[_ Old Earth _] The Swallows of Capistrano

[Rhea]

Rhea, I know you're not a scientist. I am, and I can recognise nonsense when I hear/read it.

LOL, no you misunderstand me. I *am* a scientist, I am just not an expert in the field of evolutionary biology. My degrees are in Chemistry and Chemical Engineering, and while I did take 2 semesters of undergraduate organic chemistry and one semester of graduate biochemical engineering, I still look for new learnings wherever I can get them.

As we all should, don't you think?

What area of science is your expertise, may I ask?

(now I shall read the rest of your post, but so far it's starting off as nonsense. I'll read Kalvan's reply before I bother to type any more)

 

[Rhea]

Okay, now I've read Asyncritus' response through and will not repeat any of what LordKalvan has addressed clearly. I share Kalvan's amusment that your argument depends on what scientists thought 60 years ago.

But here's an additional point. You say that if mutations are only 1% beneficial, that proves they aren't evolutionarily useful. Even allowing the assumption of 1% or 0.1% you make, as Kalvan notes, the error of being unable to distinguish between an effect on individuals and an effect on populations is the place where you become confused about the science.

So taking the (up-to-date) knowledge that at least 30% of human pregnancies result in miscarriage, one could assume that many of these are a result of deleterious (nay, fatal, obviously) mutations. Does this mean that no one is ever born with 6 fingers? Indeed we can prove that no matter how many deleterious mutations are present in humans, it is not wiping out the species, and indeed mutations that are significant and non-fatal exist and are passed on, such as an increased number of appendages.

It is INDIVIDUALS who suffer from fatal mutations and POPULATIONS which benefit from advantageous ones. One hundred and fifty people are born every minute, on average. That means that about 75 miscarriages occur every minute, on average. And despite the demise of those 75 per minute, or over 100,000 per day, still the odds you cite are that of the 215,000 born each day, somewhere between 100 and 1000 could have advantageous mutations. EVERY DAY.


It's about numbers and populations. You conflate the two and become confused about what mutations will mean to a population, not an individual.

 

[lordkalvan]

Excellent points, Rhea.

 

[Asyncritus]

Here's a scenario for you to consider.
There are 100,000 turtles. Some of them contain a mutation that is sensitive to this chemical and feel mild pleasure when near it. So they follow it. Say this is 100 of the turtles.

So 100 follow the chemical scent that leads them to Easter island. The other 99,900 stay where they are all year.

Now, a shark population outgrows its range nearby the old grounds and moves into where the 99,900 turtles are, eating many of them, stressing the rest, devastating the population.

But the ones that went to Easter Island are out of range. They survive and multiply because each year when the sharks are pressured to range further for food, the Easter Island mutants are "out of town".

After several millenia, the Easter Island turtles continue to thrive, and the old location population becomes extinct (or, possibly, a mutation that yields a different, harder to eat shell survives better there, making them very different from the old Easter Island variety).

Basically, a mutation occurs that confers some survival advantage. The ones who have it happen to survive and multiply, the mutation becomes widespread and perhaps ultimately it becomes a defining feature.


Evolution doesn't care. It is an effect, not a cause. Changes happen in the genome through mutation or mating selection or interbreeding. And the ones that turn out to be useful provide animals with an improved ability to make more of it.

That's simplified, but you seem to be asking for simplified; and I am really answering for others reading who are actually interested in the answer.

Evolution has no plan. It's what happens when external forces pressure a population. The best suited tend to do the best. They aren't trying to, they just ended up that way. No one ever talks about the 99,900 turtles that got eaten by sharks because they didn't have a yen for statues (that's a joke), but they we right there doing their thing, laughing at the islanders for their weird quirk, right up to the moment they got munched while the islanders were off doing their inexplicable walkabout.

With all due respect, Rhea, this concoction would be written somewhat better by Hans Christian Andersen or the Brothers Grimm. And with probably more truth.

But it is typical of the speculation that evolutionists have to invent to explain the inexplicable. I pity you guys.

So how about a nice tale about how the swallows managed to find their way to and from Capistrano? We might be able to find a publisher, who knows?

 

[Asyncritus]

And why would I be 'unable to drag' such questions into consideration of the origins of the mechanism? It is insufficient simply to assert this, you need to give your reasoning. It seems entirely relevant that if you wish to consider why migratory behaviour originated

[...]

