What’s your problem?

AnEmpiricalAgnostic said:

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.

Click to expand...

detrimental can be anything that results in less offspring surviving to breed in the next generation. It may seem odd, but even something like laying more eggs or having more children can reduce the numbers of offspring that survive to breed in the next generation. For example: Say a bird can get enough food to feed three chicks, if it has a gene meaning it lays an egg less, obviously this is bad because it is wasting food, and if it has four eggs, then the chicks will get less food each and would be less healthly and likely to survive.

AnEmpiricalAgnostic said:

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.

Click to expand...

Can time really be considered a cure-all for all things that seem like unfathomable long-shots? Well. That might drag this off topic.

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.

Click to expand...

Okay. But then then, why are there still weak humans, or slow, fat, or really short humans? Why didn't the genes that produce them die out?

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.

Click to expand...

Okay. But what about neutral mutations? Don't they just make it harder for entire population to have evolved offspring of the same kind, so it can even be called a population?

Also, what if different types of beneficial mutations occur? What if a certain generation inherits multiple types of beneficial mutations? If mutations are random, there is no reason as to why this can't occur, and why it can't happen in the next generation. So even if mutations are infrequent, if a number of different benifical mutations are passed on, after a number of generations, there'd be so many genes in the gene pool, that there'd be no way for an a population to evolve into the same type of creature, so that it can even be called a population.

Do you see what I'm getting at? Not only must you assume that beneficial mutations happened, but you must also assume that different types of beneficial mutations didn't build up in the gene pool, because that would cause to much variation in the same population, and it could no longer be called a population.

The need for these assumptions make it hard to believe in evolution.

shinbits said:

The need for these assumptions make it hard to believe in evolution.

Click to expand...

You only need to make the assumptions when you don't understand the underlying processes that drive evolution. Stick with this thread. You've got two of the more knowledgeable here to help you understand it so you can stop making assumptions in place of knowledge.

Okay, since DNA is what I understand, let me take my questions in that direction.

The possibility of errors in human DNA replication are very slim because of built-in mechanisms. When that built-in-correction fails you get a mutation. Most mutations happen in DNA strands that have no overall affect on your well-being. When the mutation is in a protein-coding DNA strand you have a problem.

Mutations in human DNA are very rare, period. They are even MORE rare in the protein-coding-DNA that would result in a visible effect.

To put it in perspective - there are around 100 million base pairs of protein-coding DNA. Mutations in protein-coding DNA only occur at a rate of between 1 and 4.

We see the results of this type of DNA mutation in many diseases. A defect in a single gene causes things like Huntingon's disease and cystic fibrosis. A problem caused by a combination of genes is called multifactorial. We think multifactorial genes may be connected to alzheimers and at least some cancers. When an entire chromosome is changed or replicated you get diseases like Downs syndrome.

Genetic disease is not necessarily "hereditary" disease either. So when you consider how rare it is to have real protein-code-mutations to begin with, you also need to factor in that when you do find them, they often are not part of the DNA code that is passed along to off-spring. They may be related to things like age, bad cell division to begin with, etc. So the prospect of passing along mutated genes is even more rare than that 1 - 4 chance in 100 Million.

These mutations are definately downward. They are all life threatening, but most don't trigger their damage until later in life, well after the time most offspring have been produced.

Okay. Given that.

Let's say we have some form of primate that has an amazing DNA code, and is able to mate with another primate that has an amazing DNA code. For some reason (environment, genetic mutation, surival of the fittest - pick a reason) that primate is different that the other primates around it in a "good" way. It "thinks better". It uses tools. It develops language. Somehow it managed to 'evolve up'. It has the most evolved neur0-net of any creature on earth.

What are the statitsical odds that this mutation is going to be the dominate gene that is passed along? Even in a closed population, by random genetic drift and gene flow?

Where is the evidence in modern man of random mutations producing positive results? We have over 4,000 genetic disorders identified. Where are the 4,000 positive mutations that would account for evolution to a better quality of life?

Does the whole evolution of man theory hinge on the idea that one group of primates developed such a strong neuro-net that they were able to reproduce at rates to populate the entire world in a positive method?

