Jump to content


Photo

Living Fossils Refute Evolutionist Methodology


  • Please log in to reply
103 replies to this topic

#41 deadlock

deadlock

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,196 posts
  • Age: 43
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Rio de Janeiro

Posted 25 October 2009 - 05:56 AM

Isn't 'macro evolution' simply several stages of micro evolution, the accumulation of mutations leading to easily recognizable difference over time? Like domesticated plants or animals are rather different from the wild species?

In computing, a macro is just a piece of code consisting of a number of small steps, i.e. 'micro'.

What is your opinion about genetic changes like the Caucasian adaptation of light colored skin as opposed to the African black skin, to allow more UV radiation to produce vitamin D? Isn't  that an advantageous genetic change?

I am not familiar with any rule that says a mutation needs to be disadvantageous - it may just as well be an advantage. Neutral or positive mutations may become fixed depending on circumstances, negative mutations most likely will be lost for obvious reasons. As far as I know, "Genetic Entropy" is a meaningless term with no scientific foundation. I'd like to know more about GE if you can point to good info about it.

To me, it sounds like a fabricated concept. the term "entropy" has a specific meaning in thermodynamics and I don't see how it applies to genetics.

View Post


Look at this article :Genetic Load

#42 SeeJay

SeeJay

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 310 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 45
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Sydney, Australia

Posted 25 October 2009 - 06:13 AM

Micro-evolution has nothing to do with Natural Selection. Micro-evolution means micro-change.Natural Selection means if that change will help the surviving in nature.

No being has 100% of chance of surviving.So, randomness is more important than Natural Selection. Natural Selection works only in very deleterious mutations.

View Post


Hi deadlock

I hope you won't mind me pointing out that you seem to be a different definition for micro-evolution than other people in this thread.

The most common definition for micro-evolution, a.k.a. adaptation, is mutation plus natural selection.

You are correct that mutations provide the "micro-changes", and natural selection preserves the helpful ones and weeds out the harmful ones. Usually this overall process is what is called "micro-evolution".

Regards
SeeJay

#43 SeeJay

SeeJay

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 310 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 45
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Sydney, Australia

Posted 25 October 2009 - 06:21 AM


Isn't 'macro evolution' simply several stages of micro evolution, the accumulation of mutations leading to easily recognizable difference over time? Like domesticated plants or animals are rather different from the wild species?
...

Look at this article :Genetic Load

View Post


Curler, you should also have a look at this:

The following are disallowed:
...
Equivocation, particularly regarding what "evolution" means. It is intellectually dishonest to claim that micro-evolution (something everyone agrees occurs) proves that all life originates from a common ancestor.


Regards
SeeJay

#44 deadlock

deadlock

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,196 posts
  • Age: 43
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Rio de Janeiro

Posted 25 October 2009 - 07:04 AM

Hi deadlock

I hope you won't mind me pointing out that you seem to be a different definition for micro-evolution than other people in this thread.

The most common definition for micro-evolution, a.k.a. adaptation, is mutation plus natural selection.

You are correct that mutations provide the "micro-changes", and natural selection preserves the helpful ones and weeds out the harmful ones. Usually this overall process is what is called "micro-evolution".

Regards
SeeJay

View Post


Before the micro-change is selected cant we call it micro-evolution ?

#45 Guest_Taikoo_*

Guest_Taikoo_*
  • Guests

Posted 25 October 2009 - 07:57 AM

To use construction as an example. 
Mud was a building material.  Formed on frames.  Limits of construction size were great.  Mud bricks replaced the framed, mud structures and could be made much larger.  Micro-evolution.  No new material (information)
Technology gives us many advantages over mud because we have information that did not exist, steel etc.  Macro-evolution.
Evo's have not identified how this new (not previously existing) information is formed in genes.  They just believe it does because we are here as proof.

View Post



making statements like "they just believe it because.........." is your opinion stated as fact. Is there a reason for doing that?


