What’s your problem?

[Gracchus]

What I don't agree with is the belief that there are weaknesses in a population that get phased out. In the animal kingdom, as someone else pointed out, you don't see things like limp impalas; the average animal is born pretty healthy and have about the same physical abilities as other animals in it's population.

And since we don't see things like limp impalas, then we have no basis to assume that weaknesses of any kind were around to be overcome in the first place. We do see the effects of polution affecting animals, but that is an unnatural effect, and doesn't count as natural courses of events.

Impalas are no more equal than humans. They vary in size, speed, agility, visual and auditory acuity, etc. I think you would have to admit that. If not, say so. So some are going to fall prey to cheetahs. On average it will be the slowest one, even though it may be perfectly healthy. It doesn't have to be "limp", or sick, though predators are quick to spot weaknesses.

Well, the next concept I have a question with, is how mutations with new information form.

I'm not asking about variation of mutations; I mean brand new info, that would lead to the development of a new species millions of years after it's first been passed on to an offspring.

I know that you think you know what information is, but consider. In information theory the inverse of information is redundancy. To use one of Dawkins' examples, "poodle dog" contains no more information than "poodle". The word "dog" is redundant because it adds no new information.

Another thing to remember is that if I tell you, "A or B or C", you have a degree of uncertainty, but if I tell you "A", then you have more information because there is no uncertainty.

And just as "entropy" in information theory is not the same as "entropy" in thermodynamics, so a "bit" in information theory is not the same as a "bit" in computer science. You have to be careful as some terms can mean one thing, in one discipline, another thing in another discipline, and still something else in everyday speech.

So how do you define "information"? How do you measure it? If a nucleotide changes from is that new information? Has information been lost or gained? It is important that we agree on how we are going to define words, or we will simply end up misunderstanding each other.

We know that parts of chromosomes can duplicate, producing two copies of the same gene. This phenomenon has been observed. I would argue that this is not an increase in information. But if one of the genes then mutates, they are no longer identical. One gene will code for the old protein, but the new one might code for a new one. Under most definitions of information, that would be an increase of information.

What is your understanding of this kind of chromosomal mutation?

 

[shinbits]

Impalas are no more equal than humans. They vary in size, speed, agility, visual and auditory acuity, etc. I think you would have to admit that. If not, say so. So some are going to fall prey to cheetahs. On average it will be the slowest one, even though it may be perfectly healthy. It doesn't have to be "limp", or sick, though predators are quick to spot weaknesses.

The variance in the physical abilities certainly exists, but not to any major degree.

Furthermore, there has been nothing to show that these animals run any faster then they have in prior generations; this would give weight to the theory if there was, because it would show that natural selection is indeed phasing out the weaker traits. But thier speed has remained basically the same as when it was first recorded.

Now, I know that you can just say that difference just doesn't happen fast enough for us to notice in only forty or fifty years when these animals were first studied in real detail.

But because of this, we have no observation on which to assume that populations gain any permanant increase in abilities.

So how do you define "information"? How do you measure it? If a nucleotide changes from is that new information? Has information been lost or gained? It is important that we agree on how we are going to define words, or we will simply end up misunderstanding each other.

New information would be biological traits found in a population that was not previously a part of it's genetic make-up; and not simply improvements on already existing traits, but new ones.

We know that parts of chromosomes can duplicate, producing two copies of the same gene. This phenomenon has been observed. I would argue that this is not an increase in information. But if one of the genes then mutates, they are no longer identical. One gene will code for the old protein, but the new one might code for a new one. Under most definitions of information, that would be an increase of information.

What is your understanding of this kind of chromosomal mutation?

My understanding is that when chromosomes duplicate, this usually has to do with cellular division which makes new cells. Anytime I've heard the word "mutation" in regards to cell's reproducing, it is usually refering to something cancerous.

Basically, my understanding is that mutations in this situation are abnormal, and usually result in some kind of harm for the organism.

