The Theory of Evolution

[MagusYanam]

I posted this definition on another board, but it applies equally well here. This definition was first propounded in four points by Barbara Kingsolver in her book 'Small Wonder', which goes a little more in depth. In summary, these were Darwin's hypotheses:


- Every organism produces more offspring than will actually survive to reproduce.

- There are natural variations among these offspring.

- Specific traits are inherited - passed down to following generations.

- In each generation those that live to reproduce do so because they possess some advantageous trait that others don't, and because they survive, the next generation is more likely to inherit this trait. Ergo, the occurrence of that trait will eventually increase in the population.


That's it, folks. Simple, elegant and (as Ms. Kingsolver would say) irrefutable. These are observations made by a keen observer, Charles Darwin, and study has confirmed that this is indeed the way nature seems to work.

An Episcopalian myself, I cannot find any reason why this simple statement of fact should be detrimental to mine or anyone's faith in its acceptance. God's genius in the creation of such an efficient and elegant system in the world is self-evident, all the more so if it took hundreds of millions of years. My question is, then, why do creationists find these hypotheses so damaging to their respective faiths?

[MagusYanam]

That evolution was a measureable phenomenon is proven by Darwin's own observations of diversity amongst living organisms. The example of the finches was already given (I was not referring here to macro-evolution).

My point about macro-evolution was that the model of evolution (which has been shown to be the way things work on a smaller level) seems to fit best the data we have from the fossil record. No one has yet produced an alternative model which better explains this data, so it is the one from which we must work for now.

Up until Ernest Rutherford, for example, the atom was thought of as being the smallest possible unit of matter. Rutherford was able to show undeniably that the atom itself was constructed of smaller pieces of matter: electrons, protons and neutrons. We haven't yet a model that fits the fossil record and the apparent diversification of life on earth perfectly, but until we do, macro-evolution has to stand as our point of reference.

[YEC]

Your problem arises when you need several hundred millions of these mutations to occur in the DNA strand responsible for coding the morphological change.

What are the odds?

So far you haven't even proved that mutations have caused the differances we see in the fossil record...just assumed and speculated.

[YEC]

"MagusYanam" That evolution was a measureable phenomenon is proven by Darwin's own observations of diversity amongst living organisms. The example of the finches was already given (I was not referring here to macro-evolution).

My point about macro-evolution was that the model of evolution (which has been shown to be the way things work on a smaller level) seems to fit best the data we have from the fossil record. No one has yet produced an alternative model which better explains this data, so it is the one from which we must work for now.

Tell me how you can use variation in an animals already present genes producing changes to be equal to mutation adding up over time?
Explain to me how this RANDOM mutation can occur again and again and again, over an over in the same DNA strand?

snip

[MagusYanam]

No assumption or speculation was involved. I merely said that the model that exists now, that a trait can arise within a population that can assist the organism affected to better adapt to a specific ecological niche, while not without flaws, is the best we have to go on at this point to explain the development of life on earth, and the most constructive from which to work.

The odds, by the way, are increased in favour of those organisms whose genetic variations allow it to better adapt to any specific ecological niche. This is an observed phenomenon (as much as I hate being repetitive). I am still not clear on your stance, however: are you trying to say that 'micro'-evolution has not been adequately explained, or that there is not enough evidence for the logical connection between 'micro'-evolution and the fossil record?

BTW, the changes occur every time an organism reproduces - the gametes each contain half of the parent organism's genetic material, and if two successful organisms get the opportunity to reproduce, there exists the potential for further change and further adaptation to the ecological niche. It is not the same DNA strand per se, since no one organism lives forever, but the exchange of genetic material that occurs and the subsequent variation that arises in each generation of organisms does have great potential for accumulation, especially in an environment conducive to the survival of that particular trait.