You seem to have enormous difficulty in distinguishing between the words 'Why' and 'How'.

Granted, there may be good reasons 'why' the swallows migrate to Capistrano and back - I can't think of any, but we'll let that pass.

The question before you, from the start of this little series on instinctive behaviour, if you can recall that far back, is (evolutionarily speaking, of course) HOW did the instincts arise, and HOW did they enter the genome (if that's where they are)?

Your responses to date have earned you 0/100 for the 'how' part of the question, and 100/100 for the ad hom part of it, which doesn't count towards your degree at all.

Too bad.

 

[Asyncritus]

[...]
In other words, all you can do is handwave them away.

Ok, let's see some recent evidence that mutations are beneficial, capable of producing new families and phyla, and what sort of percentage of the whole family of mutations you're talking about.

And, um, how did you say this population of swallows (there, feeling happier now?) managed to find their way to Capistrano and back in the first place? And how they managed to get that info into their genes?

Let's see if you can manage that little thing without ad homming. That'd be a first.

 

[lordkalvan]

You seem to have enormous difficulty in distinguishing between the words 'Why' and 'How'.

Nope, I suggest that asking how migratory behaviour developed is inseparable from asking why it occurs at all. You seem to be the one having difficulty wrestling with this concept.

Granted, there may be good reasons 'why' the swallows migrate to Capistrano and back - I can't think of any, but we'll let that pass.

You can't? What are they doing it for, then? To view the scenery?

The question before you, from the start of this little series on instinctive behaviour, if you can recall that far back, is (evolutionarily speaking, of course) HOW did the instincts arise...

Which inevitably leads you to ask why animals migrate at all. I notice you have quite failed to respond to any of the questions I asked you about migratory behaviour in an attempt to progress this discussion. Why is that?

...and HOW did they enter the genome (if that's where they are)?

Where else do you think they are and what evidence supports your opinion? Evidence from, for example, 'knockout' mice indicates that instinct is genetically determined.

Your responses to date have earned you 0/100 for the 'how' part of the question...

Umm, who died and made you head of department?

...and 100/100 for the ad hom part of it, which doesn't count towards your degree at all.

Which 'ad hom part' is that, then?

Too bad.

And it's too bad that you seem to regard this process as a one-way street in which you can demand 'proof' and 'evidence' that you have no intention of viewing dispassionately anyway.

 

[lordkalvan]

Ok, let's see some recent evidence that mutations are beneficial...

You first. Just to remind you:

Do you have a reference a little more recent that six decades old and that does not so obviously seem to be addressing damaging agents introduced into the environment by ourselves, in this case ionizing radiation? Radiation-caused mutations may be overwhelmingly harmful, but this does not show that in general all mutations are overwhelmingly harmful. Did you source this reference from a creationist website, just out of interest?

...capable of producing new families and phyla...

You like to set the bar high, don't you? What part of evolutionary theory do you imagine supposes that descent with modification leads to the 'production' of 'new families and phyla' with the rapidity you seem to be implying? If you're happy to skip classes and orders, why not just start with speciation, which is the 'building block' of taxonomy? Would you like to look at transitional features that are the product of evolutionary changes in animals?

...and what sort of percentage of the whole family of mutations you're talking about.

Studies in the fly Drosophila melanogaster suggest that if a mutation changes a protein produced by a gene, this will probably be harmful, with about 70 percent of these mutations having damaging effects, and the remainder being either neutral or weakly beneficial.

Source: e n.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutation#Beneficial_mutations

You need also to consider the power of genetic recombination as a force driving evolution, which is why you may not be identical to your brothers. However, mutations most certainly occur and create new alleles: there are a number of mutational mechanisms that allow different strains of E coli to metabolise lactose and lactulose, for example.

And, um, how did you say this population of swallows (there, feeling happier now?) managed to find their way to Capistrano and back in the first place?

The thrust of your previous comments seems to imply that you suppose that some first population of swallows set off for Capistrano, having never left their original location before. Is my understanding right?

And how they managed to get that info into their genes?

Descent with modification. Just like any other trait gets into a gene.

Let's see if you can manage that little thing without ad homming. That'd be a first.

I'm still curious as to why you imagine that pointing out flaws in your arguments and understanding amounts to 'pointing out a negative characteristic or belief' on your part. Please refer to my previous explanation of what constitutes an ad hominem.