Man has done more than "adapt" to his environment in comparison to the average primate, and even in envorionmental time lines we show modern man as being healthier and more intelligent that prehistoric man.

So how does that fit in with modern evidence?
Where is the creature that has evolved "up" in the modern world? There are lateral evolutions which we can easily observe. There are clearly downward evolutions (just look at the AKC and the inbreeding of dogs resulting in damaged litters).

Where is the non-fossilized evidence of upward, positive mutation in whole populations?

Excuse me, but what are you rambling on about? Are you saying that Lucy was NOT discovered in 1974? Or are you saying that Lucy was not a shock to the world?

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aso/databank/entries/do74lu.html

"On November 30, 1974, Johanson and another member of the expedition discovered small bones from one individual -- it was a hominid, but looked different from any they were familiar with. Everyone at the site joined in the search for more of this specimen and collected hundreds of pieces. The pieces did appear to be from the same individual, and made up 40 percent of a skeleton. The pelvis showed it had been a female, and the team named her Lucy after the Beatles' song "Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds."

Johanson and his colleague Tim White compared Leakey's finds at Laetoli with theirs from Afar, and felt that they were very similar, probably representing a stage between apes and humans. They categorized them both as Australopithecus afarensis. Leakey disagreed, but both of their finds broke a long-standing assumption: that humans developed big brains before walking upright. After 1974, scientists realized that this wasn't necessarily true, and that brain size overlaps between types of hominids, even as modern people's brains vary in size without relation to intelligence. This meant they had to look again at why hominids started walking upright. It had been thought that the big-brained creatures started using tools, and to free up their hands, they had to walk upright. But Lucy walked on two feet, and even had "modern" hands, yet showed no evidence of using tools.

And I do not lie. Nor do I call the ideas of others that find preposterious to believe lies.

The fact that you resort to rude personal attacks and name callings speaks of your overall nature. If you object to the statements I make then produce facts to back up your objection NOT rude name calling.

The time line I posted came from a PBS website. I made ONE TYPO in it.

I will thank you to stop calling me a liar.

TexasSky said:

The time line I posted came from a PBS website. I made ONE TYPO in it.

I will thank you to stop calling me a liar.

Click to expand...

1. Who are talking to?

2. You still havent explained how any of those quotes support you.

TexasSky said:

Excuse me, but what are you rambling on about? Are you saying that Lucy was NOT discovered in 1974? Or are you saying that Lucy was not a shock to the world?

Click to expand...

I think she was referring to when you said that you were taught about both Lucy and Piltdown Man (as a genuine hominid fossil). Since Piltdown Man was exposed as a fraud in 1953 and Lucy was discovered, as you've said, in 1974, it seems odd that you were taught about both. If you were being taught about Piltdown Man as late as 1974, it definitely brings the knowledge of your teachers into question.

"We were taught that Piltdown was real, and that Lucy was the oldest fossil of modern man." - TexasSky

"Piltdown Man was exposed as a hoax in 1953, ...Lucy was first discovered in the 1970s." - Glaudys

As has been asked before TexasSky: When did you go to school?

shinbits said:

why are there still weak humans, or slow, fat, or really short humans? Why didn't the genes that produce them die out?

Click to expand...

I am by no means an expert but the way I understand it is as follows:

As has been said before, any change takes a very long time. At the moment we are still by and largely adapted to our role as hunter gatherers about 10,000 years ago.

Back then salt and sugar were hard to come by. When we found them we had to make sure we got as much as we could. Those who didn't like the taste didn't get what they needed to survive or stay fit and attractive to the other sex. So now we have a taste for sugar and salt. Unfortunately we also have discovered the means of a ready supply of as much as we want.

It is no accident that people are constantly finding that the healthiest sort of diet we can have is the same sorts of foods in the same proportions as we would have eaten some 10,000 years ago. This is what our bodies are designed for.

As you mentioned before beneficial mutations may not have been carried forward because another detrimental mutation in the same individual may have caused the individual to die before reproducing: So someone really tall may have been born with weak legs, and so the ability to see predators from further away will not save them when everyone else runs away faster.

