Evolution In The Classroom

[Mystic_Banana]

The great majority of mutations are neutral and do not have any effect on the phenotype; in humans this is 95% or more. Of the remaining non-neutral mutations the great majority are deleterious. Very very few are beneficial. For example, the average human has about 150 mutations of which about 145 are neutral, the remaining five are deleterious though perhaps only mildly so. However with a population of 6 billion that is still a very large number of mutations in which to find a good one.

The point of natural selection is that those rare beneficial mutations are amplified from generation to generation, as my table shows. They do not happen often, but when they do happen they are preferentially amplified by natural selection.

Yes. Ask any population geneticist. It should be obvious that not dying of malaria means that on average you will have more children than someone who is dead or incapacitated by malaria.

Apolipoprotein A-I Milano helps prevent heart attacks when eating a fat-rich Western diet. HbC protects against malaria. Both of these are beneficial in their environments.

It has been tested. See: Haemoglobin C protects against clinical Plasmodium falciparum malaria: These findings, together with the limited pathology of HbAC and HbCC compared to the severely disadvantaged HbSS and HbSC genotypes and the low betaS gene frequency in the geographic epicentre of betaC, support the hypothesis that, in the long term and in the absence of malaria control, HbC would replace HbS in central West Africa.
This paper shows that given current conditions the HbC mutation will replace the HbS (sickle cell) mutation. It still protects against malaria, but does not have the severe disadvantages of the sickle cell mutation.

rossum

The beneficial mutations are not, therefore, much in a way to explain evolution, because, as you point out, mutations could occur in any number of ways - it is rather that whatever mutations occur do not result in death. There is nothing to stop those more ‘evolved’ to a ‘more complex lifeform’ dying away, leaving the generally ‘less evolved’ to survive them.

To the original point, it is also not that nature has selected such, for what would nature be but itself the result of random mutation, which, by chance, has survived itself? It would therefore not be selecting anything at all…

The selection you are describing is still, therefore, not selection. It is random chance given an inaccurate name. The ‘selector’ isn’t selecting at all - it would just be there, spewing out random circumstances

All in all, there is still no explanation in your theory as to why some accidental organic acid, sloshing around for no particular reason, would slowly give birth eventually to intelligent life by what is still, dressed up as something else as it is, is still a theory of absurdly unlikely sheer chance.

“How do we know something is the fittest? It is because it has survived.” (Charles Fort, probably innaccurately quoted)

Tautology that goes nowhere! :whacky:

 

[rossum]

The beneficial mutations are not, therefore, much in a way to explain evolution,

Why not? We know beneficial mutations exist - I gave two examples in my post. Work by Lenski and others has shown that some neutral mutations can also assist in the evolution of new mechanisms.

because, as you point out, mutations could occur in any number of ways - it is rather that whatever mutations occur do not result in death.

We can shuffle a pack of cards in many different ways. Does that mean that it is not possible to shuffle a pack of cards because there are so many ways it could possible be done?

There is nothing to stop those more ‘evolved’ to a ‘more complex lifeform’ dying away, leaving the generally ‘less evolved’ to survive them.

Evolution is not about individuals, it is about populations. While an individual with a beneficial mutation might get killed by a hurricane, that mutation can happen again elsewhere. There are 6,000,000,000 humans, each with about 150 mutations; that is 900,000,000,000 mutations. There are 3,500,000,000 base pairs in the human genome, each of which could be mutated to 6 other values - a total of 28,000,000,000 possible point mutations. Every generation we can expect each possible point mutation to appear over 30 times in the human population. While we may lose one or two individuals with that mutation through accident, it is highly unlikely that all 30 individuals, scattered all over the planet, will be lost.

To the original point, it is also not that nature has selected such, for what would nature be but itself the result of random mutation, which, by chance, has survived itself? It would therefore not be selecting anything at all…

You are reifying “nature” here. All natural selection does is to say that if you have more descendants than the next guy then there are more copies of your genes than of his in future populations.

The selection you are describing is still, therefore, not selection. It is random chance given an inaccurate name. The ‘selector’ isn’t selecting at all - it would just be there, spewing out random circumstances

Genes with an advantage tend to spread through the population. Neutral genes drift in the population. Deleterious genes tend to disappear from the population. How is that not a form of selection?

