The jury is still out on evolution

[Selbstüberschätzug]

Yes... 120 Years aren’t enough. Take the example with the with butterflies. If you would eliminate every recessive genetic information for the black paint it would go a very long time until a NEW mutation would be occur. The time before this mutation and the time after must be much, much longer as the time in witch you have black and with ore grey (cause grey is not a real advantage and must also be an disadvantage cause the reason why thy were absolutely wait butterflies is most likely also still existing. -Therefore it’s absolutely logical that evolution happens in leaps-) butterflies.

 

[selfAdjoint]

I agree with you selbst, I think real species store up variation (population genetics suggests they have to keep reinventing the wheel to do it) for potential use when the long shot environmental change hits. Sex and mix and match genetics does this for metazoans, and conjugation does it for single celled organisms.

This would explain the bush-and-spike inheritance tree of related species noticed by Gould (in Full House, I think). When a Genus first evolves, adaptive radiation produces a "bush" of narrowly adapted daughter species. But after a time these tend to die out and the genus is then represented by just a few species that tend to last a long time. One presumes that the overspecialized genomes were replaced by some which were more omnicompetent. In Kipling's words, "Full of infinite resource and sagacity". The genome of the Peppered Moth is my witness.

 

[Selbstüberschätzug]

Now we have only to hope that we are understand right. It’s a undeniable fact that earlier information is stored for a long time in the DNA. (Junk-DNA). This information can be reactivated with quite simple methods. Think on the trout witch they have back-developed in a well known experiment.
But I don’t mean (to assure the clearness) that sudden changes of the phenotype is happened because there are a mass of blueprints around. I mean that if the weal is once developed it will find his way quick to the farest places of the species.
Your approach is an other, with the declared little problem that you have to explain how the sagacity was written in the genome.

 

[selfAdjoint]

What I mean is that among a large population of phenotypes (I am talking about metazoans here), expressing common dominant genes and therefore pretty much all alike, there is a richness of recessive genes that can be expressed with lower probability, and this collection of recessives is constantly and randomly being enhanced via neutral genetic drift (significantly bad genes will be quickly eliminated unless mixed dominant-recessive phenotypes have an advantge that outweighs or balances the lethal recessive-recessive effect).

When the environment changes suddenly, some of these recessives may give an advantage, and be selected. Then the characteristics of the population can change rapidly and adaptively. I emphasize that it takes a large population and a high mutation rate to bring this about, but I believe we are discovering that both of these conditions do obtain in wild populations.

 

[joahua]

I can see all that works for so-called "micro evolution", but how about larger changes? The argument that there is a "richness of recessive genes" that are "selected" in response to the most favourable conditions is self-defeating in this respect, is it not? If a certain gene combination in concert with certain conditions contribute to the manifestation of a particular phenotype, then how can a major 'branch' occur?

I recognise that, if it did, it would occur over a substantial period of time (and within large populations - though I dispute the necessity of "high mutation rate"... how does this assist? There are only so many genes to choose from, surely? -- as @selfAdjoint suggested) -- but, as we have established this "junk DNA" does exist, when is it disposed of?

And, if it is not disposed of, what would prevent the closure of any discrepancy existing between newly-branched (I daren't say "created" in the present climate :P) species? The idea that evolution results in a species (or, in macro evolution, metazoans generally) better suited to its environment is logically discriminatory against those who are less suited - hence, there is either no apparent reason for variation on a large scale (say, deer, cattle, and giraffes or something... I don't know, pick a variation!) OR the variation should not (have been able to) occur to that extent in the first instance.

Assuming junk DNA extends so far as to permit that level of variation (it might, I don't know... anyone?), the question remains: why has this variation occurred to this extent, yet remnants of the "inferior" (or, less suited) species (within or even OUTSIDE a particular genus, to stretch the theory somewhat) continue to exist?

If nothing else, does that not serve to devoid the reasoning behind evolution (assuming that the theory on its own still stands)?

Just to clarify: I'm not arguing for anything else - I'm a Christian, believe God created me, that Jesus died for me, that the Bible is His word... but I'm not particularly tied to any mechanism of creation. I'm just arguing to try and assert "evolution" isn't "hard fact" (because, as the more intelligent posters will realize, there is no such thing in science - or shouldn't be).