One thing in evolution's favour is the amount of change possible from generation to generation: When two poeple have a child you can see certain traits from both parents, but you can't predict exactly what the child will look like or what intelligence they have, for example. There is the capacity for a great variety of differences in traits in one couple's children. Look at any large family and see the differences between the children.

This is one factor which speeds the rate of evolution.

Weak kids may have survived by being more smart whereas strong kids might not have had the eyesight of their weedier friends. Also we do not have to worry so much now about being eaten by lions so people who may have died early on through not being able to see over the tundra,an now get on with their daily commute without fear of feline attack.

I acknowledge I am not an expert, and fully expect to be shot down in flames, but that's my layperson's view.

why are there still weak humans, or slow, fat, or really short humans? Why didn't the genes that produce them die out?


perhaps you would take some time and read on the topic.

there is a wealth of information on various alleles that contribute not only to obesity but to alcoholism.

they center around various alleles in the alcohol dehydrogenases and have to do with environmental pressures described as "feast and famine cycles".


google something like:
alcohol obesity genetic "alcohol dehydrogenase"

JohnR7 said:

For example, look at horse evolution. The idea that the horse evolved from small to big in a straight line has been falsifed and it has been replaced by a hodge podge theory. They use to think evolution was a tree, but now they think it is a bush.

Click to expand...

how can you still be spouting this same crap after all these years? this has been explained to you dozens of times by now, how can you still not get it?

TexasSky said:

The possibility of errors in human DNA replication are very slim because of built-in mechanisms. When that built-in-correction fails you get a mutation. Most mutations happen in DNA strands that have no overall affect on your well-being. When the mutation is in a protein-coding DNA strand you have a problem.

Click to expand...

You have between 100 and 200 point mutations not found in either of your parents. Every human has mutations, so they are not rare. The important mutations, evolutionarily speaking, are the mutations that occur during meiosis, not during cell replication.

As you probably know, you do not have between 100 and 200 genetic disease due to those mutations. Most mutations are neutral. Even if a mutation occurs in a coding region it does not guarantee that something bad will happen. For example, hemoglobin C came about through a mutation sometime in the last 10,000 years. It is a good defense against death due to malaria and it is expected to spread through African popuations.

Mutations in human DNA are very rare, period. They are even MORE rare in the protein-coding-DNA that would result in a visible effect.

Click to expand...

Like I said, everbody has mutations. They occur once every 100 to 200 million bases in our 3 billion base genome. Every person has between 1 and 3 mutations in protein coding regions. There are also other mutations, such as chromosomal fusions and indels which relocate large chunks of DNA. And then there are other events, such as retroviral insertions. Mutations are anything but rare.

To put it in perspective - there are around 100 million base pairs of protein-coding DNA. Mutations in protein-coding DNA only occur at a rate of between 1 and 4.

Click to expand...

Yes, per person per generation. With a 6 billion person population this adds up to 6 to 24 billion mutations in the human population. Of course, the human genome isn't that large so there are many repeats.

We see the results of this type of DNA mutation in many diseases.

Click to expand...

And we also see the effects in many beneficial alleles, such as the hemoglobin C allele. Evolution will "accentuate the positives" and "eliminate the negatives", as it were.

These mutations are definately downward. They are all life threatening, but most don't trigger their damage until later in life, well after the time most offspring have been produced.

Click to expand...

Not all mutations are life threatening or deleterious.

Let's say we have some form of primate that has an amazing DNA code, and is able to mate with another primate that has an amazing DNA code. For some reason (environment, genetic mutation, surival of the fittest - pick a reason) that primate is different that the other primates around it in a "good" way. It "thinks better". It uses tools. It develops language. Somehow it managed to 'evolve up'. It has the most evolved neur0-net of any creature on earth.

Click to expand...

There is no "evolve up" or "evolve down". There is only change.

What are the statitsical odds that this mutation is going to be the dominate gene that is passed along? Even in a closed population, by random genetic drift and gene flow?