[YEC]

"MagusYanam"]No assumption or speculation was involved. I merely said that the model that exists now, that a trait can arise within a population that can assist the organism affected to better adapt to a specific ecological niche, while not without flaws, is the best we have to go on at this point to explain the development of life on earth, and the most constructive from which to work.

I understand the flawed theory of evolutionism....but when you you answer how a "trait can arise"?

The odds, by the way, are increased in favour of those organisms whose genetic variations allow it to better adapt to any specific ecological niche.

That's not what I was talking about...the odds of a mutation occuring in a particular DNA strand...causing new variation... is what I was referring to.

This is an observed phenomenon (as much as I hate being repetitive). I am still not clear on your stance, however: are you trying to say that 'micro'-evolution has not been adequately explained, or that there is not enough evidence for the logical connection between 'micro'-evolution and the fossil record?

The logical connection between micro-evolution and the fossils record is obvious. The similar species found captured there were contemporanoius and did not descend with modifications as assumed by the speculative macro-evolutionary theories

BTW, the changes occur every time an organism reproduces - the gametes each contain half of the parent organism's genetic material, and if two successful organisms get the opportunity to reproduce,

Those changes that occur are due to already estables genes.

there exists the potential for further change and further adaptation to the ecological niche. It is not the same DNA strand per se, since no one organism lives forever, but the exchange of genetic material that occurs and the subsequent variation that arises in each generation of organisms does have great potential for accumulation, especially in an environment conducive to the survival of that particular trait.

Tell me, just how big is a single accumulation?
How many accumulations does it take to "complete" a trait?

[MagusYanam]

Quote: 'I understand the flawed theory of evolutionism....but when you you answer how a "trait can arise"?'

The evolutionary theory is based on the observations that there are variations among offspring. No two human beings are alike - there are differences in height, eye colour, favoured hand, etc. that are known as traits. For example, if left-handed tree frogs had some advantage over right-handed tree frogs that enabled them to survive, eventually most tree frogs would end up being left-handed. The traits are already there, but they can manifest themselves more frequently, or differently, over time.

Quote: 'That's not what I was talking about...the odds of a mutation occuring in a particular DNA strand...causing new variation... is what I was referring to.'

Okay... in the creation of gametes, there is always 'mutation', if you insist on the term, because of the complex genetic manipulation that happens during meiosis. The odds for genetic irregularities, cross-exchange, what-have-you, are actually quite high. The offspring are almost never *exactly* identical to the parents.

Quote: 'The logical connection between micro-evolution and the fossils record [sic] is obvious. The similar species found captured there were contemporanoius [sic] and did not descend with modifications as assumed by the speculative macro-evolutionary theories'

What is meant by 'descend with modifications'? Do you mean to say that the finches with heavy beaks laid eggs with finches with lighter beaks? That is probable - just because a trait exists in a parent doesn't mean necessarily that its offspring will have that trait (see above), but it does drastically increase the likelihood, as genetic variations are inherited.

Quote: 'Those changes that occur are due to already estables [sic] genes.'

Have you taken high-school freshman biology? During meiosis there is a very high chance that the genetic material of the parent will be rearranged in the gametes, since the sequences have to be copied and then split, instead of just being copied (as in mitosis). Yes, the parent sequences are established, but there is much room for variation among the child sequences.

Quote: 'Tell me, just how big is a single accumulation?
How many accumulations does it take to "complete" a trait?'

Genetic material is so complex and yet so efficient that accumulation is not measured by ones as you are trying to do, but on something nearing a continuum. At the same time, it is so specific that human beings share two-thirds or more of their genetic material with a banana, and the difference between a chimpanzee and a human being in the genome is probably no greater than a single per cent. As such, just a few amino acid sequences out of place could manifest itself drastically in the offspring (which is one of the reasons I consider genetic engineering to be an extremely dicey field). Good questions, though...

[YEC]

Quote: 'I understand the flawed theory of evolutionism....but when you you answer how a "trait can arise"?'

