prove me wrong on evolution

[Endless]

I hope you have read the articles i posted. I'm going to lay the foundation this one last time really carefully, note that i am not going to be making any creationist arguement, it's all scientific fact. I would be grateful if you read it all carefully. Thanks.

Ok, quoting from the evolution Happens link i put up:

How does evolution occur? The three main mechanisms are mutation,
natural selection
and genetic drift.

A quick definition of each of them for you:

1. Mutation: A mutation is any change in the DNA base sequence (genetic information) of a gene. However, only heritable mutations, those occurring in the gametes (reproductive cells) or the cell lineage contributing to the gametes, are involved in evolution. Such mutations, known as germinal mutations, can result from many factors, including natural background radiation, chemical mutagens and viral infection.

2. Natural Selection: The gene code being acted on by the environment in which the organism lives. An example - hairy dogs in a hot environment, dogs born with shorter hair at more of an advantage because don't get so hot, they can hunt for longer etc. Therefore increased 'fitness' - over time the environment weeds out the dogs with the longer hair, leaving a population of dogs with shorter hair. A technical definition is as follows: Natural selection is the process by which traits that provide a reproductive advantage tend to increase in frequency in a given population over time, while traits that leave individuals at a reproductive disadvantage tend to decrease in frequency over time. A reproductive advantage may arise from differences in survival, in fertility, in rate of development, in mating success or by some other aspect of the life cycle.

3. Genetic Drift: is the process by which the frequencies of existing genes in a population change over time due to chance. This happens due to the random nature of recombination - not all genes from the Father are passed to the offspring, neither are all the genes from the mother passed to the offspring. In large populations it pretty much evens itself out, however in small populations it can lead to loss of genes.

Again let me quote from the same site:

What exactly does the theory of evolution state? The theory of evolution states that:
​

1. All life forms (species) have developed from other species.
   
   ​
2. All living things are related to one another to varying degrees through common descent (share common ancestors).
   
   ​
3. All life on Earth has a common origin. In other words, that in the distant past, there once existed an original life form and that this life form gave rise to all subsequent life forms.
   
   ​
4. The process by which one species evolves into another involves random heritable genetic mutations (changes), some of which are more likely to spread and persist in a gene pool than others. Mutations that result in a survival advantage for organisms that possess them, are more likely to spread and persist than mutations that do not result in a survival advantage and/or that result in a survival disadvantage.​

1. ​

Please note point 4. The process by which one species evolves into another involves random heritable genetic mutations. So to get from that first simple organism that existed on the earth to evolve to all the organisms we now have we need genetic mutations.
Now the reason why we need these genetic mutations is because they can add new base pairs and so eventually result in new genetic information that did not exist before, leading to the organism having new structures and new things (ie. the organism is becoming more complex).
If you look back up to the top you will see that mutation is one of the three mechanisms by which evolution occurs.

Lets have a closer look at the mechanism of mutation:
Let me quote from the link that i gave you:

A Mutation occurs when a DNA gene is damaged or changed in such a way as to alter the genetic message carried by that gene. A Mutagen is an agent of substance that can bring about a permanent alteration to the physical composition of a DNA gene such that the genetic message is changed.

Once the gene has been damaged or changed, the mRNA transcribed from that gene will now carry an altered message.

The polypeptide (aminoacid chain) made by translating the altered mRNA will now contain a different sequence of amino acids. The function of the protein made by folding this polypeptide will probably be changed or lost. In this example, the enzyme that is catalyzing the production of flower color pigment has been altered in such a way it no longer catalyzes the production of the red pigment.

No product (red pigment) is produced by the altered protein.

In subtle or very obvious ways, the phenotype (physical makeup)of the organism carrying the mutation will be changed. In this case the flower, without the pigment is no longer red.

The following will cause mutations:

1. Chemical Mutagens 2. Radiation 3. Sunlight 4. Spontaneous

So how can these mutations affect the genetic code?
1. Deletion (removal of a basepair)2. Addition (inserting a new basepair)
3. Exchange (changing a basepair to a different one) 4. Duplication (bases are duplicated).