Click to expand...

Don't know. If a gene is recessive and beneficial, then individuals with two copies of the gene will be selected for. Over time, this will fix the gene in the population.

Where is the evidence in modern man of random mutations producing positive results? We have over 4,000 genetic disorders identified. Where are the 4,000 positive mutations that would account for evolution to a better quality of life?

Click to expand...

Here.

Does the whole evolution of man theory hinge on the idea that one group of primates developed such a strong neuro-net that they were able to reproduce at rates to populate the entire world in a positive method?

Click to expand...

The theory hinges on evidence, not an idea. The evidence shows a steady increase in cranium size over time. This would indicate that intelligence was selected for.

Man has done more than "adapt" to his environment in comparison to the average primate, and even in envorionmental time lines we show modern man as being healthier and more intelligent that prehistoric man.

Click to expand...

Humans have adapted the environment to fit themselves. Agriculture and the domestication of animals are good examples.

So how does that fit in with modern evidence?

Click to expand...

So so. I think you underestimate the mutation rate in humans.

Where is the creature that has evolved "up" in the modern world?

Click to expand...

There is no up, down, or lateral. There is just change. The one thing we do not see is species becoming less adapted to their environment.

There are clearly downward evolutions (just look at the AKC and the inbreeding of dogs resulting in damaged litters).

Click to expand...

That is due to inbreeding, or the lack of variation. If anything, this is a good example of what happens when natural evolution is not in effect.

Where is the non-fossilized evidence of upward, positive mutation in whole populations?

Click to expand...

Do you mean adaptation?

Here is a good example:

J Evol Biol. 2004 Jan;17(1):221-4.Related Articles, Links

[SIZE=+1]Estimation of relative fitnesses from relative risk data and the predicted future of haemoglobin alleles S and C.[/SIZE]

Hedrick P.

School of Life Sciences, Arizona State University, Tempe, AR 85287, USA. philip.hedrick@asu.edu

Epidemiological studies of genetic differences in disease susceptibility often estimate the relative risks (RR) of different genotypes. Here I provide an approach to calculate the relative fitnesses of different genotypes based on RR data so that population genetic approaches may be utilized with these data. Using recent RR data on human haemoglobin beta genotypes from Burkina Faso, this approach is used to predict changes in the frequency of the haemoglobin sickle-cell S and C alleles. Overall, it generally appears that allele C will quickly replace the S allele in malarial environments. Explicit population genetic predictions suggest that this replacement may occur within the next 50 generations in Burkina Faso.

shinbits said:

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

Click to expand...

You have it backwards about. Evolution does not affect individuals via mutation. Mutations in individuals contribute to the evolution of the species. Mutations per se are not evolution.

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

Click to expand...

No, what you have said is in error. Mutations do not make evolution happen. They are a necessary pre-requisite to evolution, but what makes evolution happen is natural selection.

Having mutations in the population is like having gas in your fuel tank. Without gas your car cannot run. But gas is not what makes your car run. It can and will sit immobile in your driveway with a full fuel tank for weeks at a time and never run on its own. To make it run, you have to start the engine.

The engine of evolution is natural selection.

TheInstant said:

I think she was referring to when you said that you were taught about both Lucy and Piltdown Man (as a genuine hominid fossil). Since Piltdown Man was exposed as a fraud in 1953 and Lucy was discovered, as you've said, in 1974, it seems odd that you were taught about both. If you were being taught about Piltdown Man as late as 1974, it definitely brings the knowledge of your teachers into question.

Click to expand...

Ah - you are misreading what I posted.

I never said I was taught about Piltdown was real as late as 1974.

I was listing examples of things that WERE taught as "accurate" and "right" that have since been declared "not right." Piltdown was an example of total fraud that was taught as fact. I was, however, taught that Piltdown was real for the first years. It did not go too far into my education, but it certainly wasn't changed in classrooms and textbooks nationwide as early as 1953. I assume "word didn't get out" to school boards.

Lucy is an example of a major "correction" to the time line.

If my words were read as Lucy being what corrected Piltdown then they were poorly worded.

