What’s your problem?

[Jet Black]

A population is made up of individuals, is it not? So to see how evolution would affect a population, we must look at how it affects the individuals, right?

yes I suppose so.

And you said I've got the correct idea about how happens with individuals.......so then if what I've said about each offspring having thier own random and different mutations is correct, then here's the basic question: why isn't each individual organism so different, that we can't really group them as a population of any certain type of animal?

That's my prob with evolution.

Again, it is not a problem with evolution, it is a problem with your understanding of it. I'm sorry to keep pointing that out to you, but it is very important that you differentiate the two.

and onto the answer: because each individual organism gets its genes from the gene pool of the population, so it will have a mix of the characteristics of the population.

 

[shinbits]

no, evolution is inevitable given variation and differential reproductive success. The reason I put the mights and maybes, is because I don't want to give you the impression that evolution is a definite track towards some end goal, there are possibilities in every generation, but most of those possibilities will be wiped out since they will be unable to compete with the other possibilities in the gene pool.

Why would the other genes be unable to compete? Why would you assume that? Even if one gene is better then another, that doesn't mean it's unable to compete. Look at humans---some are skinny, some are fat; some are fast, some are slow, some weak some strong. Yet they are all able to either compete against the other, or work together.

This being the case, how can you say with definate certainty, that any gene wont be able to compete with another?

See, your belief of that helps evolution become more believable, but you are still assuming that this is what happens.

 

[shinbits]

and onto the answer: because each individual organism gets its genes from the gene pool of the population, so it will have a mix of the characteristics of the population.

yes! this is what I've been saying all along; and because of this constant mix of random genes, there'd be no way for a population to evolve, because there'd be no way that all the organisms in a population have inherited the same genes that would make them similar enough to even be a population.

 

[SimplyNothing]

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.

'Cause it's too vague.

I'm not a YEC... or an OEC for that matter.



I don't know what I am.

 

[Dannager]

'Cause it's too vague.

Evolutionary theory:

Organisms, upon reproduction, undergo genetic recombination that leads to a number of mutations. These mutations are naturally selected against in favor of those which increase the survivability and chance of reproduction, dependant upon the environment. Due to this selection, over time populations will begin to exhibit common traits that seperate them from other populations of similar organisms. When the multitude and magnitude of these traits becomes such that the population is no longer genetically compatible with other populations, speciation is said to have occured.

 

[Jet Black]

'Cause it's too vague.

what's vague about it? (can you be a bit less vague )

 

[gluadys]

Thank you all for answering my questions. This will be my last question on this thread. It's something I asked earlier, but I don't think anyone respond to specifically this:


A population is made up of individuals, is it not? So to see how evolution would affect a population, we must look at how it affects the individuals, right?

And you said I've got the correct idea about how happens with individuals.......

The problem is your understanding of evolution. Evolution does not affect individuals at all.

Mutation affects individuals; variation affects individuals. But evolution does not.

To have evolution, one must have a population in which genes are shared, in which mutations to genes are distributed from one individual to another.

Evolution does not affect individuals; it affects the distribution of genes in the population. There is no distribution of genes in the individual.

so then if what I've said about each offspring having thier own random and different mutations is correct, then here's the basic question: why isn't each individual organism so different, that we can't really group them as a population of any certain type of animal?

That's my prob with evolution.

In any population there are some genes which are fixed (identical in every individual) and some which are not. The core genes which govern the basic life processes are very resistant to mutation. Natural selection tends to reject any changes to these genes. Others, of less importance to survival, tend to change more easily and produce the variations which allow for individual differences. When such a difference does become important to survival, it tends to become fixed in the population.

The reason you don't see a complete randomization of characters is that for many traits, the gene pool does not offer a choice. And when a mutation does present a choice, it is rejected because it lessens fitness. Without choice, there is no variation.

Now the mutation still exists in the individual in which it occurred, and still affects that individual. But it does not get distributed through the population. Hence it does not affect the evolution of the species.

This is an important difference between the impact of a mutation on an individual and the impact of the same mutation on the population.

The characteristics which define a species are usually fixed i.e. the gene pool presents no choice. Consequently, every member of the species gets the same trait. Among 6 billion humans, the range of difference between one person and another is no more than a small fraction of a percent. The greatest variability lies in those traits which do not significantly affect survival, such as the shape of a nose, the colour of the iris, the texture of hair, etc.

