Evidence showing evolution from one species to another

[outhouse]

just as evolution has it's dead ends also?

So you have no clue evolution is not like a ladder?



It is more like a bush.

 

[Riverwolf]

so spontaneously developing significantly lighter skin would be an improvement/advancement in this case... how this design improvement is happened upon by chance, again is what most question

I don't think we have an exact answer to that question, at this time (which, incidentally, isn't a bad thing).

Maybe one person was born with this skin and was also able to have enough children to spread the skin-tone to large numbers of people (think Genghis Khan), who were now able to produce more children than darker-skinned people in the region.

Maybe our skin more gradually got lighter over thousands of generations, and just spread throughout northern Eurasia from periodic mass migrations and invasions.

But it definitely happened AFTER 10,000 years ago, since Inuit tribes, despite living in similar climates, retain their darker skin.

It's also not regarded as an "improvement" or "advancement", as those are highly loaded terms; consider that with climate change, light skinned people in Northern Europe may be faced with an evolutionary disadvantage, if those areas end up getting more Sunlight than previously, from reduced cloud-coverage. It's all based on environment, which the terms "improvement" and "advancement" ignore as a factor. All these advantageous traits offer is the ability to have more children who survive to sexual maturity, than those without the trait in the same environment. If the same trait can provide such an advantage in one environment, but then a disadvantage when the same region changes to a different environment, it can't really be accurately described as inherently an improvement or advancement.

 

[outhouse]

I don't think we have an exact answer to that question, at this time (which, incidentally, isn't a bad thing).

Maybe one person was born with this skin and was also able to have enough children to spread the skin-tone to large numbers of people (think Genghis Khan), who were now able to produce more children than darker-skinned people in the region.

Maybe our skin more gradually got lighter over thousands of generations, and just spread throughout northern Eurasia from periodic mass migrations and invasions.

But it definitely happened AFTER 10,000 years ago, since Inuit tribes, despite living in similar climates, retain their darker skin.

It's also not regarded as an "improvement" or "advancement", as those are highly loaded terms; consider that with climate change, light skinned people in Northern Europe may be faced with an evolutionary disadvantage, if those areas end up getting more Sunlight than previously, from reduced cloud-coverage. It's all based on environment, which the terms "improvement" and "advancement" ignore as a factor. All these advantageous traits offer is the ability to have more children who survive to sexual maturity, than those without the trait in the same environment. If the same trait can provide such an advantage in one environment, but then a disadvantage when the same region changes to a different environment, it can't really be accurately described as inherently an improvement or advancement.

Great post.


I don't have the patients for some people to provide that detailed of a response knowing they throw it away like garbage due to their bias.


BUT I would like to thank you for the example of taking the higher road. I have taken notice.

 

[Riverwolf]

Great post.

I don't have the patients for some people to provide that detailed of a response knowing they throw it away like garbage due to their bias.

BUT I would like to thank you for the example of taking the higher road. I have taken notice.

Thanks. Believe me, it isn't always easy.

 

[Parsimony]

So these incremental changes, none are significant improvements?

That would depend on the minimum bar one sets to consider something "significant".

of course that would excuse the staggering improbability of a fluke mutation spontaneously causing a significant design improvement in an already highly evolved species...

Right. The majority of beneficial mutations are probably only of slight benefit. It's when you add a bunch of slightly beneficial mutations together that you get major benefits (depending on how one defines "major"). This is exactly what happened in the long-term E.coli experiment. An initial, weakly-beneficial mutation gave some of the bacteria a slight reproductive advantage by utilizing citrate aerobically. Further mutations happened which improved that trait, eventually allowing the mutants to dominate the population.

But then how on earth can an insignificant change give the individual such a significant advantage- as to achieve significantly greater reproduction and hence ultimately alter an entire gene pool of a species with his lucky but insignificant mutation?
without which, no 'natural selection' no evolution has taken place whatsoever has it?

