What’s your problem?

[dad]

So your a theistic evolutionist and a YEC?

I see nothing wrong with some adapting and evolving of creations that started in Eden 6000 years ago. Guess I am a bible believing, young earth creation accepting, hyper evolution in the paster.

 

[shinbits]

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.

Hi.

1) If mutations are random, then how do entire populations just so happen to have the same exact "random" mutations that cause them all to evolve into the same creature?

2) How do adaptive pressures cause things like organs to evolve?

3) ..............why was Sienfeld so popular? Isn't that the most overrated TV show in history?

 

[Jet Black]

Hi.

1) If mutations are random, then how do entire populations just so happen to have the same exact "random" mutations that cause them all to evolve into the same creature?

they don't. Sexual reproduction results in the spreading of genes and alleles through the population. Initially the mutations will only occur in one individual, and it will then spread if there is an increase in reproductive success due to that mutation.

2) How do adaptive pressures cause things like organs to evolve?

same as above. variations in the structures of the organisms will have different effects on the breeding success. Where those variations are the result of the different mix of genes and alleles, these variant structures will be inherited. Those structures that lead to higher than average breeding success in the population will proliferate in the population.

3) ..............why was Sienfeld so popular? Isn't that the most overrated TV show in history?

it's the Theory of Evolution, not the Theory of Everything.

 

[shinbits]

they don't. Sexual reproduction results in the spreading of genes and alleles through the population. Initially the mutations will only occur in one individual, and it will then spread if there is an increase in reproductive success due to that mutation.

Makes sense.

same as above. variations in the structures of the organisms will have different effects on the breeding success. Where those variations are the result of the different mix of genes and alleles, these variant structures will be inherited. Those structures that lead to higher than average breeding success in the population will proliferate in the population.

I guess I should've phrased this one differently.

From a much simpler organism, how would organs even evolve in the first place?

it's the Theory of Evolution, not the Theory of Everything.

Well, I guess no theory could explain the underserved popularity of that show.

 

[JohnR7]

I see nothing wrong with some adapting and evolving of creations that started in Eden 6000 years ago. Guess I am a bible believing, young earth creation accepting, hyper evolution in the paster.

Are you a evolution based on the evidence? If you are then why are you YEC when there is overwelming evidence to support a old earth? I believe in Adam and Eve and the Garden of Eden 6000 years ago. But that does not mean there was nothing here on this earth before God put Adam and Eve in the Garden.

 

[dad]

Are you a evolution based on the evidence? If you are then why are you YEC when there is overwelming evidence to support a old earth?

If the universe was drastically differnt, there is no such evidence other than assumed. It was assumed the same, and all calculations reflect that. Just like heaven in the future is a different universe, surely you would have to agree with that much? You know, new heavens, these ones pass away. etc. This means absolutely that the present is NOT the key to the future. (All crashing galaxies, and burning out suns are off)
So, since men seem so convinced that some evolution has occured, I say, why not?? As long as we realize that it started at the actual creation, with created creatures, in creation week. A little hyper evolution in the past is very fine. What a wonderful creation He made, able to flow with the punches!

I believe in Adam and Eve and the Garden of Eden 6000 years ago. But that does not mean there was nothing here on this earth before God put Adam and Eve in the Garden.

Good. You are Christian, believe the bible as best you understand, and have the timeframes of God right. We agree there.

As for the past before creation you think you perceive in scriptures, I guess we can't agree there. As you likely know I think the creation was right there, 6000 years ago.

 

[shinbits]

ack! I forgot something.

they don't. Sexual reproduction results in the spreading of genes and alleles through the population. Initially the mutations will only occur in one individual, and it will then spread if there is an increase in reproductive success due to that mutation.

Okay. An organism randomly mutates a gene, then passes it on, and has say, two different offspring. Now, considering that mutations are random, those two offspring would mutate random genes of their own, in keeping with evolution theory. The genes by the second generation offspring are passed on to the third generation, but have different genes from thier cousins.

So.......

How is it possible for entire populations to mutate the same genes and evolve into new creatures?


That's a biggie that makes evolution unbelievable.

 

[Goatboy]

ack! I forgot something.

That's ok, we'll forget that you briefly demonstrated agreement with the concepts of heredity and selection, you can go back to claiming it’s all impossible/ridiculous, we won't hold it against you.

It’ll be like when the real Principal Skinner showed up in the Simpsons.

No one will ever bring it up again.

 

[shinbits]

That's ok, we'll forget that you briefly demonstrated agreement with the concepts of heredity and selection, you can go back to claiming it’s all impossible/ridiculous, we won't hold it against you.

It’ll be like when the real Principal Skinner showed up in the Simpsons.

No one will ever bring it up again.

Well, any answers?

 

[Jet Black]

From a much simpler organism, how would organs even evolve in the first place?

differentiation of tissues due to the local environment. Basically cells internal functioning depends on their local environment, so for instance if a cell found itself surrounded by other cells, it might behave one way, whereas if it found itself with air on one side, it might behave a slightly different way. This is how it would get started, though to go into it more, I would need to come up with a really long post. Before I do, do we need to go into the evolution of multicellularity too?

