Why you should think that the Natural-Evolution of species is true

  • Thread starter Thread starter IWantGod
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
rossum said:
Deleterious mutations disappear from the population while beneficial mutations become more common.
Click to expand...
Rather than repeating this table over and over again. I think that since you are claiming that beneficial mutations do happen, try instead to explain how they do so - the physical mechanisms by which you think they occur.
 
Last edited:
LeafByNiggle said:
Nor does evolution extend beyond the material.
Click to expand...
And that is why the theory does not represent reality, because living things are a different form of being than atoms. Try simply to be yourself, and in the silence observe who you are.
 
Last edited:
rossum said:
Currently those other dangers from small tusks have less impact than poachers. For example, tusk size has an impact on food gathering as tusks can be used to dig for roots. Other dangers, such as disease, are not affected by tusk size.
Click to expand...
Their tusks are used to fight off other predators, Man is not their only enemy.Will one day rats develop rat trap resistant necks ?
 
Aloysium said:
40.png
LeafByNiggle:
Nor does evolution extend beyond the material.
Click to expand...
And that is why the theory does not represent reality, because living things are a different form of being. Try simply to be yourself, and in the silence observe who you are.
Click to expand...
If I understand your argument correctly, you are arguing that life has an immaterial aspect and therefore cannot be the object of a totally material scientific theory. Your mistake is in ignoring the fact that life has both a material and an immaterial aspect. The material aspects are well within the scope of scientific theory. You no doubt recognize that most of medicine is based on scientific theory. And it deals with life. Those are theories about life that deal with reality. If you want to prove that evolution is not science because it deals with life which is immaterial, you will have to explain why the theory of vaccinations is allowed to be classified as a science.
 
The best way to determine whether a change in trait frequency in a group is evolution is to look at every genome in the population, says Eleftheria Palkopoulou, a geneticist at Harvard University. But that’s not easy. “We barely have elephant genomes available, so it’s a long shot,” she says. Ignoring the rest of the genome and looking at just tusk genes might make that easier—except that scientists haven’t pinned down which genes shape tusks.

Loading…

nautil.us
 
Techno2000 said:
40.png
rossum:
Currently those other dangers from small tusks have less impact than poachers. For example, tusk size has an impact on food gathering as tusks can be used to dig for roots. Other dangers, such as disease, are not affected by tusk size.
Click to expand...
Their tusks are used to fight off other predators, Man is not their only enemy.Will one day rats develop rat trap resistant necks ?
Click to expand...
More stunned silence.
 
buffalo said:
So they lost an ability they once had.
Click to expand...
Why is this relevant? I showed that the marbled crayfish was a new species, and hence its appearance is a documented example of recent macroevolution. Your quote confirms that.

That is macroevolution, not microevolution.

Macroevolution happens. It has been observed to happen. To deny macroevolution is to deny the reality of the world.

Humans have lost the ability to extract oxygen from water with gills that our very distant ancestors once had. There is no rule in biology that a new species cannot lose an ability its ancestors once had.

rossum
 
Aloysium said:
Rather than repeating this table over and over again. I think that since you are claiming that beneficial mutations do happen, try instead to explain how they do so - the physical mechanisms by which you think they occur.
Click to expand...
There are many mechanisms for mutations. A point mutation changes a single base pair in DNA. An insertion mutation adds a piece of DNA into the old DNA. A deletion mutation does the opposite. A duplication mutation copies a piece twice instead of once. In some cases the whole genome is duplicated, as with Oenothera lamarckiana.

Most mutations are neutral. Most of the remainder are deleterious. A few are beneficial.

For an example of a beneficial mutation, a duplication repeated many times, see How to Make a Superweed. The herbicide Roundup blocks a specific essential plant enzyme. One weed, Palmer amaranth, has gained resistance to Roundup by evolving many duplicate copies of the gene for that enzyme. In some cases over 100 copies. Hence it can make a lot of that enzyme on many parallel production lines and so can easily survive normal doses of Roundup.

Rye grass has a different way to resist Roundup. A single, beneficial, point mutation in the gene for the enzyme changes it just enough to make it difficult for Roundup to block but not enough to stop it working in the plant.

Those are two ways a beneficial mutation can happen.

rossum
 
rossum said:
Compete knowledge is not needed. If the new gene is deleterious, then selection will eliminate that gene. If the new gene is beneficial then selection will preferentially spread copies of that gene through the population.

A new gene can be caused by a frame-shift mutation which changes the way the triplets in DNA are read. For example:
Old Gene: GAT TAC ACT …

New Gene: G C A TTA CAC T …
Click to expand...
If we lack complete knowledge of the genome, is it not just as plausible to claim that genes which are deleterious will recede (rather than be eliminated) and that existing beneficial genes will begin to manifest (rather than be created) within the population?

Using the current example, elephants with smaller tusks always existed. With predation on larger tusk elephants, smaller tusk elephants are more likely to reproduce successully. Therefore, the existing “small tusk” gene become more manifest in the population. As poaching controls are enforced, we would expect to see larger tusk elephants return to the population. But when they do, we should not claim a new gene is created but a recessive gene now once again manifests through successful reproduction of large tusked elephants.
Click to expand...
 
rossum said:
Humans have lost the ability to extract oxygen from water with gills that our very distant ancestors once had. There is no rule in biology that a new species cannot lose an ability its ancestors once had.
Click to expand...
As I do not believe we have any evidence of human being with gills, the comment above begs the question – does evolution explain human existence? – and implies human beings are a but a species of animal in a kingdom that includes fish animals (or gill equipped animals).
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
 
Last edited:
o_mlly said:
If we lack complete knowledge of the genome, is it not just as plausible to claim that genes which are deleterious will recede (rather than be eliminated) and that existing beneficial genes will begin to manifest (rather than be created) within the population?
Click to expand...
One of Darwin’s observations was that variations exist within natural populations; members of a species are not all identical. Some are taller, some shorter. Some have longer fur, others shorter. Some have bigger teeth/tusks others smaller. Darwin knew nothing of the genome, yet he was able to make this observation.