Even a 1% improvement in reproductive potential can be considered significant, given that it makes that individual 1% more fit than its peers. That's a measurable advantage. Add a bunch of 1% reproduction improving mutations together over millions of years and you can get something rather different from what you started with.

must turn in, appreciate the thoughtful responses

You're welcome. I do try.

 

[Father Heathen]

Elvis sucks. I don't care what people say. He basically did nothing more than steal "black people" rock 'n roll music and presented it to a white audience. That is literally the only thing Elvis did. No one remembers him for his country or gospel music, but the music that he didn't even come up with himself.

I agree that Elvis was one of the most overrated artists of all time. The Beatles were, too (not that they weren't talented or didn't put out some decent songs, but nothing that warranted their hype and status.)

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I agree that Elvis was one of the most overrated artists of all time. The Beatles were, too (not that they weren't talented or didn't put out some decent songs, but nothing that warranted their hype and status.)

You'll hear no arguments from me. Elivis, is no way shape or form, deserves the status he has. The Beatles? While John Lennon had some (SOME) good hippy songs that were time pieces for the days of the hippies, the Beatles are really no different than any other super over-rated and over-hyped boy band. They have entire songs with nothing more than a C. What the hell is so good about that? The Beatles suck. Despite what people say, Yoko is probably the best thing to happen to them.

 

[Looncall]

either way survival of the fittest is a given, consumers and nature will inevitably favor the best design yes?. Nobody is debating this. The question is how significant design improvements can occur spontaneously, without a design goal.. we have lots of proven examples of the former, the latter is still problematic

Nonsense. The evolutionary algorithm is very simple.

Organisms vary as they reporoduce; this is observed and uncontestable. The mechanisms are known and are known to be random.

Environments impose limits on survival and reproduction. This is observed and uncontestable. These limits influence which variations survive. A polar bear unfortunate enough to be born without fur freezes. This imposes a non-random sorting of the variations.

The result is cumulative change over time. What could prevent it?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

I don't think we have an exact answer to that question, at this time (which, incidentally, isn't a bad thing).

Maybe one person was born with this skin and was also able to have enough children to spread the skin-tone to large numbers of people (think Genghis Khan), who were now able to produce more children than darker-skinned people in the region.

Maybe our skin more gradually got lighter over thousands of generations, and just spread throughout northern Eurasia from periodic mass migrations and invasions.

But it definitely happened AFTER 10,000 years ago, since Inuit tribes, despite living in similar climates, retain their darker skin.

It's also not regarded as an "improvement" or "advancement", as those are highly loaded terms; consider that with climate change, light skinned people in Northern Europe may be faced with an evolutionary disadvantage, if those areas end up getting more Sunlight than previously, from reduced cloud-coverage. It's all based on environment, which the terms "improvement" and "advancement" ignore as a factor. All these advantageous traits offer is the ability to have more children who survive to sexual maturity, than those without the trait in the same environment. If the same trait can provide such an advantage in one environment, but then a disadvantage when the same region changes to a different environment, it can't really be accurately described as inherently an improvement or advancement.

Yes, I don't think there are any slam dunk arguments either way- but whatever the answer, this IS a tricky question, not as simple/inevitable as often portrayed

So in this example- we need not only a lucky fluke endowing the advantage of whiter skin, but this person also happens to be a very powerful criminally insane individual who conquers and personally reproduces with huge numbers of people! and THEN natural selection has something to work with!

we all understand how populations with significantly advantageous genes could prevail over those without- how they actually got that way much less obvious

What if the lucky mutation isn't given to Genghis Khan, but an unremarkable guy who- looking a little funny now- doesn't have much luck with the ladies. this lucky mutation is NOT naturally selected, NO evolution has taken place whatsoever- even when this improbably lucky fluke is granted to the individual

Add to this that the vast vast majority of 'random' mutations would be deleterious, not advantageous, and the simple algorithm of random mutation + natural selection is going to have a very tough time making a human out of a molecule- with no design goals to work from

 

[leibowde84]

most creationists agree with direct observations- that small differences/ genetic mutations can occur from one generation to the next-
Not the speculation that this phenomena is adequate to account for a molecule morphing into a human

Evolution does not speak to life coming from non-life.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

That would depend on the minimum bar one sets to consider something "significant".