 

[Jet Black]

My understanding is that when chromosomes duplicate, this usually has to do with cellular division which makes new cells. Anytime I've heard the word "mutation" in regards to cell's reproducing, it is usually refering to something cancerous.

Basically, my understanding is that mutations in this situation are abnormal, and usually result in some kind of harm for the organism.

you are focussing on somatic replication. why?

 

[Jet Black]

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

poor eyesight will be the result of either a particular combination of alleles or a mutation. natural selection is neither of these things. natural selection is the result of the effects of the environment on individuals with the various possible mixes of alleles or mutations.

 

[Gracchus]

The variance in the physical abilities certainly exists, but not to any major degree.

What is a "major degree"? One meter difference after a sprint of a hundred meters is enough to make a difference as to which impala is dragged down by the cheetah.

Furthermore, there has been nothing to show that these animals run any faster then they have in prior generations; this would give weight to the theory if there was, because it would show that natural selection is indeed phasing out the weaker traits. But thier speed has remained basically the same as when it was first recorded.

Now, I know that you can just say that difference just doesn't happen fast enough for us to notice in only forty or fifty years when these animals were first studied in real detail.

But because of this, we have no observation on which to assume that populations gain any permanant increase in abilities.

Except that we have observed changes in other organisms over time.

New information would be biological traits found in a population that was not previously a part of it's genetic make-up; and not simply improvements on already existing traits, but new ones.

My understanding is that when chromosomes duplicate, this usually has to do with cellular division which makes new cells.

But I was referring to the duplication of a gene, part of a chromosome. This has actually been observed. And it does happen during meitosis, or possibly meiosis. I don't think anyone suggested it doesn't.

Anytime I've heard the word "mutation" in regards to cell's reproducing, it is usually refering to something cancerous.

Perhaps you haven't heard the word used very often by cell biologists and geneticists. And in evolution, cancerous changes would be rapidly selected out. Moreover, "usually" isn't "always".

Basically, my understanding is that mutations in this situation are abnormal,...

Well, of course! Innovations, for good or ill, are abnormal, until they become normal. In evolution, bad mutations are selected out, and don't become normal.

... and usually result in some kind of harm for the organism.

Harmful mutations are selected out. Remember that the competition within the species is fierce. The organism's own species its principal competition. Malthus noted that an unrestrained growth of population will produce shortages, which produces competition in which some will be successful and others will perish. It was the writings of Malthus on population that gave Darwin his idea.

Variation occurs by the several mechanisms of genetic change. It is not always what you call "new information". It can also be novel combinations of existing alleles. For instance a gene for thicker fur combined with a gene for thicker body fat would produce a mammal that is far more resistant to cold. But that combination might be lethal in a warmer climate.

Evolution is not just the appearance of new genes. It is the change in the frequency of alleles in a population over time. The beneficial mutation is the one that gives the organism a better chance of reproducing in a given environment. It doesn't have to happen very often to become fixed in a population. We can discuss the math if you like.

Or you could just go to: http://anthro.palomar.edu/synthetic/synth_2.htm

Now you may argue that there is no evolution without new genes. But then you are not using the word "evolution" as biologists use it. You are erecting a straw man. It may be an effective tactic in debate when the judges are unskilled in evidentiary methods. But is is not a valid way to argue. And if you continue to use the tactic after it has been pointed out to you, then your will be strongly suspected of dishonesty at worst and stupidity at best.

So, I repeat, it is necessary, if we are to have productive discussion that we agree on the definitions of words. Since we are discussing biological theory, we ought to use the words as biologists have defined them. If your understanding of them is different, you ought to use some other word or phrase that you have explicitly defined for us.

 

[Jet Black]

talking about mutations being harmful, it's worth noting here that the spontaneous abortion rate for humans in detected pregnancies is about 20%.

 

[shinbits]

What is a "major degree"? One meter difference after a sprint of a hundred meters is enough to make a difference as to which impala is dragged down by the cheetah.