Earlier you sort of defined information as "material".
I would like to respond to what you said about "new information" but i would need to know what you mean by information, how you would define it. no analogies svp.

#46 AFJ

AFJ

    AFJ

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,625 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Baton Rouge, LA
  • Interests:Bible, molecular biology, chemistry, mineralogy, geology, eschatology, history, family
  • Age: 51
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Baton Rouge, LA

Posted 25 October 2009 - 09:16 AM

Blowing up bridges... yes, that is generally why people die from a bacteria or virus that wasnt in itself so bad.

Yes as long as sickle cell is needed to provide immunity to malaria, it will stick around.  but there is no obvious reason it could not mutate to a form that still provides immunity without the undesirable side effects.

you speak of 'information".  Could you explain what you mean by that?
Also, what you mean by "macroevolution"?  They dont talk aobut that in any class i ever took.

View Post

The sickle cell is not a "new" design no more than an earthquake crevice in a road is a "new" design. It is a deformation of the original which is selected for because of it's protection from malaria.

Information would be the sequential code in the DNA--the four amino acids out of the 20 possible for biological systems--organized into nucleic acids which are three letter sequences--each of which code for an amino acid to form a polypepetide chain--that will in turn fold itself into a secondary, tertiary, and/or quaternary shape, and be again shaped in the golgi appuratus. This protein in turn fits with other proteins in a larger biological system.

DNA is basically a blueprint--therefore it is information. The breakdown of the original info is not new information. New information produces new biological appurti.

Can any evo even think up a new bio-machine on the human body that is not already in existence somewhere else? This would be new information--at one time allegedly there was no such thing as a wing. Science does not account for any intelligence that would even "think it up" but says unguided mutation and all the other principles of evolution engineered it.

#47 Guest_Taikoo_*

Guest_Taikoo_*
  • Guests

Posted 25 October 2009 - 10:07 AM

The sickle cell is not a "new" design no more than an earthquake crevice in a road is a "new" design.  It is a deformation of the original which is selected for because of it's protection from malaria.

Information would be the sequential code in the DNA--the four amino acids out of the 20 possible for biological systems--organized into nucleic acids which are three letter sequences--each of which code for an amino acid to form a polypepetide chain--that will in turn fold itself into a secondary, tertiary, and/or quaternary shape, and be again shaped in the golgi appuratus. This protein in turn fits with other proteins in a larger biological system. 

DNA is basically a blueprint--therefore it is information.  The breakdown of the original info is not new information.  New information produces new biological appurti.

Can any evo even think up a new bio-machine on the human body that is not already in existence somewhere else?  This would be new information--at one time allegedly there was no such thing as a wing.  Science does not account for any intelligence that would even "think it up" but says unguided mutation and all the other principles of evolution engineered it.

View Post



A sickle cell is a version of an pre-existing design. agreed on that?

no need to explain DNA to me... just saying so you wont waste your time.

I wondered what YOU mean by "information". What do you mean, not a thumbnail explanation of DNA or analogies please.

Analogies to roads and earthquakes etc are not useful. is a blueprint information itself, or does it contain information? If it contains information how would you define "information' contained in a blueprint? if you changed a detail of the blueprint would it contain new information?

I dont think info is so easy to define as what you said. I hope you will try to enlarge on it a bit.


I dont know what you mean by this "Can any evo even think up a new bio-machine on the human body that is not already in existence somewhere else". Please rephrase a bit? "think up" would mean using imagination. Imagining things that dont exist doesnt seem useful or relevant to this.

What is a bio-machine?

You do have a concept there, shared with, not 'evos", a non-existent group of people, but with biologists of all sorts. That there isnt anything 'new' to be found in a human being that doesnt have is antecedents in the other mammals, in reptiles, fish and so on. A series of very small changes takes you from.. if you like analogies...a arquebus to an M16.