Right. The majority of beneficial mutations are probably only of slight benefit. It's when you add a bunch of slightly beneficial mutations together that you get major benefits (depending on how one defines "major"). This is exactly what happened in the long-term E.coli experiment. An initial, weakly-beneficial mutation gave some of the bacteria a slight reproductive advantage by utilizing citrate aerobically. Further mutations happened which improved that trait, eventually allowing the mutants to dominate the population.

Even a 1% improvement in reproductive potential can be considered significant, given that it makes that individual 1% more fit than its peers. That's a measurable advantage. Add a bunch of 1% reproduction improving mutations together over millions of years and you can get something rather different from what you started with.

You're welcome. I do try.

significant enough to endow a significant enough advantage to reproduce significantly more often, otherwise natural selection is not occurring due to that mutation, the more advanced the design, the more difficult this becomes- because any random mutation becomes increasingly likely to be a significant disadvantage, rather than improve further on an already highly evolved design.

I.e. What if a car manufacturer used the same logic- tried to save on R+D by following this method, simply make random changes and let the best be naturally selected- because this simple algorithm inevitably leads to improvements right?

Natural selection works of course, the best design will be favored, but 'best' does not equate to 'better'- I think that's often an erroneous assumption.

The car with the broken seat warmer will be chosen over the car with the broken engine and so on. the design will quickly regress back to the simplest homogenous form that satisfies the fitness function- that it moves. No more no less.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Nonsense. The evolutionary algorithm is very simple.

Organisms vary as they reporoduce; this is observed and uncontestable. The mechanisms are known and are known to be random.

Environments impose limits on survival and reproduction. This is observed and uncontestable. These limits influence which variations survive. A polar bear unfortunate enough to be born without fur freezes. This imposes a non-random sorting of the variations.

The result is cumulative change over time. What could prevent it?

in a word; entropy

Yes it is very simple, elegant, intuitive, compelling, that's the problem- so was classical physics- which was considered so well established as to be 'immutable' and was far more directly observable and testable than evolution.

It was very tempting to watch an apple fall from a tree, and extrapolate this superficial observation into laws which governed all physical reality- when in fact it was the other way around.
Physical reality created the superficial illusion of simple laws- through far deeper, specific instructions, blueprints that described exactly how gravity, the universe, stars, solar systems would develop.

Without these underlying instructions, the simple algorithms of classical physics would quickly collapse the universe into a similarly simple homogenous state.

So too with life, simulating the simple algorithm produces, at best, the simplest homogenous replicator, it does not spontaneously develop consciousness and ponder it's own existence, because that's not specified

 

[First Baseman]

Since evolution doesn't say anything about the origins of life, you're likely to find quite a variety of ideas.
Also, "evolutionist" is a straw man as we do not call people "gravitationist," or "germist," or "dopplerist," or "thermodynamicist," or so on.

Evolution doesn't say anything about the origins of life but evolution begins with the first life form, in theory. So where the first life form came from and how it came about should be very important to evolutionists.

When I say "evolutionist" in this context I am talking about a person who does not believe in any sort of creation theory but strictly believes that the first life form came to be by "random chance." In this case evolution is entirely dependent on abiogenesis. So this kind of evolutionist must choose some theory or another to explain the first life form or admit that it is possible at least that evolution did not happen from the first life form.

 

[Vishvavajra]

No, natural selection favors the significantly superior design, just like consumers of designed products, nobody debates this- how does the design become significantly superior in the 1st place?

Nothing in this sentence is true.

If you're going to debate evolutionary theory, you ought to learn about it first. "Survival of the fittest" isn't actually a scientific concept. The theory of evolution by natural selection is rather different in fact from what you seem to think it is. But given your assertion that there are gaping holes, etc., you seem to be relying entirely on creationist sources, which is problem #1 here.

