Evolution is stupid
Moderator: Moderators
- BigChrisfilm
- Apprentice
- Posts: 231
- Joined: Tue May 30, 2006 6:53 pm
- Location: Portsmouth, Ohio
- Contact:
Evolution driving me BONKERS!
Post #1GOOD GRIEF WILL SOMEONE GIVE ME SOME PROOF OF EVOLUTION BEFORE I PUNCH MYSELF SQUARE IN THE FACE! LOL.
Post #141
Curious wrote: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.
Curious, it sounds to me as though you are adopting the misrepresentation of evolution favoured by anti-evolutionist by claiming that structures might be assembled by chance alone. The phrasing of this is tricky, as chance most certainly plays a role. But it's not the same role that could, in principle (at least in an infinite time frame) bring a collection of atoms together in the shape of a house. This argument is implying that the output of any process employing an element of randomness is itself random. Obviously this is faulty logic. If we filter random elements through some selection system we see as output the rigidity of the selection criteria rather than the randomness of the input. A practical example would be sieving random sized grains through a sieve.
Maybe you've not seen the ability of algorithms based on the principle of natural selection to generate novel designs before. I keep posting up a link to NASA's Evolvable Systems group. An evolved antenna is just the sort of example you're looking for. Ultimately it's a configuration of atoms which exhibit a high degree of functionality regarding some particular application -- and the configuration has been arrived at without any of the design decisions, for any of its features, being made by an intelligent designer.Curious wrote: Sounds unlikely? Sounds rather like the example of natural selection in computers though.
This serves as a powerful demonstration that we cannot infer an intelligent designer simply from the appearance of design. We already knew this from a small number of examples in the natural world such as the Giants Causeway for example. But the natural process responsible for these "designer rocks" are far less ubiquitous than those embodied by natural selection. Only when we see a process where something is constructed to a plan, and where that plan is subject to variation (either combinatorial or random) and furthermore where the plans are selected according to some criteria, then we will see the appearance of design in things that greatly reminds us of our own attempts at shaping materials into artifacts for our own purposes. Little wonder that we sometimes find it difficult to appreciate that there can be two remarkably different approaches that can lead to the same sort of result.
NASA realises that the results of evolving products by implementing a form of natural selection has the capacity to generate more highly optimised designs than the conventional approach taken by designers. This is very much echoed in the natural world where we find ourselves marvelling at natures mechanisms. When reverse-engineering such mechanisms, by and large, we find them to be understandable -- but far more ingenious than anything we can come up with. It's interesting to see this ingenuity being harnessed in the lab.
Post #142
But beak size is a natural variation. Even within the same species there are differences in beak size. If a number of finches with small beaks within a population have an advantage then their offspring will generally have small beaks. This is an example of a change in population density due to natural selection. This is not evidence of evolution but of phenotypical ascendency.Cathar1950 wrote: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.htmlFinches 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.
Post #143
Well, you've got the history backwards. The first humans were in Africa. It was only many thousands of years later that we got to Europe. Melanin production in Africans is not "increased;" it's "normal." We of European descent are the mutants with less melanin production.Curious wrote: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.Jose wrote: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?
My young friend Pete, of Scandinavian descent, cannot tan. He does not have the same ability to produce melanin that my friend Andrew does. Your statement about equal ability to produce melanin is at odds with the facts. We may all have melanocytes, but that doesn't mean that the genetic control over melanin production is the same. It's not.
It's "just variation" you say. Well, if you take any point in time and look at any population of any species, you'll see variation. Duh. But since "evolution" is "change over time," you've got to add the time dimension to see how the distribution of different variants changes. Genetic variation is merely one of the necessary factors that make up the process of evolution.
I've highlighted in blue the relevant bits of what I said before. All mammals are lactose-tolerant as infants; if they aren't, they starve. All mammals produce lactase (the enzyme for digesting lactose) as infants. But after weaning--after they stop breast-feeding--they shut off the expression of the lactase gene. Therefore, I'm not suggesting what you've suggested I might be suggesting. "Lactose intolerance" refers specifically to the time after weaning; in humans, it tends to show up in early-to-middle childhood. It's generally evident in adults.Curious wrote: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?Jose wrote: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.
Unfortunately, it was a jest. I doubt that anyone who isn't already a scientist will take the time to learn the science. I would be delighted if you'd prove me wrong on this one, and dive into it.Curious wrote:Scientifically accurate? Surely you jest.Jose wrote: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.
