Some questions about evolution (genetics etc) and possible implications for creationism

[ImmortalFlame]

Lol, a human has a host. It doesn't just grab extra material from nowhere to create itself.

Neither does life. It reproduces with variation.

If you believe it is impossible for a dinosaur to be the result of single cells, then you don't believe in reproduction. Simple as.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Only that doesn't work either. It's only mechanism is blind chance.

No, it isn't. Populations do not change by "blind chance".

It still amazes me that people can post on these forums for months and still not understand even the basic fundamentals of how evolution works.

 

[Wildswanderer]

No, it isn't. Populations do not change by "blind chance".

It still amazes me that people can post on these forums for months and still not understand even the basic fundamentals of how evolution works.

The old " you just don't understand" nonsense. No one can understand what is illogical. No scientists really understand it either, but they still promote it.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

The old " you just don't understand" nonsense. No one can understand what is illogical. No scientists really understand it either, but they still promote it.

Okay then. Please explain in your own words how evolutionary theory claims species change over time.

And yes, if you think natural selection is "blind chance" then you don't know the first thing about evolutionary theory.

 

[SkepticThinker]

The old " you just don't understand" nonsense. No one can understand what is illogical. No scientists really understand it either, but they still promote it.

LOL Yeah for sure, scientists don't understand evolution. Riiiiight.

Whatever you have to tell yourself to remain in your fantasy world of empty assertions, I guess.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Okay then. Please explain in your own words how evolutionary theory claims species change over time.

And yes, if you think natural selection is "blind chance" then you don't know the first thing about evolutionary theory.

How does natural selection select anything? By chance. Another breeder of the same genus is nearly by chance so a mutation is preserved by chance.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

How does natural selection select anything? By chance.

Um, nope.

Natural selection is SELECTIVE. The clue is in the name. A process that is selective is not random.

Another breeder of the same genus is nearly by chance so a mutation is preserved by chance.

This sentence makes no sense.

Do you know what is meant by "natural selection"? Because it does not mean "nature randomly selects what lives or dies".

Also, it is interesting that you didn't answer my question about basic evolutionary theory. Is that because you don't even know what evolutionary theory claims?

 

[Wildswanderer]

Natural selection is SELECTIVE. The clue is in the name. A process that is selective is not random.

Ok, explain how it selects.
By random chance.
If a breeder is available the mutation gets passed on, if not, it dies with the organism.

 

[Yerda]

Um, ok, do then how does everything evolve from a single celled organism? You obviously have to get from fish to birds. More than that, you have to get from germs to elephants.

Aye, of course. The picture we have of the natural history of Earth suggests that life has evolved over time from single cells to what we have now. What I'm saying is that if your objection to this picture is to say that things can't evolve enough to be different species then you haven't thought it through.

Microbe genomes build microbes and elephant genomes build elephants. If genomes are mutable then what reason is there to assume that the processes that change genomes can't give us elephants from a lineage that was once microbes?

 

[Wildswanderer]

Aye, of course. The picture we have of the natural history of Earth suggests that life has evolved over time from single cells to what we have now. What I'm saying is that if your objection to this picture is to say that things can't evolve enough to be different species then you haven't thought it through.

Microbe genomes build microbes and elephant genomes build elephants. If genomes are mutable then what reason is there to assume that the processes that change genomes can't give us elephants from a lineage that was once microbes?

Statistically impossible.
First, tell us the rate of duplication necessary, and how many duplicated but silenced genes we would expect to see in a given genome, and the needed rate of turning on and off, and the statistical possiblity of a new function arising in the silenced gene, and how this new function will be integrated into the already complex genome of the organism, and the rate at which the ‘junk’ DNA would be expected to be lost to genetic drift or through natural selection.

Does a deactivated gene stick around for few million years or more while a new function develops?

Gene duplication is usually a negative, not a positive. The whole theory has holes an elephant can walk through.

 

[shunyadragon]

Statistically impossible.
First, tell us the rate of duplication necessary, and how many duplicated but silenced genes we would expect to see in a given genome, and the needed rate of turning on and off, and the statistical possiblity of a new function arising in the silenced gene, and how this new function will be integrated into the already complex genome of the organism, and the rate at which the ‘junk’ DNA would be expected to be lost to genetic drift or through natural selection.

Does a deactivated gene stick around for few million years or more while a new function develops?

Gene duplication is usually a negative, not a positive. The whole theory has holes an elephant can walk through.

This is fundamentally false, based on the unethical dishonest Intelligent Design advocates that consider the processes of nature as random over time. I started a thread here that addresses the dishonesty of this, based on a religious agenda not science: Nothing is truly 'random' in nature.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Ok, explain how it selects.

If a mutation makes it more likely for an organism to survive and successfully reproduce, then it is more likely to survive and reproduce.

It's that simple.