All impalas run about the same. The ones that are a half second or so slower and get caught, die, and don't reproduce, most of the time. The faster ones can still have offspring that are a half second slower, and so one with the faster impalas that survive. There's no indication that a population would increase in performance over time.

Except that we have observed changes in other organisms over time.

Changes in overall ability, like speed, strength, jumping ability, flight speed, etc.?

Things like these have never been observed to increase in a population. This is what I meant by no real basis to assume that natural selection is really resulting in any sort of improvement.

Perhaps you haven't heard the word used very often by cell biologists and geneticists. And in evolution, cancerous changes would be rapidly selected out.

Even if the genes from that organism is never passed on, such negative or cancerous mutations can just as easily happen again further down the lineage.


Evolution is not just the appearance of new genes. It is the change in the frequency of alleles in a population over time.[/quote]
This I know very well. This alone, I have no problem with.

 

[Jet Black]

Changes in overall ability, like speed, strength, jumping ability, flight speed, etc.?

Things like these have never been observed to increase in a population. This is what I meant by no real basis to assume that natural selection is really resulting in any sort of improvement.

yes they have.

Even if the genes from that organism is never passed on, such negative or cancerous mutations can just as easily happen again further down the lineage.

doesn't matter. you have had this explained to you several times now.

 

[Dannager]

All impalas run about the same. The ones that are a half second or so slower and get caught, die, and don't reproduce, most of the time. The faster ones can still have offspring that are a half second slower, and so one with the faster impalas that survive.

They can have offspring that are a half second slower, but that happening is less likely with a faster impala than it would be were the slower impala reproducing. Evolution is about probabilities, shinbits.

There's no indication that a population would increase in performance over time.

Yes, there is. Perhaps we need to break it down. Let's say that there is a 50% chance that a slower impala, allowed to reproduce, would produce another slower impala (not an accurate figure, but sufficient for this argument). A normal impala, by comparison, could have a 25% chance to produce a slower impala. However, let's say that a normal impala also has a 25% chance of producing a faster impala.

Now then, let's say that all slower impalas are killed by predators before reproducing (an exaggeration). If the remaining impalas foster 100 new impalas, 25 will be slower, 50 will be normal and 25 will be faster. If these reproduce, following the same rules (and without the death of all the slower impalas this time), the next generation will be 6 really slow impalas, 25 slower impalas, 37 normal impalas, 25 faster impalas and 6 really fast impalas. Note that the distribution remains uniform.

Now, keeping those figures in mind, kill off one of the slower impalas from the first-generation breeding group. The second generation loses either a really slow impala, a slow impala or a normal impala. Kill another one. The same thing happens. Kill another - the same thing again. Every time a predator kills a slower impala the next generation becomes faster on average. You wanted "indication that a population would increase in performance over time"? There's your indication.

 

[Micaiah]

A common mistake that evolutionists fall into is to assume that a 'beneficial mutation' will have a significant impact on an animals chance of survival. The survival advantage is typically so low that whether or not the animal will survive is largely a matter of chance.

 

[Jet Black]

A common mistake that creationists fall into is ignoring statistics.

 

[Jet Black]

Now, keeping those figures in mind, kill off one of the slower impalas from the first-generation breeding group. The second generation loses either a really slow impala, a slow impala or a normal impala. Kill another one. The same thing happens. Kill another - the same thing again. Every time a predator kills a slower impala the next generation becomes faster on average. You wanted "indication that a population would increase in performance over time"? There's your indication.

It's a shame that creationists never do the maths properly.

 

[Micaiah]

Statistics and probability are a very useful tool in demonstrating that we were created, not the product of evolution.

If Dannager can provide a reference for the numbers he suggested maybe we can give them some creadence. Till then I assume they have been plucked out of the air.