This alteration of the genetic code is what can give rise to this new genetic information that had to be produced for the first simple creature to become more complex. Without mutation we could never have got evolution from the first simple organism to all the organisms on earth today.

However does natural selection require mutation to give these changes that we see in a population? No it does not - it is a separate evolutionary mechanism. It is the natural environment selecting genes from what is known as a gene pool. Let me quote a definition of a gene pool from biology online:

gene pool
The total sum of genetic information present in a population at anygiven moment.

The collective genomes of a species, the genetic diversity of a gene pool is determined by the variety of combinations of genes existing in the population.

You can think of it like a deck of cards - each card represents a gene and like there are different combinations of cards, so there can be different combinations of genes. However the number of genes is restricted - hence the term 'gene pool'. Natural selection acts on these genes leading to some genes being selected over others. Like the example of the hairy dogs - the gene pool changes to the combination where the gene coding for short hair is more prevalent.

At this point is it important to stress that natural selection (though it is a mechanism of evolution) on it's own is not able to evolve a simple organism into all the complex organisms we have today. Because just like a deck of cards there are only ever going to be a certain number of combinations available unless you add new cards - the addition of this new information can only occur through mutation.

I hope what i have written is clear enough for you and maybe Jerry when he reads it. This is just what you would learn in a classroom - no arguements, just the scientific facts laid out for you.

 

[Fade]

Great stuff, but what are you trying to imply? Are you saying that microevolution doesn't use mutation as a mechanism? If you are then why doesn't anybody else say this?

 

[Endless]

Hi Fade,
I'll try now to explain. Let me take natural selection as an example. It can be thought of as affecting the combinations of existing genes - but it only acts on the existing genes in the gene pool. But we see animal evolving all the time as a result of only natural selection.
If you take dogs and breed them then you are the environment doing the selecting of the genes. It's not natural selection - but if those two dogs were isolated or for whatever reason mated then you would have a different type of dog. It's the same principle of natural selection. It would look different etc. Carry on breeding the offspring and you can get some really weird looking dogs - as you probably know This is evolution, but it has nothing to do with mutations causing the changes - it's just a recombination of the existing genetic material. This type of evolution on its own is not capable of evolving that first simple organism into all the different organisms we have today (the reason explained in the above post).
Take Genetic drift - you can think of this as a random sorting of the existing genetic material. In small populations you can get certain genes lost through chance - this is evolution, however it in itself is not capable of evolving the first simple organism into all the different organisms we have today.
Neither Genetic drift nor Natural selection are capable of doing this - because they aren't mechanisms that add new genes, they simply produce combinations of already existing genes in the population.

Creationists call macroevolution the evolutionary mechanisms that are capable of evolving that first simple organism into all the different organisms we have today - ie. the mechanisms that increase the genetic information so creating new structures that will make the organism more complex.
The evolutionary mechanisms that are incapable of doing this themselves ie. natural selection and genetic drift are termed microevolution. However the microevolution also overlaps partly with the mechanism of mutation but i'll explain that later if i've been clear enough in explaining the division creationists make between microevolution and macroevolution.

 

[Fade]

Hi Fade,
I'll try now to explain. Let me take natural selection as an example. It can be thought of as affecting the combinations of existing genes - but it only acts on the existing genes in the gene pool. But we see animal evolving all the time as a result of only natural selection.

No we don't. Mutation is involved in it too. Or do you seriously expect me to believe that we get great danes and minuature poodles without any mutation occuring? They are by definition mutations of their wolf ancestors.

If you take dogs and breed them then you are the environment doing the selecting of the genes. It's not natural selection - but if those two dogs were isolated or for whatever reason mated then you would have a different type of dog. It's the same principle of natural selection. It would look different etc. Carry on breeding the offspring and you can get some really weird looking dogs - as you probably know This is evolution, but it has nothing to do with mutations causing the changes - it's just a recombination of the existing genetic material. This type of evolution on its own is not capable of evolving that first simple organism into all the different organisms we have today (the reason explained in the above post).