Panza llena, corazon contento
Post #144
So basically are you saying it appears random but is not? I would have no argument with this interpretation. The sieve creates a rule of size and therefore means any parsing of grains would be unrandom in this respect. If you mean that the sieve is my misconception then I would have to ask you to show how you can exclude the sieve. I can see how natural selection works but when it comes to evolution, I honestly believe the explanations are pre-infantile. There really is NO real evidence that supports this. The evidence given is cherry picked to support the theory. The theory is not a derivative of the body of evidence. The theory of evolution is not science at all. It is an absolute disgrace to human ingenuity and incision. At best it should be forwarded as a vague possibility. Natural selection is not evolution. Natural selection does not prove that animals evolve. Natural selection shows that certain groups within a the population can survive as long as they have an existing advantage but this does not say that they evolve the advantage.QED wrote: Curious, it sounds to me as though you are adopting the misrepresentation of evolution favoured by anti-evolutionist by claiming that structures might be assembled by chance alone. The phrasing of this is tricky, as chance most certainly plays a role. But it's not the same role that could, in principle (at least in an infinite time frame) bring a collection of atoms together in the shape of a house. This argument is implying that the output of any process employing an element of randomness is itself random. Obviously this is faulty logic. If we filter random elements through some selection system we see as output the rigidity of the selection criteria rather than the randomness of the input. A practical example would be sieving random sized grains through a sieve.
Such an argument shows that evolution is a niche within a greater construct. I might as well say that cars exist independently of all other external forces as long as I have a ford car plant and all the necessary materials. I mean, Jesus, you say that these algorithms (which mean nothing without language), prove that device a turns into device b with no other input. Well device "a" is a representation of a device and is programmed to become device "b" by design. Give me the source code and I will show you why this argument is flawed. Computer simulations are driven by human thinking. I could create anything by simulation but this is not to say that this construction could be created by real processes.QED wrote:Maybe you've not seen the ability of algorithms based on the principle of natural selection to generate novel designs before. I keep posting up a link to NASA's Evolvable Systems group. An evolved antenna is just the sort of example you're looking for. Ultimately it's a configuration of atoms which exhibit a high degree of functionality regarding some particular application -- and the configuration has been arrived at without any of the design decisions, for any of its features, being made by an intelligent designer.Curious wrote: Sounds unlikely? Sounds rather like the example of natural selection in computers though.
This serves as a powerful demonstration that we cannot infer an intelligent designer simply from the appearance of design. We already knew this from a small number of examples in the natural world such as the Giants Causeway for example. But the natural process responsible for these "designer rocks" are far less ubiquitous than those embodied by natural selection. Only when we see a process where something is constructed to a plan, and where that plan is subject to variation (either combinatorial or random) and furthermore where the plans are selected according to some criteria, then we will see the appearance of design in things that greatly reminds us of our own attempts at shaping materials into artifacts for our own purposes. Little wonder that we sometimes find it difficult to appreciate that there can be two remarkably different approaches that can lead to the same sort of result.
I don't know whether it is more ridiculous that that you actually posit this as a real argument or that I dignify it with a response.
Post #145
I think your last sentence here explains the problem. An animal cannot "evolve an advantage." You are absolutely right that certain groups will survive as long as they have an advantage. If no one has an advantage, and the environment is hard on them because of it, then they all die out. Extinction.Curious wrote:So basically are you saying it appears random but is not? I would have no argument with this interpretation. The sieve creates a rule of size and therefore means any parsing of grains would be unrandom in this respect. If you mean that the sieve is my misconception then I would have to ask you to show how you can exclude the sieve. I can see how natural selection works but when it comes to evolution, I honestly believe the explanations are pre-infantile. There really is NO real evidence that supports this. The evidence given is cherry picked to support the theory. The theory is not a derivative of the body of evidence. The theory of evolution is not science at all. It is an absolute disgrace to human ingenuity and incision. At best it should be forwarded as a vague possibility. Natural selection is not evolution. Natural selection does not prove that animals evolve. Natural selection shows that certain groups within a the population can survive as long as they have an existing advantage but this does not say that they evolve the advantage.
I'm curious as to what your conception of "evolve" might be, if you can refer to animals "evolving an advantage." This sounds like the common (but incorrect) view that animals choose to evolve, and that there is some kind of mystical force that makes things evolve to be somehow "better" or "more advanced." It doesn't work that way. Rather, it is exactly the kind of natural selection that you've described.