Josh.

 

[Selbstüberschätzug]

A major branch can occur ether with my approach, with a interlay new genetic mutation ore with the approach from selfe with a recycling from certain sequences. Here you have to see that not only sequences from the direct-mother-branch is still in the Junk-DNA. What once was a disadvantage for the mother branch is now in a new environment again advantageous.
The dolphins to give you a example, had developed themselves (ore with the help of god) from a animal quit similar to a dog. If you keep in mind that all live on land cam from the see then you can understand that certain mutations witch were for a long time only junk are now the new blueprint for your animal (here the blueprint of perhaps the skin etc.). A NEW animal not to confuse with a fish .

 

[selfAdjoint]

My idea wasn't intended to cover big changes. they would happen, I suppose, as the result of a number of these events.

To answer this question:

I recognise that, if it did, it would occur over a substantial period of time (and within large populations - though I dispute the necessity of "high mutation rate"... how does this assist? There are only so many genes to choose from, surely? -- as @selfAdjoint suggested) -- but, as we have established this "junk DNA" does exist, when is it disposed of?

The math of population genetics suggests that on the average neutral alleles are lost in a few generations. So re-mutation would be necessary for a steady-state pool of them. Some silent DNA is disposed of in major speciation splits. But as we are discovering, not all of it is "silent" or non-adaptive! It just does second order things that weren't included in the first order theory.

 

[Phobos]

In 1979, David Raup, curator of the Field Museum of Natural History (Chicago) said this:

"We are now about one hundred and twenty years after Darwin, and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species, but the situation hasn't changed much... We have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition [now] than we had in Darwin's time."

This is a common misquoting by creationists. Actually, he said this...[emphasis mine]
from http://www.palaeos.com/Evolution/People1.html

Well, we are now about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn’t changed much. The record of evolution is still surprisingly jerky and, ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin's time. By this I mean that some of the classic cases of Darwinian change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information — what appeared to be a nice simple progression when relatively few data were available now appears to be much more complex and much less gradualistic. So Darwin’s problem has not been alleviated in the last 120 years and we still have a record which does show change but one that can hardly be looked upon as the most reasonable consequence of natural selection. Also the major extinctions such as those of the dinosaurs and trilobites are still very puzzling.

So, he wasn't saying there are no examples...he was saying that evolutionary changes are more complex than originally envisioned.

More fun with quote mining...
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/project.html

 

[Phobos]

Apparently the fossil record we do have shows that in rocks dating back roughly 570 million years, nearly all animal phyla appears fully formed and "without a trace of the evolutionary ancestors that Darwinists require."[3]

[3]Johnson, P. E., ]Darwin on Trial, 2nd Ed., 54.

If I may paint with a big brush...
Dinosaur - archaeopteryx - modern birds

Even Philip Johnson agrees that archaeopteryx is a pretty good example of a transitional fossil (which he says in the same book you cite) although he said he's not convinced by one example (as if that is the only one available).

 

[Phobos]

There are only so many genes to choose from, surely?

Aside from the myriad of ways that genes can combine & interact (e.g., through recombination), new genes can also be added to a gene pool through such mechanisms as gene flow (influx of genes from another population) and mutation (modification of existing genes into new genes). There's also things like gene duplication, etc. which can increase the amount of info encoded in DNA.

And, if it is not disposed of, what would prevent the closure of any discrepancy existing between newly-branched species? The idea that evolution results in a species (or, in macro evolution, metazoans generally) better suited to its environment is logically discriminatory against those who are less suited - hence, there is either no apparent reason for variation on a large scale (say, deer, cattle, and giraffes or something... I don't know, pick a variation!) OR the variation should not (have been able to) occur to that extent in the first instance.

Every population has some level of genetic variation in it. As local conditions change, populations adapt (certain variations are favored). Over time there can be sufficient divergence from the ancestral population that a speciation event can be identified.