If you can comprehend that evolution is not about the changes that happen in an individual, but about the distribution of those changes in the population, I think your basic problem with evolution will be solved. The fact that changes occur in an individual does not mean they will be distributed into the population. Without distribution, without the sharing of genes among a segment of the population, there is no evolution.

Final note: since evolution depends on sharing genes, on distributing them through the population, species differences show the limitation of the distribution pattern. A species is a population within which genetic changes are shared, but the distribution of genes is limited to members of the species and not shared with other species. The failure to share new mutations with other species accounts for greater and greater divergence between species. This divergence does not occur within the species because of the reproductive measures which assure that neutral to beneficial mutations are shared.

 

[shinbits]

The problem is your understanding of evolution. Evolution does not affect individuals at all.

Yes it does; it affects the individuals in a population via mutations.

Mutation affects individuals; variation affects individuals. But evolution does not.

According to evolulution, mutations causes evolution to happen; without mutations there is no evolution. What you've said is in error.

 

[Ryal Kane]

Yes it [evolution] does; it affects the individuals in a population via mutations.

According to evolulution, mutations causes evolution to happen; without mutations there is no evolution. What you've said is in error.

The nature of an organism will be defined by what evolution has caused in the past.
But organisms don't evolve on their own. They die with the genes they are born with.
The mutation side of evolution occurs at reproduction.

Any problems with this?

There are some sticking points but your understanding of evolution seems to be improving.

 

[AnEmpiricalAgnostic]

Thank you all for answering my questions. This will be my last question on this thread. It's something I asked earlier, but I don't think anyone respond to specifically this:

Please don’t abandon this discussion. I really would like you to understand where you have the Theory of Evolution wrong. I’m willing to hash this out and try to help answer any questions you have.

A population is made up of individuals, is it not? So to see how evolution would affect a population, we must look at how it affects the individuals, right?

The term evolution is used to describe the total effect of what individual mutations, reproduction within a population, and selection have. An individual can not evolve by itself. Mutations happen so infrequently that only by passing mutated genes to many subsequent generations can you accumulate enough to cause speciation. The mutations happen so infrequently that every organism in a population has a nearly identical genetics. If an individual is born with a detrimental mutation that causes it to die before it reaches a year old then that mutation never gets spread throughout the population. If an individual is born with a mutation that causes it to reproduce more then that mutation spreads throughout the population via reproduction as it is passed down to each successive generation.

And you said I've got the correct idea about how happens with individuals.......so then if what I've said about each offspring having thier own random and different mutations is correct, then here's the basic question: why isn't each individual organism so different, that we can't really group them as a population of any certain type of animal?

Because the mutations happen infrequently. The mutations are passed to each successive generation and eventually spread throughout the population before any one individual mutates enough to speciate by itself. The mutations run from beneficial to neutral to detrimental. An example of a beneficial mutation would be a wider birth canal to that a woman can have many offspring without dying in labor. A neutral mutation would be like an individual born with slightly different color eyes. A detrimental mutation would be like begin born with cystic fibrosis. If an individual is born with a beneficial or neutral mutation then that individual is likely to have many offspring. After countless generations that individuals genes are spread throughout the population. If an individual has a detrimental mutation they die or are not selected to pass their genes on. In this way the harmful mutations die out while the beneficial ones are passed on. After many generations the current population is now different than the original population. The population has evolved.

 

[Jet Black]

Yes it does; it affects the individuals in a population via mutations.

Gluadys' point is slightly different to yours. Her point is that Evolution is the change of genes in the gene pool over time. Of course this will have an effect on future individuals since they will be made of the different genes from the different gene pool to their ancestors (since the genes in the gene pool have changed)

According to evolulution, mutations causes evolution to happen; without mutations there is no evolution. What you've said is in error.

no, mutations do not cause evolution to happen. Mutations are an aspect of evolution, namely they are the mechanism in which new genes and alleles form. Evolution could still occur (albeit to a much more limited degree) even with no mutation, provided there was variation in the gene pool which resulted in different phenotypes. Gluadys hasn't said anything wrong there.