Everything to be found in the human body can be traced back to, is a modified version of, other versions of the same structures in other animals.

Would you say it is impossible for a mutation to occur that produces some feature in a plant or animal that was never before seen in that orgaism?

(I am leaving "feature" undefined for now)

Regarding your mention of a wing...would you say that bats have wings? Insects?
flying fish? flying squirrels? Do you have a particular meaning in mind when you say"wing"?

#48 Guest_Curler_*

Guest_Curler_*
  • Guests

Posted 25 October 2009 - 11:01 AM

Look at this article  :Genetic Load

View Post


Curler, you should also have a look at this:

The following are disallowed:
...
Equivocation, particularly regarding what "evolution" means. It is intellectually dishonest to claim that micro-evolution (something everyone agrees occurs) proves that all life originates from a common ancestor.

Regards
SeeJay

View Post


I am afraid I don't understand why you mention that, I fail to see any connection to anything that I wrote?

I am not familiar with anyone claiming that microevolution is proof of common descent. All microevolution is, it is fuel for the evolutionary process. Common descent is, AFAIK, a conclusion drawn from the study of genetics. According to science as far as I have been able to understand, those studies are strong evidence for common descent, and there would be no reason to expect that if common descent was not the case.

I know I am not able to determine what's true or not when people make different claims about this. My understanding of science, however, and the many years I have spent trying to penetrate into scientific thinking and making sense of it, has forced me to accept common descent as the best, and at least for the time being, the only reasonable explanation for the facts upon which that conclusion has been drawn.

Fine, as long as we have a definition of exactly what evolution means.

According to Darwin, it is:

"Thus, from the war of nature, from famine and death, the most exalted object which we are capable of conceiving, namely, the production of the higher animals, directly follows. There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved."

What remains is the mechanism/s: According to science, mutations, lateral gene transfer and, I presume, some other factors as well although not being a scientist myself, I cannot tell.

According to Michael Behe, Intelligent Design,although from what I have read it seems that he accepts evolution as far as common descent and age of Earth is concerned. Where he disagrees with mainstream science is on what he sees as complexity beyond what he calls 'the edge of evolution'. Meaning that things like the bacterial flagellum and others are not the result of natural processes; they weer implemented by the designer.

According to YEC creationism: God did it, read the Bible.

There are other varieties out there too, like Behe suggesting it may all have been front loaded at the beginning, and have just been unfolding according to plan.

That's what I can say, please correct me if I am wrong. I want to learn, but I want to learn what's true and that sometimes require consulting original sources.

It is intellectually dishonest to claim that micro-evolution (something everyone agrees occurs) proves that all life originates from a common ancestor


To make it clear, I do not make that claim, never did. But to be fair, is it not considered possible for a guy to make that claim because he doesn't know better?

Am I right when I see that rule as a warning against being ignorant, less than optimally well read or schooled in a subject? Is there no room for being wrong? We may all be wrong whether creationist or evolutionist.

I suggest the best approach is to try to learn as much as one can about a subject, from reliable sources.

Personally, I am forced to rely on authorities since I have no means of investigation biology on my own.

I don't mind being corrected if I should make a dubious claim. If that should be the case, I am able to search for authoritative opinions and educate myself, hopefully arriving at a more correct understanding of a subject for future use.

#49 SeeJay

SeeJay

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 310 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 45
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Sydney, Australia

Posted 25 October 2009 - 01:57 PM

Before the micro-change is selected cant we call it micro-evolution ?

View Post


Hi deadlock

I would recommend against that.

A micro-change before being selected is what most would call a mutation. Mutations happen to individuals.

After you put a lot of individuals (and their variety of mutations) through a selection process, then you've got what most would call micro-evolution or adaptation. Micro-evolution/adaptation is something that happens to populations, not individuals.

