[_ Old Earth _] How well do you actually know The Theory of Evolution?

[Gary]

How is what possible? DNA sequencing is a methodology that determines relatedness, so that courts will accept it as evidence of paternity for example.

How does DNA support evolution?

 

[lordkalvan]

How does DNA support evolution?

For example, using a method known as DNA-DNA hybridization scientists can compare different species to determine the evolutionary relationships amongst them. This method measures how similar the DNA of different species is, such that humans are 'closer' to chimpanzees than to gorillas, 'closer' to gorillas than to orangutans, and so on. Interestingly, DNA sequencing almost exactly matches the degrees of relatedness determined by developing 'family trees' based on physical characteristics - traits - that preceded biochemical analysis.

 

[Edward]

I have a question for you kalvan. Hypothetically, if I were to tell you, ok kalvan, you need to grow some wings. Supposing that you like this idea or see a need for some wings...you decide ok, I want wings now...what's the first thing which comes to your mind. Where would you begin?

 

[lordkalvan]

I have a question for you kalvan. Hypothetically, if I were to tell you, ok kalvan, you need to grow some wings. Supposing that you like this idea or see a need for some wings...you decide ok, I want wings now...what's the first thing which comes to your mind. Where would you begin?

I would begin by understanding that one cannot grow wings simply by wishing it so. The next thing I would note is that, given my tetrapod body-form, I could only 'grow' wings by adapting existing lines. I would then realise that the evolutionary history that has led to my skeletal construction, bone density, lung-capacity, etc precludes any possibility of flight in anything other than low-gravity environments. Finally, I would note that individuals do not evolve, but populations do, therefore I couid never 'grow' wings, even without all those limiting factors I have just mentioned (there are many more). So if I want to fly, I'll get a pilot's licence.

So my question to you now is, what is the point of your question?

 

[Gary]

I want someone to explain how the chicken egg evolved. Without the air holes in the shell, the chick would die. Without the thin membrane that covers the inside of the egg, the chick would die. Without the air pocket inside the egg, the chick would die.

How did these things evolve without the species dying off? All those things needed to be in place for that first egg to hatch. How did the egg evolve?

 

[lordkalvan]

I want someone to explain how the chicken egg evolved. Without the air holes in the shell, the chick would die. Without the thin membrane that covers the inside of the egg, the chick would die. Without the air pocket inside the egg, the chick would die.

How did these things evolve without the species dying off? All those things needed to be in place for that first egg to hatch. How did the egg evolve?

Your mistake seems to lie in the misunderstanding that there exists some kind of absolute dividing line in the evolutionary development of chickens, on one side of which there are only not-chickens, while on the other side there are only chickens. This is not the case. Also, reptiles evolved egg-laying before birds appeared on the scene. Put simply, the evolution of the bird egg from the relatively unprotected end amniotic reptile egg Most likely resulted from the need to develop defences against predation by, for example, soil invertebrates. Eggs that benefitted from a slight thickening of the external covering would enjoy an advantage over those that didn't. This would lead to a reduction in the amount of water that could be absorbed by incubating eggs, leading to hand-in-hand increases in the quantity of water contained by the eggs at oviposition, thereby reducing the degree of dependence of embryos upon external sources of water for successful completion of development. In other words, the adaptations you refer to did not occur separately and consecutively, but together as one influenced the need for the other.

 

[Gary]

Your mistake seems to lie in the misunderstanding that there exists some kind of absolute dividing line in the evolutionary development of chickens, on one side of which there are only not-chickens, while on the other side there are only chickens. This is not the case. Also, reptiles evolved egg-laying before birds appeared on the scene. Put simply, the evolution of the bird egg from the relatively unprotected end amniotic reptile egg Most likely resulted from the need to develop defences against predation by, for example, soil invertebrates. Eggs that benefitted from a slight thickening of the external covering would enjoy an advantage over those that didn't. This would lead to a reduction in the amount of water that could be absorbed by incubating eggs, leading to hand-in-hand increases in the quantity of water contained by the eggs at oviposition, thereby reducing the degree of dependence of embryos upon external sources of water for successful completion of development. In other words, the adaptations you refer to did not occur separately and consecutively, but together as one influenced the need for the other.