Understand the signifigance of the Piltdown hoax in regards to any remarks that Science "knows". Piltdown was "discovered" in 1908. In 1911 Dawson "added" to his "discovery". In 1912 these things were taken to the British Museum's Natural History Department. They were examined by a paleoichthologist and then by a paleontologist. They declared that Piltdown was the oldest human remains ever found. The press went wild.

By 1914 skeptics were trying to say, "Something is wrong." The skeptics were laughed down or ignored.

In 1915 Dawson claimed to have found Piltdown II. Piltdown II convinced people that these were all legitimate finds.

That view that they were "legitimate" carried from 1915 to 1953.

A total hoax played on the entire scientific community of experts was touted as fact for 38 years even though some scientists had TRIED to say, "Something is wrong is here." The minority going, "Wait a minute," the "ignored" and "laughed at group" was the right group.

It was even worse though. They had been told Piltdown was 500,000 years old. By 1953 they realized he wasn't event 50,000. They knew that the artifacts had been tampered with. They still hadn't caught on to the entire hoax though.

In 1959 they realized that the skull fragments were just 600 years old, and the jaw was not only 100 years younger than the skull, it belonged to an orangutan.

So even at the most gentle estimates, learned men of science were teaching a total fraud for 38 years, and they were only off by 499,500 years on the age of the artificates they DID have.

Between 1960 and 1974 there were a series of fossil discoveries that all seemed to fall into the same "age of man" evidence. Then in 1974 Lucy threw all of that out of whack because Lucy was just better than the rest.

In 1955 Camille Arambourge reviewed the LaChapelle skeleton, and declared that Boule's findings of 1908 are wrong. Doule has said Neaderthals were bent-kneed and they slouched.

1957 Straus and Cave say La Chapelle had arthritis, and was just a little different from modern man.

1960 - F. Clark Howell says there only 2 genera of hominid.

1962 Carleton Coon offers the multi-continuity hypothesis. That same year Loring Brace IV argues against "replacement theory" of modern human origins.
1964 Brace reinstates the claim that Neanderthals gave rise to modern humans.

1965-1980 Vandermeersche re-evacuates the Jebel Qafzeh cave of Israel. He finds 24 more skeletal remains and compares them to other fossils from the region. Declars that Skhul and Qafzeh are NOT Neanderthals, and instead are "proto-Crog-magnon". (Basically contradiction studes from 1933 that were published in 1951).

1971 Brose and Wolpoff say Neanderthals evolved into modern humans.

Also in 1971 Liberman and Cerlin "reconstruct" the vocal tract of La Chapelle and decide Neanderthals couldn't produce human vowels.

In 1974 Stringer announces that Neanderthals are too different from humans to be human ancestors. Lucy is discovered.

1976 - Fred Smith decides that that Krapina Neanderthals are our direct ancestors.

Also in 1976 - Brauer presents the "out of Africa" theory.

1978 - Jean-Jacques Hublin decides that modern humans couldn't have evolved from Neanderthals.

Anyone see a pattern here? We are Neanderthals, we aren't Neanderthals, we are, we aren't.





The information can be verified at http://www.athenapub.com/8timelin.htm

Scientific theories develop and adapt as they acquire new information.
Some scientists disagree on the specific details of human evolution, though not the broader details.

A willingness to accept past mistakes, adapt to new information and debate ideas. What a truly terrible thought.

Garnett said:

I am by no means an expert but the way I understand it is as follows:

Click to expand...

I understand that you are not an expert. I wont hold that against you.

As has been said before, any change takes a very long time. At the moment we are still by and largely adapted to our role as hunter gatherers about 10,000 years ago.

Click to expand...

Remember, according to evolution, humans have been evolving as the weaker genes died out as far back as when they were apes. If this allegedly has been happening up until the time humans were apes, then there is no reason at all why there are still weak, slow, fat, skinny or short humans; according to evolution, those genes should've died out long ago, when humans were allegedly some other form. But as we all know, there are millions of people with each of these "weaker" genes.

Can you all at least agree that I at least have valid reasons for not believing in evolution?