The question is: where does the variation come from? You've made it sound as if the variation already exists, and is just a normal part of populations. This is kinda true. But without a source of new variation, after a while, a population would all be homogeneous. We never see that. There's always variation. Why?
Mutation.
All kinds of things damage DNA. Xrays, cosmic rays, radioactivity, chemicals, and what may be the most common DNA-damaging chemical, oxygen. DNA damage results in mutations. The DNA-repair enzymes aren't perfect, and make mistakes. We end up with mutations occurring at a pretty constant rate.
Can you think of any way at all to make an oxygen radical choose which base in the DNA to attack? I can't. There's no known way to target DNA damage to any particular gene, or any region within a gene. It's a random process. Maybe we should say the process is stochastic, and that the distribution of mutations appears to be random. That's where the randomness is--in creating the variation. But once the variation is there, there's nothing random at all about selection. If it's cold, variants that survive the cold are the ones that win. If it's hot, we get a different set of variants coming out on top. You need mutation to create the variation, and selection to choose which ones get passed on; if you don't have 'em both, you don't get evolution. [well, you can have genetic drift...but you need some way of having some individuals have more offspring than others, whether by drift or by selection. Selection is the more fun because it's absolutly directional. It's what makes it look like critters know what way to evolve.]
All of that variation you see within populations is the result of random mutation. The really bad mutations (ones that damage essential genes) get weeded out quickly, because individuals that have them die. We're left with all the variations that cause less severe changes, and sometimes cause improvements. Most of the time, though, we see mutations being selected against. Most species are well adapted to their niches; mutations tend to make them less fit. But that's because they've had a long time to get adapted to their niches. It's when conditions change that we see interesting things.
With an environmental change, a mutation that might have been unfavorable before may be kinda helpful. It will be selected for, and will become common in the population as generations pass. Before, it would have been lost; now it becomes the norm. Example: most human populations didn't use cows' milk as a source of protein. So, in most populations, lactose-tolerance (ie, adult persistence of lactase) was never selected for, even when the mutations happened. In Europeans, however, there was an environmental difference: cows' milk was plentiful. This environmental difference selected for the mutation when it happened.
As it turns out, the explanations are actually not "pre-infantile" or "cherrry-picked to support the theory." The explanations really are derived from a huge body of evidence. Of course, if you don't know about this huge body of evidence, and haven't taken the time to look into it, then all you'll know is what the confusion-mongers say, and you'll believe what they want you to believe.
It seems to me that the disgrace to human ingenuity is to accept the word of someone who wants us to be confused, and wholly ignore the evidence. Why not look at the evidence, and evaluate it directly?
Wait a minute...I see a reason. If you go to PubMed and search for "evolution," you get 178,767 articles in scientific journals (as of 6:31 EDT, 15 July, 2006). It will take a bit of work to wade through all of those articles. Let's try it this way: what are the parts of evolution that you think are the stupidest? Maybe, if we can come up with the evidence for something that really seems dumb, you'll be more willing to consider that there might be evidence for some of the other parts, too.
Post #146
Then surely what you are describing here is not an evolutionary change at all. This seems to me to be a pre existing ability or function. If lactose tolerance is present in childhood you can't really say it is evidence of evolution if an adult has it. This is not evidence of a new ability at all.Jose wrote:
I've highlighted in blue the relevant bits of what I said before. All mammals are lactose-tolerant as infants; if they aren't, they starve. All mammals produce lactase (the enzyme for digesting lactose) as infants. But after weaning--after they stop breast-feeding--they shut off the expression of the lactase gene. Therefore, I'm not suggesting what you've suggested I might be suggesting. "Lactose intolerance" refers specifically to the time after weaning; in humans, it tends to show up in early-to-middle childhood. It's generally evident in adults.Curious wrote: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?Jose wrote: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.