You still didn't answer the question.

 

[Edward]

I would begin by understanding that one cannot grow wings simply by wishing it so. The next thing I would note is that, given my tetrapod body-form, I could only 'grow' wings by adapting existing lines. I would then realise that the evolutionary history that has led to my skeletal construction, bone density, lung-capacity, etc precludes any possibility of flight in anything other than low-gravity environments. Finally, I would note that individuals do not evolve, but populations do, therefore I couid never 'grow' wings, even without all those limiting factors I have just mentioned (there are many more). So if I want to fly, I'll get a pilot's licence.

So my question to you now is, what is the point of your question?

That is my point.

You couldn't just to have wings and they'd grow. You would need some information from the DNA of existing lines or somewhere to have it go to your DNA and program the wings to grow. Missing information. So if life evolved over time into different kinds, they would always have to have some new information to grow adaptations or whatever. So where did all the new information come from?

 

[lordkalvan]

You still didn't answer the question.

I did, indeed, answer the question. If you have any problem with the content of the answer, perhaps you could respond to those specific points. For example, do you think there is an absolute dividing line between not-chicken and chicken?

 

[lordkalvan]

That is my point.

You couldn't just to have wings and they'd grow. You would need some information from the DNA of existing lines or somewhere to have it go to your DNA and program the wings to grow. Missing information. So if life evolved over time into different kinds, they would always have to have some new information to grow adaptations or whatever. So where did all the new information come from?

Check out mutations, transposons and polyploidy, all of which can increase the amount or type of information in the genome.

 

[Rick W]

Has any study been for the probability? Like "1 in such" that would be a positive increase?
I've looked around some but couldn't find anything solid.

 

[lordkalvan]

Has any study been for the probability? Like "1 in such" that would be a positive increase?
I've looked around some but couldn't find anything solid.

One study places the average mammalian genome mutation rate at 2.2 × 10^−9 per base pair per year. This figure provides a basis for estimating species and population divergence times using molecular clocks.

Source: http://www.pnas.org/content/99/2/803.full

 

[Rick W]

Has any study been for the probability? Like "1 in such" that would be a positive increase?
I've looked around some but couldn't find anything solid.

One study places the average mammalian genome mutation rate at 2.2 × 10^−9 per base pair per year. This figure provides a basis for estimating species and population divergence times using molecular clocks.

Source: http://www.pnas.org/content/99/2/803.full

That's a rate based on the assumption an evolutionary process did indeed occur but what is the probability that a nucleotide substitution is a positive addition for the organism in question? And I would think the longer the sequence the more likely a negative impact would result especially if the generational distance is greater.

Quite frankly I don't think there's any probability studies out there, quite a few for rate though. Maybe because the probability, apart from assuming it all happened in the first place, isn't something that could fit.
Who knows.
So that's a dead end isn't it?

Moving along....

So to get from one species to another takes much longer to achieve than natural selection in form and function among a particular species.

 

[Barbarian]

If you'd like to suppose (as Darwin did) that God just created the first living things, it would be consistent with evolutionary theory.

 

[Barbarian]

That's a rate based on the assumption an evolutionary process did indeed occur

Rather, on rates of observed evolution. We can easily check this by sampling genomes of organisms at different times. However, the mutation rates tend to remain constant, while evolutionary change depends on the population and the environment. That will vary a lot. Neutral mutations will tend to accumulate at a constant rate, however.

but what is the probability that a nucleotide substitution is a positive addition for the organism in question?

Depends on how well-fitted the organism is to that environment. The better the fit, the less likely it is that a random change will make it better. I do a lab where students use virtual organisms and genomes to see this effect. The mutation rate remains constant, but initially there's a lot of change in alleles, but as the population becomes more fit, the rate of change slows and eventually fluctuates around an ideal fitness point.

And I would think the longer the sequence the more likely a negative impact would result especially if the generational distance is greater.

For any particular protein, the longer sequences tend to have a lot more tolerance for a mutation without changing any activity of the protein. Most of the protein isn't very functional.

Quite frankly I don't think there's any probability studies out there, quite a few for rate though. Maybe because the probability, apart from assuming it all happened in the first place, isn't something that could fit.
Who knows.
So that's a dead end isn't it?