We have examples of old genomes from archaeology and palaeontology which we can compare with modern genomes of the same, or similar, species. That shows many different changes over time, including the complete elimination of some genes and the appearance of new genes, and new variants of existing genes.
Using the current example, elephants with smaller tusks always existed. With predation on larger tusk elephants, smaller tusk elephants are more likely to reproduce successfully. Therefore, the existing “small tusk” gene become more manifest in the population. As poaching controls are enforced, we would expect to see larger tusk elephants return to the population. But when they do, we should not claim a new gene is created but a recessive gene now once again manifests through successful reproduction of large tusked elephants.
Click to expand...
Evolution is defined as “change in the genomes of an interbreeding population”. That change may be a change in the relative proportions of different alleles, as in elephants. It may be the introduction of new alleles (variants) of existing genes, such as blue eyes in humans. It may be the appearance of a completely new gene.

rossum
 
o_mlly said:
As I do not believe we have any evidence of human being with gills
Click to expand...
My apologies for not being clearer. By “very distant ancestors” I meant about 400 million years ago, when our ancestors were Sarcopterygian fish with gills and lungs and fins on stumps.
the comment above begs the question – does evolution explain human existence? – and implies human beings are a but a species of animal in a kingdom that includes fish animals (or gill equipped animals).
Click to expand...
Evolution is part of science; it explains the physical/material part of human existence. For the immaterial part we will have to differ since Christians and Buddhists differ on the make-up of the non-physical part of a human being.

rossum
 
No. It is merely the appearance of design, not design. Any weed that could not survive the weedkiller died. Only the variants that survived reproduced to make more copies of their genes.

The crop plants that can resist the weedkiller are designed. They were designed by Monsanto to resist it so farmers could spray whole fields and leave the crop unaffected while killing non-resistant weeds.

rossum
 
LeafByNiggle said:
If I understand your argument correctly, you are arguing that life has an immaterial aspect and therefore cannot be the object of a totally material scientific theory. Your mistake is in ignoring the fact that life has both a material and an immaterial aspect. The material aspects are well within the scope of scientific theory. You no doubt recognize that most of medicine is based on scientific theory. And it deals with life. Those are theories about life that deal with reality. If you want to prove that evolution is not science because it deals with life which is immaterial, you will have to explain why the theory of vaccinations is allowed to be classified as a science.
Click to expand...
Let’s talk about what it is to be a person given that is what we are. We are a unity of being, one who perceives, feels, thinks and acts. That one organism exists in relation to everything else that is not oneself. Everything we do is connected to something other; we observe and act on the world, having feelings about our existence, thinking about and knowing the stucture of it all. The person, while being essentially one within the self and all of existence, is in a state of alienation, lost in ignorance and illusion, chasing phantom and transient goods. This is a spiritual reality of our being, an encompassing “structure” that includes our physical and psychological natures. These two dimensions are one in the person.

Everything that is what we are doing is material. Let’s focus on the visual worlds. The colours and shapes exist. They are experienced because they are neuronal patterns of excitation, organized in accordance to our psychological make up. A small stroke in one area of the brain and we lose our words. We can try to retrieve them but they will be gone, and we will spew out gibberish. We need our bodies to act in the universe, in space and time. Within these phenomena, which reach out to the world around us, are their actual beingness which is represented in the firing of those particular neurons which are the event, individual and united by the spirit that we are. These cellular processes exist because they are comprised of matter. The whole can be broken down into its constituent parts, but it is the primary reality, which subsumes and brings them together as one person, capable of seeing the world.

Neurology teaches us these things. Science is great! That is what I’ve done all my life. Westudy the structure that makes up our being through fields including physics, chemistry, biology and medicine. It is a pity to see how indoctrinated people are, unable to separate the science from the myth. Evolution is not science; it misuses science to promote a distorted vision of the world that justifies much of what is wrong with the world today. It doesn’t represent the reality of our having been brought into existence beginning with one man in Eden, in whom all humanity has fallen, and most definitely does not bring the Word of God to His primary position in our existence and relationship with God.
 
rossum said:
No. It is merely the appearance of design, not design. Any weed that could not survive the weedkiller died. Only the variants that survived reproduced to make more copies of their genes.

The crop plants that can resist the weedkiller are designed. They were designed by Monsanto to resist it so farmers could spray whole fields and leave the crop unaffected while killing non-resistant weeds.

rossum
Click to expand...
Yes, we know all this. Listen, you cannot give an example of a designed organism to prove random mutations, which you are claiming are the driving force behind the diversity and complexity of living forms. Describe what you think happened when, for example, sexual reproduction emerged in the world.
 
Last edited:
rossum said:
A new gene can be caused by a frame-shift mutation which changes the way the triplets in DNA are read. For example:
Old Gene: GAT TAC ACT …

New Gene: G C A TTA CAC T …
Click to expand...
Here you are claiming something of how you think it works. Do understand that the genes are information in action. If you start changing that information, you will get far more deleterious genes than you imagine. There are mechanisms to mitigate the problem, including sexual reproduction and self-healing of the genome. You start adding and taking away letters from this post and the odds are astronomically against the result having greater meaning. The formation of a new protein that is better than the one that pre-exists, would have to happen in steps, all the while so much junk is being produced.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
It is apparent to anyone reading all your verbiage that you have not addressed any of the argument of mine that were supposedly refuting, and also that you most likely have a very ergonomic keyboard that encourages so much typing!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top