“How do we know something is the fittest? It is because it has survived.” (Charles Fort, probably innaccurately quoted)

Natural selection does not look at survival. Living to 1,000 years old while not having any children means that none of your genes will be present in future generations. Living a short life but having lots of children means that lots of copies of your genes will be in future generations. The non-surviving reproducer is more successful, i.e. ‘fit’, than the long lived non-reproducer.

If you parents didn’t have any children then the chances are that you won’t either.

rossum

 

[grannymh]

Evolution is not about individuals, it is about populations. While an individual with a beneficial mutation might get killed by a hurricane, that mutation can happen again elsewhere. There are 6,000,000,000 humans, each with about 150 mutations; that is 900,000,000,000 mutations. There are 3,500,000,000 base pairs in the human genome, each of which could be mutated to 6 other values - a total of 28,000,000,000 possible point mutations. Every generation we can expect each possible point mutation to appear over 30 times in the human population. While we may lose one or two individuals with that mutation through accident, it is highly unlikely that all 30 individuals, scattered all over the planet, will be lost.

rossum

This is only the second time since I have been reading CAF that I have seen the theory “Evolution is not about individuals, it is about populations.”

The first time, coincidentally, I had been wandering on the Berkeley “Understanding Evolution” site in the area of founder effect, so I took the population theory as pertaining to non-human animals. But, since I consider the human species as unique, it looks to me that the evolutionary theory of individuals vs. populations does not apply to the human species from the point when whatever became a fully complete human nature.

 

[rossum]

This is only the second time since I have been reading CAF that I have seen the theory “Evolution is not about individuals, it is about populations.”

“Individuals reproduce; populations evolve.”

The first time, coincidentally, I had been wandering on the Berkeley “Understanding Evolution” site in the area of founder effect, so I took the population theory as pertaining to non-human animals. But, since I consider the human species as unique, it looks to me that the evolutionary theory of individuals vs. populations does not apply to the human species from the point when whatever became a fully complete human nature.

The material part of humans is animal - we have eyes like other animals, we have legs like other animals, we have fur/hair like other animals etc. In biological terms we are animals.

rossum

 

[edwest2]

“Individuals reproduce; populations evolve.”

The material part of humans is animal - we have eyes like other animals, we have legs like other animals, we have fur/hair like other animals etc. In biological terms we are animals.

rossum

Science, obviously, cannot fully define human beings.

Peace,
Ed

 

[rossum]

Science, obviously, cannot fully define human beings.

Of course not; science cannot explain gandhabbas to take a Buddhist example. Science looks at the material part of man. That is why when we go to school or university we find that not all the lessons are science lessons - there are other areas of study alongside science.

I have no problem with other subjects being taught alongside science. I do have a problem with a non-science being forced into science classes.

rossum

 

[grannymh]

“Individuals reproduce; populations evolve.”

Speaking creatively regarding the comment “Individuals reproduce; populations evolve.” – it would be theoretically possible in principle that the human population evolved from two individuals who were good at producing.

 

[tjm190]

Speaking creatively regarding the comment “Individuals reproduce; populations evolve.” – it would be theoretically possible in principle that the human population evolved from two individuals who were good at producing.

If we ignore the fact that large mammals (that’s us!) don’t do well in such small populations and it’s quite difficult to think of the bottleneck that could have left only two of us alive.

 

[tjm190]

Science, obviously, cannot fully define human beings.

Peace,
Ed

Nor does it seek to- just our biology.

 

[buffalo]

If we ignore the fact that large mammals (that’s us!) don’t do well in such small populations and it’s quite difficult to think of the bottleneck that could have left only two of us alive.

Do not discount the power of the DNA language.

 

[edwest2]

Of course not; science cannot explain gandhabbas to take a Buddhist example. Science looks at the material part of man. That is why when we go to school or university we find that not all the lessons are science lessons - there are other areas of study alongside science.

I have no problem with other subjects being taught alongside science. I do have a problem with a non-science being forced into science classes.

rossum

Your desire to protect science classrooms shows an ideological bias. This is obvious by the many posts that claim “science is silent about God and the supernatural,” and then turn around to say something no peer reviewed, scientific paper says: Your Bible is wrong, here, here and here.

And I am convinced evolution has little value in the real world: it is not needed to drive a truck, or flip a burger or to design cruise missiles. New drug discovery is built around trial and error. I’ve been to too many atheist web sites where the argument includes non-biological science. "You want more advanced technology? Huh? Then you better support >science<.