Regards
SeeJay

#50 SeeJay

SeeJay

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 310 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 45
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Sydney, Australia

Posted 25 October 2009 - 03:06 PM


Curler, you should also have a look at this:


The following are disallowed:
...
Equivocation, particularly regarding what "evolution" means. It is intellectually dishonest to claim that micro-evolution (something everyone agrees occurs) proves that all life originates from a common ancestor.

I am afraid I don't understand why you mention that, I fail to see any connection to anything that I wrote?


I mentioned that for two reasons:

1. In response to your comment "Isn't 'macro evolution' simply several stages of micro evolution, the accumulation of mutations leading to easily recognizable difference over time?" I am not a mod, but purely as a courtesy I pointed this out to you in case you missed it, as your comment has many similarities to the disallowed argument from equivocation. If you don't see it, that's fine. But you should be aware that others might see things differently.

2. The Forum Rules include the concept that micro-evolution is something everyone agrees occurs. But there have been numerous comments in this thread which show that some people do not agree it occurs, or they are using a different concept of micro-evolution than the forum rules (in my reading of them anyway). So I thought it may be helpful to post the rule for all on this thread.


Regards
SeeJay

#51 AFJ

AFJ

    AFJ

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,625 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Baton Rouge, LA
  • Interests:Bible, molecular biology, chemistry, mineralogy, geology, eschatology, history, family
  • Age: 51
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Baton Rouge, LA

Posted 25 October 2009 - 05:22 PM

A sickle cell is a version of an pre-existing design.  agreed on that?

no need to explain DNA to me... just saying so you wont waste your time.

I wondered what YOU mean by "information".  What do you mean, not a thumbnail explanation of DNA or analogies please.

Analogies to roads and earthquakes etc are not useful.  is a blueprint information itself, or does it contain information?  If it contains information how would you define "information' contained in a blueprint?  if you changed a detail of the blueprint would it contain new information?  

I dont think info is so easy to define as what you said.  I hope you will try to enlarge on it a bit.
I dont know what you mean by this "Can any evo even think up a new bio-machine on the human body that is not already in existence somewhere else".  Please rephrase a bit?  "think up" would mean using imagination.  Imagining things that dont exist doesnt seem useful or relevant to this.   

What is a bio-machine?

You do have a concept there, shared with, not 'evos", a non-existent group of people, but with biologists of all sorts.  That there isnt anything 'new' to be found in a human being that doesnt have is antecedents in the other mammals, in reptiles, fish and so on.  A series of very small changes takes you from.. if you like analogies...a arquebus to an M16. 

Everything to be found in the human body can be traced back to, is a modified version of, other versions of the same structures in other animals.

Would you say it is impossible for a mutation to occur that produces some feature in a plant or animal that was never before seen in that orgaism?

(I am leaving "feature" undefined for now)

Regarding your mention of a wing...would you say that bats have wings?  Insects?
flying fish?   flying squirrels?  Do you have a particular meaning in mind when you say"wing"?

View Post


I dont have alot of time right now, but I will get back.

Basically, on a personal note, I'm amazed that a basic code could be discovered in a molecule within the nucleus of all cells and no (at least inductive) inference is drawn from it by science, especially in light of what it initiates. There's not even an attitude of the possibility of intelligence. Though the official response is that science can not account for God, the apparent attitude goes from "doesn't matter" to hostile.

As far as a bio-machine I would say that the arm, leg, neck, heart, even the cell are in a long list of bio-machines--in that they do work. As evos refrain from the word "intention" in the design of say the heart--there is no denying the "direct working function" of the heart. The heart is defined by the work that it does--it's function then defines it's purpose. It is part of a larger system which makes sense to us. The heart needs the circulatory system and the CS the heart. As well it is dependent on the brain and the central nervous system to work. The heart needs the brain and CNS and the brain needs the heart to work also. But these systems are part of a body which also needs then--and they need the body. Therefore we see interdependent purpose within the body.

