Evolution is stupid

[BigChrisfilm]

GOOD GRIEF WILL SOMEONE GIVE ME SOME PROOF OF EVOLUTION BEFORE I PUNCH MYSELF SQUARE IN THE FACE! LOL.

[Chad]

It is so tempting to believe this is the case. The fact is though that I have never once been given any proof that a single "mutation" is infact an emergence of a new characteristic rather than a reemergence or an old characteristic. It would be great to believe that evolution was so wonderful. In truth it is difficult to find any evidence to support it. People believe it because they are told they are nutters if they don't believe it. OK, so someone throws a die and something happens and this number is better than the rest so it doesn't die and has kids and the numbers that are good keep surviving because they are good and they have more numbers that are mainly good and keep on living. Oh man this is a work of pure genius!

Right, give me some evidence please. By evidence I mean evidence of NEW characteristics evolving. Funny how mutation often throws back OLD characteristics isn't it?

New genes appear from various kinds of duplication in the genome. There are also gene deletions and what are called “pseudogenes”. Psuedogenes are genes that may have been the result of a gene duplication that didn't quite work out, and are never actually transcribed into proteins but remain in laying around in the genome anyway. However, these gene duplications and insertions into our genome seem to be how new information arises. The new genes are either divided up to provide a similar function for the gene which it was duplicated or may give rise to a new overall function. One of the most popular examples of this is with haemoglobin. This article explains some of it, but isn't the easiest to read I guess.

Also, it isn't just gene duplication that occurs, there is also evidence that entire genome duplication has happened as well. This is supposed to be the case in early vertebrate evolution, where the genome went through two full duplications.

This isn't to say that this is the only way new information appears within the genome, as I don't consider myself well read enough on the subject to comment much further. However, how else would we explain the diversity of life? We have a geologic column that goes from “simple” to “complex” (I try to use those terms loosely) over a span of roughly 3.5 billion years. This seems to point to a relatively gradual change that was the direct result of varying concepts of evolutionary theory.

[Manny]

Sometimes... the earth is flat because it looks flat... no amount of explanation of geometry and concepts is going to make sense to the person who is going to go back to that trusted eye sight of his/hers.

The other stuff.... must be a conspiracy... an entire industry based on lies... you know.. like if that "industry" called religion can get away with it...why not academia.

[Jose]

With living things, there is absolutely no escape from the fact that evolution happens. Mutations occur, and cannot be prevented. Some individuals do better, some do worse. The result is evolution. Period.

It is so tempting to believe this is the case. The fact is though that I have never once been given any proof that a single "mutation" is infact an emergence of a new characteristic rather than a reemergence or an old characteristic. It would be great to believe that evolution was so wonderful. In truth it is difficult to find any evidence to support it. People believe it because they are told they are nutters if they don't believe it. OK, so someone throws a die and something happens and this number is better than the rest so it doesn't die and has kids and the numbers that are good keep surviving because they are good and they have more numbers that are mainly good and keep on living. Oh man this is a work of pure genius!

This is curious, Curious. Do a thought experiment--start with something, anything. Replicate it a bunch of times. Allow the replication process to make a mistake now and then. Then, at random, choose two or three of the new guys to replicate for the next generation. You will find that the characteristics of your something change over time. That's evolution. There is no guarantee of "improvement" or of "progress"--just change.

[note: the random bit in this scenario is a good way to model genetic drift. If you want to model selection, then define some criteria before you start for which ones replicate better and which ones replicate worse.]

The point is: the only way to prevent change from occurring over time is to have absolutely perfect replication. Life doesn't have that. Change is inevitable.

Right, give me some evidence please. By evidence I mean evidence of NEW characteristics evolving. Funny how mutation often throws back OLD characteristics isn't it?

I have no idea what you mean here. Mutation throws back old characteristics? Uhhh...do you have any evidence that this is the case? Dark-skinned people migrate out of Africa, and over the years, mutations occur, some are selected for, and voila--Europeans and Scandinavians with light skin. You say that the light skin is an old characteristic being thrown back?