 

[Jet Black]

The mutation side of evolution occurs at reproduction.

strictly speaking, in any germline cells. though mutation alone ignores the efects of meiosis, which only occurs at reproduction.

 

[shinbits]

The nature of an organism will be defined by what evolution has caused in the past.
But organisms don't evolve on their own. They die with the genes they are born with.
The mutation side of evolution occurs at reproduction.

Any problems with this?

Nope.

There are some sticking points but your understanding of evolution seems to be improving.

Too many smart people on this forum to not learn something.

 

[shinbits]

Please don’t abandon this discussion. I really would like you to understand where you have the Theory of Evolution wrong. I’m willing to hash this out and try to help answer any questions you have.

Okay.

Mutations happen so infrequently that only by passing mutated genes to many subsequent generations can you accumulate enough to cause speciation.
The mutations happen so infrequently that every organism in a population has a nearly identical genetics.

Okay. But then, doesn't this make it even more difficult, and make it take even longer for evolution to happen? That's even less feasable then the the theory that there's a minute mutation with each passing generation. If it turns out, as you say, that this isn't even the case, but rather, mutations are very infrequent---that makes evolution that much harder to swallow.

Do you follow what I'm saying?

If an individual is born with a detrimental mutation that causes it to die before it reaches a year old then that mutation never gets spread throughout the population.

As would any "beneficial" mutation. Right?

If an individual is born with a mutation that causes it to reproduce more then that mutation spreads throughout the population via reproduction as it is passed down to each successive generation.

Wouldn't even the "detrimental" mutations it may have get passed along as well? If so, that would just hinder evolution. That's a sort of "catch 22" of evolution, which makes it hard to believe.

And I know you'll say that only beneficial mutations get passed along. But then I ask you, what keeps detrimental mutations from getting passed along with beneficial ones? If there really is nothing that stops it, then evolution really can't happen if populations are passing on genes that hinder it.

 

[shinbits]

no, mutations do not cause evolution to happen. Mutations are an aspect of evolution, namely they are the mechanism in which new genes and alleles form. Evolution could still occur (albeit to a much more limited degree) even with no mutation, provided there was variation in the gene pool which resulted in different phenotypes.

So even though they help, mutations are not necessary for evolution?

 

[Jet Black]

Okay. But then, doesn't this make it even more difficult, and make it take even longer for evolution to happen?

well it is pretty slow.....

That's even less feasable then the the theory that there's a minute mutation with each passing generation. If it turns out, as you say, that this isn't even the case, but rather, mutations are very infrequent---that makes evolution that much harder to swallow.

why? it occurs over tens of thousands of generations, involving millions of individuals, each of which may have mutations. that is a pretty big sample to work with.

As would any "beneficial" mutation. Right?

no. beneficial mutations are regarded as those that have some effect which increase the numbers of copies of itself in the next generation over and above the average for that particular locus. In other words, on average, the individuals with that particular new allele (which started as a mutation) will have more than average numbers of offspring. Since those with it are having more than average numbers of offspring, the numbers of copies of that allele in the population will grow.

Wouldn't even the "detrimental" mutations it may have get passed along as well? If so, that would just hinder evolution. That's a sort of "catch 22" of evolution, which makes it hard to believe.

no. The detrimental mutations are the ones that have less than average offspring in the following generation. This leads to a reduction in the numbers of copies of that particular allele. There is an exception to this, and that is when detrimental genes are very close on the chromosome to beneficial genes. But then we have crossing over, which occurs during meiosis, which can split them up again.

And I know you'll say that only beneficial mutations get passed along. But then I ask you, what keeps detrimental mutations from getting passed along with beneficial ones? If there really is nothing that stops it, then evolution really can't happen if populations are passing on genes that hinder it.