Assuming junk DNA extends so far as to permit that level of variation (it might, I don't know... anyone?), the question remains: why has this variation occurred to this extent, yet remnants of the "inferior" (or, less suited) species (within or even OUTSIDE a particular genus, to stretch the theory somewhat) continue to exist?

Not sure I follow the question, but an "inferior" species/individual/gene need only be good enough to survive long enough to reproduce in order to persist. Of course, many species do go extinct. Also, some "inferior" bit of genetic code can also cruise under the radar if its current effect is neutral (not detrimental to the creature's survival).

 

[Dr.Yes]

His quote was..


I did not take the "rocket ship blueprint" bit literally. Although you will see from O Great One's recent post that there are people who want schools to teach that evolution is stupid (or "a fairy tale").

And the bible is undoubtedly a great big science text, not a fairy-tale. It is clearly laid out with instructions on how to use each page as a re-entry heat shield tile on the extrastratospheric vehicle that is explicitly described and diagramed in :revolutions: 174:96. {Note: place tablets of the ten commandments at nose of shuttle. Secure with papyrus pulp.}

In the long run, both the science texts of today and the religious texts of yestermillenia are great expenditures of energy that welcome any practical uses that can possibly and/or potentially be extracted from them and that can be of (good) service to those people studying said texts.

 

[tootin]

I'm a Christian, believe God created me, that Jesus died for me, that the Bible is His word... but I'm not particularly tied to any mechanism of creation. I'm just arguing to try and assert "evolution" isn't "hard fact" (because, as the more intelligent posters will realize, there is no such thing in science - or shouldn't be).

Josh.

If the hypothesis of evolution is true then evolution is a fact, even if in its present form the theory is incorrect or incomplete. If false then the theory must also be false and evolution would be a fiction.

Science is a self correcting knowledge processing algorithm for producing better fact-fitting theories. If evolution is indeed a fact then the theory will gradually reveal more and more to us about its working, as more scientific work is done and the theory itself evolves towards a better fit. Scientific theories must perforce converge towards, and not diverge away from the facts which they attempt to explain. Divergence = poorer fit and other theories will emerge to replace them.

If evolution is not a fact but a fiction, sooner or later, given sufficient time this must become evident. Some cold "hard" fact will emerge which no amount of twisting can bend so that it is forced to fit the shape of the false theory.

 

[Nereid]

And a big Welcome to Physics Forums, tootin and joahua!

A slight digression, if I may ... chose a 'reasonable' definition of life on Earth; chose 10,000 such. In almost all of these, the prokaryotes bacteria (and archaea?) will dominate, overwhelmingly. In this sense, the evolution of multi-cellular eukaryotes, which is of intense interest to a single species of Animalia, must surely be counted as but a (possibly interesting) footnote in a multi-trillion volume tome.

Viewed in this way, 'micro-evolution' is really the main game.

Oh, and to add to what Phobos (I think it was Phobos) said; if someone wants to shove their Christian beliefs down your throat, in the US, is it reasonable to ask "why are religions thus (created) so 'unequal'? And if they are, in fact, so "unequal", why do you not vigourously agitate for the suppression of all non-Christian faiths?"

 

[tootin]

Hello Nereid and thank you; and if we are to put things into greater perspective as you suggest, then surely inorganic chemistry is the only game from a galactical evolutionary point of view rather than a narrow biospherical-centered one! You and Phobos, as fellows of the satellite fraternity, would presumably be agreed about that.

 

[Dr.Yes]

And if they are (religions), in fact, so "unequal", why do you not vigourously agitate for the suppression of all non-Christian faiths?"

It appears that every American tax-payer is "vigourously agitating for the suppression of all non-Christian faiths" at this time. Its fairly obvious that the very troops who are supported by American tax dollars are fighting vigourously under fundimental and extreme Christian orders and values. The same troops are inadvertantly taught (by curcumstance) that it is the extremist ideals of (most) other religions that are to be suppressed. However, it has become harder and harder to distinguish one religious extreme from another just as it is hard to distinguish one extremely henous act from another.

"Vote with your dollar". (Woody Harrilson)

 

[Andre]

Speakig about eukaryotes and evolution, any progress after the excellent work of http://cajal.unizar.es/eng/part/Margulis.html?

