usually not long for the world. Human environment is just as "natural" as a termite mound.

You will be a few short days (maybe) away from being “selected” out of the gene pool yourself. Different environments, different niches, different selection pressures.

A human is far more likely to be killed by other humans than a lion is to be killed by other lions. And a lion is more likely to be killed by humans than a human is by lions. So which environment is "wild"?

 

[AnEmpiricalAgnostic]

But when a hundred thousand hunters with rifles come around, the lion doesn't last long.

Dude, I’m having trouble enough trying to convey the concept of selection for something as simple and straight forward as eyesight. Let’s not bring tools into this.

Even self inflicted, the "rat-race" is a selection pressure. Hyenas or lawyers, predation is a fact of life.

While this is true it seems to confuse people trying to lean the fundamental concepts of evolution. For the most part the selection pressures that made us (and every other organism for that matter) who we are today were more akin to those in the Congo than those in the legal system.

(*Even I can dance better than lions, tigers, and hyenas, but I prefer the waltz, or even the tango. And the predators would probably go for the one on the end of the line, not the middle.)

ROFL. Ahh the mental imagery of people being eaten like sausage links.

And a tiger dropped in times square would also have a very short life expectancy. Drop a giraffe in Antarctica or a penquin in the Sahara. Who wanders from his niche is usually not long for the world. Human environment is just as "natural" as a termite mound.

I don’t know, I understand where you are coming from but by your view of thing nothing at all is “natural” so it’s a bit of a semantics issue as much as anything else at this point. I feel that the environment humans have made for themselves is about as artificial and unnatural as it gets. For the most part evolution on this planet was governed by nature and the selection pressures of nature upon the organism. Humans have bent nature itself to our own will at this point. Whether there will be future repercussions, like complications due to global warming, remain to be seen but it’s not like we hunt for food any more.

A human is far more likely to be killed by other humans than a lion is to be killed by other lions. And a lion is more likely to be killed by humans than a human is by lions. So which environment is "wild"?

Again, this is another semantics issue. Unless you take the term “concrete jungle” literally, what we have created for ourselves isn’t exactly “wild” or “natural”. Like I said though, I do understand where you are coming from, it’s just that with the way you are using the term natural and wild the computers we are using are “natural” and these posts are modern expressions of “wild” competition.