The evolutionary theory is based on the observations that there are variations among offspring. No two human beings are alike - there are differences in height, eye colour, favoured hand, etc. that are known as traits. For example, if left-handed tree frogs had some advantage over right-handed tree frogs that enabled them to survive, eventually most tree frogs would end up being left-handed. The traits are already there, but they can manifest themselves more frequently, or differently, over time.

And that's about it.
It is speculative assumption that mutations occur and have the ability to add up over time to create a new body organ or appendage.

[MagusYanam]

Then I wonder how chordates suddenly appeared in the fossil record, starting with Pikaia.

The most likely answer is that invertebrates in the Pikaia line began to mature later and later (the young being free-swimming with a single nerve cord running through their centre), and the ones that survived had more and better-adapted spinal cords and eventually became the first chordates. But since it's 'speculative assumption' that a 'new body organ' can be developed over time, I'm waiting for an alternative explanation.

[Jose]

I assume by 'micro' and 'macro'-evolution, you mean the conclusions that can be drawn from observing living organisms and those that can be drawn from studying the fossil record, respectively.

That evolution happens as described by Darwin there can be no doubt - it is an observed and apparently measurable phenomenon. I assume the issue with evolution in general, then, is with regard to the fossil record.

Do you have an example of this measurement that shows Macro-Evolutionism?
You made mention of it in your post just above and I would really like to see the information.

You see, MagnusYanam, YEC believes that microevolution is what we say it is--changes in allele frequency within a population, often with natural selection involved--but claims that "macroevolution" is something like the entire pattern of life's history, from the first organism through to all of today's species. In keeping with current YEC tradition, he'll take any evidence for microevolution and say "yeah, but that doesn't show macroevolution!" Macroevolution, as used by evolutionary biologists that I know, is simply mutational change in morphology. Common descent is referred to as common descent. So, providing lists of morphological mutations won't address YEC's question.

Partly, this is a result of the difficulty of looking carefully, and without bias, at the data.

And that's about it.
It is speculative assumption that mutations occur and have the ability to add up over time to create a new body organ or appendage.

So, you don't believe mutations occur? What, in your view, is a mutation?

Mutations don't add up over time? How do you explain the fact that there are so many different breeds of dogs? How about chickens? You want us to think that all of the dominant mutations that exist in different breeds were present in the wild wolves or jungle fowl that were the progenitors? For that matter, you want us to believe that Adam and Eve had all of the alleles at every locus that now exist in the total world human population? What a weird thought...but it's pretty much what the Panspermists thought before Mendel's work, so at least there's a precedent.

I understand the flawed theory of evolutionism....but when you you answer how a "trait can arise"?

Ah, but do you understand the actual theory of evolution? That's often the problem--if we have a flawed understanding, then it's obvious that what we think is the theory just doesn't make sense. The real theory makes plenty of sense.

OK, I'll use an example I've used before: lactose tolerance. An individual in an ancient population of humans, thought to be in the vicinity of the Urals, was born with a mutation in the regulatory sequences controlling the expression of the lactase gene. This individual could drink milk after weaning, without digestive difficulty. This trait is the direct result of his/her producing lactase in his/her digestive system, so that the sugar could be broken down and absorbed. The trait was advantageous, because it allowed this person to obtain more protein than his/her compatriots, so the mutation was selected for. In time, nearly everyone in the population carried that particular genetic variation. Those of us who are descended from this population (most Europeans and transplanted-Europeans in the US and elsewhere) carry this mutation.

There are also additional mutations in the lactase gene sequences, and the upstream non-coding sequences that have accumulated in the DNA. This is how it was possible to track the lactase regulatory mutation to the Urals--by following the particular alleles. That is, first one mutation occurred, then another, then the regulatory mutation. Mutations accumulate with time, unless they are selected against.

I know, you'll say "this isn't a new organ, so it doesn't count." You'll say "this is just microevolution, so it doesn't count."