You are wrong. Mutation occurs everytime a new dog or any organism is born. You keep forgetting that we are all mutants.

Take Genetic drift - you can think of this as a random sorting of the existing genetic material. In small populations you can get certain genes lost through chance - this is evolution, however it in itself is not capable of evolving the first simple organism into all the different organisms we have today.
Neither Genetic drift nor Natural selection are capable of doing this - because they aren't mechanisms that add new genes, they simply produce combinations of already existing genes in the population.

The mutation is still there. Natural selection and genetic drift never work on their own. There is always mutation there.

Creationists call macroevolution the evolutionary mechanisms that are capable of evolving that first simple organism into all the different organisms we have today - ie. the mechanisms that increase the genetic information so creating new structures that will make the organism more complex.
The evolutionary mechanisms that are incapable of doing this themselves ie. natural selection and genetic drift are termed microevolution. However the microevolution also overlaps partly with the mechanism of mutation but i'll explain that later if i've been clear enough in explaining the division creationists make between microevolution and macroevolution.

There you go again, bringing what Creationists call macroevolution into the conversation. Stop it. It is irrelavent.

 

[Endless]

Fade, you have to understand that there are three mechanisms to evolution -three separate mechanisms. Natural selection is one of these mechanisms and mutations are another.

No we don't. Mutation is involved in it too. Or do you seriously expect me to believe that we get great danes and minuature poodles without any mutation occuring? They are by definition mutations of their wolf ancestors

.

Mutations are a mechanism, natural selection is another separate mechanism. I don't expect you to believe that we have got great danes and minuature poodles without mutation occuring, what i am saying is that natural selection will act and give different combinations of different genes whether the mechanism of mutation acts or whether it doesn't act.
Let me take the example of dog breeding again - mutations play absolutely no part in it. By breeding you are selecting genes that are already present in the gene pool and trying to get an end result which contains the genes you want. Mutation doesn't act quickly enough to give you these changes - these changes are only as a result of different combinations of genes that already existed.

It's also important for you to realise that the term evolution means 'change'. Evolution is the change from that first simple organism to all the organisms we now have today, but it is also the change as a result of natural selection and genetic drift which can not possibly give rise to the change from that first simple organism to all the organisms we now have.
Or do you not think that the change brought about by the mechanism of natural selection and genetic drift is evolution? Certainly you believe the change brough about by the mechanism of mutation is evolution but what about the change by the other mechanisms?

Natural selection and genetic drift never work on their own. There is always mutation there.

This simply isn't true. Yes, there is always mutation, but even if there was no mutation natural selection and genetic drift would still provide the change that we see them doing.

 

[Nehustan]

When somebody asks me to prove them wrong on evolution....I usually just point out why should I....you're doing such an outstanding job of it yourself.

:sarcastic


​

 

[Bishadi]

When somebody asks me to prove them wrong on evolution....I usually just point out why should I....you're doing such an outstanding job of it yourself.

:sarcastic​

Now that's funny almost as funny as your post about how you "saw the 'Satanic verses' reference, read this...read that, pretty much all the same old arguments rehashed pro and contra."

Evolution is a sound basis and any who suggest otherwise, are just not reading. :slap:

 

[Endless]

It's not a case of reading, it's more a case of understanding what you are reading really

 

[Ceridwen018]

No we don't. Mutation is involved in it too. Or do you seriously expect me to believe that we get great danes and minuature poodles without any mutation occuring? They are by definition mutations of their wolf ancestors.

You are wrong. Mutation occurs everytime a new dog or any organism is born. You keep forgetting that we are all mutants.

Your second statement is incorrect. Natural selection does not usually involve mutations, yet it can still create a new species. Natural selection occurs as a result of one gene being exploited over another--survival of the fittest.

 

[Fade]

Your second statement is incorrect. Natural selection does not usually involve mutations, yet it can still create a new species. Natural selection occurs as a result of one gene being exploited over another--survival of the fittest.