 

[Jet Black]

Statistics and probability are a very useful tool in demonstrating that we were created, not the product of evolution.

well why don't the creationists try then? All they ever produce is GIGO calculations.

If Dannager can provide a reference for the numbers he suggested maybe we can give them some creadence. Till then I assume they have been plucked out of the air.

Well I see you must have given up math just after addition, and just before decimals and multiplication.

 

[Dannager]

Statistics and probability are a very useful tool in demonstrating that we were created, not the product of evolution.

I'm afraid statistics and probability are not on your side here, Micaiah.

If Dannager can provide a reference for the numbers he suggested maybe we can give them some creadence. Till then I assume they have been plucked out of the air.

I'm quite sure I don't need to quote the portions of my own post back to you that point out that the numbers are indeed "plucked out of the air". That's not an assumption, Micaiah, that's a fact. I didn't ask for you to give the numbers any credence (spellcheck is, by the way, right there). The numbers exist for the purposes of illustration. Substitute whatever equivalent figures you will.

What numbers would you change to help your position, I wonder?

Would you increase the slower impalas' chance of producing another slower impala? That would increase the slower impalas' detrimental genes' chances of removal.

Would you decrease the chance? That increases the number of healthy impalas to reproduce, passing on their healthier genes.

Would you change the fact that generation 0 was comprised of neutral impalas? Fine! Make it start with slower impalas. Of course, that only bumps it to generation 1's position, delaying the thinning by a generation. Oh, and at the same time you'll have to add atleast a few faster impalas to generation 0 to be fair.

Haha, would you up the number of slower impalas in generation 1 that get killed by predators due to being slow? Oh, wait, that would hurt your argument too, since my illustration started out as much in your favor as I was able to get it. Even if only a single slower impala perishes the detirmental genes become less likely to propogate, increasing the next generation's chances of survival.

What numbers don't you like, Micaiah?

 

[Jet Black]

He could start off with absolutely any distribution of impalas he liked, and he would always get the same answer, that killing off one of the slower impalas per generation increases the nett speed of the population over time.

I do like the way that the argument he is moaning about would mean that he has to toss "microevolution" down the toilet.

 

[Dannager]

He could start off with absolutely any distribution of impalas he liked, and he would always get the same answer, that killing off one of the slower impalas per generation increases the nett speed of the population over time.

I do like the way that the argument he is moaning about would mean that he has to toss "microevolution" down the toilet.

Especially noteworthy after he said the following in another thread a little over an hour ago:

YEC's do accept that variations and even speciation can occur in populations

Sounds a lot like microevolution. In fact, that sounds exactly like microevolution. What in the world are you arguing against?

 

[Micaiah]

I'm afraid statistics and probability are not on your side here, Micaiah.

Do you have any calculations to back up your claim to show that statistically the evolution of say the horse could occur.

I'm quite sure I don't need to quote the portions of my own post back to you that point out that the numbers are indeed "plucked out of the air". That's not an assumption, Micaiah, that's a fact.

A tacit admission that you did in fact pluck them out of the air. Thankyou.

I didn't ask for you to give the numbers any credence (spellcheck is, by the way, right there). The numbers exist for the purposes of illustration.

The claim I make is that your numbers are misleading and that the rate of survival of a beneficial is so low that it is essentially irrelevant. That is because there are a number of other factors that can kill off an animal other than those things related to the phenotypic changes that improve and animals ability to run faster. Disease would be one example.

You seem totally unaware of these important aspects of population genetics. I suggest you carry out further research.

 

[LittleNipper]

The bible does not discuss evolution. Any reason why it should?

The Bible discusses the truth. GOD's truth is not subjective, it is definitive. Evolution does not consider GOD. Christian's know that GOD must be considered in ALL things.

 

[LittleNipper]

The bible does not discuss evolution. Any reason why it should?

The Bible discusses the truth. GOD's truth is not subjective, it is definitive. Evolution does not consider GOD. Christians know that GOD must be considered in ALL things and above all things..