That's not what I was talking about...the odds of a mutation occuring in a particular DNA strand...causing new variation... is what I was referring to.

So the odds are low...so what? They are not zero. I can (and have) go into the lab and get out my fruit flies and look for mutations in specific genes, causing specific traits, and I can find them if I look through enough flies. If I add a mutagen (X-rays, for example), I can increase the mutation frequency to where it isn't even a big chore to find the mutation! The odds may be low, but they are not zero. This is what geneticists and crop breeders, dog breeders, and chicken breeders rely upon for their trade.

Existing genetic variation is not enough to achieve significant change in a breeding program. If you start with Teosinte, and breed it, you won't get corn--unless you have mutations. If you start with wolves, you won't get Chihuahuas--unless you have mutations. Of course, once an individual is born with a change in DNA sequence, and that individual survives and reproduces, then that mutation is just "part of the genetic variation of the species." There's no big mystery there.

Tell me, just how big is a single accumulation?
How many accumulations does it take to "complete" a trait?

Uhhh...what is "an accumulation"?

You know that your question cannot be answered in any simple way, because there are many different traits, some of which are determined by one gene, some by many genes. For some traits, it takes one mutation, and voila, a change in trait. For other traits, it may take changes in many genes to change the trait from "type A" to "type B."

It sounds like you are thinking of "a trait" as something like "a hand" or "a wing," and that you want us to tell you how many mutations it takes to create a hand or a wing where there was nothing before. It doesn't work that way (as you know). Both are modifications of the limb structure of the predecessors.

Those changes that occur are due to already estables genes.

Indeed, they are. But "already established genes" isn't the same as "new mutations within those genes." You need to distinguish between "genes" and "alleles."

Explain to me how this RANDOM mutation can occur again and again and again, over an over in the same DNA strand?

This confuses me. Why do you think it is necessary to have the same mutation occur over and over? It only needs to occur once. After that, it is inherited, from parent to offspring, according to their kind. Maybe it will take many generations for the mutation (now part of the "already existing gene pool") to become common, or fixed in the population. But, certainly, the mutation doesn't have to happen over and over in different individuals. If this kind of repeat-mutation is part of your understanding of the "flawed theory of evolution," then I agree, it's flawed. But, it's not part of the real theory of evolution.

It seems as if the T.O.E is based upon speculative assumptions disquised as science, packaged behind a thin veneer of untruths and force fed to our school age children as fact.

I call it the HOAX of the century.

By the way, otseng, you may recall my first post here, in which I referred to creationists ridiculing the theory of evolution. You were skeptical that such things could occur, and suggested that it might be somewhat offensive to suggest that they do. I offer this last quote as Exhibit A in support of my statement.

[bigmrpig]

Quote: 'I understand the flawed theory of evolutionism....but when you you answer how a "trait can arise"?'

The evolutionary theory is based on the observations that there are variations among offspring. No two human beings are alike - there are differences in height, eye colour, favoured hand, etc. that are known as traits. For example, if left-handed tree frogs had some advantage over right-handed tree frogs that enabled them to survive, eventually most tree frogs would end up being left-handed. The traits are already there, but they can manifest themselves more frequently, or differently, over time.

And that's about it.
It is speculative assumption that mutations occur and have the ability to add up over time to create a new body organ or appendage.

I don't understand how it is speculative assumption, when appendages have been added to amphibians due to single mutations (they don't even need to be accumulated) in our lifetimes. It is undeniably possible that mutations have the ability to create new appendages (or take them away) because it has in the last few decades occured.

This is obviously different than what happened as lifeforms developed, but it proves that the creation of appendages through mutations is not only plausible and possible, but a fact of the universe.

http://www.pesticidesafety.uiuc.edu/new ... 9903a.html
http://www.thenewsvault.com/cgi/news.pl?t=59
http://www.nbc30.com/news/3906165/detail.html
http://www.televar.com/~mharris/amphib.html