Post #147
This is a really good point. Evolutionists try to make out that such damage to the structure of the DNA creates new function. This, according to what we now know is simply incorrect. Damage to DNA usually leads to death, severe problems, nothing at all or pre-existing abilities becoming dominant. Genetic anomalies have been identified which lead to vastly different outcomes. Damage to a particular gene might lead to mental retardation in one individual but has a different outcome in another. It appears that the human genome has a vast degree of redundancy. It seems that mutation is far more likely to express something pre-existing than to express itself. DNA is interpreted and it appears that the interpretation is more important than the language itself in many cases. Most DNA is ignored. Certain conditions make certain parts of DNA become inactive while others become active. It is a really tough problem. It is easy to lean towards evolution as the solution but I doubt it is that simple.Jose wrote:
The question is: where does the variation come from? You've made it sound as if the variation already exists, and is just a normal part of populations. This is kinda true. But without a source of new variation, after a while, a population would all be homogeneous. We never see that. There's always variation. Why?
Mutation.
All kinds of things damage DNA. Xrays, cosmic rays, radioactivity, chemicals, and what may be the most common DNA-damaging chemical, oxygen. DNA damage results in mutations. The DNA-repair enzymes aren't perfect, and make mistakes. We end up with mutations occurring at a pretty constant rate.
Post #148
Of course it's an evolutionary change.Curious wrote:Then surely what you are describing here is not an evolutionary change at all. This seems to me to be a pre existing ability or function. If lactose tolerance is present in childhood you can't really say it is evidence of evolution if an adult has it. This is not evidence of a new ability at all.
- Before condition: no lactase in adults
- After condition: lactase in adults
You don't think tweaking the expression pattern of a gene is a big deal? What if it's the gene that controls the "hair-growth pathway" in cells of the face? That gene is on the X chromosome; reversion to an ancestral form results in full facial hair, both male and female. Presumably, the dominant hairy-face mutation is the origin of the werewolf myths. What if the gene is one that controls the development of the skull? A minor change and you're son has a sloping forehead and big brows. A different minor change and you may have lumps that stick out over your ears, who knows? Lactase is just an example that is convenient and for which we know the details.
Remember, it was shown decades ago by Salvadore Luria and Max Delbruck that mutations (ie genetic variants) must pre-exist in the population before the selective pressure occurs. It is just as you've said: the trait has to be there first. But then, that's what evolutionary theory says, because it's based on hard data.
The misconception that critters somehow change on purpose "in order to" survive is exactly that: a misconception. There's no biological mechanism that can make it work.
Panza llena, corazon contento
Post #149
If they do, they are laboring under the same misconception that creationists are. Again, ya gotta look at the data to understand what's going on. DNA damage is DNA damage, period. But it's not the damage per se that's the issue. It's how the damage is repaired. Repair can result in changes in base sequence, or in deletions, duplications, inversions, or translocations. Duplications create new information; later changes to the sequence can create new functions that are added to existing functions.Curious wrote:This is a really good point. Evolutionists try to make out that such damage to the structure of the DNA creates new function.
I might remind you that the persistence-of-lactase mutation is an example of mutation creating new function. The original function of the DNA that regulates expression of the lactase gene was to enable expression only during infancy. The new function is to add expression during adulthood. Perhaps you don't think of this as being very dramatic, but it is an example of the creation of new function.
In fact, we know that it is perfectly correct, even if it doesn't happen often. There are too many examples of it to think it never happens.Curious wrote:This, according to what we now know is simply incorrect. Damage to DNA usually leads to death, severe problems, nothing at all...
Nope. This is a mis-use of the term "dominant," and has no meaning when used this way. It's irrelevant, though, because the basic premise is wrong. New function happens. There's no reason to attempt to explain it away.Curious wrote:...or pre-existing abilities becoming dominant.
I think you'll have to provide us with the evidence for this. I don't buy it.Curious wrote:Genetic anomalies have been identified which lead to vastly different outcomes. Damage to a particular gene might lead to mental retardation in one individual but has a different outcome in another.
True. This results from all those DNA duplications to which I've referred above.Curious wrote:It appears that the human genome has a vast degree of redundancy.
"Mutation" is "a change in DNA sequence." Period. A change in DNA sequence cannot "express something," whether pre-existing or not. Whether the change affects a protein depends on where it is in the DNA, and where it is within a gene, and the precise nature of the change. An A-to-G change may have a big effect if it turns an AAA lysine codon into a GAA glutamate codon. It will have no effect if it turns an AAA codon into an AAG codon, which still codes for lysine.Curious wrote:It seems that mutation is far more likely to express something pre-existing than to express itself.
The language is "nucleotides" for DNA, and "amino acids" for protein. Of course the DNA language has to be "interpreted" (translated) to produce proteins. BUT, the interpretation is always done exactly the same way. AAA codes for lysine in everything ever examined.Curious wrote:DNA is interpreted and it appears that the interpretation is more important than the language itself in many cases.