Science - or should I say pseudo-science - appears here all the time to report on God and/or the Bible something that it claims is not observable or testable.

Peace,
Ed

 

[grannymh]

If we ignore the fact that large mammals (that’s us!) don’t do well in such small populations and it’s quite difficult to think of the bottleneck that could have left only two of us alive.

I could never imagine a bottleneck, which is a reduced population, that would have left only two people alive. What I was talking about was the beginning of the human race which is a different ball game.

In my humble opinion, two fully complete human beings would have the smarts and the guts to overcome any disadvantage of a small beginning population.

 

[buffalo]

I could never imagine a bottleneck, which is a reduced population, that would have left only two people alive. What I was talking about was the beginning of the human race which is a different ballgame.

In my humble opinion, two fully complete human beings would have the smarts and the guts to overcome any disadvantage of a small beginning population.

Especially those endowed with preternatural gifts.

 

[Calliso]

Your desire to protect science classrooms shows an ideological bias. This is obvious by the many posts that claim “science is silent about God and the supernatural,” and then turn around to say something no peer reviewed, scientific paper says: Your Bible is wrong, here, here and here.

And I am convinced evolution has little value in the real world: it is not needed to drive a truck, or flip a burger or to design cruise missiles. New drug discovery is built around trial and error. I’ve been to too many atheist web sites where the argument includes non-biological science. "You want more advanced technology? Huh? Then you better support >science<.

Science - or should I say pseudo-science - appears here all the time to report on God and/or the Bible something that it claims is not observable or testable.

Peace,
Ed

I posted this link before but I will post it again. Evolutionary theory has more benefit to real life then you think. evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/search/topicbrowse2.php?topic_id=47

 

[grannymh]

I posted this link before but I will post it again. Evolutionary theory has more benefit to real life then you think. evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/search/topicbrowse2.php?topic_id=47

You just posted my favorite link. Plus I am on their update list.

I agree that Evolutionary theory offers a lot to real life. But its limitations cannot explain real life.
A total, complete understanding of the unique nature of the human species is beyond any theory which is grounded in materialism. That is why human beings do not belong in the brute animal kingdom. In my humble opinion, there is a very real difference between me and my cousin chilly chimp. In fact, I started a thread in Apologetics titled "Is there any difference between a chimpanzee and a human?

 

[Calliso]

You just posted my favorite link. Plus I am on their update list.

I agree that Evolutionary theory offers a lot to real life. But its limitations cannot explain real life.
A total, complete understanding of the unique nature of the human species is beyond any theory which is grounded in materialism. That is why human beings do not belong in the brute animal kingdom. In my humble opinion, there is a very real difference between me and my cousin chilly chimp. In fact, I started a thread in Apologetics titled "Is there any difference between a chimpanzee and a human?

Well no science cannot explain spiritual things like our soul for instance. But biologically we are animals. So that is why we are classified as such. And yes there is plenty of differences between us and chimps but I wonlt go more into that on this thread.

 

[edwest2]

I posted this link before but I will post it again. Evolutionary theory has more benefit to real life then you think. evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/search/topicbrowse2.php?topic_id=47

I am fully not convinced. Here’s why:

uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/philip-skell-revisited/

Peace,
Ed

 

[rossum]

Your Bible is wrong, here, here and here.

What I usually say is: “Your interpretation of the Bible is wrong …”. A YEC who claims “The Bible says that the earth is 6,000 years old,” is wrong. The earth is more than 6,000 years old. This is not a problem with the Bible per se, it is a problem with the YEC’s overly literal interpretation of the Bible. There are many other Christians who believe in the Bible but do not agree with this particular YEC interpretation.

And I am convinced evolution has little value in the real world: it is not needed to drive a truck, or flip a burger or to design cruise missiles.

But it can design antennae for NASA: Automated Antenna Design. Christianity is not needed to drive a truck, or flip a burger or to design cruise missiles either - does that make Christianity worthless in the real world as well?

Science - or should I say pseudo-science - appears here all the time to report on God and/or the Bible something that it claims is not observable or testable.

Some claims based on the Bible are testable, as with the YEC example above; other claims are not. Those claims that have an impact on the material world are testable by science, for example:* A Randomized, Controlled Trial of the Effects of Remote, Intercessory Prayer on Outcomes in Patients Admitted to the Coronary Care Unit.