SO THEN WORKING FUNCTION DEFINES THE PURPOSE OF THE APPARATUS, ESPECIALLY WHEN IT IS PART OF A LARGER INTERDEPENDENT SYSTEM. THIS SHOULD AT LEAST GIVE SCIENCE A RIGHT TO SPEAK AS FAR AS THE IMPLICATIONS OF THIS FACT. Maybe not as proof of God--but to to the point of implication of intelligence in the design of the apparatus.

#52 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 25 October 2009 - 05:28 PM

Very well said, AFJ. Scoffers have to put in quite an extra effort to pretend that what you just said doesn't make sense.

#53 larrywj2

larrywj2

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 603 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Sparks, Nv

Posted 26 October 2009 - 01:37 AM

Hello SeeJay

Consider the overall change from mud spread on frames all the way to fired bricks mortared with cement. Would you characterise this as microevolution?

No. In each step intelligence was used to add information. Micro-evolution is changes by natural slection to give a creature an advantage. Lizards on an island with longer toes/claws hunt better in the surf, therefore survive and provide better. Short toed/clawed lizards are bred out. The genetic inforation is already there. Long toed genes are dominant, short toed genes are still there.

I believe the evolutionist theory is that one way for new information to arise in genes, is by duplication followed by mutation. . .
Since we know gene duplication and mutation occur, then we know that in principle the information content in genes can increase.

We do not know it in principle. In theory yes, it is acceptable. The next step would be a real world test. Such has been performed. In genetics and computers (computer code taught to duplicate itself). In neither case have there been any improvements in the resulting or compounded information. The random mutations always result in degraded information not recognized by the host whether softawre or organism. The "new" information was useless. This is so because no matter how often or what was duplicated the new information is limited to information in the original. The mutation were incomplete copies and unable to interact with the originals or any other component of the host.

#54 larrywj2

larrywj2

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 603 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Sparks, Nv

Posted 26 October 2009 - 01:56 AM

making statements like "they just believe it because.........." is  your opinion stated as fact.  Is there a reason for doing that? 
Earlier you sort of defined information as "material".
I would like to respond to what you said about "new information" but i would need to know what you mean by information, how you would define it.  no analogies svp.

View Post

They just believe it does because we are here as proof.
Evo's often claim that our existance is proof that evolution happened. In other words, because we are here, evolution must work, even if we have no idea how.

In a book the information is the words. In math information is the numbers. In genetics and computers it is the code. Copies of any that are not 100% are incomplete. In a book the meaning may be lost. In math the result will be wrong (and you lose your space probe on Mars). In computers degraded code is incompatable, useless, clutters up the data or worse. What I have read indicates tha genetic information is nearly identical in operatin to computer code.

Hope that gives you the ammo you seek:)

#55 deadlock

deadlock

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,196 posts
  • Age: 43
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Rio de Janeiro

Posted 26 October 2009 - 03:42 AM

Hi deadlock

I would recommend against that.

A micro-change before being selected is what most would call a mutation. Mutations happen to individuals.

After you put a lot of individuals (and their variety of mutations) through a selection process, then you've got what most would call micro-evolution or adaptation. Micro-evolution/adaptation is something that happens to populations, not individuals.

Regards
SeeJay

View Post


So, when can we say that a mutation was selected ? in other words, how many individuals must have the mutation to say that it was selected ?

#56 larrywj2

larrywj2

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 603 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Sparks, Nv

Posted 26 October 2009 - 05:43 AM

Micro-evolution has nothing to do with Natural Selection. Micro-evolution means micro-change.Natural Selection means if that change will help the surviving in nature.

No being has 100% of chance of surviving.So, randomness is more important than Natural Selection. Natural Selection works only in very deleterious mutations.

View Post

Maybe it is too late in the shift for me to be reading, your thoughts don't seem coherent.
Micro-evloution=
Natural selection=

#57 SeeJay

SeeJay

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 310 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 45
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Sydney, Australia

Posted 26 October 2009 - 05:57 AM

Consider the overall change from mud spread on frames all the way to fired bricks mortared with cement. Would you characterise this as microevolution?