True, but irrelevant to this issue. It explains why we can have so many mutations, but show so little effect of them.Curious wrote:Most DNA is ignored.
Huh? Conditions like being near centromeres, so the DNA is heterochromatized? Or conditions like being on the X chromosome, so that the DNA is inactivated (heterochromatized) in females, as a random choice between Mom's X or Dad's X? Or do you refer to the "imprinting" that occurs during egg and sperm formation, when DNA is methylated, so that some genes are inactive in the embryo? Since none of this is "mutation" or the effects thereof, it's not clear that it's relevant.Curious wrote:Certain conditions make certain parts of DNA become inactive while others become active.
"Evolution" is not the solution to "mechanisms of gene regulation." Rather, we need to understand mechanisms of gene regulation so that we can recognize the variety of effects that changes in DNA sequence can have. Because so much is known at this point, we can say very clearly that a particular change (A to G, for example) can have any of a number of effects, depending on where it occurs in the DNA. The specific effect depends on the gene, the regulation of the gene, whether the mutation is in the gene or its regulatory sequences, and (if it is in the gene) how it affects the folding and final activity of the protein. If an evolutionary biologist knows these things, and a creationist doesn't, then their discussion will be very weird--the biologist will explain how it works, while the creationist will usually just deny that it's possible.Curious wrote:It is a really tough problem. It is easy to lean towards evolution as the solution but I doubt it is that simple.
Panza llena, corazon contento
Post #150
And in the case of natural selection the sieve is competition in an environment of finite resources. The selection criteria becomes that of ability to persist in the company of all else that is trying to persist. So living things are unrandom with respect to their ability to survive.Curious wrote: So basically are you saying it appears random but is not? I would have no argument with this interpretation. The sieve creates a rule of size and therefore means any parsing of grains would be unrandom in this respect.
Well, you say that you can see how natural selection works, and I think you ought to agree that it is represents a force for autonomous design. After all, when something is designed by an intelligent agency, design decisions are made. Sometimes it's by judgment -- sometimes by luck. If luck is used then we often see it followed up by a phase of trial and error. If natural selection is thought of in those terms (and I don't see why it shouldn't be in a very simplistic sense) then here too, random changes to a plan are put to the "survival test" and those that fail do not become the blueprint for future "designs".Curious wrote: If you mean that the sieve is my misconception then I would have to ask you to show how you can exclude the sieve. I can see how natural selection works but when it comes to evolution, I honestly believe the explanations are pre-infantile.
I don't think that this is something that can be refuted as a general principle. As Jose has pointed out before, anything built to a plan that is subject to random variations can't help but evolve. If you think that, without exception, all changes must be deleterious then you might have a case for questioning the process as a force capable of driving the apparent design of living things along. I don't see why this should be the case though. In any population the bulk of variations should be expected to be small due to the balancing effects we would predict from natural selection. We do indeed see this in the minor variations that distinguish individuals. A tiny number of variations, however, could be lethal and, I'm guessing a similar percentage could be advantageous (with respect to the ability to pass on the same genes). This looks to me like the sort of ratchet that takes things places.
If I gave you the source code for Nasa's antenna designer, you wouldn't be able to locate within it any electronics principles such as the peak voltage being obtained in a quarter-wave dipole. The code is finding this out for itself. It can find this out and this knowledge will be stored within the genetic data that is assembled by the algorithm. It won't be encoded in the way you are used to though. You are quite wrong to call this a simulation driven by human thinking. I would simply ask you to consider where the intellect is actually centered. In optimising the profile of an antenna or a wing, Genetic Algorithms are gaining the experience, making the decisions and all this without any dialogue with the human engineer that implemented the system capable of doing this.Curious wrote: Give me the source code and I will show you why this argument is flawed. Computer simulations are driven by human thinking. I could create anything by simulation but this is not to say that this construction could be created by real processes.
Show me how the intellect of the human systems engineer is influencing the design decisions made within the Genetic Algorithm and I guarantee that you'll be published. Seriously Curious, Genetic Programming is big business these days with commercial applications in a wide range of fields. The optimisations being delivered are patentable and beyond the direct means of the traditional engineering approach. If you think it's all bunk I'd really like to understand why.Curious wrote: I don't know whether it is more ridiculous that that you actually posit this as a real argument or that I dignify it with a response.