 

[First Baseman]

in a word; entropy

Yes it is very simple, elegant, intuitive, compelling, that's the problem- so was classical physics- which was considered so well established as to be 'immutable' and was far more directly observable and testable than evolution.

It was very tempting to watch an apple fall from a tree, and extrapolate this superficial observation into laws which governed all physical reality- when in fact it was the other way around.
Physical reality created the superficial illusion of simple laws- through far deeper, specific instructions, blueprints that described exactly how gravity, the universe, stars, solar systems would develop.

Without these underlying instructions, the simple algorithms of classical physics would quickly collapse the universe into a similarly simple homogenous state.

So too with life, simulating the simple algorithm produces, at best, the simplest homogenous replicator, it does not spontaneously develop consciousness and ponder it's own existence, because that's not specified

Good post.

 

[Yorutenchi]

in a word; entropy

Yes it is very simple, elegant, intuitive, compelling, that's the problem- so was classical physics- which was considered so well established as to be 'immutable' and was far more directly observable and testable than evolution.

It was very tempting to watch an apple fall from a tree, and extrapolate this superficial observation into laws which governed all physical reality- when in fact it was the other way around.
Physical reality created the superficial illusion of simple laws- through far deeper, specific instructions, blueprints that described exactly how gravity, the universe, stars, solar systems would develop.

Without these underlying instructions, the simple algorithms of classical physics would quickly collapse the universe into a similarly simple homogenous state.

So too with life, simulating the simple algorithm produces, at best, the simplest homogenous replicator, it does not spontaneously develop consciousness and ponder it's own existence, because that's not specified

What does entropy have to do with it? The only major differences of underlaying problems of classical physics is that it does not work well with non-physical objects, objects moving very very fast and very very small objects. Classical physics is still "right" in that it explains and is used in modern construction and engineering. I can use the same equations that Newton used to calculate any number of things. They were not "wrong". What we found was that there was more to the physics of the universe.

None of this has to do with entropy.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Nothing in this sentence is true.

If you're going to debate evolutionary theory, you ought to learn about it first. "Survival of the fittest" isn't actually a scientific concept. The theory of evolution by natural selection is rather different in fact from what you seem to think it is. But given your assertion that there are gaping holes, etc., you seem to be relying entirely on creationist sources, which is problem #1 here.

" It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history" Richard Dawkins

I don't think he would consider himself a creationist source?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

What does entropy have to do with it? The only major differences of underlaying problems of classical physics is that it does not work well with non-physical objects, objects moving very very fast and very very small objects. Classical physics is still "right" in that it explains and is used in modern construction and engineering. I can use the same equations that Newton used to calculate any number of things. They were not "wrong". What we found was that there was more to the physics of the universe.

None of this has to do with entropy.

the superficial observations of classical physics remain, apples still fall from trees and I can still use it to throw a frisbee for my dog!

But classical physics was fundamentally unable to account for physical reality, because more specific mechanisms were required to constrain classical physics to certain results. Without which entropy would take over and return matter - small AND large- to a simple, homogenous state.

Likewise natural selection, natural history- the actual observations are not wrong, but the underlying mechanism producing them is the greater question

 

[Yorutenchi]

the superficial observations of classical physics remain, apples still fall from trees and I can still use it to throw a frisbee for my dog!

But classical physics was fundamentally unable to account for physical reality, because more specific mechanisms were required to constrain classical physics to certain results. Without which entropy would take over and return matter - small AND large- to a simple, homogenous state.

Likewise natural selection, natural history- the actual observations are not wrong, but the underlying mechanism producing them is the greater question

If they are not wrong then what is your argument?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

If they are not wrong then what is your argument?

Life goes through changes and nature favors the best suited

just as gravity makes apples fall from trees and produced a solar system which harbors that life

My argument being that just as the latter- the former was determined by deeper underlying specific instructions, not chance.