I disagree,

Mutations are considered the driving force of evolution, where less favorable (or deleterious) mutations are removed from the gene pool by natural selection, while more favorable (beneficial or advantageous) ones tend to accumulate. Neutral mutations are defined as mutations whose effects do not influence the fitness of either the species or the individuals who make up the species. These can accumulate over time.

The process of natural selection may not have to be acting on a mutation but there is always mutation when genetic material is transfered through procreation.

 

[Fade]

Fade, you have to understand that there are three mechanisms to evolution -three separate mechanisms. Natural selection is one of these mechanisms and mutations are another.

I do understand.

Mutations are a mechanism, natural selection is another separate mechanism. I don't expect you to believe that we have got great danes and minuature poodles without mutation occuring, what i am saying is that natural selection will act and give different combinations of different genes whether the mechanism of mutation acts or whether it doesn't act.

Natural selection does not occur without some form of mutation being present. Whether the mutation is neutral, beneficial or deleterious, there is always mutation present. Your argument rests on this point and until you can show how mutation isn't present in biological evolution then your micro/macro point isn't much of a point.

Let me take the example of dog breeding again - mutations play absolutely no part in it. By breeding you are selecting genes that are already present in the gene pool and trying to get an end result which contains the genes you want. Mutation doesn't act quickly enough to give you these changes - these changes are only as a result of different combinations of genes that already existed.

Um....so what you are really saying is that you DO expect me to believe that we have great danes and sausage dogs without any mutations?

It's also important for you to realise that the term evolution means 'change'. Evolution is the change from that first simple organism to all the organisms we now have today, but it is also the change as a result of natural selection and genetic drift which can not possibly give rise to the change from that first simple organism to all the organisms we now have.

Yes that is why mutation is such an important part of the theory of evolution.

Or do you not think that the change brought about by the mechanism of natural selection and genetic drift is evolution? Certainly you believe the change brough about by the mechanism of mutation is evolution but what about the change by the other mechanisms?

I do. But the other mechanisms don't function without mutation being present.

This simply isn't true. Yes, there is always mutation, but even if there was no mutation natural selection and genetic drift would still provide the change that we see them doing.

I disagree. there is never 'no mutation'.

 

[Endless]

Hi Fade,
You are still misunderstanding basic biology here. I see where you are coming from though and hopefully i can address your misconception. What Ceridwen018 wrote was correct, and hopefully he can help me out here as maybe there are better ways of explaining it.

Firstly the mechanism of mutation in evolution for the first simple organism to become all the organism we now have today will take a very very very very long time to bring about this change. For mutation to add new genetic information in the sense we have been talking about - ie. information which produces new structures such as 'the sting' will take millions of years. You can do your own research on this if you want, but it will take millions of years.

So we have the three mechanisms of evolution, the mechanism of mutation leading to this new genetic information takes millions of years. However the mechanism of mutation also leads to loss of genes or disruption of genetic information and this is very frequent (check all the genetic diseases) but this type of mutation cannot on it's own lead to the addition of new genetic information because it removes genes and disrupts them. Lots of loss of that first simple organism as a result of mutation would not lead to the evolution of all the organisms we see on the planet today.

Ok, so what is my point. My point is that the time needed for the mechanism of mutation to produce the kind of mutation needed for the first simple organism to evolve to all the organisms we have today takes millions of years to cause this change. If you don't believe me then look at the time science gives for one organism to evolve into another. My point is therefore that this mechanism of evolution is not what causes the rapid change we see when we breed dogs. I'm not talking about the evolutionary history of the dogs - i'm talking about the changes we see when i take my dog and breed it with another and keep selecting until i arrive at something different.
This is evolution by natural selection - mutation although present is not the mechanism behind this change because that mechanism requires millions of years. Evolution by genetic drift is the same. These are separate mechanisms and therefore being separate they don't need the presence of the others inorder to produce change which is evolution. Whether the other mechanisms are present is totally irrelevant.

Is this clear?

 

[Fade]

Hi Fade,
You are still misunderstanding basic biology here. I see where you are coming from though and hopefully i can address your misconception. What Ceridwen018 wrote was correct, and hopefully he can help me out here as maybe there are better ways of explaining it.