No. In each step intelligence was used to add information. Micro-evolution is changes by natural slection to give a creature an advantage. Lizards on an island with longer toes/claws hunt better in the surf, therefore survive and provide better. Short toed/clawed lizards are bred out. The genetic inforation is already there. Long toed genes are dominant, short toed genes are still there.


Hi larrywj2. Thanks for the response.

Previously you said "Mud bricks replaced the framed, mud structures and could be made much larger. Micro-evolution. No new material (information)" (emphasis added).

Staying with the brick analogy for biological evolution: Are you saying unguided natural forces can, for example, take the step from adobe structures to mud bricks (microevolution), but cannot, for example, take the step from mud bricks to mud-and-dung bricks (macroevolution)?

Or are you saying each incremental step could be achieved by unguided natural forces in theory, but the overall pattern of change can only be achieved by an intelligent agency?

If you duplicate an information-bearing code like a gene, information theory states you have increased the information content by at least 1 bit, because you at least need to record the number of duplicates (in the simplest case, 2). If one of these duplicates subsequently gets a mutation, then the two copies are not identical, and you will have increased the information content by at least one more bit to record the difference between the duplicates.

Since we know gene duplication and mutation occur, then we know that in principle the information content in genes can increase.


We do not know it in principle. In theory yes, it is acceptable. The next step would be a real world test. Such has been performed. In genetics and computers (computer code taught to duplicate itself). In neither case have there been any improvements in the resulting or compounded information. The random mutations always result in degraded information not recognized by the host whether softawre or organism. The "new" information was useless. This is so because no matter how often or what was duplicated the new information is limited to information in the original. The mutation were incomplete copies and unable to interact with the originals or any other component of the host.

View Post

Perhaps its just my Australian English, but by "in principle" I meant exactly the same thing as "in theory". So it seems you agree with me that the amount of information in a genome can increase by at least 2 bits if a gene is duplicated and then one of the duplicates undergoes a mutation.

However, you then stated "...no matter how often or what was duplicated the new information is limited to information in the original." This is the opposite of what I thought you were agreeing to. So I'm a bit confused as to your position.

To clarify: Using standard information theory to treat the genome as either a message (Shannon theory), or as a program (Kolmogorov theory), it can be formally proven that duplicating a part of the message/program increases its information content, and mutating one of the duplicates also increases its information content.

So, perhaps you agree that new information can arise from duplication and mutation, but not useful information. Would that be correct?

Thanks
SeeJay

#58 Guest_McStone_*

Guest_McStone_*
  • Guests

Posted 26 October 2009 - 06:41 AM

I think this debate has digressed quite a bit from the original post about living fossils. Some people are arguing from a chemical perspective and others from an "information theory" perspective, the applicability, of which, is questionable, ultimately because of the uncertaincy principle (at a sub-atomic scale, position and momentum cannot be known at the same time).

The same techniques of infomation theory could be applied at one totally different scale (say, analysing information content in fibre-optic cables) to another (analysing the information content of DNA). It is statistically far too broad to test any hypothesis, and so causation cannot be implied to a significant difference ('all information requires intelligence' thus life was designed). When Biologists talk of the 'information content' of DNA, they are referring to the raw protein-coding sequence- how much of it there is relative to non-coding, how it relates to protein etc- not to draw comparisons with diverse other sources of information in the universe.