There's a lof of that in molecular biology. I'll see if I can find one that I understand enough to simplify it.

Moving along....

So to get from one species to another takes much longer to achieve than natural selection in form and function among a particular species.

Not necessarily. A single mutation could cause speciation, but it's rare that a single mutation would add or remove a structure. Function, maybe.

 

[lordkalvan]

That's a rate based on the assumption an evolutionary process did indeed occur....

An assumption that is grounded in a great deal of evidence from a number of independent lines of research.

...but what is the probability that a nucleotide substitution is a positive addition for the organism in question? And I would think the longer the sequence the more likely a negative impact would result especially if the generational distance is greater.

Natural selection suggests that such negative impacts would be weeded from a population unless they conferred an evolutionary advantage that was at least as good as the disadvantage was bad (sickle-cell anaemia, for example).

Quite frankly I don't think there's any probability studies out there, quite a few for rate though. Maybe because the probability, apart from assuming it all happened in the first place, isn't something that could fit.

As I said, the assumption is grounded in evidence. I am not ebtirely sure what probability statistic you are searching for.

Who knows.
So that's a dead end isn't it?

Dead end in what sense?

Moving along....

So to get from one species to another takes much longer to achieve than natural selection in form and function among a particular species.

That seems to be a roundabout way of describing evolution without actually using the 'E' word.

 

[Barbarian]

I would like to see some transitional fossils for the time period between Homo Erectus and modern man. Thousands and thousands of changes took place between those two time periods. Surely there must be something in the fossil record.
.

First, it's important to note that there is very little difference in the post cranial skeletons of H. sapiens and H. erectus. (notice the practice is to capitalize genus, but not species) But we have a very large number of specimens between advanced H. erectus and archaic H. sapiens, some of which are difficult to distinguish from advanced H. erectus and archaic H. sapiens. Would you like to talk about some of them?

Second, the trend in hominins from Australopithecus on, has been relatively constant; a reduction in face and jaws, an increase in brain size, and a positioning of the foramen magnum forward on bottom of the skull. All of these are traits of immature apes. The process is called "neotony", the retention of juvenile traits in adults. The first person to note this and study it was D'Arcy Thompson in the early 1900s. His book On Growth and Form is a classic of biological literature, and still in print. Worth reading, even though a few of his conclusions turned out to be wrong.

Here's his demonstration that the changes in skulls is a matter of differential growth and delayed maturation:

And here's why it's neotonous:

 

[rthom7]

If I didn't understand the video, I wouldn't have posted it.

And one doesn't need to be an Einstein to understand that you can't get something from nothing.

Gary your video post is brilliant...Evolution is dead....

http://spiritualsprings.org/ss-1120.htm My study on bacteria motors is enough....

SHalom
Now.....
.

 

[Barbarian]

From the "research":

Just look at this molecular motor, it is 20 nano-metres wide and 40 nano-metres long. The wavelength of light is 400 to 700 nano-metres long, ten times larger than these motors. How can such a complex motor simply come about by chance random mutational changes that are some how passed on genetically ?

Couldn't happen randomly. But natural selection isn't random. Would you like to learn about the evidence for evolution of the bacterial flagellum?

 

[turnorburn]

First, it's important to note that there is very little difference in the post cranial skeletons of H. sapiens and H. erectus. (notice the practice is to capitalize genus, but not species) But we have a very large number of specimens between advanced H. erectus and archaic H. sapiens, some of which are difficult to distinguish from advanced H. erectus and archaic H. sapiens. Would you like to talk about some of them?

Second, the trend in hominins from Australopithecus on, has been relatively constant; a reduction in face and jaws, an increase in brain size, and a positioning of the foramen magnum forward on bottom of the skull. All of these are traits of immature apes. The process is called "neotony", the retention of juvenile traits in adults. The first person to note this and study it was D'Arcy Thompson in the early 1900s. His book On Growth and Form is a classic of biological literature, and still in print. Worth reading, even though a few of his conclusions turned out to be wrong.

Here's his demonstration that the changes in skulls is a matter of differential growth and delayed maturation:

And here's why it's neotonous:

When you say the most man like how would you explain God the Son becoming a man, how would you explain we humans being created in his image..

tob