I don't think I'm misunderstanding anything. I presented my counter to Ceridwens point and for now I stand by it.

Firstly the mechanism of mutation in evolution for the first simple organism to become all the organism we now have today will take a very very very very long time to bring about this change. For mutation to add new genetic information in the sense we have been talking about - ie. information which produces new structures such as 'the sting' will take millions of years. You can do your own research on this if you want, but it will take millions of years.

What you are saying makes sense, but doesn't have any relevance to your micro vs. macro evolution argument.

So we have the three mechanisms of evolution, the mechanism of mutation leading to this new genetic information takes millions of years. However the mechanism of mutation also leads to loss of genes or disruption of genetic information and this is very frequent (check all the genetic diseases) but this type of mutation cannot on it's own lead to the addition of new genetic information because it removes genes and disrupts them. Lots of loss of that first simple organism as a result of mutation would not lead to the evolution of all the organisms we see on the planet today.

This is utterly incorrect. Mutation leading to new genetic information occurs every single time this information is transfered. Millions of years are not necessary.

FYI there are more than 3 mechanisms of evolution but for the time being let me re-iterate...evolution does not take place without mutation.

The ultimate source of all genetic variation is mutations. They are permanent, transmissible changes to the genetic material (usually DNA or RNA) of a cell, and can be caused by "copying errors" in the genetic material during cell division and by exposure to radiation, chemicals, or viruses. In multicellular organisms, mutations can be subdivided into germline mutations that occur in the gametes and thus can be passed on to progeny, and somatic mutations that often lead to the malfunction or death of a cell and can cause cancer.
Mutations that are not affected by natural selection are called neutral mutations. Their frequency in the population is governed entirely by genetic drift and gene flow. It is understood that a species' genome, in the absence of selection, undergoes a steady accumulation of neutral mutations. The probable mutation effect is the proposition that a gene that is not under selection will be destroyed by accumulated mutations. This is an aspect of genome degradation.

Not all mutations are created equal; simple point mutations (substitutions), which comprise the vast majority of genetic variation, usually can only alter the function or level of expression of existing genes. Gene duplications, which may occur via a number of mechanisms, are believed to be the major mechanism for the introduction of new genes; most genes belong to larger "families" of genes derived from a common ancestral gene (two genes from a species that are in the same family are dubbed "paralogs"). Finally, large chromosomal rearrangements (like the fusion of two chromosomes in the chimp/human common ancestor that produced human chromosome 2) almost invariably result in a speciation event.

Ok, so what is my point. My point is that the time needed for the mechanism of mutation to produce the kind of mutation needed for the first simple organism to evolve to all the organisms we have today takes millions of years to cause this change. If you don't believe me then look at the time science gives for one organism to evolve into another. My point is therefore that this mechanism of evolution is not what causes the rapid change we see when we breed dogs. I'm not talking about the evolutionary history of the dogs - i'm talking about the changes we see when i take my dog and breed it with another and keep selecting until i arrive at something different.

I disagree, but i'm not going to belabour the point any more...oh what the hell, yes I will...YOU CANNOT ARRIVE AT A NEW BREED OF DOG WITHOUT SOME FORM OF MUTATION.

The ultimate source of all genetic variation is mutations.

This is evolution by natural selection - mutation although present is not the mechanism behind this change because that mechanism requires millions of years. Evolution by genetic drift is the same. These are separate mechanisms and therefore being separate they don't need the presence of the others inorder to produce change which is evolution. Whether the other mechanisms are present is totally irrelevant.

Is this clear?

Perfectly clear. It's also wrong. The ultimate source of all genetic variation is mutations.

 

[Endless]

Hi Fade,
You don't get it do you.
Let me ask you the following question:

Do you think that it is mutation that is causing the differences in the dogs whenever you breed them? I.E Do you think it is mutation that is causing the evolution of the dog whenever you breed it?
Or do you accept - the scientific fact - that it is the recombination of the existing DNA (ie. different combinations of genes) that is causing this evolution?

 

[Fade]

Do you think that it is mutation that is causing the differences in the dogs whenever you breed them? I.E Do you think it is mutation that is causing the evolution of the dog whenever you breed it?