It is misleading to assume that apparent stasis in "living fossils" discredits evolution. Firstly, there is nothing in evolutionary theory that requires things to evolve in the first place. Organisms evolve (or the frequency of an allele(s) is displaced from hardy-weinberg equilibrium), because some selective pressure furthers the proliferation of those alleles relative to another (or, indeed, an allele may further its own chances of reproduction). It doesnt have to be as obvious as "all those with breed, all those without die", nor as long-winded as "lets evolve a human one gene at a time". It is a slow process, where the variation on an individuals genome may become fixed in a population, and that can happen through a variety of mechanisms. Secondly, the assertion that living fossils have remained the same in the first place is based entirely on superficial measure of appearence (bones) and physiology. So, yes, some organisms havent changed their appearence for a long time (because selective pressures havent required for them to do so), but that doesnt mean evolution at the molecular scale hasnt occurred, (to local variations in climate for instance), or indeed speciation. Macroevolution doesnt occurr for the sake of evolving or "being superior", it occurrs alongside continuing ecological change; otherwise, theres no point, and nothing to "identify" successful alleles. So stasis is very much part of evolutionary theory.

What are your thoughts guys?

#59 SeeJay

SeeJay

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 310 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 45
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Sydney, Australia

Posted 26 October 2009 - 06:52 AM

So, when can we say that a mutation was selected ? in other words, how many individuals must have the mutation to say that it was selected ?

View Post

Hi deadlock

If a mutation is being selected, then it will start to spread through the population. We can identify this, not by just counting the number of individuals with the mutation, but by measuring the rate at which that number changes. This has been done many times in the laboratory.

Note that various well-understood factors can counteract the spread of a mutation even if it is being selected for, such as geographical isolation, population bottlenecks, or genetic drift.

Cheers
SeeJay

#60 SeeJay

SeeJay

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 310 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 45
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Sydney, Australia

Posted 26 October 2009 - 07:04 AM

I think this debate has digressed quite a bit from the original post about living fossils. Some people are arguing from a chemical perspective and others from an "information theory" perspective, the applicability, of which, is questionable, ultimately because of the uncertaincy principle (at a sub-atomic scale, position and momentum cannot be known at the same time).

The same techniques of infomation theory could be applied at one totally different scale (say, analysing information content in fibre-optic cables) to another (analysing the information content of DNA). It is statistically far too broad to test any hypothesis, and so causation cannot be implied to a significant difference ('all information requires intelligence' thus life was designed). When Biologists talk of the 'information content' of DNA, they are referring to the raw protein-coding sequence- how much of it there is relative to non-coding, how it relates to protein etc- not to draw comparisons with diverse other sources of information in the universe.

It is misleading to assume that apparent stasis in "living fossils" discredits evolution. Firstly, there is nothing in evolutionary theory that requires things to evolve in the first place. Organisms evolve (or the frequency of an allele(s) is displaced from hardy-weinberg equilibrium), because some selective pressure furthers the proliferation of those alleles relative to another (or, indeed, an allele may further its own chances of reproduction). It doesnt have to be as obvious as "all those with breed, all those without die", nor as long-winded as "lets evolve a human one gene at a time". It is a slow process, where the variation on an individuals genome may become fixed in a population, and that can happen through a variety of mechanisms. Secondly, the assertion that living fossils have remained the same in the first place is based entirely on superficial measure of appearence (bones) and physiology. So, yes, some organisms havent changed their appearence for a long time (because selective pressures havent required for them to do so), but that doesnt mean evolution at the molecular scale hasnt occurred, (to local variations in climate for instance), or indeed speciation. Macroevolution doesnt occurr for the sake of evolving or "being superior", it occurrs alongside continuing ecological change; otherwise, theres no point, and nothing to "identify" successful alleles. So stasis is very much part of evolutionary theory.

What are your thoughts guys?

View Post

Hi McStone

Nice to meet you.

I agree with pretty much all you said.

I am however finding this thread very interesting as there seems to be quite a diversity of opinion about what microevolution means, whether natural selection operates to remove harmful mutations, and whether natural forces can increase the information content of a genome. This seems to me to be somewhat like a "language barrier" between the parties, and I'm finding it fruitful to discuss these language issues as much as the substantive ones.

Cheers
SeeJay




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users