 

[selfAdjoint]

Speakig about eukaryotes and evolution, any progress after the excellent work of http://cajal.unizar.es/eng/part/Margulis.html?

Progress in what? Understanding the cell? Her wilder theories as well as he sound ones? What?

 

[Selbstüberschätzug]

It appears that every American tax-payer is "vigourously agitating for the suppression of all non-Christian faiths" at this time. Its fairly obvious that the very troops who are supported by American tax dollars are fighting vigourously under fundimental and extreme Christian orders and values. The same troops are inadvertantly taught (by curcumstance) that it is the extremist ideals of (most) other religions that are to be suppressed. However, it has become harder and harder to distinguish one religious extreme from another just as it is hard to distinguish one extremely henous act from another.

"Vote with your dollar". (Woody Harrilson)

Can you be more specific? Where and way do you see this?
I mean it can't be in the Intrest of the World that Iran hase Wapons of mass distruction. Therfore the war against the Irak coul be resoned without conspiration-theories.

 

[Dr.Yes]

I mean it can't be in the Intrest of the World that Iran hase Wapons of mass distruction.

What do you or I know about Iran or the World?

What difference is there between India, Iran, Britain, France, Russia, China, N.Korea or Pakistan maintaining nuclear weapons?

Is it the religion behind the nukes that determines the validity of their weapon's programs?

Is it the frequency with which these nations have used their nukes that determines whether they should have them or not?

Is it a sign of responsible nuclear arms husbandry if you believe in evolution? Or is that the first step toward a totally indifferent nuclear holicaust?

At some point in our evolution, as a colony of humans on a rock in orbit around a sun, we will work together to solve more pressing problems than the ones we create for ourselves with enriched and/or depleated uranium. Until then, have a blast!

 

[Nereid]

Can we get back on topic please?

 

[Dr.Yes]

Of course, my apologies for de-evolving this discussion. However it has been my experience that the evolution of anything involves de-evolution plus more than what most people see as the linear progression of mud-to cell-to multi-cellular-to social milue (and resulting discussions).

Evolution, in my view, is more like the process of kneading a fruit cake. Some times the dried cherries are on top and other times the walnuts make it into the light of day. Its only at the end of the day that we see what's left on the plate - what's been eaten or what's made it to the compost.

 

[Selbstüberschätzug]

Yes Dr. I thought the same. Evolution has transformed it selfe into a cultural-evolution. In some cases this Evolution works against the biological evolution. Nuclear wapons are a good and maby finanal exempel for this process.

The further we go in the human history the more is the cultural evolution has its overwight... Social-Science are I în the right department?

Is it maybe possible that you (neraid) can put in my last post? Would be very helpfull. Thank you.

 

[Phobos]

In many important ways, cultural evolution is different than biological evolution...however, one certainly affects the other.

 

[Icebreaker]

Son: "Dad, why do children resemble their parents in appearance?"
Dad: "Do you know anything about genetics, son?"
Son: "Well, not very much, please proceed."
Dad: "You resemble your parents because half of the instructions — genes — for making you came from your father and half from your mother. Similarly, your brother or sister also received half of their genetic instructions from each parent, but the set they received is somewhat different from the set you received. That's why they may resemble you, but they are not identical to you."
Son: "So, then my genes were already in existence in the previous generation?"
Dad: "Yep, same with everybody else too."
Son: "Hmmm...I just thought of something. This means evolution is impossible."
Dad: "How so? Please explain."
Son: "Well, if the genes were already in existence in the previous generation then there is really nothing 'new'. I suppose a crude analogy would be that Mom holds 44 playing cards and Dad also holds 44 playing cards. When someone is born 22 cards are selected at random from each and a new unique stack of 44 cards are produced, but none of the cards are really new."
Dad: "Interesting analogy. Yes, that really does seem to chop down the evolution tree."

So... stupid... must... find... non-sarcastic reply...

 

[Selbstüberschätzug]

Dad and Mom have to 2 Genes each: Good and Bad. Brother A becomes Good from Mom and Good from Dad. Brother B Becomes Bad from Mom and Bad from Dad. Brother B has so bad genes that he days before he can be a dad. The bad genes are dying with brother B.