By random chance.

Have you really learned nothing about evolution this entire time?

If a breeder is available the mutation gets passed on, if not, it dies with the organism.

Except the availability of breeders is influenced by the SURVIVABILITY of those breeders. If they possess mutations that make them more likely to survive, then they are more likely to successfully reproduce. So, the availability of breeders is not "random chance", but influenced by selective processes. Or course, all of this only applies to organisms that reproduce sexually.

Do you understand?

And you still have not demonstrated that you know how evolutionary theory claims to work.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Because it is impossible. You can not get from a single celled organism to the diverse life on this planet without added information.
You can't make a house from a single tree either.

Newsflash: life reproduces with variation, and passes that variation on to off spring.

"New information" originates with every mutation.
And every newborn comes with a set of mutations.


A house is not a biological entity that reproduces with variation. So it is not subject to the process of biological evolution. Meaning that it is a false analogy and completely irrelevant to the topic.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Macro evolution is impossible.

In your own words, what is macro evolution as you understand it?
Could you give an example of what kind of thing would qualify as macro evolution in your opinion?


It's an honest and sincere question.
I ask, because from experience I know that whenever evolution deniers talk about "macro evolution", they aren't actually talking about the evolutionary process at all, but just some strawman.

So please, could you answer my questions to clarify?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

But they don't become other kinds of animals.

So what do you mean by that?

For example, if a primate lineage splits in two and one lineage goes on to evolve into chimpanzee's and the other into bonobo's... is that "becoming another kind of animal"?

Or are you rather talking about cats producing dogs?

Please clarify.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

There are many conditions that must be met if mutation is to bring about macro-evolution.
(change from one basic kind of life to another)

What do you mean by a "basic kind of life"?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Evolution can't work unless there's a beginning mechanism to kick start it.

Indeed.

And that mechanism is reproduction with variation in an ever-changing environment with limited resources, meaning the reproducing entities are in competition with peers for survival.

There's no selection without something to select.

Indeed. But reproducing life exists. So there is something to select from.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Only it's not. We are talking about the beginning of life. Evolution explains nothing about where we came from.

Evolution addresses the origin of species. Not the origin of first life. That's a whole different field of scientific inquiry.

It also is illogical to believe an amoeba can transition into a dinosaur no matter how many forms are in between. It can't happen without an outside force adding information. Why believe it was gradual at all? That doesn't compute.

You don't need an "outside force", when there is an "inside mechanism".

Life reproduces with variation. That variation, adds information all the time.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Are you just afraid to try?

So what are you saying?

That if he is unable to make a 747 out of a bicycle, then biological evolution is wrong?

Are you being serious?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Because you don't have enough of the correct information already in the genetic code for a fish to develop into a bird.

First, let's not confuse modern fish with the "fish" that tetrapods initially evolved from.
A modern salmon for example, has been evolving and specializing further for hundreds of millions of years since the migration to land occurred. The common ancestor would have been quite different.

Having said that, what is DNA, really? It's a string of molecules. Simplistically put, it's 4 different molecules commonly noted as C, T, G and A.

At bottom, the only difference between two species, is the arrangement of those 4 molecules over a DNA string.

Now, what does evolution actually do at the genetic level?
It mutates such a string in a variety of ways. It changes "letters", so it might turn a T into a G.
It can duplicate letters or entire sequences of letters.
It can remove letters.
It can move letters around.

In other words, it can all operations required to turn it into something very different overtime.


There is one important limitation though. It uses inheritance.
Meaning that this process will produce nested hierarchies.

So if a population evolves genes to build feathers, all their off spring will have that genetic sequence. It might mutate further in sub-lineages, but the core of the sequence will be there regardless. While in peer populations, those genes will not be present. This is why finding a mammal with feathers will disprove evolution.


So, to conclude....
The ancestor of modern fish and humans, had DNA. The "information" for building humans and salmon did not exist at that time, correct. But the alfabet that codes for such information, did. The basic common template of both human and samon DNA existed also, in that ancestral population.

Over hundreds of millions of years, one lineage's DNA was tinkered with through mutation every generation and ended up in the DNA of humans. The other ended up in the DNA of salmon.


Consider the analogy of language.
There is a language Latin. It uses an alfabet. Latin does not contain the "information" for Italian and French.
Over time however, latin disappeared and split into several lineages. One lineage's phonetics was tinkered with through "mutation" (=basically the process by which dialects form) and turned out to become Italian. The other became French.

yet no latin speaking mother ever raised an italian speaking child...

You would need to design a completely different code.

It is absolutely not "completely different code".
It's the exact same code. Strings of molecules, only 4 different ones, arranged a bit differently.

That's why you can get from a wolf to a Weiner dog but not from a canine to a giraffe.

If a canine would produce a giraffe, evolution theory would be disproven.