 

[Goatboy]

Well, any answers?

Once it enters the germ line the mutation does not need to keep re-occuring.

For convenience it may still be referred to as a mutation (for instance, while tracking its spread in a population), but the actual mutation occurred when it first appeared, after that it’s down to heredity.

Now back in the tiger cage, mother and I have an appointment with the bunion file.

 

[Jet Black]

ack! I forgot something.


Okay. An organism randomly mutates a gene, then passes it on, and has say, two different offspring. Now, considering that mutations are random, those two offspring would mutate random genes of their own, in keeping with evolution theory. The genes by the second generation offspring are passed on to the third generation, but have different genes from thier cousins.

So.......

How is it possible for entire populations to mutate the same genes and evolve into new creatures?


That's a biggie that makes evolution unbelievable.

I don't really get what you are asking here, but I will try an answer. I think what you are asking is how the cousins manage to breed with one another if their genes are mutating differently. Well bear in mind the rate of mutation is pretty low, so while there are these mutations, the effects of the mutations are generally only pretty small, and would not provide a huge barrier to breeding for those with and without the mutated versions of the genes. So in that sense, while there are differences in cousins due to these mutations, the differences are not significant within the length of a breeding cycle. Over very many breeding cycles however, these differences will accumulate in the population, but the new beneficial versions of the genes get spread through the population at a much faster rate than the overall change in the population, so no breeding barriers are formed.

 

[AnEmpiricalAgnostic]

Hi.

Hey shinbits. Let me start off by complimenting you on your post. I respect participants that ask questions instead of simply using their post to evangelize. I see that Jet has already answered the questions very well but I thought I’d add some more info in the hopes to make it clearer.

1) If mutations are random, then how do entire populations just so happen to have the same exact "random" mutations that cause them all to evolve into the same creature?

I have a favorite example of how a population might evolve today that I think will bring the answer to this question into focus.

There are people walking around right now (maybe even you) with a mutation called “Delta-32”. If a person gets a copy of this mutation from their father and a copy from their mother they are born with two copies of it or a “double Delta 32 mutation”. The neat thing is that if you have two copies of this mutation it makes you immune to the black plague and AIDS. So there are some people walking around right now with total resistance to AIDS. Now image that the virus that causes AIDS was something that would be spread like wildfire through the air sweeping across the globe and infecting every single person. The only people left alive would be the ones carrying the double Delta 32 mutations. Now every single child born after that will possess the double delta 32 mutation and the entire population will be immune to AIDS. This is exactly how populations, not individuals evolve. It all starts with a beneficial mutation.

2) How do adaptive pressures cause things like organs to evolve?

Aside from something catastrophic like I mentioned above, mutations can get into the population and spread if they offer some kind of advantage. If an animal develops a mutation that allows him to attract more females (even if it’s aesthetic) he will have more offspring than the next guy. If a female has genes that give her a wide birth canal she may have more offspring and pass that on better than say a female born with a narrow birth canal that dies during her first labor. It’s all about which genes give the higher reproductive success rate. This includes anything that makes you live longer for the same reproductive reasons. More success equals more copies of those genes in the population.

Okay. An organism randomly mutates a gene, then passes it on, and has say, two different offspring. Now, considering that mutations are random, those two offspring would mutate random genes of their own, in keeping with evolution theory. The genes by the second generation offspring are passed on to the third generation, but have different genes from thier cousins.
So.......
How is it possible for entire populations to mutate the same genes and evolve into new creatures?

That's a biggie that makes evolution unbelievable.

I think you have a little bit of a misunderstanding about how fast this happens. The mutations are usually very small. If my kids are a little taller or have a little less body hair than I do it’s nothing that anyone would notice as really different. But if I were to track my lineage back for a hundred generations my great(x100) grandfather may have been a rather short fellow with lots of body hair. Here I am 6’3” with almost no body hair to speak of. Continue this for millions of years and you will see a regression of less and less similar ancestors. I know this is an oversimplified and maybe silly example but I hope it helps bring a little more understanding. Evolution never claims that I’m going to sire a completely new organism. That’s impossible. What can happen is tiny little mutations adding up over countless generations to gradually create new organisms.

Hope this helps.

 

[JohnR7]

As for the past before creation you think you perceive in scriptures, I guess we can't agree there. As you likely know I think the creation was right there, 6000 years ago.

Ok, so that is what you believe the Bible is telling you. What do you do with the overwelming evidence that the earth is a lot older then 6,000 years? Does that not cause you to take a closer look at what the Bible is saying? Do you really believe that there is that much of a conflict between the Bible and science? Do you really believe that science is that deceived so as to be telling that big of a lie. Do you not know that it was actually christians that determined the earth is more then 6000 years old? In fact a lot of stuff in science started off as a christian belief before science picked up on it. At least the long lasting stuff that does not fade away.