Yes.
Are you still trying to convince me that Great Danes and Sausage dogs aren't mutants?

Or do you accept - the scientific fact - that it is the recombination of the existing DNA (ie. different combinations of genes) that is causing this evolution?

Yes

Your first point is also a 'scientific fact', though I'm loathe to use the term...but since you are, I will too.

 

[Endless]

This is where you make your mistake Fade.
Because it is not mutations which give rise to the differences in dogs when you breed them. Neither is the difference between you and your parents due to mutation. Whether mutation happens or not is irrelevant unless it damages an existing gene - and you get a genetic disease. Then that one difference will be due to a mutation. But when you breed a dog the differences you see between the dogs are as a result of different combinations of DNA. The mechanism of mutation has absolutely nothing at all to do with it.
If you do a little bit of research Fade you will discover that the majority of mutations which occur are neutral - they don't affect the individual in anyway at all. So in dogs if during the breeding a dog happened to get a mutation it would most likely be neutral - it would go unnoticed - if it wasn't neutral then it would knock out a gene which is dangerous.

I mean how clear can this website that i quoted have been???

How does evolution occur? The three main mechanisms are mutation,
natural selection
and genetic drift.

How does evolution happen - there are three mechanisms or three ways in which it can happen. The first way is mutation, the second way is natural selection and the third way it can happen is by Genetic drift! Yes, all three can be acting at the same time, but you can attribute certain types of evolution to each of these ways...how else do you think they were able to figure out that these three mechanisms each caused evolution??
Fade, how much clearer could you possibly get than this. Are you telling me that science is wrong?

 

[Fade]

This is where you make your mistake Fade.
Because it is not mutations which give rise to the differences in dogs when you breed them.

Yes it is. Dogs are not clones...though Hwang had a good go at it.

Neither is the difference between you and your parents due to mutation.

Yes, it is. I am not a clone of my parents.

If you do a little bit of research Fade you will discover that the majority of mutations which occur are neutral - they don't affect the individual in anyway at all. So in dogs if during the breeding a dog happened to get a mutation it would most likely be neutral - it would go unnoticed - if it wasn't neutral then it would knock out a gene which is dangerous.

I know this...the point I am trying to make is that mutations are there...everytime.

Fade, how much clearer could you possibly get than this. Are you telling me that science is wrong?

It's perfectly clear, I'm not telling you that science is wrong, I'm saying that you are wrong.

 

[Endless]

It's perfectly clear, I'm not telling you that science is wrong, I'm saying that you are wrong.

Umm, yes Fade...

Neither is the difference between you and your parents due to mutation.

To which you wrote:

Yes, it is. I am not a clone of my parents.

Like, i was saying Fade, you seriously have to read up on the basics of biology. You don't even know how you were formed at the genetic level do you? I'm tiring fast of explaining everything...you read up on it, you should probably start by looking up Meiosis and genetic recombination. I'll provide a link if you want. Have a read here and you'll see that mutation has absolutely nothing to do with it.
If you want further explanation of something you don't understand on the page then just ask if you can't find the answer on the net.

 

[Fade]

Okay lets scrap all that and approach this from a different angle.

Are you saying that Science is wrong about 'Macro Evolution' but is right about 'Micro Evolution'?

 

[Endless]

I'm not saying science is wrong about anything, my view is that creationists are correct to distinguish between micro evolution and macro evolution because Genetic drift and natural selection themselves give rise to evolution, but that type of evolution can never get you from the first simple organism to all the organisms we now have today. The reason being that they can be thought of as 'sorting' the genetic makeup of an individual. They produce different combinations of already existing genes - and so produce change that way, but they don't add the new genetic material that is needed if we are to get from the first simple organism to all the organisms we have today.
The mechanism of mutation - by which genetic information is increased, is termed Macro evolution by creationists because this type of evolution is the only type that can get you the new genetic material needed to get from the first simple organism to all the organisms we have today.
All i have been doing is showing you the line between micro evolution and macro evolution.