Basically the detrimental mutations get wiped out, because individuals with that mutation will have less than the average number of children. You might ask well what if an individual has a detrimental and beneficial mutation, and that is a good question. well the numbers of offspring would probably be about average, but remember that the offspring will not all have both the detrimental and beneficial. some will have just the beneficial one, some will have just the detrimental one, and some will have both. you see, because of sex, the alleles keep finding themselves in bodies with all sorts of combinations of alleles in that gene pool, so no two alleles are ever permanently coupled together. This means that over time there will be an average effect of the gene on individuals with that gene which will result in it either spreading through the population (beneficial) or dying out (detrimental)

 

[Jet Black]

So even though they help, mutations are not necessary for evolution?

in the long term they are very important, because mutations increase the variety in the gene pool, and natural selection destroys variety. if there were no mutation, then the population would become very vulnerable to dying out, since there would be no possibility of adaptation if the environment changed outside the acceptable boundaries of the starting gene pool.

In the short term though you can still get a reasonable amount of morphological change even without mutations. Take Dogs for example. the vast majority of the differences between different breeds is due to shuffling of alleles.

 

[AnEmpiricalAgnostic]

Okay.

Thanks.

Okay. But then, doesn't this make it even more difficult, and make it take even longer for evolution to happen? That's even less feasable then the the theory that there's a minute mutation with each passing generation. If it turns out, as you say, that this isn't even the case, but rather, mutations are very infrequent---that makes evolution that much harder to swallow.

This is why YECs don’t like evolution on the surface I believe. For life to evolve to the state where we see it today we are talking millions of years and countless generations. For people that strictly believe that the universe is 6000 years old there is simply not enough time for evolution to happen. However, although this is another topic altogether, we have evidence that the earth is very old and that life has been evolving for a long, long time. Even with that said, we have observed some organisms actually evolve into a new species. So the principles involved here are well supported. The sticking point becomes in allowing the earth to be old enough for life to evolve as we know it.

Do you follow what I'm saying?

I think I do. It’s hard to wrap one’s mind around how long it would take for evolution to create the diversity of life we see today. If you are dead set against the possibility of an old earth the best I can hope for is for you to understand what creationists have coined “micro”-evolution. The only difference between “micro” and “macro” is how much time you give evolution to do it’s job.

As would any "beneficial" mutation. Right?

Yes. If the organism had a beneficial mutation that it had not passed on via reproduction before it died of a detrimental mutation then the beneficial one would filter out also. However, this is why it’s important to understand that beneficial means the organism reproduces more. The beneficial ones pass on and the detrimental ones filter out as a general rule. It doesn’t have to happen every single time. It has to happen as a general rule so that the population gets beneficial mutations over many generations and loses harmful ones.

Wouldn't even the "detrimental" mutations it may have get passed along as well? If so, that would just hinder evolution. That's a sort of "catch 22" of evolution, which makes it hard to believe.

Remember, detrimental mutations cause the individual to reproduce less either by dying before it reaches sexual maturity or being selected out by some external factor. This means it is less likely for a detrimental mutation to pass on to the successive generations. Meanwhile, the beneficial ones are causing many offspring to carry the genes onward.

And I know you'll say that only beneficial mutations get passed along. But then I ask you, what keeps detrimental mutations from getting passed along with beneficial ones? If there really is nothing that stops it, then evolution really can't happen if populations are passing on genes that hinder it.

Detrimental = less reproductive success. Beneficial = more reproductive success. The beneficial mutations go to more offspring by definition while the detrimental ones do not. After many generations the population is dominated by beneficial mutations.

 

[TexasSky]

no, mutations do not cause evolution to happen. Mutations are an aspect of evolution, namely they are the mechanism in which new genes and alleles form. Evolution could still occur (albeit to a much more limited degree) even with no mutation, provided there was variation in the gene pool which resulted in different phenotypes. Gluadys hasn't said anything wrong there.

Are you talking about "submissive genes" becoming "dominant"? If so, that isn't really evolution. You don't say a cat evoloved because you managed to breed one that has a blue eye and a green eye via careful breeding.

If you are not talking about, please explain in detail what you mean because a mutation in the gene pool IS a mutation, and evolution WOULD require an alteration of the gene pool.

 

[Jet Black]

Are you talking about "submissive genes" becoming "dominant"? If so, that isn't really evolution. You don't say a cat evoloved because you managed to breed one that has a blue eye and a green eye via careful breeding.

If you are not talking about, please explain in detail what you mean because a mutation in the gene pool IS a mutation, and evolution WOULD require an alteration of the gene pool.

just go back and read some of the posts by Gluadys and I. I'm not repeating myself.