 

[Dr.Yes]

Dad and Mom have to 2 Genes each: Good and Bad. Brother A becomes Good from Mom and Good from Dad. Brother B Becomes Bad from Mom and Bad from Dad. Brother B has so bad genes that he days before he can be a dad. The bad genes are dying with brother B.

This is an example of what the Washington DC police call a "self-cleaning oven". It is a highly efficent part of evolution. The trouble is, people want to mess with it and bring in social programs and other ideas that will pilfer millions from the taxpayer's coffers into their pockets. Society often works better when you leave it to itself. I think that if we left the politicians to themselves there'd be no polititians left by the end of term. They'd either take off with their corporate donations or have each other snuffed all to hell and back. Then we'd have a fresh batch to deal with.

 

[selfAdjoint]

Dad and Mom have to 2 Genes each: Good and Bad. Brother A becomes Good from Mom and Good from Dad. Brother B Becomes Bad from Mom and Bad from Dad. Brother B has so bad genes that he days before he can be a dad. The bad genes are dying with brother B.

BUT maybe the bad-good combination (bad from one parent, good from the other) gives some advantages. People who inherit bad-bad combinations die young, but bad-goods are, say, more fecund than good-goods. So the bad gene never goers away, you get to an equilibrium where the loss of bads due to bad-bad deaths is balances be the gain of bads due to the extra children of the bad-goods over the good-goods. This really happens, the sickle-cell gene is the poster example. Bad-good has partial immunity to malaria.

I don't know what any of this has to do with Dr. Yes's rant - genetic inheritance is not a class thing, it hits everybody.

 

[Dr.Yes]

BUT maybe the bad-good combination (bad from one parent, good from the other) gives some advantages. People who inherit bad-bad combinations die young, but bad-goods are, say, more fecund than good-goods. So the bad gene never goers away, you get to an equilibrium where the loss of bads due to bad-bad deaths is balances be the gain of bads due to the extra children of the bad-goods over the good-goods. This really happens, the sickle-cell gene is the poster example. Bad-good has partial immunity to malaria.

I don't know what any of this has to do with Dr. Yes's rant - genetic inheritance is not a class thing, it hits everybody.

Rant

I agree selfAdjoint. Whether republican, democrate, good, or bad, take the element that works for the challenge from each. That's the middle of the road approach that is the fittest way to survive the long haul. So that, as you point out, there is no good or bad gene. There are only situations where they are useful and other situations where they're not.

I like think that genes are a person's environment as much as the house they live in, the city their house is in and the country side surrounding their city. Environment is the one and only determining factor on the genetic environment. It may be an environment of personally created stress, calm, chemical imbalance, balance or chaos or order. But, environment is what shapes the environment of the gene.

That is basically what a large part of the theory of evolution is saying.

I'm afraid the "JURY" is out because they thought they were watching "Discovery Channel" when it turned out to be the "Discovery" group. They are insisting they've discovered that the universe is intelligently designed. As in, big bearded guy in robe with lightning bolts designs everying from the top quark to protazoa to super clusters of galaxies.

This "discovery" group demands that their version of "a designed universe" be put in the science classes at the junior level. This is a group of polyester-wearing stay-at-the-golf-club-choir-mamas demanding equal time with Darwin, Newton, Einstein and the like. I think they need a nice vacation, a few times around the world, on the old SS Beagle.

 

[selfAdjoint]

This is a group of polyester-wearing stay-at-the-golf-club-choir-mamas demanding equal time with Darwin, Newton, Einstein and the like. I think they need a nice vacation, a few times around the world, on the old SS Beagle.

Hee Hee! Good one! The problem is tha the average uninformed person hasn't got the ability to distinguish sense from nonsense in this area. And the fact that politicians of both parties are disposed to kow tow to their ignorance is no help at all.

 

[russ_watters]

Hey, don't be bringing golf into this. Golf never did nothin to no one.

Anyway, "good" and "bad" are pretty subjective here. A serial rapist may have a procreation advantage, but that doesn't make his actions "good".