 

[shinbits]

differentiation of tissues due to the local environment. Basically cells internal functioning depends on their local environment, so for instance if a cell found itself surrounded by other cells, it might behave one way, whereas if it found itself with air on one side, it might behave a slightly different way.

Well, let me make much easier for you.

Pick an organism that has organs, any one. Basically, what caused those organs to form?

 

[shinbits]

Once it enters the germ line the mutation does not need to keep re-occuring.

yeah, they would.....in order to "evolve" into something, the mutations can't stop, but must keep occuring.

 

[shinbits]

I don't really get what you are asking here, but I will try an answer. I think what you are asking is how the cousins manage to breed with one another if their genes are mutating differently.

No, that's not what I'm asking.

What I'm asking is, how do the mutations in each individual organism of a population stay so similar enough, that an entire population evolves at the same rate? After all, mutations are supposed to be random.

Are the populations just getting lucky to just so happen to "randomly mutate" in similar fashion?

That's what I'm asking.

 

[shinbits]

Hey shinbits. Let me start off by complimenting you on your post. I respect participants that ask questions instead of simply using their post to evangelize. I see that Jet has already answered the questions very well but I thought I’d add some more info in the hopes to make it clearer.

I have a favorite example of how a population might evolve today that I think will bring the answer to this question into focus.

There are people walking around right now (maybe even you) with a mutation called “Delta-32”. If a person gets a copy of this mutation from their father and a copy from their mother they are born with two copies of it or a “double Delta 32 mutation”. The neat thing is that if you have two copies of this mutation it makes you immune to the black plague and AIDS. So there are some people walking around right now with total resistance to AIDS. Now image that the virus that causes AIDS was something that would be spread like wildfire through the air sweeping across the globe and infecting every single person. The only people left alive would be the ones carrying the double Delta 32 mutations. Now every single child born after that will possess the double delta 32 mutation and the entire population will be immune to AIDS. This is exactly how populations, not individuals evolve. It all starts with a beneficial mutation.

Okay. That was actually explained well. I'm with you so far.

Aside from something catastrophic like I mentioned above, mutations can get into the population and spread if they offer some kind of advantage.

okay. I'm still with you.

If an animal develops a mutation that allows him to attract more females (even if it’s aesthetic) he will have more offspring than the next guy. If a female has genes that give her a wide birth canal she may have more offspring and pass that on better than say a female born with a narrow birth canal that dies during her first labor. It’s all about which genes give the higher reproductive success rate. This includes anything that makes you live longer for the same reproductive reasons. More success equals more copies of those genes in the population.

Gotcha. So far, you've been talking about survival of the fittest.

I think you have a little bit of a misunderstanding about how fast this happens. The mutations are usually very small.

No, that's not it. I'm full aware of how long evolution says it takes.

But you may not be fully getting my question.

See, mutations are random.

Correct?

And random mutation is passed on to the offspring. Correct?

Here's where it gets hazy. In theory, the next step, is that somewhere down the lineage, whether it's the very next generation or not, that another mutation will occur, and the prior mutation will be passed on in as well as the more recent one. Correct?

The question now, is on the last part mentioned---How can two or more different organisms, resulting from the same ancestry, randomly mutate the same mutations?

See, if the mutations aren't the same, then a population can't evolve simultaneously into the same new species---there'd be a bunch of different ones if the mutations aren't similar.

See, I'm NOT talking about mutations that cause simple variation, in keeping with the same species---I'm talking about mutations that start to cause an entire population to become a different one. How do those mutations happen uniformly if they're random? The individuals would have to randomly mutate similar genes, and that would take unheard of luck.

Do u understand me now?

 

[Jet Black]

No, that's not what I'm asking.

What I'm asking is, how do the mutations in each individual organism of a population stay so similar enough, that an entire population evolves at the same rate? After all, mutations are supposed to be random.

Are the populations just getting lucky to just so happen to "randomly mutate" in similar fashion?

That's what I'm asking.

no no. The mutation that occurs in individual A will spread to the whole population at a later time as a result of sexual reproduction. It's not like A's contemporaries will have to have similar mutations, his mutation will spread and he will eventually be one of the ancestors of all the breeding individuals in that population.

Lets say for simplicity that a monkey in a breeding group develops a gene for glow in the dark fur, and for some reason this helps that monkey survive and have more surviving descendants than average. that means that whereas most monkeys will have say and average of four children in the next generation (some will have more, some less) the glow in the dark monkey has an average of six children in the next generation. Now assume the population size remains roughly constant, since say there is not enough food to fed more than a thousand monkeys, you can see that the glow in the dark fur will spread and eventually be present in all the members of the population. You see there never has to be another glow in the dark mutation, the original one spreads.

 

[Jet Black]

Well, let me make much easier for you.

Pick an organism that has organs, any one. Basically, what caused those organs to form?

no, it's still not an easy question. Nothing particualr causes them to form. Basically, like with everything else, there are differences in the offspring, and where those differences result in improved breeding success, those particular differences will spread through the population. as those differences are spreading through the population, then additional mutations can occur altering those different features a bit more, and these can further spread, and so on with a cumulative effect.