Lactose-intolerant people migrate from Africa up to the Urals, then through the Urals into Europe. Along the way, they pick up cows as a source of protein. Along the way, a mutation occurs, allowing them to produce lactase into adulthood. As a result, most of their descendents--Europeans--are lactose-tolerant, unlike the vast majority of people elsewhere in the world. You say lactose tolerance is a throw back to an older characteristic? All other mammals, with the exception of (some) cats stop producing lactase after weaning. That's the ancestral condition.

Now, if you want to see examples of single mutations creating new structures, such as arms and legs or wings, or whatever, you're going to have to wait a long time. Genetics doesn't work that way, even if a common misconception is that evolutionary theory claims it does. The simple solution to this is to learn some things about how evolution actually works. You know, simple stuff like genetics and the molecular control of development. Once we replace the cartoon version of evolution with the scientifically accurate version, we see that it's just fine.

[Manny]

Once we replace the cartoon version of evolution with the scientifically accurate version, we see that it's just fine.

Thats a good answer... for whom motive is to find the truth.

But if ones motive is to find the answer to the philosophical question, "What is the purpose of being here".... then thats a downer... and that answer would be summarily rejected...with every obfuscation possible.

[QED]

I like Curious's approach here though. We must always make sure that we're not being lazy and just hitching a ride on some passing bandwagon. However,

People believe it because they are told they are nutters if they don't believe it.

Not so. People might be called nutters if they don't believe it, but that doesn't mean that that's the reason why people do believe it. I, for one, believe it for several other reasons.
For one thing it definitely does make logical sense when considered as a thought experiment -- although I'm not sure that yours is particularly persuasive:

OK, so someone throws a die and something happens and this number is better than the rest so it doesn't die and has kids and the numbers that are good keep surviving because they are good and they have more numbers that are mainly good and keep on living. Oh man this is a work of pure genius!

We can make it more realistic by considering a real and simple case such as one that has a direct bearing on reproduction to see how any inherited defects quickly become dead ends.

Right, give me some evidence please. By evidence I mean evidence of NEW characteristics evolving. Funny how mutation often throws back OLD characteristics isn't it?

Several have already been offered from the natural world. As I like to remind everyone, natural selection can also be modelled quite easily in computers. Here the principle is equally at home and will generate totally new "designs" from scratch. When I see these apparently designed products with no actual designer other than the logical principle embodied in natural selection, it provides yet another powerful reason to be further persuaded about evolution in the natural environment.

I also think that unless you adopt the rather unreasonable view that geology is bunk and that all living things have (up until the last few thousand years that is) been on Earth together, then the huge variations in form and size ranging from the PreCambrian to the present day are undeniable indicators of emergent novelty. This more than anything else ought to satisfy your doubts.

[Curious]

I have no idea what you mean here. Mutation throws back old characteristics? Uhhh...do you have any evidence that this is the case? Dark-skinned people migrate out of Africa, and over the years, mutations occur, some are selected for, and voila--Europeans and Scandinavians with light skin. You say that the light skin is an old characteristic being thrown back?

Uhhh, yes. Melanin production in African individuals is increased. The ice age might have eradicated much evidence of humanity in non equatorial regions but it is unlikely we all stem from a single dark skinned progenitor. Skin colour is dependent on degree and not ability. Black or white have exactly the same ability to produce melanin as both have melanocytes that are identical. The only difference is they are set at a different level. This is not evolution, it is variation.

Lactose-intolerant people migrate from Africa up to the Urals, then through the Urals into Europe. Along the way, they pick up cows as a source of protein. Along the way, a mutation occurs, allowing them to produce lactase into adulthood. As a result, most of their descendents--Europeans--are lactose-tolerant, unlike the vast majority of people elsewhere in the world. You say lactose tolerance is a throw back to an older characteristic? All other mammals, with the exception of (some) cats stop producing lactase after weaning. That's the ancestral condition.