• Regulation of the Neural Circuitry of Emotion by Compassion Meditation: Effects of Meditative Expertise.

The first is a scientific test of the effects of prayer and the second is a scientific test of the effects of meditation. In both cases the physical impact in the material world is being measured - something that is within the ambit of science.

rossum

 

[edwest2]

What I usually say is: “Your interpretation of the Bible is wrong …”. A YEC who claims “The Bible says that the earth is 6,000 years old,” is wrong. The earth is more than 6,000 years old. This is not a problem with the Bible per se, it is a problem with the YEC’s overly literal interpretation of the Bible. There are many other Christians who believe in the Bible but do not agree with this particular YEC interpretation.

But it can design antennae for NASA: Automated Antenna Design. Christianity is not needed to drive a truck, or flip a burger or to design cruise missiles either - does that make Christianity worthless in the real world as well?

Some claims based on the Bible are testable, as with the YEC example above; other claims are not. Those claims that have an impact on the material world are testable by science, for example:* A Randomized, Controlled Trial of the Effects of Remote, Intercessory Prayer on Outcomes in Patients Admitted to the Coronary Care Unit.

• Regulation of the Neural Circuitry of Emotion by Compassion Meditation: Effects of Meditative Expertise.

The first is a scientific test of the effects of prayer and the second is a scientific test of the effects of meditation. In both cases the physical impact in the material world is being measured - something that is within the ambit of science.

rossum

I suggest that from your position of not wanting to see theism forced into the science classroom that you should not force science into theism.

I’m aware of the scientific tests you refer to and they are meaningless in a theological sense.

I should also point out that what “many other Christians” think is just a subset of what all Christians think, and again, is useful only for a materialist ideological argument. I doubt strongly that the Church allowed a belief in Creationism as being some sort of oversight on their part. Cardinal Schoenborn, the chief editor of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, is an authority I trust. Science I trust less and less as I watch the kinds of comments posted and made across all media.

As a person who is a non-Christian, your motivation for arguing for this or that interpretation of the Bible is unclear.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Mystic_Banana]

Why not? We know beneficial mutations exist - I gave two examples in my post. Work by Lenski and others has shown that some neutral mutations can also assist in the evolution of new mechanisms.

‘can’ is but a possibility. A cow could conceivably be an alien observer from another planet, but I have no particular reason to suspect it does.

We can shuffle a pack of cards in many different ways. Does that mean that it is not possible to shuffle a pack of cards because there are so many ways it could possible be done?

Evolution is not about individuals, it is about populations. While an individual with a beneficial mutation might get killed by a hurricane, that mutation can happen again elsewhere. There are 6,000,000,000 humans, each with about 150 mutations; that is 900,000,000,000 mutations. There are 3,500,000,000 base pairs in the human genome, each of which could be mutated to 6 other values - a total of 28,000,000,000 possible point mutations. Every generation we can expect each possible point mutation to appear over 30 times in the human population. While we may lose one or two individuals with that mutation through accident, it is highly unlikely that all 30 individuals, scattered all over the planet, will be lost.

But what are the chances of changing from an amoeba to a donkey, or ‘progressing’ along such a path? If ‘beneficial’ mutations are those that continue life, I see no explanation as to why simple organisms would benefit from becoming more complex ones, where the complexities, more often than not, often make us more vulnerable to risks of extinction than simpler lifeforms

You are reifying “nature” here. All natural selection does is to say that if you have more descendants than the next guy then there are more copies of your genes than of his in future populations.

I’m not reifying nature. If nature does not literally pick or choose, the word ‘selection’ is nothing but an obfuscation of pure chance. There is not one aspect of your explanation which detracts from the core point of the immense unlikelihood of that

Genes with an advantage tend to spread through the population. Neutral genes drift in the population. Deleterious genes tend to disappear from the population. How is that not a form of selection?

If it is not by design, it is by chance. Darwin should have used a more honest term

Natural selection does not look at survival. Living to 1,000 years old while not having any children means that none of your genes will be present in future generations. Living a short life but having lots of children means that lots of copies of your genes will be in future generations. The non-surviving reproducer is more successful, i.e. ‘fit’, than the long lived non-reproducer.

If you parents didn’t have any children then the chances are that you won’t either.

rossum

Then an immortal, impervious entity would be, in terms of Darwinistic evolutionary theory, heresy

None of your arguments refute the original point!