This really is a strange example. All mammals have lactose tolerance. Are you suggesting that this branch of mammalia are somehow able to survive without breast feeding?

Now, if you want to see examples of single mutations creating new structures, such as arms and legs or wings, or whatever, you're going to have to wait a long time. Genetics doesn't work that way, even if a common misconception is that evolutionary theory claims it does. The simple solution to this is to learn some things about how evolution actually works. You know, simple stuff like genetics and the molecular control of development. Once we replace the cartoon version of evolution with the scientifically accurate version, we see that it's just fine.

Scientifically accurate? Surely you jest.

[Cathar1950]

There arte certain Designs (Features?) that reappear but these can be explained by environmental factors they have in common and the benefit they provide. Ones that don’t work so well die and don’t leave a lasting trace such as survival or many fossils.
I think evolution is stupid and lazy but it works almost by definition. What survives works?

[Curious]

Right, give me some evidence please. By evidence I mean evidence of NEW characteristics evolving. Funny how mutation often throws back OLD characteristics isn't it?

Several have already been offered from the natural world. As I like to remind everyone, natural selection can also be modelled quite easily in computers. Here the principle is equally at home and will generate totally new "designs" from scratch. When I see these apparently designed products with no actual designer other than the logical principle embodied in natural selection, it provides yet another powerful reason to be further persuaded about evolution in the natural environment.

I also think that unless you adopt the rather unreasonable view that geology is bunk and that all living things have (up until the last few thousand years that is) been on Earth together, then the huge variations in form and size ranging from the PreCambrian to the present day are undeniable indicators of emergent novelty. This more than anything else ought to satisfy your doubts.

I haven't seen a single piece of convincing evidence being given thus far. It's all very well saying that chance makes it all work but chance would also build a house given sufficient time. Should the fact that we know houses are not built by chance deter us from such a simplistic approach concerning the origin of houses? After all, houses which were unstable would quickly fall down and leave little trace. Only houses which were fit for purpose would persist.
Of course chance could theoretically reproduce anything but that's not to say that it does. There is a "chance" that quantum particles aligned themselves in such a way as to spontaneously create the world with all animals at once but it is pretty unlikely. The "quantum template" might allow some leeway in the particular configuration of such created organisms making it possible for organisms to adapt within certain parameters.
Sounds unlikely? Sounds rather like the example of natural selection in computers though.

[Cathar1950]

This is all I could come up with with out working.
I am not a biologist or zoologist.


Finches Evolve on the Galapagos Islands
http://www.technewsworld.com/rsstory/51776.html

Finches on the Galapagos Islands that inspired Charles Darwin to develop the concept of evolution are now helping to confirm it -- by evolving.

A medium sized species of Darwin's finch has evolved a smaller beak to take advantage of different seeds just two decades after the arrival of a larger rival for its original food source.

The altered beak size shows that species competing for food can undergo evolutionary change, said Peter Grant of Princeton University, lead author of the report appearing in Friday's issue of the journal Science.

[Wyvern]

I haven't seen a single piece of convincing evidence being given thus far. It's all very well saying that chance makes it all work but chance would also build a house given sufficient time. Should the fact that we know houses are not built by chance deter us from such a simplistic approach concerning the origin of houses? After all, houses which were unstable would quickly fall down and leave little trace. Only houses which were fit for purpose would persist.

Well the original houses for humans were caves, since at the time humans were required to move about to find food, humans changed housing to include things which humans made such as yurts and teepees. Eventually humans changed their own selves enough that permanent structures were again possible and thus houses were born and repeated ad infinitum unto the present day, although what constituted a house has changed significantly through the ages anything from the palace of Louis XIV down to the tract housing common in the U.S. would fit the bill. Does the fact that Louis house among others has lasted over three centuries give it special credence? No, all this say is that such structures have a historical relevance greater than that of the simpler structures used by the more common folk.